Is Britain “Butler to the World”?

In 1835, Britain took out a loan for 20 million pounds. This amounted to some 40 percent of its annual income. The loan, worth 300 billion pounds today, was not paid off until 2015. Britain has often claimed that this money went toward the abolition of slavery and the slave trade. Not a cent of it went to the formerly enslaved. It actually went to enslavers, who wanted compensation for the loss of income from their “properties.” This “compensation” has cast a long but hidden shadow in British history. Among its beneficiaries were the ancestors, already rich from slave labor, of the actor Benedict Cumberbatch and of David Cameron.

This forgotten piece of history reveals an important truth about Britain. It is a place where politics has always had an incestuous relationship with the rich. Money trumps morals. Oliver Bullough, in his latest book, “Butler to the World: How Britain Helps the World’s Worst People Launder Money, Commit Crimes, and Get Away With Anything,” charts the newest manifestation of this corruption.

Source: https://www.nannybutler.com

Bullough begins with the 1956 Suez Crisis - a point of national humiliation for Britain. As Dean Acheson, secretary of state under President Harry Truman, put it, “Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role.” It soon did, argues Bullough. With the help of its bankers, it set about transforming itself into a “butler”. 

The first step in the formation of “Butler Britain,” as Bullough puts it, was the creation of the Eurodollar - an artificial currency devised by bankers in London that allowed them to trade in dollars within Britain, without being subject to American regulations on currency. 

“Money,” writes Bullough, was now worth whatever “someone would pay for it” — which only the rich could afford to do. The second step was the transformation of Britain and many of its remaining insular possessions — Gibraltar, Jersey, the British Virgin Islands — into offshore tax havens. This allowed the wealthy to sequester their money, in dollars, under British jurisprudence while avoiding the regulations and taxation of poorer countries.

Perhaps the most disturbing story in the book involves, appropriately enough, Russia and Ukraine. Given the strategic importance of Ukraine as a purveyor of Russian gas, President Vladimir Putin installed a puppet to oversee the Ukrainian side of this business. This man was Dmitry Firtash, whose identity was long hidden. Once exposed, however, he was able to move to Britain under its “golden visa” scheme, which allowed anyone wealthy enough to immigrate in the name of “investment.”

Firtash partnered with an aristocrat named Raymond Asquith, who now holds a peerage in Parliament. He donated money to the University of Cambridge, was hosted by Parliament, opened the London Stock Exchange and even met the Duke of Edinburgh. His ascent through the British establishment was astonishing, and nobody thought to investigate where his money came from. This is just one example of how much Russian money flowed into Britain after 1991 and the political influence it purchased.

None of this would have been possible, Bullough argues, without the collusion of British lawmakers, or the bankers and lawyers with whom they had intimate ties. The bankers, for their part, gave the same two excuses: one, if we don’t do it, someone else will; two, our work will create wealth, reduce poverty and promote peace. (As the head of Goldman Sachs once modestly put it: “We’re doing God’s work.”) Most British lawmakers either looked the other way or drained the nation’s investigative agencies of money and resources in the name of austerity. This is in stark contrast to the United States, where agencies such as the FBI have far greater independence and power.

One can sense the urgency and dismay in Bullough’s writings. Britain is better than this, he says. But Britain chooses to be corrupt and complicit, otherwise please explain how money from India, Malaysia,, China, Russia, Myanmar, Arab states and many others were (and are being) poured into, to buy property, businesses, yachts, gold and every other conceivable asset? Modern Britain has poor, vulnerable Brits but these foreigners live in luxury and face low taxes! Even if money was “stolen” from poorer countries, many are able to stay with impunity. Extradition treaties are not honoured – otherwise London will lose its status as a major financial centre in the world!

Reference:

Why Britain welcomes international bad guys – and their money, reviewed by Balaji Revichandran, Washington Post, July 15, 2022