Connect with us

Published

on

Nigel Farage’s bank account being closed has now led to a BBC apology and NatWest’s boss resigning. 

How did we get here – and why was the account really closed?

Here’s how the controversy unfolded.

Nigel Farage’s account is closed

At the end of June, Mr Farage said a bank – later confirmed as Coutts – had decided to stop doing business with him.

He said a letter from the bank contained no explanation and he had then been told over the phone it was a “commercial decision”.

In the six-minute video posted on Twitter, he said losing his bank account was the equivalent of being a “non person” and that the decision may “fundamentally affect [his] future career and whether [he] can even go on staying living here in this country”.

“The establishment are trying to force me out of the UK by closing my bank accounts,” the caption read.

In a second Twitter video, he said he had been rejected from having bank accounts by nine different companies.

He said NatWest, the owner of Coutts, offered him an account after his announcement last week, but it was not suitable because it was a personal and not a business account.

MR Farage claimed banks did not want him as a customer due to him being a “politically exposed person“, or PEP.

A PEP is someone who holds or has held public office and therefore may be more susceptible to bribery or corruption.

BBC claims Farage didn’t have enough money

On 4 July, a BBC report claimed the bank did not want his custom because he did not have enough money in his accounts.

The prestigious private bank requires clients to have at least £1m in investments or borrowing – including a mortgage – or £3m in savings.

The BBC reported that Mr Farage’s political opinions were not a factor in the decision.

But it turned out this wasn’t the case.

Nigel Farage Pic: AP
Image:
Pic: AP

Coutts’ dossier on Farage

After Coutts first told him they were cutting ties, Mr Farage submitted a subject access request to them.

He then received a 40-page document detailing all of the evidence Coutts accumulated about him to feed back to its Wealth Reputational Risk Committee.

It revealed staff at the bank spent months compiling evidence on the “significant reputational risks of being associated with him”.

The main risks were:

  • Reputational – as Mr Farage is “high profile” and “actively courts controversy”
  • Financial crime – due to “alleged Russia connections”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farage: ‘I was shocked with the vitriol’

The document – reported on 18 July – suggested the move was taken partly because his views did not align with the firm’s “values”, including his position on LGBTQ+ rights and friendship with former US president Donald Trump.

Ultimately it concluded the Mr Farage’s views were “at odds with our position as an inclusive organisation”.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak commented on the issue, tweeting: “This is wrong. No one should be barred from using basic services for their political views. Free speech is the cornerstone of our democracy.”

Read more:
Minister summons bank bosses after Farage account closure
Nigel Farage on ‘vitriol’ in Coutts’ dossier

The BBC apologises

On 24 July, the BBC issued an apology to Mr Farage over the story “which turned out not to be accurate”.

In a statement, the broadcaster said: “We acknowledge that the information we reported – that Coutts’ decision on Mr Farage’s account did not involve considerations about his political views – turned out not to be accurate and have apologised to Mr Farage.”

NatWest boss resigns

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

NatWest boss resigns over Farage row

NatWest chief executive Dame Alison Rose resigned on 26 July after admitting to being the source of an inaccurate story about Mr Farage’s bank account.

The resignation was expected in the wake of briefings by Downing Street that she had lost the confidence of the prime minister and chancellor.

It came after she apologised to Mr Farage for the “deeply inappropriate comments” made about him in documents prepared for the company’s wealth committee.

She said the remarks “did not reflect the view of the bank”, which has now offered him “alternative banking arrangements”.

10 banks turned down Farage after Coutts closure

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Farage: ’10 banks turned me down’

Speaking to Sky News after Dame Alison’s resignation, Mr Farage said 10 banks had turned him down after Coutts decided to close his account.

The former Brexit Party leader would not name the banks, but said: “I don’t want to take on the whole industry.”

“You can’t exist in the world without a bank account,” he said. “You effectively become a non-person.”

What could happen next?

Banks face a Treasury clampdown in the wake of the row over Mr Farage’s account.

Lenders will be forced to give customers three months’ notice of account closures and to provide a full explanation of the reasons under reforms expected to be unveiled soon, Sky News understands.

Continue Reading

Politics

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

Published

on

By

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

US Supreme Court will not review IRS case involving Coinbase user data

A lower court ruling will stand in a case involving a Coinbase user who filed a lawsuit against the IRS after the crypto exchange turned over transaction data.

Continue Reading

Politics

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

Published

on

By

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

First US staking ETF to launch Wednesday, giving investors exposure to Solana

REX Shares will launch the first US staked crypto ETF this week, giving investors direct exposure to SOL with staking rewards.

Continue Reading

Politics

Government accused of ‘stark’ contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

Published

on

By

Government accused of 'stark' contradiction over position on Gaza genocide allegations

The government has won a long-running legal challenge about its decision to continue allowing the sale of spare parts for F-35 fighter jets to Israel, while suspending other arms licences over concerns about international humanitarian law in Gaza.

