Rick Dykstra retweeted
Sergey Nalobin, a Russian ‘diplomat’ who launched the ‘Conservative Friends of Russia’ group has now been identified as a Russian intelligence officer involved in an attempted European disinformation campaign.
Nalobin called Boris Johnson a good friend and was quick to congratulate Vote Leave Chief Matthew Elliott on his engagement. Elliott was a founder member of the Conservative Friends of Russia, and in 2012 went on a 10-day trip to Moscow with all expenses paid by the Russian government.
The British authorities repeatedly refused to investigate Russian interference in the Brexit campaign and the UK’s broader politics. However, Nalobin was looking for a way to channel money into the Conservative Party in the early 2010s, and the Tories received many donations from Russian oligarchs resident in the UK. The article provides details of how Nalobin orchestrated Russian interference in Estonian politics, so it is very likely that he was playing the same role in the UK.
Putin wanted Brexit. The Tories delivered it, and unfortunately every British government since then has covered up the extent and nature of Russian interference in British politics.
Please repost if you demand that the government ends the conspiracy of silence and launches a full-scale investigation of Russian interference in British politics starting with the Conservative Friends of Russia and Farage's appearances on Russia Today.
bylinetimes.com/2026/10/26/t…
Rick Dykstra retweeted
Mindblowing chart from OBR. In 2029 real household disposable income per person expected to be just 1% higher than in 2019. What an unbelievably awful decade. It used to grow by 2%+ every year, not 1% in 10 years.
Rick Dykstra retweeted
◼️ Harry Harris: "You can’t have a quasi-judicial system where the Prem appoints and pays three judges who then prosecute — In a real court case the standard of proof is higher, you’re under cross-examination, and this could end up in the High Court if the PL pushes it"
#ManCity
This guy has lost his mind.. taking performance enhancing drugs v breaking red cartel spending rules (they spent the same as the other big clubs as well)....i hope his paymasters are happy!
unavailable
No Brexit and the stupid points system did....FOM was much better...markets are better than politicians at allocating resources
Rick Dykstra retweeted
Hi Matt, hoping you're well.
Did you know that Dublin failed mainly because of spectacularly poor British implementation?
It's amazing.
Between 2015 and 2018, Britain requested 18,953 Dublin transfers but completed just 1,395 — 7%.
Why? Nasty EU countries? No. A damning 2016 official inspection exposed Home Office failures: asylum seekers absconding, missed removal deadlines, difficulties arranging escorts and inadequate records of why removals failed.
In just four months, 24 cases were lost through absconding, 66 through expired removal deadlines and 124 were simply not pursued.
Yes, Dublin had serious flaws and other EU countries sometimes refused requests. But Britain’s performance was particularly poor.
Don't take my word for it. Conservative former Home Office minister Lord Tim Kirkhope warned in 2019:
“The Government’s removal policy is often the least implemented because it is controversial, sensitive and often expensive.”
He added that losing Dublin would “make things more difficult for us.”
So sure, Britain had an imperfect European returns system, administered it badly, then abolished its access to it.
Result => small boats crisis.
One thing that's surprised me about Andy Burnham is the extent to which he just lies.
He says this morning small boats are because of Brexit and "we can't return people".
The FACTS:
In last 5 years of Dublin agreement the UK took in far more migrants than it sent back.
2016: net 200
2017: net 150
2018: net 1000
2019: net 500
2020: net 800
Five years = net 2,500 more migrants than sent back.
Plus, now we'd have to sign up to the migration and asylum pact so the numbers will be enormous.
He knows this. His advisors know this.
They are just lying to you.
This clown forgot that Rodri won it the year City won all those trophies! The lack of football knowledge from Arsenal Fans is staggering! No Arsenal players in top 10...2 from City..hmmmm
So @Erling misses out on the Balon D’or for the second time, he really should have won it in his first year at City when he scored 50 goals & they won all those trophies.
Now he’s been snubbed again, think he’ll be sitting there thinking that he’ll never be taken seriously on the world stage while he plays for a small club who have now been tarnished & charged as cheats.
Kane will be in the top 3, Haaland has arguably done just as well but won’t get the same respect no matter how many goals he scores because he plays for a small club that cheats.
If I was him, I’d be on to the phone to my agent to line up a move to a big club, if he’s at Madrid or Barca, he’s definitely winning the Balon D’or.
Rick Dykstra retweeted
This makes Brexiteers wonderfully cross, but Burnham is spot on. It’s specifically cited by people on the ground. As one 19-year-old man from Sudan in Calais said: “Because of Brexit I believe that once I reach the UK I will be safe at last. No Dublin, no fingerprints any more.”
Rick Dykstra retweeted
In 2015, Conservative MP and leading Brexiteer Owen Paterson declared:
“Only a madman would actually leave the market.”
He was talking about Britain's relationship with the European Single Market. And he wasn't the only prominent Brexiteer making such arguments.
Remember what we were told before the 2016 referendum?
