‘Bonkers' UN court ruling may allow countries to sue each other for climate reparations
The International Court of Justice ruling paves the way for poorer nations to launch multi-billion Pound compensation cases against rich powers like Britain.
2
The move sparked fury last night, with the Tories branding the top UN court's proclamation 'insane' and Reform UK warning it hands a blank cheque to foreign governments.
Shadow Energy Secretary Claire Coutinho said: 'We have to put Britain's interests first.
'The Government must make clear it sees no basis for this ruling to be acted upon.'
Reform UK's Richard Tice fumed: 'This is another bonkers non-binding advisory judgment by the ICJ.
'They absurdly said we should give up the Chagos islands.
'They just hate us.'
The judges said governments can be held responsible for climate damage — even if it stems from historic emissions pumped out decades ago.
The court's opinion is non-binding, but legal experts say it could trigger real-world lawsuits as early as next week.
The legal case was cooked up by law students from Pacific islands who claimed wealthy countries failed them.
Flora Vano from Vanuatu island, said: 'The ICJ has recognised what we have lived through — our suffering, resilience and right to our future.'
Keir Starmer's deranged drive for Net Zero with eco-zealot Ed Miliband is a threat to UK's national security- here's why
The UK and others argued deals, such as the 2015 Paris Agreement, were enough but the court rejected that.
Judge Iwasawa Yuji ruled not hitting the toughest climate targets would breach international law and said even countries outside the Paris pact must still protect the planet.
He admitted it would be hard to determine who caused which part of climate change.
Natural disasters, such as the 6.5-magnitude earthquake in Colombia in June, have also been linked to climate change.
The ICJ's previous advisory ruling to hand back the Chagos Island to Mauritius was followed by the UK.
2
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
4 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
JOHN MACLEOD: King must put throne first and reject the return of Harry and Meghan
The first rule of monarchy is not glitter, ceremonial nor influence. It is survival. At the height of the Great War, with thrones tottering on all sides, King George V, our first great constitutional monarch, moved decisively to secure his own. At his command, all his British relatives repudiated German honours, titles and surnames. His own ruling house, Saxe-Coburg-Gotha, became Windsor. He recast the honours system creating the Order of the British Empire for all, regardless of class, who had rendered noted public service. And on 18 September 1917, at Ibrox Stadium – no less - George personally presented the very first British Empire Medal. To Lizzie Robinson, 21, swamped in khaki overalls. A Cardonald munitions worker, toiling seven days a week, she had not missed a shift in two years. On another front, George V was truly ruthless. After the fall of Tsar Nicholas II – his first cousin – the Lloyd George government was poised to offer him and his family asylum in Britain. Setting any private sentiment aside, George lobbied fiercely to block it, knowing that the presence of this toppled despot would infuriate millions in Britain. In fairness, the logistics of rescuing the Romanovs would have been extremely difficult: they were duly murdered by the Bolsheviks in July 1918. George's two elder sons were long close. The Duchess of York, as she then was, simply adored the charismatic Prince of Wales. But, as the country reeled from the shock of the Abdication, in December 1936, Elizabeth and the diffident, anxious Bertie genuinely feared for their tenuous throne. George VI, too, dug deep. Within weeks he had ordered no calls from his exiled brother were to be put through. Forbade any of the family from attending the Duke of Windsor's wedding. Flatly – and, probably, unlawfully – he denied the sometime Wallis Simpson the rank and dignity of Her Royal Highness. Come the fall of France, the Windsors were extricated from the Continent only with the greatest difficulty – and packed off to Government House in the Bahamas: they could do little mischief there. Eight decades later, and none of her offspring was dearer to the late Queen than Andrew. They often rode together, sipped tea together; her face lit up when he entered the room. But when the Duke of York enmired himself in disgrace, Elizabeth II did not hesitate. Andrew was stripped of his duties, of his patronages, of his honours. Plans for a sparkling 60th-birthday celebration were canned. The Duke was even cut from the published photographs of his daughter's wedding. And, months later, stripped of royal rank itself. She adored him still – but Elizabeth let the Queen rule her in this, not the woman. In recent weeks there has been a curious groundswell of opinion, in many quarters, that the King must now make peace with his own second son and that the Prince and Princess of Wales should be big enough to lump it. By curious coincidence, snaps of initial peace-talks appeared on the same day that William, Kate and their delightful elder children appeared so enchantingly at Wimbledon. Soon after, and by no less curious coincidence, the Duke of Sussex reprised – and not for the first time – his late mother's landmine walk in Angola, on the same day as the Queen Consort's birthday. Let me be honest. I often wish, rather desperately, that Harry and Meghan would finally catch a break. Hit some