Boris Blows The Gaff

Britain and other states in the NATO imperialist alliance have been ramping up the war rhetoric in recent months, as they prepare to move from the phase of phoney war to hot war, as the drive to World War III accelerates.  They claim that its necessary to massively increase military spending, and, thereby, divert spending away from real capital investment, to improve living standards, because of some supposed imminent military threat to western Europe from Russia.  This is the same Russia, of course, that has been bogged down, just in Eastern Ukraine for the last four years.  There is no indication that Russia poses any immediate, or, for that matter, longer term military threat to western Europe.  It may pose threats in other ways, such as via cyber attacks, and interference in political processes, but that is a different matter, and its hard to see how spending more on weapons deals with that.  What would you do, blow up your own computer systems?

The real military threats to western Europe, in fact, have not come from Russia - or China - but from the US.  Its the US that has threatened to invade Greenland - or was it Iceland as Trump doesn't seem to know the difference.  Its the US that has been bombing one country after another, as well as one of its envoys Mike Huckabee literally threatening biblical hellfire, to justify a Zionist takeover of land "from the river to the sea", as being justified by God in the Bible.  Similarly, Boris Johnson, fresh from having wrecked the British economy with help from his mate Farage, via Brexit, has now blown the gaff on what is going on by blurting out that he wants British troops, now, on the ground, openly in Ukraine, i.e. not Russia knocking at the door of Britain and Western Europe, but vice versa.

Nothing much changes.  In the last couple of hundred years, it has never been Russia, let alone China that has been threatening to invade Britain, France or the rest of western Europe.  It has always been the other way around.  It was Britain and France attacking Russia during the Crimean War, thousands of miles from both Britain and France.  It was France, during the Napoleonic Wars that invaded Russia, not vice versa.  It was Germany that invaded Russia during World War I, and, although Russia fought on the side of the Allies in both world wars, after World War I, it was Britain, France, the US, and a succession of other imperialist powers that invaded Russia in an attempt to overthrow the workers' revolution.

So, when, the USSR fell, and NATO, despite its assurances given to Gorbachev, to get his agreement to German unification, rapidly expanded Eastwards, marching its battalions ever closer to Moscow, the Russian people saw history repeating once again.  Not surprisingly, their reactionary leaders took advantage of that, to enhance their own positions.  Yeltsin the puppet of US imperialism, who presided over the looting of state assets, and immiseration of the population, was replaced by Putin.  So, similarly, when NATO sought to expand further East, first in Georgia, where even western observers noted that Saakashvili engaged in an attempted ethnic cleansing of Russians in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and, later in Georgia, its no wonder that the Russian leaders saw the opportunity to mobilise the population behind them.

In Georgia, the Russian troops quickly dispatched the invading Georgian forces, and raced towards the Georgian capital Tbilisi.  Yet, contrary to the narrative being created, today, in respect of Ukraine, having rolled their tanks into Tbilisi, the Russian did not overthrow the government, or occupy Georgia.  Having neutered the Georgian military threat, they withdrew, securing the ethnic Russian populations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.  It was no doubt, not a sign of the peaceful, moral nature of Putin's regime, but simply a recognition of the fact that there was nothing to be gained by Russia tying up its forces in Georgia.  Russia will not be conquered in any new imperialist war.  Its stock of nuclear weapons ensures that will not happen.  But, it is a long way from that to the idea that Russia has the military, industrial or economic power to project itself across the globe, or even into western Europe.  Its slow progress in Eastern Ukraine shows that.

Similarly, when NATO pushed forward again into Ukraine, despite the fact that support for NATO membership never rose above 40%, in Ukraine, and the West backed the coup against the pro-Russian government in 2014, it was inevitable that the ethnic Russians in Ukraine, particularly in Eastern Ukraine, which had always voted for closer ties with Russia, would see it as hostile, and that Russia would, again, be led to intervene.  US imperialism/NATO has used this tactic numerous times.  It used its links with Bin Laden to finance and arm the criminal of the KLA to stir up ethnic violence in Kosovo, to provoke intervention by Serbia, for example, which then gave it a pretext to attack Serbia, and split Kosovo away. 

Even then, Russia seeking to avoid a prolonged military commitment, agreed to the Minsk Accords, designed to afford a large degree of self government to the ethnic Russian regions of Eastern Ukraine.  But, Merkel, herself, admitted that the Minsk Accords were always intended to be a farce, designed only to give the Ukrainian state time to build up its forces.  So, in the meantime, the reactionary nationalist regime in Kyiv, not only stepped up its attacks on ethnic Russians, in terms of cultural attacks on the Russian language etc., but never gave any degree of self-government, and used the forces of the Azov Battalion to launch military attacks, shelling and so on of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine.  It gave Putin's reactionary regime no real choice in having to respond.

It is not Russian military forces sitting on the border of the UK or other western European states, ready to invade, it is, as it always has been British, French and other Western European military forces sitting on the border of Russia, and moving forward, wherever they can in what has always been an aggressive expansionist manner, as they seek to get their hands on Russian land and resources.  So, when Boris Johnson basically bemoans the lack of progress of Ukraine in acting as its proxy to that end, despite the vast amounts of weapons and money given to it, he only blows the gaff on the western imperialist strategy all along, as he calls for young British workers to go and, once again lay down their lives for the benefit of the rich and powerful, for the same King and Country that has given you the likes of Prince Andrew, Lord Mandelson and all of the other leeches and perverts.

Lockdown and Brexit U-Turns

So, within days of saying there would be no new national lockdown, Boris Johnson announces a new national lockdown; two weeks ago, he'd said that Britain would walk away from Brexit talks, but then he continued the talks, just as he'd capitulated in all previous talks with the EU. The first U-turn is the result of the Tories having no plan B for COVID, after their lockdown plan failed miserably; the second U-turn is the result of the Tories having no Plan B for Brexit, after their first plan to have the EU capitulate to them, failed miserably. The first U-Turn is preparation for an even bigger U-Turn on the second, because Boris must now know that the Brexit gig is up. 

The Tories, as I said yesterday, had no choice but to impose another national lockdown, because the regional lockdowns were not working, and because the only rational option, adopting focused protection, as described in The Great Barrington Declaration, would mean acknowledging that they, and all their scientific advisors, got it all terribly wrong, and, thereby, caused the unnecessary deaths of tens of thousands of people. It would mean the government having to take on, and face down, their own scientific advisors, as well as the media that promoted the COVID moral panic, as well as the Labour opposition that has acted out of pure opportunism throughout the whole mess. They were unlikely to do that, even though its the only rational solution, and even though the attendant economic damage of a lockdown, alongside the bailing out of firms and individuals that lockdown entails will bankrupt the economy, and lead to a severe financial crisis whose effects will last for years. 

Similarly, the Tories know that a crash out Brexit would bring even greater immediate catastrophe than even their lockdown induced catastrophe. It would see, supermarket shelves empty rapidly, access to vital drugs cut off, flights grounded entirely, ports clogged, and prices rising rapidly, alongside the Pound crashing, and UK interest rates surging, causing UK asset prices to crash. Even a managed No Deal, would cause huge economic damage, but not quite so imminently. The Tories are not going to do that, which would exclude them from government for generations. 

In Northern Ireland, as a BBC report showed, yesterday, although the site for the required customs border between Britain and Northern Ireland has been identified and acquired, there has been absolutely no work done on preparing it for its function. There is no way that is going to happen before the end of the year. It would take months to set up. Now, the government might say that is because they do not accept that any such border is required between Britain and Northern Ireland, and that is why they have passed the UK Internal Markets Bill. But, that would directly contravene the Northern Ireland Protocol that Johnson has signed into international law. Breaching it would not just mean that Britain would become an international pariah, and rogue state, sued in the courts by the EU, but it would mean that any chance of Britain having a friendly relationship with the EU is out of the window. Given that the EU is seven times bigger than the UK, and sits on its borders, there is only one way any such conflict ends, and its with the defeat and discredit of Britain. 

Moreover, any such attempt by Britain would necessitate a border between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The BBC report showed just how badly Northern Ireland will fare, even if a deal with the EU is struck. In conditions where not only is there no deal, but Britain deliberately antagonises the EU, by ripping up the Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland Protocol, it would fare even worse. The Republic can be supported by the EU, but a Britain in deepening crisis because of the idiotic lockdown, made ten times worse by an idiotic Brexit, will be in no position to bail out Northern Ireland, which the vast majority of Tory members would be happy to see leave the UK anyway. The only short-term solution to that would be a United Ireland, but with a hard core of Loyalist paramilitaries opposed to any such solution, it would mean a return of the violence of the 1970's-90's, but now from the opposite direction. 

