Facebook says AggregateIQ spent $2m on Brexit-related ads

We’ll thrash out a trade deal in time for Brexit, says DAVID DAVIS



DAVID Davis yesterday defied Brexit doom-mongers by predicting the Government will be ready to agree a trade deal with Brussels in time for Britain’s departure from the EU in 2019.

Jessica van der Meer: Paws for Thought: The High Court tackles PSPOs in a Landmark Judgment

The end of April 2018 was a big week for local government governance. In the same week that Ealing Council enacted a Public Spaces Protection Order (PSPO) to ban pro-life vigils from taking place outside a Marie Stopes clinic, the High Court handed down a landmark judgment dealing with PSPOs. The judgment is the first example of PSPOs being successfully challenged in the High Court.

Background  

PSPOs are one of the tools created by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 (‘the 2014 Act’), which came into force in October 2014, for councils to address anti-social behaviour in their local areas. The 2014 Act was designed to replace and streamline a number of previous measures, specifically The Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, the Highways Act 1980 and the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005.

PSPOs allow Councils to prohibit specific activities or require certain things to be done by people engaged in particular activities within a defined public area. The legislation provides for restrictions to be placed on behaviour that apply to everyone in that locality. It is also the latest attempt by Parliament to expand Anti-social Behaviour Orders and the reaches of criminal law. A breach of a PSPO will be an offence carrying, on summary conviction in the magistrate’s court, a fine not exceeding level 3 (max £1000). Hence Ealing Council’s decision to use a PSPO to ban pro-life vigils as an ‘activity’, rather than simply seeking to ban individuals; it is much more effective.

The Judgment in Summers

Summers v London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames [2018] EWCA 782 (Admin) is the first judgment dealing with the validity of a local authority’s PSPO. Caroline Summers, a resident and dog owner living in the London Borough of Richmond (‘Richmond’) sought to challenge the validity of Richmond’s dog control PSPO. Specifically, she challenged parts of the PSPO relating to the maximum number of dogs permitted to be walked by one person and certain parts of the PSPO relating to dogs being kept under “proper control”, specifically that dogs should not “cause annoyance” or cause damage to “Council structure, tree plant turf or other Council property.” She argued that Richmond had not validly created the PSPO because Richmond had not properly identified the detrimental effect of walking more than 4 dogs nor of dogs being “annoying”. Further, Richmond had failed to identify that the detrimental effect of the activities it was seeking to restrict was of a persistent or continuing nature. She also brought a discrimination claim as to the exemptions relating to assistance dogs. Although not disabled nor using an assistance dog herself, she challenged the exemptions on the basis that the prescribed charities listed three charities that were out-of-date and thus incorrect and potentially discriminatory, and that the requirement that assistance dogs be identified at all times when out in public was discriminatory.

Ultimately, Ms Summers was successful in quashing parts of Richmond’s PSPO relating to dogs “causing annoyance” and causing damage to “Council structure, tree plant turf or other Council property”, whilst the Council’s decision to restrict the maximum number of dogs that can be walked to 4 dogs per person was upheld as reasonable.

Key points from the Judgment

The judgment is important because it is the first substantive judicial analysis in relation to this new statutory framework that has increasingly larger consequences on the general public.

First, Mrs Justice May DBE re-affirmed what the various guidance relating to PSPOs had also articulated: PSPOS are intended to target behaviours that are seriously anti-social, not ones that are simply annoying.

Second, the judgment emphasises that local government is given a wide discretion in determining whether and what controls on certain behaviours or activities may be necessary. This is inferred from the 2014 Act generally, and supported by the statute specifically in several ways. The 2014 Act has not defined key terms such as ‘activities’ or ‘detrimental effect’ and ‘those in the locality’. The statute had also emphasised locality by defining those who can bring a statutory challenge to a PSPO, via section 66 of the 2014 Act, as “those in the locality” as well as those “who regularly visit or work in the restricted area”.

Thirdly, the judgment clarifies who can bring a statutory challenge. Standing is not approached in the same way as it is in judicial review claims, in these challenges it is much wider: an interested person is someone who lives or regularly visits or works in the restricted area (see section 66 of the 2014 Act). The Court did not accept the submission that the applicant needed to have an interest in the remedy sought; being an interested party was enough to bring a statutory challenge.

Fourthly, continuing the theme of judicial review’s application to statutory reviews, the Court concluded that any statutory review under section 66 is supervisory only. The court was clear too that a statutory review is grounded in a judicial review test rather than a merits-based assessment, and that ordinary Wednesbury principles would apply. In this case, which dealt with dog control and seeks to impose some criminal sanction on behaviour, the standard level of scrutiny under the Wednesbury principles applies, namely “Could a decision maker acting reasonably have reached this decision” (from Lord Lowrie, at 765H in R v Home Secretary ex p. Brind [1991] 1 AC 696) and Lord Denning’s statement in Ashbridge Investments Ltd v. Minister of Housing and Local Government [1965] 1 WLR 1320, at 1326:

“…a court can interfere with the minister’s decision if he has acted on no evidence, or if he has come to a conclusion to which on the evidence he could not reasonably come, or if he has given a wrong interpretation to the words of the statute; or if he has taken into consideration matters which he ought not to have taken into account, or vice versa, or has otherwise gone wrong in law.”

If a case comes before the Court that does deal with Convention rights, say for instance a freedom of assembly challenge is brought against Ealing Council’s decision to ban protestors outside the Marie Stopes clinic, then, following on from the logical conclusion of this Judgment, the High Court will need to be reviewing the PSPO at a higher level of scrutiny.

Finally, the question of whether a claimant could challenge a PSPO on the basis of the Equality Act still remains unclear. A literal reading of section 66 grounds of statutory application shuts out a challenge on the basis of the Equality Act. The High Court declined to state expressly that a PSPO that was discriminatory, or violated a provision of the Equality Act, must also be ultra vires.

What is clear from the judgment is that the High Court does not have jurisdiction to hear a discrimination claim brought against a local government that discriminates in the context of services and public functions (section 29 of the Equality Act 2010). By contrast, a claim for brought under section 149, the public sector equality duty, would have jurisdiction in the High Court. However, whether an equality act challenge would even get off the ground via section 66 is still unclear from this judgment. Mrs Justice May DBE suggested that “a final determination on this point will have to await another case where the point is more fully addressed” (para 88 of Judgment).

Conclusion

This is an important judgment in an area of law that will increasingly impact on the general public as local authorities come to grips with the full, expansive powers they have to address particular activities in public spaces. The judgment itself provides some guidance as to how Courts will scrutinise local government’s decisions, but it also leaves some legal questions unanswered.

Jessica van der Meer is a junior tenant at 2TG, active across the wide range of Chambers’ specialisations: professional negligence, commercial, international, public and sports law. She appeared as junior counsel to Martin Porter QC in Summers v London Borough of Richmond [2018].

(Suggested citation: J. van der Meer, ‘Paws for Thought: The High Court tackles PSPOs in a Landmark Judgment’, U.K. Const. L. Blog (26th Apr. 2018) (available at https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/))

News review – Thursday 26 April 2018

News review – Thursday 26 April 2018

Northern Ireland

Telegraph
The DUP has warned it will bring down Theresa May’s Government if Northern Ireland is forced to stay in the Single Market or Customs Union after Brexit.
Nigel Dodds, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party at Westminster, said his party would vote against the Government if any of its “red lines” on Brexit were crossed. It comes as Britain and the EU are deadlocked over how to ensure that there is no hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland after Brexit. Mr Dodds told the Conservativehome website: “If, as a result of the Brexit negotiations for instance, there was to be any suggestion that Northern Ireland would be treated differently in a way.

Independent
A solution to the Brexit Northern Ireland border problem realistically 
needs to be found before the European Council summit at the end of June, the European parliament’s Brexit chief has said. Guy Verhofstadt said the October deadline Britain is working to would be “late” for a deal on the border because other issues also needed to be agreed by the autumn. Mr Verhofstadt was speaking on Wednesday morning as UK Brexit Secretary David Davis admitted that a “substantial” agreement on the future relationship would need to be reached by October to avoid MPs rejecting the plan. But Mr Davis said on Tuesday that the UK was aiming to get a deal on Ireland “agreed by October”. Speaking at a hearing of the European parliament’s constitutional affairs committee, Brexit coordinator Mr Verhofstadt said: “Our hope is that we can find in June already, an agreement on this.

