Martin Callanan

Conservative Peer. Ex-Minister for Energy Efficiency and Green Finance. Formerly in DexEU and DfT. Proud Geordie and Toon fan.

[Daniel Hannan @DanielJHannan]

Yes, the monarchy was deeply implicated in the slave trade. But not the British monarchy.
The biggest African slavers were not pirates or bandits. They were kings. In the 1750s, King Tegbesu of Dahomey, in present-day Benin, was reported to be making £250,000 a year from selling slaves. That astronomical sum, equivalent to perhaps £45 million today, was vastly more than any British aristocrat
While Tegbesu was trafficking human beings, the future George III, who had recently become Prince of Wales, was becoming a convinced abolitionist. He wrote a monograph arguing that “slavery is equaly [sic] repugnant to the Civil Law as to the Law of Nature”. He went on, as King, to sign the abolition of the slave trade into law in 1807.
That act prompted incredulous rage among West African chiefs.
In the 1840s, King Ghezo of Dahomey, played by John Boyega in the 2022 film, The Woman King, fiercely resisted such pressure.
“The slave trade is the ruling principle of my people. It is the source and the glory of their wealth,” he complained.
Contrast his attitude with that of his British fellow-monarchs. Although Victoria, as Queen, was expected to refrain from expressing political opinions, her husband was under less constraint. Albert made his very first speech as Prince Consort to the Society for the Extinction of the Slave Trade and for the Civilization of Africa. His words are a reminder of how determined Britain was to ensure that ending the Atlantic slave trade did not simply push the commerce eastwards.
“I deeply regret that the benevolent and persevering exertions of England to abolish that atrocious traffic in human beings (at once the desolation of Africa and the blackest stain upon civilized Europe) have not as yet led to any satisfactory conclusion. But I sincerely trust that this great country will not relax in its efforts until it has finally, and for ever, put an end to a state of things so repugnant.”
The difference between the British Crown and contemporary African monarchies can be glimpsed in the story of Aina, a young Yoruba girl owned by King Ghezo of Dahomey.
In 1850, a naval captain called Frederick Forbes came to Dahomey to try to convince Ghezo to stop selling slaves. He was unsuccessful but, during his visit, he was offered Aina as a gift.
Forbes knew that such slaves were generally destined for human sacrifice, so he accepted the child, naming her Sara Forbes Bonetta. When Sara arrived in Britain, Queen Victoria became her godmother, paid for her education and arranged for her to marry a wealthy Yoruba businessman. Are the British really the baddies here?
Critics talk of telling our nation’s story “warts and all”; but they rarely get around to the “and all”. The “and all” surely includes the vast sums devoted to stamping out slavery, calculated by Chaim Kaufmann and Robert Pape as 1.8 per cent annually of GDP between 1808 and 1867, the most expensive moral foreign policy in human history. Even if there were a case for reparations in principle (which there is not) that sum alone – not counting the billions given in aid – would surely have covered any debt.
What we are seeing is not a debate about history, but an argument about contemporary politics. Critics want to convince us that Britain became rich through exploitation rather than, as was actually the case, through private property, free contracts and independent courts.
The easiest way to demonstrate the negative correlation between capitalism and slavery is to look at the places where human bondage is most prevalent today – in order, North Korea, Eritrea, Burundi, the Central African Republic and Mauritania. If William III owning shares in the Royal African Company bothers you more than the continuing abomination of slavery in those places, you need to ask yourself some hard questions about your motives.

[Alicia Kearns MP @aliciakearns]

Jonathan Powell’s position as National Security Adviser is untenable.

His repeated meetings with the CCP were disclosed not by the British Government, but by Chinese Communist Party read outs, and serious questions remain over his role in the collapsed China spy case.

He is responsible for the Government’s disastrous Chagos negotiations and still advocates giving away billions in taxpayer money to surrender a British territory.

He has refused to appear before many Parliamentary committees.

Now, concerning material shared publicly by his wife raises further questions about his judgement and sharing access to sensitive information.

If he were a Minister, he would have to appear in front of Parliament to answer for these glaring concerns.

Instead, the man running our foreign policy and national security refuses any scrutiny.

https://t.co/E0tjhvtOyW

[Martin Callanan @MartinCallanan]

RT @HLConservatives: Today, Lord Callanan asked Caninet Office Minister, Baroness Twycross, how Sarah Helm, the wife of National Security A…

[Martin Callanan @MartinCallanan]

@TheNewsAgents Of course it should be binned. But what’s annoying about this discussion is that they have no understanding that US has a legal veto due to an existing treaty. Even if he wanted to, Burnham can’t proceed without Trump’s and Parliaments support.

[David Wolfson @DXW_KC]

A Conservative gov’t fought to defend the Falklands. A Labour gov’t signed away sovereignty over the Chagos Islands.

That’s the problem with projecting weakness: others notice.

We should resolutely defend our territory, our sovereignty and our national interests. Everywhere.

[Conservative Peers @HLConservatives]

Today, Lord Effingham asked a Private Notice Question about the Government’s planned early release of two of PC Harper's killers halfway through their custodial sentences.

Conservative peers resisted the early release of criminals for months. But despite that Conservative opposition, the Government passed the legislation with the help of the Liberal Democrats.

[Conservative Peers @HLConservatives]

WATCH: Today, Lord True argued for proper Parliamentary scrutiny of the Prime Minister's policies.

