This new video from the Federal Trust looks at the issues of Brexit from the musician’s perspective. Read and share.
If you find this website useful, please leave us a tip on Patreon or Paypal
Read the longer article at The Federal Trust and subscribe.
By Adrian Ekins-Daukes
It was not until late Match 2020 that the UK Government began to arrange for protective equipment (PPE) for hospital staff and care workers. The EU had done so in early January. By then Britain had to do so in emergency conditions, and a tightening global market for PPE.
In order to speed up procurement, it set up a up a high-priority channel to assess and process tenders and grant contracts, without going through normal procedures. To maintain transparency, the government was required to declare details of such contracts within 30 days of awarding them. Lord Bethel, a junior health minister, promised that suppliers would be evaluated by officials on their financial standing. On 27 March Government began to invite tenders for PPE.
By the end of 2020, following a report by National Audit Office (NAO) and court cases brought by the Good Law Project, it was clear that the the new system had resulted in setting aside safeguards ensuring good value for public money and against corruption. Suppliers with political connections (such as Ministers, Tory MPs and Cabinet Office officials) were being directed to a “VIP” lane where their tenders for lucrative contracts were automatically treated as credible and prioritised by officials. Such bids were 10 times more likely to succeed than those of non-favoured suppliers. VIP tenderers also got very favourable terms. Despite Government efforts to cover up VIP profits, it is known they received inflated margins of 35% – 45% or more , on contracts up to hundreds of millions of pounds. By comparison, a normal profit margin was 10-20%
The NAO also criticised government for other failures, including lack of transparency, and conflicts of interest. In particular, it noted that the Cabinet Office and Health Ministry had failed to explain why companies with government connections and poor due diligence records were chosen to provide crucial services such as supplying PPE, consulting and policy advice. Some lacked any experience of PPE; NAO disclosed that 195m pieces of PPE had proved to be unusable.
A further report in April 2021 by Transparency International, (TI), a respected anti-corruption organisation, stated that 1 in 5 government COVID contracts awarded between February and November 2020 were marked with 1 or more red flags indicating a need for investigation for possible corruption. 27 PPE or testing contracts worth £2.1bn had been awarded to firms with clear connections to the Tory party. £255m of contracts had been awarded to companies that had only been formed within the previous 60 days. (Such a short lifespan suggests no track record of actual business). As for the Government’s claim that the system was a form of triage, to prioritise serious companies over chancers, a senior TI researcher commented :. “Triage fine, bur why on earth ask politicians to do it? Did they even ask any medical experts? Or was it just prioritised on the basis of who managed to ring the right person at the right time?” TI concluded that there was “apparent systemic bias in the award of PPE contracts that favoured those with political connections to the governing party”. It called on the Government to disclose the identities of companies awarded public money through the VIP lane urgently, a request which the government has so far illegally refused.
All in all, the Government spent £17.3bn on contracts awarded to private companies without competitive tender to tackle the crisis . The total awarded in all COVID contracts was more than the capital expenditure budgets of major government departments such as Defence, Transport and Housing. Although Government regulations require all contracts valued more than £10,000 to be published and sent for publication within 30 days, the procurement consultancy Tussell found although the Health Ministry had spent about £15 bn on PPE by 1 October, only £2.68bn worth of contracts had been published.
This scandalous record of deceit and misuse of public money should be viewed against the PM’s Ministerial Code of conduct, issued in August 2019:
Johnson went on to say:
“There must be no bullying and no harassment; no leaking; no breach of collective responsibility. No misuse of taxpayer money and no actual or perceived conflicts of interest.; the precious principles of public life enshrined in this document – integrity, objectivity, accountability, transparency, honesty and leadership in the public interest – must be honoured at all times as must the political impartiality of our much admired civil service.”
Adrian Ekins-Daukes
By Paul Bowers.
Please write to your MP to suggest that some ALL PARTY activity be undertaken on the European Union. These approaches are more collaborative than our two party politics allows and Paul has experience as a lobbyist. There are two versions of the letter below to suit your own needs. Please feel free to adapt as necessary.
Version 1: if your MP is NOT a Liberal Democrat (see version 2 below if s/he IS a LibDem)
[Name] MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear [MP]
All-Party Parliamentary Group on European Union
I am writing as a constituent to ask you to consider setting up an All-Party Parliamentary Group on the European Union.
