BC UK

Yesterday, of course, Jeremy Corbyn launched his Peace and Justice Project, to much excitement on here. Laudable goals too:

Take on Murdoch ✅
Green New Deal ✅
Support for food banks ✅
Speed up vaccine delivery in developing countries ✅

That's all excellent.

I'm not sure if anyone can argue with those four aims: they're irrefutable and all massively important. You bet I'd like to see Labour doing likewise; you bet I'm frustrated that it's so quiet on all of it.

HOWEVER...
Contained within the announcement was exactly the same selective blindness which makes the entire thing all too easy to shoot down - and again, means Corbyn is pretty unlikely to persuade anyone who's not already persuaded.

The sort of blindness which makes me tear my hair out.
Peace and Justice - sounds great, doesn't it? So why did the Peace and Justice project proudly announce the support of a corrupt criminal not remotely interested in either of those things?

https://t.co/YimyrjqhCO
Rafael Correa, former President of Ecuador. Let's run through his record, starting with the positives.

Slashed poverty from 36.7% to 22.5% ✅

Reduced inequality from 0.55 to 0.47 on the Gini index ✅

So far, so good. Except, um...
Rafael Correa is guilty of bribery. Sentenced to 8 years imprisonment in abstentia for corruption so vast, his political movement was financed in exchange for awarding state contracts to businessmen and his cronies.

Tremendous. How 'just'. 🙄

It gets worse too.
Correa was so personally interested in 'peace and justice' that:

- Ecuador defaulted on its national debt and international obligations

- He was accused of involvement in kidnapping a political opponent

- His government filed a criminal charge against a critical newspaper
- He doxxed a whole bunch of his critics on social media, leading to their being harassed

- When a 17-year-old gave him a middle finger gesture in Quito, Correa stopped his motorcade, berated the teenager, and he received 20 hours' community service.
Try imagining any of the above - except the government corruption - happening in any genuine 'peaceful, just' democracy.

When ordinary citizens and newspapers are threatened by the government for 'offending the President', that is not a democracy. It's an authoritarian state.
So why does Corbyn look the other way?

Exactly the same reason he looks the other way on Venezuela, on Bolivia, on anywhere in this continent where someone claiming to be of the 'left' is in charge.

He romanticises the place. He thinks the Latin American left is Robin Hood.
It'd be nice if he stopped for a single moment to consider just how offensive that is to untold numbers who suffer appallingly under corrupt, criminal, atrocious governments here.

But he doesn't. Because his whole world view is so ludicrously black and white.
He should be running a mile from the endorsement of someone like Correa. Instead, he flaunts it. Unbelievable.

And there's really no excuse for that. To say that it plays straight into the hands of his many enemies is a huge understatement.
On a similar note: his longstanding hostility towards NATO (tempered, I know, as he pursued the premiership) is so blind towards the whole of Eastern Europe, it drives me nuts.

These are countries which gained their independence only 30 years ago. They NEED our protection.
These are also countries which know, through painful and recent experience, what Russia would try and do to them if NATO - and the EU too - weren't there to protect them.

And that's where Corbyn's whole peace and love thing really starts to collapse. It doesn't deal in reality.
We ALL want a peaceful world of interdependence, co-existence and friendship.

We all NEED that sort of world if we're to avert climate catastrophe too.

But just as his supporters adore him for his views never having changed at all, that's also his giant, almighty flaw.
The reason other politicians don't say all the nice, instinctively agreeable things he does is because other politicians - especially, other leaders - deal with geopolitical reality.

In this continent, for example, Venezuela is a completely failed state.
One million per cent inflation. 5 million refugees. As the Inter-American Development Bank put it in July:

“There is nothing we can do for Venezuela. No country in the history of humanity has seen a contraction as deep as Venezuela without a war or natural disaster or both".
So what does Corbyn do? He only continues to support the man responsible.

That isn't supporting human rights at all. That isn't supporting peace and justice at all. It's inexcusable.

