25 killed as Egyptians clash with army in Cairo

Video shows security forces storming al-Hurra TV headquarters, forcing end to broadcast.

In the worst violence since February when 18 days of demonstrations lead to the ousting of President Hosni Mubarak, Egyptian military police clashed with protesters in the centre of Cairo yesterday, leaving 25 people dead and 272 wounded.

Tahrir Square became the epicentre of renewed violence when rioting spread from a nearby state television building. According to the Associated Press, Coptic Christians protesting against the demolition of a church in southern Egypt "came under assault by people in plain clothes and were later confronted by security forces." Further into the evening, Christians and Muslims were killed by gunfire and armoured vehicles after 1,000 troops deployed by state authorities moved into the centre of the city.

Egypt's official news agency, Mena, reported that dozens of "instigators of chaos" were arrested following the clash. A curfew over the city was lifted at 5am GMT Monday.

The video above shows Egyptian security forces entering the headquarters of all-Hurra TV news station during the violence. The broadcast was very shortly removed from the air.

UK foreign secretary William Hague has released a statement in which he withholds suggestion of an instigator for the violent outbreak:

I am deeply concerned by the unrest yesterday in Cairo and I condemn the loss of life. I urge all Egyptians to refrain from violence and support the Egyptian prime minister's call for calm. It is essential that all sides take immediate steps to de-escalate the situation and engage in dialogue. The freedom of religious belief is a universal human right which needs to be protected everywhere, and the ability to worship in peace is a vital component of any free and democratic society.

Commentators on Twitter, meanwhile, have been laying blame for the deaths on the ruling military council, Supreme Council of the Armed Forces -- see #SCAF

Alice Gribbin is a Teaching-Writing Fellow at the Iowa Writers' Workshop. She was formerly the editorial assistant at the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

What Jeremy Corbyn gets right about the single market

Technically, you can be outside the EU but inside the single market. Philosophically, you're still in the EU. 

I’ve been trying to work out what bothers me about the response to Jeremy Corbyn’s interview on the Andrew Marr programme.

What bothers me about Corbyn’s interview is obvious: the use of the phrase “wholesale importation” to describe people coming from Eastern Europe to the United Kingdom makes them sound like boxes of sugar rather than people. Adding to that, by suggesting that this “importation” had “destroy[ed] conditions”, rather than laying the blame on Britain’s under-enforced and under-regulated labour market, his words were more appropriate to a politician who believes that immigrants are objects to be scapegoated, not people to be served. (Though perhaps that is appropriate for the leader of the Labour Party if recent history is any guide.)

But I’m bothered, too, by the reaction to another part of his interview, in which the Labour leader said that Britain must leave the single market as it leaves the European Union. The response to this, which is technically correct, has been to attack Corbyn as Liechtenstein, Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are members of the single market but not the European Union.

In my view, leaving the single market will make Britain poorer in the short and long term, will immediately render much of Labour’s 2017 manifesto moot and will, in the long run, be a far bigger victory for right-wing politics than any mere election. Corbyn’s view, that the benefits of freeing a British government from the rules of the single market will outweigh the costs, doesn’t seem very likely to me. So why do I feel so uneasy about the claim that you can be a member of the single market and not the European Union?

I think it’s because the difficult truth is that these countries are, de facto, in the European Union in any meaningful sense. By any estimation, the three pillars of Britain’s “Out” vote were, firstly, control over Britain’s borders, aka the end of the free movement of people, secondly, more money for the public realm aka £350m a week for the NHS, and thirdly control over Britain’s own laws. It’s hard to see how, if the United Kingdom continues to be subject to the free movement of people, continues to pay large sums towards the European Union, and continues to have its laws set elsewhere, we have “honoured the referendum result”.

None of which changes my view that leaving the single market would be a catastrophe for the United Kingdom. But retaining Britain’s single market membership starts with making the argument for single market membership, not hiding behind rhetorical tricks about whether or not single market membership was on the ballot last June, when it quite clearly was. 

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to domestic and global politics.