Matthew Hedges consistently maintained his innocence regarding the allegations against him. He explained that he was doing research for his PhD at Durham University. The Foreign Office (FDCO) acknowledged that he and his family had a very upsetting experience.
Dr Hedges, who lives in Exeter, said that he was very happy to receive an apology, which he referred to as an important turning point.
He had complained before to a person who helps resolve problems in the government. This person started an investigation into how the FDCO handled his situation.
The court decided that the FDCO did not do a good job of keeping the academic safe and they should give him £1,500 as payment for what happened. In2018,Dr. Hedges was in Abu Dhabi when he was accused of being a spy for MI6 and working for the UK government.
The UAE officials said they found evidence on his computer that showed he was working as a spy.
He was given a lifetime in prison, but the president of the country later forgave him.
Dr Hedges said that he was kept in handcuffs and alone in a small room,asked many questions for a longtime, and given various types of medications.
He said that what he went through had caused him to have post traumatic stress disorder and not being able to sleep.
Review of cases involving torture
On Monday, the FDCO acknowledged that Mr Hedges and his family had a very upsetting experience that had a strong effect on them.
“We agree with the ombudsman’s conclusion in Mr. Hedges’ case, and we apologize. We will also give the compensation that was suggested,” the statement said.
An investigation has started to examine the rules on how to handle cases of torture and mistreatment, and consular staff are receiving training.
Officials will also check how the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office (FDCO) helps British citizens who get arrested or are in prison in other countries.
The statement means that we want to do what is best for each person, and it is not okay to report torture or mistreatment without their permission because it can be dangerous.
Dr Hedges, who posted on social media, was happy about the apology and said it had been a difficult journey to get to this point.
“He said that the recognition from the FDCO about the torture and unfair treatment I experienced in the UAE is a significant moment, not only for me and my family, but for all British people. ”
The FCDO did not fulfill their responsibilities to a citizen, and I really hope that the many other British people who are currently being held and tortured will benefit from the FCDO’s promise to reevaluate their old and inadequate policies.
I’m sorry, but I still have a criminal record for spying for the British Government, and the apology doesn’t change that.
He said it was confusing that the UK still works with the UAE, even though they are unkind to British people.
“He added that the FCDO should do more to convince the UAE to prove my innocence because they have a strong relationship. ”
“I will keep fighting for people who have not been lucky to be set free or who have been unfairly accused of ridiculous things. Today, I am happy that the FCDO has agreed to do more to safeguard and assist British citizens. ”
DISCLAIMER: Independentghana.com will not be liable for any inaccuracies contained in this article. The views expressed in the article are solely those of the author’s, and do not reflect those of The Independent Ghana
Judge’s request for a public investigation into the Omagh explosion on both sides of the border has been referred to as “disrespectful” by the Irish government.
Some families who lost loved ones in the 1998 massacre are represented by attorney John McBurney.
After a minister said there is no new evidence to warrant a public inquiry in the Republic of Ireland, he urged on Dublin to reconsider.
The Real IRA attack resulted in the deaths of 29 individuals, including a mother who was expecting twins.
The UK government should launch a new investigation to see whether the attack might have been avoided in 2021, according to High Court judge Mr. Justice Horner.
He additionally exhorted the Irish government to follow suit.
An independent statutory inquiry will be conducted, Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris stated earlier this year.
Finalising its terms of reference is currently underway.
The incident has already been the subject of several investigations in Ireland, according to Peter Burke, the Irish Minister for European Affairs and Defence, who made this statement on Wednesday.
He said: “That is our position at the moment.” He continued by saying that the Nally Report had not uncovered any noteworthy new information that called for the opening of an investigation.
Mr. Burke stated that Dublin would fully assist the UK investigation.
According to Mr. McBurney, who represents a few family members in the Families Moving On victims’ support organisation, “On behalf of my clients, I wish to communicate the sense of astonishment and sadness felt upon hearing the hint by minister Burke during a BBC interview.
“The Nally Report lacked the required authority to completely investigate all issues, therefore many questions still need to be answered.
“A full investigation in both jurisdictions was required in order to fully deal with the matter, as Lord Justice Horner made quite clear in a very detailed judgement,” the judge wrote.
Earlier this week, a memorial service was conducted in Omagh to honour the bombing victims who perished 25 years ago.
