MP resigns as trade envoy over northern Cyprus visit
Mr Khan said the trip to the self-declared Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, which is not recognised by the UK Government, was to visit his nephew and to receive an honorary degree.
He said he had paid for the trip himself.
Turkish troops have occupied the northern section of the Mediterranean island since 1974.
Shadow foreign minister Wendy Morton told the BBC that she welcomed Mr Khan's resignation, but said Sir Keir Starmer should have sacked him earlier.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Statesman
38 minutes ago
- New Statesman
Is Theresa May your hero?
Photo byWhat is a hero? Rory Stewart, whose latest BBC miniseries The Long History of Heroism has recently concluded, is surely in a position to know – and he suggests Theresa May. Where and in whom one sees heroism is, of course, a personal question, and one which says quite a lot about you. But I confess that even as someone who admires May for the same qualities as Stewart does ('an incredible sense of dignity and a real attempt to do what she thought was the right thing'), 'hero' seems a bit of a stretch. I suspect the fact that she 'sacrificed her political career' to try and deliver a soft Brexit plays a larger role in Stewart's calculations than in mine. Stewart has his doubts too, of a strange sort: he told the Daily Mail that 'it is 'really difficult' to see her as a 'classical hero' because she failed to achieve her main aims'. But does he really believe that success is a condition of heroism? Here, in the land which valorises Dunkirk? The last stand is a classic heroic trope. But not any last stand. Crucially, context matters: the commander who dies alongside his men in a doomed but righteous struggle is a hero – the one who leads his troops needlessly to slaughter is not. The absurdity of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act allowed May to make several last stands. They were ultimately, however, of the latter sort. Many people must share the blame for the position the Conservative Party found itself in after the EU referendum. David Cameron had taken the absurd decision to hold a referendum in which the government would campaign for the status quo, then resigned; the two Brexiteers, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, had conspired in their own implosions. Had May stepped onto a field containing only the improbable figure of Andrea Leadsom, she might have cast herself as Cincinnatus. But she chose to enter the full leadership contest, in full knowledge that any leader would be defined by the task of getting Britain out of the European Union – something she had not wanted to do, and for which she had no vision. The result was the worst of both worlds: a muddled-together 'soft Brexit' which didn't fulfil the aspirations of the Leavers, compounded by a raft of needless and hugely damaging concessions on Northern Ireland, lathered with tough Home Office-flavoured rhetoric about 'citizens of nowhere' which aggravated Remainers. Stewart says that May 'fought tooth and nail' for her palliative vision for Brexit, such as it was. But she did not fight well. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Dashing the same deal to finer and finer smithereens against the House of Commons could be dressed up as determination, yes. Or it could simply reflect the terminal inability to adapt to changing circumstances which is so often the hallmark of a poor general. To say that May 'sacrificed her career' for her vision of Brexit presumes that she was capable of taking, or even envisioning, other courses of action. The evidence of her premiership, at least to those of us who didn't work with her personally, offers little reason for believing so. Perhaps the personal perspective is what really matters. Classical heroism, of the sort Stewart discusses in the early episodes of his series, seems to be mostly a trick of perspective. It lies always in the past, where the lens of myth and memory has smoothed the rough edges and turned events into stories. JS Mill warned his readers in On Liberty against society 'rejecting the stuff of which heroes are made, because it knows not how to make them'; Julius Caesar, a classical hero by any definition, mourned the enchanted age in which he presumed Alexander to have lived. Stewart posits that the age of heroism died in the trenches of the First World War, which put paid to the ideals of great warriors and martial glory, with TE Lawrence embodying the change as a man who tried to live as a classical hero but failed. Anyone familiar with the long sweep of the history of war be sceptical. The Great War was a horrifying meatgrinder of a conflict, to be sure – but was the Thirty Years War any less? For that matter, were there no heroes in the Second World War? Yet consider the timespan involved, and the role of the Great War in Stewart's thesis seems clear enough. It is far enough