https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/27/pompeo-slams-eu-plan-to-avoid-iran-sanctions-disturbed-disappointed.html

(Bloomberg) — Central-bank balance sheets are expanding to record levels amid their latest buying spree, raising questions about how big they can get and whether those assets can ever be sold back to markets.

Policy makers didn’t have much luck paring down much smaller portfolios in the decade since the financial crisis. And now they have to bankroll a coronavirus economy that’s putting government budgets under unprecedented strain and threatening to drive companies everywhere out of business.

“The amounts being purchased are enormous, and it just tells you how much support is needed when the economy is closed down,” said Torsten Slok, Deutsche Bank’s chief economist. “Just have a look at how long it took to unwind from the financial crisis of 2008 and 2009. Now we are adding at a pace that is multiples faster.”

Central banks in Group of Seven countries purchased $1.4 trillion of financial assets in March, nearly five times as much as the previous monthly record set in April 2009, according to a Bloomberg Economics analysis. Morgan Stanley analysts estimate that the Federal Reserve, European Central Bank, Bank of Japan and Bank of England will expand their balance sheets by a cumulative $6.8 trillion when all is said and done.

The Fed has led the charge, offering to buy unlimited amounts of U.S. government bonds and mortgage-backed securities — and lend trillions more to corporations and municipalities through temporary purchases of their obligations — as global investors seek to unwind years worth of accumulated leverage in their own portfolios. In the week through April 15, it expanded its balance sheet at a pace of about $41 billion per day.

Central bankers in the euro area, Japan and the U.K. — old hands at so-called quantitative easing programs by now — have all ramped up buying, while those in Canada, New Zealand and Australia have embarked on large-scale purchases for the first time, joining Sweden among smaller economies to do so. There’s even talk that some emerging markets like Thailand may get in on the game.

“They’re all moving in the same direction,” said Aditya Bhave, an economist at Bank of America in New York. “At some point, unconventional easing stops being unconventional.”

In the coming months, as market liquidity is replenished, monetary authorities will shift their focus to the long haul of keeping borrowing costs low to facilitate a recovery and make it easier for governments to fund their budgets. While that may involve a slower pace of asset purchases, it certainly won’t mark a reversal, so the great balance-sheet expansion will roll ever onward.

Japanese Precedent

When it comes to the question of whether there’s any effective limit on how much central banks can buy, Japan’s experience may offer a guide.

The QE pioneer first embarked on a program of large-scale asset purchases in 2001 after bubbles in its stock and property markets burst, plunging the economy into a deflationary spiral. It has made a couple of attempts to unwind in the intervening years, only to find itself repeatedly dragged back into more purchases.

Today, the BOJ’s balance sheet is 604 trillion yen ($5.6 trillion) –more than the nation’s annual economic output. The Fed, at $6.4 trillion or roughly 30% of GDP, seems modest by comparison while the ECB figure is around 39%.

Where Japan’s central bank is running into problems is market functioning. Its huge bond holdings, 43% of the total, impose limits on liquidity. The BOJ had to start selling and lending bonds recently due to the scarcity of supply, when investors demanded more of them as safe investments or as collateral to obtain U.S. dollars.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/fed-buying-41-billion-assets-052412583.html

The BOJ also owns about 5% of the nation’s corporate bonds and around 5% of the stock market through exchange-traded funds. And while the Fed has said it will also buy ETFs under its new temporary corporate credit purchase programs — including some junk debt — it may not be inclined to buy much if volatility in credit markets remains relatively low.

“For now, both the Fed and the ECB will continue to ramp up their buying,” said Yoshinori Shigemi, a global market strategist for JPMorgan Asset Management Japan Ltd. in Tokyo, but they won’t get anywhere near Japan’s levels. “If the market eventually starts calming down, they don’t need to force themselves to buy more.”

Turkey is deporting terrorists to their country of origin. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan said Tuesday,

“Some countries have started panicking after we began the repatriation process of foreign Daesh terrorists. Turkey has been worrying about this issue for years, let others worry now,” He added, “The American Daesh terrorists stranded in the buffer zone on Greece border is none of Turkey’s concern, deportations will continue regardless.”

