Lord Frost gives evidence to public administration and constitutional affairs committee

Lord Frost gives evidence to public administration and constitutional affairs committee

Jun 9, 2022 | Bylines, News

This week Lord Frost came up with a series of explanations for why the Brexit deal isn’t working, none of them being his fault writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Whatever’s wrong with the Brexit deal – and according to Lord David Frost that’s quite a lot – it’s someone else’s fault. On Tuesday, Lord Frost, former chief Brexit negotiator, was giving evidence to a House of Commons select committee. The public administration and constitutional affairs committee (PACAC) was taking evidence on the subject of ‘Scrutiny of International Treaties and other International Agreements’.

Over the course of 90 minutes, while giving his evidence, Frost was ready to lay blame at a number of different doors. Whilst his comments and suggestions on how future negotiations might be improved were welcomed, his failure to take responsibility for the current sad state of play cannot have gone unnoticed.

Parliamentary scrutiny and involvement

Frost suggested that parliament should have more scrutiny and be more actively involved in future trade negotiations. They should be given time to express their views and should have the opportunity to vote yes or no on any significant international trade deals, ahead of their ratification. So far, so good.

However, parliament was apparently at fault during the Brexit negotiations. Firstly, they were “conflicted” and were “not clear” what they wanted from the negotiations in 2019. Frost criticised parliament for what he called the “Surrender Act” – the bill that prevented the UK leaving the EU without a deal. Running things from parliament was a “Cromwell-style takeover”, and legally blocking a no-deal Brexit had hampered his negotiating efforts.

According to Frost, this “hugely undermined” the UK negotiating hand. This then resulted in the UK having to “agree more or less what was imposed on us in order to be able to move forward and deliver the referendum result”. Frost said parliament seemed not to want to deliver on that result, describing the whole situation as “extremely unsatisfactory”.

John McDonnell MP told Frost that it seemed as though he thought “parliament was blocking the ‘will of the people’”. In fact, McDonnell said, parliament was merely “trying to get the best deal possible”

Lack of resources

Frost suggested that negotiations were hampered by a lack of experts and a lack of support staff. The fact that, for the last 40 years, the EU had done all the negotiating for us, meant a lack of relevant experience. But the issue was not just about numbers, or levels of expertise. Those pesky civil servants were “political”, and not necessarily on the same Brexit page as the government. Far better to recruit special advisers, presumably at considerable expense, who wouldn’t question government plans, motives or orders.

 

Lord Frost says that he thinks Parliament will need to increase the resources and support in order for Committees to properly scrutinise international agreements, including legal expertise, trade expertise and greater domestic expertise.

— PACAC Committee (@CommonsPACAC) June 7, 2022

 

May and the meaningful votes

In time-honoured Conservative fashion, the previous administration was clearly going to come in for criticism and blame. Theresa May’s ill-advised, and pointlessly self-inflicted, general election was a significant factor. Having destroyed her own majority, getting Brexit through parliament then proved to be impossible. A series of “meaningful votes” undermined the UK’s position, Frost said, and encouraged the EU to believe reversing Brexit was not only desirable, but possible.

The worst criticism of May’s handling of Brexit, however, was Frost’s interpretation of it being a “soft” Brexit. It certainly didn’t feel very soft at the time. But to Frost, the ‘backstop’ arrangement – that allowed the UK to stay in the customs union and parts of the single market – was several steps too far. May’s commitment to Northern Ireland alignment had been “damaging”. All would have been fine, Frost suggested, if he had not “inherited stuff”.

A “fundamental misunderstanding” by the EU

Frost directed much of the blame at the European Union. There was plenty about the withdrawal agreement that the government didn’t like, but efforts were concentrated on changing the backstop. Johnson’s comments regarding Northern Ireland were “not misleading”, Frost said, but were “misinterpreted”. Frost described his “brutal and confrontational” approach as appropriate and effective. “In the end, it worked”, he said.

With regards to negotiating a trade deal, Frost claimed that a zero-tariff free trade agreement was “very desirable” but not at any cost. Some things, he said were more important. Such as, “sovereignty, removing the [European] courts, no legal constraints”. He added that, “we weren’t willing to sacrifice those to get zero tariffs”. On this matter, there was a “fundamental misunderstanding” by the EU. Unlike the fundamental misunderstanding of the British government as to the type of Brexit the public wanted, or voted for.

Not my fault

The final, and most bizarre, scapegoat for Brexit negotiation failures was the Fixed Term Parliament Act. Frost described the act as “one of the factors” preventing the negotiations from running smoothly. A bemused McDonnell said this was “an interesting new theory about who to blame for some of the negotiating problems that we had”.

Frost is not responsible, it seems, for the deal he negotiated, praised, resigned over and now criticises at every opportunity. It was the lack of resources, the EU, parliament and Theresa May. Like Johnson, he refuses to accept personal blame or responsibility for where we are or where we are heading.

Karin Smyth MP asked Frost if his approach had been “honourable”. The fact that the government is imminently planning to override the UK/EU trade deal with controversial, and likely illegal, legislation would rather suggest otherwise.

If the PACAC committee really wants advice on how to improve future international treaties and agreements, maybe they should ask some real experts. Ones who admit their mistakes, learn from them and put co-operation ahead of confrontation. Brussels might be a good place to start.