Johnson might have hoped that a Trump victory would have given him breathing space. The real Brexiters in the Tory Party undoubtedly believed that to be the case, as they fantasised about more or less completely separating themselves from Europe, and turning Britain into an equivalent of Batista's Cuba of the 1950's. But, unless something astounding happens between today, and tomorrow's US elections, it looks inevitable, not only that Biden will win the Presidency, but that the Democrats will strengthen their hold over the House of Representatives, and gain control of the Senate. Even without that, Democrat control of the House means that a US-UK trade deal is not on the cards, if Britain abandons the NI protocol. 

In other words, the Tories must know that the Brexit gig is up. Certainly Johnson must know that. Johnson, of course, was never a Brexiteer. He adopted that position for one reason and one reason only – that of putting himself at the head of an internal Tory opposition to Cameron, and, thereby, to make himself party Leader and PM. Remember his two articles on Brexit, one arguing for the other against. Johnson's role on Brexit is similar to that of Nixon to China. Its one reason he has perpetually capitulated to the EU, having first made blood curdling speeches to the contrary. The other reason is that, in its negotiations with the EU, its the EU that holds all the cards. So long as Trump was in the Whitehouse, there was the slight chance that Britain could save itself from disaster, but now that chance has gone. 

In fact, more than that. Within weeks of the Democrats taking the Presidency and Congress, Trump is likely to be on trial, and within months is likely to be convicted. As with all experience of this moronic weasel, he will give up anyone in order to try to save his skin, and to blame others. The material on all of his associates is already extensive. When he no longer has the privileges of office, and the Democrats have all the levers at their disposal the dirt will come out from under carpets, and behind cupboards like a desert storm. There must be shredders, and electronic scrubbing going on madly already. The dirt from all that will not be confined to the US, but to all those connections in Russia, and across Europe, particularly in Britain. If Farage thought there was life after being an MEP, for him, in the US, he can forget it. But, those links did not just extend to the Faragists in UKIP and its replacement, but to the Faragists in the Tory Party too. 

One of the first things that Biden will do is rebuild bridges with the US's traditional allies in Europe. Part of that will also be launching an attack on all of the right-wing populists and nationalists. In order not to fall off the end of the bench, Britain will have to go out of its way to show itself a good friend of the new Democrat administration. Not tearing up the Withdrawal Agreement and NI Protocol is the minimum required in that respect. Britain rebuilding its own bridges with Europe is not far behind it. 

That means that, even if Britain does not directly reverse its Brexit decision, it will, at the very least, have to neuter it. Johnson must have known all along that Britain needs Single Market access, and that requires that Britain abides by Single Market rules on regulations and standards, free movement and so on. Johnson, having led the Tory Brexit campaign is probably the only Tory Leader who could pull that off. But, that means that he will either have to capitulate again by agreeing to staying in the Single Market and Customs Union, which would make the NI Protocol, the need for those non-existent border controls, and the UK Internal Market Bill, all redundant, or else he will have to agree a deal that amounts to that in substance. Alternatively, he will have to kick the can down the road, by extending the existing transitional period. 

The introduction of the new national lockdown facilitates all of these alternatives. Johnson can argue that, because of having to extend the lockdown, it is impossible to conclude trade talks with the EU. In fact, no one believes the lockdown is only going to last until the start of December. Labour's claim that, had it been introduced a couple of weeks sooner, it need only have lasted three weeks is ludicrous, as is nearly everything they have said on both lockdown and Brexit. Their politics under slimey Starmer, or maybe Slimer for short, is based on the worst kind of opportunism, as is Slimer's own politics, which seems to be a chameleon like ability to simply say whatever he thinks will further his own personal career prospects on the day, for example his overnight conversion to Brexit. 

My guess is that Johnson will go for an extension of the Transition Period, as that gives him time to carry out his own internal cleansing of the Tory Party. It might then give him time to call an election in a year's time, in which he will consolidate this position, and create the parliamentary maths by which some kind of BRINO deal becomes possible. Johnson's position all along was that it was possible to do a Thatcher and get a better deal for Britain inside Europe. That is probably also gone, now, as the EU consolidates, and moves closer to becoming a federal state.

Brexit Still Hasn't Been Done

Boris Johnson promised, last year, that he would “Get Brexit Done”. Three quarters of the way though this year, and he still hasn't. Having capitulated to the EU, and, in effect, to reality, several times last year, just to get a withdrawal agreement that was, in fact, worse than the deal Johnson and the Brexiters had rejected under Theresa May, Boris has been left with Britain still inside the EU, for all intents and purposes, as part of the transition period, but without any of the rights of membership, such as having MEP's etc. 

Britain has no cards to play. Boris and the Brexiters have simply tried to bluff and bluster their way through, as they have done for the last four years, but such bluffs only work if the other side think you might have some card up your sleeve. The EU knows that Britain does not. They know the economic data, its out in plain sight. They know the dynamics of a post-Brexit scenario, and so they know that, whilst a No Deal Brexit will have some short term, minor downsides for them, for Britain, it would be catastrophic. They know that any deal that does not retain Britain inside the Single Market and Customs Union, would again mean some short-term downsides for them, but again, for Britain it will lead only to short-term, and longer-term economic decline. So, at each stage, the EU, which is seven times the size of Britain, in terms of its economy and population, has been able to shrug its shoulders at the Brexiters empty threats, as if to say, if you intend to kill yourself, go ahead. 

And, so it is with Boris's latest threats. Boris and his reactionary government, first tried to get out of the withdrawal agreement they had signed as part of their last capitulation in January. They were forced to declare that they would turn Britain into a rogue state, and international pariah, by saying, openly, that they would break international law, and, in the process, undermine the Good Friday Agreement. The EU responded calmly by invoking the very withdrawal agreement that Johnson had signed, and informing him that they would sue Britain for its breach of international law, whilst giving him no grounds to blame the EU for any collapse of talks, by continuing to negotiate whilst such proceedings were in the works. The end result was that Boris's position inside his party was further undermined, and the position of the Brexiters was further weakened. 

Even with an 80 seat majority, it appeared that the Tories political leadership is so inept that it could not guarantee a majority, as its MP's baulked at the prospect of Britain becoming a law breaker and international pariah. That was strengthened when, in the US, politicians from both sides of the aisle issued dire warnings to Johnson about breaking the Good Friday Agreement, which is a necessary corollary of him breaking the provisions of the Withdrawal Agreement, and its Northern Ireland Protocol. The only saviour for Johnson, besides the dubious nature of the support for him from Trump, has been the totally ineffective nature of the supposed opposition from Keir Starmer and Labour. Instead of piling the pressure on Johnson and the Brexiters during this period, Starmer has become one of Johnson's greatest supporters, calling on him to indeed “Get Brexit Done”, with all haste, not to mention his calls on Johnson to destroy jobs, and withdraw civil liberties at an accelerated pace, by even more harsh lockdowns. Starmer has become a bigger Brexiter than Corbyn, and now also promotes all of the same kinds of economic nationalist delusions of the Lexiters, based upon the idea of building Social-Democracy in One Country. 

Now, Johnson and the Brexiters are at it again. Johnson threatened the EU that if he didn't see the signs of a deal by next week, the Tories would pull out of the talks with the EU. That must have been music to the ears of Barnier and the EU negotiators. They, of course, know that Britain will do no such thing, other than for perhaps, a very short token gesture. Britain can even less afford to pull out of talks now than they could at any time over the last four years. The Transition Period theoretically ends on 31st December, and, without a deal, Britain will crash out. Johnson knows that, if that happens, it will be utterly catastrophic for Britain, making the disaster they have created by the introduction of lockdowns look minor by comparison. What is more, the EU know that Johnson knows that; they also know that the ruling class and its representatives in the British state know that. That is why they know that Johnson can't allow it to happen. 

Already, time was running out for Britain, and for Johnson and the Brexiters. The Transition Period ends on 31st December, but the EU had set a date of the end of October for negotiations to conclude, because, if any deal were reached, it has to be ratified by EU national parliaments, and by the European Parliament. In reality, they would find ways of extending that deadline, just as they would find ways of extending the deadline for the Transition Period.

