Posts Tagged ‘UK BREXIT’

Theresa May briefs cabinet on Brexit negotiations – politics live

Rolling coverage of the day’s political events including the latest developments in the Brexit saga

The UK police’s ability to tackle serious and organised crime could be “significantly impacted” by a no-deal Brexit, the chief of the National Crime Agency has warned.

It's always an early start but today is especially so as I head off to @BBCRadio4. The threat from serious & organised crime, the risks of a solely reactive policing response & why it's time to review capacity/capability

We are working very closely with our policing partners because we are deeply concerned about the consequences of a no-deal Brexit.

We have been clear from the very beginning that our ability to share intelligence, our ability to jointly investigate - in this world where there are no borders because of technology - could be significantly impacted, particularly through the use of the Schengen information system, European arrest warrants and our ability to deploy overseas.

Whenever I talk to my operational partners overseas, they see there is two-way benefit, but, of course, we aren’t politicians.

David Davis’ former chief of staff was under fire on Tuesday for tweeting that the family of a sick child were cretins because of an EU-flag bedcover, writes my colleague Jessica Elgot.

Tory Brexiteers fuming this morning about Jackson. "It tars all Brexiteers with this vile brush. It’s a real worry that a man with such appalling judgment could be Chief of Staff in No10 if DD ousts the PM," one texts.

David Davis’s chief of staff calls hospitalised child a “pathetic cretin” for… some reason

Continue reading...

Remainer or Leaver? The emergence of the Brexit identity prism

ian montaguBritons used to identify as supporters of a political party. Now they are more likely to identify themselves as a ‘Remainer’ or a ‘Leaver’. Ian Montagu (ScotCen) looks at the challenges this new political divide presents as Britain prepares to leave the EU.

The past half-century has seen a more or less continuous decline in the number of voters who say that they identify with a political party. While this development has meant that the choices made by many voters may now be more likely to reflect their policy preferences, it has also been seen as resulting in an electorate that is more difficult to motivate to turn out and vote in the first place.


Photo: Ros Taylor

In the wake of Brexit, however, it appears that new political identities may have emerged. Sara Hobolt has argued that voters have developed a sense of emotional attachment with being a ‘Remainer’ or a ‘Leaver’, and that these identities have in turn become a prism through which the Brexit debate is interpreted.

New research undertaken using NatCen’s mixed-mode random probability panel supports this claim. Brexit identities are now much more prevalent than traditional party identities – while 31% of people don’t think of themselves as a supporter of a political party, only 11% don’t think of themselves as a ‘Remainer’ or a ‘Leaver’. Even more tellingly, 44% say that they are a ‘very strong’ Remainer or Leaver, while only 9% say they identify ‘very strongly’ with a political party.

This development might go some way to explaining why, as the WhatUKThinks Poll of Polls illustrates, support for both Remain and Leave has been so stable during the Brexit negotiations. Those with strong Brexit identities are particularly unlikely to change their minds about the merits of their decision in 2016 – 99% of ‘very strong’ and 94% of ‘fairly strong’ Remainers report that they would vote the same way again, as do 98% of ‘very strong’ and 94% of ‘fairly strong’ Leavers.

Those with a strong Brexit identity often have distinctive views about some of the key issues in the debate about Britain’s future relationship with the EU. For example, while requiring migrants from the EU to apply to come to Britain in the same way as those from outside the EU is relatively popular among Remainers as well as Leavers, a far lower proportion of those who identify ‘very strongly’ with Remain are in favour of this idea.

This pattern is echoed in voters’ attitudes to whether or not Britain should allow freedom of movement for EU citizens in return for the continuation of free trade with the EU. While most Remainers are divided between those who think that Britain ‘probably should’ be willing to strike such a deal and those who believe that it ‘probably should not’, a relatively high proportion of ‘very strong’ Remainers (62%) believe that Britain ‘definitely should’ allow free movement in return for free trade. Similarly, while 18% of ‘not very strong’ Leavers believe that Britain ‘definitely should not’ allow free movement in return for free trade, at 41% the proportion of ‘very strong’ Leavers who feel that Britain ‘definitely should not’ strike such a deal is more than twice this size.

Those with a strong Brexit identity also make a different assessment of how likely or unlikely it is that Britain will emerge with a good deal from the EU – those who identify ‘very strongly’ with Remain are most likely to think that Britain will emerge with a bad deal, while ‘very strong’ Leavers are most likely to believe that Britain will negotiate a good deal.

