комшија
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 96.548
Poslednja izmena:
-
- Popularno:
- Zasto teme o Bosancima i Hrvatima imaju...
- Pančevo: Trener kajakaša otkrio detalje...
- Incidenti i u Bačkoj Palanci i Vrbasu:...
- Muškarci koji ne žele decu
- Da li je Dodik Vučićev „koristan idiot“?
- Fenomen samih muškaraca
- Imam jedan problem
- Atheist Rap prekinuli koncert zbog...
- Kada je izdano srpstvo?
- Dajte mu samo još malo vremena i uspeće...
Превремени избори у Британији 12. децембра
- Začetnik teme комшија
- Datum pokretanja
комшија
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 96.548
комшија
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 96.548
Labour is the only party offering hope of a better future
LIES have played a big role in the election, with non-profit investigators First Draft finding 88 per cent of Conservative Facebook adverts in the first four days of December were misleading — while none of Labour’s were.
The Lib Dems have also had to resort to trickery, claiming in numerous constituencies that only they can beat the Conservatives when they actually trail Labour in third place.
The media have been complicit — the Observer’s tactical voting guide, for example, advocating a Lib Dem vote to beat the Tories in the Labour-held and super-marginal seat of Kensington (where the Lib Dem candidate, for good measure, actually was a Conservative MP until September this year).
Plaid Cymru have spent most of their time trying to pick holes in Labour’s election pledges, while the SNP seeks to use its dominance north of the border to suggest they are the best hope of preventing a Tory majority UK-wide.
They have also — as have the Lib Dems and a fair swathe of the liberal media — tried to promote the idea that this campaign is all about Brexit.
Actually it’s all about Labour. Labour, alone of the main parties, has stepped up with a compelling vision as to how this country could be different.
It is also the only one to have run a positive campaign, based around what it will do with power if elected, rather than engaging in dishonest personal attacks.
Labour has had difficulty in winning over voters on some issues, most notably the commitment to a second referendum on EU membership, which this newspaper warned would be a vote-loser in large parts of the country.
Many of those who pushed for the policy may not care. Significant forces in the parliamentary party are comfortable with the status quo, and remain hostile to Corbyn as the harbinger of change.
Our response on the revolutionary left should be to embrace the potential for radical change that has been built up despite that.
Transforming Labour from a party totally committed to capitalism to one prepared to confront corporate power was always going to be a long battle.
The Labour left has not been strong enough to get its way on everything. But it has gone into this election with a message of hope.
Expansion of public ownership. Action on climate change, including through a publicly owned and controlled transport system, with 3,000 lost bus routes restored. A housing revolution. Ending super-exploitation in the gig economy. Stronger unions. A ban on arms sales to killer regimes.
After years of soaring homelessness, growing child poverty, crumbling hospitals and cash-strapped schools, this country is crying out for a Labour government that will act fast on all those issues.
And Labour’s policies to address them are popular, overwhelmingly so. The gulf between the attitudes of the majority of the population and those of the small coterie who dominate our politics and media has been thrown into sharp relief in the last four years. Hence the cheating and the lies — the only way the Establishment can hope to win.
This is a struggle between the labour movement and that Establishment. It pits popular enthusiasm for a revived socialism against the big battalions of the British ruling class, with its spooks and its judges and its business leaders and its press.
Election victory or loss will not end that struggle. But a Labour victory is still of paramount importance. The Establishment is desperate to reverse the growth of socialism we have seen since 2015 and will seize on every setback to try to take back the Labour Party. A return to “politics as usual” is not an option as we hurtle towards social and ecological catastrophe.
But a Labour win would reverberate across Europe and the world as the moment we hauled on the brakes and turned our faces towards a better future.
LIES have played a big role in the election, with non-profit investigators First Draft finding 88 per cent of Conservative Facebook adverts in the first four days of December were misleading — while none of Labour’s were.
The Lib Dems have also had to resort to trickery, claiming in numerous constituencies that only they can beat the Conservatives when they actually trail Labour in third place.
The media have been complicit — the Observer’s tactical voting guide, for example, advocating a Lib Dem vote to beat the Tories in the Labour-held and super-marginal seat of Kensington (where the Lib Dem candidate, for good measure, actually was a Conservative MP until September this year).
