Category Archives: Brexit

Sen ODonoghue is the chief executive officer of the Killybegs Fishermens Organisation, the largest producers body of its type in Ireland.

ODonoghue previously worked at the Irish agriculture and fisheries ministries, as well as the national seafood agency, Bord Iascaigh Mhra (BIM). He served on the board of the European Association of Producer Organisations for a decade and is a noted expert in the workings of the European Unions Common Fisheries Policy.

ODonoghue talked to SeafoodSource about falling prices due to a COVID-related collapse in demand, the fishing impacts of Brexit, and explained his opinion as to why there shouldnt be a cut to fuel subsidies at the ongoing World Trade Organization talks on ending harmful subsidies in the global fisheries sector. He also discussed the dispute between fishermen and the Sea Fisheries Protection Authority (SFPA) over the method of weighing stocks landed by Irish trawlers.

SeafoodSource: Did the weighing issue you had with the SFPA get sorted out, or are the legal proceedings going ahead?

ODonoghue: We are hoping to get a solution with the SFPA in terms of accurate weighing at the pier side. We are not against weighing on the pier. What we cant accept is weighing of water as fish. We have been working with them [SFPA] very closely in terms of putting in the same flowscale system that exists in the factories which is very accurate putting that on the pier. We are in a very advanced stage of doing that. And if the SFPA signs off on it, then we have solved it there wont be an issue between us.

In terms of the legal proceedings, I am not prepared to comment, but we want that solution as quickly as possible. They are only requesting us in terms of the legal monitoring requirements on them as a control authority of an E.U. member. That is 5 percent of landed and 7.5 percent of a species has to be weighed.

SeafoodSource: You said in May that prices your members were getting for their catch had dropped on average between 50 and 70 percent as a result of the coronavirus crisis. Has the situation improved?

ODonoghue: We were very impacted in April, May, and part of June. Now, prices are down 25 to 35 percent on where they were pre-COVID. This is very worrying. Its not just us; I am in close contact with our European colleagues, but because we are export-oriented, the impact is greater. In our markets like Spain and Italy and the U.K. and China, they were all in lockdown and European markets have not come back to where they were.

SeafoodSource: Have you been able to divert any of your products into other markets, like Asia?

ODonoghue: Our Asian market mainly relates to shellfish and some pelagics. Our mackerel and blue whiting seasons were almost complete when COVID hit. But we are very worried about what happens in the autumn. Our African market is very impacted by lower oil prices, which might be welcome for fishing [fuel] but not for demand in our key markets, like Nigeria.

SeafoodSource: Are you more optimistic or worried about a Brexit fisheries solution?

ODonoghue: We are at a difficult stage. We know now for definite there will be no extension [to the transition period], so its do or die come 31 December. We are concerned that if the whole trade negotiations collapse and theres no deal, [it will be] an unmitigated disaster for the Irish fishing industry and will also impact on the U.K. fishing industry even worse. There will be six meetings [between British and E.U. negotiators] in July and August, with the last one on 17 August. Its absolutely critical for us that the mandate which the E.U. gave [chief Brexit negotiator] Michel Barnier was that fisheries has to be linked to the wider trade negotiations. Barnier has made clear that if there is no fisheries agreement, there will be no trade agreement. Linking these is so important because in 11 of the 12 key areas for discussion, the E.U. has the upper hand. If you have the upper hand on 11 of the 12, then surely you can negotiate on fisheries. [But] assuming theres no give on the E.U. side, the key thing we want is the existing sharing arrangement is maintained. [Ireland] shares a huge number of stocks with the U.K. We cant have negotiations every year on access and quotas.

SeafoodSource: Similar to that kind of negotiations that takes place at the E.U. level every year?

ODonoghue: What we discuss every year is scientific advice but the share of the stocks was decided in 1983. Each nations percentage share doesnt change every year. The U.K. wants a Norway-style deal with the E.U., but we dont discuss every year a sharing arrangement with Norway. This was decided in 1996.

SeafoodSource: There is a new agriculture and fisheries minister in Ireland. How would you like to see him approach his job?

