Suella Braverman’s letter to Rishi Sunak in full after being sacked as home secretary
Suella Braverman has launched a scathing attack on Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, accusing him of abandoning secret promises and saying “your plan is not working”.
The former home secretary was sacked by the prime minister on Monday following a controversial article where she accused the Met Police of bias towards left-wing protesters, and not long after she suggested the use of tents by homeless people is “a lifestyle choice”.
After being sacked from her role Ms Braverman said that she would say “more in due course”.
And in a scathing letter released on Tuesday afternoon, the former home secretary attacked Mr Sunak’s record in government, accusing him of a “betrayal”.
This is her letter to the PM in full:
Dear prime minister,
Thank you for your phone call yesterday morning in which you asked me to leave government. While disappointing, this is for the best.
It has been my privilege to serve as home secretary and deliver on what the British people have sent us to Westminster to do.
I want to thank all of those civil servants, police, Border Force officers and security professionals with whom I have worked and whose dedication to public safety is exemplary.
I am proud of what we achieved together: delivering on our manifesto pledge to recruit 20,000 new police officers and enacting new laws such as the Public Order Act 2023 and the National Security Act 2023. I also led a programme of reform: on anti-social behaviour, police dismissals and standards, reasonable lines of enquiry, grooming gangs, knife crime, non-crime hate incidents and rape and serious sexual offences.
And I am proud of the strategic changes that I was delivering to Prevent, Contest, serious organised crime and fraud. I am sure that this work will continue with the new ministerial team.
As you know, I accepted your offer to serve as home secretary in October 2022 on certain conditions. Despite you having been rejected by a majority of party members during the summer leadership contest and thus having no personal mandate to be prime minister, I agreed to support you because of the firm assurances you gave me on key policy priorities.
These were, among other things:
1. Reduce overall legal migration as set out in the 2019 manifesto through, inter alia, reforming the international students route and increasing salary thresholds on work visas;
2. Include specific ‘notwithstanding clauses’ into new legislation to stop the boats, i.e. exclude the operation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), Human Rights Act (HRA) and other international law that had thus far obstructed progress on this issue;
3. Deliver the Northern Ireland Protocol and Retained EU Law Bills in their then existing form and timetable:
4. Issue unequivocal statutory guidance to schools that protects biological sex, safeguards single sex spaces, and empowers parents to know what is being taught to their children.
This was a document with clear terms to which you agreed in October 2022 during your second leadership campaign. I trusted you. It is generally agreed that my support was a pivotal factor in winning the leadership contest and thus enabling you to become prime minister.
For a year, as home secretary I have sent numerous letters to you on the key subjects contained in our agreement, made requests to discuss them with you and your team, and put forward proposals on how we might deliver these goals. I worked up the legal advice, policy detail and action to take on these issues. This was often met with equivocation, disregard and a lack of interest.
You have manifestly and repeatedly failed to deliver on every single one of these key policies. Either your distinctive style of government means you are incapable of doing so. Or, as I must surely conclude now, you never had any intention of keeping your promises.
These are not just pet interests of mine. They are what we promised the British people in our 2019 manifesto which led to a landslide victory. They are what people voted for in the 2016 Brexit referendum.
Our deal was no mere promise over dinner, to be discarded when convenient and denied when challenged. I was clear from day one that if you did not wish to leave the ECHR, the way to securely and swiftly deliver our Rwanda partnership would be to block off the ECHR, the HRA and any other obligations which inhibit our ability to remove those with no right to be in the UK. Our deal expressly referenced ‘notwithstanding clauses’ to that effect.
Your rejection of this path was not merely a betrayal of our agreement, but a betrayal of your promise to the nation that you would do “whatever it takes” to stop the boats.
At every stage of litigation I cautioned you and your team against assuming we would win. I repeatedly urged you to take legislative measures that would better secure us against the possibility of defeat.
You ignored these arguments. You opted instead for wishful thinking as a comfort blanket to avoid having to make hard choices. This irresponsibility has wasted time and left the country in an impossible position.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Suella Braverman ignored questions from the media after she was sacked as home secretary
If we lose in the Supreme Court, an outcome that I have consistently argued we must be prepared for, you will have wasted a year and an Act of Parliament, only to arrive back at square one.
Worse than this, your magical thinking – believing that you can will your way through this without upsetting polite opinion has meant you have failed to prepare any sort of credible ‘Plan B’.
I wrote to you on multiple occasions setting out what a credible Plan B would entail, and making clear that unless you pursue these proposals, in the event of defeat, there is no hope of flights this side of an election. I received no reply from you.
I can only surmise that this is because you have no appetite for doing what is necessary, and therefore no real intention of fulfilling your pledge to the British people.
If, on the other hand, we win in the Supreme Court, because of the compromises that you insisted on in the Illegal Migration Act, the government will struggle to deliver our Rwanda partnership in the way that the public expects. The Act is far from secure against legal challenge.