Plaid Cymru have spent most of their time trying to pick holes in Labour’s election pledges, while the SNP seeks to use its dominance north of the border to suggest they are the best hope of preventing a Tory majority UK-wide.
They have also — as have the Lib Dems and a fair swathe of the liberal media — tried to promote the idea that this campaign is all about Brexit.
Actually it’s all about Labour. Labour, alone of the main parties, has stepped up with a compelling vision as to how this country could be different.
It is also the only one to have run a positive campaign, based around what it will do with power if elected, rather than engaging in dishonest personal attacks.
Labour has had difficulty in winning over voters on some issues, most notably the commitment to a second referendum on EU membership, which this newspaper warned would be a vote-loser in large parts of the country.
Many of those who pushed for the policy may not care. Significant forces in the parliamentary party are comfortable with the status quo, and remain hostile to Corbyn as the harbinger of change.
Our response on the revolutionary left should be to embrace the potential for radical change that has been built up despite that.
Transforming Labour from a party totally committed to capitalism to one prepared to confront corporate power was always going to be a long battle.
The Labour left has not been strong enough to get its way on everything. But it has gone into this election with a message of hope.
Expansion of public ownership. Action on climate change, including through a publicly owned and controlled transport system, with 3,000 lost bus routes restored. A housing revolution. Ending super-exploitation in the gig economy. Stronger unions. A ban on arms sales to killer regimes.
After years of soaring homelessness, growing child poverty, crumbling hospitals and cash-strapped schools, this country is crying out for a Labour government that will act fast on all those issues.
And Labour’s policies to address them are popular, overwhelmingly so. The gulf between the attitudes of the majority of the population and those of the small coterie who dominate our politics and media has been thrown into sharp relief in the last four years. Hence the cheating and the lies — the only way the Establishment can hope to win.
This is a struggle between the labour movement and that Establishment. It pits popular enthusiasm for a revived socialism against the big battalions of the British ruling class, with its spooks and its judges and its business leaders and its press.
Election victory or loss will not end that struggle. But a Labour victory is still of paramount importance. The Establishment is desperate to reverse the growth of socialism we have seen since 2015 and will seize on every setback to try to take back the Labour Party. A return to “politics as usual” is not an option as we hurtle towards social and ecological catastrophe.
But a Labour win would reverberate across Europe and the world as the moment we hauled on the brakes and turned our faces towards a better future.
- Poruka
- 90.829
UŽIVO IZ LONDONA Britanija na prekretnici: Izlazne ankete Johnsonu predviđaju uvjerljivu većinu
Konzervativci Borisa Johnsona osvojili su 368 mandata, Laburisti Jeremyja Corbyna 191, Liberalni Demokrati 13 mandata, Škoti 55, Zeleni 1, a Nigel Farage 0. Rezultat je to prve, ali vrlo temeljite izlazne ankete najvažnijih izbora u modernoj povijesti te države.
Anketu su na biralištima diljem zemlje tijekom dana zajedničkim snagama provele vodeće britanske medijske kuće, no valja napomenuti da su u protekla četiri izborna ciklusa te ankete samo dvaput predvidjele konačne rezultate sa 100 postotnom sigurnošću.
https://euractiv.jutarnji.hr/PiD/uz...ohnsonu-predvidaju-uvjerljivu-vecinu/9740746/
Konzervativci Borisa Johnsona osvojili su 368 mandata, Laburisti Jeremyja Corbyna 191, Liberalni Demokrati 13 mandata, Škoti 55, Zeleni 1, a Nigel Farage 0. Rezultat je to prve, ali vrlo temeljite izlazne ankete najvažnijih izbora u modernoj povijesti te države.
Anketu su na biralištima diljem zemlje tijekom dana zajedničkim snagama provele vodeće britanske medijske kuće, no valja napomenuti da su u protekla četiri izborna ciklusa te ankete samo dvaput predvidjele konačne rezultate sa 100 postotnom sigurnošću.
https://euractiv.jutarnji.hr/PiD/uz...ohnsonu-predvidaju-uvjerljivu-vecinu/9740746/
Poslednja izmena:
Bren
Elita
- Poruka
- 23.545
Pa jel su pobedili Tockisti?