The Turkish Interior Minister, Süleyman Soylu, said last week that Ankara would start sending ISIS terrorists back to their country of origin even if they had been stripped of their citizenship, adding that Turkey was not a ‘hotel’ for foreign jihadists.

“There is no need to try to escape from it; we will send them back to you. Deal with them how you want,” said Soylu.

URL https://www.globalresearch.ca/western-terrorists-coming-home-roost/5694946?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=related_articles

December 8, 2016

Presidential Determination
No. 2017-05

MEMORANDUM FOR THE SECRETARY OF STATE THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

SUBJECT: Presidential Determination and Waiver Pursuant to Section 2249a of Title 10, United States Code, and Sections 40 and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act to Support U.S. Special Operations to Combat Terrorism in Syria

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, including section 2249a of title 10, United States Code, sections 40 and 40A of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA) (22 U.S.C. 2780 and 2781), and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, I hereby:

• determine that the transaction, encompassing the provision of defense articles and services to foreign forces, irregular forces, groups, or individuals engaged in supporting or facilitating ongoing U.S. military operations to counter terrorism in Syria, is essential to the national security interests of the United States;
• waive the prohibitions in sections 40 and 40A of the AECA related to such a transaction;
• delegate to the Secretary of State the responsibility under section 40(g)(2) of the AECA to consult with and submit reports to the Congress for proposed exports, 15 days prior to authorizing them to proceed, that are necessary for and within the scope of this waiver determination and the transaction referred to herein;
• waive the prohibitions in section 2249a of title 10, United States Code, to the extent necessary to allow the Department of Defense to carry out such support; and
• delegate to the Secretary of Defense the responsibility under section 2249a(b)(2) of title 10, United States Code, to notify the appropriate congressional committees at least 15 days before this waiver takes effect.

The Secretary of Defense is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register.

BARACK OBAMA [signed]

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320

Robert Fisk:

I bet they’re not. For I don’t think either Nato or the EU has the slightest interest in chasing the provenance of weapons in the hands of Islamist fighters in Syria or anywhere else in the Middle East – certainly not in the case of Damascus, where the west has just given up its attempt to unseat Assad.

Indeed, in a political landscape where “regime change” has become a moral, ethical objective, there can be no moral, ethical investigation of just how the merchants of death (the makers) manage to supply the purveyors of death (the killers) with their guns and mortars and artillery.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-missile-arms-deals-west-us-uk-saudi-arabia-a8459731.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/resources/idt-sh/raqqas_dirty_secret

Well before Russia’s military came to Bashar Assad’s aid in Syria, the Obama administration calculated that the Islamic State’s expansion in the region would force the Syrian president into negotiation

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/10/obama-hoped-to-use-isis-as-leverage-against-assad-/

We Will Never Serve in the Military of a Country Forbidden by the Torah – the State of Israel.

https://www.israelversusjudaism.org/?lightbox=dataItem-j4q49uu7

America’s dirty little secret: 42 million people are suffering from hunger

Hunger in America: 1 in 7 rely on food banks

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/food-nutrition-assistance/food-security-in-the-us/key-statistics-graphics.aspx

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt

Written by Ron Paul

Monday June 12, 2017

Just when you thought our Syria policy could not get any worse, last week it did. The US military twice attacked Syrian government forces from a military base it illegally occupies inside Syria. According to the Pentagon, the attacks on Syrian government-backed forces were “defensive” because the Syrian fighters were approaching a US self-declared “de-confliction” zone inside Syria. The Syrian forces were pursuing ISIS in the area, but the US attacked anyway.

The US is training yet another rebel group fighting from that base, located near the border of Iraq at al-Tanf, and it claims that Syrian government forces pose a threat to the US military presence there. But the Pentagon has forgotten one thing: it has no authority to be in Syria in the first place! Neither the US Congress nor the UN Security Council has authorized a US military presence inside Syria.

So what gives the Trump Administration the right to set up military bases on foreign soil without the permission of that government? Why are we violating the sovereignty of Syria and attacking its military as they are fighting ISIS? Why does Washington claim that its primary mission in Syria is to defeat ISIS while taking military actions that benefit ISIS?

The Pentagon issued a statement saying its presence in Syria is necessary because the Syrian government is not strong enough to defeat ISIS on its own. But the “de-escalation zones” agreed upon by the Syrians, Russians, Iranians, and Turks have led to a reduction in fighting and a possible end to the six-year war. Even if true that the Syrian military is weakened, its weakness is due to six years of US-sponsored rebels fighting to overthrow it!

What is this really all about? Why does the US military occupy this base inside Syria? It’s partly about preventing the Syrians and Iraqis from working together to fight ISIS, but I think it’s mostly about Iran. If the Syrians and Iraqis join up to fight ISIS with the help of Iranian-allied Shia militia, the US believes it will strengthen Iran’s hand in the region. President Trump has recently returned from a trip to Saudi Arabia where he swore he would not allow that to happen.

But is this policy really in our interest, or are we just doing the bidding of our Middle East “allies,” who seem desperate for war with Iran? Saudi Arabia exports its radical form of Islam worldwide, including recently into moderate Asian Muslim countries like Indonesia. Iran does not. That is not to say that Iran is perfect, but does it make any sense to jump into the Sunni/Shia conflict on either side? The Syrians, along with their Russian and Iranian allies, are defeating ISIS and al-Qaeda. As candidate Trump said, what’s so bad about that?

We were told that if the Syrian government was allowed to liberate Aleppo from al-Qaeda, Assad would kill thousands who were trapped there. But the opposite has happened: life is returning to normal in Aleppo. The Christian minority there celebrated Easter for the first time in several years. They are rebuilding. Can’t we finally just leave the Syrians alone?

When you get to the point where your actions are actually helping ISIS, whether intended or not, perhaps it’s time to stop. It’s past time for the US to abandon its dangerous and counterproductive Syria policy and just bring the troops home.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2017/june/12/why-are-we-attacking-the-syrians-who-are-fighting-isis/

Nicholas Wilson:

“One of the first things that happened was: her husband’s company – Global Capital – did a deal with HSBC in Hong Kong (business deal) and then she was in Saudi Arabia , in April of this year, selling arms for BAE Systems after doing another deal for HSBC – Saudi Arabia are doing a share sale of their national oil reserves – HSBC have got the job because Teresa May went there.
Saudi Arabia are the country responsible for I.S. and they support I.S. . We supply arms to Saudi Arabia through ….

Soft on crime , soft on the causes of crime… they want to abolish the Serious Fraud Office, which is independent, so that Amber Rudd can then be in charge of prosecutions through the National Crime Agency.”

URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEcMW6RmC_w

ommission Notice:

GUIDELINES
on the eligibility of Israeli entities and their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 for grants, prizes and financial instruments funded by the EU from 2014 onwards.

Section A. GENERAL ISSUES

1. These guidelines set out the conditions under which the Commission will implement key requirements for the award of EU support to Israeli entities or to their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. Their aim is to ensure the respect of EU positions and commitments in conformity with international law on the non-recognition by the EU of Israel’s sovereignty over the territories occupied by Israel since June 1967. These guidelines are without prejudice to other requirements established by EU legislation.

2. The territories occupied by Israel since June 1967 comprise the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.

3. The EU does not recognise Israel’s sovereignty over any of the territories referred to in point 2 and does not consider them to be part of Israel’s territory, irrespective of their legal status under domestic Israeli law. The EU has made it clear that it will not recognise any changes to pre-1967 borders, other than those agreed by the parties to the Middle East Peace Process (MEPP). The EU’s Foreign Affairs Council has underlined the importance of limiting the application of agreements with Israel to the territory of Israel as recognised by the EU.

4. These guidelines do not cover EU support in the form of grants, prizes or financial instruments awarded to Palestinian entities or to their activities in the territories referred to in point 2, nor any eligibility conditions set up for this purpose. In particular, they do not
cover any agreements between the EU, on the one hand, and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation or the Palestinian Authority, on the other hand.

Section B. SCOPE OF APPLICATION

5. These guidelines apply to EU support in the form of grants, prizes or financial instruments within the meaning of Titles VI, VII and VIII of the Financial Regulation which may be awarded to Israeli entities or to their activities in the territories occupied by Israel since June
1967. Their application is without prejudice to specific eligibility conditions which may be laid down in the relevant basic act.

