On 1 March, the Westminster Russia Forum, formerly known as the Conservative Friends of Russia, was dissolved ‘immediately’. Should this pro-Russia group have existed in the first place?

As it becomes more evident that Britain’s apathy, particularly from the Conservatives and the government itself, has enabled and encouraged Vladimir Putin and his regime, the group’s work needs scrutinising. Not only so we can avoid similar mistakes in the future but also so intelligence services can conduct enquiries into the group’s connections and funding to ensure no wrongdoing.

Conservatives have been complicit and complacent with the Putin regime

London is undisputed the global capital for Russians to launder money. In 2008, The UK government’s golden visa scheme was launched to allow the wealthiest people a fast track to British citizenship. A mere £2m got you and your family settled status in five years. For the super-wealthy, a mere £10m got you and your family there in just two years. This visa scheme was of concern to many. The project was insecure with worries around the efficiency of checks made on origins of wealth.

Parliament’s intelligence and security committee recommended in its Russia report, published in July 2020, that there should be an “overhaul” of the golden visa programme. Nothing happened.

A foreign affairs select committee report, produced four years ago, endorsed by Priti Patel as a backbench member, said ministers were risking national security by “turning a blind eye” to Russian “dirty money” flowing through the City of London. Yet again, the government took no action.

Priti Patel’s role

Last month, however, Patel suddenly announced the golden visa scheme would end with immediate effect in a bid to help stop “corrupt elites who threaten our national security and push dirty money around our cities”. Yet, she knew of the issues long before, so why only now?

One report examined the visa system between 2008 and 2015, a period in which 700 Russians gained residency. Yet, Patel and the government have consistently delayed its publication.

Then, there are the donations. There have been growing concerns regarding Russian oligarchs donating to the Conservative Party, and these donations have increased under Boris Johnson’s premiership. Indeed, six oligarchs alone have donated £2m since Johnson became prime minister.

History of the Conservative Friends of Russia group

The Westminster Russia Forum, initially the Conservative Friends of Russia, was founded in 2012 by Richard Royal, a communication specialist for Ladbrokes. Its organisers and members often appeared on Russia Today, the Russian state-owned news channel.

The group then, and now, calls itself a think tank, but no published research exists. They are more akin to a lobby group; however, there is no requirement to register their activities or interests, no scrutiny or checks, so we are left guessing as to the scope of the work they did.

As reported by Open Democracy, Sue Hawley, the director of Spotlight on Corruption, stated:

Who is behind the group?

One of the group’s initial organisers in 2011 was Sergei Nalobin, a diplomat suspected of being a Russian agent. He was the first secretary in the Russian embassy’s political section and son of Nikolai Nalobin, a former KGB general, who left the UK in 2015. He wanted to build closer ties with the Conservative Party and, strangely, was interested in the rivalry between Boris Johnson and David Cameron.

The group launched at the Russian embassy in August 2012. Then minister John Whittingdale was the group’s honorary vice-president. He attended the opening with then office aide Carrie Symonds, now Carrie Johnson, wife of Prime Minister Johnson.

Another founding member of the group was Matthew Elliot, chief executive of the official Vote Leave campaign. Whittingale was also one of six Cabinet ministers to favour Brexit during the 2016 EU referendum. There seems to be a specific correlation between many of Brexit’s most prominent supporters, who are anti-EU yet enamoured with Russia.

Renaming the group

The original founder, Royal, persuaded Conservative MP Malcolm Rifkin to join the Conservative Friends of Russia. However, Royal publicly attacked Labour’s Chris Bryant MP, a prominent Kremlin critic, by sharing a photo of Bryant in his underpants taken from a gay dating site. After this, Rifkin resigned, and soon the group fell apart, with many Conservatives distancing themselves from it. This was when the group reformed under the name of Westminster Russia Forum.

The forum categorically states it is non-political and focuses on trade, culture, and sport, but its role has undoubtedly helped give credibility and influence to pro-Russia lobbyists. It would have brought Russian funding into UK businesses and politics.

The forum’s organisers are mainly London based, with business interests in Russia. The current chair, Nicholas Cobb, runs an energy communications firm focused on Russia and former Soviet republics. He has also appeared on Russia Today and is pro-Moscow.