комшија
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 96.548
Енглески радници су гласали за своју пропаст попут радника Раковице који су 1991 гласали за "српског националисту" тј за подметнутог им Хрвата dr Vjekoslava Šešelja, само што се уместо измишљотине о "угвожености свпства западно од Двине" овде ишло са бајком да енглеском раднику надницу не смањује нео-либерални систем који пропагирају Торијевци и који је "баждарен" према Вол стриту, према тзв. "мерама штедње", банкама и интересима транснационалног глобалног капитала, већ да је за то крив пољски електричар.
Лабуристи су процентуално више добили гласова у Јужној Енглеској, значи тамо где живи богатији и образованији свет и где се на зеленој трави игра крикет и поло, него у радничким насељима тзв. 'црвеног зида' кога чине индустријски градови на северу Енглеске и Велса, а који су до синоћ представљали традиционална упоришта Лабуриста.
Ово је најгори резултат Лабуриста од 1935 године значи још од времена када је у Енглеској био популаран "мудри Хитлер".
Овај пораз енглеске радничке класе ће довести до тога да ће Британија постати нешто попут Сингапура.
После оваквог дебакла остаје само да се надамо да ће се у наредном периоду десити нека енглеска "чукур чесма", те да ће енглеска руља најзад да прескочи ограду, успети да ухвати баба-краљицу и (или) њене наследнике и да тако утуче британску монархију право у њену "рептилску" (читај: капиталистичку) главу.
Лабуристи су процентуално више добили гласова у Јужној Енглеској, значи тамо где живи богатији и образованији свет и где се на зеленој трави игра крикет и поло, него у радничким насељима тзв. 'црвеног зида' кога чине индустријски градови на северу Енглеске и Велса, а који су до синоћ представљали традиционална упоришта Лабуриста.
Ово је најгори резултат Лабуриста од 1935 године значи још од времена када је у Енглеској био популаран "мудри Хитлер".
Овај пораз енглеске радничке класе ће довести до тога да ће Британија постати нешто попут Сингапура.
После оваквог дебакла остаје само да се надамо да ће се у наредном периоду десити нека енглеска "чукур чесма", те да ће енглеска руља најзад да прескочи ограду, успети да ухвати баба-краљицу и (или) њене наследнике и да тако утуче британску монархију право у њену "рептилску" (читај: капиталистичку) главу.
Poslednja izmena:
Alter_Ego_
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 89.706
Комшо, пуко си к'о звечка!
Пропао си к'о муда кроз поцепане гаће!
Пропао си к'о муда кроз поцепане гаће!
- Poruka
- 51.633
Koga god komšo podrži taj obavezno pukne na izborima.
A ti si kao sretan što su komunisti izgubili.
Imaš crvenu mantiju s razlogom, podržavaoče besplatnog gadafijevskog obrazovanja.
комшија
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 96.548
Making sense of a shattering defeat
AS SOON as the scale of Labour’s shattering defeat began to emerge last night, pundits began to push the line that this was not just about Brexit but about Jeremy Corbyn, and more broadly the Labour Party’s significant shift towards socialism under his leadership.
No election is just about one issue — but the evidence backs up the argument strongly made by Labour MPs like Ian Lavery and Richard Burgon that Brexit was the defining factor.
Labour’s collapse was overwhelmingly in Leave-voting areas: the Midlands, Wales and northern England. The dynamics in Scotland were different, and equally disappointing, but it is a fact that Labour’s collapse there happened at the 2015 election — this week’s result marked a failure to recover more than a sudden reverse.
Political has-beens like Alan Johnson, loudly demanding that Corbyn take responsibility for the defeat and hasten his departure, cannot be allowed to obscure the central fact: Labour was perceived as a Remain party, going into the election promising a second referendum and with many of its shadow cabinet promoting an unambiguous Remain message over months and months.
Labour had various reasons, some good, some bad, to oppose Brexit deals put to Parliament by the Theresa May and Boris Johnson governments, but the impression these parliamentary antics gave the public — not inaccurately — was of a party seeking to frustrate Brexit entirely.
Labour was warned that this approach would be disastrous in the two-thirds of British constituencies that voted to Leave the EU in 2016; tragically, some of those who sounded that warning are among MPs who lost their seats in Thursday’s terrible rout, and include some of the most impressive socialists in the country — Laura Pidcock, Dennis Skinner, Laura Smith.
