Connect with us

World News

Thousands of British Jews apply for German nationality as Brexit looms

Published

on

…May goes back to Brussels over Brexit but EU says nothing has changed***

Simon Wallfisch grew up in London as the grandson of an Auschwitz survivor, who had sworn to never return to the country that murdered her parents and 6 million other Jews.

But more than 70 years after the Holocaust, Brexit has prompted Wallfisch and thousands of other Jews in Britain to apply for German citizenship, which was stripped from their ancestors by the Nazis during the Third Reich.

“This disaster that we call Brexit has led to me just finding a way to secure my future and my children’s future,” said Wallfisch, 36, a well-known classical singer and cellist who received his German passport in October. “In order to remain European I’ve taken the European citizenship.”

Britons holding dual citizenship from an EU country like Germany will retain the privilege of free movement and work across the soon-to-be 27-nation bloc.

Many Britons whose ancestors came from other parts of Europe have been claiming citizenship in other EU member states so they can keep ties to the continent.

The German Embassy in London says it has received more than 3,380 citizenship applications since the Brexit referendum in June 2016 under article 116 of the German Constitution, which allows the descendants of people persecuted by the Nazis to regain the citizenship that was removed between 1933 and 1945.

In comparison, only around 20 such requests were made annually in the years before Brexit.

Wallfisch’s grandmother, Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, was 18 in December 1943 when she was deported to Auschwitz, the Nazi death camp in occupied Poland where more than 1 million Jews were murdered.

She survived because she was a member of the camp’s girls’ orchestra. As a cellist, she had to play classical music while other Jews were taken to the gas chambers.

In November 1944, she was taken to Bergen-Belsen — the concentration camp where diarist Anne Frank died after also being transferred from Auschwitz at about the same time — where she was eventually liberated by the British army in April 1945.

Lasker-Wallfisch immigrated to Britain in 1946, got married and had two children. Her career as a famous cello player took her around the world, but it took decades until she overcame her hatred enough to set foot on German soil again in the 1990s.

In recent years, Lasker-Wallfisch, 93, has become a regular visitor, educating children in Germany about the Holocaust and speaking last year during the German parliament’s annual Holocaust memorial event.

On Sunday’s International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Lasker-Wallfisch, her grandson Simon and her daughter Maya Jacobs Lasker-Wallfisch performed for the first time together on stage at the Jewish Museum Berlin in commemoration of their family. They played music with other members of their extended family and read letters from the past as a tribute to those who survived and those who perished in the Shoah.

Before the show, the three generations sat together on the red couch in the museum’s dressing room and told The Associated Press about the emotional thoughts that went into the younger two’s decision to take German citizenship.

“We cannot be victims of our past. We have to have some hope for change,” said Maya Jacobs Lasker-Wallfisch, a 60-year-old London psychotherapist who is Simon’s aunt and is still waiting on her German citizenship to be approved. “I feel somehow in a strange way triumphant. Something is coming full circle.”

More than just retaining the ability to travel easily from country to country or maintain business ties, Jacobs Lasker-Wallfisch said there are other, more emotional reasons to acquiring German citizenship, with Britain due to leave the European Union on March 29.

“I feel an aliveness here (in Berlin) that I have not experienced before, but it totally makes sense because after all I am German,” Jacobs Lasker-Wallfisch said. She added that if the country behind the Holocaust is now one that welcomes the descendants of the victims, “that’s a good thing.”

But Anita Lasker-Wallfisch, who lived through the horrors of the Holocaust, remained skeptical and pessimistic.

“Jewish people never feel secure,” she said to her daughter and grandson, reminding them of her own past. “I had German nationality — it did not buy me security.”

In the meantime, Theresa May was handed a two-week deadline to resuscitate her Brexit deal last night after she caved to Tory Eurosceptics and pledged to go back to Brussels to demand changes to the Irish backstop.

With just 59 days to go until exit day, MPs narrowly passed a government-backed amendment, tabled by the senior Conservative Graham Brady, promising to replace the Irish backstop with unspecified “alternative arrangements”.

But within minutes of the Commons result, the European council president, Donald Tusk, announced that the EU was not prepared to reopen the deal.

 “The withdrawal agreement is, and remains, the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union,” a spokesman for Tusk said. “The backstop is part of the withdrawal agreement, and the withdrawal agreement is not open for renegotiation.”

Leo Varadkar, the Irish taoiseach, said the EU needed to “hold our nerve”.

