Bremainers Ask……. Otto English

Bremainers Ask……. Otto English

Sep 1, 2022 | Bremainers Ask, News

Otto English is the pen name of author and journalist Andrew Scott. Having worked in theatre and TV in his twenties, as a playwright and researcher, Scott went on to have a ‘portfolio career’ combining teaching and scriptwriting before his online twitter rants and blogs about Brexit and the chaos of British politics led to a permanent career change in 2016.

Since then, he has written for the Independent, New Statesman, Politico and Byline Times (among others). His book Fake History was published in June 2021, and he is currently working on a sequel. He lives in SE London with his wife and two teenage children.

Steve Wilson : How do we undo the damage that the last 12 years of Tory rule – and Johnson’s time in power in particular – have done? Can the country ever return to her former glory?

The great danger for us all, whether Brexiter or Remainer or otherwise, is to keep looking backwards. The path forward is less about ‘undoing’ the damage and more about building something new in its place. Key to that, obviously, is getting rid of this government and opening up a new chapter and a fresh page in our relationship with our European partners and the wider world.

Johnson has demonstrated that leadership matters and that countries cannot prosper on the promises of hot air and bluster. Likewise, if the Brexiters have achieved anything, it is to demonstrate how critical our relationship with Europe is, and so my immediate hope is that after the Government is consigned to the political dustbin of history, a new administration will seek to join EFTA / EEA and work hard to normalise relations with our most important allies and neighbours.

It is going to be a long hard slog, because our nearest allies currently view us as something akin to a basket case and rebuilding trust and relations will take years.

I’d love to believe that ‘rejoining the EU’ would magically solve our problems and reset everything, but to do so would leave me open to the same trap that the Brexiters fell into. Brexit cultists believed, after all, that our membership of the EU was ‘the problem’ and that by leaving we could magically cast ourselves back to a golden age. Likewise, there is a danger in thinking that rejoining is a) possible in the short term and b) would offer us an immediate return to former glory – or even normality.

Michael Frederick Phillips : History is written by the winner. Where do you see the European Union in 40 years’ time? What do you anticipate will be seen as its successes and failures?

The pandemic and recent events in Ukraine have demonstrated history’s most valuable lesson – nothing is certain, and peace, prosperity and security can never be taken for granted.

Brexit was born out of the conceit that everything would always be OK and that none of the above mattered.

During the EU referendum the ‘project fear’ mongers made light of David Cameron’s warnings of a potential war in Europe and dismissed the historical fact that the European Union had led to a period of unprecedented peace and stability on our continent.

Much as I hate to praise Cameron for anything – those dire warnings have now come to fruition.

I hope that history will come to see another 40 years of peace and prosperity as part of the EU’s great success story, and I hope too that Putin’s aggression will lead to an ever-closer union, with Ukraine joining at the earliest opportunity. Nations are always safer, better, healthier and wealthier standing together and working in partnership over pursuing narrow nationalistic self-interest.

The war in Ukraine has also made the strongest possible case for closer military cooperation across Europe and hopefully that will lead to the establishment of some form of EU army.

As to failures – well, the risk to the EU is always going to be 27 nations pulling in opposite directions and the union itself failing to carve out a strongly defined place in the world. It would be good to see the EU as a more clearly defined bloc – capable of standing up to Russia and China and keeping the US in check. European people would benefit from that, but so too would the world.

Andy Hawker : The Conservative party’s prime ministerial contenders are obsessed with donning the crown of Margaret Thatcher. Could the successful candidate actually make use of Thatcherite policy to turn the UK around or has the world become a different place?  Does Thatcher deserve such reverence and could we imagine what her stance would be on the failed Brexit project?

Of course, it’s very hard to speculate about what Thatcher would have said or done as she is no longer with us but, for all her later Euroscepticism, she helped foment the single market and create what became the EU, so I find it somewhat bizarre that she is so championed by the Brexiters. I cannot imagine her thinking that Britain should leave the union as she was first and foremost an economic pragmatist and anyone with half a brain could have predicted what would happen if we left.

I also find the lionisation of her a bit bizarre because anyone who remembers the 1980s can also remember how deeply divisive she was and more, that the policies she enacted had disastrous long-term consequences. Through the rose-tinted glasses of history, we often forget that on her watch unemployment hit 3.5 million, that northern mining communities were devastated, that there were two major recessions and that, despite the talk of her economic miracle, GDP never grew by more than 2% on her watch and interest rates hit 15%. Her ‘right to buy’ scheme also went some way toward precipitating today’s housing crisis. And that’s even before we get onto her bullying, homophobic Section 28 legislation and the horrors of the Poll Tax.

The current Tory leaders hanker after her crown because like cosplaying Churchill before them (Boris Johnson) they don’t have the capacity, imagination or depth of character to stand on their own two feet.

David Eldridge : Do you think Britain (whole or in parts) will ever rejoin the EU? If so, how do you see it happening, in terms of a timescale and stages in the process?

I hope so but given the 6 years of civil war we’ve been through and with neither of the main political parties pledging it I really cannot imagine a time when it happens. I believe that the path back to some semblance of membership is through EFTA – EEA membership, as I said above.

Of course, if Scotland were to become independent, then they would undoubtedly seek to join and a weakened England and Wales might follow.

Keir Duncan : Following the raid on Trump’s villa in Florida and the potential for criminal charges to be brought against him, do you think this could ever happen with some of the Brexit protagonists and the lies they peddled? 