People will not be removed as swiftly as I originally proposed. The average claimant will be entitled to months of process, challenge, and appeal. Your insistence that Rule 39 indications are binding in international law – against the views of leading lawyers, as set out in the House of Lords will leave us vulnerable to being thwarted yet again by the Strasbourg Court.
Another cause for disappointment – and the context for my recent article in The Times – has been your failure to rise to the challenge posed by the increasingly vicious antisemitism and extremism displayed on our streets since Hamas’s terrorist atrocities of 7 October.
I have become hoarse urging you to consider legislation to ban the hate marches and help stem the rising tide of racism, intimidation and terrorist glorification threatening community cohesion. Britain is at a turning point in our history and faces a threat of radicalisation and extremism in a way not seen for 20 years.
I regret to say that your response has been uncertain, weak, and lacking in the qualities of leadership that this country needs. Rather than fully acknowledge the severity of this threat, your team disagreed with me for weeks that the law needed changing.
As on so many other issues, you sought to put off tough decisions in order to minimise political risk to yourself. In doing so, you have increased the very real risk these marches present to everyone else.
In October of last year you were given an opportunity to lead our country. It is a privilege to serve and one we should not take for granted. Service requires bravery and thinking of the common good. It is not about occupying the office as an end in itself.
Someone needs to be honest: your plan is not working, we have endured record election defeats, your resets have failed and we are running out of time. You need to change course urgently.
I may not have always found the right words, but I have always striven to give voice to the quiet majority that supported us in 2019. I have endeavoured to be honest and true to the people who put us in these privileged positions.
I will, of course, continue to support the government in pursuit of policies which align with an authentic conservative agenda.
Sincerely,
Suella Braverman
Rt Hon Suella Braverman KC MP
Member of Parliament for Fareham
In response, a No 10 spokesperson said:
The prime minister was proud to appoint a strong, united team yesterday focused on delivering for the British people.
The prime minister believes in actions not words. He is proud that this government has brought forward the toughest legislation to tackle illegal migration this country has seen and has subsequently reduced the number of boat crossings by a third this year. And whatever the outcome of the Supreme Court tomorrow, he will continue that work.
The PM thanks the former home secretary for her service.
A Russian-Israeli citizen allegedly involved in the $190 million Nomad bridge hack will soon be extradited to the US after he was reportedly arrested at an Israeli airport while boarding a flight to Russia.
Alexander Gurevich will be investigated for his alleged involvement in several “computer crimes,” including laundering millions of dollars and transferring stolen property allegedly connected to the Nomad Bridge hack in 2022, The Jerusalem Post reported on May 5.
Gurevich returned to Israel from an overseas trip on April 19 but was ordered to appear before the Jerusalem District Court for an extradition hearing soon after, according to the report.
On April 29, Gurevich changed his name in Israel’s Population Registry to “Alexander Block” and received a passport under that name at Israel’s Ben-Gurion Airport the next day.
He was arrested at the same airport two days later, on May 1, while waiting to board a flight to Russia.
Gurevich allegedly identified a vulnerability in the Nomad bridge, which he exploited and stole roughly $2.89 million worth of tokens from in August 2022.
Dozens of copycat hackers discovered and capitalized on the security vulnerability soon after, leading to a total loss of $190 million.
Gurevich allegedly reached out to a Nomad executive on Telegram
Prosecutors allege that shortly after the hack, Gurevich messaged Nomad’s chief technology officer, James Prestwich, on Telegram using a fake identity, admitting that he had been “amateurishly” seeking a crypto protocol to exploit.
He allegedly apologized for “the trouble he caused Prestwich and his team” and voluntarily transferred about $162,000 into a recovery wallet the company had set up.
Prestwich told Gurevich that Nomad would pay him 10% of the value of the assets he had stolen, to which Gurevich responded that he would consult his lawyer. However, Nomad never heard back from him after that.
At some point during the negotiations, Gurevich demanded a reward of $500,000 for identifying the vulnerability.
Related: Do Kwon is in US custody after extradition battle
US federal authorities filed an eight-count indictment against Gurevich in the Northern District of California on Aug. 16, 2023, in addition to obtaining a warrant for his arrest. California is where the team behind the Nomad bridge is based.
The US submitted a formal extradition request in December 2024, the Post noted.
The money laundering charges that Gurevich faces carry a maximum of 20 years, significantly harsher than what he would face in Israel.
Gurevich is believed to have arrived in Israel a few days before the $190 million exploit occurred, prompting Israeli officials to believe he carried out the attack while in Israel.
Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again
For much of its history, the trade union movement’s main opponent has been the Conservative Party. But now it finds itself taking on a different type of adversary – one it might describe as a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
It began when Nigel Farage, known for being a staunch advocate of free trade and private markets, declined to criticise the Unite union for its bin strike in Birmingham, before calling for the nationalisation of British Steel following the near collapse of its plant in Scunthorpe.