[ADAPT AS NECESSARY: I am a member of {name of activist group}]. I voted Remain in the 2016 referendum, and I have campaigned on the issue ever since.]
[INSERT PERSONAL CONNECTION HERE: In addition, my husband is Estonian; I have fond memories of studying at the Sorbonne; I once ate a croissant … ]
The Government’s responses have been to undermine the very withdrawal from the EU that it proclaimed. Checks on imports are not used, placing UK business at a disadvantage; a one-way visa scheme for HGV drivers is introduced; and the Northern Ireland Protocol that the Government celebrated is now disowned.
Brexit has also damaged UK democracy, reduced our standing in the world, stigmatised EU nationals, and divided our country.
I believe that membership of the European Union is a necessity for the UK.
However, the response of the major political parties to the result of the 2019 general election risks creating a vicious circle of despair. Many voters wish to rejoin the EU, but feel that this is not possible because politicians are not showing leadership to that end. They feel politically homeless.
If no voice in Parliament even addresses the damage of our loss of membership, nor points out the opportunities presented by new developments within the EU, such as the growth of the green and digital sectors from the ambitious NextGenerationEU recovery and transformation plan, we will not be in a position to take advantage promptly of any opportunity to promote membership that might arise.
According to the APPG Register of 6 October 2021, there are Groups on individual European countries, but not on the EU itself. APPGs on Erasmus and on Reuniting Britain Post-Brexit, which were on the June Register, have vanished. There are groups, however, on other international organisations, such as the UN and the Commonwealth.
As you may know, Article 11 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides that the European Parliament and the UK Parliament may establish a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly “to exchange views on the partnership.”
In its Resolution 2021/2658(RSP) of 28 April 2021, the European Parliament endorsed this, envisaging an Assembly which would monitor implementation of the TCA, and suggesting that its remit include “the right to submit recommendations for areas where improved cooperation could be beneficial for both parties and to take joint initiatives to promote close relations.”
An APPG could support this work, and undertake a number of other roles:
I hope you will consider this suggestion positively, and speak to other Members about the possibility of creating an APPG on the EU. The longer we go without one, the more glaring the omission, and the harder it will be for politicians to break their silence on this most vital of issues.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
Version 2: If your MP is a Liberal Democrat
[Name] MP
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Dear [MP]
All-Party Parliamentary Group on European Union
I am writing as a constituent to ask you, as a Liberal Democrat MP, to advance your party’s conference policies by setting up an All-Party Parliamentary Group on the European Union.
[ADAPT AS NECESSARY: I am a member of {name of political party, activist group, etc}. I voted Remain in the 2016 referendum, and I have campaigned on the issue ever since.]
[INSERT PERSONAL CONNECTION HERE: In addition, my husband is Estonian; I have fond memories of studying at the Sorbonne; I once ate a croissant … ]
As you know, successive Liberal Democrat conferences have established as party policy support for the long-term objective of EU membership, and in the meantime close alignment on trade, security, environmental and other issues. They have condemned the Trade and Cooperation Agreement. They have authorised party bodies to demonstrate to the public the benefits of a closer relationship, create roadmaps towards the single market, customs union and agencies, and maximise support for renewed membership of the EU.
Leaving the EU has damaged the UK’s fishing communities, threatens our farmers and food security, has cost eye-watering sums for financial services, harmed our creative industries, and forced many exporters either to scale down or to relocate. Outside the EU we have not strengthened our standards, we have lowered them. We have not prospered, we have lost business and consumer choice. We have suffered disruption to supply chains that outstrips any global Covid effect. Raw sewage floats in our rivers and seas, livestock are needlessly culled, fruit and vegetables rot in the fields.
The Government’s responses have been to undermine the very withdrawal from the EU that it proclaimed. Checks on imports are not used, placing UK business at a disadvantage; a one-way visa scheme for HGV drivers is introduced; and the Northern Ireland Protocol that the Government celebrated is now disowned.
Brexit has also damaged UK democracy, reduced our standing in the world, stigmatised EU nationals, and divided our country.
I believe that membership of the European Union is a necessity for the UK.
However, the response of the major political parties to the result of the 2019 general election risks creating a vicious circle of despair. Many voters wish to rejoin the EU, but feel that this is not possible because politicians are not showing leadership to that end. They feel politically homeless.
Regardless of the Liberal Democrat policy on paper, the party is not providing any tangible leadership against Brexit or against the TCA, nor is it fulfilling its commitment to point out the benefits of a closer relationship.