Section One of the Ministerial Code states very clearly that politicians who have deliberately lied should resign. I quote in full: “It is of paramount importance that Ministers give accurate and truthful information to Parliament, correcting any inadvertent error at the earliest opportunity. Ministers who knowingly mislead Parliament will be expected to offer their resignation to the Prime Minister”.

The code obviously needs to be more robustly enforced and updated to include the Prime Minister themselves. It goes without saying that it should be completely unacceptable for politicians to lie and lie and lie and get away with it in a supposedly advanced democracy, but somehow lying has become the norm. In the process it has diminished British democracy and the office of PM.

Of course, if we started locking up politicians for lying the jails would soon be full, but we need proper standards in office as a basic standard.

I’d like to see everyone in political office held more firmly to account by the press and media and I would like to live in a country where liars do not prosper, but we need a wholesale change in attitudes for that moment to come. The public should expect and demand more and the press needs a firm kick up the arse.

That said, I think Trump and US politics is in another league of dishonesty. Politics, particularly on the right seems to be built entirely on lies, disinformation and a dangerous disregard for sanity. I’ve just been there for two weeks and watching the news, particularly Fox, was genuinely frightening. We will have to wait and see what happens there, but if America lets Trump get away with his actions, whether that be regarding his retention of official documents or his behaviour around the events on Capitol Hill, I think the country is in serious trouble.

John Moffett : Led by Donkeys and Bylines provide such great resources, but how can we increase their reach to better educate the public and make them question more what politicians say?

Both Byline and LBD sit outside of the establishment. This is a strength and a weakness because our voices are not as amplified as we would like and often, we are writing for people who already agree with us.

As a writer for Byline Times, I am very aware of that freedom. We don’t worry about upsetting people because we’re not in with the in crowd of lobby journalists and politicians and that is very liberating, even if it does sometimes put people’s backs up.

We were writing in depth about the relationship between Lebedev and Johnson and the apparent entryism of former members of the Revolutionary Communist Party into the Brexit Party (and elsewhere) long before anyone else, for example. Other outlets had written about Johnson attending the Lebedev parties but almost nobody was ringing alarm bells. In both cases I was stunned at how slow the mainstream press was to pick up the stories and more – that some publications pushed back at us for daring to write about it.

Obviously, the best way for us to get more reach is for more people to subscribe!! But in the meantime, I think it’s beholden upon all of us, however big our platforms, to use our voices – whether that be on social media or in conversations with friends and family. Many people are far too reticent.

I’m also a believer in engaging with the other side more. Byline TV has been criticised a bit for inviting on people with pro-Brexit and right-wing views but politics has become very polarised and many of us are sitting in little echo chambers – we need to do what Black Label used to boast about doing, and reach the places other voices can’t reach.

Matt Burton : You have made no secret that you are a republican and have often spoken/written on the monarchy and Empire. Do you think that the British people will be ready to have an open discussion on abolishing the monarchy once the Queen dies?

In a word ‘yes’. When the Queen dies there is going to be the opportunity to have a great big conversation about the future – not only of the institution itself but also the way this country operates politically.

I have no personal animosity toward the royal family – after all they are mostly born into it and didn’t choose the roles. However, I do not think that in 2022 it is appropriate for a head of state to be decided by biology and the hereditary rights of one family.

Many things need to change in Britain – House of Lords reform is roughly 200 years overdue and our current arrangement vis a vis head of state is not fit for purpose. We have always been told that the monarchy acts as a constitutional backstop and yet during Brexit and the Johnson reign of blather the buffers have been shown to be about as robust as a bag of jelly.

If Brexit has provided anything positive, it is that it has shone a bright light on the inadequacy of our political institutions and the myths we have been brought up with regarding their exceptional nature.

Personally, I would go for an elected non-executive Head of State like Ireland has – and, whatever monarchists might insist to the contrary, that would not mean President Blair, Johnson or Farage.

Lisa Burton : Brexit and Johnson, like Trump, have exposed the weaknesses in our political establishments, institutions and (unwritten in the UK’s case) constitution. What lessons should be learned from this, and what changes would you like to see brought into our political systems to ensure this does not happen again?

Absolutely right. I think it’s potentially a massive opportunity here. Britain has not had the transformative experience of revolution or occupation that our neighbours have mostly had in the last 200 years. As the ‘winner’ in WW2 we carried on tinkering at the edges of our democracy rather than lifting the bonnet and refitting the engine.

Brexit has changed that. It was to all intents and purposes a civil war – although thankfully a largely non-violent one – and as the revolution eats itself it could present an opportunity for the more progressive elements in the country to edge us toward a transformation.

I hate Brexit and I hate the six years plus of misery it has visited on this country – but would it not be a delightful paradox if the very forces of conservatism that brought its misery upon us were destroyed by it?

As to political lessons – well the biggest takeaway perhaps is ‘never, ever hold a referendum on something most people do not understand’ and the second is ‘make politics boring again’. Political life has become a sort of branch of the entertainment industry (I call this politainment). It should instead be worthy, dull and for the benefit of the people – not a bunch of jumped-up spivs with posh accents in ill-fitting suits.

In next month’s newsletter we are delighted to be featuring Baroness Sarah Ludford, who has been a member of the House of Lords since 1997 and is currently the Liberal Democrat’s Europe and Brexit spokesperson.