Journalists determined to pin the blame on Corbyn (backed up by long-term enemies of the leader like Alastair Campbell, who was heavily involved in campaigns to drive Labour towards a Remain position) ignore the fact that Labour’s leader was the first to call for Article 50 to be triggered after the referendum result in 2016, and long resisted the efforts to trap his party in a Remain box. Had Labour paid more attention to its leader, it might not have suffered such devastating losses this week.
Could Brexit alone deliver such a catastrophe for Labour? Its real impact rests on what it came to stand for. Communities abandoned and betrayed by successive governments, Tory and Labour, since the 1980s were right to feel disenfranchised by the long Thatcherite domination of both main political parties from the 1990s to 2015.
Labour’s loss of five million votes in the Blair years showed how long this loss of trust in the party has been building.
The Brexit vote was above all a vote against the Establishment, against the status quo, and it was a simple, two-option question with a very clear answer.
The refusal of the political class to accept that answer was clearly the final straw, and engendered the bizarre illusion that an Eton-educated Tory offering more of the same policies we have seen for a decade was the “anti-Establishment” candidate.
There is a strong risk, with swathes of traditionally Labour constituencies going blue, that England and Wales could move towards a “culture war” politics akin to that of the United States.
The eclipse of class politics by the identities of nationalism and unionism in Scotland is a step along that road, though the support for genuine social and economic change among many independence-backing Scots should not be underestimated even if it is not reflected in SNP policy.
That risk must be headed off by a rejection of the false narrative that Labour lost because its manifesto was too far to the left.
Big majorities support nationalisation of public transport, water and utilities and a tougher stance on corporations.
Canvassers confirm that Labour’s policies were popular — the problem is that few voters trusted the party to deliver them.
That lack of trust was inextricably connected to the party’s position on Brexit.
Twinned with that narrative is the idea that Corbyn personally lost the election. There are reports of hostility to Corbyn on the doorstep, though most canvassers report Brexit as a far bigger problem.
The idea that four years of character assassination by the print and broadcast media, bombarding an unusually honest, principled, courageous, kind and sharp — for Corbyn was consistently more alert to the risks of Labour’s Remain drift than his colleagues — politician with smears and slanders almost every day, could be connected to a lack of personal popularity was sneeringly dismissed by BBC attack dog Andrew Neil. “Is that the best you can do, the media?” he jeered at Burgon on election night.
But it was connected, and it was reinforced by the disgraceful connivance in those attacks by many MPs, whose personal contact with Corbyn meant they knew the accusations they threw at him were untrue.
MPs who have spent the years since 2015 attacking Corbyn have a greater responsibility than he for Thursday’s disaster.
And the attacks were inspired by Labour’s socialist policies. Those imagining that Labour would have benefited from a different leader are kidding themselves.
The full-throated war waged by the British Establishment against the prospect of change will be waged against any and every politician who genuinely offers it.
The right are pushing for a rapid leadership contest in a bid to take advantage of panic and despondency on the left as a result of the shocking defeat.
Corbyn’s decision to step down may have been inevitable, but the left must resist all calls for the process to be sped up.
A period of reflection is essential if the party is to learn the right lessons from defeat.
Already there are those claiming, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that Labour should adopt an even more pro-EU stance.
Such a development would all but kill the party outside London and also act as proxy for abandoning the radical socialist policies the party has developed since 2015, which remain both popular and essential.
The social and environmental crisis will not go away because we failed to elect a Parliament prepared to do anything about it.
The left needs to keep its head. Labour’s 10.3 million votes were more than the party received in 2005, 2010 or 2015, though far less than in 2017.
Its vote share was higher than in 2010. This cannot mask how comprehensively it has been beaten, but it is important because it can inform strategies to resist the savage attacks on working-class people we know will be in the pipeline now Boris Johnson has a large parliamentary majority.
A mass membership Labour Party will be a huge part of that resistance, as will many on the revolutionary left and the trade unions.
Its growth and its clear socialist message are significant achievements for which Corbyn’s leadership deserves immense credit.
We head into the winter with soaring homelessness, rising child poverty, underfunded public services threatened with further fragmentation and privatisation.
Britain is a country of hungry children and cold, isolated pensioners. It has a government which marginalises and abuses disabled people, scapegoats and mistreats refugees.
These people need solidarity and practical help. Community organising is our first responsibility, and may lay the groundwork for building a more resilient and stronger left.