But, by his pointless act of bravado, in saying that Britain will pull out next week, Johnson has simply invited the EU, to sit on its hands for a week. When the end of next week comes, and no deal arrives, what will Johnson actually do? He may make a token gesture of pulling out of talks, but the EU knows that within days, he'll be back. The UK cannot allow a crash out no deal, or even a No Deal Brexit. So, the EU knows that Johnson will have to capitulate on his latest threat to throw out his dummy, just as he has done on all previous occasions. And, the more he has to capitulate and U-Turn, the more he looks weak and incompetent, the more his status, even in his own party, deteriorates, let alone the support for the Tories and for Brexit amongst the electorate. If only we had a principled, organised Labour opposition, standing against the Tories, and against their Brexit and lockdown madness at the moment, Labour would be 20 points ahead in the opinion polls. 

The reality is that Johnson will have to capitulate, both over his latest bluff, and over his commitment not to ask for an extension of the Transition Period, or else his commitment not to agree to a deal that amounts to Brexit in Name Only. It looks like it would take a miracle for Trump not to lose the Presidential election, though the politics of Biden/Harris give him the best chance he has. When Biden wins, the game is really up for Johnson, Farage and the Brexiters, as well as for many of their ilk across the globe. A Biden win means that any suggestion that Britain will renege on the GFA is dead, and that means that, at the very least, Britain has to abide by the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Withdrawal Agreement. The chances of Britain getting a trade deal with the US disappear, anyway. 

One of the first things that a Biden Presidency, and Democrat controlled Congress will do is to start repairing the damage that Trump has done to the US over the last four years. They will want to begin by restoring good relations with the EU, and, in effect, what that means is restoring good relations with the other conservative social-democrats across Europe, such as Merkel, Macron, and co. Part and parcel of that will also be to start dealing with the reactionaries that have undermined them - the Le Pen's, Farages and so on. A Biden Presidency, and Democrat Congress, will not only begin to expose all of the murky relations and activities that have taken place under Trump, who is likely to end up himself in the dock, but will also expose all of these other reactionary creatures. The political support for the Brexiters and other reactionaries will be cut from beneath them. 

Biden will also try to undo the damage done by Trump's disastrous global trade war, of which Brexit is just a little wheel. The starting point will be removing the tariffs put on EU goods, but soon after, it will involve removing the restrictions placed on Chinese goods. Those restrictions have only damaged the US, in just the same way that Brexit will really only damage Britain. That doesn't mean that Biden will not see China as a serious competitor, and threat to the US, but its one that the US will deal with in other ways that avoid damaging its own economy.

For one thing, the Democrats as more rational representatives of the interests of the ruling class, know that all history shows that tyrannical governments are most likely to fall when the economies of those countries thrive leading to the growth of a more powerful middle-class that demands political rights, and bourgeois-democracy for itself. The biggest threat to the Chinese Stalinists comes from the Chinese people itself, as its social weight increases, and as the Chinese middle-class has to rely on the support of a huge, and increasingly class conscious Chinese proletariat to obtain its desire for political democracy, just as happened in Europe in the 19th century, and early twentieth century. 

The increase in global trade this brings about, will bring a corresponding increase in global economic growth, unless continued government lockdowns restrict it. But, its unlikely that governments will be able to continue to impose those idiotic lockdowns, as its increasingly seen that they do not work, are counterproductive, and have caused unnecessary deaths, and massive economic disruption. Already, as the The Great Barrington Declaration shows, scientists are beginning to challenge the arguments and hysteria around lockdowns, shouting out that the Emperor is in the altogether.

That increase in global trade, and global growth will return us to the conditions of 2018, when growth began to cause interest rates to rise, and which led to a 20% drop in the Dow Jones and other stock markets. That is bad news for the top 0.01%, who owns all their wealth in the form of this fictitious capital. However, in the meantime, they have been shielded, to an extent. QE means that a large proportion of global bonds are now held, not by individuals or banks and financial institutions, but by central banks. In other words, the central banks have bought all this worthless paper from the top 0.01% at inflated prices, leaving the taxpayer to take the loss when those prices collapse. That leaves, the owners of fictitious capital only with the losses they will incur on their share ownership. That is still a huge capital loss they face. However, they seem to think that share prices will not collapse in the same way that bond prices will. They believe, or more correctly hope, that a large increase in economic activity, will bring a big increase in profits, and that will keep share prices inflated. They are wrong, but still. 

What a Biden Presidency, and Democrat Congress means, in these conditions, is that appearance and reality will be brought more into alignment than has been the case over the last four years. It means that the reaction represented by Trump, Farage and Brexit will be seen to have offered no way forward, and that the only rational way forward, even for the owners of fictitious capital, is an extension of social-democracy, even if that involves pain for them in the short-term, in the form of capital losses, as asset prices crash. Their hubris means they think that the central planners in the central banks and other parts of the state apparatus, will be able to manage this process for them, and that, having got out of bonds, even if their shares drop in the short-term, they will rise in the longer-term, as profits expands. 

Are They Being Deliberately Stupid Or Is It Natural

Are the proponents of lockdown being deliberately stupid, so as to ignore how idiotic it is, and how ridiculous their arguments in defence of it have now become, or are they genuinely too stupid to be able to think critically, because that would mean admitting that they have pursued a failed and counter-productive strategy for the last six months?

Tim Martin is an odious, right-wing Brexiteer who championed the cause of Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson and other of that ilk. It would be easy, now, to gloat and to think that Martin has got his comeuppance, as an incompetent Johnson sends the economy into one disaster after another. Promote clowns like Farage and Johnson, or, in the US, Trump, and you get what you deserve, we might conclude sanguinely. But, of course, in the catastrophe that is going to unfold in respect of Brexit, and more immediately as a result of the lockdown, and other measures of partial lockdown that the government is introducing, and that Keir Starmer has been goading on with a political whip, it will not be the likes of Martin who will really suffer. It is going to be the thousands, indeed millions, of workers in the leisure industry, and other service industries that now comprise around 80% of the UK economy, and 80% of employment in Britain, as in most other developed economies. Already, Wetherspoons is getting rid of 450 out of 1,000 jobs in its airport outlets, and many more are now bound to disappear across the sector. Thousands of jobs in retail have already gone, with millions more about to go when the unsustainable furlough scheme comes to an end next month. Estimates are, now, that around a quarter of all companies in Britain, or about 1.25 million businesses, are zombie companies, hanging on only able to pay interest on their loans, which absorbs the whole of their profits, where they are making any.

Yet, as my wife said yesterday, hearing Martin from another room, and so not realising who was speaking until she came in, “That's the first time I've actually heard him say anything I agree with.” And, the truth is that, if you don't base your politics on simply putting a minus sign, where odious right-wingers like Martin place a plus sign, in his comments about Johnson's latest set of insane proposals, in relation to lockdowns, there was, indeed, considerably more rationality and argument, based upon facts, than anything coming from Johnson or Starmer. The fact is that there is little evidence of people being infected with COVID in pubs and restaurants etc., where staff have been implementing, and ensuring that customers abide by, physical distancing requirements, as well as the use of face masks and so on.

Just as a digression, the question of face masks is another example of this. Everyone now accepts the need for the use of face masks as a useful means of preventing the spread of the virus. Masks are useless to prevent you getting the virus, but they do stop those who have it from spreading it to others, by preventing the dispersion of virus laden globules from people's mouths. So, again, when people automatically align with the WHO against the moron Trump, it is yet again another example of this mindless placing of a minus sign wherever your opponent places a plus sign, rather than examining the facts, and drawing rational conclusions of your own. In the 1930's, Trotsky described that kind of mindless approach, and advised socialists to Learn to Think. Trump, of course, has his own political, as well as moronic, reasons for criticising the WHO, and yet his criticism of that organisation is no reason why socialists should then mindlessly support it, any more than just because the libertarian right attack the BBC, which is the capitalist state's propaganda arm, it is any reason why socialists should then support it.

The truth is that the WHO, early on, argued AGAINST people wearing masks, saying that it would be counterproductive and ineffective, despite the fact that mask wearing, in many parts of the world, in response to previous epidemics had shown its effectiveness. The WHO's advice was mindlessly picked up by government advisors in Britain, and elsewhere, who, with a moral panic in full swing, did not want to be seen to be arguing against the established meme. They argued that if everyone wore masks it would mean that those in health and social care who needed them, wouldn't be able to get them, which says a lot about how prepared these organisations actually were to deal even with a bad flu season. The truth is that, if the WHO and government advisors had recommended wearing masks six months ago, tens of thousands of lives would have been saved. The WHO's response to COVID19 has been pretty abysmal, as has its response to previous epidemics.  The fact that the moron Trump also points that out does not change matters.

