This 1952 memo from the Pentagon UFO files is superb
There is no point preparing for aliens ‘because no one of consequence is going to take this rubbish seriously unless it happens. At that point, our policy will be determined in the traditional manner of grand panic.’ 🤣 www.war.gov/medialink/uf...
That headline reminded me of this famous quote from American history:
Washington [D.C.] is not a place to live in. The rents are high, the food is bad, the dust is disgusting and the morals are deplorable. Go West, young man, go West and grow up with the country.
Despite its fame, its origin is obscure. Historians do not agree on who said it, or when it was said.
I look forward to one of you adapting that quotation to your current little problem. Suggesting a move to Wales, perhaps? To Canada, or even Greenland?
I see the remaining Brexit devotees are now openly panicking
OK dear.
Having suffered the utter incompetence of every government that has been In office since Brexit, the Euro and Schengen seem a small price to pay for taking power away from them.
And what if the EU proves to be incompetent as a government in running our currency and borders?
What then?
I guess the EU being a union of consent*, the UK would be allowed to rethink yet again.
*not all unions are like this.
Article 50 didn't exist until 2007.
Now, in practical terms, a process would have been found if we'd asked to leave, of course. Scotland is welcome to do a UDI and see what happens...
Technically, any country could leave the EU by just repealing the enabling legislation. That's not true, of course, with Scotland.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using to get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
I see there's some wriggling on this by Nige fans with some tenuous comparisons.
I think a more accurate summary is that the donor is in favour of crypto-deregulation, while Nige is in favour of receiving a £5m personal gift.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
It would be immensely funny if Catherine West accidentally ended up PM. And all the carefully manoeuvring by the rest ends up for nought.
You’d need a heart of stone not to laugh.
I for one reckon she'll deserve it.
She'll deserve a Cabinet post in the Government of whoever succeeds Starmer.
Balls of steel.
If she sticks to her guns, she'll have a more positive favourability rating than Burnham.
She comes across quite well in this interview from 2015. If she puts in a good performance on TV tomorrow, maybe she’ll get enough momentum to become a serious contender.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
If a £5m donation has enough wriggle room to get by without being registerable, then the system is utterly useless.
It should be automatically registerable - without exception - at £5,000.
That is, 1,000th of the sum grifted - sorry, gifted - to Farage.
I imagine this sort of lottery-win sum is enough to make most who voted Reformthis week splutter into their cornflakes. "The system needs - er - reforming!"
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
If a £5m donation has enough wriggle room to get by without being registerable, then the system is utterly useless.
It should be automatically registerable - without exception - at £5,000.
That is, 1,000th of the sum grifted - sorry, gifted - to Farage.
I imagine this sort of lottery-win sum is enough to make most who voted Reformthis week splutter into their cornflakes. "The system needs - er - reforming!"
We have had parties play the sytem before and make a mockery of it. Remember how Labour didn't take donations, they were loaned money with no interest that was never called in, so never technically a donation that needed to be registered (until it eventually blew up).
Farage plays close to the wind with lots of things e.g. his housing arrangements, but so far has managed to just trend the line. Maybe this will turn into something bigger, we will see. So far all his outside earnings that are world's away from your typical Reform voter doesn't seemed to have dented his brand with them.
Reform are very stupid if they think the media won't keep pulling at every string possible, so thinking you can not do things by the book will just get them iinto more and more trouble.
Rage against the dying of the light from Ben Judah there. Bless.
Jonny Freedland said say thing in Guardian this morning (the EU bit not the raging at the light bit). The one game changer Starmer could pull on Monday.
But it isn't. Nor is 'a closer relationship'. The EU isn't a volume dial that you can turn down and up. 'A closer relationship' requires agreement, and if we could not walk away (which we wouldn't be able to, because Starmer would need an agreement for political reasons) we would be fucked. And the fucking would go down with the public like a cup of cold sick.
Polling for Queen Margaret University found 80% of Labour supporters want to join the customs union. But 9% of Labour supporters want 'someone other than the UK deciding our tariff policy' - which is the customs union. Support for rejoin is a bubble. It's supporters are low information people who have no idea what it entails.
While the masses who voted to leave are high information people. Yeah right…
A new dusk has broken, has it not? Smashed, pulverised, crushed. If you don’t like these as descriptions of Labour’s performance in the May elections, many others are available…[but] you can find the odd shred of consolation for the government. The British are evidently fed up with their current rulers, but their votes are fragmenting all over the shop rather than coalescing around a clear alternative.
[Nevertheless] These are not the kind of setbacks that can be shrugged off as typical of the misfortunes that often befall governments at midterm. These are losses on a scale that invites existential questions about Labour. The best case for letting [Starmer] stay on for now is that there is little guarantee that a change would make things any better and considerable risk that it could make things even bleaker. Ministers also fret that a leadership contest might ignite a full-on civil war between the party’s centrists and its soft left. What stays their hand is not loyalty or affection towards the boss, but the lack of any settled conviction that a coup attempt would produce salvation.
For so long as [Burnham] is unavailable, his backers are incentivised to keep Sir Keir in place. And Sir Keir’s people in the party machinery are incentivised to confine Mr Burnham to Manchester. Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers if only they could be certain that most party members feel the same way. [But] The health secretary is reluctant to initiate a contest by striking the first blow. Angela Rayner has her fans, but she doesn’t poll well. The result is a Mexican standoff between Sir Keir and the pretenders to his battered throne.
It would make most sense for Labour to take a collective decision to back its leader or to sack him. One of the most enervating courses for the party to take is to spend many more weeks agitating, conjecturing and scheming about its leadership without resolving the issue one way or another. That is also the likeliest thing to happen.
A new dusk has broken, has it not? Smashed, pulverised, crushed. If you don’t like these as descriptions of Labour’s performance in the May elections, many others are available…[but] you can find the odd shred of consolation for the government. The British are evidently fed up with their current rulers, but their votes are fragmenting all over the shop rather than coalescing around a clear alternative.
[Nevertheless] These are not the kind of setbacks that can be shrugged off as typical of the misfortunes that often befall governments at midterm. These are losses on a scale that invites existential questions about Labour. The best case for letting [Starmer] stay on for now is that there is little guarantee that a change would make things any better and considerable risk that it could make things even bleaker. Ministers also fret that a leadership contest might ignite a full-on civil war between the party’s centrists and its soft left. What stays their hand is not loyalty or affection towards the boss, but the lack of any settled conviction that a coup attempt would produce salvation.
For so long as [Burnham] is unavailable, his backers are incentivised to keep Sir Keir in place. And Sir Keir’s people in the party machinery are incentivised to confine Mr Burnham to Manchester. Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers if only they could be certain that most party members feel the same way. [But] The health secretary is reluctant to initiate a contest by striking the first blow. Angela Rayner has her fans, but she doesn’t poll well. The result is a Mexican standoff between Sir Keir and the pretenders to his battered throne.
It would make most sense for Labour to take a collective decision to back its leader or to sack him. One of the most enervating courses for the party to take is to spend many more weeks agitating, conjecturing and scheming about its leadership without resolving the issue one way or another. That is also the likeliest thing to happen.
Why do you always share "Rawnsley's take" as if he delivers some real magic insight?
I'd find it more revealing pasting the last 48 hours of news articles into ChatGPT.
Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers
Is this in the best interests of the nation ... or the Party ... or themselves? Ministers are appointed by the PM so any show of disloyalty risks their position in a reshuffle. Albeit those ministers that have little support within the party.
Then there are the "Wise Ones". There to protect Starmer or the Party. Perhaps they are there to chaperon Starmer to the door should soundings suggest it's in the government's best interest. The Party won't want to hand over the keys to the upstart, the dodgy, or the incompetent.
On Monday, I'd be checking projected interest rates as there may be a need for substantial future borrowing if Hormuz doesn't settle soon and energy prices stay as high as they are.
A new dusk has broken, has it not? Smashed, pulverised, crushed. If you don’t like these as descriptions of Labour’s performance in the May elections, many others are available…[but] you can find the odd shred of consolation for the government. The British are evidently fed up with their current rulers, but their votes are fragmenting all over the shop rather than coalescing around a clear alternative.
[Nevertheless] These are not the kind of setbacks that can be shrugged off as typical of the misfortunes that often befall governments at midterm. These are losses on a scale that invites existential questions about Labour. The best case for letting [Starmer] stay on for now is that there is little guarantee that a change would make things any better and considerable risk that it could make things even bleaker. Ministers also fret that a leadership contest might ignite a full-on civil war between the party’s centrists and its soft left. What stays their hand is not loyalty or affection towards the boss, but the lack of any settled conviction that a coup attempt would produce salvation.
For so long as [Burnham] is unavailable, his backers are incentivised to keep Sir Keir in place. And Sir Keir’s people in the party machinery are incentivised to confine Mr Burnham to Manchester. Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers if only they could be certain that most party members feel the same way. [But] The health secretary is reluctant to initiate a contest by striking the first blow. Angela Rayner has her fans, but she doesn’t poll well. The result is a Mexican standoff between Sir Keir and the pretenders to his battered throne.
