Daily Archives: May 2, 2023

The UK exported 340 billion of goods and services to the EU last year (Image: Getty)

A new analysis of UK trade has exploded the myth that a post-pandemic downturn in exports can be blamed on Brexit.

Pro-remain commentators have used lower export figures to argue the UK would be better off in the EU.

But experts at the Centre for Brexit Policy say this ignores global problems such as a shortage of computer chips following the pandemic.

In a paper to be published this week they also warn the UK is failing to make the most of its natural resources, following a fall in North Sea oil and gas production.

Report author Phil Radford said the nature of the UK economy meant it was harder hit than others by disruption caused by Covid.

He said: In 2019, the motor vehicle and aerospace sectors were easily our biggest goods-export industries.

They delivered a combined 20 percent of all UK goods exports in 2019.

Yet this sectoral study shows that in the UK, these two sectors were easily the hardest hit by recent global events, including the pandemic, microchip shortages and the temporary collapse of civilian aviation. In G7 terms, this made UK trade uniquely vulnerable to global events.

He added: UK exports missed out on recent surges in global demand. Declining long-term investment in the North Sea meant our trade did not benefit from the energy crisis, as happened in the US and Canada.

Meanwhile, offshoring in our pharmaceutical industry meant we failed to gain from the spike in demand for vaccines, like Germany and the US.

READ MORE: Kirstie Allsopp blames Putin, Liz Truss and Brexit for mortgage crisis

But Brexit has had a trivial effect on UK-EU trade, the report will say.

It contradicts claims from bodies such as the Tony Blair Foundation, which claimed in February that Britains trade has been hit significantly by its departure from the single market.

The UK exported 340 billion of goods and services to the EU last year.

Energy industry body Offshore Energies UK last month warned that 90 percent of firms involved in North Sea oil and gas were cutting investment as a result of the energy windfall tax known as the Energy Profits Levy imposed by the Treasury, which is expected to raise 40 billion over five years.

Political uncertainty and increased costs have also reduced investment, the industry says.

Go here to read the rest:

What Brexit downturn? Experts say report shows EU exit not to blame for export issue - Express

Many were recently transfixed by Boris Johnsons appearance at the Commons Committee of Privileges following allegations of his misleading parliament over Partygate. The committee is yet to deliver its report, but this could ultimately result in the former prime minister being removed as an MP.

This episode refocused the nation on Johnsons often contested relationship with the truth. It had particular resonance because Partygate brings back painful memories for many of us, of a time when we couldnt gather with friends and family for occasions such as weddings and funerals, let alone with colleagues at work. Pandemic restrictions directly touched all our lives.

In contrast, the complex and lengthy debates over Brexit affected few of us personally. The intricacies of the negotiations, and seemingly endless arguments in parliament about implementing the 2016 referendum result, indeed caused many simply to switch off. But, as explored in my recent book with Lisa James, The Parliamentary Battle over Brexit, examination of this period often finds Johnson at the centreand displaying even more troubling behaviours. We didnt set out to write a book about Boris Johnson, but he is unavoidably present at every stage of the Brexit story. His duplicity throughout caused more lasting and tangible damage than that over the parties in Number 10.

Some early flashpoints over Brexit have already received significant attention. Johnson famously drafted two Telegraph columns taking opposing positions before deciding which side to support in the referendum, and his backing of Vote Leave surprised and disappointed David Cameron. Arguments over the truthfulness of claims on the Brexit battlebus are also well-rehearsed. But neither of these familiar and disputed episodes is essential to the case.

After the referendum, Johnson was widely expected to replace Cameron as Conservative leader. However, his campaign imploded when Michael Gove denounced him as unfit for office. Instead, Theresa May became prime minister, and Johnson a constant thorn in her side.

Initially appointed Mays foreign secretary after the referendum, Johnson made frequent unhelpful interventions, often around the time of party conferences. For example in September 2017, a Telegraph column set out his bold vision for Brexit, which went well beyond his policy brief and was seen as a veiled leadership bid. The following summer he resigned from the Cabinet, following on the heels of Mays Brexit secretary David Davis, over her Chequers proposals. His biographer Tom Bower suggests that a key considerationrather than necessarily the principle of Brexitwas Johnsons fear that Davis would gain the support of Brexiteers in any future leadership contest.

