The Bruges Group

Tony Blair has people embedded in governments around the world.

Let that sink in.

Unelected, unaccountable and free to shape our futures without any scrutiny or oversight of his finances or backers.

https://twitter.com/institutegc/status/1259075645595725824?s=21

Considering Tony Blair’s history and disregard for human life and civil liberties, this is extremely disturbing...Especially when you consider his stated plans for surveillance and personal data collection, see:

https://www.facebook.com/276296686091515/posts/1343662029354970/?d=n
...........................................................................

Tony Blair’s Institute for Global Change want a dramatic increase in technological surveillance of citizens using the Corona crisis as justification.

Apparently it would be a “price worth paying”. I bet.

Governments and selected private interests will use location data to track the success of lockdown measures, monitor bluetooth signals and monitor search queries.

https://institute.global/policy/price-worth-paying-tech-privacy-and-fight-against-covid-19

History shows us that once these powers are introduced, they won’t be rolled back, you need only look at the Snowdon revelations. It also shows us that any data harvesting won’t be done in a controlled or properly regulated manner.

https://www.facebook.com/276296686091515/posts/1285336675187506/?d=n

We have also seen from recent elections and referenda what can be done with personal data. Targeted dark ads played a huge roll in the last three occasions the British public were asked to vote and that targeting is becoming more and more sophisticated. Propaganda is becoming personalised on an individual level.

History also shows us that Tony Blair has a long disregard for British civil liberties...

“The government policy under Tony Blair has been one of relentless attack on our civil liberties; the expansion of new police powers, the introduction of new offences, and harsher penalties with longer custodial sentences – all of which has been matched by an increased weakening of the safeguards in the criminal justice process. While the government claims such changes are necessary to combat crime and increase the safety of innocent citizens, the reality is that the new rules appear to do nothing more than leave a dangerous amount of power in the hands of the organs of the executive. Combined with a lack of accountability and a rising hostility to judicial and legal supervision, the new system seems ripe for abuses and human rights violations.”

https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/civil-law/civil-liberties-tony-blair.php

After stepping down as PM one of the many pies that Tony Blair stuck his blood soaked fingers in was the World Economic Forum, of Davos fame, where he became an ‘agenda contributor’.

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/authors/tony-blair-2/

In 2011 the World Economic Forum put out the report; ‘Personal Data: The Emergence of a New Asset Class.’

“Data records are collected on who we are, who we know, where we are, where we have been and where we plan to go. Mining and analysing this data give us the ability to understand and even predict where humans focus their attention and activity at the individual, group and global level.

This personal data – digital data created by and about people – is generating a new wave of opportunity for economic and societal value creation. The types, quantity and value of personal data being collected are vast: our profiles and demographic data from bank accounts to medical records to employment data. Our Web searches and sites visited, including our likes and dislikes and purchase histories. Our tweets, texts, emails, phone calls, photos and videos as well as the coordinates of our real-world locations. The list continues to grow.”

http://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_ITTC_PersonalDataNewAsset_Report_2011.pdf

The media gaslighting and attempted rehabilitation of Tony Blair back onto the political landscape has been huge, it has also been increasing of late. So let’s just remind ourselves of who Tony Blair is.

The man is a war criminal and was utterly corrupt in office. He’s gone on to make millions from wh***ng his services to some of the most ruthless dictators and regimes on the planet whilst trying to get his affairs hidden from public scrutiny in a deal with Downing St.

The man sold his soul to Rupert Murdoch in order to gain power. The two were so close that Tony became godfather to Murdoch’s daughter with Wendi Deng. Blair then went on to have an affair with Wendi, causing the Murdoch marriage to split and the subsequent souring of Rupert and Tony’s friendship.

