Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
October 26, 2017

British Involvement In "Trump Dossier" Needs Further Investigation

We noted back in July that the only relevant "collusion with the Russians" during the 2016 election cycle was the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton smear campaign against Donald Trump:

Hillary Clinton campaign cut-out hires the (former?) British intelligence agent Steele to pay money to (former?) Russian intelligence agents and high-level Kremlin employees for dirt about Donald Trump. They deliver some fairy tales. The resulting dossier is peddled far and wide throughout Washington DC with the intent of damaging Trump.

There was never evidence that Steele indeed talked to any Russian, or really had contact with his claimed sources. He has been for years persona non grata in Moscow and could not visit the country.

Yesterday, our assertion that Clinton campaign cut-outs paid for the dossier, was finally confirmed: Clinton campaign, DNC paid for research that led to Russia dossier

Marc E. Elias, a lawyer representing the Clinton campaign and the DNC, retained Fusion GPS, a Washington firm, to conduct the research.
After that, Fusion GPS hired dossier author Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence officer with ties to the FBI and the U.S. intelligence community, according to those people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Told ya so ...

Michael Sussmann, a lawyer from the same firm that hired Fusion GPS on order of Democrats, hired the Crowdstrike cyber-outlet to investigate the leak of DNC emails. Crowdstrike and the DNC denied the FBI access to the relevant servers but asserted that "Russian hacking" was the source of the leak.

The "Trump dossier" was opposition research ordered up and paid for by the Clinton/DNC mafia. Most of its content was obviously fake or patched together from publicly known facts. But it took up to now for U.S. media to point that out. The fake dossier, paid for by the Democrats, was used by the FBI under Obama to get FISA warrants to spy on Republican party operatives.

We noted in January that the dossier was additionally used by the British and American deep state to sabotage Trump's plans for better relations with Russia (see  original for source quotes):

The "former" desk officer for Russia in the British MI6 Christopher Steele was the one who prepared the 35 pages of obviously false claims about Russian connections with and kompromat against Trump. There are so many inconsistencies in these pages that anyone knowledgeable about the workings in Moscow could immediately identify it as fake.
Steele spread the fakes throughout the press corps in Washington DC but no media published them because these were obviously false accusations.

Steele then decided to hand the papers to the FBI and to talk to its agents hoping they would start an official investigation. He cleared his move (or was ordered to proceed?) at the highest level of the British government:
When Steele's first move with the FBI in October did note deliver the hoped for results an attempt to stove pipe them through Senator John McCain was launched. A "former" British ambassador to Moscow arranged the hand over:
The MI6 is well known for launching fakes on behalf of the British government.

Even the second, more official handover to the FBI still did not result in the hoped for publication of the allegations. But by that time Clinton was widely expect to win the election anyway so no further steps were taken.

After Trump unexpectedly won the election a new effort was launched to publish the smears. The Director of National Intelligence decided (or was ordered to) "brief" the President, the President elect and Congress on the obviously dubious accusations.

It was this decision that made sure that the papers would eventually be published. As the NYT noted:
Only after Clapper or others leaked to CNN about the briefing of Obama, Trump and Congress, did CNN publish about the 35 pages:
The attack was a deep state attempt to stage a coup against Trump:

After the election the Democrats stopped paying for new Steele reports. But by then efforts to make the fake Steele reports public and to thereby sabotage Trump policies turned into high gear. McCain had already been involved in distributing the report and it was he or the Brits who who paid for the last fake report Steele delivered:

Let me remind you of the basic facts about the Dossier--It consists of 13 separate reports. The first is dated 20 June 2016. That date is important because it shows that it took a little more than two months [after the Democrats started paying] for Fusion GPS to generate its first report on Trump's alleged Russian activities. If Fusion GPS already had something in the can then I would expect them to have put something out in early May. Eleven more reports were generated between 26 July and 19 October 2016. That tracks with the letter from Perkins Coie that the engagement by the Clinton Campaign ended at the end of October.

But there is a big problem and unanswered question--The Dossier includes a final report that is dated 13 December 2016. Who paid for this? Was it John McCain?

