Video wird geladen...

Video konnte nicht geladen werden

Beim Laden dieses Videos ist ein Problem aufgetreten. Dies könnte an einem vorübergehenden Netzwerkproblem liegen oder das Video ist möglicherweise nicht verfügbar.

Speaking in the Standards in Public Life statement today. Everything is about the Prime Minister’s judgment right now, and this looks a lot like smoke to me. The concerns surrounding Lord Mandelson were not hidden; they were well known through years of public discussion. He was dismissed twice from... Government office for impropriety. He later appeared on Mr Deripaska’s yacht at a time when the European Union was deliberating on aluminium taxation; again raising serious questions of propriety. All of this leads to a simple and unavoidable question: why him? We are told the vetting was insufficient, yet it need not have been had proper diligence been undertaken. Ultimately, this comes back to the Prime Minister’s personal judgment, his decision to override the warning signs and determine, for reasons known only to himself, that this individual should represent the United Kingdom as ambassador to the United States. That is the central issue before us, and it is one that demands clear answers.show more

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

74,686 subscribers

32,797 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten •via X (Twitter)

Nachrichten & Politik Bildung

Anya Rossi• Live Now

Private livecam show

0 Kommentare

Keine Kommentare verfügbar

Kommentare vom Original-Post werden hier angezeigt

Ähnliche Videos

The Prime Minister knew exactly who he was appointing. Mandelson was twice sacked from Cabinet, with well-documented links in the public domain; links to Chinese companies, meetings with President Xi Jinping, meetings with President Vladimir Putin, and a relationship with Oleg Deripaska while overseeing aluminium tariffs as an EU Commissioner. None of this was hidden. So let us not pretend the Prime Minister didn’t know, he did. He knew the risks. He knew the background. And he made the choice anyway. Which leads to the central question: why was the proper review, why was the due process, set aside before that decision was made? Because the truth is this: this was not an oversight. It was a judgement and it was the wrong one.

The Prime Minister knew exactly who he was appointing. Mandelson was twice sacked from Cabinet, with well-documented links in the public domain; links to Chinese companies, meetings with President Xi Jinping, meetings with President Vladimir Putin, and a relationship with Oleg Deripaska while overseeing aluminium tariffs as an EU Commissioner. None of this was hidden. So let us not pretend the Prime Minister didn’t know, he did. He knew the risks. He knew the background. And he made the choice anyway. Which leads to the central question: why was the proper review, why was the due process, set aside before that decision was made? Because the truth is this: this was not an oversight. It was a judgement and it was the wrong one.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

50,588 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

🚨 STARMER ADVISED — AND IGNORED IT This just escalated. According to Sky News, the Prime Minister was explicitly advised to complete security vetting before appointing Peter Mandelson. That advice came from Simon Case. It was not followed. Now the defence is: “I wasn’t told he failed vetting.” But the bigger question is now unavoidable: Why was the appointment pushed through without clearance in the first place? This shifts everything. From a breakdown in communication… to a decision at the top. All eyes now on Keir Starmer in the Commons.

🚨 STARMER ADVISED — AND IGNORED IT This just escalated. According to Sky News, the Prime Minister was explicitly advised to complete security vetting before appointing Peter Mandelson. That advice came from Simon Case. It was not followed. Now the defence is: “I wasn’t told he failed vetting.” But the bigger question is now unavoidable: Why was the appointment pushed through without clearance in the first place? This shifts everything. From a breakdown in communication… to a decision at the top. All eyes now on Keir Starmer in the Commons.

Jim Ferguson

24,788 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

I say to the Government: no more evasions, no more excuses, and no more terminal inexactitude from that Dispatch Box. The House deserves better. The country expects better. This was an appointment that should never have been made. The Government pushed the Peter Mandelson appointment through anyway, and now they are scrambling for excuses. They say the system failed. It did not. They ignored it. The facts were already in the public domain. The Cabinet Secretary advised them to pause and wait for proper clearance. Sensible advice. Responsible advice. They ignored that too. Instead, they rushed it through, put the King in the firing line, secured agrément, and hoped it would hold. It did not. That is not due process, that is recklessness. And today we learned something even more serious: despite not being cleared, he had access to highly sensitive material. That should concern every Member of this House. So the question is simple: why? Why push this through against the evidence, against advice, and against common sense? The Prime Minister owns this. This was his decision, and it has failed.