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood calls for UK to join the single market

Conservative MP Tobias Ellwood calls for UK to join the single market

Jun 4, 2022 | Bylines, News

Ellwood says the government’s choice of Brexit is damaging and could be softened by the UK joining the single market – the Norway option, writes Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Brexit has not turned out how “most people imagined”. That’s according to senior Conservative MP, and chair of the defence select committee, Tobias Ellwood. After months of ignoring the blindingly obvious – to British business owners at least, if not to British politicians – Ellwood has dared to suggest the UK should rejoin the single market.

Ellwood, who recently spoke out against the prime minister, said the government’s choice of a “hard Brexit” has done significant damage to UK exporters. In his statement, he said it would be a “dereliction of duty” if the government failed to re-evaluate the UK/EU relationship under present circumstances.

All the current challenges, such as extra bureaucracy and issues over the Northern Ireland protocol, “would disappear if we dare to advance our Brexit model by re-joining the single market”, he said. A move to join the European Economic Area (the Norway option) would ease the cost-of-living crisis and bolster the UK economy.

With Brexit reducing the UK’s gross domestic product (GDP) by 4 percent, according to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility, clearly urgent action is needed.

The Brexit we voted for?

Ellwood quoted a recent YouGov poll that said this was not the Brexit most people had envisaged, and that the majority of the public now believe Brexit has gone badly. Meanwhile, minister for Brexit opportunities, Jacob Rees-Mogg, continues his search for elusive Brexit benefits, whilst insisting that replacing the prime minister right now would “be a real risk” to those imagined opportunities.

Brexiter MPs, of course, would have us believe that the Brexit we have now is exactly the one that was voted for. But the reality is that ‘leaving the EU’ could have been done in many different ways while still delivering on the referendum mandate. Clearly the interpretation of the public’s choice of Brexit was viewed differently by the current prime minister than by the last one, for example.

Indeed, although both Boris Johnson and his predecessor Theresa May chose a hard Brexit, their execution was rather different. And it was several months after the referendum before May announced that Brexit would mean the UK leaving the single market. This was not an inevitable consequence of leaving the European Union, it was a choice made later, and not by the British public.

Brexiters supported staying in the single market

Although they may now claim otherwise, numerous Brexit-supporting politicians previously insisted that leaving the EU did not mean leaving the single market or the customs union. In fact, many were adamant that the UK would retain all the benefits of membership of both, and even of the EU itself.

Founder of Leave.EU, Aaron Banks, even said that “the Norway option looks the best for the UK”. Former MEP Daniel Hannan was quoted as saying that “absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market”. And Owen Paterson MP went one step further by insisting that “only a madman would actually leave the market”.

While the reasons people voted for Brexit are many and varied, many were reassured that the benefits of single market membership were not at risk. Significantly, Boris Johnson himself said he was in favour of the single market and would vote to stay in it.

Deny, deny, deny

If the Leave campaign’s vision of Brexit – the one they sold to the British people – was to leave the single market and the customs union, then this should have been made clear at the time. The story these politicians are now telling is a rather different one, where the British public all knew they were voting to leave the European Union and the single market and the customs union – otherwise known as the hardest Brexit possible.

According to Mark Harper MP, the UK voted to leave the EU and “that meant leaving the single market and putting an end to freedom of movement. The end.”

Despite having negotiated the Brexit deal, before trashing it and resigning as Brexit minister, Lord Frost could not resist adding his usual unhelpful opinion. Referring to Ellwood’s statement, and seemingly unaware of the irony, he claimed that Brexit was “not safe in his hands”. Being in the single market, but outside of the EU, “means accepting lots of law set by people we didn’t elect”, said the unelected member of the House of Lords.

Support for joining the single market

There has been widespread support for Ellwood’s comments from those who favoured remaining in the EU. Former Conservative MP, David Gauke tweeted, “Tobias is right. Extraordinary that this point has become almost unsayable”. Lord Andrew Adonis said he was all in favour of “upgrading Brexit” with a return to single market membership. And CEO of Best for Britain, Naomi Smith, noted how single market membership would “soothe inflation, workforce shortage and supply chain woes”.

What was notable by its absence was any comment from opposition parties, most of whom are still avoiding the ‘B’ word at every opportunity. Criticism of Brexit by Labour is seemingly as elusive as Rees-Mogg’s Brexit benefits.

A less-painful Brexit would be a popular choice

The majority of the British public do not support this hard Brexit. A softer approach, that maintains access to, and the benefits of, single market and customs union membership, would have been a workable compromise. It would not have satisfied the extremists on either side, but it would have softened the blow, done considerably less damage, and would have helped to heal the painful wounds of a divisive campaign. It still could – if our politicians would only be brave enough to say so.

Ellwood has been praised for showing courage in speaking out. But it shouldn’t take courage to speak the truth, especially when there is so much evidence to back it up – as detailed in the Detriments of Brexit document published by Yorkshire Bylines.

The time for ignoring the ‘B’ word is over. It’s time for a constructive debate about our future relationship with the EU, and with the truth. It’s not too late to undo much of the damage or to change the course of this punishing Brexit. Let’s not wait until it is.