Similarly, Martin is right in relation to pubs and restaurants, and imposing restrictions on them is simply an act for show rather than for effectiveness, which has been the case with pretty much all of the government's response, as well as of Labour's demands placed upon it. The truth is that many of those younger people, turfed out of pubs early in the evening, will now simply go to drink in public, where, evidence is, they will not abide by any measures of physical distancing. They will return to holding large scale raves, in public open spaces, or as in the 1990's in some available warehouse, of having shabeens on large estates. And, to respond to this breaking of its rules, the government, now, is turning the state even more into an authoritarian police state, with the added threat of martial law, with troops being lined up to enforce these draconian limitations on civil liberties.

And, again, the truth is that even if the mostly younger people involved were to transmit the virus to one another, as a consequence of such gatherings, the risk to them from the virus is miniscule. More than half the people dying from COVID19 are aged over 80, the majority of them over 85. 92% of people dying from, or suffering serious illness from COVID are aged over 60. The mean average age of death is 81! Of the remaining 8% of deaths, 7% are people with underlying medical conditions that compromise their immune system, and we will no doubt find that, of the remaining 1%, they too had some such condition that had not been diagnosed. The chances of dying or being seriously ill from COVID19 are incredibly small for people under 60. You are currently five times more likely to die from flu, if you are under 60 than you are from COVID. If you are under 40, you are currently ten times more likely to die from flu than from COVID. And, that is despite the fact that we already have vaccines for flu.

So, its not young people that are at serious risk from COVID, but only old people, yet it is young people that are being demonised for their normal activities, and being made scapegoats for the failed policies of the government and opposition. It is young people that are suffering the consequences of those failed and idiotic policies, as they lose their jobs by the thousands, and as it is the wages of younger people that are being devastated most. And, now, at the same time, those young people are being demonised and criminalised, with the threat of £10,000 fines, and the use of the armed forces against them.

A Left, that does not respond vigorously against such action is a Left not worthy of the name, a Left that deserves to be branded with infamy, and disregarded by the current generation of young people that have been abandoned by it. Starmer has become a bigger Brexiteer than Corbyn, and now has adopted the reactionary delusions of the Lexiters, as he calls on Johnson to push through Brexit with all haste, promising also to continue with that Brexit, as he pursues the reactionary, utopian delusion of building Social-Democracy in One Country. As a result, Labour already is throwing away the support from that younger generation that Corbyn won in 2017. Starmer might be winning back some of the reactionary voters, as he promises to become an ardent Brexiteer, and passionate promoter of nationalism/patriotism, whereby Britain would not just waive the rules, but also again rule the waves, as in the days of Empire, but anyone who thinks that is the way for even a social-democratic party to behave, let alone one some of whose members have aspirations of socialism, is seriously deluded.

Labour may be benefiting in the short term, from Johnson's incompetence, just as the Democrats are benefiting from Trump's idiocy and incompetence in the middle of a pandemic, but that will not last. In the longer term, what millions of workers will see is that the imposition of lockdowns was neither effective nor rational, whilst the consequences of the lockdown was to devastate the economy and cause the loss of millions jobs, destroying lives and livelihoods for years to come.

Already, we know that thousands of excess deaths have resulted from the imposition of lockdowns as many people did not get the medical treatment for other illnesses they required. Across the globe, particularly in poorer countries, the deaths from malnutrition, and other symptoms of poverty, caused by the global slowdown caused by the lockdowns, far outweigh any deaths from the virus. Whilst, currently, Trump and Johnson are the ones necessarily paying the political price of that, in coming weeks as unemployment soars, and economic catastrophe beckons, they will be easily able to point to the fact that it is lockdowns that are the cause of it, and that if their political opponents had had their way, the lockdowns would have been even more draconian, even more long-lasting, even wider in their application, so that the damage to the economy and to people's livelihoods would have been even worse. They will be able to argue that they only pushed the lockdowns in the way they did, because they had been pressurised by their political opponents to do so, egged on by the media. It may not be sufficient to save Trump, but with four years to go to a General Election in Britain, it will certainly doom Starmer. And, with a Biden presidency inevitably repeating all of the failed politics of Clinton, and Obama, the Democrats occupancy of the White House and control of Congress also looks set to be shortlived, and merely a prelude to a further move forward of the US Right, just as the failure of Macron has done in France.

And, it is a fact that lockdowns were an idiotic policy that was bound to fail, and have failed. It was inevitable, as many epidemiologists said from the start, and indeed as I said, that as soon as those lockdowns, or similarly the intense test and trace regimes, were relaxed, then the virus would simply resurge. And so, wherever those policies were adopted, it has. No matter how many times such lockdowns are introduced the same will continue to happen. Already the partial lockdowns on social activity that have been implemented have caused the worst economic slowdown in 300 years. Further such lockdowns will threaten to send the global economy back to conditions not seen for more than a century, as it will not just be a slowdown in the amount of new value created, but an actual destruction of capital itself, as businesses are closed down, and buildings, machinery and other means of production are simply scrapped, because they cannot be used.

On top of that the payment of people and businesses to not produce has raised levels of debt to unsustainable levels, because this debt is completely different to the debt undertaken to finance investment and productive activity, it is debt to simply finance consumption. Those who think that this can be remedied by consuming from the fruit of the Magic Money Tree are equally deluded. You cannot eat all those additional banknotes that are printed, you cannot clothe yourself in those banknotes, and so on. The more of them you print, the less each of them are worth, and if you simply use them to pay people not to work, then there are no goods and services for these worthless bits of paper to buy anyway!

Last night, on Sky's Paper Review, Isabelle Oakshott asked Sonia Sodha this simple question, if there is no vaccine by this time next year, will you still be arguing that the economy has to be locked down. Sodha could not answer, because the proponents of lockdown have no answer. They know that the lockdown has already caused massive economic damage; they know any further lockdown will cause even more damage, but they can't withdraw from it, because they have not thought through any other rational alternative, and know that to do so would mean admitting that their previous arguments were deeply flawed. They have no alternative but to act like a goldfish, continually swimming around its bowl, saying to itself “Oh look a castle, Oh look a castle”, hoping that, as they repeat the same failed experiment, they might get a different result. As Einstein described such behaviour, the definition of stupidity.

And, of course, not only is the experience of the failure of lockdowns evidence that it offers no rational solution. There is an alternative experiment that has had different, this time successful results. That is the experience of Sweden. It made the same mistakes in relation to the lockdown of care homes, as other countries, but has since remedied that. It never did lockdown, and yet Sweden has had better per capita mortality rates than most other European countries from the start. It essentially ended all new COVID deaths months ago. In September it has had just 30 deaths, or less than 2 per day. Of course, you would not know this from listening to the media, or politicians, because, from the start, they vilified Sweden for pointing out that the Emperor had no clothes on, and so daring to digress from the established meme. Indeed, those epidemiologists like Professor Sunetra Gupta who pointed out the truth about lockdowns have faced similar ire.

Yet, as Professor Ioaniddis said months ago, the response to COVID was likely to be the biggest data fiasco in a century, and so it has been. The predictions of 45 million global deaths, a repetition from the same source at Imperial College, of the prediction of 45 million Swine Flu Deaths, have proved to be just as wildly wrong. So far, global deaths from COVID have not reached even a million, whilst deaths from economic consequences of lockdowns are already way in excess of that. In Britain, the predictions of half a million deaths were equally wildly exaggerated, with deaths at still only just over 40,000, still much less than the number of flu deaths in Britain in 1968.

The experience of Sweden shows, as Professor Gupta and others have said all along, that the only rational solution is to isolate the 20% of the population, i.e. mostly those aged over 60, from the virus, so as to allow herd immunity to develop safely in the rest of the population. In the 1950's, when there were no widespread vaccines available for many diseases such as chicken pox, or mumps and so on, that is indeed what used to occur. Parents would allow their kids to visit friends who had such diseases, so as to become infected, and, thereby develop immunity, because they were less serious in childhood than in adulthood. With no vaccine in sight for COVID for another year, it is the only sensible course of action now, given that we know that for 80% of the population, it is asymptomatic, or has only very mild cold like symptoms attached to it. That is how Sweden has been able to develop herd immunity, and has now more or less stopped all new deaths from it.

