Stories about
David Cameron


David William Donald Cameron (born 9 October 1966) is a British politician who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 2010 to 2016 and Leader of the Conservative Party from 2005 to 2016. He was Member of Parliament (MP) for Witney from 2001 to 2016. Cameron identifies as a one-nation conservative, and has been associated with both economically liberal and socially liberal policies.

BrexitCentral

Published  22 hours ago

The Attorney General, Geoffrey Cox, has been tasked with coming up with a legal solution to the ‘backstop’ that the Government hope will persuade or bamboozle the DUP and Conservative backbench MP

The Sun

Published  6 days ago

BREXIT scaremongers were exposed as hoaxers last night after their warnings of No Deal chaos were finally demolished. EU chiefs have secretly agreed measures to ensure transport links with Britain …

The Independent

Published  6 days ago

Of the many con tricks that have propelled Brexit from being the fantasy of a few to the reality for the many, the myth that it is a battle won for the people against the elite is right up there with

Breitbart

Published  1 week ago

The United Kingdom and the United States have signed a Mutual Recognition Agreement to ensure British-American trade continues seamlessly after Brexit, undercutting EU loyalists who claimed it would be damaged.

The United Kingdom trades with the United States, its largest single trade partner and number one source of inward investment, largely on World Trade Organization (WTO) terms — a so-called “No Deal” situation — as the European Union has failed to strike a bilateral agreement.

This WTO-based relationship is supplemented by a number of mini-agreements on things like regulatory standards, however, which Remainers had hitherto used to claim Brexit would deal a blow to British-American commerce.

However, the signing of a Mutual Recognition Agreement on Conformity Assessment (MRA) in Washington D.C. by the British ambassador to the United States, Sir Kim Darroch, and Deputy United States Trade Representative C.J. Mahoney on February 14th ensures this will not be the case.

Good news! Two new agreements have been signed to ensure continuity for 🇺🇸 businesses and consumers post #Brexit. U.S. exports to UK of products covered by these agreements worth > $5b — we’re determined that U.S.-UK trade will continue to flourish! https://t.co/3yz8jlFs6J

— Ambassador Johnson (@USAmbUK) February 15, 2019

“The UK and the U.S. are the strongest of trading partners and this agreement will allow British and American businesses to keep trading as freely as they do today, without additional bureaucracy,” noted Dr Liam Fox, Britain’s Brexit-supporting Secretary of State for International Trade.

“Our top priority is ensuring continuity for businesses as we leave the European Union and we are signing other agreements in the days and weeks ahead. We look forward to sitting down at the negotiating table with the Americans after we leave the European Union to strike an ambitious new free trade agreement,” he added.

“[W]e’re determined that U.S.-UK trade will continue to flourish,” added Woody Johnson, U.S. ambassador to the Court of St James’s, having previously penned a Valentine’s Day poem to the United Kingdom reading:

Roses are Red

But they soon fade away

For romance that lasts

Sign a new FTA!

While former U.S. President Barack Obama and his would-be successor both suggested Britain would be sent to “the back of the queue” for a trade deal if it left the European Union — allegedly at the behest of former prime minister David Cameron — current U.S. President Donald Trump is keen to put the mother country at “the front of the line” and strike a “powerful” new deal as soon as possible.

The future partnership with the EU which the Remainer-dominated British political establishment appears to be pursuing may make this impossible, however, as it would see the EU retain effective control over British trade policy through the imposition of various onerous obligations with respect to customs and maintaining a “level playing field” economically.

Trump’s Ambassador: Britain First in Line for ‘Ambitious’ Trade Deal… If You Manage to Leave the EU https://t.co/3qESgb5RIC

— Breitbart London (@BreitbartLondon) November 28, 2018

BrexitCentral

Published  1 week ago

Written by

A few honourable MPs aside, the Labour Party has now dumped its manifesto commitment on Brexit to respect the referendum result. It is now calling for Britain to stay in the EU’s customs union forever – which would effectively mean being locked into the EU forever while having no say at all over how it works.

Say what you like about Theresa May’s negotiating skills, her task would anyway have been nigh on impossible given the continual attempts at sabotage from politicians and others in Britain.

One example: when May went to Brussels last week, she was told by Donald Tusk that Jeremy Corbyn’s proposals for a permanent customs union represented “a promising way out” of the current impasse on Brexit.

Another form of sabotage is the constant exhortations from the establishment calling for the EU to give no ground to the Government.

Brexit is in danger. A clean Brexit is still the default position, leaving on 29th March to trade on WTO terms. Yet despite the defeat in parliament on 29th January of every binding amendment to block or delay Brexit – including Labour’s permanent customs union – Theresa May’s so-called Withdrawal Agreement is still on the table.

Even though MPs voted against it on 24th January, May still wants MPs to vote again on it, once again using No Deal as a threat not as an opportunity.

Her current deal with the EU is not a Withdrawal Agreement – it is a Remainer Agreement, in every clause on every one of its 585 pages. It is No Brexit. It would bind us forever into a United States of Europe.

It is meant to be permanent, inescapable. The Attorney General told the Cabinet that there was no legal escape route from the backstop Protocol and that it would “endure indefinitely”.

Her deal would give the EU tariff-free access to our market and control of our trade policy, force us to fund the EU’s defence programme, give EU fishing vessels free access to our waters, give the EU control of our farms, and allow free movement of labour through clauses about “mobility”. In sum, it would bind us into the EU in perpetuity.

No surprise, then, that Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, boasted that the EU got “almost everything” it wanted with the deal.

MPs rejected May’s deal – almost the only thing they can agree on – then voted to tell her to go yet again to Brussels with her faithful lieutenant Oliver Robbins, to beg the EU to drop the Irish backstop.

But the EU will not give up the huge advantages they gain under the backstop. As Robbins observed, renegotiating the backstop with the EU is “for the birds”.

We do not need to beg the EU to change its position – that would be fruitless, as all experience from Harold Macmillan 50 years ago to David Cameron has proven. We do not need to beg the EU for a new deal, as Boris Johnson has suggested. We do not need to pay the EU £39 billion for the privilege of leaving, nor even the £20 billion that Johnson proposed.

We can and should just declare our policies on trade, fishing, the Irish border, immigration and everything else. We do not need to ask the EU’s permission. We declare our independence and then, if we wish, we can negotiate with the EU.

The Independent

Published  1 week ago

The Spanish government’s handling of the Catalonian independence movement is worse than a human rights outrage; it is a mistake.

The trial of a dozen separatist leaders on charges including “rebellion” and “sedition”, charges carrying sentences of up to 25 years in prison, ought to be unthinkable in country that is an established member of the European Union and a signatory of the European Convention on Human Rights.

From the beginning, from the confrontational way in which the Spanish police handled peaceful demonstrations in Catalonia, the authorities in Madrid have got this wrong. They responded to the attempts by the devolved parliament in Barcelona to seek independence with a heavy-handed refusal to respect free expression and democratic, non-violent demands.

The independence movement has not always handled its campaign in the most effective way. The unofficial referendum held in October 2017 was not a good mandate, and the parliament’s declaration of its independence a few weeks later was unwise.

But the central government’s response has been disgraceful. The charges brought against the leaders of the independence movement are plainly political and the long detention of those accused is unjustifiable. It ought to prick the conscience of all Spaniards and indeed all good Europeans that Carles Puigdemont, president of the putative breakaway republic, felt he had to flee the country.

Created with Sketch. Protests as Catalan leaders face trial: in pictures

Show all 13 Created with Sketch. Created with Sketch.

Created with Sketch. Protests as Catalan leaders face trial: in pictures

For a non-violent political dissident to have to seek exile in another EU country – Belgium – is a stain on Spain’s membership of a union supposedly committed to the protection and furtherance of human rights.

What makes Tuesday’s court proceedings in Madrid so controversial is that, if the defendants are found guilty, they are bound to appeal, eventually to the European Court of Human Rights, where their right to peaceful expression of their views is almost certain to be recognised.

However, even if the Spanish national authorities refuse to accept that they are on the wrong side of human rights law, Pedro Sanchez, the Spanish prime minister, should realise that this is not the best way to defeat demands for Catalan independence.

We British should resist the temptation to lecture other nations on how to manage national and regional differences within states, but there is something to be learned from the way David Cameron dealt with demands for Scottish independence. He accepted the right of a people to govern themselves, and sought to persuade them in a democratic campaign that they should remain part of the larger union. The idea of making Alex Salmond, first minister of Scotland, a martyr by jailing him was never a remote possibility.

If Spain’s prime minister cannot see that what his government is doing in Catalonia is wrong, he should realise that it is counterproductive and risks storing up much greater trouble for the future.

The Independent has launched its #FinalSay campaign to demand that voters are given a voice on the final Brexit deal.

Sign our petition here

HuffPost UK

Published  1 week ago

Internal party polling and warnings from her chief whip and party chairman have forced her to 'think the unthinkable'

The Telegraph

Published  1 week ago

More than one in five European Union officials earn above £142,000, the salary paid to the British Prime Minister

Mail Online

Published  1 week ago

National census figures show that while 1.8million families in the UK are on the waiting list, 1.2million foreigners live in social housing. Somali asylum seeker Saeed Khalif (pictured) was given a £2million home in Hampstead - one of the country's most exclusive neighbourhoods.

Westmonster

Published  2 weeks ago

If the establishment don't want Nigel Farage to return to the frontline, they need to deliver Brexit on 29th March as promised. In an absolute missile of

BrexitCentral

Published  2 weeks ago

Written by

What an extraordinary day it was in Brussels yesterday. Leading most of the papers today are the incendiary remarks made by European Council President Donald Tusk yesterday at a press conference alongside Irish Taoiseach Leo Varadkar. At the end of a relatively short statement, Tusk opined:

“By the way, I’ve been wondering what that special place in hell looks like, for those who promoted Brexit, without even a sketch of a plan how to carry it out safely.”

Never mind the deeply undiplomatic nature of the comment which unsurprisingly drew much criticism, it was also totally untrue.

While David Cameron and George Osborne may have irresponsibly refused to allow the civil service to prepare for the eventuality of a Leave vote in advance of the referendum, plans were drawn up by others. As Dr Lee Rotherham reminded us here on BrexitCentral in 2016, there was Change, or go – the seminal publication from Business for Britain which ran to more than 1,000 pages. Its subtitle, “How Britain would gain influence and prosper outside an unreformed EU”, provides the clue to it being exactly what Tusk claims did not exist.

Or there was the 2014 publication, Cutting the Gordian knot: A road map for British exit from the European Union, written by Rory Broomfield and Iain Murray. There were many others too.

There’s no way that this was an off the cuff intervention from Tusk. It was clearly planned. If you watch him making the remarks on our video, you can see him referring to written notes while he said it. And he then happily tweeted the words out afterwards – prompting an equally inappropriate response from MEP Guy Verhofstadt.

And then to rub salt into the wound, at the end of the press conference, Varadkar is caught saying: “They’ll give you terrible trouble in the British press for that”, to which Tusk replies: “Yes, I know” and laughs.

What on earth was he thinking???

Moreover, many of us had already been offended by some of the earlier contents of Tusk’s short statement. Aside from the contradiction of declaring the Withdrawal Agreement “not open for re-negotiation” while demanding that Theresa May offer a “suggestion on how to end the impasse”, the former Polish Prime Minister also reminded us of the EU’s arrogant attitude to referendums which deliver the “wrong” answer.

Having claimed that “a very great number of people in the UK… wish for a reversal of this decision” to leave the EU, he lamented:

“The pro-Brexit stance of the UK Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition rules out this question… Today, there is no political force and no effective leadership for Remain”.