ODonoghue: We have given him our three priorities for discussion: Brexit, a post-COVID reboot for Irish fisheries, and the program for government. There is a whole marine section in the program for government and we want to go through that with him. We do support the program, as there are key things in there about Brexit and COVID, but the important thing will be to implement them.

SeafoodSource: Ireland and Spain were both the target of much criticism this year for allegedly pushing for quota levels beyond scientifically advised levels. Is this criticism fair?

ODonoghue: Neither fair nor accurate. There are totally ignoring that TAC [total allowable catch] and quota system of the E.U. In the E.U. part of the Northeast Atlantic [where Ireland fishes] 99 percent of stocks will be fished at sustainable levels in 2020. They say because we [Ireland] have 21 percent of the mackerel stock, we are 21 percent of the problem. Because Iceland and Russia are fishing beyond sustainable yields, we are presented as being 21 percent of the problem.

SeafoodSource: So there is no sustainability problem in E.U. waters?

ODonoghue: We are not talking about the Mediteranean or the Black Sea, they are a different kettle of fish. But 99 percent of stocks in the Northeast Atlantic are sustainable.

SeafoodSource: Do you think there are overcapacity issues in the European fleet?

ODonoghue: There is a definitional problem. At the moment, the capacity figures related to gross tonnage and power. But its not about capacity or power rather, its about if you have sufficient access to quota to be viable. We need to look at each fleet and the size and the target of that fleet. Do they have access to sufficient quota to be viable? If not, then we have to start introducing decommissioning.

SeafoodSource: How do you view the ongoing talks at the WTO on ending what's termed as harmful subsidies to fisheries?

ODonoghue: I am totally opposed to subsidies that increase capacity, provided were defining capacity properly. But as for fuel, we dont support the removal of the fuel subsidy, as this would make our fleets unviable. If you remove the fuel subsidy and increased carbon tax to EUR 100 [USD 114] per ton [as proposed by Irish government], then overnight, you go to a situation where fuel is six times what you pay now. European fleets cant survive in that scenario and wed become even more dependent on imports.

SeafoodSource:How do you end overfishing?

ODonoghue: You focus on IUU [illegal, unreported, and unregulated] fishing. Most of the international waters have bodies controlling them. The E.U. has been at the forefront on IUU, [and] the industry has really been behind the E.U. on this, because it affects our markets big-time.

SeafoodSource: Many of those international bodies under-resourced and ineffective in policing IUU fishing. What do you do about that?

ODonoghue: Yes. But thats where the E.U. has to come in and has been coming in to strengthen those bodies. [By] bringing [them] in under the law of the sea.

Photo courtesy ofSen ODonoghue

Originally posted here:

Sen O'Donoghue: Brexit and COVID threatening future of commercial fishing in Ireland - SeafoodSource

Russia considers the UK one of its top Western intelligence targets, according to a long-awaited report into Russian interference in UK politics published by Britains parliament on Tuesday, also criticizing the government for failing to investigate charges that Russia influenced the 2016 Brexit referendum.

Indian vs Chinese Tanks: The Mighty Indian T-90 Tanks Have No Answer To Chinese Type 15 Lightweight Tanks

The report, compiled by parliaments powerful Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC), questioned: whether Government took its eye off the ball on Russia, finds that they underestimated the response required to the Russian threat and are still playing catch up.

In a press release summarizing the report, the ISC said: Russian influence in the UK is the new normal. Successive Governments have welcomed the oligarchs and their money with open arms, providing them with a means of recycling illicit finance through the London laundromat, and connections at the highest levels with access to UK companies and political figures.

This, in turn, led to an industry of enablers, including lawyers, accountants, and estate agents who were wittingly or unwittingly de facto agents of the Russian state.

[The] UK is clearly a target for Russian disinformation. While the mechanics of our paper-based voting system are largely sound, we cannot be complacent about a hostile state taking deliberate action with the aim of influencing our democratic processes, the press release warned.

Yet the defence of those democratic processes has appeared something of a hot potato, with no one organisation considering itself to be in the lead, or apparently willing to conduct an assessment of such interference. This must change, it added.

The committee called on social media to take action and remove hostile state material, as well as calling for greater international cooperation, perhaps looking to its US allies: We need other countries to step up with the UK and attach a cost to Putins actions.