It would make most sense for Labour to take a collective decision to back its leader or to sack him. One of the most enervating courses for the party to take is to spend many more weeks agitating, conjecturing and scheming about its leadership without resolving the issue one way or another. That is also the likeliest thing to happen.
Why do you always share "Rawnsley's take" as if he delivers some real magic insight?
I'd find it more revealing pasting the last 48 hours of news articles into ChatGPT.
Donkeys years ago during New Labour years he was extremely well connected to be worth listening to, now he seems quite irrevelant. A bit like does anybody take any notice of Polly Toynbee these days, even from a clickbait what nonsense is she talking about this time.
A new dusk has broken, has it not? Smashed, pulverised, crushed. If you don’t like these as descriptions of Labour’s performance in the May elections, many others are available…[but] you can find the odd shred of consolation for the government. The British are evidently fed up with their current rulers, but their votes are fragmenting all over the shop rather than coalescing around a clear alternative.
[Nevertheless] These are not the kind of setbacks that can be shrugged off as typical of the misfortunes that often befall governments at midterm. These are losses on a scale that invites existential questions about Labour. The best case for letting [Starmer] stay on for now is that there is little guarantee that a change would make things any better and considerable risk that it could make things even bleaker. Ministers also fret that a leadership contest might ignite a full-on civil war between the party’s centrists and its soft left. What stays their hand is not loyalty or affection towards the boss, but the lack of any settled conviction that a coup attempt would produce salvation.
For so long as [Burnham] is unavailable, his backers are incentivised to keep Sir Keir in place. And Sir Keir’s people in the party machinery are incentivised to confine Mr Burnham to Manchester. Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers if only they could be certain that most party members feel the same way. [But] The health secretary is reluctant to initiate a contest by striking the first blow. Angela Rayner has her fans, but she doesn’t poll well. The result is a Mexican standoff between Sir Keir and the pretenders to his battered throne.
It would make most sense for Labour to take a collective decision to back its leader or to sack him. One of the most enervating courses for the party to take is to spend many more weeks agitating, conjecturing and scheming about its leadership without resolving the issue one way or another. That is also the likeliest thing to happen.
Why do you always share "Rawnsley's take" as if he delivers some real magic insight?
I'd find it more revealing pasting the last 48 hours of news articles into ChatGPT.
Donkeys years ago during New Labour years he was extremely well connected to be worth listening to, now he seems quite irrevelant. A bit like does anybody take any notice of Polly Toynbee these days, even from a clickbait what nonsense is she talking about this time.
He also suffers quite badly from the need to meet the count. It's wordy but not witty. As you say, he was interesting about New Labour back in the day, though.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
A new dusk has broken, has it not? Smashed, pulverised, crushed. If you don’t like these as descriptions of Labour’s performance in the May elections, many others are available…[but] you can find the odd shred of consolation for the government. The British are evidently fed up with their current rulers, but their votes are fragmenting all over the shop rather than coalescing around a clear alternative.
[Nevertheless] These are not the kind of setbacks that can be shrugged off as typical of the misfortunes that often befall governments at midterm. These are losses on a scale that invites existential questions about Labour. The best case for letting [Starmer] stay on for now is that there is little guarantee that a change would make things any better and considerable risk that it could make things even bleaker. Ministers also fret that a leadership contest might ignite a full-on civil war between the party’s centrists and its soft left. What stays their hand is not loyalty or affection towards the boss, but the lack of any settled conviction that a coup attempt would produce salvation.
For so long as [Burnham] is unavailable, his backers are incentivised to keep Sir Keir in place. And Sir Keir’s people in the party machinery are incentivised to confine Mr Burnham to Manchester. Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers if only they could be certain that most party members feel the same way. [But] The health secretary is reluctant to initiate a contest by striking the first blow. Angela Rayner has her fans, but she doesn’t poll well. The result is a Mexican standoff between Sir Keir and the pretenders to his battered throne.
It would make most sense for Labour to take a collective decision to back its leader or to sack him. One of the most enervating courses for the party to take is to spend many more weeks agitating, conjecturing and scheming about its leadership without resolving the issue one way or another. That is also the likeliest thing to happen.
Why do you always share "Rawnsley's take" as if he delivers some real magic insight?
I'd find it more revealing pasting the last 48 hours of news articles into ChatGPT.
Donkeys years ago during New Labour years he was extremely well connected to be worth listening to, now he seems quite irrevelant. A bit like does anybody take any notice of Polly Toynbee these days, even from a clickbait what nonsense is she talking about this time.
He wrote a couple of good books on New Labour and was evidently well connected. He's an intelligent and forthright commentator, and he writes well. The piece you quote could however have been written by a number of posters on here.
It is hardly controversial, or illuminating, but perhaps there isn't a great deal to say about the matter.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Kellner says reform has peaked. And more nuanced on the picture for both Labour and Tories.
Has Reform peaked though? And what of the Greens whose returns, while impressive, fell short of their more optimistic predictions?
And not least, what is the point of the LibDems now their NOTA space has been usurped by Reform and the Greens? They consolidated power in areas of traditional strength but can they be taken seriously as a national party?
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
They’re desperately trying to make the story about something else. They came up with an arson attack on Farage’s home, but the police report says it was a failed burglary and doesn’t say arson. (Which is like when Farage said the Speaker’s office had said it wasn’t safe for him to do surgeries in person in his constituency… but they’d never said that.) Farage seems as prone as his idol Trump to fake news.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
They’re desperately trying to make the story about something else. They came up with an arson attack on Farage’s home, but the police report says it was a failed burglary and doesn’t say arson. (Which is like when Farage said the Speaker’s office had said it wasn’t safe for him to do surgeries in person in his constituency… but they’d never said that.) Farage seems as prone as his idol Trump to fake news.
Farage cannot stand up to scrutiny.
But most of our media won't do it because they support the line for commercial or political reasons, or because they do not do investigative journalism.
I think there is an interesting opposite operation happening to undermine Zack Polanski by attaching to him stories which are stereotyped, just as we have the false (or massively exaggerated) "women in Burkas are a security risk" meme as a component of a practice of demonising Muslims.
A new dusk has broken, has it not? Smashed, pulverised, crushed. If you don’t like these as descriptions of Labour’s performance in the May elections, many others are available…[but] you can find the odd shred of consolation for the government. The British are evidently fed up with their current rulers, but their votes are fragmenting all over the shop rather than coalescing around a clear alternative.
[Nevertheless] These are not the kind of setbacks that can be shrugged off as typical of the misfortunes that often befall governments at midterm. These are losses on a scale that invites existential questions about Labour. The best case for letting [Starmer] stay on for now is that there is little guarantee that a change would make things any better and considerable risk that it could make things even bleaker. Ministers also fret that a leadership contest might ignite a full-on civil war between the party’s centrists and its soft left. What stays their hand is not loyalty or affection towards the boss, but the lack of any settled conviction that a coup attempt would produce salvation.
For so long as [Burnham] is unavailable, his backers are incentivised to keep Sir Keir in place. And Sir Keir’s people in the party machinery are incentivised to confine Mr Burnham to Manchester. Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers if only they could be certain that most party members feel the same way. [But] The health secretary is reluctant to initiate a contest by striking the first blow. Angela Rayner has her fans, but she doesn’t poll well. The result is a Mexican standoff between Sir Keir and the pretenders to his battered throne.
It would make most sense for Labour to take a collective decision to back its leader or to sack him. One of the most enervating courses for the party to take is to spend many more weeks agitating, conjecturing and scheming about its leadership without resolving the issue one way or another. That is also the likeliest thing to happen.
Why do you always share "Rawnsley's take" as if he delivers some real magic insight?
I'd find it more revealing pasting the last 48 hours of news articles into ChatGPT.
Donkeys years ago during New Labour years he was extremely well connected to be worth listening to, now he seems quite irrevelant. A bit like does anybody take any notice of Polly Toynbee these days, even from a clickbait what nonsense is she talking about this time.
He wrote a couple of good books on New Labour and was evidently well connected. He's an intelligent and forthright commentator, and he writes well. The piece you quote could however have been written by a number of posters on here.
It is hardly controversial, or illuminating, but perhaps there isn't a great deal to say about the matter.
I'm surprised Rawnsley's editor allowed the term ‘Mexican standoff’. After years of woke DEI training in private sector international and global megacorps, my instinct is to avoid any such phrase. In any case, it is not even clear that is a better description of Labour's situation than ‘impasse’ or ‘deadlock’.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using to get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
The reporting requirements are retrospective. The Parliamentary code of conduct (not a law, but can have serious consequences if broken) says MPs need to declare any financial interests from the 12 months before they became an MP.