The Reform UK leader has been sweet-talking the trade unions, speaking their language and brandishing their leaflets in public in what appears to his critics to be a new opportunistic strategy.
Farage’s courting of union members has alarmed the movement’s leaders – so much so that Sky News understands the executive of the Trades Union Congress (TUC), which represents unions across the country, has been holding meetings to draw up a strategy on how best to combat his appeal and more broadly, the far-right.
Over the weekend, as the two main parties were processing the battering they received in the local elections largely courtesy of Farage’s party, Unison’s general secretary Christina McAnea urged members of councils now controlled by Reform to join a union.
“Unions are there to ensure no one can play fast and loose with the law,” she said, after Farage threatened to sack staff working in areas such as diversity or climate change.
‘Political fraud’
Paul Nowak, the general secretary of the TUC, has begun to step up his criticism of the former UKIP leader – accusing him of “cosplaying as a champion of working people”.
“He is not on the side of the working people,” he tells Sky News. “He’s on the side of bad bosses who want to treat staff like disposable labour.
“Unions will continue to expose him for the political fraud he is.”
At the moment, that campaign is largely focused on highlighting Farage’s voting record – in particular his decision to oppose the Employment Rights Bill, legislation unions say they have wanted for decades.
The bill offers protection from unfair dismissal from the first day of employment and sick pay for all workers from the first day of absence, among other measures.
The TUC says the bill is incredibly popular – and not just among Labour voters.
According to a poll it conducted of more than 21,000 people with campaign group Hope Not Hate, banning zero hours contracts is supported by more than seven in 10 UK voters – including two in three Reform voters from the 2024 election.
“People are going to find there are improvements to their life and work,” an insider tells Sky News. “We want them to understand who was for it, and who was against it.”
The TUC has also begun promoting videos on social media in which workers in the electric vehicle industry accuse Farage of threatening their jobs.
Farage’s response to the bill has been to claim that a clause within in that gives workers protection from third party harassment could herald the end of “pub banter”.
‘There has always been fellow feeling with unions’
But Gawain Towler, an ex-Reform press officer who has worked on and off for Farage for 20 years, insists his former boss isn’t against workers’ rights – he’s just opposed to Labour’s bill.
“Reform don’t see it as a workers rights’ bill – we think it takes away opportunities for work because it scares people away from employing people,” he says.
Nigel Farage campaigning during the local elections in Scunthorpe.
Pic: Reuters
He believes “mass migration” is the real obstacle to better wages and job security, and argues net zero policies are “costing union members their jobs”.
The government may point to a recent study suggesting the net zero sector has grown by 10% over the past year, supporting the equivalent of 951,000 full-time jobs.
For Farage’s allies, his courting of union members is neither disingenuous nor new.
“He’s anti-union management, he’s not anti-union,” says Towler, who noted Farage’s friendship with the late union leader and Brexit advocate Bob Crow.
“Nigel has always been a free trader, but he’s never been deeply partisan, which is why he was able to start the Brexit Party. There has always been that fellow feeling with unions.”
Indeed, on one issue, a commonality is emerging between Reform and the GMB union.
While general secretary Gary Smith has criticised Farage for being “soft on Russia” and for voting against the Employment Rights Bill, there is an agreement between the pair over the impact of net zero.
Those sceptical of the government’s plans for the green transition point to Port Talbot in Wales, where 2,500 workers are expected to lose their jobs, and Grangemouth, where the closure of Scotland’s last remaining oil refinery is expected to result in around 400 job losses.
Members of Unite union protest at plans to close Grangemouth oil refinery.
Pic: PA
Although Unite has no common truck with Reform, it has warned there should be “no ban without a plan” when it comes to issuing new oil and gas licences.
‘Labour has one shot with workers’
For some unions, Labour’s position on certain issues has provided Reform with an opening.
There’s disappointment at some Labour policies in government – from partly watering down the Employment Rights Bill to stave off dissent from business leaders, to welfare cuts and offering below-inflation pay rises for public sector workers.
Gawain Little, the general secretary of the General Federation of Trade Unions, tells Sky News the party risks leaving “space open for fakers like Farage to come along and pretend they have people’s interests at heart”.
Only a sense that austerity is over, likewise the cost of living crisis, will truly “challenge” the Reform leader, he says.
One GMB member says Farage’s strategy is “from the same playbook” as right-wing parties in Europe, such as the AfD in Germany and Georgia Meloni’s Brothers of Italy.
By “continuously legitimising” Reform by talking tough on migration, union activists who usually get the word out for Labour have been left demoralised.
Farage on the picket line?
The current distance with some unions did not start in government. It began in opposition, when Labour refused to back workers who were on strike and when the party did not endorse some candidates put forward by some of the more left-wing unions.
