UK Politics

Nicola Sturgeon admitted border customs checks would be needed with the rest of the UK as she promised to be “frank” about the challenges of an independent Scotland.The First Minister said she would set out more detail on how trade would work between Scotland and the rest of the UK in future papers which will form her independence prospectus.On Tuesday, she published the first of these papers, part of a series called “Building a New Scotland”.Earlier this year, the UK in a Changing Europe think tank published an extensive paper examining the issue of borders after Scottish independence.It says some of the cross-border arrangements envisaged in the 2014 referendum will not be possible due to Brexit, as a new land border between the EU and the rest of the UK would be created. More

The Liberal Democrats have accused the government of “sitting on its hands” and letting a looming national rail strike go ahead – to keep their activists away from a crucial by-election.In a letter to Grant Shapps Sarah Olney, the party’s transport secretary accused ministers of “playing games with people’s lives” to “help save” Boris Johnson.The Conservatives are facing a crucial by-election test in Tiverton and Honiton after the resignation of Tory MP Neil Parish, who quit after admitting to watching pornography at work.Despite a thumping 24,339 vote majority at the last election the party is worried about losing the seat to the Lib Dems, who believe they are now “neck and neck” amid disgust at Mr Johnson’s government.A defeat at the by-election would be a further blow for the PM, who has already suffered a bruising no-confidence vote from his own MPs in Wesminster. The opposition liberals have been flooding the seat with activists in a bid to embarrass Mr Johnson on election day but say they are facing logistical difficulties because of looming rail strikes.The Lib Dems claim the Tories have a vested interest in letting the strike go ahead and that refusing to meet workers’ pay offers and avert industrial action.”It is becoming clearer by the day why you have chosen to let these strikes go ahead,” Ms Olney said in a letter to the transport secretary.”This is part of a cynical and desperate political game by the Conservative party to help Boris Johnson win next week’s crucial by-elections, despite the devastating blow no rail services will have on tourism in areas such as the South West.”She added that the strike will “result in volunteers not being able to attend the by-election in Devon”, branding it “a new low for the Conservative party”.Mr Shapps has yet to respond to the letter. A Department for Transport spokesperson said the claim was “completely untrue”.The Lib Dems also pointed to a Tory motion in parliament condemning the strikes, which they say amounts to a political trap for Labour and more political game-playing over the dispute.It comes as the one of the leaders of the RMT rail union said that most of the public understood why it has launched a series of rail strikes.Eddie Dempsey, senior assistant general secretary, said the union was still deep in talks to agree a settlement to avert three days of strikes next week.“I think a lot of the public will understand the reasons why we’re in dispute, even if they will be frustrated at some of the disruption to strikes will cause because wages have been falling for 30 years in this country,” he told broadcaster GB News.“They’ve rarely kept up with inflation and…they see in millions of taxpayers money come into our industry, and then leave in the form of profits and going off to tax havens.“And it seems that the government is content for our money to be spent in that way but it is not content in seeing railway workers have a fair settlement on pay and some job security.”He added: “I think people will be frustrated, those of us who experience some disruption, but I think most people in the country will understand the reasons for this dispute.”The Tiverton and Honiton by-election is due to take place on 23 June, the same day as the Wakefield by-election in Yorkshire. The strike will take place on tuesday 21 June, Thursday 23 June and Saturday 25 June. The disruption is expected be felt throughout the week due to knock-on effects.Workers on Network Rail and 13 train companies are taking part, in a bid to safeguard their rates of pay and job losses during the looming cost of living crisis. At the last election Labour came second in Tiverton and Honiton with the Lib Dems third, but ex Labour minister Ben Bradshaw last month appeared to suggest the Lib Dems had a better chance this time.“What some Labour members and activists don’t always appreciate is that a lot of Conservative voters, if they want to give the government a kicking will vote Liberal Democrat but they wouldn’t vote Labour,” he told the BBC.“So if we have a joint purpose of wanting to send the prime minister a message and ultimately defeat this government in a general election then I think there are very good prospects of a Lib Dem victory there.” More