The report was blunt about the threat Russia poses to the UK.

The UK is one of Russias top Western intelligence targets: particularly given the UKs firm stance against recent Russian aggression and the UK-led international response to the 2018 Salisbury attack, it said, referring to the poison attack on SergeiSkripal, a former Russian double agent living in the UK, and his daughter.

Russias intelligence services are disproportionately large and powerful and, given the lack of rule of law, are able to act without constraint. The fusion between state, business, and serious and organised crime provides further weight and leverage: Russia is able to pose an all-encompassing security threat which is fuelled by paranoia about the West and a desire to be seen as a resurgent great power, it said.

Russia is a highly capable cyber actor, employing organised crime groups to supplement its cyber skills. Russia carries out malicious cyber activity in order to assert itself aggressively for example, attempting to interfere in other countries elections.

In the face of detailed accusations by Western spy agencies, Russia has denied interfering in other countries elections.

It has been clear for some time that Russia under Putin has moved from potential partner to established threat, fundamentally unwilling to adhere to international law, the report said.

The [London] murder of Alexander Litvinenko in 2006 and the annexation of Crimea in 2014 were stark indicators of this. We, therefore, question whether the Government took its eye off the ball because of its focus on counter-terrorism: it was the opinion of the Committee that until recently the Government had badly underestimated the response required to the Russian threat and is still playing catch up.

Russia poses a tough intelligence challenge and our intelligence agencies must have the tools they need to tackle it.

The report confirmed that there was credible evidence that Russia attempted to influence the 2014 Scottish independence referendum, and that this should have served as a wake-up call.

On the hot topic of Brexit, the report said: There have been widespread allegations that Russia sought to influence voters in the 2016 referendum on the UKs membership of the EU: studies have pointed to the preponderance of pro-Brexit or anti-EU stories on [Russian news outlets] RT and Sputnik, and the use of bots and trolls, as evidence.

The actual impact of such attempts on the result itself would be difficult if not impossible to prove.

The report went on to say that the Government was slow to recognise the existence of the threat.

It was only after Russias hacking of the Democratic National Party in the 2016 US presidential election that the UK understood the threat it faced, when it should have been seen as early as 2014.

As a result, the Government did not take action to protect the UKs process in 2016, the report said. In our view, there must be an analogous assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum.

The report criticized the illogical intelligence services for their unwillingness to examine Russian interference in the Brexit referendum, in stark contrast with US intelligence and congressional investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 US presidential election.

Stewart Hosie, a member of the committee, said the government did not know if Russia influenced the Brexit referendum because they did not want to know and actively avoided any effort to look into the issue.

There has been no assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum and this goes back to nobody wanting to touch the issue with a 10-foot pole, he told a news conference.

There should have been an assessment of Russian interference in the EU referendum and there must now be one, and the public must be told the results of that assessment.

Tobias Ellwood, the chair of parliaments Defence Select Committee, told Sky News: Were actually now seeing the new modern battlefield in play. This is what happens subversion, disinformation, interference in elections.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has been widely criticized for delaying publication of the report, despite it being ready for publication since before the last election.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Lisa Nandy said: It is extraordinary that the prime minister, Boris Johnson, took the political decision last October ahead of the general election to block the publication of this important report that systematically goes through the threat Russia poses to the UKs national security.

The report is very clear that the government has underestimated the response required to Russia and it is imperative we learn the lessons from the mistakes that have been made.

By Karim El-Bar

More:

From Brexit To Scottish Referendum, Russia Aggressively Interfering In UK Domestic Politics - EurAsian Times

PUBLISHED: 13:04 21 July 2020 | UPDATED: 17:01 21 July 2020

Many thought Boris Johnson was given an easy ride when he spoke to the new Times Radio. Picture: PA

PA Wire/PA Images

There have been calls for Boris Johnson to ensure there is a full assessment of Brexit interference into the Brexit vote before the transition period ends.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

Liberal Democrat leadership contender Layla Moran has written to Boris Johnson demanding he set out a clear timeline for the intelligence agencies to publish an assessment into Russian interference in the EU referendum.

The MP insisted that an assessment should be published before the transition period comes to an end on 31 December 2020.