May eventually agreed a Brexit deal with the EU after many months of negotiation, particularly focused on avoiding border problems for Northern Ireland. When this was put to the House of Commons, Johnson was the first Conservative backbencher on his feet and denounced it as a national humiliation that makes a mockery of Brexit. His voice was influential, and was followed by many other Conservative critics. The deal was defeated by a whopping 432 votes to 202, with Johnson among the 118 Conservative rebels voting against it. This pattern repeated two months later, in March 2019, when he was one of 75 Conservative MPs to reject the deal.

When May responded by publicly denouncing parliaments intransigence, Johnson again took to the pages of the Telegraph to criticise her in the strongest terms. In an article titled Theresa May is a Chicken Whos Bottled Brexit, he argued that it was wrong in every sense to blame MPs for blocking Brexit.

These interventions, and the repeat rejections of her deal, helped erode and ultimately destroy Mays premiership. In the contest to replace her, it was Dominic Raab who publicly floated the idea of proroguing parliament potentially to force through a no-deal Brexit. He had promised this to the hardline Eurosceptic ERG in hopes of winning their votes, but they ultimately chose to back Boris Johnson. Johnson had almost certainly given the same assurances, but publicly claimed not to be attracted to the idea. Having won the premiership, he then proposed a five-week prorogation, later overturned in the Supreme Court. While claiming at the time that this was nothing to do with Brexit, his aides later admitted the obvious: that it was.

But the most fundamental falsehood related to Johnsons eventual Brexit deal, negotiated in haste when it became clear that parliament would not permit a no-deal outcome. Having publicly assured the Northern Ireland DUP that no British Conservative government could or should sign a deal with the EU which put a trade border down the Irish Sea, Johnson went on to do exactly that. In effect, he agreed a deal that Theresa May had rejected, precisely to avoid such border problems. ERG hardliners were dismayed by the Northern Ireland provisions, but by then feared that Brexit might otherwise be lost. Crucially Mark Francois, now ERG chair, recounts Johnsons private promises to the group that if they voted for the deal he would subsequently reopen it.

Notwithstanding these clear disagreements, Johnson sold his package during the 2019 general election campaign as oven ready. He roundly rejected claims that it would create a trade border in the Irish Sea. These were the foundations upon which Johnsons electoral mandate was built. In a direct reversal of his previous position, his campaign was fought on a manifesto suggesting that the country had been paralysed by a broken parliament and which criticised MPs for thwarting Brexit. Johnson therefore claimednotwithstanding his own rebellions on Mays dealto be the man to get Brexit done.

British politics has continued to have to live with the consequences of these various falsehoods. Most obviously, the DUP has refused to enter power-sharing arrangements at Stormont until the Brexit deal is changed, and Northern Ireland continues to be without a government. This is despite Rishi Sunaks careful negotiation of the Windsor framework (which Johnson notably voted against). More broadly, the UKs key institutionsincluding parliament and the courtshave yet to recover from the attacks that they suffered during the Brexit period.

The story of Johnson and Brexit has rarely been fully told. It is clearly awkward for Conservatives, who understandably prefer to move on. Brexit in general is also too awkward for Labour to have felt able to expose Johnsons behaviour. But while his dishonesty over Partygate is seriousreally seriousthe legacy of his dishonesty over Brexit goes far deeper.

Read the rest here:

Boris Johnson's greatest dishonesty is still over Brexit - Prospect Magazine

Arron Banks has successfully appealed part of the judgment in his libel claim against Carole Cadwalladr before the Court of Appeal. The case hinged on the public interest defence, which was established for the first phase of publication (a TED talk). The appeal focused on whether the claimant had to show serious harm had been caused by later phases of publication (further publication of the Ted talk and a Tweet) to succeed in his claim once the public interest defence had ceased to apply.

Background

The claimant is a businessman who was the leader of the campaign for the UK to leave the EU. The defendant is a freelance journalist. The claimant sued the defendant for libel in a talk (the TED Talk) and a tweet (the Tweet), each of which suggested that the claimant had secretly broken the law on electoral funding by taking money from a foreign power and subsequently lying about it. The TED Talk and the Tweet were both published online to a substantial audience in this jurisdiction.