winning streak that would keep them in style and comfort and, above all, keep them quiet. But I can think of no more crazed or appalling idea than that they should be welcomed home to this country, to the bosom of the Royal Family, to the renewed expense of the privy and indeed the public purse and – the very idea is fantastic and absurd – to renewed royal duties. Our King is a singularly gracious, cultured, thoughtful man. In public life long before the most senior Members of Parliament. As we saw in Rome, Germany and elsewhere, he is a far more confident and accomplished speaker than his mother. His heartache amidst ongoing estrangement from his younger son – though it is not of Charles's doing – is incalculable. Yet such a restoration of Sussex fortune – which, one suspects, in their current extremity really boils down to money – is unthinkable. The damage they have wrought since Megxit is vast and irretrievable. Before all the world, they besmirched their kin, the Crown and indeed this country with baseless charges of the rankest racism – this from a man who once mocked an Army comrade and was even snapped, smugly, in Nazi uniform. This falsehood grievously damaged the Commonwealth, especially in the Caribbean. They slammed this land, the Palace and their family, courtesy of Oprah Winfrey, as Prince Philip lay dying. They have time and again been caught out in falsehood. They made the Queen's final years a misery. They have smeared the Prince and Princess of Wales in the cruellest and most personal terms, wallow in ceaseless self-pity and seem incapable of keeping a trust or telling the truth. And for none of this has there been a word of regret, contrition, or apology. That the Spotify deal has gone, that the Netflix package founders by the bows, that their docuseries (save for the first, the cruellest and most dishonest) have had but derisory ratings and that the sideline in jams, pink plonk and edible flowers is a Stateside joke scarcely surprises. They have no talent; no appetite for the hard yards of dedicated work. She can afford the finest clothes but, inexplicably, does not wear them well. And none of this, on cool reflection, surprises: in eighteen months, Meghan proved incapable of even the less than exacting duties of a royal Duchess. That is before we start on all the broken confidences, the ruthlessly discarded friends – from Piers Morgan to Jessica Mulroney – the traumatised former staff and, surely, the nadir: that twerking video. This apparently went down a storm in trailer-trash America but, this side of the pond, and as was once said of another, we saw only a woman unfit to be a royal Princess in this or any age. She is what she always was – a cool, beaming adventuress, her hand always in creepy Mission Control grip of his, as if they were welded by SuperGlue. The greater shame, and certainly the duller brain, are his. They are now figures of conspicuous failure – the thing most feared in Hollywood circles, as if it were contagious – and, worse, figures of ridicule. To tap in 'harry meghan' on YouTube is to unleash a tsunami of mockery, derision and scorn and steepled-fingers analyses. And for this ignominy the Duke and Duchess of Sussex threw away the greatest platform for public service that there is. There can be no return to that role, or to this land. And, as his forebears grasped before, Charles III must let the King rule him in this – and not the man.
Telegraph
4 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Middle-income workers shoulder biggest tax burden increase
Middle-class workers are shouldering the biggest increase in the tax burden thanks to a stealth raid on thresholds, analysis suggests. The share of income tax paid by those who earn between £43,000 and £61,900 rose from 15.1pc to 17pc between 2021-22 and 2025-26, according to the TaxPayers' Alliance. During the same five-year period, the share of income tax paid by the top 1pc, those earning more than £201,000 a year, fell from 30.7pc to 26.6pc, the pressure group found. It comes as Chancellor Rachel Reeves faces a £50bn black hole in the public finances and declining tax revenue as high-net-worth individuals look to move abroad. Analysis by the Financial Times this month revealed there had been a 40pc rise in directors moving abroad since Labour's autumn Budget. The Taxpayers' Alliance report found the proportion of total income tax receipts increased for every group except for the top 1pc of earners, thanks to a series of stealth taxes first introduced by the Conservatives. Income tax thresholds, including the £12,570 tax-free 'personal allowance', were frozen at the 2021 budget by then chancellor Rishi Sunak until 2025-26. A year later, his successor, Jeremy Hunt, extended the freeze until 2027-28. Despite promising not to raise taxes on working people, Sir Keir Starmer has not ruled out extending the freeze further to 2029-30. Keeping thresholds frozen means earners lose a larger share of their incomes to tax, as inflation pushes up wages in a process known as fiscal drag. The stealth raid means almost 2.9 million more people will pay the basic rate of income tax in 2025-26 than in 2021-22, while over 2.6 million more will pay the higher rate. Including other rates, almost 6 million more people are forecast to be paying income tax than in 2021-22. John O'Connell, chief executive of the TaxPayers' Alliance, said: 'This is the sad but inevitable result of successive governments' assortment of anti-affluence tax policies, which penalise aspiration and success. 