The Commonwealth is often seen as a benign imperial relic that promotes co-operation, trade and pluralism across the world. But this is much too generous an interpretation. The Commonwealth has already inflicted immense damage on the fabric of British society by accelerating mass immigration and distorting the integrity of our voting system. It could soon do much worse if our politicians surrender to the present demands from other member states for massive compensation payouts over slavery.

At this week’s Commonwealth summit in the Caribbean, our increasingly unimpressive Prime Minister Andy Burnham – whose style of governance seems to be based on weakness, waffle and wishful-thinking – agreed to a “time-bound, good-faith” process for making a formal apology for Britain’s role in the development of slavery. Behind the veneer of compassion, there’s a monstrous streak of virtue-signalling egotism about this proposed gesture, with Burnham deciding that he has the moral stature to serve as the judge and financial arbiter of our past.

The slave trade was, of course, one of the darkest crimes in the story of mankind, though recent historical research indicates it was less important to the British economy of the 18th century than many reparations campaigners admit. Moreover, Britain played a crucial part in its abolition, particularly through the Royal Navy’s command of the seas, while the determination to suppress the slave trade was sometimes a factor in the missionary zeal that infused the expansion of the British Empire during the Victorian age.

In 1894, for instance, the British Foreign Secretary Lord Rosebery justified the annexation of Uganda on the grounds of “the need to put down this iniquitous traffic,” as he told the British and Foreign anti-Slavery Society. It was, incidentally, Rosebery who, a decade earlier, had coined the phrase “the Commonwealth of Nations” to describe the British Empire.

His words implied a sense of unity where none existed. As the empire faded from existence after the Second World War, the British establishment tried to turn the Commonwealth into a kind of post-imperial, globalist substitute. But this new agglomeration has never really worked. It has neither purpose nor power. Its summits are orgies of meaningless verbiage. . It cannot even claim to be an advocate for democracy since several of its 56 members are authoritarian regimes.

It is a bitter irony that the only real cohesion in the Commonwealth is provided by anti-British grievances, led by the agitation for reparations. Contrary to the assertion yesterday by Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband that an apology would not cost the taxpayers anything, such a step could be taken as an admission of liability, which would open the floodgates to a deluge of expensive legal claims.

Indeed, Burnham’s offer this week of £40million in green energy support for Caribbean governments “to atone” for the slave trade is a drop in the ocean compared to the gargantuan payments demanded by the reparations lobby. In 2023, a report from the Brattle Group of lawyers ,historians and economists, led by UN judge Patrick Robinson, argued that Britain “owes” no less than £18trillion in reparations.

That sum is more than five times the entire annual output of the British economy. Any attempt to meet even a small fraction of this total would swiftly lead to national humiliation and financial ruination. The Commonwealth already exerts far too great an influence over Britain. Absurdly, without any change in their nationality, Commonwealth citizens are allowed to vote in British elections if they take up residence here.

It can also be easier for Commonwealth migrants to settle here, which helps to explain why an estimated 2.5 million have done so. By indulging in extortion, the Commonwealth is now at risk of looking like a protection racket. Resolve, not cowardice is needed in the face of this bullying.

Despite his fondness for Everton, a pint of bitter and a packet of pork scratchings, the Prime Minister’s blokeish image cannot conceal his attachment to the advanced woke agenda. As Mayor of Greater Manchester he appointed an LGBT+ panel, hired an LGBT+ adviser and made a formal apology to the LGBT community for their shameful treatment at the hands of the local police.

Now in Downing Street he is just as immersed in identity politics. Only last week he announced that he is recruiting a Muslim adviser, while his government is planning to introduce a new definition of Islamophobia.

With Burnham at the helm, priorities will continue to be warped across the public realm. So the NHS Foundation Trust in Swindon urges “white-identifying” staff to sign up for its “disrupt racism” course, where they will learn “how to address injustice not just around you but within you”. Indoctrination can also be found at OFWAT, the useless water regulator which has hosted 25 diversity sessions over the last two years, covering events such as World Narcolepsy Day, and Net Zero Week.

Just as perverse is the conduct of the City Bridge Foundation in London which was established in I282 to build and maintain the capital’s bridges. Its endowment is now worth £1.5billion, but, gripped by the current virtue-signalling mania that has swept through corporate Britain, the charity has been dishing out cash for causes that have little to do with bridge maintenance, like diversity, racial injustice and climate change. Typical is the £1million grant to a group called Spectra “to build capacity in the trans and sex-worker sector”. What the charity really needs is a bridge back to reality.

President Trump promised his military campaign against Iran would bring regime change. Well, it has happened, though not in the way he predicted. The change has been in Texas rather than Tehran, Kansas instead of Kashan.