By the time of the trial, official investigations had found no evidence that there had been any such breach of the law, and so a defence of truth was abandoned by the defendant. Instead, she relied on the statutory defence of publication on matters of public interest. The case hinged on (a) whether the claimant had proved that publication had caused serious harm to his reputation or was likely to do so, and if so, (b) whether the publication was protected by the public interest defence.

In the High Court, the trial judge held that the defendant was only able to rely on the defence of public interest until publication of a statement by the Electoral Commission exonerating the claimant. Despite this, the trial judge concluded that the claimant did not meet the threshold for serious harm in the second phase of publication of the Ted Talk or the Tweet and the claim was therefore dismissed.

The Judgment

The three issues put to the Court of Appeal (the Court) were:

On the first issue, the Court agreed with the trial judges decision that the finding of serious harm at the time of the publication needed to be reassessed at the point which the public interest defence fell away (i.e., phase two of the publication). A statement is only to be regarded as defamatory if, and to the extent that, its publication causes serious harm to reputation or is likely to do so. It is a reminder in cases that involve continuing publication that each phase must individually cause serious harm to the claimants reputation.

On the second issue, the Court disagreed with the trial judges finding that the publication did not cause serious harm because it was made in the defendants echo chamber. It was significant that the TED Talk had been extensively published in England and Wales in Phase Two and the trial judges finding that the harm caused was less because the opinions of these viewers were of no consequence to the claimant was wrong in principle.

On the third issue, the Court held that despite the trial judge erring on the second issue, this did not fatally undermine her conclusion insofar as the Tweet was concerned. However, in light of the finding on the second issue, it was incorrect to conclude that harm caused by the later publication of the TED Talk was not serious.

The Court held that damages should be assessed and awarded in respect of phase two of the publication of the TED Talk but not in respect of the publication of the Tweet.

Conclusion

The appeal reinforces to journalists the need to continually assess whether a statement remains in the public interest. If new evidence comes to light which causes the defence to fall away, the availability of other defences should be considered -if there are none, this case highlights the risk of a defamation complaint being upheld if serious harm is being caused.

A link to the judgment can be foundhere.

Read the original:

Leader of Brexit campaign successfully appeals part of his libel case - Lexology

Unfortunately, none seem ready to accept that theyve been metaphorically breeding, feeding and raising those dogs just yet, but it reminds me of the now legendary 2015 tweet that goes I never thought leopards would eat MY face, sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating Peoples Faces Party.

They voted to end freedom of movement without the vaguest inkling that it would be THEIR freedom of movement that ended.

OTHER NEWS:

They cry woke! at anyone challenging their view, blissfully unaware that theyre led sleepily by the nose via self-proclaimed patriotic newspapers owned offshore for tax purposes.

They blame the Metropolitan Elite for subverting democracy whilst voting for a party of privately educated millionaires that seem incapable of keeping their fingers out of dodgy pies.

And now they want to leave the European Court of Human Rights so they can persecute refugees, clearly oblivious to the fact that they themselves are, indeed, humans with rights.

But gone to the dogs is a start I suppose.

The falsehoods are stretched so thin now that reality is clearly visible through it. Maybe, just maybe, theres an awakening afoot and the days of the Leopards Eating Peoples Faces Party are coming to a close?

We can only hope, because until this ends, it only gets worse.Alan, Llandod

Want to stay up to date with all the latest stories from Powys?Click here to sign up for our morning and dailyemail newsletters and click on the + for the MorningBriefing and the 'Daily Catch-Up'.

Read more from the original source:

Letter: Brexit benefits myth is being stretched thin - Powys County Times

The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has urged the UKs Government to ease the post-Brexit visa rules that, according to him, are preventing European Union citizens from visiting the capital for different purposes, such as education, work, as well as tourism.

According to a report provided by the UKs Government, before the Brexit transition period, over 1.5 million children entered Britain each year to pursue their studies or through organised school trips, SchengenVisaInfo.com reports.

The report notes that at the time, Britain welcomed a total of 750,000 children from France and Germany alone, who could enter the country by only holding their European Economic Area identity cards.

But since October 2021, all children planning to visit Britain are required to have a passport, while those with non-EU passports, also taking into account refugees, are subject to a 95 visa.

>> Applying for a Schengen Visa in the UK

Londons Mayor, together with London & Partners, will launch a new tourism campaign this summer in order to attract visitors from France and Germany.

