UK Politics

The European Union’s highest court ruled on Wednesday that the 27-nation bloc can suspend support payments to member states if they breach rule of law principles, and dismissed a challenge by Hungary and Poland.The right-wing governments of both nations had argued that such action lacked a proper legal basis. Both nations, large recipients of EU funds, have come under increasing criticism over the past few years for veering away from the Western principles of the respect for democratic values in their nations.“The Court dismisses the actions brought by Hungary and Poland in their entirety,” the European Court of Justice said in a statement. The ruling was hotly anticipated by many who had accused the two nations of democratic backsliding and had seen the linkage measure as the EU’s most potent weapon to prevent a democratic legitimacy rift deepening within the bloc.When it comes to democratic principles, “the European Union must be able to defend those values, within the limits of its powers,” the court said. The EU’s executive Commission said it would await Wednesday’s ruling before committing on whether to withhold funds but its president Ursula von der Leyen immediately welcomed the ruling.“The Commission will defend the Union’s budget against breaches of the principles of the rule of law. We will act with determination,” von der Leyen promised. Hungary’s reaction was swift. Justice Minister Judit Varga slammed the ruling on her Facebook page, calling it a “political judgement” and proof that the EU was abusing its power.“The ruling is another application of pressure against our country because we passed our child protection law during the summer,” Varga wrote, referring to contentious Hungarian legislation last year which forbids the depiction of homosexuality or gender change to minors in media content. But the EU’s passage of the rule of law mechanism pre-dates that Hungarian law, which many critics have decried as a violation of LGBTQ rights.Both Hungary and Poland have in the past reasoned that the court was overstepping its authority in approving a new mechanism that is not described in the EU’s own treaties. They said making such a link between finances and the legal decisions of independent member states amounted to blackmail from Brussels.The court argued however that democratic backsliding had not only a political impact but also affected budgetary matters. “The sound financial management of the Union budget and the financial interests of the Union may be seriously compromised by breaches of the principles of the rule of law committed in a member state,” it said. Poland and Hungary have faced criticism in the EU for years over allegations that they have been eroding judicial and media independence, among other democratic principles. The EU had found itself unable to do much to alter the course of either nation, and therefore turned to linking money to their adherence to democratic behavior.Respecting democratic rule of law principles is a beacon of the EU admission criteria and the court insisted that, once in, those principles should stick. “The Court specifies, first, that compliance with those values cannot be reduced to an obligation which a candidate state must meet in order to accede to the European Union and which it may disregard after accession,” it said. In Hungary, Prime Minister Viktor Orban has been pushing what he calls “illiberal democracy,” which his critics say amounts to stifling democracy. In Poland, the Law and Justice party overwhelmingly dominates government and has also increasingly faced criticism from other EU member nations. The rightwing-government has broken the nation’s own laws in order in order to gain political control over courts and judges.Hungary and Poland initially sought to block the budget because of the introduction of the new mechanism, but eventually agreed to the plan on condition that the European Court of Justice would review it.___AP reporter Justin Spike contributed from Budapest. More

Priti Patel’s nationality and borders bill is a “potential racist” piece of legislation and should not go ahead, the London Assembly has said.A large majority in the devolved chamber backed a motion calling on the Home Secretary to stop the controversial legislation and said it “places Britons of ethnic minorities as second-class citizens”.Under the law, the Home Secretary would be able to strip any British national of their citizenship “where they are deemed to have claim to citizenship of another country” and where there was a “public good”.Critics say the law creates a situation where millions of British citizens who either came to the country as immigrants or are recently descended from immigrants will not enjoy the same rights to keep their citizenship as others.Other provisions in the bills would also increase prison sentences for refugees who try to exercise their right of asylum by travelling to the UK through unconventional means.In a motion passed by 14 votes in favour to 8 against, the assembly said: “If this bill were to become law unamended, two in five people from ethnic minority backgrounds would become eligible to be deprived of their citizenship without warning and 6 million people across the UK, a proportion of whom will be Londoners, would be at risk of having their British nationality revoked.”This Assembly believes that the law undermines equal citizenship for all and places Britons of ethnic minorities as second-class citizens [and] that the law is also an attack on the rights of refugees who potentially face a four-year prison term for not entering the UK directly from a country of persecution.”Therefore, this Assembly calls on both the Chair of the Assembly and the Mayor of London to each write separately to the Home Secretary to express our condemnation of this Bill on behalf of Londoners.”It added that the assembly “believes it is a potentially racist, divisive piece of legislation which echoes the ongoing injustices inflicted on the Windrush generation”.Labour, the Greens and Liberal Democrats supported the motion while it was opposed by Conservatives. The vote took place on Thursday.Labour assembly member for Ealing and Hillingdon, Dr Onkar Sahota AM, who proposed the motion, said the law could make “a huge swathe of Londoners second-class citizens”.“What makes London great is its openness and its diversity, but this Bill could see two in five people from ethnic minority backgrounds stripped of their citizenship with no warning,” he said.“This proposed two-tier system is deeply concerning and unacceptable and could make a huge swathe of Londoners second-class citizens in their country.“The Government must learn the damning lessons of the Windrush Scandal and scrap this dangerous and divisive Bill.”Supporting the motion, Hina Bokhari, a Liberal Democrat assembly member said: “It is wrong, this bill will risk normalising the racist and xenophobic attitudes that has risen since Brexit … it will legitimise, quite simply, more hatred.”She said the bill was not reflective of London’s values, adding: “London is not isolationist, it’s not protectionist, it’s not insular.”Tory MP Shaun Bailey, who did not support the motion, said many Tories were “very concerned about the notion of statelessness” but that he would not back the other assembly members because of the motion’s “inflammatory language”.”Suggesting that the government is out-and-out racist I don’t think is simply useful for the debate,” he said.But Green London Assembly member Zack Polanski, who supported the motion, said: “There are people dying right now in our seas: in the Aegean, in the Mediterranean, in the Channel and this could stop tomorrow if the government would just take action: all they need to do is to provide safe and authorised passage through those seas and we could give everyone a better future. “I hope that one day people from these communities could be standing here as a London Assembly member giving these speeches.”The Home Office has been contacted for comment. More

The Welsh government’s trial of a universal basic income will pay around 500 people £1,600 a month, the devolved administration has announced.Under the pilot policy some vulnerable young people will be paid £19,200 a year for 24 months from their 18th birthday – the highest rate of any large-scale pilot.The scheme will be open to all young people leaving care, and extend to double the number of people that had previously been planned.Some members of the Welsh parliament last month expressed concerns that the pilot, originally expected to cover just 250 people, might be too small to be a useful study. But unveiling details on Tuesday evening Welsh ministers said the programme is now likely to be taken up by around 500 care leavers. The experiment is planned to last for a “minimum” of three years.Under a universal basic income everyone would be paid an unconditional flat amount of cash by the government to help cover living costs. The idea has been suggested as a way of giving people more economic security and opportunities and has been trialled in countries including Finland and the Netherlands.The Welsh Labour government wants to test whether the policy lives up to claimed benefits such as cutting poverty and unemployment and improving health and financial wellbeing, so it is piloting it with a smaller group.Minister for social justice Jane Hutt said the pilot was “an exciting project to deliver financial stability for a generation of young people that need it most”.”The pilot will build on the existing support offered to looked after children in Wales and ensure young people who take part in this pilot get all the support they need to give them the best possible chance to make their way in life and the transition out of care better, easier and more positive,” she said. “We are fully committed to supporting those living in poverty, ensuring they receive adequate financial support so that everyone in Wales can live happy and healthy lives.”Members of the Welsh Parliament previously said 250 people was not enough and called for the project to be diversified across more walks of life and demographics to give more useful data. “A basic income pilot for care leavers – as currently proposed by the Welsh government – will provide valuable feedback on the potential of such a scheme to improve the support to a group which faces significant challenges,” the committee said in January.”However, a three-year pilot of only 250 people will offer limited information. And applying a basic income only to care leavers, will tell us little about universal basic income.”The scheme will still be limited to care leavers but is now expected to cover more people. Officials say the increase from 250 to 500 is due to the size of the cohort of 18 years olds leaving care for the 2022/2023 financial year, when the scheme will begin. Welsh Government’s Technical Advisory Group on Basic Income, chaired by Professor Sir Michael Marmot said: “The Technical Advisory Group for the Welsh Basic Income Pilot want to put on record our support for this policy. “Whilst we may have differing opinions on how a basic income can work on a wider scale, we can all agree that any scheme aimed at helping a particularly vulnerable group should be welcomed and intend to provide Welsh Government with the support it needs in making this a success.” More

