–UK prime minister shows distinct lack of self awareness …as he criticised the British voters for not wanting baby killing in Gaza. (I’m boiling him down). Shortened headline on June 14 in part to update it for the top of my website during the election campaigns.
Opinion by Mathew Carr (my comments in bold and square bracketed)
March 4-5, 2024
PM Rishi Sunak’s 11-minute speech, March 1 …after George Galloway swept to victory in a UK parliament by-election, trouncing the two biggest political parties in the country as he supported the end of violence in Gaza (which has included the mass killing of innocent babies).
https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1763632558414135456?s=20
(I caught 10 or so AI mistakes in the text below – there may be more – favor the speech in the link/Xeet above)
Sunak: “In recent weeks and months, we have seen a shocking increase in extremist disruption and criminality was started as protests on our streets has descended into intimidation, threats and planned acts of violence. Jewish children fearful to wear their school uniform, lest it reveal their identity.
Muslim women abused in the street for the actions of a terrorist group they have no connection with.
Now our democracy, itself. is a target.
[No. Our democracy is working]
Council meetings and local events have been stalled. MPs do not feel safe in their homes. Long-standing parliamentary conventions have been up ended because of safety concerns.
And it is beyond alarming.
[It’s alarming because the Israel and US governments, supported by Britain, have killed as many as 30,000 innocent people in Gaza – something Sunak should have acknowledged here. The really alarming thing is Britain’s own violent, bullying behavior]
…That last night, the Rochdale by election returned a candidate who dismisses the horror of what happened on October the seventh, who glorifies Hezbollah, and is endorsed by Nick Griffin, the racist former leader of the BNP.
[It’s not about glorifying Hezbollah or Hamas — it’s about recognising the history of suppression that made people in Gaza fight back in a violent way. I’m not justifying their decision. I’m recognizing that the awful attack on Oct. 7 was a response to immense persecution over many decades. Sunak could have showed some humility on this. He didn’t.]
I need to speak to you all this evening because this situation has gone on long enough. And it [garbled] demands a response not just from government, but from all of us. Britain is a patriotic, liberal democratic society with a proud past and a bright future. We’re a reasonable country and a decent people.
[We – I’ve got dual UK-Australian citizenship – WERE a decent people before supporting the killing of 30,000 or so innocent lives in Gaza. I realise not all of those lives were completely innocent.]
Our story is one of progress of great achievements and enduring values.
[Yes … but no. Britain’s story is also partly about stoking global slavery and violent colonialism. Sunak should have acknowledged this in this speech.]
Immigrants who have come here have integrated and contributed.
[Many of them have been persecuted]
They have helped write the latest chapter in our island story. They have done this without being required to give up their identity.
[It’s true that many Britains are decent, accepting people, who recognize the common genetic similarity of humankind. It’s a pity the government does not reflect that …so much. More humility was required, right here.]
You can be a practising Hindu and a proud person as I am, or a devout Muslim, and a patriotic citizen as so many are …or a committed Jewish person and the heart of your local community. And all underpinned by the tolerance of our established Christian church.
[The Christian church has been among the most violent extremists…but Mr Sunak makes some good points right here]
We are a country where we love our neighbours, and we are building Britain together. But I fear that our great achievement in building the world’s most successful multi-ethnic multi-faith democracy is being deliberately undermined.
[There is some truth in this. The problem is … it’s being deliberately undermined partly by Sunak’s OWN government.]
There are forces here at home trying to tear us apart.
[Eg, Sunak’s own government, by supporting the killing of 30,000 people in Gaza.]
Since October the seventh, there have been those trying to take advantage of the very human acts that we all feel …about the terrible suffering that war brings to the innocent, to women and children to advance a divisive, hateful ideological agenda.
[This agenda has been led partly by Sunak and his US and Israeli mates.]
On too many occasions recently, our streets have been hijacked by small groups who are hostile to our values.
[Hostile to the Sunak government’s murderous values, hostile to that administration’s cowardice in standing up to American-led violence.]
…And have no respect for our democratic traditions. Membership of our society is contingent on some simple things, that you abide by the rule of law.
[The UK government has moved further from the rule of law in recent years than pretty much any other country on earth. It used to lead on the rule of law. The trajectory has been soooo disappointing, Mr Sunak]
…And that change can only come through the peaceful democratic process. Threats of violence and intimidation are alien to our way of doing things.
[So why is the UK among the most threatening country on earth?]
…They must be resisted at all times. Nearly everyone in Britain supports these basic values.
…But there are small and vocal hostile groups [eg those leading the Sunak government] who do not.
Islamist extremists and the far right feed off and embolden each other. They are equally desperate to pretend that their violence is somehow justified, when actually these groups are two sides of the same extremist coin.
[The UK is acting as the European butler of the most extremist country on earth – the US. In that it allows about 0.1% of people to have most of the money and power over the remaining 99.9%]
Neither group accept that change in our country can only come through the peaceful democratic process.
[Both the main parties in the UK are almost fully captured by greedy corporations that are very badly regulated by Sunak’s government. Same can be said of the USA. This is not peace. It’s constant and escalating corporate abuse.]
Both (Islamist extremists and the far right) loath the pluralist modern country we are.
Both want to set Britain against Britain to weaponize the evils of anti semitism and anti-Muslim hatred for their own ends.
[Israel, US and the UK are the weaponisers in chief]
The faith of Islam, peacefully practice by millions of our fellow citizens is emphatically not the same thing as the extremist political ideology of Islamism, which aims to separate Muslims from the rest of society.
[This is very true]
Islamist extremists and far-right groups are spreading a poison. That poison is extremism. It aims to drain us of our confidence in ourselves as a people and in our shared future.
[Here Sunak should have acknowledged Britain’s own violent extremism.]
They want us to doubt ourselves, to doubt each other, to doubt our country’s history, and achievements.
[Britain’s history should be doubted]
They want us to accept a moral equivalence between Britain and some of the most despicable regimes in the world.
[Britain’s past behavior is actually some of the worst in global history.]
They want us to believe that our country — and the West more generally — is solely responsible for the world’s ills and that we, along with our allies are the problem.
[This is true .. at least in part.]
In short, they want to destroy our confidence and hope.
[No. They want you to be more humble, Mr Sunak.]
We must not allow that to happen. When these groups claim that Britain is and has been on the wrong side of history. We should reject it and reject it again.
[No, Mr Sunak. You should sincerely acknowledge the failings … instead of ignoring them.]
No country is perfect. But I am enormously proud of the good that our country has done.
[Yes, the UK has done much that is good]
Our place in history is defined by the sacrifices our people have made in the service of their own freedom and that of others.
[Please stop ignoring the bad Britain has done in history.]
And when these groups tell our children that they cannot and will not succeed because of who they are, when they tell children that the system is rigged against them, or that Britain is a racist country… this is not only a lie, but a cynical attempt to crush young dreams and turn impressionistic minds against their own society.
[No, Mr Sunak …this is an attempt to teach our children how to moderate their behavior and learn from the mistakes of Britain’s past leaders. The current market structure in Britain is VERY CLEARLY rigged against children Mr Sunak, and you know it and your administration has made it worse during the past 14 years.]
I stand here as our country’s first non-white Prime Minister, leading the most diverse government in our country’s history, to tell people of all races, all faiths and all backgrounds…it is not the colour of your skin, the God you believe in, or where you were born that will determine your success, but just your own hard work and endeavour.
[One of Mr Sunak’s best lines. But he should have acknowledged here …that taking advantage of rigged oil markets and becoming middle men in corrupt (financial) markets is not really the same as “hard work and endeavour”.]
We must be prepared to stand up for our shared values in all circumstances, no matter how difficult and I respect that the police have a tough job in policing the protests we have seen …and that they are operationally independent.
[New laws giving police too much power mean they are not really operationally independent, at all. Eg people who are not even charged can be given onerous bail conditions – ie the presumption of innocence has been dangerously eroded, journalists have been attacked, people have been arrested for mere comments on social media.]
But we must draw a line. Yes, you can march and protest with passion. You can demand the protection of civilian life. But no, you cannot call for violent jihad. There is no context in which it can be acceptable to beam anti semitic tropes onto Big Ben in the middle of a vote on Israel Gaza. And there can be no cause that you can use to justify the support of a prescribed terrorist group like a Hamas.
[Britain and its Empirialistic mates have easily killed more people than Hamas has.]
And yes, you can freely criticise the actions of this government, or indeed any government.
[No shit?]
That is a fundamental democratic, right. But no, you cannot use that as an excuse to call for the eradication of a state or any kind of hatred. [Unless they are Palestinian, apparently.]
…Or anti semitism. This week, I’ve met with senior police officers and made clear it is the public’s expectation that they will not merely manage these protests, but police them and I say this to the police.
We will back you when you take action …but if we are asking more of the police, we in government must also back up that call with action. To that end, this month, the government will implement a new robust framework for how it deals with this issue to ensure that we are dealing with the root causes of this problem, and that no extremist organisations or individuals are being lent legitimacy by their actions and interactions with central government.