UK unilateral action over protocol

UK unilateral action over protocol

May 25, 2022 | Bylines, News

This was not the first time we have heard from the UK government that the negotiated Brexit deal – and the protocol – is not fit for purpose, writes Bremain Chair Sue WILSON MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

When Brexit opportunities minister, Jacob Rees-Mogg, gave evidence to the European scrutiny committee, back in April, he announced the government’s plans to act unilaterally over issues relating to the Northern Ireland protocol. It was “widely accepted”, he claimed, “that the protocol is not working and needs reform”.

This was not the first time we had heard from a government minister, or indeed the prime minister himself, that the negotiated Brexit deal is not fit for purpose. Despite the deal being hailed as a huge triumph, and sold to parliament and the public as such, it seems that the only motivations were getting Brexit “done”, and getting Boris Johnson re-elected.

According to Rees-Mogg, the deal was only signed “on the basis that it would be reformed”, and if the EU wouldn’t reform it, then the UK government would do so unilaterally.

Unilateral action proposals

The EU is sadly familiar with UK government attempts to threaten, blame and bully. Threats to act unilaterally, such as by triggering Article 16 – the safeguarding mechanism within the protocol itself – are hardly new. Regarded largely as empty threats by the EU, they have only succeeded in destroying any remaining trust between the two parties and harming EU/UK relations.

This latest threat, however, is the worst yet. This time the UK government aims to pass legislation that would, according to government lawyers, allow them to override parts of the protocol itself. Rather than use the mechanism provided by the protocol itself, the government aims to break international law.

The supposed justification for doing so, according to the foreign secretary, Liz Truss, is “upholding the Belfast Good Friday Agreement (GFA) and restoring political stability”. With the exception of the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), other parties, other countries, and especially the EU and USA say the only way to achieve both those desirable aims is to implement the protocol. The protocol is not the problem. The protocol is the solution – the only one possible. The problem is the hard Brexit the government – not the country – chose.

The EU response

The drastic – and illegal – plans have been widely criticised across Europe. Maroš Šefčovič, vice president of the European Commission and chief EU Brexit negotiator, said plans to suspend parts of the protocol were “simply not acceptable”.

Although it hopes to avoid such action by UK authorities, the EU is preparing plans to retaliate if necessary. These plans could include a trade war, with tariffs being applied, suspending parts of the trade and cooperation agreement, or terminating the trade agreement in its entirety.

Not for the first time, the EU has reiterated that renegotiation of the protocol is not on the table.

 

Criticism from the island of Ireland

Foreign affairs minister for Ireland, Simon Coveney, called the UK government’s plans “obscene”. He said “compromise and dialogue” were required to solve any outstanding protocol issues. Unilateral action by the UK government “breaches international law and further damages trust”.

 

First Minister of Northern Ireland, Michelle O’Neill, said unilateral action to denounce the withdrawal agreement or disapply the protocol, was “reckless”. She added that Johnson was “feeding political instability and economic uncertainty”.

Sinn Féin president, Mary Lou Macdonald, claimed that Johnson was “in cahoots with” and facilitating the DUP in a “game of brinkmanship”. The DUP, who are deliberately blocking power-sharing at Stormont, have welcomed the UK government’s proposals. They insist that the protocol is damaging the economy of Northern Ireland, and the protocol does not have the support of the people of Northern Ireland. The results of the recent elections disprove that claim. As do the Northern Irish business groups pleading with the prime minister not to take unilateral action.

Though not without Brexit-related problems, Northern Ireland has benefitted from the ability to trade freely with both unions – the UK and the EU – a point the UK government would prefer went unnoticed. Northern Ireland’s continued membership of the European single market has brought many benefits and opportunities, though not the ones Rees-Mogg is still searching for. Scotland, Wales, and probably England too, can only look on with envy.

Rumblings from across the pond

The American authorities are so concerned about the latest threat to the Good Friday Agreement that they sent a delegation of senators to London, Brussels, Belfast and Dublin.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi had recently warned that Congress would not back any trade deal with the UK if the UK government discards the protocol. President Biden has made similar comments and takes the US role as guarantor of the GFA very seriously. Following a meeting between the US delegation and the EU, a joint statement was issued confirming US solidarity for the EU position – no renegotiation of the protocol.

One of the many misleading and disingenuous claims the Brexiters made about Brexit was the freedom for Britain to stand on its own two feet. It is perhaps one Brexit promise that has come closest to being realised, though perhaps not in the way the government, or the public, visualised. The UK is alone, but as a result of being isolated, side-lined and distrusted by those it needs to work with, and trade with.

Although clearly on the government’s agenda, the planned legislation aiming to override the protocol did not make the Queen’s Speech, which sets out the legislative agenda for the coming year. Yet a week later, it was back on the table. Did even this government – with seemingly no qualms about making the country more extremist – draw the line at having the head of state present plans to break international law?

Even our government now admits that it signed the protocol in bad faith. While Johnson is still in charge, any head of state thinking of signing a deal with the UK, would be well advised to count their fingers following any handshake with our PM.

Johnson is not to be trusted. Which sadly means, neither is Britain.