The Electoral Commission are also investigating whether any law has been broken. Political parties are legally obliged to report donations above £500. The question, I presume, is whether this gift counts as a donation to the party. Farage says it was a personal gift, but he’s not exactly been straight about it so far.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Ian Paisley Jnr was suspended from Parliament for 30 days for failing to declare two family holidays paid for by the Sri Lankan government. This led to an automatic recall petition, which narrowly failed. So, more than a slap on the wrist! If Farage gets suspended and a recall petition is triggered, I bet that one will pass, leading to a by-election.
That headline reminded me of this famous quote from American history:
Washington [D.C.] is not a place to live in. The rents are high, the food is bad, the dust is disgusting and the morals are deplorable. Go West, young man, go West and grow up with the country.
Despite its fame, its origin is obscure. Historians do not agree on who said it, or when it was said.
I look forward to one of you adapting that quotation to your current little problem. Suggesting a move to Wales, perhaps? To Canada, or even Greenland?
I'm sure it was the Pet Shop Boys.
The village people originally and one of their wife’s has gone MAGA so the concert film doesn’t have Go West in it because well it’s not a gay anthem
Burnham would need to find new talent to bring into Cabinet.
There is very little quality in the current team
The rumour of Milliband as CoE is worrying. That sort of zealotry should not be near the levers of power.
He needs decent communicators with the ability to master a complex brief. Not place holders with no real understanding of their policy area.
One of the Blair sprogs? I mean - at this stage, why not?
If you want to change things someone needs to bring he Treasury under control and edit the green book rules on investment so it isn’t biased towards London fine, everything else loses to London
Can I ask a question about Borough Mayors in London - what do they do?
Why have we been hearing endless commentary about the "Green Mayor of Hackney", but nothing about any of the others?
What about the Mayor of Bexley, or the Mayor of Enfield, or the Mayor of Hammersmith and Fulham? Is there variation even amongst London Boroughs in types of mayor?
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
The repeated language of the Code is “If there is any doubt”, declare it. That’s there precisely so that MPs can’t wriggle out of grey areas. It seems to me hard for Farage to claim there was no doubt (particularly not if he sought legal advice on the permissibility of the gift!).
Farage has explicitly said that the money was for his security. His security is only an issue because he’s a politician. Ergo, clearly this gift *is* “related to […] the Member’s […] political activities”.
Farage, of course, doesn’t get to decide for himself whether this gift had to be declared. It’s going to be decided by Parliament.
Kellner says reform has peaked. And more nuanced on the picture for both Labour and Tories.
Has Reform peaked though? And what of the Greens whose returns, while impressive, fell short of their more optimistic predictions?
And not least, what is the point of the LibDems now their NOTA space has been usurped by Reform and the Greens? They consolidated power in areas of traditional strength but can they be taken seriously as a national party?
They may yet reach another peak, but I'm hopeful Reform are on the slide.
Next general election could be Farage vs. Labour leader - who do you want as PM? Provided Lab pick the right candidate that is very winnable.
Jacob Rees-Mogg believes the Prime Minister should resign:-
I'm not advocating any individual new Labour leader. I see difficulties in all of them, and I'm a conservative, but I do at least see that Angela Rayner is charismatic. I do at least see that Ed Milliband is a competent administrator. I do at least see that Wes Streeting is trying to reform the health service. All three of them have greater virtues than Keir Starmer. They have some idea of what they want to do.
Can I ask a question about Borough Mayors in London - what do they do?
Why have we been hearing endless commentary about the "Green Mayor of Hackney", but nothing about any of the others?
What about the Mayor of Bexley, or the Mayor of Enfield, or the Mayor of Hammersmith and Fulham? Is there variation even amongst London Boroughs in types of mayor?
Mostly, they're traditional mayors, elected by the councillors, who look like the one in Trumpton, chair council meetings, open playgrounds and host events for mayors of neighbouring boroughs.
A few (Hackney, Lewisham, Newham, Tower Hamlets?) passed referenda to create miniature Andy Burnhams, who can basically do whatever they like unless a supermajority of councillors veto it.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
So, was this a personal bung or a political one?
It must be nice to have friends who are eccentic billionaires giving away £5 million presents with no strings attached.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
The "security" story is pretty sketchy, too.
The bloke who took £5m from a foreign-based billionaire to use for his own safety concerns is the same man who refused to hold surgeries in his constituency due to concerns for his safety *after* receiving £5m from a foreign-based billionaire to use for his own safety concerns https://x.com/Zero_4/status/2053065675002765543
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
It’s actually worth noting what the extent of that benefit might be. Our debt is around £3trn. Our premium on ECB bonds is now just over 1.5%. That’s £45bn a year, probably enough to pay our net contribution. Of course, there are other ways of reducing that premium such as electing economically literate or sane politicians but after Thursday that surely has to go in the fantasy column.
Can I ask a question about Borough Mayors in London - what do they do?
Why have we been hearing endless commentary about the "Green Mayor of Hackney", but nothing about any of the others?
What about the Mayor of Bexley, or the Mayor of Enfield, or the Mayor of Hammersmith and Fulham? Is there variation even amongst London Boroughs in types of mayor?
There is variation. Most Borough have a council and one of the councillors becomes a ceremonial mayor. Some councils opted for a directly elected mayor with executive power.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
For the reasons I have mentioned I think that we would be on a very rigid and committed schedule. There’s absolutely no way that the EU would contemplate going through the last 10 years again without that level of commitment. And if the British people voted against it that would be a deal breaker.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
So, was this a personal bung or a political one?
It must be nice to have friends who are eccentic billionaires giving away £5 million presents with no strings attached.
It should remind us all that, for some, £5 million is chicken feed.
The problem is this, though. How does one punish Nigel for this without him turning it into "the establishment are trying to silence me because they can't beat me fair and square"?
Madness, of course. But crowds are not always wise. And, one of the things charismatic people are able to do is intuit how far they can cross the painted line on the grounds that punishing them will create even more trouble.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
"If there is doubt, the benefit should be registered. " There's no wiggle room here.
Jacob Rees-Mogg believes the Prime Minister should resign:-
I'm not advocating any individual new Labour leader. I see difficulties in all of them, and I'm a conservative, but I do at least see that Angela Rayner is charismatic. I do at least see that Ed Milliband is a competent administrator. I do at least see that Wes Streeting is trying to reform the health service. All three of them have greater virtues than Keir Starmer. They have some idea of what they want to do.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes, I know Sweden hasn't yet joined the Euro yet. The "whole bunch" you mention is solely limited to Poland, Czechia, Hungary and Romania. Everyone else (except Denmark) has joined, with Bulgaria joining this year.
We are talking about the UK. In the UK we specialise in lawfare. We have a whole legal industry dedicated to exploiting domestic and international law to the absolute letter to achieve political outcomes. Since joining the Euro would be "the law" it would entirely straightforward to obtain a binding legal ruling to compel the UK government to take steps to achieve it to an agreed timetable.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
So, was this a personal bung or a political one?
It must be nice to have friends who are eccentic billionaires giving away £5 million presents with no strings attached.
I think it’s difficult to argue that £5 million from someone who regularly donates to the political party you lead constitutes a “purely personal gift”, akin to something from a partner or family member. Farage, Jenrick et al. are going to continue spouting that line over and over, but I don’t see any way Farage doesn’t fall afoul of the rules. The question is only whether he gets away with a minor “don’t do it again” or something serious, like a suspension from Parliament. (A suspension of at least 10 sitting days or 14 calendar days triggers a recall petition.)
Kellner says reform has peaked. And more nuanced on the picture for both Labour and Tories.
Has Reform peaked though? And what of the Greens whose returns, while impressive, fell short of their more optimistic predictions?
And not least, what is the point of the LibDems now their NOTA space has been usurped by Reform and the Greens? They consolidated power in areas of traditional strength but can they be taken seriously as a national party?
They may yet reach another peak, but I'm hopeful Reform are on the slide.
Next general election could be Farage vs. Labour leader - who do you want as PM? Provided Lab pick the right candidate that is very winnable.
Two things: 1. I hope you're right, I'm less convinced, though would be delighted. 2. The link you shared doxxed you 'XX' shared this post with you. Not sure if that bothers you but I thought I'd let you know.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
It’s actually worth noting what the extent of that benefit might be. Our debt is around £3trn. Our premium on ECB bonds is now just over 1.5%. That’s £45bn a year, probably enough to pay our net contribution. Of course, there are other ways of reducing that premium such as electing economically literate or sane politicians but after Thursday that surely has to go in the fantasy column.
It's not as simple as that, since a lot of debt is long term, and can't just be rolled over at cheaper rates.
But yes, there would be a significant direct fiscal benefit to add to the trade benefits. And rates would come down to some extent before we joined the euro (which might in any event be delayed for years).
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
There's no wiggle room here.
Farage isn't really trying to wriggle here. The words might be a bit wriggly, but (as always) the words are noise to fill the silence. Ignore the patter, watch the hands.
Taking a huge amount of money probably doesn't lose Nigel many votes. Trying to sanction Nigel for taking a huge amount of money will make him look like a martyr, which will, if anything, gain him votes. So he takes the money. Of course he does.
