European Union

A transition period comes to a close, and the UK will no longer have to follow European Union rules, Richard Rose examines how Brexit could be reversed in whole or part.

In ‘getting Brexit done’, Boris Johnson’s government has taken full ownership of the consequences of leaving the European Union at a time when the economy is feeling the massive impact of the coronavirus pandemic. Downing Street can try to blame the pandemic for visible costs of Brexit, such as the loss of jobs dependent on EU exports, but even if it succeeds, it still risks losing electoral support.
The prospect of difficulties ahead has given the pro-EU movement some cause of optimism. Europhile think tanks are holding webinars and fundraising. They can draw comfort from demographics: younger pro-EU cohorts are gradually replacing ageing Eurosceptic so that those who voted for Brexit in the 2016 referendum will be a minority of the electorate by the time of the 2024 British general election.

But that does not change the reality that, at the end of this year, EU campaigners will have ended their last battle, against leaving without a deal. Even if the government does arrive at an agreement with Brussels, it will do so on Boris Johnson’s terms. These would hardly mitigate the economic disruptions that will begin to show on January 1 when the UK becomes a fully-fledged non-member state of the EU. At this point, political choices alter radically. The pro-Brexit group become the ‘Remainers’, wanting the UK to maintain its freedom from the EU. Pro-EU campaigners must find a new name and purpose, whether their goal is the United Kingdom once again becoming an EU member or the UK having a positive relation with Europe from outside the bloc. The strategic question for the government’s opponents to ask is: What would it take for the British government to undo Brexit?

Struggles ahead
Rejoining the EU is not possible on the same terms as the UK was previously a member with a budget rebate and no obligation to join the eurozone. Unlike a social club, the EU does not have a provision for members that drop out to be quickly re-instated. The British government could apply to become a new member state through existing EU procedures or, as a non-member state, seek a new deal on UK-EU relations that would improve the position arrived at by Downing Street’s negotiations with Michel Barnier this autumn. If expert forecasts of the impact of Brexit are correct, the rosy scenario promised by Brexiters will soon be seen as a mirage. Trade deals with the United States and China will not materialise while domestics costs will be real and visible.
Jobs will be lost in the Northern England ‘red wall’ constituencies that the Conservatives won last December. Labour shortages in hospitals, care homes and restaurants will produce worse service and higher costs. These developments will accelerate the arrival of the normal mid-term slump in government support and make Conservative MPs back off cheering a prime minister who identified their party with getting Brexit done. In order for British politicians to promote closer ties with Europe, the EU and its member states will need to be invisibly better economic and political shape than Britain. Whether this will be the case is problematic. The EU currently faces major divisions about the eurozone, foreign policy, immigration and respect for democracy in East European member states. The coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated internal EU conflicts by hitting poorer Mediterranean countries harder than northern Europe.
If the state of Europe looks better, public opinion polls are likely to show an openness to undoing the effects of Brexit. Asking people how they would vote if a referendum were held on joining the EU is now hypothetical. The immediately relevant question is: Do you think leaving the European Union has been good or bad for the economy? The follow up question should ask: Do you think getting better relations with the European Union would help the British economy? As 2024 approaches, the ball will be at Keir Starmer’s feet. The Labour leader will have the chance to set his party’s general election manifesto. Its over-riding theme will be: Get the economy right. That leaves a place in the manifesto for a commitment to explore improving Britain’s trade with the Single Europe Market. This avoids premature pledge to a particular relationship when any outcome can only be determined by agreement with the EU.