But so far, sources in Labour have dismissed Farage’s tactics as just words – and believe his previous anti-union rhetoric will weigh against him when he tries to court votes.
In fact, Mr Farage’s calls for the renationalisation of steel have been interpreted as him “trying to jump on the bandwagon” of Labour’s success.
However, Damian Lyons Lowe, the founder of pollster Survation, spots danger for Labour if Farage is able to successfully tilt in the direction of workers’ rights – especially if the government finds itself unable to follow.
He says taking the side of unions in an industrial dispute over pay would be an example of a classic “wedge” strategy that Farage can deploy to back Labour into a corner.
Read more:
Why is it taking so long to settle the Birmingham bin dispute?
Tories ‘are not doing a deal with Reform,’ Kemi Badenoch insists
And given the government’s initial 2.8% pay offer to public sector workers is below that reportedly drawn up by the independent pay review body for NHS workers and teachers, there is the very real prospect this scenario could arise.
“It could pose a real threat to Labour,” Lyons Lowe says, with union members in “post-industrial” areas potentially receptive to a message of “protectionism, industrial revival, and national self-sufficiency”.
Could what started with Farage brandishing leaflets end up with him joining the picket line?
While one union insider doesn’t think Farage will ultimately convince union leaders, members may be tempted.
The Starmer government has “one shot to deliver for workers”, they warn.
“If they don’t, Farage and Reform are waiting in the wings.”
The new “Digital Asset Market Structure Discussion Draft” introduced by House Republicans on May 5 could work to reduce the dominance of large crypto firms and promote more participation in the broader market, according to an executive from Paradigm.
The discussion draft, led by the House agricultural and financial services committee chairs Glenn Thompson and French Hill, is an “incremental, albeit meaningful, rewrite” of the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21), Paradigm’s vice president of regulatory affairs Justin Slaughter said in a May 5 X post.
One of the major changes from FIT21 is that the draft defines an affiliated person as anyone who owns more than 1% of a digital commodity issued by the project — down from 5% in the FIT21 bill — a move Slaughter said may curb the influence of big crypto firms and lead to more participation in the crypto market.
“This is a portent of the entire bill. There are often criticisms of crypto being too dominated by a few large firms. This bill makes clear the regulatory regime proposed is going to push against that fact and strongly encourage more small-d ‘democratization’ of the space.”
The draft also defines a “mature blockchain system” as one that, together with its related digital commodity, is not under the “common control” of any person or group.
The Securities and Exchange Commission would be the main authority regulating activity on crypto networks until they become sufficiently decentralized, Slaughter noted.
The draft also clarified that decentralized finance trading protocols are those that enable users to engage in a financial transaction in a “self-directed manner.” Protocols that meet this criterion are exempt from registering as digital commodity brokers or dealers.
The draft also referred to digital commodities as “investment contract assets” to distinguish their treatment from stocks and other traditional assets under the Howey test.
According to Slaughter’s analysis, securities laws won’t be triggered unless the secondary sale of tokens also transfers ownership or profit in the underlying business.
Crypto firms would also have a path to raise funds under the SEC’s oversight while also having a “clear process” to register their digital commodities with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the committee members said in a separate May 5 statement.
Joint rulemaking, procedures, or guidelines related to crypto asset delisting must be established by the CFTC and SEC should a registered asset no longer comply with rules laid out by the regulators.
A ‘clear opportunity’ to advance crypto innovation, rules once and for all
Speaking about the need for a comprehensive crypto regulatory framework, the House committee members said crypto is a “clear opportunity” to advance innovation in the US — most notably through modernizing America’s financial infrastructure and reinforcing US dollar dominance.
The Republicans criticized the previous Biden administration and the Gary Gensler-led SEC for adopting a regulation-by-enforcement strategy rather than creating clear rules for market participants.
Related: VanEck files for BNB ETF, first in US
Many crypto firms were stuck in “legal limbo” as a result of the unclear rules, which pushed some industry players overseas, where clearer rules exist, the House committee members said.
“America needs to be the powerhouse for digital asset investment and innovation. For that to happen, we need a commonsense regulatory regime,” said Dusty Johnson, chairman of the subcommittee on commodity markets, digital assets and rural development.
Slaughter added: “This is the bill that will, finally, provide a clear regulatory regime on crypto that many have been calling for.”
Republicans already facing roadblocks over discussion draft
House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters plans to block a Republican-led event discussing digital assets on May 6, a Democratic staffer told Cointelegraph.
The hearing, “American Innovation and the Future of Digital Assets,” is expected to discuss the new crypto markets draft discussion paper pitched by Thompson, Hill, and other committee members.
However, according to the unnamed Democratic staffer, the current rules require all members of the House Financial Services Committee to agree on such hearings.
Magazine: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway