[B0ycey]

...When Chequers is turned down and you only have one opinion left...

[anarchist23]

Del

[Beren]

US groups raise millions to support rightwing UK thinktanks

Anonymous donors have given $5.6m since 2008 to groups linked to four thinktanks

Rob Evans, Felicity Lawrence and David Pegg

Fri 28 Sep 2018 16.24 BST Last modified on Fri 28 Sep 2018 18.55 BST

The former Brexit secretary David Davis speaking at an Institute of Economic Affairs briefing in London
this week. Photograph: Neil Hall/EPA

Millions of dollars has been raised from anonymous US donors to support British rightwing thinktanks that are among the most prominent in the Brexit debate.

American donors are giving money to US fundraising bodies that pass the donations to four thinktanks in Britain. A Guardian analysis has established that $5.6m (£4.3m) has been donated to these US entities since 2008.

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the Adam Smith Institute, Policy Exchange and the Legatum Institute have all received financial support from US backers via this route.

The disclosure leaves the thinktanks facing questions as to whether wealthy Americans have undue influence in British politics, particularly over the form Brexit takes.

The UK thinktanks are some of strongest proponents of radical free trade deals with reduced regulation – positions likely to benefit big American businesses, which have opposed Europe’s tighter regulations since the 2008 financial crash.

They have a policy of not disclosing their donors, arguing they respect their backers’ right to privacy unless the backers wish otherwise. Critics say the lack of transparency allows unseen donors to influence political debate.

The charitable status of the thinktanks requires them to remain non-partisan, and they all insist they have not taken a line as institutions on whether the UK should leave the EU.

However, they have published or contributed to policy papers that advocate a Brexit deal that makes a clean break from European regulations.

The IEA, Adam Smith Institute and Legatum Institute are part of the Atlas Network, which says it connects “a global network of more than 475 free-market organisations in over 90 countries to the ideas and resources needed to advance the cause of liberty”.

The IEA has been prominent in the Brexit debate. A US entity, the American Friends of the IEA, has raised at least $1.69m in the last decade.

The IEA has been a partner in a flurry of activity by the caucus of hardline pro-Brexit MPs in the European Research Group in the weeks building up to the Conservative party conference.

It published a paper this week authored by the head of its trade and competition policy unit, Shanker Singham, a lawyer and former Washington lobbyist. The report said the UK could “deliver the Brexit prize” by negotiating radical free trade agreements with the US and other countries. It called for the removal of tariffs and many of the controls put on financial services including hedge funds and banks post-crash.

It also called for opening all services to competition, including the health service, scrapping many of the EU regulations on data protection, pharmaceuticals and food safety and chemicals, and reducing taxes. It suggested civil servants could be replaced by politically appointed trade negotiators.

The IEA declines to identify its donors, but in the past they are known to have included fossil fuel and tobacco companies and the casino and financial services industries.

Undercover filming by Greenpeace this year recorded Michael Carnuccio, the head of an Oklahoma-based libertarian thinktank, the E Foundation, saying his organisation was planning to pour cash into the IEA. He told a Greenpeace investigator his organisation aimed to raise between $250,000 and $400,000 to campaign on Brexit, most of which it would “ship over to the UK”.

In response, the IEA said it did not recognise the sums of money being suggested by the E Foundation and it had not received any cash from US businesses in relation to its work on trade and Brexit.

Greenpeace investigators recorded the IEA director, Mark Littlewood, saying he and Singham had facilitated access for US donors with fossil fuel, agribusiness and real estate interests to key Brexiter MPs, senior officials and the then Brexit minister Steve Baker.

The IEA has said it was “spurious to suggest that the IEA is engaging in any kind of ‘cash for access’ system”, while Baker said he had met the IEA in his political capacity to discuss trade relations with the US.

After the disclosures, the Charity Commission opened an inquiry into the IEA to examine concerns about its political independence. Whitehall’s lobbying tsar, Alison White, is also examining whether the IEA should be registered as a lobbyist.

Robert Boyd, the director of the American Friends of the IEA, said it was run independently of the British thinktank. “The board used donations received in 2017 to fund grant applications from the IEA for specific projects as well as to cover AFIEA’s own operating expenses,” he said.

It is unclear how much of the money raised by the American entities is passed to the British thinktanks, due to the secrecy surrounding the donors.

The US affiliate of another British thinktank, the Legatum Institute, has raised $538,000 since it was set up in 2014. Singham previously worked at Legatum, where he was said to have helped Boris Johnson and Michael Gove draft a letter to the prime minister pushing for a hard Brexit.