The Westminster Russia Forum’s events grew from having around 50 attendees in 2015 to having 170 in 2020 when it drew 47 speakers on UK-Russia relations. The group was overwhelmingly effusive on the need for strong ties with the Putin regime.

The group struggled to attract big Conservative names after ‘underpantsgate’ in 2012. Still, it hosted around 80 events and intended to hold its first in-person event for two years on 4 March. As the group was unregulated, the public never had access to its activities and fundraising information records. Some political figures like Lord Andrew Adonis are now calling for their records to be handed to police and sanction advisers. Surely this would be the right course of action for ‘the national interest’.

“The Westminster Russian forum, previously “Conservative friends of Russia” which lobbied for pro Russia funding for cash for Conservative MPs & party operations is being wound up”

Its list of donors should be published and handed to the police and sanctions advisers

— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) March 5, 2022

Vitally important that Boris Johnson today give an undertaking that the Conservative Party will ensure that donor details of the “Conservative Friends of Russia”, just wound up after raising tens of millions for the party, are not destroyed. Vital Ukraine sanctions data here

— Andrew Adonis (@Andrew_Adonis) March 5, 2022

Why the rush to dissolve the group?

When Russia illegally invaded Ukraine, the focus started to turn and look at the Conservative Party’s relationships with Russian oligarchs and its seeming reliance on Russian donations. A spotlight has been shone on the Conservatives Party, which has taken millions in oligarchs’ donations.

Johnson’s relationship with Evgeny Lebedev, son of Alexander Lebedev, a former KGB agent, has come under intense scrutiny once again. Johnson awarded Lebedev, who had only received dual British citizenship in 2010, a peerage in 2020.

Intelligence officials raised concerns that granting a peerage to a Russian business leader posed a national security risk, but these concerns were withdrawn after Johnson intervened.

On a brief look back through the group’s Twitter page, @WRForum, I didn’t find anything too salacious, but it is uncomfortable. The reliance and amount of retweets from the Russian embassy is striking.

It oozes pro-Russian sentiment and only retweets views and accounts that echo the narrative that Russia is not the aggressor.

We need to learn lessons

We desperately need to bring in new laws to ensure transparency around the many subgroups, ‘friends of’, and lobbying groups that exist.

While Putin’s invasion of Ukraine is undoubtedly a valid reason for a group that supports business and connections between Britain and Russia to disband, we must also consider that maybe knowingly or unknowingly, the group could have enabled dark actors and dark money to corrupt our political systems. If they have nothing to hide, the group should now turn over all documentation and information that it holds to sanction advisers and the intelligence services. Our democracy depends on it.

When Ukrainian refugees arrived at Berlin station on Thursday, they were met by thousands of local residents offering help, support and comfort. The moving account of the generosity and compassion of the German people, and the German government, brought a tear to many an eye and stirred up a wide range of emotions. Not least, a severe case of national shame at the appalling indifference and lack of action shown by our own government. As if that indifference were not bad enough, insult is being added to injury by government claims that the UK is doing more than it is, and more than anyone else.

Thousands of people in Berlin have gone to the central train station to offer fleeing Ukrainians a place to stay. Really moving. pic.twitter.com/OReuMnHcfk

— Marcel Dirsus (@marceldirsus) March 3, 2022

Misleading claims of UK action

Claims by Boris Johnson that the UK is world leading – at anything and everything – are nothing new. In fact, they are all too familiar. This latest, terrible crisis sadly is no exception. It’s yet another opportunity for government to gaslight, grandstand and distort reality. And, of course, to travel to foreign parts for the seemingly compulsory photo-ops, ideally in front of a row of tanks or military aircraft.

The United Kingdom stands with the people of Ukraine 🇬🇧🇺🇦

People across the country want to support those defending Ukraine and those fleeing their homes because of the invasion.

Here's how you can help ⬇️

Please share https://t.co/jwQz6nqsi4

— UK Prime Minister (@10DowningStreet) March 4, 2022

Despite claims that the “UK stands with the people of the Ukraine” and is “doing everything” it can, government actions do not speak louder than their words. Measures meant to penalise Russia, or its oligarchs, fall far short of what’s urgently required or what other countries are doing, or have been doing for years. It’s the pandemic all over again – too little action taken too late, and at odds with the rest of the world.

Refugees not welcome in the UK

Although recently ‘improved’, likely as a result of public and parliamentary pressure, the UK’s offer to Ukrainian refugees is pitiful. Where other countries have waived visa requirements, the UK has made the hoops smaller and the jumps higher.

The Ukraine Family Scheme allows applicants “to join family members or extend their stay in the UK”. Applications are subject to security checks, and in order to be to eligible, applicants must meet all the following criteria:

be applying to join or accompany your UK-based family member
be Ukrainian or an immediate family member of a Ukrainian national applying to the scheme
have been residing in Ukraine prior to 1 January 2022
Applications must be made online – not exactly easy when fleeing a war-torn country – and heaven help anyone who is ineligible.

Update on UK support for Ukraine: 1 March 2022 🇬🇧🇺🇦

More information: https://t.co/PG3CmC7c8f pic.twitter.com/pUuCENsQCl

— UK Prime Minister (@10DowningStreet) March 1, 2022

Still, not to worry, I’m sure the news announced by the transport secretary, Grant Shapps, will prove an enormous relief to Ukrainians unfortunate enough to find themselves heading for Blighty. Shapps anounced that the UK is “making it easier for those fleeing conflict to travel to the UK”. It will no longer be necessary to take covid travel tests or to fill in passenger locator forms. So, only the complicated, limited eligibility visa application to worry about then. Phew!

We’re supporting #Ukraine 🇺🇦 by making it easier for those who are fleeing conflict to travel to the UK. Passengers who began their journey in Ukraine now do not need to fill in a Passenger Locator Form or take travel tests.

— Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP (@grantshapps) March 3, 2022

A moral duty to act

The EU, by contrast, are welcoming victims of Russian aggression with open arms. An emergency plan will see Ukrainian refugees given the right to live and work in the EU for up to three years. Ukrainian citizens already have 90-day visa-free access, but a change in EU law will see their status secured after that three-month period expires.

“Protecting the people fleeing Putin’s bombs is not only an act of compassion in times of war”, said European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, but it is “our moral duty as Europeans”.

Protecting the people fleeing Putin’s bombs is not only an act of compassion in times of war.

This is also our moral duty, as Europeans.

Romania is doing the right thing. https://t.co/ycRD5NP8s3

— Ursula von der Leyen (@vonderleyen) March 3, 2022

Foreign Secretary Liz Truss agreed that “we have a moral duty to support Ukrainians forced to live in fear by Putin’s invasion”. It’s a shame – no, it’s a scandal – that the government’s idea of what that support looks like seems to involve keeping them off our island, if at all possible.

We have a moral duty to support Ukrainians forced to live in fear by Putin’s invasion of 🇺🇦
🇬🇧 has pledged £220m in aid to Ukraine. I told @UNReliefChief Martin Griffiths we’re right behind @UN’s Flash Appeal & will ensure safe aid routes. We must – and will – do more. pic.twitter.com/ZDXLGx3Gyq

— Liz Truss (@trussliz) March 1, 2022

The German example

For decades, many questioned how Hitler managed to gain such terrible power in Germany in the 1930s. How did the German people let it happen, they asked? Why wasn’t he stopped? We are not asking those questions now. We have witnessed far-right extremism taking over in our own backyard, and it was easier than we ever thought possible.

Brexit, and the toxic, anti-immigrant rhetoric of our Go Home Office, have opened our eyes to exactly how the far-right can steer a country so dangerously off track. Yet our government still tries to claim the moral high ground as they hypocritically criticise others. At a time when it is more important than ever to work closely with our neighbours and allies, the UK is looking increasingly isolated and misguided.

Germans paid a high price for the sins of the past, but they learned valuable lessons, which they grasped with both hands. Their attitude towards immigration has been to look at the many positives, not the negatives, and to do so with compassion and gusto.

The Germans have a special word with regard to immigration – ‘Willkommenskultur’. It means ‘welcoming culture’ and is a “German concept which designates firstly a positive attitude of politicians, businesses, educational institutions, sports clubs, civilians and institutions towards foreigners, including and often especially towards migrants”.

The UK don’t have a similar word, or a similar concept. The word for what they have in its place is unprintable.

In my previous article, I wrote about the ‘Net Zero Scrutiny Group’. If the group were transparent in their aims and objectives, they should be named ‘The Group Against Net Zero’. It turns out the Common Sense Group (CSG) is no different.

What does the Common Sense Group stand for?

