Last month, I uncovered excerpts from the “IDF diary” of Jonathan Kestenbaum, the former Israeli soldier and current Labour peer who was serving as a board member of Labour Together. But on May 18th, according to Companies House, Kestenbaum resigned as a director of the disgraced think tank.

Labour Together rebrands

The organisation has desperately been trying to rebrand this month. It has adopted a different name, “ThinkLabour”, and brand new website.

Alison Phillips, the organisation’s CEO, told journalist Peter Geoghehan yesterday:

ThinkLabour is a very different organisation today compared to Labour Together then and what was done does not reflect and represent what we stand for and how we operate today under my leadership.

However, ThinkLabour has the same company number as Labour Together Limited, still registered as operating on Companies House. Alongside Alison Philips, the active directors are registered as Mike Craven, appointed in March 2024, and new addition Nicholas Forbes, appointed on May 12th.

Kestenbaum’s diary

Although the relaunch was announced on May 14th, with ThinkLabour promising to be “a unique political organisation dedicated to helping Labour govern confidently”, Kestenbaum remained a director until the beginning of the following week.

In Kestenbaum’s written account of his Israeli military service, he describes:

chasing a nine-year-old boy who broke a 30-day curfew to try to retrieve bread from a gutter.

And:

rounding up a group of elderly Palestinians who slipped into a field at night to pick a bucket of tomatoes.

In one anecdote, he remembers detaining a group of teenage Palestinians and then being asked by another officer:

How many dogs have you brought?

Kestenbaum writes:

Once the man opposite you is a dog, anything goes.

In his diary, he refers to the Israeli state as “our country”, and a 1988 article in the international edition of the Jerusalem Post reports that Kestenbaum had “settled in Israel three years ago”. On Companies House, however, Kestenbaum’s nationality is listed solely as British. He now joins a long list of former Labour Together directors that includes Trevor Chinn, Morgan McSweeney, Josh Simons, although his positions at Five Arrows Limited and the JPMorgan Japanese Investment Trust are still extant.

Support from Ed Miliband and LFI

In 2010, Kestenbaum was nominated by the Labour Party hierarchy to the House of Lords. Ed Miliband, Labour leader at the time, is one of those reported to be eyeing Keir Starmer’s position, particularly if Andy Burnham loses the Makerfield by-election.

Like Starmer, Miliband is a long-time supporter of Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). At the lobby group’s 2011 annual lunch, Miliband declared:

I’m grateful to Israel, I respect Israel, I admire Israel and that is why I’m proud to be here to be [as] part of Labour Friends of Israel…

Under my leadership, I will ensure that the Labour Party remains a strong and steadfast friend of Israel.

Josh Simons

Labour Together has long been tainted by Morgan McSweeney’s concealing of over £730,000 in donations whilst serving as director, using the organisation as a vehicle to propel Starmer into power, but the think tank’s downfall has been accelerated by revelations that former director Josh Simons set private investigators on journalists reporting on McSweeney’s actions.

Geoghehan’s report yesterday revealed that McSweeney and Paul Ovenden, Starmer’s former head of communications, were told about Labour Together’s infamous “investigation” two years ago.

Simons has now resigned his parliamentary seat in order for Labour “saviour” Andy Burnham to have a clear run at Starmer. In the past, Simons has received donations from Mike Craven, a former press officer to Tony Blair and the second current Labour Together Limited director.

All the same cronies

Upon their launch, ThinkLabour said:

this is much more than a new logo or a change of name.

But on Companies House – for now, at least – they are still Labour Together Limited, with Simons, McSweeney, et al. amongst their alumni.

Featured image via the Devon Daily

By Em Colquhoun

Source link

Tube drivers in the RMT union have rearranged strike action that had been due on 19 and 21 May.

The union, which represents just under half of London’s underground network drivers, said:

At the 11th hour the employer has shifted its position allowing us to further explore our members concerns around the imposition of new rosters, fatigue and safety issues.

The dispute is not over and more strike action will follow if we fail to make sufficient progress.

In the absence of such progress, tube drivers will strike on Tuesday 2 June and Thursday 4 June.

The dispute concerns what the RMT calls the imposition of a “a fake four day week”.

RMT general secretary Eddie Dempsey previously said:

We have approached negotiations with TfL in good faith throughout this entire process. But despite our best efforts, TfL seem unwilling to make any concessions in a bid to avert strike action.

This is extremely disappointing and has baffled our negotiators. The approach of TfL is not one which leads to industrial peace and will infuriate our members who want to see a negotiated settlement to this avoidable dispute.