The purpose of the final fake report Steele added to the dossier was to provide "evidence" that Trump was involved in the "Russian hacking" of the DNC:

After Donald Trump was elected, Christopher Steele prepared an additional memorandum (dated 13 December 2016) that made the following claims:
  • Michael Cohen[, President Donald Trump's longtime personal lawyer,] held a secret meeting in Prague, Czechoslovakia in August 2016 with Kremlin operatives.
  • Cohen, allegedly accompanied by 3 colleagues (Not Further Identified), met with Oleg SOLODUKHIM to discuss on how deniable cash payments were to be made to hackers who had worked in Europe under Kremlin direction against the Clinton campaign and various contingencies for covering up these operations and Moscow's secret liaison with the Trump team more generally.
  • In Prague, Cohen agreed (sic) contingency plans for various scenarios to protect the operation, but in particular what was to be done in the event that Hillary Clinton won the Presidency.
  • Sergei Ivanov's associate claimed that payments to hackers had been made by both Trump's team and the Kremlin.
Christopher Steele passed a copy of the December memo to a senior UK Government national security official and to Fusion GPS (via encrypted email) with the instruction to give a hard copy to Senator McCain via David Kramer.

Michael Cohen, Trump's lawyer, denies to have been in Prague. The meeting Steele "reported" did not happen.  The intent of this December Steele report was to further the meme of "Russian hacking" by providing fake evidence for alleged Trump involvement in it. But the report is false. Trump/Cohen did not hire "Russian hackers". Who's interest was it to plant this meme? Was this a British attempt to divert attention from their own hacking?

The Brits are knee deep involved in the Steele reports. There is the hiring of a (former?) British MI-6 agent to make up the dossier. Who came up with his name? The dossier was first peddled to McCain by a (former?) British ambassador. The British government green-lighted pushing the report to the FBI. It was one of the customers of the last Steele report.

The source said that Mr Steele spoke to officials in London to ask for permission to speak to the FBI, which was duly granted, and that Downing Street was informed.

The last Steele report was not paid for by the DNC. It was delivered to British government and to John McCain. The purpose of this last report was to plant false evidence that Trump paid for "Russian hacking".  There is a strong cooperation between U.S. and British intelligence.

Why were the highest levels of the British government involved in the "private investigation" that resulted in the Steele dossier. Did the Brits act on their own initiative or were they cut-outs for U.S. intelligence circles, especially for Obama's consigliere and CIA director John Brennan?

It his time for Congress to dig deeper into the undue British influence in this whole affair.

Posted by b on October 26, 2017 at 7:26 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

93 somebody

Brexit voters arent against industrailization, why would they?

Besides, immigration is not benefitting society in terms of economy especially when it comes to cost on the welfare system, that is just a fact that you cannot argue against, its not something I like saying but that is the truth,
most people coming have very low education = which in turn is just what cause racism, divisive nations etcetera.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 28 2017 6:41 utc | 101

Russia hysteria will raise next week..

Mueller Russia probe reportedly nets first charges

What a friggin circus.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 28 2017 6:46 utc | 102

Corbyn is pretty clear where he stands

He will have to get rid of the conservative posse to do something though.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 28 2017 10:17 utc | 103


1.British industrialization was not put to a referendum. Neoliberal deindustrialization happened without people being asked their opinion. They were simply "made redundant".

2. British immigration is the result of empire.

As Boris Johnson put it

We used to run the biggest empire the world has ever seen, and with a much smaller domestic population and a relatively tiny Civil Service.

Wonder how that was possible? They did that by industrial and technological advantage, translated into superior military power, but also by considerable soft power. Part of this soft power was the granting of citizenship to Commonwealth citizens.

Swapping the Commonwealth for the EU meant changing the type of immigration, coming now from Eastern Europe.

A Brexit stopping this type of immigration (with market access to Europe being in doubt) would mean Britain has to reverse to other partners for trade - that would be the US and the former commonwealth, India and Pakistan.

But you cannot get trade without free movement of people - so all it will do is change the type of immigration, not stop it.

One of the most difficult issues between Britain and India has been immigration, with Indian business leaders and universities complaining that visa restrictions in the UK have limited the number of Indian immigrants coming to Britain.

Although not directly linking the issue to free trade, Mr Jaitley said that Indian immigration has been economically beneficial to Britain.

