Connect with us

David Cameron has become the fifth and final former PM to come out against the Internal Market bill (Sky News)


4 min read

David Cameron has followed all other living former Prime Ministers in coming out against Boris Johnson’s plan to break international law, after he broke his silence on Monday morning.

It comes after the former Attorney General Geoffrey Cox roundly condemned the changes to the Brexit deal put forward in the controversial Internal Market bill, saying breaking the rule of law “ultimately leads to very long term, and permanent damage to this country’s reputation”.

He said he could not back the legislation as it unpicks the Withdrawal Agreement and Northern Ireland protocol he helped draw up last year, telling TimesRadio: “I simply cannot approve or endorse a situation in which we go back on our word given solemnly, not only by the British government, and on behalf of the British crown, but also by Parliament when we ratified this in February.”

Mr Cox’s comments add to a growing rebellion among Tory MPs as the bill arrives in the Commons for debate today, further fuelled by the ex-leader of the party, Mr Cameron.

He told the media this morning: “Passing an act of Parliament and going on to break an international treaty obligation should be the very last thing you contemplate, an absolute last resort.  

“So I have grave misgivings about what is being proposed.“

That made him the fifth former PM to denounce the bill, after Theresa May criticised it in the chamber last week, followed by Gordon Brown calling it an act of “self-harm”, and Tony Blair and John Major penning a joint article urging MPs to reject the “shameful” attempt to override the Withdrawal Agreement, saying it risks the peace process in Ireland.

But policing minister Kit Malthouse defended the legislation, saying it was about protecting the UK from the EU’s attempts to block food exports from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

When told on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme that Brussels had said that would not be the case, he added: “Well it would be perfectly possible for them to rule that out by saying they will guarantee recognition of the UK as a third country.”

Mr Cox said he was sympathetic to such aims, but could not back breaking the law to do so:  “I think that the government is within its rights to take lawful steps to challenge them and to bring them to them some better idea of reasonable behaviour, but what you can’t do. 

“And what I think is wrong, is to abandon an agreement to rewrite unilaterally parts of an agreement, which you only signed nine months ago and to which we’ve given our solemn word.”

Asked if he will vote for the bill the ex-Attorney General said: “No, I wouldn’t unless the government were to clarify the circumstances in which these powers would be used, and dispel the very unfortunate impression given by Brandon Lewis at the despatch box that the government intends to use these powers to violate a treaty to which we solemnly entered, just a few months ago… 

“But if the government were to say that these powers will only be used in these specific circumstances where it would be lawful to act in that way, well then that might well be a different position. 

“But I haven’t had those assurances yet and I shall be waiting keenly to listen to what the minister says at the despatch box today.”

He added: “I find myself in a very sad position. I’m a strong supporter of this government. I am a strong supporter of Brexit.

“But for me, the crossing of an important boundary is when a government says it’s going to break the law and the treaty it signed.”

Asked about Mr Cox’s intervention Mr Malthouse told the BBC: “Well it’s very poetic but it doesn’t, for me personally, solve the problem that we’re faced with.”

The minister said he will vote for the bill even if it breaks international law, saying: “I’ll be voting for the bill because I don’t believe that if that circumstance should arise, where food is prevented from moving from GB to Northern Ireland, that the Prime Minister has any choice but to take powers to allow Tesco to stock the shelves in Belfast.”

And the former Northern Ireland secretary Theresa Villiers ruled out rebelling, saying it is “sensible to have a fall-back position if the EU continues to refuse to negotiate reasonably on arrangements for transporting goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.

But Labour’s shadow business secretary Ed Miliband said the plan was an act of “legislative hooliganism”, telling Today: “The fundamental thing is – I think we should take a step back – this is not normal.

“I’ve come on your programme many times to discuss many issues – I have never been on your programme discussing a British government coming along and seeking to break international law, an agreement it signed.

“It is honestly a sad day and that’s why I think you hear people across the political spectrum condemning the government.”

Source link

0
Continue Reading

Politics

US election 2020: Fact-checking Trump and Biden’s final week

115140743 biden trump 30th oct 2

By Reality Check team
BBC News

Related Topics

  • US election 2020

image copyrightGetty Images

After months of bitter campaigning – and plenty of spin and distortion of the facts – the US election is drawing to an end.