You only have to read two paragraphs of their webpage to understand that this is just another Conservative group whose focus is on attacking liberal and compassionate thinking. It is a significant player in the so-called ‘war on wokeness’. They proudly display this quote from the Daily Express on their website.

Who are the CSG?

The group is chaired by Rt Hon Sir John Hayes CBE MP and reportedly has around 70 members, though there is no comprehensive list available.

In 2020, a Telegraph letter signed by Sir John Hayes, Lord Lilley, Sir Edward Leigh MP, Sally-Ann Hart MP, Tom Hunt MP, Imran Khan MP, and 22 others, suggested that the CSG had been formed to, “speak for the silent majority voters tired of being patronised by elitist bourgeois liberals”.

They concluded their letter with this:

The preface

It is impossible (in one article) to cover the scope of the topics that the CSG discuss, but their downloadable book Conservative Thinking for a Post-Liberal Age, written by Sir John Hayes, gives you a fair idea of what to expect. There are some small areas of reasonable policy thinking but in the main it makes for some worrying and depressing reading.

The manifesto is full of the tropes we are used to hearing from ultra-conservatives as they desperately flay against the inevitable changing demographics of our world. Hayes talks of:

On the Conservatives taking Red Wall seats, he states:

As with other sub-groups like the ERG, the Covid Recovery Group, and the Net Zero Scrutiny Group, they take their own, often antiquated views and skew them to elicit responses to maintain and feed the culture war necessary for distraction. Look at them, not us. They use war-like rhetoric to inflame their target base:

That ‘national interest’, by the way, is THEIR self-interests. Interests propped up by the right-wing media and hard-right antagonists but certainly not by the majority of the British public.

Their ‘manifesto’

Many of their thoughts and ideas in the book are predictable. There is an all too often seen attack on human rights and the European Convention on Human Rights, which has existed since 1953 and whose jurisdiction covers 47 nations.

Sir John Hayes talks of the liberal elite and intolerant ‘woke’ dogma of Black Lives Matter, transgender rights activists, advocates of ‘decolonisation’, and critics of ‘white privilege’, describing them all as ‘woke warriors’. He calls Extinction Rebellion extremists, and attacks institutions and multinational businesses like Starbucks and the National Trust for daring to educate its members on slavery ties to some of its properties.

At the end of 2020, the National Trust added Churchill’s home in Chartwell to the list of properties with links to colonialism and slavery. Was this ‘rewriting history’ as the CSG claimed? Or was it an attempt by the conservation charity to point out Churchill’s role in the 1943 Bengal Famine and his prominent role in the British Empire?

‘What is Wokeism and How Can it be Defeated?’

Gareth Bacon MP writes a chapter that exhibits a deep fear of change, a craving for bygone times when Britain and the white man held dominance over the world.

He suggests that British heritage is ‘under direct assault’ and that people are losing sight of what it means to be British. He questions why the empire is ‘no longer seen as a modernising, civilising force’, and why a picture has been painted of imperialism as racist and invasive.

At least he got the second part of that point correct. Naturally, humans want to learn from history and evolve to a future where our greatness does not lie in the oppression of others. That is humanity.

History is far from static, and our thoughts and ideas change; society is reflective of history. If our thought didn’t evolve, we would be stuck in times where women could not work, vote, or hold mortgages, where being gay was illegal, and where slavery was acceptable.

Criticism and investigation into the reality of colonisation is becoming more widespread outside of academic circles. Colonisation was certainly not a great force of good; under our nations’ flags, our ancestors, driven mainly by greed and power, committed atrocities. We ravaged the wealth of other countries, destroyed an unknown amount of cultures, and enforced our religion on indigenous people worldwide.

It is difficult to judge and quantify what richness and diversity the world lost through colonialism, but what is undeniable is that European imperialism (including British) constructed and facilitated structural, institutional racism, which still exists today.

‘Conservative Case for Media Reform’

Our media is not only under siege by the left but dominated by the left, apparently. James Sunderland MP and David Maddox, in the chapter entitled ‘Conservative Case for Media Reform’, include a quote from Enoch Powell, known for his ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech, on how mass media coverage shapes the cultural environment in which we all live.

It was reported that of all liberal democracies, Britain had the most right-wing media. The BBC is now under an increasingly overt attack from the right, as evidenced by recent appointments, including Tim Davie, former Goldman Sachs associate. There have also been threats from government officials themselves to remove Channel 4’s licence.