There is not a single level that Tony Blair can be trusted on.

https://www.facebook.com/276296686091515/posts/930704857317358/?d=n

But then what do you expect from Margaret Thatcher’s “greatest achievement”. See

https://adsinistramuk.wordpress.com/2020/01/22/thatchers-greatest-achievement-tony-blair-new-labour/

I’m certainly not against the idea of using technology, but data has to be anonymised, stringent regulation and criminal consequences for misuse have to be put in place. But that isn’t what we will get, and that isn’t what Tony Blair is pushing for.
...........................................................................

A new poll gives a big thumbs down to closer alignment with the EU and to the Re set policy.

It is true Polls have shown understandable voter disappointment with the pathetic Brexit the UK governing establishment have created. The government and the many EU enthusiasts in the Establishment have mistaken this for support for putting the UK back under EU laws.

The voters complaining about Brexit are not just the approx 20% minority who will always want us back in, but lots of voters who feel cheated by a government that will not shake off the worst features of retained EU law and policy.

We voted Brexit for something better.

We did not want to stay under the EU laws and taxes which kept us with slow growth and lack of innovation, losing out to the US and Asia all the time.

In a new independent poll with a good sample 59% say they do not want to surrender some powers to make our own laws and taxes to get better access to the EU single market. Only 27% think it a good idea.

The agreed poll question was generous to the EU as it implied we could get better access for the sacrifice. The news from the reset talks so far is we will not get improved access whilst paying a big price in extra payments to the EU and in accepting many unhelpful laws.

This poll was commissioned by Britain Un bound, a new cross party group. I am joint chairman of the Advisory Committee with Labour’s Richard Johnson, an academic at Queen Mary London. The group includes Reform, Conservative, Labour, DUP and SNP members and contributors.

Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe are putting ego before country
A divided, infighting Right risks giving the failing Left another reprieve

Camilla Tominey

The Reform leader’s sole focus should be on winning seats, not settling scores Credit: Neil Hall/EPA/Shutterstock
I cannot be alone on the Right in feeling a rising frustration with our own side. Too many politicians who should be fighting for Britain are instead fighting each other and putting ego before the national interest. The latest casualty? Good old-fashioned common sense.

This week, Rupert Lowe, the pugnacious leader of Restore, pulled out of an interview with me and Tim Stanley on our Daily T podcast. Lowe has seemingly taken offence at me once branding him “Whopert”. He dismisses Tim as a “Reform apparatchik”.

Prickliness comes with the territory when you’re working in Westminster. But when a man who positions himself as a fearless truth-teller ducks a proper grilling from The Telegraph, it surely reveals a fragility the Right can ill afford.

To his credit, Lowe had a vital debate in Westminster Hall on Monday about the mandatory collection and publication of child sexual offender data. His work on the grooming gangs has been relentless and I commend him for it. Rescheduling isn’t the issue, though, it’s the reluctance to face scrutiny. If Lowe, who, by his own admission, is “a true Tory”, views independent conservative voices as the enemy, then he’s not battling the Left. He’s at war with himself.

And he’s not alone.

Over at Reform, the Game of Thrones continues. Nigel Farage is at war with Lowe. The ex-Tories seem to be at war with the original Reformers. Zia Yusuf appears to be at war with absolutely everyone. This isn’t strategy, it’s self-indulgence.

Farage, puffed up by Reform’s summer peak of 35 per cent, has spent months dismissing Restore as an irrelevant protest vote. But Lowe’s insurgent outfit is now polling at 7 per cent in Makerfield. In such a seismic by-election, that could potentially pave Andy Burnham’s path to Downing Street.

So a man with very little recognition outside the Twittersphere is now positioned, thanks to Reform’s mismanagement and Elon Musk’s megaphone, to play kingmaker for the wrong team. As we witnessed at the local elections, Restore cannot win seats in rain-lashed Northern towns beyond Great Yarmouth, even if Ben Habib’s Advance stands aside. But they can easily hand them on a plate to Labour. Restore Britain? Restore the status quo, more like.