We’ve been fact-checking the candidates throughout, and here is our selection from the final week of the campaign.

Donald Trump has been far more active on the campaign trail over the past few days, with a punishing schedule of rallies in key states.

There’s been no let-up of his repetition of false claims about the pandemic, his record in office and the integrity of postal voting.

Mr Biden has appeared in public far less, but he’s also presented fact-checking challenges and often misrepresented the economy under President Trump.

Trump: You can change your vote in “most states”

Verdict: This is not correct. Only in a few states can you change your vote after you’ve submitted a postal ballot.

There are just a handful of states – including Michigan, Connecticut, Minnesota, New York and Wisconsin – where your postal vote can be cancelled after it has been submitted.

In these states, you can then either request a new postal ballot or vote in person.

Most states will allow you to vote in person if you’ve been sent a postal vote but haven’t returned it. Some of these ballots have to be counted last to make sure no-one votes twice.

Biden: “Donald Trump crashed the economy that Barack and I left him. Like everything else he’s left and inherited, he squandered it.”

Verdict: Only after the onset of the pandemic did economic growth take a nose-dive. It has subsequently experienced a strong recovery.

The latest numbers show economic output surged by an annualised 33% in the third quarter of 2020, following a record fall as a consequence of the coronavirus pandemic.

However, the economy has not yet recovered to pre-pandemic levels.

Prior to the pandemic, during President Trump’s first three years in office,

he oversaw an annual average growth of 2.5%.

The last three years of the Obama administration saw a similar level of growth (2.3%).

Mr Trump has said the recent recovery in growth is “the biggest in the history of our country by almost triple… that’s bigger than any nation”.

This isn’t right. Over the third quarter period (July-September) this year, the economy grew by 7.4% in the US (33.1% is the annualised figure). This is less than Germany, Italy and the eurozone as a whole.

If you look at economic growth from the start of the pandemic to the present, the US has done better than Europe but “worse that China and some other Asian economies” such as South Korea, says Neil Shearing, chief economist at Capital Economics.

image copyrightReuters

Biden: “It’s estimated that if we wore masks the next few months, by his own experts in the CDC and other agencies… we’d save 100,000 lives.”

Verdict: The US Centers for Disease Control (CDC) does not make this projection, nor do others.

Mr Biden may have been referring to a projection, not by the CDC, but from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington.

However, the 100,000 figure Mr Biden quotes is significantly above the IHME’s latest estimate that 62,000 lives would be saved by the end of January 2021, if mask-wearing was almost universal.

The CDC recommends that people wear masks in public settings, events and gatherings, to help stop the spread of coronavirus.

image copyrightGetty Images

Trump: Joe Biden ending cash bail would free “400,000 dangerous criminals”

Verdict: This needs context. Joe Biden does want to end the cash bail system, but Mr Trump is wrong about its impact.

Joe Biden has pledged to end cash bail – the deposit a defendant pays to avoid being kept in detention while awaiting trial.

His website says: “The cash bail system incarcerates people who are presumed innocent.”

There are about 450,000 individuals currently detained before trial. However, a significant proportion of these are not given the option of bail – in particular those charged with serious crimes.

So Mr Trump’s figure of 400,000 is too high, say experts. And it’s also not correct to call all the people who can’t afford to pay bail “dangerous criminals”.

“Cash bail results in detention based on inability to pay. As a result, a low-risk indigent person may be detained and a high-risk wealthy person may be released,” says Prof Crystal Yang at Harvard University.

Biden: “91 of the top corporate companies in America paid zero federal income tax.”

Verdict: This is true, according to a study.

The context for this claim is that Mr Biden has criticised big cuts in taxes under the Trump administration that have led to companies and wealthy individuals paying substantially less.

In 2018, 91 of the top 500 companies in the US effectively paid no tax, according to a report by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy.

Despite making almost $80bn in pre-tax income, some companies paid no taxes, as the US corporate tax code “lowers the bar for the amount of tax avoidance it takes to get you down to zero”, according to the Institute.

The companies paying zero tax included Amazon and Starbucks.

