Dubai reveals $1 billion plan to build Taj Mahal replica

Dubai are at it again.

Seemingly unsatisfied with boasting the world’s tallest skyscraper, the world’s largest man-made archipelago, and the world’s only 7-star hotel, Dubai has unveiled fresh plans to construct a billion-dollar (£665m) replica of the Taj Mahal.

Dubbed the ‘Taj Arabia’, the enormous building is set to be four times larger than the original and is scheduled to be complete in just 2 years, in stark contrast to the 22 years it took emperor Shan Jahan to build the marble wonder in the 17th century.

Taj Arabia with the Leaning Tower of Pisa pictured behind. Photo: Daily Mail

The 20,000 square metre project will also feature a 300 room 5-star “hospitality endeavour” (read: hotel) and a 3,000 capacity banquet hall reserved for wedding ceremonies, flanked by seven mixed-use buildings, two of which will house 200 serviced luxury apartments.

Arun Mehra, chairman of lead-developer Link Global Group, spoke of the project’s intention to make Dubai a wedding destination of global significance:

“The Taj was made as a monument of love and we hope to promote this in Dubai as a major wedding destination”, he said.

“Currently, Dubai is not regarded as a wedding destination. People go to Bali and other exotic places to marry. Now they will come to Taj Arabia”.

The audacious venture forms part of the “Falconcity of Wonders” – a 41 million square foot city aimed at capturing the essence of world’s ancient civilisations. The city is set to be comprised of a whole host of iconic architectural feats, estimated to weigh in at a staggering £7.4 billion.

An artist's impression of Falconcity of Wonders. Photo: Daily Mail

The artificial city will feature replicas of the Pyramids, the Eiffel Tower, the Great Wall of China, the Leaning Tower of Pisa, and the Hanging Gardens of Babylon.

London Bridge, Big Ben, St Paul's Cathedral and the Houses of Parliament are also expected to appear in the city’s skyline when it opens in 2014.

As the emirate’s penchant for architectural excess continues unsatiated, what comes next is full mystery. Whatever it is though, I don’t think I’ll be surprised.

Artist's Impression of the Taj Arabia. Photo: Emirates 24/7

Alex Ward is a London-based freelance journalist who has previously worked for the Times & the Press Association. Twitter: @alexward3000

Getty
Show Hide image

Everyone's forgotten the one issue that united the Labour party

There was a time when Ed Miliband spoke at Momentum rallies.

To label the row over the EU at Thursday’s Labour leadership hustings "fireworks" would be to endow it with more beauty than it deserves. Owen Smith’s dogged condemnation of John McDonnell’s absence from a Remain rally – only for Corbyn to point out that his absence was for medical reasons – ought to go down as a cringing new low point in the campaign. 

Not so long ago, we were all friends. In the course of the EU referendum, almost all of the protagonists in the current debacle spoke alongside each other and praised one another’s efforts. At a local level, party activists of all stripes joined forces. Two days before polling day, Momentum activists helped organise an impromptu rally. Ed Miliband was the headline speaker, and was cheered on. 

If you take the simple version of the debate, Labour’s schism on the EU appears as an aberration of the usual dynamics of left and right in the party. Labour's left is supposedly cheering a position which avoids advocating what it believes in (Remain), because it would lose votes. Meanwhile, the right claims to be dying in a ditch for its principles - no matter what the consequences for Labour’s support in Leave-voting heartlands.

Smith wants to oppose Brexit, even after the vote, on the basis of using every available procedural mechanism. He would whip MPs against the invocation of Article 50, refuse to implement it in government, and run on a manifesto of staying in the EU. For the die-hard Europhiles on the left – and I count myself among these, having run the Another Europe is Possible campaign during the referendum – there ought to be no contest as to who to support. On a result that is so damaging to people’s lives and so rooted in prejudice, how could we ever accept that there is such a thing as a "final word"? 

And yet, on the basic principles that lie behind a progressive version of EU membership, such as freedom of movement, Smith seems to contradict himself. Right at the outset of the Labour leadership, Smith took to Newsnight to express his view – typical of many politicians moulded in the era of New Labour – that Labour needed to “listen” to the views Leave voters by simply adopting them, regardless of whether or not they were right. There were, he said, “too many” immigrants in some parts of the country. 

Unlike Smith, Corbyn has not made his post-Brexit policy a headline feature of the campaign, and it is less widely understood. But it is clear, via the five "red lines" outlined by John McDonnell at the end of June:

  1. full access to the single market
  2. membership of the European investment bank
  3. access to trading rights for financial services sector
  4. full residency rights for all EU nationals in the UK and all UK nationals in the EU, and
  5. the enshrinement of EU protections for workers. 

Without these five conditions being met, Labour would presumably not support the invocation of Article 50. So if, as seems likely, a Conservative government would never meet these five conditions, would there be any real difference in how a Corbyn leadership would handle the situation? 

The fight over the legacy of the referendum is theatrical at times. The mutual mistrust last week played out on the stage in front of a mass televised audience. Some Corbyn supporters jeered Smith as he made the case for another referendum. Smith accused Corbyn of not even voting for Remain, and wouldn’t let it go. But, deep down, the division is really about a difference of emphasis. 

It speaks to a deeper truth about the future of Britain in Europe. During the referendum, the establishment case for Remain floundered because it refused to make the case that unemployment and declining public services were the result of austerity, not immigrants. Being spearheaded by Conservatives, it couldn’t. It fell to the left to offer the ideological counter attack that was needed – and we failed to reach enough people. 

As a result, what we got was a popular mandate for petty racism and a potentially long-term shift to the right in British politics, endangering a whole raft of workplace and legal protections along the way. Now that it has happened, anyone who really hopes to overcome either Brexit, or the meaning of Brexit, has to address the core attitudes and debates at their root. Then as now, it is only clear left-wing ideas – free from any attempt to triangulate towards anti-migrant sentiment– that can have any hope of success. 

The real dividing lines in Labour are not about the EU. If they were, the Eurosceptic Frank Field would not be backing Smith. For all that it may be convenient to deny it, Europe was once, briefly, the issue that united the Labour Party. One day, the issues at stake in the referendum may do so again – but only if Labour consolidates itself around a strategy for convincing people of ideas, rather than simply reaching for procedural levers.