AS SOON as the scale of Labour’s shattering defeat began to emerge last night, pundits began to push the line that this was not just about Brexit but about Jeremy Corbyn, and more broadly the Labour Party’s significant shift towards socialism under his leadership.
No election is just about one issue — but the evidence backs up the argument strongly made by Labour MPs like Ian Lavery and Richard Burgon that Brexit was the defining factor.
Labour’s collapse was overwhelmingly in Leave-voting areas: the Midlands, Wales and northern England. The dynamics in Scotland were different, and equally disappointing, but it is a fact that Labour’s collapse there happened at the 2015 election — this week’s result marked a failure to recover more than a sudden reverse.
Political has-beens like Alan Johnson, loudly demanding that Corbyn take responsibility for the defeat and hasten his departure, cannot be allowed to obscure the central fact: Labour was perceived as a Remain party, going into the election promising a second referendum and with many of its shadow cabinet promoting an unambiguous Remain message over months and months.
Labour had various reasons, some good, some bad, to oppose Brexit deals put to Parliament by the Theresa May and Boris Johnson governments, but the impression these parliamentary antics gave the public — not inaccurately — was of a party seeking to frustrate Brexit entirely.
Labour was warned that this approach would be disastrous in the two-thirds of British constituencies that voted to Leave the EU in 2016; tragically, some of those who sounded that warning are among MPs who lost their seats in Thursday’s terrible rout, and include some of the most impressive socialists in the country — Laura Pidcock, Dennis Skinner, Laura Smith.
Journalists determined to pin the blame on Corbyn (backed up by long-term enemies of the leader like Alastair Campbell, who was heavily involved in campaigns to drive Labour towards a Remain position) ignore the fact that Labour’s leader was the first to call for Article 50 to be triggered after the referendum result in 2016, and long resisted the efforts to trap his party in a Remain box. Had Labour paid more attention to its leader, it might not have suffered such devastating losses this week.
Could Brexit alone deliver such a catastrophe for Labour? Its real impact rests on what it came to stand for. Communities abandoned and betrayed by successive governments, Tory and Labour, since the 1980s were right to feel disenfranchised by the long Thatcherite domination of both main political parties from the 1990s to 2015.
Labour’s loss of five million votes in the Blair years showed how long this loss of trust in the party has been building.
The Brexit vote was above all a vote against the Establishment, against the status quo, and it was a simple, two-option question with a very clear answer.
The refusal of the political class to accept that answer was clearly the final straw, and engendered the bizarre illusion that an Eton-educated Tory offering more of the same policies we have seen for a decade was the “anti-Establishment” candidate.
There is a strong risk, with swathes of traditionally Labour constituencies going blue, that England and Wales could move towards a “culture war” politics akin to that of the United States.
The eclipse of class politics by the identities of nationalism and unionism in Scotland is a step along that road, though the support for genuine social and economic change among many independence-backing Scots should not be underestimated even if it is not reflected in SNP policy.
That risk must be headed off by a rejection of the false narrative that Labour lost because its manifesto was too far to the left.
Big majorities support nationalisation of public transport, water and utilities and a tougher stance on corporations.
Canvassers confirm that Labour’s policies were popular — the problem is that few voters trusted the party to deliver them.
That lack of trust was inextricably connected to the party’s position on Brexit.
Twinned with that narrative is the idea that Corbyn personally lost the election. There are reports of hostility to Corbyn on the doorstep, though most canvassers report Brexit as a far bigger problem.
The idea that four years of character assassination by the print and broadcast media, bombarding an unusually honest, principled, courageous, kind and sharp — for Corbyn was consistently more alert to the risks of Labour’s Remain drift than his colleagues — politician with smears and slanders almost every day, could be connected to a lack of personal popularity was sneeringly dismissed by BBC attack dog Andrew Neil. “Is that the best you can do, the media?” he jeered at Burgon on election night.
But it was connected, and it was reinforced by the disgraceful connivance in those attacks by many MPs, whose personal contact with Corbyn meant they knew the accusations they threw at him were untrue.
MPs who have spent the years since 2015 attacking Corbyn have a greater responsibility than he for Thursday’s disaster.
And the attacks were inspired by Labour’s socialist policies. Those imagining that Labour would have benefited from a different leader are kidding themselves.
The full-throated war waged by the British Establishment against the prospect of change will be waged against any and every politician who genuinely offers it.
