Connect with us
...

Politics

10 warned Israel boycotts bill enables Russia

Published

on

The foreign secretary’s office warned Downing Street a bill to ban public bodies from boycotting Israel could breach international commitments.

The advice also says the bill could give Russia “ammunition” to accuse the UK of hypocrisy.

The BBC has seen a letter sent to No10 by a senior official in May.

It suggests a significant cabinet split over the planned law, amid an already highly charged atmosphere over its contents.

The advice says if the bill goes ahead as drafted, the foreign secretary believes Moscow “will use it against us”.

Communities Secretary Michael Gove, who introduced the bill, told MPs last week he knew of “no such advice” when asked if any diplomatic posts had advised the government the bill could breach Britain’s international commitments.

The planned law, known as the anti-BDS bill, is an attempt to limit the reach of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which calls for broad-based economic and cultural boycotts of Israel and Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

Mr Gove has championed the legislation, saying it would make sure foreign policy remains a UK government matter.

It would stop local councils and other bodies in charge of public funds from boycotting goods and services from both Israel and Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories and Golan Heights.

The BDS movement is widely backed by Palestinians and anti-occupation groups in the UK. Israel sees it antisemitic and has supported moves by other governments to outlaw such boycotts by public bodies. The issue is highly controversial, often sparking rows and protest among rival groups supportive of Israel or the Palestinians.

In a sign of deep unease within the Foreign Office over the impact of the bill as drafted, a letter sent from a senior official in Mr Cleverly’s office to Downing Street on 12 May warned of damaging consequences for the UK if the legislation went ahead in its current form.

It suggests Moscow would use it to show the UK did not uphold the international rules-based system and was therefore “being hypocritical in our treatment of ‘annexed territory'” in relation to Britain’s condemnation of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

Foreign Office lawyers advised a clause in the bill “would significantly increase the risk of the UK being in breach of our commitments under [United Nations Security Council Resolution] 2334.”

This appears to contradict Levelling Up Minister Felicity Buchan, who told MPs at the end of the debate on the bill: “The government’s view is that the bill is compliant with UN Security Council resolution 2334.”

A United Nations Security Council resolution, or UNSCR for short, is a formal commitment made by member states of the UN’s Security Council.

The council is currently chaired by the UK, and is responsible for maintaining international peace and security.

The UN Security Council resolution 2334, passed in 2016, sees Israeli settlements in the occupied territories as a “flagrant violation” of international law and a “major obstacle” to peace. It also calls on countries “in their relevant dealings” to distinguish between Israel and the territories it occupies.

The Foreign Office lawyers warned that the bill could breach this commitment because it does not distinguish between boycotts against Israel and those against settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories and Golan Heights.

Officials said such a breach of the resolution “would provide ammunition to Russia in its attempt to undermine our narrative that its invasion of Ukraine is in violation of the UN charter and a number of Security Council resolutions” and that Russia was likely to accuse the UK of being “hypocritical”.

The letter adds: “Russia (and to an extent China, with an eye on Taiwan) would likely seize any opportunity to challenge the legitimacy of our voice on responsible multilateralism.

“In this context, the foreign secretary believes that the legislation, as drafted, will create difficult handling issues… and that Moscow will use it against us.”

It says while Mr Cleverly noted the BDS Movement is “divisive”, the official said he recommended removing the specific references to Israel and the occupied territories from the face of the bill.

It adds that the prime minister decided in December 2023 to include Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories in the bill.

What does the bill say about Israel?

The bill gives the government the power to make certain countries exempt from the restrictions – meaning public bodies would be allowed to introduce their own sanctions, campaigns and boycotts against them.

For example, the government intends Russia and Belarus to be exempted.

Public bodies would also not be barred from complying with UK-wide sanctions.

But the bill specifically singles out Israel, the Occupied Palestinian Territories or the Occupied Golan Heights saying they cannot be made exempt – so public bodies could not boycott them without a further law change.

In doing so it groups the three together, which critics argue undermines the UK’s foreign policy position by suggesting boycotting Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories or Golan Heights would be the same as boycotting Israel – despite the illegality of the former two under international law.

Longstanding UK government policy calls for an end to Israel’s military occupation of the Occupied Palestinian Territories as part of a negotiated “two-state solution”.

The UK has for decades endorsed the position of international law, under which Israeli settlements are seen as illegal – although Israel disputes this – and sees their expansion as an “obstacle to peace”.

This has received criticism from some Tory MPs as well as Labour. The bill passed its first stage in the Commons last week, with two Conservative MPs voting against it.

What did Mr Gove tell MPs?

On 3 July, the chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, Alicia Kearns, asked Michael Gove in the House of Commons if any diplomatic posts had “specifically advised the government” that the bill could contravene our UN security council resolutions.

Mr Gove responded saying: “I know of no such advice.”

Conservative MP William Wragg also asked him if he had read the “write-round” from the Foreign Office advising against this clause and asking if he had spoken to the foreign secretary about it.

Mr Gove said: “Every minister supports the bill, and quite rightly”, despite the concerns that had been raised on behalf of Mr Cleverly in the Foreign Office letter to Downing Street.

In a subsequent letter to Ms Kearns, Mr Gove said: “In line with the longstanding principle of collective agreement, the government’s position was agreed by the FCDO [Foreign Office], as indeed it was by all government departments.”

A government spokesperson said: “The Economic Activity Bill is compliant with international law and our obligations under UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

“Public bodies should not be pursuing their own foreign policy agenda and the bill will ensure that the UK speaks with one voice internationally.”

Reports /TrainViral/

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Gething downfall delivers Starmer 1st headache

Published

on

By

Just when you’d have been forgiven for thinking politics might quieten down a bit…

The Welsh Labour government was for so long a case study in how the party could operate in power during its long years of opposition at Westminster.

And yet here we are less than a fortnight into a UK Labour government, and the Welsh Labour government is imploding.

So much for all that talk about bringing stability back to politics.

Last week Vaughan Gething was sharing smiles here not just with the new prime minister but the King too.

Now, he’s a goner, delivering Sir Keir Starmer a headache rather than a handshake.

When I was here in March covering Mr Gething’s victory, the seeds of his political demise were germinating before our eyes.

The donations row had already sprouted and his defeated opponent, Jeremy Miles, legged it from the venue without so much as any warm words about the victor on camera.

It was another sign of the cultivating anger, the political knotweed that would soon flourish and ensnare Vaughan Gething.

Along came the row about alleged leaking, a sacking, a confidence vote — and a first minister whose tenure up until today at least amounts to 2.4 times that of Liz Truss. Ouch.

Westminster has generated its fair share of turbulence in the last decade.

But it is far from unique as a source of turbulence in UK politics.

In February, Michelle O’Neill became first minister of Northern Ireland with Emma Little-Pengelly her deputy, after a long period without devolved government at Stormont.

In March, we had a new first minister of Wales, when Mark Drakeford stood down and Vaughan Gething took the job.

In April we had the resignation of the first minister of Scotland Humza Yousaf.

He was replaced the following month by John Swinney. June was the quiet month then. Just the small matter of a general election campaign.

And here we are in July, and Mr Gething is resigning.

So will begin another leadership race, a new government in Wales, a new first minister and a new team of senior Welsh ministers.

There will also be more arguments about Welsh Labour – its direction, its priorities, its capacity to govern effectively and its relationship with the UK party.

If you’re watching this in Downing Street, it’s the last thing you need.

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Politics

Shoplifting crackdown expected to be unveiled

Published

on

By

A crackdown on shoplifting is expected to be announced in the King’s Speech on Wednesday.

The government is due to unveil a new crime bill to target people who steal goods worth less than £200.

The policy would be a reversal of 2014 legislation that meant “low-value” thefts worth under £200 were subject to less serious punishment.

The government is also expected to introduce a specific offence of assaulting a shop worker to its legislative agenda.

It will not be clear until legislation passes through Parliament what the punishments for any new or strengthened offences would be.

Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that last year was the worst on record for shoplifting in England and Wales.

Police recorded over 430,000 offences in those nations in 2023 – though retailers say underreporting means these figures are likely to represent only a fraction of the true number of incidents.

Michelle Whitehead, who works at a convenience store in Wolverhampton, said her shop had been “hit every day” by thieves.

People were stealing “absolutely anything” including “tins of spam, tins of corned beef, all the fresh meat”, Ms Whitehead told BBC Radio 4’s World at One programme.

“They’re just coming in, getting their whole arm and sweeping the lot off the shelves,” she said. “The shelves were always empty.”

She said she believed “organised” criminal gangs, rather than individuals struggling with the cost of living, were behind the thefts in her shop.

The crackdown on “low-value” shoplifting “will help a lot of little shops,” Ms Whitehead said.

While retailers and shop workers have welcomed the anticipated proposals, a civil liberties group has raised concerns about criminalising people struggling to make ends meet and overburdening the prison system.

The new legal measures are expected to be announced as part of the King’s Speech on Wednesday, a key piece of the State Opening of Parliament that allows the government to outline its priorities over the coming months.

Before the general election, the Labour Party pledged to reverse what it described as the “shoplifter’s charter” – a piece of 2014 legislation that reduced the criminal punishment for “low-value shoplifting”.

Tom Holder, spokesperson for the British Retail Consortium (BRC), told BBC News the impact of the 2014 legislation has been to “deprioritise it in the eyes of police”.

“I think police would be less likely to turn up to what they see as low-level theft,” he said.

Shoplifting cost retailers £1.8 billion in the last year, which could impact prices, according to the BRC.

“Shoplifting harms everyone in that sense – those costs eventually get made up somewhere, whether it’s prices going up or other prices that can’t come down,” Mr Holder said.

Co-op campaigns and public affairs director Paul Gerrard said the supermarket chain had also recorded rising theft and violence against shop workers.

“There’s always been people who will steal to make ends meet. That’s not what is behind the rise we’ve seen,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme on Tuesday. “What’s behind that rise is individuals and gangs targeting large volumes of stock in stores for resale in illicit venues like pubs, clubs, markets, and out the back of cars.”

But Jodie Beck, policy and campaigns officer at civil liberties organisation Liberty, had concerns about the expected proposals, saying there is “already a wide range of powers” the police can use to tackle shoplifting and anti-social behaviour levelled at retail staff.

Ms Beck said the “£200 threshold” would not just target criminal gangs but also “people who are pushed into the desperate situation of not paying for things” because they cannot afford to make ends meet.

She urged the government to avoid focusing on “criminal justice and policing solutions instead of doing the thoughtful work of looking at the root causes of crime, which we believe are related to poverty and inequality”.

Ms Beck also argued the additional legislation could serve to worsen the UK’s “enormous court backlog” and its “bursting prison system”.

Last week, Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood announced plans to release thousands of prisoners early to ease overcrowding in the country’s prisons.

A spokesperson for Downing Street said the government would not comment on the King’s Speech until it has been delivered by the monarch.

The National Police Chiefs’ Council has been approached for comment.

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Politics

Government launches ‘root and branch’ review

Published

on

By

Defence Secretary John Healey hailed the government’s defence review as the “first of its kind” and said it will “take a fresh look at the challenges we face”.

Mr Healey noted the “increasing instability and uncertainty” around the world, including the conflict in the Middle East and war in Ukraine, and said “threats are growing”.

The strategic defence review will consider the current state of the armed forces, the threats the UK faces and the capabilities needed to address them.

Sir Keir Starmer has previously said the review will set out a “roadmap” to the goal of spending 2.5% of national income on defence – a target he has made a “cast iron” commitment to but is yet to put a timeline on.

On Monday, the prime minister said the “root and branch review” of the armed forces would help prepare the UK for “a more dangerous and volatile world”.

The review will invite submissions from the military, veterans, MPs, the defence industry, the public, academics and the UK’s allies until the end of September and aims to deliver its findings in the first half of 2025.

“I promised the British people I would deliver the change needed to take our country forward, and I promised action not words,” Sir Keir said.

“That’s why one of my first acts since taking office is to launch our strategic defence review.

“We will make sure our hollowed out armed forces are bolstered and respected, that defence spending is responsibly increased, and that our country has the capabilities needed to ensure the UK’s resilience for the long term.”

The review will be overseen by Defence Secretary John Healey and headed by former Nato Secretary General Lord Robertson along with former US presidential advisor Fiona Hill and former Joint Force Commander Gen Sir Richard Barrons.

The group will have their work cut out.

The global security threats facing the UK and its Western allies are more serious and more complex than at any time since the end of the Cold War in 1990.

They also coincide with what many commentators have said is a catastrophic running down of the UK’s armed forces to the point where the country is arguably no longer considered to be a Tier One military force.

In terms of the number of troops in its regular forces, the British Army is now at its smallest size since the time of the Napoleonic Wars two centuries ago.

Recruitment is failing to match retention, with many soldiers and officers complaining about neglected and substandard accommodation.

The Royal Navy, which has spent vast sums on its two centrepiece aircraft carriers, is in need of many more surface ships to fulfil its tasks around the globe.

Its ageing fleet of nuclear-armed Vanguard submarines, the cornerstone of the UK’s strategic defence and known as the Continuous At Sea Deterrent (CASD), is overdue for replacement by four Dreadnought class submarines and costs are mounting.

Commenting on the review, Mr Healey said: “Hollowed-out armed forces, procurement waste and neglected morale cannot continue.”

Too many UK commitments?

The defence and security threats facing the UK, Nato and its allies further afield are multiple.

They include a war raging on Europe’s eastern flank in Ukraine against Russia’s full-scale invasion. The UK, along with the EU and Nato, has opted to help defend Ukraine with multi-billion pound packages of weapons and aid, stopping short of committing combat troops.

The policy behind this is not entirely altruistic. European governments, especially those closest to Russia like Poland and the Baltic states, fear that if President Putin wins the war in Ukraine it will not be long before he rebuilds his army and invades them next.

Some of those countries are already busy beefing up their own defence spending closer to 3% or even 4% of GDP.

The challenge for Nato has been how to provide Ukraine with as much weaponry as it can, without provoking Russia into retaliating against a Nato state and risk triggering a third world war.

The Royal Navy has been in action recently in the Red Sea, where it has been operating alongside the US Navy in fending off attacks on shipping by the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen.

But the UK has also made naval commitments further afield in the South China Sea with the Aukus pact, comprising of Australia, UK and the US, aimed at containing Chinese expansion in the region.

Critics have questioned whether a financially-constrained UK can afford to make commitments like this on the other side of the world.

Closer to home in Europe, there is a growing threat from so-called “hybrid warfare” attacks, suspected of coming from Russia.

These are anonymous, unattributable attacks on undersea pipelines and telecoms cables on which Western nations depend.

As tensions increase with Moscow there are fears such actions will only increase and the UK cannot possibly hope to guard all of its coastline all of the time.

But while those nervous Nato partners living close to Russia’s borders are busy beefing up their defence spending closer to 3 or even 4% of GDP, the UK has so far declined to put a timetable on when it will raise its own defence spending to just 2.5%.

Opposition figures have criticised the government for refusing to say when defence spending will be increased.

Before his election defeat, former prime minister Rishi Sunak committed to reaching 2.5% by 2030.

Shadow defence secretary James Cartlidge previously said: “In a world that is more volatile and dangerous than at any time since the Cold War, Keir Starmer’s Labour government had a clear choice to match the Conservatives’ fully funded pledge to spend 2.5% of GDP on defence by 2030.

“By failing to do so, they’ve created huge uncertainty for our armed forces, at the worst possible time.”

Reports /Trainviral/

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2024 TechDaja News.