As another charismatic politician said, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's what individuals do with that insight that matters, unfortunately.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
I never want to join the Euro. Ever.
I find it fascinating how europhiles think they can mollify eurosceptics just by saying it "takes time" and "not right away". See also "two-speed Europe". Exactly the same people who'd then shrug their shoulders a few years down the line when European politics or its treaties demanded we adopt a law, regulation or commitment despite domestic opposition.
Being disingenuous is baked in. It's calculated deception.
We've been here before, and that's precisely why we left.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
There's no wiggle room here.
Farage isn't really trying to wriggle here. The words might be a bit wriggly, but (as always) the words are noise to fill the silence. Ignore the patter, watch the hands.
Taking a huge amount of money probably doesn't lose Nigel many votes. Trying to sanction Nigel for taking a huge amount of money will make him look like a martyr, which will, if anything, gain him votes. So he takes the money. Of course he does.
As another charismatic politician said, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's what individuals do with that insight that matters, unfortunately.
Opinions can differ on that.
But the fact remains that Farage should have declared the gift, and his account simply doesn't stand up.
That headline reminded me of this famous quote from American history:
Washington [D.C.] is not a place to live in. The rents are high, the food is bad, the dust is disgusting and the morals are deplorable. Go West, young man, go West and grow up with the country.
Despite its fame, its origin is obscure. Historians do not agree on who said it, or when it was said.
I look forward to one of you adapting that quotation to your current little problem. Suggesting a move to Wales, perhaps? To Canada, or even Greenland?
I'm sure it was the Pet Shop Boys.
The village people originally and one of their wife’s has gone MAGA so the concert film doesn’t have Go West in it because well it’s not a gay anthem
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
There's no wiggle room here.
Farage isn't really trying to wriggle here. The words might be a bit wriggly, but (as always) the words are noise to fill the silence. Ignore the patter, watch the hands.
Taking a huge amount of money probably doesn't lose Nigel many votes. Trying to sanction Nigel for taking a huge amount of money will make him look like a martyr, which will, if anything, gain him votes. So he takes the money. Of course he does.
As another charismatic politician said, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's what individuals do with that insight that matters, unfortunately.
I think it’s overly pessimistic to presume that trying to sanction Farage makes him look like a martyr. We had polling before that showed that linking him to big donors was the best attack line. The desperate attempts by Reform to spin this (it’s about his security, we’ll make up an arson attack, he was hacked) show that they’re concerned about the story. Everyday Reform are talking about this is a day that they’re not getting their talking points in the papers.
Also, Farage lives in a multiparty system, unlike Trump. Reform voters have more places to go than Republicans do in the US: Restore/Advance, the Tories, the Greens, etc.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
It’s actually worth noting what the extent of that benefit might be. Our debt is around £3trn. Our premium on ECB bonds is now just over 1.5%. That’s £45bn a year, probably enough to pay our net contribution. Of course, there are other ways of reducing that premium such as electing economically literate or sane politicians but after Thursday that surely has to go in the fantasy column.
It's not as simple as that, since a lot of debt is long term, and can't just be rolled over at cheaper rates.
But yes, there would be a significant direct fiscal benefit to add to the trade benefits. And rates would come down to some extent before we joined the euro (which might in any event be delayed for years).
We don’t have to wait until maturity before repaying or rolling over the debt. We can buy the debt in the market and pay for it with shiny new ECB bonds. The ECB might want a limit on how much we did that as lenders of last resort but we certainly wouldn’t be waiting 20-30 years for this benefit.
My fear, especially after the lunacy of Thursday, is that the premium on our debt might increase even further. We are, as a country, simply not interested in electing politicians who are capable of dealing with the real world. Electing Greens or Reform is not a free hit. It has consequences.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
I never want to join the Euro. Ever.
I find it fascinating how europhiles think they can mollify eurosceptics just by saying it "takes time" and "not right away". See also "two-speed Europe". Exactly the same people who'd then shrug their shoulders a few years down the line when European politics or its treaties demanded we adopt a law, regulation or commitment despite domestic opposition.
Being disingenuous is baked in. It's calculated deception.
We've been here before, and that's precisely why we left.
The promises made for what Brexit would deliver have all turned out to be disingenuous, which is why the polling shows a large majority see Brexit as a mistake and a small majority support rejoin.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
"If there is doubt, the benefit should be registered. " There's no wiggle room here.
Yes, except the same donor has been bankrolling Reform, so the money given to Farage is surely (well, at least arguably) not a disguised political donation to the party.
Getting Inflation down - even by subsidising energy prices or cutting import costs would really help. Approximately 25% of the UK government's debt is in inflation-linked bonds (index-linked gilts). This is a very high proportion compared to other G7 nations (next highest is Italy at 12%), meaning UK debt interest payments are exceptionally sensitive to Retail Prices Index (RPI) spikes. FFS why is RPI still used?
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
There's no wiggle room here.
Farage isn't really trying to wriggle here. The words might be a bit wriggly, but (as always) the words are noise to fill the silence. Ignore the patter, watch the hands.
Taking a huge amount of money probably doesn't lose Nigel many votes. Trying to sanction Nigel for taking a huge amount of money will make him look like a martyr, which will, if anything, gain him votes. So he takes the money. Of course he does.
As another charismatic politician said, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's what individuals do with that insight that matters, unfortunately.
Opinions can differ on that.
But the fact remains that Farage should have declared the gift, and his account simply doesn't stand up.
Of course he should. But should only becomes must if there is a meaningful sanction at the end. I may be being unduly pessimistic and unfair to the people of Clacton, but I'm not sure he doesn't win a recall by-election and come back stronger than ever.
The big problem with Farage on his £5m is that following SKS being an idiot to avoid the Privileges committee even a referral to it is now a political issue
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
I don't think we are that stupid. We don't need to try every single wrong avenue before we choose the correct one. Apart from anything else, we don't have the luxury of time or vast buffers of national wealth and resources to support us while we indulge our stupidity. We need to get real before the country falls apart.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Based on 2026 data, if the UK government’s total debt was financed at German borrowing rates, it would potentially save in excess of £50 billion per year in interest costs. We should join the Euro tomorrow!
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Yes, or not?
Rejoin being the primary objective of British politics - and weirdly always seen as gravitationally inevitable - might just be a very Gen X/Boomer thing, who dominate political leadership and the chatterati but future younger generations may not be quite so bothered.
To be honest, it all feels quite passé. It's not the 1990s anymore, which was peak 'The Future is Europe'.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
"If there is doubt, the benefit should be registered. " There's no wiggle room here.
Yes, except the same donor has been bankrolling Reform, so the money given to Farage is surely (well, at least arguably) not a disguised political donation to the party.
That he’s also been bankrolling Reform makes it more likely that the money to Farage is a disguised political donation, not less likely. It shows that their relationship is not one of personal friends, but of donor/politician.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
I don't think we are that stupid. We don't need to try every single wrong avenue before we choose the correct one. Apart from anything else, we don't have the luxury of time or vast buffers of national wealth and resources to support us while we indulge our stupidity. We need to get real before the country falls apart.
The country isn't falling apart. It is getting torn apart by billionaires who want to weaken the power of the nation state (not just the UK, globally).
Until people understand that we are going nowhere good.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
I never want to join the Euro. Ever.
I find it fascinating how europhiles think they can mollify eurosceptics just by saying it "takes time" and "not right away". See also "two-speed Europe". Exactly the same people who'd then shrug their shoulders a few years down the line when European politics or its treaties demanded we adopt a law, regulation or commitment despite domestic opposition.
Being disingenuous is baked in. It's calculated deception.
We've been here before, and that's precisely why we left.
The promises made for what Brexit would deliver have all turned out to be disingenuous, which is why the polling shows a large majority see Brexit as a mistake and a small majority support rejoin.
Ah, whatabouttery.
When you dig into the polling beneath the headlines, you see strong polling against the idea laws & regulations or trade deals shouldn't be made here and little desire to return to free movement (and that's before you get to the money, yet alone the currency)
That small majority that you think supports Rejoin would disappear in a flash as soon as this came into focus.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
There's no wiggle room here.
Farage isn't really trying to wriggle here. The words might be a bit wriggly, but (as always) the words are noise to fill the silence. Ignore the patter, watch the hands.
Taking a huge amount of money probably doesn't lose Nigel many votes. Trying to sanction Nigel for taking a huge amount of money will make him look like a martyr, which will, if anything, gain him votes. So he takes the money. Of course he does.
As another charismatic politician said, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's what individuals do with that insight that matters, unfortunately.
Opinions can differ on that.
But the fact remains that Farage should have declared the gift, and his account simply doesn't stand up.
Of course he should. But should only becomes must if there is a meaningful sanction at the end. I may be being unduly pessimistic and unfair to the people of Clacton, but I'm not sure he doesn't win a recall by-election and come back stronger than ever.
