Latest news with #ofDamocles
Powys County Times
20-05-2025
- Business
- Powys County Times
Rachel Reeves: SNP in absurd position over criticism of EU-UK fisheries deal
Rachel Reeves has said the SNP are in an 'absurd situation where they support Reform and the Tories' in response to criticism of the EU-UK deal's impact on the Scottish fishing industry. SNP MP Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) said a 'growth-threatening Sword of Damocles' has been placed over the sector in Scotland following the agreement, which allows a further 12 years of access to UK waters for boats from the EU. Speaking at Treasury questions, Mr Doogan asked in the Commons: 'What changes will the Chancellor introduce in the spring statement to compensate for the growth-threatening Sword of Damocles she has just placed over the Scottish fishing industry? 'She should know, but probably doesn't, that 70% of revenue from fishing and agriculture comes from Scotland. 'She should know, but probably doesn't, that the fishing industry in Scotland is 50 times larger for Scotland's economy than the UK. 'So can she explain what discussions did she have with the Scottish Fishermen's Federation or the Scottish Government before making this damaging decision?' Ms Reeves replied: 'I was very pleased that the Scottish Salmon Association welcomed the trade deal that we secured with the EU yesterday, and 70% of the fish that is caught in UK waters is sold into European markets.' She added: 'The SNP are now in an absurd situation where they support Reform and the Tories in opposing the deal with the EU.' Elsewhere at Treasury questions, Liberal Democrat MP Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) raised concerns over the visitor levy in Scotland. The 5% charge will apply to those staying in hotels, bed and breakfasts, and other forms of accommodation, including holiday lets. Mr Stone said: 'Scottish councils now have the power to introduce a tourism levy. This has gone down extremely badly with the hospitality sector and in particular they fear a tax on a tax – a tax would be VAT. 'Could I ask the Government to look at zero rating this in the event that a tourism levy is introduced?' Ms Reeves replied: 'I want to welcome tourists to Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that's why we're securing trade deals with countries around the world, showing that we as a country are open for business. 'In the end it's up to the Scottish Government about what additional taxes they introduce. But as with income tax you can always see that the SNP never take the side of ordinary working people.'
Fox News
23-04-2025
- Automotive
- Fox News
Congress can stop California's radical environmental mandates that hurt the entire nation
EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin has launched an inspiring effort to regain sanity in our nation's energy policies. One of his initiatives is particularly important — reversing the Biden administration's attempt to supercharge California's electric-vehicle mandates, which would allow that state to push a radical transformation of our nation's fleet from gas-powered to electric. Congress has an opportunity for a policy and constitutional win here. The reversal of Biden and California's undemocratic effort is now on the five-yard line. To score, Congress needs to punch through one more bureaucratic agency. Over the last several years, California has tried to aggressively export its progressive energy ideology, leading to a wide number of short-sighted and unconstitutional policies. Near the top of the list are California's bureaucratically crafted electric-vehicle mandates, some of which seek to transform the nation's heavy-duty fleet from diesel-based to electric. California's attempt to drive national policy would normally run into both constitutional (interstate commerce clause) and statutory (Clean Air Act) roadblocks. Unfortunately, the Biden Environmental Protection Agency attempted to bless California's overreach by granting so-called Clean Air Act "preemption waivers" to three electric-vehicle mandates passed by unelected California bureaucrats. These waivers give California a Sword of Damocles to hang over the industry. Nebraska has fought back, leading a three-part battle by filing lawsuits against California, the Biden-era mandates and the trucking companies that agreed to eliminate consumer choice in the trucking market. The good news is that the Trump administration is pushing common-sense energy policies, and Zeldin has taken the first necessary step to repeal the waivers. Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can repeal EPA's waivers by passing a resolution of disapproval through simple majorities in the House and Senate plus the president's signature. President Donald Trump's promise to unleash American energy by rescinding radical electric-vehicle mandates — combined with Republican majorities in both houses of Congress — make a legislative repeal a no-brainer. Nebraskans are grateful that our two United States Senators, Deb Fischer and Pete Ricketts, are helping to lead the charge for energy policy sanity. Now there's a roadblock. A nonbinding opinion from the Government Accountability Office judged that the California waivers are not "rules" of "general applicability" subject to review under the Congressional Review Act. That opinion is wrong. The California waivers are "rules" because they enact forward-looking policy decisions. And the waivers are "generally applicable" because they reach well beyond California's borders. Even if one ignores the obvious nationwide (if not worldwide) implications of mandating electric vehicles in the fifth-largest economy in the world, the California waivers are generally applicable because they allow other states to enact electric-vehicle mandates they otherwise could not. Under the Clean Air Act, only Congress can set emission standards for new motor vehicles. The sole exception is California, which can seek a waiver from EPA to enforce emission standards more stringent than the federal ones. But once California gets a waiver, any of the other 49 states can "adopt and enforce" emission standards "identical to the California standards for which a waiver has been granted" without asking EPA for permission. So far, 18 states have adopted at least one of California's electric-vehicle mandates. The Biden-era waiver paves the way for a widespread adoption of California's bans on internal-combustion engines. This is precisely the kind of agency action that falls within the purview of the Congressional Review Act. Finding that the waivers are subject to the CRA is both a lawful and commonsense exercise of congressional authority. The GAO — headed by an Obama appointee — broke its own precedent in issuing nonbinding "observations" on whether the California waivers are subject to the CRA. Never before had the GAO opined on an agency action that an agency already submitted for CRA review. The GAO itself has said that, once an agency action has been submitted to Congress for CRA review, there are "no impediments to Congress's exercise of those powers that could be cured by an opinion from GAO." Procedural irregularities aside, the GAO's opinion is substantively flawed. It fails to mention that once California gets a waiver, every other state can adopt emission standards identical to the California standards, giving the waivers nationwide effect. The California waivers are "rules" because they enact forward-looking policy decisions. And the waivers are "generally applicable" because they reach well beyond California's borders. Accepting the GAO's novel observations here would effectively give unelected bureaucrats the final say on whether elected lawmakers get to review sweeping regulatory decisions — decisions that impact the national economy, consumer choice and federalism itself. If Congress defers here, it risks outsourcing democratic oversight of major national policy to technical advisors. That would weaken our constitutional protections. The Republican Party has claimed unified control of the federal government only five times in the past 100 years. Using that control to repeal California's waivers is both a policy and constitutional win. Elected representatives in Congress, not unelected bureaucrats in Sacramento or a so-called "independent" agency like GAO, have the power to regulate the means of interstate commerce. Deferring to the GAO would be an undemocratic trifecta — it would leave in place rules written by unelected state regulators, approved by unelected federal bureaucrats and shielded from democratic review through unelected, self-declared referees. That's not how a representative government is supposed to work. Repealing the waivers would do more than block a radical climate agenda — it would restore a basic principle of American self-government: that laws with national scope must be subject to national debate, national scrutiny, and national consent. Congress has the authority to act, and I urge it to use that authority and repeal these short-sighted waivers.