Khan has considered that encouraging more young Europeans to visit London is essential for the tourism sector as well as the rich cultural exchange of ideas and experiences.

In addition, the Mayor called on the Government to launch a Youth Group Travel Scheme, the main purpose of which would be to make Britain open to a more significant number of school children from countries worldwide.

As part of efforts to permit further cultural exchange, the Mayor of London has also said that the Youth Mobility Scheme should be extended in a reciprocal agreement with European Union countries, which would also support several supports, including the hospitality and catering sectors which are dealing with notable labour shortages.

Our post-Brexit future does not have to mean isolation from our European friends and partners and restrictive policies that only damage our economy and opportunities for growth, Khan pointed out.

London Mayors comments have been welcomed by the Executive Director of the Tourism Alliance, Richard Toomer.

The tourism industry warmly welcomes the mayors commitment to encouraging youth travel to and from our nations capital, Toomer said.

He said that the UK has much to offer to visitors from other countries, stressing that the country should be encouraging tourists to visit this territory instead of putting up unnecessary barriers.

Toomer said that the decision to accept ID cards at the border no longer has significantly affected the number of foreign visitors to the UK, especially on organised school trips. He stressed that last year alone, there was an 83 per cent reduction in the figures of students that operators in Europe sent to the UK.

>> UKs New Passport Rules Severely Reduce EU School Visits

Originally posted here:

London Mayor Calls on Gov't to Ease Post-Brexit Visa Rules for EU ... - SchengenVisaInfo.com

Speaking ina Parliamentary debateon Monday, April 24,Sarah backedcalls for an independent inquiry into the impact of Brexit.

She said:The impact of our exit from the European Union has been wide-ranging, and the many members of the public it has affected both personally and financially deserve honesty and accountability from the Government.

We cannot begin to fix things until we have an honest appraisal of Brexits impact, which is why we need an independent inquiry.

The MP then went onto explain what impact Brexit has had on local businesses.

Business owners are facing additionalcosts directly because of Brexit," she said.

For small businesses who cannot afford to outsource or employ someone to deal with the additionalred tape, the strain can be immense.

More than one small business owner locally told me that they were on the brink.

The most recent Buckinghamshire Business Barometer report showed that 42 per centof Bucks businesses are paying higher costs due to increased red tape, with nearly athird facing extra tariffs or taxes and a quarter paying more due to supply chain changes.

Mondays debate was triggered by an e-petition calling for a public inquiry into the impact of the UKs departure from the European Union, which was signed by more than 300 Chesham and Amersham residents.

See the rest here:

Chesham and Amersham MP says Brexit has harmed local ... - Bucks Free Press

My former colleague Faisal Islam has got quite a scoop; an interview with the boss of Unipart, who says that he may have to move some investment to the USA or the EU due to the subsidies that they are willing to offer his company.

Unipart is a giant component supplier and logistical company, which is a crucial part of British manufacturing industry and especially the car industry but its boss John Neil now says UK companies are not competing on a level playing field.

The industrys big problem is that the Biden administration is throwing hundreds of billions of dollars to help change its industrial base and turn towards producing semiconductors, green energy, and electric vehicles. All the signs are that the EU is going to follow suit.

Meanwhile, the British government has yet to publish a strategy apparently, it needs to wait and see what Brussels does first before deciding what to do.

Lets face it, the UK is a bit-part player in many of these industries and now it is a bit-part player caught between two giants. The car industry in the UK seems to be in terminal decline. While the EU right on our doorstep is rapidly expanding its vehicle battery capacity, the UK let BritishVolt go to the wall with hardly a whimper.

While the USA is introducing what Mr Neil calls a completely game-changing set of incentives and fiscal support the UK is having a good hard think about whether to publish a plan, let alone whether to put any money on the table.

The government is, of course, fighting with one hand tied behind its back, as many of its own members seem to think that any industrial strategy is just picking winners and that the market should be allowed to decide, on its own, what products and sectors to invest in.

This is part of the Lord Frost and Jacob Rees-Mogg agenda which I wrote about only earlier this week.

The consequence of that blind adherence to free market economics is that firms like Unipart which insists that it is committed to Britain and many others will go to where the grass is greener.