She was a Member of the European Parliament for London from 1999 to 2014, working mainly on EU security, justice and human rights issues, and on EU foreign affairs, as vice-chair of the EP delegation to the US.

If you would like to put a question to Sarah, please email us at enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Saturday 3 September.

My personal journey through Covid

My personal journey through Covid

Aug 29, 2022 | Bylines, News

Sue Wilson MBE, Bremain Chair, reflects on lessons from her own experience of Covid for West England Bylines. Are we now failing to treat it seriously enough?

I’m recovering from Covid. I had always expected to catch Covid at some point. After all, an increasing number of friends, family members and acquaintances had succumbed, so there seemed a certain inevitability about it.

Living in Spain, in a village of 3,000 people, had certainly helped to keep me Covid free until now. The measures here were strict – much stricter than in the UK – and as a result, I felt safe. I was also very careful, and continued to avoid crowds and to wear a mask long after it was no longer mandatory, especially during the summer when our numbers were swelled by tourists.

The only time I really felt concerned for my safety was when I travelled back to the UK to visit my elderly mum. The contrast between the attitudes of both the UK and Spanish governments, and the UK and Spanish people, was stark. The British public were behaving as though Covid was no longer a threat. And why wouldn’t they? That was what they were being told to believe.

 

A surprise and unwelcome birthday gift

It’s rather ironic, therefore, that I caught Covid in my own home. On Sunday 14 August, 16 friends joined us for lunch in our garden to celebrate my husband Steve’s 70th birthday. Little did any of us know that a surprise birthday gift for Steve, then me, would be our first, and hopefully last, dose of Covid.

Two days later, we received a call warning us that our friend had tested positive for Covid. We both tested ourselves immediately, but both tests were negative. The following day, Steve was starting to display symptoms but still testing negative, but by Thursday morning, the test was positive. By that evening, my symptoms started appearing, and by Friday morning, I too tested positive.

 

Not everyone’s symptoms are the same

While most of our symptoms were the same, there were noticeable differences between my symptoms and Steve’s. We both ached all over, even our eyes seemed to ache and our ears felt as though our eardrums had been blown out by a very loud bang. We both found even the smallest of tasks took all of our energy – even making a cup of tea felt like running a marathon – a feeling compounded by a real fogginess of the brain.

However, where Steve lost his sense of taste and smell, I did not, and my cough was much worse than his, especially during the first couple of nights.

For me, the most obvious symptom though was one of exhaustion. Having tested positive on Friday, I slept for over 20 hours on Saturday, then 15 hours on Sunday and 12 on Monday. Only on Tuesday did my sleeping habits and my eating habits start to return to something like normal. In the process, I had lost 3 kg in weight in just four days.

 

Returning to normal

It’s now six days since I first tested positive, I am definitely past the worst, and I’m on the way to recovery. I know that I am going to have to pace myself, and will certainly heed all the warnings from those that have been here before, not to try to do too much too soon. Friends and colleagues that have had Covid tell me not to expect to feel completely back to normal for one to three months and I will gladly head their warnings.

Although the last six days was a relatively short time to feel sick, the severity of my dose of Covid was not only a shock, but a wake-up call. I may be no spring chicken, but I’m a healthy middle-aged hen. I rarely drink, I eat a healthy Mediterranean diet, mostly meat-free, I exercise regularly and I keep my brain active. I’m also fully vaccinated and boosted. If Covid could hit me so hard, then how much worse could it be for someone more vulnerable, or unvaccinated?

 

The threat has not gone away

Responsible governments around the world are well aware of the dangers that Covid still presents. As the virus mutates into new forms, or the true nature of the long-term effects become better understood, ways of dealing with Covid will also need to mutate.

The British government, on the other hand, continues to act as though Covid is “done” and ignores the damage that is being inflicted on the British public and the NHS through their lack of action. The pandemic has claimed the lives of over 180,000 people in the UK and millions are now “grappling with long Covid”, according to The Times newspaper.

To add to the list of government mistakes made over Covid – from late lockdowns to the removal of safety measures and support too soon – they are about to add another irresponsible action to their catalogue of errors. From 31 August, “regular asymptomatic testing will be paused across certain settings including in hospitals and care homes”. Not only is this action “completely negligent” and “unacceptable”, says Dr. Deepti Gurdasani, but it will likely result in “vulnerable patients getting infected – some even dying”

Public inquiry

Hearings for the long-awaited Covid public inquiry are planned to commence in 2024. Despite that fact, the cost of the inquiry has already reached £85 million, thanks to the government hiring top legal and public relations firms to represent it. For comparison purposes, the Grenfell Tower Inquiry, which has been running for four years, has so far cost £88 million. The Covid inquiry looks as though it will be one of the most expensive inquiries in British political history.

Ministers, it seems, do not hold back when it is their own backs that need protection. It’s a shame that they don’t feel the same way about protecting the nation, not least from themselves.

Thankfully, it appears that the worst of my infection is now behind me, and I can expect a gradual, if not speedy, return to pre-infection levels of normality. Let’s hope the same can be said for the country once we rid ourselves of the terrible virus that is infecting Westminster.