But, of course, those that have been promoting that insane lockdown policy cannot admit that. Isabel Oakshott is a right-wing media hack, but again, that does not make everything she says automatically wrong. So, she was absolutely correct last night on Sky to point out that the number of deaths in Britain of people under 60, who had no underlying medical conditions was just 307. Its no wonder that the other contributors to the programme had no knowledge of this fact, because neither the government nor the media have had any interest in promoting that fact, as against their incessant talk about the number of infections, which is a meaningless statistic, and not just because it is based upon a deeply flawed testing regime. It is meaningless, because its not how many people are infected that is important, given that the vast majority of infections are asymptomatic, but only the number of deaths or serious illness. And, of course, illustrating why the new measures introduced by the government, egged on by Labour, are so idiotic, is that even though the number of infections have risen, there are no current cases of people in intensive care, and the number of new deaths remains relatively low, indeed much lower than deaths from flu!

The response to those facts being pointed out has itself been idiotic. Sodha's response to the fact that there has only been 307 deaths of people under 60 was to retort, "well have you no concern for those 307 people"! We could, then, every year, say, "well have you no concern for the 8,000 people who die on average from flu, or the 17,000 who died in 2018 from flu? Should we then keep the economy in a total state of lockdown in perpetuity so as to avoid any deaths from any virus, be it flu or COVID? Indeed, should we not just abandon any activity that might result in a risk of death?" Its only necessary to ask the question to see how ridiculous such an approach is, because all life has some risk attached to it, and it is a question of balancing those risks one with another. We do not close down the economy, because every year several thousand people will contract flu, and die, because doing so would result in far more people dying from the consequences of such action. So, why on Earth would you close down the economy, and social interaction to avoid the death of just 307 people.

What is far more significant, here, is the 40,000 people, over 60, who have died, and whose deaths could have been avoided had other action been undertaken. Had that 40,000 people, and all of the others in the 20% of the population actually at risk from COVID, been isolated from it, then their lives could have been saved. Sodha's response to this argument was the most idiotic I have yet heard. She said that many of those people could not be isolated, because they depend on other people coming to take care of them in care homes and in hospitals, and so contact with these other people was unavoidable. Its as though she had never heard of the concept of PPE so that those providing such care do not transmit infections to those for whom they are providing care, or that she has never heard of the concept of initiating contact protocols to prevent such transmission of infections. This is just one example of those who have mindlessly promoted the idea of lockdowns, who, when confronted with the facts, seem to grab at any old argument, to cling to their failed agenda. After all, if a care home or a hospital isn't somewhere you can go, and expect to be protected from the transmission of infections, where can you? Its as though Sodha thinks that when someone goes into hospital for a routine operation they should expect to die from an infection, because, after all, why would you expect the operating theatre to be sterile, that the surgeon's instruments are sterilised, or that the surgeon will wear surgical gloves, masks and other PPE?!

The other argument she grabbed at was that there have been some cases of people who have suffered longer term conditions, such as chronic fatigue. But, those that bring forward such arguments never provide any actual data. Before taking any of these claims seriously, we need to know how many people have suffered such conditions, what proportion does this constitute, do we actually know that these conditions are a consequence of COVID or some other virus or condition, and are these people who are under 60 and have no other underlying condition, or are they also mainly people over 60, or who have some other condition that made them vulnerable?  The data we have suggests that only 20% of younger people who are ill with COVID19, suffer some form of chronic fatigue lasting several weeks.  But, the data also shows that the number of younger people who are actually ill with COVID19 is itself very small.  Those under 60 with no known illness comprise only 1% of deaths, and about the same proportion applies in relation to those suffering more than mild symptoms.  20% of a small number is an even smaller number, in this case, 20% of 1% is just 0.2%.  But, COVID is not peculiar in this regard, because longer term chronic fatigue is a feature of many other viruses.

Similarly, the argument is sometimes raised that herd immunity can't be the way forward, because there have been reported cases of people who have been reinfected. In fact, there is only one documented case of someone who has been reinfected, and that was of someone who first had a strain of COVID19 prevalent in North America, who subsequently was infected with a strain prevalent in Europe. Basing yourself on just one case is not a very scientific way of proceeding, but, in any case, this individual was asymptomatic, because having developed immunity against the North American strain, it was sufficient to give them resistance to the European strain. More importantly, the mindlessness of those that make this argument is shown by the fact that, if it were valid, it would mean there is no point in spending time developing a vaccine. They seem unaware that vaccines also work by creating artificial herd immunity as opposed to naturally acquired herd immunity. It involves the production of antibodies to fight off the virus. If its not possible to develop immunity by natural means to prevent reinfection, then a vaccine which works by also producing such an immune response will not work either!

Sodha's idiotic argument was almost equalled by Boris Johnson, who in his address to the nation talked about it not being acceptable to “lock up” the old and vulnerable. But, no one is talking about locking up the old and vulnerable, any more than is already the case for some of them confined to care homes and hospitals. Any old person or sick person should, of course, be free to go out and risk infection with COVID or flu, or any other such disease, in just the same way that they are free to go out and smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol that might kill them, or in just the same way that someone with a nut allergy is free to go out and eat nuts if they so choose. But, all having made that choice must then accept the risk attached to their actions.

I would love to have been able to have gone dancing over the last six months. However, as someone aged over 60, and an asthmatic, even if the government had allowed me to do so, I would have chosen not to, in order to avoid the risk of infection. But, that would have been a matter of my choice. It would not have been a question of being locked up. On the contrary, it is the government's action in imposing the lockdown that has effectively meant that I am locked up, because they have taken away my choice as to whether to go dancing or not. And, although I would not have chosen to do that, I see no reason why someone under 60 in good health should not have that freedom to engage in such action, a part of any civilised, free society, because they could do so perfectly safely.

It is not a question of those of us in that vulnerable 20% being “locked up” as Johnson claims. I have been self isolating since March. But, that self isolation does not mean being “locked up”. I can still exercise in my garden, just as I can see my son and his partner safely there in the open air; I can walk the dog safely, or go for my daily half hour run, whilst keeping physically distant from others; I can talk to others online or via Skype, and so on. The idea that any of this amounts to being “locked up” is nonsense. What would be useful would be if the government facilitated that for everyone in the 20%, by ensuring that there was sufficient capacity for online deliveries, and that Britain had a fast and reliable broadband infrastructure. What would be useful would be if the government allowed the 80% of the population not at risk from COVID 19 to just get on with their lives as normal and build up herd immunity as has happened in Sweden, so that the virus is quickly killed off, and we can all get back to normal.

Guest Post On Johnson's Moves From An Irish Perspective

This is a guest post, from Sraid Marx, on Boris Johnson's latest manoeuvres from an Irish perspective.

The Sraid Marx blog is written by someone who has been a Marxist for around 40 years. As they say in their "About Me" section of their blog,

"My maternal grandfather was an Irish emigrant to Glasgow and a member of the Communist Party of Great Britain during the 1930's and during and after the 2nd World War. He was a union member who lost his job more than once because of his union activities. My mother was also briefly a member of the Young Communist League. Both my mother and father were supporters of civil rights in the late 1960's in Belfast and were briefly members of the Northern Ireland Labour Party in the early 1970's. I therefore come from a left-wing background defined by politics and not by nationality or religion.

In 1975, after my family had moved to Scotland I became involved with socialist politics through the International Marxist Group in Glasgow and in 1976 I joined this organisation. I returned to Ireland to go to university and joined the Irish section of the Fourth International, the Movement for a Socialist Republic, in 1978. I was a member of the MSR and the successor organisations of the Irish section of the Fourth International up until 2012.

I am therefore a Marxist from the Trotskyist tradition."

********** 

The British Government declaration that it was unilaterally about to give itself the power to tear up the parts of the Northern Ireland Protocol that was part of the EU Withdrawal Agreement has met with much damnation by many of the members of the Dáil (the British equivalent is the House of Commons). The Sinn Fein leader denounced ‘Perfidious Albion’ while the People before Profit TD (MP) also condemned “the rotten, rotten Prime Minister” for his “insult to the Taoiseach and the people of this country.” 

‘The Irish Times’ Dáil sketch writer took a more humorous approach, comparing the predicament of the Taoiseach to that of the Irish football team: would he replay the role of Ray Houghton and put the ball in the net against England as Houghton did in the Euros in 1988? Or would he replay the role of Roy Keane in Saipan during the World Cup in 2002 and walk out on the Irish team? 

Those with long memories, or a knowledge of history, would not have to recall the recent words of the British condemnation of China for having reneged on the deal over Hong Kong. They only had to recall that almost 100 years ago the British had threatened ‘immediate and terrible war’ if the Irish did not sign the Anglo-Irish Treaty that created the Irish State and copper-fastened partition. The Brits were at it again – waiving the rules even when they didn’t even rule them. 