If no voice in Parliament even addresses the damage of our loss of membership, nor points out the opportunities presented by new developments within the EU, such as the growth of the green and digital sectors from the ambitious NextGenerationEU recovery and transformation plan, we will not be in a position to take advantage promptly of any opportunity to promote membership that might arise.
As you may know, Article 11 of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement provides that the European Parliament and the UK Parliament may establish a Parliamentary Partnership Assembly “to exchange views on the partnership.”
In its Resolution 2021/2658(RSP) of 28 April 2021, the European Parliament endorsed this, envisaging an Assembly which would monitor implementation of the TCA, and suggesting that its remit include “the right to submit recommendations for areas where improved cooperation could be beneficial for both parties and to take joint initiatives to promote close relations.”
An APPG could support this work, and undertake a number of other roles:
I hope you will consider this suggestion positively, and speak to other Members about the possibility of creating an APPG on the EU. The longer we go without one, the more glaring the omission, and the harder it will be for politicians to break the silence on this most vital of issues.
Please would you write back to me and explain why you and other Liberal Democrat MPs have not established an APPG on the EU, and how you reconcile this with your party’s conference policy.
Yours sincerely,
[Name]
[Address]
By Adrian Ekins-Daukes
When appointed health minister Javid announced that July19 would be ”Freedom Day’, the end of COVID restrictions, a date which would be “the start of an exciting new journey for our country”, and even “that the nation would be healthier without the restrictions”. At the time the number of cases was “ticking up”, but the death rate was low. Hospital admissions had doubled, but he saw no reason to delay “be we could not eliminate the virus, we must learn to live with it”. He also claimed that COVID was only a sort of snuffle, like a bad cold. This was an extraordinary statement, coming from a new appointee with experience in banking and politics but none in healthcare. As was pointed out, the approach went against the views of virtually all of the medical profession and NHS. It ignored major problems such as the huge backlog of non-COVID cases, Long COVID and the risk of virus mutation. Javid either did not bother to take the advice of his scientific advisers or chose to ignore it.
The situation has since worsened. All the problems ignored by Javid have materialised. In addition, it has become clear that the double vaccines, on which the Government had relied to avoid taking anti-COVID measures, were rather less effective against the Delta variant than anticipated, and began to lose efficacy after 6 months, requiring a booster vaccine programme, However, perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the current pandemic is the government’s complacent refusal to accept that we are in a pandemic at all. The statistics and facts below correct this nonsense
Since mid-August, as many people in the UK have been dying from COVID every two weeks as typically die from flu in a year: about 1,400. Deaths are at the same level as in October 2021. The UK suffers around 100 deaths per day more than France,
So much for Javid’s ridiculous fantasy of a healthier nation.
Despite protestations to the contrary, Johnson and his regime have never followed scientific advice until too late. Repeating the folly of ‘Freedom Day’, Downing St merely says it is keeping a “close eye” on the deteriorating situation. Javid remarks that the infection rate “feels quite stable”, as though huge numbers don’t matter so long as they don’t change, Whilst recognising the possibility of 100,000 infections per day this winter, he still ignores the fact that sheer numbers of infected people broaden the pool of virus in which new variants can arise and that the best way to avoid that is to keep infections low. Already, a new Delta variety has appeared since July that might be even more transmissible.
Our Government complacently regards COVID-19 as if it were a natural hazard about which we can do nothing more, and wants us to think the same way despite the suffering involved. But, as the rest of western Europe shows, there was nothing inevitable about our predicament. It was a political choice. It happened mainly because of Johnson’s cowardly reluctance to face down the extremist dinosaurs on his own benches; eg Rees Mogg, who regards wearing masks as a subject for scoring trivial political points rather than a means of combatting a lethal disease. But the alternative path available on July 17 is still there. It simply involves reverting to a program of light restrictions with social distancing, compulsory masks in public indoor spaces, vaccine passports and advice to work from home. None of these measures would cause significant economic disruption. No one is calling for a lockdown. They could be implemented very quickly.
The choice before Johnson and his regime is as follows|-
Do they continue to appease the prejudices of populist bigotry ?;
OR
Do they save lives and secure the future, particularly of children, from lifelong debilitation, at little economic cost ?