Some might say that the definitive result of the 2016 referendum rules out a reversal of the said decision. Call me old-fashioned, but when a parliament organises a referendum to ask the people a question, is it not duty bound to implement the answer it is given?

But of course, that’s not the EU’s way of doing things. When Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty in a 1992 referendum, they had to vote again in order to approve it. It was the same with Ireland and their Nice Treaty referendum in 2001. And when the French and Dutch electorates rejected the European Constitution in 2005, it was merely cosmetically repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty. And when the Irish rejected that in 2008, they had to vote again in order to give Brussels the answer it required.

All a salutary reminder that the EU is not so much undemocratic as anti-democratic.

Westmonster

Published  2 weeks ago

Florian Philippot is a French MEP and President of Les Patriotes.

A few weeks before Brexit, ‘Project Fear’ is at its highest. It is no surprise: the fake May deal has been rejected and only fear can now stop Brexit.

The risk is real because the fear is real. Oh yes, there is a fear. But what is it? They say Brexit will cause chaos and ruin. They lie. That’s not what they really fear. They shudder because they know the whole world – and all the people in Europe – will soon see you can leave the European Union and live on, and even live better. Nothing could worry more the Eurocrats.

They are willing to sacrifice trade, businesses, whole economic sectors, even people to save their European dream. They don’t care if their dream is a horrible nightmare for most. They don’t care if they destroy lives in a vain attempt to save the illusion. They don’t care if they use blackmail, intimidation, or fake news to scare. They are fanatics. Whatever power they have, they use it to serve the EU and not the people. This is literally anti-democratic. That’s why I fear them, not Brexit.

But my fear is overcome by a great hope and the trust I have in the British people. Solutions will be found, agreements will be made where they are needed. No one will let their own business go down when they can save it. The Eurocrats will be furious but common sense shall prevail. It is impossible to deal anything decent with the European Union, it will be easy and quick between States or between firms because common interests make them pragmatic.

In France, the “Gilets jaunes” (Yellow Vests) have just shown the strength of the people. In the United Kingdom, I know the people is as strong and resilient. They have chosen freedom and they will make a success of Brexit.

I want the same freedom for my own people. Almost every French politician is resigned to stay in the European Union. Even Marine Le Pen and the Front National have lost the will to defend national sovereignty and submitted to the requirements of the system.

I launched a new political movement, Les Patriotes, in 2017 in order to fight on, because I can not bring myself to give up the freedom of my country. We have a 40 years old ‘Project Fear’ to fight. It is not simple. It is not the easy way. But it is the right one. I will never deny my most intimate conviction in order to please the establishment.

Every day, I see how the single currency we share with Germany and other countries is destroying French industry. Every day, I see how my compatriots are suffering because of the austerity and the European rules. There is no European debate here. Politicians just say some things in Europe are dysfunctional and they propose to change the EU. I can’t bear anymore their false pretences of another Europe. There isn’t another Europe. Neither David Cameron nor Theresa May could obtain anything significant. The EU doesn’t give anything. It takes it all. You have to submit – or to leave.

When I look at history, I can see that no one has been able to change Europe. Even de Gaulle – whom I admire greatly – couldn’t change the little EEC in 1961. In the big EU with its 27 members, any promise of change is a pure lie.

Since 1979, all campaigns for the European Elections are absolutely identical. Some speak of a mythic social Europe, others want a strong Europe able to stand up to the US, China, and Russia, others are focused on one single subject such as environment or immigration. It’s a very bad play, with the same roles, the same text, and even sometimes the same actors, on stage for forty years. We have to break with this travesty of democracy.

My hope for the future is that our two peoples will help each other. The British are the first one to take back control and freedom, I think the French could be next. President Macron himself said to the BBC he believed the French could vote for the Frexit if they had the chance. And, of course, he doesn’t want to ask them, he doesn’t want a serious debate.

Latest stories direct in your inbox

Sign up for the free Red Alert email:

In France, every talk about Europe is but hollow words without ever tackling the basic issues. The French just need some politicians brave enough to speak the truth. People are angry, they know things could be different and should be different. When they will see a way out, their anger will turn into a promising project. To fight 40 years of European propaganda, only reality can be efficient. Brexit will be a success and it will give courage and strength to all the people still locked in the European shackles. It’s no surprise the Eurocrats are living in fear!

And then, we will work together. Freed from the absurd red tape of the European administration, the British and the French will do great things. We already cooperate in the field of defence, space, energy, etc. We don’t need the EU and it would be foolish to let down these projects because of Brexit.

Brexit is a wonderful opportunity for the United Kingdom but I think Frexit will be even better for France. We are suffering from the Schengen agreements and the effects of the Euro, a currency unsuited to our economy. Our society is hit by mass unemployment, due in great part to the Posted Workers Directive and offshoring.

Our democracy is in shambles because the ones who really decide are not elected and the elected ones are but hot air merchants. We need Frexit as soon as possible and I won’t have a moment’s rest until my country is free again.

The Telegraph

Published  2 weeks ago

The European Union is pursuing a similar goal to Hitler in trying to create a powerful superstate, Boris Johnson says.

BrexitCentral

Published  2 weeks ago

Written by

John Longworth was formerly Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce and Chairman of the Vote Leave Business Council and is now Co-Chairman of Leave Means Leave. He is also on the Advisory Board of Economists for Free Trade and the IEA.

The Alliance of British Entrepreneurs (ABE) and Leave Means Leave (LML) have issued a joint statement supported by 300 plus business owners – businesses large and small – asking for a managed no-deal exit from the EU. The reaction to this from Jim Pickard of the FT has reminded me why I chose, at great personal cost, to campaign to leave the EU – unbelievably a decision I took three years ago and still it goes on. Jim, a sharp and competent journalist, has chosen to belittle sole trader entrepreneurs, who actually make up a substantial proportion of the economy. This reaction is a classic one of our establishment.

Looking back in fairness, I had always been a eurosceptic, albeit also a regular visitor for over thirty five years to the Brussels bureaucratic machine and actually with some very good friends within the matrix that is the EU.

As Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) and in 2014 anticipating the EU debate, I set about with the researchers and economists at the BCC to find out the facts about the UK economy, politics and the EU in all its aspects: trade, regulation, migration, sovereignty etc. Much of this I knew from forty years in international business, but I was shocked by some of the results in areas with which I was not familiar. For example, our look into migration and population trends pointed towards half of the UK population being migrants or the children of migrants by 2040, a very rapid transition which would no doubt change and challenge the nature, values and culture of British society forever. The lack of official insight was shocking, one might suspect even deliberate, but such as it was, it pointed to a substantial burden on taxpayers arising from migrant workers in low-skilled jobs.

In 2015, when David Cameron declared he would start negotiations with the EU, I wrote to him on behalf of the BCC an open letter, setting out our expectations from this process. When he returned, as I had anticipated, we at the BCC were able to issue a statement in January 2016 indicating that his efforts had fallen far short of our expectations. The scene was set.

My major concern personally (as for the majority of Brexit supporters I have met) was that of sovereignty, which I had seen eroded over the decades to the point where the UK Parliament was appearing to be the equivalent of a county council in relation to the EU. It is ironic that the Parliament that allowed this to happen without any real resistance from the majority of MPs has kicked up such a fuss about leaving – perhaps this is as good a sign as any of a renewed democratic vigour!

But what really turned me into a campaigner, however, was the overwhelming arrogance of our establishment. The start of 2016 witnessed the all-out assault of Project Fear and the bullying by No. 10 of organisations like mine. It demonstrated an absolute desire to treat the “little people” with contempt and that our “more intelligent” “betters” had no compunction in lying grievously, or at least no respect for the facts unless they supported their world vision and vested interests. That is what led me to resign from the BCC to fight the referendum as Chairman of the Vote Leave Business Council.

The arrogance of the elite was brought home to me when giving a presentation in Brussels in January 2016 to an audience of senior EU officials. To my astonishment, the first question from the floor was to ask how we could possibly contemplate allowing people who are not college-educated to vote in a referendum, which was met by murmurs of approval from around the room.

In my many lunches with Lord Heseltine in his role within the Business Department, mentoring Greg Clark and directing people, it became clear that he considered democracy to be merely a tool, a rubber stamp for the will of the ruling class, a way of obtaining “buy in” so as to effect a smooth delivery. This I witnessed again and again amongst what is the new establishment of the liberal, metropolitan elite, no longer the noblesse oblige of landed classes of yesteryear.

One of the first pieces I wrote for the press during the referendum campaign was for the Evening Standard. It compared the mutiny of the Brexiteers to the Medieval Peasants’ Revolt. I ended the piece by warning that the establishment are vicious in pursuit of their own vested interests and so it has proved to be.

I came to mistrust our establishment so much that I continued to campaign even after we won the referendum with Leave means Leave – and a good job it is that we continued our vigilance, since there has been a determined effort by the establishment to reverse Brexit, to ignore democracy, simply because it doesn’t suit them.

The reaction of the FT to the statement by business supporters of the ABE and LML calling for no deal was just such a continuation of the dismissal of “the little people” who inconveniently just happen to be voters.

The statement fits very well with my experience of business, large swathes of which want to leave the EU. Many dare not stick their heads above the parapet, so viscous has been the Remainer backlash. Those that are willing and able tend to be business owners, entrepreneurs large and small. Not, you will note, the salary men who run the corporate multinationals, focused on their bonuses and the three-year cycle before they move on.

Family-owned or -run businesses make up the vast majority of the UK economy from sole traders to large companies. They trade around the world and domestically. They are the backbone of the economy. They are the innovators and risk takers. They are the future. Watch out establishment, they don’t believe in you anymore.

The Independent

Published  2 weeks ago

A police chief who was forced to apologise for her role in one of Britain’s worst child sex trafficking scandals is to lead the country’s fight against modern slavery.

Sara Thornton, who currently heads up the National Police Chiefs’ Council (NPCC), will become the Home Office’s independent anti-slavery commissioner later this year. Her appointment is set to be announced officially next week.

The senior officer was chief constable of Thames Valley police when the force failed to help up to 373 children, mostly female, who were groomed, given vast quantities of drugs and alcohol and sexually abused in Oxford.

Campaigners raised concerns that, having previously been described as David Cameron’s “favourite police officer”, Ms Thornton would lack independence from government.

The former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Kevin Hyland, resigned from the post last May last year citing government interference in his work – saying independence was “vital” for the success of the role.

UK ‘lagging behind’ on efforts to tackle modern slavery, finds report

A former advisor to Mr Hyland, Emily Kenway, who is now a senior advisor at Focus on Labour Exploitation (FLEX), told The Independent this independence risked being diminished further after the job specification was updated to state that the commissioner would be “appraised” by the Home Office.

“As an ex adviser to the previous commissioner, I know first-hand that our attitude of independence wasn’t always appreciated by the Home Office,” she said.

“It is right that there will be concerns about how independent Ms Thornton will be able to be, particularly as she will now have her performance appraised by Home Office officials which seems to fly in the face of genuine scrutiny.”

The fact that a police officer is being appointed to the role also provoked criticism, as ministers have been accused of placing too much focus on law enforcement when dealing with modern slavery rather than looking at wider factors such as immigration.

In a recent hearing conducted by the Home Affairs Select Committe, Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall Police Shaun Sawyer said the UK was failing to transform its approach to modern slavery “other than in law enforcement”, adding: “To me that is not a transformation; that is a sticking plaster.”

Ms Kenway said it was “concerning” that Ms Thornoton was from a police background, adding: “Modern slavery is a crime but we cannot arrest and prosecute our way out of it.

“Its causes are systemic; we have an economy which relies on cheap exploitable labour and a hostile environment which makes undocumented people unable to work for anyone but those willing to flout the law, pushing them into abuse.

UK's anti-slavery commissioner resigns citing government interference

“I hope she will address these deeper causes, highlighting that a Britain without modern slavery means a country where people are put before profit and the wellbeing of all, regardless of immigration status, is put above anti-immigrant policy.“

The government is facing mounting criticism over its efforts to tackle modern slavery. It has taken ministers eight months to appoint a new commissioner, a delay campaigners say has hindered Theresa May's bid to become world leader in fighting the crime.

The High Court ruled in November that a government decision to slash weekly subsistence benefits for suspected trafficking victims was unlawful, and the Home Office this week admitted more than 1,200 inidviduals had been deprived of support.

A Home Office spokesperson said: “Tackling human trafficking and modern slavery remains a top priority for this government and we are committed to stamping out this abhorrent crime.

“The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner (IASC) plays a crucial role in providing scrutiny of the Government’s response to modern slavery.

“We are currently undertaking the recruitment process to appoint a candidate, which will be announced shortly.”

The Independent

Published  3 weeks ago

British special forces in Iraq have reportedly been handed a list of 200 British jihadis to kill before they attempt to return to Britain.

SAS soldiers have been told to “use whatever means possible” to kill or capture the militants, according to the Sunday Times.

The newspaper quoted a senior defence source as saying: “A kill list has been drawn up containing the names of hundreds of very bad people. A lot of them are from the UK. The hunt is now on for British Islamists who have effectively gone off-grid."

“This is a multinational special forces operation. The SAS have their own part of the plan and they will be going after British nationals. This is a kill or capture mission and it has already begun."

“We do not have exact numbers of UK nationals in Iraq. The figures which have been in the press are just estimates. We know there are British people in Iraq, but we have no idea of their identities."

“That’s the challenge we face. There is a lot of international co-operation because it’s regarded as a global problem.”

Estimates suggest there could be up to 700 British jihadis still fighting for Isis in Iraq and Syria. The SAS hit list focuses on the 200 most senior members that pose a direct threat to the UK. Reported to be included are at least 12 bomb-makers who studied electronics at British universities before fleeing to the Middle East to join Isis and other terrorist groups.

The list of British men and women has been compiled from intelligence supplied by MI5, MI6 and GCHQ and is said to include Sally Jones, a mother-of-two from Kent who is now in Syria working as a recruiter for Isis.

Any jihadis captured are likely to be handed over to Iraqi authorities to be tried. They could face execution if found guilty.

Sources said SAS soldiers have been told the mission to kill or capture the Isis operatives could be the most important in the regiment’s 75-year history.

The teams of specialist soldiers are based at the headquarters of US Joint Special Operations Command near Baghdad. They are also tasked with providing advice and support to Iraqi forces as the attempt to retake the city of Mosul from Isis.

Up to 100 members of Britain’s special forces are believed to be operating in Iraq and Syria to combat the threat from homegrown jihadis working with Isis.

The possibility of Isis being defeated in Iraq has raised the prospect that British people currently fighting for the organisation in the Middle East will return home and plan attacks on UK soil.

The Ministry of Defence would not comment on the existence of an SAS hit list. A spokesperson said: “We cannot comment on issues of special forces involvement.”

Previous strikes by the British military on UK citizens fighting for terrorist groups led to accusations the government was carrying out illegal assassinations.

In 2011, then Prime Minister David Cameron faced questions after ordering a lethal drone strike against two British citizens fighting for Isis in Syria. It was the first time British drones had targeted British citizens, although the United States has being targetting US jihadis abroad for some time.

The apparent change in military policy was condemned by Amnesty International, which called the move “extremely alarming” and accused the UK of “conducting summary executions from the air”.

Green Party leader Caroline Lucas and peer Baroness Jones sought permission for a judicial review of the policy.

spiked-online

Published  3 weeks ago

The Guardian’s Larry Elliott on why we need a clean break from Brussels.

The Independent

Published  4 weeks ago

In the run up to the 2016 EU referendum I campaigned for Stronger IN on the streets of South London. I’d never canvassed before and it was a disquieting experience. As I trudged through Lewisham handing out flyers, it became horribly apparent that most of those who I stopped to talk to didn’t understand what the hell was going on.

Some asked me to explain it. Others told me they were “voting for Boris”. One guy took my arm and informed me that “chaos is good so I’m voting for chaos”. One of my children’s teachers – who I bumped into by the station – asked me which way she should vote. When I told her I was backing Remain, she stared at me blankly and asked if that was “in or out?”

But it was the older woman who engaged me in the market on a busy Saturday afternoon that really made me realise that our cause was doomed: “I don’t want to join the EU.” She told me. I started to explain that we were already in the EU, the referendum was about leaving it or remaining and when I took out my phone to prove my point she stopped me in my tracks and repeated very deliberately: “No. I’m sorry I’ve made my mind up. I don’t care about that. I’m voting against.” And that was the end of that.

The uncomfortable truth is that whether you voted Remain or Leave in June 2016 you probably voted emotionally. Very few people understood it. Inviting a largely uninformed public to make a judgement on something as unfathomably complex as our membership of the EU was akin to asking a six-year-old to perform delicate brain surgery – with a crayon.

Created with Sketch. Brexit deal vote: Opposing groups of protesters gather by Parliament

Show all 20 Created with Sketch. Created with Sketch.

Created with Sketch. Brexit deal vote: Opposing groups of protesters gather by Parliament

And it's not just Brexit. Most people simply do not fathom politics. Most have no understanding of concepts like pooled sovereignty, or how net migration works, or what first past the post is, or how our unwritten constitution functions. Many, frankly, don’t even care. Why should they?

In a parliamentary democracy we elect politicians to make important decisions on our behalf. That’s how the system has functioned for decades and also why the British have traditionally astutely avoided referendums – which reduce perplexingly multifaceted matters to a binary choice. Thatcher famously called referendums the tools of “demagogues and dictators” – but they are more than that. They are a dangerous capitulation of responsibility by the executive to an electorate less equipped to make judgements than they.

Forget the “people’s will” – all evidence demonstrates that the “people’s ignorance” is staggering. Around half of adults don’t know who their MP is while just 11 per cent can name one of their MEPs. A survey carried out in the run up to the 2015 general election revealed that 69 per cent of Britons confessed to having “no interest in politics” while a staggering 59 per cent couldn’t even name the then-prime minister, David Cameron.

And yet we are told daily that the “people understood what they were voting for”. That sacred result – delivered by the hallowed 52 per cent one day in June 2016 – now dictates the course of this nation’s destiny. The British public might be cheerfully ignorant of the mechanisms of politics but put them in a polling station and they are apparently transformed into a master race of all knowing super beings who can do no wrong – and whose will must be delivered at all costs.

Do most British people really understand the backstop? Of course not. What WTO rules mean? No. Who genuinely comprehends the difference between the Norwegian or Canadian models? What percentage of the British population has sat down to read Theresa May’s deal, or even the abstract? I certainly haven’t – have you?

Say any of this, dare to imply that the majority simply don’t get any of it whatsoever and you are accused of being an elitist who thinks that the people are stupid. That is why nobody in public life dares to say it. The people aren’t stupid. Far from it. They have better things to do than acquaint themselves with the intricacies of the Maastricht treaty. But their obliviousness is being abused.

The awful truth is that while most people don’t understand what the hell is going on, that lack of knowledge is being used against them by Jacob Rees-Mogg, Farage and friends in the furtherance of their own nebulous cause.

It’s time for a little more honesty. Let’s be frank. Nobody understands what the hell is going on.

The Independent has launched its #FinalSay campaign to demand that voters are given a voice on the final Brexit deal.

Sign our petition here

BrexitCentral

Published  1 month ago

Written by

John Longworth was formerly Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce and Chairman of the Vote Leave Business Council and is now Co-Chairman of Leave Means Leave. He is also on the Advisory Board of Economists for Free Trade and the IEA.

There are undoubtedly many Remainers in the establishment who are determined to stop Brexit outright. Others are trying to create a fiction of Brexit that in reality keeps the UK in the EU in all but name. Many Brexiteers would like to see the UK leave without a deal, on WTO terms – a clean Brexit. After all, this is what was on the referendum ballot paper: it said Leave, it said nothing about a deal and David Cameron was explicit that there would be no further deals beyond his.

However, there are those in both camps who are prepared to countenance some sort of deal that would smooth the UK’s exit from the EU. What has unified many on both sides, however, is the awfulness of the deal the Prime Minister negotiated. For “alt Remainers” it did not achieve the objective of defeating Brexit outright, nor did it provide a good alternative to a clean Brexit. For Leavers, May’s deal was in many ways worse than staying in the EU. The deal is dead in its original form, quite likely in any form.

So, what should be Plan B?

“No deal is better than a bad deal,” promised the Conservative manifesto, as has the Prime Minister repeatedly in her many statements and speeches. This evokes unnecessary but real alarm amongst most Remainers. For some it is a useful tool to fulfil their Remain ambitions, for others a genuine concern that such an outcome will lead to significant disruption and economic harm. It would not, but perception is as strong as reality and perception has been nurtured and reinforced by the Remain media establishment, who have consistently and persistently framed a clean Brexit – the Brexit people voted for – as a “cliff edge”, as “crashing out” etc. How can this possibly be detoxified? Or made into an acceptable Plan B?

Ten days ago I visited Geneva to see the World Trade Organisation (WTO) to discuss practical aspects of a move to WTO trading terms. Having during my career done business on every continent and been involved in trade and international standards throughout, I was well aware of the efficacy of WTO-based trade terms, after all most trade the UK conducts with the rest of the world is WTO rules-based, as indeed is much of the trade the EU conducts, for example with countries like: the USA, China, India, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand etc. Nonetheless, it was instructive to hear from the “horse’s mouth” an obvious Plan B solution which would smooth the UK exit without recourse to a transition period, or to paying £39 billion, or to any restrictions on our removal of external tariffs and making trade deals around the world.

This solution has a weakness by comparison with just leaving in that it requires both parties, that is the UK and the EU, to agree; but there is a chance of success as it would be in the economic interests of both parties to agree. It is based on the use of Article 24 of the GATT under WTO (as explained in more detail by David Campbell Bannerman MEP on BrexitCentral on Sunday) whereby both parties would agree to operate current terms of trade in relation to, for example, tariffs for a period of time while a free trade agreement (FTA) is being negotiated. Provided both parties commit to an FTA and set out to negotiate one, this period of time can be many years.

This Plan B, which could be agreed quickly, would result in there being no tariffs between the EU and the UK at least until an FTA is completed: the current arrangements would simply continue, thus removing the objections of trade groups. It could be extended to customs arrangements, but would not require the UK to be part of a customs union, nor would it require the UK to be part of any of the EU institutions or constructs. The agreement would be between two sovereign powers under international WTO conventions and the UK would have properly left the EU.

If the EU were to reject this perfectly legitimate approach, it would be proof positive of their malign intent towards the UK – but they have every incentive to agree to it given the alternative of an exit on WTO terms without interim arrangements. It merely requires will to make it happen, there is no other impediment. So, why has the Government not adopted this simple approach as Plan B? It would seem, if they do not, that it is proof positive we have a Remain Government hell bent on remaining locked into the EU.