Like Johnson, Truss and Sunak commit to treating the devolved nations with disdain

Like Johnson, Truss and Sunak commit to treating the devolved nations with disdain

Aug 19, 2022 | News

Sunak and Truss have consistently voted against giving further powers to the devolved nations – and their recent comments do not bode well

Lisa Burtonby Lisa Burton

Recently, we’ve all witnessed a true ‘blue on blue’ war of words as Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak battle to become the next leader of the Conservative Party and thereby the next prime minister of the not-so-United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

In their desperation to appease a tiny minority of the population – the Conservative Party membership – they have indulged in a game of ‘who can stoop the lowest and swerve hardest right’. In doing this, they have exposed their ignorance and intention to continue to show disdain for the devolved nations of Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, their people, and their elected leaders.

Both candidates have consistently voted against giving further powers to the devolved nations. Sunak and Truss have rejected further devolution to the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments over 90% of the time when they have voted on the issue at Westminster, including an amendment to the Scotland bill, which would have required the consent of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish people before Holyrood could be abolished.

Sunak on Wales

Both candidates had strong words of criticism for devolution. At the leadership hustings in Cardiff on 3 August, Sunak declared that “the path of onward devolution has not worked” and suggested that leaders at Westminster needed to “fix” it. Precisely what he means by ‘fixing’ is unknown. It could mean anything from reducing powers to total abolishment.

He then accused the Welsh Government of “squandering” millions and “failing” children and hospital patients, saying he wanted to “make sure that people in Wales get the public services that they demand”. If only those living in England knew that all they had to do was demand required services.

As for accusations of squandering money? That’s a bit rich coming from a chancellor whose party wasted £37bn alone on a failed track and trace system and billions more on unusable PPE, fraudulent Covid business relief funds and unfair levelling up funds, to name a few.

Truss on Wales

Truss had a similar approach to Wales but added a personal touch in attacking Mark Drakeford, the elected First Minister of Wales:

“The fact is that there are too many people in this country who are ashamed of our, who talk our country down and say the best days are behind us. They are completely wrong, and one of those is Mark Drakeford. Whether it’s stopping the M4 relief road, whacking a tax on our tourist industry, I will crack down on his negativity about Wales and the United Kingdom.”

She added, “We will be able to take on the low-energy version of Jeremy Corbyn that is Mark Drakeford”.

The Welsh Government ditched the M4 relief road project for environmental reasons in favour of six new train stations between Cardiff and Newport. Yet Johnson pledged to build the M4 relief road anyway, leading to Drakeford accusing the UK Government of “pretending” to have the power to do it.

When Truss was explicitly asked if she would build the M4 relief road, she also said: “Yes”. Neither Westminster nor the PM has the power to force Wales to build the road. They know this, but it’s all part of their divisive power playing.

Sunak on Scotland

Sunak told the Spectator podcast in July that another referendum on Scottish independence is “not the priority” for people in Scotland. Quite a sweeping and factually incorrect statement considering over 50% of the Scottish electorate support Scottish independence and, therefore, a 2nd referendum. His arrogance also fails to recognise that the SNP, a party whose objective is to bring about independence, has a huge mandate from the Scottish electorate. They hold 64 out of 129 seats. Impressive, considering Scotland has a form of proportional representation, not first past the post as Westminster does.

Although Sunak did have a nice little story about working in Darlington, Scotland. Darlington is in England and over 100 miles from the Scottish border.

Truss on Scotland

“What’s happening in Scotland is the entire resources of the Scottish Government are being used to run essentially an independence campaign, and I think that is grossly irresponsible”, Truss said.

Apart from being ludicrous, it’s also hugely hypocritical. The Conservatives brought Brexit for their version of ‘independence’ against the wishes of the Scots, who voted 62% to remain in the EU, while Brexit has been sucking the life out of the UK Government and country for six years, costing billions and taking 25,000 civil servants to implement it.

Truss didn’t stop there; she took another leaf out of Donald Trump’s tactic book and went after Nicola Sturgeon personally. Truss questioned how she would tackle the growing separatist sentiment in Scotland, “The best thing to do with Nicola Sturgeon is ignore her.” After hoots of laughter from the Tory membership, she added: “I’m sorry, she’s an attention seeker, that’s what she is.”

This coming from a woman who is regularly mocked for her indulgence in a bit of cosplay for photo opportunities and obsession with image. However, after recent reports that the only time Truss and Sturgeon met at Cop26, Truss asked Sturgeon, “How do you get into Vogue?” It all makes sense. Jealousy is not an admirable trait Ms Truss.

Increasing support for Scottish independence

The Conservatives continue to be a gift to the SNP by driving an increase in support for independence. The Perth hustings held on 16 August garnered quite a protest outside. Tempers were flared.

Sunak doubled down on previous comments, saying he could not “imagine the circumstances” in which he would allow a second independence vote and that “now or anytime in the near future” would not be the time to focus on it.

Truss was greeted with loud cheers from Conservative members when she said: “If I am elected as prime minister, I will not allow another independence referendum.”

Their tactics are arrogant and failing. Recent polling has shown that whether it be Truss or Sunak that becomes PM, both candidates will increase the ‘Yes vote’ for Scottish independence.

Johnson also devised his own plan this week, the day before the Perth hustings – he decided he would take Scotland’s water for England. Did he think the Scots were going to cheer this on? No, of course not; he just doesn’t think of the Scots’ needs at all.

Northern Ireland

Simply put, if the Conservatives cared about Northern Ireland, its people and maintaining peace under the Good Friday Agreement, they would not have chosen the version of Brexit they did and this version will almost certainly lead to the reunification of Ireland.