Finally, the strength of voters’ Brexit identity is reflected in who they believe is to blame for the prospect of a bad deal, with ‘very strong’ Remainers particularly likely to feel that the UK government has been handling the talks badly and ‘very strong’ Leavers especially critical of the EU. Both groups are seemingly attributing blame in a way that reinforces their existing views, with Leavers inclined to blame the EU because they dislike the institution itself while Remainers lay the fault at the door of the UK government because they disagree with its attempt to leave the EU in the first place.

The emergence of these new identities over the past two years may have a positive impact upon levels of turnout – those with a strong Brexit identity were more likely to have voted in both the EU referendum (86%) and in the subsequent 2017 General Election (87%) than those with no sense of Brexit identity (50% and 51% respectively). However, the prevalence and strength of Remain and Leave as new political identities illustrates just how deep the Brexit chasm now runs – and how much of a challenge it may prove to bridge it.

This post represents the views of the author and not those of the Brexit blog, nor the LSE.

Ian Montagu is a Senior Researcher at the Scottish Centre for Social Research (ScotCen).

Parliament Dishonoured by Contempt and Lack of Any Virtue

Parliament Dishonoured by Contempt and Lack of Any Virtue

In 2009, the story broke about MP`s and their ridiculous (criminal) claims for expenses. What also became clear was the unbelievable system allowing for claiming such monies. It was held up to much ridicule and a forensic examination at that time.

Further investigation of individuals and their spurious claims was halted in 2010, when over 10,000 documents and files were “mistakenly” shredded rendering any investigation impotent of evidence.

Fast forward to today and nothing has changed. In fact, it could be said that things have gotten very much worse. Parliament is to anyone`s naked eye a cesspit. MP`s have even recently broken unwritten rules about `vote pairing` for those who cannot make important votes. The trust such as it was between Whips and MP`s of differing parties seems to have dissipated completely.

John Bercow, the Speaker of the house, is under enormous pressure to stand down due to a report by Dame Laura Cox QC. This is a damming report; and make no mistake, in any other institution he would be gone. Whistleblowing is gathering a pace with complaints from ex staffers ranging from bullying to sexual assault against a plethora of MP`s and civil servants within the Westminster bubble.

In a surprising move though and at a critical time in the Brexit negotiations, Lady Nugee, aka Emily Thornbury, the shadow Labour Foreign Secretary and Dame Margaret Beckett, also Labour, believing that Bercow would be sympathetic to the Labour stance on negotiations called for him to stay in place. So much for women`s equality.

The monies involved in expense claims is staggering. In the financial year 2009-10 £98 million in expenses were claimed by MP`s. Yes you have read that correctly, £98 million.  MP for Tottenham David Lammy (Labour) claimed the highest fees for expenses at £173,922. He still claims a similar amount year on year. Dan Jarvis the Barnsley MP claimed a mere £520 that year for travel and food costs, the disparity is not lost on this author.

46 MP`s  (25 Tories, 14 Labour and 4 Liberal-Democrats) own homes within an hour of Parliament where they work. They choose though to live in hotels and claim for these hotel rooms whilst renting out those homes. Labour MP Chris Bryant claimed expenses of £35,350 in 2012/13 and 2013/14 to rent a London flat whilst already owning a penthouse in the capital.

The Brexit situation has clearly divided a nation. At this time you would look to these elected political representatives to steady the ship and no matter what your view on the subject, you would, as they had promised to, expect our chosen representatives to carry out the will of the people. Many though have become totally derelict in that duty. Erring on the side of “getting re-elected” they have chosen the alternative view, calling for a supposed “peoples vote” which is to all intents and purposes a re-run of the first referendum from 2016. This is doing great damage to and could completely render as defunct, democracy in this country.

I can in all common sense arrive at no other opinion other than Parliament and those elected to operate from within, is and are not fit for purpose. Changes need to be made and with a first past the post electoral system that is not going to come through the ballot box.

I can only therefore, foresee a return to the vestages of 1653 and the dissolution of Parliament by a Cromwellian figure if things do not improve. I leave you with this, Cromwell`s speech prior to that dissolution. The language is of the time but translate it yourselves in to the modern vernacular and you will see how I have arrived at my analogy.

It’s high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place.

Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government.which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice.

Ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?

Ye have no more religion than my horse. Gold is your God. Which of you have not bartered your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?

Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.

Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.

I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.

Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.

In the name of God, go!

The post Parliament Dishonoured by Contempt and Lack of Any Virtue appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

My constituents backed Brexit. But I didn’t enter politics to make them poorer | Phil Wilson

Now we know what leaving means, let’s do the right thing and have a second referendum

In normal times and in all good faith, politicians at a general election present a manifesto they believe will improve people’s lives. Politicians of a like mind will largely agree with that manifesto, believing it to be better than the alternative. In government, with all good intentions, the manifesto is implemented – maybe not in its entirety and with compromises being made. That is politics, in normal times.

But these are not normal times. Brexit is different. As an MP who campaigned for Remain during the EU referendum in June 2016, I do not believe I can, in all good faith and with all good intentions, tell my electorate that I have changed my mind. First, my constituents won’t believe me. And second, I did not enter politics to knowingly make my constituents poorer. This presents a moral dilemma for Remain-supporting MPs, especially those whose constituents voted to leave.

Continue reading...

Joanna Bell: The Supreme Court’s Approach to the Finality Clause in Lee v Ashers: A Response to Anurag Deb & Conor McCormick & Looking Forward to Privacy International

Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 49 (‘gay cake’ case) has probably not escaped the attention of any public lawyer. As Anurag Deb & Conor McCormick have usefully pointed out in a recent blog post, however, what may have been overlooked is that this case is not only important from a human rights or equality perspective, but from an administrative law perspective too. This is because the case contains a judgment, delivered by Lord Mance, which offers the unanimous court’s view on the meaning of a finality clause contained in the County Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1980.

This blog has three aims. Firstly, it offers an overview of the Supreme Court’s approach to the finality clause in Lee v Ashers. Secondly, it engages and take issue with Deb & McCormick’s critique of Lord Mance’s judgment. Thirdly, it offers some concluding reflections on the importance of this case for the ongoing Privacy International litigation.

The Finality Clause

The Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland (‘NICA’) handed down judgment in the Lee v Asher litigation on 26th October 2016. A week passed between this date and the making of the final order. In this interim period, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland (‘AG’) invoked a power contained in Schedule 10, para 33 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ‘require [the NICA] to refer to the Supreme Court any devolution issue which has arisen in proceedings before it.’ This gave rise to an important question for NICA: was it required to comply with the AG’s direction? The NICA concluded that it was not.

The issue which Lord Mance considered in Lee v Asher was the extent to which decisions of this kind are protected by the following finality clause:

Except as provided by section 41 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 the decision of the Court of Appeal on any case stated under this article shall be final.

Two main readings of this provision were considered in the Supreme Court. The NICA urged a broad reading. Its core suggestion was that Article 61(7) protects all decisions taken by the NICA unless a specific exemption can be found in legislation. Such an exception can be found, for instance, in section 41 of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 which provides for a right of appeal to the Supreme Court against decisions on criminal matters. There is, however, no specific statutory right of appeal for decisions of the NICA concerning compliance with an AG direction which are therefore regarded as ‘final’ under Article 61(7).

The Supreme Court rejected this broad reading in favour of a narrower one. Lord Mance, throughout his judgment, placed emphasis on the importance of reading such clauses in their legal context. Particularly important for his Lordship was subsection (1) of the same Article which provides as follows:

Except where any statutory provision provides that the decision of the county court shall be final, any party dissatisfied with the decision of a county court judge upon any point of law may question that decision by applying to the judge to state a case for the opinion of the [NICA]on the point of law involved.

When (7) is read against the background of (1), Lord Mance explained, it becomes clear that it is only a particular category of the NICA’s decisions which are protected by the finality clause. In particular, where the NICA hears an appeal on a point of law from the county court and renders judgment, its view on that point of law is to be regarded as conclusive (unless statute specifically provides for further appeal to the Supreme Court). Decisions by the NICA as to compliance with AG directions, however, do not fall within that category and, as such, are not protected by Article 61(7).