You cannot expect whole industries to change direction almost overnight without helping them, you cannot expect them to stay in your country when much larger and more prosperous economies are offering to lay out the red carpet for them and you cannot hope to secure the industries of the future with a shrug of the shoulders and the occasional White Paper.

But for Brexit, the UK would be part of the EUs response to the USAs huge change of course, it would be able to coordinate research and development, attract a fair share of money for its car industry, have seamless access to a huge domestic market and even lead the European fightback.

But it cant. It does not even have a plan except to threaten to tear up the EU regulatory framework that it spent 40 years developing, which industry wants to keep and which it now wants to destroy out of sheer spite.

As John Neil told the BBC: For us to invest we need to understand what Britains strategy is and what our regulatory framework is going to be. And were not clear about any of that.

He added that Neill said while it goes against the grain we want to invest in Britain, subsidies in the US and Europe have led Unipart to consider its future investment strategies abroad.

The UK does not have the money or even the political will to respond and seems intent on making things worse for industry not better.

It is out in the cold and it is getting colder.

See the original post:

Unipart takes apart post-Brexit Britain's lack of investment strategy - The New European

A long-standing commercial truth is that its optimal to trade with those closest to you. Its common sense really the costs of moving goods are lower, synergies are better, the economies of scale kick in and so on. Africa, for example, is banking a great deal on the benefits that the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) agreement will bring to growth and prosperity.

Yet by lurching into Brexit, the UKs Conservative government has defied all that by turning the country away from the biggest, richest single market in the world; one with whom we have had fully half our trade for decades.

And its turned out to be what many of us predicted at the time of the 2016 referendum: a monumental act of national self-harm.

In the run-up to the 2016 Brexit vote, the phrase Global Britain was frequently heard, to tunes of imperial nostalgia, jingoistic nationalism and ideas of sovereignty, spurious as they are in todays intricately connected world. We also heard what turned out to be downright lies about Britains ability to thrive alone.

Covid-19, rocketing transport costs and security of supply issues such as in May 2021, when a single giant ship containing vital manufacturing parts became grounded in the Suez canal for six days have undermined the age of hyper-globalisation where supply-parts were outsourced to the cheapest places, however far away.

Countries are increasingly seeking to re-source global supply chains to friendly neighbours. The UK faces multiple crises, which can only be overcome in cooperation with our immediate European neighbours: these include catastrophic climate change, the Ukraine war, economic decline, energy affordability and security.

As a leading member of the European Union, the UK was a critical player in a powerful and wealthy bloc alongside the US and China and now finds itself isolated outside of these global blocs. With its economy flatlining, the UK is having to come to terms with its lack of global influenceas a relatively small country with limited economic and political power.

UK government agencies report a post-Brexit reduction in long-run productivity of 4%, with trade estimated to be 15% lower, relative to remaining in the EU, and a loss of business investment since the 2016Brexit referendum worth 29bn, or 1,000 per household.

Car production has more than halved and Brexit is generally considered the main reason why the UK is the only economy in the richest G7 countries still below its pre-pandemic size.

Amongst the fantasies of Brexiteers was an idea, known as Empire 2.0, that trade with the Commonwealths far flung 53 nations could replace that with the EUs neighbouring 27.

So what lessons might there be for African countries from the UKs rollercoaster Brexit?

The Covid pandemic and Russias war in Ukraine have underlined the risks for Europe of dependence upon Chinese supply chains and Russian oil and gas.

The resilience of the EU is proving to be an asset as it cooperates with NATO in supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression and tackles the mammoth task of ending dependence upon Russian energy.

Similar risks exist for Africa, where both Russia and China are fast extending their influence. According to the Peace Research Institute Oslo, a new Cold War dynamic has heightened the competition for control of Africas vast natural resources and strategic trade routes.

Russia offers a false anti-Western colonialism discourse, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visiting South Africa in January, hoping to lay the groundwork for the second RussiaAfrica summit, which has been rescheduled for late July 2023 in St. Petersburg.

There is speculation that this is designed not only to compete with the US-Africa Leaders Summit held in Washington in December 2022, but also to demonstrate to China the value of Russias connections on the continent.

Meanwhile there are concerns about the impact of Chinas Belt and Road Initiative on local industries, and also the erosion of sub-Saharan African countries sovereignty.