'The UK is now trapped in a doom loop with the Chancellor desperately scrabbling around for more cash to fill the fiscal black hole and increasingly finding her only option is to come after the middle classes. 'Rachel Reeves needs to now show some humility and reverse the policies that have done so much to drive away high earners.' The respected National Institute of Economic and Social Research on Tuesday warned slowing economic growth, a weak jobs market and Labour's failure to commit to welfare reform meant Ms Reeves was on course to miss her borrowing targets by £41.2bn. When combined with the £9.9bn of headroom the Chancellor has committed to keeping, it means she is facing a £51.1bn deficit in the autumn that will either have to be solved by raising taxes or cutting spending. The study also underlined the importance for the Treasury's balance sheet to keep the highest earners in Britain. Despite the proportion of tax paid by the top 1pc of earners falling, the group still accounts for more than a quarter of all income tax receipts. Analysis of Companies House by the Financial Times found that 3,790 company directors had left Britain between October and July compared with 2,712 in the same period a year earlier. Significant names have included Richard Gnodde, Goldman Sachs ' most senior banker outside the US, Nassef Sawiris, the Aston Villa co-owner, and British property tycoon brothers Ian and Richard Livingstone. It comes after Labour launched a wide-ranging tax raid after coming to power last year. This included abolishing the non-dom status and tightening inheritance tax rules. Laura Suter, of AJ Bell, said: 'Government tax policy in the past few years has had the dual outcome of pushing some of the wealthiest to leave the UK and also landing more taxpayers with higher tax bills at the same time. 'Together, this means that an increasing proportion of the total tax bill of the country is paid by middle earners, rather than the super-rich. 'Looking ahead, any potential tax-raising measures that Rachel Reeves makes in her next Budget could exacerbate this dynamic further.' Trevor Williams, a former chief economist at Lloyds Bank, previously warned Britain was facing a millionaires' exodus. Mr Williams said: 'Since 2014, the number of resident millionaires in the UK dropped by 9pc compared with the world's 10 wealthiest countries' global average growth of more than 40pc. 'Over the same period, the US saw a 78pc increase in millionaires – the fastest wealth growth [among these countries].' The Treasury insisted that under its Plan for Change it would keep more money in people's pockets. A spokesman said: 'This government inherited the previous government's policy of frozen tax thresholds. At the Budget and the Spring Statement, the Chancellor announced that we would not extend that freeze. 'We are also protecting payslips for working people by keeping our promise to not raise the basic, higher or additional rates of income tax, employee National Insurance or VAT. That's the Plan for Change – protecting people's incomes and putting money into people's pockets.'
South Wales Guardian
8 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
I push Keir Starmer to be more extroverted in Scotland
Mr Sarwar said he speaks to the Prime Minister every two or three weeks, often calling at weekends when they both have more free time. The Scottish Labour leader also said he will not engage in any 'back room stitch-ups' with other parties if he becomes first minister following the Scottish election next year. At an Edinburgh Fringe event in front of a live audience, Mr Sarwar was interviewed by Catherine Salmond, editor of The Herald. He was pressed on his relationship with the UK Labour leader and whether Sir Keir was comfortable coming north of the border. He said: 'We're different personalities… I am much more probably conversational, out there, a bit of an extrovert. 'I think it's safe to say he's a bit more introverted in that sense.' Mr Sarwar said Sir Keir had become more relaxed and confident in the five years since becoming Labour leader. He said Sir Keir was more relaxed in Scotland than in other parts of the UK, adding: 'I think we've built up a rapport, probably because I am pushing to be a bit more of extroverted than perhaps he is in other parts.' He said he spoke to the Prime Minister around 'two or three times a month'. However he said the early part of Labour's response to the war in Gaza had been 'challenging' for his party, referring to an interview the Prime Minister gave where he said Israel had the 'right' to withhold power and water from Gaza in response to the October 7 attacks. 'I think the early part was challenging, he himself accepts that what he said in the LBC interview wasn't right,' Mr Sarwar said. Discussing the Middle East further, he said: 'I think we have to be doing much more to hold the Israeli government to account. 'To provide evidence that there is not any components that are being used in a proactive way in Gaza.' Looking ahead to the 2026 Scottish election, Mr Sarwar said he was putting his 'heart, soul energy, time' into winning. He said it would be a 'very close election' likely to result in a 'parliament of minorities'. Rather than doing deals such as the SNP-Green powersharing agreement, he said he would 'work progressively with the parliament' if he became first minister. He said: 'We are looking to form a minority Scottish Labour government that does no kind of back room stich-up but instead moves to govern based on what we promised.'