Having changed the programme in the House of Commons to avoid Parliamentary scrutiny, the Government has once again blocked Parliamentary scrutiny in the House of Lords with the support of the Liberal Democrats.

Only the Conservatives are standing up for Parliament's right to hold the Government to account.

[Conservative Peers @HLConservatives]

The House of Lords will begin debating Lord True’s business of the House motion to enable Parliamentary scrutiny of the Prime Minister’s policies in the House of Lords at 3.25pm today.

Today's motion, if passed, will enable a debate on following motion tomorrow:

Lord True to move that this House takes note of the Prime Minister’s statements regarding the policies of His Majesty’s Government.

Watch here: https://t.co/NvAr1VuvJj

[Conservative Peers @HLConservatives]

Tonight the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Lords, Lord True, tabled a business of the House motion to enable ministers to come to the House of Lords and answer questions on the Prime Minister’s policies. If passed, this motion would ensure the Prime Minister’s announcements are subject to proper Parliamentary scrutiny before the summer recess.

If the initial motion is passed on Tuesday, peers will debate the below “take note” motion on Wednesday, allowing peers to ask questions of ministers and scrutinise the Government’s announcements:

Lord True to move that this House takes note of the Prime Minister’s statements regarding the policies of His Majesty’s Government.

Read Lord True’s letter to all peers here👇

[David Wolfson @DXW_KC]

Sir Hubert Pommebois (Sir Humphrey Appleby’s Bruxellois cousin) has produced a masterpiece
(h/t @alemannoEU)

[Mark Wallace @wallaceme]

I’ve never been to Moscow, but I must say that the footage going round today really makes me want to see more videos of its skyline.

[Mark Wallace @wallaceme]

Finally, a proportionate response to people playing music out loud on their phone.

[Martin Callanan @MartinCallanan]

Hilarious confected outrage from these PA protesters that they might be made to cough up for the damage they caused. I hope more companies will do the same.

[Steven Swinford @Steven_Swinford]

Breaking:

Donald Trump's latest broadside against Keir Starmer: 'It's not Winston Churchill we're dealing with'

He says the UK's refusal to alllow the US to use Diego Garcia meant that US bombers had to 'fly many extra hours'

'I'm not happy with the UK either. That island that you write about, for whatever reason he made a lease of the island. Somebody came and took it away from him. It has taken 3-4 days to work out where we can land.

'It would have been much more convenient landing there as opposed to flying many extra hours. We are very surprised. This is not Winston Churchill that we're dealing with'

[Times Radio @TimesRadio]

“The stupidity of that decision allowing international lawyers of a dubious provenance to determine the national interest of the United Kingdom is a disaster for transatlantic relations.”

The special relationship has reached a new low, says @AfNeil.

[Martin Callanan @MartinCallanan]

RT @HLConservatives: Tonight, the Leader of the Opposition, Lord True, replied to today’s statement on Iran and the conflict in the Middle…

[Martin Callanan @MartinCallanan]

Great to see Vlad’s concern for morality and international law….🙄

[Martin Callanan @MartinCallanan]

If this is true then it’s fatal for Starmer’s treaty. It contains a crazy clause saying that Mauritius must be informed ‘expeditiously’ if base is used for an attack.

[Connor Stringer @connorstringer]

🚨EXC: w/@Tony_Diver 🚨

Donald Trump is refusing to back Sir Keir Starmer’s Chagos deal again unless the Prime Minister allows the US to use the islands to strike Iran.

The US president is understood to have asked to use Diego Garcia as part of contingency planning for potential bombing raids.

However, Downing Street is concerned that supporting any such strikes by Mr Trumpwould breach international law.

US officials have also demanded confirmation in writing that America will not be required to tell Mauritius about attacks launched from the base after the sovereignty of the islands is transferred.

Ministers are now concerned that it will not be possible to resolve the situation before the end of a 10-week deadline to return the Chagos bill – legislation that underpins the deal – to Parliament for the approval of MPs.

https://t.co/RBbcC1s3iI

[Martin Callanan @MartinCallanan]

Great article by Dan Hannan on Starmer’s Chagos surrender. https://t.co/6H2OMHfMBi

[Daniel Hannan @DanielJHannan]

CHAGOS: AN APPEAL TO LABOUR
There is, as I keep pointing out, no enthusiasm for the Diego Garcia surrender on the Labour benches. Its only supporters are Keir Starmer, Richard Hermer, Philippe Sands, Peter Mandelson and Jonathan Powell.
Even a month ago, Labour cannot have imagined quite how awful the politics would become. They are handing away a pristine marine conservation zone, betraying a dispossessed black population and paying billions of pounds more to Mauritius than it would cost to resettle the outer atolls with Chagossians.
Now they are ordering the eviction of those Chagossians who have returned home to stake their claim.
Think about that.
We won’t stop small boats in the Channel, but we lose no time in ordering the removal of British subjects from British territory.
We are slow and reluctant when it comes to deporting illegal immigrants, but we snap into action to evict British Overseas Citizens from a British Overseas Territory.
Labour friends, this is not why you went into politics.
You can see as clearly as the rest of us how shameful all this is. You know that, under any other Labour leader, the whole project would have been dropped long ago.
Well, here is your last chance. Donald Trump has given you a final off-ramp. For the love of justice and decency, take it. If that means replacing Starmer with someone more sensible, so be it.