Food shortages in case of no-deal Brexit?

Britain will experience shortages of certain foods in the event of a “disastrous” no-deal Brexit, with “serious disruption” expected for months, the country’s food and drink lobby warned Wednesday.

“The food sector is absolutely clear that a no-deal exit is a disastrous outcome for us, but we’ve never said that the country is going to starve,” Tim Rycroft, corporate affairs director at the Food and Drink Federation, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

“There will be selective shortages and they will be to some extent random because it depends on which trucks get through,” he added.

Britain is due to leave the European Union on October 31, but there appears to be little prospect at the moment of a deal being reached to ensure the free-flow of goods after that date.

New Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vowed to take the country out, deal or no deal, which would mean trading with the EU according to World Trade Organization rules.

The deadline is “pretty much the worst date” said Rycroft, “because it’s peak Christmas pre-season, and warehouses are full.”

“We think there will be some serious disruption and it will go on for weeks or months,” he added.

“Fresh food is obviously the tip of the iceberg but we expect that there will be shortages on a whole range of things.”

Christopher Haskins, a Labour politician and former chairman of food manufacturer Northern Foods, warned that Britain could enter a “wartime situation of limited food rationing”.

Johnson has urged EU leaders again to drop their opposition to renegotiating the terms of Brexit, claiming recent European elections required a change of approach.

The European Union said it was bracing for tough talks, but will stand firm as Boris Johnson tries “to play on the fear of ‘no deal’.”

Britain’s shameful part in Mugabe’s tyranny

I can’t imagine that anyone in his right mind would actually want to go to the 91st birthday party of Robert Gabriel Mugabe which takes place this Saturday.

It promises to be an event of truly spectacular moral ugliness. While his people are starving, the ancient despot will convoke 20,000 cronies at a kind of golf club-cum-safari lodge near the Victoria Falls. In scenes reminiscent of the more disgusting and luxurious behaviour of the emperor Commodus, he will cause various exotic beasts to be slaughtered for the feast.

Five impalas will be roasted, two sables, two buffaloes – and then, to the ululations of his drunken Zanu-PF supporters, there will be a series of culinary climaxes, each more revolting than the last. A local farmer has procured two elephants, and after these rare and majestic creatures have been butchered for the delectation of the semi-deified Mugabe, there will be one more type of meat to come – an animal that you might think was semi-sacred, whose killing should be taboo, a creature that people would never normally dream of eating. Yes, a lion, the king of the animal kingdom, will lay down its life before the meat-maddened mob and have the honour of surrendering its mortal flesh to the palsied gullet of the man who still calls himself the “Hitler of Africa”.

And then, at last, the cake will appear, predicted to weigh 200lb, and in the most depraved and demoralising vignette of all, this crowd of brainwashed Zimbabweans will sweetly sing Happy Birthday to the man who has impoverished their country. This birthday party is predicted to cost $1 million at a time when Zimbabweans are living on 35 cents a day. Teachers across the country have been forced to contribute $10 each to put on the show.

The whole exercise is utterly nauseating – and my only question, as I say, is who on earth would want to be there?

Who is going to be toasting Mugabe in champagne and Tusker lager? Who is going to feature in the photo spread in the Zimbabwean equivalent of Hello! or OK!? I doubt that Britain will be represented at all – but by rights there is one man who damn well should be there, one man who should be down on the dance floor with Mugabe’s buxom assistants, and flashing his familiar glistering smile at the gathering.

If there were any justice in the world, that man would break off from giving advice to sundry other dubious regimes and help old Bob with the job of blowing out his candles. And that man, naturally, is Tony Blair.

Zimbabwe is now the second poorest nation on earth – beaten only by Congo for overall grimness. The people are so badly malnourished that one in three children is physically stunted, according to the UN. If you go there you see the ravages of HIV, the emaciated figures standing listlessly on street corners. Companies are constantly going to the wall.

But it is vital to recognise that Zimbabwe was not always like this, and did not have to be like this. This Mugabe tyranny is no accident – and Britain played a shameful part in the disaster. Readers will remember the 1979 Lancaster House Agreement, by which Margaret Thatcher granted independence to Rhodesia. At that time the country was a breadbasket, a flourishing agricultural producer, with about 6,000 commercial farmers. The only trouble with those farmers was that the most successful of them were white – and Mugabe’s long reign has been characterised by one overwhelming objective: to exterminate the last vestiges of white power, whether political or economic.

As he has said: “The white man is here as a second citizen. The only man you can trust is a dead white man.” So it was crucial that the Lancaster House Agreement protected the interests of these white farmers. They could, of course, be bought out, but their land could not be simply seized. There had to be a “willing buyer, willing seller”. The British government agreed to fund the arrangement, compensating the former colonial farmers for land that they gave up. Under that arrangement the white farmers were able to survive – more or less; Zimbabwe remained economically viable – more or less.

