Connect with us

Published

on

The French government has stepped back from a threat to impose disruptive port checks on lorries and boats after the UK threatened to take legal action in a row over post-Brexit fishing licences.

Key talks between the two sides will take place later this week aimed at resolving the disagreement, but the risk of further escalation remains.

Sky News examines what is behind the row between the UK and France and what measures London could take if the impasse rumbles on.

What is the dispute about?

Under the terms of the Brexit trade deal, which came into force on 1 January, EU access to UK waters and UK access to EU waters is now managed through a licensing system for fishing vessels.

The current row erupted after the UK authorities refused to give licences to some French fishing vessels to operate in UK waters because they believed they did not meet the requirements.

According to the French government, the UK has only issued half the fishing licences that Paris believes it is entitled to.

More on Brexit

Environment Secretary George Eustice told Sky News last week that the UK has issued post-Brexit licences to 1,700 vessels, including 750 French fishing boats, which amounts to 98% of applicants.

But the row deepened when the Cornelis Gert Jan scallop trawler was detained by French authorities last Thursday near the port of Le Havre.

The owners of the British vessel denied French claims that it did not have the correct licence to fish in French waters and said the Cornelis was being used as a “pawn” in the wider UK-France fishing dispute.

France initially said that if the UK did not grant more licences for its fishing vessels it would, from Tuesday, block its ports, carry out security checks on British vessels, reinforce controls of lorries to and from the UK, reinforce customs and hygiene controls, and raise tariffs.

However, Paris has stepped back from introducing these measures.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player


France postpones sanctions over fishing row

Downing Street says talks will take place with France on Wednesday about the situation, as well as other “issues important to the UK-EU relationship, including the Northern Ireland Protocol”.

What are dispute resolution measures?

It is against this backdrop that the UK has threatened to take legal action.

The prospect was raised by Prime Minister Boris Johnson last week and repeated by the Foreign Secretary Liz Truss in a Sky News interview on Monday.

The foreign secretary set a 48-hour deadline for the fishing dispute to be resolved, although it’s not clear if that deadline still stands in light of recent moves from Paris.

If legal action were to be taken, this would involve the UK triggering the dispute resolution measures contained in the Brexit trade deal, officially known as the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).

The measures are designed to be used when one side feels that the other is in breach of the TCA.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player


PM ‘worried’ that treaty may have been broken on fishing

Initially, this would mean a 30-day period of consultation between the two sides which can be extended if both parties agree.

The aim of this first step is to resolve any disagreement through dialogue.

But if a solution cannot be found, the complainant can progress things further and ask for an independent arbitration tribunal to be set up.

This would be made up of three members: one nominated by the UK, one put forward by the EU and a jointly-agreed chair.

The tribunal would then rule within 130 days of being set up, although an interim report would be issued earlier.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player


Minister: French reaction ‘unacceptable’

One side can ask for this timeline to be sped up, which would see it cut in half.

Tribunal rulings are legally binding and if a side is found to have breached the agreement they have 30 days to set out how they will comply.

Sam Lowe, a senior research fellow at the Centre for European Reform think-tank, said of the process: “In terms of the legal mechanisms we are very much talking about a process here that could drag on for a while.”

What happens if one side does not comply?

The other party can ask for compensation or suspend certain obligations contained in the agreement in areas like trade, aviation, road transport and fisheries.

The tribunal can be asked to rule on whether the suspension is appropriate, while the suspension should be rescinded if the other side then decides to follow its ruling.

There are also specific steps that one side can take in relation to fishing.

What measures can be taken on fishing?

One side could decide to entirely suspend access to its waters and scrap the preferential tariff agreement that applies to fishery products.

Again, an arbitration tribunal could end up getting involved, with it ruling if the measure is a proportionate response.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player


Brexit: Fishermen frustrated by fishing row

The UK, or indeed France, could choose to go further and apply tariffs on fisheries and non-fisheries products or even suspend elements of the TCA relating to trade and road transport.

Either side can also decide to bin the agreement on fisheries with a notice period of nine months.

What would the impact be on UK-EU relations long-term?

According to Sam Lowe: “If the UK feels the diplomatic route has been exhausted, proceeding with dispute resolution within the confines of the TCA is the proper way to go about things.

“At least in the TCA there are rules, processes to be followed; much better than spilling out into an unconstrained trade war with both the EU and UK free to do whatever they want.”