It comes after the Intelligence and Security Committees Russia Report recommended that the UK intelligence community produce a full assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum alongside an unclassified summary.

The committee said it had not been provided with any post-referendum assessment of Russian attempts at interference.

It added: Even if the conclusion of any such assessment were that there was minimal interference, this would nonetheless represent a helpful reassurance to the public that the UKs democratic processes had remained relatively safe.

Downing Street has said that it has seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum.

But it added that where new information emerges, the government will always consider the most appropriate use of any intelligence it develops or receives, including whether it is appropriate to make this public.Moran said that the governments claim that an assessment is not needed given there is no evidence of interference was putting the cart before the horse.

She said the government cannot expect to find evidence if it has not properly looked for it.

She explained: This damning report shows the government turned a blind eye to potential Russian interference in the EU referendum.

The intelligence services must now carry out a full assessment of this threat to our democratic process as soon as possible.

Boris Johnson should set out a clear timeline for the intelligence services to publish a full this assessment. Given the urgency of the situation and the potential implications for the countrys future, this should be before the end of the transition period.

It would be doubly damaging to our democracy if the UK crashed out with no deal before the extent of Russian interference in the referendum had been properly assessed.

It comes as the Scottish Tories called for an inquiry into Russian interference into the independence referendum.

Layla Morans letter to Boris Johnson

Dear Prime Minister,

The Russia Report published today shows the government has vastly underestimated the threat posed by Russia to our democracy. As recommended, the UK intelligence community must now produce a full assessment of potential Russian interference in the EU referendum and publish an unclassified summary.

The government claims in its response to the Russia Report that is has seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum and that a retrospective assessment is not necessary. However, this is putting the cart before the horse. The government cannot expect to find evidence if it has not properly looked for it.

I am urging you to now set out a clear timeline for this assessment to take place, and to ensure it happens as soon as possible. Given the major implications for the UK democratic process, this assessment should be produced before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. It would be doubly damaging to our democracy if the UK crashed out with no deal before the extent of Russian interference in the referendum had been properly assessed.

The US intelligence community produced an assessment into allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election within two months. The UK intelligence community should surely be able to produce an assessment within a similar timeline.

If the government are serious about tackling disinformation, they must also get a grip. It is simply unacceptable that no one organisation within government recognises itself as having an overall lead on defending the UKs democratic processes and discourse. I therefore urge you to also introduce a nationwide awareness and education campaign to build resilience to the fake and extreme narratives present in divisive disinformation campaigns.

Yours sincerely,

Layla Moran

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press with your support. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.

See the article here:

Calls for investigation into Russian interference in Brexit before end of transition period - The New European

BORIS Johnson is set to reward Brexit supporters including Sir Ian Botham with life peerages, it has been reported.

It comes as British and EU negotiators have agreed 80 per cent of a Brexit deal.

A report from MakeUK and BDO revealed regions that had previously been Labour constituencies were now at most risk from a no-deal Brexit.

Areas such as Wales, north-east of England, and Yorkshire and Humber face losing out as nearly two-thirds of their exports go to the EU.

Experts warn that along with the coronavirus pandemic, it could be 'fatal' for some companies.

This latest report comes days after a furious exchanges in the House of Commons regarding the future of Brexit - with the Scottish National Party accused by the government of "stirring up division" as they debated an extension to the transition period beyond 2020.

Scottish Government analysis has found ending the transition period in 2020 could remove 3 billion from the Scottish economy in two years on top of the impact of coronavirus.

Meanwhile Home Secretary Priti Patel announced on Thursday the criteria for the points-based immigration system.

She revealed that foreign nationals coming to the UK for work purposes must have 70 points to successfully apply.

Follow our live blog below for all the latest news and updates.

See the rest here:

Brexit latest: Ex-cricketer Ian Botham to be made peer as 80 per cent of deal agreed LIVE updates - The Sun

Russia not only meddled in the Brexit vote, but also in the Scottish Independence referendum

A report on Russian interference into British politics was finally published Tuesday, more than a year after allegations surfaced that Moscow sought to meddle in Britains 2019 general election and following similar claims about its2016 Brexit vote to leave the European Union and a 2014 failed referendum on Scottish independence.

The report published today stated that: the Kremlinhas used espionage and diverse forms of subversion, including cyberattacks, disinformation campaigns and state-sponsored assassinations to undermine British democratic processes and divide alliances such as NATO and the EU.

Russia has been adamant and repeatedly denied any such wrongdoing, and has said that the allegations are completely unfounded.

Although the report was initially given to Boris Johnson last October , he said it couldnt be released until it had been reviewed for national security issues.

The opposition Labour Party has accused Johnsons government of failing to publish the report because it would lead to further questions about links between Russia and the pro-Brexit campaign in the 2016 referendum on European Union membership, he said: Whats in the report that Johnson does not want us to see?

Link:

Russia did meddle in the Brexit, Scottish Independence and the 2019 General Election - Euro Weekly News

PUBLISHED: 08:23 21 July 2020 | UPDATED: 16:56 21 July 2020

Results of a vote is announced in the House of Commons. Photograph: Jessica Taylor/House of Commons.

HOC/JESSICA TAYLOR

An amendment to the governments Trade Bill intended to protect the NHS and publicly funded health and care services from any form of control from outside the UK has been defeated.

Email this article to a friend

To send a link to this page you must be logged in.

Become a Supporter

Almost four years after its creation The New European goes from strength to strength across print and online, offering a pro-European perspective on Brexit and reporting on the political response to the coronavirus outbreak, climate change and international politics. But we can only continue to grow with your support.

The government insisted UK law offers such protections and any changes would have to come before parliament.

But for Labour, shadow international trade minister Bill Esterson said the lack of scrutiny threatens to leave the health service wide open to pharmaceutical giants.

MPs voted by 340 votes to 251 against supporting the amendment.

We Own It campaigns officer Ellen Lees said: Its frankly sickening that at a time when were more reliant on our NHS than ever before, the government has steamrollered through parliament a Trade Bill that offers absolutely no protection for our treasured NHS. Were now at risk of higher drug prices, private companies being able to sue the government if it tries to limit their ability to profit from our healthcare, and Donald Trump getting his hands on our NHS.

Worse still, parliament wont even get to have a say in any future trade deals - meaning our NHS could be offered up on a silver platter to the highest bidder, and we wouldnt know a thing about it before a trade deal is signed and sealed.

This government promised to take back control but theyre doing the opposite. They promised to keep the NHS off the table. Theyre doing the opposite. Now its time for the House of Lords to step up to the plate and fight back against this totally undemocratic power grab from the government.

These MPs voted against the proposal:

Ada, Nigel

Afriyie, Adam

Ahmad Khan, Ian

Aiken, Nickie

Aldous, Peter

Allan, Lucy

Amess, Sir David

Anderson, Lee

Anderson, Stuart

Ansell, Caroline

Argar, Edward

Atherton, Sarah

Atkins, Victoria

Bacon, Gareth

Bacon, Richard

Badenoch, Kemi

Bailey, Shaun

Baillie, Siobhan

Baker, Duncan

Baker, Steve

Baldwin, Harriett

Baron, John

Baynes, Simon

Bell, Aaron

Benton, Scott

Beresford, Sir Paul

Berry, Jake

Bhatti, Saqib

Blackman, Bob

Blunt, Crispin

Bone, Peter

Bowie, Andrew

Bradley, Ben

Bradley, Karen

Braverman, Suella

Brereton, Jack

Bridgen, Andrew

Brine, Steve

Bristow, Paul

Britcliffe, Sara

Brokenshire, James

Browne, Anthony

Bruce, Fiona

Buchan, Felicity

Buckland, Robert

Burghart, Alex

MORE: Support our journalism by subscribing to 13 weeks for just 13

Burns, Conor

Butler, Rob

Cairns, Alun

Carter, Andy

Cartlidge, James

Cash, Sir William

Cates, Miriam

Caulfield, Maria

Chalk, Alex

Chishti, Rehman

Churchill, Jo

Clark, Greg

Clarke, Simon

Clarke, Theo

Clarke-Smith, Brendan

Clarkson, Chris

Cleverly, James

Clifton-Brown, Sir Geoffrey

Coffey, Dr Thrse

Colburn, Elliot

Collins, Damian

Costa, Alberto

Courts, Robert

Coutinho, Claire

Cox, Geoffrey

Crabb, Stephen

Crosbie, Virginia

Crouch, Tracey

Daly, James

Davies, David T. C.

