King Charles III on October 25 invited former Chancellor Rishi Sunak to form a government. Sunak thereby becomes Britain's third Prime Minister in two months.

In his first speech as Prime Minister, he immediately emphasised that Britain "is facing a profound economic crisis". Although he paid formal tribute to predecessor Liz Truss, he emphasised that he had been "elected" as Conservative Party leader and hence Prime Minister in part to fix Truss's mistakes. But he used very similar language to that of Truss, in saying that he would "place economic stability and confidence at the heart of this government's agenda". The difference is that "economic stability and confidence" for Sunak is what pleases the stock market. The anti-worker, pro-austerity agenda is however the same, and, of course, "This will mean difficult decisions to come." It can be said at once that this is not something the working class and people will accept, and are not accepting. While there is a demand from many quarters with a completely unelected Prime Minister that there should be a general election now, and hundreds of thousands of people have signed such a petition, the revolt of the working class is such that they are affirming their rights and interests as a class, no matter which cartel party forms the government. Rishi Sunak's claim to bring "compassion to the challenges we face today" is unlikely to placate working people suffering under the cost-of-living crisis. Similarly, his implied condemnation of Boris Johnson in saying, "This government will have integrity, professionalism and accountability at every level," is unlikely to win the trust of the electorate as the economic crisis continues to deepen, no matter how much Sunak declares that "I fully appreciate how hard things are". There was an even an echo of Truss's hero Margaret Thatcher, as Sunak concluded that "we" - which is meant to mean the people and government together - will "fill tomorrow and every day thereafter with hope". This was said without conviction and bereft of credibility, as though "hope" was as far as people could expect to go under his government.

Graphic: Daily Mail Online

What are Rishi Sunak's credentials? He is reported to be the richest MP in history, worth £730 million, together with his wife, Akshata Murty, according to the Sunday Times rich list. The richest man in the House of Commons, he and his wife are one of the top 250 wealthiest people in the whole of Britain. Bloomberg News proudly announced that "Hedge Funds Get Their First Prime Minister". The major source of their wealth is Murty's 0.9% stake in her billionaire father Narayana Murty's IT company, Infosys. The stake is estimated to be worth around £690 million, and allowed the couple to collect £11.6 million in dividend income last year. The Sunday Times says that the source of their wealth comes from "technology and hedge fund", implying that the remaining £40 million may originate from Sunak's time as a partner at hedge funds Children's Investment Fund Management and Theleme Partners, or from his time as director of Catamaran Ventures, the investment firm also owned by his father-in-law, which he led from 2013 to 2015 before going into politics. Sunak's net worth is said to make him richer than King Charles III himself, who before his inheritance had a net worth around $440 million, according to an estimate provided by research institute Wealth-X.

Sunak attended Winchester College, an elite public school where fees are currently £46,000 per year. From there it was straightforward for him to go to Oxford, and read Politics, Philosophy and Economics. With his Winchester and Oxford background it was a matter of the right contacts for Sunak to get into Goldman Sachs and earn his first millions in investment banking, and then move on and up into the world of hedge funds and private wealth management. Marriage to the daughter of a billionaire was only natural.

TUC London Enough Is Enough - Saturday June 18, 2022

Liz Truss was no more than a figurehead Prime Minister, incapable of governing and bound to be replaced. It showed that the Conservative leadership election decided nothing and that the vested interests still are in contradiction with each other, manifesting the "revolving doors" of Cabinet, big industry and finance. That the whole of the measures announced in the "mini-budget" one week could be overturned in the next shows that the government's dysfunctionality and rule by decree was out in the open. Rishi Sunak seeks to give the financiers confidence that all will now be calm and the chaos and ineptitude of Truss's 45-day premiership ended. But Sunak and his new Cabinet seem characterised by deceit and treachery. It will not be forgotten that it was his resignation from Cabinet that finally precipitated Johnson's downfall. And he may well find that leadership of the Tories at this time promises to be something of a poisoned chalice.