Daniel Hannan: “Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market.”
Nigel Farage: “Wouldn't it be terrible if we were like Norway and Switzerland? Really?” He repeatedly pointed to their prosperity and independence as examples Britain could follow.
Matthew Elliott, chief executive of Vote Leave, described the Norwegian or EEA option as potentially attractive.
Even the Conservatives' 2015 election manifesto declared: “We say: yes to the Single Market.”
Single Market participation and Norway-style relationships were plainly part of the Brexit debate.
And then Britain left not only the EU, but also the Single Market and Customs Union.
The economic consequences have been substantial.
The Office for Budget Responsibility estimates that Brexit will leave Britain's economy around 4% smaller in the long run than it would have been had we remained in the EU, with exports and imports approximately 15% lower than otherwise.
Goldman Sachs estimates the economy is around 6% smaller than it would have been. Research published by the US National Bureau of Economic Research puts the reduction in GDP per person at approximately 6–8%.
These are not claims that Britain's economy has literally shrunk by those amounts since 2016. They measure the economic growth and prosperity that researchers estimate we have lost compared with remaining.
Cambridge Econometrics separately estimated that by 2023 Brexit had reduced annual UK economic output by approximately £140 billion, with 1.8 million fewer jobs than in its no-Brexit scenario.
And behind those figures are businesses facing additional paperwork, exporters confronting regulatory barriers, reduced investment and opportunities that Britain could otherwise have enjoyed.
This is why the argument about returning to the European Single Market has become so significant.
The Liberal Democrats now advocate rejoining both the Single Market and Customs Union. Their argument is that restoring easier access to Britain's largest neighbouring trading market would reduce costs, encourage investment, increase trade and create economic opportunities.
Economic research supports the expectation of gains, although estimates vary. The important qualification is that rejoining would not instantly undo a decade of lost investment or automatically recover every percentage point of GDP lost to Brexit.
But this debate is about more than GDP.
European integration also means opportunities for people: young Britons studying in European universities, workers building careers across borders, businesses sharing ideas, scientists collaborating, and families maintaining relationships without so many bureaucratic obstacles.
Restoring freedom of movement would restore reciprocal opportunities for British citizens across Europe, not simply permit Europeans to come to Britain.
There is also a wider question about the kind of relationship Britain wants with its neighbours: one based on greater economic and social cooperation, shared opportunities, scientific progress and mutual understanding, or one that maintains many of the barriers erected after Brexit.
A decade after the referendum, the evidence gives Britain a much clearer picture of the economic costs of leaving.
And Owen Paterson's words from 2015 remain a reminder of just how different the Brexit debate was before the referendum.
Still crying after we outclassed them at Anfield a few weeks ago.. City living rent free in scouser heads! Great to see!!
Rick Dykstra retweeted
Remember I was first to tell you.
Manchester United haven’t been able to win the league or anything of any significance since they haven’t been able to buy it. The day they couldn’t financially bulldoze every other team in Europe was the day the roof started leaking apparently. Now it’s an even playing field they are done
Rick Dykstra retweeted
Free movement making the headlines again, and for once ! it's treated here (👏@thetimes) as a 𝒕𝒘𝒐-𝒘𝒂𝒚 street, giving a mention to the millions of us British citizens who over decades were able to live, study, work and retire freely all over our own continent rather than the usual "they're all coming here" angle
Maybe because Burnham's own father was part of the "Auf Wiedersehen, Pet" generation who went to Germany looking for work in the 80s
And for the "they're all coming here brigade" (they'll pop up in my feed 🤡) 2 things ...
Remind me how many millions of French and Spanish people have retired to sunny Clacton ?
Immigration was around 300K a year when the UK was in the EU. Your Brexit replaced mainly single young Europeans with people from much further away bringing their families, reaching 1M
Free movement has enriched so many British citizens' lives. Brexit slammed that door shut in our, and our children's faces
Rick Dykstra retweeted
So true.
Here's an extraordinary comparison.
Economists estimated that Brexit was costing the Treasury at least £40 billion a year in lost tax revenue.
And how much did Rishi Sunak announce in tax increases in March 2022?
£46 billion.
Think about that. Britain lost £40 billion in annual tax revenue through Brexit, while the then Chancellor announced tax rises worth £46 billion.
That's almost the same amount.
We were promised Brexit would make Britain richer and free up money for public services.
Instead, we made ourselves poorer — and taxpayers were left facing the bill.
This was a direct result of leaving the single market.
The EU fee was about £12.6bn a year, whereas the estimated Brexit loss of output is now roughly £170bn–£230bn a year, with an associated loss of tax revenue of roughly £65bn–£85bn a year. That makes the fee equivalent to only about 5–7% of the estimated annual GDP loss. #BrexSHIT
Rick Dykstra retweeted
🗣Souness: "Its cruel on #ManCity. This is because of FFP, set up by the big clubs to protect big clubs. They've said, 'We are the big guys, we generate the most, let's set up a rule that prevents City buying the best players and we're not the big boys anymore.' Its jealousy" 👏
Reform supporter starting to realise that FOM is a great thing...she can retire in Spain if we restore FOM...she's just realised it's reciprocal!!
