Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

George Osborne: Theresa May “doesn't have the votes” to deliver hard Brexit

The Evening Standard editor was asked whether he believed a Jeremy Corbyn government or “hard Brexit” would be worse for the UK. 

Outside of parliament, George Osborne has been an excoriating critic of Jeremy Corbyn and "hard Brexit". When the Evening Standard editor returned to Westminster for a Press Gallery lunch, I asked him which he believed would be worse for the UK: a Corbyn government or hard Brexit? 

Osborne replied: "I'm a Conservative voter and I am hopeful that, long before we get to the general election, a Conservative government will be advocating a softer form of Brexit. I used to be a bit of an amateur chief whip and I don't think they've got the votes."

It's striking, then, that Osborne didn't simply state that a Corbyn government would always be worse. But his faith that a "hard Brexit" (defined as UK withdrawal from the single market and the customs union) can be avoided depends on Tory Remainers showing greater bravery than they have to date (Theresa May has yet to lose a Brexit-related vote). Though the majority of MPs (and Conservatives) voted Remain, most currently maintain that the Leave vote can only be respected by leaving the single market and ending free movement. 

The former Chancellor also said of his party: "If we present ourselves to the country as anti-modern, anti-immigrant, anti-urban, anti-metropolitan, then huge sections of the country will be anti-us. We saw that frankly at the last general election and we may see it in the London elections in a few months’ time. Change in a progressive country is constant, and it’s pointless resisting it."

And he argued of Labour: "For all his undoubted ability to connect to younger and more disillusioned voters, Jeremy Corbyn has become the biggest obstacle to Labour winning a general election. If the party was led by a more moderate social democrat of even middling ability, they would be 20 points ahead in the polls and on the cusp of power. Instead the Labour movement is consumed by an internal battle for its soul."

Osborne also refused to rule out a return to parliament or a London mayoral bid. Finally, when asked if he regretted remarking that he would not rest until May was “chopped up in bags in my freezer”, he quipped that “it’s taught me a few things about editorial conference meetings." 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

BBC
Show Hide image

Can Britain’s new powers to investigate unexplained wealth prevent real-life McMafias?

The government is waking up to the fact that global criminals are fond of London. 

The BBC’s McMafia, a story of high-flying Russian mobsters and international money launderers woven into the fabric of London, ended this month. Despite the dramatic TV twists, the subject matter has its basis in reality. As a barrister dealing with cases that involve Russia and former Soviet states, my experience is that politicians and business people use the apparatus of the state to put rivals out of business by any means possible.

In McMafia, previously straight-laced fund manager Alex Godman (played by James Norton) begins transferring money under the cover of a new investment fund. With a click of a button, he can transfer a shady partner’s money around the world. As the Paradise Papers underlined, money can indeed be hidden through the use of complex company structures registered in different countries, many of which do not easily disclose the names of owners and beneficiaries. One company can be owned by another, so the owner of Company A (in Panama) might be Company B (in the Cayman Islands) which is owned by Company C (in the Seychelles) which owns property in London. To find out who owns the property, at least three separate jurisdictions must be contacted and international co-operation arranged – and that’s a simple structure. Many companies will have multiple owners, making it even more difficult to work out who the actual beneficiary is.

I represent individuals before the UK extradition and immigration courts. They are bankers, business people and politicians who have fled persecution in Russia and Ukraine or face fabricated charges in their home country and face extradition or deportation and will often be tortured or put on show trial if we lose. Their opponents will deploy spies, who may pay visits to co-defendants in Russia for “psychological work” (aka torture). Sometimes the threat of torture or ruin against a person’s family is enough to make them confess to crimes they didn’t commit. I have seen family members of my clients issued with threats of explicit violence and the implicit destruction of their life. Outside their close relatives’ homes in Russia, cars have been set on fire. Violence and intimidation are part of the creed that permeates the country’s business and political rivalries.

As in McMafia, London has long played a bit part in these rivalries, but the UK government has been slow to act. In 2006, Alexander Litvinenko, a former Russian security agent turned defector, was killed in London using Polonium 210 – a radioactive substance put into a cup of tea. Although Russian state involvement was suspected from the beginning, the UK government tried to block certain material being released into the public domain, leading his family to complain that the UK’s relations with Russia were being put before the truth. In 2016, a decade after his death, the inquiry finally delivered its verdict: there was a “strong probability” Litvinenko was murdered on the personal orders of Vladimir Putin. Yet in the same breath as condemning the act, David Cameron’s spokeswoman said the UK would have to “weigh carefully” the incident against “the broader need to work with Russia on certain issues”.

The government of Cameron’s successor has however been quick to use McMafia as a spring-board to publicise its new Unexplained Wealth Orders (UWO). These new investigatory powers are purportedly to be used to stop the likes of Alex from hiding money from the authorities. Anyone with over £50,000 of property who is politically exposed or suspected of a serious crime, will be forced to disclose the source of their wealth on request. While most British homeowners would own more than £50,000, the individuals are likely to be high profile politicians or under investigation already by the authorities. If they fail to respond punctually, they risk forfeiting their property.

The anti-corruption organisation Transparency International has long campaigned for such measures, highlighting cases such as the first family of Azerbaijan owning property in Hampstead or senior Russian politicians believed to own flats in Whitehall. Previously, confiscating hidden assets has been a lengthy and complex process: when the High Court confiscated an £11m London house belonging to a Kazakh dissident, the legal process took seven years.

The new Unexplained Wealth Orders mean that the onus is shifted to the owner of the property to prove legitimacy and the origin of the wealth. The authorities will have much greater power to investigate where finance and investment originated. But in order for them to work effectively, they will have to be backed up by expert prosecutors. The government still has a long way to go before it makes London a less attractive place to hide money.

Ben Keith is a barrister at 5 St Andrew’s Hill specialising in extradition, immigration, serious fraud, human rights and public law.