"We certainly would be putting forward a point of view on this," Mr Jaitley told me.

"But historically, Indians move to Britain, both for education and for work, and have contributed a lot as far as the economy here is concerned.

"Our students in particular that used to come to the United Kingdom have contributed to, if not subsidised, the education system here, and I think it is evident to everyone that this number numerically has been coming down, so it is a concern to us.

"It should also be a concern to the United Kingdom," he warned.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 28 2017 10:48 utc | 104


1. Again, Brexit voters were NOT against industralization, where do you even come up with that?
You imply that immigration = boost industrailization, its not.

2. Wars bring immigration yes but UK have no demands upon themselves to accept refugees into their state.

3. Your neo-liberal (west needs more working force from immigrants, west needs more productivity - going on endlessly to the poor worker die) views are failing, people dont want it, why do you keep pushing a non-workable policy?

Posted by: Anon | Oct 28 2017 11:49 utc | 105

I did not say any of this.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 28 2017 12:11 utc | 106


Half of British public support more immigration of highly skilled workers, poll suggests

You see? Its all about economy - not racism, immigration is ok for many brit's if it benefit the economy.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 28 2017 12:13 utc | 107

Of course. Half. And half support Brexit. Think it is the same half?

Posted by: somebody | Oct 28 2017 12:46 utc | 108

add to 107

I am basically saying that people are being lied to when politicians say they will curb immigration.

The article you quote is a case in point, the survey was done for an industrial pressure group in favour of more immigration - and guess what it is not high skilled immigration.

“However, the public is much less supportive of allowing lower-skilled workers. Therefore, any new immigration controls will require a delicate balancing act between supporting the needs of industry that rely heavily on lower skilled migration and the public’s desire to see numbers reduced.”
You can bet that these pressure groups will get their way to keep the sweat shops running. It is not just clothing - with internet sales most new jobs are in logistics with sweatshop conditions.

You can restrict immigration into these jobs or you can enforce the minimum wage. You can bet there will be some cosmetic actions but nothing fundamental.

This here is the guy responsible for enforcing the regulation:

Metcalf, who used to advise the government on immigration, was reluctant to speculate on the impact of Brexit on low-paid workers, but suggested there would not be a big increase in wages as a result of leaving the EU.

“[During] my previous work on the migration advisory committee [MAC], it did seem the influx from [eastern European countries in 2004] did dampen down wages at the lower end of the pay distribution, but not by very much,” he said.

“And therefore by implication, if we had fewer – depending on what the MAC recommended – people coming in, the wages would go up a bit, but again by implication not by very much. So I don’t think Brexit is going to suddenly mysteriously raise wages just like that, and cause, perhaps alas, me to be out of a job. There will still be plenty going on.”

The truth is a considerable part of people in Europe (including in Britain) work under 3rd world conditions. Most of these people are immigrants. They work in logistics, in the textile industry, in restaurants and in care. To make this more British would be less logistics, no textile industry, fewer restaurants and a serious problem in care.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 28 2017 13:42 utc | 109

I forgot - very few hotels, a lot of dirt and empty building sites.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 28 2017 13:51 utc | 110

somebody 108

The link shows that people arent against immigration because they are immigrants per se, but because it cause heavy burden on economy, that is the way you should view Brexit.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 28 2017 15:35 utc | 111

@99 Time for all white people everywhere to apologize for all the evil in the world. One big abject apology (and maybe some financial reparations) should do it. Then we can all get on with life.

Posted by: dh | Oct 28 2017 17:00 utc | 112

110 somebody

Thats another neoliberal policy, import immigrants to clean and push them into low paid insecure jobs.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 28 2017 18:14 utc | 113

Those good old chaps in London only mean the best for the Ukrainian people, right?

The Sale of Ukraine: London Urges Kiev to Sell 10 Million Hectares of Land

Who are they?

Chatham House Rule: Inside the Royal Institute of International Affairs : The Corbett Report

Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | Oct 29 2017 7:29 utc | 114

Posted by: Anon | Oct 28, 2017 2:14:17 PM | 113

So the solution would be good job standards that are universally enforced, don't you think?

How come Brexiters fight the unions who are trying to ensure this?