[Hopefully this includes a framework that quells out-of-control government and police actions/extremism.]
You cannot be part of our civic life if your agenda is to tear it down.
[The bad parts of British civil life DO need to be torn down – eg out-of-control corporations, rip-off Britain markets that hurt nature and climate].
We will redouble our support for the Prevent Programme to stop young minds being poisoned by extremism.
[Please also stop nefarious state propaganda via captured corporate media.]
We will demand that universities stop extremist activity on campus. We will also act to prevent people entering this country whose aim is to undermine its values. The Home Secretary has instructed that if those here on visas, (who) choose to spew hate or protest or seek to intimidate people… we will remove their right to be here.
And our Britain must not be a country in which we descend into polarised camps, with some communities living parallel lives. It is not enough to live side by side. We must live together united by shared values and a shared commitment to this country.
[Another of his best lines…he could have supplanted “this country” with “this world”.]
And I want to speak directly to those who choose to continue to protest. Don’t let the extremist hijack your marches. You have a chance in the coming weeks to show that you can protest decently, peacefully and with empathy for your fellow citizens. [Mostly, people have and this should have been acknowledged right here …instead Mr Sunak seem intent on scaring people …is a fellow Aussie (a misguided one) advising him?.] Let us prove these extremists wrong and show them that even when we disagree, we will never be disunited from our common values of decency, and respect.
[Yes!]
I love this country, my family and I owe it so much. The time has now come for us all to stand together to combat the forces of division and beat this poison. We must face down the extremists who would tear us apart. There must be leadership, not pandering or appeasement.
When they tell their lies. We will tell the truth when they try and sap our confidence, we will redouble our efforts.
And when they try and make us doubt each other. We will dig deeper for that extra ounce of compassion and empathy that they want us to believe doesn’t exist, but that I know does.
[Yes!]
If we do that we can build on our great achievement in creating today’s Britain, a country of kind, decent tolerant people. [It’s a pity the government behavior does NOT reflect these values.]
We can make this a country in which we all feel a renewed sense of pride this is our home. So let us go forward together, confident in our values and confident in our future.
[Which will be possible …when we show more humility.]
(Updated to make top more clear)
Current status
Panel report circulated on 15 March 2024
back to top
Key facts
Short title: EU and Certain Member States — Palm Oil (Malaysia)
Complainant: Malaysia
Respondent: European Union; France; Lithuania
Third Parties (original proceedings): Argentina; Australia; Brazil; Canada; China; Colombia; Costa Rica; Ecuador; El Salvador; Guatemala; Honduras; India; Indonesia; Japan; Korea, Republic of; Norway; Russian Federation; Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of; Singapore; Thailand; Turkey; Ukraine; United Kingdom; United States
Agreements cited:
(as cited in request for consultations) Art. I:1, III:2, III:4, X:3(a), XI:1 GATT 1994
Art. 3, 5 Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2, 5.6, 5.8, 12.1, 12.3 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
Agreements cited:
(as cited in panel request) Art. I:1, III:2, III:4, X:3(a), XI:1 GATT 1994
Art. 3, 5 Subsidies and Countervailing Measures (SCM)
Art. 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2, 5.6, 5.8, 12.1, 12.3 Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT)
Consultations requested: 15 January 2021
Panel requested: 15 April 2021
Panel established: 28 May 2021
Panel composed: 29 July 2021
Panel report circulated: 5 March 2024
back to top
Latest document
European Union and certain Member States – Certain Measures concerning Palm Oil and Oil Palm Crop-Based Biofuels – Report of the Panel
WT/DS600/R | 5 March 2024
View all documents
back to top
Summary of the dispute to date
The summary below was up-to-date at 5 March 2024
Consultations
Complaint by Malaysia
On 15 January 2021, Malaysia requested consultations with the European Union (EU), France and Lithuania with respect to certain measures imposed by the EU and EU Member States concerning palm oil and oil palm crop-based biofuels from Malaysia.
Malaysia claimed that certain measures imposed by the EU (the EU renewable energy target, the criteria for determining the high ILUC-risk feedstock, and the sustainability and GHG emission savings criteria) appear to be inconsistent with:
Articles 2.1, 2.2, 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2, 5.6, 5.8, 12.1 and 12.3 of the TBT Agremeent; and
Articles I:1, III:4, X:3(a) and XI:1 of the GATT 1994.
Malaysia claimed that certain measures imposed by France (the French General Tax on Polluting Activities — Fuel Tax) and Lithuania (the Law No XI-1375 on renewable energy) appear to be inconsistent with:
Articles 3, 3.1(b), 3.2, 5 and 5(c) of the SCM Agremeent; and
Articles I:1 and III:2 of the GATT 1994.
On 28 January 2021, Colombia requested to join the consultations. On 29 January 2021, Argentina and Indonesia requested to join the consultations. Subsequently, the European Union informed the DSB that it had accepted the requests of Colombia and Indonesia to join the consultations.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
On 15 April 2021, Malaysia requested the establishment of a panel. At its meeting on 28 April 2021, the DSB deferred the establishment of a panel.
At its meeting on 28 May 2021, the DSB established a panel. Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, Costa Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Norway, the Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Singapore, Thailand, Turkey, Ukraine, the United Kingdom, and the United States reserved their third-party rights.
On 19 July 2021, Malaysia requested the Director-General to compose the panel. On 29 July 2021, the Director-General composed the panel.
On 7 February 2022, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that in accordance with the timetable adopted thus far following consultations with the parties, the panel estimated to issue its final report to the parties not before the third quarter of 2022. The Chair of the panel apprised the DSB that the report would be available to the public once it was circulated to the Members in all three official languages, and that the date of circulation depends on completion of translation. On 22 February 2023, the Chair of the panel informed the DSB that in light of the complexity of the legal and factual issues that had arisen in the dispute, the panel expected to issue its final report to the parties not before the third quarter of 2023.
On 5 March 2024, the panel report was circulated to Members.
Summary of key findings
With regard to the EU measures at issue, the Panel found that:
the 7% maximum share and the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out were technical regulations within the meaning of Annex 1.1 to the TBT Agreement;
Malaysia failed to establish that the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out was inconsistent with the obligation in Article 2.4 of the TBT Agreement to use relevant international standards as a basis for technical regulations;
Malaysia failed to establish that the 7% maximum share and the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out were inconsistent with the obligation in Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement to ensure that technical regulations are not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfil a legitimate objective;
the European Union administered the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out inconsistently with Article 2.1 of the TBT Agreement by failing to conduct a timely review of the data used to determine which biofuels were high ILUC risk, and because there were deficiencies in the design and implementation of the low ILUC-risk criteria, which resulted in arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail;
Malaysia had not established that the European Union acted inconsistently with Article 2.5 of the TBT Agreement by failing to explain the justification for preparing, adopting or applying the 7% maximum share and the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out in terms of Articles 2.2 to 2.4 of the TBT Agreement;
Malaysia had not established that the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out was inconsistent with the obligation in Article 2.8 of the TBT Agreement to whenever appropriate specify technical regulations in terms of performance rather than design or descriptive characteristics;
regarding the claims under Article 2.9 of the TBT Agreement, the European Union acted inconsistently with: (i) Article 2.9.2 by failing to notify the proposed 7% maximum share and the proposed high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out measures; and (ii) Article 2.9.4 by having failed to organize a commenting process in respect of the proposed 7% maximum share and the proposed high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out measures in accordance with the requirements of that provision;
the low ILUC-risk certification procedure was a “conformity assessment procedure” within the meaning of Annex 1.3 to the TBT Agreement;
Malaysia failed to establish that the low ILUC-risk certification procedure was inconsistent with the obligation in Article 5.1.1 of the TBT Agreement to ensure that conformity assessment procedures grant access for suppliers of like products originating in the territories of other Members under conditions no less favourable than those accorded to suppliers of like products of national origin or originating in any other country;
the low ILUC-risk certification procedure, as set out in Article 6 of the Delegated Regulation, was inconsistent with Article 5.1.2 of the TBT Agreement since deficiencies in the implementation of the low ILUC-risk procedure had created unnecessary obstacles to international trade;
Malaysia failed to establish that the European Union acted inconsistently with the obligation in Article 5.2.1 of the TBT Agreement to ensure that conformity assessment procedures are undertaken and completed as expeditiously as possible;
regarding the claims under Article 5.6 of the TBT Agreement, the European Union acted inconsistently with: (i) Article 5.6.1 of the TBT Agreement by failing to publish a notice of the proposed low ILUC-risk certification procedure at an early appropriate stage in such a manner as to enable interested parties in Malaysia and other WTO Members to become acquainted with it; (ii) Article 5.6.2 of the TBT Agreement by failing to notify the proposed low ILUC-risk certification procedure; and (iii) Article 5.6.4 of the TBT Agreement by having failed to organize a commenting process in respect of the proposed low ILUC-risk certification procedure in accordance with the requirements of that provision;
Malaysia had not established that the European Union acted inconsistently with the obligation in Article 5.8 of the TBT Agreement to ensure that conformity assessment procedures which have been adopted are published promptly or otherwise made available in such a manner as to enable interested parties in other Members to become acquainted with them;
Malaysia failed to establish that the European Union acted inconsistently with Article 12.3 of the TBT Agreement, as informed by Article 12.1 of the TBT Agreement;
Malaysia had not established that the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out or the low ILUC-risk certification procedure was inconsistent with the obligation in Article XI:1 of the GATT 1994 to not institute or maintain any prohibitions or restrictions on the importation of any product of the territory of another Member;
the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out was inconsistent with Article III:4 of the GATT 1994 because it accorded less favourable treatment to palm oil-based biofuel from Malaysia than that accorded to like products of EU origin;
the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out was inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994 because it did not accord an advantage to palm oil-based biofuel from Malaysia that was accorded to like products imported from third countries;
insofar as Malaysia challenged the low ILUC-risk certification procedure as a separate measure under Article III:4 and Article I:1 it had not established any inconsistency with these obligations;
the European Union acted inconsistently with Article X:3(a) of the GATT 1994 by administering the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out in Article 26 of RED II in a manner that was not reasonable, to the extent that deficiencies in the design and implementation of the low ILUC-risk criteria and procedure did not provide for the elements needed for palm oil-based biofuel to be certified as low ILUC-risk;
with respect to Article XX of the GATT 1994: (i) the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out was a measure relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources that was made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic consumption or production within the meaning of Article XX(g); (ii) the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out was a measure necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health within the meaning of Article XX(b); (iii) it was unnecessary to rule on whether the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out was a measure necessary to protect public morals under Article XX(a); and (iv) the high ILUC-risk cap and phase-out had been administered in a manner that constituted arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail because the European Union failed to conduct a timely review of the data used to determine which biofuels were high ILUC risk, and because there were deficiencies in the design and implementation of the low ILUC-risk criteria and certification procedure.
With regard to the French TIRIB measure, the Panel found that:
the exclusion of palm oil-based biofuel from the group of qualifying biofuels for the purposes of the French TIRIB measure was inconsistent with Article III:2, first sentence, of the GATT 1994, because it resulted in the application of internal taxes to imported palm oil-based biofuel in excess of those applied to the like domestic rapeseed and soybean oil crop-based biofuels;
the exclusion of palm oil-based biofuel from the group of qualifying biofuels for the purposes of the French TIRIB measure was inconsistent with Article III:2, second sentence, of the GATT 1994, because it resulted in dissimilar taxation between imported palm oil-based biofuel and the directly competitive or substitutable domestic rapeseed and soybean oil crop-based biofuels, and this dissimilar taxation was applied so as to afford protection to domestic production;
the exclusion of palm oil-based biofuel from the group of qualifying biofuels for the purposes of the French TIRIB measure was inconsistent with Article I:1 of the GATT 1994, because it granted an advantage to imported rapeseed and soybean oil crop-based biofuels that was not immediately and unconditionally accorded to like palm oil-based biofuel imported from Malaysia;
with respect to Article XX of the GATT 1994: (i) the exclusion of palm oil-based biofuel from the group of qualifying biofuels for the purposes of the French TIRIB measure was a measure relating to the conservation of exhaustible natural resources that was made effective in conjunction with restrictions on domestic consumption or production within the meaning of Article XX(g); (ii) the exclusion of palm oil-based biofuel from the group of qualifying biofuels for the purposes of the French TIRIB measure was a measure necessary to protect human, animal or plant life or health within the meaning of Article XX(b); (iii) it was unnecessary to rule on whether the exclusion of palm oil-based biofuel from the group of qualifying biofuels for the purposes of the French TIRIB measure was a measure necessary to protect public morals under Article XX(a); and (iv) the exclusion of palm oil-based biofuel from the group of qualifying biofuels for the purposes of the French TIRIB measure had been administered in a manner that constituted arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination between countries where the same conditions prevail, because the European Union failed to conduct a timely review of the data used to determine which biofuels were high ILUC risk, and had failed to demonstrate the existence of any provisions or flexibilities for palm oil-based biofuels to be certified as low ILUC-risk;
Malaysia failed to establish that the French TIRIB measure provided a specific subsidy that caused adverse effects in the form of serious prejudice under Articles 5(c), 6.3(a) and 6.3(c) of the SCM Agreement.
The Panel found that Malaysia failed to establish a prima facie case of violation under the TBT Agreement or the GATT 1994 with respect to any Lithuanian measure(s) that fell within its terms of reference.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds600_e.htm#bkmk600r