6. These guidelines apply:

(a) for grants – to all applicants and beneficiaries, irrespective of their role (sole beneficiary, coordinator or co-beneficiary). This includes entities participating in the action on a no-cost basis and affiliated entities within the meaning of Article 122(2) of the Financial Regulation. This does not include contractors or sub-contractors selected by grant
beneficiaries in conformity with procurement rules. As regards third parties referred to in Article 137 of the Financial Regulation, in the cases where the costs of financial support to such third parties are eligible under a call for proposals the authorising officer responsible
may, where appropriate, specify in the call for proposals and in the grant agreements or decisions that the eligibility criteria set out in these guidelines also apply to the persons that may receive financial support by the beneficiaries.

(b) for prizes – to all participants and winners in contests;

(c) for financial instruments – to dedicated investment vehicles, financial intermediaries and sub-intermediaries and to final recipients.

7. These guidelines apply to grants, prizes and financial instruments managed, as the case may be, by the Commission, by executive agencies (direct management) or by bodies entrusted with budget implementation tasks in accordance with Article 58(1)(c) of the Financial Regulation (indirect management).

8. These guidelines apply to grants, prizes and financial instruments funded from appropriations of the 2014 financial year and subsequent years and authorised by financing decisions adopted after the adoption of the guidelines.

Section C. CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY OF ISRAELI ENTITIES

9. As regards the place of establishment of Israeli entities:

(a) In the case of grants and prizes, only Israeli entities having their place of establishment within Israel’s pre-1967 borders will be considered eligible.

(b) In the case of financial instruments, only Israeli entities having their place of establishment within Israel’s pre-1967 borders will be considered eligible as final recipients.

10. The place of establishment is understood to be the legal address where the entity is registered, as confirmed by a precise postal address corresponding to a concrete physical location. The use of a post office box is not allowed.

11. The requirements set out in section C:

(a) apply to the following types of legal persons: Israeli regional or local authorities and other public bodies, public or private companies or corporations and other private legal persons, including non-governmental not-for-profit organisations;

(b) do not apply to Israeli public authorities at national level (ministries and government agencies or authorities);

(c) do not apply to natural persons.

Section D. CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY OF ACTIVITIES IN THE
TERRITORIES OCCUPIED BY ISRAEL

12. As regards the activities/operations of Israeli entities:

(a) In the case of grants and prizes, the activities of Israeli entities carried out in the framework of EU-funded grants and prizes will be considered eligible if they do not take place in the territories referred to in point 2, either partially or entirely.

(b) In the case of financial instruments, Israeli entities will be considered eligible as final recipients if they do not operate in the territories referred to in point 2, either in the framework of EU-funded financial instruments or otherwise.

13. Any activity or part thereof included in an application for an EU grant or prize which does not meet the requirements set out in point 12(a) will be considered as ineligible and will not be considered as part of the application for the purpose of its further evaluation.

14. The requirements set out in section D:

(a) apply to activities under point 12 carried out by the following types of legal persons: Israeli regional or local authorities and other public bodies, public or private companies or corporations and other private legal persons, including non-governmental not-for-profit
organisations;

(b) apply also to activities under point 12 carried out by Israeli public authorities at national level (ministries and government agencies or authorities);

(c) do not apply to activities under point 12 carried out by natural persons.

15. Notwithstanding points 12-14 above, the requirements set out in section D do not apply to activities which, although carried out in the territories referred to in point 2, aim at benefiting protected persons under the terms of international humanitarian law who live in these territories and/or at promoting the Middle East peace process in line with EU policy.

Section E. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTS

16. Each Israeli entity referred to in points 11(a)&(b) and 14(a)&(b), which applies for an EU grant, prize or financial instrument, shall submit a declaration on honour as follows:
(a) In the case of grants and prizes, the declaration will state that the application of the Israeli entity is in accordance with the requirements under points 9(a) and 12(a) of these guidelines, while also taking into account the applicability of point 15 thereof. For grants,
this declaration will be drafted in accordance with Article 131(3) of the Financial Regulation.

(b) In the case of financial instruments, the declaration will state that the application of the Israeli entity as a final recipient is in accordance with the requirements under points 9(b) and 12(b) of these guidelines.

17. The declarations under point 16 are without prejudice to any other supporting documents required in the calls for proposals, rules of contests or calls for the selection of financial intermediaries or dedicated investment vehicles. They will be included in the package of
application documents for each concerned call for proposals, rules of contests and call for the selection of financial intermediaries or dedicated investment vehicles. Their text will be adapted to the requirements relevant for each EU grant, prize or financial instrument.

18. The submission of a declaration under point 16 that contains incorrect information may be considered as a case of misrepresentation or a serious irregularity and may lead:

(a) for grants – to the measures set out in Article 131(5) and 135 of the Financial Regulation,

(b) for prizes – to the measures set out in Article 212(1)(viii) of the Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation10 and,

(c) for financial instruments – to the measures set out in Article 221(3) of the Rules of Application of the Financial Regulation.

19. The Commission will implement these guidelines in their entirety, and in a clear and accessible manner. It will notably announce the eligibility conditions set out in Sections C and D in the work programmes11 and/or financing decisions, calls for proposals, rules of
contests and calls for the selection of financial intermediaries or dedicated investment vehicles.

20. The Commission will ensure that the work programmes and calls for proposals, rules of contests and calls for the selection of financial intermediaries or dedicated investment vehicles published by the bodies entrusted with budget implementation tasks under indirect
management contain the eligibility conditions set out in Sections C and D.

21. In order to clearly articulate EU commitments under international law, taking into account relevant EU policies and positions, the Commission will also endeavour to have the content of these guidelines reflected in international agreements or protocols thereto or Memoranda of Understanding with Israeli counterparts or with other parties.

22. The award of EU support to Israeli entities or to their activities in the form of grants, prizes or financial instruments requires engagement with Israeli entities referred to in points 11 and 14, for example, by organising meetings, visits or events. Such engagement will not take place in the territories referred to in point 2, unless it is related to the activities referred to in point 15.

April 2016

Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, said during an MSNBC town hall: “I think what the president is talking about is having American troops training Muslim troops, helping to supply the military equipment they need, and I do support that effort.”

Pope sends message to UN conference on nuclear weapons

Pope Francis (file photo). On Tuesday, Pope Francis sent a message to the “United Nations Conference to Negotiate a Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading Towards their Total Elimination.” – RV

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/27/holocaust-non-jewish-victims_n_6555604.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/01/27/statement-president-international-holocaust-remembrance-day

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfavJDndG4E

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9D1TeOyltHs

-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z6aL5TiIc0

“Some people give us advice. They say they are worried.

Mind your own business! Look at your own actions, “

Not one senior Western politicians have visited since the failed military coup two weeks ago, Turkey, to express his sympathy. And then they say ‘Erdogan has become so angry,’

“These countries and leaders who do not worry about the Turkish democracy, the lives of our people and their future, while they are concerned about the fate of the coup, can not be our friends.

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan

2016-07-30

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jul/29/turkey-drops-cases-of-insult-against-president-in-coup-aftermath

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/21-journalists-appear-in-court-in-turkey/2016/07/29/c044cd2c-5569-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html

“This is serious. Some powerful people make their living with the production of arms and sell them to one country for them to use against another country … It’s the industry of death, the greed that harms us all, the desire to have more money.”

“The economic system orbits around money and not men, women. …

“So war is waged in order to defend money.

This is why some people don’t want peace: They make more money from war, although wars make money but lose lives, health, education.”

“A war can be justified, so to speak, with many, many reasons, but when all the world is as it is today, at war — piecemeal though that war may be — a little here, a little there and everywhere, there is no justification. And God weeps. Jesus weeps.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/is-the-government-providing-cover-for-our-arms-sales-to-saudi-arabia-a6850456.html

The final House of Commons vote was 472 votes to 117 in favour of renewing the nuclear programme.

Here is how the Labour MPs divided:
Aye

Heidi Alexander
Rushanara Ali
Rosena Allin-Khan
Ian Austin
Adrian Bailey
Kevin Barron
Margaret Beckett
Hilary Benn
Luciana Berger
Clive Betts
Tom Blenkinsop
Ben Bradshaw
Kevin Brennan
Chris Bryant
Andy Burnham
Liam Byrne
Alan Campbell
Jenny Chapman
Vernon Coaker
Ann Coffey
Julie Cooper
Rosie Cooper
Yvette Cooper
Neil Coyle
Mary Creagh
Stella Creasy
Jim Cunningham
Nic Dakin
Simon Danczuk
Wayne David
Geraint Davies
Gloria de Piero
Stephen Doughty
Jim Dowd
Peter Dowd
Jack Dromey
Michael Dugher
Angela Eagle
Maria Eagle
Julie Elliott
Louise Ellman
Bill Esterson
Paul Farrelly
Frank Field
Jim Fitzpatrick
Robert Flello
Colleen Fletcher
Caroline Flint
Yvonne Fovargue
Gill Furniss
Mike Gapes
Pat Glass
Mary Glindon
Kate Green
Andrew Gwynne
David Hanson
Harriet Harman
Helen Hayes
Sue Hayman
John Healey
Stephen Hepburn
Meg Hillier
Margaret Hodge
George Howarth
Tristram Hunt
Dan Jarvis
Alan Johnson
Diana Johnson
Gerald Jones
Graham Jones
Helen Jones
Kevan Jones
Susan Elan Jones
Mike Kane
Liz Kendall
Stephen Kinnock
Peter Kyle
Chris Leslie
Emma Lewell-Buck
Ian C Lucas
Holly Lynch
Justin Madders
Khalid Mahmood
Shabana Mahmood
Seema Malhotra
John Mann
Rob Marris
Christian Matheson
Steve McCabe
Kerry McCarthy
Siobhain McDonagh
Pat McFadden
Conor McGinn
Alison McGovern
Liz McInnes
Catherine McKinnell
Ed Miliband
Madeleine Moon
Jessica Morden
Melanie Onn
Chi Onwurah
Albert Owen
Matthew Pennycook
Toby Perkins
Jess Phillips
Bridget Phillipson
Lucy Powell
Jamie Reed
Steve Reed
Christina Rees
Rachel Reeves
Jonathan Reynolds
Geoffrey Robinson
Joan Ryan
Virendra Sharma
Barry Sheerman
Paula Sherriff
Gavin Shuker
Andy Slaughter
Ruth Smeeth
Angela Smith
Nick Smith
Owen Smith
Karin Smyth
John Spellar
Keir Starmer
Wes Streeting
Gisela Stuart
Mark Tami
Gareth Thomas
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Stephen Timms
Anna Turley
Karl Turner
Stephen Twigg
Valerie Vaz
Tom Watson
Phil Wilson
Rosie Winterton
John Woodcock
Iain Wright

No

Diane Abbott
Graham Allen
Paul Blomfield
Nicholas Brown
Richard Burden
Richard Burgon
Dawn Butler
Ruth Cadbury
Ronnie Campbell
Sarah Champion
Ann Clwyd
Jeremy Corbyn
John Cryer
Paul Flynn
Vicky Foxcroft
Roger Godsiff
Helen Goodman
Margaret Greenwood
Nia Griffith
Louise Haigh
Fabian Hamilton
Carolyn Harris
Kate Hoey
Kelvin Hopkins
Imran Hussain
David Lammy
Rebecca Long Bailey
Rachael Maskell
John McDonnell
Alan Meale
Ian Murray
Lisa Nandy
Kate Osamor
Stephen Pound
Angela Rayner
Marie Rimmer
Naz Shah
Tulip Siddiq
Dennis Skinner
Andrew Smith
Jeff Smith
Jo Stevens
Graham Stringer
Jon Trickett
Keith Vaz
Catherine West
Daniel Zeichner
Abstained

Rupa Huq

Absent

Debbie Abrahams
David Anderson
Jonathan Ashworth
Roberta Blackman-Woods
Lyn Brown
Karen Buck
David Crausby
Jon Cruddas

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/07/how-labour-mps-voted-trident

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2015/09/jeremy-corbyns-victory-just-tip-iceberg