I say to the Government: no more evasions, no more excuses, and no more terminal inexactitude from that Dispatch Box. The House deserves better. The country expects better. This was an appointment that should never have been made. The Government pushed the Peter Mandelson appointment through anyway, and now they are scrambling for excuses. They say the system failed. It did not. They ignored it. The facts were already in the public domain. The Cabinet Secretary advised them to pause and wait for proper clearance. Sensible advice. Responsible advice. They ignored that too. Instead, they rushed it through, put the King in the firing line, secured agrément, and hoped it would hold. It did not. That is not due process, that is recklessness. And today we learned something even more serious: despite not being cleared, he had access to highly sensitive material. That should concern every Member of this House. So the question is simple: why? Why push this through against the evidence, against advice, and against common sense? The Prime Minister owns this. This was his decision, and it has failed.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

60,888 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Opposition leaders are calling on Sir Keir Starmer to resign as Prime Minister, after it was revealed Lord Mandelson failed security vetting before he became Ambassador to the US. The Prime Minister repeatedly told MPs and reporters that the process had been followed - before it became clear last night that officials actually overruled that process to appoint Mandelson. We ask Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones when he knew that Mandelson had failed the vetting.

Opposition leaders are calling on Sir Keir Starmer to resign as Prime Minister, after it was revealed Lord Mandelson failed security vetting before he became Ambassador to the US. The Prime Minister repeatedly told MPs and reporters that the process had been followed - before it became clear last night that officials actually overruled that process to appoint Mandelson. We ask Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, Darren Jones when he knew that Mandelson had failed the vetting.

Good Morning Britain

15,353 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Peter Mandelson is one of the dodgiest people in politics. We've known this for decades - he first resigned in disgrace when I was 7 years old. Yet Starmer appointed him. He didn't need a full vetting process to know that Mandelson was no good. He could have just Googled him. In 1996, he took an interest-free £373,000 loan from Geoffrey Robinson, former Labour MP and owner of the New Statesman. The loan was offered, no strings attached, and Mandelson went on to buy a new house in Notting Hill. Robinson had previously been close with Robert Maxwell, the disgraced media baron charged with embezzling millions from his own companies' pension funds. Mandelson, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was responsible for the Department's investigation into Maxwell. Despite the huge loan that he'd been offered, Mandelson never declared that he had a conflict of interest in conducting that investigation. Robinson had dealings with many of Maxwell's companies - and again, Mandelson saw no need to declare a conflict of interest. In 1998, the story broke, and Mandelson was forced to resign in disgrace. He'd taken a huge loan from a friend, who could have been implicated in a corruption investigation that he was carrying out. In 1999, he was back, this time as Northern Ireland Secretary. By 2001, he was resigning again, after allegations that he used his position to influence a passport application for the sponsor of a major New Labour project. That man was Srichand Hinduja, who was under investigation by the Indian Government for his role in the Bofors scandal. He was alleged to have taken kickbacks as part of an arms deal. Yet Mandelson personally intervened to try and secure him a British passport. In 2004, Mandelson billed the taxpayer £3,000 to refurbish his constituency home in Hartlepool, after announcing his decision to stand down as an MP. In 2005, it was reported that, while serving as an EU Commissioner, he spent New Year’s Eve on the yacht of Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, while Microsoft was undergoing a major EU investigation. In 2006, he received a free cruise from an Italian fashion mogul, just before he helped to impose tariffs on Chinese shoes. In 2008, he spent time on a yacht with Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch. In that same year, he cut aluminium tariffs on Russia, in a move that massively benefitted Deripaska's businesses. It turns out that when he'd visited Russia in 2005, the head of security at Deripaska's metals company had organised for Mandelson to get a swift entry visa. Following Jeffrey Epstein's conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor, Mandelson maintained close contact with Epstein. This was a matter of public record. That's to say nothing of the most recent allegations - including the claim that he fed market-sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein just before the 2008 Financial Crash, after receiving money from Epstein. The Prime Minister and his team will try to hide behind the appointments process. There is plenty wrong with that process, including with who receives information, and when. But there was no need to conduct a formal vetting process into Mandelson. He’s been nationally famous as a dodgy politician for more than 25 years. Starmer knew the political risk in appointing him. He chose to do it anyway. That’s not a process issue, and it’s pathetic to pretend otherwise. It’s a judgment issue. Making important judgement calls is the Prime Minister’s job. The trouble is, he’s terrible at it.

