Humanity On The Road To Extinction?

Prithiraj Dullay 

We live on a beautiful and a delightful planet, which is so awesome and so perfect that we wonder at its creation. This has to be the greatest gift given to humanity by the force that created our world. We can call this force ‘God’ or some other force. We can only marvel at the purity and its absolute greatness. It was this ‘force’ that also created the magnificent Universe in which we live. We are a miniscule part of this vastness. Every religion pays tribute to this great gift.

Yet, so far into our search into space and billions of dollars later, we have not found anything remotely matching the fabulous Earth we live upon. I will not be so arrogant as to presume that there is no intelligent life among the billions of planets and galaxies that make up the Universe, which is so vast that it boggles the human imagination. At our moment in time, we are light years away from discovering any hospitable planet that can support life forms as complex as those on Earth, let alone the means to travel through such vast inter-planetary or inter galactic spaces! All we have is our Earth. Nothing else for the immediate future!

Generations from now, perhaps, we may find life forms comparable to those on our Earth, or we may not! Seen from space, our Earth is that magnificent blue-green-brown planet that hangs so delicately in the vast black velvet of space. Our beauty hangs in isolation. Truth be told: Right now we are on our own in the never ending vastness of deep space.

Why the ‘Force’ chose Earth for development is not for me to speculate. I am just grateful that my home is on planet Earth, in the present known Universe, which is violently hostile to the development of life, as we know it. Maybe ‘the Force’ intended that the Earth be first to be populated and that in some future time, other planets would be ready to accommodate us, as we overflowed Earth? Is it possible that we were ‘chosen’ to populate the Universe? I cannot answer that; like you, I can only speculate.

My great concern is why we should even think of colonizing another planet, when we have shown scant respect for the great gift of ‘Earth’ that we already have? Without any doubt, we can only continue where we left off viz. our great selfishness in driving our present world to near extinction in the name of making a vulgar profit. It is in this context that I wish to find an explanation of our attitude to gross and utterly mad exploitation of Mother Earth.

While I was still in exile in 1988, some 22 years ago, the ANC journal ‘Sechaba’ published my piece “Environmental Destruction in South Africa” in which I warned about the dangers of the pursuit of profit over all else and for the need for progressive forces to fight against the rape of our common heritage viz. our environment. The trade unions and the formations of progressive forces rallied to the call. Sadly, today a great many of our progressive forces have succumbed to the demon money god. In doing so, they have embraced the very forces of greed over the common good. Read this as a betrayal.

I have provided this introduction so as to contextualize how we railed against the forces of Apartheid for its neglect ‘of our people’. Yet after the defeat of Apartheid, we are still faced with the spin doctors of the new order, who want us to believe that we need to hush-hush and accept the non-existent benefits of our silence and complacency. Please read another betrayal here.

So, now we have reached the stage of using a very warped logic for the continued pillage of the Earth and its resources. When we closely examine the beneficiaries of the new order, and those who are seeking our support, we find amongst them many of our ‘comrades’. Read here   yet another betrayal!

On a national scale let us critically examine the role of Eskom. It is true that Eskom warned government as late as 1999 of the impending energy crisis and again in 2003. The Minister in the Energy sector chose to blithely ignore the observations and recommendations. She was not demoted for her short-sightedness; instead she was promoted into the deputy presidency! That should have already warned us about what was to come; instead we chose to believe in those who had no belief in themselves! Here, add yet another betrayal.

South Africa grew explosively since 1994: new malls, new housing estates, new factories and tens of thousands of new homes. Even an imbecile would have guessed that with growth comes the demand for more energy. The bright sparks gave themselves huge bonuses and perks and then began shutting down electricity to major urban areas. There was just not enough energy to support our growth. Some years down the line Eskom has raised an astronomical loan to build one of the largest coal fired power stations in Africa at Medupe and to fund its blinkered energy programme that places a massive reliance on a fossil fuel: coal. Did anyone one of the bright sparks factor into the equation that using coal is horribly polluting and that thousands of our people will pay with their health/deaths? Did they not understand that we need to REDUCE our carbon emissions and not move in the opposite direction? Has it not been made clear that carbon build up contributes to global warming, to the melting of the huge glaciers and ice sheets? Is it just a question of making a quick profit and bolting, with the severely negative impact on the Earth of no consequence?  Our coal fired power stations and our smoke spewing industries make our country the 13th worst polluter in the world and certainly the very worst in Africa. Do we have any moral right to do this to our own people and then to export acid rain across our borders into Mozambique and Zimbabwe? Acid rain over the Lowveld is killing some of our most productive and fertile land. Global warming and all its terrible consequences is no fantasy.

It very real and it is HAPPENING NOW!  Permanent coastal flooding is a real possibility for Durban, Cape Town and all the towns along our very long coast line. Be assured we will reap the whirlwind in just a few decades. Many alive today will still be around then and will curse us for our greed and more for our sheer stupidity. We know what has to be done to prevent this from happening but there is no will to do what is right for humanity and for the Earth.

If the Polar ice caps melt, it will raise the oceans by as much as 70 metres! Much of central Durban and all of the foreshore area of Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London, Mossel Bay, Margate, Port Shepstone, Balito, Richards Bay will be submerged! Think about it: when the sea rises it will flow deep into our rivers, raising its level to 70m above where it is now! It will devastate all riverside communities. There will be no Robben Island, no St Lucia and all the low islands around the world will have disappeared as a monument to the greed of mankind.

Seen from another perspective, South Africa has the enormous potential to turn all of this around and become one of the leading countries in terms of Sustainable Development.  We could show the world that there is another way to living: not in competition with nature but harnessing its fantastic potential sustainably for the common good of all our people. Add to this, that going down this path has the further potential of creating jobs for tens of thousands. This  could make the country a leading force for global change away from coal and oil to renewable energy .

• Recent research has shown that South Africa can get an astounding 70% of its energy needs from the wind. It’s free and non-polluting and the wind is always there.
• What of catching and using the massive number of hours of sunshine that bathe our country? The Northern Cape has some of the most concentrated sunshine in the world! Let us cover our barren deserts with solar panels and make them productive.
• Why don’t we use the vast potential of biogas to provide energy in all our rural areas?
• We have yet to harness the electricity generating potential of ocean currents and of the waves of the sea.
• Re-cycling has the very real possibility of reducing landfill wastes. We can re-cycle just about anything. The bio degradable waste can then be buried and the resulting methane gas be tapped as a source of energy.
• All our 21 universities have the potential to generate the ideas and produce the proto types to slot into a new way of looking at our needs that can be met without destroying our great planet.

It is time to stop the rape and pillage of the Earth. It is time to use clean technologies to protect the environment and to coax it into giving up its bounties in a sensible and sustainable way. South Africa has the technology, the human expertise and money. It just needs the political will to make the change. Let us learn to respect the intricate ‘web of life’. We need to again become a part of nature.

Let us frame the question in another way: Do we really have a choice? I think not!

Preventing Starvation By Filling Backpacks

Sally Dugman

Any amount of income above these amounts listed below translates to one’s family presumably not being in poverty in the USA. So no or very few government benefits accrue for those involved in low income status if above the federal impoverishment guidelines. To put it all in a realistic perspective, let’s look at the monthly cost for a one room apartment in Worcester, a city close to where I live:

Studio Apartments –

from $450.00/mo

One room with a bathroom in the mix is above five thousand dollars a year in cost. It may or may not have a kitchenette attached to the room.

Can one quite fit his or her family into one small room with a bathroom included? No? Then let’s go upscale for a one bedroom apartment in the town next to mine:

… 1 BR / 1 BA In Shrewsbury 01545! It’s $1100 per month or $13,300 per year.

Now let’s tabulate wage into the mix: “Massachusetts Minimum Wage is $11.00 effective January 1, 2017 … Federal minimum wage is $7.25 per hour, effective July 24, 2009 …” — From Massachusetts Law about Minimum Wage – Mass.Gov

Meanwhile a family will get no or usually only surreptitious help, as mentioned, unless under the amount posed by these fixed tight national guidelines:

Federal Poverty Guidelines | Families USA

2016 Federal Poverty Guidelines

Household size
2                             $16,020
3                             $20,160
4                             $24,300
5                             $28,440

Do our government workers coming up with these unrealistic, fantasy tabulations even understand that these are unmanageably low numbers given the price of home heating, household insurance, medical insurance, prescription costs, food, electricity, car insurance and car gas, assorted taxes, water bills, electricity and so on? Let’s, too, add in the costs of clothing as children in one’s family outgrow their current outfits, along with the price for school supplies.

How can oneself and a family live in such a standard of lacks? How ridiculous a consideration!

So a nightmare ensues for many families across the USA except that you can’t wake up from the bad dream. It’s daily reality instead for them, not a night-dream that one can shake off when the light of day dawns and dispels the horror!

Shame on our overall fairly wealthy USA society! How dare we collectively let such a pathetic condition exist! Such an insurmountable demise for those involved in such paucity as they barely scrape by in housing alone! No wonder that so many families wind up living in cars or tents despite the cold, snow, rain, etc.

No food at home (if you even have a home)? Oh well — suck it up! That’s the view that my own sister faced.

My sister, a former elementary school teacher, used to get so alarmed when school breaks, vacations from school, would happen. So she and her friends would pay for and collect hundreds of dollars of food with money out of their own pockets to provide it. Then my sister would secretly tuck the food into backpacks carried home by financially poor school children for which some only got one solid meal a day – the lunch served at school.

She and her friends wanted to ensure that starvation didn’t exist during vacations — a time not fun one iota for these destitute children as their bellies hurt. Is vacation time from school a happy time for these kids?

Hardly! They dreaded school vacations. It would give some of the children panic attacks in advance.

Why, though, should my sister and her friends have to take up the brunt of our societal deficits to feed young children? More centrally, why should these children suffer when their parent often work eighteen hours a day apiece with a two parent family income?

Where is fairness and justice in this overall scenario? If you can picture something outside of my view of this deplorable situation, I’m glad for you!

Meanwhile I’m in this orientation: How dare we let this situation happen! How outrageous, infuriating and thoroughly unacceptable, especially since I do not want my sister to suffer on account on the sufferings of others, who comprise of little children, whose backpacks she started stuffing a week in advance of school vacations!

Simply wrong! Totally wrong!

It was disturbing to learn that my sister chased down as many as she could of all of the poor children at her school to, during her lunch break, stuff their school backpacks with food starting a week in advance of vacations. It was vexing and intolerable to watch her suffering for their own suffering!

How dare she and they be put in such a broken condition! It’s a sick disgusting level of lack in care in our society exhibited in the mix.

Meanwhile, it’s my sister involved and I’m fiercely protective of her. So why should she and her friends, who she induced to follow her pattern, have to help pay for these disadvantaged children to eat during school vacations? Outrageously a pitiful condition and I do not want her, my sister, to feel pain for these children. Ditto for her friends! Ditto for the kids!

Personally I don’t want any of them to face trouble. So how dare there be a system in place that forces my kindly sister and her friends to feed children when they can’t have their one meal a day at school? How intolerable a state of affairs when pantries are bare at home through no fault of their parents!

How dare a broken social system be prevalent — one that financially and emotionally compromises my sister and her friends, along with the starving kids, especially in the overall wealthy USA. Disgusting – no – way worse than disgusting since the level of wrong is so absolutely and intolerably wrong!

Let’s get real. It’s hard for even one person to live on $28,440 in the USA, let alone a family of five.

It’s unrealistic in the extreme. Such stupidity is shown in the process of accepting this amount as a federal standard, along with utter negligence towards others, those less fortunate than are my sister and her pals!

So thank goodness that Venezuela’s government stepped up to help. How could these impoverished Americans, hard working members of society, do basically all right else wise?

Many desperately require  JOE-4-OIL | Citizens Energy. (Sign up for the provision if you need it in the USA!)

Yeah – one of the Kennedy offspring, Joe Kennedy, stepped up, along with a largely socialist nation — one contemptible to the USA. It’s because this South American government kicked out the international oil companies, paid them off and directed towards using surplus money from oil in their lands to serve society in general rather than provide profits for the gargantuan oil companies, themselves.

How infuriating to many members of our government here in the USA! How infuriating for the oil companies! Venezuela is greatly hated on account since the country cut money to serve the upper echelon of society via profits to instead serve lower members of society in their own land … and ours.

Yet, what a travesty it is that families have to rely on such foreign derived charity to stay warm. What a travesty it is that their children starve if not for good Samaritans like my sister and her friends, wanting no praise and awards, quietly try to help!

I’m sorry if I seem disturbed and vituperative. However, the whole arrangement described here is not right. Why should families, my sister and her friends have anguish over school vacations? Why should a largely socialist nation, Venezuela, have to keep these families warm? … Shame on the USA and its unrealistic poverty standards! What a total disgrace for us all!

Australian government withholds report on death of unemployed teenager

John Harris & Oscar Grenfell 

The federal Liberal-National government of Malcolm Turnbull continues to block the release of an internal review into the tragic death of Josh Park-Fing in April last year. The 18-year-old was killed in an accident while participating in the punitive Work for the Dole program, which forces the unemployed into unpaid, and often unsafe labour, in order to receive their poverty-level Newstart welfare payments.

The report into Park-Fing’s death by Workplace Health and Safety Queensland was given to Australia’s employment minister, Michaelia Cash, in September 2016. Since then, the government has refused to release its contents, and other documents, in a bid to cover-up the conditions that led to the accident and those that face about 100,000 other Work for the Dole participants.

Park-Fing’s Work for the Dole placement was rubbish collection at the Toowoomba showgrounds in south-east Queensland. He reportedly fell from a flatbed trailer after a tractor towing it slipped a gear and jolted. The teenager suffered critical head injuries and died on the way to hospital.

According to the Australian Unemployed Workers Union (AUWU), one person at the site had expressed concerns to the supervisor about driving a tractor. He was allegedly told that he would be penalised if he did not drive the vehicle.

Park-Fing’s placement was overseen by NEATO Employment Services, a private firm contracted by the federal government to manage Work for the Dole. Other contractors include Max Solutions and Mission Providence, which are both subsidiaries of US corporations with annual revenues of over a billion dollars.

The Department of Employment replied last August to an AUWU request for information into Park-Fing’s bluntly declaring that internal reports were being withheld to protect NEATO and the Work for the Dole program. It claimed that disclosure of information on the death “may cause harm to the organisation’s commercial interests” and “affect their ability to retain and attract networks of employers.”

The government is seeking to cover-up its own culpability. In 2015, the Liberal-National government, then led by Tony Abbott, expanded Work for the Dole to include all unemployed people under the age of 50 who have received welfare payments for six months or more.

The scheme, first introduced in 1998 and maintained by successive Labor and Liberal-National governments, previously targeted the long-term unemployed and was managed by the government welfare bodies.

People aged under 30 must now carry out 25 hours of work a week. Those aged 30 and 49 are compelled to do 15 hours a week. They do not receive any additional payment. Newstart unemployment benefits average just $38 a day.

Expansion of the program was explicitly aimed at corralling hundreds of thousands of unemployed workers into low-paid labour, in line with the demands of the Australian Chamber of Commerce and other pro-business lobby groups. In May last year, the government also unveiled a youth “internship” program, which would force unemployed young people into 25 hours of work a week for private businesses, with an average wage on top of welfare benefits of just $4 an hour.

The number of unemployed pushed into Work for the Dole soared from 54,000 to over 100,000 between 2015 and 2016 and has led to a major spike in accidents and injuries.

Last November, the Australian Associated Press reported that there had been 500 injuries at Work for the Dole sites in the 2015–16 financial year, up from 90 the previous financial year. The majority of these were caused by lifting or carrying heavy objects. Almost a quarter of those on the scheme suffered cuts, lacerations or punctures, others reported fainting, heart attacks, burns or eye injuries. More than five percent were bitten by insects or animals while working, with allegations that in some areas workers were not provided with protective clothing or shoes. An audit of 200 Work for the Dole sites by Ernst and Young last June, released in February this year, found that 36 percent did not meet the average safety benchmark.

Unemployed people impacted by the unsafe practices are denied basic rights. Families of those killed in Work for the Dole accidents are only eligible for payments of $250,000 compared to up to $750,000 paid to the families of those who perish in paid work. Work for the Dole participants are also denied workers compensation because they are officially classified as “volunteers.”

The Labor Party and the Greens have sought to head-off mounting anger by posturing as opponents of the assault on the unemployed. Last month, they passed a motion through the Senate demanding the release of the report into Park-Fing’s death. The Australian Unemployed Workers Union is heavily involved in this fraudulent campaign, with the union promoting the lie that the government can be compelled “to create a fair and humane welfare system.”

In reality, the attacks on the unemployed are part of a bipartisan austerity agenda aimed at forcing the working class to pay for the deepening crisis of capitalism. Labor has previously called for the expansion of Work for the Dole. It initially welcomed the government’s youth internship scheme, before announcing its own version of the program last year, also aimed at pushing unemployed youth into ultra-cheap labour.

Moreover, from 2007–2013, the Labor governments of Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard maintained Work for the Dole and carried out sweeping attacks on the most vulnerable welfare recipients. The Gillard government, propped up by the Greens, forced 100,000 single parents onto Newstart unemployment payments, stripping many of hundreds of dollars a month.

Six months after Hurricane Matthew, hunger and desperation grip Haiti’s south

John Marion

Nearly six months after Hurricane Matthew devastated Haiti’s Grand’Anse, Nippes, and Sud departments, hunger and desperation are pervasive. There have been multiple reports of people eating poisonous plants or tree bark just to stave off hunger, and in the city of Jérémie people are still living under tarpaulins sent by USAID after the storm.

According to Le Nouvelliste, an elderly couple in the town of Candache hanged themselves because of hunger. Jean-Claude Fignolé, a writer and member of the Board of Christian aid group Food for the Poor, told the web site that “there is a level of distress that words can’t express.” Benoit Jean Guerrier, the parliamentary deputy from Moron/Chambellan, has voiced a fear of food riots.

While Jovenel Moïse, the protégé of former President Michel Martelly, won a majority (55 percent) in the November 20 presidential election and thereby avoided a runoff, only 20 percent of eligible voters turned out nationwide. Having received only 600,000 votes in a country of nearly 11 million people, Moïse and his allies in the ruling elite are aware of the precariousness of their position.

On March 22, Food for the Poor found 240 people, including 84 women and 62 children, living in a cave near Jérémie in Grand’Anse. The President and CEO of the organization told the Miami Herald that “they have no food. They have no water. They have no shelter. It really is a crime against humanity.”

Aside from the Miami Herald, whose coverage was picked up by Haiti-Libre, Radio Television Caraibes, and other French-language outlets, the American press has been silent about the conditions facing those found in the cave.

After visiting Jérémie last week, the vice president of another NGO told Herald that “I don’t want to say that there could be mass starvation right away, but we could start to see 10, 20, and 30 people at a time dying.”

A March report from the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) estimates that of the 2.1 million Haitians affected by the hurricane last October, 1.4 million still don’t have enough food or safe drinking water. Educational resources for more than 300,000 children are lacking, and more than half a million people don’t have adequate shelter.

Shortly after the storm, UN Special Adviser David Nabarro demonstrated the callousness of the organization’s approach, saying during a visit that “so many excellent things are already happening … as the people themselves are hard at work, readjusting their lives so they are protected from the elements.”

Three months later, at the beginning of January, Oxfam reported that 80 percent of crops which would have normally been harvested in January and February in the Sud and Grand’Anse deparments were destroyed by the storm.

The Haitian government has estimated a total of US $2.9 billion in losses to crops, livestock, houses, and infrastructure from Matthew. OCHA is seeking to raise less than $300 million this year for humanitarian aid in Haiti, of which only 13.2 percent had been received as of this writing. The United States has contributed a measly $16.9 million. The Haitian gourde has been depreciating rapidly against the dollar, making this level of “aid” even more insulting.

MINUSTAH, the UN police and military force which has been used to suppress dissent since the 2004 coup against Jean-Bertrand Aristide, has a budget of nearly $350 million for the year ending June 30, 2017.

The Haitian government budgeted 10.7 billion gourdes (US$152,700,000 at the current exchange rate) for its Ministry of Justice and Public Security, which includes the National Police of Haiti, in the fiscal year ending September 30, 2017; a further 11.6 billion gourdes were budgeted for paying off government debt. The Ministry of Public Health and Population received only 5.5 billion gourdes, while Agriculture, Natural Resources and Rural Development received slightly more than 7 billion.

18.3 billion was allotted for the Ministry of Public Works, Transportation, and Communications in a budget that was decided before Matthew devastated the infrastructure in much of the south.

The gourde is falling rapidly against the dollar, while government revenues from a PetroCaribe agreement with Venezuela are unsteady because of world oil prices. Haitian government attempts to increase revenues by charging more for gasoline provoked protests in Port-au-Prince in February 2015.

Having developed the National Police of Haiti (PNH) to their satisfaction, the United States and UN are planning to end the MINUSTAH mission—which is widely hated for its history repression, sexual crimes and for causing the cholera epidemic—and let the PNH suppress domestic opposition. Coming out of his first working meeting with the heads of the police and army on March 28, Moïse’s Prime Minister Jack Guy Lafontant emphasized to the press that private property and investments will be protected but that specific plans are being kept secret.

In an article headlined “Private Sector Receives Assurances ahead of Final Election Results,” the Haiti Sentinel reported in December about a meeting between interim President Jocelerme Privert and members of the Economic Forum of the Private Sector and the Association of Haitian Industries (ADIH).

Georges Sassine, the president of ADIH, said afterward that “‘we came out of the meeting with the feeling that we are on the same wavelength with the executive … we have put all that we have in the balance so that the process succeeds.”

After the confirmation of Moïse’s election, the Forum issued a statement offering to “put itself from here on out at the disposition of the President and his collaborators.”

As toll from Peru’s storms mount, capitalists see new source of profits

Cesar Uco

As the death toll and the mass misery inflicted predominantly upon the poorer section of Peru’s population by the torrential rains, flooding and landslides caused by the climatic phenomenon known as El Niño mount, sections of the country’s ruling class are seeing the disaster as a golden opportunity to reap new profits.

According to the latest figures from Peru’s National Emergency Operation Center (COEN), at least 97 people have lost their lives and hundreds of thousands have been left homeless. Bridges, water supplies, schools, hospitals and other facilities have been destroyed or severely damaged, and large sections of the population are threatened with the spread of disease. Dengue outbreaks in the worst hit region of Piura, in northwestern Peru, have increased by 30 percent. The cost of the damage is estimated in the billions of dollars.

Above all, the ravages of El Niño have exposed the stark social inequality that pervades Peruvian society and the utter indifference of the country’s ruling elite to the conditions of the masses of workers and poor as well as to the social infrastructure upon which they depend.

“This is not a natural disaster, but a natural phenomenon that has led to disaster because of the informal way this country has developed,” Gilberto Romero, the head of Peru’s Center for Disaster Research and Prevention, told the Economist magazine.

While feigning sympathy for the suffering that has been inflicted on the population, Peru’s rapacious ruling class is pushing aggressively to turn the disaster into a new stream of wealth.

In its March 24 edition, the Peruvian business daily Gestion led with the headline, “Entrepreneurs demand plan for quick reconstruction.” These “entrepreneurs” are confident in securing the support of President Pedro Pablo Kuczynski—a former Wall Street banker—and his pro-business cabinet for “reconstruction” funds that will flow into the private sector.

The president, whose approval rating has continued to fall throughout the disaster, has refused to name a “tsar” for reconstruction, an indication of his policy of relying almost entirely on private financial firms and construction companies.

To put pressure on the government to release billions of dollars and to borrow similar amounts from the financial sector, Roque Benavides, president of the National Confederation of Private Enterprise Institutions (CONFIEP in Spanish) said: “The lack of solidarity with the people is a shameful act.”

Benavides is the main owner of Minas Buenaventura in the Cajamarca region of Peru’s northern highlands. For him to talk of “solidarity with the people” is an obscenity. Over the past decades, he has become a multimillionaire, exploiting miners and peasants, destroying the environment and trampling over the rights of the native population. In spite of holding large deposits of precious metals, Cajamarca remains one of the three poorest departments in Peru, out of a total of 24.

The truth is that the natural disaster affecting Peru couldn’t have come at a more opportune time for Peru’s capitalists, with the country’s economy rapidly decelerating.

GDP projection has dropped to less than 2.8 percent. Until recently, Barclays and J.P. Morgan had it at 3.4 and 3.5 percent. Inflation is estimated at an annual rate of 3.7 percent, that is, higher than GDP growth.

Perhaps the most significant figure of economic deceleration is the fall of 24 percent in foreign investment this year, hitting its lowest level since 2009.

The entrepreneurs incorporated into business institutions: Confiep, AFIN (National Infrastructure Development, Capeco (Peruvian Chamber for Construction) and SNP (National Fishing Society), have taken a joint stand demanding the government “must act fast and begin reconstruction as quickly as possible.”

In their frantic call for action, one can perceive a sense of fear that this catastrophe, if the government fails to respond quickly—relying, of course on the private enterprise—may trigger uncontrollable social unrest. Already in Piura, people have blocked roads in protest over the lack of aid. In Lima, food price increases were met with angry threats of supermarket takeovers.

Given the predictability of El Niño, the government should have prepared for a potential disaster by creating a substantial reserve fund. It not only failed to do so, this week it came to light that in May 2016, then-President Ollanta Humala, who came into office on the basis of populist and nationalist rhetoric with the backing of Peru’s pseudo-left elements, suspended funding dedicated to preparing for the potential ravages of El Niño. Instead of financing disaster prevention, his administration reassigned most of the US$923 million in funding to other infrastructure activities and preparations for the 2019 Pan American Games, leaving only 5 percent of the original amount.

Now, Peru’s Central Reserve Bank (BCR) estimates that rebuilding bridges and highways nationally will cost more than US$3.8 billion.

According to the official government newspaper, El Peruano, “By means of a supreme decree, the Executive has allocated 1.5 billion nuevos soles [US$462 million] in addition to the original budget of 1 billion, and has determined that this amount is available from the moment in which the legal provision was published, in such a way that its use is immediate at the three levels of government.”

The 2.5 billion nuevos soles, or US$ 730 million decreed by the government, adds up only to 19 percent of the required amount just to repair bridges and highways estimated by the BCR. So, where will the rest of the money come from? While no doubt the national and regional governments can draw upon some additional funding for disaster relief, it will come nowhere near the amount needed.

The Peruvian financial sector, via a Gestion columnist, has made explicit its determination to “save” the country’s economy “with a strategic vision and in an orderly way” in part through “the reprogramming of numerous credits.”

Experience shows that when capitalists lend under conditions of crisis they exact profits far above the average, claiming they are making risky investments.

Nowhere are the predatory aims of the Peruvian ruling elite to enrich themselves off the tragedies inflicted by El Niño expressed more clearly than in their ruthless exploitation of the working class.

The initial “reconstruction” plan contemplates hiring 40,000 laborers to work on projects lasting two to five months, including the building of retaining walls, shore defenses and other protections against floods. The workers will be paid a meager 30 nuevos soles for eight hours of hard and dangerous work; that is US$1.15 per hour, less than the Peruvian minimum wage of 850 nuevos soles per month or US$1.50 per hour.

German air force provides target coordinates for massacre of civilians in Syria

Johannes Stern 

Earlier this week, the German media reported that the number of civilian victims of American air strikes in Syria had risen dramatically. It has now been revealed that the Bundeswehr (German Armed Forces) have played an important role in “Trumps deadly offensive” (Spiegel Online).

According to reports by the Süddeutsche Zeitung and broadcaster ARD, the Luftwaffe (Air Force) supplied the reconnaissance data for an air attack by the so-called anti-IS coalition on March 21, against the Syrian village of al-Mansoura near Raqqa.

According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, at least 33 civilians were killed in the attack, while Airwars.org reported up to 420 dead. According to the website, up to 100 refugee families were being accommodated in the Badiya School in Mansoura. The attack apparently claimed the lives of many women and children.

The military blog Augen Geradeaus! (Eyes Forward!) writes: “The Luftwaffe’s reconnaissance Tornados had flown over the building in question two days earlier, and then a few days later to assess the impact of the raid.” The parliamentary Defence Committee, composed of representatives of all parliamentary parties, was informed of the Luftwaffe’s role in a secret meeting on Wednesday.

The Ministry of Defence does not usually comment on “concrete data and targets,” the blog said. Fundamentally, however, Tornado aircraft routinely take pictures of possible targets. These are then passed on to the armed forces of the United States, France, Britain and several Arab states, which use them to determine their targets.

In other words German fighter jets are involved in the devastating coalition air strikes that are claiming the lives of more and more innocent people.

The massacre of Mansoura recalls the criminal history of the Luftwaffe. During the Second World War, it played a significant role in the Nazi war machine.

Guernica, the town destroyed by 1937 German aircraft during the Spanish Civil War, still stands as a symbol for the ruthless bombing of civilians. During the Second World War, the Luftwaffe rained down its terror over Europe, the Soviet Union and North Africa, and destroyed cities such as Warsaw, Stalingrad, Rotterdam and London.

The return of German terror from the air is a direct result of the new superpower appetites of those in power in Berlin. At the Munich Security Conference in January 2014, the then Federal President Joachim Gauck, Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen (Christian Democratic Union) and Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier (Social Democratic Party) announced “the end of [Germany’s] military restraint.” At the end of 2015, the Luftwaffe then entered the war in Syria, accompanied by up to 1,200 soldiers and a frigate.

In an article in the anthology “Germany’s new foreign policy,” published by Wolfgang Ischinger for this year's Munich Security Conference, current President Frank-Walter Steinmeier repeated his previous demand that Germany intervene “earlier, more decisive and substantially” in foreign policy. There was a “fierce competition for the supposedly correct social order [...] and for geopolitical spheres of influence.” By the “timely setting of the agenda” in “shaping the future order,” he said, Germany could “often be more effective than extinguishing fires later.”

Mansoura shows the horrific consequences of such a policy. The fact that the German ruling class is responsible for the worst crimes in the history of mankind will not stop it from committing new ones to enforce its geopolitical and economic interests worldwide.

Another contribution in the anthology puts this matter bluntly. Under the title, “Foreign policy as moral ordeal,” Jan Techau, director of the Richard C. Holbrooke Forum at the American Academy in Berlin, complained that in Germany, the “neurotic desire to remain 'morally clean' runs through almost all domestic and foreign policy debates.” It is clear, he insisted: “Whoever goes to war, must, as a rule, take responsibility for the deaths of people. Even the deaths of uninvolved and innocent people.”

More than 52,000 in the US died from drug overdoses in 2015

E.P. Milligan

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 52,404 people in the US died from drug overdoses in 2015. Sixty-three percent of overdoses were due to opioids.

Drug overdoses now account for more deaths than from guns or car accidents. The 2015 death rate is significantly higher than the rate during the peak of the AIDS epidemic in 1995, in which 43,115 succumbed to the illness.

Since 1999, opioid overdose numbers have quadrupled. One in four overdose deaths in the US is now due to heroin in particular. Prescription opioids such as oxycodone and hydrocodone also factor in prominently.

The journal JAMA Psychiatry, published by the American Medical Association, has issued a new study that details changes in patters of heroin use since 2001. It concluded that the number of people who have used heroin at some point in their life has increased five times, and the number of heroin abusers has roughly tripled. Some 3.8 million Americans—1.6 per cent of the population—claim to have used heroin at least once.

The sharpest increase in heroin use of all demographic groups has occurred among white males.

The report’s authors compiled survey data from 79,402 individuals between the periods between 2001-2002 and 2012-2013. The responses were collected from the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions, a study made by the National Institutes of Health to evaluate substance use and abuse.

Heroin use levels between whites and non-whites were similar in the 2001-2002 figures, at 0.34 percent and 0.32 percent. By 2012-2013, those figures jumped to 1.90 percent among whites—an almost sixfold increase—as opposed to 1.05 percent among non-whites. Use greatly increased among those with a high school education or less in addition to those who lived under the federal poverty line.

Alluding to the deepening social crisis in the United States, the report states “these trends are concerning because increases in the prevalence of heroin use and use disorder have been occurring among vulnerable individuals who have few resources to overcome problems associated with use.”

According to a 2016 Surgeon General’s report on alcohol and drug abuse, only one in 10 individuals that struggle with substance abuse disorders receive treatment.

The study provides further evidence to the culpability of the pharmaceutical industry, which has generated immense profits by flooding the medical market with prescription opioids like oxycodone and hydrocodone. According to survey data, many respondents claimed that they started using heroin after using prescription opioids.

Around one-third of all white heroin users had used prescription drugs in 2001-2002. In 2013, more than half of all white heroin users began with prescription drug abuse. Over the past 20 years, the number of opioid prescriptions has grown threefold.

Heroin use has spread more or less evenly across all age groups. Heroin addiction, however, has grown disproportionately higher amongst those under 45 years of age.

A county by county study published by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation on Wednesday shows that drug overdose deaths have resulted in 778 years of potential life lost for every 100,000 people. It also notes that the increase in premature deaths among 15- to 44-year-olds is largely from drug overdoses.

A particularly striking development is the growth of drug overdoses in suburban and rural communities. Suburbs, which previously saw the lowest rates of premature death from overdoses, now have the highest.

Confronted with decades of deindustrialization, rising social inequality and debt, housing insecurity, lack of access to decent education and other much-needed social programs, growing layers of working-class populations in suburban and rural communities have turned to substance abuse. These same stresses have given rise to mental illness, with rates of depression and suicide finding a particularly high expression among white male workers.

The so-called “rust-belt” and former coal mining regions of the United States have seen a concentrated expression of these processes. What were once thriving industrial and mining towns have been transformed into desolate, rusting shells of their former selves. Places like Pontiac, Michigan; Akron, Ohio and Huntington, West Virginia have little in the way of decent-paying jobs, while schools and community centers have been shuttered.

The rate of drug overdose deaths in West Virginia has spiraled out of control to the point that the state’s Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) funding for its Indigent Burial Program has run out with five months left in the fiscal year.

The shocking rise of drug use is an ugly expression of the social crisis in America, particularly amongst young people who see no future and no way out from such a desperate predicament.

On Wednesday, President Trump announced the formation of a high-profile group he claims will formulate a strategy to curb the country’s opioid epidemic. This group includes New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, US Attorney General Jeff Sessions, Defense Secretary James “Mad Dog” Mattis and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. Officials from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have been deliberately left out.

The decision not to include the FDA in this group has sparked criticism from opioid addiction experts, who claim that the agency is an integral part of addressing the epidemic by introducing much-needed regulations on the sale of prescription opioid drugs.

Regardless, Trump’s nominee to head the FDA, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, has deep ties to the pharmaceutical industry. Gottlieb serves on the boards of three drug companies and has a venture capital firm which funds no less than 150 others. It is inconceivable to think that such a pro-corporate administration will lift a finger to alleviate the country’s drug epidemic.

The FDA has been accused of expediting the approval of opioid pain killers for some time now. In 2013 under the Obama administration, the FDA approved Zohydro, the first extended-release pure form of hydrocodone. Ignoring its own advisory panel, which voted 11-2 to reject the drug entirely, the agency approved it without tamper-resistant protections. This allowed the drug to be easily crushed to maximize potency, creating greater potential for abuse.

Japan’s ruling party calls for military to have offensive weapons

Peter Symonds

Japan’s ruling Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) has called on the government to boost the country’s anti-ballistic missile systems and to consider acquiring, for the first time, weapons capable of carrying out attacks on enemy bases. The recommendations are another step towards the remilitarisation of Japan pressed by Prime Minister Shinzo Abe that is adding to sharp regional tensions.

The LDP’s defence policy council handed a report to Abe on Thursday which claimed that North Korea represented a “new level of threat” after it test fired four ballistic missiles last month towards Japan. The launches took place as the US and South Korea engaged in massive annual military drills involving more than 320,000 troops, stealth warplanes and an entire aircraft carrier battle group.

“North Korea’s provocative acts have reached a level that Japan absolutely cannot overlook,” the council stated. “We should not waste any time to strengthen our ballistic missile defense.”

The body, which is headed by former Defence Minister Itsunori Onodera, suggested that Japan acquire weapons such as the Terminal High Altitude Area Defence (THAAD) system that the US is currently installing in South Korea as well as a shore-based Aegis anti-ballistic missile system.

The LDP defence policy council also proposed that Japan consider possessing “our own capability of striking back at an enemy base, with cruise missiles for instance, to further improve deterrence and response as part of the Japan-U.S. alliance.”

Successive Japanese governments have baulked at possessing offensive weapons such as cruise missiles, long-range bombers and aircraft carriers. Not only would such weapons openly flout the country’s constitution but would also provoke widespread opposition from workers and young people.

In a bid to head off opposition, Onodera couched the proposal as acquiring a “counter-attack” capability. “Our proposal,” he said, “is about how we can fight back and stop the other party from firing a second missile, instead of making a pre-emptive strike.” Having such weaponry, however, means that the Japanese armed forces would be able to carry out “pre-emptive” acts of aggression.

Abe’s remilitarisation of Japan is primarily aimed against China, not North Korea. China defense ministry spokesman Wu Qian on Thursday criticised the LDP panel’s recommendations, saying: “China is opposed to any actions by other countries to take the [North Korean] nuclear issue as an excuse to compromise the security of other countries.”

Beijing has repeatedly opposed the US installation of a THAAD anti-missile battery in South Korea saying that its powerful associated radar would be able to spy on the Chinese military and give advanced warning of any Chinese missile launches. The THAAD system is not “defensive” but is part of the Pentagon’s planning for war with China.

Abe fully supported the LDP panel’s report, declaring, at a ceremony to hand it over, that “we intend to grasp today’s proposal firmly.” Since coming to office in 2012, he has taken major steps towards rearming Japan and freeing its military apparatus from legal and constitutional restrictions. His program of making Japan “a normal nation” with “a strong military” is nothing less than ensuring that it can assert its imperialist interests through military means.

The Abe government has boosted the military budget, established a US-style National Security Council and passed legislation allowing for so-called “collective self defence”—that is, participation US-led wars—in clear breach of the constitution.

In a highly significant, but little publicised, move on March 3, Abe announced in the Diet or parliament that his government would no longer abide by the restriction on military spending to less than one percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). While not enshrined in legislation, the limit has been in place since 1976 and has always been touted as evidence that Japan is not remilitarising.

Under Abe, the Japanese military, termed Self Defence Forces, has pressed ahead with building up its weaponry. These include F35A advanced fighter aircraft, V-22 Osprey vertical take-off and landing aircraft, amphibious assault vehicles, and Global Hawk long-range drones.

Last week, the huge helicopter carrier, the JS Kaga was officially commissioned by the Japanese navy, joining the JS Izumo, which is a similar vessel. The military deliberately did not build aircraft carriers so as to avoid opposition to the acquiring of weapons that are offensive in character. The two warships, however, are larger than the aircraft carriers of many countries, capable of carrying V-22 Osprey aircraft and could be modified to accommodate fighter aircraft.

The helicopter carriers could also potentially carry Marine-type ground forces that Japan is in the process of training, with US assistance. US Marines practiced landing Ospreys on the helicopter destroyer JS Izumo during an exercise last July. The Japanese navy is provocatively sending the Izumo on three-months of operations, including in the South China Sea which has become a dangerous flash point between the US and China.

In the wake of “collective self-defence” legislation, the US and Japan have deepened their military collaboration and integration. In the first instance, the change will allow Japanese warships to act together with their US counterparts in combat situations. As of last December, the Japanese defence minister can respond to a US military request and authorise the Japanese navy to provide protection for a US destroyer equipped with the Aegis anti-ballistic missile system.

The US and Japan also signed a new acquisition and cross-servicing agreement in September 2016 that will enable Japan to provide logistical support, including ammunition and fuel, to the US military. The government is now pressing for its ratification in the current parliamentary session.

The rapid build-up of the Japanese military over the past four years has nominally taken place under the umbrella of the US-Japan Security Treaty. However, amid sharpening geo-political tensions globally, the Abe government is determined to be able to prosecute Japanese economic and strategic interests by all means, including military.

Greek Syriza government and European Union finalise more brutal austerity

John Vassilopoulos

Greece’s Syriza-led government has reportedly reached an informal agreement with the European Commission (EC) on imposing further austerity measures. An agreement is yet to be officially confirmed by the EC—the executive arm of the European Union (EU)—or Greece.

Greek daily Kathemerini announced Friday, “[T]he framework for an agreement could be presented at the next scheduled Eurogroup meeting on April 7,” in order to “allow officials to draft all the measures that Greek MPs must legislate by the next scheduled Eurogroup on May 22…”

Various media reported this week that measures agreed include further crippling cuts to the pensions of 900,000 retirees, worth 1 percent of GDP. Another austerity measure is the reduction of the tax-free threshold to €5,900 from the current €8,636. This will result in many more poorly paid workers, earning as little as €500 a month, being forced to pay tax. The minimum wage in Greece remains at just €683 per month, as Syriza reneged on its pledge to restore it to what is a still paltry figure of €751.

The tax increases are worth a further 1 percent of GDP and, as with the pension cut revenue, will go towards paying off Greece’s near €300 billion debt to global financial institutions.

Syriza and the EU are set to adopt most of the International Monetary Fund’s (IMF) labour reform proposals, with the exception of collective dismissals. In addition, the privatisation of Greece’s energy sector is to be intensified with the sale of 40 percent of the Public Power Corporation’s (PPC) lignite and hydroelectric power plants, and Thessaloniki port.

Syriza and EU officials have been in talks for months as to how Greece should implement the country’s third austerity memorandum, signed in July 2015, in which Greece is to receive €86 billion to pay off debts. The austerity measures are stipulated as a precondition for the next tranche of aid to be unlocked, as well as any future discussions on debt relief.

In recent weeks, the spectre of Greece defaulting on its debt and a subsequent Grexit (Greek exit from the EU and eurozone) has again raised its head. This is due to the bankrupt Greek state having to meet a debt repayment on €7 billion worth of bonds that mature in July.

An agreement should have been finalised by the end of last year, with the delay mainly due to disagreements between the EU and International Monetary Fund (IMF) regarding how Greece is to be bled white.

The IMF considers Greece’s current debt level as unsustainable and is in favour of some form of debt relief, in return for even more draconian measures being imposed. The role of the IMF in Greece’s on-going austerity programme has yet to be formalised.

It is, however, relentlessly demanding further attacks on workers’ rights. An IMF report published February complained that Greece’s trade union laws “have not been reformed since the 1980s” and that “[t]his could explain the large number of strikes in Greece, which even prior to the crisis far exceeded levels seen elsewhere.”

The report called for Greece’s “industrial action framework” to be aligned “with best international practice by setting appropriate quorum requirements for trade unions calling a strike and by allowing for defensive lockouts by employers.” This would in turn “help support investment by limiting costs associated with prospective strikes that may result in the stoppage of production.”

The IMF complained about what it considers to be too restrictive guidelines regarding collective dismissals of workers, which “makes downsizing operations in Greece very costly, with many firms forced to relocate, enter bankruptcy, or implement costly voluntary exit schemes.”

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, consider the IMF’s participation as politically crucial if Greece’s bailout programme is to continue. According to a report in the German financial journal Handelsblatt, “[S]chäuble only wants to pay the next instalment if and when the IMF agrees to get back on board as it had been during the first and second programs. Otherwise, he fears that a rebellion could break out within the ranks of his Christian Democrats’ parliamentary group, which expects the IMF to participate in the Greek bailout.”

However, Handelsblatt cites Berlin’s intransigence on the issue of debt relief, stating that the “German finance minister is likely to respond to [the IMF’s] plea with a resounding ‘nein.’ ” Of great concern is that any debt relief will hit the German ruling elite hardest, since it owns the majority of Greece’s debt.

A further obstacle that could prevent the IMF’s participation in the Greek austerity for loans programme is US President Donald Trump’s “America First” policy. This calls into question the entire post-war global capitalist framework, of which the US-dominated IMF was an integral part. Trump recently nominated Adam Lerrick—a vocal critic of the IMF—as undersecretary for international finance at the US Treasury.

Fear of Grexit has already prompted a capital outflow from Greece of €2.8 billion this year. According to the Financial Times, this was “the worst two-monthly outflow since the country was bought to the brink of a eurozone exit nearly two years ago.”

The escalating financial crisis forced EU officials to intensify talks aimed at meeting some of the IMF’s demands. Speaking to the Greek online news website Euro2day, an unnamed official said last Tuesday, “The ECB [European Central Bank] has made a sudden turn in its talks with Athens and is now veering towards the demands of the IMF, especially on labour reform.”

The fact that Syriza is once again called upon to oversee a new round of savage cuts is testament to how far to the right the pseudo-left party has travelled since coming to power in January 2015 on an anti-austerity ticket.

Since then Syriza—with its junior coalition partner, the far-right Independent Greeks (ANEL)—has spearheaded the EU and IMF diktats. This culminated in the signing of Greece’s third bailout package in the summer of 2015, following Syriza’s betrayal of the July 2015 referendum result, which overwhelmingly rejected the austerity policies that had been pursued by successive governments since 2010.

Syriza is now widely despised and currently polling at just 15 percent, trailing around 15 points behind the conservative New Democracy (ND).

The hostility of the working class to Syriza is expressed in a wave of recent strikes and protests. On March 15, hospital nurses and doctors staged a 24-hour strike demanding universal, free healthcare, the hiring of more staff and the repayment of wages that have been cut. The strike was accompanied by an anti-austerity rally staged by hospital workers outside the Finance Ministry, which was attacked by riot police.

Other s protest ing include local government workers, dockworkers and tax authority employees.

The previous week, a protest by Greek farmers opposing tax hikes and pension cuts turned violent after officials from the ministry of agriculture refused to meet delegates. After an altercation, riot police dispersed crowds into side streets by using tear gas.

So thorough has been Syriza’s enforcement of austerity that one of the protests even involved a delegation of blind people, protesting cuts in their disability benefits.

A nationwide movement to prevent home foreclosures has sprung up in opposition to Syriza’s ditching of a pre-election promise to prevent the banks from seizing and auctioning the homes of working-class people.

Syriza is working to deepen its collaboration with the unions in order to suppress growing opposition to its austerity programme. The government ensured the reinstatement of collective bargaining was on the agenda of the negotiations with the EU and IMF.

The pro-capitalist rationale for this was underscored by Syriza Labour Minister Effie Achtioglou in an article she penned for the Huffington Post. Achtioglou said that collective bargaining restoration would result in “the reduction of transaction costs, and the creation of a level playing field for companies in terms of wages, in effect allowing them to focus on issues of productivity, tackling undeclared work, and fostering social dialogue and social peace.”

The UK’s Great Repeal Bill: A bonfire of workers’ rights

Julie Hyland

On Thursday, the Conservative government published its Great Repeal Bill to give effect to Prime Minister Theresa May’s triggering of Article 50, beginning Britain’s exit from the European Union (EU).

There is now a two-year cutoff before Brexit fully takes effect, on March 29, 2019. The bill, to be brought forward next year, states its objective is to “provide maximum certainty as we leave the EU.”

But the claim made by the Leave campaign in last June’s referendum, that the UK could disentangle itself from the EU with minimum disruption, was always a lie. Over four decades, the UK has become closely integrated into the EU, in line with the globalisation of capitalist production and trade. Every aspect of British life—from customs, law, working conditions, education, health, transport and the environment—is interwoven with the European and global economy.

That is why the 37-page bill is so short on detail. No country in the modern period has attempted such a course. No one, least of all the ruling elite which is now largely behind Brexit, has any grasp of its consequences. Even the most confirmed advocates of withdrawal—led by right-wing, neo-liberals—are anxious to conceal the real implications of their agenda.

The flimsy nature of the bill notwithstanding, it does indicate the vast scale of what is underway, which is described as the largest legislative venture undertaken in British history.

At its centre is the overturning of the European Communities Act (1972) that gave effect to European law in the UK, as the prerequisite for its joining the European Economic Community—the forerunner of the EU.

Subsequently, the UK adopted a number of treaties including the Single European Act (1987), which provided for the completion of the single market and free movement of goods, capital and persons; the Maastricht Treaty (1993), that incorporated a common foreign and security policy and cooperation in justice and home affairs; the Treaty of Amsterdam (1999) and the Lisbon Treaty (2009) which brought all 28 member states in to a single European Union.

The bill acknowledges that there is no precise figure for the number of EU directives and legislation incorporated into UK law through these treaties. It tentatively identifies at least 12,000 EU regulations currently in force and 7,900 statutory instruments, which have implemented them. However, this does not include all the acts of legislation made by the devolved administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. According to the House of Commons Library, more than 14 percent of the 1,302 UK Acts implemented between 1980 and 2009 “incorporated a degree of EU influence.”

Moreover, EU treaties apply in various aspects to the Crown Dependencies of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, and to a lesser degree among several of the UK’s Overseas Territories, most notably Gibraltar and Cyprus (home to UK military bases).

That is why, despite its title, the Great Repeal Bill will “convert EU law as it applies in the UK into domestic law on the day we leave—so that wherever practical and sensible, the same laws and rules will apply immediately before and immediately after our departure.”

This is necessary in order to “provide for a smooth and orderly exit,” Brexit Secretary David Davis writes in its foreword. At first glance, this is at odds with Davis’ other claim that the referendum was driven by a “desire to take back control” and restore British “sovereignty.” In reality, it expresses the interests of the banks and big business that oppose any regulatory disruption to their access to trade and the European single market.

According to the Financial Times, efforts to replicate EU regulatory agencies at a domestic level—especially in the field of aviation, nuclear technology, pharmaceuticals and financial services—will “be expensive and laborious to create,” which is why the government “has signalled that it will remain under the regulation of EU authorities where necessary during any transition period after Brexit.”

However, EU leaders have already rejected the government’s demands that talks on the terms of Britain’s exit run parallel with negotiations on its future relations with the bloc. They accuse the government of wanting to “have its cake and eat it” in its demands for continued access to the Single Market—reflecting the reality that, having left the EU, Britain becomes a de facto competitor.

The EU’s draft negotiating position governing Brexit, unveiled Friday by European Council President Donald Tusk, “excludes participation based on a sector-by-sector approach.” It warns, “A non-member of the union… cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member.”

In keeping with the hardline Brexit position of eurosceptic Tories, the bill acknowledges that no agreement may be reached and reiterates that “no deal for the UK is better than a bad deal for the UK.”

In the event that it fails to get its way, the government is preparing separate bills including the establishment of a UK customs regime and new immigration regulations. Anti-immigrant propaganda played a key role in the referendum campaign and has now largely been adopted by both the Leave and Remain camps.

The bill states that new immigration legislation will not change anything for “any EU citizen” already resident or moving to the UK, “without Parliament’s approval.”

This means nothing given that parliament, with Labour’s support, refused to guarantee the rights of EU citizens currently residing in the UK—using them as a bargaining chip in negotiations.

More fundamentally, it provides for so-called “Henry VIII clauses.” These parliamentary procedures date back to the 16th century, when King Henry VIII effectively gave himself the powers to rule by decree. All powers “contained in EU-derived law and which are currently exercised by EU bodies” will be transferred to “UK bodies or ministers,” enabling ministers and civil servants to decide which aspects of EU legislation and regulation can be kept, amended or discarded without recourse to parliament.

Leading eurosceptics and big business figures have made no secret of their plans to make a “bonfire” of workers’ rights. Targets include regulations on the maximum working week, the Temporary Agency Workers Directive (giving agency employees the same rights as other workers in similar fields) and holiday pay entitlements.

Writing in the Daily Telegraph, John Longworth, former director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, urged the government to set up a “Star Chamber” of MPs, economists and businessmen to oversee this process who are “not frightened to think the unthinkable.”

The bill also removes the UK from the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). This has been a route for many attempting to challenge the UK government in the field of employment and human rights. The bill argues that this will not affect the “substantive rights that individuals already benefit from in the UK.”

Given that the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights will also be invalidated on the day Britain quits the bloc—another central demand of the eurosceptics—such assurances are also meaningless. Sir Bill Cash MP, Tory chairman of the Commons European Scrutiny Committee, has said the Charter “provides protection for people who have no right to be protected,” thereby overturning the concept of inalienable rights, common to all and free from bureaucratic or ministerial fiat.

Finally, the bill intensifies the UK’s own constitutional crisis. The current framework for the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are predicated on EU membership, which have responsibility for implementing EU policy in areas of their competence—such as agriculture, transport and the environment.

The bill stipulates that all powers “exercised by the EU will return to the UK government.” This conflicts with the convention that Westminster will not legislate “with regard to devolved matters in Scotland without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.”

The Scottish parliament, which is overwhelmingly opposed to Brexit, has already passed a resolution demanding a second referendum on independence from the UK, while Scottish National Party leader and Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has threatened to block the Repeal Bill.

For its part, the EU has already indicated it will side with the Irish nationalist parties in rejecting the re-establishing of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, following Brexit. Upping the ante, the EU’s draft negotiating position appears to back Spanish claims to the British territory of Gibraltar on the Iberian peninsula, which voted 97 percent to remain in the EU. It stipulates that any agreement reached between the EU and UK will not apply to Gibraltar without the agreement of Spain.