When the official inquiry into the COVID-19 crisis finally happens, this of the pandemic will warrant as much scrutiny as the earlier ones. If the Government chooses the former option, the loss of life and disablement of so many might well justify charges of manslaughter and grievous bodily harm against Johnson and those ministers responsible for avoidable, and indeed wilful, criminal negligence.
On this day when it became obvious that Brexit literally means Brexshit, as beaches are closed, due to the Tories voting to dump raw sewage in rivers due to lack of chemicals from Europe, this article is dedicated to the wonderful work of James Rowland aka Aidan Grooville on Twitter. Follow up for up to the minute satire on Brexit and other related matters.
Written by Adrian Ekins-Daukes
Editor’s note : This was originally written in March 2020. It is high time it was resuscitated, unlike the 150 000 people who died unnecessarily from the actions of Boris Johnson. We call the toxic combination of Corona and Brexit a Britastrophe. Read on.
In March 2020, we were at the height of the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic. Even before, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine was warning that acute care was struggling, emergency departments were under-resourced and overcrowded, and often outdated in terms of facilities and equipment. However, this article is intended to give a snapshot of conditions in early 2020, not a full history of preceding events.
On 21 March 2020, Downing St put out the following statement on the situation :
“Our response has ensured that the NHS has been given all the support it needs to ensure everyone requiring treatment has received it, as well as providing protection to businesses and reassurance to workers. The PM has been at the helm of the response to this, providing leadership during this hugely challenging period for the whole nation.”
This complacent and self-congratulatory declaration was issued on a day when the television news featured distressed NHS workers in fear for their lives because protective equipment was either unfit for purpose or lacking altogether. It is false in every respect.
Far from being at the helm, PM Johnson spent much of February 2020 at his country retreat, Chequers, with Carrie Symonds, then his new fiancee. His occasional visits to London seemed more about social appearances and Conservative fundraising than the nation’s affairs. During January/February he missed five consecutive meetings of the emergency “Cobra“ Committee during when the pandemic had been on the agenda, Only on March 2 did he take over the chair, when the virus was firmly established. Then, for a further 3 weeks, he toyed with an impractical policy of herd immunity instead of immediate lockdown. This dithering cost over 20,000 lives, which has subsequently escalated to 150 000, an act of genocide.
Regarding support for the NHS, a leaked email disclosed on 18 March 2020 that some hospitals were just 24 hours away from running out of protective equipment (PPE) for nurses and doctors. Shortages included visors, masks and gowns. and some other items had run out entirely. In another email, to directors of infection control, NHS England said that there were no visors left nationally, no long sleeve disposable gowns, only goggles suited for flu.
This situation was confirmed by television and newspaper interviews with hospital staff over this period. One hospital manager who confirmed his hospital did not have enough PPE equipment to last the next 24 hours said that they’d been told specialist respirator masks would soon run out nationally and only less suitable masks without visors were available. Eye protection and long sleeve aprons had run out and they were buying safety goggles from industrial wholesalers. The previous night he’d had to ration equipment across four wards – normally one ward would have held 10 times that amount. Asked what they made of the claims there was enough stock in the country, he added: “We’ve been told for weeks that there’s stock, there isn’t”.
Towards the end of March, one regional NHS director of procurement said he was unable to get hold of any gowns from the NHS supply chain, exclaiming in desperation “God help us all.” The GMB union said the lack of PPE and testing for frontline workers was “a national crisis”. Ambulance workers were not being given access to PPE, even when being sent to treat patients suspected of having COVID-19.
The consequences for patients of the delays and lack of essential equipment was horrendous, especially for the elderly. Some hospitals were overwhelmed and a system, drawn up by the Governments chief advisors, was introduced to select which COVID patients should receive intensive treatment. This was a death sentence to anyone over 80 or with a serious underlying medical condition; in practice it was also applied to many over 60. These patients were consigned to death wards where they received little or no nursing treatment or even attention . Steps were taken to conceal this from the public, but some witnessed the conditions in which their dearest were to die.
The government failed completely to give the NHS and patients the support needed at the height of the crisis. It’s ‘reassurance’ to NHS workers was non-existent.
Guest post by Pedr Ap Robat
My dense but impressionable MP tweets this photo, commenting grandiloquently:
I note that:
Editor’s note: These are the underlying beliefs and driving forces that drove Brexit. Notions of taking back control and saving the NHS are cannon fodder designed to distract you. It is time to stand up and be counted. Enough is enough!!