Legatum was compelled by the Charity Commission to take down one of its reports on Brexit after it was deemed to be too partisan and to breach the thinktank’s charitable status.

Legatum declined to say what specifically the US money was used for, but insisted it complied with rules governing charities in the US and UK. “We are a global thinktank committed to creating pathways from poverty to prosperity. It is therefore hardly surprising that our work has some global supporters,” a spokesperson said.

Singham said this year that he was supported by a three-year, $1.1m research grant from the US libertarian and religious right Templeton Foundation. It is not clear through which thinktank, if any, this cash is channelled.

The Adam Smith Institute has raised $1.4m from American donors since 2008. This month it partnered with another UK thinktank, the Initiative for Free Trade, and US libertarian thinktanks to launch a blueprint for a free trade deal between the UK and US.

The blueprint called for opening up the NHS to competition from US healthcare companies and a bonfire of EU regulations that provide higher standards of environmental and consumer protections than in the US.

The Adam Smith Institute said the funds were spent on the making of a film about Magna Carta, with money from the Templeton Foundation, and studentships.

US funders have given $1.95m to the American Friends of Policy Exchange since 2011. The centre-right thinktank, co-founded by Gove, has also advocated a clean break from the EU and the European Economic Area.

Policy Exchange declined to say what the US money was used for. A spokesman said: “The decision of a donor to remain anonymous does not give any right to commission specific research projects, or any editorial control or veto over the content of our work.”

So Brexit is a real indigenous British populist-nationalist movement to reclaim Britain's sovereignty and prop up the NHS, huh?

[foxdemon]

The Brexitters have created the perfect external enemy for the EU which is uniting the continent more effectively than anything the EU can do. There may be rumblings on the populist far-right, but the far-right is more interested in using the EU for its own aims than to destroy it. So, I'm afraid, the Brits are out there on their own. The British government has tried to enlist support from the national populists in Hungary and Poland in its usual game of divide and conquer, but even the populists know which side their bread is buttered and that the manna comes from Brussels and not from London.

And those who are tempted to side with London know only too well that siding with the enemy and pissing on your own family has no happy ending - certainly not if your long-term best interests are tied to the EU single market, which Brexits talks show, even the Brits don't want to do without.



There is a common perception that the EU is weak. It is weak in the sense that it needs a consensus to function, but that is ultimately its strength because an empire subjugating dependent states against their will is bound to breed resentment. The EU doesn't go about bombing other countries to smithereens as the Anglo imperialists are in a habit of doing to demonstrate strength, but that is a sign of strength not weakness. The failed interventions in the greater ME have done more to damage Anglo imperialism than anything else.

Thus, in the Tao of politics, the apparently weak are really strong. It can also be of advantage to appear weak because it fools the enemy. @foxdemon has most certainly been fooled.

Well, I don’t know, @Atlantis. It seems the insurgent nations in the EU will happily enlist the support of China and the USA. The UK doesn’t have the clout it once had. If they haven’t been so successful in enlisting other deserting European nations, that would be the reason rather than a commitment to EU solidarity.

It I think we are talking past one another. You seem to agree inclusiveness of EU nations matters. So the issue is structural reform of existing EU political institutions to accomodate a broader range of interests within the EU. Would you agree?

[Varilion]

What i see looking at the Brexit negotiations, is that a lot of the Brexit expectations are being proved wrong:
-Yes Germany fears the economic impact, and yes considers partnership on security issues a priority. But the solidity of the union comes first.
-Yes the "similar-minded" trading nations had common interests with the UK and were partner of lobby campaign - but your "lobby-mate" is at the end of the day also your competitor. And for them the main issue with a Brexit deal is now avoiding that the UK companies will get a competitive advantage over theirs.
-As for the French the matter is easier: "Brexit cannot be painless" (these words come directly from the French diplomacy). The French government seems determined to punish Britain to teach a lesson to populist at home and across the whole continent.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

The only important issue is the withdrawal agreement and within it the only relevant issue is the NI backstop. The EU has decided to make everything dependent on one thing the UK cannot accept which shows, to some degree at least, hubris and a lack of understanding on the EU's part.

Other factors are:
- A large number of Remainers, especially politicians and civil servants, who would love to see Brexit unravel and who dream of the UK to "falling back in".
- Ireland being nervous about having to check their side of the NI border.
- The EU's fear that Britain may well do reasonably well outside the EU.

UK needs to walk away if the EU doesn't drop the NI backstop.

My expectation is that we'll probably have to keep going through the motions for a bit longer and then, with very little time left, there'll be a flurry of activity to get a very basic withdrawal agreement hammered out. It's not out of the question that the NI border will be kicked down the road again.