“It is crucial that the Irish government urgently considers how disrespectful and unsatisfactory it is to ignore the obvious need, in conjunction with a statutory inquiry in Northern Ireland, to properly investigate by public inquiry all outstanding matters, as explained in the judgement of Lord Justice Horner,” Mr. McBurney continued.
“There is now a request for reconsideration of the unfavourable attitude stated by minister Burke, as well as a promise that a joint inquiry will be opened in the Republic of Ireland.
“It is difficult to see how any other arrangement can properly probe all aspects,” the statement reads.
The Irish government needs to step forward.
Kevin Skelton, whose wife Philomena perished in the Omagh blast, questioned the Irish government’s willingness to cooperate with any investigation and claimed that it “only reveals what it wants to.”
“There were people convicted in a civil court,” he continued. “The bomb was made in the south of Ireland, the people who brought it in were from the south of Ireland.”
It is time to act morally correct, and the Irish government needs to stand up.
25 years after the catastrophe, Mr. Skelton claimed that “the bomb is still going off every day” for him.
“Now that it’s been brought to an end, people can move on and have whatever life we have left to live in relative peace,” he continued.
I personally can’t handle much more, and I’m sure there are families out there that feel the same, therefore I don’t want to have to worry about what is on the TV when you turn it on.
Following a series of studies and investigations in the Republic which “warranted the establishment of a public inquiry in Ireland,” the Irish Department of Justice informed BBC News NI that “no new evidence emerged.”
The Irish government is concerned that by the end of the UK probe, there won’t be any unresolved issues pertaining to the Omagh bombing that can only be addressed at this time, they added.
The Irish government will cooperate fully with the UK probe in this matter.
France has become the first nation to outlaw short-distance, domestic flights to locations where rail transport is an alternative.
In 2021, lawmakers decided to eliminate train routes that could transport travellers there in under 2.5 hours.
However, a few airlines formally requested that the European Commission examine the decision’s legality, and as a result, it has only now been effective.
However, connecting flights using these airports won’t be impacted by the new law, which will eliminate services between Paris, Nantes, Lyon, and Bordeaux.
The law specifies that train services serving the same route must be frequent, timely and well-connected enough to meet the needs of people who would otherwise travel by air.
Critics have called the enforcement of the ban merely ‘symbolic’, especially as these routes have not been served by any airlines since 2020, when the pandemic devastated the travel industry.
However, more journeys could be included in the future, with the EU having stipulated that the law should reviewed after three years.
A group created by president Emmanuel Macron originally put forward a harsher ban (Picture: Shutterstock)
The interim head of industry group Airlines for Europe, Laurent Donceel, told AFP governments should rather support ‘real and significant solutions’ to combat the effect of carbon emissions.
He added that Brussels found ‘banning these trips will only have minimal effects’ on CO2 output.
And yet, some environmentalists feel the measures do not go far enough, including France’s Citizens’ Convention on Climate.
The group, which was created by French president Emmanuel Macron in 2019, had originally called for the government to scrap plane routes where train journeys under four hours existed.
But this limit was reduced to the current one of two and a half hours, after objections from some of the regions affected and at least one airline.
French consumer group UFC-Que Choisir, who backed the four-hour plan, said: ‘On average, the plane emits 77 times more CO2 per passenger than the train on these routes, even though the train is cheaper and the time lost is limited to 40 minutes.’
Conversely, the UK government seems to be moving in the opposite direction – halving domestic air duty (APD) to £6.50 from April 1.
When the then-chancellor Rishi Sunak announced the change in October 2021, he said: ‘Right now, people pay more for return flights within and between the four nations of the United Kingdom than they do when flying home from abroad.’
Short haul flights are seen as one of the worst offenders for CO2 because take-off and landing uses the most fuel.
But Mr Sunak previously argued that most emissions come from international, rather than domestic trips.
French politicians are also currently debating how to reduce emissions from private jets.
The Sudanese civil war erupted again last month, this time originating inside Khartoum, the country’s capital.
The war is thought to have displaced at least 75,000 people.
I count over 65 relatives, aunts, uncles, a great uncle, and my 80-year-old father among them as a British-Sudanese who was spending Ramadan there.
According to their texts, my family’s escapes from Sudan have been difficult, risky, and expensive. My father shared food and water with his cousin and extended family, slept outside, went without a bathroom for six days, and had to ration it.
