Markus Andrews

David Trimble, a former Northern Ireland first minister who won the Nobel Peace Prize for playing a key role in helping end Northern Ireland’s decades of violence, has died, the Ulster Unionist Party said Monday. He was 77.The party said in a statement on behalf of the Trimble family that the unionist politician died earlier Monday “following a short illness.”Trimble, who led the UUP from 1995 to 2005, was a key architect of the 1998 Good Friday Agreement that ended three decades of violent conflict in Northern Ireland known as “The Troubles.”Keir Starmer, leader of Britain’s opposition Labour Party, called Trimble “a towering figure of Northern Ireland and British politics” in a tweet Monday. The UUP was Northern Ireland’s largest Protestant unionist party when, led by Trimble, it agreed to the Good Friday peace accord.RecommendedHe was the party’s first leader in 30 years to meet with the Irish premier in Dublin. In 1997, Trimble became the first unionist leader to negotiate with Irish republican party Sinn Fein.Trimble shared the 1998 Nobel Peace Prize with Catholic moderate leader John Hume, head of the Social Democratic and Labour Party, for their work. He became first minister in Northern Ireland’s first power-sharing government the same year, with the SDLP’s Seamus Mallon as deputy first minister.But both the UUP and the SDLP soon saw themselves eclipsed by more hardline parties — the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein.Trimble struggled to keep his party together as the power-sharing government was rocked by disagreements over disarming the IRA and other paramilitary groups. Senior colleagues defected to the DUP, Trimble lost his seat in Britain’s Parliament in 2005 and soon after he resigned as party leader. The following year he was appointed to the upper chamber of Parliament, the House of Lords.Northern Ireland power-sharing has gone through many crises since then — but the peace settlement has largely endured.Recommended“The Good Friday Agreement is something which everybody in Northern Ireland has been able to agree with,” Trimble said earlier this year. “It doesn’t mean they agree with everything. There are aspects which some people thought were a mistake, but the basic thing is that this was agreed.” Trimble is survived by his wife Daphne and children, Richard, Victoria, Nicholas and Sarah. More

Boris Johnson has privately said he “does not want to resign” and “wished he could carry on” as prime minister, according to a Tory peer.Lord Cruddas, a former Conservative party treasurer, who is mounting a grassroots campaign to support the outgoing prime minister, said the remarks were made to him by Mr Johnson at Chequers on Friday.It comes as Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, and former chancellor Rishi Sunak, prepare for their first head-to-head debate in the final round of the Tory leadership contest and race to replace Mr Johnson in No 10.Earlier this month, the prime minister reluctantly set out his decision to resign — once a new leader is elected in September — after facing mass resignations from the ministerial ranks, and a fatal cabinet revolt.Lord Cruddas, who has organised a petition urging the party to put Mr Johnson on the Tory leadership ballot, told The Daily Telegraph that the prime minister thanked him for the campaign during lunch at his Chequers residence.RecommendedUnder the existing Conservative Party rules, Mr Johnson is forbidden from standing in the leadership election, and MPs have already selected Ms Truss and Mr Sunak for a final vote among members this summer.The Telegraph reported Lord Cruddas as saying: “There was no ambiguity in Boris’s views. He definitely does not want to resign. He wants to carry on and he believes that, with the membership behind him, he can.”The peer added: “Boris thanked me for ‘Boris on the ballot’ campaign. He said he was enjoying following it and he wished me well.“He said he could understand the membership’s anger at what had happened. He said that he wished that he could carry on as prime minister. He said he does not want to resign”.The newspaper said Mr Johnson, when asked by the peer if he could “wipe away” his resignation immediately with a “magic wand”, reportedly replied: “I would wipe away everything that stops me being PM in a second”.RecommendedHe added that Mr Johnson — despite dire poll ratings — believed he could win a general election, saying: “He wants to carry on and finish the job. He wants to fight the next general election as leader of the Conservative party.”But after the comments emerged, Downing Street responded insisting Mr Johnson will leave the post in September when a new leader is elected.“The prime minister has resigned as party leader and set out his intention to stand down as PM when the new leader is in place,” a No 10 spokesperson said on Monday.Setting out his resignation earlier this month, Mr Johnson said he would continue to “serve” in Downing Street until a new leader is elected, insisting “no one is remotely indisepensable” in politics. “I regret not to have been successful in those arguments and of course it’s painful not to be able to see through so many ideas and projects myself,” he added. “But as we’ve seen, at Westminster the herd instinct is powerful, when the herd moves, it moves. More