away that we can start to grasp its mythic outline (even more so for the age which preceded it), but well-documented enough that we can see all those details which muddy a heroic narrative. But if grand heroism is a trick of the light, actual heroism is a human constant, and it does not require any grand stage upon which to play out. Heroism is simply a test of one's ordinary character (and perhaps judgement) in extraordinary circumstances; for good reason is 'a hero to his men' another well-worn trope. Perhaps May was a hero to her men, fighting the good fight against insurmountable odds. But with the benefit of a bit of distance, it seems fairer to say that whatever courage it took to leap into the hole in British politics, spade in hand, all her efforts added up to was to dig an even deeper hole. [See also: Will we ever be free of Brexit?] Related
The Sun
44 minutes ago
- The Sun
Epping migrant protesters aren't racists – they're mums worried about their kids & angry at Labour smears
THE small boats crisis is a national security emergency. In the last 100 days we have seen a spate of alleged attacks by illegal migrants. A girl in Epping, sexually assaulted. A ten year old in Stockport, nearly kidnapped. Three stabbed in Southampton. All adding to a general sense of lawlessness in the country. 2 2 It's no wonder protests are starting up across the country. I wouldn't want my children to share a neighbourhood with small boat migrants about which we know next to nothing. I don't want anyone else's family to have this forced on them either. For saying this I, and the millions of people who agree with my statement, were labelled 'racist' on BBC Radio 4's Thought For The Day. The BBC didn't see anything wrong with this statement and allowed it to be broadcast. Well, there is nothing racist about caring about the safety of your family. Patriotic protesters When I was in the Home Office I saw up close that dangerous people were crossing the Channel. I sounded the alarm publicly that terror suspects were crossing in small boats. I am pushing for the Government to publish the migrant crime stats quarterly, but until then the indicative data suggests certain nationalities are far more disposed to commit crime than others. The overwhelming majority of those crossing in small boats are adult males with no paperwork. Protesters arrested near migrant hotel after 'asylum seeker guest' arrested on suspicion of assault How are the authorities supposed to identify them and check their criminal record? The British people are right to be worried. It's why on Sunday I visited peaceful and patriotic protesters in Epping, Essex, who are simply fed up. I spoke to teenagers, parents and grandparents — all rightly concerned about the safety of their community. These weren't racists or far-right thugs — they were mums in pink T-shirts with Union Jack bunting. One mother told me how her daughter's school had written to her suggesting children avoid certain parts of town on their walk home. Her young daughter told me that men from the hotels loiter outside certain spots 'where they look at us.' These weren't racists or far-right thugs — they were mums in pink T-shirts with Union Jack bunting Another mother told me how her daughter had bought a pair of construction worker's boots to put outside the house, to make it look as if there was a man inside. Among everyone I spoke to there was outrage at how they felt the perfectly legitimate anger over mass, uncontrolled migration had been ignored by the Government and smeared by an absurdly out-of-touch liberal elite. The Government isn't listening to the community in Epping, nor those across the country who have asylum hotels forced upon them. These hotels aren't where the cabinet or senior officials live. They are safe in their ivory towers. It doesn't affect their day-to-day lives like it does for those in the rest of the country. Sir Keir Starmer should get out of Westminster and come and speak to the people of Epping to hear their concerns and act on them. Maybe then he will wake up and do something about the spiralling small boat crossings. But until then we will keep seeing fair-minded Brits out protesting that enough is enough. Sick joke We're seven years into this and more than 170,000 have arrived illegally. Based on a Dutch study, each migrant is set to cost us roughly half a million pounds over the course of their lifetime. By the end of the decade, we'll have spent tens of billions on this. It's a disgrace. A sick joke on the British people. It simply has to end. I will be the first to admit the last government didn't do enough to fix this problem. I was the first Minister to close hotels, initiating 100 exits — but we needed to do more. I fought tooth and nail with then Home Secretary Suella Braverman to get Rishi Sunak to disapply Tony Blair's Human Rights Act and ECHR so we could deport all those coming illegally. But despite much arguing, I couldn't persuade him, so I resigned and fought on the backbenches for much stronger measures. If Starmer is to succeed he needs to close all the loopholes immigration offenders use to frustrate their removal. And he needs to reform the judiciary to remove activist judges who compromise the independence of the judiciary. Otherwise the British people will continue to suffer.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Sally Rooney could be arrested under Terrorism Act after pledging royalties to Palestine Action