A different EU
The European Union in 2025 will be different from the EU today. There will be a new European Commission formed after a new European Parliament is elected in May 2024. There will be a new Chancellor in Germany and France will have a president whose mandate will reflect its 2022 election. Just how much or little the eurozone has changed and how the coronavirus epidemic has encouraged a change in the Schengen commitment to the free movement of people within the EU will be clearer by 2025. While continental Europhiles hope to see events lead to an ever-closer union, the default position is that the EU changes by muddling through and more differentiated integration allows some member states to opt-out of further integration. If Starmer becomes prime minister, his first task will be the easiest: fence-mending with European politicians. Curiosity will make him a welcome visitor in Brussels. Within Whitehall, an inventory will be needed of laws and regulations that had been amended post-Brexit in ways departing from Single Europe Market standards. In parallel, a Commission should hold a public inquest into the consequences of Brexit for the British economy. Trade unions, downsized businesses, City of London institutions, universities and others should be invited to report examples of damage. Evidence of real damage will mobilise more political support for a new deal than Brexiter promises that future benefits will replace current damage.
Once the ground has been prepared, the government could publish realistic options in a green paper with a title such as ‘Improving Britain’s Relations with the Single Europe Market’. To keep its options open before negotiations with Brussels start, the green paper could canvass alternative forms of bilateral agreement ranging from a closer association than that of Norway, where the government is pro-EU and the voters are not, to a minimal Norway-minus deal. The EU has already signalled that given Britain’s economic and political importance, it would negotiate a one-off agreement for closer relations. A green paper should make clear how timeconsuming and arduous the process of joining the European Union would be. To become a member state the UK would have to accept without amendment the acquis communitaire, that is, the complete body of existing EU laws and regulations. Dozens of volumes of EU and UK laws would need to be collated to ensure that the UK adheres to EU standards or that it will make changes in order to join. In addition, the UK would be obligated to make a multi-billion commitment to the EU’s annual budget, accept decision making by qualified majority votes, and the enforcement of policies by the Court of Justice of the European Union. If the EU applies its current requirement for a new member state to be prepared to join the eurozone, that could sink any chance of a British government wanting to accept EU membership.

Undoing Brexit?
The only certain way to undo Brexit in the next Parliament is for a Labour government to negotiate an agreement with the EU restoring the mutual benefits of Britain trading with the Single Europe Market. A minority Labour government could rely on Scottish Nationalist and Liberal Democrat MPs to ensure a parliamentary majority for such an agreement. A Conservative demand for a referendum on such a measure could be rejected on the grounds that such a deal does not make the UK an EU member state. An economic relationship without the political influence of membership would only be half a loaf. Very committed pro-EU campaigners could, if they wished, take Eurosceptics as their model, and start a 20-year campaign to reverse the UK’s position outside the EU. However, for British politicians who have never wanted to make a meal of the European Union, close economic relations is sufficient. For British voters hungry to escape from an economy disrupted by both Brexit and coronavirus, BRINO (Brexit In Name Only) is better than no loaf at all.

 

 

Professor Richard Rose is Director of the Centre for the Study of Public Policy at the University of Strathclyde Glasgow and a Visiting Fellow at the European University Institute Florence. His most recent book is ‘How Referendums Challenge European Democracy’.

 

 

This blog is also appearing in Political Insight, September 2020, a publication of the Political Studies Association of the UK.

 

The post What would it take to undo Brexit? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

On 20 July 2020, British MPs voted by a majority not to have any say or votes on future UK trade agreements. Can you think of any other professions where you could vote not to do your job but still be paid for it?

Postmen and women voting not to deliver letters? Train drivers voting not to drive trains? Doctors voting not to treat patients?

Or indeed, politicians in the European Parliament voting to give up any say or votes on EU trade deals?

Inconceivable.

All European Union trade agreements must be scrutinised, debated and democratically passed, or rejected, by elected MEPs.

That’s what they are there for on behalf of their constituents, the citizens across Europe.

If MEPs voted not to do their job, there would be uproar.

Just as there should be uproar in the UK now that our MPs have voted to discard their duties on behalf of us, their constituents across the UK, by deciding to have no say or votes on the country’s future trade agreements.

But then just look at the parlous state of democracy in the UK, in which:

• Our UK Parliament has 1,458 members – 808 of them unelected (on 31 July 2020, the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, appointed 36 new legislators to the House of Lords – one of them, his brother Jo).
• We have an unelected head of state (who has no real power to intervene on important issues).
• We have an old-fashioned voting system of first-past-the-post (for the European Parliament, voting is by proportional representation).
• We have governments that can bypass Parliament with the use – and abuse – of arcane and ancient Royal Prerogatives and Henry VIII clauses.
• We have a legislative system whereby most laws are made by Statutory Instruments, drafted by the Civil Service, which cannot be amended by Parliament and most of which become law automatically, without a Parliamentary vote.
• We have a Prime Minister who could (until it was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court) close down Parliament for an extended period at his will and without Parliamentary approval.
• We had a referendum in which two out of the four members of the United Kingdom voted no to Brexit, but we’ve gone ahead with it anyway.