We have yet to see what the outcome of the days leading to 29th March will bring, but certainly it is open to our Government to seek to resolve this matter with a Brexit Plan B built like a springboard, rather than the mirage of a cliff edge.

the Guardian

Published  1 month ago

David Cameron never believed he would have to hold an EU referendum because he expected to fall short of an overall majority in the 2015 election, according to Donald Tusk.

The European council president said the then British prime minister had told him he was relaxed about promising the referendum – which he had done to appease Eurosceptics in his party – because he thought he would again be in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, who would block any such move.

In an interview as part of a BBC documentary, Tusk said: “I asked David Cameron, ‘Why did you decide on this referendum, this – it’s so dangerous, so even stupid, you know,’ and, he told me – and I was really amazed and even shocked – that the only reason was his own party.”

Is David Cameron’s new haircut an apology for his breezy Brexit gamble?

Read more

Tusk continued: “[He told me] he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there’s no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea of a referendum. But then, surprisingly, he won and there was no coalition partner. So paradoxically David Cameron became the real victim of his own victory.”

Tusk’s remarks, which echo longstanding suspicions that Cameron never intended to hold a referendum, were immediately disputed by Craig Oliver who was Cameron’s director of communications in Downing Street. He tweeted: “This is completely wrong. David Cameron spent the whole of the 2015 election campaign making clear he would not lead any form of government that didn’t have a referendum. Look at almost any interview he did. The coalition as ‘excuse to bail’ is a myth.”

Tusk also said he warned Cameron that his decision to hold the referendum was “stupid”.

He said he also warned him that his attempt to secure a deal on free movement of people before the poll was doomed to fail.

In the documentary, Inside Europe: 10 Years of Turmoil, Tusk said: “I told him bluntly ‘Come on David, get real’. I know that all prime ministers are promising to help you, but believe me the truth is that no one has an appetite for revolution in Europe only because of your stupid referendum.

“If you try to force us, to hurry us, you will lose everything. And for the first time I saw something close to fear in his eyes. He finally realised what a challenge he was facing.”

Tusk also recalls a telephone conversation with Cameron during which he learned he was going to resign.

“David Cameron called me and he informed me that he’s ready to resign,” Tusk said. “I said, ‘Yes David, it would be very difficult even to imagine that a prime minister who was the leader of remain’s campaign would be just two days later a prime minister negotiating Brexit.’ It was like his day of reckoning was coming, reckoning for his biggest mistake in his life.”

In the three-part series for BBC Two, William Hague, George Osborne and Nick Clegg are also interviewed.

Osborne, who was chancellor at the time, warned against a gamble that could be a “disaster for Britain”, but Hague believed there was no other option. “This was coming. Either we had to lead that or be the victims of it,”Hague said.

The former French president François Hollande discloses how, after dinner during an overnight stay at Chequers in September 2015, he tried to persuade Cameron not to hold the referendum.

“Nothing obliged him to hold the referendum when he did,” Hollande said. “This would not be the first time that a commitment made at an election had not been kept afterwards, but he wanted to show he could negotiate successfully with Europeans.”

The first part of Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil, ‘We Quit’, is on Monday 28 January, BBC Two, 9pm.

Express.co.uk

Published  1 month ago

Just as the ruling metropolitan elitists want to destroy our national independence through subjugation to the EU so they seek to obliterate our national identity through mass immigration and multiculturalism.

Mail Online

Published  1 month ago

Secret footage from one of Britain's most influential Islamic faith schools found Muslim children are being taught religious apartheid and social segregation.

The Independent

Published  1 month ago

A leading Spanish newspaper has accused Theresa May of “shameful, xenophobic nationalism” and called her model for Brexit “extremist”.

El País, Spain’s highest-circulation daily paper, used its editorial column to criticise the Prime Minister’s “radical change of position” from her “tepid and bashful Europeanism” as Home Secretary following Tuesday’s speech, in which she warned any move to punish Britain for exiting would be a “calamitous act of self-harm”.

It scorned the UK’s ability to strike trade deals by itself – a skill it claimed Britain had lost during its 40 years in the European embrace – and Ms May’s promise of reaching a positive accord with the continent.

The paper said: “Theresa May sketched out yesterday her roadmap for Britain’s complete withdrawal from the EU. It was a radical change of position that now leads her to postulate a complete separation from Europe, breaking her past promises and setting up a hard, extreme and extremist Brexit.

“From professing a tepid and bashful Europeanism when she was Home Secretary under David Cameron, she now supports a shameful, xenophobic nationalism.

“Until recently the British Government promised its citizens and businesses they would not lose access to the interior market of the EU, while at the same time demanding permission to limit immigration and discriminate between European citizens, cutting off free movement of people in the common area – a legally impossible, morally evil and politically unviable requirement.

“The nub of her 12-point programme is this exclusion of the UK from the market of 500 million consumers, which will fall to 65 million, plus those Britain can add through new trade deals – something hypothetical and difficult for a country which after four decades has lost experience in this arena outside the Union.”

It added: “Everything in May’s speech grated. The promise of a “positive” accord is fallacious. It is not positive to spurn European citizens, nor to discriminate against residents. Nor does it make sense to threaten the Europeans with whom she will have to negotiate over the next two years.’

Reacting to Ms May’s speech Guy Verhofstadt, the EU’s Brexit negotiator, said her demands were creating an “illusion” and called her suggestion the UK might alter its tax policies “not very helpful”.

He said: “I think it creates an illusion that you can go out of the single market and the customs union and you can cherry pick and still have a number of advantages.

“I think this will not happen. We shall never accept a situation in which it is better to be outside the single market than be a member of the European Union.

“If you want the advantages of a single market and customs union, you have to take the obligations.”

Other European newspapers also reacted strongly, with Germany's Die Welt accusing the Prime Minister of “leading Great Britain into isolation” on its front page.

And La Reppublica, in Italy, said that “London gets its wall”, a reference to US President-elect Donald Trump’s plan to build a border wall with Mexico.

The Independent has launched its #FinalSay campaign to demand that voters are given a voice on the final Brexit deal.

Sign our petition here

the Guardian

Published  1 month ago

At least the Sun thrives on chaos. The savage parliamentary mauling of Britain’s withdrawal agreement with the European Union allowed Rupert Murdoch’s pet tabloid to unveil on Wednesday morning a front page of grandly gleeful malevolence. Under the headline Brextinct, it conjured a creepy chimera of Theresa May’s head pasted on to the body of a dodo. But the thing about such surreal pictures is that it is not easy to control their interpretation. From the outside, this one seemed to suggest much more than the immediately intended message that both May and her deal are politically dead. When, it prompted one to ask, did Brextinction really happen? Was this strange creature ever really alive or was it not always a grotesquely Photoshopped image of something else, a crisis of belonging that has attached itself to the wrong union? Do the events of this week point us, not towards the EU, but to the travails of a radically disunited kingdom?

Theresa May’s survival is just a Tory confidence trick | Gary Younge

Read more

The dodo, after all, may be proverbially dead but it has a vivid afterlife in that great trawl of the English unconscious, Lewis Carroll’s Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland. It is the Dodo, when various characters have fallen into a pool of tears, who suggests how they might dry themselves – the Caucus-race. “There was no ‘One, two, three, and away’, but they began running when they liked, and left off when they liked, so that it was not easy to know when the race was over. However, when they had been running half an hour or so, and were quite dry again, the Dodo suddenly called out, ‘The race is over!’ and they all crowded round it, panting, and asking, ‘But who has won?’”

This seems, this week more than ever, a perfect description of the state to which British politics has been reduced – a lot of frantically anarchic running overseen by a defunct creature, the Brextinct dodo. And who has won? Carroll’s Dodo, of course, decrees: “Everybody has won, and all must have prizes.” Having emptied Alice’s pockets to provide rewards for everyone else, the Dodo solemnly presents her with the only thing that’s left: her own thimble. “We beg your acceptance of this elegant thimble.”

The Brexit game is patently not worth the thimble to be presented at the end of it. Yet in Theresa May’s humiliation on Tuesday, there were prizes for almost everybody else: a glimpse of opportunity for her rivals in cabinet; a revival of their sadomasochistic no-deal fantasies for the zealots; the hope of a second referendum for remainers; proof of the near-collapse of the Westminster order for nationalists; the hope of a general election for Jeremy Corbyn. But in truth nobody has won anything – it is a losing game all round.

For all of this is the afterlife of dead things. One of them is Brexit itself. When did Brextinction occur? On 24 June 2016. The project was driven by decades of camped-up mendacity about the tyranny of the EU, and sold in the referendum as a fantasy of national liberation. It simply could not survive contact with reality. It died the moment it became real. You cannot free yourself from imaginary oppression. Even if May were a political genius – and let us concede that she is not – Brexit was always going to come down to a choice between two evils: the heroic but catastrophic failure of crashing out; or the unheroic but less damaging failure of swapping first-class for second-class EU membership. These are the real afterlives of a departed reverie.

If the choice between shooting oneself in the head or in the foot is the answer to Britain’s long-term problems, surely the wrong question is being asked. It is becoming ever clearer that Brexit is not about its ostensible subject: Britain’s relationship with the EU. The very word Brexit contains a literally unspoken truth. It does not include or even allude to Europe. It is British exit that is the point, not what it is exiting from. The tautologous slogan Leave Means Leave is similarly (if unintentionally) honest: the meaning is in the leaving, not in what is being left or how.

Paradoxically, this drama of departure has really served only to displace a crisis of belonging. Brexit plays out a conflict between Them and Us, but it is surely obvious after this week that the problem is not with Them on the continent. It’s with the British Us, the unravelling of an imagined community. The visible collapse of the Westminster polity this week may be a result of Brexit, but Brexit itself is the result of the invisible subsidence of the political order over recent decades.

Play Video

It may seem strange to call this slow collapse invisible since so much of it is obvious: the deep uncertainties about the union after the Good Friday agreement of 1998 and the establishment of the Scottish parliament the following year; the consequent rise of English nationalism; the profound regional inequalities within England itself; the generational divergence of values and aspirations; the undermining of the welfare state and its promise of shared citizenship; the contempt for the poor and vulnerable expressed through austerity; the rise of a sensationally self-indulgent and clownish ruling class. But the collective effects of these interrelated developments do seem to have been barely visible within the political mainstream until David Cameron accidentally took the lid off by calling a referendum and asking people to endorse the status quo.

What we see with the lid off and the fog of fantasies at last beginning to dissipate is the truth that Brexit is much less about Britain’s relationship with the EU than it is about Britain’s relationship with itself. It is the projection outwards of an inner turmoil. An archaic political system had carried on even while its foundations in a collective sense of belonging were crumbling. Brexit in one way alone has done a real service: it has forced the old system to play out its death throes in public. The spectacle is ugly, but at least it shows that a fissiparous four-nation state cannot be governed without radical social and constitutional change.

Why are people cheering for no deal? Because they’re thinking about it the wrong way | Anand Menon

Read more

European leaders have continually expressed exasperation that the British have really been negotiating not with them, but with each other. But perhaps it is time to recognise that there is a useful truth in this: Brexit is really just the vehicle that has delivered a fraught state to a place where it can no longer pretend to be a settled and functioning democracy. Brexit’s work is done – everyone can now see that the Westminster dodo is dead. It is time to move on from the pretence that the problem with British democracy is the EU and to recognise that it is with itself. After Brextinction there must be a whole new political ecosystem. Drop the dead dodo, end the mad race for a meaningless prize, and start talking about who you want to be.