It would be an interesting by-election. A united not-Farage candidate, a Martin Bell figure, would be best placed to win.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
For the reasons I have mentioned I think that we would be on a very rigid and committed schedule. There’s absolutely no way that the EU would contemplate going through the last 10 years again without that level of commitment. And if the British people voted against it that would be a deal breaker.
We've been in similar positions before, however, and the get-around, repeatedly, was to avoid holding a vote. Does anyone believe that aspect will have changed?
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Yes, or not?
Rejoin being the primary objective of British politics - and weirdly always seen as gravitationally inevitable - might just be a very Gen X/Boomer thing, who dominate political leadership and the chatterati but future younger generations may not be quite so bothered.
To be honest, it all feels quite passé. It's not the 1990s anymore, which was peak 'The Future is Europe'.
Polling shows it’s the young, not Boomers, who are most keen on rejoin.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
I never want to join the Euro. Ever.
I find it fascinating how europhiles think they can mollify eurosceptics just by saying it "takes time" and "not right away". See also "two-speed Europe". Exactly the same people who'd then shrug their shoulders a few years down the line when European politics or its treaties demanded we adopt a law, regulation or commitment despite domestic opposition.
Being disingenuous is baked in. It's calculated deception.
We've been here before, and that's precisely why we left.
The promises made for what Brexit would deliver have all turned out to be disingenuous, which is why the polling shows a large majority see Brexit as a mistake and a small majority support rejoin.
Ah, whatabouttery.
When you dig into the polling beneath the headlines, you see strong polling against the idea laws & regulations or trade deals shouldn't be made here and little desire to return to free movement (and that's before you get to the money, yet alone the currency)
That small majority that you think supports Rejoin would disappear in a flash as soon as this came into focus.
Polling that lists the less popular stuff produces a lower figure than neutral polling. This is not a big surprise. List the more popular stuff and you can get more enthusiastic polling.
I don’t know how people would vote if this came to a new referendum, and nor do you. The best indicator we have for now remains a neutral, bare question.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
There's no wiggle room here.
Farage isn't really trying to wriggle here. The words might be a bit wriggly, but (as always) the words are noise to fill the silence. Ignore the patter, watch the hands.
Taking a huge amount of money probably doesn't lose Nigel many votes. Trying to sanction Nigel for taking a huge amount of money will make him look like a martyr, which will, if anything, gain him votes. So he takes the money. Of course he does.
As another charismatic politician said, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's what individuals do with that insight that matters, unfortunately.
I think it’s overly pessimistic to presume that trying to sanction Farage makes him look like a martyr. We had polling before that showed that linking him to big donors was the best attack line. The desperate attempts by Reform to spin this (it’s about his security, we’ll make up an arson attack, he was hacked) show that they’re concerned about the story. Everyday Reform are talking about this is a day that they’re not getting their talking points in the papers.
Also, Farage lives in a multiparty system, unlike Trump. Reform voters have more places to go than Republicans do in the US: Restore/Advance, the Tories, the Greens, etc.
Yes, screw that. One of the many malign aspects of Trump is the way in which he is given a pass for behaviour which is either condemned as immoral, or plain illegal in others.
Let's not replicate that here with Farage.
He was already given a temporary pass on the £5m bung, with most of the media studiously ignoring the story ahead of the local elections.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Based on 2026 data, if the UK government’s total debt was financed at German borrowing rates, it would potentially save in excess of £50 billion per year in interest costs. We should join the Euro tomorrow!
Yes, being in the Euro is the best protection against spendthrift governments of right or left. Being able to deflate is a curse not a benefit.
With the imminent extinction of cash, people would adapt very quickly.
Its rather ironic really that the party leader so keen on crypto is also so keen on the pound. The whole point of crypto (other than scamming mugs with a pyramid scheme) is to divorce money from national government.
Whether rejoin (or close to rejoin) is a good idea or not, if there is a Labour leadership contest rather than a coronation (or somehow Starmer surviving to the GE) then it seems pretty inevitable to me that will be Labour's pitch at the next election. And it will be enough for them to get towards the high twenties - the question is does it provoke a Reform/Conservative merger or not?
The EU wants us for our money and our clout. The Eurozone doesn't want us, because we'd be a total pain in the arse, and suck financial services away from Frankfurt. And we'd leave the ECB with the job of effectively guaranteeing British banks.
If we wanted to join the EU with a big cheque and no Eurozone (for now at least), we probably could.
But it's a bullshit argument, because I don't believe a referendum on EU membership would be won. No one wants to go through that argument/fight again.
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
"If there is doubt, the benefit should be registered. " There's no wiggle room here.
Yes, except the same donor has been bankrolling Reform, so the money given to Farage is surely (well, at least arguably) not a disguised political donation to the party.
That he’s also been bankrolling Reform makes it more likely that the money to Farage is a disguised political donation, not less likely. It shows that their relationship is not one of personal friends, but of donor/politician.
Doesn't matter which way round you argue it; thd rules say it should have been reported.
Whether or not Farage or believes it was a political donation (and forgive me if I don't find him entirely trustworthy) isn't the test.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Based on 2026 data, if the UK government’s total debt was financed at German borrowing rates, it would potentially save in excess of £50 billion per year in interest costs. We should join the Euro tomorrow!
You're honest.
There is an argument (I think @edmundintokyo is another) that could megaphoned by Europhiles that joining the Euro is an "upgrade" and we should embrace it wholeheartedly.
This is on the basis it'd cut our borrowing costs, debt, reduce interborder trade frictions and help cement London unreservedly as the financial centre of Europe, and its place in the world. It'd also free up cash for other bit of public spending, in time.
Sure, the transition would raise prices, we'd never control our interest rates again, or monetary policy on quantitative easing/tightening, it'd really limit our national fiscal policy choices, make our exports more expensive, and our economic interests would be forever negotiated over late night dinners in Berlin or Paris, but there is a macroeconomic argument there that could convince some, especially affluent well-off professionals, if you took it rather than hide and pretend it doesn't really exist.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Yes, or not?
Rejoin being the primary objective of British politics - and weirdly always seen as gravitationally inevitable - might just be a very Gen X/Boomer thing, who dominate political leadership and the chatterati but future younger generations may not be quite so bothered.
To be honest, it all feels quite passé. It's not the 1990s anymore, which was peak 'The Future is Europe'.
I meant something slightly different. A rather pessimistic take for which I apologise...
I suspect, over the next generation, polycrises like the coming crunch from Hormuz being shut will cause many Britons to reverse the calculation that led to Brexit i.e. sovereignty will seem less important than economic prosperity.
I'm not saying that rejoing the EU specifically will be the result, rather that we will choose to cede sovereignty to a supranational body in exchange for the collective security and economic prosperity that gains. DavidL's point about the relative price of our debt is one example of the arguments that will, I think, gain more force.
Though it might need us to test the sovereignty argument to destruction, via Reform, first.
Getting Inflation down - even by subsidising energy prices or cutting import costs would really help. Approximately 25% of the UK government's debt is in inflation-linked bonds (index-linked gilts). This is a very high proportion compared to other G7 nations (next highest is Italy at 12%), meaning UK debt interest payments are exceptionally sensitive to Retail Prices Index (RPI) spikes. FFS why is RPI still used?
RPI will be replaced for gilts by CPI from 2030. To show there is no free lunch, this can be viewed as an attack on pension funds!
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Yes, or not?
Rejoin being the primary objective of British politics - and weirdly always seen as gravitationally inevitable - might just be a very Gen X/Boomer thing, who dominate political leadership and the chatterati but future younger generations may not be quite so bothered.
To be honest, it all feels quite passé. It's not the 1990s anymore, which was peak 'The Future is Europe'.
Polling shows it’s the young, not Boomers, who are most keen on rejoin.
And yet it's the Boomers who keep bleating on about it.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Yes, or not?
Rejoin being the primary objective of British politics - and weirdly always seen as gravitationally inevitable - might just be a very Gen X/Boomer thing, who dominate political leadership and the chatterati but future younger generations may not be quite so bothered.
To be honest, it all feels quite passé. It's not the 1990s anymore, which was peak 'The Future is Europe'.
Setting aside your imaginary "future younger generations", support for rejoining is strongest among those aged 16-24.
https://www.scienceofmoney.org/when-ice-ramps-up-u-s-born-workers-don-t-fill-the-gap-study-finds-557/ A central argument for intensified immigration enforcement has long been economic: remove unauthorized workers, and jobs will open up for Americans born in the United States. Employers across agriculture, construction, and other immigrant-heavy sectors have reported difficulty finding workers in 2025, while news coverage has suggested U.S.-born workers are not stepping in to fill the vacancies. Whether that pattern holds up at the national level, and what it means for paychecks, has been an open empirical question.
A new NBER working paper offers the first national, causal analysis of how the second Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge has reshaped labor market outcomes. The short answer from the authors: in places where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity spiked, likely undocumented immigrants who remained in the country worked less, and U.S.-born men without a college degree saw their employment in affected sectors decline rather than rise.