The strength of the EU could prove to be an example to Africa, as the continent tries to improve regional integration through the AfCFTA. If Africa wishes to take control of its own destiny, then strengthening AfCFTA will enable it to achieve economies of scale and to wield more collective bargaining power in the global marketplace.

Coming into force in 2019, AfCFTA includes all African countries except Eritrea. Members have pledged to eliminate import tariffs on 97% of goods traded between African states by 2064. However, because of the pandemic, and an associated recession, it has made a slow start. In 2021, intra-African trade accounted for just 17% of African exports, which was low compared to 59% for Asia and 68% for Europe, according to theWorld Economic Forum (WEF).

AfCFTA, however, wants to do more than just boost trade in goods, and also cover services, investment, intellectual property rights and competition policy.

There are also currently eight regional economic blocs recognised by the African Union which are expanding their own regional integration: the Arab Maghreb Union (UMA); Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA); Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD); East African Community (EAC); Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS); Economic Community of Western African States (ECOWAS); Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD); and Southern African Development Community (SADC).

It has been estimated that because of deeper market integration, AfCFTA, if fully implemented, could raise incomes by 9% by 2035 and lift 50m people out of extreme poverty.

The decisions which Africa will make about its economic development will be critical to its own future and that of the world as a whole. Some 600m Africans still live without electricity and, without a focus on its massive potential for developing clean energy resources, the continents carbon emissions are bound to rise dramatically with growth and progress.

Therefore richer countries need to provide concessional finance to boost Africas renewable energy in the spirit of COP27, hosted in Egypt in 2022.

If properly enforced, a robust carbon tax would also help, and might support preserving the rainforests, which are clearly threatened. Africa has the worlds greatest solar energy potential and the continent also has huge potential for green hydrogen production through electrolysis.

Africa deserves to take control of its own future and learn from the success of the EU, by deepening economic integration amongst neighbours across the continent, through AfCFTA and its regional trading blocs.

Its extreme vulnerability to climate change witness disastrously destructive flooding and droughts is an incentive to act on continent-wide net zero strategies. To protect Africas citizens from the global warming weather extremes, economic integration strategies should also be based upon robust clean energy technologies.

Meanwhile there is a stark message for Africa from Britains deepening Brexit plight. Dont turn your backs on your neighbours for fools gold fantasies of trade deals with far-flung nations.

Beware false friends who seek to emulate the era lauded by Britains deluded Global Britain Brexiteers, harking back to the long-lost times of imperial power and its ill-gotten gains. Equally, dont be seduced into replacing European colonialism and US imperialism with their modern Chinese or Russian variants.

Instead cooperate to ensure that the huge AfCFTA becomes a strong player in global markets.

Continue reading here:

What Africa should learn from Brexit - African Business

Its fair to suggest that most of us will have worked in offices or places of employment where we have encountered bullies.

Youll know the type. Big mouthed. Think they know it all. Chums one moment, ogres the next. Their management style will likely consist of favouring the few and browbeating the rest. And their narcissistic behaviour makes even going to work cause the nausea to build as nerves play havoc with your stomach.

More often than not, the easiest way to deal with them is to look for another job. But if you cant move, you pray that they will and soon. Or get their comeuppance.

The sharp and the barbed

But this column isnt about workplace woes. No, its about the bully that is Dominic Raab, up to last week before his resignation, the Deputy Prime Minister in the government of Rishi Sunak.

Raab is a sharp character. In his work, Raab was sharp. Barbed too. Pointed. And downright rude and arrogant.

He is a Member of Parliament who has a penchant for judo, black belt and all, and rose quickly through the ministerial ranks during these 13 years of Conservative rule, holding some of the highest offices of state in the UK.

-

Just because you hold some of the highest offices of state doesnt necessarily mean youre good at what you do at least not in British politics anyway. And from what I know of other political systems in Western Europe and beyond, the cream doesnt necessarily rise to the top.

Raab, you might recall, was the Foreign Secretary, the man responsible for running British foreign policy and its diplomatic teams around the world. But now it transpires, Raab was about as diplomatic as a flying hammer when it comes to how he dealt with his staff.

Remember those chaotic scenes at Kabul Airport two summers ago, as tens of thousands of Afghans tried to flee as the Taliban returned to power? Well, you cant blame Raab, can you.