The right are pushing for a rapid leadership contest in a bid to take advantage of panic and despondency on the left as a result of the shocking defeat.
Corbyn’s decision to step down may have been inevitable, but the left must resist all calls for the process to be sped up.
A period of reflection is essential if the party is to learn the right lessons from defeat.
Already there are those claiming, in the face of overwhelming evidence, that Labour should adopt an even more pro-EU stance.
Such a development would all but kill the party outside London and also act as proxy for abandoning the radical socialist policies the party has developed since 2015, which remain both popular and essential.
The social and environmental crisis will not go away because we failed to elect a Parliament prepared to do anything about it.
The left needs to keep its head. Labour’s 10.3 million votes were more than the party received in 2005, 2010 or 2015, though far less than in 2017.
Its vote share was higher than in 2010. This cannot mask how comprehensively it has been beaten, but it is important because it can inform strategies to resist the savage attacks on working-class people we know will be in the pipeline now Boris Johnson has a large parliamentary majority.
A mass membership Labour Party will be a huge part of that resistance, as will many on the revolutionary left and the trade unions.
Its growth and its clear socialist message are significant achievements for which Corbyn’s leadership deserves immense credit.
We head into the winter with soaring homelessness, rising child poverty, underfunded public services threatened with further fragmentation and privatisation.
Britain is a country of hungry children and cold, isolated pensioners. It has a government which marginalises and abuses disabled people, scapegoats and mistreats refugees.
These people need solidarity and practical help. Community organising is our first responsibility, and may lay the groundwork for building a more resilient and stronger left.
комшија
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 96.548
"Kao prepoznatljivo lice antiratne koalicije „Stop ratu“ britanskog premijera Tonija Blera [сада саветник *******ог а за кога радите ви из ДСС-удбе; прим. комшија] je otvoreno karakterisao kao masovnog ubicu i ratnog zločinca. U vreme bombardovanja NATO-a na SRJ 1999. Korbin je vodio snažnu antiratnu kampanju odbacujući tzv. argumente koje su zastupnici vojne intervencije navodili kao razloge za pokretanjem vojne sile". https://www.danas.rs/ljudi/dzeremi-korbin-razocarani-laburista/
- Poruka
- 90.829
A Srbende ga ne vole.
комшија
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 96.548
комшија
Stara legenda
- Poruka
- 96.548
http://balkans.aljazeera.net/vijest...estaj-o-ruskom-mijesanju-u-britansku-politiku
Johnson odobrio izvještaj o ruskom miješanju u britansku politiku
Britanski premijer našao se pod udarom opozicije kad je uoči izbora blokirao objavljivanje tog izvještaja.
U izvještaju se ukazuje da je devet ruskih privrednika davalo donacije Konzervativnoj stranciEPA/Ilustracija
16. Decembar 2019.
Britanski premijer Boris Johnson odobrio je objavljivanje kontroverznog izvještaja o navodnom ruskom miješanju u politiku Velike Britanije, saopćeno je iz Downing Streeta.
Johnson se našao pod udarom opozicije kad je uoči izbora blokirao objavljivanje tog izvještaja parlamentarnog Odbora za obavještajne i sigurnosne poslove (ISC), prenosi Tanjug.
Dosadašnji predsjednik tog tijela Dominic Grieve, koji je izgubio mjesto na posljednjim izborima, rekao je za Independent da je to dokaz da su razlozi za neobjavljivanje, koje je tada dao Johnson, bili lažni.
"Činjenica da je mogao odobriti da se sada [izvještaj] objavi pokazuje da je, ustvari, bilo potpuno moguće odobriti njegovu objavu prije nego što je Parlament raspušten u novembru", rekao je Grieve.
Nema roka objave
Dokument, za koji se vjeruje da otkriva navodne napore Moskve da izvrši utjecaj u Velikoj Britaniji novčanim donacijama, političkim kontaktima i manipulacijama posredstvom društvenih mreža, ne može biti objavljen do imenovanja novog odbora, pa se ne očekuje da će se to dogoditi prije januara.
Novog predsjedavajućeg i članove ISC-ja imenuje premijer, uz konsultacije sa čelnikom opozicije, a odobrava Parlament glasanjem, što je proces koji bi trebao trajati nekoliko sedmica.