The appointments to Cabinet appear as a shuffling of the cards, not as a manifestation of a Cabinet as a "broad church". They do not inspire the "trust" of which Sunak spoke. Jeremy Hunt retains the post of Chancellor to indicate that the economic of austerity are to continue for the mass of working people. The appointment of Suella Braverman, as wild a racist and advocate of transportation to Rwanda as it is possible to get, as Home Secretary has horrified all right-thinking people.

If Liz Truss was open in her stand against the working class and their affirmation that they have their dignity and their rights - as when taunting Keir Starmer on the last day of her premiership that he allegedly stood with striking workers - then Rishi Sunak is in practice as determined that the working class should be kept as far away as possible from political power. But it is inevitable that his programme will fail, as the capitalist crisis intensifies.

The independent programme and politics of the working class puts the human being at the centre of considerations. That is the exact opposite of what the Tories are doing right now. One of the chief considerations is the pro-war stand of the government. Despite the fact that war production is nothing but a drain on the economy, and does great damage to all public services as well as being disastrous to the environment, Rishi Sunak's government is set on this course. His stand is to whip up hysteria against Russia and China, and has stated that he considers China as "the biggest threat" to Britain. During the leadership race, Sunak set out a series of plans he would undertake if elected the Prime Minister, to defend against Chinese "technological aggression". "China and the Chinese Communist Party represent the largest threat to Britain and the world's security and prosperity this century... I will build a new international alliance of free nations to tackle Chinese cyber-threats and share best practice in technology security," he said.

The appointment of Rishi Sunak as Prime Minister places responsibility on the working class to rally the people to themselves settle scores with the old constitutional order, and break the stranglehold of these corrupt, pro-war, anti-worker, anti-social ruling elites that Sunak represents. The establishment of a modern constitutional order which puts human beings at the centre of nation-building projects to humanise the natural and social environment is firmly on the agenda. Deep-going political reforms are required, and the events of the past few weeks only serve to bear this out.

Pauline Easton

The Slough of Despond, as described in the Christian allegory Pilgrim's Progress, written by the English writer and Puritan preacher John Bunyan in 1678: "This miry Slough is such a place as cannot be mended; it is the descent whither the scum and filth that attends conviction for sin doth continually run, and therefore is it called the Slough of Despond: for still as the sinner is awakened about his lost condition, there ariseth in his soul many fears, and doubts, and discouraging apprehensions, which all of them get together, and settle in this place; and this is the reason of the badness of this ground."

This pretty much describes the current state of England's protestant nation-building project initiated by the Tudors five centuries ago. It describes the animus of the British ruling class lurching from crisis to crisis as a result of its refusal to build the new. The economic and political system brought into being in the 1660s following the English Civil War can no longer give the ruling elite the benefits they seek to make themselves richer based on the system of exploitation of labour and theft for private gain.

Having Boris Johnson as a leader prior to Liz Truss was proof positive of the corruption, entitlement and ineptitude of the elite. They rule a cartel party system based on the expropriation of the wealth produced by the working class of Britain and the massive theft from the peoples of Asia, Africa, Oceania and the Caribbean past and present.

An infinitesimal number of UK voters replaced Boris Johnson as leader of the Conservative Party in Britain with Liz Truss who therefore became Prime Minister. She was so incapable of governing Britain that just 44 days later, on October 20, she was forced to resign. Truss delivered a short speech saying she had informed the King of her resignation as leader of the Conservative Party. She said she spoke with the chair of the party's "1922 Committee", which conducts Conservative Party elections and reported:

"We have agreed there will be a leadership election to be completed in the next week.

"This will ensure we remain on a path to deliver our fiscal plans and maintain our country's economic stability and national security.

"I will remain as Prime Minister until a successor has been chosen."

Whoever constitutes the "we" she speaks of will "remain on a path to deliver our fiscal plans and maintain our country's economic stability and national security" only in her dreams.