None of these undemocratic situations could occur in the EU.

But how many people truly know that the EU is a democracy?

For years, Brexit politicians and papers have been selling us the blatant lie that the EU is run by unelected bureaucrats.

Let me take this opportunity to explain why that is not the case.

 EU MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS In the EU, democratic governance is the number one requirement of European Union membership.

In 1962, the year after Britain first applied to join the EEC, Spain also applied.

The country was then governed by authoritarian dictator, Francisco Franco. Spain’s membership application was flatly and unanimously rejected by all members of the European Community.

The reason? Because Spain wasn’t a democracy.

Indeed, if the UK was applying to join the EU now, recent events could present questions over the validity of our application and whether our democratic governance is currently robust enough.

Remember, the Tories are committed to scrapping our Human Rights Act and they oppose the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. In the recent past, the Tory government has also threatened to leave the European Convention on Human Rights.

That would likely bar us from joining the EU, where a commitment to human rights is also a strict membership requirement.

Before becoming a member of the EU, an applicant country must demonstrate that it has a stable government guaranteeing:

• Democracy
• The rule of law
• Human rights
• Respect for and protection of minorities
• The existence of a functioning market economy
• The capacity to cope with competitive pressure and market forces within the Union

Most countries that applied to join the EU did not meet these strict membership requirements and so they needed many years to prepare for the process before their application could be accepted.

 EU MEMBERS Contrary to what many people in Britain understand, the EU is a democracy, democratically run by its members.

These comprise the democratically elected governments and Parliaments of EU member states, alongside the directly elected European Parliament.

All the treaties of the EU, upon which all EU laws must be compatible, and any new countries applying to join the EU, must be unanimously and democratically agreed by all the national parliaments of every EU member state, however large or small.

In some EU countries, according to their national constitutions, agreement must also be obtained by regional parliaments and national referendums.

All the EEC/EU treaties since Britain joined the EU 47 years ago were fully debated and democratically passed by our Parliament in Westminster.

Not once were any changes to our EU membership imposed upon us, and neither could they be, as the EU is a democracy.

In addition, every EU country has a veto on any treaty changes or any new country joining.

(Compare that to our referendum of 2016, when Scotland and Northern Ireland voted against Brexit, but it made no difference.)

 THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The European Parliament is the EU’s law-making body, alongside the EU Council, which comprises the departmental ministers of democratically elected governments of every EU country.

The Parliament is directly elected every five years by citizens in all EU countries. The latest European elections were held in May 2019.

There are 705 MEPs (we used to have 73 MEPs from the UK representing us in Europe; alas, no more)

Each European country is proportionally represented in the Parliament according to their size of population.

EU laws can only be passed by the European Parliament in concert with the EU Council (also called the Council of Ministers).

The Council of Ministers shares law making and budgetary powers with the European Parliament. When voting on proposed EU laws, its meetings must be public.

Alongside the Council, the European Parliament has the democratic power to accept, amend or reject proposed laws and regulations.

According to extensive research by VoteWatch Europe, over 97% of adopted EU laws in the 12 years to 2016 were supported by the UK.

There are proposals to give the European Parliament new powers to directly initiate legislation, as well as to vote on it.

 THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION The European Commission is the servant of the EU, and not its master. Ultimately, the Commission is beholden to the European Parliament, and not the other way around.

The Commission President must be elected by an absolute majority of all MEPs (i.e. over 50% of them).

Indeed, Ursula von der Leyen could only become Commission President with the democratic backing of over half of all MEPs.

Each Commissioner must also be democratically approved by the European Parliament in a strict vetting process. The Parliament has the democratic power to reject candidate Commissioners – as it did last autumn.

The Parliament also has the democratic power to sack the entire Commission at any time during its five-year tenure.

The Commission is responsible for implementing the democratic decisions of the EU, upholding and enforcing democratically passed EU laws and treaties, and managing the day-to-business of the EU.

The Commission also proposes new laws, but they only do this in close collaboration with the European Parliament and Council of Ministers, as only the Parliament and Council can pass laws.

The Commission has zero power to pass any laws.

Before the Commission proposes new laws, it prepares ‘Impact Assessments’ which set out the advantages and disadvantages of possible policy options.