Peter Mandelson is one of the dodgiest people in politics. We've known this for decades - he first resigned in disgrace when I was 7 years old. Yet Starmer appointed him. He didn't need a full vetting process to know that Mandelson was no good. He could have just Googled him. In 1996, he took an interest-free £373,000 loan from Geoffrey Robinson, former Labour MP and owner of the New Statesman. The loan was offered, no strings attached, and Mandelson went on to buy a new house in Notting Hill. Robinson had previously been close with Robert Maxwell, the disgraced media baron charged with embezzling millions from his own companies' pension funds. Mandelson, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, was responsible for the Department's investigation into Maxwell. Despite the huge loan that he'd been offered, Mandelson never declared that he had a conflict of interest in conducting that investigation. Robinson had dealings with many of Maxwell's companies - and again, Mandelson saw no need to declare a conflict of interest. In 1998, the story broke, and Mandelson was forced to resign in disgrace. He'd taken a huge loan from a friend, who could have been implicated in a corruption investigation that he was carrying out. In 1999, he was back, this time as Northern Ireland Secretary. By 2001, he was resigning again, after allegations that he used his position to influence a passport application for the sponsor of a major New Labour project. That man was Srichand Hinduja, who was under investigation by the Indian Government for his role in the Bofors scandal. He was alleged to have taken kickbacks as part of an arms deal. Yet Mandelson personally intervened to try and secure him a British passport. In 2004, Mandelson billed the taxpayer £3,000 to refurbish his constituency home in Hartlepool, after announcing his decision to stand down as an MP. In 2005, it was reported that, while serving as an EU Commissioner, he spent New Year’s Eve on the yacht of Paul Allen, the co-founder of Microsoft, while Microsoft was undergoing a major EU investigation. In 2006, he received a free cruise from an Italian fashion mogul, just before he helped to impose tariffs on Chinese shoes. In 2008, he spent time on a yacht with Oleg Deripaska, a Russian oligarch. In that same year, he cut aluminium tariffs on Russia, in a move that massively benefitted Deripaska's businesses. It turns out that when he'd visited Russia in 2005, the head of security at Deripaska's metals company had organised for Mandelson to get a swift entry visa. Following Jeffrey Epstein's conviction for soliciting prostitution from a minor, Mandelson maintained close contact with Epstein. This was a matter of public record. That's to say nothing of the most recent allegations - including the claim that he fed market-sensitive information to Jeffrey Epstein just before the 2008 Financial Crash, after receiving money from Epstein. The Prime Minister and his team will try to hide behind the appointments process. There is plenty wrong with that process, including with who receives information, and when. But there was no need to conduct a formal vetting process into Mandelson. He’s been nationally famous as a dodgy politician for more than 25 years. Starmer knew the political risk in appointing him. He chose to do it anyway. That’s not a process issue, and it’s pathetic to pretend otherwise. It’s a judgment issue. Making important judgement calls is the Prime Minister’s job. The trouble is, he’s terrible at it.

Katie Lam

52,329 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Stephen Flynn, "The most important truth in this entire process is the Prime Minister of the UK chose to ignore the victims of Jeffrey Epstein" "When he made the political choice to put Peter Mandelson in as the UK's most senior diplomat, in the USA" "We have since seen Mandelson be investigated for misconduct in public office and we have of course no learned through the media that he failed the security vetting" "The PM blames all of this on the judgment of others" "But I'm interested in his judgment" "Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both"

Stephen Flynn, "The most important truth in this entire process is the Prime Minister of the UK chose to ignore the victims of Jeffrey Epstein" "When he made the political choice to put Peter Mandelson in as the UK's most senior diplomat, in the USA" "We have since seen Mandelson be investigated for misconduct in public office and we have of course no learned through the media that he failed the security vetting" "The PM blames all of this on the judgment of others" "But I'm interested in his judgment" "Does he believe himself to be gullible, incompetent, or both"

Farrukh

41,334 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?

Jake Sullivan on Iran: The United States is at war with Iran in the middle of an active shooting war that, in my view, was a war of choice. It did not stem from an imminent threat to the United States. We have yet to hear a clear and distinctive answer to the question: Why? What is this all about and what are we trying to achieve?

Clash Report

17,487 Aufrufe • vor 2 Monaten

This mobile phone is vital to the Mandelson scandal. The Labour Prime Minister’s then Chief of Staff says it was stolen. This Labour Secretary of State told the public that the theft happened months before the Mandelson scandal. Turns out that’s not true. Why did he lie?

This mobile phone is vital to the Mandelson scandal. The Labour Prime Minister’s then Chief of Staff says it was stolen. This Labour Secretary of State told the public that the theft happened months before the Mandelson scandal. Turns out that’s not true. Why did he lie?