Last month, while interviewing Robert Jenrick on my GB News show, I urged the Right to unite for the sake of the country. His response? Mocking me for “holding a candle for the Tories”. I corrected the record. Like the vast majority of Righties despairing at the devastation being wrought by the current Government – the only thing I’m holding a candle for right now is Britain.

Jenrick later got a taste of his own medicine when Yusuf slapped him down on X for supposedly misrepresenting Reform’s deportation policy. This is the pattern: endless circular firing squads. When he’s not criticising colleagues, Yusuf appears to be suffering badly from TDS (Tory Derangement Syndrome). He seems to loathe the Conservatives in his midst more than anyone. Genuinely, how can these people unite Britain when they cannot even seem to agree on policy among themselves?

Meanwhile, absurd social media posts targeting Kemi Badenoch continue with abandon. As a black woman, reacting to the murder of Henry Nowak, the Tory leader sensibly suggested that policing in the UK should be colour-blind. In a country where the police have been brainwashed into thinking racism is a worse crime than murder, this sentiment should be considered baseline conservatism. Instead, it’s wilfully distorted and treated as betrayal.

This turquoise-on-blue, blue-on-turquoise trench warfare is pathetic and must stop.

Look at the philosophical gap between Lowe, Farage and Badenoch. It is not as wide as is sometimes made out. All three grasp the big issues facing Britain: mass immigration without integration, net-zero zealotry making energy unaffordable, two-tier policing, the rise of Islamism and sectarianism, free-speech erosion, and an economy strangled by regulation and taxes. They differ more on tactics and emphasis, not necessarily on the fundamentals.

The real canyon lies between them and the Left-wing establishment currently running Britain into the ground. Labour’s open borders enthusiasm, their contempt for working-class communities, their weaponisation of identity politics: these are existential threats. While the Right fights over who can “own” the opposition narrative, the Left tightens its grip on power.

The progressives understand something the Right has forgotten – that unity beats purity. They hold their noses and vote for whoever or whatever can beat their rivals. They dominate the bureaucracy, the NGOs, the universities and the broadcast media. They win by coordination. We lose by infighting.

Rupert Lowe’s ego, Nigel Farage’s hegemony and the residual Tory resentment: all of it is a luxury we can no longer afford. The country is not a plaything for personal brands, clicks and likes.

Britain faces an ongoing wealth exodus, growing unemployment and a rampant welfare bill. Housing shortages are being driven by record migration, our public services are crumbling and our communities are fragmenting. Key institutions, including the police, appear unfit for purpose. Every wasted cycle of Right-wing civil war amounts to another year of national disintegration.

The next election, like the by-elections before it, will not be won by whoever has the sharpest insults or the biggest online following. It will be won by the side that presents a credible, united alternative to Left-wing failure. For the job of fixing Britain is now much bigger than any individual or the party they represent. It requires swallowing pride, forging pragmatic alliances and focusing fire on the real enemy.

Restore, Reform and the Conservatives do not need to merge into a bland mush. They simply need to stop cannibalising each other. Debate robustly by all means (the Right cannot afford to produce any more undeliverable policies) but for heaven’s sake recognise the strategic reality. United we stand; divided we fall. Even in loose coalition or non-aggression pacts, we can force the Overton window back towards sanity.

Voters are desperate for both competence and courage. What they neither want nor need is another chapter in the psychodrama of ambitious men who would rather rule the Right than share power to save the nation.

Farage’s sole focus should be on winning seats, not settling scores. Yusuf should prioritise beating Labour over attacking Conservatives. The Tories should drop the superiority complex – and understand that their role is to oppose the Government, and the Government only.

Britain’s Right doesn’t need another Messiah. It needs grown-ups who understand that we hand our opponents victory whenever we allow internal division to outweigh our common purpose.

Time to choose – country or ego. A desperate nation is watching and there is far too much at stake for self-inflicted defeat.

Nigel Farage and Rupert Lowe are putting ego before country A divided, infighting Right risks giving the failing Left another reprieve

Nigel gives a very powerful speech addressing his concerns around police culture:

I am addressing the nation on the shocking case of Henry Nowak’s murder. I am addressing the nation on the shocking case of Henry Nowak’s mu...