On a dramatic day in Westminster the House of Commons also served notice that it would not support the government if it pursued a no-deal Brexit, undermining what May regards as one of her key bargaining chips in the days ahead.

However, May said: “It is now clear that there is a route that can secure a substantial and sustainable majority in this house for leaving the EU, with a deal.”

She repeatedly stressed protections for workers’ rights, as well as mooting changes to the backstop in the hope of winning over Labour MPs, and promised to keep “battling for Britain”.

The Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, said he would meet the prime minister after the amendment against no-deal Brexit was passed. He had previously declined her invitation to talks until a no deal was taken off the table.

May assured MPs she would try to bring back a renegotiated deal for parliament to approve, in a “meaningful vote”, as soon as possible. If she has not managed to do so by 13 February, the government will table a statement about what it plans to do next and allow MPs to vote on it on Valentine’s Day.

The government saw off a series of attempts by backbenchers to seize control of business in parliament to avert a no deal. Fourteen Labour rebels helped May to defeat Yvette Cooper’s attempt to timetable a bill that would mandate the government to extend article 50.

But MPs narrowly passed a more straightforward amendment, tabled by Labour’s Jack Dromey and the Conservative Caroline Spelman, saying they would not accept a no deal outcome, by 318 votes to 310.

May had repeatedly insisted the 585-page withdrawal agreement signed off by EU leaders at a special summit in November was not open for renegotiation. But she urged her own backbenchers to support an amendment rejecting the hardest-fought aspect of the deal: the Irish backstop.

Tabled by Brady, the amendment was passed by 317 votes to 301, a majority of 16. May had earlier said a victory would “send a clear message to Brussels about what the house wants to see changing in the withdrawal agreement in order to be able to support it”.

Officials in Brussels suggested even before the Brady amendment had been passed that reopening the withdrawal agreement was impossible. Some Tory backbenchers said May had been “played” by rightwingers in her party who made clear they reserved the right to vote against her in a fortnight’s time, even if she secured changes.

Steve Baker, the deputy chair of the backbench European Research Group (ERG), announcing that its members would vote for the Brady amendment, made clear they could still reject any renegotiated deal she brought back. “A vote for the Brady amendment is a vote to see if the PM can land a deal that will work. If not then we are not committed,” he said.

The prime minister spoke to European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, by phone to set out her intentions before MPs began debating seven amendments that pursued a series of objectives.

May firmly rejected a pair of proposals aimed at giving MPs the opportunity to steer the next stage of the Brexit process, one tabled by Cooper and Nick Boles, and another by the former attorney general Dominic Grieve.

She said they would, “seek to create and exploit mechanisms that would allow parliament to usurp the proper role of the executive”, saying both approaches were “deeply misguided, and not a responsible course of action”. Both were rejected, Grieve by a majority of 20, and Cooper by 23.

May said she could seek changes to the backstop including a time limit, a unilateral exit clause, or an alternative plan put forward by an unlikely group of Tory MPs, including Jacob Rees-Mogg and the former education secretary Nicky Morgan.

“What I’m talking about is not a further exchange of letters, but a significant and legally binding change to the withdrawal agreement,” May said. “Negotiating such a change will not be easy. It will involve reopening the withdrawal agreement, a move for which I know there is limited appetite among our European partners.”

May’s cabinet had earlier cautiously welcomed the so-called Malthouse compromise, named after the housing minister who brokered it, with Michael Gove particularly enthusiastic, according to Tory sources, while Greg Clark struck a sceptical note.

It includes resurrecting plans for border checks to be avoided through the use of technology, long favoured by Brexiters including Boris Johnson. But all of the “alternative arrangements” mooted in the course of the debate had already been flatly rejected by EU negotiators.

Privately, some ministers were dismissive, with one cabinet source saying: “I’m trying not to say the word ‘unicorn’.”

But the prime minister warded off threats of a revolt from remainer ministers, who had threatened to back the Cooper-Boles amendment, by promising parliament another chance to vote on the government’s Brexit policy in February. A government source said: “It’s one last push; it’s a chance to lance the boil of ‘we haven’t tried hard enough’.”

As well as attempting to revisit the controversial backstop, May stressed that she will continue discussions with trade unions and Labour MPs about how the government can offer more assurances on workers’ rights, including potentially through legislation.

The shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, accused the prime minister of pursuing an impossible deal with Brussels in an attempt to assuage the demands of rebels on her own backbenches. “The danger is obvious – that the prime minister today may build a temporary sense of unity on her own benches, but in reality she’s raising expectations that she can never fulfil,” he said.

Jeremy Corbyn had earlier claimed the real “obstacle to a solution” was May and her government. Labour tabled its own amendment calling for MPs to be allowed to vote on options, including Corbyn’s Brexit policy, and a “public vote”. It was defeated by 296 votes to 327.

NBC with additional report from Guardian UK

Latest News

Alleged Boko Haram Funding: Senate Invites NSA, NIA, 2 Other Security Agencies

Published

on

Alleged Boko Haram Funding: Senate Invites NSA, NIA, 2 Other Security Agencies

The Senate has summoned the National Security Adviser, Malam Nuhu Ribadu, to provide a briefing on the alleged funding of Boko Haram by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID).

Also invited are the heads of the National Intelligence Agency (NIA), Defence Intelligence Agency (DIA) and the Department of State Security Services (DSS).

According to the upper legislative chamber, the meeting with the heads of these security agencies will be in close session.

The senate’s resolution follows a motion sponsored by Sen. Ali Ndume (APC-Borno) during the plenary session on Wednesday in Abuja.

The motion was prompted by a trending social media video in which U.S. Congressman Scott Perry claimed that the U.S. aid agency, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), had funded terrorist organisations, including Boko Haram.

Perry, a Republican representative from Pennsylvania, made this claim during the inaugural hearing of the Sub-committee on Delivering on Government Efficiency.

The session, titled “The War on Waste: Stamping out the Scourge of Improper Payments and Fraud,” focused on alleged misappropriations of taxpayer funds.

Ndume said the social media had been awash with the trending video of a United States Republican congressman, Scott Perry representing Pennsylvania alleged that USAID had been funding terrorist organisations across the world, Boko Haram inclusive.

He said that the devastation caused by Boko Haram in the North-East region of Nigeria and other parts of the country, included bombing, the UN office in Abuja and police headquarters among other attacks.

He stated that the attacks had become a major concern, causing the loss of thousands of Nigerian lives and widespread destruction of property, leading to an unprecedented level of internal displacement across the country.

Ndume noted that over the years, the Federal Government had made significant efforts to implement measures aimed at curbing the activities of terrorist groups, spending substantial resources.

However, these efforts appeared to have yielded limited results, as terrorist activities persisted.

He said that the monumental devastation caused by Boko Haram in Nigeria should be a matter of concern as it had dented the image of the country among the community of nations.

Ndume said allegations began to emerge at this point that some international organisations were behind the unwholesome acts.

He therefore added that urgent steps needed to be taken by the federal government to unravel the mystery.

Contributing Sen.Shehu Kaka (APC-Borno), who seconded the motion said the allegation was weighty, saying that banditry and other forms of criminality had affected the 109 senatorial districts.

He emphasised that efforts should be focused on uncovering the sources of funding for Boko Haram.

Sen. Abdul Ningi (PDP-Bauchi) said that it would be impossible for the senate to adequately address the matter in plenary without the input of relevant security agencies, who should be invited to brief the senate on the issue.

Ningi, therefore, urged the senate to adopt a single motion to invite the NSA, as well as the heads of the DSS, NIA, and DIA, to brief the senate on the allegation.

In his remarks, Senate President, Godswill Akpabio thanked Ningi for his contribution and emphasised that the concerned security agencies should brief the senate in a closed session.

He noted that such sensitive security matters should not be discussed in public.

Continue Reading

Latest News

Trump Administration Mandates There are Only Two Biological Sexes

Published

on

Macron, Scholz, Other World Leaders Congratulate Trump

…Revokes ‘nearly 80 destructive radical executive actions’ of Biden administration

On Monday, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an order proclaiming that there are only two biological sexes: male and female.

Trump signed the order from the White House just hours after his inauguration.

“My Administration will defend women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear and accurate language and policies that recognise women are biologically female, and men are biologically male,” the order states.

“It is the policy of the United States to recognise two sexes – male and female.

“These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.”

The order directs that official government documents, such as passports and visas, reflect male and female as the only two sexes.

“The erasure of sex in language and policy has a corrosive impact not just on women but on the validity of the entire American system,” the order states, referring to “gender ideology extremism.”

U.S. presidents can implement political priorities with the help of so-called executive orders without the approval of the U.S. Congress.

However, they can also be challenged in court more easily than laws.

Trump had announced during his election campaign that he would take political measures against the rights of transgender people in the United States.

He spoke of “transgender lunacy” and “child sexual mutilation,” and repeatedly made disparaging comments about those affected.

The participation of trans women in sports events was particularly made an election campaign topic by the Republicans.

Trans people or transgender individuals are those who do not feel they belong to the gender they were born as.

Trump’s statements are part of a broader societal debate in the U.S., where conservative circles are increasingly demanding measures against the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT+) individuals.

Tech billionaire Elon Musk, one of Trump’s closest confidants, has also expressed criticism of medical treatments for trans young people.

His child, Vivian Jenna Wilson, who has lived openly as a trans woman since 2020, has publicly criticised him for his stance. 

In another development, U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday took gigantic steps to revoke immediate past U.S. President Joe Biden’s policies by signing executive orders.

Trump signed a few other executive orders in front of the crowd at Capital One Arena in Washington, D.C., just a few hours after being sworn in as the 47th president of the United States, including the revocation of nearly 80 executive orders from the Biden administration.

“I’m revoking nearly 80 destructive radical executive actions of the previous administration,” Trump told the crowd at the signing ceremony.

Trump signed an executive order to delay the TikTok ban imposed by the Biden administration by 75 days “to permit my Administration an opportunity to determine the appropriate course of action concerning TikTok.”

He also signed an executive order that will let the United States withdraw from the World Health Organisation.

Trump also declared a national energy emergency in an executive order with an eye on driving down energy costs.

As the first of this kind declared by the U.S. Federal Government, the emergency is expected to enable the government to crank up energy production by tapping emergency powers.

The United States is the largest producer of both crude oil and natural gas and is also the top exporter of liquified natural gas (LNG) globally.

The incoming U.S. president also signed an executive order to pull the United States out of the Paris climate accord.

The move means the United States will pull out of the Paris climate accord for the second time.

During his inauguration speech, Trump, who has long regarded clean energy as expensive and wasteful, also vowed to redouble the efforts to extract and utilise fossil fuels.

“I will also declare a national energy emergency. We will drill, baby, drill,” he said.

“We have something that no other manufacturing nation will ever have — the largest amount of oil and gas of any country on Earth,” Trump claimed. “And we are going to use it.”

Adopted in December 2015, the Paris Agreement is an international endeavour to tackle human-caused global warming and related crises, which the United States formally joined in September 2016.

The first Trump administration officially let the United States, one of the world’s top emitters of greenhouse gases, exit the Paris climate accord in November 2020, dealing a major blow to international efforts to combat the climate crisis.

The latest executive order among many others by Trump will mark another round of back-and-forth moves regarding the U.S. commitment to dealing with climate change on the global stage.

Joe Biden, who succeeded Trump in becoming the 46th U.S. president in 2021, signed an executive order on Jan. 20, 2021 — his first day in office — to bring the United States back into the Paris climate accord.  

– dpa, with additional information from Xinhua

Continue Reading

Latest News

WTO Hosts Seminar On Green Supply Chains

Published

on

WTO Hosts Seminar On Green Supply Chains

A seminar on “Building greener and more Resilient Supply Chains” was held in Geneva as part of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Public Forum 2024.

It was co-hosted by the China Council for the Promotion of International Trade (CCPIT) and the International Trade Centre (ITC).

The four-day public forum would feature over 130 sessions with nearly 4,400 participants from government, business, academia, and civil society.

CCPIT Chairman Ren Hongbin said that today’s globalised economy created both opportunities and challenges.

He emphasised the need to embrace openness and inclusiveness while upholding true multilateralism.

He also stressed that building greener and more resilient supply chains was crucial to addressing global challenges.

ITC Deputy Executive Director Dorothy Tembo underscored the ITC’s commitment to collaborating with partners to offer technical assistance to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

It would offer assistance, especially to those in developing countries, to tap into the potential of cross-border e-commerce.

She said the goal was to build greener supply chains and reduce the carbon footprint of e-commerce, thereby contributing more to sustainable development.

In its Digital Economy Report 2024, the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) emphasised the urgent need to adopt an environmentally sustainable and inclusive digital strategy, said UNCTAD’s head of E-Commerce and Digital Economy.

Torbjorn Frederick stressed that China had issued innovative guidelines promoting the sustainable development of the digital economy. 

– Xinhua

Continue Reading

Editor’s Pick

Politics