A new dusk has broken, has it not? Smashed, pulverised, crushed. If you don’t like these as descriptions of Labour’s performance in the May elections, many others are available…[but] you can find the odd shred of consolation for the government. The British are evidently fed up with their current rulers, but their votes are fragmenting all over the shop rather than coalescing around a clear alternative.
[Nevertheless] These are not the kind of setbacks that can be shrugged off as typical of the misfortunes that often befall governments at midterm. These are losses on a scale that invites existential questions about Labour. The best case for letting [Starmer] stay on for now is that there is little guarantee that a change would make things any better and considerable risk that it could make things even bleaker. Ministers also fret that a leadership contest might ignite a full-on civil war between the party’s centrists and its soft left. What stays their hand is not loyalty or affection towards the boss, but the lack of any settled conviction that a coup attempt would produce salvation.
For so long as [Burnham] is unavailable, his backers are incentivised to keep Sir Keir in place. And Sir Keir’s people in the party machinery are incentivised to confine Mr Burnham to Manchester. Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers if only they could be certain that most party members feel the same way. [But] The health secretary is reluctant to initiate a contest by striking the first blow. Angela Rayner has her fans, but she doesn’t poll well. The result is a Mexican standoff between Sir Keir and the pretenders to his battered throne.
It would make most sense for Labour to take a collective decision to back its leader or to sack him. One of the most enervating courses for the party to take is to spend many more weeks agitating, conjecturing and scheming about its leadership without resolving the issue one way or another. That is also the likeliest thing to happen.
Why do you always share "Rawnsley's take" as if he delivers some real magic insight?
I'd find it more revealing pasting the last 48 hours of news articles into ChatGPT.
Donkeys years ago during New Labour years he was extremely well connected to be worth listening to, now he seems quite irrevelant. A bit like does anybody take any notice of Polly Toynbee these days, even from a clickbait what nonsense is she talking about this time.
He wrote a couple of good books on New Labour and was evidently well connected. He's an intelligent and forthright commentator, and he writes well. The piece you quote could however have been written by a number of posters on here.
It is hardly controversial, or illuminating, but perhaps there isn't a great deal to say about the matter.
It is, however, probably on the money. Some weeks the political outlook is more obvious than others.
Complaining that you can get the same information online seems a strange criticism of a post to PB. The same could be said of a large coloured map of the London election results, which if any of us wanted it is only a click or two away.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
That's true of a whole bunch of countries, none of which have joined the Euro.
Like Sweden.
Yes but Sweden are in a very different position than us. They are members already and fairly committed to the EU. I think that if we were applying again we would be made to join the Euro right away. It would be proof of commitment and make a further withdrawal almost impossible. And since we are not France we would probably have to comply with Euro rules too which would require a sharp cut in the deficit. Which may not, in fairness, be a bad thing.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
Joining the Euro is a process that takes time. We would not have to join right away, because it’s not practical for anyone to join right away.
I never want to join the Euro. Ever.
I find it fascinating how europhiles think they can mollify eurosceptics just by saying it "takes time" and "not right away". See also "two-speed Europe". Exactly the same people who'd then shrug their shoulders a few years down the line when European politics or its treaties demanded we adopt a law, regulation or commitment despite domestic opposition.
Being disingenuous is baked in. It's calculated deception.
We've been here before, and that's precisely why we left.
The promises made for what Brexit would deliver have all turned out to be disingenuous, which is why the polling shows a large majority see Brexit as a mistake and a small majority support rejoin.
Ah, whatabouttery.
When you dig into the polling beneath the headlines, you see strong polling against the idea laws & regulations or trade deals shouldn't be made here and little desire to return to free movement (and that's before you get to the money, yet alone the currency)
That small majority that you think supports Rejoin would disappear in a flash as soon as this came into focus.
My faith in our ability to govern ourselves has been shaken by Thursday. As a country we are simply not being serious about our challenges, our choices and the consequences of those choices. Membership of the Euro removes huge areas of governance from our elected politicians, from any form of democratic oversight really. I used to believe that was a bad thing. But I am beginning to wonder.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
I don't think we are that stupid. We don't need to try every single wrong avenue before we choose the correct one. Apart from anything else, we don't have the luxury of time or vast buffers of national wealth and resources to support us while we indulge our stupidity. We need to get real before the country falls apart.
The country isn't falling apart. It is getting torn apart by billionaires who want to weaken the power of the nation state (not just the UK, globally).
Until people understand that we are going nowhere good.
To be honest, I don't actually believe it's the billionaires. We just resent the fact they're still doing ok, and dominate areas of new tech, whilst the rest of us are left behind.
We are in the place we're in because the West is no longer absolute top-dog and we're not growing, largely due to increasingly unaffordable welfare commitments to older voters, not enough young workers and not enough hard-work and innovation.
Try telling people we need more people doing more hard-work and being creative more, and they'll get less money in the meantime.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Yes, or not?
Rejoin being the primary objective of British politics - and weirdly always seen as gravitationally inevitable - might just be a very Gen X/Boomer thing, who dominate political leadership and the chatterati but future younger generations may not be quite so bothered.
To be honest, it all feels quite passé. It's not the 1990s anymore, which was peak 'The Future is Europe'.
I meant something slightly different. A rather pessimistic take for which I apologise...
I suspect, over the next generation, polycrises like the coming crunch from Hormuz being shut will cause many Britons to reverse the calculation that led to Brexit i.e. sovereignty will seem less important than economic prosperity.
I'm not saying that rejoing the EU specifically will be the result, rather that we will choose to cede sovereignty to a supranational body in exchange for the collective security and economic prosperity that gains. DavidL's point about the relative price of our debt is one example of the arguments that will, I think, gain more force.
Though it might need us to test the sovereignty argument to destruction, via Reform, first.
Yes, I think the paradox is that a Reform government makes Rejoin much more appealing and likely. It will be a clown car crash from day one, like Trump 47.
Rejoining the EU - or attempting to Rejoin (we might be vetoed) - would be easily as agonising as Brexit and probably much worse. Because quitting a club is ultimately easier than joining. Especially joining a club that isn’t sure you’d be a good member
It would five-ten years of anguished and tedious negotiations during which the EU - and every member state - would try to extract as much juice from the British Orange as possible. They would make the pips squeak
And, despite what “Ben Judah” says, we would certainly have to join the euro. It’s the one way to shackle us forever
we would not be vetoed per se. We would be told full fat including Euro and Schengen, or no.
Actually, I don't think that necessarily true. The EU is happy to have many countries indefinitely delaying Euro membership, because the time is never quite right. I have no doubt that -if we were going to be writing a large cheque- then we would get the same treatment.
No, we would be legally obligated to adopt the euro in future, under law, once we met the convergence criteria.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
There may be a "legal obligation to join", yet there are a number of countries within the Single Market with their own free-floating currencies - Sweden since 2003, and they have had a referendum which said "do not join the Exchange Rate Mechanism II", which is a required stage on the way to the Euro.
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
Sweden. Swe-den. Sweden!
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Agreed.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
Yes, or not?
Rejoin being the primary objective of British politics - and weirdly always seen as gravitationally inevitable - might just be a very Gen X/Boomer thing, who dominate political leadership and the chatterati but future younger generations may not be quite so bothered.
To be honest, it all feels quite passé. It's not the 1990s anymore, which was peak 'The Future is Europe'.
I meant something slightly different. A rather pessimistic take for which I apologise...
I suspect, over the next generation, polycrises like the coming crunch from Hormuz being shut will cause many Britons to reverse the calculation that led to Brexit i.e. sovereignty will seem less important than economic prosperity.
I'm not saying that rejoing the EU specifically will be the result, rather that we will choose to cede sovereignty to a supranational body in exchange for the collective security and economic prosperity that gains. DavidL's point about the relative price of our debt is one example of the arguments that will, I think, gain more force.
Though it might need us to test the sovereignty argument to destruction, via Reform, first.
Fair enough.
I think it could make the argument for better alliances/arrangements and cooperation.
I don't think that invariably leads to "Rejoin the EU".
Nigel Farage says a “serious” hack of his computer led to the revelation that he received a £5m undeclared gift
Reform UK is “exploring” its legal options
Hahahaha
So he had no intention otherwise of ever declaring it?
Interesting.
Out of interest, what's the law on this?
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using the get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
I think the rule book offers guidance is you should always urge on the side of caution i.e. over declare stuff, when it comes to MPs having received donations / gifts. So getting a big gift and very shortly after becoming an MP, I think you are expected to be declaring such potential conflicts of interest.
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Gifts / donations have to be from a permissible donor (on UK electoral register) and new MPs have to declare any registrable benefits they've received in the last 12 months. Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
You are missing a crucial subsection,
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
Reform's largest donor made the gift.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
"If there is doubt, the benefit should be registered. " There's no wiggle room here.