Davies, Gareth

Davies, Dr James

Davies, Mi

Davis, David

Davison, Dehenna

Dinenage, Caroline

Dines, Miss Sarah

Djanogly, Jonathan

Read more here:

These MPs just voted against protecting the NHS from a post-Brexit trade deal - The New European

Westminster has ruled out holding an investigation into meddling by Russia in the EUreferendum.

In a response published this morning, timedto coincide with the publication of a long-awaited report into Russian interference in UK democracy, the Government said an investigation is "not necessary".

It comes despite harsh criticism by the Intelligenceand Security committee (ISC) members that government officials ignored prior warnings,and decided actively to ignore the threat posed by Russia in the EU vote.

Boris Johnson'sofficial response to the Russia report states: "We have seen no evidence of successful interference in the EU Referendum.

"The Intelligence and Security Agencies produce and contribute to regular assessments of the threat posed by Hostile State Activity, including around potential interference in UK democratic processes.

READ MORE:Nicola Sturgeon accuses UK Government of 'negligence' over Russia

"We keep such assessments under review and, where necessary, update them in response to new intelligence, including during democratic events such as elections and referendums.

"Where new information emerges, the Government will always consider the most appropriate use of any intelligence it develops or receives, including whether it is appropriate to make this public.

"Given this long standing approach, a retrospective assessment of the EU Referendum is not necessary."

The decision has sparked criticism by SNP MP Stewart McDonald, the party's defence spokesman, who said:"It is clear that the Tory government deliberately failed in its duty to assess the level of Russian interference in the EU referendum, and the potential impact that had on the Brexit result - seemingly because it didn't want to know the answers. An independent inquiry must now happen.

Despite the growing threat posed by sophisticated Russian misinformation campaigns, the report found that the UK government only belatedly realised the level of threat after the DNC hack and leak operation. The Tory government clearly took its eye off the ball.

"During the election campaign, Boris Johnson claimed 'There is absolutely no evidence that I know of to show any interference in any British electoral event'. The report which the Prime Minister had already read at that point - now makes clear that this is because the Tory government was not looking for it. This botched attempt at a cover up by Downing Street has been laid bare by the committees findings.

READ MORE:Committee asked if Alex Salmond is 'defacto agent' of Russia

"The UK government must now work withour international allies and set out how it will get a grip of Russian interference. Any narrow party-political attempt to use this report to stymie democracy intheUK would be unacceptable.We need a sober reflection from government and parliament, and a thoughtful way ahead. The public would expect nothing less."

The relationship between Downing Street and the ISC has been strained since former Conservative MP Julian Lewis was elected as chairman last week, after receiving votes from opposition politicians. The Prime Minister had nominated MP Chris Grayling for the post, and after his defeat Mr Lewis was ejected from the Tories.

During this morning's press conference, Mr Lewis said: "This committee has been subjected to unprecedented delay and dislocation.

"This really must never happen again. As soon as normal relations are restored between this committee and the government, the better it will be for all concerned.

"Yet that prospect has not been helped by the Government refusing to tell us what was in the written ministerial statement about this Russia Report, which the government chose to table in the commons at 10.30 this morning to clash with the start of this event.

"Maybe I'm being unfair to them. Maybe they have another plan, maybe they're going to add to their written ministerial statement by making an oral statement on this subject perhaps tomorrow so that the Commons can have its say and ask it's questions. That would be a very positive sign. Let's hope it happens."

Original post:

Westminster rules out probe into Russian meddling in Brexit - HeraldScotland

8.4 million it was the biggest ever political donation in British history, and made by an insurance salesman made uneasy by immigration and who opposed Britains membership of the European Union. Arron Banks gave this enormous sum of money to the 2016 Brexit campaign.

If that money came direct from Bankss bank account, then it was perfectly legal. (Banks has not been found to have breached electoral law). Foreign donations to elections and referendum campaigns have to be declared and identified. One of the biggest failures of the 1997 Labour government was not to adopt clear laws limiting political donations. Britain failed to ban donations by rich individuals or rich trade unions who want to buy influence.