Open Letter to Lord Frost from Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE

Open Letter to Lord Frost from Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE

Apr 10, 2022 | Bylines, News

Dear David,

As we’re old friends now, I’m sure you’ll forgive the informality of my address. I thought you would rather prefer David to ‘Frosty’, with or without the ‘no-man’ handle.

I note that, despite your resignation from your role as Brexit Minister, we have not been spared your ruminations on all things Brexit-related. I know that it’s not unusual for ex-Chancellors to be asked to comment on the economy, or ex-PMs to be asked to comment on policy, but as far as I’m aware, nobody was doing any asking on this occasion.

Of course, as your latest ‘article’ – for want of a better description – was published in The Telegraph, I’m sure your incoherent and incomprehensible musings were received with open arms. After all, any newspaper that employed your former boss as a regular ‘journalist’ clearly has some judgement issues.

So, about your latest comments. Firstly, I’m sure it’ll be no surprise to you that I am an ultra-Remainer, and yes, I am mobilising. There are millions like me, and we have a democracy to save. Your suggestion that we “became a full democracy once again” thanks to Brexit just proves your complete misunderstanding of, well, everything.

If memory serves, you were once a Remainer too. Even when you couldn’t make up your mind which side you were on (who does that remind me of?), you were in favour of single market and customs union membership. You said that, for the sake of global trade, “it simply isn’t worth jeopardising access”. Even in this latest article you state that “no sensible person would deny that leaving the single market and customs union has some effect on trade in the short run”. I guess we would probably argue over how long “the short run” equates to. I think your fellow Brexiteer, Jacob Rees-Mogg might have mentioned fifty years or so. Seems quite a long run to me.

Despite having advocated your “grand new free trade agreement”, and boasted about securing the deal in just 10 months, the gilt on the deal wore off quickly. How long was it, exactly, before you and Johnson started rubbishing your own deal and demanding the EU make changes? When the EU failed to respond to your posturing, bullying nonsense, you threw in the towel and left the job to another incompetent Brexit convert. Never gave up the title, though, did you? Bet you’re giving that a lot of thought now that you’re eyeing up No. 10.

You complain in your piece about European Movement Chair, Lord Adonis, saying that “Brexit has failed. We were lied to. It’s time to rethink”. But that’s all you do – you don’t say what’s wrong with those comments, or even contest their veracity. Perhaps that’s wise, though no surprise. Disputing the truth has never been something that Brexiteers have shied away from. Quite the opposite.

To be fair, your disconnection from reality is not limited to Brexit. It applies equally to “living with Covid successfully”, and a variety of “world-leading” claims. Have you seen the Covid figures recently? Hundreds of British people are ‘dying with Covid’ every single day. And as for the UK leading the world in anything at all, I’m struggling to think of a single example. Well, any positive examples.

Your article did make me smile though. My favourite paragraph was the one where you said, “it is impossible to draw any firm conclusions from the trade figures”, adding that “the picture is reassuring”! Have you seen the latest reports from the Office of Budget Responsibility? However, it wasn’t those comments that caused my smile – it was the start of the paragraph. It began, “in reality”. Worthy of any comedy club appearance, that one.

You claimed that “what matters is not trade, but economic growth”, so I guess you are not an advocate of doing trade with the EU, or the US for that matter. Though quite how the economy is expected to grow when we’ve few friends or trading partners is beyond me. Of course, I’m no economist, or member of the House of Lords, so what would I know?

Your final piece of Brexit-related nonsense was to suggest that the next referendum on EU membership should be held in 2067. After all, we had 47 years for the EU to demonstrate “that UK membership was a good idea” and Brexit should be measured by the same standard. If you’ll excuse me for pointing out the bleeding obvious, it didn’t take 47 years for the country to benefit from EU membership, or to take note. The benefits were obvious right from the start.

Do you remember when, back in the good old days of pre-EU membership, the UK was branded as the “sick man of Europe”? I’ve got news for you. Thanks to you, your ex-boss and your Brexiteer friends, that label is back. So, keep your irrational, asinine, and frankly, boring remarks to yourself. You resigned as Brexit Minister, remember. Nobody is listening now, if they ever were.

Sue Wilson MBE

First published in West England Bylines on 10 April 2022

Woeful ignorance: a timeline of Russian interference in UK politics

Woeful ignorance: a timeline of Russian interference in UK politics

Apr 3, 2022 | Bylines, News

It has taken a war for Britain to openly acknowledge that Putin has successfully infiltrated our politics and interfered in our democracy, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton for Yorkshire Bylines. 

10–20 minute read

It has taken a war in Europe for Britain to open its eyes and openly acknowledge what should have been accepted long ago. Vladimir Putin has successfully infiltrated British politics and society and interfered in British democracy.

The evidence was in plain sight. Warnings and evidence were ignored, and the Conservative Party, in particular, have played fast and loose with the country’s security and democracy in favour of political power and greed.

Timeline of Russian interference in British politics

1999 – Putin becomes the president of Russia.

2000, January – Putin’s forces bomb the Chechen city of Grozny. A UN report says Grozny is the most destroyed city on Earth.

2006, 23 November – Alexander Litvinenko was poisoned on British soil with polonium, a highly radioactive isotope, probably the most toxic poison known to man when swallowed or inhaled. He died 23 days later. The assassins left traces of this substance across London. It was an act of terrorism.