Mail
Democratic Unionists will bring down the Government if  Northern Ireland is forced to stay in a customs union after Brexit, the party warned last night.
Theresa May‘s governing partners said that leaving the customs union with the rest of the UK was an ‘absolute red line’. Nigel Dodds, leader of the DUP in Westminster, said his party could never accept a deal that led to Northern Ireland being treated differently from the rest of Britain. He told the Conservative Home website: ‘If, as a result of the Brexit negotiations, there was to be any suggestion that Northern Ireland would be treated differently – in a way for instance that we were part of a customs union and a single market and the rest of the UK wasn’t – for us that would be a red line, which we would vote against the Government, because you might as well have a Corbyn government pursuing openly its anti-Unionist policies as have a Conservative government doing it by a different means.’

Independent
The head of Northern Ireland’s civil service has privately warned Downing Street that the UK’s plan for the Irish border fails to solve the major problems caused by Brexit.
In a leaked private letter to Theresa May‘s Brexit chief seen by The Independent, David Sterling said the plans in the UK’s position paper on the Irish border suffered from a number of practical problems and did not address certain “issues”. He also raised concerns that Whitehall was not engaging closely enough with local NI officials with a good understanding of issues like the Good Friday Agreement and North-South cooperation. The customs proposals, which the UK government has still been trying to sell to EU negotiators Brussels as recently as last week, were first laid out in an official position paper on Northern Ireland and customs published in August last year.

Westmonster
The DUP’s Leader in the House of Commons, Nigel Dodds, has warned that an government u-turn on Northern Ireland remaining in a Customs Union whilst the rest of the UK left is a non-starter that his party would vote against.
Speaking to ConservativeHome, Dodds said: “For us there is the fact that if as a result of the Brexit negotiations for instance there was to be any suggestion that Northern Ireland would be treated differently, in a way for instance that we were part of a Customs Union and a Single Market and the rest of the UK wasn’t – if there was anything like the EU’s definition of the backstop arrangements that was agreed in December – for us that would be a red line, which we would vote against the government, because you might as well have a Corbyn government pursuing openly its anti-Unionist policies as have a Conservative government doing it by a different means.”

Guardian
Senior British officials privately conceded last year that the UK’s preferred solution for avoiding a hard border with the Republic after Brexit would threaten the EU’s single market and that all possible outcomes would be damaging for the province.
A series of leaked letters and briefing papers from the Northern Ireland executive – at least one of which was sent to Olly Robbins, the prime minister’s most senior Brexit adviser – lay bare the huge difficulties created by Brexit. The political “difficulty” of accepting the EU’s backstop solution of keeping Northern Ireland in the customs union and a large bulk of single market legislation was discussed. The documents even raise proposals to follow the Lichtenstein model – a set of agreements that allows that country to be in both the EU and Swiss economic area – only to conclude they are not an ideal fit for Northern Ireland.

Trade

Sun
THERESA May and her top Cabinet ministers last night agreed a high-risk plan to publish a long Brexit trade deal wish list in a bid to outmanoeuvre Brussels.
The PM’s Brexit war cabinet gave the green light to the bold bid to set the running for the summer’s tense negotiations ahead of an October deadline. The document will lay down a draft text of what Britain wants to see in the political statement with the 27 EU leaders over their future relationship with the UK. The EU outmanoeuvred Britain during divorce deal and transition period talks by laying down its own terms first, setting the agenda. But the strategy is also high risk, as Mrs May will face humiliation if she fails to win the significant majority of her public asks.

Westmonster
Theresa May’s government are set to lay out their demands for a trade deal with the European Union, in a document that could apparently be more than 50 pages long.
The Sun report that the government are keen to get on the front foot. No surprise given that Brussels has been able to absolutely dominate the negotiations so far. “We are not going to wait for Michel Barnier to box us in again. The PM wants us to set the agenda now, and the pace too.” That’s all fine and well but there is a critical element to this. Laying out demands means you need to be able to secure them – and you will require the leverage of being able to walk away. Have the government and Theresa May sufficiently prepared and considered this? No Deal is still better than a bad deal. And if the EU rejects the demands set out by the British government, they must be prepared to walk.

