Year: 2017

At the 1996 Atlanta Olympics, Great Britain took home only one gold medal, placing them 36th in the medal table behind countries such as Algeria, Kazakhstan and North Korea. For self-proclaimed “Great” Britain, this was an embarrassment. And so, John Major decided enough was enough: lottery money would be used to fund UK sport, improvements would be made in terms of coaching, and Britain would be “Great” again.

Twenty years later at the 2016 Olympics in the beautiful Brazilian city of Rio De Janeiro, Great Britain finished second in the medal table with a mammoth 27 gold medals. To put this achievement into context, China placed third in the medal table with 26 gold medals. China have a population of 1.3 billion while Britain have a population of 65 million. Thus, China’s gold medal per capita was roughly one gold medal per 50 million citizens and Great Britain’s gold medal per capita was roughly one gold medal per 2.4 million citizens — around 20 times the size of China’s. It really was a brilliant summer for British sport. But what lessons can be learnt (if any) in relation to Brexit?

For some, this was evidence that we can stand on our own two feet. Great Britain, the tiny island with a population of only 65 million, competing on a global stage with the very best, ranked high above most other countries. In an interview following his gold medal victory in the 100m breaststroke, swimmer Adam Peaty said that he wanted to “thank the whole of Britain, my country, the Royal family and everything that makes me proud to be British.” In addition, Nigel Farage was quick to make political capital of Great Britain’s Olympic success, tweeting that this was evidence that “we are good enough.” But was Mr Farage right?

Go @TeamGB! Loving the Olympics. We are good enough!

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) August 14, 2016

Others may argue that Britain owed its Olympic success to the liberal immigration policy it has adopted over the last few decades. For example, national treasure Mo Farah arrived in Britain as a child from Somalia. When Farah moved to Britain aged 8, he barely knew a word of English. But in London, Farah found a home. His English improved through his education at Isleworth and Syon School, and later Feltham Community College. In England, Farah made the transition from boy to man. Nobody knew then that they were looking at a superstar, but oh did he become one.

Arguably, Farah encapsulates the current problem with debates about immigration policy. If the UK adopted an Australian style points-based immigration system, or pressed ahead with Theresa May’s proposed plan to only accept migrant workers who earn £35,000 a year, the UK immigration system would only assess perceived ability at the point of application. What would be overlooked, however, would be an applicant’s full potential.

Nobody knew Farah would become a gold-medal winning athlete. Realistically, how could they? Assessing someone’s potential is almost impossible, as it depends on a multitude of factors ranging from an element of luck to motivation. But, Britain gave Farah the chance to become the superstar he is today, and he took it.

Similarly, British cyclist and three-time winner of the Tour De France, Chris Froome, was born and raised in Nairobi, Kenya. He moved to South Africa aged 14, where he then lived for several years. From 2008 onwards, Froome rode in the races under a British license due to the fact both his parents are English. Thus, Chris Froome, with his geographically diasporic background, is living evidence that national identities are dynamic and complex.

So, are Brexiteers like Mr Farage right? Did Great Britain owe its success in the summer Rio Olympics to the patriotic renewal generated from Brexit? Or did Britain’s 2016 sporting triumphs derive from historically tolerant attitudes towards immigration?

The answers to those questions are subjective. But, this debate in itself is very telling of the biggest impact of the EU referendum: instead of simply watching the Olympics and enjoying British sporting success stories, we debated politics. By “we”, I do not mean politicos who have always discussed these issues, but members of the everyday public were discussing what Great Britain’s Olympics success meant for Brexit. Undoubtedly, the EU referendum politicised Britain, be that for better or for worse.

George Santayana argued that those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. It is important that lessons are learnt from the British sporting triumphs of 2016, reminding us that national identities are not static or fixed. Rather, they are complex and dynamic, constantly being shaped and reproduced. Arguably, Mo Farah is emblematic of the Great British success story: an immigrant Britain gave the chance to be the superstar he is today.

