Opening arguments begin in Sam Bankman-Fried trial
It’s no great surprise that members of a Labour MPs’ LGBT+ WhatsApp group would be raising concerns about the impact of this week’s Supreme Court ruling on the trans community.
But the critical contributions reportedly made by some of the group’s higher-profile ministerial members highlight the underlying divisions with the Labour Party over the issue – and point to future tensions once the practical implications of the judgement become clear.
Messages leaked to the Mail on Sunday allegedly include the Home Office minister Dame Angela Eagle writing “the ruling is not as catastrophic at it seems but the EHRC [Equality and Human Rights Commission] guidance might be & there are already signs that some public bodies are overreacting”.
Culture minister Sir Chris Bryant reportedly replied he “agreed” with another MP’s opinion that the EHRC chair Baroness Falkner was “pretty appalling” when she said the ruling would mean trans women could not use single-sex female facilities or compete in women’s sports.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Gender ruling – How it happened
Government sources argue these messages are hardly evidence of any kind of plot or mass revolt against the Supreme Court’s ruling.
But they still raise uncomfortable questions for a party that has been on a tortuous journey over the issue.
Under Jeremy Corbyn, Labour was committed to introducing self-identification – enabling people to change their legal sex without a medical diagnosis – a position dropped in 2023.
Back in 2021, Sir Keir Stamer said the then Labour MP Rosie Duffield was “not right” to say “only women have a cervix”. But three years later he acknowledged that “biologically, she of course is right”.
Duffield, who now sits as an independent, is asking for an apology – but that doesn’t seem to be forthcoming from a government keen to minimise its own role in changing social attitudes to the issue.
The Conservative position on this has also chopped and changed – with Theresa May‘s support for gender self-ID ditched under Boris Johnson.
Read more from Sky News:
School leaders issue warning as free breakfast clubs set to open
Four things to avoid if you’re doing the London Marathon
As the Conservatives’ equalities minister, Kemi Badenoch led the UK government’s fight against Scotland’s efforts to make it easier to change gender – and she’s determined to punch Labour’s bruise on the issue.
This weekend, she’s written to the cabinet secretary calling for an investigation into a possible breach of the ministerial or civil service code over a statement made by the Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson in response to the ruling, which said “we have always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex”.
The Tories claim this is false, because last summer Ms Phillipson herself gave an interview in which she suggested that trans women with penises could use female toilets.
Ms Phillipson has been approached for a response.
Her comments, however, are entirely in keeping with the government’s official statement on the judgement, which claims they have “always supported the protection of single-sex spaces based on biological sex” and welcomed the ruling as giving “clarity and confidence for women and service providers”.
The government statement added: “Single-sex spaces are protected in law and will always be protected by this government.”
The Bank for International Settlements’ (BIS) push to isolate crypto markets and its controversial recommendations on DeFi and stablecoins is “dangerous” for the entire financial system, warns the head of a blockchain investment firm.
“Many of their recommendations and conclusions — perhaps due to a mix of fear, arrogance, or ignorance — are completely uninformed and, frankly, dangerous,” CoinFund president Christopher Perkins said in an April 19 X post, referring to the BIS’ April 15 report titled “Cryptocurrencies and Decentralized Finance: Functions and Financial Stability Implications.”
BIS recommendations exposes TradFi to risks of “unimaginable scale”
“Crypto is not communism,” Perkins said, pushing back against the BIS’ call for a “containment” approach to isolate crypto from traditional finance and the broader economy.
“It’s the new internet that provides anyone with a connection access to financial services,” Perkins said. “You cannot control it anymore than you control the internet,” he added.
Perkins warned that a containment approach to crypto would expose the traditional financial system to massive liquidity risks “of unimaginable scale,” especially when the crypto market operates in real-time, 24/7, while traditional financial markets shuts down after trading hours.
“If implemented they will cause–not mitigate–the systemic risk they seek to prevent.”
The report warned that the number of investors and amount of capital in crypto and DeFi have “reached a critical mass,” with investor protection becoming a “significant concern for regulators.”
Perkins pushed back against the BIS’ claim that DeFi presents significant challenges, arguing instead that it represents a “significant improvement” over the “opacity” and imbalances of the traditional financial system.
Related: Crypto industry is not experiencing regulatory capture — Attorney
Responding to the BIS’s concern about the anonymity of DeFi developers, Perkins questioned its relevance:
“Sorry, but when was the last time a TradFi company published a list of its developers? