The Nuclear Consequences of Brexit

Arushi Vig


After the 2016 Brexit verdict, one area of several areas of concern is nuclear energy. The British civil nuclear programme was meshed with Euratom since the UK's inclusion in the EU in 1973. One consequence of Brexit is Prime Minister Theresa May’s seeming determination to part ways with all EU institutions including Euratom. This article evaluates the consequences both for the UK as well as Euratom.

Euratom was set up by EU member states to create a specialist market for nuclear power in Europe. It also oversees the nuclear industry of its members; ensuring free, safe and quick transportation of nuclear materials and manpower, synergising research, and synchronising safety standards, among others. Consequently ,one of the first implications of Brexit would be the costs, which could go up to a few billion pounds, for developing new safety norms and procedures, as it implies the creation of domain knowledge and the associated costs of duplication, including setting up a new agency. Also, a Euratom exit could initially cause delays in materials and manpower which could have a negative impact on UK’s medical industry specifically in the field of chemotherapy where nuclear energy is explicitly used.

If Brexatom were to occur, it could also cause the UK to lose its association with EU countries as well as other major powers such as the US and Japan. Since joining in 1973, any nuclear treaties with other countries (including any signed before that date) were placed under the aegis of Euratom. If the UK leaves the Euratom, all its complex nuclear treaties with the US and the rest of Europe which mesh into an international web would need to be re-ratified in national legislatures and the UK. This is a large international legislative task. If the treaties are not re-ratified by national parliaments on time, then, depending on the treaty, the UK could possibly be in breach of the NPT because of the delay caused. 

Additionally, the UK does not have the same active nuclear research base it once had. Although the UK has more extensive experience of decommissioning than its European partners, this is not uniquely specialised knowledge, and most of the private companies involved are multinational. While Euratom allowed a highly skilled British workforce to benefit from a large Europe-wide ecosystem of research, the prospects of an NPT breach or of a manpower shortage would all severely affect the possibility of cooperation, including and especially research.

Despite all this, there remains a point of view that the Euratom does not remain the same viable nuclear agency it was and had been destroyed by a powerful member state, Germany. Germany's nuclear net capacity of 10.799 MWe (the second highest in the EU), and a total of 8 power plants were severely shrunk with its announcement to terminate its nuclear power plants by 2022 in the wake of the Fukushima incident. Its decision to forego the nuclear option significantly reduced the market viability of European civil nuclear research and cooperation. Aside from Germany, Europe's lack of public consultations, its old treaty systems, and limited role of the European Parliament in overseeing Euratom had made it a public relations disaster. Also, the UK possess the second highest number of power plants in the EU and a net capacity worth 8.918 MWe. Brexit therefore would further weaken Euratom, already reeling from the German decision and compounded by the fact that the UK is a powerful pro-nuclear voice in the organisation.

However for Britain, the dilemma would still be who would inspect British civil nuclear sites that generate power, fabricate fuel and manage waste. Euratom and the IAEA oversee them now, although the IAEA has scaled back because of overlap. Additionally, Euratom includes other powerful members such as France which has a total of 58 reactors and a net capacity of 63.130 MWe and Sweden with 10 reactors and a net capacity worth 9.651 MWe. Thus the benefits reaped by the UK from Euratom are much more than the other way round.

Internally, the British government remains divided regarding its exit from Euratom. MPs in the upper house of parliament maintained the stance that the country should not leave Euratom till a replacement deal is found, voting 194 out of 265. However the PM has explicitly stated that she wants to cut ties with all organisations of the EU, specifically those that come under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). 

There were talks of an associate membership with Euratom once the UK leaves the EU but speculations still surround the case, such as the future of the UK's research funding, its continued inclusion in the European Economic Area (EEA), and whether the UK would still invest in European projects such as the ITER fusion reactor project in France. These impending queries and the complexities associated with it have made an associate membership almost impossible.

Both sides would be adversely affected by Brexatom. However, the pain will be disproportionately felt by the UK, and this is what the government must remember as it negotiates the nuclear aspects of Brexit.

The Chabahar Port Project and Afghanistan’s Alternative Approach to Trade

Jawad Torabi

Historically, and given the tensions in bilateral relations, dependence on the Pakistani market and trade routes has been a point of vulnerability for Afghanistan, a landlocked country. To overcome this vulnerability, Kabul has begun looking for other alternative trade and transit routes, and the trilateral agreement between Afghanistan, Iran and India on the Chabahar Port is at the heart of this pursuit.

Needless to say, the Chabahar project has the potential to provide similar strategic advantages to Iran as was the case with Pakistan. It would provide Iran with opportunities to use those advantages as leverage with Afghanistan over key bilateral disagreements. Moreover, strategic calculations of some other global and regional actors vis-a-vis Chabahar could also impact Afghanistan's interests in the long-term. Thus, Kabul will need take into account a thorough understanding of those challenges and formulate policies that help overcome the obstacles smartly.

Evolving Hydro-Politics in the Kabul-Tehran BilateralWater sharing remains a major bilateral issue between Iran and Afghanistan. Iran is facing a severe rainfall deficit and Afghanistan is concerned about a possible drought like situation and is in dire need of electricity. Iran's President Hassan Rouhani raised his concerns over dam construction in Afghanistan several times and has emphasised that Afghanistan must provide Iran’s share of Helmand River water. Afghanistan has responded by blaming Iran of excessive use of water and construction of 600 dams resulting in the drying up of some of the trans-boundary water bodies. More recently, in a worrisome development, the Special Military Adviser to the Iranian Supreme Leader, Yahya Rahim Safavi, recently described Afghanistan as the ‘source of future of water controversies’ that Iran will face. He further stated that one of the reasons behind the US' presence in Afghanistan is to influence its government to take certain policy actions on shared waters between Afghanistan and Iran.

Regional and Geopolitical ChallengesIn addition to bilateral challenges, there are other regional and geopolitical concerns that may have a bearing on the trilateral agreement. Recently, Iran's ambassador to Afghanistan underscored the necessity of improving relations between the banks of both countries. Earlier Iran had also urged Afghan banks to open branches in Chabahar.

On the other hand, on the regional level, both Pakistan and China consider the trilateral agreement as India's strategic counter to the China-Pakistan cooperation on the Gwadar Port project in Pakistan's Balochistan province. A possible counter-action by Islamabad and Beijing could have consequences for all parties to the Chabahar Project, including Afghanistan. By offering to extend China's Belt and Road Initiative to Afghanistan via the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, Beijing and Islamabad have already begun work on a counter-balance to Chabahar.

Meanwhile, recently, the US gave assurances of non-interference in the “legitimate” business activities between India with Iran. According to the US' new South Asia strategy that was announced late last year, Washington is in favour of an improved Afghan economy and Kabul's relations with other regional countries, especially India. However, the current position taken by the administration in Washington led by US President Donald Trump on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) agreement—a possible withdrawal in the coming months—and related uncertainties could put both Afghan and Indian banks at risk of facing possible sanctions if they continue their relations with Iranian banks.

Potential OpportunitiesFallout between Iran and Afghanistan over the water issue could potentially impact the trilateral project negatively due to the domino effect on trade interests, transit routes, markets and revenue collections of all three parties—Afghanistan, Iran and India. Conversely, it can also be argued that the port agreement might even help facilitate hydro-diplomacy between Iran and Afghanistan by finding a point of convergence for their interests. Moreover, given its friendly relations with both countries, New Delhi may even be able to mediate to help resolve disagreements between Tehran and Kabul that have a bearing on the Chabahar port, in the long run.

Looking AheadIt is important to consider that Chabahar is only one component of the broader jigsaw of Afghanistan’s alternative approach towards addressing trade uncertainties, and is one of the many steps Kabul is undertaking to insulate Afghanistan from shocks to its economy. Nonetheless, other obstacles such as lack of infrastructure, security concerns etc continue to threaten the future of the Chabahar project. Although Iran recently became Afghanistan's biggest trading partner, Pakistan—with cheaper transit routes for Afghan products—continues to retain the position of a major market.

In the past, despite lack of full implementation, agreements such as the Afghanistan-Pakistan Transit Trade Agreement (APTTA) helped implement a rule based system on bilateral trade to some extent. Reaching and fully enforcing new agreements like APTTA between Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan could help establish a rule-based system of engagement in the region. Meanwhile, the Afghan government should continue exploring new cost-efficient areas of opportunities with clearer prospects to ensure it always has more options. Speeding-up the implementation of projects such as the Lapiz Lazuli corridor and establishing more cost-effective air and road corridors to potential markets could be a step in this regard.

Kabul must take in to account key factors—such as risk assessment; tying objectives with tangible outcomes; and looking ahead through a realistic lens—while undertaking an alternative trade and transit approach for Afghanistan.

Bridging the Gap (BTG) Animation Laboratory for Animation Artists (Fully-funded to Tenerife, Spain) 2018

Application Deadline: 29th April 2018

Eligible Countries:

• Latin America and the Caribbean: Bolivia, Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Paraguay, Peru and the Dominican Republic;
• North Africa and the Middle East: Mauritania, Morocco, Western Sahara and Palestinian Territories;
• Sub-Saharan Africa: Mali, Niger, Senegal, Ethiopia, Equatorial Guinea and Mozambique; and the Philippines.

To Be Taken At (Country): Tenerife, Spain.

About the Award: BTG is organized by Bridging the Gap, with the main sponsorship of the Cabildo de Tenerife through Turismo de Tenerife and INtech Tenerife (Science and Technology Park of Tenerife), the collaboration of TLP Tenerife and the support of Cooperación Española, through the Program ACERCA of Training for Development in the Cultural Sector.
The laboratory aims to strengthen and promote international animation projects from around the world and facilitate the creation of international collaborations and networks.

Type: Training

Eligibility: 

• The program is open to young professionals and students with an animation project of a feature film or a series in state of pre-production, development or production.
• Short films with the potential to become a feature film or a series would also be accepted.
• Among the received projects, twelve will be selected to participate in this laboratory that will include activities like conferences and personalized consulting meetings, given by several prestigious professionals of the sector.

Number of Awards: Bridging the Gap will give 4 scholarships between all received applications. 3 of them will be for
participants from the above indicated nationalities; the fourth will be for participants from the other nationalities.

Value of Award: 

• These scholarships include the course registration, accommodation and meals during the days of the course, as well as the flight to Tenerife.
• BTG will also offer a full scholarship for one participant from the countries not included in the list above and the festival and market 3D Wire one for a Spanish participant.

Duration of Program: July 15th to 21st 2018

How to Apply: 

• For animation series and animated feature-films the following material is required: 3 high quality pictures, characters description, project dossier, production company curriculum & director’s biography/ filmography.
• For animated short films the following material is required: 3 high quality pictures, project dossier, production company curriculum & director’s biography/ filmography.
• The sending of additional material to help to know better the project will be valued positively (graphic materials, teaser, trailer, working demo, etc.).
• Participants must send a scan of their ID or passport.

5.5 All the material has to be sent to: info@bthegap.com
Interested applicants should go through the rules and regulations in the Program Webpage before applying.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers:  Bridging the Gap

International Teaching Artist Conference (ITAC4) for Professionals in Music, Arts, Film and Dance 2018 – New York, USA

Application Deadline: 30th April 2018.

Eligible Countries: All

To Be Taken At (Country): New York, USA

About the Award: The International Teaching Artist Conference brings together artists, organizations, funders, and researchers. The conference is inclusive and serves all artists who work in educational and community settings.
An ITAC conference explores key issues related to participatory arts practice, and includes a mix of keynote speeches, panel sessions, curated conversations, practical workshops, round-table discussions, poster sessions and a film program.  Delegates come from around the world to explore the best thinking and practice in participatory arts and teaching artistry informed by projects, practice, and research in the field.

Type: Conference

Eligibility: To be eligible for a financial package, you must meet the following criteria:

• You would be unable to attend the conference without financial support.
• Participation in the conference will clearly contribute to your professional development.
• You work or study in the field of teaching artistry.
• You are not supported by an organisation.

Financial packages are non-transferable. Awardees who are unable to take up the supported package must relinquish it.

Number of Awards: Limited

Value of Award: A limited number of full and partial financial assistance packages are available for artists from around the world to attend the conference. Financial assistance is intended to support artists and students working in the field of teaching artistry for whom the conference costs are a barrier to attending.
Financial assistance packages include:

• Full scholarships: All conference fees, four nights’ accommodation and a contribution towards travel of up to a maximum of $1 000.
• Partial scholarships: All conference fees and a contribution towards travel/accommodation of up to a maximum of $500.

Duration of Program: 13 to 15 September 2018.

How to Apply: Click here to apply.

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: International Teaching Artist Conference

DAAD Helmut-Schmidt Masters in Public Policy and Good Governance Scholarship Programme for Developing Countries 2018

Application Deadline: 31st July 2018 (Application opens 1ST JUNE)

Eligible Countries: Developing Countries

To be taken at (country): Germany

About the Award: This programme is designed to further qualify future leaders in politics, law, economics and administration according to the principles of good governance and to prepare them in a praxis-oriented course for their professional life.
Very good graduates with a first university degree get the chance to obtain a master’s degree in disciplines that are of special relevance to the social, political and economic development of their home country.
The knowledge and experience acquired in Germany should enable the scholarship holders to later contribute to the establishment of democratically oriented economic and social systems aimed at overcoming social differences.
In addition, the training at German institutions of higher education should qualify the scholarship holders to become partners in the political and economic co-operation with Germany.

Type: Masters

Eligibility: 

• The scholarship scheme is open to graduates in the field of social sciences, political sciences, law, economics and in public administration from Africa, Latin America, South Asia and Southeast Asia, from countries in the Middle East as well as from the Ukraine.
• The programme is open for very well qualified graduates with a first university degree (bachelor or equivalent) who want to actively contribute to the social and economic development of their home countries.
• The scholarships are offered both for young graduates without professional experience and for mid-career professionals.

Selection Criteria: The main DAAD criteria for selection are the following:

• the study results so far
• knowledge of English (and German)
• political and social engagement
• a convincing description of the subject-related and
• personal motivation for the study project in Germany and the expected benefit when returning to the home country.
• The latest university degree should have been obtained during the six years prior to the application for the scholarship.
• Applicants cannot be considered if they have stayed in Germany for more than 15 months at the time of application.

All master´s courses have further additional requirements that must be fulfilled by the applicants in any case.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Program: 

• Prior to their study programmes all scholarship holders receive a 6- months-German language course from April 2019 to September 2019. The language courses take place at selected institutes in Germany and not at the universities of the selected master´s courses.
• The language course is compulsory also for those who attend a master´s course taught in English. The scholarship holders are offered a special tutoring at their host institutions financed by DAAD.
• Furthermore, there is the possibility to attend networking events. DAAD pays a monthly scholarship rate of currently 750 €.
• The scholarship also includes contributions to health insurance in Germany.
• In addition, DAAD grants an appropriate travel allowance and a study and research subsidy as well as rent subsidies and/or allowances for spouses and/or children where applicable.
• DAADscholarship holders within the Helmut-Schmidt-Programme are exempted from tuition fees.

How to Apply: Applications have to be submitted in German or English. Please indicate that you are applying for the DAAD Helmut-Schmidt Programme (Master’s scholarships for Public Policy and Good Governance).
It is important to go through the Application requirements in the Program Webpage before applying.

Visit Program Webpage for details

Award Provider: Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (German Academic Exchange Service)

Learn Africa Fully-funded Graduate Scholarships for African Women to Study in Spain 2018/2019

Application Deadline: 6th May 2018

Eligible Countries: African countries

To Be Taken At (Country): Spain

About the Award: This program, promoted by the Women for Africa Foundation, aims to promote the transfer of knowledge, exchange and training of African women undergraduate and graduate students through scholarships in Spanish universities that collaborate in this initiative. Thanks to these scholarships, the selected students can complement their university education in our country, and then invest what has been learned to benefit their communities, thus contributing to the progress of African societies.
The scholarships are funded by the universities participating in the program – all of them, members of the Conference of Rectors of Spanish Universities (CRUE) – and cover round trips, tuition and fees, accommodation, maintenance and medical insurance.

Type: Masters, PhD

Eligibility: In general, any person who meets the following requirements:

• Be a woman and have the nationality of an African country.
• Be enrolled in an African university or have a university degree issued in an African country. For Postgraduate Scholarships, the Degree title is required. The required degree can vary depending on the requested scholarship (See details of each scholarship).
• Meet the specific requirements of each type of scholarship.
• Only one application per person

Selection Process: 

• The selection process will be coordinated by the Women for Africa Foundation and will take place between May 7 and June 21, according to the following criteria: academic record, curriculum (previous training, languages, stays in other countries, mobility, Professional experience), motivation letter and, for doctoral fellowships, a research project.
• The final selection will be agreed with each of the participating universities, the results of the selection process will be available at the end of June on the Foundation’s website and will be personally communicated to each of the selected applicants.

Number of Awards: Not specified

Value of Award: 

• The scholarship includes one return ticket to-from the student’s country of origin, university fees, health insurance, accommodation and food.
• Cost coverage for other extra expenses, such as the cost of opening a bank account, transport in the city and pocket money, is not guaranteed.
• Responsibilities:  Once the scholarship has been completed, they are committed to returning to their place of residence and to providing a report on their personal and academic experience – on the basis provided by the Women for Africa Foundation – so that an evaluation of the outcomes can be carried out and, if necessary, make changes in the scholarship program as appropriate. Likewise, The Foundation and the Spanish universities of destination may make full or partial use, on their website or in some of their publications, regarding the content of the report prepared by the scholarship holders after their stay in Spain. In this case, the Women for Africa Foundation may mention the author (s) of said content.

Duration of Program: 

• The scholarships included in this call have a variable duration depending on the modality agreed with each of the host universities and the training program offered, comprising periods ranging from six months, in the case of some research staying to four years for those aiming to Master and Doctorate.
• All the scholarships of this call will take place during the academic year 2018-2019.

How to Apply:

• For scholarships where Spanish is the main language, a high command of the language is required. This high level of Spanish is to be proven by submitting an internationally recognised certificate or through a phone conversation.
• The student must be aware that she is expected to submit a copy of her university degree duly attested by her country’s ministry.
• The student must remember that certain administrative procedures require payment at her country of origin (visa, certificate/records ratification and translation, etc.)

Apply here

Visit the Program Webpage for Details

Award Providers: Learn Africa

EcoBank Fintech Challenge 2018 for Programmers and Developers in Africa

Application Deadline: 17th May, 2018

Offered annually? Yes

Eligible Countries: African countries

To be taken at (country): Top teams will be selected to pitch at the bank’s Innovation Fair, which will be held at the global headquarters of Ecobank in Lomé in May, 2018.

Eligible Fields: Teams are to submit applications addressing one or more of the following challenges

• Digital Onboarding / Account Opening / KYC
• Remittances
• Digital Sales / Marketing
• Offline Mobile to Mobile Payments (Dead Zones)
• Multi-Channel Corporate Payments / Collections Ecosystems
• SME Intra-Africa Trade Platform

About the Award:  Ecobank is challenging Africa’s new generation of entrepreneurs to find lasting solutions to the continent’s most pressing banking issues. Submit entries in one or more of our key areas of interest for your Chance to win up to $500,000 funding.

Type: Contest

Eligibility: 

• All African startups and technology innovators are eligible to apply for the challenge. They are to choose from different areas of interest as listed on the website and build a demo to serve as prototype — applicants without demo would be disqualified.
• The Challenge is open to both teams and individuals.
• Teams can submit solutions for more than one challenge but are limited to only one entry per challenge (“Entry”).
• Individuals are not allowed to participate in multiple teams. Switching teams after applying is not allowed. Ecobank will cover travel and accommodation costs for up to two participants from each team.

Selection:  A total of 20 teams will be selected for the Ecobank Fintech Challenge event (“Event”), which will be held at the global headquarters of Ecobank in Lomé in May, 2018.

Number of Awardees: 20 teams

Value of Contest: $500,000

How to Apply: Interested participants can apply here

Visit Contest Webpage for details

Award Provider: Ecobank

Government crisis in the Czech Republic

Markus Salzmann 

Over a dozen protests took place last Monday, April 9, in the Czech Republic against Prime Minister Andrej Babis, including in the capital city of Prague, where between 5,000 and 10,000 people demonstrated at Wenceslas Square, demanding the withdrawal of Babis and new elections.

The protests are the latest climax of an ongoing crisis in the Czech government. Babis’s right-liberal ANO won a strong victory in October of last year, taking 78 of 200 seats in parliament. Since then, however, he has failed to form a stable government.

After the elections, ANO tried to form a minority government, with ministers from its own party and independent experts. But this attempt failed in January, after a loss in a vote of confidence. Over a week ago coalition talks between Babis’s right-liberal party and the social democrats (CSSD) ended unsuccessfully. To this point, Babis has received the backing of the notoriously right-wing president Milos Zeman, but it remains to be seen how long this will last.

The CSSD dissolved the talks under the pretense of judicial problems in regard to the prime minister. Babis lost his position as finance minister in May 2017 due to a suspected subsidy fraud. He is accused of having diverted €1.6 million in European Union subsidies to a wellness resort while he worked in the private sector. Babis denies any involvement and claims that the accusation is politically motivated.

The millionaire businessman is renewing efforts to form an alliance with the radical right-wing party of the businessman Tomio Okamura, Freedom and Direct Democracy (SPD), and the Communist Party (KSCM). Babis stated at the beginning of last week, “The president requested that I continue negotiations with the KSCM and the SPD.” Previous attempts to build an alliance at the end of last year had proven unsuccessful.

The realization of Zeman’s request would inevitably create heavy tensions within the ANO. Transport Minister Daniel Tok has already declared that he would have no part in a government with radical right-wing elements.

To combat the lasting crisis, the social democrats, the conservative right-wing parties ODS and KDU-CSL, the Pirates, and two smaller Pro-EU parties are currently discussing the formation of a minority government.

In the event of new elections, it is believed that ANO would reach again a strong plurality. After the most recent polls, Babis’s party stood at the front with roughly 30 percent support. These results are strongly influenced by the current hatred of both the conservatives and social democrats.

Although many demonstrators are enraged by the corruption of the ruling elite, the organizers of last week’s protests have very different goals. Their demands for an “honest government” hide their hysterical anticommunism and their fear that Babis’s government will distance itself too far from the EU. Politically, they stand close to the conservatives and social democrats.

It is not acceptable that a head of government “has been registered as an agent of the communist secret police,” it says on the Facebook page of the protest organizers. They are specifically enraged by Babis’s attempts to form an alliance with the former Stalinist state party, which, in their eyes, represents socialism.

The organizers of the movement “A Million Moments for Democracy,” led by student Mikulas Minar, advocate for a pro-European government that is stable enough to enforce austerity policies against the working class. Under the title “Five Minutes Before Twelve,” the group warns of the dangers to the “independent police.” An important aspect of the protests was the appearance of the mezzo-soprano Dagmar Peckova, who sang the Czech national anthem with the demonstrators under dozens of Czech and European flags.

It is hardly surprising that the demonstrations began when Babis suggested a popular vote on the withdrawal of the Czech Republic from the EU, which was also supported by President Zeman. This suggestion alarmed many proponents of the EU.

The “Czexit Debate” has become “part of a political game,” explained Matthias Barner, leader of the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU)-aligned Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung to the newspaper Handelsblatt. “Babis is still lacking a majority in the parliament and is now dealing with elements critical of the EU.”

The organizers of the protests are also worried of a continuing political crisis, which prevents the government from suppressing growing discontent among the working class.

Following protests by public servants in February, the workers of the auto manufacturer Skoda made preparations for strike action. In the face of the heated political situation, business leaders and politicians were ready to pay any price to avoid a strike, which could quickly expand to the entire auto industry in the Czech Republic, and thus the trade union, Kovo, was able to reach a deal providing employees of Skoda with a 12 percent raise starting in April.

University and College Union sells out UK lecturers strike

Robert Stevens

The struggle by around 50,000 lecturers, librarians, administration staff and technicians to defend their pensions and conditions has been betrayed by the University and College Union (UCU).

Last Friday, the union leadership achieved its desired goal. After 14 days of strikes—which the UCU, in collaboration with management, had sought to close down—members voted to accept an offer from the Universities UK (UUK) by a 64 percent to 36 percent majority.

UCU leader Sally Hunt hailed the result as a “clear majority” in favour of the proposals. In reality, despite the UCU’s incessant pressure on members to accept the offer over the nine-day balloting period, more than a third of the 33,973 who voted rejected the deal.

In addition, almost 20,000 (19,442) did not vote at all. This means that 31,672 members out of a potential 53,415, have not endorsed the deal--fully 59.2 percent of those balloted.

Nonetheless, in the absence of a political alternative to the trade union leaders, the bureaucracy has been able to shut down the action.

The strike was the largest ever held at higher education institutions in the UK, with workers at 65 universities striking to oppose the decimation of their pensions.

Under UUK proposals some members of the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS) were set to lose more than £200,000 of their retirement income, and many others, tens of thousands of pounds. The ultimate aim of UUK, as stated in their August 2017 policy document, is to end a national pension scheme altogether in favour of “flexible schemes.”

The UCU leadership claims to have extracted concessions from UUK but this is a lie. Management has only committed to convening a “Joint Expert Panel, comprised of actuarial and academic experts nominated in equal numbers from both sides.” This will “deliver a report” on the valuation of the USS.

Further proposals will be made that will invariably fall far below staff demands, given that the USS trustees and the pension regulators are not obliged to accept the outcome.

The proposal states that current contributions and benefits from the USS, including Defined Benefits (DB), could continue for members, but only for another year--“until at least April 2019.” After that, management will be able to put in place mechanisms to end the DB system and move to an inferior Defined Contributions plan.

That is why management—with the backing of the UCU—refused to include a “No Detriment” clause in the eight-point offer supposedly guaranteeing that USS members will not suffer further pension cuts.

The UCU Higher Education Committee played the key role in getting the offer through by suspending the strikes after 14 days of action and referring it to an e-ballot. This was aimed at isolating staff, who were then subject to a battery of UCU propaganda insisting no better offer would be forthcoming.

This was essential under conditions in which there was widespread opposition to the proposed deal from UCU branches that had met and discussed the offer. Several branches passed motions of no confidence in Hunt’s leadership.

UCU strikers had already rejected the first shoddy deal the union agreed with UUK on March 12, which would have resulted in the loss by lecturers of an average 19 percent in the value of their pensions, and the maintenance of the current “defined benefits” scheme for just three years.

The following day thousands of UCU members met in universities nationally and rebelled against the UCU. Hundreds surrounded the UCU’s London headquarters and demanded the agreement endorsed by the union the previous evening be repudiated.

It was to demobilise this opposition that, before the ballot period had even begun, the UCU reduced the number of universities scheduled to be involved in strike action this week from 65 to 13.

The closing down of the strike is an indictment of the UCU Left, which functions as the political appendage of the bureaucracy.

The UCU Left comprises various pseudo-left organisations--who have members on the union’s leading bodies--most prominently the Socialist Workers Party (SWP). Having refused to wage a struggle against the efforts of the union tops to sabotage the action, the UCU Left now seeks to persuade workers that the union is a fighting organisation that requires only a few cosmetic changes at the top.

A UCU Left statement, issued as the e-ballot closed on April 13, hailed a growth in membership during the strike, which “produced a transformation in our union in just a matter of weeks, creating a broad layer of new activists and leaders throughout our union.”

The problem, however, is that workers had been recruited into an organisation preparing to sell them out. And the pseudo-left--rather than utilising this recruitment to mount a rebellion against the bureaucracy—was politically disarming workers in the face of these preparations. A subsequent statement issued April 13, after the Yes vote was confirmed, accepted that the union bureaucracy remains in control of pension negotiations, even while admitting that pension cuts were the only likely outcome.

“The union now has a complicated dual task: keeping up the pressure for the best outcome from the Independent Expert Panel,” the UCU Left wrote, “and, at the same time, maintaining our organisation so that if the outcome is a pension cut--as is likely--we are able to ballot for industrial action and carry it out effectively.”

After making, in its initial April 13 statement, a few token criticisms of an e-ballot that exposed “a deep democratic deficit in our trade union,” the UCU Left declared, “[W]e need democratic structures and a democratic culture that properly reflects our transformed union.”

As for Hunt, the UCU Left declared in its statement following the Yes vote, “We have no desire to personalise the issue but she must publicly affirm that [future] negotiations must go through the proper channels. And if she is not prepared to carry out UCU policy then she should stand down altogether.”

The SWP similarly declared in the run-up to the ballot result that “the strikes have created a stronger, more dynamic union,” insisting that all that is required is the refurbishing of a “transformed,” “fighting” union. The truth is that the UCU’s sell-out is not the result of deficient “structures” or a “culture,” just as Hunt’s actions are not simply a matter of her personality.

They flow organically from the nature of the trade unions themselves, which function as industrial policemen on behalf of the government and employers. Their ability to increase the exploitation of their members—through declining wages, the erosion of pensions and other social rights—therefore depends on the suppression of the democratic rights of the rank-and-file.

That is why the defence of workers jobs, conditions and living standards cannot be entrusted to the unions.

The pseudo-left seeks to conceal this fact because they speak for privileged middle-class layers, hostile to the political independence of the working class, and function as factions of the Labour Party and union apparatus.

Throughout the dispute the Socialist Equality Party and its Education FightBack campaign sought to arm workers with an understanding of the unions and the political context in which their struggle was unfolding—an ever-deepening crisis of global capitalism that was the source of austerity and war.

Only the building of new rank-and-file and workplace committees that reject the subordination of the working class to the capitalist profit system and which make the defence of the social needs of all workers the axis of their struggle can show the way forward.

This requires the adoption of a new, socialist perspective and the building of a genuinely socialist party—the Socialist Equality Party.

Barcelona: Hundreds of thousands protest against jailing of Catalan independence leaders

Paul Mitchell

Hundreds of thousands protested in Barcelona on Sunday against the imprisonment of Catalan nationalist leaders and for those who fled abroad following the failed independence bid last October to be allowed to return.

Since October, Catalonia has remained under the control of Madrid after Popular Party (PP) Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy invoked Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution and sought to “decapitate” the secessionist movement through arrests with the support of the Socialist Party (PSOE) and the Citizens party.

The Catalan parliament has been unable to appoint a new premier or administration four months after Rajoy imposed elections on December 21, when the separatist parties were re-elected with a small majority. If a new leader is not elected by May 22, new regional elections must be held.

The Barcelona demonstration

Around 315,000 people took part in the demonstration, according to the Catalan municipal police. The organisers—Space for Democracy and Co-existence (Espai Democràcia i Convivència), which comprises social and cultural groups; the Catalan branches of Spain’s two largest trade unions, the CCOO and the UGT; nationalist political parties; and the pseudo-left Podemos-led coalition Catalonia in Common—all estimated the turnout at 750,000.

The demonstration was held under the slogan, “We demand the freedom of all politicians and imprisoned leaders, as well as the return of the exiles”—a reference to the nine jailed and seven exiled secessionist leaders who organised the failed independence bid. They are accused of sedition, rebellion and embezzlement and could face sentences of up to 30 years in prison.

Many of the protesters wore a yellow ribbon to show solidarity with the jailed leaders. However, there were far fewer independence flags than in previous demonstrations, as it attracted considerable numbers of workers and youth who did not support secession but opposed Rajoy’s repressive actions.

The manifesto of Space for Democracy and Co-existence calls for the “defence of Catalan institutions and the right of the Catalans to decide their future” and makes a “firm commitment to the outcome of 21-D [December 21 election].” It pleads that “Political problems have to be solved in the political sphere and through dialogue and negotiation.”

A message was read out to the demonstration from the president of Òmnium Cultural, Jordi Cuixart, saying, “There are moments of injustice but also of hope. All of you are the motor of the struggle for freedom for a future without sacrifices for anyone. Unity, dignity and courage. … Thank you for not forgetting us…do not let yourselves be frightened, continue fighting for civil rights in a peaceful way.”

A section of the Barcelona demonstration

For six months, Cuixart and Jordi Sànchez, the former president of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC), have been locked up in prison. Sànchez was elected a Together for Catalonia (JxCat) deputy on December 21, but attempts to propose him as a candidate to head a new Catalan regional government have twice been prevented by the courts refusing to let him out of jail to be sworn in.

Both men are accused of organising pro-independence demonstrations last September, which led to some policemen being trapped inside a government building and their vehicles being damaged…to the tune of around €17,000! They are also accused of mobilising people to obstruct police as the police attempted to close down polling booths and confiscate ballot boxes during the October 1 independence referendum.

Former vice premier and Republican Left of Catalonia (ERC) leader Oriol Junqueras; ex-ministers Joaquim Forn, Jordi Turull, Raül Romeva, Josep Rull and Dolors Bassa; and former parliamentary speaker Carme Forcadell also remain incarcerated.

Ousted regional premier Carles Puigdemont is in Germany awaiting a decision on his extradition following his arrest there on a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) earlier this month. The court in Schleswig-Holstein freed Puigdemont on bail on April 6 and rejected the charges of rebellion in the warrant. It has yet to rule on another, lesser charge of embezzlement. Last week, Spanish prosecutors sent new information claiming Puigdemont incited violence—hoping to bolster the rebellion charge.

Others nationalist leaders in exile are Toni Comín, Meritxell Serret and Lluís Puig in Belgium, Anna Gabriel and Marta Rovira in Switzerland, and Clara Ponsatí in Scotland. EAWs have been reissued against them.

During the demonstration, the spokesperson of Puigdemont’s Together for Catalonia coalition, Elsa Artadi, said it disproved claims that the independence movement had disintegrated: “To all those who say that the movement is demobilised, that people are tired, we show them once again that is not the case and that the result of 21-D is felt today in the streets.”

Lluc Salellashas, a national secretariat member of the petty-bourgeois nationalist Candidatures of Popular Unity (CUP), went further, proclaiming that the demonstration marked the “definitive beginning of the Catalan spring to end the authoritarianism and the regime of ’78 in Catalonia”—a cipher for the bourgeois democratic state set up after the end of the Francoist dictatorship.

Roger Torrent, the current speaker of the Catalan parliament, denounced the “repression that threatens the fundamental pillars of democracy that the Spanish State is making.”

Referring to the broad number of organisations on the demonstration, some of whom do not support independence—including the CCOO, UGT and Catalonia in Common—Torrent added, “When we are transversal, when we are plural and we join in the defence of rights and democracy, we are unstoppable.”

The theme of “transversality” was also stressed by Marta Vilalta, spokesperson for Esquerra Republicana, who repeated the party’s call for “a democratic front against repression,” and the head of Catalonia in Common, Xavier Domènech, who declared that “transversal mobilisation is the way to recover rights and freedoms.”

That broad layers of the population took part in Sunday’s protest against mass repression and authoritarianism shows the deep-rooted opposition that exists and is to be welcomed. However, the most urgent warnings must be made: Xavier Domènech’s words are a fraud. Spain’s Podemos party has played the central role in blocking an independent mobilisation of the working class against the PP’s attacks, adopting an impotent policy of issuing moral appeals to Rajoy to negotiate with Barcelona.

Last year, Podemos helped organise “White” demonstrations, since demobilised, under the slogan, in Spanish and Catalan, “Hablemos/Parlem” (Let’s Talk). But the manifesto was wrapped in the language of patriotism and an appeal for Podemos to be recognised as a potential saviour of Spain at a time of acute crisis.

This crisis is not simply one of the 1978 Spanish Constitution, as Podemos and the CUP suggests, but of European and world capitalism. The budget battles and fights over regional autonomy between the ruling elites in Madrid and Barcelona developed over a decade, as the European Union reacted to the global financial collapse with massive bank bailouts financed by devastating austerity measures against the working class across the continent. The formation of a Catalan capitalist republic, led by politicians who have long supported austerity and imperialist war, will do nothing to resolve this international crisis.

US CEO pay, bank profits, corporate cash set new records

Barry Grey

Across the United States, workers are being told by Democrats and Republicans alike that there is “no money” for decent wages, pensions or health care. Teachers from West Virginia to Oklahoma, Kentucky, Arizona and other states are rebelling against near-poverty wages and years of school cuts only to be told by the politicians and union leaders that their demands are “unrealistic” and cannot be met.

But a series of reports on CEO pay, bank profits and corporate cash released over the past week reveal that corporate America and the financial oligarchy are wallowing in record levels of wealth. The Washington Post reported on Friday that, boosted by the tax cut for corporations and the rich passed in December, the biggest US firms “find themselves sitting on an Everest of cash,” with “profits pouring in faster than they can find productive ways to spend it.”

“As of the end of 2017,” the Post noted, “companies in the Standard & Poor’s 500 stock index were sitting on the largest cash pile in history: nearly $1.8 trillion.”

The windfall from the Trump tax cut, passed with no serious opposition from the Democrats, is not, contrary to the lies used to justify the law, going to create new, good-paying jobs and rebuild the country’s crumbing infrastructure. It is being used for stock buybacks, a parasitic squandering of the wealth produced by the labor of the working class to drive up stock prices and the portfolios of rich investors and corporate executives.

In February alone, US corporations announced a single-month record $150.7 billion in buybacks. They are expected to hit a new yearly record in 2018, surpassing the previous record of $589 billion set in 2007, the year before the Wall Street crash. Over the past 10 years, the American capitalist class has spent $5.1 trillion in stock buybacks.

To put this in perspective, the Oklahoma teachers, among the lowest-paid in the country, demanded $200 million in additional school funding to begin to address a decade of brutal cuts. The state government agreed to a mere $50 million, which the Oklahoma Education Association hailed as a “victory.”

The amount requested by the teachers represents a mere 0.01 percent of the cash being hoarded by US corporations.

This “Mount Everest” of cash controlled by perhaps one percent of the American people towers above the sums allocated by the federal government for basic social needs. The budget for the Department of Health and Human Services is only 60 percent of the corporate cash hoard. The corporate cash pile is 26 times the Department of Education budget, 56 times the budget for Housing and Urban Development, 150 times the Labor Department budget, and 225 times the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency.

According to a report on CEO pay released last week, requisitioning the combined pay of the three highest-earning chief executives in 2017 would virtually cover the Oklahoma teachers’ funding demand. Hock E. Tan (Broadcom) took in $103.2 million, Brian Duperreault (American International Group) received $42.8 million and Mark V. Hurd (Oracle) was paid $40.8 million, for a total of $186.8 million.

These reports, taken together, give a picture of a society that is being ruthlessly plundered by an unaccountable and avaricious financial oligarchy. The waste of resources and diversion of social wealth into the hands of a fabulously rich elite make it impossible to address any of the social problems confronting the population.

The other major squandering of resources is in the form of ever-expanding spending on the military and the preparations of the US ruling class for global war.

CEO pay

On April 11, the executive compensation research firm Equilar published its annual “Equilar 100” report, which examines CEO compensation at the 100 largest companies, by revenue. The study showed that median compensation for the 100 CEOs rose by 5 percent in 2017 from the previous year to reach an 11-year high of $15.7 million.

The median ratio of Equilar 100 CEO pay to that of a worker at the given company was 235 to one. However, some companies on the list had ratios even worse than the median. Manpower Group, whose CEO received $12 million, reported the highest ratio at 2,483 to one. The median pay of the company’s 600,000 workers was $4,828. The retail chain Kohl’s had a ratio of 1,264 to one.

The average pay of an Oklahoma teacher is $42,460. Median pay for Equilar 100 CEOs is 374 times that amount. The increase in median pay for Equilar 100 CEOs in 2017—$700,000—is itself 17 times the pay of the average Oklahoma teacher.

The second-highest paid CEO, Brian Duperreault ($42.8 million), heads the insurance giant American International Group (AIG), whose speculation in subprime mortgage-backed securities and credit default swaps played a central role in the financial crisis a decade ago that destroyed the savings and livelihoods of millions of people around the world and ushered in the Great Recession. His firm was bailed out by the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury to the tune of $150 billion.

Bank profits

Over the past week the major Wall Street banks have reported record or near-record profits for the first quarter of 2018. On Friday, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup and Wells Fargo reported a combined profit of more than $19 billion for the first three months of the year.

JPMorgan, the country’s biggest bank, reported a record quarterly net income of $8.71 billion. Its profits rose 35 percent over the same period a year ago. Earlier this month, CEO Jamie Dimon issued a letter to shareholders warning of rising wages and advising the Federal Reserve to jack up interest rates in order to stunt economic growth and drive up unemployment, so as to preempt the development of a nationwide wages movement.

It was a similar story at Citigroup (13 percent profit rise) and Wells Fargo (8 percent). Bank of America on Monday reported a 34 percent profit increase and Goldman Sachs on Tuesday said its profits jumped 26 percent.

A substantial part of the profit surge on Wall Street was due to the massive cut in the corporate tax rate. The five banks combined saved well above $2 billion as a result of a drastic reduction in their effective tax rates.

Speaking of the windfall from the tax law and other policies being implemented by Trump, with the tacit support of the Democrats, Citigroup Chief Financial Officer John Gerspach told reporters Friday that companies had only begun to take advantage of the changes. “I think the best is yet to come,” he said.

Putting an end to social inequality and the capitalist system that produces it are essential to providing employment, education, health care, housing, a comfortable retirement, access to culture, a safe environment and a modern infrastructure—that is, securing the basic social rights of the working class.