Irish novelist Sally Rooney could be arrested under the Terrorism Act after saying she intends to use proceeds from her work to support Palestine Action, which was proscribed as a terrorist organisation in the UK last month, a legal expert has warned. Earlier, No 10 said that supporting the group was an offence under the act, after Rooney had made her pledge. Royalties from Rooney's books, including Normal People and Conversations with Friends, and BBC adaptations of them would be used to support Palestine Action, she wrote in the Irish Times over the weekend. The legal expert also said that the bestselling writer could face prosecution if she were to express her views at, for example, a UK book festival, underscoring the proscription's 'gross disproportionality'. While the prime minister's spokesperson would not respond to the author's comments specifically, they said that there was 'a difference between showing support for a proscribed organisation, which is an offence under the Terrorism Act, and legitimate protest in support of a cause', according to the Press Association. Asked what message No 10 would give to people considering donating money to Palestine Action, the spokesperson said: 'Support for a proscribed organisation is an offence under the Terrorism Act and obviously the police will, as they have set out, implement the law as you'd expect.' More than 700 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act in relation to the group since it was proscribed in early July, many of whom were detained at a peaceful protest on 9 August in Parliament Square, London. 'My books, at least for now, are still published in Britain, and are widely available in bookshops and even supermarkets,' wrote Rooney on Saturday. 'In recent years the UK's state broadcaster has also televised two fine adaptations of my novels, and therefore regularly pays me residual fees. I want to be clear that I intend to use these proceeds of my work, as well as my public platform generally, to go on supporting Palestine Action and direct action against genocide in whatever way I can.' Palestine Action was proscribed as a terrorist organisation after activists broke into an RAF base in Oxfordshire and spray painted two planes. They 'knew, of course, that their actions were illegal,' Rooney wrote in the Guardian in June. 'From the suffragettes to the gay rights movement to the anti-apartheid struggle, genuine political resistance has always involved intentional law-breaking.' In her Irish Times article last weekend, Rooney said that she 'would happily publish this statement in a UK newspaper – but that would now be illegal'. Rooney's books also include Beautiful World, Where Are You and, most recently, Intermezzo. Lawyer and writer Sadakat Kadri said: 'Receiving money with the intention of using it to support terrorism is an offence under section 15 of the 2000 act.. That means Rooney could be arrested without a warrant as a 'terrorist'.' He added that 'the absurdities don't end there', and said the decision of the home secretary, Yvette Cooper, to bracket Palestine Action with groups such as Islamic State meant the BBC would also be criminally liable if it continued to pay royalties to Rooney. in view of her stated intentions. 'Authoritarian governments routinely threaten writers and intimidate broadcasters, but I find it quite extraordinary that Labour under Keir Starmer has now chosen to go down the same path.' Asked whether Rooney could face legal repercussions if she, for example, spoke at a book festival in the UK, Kadri said that 'there's certainly a risk she'd fall foul' of the law. If Rooney expressed 'her views in terms of condemning the war crimes being committed in Gaza, an arguable case for prosecution could be made out'. 'Saying that isn't for one moment an attempt to justify the statute,' said Kadri, which he described as 'a shameful attack' on free speech. 'It's just a particularly stark illustration of the measure's gross disproportionality.' Mike Schwarz, head of the public inquiry team at the legal firm Hodge Jones & Allen, said that 'anyone providing money which might, in the state's eyes, fund 'terrorism' and, separately, anyone supporting an organisation proscribed under terrorism legislation runs a very real risk of serious police interest and prosecution for grave offences in the UK. This seems particularly the case in the current febrile political climate surrounding Palestine Action.'