-----------------------------

Edit: Just saw this from the Tory conference:

Whoa.

[layman]

Word is a new concession of the Irish border. So much for the tough talk and waiting for the eu to counter offer ...

Anyway, it’s still not enough as it doesn’t address splitting the single market.

Is she not better off with one last big set of concessions rather than this constant drip feed of them ....

[JohnRawls]

The only important issue is the withdrawal agreement and within it the only relevant issue is the NI backstop. The EU has decided to make everything dependent on one thing the UK cannot accept which shows, to some degree at least, hubris and a lack of understanding on the EU's part.

Other factors are:
- A large number of Remainers, especially politicians and civil servants, who would love to see Brexit unravel and who dream of the UK to "falling back in".
- Ireland being nervous about having to check their side of the NI border.
- The EU's fear that Britain may well do reasonably well outside the EU.

UK needs to walk away if the EU doesn't drop the NI backstop.

My expectation is that we'll probably have to keep going through the motions for a bit longer and then, with very little time left, there'll be a flurry of activity to get a very basic withdrawal agreement hammered out. It's not out of the question that the NI border will be kicked down the road again.

-----------------------------

Edit: Just saw this from the Tory conference:

Whoa.

I am sorry, what are you talking about?

Ireland itself is the one that requested this to be a part of the agreement. Ireland is a member state. In all the cases Irelands opinion is far more relevant than UKs.

[Rich]

Britain is not just any member. Britain and Eire were already part of a customs union and entered the EU together. I'm not sure if it was ever considered what would happen if Britain chose to leave while Eire remained.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

I am sorry, what are you talking about?

Ireland itself is the one that requested this to be a part of the agreement. Ireland is a member state. In all the cases Irelands opinion is far more relevant than UKs.

I do know the EU boilerplate talking points already, John. You don't need to repeat them here.

[JohnRawls]

I do know the EU boilerplate talking points already, John. You don't need to repeat them here.

Okay, if you know it then is it not a valid point to value position of a member state higher than a soon not to be member? How would you sort it out then? Should we disregard a position of a member state in favor of the UK?

Before you say that we can change the position of ireland then think of this:
1) With no deal -> there is a hard border.
2) With no promise -> there is a hard border for a very long time.(Very likely)
3) With the promise -> there is a chance of no border but only if a deal is struck.

So Ireland doesn't have much of a choice here: Either insist on this or basically have a hard border. If they don't insist then a hard border is almost certain and for a very long time. It is an existential question for them so they won't change their mind.

[B0ycey]

Why do customs checks need to be done at the border?

Do you think Ireland are going to install a hard border under Hard Brexit? I don't.

[Beren]

Do you think Ireland are going to install a hard border under Hard Brexit? I don't.

But the EU and the UK will, I guess.

[B0ycey]

But the EU and the UK will, I guess.

The UK have already established they won't. And I doubt there is any intention of Ireland doing likewise. It would just be more convenient to do it at the border.

[SolarCross]

Ireland both north and south potentially could do very well out of brexit. A hard border isn't going to happen between north and south so goods can potentially flow freely between the UK and an estranged EU by going through Ireland. Migrants won't be able to use Ireland as a gateway so easily though as the UK will likely have some kind of passport control on the sea border.

[B0ycey]

Ireland both north and south potentially could do very well out of brexit. A hard border isn't going to happen between north and south so goods can potentially flow freely between the UK and an estranged EU by going through Ireland. Migrants won't be able to use Ireland as a gateway so easily though as the UK will likely have some kind of passport control on the sea border.

Passport control in the Irish Sea? Do you think the DUP would allow such a thing? If that was even an option there wouldn't be a problem today FYI.

There will be complete movement of people via the Irish border - the same as it is today. And if the UK had any sense they would continue that notion through all ports as well. Do you fancy filling in forms every foreign holiday you take? And paying for the privilege as well? How do you think logistics are going to handle having their drivers going through stringent passport checks crossing Dover? And the pile ups on the motorway?

Nonetheless the UK has never had a problem with freedom of movement of people. People just perceive there is a problem because they think migrants steal jobs - which isn't true. To curb such irrational thoughts you don't need to check passports at ports, just restrict companies on who they can employ. Simple.

[SolarCross]

Passport control in the Irish Sea? Do you think the DUP would allow such a thing? If that was even an option there wouldn't be a problem today FYI.