Boris Johnson has been criticised for scrapping the government’s dedicated minister for the Middle East role, despite mounting tensions and ongoing wars in the region. The prime minister was accused of taking a “Little Britain approach” after the Foreign Office confirmed that the job would be merged with others in the department.Mr Johnson last week moved Tory MP James Cleverly off the Middle East and North Africa minister portfolio, which he had held since 2020 – and made him minister for Europe and North America. But instead of appointing a new MP to the job the Middle East portfolio has been handed to Asia minister Amanda Milling in addition to her existing role.On top of the world’s largest continent and its most tumultuous region her responsibilities also include relations with Australia and New Zealand – two major focuses of Mr Johnson’s foreign policy.She will also oversee all British overseas territories, economic cooperation and growth, trade, consular policy, science, global health, Covid-19, and migration; adding to a vast list of responsibilities. Chris Law, the SNP’s international development spokesperson, pointed out that the government now had a Minister for Brexit Opportunities but no dedicated Minister for the Middle East.He said the prime minister’s decision “shows how badly the Foreign Office has lost its way under this Tory Government”.”This part of the world is currently home to some of the world’s most complex and catastrophic crises, such as the conflict in Israel/Palestine, the humanitarian disaster in Yemen and the volatile political and security situation in Iran,” Mr Law argued.”If there was ever a region that needed due Ministerial time and attention afforded to it, this is it. Foreign Secretary Liz Truss professes a strategy of ‘Global Britain’; this decision to withdraw in diplomatic terms, after withdrawing hundreds of millions of pounds worth of aid from the region last year, flies right in the face of that. “This ‘Little Britain’ approach not only diminishes the UK’s reputation and influence abroad, it fundamentally undermines the national interest.”The scrapping of the role comes as war continues to rage in Syria and Yemen and amid escalating tensions between Israel and Palestinians.The Foreign Office has been contacted for comment. More

TV presenter Richard Madeley has appeared to downplay death threats received by opposition leader by Keir Starmer, asking whether they were “that big a deal”.In a segment on ITV’s Good Morning Britain programme on Tuesday Mr Madeley discussed the fallout from Boris Johnson’s discredited claims about Sir Keir and Jimmy Savile.The prime minister had tried to link the opposition leader with the notorious sex offender by saying Sir Keir failed to prosecute him when he was head of the Crown Prosecution Service.”Now we learned yesterday that Keir Starmer says he’s getting death threats online – people calling for his execution,” Mr Madeley said. His guest, Conservative commentator Andrew Pierce, replied: “Well I think politicians get that all the time.”The presenter Mr Madeley added: “I was going to say, actually, is that that big a deal?”Social media users responded angrily to the segment, noting that two MPs had been killed in recent years.One, user Shivaji Jadhav said: “Two MPs were killed: one Jo Cox and two David Amess. They should apologise to [the] families of Jo Cox and David Amess.”Another, Aneil Balgobin said: “This is appalling. Downplaying death threats on national TV, how have we got to this point? I’d encourage people to complain to Ofcom.”Death threats are a reasonably frequent occurrence for many MPs, with studies showing disproportionate amounts of vitriol are directed at women and people from ethnic minorities. Asked on Monday whether he had received death threats Sir Keir told BBC Radio Newcastle: “Erm yes. I do not like to talk about this because I’ve got young children.”And therefore it’s very important for me to say that what the prime minister said was wrong, it was very wrong – he knew exactly what he was doing.”There’s been a right-wing conspiracy theory for some time that is a complete fabrication. He fed into that.”That has caused difficulty, but my preference, if I may, is not to talk about that because, as I say, I’ve got young children and I don’t particularly want them to hear too much of what may or may not be said about me.” More