This resignation was as predictable as it was unavoidable because Britain is experiencing yet another crisis of the worn out capitalist system whose political form can no longer sustain the contradictions tearing it asunder. The English nation-building project has long since lost its lustre. When it was brought into being to replace the medieval system of serfdom and indentured labour with the capitalist system based on the exploitation of wage labour it used the advanced productive forces and military as a base to seize the lands of Asia, Africa and the Americas and brutally enslave and traffic the peoples of the world under colonial rule.

What is happening in Britain today is confirmation that the capitalist economic system and the old constitutional order are in a crisis so profound they cannot be reformed and must be replaced. The task at hand is for the working class to constitute the nation and bring in a modern constitutional order which puts human beings at the centre of nation-building projects to humanise the natural and social environment.

All the neo-liberal measures taken in the last forty years, beginning with those of the "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher, are nation-wrecking. The rich are wallowing in ill-gotten wealth while privatised public infrastructure from the nation-building railway system to social institutions such as the national health system lie in tatters. The strain of war production on the economy is unsustainable. Even private property is under attack through sanctions and other self-serving means on the part of the financial institutions whose main role is to steal the wealth they are supposed to protect.

Thatcher's panaceas from 1979 to 1990 to Make Britain Great Again were taken up by all subsequent governments no matter what their political stripe. These include the warmonger Tony Blair whose bogus "Third Way" was used in a futile attempt to hijack the voice and power of labour to realise Thatcher's dream of making Britain indispensable. The result is an ever deepening crisis and the incapability of the ruling class to wield the political power supranational private interests have usurped.

British rule parallels Dante's famous Seven Circles of Hell: Limbo; Lust; Gluttony; Greed; Wrath; Heresy and, now, Violence. But contrary to Dante's time in the 14th century when capitalism was being brought into being, or John Bunyan's time when the monarchy was restored following the English Civil War, capitalism gained ground and the constitutional order was imposed, today there is no magic that will install a form of party rule that can hide the reality of a government of police powers in the service of the rich and their striving to dominate the world.

The people of Britain keenly experience their own absence of political power. The halls, chambers and offices of Westminster and rooms of Downing Street are filled with corrupt, entitled and accommodated individuals, many of them integral to the revolving door between government and powerful private enterprises promoting an allegedly green economy, infrastructure projects and national security.

All the manoeuvring and deals reveal the desperate striving of the ruling elite to control the productive powers which have escaped the control of the productive forces. The tremendous developments of the technical and scientific revolution put the productive powers beyond their grasp independent of their will. The historical conjuncture reveals the need for the people to have their own outlook and independent politics so that they can provide the problems they and society face with solutions which favour them.

Mass strikes and industrial actions are taking place across Britain which lay the claims of the people for an economy and political rule that provides stable working and living conditions and peace. Unless these claims are met and the stranglehold of corrupt ruling elites is broken, the descent of the British ruling class and Britain itself will continue to spiral downward out of control as will France, Germany and other countries.

(TML Daily, October 21, 2022)

Office of National Statistics (ONS)

Analysis of the proportion of the population that are affected by an increase in their cost of living, and of the characteristics associated with having difficulty affording or being behind on energy, mortgage or rental payments, using data from the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey.

Main points

The experiences of different groups of the population in having difficulty affording or being behind on their energy, rent or mortgage payments, in the period June 22 to September 11, 2022, have been examined using the Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (OPN).

The proportion of all adults finding it difficult (very or somewhat) to afford their energy bills, rent or mortgage payments has increased through the year, almost half of adults (45%) who paid energy bills (40% in March to June 2022) and 30% paying rent or mortgages reported these being difficult to afford (26% March to June 2022).

Over half (55%) of disabled adults reported finding it difficult to afford their energy bills, and around a third (36%) found it difficult to afford their rent or mortgage payments compared with 40% and 27% of non-disabled people, respectively.

Around 4 in 10 (44%) White adults reported finding it difficult to afford their energy bills, compared with around two-thirds (69%) for Black or Black British adults and around 6 in 10 (59%) Asian or Asian British adults.

Around 6 in 10 (60%) renters reported finding it difficult to afford their energy bills, and around 4 in 10 (39%) found it difficult to afford their rent payments compared with 43% and 23% of those with a mortgage, respectively.