EU

Mail
British holidaymakers will be hit with a £6 fee every time they travel to the EU after Brexit under plans drawn up by the bloc.
They will be required to provide personal details and information about their recent movements in order to enter the EU. And they will also be obliged to answer questions about any criminal history. The plan, which was signed off by EU ambassadors yesterday, will fuel concerns about how the UK and the EU will reach agreement on a highly contentious deal on cross-border travel after Brexit. The entrance fee has been proposed as part of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System, which the EU insists is primarily a way of cutting down on illegal immigration and tracking criminals. The entrance fee has been proposed as part of the European Travel Information and Authorisation System, which the EU insists is primarily a way of cutting down on illegal immigration and tracking criminals.

Independent
The European Union is moving forward with plans to charge travellers coming from countries outside the single market a €7 “travel authorisation fee” to cross into its territory, under a new system of checks designed to improve security on the bloc’s borders.
British travellers are likely to be hit by the scheme after Brexit, which is set to apply to all visa-exempt countries outside the EU, except those in the EEA/EFTA, which maintain free movement with the union.  Under the new European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) people coming into the Schengen area would need to fill out an online form ahead of their trip and apply for travel authorisation, as well as pay the fee. Theresa May has ruled out membership of the single market and said freedom of movement will end when the UK leaves the bloc – meaning that negotiating an exemption for Britain is likely to prove difficult. A spokesperson for the European Commission’s Brexit negotiating team said the scheme’s application to the UK would be part of discussions on the future relationship, where chief negotiator Michel Barnier has so far been unwilling to cut special deals for Britain.

Labour Party

Times
The union leader Len McCluskey has accused centrist Labour MPs of smearing Jeremy Corbyn and trying to present the party as a “morass of misogyny, antisemitism and bullying”.
The general secretary of Unite, who is known as Labour’s kingmaker and whose union is its biggest donor, warned yesterday that “promiscuous critics” of the leader should expect to be censured and “held to account”. He named Chris Leslie, Neil Coyle, John Woodcock, Wes Streeting and Ian Austin among the “few dozen” MPs he said appeared to “wake up each morning thinking only, ‘how can I undermine Jeremy Corbyn today?’ ” The “Corbyn-hater MPs” were trying to “toxify” Labour and their factionalism “pollutes everything it touches”, he said in an article for the New Statesman.

Independent
Len McCluskey has accused “Corbyn-hater” Labour MPs of working in cahoots with Tory newspapers to undermine their leader, fuelling the party’s internal wars.
In a blistering attack, the boss of the powerful Unite union said the rebel MPs were “working overtime trying to present the Labour party as a morass of misogyny,  antisemitism and bullying”. He named Chris Leslie, Neil Coyle, John WoodcockWes Streeting and Ian Austin as being among “a dismal chorus whose every dirge makes winning a Labour government more difficult”. They were “smearing” a “decent and honourable man who has fought racism and antisemitism all his life”, Mr McCluskey claimed, adding: “To see Tory MPs cheer and applaud them was shameful”. The Unite general secretary said their actions made him “understand” the pressure from some on the left of the Labour party to make it easier to sack MPs. 

Mirror
One of Jeremy Corbyn’s closest allies has accused Labour MPs of “smearing” the party leader over anti-Semitism.
Len McCluskey made the bombshell claim as Mr Corbyn admitted “extreme regret” over members’ anti-Jewish hatred and hired lawyers to clear a 90-case backlog. A senior Labour spokesman today said Mr Corbyn was sorry for “pain and upset” caused by anti-Semitism and does not believe claims are a smear “in any way”. Yet the Unite general secretary writes in the New Statesman magazine: “You would have to go back a long way to find such a sustained smearing by MPs of their own leader and their own party as we are seeing now.” Mr McCluskey says “vile” anti-Semitic views do exist in Labour and members voicing them “have no place” in the party.

Plastic

Mail
Supermarkets and food and drink giants will today vow to kill off throwaway plastic.
In a world first, 42 household names have set a deadline of 2025 to eliminate packaging that cannot be reused. Black ready-meal trays, crisp packets, pizza bases and food pouches are all covered by the ‘UK Plastics Pact’. It represents another stunning victory for the Daily Mail’s ten-year campaign against the tide of plastic waste polluting our streets, fields, seas and oceans. Tesco, Sainsbury’s, Asda, Morrisons, Waitrose, Marks & Spencer, Aldi, Lidl and Pret a Manger have all signed the pact. They are joined by food and drink giants including Coca-Cola, Pepsico, Nestle, Unilever and Danone. Michael Gove backed the initiative last night. ‘Our ambition to eliminate avoidable plastic waste will only be realised if government, businesses and the public work together,’ said the Environment Secretary at the launch of the pact in London.

