Dear Richard,
This morning Leave.EU Chairman Arron Banks sent the following comprehensive letter to the Electoral Commission, in response to their new investigation of Leave.EU:

1st Electoral Commission Investigation into Leave.EU and Cambridge Analytica

The first EC investigation focused on whether Leave.EU had received paid or unpaid services from Cambridge Analytica and Goddard Gunster, and whether those services qualified as reportable campaign expenditure or not.

This investigation commenced on 21 April 2017, some 200 days ago. We have fully co-operated with the EC throughout.

Intense media speculation from the Guardian newspaper and others led to the investigation’s launch, even though not a shred of evidence had been presented to the Commission.

The most recent investigation says you aim to complete the investigation within 180 days of it being opened, yet the first one is still open after 200 days!

We haven’t heard from you in months and wondered where you were in your deliberations after 200 days?

2nd Electoral Commission Investigation into Leave.EU & Dark Russian Money

Source of the allegations of Russian dark money.

These allegations first surfaced in a report called the ‘Kremlin’s Trojan Horse’ by the Atlantic Council, a far-right neocon think tank, and were aired on CNN (the original fake news channel).

The claims were repeated by James Le Foy MP in a meeting with Professor Ted Malloch who was being considered for US ambassador to the EU at the time.

Our lawyers wrote to CNN, the Atlantic Council and Mr Le Foy saying that the allegations were untrue and pointing out that not one shred of evidence had been produced. The Atlantic Council withdrew the report and Mr Le Foy agreed not to repeat his earlier comments.

Step Forward Ben Bradshaw, Open Democracy and Newsnight!

We became aware that BBC Newsnight and Open Democracy were working together on a story featuring identical questions intended to show that I was not wealthy enough to have afforded my donations to the Brexit campaign. The only conclusion they could draw was that we were funded by “Dark Russian Money”.

The finding(s) of the Newsnight report were the equivalent of firing an arrow into a wall and painting a target around it, using a selection of facts that suited their particular agenda.

They had no visibility into my finances as a successful investor of over 25 years.

Newsnight aired the allegations on BBC 2, followed shortly afterwards by Open Democracy’s report funded by a group of Remain supporters including George Soros.

Mr Bradshaw then popped up in Parliament to ask a question about “Dark Russian Money”, creating public and media interest.

Electoral Commission

The Electoral Commission decided to announce the investigation on the morning of Prime Minister’s Questions, when the same Mr Bradshaw appeared again to ask a question about Dark Money. The matter was then extensively covered in the media with much fanfare.

Politics and the Westminster Swamp!

Of course, it turns out that Mr Bradshaw’s boyfriend was a former Newsnight producer, it also came as no surprise to learn that a board member of the EC had also worked on Newsnight in the past.

“Quelle surprise”.

BBC Newsnight is packed full of ex-Guardian journalists, the Electoral Commission is not much better. It is a swamp creature created by New Labour and packed full of the flotsam of British Politics: ex-MPs from all parties, former diplomats and political placemen from local government, including a former CEO of a Labour-run council.

They sit on such bodies as the BBC Trust, Channel 4, Channel 4 Wales, the Arts Council, the list goes on, MBE, OBE, Sir, CBE etc.

10/10 of the Commissioners are fully signed up “Remainers” with links to EU think tanks. One sits on the same committee as Carl Bildt and two ex-European Commissioners.

It really is quite incredible that an organisation that exists to ensure fair play in elections should be packed full of ex-MPs and ex-council leaders – jobs for the political boys!

Questions for the Commission Relating to Mr Bradshaw

Given the timing of the release of the EC investigation on the morning of PMQs, we believe the EC collaborated with Mr Bradshaw and we would like to know the following:

  1. How many times did Mr Bradshaw meet the Commission in the run up to the announcement of this investigation?
  2. We would also like to request copies of the email correspondence between the Commission and Mr Bradshaw.
  3. What evidence did the EC have to start the investigation with, other than the sources mentioned above?
  4. Why hasn’t the Commission announced investigation(s) into the Vote Leave and Stronger IN campaigns where media and public interest is equally strong?

There is a concerted political effort by Remain MPs to claim people were misled by “numbers on the side” of a bus or that the campaign was funded by cash from Russia or somewhere else overseas.

The IN Campaign threatened emergency budgets, economic doom, armed conflict in Europe, reduced house prices and rising interest rates, with help from the Treasury, the BOE, the CBI and many others.

The Electoral Commission has stated that paid and unpaid work should be disclosed on election returns, so can you confirm how you treat the contributions from these bodies to the IN Campaign?

The Government also leant on the Electoral Commission to allow its leaflet, which cost taxpayers £10m, to be sent to every member of the public advising them to “Vote Remain”. It also said the Government would implement the will of the British people.

The Stronger IN campaign was funded by Goldman Sachs, among a number of US Banks, together with numerous large and powerful corporations. Do none of these connections seem worthy of investigation?

I am proud of the fact that the Leave.EU campaign was funded by myself, Peter Hargreaves and donations from the British public in huge numbers.

Our campaign hired an accountant and an internal auditor, who prepared the returns on an arm’s length basis. We even took the time and care to consult with the EC whilst preparing the returns. The entire spending process was also overseen with legal advice from a QC specialising in political processes and the returns (reportable and non-reportable expenditure) were independently audited by Burton Sweet Accountants to ensure it complied with EC rules.

We have called for a Judge-led inquiry to oversee a review of the finances of all the referendum campaigns (we can’t wait to see the results) and repeated these questions: why have you chosen to only target the Leave.EU campaign and what evidence exists to warrant such an investigation?

Finally, since the first investigation is over 200 days old and we have supplied all of the requested information, can you inform us when you expect to conclude this matter? Don’t you think you should have finished off the first one before embarking on the next?



Source: Fear the Witch, for it is you.

Sneering Corbyn cheerleader Paul Mason has branded UKIP voters “toe-rags” who would “nick your bike”. Talking specifically about the Stoke by-election, Mason, flanked by the Green Party’s Sian Berry and Guardian columnist Zoe Williams, offers this contemptuous analysis of first-time voters who consider backing UKIP: “They’re not working class Tories… most of the UKIP people are either…

via Paul Mason: UKIP Voters are Bike-Stealing Toe-Rags — Guido Fawkes

How do they get away with it?


Only last week, we reported on the silly little sentences handed down to a pair of renegade Brits convicted of bringing in illegal aliens…Something Akin to Treason Gets A Slap on the Wrist! …and called for tougher sentences.

But instead, we read today of Fabrice Lokembo-Lokaso, himself an immigrant, born in the Congo, caught in the act of trying of bring in ten crimmigrants from the notorious Calais Jungle.

Football star jailed for attempting to smuggle Calais migrants

And what does this greedy slug get?
As the report dryly notes, the judge showed ‘leniency.’
He should be dismissed from the bench for this shameful sentence. But even the prosecution only asked for fifteen months.
What’s wrong with Britain’s ‘elite?’
And another thing!
This Congo-born criminal’s status in the UK is not, curiously, examined in the report.
Is he currently a UK citizen?
If so…

View original post 40 more words

One might have assumed that the first ever transgender beauty pageant in Israel (and presumably in the entire Middle East) would have been a newsworthy story for the self-styled “standard-setter of international journalism”. However, last weekend’s event received no coverage on BBC News’ English language website. “The first ever “Miss Trans Israel Pageant” packed an […]

via A Middle East first ignored by BBC News — BBC Watch

Weekend long read


On May 16th an article by the BBC’s Beirut-based correspondent Jim Muir appeared in the ‘Features’ section of the BBC News website’s Middle East page under the title “…

Source: Weekend long read

It’s absolutely horrendous to hear that the German government is now funding courses helping Muslim men to groom themselves into relationships with German women. We cannot warn enough of this…

Source: Greek woman’s marriage to Muslim turned to ‘Nightmares in the Saudi Arabian desert’

First posted in Open Democracy.

The EU is a deeply undemocratic institution enforcing austerity and privatisation on its member states. In what strange world is this a progressive institution?

Anti-austerity riots in Greece. Flickr/PIAZZA del POPOLO. Some rights reserved.

The EU is now, more than ever, defined by its fanatical commitment to the rule of market forces, privatisation and the rolling back of the power of national governments. This ideology of neoliberalism explains the EU’s enthusiasm for the politics of austerity, which it has imposed throughout the continent as a response to the global financial crisis.

But, just as austerity has failed in the UK, it has failed throughout the EU. Twenty-three million are unemployed thanks to EU-driven austerity. Living standards have collapsed thanks to EU-driven austerity. Far-right groups have gained strength thanks to EU-driven austerity. Renewed tensions have emerged between nation states thanks to EU-driven austerity. Public services have been decimated thanks to EU-driven austerity.

When economies crashed, the EU’s answer was to impose more crippling austerity as part of any bailout condition. This served only to generate deeper impoverishment and social tensions.

The EU’s commitment to neoliberalism means its laws are designed to encourage private enterprise at the expense of public ownership. As a result, we have seen an accelerating transfer of ownership and control of industry from elected governments to big corporations.

Trade unionists and socialists make key demands over public ownership. But many of these demands would actually be prohibited under EU law. So, for example, renationalising the railways is forbidden, as EU law compels member states to open up their railway systems to the market.

And the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) deal, which would open up public services, including the NHS, to wholesale privatisation, should be reason enough for anyone who cares about these things to support a Leave vote.

The recent Tata steel crisis threw into sharp relief the pernicious effects of EU law on ownership. Understandably, many trade union leaders and some Labour MPs demanded the government nationalise the Port Talbot steelworks. But missing from their demands was any recognition that such a move would undoubtedly have breached EU law, which prohibits member states from using public money to rescue failing steelmakers. EU competition rules dictate that these things must be left to market forces instead.

Indeed, earlier this year, the EU took punitive action against the Belgian and Italian governments after they used public funds in an attempt to rescue steelmakers in trouble.

That’s why we shouldn’t get too excited about the recent decision by the UK government to take some control in Tata. First, the government isn’t nationalising Tata; it is taking a mere 25% stake. Second, even this limited step is likely to fall foul of EU law. However, it is questionable as to whether, against the backdrop of the referendum, the EU will intervene at this stage to block it. As the Guardian’s respected economics editor, Larry Elliott, perceptively pointed out: ‘Is Brussels really going to kibosh the government’s rescue plan if the consequence is that Europe gets the blame and the referendum is lost? It will see the bigger picture.’

It is therefore probable that in the case of the government’s intervention on steel the EU will, for reasons of expediency, choose to look the other way for a few weeks.

But we should be in no doubt at all that EU law is ultimately framed to benefit the privateers and to discourage public ownership of industry, even in cases where entire communities and thousands of jobs are at risk.

Trade unionists and socialists stand for investment in industry as a means to achieving full employment and economic growth. Investment is particularly important in tough times, as it stimulates economic activity, increases tax revenues and aids recovery. Austerity does the precise opposite.

After the global financial crisis struck almost a decade ago, EU-driven austerity prevented many countries escaping recession. Crucially, EU rules, under the Stability and Growth Pact, prohibit any member state from running a budget deficit of more than three per cent of GDP. This means that any government wishing to borrow to invest as a means to boost the economy faces rigid constraints. This, in turn, means that recessions and austerity are prolonged. The doctrines of John Maynard Keynes, which for so long after the Second World War provided the foundation of economic policy for left of centre governments, are effectively illegal inside the EU.

One of the primary arguments deployed by some on the Left against withdrawal from the EU, is the danger of what is termed a ‘Right-led exit’ – meaning a withdrawal undertaken on the terms of Tory right-wingers and Ukip. But this argument is flawed, because it appears to completely discount the fact that the Remain campaign itself is dominated by the political Right. Just consider, David Cameron, George Osborne, the Tory government, the CBI, the IMF, the Bank of England, the wider banking industry and big corporations are all fighting desperately to remain inside the EU. They do so in the knowledge that a ‘remain’ vote would settle the issue for at least another generation, and with the consequence that for all that time we would be locked into an institution that is explicitly pro-neoliberal and anti-socialist. Add to that the restrictions of EU law that would constrain any incoming Labour government, and with the EU heading in an ever-more anti-democratic direction, it is obvious that a ‘Right-led Remain’ poses a much greater threat to workers than any ‘Right-led Brexit’.

There is also a view among some on the Left, particularly in the trade unions, that while the EU’s enthusiasm for neoliberalism and austerity is an inescapable truth, our interests are best served by staying inside it because it has delivered some rights for workers. They claim that these rights would be threatened by a withdrawal from the EU.

In truth, the picture is far more complex than that. Many of the main planks of workplace legislation giving benefits to UK workers – such as on health and safety, equal pay, the minimum wage and trade union recognition – were won through the UK parliament as a result of trade union campaigning. They had little or nothing to do with the EU.

Even today, the broad sweep of workplace law – such as on pay, terms and conditions, dismissal, industrial relations and disputes – remains completely outside the remit of the EU. (This is why, for example, the Tory government is able to push the Trade Union Bill – the biggest assault on workers in a generation – through parliament without any opposition whatsoever from the EU.)

The image of the EU as some great protector of workers is hard to reconcile when considering that, in keeping with its neoliberal objectives, it promotes zero-hours contracts under flexible labour market rules and deliberately weakened collective bargaining arrangements in the bailout countries. And let’s not forget that the most fundamental workers’ right of all – the right to work – has been denied to millions as a direct result of austerity-induced mass unemployment.

Worryingly, in two landmark legal cases – Viking and Laval – the European Court of Justice ruled that collective action by a trade union could be deemed illegal if it is taken to prevent an employer setting-up in, or posting workers to, another member state, for example in an attempt to pay cheaper wages.

And while as trade unionists we must oppose attacks on immigrants, we must also recognise that the EU’s policy of open borders has given rise to an explosion of cheap labour and contributed to the undercutting of wages (a reason why the policy enjoys the support of big business), caused real social tensions, placed public services under pressure, and fuelled the rise of far-right groups. The truth is that unrestricted movement of labour has the capacity to cause social and economic disruption just as much as the unrestricted movement of capital. None of this is to blame immigrants personally. Nor it is to absolve governments or unscrupulous employers for their actions. It is simply to recognise the reality that EU-driven mass migration has impacted on the lives of workers in a real and tangible way.

In the final analysis, any perceived benefits of EU membership in terms of workers’ rights must be set within the context of the huge setbacks suffered by workers as a result of EU-inspired austerity.

Ultimately, it is a question of what the EU is defined by. Is it defined by its support for trade unions and workers’ rights? Or is it defined by its zeal for neoliberalism, austerity and cuts? It is surely the latter.

We should no more look upon the neoliberal EU as a friend of workers because it gave us the Working Time Directive than we should look upon the neoliberal Tory government in the same way because it gave us the ‘living wage’.

And what of the small matter of democracy? The EU parliament has no right to initiate or repeal legislation. Instead, all legislation is generated by the unelected EU commission. The EU parliament is effectively a rubber-stamping body for the commission – a fig leaf for democracy.

Throughout the history of the EU, there has been a gradual but unrelenting transfer of power away from elected governments and towards unelected bureaucrats and big corporations. This is an insult to all those who fought for the vote and the principle that ordinary people must be allowed to hold their rulers to account.

In Greece last year, the people voted decisively and explicitly against austerity in a national referendum. But the EU establishment forced it on them anyway in brutal manner.

To avoid further bailouts, the EU is now demanding deeper economic integration between member states. This can happen only if there is closer political union. This, in turn, would mean even more power being transferred from national governments to unelected bureaucrats and bankers. The EU superstate is no longer a distant threat; it is a growing reality.

That’s why there is no status quo in this debate. The question of ‘stay as we are’ or ‘leave’ is actually one of ‘in even deeper’ or ‘leave’.

Some argue that we need to be inside the EU in order to reform it. Such talk is idle. Government after government has been saying the same thing for years, even decades. But in reality the EU is unreformable. Indeed, it has been designed to preclude serious reform.

The EU commission is unelected and unaccountable. There is no democratic mechanism by which it can be reformed.

The UK government recently undertook a ‘renegotiation’ of EU membership in an attempt to achieve serious reform. It threatened to walk away from the EU if it didn’t get its way. But even under this nuclear threat, the EU offered very little in the talks. If the EU isn’t prepared to reform under threat of withdrawal by a significant member state, when would it be?

Neoliberalism and unaccountability are locked into the EU through its treaties and directives. To reform the EU from being a neoliberal, anti-democratic institution into being a progressive, socialist, democratic one would mean that all member states must agree simultaneously to unpick all of this. There is zero chance of that happening.

Those of us on the Left must seek to build solidarity between workers in different countries. But we do not have to be locked into a highly-bureaucratic, anti-democratic, anti-socialist, supranational institution to achieve that.

A Leave vote would not of course put an end to the attacks being suffered by UK workers in the name of austerity. We would still face at home a Tory government hell-bent on making workers pay for the economic crisis. But the EU referendum gives us a clear opportunity to kick away one of the pillars of austerity which has caused so much suffering to workers.

We may then concentrate our efforts on defeating the enemy at home and electing a Labour government committed to a radical programme of investment, redistribution of wealth, full employment, defending public services, improving workers’ rights and reinvigorating our democracy.

The first step to achieving that is getting out of the EU.


About the author

Paul Embery is a firefighter and Regional Secretary of the Fire Brigades Union in London, as well as National Organiser of Trade Unionists Against the EU.

A Muslim Police Chief Inspector for Greater Manchester has indicated that, according to his understanding, “Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of offending culture, religion or tradition.” http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/05/09/muslim-police-chief-says-offending-culture-religion-tradition-not-protected-free-speech/. Chief Inspector Umer Khan, or any cop who holds such views, is clearly unfit to hold any position in the police of any country that is […]

via Ranter? Whiner? Are There TWO Umer Khans in Manchester? — rossrightangle