However, he warned that a simmering dispute could have a wider impact, adding: “These disputes do have political ramifications: they chip away at the good will necessary to reach a compromise on other outstanding issues such as Northern Ireland.”

Are the dispute resolution mechanisms different when it comes to Northern Ireland?

Yes.

The UK and EU are currently locked in talks over potential changes to the protocol, which is designed to avoid a hard border on the island of Ireland.

The protocol is part of the withdrawal agreement between the two sides and is separate from the TCA.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player


Do we need a new Northern Ireland Protocol?

If these talks break down or do not prove fruitful, either side has the option of activating Article 16 of the protocol.

This states that if the protocol is causing “serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties that are liable to persist”, or leading to a “diversion of trade” then either the UK or EU can introduce “appropriate safeguard measures” to tackle the problems.

Brussels at one stage proposed using Article 16 to stop COVID vaccine exports from the EU moving to Great Britain from Northern Ireland, but stepped back from this after a backlash.

Opponents of the protocol in Northern Ireland have been calling on the UK government to invoke Article 16 to stop checks and controls on goods.

Continue Reading

Politics

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Published

on

By

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Lawmakers in the US states of Minnesota and Alabama filed companion bills to identical existing bills that if passed into law, would allow each state to buy Bitcoin.

The Minnesota Bitcoin Act, or HF 2946, was introduced to the state’s House by Republican Representative Bernie Perryman on April 1, following an identical bill introduced on March 17 by GOP state Senator Jeremy Miller.

Meanwhile, on the same day in Alabama, Republican state Senator Will Barfoot introduced Senate Bill 283, while a bi-partisan group of representatives led by Republican Mike Shaw filed the identical House Bill 482, which allows for the state to invest in crypto, but essentially limits it to Bitcoin (BTC).

Twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly name Bitcoin

Minnesota’s Bitcoin Act would allow the state’s investment board to invest state assets in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies and permit state employees to add crypto to retirement accounts.

It would also exempt crypto gains from state income taxes and give residents the option to pay state taxes and fees with Bitcoin.

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Source: Bitcoin Laws

The twin Alabama bills don’t explicitly identify Bitcoin, but would limit the state’s crypto investment into assets that have a minimum market value of $750 billion, a criterion that only Bitcoin currently meets.

26 Bitcoin reserve bills now introduced in the US

Introducing identical bills is not uncommon in the US and is typically done to speed up the bicameral legislative process so laws can pass more quickly.

Bills to create a Bitcoin reserve have been introduced in 26 US states, with Arizona currently the closest to passing a law to make one, according to data from the bill tracking website Bitcoin Laws.

Alabama, Minnesota lawmakers join US states pushing for Bitcoin reserves

Arizona currently leads in the US state Bitcoin reserve race. Source: Bitcoin Laws

Pennsylvania was one of the first US states to introduce a Bitcoin reserve bill, in November 2024. However, the initiative was reportedly eventually rejected, with similar bills also killed in Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Related: North Carolina bills would add crypto to state’s retirement system 

Law, Bitcoin Regulation, United States, Policy, Bitcoin Reserve

Montana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota and Wyoming are the five states thathave rejected Bitcoin reserve initiatives. Source: Bitcoin Laws

According to a March 3 report by Barron’s, “red states” like Montana have faced setbacks to the Bitcoin reserve initiatives amid political confrontations between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

Additional reporting by Helen Partz.

Magazine: Financial nihilism in crypto is over — It’s time to dream big again

Continue Reading

Politics

US House committee passes stablecoin-regulating STABLE Act

Published

on

By

US House committee passes stablecoin-regulating STABLE Act

US House committee passes stablecoin-regulating STABLE Act

Update (April 3, 5:43 am UTC): This article has been updated to add information on the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act.

The US House Financial Services Committee has passed a Republican-backed stablecoin framework bill, which will now head to the House floor for a full vote.

The Committee passed the Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy, or STABLE Act, with a 32-17 vote on April 2, with six Democrats voting in favor.

The bill was introduced on Feb. 6 by committee Chair French Hill and the chair of its Digital Assets Subcommittee, Bryan Steil — reportedly drafted with the help of the world’s largest stablecoin issue, Tether.

US House committee passes stablecoin-regulating STABLE Act

Source: Financial Services GOP

The bill would provide rules around payment stablecoins, a crypto token tied to a currency such as the US dollar, and aims to ensure issuers give information about their business and how they back their tokens.

During an earlier markup session, the committee’s leading Democrat, Maxine Waters, who later voted against the bill, criticized her Republican peers for “setting an unacceptable and dangerous precedent” with the STABLE Act.

She said President Donald Trump could use the bill to allow his family’s stablecoin to be used in government payments, and argued the bill validates Trump “and his insiders’ efforts to write rules of the road that will enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.”

In late March, the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial crypto venture launched a stablecoin, World Liberty Financial USD (USD1). Meanwhile, the US Housing Department, which oversees social housing, was reportedly looking to experiment with using stablecoins for some of its functions.

Stablecoin GENIUS Act also weaves through Congress 

Other stablecoin-related bills are also working their way through Congress, including the Republican-led Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins, or GENIUS Act, which lays out oversight and reserve rules for issuers.

Related: Crypto has a regulatory capture problem in Washington — or does it?

The US Senate Banking Committee voted through the GENIUS Act in an 18-6 vote on March 13, after Senator Bill Hagerty, one of the bill’s co-sponsors, updated it following consultation with the Committee’s Democrats.

Before the vote, Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand said the updated GENIUS Act made “significant improvements to a number of important provisions” in areas such as consumer protections and authorized stablecoin issuers.

Both the STABLE Act and GENIUS Act will now wait until debate time on the floor of the House and Senate, respectively, before they head for a floor vote.

Crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported on X that two unnamed crypto lobbyists said there is likely to be “a coordinated push behind the scenes over the next few weeks to get the two bills to mirror each other, as there are still some differences between them.”

Doing so would “avoid having to set up a so-called conference committee which is formed so members from both chambers can negotiate to create a final version of the bill everyone agrees on,” she added.

Magazine: How crypto laws are changing across the world in 2025

Continue Reading

Politics

‘My lawyers are ready’ for questions about corruption claims, ex-minister tells Sky News

Published

on

By

'My lawyers are ready' for questions about corruption claims, ex-minister tells Sky News

Tulip Siddiq has told Sky News her “lawyers are ready” to handle any formal questions about allegations she is involved in corruption in Bangladesh.

Asked whether she regrets apparent links with the Bangladeshi Awami League political party, Ms Siddiq said “why don’t you look at my legal letter and see if I have any questions to answer… [the Bangladeshi authorities] have not once contacted me and I’m waiting to hear from them”.

The London MP resigned as a Treasury minister in January after being named in several corruption inquiries in Bangladesh.

In her first public comments since leaving government, Ms Siddiq said “there’s been allegations for months on end and no one has contacted me”.

Last month, the interim leader of Bangladesh told Sky News the MP had “wealth left behind” in the country “and should be made responsible”.

Lawyers acting for Ms Siddiq wrote to the Bangladeshi Anti Corruption Commission (ACC) several weeks ago saying the allegations were “false and vexatious”.

The letter said the ACC must put questions to Ms Siddiq “by no later than 25 March 2025” or “we shall presume that there are no legitimate questions to answer”.

More on Bangladesh

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Staff from the NCA visited Bangladesh as part of initial work to support the interim government in the country.

In a post online today, the former minister said the deadline had expired and the authorities had not replied.

Sky News has approached the Bangladeshi government for comment.

The allegations against Ms Siddiq are focused on links to her aunt Sheikh Hasina – who served as the prime minister of Bangladesh for 20 years.

Ms Hasina was forced to flee the country in August following weeks of deadly protests.

She is accused of becoming an autocrat, with politically-motivated arrests, extra-judicial killings and other abuses allegedly happening on her watch. Hasina claims it’s all a political witch hunt.

Electrocuted on their genitals and mouths sewn up: Inside Bangladesh’s ‘death squad’ jails

Ms Siddiq was found to have lived in several London properties that had links back to the Awami League political party that her aunt still leads.

She referred herself to the prime minister’s standards adviser Sir Laurie Magnus who said he had “not identified evidence of improprieties” but added it was “regrettable” Ms Siddiq had not been more alert to the “potential reputational risks” of the ties to her aunt.

Ms Siddiq said continuing in her role would be “a distraction” for the government but insisted she had done nothing wrong.

Continue Reading

Trending