The Commission then consults interested parties such as non-governmental organisations, local authorities and representatives of industry and civil society. Groups of experts also give advice on technical issues.

In this way, the Commission ensures that legislative proposals correspond to the needs of those most concerned and avoids unnecessary red tape.

Citizens, businesses and organisations also participate in the consultation procedure. National parliaments can also formally express their reservations if they feel that it would be better to deal with an issue at national rather than EU level.

 THE EUROPEAN COUNCIL The European Council consists of the democratically elected leaders of each EU country – their Prime Ministers and Presidents. It is the EU’s supreme political authority.

The Council does not negotiate or adopt EU laws, but it does democratically set the political goals and priorities of the European Union, including the policy agenda of the Commission.

The Council also democratically chooses candidates for the post of Commission President, which the European Parliament must then elect with an absolute majority of MEPs.

The Council President reports to the European Parliament.

 UK MEMBERSHIP OF THE EU During our membership, Britain democratically helped to run and rule the EU, and not the other way around. Whatever the EU is and has become, Britain helped to create it.

Indeed, the EU can become whatever all its members unanimously agree it can become. But of course, that only applies to EU members, and not to ex-members.

Outside of the EU, Britain can only watch as democratic decisions about the running and future direction of our continent are decided without us, even though those decisions will affect us just as much, whether we are a member or not.

Leaving the EU has meant a loss of sovereignty. We no longer have any democratic representation on our continent.

And now, Brexit has directly led to us having less democratic representation in our country.

• Follow my journalism page on Facebook: Jon Danzig writes
• My campaign page on Facebook: Reasons2Rejoin
• And LinkedIn

________________________________________________________

 

The post UK versus EU democracy appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

El 21 de julio, se produjo un terrible crimen de odio y un asalto agravado en las cercanías del Consulado General de la República de Azerbaiyán en Los Ángeles, California; ubicado en 11766 Wilshire Blvd. A plena luz del sol, una multitud de jóvenes armenios radicales atacaron físicamente a un grupo de manifestantes azerbaiyanos – estadounidenses. Al final del enfrentamiento, siete personas resultaron heridas, entre ellas una mujer. Cuatro de las víctimas fueron hospitalizadas, un ciudadano permanece en estado crítico. Dicho asalto masivo contra manifestantes pacíficos constituye un crimen de odio, basado en el origen nacional y étnico.

Aquí se encuentra información de fondo sobre la protesta:

Cerca de 5 mil manifestantes armenios se manifestaron frente al Consulado General de la República de Azerbaiyán en la Avenida Willshire luego de un estallido en la frontera internacional entre Armenia y Azerbaiyán. Desde el 12 de julio, por pedido de Rusia, las fuerzas armadas de Armenia lanzaron varios ataques contra las posiciones del ejército azerbaiyano y bombardearon aldeas azerbaiyanas en el distrito de Tovuz a lo largo de la frontera. Las hostilidades en el otro lado del planeta desencadenaron una serie de protestas en todo el mundo, incluido Estados Unidos. Un grupo de 50 azerbaiyanos – estadounidenses llevó a cabo una contra protesta pacífica expresando descontento contra las acciones del ejército armenio. Los manifestantes armenios cantaron varios insultos contra el pueblo de Azerbaiyán y pueblo de Turquía. El Departamento de Policía de Los Ángeles (LAPD) fue llevado al lugar para controlar las protestas y mantener la ley y el orden. Durante la protesta, la situación se salió de control y LAPD no pudo contener al gran grupo armenio de manifestantes. Una multitud de manifestantes armenios rodeó al grupo de azeríes y agredió a una mujer y seis hombres.

No hace falta decir que hay una población de Armenia considerable en el área metropolitana de Los Ángeles, la mayoría de los cuales hacen una contribución significativa a Los Ángeles y a los Estados Unidos. Dicho esto, algunos pueden haber estado protestando pacíficamente. Sin embargo, algunos están ocupados prometiendo su lealtad al nacionalismo violento y radical. Uno no se sorprendería si el núcleo de las olas violentas que atacan a los azerbaiyanos -estadounidenses estuvieran formadas por miembros de la pandilla del Poder Armenio, que es infame por sus actividades criminales y violentas en el área de Los Ángeles.
(https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/armenian-criminal-enterprise-dealt-serious-blow)

Este incidente es un crimen de odio, basado en el origen nacional y étnico. De acuerdo con el código penal 422.55 PC de California, este incidente DEBE investigarse como un delito de odio. La Ciudad de Los Ángeles es una metrópolis diversa, cuyos residentes representan casi todas las culturas, nacionalidades, razas, religiones, orientación sexual, afiliación política y discapacidad física. Lamentablemente, algunos grupos e individuos específicos que están motivados por el odio y están dispuestos a actuar violentamente hacia los demás en función de estas diferencias. Ya se informó que LAPD comenzó a investigar este incidente como un crimen de odio, después de que tres víctimas azerbaiyanas presentaron un informe ante la policía.

En los siguientes días, algunas cuentas de redes sociales que son propiedades de elementos radicales de la comunidad armenia publicaron en redes sociales solicitando información personal como domicilios para azerbaiyanos étnicos que viven en el área de Los Ángeles en un esfuerzo por localizarlos y atacarlos. Es indignante y extremadamente peligroso para mí, mi familia y todos en mi comunidad, ya que los radicales armenios pueden estar buscando a los azeríes en el área.

Es probable que los principales medios de comunicación no estén cubriendo mucho este grave incidente, y es por eso por lo que le insto a que tome nota e informe sobre este crimen de odio y situación peligrosa hacia los miembros de un grupo étnico aislado para que la policía en cada ciudad comience a actuar y preocuparse.

 

Vugar Seidov

The post Crimen de odio en Los Ángeles basado en el origen nacional y étnico appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Center – Security

Derrida emphasized that the main ‘structurality of structure’ is shadowed by giving it a perfect center, and it has been deemed mandatory that everything work along that center. The center enables a closed totality, and it will be unimaginable if anyone brings out a notion of a structure without a center.

A center is essentially always defined in system to authoritatively forbid any play of meaning, Derrida exclaimed. The concept of structure with a center has been enunciated to keep everything flowing in one certain way. The purpose of implying certainty by giving a center is to nullify the probability of problems or different ideas and practices other than those certified. Similarly a presence of a center eradicates anxiety and the main goal of West has always been to find a ‘center’, which is dubbed the most secure and imperceptible place.

Terry Eagleton elaborated this notion arguing that western metaphysics have always clung to a word, a supposed truth etc. for security and basis for their learning. Notions like the “God, the idea, the world spirit, the self,” accomplish the very task of attaining a center. Derrida highlighted that there have been an innate desire to stick to some ideals or center and this is the reason western metaphysics have created a system of standards.

Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger – attempts of decentering

Derrida proclaimed that “the center is not the center,” in the Structure, Sign and Play he announced that a rupture has occurred in the conceptual framework of western metaphysics. The assumed center is not there.  He then furthered it by mentioning the antecedents to such rupture, which are Nietzsche, Freud and Heidegger.

Nietzsche questioned the long standing precedence of truth and being and substituted it with notions of play and interpretation. Freud critiqued the ascendancy of mind which had been hailed all autonomous in pre-Freudian times. And lastly but importantly Heidegger demanded dismantling of metaphysics and to quit ‘determination of Being as presence.’ Derrida emphasized that these attempts to subvert the center nevertheless contend to the same jargon of metaphysics. Although, confirming to the jargon of metaphysics, Derrida asserted that there has been a displacement of center. The center does not fulfill its duty that is to magnetize everything towards it; instead it denotes to other signs and those signs lead to other signs, the attainment of meaning becomes a vicious circle.

The Rupture in Western Metaphysics

Peter Barry explicated such rupture or decentering more clearly. He reminded us that before Nietzsche and Freud etc. there had been an order of things. Man was epicenter of everything, there were codes of how to dress, class of architecture, a pattern of intellectual paradigmatic growth. But certain events changed it. Derrida call them rupture while Peter Barry more specifically mentioned those ruptures. World War I obliterated any development that was going on, holocaust dismantled Europe as the center of human cooperation and respect. Even the empirical findings on relativity changed our thinking about time and space, as they are no longer considered fixed centers. The end result is a world with no center and authority.

Decentering Europe

Husserl and Heidegger evaluated Europe philosophically on the notions of identity of Europe, “spiritual unity of Europe,” and European Spirit. Derrida has also worked on those two philosophers’ footsteps and similar to them did not consider Europe as merely a geographical division on world. Ultimately, he took some of Husserl and Heidegger’s ideas, postulated some and created grounds to make news for decentered Europe.