Before anyone interjects with "1973.. CIA..." - Venezuela was a rich, successful place once.
Then both right and left combined to screw it all up, and then some. As this article explains superbly.

https://t.co/58cJn2jNvz

This continent and its people deal with the appalling consequences of Venezuela's rogue regime every day.
That's their lived reality. About which, Corbyn appears to care precisely nothing.

By the way: in international affairs, he's been right on many many many things.
- A hero on apartheid (FAO Rachel Riley: get stuffed you absolute disgrace)

- An implacable fighter against Pinochet

- Absolutely correct on the Iraq war

- Quite right about US imperialism and its many evils too
He's also dead on about:

- Our horrendous coddling of and deals drenched in blood with Saudi Arabia

- The demonisation of Iran (but has he ever spoken out about its human rights record? I ask because I don't know)

- Israel's treatment of the Palestinians
But his absolute blindness on so many other issues loses him so much credibility. It makes him look completely unserious and is far too easy to highlight.

It saddens me, truly. Because he's a good man who wants to HELP PEOPLE.
That's why so many will be inspired by his announcement. Everyone on the left wants to help people wherever we can.

But his biggest failing as a politician was always that he's so damn stuck in his comfort zone. That's clearly not changed.
And if we don't persuade the unpersuaded, we'll never change anything.

More from Uk

Better late than never. Here we go. What does this deal mean for borders, border formalities, customs & trade facilitation?

Long one. TL:DR very little at the moment but has potential

/1


Borders
When compared to no deal the deal changes very little in terms of border procedures. All formalities and checks will still be required.

Reminder - we're not starting from 0 here – both our container ports and our ro-ro ports are already congested

/2

On top of that, all the issues related to border readiness: lack of capacity and space, IT systems not ready, shortages of customs agents, treader readiness – have not been solved.

The deal doesn’t help with that.

/3


Here is where we are:
☑️The UK will phase-in border formalities over 6 months (customs and SPS)
☑️The EU will introduce full formalities in 3 days (customs + SPS)
☑️Irish Sea border also fully operational in 3 days with some short-term SPS easements

/4

Pre-notifications (safety & security declarations) not initially required on the UK side, needed for imports into the EU.

So what's in the deal?

/5
Just finished reading an article by Iain MacWhirter that is so full of demonstrable falsehoods & logical fallacies that it requires a firm response: So seeing as I’ve done one nuclear thread this week already, I might as well do another... 🧵☢️🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇺🇳

Iain is able to correctly identify that the submission that @SNP_SITW group made to the UK #IntegratedReview - and therefore wasn’t policy about an independent Scotland - but that’s where his grip on reality ends.

We called for unilateral disarmament, as I pointed out on Monday:
https://t.co/DwHt9knqHh


Iain chooses to elide the fact that our submission was clearly not about policy in an independent Scotland, and therefore seeks to portray our request to the UK Government to be serious about its own commitments to multilateral arms control treaties — like the NPT — as SNP policy

Despite revealing that he knows a thing or two about internal SNP procedures, he then goes on to conflate two unconnected things — our submission, and a putative conference motion that the democratically-elected conferences committee (not the Leadership) decided not to accept

You May Also Like

https://t.co/6cRR2B3jBE
Viruses and other pathogens are often studied as stand-alone entities, despite that, in nature, they mostly live in multispecies associations called biofilms—both externally and within the host.

https://t.co/FBfXhUrH5d


Microorganisms in biofilms are enclosed by an extracellular matrix that confers protection and improves survival. Previous studies have shown that viruses can secondarily colonize preexisting biofilms, and viral biofilms have also been described.


...we raise the perspective that CoVs can persistently infect bats due to their association with biofilm structures. This phenomenon potentially provides an optimal environment for nonpathogenic & well-adapted viruses to interact with the host, as well as for viral recombination.


Biofilms can also enhance virion viability in extracellular environments, such as on fomites and in aquatic sediments, allowing viral persistence and dissemination.