Like Scotland, Northern Ireland voted to remain in the European Union. The UK could have left the political institutions of the EU but remained in the single market. Doing that would have been the sensible option and compromise between Leave and Remain, particularly on such a narrow result. More importantly, it would have meant no border in the Irish Sea or between the North and South of Ireland.

With a softer Brexit, equivalence could have been maintained between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but the Tory party’s hard right had long since hijacked Brexit for their agenda. In Johnson, they found the perfect dodgy salesman.

The Northern Ireland protocol is the solution to the hard Brexit the Conservatives fought for, not the problem.

Johnson announced he had his “oven-ready” Brexit deal within weeks of taking office. He repeatedly lied in the media to business leaders and the people of Northern Ireland, saying there would be no checks or forms on the movement of goods and animals. It was a blatant and calculated lie.

Not only did he throw Northern Ireland under the Brexit bus, but the government also signed an international treaty with the European Union in bad faith. Johnson knew the border would cause issues with unionists, but he also knew he had no intention of honouring the details in the deal.

Belfast Hustings

The Conservative membership comprises fewer than 600 members in Northern Ireland and the hustings itself was always going to be awkward for the leadership candidates.

There were questions around Westminster having the right to ban abortion in Northern Ireland. One audience member asked whether Truss would appoint another “fly in, fly out political landlord” instead of someone “accountable to the electorate”. While another questioned her over her continued loyalty to the outgoing prime minister, who, they said, had “continually lied” to parliament.

Both candidates doubled down on the protocol bill but with Truss confirming they would enact it in totality with Sunak trying to be the professional, saying he would try to negotiate with Brussels while simultaneously breaking international law.

Suppose the Conservatives’ protocol bill is enacted through parliament. In that case, it will lead to the EU launching legal action, likely sanctions and a possible trade war, which the UK will lose. Prices of goods will rocket, on top of a cost-of-living crisis already affecting so many. It would be a dereliction.

The channelling of Margaret Thatcher

As reported in the Spectator, the Thatcherite obsession confirms the Conservatives remain utterly indifferent to the sensitivities and history of the nations. “The misguided souls on the right, including in Scotland, who believe Holyrood should be strongly reined in by London, which is one sure way to push the electorate towards independence.”

The Thatcher government saw Scotland as an “experiment” for the divisive poll tax, and the Scottish have not forgotten. Oliver Letwin stated that a tax based on people, not property, “would create too many big losers” in England and Wales; hence they trialled it north of the border. The poll tax would, of course, be Thatcher’s downfall.

Thatcher’s confrontations with the unions were popular with some. However, in Wales, the miners’ strikes were experienced very differently and, even today, are still a source of anger and trauma in some areas.

In 1979 there was a referendum on Welsh devolution. Only 20.3% were for and 79.7% against. By 1997 a nation sick of Thatcher’s policies voted 50.3%, Yes, and Welsh devolution was born.

Thatcher became a symbol of division between Wales and England that could only be reconciled by Wales gaining at least some control over its domestic affairs. A study from Martin Johnes of Swansea University found:

“In 1986, there had been more than 166,000 people in Wales on the dole. By then, less than 40% of Welsh households were headed by someone in full-time employment. Nearly a fifth of men out of work had been so for five years or more.”

These communities are still amongst the most disadvantaged in the country. These communities have not forgotten.

No one to blame but themselves

The Conservative Party of recent years are no unionists. They are the party of populism and English nationalism. As was foretold, it is now just a matter of time before their ideological pursuit of a hard Brexit breaks the Union. The question is, who will go first?

Uncovering the truth: did Johnson mislead parliament?

Uncovering the truth: did Johnson mislead parliament?

Aug 12, 2022 | News

Privileges committee inquiry aims to uncover the truth of whether Johnson misled parliament – and is being met with considerable pushback

Sue Wilson MBEby Sue Wilson MBE

Ever since the partygate scandal first reared its ugly head, Boris Johnson has been dismissing any suggestions that he broke his own Covid laws. Whether giving evidence to the Met Police, Sue Gray or parliament, the prime minister has been keen to deny or deflect, and has attempted to avoid any, if not all, scrutiny. He may have hoped that, with his impending exit from Number 10, his misdeeds would be forgiven, if not forgotten. The forthcoming House of Commons privileges committee inquiry intends to ensure that is not the case and that the truth will out.

The inquiry, which is likely to take several months, will investigate whether or not Johnson lied to parliament. That’s assuming, of course, that the incoming PM doesn’t dismiss the inquiry altogether.

The investigation into whether Johnson misled parliament

The privileges committee – who play a key role in maintaining parliamentary standards and accountability – have been mandated by parliament to investigate the situation. Back in July, the committee published a 39-page report following an earlier call for evidence. The report detailed the “proposed conduct of inquiry” and outlined the committee’s intentions.  They will hear oral evidence – including from Johnson – in the autumn, and have pledged to protect the identities of “anonymous whistle-blowers” who might be unwilling to give evidence if their identities were made public.

It will be for the committee and the House to “determine whether a contempt (of parliament) has occurred”. The committee will also determine whether or not any penalties, or “the severity of those penalties” are imposed. Those penalties could include Johnson’s suspension from the Commons and a recall petition, which would trigger a by-election in his Uxbridge seat.