Priti Patel must reconsider a deal to send asylum seekers to Rwanda because it is not safe enough and may break the law, a parliamentary committee has said.A letter to the home secretary warned that removing people against their will to “another state where they face a real risk of serious human rights abuses” is prohibited under international law.Joanna Cherry QC, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, said: “While we have received mixed reports on the safety of Rwanda, particularly for vulnerable groups, and the adequacy of its asylum system, we are not satisfied that it is a sufficiently safe destination to be a partner in this kind of asylum agreement.”The letter, sent on 21 July, pointed to government documents disclosed as part of the ongoing High Court battle over the deal.They showed that both the Foreign Office and UK High Commissioner to Rwanda advised against the agreement, and that the country was “initially excluded from the shortlist of potential partner countries for the proposed immigration policy on human rights grounds”.RecommendedThe reasons given included that it “has been accused of recruiting refugees to conduct armed operations in neighbouring countries”, has a “poor human rights record regardless of the conventions it has signed up to” and has been criticised by the UK for extrajudicial killings, deaths in custody, enforced disappearances, torture and crackdowns on anyone critical of the regime.The High Court was also told that several asylum seekers selected for removal to Rwanda by British authorities have since been identified as potential victims of trafficking.Official government guidance, which was published after the deal was announced in April, found Rwanda to be a safe country but the claimants revealed that the Rwandan government itself had been sent a draft to review and asked for edits.Ms Cherry’s letter set out a series of concerns on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which includes MPs and peers from the Conservative Party, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Scottish National Party.It warned that the agreement “has been put in place without adequate assurances as to the safety of those removed to Rwanda,” adding: “It appears clear that the memorandum of understanding offers a person who has been removed to Rwanda and then treated incompatibly with their human rights no legal recourse. This is a fundamental concern for ensuring compliance with human rights standards. “The Joint Committee on Human Rights hopes that the Government will demonstrate commitment to human rights and the protection of refugees and reconsider the UK-Rwanda Migration and Economic Development Partnership (MEDP).”Ms Cherry wrote that correspondence with the government suggested it was ministers’ intention that “once the individuals have been sent to Rwanda they are no longer the UK’s responsibility”.“We note that the UN High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) has identified the MEDP as an example of the ‘externalisation of international protection’, which is inconsistent with the Refugee Convention,” she added.Tory leadership candidate Liz Truss ‘completely agrees’ with Rwanda deportation policy“We are similarly concerned that the MEDP could be seen as an outsourcing of the UK’s own obligations.”The letter said the committee was “unconvinced” that the plans would deter refugees from crossing the English Channel on small boats, and noted that the government had not increased safe and legal alternatives.It warned that the memorandum of understanding signed with Rwanda does not exclude any vulnerable groups, “such as LGBTQ asylum seekers, victims of torture or even children”.“In the absence of established limits, there is an increased risk not only that the policy could be applied too widely but also that it could be limited to certain groups in a discriminatory manner,” Ms Cherry wrote. “Despite the significance of the decision to take an individual out of the UK asylum system and send them to a country thousands of miles away, appeal rights are limited, with costly judicial review proceedings the only effective mechanism for legal challenge … we are concerned that the lack of an effective appeal process enhances the risk that people will be removed to Rwanda without a fair hearing and in breach of their rights.”Rwandan government officials have hit back at criticism and defended the country’s human rights record.When asked about the internal government warnings revealed by the High Court case on Friday, government spokesperson Yolande Makolo said they were “based on wrong information”. “It is wrong to accuse us of that sort of thing; what we do is offer people a home and safety here, we do not get involved in recruitment for whatever armed movements,” she told the press conference. “That is incorrect information and we want to challenge that because it’s not true.” More

Boris Johnson was not sent a questionnaire by the Metropolitan Police before it decided not to fine him for attending two lockdown gatherings, it has been confirmed.The capital’s police force issued fines to other attendees at the two events in November 2020 and December 2020 but not to the prime minister.The Independent and other media outlets reported in May this year that Mr Johnson had not been included in a new round of partygate fines and not sent a questionnaire.This was despite the prime minister giving speeches at both of the wine-fuelled gatherings, which saw officials handed fixed-penalty notices. The decision not to fine the outgoing PM is now subject to a legal challenge by lawyers at the Good Law Project campaign group.RecommendedIn its legal response the Met confirmed on the record that it had not issued questionnaires to Mr Johnson for the two events, which featured