But this is the point, which is why Taoiseach Micheál Martin took the more measured approach: “I will therefore exercise judgement in terms of both how I intervene, when I intervene and the manner of my intervention”, which means he will leave it to the EU to do the intervening. The Irish now have the inestimable advantage 100 years later that the power of the political body they are part of greatly exceeds that of the British. The opposition parties in the Dáil were full of righteous indignation but regardless, all would rely on the EU to protect what are seen as vital Irish interests. 

These interests include a requirement for a new trade deal that protects food and other agricultural exports to Britain and free movement of goods to and through Britain to the wider EU market. A new "Brexit-buster" ship MV Laureline has been built and repointed to Irish trade with mainland Europe, and Dublin Port has a plan for a €320m development of facilities to support greater capacity, while plans are well advanced for a new electricity interconnector between Ireland and France. However, these cannot substitute for existing arrangements, electricity interconnection is currently only with Britain, for example, and don’t address the importance of agricultural exports into the British market or imports from it. 

There is an upside for the Irish State, as it can present itself as a convenient, English-speaking site for companies seeking access to the EU market, including companies relocating from Britain, but there is fierce competition for this and there are already infrastructural capacity constraints. The benefits are not as immediate as the potential threats. 

None of this has immediately surfaced as the primary concern of the Irish State or of the EU. Instead, its leaders have denounced the proposed changes for the danger it poses to the Good Friday Agreement (GFA) through the potential creation of a hard border on the island. Neither of them can actually point to where the Agreement requires a ‘soft’ border and the Strand 2 North-South arrangements of the GFA have ironically been the most neglected and disused parts of the Agreement, and with little controversy, including from Sinn Fein. The problem however is twofold. 

Firstly, the peace process relies on freezing the current sectarian arrangements and any sudden or significant movement, in fact any movement at all, threatens instability and gives rise to potential conflict. The GFA assumed a ‘soft’ border and in most minds is part of the GFA, just as lack of political violence is also associated with it, it doesn’t matter that neither were the result of it. 

And secondly, the problem is not so much the border itself; a leader of the ‘dissident’ republican group Saoradh, Brian Kenna, described Brexit as “a huge help” for recruitment to his organisation and a “pilot light in reigniting that side of physical force to British occupation." The Saoradh leadership has said that they hoped Brexit - which they campaigned for - would be "as hard as hell." As one person put it - they want the border posts back so that they can blow them up. 

Unfortunately for this group, British security services in MI5 have penetrated its leadership and arrested nine of them in August. Republican attacks threaten stability, but even aside from their limited effectiveness such attacks do not, in themselves, provoke wider conflict. What does threaten wider conflict is the additional strain that a ‘hard’ border would place on already crumbling political structures within which sectarian competition has been institutionalised. The immediate shock of Boris Johnson’s threatened unilateral changes to the Northern Ireland Protocol did not prevent the resumption of joint Covid-19 press conferences by the DUP and Sinn Fein after weeks of separate briefings following the breaking of social distancing rules by Sinn Fein at an IRA funeral. 

Reaction in the North of Ireland is instructive. The leading voice in the DUP on Brexit, Sammy Wilson, welcomed the British initiative only as a first step after his leader had more or less indicated acceptance of the existing Protocol. The Ulster Unionist Party leader Steve Aiken said his party “took little comfort” from the Tory Bill. Unionists have lost all trust in Boris Johnson and are acutely aware that he doesn’t give a damn for them. Having been burned through accepting his promise that there would be no border on the Irish Sea they are clear that he may be creating another smokescreen to cover up a U-turn on acceptance of a trade deal that requires it. 

While most attention has focused on the potential separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK through rules governing the import and export of goods between them, with no such restrictions or barriers between the North and South of Ireland, this is not the real concern. Fears that Tesco could not deliver food to its stores in Northern Ireland without exorbitant additional costs were on the way to being dispelled, and additional paperwork for goods going from Northern Ireland to Britain have not been seen as a major concern. 

The main issue does not arise from concerns about the separation of Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK market but from the fact that it is still too close. EU state aid rules apply to Northern Ireland under the Protocol but these tie back to the rest of the UK if goods, investment and rules originating or applying in Britain affect Northern Ireland. Rules and tax incentives etc involving subsidies to industry or firms intended to support industry in Britain, if they have any impact in Northern Ireland, would be considered by the EU to be invalid. The intricate and complicated division of labour involved in the modern supply chains makes such impacts inevitable and the EU demands notification in advance of any changes to the British state aid regime. 

The row about the UK Internal Market Bill has therefore nothing and everything to do with Ireland, and Ireland will have not much to do with fighting it to a conclusion. The EU has made it clear that the antics of Johnson’s Government changes nothing, it will not even call a halt to the negotiations on a trade deal. The Withdrawal Agreement itself will be employed to sort out the mess and if the British appear to want no deal it will only be because they pretend to. Then when they sign up to one it will be a great victory. 

Far from getting Brexit done the Withdrawal Agreement demonstrates that it cannot get done without being either pointless or immensely damaging. Unfortunately, the British Labour Party, which should be making hay out of Tory incoherence, can’t effectively challenge while its own policy is that there is a Brexit that is neither. Yet another Brexit crisis demonstrates that only continuing opposition to it can defend the interests of workers in Ireland and Britain.

Grannies, Don't Kill Your Grandkids Futures

Dear Grannies, 

The government is trying to blame your children and grandchildren for the catastrophe it has wreaked on the country. Don't let them get away with it, and don't be a part of it. The government has wrecked the economy as a result of its disastrous Brexit policy, and it is now wrecking the economy as a result of its idiotic lockdown that has caused the greatest economic slowdown in 300 years. It told you that it could get a better deal for Britain outside the EU than inside, which was a blatant lie; it told you only a few months ago that it was going to “Get Brexit Done” on that basis, that it had an “oven ready deal” that was the best thing since sliced bread. But, again it lied. Many of you voted for the Tories and for Brexit on the basis of those lies. Now as its lies are being exposed, Boris Johnson, whose “oven ready deal” has been seen to be just old scraps that had been rejected for human consumption, himself describes the deal he came up with as being a bad deal, and rushed through without proper consideration. This is a poisonous, incompetent cook who is trying to cover the bad taste by serving up only spicy dishes. 

Boris and his posh boy Bullingdon Club chums

And, this incompetent cook has dealt with COVID19 disastrously too. The Tories, as they always do, undermined the NHS with ten years of austerity, so that it was badly placed to deal with any viral epidemic be it coronavirus or the flu. It introduced a lockdown of social activity that caused economic calamity, but has been shown to do nothing to deal with the actual problem of the virus itself. It promised that it would introduce widespread testing and tracing, but has again failed to do that. The testing, if you can get one, is unreliable, and, to be honest, pointless unless you test everyone every day, whilst the promised anti-body tests, which are the only ones of any use, have still not materialised. And, every day, this government chops and changes its story, and the rules and regulations it wants everyone to follow, whilst its own members and advisors themselves flout those regulations. It is a government for whom the law means little or nothing, as it has now even admitted it intends to break international law, even in relation to the Withdrawal Agreement it signed just a few months ago, and which Boris Johnson told you was a wonderful deal! It is a government of posh boys, like Johnson who grew up on the fields of Eton, not the fields of the local Rec, and as with all such people they believe there is one law for them, and one law for the rest of us. 

Now, Johnson's lie and incompetence is being exposed, by the EU. The EU are not going to change their position and concede to Johnson's bully boy tactics, or to his childish tantrums when he can't get his own way. As the year draws to a close, he knows that if he can't get a deal, then Britain faces a catastrophe as it crashes out of the EU. Northern Ireland faces a particular catastrophe, because Johnson's latest madcap plan means a hard border in Ireland would be inevitable, which would destroy the economy in Northern Ireland, and possibly result in the return of armed struggle, which characterised life for 30 years from the late 1960's, in both Britain and Ireland. No doubt that would go down well with Boris's new Brexit chums, like the IRA supporting Lady Fox.  Even US politicians have said that should Britain go down that path any chance of a trade deal would be a dead duck, though Johnson would no doubt present it as an oven ready duck, that he would cover in spice to hide the smell of its rotten flesh. And, that would be just the start of the break up of the UK, and its rapid decline as an economic power, with the consequent effect on the living standards of its citizens, the worst to suffer being your grandkids as they have to deal with the consequences of that, in years to come. 

Do you think the posh kids who go to Eton and
Harrow, like Boris, are the ones who will suffer?

To cover over and distract attention from the exposure of his Brexit lie, Johnson has now tried to blame your grandkids for the failure of his COVID policy. His government has already deprived a generation of students of a years education, which will put them at a disadvantage in years to come. It totally messed up this year's exams, and next year's, because, having missed a year's education, students have also missed a lot of the learning required for the exams they will sit next year. Of course, for the posh boys like Johnson that doesn't matter, because their kids who go to Eton or Harrow, and so on, were still able to get taught, as well as access to private tutors and so on, but in any case, their futures are already guaranteed simply by being able to list these schools on their future applications, as well as the power of their family connections, when it comes to access to higher education and to plum jobs. 

Johnson has come out with yet another set of indecipherable regulations for COVID. There have been so many changes in regulations, and they are so byzantine and illogical that no one can possibly keep up with them, even with the TV spending hours trying to answer questions about them. Again government ministers and advisors will no doubt ignore them anyway, but woe betide you if you fail to keep up with the latest twists and turns that they introduce every few hours. Now only six people can meet up in public or in a house. How you go on if you have more than 5 kids, or if you are in shared accommodation with more than five people, God only knows. Do you have to put some kids up for adoption, kick out some of your fellow tenants? Yet, at the same time, the government says it wants people to get back to work, where presumably, in most places, there will be far more than six people congregating for 8 hours a day, which is longer than most people would be in close contact with others in the same household! 

Once again the government policy is nonsensical. But, as with its Brexit policy its designed only for show, as it limps from one crisis to another, one exposure of its bankruptcy to another, and on each occasion tries to blame someone else for its own failures. It has come out with this policy because, as people have gone back to work, and as students go back to school and college, and university, the number of infections of COVID has again risen, which was inevitable as soon as the lockdown was relaxed, which is why the lockdown was never a sensible strategy to begin with. The government is again making a big thing about these infections, even though the reality is that the vast majority of these infections are amongst younger people who are not affected by COVID19, and the evidence for that is that the number of deaths continues to fall, and the number of people in intensive care has fallen to negligible levels. 

So, preventing younger people from congregating in large numbers poses no threat to them. It does pose a threat to the government, however, because it means that people can discuss its failed policies and actions, can begin again to take part in political action to confront it, and that is particularly true as far as students are concerned, which is no doubt why the government wants to prevent them from engaging in any such action. The government is trying to cover its intentions, as well as covering its own failings by claiming that if your grandkids do engage in any kind of social activity, they may then put you at risk. But, you know that is another lie. For those of you with grandkids at University, do you really want to deprive them of the opportunity to engage in social activity? After all, you are only young once. Do you want to deprive them of all the benefits and joys of youth that you and your kids enjoyed? Of course, you don't, especially as the reason given by the government is a lie. Its quite possible for you to speak to your grandkids by phone or Skype, but, in truth, how many of them at University, would be coming home to visit you, during term time anyway? 

As for your grandkids still at school, shouldn't the government be ensuring your safety by making sure that school's stay open long enough, for parents to collect them, rather than relying on grandparents to undertake that function? After all, the government has claimed that this is an exceptional situation, so shouldn't they take the exceptional, temporary measures to ensure that you can isolate from any risk, to ensure your safety. The risk to you comes not from your grandkids, but from the government's ineptitude, and its failure to put in place the range of measures that would enable you to isolate yourself from the risk of being infected. The government is simply trying to shift its blame on to the shoulders of your grandkids. 

So, grannies, don't let Boris get away with it. He lied to you about Brexit, and unfortunately, many of you fell for those lies, and voted for it, which means that you have already seriously damaged the futures of your kids and grandkids, don't get fooled again, as The Who once sang, don't let the government put its blame on to your grandkids. Don't be part of its plans to deny your grandkids the future they deserve, and the ability, here and now, to enjoy their youth, and all the things that you and me took for granted in our youth. We have had most of our lives, and have no right to deny our kids and grandkids theirs. Those that voted for Brexit already have a heavy responsibility for the damage they have done to the futures of our kids and grandkids, don't compound the responsibility you hold for that, by going along with the Tories lies on Brexit, and the damage that their lockdown is doing to the economy, and to the futures of our kids and grandkids. 

Let the young have their youth and freedom, demand the government ensures that those actually at risk from COVID19 can be effectively isolated from it, as the only way of quickly developing herd immunity, and thereby eradicating the virus so that the world is safe for all of us. 

COVID Infections, Deaths and Lockdown

Daily deaths from flu, in Britain, overtook those from COVID19, in mid June, and have continued to do so ever since. UK deaths from flu and pneumonia have been five times greater than those from COVID19 since that time. Indeed, as deaths and serious illnesses from COVID have continued to fall, in some age groups, deaths from flu and pneumonia are now as much as ten times deaths from COVID19. That is despite the fact that, as the lockdown has been eased, the number of COVID infections, in the UK, as elsewhere across Europe, has risen sharply. For anyone who looked at the material conditions rationally, from the beginning, this is no surprise, because, despite the moral panic that was whipped up by social media, followed by the mass media, COVID19 was never a threat to the vast majority of the population. It was a highly specific threat to the elderly, followed, some way behind, by those who had underlying medical conditions that compromised their immune response. 

If we look at the current data on infections, it shows that the number of new infections per day has risen to around 3,000. However, this figure is itself pretty meaningless. For one thing, recent reports indicate that the testing misses about 30% of infections even amongst those tested. That is because it looks for the virus in the nasal cavity and throat, but the virus may not be located in those places. Moreover, the testing only tests whether you currently have the virus. It does not test whether you have already had it without knowing about it, which must be true for large numbers of people, because it is asymptomatic in 80% of the population. Finally, this figure of current infections is only a measure of those who actually get tested. Far more people are not tested than those who are, and someone tested today, might get the virus tomorrow or later today. 

So, if the figure for the number of people newly infected stands at 3,000, the actual figure is probably more like 30,000. Yet, despite this sharp rise in the number of infections, the number of people seriously ill, let alone the number dying has fallen sharply. There is virtually no one currently in hospital on ventilators across Britain. The number of deaths has fallen to more or less single figures, with just three deaths recorded yesterday. That is equal to one death in 10,000 infections, or a mortality rate of just 0.01%, as against the initial predictions that the mortality rate was going to be closer to 1%, or 100 times greater! 

So, why is this? The reason is obvious. From the beginning, the data from China and elsewhere showed that COVID19 is a virus that is almost exclusively a threat to the elderly. More than half the people who are killed by it, or made seriously ill by it, are aged over 80, with a large proportion of those aged over 85. When those aged over 60 are included, the percentage rises to 92%. Of the remaining 8% of deaths, 7% are people with underlying medical conditions, and we will undoubtedly find that the remaining 1% also had some previously undiagnosed condition that led to their immune system being compromised too. It made absolutely no sense to spread a moral panic that COVID19 represented an existential threat to populations, as some kind of modern day Black Death, or Ebola, which it most certainly is not (the latter has a 90% mortality rate, for example). Likewise, it was completely stupid to lock down economies based upon this entirely false premise. The damage to the economy, and, thereby, to the lives and health of millions has been far greater as a result of the lockdown than COVID19 was ever going to be, and that legacy will continue for years. 

Yet, even knowing these facts, we see the media once again whipping up the same kind of panic, purely on the basis of sharply rising numbers of infections. Of course, although such a moral panic never made any kind of scientific or economic sense, it made perfectly good commercial sense for media companies for whom such sensationalism is their lifeblood. So, again we see the narrative about, well, even if the virus poses no real threat to healthy people under 60, and particularly to children, if lots of people get infected they will risk passing it on to grandparents, who might become sick. True, but only if you do not protect the grandparents and other elderly people from the risk of such infection! It is surely not rocket science to realise that if the only people really at risk are those grandparents, and elderly people in general, then it is they that should be the focus of any rational strategy. It is they who should be enabled to safely isolate from contact with the virus, in the same way that we enable people with serious nut allergies to stay away from nuts, without banning nuts for the majority of the population! 

Indeed, if we had followed such a course of action back in March, the majority of the population, not actually at serious risk from the virus, would, by now have developed a sufficient degree of herd immunity that it would find it impossible to spread, and would, thereby die out, removing the need for any such further isolation and shielding. The failure to do so, and the implementation instead of the stupid lockdown, has simply made things worse. It slowed the development of the required herd immunity, it imposed restrictions on the lives of the vast majority of the population to a degree whereby, even those who need to be isolated, i.e. the elderly and sick, are now fed up of it. And, the idea that the inadequate measures of test and trace are going to have any impact, now are completely forlorn. 

The reason that the number of deaths and serious illnesses has declined sharply, whilst the number of infections has increased sharply is quite obvious. At the start of the pandemic, large numbers of elderly people, particularly in hospitals and care homes (and people who had become infected in hospitals and sent back to care homes) were infected, and as this is the group most likely to suffer death or serious illness, the mortality rate (against infections) was necessarily high, because it was only a small number of people who were ill who were tested. The much larger number of people in the general population who had been infected, but who were asymptomatic were not tested, and so this distorted completely the mortality rate. Now, a large portion of those at risk in care homes, and hospitals, and amongst the elderly in general, who were going to die, or be seriously ill, have already succumbed. At the same time, belatedly, measures were introduced in hospitals and care homes to try to prevent further spread of the virus in these locations. The large number of deaths early on was always a large number of deaths of elderly people. 

By contrast, today, as lockdown has been eased, large numbers of younger people have again begun to congregate in large numbers – in reality, in many places they continued to do so illegally anyway – and as the government has again belatedly increased the amount of testing, the number of these younger people identified as having become infected is shown up in the official data. But, these younger people, now, as has always been the case, are in virtually no risk of serious illness or death from the virus, so that as the number of reported infections rises, the number of deaths and serious illnesses continues to decline. Indeed, as the data now demonstrates, if you are younger, you are at far greater risk (ten times as much) of dying from flu or pneumonia than you are from COVID19, which is why the government should immediately begin providing free flu and pneumonia jabs (pneumonia jabs last for ten years, unless you are immuno-suppressed) for everyone. 

As Prof Ioaniddis said back in March, what we were witnessing was a once in a century data fiasco, as decisions were made rashly on inadequate data that had been wrongly interpreted, and turned into a moral panic. The lockdown was nonsensical, and has proved disastrous. Its suggested the Tories might want to use the catastrophe their lockdown has caused as cover for the catastrophe their No Deal Brexit would cause. Possibly, but they should not be allowed to get away with that, because both are catastrophes of their own making. A No Deal Brexit would be even worse than the disaster they have created by the lockdown, and would also compound it. Ultimately, they are unlikely to push ahead with a No Deal, precisely because of it being so disastrous, but the disaster caused by their lockdown is already a fact, and they should face the full consequences from having created it.   Labour should not let the Tories get away with the consequences of the lockdown, and should oppose Brexit along with it.

We Are Headed For Another British Brexit Capitulation

The UK-EU Brexit negotiations are going nowhere.  The deadline for agreeing an extension of the transition period passed in June, apparently leaving the only option as some kind of negotiated deal.  However, the deadline set for that is the end of July, and that clearly isn't going to happen.  Reports in recent days have shown what a disaster, for Britain, there would be if no deal is agreed.  Only a quarter of UK hauliers would be able to operate in Europe, meaning that in a matter of days, there would be shortages of food, medicines and other vital supplies.  That is just one area in which life would get seriously worse, even compared to the catastrophe that the Tory lockdown has inflicted on the economy.

The EU will lose economically from a no deal too, but far less than will the UK, and it will not represent any kind of threat to life and well being, as it will imply for UK citizens.  Moreover, as a consequence of the economic crisis caused by government lockdowns there could be distinct advantages for the EU in a no deal.  States across the globe will be having to spend trillions bailing out strategic industries that have been crushed by the effects of government imposed lockdowns.  The EU will pump tens of billions into Airbus, for example, but has no reason to want to see any of that money benefiting the UK arm of the company.  Quite the opposite, the EU will be keen to see, industries and jobs migrating from an isolated UK economy towards the EU, as it will assist its efforts at restarting its economy after the lockdowns.  And, a large movement of businesses from the UK to the EU will be an inevitable consequence of a no deal, as the EU imposes tariffs, and other restrictions on UK produced goods and services.

So, the fact remains, as it has always been that in these negotiations the EU retains all the cards, and the UK is trying to bluff, whilst everyone can see that it has an empty hand.  Boris Johnson rather like his US counterpart, Brexit Trump, will continue to bluff and bluster, and talk about what a wonderful position the UK is in, his henchmen will continue the inane mantra that the EU always only reach a deal at the last minute, and so its all a matter of waiting for them to give in, and so on.  However, the reality is here presented in a mirror.  Just like Trump's negotiations with Kim in North Korea, the bluff and bluster don't change the outcome, however, much spin they put on it.

The fact is that its not the EU that will capitulate at the last minute, but Britain, because the reality is that Britain cannot live with a no deal outcome.  Boris Johnson knows it, the ruling class knows it, the British state knows it, and the EU knows.  The EU negotiators have given some concessions to Britain, because they are smart enough to know that Johnson and co. would try to present things as being all down to EU intransigence.  The EU negotiators know that Johnson, and the UK negotiators are tied into a narrative framed by their own Brexit campaign, and appeal to reactionary sentiment, amongst a minority of the UK population that, as with Trump in the US, however, represents the core support for the Tory Party.  So, the EU knew they could give concessions on side issues, in the sure knowledge that the UK would obstruct any agreement on the core issues such as fishing and the level playing field.

But, all that does is to put time pressure on the UK.  Time is running out for the UK.  The deadline for an extension of the transition period has gone, and the possibility of a no deal that would crucify the UK is rapidly approaching like a freight train.  Johnson and the UK negotiators have no option but to continue to bluff and bluster and pretend that the EU will cave at the last minute, even though they must know that will not happen, and has never happened before.

They gave Cameron nothing in his pathetic attempts to mimic Thatcher's negotiations of various UK concessions; for all Theresa May's talk of "Brexit Meaning Brexit", and of a "Red, White and Blue Brexit", of "No Deal is Better Than A Bad Deal", she capitulated, and extended Article 50 twice, as well as capitulating in order to get a Withdrawal Agreement with the EU that she couldn't then get through parliament; for all Boris Johnson's promises to "Die In A Ditch", he didn't, and also extended Article 50, and then capitulated again in January, accepting a worse deal than that which May had accepted, a deal, which she had rejected earlier, because of opposition from not only the DUP, but also of Johnson himself!

So, as the year drags on, all of the theatrics will be meaningless.  The UK will have only two real options.  The third option of a NO Deal, is not a real option, because even without the economy having been cratered by the Tory lockdown, it would mean devastation for the UK economy, and a real threat to life and limb of UK citizens to a degree that no government could consider being held responsible for.  It would split the Tory parliamentary party, lead to mass protests and strikes, and almost inevitably the fall of the government in conditions worse than those that led to the fall of the Heath government in 1974.  Combined with the growing realisation of the unnecessary damage that the Tory lockdown has imposed, it would mean that the Tories would be destroyed as a political force for at least a generation.

The only two real options are that either, at the last minute, Johnson will have to ask for an extension of the Transition Period, or else, he will have to do what he did in January and capitulate accepting a deal on EU terms.  Theoretically, the first option isn't possible, but the EU has always found ways of getting round theoretically impossible hurdles, where it was to their advantage to do so.  To get to this position, Johnson would have to make an embarrassing climb down and U-turn once again.  But, he has already done lots of them.  he would have to repeal the legislation his government passed saying there would be no extension, and to do so he would probably have to rely on Labour votes.  In such conditions, the EU would be seen to be clearly in the driving seat.  It would undoubtedly only grant an extension if it was for a prolonged period, at least two years.

But, some EU countries, like France, have become somewhat tired of Brexit and of the destabilising role played by Britain.  They may not agree to an extension preferring to just lance the boil.  They may force the issue forcing Britain to choose between a No Deal that would destroy the UK, or else capitulating and accepting a deal that effectively leaves the UK inside the Single Market and Customs Union, subject to the ECJ, and so on, but with no political rights which are only available to members.  If the EU negotiators have gamed this scenario, that i the option they would choose, because it leaves the UK in a seriously weakened position, though not as weakened as a No Deal Brexit would leave it.  It leaves a UK government with only that one rational option to take.  It means that the UK would also not be able to do deals with the US that would be detrimental to the EU, and means that in a fairly short time period, the UK would almost certainly be seeking a fast-track re-entry into the EU, because why have all the obligations of membership without the rights that go with it?  But, as the EU presses on towards fiscal union, which means that actual political union is not far behind, it would mean that a future British reentry would also be on that basis.  It would mean that the things the UK has always been able to frustrate as a member of the EU, of membership of the Eurozone, and political union, it would no longer have any power to resist.