This is a convincing line of reasoning, especially because (7) states that ‘the decision of the [NICA] on any case stated under this article shall be final.’ Lord Mance’s conclusion could, furthermore, be bolstered by drawing out other aspects of the legal context. It is often said that finality clauses fall to be construed against the background of the rule of law. One important aspect of the rule of law was enunciated by Lady Hale in Cart v Upper Tribunal in the following terms:

There is always the possibility that a judge at any level will get [a decision] wrong. Clearly there should always be the possibility that another judge can look at the case and check for error. ([56])

The broad reading of Article 61(7) advanced by the NICA sits uncomfortably with this principle. It is one thing to say that the Court of Appeal’s decision on an appeal from the county court is (unless there is a specific exception) to be regarded as final. It is quite another to say that the NICA is also free to make certain categories of initial decision – including decisions concerning compliance with an AG direction – which are wholly immune from scrutiny of any kind by a higher court.

One final point is worth drawing out about Lord Mance’s judgment before turning to Deb & McCormick’s critique. In the course of rendering judgment Lord Mance referred to two classic cases: Anisminic and Racal. When these references are read in the broader context of his judgment, it becomes clear that Lord Mance was relying on them in a very limited and particular way. His Lordships’ point in referring to Anisminic was to emphasise that the case concerned the extent to which an ouster clause, when read properly, protected the decisions of a very different kind of body to NICA and the House of Lords’ conclusion in Anisminic therefore could not be straightforwardly applied in Lee v Ashers. Similarly, in referring to Racal Lord Mance sought to draw out Lord Diplock’s point that, when considering the extent to which a finality clause protects the decisions of another court, everything ultimately ‘depends upon the construction of the statute’ which forms the relevant legal background to the case.

Responding to Deb & McCormick

Deb & McCormick’s critique of Lord Mance’s judgment has a number of different strands. This post will focus on only one: the provocative suggestion that Lee v Asher is a ‘recipe for jurisdictional confusion.’ The key criticism of Deb & McCormick’s comment which this post seeks to stress is that the authors have, in analysing Lord Mance’s judgment, sought to fit it into a preconceived legal framework and in doing so failed to take seriously the legal reasoning process which his Lordship actually deployed in deciding the case.

The analysis of Deb & McCormick, at least as I understand it, runs like this: Lord Mance’s starting point in deciding the issue in Lee v Asher was with the dichotomy between types of decision-maker which Lord Diplock famously draw in Racal. According to this dichotomy, there are two distinct kinds of decision-making body. On the one hand, there are administrative decision-makers in relation to which, as Anisminic makes clear, the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law has no applicability. On the other, there are inferior courts which in theory retain the ability to commit legal areas within jurisdiction. Moving from this starting point, Deb & McCormick then read Lord Mance as engaging in a process of categorisation whereby his Lordship sought to place the NICA on one side of this dichotomy. They read his Lordship as having placed the NICA in the second category, a conclusion which they have at least two issues with. Firstly, they express concern, in light of the constitutional significance of the court, about the appropriateness of labelling the NICA as an ‘inferior court.’ Secondly, they regard it as a logical consequence of placing the NICA in Lord Diplock’s second category that the Supreme Court has resurrected in this context the distinction between jurisdictional and non-jurisdictional errors of law. This is a move which Deb & McCormick lament as marking a return to ‘pre-Anisminic principles’ which is apt to inject confusion and uncertainty into the law.

This analysis, however, fundamentally misreads Lord Mance. Although it is true that his Lordship drew on Racal in the course of rendering judgment, when his judgment is read as a whole it is clear that his intention in doing so was to stress that the effect of a finality clause is always to be determined by a process of construction which places that provision in its broader legal context. At no point in his judgment, furthermore, does his Lordship engage in a process of categorisation where he asks in which of Lord Diplock’s categories the NICA is to be placed. The language of ‘jurisdictional’ and ‘non-jurisdictional’ errors is, furthermore, wholly absent from Lord Mance’s judgment.

If anything is apt to provide a ‘recipe for jurisdictional confusion,’ in other words, it is not the Supreme Court’s judgment. Lord Mance’s message and conclusion is quite clear and straightforward: when faced with a finality clause the central question is always what that clause protects when it is read properly and in its broader legal context. When this is done in relation to Article 61(7), furthermore, it is clear that that provision protects only a specific class of the NICA’s decisions. Confusion, rather, breeds when that judgment, or judgments generally, are forced into legal frameworks which are not actually deployed by judges themselves.

Privacy International

It is useful to conclude this post by offering a few words on the importance of this case in the upcoming hearing of Privacy International in the Supreme Court. Lord Mance’s judgment might give us a useful indication of what we might expect. Two major themes in particular run through it. Firstly, the importance of reading finality clauses in their broader legal context. We should expect the Supreme Court, therefore, to be highly attentive to the question of what section 67(8) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (‘RIPA’) means when that provision is read against the background of the broader legislative framework in which it arises and to concern itself much less with questions such as how the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is to be classified against a categorisation scheme such as that enunciated by Lord Diplock in Racal. The second theme is the recognition that a singular finality clause can have a different effect depending on what the applicant seeks to challenge. One thing which is deeply interesting about Lee v Ashers, more particularly, was that the Supreme Court clearly recognised that while Article 61(7) has the effect of protecting certain decisions of the NICA from further scrutiny it does not protect all. This is an important point in the context of Privacy International because, as Tom Fairclough has pointed out, the Court of Appeal in deciding this case clearly viewed the central question in binary terms: either s67(8) is to be read as effectively excluding the courts’ review function in its entirety or not at all. Against this background, the significance of Lee v Ashers may be that it is an indication that the Supreme Court will not think of the issue in such way and will be more open to the idea that the effect of s67(8) differs according to the nature of the challenge brought.

Dr Joana Bell is College Lecturer and Fellow at St John’s College and Affiliated Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Cambridge.

(Suggested citation: J. Bell, ‘The Supreme Court’s Approach to the Finality Clause in Lee v Ashers: A Response to Anurag Deb & Conor McCormick & Looking Forward to Privacy International‘, U.K. Const. L. Blog (23rd Oct. 2018) (available at

News review – Tuesday 23 October 2018

News review – Tuesday 23 October 2018


Theresa May dismissed Brussels’ demands yesterday for a  backstop that would divide Northern Ireland from the rest of Britain, relieving pressure from Tory Brexiteers but increasing the chance of a no-deal exit. The prime minister secured a partial reprieve from her internal opponents with a categorical rejection of the EU’s insistence that the province remain subject to its customs and regulations until a final trade deal is struck. Downing Street sources said that she would not countenance such a backstop being contained in the withdrawal agreement that she is negotiating.

Karen Bradley, the secretary of state for Northern Ireland, has given assurances that the British government will not renege on the “backstop” commitment over the Irish border issue in Brexit negotiations. She said the government was fully committed to the agreement it had struck with the EU last December when Theresa May and the European commission president, Jean Claude Juncker, signed the “joint report” ending the first phase of Brexit negotiations covering EU citizens, the divorce bill and the Irish border. “We are committed to everything we have agreed to in the joint report and we will ensure there is no border on the island of Ireland,” she told the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly in London on Monday.


Prime Minister Theresa May has set out her four-point plan. It consists of “We must make the commitment to a temporary UK/EU joint customs territory legally binding”; Option to extend transition period, though she says the government has not committed to this yet; Not be kept in arrangements “indefinitely”; Northern Ireland full continued access to whole UK market.

THERESA May yesterday urged Tory MPs to “focus on the prize” of Brexit as the “hardest part” of the Brussels negotiations begin. In a Commons statement, the Prime Minister hit back at her party critics by insisting that any power to lengthen the UK’s transition out of the EU would only be used as a last resort. She also stepped up her attack on campaigners for a fresh EU referendum, accusing them of demanding a “politicians’ vote” to overturn the will of the people expressed in the 2016 decision to quit the bloc. “Serving our national interest will demand that we hold our nerve through these last stages of the negotiations, the hardest part of all,” the Prime Minister told MPs.

Of the more than 800 changes to legislation needed before Brexit only 71 have been put before parliament, a report has found. The government has said that between 800 and 1,000 statutory instruments (SIs) are required to ensure that British law is functional before Britain leaves the EU on March 29. But even though almost half the time available has passed, 9 per cent of the necessary SIs have been put before parliament, leading to fears that the Commons faces an impossible task in scrutinising them in time.

ITV News
Stockpiling ahead of Brexit could boost Scotland’s economic growth in 2018-19 but the measure will have a negative effect in the medium term, the Scottish Government’s top economist has said. Dr Gary Gillespie said analysis suggests the building of stock inventories by firms ahead of the UK’s departure from the EU could potentially increase Scottish GDP by 0.4%. However, the chief economist added such growth “would be more than offset” by a slowing of output in subsequent quarters.