Trump’s meltdown echoes that of Boris Johnson, another maverick with an eccentric hairstyle and compelling voice, who seemed to have broken the traditional mould of politics, only to create a tidal wave of disillusion with broken promises. Trump’s disastrous war has been the equivalent of Boris’s failure to control immigration. Just like Boris, Trump is paying a heavy price for his betrayal of his voters.

Dismal performance from Haigh

The position of First Secretary of State is an odd one. It has no specific duties, is often left unfilled and was only created in 1962 as a consolation prize for the Tory grandee Rab Butler who, despite his talent, narrowly missed out on the premiership several times. Today’s incumbent is Louise Haigh, who was forced to resign as Transport Secretary under Sir Keir Starmer after revelations of her conviction for fraud before she became an MP. Brought back into the Cabinet by Burnham, she made her debut this week at the despatch box in her (newish) role. It cannot be said that she was a roaring success. Her voice lacked confidence; her attempts at humour fell flat.

In her nervousness, she stuck rigidly to her script, a tactic that just reinforced her wooden style. She is not in the same league as some of her predecessors like Michael Heseltine, and Barbara Castle – or even the perpetually disappointed Butler.

ANDY BURNHAM JUST SHOWED HOW WEAK HE IS – HIS SURRENDER COULD COST THE UK TRILLIONS!

Andy Burnham is facing fierce criticism over his approach to Britain’s relationship with the European Union, with opponents warning that his willingness to make concessions to Brussels could leave British taxpayers and businesses paying a heavy price.

The Prime Minister’s latest comments have reignited the Brexit debate and raised serious questions about Britain’s negotiating position.

For critics, this is not a sign of diplomatic strength. They believe Burnham is approaching negotiations from a position of weakness, seemingly more interested in securing an agreement with Brussels than defending Britain’s national interests.

The controversy comes as the government prepares for a major UK-EU summit on November 20, where agreements covering trade, energy, youth mobility and other areas of cooperation are expected to be discussed.

But behind the promises of economic growth lies a much bigger question: what exactly will Britain have to give up in return?

Brussels Sees an Opportunity

Burnham has repeatedly argued that Brexit has done more harm than good and that Britain needs a closer relationship with its largest trading partner.

He has even opened the door to considering full EU membership in the longer term.

However, European leaders have made clear that Britain cannot simply return and demand the benefits it previously enjoyed while rejecting the responsibilities of membership.

French President Emmanuel Macron has warned against allowing Britain to pick and choose which European rules it wishes to follow.

Former EU Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has also stressed that any future membership negotiations would involve accepting the fundamental principles of the European project.

For Brexit supporters, these statements should serve as a warning.

They argue that Britain must approach Brussels as an independent country with its own demands, not as a government desperate to reverse the referendum result.

The Financial Cost Could Be Enormous

One of the biggest concerns involves the financial implications of closer European integration.

Britain could face additional contributions to European programmes, financial commitments connected with energy cooperation and potentially much larger payments if it ever sought to rejoin the EU.

Critics have also raised concerns about the costs of student exchange arrangements and other agreements negotiated with Brussels.

The exact figures depend on the arrangements ultimately agreed.

There is no established evidence that Burnham’s current proposals will cost Britain trillions of pounds. Nevertheless, opponents argue that long-term commitments must be examined carefully before taxpayers are asked to foot the bill.

Britain already faces substantial public debt and significant pressure on government finances.

The question is whether closer European cooperation will generate enough economic benefit to justify the additional costs.

The £17 Billion Economic Promise

The government has defended its approach by pointing to the potential economic benefits of a closer relationship with Europe.

Burnham has said that the proposed agreements could increase Britain’s GDP by approximately 0.4 per cent.

Ministers believe reduced food trade barriers, improved energy cooperation and a youth mobility agreement could benefit businesses and consumers.

Supporters argue that these arrangements could create jobs, improve exports and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy.

However, critics question whether the projected benefits will materialise and whether the government is being sufficiently transparent about the financial obligations involved.

They also warn that an increase in GDP does not automatically translate into higher living standards for every household.

The Commonwealth Question

Another controversial issue concerns Britain’s relationship with Commonwealth countries.

Critics argue that the government should be strengthening Britain’s global trading relationships rather than concentrating so heavily on Brussels.

The Commonwealth represents a network of countries with which Britain shares historical, diplomatic and commercial connections.

Opponents of Burnham’s European strategy believe that Britain should pursue opportunities across Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and the Pacific.

They argue that a genuinely independent trading nation should not become overly dependent on a single regional economic relationship.

The government, however, maintains that stronger European cooperation and wider international trade are not mutually exclusive.