2007, January – Six weeks after Litvinenko dies, Russian ex-banker Lubov Golubeva makes her first donation to the Conservative Party. She is the partner of Vladimir Cherlukhin, a former Kremlin deputy finance minister. Her name will appear again later.

2008 – Labour government introduces the golden visa system – A fast track to UK citizenship via investments of at least £1m in the UK and to invest £750,000 in UK government bonds.

2008, May – Conservative MP Boris Johnson is elected mayor of London.

2008, August – Putin invades and occupies parts of the independent nation of Georgia.

2009, January – Former Russian KGB spy Alexander Lebedev buys the London Evening Standard newspaper. He appoints his son, Evgeny as senior executive director.

2010 – Johnson and Evgeny Lebedev become friends, often dining together.

2011, October – After relentlessly campaigning for five years, Litvinenko’s wife Marina eventually won the right to a coroner’s inquest into her husband’s murder.

2012, May – Lebedev’s London Evening Standard publicly backs Johnson’s mayoral re-election campaign. That year he stays at Lebedev’s castle for free, which he does every year for the next five years.

2013, July – Theresa May refuses to hold a public inquest into Litvinenko’s murder. Later she would admit her refusals were over concerns about the potential impact on “international relations”.

2014, February – Russia invaded and subsequently annexed the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine. Britain, together with Russia and the USA, were signatories to the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which guaranteed Ukraine protection of its sovereignty and territorial integrity in exchange for giving up one of the largest nuclear arsenals in Europe. No country, including the UK, reacted appropriately to this act of aggression.

2014, July – Putin backed separatists shot down passenger Malaysian Airline’s MH17 passenger plane over Ukraine with a Russian missile killing 298 civilians.

2014, 18 September – The Scottish independence referendum – in 2020, the Russia report would confirm Russian interference in the campaign.

2014, November – Government makes changes to, and increases the golden visa scheme investment to £2m. Concerns have already arisen about the weakness of the scheme

 

 

2015, 27 January – More than eight years after his murder, the public enquiry into the assassination of Litvinenko begins.

2015, March – Metropolitan Police investigated £180m worth of UK property bought with corrupt money from offshore companies. They and anti-corruption campaigners say the problem is exacerbated by continuing secrecy, obscuring the beneficial ownership of properties held in tax havens like the Channel Islands and the British Virgin Islands.

Deutsche Bank reported “a considerable chunk of UK’s £133bn of hidden capital inflows since the mid-1990s is related to Russian capital”. An incredible £93bn of that was since 2006, with the pace accelerating since 2010 to around £1bn a month. “Hidden inflows … raise major questions over the UK’s role as a refuge for international capital flight and the need for better data and more rigorous oversight on property transactions”, they warned.

2015, September – Putin sends its air force to Syria to prop up Bashar al-Assad. Evgeny Lebedev pushes the UK to ally itself with Putin. Johnson writes a column in The Telegraph with the headline ‘Let’s deal with the devil: we should work with Putin and Bashar al-Assad in Syria’.

2015, November – Transparency International releases its aptly named 80-page report ‘Don’t look, won’t find – Weaknesses in the supervision of the UK’s anti-money laundering rules’. It stated:

 

“Billions of pounds of corruptly gained money have been laundered by criminals and foreign officials buying upmarket London properties through anonymous offshore companies, making the city the world capital of money laundering.”

 

The report made multiple recommendations and conclusions. Once again, the British government did nothing.

2016, January – Public enquiry into Litvinenko’s murder ends and finds that it was an FSB (one of the successors of the KGB ) plot and likely approved by Putin.

2016, 9 May – Johnson, then foreign secretary, comes under criticism for being a ‘Russian apologist’ after seemingly blaming Russia’s invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea on the European Union. He told reporters, “If you want an example of EU foreign policymaking on the hoof and the EU’s pretensions to running a defence policy that has caused real trouble, then look at what has happened in Ukraine”. It was something then UKIP leader Nigel Farage had verbalised, along with his admiration of Putin.

Their words were a severe distortion of the facts regarding who was responsible for the worst threat to European stability and security since World War II. Both anti-EU men who just happened to be the most dominant faces of the pro-Brexit campaign.

2016, 23 June – The EU referendum: 51.9 percent of the votes cast favoured leaving the EU.

2016, 31 December – The US select committee on intelligence on Russian interference in the 2016 election releases documents.

2017, February – Head of the UK’s National Cyber Security Centre Ciaran Martin, asserted that the Russian government had stepped up its online aggression against western countries. He cited 188 significant cyberattacks against the UK government over three months, most connected to Russian and Chinese actors.

2017, March – Newspaper Novaya Gazeta and Reuters detail a ‘global laundromat’ involving an estimated 500 Russian individuals/organisations/bankers with connections to the FSB. $22.3bn had passed through Moldova using Russian shell companies and fictitious loans from offshore companies in Britain from 2011 to 2014. The UK government said they would investigate.

2017, November – US news outlet CNN alleges that the Russia based troll farm “internet research agency” used Twitter accounts to generate pro-Brexit messages before the UK referendum.