Stephen Flynn

364,201 Aufrufe • vor 4 Monaten

This is maddening. Speaking of the 2004 election in Ohio, John Kerry told Brian Lehrer in 2018 that “The problem for us was we were doubting whether the [voting] machines themselves had been appropriately measured & whether the algorithms were correct, etc. We challenged that ahead of time by the way. People don’t know that. And we were told by the court that we were not able to get that algorithm, to check it, bc it was proprietary information. And I believe that it was absolutely incorrect that in the United States of America, the election for the presidency of the United States should somehow be the purview of privately owned machines where the public doesn’t have the right to know whether the algorithms can be checked or whether they are hackable or not. And we now know they are hackable. But we knew as we sat there to decide where to go in terms of the challenge, that we were a nation at war, we had just been through a Supreme Court test of an election four years earlier. I thought once I measured it that whatever constitutional challenge we brought or whatever appropriate challenge we brought to the ballots that were counted, it was going to wind up ultimately in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would do the same thing that it did before. We would take the country through a three month exercise with a 5/4 decision that would award the presidency back to George Bush. Now some people may think that’s the right thing to have done. I thought it would have been horrendous for our country one year into a war, at that moment when there were serious doubts about terrorism and other things, to be going through a long period of questioning of the presidency, and I didn’t think it was the right thing to do for the nation.” 1/ Vice President JD Vance Marc E. Elias

This is maddening. Speaking of the 2004 election in Ohio, John Kerry told Brian Lehrer in 2018 that “The problem for us was we were doubting whether the [voting] machines themselves had been appropriately measured & whether the algorithms were correct, etc. We challenged that ahead of time by the way. People don’t know that. And we were told by the court that we were not able to get that algorithm, to check it, bc it was proprietary information. And I believe that it was absolutely incorrect that in the United States of America, the election for the presidency of the United States should somehow be the purview of privately owned machines where the public doesn’t have the right to know whether the algorithms can be checked or whether they are hackable or not. And we now know they are hackable. But we knew as we sat there to decide where to go in terms of the challenge, that we were a nation at war, we had just been through a Supreme Court test of an election four years earlier. I thought once I measured it that whatever constitutional challenge we brought or whatever appropriate challenge we brought to the ballots that were counted, it was going to wind up ultimately in the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court would do the same thing that it did before. We would take the country through a three month exercise with a 5/4 decision that would award the presidency back to George Bush. Now some people may think that’s the right thing to have done. I thought it would have been horrendous for our country one year into a war, at that moment when there were serious doubts about terrorism and other things, to be going through a long period of questioning of the presidency, and I didn’t think it was the right thing to do for the nation.” 1/ Vice President JD Vance Marc E. Elias

JennyCohn ✍🏻 📢

125,175 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

#WATCH | Delhi | Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "It was a very good briefing with the Foreign Secretary on all the issues to deal with the Iran war that were not covered in the earlier briefing when he was himself not present... 17 members attended, and all of them had very serious questions for the Foreign Secretary... Everything was discussed, our relationship with every single significant country in the region and beyond, larger questions of strategy, energy security, geopolitics, and Pakistan's role... There is a certain appreciation of this ongoing dialogue between the Foreign Ministry and the Committee. The Committee has felt very much that we are taken into confidence in the right sort of way, and in turn, want to be constructive in our criticisms, questions and challenges to the government for ourselves as parliamentarians, to represent the voice of the people of India. It has been a good exercise, but we all agree that this is not something we need to talk about publicly."

#WATCH | Delhi | Congress MP Shashi Tharoor says, "It was a very good briefing with the Foreign Secretary on all the issues to deal with the Iran war that were not covered in the earlier briefing when he was himself not present... 17 members attended, and all of them had very serious questions for the Foreign Secretary... Everything was discussed, our relationship with every single significant country in the region and beyond, larger questions of strategy, energy security, geopolitics, and Pakistan's role... There is a certain appreciation of this ongoing dialogue between the Foreign Ministry and the Committee. The Committee has felt very much that we are taken into confidence in the right sort of way, and in turn, want to be constructive in our criticisms, questions and challenges to the government for ourselves as parliamentarians, to represent the voice of the people of India. It has been a good exercise, but we all agree that this is not something we need to talk about publicly."

ANI

61,853 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

WATCH: Secretary of State Rubio smacks down reporter for LYING about his statements from yesterday, falsely claiming he said Israel dragged the U.S. into war with Iran.... Reporter: “Yesterday, you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that that's why we needed to get involved. Today, the President said that —” Rubio: “No.” Reporter: “— Iran was going to get strike [sic].” Rubio: “Yeah, your statement is false. So, that's not what — I was asked very specifically. Were you there yesterday?” Reporter: “Yes, I asked a question.” Rubio: “Okay. No. Were you the one that — because somebody asked me a question yesterday, did we go in because of Israel? And I said..., no, I told you this had to happen. Anyway, the President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made. The President systematically made a decision to systematically destroy this terrorist capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear on that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them. That's what I said yesterday. And you guys need to play it. If you're going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do, all right?”

WATCH: Secretary of State Rubio smacks down reporter for LYING about his statements from yesterday, falsely claiming he said Israel dragged the U.S. into war with Iran.... Reporter: “Yesterday, you told us that Israel was going to strike Iran and that that's why we needed to get involved. Today, the President said that —” Rubio: “No.” Reporter: “— Iran was going to get strike [sic].” Rubio: “Yeah, your statement is false. So, that's not what — I was asked very specifically. Were you there yesterday?” Reporter: “Yes, I asked a question.” Rubio: “Okay. No. Were you the one that — because somebody asked me a question yesterday, did we go in because of Israel? And I said..., no, I told you this had to happen. Anyway, the President made a decision, and the decision he made was that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ballistic missile program, that Iran was not going to be allowed to hide behind its ability to conduct these attacks. That decision had been made. The President systematically made a decision to systematically destroy this terrorist capability that they had, and we carried that out. I was very clear on that answer. This was a question of timing, of why this had to happen as a joint operation, not the question of the intent. Once the President made a decision that negotiations were not going to work, that they were playing us on the negotiations, and that this was a threat that was untenable, the decision was made to strike them. That's what I said yesterday. And you guys need to play it. If you're going to play these statements, you need to play the whole statement, not clip it to reach a narrative that you want to do, all right?”

Curtis Houck

15,505 Aufrufe • vor 5 Monaten

David Friedberg: The Eric Swalwell allegations were widely known about by California insiders, but held back for the perfect moment. Was this a hit job to clear the path for a preferred candidate in California? “Back in December, when it was first rumored that Swalwell was going to run for governor, I started making some calls to various folks to be like, ‘Hey, what do we think of this guy? Is he going to be a good candidate?’ I spoke to several people who independently told me that there's knowledge about this guy sending pics to employees, and that this guy has a bunch of stuff that's going to come out about him. And I largely kind of dismissed it, because I was like, if this is true, this would've all come out already. If multiple people are telling me about this, then I've got to assume that it's a rumor that's being used to block him from running for governor. And then everything that I had been told started to come out in the last week. So the striking aspect of all of this for me was how much knowledge there was about these various incidents with the guy, how so many people had this knowledge, and how no one had actually brought the knowledge to bear. Which begs the question, why did they not do what was right by the victims? Or, why did the victims sit on the sidelines waiting for the right moment to all come out together? These were all being held back purposefully and deliberately for a very particular moment in time when they were all brought forward to be used. And that's what was so striking to me is just how coordinated all of this was. My sense of it is that there are certain insiders, and he's not an insider. Katie Porter, I think, is who the Democratic establishment wants to be governor. She's an insider to national Democrats, she's an insider to California Democrats, and I think that she's the preferred candidate.”

David Friedberg: The Eric Swalwell allegations were widely known about by California insiders, but held back for the perfect moment. Was this a hit job to clear the path for a preferred candidate in California? “Back in December, when it was first rumored that Swalwell was going to run for governor, I started making some calls to various folks to be like, ‘Hey, what do we think of this guy? Is he going to be a good candidate?’ I spoke to several people who independently told me that there's knowledge about this guy sending pics to employees, and that this guy has a bunch of stuff that's going to come out about him. And I largely kind of dismissed it, because I was like, if this is true, this would've all come out already. If multiple people are telling me about this, then I've got to assume that it's a rumor that's being used to block him from running for governor. And then everything that I had been told started to come out in the last week. So the striking aspect of all of this for me was how much knowledge there was about these various incidents with the guy, how so many people had this knowledge, and how no one had actually brought the knowledge to bear. Which begs the question, why did they not do what was right by the victims? Or, why did the victims sit on the sidelines waiting for the right moment to all come out together? These were all being held back purposefully and deliberately for a very particular moment in time when they were all brought forward to be used. And that's what was so striking to me is just how coordinated all of this was. My sense of it is that there are certain insiders, and he's not an insider. Katie Porter, I think, is who the Democratic establishment wants to be governor. She's an insider to national Democrats, she's an insider to California Democrats, and I think that she's the preferred candidate.”