Second referendum

Britain’s Prime Minister Theresa May used a Commons statement Monday to reject outright calls for a second referendum on membership of the European Union, but said nevertheless extending the so-called transition period where the United Kingdom is still in the European Union in all but name could be “preferable”. The statement came after a weekend of intensifying plotting in Westminster — both by the Prime Minister’s pro-Brexit Tory colleagues against her, and by pro-remain campaigners who, emboldened by a protest march on Saturday, have vowed “the most co-ordinated lobbying effort ever conducted on a piece of legislation.”

Conservative Party

Veteran pro-Brexit Tory MP John Redwood has just laid into Theresa May’s EU plan, whilst calling for tax cuts to help stimulate the economy. In a full-blooded defence of conservatism Redwood stood up in Parliament today and said: “Our economy is being slowed deliberately by a fiscal and monetary squeeze which we need to lift. We need tax cuts to raise people’s take home pay so that they have more spending power. All this is possible if we don’t give £39 billion to the EU.”

Theresa May has attempted to quell a mounting Tory rebellion over Brexit by unveiling a new four-point plan to break the deadlock with Brussels. The Prime Minister was on Monday accused by Eurosceptic Tory MPs of “surrender” as they suggested in the Commons that she does not have a Brexit plan and “know where we’re going”. Tory MPs said that they and their constituents were increasingly “frustrated” as the Prime Minister insisted the UK will leave before the next election in May 2022 – six years after the Brexit vote.

Theresa May faced down Conservative critics of her Brexit negotiating strategy in a critical Commons debate in which she pleaded to be given time to “deliver the Brexit that the British people voted for”. The prime minister told her jittery MPs it was time “we hold our nerve” as the Brexit talks approach their endgame during nearly two hours of exchanges, which were not attended by leadership rivals Boris Johnson and David Davis. May told MPs if sticking to her position in the Brexit negotiations “means I get difficult days in Brussels, then so be it.

Sky News
Theresa May has said it may be preferable for Britain to extend the period it remains tied to EU rules and regulations, as she called on her party to “hold our nerve”. The prime minister said such a move could allow more time to sort out Britain’s future relationship with the EU, without needing to activate a controversial contingency plan for the Irish border known as the “backstop”. While extending the transition was “undesirable”, Mrs May said she was ready to “explore every possible option”.

Iain Duncan Smith called for the “full weight of the Conservative Party” to fall on MPs who used violent language about Theresa May as figures from across politics condemned anonymous attacks on the prime minister. Sunday’s newspapers quoted one reported ally of David Davis as saying that Theresa May was “entering the killing zone”, a former minister comparing her to a “lame cockroach” and another former minister saying: “The moment is coming when the knife gets heated, stuck in her front and twisted. She’ll be dead soon.”

Well-worn phrases familiar to Britain’s political discourse with metaphorical allusions to combat and Medieval politics have come under sudden assault from supporters of the European Union as they seek to defend the Prime Minister, presently a strong bulwark against a true Brexit, from plotting Tory colleagues. Leading the vanguard of the attack against the humble figure of speech was New Labour vintage class warrior Yvette Cooper, now Home Affairs Select Committee chairman, who called upon the Conservative Party to name and shame those members who had been briefing against the Prime Minister over the weekend in warlike terms.

Tory Amber Rudd has claimed she and her MP colleagues  would prevent a No Deal from happening. They are getting desperate now. Speaking on Newsnight Rudd claimed that: “I still think a No Deal will be stopped by the House of Commons. “I certainly think that a majority in the House of Commons, which yes includes other parties, would assert itself to stop a No Deal.” Ultra-Remainer Rudd has  previously said a second referendum is on the table if the House of Commons does block a No Deal and is on the list of the most anti-democratic MPs in the country who are calling for a second vote but whose constituencies voted to Leave.

Labour Party

The Shadow Foreign Secretary, Emily Thornberry, told the BBC’s “Today” programme this morning: “I want a people’s vote, but I want it to be a big and proper people’s vote, which is a general election.” This deliberate legal obfuscation was necessary because her leader, Jeremy Corbyn, does not support a second referendum on whether Britain should remain in, or leave, the European Union. Thornberry is acutely aware of the anger and frustration felt by many ordinary members of her party – and, presumably, by many Remain-supporting Labour voters – at the Labour leadership’s refusal to oppose Brexit tooth and nail.