• Fintan O’Toole is a columnist at the Irish Times and author of Heroic Failure: Brexit and the Politics of Pain

The Independent

Published  1 month ago

Boris Johnson has denied talking about Turkey during the Brexit referendum campaign, despite having written a public letter to the then prime minister warning about the issue.

The former foreign secretary claimed he "didn't say anything about Turkey in the referendum...I didn't say a thing about Turkey".

However, in a joint letter sent with fellow Brexiteer Michael Gove, he wrote to then prime minister David Cameron to insist that the only way to protect the UK from mass immigration from Turkey was to leave the EU.

The Vote Leave campaign, of which Mr Johnson was a prominent member, also repeatedly warned voters that the UK faced the prospect of 80 million Turks - the entire population of Turkey - coming to Britain if Turkey joined the EU.

More follows…

The Independent has launched its #FinalSay campaign to demand that voters are given a voice on the final Brexit deal.

Sign our petition here

heraldscotland

Published  1 month ago

Reacting to Theresa May's Brexit deal defeat, more than 56 of Herald readers believe the country should hold a second independence vote if the UK…

TheyWorkForYou

Published  1 month ago

TheyWorkForYou

01/12 11:13 pm

TheyWorkForYou is a website which makes it easy to keep track of your local MP's activities.

HuffPost UK

Published  1 month ago

New pro-EU drive must reject "vapid centrism" and “urgently learn the lessons of the past”.

Daily Wire

Published  1 month ago

On January 10, 2019, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) reportedly stated, "White nationalist, white supremacist, Western civilization -- how did that language become offensive?" In light of those statements, this article gave far too generous an interpretation of King's words. As I stated in the article, there were two ways to interpret his statements. His later open embrace of the terms "white nationalist" and "white supremacist" suggest that the first interpretation described below was not as implausible as it seemed at the time.

On Sunday, Rep. Steve King (R-IA) tweeted about the upsurge of Muslim immigration to Europe by citing the growing electoral popularity of Dutch right-winger Geert Wilders. Here’s what he tweeted:

Wilders understands that culture and demographics are our destiny. We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies. https://t.co/4nxLipafWO

There are two ways to read this tweet.

The first is the most obvious: as racism. The idea that babies from abroad cannot be civilized to Western values – that “somebody else’s babies” are unfit for assimilation – is racist. If that’s what King said and meant, he should immediately be censured by his Republican colleagues on the floor of Congress, and we should all pray that he loses his Congressional seat.

The second way to read the tweet suggests that it's badly phrased but not racist: it could be argued that King was stating that multiculturalism, combined with high levels of immigration from non-Western cultures, shapes destiny. King could have been saying that high levels of foreign immigration to Europe in an attempt to prop up their ailing economies, without any sort of assimilation, will destroy the fabric of European civilization. That’s an argument that’s been made by European politicians ranging from David Cameron to Angela Merkel.

Fortunately, King cleared up which angle he meant on New Day on CNN. “It’s the culture, not the blood,” King said. “If you could go anywhere in the world and adopt these little babies and put them into households that were already assimilated into America, those babies will grow up as American as any other baby with as much patriotism and as much love of country as any other baby. It’s not about race, it’s never been about race … It’s a clash of cultures, not a race.”

The media ignored these words, however. Instead, they insisted on interpreting King in the first way. CNN’s Chris Cuomo accused King of trying to “white cleanse our population” in contravention of the “melting pot” concept – even though King’s claim is apparently about assimilation to Western culture, not racism with regard to birth. King said, “We’re a country here, if you take a picture of what America looks like, you can do it at a football stadium or a basketball court, you see all kinds of different Americans there. We’re pretty proud of that,” King said, going on to rip “enclaves” being created that resist assimilation.

King then said, “I think there’s been far too much focus on race.” When Cuomo explicitly accused King of stating that white people needed to raise their birth rate, King replied, “I never have said that … I tell them go back and watch the tape.” King continued, “If you go down the road a few generations or maybe centuries with the intermarriage, I’d like to see an America that’s just so homogenous that we look a lot the same.” The media immediately clipped the second half of that sentence, making it sound like King wanted to stop interracial marriage and instead maintain white purity.

That’s a lie.

King’s phraseology is awkward, no doubt. But the point he’s trying to make is not one that the Left attributes to him. Here’s Angela Merkel circa December 2015: “Multiculturalism leads to parallel societies and therefore remains a ‘life lie,’ or a sham … The challenge is immense. We want and we will reduce the number of refugees noticeably.” Is Merkel a white nationalist or white supremacist?

The deep desire to paint Republicans as racists rather than defenders of Western cultural superiority leads the media to lie. People should read and listen to King’s actual words before jumping on the bandwagon.

BBC News

Published  1 month ago

The hundreds of MPs - including Leave and Remain supporters - have signed a letter to the prime minister.

thetimes

Published  1 month ago

Britain made the false claim that it had enabled tens of millions of people in developing countries to leave poverty as MPs were being urged to enshrine an aid spending commitment into law.

The figure was trumpeted by Justine Greening as international development secretary when David Cameron’s government was persuading parliament to enforce a pledge to spend 0.7 per cent of Britain’s income on aid.

The Department for International Development (Dfid) later dropped the claim. Officials admitted that the figure did not refer to how many people had ceased to be poor but counted the number with access to “financial services such as savings, credit, mobile banking” which it was hoped would allow them to “cope better and make small investments to increase their income…

Express.co.uk

Published  1 month ago

This week, Theresa May used her New Year’s message to plea for MPs to put their “differences aside and move forward together” by supporting her controversial Brexit deal and, in doing so, reignited fury and opposition from Brexiteers. They believe the withdrawal agreement does not respect the 2016 referendum result and that the UK should leave the EU without a deal in order to, as Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg put it, finally “stand up to bullies”. However, as MPs prepare to restart five days of debate on January 9, it has emerged that former Prime Minister David Cameron vowed to keep Britain in the bloc "permanently".

In 2015, Mr Cameron also attempted to seek “a new settlement” for Britain in Europe, promising to win a host of concessions from Brussels that would convince Britons to remain in a newly-invigorated Europe.

However, just like Theresa May, Mr Cameron’s renegotiation failed to win over Tory MPs as he did not achieve all he set out to, or claimed he would in his Conservative Party manifesto.

In his latest book "What Next: How to Get the Best from Brexit", campaigner and Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, explained that the reason why David Cameron and British negotiators failed to secure a good deal between Britain and the EU ahead of the referendum was because “no one believed that Britain might actually vote to leave”.

Mr Hannan wrote: "From the moment he announced the renegotiation at the imposing headquarters of the business news agency, Bloomberg, David Cameron had been clear that there would need to be a new treaty.

Juncker rather indiscreetly blurted out that David Cameron had privately assured him of his intention to use the referendum to 'dock Britain permanently in the EU'

"Jean-Claude Juncker rather indiscreetly blurted out that David Cameron had privately assured him of his intention to use the referendum to 'dock Britain permanently in the EU'.

"Without one, there could be no substantial change.

"The obstacle he ran up against was not a principled objection to giving Britain a looser deal, it was, rather, a natural reluctance to embark on a time-consuming set of changes.

"Why, after all, should the rest of the EU undertake the tedious process of summoning a formal Intergovernmental Conference when almost no one believed that Britain might actually vote to leave?"

The former Conservative MEP for South East England noted that David Cameron's "tactical failure" was to keep reassuring European colleagues that Brexit was "vanishingly unlikely".

He added: "Jean-Claude Juncker rather indiscreetly blurted out that David Cameron had privately assured him of his intention to use the referendum to 'dock Britain permanently in the EU.'

"They never seriously communicated that a Leave vote was a viable possibility – largely because they never believed it themselves.

"They therefore failed to secure even the minimalist changes that they had publicly promised, including a new treaty."

The Independent

Published  1 month ago

Mafia expert Roberto Saviano was right this week when he said that it’s Britain, rather than Afghanistan, the South of Italy or Nigeria, which is the most corrupt country in the world. The fact of the matter is that the British public think they are detached from the mafia problem and corruption, yet London is the drug money laundering capital of the world, and 90 per cent of drug cash ends up in the US and Europe via London.

In Saviano's native Italy, the Naples based Camorra have a warrant out for Roberto's life, after he exposed the inner workings of members of the mafia in his book Gomorrah. He is a man willing to risk his own life for truth – and we should listen.

Read more Britain is the most corrupt country in the world, claims mafia expert

In London, the financial mafia don't take out death warrants on truth tellers, but powerful financial firms will destroy the lives and reputations of whistleblowers without a moment’s hesitation, ensuring they never work in the financial services sector again.

According to a 2012 Newsnight report from the BBC's Joe Lynam, these City firms have a 100 per cent success rate.

It turns out Britain's perceptions of corruption, which are based on the NGO Transparency Internationals global corruption perceptions index only measure perceived corruption based upon the abuse of public office for private gain, i.e. the payment of bribes.

I grew up in New Zealand, a country ranked 4th top in TI's index, above Great Britain in 10th. Comparatively, Britain generally, and London specifically, feels more corrupt than New Zealand. Britain's institutionalised corruption is grounded in the so-called "old boys’ network" that runs the political establishment and controls the City of London.

John Key, a close political ally of David Cameron, and a former Executive at Merrill Lynch London, trading foreign exchange, is now Prime Minister running New Zealand, promising to turn NZ into the "Jersey of the South Pacific."

In other words, a tax haven, styled on Britain, and a node in the British-run network of global tax havens. While nepotism and subservience to finance capital is rife in Britain and its overseas dependencies, it is not illegal.

Many of the criminal corporate activities within the City of London which have dominated the headlines over the past decade are not classified as corruption by Transparency International.

Instead, the media and financial regulators refer to these institutionalised corporate crimes as "inappropriate conduct" or “mis-selling”.

As an alternative metric for financial corruption, the Financial Secrecy Index developed by the Tax Justice Network instead ranks countries based on the number of tax havens and financial secrecy jurisdictions, with Britain and its spider web of crown dependencies and overseas territories including Jersey, Guernsey, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands finishing top of the list.

What we need now is firm action from David Cameron, who talks a big game when it comes to transparency and accountability, yet has singularly failed to deliver it.

Rather than cleaning up the UK’s global network of offshore secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens under British jurisdiction which allow criminal cash to flood into London property, instead Cameron is planning to privatise the UK Land Registry which tracks the (often foreign) ownership of UK properties.

An investigative journalist hired by 38 degrees found the four companies (General Atlantic, Hellman and Friedman, OMERS and Advent International) in line to buy up the UK Land Registry are all based in or have close links to the offshore tax havens of Jersey, Cayman Islands or Delaware.

Before we make London an unliveable city – something it’s hurtling its way towards because of this culture of corruption and secrecy – we must hold the Prime Minister to account for the consequences of such decisions. He can talk about transparency until he’s blue in the face, but actions speak louder than words.

The Independent has launched its #FinalSay campaign to demand that voters are given a voice on the final Brexit deal.

Sign our petition here

The Sun

Published  1 month ago

THERESA May rang German boss Angela Merkel for the second time in nine days as doom was cast on her desperate race to improve the Brexit deal. The PM has just seven days left to hammer out new conc…

The Independent

Published  1 month ago

When reflecting on the last 12 months in British politics, I found myself casting my mind back to a simpler time. A time when David Cameron was forced to make a televised statement outside his house – while wearing a fleece – about smoking weed in high school. When calling a bigoted woman a “bigoted woman” was the biggest political scandal, and when eating a bacon sandwich in an odd manner ruined careers.