alcohol, photographic evidence, and speeches.”The Defendant can confirm that he did not send a questionnaire to the Prime Minister in respect of the gathering on 13 November 2020 and 17 December 2020,” the response says. The force claimed that contrary to the lawyers’ claims, questionnaires were not “the defendant’s primary method of investigation” and that it was under no duty to send them to Mr Johnson if “the answers to those questions were clear from other evidence”.In its written evidence the force defended the idea that the gatherings had “phases” some of which were reasonably necessary for work purposes and attendance of which did not count as a criminal offence – while others were not necessary and did.A spokesperson for the Good Law Project said: “Rishi Sunak’s Partygate fine suggests that passing through a gathering en route to a meeting doesn’t prevent you from being fined, so it’s far from clear how turning up to a gathering deliberately, raising a toast and encouraging the revels to continue can be compliant with the law.Recommended”We don’t think the Met’s response is consistent with their legal duty of candour. And we certainly don’t think it’s consistent with what the Met has elsewhere conceded is their public duty to maintain public confidence in policing.”Mr Johnson was not fined for attending the November or December events in question, but was issued with an FPN for attending the PM’s own birthday celebration in June 2020. More

Police are investigating after a letter was delivered to former Tory leadership candidate Penny Mordaunt threatening to “shoot her in the head”.The death threat was sent to the constituency office of the Portsmouth North MP before she was voted out of the contest to become leader of the Conservative Party.During her campaign, the trade minister had complained of her opponents carrying out a “black ops” operation to scupper her chances.The Portsmouth News reported that the letter included threats to “shoot her in the head” and “kill her family”.A Hampshire police spokeswoman said: “At 11.50am on July 22, we received a report of a letter containing threats to kill a Portsmouth woman and her family which was sent to her office in Lakeside, North Harbour.Recommended“We attended and safeguarding measures were put in place to minimise the risk to the woman and her family, employees and the wider community.“Our inquiries into this incident are ongoing and it has been referred to the Parliamentary Liaison Team.“We take the safeguarding of our MPs incredibly seriously and there are robust systems in place to ensure they can carry out their job safely.”Ms Mordaunt’s office was approached for comment.The international trade minister and former defence secretary was the subject of hostile briefings by her opponents in the race to replace Boris Johnson.Her position on trans rights came under intense media scrutiny before she was eventually knocked out of the race last week.Ms Mordaunt denied that, during her time as minister for women and equalities, she wanted to push through a policy that would end the requirement for trans people to obtain a medical diagnosis before they could legally change gender.RecommendedShe also hit out at personal “smears” against her as the Tory leadership race became increasingly toxic.The two remaining candidates – Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor, and Liz Truss, the foreign secretary – will face off in a televised debate on BBC One tonight at 9pm. More

Police are investigating after a letter was delivered to the former Tory leadership candidate Penny Mordaunt threatening to “shoot her in the head”.The death threat was sent to the constituency office of the Portsmouth North MP before she was voted out of the contest to be leader of the Conservative Party.During her campaign, the trade minister had complained of opponents to her carrying out a “black ops” operation to scupper her chances.The Portsmouth News reported that the letter included threats to “shoot her in the head” and “kill her family”.A Hampshire police spokeswoman said: “At 11.50am on July 22, we received a report of a letter containing threats to kill a Portsmouth woman and her family which was sent to her office in Lakeside, North Harbour.Recommended“We attended and safeguarding measures were put in place to minimise the risk to the woman and her family, employees and the wider community.“Our inquiries into this incident are ongoing and it has been referred to the Parliamentary Liaison Team.“We take the safeguarding of our MPs incredibly seriously and there are robust systems in place to ensure they can carry out their job safely.”Ms Mordaunt’s office was approached for comment.The international trade minister and former defence secretary was the subject of hostile briefings by her opponents in the race to replace Boris Johnson.Her position on trans rights came under intense media scrutiny before she was eventually knocked out of the race last week.Ms Mordaunt denied that, during her time as minister for women and equalities, she wanted to push through a policy that would end the requirement for trans people to obtain a medical diagnosis before they could legally change gender.RecommendedShe also hit out at personal “smears” against her as the Tory leadership race became increasingly toxic.The two remaining candidates – Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor and Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, face off in a televised debate on BBC One tonight at 9pm. More