The intelligence and security committee of the UK parliament begins its investigation into Russian influence in British politics and society.

Theresa May, in an address to the Kremlin, says, “we know what you are doing … and you will not succeed”. She accused Moscow of attempting to “weaponise information” as part of a “sustained campaign of cyberespionage and disruption”. Russia’s actions were “threatening the international order”, she said.

2018, January – US senate released the document ‘Putin’s asymmetric assault on democracy in Russia and Europe: Implications for US National Security’. It stated that Russia had interfered in the Brexit referendum and “the Russian government has sought to influence democracy in the United Kingdom through disinformation, cyberhacking, and corruption” and, the “UK political system vulnerable to anti-democratic meddling via social media and ‘possibly illicit’ campaign funding”.

Additionally, UK campaign finance laws do not require the disclosure of political donations from the beneficial owners of non-British companies incorporated in the UK and carrying out business in the UK. The report suggests this “may have enabled Russian related money to be directed with insufficient scrutiny to various UK political actors”. Senators point out that UKIP and its then-leader Farage did not just fan anti-EU sentiment but also criticised European sanctions on Russia and provided flattering assessments of President Putin.

The University of Edinburgh asserted that more than 400 of the Internet Research Agency Twitter accounts that had been active in the US election had also been highly involved in posting about Brexit, while CNN alleged numerous accounts had also blasted out pro-Brexit messages before the UK referendum

The University of California at Berkeley and Swansea University in Wales reportedly identified 150,000 Twitter accounts with various Russian ties that disseminated messages about Brexit before the referendum.

2018, March – Russia carries out a chemical weapons attack on British soil. Former Russian military officer Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal were poisoned in the city of Salisbury with the nerve agent Novichok. Two UK police officers had minor injuries, and one detective was hospitalised. This was a terrorist attack.

The UK’s assessment that Russia was responsible was supported by 28 other countries, who expelled 153 Russian diplomats in total.

2018 – After the Skripal poisoning, the government reviews the golden visa scheme. Despite the pressure, that review has never been published. We know that 97 percent of investors were subject to scant checks on the legitimacy of their wealth. More than 3,000 people were granted investor visas between 2008 and 2015, including 705 Russians. The UK has the fastest golden visa system globally, given in just one to three weeks of applying.

2018, April – Hours after a NATO meeting, Johnson now foreign secretary, ditches his security to visit the Lebedev’s castle in Italy, where he meets Alexander Lebedev. The next day he was reported as being alone at the airport, dishevelled and hungover. He cannot explain why he did not have his 24/7 security with him.

2018, 30 June – Seven miles north of Salisbury, a public member Charlie Rowley found a perfume bottle in a litter bin and gave it to Dawn Sturges, who sprayed it on her wrist. She fell ill within 15 minutes and died. Charlie was hospitalised but survived. Three members of the GRU (Russian foreign military intelligence agency of the Russian armed forces) who had travelled to the UK were identified as responsible.

2019, October – Johnson starts his new general election campaign. The same month, Johnson is given the long-awaited Russia report but does not release it or share its contents.

2019, 11 November – After leaks, CNN released its investigative report into Russian interference under the heading the ‘UK parliament was warned about alleged Russian interference’. Sources told CNN the committee heard from multiple witnesses who alleged that Russia has “built a network of friendly British diplomats, lawyers, parliamentarians, and other influencers across the political spectrum”.

Bill Browder a financier and once one of Russia’s most prominent investors, provided testimony to the UK parliament. He said, “The people we have seen working to further Russian interests in the UK are some of the people at the highest level of the establishment. I would not have submitted these claims if I hadn’t confidence in the evidence”.

Another source accused authorities of “putting political considerations ahead of the national security and Russia is potentially the most significant threat to the UK’s institutions and its way of life”.

2019, November – Johnson states there is “absolutely no evidence that I have ever seen of any Russian interference in UK democratic process”. A couple of days later, on BBC Question Time, when probed about not releasing the Russia report, he said, “this is complete Bermuda triangle stuff”. He has now had the Russia report for a month.

2020, March – Johnson nominates Evgeny Lebedev for a peerage. British intelligence advised against the appointment on the grounds of national security. Johnson defies the security services advice.

2020, July – After nine months, parliament’s intelligence and security committee published the long-awaited Russia report, heavily redacted. It found Russia had interfered in elections and the Scottish referendum. The committee recommended an investigation of the referendum, saying:

 

“Varying statements were made by Number 10 that was categorically not true. There are facts. We know there’s a new thing where Number 10 says something, and it must be true, but these [denial statements] were clearly not. There is clear evidence. Serious questions need be asked.

“The outrage isn’t that there was interference. The outrage is that no one wanted to know if there was.”

Within an hour of the report’s release, Johnson rules out an investigation into interference in the Brexit referendum.

A key strand called for a crackdown on London being a laundromat for illicit Russian cash. The government also dismissed this, with the prime minister’s spokesperson saying the UK has “some of the strongest controls in the world”.