Now the innocence of the pre-Brexit era is long gone. Westminster’s largest parties have different leaders who, for the first time since 2013, have navigated a calendar year in politics without a referendum or a general election. What a relief… Or so we thought.

Depending on the news of the day and, of course, who you ask, Britain is either teetering towards a second referendum or a no-deal Brexit. The only indisputable truth is that, two years on from 2016’s EU referendum, people are more divided than ever. Westminster has somehow managed to become even more polarised than the electorate, which is quite an achievement. Though, rather then being inevitable, the bacterial divisiveness of our politics has been allowed to fester and multiply in a leadership vacuum.

This year we have seen both Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn lacking in political and moral authority. With Number 10 occupied by a Remainer pretending to be a Leaver, opposed at the dispatch box by a notorious Eurosceptic who “campaigned” for Remain, it’s difficult to trust either of them.

While balancing their personal beliefs with political realities, May and Corbyn have so far failed to reconcile party members’ and MPs’ demands with the wider electorate. Both have also been engulfed in scandals that would have been fatal to their careers just a few years ago.

Created with Sketch. UK news in pictures

Show all 50 Created with Sketch. Created with Sketch.

Created with Sketch. UK news in pictures

Amber Rudd might have taken the blame, but May’s notoriously anti-immigrant fingerprints were all over the Windrush scandal. May’s “hostile environment” policies were responsible for black British citizens being illegally deported in a scandal which, both heartbreaking and maddening, is one of the most shameful in living memory.

When May wasn’t running through wheat fields or rolling out the red carpet for Donald Trump, she was hiring new ministers as her cabinet disappeared quicker thanPriti Patel on a “family holiday”. After creating the cabinet position of Brexit secretary, both appointees quit within months of each other over deals they were allegedly instrumental in negotiating – an appropriate summary of the prime minister’s year.

After becoming the first government in history to be found incontempt of parliament for failing to publish key Brexit legal advice,May postponed the vote on her EU withdrawal bill, knowing she would be defeated. As her own MPs turned on her, Mayrestored the Tory whip to two MPs facing serioussexual harassment accusations – the most damning moment of her premiership so far.

May’s slow implosion, after years of Tory infighting over Europe, wouldn’t be so disastrous if Her Majesty’s opposition weren’t in a similarly tangled mess. On Brexit, it is not yet clear whether Corbyn’s inability to follow or articulate Labour party policy is deliberate or accidental idiocy, but either way it is terrible for the country.

As for scandals, Corbyn never misses an opportunity to remind everyone how untrustworthy he is. His denial that he was “involved” in laying a wreath for terrorists was almost as disturbing as his cult-like followers’ inability to believephotographic evidence that suggested otherwise. Then there was his shockingly inadequate response to alleged antisemitism within the Labour party, which was followed by the emergence of a2013 clip which showed him making “jokes” that many perceived to be antisemitic. Even Labour MPs described the video as“sickening” and “inexcusable”.

According toYouGov polls tracking who the public think will make the best prime minister, Corbyn has been outperformed by “not sure” for the entirety of 2018. With an approval rating ofminus 19 per cent, it seems that retiring that ghastly tan suit might be the only positive he can take from this year.

Since the 2017 general election, the Conservatives and Labour have been neck-and-neck in the polls. Though, for most voters, the choice between them is a matter of deciding who is the lesser of two evils. If both May and Corbyn decided to stand down now, at the same time, I would estimate that about 80 per cent of the electorate would either breathe a great sigh or relief or react with jubilation. At perhaps the most pivotal moment in our nation’s modern history, having two leaders who are this widely disliked is an extremely worrying place for our democracy to be.

Brexit was seen by many as a revolt against “politics are usual”. Yet the new, post-referendum normal has turned out to be a never-ending tug-of-war of inadequacy, incompetence and deliberate deception. If Britain wants smarter politicians, we’re going to have to start being smarter voters. But with politics outside Scotland dominated by two parties with leaders who aren’t even competent enough to organise a televised debate, let alone negotiate Brexit, where else are voters to turn?

As a new year approaches, my mind drifts to Brazil, America and Italy, where we have already seen what can happen when voters feel like they’re out of options. Unless a seismic shift breaks the endlessly bleak deadlock that is May vs Corbyn, I fear things will get much worse before they get better.

The Independent has launched its #FinalSay campaign to demand that voters are given a voice on the final Brexit deal.

Sign our petition here

americanthinker

Published  1 month ago

Some folks in Scotland are angry enough to leak to the Guardian what many of us already suspected. The Lockerbie bomber was released only with our approval--grudgingly given perhaps--but given nevertheless.

Barack Obama is under growing pressure to release a letter that reveals the US grudgingly supported freeing the Lockerbie bomber on compassionate grounds.

The letter was sent to Scottish ministers by a senior diplomat at the US embassy in London last August, eight days before Abdelbaset al-Megrahi was released from prison because he was dying from inoperable prostate cancer.

Obama's administration has refused to allow publication of the letter, in which the US says allowing Megrahi to live at home in Scotland would be "far preferable" to sending him back to Libya under the prisoner transfer deal brokered by former prime minister Tony Blair in 2007.

Although Megrahi was allowed to go home to die in Tripoli, Scottish officials believe this undermines Obama's vigorous criticisms of the decision to free Megrahi earlier this month, when he said he was left "surprised, disappointed and angry" by the Libyan's release. David Cameron said he and Obama were in "violent agreement" that freeing Megrahi was a bad decision.

Actually, I thought the Guardian story today was old news. I wrote about this last year. Twice.

Richard Baehr adds: It looks like, to use a Kohn Kerryism, Obama and BP were allies, before they were foes.

Jihad Watch

Published  2 months ago

British authorities covered up Muslim rape gang activity for decades for fear of being called "racist," and now they're persecuting Billy Charlton for daring to call them out about what they did. Britain is being ruled by a traitor class. "Billy Charlton trial: Lawyers begin making closing...

BBC News

Published  2 months ago

Theresa May will speak to Angela Merkel, Mark Rutte and Donald Tusk after delaying UK vote on the deal.

Breitbart

Published  2 months ago

Anti-Brexit counter-protesters were arrested for assault and offensive weapon possession at a UKIP march against Theresa May's EU deal.

Westmonster

Published  2 months ago

It isn’t just Brexiteers voting against Theresa May’s plan: former Tory Chief Whip, Remain voter and adviser to David Cameron, Mark Harper, has confirmed that he will be voting against Theresa May’s proposed EU deal as well.

With around 100 Conservative MPs having pledged to vote down the deal next week, Harper has written for The Telegraph: “Brexit should be an opportunity for our country to spread its wings, not have them clipped.”

He sets out how “the Cabinet’s proposals are not acceptable because they threaten the integrity of our country, keep us trapped indefinitely in a Customs Union and leave us in a weak negotiating position for our future relationship”.

The Tory MP isn’t happy about it either, revealing that: “I’m just very disappointed that as a loyal MP I’ve found myself in this situation that in order to keep to the promises we made just last year in the general election I’ve been forced to vote against the cabinet’s proposals.

“Keeping promises in politics is important and I think many colleagues also feel they have been misled.”

Harper warned back in October that May had to ditch her plan, saying at the time: “Clearly the proposals need to evolve. If they evolve in a Canada direction then the Prime Minister will have something she can unite the party around and get through Parliament.”

Unfortunately, May and her team chose to totally ignore that advice. The country is left with a bad deal that has little chance of getting through Parliament.

No Deal is better than Theresa May’s bad deal. If you agree, please support Westmonster.

the Guardian

Published  2 months ago

The long read: The credibility of establishment figures has been demolished by technological change and political upheavals. But it’s too late to turn back the clock

Westmonster

Published  2 months ago

Here they come: more doomsday Treasury predictions about what will happen if the UK takes back control.

In May 2016, just prior to the Brexit referendum, ‘Treasury analysis’ predicted that: “Britain’s economy would be tipped into a year-long recession, with at least 500,000 jobs lost and GDP around 3.6% lower, following a vote to leave the EU.” This was truly bonkers, delusional stuff.

Since the referendum the UK has seen the highest growth rate of pay since 2008 as the number of EU workers falls, plus a record high 845,000 job vacancies and the lowest unemployment rate since 1975. The Treasury called the Brexit vote about as badly as humanely possible.

Of course with a vote in Parliament on the way for Theresa May’s deal, The Telegraph reveal some new magical Treasury numbers on the way that will apparently predict:

UK’s GDP down 1% – 2% lower over 15 years under Chequers plan than remaining in EU.

No Deal Brexit meaning 7.6% hit – £150 billion.

Former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab has spoken out and said: “There is an economic credibility gap with all these Treasury-led forecasts, based on their track record of failure, the questionable assumptions they rely on, and the inherent challenge of making reliable long-term forecasts.

“Politically, it looks like a rehash of Project Fear. People expect to be inspired, not scared witless into deferring to the government. Whenever Whitehall make forecasts for leaving the EU on WTO terms, it’s always the same.

Latest stories direct in your inbox

Sign up for the free Red Alert email:

“They rely on the most pessimistic assumptions, and airbrush out the opportunities of leaving with full regulatory control and the ability to strike free trade deals around the world.”

Theresa May is repeating the same mistakes as David Cameron: refusing to walk away from the EU, being left with a bad deal that she then wants to sell via the big business establishment and by scaring people with Project Fear. It failed once. It will fail again.

Help Westmonster fight for Brexiteers against this Project Fear rubbish. Please consider supporting us with a donation so that we can keep standing up for the 17.4 million Leave voters. Thank you.

Express.co.uk

Published  2 months ago

When your country is managing its affairs in a sane manner that is feasible. When it is ripping itself apart on an hourly basis what is germane on Tuesday and Wednesday can be ancient history by Thursday, let alone Friday breakfast. So let me, peering mole-like through the grass-stems, attempt to predict the next few months.

ONE. The May Plan, actually the May Betrayal, will be voted down by the Commons. It is a bizarre confection that repudiates every promise and pledge we ever received after a clear majority voted for a dignified exit from the tendrils of the EU.

It is not even an exit at all. It is an assemblage of bureaucratic chains and manacles that tie us in to vassalage, or subservience on worse terms than we have now. That is the point, for it was drawn up by diehard EU fanatics inside the civil service who, at an early stage, determined that Brexit must not happen.

Between them they procured the say-so of a gullible prime minister to assign the task of authorship to them and blindsided two consecutive Brexit Secretaries, Davis and Raab, forcing them to resign in humiliation.

TWO. Theresa May has to go.

Some papers are full of compassion for her. When a person who has done nothing to deserve it is visited by unfair disaster, compassion is well in order. But this premier has inflicted every mistake, error, disaster and reverse upon herself, despite good advice.

That goes back to the snap election which neither she nor we needed. The polls then showed the Tories had a 20 percent vote advantage. In the worst campaign in memory, conducted entirely by herself, she ran that down to zero and ended with a hung parliament.

She then appointed Stay-In fanatics to every negotiating post. Some others, far cleverer than she, actually secured Brussels' agreement to workable plans. She has replaced them all with her own humiliation behind their backs.

Sir Graham Brady of the 1922 Committee will soon have his needed 48 letters calling for a change. A less insanely obstinate premier would then act like David Cameron, slipping quietly away into retirement. I fear that, pretending to be strong, she will fight on and lose but shatter the Tory Party to ruins. She is, I believe, the worst prime minister for a hundred years.