Related Topics



Source link

0
Continue Reading

Politics

Why Amazon and Reliance are fighting for Future Retail in India

201026032502 reliance jewels and reliance digital 1007 super tease

Amazon (AMZN), the Seattle-based e-commerce firm owned by Jeff Bezos, is fighting a $3.3 billion deal struck between Mukesh Ambani’s Reliance Industries and the Indian retail conglomerate Future Group.

What’s at stake is strategic access to a network of popular grocery stores and retail shops in India — something both Amazon and Reliance want to either have for themselves, or to prevent the other from acquiring.

“If someone backs down, it will give the impression that one has lost and the other has won, when the fight has just started,” said Counterpoint Research analyst Tarun Pathak.

Amazon has 31.2% market share in India’s e-commerce industry, just behind Walmart-owned Flipkart’s 31.9%, according to a recent report from market research firm Forrester. But Ambani has made no secret of his ambitions to upend the market with JioMart, which is part of his sprawling conglomerate.

At the heart of the current battle is Future Retail, the cash cow of Future Group. The retail unit includes brands like Big Bazaar, a well-known, popular hypermarket chain in India. In August 2019, Amazon invested in a Future Group entity that gave it a roughly 4.8% stake in Future Retail as of September 30 this year, according to stock exchange filings. The deal gave Amazon the right of first refusal to acquire more shares in Future Retail, according to one of the filings.

Then Covid-19 hit. India enforced one of the strictest nationwide lockdowns, ordering shops to shutter and millions of people to stay indoors for months.

The pandemic has had a “significant adverse impact” on Future Retail’s business operations, the company said in its most recent earnings report. In July, Future Retail’s credit rating took a hit after it missed a bond payment. Fitch Ratings downgraded Future Retail’s rating two notches to C, signaling that the company was “near default.”
The following month, Reliance and Future Group announced that Reliance was buying Future Retail and several other assets. The deal allowed Future Group to “achieve a holistic solution to the challenges that have been caused by Covid and the macro economic environment,” Kishore Biyani, Future Group CEO, said in a statement at the time.

A legal dispute

The announcement took industry watchers by surprise.

“Everyone knew Amazon had a stake in Future Retail, and the deal didn’t mention what would happen to Amazon’s stake,” said Satish Meena, analyst at research firm Forrester.

Amazon responded by filing a complaint to the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC).

Indian companies and foreign companies operating in India often agree to settle disputes in Singapore because “it’s a neutral jurisdiction with high integrity and international standards,” according to Ashish Kabra, a lawyer who heads the International Dispute Resolution & Investigations Practice for Nishith Desai Associates in Singapore.

The arbitration process is confidential and none of the submissions are public.

Amazon argued that the 2019 deal struck between it and the Future Group entity included a non-compete clause, a person familiar with Amazon’s perspective told CNN Business. The clause listed 30 restricted parties with which Future Retail and Future Group could not do business, and Reliance was on that list, the person said.

“The key question really is what’s the validity of contracts if you just ignore them,” said the person familiar with Amazon’s side.

“Are companies just going to ignore contracts and do what they please?”

A SIAC emergency arbitrator gave Amazon a small victory this week when it ordered a temporary halt on Future Group’s deal with Reliance, according to the legal order seen by Reuters, which has not been made public.

Future Group had argued that if the deal with Reliance falls through, its retail unit will be forced into liquidation and 29,000 people will lose their jobs, according to Reuters, which cited the Singapore order. The order is not public, but the person familiar with Amazon’s perspective confirmed that Future presented this argument.

But the arbitrator ruled that “economic hardship alone is not a legal ground for disregarding legal obligations,” according to the order, Reuters reported.

“We welcome the award of the Emergency Arbitrator. We are grateful for the order which grants all the reliefs that were sought,” an Amazon spokesperson said in a statement.

CNN Business contacted Future Group for comment, and received a statement from Future Retail.

Future Retail said it “is examining the communication and the order” from SIAC.

Reliance (RRVL) said in a statement that its deal with Future Retail is “fully enforceable” under Indian law.

“RRVL intends to enforce its rights and complete the transaction in terms of the scheme and agreement with Future group without any delay,” said the statement.

But in the past, Indian courts have usually followed the lead of orders passed by emergency arbitrators outside of India, according to Kabra, the lawyer.

“What parties have previously done, is they approach Indian Courts and ask for similar reliefs in India, while relying on the order of the Emergency Arbitrator. Indian Courts usually grant the same relief,” said Kabra.

A ‘clash of the titans’

For Reliance, which operates 11,000 stores throughout India, and Amazon, the No. 2 e-commerce player in the country, Future Retail’s 1,500 stores are not a must have, says one analyst.

“It’s not like without it you can’t have your ambitions, if you don’t have Future [Retail],” said Pathak, of Counterpoint Research.

This is “less about Future and more about the clash of the titans,” as well as “protecting your turf,” he added.

To compete with Amazon and Flipkart, Ambani’s JioMart has been growing its presence in India. It expanded to hundreds of cities across India earlier this year and plans to branch into electronics, fashion, pharmaceutical and healthcare soon. The company will also likely tap into Reliance Retail’s network of physical stores across the country to fulfill online orders, according to analysts.

The industry had expected Amazon and Reliance to forge some kind of deal in the future, because they need each other’s expertise, according to Meena, of Forrester. Amazon needs more shops to expand inventory and use retail spaces as storage and delivery hubs. And Reliance doesn’t have a lot of experience in e-commerce, according to Meena.

But any kind of partnership between Amazon and Reliance in the future “depends upon how much bad blood is between them now,” said Meena.

“It might end up becoming an ego battle between the CEOs of both the companies,” he said.

Source link

0
Continue Reading

Politics

Ivory Coast elections: Voters go to the polls amid opposition boycott

115115127 ivorysmallhi063938649

image copyrightEPA

image captionVoting cards have been distributed ahead of the presidential election

Polls are set to open in Ivory Coast’s controversial presidential election.

At least 14 people have been killed since riots broke out in August after President Alassane Ouattara said he would run again following the sudden death of his preferred successor.

The main opposition candidates, Pascal Affi N’Guessan and Henri Konan Bédié, say it is illegal for Mr Ouattara to stand for a third term.

They are boycotting the vote and have called for civil disobedience.

  • Old men, chocolate and Ivory Coast’s bitter election

  • The politics of human rights in Ivory Coast
  • A quick guide to Ivory Coast

What is it so controversial?

According to the constitution, Ivory Coast has a two-term presidential limit. Mr Ouattara – who has been elected twice – initially said he would stand down.

But, in July, the ruling party’s previous presidential nominee, Prime Minister Amadou Gon Coulibaly, died of a heart attack.

Mr Ouattara subsequently announced that he would run for president after all.

His supporters argued that a constitutional change in 2016 reset the clock and that his first term did not count.

His opponents do not share that view, arguing instead that it is illegal for Mr Ouattara to run for a third term.

What’s the background to the tension?

There has been a decades-long quarrel between some of the country’s leading political figures.

In 2010, Laurent Gbagbo, who was president at the time, refused to concede to Mr Ouattara following the election in that year and this sparked a bitter civil war.

More than 3,000 people were killed in the five months of violence.

Mr Gbagbo also put himself forward to stand in this year’s election but the electoral commission blocked him because he had been convicted in the Ivorian courts.

He was one of nearly 40 potential candidates who were turned down by the commission.

Who are the four presidential candidates?

  • Alassane Ouattara, 78, an economist. Became president in 2011, serving his second term after years in opposition.

    Party: Rally of Houphouëtists for Democracy and Peace (RHDP)

  • Henri Konan Bédié, 86, career politician. Served as president between 1993 and 1999, deposed in coup. Party: Democratic Party of Ivory Coast (PCDI)
  • Pascal Affi N’Guessan, 67, career politician. Served as prime minister between 2000 and 2003 under then-President Laurent Gbagbo. Party: Ivorian Popular Front (FPI) faction
  • Kouadio Konan Bertin, 51, career politician, known as KKB, was once youth leader in the former ruling Democratic Party of Ivory Coast, is now an MP. Independent candidate

Related Topics

  • Ivory Coast

Source link

0
Continue Reading

Trending