The latest intelligence on the build-up of Russian troops near the border with Ukraine is “not encouraging”, Boris Johnson has said following a meeting of the government’s emergency Cobra committee.The prime minister said that there were some hopeful signs of Moscow being ready to continue diplomatic conversations.But he made clear he was sceptical about suggestions that president Vladimir Putin may be pulling back from the brink of war, pointing to evidence of field hospitals being built in Belarus near the border with Ukraine and army formations being brought closer to the frontier.The construction of field hospitals – used to provide treatment for troops injured in battle – can only be “construed as preparation for an invasion”, the prime minister said.And he added: “We think they have a huge preparation ready to go virtually at any moment.”Despite Russian claims about troop withdrawals, Mr Johnson said intelligence suggested “you have got more battalion tactical groups being brought closer to the border”.“So, mixed signals, I think, at the moment,” Mr Johnson said.Ukraine’s foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, who was today due to speak by phone with foreign secretary Liz Truss, made clear that Kyiv shares the PM’s scepticism over Russian statements about scaling down its military presence.“On Russian statements regarding withdrawal of some forces from the Ukrainian border, we in Ukraine have a rule,” said Mr Kuleba.“We don’t believe what we hear, we believe what we see. If a real withdrawal follows these statements, we will believe in the beginning of a real de-escalation.”Asked about suggestions from US intelligence that an invasion could occur in the early hours of Wednesday morning, Mr Johnson said Putin had “a lot of options” available.“130,000 troops or more, a huge number of battalions – more than 90 battalions, tactical groups – and they are stationed around the Ukrainian border,” said the PM.“Everyone can see what the potential routes in are – down to the south from Belarus, encircling the Ukrainian army in the east around the enclave in Donbas or even coming up from the south from the sea, taking Odessa, Curzon.“That’s the kind of thing they (could do). There a lot of options that they have.”He called for “a programme of de-escalation” by Moscow.“That means withdrawing the battalion tactical groups away from a potential theatre of conflict, not constructing field hospitals on the border with Belarus and between Belarus and Ukraine,” said the PM.“A sense that things are being scaled back, scaled down, that the threat is over and that a conversation and negotiation is beginning.”Mr Johnson said London believes there is an “avenue for diplomacy” following positive signs in conversations between foreign minister Sergey Lavrov and Mr Putin’s foreign policy adviser Yuri Ushakov and their counterparts in the West.“If that’s correct, then let’s build on that,” said Mr Johnson.Mr Putin has publicly denied intending to invade Ukraine, but says he regards it as an act of aggression for Nato to hold open the prospect of membership for the country, once an integral part of the Soviet Union.The PM said it had been decided at today’s Cobra meeting to keep the UK embassy in Ukrainian capital Kyiv open.Boris Johnson said the UK’s decision to keep its embassy open in Kyiv was “very difficult”, but the move is an “important symbol”.“This is a very difficult decision that we’ve just taken, and that is to keep our embassy going in Kyiv, and to continue to ask Melinda Simmons, our fantastic ambassador, to do what she’s doing,” he said.“Now, that’s a balanced decision. We have to face the fact that there is a risk. We’ll keep it under constant review.“One of the things we want to do is to show the UK’s continued support for Ukraine, for stability in Ukraine, and I believe that keeping our embassy going for as long as possible is an important symbol.” More

A Conservative MP has said she wrote a letter criticising Boris Johnson for damaging the UK’s international reputation “in error”.Joy Morrissey was appointed to be Mr Johnson’s parliamentary private secretary in last week’s reshuffle, a role which will see her work closely with him.But there were blushes in Whitehall over the weekend after it emerged that Ms Morrissey had strongly criticised the government for cutting international aid. The MP had argued in a letter to a concerned constituent that the cuts were “a mere drop in ocean compared with what the Government is currently borrowing, and will do little to alleviate the current domestic economic crisis” but “have a massive impact on the world’s most vulnerable people”.When approached about the letter, in which she she says the cuts send “completely the wrong message”, Ms Morrissey initially told the Daily Mail newspaper that it was a fake.She later U-turned and admitted writing the missive: but said it had been sent by “mistake”.Her claim comes amid a public debate about whether politicians lie too often.In a statement, a spokesperson for Ms Morrissey said: “The letter in question was regrettably sent to said constituent in error.”Joy fully supports the Government’s foreign policy and its cut in the foreign aid budget.”Like many MPs offices Joy’s office has experienced extremely high volumes of constituency correspondence recently and whilst unfortunate, mistakes like this do happen.”There is no question that Joy completely supports the Government’s policy agenda.” More