For Husserl, Europe is a transcendental philosophical idea born in seventh century Greece. Derrida questioned such notions, in such a manner that he tried to subvert Husserl’s own argument, asking if Europe is a pure idea then place of this idea could easily be replaced with Asia or Africa.  And Husserl should not have a problem but still it is not possible. The phenomenological idealism does not specify a date and place to the distinctive character of cognition of European race. But despite that, Husserl saw idea of Europe as an ephemeral idea actually conceived in the mind of philosophers of Greece.

Derrida debated this single source of Europe and emphasized that knowledge coming down to us about truth and being is not fundamentally Greek. Because Europe is fundamentally influenced by the interconnecting varied integration of other traditions, notions and languages like Arabic, Jewish, Christian, Roman and Germanic which have their own integral position and are not some tertiary additions. Derrida insisted that this is all because Europe has not unfurled only Greek deal but is equally affected by all factors passing through Europe, and these factors should be taken stock of.

In ascertaining the identity of Europe, Derrida established a prerequisite to look at what was moved through and interpreted and translated by Europeans from Arabic of before Quran times and after Quran and also from Rome. As well as when Husserl debarred Indians, Gypsies and Eskimos from his European humanity; Derrida saw this concept as hampering any prospect of openness to other, to openness to anything other than European.

Not only Derrida drew a European identity bisected by different origins, he created doubt about the assumption that philosophy has Greek basis. He also tallied with the idea that Greek thought might be substituted with Chinese or even African thought. He added that although not new, the importance of such question remains intact, that is philosophy being only European and exactly Greek.

By supplicating the idea of Chinese or African philosophy instead of European, Derrida was trying to show the ambiguity inherent in it and henceforth in idea of Europe. If we take western philosophy founding basis of Europe we should take in stock that the Greek philosopher considering themselves European is highly debatable.

Derrida, in The Other Heading, queried about defining boundaries of Europe and ultimately giving it a center. He said that this is not possible because there are no fixed borders of Europe either spiritually, politically or geographically. Its geographic borders get blurred everywhere be it to the east or west, north or south. Spiritually if we take it as the hybrid of European Christianity, then is it catholic, protestant or orthodox? This is as confusing as the concept that Europe’s unity is due to its philosophy or reason, its Jewish linkages or Greek heritage. Moreover, if we take Jerusalem as epicenter, how can we rip apart Islamic memories associated with Jerusalem or forget the fact that Jerusalem is itself dispersed in Athens, Rome, Moscow and even Paris.

 

The post Decentering: Rupture at the heart of Europe appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

The European Commission on Friday (31 July) signed off on a merger between French trainmaker Alstom and the rail arm of Canadian firm Bombardier, setting a number of competition criteria in the process.

German holidaymakers received a summer consolation prize on Friday (31 July) when the European Commission approved a government scheme aimed at helping travel operators guarantee replacement vouchers for cancelled trips.

Following the announcement that the US will withdraw troops from Germany and station some of them in other European states, resistance to the move is growing among US Democrats and some Republicans. They argue that the plan will weaken Nato and play into Russia's hands. But rather than hoping that the withdrawal will be cancelled Europe should deal with the consequences, commentators warn.

After tensions between Greece and Turkey escalated into threatening military gestures, Ankara has suspended its exploratory drilling for gas in the eastern Mediterranean. The Turkish drilling ship 'Oruc Reis' has returned to the port of Antalya and Greece has withdrawn several naval vessels. According to media reports, talks have already begun between Ankara and Athens. The media nod their approval.

A documentary produced by a Danish TV station about the conditions for dementia patients in nursing homes in the city of Aarhus has caused shock and outrage nationwide. Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen described it as "heartbreaking" and said that the main problem was a lack of resources. Danish newspapers want to see the issue of elderly care at the top of the political agenda.

The Hajj began on Tuesday, shortly before the Islamic Eid al-Adha or Feast of the Sacrifice, under strict regulations and with only around 1,000 pilgrims, all from within Saudi Arabia. In normal times more than 2.5 million Muslims from all over the world travel to Mecca to pray and eat together during the pilgrimage. Commentators explain how the coronavirus pandemic is changing the Hajj and the Sacrifice Feast.