And then in 1997, along came Tony Blair and New Labour, and in a fit of avowed anti-colonialist fervour they unilaterally scrapped the arrangement. The overseas development minister, Clare Short, made it clear that neither she nor Blair gave a stuff about the former colonial farmers. As she put it at the time: “I should make it clear that we do not accept that Britain has a special responsibility to meet the costs of land purchase in Zimbabwe. We are a new government from diverse backgrounds, without links to former colonial interests. My own origins are Irish and, as you know, we were colonised not colonisers.”

It was that betrayal of Lancaster House that gave Mugabe his pretext to launch his pogroms against the whites. I remember going to a place called Mazowe, not far from Harare, where Mugabe now has one of his vast personal ranches. I met an old ex-Rhodesian couple whose family came from near London, whose kitchen dresser bore the medals their relatives had won fighting for this country. I remember them physically trembling with fear of the Zanu-PF thugs who were waiting at the gate to their farm; and it wasn’t long before they were gone – driven out by sheer intimidation. They died not long afterwards.

The Labour government enlisted this country in all sorts of wars around the world, some more disastrous than others. British soldiers went to fight and die in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in the Balkans. Here we had people with close relatives in our own country – yes, our own kith and kin – and we did absolutely nothing. We turned our backs on the very people who were actually indispensable to the economic well-being of Zimbabwe, and Labour essentially allowed Mugabe to launch a racist tyranny.

The two criminals, Blair and Bob enjoying a moment together
The two criminals, Blair and Bob enjoying a moment together

It was Labour’s betrayal of the Lancaster House Agreement – driven by political correctness and cowardice – that gave Mugabe the pretext for the despotic confiscations by which he has rewarded his supporters. And that is why Blair should be there: to mark Labour’s special contribution to the tyrant’s longevity in office.

Boris Johnson is the Lord Mayor of London and a former journalist. This article is from the Telegraph newspaper.

World-wide growth in smartphone muggings

smartphonesApple and other smartphone manufacturers are facing co-ordinated pressure from officials in London, New York and San Francisco to tackle the rise in phone theft that is increasingly blighting cities even as other crimes plummet.

While the US and Britain have both seen a dramatic decrease in crime over the past three decades – with UK data this week showing crime at its lowest since records began – “theft from the person”, or mugging, is surging.

Scotland Yard estimates these types of offences have increased by 15 per cent in the past year, and about 10,000 phone handsets a month are stolen in London. In New York, police say so-called “Apple-picking” is the fastest-growing street crime, with 113 devices snatched or lost every minute across the whole of the US.

Boris Johnson, London mayor, is hoping to join forces with New York and San Francisco to push for an industry-standard “kill switch” that would immediately disable handsets when stolen and so diminish their attractiveness to thieves. City Hall officials met their counterparts in New York this week to try to broker cross-Atlantic collaboration on the issue.

Mr Johnson has also written to the UK heads of Apple, Nokia, Samsung, Google’s Motorola, HTC, Microsoft, BlackBerry and Sony demanding action. One of his key concerns is that Apple and other retail stores are too lax in exchanging broken smartphones that could have been stolen for fresh models. Police say one individual was found to have exchanged more than 170 stolen devices for new ones in a single London store over the course of a year. Meanwhile, theft victims who are not insured often end up buying replacement handsets.

“Customers and shareholders surely deserve to know that business cannot and must not benefit directly from smartphone theft through sales of replacement devices,” Mr Johnson’s letter reads.

US federal and state security experts this week took part in a demonstration of new theft deterrent measures on Apple and Samsung devices, as part of a “Secure Our Smartphones” campaign led by New York and San Francisco.

New York’s attorney-general Eric Schneiderman and San Francisco district attorney George Gascón said that while they were “appreciative” of the efforts made by Apple and Samsung to improve security, they were “not going to take them at their word” and would interrogate the new systems against tactics commonly employed by thieves.

Stephanie Ong Stillman of the San Francisco district attorney’s office said public pressure forced Apple and Samsung to co-ordinate with them, which they hope will accelerate the development of a kill switch across the industry.

“The question is no longer if the technology can be implemented, but when,” she said. “We hope the progress made by Apple and Samsung spurs Microsoft and Google to get in the game.”

Apple said in a statement that it had “led the industry in helping customers protect their lost or stolen devices”, since launching its Find My iPhone app in 2009.

BlackBerry and Microsoft, which also received Mr Johnson’s letter, declined to comment. – FT.com