There will be complete movement of people via the Irish border - the same as it is today. And if the UK had any sense they would continue that notion through all ports as well. Do you fancy filling in forms every foreign holiday you take? And paying for the privilege as well? How do you think logistics are going to handle having their drivers going through stringent passport checks crossing Dover? And the pile ups on the motorway?

Nonetheless the UK has never had a problem with freedom of movement of people. People just perceive there is a problem because they think migrants steal jobs - which isn't true. To curb such irrational thoughts you don't need to check passports at ports, just restrict companies on who they can employ. Simple.

Passport control doesn't have to be that onerous for the relevant passport holders. NI citizens have a British passport, they'll be waved through. Romanians, Bulgarians and whoever else will have the issues because they won't be passing through on a passport but on a visa. It is easier to check them at the ports of entry than place and enforce restrictions on companies which wouldn't even discourage that much immigration given people can support themselves by sponging off of relatives or charities, working self-employed, "under the table", or in criminal enterprises (prostitution, drug dealing) without ever interacting with big companies doomed to comply with legislation.

The reasons for controlling immigration go far beyond parochial employment issues, the bigger issue is security actually. There is also the issue of unburdening the welfare state of excess freeloaders.

[B0ycey]

Passport control doesn't have to be that onerous for the relevant passport holders. NI citizens have a British passport, they'll be waved through. Romanians, Bulgarians and whoever else will have the issues because they won't be passing through on a passport but on a visa. It is easier to check them at the ports of entry than place and enforce restrictions on companies which wouldn't even discourage that much immigration given people can support themselves by sponging off of relatives or charities, working self-employed, "under the table", or in criminal enterprises (prostitution, drug dealing) without ever interacting with big companies doomed to comply with legislation.

The reasons for controlling immigration go far beyond parochial employment issues, the bigger issue is security actually. There is also the issue of unburdening the welfare state of excess freeloaders.

Security? Are you saying EU migrants are a security concern? How so? And welfare isn't dependent on movement. So again, why do you want to cause friction at the cost of your economy when policy change will do that for you. Although I would like to add that the vast majority of EU migrants don't actually claim benefits but work I might add

Nonetheless you are in fantasy about a border in the Irish Sea. The DUP will not allow it. They don't want NI to be treated differently to anywhere else in the UK. And that includes requiring a passport to visit anywhere in the UK. And if that wasn't the case, the border conundrum would already be solved actually.

[SolarCross]

Security? Are you saying EU migrants are a security concern? How so? And welfare isn't dependent on movement. So again, why do you want to cause friction at the cost of your economy when policy change will do that for you. Although I would like to add that the vast majority of EU migrants don't actually claim benefits but work I might add

Any unknown factor is a potential security risk. Passport control is all about knowing who is coming in. A boozy but hard working polish plumber or a radicalised French-Algerian wannabe suicide bomber? Unless you have border control you can't know who is who or what is coming in and how to find them.

Seriously the main (and best) reason for border control is for security purposes. It's the same reason you lock your front door at night, and you do lock it, don't you?

Nonetheless you are in fantasy about a border in the Irish Sea. The DUP will not allow it. They don't want NI to be treated differently to anywhere else in the UK. And that includes requiring a passport to visit anywhere in the UK. And if that wasn't the case, the border conundrum would already be solved actually.

Maybe but if the DUP get their way then the passport control will have to be on NI border with the IR. Again that needn't be a major issue either as we could simply have get an agreement with the Irish Republic for auto-visas for either Ireland in each other's domain, so that for the Irish of both north and south crossing the border is as easy as waving a passport around. It doesn't really even concern the EU at all actually as it is really a matter between the UK NI and Eire.

[B0ycey]

Any unknown factor is a potential security risk. Passport control is all about knowing who is coming in. A boozy but hard working polish plumber or a radicalised French-Algerian wannabe suicide bomber? Unless you have border control you can't know who is who or what is coming in and how to find them.

Seriously the main (and best) reason for border control is for security purposes. It's the same reason you lock your front door at night, and you do lock it, don't you?

Most terrorists are home grown. Who are you protecting? This sentence is statically false. And a misnomer.

Maybe but if the DUP get their way then the passport control will have to be on NI border with the IR. Again that needn't be a major issue either as we could simply have get an agreement with the Irish Republic for auto-visas for either Ireland in each other's domain, so that for the Irish of both north and south crossing the border is as easy as waving a passport around. It doesn't really even concern the EU at all actually as it is really a matter between the UK NI and Eire.

So you advocate a hard border and the end of the Good Friday agreement to prevent so-called Algerian suicide terrorists from blowing up London?

Any checks at the border is a hard border FYI. And yes it concerns the EU as Eire are a member state.