Yes, except the same donor has been bankrolling Reform, so the money given to Farage is surely (well, at least arguably) not a disguised political donation to the party.
Again, "arguably" isn't the point. If a reasonable person can believe it was a political donation (clearly true), then it should have been reported.
Reasonable people can differ in their opinions, which is why the rules say that in case of any doubt, reporting is mandatory.
Farage's explanation for not doing so is bullshit.
Comments
Interesting.
There is no point preparing for aliens ‘because no one of consequence is going to take this rubbish seriously unless it happens. At that point, our policy will be determined in the traditional manner of grand panic.’ 🤣
www.war.gov/medialink/uf...
https://bsky.app/profile/hetanshah.bsky.social/post/3mlgkieanr22f
"Gone West" was First World War slang for died.
https://x.com/AaronBastani/status/2053255624440385645?s=20
What a small world. This is the sort of stuff that got New Labour in trouble before and Starmer rightly cricitised the Tories for similar stuff.
If some randomer gives me £5m, I don't have to declare it to anyone, as I'm just a random private citizen. (Gifts of any size are always welcome!).
If the same rando gives £5m to the PM, or indeed any serving MP, it would have to be declared.
At the time Farage received the £5m, AFAIK he was a private citizen, effectively the same position as me, who doesn't have to declare anything.
Shortly afterwards, he goes back into the fray as leader of Reform, and a month or so after that, he's elected as an MP.
I suspect (but don't know) that the reporting requirements are not retrospective; so as long as get given gifts before standing for Parliament, you don't need to tell anyone. In which case, I suspect the law can't lay a glove on him, even if one might think the whole thing isn't quite in the spirit of the law.
Incidentally, I'm not sure why everyone seems to think that Farage has been "bought" for the cause of crypto deregulation. I'd hazard a guess he didn't need to be bought, he was already in favour - underneath the coat of many colours he's using to get elected, I think he's got a pretty libertarian streak that likes the idea of the stare having no direct control over people's use of money.
I think it's more likely that the £5m was given *because* Farage believes in crypto deregulation, in the hopes that he'd go off and get elected and enact some of his beliefs. And I'm not sure that we can frown too much about this - most of the money given to political parties is from people or organisations (cough, unions, cough) who think they share the same policies or beliefs, and want to see them enacted. The only difference in this case is the number of zeros on the end of the cheque is above average. I suspect a lot of the stink is really bitterness from other politicians whose policies are less likely to appeal to the seriously wealthy donor class.
Very much one of those irregular verbs: I have received a supportive donation, you have been bought for cash, he has been charged under the bribery act...
Its all a bit of an irrevelant argument now, we all know he got it, MPs are regularly caught having not properly declared everything e.g Starmer has fallen foul of this a load of times. I can see Farage getting a slap on the wrist and told to be much more careful in the future and it make no different among the Reform fan club.
The thing with donations, the public seem to just expect that rich people donate and suspects their might be a bit of you scratch my back. The Guardian banged on about Lord Ashcroft for years and years and it made no difference to Tory vote.
Which is common sense, otherwise you give the prospective MP a massive bung the day before they're elected.
Farage is absolutely bang to rights on this, by his admission he received the £5m in early 2024, there's no way £5m isn't a benefit that should have been declared and the deadline was within 28 days of his election.
"5. Members must fulfil conscientiously the requirements of the House in respect of the registration of interests in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. New Members must register all their current financial interests, and any registrable benefits (other than earnings) received in the 12 months before their election within one month of their election, and Members must register any change in those registrable interests within 28 days." https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm5803/cmcode/1083/report.html
I think a more accurate summary is that the donor is in favour of crypto-deregulation, while Nige is in favour of receiving a £5m personal gift.
Members should not register under this category:
a) Benefits which could not reasonably be thought by others to be related to membership of the House or to the Member’s parliamentary or political activities, for example purely personal gifts or benefits from partners or family members, or loans or mortgage arrangements on commercial terms. However, both the possible motive of the giver and the use to which the gift is to be put should be considered. If there is any doubt, the benefit should be registered;
That is what Farage is claiming it was personal. Its obviously very stinky, but it isn't as clear cut as you claim and even the Guardian were very careful in their reporting of this. The last bit is where I think he will ultimately get a big slap on the wrist from the powers that be and be told to be much more careful in the future.
For whatever reason, the public rarely seem to get that exercised by political donations. Occasionally they do, but lots of other instances pass with little more than a shrug.
https://ballotbox.scot/scottish-parliament/sp26-results/
It should be automatically registerable - without exception - at £5,000.
That is, 1,000th of the sum grifted - sorry, gifted - to Farage.
I imagine this sort of lottery-win sum is enough to make most who voted Reformthis week splutter into their cornflakes. "The system needs - er - reforming!"
Farage plays close to the wind with lots of things e.g. his housing arrangements, but so far has managed to just trend the line. Maybe this will turn into something bigger, we will see. So far all his outside earnings that are world's away from your typical Reform voter doesn't seemed to have dented his brand with them.
Reform are very stupid if they think the media won't keep pulling at every string possible, so thinking you can not do things by the book will just get them iinto more and more trouble.
A new dusk has broken, has it not? Smashed, pulverised, crushed. If you don’t like these as descriptions of Labour’s performance in the May elections, many others are available…[but] you can find the odd shred of consolation for the government. The British are evidently fed up with their current rulers, but their votes are fragmenting all over the shop rather than coalescing around a clear alternative.
[Nevertheless] These are not the kind of setbacks that can be shrugged off as typical of the misfortunes that often befall governments at midterm. These are losses on a scale that invites existential questions about Labour. The best case for letting [Starmer] stay on for now is that there is little guarantee that a change would make things any better and considerable risk that it could make things even bleaker. Ministers also fret that a leadership contest might ignite a full-on civil war between the party’s centrists and its soft left. What stays their hand is not loyalty or affection towards the boss, but the lack of any settled conviction that a coup attempt would produce salvation.
For so long as [Burnham] is unavailable, his backers are incentivised to keep Sir Keir in place. And Sir Keir’s people in the party machinery are incentivised to confine Mr Burnham to Manchester. Wes Streeting…would be the preferred choice of many ministers if only they could be certain that most party members feel the same way. [But] The health secretary is reluctant to initiate a contest by striking the first blow. Angela Rayner has her fans, but she doesn’t poll well. The result is a Mexican standoff between Sir Keir and the pretenders to his battered throne.
It would make most sense for Labour to take a collective decision to back its leader or to sack him. One of the most enervating courses for the party to take is to spend many more weeks agitating, conjecturing and scheming about its leadership without resolving the issue one way or another. That is also the likeliest thing to happen.
I'd find it more revealing pasting the last 48 hours of news articles into ChatGPT.
Is this in the best interests of the nation ... or the Party ... or themselves? Ministers are appointed by the PM so any show of disloyalty risks their position in a reshuffle. Albeit those ministers that have little support within the party.
Then there are the "Wise Ones". There to protect Starmer or the Party. Perhaps they are there to chaperon Starmer to the door should soundings suggest it's in the government's best interest. The Party won't want to hand over the keys to the upstart, the dodgy, or the incompetent.
On Monday, I'd be checking projected interest rates as there may be a need for substantial future borrowing if Hormuz doesn't settle soon and energy prices stay as high as they are.
Kellner says reform has peaked. And more nuanced on the picture for both Labour and Tories.
Even if the UK government tried to game in the medium-term it would never go away and with the way things work in the UK I could even see domestic legal challenges to compel us to join.
It is hardly controversial, or illuminating, but perhaps there isn't a great deal to say about the matter.
Like Sweden.
And not least, what is the point of the LibDems now their NOTA space has been usurped by Reform and the Greens? They consolidated power in areas of traditional strength but can they be taken seriously as a national party?
It can be done. Perhaps we need to be pragmatic to find the best for the UK in an era which has been significantly changed geopolitically, not obsessively ideological.
But most of our media won't do it because they support the line for commercial or political reasons, or because they do not do investigative journalism.
I think there is an interesting opposite operation happening to undermine Zack Polanski by attaching to him stories which are stereotyped, just as we have the false (or massively exaggerated) "women in Burkas are a security risk" meme as a component of a practice of demonising Muslims.
The Electoral Commission are also investigating whether any law has been broken. Political parties are legally obliged to report donations above £500. The question, I presume, is whether this gift counts as a donation to the party. Farage says it was a personal gift, but he’s not exactly been straight about it so far.
I might add that getting our borrowing rates down to ECB levels would undoubtedly be by far the biggest single gain from rejoining. It would make some sense economically.
The village people originally and one of their wife’s has gone MAGA so the concert film doesn’t have Go West in it because well it’s not a gay anthem
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c98r1k1j844o
Why have we been hearing endless commentary about the "Green Mayor of Hackney", but nothing about any of the others?
What about the Mayor of Bexley, or the Mayor of Enfield, or the Mayor of Hammersmith and Fulham? Is there variation even amongst London Boroughs in types of mayor?
Farage has explicitly said that the money was for his security. His security is only an issue because he’s a politician. Ergo, clearly this gift *is* “related to […] the Member’s […] political activities”.
Farage, of course, doesn’t get to decide for himself whether this gift had to be declared. It’s going to be decided by Parliament.
Next general election could be Farage vs. Labour leader - who do you want as PM? Provided Lab pick the right candidate that is very winnable.
I'm not advocating any individual new Labour leader. I see difficulties in all of them, and I'm a conservative, but I do at least see that Angela Rayner is charismatic. I do at least see that Ed Milliband is a competent administrator. I do at least see that Wes Streeting is trying to reform the health service. All three of them have greater virtues than Keir Starmer. They have some idea of what they want to do.
Transcribed from:-
A Seismic Shock - Dissecting the local election results
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRYadFPKLbc
A few (Hackney, Lewisham, Newham, Tower Hamlets?) passed referenda to create miniature Andy Burnhams, who can basically do whatever they like unless a supermajority of councillors veto it.
It must be nice to have friends who are eccentic billionaires giving away £5 million presents with no strings attached.
The bloke who took £5m from a foreign-based billionaire to use for his own safety concerns is the same man who refused to hold surgeries in his constituency due to concerns for his safety *after* receiving £5m from a foreign-based billionaire to use for his own safety concerns
https://x.com/Zero_4/status/2053065675002765543
there are other ways of reducing that premium such as electing economically literate or sane politicians but after Thursday that surely has to go in the fantasy column.
See https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn05000/ for details.
The problem is this, though. How does one punish Nigel for this without him turning it into "the establishment are trying to silence me because they can't beat me fair and square"?
Madness, of course. But crowds are not always wise. And, one of the things charismatic people are able to do is intuit how far they can cross the painted line on the grounds that punishing them will create even more trouble.
There is literally no way in which this can "not be reasonably thought by others to be related to membership of the House".
The rules don't say that the gift had to be made for political reasons - they say that if people can reasonably believe it was a political gift, it should be declared.
"If there is doubt, the benefit should be registered.
"
There's no wiggle room here.
We are talking about the UK. In the UK we specialise in lawfare. We have a whole legal industry dedicated to exploiting domestic and international law to the absolute letter to achieve political outcomes. Since joining the Euro would be "the law" it would entirely straightforward to obtain a binding legal ruling to compel the UK government to take steps to achieve it to an agreed timetable.
Stop being so silly.
1. I hope you're right, I'm less convinced, though would be delighted.
2. The link you shared doxxed you 'XX' shared this post with you. Not sure if that bothers you but I thought I'd let you know.
But yes, there would be a significant direct fiscal benefit to add to the trade benefits. And rates would come down to some extent before we joined the euro (which might in any event be delayed for years).
Sweden Sweden Sweden!
SWEDEN!
It just doesn't wash. These arguments are nothing but a vain attempt to play down the risks out of fear that it'd otherwise be a real political obstacle to winning a Rejoin vote.
We'd be obliged to adopt the euro and committed to do so, by law.
No ifs, no buts.
Taking a huge amount of money probably doesn't lose Nigel many votes. Trying to sanction Nigel for taking a huge amount of money will make him look like a martyr, which will, if anything, gain him votes. So he takes the money. Of course he does.
As another charismatic politician said, I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK? It's what individuals do with that insight that matters, unfortunately.
I find it fascinating how europhiles think they can mollify eurosceptics just by saying it "takes time" and "not right away". See also "two-speed Europe". Exactly the same people who'd then shrug their shoulders a few years down the line when European politics or its treaties demanded we adopt a law, regulation or commitment despite domestic opposition.
Being disingenuous is baked in. It's calculated deception.
We've been here before, and that's precisely why we left.
But the fact remains that Farage should have declared the gift, and his account simply doesn't stand up.
It was the Pet Shop Boys.
Also, Farage lives in a multiparty system, unlike Trump. Reform voters have more places to go than Republicans do in the US: Restore/Advance, the Tories, the Greens, etc.
I suspect that in the next generation there will come a point at which that will be the price we are willing to pay, and we will indeed rejoin (if we are let back in).
But I also suspect it would need a failed Reform government (and perhaps even a failed Green one) before we were to contemplate that reality as a nation.
My fear, especially after the lunacy of Thursday, is that the premium on our debt might increase even further. We are, as a country, simply not interested in electing politicians who are capable of dealing with the real world. Electing Greens or Reform is not a free hit. It has consequences.
Rejoin being the primary objective of British politics - and weirdly always seen as gravitationally inevitable - might just be a very Gen X/Boomer thing, who dominate political leadership and the chatterati but future younger generations may not be quite so bothered.
To be honest, it all feels quite passé. It's not the 1990s anymore, which was peak 'The Future is Europe'.
Until people understand that we are going nowhere good.
When you dig into the polling beneath the headlines, you see strong polling against the idea laws & regulations or trade deals shouldn't be made here and little desire to return to free movement (and that's before you get to the money, yet alone the currency)
That small majority that you think supports Rejoin would disappear in a flash as soon as this came into focus.
Good morning, everyone.
deleted
I don’t know how people would vote if this came to a new referendum, and nor do you. The best indicator we have for now remains a neutral, bare question.
One of the many malign aspects of Trump is the way in which he is given a pass for behaviour which is either condemned as immoral, or plain illegal in others.
Let's not replicate that here with Farage.
He was already given a temporary pass on the £5m bung, with most of the media studiously ignoring the story ahead of the local elections.
Enough of the special treatment.
With the imminent extinction of cash, people would adapt very quickly.
Its rather ironic really that the party leader so keen on crypto is also so keen on the pound. The whole point of crypto (other than scamming mugs with a pyramid scheme) is to divorce money from national government.
The EU wants us for our money and our clout. The Eurozone doesn't want us, because we'd be a total pain in the arse, and suck financial services away from Frankfurt. And we'd leave the ECB with the job of effectively guaranteeing British banks.
If we wanted to join the EU with a big cheque and no Eurozone (for now at least), we probably could.
But it's a bullshit argument, because I don't believe a referendum on EU membership would be won. No one wants to go through that argument/fight again.
Whether or not Farage or believes it was a political donation (and forgive me if I don't find him entirely trustworthy) isn't the test.
There is an argument (I think @edmundintokyo is another) that could megaphoned by Europhiles that joining the Euro is an "upgrade" and we should embrace it wholeheartedly.
This is on the basis it'd cut our borrowing costs, debt, reduce interborder trade frictions and help cement London unreservedly as the financial centre of Europe, and its place in the world. It'd also free up cash for other bit of public spending, in time.
Sure, the transition would raise prices, we'd never control our interest rates again, or monetary policy on quantitative easing/tightening, it'd really limit our national fiscal policy choices, make our exports more expensive, and our economic interests would be forever negotiated over late night dinners in Berlin or Paris, but there is a macroeconomic argument there that could convince some, especially affluent well-off professionals, if you took it rather than hide and pretend it doesn't really exist.
I suspect, over the next generation, polycrises like the coming crunch from Hormuz being shut will cause many Britons to reverse the calculation that led to Brexit i.e. sovereignty will seem less important than economic prosperity.
I'm not saying that rejoing the EU specifically will be the result, rather that we will choose to cede sovereignty to a supranational body in exchange for the collective security and economic prosperity that gains. DavidL's point about the relative price of our debt is one example of the arguments that will, I think, gain more force.
Though it might need us to test the sovereignty argument to destruction, via Reform, first.
A central argument for intensified immigration enforcement has long been economic: remove unauthorized workers, and jobs will open up for Americans born in the United States. Employers across agriculture, construction, and other immigrant-heavy sectors have reported difficulty finding workers in 2025, while news coverage has suggested U.S.-born workers are not stepping in to fill the vacancies. Whether that pattern holds up at the national level, and what it means for paychecks, has been an open empirical question.
A new NBER working paper offers the first national, causal analysis of how the second Trump administration’s immigration enforcement surge has reshaped labor market outcomes. The short answer from the authors: in places where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) activity spiked, likely undocumented immigrants who remained in the country worked less, and U.S.-born men without a college degree saw their employment in affected sectors decline rather than rise.
Complaining that you can get the same information online seems a strange criticism of a post to PB. The same could be said of a large coloured map of the London election results, which if any of us wanted it is only a click or two away.
We are in the place we're in because the West is no longer absolute top-dog and we're not growing, largely due to increasingly unaffordable welfare commitments to older voters, not enough young workers and not enough hard-work and innovation.
Try telling people we need more people doing more hard-work and being creative more, and they'll get less money in the meantime.
Tough sell.
I think it could make the argument for better alliances/arrangements and cooperation.
I don't think that invariably leads to "Rejoin the EU".
If a reasonable person can believe it was a political donation (clearly true), then it should have been reported.
Reasonable people can differ in their opinions, which is why the rules say that in case of any doubt, reporting is mandatory.
Farage's explanation for not doing so is bullshit.