It appears that TfL has managed to drive a wedge between the RMT and Aslef, the other union representing tube drivers. Aslef believes that the shift changes are worth it for the extra days off. Meanwhile, the RMT regards the length of the working day as the sticking point. It cites fatigue and safety as primary concerns.

Featured image via Hans-Peter Merten / Getty Images

By The Canary

Source link

Less than a month before the start of the 2026 World Cup, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) national team has been stumped by another Ebola outbreak. As a result, the Congolese Federation has had to halt their preparation programme for the World Cup. In the interest of public safety, both FIFA and US health authorities are closely monitoring the situation. On 17 May, the  World Health Organisation declared the Ebola outbreak a public health emergency.

Ebola put preparations on hold

Reuters reported that due to the threat of transmission, the team had to cancel the preparatory camp and farewell ceremony scheduled in the DRC capital, Kinshasa. Instead, these preparations will be held in Belgium to mitigate the risks. This change ensures the team can play in this year’s World Cup — the largest yet.

US authorities have adopted stringent health measures and advised people travelling from the DRC and Uganda to reconsider non essential travel. The measures they have adopted include special monitoring and examinations of anyone that has visited the two countries in the last 21 days. 

The latest strain — otherwise known as “Bondibogio” — is responsible for more than 130 deaths and 600 suspected cases so far, according to the WHO.

DRC matches to go ahead as planned

For now, the team’s World Cup preparations will resume in Belgium, as they prepare for the scheduled matches against Denmark and Chile. Houston will be the team’s next pitstop which will host the team throughout the tournament.

The Houston Chronicle revealed that local authorities are coordinating with FIFA and national health authorities, developing special protocols applied during the Congolese national team’s stay. These measures also hope to allay public fears and prevent a state of panic and commotion during World Cup activities.

Despite these concerns, health experts suggest the chances of the virus spreading in the US are negligible — emphasising the effectiveness of newly developed preventive measures.

The crisis carries additional dimensions for the DRC national team, preparing to participate in its first World Cup since the 1974. They’ll be playing in a group that includes Portugal, Colombia and Uzbekistan, and despite complex health and logistical challenges testing their resolve, the team will no doubt give it their best shot.

Featured image via Michel Lunanga/Getty Images

By Alaa Shamali

Source link

4 min read11 min

A quiet change in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 has removed an important safeguard for British citizens convicted abroad without even knowing their trial had taken place.

Advertisement

This will arise where overseas courts try and convict people in their absence without their knowledge and then apply for their extradition.   

In such circumstances, section 20 (5) of the Extradition Act 2003 previously required that where a UK court found the person had not deliberately absented themselves from the foreign trial, extradition could proceed only if there was a guaranteed right to a full retrial.  If the foreign country refused to guarantee a retrial, then extradition was refused. 

The Supreme Court ruling in the Merticariu case in 2024 confirmed this interpretation.  Mr Merticariu was convicted in his absence of burglary in Romania, who then sought his extradition.  However, their extradition request showed no evidence that he knew about the trial and had deliberately absented himself, or had waived his right to be present, no doubt because on the facts he had done neither. 

He argued that if he were extradited, article 6 ECHR gave him an absolute and unconditional right to a retrial in Romania, not merely a right to apply for a retrial, and that it was for our courts, not the foreign court, to decide before permitting extradition whether he had such a right.  The Supreme Court agreed, saying this was the effect of section 20 (5) of the 2003 Act so as to avoid ‘a flagrant denial of justice’ contrary to article 6.

Advertisement

Parliament has now reversed that position.  The effect of section 246 of the 2026 Act is that extradition may proceed even where any retrial depends on the discretion of the State requesting extradition, a State which has already tried and convicted the person in their absence.  The decisive assessment of whether a retrial is necessary is shifted away from our courts and left to foreign systems.  Moreover, if the person to be extradited had a State appointed legal representative at their original trial – even if they were not aware of this and had had no contact with the lawyer – the 2026 Act will now deem them to have been present at the trial and so liable to face imprisonment without a retrial. 

In the early hours of 19th March 2026, the House of Lords tried, but failed, to remove section 246 from the then Bill, so we now have the absurd situation that British citizens in that predicament will have to apply to Strasbourg to try to secure an injunction against extradition.  The most our own courts will be able to do is rule section 246 incompatible with article 6 which will not itself prevent extradition.  In other words, it will no longer be up to our own courts to determine if extradition should go ahead in these circumstances.

It is immensely disappointing that this Government has chosen to dilute fair trial protections in this country.  The backstop of Strasbourg is at best a remote and uncertain remedy, beyond the reach of many in practice.  It is a striking outcome that a government led by a longstanding human rights lawyer has chosen a course which relinquishes domestic oversight and leaves the fate of British citizens to be determined by foreign courts, with only a distant international remedy as a last resort (and only as long as we remain a member of the Convention of course). 

Advertisement

Whilst the number of cases affected may be small, this is nevertheless something we may live to regret when one of our citizens needs shielding from a blatant abuse of process overseas and finds his or her fundamental rights and protections have been eroded.

Lord Carter of Haslemere is a consultant in the public law team of Kingsley Napley LLP and a former General Counsel at 10 Downing Street

Source link

The coalition parties of Ireland’s government, Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael, have shamefully voted down a bill that would have imposed sweeping sanctions on the terrorist pseudo-state that uses the name ‘Israel’.

The Zionist mob running the Irish state were joined by allied Independent TD’s, resulting in a vote of 77–62 against the Sanctions Against the State of Israel Bill 2025.

Calls for ‘historical continuity’

Introduced in November 2025 by People Before Profit (PBP) TD Richard Boyd Barrett, the bill was at the second stage in the Dáil. It called for:

historical continuity with the previous application of economic sanctions against the apartheid state of South Africa.

This is in reference to the sanctions imposed by Ireland in 1987, which mandated a total ban on imports from the white-supremacist regime in South Africa.

The Zionist land thieves squatting on Palestine have gone far beyond even Pretoria’s crimes, with their genocidal assault on Palestinians, and killing sprees across West Asia. Yet the Irish government still refuses to sanction them.

Boyd Barrett’s proposals would have been similar to the legislation of 40 years ago, making it illegal to:

import goods or technology originating in the State of Israel

and to:

sell, supply, transfer or export goods or technology [to Israel].

Dealing in “transferable securities or money-market instruments” would have been forbidden, and no further technical assistance to the Zionist entity could have taken place.

Boyd Barrett challenges Martin’s cowardice

Boyd Barrett confronted Martin in the Dáil over his opposition to the bill, saying:

I’m getting reports from the flotilla organisers that Israel is shooting rubber bullets at boats, that there are Irish citizens on, who haven’t yet been kidnapped by this rogue regime.

Now, there would be uproar if Russia kidnapped people on the open seas, for example. We know there were sanctions immediately when they invaded Ukraine. There would be outrage, and yet this government hasn’t imposed a single sanction on the state of Israel, despite genocide, apartheid and now the seizure again of Irish citizens.

This is in reference to what can be seen in footage that the settler-colony’s thuggish security minister, Itamar Ben Gvir, has been proudly releasing. Ben Gvir has been a key architect of so-called ‘Israel’s’ rape and death camps, and the Gaza holocaust itself.

The footage It shows Ben Gvir taunting flotilla members now in ‘Israel’, who were abducted by the Israeli Occupation Forces (IOF). They are shown being tortured – held in stress positions outside in the hot sun, and in rooms under constantly flickering fluorescent lights. The IOF has kidnapped at least 11 Irish citizens.

One Irish woman, Catriona Graham, bravely shouts “Free, free Palestine” in the face of Amon Göth’s modern incarnation, only to be grabbed round the head and dragged to the floor.

Boyd Barret continued:

What crime does Israel have to commit before we’ll impose sanctions? Why is your government going to vote against the sanctions bill, when the flotilla organisers – and I’d say the majority of people in this country – are saying you should impose sanctions on this state for the crimes it’s committed.

Martin adopted his usual sulky, sullen demeanour when subjected to legitimate criticism, and claimed:

European sanctions against Russia are European. [They are not imposed by] individual member states. The same applies to Israel. What we haven’t been able to get is unanimity at European Union level in respect of Israel.

Zionists in Irish government failing flotilla heroes

The Taoiseach’s assertion is that Ireland, as an EU member state, cannot operate independently when it comes to economic measures against Tel Aviv. Instead, he says, the EU retains exclusive competence over commercial trade and international sanctions.

The much more convincing counter-argument is that Ireland’s obligations under the Genocide Convention trump EU law, meaning they must take all possible steps to prevent and punish genocide.

Whatever the risks involved for the Zionists occupying Ireland’s government, should they institute sanctions, they are nothing compared to those faced by the flotilla participants. These heroes sailed across 1000s of miles of treacherous waters, knowing they would almost certainly end up in the hands of genocidal torturers.

They did that to raise awareness of Palestinians’ plight. They did it to prove that Western governments care more about appeasing Zionist rapists and murderers, than they do about the wellbeing of their own citizens. By voting down the Sanctions against the State of Israel Bill 2025, Micheál Martin has given the best evidence yet of this fact.

Featured image via Dan Kitwood / Getty Images

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Photographer, activist and Oscar-nominated filmmaker Misan Harriman has said that anti-genocide activists must unite over Palestine and Sudan. Harriman was speaking to Drop Site News about the imperial horrors inflicted on both people.

The three-year war between UAE-backed Rapid Support Forces and the Sudanese government has displaced millions and killed up to 150,000 people. Israel’s genocide in Palestine has rightly received global attention. The brutal, under-reported war in Sudan deserves it too.

Drop Site senior reporter Ryan Grim asked Harriman on 19 May:

as somebody who has been trying to kind of draw attention to this conflict between the UAE backed RSF and then the Sudanese army in Sudan as it has unfolded for years now … what do you see as the kind of leverage points?

Harriman said:

[I] think it’s a coalition of voices that need to cut through, and I’ll be frank, the ethno-supremacist viewpoint of the lack of value that Sudanese lives have across the board.

The highly-regarded photographer said his work on Ukraine attracted interest from many humanitarian NGOs, but his work on Sudan had been taken up much less:

I think it’s really really important now for both activists and media professionals in your world, Ryan, to really figure out um the cadence and language that cuts through because it certainly hasn’t.

If you if you look at the biggest potential loss of life on this planet, it is only one country. It is Sudan.

Advertisement

Adding that the potential loss of life in Sudan could be “millions of children”:

I don’t think [Sudan] is being represented in the way that it could do. And that may well cut through to a lot of people.

Collective liberation, not white saviourism

Harriman said it was vital to get big names onboard, noting several globally known sports brands and teams were owned by UAE. But also that it was vital to avoid white saviour-type activism around African crises.

The renowned activist – who recently fell foul of pro-Israel propaganda himself – said that movements for solidarity and collective liberation around Gaza, Iran and other issues must also include Sudan:

It is all of these different talking points because if I think of a Sudan protest that I photographed, and I photographed many, they are tiny. They are absolutely tiny relative to Iran or Palestine or Black Lives Matter or women’s rights.

He urged the Palestine solidarity movement to bring in Sudan as part of their aims:

And I think some of these movements need to bring in Sudan into the Palestine movement, for example, and have this shared sense of collective liberation beyond posts on Instagram but actually within the actual direct action in the protest movement.

Adding:

We need to see Sudanese leaders … talking about Gaza and then swiftly moving on to Sudan with well-armed information on what’s happening to the human beings there.

The three-year war has killed thousands and displaced millions. RSF, backed by the UAE, is fighting the Sudanese government. Gold interests and regional influence are at stake. Numerous foreign actors, including the UK, have caused the war to fester through active participation and/or outright passivity. Israel, too, is a major player in the war.

As the Canary has reported, the war in Sudan is theoretically between Arab-majority RSF and the Sudanese government. But foreign states pursuing their own interests are backing the combatants.

Egypt backs the government, alongside Russia, Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. Israel has backed both sides at different times. RSF has killed Sudanese civilians in vast numbers. And some estimates say 150,000 people have died overall, with over 10mn displaced by fighting.

And Harriman is absolutely right to point out that we must all move beyond single or separate issue politics. As in Gaza, so in Sudan. It is a moral duty as journalists and activists to develop and sharpen our language, that we might bring more people with us in our opposition to genocide and neocolonialism.

Featured image via Drop Site News

By Joe Glenton

Source link

As cities around the world move towards expanded public transport free of fares, the north of Ireland is going backwards. The boss of Translink, the north of Ireland’s public transport operator, has told MLAs that he is targeting service cuts and an end to some fare discounts. Chris Conway blamed Stormont for failing to hold up its end of the deal in funding the public corporation.

Translink is funded by fare revenues and by subsidies from the Department of Infrastructure (DFI), the latter under a deal called the Public Service Agreement (PSA). Conway told a Wednesday May 20 Committee for Infrastructure meeting that:

Unfortunately this agreement has not been funded by DFI over the last couple of years. And actually subsidy per passenger is well below other regions in the UK and Ireland.

Stormont has been mandating concessionary fares, and repeated fare freezes, including one most recently in April 2026. The Infrastructure Minister Liz Kimmins said:

In the current context of rising fuel and oil prices, I do not believe it would be right to increase public transport fares and place further pressure on workers and families. Many people rely on buses and trains every day and keeping fares stable helps provide some certainty at a very challenging time.

Conway said five fare freezes in nine years had “cost us over 20 million pounds of revenue”. However, overall Stormont budget constraints mean no extra money has been available to Translink. So, it has not been able to cope with the resulting decrease in money coming in.

Forget balancing the books on public transport

Parties across the board have appealed to Keir Starmer for additional funding. Labour has provided some additional money, but not enough to meet the needs of one of the most impoverished regions under Westminster control.

Conway described Translink’s poor financial situation, saying:

We have made a loss of 23 million pounds in 25/26 financial year and we made a loss in the previous year as well. And as I said at the previous committee utilising our reserves to manage these losses is clearly not sustainable and Translink have highlighted this into previous committees.

Of course, it is misguided for government to expect public transport to be seen in this narrow way. That is – siloed off, purely looking at its own monetary flows in and out, without consideration of the wider benefits of public transport.

Running an inexpensive, high quality public transport system at a significant loss would still see society far better off overall. There would be less pollution and better health outcomes due to people walking more. In addition, there would be greater efficiency of movement due to less traffic on the roads. It would also ensure greater inclusion for marginalised groups, such as poor and disabled people.

That’s why places like Montpellier in France allow free travel across their entire bus and tram network. Meanwhile, in the north of Ireland, Translink are scrabbling around to find which services to cut to save a relatively measly £10 million.

Conway told the committee that “an equality screening process” is being conducted to minimise the impact on vulnerable groups. He said more lightly used services, such as those running Monday-Wednesday were likely to be hit. The CEO also said they were looking at reducing late evening services.

This is at a time when Belfast only recently introduced occasional night-time buses, the norm in many European capital cities. Those were brought in to help boost the night-time economy, another reason for having effective public transport.

Future of major rail upgrades uncertain

Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) infrastructure spokesperson Justin McNulty described the effect cuts will have, saying:

This is a direct result of the Executive’s failure to properly invest in public transport and Translink in particular and now it will be the public that pay the price. Worryingly it will be the most marginalised who will be disadvantaged including students, disabled and elderly people, and rural isolated communities.

Conway was cagey when it came to how funding constraints would hit major capital projects, such as the All-Ireland Strategic Rail Review (AISRR). That project is a major upgrade to Ireland’s rail network that will run until 2050. The aim is to expand the network with around 700km of new track and decarbonise large swathes of it. Also, it aims to increase rail speeds to a relatively modest 200km/h.

The Translink boss said:

We also try to keep a small percentage [of capital budget] to keep the longer strategic projects going as well, even if it’s only a small amount of work to continue feasibility work.

So things like the All-Island Strategic Rail Review and electrification, we’d like to try and keep a small amount of our capital budget just to keep those projects going because that’s about an investment for future generations and we don’t want to cut that off. But it will all depend on how the capital budget is finally allocated, and that isn’t clear yet.

As HS2 fumbles and Translink scrimp around for crumbs, China storms ahead with a state-led model laying down vast amounts of high-speed rail. Meanwhile, Britain and Ireland continue with a failed, Americanised car-centric mentality. They also view public transport authorities like businesses that ought to be fixated purely on their own internal profits and losses.

By Robert Freeman

Source link

Allies of Greater Manchester mayor and Makerfield by-election hopeful Andy Burnham say he’s backing home secretary Shabana Mahmood’s racist changes to immigration.

The Makerfield area is dominated by far-right ‘Reform UK’ since the May 2026 local elections. Furthermore, Reform’s candidate is a barely-closeted extremist. Burnham’s associates say their man regards immigration is a “moral issue.”

Scrapping ‘leave to remain’

Mahmood’s planned changes include removing the current five-year ‘leave to remain’ for refugees. She also wants to force a ‘review’ of status every thirty months. At the same time, she intends to increase the length of residency required to be able to apply for “settled status” from five years to ten. She also plans to remove financial support for refugees. However, she still does not guarantee them the right to work.

An unnamed source fed the Guardian the classic Blairite-line that being “positive” about migrants can only happen if controls on immigration are strict:

We need to tell a positive story about the contribution of migration to our country, but we cannot do that unless people trust that the people they vote for have control over our borders.

Mahmood’s plan is not merely strict, though — it’s punitive, racist, and Trumpian.

More of the same

Burnham is clearly trying to win in Makerfield. Doing it by pandering to the racist views of Reform voters on immigration is wrong. Declining to put forward any significant changes to the deeply-hated regime he wants to replace is morally and politically bankrupt.

Copying Starmer’s attempts to ‘out-Reform Reform’ is doomed. Both may well cost him the Labour voters he still needs. This is especially risky as the Greens are standing.

Burnham is far more personable than the appalling — and boring — Keir Starmer and will hammer him if the pair contest a leadership election. But “same as before but with personality” means that even if he somehow wins, the UK will have no real change at all.

Featured image via

By Skwawkbox

Source link

Aston Villa arrived in Istanbul and left as winners. Under Unai Emery, they dismantled Freiburg in a commanding victory — the latest chapter to the manager’s remarkable European record.

First half smackdown

Villa struck twice inside the opening half-hour. A perfectly struck volley, followed by a short corner routine created space, before a curling effort from the edge of the box left the goalie rooted.

Those moments of technique and craft changed the game. In an instant, Freiburg was left chasing shadows. The pattern was clear as Villa steered the match, strategising in real-time, and punishing Freiburg for their rare lapses.

Game management

After the break Villa showed no let-up. A smart near-post finish from a well-delivered cross put the result beyond doubt midway through the second half. From there, Emery shifted into efficient game management, protecting the lead and denying Freiburg a foothold.

A couple of near-misses hinted at what might have been. However, the scoreboard told the full story. Villa remained behind the wheel from the first to the last whistle.

Goalkeeper saves and set-piece threats came and went. However, Villa’s defensive shape and midfield authority kept the German side at arm’s length. Captain leadership in the middle of the park ensured the team’s rhythm never faltered.

King or Europa

This was more than a club victory. It is another feather in Emery’s already crowded cap. The manager — who has stood behind countless Europa League successes — now has another trophy in his prized collection. In doing so, Emery has cemented his reputation as the competition’s most successful modern coach. His meticulous preparation and tactical nous were on full display in Istanbul.

His influence goes beyond matchday. In three-and-a-half years he has reshaped Villa’s identity as a team that has harnessed domestic ambition and European poise.

The win rewrites the club’s recent history. Moreover, it stands out as Villa’s first major European trophy since the early 1980s and caps a season that secured a top-five Premier League finish and Champions League qualification. The victory is a statement of intent. Villa are no longer content with just making up the numbers, they are contenders on multiple fronts.

Off the pitch, celebrations are already planned. The club announced an open-top bus parade through Birmingham, a fitting response to a night that will be remembered by supporters for generations.

Standout performers

• Midfield control: The engine room dictated the game, recycling possession and breaking Freiburg’s rhythm.
• Clinical finishing: Two first-half strikes of high quality set the tone; the third removed any doubt.
• Defensive composure: When Freiburg threatened, Villa’s backline and goalkeeper responded with calm and crucial interventions.

These elements animated a performance that was both beautiful and brutally efficient.

For Emery, this is confirmation of his winning methods. For Villa, it’s the start of a new chapter. One where European nights are expected going forward, no longer out of the ordinary.

The club’s trajectory under its ownership and coaching team has been rapid and deliberate — promotion, consolidation, European qualification and now continental silverware. That arc has been completed in dramatic fashion in Istanbul.

Freiburg, meanwhile, will rue a night when they were simply outplayed. Their run to the final was admirable, but they met a side in peak form and a manager who knows how to win this competition.

This was a night of precision and personality. Villa’s goals were moments of individual brilliance stitched into a collective plan; Emery’s stamp was unmistakable. Istanbul will remember the scoreline, Birmingham will remember the parade, and Villa’s season will be measured from this point forward as the night they reclaimed a place among Europe’s achievers.

Featured image via the Canary

By Faz Ali

Source link

Illustration by Tracy Worrall

10 min read7 min

As the conflict in Iran highlights Britain’s exposure to fossil fuel markets, Zoe Crowther examines fears UK’s shift towards clean energy might mean replacing one dependency with another

Advertisement

For years, the political logic of the energy transition has rested partly on the promise of greater sovereignty and less economic exposure to volatile oil markets, unstable regimes and geopolitical shocks. But as countries race to electrify transport systems, build offshore wind farms and expand solar generation, another dependency is becoming harder to ignore: China’s dominance in the clean energy supply chain.

In a surprisingly hawkish speech in Brussels earlier this month, EU commissioner for climate, net zero and clean growth Wopke Hoekstra said that the EU had been “too naïve for too long” over the role of China in Europe’s energy sector.

He warned of the danger of creating a new reliance on Chinese cleantech after the negative impact of dependencies on Russian gas, and imported liquefied natural gas from the Middle East and the US has become increasingly obvious.

Advertisement

More than 20 years ago, the first “China shock” came when China’s accession to the World Trade Organization unleashed a wave of low-cost manufactured exports that transformed global trade and hollowed out industries across Europe and the United States, contributing to political backlash, increasing populism and economic insecurity in the Western world.

Analysts are now increasingly speaking of “China Shock 2.0”: The Financial Times has reported on the extent to which it is now not just cheap consumer goods flooding global markets, but Chinese dominance in electric vehicles, batteries, solar panels, wind turbines and the critical minerals supply chain underpinning the energy transition.

Loom, a UK-based strategy and research group focused on the intersection of climate policy, energy security, industrial strategy and geopolitics, has published a new report arguing that the transition away from fossil fuels risks creating new strategic vulnerabilities if governments fail to develop domestic industrial capacity and more resilient supply chains. It describes China as Europe’s “next energy blind spot”, with strategic dependence being relocated rather than removed.

Advertisement

The Iran conflict has highlighted the structural risks embedded in fossil fuel dependence, hastening calls from the pro-climate movement to further expand the UK’s renewable sector.

However, while Britain has made significant progress in decarbonising electricity generation, much less progress has been made in electrifying heating and transport, leaving large parts of the economy heavily dependent on oil and gas.

Dan Marks, research fellow in energy security at the Royal United Services Institute (Rusi) tells The House that instability in fossil fuel markets is not temporary but structural.

“While Vladimir Putin is in charge of Russia, while the ayatollahs are in charge of Iran… Russia could be sanctioned at any point, and Iran can close the Strait of Hormuz at any point. So that’s structural risk built into the oil and gas market for an indefinite period of time.”

Advertisement

Unlike fossil fuels, which require continuous imports vulnerable to price shocks and disruption, renewable infrastructure generates energy domestically once installed. However, there are still widespread concerns around both the economic dependency and national security implications.

Chris Aylett, research fellow in the Environment and Society Centre at Chatham House, describes the most significant effect as being that the UK could forego huge economic opportunities in an energy system where China is the leader.

“China’s been working on this and developing this massive green industrial behemoth for decades,” he says.

“It’s absolutely at the top of its game, it’s producing to the highest quality and lowest cost, and it’s just really difficult to challenge that. Other countries, including in Europe, are making a bit of headway, but it’s not going to match China, and certainly not in the UK.”

Advertisement

This is likely to continue for the foreseeable future, as China is still building out its capacity.

The US may have been the only western economy with the scale to seriously challenge that dominance through former president Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which aimed to boost domestic green manufacturing, but that effort was weakened after President Donald Trump reversed major parts of the policy.

There is also concern that the US could pressure allies to remove Chinese technologies from energy supply chains, echoing the Huawei dispute. But Aylett believes this is increasingly unlikely as Washington’s leverage has weakened after the “strategic blunder” of the Iran War.

“It’s diminished him [Trump] in a way… his power on the world stage of being able to say and do whatever he wants,” Aylett says.

Advertisement

Alongside the economic risks are the direct risks to the UK’s national security from Chinese interference, which extend to both clean energy infrastructure itself and some of the communications technologies used.

Graeme Downie, Labour MP and chair of the Coalition for Secure Technology, points to Chinese-made cellular IoT modules – essentially low-tech semiconductors – which are prevalent in many products from traffic lights and IT routers to parts of the energy system.

“Anything that can communicate usually has a module in it,” he tells The House. “Energy security means security of supply, but it also means security of technology.”

Aylett warns that these connected technologies can create vulnerabilities regardless of where they are made.

Advertisement

“Connected technologies are vulnerable to cyber attacks, whether that be remotely operated via a back door, or whether they are just vulnerable to attack generally due to poor security standards and practices,” he says. “Russia, for example, doesn’t make clean energy tech but engages in cyber attacks on energy infrastructure. So that is a risk.”

Downie believes the current crisis should force a broader rethink of the UK’s energy security system. “We should have learned this lesson after the Russian invasion of Ukraine,” he says. “We’ve got to take this opportunity to do it properly.”

After multiple national security incidents involving China in recent years – including the arrest and investigation of individuals accused of spying for China, and warnings from MI5 that China represents a significant long-term espionage and interference threat – the UK government is alive to the risks.