Labour will not go into the next election promising to take private rail, energy or water companies back under public ownership, Rachael Reeves has said.The shadow chancellor said on Monday morning that the policies were not compatible with new “fiscal rules” she would introduce to restrain public spending.Speaking later in the day Keir Starmer said he agreed with Ms Reeves and that “having come through the pandemic it’s important that we have very clear priorities”.But there was confusion after the shadow chancellor’s interview, when Labour spokesperson clarified that the party believed public ownership could have have a “positive” role in rail.And Labour’s shadow transport team went further, taking to social media to say the party was in fact “committed to public ownership of rail”.RecommendedAt the 2017 and 2019 elections Labour promised to bring rail, energy and water into public ownership to help with the cost of living and drive down fares and bills. But asked whether she was still committed to the policies, Rachel Reeves said they had been replaced by ideas like reforms to business rates and a “buy British” campaign.”I’ve set out fiscal rules that say all day-to-day spending will be funded by day-to-day tax revenues,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.”Within our fiscal rules, to be spending billions of pounds on nationalising things, that just doesn’t stack up against our fiscal rules.”Asked to confirm whether she had just dropped the commitments, she said: “They were a commitment in a manifesto that secured our worst results since 1935. We have scrapped the 2019 manifesto. “That is not the starting point. We’re setting out distinct policies under Keir Starmer, the plans today around industrial strategy, my commitments around a climate investment pledge, our plans to buy, make, and sell more in Britain, reforms to the business rate system. “Those are the policies that will be going into the next election under Keir Starmer, not the policies of 2019.”Following the interview, a Labour Party spokesperson told The Independent: “We are pragmatic about public ownership as long as it sits within our fiscal rules – a point Rachel was underlining in the interview by referencing this framework. For example, we know there is a positive role for rail in public ownership.”But speaking at Q&A session after a speech in Liverpool later on Monday, party leader Sir Keir was asked about nationalisation of water and energy, and replied: “I agree with what Rachel Reeves said this morning. Having come through the pandemic, it’s very important that we have very, very clear priorities. And that’s why we’ve set our fiscal rules already, as an opposition. “Rachel did that at conference last year: that’s way ahead of the general election, setting out our priorities. And my priority, as I hope is obvious from this morning, is growth. The mission of the next Labour government will be growth and that partnership with business is where I see that growth coming from. So my approach here is, is pragmatic, not ideological.”Asked specifically about taking rail back into public ownership he said: “Whether it comes to rail or anything else, I want to be pragmatic about this rather than ideological. I think what some of our mayors and Metro mayors are doing with public transport is the right way forward, absolutely focused on keeping the price down and making sure there’s control over where things go, particularly buses recently.”Following the pair’s comments, Labour’s shadow transport secretary Louise Haigh took to social media, posting: “Labour is committed to public ownership of rail and putting the public back in control of our bus network to drive down prices, improve services and meet net zero.”In his own post, shadow transport minister Sam Tarry added: “Just to be absolutely 100% crystal clear – this is the Labour Party position on the public ownership of rail.” He posted a link to a video of himself from May this year stating that Labour would bring “our rail networks back into the hands of the British public”.But Labour’s competitors seized on the apparent confusion. Green Party co-leader Adrian Ramsay said privatisation had been a “failure” and accused Sir Keir of not representing the public’s “best interests”.“It is depressing to see Labour abandoning their traditional support for public ownership of essential services at a time when this is so popular amongst voters,” he said.”Their attempt to compete with the Tories will see ordinary people and the planet pay the cost as a result.“It’s clear for all to see that the privatisation of essential services like energy, transport and water has served only to line the pockets of shareholders, rather than ensure that these services we all depend on are reliable and affordable.”He added: “The Green Party believes it is essential that public services are publicly owned, both in order to guarantee the level of service required to meet society’s needs and help tackle the climate crisis, and to ensure good pay and conditions of those working within them.