Richard Brooks, the National Union of Students’ (NUS) Vice-President, has been implicated in an attempted plot to oust Malia Bouattia, as revealed by an undercover Al Jazeera investigation.

Brooks was secretly filmed by the undercover reporter, claiming that he played a significant role in attempts to undermine Bouattia.

The undercover reporter claimed to be a political activist linked to Shai Masot, the Israeli diplomat who was caught out prior to these revelations plotting to “take down” MPs he viewed as hostile to Israel.

When asked if Brooks knew how to get in touch with people who opposed Bouattia, Brooks told the reporter, he could “speak to me, because I’ve been organising them”.

The investigation by Al Jazeera also revealed that Brooks had visited Israel on a trip paid for by the Union of Jewish Students (UJS) and alleges that Brooks was involved in secret meetings prior to Bouattia’s election with Russel Langer, the UJS campaign director.

According to the Al Jazeera investigation, Michael Rubin, who at the time of Bouattia’s election was National Chair of Labour students, told them that in secret meetings with Brooks they would plan “how to get moderate people with good politics and any number of things elected to certain places.”

He also told the reporter that he worked “with the ambassador and embassy quite a lot” and stated that Bouattia was “really bad” and “awful”.

Bouattia has been repeatedly accused of anti-Semitism, often referencing her description of Birmingham as a “Zionist outpost”.

A report published last year by the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee claimed that Bouattia “does not appear to take sufficiently seriously the issue of anti-Semitism on campus”.

In response to these allegations, many involved in the NUS have tweeted their responses, including Hareem Ghani, Women’s Officer for the NUS who stated: “Just going to say it as it is, I’ve never been so disappointed work for this organisation [sic]. Solidarity to @MaliaBouattia.”

Richard Brooks however called the claims “wrong and offensive”, tweeting his response in which he states: “It’s no surprise to anybody who knows me, or has heard me speak publicly, that myself and Malia don’t see eye to eye… It’s therefore not a shock or an exposé that I politically organise against what I think to be an ineffectual and damaging Presidency for Students’ Unions and students.”

He added that he was “proud to stand with UJS in ensuring everyone feels they have voiced in our open, inclusive, democratic debates”.

However he claims to have never met, to his knowledge, someone from the Israeli Government, instead arguing that “the ‘exposé’ documentary shows me saying that I do politics and disagree with the far left. None of these thing [sic] are surprises.”

The Campaigns Director for UJS, Josh Nagli said in a Facebook post that, “our work taking student leaders to Israel and Palestine is not secret, it’s even mentioned on UJS’ Wikipedia page, and the fact that some participants choose not to broadcast their experiences reflects the toxic nature of student politics”.

He added that “the insidious suggestion that Jewish students — or Jews in Britain more broadly — slavishly support specific government policies or actions, conspire with or take direction from Israeli officials, is grossly offensive”.

When asked for a statement on the allegations, an NUS spokesperson told The Mancunion the “NUS takes these allegations seriously. We are looking into them and, when we have all the information available, the behaviour of NUS officers will be reviewed and appropriate action taken”.

The revelations surrounding Richard Brooks were not the only Israeli influence within the student movement uncovered by the six month investigation. The undercover reporter alleges that the Israeli embassy is influencing students and founding youth groups in an attempt to infiltrate the UK student movement.

The reporter was offered support by Israeli diplomat Masot to set up a new pro-Israel group. Masot boasted to the reporter that he had been involved in setting up a youth branch of Conservative Friends of Israel and was involved in the youth arm of the Fabian Society, a Labour party think-tank.

He offered the reporter a job running the youth wing of Labour Friends of Israel, as “there’s no-one who’s educating the grassroots of the party… Specifically in the Labour. Conservatives don’t need it.”

The Israeli Embassy released a statement when Masot’s remarks concerning hostile MP’s were released, apologising for his comments and stating that he would be “ending his term of employment with the embassy shortly”.

The Mancunion has contacted the Israeli Embassy for a further statement about these allegations, and has reached out to Malia Bouattia and the Union of Jewish Students for comments.

This is a developing story and will be updated.