But a key part of its case has highlighted mixed messaging about its position on the risk of genocide in Gaza – and intensified calls for ministers to publish their own assessment on the issue.

PM braced for pivotal vote – politics latest

Lawyers acting for the government told judges “the evidence available does not support a finding of genocide” and “the government assessment was that…there was no serious risk of genocide occurring”.

Therefore, they argued, continuing to supply the F-35 components did not put the UK at risk of breaching the Genocide Convention.

This assessment has never been published or justified by ministers in parliament, despite numerous questions on the issue.

Some MPs argue its very existence contrasts with the position repeatedly expressed by ministers in parliament – that the UK is unable to give a view on allegations of genocide in Gaza, because the question is one for the international courts.

For example, just last week Deputy Prime Minister Angela Rayner told PMQs “it is a long-standing principle that genocide is determined by competent international courts and not by governments”.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Situation in Gaza ‘utterly intolerable’

‘The UK cannot sit on our hands’

Green MP Ellie Chowns said: “The government insists only an international court can judge whether genocide is occurring in Gaza, yet have somehow also concluded there is ‘no serious risk of genocide’ in Gaza – and despite my urging, refuse to publish the risk assessments which lead to this decision.

“Full transparency on these risk assessments should not be optional; it is essential for holding the government to account and stopping further atrocity.

“While Labour tie themselves in knots contradicting each other, families are starving, hospitals lie in ruins, and children are dying.

“The UK cannot sit on our hands waiting for an international court verdict when our legal duty under the Genocide Convention compels us to prevent genocide from occurring, not merely seek justice after the fact.”

‘Why are these assessments being made?’

“This contradiction at the heart of the government’s position is stark,” said Zarah Sultana MP, an outspoken critic of Labour’s approach to the conflict in Gaza, who now sits as an independent after losing the party whip last summer.

“Ministers say it’s not for them to determine genocide, that only international courts can do so. Yet internal ‘genocide assessments’ have clearly been made and used to justify continuing arms exports to Israel.

“If they have no view, why are these assessments being made? And if they do, why refuse to share them with parliament? This Labour government, in opposition, demanded the Tories publish their assessments. Now in office, they’ve refused to do the same.”

Read more:
‘All I see is blood’
‘It felt like earthquakes’
MPs want Ukraine-style scheme for Gazans

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Routes for Palestinians ‘restricted’

Judges at the High Court ultimately ruled the case was over such a “sensitive and political issue” it should be a matter for the government, “which is democratically accountable to parliament and ultimately to the electorate, not the court”.

Dearbhla Minogue, a senior lawyer at the Global Legal Action Network, and a solicitor for Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights group which brought the case, said: “This should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the government, but rather a restrained approach to the separation of powers.

“The government’s disgraceful assessment that there is no risk of genocide has therefore evaded scrutiny in the courts, and as far as we know it still stands.”

Palestinians inspect the damage at an UNRWA school sheltering displaced people that was hit in an Israeli air strike, in Gaza.
Pic Reuters
A Palestinian woman sits amid the damage at an UNRWA school sheltering displaced people. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Pics: Reuters

What is the government’s position?

Government lawyers argued the decision not to ban the export of F-35 parts was due to advice from Defence Secretary John Healey, who said a suspension would impact the whole F-35 programme and have a “profound impact on international peace and security”.

The UK supplies F-35 component parts as a member of an international defence programme which produces and maintains the fighter jets. As a customer of that programme, Israel can order from the pool of spare parts.

Labour MP Richard Burgon said the ruling puts the government under pressure to clarify its position.

“This court ruling is very clear: only the government and parliament can decide if F-35 fighter jet parts – that can end up in Israel – should be sold,” he said.

“So the government can no longer pass the buck: it can stop these exports, or it can be complicit in Israel’s genocide in Gaza.

“On many issues they say it’s not for the government to decide, but it’s one for the international courts. This washing of hands will no longer work.”

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Dozens dead in Gaza after Israeli strikes

Israel has consistently rejected any allegations of genocide.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu branded a recent UN report on the issue biased and antisemitic.

“Instead of focusing on the crimes against humanity and war crimes committed by the Hamas terrorist organisation… the United Nations once again chooses to attack the state of Israel with false accusations,” he said in a statement.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Gaza disinformation campaign is deliberate’

The UK government has not responded to requests for comment over its contrasting messaging to parliament and the courts over allegations of genocide.

But in response to the judgement, a spokesperson said: “The court has upheld this government’s thorough and lawful decision-making on this matter.

“This shows that the UK operates one of the most robust export control regimes in the world. We will continue to keep our defence export licensing under careful and continual review.

“On day one of this Government, the foreign secretary ordered a review into Israel’s compliance with international humanitarian law (IHL).

“The review concluded that there was a clear risk that UK exports for the IDF (Israel Defence Forces) in the Gaza conflict might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of IHL.

“In contrast to the last government, we took decisive action, stopping exports to the Israeli Defence Forces that might be used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law in Gaza.”

Continue Reading

Trending