The All-In Podcast

34,980 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Please take the time to read this-A sitting member of Congress should never have been arrested for asking questions. Where are the people who believe in free speech? This is the second United States setting member of Congress that has been arrested. The United States looks more like a police state and under an authoritarian regime that demands his will all while Republicans in Congress allow it to happen because they decided to take an oath to the agenda and not to the constitution. The only people that are happy with this are people that see things through a single lens of information and only want whatever Trump is doing. It looks very much like they care more about that agenda than the actual United States, values, our citizens or our country and democracy that so many people died to protect. Why are Federal employees asked to take a loyalty pledge and why people not asking these questions?

Please take the time to read this-A sitting member of Congress should never have been arrested for asking questions. Where are the people who believe in free speech? This is the second United States setting member of Congress that has been arrested. The United States looks more like a police state and under an authoritarian regime that demands his will all while Republicans in Congress allow it to happen because they decided to take an oath to the agenda and not to the constitution. The only people that are happy with this are people that see things through a single lens of information and only want whatever Trump is doing. It looks very much like they care more about that agenda than the actual United States, values, our citizens or our country and democracy that so many people died to protect. Why are Federal employees asked to take a loyalty pledge and why people not asking these questions?

UnitedWeStand

43,642 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

This morning I spoke to Sky News about the ongoing Mandelson mess: “To suddenly say [Mandelson] lied in an interview during the vetting process… am I surprised? No. Not at all. “What surprises me is that the people around the Prime Minister and the PM himself are actually surprised… “…He should have listened to the people that were flagging up this was a catastrophic appointment - and he didn’t.”

This morning I spoke to Sky News about the ongoing Mandelson mess: “To suddenly say [Mandelson] lied in an interview during the vetting process… am I surprised? No. Not at all. “What surprises me is that the people around the Prime Minister and the PM himself are actually surprised… “…He should have listened to the people that were flagging up this was a catastrophic appointment - and he didn’t.”

lan Byrne MP

48,179 Aufrufe • vor 6 Monaten

Reporter: If Canadians don’t want to be the 51st state, would you respect that? Trump: Sure but this is not a one day deal Carney: Canadians' view on this is not going to change on the 51st state. Secondly, we are the largest client of the United States, in the totality of all the goods, so we are the largest client of the United States. We have a tremendous auto sector between the two of us and the changes that have been made have been helpful. 50% of a car that comes from Canada is American, that's not like anywhere else in the world. And to your question about is there one thing. No, this is a bigger discussion.

Reporter: If Canadians don’t want to be the 51st state, would you respect that? Trump: Sure but this is not a one day deal Carney: Canadians' view on this is not going to change on the 51st state. Secondly, we are the largest client of the United States, in the totality of all the goods, so we are the largest client of the United States. We have a tremendous auto sector between the two of us and the changes that have been made have been helpful. 50% of a car that comes from Canada is American, that's not like anywhere else in the world. And to your question about is there one thing. No, this is a bigger discussion.

Acyn

1,216,544 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

Left: Suelle Braverman says that Britain's former colonies should "pay the British back" Right: Prime Minister of Visit Barbados Mia Mottley slams the notion, says some British politicians are using this as a distraction to the chaos on UK politics, and she does this responding in the most dignified graceful way 👏 "Certainly the notion that we should pay the United Kingdom for oppressing us, for enslaving us, and for treating us as chattel. " "And that is the difference. Slavery existed before, but this was the first time that human beings were defined as chattel. And I've been very clear all along that the 1661 slave code of Barbados, which predated the Code Noir, which the French have just revealed less than two months ago, all distinguished themselves and all of the slave laws that followed the 1661 slaves Slave port of Barbados. " "By the treatment of human beings as chattel. We are not asking for charity. We're asking to be able to ensure that justice can be done. In 1834, the British Parliament did not need to be persuaded of that fact with respect to the loss of property because we were chattel and the compensation of the slave slave owners of £20 million. " "I would like to advise that those who have not yet read sufficient to understand the history do so before making comments that really do not reflect well on them. " "With respect to the movement, this is a global movement. Now. We just came from Accra in Ghana, and as the United nations passed the resolution that Ghana brought in March of this year. " "We have seen Pope Leo make comments in this year of our Lord. We have seen President Macron recognize that the conversation for reparations, just as His Majesty King Charles, when he was Prince Charles at the opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, stated clearly that reparations was a conversation whose time had come. " "I have no doubt that there are British parliamentarians who want to distract people from the domestic politics of the United Kingdom at this point in time. But the Caribbean should not be used as a prop in those circumstances. Thank you. "