Posted by: somebody | Oct 29 2017 7:56 utc | 115


I cant speak on that, I know too little about the situation of the trade unions in the UK.

But for regular Brexit voters its quite simple:
May: Britons want to see immigration controlled
"Put plainly, this means that, to be considered valuable to the country as a whole, immigration should benefit not just the migrants themselves but also make existing residents better off," the document said.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29 2017 9:00 utc | 116


also - from your link -

She added: "There is a reason for wanting to ensure that we can control migration. It is because of the impact that that migration can have ... on people, on access to services, on infrastructure, but crucially it often hits those at the lower end of the income scale hardest."

So is curbing immigration all the government can do about people being at the lower end of the income scale, about access to services, or infrastructure? If you cut taxes for business and the rich, yes, it is. And it is very likely that it will not improve income, services or infrastructure. It might even make things worse.

That is why I am saying people are lied to.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 29 2017 9:30 utc | 117


No its not the "only thing".

The issue is not black and white, immigration cause alot of burden on the welfare/econonomy, its not a lie, thats a fact, you only end up lying to yourself if you believe "people are lied to". Brits that voted for Brexit LIVE the impoverished life TODAY, they arent stupid.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29 2017 9:52 utc | 118

118 I am not saying people are stupid, I am saying they are lied to.

David Cameron: Welfare cuts will stop the "merry-go-round" of benefits dependency

The Prime Minister will justify a further £12billion of benefit cuts by warning that Britain must “end the complacency” that has “infected our national life”.

David Cameron will today justify £12 billion of cuts to the welfare budget by warning that Britain must “end the complacency” that has “infected our national life” and stop the “merry-go-round” of benefits dependency.

The Prime Minister will use a speech to say that the Conservatives will encourage hundreds of thousands of people into work by transforming Britain “from a low wage, high tax, high welfare society to a higher wage, lower tax, lower welfare society”.

It comes after George Osborne, the Chancellor, and Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary pledged to press ahead with huge cuts to the welfare budget promised before the general election.

In a joint-article, the two Cabinet ministers said it will take ten years of cuts to the welfare state to “return the system to sanity”.

If I understand the above correctly, the intention is to force people to work, if they want to live. When you force people to take a job, any job, they have no chance to negotiate their income. Immigration has no part in it.

This here is an overview of the benefits you get in Britain. You can hardly live on 74 pounds unemployment benefit per week. I can't.

You get 60 percent of your net wage in Germany. Most people can live on that.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 29 2017 11:37 utc | 119

add to 119

As a matter of fact Britain has lower labour costs than Ireland - and much lower than Germany.

There is no need to cut welfare -the only reason would be to cut taxes.

Immigration to the UK is de facto lower than migration to other European countries - including Ireland,

Posted by: somebody | Oct 29 2017 11:47 utc | 120

somebody 119

Thats the thing you dont understand.
These people LIVE in the UK, they ARE impoverished. Thats not a lie they been told, thats THEIR life no matter what a politician say - they look in their pocket - thats the reality.

"Inequality gap between rich and poor in UK to be at biggest since Margaret Thatcher was in power"

You also seems to compare policies of politicians with a referendum to leave EU. Its two different things. These people didnt vote for a certain politician in the referendum - but to leave the EU.


What does it matter if x have lower than y when the people arent happy with their situation? Useless comparsion.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29 2017 12:03 utc | 121

From earlier this year:

Russian Special counsel team members, donated to Democratic party, records show

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29 2017 12:30 utc | 122


It is obvious that immigration is not the reason for British people's empty pockets.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 29 2017 12:54 utc | 123


Not the only reason, but one of them:

Why Brexit MUST bring new visa rules: Unskilled migrants 'cost UK taxpayers £3,500 EACH'

[Immigrants] consume more in public services and benefits than they pay in taxes

Now, we are arguing very off topic for this thread, so I think if you want to give a reply, do it in the open thread post.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29 2017 13:16 utc | 124

124 - Eastern European migrants - that is the EU migration Brexit tries to get rid of - are highly skilled.

One education source said: "Polish parents who come to the UK say they cannot believe how easy the national curriculum is compared to what they are used to."