Having spoken to them, their despair at having to leave is palpable. They look so, so tired. I wish I could reach out and carry them all to a safe bed.
And more than that, I wish the UK government would step up, like they did in Ukraine, and support those caught up in this war.
Despite my family’s plight, they have struggled to get the help they need from British authorities.
Evacuation flights to the UK were announced too late for my father to get to the airfield safely.
They even initially refused boarding to those who didn’t have British passports, despite some being NHS doctors with resident and work permits and others the parents of British citizens.
For me, the subsequent u-turn proves the government could have allowed them to board immediately, but only acted after bad headlines.
I was born and raised in England and now work as a doctor all over the world. I shouldn’t have to battle for my family fleeing war to be allowed a legal – and safe – route to safety in the UK.
The government’s approach seems in marked contrast to last year, when, just a week after Russia’s invasion, the government announced the new Ukraine Family Visa scheme, offering a legal route to enter the UK for family members of British nationals or people with settled status in the country.
Simply having a relative with indefinite leave to remain, a resident permit or even being a UK-based refugee, would qualify any Ukrainian to apply for a no-fee online visa, supported by a free-of-charge telephone helpline.
I feel qualified to ask Suella Braverman exactly what, in her government’s eyes, is the difference between a Sudanese person fleeing war and a Ukrainian person fleeing war? (Picture: Javid Abdelmoneim)
Having worked in Ukraine from March to July 2022. I agree that those fleeing that war needed all the help they could in reaching safety.
After 17 days of war in Sudan, those of us hoping for a similar scheme have been left disappointed.
Instead, Home Secretary Suella Braverman went on a media round to confirm not only that no legal means would be made available but that any Sudanese arriving by small boat would be detained and could be removed to Rwanda.
She said that ‘the situation is very different to Ukraine’.
Take it from someone who has worked in conflict zones, war is war no matter where in the world it takes place.
Choosing to leave your home is never the easy option. I see the strain of that decision haunting my cousins’ faces this week, much as I have seen it in my patients’ faces in Iraq, South Sudan, Syria, Tigray and indeed Ukraine when I worked in those wars.
So given my experience, I feel qualified to ask Suella Braverman exactly what, in her government’s eyes, is the difference between a Sudanese person fleeing war and a Ukrainian person fleeing war?
Watching Braverman roll out tired cliches about helping those caught up in conflict was infuriating.
I was born and raised in England and now work as a doctor all over the world. I shouldn’t have to battle for my family fleeing war to be allowed a legal – and safe – route to safety in the UK (Picture: Javid Abdelmoneim)
Arguably, the UK has more of a connection to Sudan, as the former colonial power in Sudan, which achieved independence only when my dad was 14 years old in 1956.
That is not ancient history, rather living memory. Dad studied, married my mother and raised his family in Cambridge. His is just one of thousands of stories of Sudanese with strong links to the UK.
For me, denying Sudanese people the same support we extended to Ukrainians, is just another element of the grim reality of racism in the UK.
That reality is evident in the Windrush scandal, in the events at Yorkshire Cricket Club, in NHS maternal health outcomes and in reports like Lady Casey’s into the Met Police.
Whatever the reason behind this breathtaking double standard, the outcome for Sudanese people is in no doubt.
As I write, my cousins are languishing at border crossings, with no prospect of finding safety at my side.
I believe more Sudanese will drown at sea trying to flee war.
It doesn’t have to be this way – it is on all of us in the UK, no matter our background, to challenge the reality of racism wherever we meet it.
For the sake of my family and so many others, I need the UK to do more to help Sudanese people, just as we helped Ukrainians.
No matter what Suella Braverman says, these are comparable situations.
Bullets don’t differentiate between nations, and nor should we.
Having spoken to them, their despair at having to leave is palpable. They look so, so tired. I wish I could reach out and carry them all to a safe bed.
And more than that, I wish the UK government would step up, like they did in Ukraine, and support those caught up in this war.
Despite my family’s plight, they have struggled to get the help they need from British authorities.
Evacuation flights to the UK were announced too late for my father to get to the airfield safely.
They even initially refused boarding to those who didn’t have British passports, despite some being NHS doctors with resident and work permits and others the parents of British citizens.