Well if Andy Burnham agrees free movement within the EU and it works both ways, I'll be the first one out of here on my way to either mainland Spain or Tenerife.
So the UK would lose my income tax, all the VAT and other taxes I pay on fuel and energy, and stamp duty as I'd buy abroad instead of here.
And I don't think I'd be the only one leaving this broken country either.
Rick Dykstra retweeted
We have to ask the question why a lot of those who claim to be legal bods on here scoff at or just completely ignore a part of what is City's legal defence. We know why it's blatantly so in the mainstrem media, but it's a dereliction of duty for that to be the case on here. Some of it can be explained by the brainwashing of how the mainstream narrative has been framed, but a significant part of it is because some on here are deliberately trying to veer us away from the City statement.
The evidential record is limited. A limited evidential record makes the tribunal's decision unsafe. Why is the evidential record limited? It's twofold: 1) the tribunal deliberately limited it; 2) City were wary of what evidence to produce. Why did the tribunal limit the evidence? Because they didn't want a decision based on best evidence. If that is the case, it is not fair-minded. Why wouldn't the tribunal be fair-minded? After all, they're supposed to be an arbitration panel under the auspices of the Arbitration Act. This is the $64,000 question. We need to take a look at how the tribunal was assembled, who the Chair and panel were, and if they sat in accordance with the Arbitration Act. As I've argued from the outset, if the PL appointed the tribunal Chair, then the tribunal is compromised at birth. It's the old Rousseau chestnut of having blind faith in a grand legislator. As we saw in the French Revolution and see with the partisanship involved in US Supreme Court appointments, they don't grow on trees. That the PL also pay the Chair's wages and that future appointments are bound by the same contract are grounds for saying they are dependent, whether factually or potentially, and therefore cannot be independent. Who did the PL appoint? They appointed Murray Rosen. For the same reasons as just cited, as an Arsenal season ticket holder, so that the potential for doubt can be minimised, he should not have been appointed, granted Lord Pannick is also an avid Arsenal supporter. That he was appointed, in the name of integrity, he should have recused himself. That he didn't is a stain on his name and cause for doubting everything that follows, particularly as the names of the 3 person tribunal he was tasked with appointing continue to be redacted. What does the Arbitration Act say?
'Introductory
1 General principles.
The provisions of this Part are founded on the following principles, and shall be construed accordingly—
(a)the object of arbitration is to obtain the fair resolution of disputes by an impartial tribunal without unnecessary delay or expense;
(b)the parties should be free to agree how their disputes are resolved, subject only to such safeguards as are necessary in the public interest;
(c)in matters governed by this Part the court should not intervene except as provided by this Part.'
Has the PL tribunal complied with the above principles? Did it withold the judgment? Did it inform the parties of the judgment at the same time? Did the PL leak, or facilitate the leak of the judgment?
The bottom line is, the PL - and UEFA - have maliciously tried to stop City at every corner and hunted us down for every misdemeanour while turnning a blind eye to wrongdoing by other clubs. City and Everton have been punished, but United and Liverpool haven't. The evidence is clear there is discrimination and undue influence in a league the rulebook of which states all the clubs have equal status, and this is a significant part of City's legal defence, and which I fully back above all the discussion of who funded who and whether it was within the rules. The rules are malicious, the dodging of the Etihad evidence by the tribunal is devious. It was meant to be an arbitration, not a prosecution. City were not only up against the PL, they were also up against the tribunal, and is why they were wary with which evidence was produced. The question that now needs to be asked is, 'Are the appeal judges going to support the behaviour of the tribunal’?
MCFC OK 🍌
Rick Dykstra retweeted
This is key. Outside EU, UK will follow most EU rules, with no say and without the benefits. Inside, we'll have a leading role + UK business will have a level playing field with EU partners/competitors. Re: free movement -we need workers, in or out. Brits need opportunities in EU
Rick Dykstra retweeted
Wrong.
Before you and your brexiters lose your shit over today's news - you need to know this:
Britain could control free movement easily. EU countries require even other EU citizens to register locally, conduct police residence checks on them and can deport those without employment, genuine job prospects or sufficient money. Britain had exactly those powers but chose not to use them.
I know because I urged Teresa May to enforce the law when she was Home Secretary.
Know what she said?
"It's just not British".
Now Brexit Britain imports millions of non-European workers of which 52% are their families.
They're not going back.
Which the Europeans did.
After Brexit.
That's not what your people voted for, is it?
🚨 Andy Burnham has said he is open to taking Britain BACK into freedom of movement with the EU.
That means 450 million people will be able to move to the UK, with no powers to stop them.
Plus anyone in the world who can get their hands on citizenship of ANY EU country.
Burnham is determined to open the floodgates and overwhelm Britain.
He MUST be voted out!