Donald Trump was in U.K airspace when he tweeted about Mayor of London Sadiq Khan:
Before President Trump landed, LBC’s Rachael Venables spoke to Jeremy Hunt (who was ready at Stansted to greet the president) regarding the tweets. Jeremy Hunt brushed off the behaviour with standard there-or-thereabouts remarks in a bid for democracy. Hunt sided with Trump stating that: “He” (Trump) “has been shown great discourtesy.”
Donald Trump has previously endorsed Boris Johnson for Prime Minister and Nigel Farage to lead Brexit and has recently offered platitudes on the Queens grand-daughter in-law, Meghan Merkel. Despite this, Trump is due to meet Prime Minister Theresa May and have a reception at Buckingham Palace.
The Brexit Party has come under more scrutiny after it was found that donations could be made to the party from anywhere in the world, without having to provide any “prior information of their identity, nationality or address to provide basic safeguards against money laundering, before directing them to the PayPal site.”
Not all funding comes through PayPal however. It has emerged that Nigel Farage has asked for any and all support from wealthy donors who have strong links to Donald Trump but, more worryingly, Vladimir Putin.
As pointed out in the last blog post regarding Brexit Party funding, the ties to far-right populist groups and Russia seem to be building.
The Brexit Party claims to be patriotic and democratic and yet the actions undertaken in its name speak louder than Nigel Farage’s bombast. Those that voted to leave the European Union did so because they “believe in Britain.” Does believing in Britain come at the expense that Britain should become subject to international meddling, the very thing that Brexit was supposed to eliminate in the first place?
The Brexit Party is participating in securing funding from far-right and populist groups at the same time as eliminating the transparency that should accompany any democratic undertaking by refusing to provide information on donation from overseas. So far the only answer that has been given is that the “establishment” are out to get the Brexit Party. A smear tactic on an ambiguous idea that allows die-hard followers to ignore any negative coverage of Brexit or the Brexit Party.
It is worth noting here that ChangeUK (formerly The Independent Group, may be known by another name tomorrow) is also somewhat silent on their financial backers.
What is clear is that Nigel Farage has utilised PayPal’s exchange functions to muddle and confuse the source of donations. As highlighted in the Sarawak Report (also linked above): “There is nothing to stop the same person donating repeatedly from the same account.” But that is only taking into consideration humans. For instance; bots can and have been used by Russia and foreign parties with invested interests in the U.K democratic process and the Sarawak Report has come to the conclusion that bots could be used to make multiple payments.
Nigel Farage’s last campaigning escapade, Leave EU, received illegal donations from Arron Banks (who then went on to fund Nigel Farage’s meetings with America’s business and political elites, security and chauffer costs and accommodation in Chelsea – all of which has not been declared because it is “personal” according to Mr Farage.)
The Brexit Party now seems to be pulling the same kind of stunt by using an online money transference and banking system.
PayPal can convert currencies into sterling. The Brexit Party are using the natural functions of money exchanging by PayPal to allow the free flow of money into the party, and declaring it as a donation made in sterling. This is misleading because, under electoral law, the donation is still coming from abroad and from people who do not have U.K citizenship. Much like Nigel Farage’s Brexit project; Leave EU, the Brexit Party could very well be breaking campaigning law.
Another startling realisation that was made by the Sarawak Report is that the Brexit Party payments do not go to a politically recognised party, but to Brexit Party Limited. The Brexit Party, much like Gordon Brown stated (please see last blog) is a private company.
Much like Vote Leave, The Brexit Party has gained a huge following in a very short space of time, even to the point that it is predicted to win the European Elections.
There is no denying that Nigel Farage is one of the most influential people in British politics, and perhaps in a generation. However, since the vote to leave the European Union it has come to light that Nigel Farage propagated lies regarding immigration with the infamous “breaking point” poster, is a person if interest regarding the illegal campaign funding of Leave EU and is now being investigated in a new funding controversy involving donations to The Brexit Party through PayPal.
Whilst donations under £500 are deemed legal, the sources of the money are somewhat suspect as transactions are being made from abroad. This may violate national democratic procedure as it could be seen as interference from foreign interests. This is despite the claims made by Nigel Farage and The Brexit Party that donations are not foreign currency because it is exchanged into pounds by PayPal.
Speaking at a Scottish Labour European elections rally, Gordon Brown stated that “the Brexit Party that has been formed is not a party, it’s actually a private company. It does not have members, it has shareholders.”
The manner with which Nigel Farage manages his endeavours may be evidence of this. For instance, that people had to pay £50 to walk with him during his “Brexit Betrayal March.”
Because the Brexit Party is not providing details of where specific funds are coming from, the possibility arises that payments are being made by dummy or robot accounts. Considering Russia’s peripheral funding of far-right movements throughout Europe and the rest of the world, we could be witnessing another attempt by a foreign power to sway our political process much like Russia did during the referendum campaign of 2016.