I have just bought a copy of My Secret Brexit Diary, an astonishing tale of open-ness, decency and collaboration in decision-making and negotiation by Michel Barnier. His revelations stand in stark contrast to the approach taken by the British government during five years of Brexit negotiations and some comparisons are useful. I will be returning to Barnier’s book in this blog frequently, but this is how he begins.
The very first act that Michel undertakes is to establish unity of the 27 nations and to assess any important red lines that would destroy unity. In Barnier’s words:
“The mission of this small ‘commando’ unit is to travel through the 27 countries of the union over a period of few weeks establishing personal contacts with ministers and prime ministers so as to find out where each of them draws their red lines and, in broad terms to construct our own line of negotiation on the basis of four first principles that I will, from now on, recite to each of my interlocutors.
First, there can be no negotiations until we receive notification from the British government. In the Council, the 27 member states have been very clear on this point.
Second, we will only succeed in this negotiation by building and maintaining very strong unity between the 27 member states.
Third, no EU country should find itself in a position where it has less say than a country outside the Union.
And finally, no country outside the Union should be given a veto on, or even the right to intervene in, the decision-making process of the 27.
These are the key points to which we will hold fast throughout our work, and which are the conditions for its success.”
In stark contrast, the very first act of the British government is for Dr Liam Fox to tell a lie, by suggesting that the European Commission was responsible for David Cameron’s loss of the referendum.
“Fox says ‘our enemy is the Commission, which wants to be forgiven for making Cameron lose. Many of the 27 need us.’
I am told that these remarks which have been reported to me, were made yesterday in private before a group of businessmen in London by UK Trade Minister Liam Fox. This Scottish MP, a former defence minister for David Cameron and a former candidate for the conservative leadership, losing to Theresa May, is obviously at the forefront when it comes to imagining the future of trade relations between the UK and the EU. But first of all, Brexit must be achieved, and he is in favour of a fast-track agenda. That, however, is no reason to propagate such untruths.
So it was the Commission that lost David Cameron the election? This is to pass over in silence, just a little too quickly, the ‘new settlement’ agreed with him at the European Council on 18 = 19 February 2016, in the midst of the migrant crisis – a settlement that further strengthened the UK’s special status within the Union. In the end it wasn’t enough to prevent Brexit, but not for the lack of trying …
It is also to forget that, if all European leaders voluntarily kept silent throughout the referendum campaign, they did so at the express request of the British Prime Minister. According to him, any intervention by ‘Brussels technocrats’ or foreign leaders would have been immediately exploited by the Brexiteers …
In any case, Liam Fox’s statement only strengthens my determination: we must secure and consolidate the unity of the 27 as rapidly as possible.”
I sense a twinge of regret in Barnier’s penultimate statement, that the European Union maintain silence during our referendum process when it may have been wiser to speak out and promote the benefits of the union. We are currently beginning to find out just what these were, somewhat too late to do anything about it in the short term. We must remove the Brexit culture carriers from government and Re-Boot Britain, with the eventual ambition of applying to join once again.
Please support this platform by giving us a tip on PayPal or via our Patreon page, thank you in advance.
In our final satirical piece in the series, we take to the Manchester Evening News for some sizzled up news, based on facts, but not limited by them. Our fact checker is out in force below the front page. Read on.
Jacob Rees-Mogg was not searching for drugs but his shameful interview with Charlie Hutchins must be seen. The “Charlie” mentioned in the paper is not Charlie Hutchins, but Charlie Chalk, much beloved by Michael Gove.
As far as we know, Priti Patel has not had work done at The Smile Centre. Perhaps she should. It may just make her more believable when she is viciously threatening the poor and people without homes. Priti Patel’s policies on the right to protest, so-called policing reforms, drowning immigrants and marginalising poor people are steady steps on our sleepwalk towards Brexit fascism.
If you like what you see here, give us a tip via Paypal or Patreon. This work takes time and skill – please support it.
Rishi Sunak did point out that we’ll have to pay for Brexit in various ways. Watch out for tax rises, NI, triple lock pension removal and a suite of other ways to refill the coffers to pay for the next election.
Latest Tory Party Conference news from “The Telegraph” ….
The Telegraph produces fake news so you don’t have to think …
Our edition is however filled with some basic truths, sexed up for people who refuse to read factual media. Check out the stories for real to check your understanding of what’s really going on and why it matters to you and your family.
If you like what you see here, give us a tip via Paypal or Patreon. This work takes time and skill – please support it.
