From the Guardian, two slightly differing critiques on Corbyn's resumption of the campaign speech after Manchester. He is blaming the terrorism on excessive foreign interventions such as Libya, Syria and Iraq, as I understand it.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...017-terror-corbyn-may-g7-sicily-politics-live
Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at a vigil in Albert Square, Manchester, earlier this week. Photograph: Martin Rickett/PA
Corbyn’s decision to give an overtly political speech four days after the Manchester attack is being widely described as a “gamble” or even a profound error. But the election will now rightly focus more closely on the issue of security - nothing should be beyond democratic debate.
Many of Corbyn’s life-long stances, such as unilateral disarmament, do not find favour with the electorate. But there was little in his speech today that the average voter would contest. The
Conservatives will hope to turn the heightened security debate to their advantage, ruthlessly quoting Corbyn against himself. But on this front, as on others, the Labour leader is proving a tougher opponent than they anticipated.
His reiteration of the blow-back theory of terrorism will cause a massive political row. The Tories, who had been reluctant to attack Corbyn too directly on terrorism in the wake of the Manchester attack, will no longer feel the need to be restrained. In the next 13 days expect to hear a lot about the anti-terrorism measures that Corbyn voted against, his sympathy for the IRA and his previous willingness to call Hamas and Hezbollah ‘friends’.
We can trade with Europe, co-operate when it comes to security, international affairs and pretty much everything else without being part of an organisation that is actively pushing for a United States of Europe and more government and bureaucracy.