The Troubles’

BBC News
Theresa May is facing demands from 150 Tory MPs and peers to drop plans to investigate past crimes in Northern Ireland and other military conflicts. In a letter to the PM, they say a new Historical Investigations Unit would put “service and security personnel at an exceptional disadvantage”. And they accuse the government of breaking the Armed Forces Covenant – its manifesto commitment to personnel. The Northern Ireland Office declined a request for comment.


Telegraph (by Nigel Farage)
A few days ago staff from a relatively unknown European Parliament committee called TAX3 met with the European Commission’s Brexit Task Force (BTF), led by the EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier. According to the minutes which I’ve been shown, the purpose of this meeting was to discuss the EU’s alleged “mandate” to create a “level playing field” when it comes to future relations with Britain in four main areas, one of which is tax. The minutes show that the BTF rubbished Theresa May’s Chequers plan over tax. Indeed, noting that the Chequers proposal omits even to mention tax, the BTF described it arrogantly as a “wishful thinking” document and said it is “not feasible.

NORMAN Tebbit has savaged the European Union’s attempt to “shackle” Britain to EU tax rules after Brexit, competing Brussels to a “Euro Mafia” in a ferocious outburst. Mr Tebbit, who served in Margaret Thatcher’s cabinet as well as as Chairman of the Conservative Party in the 1980s, believes Brussels wants to administer a “punishment beating” to the UK as it prepares to leave the single bloc. Leaked EU documents suggest the EU could try to impose Brussels tax policies on the UK after Brexit.

The Italian government have pushed back against the European Union, insisting that they will not bin their budget. It comes after the anti-establishment government had to submit its spending plans, which were then rejected by Brussels. The unelected EU Commission call the shots, you see. Italy’s Economy Minister Giovanni Tria has  responded by saying:  “Italy is aware it has chosen a path that isn’t in line with EU rules. “It was a hard decision but necessary in order to bring the country’s GDP back to pre-crisis levels and considering the ongoing economic difficulties for Italians.”

GERMANY has demanded Remainers be given a second referendum following claims Brexit could completely destroy the EU. Speaking on German political debate programme Anne Will, former Secretary of State Sigmar Gabriel waded into the deadlocked Brexit negotiations by suggesting Prime Minister Theresa May’s answer to stalled talks would be to give Remainers a second vote. Mr Gabriel outlined a handful of bizarre points he believed made the Brexit ballot illegitimate, such as how teenage Britons too young to vote in the June 2016 referendum would now – according to him – almost certainly vote Remain in a second referendum.

The European Union must undergo “deep reform” and shoulder some responsibility for the Brexit vote if it hopes to keep the bloc together, Poland’s foreign minister has warned. Jacek Czaputowicz said Britain’s decision to leave was partly due to “deficiencies” in EU institutions, and that Brussels needed to accept this rather than seek to “punish” the country. “Brexit is a result of a sovereign decision of the British but also the wrong policies of the European Union and of deficiencies existing here in European institutions,” Mr Czaputowicz told the Telegraph.


The government’s borrowing requirements over the next four years could be significantly lower than forecast, leaving the Treasury with a windfall in next week’s budget. Philip Hammond may reveal that he has funding from better-than-expected public finances that could mean he does not have to increase taxes to pay for the additional NHS spending already announced by Theresa May. The news comes as ministers were told by Liz Truss, the chief secretary to the Treasury, that public sector pay rises must be based on people’s performance and where they live — triggering an angry reaction from unions.


ITV News
Nearly all Metropolitan Police officers want to carry spit guards, a new survey suggests. A poll carried out by the force’s police federation found 5,269 out of 5,572 members questioned, 95%, thought all Met officers should be issued with the mesh hoods. And 5,133 (92%) said they would be prepared to carry one after they had been trained. In September force chief Commissioner Cressida Dick said using the guards on the streets could make officers more likely to get “a good kicking” while struggling with aggressive suspects.

A public appeal for information on a defendant in the Huddersfield grooming gang trial who absconded on bail while the jury considered its verdicts could not be issued because of reporting restrictions, West Yorkshire Police told Breitbart London. Sajid Hussain, 33, was on trial at Leeds Crown Court with 19 other defendants for the grooming and rape of young girls and teens between 2004 and 2011 when the 15 victims were aged between 11 and 17. Hussain was granted bail in June and went missing the day after the jury began deliberation.