A “witch hunt”

Johnson loyalists in both houses of parliament have been questioning the motives of committee members and the legitimacy of the inquiry itself. Unsurprisingly, one of Johnson’s most loyal cabinet supporters – the culture secretary Nadine Dorries – did not hold back. She described the inquiry as a “witch hunt” and the “most egregious abuse of power witnessed in Westminster”. Dorries asserted that the inquiry would cast “serious doubt” on the reputation of the committee members, as well as on the “processes of Parliament and democracy itself”.

Zac Goldsmith – who was elevated to the House of Lords by Johnson in 2019, following the loss of his seat in Richmond – has also been keen to defend his political ally. Goldsmith described the inquiry as “an obscene abuse of power” and accused the committee members of being “highly partisan, vengeful and vindictive”. He added that the inquiry was “clearly rigged”.

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss – currently favourite to replace Johnson as PM – drew condemnation when she suggested she would vote to shut down the inquiry, given the opportunity. However, Truss was keen to downplay her comments, saying the inquiry would go ahead.

Not only is Truss proving her willingness to turn a blind eye to government deception but she’s demonstrating her own lack of principles. Lying to parliament while running the country is apparently not a problem, especially perhaps, if your intention is to carry on in the same vein.

A “terrorist campaign”

Committee member and staunch Brexiter, Sir Bernard Jenkin, was quick to respond to criticism of the committee and the inquiry. Jenkin, one of four Conservative members on the committee of seven, pledged that the inquiry would continue as long as it had the support of parliament. He described the plot to discredit the committee as a “terrorist campaign”. He said that the committee would discharge their duty, and any criticism should be made in writing directly to the committee.

In response to the comments made by Truss, deputy Labour leader Angela Rayner said Truss was “aiding and abetting” Johnson’s attempts to “dodge scrutiny”. The PM had “created a rotten culture” at the heart of Downing Street, Rayner said, and had “toxified the Tory party from top to bottom”. Not only had Truss enabled Johnson but she would “continue to follow his lead” if she became PM.

Rayner insisted Truss must confirm “in no uncertain terms” that she would not undermine the committee and that she would appoint an ethics chief on day one of her leadership.

We may never fully understand the justification behind the Tory attack on the committee and their inquiry. However, a recent article in the Telegraph may hold a clue. The article confirms that three former Downing Street staffers are set to give evidence to the committee. It is claimed they intend to affirm that Johnson misled parliament and failed to deliver a full account.

Whether their evidence will confirm the wrongdoing of Johnson alone, or of the PM and others, remains to be seen. But perhaps it explains why Johnson’s supporters are so keen to shut the inquiry down.

Thanks to Johnson, the country and the Tory party are now unrecognisable. When in doubt, they use misdirection, lie, blame others, deny. It’s the Johnson way, and his most loyal followers don’t have the capacity or inclination to do any different. If they believe Johnson can be saved then they are as deluded as the PM himself. Some rats, it seems, are too foolish even to leave the ship when it’s sinking.

Johnson taught Truss everything she doesn’t know

Johnson taught Truss everything she doesn’t know

Aug 7, 2022 | Bylines, News

Break the rules, lie about it, get caught lying, change your story, double down – as PM, Truss looks likely to follow in Johnson’s footsteps, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

It’ll be no surprise to anyone following the trajectory of Liz Truss’s career – or to anyone trying to avoid it – that Truss used to be a Remainer. In the run up to the Brexit referendum in 2016, Truss was an ardent, and very visible, pro-EU campaigner. She would now have us believe that her Brexit position was equivocal and that she was firmly sat ‘on the fence’.

 

A Brexit point to prove

Truss may have started out as a Remainer, but she is demonstrating the zeal of a true convert. At a recent hustings in the leadership race, Truss claimed that she only supported Remain because she was “concerned about some of the disruption”. She has now changed her mind, she insists, as “that disruption didn’t happen”. That’ll be news to businesses, economists, farmers, fishermen and tourists alike, not least those stuck for hours at Dover.

It seems that, in order to prove the strongest Brexit credentials – as required by any Tory prime minister – you need to follow the Boris Johnson playbook. All that is required is to don the Brexit blindfold, be able to U-turn on a sixpence, and lie through your teeth.

 

Showing her true colours?

Rishi Sunak, the only remaining competitor for the top job, has been keen to point out Truss’s former position on Brexit. Claiming himself to be the only true Brexit believer, he recently said Truss’s “true Remainer colours” were starting to show.

A spokesperson for Sunak’s campaign said that Truss, “blames Brexit and fails to see the opportunities from it to help farmers and food production”. Sunak also drew attention to the fact that Truss neglected to mention it was her own trade deals causing many of the problems British farmers are facing. But never fear, Truss swears she will “back our farmers” as they should be “getting on with farming, not having to fill in forms”.

Truss has also pledged to expand the visa scheme to allow more seasonal workers to pick fruit and vegetables. “I know it’s difficult for farmers at the moment”, she said, without any recognition of her part in their current difficulties.

Don’t like my policies? Just wait five minutes

An ability to abandon a proposed policy at the drop of a hat has long been a feature of recent Conservative prime ministers. If Theresa May was the ‘flip-flop’ queen, then Johnson was the U-turn king. Any policy proposal that failed to receive the required adulation, or that immediately provoked a bad public reaction, must be dropped immediately.

But it’s one thing to have a change of heart following public pressure; quite another to claim that the proposed offensive policy was never your policy in the first place.

You might expect that a leader, or even a potential leader, would have any proposal properly researched and assessed before launch. Not in Truss’s case. In fact, not only was her proposal – that public sector pay be reduced outside of London – cancelled within 24 hours, but she claimed it was never her policy in the first place. Her policy had been “wilfully misrepresented” and she had “never had any intention of changing the terms and conditions of teachers and nurses”, despite what was said in the previous day’s press release. Johnson, if he could be bothered to take notice, would be very proud.

If in doubt, double-down

A leaked email has this week seen Truss facing allegations of failing to declare thousands of pounds spent on ‘schmoozing’ fellow Tory MPs.

A champagne dinner labelled ‘Fizz with Liz’ was held at an exclusive London club last year. Although the event was paid for by the club owner, the function should have been declared in the Commons register. Seen as an early bid to succeed Johnson, Truss was described as being “on manoeuvres”. Truss denied any responsibility in organising the event, claiming she was merely one of the guests. That’s despite having sent out invitations personally by email.

If you aren’t starting to recognise a pattern here – break the rules, lie about it, get caught lying, change your story – then you haven’t been paying attention.

Our next PM?

The decision on who will be the next prime minister is being made by just 160,000 Tory party members. That membership is predominantly over 60, white and male, with many seemingly holding similarly right-wing views to the influential ERG group. The grandstanding displayed by both contestants is clearly aimed at these audiences alone. Never mind what the country might want or desperately need.

At the moment, Truss is the favourite. The sheer number of ministers and MPs now throwing their support behind her is clear evidence of who the party expects to win. It’s not just the candidates whose opinions and policies are disposable. Anything goes if the reward is a Cabinet post, it seems.

Of the many terrible legacies that Johnson leaves behind, Truss appears determined to repeat his mistakes, only with bigger bells, whistles and lies. Whatever vandalism has been committed by Johnson on the British state and the British public, Truss will try to outdo it.

Johnson broke Britain. He destroyed our reputation abroad, collapsed the economy, caused untold deaths, destroyed our democracy and all while expecting to be applauded for it. Truss has the ambition, and a willingness to sink to new depths of destruction in order to gain power. It looks likely she’ll succeed in her goal, too. But that’s all there is. She has no charisma, no policies founded on anything like need, intelligence or honesty, and she’s easily led.

The ERG are going to have a field day with their latest puppet. Labour, meanwhile, can’t believe their luck. Johnson has hung on just long enough to beat May’s record in office – she made it three years and 12 days; coincidentally Johnson has been in office for three years and 12 days today. Truss, if she succeeds, seems destined to serve less time than either of them.

Bremainers Ask – Jane Morrice

Bremainers Ask – Jane Morrice

Aug 1, 2022 | Bremainers Ask, News

Born in Belfast, and a teenager during the “troubles”, Jane Morrice built a career on peace building, journalism, Europe and equality. A founder member of the NI Women’s Coalition, she authored the line on integrated education in the Good Friday Agreement. She was elected to the first NI Assembly in 1998 and became Deputy Speaker in 2000. She was EC representative to NI during the ceasefires and, as a member of the Delors Task Force, set up the first EU PEACE Programme.

Previously a BBC Belfast reporter, she also served as Deputy Chief NI Equality Commissioner. She represented NI on the Brussels-based Civic Forum (EESC) and as Vice President in 2013. In 2021, she was awarded an Honorary Doctorate by Hillary Clinton, Vice Chancellor of Queens University Belfast.

She currently serves as Director of the Integrated Education Fund, Member of the Brussels branch of Women in International Security (WIIS), Co-Chair of the Museum of the Troubles and Honorary President of the European Movement NI. Jane is now campaigning to have Northern Ireland granted Honorary EU Association as a European Place of Global peace-building.

John Moffett: It’s been said that most mainland Britons learnt more about the GFA in the last episode of Derry Girls! As someone closely involved with the creation of the GFA, could you briefly explain the incredible transformation because of the agreement on NI society, culture and business, and how Brexit tore so much of that apart?

The Good Friday Agreement was designed to bring an end to political violence in Northern Ireland. In the years following the GFA implementation in 1998, NI has experienced relative peace but reconciliation between the two main communities is still a long way off. By marking the beginning of the end of 30 years of violent conflict, the GFA was a truly ‘titanic’ achievement, but few could have predicted the iceberg that was Brexit looming on the horizon. In true British tradition, unionists were reluctant Europeans, while nationalists mainly supported the EU. The positive effect of UK and Irish EU membership helped blur the dividing lines between the two communities. The ‘four’ freedoms meant people and trade flowed freely, political leaders met frequently in Brussels and the EU PEACE Programme supported cross-community and cross border initiatives and helped pave the way for the GFA. By permitting NI citizens to be British, Irish or both, the GFA provided an ingenious solution to the identity question that has bedevilled NI since its inception. Brexit has driven a wedge between the two communities, which ‘Derry Girls’, using humour, has helped expose to a much wider audience.

 

David Eldridge: Once the EU referendum result emerged, there were many prophesies about an independent Scotland and United Ireland. Do you foresee a border poll in NI and, if so, what might be the result?

It is my conviction that Scotland holds the key to the future constitutional position of both the UK and Ireland. Those supporting Irish unification would be wise to await the result of a second Scottish independence referendum, proposed for 2023, before embarking on a detailed plan for a border poll. If Scotland votes for independence, heralding the break-up of the UK, the unionist position in Northern Ireland will become more tenuous. Scotland’s links with Northern Ireland are not only based on geography and history but also the strength of the cultural connection. Given the Ulster-Scot’s heritage, NI people, particularly unionists, feel closer links with Scotland than England or Wales. Scottish independence may pave the way for a rethink of the Irish question and could eventually bring both UK nations which voted Remain back into the EU fold.

 

Sue Scarrott: The NI Protocol was designed to avoid a hard border in Ireland and is clearly helping NI business to weather the Brexit economic storm better than the rest of the UK, bar London, yet the Tories are politicising it to pick a fight with the EU. How do you see that playing out over the coming months/years?

The NI Protocol is generally supported by nationalists but rejected by those unionists who claim it separates NI from GB by placing a border in the Irish Sea and serves to dilute their British identity. My proposal is to extend the Protocol to Scotland. This could offer several solutions. First it would take the political toxicity out of the NI debate by moving the border from the Irish Sea to the Scottish/English border. In Scotland, for those supporting independence, it could be seen as a ‘waiting room’ for EU membership. For those not in support of independence, it could offer the best of both worlds in the UK and in the EU Single Market. For London, it could be a compromise to keep Scotland as part of the UK. ‘Brussels’, however, may not support such a proposal. Given the ‘special’ circumstances regarding the peace process, the Protocol was intended to avoid a hard border in Ireland and accommodate the many thousands of European citizens in NI whose rights are EU protected. Extending it to Scotland may help resolve the unionist question but could set a precedent for regions in Spain, France or elsewhere demanding similar arrangements.

Val Chaplin: The easiest and best solution to the NI Protocol would be for the whole of the UK to rejoin the SM and CU. Do you ever envisage that happening and given the importance of unity and cooperation in Europe in light of the war in Ukraine, do you ever foresee the UK rejoining the EU?

There is little doubt that the economic benefits of the NI Protocol have exposed the harmful effects of Brexit on the rest of the UK. The powerful images of lorries lined up at Channel ports in Southern England are just the start of stormy waters ahead. Proposing to rejoin the SM and CU may help business overcome these immediate problems but the EU is much more than a marketplace. It is a meeting of minds, young and old, through programmes such as ERASMUS and Horizon in which information is shared, experiences exchanged and respect for others is encouraged. The only solution is for the UK to rejoin the EU. As I have often said: Brexit is not a divorce, it is a trial separation, allowing both sides to settle their differences and eventually get back together for the sake of the children.

 

Lisa Burton: Less than 10% of students in Northern Ireland attend an integrated school as opposed to a Catholic or Protestant school. Considering the first integrated school was established 40 years ago now, in your view, what is holding integration back?

As a Director of the Integrated Education Fund and author of the line in the Good Friday Agreement proposing a ‘culture of tolerance’ by ‘encouraging and facilitating integrated education’, I am convinced that Protestant and Catholic children studying together will help break down barriers between the two communities. Since the first integrated school was set up forty years ago, the movement has been campaigning to little avail. This is basically because of the strength of the lobby from both the Catholic Church and the State Grammar Schools, mainly Protestant, seeking to protect their ethos. Even attempts by the cross-community Alliance Party to have one single mixed teacher training college did not succeed. Things are changing, however, with the recent Assembly motion to provide greater support for integrated schools. This is likely to lead to an increase in schools transforming to integrated status and a greater understanding and respect among children, parents and teachers for the history, culture, identity and political aspiration of people from British, Irish and other communities in Northern Ireland.

 

Michael Soffe : Do you believe you will see a “united” Ireland as a member of the EU in your lifetime?

It has been said that peace can take as long to achieve as conflict takes to end. If that is the case, our 30-year conflict can only be matched by 30 years of peace. That would bring us to the 30th anniversary of the GFA in April 2028. This, I believe, would be an appropriate moment to begin the serious process of rethinking the constitutional position of Northern Ireland. Consultation should begin well in advance and include citizens, North and South of the border. The best forum for such consultation is that which was proposed by my party, the NI Women’s Coalition, in the GFA for the creation of a Civic Forum to support the legislative process of the NI Assembly. Similar to the Brussels-based European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of which I was a NI Member for 15 years, this Forum would gather experts from business, trade unions and others to give advice to the legislators. Ireland has had very successful consultations leading to historic changes to important legislation, but it is my firm belief that the only way to get unionist participation in these consultations is that they take place within the NI Civic Forum.

To conclude, in spite of the horror I witnessed growing up during the troubles, I have always had a genuine love for Northern Ireland. I see it as a very special place which has a great deal to teach the world about the need for tolerance, respect and how peace can be achieved against the odds.

As a European unionist, I would therefore like to see Scotland, Ireland and Northern Ireland becoming the Northern BENELUX of the EU. In response to the question (will I see a United Ireland in my lifetime?) – I am no spring chicken, so I believe not.

In our August newsletter, Bremainers Ask will be featuring Otto English, a.k.a. journalist and author Andrew Scott. He is a regular writer for Byline Times and Politico, and is the author of “Fake History: Ten Great Lies and How They Shaped the World”. If you would like to submit a question for Otto for consideration, please email enquiries@bremaininspain.com no later than Tuesday 9 August.