The report confirms many oligarchs close to Putin are integrated into the British business, social, and political scene. Several members of the House of Lords have business links to Russia or work directly for major Russian companies linked to the Russian state. It called for more scrutiny and more decisive action. Downing Street declined, saying they were confident the House of Lords could oversee proper rules on the registration of donations to its members

2020, 22 July – Johnson says in parliament, “there is no country in the western world that is more vigilant or in protecting the interests of this country or the international community from Russian interference”.

2020, 23 July – The Times reports that the Conservative Party’s finances have come under renewed scrutiny. Two of its MPs on the intelligence watchdog committee and 14 ministers had accepted donations linked to Russia.

The same day, the Tatler reports Lubov Chernukhin, the most significant female donor in the history of the Conservative Party, is the wife of a former Kremlin deputy finance minister. She has given around £2m since 2012, including paying £160,000 to play tennis with David Cameron (the then PM) and Johnson as London mayor. In December 2021, the Conservative Party accepted £80,250 from her. That was just four months ago.

2021, June – The High Court rejects a case brought by MPs to force Johnson into investigating Moscow meddling in UK politics. Ben Bradshaw MP added:

“The government has been wilfully negligent in investigating Kremlin interference in our democratic processes. Every other western democracy takes this extremely seriously. Boris Johnson is looking away.”

2021, October – Christopher Steele, once MI6’s top Kremlin expert, and former spy who wrote the infamous dossier on Donald Trump and whose advice was sought by UK officials long after he left the service, stated that Russia’s leaders believe they are “at war” with the UK and its allies, but Britain is failing to deter the threat.

2022, 17 February – Home Secretary Priti Patel announced that the golden visa scheme would end with immediate effect to help stop “corrupt elites who threaten our national security and push dirty money around our cities”.

2022, 23 February – At prime minister’s questions, Caroline Lucas accuses Johnson of “turning a blind eye” to clear evidence in the Russia report of meddling adding, “Why is he playing fast and loose with our national security?”

2022, 24 February – Russia invades the independent country of Ukraine. Civilians are bombed, and at the time of writing this article, over three million refugees have fled Ukraine.

2022, March – It transpires that so far, eight sanctioned Russian oligarchs bought their British citizenship through the golden visa system. As Chris Bryant MP said on Twitter, “a shocking indictment of how the UK sold its birth right for a mess of dodgy money for years”. By the end of March 2022, 2,581 Russians had bought their citizenship on the golden visa scheme.

Conclusion

There is only one conclusion. The United Kingdom and successive governments have failed to protect British democracy from interference. The evidence is there, and without doubt, a public enquiry would expose shocking failures. Yet Prime Minister Johnson seems unwilling to look too closely. He likely knows what would be disclosed.

That being, he was a willing participant in allowing Russian influence to grow and taint the EU referendum by Russian influences. Johnson is Brexit’s figurehead, and Brexit is the Holy Grail that the current Conservative government are trying to protect. After all, who wanted Brexit even more than Farage, Johnson, and the Eurosceptics in the Conservatives Party? Putin himself.

Acknowledgement and thanks to YouTuber Political X. Many critical dates and inspiration came from his 2020 video ‘A Timeline of Russian Interference’, which you can watch here:

Interrogating the prime minister on Ukraine, partygate and the cost-of-living crisis

Interrogating the prime minister on Ukraine, partygate and the cost-of-living crisis

Apr 2, 2022 | Bylines, News

Johnson appeared before the Commons liaison committee to answers questions on the situation in Ukraine and the cost-of-living crisis, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

On Wednesday 30 March, Prime Minister Johnson appeared before the Commons liaison committee to answers questions on the situation in Ukraine and the cost-of-living crisis. This was the second time in a few hours that Johnson was asked difficult questions, having attended prime minister’s questions (PMQs) just three hours earlier.

The cross-party liaison committee, chaired by Sir Bernard Jenkin (Conservative) is made up of select committee chairs. It is the only government committee that can question the prime minister on policy, which it does three times a year. On this occasion, the meeting was chaired by Clive Betts (Labour), as Sir Bernard Jenkin was suffering from Covid.

Partygate added to the agenda

Before getting to the main topics, Betts raised the issue of the 20 Fixed Penalty Notices (FPN) issued by the Metropolitan Police the day before. Pete Wishart (SNP) asked Johnson if he was one of the 20 recipients, and if not, whether he expected to receive a fine in due course. Johnson replied, “I’m sure you’d know if I were”, before reverting to a now common theme of not giving “a running commentary” on an ongoing investigation.

Wishart suggested that if Johnson were served with a fine he would be “pretty much toast” adding that “no prime minister could survive” being found guilty of criminality. When Johnson refused to even acknowledge any criminality had taken place, Wishart listed Johnson’s many and varied prior excuses. He added that it was “crystal clear” that Johnson had broken the ministerial code and this was a “resignation issue”. The public, he said, would be “frustrated and disappointed” with Johnson’s non-answers. Johnson again refused to comment, saying he would return to be “properly interrogated” by the committee, and parliament, once the investigations had concluded.

Catherine McKinnell pressed Johnson about “whether any laws were broken”– especially in light of the FPNs. He refused even to acknowledge that simple fact, saying “I’m not certain of that. You may know something that I don’t”.