Instead money continues to flow into political parties from the super rich, in exchange for access, peerages, and contracts.

Bankss close associations with the Russian government are not disputed. His own published accounts of his involvement in the Brexit campaign recorded meetings with the Russian ambassador Alexander Yakovenko, a close Putin associate. A Russian spy, Alexander Udod, was tasked with getting close to Nigel Farage, Ukip and Aaron Banks. Udod was expelled from the UK in 2018 following the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal in Salisbury.

The Skripal killer squad came from the GRU, the Russian military intelligence agency, headed up to 2016 by Igor Sergun. He was a strong advocate of Brexit, not from any reasons of taking back control or other anti-EU arguments advanced over many years by British politicians and journalists of right and left but simply because Putin intenselydisliked the role of the EU as a supra-national body which imposed sanctions on Russia after Putins invasion and annexation of Crimea.

Putin also disliked the EU Commissions competition directorate using EU law to stop Gazproms monopolistic practices in EU energy supply chains. Putins foreign policy is easily summed up. Russia up. America down. Europe out.

Putin had funded other anti-EU politicians like Marine le Pen in France, the Alternative fr Deutschland in Germany and the anti-EU Lega party of Matteo Salvini in Italy. In a sense this was no more than the continuation of a long-standing Russian practice since the 1920s of providing money for politicians and organisations which sympathised with Russian foreign policy objectives.

In evidence to the House of Commons Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, Banks and his associate, Andy Wigmore, denied any Russian connection.

Banks had been in Moscow and at least three business deals were offered at the Russian embassy or by Russian agents to the pair. The Russian ambassador and the spy Udod were invited to parties hosted by Banks.

The Electoral Commission did refer Banks to the National Crime Agency but Theresa May did not order the intelligence agencies help provide evidence. She refused to accept that any question mark might be placed over the very narrow win for Brexit when 36 per cent of the total registered electorate voted to leave the EU. Jeremy Corbyn has been a life-long opponent of EU membership and had voted against every EU treaty in the House of Commons since 1983.

With the arrival of Boris Johnson and a 100 per cent Brexit cabinet, the political establishment began to instinctively retreat from the notion that Russia may have influenced Brexit. Labours new leader, Sir Keir Starmer, also wants to shut down Brexit, believing that to challenge it would alienate Labour Red Wall voters who voted out in 2016.

In a new bookGoing Dark, Julia Ebner, a researcher at Londons Institute for Strategic Dialogue, reports on Russias Internet Research Agency, a Putin trolling operation that reached one in three Americans between 2015 and 2017 when Putin tried to get Trump elected. The Internet Research Agency set up 3,841 fake twitter accounts to pump out Kremlin lines on Trump and also Brexit. The Russian state-controlled TV station, RT, and linked news agency, Sputnik, based in in Edinburgh, provided endless platforms for anti-EU commentators, economists and politicians.

Banks may have gone too far with the chutzpah of his latest demand that he be allowed to see and challenge the suppressed Russia report that the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons produced last year, and which is released today. Johnson delayed publication but after the farce of his failed efforts to impose Chris Grayling as ISC Chair, we will now get to read it. The ISC Chair is Julian Lewis, a pro-Brexit Tory MP who has spent his political life seeking to expose the baleful Russian interference in democratic politics.

In the end Banks will survive as it was his legal right to give money to a political campaign. The fate of Brexit will be settled not by uncovering the origins of that 8.4 million, but on whether in 12 or 24 months time Brexit has brought us freedom, as the Brexiters always claimed it would, or whether we are left out in the cold.

Read more from the original source:

The Russia Report who paid for Brexit? - TheArticle

LONDON (Reuters) - Brexit will make markets less efficient but it wont be disastrous for Britains economy, an appointee to the Bank of Englands Financial Policy Committee (FPC) said on Monday.

FILE PHOTO: A small toy figure is seen in front of a Brexit logo in this illustration picture, March 30, 2019. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration

Britain left the European Union in January, with transition arrangements that afford continued full access to the bloc ending in December.

Jonathan Hall told the Treasury Select Committee that Brexit represented a longer term risk of increased fragmentation and complexity in financial services.