Financial crash

A LEADING expert has shockingly claimed a new global financial crash is on the horizon – and an “economic armageddon” is unavoidable. Dr John Llewellyn, the former chief economist of failed US investment bank Lehman Brothers, argued economic conditions which could spark a fresh crash were now “not only serious, but intensifying”. A summary of comments made by Dr Llewellyn at a financial forum last month, which were published on financial website Money Show this month, revealed the current financial system was set up to encourage banks and financiers to take the very risks that could prompt a collapse.


Three million operations and chemotherapy treatments a year will become life-threatening if the fight against antibiotic-resistant superbugs is lost, health chiefs are warning. Patients who badger doctors for antibiotics risk “grave consequences”, Public Health England (PHE) says, adding that treatment-resistant blood infections are up a third in four years. Dame Sally Davies, the chief medical officer, insisted yesterday that people needed to take responsibility for a threat that could put medicine “back in the Dark Ages”.

Sky News
Superbugs will kill 10 million people a year by 2050 – more than cancer and diabetes combined – unless urgent action is taken, MPs have warned. They said the growing rise of viruses, parasites and bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics posed “a grave to health”. If ministers do not step in, then “modern medicine will be lost”, they added. The warning comes from a report by the Commons’ health and social care select committee, which scrutinises the government’s work in those areas. Britain is already seeing a rise of antibiotic resistant illnesses, which kill around 5,000 people a year in the UK.

Hip and knee operations are becoming increasingly lethal due to the rise of antibiotic resistance (AMR), health officials have warned. More than 2,500 people are now dying each year following a surge in once-treatable bloodstream infections for which antibiotics no longer work. A new report from Public Health England (PHE) warns that unless the trend is arrested, routine surgery, caesarean sections and  some cancer treatments risk becoming life-threatening for more than three million patients each year. They are among a raft of common procedures which have been relatively safe for decades thanks to prophylactic (precautionary) antibiotics.

More than 3 million operations and cancer treatments a year in England may become life-threatening without antibiotics. Public Health England warned that cases of antibiotic-resistant blood infections have risen by more than a third in just four years. Experts say the crisis is getting worse amid growing concerns that the drugs are losing their power and can no longer treat many infections. Without antibiotics, infections related to surgery could double, putting people at risk of dangerous complications, health officials say. It could mean common procedures such as caesarean sections and hip replacements could become life-threatening.

People who eat organic food are 25 per cent less likely to get cancer, according to a study of almost 70,000 volunteers. Researchers say that pesticides in conventional fruit and vegetables can cause cancer, suggesting that going organic helps to prevent the disease. Previous studies have failed to find any convincing evidence that organic foods protect against disease or are more nutritious. Now researchers at Paris University have studied 69,000 people who were questioned about their diet and followed for an average of five years, during which 1,340 of them developed cancer.

England’s top doctor has called on the government to redouble its efforts to tackle the growing threat of superbugs, as an influential group of MPs has called for the issue to be moved much higher up the political agenda. In a  report by the House of Commons health and social care select committee on antimicrobial resistance MPs warned that the issue was in danger of being forgotten and should become a “top five” policy priority area, with its own dedicated budget. Giving evidence to the committee Professor Dame Sally Davies, chief medical officer for England, called for more “visible and active government leadership”, not just just from the Department of Health and the Prime Minister but across government as a whole.

Life on Mars

David Bowie has sung about it and Hollywood has been fascinated with the idea since the 1950s. Now the chances of discovering life on Mars have received a boost after scientists unearthed the possibility of salty, oxygen-enriched lagoons existing beneath the red planet’s arid surface. A study calculated that subterranean Martian lakes may produce enough oxygen to support aerobic microbes. At the poles there may even be “aerobic oases” capable of supporting multicellular, sponge-like creatures. Mars is thought to have once had significant amounts of water on its surface, with some experts believing that billions of years ago there were Martian oceans.

The post News review – Tuesday 23 October 2018 appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

BREXIT LIVE: Boris Johnson is 44th MP to join HARDEST Brexit group that could OUST May

TORY rebels could be one step closer to ousting their Prime Minister after Boris Johnson became the latest MP to publicly declare his alliance to a campaign group dedicated to wrecking Theresa May’s exit plans.
Powered by WordPress | Designed by: index backlink | Thanks to insanity workout, car insurance and cyber security