David Starkey highlights the dangers of supporting new fringe parties in the context of first past the post:

"Restore supporters are DELUDED!" | David Starkey Talks... to Jack Hadfield Having worked closely with both the Reform and Restore parties over the last few months, I find myself in a quandary over the goings on in Makerfield, where ...

What does this poll about voting intentions in Makerfield say to you?

Lowe actually speaks a lot of sense. A shame his Party is one of the biggest threats to our country’s ability to overcome Labour’s shackles:

The State Has Become The Enemy | Rupert Lowe Rupert Lowe joins Peter McCormack to explain why he believes Britai...

Watch Camilla Tominey live on GB News via YouTube Priti Patel, Lord Moynihan and a car crash interview from Darren Jones MP, chief secretary to the treasury. I watch on x1.75 speed

The Camilla Tominey Show | Sunday 24th May Keep up to date with GB News at gbnews.com or on X a Friend of GB News: gbnews.com/friend

Times-Survation Poll, Makerfield 23/5
It’s a two horse race: Restore and the Conservatives could hand it to Burnham:

Labour’s ‘catastrophic mistake’ on Europe Since Labour intends to relitigate Brexit, it should stop hiding behind candyfloss talk and tell us exactly which Europe it wishes to rejoin.

Wes Streeting must come clean. So must Andy Burnham and Sir Keir Starmer. There can no longer be much doubt that all three intend to campaign for EU accession at the next general election.

If they mean a return to the half-in, half-out, hybrid membership of the old regime, they are either deluding themselves or trying to fool us. It is doubtful that Brussels would agree to such terms – although I would not rule it out entirely.

Some globally minded EU thinkers would deem it a coup to regain their prodigal sibling, the only country in Europe with a clutch of top-20 universities, a world-class financial centre and a serious AI industry.

They would acquire a solid military with a stomach for fighting, a second heavyweight on the UN Security Council, and the UK’s soft-power planetary reach – a better inventory than we tell ourselves.

Recapturing the UK would go some way to restoring Europe’s lost clout in world affairs, though nobody in EU capitals will ever admit openly that Brexit was a big compounding factor in this strategic relegation.

It would be a way to get back at Trumpian Washington and restore some parity in trans-Atlantic ties.

But even if the EU did agree to let the UK keep sterling – and talks would be insufferable all over again – the arrangement would be unworkable.

Britain left the EU in spirit and direction at Maastricht in December 1991, when John Major said Non, Nein, Nee to the euro.

It was the parting of ways, the decision that would lead over time to an irreconcilable clash of interests. From then on you could almost foretell the future.

1991 Maastricht Summit
John Major’s rejection of the euro project at Maastricht set the stage for Brexit 25 years later Credit: Charles Caratini/Sygma
Sir Ivan Rogers concluded after his days as the UK’s top man in Brussels that non-euro outsiders “would be in constant tension” with the integration logic of monetary union.

Advertisement

The central pillar of today’s EU is the euro. The whole structure is geared towards ensuring the viability of this currency adventure. The tortured project has overwhelmed all else for a quarter century.

A multinational currency requires the intrusive machinery of budgetary enforcement and ultimately fiscal union if it is to survive. It requires banking oversight and control of capital markets.

We forget now, but a defining moment on the way to Britain’s divorce was the European Fiscal Compact, a contractionary and nail-studded ordinance rushed through by Berlin and Brussels in 2011 during a bad spasm of the eurozone crisis. The ill-judged initiative pushed the whole of southern Europe into deeper economic depression.

David Cameron requested an opt-out because the draft treaty was a) economically illiterate, b) coercive, and c) posed a direct threat to British economic and financial self-government. The EU refused and briefed against him mercilessly en coulisse.

