I disagree about Brexit. In someways i think Britain feels closer to Europe now we are not controlled by the EU. We've gone from being a resentful lodger, to (hopefully) a good neighbour. I dont think we're any sense divided on things in terms of international relations beyond the Occident.
Exactly. Russia did not influence the Brexit referendum nor was the outcome pivotal enough to Russia's foreign policy interests to even bother trying. The referendum and result was a product of long-standing growth in euro-scepticism (which BTW is not exclusive to the UK), mainly i think due to the morphing of the EC - a mutually beneficial economic arrangement between countries with similar economies, cultures and living standards, to the EU, a supranational body that also sought to remove parts of governance away from member states as well as growing to invite developing southern and Eastern European countries. There was then Cameron's decision to hold a referendum on EU membership (holding a referendum on continued EU membership was (ironically) also one of the key policies of the Lib Dems going into the coalition government also). The whole Russian angle is IMO mainly one of the things comforting for remainers to hang onto rather than accept that a significant proportion of the country did not hold the same view in good faith: people were too thick, they were deceived, it was the Russian's etc.
He initially lost but appealed and at the appeal court the Observer/Guardian withdrew their defence of "truth" and left the journalist on her own. She lost and set up a crowd funding page to pay Banks legal costs which she had been ordered to pay (and she claimed would have otherwise bankrupted her)Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr
Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr
Judge rules Guardian journalist successfully established public interest defence under Defamation Actwww.theguardian.com
The truth is, the Ukraine war and the change in mood music towards Russian oligarchs saved this reporter. Whilst ‘in bed’ with Russian money (cough Boris) we let a number of kleptocrats stop free reporting through libel actions that journalists can not afford to defend.
No, it wasn't thrown out of court and actually there is no evidence of Banks being funded by Russia. There were complaints made to the electoral commission about Vote Leave funding. The electoral commission found initially that they had broken campaign funding rules and referred Vote Leave and BeLeave (a youth Brexit campaign) to the NCA for a full criminal investigation. Banks and others accused took the EC to court over their action and Banks jointly took the Guardian/Observer and the journalist breaking the story that resulted in the EC investigation to court for defamation. The legal actions were paused to allow the criminal investigation to proceed. The NCA announced there would be no charges as they had found no evidence of wrong doing. The EC subsequently withdrew their investigation findings and settled damages with Vote Leave and BeLeave campaign members out of court. The Guardian/Observer dropped their "truth" defence in the defamation case but maintained a "public interest" defence in that they while the story had subsequently been proven to be untrue there was a public interest in printing the accusations and covering the investigation. The problem the journalist had is that she continued to make public claims about Russian funding and breaking of electoral law after the NCA investigation rubbished them and while she won an initial court case based on her "public interest" defence (the court rejected her continued "truth" defence), Banks legal team appealed and the appeal court found the initial judge had incorrectly applied the law and the public interest defence fell away the moment the NCA announced they'd found no evidence of foreign involvement or breaking of election rules. All of the journalists public claims made on social media accounts and in a broadcast Ted Talk were ruled to be defamatory and she was ordered to pay Banks compensation and the majority of his legal costs.
How do you explain the meetings with the Russian ambassador?
The NCA looked into it all and (their words) found "no evidence". Not "allegations unproven" they used the words "no evidence" hence why all the civil cases fell apart (as civil law has a lower evidence burden "balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt" it would have been possible for the electoral commission findings to be upheld and defamation case to have been won if the NCA hadn't used such strong language in dismissing the allegations. By stating that there was "no evidence" they basically destroyed the civil law case against the Leave campaigns and Banks as well as any criminal allegations.
No I just look at the - all be it circumstantial - evidence myself and draw my own conclusions. I look at the real meetings with Russian government agents. The verified emails offering sweetheart deals on gold mines. The amount of money Banks made from the sale of his company (relatively little). And the totally disproportionate donations making him the UK biggest ever political donor….and I draw my own conclusions. I also speak to people who have some knowledge of these things and they tell me that through off shore accounts it is widely accepted that Russian money funded Banks huge support of Leave. Just because it can’t be proven with a direct bank transfer from the Kremlin doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. And with the very blatant smoking guns of meetings, emails and financial logic, you can draw your own conclusions too.
She was ordered to pay legal costs of £1.2 million. Court ordered her to issue an apology and delete all material making the claims. It is likely that Banks' wealth and lack of evidence that her actions had caused him financial loss saved her from a financial damages award but she was certainly rinsed by Banks. If an average earner being ordered by a court to pay someone about x3 or x4 times the value or everything they actually own isn't getting rinsed in court I don't know what is. The court was about as lenient as they could be in law and the judgement still left her facing bankruptcy several times over (her words).