Sunak under fire over Raab

No. He was on holiday at the time. He deemed the crisis not worthy of cutting his fortnight in the sun short so as to actually coordinate the evacuation of an estimated 15,000 Afghans who had ties to the Brits there and faced likely retaliation from the Taliban for simply trying to feed their families and build a better future for the troubled nations.

But the staff at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office a huge Georgian office complex just off Whitehall in central London told an inquiry into his behaviour that their boss was little better than one of those despots that they so often come in contact with during the course of their overseas work.

In Justice too, where Raab was responsible for all things legal in the UK, it turns out his behaviour failed to meet the standards one would expect from the Crowns highest law officer.

In all, staff in four departments complained of bullying, demanding behaviour that led some to quit. And who, in their right mind, would quit a civil service job? which in itself goes to show that their minds werent right as a result of the workplace tantrums thrown by Raab.

In all, Raabs behaviour was questioned in four government departments. There was a consistency of behaviour that led to many complaints about the minister.

Its worth noting that four departments seems like a lot, but that speaks to the chaos that has been at the heart of the British government since Theresa May was in Downing Street and was seeking a Brexit deal with her European counterparts. But then again, think of if too, and there have been four prime ministers too over that time.

-

The report into Raabs behaviour was handed to Sunak the day before it became public. While it was detailed, it showed that the second-in-charge in the UK created a toxic environment in the workplaces he was responsible for, and undermined and cajoled the public servants who worked for the government.

Criticism has now been levelled at Sunak that he was indecisive in getting rid of Raab.

But Raab went down swinging, claiming in his scathing resignation letter that the bar had been set too low, and there was a difference between bullying and simply wanting to get things done.

The professional body that represents civil servants pointedly noted that the tone of Raabs resignation letter underscored the points found during the six-month investigation. He was obdurate.

Sunaks little deal with EU

This Raab scandal is one of many distractions that Sunak has had to weather during his short tenure so far in Downing Street. Try as he might to be effective and quietly work away on the business of government, the noise of politics just gets in his way, it seems.

While the Raab furore was playing out, Sunak had been working on a little deal with the European Union to allow UK passport holders to use automatic e-gates at airports and points of entry. Because of Brexit, the Brits are treated as other passport holders, and often face long lines for their documents to be checked and scanned by border officials. Since coming to office, Sunak has proven himself to be far more pragmatic in dealing with the EU than Boris Johnson or Liz Truss if indeed Truss was there long enough to have any dealings with anyone at all.

But Sunak is effective at getting things done. The problem, as the Raab matter shows, is that the others in the cabinet room are nowhere near as effective. And that in itself speaks to the decimation of talent caused by the purge of senior Conservative figures who were against the madness that is Brexit.

See the original post:

Britain, Brexit and the Dominic Raab scandal - Gulf News

LET me ask you the same question I asked voters in the Red Wall this week. Do you think immigration is under control?

If I was a betting man, which I am, then Id bet that, like them, you answered no. And youd be right to think so.

Contrary to what the British people were promised, immigration is now totally out of control.

Illegal immigration on the small boats is making a mockery of Britains borders and its claim to be a self-governing, sovereign nation.

Nearly 100,000 people have crossed since 2018 and 65,000 are forecast to join them this year.

And now you, the taxpayer, are paying 7million a day to house the growing numbers of migrants in hotels.

On top of that, the amount of legal immigration into Britain just hit a record high.

Net migration has soared to an eye-watering 504,000 meaning half a million more people are coming into Britain than leaving each year.

Think weve got a housing crisis and an NHS crisis now?

Just wait until 2041 when, unless things change, our population is forecast to surge by another five million people, the equivalent to five cities the size of Birmingham.

And contrary to talk about high skill immigration, many of the people coming in are not high skill at all.

The salary thresholds people need to meet to get a work visa are as low as 23,000, well below the average wage of 33,000, while a large and growing number of migrants are simply relatives of international students.

Instead of Taking Back Control, weve Completely Lost Control.So why is this happening?

Wasnt the whole point of Brexit to not just leave the EU but lower immigration, so we can invest in British workers?

One part of the story is that the British people have been led up the garden path by a succession of leaders who routinely over-promised and under-delivered.

While Tony Blair transformed Britain into a country of mass immigration, every Conservative Prime Minister since 2010, from David Cameron to Boris Johnson, has promised to lower immigration only to then see it rise.

And most MPs went along with this because, whether they are Conservative or Labour, they all lean much further to the cultural left than most voters.

Our political class, in other words, simply does not represent the rest of the country on this issue; it is in thrall to the liberal graduate class in the cities who benefit far more than others from mass migration.

Despite Brexit, both parties have remained firmly committed to mass immigration to a hyper-globalised economy which, like a drug addict, has become hooked on importing cheap migrant workers to satisfy an alliance of big business and London liberals.

But the failure to shatter this consensus also reflects something that has taken place outside of the political elite the rise of who I call radical left progressives.

Representing 15 per cent of Britain, they are highly educated, financially secure if not wealthy, come from families in the managerial and professional class and live in the big cities or university towns.

They are the academics, think tankers, creative, media, marketing and BBC-types, lefty lawyers, judges, NGOs and other professionals who either make a lot of money or work in low-income but high-status jobs which allow them to wield considerable influence.

One study describes them as highly opinionated, frustrated, cosmopolitan and politically left-wing.

Two-thirds vote for Labour and three-quarters voted to Remain in the EU.

They absolutely hate Brexit and they absolutely loathed Boris.

They get their news from The Guardian, Channel 4, podcasts, BBC Radio 4 and Twitter.

They are six times more likely than the average voter to spend their days on Twitter, where they preach their political views and berate those who disagree.

They are the #FBPE (Follow Back Pro European) types who shriek about Brexit, compare Britain to Nazi Germany, impose their views on others and try to cancel anybody who dares to disagree with them.

The problem with progressives is that when it comes to their views they are utterly adrift from the rest of us.

They are fanatical in their support of immigration and diversity, which, like a religious belief, are considered sacred, never to be questioned or criticised.

While only 40 per cent of people think immigration changed Britain for the better, nearly 90 per cent of progressives do.

While most voters want less of it, they want to keep the status-quo or even increase it.

Or take the Governments policy of relocating asylum seekers and illegal migrants to Rwanda, in East Africa.

While only 27 per cent of people oppose it, nearly 80 per cent of radical progressives do.

Were you to listen to their podcasts and debates, you might be left with the impression that only a fringe minority want to clamp down on immigration.

But in fact it is they who are the fringe minority, adrift from everybody else.

Nor is this the only issue which makes them distinct.

They are also the most likely to want to prioritise minorities over the majority, to think Britain is very racist and to think rights for women, minorities and trans people have not gone far enough.

Theyre the least likely of all to feel attached to the British majority and the nation and the most likely to feel ashamed of our shared national identity.

While most of us feel proud of Britain, only one in four progressives do they simply dont see Britishness as an important part of who they are.

And they are utterly consumed with historic injustices with what they see as the urgent need to tear down statues, rewrite history, revise books and repudiate our cultural inheritance.

While only 41 per cent of all voters think Britain cannot move on unless it deals with its past mistakes, 84 per cent of progressives think this way.

And while most people are mature enough to grasp that British history contains a mixture of the good and the bad, progressives only want to talk about the bad.

Theirs is a world where they simply want to erode and tear down the established barriers in society.

You can see this too on sex and gender.

They are the most likely to believe there are dozens of genders and that women can become men and men can become women.

While less than half the country believe a transgender woman is a woman, 71 per cent of progressives hold this view.

And they are the most likely to want to expose our children to these highly contested ideas, which often have no serious basis in science.

While not even one in three voters think it is appropriate for children to be taught about trans issues in primary school, 61 per cent of progressives do.

And theyre the only group who think political correctness has not gone too far and support further restrictions on our speech and expression.

If you want to explain why voters have not been given what they asked for, in other words, then you need to look at the radical progressives.

Increasingly, they are wielding growing influence over the institutions over the schools, the universities, much of the media, the civil service, the courts, the NGOs and the activist groups.

But the enormous gulf which separates them from the rest of the country cannot remain in place for ever.

As those voters in the Red Wall reminded me, when the ruling class loses touch with the rest of the country the result is often a seismic political earthquake.

The only question, when it comes to immigration, is what form that political earthquake will take and when it will arrive?

Read the original post:

Our politicians are in thrall to a tiny cabal of Brexit and Boris hating progressive liberals who are out... - The US Sun