ITV News
Dozens of companies have signed up to efforts to eliminate unnecessary single-use plastic packaging by 2025, it has been announced.
Under the “UK Plastics Pact”, the businesses have also agreed targets to make 100% of their plastic packaging reusable, recyclable or compostable and to ensure 70% is effectively recycled or composted. The 42 firms, which include major food and drink brands, supermarkets, manufacturers, retailers and plastic re-processors, will also ensure that there is an average 30% recycled content across plastic packaging by 2025. The announcement of the pact comes amid widespread concern over the problem of plastic waste polluting the countryside and the world’s oceans where it can harm wildlife and enter the food chain.

Satellite

BBC News
The UK is considering plans to launch a satellite-navigation system as a rival to the EU’s Galileo project.
The move comes after the UK was told it would be shut out of key elements of the programme after Brexit. The UK has spent 1.4bn euros (£1.2bn) on Galileo, which is meant to be Europe’s answer to the US GPS system. Business Secretary Greg Clark is taking legal advice on whether the UK can reclaim the cash, according to the Financial Times. He told BBC News: “The UK’s preference is to remain in Galileo as part of a strong security partnership with Europe. “If Galileo no longer meets our security requirements and UK industry cannot compete on a fair basis, it is logical to look at alternatives.” The row centres around whether the UK can continue to be trusted with the EU’s most sensitive security information after Brexit. The UK’s armed forces were planning to use Galileo to supplement their use of the US GPS system, but press reports suggest they will now be blocked from doing so. The US retains the more accurate and robust GPS signals for its own armed forces.

Russia

Sun
A NEW Russian “doomsday machine” could trigger 300ft tsunamis and unleash radioactive fallout rains.
Vladimir Putin confirmed the Oceanic Multipurpose System Status-6 submarine – which is reportedly capable of carrying a 50-megaton nuclear warhead – was being developed last month. Status-6 is said to have a range of up to 6,200 miles with speeds reaching 56 knots, carrying warheads within range of the US. According to a Kremlin translation of Putin’s remarks, he claimed the drone which hardly has “any vulnerabilities for the enemy to exploit”, would be able to travel to “great depths”. Putin said: “[The] unmanned underwater vehicles can carry either conventional or nuclear warheads, which enables them to engage various targets, including aircraft groups, coastal fortifications and infrastructure.” Experts fear cities along the western coast of the USA will be at extreme risk of the radioactive fallout rains. Nuclear physicist Rex Richardson told Business Insider: “A well-placed nuclear weapon in the range of 20-megaton to 50-megaton near a sea coast could certainly couple enough energy to equal the 2011 tsunami and perhaps much more.

The post News review – Thursday 26 April 2018 appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

THE BREXIT WRECKERS

THE BREXIT WRECKERS

Since we voted OUT nearly two years ago, the Brexit wreckers have been busily trying to undermine the will of the people. The wreckers are not only the usual suspects sat in Brussels – they are also right here in London and Dublin.

One headline in today’s MSM caught my eyes. It’s in the Telegraph:

DUP threatens to bring down Theresa May’s Government if it crosses Customs Union red line

As far as the rest of the MSM are concerned, that’s a non-issue …

Let us recall – something our wrecker MPs and Lords seem to be incapable of – that the government pamphlet, sent out to all households in the UK, at a cost of £9 million paid for by us taxpayers, that Cameron’s government made two things starkly clear. One was that voting to Leave meant we would leave the Single Market and the Customs Union. The other was that the government would implement the vote of the people.

We all understood this. We’re not idiots. Despite Project Fear, Brexit is what we voted for. Our representatives however think we got it wrong and are working to scupper our will by hook and by crook.

Let us recall – again something our wrecker MPs and Lords are conveniently reluctant to do – that they, i.e. both Houses of Parliament, voted for holding a referendum and voted for the text on the referendum ballot. They knew perfectly well what this vote implied!

Now they wish this never happened, now they wish to put the genie, our Leave vote, back into the bottle. They, with the help of the MSM and Brussels, are doing their utmost to wreck what we voted for.