It is still possible for the Tories to instigate a smooth, fast, one-week, two-candidate system and effect a leader-change before that also-chaotic Labour Party has woken up. We do not want or need yet another snap election and it can be avoided within our constitution. But it will need high intelligence and military decisiveness. Have the Tory mandarins got either? Three. We will all be subjected to a virulent "fear" campaign besides which the one before the referendum was nanny wagging her forefinger. Tame tycoons will be wheeled out to pledge massive unemployment; academics will drone on about doom. The EU-adoring establishment, headed by the radio and TV luvvies, will assure us of hell and high water if we dare insist on what we voted for - the restoration of our transferred sovereignty. We could still have our independence and integrity back under World Trade Organisation rules. Ninety percent of the world trades under them - smoothly and profitably. Under WTO rules we could negotiate thumping Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with eager trading partners right across the world.

There would, if we pulled from the EU without a deal, be a hard jolt to the economy but for about a year. Then we could forge forward as the EU's hegemony crumbles. And it will. But it depends on us - en masse. Are we still the people our fathers were or have we become a cowardly, willing-servant breed? We will know by April Fool's Day.

the Guardian

Published  3 months ago

A company boss who has given nearly £1m to the Conservative party and long-serving MPs from across the Commons head the list of political figures who receive a knighthood in this year’s New Year honours list.

David Ord, who becomes a knight in the new year, is a co-owner of Bristol ports and a member of the Conservative party’s Leaders’ Group, who were granted exclusive access to cabinet ministers under David Cameron and George Osborne. He has given more than £930,000 to the party since 2013.

Ord, a major opponent of the Severn Barrage, was once embroiled in a donations row after it emerged in 2014 that Bristol North West MP Charlotte Leslie had failed to declare the port owner’s donations to her local party on time, despite making numerous parliamentary interventions about the project. She apologised and was cleared of wrongdoing by the parliamentary watchdog.

Jeremy Corbyn said the honours for Tory donors were an insult to those who had been rewarded for charitable work or achievements. “The Conservatives are making a mockery of our honours system,” the Labour leader’s spokesperson said. “Every crony appointment is an insult to the incredible people from right across Britain who are rewarded for the great contributions they make to our national life.”

Hillsborough campaigner Prof Phil Scraton turns down OBE

Read more

A Downing Street source defended the honours for Conservative donors, saying: “Being involved in political parties is generally considered to be an important part of civic society, and the alternative is having state funding for political parties, which is not where the consensus lies. When people dedicate their time and service to civil society it’s appropriate they can be honoured.”

Two veteran sitting MPs were knighted. Conservative MP Julian Brazier and Labour’s David Crausby, a former member the HS2 select committee, which sat for almost 100 days over eight months taking evidence from up to 40 petitioners a day.

Former Lib Dem minister Steve Webb, one of the architects of the coalition’s “triple-lock” pension guarantee and auto-enrolment in workplace pensions, has also been knighted.

Vera Baird, the former Labour MP who is now Northumbria police and crime commissioner, has been made a dame for services to women and equality. The former QC, who was solicitor general under Gordon Brown, was honoured for her role in the Equality Act 2010. Baird said she saw the honour as “giving the cause of equality a boost”.

Politicians receiving the highest honours included Liberal Democrat peer Shirley Williams, who has been made a companion of honour to mark more than 50 years in political life. Lady Williams, a former Labour education secretary under James Callaghan, was one of the so-called gang of four of influential Labour politicians who split to form the Social Democrat party, which later merged with the Liberal party to form the Lib Dems.

Other Tory donors receiving honours this year include associate party treasurer Dominic Johnson, who lent the Cameron family his west London townhouse rent-free when the former prime minister resigned and left No 10.

The register of MPs’ interests shows that the family stayed in the Chelsea property until the end of October before they moved back into their Notting Hill home, which had been rented out.

M&C Saatchi founding director Jeremy Sinclair, credited as the brains behind the famous Conservative campaign poster showing Tony Blair with “demon eyes”, also receives a CBE.

Key members of Conservative party headquarters have also been honoured, including director of campaigning Darren Mott, who received an OBE, with Alexandra Broadrick, chief of staff to the party chairman, and Louise Goodall, the deputy head of fundraising, receiving MBEs.

Whitehall staff also received dozens of awards, including 14 for Home Office officials who served under Theresa May when she led the department. However, some critics questioned the number of awards handed out to staff from HMRC, given the recent poor performance of the department.

Staff received the honours for their work on tackling tax non-compliance and tax avoidance, as well as for customer service. The department was recently criticised by the National Audit Office for pursuing only one successful criminal prosecution despite a new specialist unit identifying almost £2bn in tax evasion and avoidance by the super-rich.

The Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron, said the honours for HMRC investigators “dishonour the honours system” given the department’s poor performance on tax evasion and delays on consumer hotlines.

“HMRC have had the worst year; not only billions of pounds not collected from the biggest tax dodgers, but the average punter has been made to wait for hours on the phone on hold,” he said. “It’s a farce. I thought this was a joke, but it’s not.”

A government source said it had a “proud record of tackling tax evasion, one of the toughest in the developed world, and not only are these civil servants being rewarded for their work, the service itself is doing good work.”

the Guardian

Published  3 months ago

They say that a picture looks different, depending on the viewers’ perspective. The same can be said for politics. The continuing, unprecedented cuts to Britain’s public services, for example, will appear quite different to a disabled person unable to get to the toilet because their social care has been halved than they will to, say, a former prime minister reading the news at his mansion.

Two events from the past week display this stark contrast. In response to news that Britain has eliminated its day-to-day deficit budget, the delayed target originally set by George Osborne when he imposed austerity on public services in 2010, the former chancellor tweeted: “We got there in the end – a remarkable national effort. Thank you.” David Cameron followed self-congratulatory suit with: “It was the right thing to do.”

George Osborne (@George_Osborne)

We got there in the end - a remarkable national effort. Thank you. https://t.co/8D23AKbuwH

Only a few days earlier, Northamptonshire county council – the authority that has essentially gone bankrupt – confirmed a cuts programme of almost £40m over the next financial year (an additional £10m than was first planned) in an attempt to stay afloat.

This means the closure of 21 of its 36 libraries, after a public campaign forced the council to abandon plans to close 28 of them. Children’s centres in the area have already had their funding cut by 40%, and now vulnerable teenagers will lose half a million pounds in skills and jobs support. Meanwhile, insufficient funds for adult social care means care services for older and disabled adults are said to be on “the verge of being unsafe” – that’s a wheelchair user on the bathroom floor because she’s got no one there to help her safely wash, or an 80-year-old developing sores after being left to sit in his own dirt.

I wonder, is this an example of the “right thing” Cameron speaks of? There is an almost delusional refusal among austerity’s architects to acknowledge the reality of the last decade – a gaping chasm between the moral superiority Cameron and colleagues attach to the implementation of cuts and the human misery they have caused.

Far from revelling in success, the Conservatives should be considering the consequences of their failure

From its beginning, the Conservative’s practically romanticised cuts – creating an image of a simple belt-tightening, a type of blitz-spirit rationing. Sacrifice sounds noble. But then, it’s easy to find sacrifice noble when it’s other people who are doing the sacrificing. Reminiscent of his “all in it together” mantra, Osborne’s language this month – “We got there in the end – a remarkable national effort” – is reflective of this. “We”, as if each of us has taken an equal share of the burden.

Research by the Equality and Human Rights Commission, among others, show these are in fact cuts felt predominantly by those least able to take the strain, from working class women to ethnic minorities, and disabled people. This week, it emerged 75,000 disabled people – yes 75,000 – have now had their Motability cars removed because of tightened benefit eligibility rolled out by Cameron’s government and continued by Theresa May – in essence, tens of thousands of sick people having their lifeline to the shops or doctor pulled out from under them. Forget “all in it together”: Osborne’s so-called fiscal success is built off the back of making paraplegics housebound.

This gutting of services was always the intention. Rather than sound economic prudence, the austerity measures that Osborne and Cameron launched were ideological: an excuse to shrink the state, as cuts to government spending focused in on social security and public services. (Think of the zealotry with which ministers spoke of waging war against the “something for nothing culture” of single mums, jobseekers, and disabled people.)

The Tories’ obscene joke: shred the safety net, then toss people into it | Frances Ryan

Read more

As Ann Pettifor, director of Prime: Policy Research in Macroeconomics, points out, this was not even economically sound. Many economists stress Osborne’s post-crisis austerity programme actually deepened and lengthened Britain’s post-crisis recession, causing public and private investment to fall further and real wages to decline.

That’s not to mention the long-term costs to the taxpayer of rocketing numbers in expensive temporary accommodation because of a rise in homelessness at a time of benefits cuts, or added strain on the NHS from cuts to care services.

Far from revelling in success, the Conservatives should be considering the consequences of their failure. What’s happening in Northamptonshire may well be repeated in councils up and down the country as local authorities are forced to deliver vital services on almost halved budgets.

It’s hard to imagine how it feels to be a low-income teenager in Northamptonshire right now, about to lose your chance at job training, or a disabled person unable to sleep because you’re terrified your personal assistant is going to stop coming to help you wash. These are ordinary families who are being abandoned by the state when they most need help. That this is being celebrated is insult to injury.

• Frances Ryan is a Guardian columnist

Westmonster

Published  3 months ago

Polling firm YouGov have released a hefty chunk of data on what the public think of Britain’s politicians – and Boris Johnson is Britain’s most popular politician.

32% of Brits have a positive opinion of BoJo and Theresa May – but 46% have a negative opinion of May compared to a slightly lower 43% for Johnson.

Jeremy Corbyn is third, Ed Balls fourth, Sadiq Khan fifth and Nigel Farage sixth, according to their calculations.

In terms of other Conservative figures, Sir John Major, Lord Hague and Ruth Davidson are next in the pecking order in terms of popularity. In terms of net rating, Ruth Davidson comes top – but only 62% of people have even heard of her and a quarter of those who have are neutral.

Theresa May and Boris Johnson are the UK's most popular politicians (both liked by 32% of Brits), finds @chris__curtis. However, in net terms, the honour actually goes to Ruth Davidson, with a net popularity score of +7 (Boris is -11 and May -14) https://t.co/Txe6f1ZzSO pic.twitter.com/twYTM6qT2V

— YouGov (@YouGov) November 7, 2018

Interestingly, David Cameron and George Osborne both trail the likes of Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davis. The public haven’t forgiven them for Project Fear.

Sara A. Carter

Published  3 months ago

Former Trump campaign advisor George Papadopolous may hold the key to some of the most important questions lawmakers have been asking in recent months about the FBI’s handling of the Russia probe into the Trump campaign: Did the FBI withhold exculpatory evidence from America’s most secret court? And if so, what was it? And on…

Sara A. Carter

Published  4 months ago

Former Australian Ambassador Alexander Downer evaded questions during a recent BBC interview regarding suggestions made by George Papadopoulos that Downer may have been recording his conversations in an effort to spy on the then-Trump campaign volunteer. The answers to those questions would be significant because they would reveal the extent of other nation’s efforts in…

The Gateway Pundit

Published  5 months ago

George Papadopoulos, the Trump campaign volunteer targeted by the Deep State and foreign spies let loose last night and stated that he was targeted by US allies and “Obama knew”!

Papadopoulos tweeted on September 13th that the Brits met with him often before the 2016 campaign –

While I have never met a Russian official in my life knowingly, the British government liked to meet me quite often throughout the campaign. Including Tobias Ellwood, who was right under Boris Johnson, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) September 14, 2018

Papadopoulos notified the FBI that he thought Aussie diplomat Downer was illegally taping him –

Besides the fact that I notified the FBI a year ago about my suspicions that Downer was illegally recording my conversation with him. The lead up to the meeting with Downer in London was even more bizarre.

— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) September 15, 2018

After Papadopoulos humiliated British PM Cameron in the press, Downer wanted to meet –

An Israeli diplomat named Christian cantor, who hated Trump, introduced me to his ‘girlfriend’ who just happened to be an Australian intel officer and assistant to Downer. Named Erika Thompson. After I humiliate David Cameron in the British press, Downer wants to meet.

— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) September 15, 2018

Papadopoulos claims that the Mueller team and the FBI wanted to know about some of his interactions but were not interested in his interactions with western diplomats (who he notified the FBI he thought were spying on him) –

If I am going to be under scrutiny for contacts with a Maltese prof, the fake niece of Putin, and a Russian think tank analyst, then I definitly should also be for my numerous interactions with western intel and diplomats, right?

— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) September 17, 2018

Then BOOM – PAPADOPOULOS DROPS A BOMB – OBAMA, BRENNAN AND CLAPPER KNEW HE WAS BEING SPIED ON!

The BRITISH (Stefan Halper), AUSTRALIAN (Alexander Downer and Erika Thompson) and TURKISH (Azra Turk, spy working for Halper) all spied on an American citizen and campaign. Obama, Brennan and Clapper knew.

— George Papadopoulos (@GeorgePapa19) September 18, 2018

Of course they did! These people are the leaders of the most corrupt administration in US history!

The Last Refuge

Published  5 months ago

To honor the memory of those lost on September 11th/12th 2012: The Benghazi Brief The “Benghazi Brief” remains the most controversial research report we have ever produced. The brief co…

The Sun

Published  6 months ago

VOTERS have backed Boris Johnson over his burka jibe – as Tory MPs told the Prime Minister to expect “World War Three” if he’s suspended from the party. Furious MPs and gras…

The Sun

Published  6 months ago

THERESA May’s soft Brexit plan could cost the Tories 25 MPs and hand the keys to No 10 to Jeremy Corbyn, research shows. A polling expert claims a mini-recovery by Ukip would see as many as two doz…

Breitbart

Published  6 months ago

The controversial activist Tommy Robinson has been suspended from Twitter for quoting research which found that nearly 90 per cent of convicted grooming gang members in the UK are Muslim.

Mr. Robinson was suspended from the social media platform for 7 days for stating the findings of the Quilliam Foundation think tank, whose founder worked as an adviser to Prime Minister David Cameron on issues around Islam.

“90% of grooming gang convictions are Muslims,” Mr. Robinson wrote in a tweet on February 25th, rounding up the number identified by the Quilliam research, which found that 84 per cent of convicted groomers were Muslim in December last year.

Twitter decided the statement of fact “violated the Twitter rules” and “temporarily limited some of your account features”, which included tweeting publicly on the website – effectively censoring him for a week.

Former government adviser Maajid Nawaz responded by messaging Twitter directly, informing them Mr. Robinson had stated a fact rather than saying anything defamatory, hateful, or untrue.

Tommy& I argue lots, but here he’s quoting a FACT. @TwitterSupport are confused. Type 2 (individuals sexually attracted to children) are 85% white (+majority UK pop. is white). Type 1 (gangs targeting girls) are 84% Muslim compared to just 7% of population https://t.co/opZTrHItRw https://t.co/FQuDcA7xQK

“Tommy [and] I argue lots, but here he’s quoting a FACT. @TwitterSupport are confused,” he said, before explaining the difference between grooming gang attackers and other types of paedophiles – who are mainly white because the UK is majority white.

He added: “Type 2 (individuals sexually attracted to children) are 85% white (+majority UK pop. is white). Type 1 (gangs targeting girls) are 84% Muslim compared to just 7% of [the] population.”

The data he quotes reveals the fact that Muslims are dramatically over-represented in grooming and rape gangs – a fact that some people perceive as offensive and even hateful.

Quilliam’s report explores “why this demographic features so prominently in this specific crime”.

It also “recognises there to be a disproportionate representation of males with (South) ‘Asian’ heritage who have been convicted in such cases… Most of these men are of Pakistani (Muslim) origin, and the majority of their victims are young, white girls.”

Twitter once advertised itself as a platform for free speech, but has become increasingly political and censorious, taking blue ‘verification ticks’ away from right-wing users and frequently banning and suspending people for sharing views the firm disagrees with – including Breitbart London Editor in Chief Raheem Kassam.

Veterans Today | News - Military Foreign Affairs Policy

Published  6 months ago

Putin: "Policies are being pursued that place on the same level a multi-child family and a same-sex partnership, a faith in God and a belief in Satan. This is the path to degradation."

Fox News

Published  6 months ago

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is under increasingly heavy fire from his predecessor, residents and even President Trump over rising crime in the city – though Khan says police cuts from the Conservative government are to blame.

Unity News Network

Published  6 months ago

Since he became Mayor of London Sadiq Khan has done a PR job in attempting to hide his controversial past. Just last week we highlighted how is Brother-in-Law was a known extremist in the 1990’s but after further investigations we can also reveal Khan’s links to sinister clerics involved in anti-western tirades and terror plots.

It has been show that Sadiq Khan was close to a south London cleric by the name of Suliman Gani. Gani grew up in South Africa and studied Islamic theology in Pakistan and Egypt. Until 2013, he was imam of Tooting Islamic Centre in Khan’s constituency. During the London Mayoral elections David Cameron even alluded to Gani and Khan’s close links.

Cameron said that Khan and Gani shared platforms at least nine times and that Gani appeared at an event in Bedford last November, on the night of the Paris terror attacks, where speakers called on British Muslims to struggle for an Islamic state.

What is known by facts is that Khan first shared a platform with Gani in August 2004 at an event organised by Stop Political Terror, a now defunct extremist group that once had Anwar al-Awlaki – the US-Yemeni preacher considered by the US to be a senior al-Qaida figure – to speak at an event at the East London mosque in 2003. At that point, Khan was running to become an MP.

A Spokesperson for Khan said: “Sadiq engaged with [Gani] as a local MP would engage with any religious figure.”

It has also been claimed that Khan spoke in 2003 alongside Yasser al-Siri, who had been sentenced to death in Egypt over a political assassination, and Sajeel Abu Ibrahim, a member of the now proscribed extremist organisation al-Muhajiroun who trained the 7/7 bomber Mohammad Sidique Khan.

Siri was indicted in the US for assisting Omar Abdel Rahman, who was behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing but was not extradited. In September 2002, he was at Abu Hamza’s Finsbury Park mosque celebrating the first anniversary of 9/11.

Khan’s spokesman said he had never shared a platform with Siri but spoke in a separate session during a two-day conference about Guantánamo Bay and that, at the time, he was a partner in the human rights law firm Christian Khan and chaired Liberty, the human rights campaign group.

Sadiq Khan was a Human Right’s Lawyer before his career in politics and during this time he represented the highly controversial Nation of Islam’s Louis Farrakhan. Khan represented him in attempts to have a ban on him entering the UK overturned. Farrakhan is famous for saying ‘White people are potential humans – they haven’t evolved yet.’

Zacarias Moussaoui was one of the terrorists involved in the 9/11 attacks. Now it has been claimed that Sadiq Khan represented him in court but this isn’t true. However, his legal firm provided assistance and legal counsel to the team who were responsible for providing Moussaoui’s defence.

When questioned on his links with Qaradawi Khan responded: “I cannot comment on the specific quote you have given but there is a consensus among Islamic scholars that Mr al-Qaradawi is not the extremist that he is painted as being by selective quotations from his remarks.”

US Lawmakers have said Qaradawi has been known to endorse suicide bombing as a legitimate form of ‘Jihad’.

In response to these accusations Khan’s spokesperson said: “He was not speaking as Sadiq Khan, he was acting as a lawyer for MCB reflecting his clients’ views in a quasi-legal setting.”

UK Unity Spokesperson David Clews says: “Sadiq Khan has presided over calamity after calamity. Murder rates are now higher than New York with Acid Attacks, Moped Attacks and Rapes also Sky Rocketing. The decision to allow an anti-Trump blimp to fly over London is the final straw for many and his antics in opposing the leader of the free world’s visit make a mockery of the entire UK and not just London that he represents.

These latest revelations are part of a series of expose’s by Unity News Network getting to the heart of who Khan really is and what motivates him. From what we have read so far then it is absolutely frightening and a great deal of work has gone in to these expose’s! It appears Khan is using the tradition Lawyer line of defence but why is it that during his career he represented so many of them? Why was he and his firm the go to Lawyers for all sorts of extremists around the world. Why do the mainstream media not highlight his past more often?

UK Unity will be writing to the Prime Minister asking her party to seek to repeal the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) with her Parliamentary majority in order that Khan can be removed from office with fresh elections held. We will also be engaging in leafleting and other methods to take direct democratic action against Khan.

We will seek to involve as many people and get as wide a support base on this as possible.The campaign will culminate in a protest outside Mayor’s question time on the 18th of October in London with banners, flags, leaflets and placards. Your support on the street, on social media and financially is needed to make a success of this. We have a proven track record of political delivery and our organisation does what it says it will do. Please support our crowdfund for the day and to continue with our research and then our planned demo outside Mayor’s questions in October.”

You can HELP support the campaign to oust Khan by:

PLEASE SHARE THIS ARTICLE ON FACEBOOK, TWITTER, WHATSAPP, EMAIL AND EVERYWHERE TO EXPOSE KHAN FOR WHAT HE REALLY IS!!!

Westmonster

Published  7 months ago

David Cameron’s mutli-million pound spending on pro-Remain leaflets before the referendum may have given Remain an unfair advantage, says an official report.

The Independent Commission on referendums said such rampant expenditure of public money should be outlawed in future votes.

The report states: “Less than three months before the EU referendum, the UK government spent £9.3 million of public funds distributing a leaflet entitled ‘Why the government believes that voting to remain in the EU is the best decision for the UK’, the purpose of which, it claimed, was ‘to help the public make an informed decision in the upcoming EU referendum’.

“The Commission is concerned that the current restrictions on government during referendum campaigns permit potentially unlimited spending of public money in favour of one side of the debate before the final four weeks of the campaign.”

The Independent Commission on Referendums, whose members include Dominic Grieve, the pro-Remain former attorney general, and Gisela Stuart…

Government's pro-EU publicity blitz gave Remain an unfair advantage in the referendum, report suggestshttps://t.co/b2A8QFvD6a

— Gerard Lyons (@DrGerardLyons) July 21, 2018

No shit! Spending £9.3m on a leaflet obviously had an impact! And look at the stick the Brexit groups got.

The Sun

Published  7 months ago

IT was the longest boxing match in history. In 1893 plucky little Texan Jack Burke climbed into the ring to become champion of the American South. The match lasted 110 rounds and seven hours before…

Sky News

Published  7 months ago

An ex-White House adviser says the former PM asked Mr Obama to be pessimistic about a trade deal in April 2016.

the Guardian

Published  8 months ago

Rolling coverage of the day’s political developments as they happen, including Boris Johnson’s Brexit speech

the Guardian

Published  1 year ago

CEO says far east relocation is more about ‘future-proofing’ business than anything to do with Brexit

This is Money

Published  1 year ago

Sir Ian Wood made his fortune in the oil fields that Alex Salmond says will fund an independent Scotland's success, but he fervently begs to differ with the First Minister.

Change.org

Published  2 years ago

Sign the Petition

04/12 8:00 pm

Theresa May MP: Deselect Anna Soubry for creating divisions in the Brexit process

->