Around half of those with a personal income of less than £20,000 per year said they found it difficult to afford their energy bills; this proportion decreased as personal income increased, with around a quarter (23%) of those earning £50,000 or more reporting this.

In the period September 29 to October 9, 2022, adults who paid their gas or electricity by prepayment (72%) more frequently reported difficulty affording energy than those who pay for gas and electricity using either direct debit or one-off payments (42%).

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II on September 8, 2022, and the "breaking of the wand", the symbol of the Lord Chamberlain of the Household and the most senior officer in the Royal household, on September 19 at St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle, the final seal was enacted on the Covenant that existed between the we the people and our representatives in Parliament, and the reigning Monarch. The announcement of the Coronation of King Charles III and Camilla on May 6, 2023, further demands we expose this Monarchy for what it is: bankrupt and corrupt. Sovereignty must now lie with the people.

The phrase "The King is Dead, Long Live the King" dates back in England to 1272 and was introduced to ensure the order of succession. At the time, the Royal Council proclaimed: "The throne shall never be empty; the country shall never be without a monarch." It is the case that upon the death of Elizabeth II, it was similarly announced that Charles was now King. However, King Charles III is not yet crowned as King and his Kingship is not accorded him by divine right. The very role of monarchs of England was changed with the overthrow and beheading of Charles I in 1649. The English Parliament, under the leadership of Hobbes and Cromwell, created a new arrangement; one which did away with the divine Right of Kings and which instead recognised the sovereign power of the English Parliament, nominating a person or thing to be an artificial head of state as the embodiment of a Covenant between the people and the state.

The issue is that in a modern world, there is no longer a need for a fictitious person of State. What is required are modern definitions and modern democratic arrangements that will ensure that it is the people who are sovereign. Any maintaining of the old constitutional order can only serve to fraudulently keep the people in awe of something apparently above them and to keep them from making their claim to power; and it was always intended thus.

Right from the get-go, Hobbes and Cromwell's avowed aim in establishing the arrangements of Covenant Thesis as expressed in Hobbes' Leviathan, was to keep the mob at bay. The old constitutional order has been built on this fraud. Its aim at the time was to end the English Civil War and force a compact between the warring ruling elites in order to keep the peace. And it did achieve this. But at the expense of the people and their aspirations at the time.

What must happen is that sovereignly must be vested in the people and they must be the deciders of their own destiny. We no longer need any other body or person to reign over us, and any person claiming to do so no longer holds any authority. As such, the person of state and the person who inhabits that role becomes a fraud and a block to the legitimate and rightful aspirations of the people.

The problem with King Charles III is that he and those working so hard to create the illusion of his inherited power fail to recognise that the role of the fictitious person of state no longer functions in the way it once did. The breaking of the wand symbolically has set the seal on the end of old arrangements and like it or no, King Charles has no authority to be or to reign over anything.

It is no coincidence that public authority in the "United Kingdom" government is collapsing, and that at the same time the perceived authority of the Head of State that people look up to as the fictitious Person of State is being exposed for the fraud it always was. With the person of Charles becoming King, it is now clear that this is a political monarchy and that the authority embodied in the fictitious person of state at the apex of Covenant Thesis - the basis of maintaining ruling elites in power for nearly four hundred years - is finally being exposed as a broken authority and one manifestly out of step with the requirement of the times.

The crisis of the political arrangements is such that there is a sense of desperation overtaking the echelons of power. Whereas the pageantry surrounding King Charles III and his doings as the Monarch are designed to produce a sense of awe, now that he is supposed to be that fictitious person of state, symbolising the "rock" upon which "the nation" is built, and bringing a sense of stability where all around is chaos and the political world in turmoil; the truth is that Charles is an individual of untold personal wealth who is far from some benign symbol of power.