The EU then circumvented the British veto – breaking a longstanding convention – and pushed through the plan by other means. Sir Ivan said it was the start of Britain’s “terminal rupture” with the EU.

David Cameron
David Cameron was backed into a corner by Brussels in 2011 regarding the European Fiscal CompactCredit: Xinhua/Landov/Barcroft Media
It was inevitable that the EU would have to issue joint debt and acquire budgetary powers if it were to keep the euro project alive.

It was also inevitable that the EU would over time insist that its financial capital be located in a eurozone state. Clever people in the City understood this. Others still do not.

In short, if you are not in the euro you should not be in the EU at all. Yes, I know, Poland has the zloty, and Sweden has the krona, etc, but they are in an invidious position, dragged into the eurozone’s fiscal fights, and restricted on euro clearing, Target 2 access, or the liquidity backstop of the European Central Bank (ECB).

If Labour accepts that joining the euro is now an unavoidable part of the EU package, it must be honest about the constitutional revolution that this entails.

Control over tax and spending by elected legislatures is the life-blood of democracy, the burning issue of the English Civil War and the American Revolution. You cannot hand this power to a technocrat priesthood in Brussels without eviscerating parliaments, a point made often by Otmar Issing, the ECB’s founding father.

“It’s a violation of the fundamental democratic principle of no taxation without representation,” said Issing, who has since lost faith in the project.

There is also the little matter of what happens whether your economy is out of cyclical alignment with the eurozone core or if there is a sudden stop in intra-euro capital flows – as was the fate of southern Europe during the lost decade.

Club Med countries discovered what it meant to give up their instruments of economic self-defence in this Völkerkerker. They were forced into a deflationary vortex, pushing youth unemployment above 50pc in Spain and the Italian Mezzogiorno.

EU officials became debt collectors for northern creditors. In their zeal to save the euro they toppled elected premiers in Greece and Italy, parachuting in EU technocrats to take charge.

Police guard the Bank of Greece
Greece went through a decade of political, economic and social turmoil because of the eurozone crisis Credit: Milos Bicanski/Getty Images
This treatment led to the election of an Italian coalition in 2017 – Cinque Stelle and Lega – committed to restoring the lira. But of course, you cannot leave the euro. Like Hotel California, you can check in, but you can’t check out.

Mr Streeting said Brexit was a “catastrophic mistake”. This is to trivialise large matters, or to indulge in “sixth form politics”, in the lapidary words of his ex-colleague David Lammy.

Brexit was neither a mistake nor a success. It was a constitutional choice. The referendum in 2016 was to determine the elemental question of who governs the British people.

It was to decide whether to restore full self-rule under Britain’s own Parliament, laws, and courts or to accept a higher level of authority in Brussels, one that cannot be removed by electoral means even when it persists in grave error.

It was a chance to issue a post-facto verdict on a rush of treaties – Maastricht, Amsterdam, Nice and Lisbon – that this country never wanted and that enabled galloping federalisation. The last was to turn the European Court of Justice into a de facto supreme court with jurisdiction over almost anything via the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Large matters indeed.

There are alluring reasons to join the EU’s Caesaropapist fortress in our menacing new world of monsters. We did not know in 2016 that we would be facing a wolf-warrior Xi Jinping, or that Vladimir Putin would go full revanchist, or that America would elect a deranged, predatory warmonger.

Perhaps we should have discerned these horrors on the horizon, but that is asking a lot.

There are powerful countervailing reasons to avoid that like the plague: to run our own affairs and our own economy under our own Parliament, as an independent trading nation and military ally, just as Canada, Australia and Japan do with success.

Advertisement

But let us thrash out the arguments in open debate. The worst possible outcome is to smuggle Britain back into the EU on the basis of half-truths, lies and a pseudo-economic false prospectus. That would be to double down on half a century of errors.

There lies your “catastrophic mistake”, Mr Streeting.

Labour’s ‘catastrophic mistake’ on Europe Brexit was neither a failure nor a success – it was a constitutional choice we made