“The fact that Labour has abandoned these beliefs shows just how far Keir Starmer is prepared to drag the party away from representing the best interests of people and planet in order to gain power at any cost.”Public ownership of sectors like rail, water and energy enjoys broad popularity with the public. A 2021 poll by ComRes found that 60 per cent people want energy in public ownership, versus 17 per cent who are opposed.YouGov found in 2019 that 64 per cent want rail in public ownership and 63 per cent want water in public ownership. In both cases a small minority of 23 per cent were opposed.It is unclear why Ms Reeves’ fiscal rules would conflict with taking the sectors into public ownership as such an approach would be unlikely to be financed through day-to-day spending.In other European countries increased public control over utilities and rail has been used to help with the cost of living. RecommendedEmmanuel Macron’s French government last week fully nationalised supplier EDF to help France manage its transition away from fossil fuels and to meet its climate goals. It has also forced the company to take an €8.4bn hit to protect consumers from rocketing energy bills.Germany’s government has meanwhile helped cut commuting and travel costs by providing funding for a €9 monthly season ticket on all local and regional public transport across its largely publicly-owned rail system. More

The two candidates vying to be Britain’s next prime minister will face off in a TV debate Monday, after both sought to woo the Conservative Party’s right-wing base by backing a controversial plan to deport some asylum-seekers to Rwanda. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss and former Treasury chief Rishi Sunak are battling to succeed the discredited Boris Johnson as head of Britain’s governing party. They were chosen by Conservative lawmakers from an initial field of 11 candidates as finalists to replace Johnson, who quit as party leader on July 7 after months of ethics scandals triggered a mass exodus of ministers from his government.The winner will automatically become prime minister, governing a country of 67 million — but will be chosen by about 180,000 Conservative Party members. They will vote over the summer with the result announced Sept. 5. Johnson remains caretaker prime minister until his successor is chosen.Truss, 46, and 42-year-old Sunak have wooed Conservatives by doubling down on policies thought to appeal to the Tory grassroots. Both are backing a contentious deal agreed by the Johnson government with Rwanda to send some migrants who arrive in Britain in small boats on a one-way trip to the East African nation. The deportees would be allowed to apply for asylum in Rwanda, not the U.K.The government says the policy will deter people-traffickers from sending migrants on hazardous journeys across the Channel. Political opponents, human rights organizations and even a few Conservative lawmakers say it is immoral, illegal and a waste of taxpayers’ money.RecommendedThe first scheduled deportation flight was grounded after legal rulings last month, and the whole policy is now being challenged in the British courts.On Sunday, Sunak said “no options should be off the table” despite questions over the policy’s legality and morality. Truss said she was “determined” to see the Rwanda plan through and raised the possibility of expanding it to additional countries.Truss also said she would expand the size of the U.K. Border Force, while Sunak has suggested housing asylum-seekers on cruise ships.Hard-line policies like the Rwanda plan are less popular with voters as a whole than with Conservatives, but the British electorate won’t get a say on the government until the next national election, due by the end of 2024.Truss and Sunak have already clashed over economic policy, with Truss promising immediate tax cuts and Sunak — who shepherded Britain’s economy through the coronavirus pandemic — saying he will get inflation under control before slashing taxes. He says borrowing more to cut taxes would be “immoral.”The leadership election is taking place during a cost-of-living crisis driven by soaring food and energy prices, partly due to the war in Ukraine. While many countries are experiencing economic turbulence, in Britain it’s compounded by the country’s departure from the European Union, which has complicated travel and business relations with the U.K.’s biggest trading partner.Both Sunak and Truss are strong supporters of Brexit, which was the signature policy of the Johnson government.But the two have sparred on topics such as policy toward China, with allies of Truss accusing Sunak of changing his stance on relations with Beijing. Sunak says China represents the “biggest-long term threat to Britain,” and says that if elected he would close the 30 Confucius Institutes in Britain. Funded by the Chinese government, the institutes teach Chinese language and culture, but have been accused of spreading pro-Beijing propaganda.Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, a longtime China critic who backs Truss, said Sunak’s Treasury had previously “pushed hard for an economic deal with China.”“Where have you been over the last two years?” he said.Oddsmakers say Truss is the strong favorite to win the leadership. She outperforms Sunak in polls of Conservative members — though Sunak has the edge among voters as a whole.Sunak also faces hostility from allies of Johnson, who consider him a turncoat for quitting the government earlier this month, a move that helped bring down the prime minister. Truss chose to remain in the caretaker government.Many Conservatives worry that the bitter internal fighting is only benefitting the opposition Labour Party. Former party chairwoman Amanda Milling said the contest was “more toxic than I’ve ever seen.” Writing on Twitter, she urged both candidates to sign up to a “Clean Campaign Charter,” saying that without it “the lasting damage to our Party could see us out of power for a decade.” Recommended___Follow all of AP’s coverage of British politics at https://apnews.com/hub/boris-johnson More