They thought then that we’d follow their lame arguments, their scare tactics, and vote Remain. They have been denigrating us ever since.

They have and are colluding with Brussels and Dublin, supported by the unprecedented treason of Whitehall. They have managed to turn the issue of regaining our Sovereignty into a scrabble for money by demanding we stay in the Single Market and Customs Union, something which profits some of the Big Global Businesses but not our people. I’ll just mention Fisheries …

The issue of the border between Eire and NI has been blown out of all proportions by Brussels, Eire and our Brexit wreckers because it’s apparently far too difficult to control properly the roads into NI. Some goods might escape paying tariffs – the horror! So they now use the threat of a recurrence of IRA terrorism should we actually leave to get us back in line. That is despicable!

But far worse still are two other issues. One is that the Brexit wreckers are blustering about representing the will of the people by scrutinising the proposed Brexit Treaty with Brussels to death, something which the Houses of Parliament have neglected to do over EU legislation ever since we joined the EU. Don’t think they do so because they are taking seriously their responsibility towards us, who voted them in. No – it’s because of money, their money.

How many ‘Lords’, how many MPs, haven’t had a little something from the EU! How much money has gone to the BBC from the EU, how many lovely dinner dates and invitations from ‘high-powered’ EU entities haven’t been handed out … all those glittering things which they will lose when we’re out. Having a pension from us for their work as MPs isn’t enough, is it, my Lords Clegg and Patten – no, your EU pensions are under threat if you don’t push the remain case. What is freedom from the ECJ compared to that!

Worse however is that all those Brexit wreckers, in their two-year campaign, have undermined our standing in the world. Listening to them one would think that Great Britain is a feeble entity, incapable of taking a single step in the horrible world without the help and guidance from our ‘friends’ across the Channel.

Isn’t it staggering that Mexico can achieve a free trade agreement with the EU without having to be in the Single Market and Customs Union, without agreeing to free movement of people? Does it even occur to our MPs and ‘Lords’ and MSM to ask their Brussels ‘partners’ why this cannot be offered to us, who have paid into Brussels coffers for decades?

One of the tenets in the UN Charter is that the people have a right to Independence. Let’s ask our Brexit wreckers how they can be staunch anti-colonialists on the one hand – they all deplore the history of our British Empire as ‘colonialist’ at the drop of a hat – but strive to keep us as colony of Brussels? How can they make noises about Independence, be it for Scotland or Wales or Catalonia, while striving to deny us Independence from Brussels?

It’s time for us Brexiteers to understand that the actual colonialists are sitting in our Houses of Parliament. We, the voters, are the ones colonised. They, working with those across the Channel, strive to keep us in bondage while playing their own power games: another snap election (see here) so that Corbyn’s Labour can ‘give’ us another referendum, a referendum which, with the massed powers of Brussels and our MSM they aim to win. For access to their filthy lucre which we provide with our taxes …

In some dark hours I think that even the voices of prominent Brexiteers are only allowed to be heard because those who really pull the strings still think they have the power to make Brexit go away. While we have squabbled amongst ourselves, it looks as if they are going to get away with it. Paraphrasing G.K. Chesterton’s aphorism about Christianity, it’s as if Independence, which we accorded to all our former colonies, is now too difficult for us in Great Britain to achieve and should not even be tried. Using another biblical imagery, the Brexit wreckers prefer to stay with the fleshpots of the Brussels pharaohs, our slavery notwithstanding. 

As for us – will we let Brexit die with a whimper?

 

The post THE BREXIT WRECKERS appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Brexit Fuels Talk of United Ireland Even as Loyalists Hold Firm

For Damian McGenity, a farmer in Northern Ireland, Brexit is pushing Irish unity back on the agenda. “Before Brexit, the only people talking about a united Ireland were politicians; it wasn’t on the horizon, but now it’s in people’s minds,” the ...

Thursday briefing: Another bite out of May’s Brexit

Hello, it’s Warren Murray with the right things to be in the know about. A bitter row has erupted between Brexiters and the House of Lords after it threw out a bid to give ministers, rather than parliament, sweeping control over powers brought back from ...
Powered by WordPress | Designed by: index backlink | Thanks to insanity workout, car insurance and cyber security