This would increase friction costs for the economy, the supervisory burden, Hall said in a questionnaire he completed for the lawmakers.

Faced with an economy slammed by the COVID-19 crisis, Hall, a former Goldman Sachs banker, is due to start a three-year term on the FPC, a body set up after regulators failed to spot the last financial crisis coming a decade ago.

Britains financial sector is quite different in size and complexity compared with its European peers, Hall told the online meeting.

Future direct EU access for financial firms in Britain will hinge on Britain remaining equivalent or aligned with rules in Europe, but Hall said Britain cant be a rule taker.

Its very important that the UK does remain the regulator for the financial market in the UK, he said.

Britains banks, some of whom needed rescuing by taxpayers in the last crisis, were in good shape when the COVID-19 shock hit markets in March, he said.

It was so far, so good and there is no evidence that tougher capital rules brought in after the last crisis were restricting the ability of banks to lend to help businesses recover from the impact of COVID, Hall said.

Britain is looking at ways for insurers, pension funds and others to invest in firms struggling to repay loans taken out during the pandemic.

You can imagine some kind of closed-end fund that has a very diversified pool of small and medium sized businesses. But does the public sector need to do anything to help that along given this needs to move faster? Hall said.

(This story replaces Hall quote in paragraph 3 on fragmentation after BOE clarified it referred to clearing houses with new paragraph 3 and 4 from a questionnaire to lawmakers)

Reporting by Huw Jones; Editing by Andrew Heavens, Ken Ferris and Alison Williams

Original post:

Brexit will split financial markets, says Bank of England appointee - Reuters

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Claims that Holyrood powers are under threat by post-Brexit legislation are "absolute scaremongering", the Scottish Secretary has said.

Alister Jack told BBC Scotland plans for a UK "internal market" amounted to a "power surge" and not a "power grab".

The proposals have been set out in a white paper, with legislation to follow later in the year.

Scottish Constitutional Affairs Secretary Mike Russell said any assurances from the UK were "not true".

Plans for how a UK-wide "internal market" will operate after the country leaves the EU were published earlier in the week.

UK Business Secretary Alok Sharma said the move would see "the biggest transfer of powers in the history of devolution".

But the Scottish government has said the plan would "strip power" from the Scottish Parliament.

Speaking on BBC Scotland's Sunday Politics programme, Mr Jack said the objections raised by Mr Russell were a "confected red herring".

He said there was "absolutely no threat" to Scottish government policies like free university tuition or alcohol minimum pricing.

"There is not a single power being taken away from Holyrood or any of the other devolved administrations and when challenged in parliament this week, they couldn't come up with a single power they're losing," he said.

"This is absolutely a power surge for them, not a power grab."

Much of the debate over powers has focused on food standards and whether chlorinated chicken would ever be sold in the UK.

But Mr Jack said this was "not going to happen".

"Chlorinated chicken can't be sold in the UK. Nor can hormone-induced beef. We're quite clear about that. They are illegal products," he said.

"We're going to bring all the EU food standards into UK domestic law at the end of this year in the Withdrawal Act. And then we intend to increase our food production standards and our animal welfare standards which are already the highest in Europe."

Mr Jack told the BBC that the only future changes would be to improve food standards and not "diminish" them.

He added: "Were it ever to come to pass that a future government did something on food standards that didn't satisfy the other devolved administrations first of all there would be a bill to go through the UK Parliament on that trade deal and then there would be consent motions sought from the other administrations."

However, Mr Russell said he had "no doubt" that under the current proposals chlorinated chicken could be sold in Scotland, even if the Scottish Parliament did not want it.

Speaking earlier on the programme, he said the proposals were there because the UK wanted to be able to do "bad trade deals" with other countries as they were the "only trade deals left to them".

"To do so they want to make sure that neither the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Parliament or the Northern Irish Parliament can interfere with that," he said.

"That won't just be bad for consumers, it'll be very bad for business. It will put Scottish businesses out of business if they go ahead."

Mr Russell said he had heard many assurances in the past from the UK government but they had "come to nothing".

View post:

Alister Jack: 'No threat' to devolved power in post-Brexit laws - BBC News