Left: Suelle Braverman says that Britain's former colonies should "pay the British back" Right: Prime Minister of Visit Barbados Mia Mottley slams the notion, says some British politicians are using this as a distraction to the chaos on UK politics, and she does this responding in the most dignified graceful way 👏 "Certainly the notion that we should pay the United Kingdom for oppressing us, for enslaving us, and for treating us as chattel. " "And that is the difference. Slavery existed before, but this was the first time that human beings were defined as chattel. And I've been very clear all along that the 1661 slave code of Barbados, which predated the Code Noir, which the French have just revealed less than two months ago, all distinguished themselves and all of the slave laws that followed the 1661 slaves Slave port of Barbados. " "By the treatment of human beings as chattel. We are not asking for charity. We're asking to be able to ensure that justice can be done. In 1834, the British Parliament did not need to be persuaded of that fact with respect to the loss of property because we were chattel and the compensation of the slave slave owners of £20 million. " "I would like to advise that those who have not yet read sufficient to understand the history do so before making comments that really do not reflect well on them. " "With respect to the movement, this is a global movement. Now. We just came from Accra in Ghana, and as the United nations passed the resolution that Ghana brought in March of this year. " "We have seen Pope Leo make comments in this year of our Lord. We have seen President Macron recognize that the conversation for reparations, just as His Majesty King Charles, when he was Prince Charles at the opening of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Rwanda, stated clearly that reparations was a conversation whose time had come. " "I have no doubt that there are British parliamentarians who want to distract people from the domestic politics of the United Kingdom at this point in time. But the Caribbean should not be used as a prop in those circumstances. Thank you. "

Farrukh

34,265 Aufrufe • vor 1 Monat

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "To me, it's [JFK's] most important speech. It's one of the most important speeches in American history; the thing that he did that was so unusual in that speech is he talked to the American people and asked them to put themselves in the shoes of the Russians..." "The zeitgeist of our era was that America had won the war and now we were going to rightfully dominate the peace. And he said something very, very different to Americans that challenged that patriotic assumption: He said, no, it was actually the Russians who won the war. They weakened Hitler and made it possible for us to march into Berlin." "And he talked about the suffering of the Russians during the war and to legitimize their security concerns, which nobody was doing... what he was saying to the Americans is, no, they have legitimate security concerns the same as we do, and we need to understand those things." "And he reminded Americans of the suffering that the Russians had endured, unimaginable suffering. One in seven Russians had been killed during World War II. He asked Americans to imagine that all of the land, all of the cities, all of the towns from the East Coast to Chicago had been leveled to rubble, that the forests and fields had been burned. And he said that's what happened to Russia during the war. That's what they sacrificed for us, and they have legitimate security concerns to make sure that never happens again..." "I'm speaking you today because the world is once again at a very similar crossroads. As in my uncle's time, nuclear tensions are at an extreme and dangerous level. As in his time, we have a unique opportunity not only to diffuse those tensions, but to take a radically different path, a path towards peace."

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: "To me, it's [JFK's] most important speech. It's one of the most important speeches in American history; the thing that he did that was so unusual in that speech is he talked to the American people and asked them to put themselves in the shoes of the Russians..." "The zeitgeist of our era was that America had won the war and now we were going to rightfully dominate the peace. And he said something very, very different to Americans that challenged that patriotic assumption: He said, no, it was actually the Russians who won the war. They weakened Hitler and made it possible for us to march into Berlin." "And he talked about the suffering of the Russians during the war and to legitimize their security concerns, which nobody was doing... what he was saying to the Americans is, no, they have legitimate security concerns the same as we do, and we need to understand those things." "And he reminded Americans of the suffering that the Russians had endured, unimaginable suffering. One in seven Russians had been killed during World War II. He asked Americans to imagine that all of the land, all of the cities, all of the towns from the East Coast to Chicago had been leveled to rubble, that the forests and fields had been burned. And he said that's what happened to Russia during the war. That's what they sacrificed for us, and they have legitimate security concerns to make sure that never happens again..." "I'm speaking you today because the world is once again at a very similar crossroads. As in my uncle's time, nuclear tensions are at an extreme and dangerous level. As in his time, we have a unique opportunity not only to diffuse those tensions, but to take a radically different path, a path towards peace."