Both Wishaw and McKinnell drew attention to the insensitivity of holding a lavish dinner on the anniversary of the Covid memorial. Johnson’s response was to say how incredibly hard the government had worked during Covid and how proud he was of their achievements. He described the government’s record on handling the pandemic as “pretty remarkable”.

The Ukraine crisis

Tom Tugendhat (Conservative) asked Johnson of the value of President Macron continuing discussions with Putin. Johnson said Putin was “clearly not to be trusted”. He added that it was not the objective of the UK government to remove Putin from power, despite President Biden apparently wishing to do so. Tugendhat also asked about additional military and civilian assistance. Johnson wouldn’t be drawn into specifics but said the government was looking at “going up a gear”.

Johnson said the UK should “continue to intensify sanctions with a rolling programme” until all of Putin’s troops are out of Ukraine. When questioned, Johnson said this included Crimea, but wouldn’t be drawn with regards to Georgia.

Sarah Champion (Labour) had previously written to Johnson with regard to the £400m humanitarian aid pledged by the government to supporting Ukraine. As Johnson had failed to reply to her letter of 9 March, she again asked how much of the pledged funds had actually reached organisations in Ukraine, in other countries and in the UK. Johnson would have to get back to her, he said

Support for refugees

Dame Diana Johnson (Labour) asked if the prime minister had given consideration to an emergency humanitarian visa, especially as the family visa was so complex and was causing confusion. He wanted a “light touch”, he said, and didn’t seem to appreciate the difference between the two options.

Dame Johnson pointed out that just 1 percent of applications for Homes for Ukrainians had resulted in a visa. Both agreed that the British public had shown enormous generosity, with 200,000 people having signed up to the scheme to offer accommodation to refugees – rather different to the figures of 2,700 granted visas.

 

Chair Betts asked Johnson to confirm the funding arrangements, as different committees had previously been given different versions of the details. Johnson confirmed that under the Homes for Ukrainians scheme, local authorities would receive £10,500 per annum, per person. However, he confirmed that under the family reunion scheme, there was no financial support for local authorities, despite the costs being the same.

He described the access to free travel, education, benefits etc – without any additional local authority funding – as “a considerable package of support”. Johnson was unable to explain the difference between the two schemes in terms of the demands they would make on local council budgets.

The cost-of-living crisis

Conservative MP Neil Parish raised the issue of rising food prices, and concerns over food production in Ukraine, the “bread basket of Europe”. In response to concerns over food and drinks exports, Johnson insisted UK exports are “colossal”.

Concerns were raised by Philip Dunne (Conservative) about the burden of rising fuel costs. Johnson stated that the UK had “failed for a generation to put in enough long-term supply”. He blamed the Labour Party for the failure to commission more nuclear power stations, saying that nuclear had “massive potential”. Johnson admitted that nuclear was a long-term solution and unlikely to make a difference for a decade. However, “I’m optimistic”, he said, “we’ve shown that we can do things fast”. A cue, naturally, for a mention of the booster vaccination roll out.

Johnson dismissed Dunne’s questioning of the government’s recent commitment to net zero, made at the COP26 conference. Johnson said the net-zero ambition “had not been adulterated or lost”.

Labour’s Stephen Tibbs challenged Johnson over his recent misrepresentations, at PMQs, of numbers of people in work. Eventually, Johnson accepted Tibbs’ point, but not without declaring that the government’s employment record was “outstanding”. Johnson insisted he had since corrected the record – Tibbs said he was unaware of such a correction. Hardly surprising considering no such correction has been made.

Tibbs went on to query why no help was offered in the spring budget for unemployed people on benefits, struggling with fuel bills. The unemployed would see the percentage of their income spent on fuel costs rise from 20 percent in 2020, to 25 percent in April, to 47 percent in October. Johnson said he knew “how tough it is”, going on to say that priorities had to be set, in the best interests of the country. The government’s pockets were not bottomless and raising taxes was to be avoided at all costs. “We are better off”, he said, “helping people into work”.

McKinnell challenged Johnson over the government’s levelling up plans, asking if he knew how many times child poverty is mentioned in the government’s levelling up white paper. None, as it turns out, despite the rising levels of child poverty and the further expected rises. The omission was merely a “formal accident”, Johnson said.

Mel Stride (Conservative) raised the issue of trade as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP), and the impact of Brexit on post-pandemic recovery. All countries had seen exports dip due to the pandemic, but where EU countries had recovered, the UK had not. When challenged to predict how long it may take the UK to recover to pre-Brexit levels, Johnson refused to prophesise, saying there was “no natural impediment to our exports”. All it takes, he said, is “just will, energy and ambition”. But not a strategy, apparently.

Only the “right people” are welcome

A failure to answer questions, a reliance on unsupported optimism or a retreat into meaningless rhetoric are now the norm for our prime minister. However, on this occasion Johnson was not responsible for the most disturbing assertion of the day. That came from Sir Bill Wiggin. At a time when the British people are opening their hearts and homes to desperate refugees, the Conservative MP for North Herefordshire expressed concerns that only the “right people” be let into the UK. Those “right” people include wealthy Qataris, apparently, but definitely not anyone arriving by rubber dinghy across the Channel.

We are all holding our breath for the day we will finally have a government that demonstrates honesty, realism and compassion. Only then will we be able to claim to have the “right people” running the country.