Latest news with #UKLaw
The Independent
6 days ago
- Business
- The Independent
Brexit ‘sabotage' warning as new proposals clear Commons
New product safety proposals have moved closer to becoming law, sparking claims they could enable ministers to "sabotage" Brexit. MPs voted 264 to 99, a majority of 165, to approve the Product Regulation and Metrology Bill at its third reading. The bill provides the government with new powers to regulate the marketing and use of goods in the UK post-Brexit. However, TUV leader Jim Allister voiced concerns about specific references to " EU law" within the bill. He questioned whether this could allow ministers to act against the 2016 referendum result. Critics fear the legislation would force UK regulations to automatically align with changes in European Union law, granting ministers "inappropriately wide" powers to rewrite regulations. Mr Allister, the MP for North Antrim, told the Commons: 'There are aspects of this Bill which I think are democratically dangerous. 'Because this Bill gifts to government unbridled capacity to make regulations, with virtually no oversight from this elected House, on matters which touch not just upon the sanctity of our product production, but the sovereignty of this nation. 'This Bill, with little attempt at subtlety, is a vehicle which enables a Government, if so minded – and this one, I fear, might be – to sabotage Brexit in many ways. 'I stand to be corrected, but I don't think a single member of this Government voted for Brexit, and yet that is the settled and declared will of the people, greatest number of people who ever participated in a democratic vote in this nation. 'Yet in the Bill, we have the capacity, particularly through clause 2(7), to dynamically align all our regulations with those of the EU, and to do that without recourse to this House, at the whim of the executive. Whatever the subject matter, that surely is a most unhealthy situation.' Shadow business minister Dame Harriett Baldwin also said: 'As an independent nation, the UK we believe should set its own product regulations to foster innovation, support domestic industry, and not automatically align with EU rules which we no longer have any influence or help to shape.' Responding, business minister Justin Madders told the Commons: 'The powers in this Bill give the UK the flexibility to manage its own product regulatory framework. 'Part of this is of course making sure that the UK can respond to relevant developments in EU law, and this does not mean that the UK is beholden to EU changes, and all regulations will be subject to Parliament oversight.' He added that 'the reason why the Bill explicitly references the EU rather than other jurisdictions is because most of our product regulation is of course inherited from EU law'.
Yahoo
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
The British state is crushing free speech
When US vice-president JD Vance criticised the 'infringements on free speech' that are rapidly coming to define the UK's international reputation, few were more offended than Sir Keir Starmer. The Prime Minister – who in his previous role as Director of Public Prosecutions oversaw the unsuccessful prosecution of the Twitter joke trial – insisted that Britain was 'very proud' of its 'free speech'. He would have done better to caveat his statement with 'politically approved'. A string of cases have shown that free speech in Britain is under severe threat from an overbearing state, with little apparent appetite in Westminster to rein it in. The most recent entry in a long and dispiriting series has seen a retired special constable wrongly arrested and jailed for a social media post condemning anti-Semitism. Shocking body-worn footage shows officers searching the home of Julian Foulkes, 71, pointing to 'Brexity' material on his shelves, prior to his being held in a police cell for eight hours then released with a caution. This latest incident – as with the hounding of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, the investigation of Labour MP Ian Austin for calling Hamas 'Islamist' and the police visiting writer Julie Bindel without explaining which tweet had triggered their visit – follows a familiar and worrying pattern. In each case, the initial legal wrong has to date been redressed; the chilling effect of the investigations remains. The thought that a loosely worded comment could result in massive legal bills, the shame of arrest, a stint in jail and potentially a criminal sentence is understandably exerting an unwelcome force on public discourse, limiting necessary criticism and discussion. Some in Westminster may see this as a feature rather than a bug. Over time, the meaning of 'policing by consent' has shifted from the support of a singular British community, to the buy-in of multiple communities with conflicting interests and opinions. And as the set of overlapping interests has narrowed, so too the model of policing has shifted to managing and suppressing 'community tensions' rather than protecting and upholding the rights and liberties of the individual. This is a poor model. Rather than instructing police officers to act as glorified social media moderators, we should free their time to work on serious crimes, and free the public to engage in frank conversation without the creeping fear of an early morning knock on the door. As things stand, Britain's dismal record on free speech deserves every criticism Mr Vance had to offer. If we dislike this, we should work to fix our laws rather than object to being shown a mirror. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
10-05-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The British state is crushing free speech
When US vice-president JD Vance criticised the ' infringements on free speech ' that are rapidly coming to define the UK's international reputation, few were more offended than Sir Keir Starmer. The Prime Minister – who in his previous role as Director of Public Prosecutions oversaw the unsuccessful prosecution of the Twitter joke trial – insisted that Britain was 'very proud' of its 'free speech'. He would have done better to caveat his statement with 'politically approved'. A string of cases have shown that free speech in Britain is under severe threat from an overbearing state, with little apparent appetite in Westminster to rein it in. The most recent entry in a long and dispiriting series has seen a retired special constable wrongly arrested and jailed for a social media post condemning anti-Semitism. Shocking body-worn footage shows officers searching the home of Julian Foulkes, 71, pointing to 'Brexity' material on his shelves, prior to his being held in a police cell for eight hours then released with a caution. This latest incident – as with the hounding of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, the investigation of Labour MP Ian Austin for calling Hamas 'Islamist' and the police visiting writer Julie Bindel without explaining which tweet had triggered their visit – follows a familiar and worrying pattern. In each case, the initial legal wrong has to date been redressed; the chilling effect of the investigations remains. The thought that a loosely worded comment could result in massive legal bills, the shame of arrest, a stint in jail and potentially a criminal sentence is understandably exerting an unwelcome force on public discourse, limiting necessary criticism and discussion. Some in Westminster may see this as a feature rather than a bug. Over time, the meaning of 'policing by consent' has shifted from the support of a singular British community, to the buy-in of multiple communities with conflicting interests and opinions. And as the set of overlapping interests has narrowed, so too the model of policing has shifted to managing and suppressing 'community tensions' rather than protecting and upholding the rights and liberties of the individual. This is a poor model. Rather than instructing police officers to act as glorified social media moderators, we should free their time to work on serious crimes, and free the public to engage in frank conversation without the creeping fear of an early morning knock on the door. As things stand, Britain's dismal record on free speech deserves every criticism Mr Vance had to offer. If we dislike this, we should work to fix our laws rather than object to being shown a mirror.