COMBATE |🇵🇷

287,322 Aufrufe • vor 3 Jahren

Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain, responded to President Trump, who said the EU was formed "in order to screw the United States:" "There are those who say that the European Union was created to annoy others. It is not true. In fact, much of the wealth that the great country we admire, the United States, has today is also thanks to Europe. The European Union was not created against anyone. On the contrary, the European Union was created in favor of multilateralism and understanding between countries, peace and economic development, and social justice. Today, the European Union is the largest trading bloc in the world, larger than the United States and China. We rarely say it, little is known, but that is how it is. We are the second largest economy in the world, and the most socially and environmentally developed region on the planet. That is why I think it is important to remember that the European Union is a global power that in the face of any kind of threat, of regression or closure of economies, will respond in a completely different way, which is by moving forward and opening up to the world." 📹: EL PAÍS

Pedro Sánchez, Prime Minister of Spain, responded to President Trump, who said the EU was formed "in order to screw the United States:" "There are those who say that the European Union was created to annoy others. It is not true. In fact, much of the wealth that the great country we admire, the United States, has today is also thanks to Europe. The European Union was not created against anyone. On the contrary, the European Union was created in favor of multilateralism and understanding between countries, peace and economic development, and social justice. Today, the European Union is the largest trading bloc in the world, larger than the United States and China. We rarely say it, little is known, but that is how it is. We are the second largest economy in the world, and the most socially and environmentally developed region on the planet. That is why I think it is important to remember that the European Union is a global power that in the face of any kind of threat, of regression or closure of economies, will respond in a completely different way, which is by moving forward and opening up to the world." 📹: EL PAÍS

Anton Gerashchenko

294,949 Aufrufe • vor 1 Jahr

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

[WATCH] THE PRESIDENT WILL NOT RESIGN. When it comes to the President, there is always a distinctive role between him being the President of the party and the state. There are many factors that influence the state in terms of governance and stability. If the President is called upon by some to resign and he keeps quiet it can throw the state into a state of turmoil. I want to make it clear that the officials agreed with the President on his approach, he took us into confidence and explained the factors that led him to make that particular pronouncement. We believe that the President did the right thing in pronouncing in the best interest of South Africa that he will not be resigning. There was nothing in terms of the judgment that warranted the President to resign it was just mere calls made by individuals and political parties that wanted to throw our country into a state of turmoil, uncertainty and anxiety. So it was imperative that he focus on that. It was correct for him to tell the country that from where he is standing there is nothing in the judgement that states he has done any wrongdoing and what he is going to do with the options in front of him and he has made this public. The President will take the Section 89 Report on review based on the outcome of the judgment and the legal advice he has received. There are no daggers out for the President to resign just opportunistic elements. These elements do not know what they want, they want to impeach and want him to resign, they do know what they actually want. The veracity of the report has not been tested in any committee so they don’t have a basis for the President to resign.

ANC SECRETARY GENERAL | Fikile Mbalula

21,983 Aufrufe • vor 3 Monaten

Today I questioned the Solicitor General about the Attorney General’s role in the collapse of the China spy prosecution. Throughout this saga there have been conflicting accounts about who did what, and why decisions were taken. The rules are clear, the Attorney General must be consulted on politically sensitive matters. That doesn’t compromise their independence, it ensures they are informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If that’s the case, the Attorney General’s duty was to warn the Government that unless they provided more evidence, the case would collapse. So my question: Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”? We deserve to know whether that warning was given, and if it was given, why it was ignored.

Today I questioned the Solicitor General about the Attorney General’s role in the collapse of the China spy prosecution. Throughout this saga there have been conflicting accounts about who did what, and why decisions were taken. The rules are clear, the Attorney General must be consulted on politically sensitive matters. That doesn’t compromise their independence, it ensures they are informed at the time. We understand from the Director of Public Prosecutions that the Attorney General must have been told there was insufficient evidence to prosecute. If that’s the case, the Attorney General’s duty was to warn the Government that unless they provided more evidence, the case would collapse. So my question: Did the Attorney General say to the Government, “You are not providing enough evidence to secure a prosecution. It is over to you to do as you have been asked by the DPP”? We deserve to know whether that warning was given, and if it was given, why it was ignored.

Iain Duncan Smith MP Chingford & Woodford Green

26,897 Aufrufe • vor 9 Monaten