According to the OECD, the performance of Britain's schools failed to improve significantly between 2000 and 2012.

I repeat: People are lied to. And that is the connection with the Steel Dossier. It is not migrants nor Russia who are causing people's problems.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 29 2017 13:45 utc | 125

@119 'You can hardly live on 74 pounds unemployment benefit per week."

You can if you sleep 12 to a room and only work for cash.

Posted by: dh | Oct 29 2017 13:58 utc | 126

125 somebody

People are not against WELL OFF IMMIGRANTS (I already gave you a link earlier about this) they are AGAINST the REFUGEES that are NOT WELL OFF and presure the economy and WELFARE SYSTEM.
Are you willing to reduce your hard earned wages with 3500 british pound as my link above said? Of course not, so why would the poorest in britain?

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29 2017 15:20 utc | 127

126 Yep, there is not much difference between 19th century Dickens' world and today's Britain.

A study by the University of Kent found that the stigma of claiming is “an important factor” in the non take-up of benefits and tax credits.

Paul Gregg, a Professor of Economic and Social Policy at Bath University, said: “This was our first recession with a genuinely flexible labour market. The significant fall in real wages has pushed people into low paid and part-time work and self-employment.”

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29, 2017 11:20:42 AM | 127

You don't understand. Eastern Europeans migrate because of lack of social security in their countries and few jobs. They are poor.
But their education systems are traditionally good and free for all. They do find qualified jobs in Britain and pay taxes there - contributing to the economy.
Britain has the most vicious upper class in Europe doing anything for tax cuts. It is so predictable googling their trace.
Schools in England 'to see first real-terms funding cuts in 20 years'
If British people cannot compete within the EU how are they supposed to cope outside? British people who can afford it relie on private schools.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 29 2017 16:32 utc | 128

128 somebody

Why do you keep repeating already debunked arguments? Its not about WELL OFF IMMIGRANTS but NOT WELL OFF REFUGEES.
Would you then give up 3'500 of your salary to this problem or rather make sure that money end up
benefitting first and foremost your own economic welfare?

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29 2017 16:37 utc | 129

@128 I have Polish relatives so I understand quite well thank you.

You obviously have a complaint about Britain in general. The UK is going through a difficult time at the moment. People are confused. Your comments would carry more weight if you didn't sound quite so gleeful.

Posted by: dh | Oct 29 2017 16:58 utc | 130

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29, 2017 12:37:57 PM | 129

Brexit is not about refugees. Britain did not have to take in refugees under the rules it had agreed with the EU and it did not - with very few exceptions. Refugees were stuck at Calais.

Posted by: dh | Oct 29, 2017 12:58:39 PM | 130

No, not gleeful. Disgusted at the irresponsibility of the Brexiteers. There is no good ending and the EU is definitively not going to help.

Ivan Rogers is correct

"Leaders' officers and the people who are doing this negotiations sometimes can think in really quite mercantilist terms of 'What’s in it for us, what business can they suck out of London and where’s our competitive advantage here?'", he said.

Banks with headquarters in London are already booking space in Frankfurt in buildings that have yet to be built. I live in Frankfurt, I am not amused at this type of immigration, it is going to raise the rents here considerably and we already had hardly any unemployment.

It won't be just banks - any business with trade in Europe will make contingency plans as long as they fear a hard Brexit - and these plans will mean moving parts to the continent.

A deal like CETA is likely now on the conditions outlined by the EU negotiator.

And with these - business - restrictions

The deal struck between the EU and Canada, known as the the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), lifts 98% of tariffs on imports between the two parties, and was a significant move towards freer trade.

It does not, however, significantly reduce non-tariff barriers for trade and traditional rules-of-origin regulations would apply for the UK’s exports to the EU, under such a deal.

If the non-EU import content of a UK export was too high, for example, there would be a loss of duty-free access for particular sensitive industrial goods, notably cars. A lack of regulatory harmonisation for medicines, automobiles and aircraft equipment would also require products being checked at the border.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 29 2017 19:48 utc | 131


"Britain did not have to take in refugees under the rules it had agreed with the EU and it did not"

One wonder why the brittish tax payer have to pay 3'500 of its salary to refugees, when there was none according to yourself.
Why Brexit MUST bring new visa rules: Unskilled migrants 'cost UK taxpayers £3,500 EACH'

I have come to realize that there is no idea arguing with you so that was my last reply, you are stuck in refugees-welcome ideology and cant see reality as people live in. I sense Brexit is only the beginning, better wake up now than later if Brexit scares you.