For me, the subsequent u-turn proves the government could have allowed them to board immediately, but only acted after bad headlines.
I was born and raised in England and now work as a doctor all over the world. I shouldn’t have to battle for my family fleeing war to be allowed a legal – and safe – route to safety in the UK.
The government’s approach seems in marked contrast to last year, when, just a week after Russia’s invasion, the government announced the new Ukraine Family Visa scheme, offering a legal route to enter the UK for family members of British nationals or people with settled status in the country.
Simply having a relative with indefinite leave to remain, a resident permit or even being a UK-based refugee, would qualify any Ukrainian to apply for a no-fee online visa, supported by a free-of-charge telephone helpline.
I feel qualified to ask Suella Braverman exactly what, in her government’s eyes, is the difference between a Sudanese person fleeing war and a Ukrainian person fleeing war? (Picture: Javid Abdelmoneim)
Having worked in Ukraine from March to July 2022. I agree that those fleeing that war needed all the help they could in reaching safety.
After 17 days of war in Sudan, those of us hoping for a similar scheme have been left disappointed.
Instead, Home Secretary Suella Braverman went on a media round to confirm not only that no legal means would be made available but that any Sudanese arriving by small boat would be detained and could be removed to Rwanda.
She said that ‘the situation is very different to Ukraine’.
Take it from someone who has worked in conflict zones, war is war no matter where in the world it takes place.
Choosing to leave your home is never the easy option. I see the strain of that decision haunting my cousins’ faces this week, much as I have seen it in my patients’ faces in Iraq, South Sudan, Syria, Tigray and indeed Ukraine when I worked in those wars.
So given my experience, I feel qualified to ask Suella Braverman exactly what, in her government’s eyes, is the difference between a Sudanese person fleeing war and a Ukrainian person fleeing war?
Watching Braverman roll out tired cliches about helping those caught up in conflict was infuriating.
I was born and raised in England and now work as a doctor all over the world. I shouldn’t have to battle for my family fleeing war to be allowed a legal – and safe – route to safety in the UK (Picture: Javid Abdelmoneim)
Arguably, the UK has more of a connection to Sudan, as the former colonial power in Sudan, which achieved independence only when my dad was 14 years old in 1956.
That is not ancient history, rather living memory. Dad studied, married my mother and raised his family in Cambridge. His is just one of thousands of stories of Sudanese with strong links to the UK.
For me, denying Sudanese people the same support we extended to Ukrainians, is just another element of the grim reality of racism in the UK.
That reality is evident in the Windrush scandal, in the events at Yorkshire Cricket Club, in NHS maternal health outcomes and in reports like Lady Casey’s into the Met Police.
Whatever the reason behind this breathtaking double standard, the outcome for Sudanese people is in no doubt.
As I write, my cousins are languishing at border crossings, with no prospect of finding safety at my side.
I believe more Sudanese will drown at sea trying to flee war.
It doesn’t have to be this way – it is on all of us in the UK, no matter our background, to challenge the reality of racism wherever we meet it.
For the sake of my family and so many others, I need the UK to do more to help Sudanese people, just as we helped Ukrainians.
No matter what Suella Braverman says, these are comparable situations.
Bullets don’t differentiate between nations, and nor should we.
Upon the arrival of the weapons at the battlefield, Ukraine’s defense minister compared British tanks to Rolls-Royce automobiles.
Oleksii Reznikov approved of Britain after riding in the first Challenger 2 main combat tank to reach the war-torn nation.
I can say that even the driver of a Rolls-Royce will not be as comfortable as this team after personally “piloting” the Challenger, he commented on Facebook while posing with the tank.
He stated that Ukrainian paratroopers had dubbed the challenger a “war cat” and described the vehicles as “works of military beauty.”
In January, the UK government promised 14 Challenger 2 tanks in an effort to persuade other western countries to send weapons to help the Ukrainian army.
Reznikov confirmed they had finally arrived in Ukraine, posting a picture of the tanks flying their blue and yellow flag.
He wrote on Twitter: ‘It was a pleasure to take the first Ukrainian challenger 2 MBT (main battle tank) for a spin.
‘These fantastic machines will soon begin their combat missions.’
Ukrainian Defense Minister checks out Leopard tanks sent to Ukraine by UK
Video Player is loading.
Current Time 0:00
Duration 0:49
Ukrainian army volunteers pose as they receive training on Challenger tanks (Picture: Leon Neal/Getty Images)
In a video posted on social media, Reznikov personally thanked the UK defence secretary Ben Wallace for the tank.
He said in English: ‘Marvellous Ben. It’s very good stuff. Thank you very much from Ukraine to the United Kingdom.’
Rezkinov also posed with a variety of western tanks including challengers from Britain, Strykers & Cougars from the US and Marders from Germany.
‘A year ago, no one would have thought that supporting partners would be so powerful,’ he said.
‘That the whole civilised world will reboot and finally resist the bloody aggressor, theRussian terrorist country.’
German-made Leopard tanks have finally arrived in Ukraine after being first approved in January (Picture: Getty)
He added: ‘A year has made a difference. Ukraine has changed the world.’
Germany’s defence ministry said on Monday 18 Leopard 2 battle tanks and 40 Marder infantry fighting vehicles had also arrived in Ukraine.
‘Yes, we delivered Leopard tanks as we announced,’ chancellor Olaf Scholz said in Rotterdam. ‘We’re providing very modern [tanks] which we have now delivered.’
The cutting-edge main battle tanks were delivered after Ukrainian crews were trained to use them.
As well as the German and British vehicles, three Leopard tanks donated by Portugal also reached Ukraine, the security source confirmed.
According to a recent study, at least 10 different types of honey shipped from the UK contain “illegal, inexpensive additives.”
A random sample of imported honey samples was chosen for a research by the European Commission that was conducted across the continent to determine their purity.
Tests on ten UK brands revealed that all had been diluted with sugar syrup.
The source withheld the brand names, however it is probable that all are available in UK stores.
The brand names were not revealed in the report, but it is likely all are on sale in UK shops.
The EU Honey Directive requires ‘honey shall not have added to it any food ingredient, including food additives, nor shall any other additions be made other than honey’.
The UK Government will now investigate the research, reports MailOnline.
The study found that overall 46% of honey products tested across the EU had sugar added.
The European-wide study randomly sampled 320 honey consignments imported into 20 countries (Picture: Getty Images)
The commission said the UK brands were the ‘likely the result of honey produced in other countries and further blended in the UK’.
The highest number of contaminated honeys came from the UK’s largest supplier, China. But the highest proportion showings signs of sugar added were from Turkey at 93%.
Sixteen EU countries, plus Switzerland and Norway, took part in the testing campaign. A total of 320 honey consignments – imported from 20 countries – were randomly sampled between November 2021 and February 2022.
Samples of these shipments were then sent for analysis, which identified that 147 samples (46%) were thought to be adulterated and therefore non-compliant with the general provision of the EU Honey Directive.
The British Beekeepers Association (BBKA) said it’s important firms label their honey with its country of origin to enable ‘consumers to choose honey from sources where adulteration is less likely’.
Diane Drinkwater, chair of the BBKA, said: ‘To meet demand, around 90% of the honey we eat in the UK is imported. There is legitimate concern among UK beekeepers and honey producers about honey imports from countries where honey may be adulterated on an industrial scale.
‘BBKA are keen for the public to be given accurate information about where their honey comes from. BBKA would like all countries where the honey originated from to be listed on the label.
‘The general public knows where our broccoli and cabbage comes from, often down to the county, so why shouldn’t they know where the supermarket honey comes from?’
Currently the country of origin on honey labels can be replaced, if the honey originates from multiple countries, with ‘blend of EU/non-EU honeys’.
Ms Drinkwater continued: ‘We believe this is insufficient to allow consumers to make an informed choice. All countries where the honey originated should be listed.’
The organisation launched a petition just under six months ago calling the government to make it mandatory for the honey’s origin to be included on the label. It has more than 12,000 signatures so far and closes on April 13.
The Government responded to the petition on January 31 with: ‘The Government takes food fraud seriously and is working to ensure honey meets our high standards. Country of origin labelling is not a suitable means for determining if a food is subject to fraud.’
In 2013 the UK and other parts of Europe were rocked by the horse meat scandal.
A number of products on the market were found to contain horsemeat despite not being declared on the label. It sparked outcry and numerous products were taken off the shelves.
The government plans to stop anti-social behaviour “once and for all” by making offenders clean up their offences within 48 hours of the offence while wearing hi-viz jackets and jumpsuits.
According to Rishi Sunak, his new strategy—which is expected to be unveiled on Monday—aims to dispense “instant justice” and make sure that communities can clearly observe attempts to remove vandalism and graffiti.
According to Downing Street, additional penalties might include picking up trash, washing police vehicles, or performing unpaid work in stores.
Officials said the UK Government’s anti-social action plan was about establishing a ‘zero-tolerance approach where offenders know they will face the full consequences of their actions’.
Speaking ahead of the plan’s publication, the Prime Minister said: ‘For too long, people have put up with the scourge of anti-social behaviour in their neighbourhoods.
‘These are not minor crimes. They disrupt people’s daily lives, hold businesses back and erode the sense of safety and community that brings people together.
‘That’s why I’m bringing forward a new plan to crack down on this behaviour once and for all – so that everyone can feel proud of where they live.’
Mr Sunak will announce an approach known as immediate justice to be piloted in 10 areas before a rollout across England and Wales next year.
The plan is set to include new funding for police and crime commissioners (PCCs) to ensure those responsible for offences that blight communities are punished as soon as possible.
The Prime Minister has set the target of having offenders who are slapped with community orders starting reparation work within 48 hours of being handed the punishment.
Mr Sunak dedicated a portion of his new year speech, setting out his five pledges ahead of the next election, on his ambitions to tackle anti-social behaviour.
He said that low-level offences made ‘life miserable for so many’ and argued the destructive form of behaviour could ‘be a gateway to more extreme crimes’.
According to officials, Mr Sunak’s plan will see offenders having to wear jumpsuits or hi-vis jackets and work under supervision as part of efforts to give the public confidence that justice is being done.
Where possible, low-level criminals will be tasked with cleaning up the mess they created.
If their anti-social activity has already been removed or repaired, they will instead be assigned projects to assist their community in other ways.
Ministers have pledged that victims and affected communities will get a say in deciding what type of punishment or consequences offenders should face, alongside input from local PCCs.
The immediate justice pilots come in addition to an expansion of the so-called community payback scheme for more serious criminals.
Currently, offenders are sentenced by courts to do unpaid work that directly benefits their local communities, such as cleaning up public places and removing graffiti.
Under Mr Sunak’s pilot idea, teams of offenders will be rapidly deployed to clean up more urgent incidents of anti-social behaviour, with the Probation Service delivering the work alongside selected councils.
According to Government figures, last year saw 1,500 offenders spend almost 10,000 hours on 300 community clean-up projects, with plans to double that this year.
Steve Reed, Labour’s shadow justice secretary, said cuts to neighbourhood policing had allowed offenders to ‘get away without punishment’.
He said: ‘Under 13 years of Conservative government, community sentences have plummeted by two-thirds.
‘And now they have finally realised how angry local people are, so once again following where Labour has led by trying to copy our plan on tough community payback.
‘It is embarrassing that all the Conservatives can come up with is a pilot in 10 areas – covering only a quarter of police forces. They are out of ideas and out of time.’
In a plan revealed last month, Labour announced proposals to put 13,000 more neighbourhood police on Britain’s streets and introduce ‘clean-up squads’ for fly-tippers if it wins power at the next election.
The party also said it wanted to establish community and victim payback boards to oversee strengthened community sentences.
In spite of opposition from some of his own MPs and the DUP, Rishi Sunak has succeeded in getting support from the Commons for a portion of his proposed plan on post-Brexit trading arrangements for Northern Ireland.
Regulations to put the Stormont brake component of the Windsor Framework into effect were approved by MPs by a vote of 515 to 29, with a majority of 486.
Almost 20 of the prime minister’s backbenchers, including Liz Truss and Boris Johnson, the two previous prime ministers, rebelled against him.
Additionally, the Conservative MPs’ European Research Group (ERG) announced it was “highly advising” that its members oppose the legislation.
Rishi Sunak wins key vote on post-Brexit deal
Labour offered its backing though, with Keir Starmer previously saying the agreement ‘will allow us to move forward as a country’.
The brake mechanism would allow a minority of MLAs in the Stormont Assembly to formally flag concerns about the imposition of new EU laws in Northern Ireland – a move that could see the UK Government veto their introduction in the region.
Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, ahead of the vote, told MPs: ‘Without this measure, Northern Ireland would continue to have full and automatic dynamic alignment with EU goods rules with no say for the Northern Ireland Assembly and no veto for amending or replacing those measures.
‘That is an intolerable situation and I urge all MPs to vote to end that full and automatic dynamic alignment.’
Mr Heaton-Harris said the EU could initiate a dispute if it believed the UK had improperly used the brake, and The European Court of Justice would have no role in resolving that dispute.
But DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson said he cannot commit his party ‘will restore the political institutions’ in Northern Ireland as a result of the deal.
The DUP is currently blocking devolution at Stormont in protest at the terms of the post-Brexit Northern Ireland Protocol.
The protocol was designed to prevent a hardening of the land border on the island of Ireland and moved regulatory and customs checks to the Irish Sea, creating economic barriers on the movement of goods between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The UK and EU agreed the framework as a way to cut the red tape created by the protocol.
On the day he faces a grilling from MPs over Partygate, Mr Johnson found time to release a statement saying the proposed agreement was ‘unacceptable’.
The former Tory leader, who struck the first Brexit deal in 2020, said: ‘The proposed arrangements would mean either that Northern Ireland remained captured by the EU legal order – and was increasingly divergent from the rest of the UK – or they would mean that the whole of the UK was unable properly to diverge and take advantage of Brexit.
‘That is not acceptable. I will be voting against the proposed arrangements today.
‘Instead, the best course of action is to proceed with the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill, and make sure that we take back control.’
Mr Truss’ spokesperson later confirmed she would also be voting against the Stormont brake section.
Downing Street declined to say whether Rishi Sunak was disappointed that his predecessors were opposing his deal, along with former Conservative Party leader Sir Iain Duncan Smith.
She said Mr Sunak believes ‘this is the best deal for Northern Ireland, for the people of Northern Ireland’.
‘It ensures a smooth flow of trade internally within the UK, safeguards Northern Ireland’s place in the union and addresses the democratic deficit’, she added.
Asked if the British leader had spoken to his predecessors, she would not name individuals but said: ‘He has been engaging with colleagues from across the House on this matter.’
A British woman who mistakenly drinking local spirit thinking it was alcohol died in Bali, according to the coroner.
UK citizen Kirsty McKie, 38, managed a flourishing ceramics business while residing and working in Bali.
But after consuming the toxic substance on July 22 last year she soon became ill and was rushed to hospital, where she died from methanol poisoning two days later.
Following an inquest into her death, Coroner Alison Mutch has urged the UK government to launch a publicity campaign to warn Britons of the dangers of cheap spirit drinks which can be found in Indonesia and parts of south-east Asia.
Kirsty was a UK national who lived and worked in Bali (Picture: Getty)
Methanol is a chemically simple version of alcohol that can often be found in bootleg spirits. It can cause nausea, blindness, and death if consumed.
Ms Mutch, the Senior Coroner for Greater Manchester South, concluded the inquest in Ms McKie’s death in January, and has now published her findings in a report aimed at preventing future deaths.
A copy of the report has also been forwarded to foreign secretary James Cleverley for further consideration.
‘On 22nd July 2022 [Kirsty] consumed what she believed to be alcohol,’ the report read.
‘The following day she felt unwell.’
‘She went to a hospital in Bali where she deteriorated and died on the 24th July 2022 despite treatment.
‘Post-mortem examination included toxicology. It was found that she had methanol in her system which had caused her death.
She fell ill after drinking a toxic local spirit made with methanol and passed away in hospital two days later (Picture: Twitter)
‘Methanol is not meant for human consumption. She had inadvertently consumed methanol believing she had consumed alcohol.
‘The methanol had been sold as being alcohol fit for human consumption when it was not and caused her death.’
Elsewhere in the report Ms Mutch noted the poor levels of knowledge relayed to the British public about this issue.
She suggested the government follow Australia’s example, which had launched a public health campaign aimed at educating tourists travelling in areas of Asia such as Bali about the dangers of cheap local spirits.
‘Knowledge of the problem amongst the expatriate/tourist community was very low despite the increase in the problem and the catastrophic consequences of methanol consumption,’ she added.
‘The UK Government publicising information about the risk of methanol being used in local spirits, steps that could be taken by UK nationals travelling to reduce the risk and warning signs of methanol toxicity would help to reduce the chance of others dying in the way in which Kirsty McKie died.’
In the wake of Ms McKie’s death, friends held a fundraiser in her honour for an animal welfare charity, and paid tribute to a ‘truly remarkable and unforgettable woman who left us too soon’.
A new law is set to be passed by the Scottish Parliament which will simplify the legal process for anyone in Scotland who wants to change their gender.
But the signs are that the UK government could refuse to recognise it, causing huge issues for people affected who want to relocate elsewhere in the UK.
Since 1998 some laws which apply in Scotland are made by MSPs in Edinburgh, while others are made by MPs at Westminster.
Legislation now in the Scottish Parliament will shorten the timescale for anyone who wants to obtain a gender recognition certificate, a document allowing someone to change their gender on their birth certificate.
Gender recognition certificates allow people to change certain legal documents, and can affect areas such as entitlement to benefits and pensions.
The legislation is currently making its way through the Scottish Parliament and is likely to pass later this month.
UK government ministers are responsible for the law in this area in England and Wales, and have no plans to move in the same direction as the Scottish government.
Legal challenge
But they may go further by refusing to recognise documentation issued under the new Scottish system in other parts of the UK.
A UK government source close to the process told the BBC this was “absolutely” possible.
The Westminster government is also not ruling out the prospect of a legal challenge once the legislation is passed by MSPs – it believes the new law may have an impact on areas where policy is decided in London.
Asked if there could be a legal challenge to the Scottish legislation, the source told the BBC “nothing can be ruled out”.
Scottish government ministers have said they are happy to meet their UK counterparts to discuss their concerns – and officials in Edinburgh said they had tried to set up talks in October, without any response.
The SNP-led government believes the bill involves powers held solely in Edinburgh, so the UK government would not have grounds to mount a legal challenge.
Equalities Secretary Kemi Badenoch has written to the Scottish government expressing concerns about the Scottish legislation, and has offered to meet Scottish ministers to discuss it.
‘Nasty Westminster’
A UK government source told the BBC that they had concerns people from elsewhere in the UK may relocate to Scotland to change gender.
And they claimed Scottish ministers wanted to paint Scotland as a “haven of inclusivity” in comparison to a “nasty Westminster”.
The source described the Scottish legislation as a “test case scenario” of how a bill passed by the Scottish Parliament could “undermine Westminster competencies” – in other words, handing Holyrood powers outside Scotland.
A separate UK government official told the BBC there was “genuine concern” about the impact the legislation could have across the rest of the UK. They added that they hoped a legal battle could be avoided.
Scottish Social Justice Secretary Shona Robison has said she would be “happy to meet with Ms Badenoch” to discuss the issue.
The official line from government is no comment on market movements. The baptism of fire for the chancellor after his budgetary statement continued in the early hours of Monday morning, when the pound fell to a fresh 37-year lows in early Asian trade, and then plummeted to an all-time lows against the dollar.
The pound has since regained some ground, but whatever is said in public, behind the scenes, the government will be deeply concerned about the weak pound as well as the surge in UK government borrowing costs, in particular.
The moves reflect a combination of Britain being charged more for larger borrowings and the Bank of England now predicted to raise interest rates much more aggressively.
These rates will effectively be passed on to household and commercial borrowers of fixed-term loans. While the injection of cash from tax cuts should help temper the recession, very fast rate rises could make that worse.
It is an unusual and concerning sign that these borrowing costs are going up at the same time as the value of sterling has fallen sharply.
Some financial markets are now indicating a one-in-four chance of one pound being worth less than a dollar. It is effectively the lowest value for sterling against the dollar in the history of the US currency.
The last time the value of the pound was anywhere near $1.05 was in February 1985. Back then, the official line from Downing Street was also that the government was unworried by a slide in the pound, and that it was mainly the result of a strong dollar and speculation.
In private, official papers from that time, reveal that Mrs Thatcher was seeking answers from President Reagan, and imploring the Treasury to set a trap for those speculating against the pound. Eventually the Bank of England raised interest rates to protect the value of sterling.
While the dollar has been very strong as its central bank the Federal Reserve has hiked interest rates aggressively, sterling has also been weak against other major currencies such as the euro. Some economists and traders anticipate the government or Bank of England could have to intervene in some form to shore up confidence.