Sunderland and Maddox call on Conservatives to be the “Samson of the 21st-century, understanding that the two pillars holding up the temple of wokeness are the broadcast media and internet giants”.

Their five-step plan to destroy ‘wokeness’ is as follows:

• Break up the BBC
• End the need for impartiality
• Treat social media as publishers and make them pay
• Repeal hate speech laws
• Ensure quality and transparency
• While some may seem logical, i.e. ensuring quality, when you read more deeply, they are all a ploy to ensure right-wing thinking dominates media and society.

What is the Common Sense Group all about?

Fundamentally, CSG members are deeply insecure and fearful. A world where equal opportunities apply regardless of origin, colour, sex, or gender, disrupts their worldview. After all, that means a lot more competition from those who traditionally would not have competed.

It is the realisation that society is changing rapidly. For generations, those who held power have come from ‘their country’, looked like them, spoke like them, and come from the same social classes.

They are an almost homogenous group. All would likely say they accept those who are different, but their words and actions show that such commitment comes with a caveat; that those who are different will be tolerated, as long as they remember their place, don’t speak up, and certainly don’t challenge power structure that keeps them in place.

It’s not common sense at all; it’s nonsense.

On Monday 21 February, Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and European Commission Vice President Maroš Šefčovič co-chaired a meeting of the EU/UK joint committee in Brussels. The committee, which was set up to oversee the implementation of the Brexit deal, had not met since June last year.

Following the meeting, Šefčovič tweeted that they had taken stock and that the “hard work continues”. In a press release, he said that “a lot has happened since our last Joint Committee”, and that talks had intensified “on ways to facilitate the implementation of the Protocol”. He added that his objective remains the same:

Took stock of our talks on the IE/NI Protocol. Hard work continues.

My team will continue to work flat out on the outstanding issues within the Protocol and build on our proposed solutions. They offer remarkable simplification and a big permanent impact.https://t.co/uiOJLLNQWx pic.twitter.com/FusMD2fqDb

— Maroš Šefčovič🇪🇺 (@MarosSefcovic) February 21, 2022

Citizens’ rights

Šefčovič described citizens’ rights as the Commission’s “top priority from day one”. While reiterating the importance of protecting citizens’ rights, he expressed concern over two outstanding issues:

• The loss of residence status if an EU citizen does not apply in time to progress from pre-settled to settled status
• And the lack of legal certainty for EU citizens with a new residence status, as to whether their rights are guaranteed by the Withdrawal Agreement or by UK immigration law

Šefčovič expressed regret at the UK’s position on both issues, and is currently considering the EU’s next steps.

The meeting was also attended by James Cleverly on behalf of the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. Cleverly said in a tweet that he had “encouraged the EU to take a proactive role resolving cases where UK nationals continue to face difficulties with citizens’ rights in some EU member states”.

I joined @TrussLiz in Brussels today for 🇬🇧 🇪🇺 Joint Committee.

During the meeting I encouraged the EU to take a proactive role resolving cases where UK nationals continue to face difficulties with citizens’ rights in some EU member states. https://t.co/SB2GGEfQZ5

— James Cleverly🇬🇧 (@JamesCleverly) February 21, 2022

Northern Ireland Protocol

With regard to the discussion on the protocol, Šefčovič described the talks as “neither a breakthrough or a breakdown”. He said he and Truss would continue to “keep our eyes on the ball to find durable solutions for the benefit of Northern Ireland”.

In a joint statement, both sides reiterated their commitment to protecting the Good Friday Agreement. They underlined their joint “ongoing determination” to address the outstanding issues and find durable solutions “for the benefit of citizens, businesses and stability in Northern Ireland”.

Šefčovič said that his team would “continue to work flat out on the outstanding issues” while building on the “far-reaching solutions that the EU presented”. His contact with Northern Irish stakeholders had reassured him, he said, “that we should stay laser-focused on practical solutions” particularly in regard to customs and the movement of sanitary/phytosanitary goods.

With UK Foreign Secretary @trussliz, we have just concluded our ninth meeting of the EU-UK Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee.