Posted by: Anon | Oct 29 2017 20:01 utc | 132

@135 "There is no good ending and the EU is definitively not going to help"

Well if you want the disgusting Brexiteers to admit defeat that kind of talk won't do it. They'll tell the banks to enjoy their new lodgings.

Posted by: dh | Oct 29 2017 20:29 utc | 133

Posted by: dh | Oct 29, 2017 4:29:01 PM | 138

It is absolutely disgusting.

Tory donors tell May: no deal is better than a bad Brexit

Michael Farmer, Jeremy Hosking, David Lilley .. who are these guys?
Hedge Fund Managers?

According to one source close to the industry: “I think there’s a genuine conviction they have that all regulation is rubbish.” But, he says, the profit potential from leaving is also a factor: “They love taking a view ... Market dislocation is fine if you’re a hedge fund guy.”

Posted by: somebody | Oct 30 2017 1:17 utc | 134

@144 I don't see why Brexit is any more disgusting than the arm twisting and threats coming from Brussels. The whole thing is a mess. I suppose the strategy is to keep the pressure on May and keep bombarding the UK public with bad news and eventually Brexit will collapse. Might work I guess. Ordinary people are probably getting sick of hearing about it.

Posted by: dh | Oct 30 2017 1:42 utc | 135


Note: I deleted some Clinton "resistance" bullshit posted by "bs" and the replies thereto.

Posted by: b | Oct 30 2017 2:30 utc | 136

b, delete this thread, it's based on fake Washington Post.

Posted by: BS | Oct 30 2017 3:29 utc | 137

also feel free to delete this.

Posted by: BS | Oct 30 2017 3:30 utc | 138

It is disgusting as Brexit (as Trump, Cambridge Analytica) is backed by hedge fund managers. They need a crisis.

The last year hedge funds outperformed the stock market was 2008 during the financial crisis, when they shed 19 per cent compared with the S&P 500’s 37 per cent loss, according to HFR data.

It reeks of George Soros attacking the Bank of England. They identified a psychological weakness - English people feeling swamped by foreigners and not identifying as European in the first place - to force the country on a path that is economically risky with no benefits for most citizens.

And yes - the mining of personal data and "alternative news" are driven by hedge funds.

This here is Catalan independence where noone understands Puigdemont's strategy.

One fund manager told Reuters that the economic repercussions would be "so complicated it makes Brexit look like a walk in the park".

This here is what is done.

Instead, what really grabbed my attention was the distinctive — quasi-anthropological — manner in which the group looked at the political. Until now, whenever pollsters have been asked to do research on politics, they have generally focused on the things that modern western society labels “political” — such as voter registration, policy surveys, party affiliation, voting records and so on. ... At the Dmexco ad tech conference in Cologne earlier this month, Richard Robinson, vice-president of Cambridge Analytica’s commercial arm, gave a fascinating insight into his company’s philosophy. “Enabling somebody and encouraging somebody to go out to vote on a wet Wednesday morning is no different in my mind to persuading and encouraging somebody to move from one toothpaste brand to another.” It was, he said, “about understanding what message is relevant to that person at that time when they are in that particular mindset”.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 30 2017 9:57 utc | 139

The fact is over half the people in Britain voted to leave the EU. They didn't read the fine print when they joined and nobody expected to be providing social services for Eastern Europe. And now the hedge fund managers smell blood. But the EU won't give an inch because if the UK gets special treatment then the union will fall apart.

So it's not about restoring the British Empire. or uneducated bigotry, or lazy British's a Soros manufactured crisis.

Posted by: dh | Oct 30 2017 12:05 utc | 140

Posted by: dh | Oct 30, 2017 8:05:33 AM | 140

Hedge fund manufactured, Soros is the favorite political enemy as he is perceived as Democrat - but - hey, they are hedge funds, they are on both sides.

Theresa May's husband is - guess what - the manager of an US investment fund

Beating the drum loudly does not come naturally to Capital. Its profile was long so low that when Theresa May became British prime minister, a UK newspaper that wrote about her husband Philip’s role as a client relationship manager at Capital could still mistakenly describe it as “a little-known hedge fund”.

They didn't read the fine print when they joined and nobody expected to be providing social services for Eastern Europe.

That is how people were lied to. England paid for access to the EU industrial and consumer market plus for skilled labour whose education they did not have to pay for.

Actually, EU enlargement into Eastern Europe used to be a British Tory idea.

Noone expects EU access for British goods and people will get any cheaper now for Britain, and Britain would continue to have to follow EU regulations if they wish to trade in the EU. What is gone is the 'austerity majority' in EU political bodies. Noone expects access to the Indian and Pakistani markets will be attainable with no strings attached.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 30 2017 13:27 utc | 141

Well it doesn't seem to be hurting the FTSE. Keeps hitting new highs. Soros is going to have to work harder if he wants a sell off.

Posted by: dh | Oct 30 2017 14:32 utc | 142

Posted by: dh | Oct 30, 2017 10:32:17 AM | 142

British Government will do.

Hammond picks hedge fund economist as top adviser

Posted by: somebody | Oct 30 2017 14:51 utc | 143

@143 Could be a smart move. Like a lot of companies hire hackers to do security.

Posted by: dh | Oct 30 2017 14:57 utc | 144

add to 143 EU market might be closed though.

or maybe not

For alternative investment funds, UK firms should be able to DIRECTLY serve their EU clients through the evolving strategy of “regulatory equivalence” WITHOUT establishing an EU subsidiary. This strategy has already been embedded in the AIFMD (Alternative Investment Fund Managers Directive), which applies to the sale of hedge funds, private equity funds and real estate funds to professional investors throughout the EU.

But British hedge fund will enjoy the privilege to endanger financial markets with unregulated products for the rest of the world.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 30 2017 15:15 utc | 145

Those guys are going to be so bored in their shiny new offices in Frankfurt.

Posted by: dh | Oct 30 2017 15:22 utc | 146

Posted by: dh | Oct 30, 2017 10:57:27 AM | 144

Depends on the goal. If the goal is to reduce Britain to the City of London, he is the guy.

Posted by: dh | Oct 30, 2017 11:22:48 AM | 146

Franfurt's qualitiy of life is still much better than London's. I don't know what will become of it with these guys around.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 30 2017 15:53 utc | 147

Those guys see themselves as financial gunslingers. They won't know what to do with themselves in Frankfurt. Much too boring.

Posted by: dh | Oct 30 2017 16:02 utc | 148

Posted by: dh | Oct 30, 2017 11:22:48 AM | 146

Let's hope they won't find anything.

Posted by: somebody | Oct 30 2017 21:20 utc | 149

@somebody Many young Poles returning from UK as economy booms: FT

Many young, well educated Poles are leaving Britain to return home, drawn by Poland’s thriving economy, the Financial Times has reported.

For some, Britain’s impending divorce from the EU is an additional factor in their decision to return to their home country, according to the British daily.

The FT noted that Poland is experiencing record-low unemployment after a decade of strong growth.

The disadvantages of returning to Poland are the country’s “still formidable bureaucracy and the risk that... career paths may not ultimately reach the heights of those who remained in London,” the FT said.

The Polish economy grew 3.9% in the second quarter of this year, slightly down from 4% year-on-year expansion in the first three months.

The World Bank forecast in a report published earlier this month that Polish economic growth would accelerate to 4% this year as a whole from 2.7% in 2016.

Meanwhile, unemployment in Poland fell to a new low of 6.8% in September, the country’s Central Statistical Office (GUS) said last week.

Posted by: PeacefulProsperity | Nov 4 2017 11:24 utc | 150

As soon as you hear “British Intelligence” expect some knd of fraud. Prior to US entry into WW2, they produced a map purporting to show planned Nazi zones in South America. FDR used this map to claim Germany was threatening the Monroe Doctrine. And who can forget G.W. Bush telling us “ Briitish Intelligence has learned that Iraq had aquired a supply of uranium?

Posted by: guest | Nov 4 2017 22:19 utc | 151

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.