A Conservative MP has blamed asylum seekers for severe problems in the NHS, schools and social housing – 12 years after his party came to power.Tom Hunt claimed “uncontrolled illegal immigration” lay behind shortages of GPs, schools places and low-cost homes, as he defended the policy of deporting refugees to Rwanda.He also argued “elite society” was leading the opposition to the Rwanda plan – despite having attended a £35,000-a-year private school and Oxford University.The Ipswich MP was asked if he believed the vast cost of the deportations – kept secret by Priti Patel – was “good value for money”, leaving aside the morality of the scheme.He replied: “What’s the financial cost of having a never-ending situation where we have tens of thousands of people potentially ending up here illegally every year and the pressure that puts on our public services?“Many of the most vocal critics have been from elite society and, frankly, have never had to live with the consequences of uncontrolled immigration.”Mr Hunt was asked what he meant by “elite society”, pointing to “some of those bishops” who have signed a joint letter condemning Boris Johnson for the move.And he added: “It’s quite clear that some of the most vocal critics of this – who’ve been the most hysterical over this policy – have been individuals who have never had to live with the consequences of uncontrolled immigration and the impact that has on public services.“They’ve never had to wait for a GP appointment. They’ve never had to battle to get a school place for a child. They’ve never had to face a battle to get a council house, so I do find it a bit rich to be hearing lectures from them.”The comments come as pressure grows on the government over the quality of public services – several years after it declared the years of austerity are over.Sajid Javid, the health secretary, admitted last year that that the government is likely to break its manifesto promise to increase the number of GPs in England by 6,000.Meanwhile, per-pupil school spending in England fell by 9 per cent over the decade to 2020 – and would have been £16bn higher without that austerity, independent experts say.And Michael Gove, the levelling up secretary, admitted his government had “failed” to build enough social housing, even before Boris Johnson’s housing package fell flat last week.On the BBC’s Politics Live programme, the Liberal Democrat MP Munira Wilson told Mr Hunt that Rwanda deportations were “utterly immoral and far too expensive”.“What we need to be doing is focusing on safe and legal routes to in order to deter the traffickers,” she said – warning the policy will “encourage the traffickers to bring women and children over here”.“Everything we’ve seen Priti Patel do so far on this issue has not worked and I have no confidence that this would have any impact.” More

Boris Johnson’s new “cost of living tsar” called for him to quit No 10 over Partygate and suggested he lacks intelligence, it has emerged.David Buttress, a former head of the Just Eat online food delivery service, has been asked to develop new business-led ideas to help people struggling with falling living standards.He was described as boasting a “wealth of experience” and ready to bring the “vigour and ingenuity of business” to the role, working with the Cabinet Office.But, in January, as Mr Johnson was engulfed by the scandal over the lawbreaking No 10 parties, Mr Buttress tore into the prime minister’s failings on Twitter.“Never confuse an expensive education with intelligence or integrity,” he tweeted.“I don’t think Boris is particularly blessed with either, imagine if he had not had the many privileges he has experienced. Does anyone believe he would be PM on merit? Not a chance, mate.”Later that month, Mr Buttress also posted: “Why is it that the worse [sic] people often rise to the highest office and stay there!?”And he added: “Boris has to go, he just has to. You can’t survive judgment like this.”The prime minister’s spokesman declined to say if ministers were aware of the new tsar’s past criticisms, but insisted “due diligence” had been carried out before the appointment.Mr Buttress is also a supporter of Welsh independence, once linking child poverty to being part of the United Kingdom.And, in October 2021, he tweeted: “Immigration is a driver of productivity growth. Boris once again, gambling and being fast and loose with the UK economy and the impact on the most vulnerable.”Asked about the comments, the No 10 spokesman said: “We want to get people with the right experience into important roles such as these.“Anyone who looks at Mr Buttress’s CV can see that he is well-qualified to advise the government in this specific area. Those views are not relevant to the role he is doing.The new cost of living business tsar joined the education secretary Nadhim Zahawi at a meeting with supermarkets and sports organisations to discuss the government’s holiday activities and food programme.Stephen Barclay, the Cabinet Office minister said: “Businesses and organisations across the country have stepped up time and time again when the nation needs it most.“The financial pressures people are facing as a result of current global challenges will be no different.” More

Conservative MPs have urged the government to use its Brexit freedoms to ditch the EU’s cautious approach to making sure pesticides are safe for human consumption.A new report authored by right-wing Tory MPs urges ministers to “peel back” the EU’s “precautionary principle” so that chemical companies can experiment, increase “yields”, and “return a profit”.A chapter of the report, authored by MP Alexander Stafford, says the UK should automatically allow all pesticides permitted in the United States under a “mutual recognition” system.The Rother Valley MP took issue with “the EU’s precautionary principle, which dictates that a new innovation cannot be introduced without total scientific certainty that it does not pose a danger in any way, shape or form”.“Governments, supported by private stakeholders like those attending my APPG [all-party parliamentary groups] roundtables, need to innovate in order to decarbonise and return a profit, and they need to do it now,” he said.It comes after The Independent reported that the government is considering using its Brexit freedoms to permit pesticides recently banned by the EU on imported food.Brussels announced it was banning 10 pesticides on imported fruit and veg in February last year and the UK was expected to follow suit, but has not yet done so in most cases.In the new report by the Free Market Forum group of MPs, 2019 intaker Mr Stafford argued: “I would strongly urge the government to reconsider EU regulations on pesticides and genetically modified organisms, and to push ahead in rebalancing the precautionary principle – a means of mitigating risk in innovation which the European Union has, regrettably, taken to extremes.”He called for the scrapping of the UK’s version of EU regulation 1107/2009 on pesticides, describing it as “a classic example of red tape slowing innovation and gumming up the introduction of new pesticides”, adding: “The question of whether to repeal the regulation and build an entirely new approval process, or simply pare back some EU excesses, is another matter. He said it would be “straightforward” to “allow for the mutual recognition of new products developed in other well-regulated economies such as the United States”. Mr Stafford argued that the previous approach taken by the EU was “narrow-minded” and that there could be benefits from introducing new chemicals.The report, titled “Green Light”, was contributed to by staff at the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), a free-market think tank which does not reveal its funders. The Free Market Forum group describes itself as “a project of the Institute of Economic Affairs”.Other chapters also argue in favour of more fracking, more private competition in the railways, and lifting regulations on nuclear power and artificial meat. The MPs argue that their approach could help reach net zero.Responding to the suggestion, a spokesperson for Greenpeace UK said: “This group of Conservative MPs seem to have come up with a cunning plan: using net zero as an excuse to push the same old deregulation agenda. “Except that their proposals are not going to fool anyone. “Ditching rules on dangerous pesticides or pushing ahead with fracking have clearly nothing to do with meeting net-zero targets, and would achieve the opposite. “If they genuinely want to help the UK cut its carbon emissions, they should back the proven, affordable and widely popular technologies we already have, such as renewables, and protect our food standards.” The Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) has been contacted for comment. More

Boris Johnson admits he signed Northern Ireland Protocol hoping EU would not ‘apply it’European Parliament members have called on Britain not to adopt proposed legislation which would override the Northern Ireland Protocol of the Brexit deal.A statement from a group of MEPs who manage the parliament’s approach to post-Brexit arrangements said: “We are deeply concerned with the UK’s unilateral action, which constitutes a serious and unacceptable breach of international law.” It went on to urge the UK government to drop its proposed bill.Britain yesterday revealed a plan to unilaterally alter trading arrangements agreed with the EU as part of the Brexit deal, citing concerns over bureaucracy and oversight.Sinn Fein said it was “disgraceful and utterly reckless” for Britain to breach an international agreement but Liz Truss, UK foreign secretary, defended the plan, saying it “doesn’t make the EU any worse off”.Britain’s move has sparked backlash from across the EU, with the bloc saying it would resume legal opposition. Boris Johnson said any retaliatory move from the bloc would be a “gross, gross overreaction”.Show latest update

1655217956Privatisation is ‘right thing’ for Channel 4, says arts ministerA change of ownership is the “right thing for Channel 4“ in order for it to compete against the “thriving independent sector”, an arts minister has said.Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay, under secretary of the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), was quizzed on the privatisation of the broadcaster during a DCMS Committee session on Tuesday.Defending the government’s decision to sell off Channel 4, he said: “Change of ownership is the right thing for Channel 4, because it helps it to have the investment that it needs in order to compete against a thriving independent sector.“Channel 4 was set up before I was born to help stimulate commissioning from the independent sector, it has done that brilliantly, so well that we have a really thriving independent production sector.”He cited the growth of streaming platforms as one of the key reasons for the broadcaster’s privatisation, adding: “The cost of those independent productions is going up because there’s such appetite from the Netflixs, the Amazons and others.“And that’s why we need to look at the next 40 years of Channel 4 and make sure that it has the investment, the access to the cash that it needs to continue to do that for the next generation.”Liam James14 June 2022 15:451655216413Boris Johnson says Scotland had already been asked about independenceBoris Johnson said the Scottish people had already made their views known at the 2014 referendum, as Nicola Sturgeon launched her new campaign for a second referendum on Scottish independence.“I think the decision was taken by the Scottish people only a few years ago, in recent memory,” he told reporters in Staffordshire.“I think we should respect that. I think we should also focus on what I think the people of the whole of the UK – Scotland, England, everybody – wants us to look at, which is the economic position we are in, the effect of Covid on the country and then the post-Covid issues that we’re grappling with.“That’s the focus of the government. We’re working with our friends in the Scottish government, in the Scottish administration, on those issues. That’s what you’d expect the government to do.”Liam James14 June 2022 15:201655215200Sturgeon launches IndyRef2 campaignNicola Strugeon kicked off a new campaign for another vote on Scottish independence today, accusing Boris Johnson of denying democracy.The first minister laid out the economic and social differences between Scotland and other small countries, attributing the deficit to not having the full powers of an independent country.She also promised a “significant update” in the near future on how such a vote could be held without the powers being granted by Westminster.Ms Sturgeon said she was re-elected last May on a “clear commitment” to a vote and had a majority of MSPs in favour of independence.She claimed if the UK government “had any respect at all for democracy” it would grant a Section 30 order, allowing a legally binding referendum to be held, as happened in 2014. More

The government’s first deportation flight to Rwanda looks set to go ahead on Tuesday evening after the Supreme Court refused to consider a fresh appeal by immigrant rights campaigners, ruling that the Court of Appeal’s verdict on Monday was correct.The strategy of outsourcing asylum claims to an African nation with a highly questionable human rights record has been met with a storm of criticism, from Prince Charles branding it “appalling” to protesters demonstrating outside a detention centre in Crawley and the Home Office in Westminster.More than two dozen Church of England bishops, including Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, wrote an open letter to The Times calling it an “immoral policy that shames Britain.”“The shame is our own, because our Christian heritage should inspire us to treat asylum seekers with compassion, fairness and justice, as we have for centuries,” the clergymen wrote.Attorneys are still engaging in last-ditch, case-by-case appeals on behalf of migrant clients seeking their exemption, with the number of passengers now said to be down to just seven from 31, according to the campaign group Care4Calais, following a number of successful claims made on their behalf.But foreign secretary Liz Truss insisted on Tuesday morning during an interview with Sky News that the approach was “completely moral”, that the flight would definitely be going ahead and that anyone who avoided it would be placed on a later one.“I can’t say how many people will be on the flight, but the really important thing is that we establish the principle and we start to break the business model of these appalling people traffickers who are trading in misery,” she said, declining to acknowledge that her own solution to the problem might bring further misery. The charter flight to Kigali will be operated by airline Privilege Style, according to the BBC, and is expected to take off at 9.30pm on Tuesday evening.It is scheduled to take off from an undisclosed location, although Jo Maugham, director of the Good Law Project, has said his information indicates it will depart from MOD Boscombe Down near Salisbury in Wiltshire.Downing Street has defended the cost of the policy after it was reported that the flight could leave taxpayers with a £500,000 bill.The spokesman was unable to comment on the cost of the flight but added: “The broader point is that you will know the cost of the current approach to the UK taxpayer is £1.5 billion every year already, we spend almost £5 million a day accommodating asylum seekers in hotels in this country, so this is about finding a long-term solution to a longstanding problem.”Ms Truss earlier told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that “significant” numbers of asylum seekers would be placed on one-way flights to Rwanda by the end of the year.Boris Johnson has likewise attempted to frame the policy as a bid to disrupt the efforts of human traffickers and even went so far as to accuse lawyers challenging the flights in court of “abetting the work of criminal gangs” during a Cabinet meeting.The prime minister insisted that his government would not be deterred by the attacks it has been subjected to, “not least from lawyers”, and told ministers that “we are going to get on and deliver”, a mantra no doubt familiar to keen observers of the Partygate furore.“I think that what the criminal gangs are doing and what those who effectively are abetting the work of the criminal gangs are doing is undermining people’s confidence in the safe and legal system,” Mr Johnson added.Last year, more than 28,000 people made the dangerous journey across the English Channel in unsafe small boats, many with the support of such gangs, a figure more than three times the total seen in 2020, hence the government’s haste. More

Boris Johnson’s legal justification for tearing up his agreement with the EU on post-Brexit arrangements for Northern Ireland has been branded “hopeless” by the government’s former chief lawyer.Sir Jonathan Jones’ comment came as the UK’s plans unilaterally to disapply large elements of the Northern Ireland Protocol were savaged by legal experts, with a Cambridge University professor saying that the Johnson administration had shown it was willing to “play fast and loose with the rule of law”.And constitutional experts at the Hansard Society said that the bill tabled by foreign secretary Liz Truss on Monday was “breath-taking” in the new powers it handed to ministers to change vast swathes of the Brexit deal without parliamentary approval.The European Commission is expected later this week to launch new infringement action against the UK, as well as reviving earlier legal cases put on hold during negotiations on the implementation of the protocol.European capitals backed Brussels’ approach, with Germany saying the UK action was “not acceptable” and warning that “peace and prosperity on the island of Ireland are not a pawn”.And while the White House said the bill would not prevent a trade deal with the US, president Joe Biden’s spokesperson urged the UK and EU to “return to talks to resolve these differences”.Legal experts gave short shrift to the government’s reliance on a concept known as the “doctrine of necessity” to support its claim that it will not breach international law if it sets aside key elements of a treaty negotiated and signed by Mr Johnson in 2019.The International Law Commission states that the doctrine can be invoked only in conditions of “grave and imminent peril” and in cases where the state deploying it has not contributed to the situation by its own actions.A legal position signed off by attorney general Suella Braverman contends that this requirement is met because of “diversion of trade and serious societal and economic difficulties occasioned by the protocol” and “the strain that the arrangements under the Protocol are placing on institutions in Northern Ireland”.But Sir Jonathan – who quit as Treasury Solicitor in 2020 in protest at an earlier bid to use legislation to get round the Brexit deal – said: “The government’s legal statement, relying on the doctrine of necessity, is surely hopeless, giving no evidence of how this high test is met, or why the govt hasn’t used lesser measures – including Article 16 -first.“The EU will surely see it as a gross breach of the Withdrawal Agreement. Legal proceedings seem inevitable.”And Cambridge University law professor Mark Elliott said it was “highly doubtful” that the government would be found to have met the test of “grave and imminent peril”, which is intended to be used only in extreme circumstances.“It would be an understatement to say that the government would face an uphill struggle in seeking to satisfy a court that the bill could be justified by reference to necessity,” said Prof Elliott.“By announcing its intention to enact this legislation, and by accompanying it with a ‘legal justification’ that engenders ridicule, the government has once again signalled its willingness to play fast and loose with the rule of law and its commitment to a rules-based international order.“In doing so, it cedes moral authority, casts doubt on its reliability as a treaty partner — including in any future trade negotiations — and invites other states to plead political convenience masquerading as ‘necessity’ in order to justify reneging on treaty obligations.”The Hansard Society said that the bill effectively created so-called “Henry VIII powers” to allow ministers to alter any element of the protocol or the EU Withdrawal Agreement by issuing a regulation, without requiring a vote in parliament.The Society predicted that the House of Lords will fiercely resist provisions allowing to take such action whenever they deem it “appropriate”. More