As Prince of Wales, Charles constantly interfered in matters of state, making his views known to members of the government, and he and Queen Elizabeth II were known to have made over a thousand interventions to government ministers and in changing Bills, especially concerning matters that related to their own land holdings in Scotland and elsewhere. And whereas it might be argued that Queen Elizabeth as a person did strive to embody or was depicted as embodying a detached and mainly ceremonial figure, her son has gone out of his way to be a personality and have his influence in his own right, both characteristics which are jarringly at odds with the role of the artificial Person of State expected of a constitutional monarch.

Since becoming King, King Charles III has been bent on cementing his influence and making an impact from the outset. According to the Royal Central website, '"The King is poised to visit France on an official State Visit following an invitation from President Emmanuel Macron" in the coming month. They report, "It is thought that the Foreign Office is keen for the monarch to visit France and use the 'soft-power' of monarchy to build better relations between the European neighbours." In other words, he and the state are already shaping him to be a Monarch of a new type; one that is overtly political and intervenes in matters of state.

However, this notion of a "soft-power" Monarch is no more than a political Monarchy vainly trying to find a less fictitious role whilst adapting the old order to serve the interests of the rich and powerful. The truth is that what we are witnessing is a breakdown in the public authority between the Parliament, the people and the fictitious Person of State; and a breakdown in the authority of the Person of State as such. The trust and the bond of trust that the Person of State represented has now irrevocably broken down. And a broken authority cannot be restored. This is not simply about this King or his character, although these are factors in the breakdown, but it is about what the Monarch, any Monarch, now represents.

Also, as an individual, King Charles has a distinctly unsavoury history and, with the old constitutional order coming under question, as Workers' Weekly pointed out [1], King Charles does "not have the authority which had been built up around Queen Elizabeth and the new Elizabethan Age" and he "does not convey what is necessary in preserving the old constitutional order. The time and the place are not appropriate."

Far from being detached, Charles has shown an active association with Zionism and has served as an arms lobbyist for decades, smoothing arms sales for BAE Systems in the Middle East. He has also been found to accept cash gifts and plastic bags from Arab Monarchs, purportedly in exchange for state honours. Press TV commented that "Charles is, undoubtedly, of questionable character, but what has not been examined is his relationship with the Israel lobby. The monarch has been a key patron of the World Jewish Relief Organisation for many years. The organisation shares fundraisers with Zionist settlements and is funded by key Israel lobbyist and convicted fraudster Gerald Ronson." [2]

There has also been the contradictions with his professed role as the "Defender of Faiths". In his proclamation on becoming King immediately following the death of Queen Elizabeth II, he was declared, "Defender of the Faith, to whom we do acknowledge all Faith and Obedience with humble Affection". This message was rammed home at the funeral of Queen Elizabeth which was an explicitly Christian affair and which made no mention of any other faiths or peoples, a fact which was not lost on the various indigenous peoples of the realms who are being asked to pledge allegiance to King Charles III as Head of State and Head of the Church of England.

The old constitutional order has been built on this fraud that is now King Charles III. Far from maintaining some covenant of peace between the people and the state, the fiction of this fictitious person of state is that he now presides over and legitimises a state of police powers and repressions, and of the rule of the rich, the oligopolies and international cartel parties. He presides over the breakdown in the arrangements that maintain a veil over the whole edifice.

It is interesting that in series 1, episode 7, of the television series The Crown, the writers refer to a chapter of Walter Bagehot's book "The English Constitution". The episode is set in August 1953 when Churchill, upon hearing that the Soviet Union has tested their first thermonuclear weapon, is urgently trying to organise a summit with the American President Eisenhower. At the height of the "crisis", Churchill suffered a stroke which incapacitated him, and yet he instructed his aides and government officials not to inform the Queen. The series has the Queen say that his behaviour "feels like a betrayal not just of the covenant of trust between us and the institutions that we both represent but of our own personal relationship". She then reads from her notes, "In 1867 Walter Bagehot wrote there are two elements of the Constitution: the efficient and the dignified. The monarch is the dignified and the government the efficient. These two institutions only work when they sup port each other. When they trust one another." It is precisely this trust which has now broken down and which has led to the breakdown in the authority of the fictitious person of state, not to mention the efficiency of government.

What emerges is that King Charles III, far from being an embodiment of the fictitious person of state at the heart of Covenant Thesis, is himself a block to any new arrangements coming into being. He has an active interest in colluding with the state and with the old constitutional order to keep himself and his family in power, and to keep a stranglehold on his own vast personal wealth. There is no longer any trust between the people (the subjects) and the monarch (long to reign over us) nor with the institutions of state, neither with the person of King Charles nor with the fictitious person of state that he stakes a claim to be. He and the role of Monarch is a fraud and this political monarchy as it has become, is politically and in every way bankrupt. The only way forward is to consign the old constitutional order along with the fiction that is the monarch to the dustbin of history. Sovereignty must now be vested in the people.

Notes
1. "The New King and the Old Constitutional Order", Workers' Weekly Internet Edition Year 2022 Volume 52 Number 21
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-22/ww22-21/ww22-21.htm
2. "King Charles III and his affinity for Zionism",
https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2022/10/09/690630/King-Charles-III-and-his-affinity-for-Zionism Also see,
https://www.timesofisrael.com/king-charles-iii-a-friend-to-uk-jewry-with-special-and-historic-ties-to-israel/

On Monday October 17, the US and Britain and their NATO allies started a nuclear war exercise "Steadfast Noon" in Europe with recent statements and threats aimed at further escalating their Ukraine proxy-war against Russia with a nuclear rehearsal in Europe. According to reports, aircraft are to rehearse dropping B61 and B61-12 "tactical" thermonuclear bombs on Europe, each of which is up to 20 times more powerful than the weapon that destroyed Hiroshima in World War II, killing as many as 126,000 civilians.

NATO nuclear weapons in Europe, 2022 - Graphic: Federation of American Scientists

This comes at a time the US, Britain and its NATO allies are making no attempt to resolve the conflict in Ukraine and find a peaceful solution based on the interests of the peoples of Ukraine and Russia, Europe and the world. On the contrary, the US and Britain in particular are stepping up their direct involvement in arming and training of Ukrainian forces. This they started over 10 years ago, prior to an Anglo-US backed coup in 2014 that brought to power an anti-Russian government. Now the the US and Britain and their NATO allies are "indirectly" participating in a war against Russia using advanced weapons that are being unleashed against the population of Ukraine and Russia. In defending the "Steadfast Noon" rehearsals, British Defence Minister Ben Wallace said that these nuclear exercises in Europe "are routine", although previously NATO now admits that they normally took place in secret. Even the name "Steadfast Noon" was only declassified four years ago. But there is nothing routine about these exercises; they are not aimed at peace but at nuclear war and are not even in accordance with the UN Treaty [1] on nuclear disarmament adopted by 122 countries which legally came into force on January 22, 2021.

According to the Associated Press reports, there are claims that the "war games" will be held at least 1,000 kilometres (625 miles) from Russia's borders. Flights will take place "over Belgium, which is hosting 'Steadfast Noon' this year, as well as over the North Sea and the United Kingdom". The exercises involve fighter jets capable of carrying nuclear warheads, "but do not involve any live bombs". However, these claims are coming at a time when NATO is routinely conducting military flights close to Russian and Chinese borders and where these exercises are openly aimed against "foreign powers". The reports go on to say that at least 14 of NATO's 30 member countries are due to take part in the exercises, running until October 30, and, flying in the face of its claim of now acting in transparency, "NATO is not permitting any media access."

In the previous week before the start of the nuclear rehearsal, US President Biden claimed that the the risk of nuclear "Armageddon" is the highest it has been for 60 years. Following that statement the US White House National Security Council spokesperson John Kirby was forced to "row back" to reporters [2] after Biden's comment. He admitted that, as he told reporters, "we've seen no indication, nothing that tells us Mr Putin has made a decision to use nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction at all inside Ukraine". He continued, "And we've seen no indication that the Russian apparatus is moving anything to prepare for that kind of a decision." However, as one report highlighted [3], "NATO's secretive Nuclear Planning Group met on Thursday [October 13] with the military pact planning to hold a nuclear exercise next week. Analysts said NATO's moves highlight the US' purpose of showing a tough stance to Russia, which would further pour oil onto the fire and fan the flames of t he escalating Ukraine crisis."

NATO nuclear bomb vaults in Europe - Graphic: Federation of American Scientists

It should be noted that only three of NATO's 30 allies have nuclear weapons - the US, Britain and France - with Britain being the main nuclear ally of the US. France plays no direct role in NATO's nuclear "deterrence" and is not part of the alliance's Nuclear Planning Group. It should also be noted that, most recently, Ukraine's President called on NATO to carry out "pre-emptive" nuclear strikes against Russia. Western sources tried to claim that it was "taken out of context" with no response from western leaders. But British defence secretary Ben Wallace was quick to rebuke Emmanuel Macron after the French president ruled out France's launching a nuclear strike on Russia.

Britain's nuclear role close to the US was further revealed on October 18 with a report [4] pointing out: "Defence Secretary Ben Wallace is on a hastily-arranged visit to Washington to talk with his counterpart and White House officials about 'shared security concerns' including Ukraine and Russia, a source and an official said. The secretive, last-minute nature of the trip and a comment by a second defence minister, James Heappey - who said the conversations that Mr Wallace would be having on Tuesday were 'beyond belief' - suggested particularly sensitive and serious issues would be discussed." This, when the evidence shows that this year Britain has been secretly negotiating hosting US nuclear weapons again at Lakenheath and other US bases in Britain [5]. Reports [6] also say that the US B61 nuclear bombs, currently stored at various air bases around Europe - including the Luftwaffe military base at Büchel in Germany - are due to be modernised and replaced by B61-12 bombs. These are allegedly more precision-guided and may be deployed with variable explosive power. The reports say that military officials and strategists are thus speculating on their tactical use on regional battlefields and that the most recent US nuclear strategy accessible to the public has declared that, in principle, such deployments are "permitted". According to these reports, NATO is also not ruling out such use.

Peace-loving people all over the world demand an end to this participating in global warmongering and nuclear war escalation. The problems and security of the peoples of Europe cannot be settled by escalating such a conflict but only by identifying the role played by the US, Britain and the NATO ruling elites as the real threat to peace in Europe in provoking this war in Ukraine against Russia, and now in escalating it in such a way as to be so dangerous to world peace. The working class and people must continue to fight for peace and for the necessity of an anti-war government.

Notes
1. UN Treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons was adopted by the Conference (by a vote of 122 States in favour, with one vote against and one abstention) at the United Nations on 7 July 2017, and opened for signature by the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 20 September 2017. Following the deposit with the Secretary-General of the 50th instrument of ratification or accession of the Treaty on 24 October 2020, it entered into force on 22 January 2021 in accordance with its article 15.
https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/tpnw/#:~:text=The%20Treaty%20on%20the%20Prohibition%20of%20Nuclear%20Weapons%20was%20adopted,Nations%20on%2020%20September%202017
2. Kirby: "No indication that Putin has decided to use nuclear weapons" - The Hill, October 10 2022
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/3683007-kirby-no-indication-that-putin-has-decided-to-use-nuclear-weapons/
3."NATO's nuclear talks, exercises seek to escalate Ukraine crisis, exhaust Moscow, Kiev: analysts" - Global Times, October 13 2022
https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202210/1277115.shtml
4. "Ukraine war: Mysterious defence secretary trip to Washington amid fears of Russian escalation" - Sky News, October 19 2022
https://news.sky.com/story/ukraine-war-mysterious-ben-wallace-trip-to-washington-amid-fears-of-russian-escalation-12723942
5. "No US Nukes at Lakenheath! PROTEST" - Workers' Weekly, May 21 2022
http://www.rcpbml.org.uk/wwie-22/ww22-11/ww22-11-02.htm
6. "NATO Nuclear War Exercise" - German Foreign Policy, October 14 2022
https://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/news/detail/9056