China’s been working on this and developing this massive green industrial behemoth for decades

Advertisement

In March, the UK blocked Chinese wind company Ming Yang from building a £1.5bn turbine factory in Scotland on national security grounds. The government has refused to elaborate on the reasons for that decision when asked by The House. Some speculate, however, it reflects a more aggressive stance on the technologies and desire to widen the supply base.

Mike Reader, Labour MP and member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee, argues Britain’s vulnerability is partly the result of decades of deindustrialisation. “The Conservatives left us completely reliant on a global supply chain without UK capability,” he says. “The de-industrialisation of the UK was done without considering our sovereignty and our security.”

The government is therefore now trying to strengthen domestic resilience. Pranesh Narayanan, senior research fellow in IPPR’s Centre for Economic Justice, says the UK’s updated Critical Minerals Strategy is more sophisticated than previous efforts because it identifies parts of the supply chain Britain could realistically develop, particularly refining capacity.

Advertisement

But he warns the funding attached – around £50m – is insufficient and “not necessarily commensurate with the scale of the problem”. He argues the government should allocate some money every year over a longer term towards this to build resilience.

The government’s industrial strategy, too, is described by Narayanan as taking “positive steps” to identify the manufacturing base that the UK could develop. “But it’s going to be slow to deliver, and you’re going to need to commit to delivering it over many, many years.”

There are signs of growing co-ordination across Europe. The UK recently joined the Hamburg Declaration alongside countries including Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands to develop a vast interconnected North Sea offshore wind grid.

Chatham House’s Aylett describes there as being a “decent amount of political will and momentum” in the UK to support the European wind sector, and develop offshore wind as one area where Britain could still carve out a competitive advantage.

However, any meaningful diversification away from China will take years and require sustained state intervention.

Advertisement

Narayanan points to India, Vietnam and Malaysia as countries developing alternative solar manufacturing capacity, but says markets alone will not solve the problem. “Some public effort is going to be needed as the market isn’t going to do it by itself,” he says.

Loom is set to produce further reports looking at where those alternative opportunities could emerge.

The Labour government has appeared to pursue a strategy closer to “de-risking” than “decoupling”: accepting that deep economic ties with China in sectors such as clean energy and critical minerals are unavoidable, but acknowledging that action is needed to reduce dependency.

European governments don’t want to communicate trade-offs

Advertisement

Reader says: “It’s an almost hawkish, anti-China argument to say, are we reliant on China? The whole world is reliant on China’s critical minerals and rare earths, whether you’re talking about wind, EVs, phone batteries, the toaster that you’ve just bought…

“I wouldn’t say we are more reliant on China because we have clean energy. We’re reliant on the critical minerals and rare earth minerals supply chain. What’s important is that the government is setting out strategies to deal with that upstream challenge… When we build the next batch of small modular reactors, the factory that builds the reactor has to be in the UK, so not in France, not in Taiwan, not in Korea, it has to be in the UK supply chain.”

The ‘de-risking’ approach has exposed tensions inside Whitehall between security hawks and departments such as the Treasury and the Department for Business and Trade, which are focused more on trade and investment. Business Secretary Peter Kyle, in particular, has been consistently keen on Chinese investment in the energy industry.

IPPR’s Narayanan argues policymakers need to be more precise about what dependency means. “What are the specific risks of buying things from China?” he asks. “Are we buying things that ultimately give the Chinese government some kind of access to our digital infrastructure or data?”

Advertisement

Rusi’s Marks argues that political leaders have avoided confronting difficult trade-offs. “What governments are meant to do is decide and to govern,” he says. “A lot of European governments – this isn’t just a UK problem – have just become technocratic, and all they really want to do is find win-wins: tweak this regulation, make this process slightly more efficient.

“They don’t want to communicate trade-offs. Nobody is preparing populations for what might happen if the Strait of Hormuz doesn’t open in the next two to three months. At no point have they come out and said we’re in a national emergency here.”

The energy transition may still reduce Britain’s exposure to the volatility of global fossil fuel markets, but the emerging debate suggests sovereignty in the age of net zero is becoming more complicated than simply replacing oil with wind turbines.

The challenge for ministers is no longer whether dependency exists, but which dependencies Britain is willing to accept and how much resilience it is prepared to pay for. It is a difficult balance for any government to strike, particularly one already grappling with multiple competing crises and mounting pressure to bring down energy bills for households still struggling through the cost-of-living crisis. 

Advertisement

Source link