The public services are the heart of this country. We rely on the police to uphold the law when we become victims and when others do wrong. We rely on the NHS to save our lives, cure our ailments and provide care. When we have a child, the doctors and nurses of the NHS bring it into the world. When our relatives die, doctors and nurses make sure that they go with dignity. Could we ask for anything more?
Indisputably, Austerity has done incalculable damage to the public services. Police budgets have fallen by 19% since 2010 despite a (albeit sometimes slowly) rising GDP. Police numbers have been slashed and the remaining numbers are stretching themselves across an expanding population. Because of this, the standard of policing is going down along with morale within forces throughout the U.K. This means that the quality in policing is in decline.
There are fewer bobbies on the beat thus reducing community policing effectiveness. This would usually be apparent by a reduction in the levels of gang affiliation and thus criminal acts such as knife and moped attacks. Community policing is also speculated to help in the war against terrorists.
It has now emerged in the ‘i weekend’ that businesses are now paying for police paroles. Easyjet, ASDA, development giant the Berkeley Group and the Westfield Shopping Centres are a few.
Whilst this might seem innocuous at first glance, it is indicative of the pursuit of private interests in what should be a publicly financed, impartial and equal policing system. To bring in corporate interest is to essentially allow bias into the process as well as taking members of the police away from communities that would be better served by community police initiatives.
There is no widespread collective effort to battle the privatisation of public services because the change is happening incrementally. That is the evil of gradualism; people are less likely to notice or even care about change if it happens slowly. It stops becoming the evil you see and more about the evil you had no idea existed until you are being asked to provide medical insurance forms when you go into A&E.
In 2012 the Health and Social Care Act was passed which allowed “any contract over £615,000” to be tendered out to private companies. As Paul Gallagher writes, the process of privatisation has been aided with the passing out of multiple contracts worth around £128m under the watch of Health Secretary, Matt Hancock.
It is not hyperbole to suggest that we might be seeing the Americanisation of our public sector.
Never before have we seen so many advances and changes to our world as we are seeing today. Climate change, the rise of biotech and infotech. The proliferation of automation and the move toward artificial-intelligence which could either improve our wayso of life, or challenge who we are as humans. The mainstreaming of electric cars and the growing awareness of plastic pollution. Widespread movements to give previously overlooked or unrepresented factions of society equal rights. The rise of Asian economies which may soon rival our own in strength, and may even become superior which could change the ways we conduct business and alter long-standing loyalties. I was even shocked recently to find out that China even has plans to build a base on the moon and mine our little white dot in the sky for hydrogen.
This is the stuff of science-fiction!
The point is: we are in a transitional phase and are suffering the existential question of how to cope with the challenges we read about in our papers and see on our television screens and social media feeds. When faced with an uncertain future, people often look to their past. To “traditional values” to guide them through the turbulence. But what exactly are traditional values and do they offer us any guidance for the future?
Nationalism seems to be on the rise in the West and has led to two of the most significant changes that we have seen in our lifetimes: the U.K’s vote to leave the European Union and the vote in America for Donald Trump as President. As an answer to perceived outside threats, two major powers have turned to isolationism.
Globalisation was a worn out word by the end of the referendum of 2016. As was elites. Sometimes we heard “global elites”. The European Union, as pushed by Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and sundry others, was a product of globalisation.
Leavers pointed to levels of immigration and told the people that it was the European Union’s open border policy that was to blame. Leavers pointed out the disenfranchised peoples of towns that had been left behind when the U.K turned from a material and production economy to a service driven economy. The European Union was blamed again for moving production facilities abroad. The decline of U.K fisheries, blame the E.U. Red passports, blame the E.U. Curved bananas, blame the E.U. Hospital waiting times, blame the E.U. Rise in crime rates, blame immigration, thus blaming the E.U.
So, can the problems listed above be solved by a move toward nationalism as was what happened in 2016?
In regards to immigration, yes, technically nationalism has the potential to cut numbers of immigrants or stop them altogether.
But is that really in the national interest? Or is it in the interest of nationalist groups? For instance, whilst the cutting might benefit those who just want see less faces of colour or to hear different languages on their streets (the nationalists) the nationalist approach itself does not do much for our economy, our public services or for our reputation as “global players” which was a phrase championed by Leavers during the referendum campaign and even now.
Whilst the phrase “global player” was used extensively throughout the referendum, the truth is that the actual action of leaving the biggest and most successful trading bloc in the world was seen by many around the globe as an act of closing one’s own doors on trade.
The NHS is dependent on nurses and doctors from the E.U and further abroad but since the Brexit vote we have seen a dramatic decrease in the amount of people applying for university courses in nursing and a drop in job applications from outside the U.K. This is indicative of the trend that those from within Europe and outside the Union were no longer interested in investing in the U.K.
Nationalists might see this drop in foreign applications as a good thing as there is potential for British citizens to take the jobs. The problem however is that it takes years to train doctors and nurses and, in the meantime, care within the NHS would have plummeted. Ironically, it would be those older voters which chose leave who would suffer the most. With around 100,000 vacancies already within the NHS, this further reduction could potentially cripple certain elements of patient care.
As is being witnessed, the idea of being both nationalist and a “global player” is not compatible.
The main problem of the referendum, however, was that it focused anger outward toward the largely neutral E.U, when the truth was that the problems that the U.K faced were actually born and bred within its own borders.
Austerity due to bailing out the banks that had lead us into the financial crash of 2008. The rise in crime as a result of Conservative initiative to cut policing numbers so that there were fewer bobbies on the beat. (Remember Theresa May telling the police federation to stop “crying wolf” in 2015 regarding police cuts). Disenfranchisement of communities as the economy changed toward services and offices were centralised toward London. Those who were workers within communities who worked within extraction and production were never provided the means to retrain, and were instead left to become outdated.
A lethal combination occurred when the finger was pointed at immigrants for pushing wages down. The fact that immigrants were benign agents in the entire mess of things was rarely pointed out and the fact that it was actually exploitative practices being undertaken by business owners. Business owners have been largely left alone by the most recent governments, after all, it is good practice to be the party of business.
This goes to show that the so-called “global-elites” were actually the people within our own borders. Our very own Prime Minster of the day, David Cameron found to be putting money into offshore Panamanian accounts. For years we watched as the government refused to impose proper tax initiatives that would have seen large companies paying their fair share of tax which could have put toward social ventures for our children, thus keeping them out of gangs and preventing such a sharp increase in knife-crime. Not only were companies doing so, but the Conservatives were helping them maintain the status quo.
Britain has for years now been deeply entrenched in off-shore bank account activity that it the global master on managing assets and transferring money to keep it from the hands of nations. It is estimated that half of all global wealth could be locked up in off-shore accounts.
In the face of problems that originated within our own national system, people turned to nationalism to sort out the problem. That is a new one for me.
In 2013, the E.U offered to give a £22million cash injection into food banks in order to make sure that they were stocked and operational. This was turned down by David Cameron. Whilst our own government strangled the country, the E.U at least offered some kind of help. But that’s not all. The E.U has also been funnelling money into community projects including social groups and buildings, but this is rarely mentioned. The E.U is also a propagator of worker’s rights and is constantly moving to improve pay throughout its jurisdictions. When we are faced with military or cyber warfare, as we have seen from Russia during the referendum campaign and which the U.S witnessed during the presidential campaign, the E.U has close proximity to share information and make sure that each of its member states has the necessary tools to help fight back.
So, nationalism does not actually offer any real solutions to our national problems. Does it offer solutions to wider world issues? In an age of transnationalism, could countries learn from nationalist ideals?
Climate change is not an issue, it is the issue which will determine the very future of human civilisation. And climate change does not recognise borders drawn by man. A tropical storm does not stop when it hits the American coast. It ploughs through and wreaks untold damage. Plastic does not stop at the English Channel. It sweeps in and becomes part of our ecosystem. Just as much as melted ice does not stay in the Arctic Circle but raises water levels around the world.
And when islands start submerging and already challenged countries face drought and famine, we are going to see mass exodus unlike anything witnessed in documented history.
Unfortunately, nationalist interests have often disregard climate change in order to focus on more provincial initiatives such as kick-starting coal mining operations or doubling down on fuel extraction efforts. In the United States, nationalism is often synonymous with climate change denial as is evidential with Donald Trump’s repeated claims that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese.
In regards to solutions to the climate crisis, nationalist approaches fall short. If nationalists really wanted to make a difference, they would join the global effort to battle climate change which would in turn mean that they are less likely to experience such a high influx of immigrants to their borders. Instead of becoming isolationist, it is within nationalist’s best interests to take part in a multi-national approach in order to combat the effects of climate change.
But then what would be the point in being nationalist when all we are going to do is have to work with countries around the globe and put measures in place which, whether we like it or not, would see the adoption of plans to take in refugees fleeing the effects of an unstable and changing climate?
Throughout history, civilisations have moved and shifted as the cattle migrates or as the living conditions change. After all, if the U.K were to become a dessert wasteland, would we not seek refuge in other countries? But we are the beginning of the catastrophic change where the decisions we make today will effect the next generation. We have the ability to make positive differences to the ways we tackle this threat. But are we capable of doing this as nationalists? Surely we are better prepared against the challenges if we work on an international scale?