CBS News
02-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Read Judge Dale Ho's ruling to dismiss NYC Mayor Eric Adams' corruption case
New York City Mayor Eric Adams' federal corruption case was dropped Wednesday , as Judge Dale Ho ruled it should be dismissed with prejudice. That means the charges against the mayor cannot be filed again in the future. The U.S. Department of Justice instructed the Southern District of New York to drop the case on Feb. 10 , saying it hindered the mayor's ability to cooperate with the federal government's immigration crackdown and his ability to run for reelection . The Justice Department memo set off a legal battle over whether to dismiss the charges -- and how. The DOJ wanted the case dropped without prejudice, keeping the possibility to re-file after the 2025 mayoral election. New York prosecutors , along with lawmakers and constituents , raised concerns that would make Adams beholden to President Trump's administration . In his ruling Wednesday, Judge Ho wrote in part, "There may or may not be good reasons to drop this prosecution. But the reasons articulated by DOJ, if taken at face value, are inconsistent with a decision to leave the charges in the Indictment hanging like the proverbial Sword of Damocles over the Mayor." Here is the full transcript of his ruling: Adams has not publicly addressed the dismissal, but his attorney released a statement reading in part, "The case against Eric Adams should have never been brought in the first place — and finally today that case is gone forever." The mayor and his attorney have staunchly denied any quid-pro-quo in the case.
The Independent
11-03-2025
- Politics
- The Independent
Judge weighing dismissal of NYC mayor's case cancels hearing, suggesting a ruling could be near
The judge weighing the Justice Department 's request to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams has canceled a hearing scheduled for Friday, indicating a ruling could be imminent. In a written order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho said he has reviewed filings from the parties and a court-appointed legal expert, all of whom favor dismissal, and 'does not at this time believe that oral argument is necessary." The only disagreement among the parties and the expert, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, appeared to be whether a dismissal should be permanent. The Justice Department is seeking the option to refile the case after the November mayoral election. Clement recommended that Ho prevent the charges from being refiled — known in legal parlance as dismissal with prejudice — so they don't hang over Adams 'like the proverbial Sword of Damocles.' Adams' lawyers have also asked for a permanent dismissal. The mayor, who is up for reelection this year, had pleaded not guilty to bribery and other charges. A 2024 indictment accused him of accepting illegal campaign contributions and travel discounts from a Turkish official and others — and returning the favors by, among other things, helping Turkey get a consulate open without passing a fire inspection. The case, brought during the Biden administration, was on track for an April trial until President Donald Trump's Justice Department moved last month to drop it, arguing that the case was interfering with the mayor's ability to aid the president's crackdown on illegal immigration. After an extraordinary hearing where Adams' lawyer and a top Justice Department official argued for ending the case, Ho canceled the trial and appointed Clement to assist him in deciding what to do.
Associated Press
11-03-2025
- Politics
- Associated Press
Judge weighing dismissal of NYC mayor's case cancels hearing, suggesting a ruling could be near
NEW YORK (AP) — The judge weighing the Justice Department's request to dismiss corruption charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams has canceled a hearing scheduled for Friday, indicating a ruling could be imminent. In a written order Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Dale E. Ho said he has reviewed filings from the parties and a court-appointed legal expert, all of whom favor dismissal, and 'does not at this time believe that oral argument is necessary.' The only disagreement among the parties and the expert, former U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, appeared to be whether a dismissal should be permanent. The Justice Department is seeking the option to refile the case after the November mayoral election. Clement recommended that Ho prevent the charges from being refiled — known in legal parlance as dismissal with prejudice — so they don't hang over Adams 'like the proverbial Sword of Damocles.' Adams' lawyers have also asked for a permanent dismissal. The mayor, who is up for reelection this year, had pleaded not guilty to bribery and other charges. A 2024 indictment accused him of accepting illegal campaign contributions and travel discounts from a Turkish official and others — and returning the favors by, among other things, helping Turkey get a consulate open without passing a fire inspection. The case, brought during the Biden administration, was on track for an April trial until President Donald Trump's Justice Department moved last month to drop it, arguing that the case was interfering with the mayor's ability to aid the president's crackdown on illegal immigration. After an extraordinary hearing where Adams' lawyer and a top Justice Department official argued for ending the case, Ho canceled the trial and appointed Clement to assist him in deciding what to do.
