Parts of Britain look like a complete tip right now. It didn’t use to be like this. It doesn’t have to be like this. Here’s what’s happening and how we stop trashing our country with litter👇

RT @RobertJenrick: Parts of Britain look like a complete tip right now. It didn’t use to be like this. It doesn’t have to be like this. H…

Labour put Starmer at the front of the train, but it’s Lord Hermer who’s steering it. From the Chagos surrender, to paying compensation to IRA sympathisers, Hermer’s fingers are all over it. Starmer’s brought back Corbyn in a barrister’s whig and he’s calling all the shots.

What a finish!! Get in 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿

It was an honour to speak at the protest against China’s proposed embassy today. It will act as a giant spy hub and base to intimidate Hong Kongers who have fled the CCP. Write to Angela Rayner and tell her to say NO to the application. You don’t suck up to bullies.

Starmer’s lawyer mates aren’t just involved in the surrender of the Chagos. They’re also working to frustrate leasehold reforms for 5 million people. Even Labour MPs are warning of the ‘chilling effect’ that Lord Hermer is having.

Starmer’s Chagos surrender deal is collapsing so quickly it’s hard to keep up. Here’s what we’ve learnt in the last few days👇 The Attorney General, Lord Hermer, has joined the British negotiating team. Shortly afterwards, the Government agreed to even more concessions — very likely including giving Mauritius more money. The Government has tellingly refused to deny it’s linked our payments to inflation. Who is Lord Hermer? You may know him as Gerry Adam’s lawyer. He’s Starmer’s old friend and donor. It’s come to light that Hermer described ‘controlling our borders’ as ‘dehumanising’ policy. He’s said ‘almost every element’ of the British Empire was ‘deeply racist’. He called Just Stop Oil ‘inspiring’ and is pro boycotting Israel. He’s Jeremy Corbyn in a barrister’s wig. You may be wondering, why on earth are we even negotiating? Well, the Government finally provided its first actual argument for the deal. They’ve said that if no deal is done the International Telecommunications Union (ITU) — a UN agency — might revoke the US & UK’s right to conduct our communication operations on the Chagos Islands. Why? Because the ICJ controversially gave an advisory opinion that the Chagos Island belongs to Mauritius. The Vice-President of this court served in Xi Jinping’s diplomatic service. Another judge was appointed by Putin. We are within our rights to ignore this non-binding judgment. This new argument is absurd. I’m told that it’s the sovereignty of the Chagos Islands changing that is what’s most likely to see the ITU change what communication ‘rights’ we have on the island. But more importantly it’s absurd because the ITU has no power. It cannot ‘turn off’ the communication operations of the base. Are we seriously to believe President Trump, or any future US President or British PM would endanger our security because the ITU has sent us a letter? Of course not. It’s so ridiculous that experienced ministers privy to security briefings on this matter have called it out as nonsense. The former defence secretary, Ben Wallace, said: ‘This is a totally fabricated excuse… The Islands are far more important than just this and the potential threat to our operations is a total fiction.’ So where did this argument come from? It appears to come from none other than Philippe Sands KC, the lead negotiator for Mauritius. He is an old friend of both Starmer and Lord Hermer. Sands set this whole argument out in a book he wrote in 2023. We learned today that Sands illegally entered the Chagos Islands in 2022 and planted the Mauritian flag on the UK territory. How much must one loathe one’s own country to plant another nation’s flag on your own nation’s land? It transpires that Sands has also compared UK sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Russia’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. “Britain’s position is no different from that of … Russia in relation to Crimea and other parts of the territory of Ukraine.” It’s also come to light that Starmer had a 5 star, ‘all expenses paid for’ trip to Mauritius in 2013 where he discussed the Chagos Islands and gave a lecture on “the prosecution of crimes in the 21st century.” Was Sands present? Starmer has denied speaking to Sands about the Chagos Islands since he became PM. It is unclear, though, when he last spoke to Sands - and when he last spoke to Sands about the Chagos Islands. In light of all this, Starmer’s Cabinet has begun to turn on the deal. One told a journalist they don’t understand why the UK is sending between £9-18 billion to Mauritius when the Govt is scrapping winter fuel payments and raising taxes on working people. And ‘very senior’ Govt sources (Starmer’s own advisors) have begun anonymously telling the press they think the deal is “terrible”, “mad” and “impossible to understand.” All this has happened in the last few days alone. If even senior Labour officials think this deal is terrible, I am more confident than ever that, if we keep pushing, we can sink it.

Stop trashing Britain.

Starmer could end the Chagos farce by ignoring the flawed & non-binding judgement by the ICJ that it belongs to Mauritius. The VP of the court served in Xi Jinping’s diplomatic service. Another judge was appointed by *Putin*. Who would let them dictate our national security?

You can read my full @Telegraph piece here👇

In Lord Hermer, Starmer has brought back Corbyn in a barrister’s wig. He celebrates Just Stop Oil, supports paying reparations, criticises border controls and is pro boycotting Israel. His far-Left views are a risk to our country’s security. He should be nowhere near power.

These men were not victims, they were IRA terrorists heavily armed with machine guns and an anti-aircraft gun. The British soldiers involved must not live in fear of prosecution 33 years after serving their country in the most challenging circumstances. The government should make that clear immediately. Constant lawfare against our armed forces needs to end. We should protect them, as they protected us.

Everyone should read this letter. Bridget Phillipson is woefully out of her depth.

The Reeves Effect:

RT @BenWallace70: @alexwickham Alex, this is a totally fabricated excuse by the Cabinet office. The Islands are far more important than jus…

RT @KemiBadenoch: Keir Starmer is *paying* £18 billion to give away the Chagos Islands while snatching the Winter Fuel Allowance, from pens…

Labour’s Attorney General is a walking distaster. Yesterday it emerged the UK will make even more concessions to Mauritius after Lord Hermer joined the negotiations. And today his past comments about the US President risk a rift with our closest ally.

Why won’t Starmer come clean about the cost of his Chagos surrender deal? The reported figure is *at least* £9 billion. That’s enough to reinstate winter fuel payments and scrap the family farms tax over the next 5 years. This is the worst deal since Gordon Brown sold off our gold reserves. Yet again, Starmer is putting the interests of the British people last. When Starmer was Corbyn’s Brexit Secretary, he repeatedly spoke about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. He said, “The Executive should be honest and open with Parliament so as to enable this House properly to scrutinise the Government’s policies and decisions.” And: “The Government plan to proceed to an exit deal without a vote in this House, which is wholly unacceptable in any democracy." Presumably, given his previous remarks, Starmer will provide the full details of the deal and ample time for Parliament to scrutinise it? Presumably, he’ll inform Parliament exactly how much taxpayer money he is planning to give Mauritius? And he’ll explain his claim that our national security is strengthened by this deal, when the previous Foreign Secretary, David Cameron, concluded the exact opposite? But so far the Mauritian Parliament seems to know more about the deal than our own. Like all his other ‘principles’ and almost every prior position he has taken, Starmer abandons them whenever it suits him.

When David Cameron was Foreign Secretary he was briefed on the national security implications and chose not to proceed with any deal. Can Starmer please explain how surrendering territory we have a vital military base on to an ally of China makes us safer?