Our joint statement 👉 https://t.co/183uPnvgFJ. pic.twitter.com/Yy44eLgG4W

— Maroš Šefčovič🇪🇺 (@MarosSefcovic) February 21, 2022

Talks in stasis

Although recent talks between the UK and EU have been lighter and more constructive in tone, little seems to have been accomplished. The language seems more positive, and both sides describe an ”ongoing determination” to resolve outstanding issues, but Brussels and London remain far apart on some fundamental points.

The UK is still seeking changes to the deal it signed, while the EU insists that the deal is done. Minor tweaks aside, the EU says the deal cannot be re-opened or renegotiated: our prime minister must honour the international agreement he negotiated, signed and sold to parliament and the country.

As Šefčovič said after the meeting, “ultimately, this is the only way to protect the hard-earned gains of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement in all its dimensions, while avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland and minimising disruptions caused by Brexit without compromising the integrity of the EU’s single market.”

With the Northern Ireland elections fast approaching, talks have now moved into a “discreet” phrase, according to an EU official. Nothing much is expected to happen regarding the protocol any time soon.

One can only hope that, Brexit talks or no, the UK and EU are at least working together to deal with other pressing international matters. As Šefčovič said at the end of his statement, “Today’s current challenging times call, more than ever before, for a strong partnership between the European Union and the United Kingdom”. Let’s hope so, for the sake of the UK, Europe and Ukraine.

MET POLICE PARTYGATE QUESTIONNAIRE

(only for use by Downing Street staff/residents)

CONFIDENTIAL

As an employee/resident of Downing Street, you are required to complete a questionnaire regarding your attendance at any/all social events that took place on the premises during Covid lockdown.

You will need to complete one questionnaire for every party, gathering or work event, including those taking place in the Downing Street gardens. Further copies of this questionnaire are available on request, if the 10 copies supplied are insufficient.

All the questions are multiple choice – please select one answer per question, except where specified “tick all that apply”.

You have seven days to respond. Failure to answer the questions truthfully could result in a more in-depth questionnaire, a Police interrogation, a severe telling off and/or a fixed penalty fine.

Date of party/gathering/work event ……………………………………………………………………………………………………..

1. Were you at a party in No. 10 Downing Street during lockdown?

• There were no parties
• All the rules were followed
• I thought it was a work event
• Ask Sue Gray

2. Were you aware of the lockdown rules at the time?

• Yes, and I didn’t break any
• No, and I didn’t break any
• Yes, but they don’t apply to me
• What rules?

3. When did you first hear about the party?

• I received an invitation 1-7 days in advance
• I received an invitation at least 8 days in advance
• I was told about it on the day of the event
• Nobody told me there was a party, I just followed the sound of the karaoke

4. While at the party/work meeting in Downing Street, did you maintain social distancing?

• I kept well away from the general public
• I followed my colleague’s lead (keep members of the opposite sex within arms’ length)
• Apart from when I was slow dancing/snogging my colleague, yes
• Social distancing is a contradiction in terms and I refuse to comply

5 .If lockdown rules don’t apply in this instance, why don’t they? (Tick all that apply)

• Best economic growth in the G7
• World-beating vaccine roll-out
• Because Carrie says so
• What lockdown?

6. Did you consume alcohol on the Downing Street premises?

• Of course, just like every Friday
• Don’t remember
• Only the required amount
• Yes, but only under duress

7. Did you consume drugs on the Downing Street premises?

• Of course, just like every Friday
• Don’t remember
• Only the required amount
• Yes, but only under duress

8. Did you purchase or supply any items for the party? (Tick all that apply)

• Alcohol
• Food and/or fags
• Balloons, decorations, banners, party favours
• Condoms

9- Did you interact with the Police security detail? (Tick all that apply)

• On entering/leaving the premises
• My person/belongings were searched
• Assistance was provided when required (e.g. wardrobe malfunction, needing a bucket)
• What security detail? I thought they were the entertainment!

If you are in possession of any photographs/videos of the proceedings, please email them directly to the Met Police Partygate Investigations Team. They will not be used publicly without your express permission, though may be shared amongst colleagues in Met locker rooms. Please tag any officers/colleagues whose names (or nicknames) you know.

NB. You need not include any images taken using the Downing St photocopier.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. If we are satisfied with your answers, you will not hear from us again in this regard. If we are not satisfied, your next interview will be conducted face-to-face, either at your place of work or on Police premises.

We apologise in advance for any delays caused by the resignation and replacement of our leader. We are sure you will appreciate the position this puts us in, considering you may well find yourself without a leader/out of a job yourself very soon.