Grieve kaže da je zabrinut da bi to moglo trajati do aprila ili kasnije, jer je proces imenovanja novog odbora posljednji put trajao gotovo šest mjeseci.
Za razliku od drugih parlamentarnih odbora, ISC izvještava premijera, koji ima moć stopirati njegovo ovlaštenje dok ne utvrdi krši li on nacionalnu sigurnost.
Johnsonov glasnogovornik saopćio je da je premijer donio odluku da izvještaj može biti objavljen, ali nije rekao i kada će to biti.
Bez detalja izvještaja
"Objavljivanje njegovog sadržaja ne bi utjecalo na funkcije onih organa koji štite našu nacionalnu sigurnost", rekao je glasnogovornik.
Grieve je odbio otkriti bilo kakve detalje o sadržaju izvještaja, koji je završen u martu, a koji razmatra tvrdnje da je ruska vlada utjecala na rezultat referenduma o Brexitu i rezultate izbora 2017.
Kako se navodi, u izvještaju se ukazuje da je devet ruskih privrednika davalo donacije Konzervativnoj stranci, a u dokumentu su navedena njihova imena.
Svjedoci istrage uključivali su članove MI5, MI6 i vladinog centra za prisluškivanje, prenosi Independent.
Izvor: Agencije
Johnson odobrio izvještaj o ruskom miješanju u britansku politiku
Britanski premijer našao se pod udarom opozicije kad je uoči izbora blokirao objavljivanje tog izvještaja.
U izvještaju se ukazuje da je devet ruskih privrednika davalo donacije Konzervativnoj stranciEPA/Ilustracija
16. Decembar 2019.
Britanski premijer Boris Johnson odobrio je objavljivanje kontroverznog izvještaja o navodnom ruskom miješanju u politiku Velike Britanije, saopćeno je iz Downing Streeta.
Johnson se našao pod udarom opozicije kad je uoči izbora blokirao objavljivanje tog izvještaja parlamentarnog Odbora za obavještajne i sigurnosne poslove (ISC), prenosi Tanjug.
Dosadašnji predsjednik tog tijela Dominic Grieve, koji je izgubio mjesto na posljednjim izborima, rekao je za Independent da je to dokaz da su razlozi za neobjavljivanje, koje je tada dao Johnson, bili lažni.
"Činjenica da je mogao odobriti da se sada [izvještaj] objavi pokazuje da je, ustvari, bilo potpuno moguće odobriti njegovu objavu prije nego što je Parlament raspušten u novembru", rekao je Grieve.
Nema roka objave
Dokument, za koji se vjeruje da otkriva navodne napore Moskve da izvrši utjecaj u Velikoj Britaniji novčanim donacijama, političkim kontaktima i manipulacijama posredstvom društvenih mreža, ne može biti objavljen do imenovanja novog odbora, pa se ne očekuje da će se to dogoditi prije januara.
Novog predsjedavajućeg i članove ISC-ja imenuje premijer, uz konsultacije sa čelnikom opozicije, a odobrava Parlament glasanjem, što je proces koji bi trebao trajati nekoliko sedmica.
Grieve kaže da je zabrinut da bi to moglo trajati do aprila ili kasnije, jer je proces imenovanja novog odbora posljednji put trajao gotovo šest mjeseci.
Za razliku od drugih parlamentarnih odbora, ISC izvještava premijera, koji ima moć stopirati njegovo ovlaštenje dok ne utvrdi krši li on nacionalnu sigurnost.
Johnsonov glasnogovornik saopćio je da je premijer donio odluku da izvještaj može biti objavljen, ali nije rekao i kada će to biti.
Bez detalja izvještaja
"Objavljivanje njegovog sadržaja ne bi utjecalo na funkcije onih organa koji štite našu nacionalnu sigurnost", rekao je glasnogovornik.
Grieve je odbio otkriti bilo kakve detalje o sadržaju izvještaja, koji je završen u martu, a koji razmatra tvrdnje da je ruska vlada utjecala na rezultat referenduma o Brexitu i rezultate izbora 2017.
Kako se navodi, u izvještaju se ukazuje da je devet ruskih privrednika davalo donacije Konzervativnoj stranci, a u dokumentu su navedena njihova imena.
Svjedoci istrage uključivali su članove MI5, MI6 i vladinog centra za prisluškivanje, prenosi Independent.
Izvor: Agencije