I hereby testify that I was not coerced or coached on the completion of this questionnaire. To the best of my knowledge, the answers I have provided are truthful and complete. And I’m very, very sorry.

……………………………………………………………….                    ………………………………………………………………………

Signature                                                                             Print Name

Thanks (& credit) to @Trump_ton for giving me the idea.

Unless you read the Irish press, you may have failed to notice that round three of the EU/UK Brexit negotiations took place on Friday 11 February. Maroš Šefčovič, vice president of the European Commission, was at Carlton Gardens in London for his third meeting with woman-of-many-hats Liz Truss. The joint statement was rather short on both word count and content. They might as well have released a statement saying, ‘a meeting took place and we took photos’.

Shortest ever joint EU UK statement following a round of Protocol talks between @trussliz and @MarosSefcovic

— Tony Connelly (@tconnellyRTE) February 11, 2022

The negotiations so far

The last meeting between Šefčovič and Truss took place on 24 January in Brussels. Little was achieved other than the arrangement of this latest head-to-head. The first meeting had likewise ended with nothing more than the parties taking a rain check. This time around they haven’t even, publicly at least, agreed a date for their next meeting.

Three rounds of talks later and we are barely any further forward. That’s despite both sides agreeing the need to wrap up negotiations – or suspend them – before the end of February, ahead of campaigning for the Northern Ireland assembly elections.

There was, at least, one positive development from round two of the talks in January – the agreement for a meeting of the EU/UK joint committee later this month. The committee, which was set up to oversee the implementation of the Brexit deal, has not met since June 2021.

Perceived problems with the protocol

The Northern Ireland protocol remains the main bone of contention between Brussels and London. The UK claims the EU is being overzealous in its application of protocol rules. The EU, on the other hand, is quick to remind London that we knew exactly what we were agreeing to when the deal was signed and lauded.

While we must hope that’s true of most of the UK negotiators, can it be true of our prime minister? He’s not exactly a details person. His interest was only in ‘getting Brexit done’ – not in how to make that happen, or how to make it a success.

As the European Commission said, in their official statement following the last meeting of the joint committee, “the Protocol is the solution that was found together with the UK, after four years of intense negotiations”. The aim of the protocol is, “to address the serious consequences that Brexit and the UK choice to leave the EU Single Market and Customs Union would have for Northern Ireland”.

A UK concession?

Although there was no mention of any progress in the joint statement, the Irish Times reported a “significant concession” from the UK regarding customs controls.

The UK has been demanding no checks on goods destined for end-users in Northern Ireland. While the EU expressed a willingness to take a lighter approach in its October 2021 proposals, it is mindful of the need to protect the integrity of the single market.

UK negotiators this week said they would accept certain customs controls, though not at existing levels; or even at the revised levels proposed by the EU last autumn. Whether that concession could be regarded as ‘significant’, perhaps only the negotiators really know. The Irish Times described it as “so sensitive” that it has not even been put in writing as yet. So, clearly not worth the paper it’s not written on.

A member of Truss’s negotiating team said she had, “put forward a series of constructive proposals to address problems created by the protocol”. She stressed that the UK’s fundamental negotiating position had not shifted. The EU gave the news a cautious welcome and suggested this was a positive move. However, one EU diplomat said, “We are not rolling out the red carpet yet. There is still a long way between the two sides”.

When it comes to Brexit, a dose of realism is needed

As the European Commission concluded in its statement following the last meeting of the joint committee:

“The UK has now to make a choice between fulfilling its legal obligations and genuinely engaging with the EU or continuing along its less than constructive path regarding the implementation of the Protocol. The EU hopes the UK chooses the former.”

For the sake of all citizens and businesses in the UK – not least those in Northern Ireland – we can only hope that we see more realism and less ideology going forward. At the very least, it’s high time Truss and her team accept one manifestly obvious premise: that the protocol is not the Brexit problem, it is the Brexit solution.

Unless, of course, she would like to swap it for single market and customs union membership. The country could live with that in time.

My third meeting with 🇬🇧 Foreign Secretary @trussliz. Our joint statement 👉 https://t.co/fIljgp9OIp. pic.twitter.com/FFigDmCGf6

— Maroš Šefčovič🇪🇺 (@MarosSefcovic) February 11, 2022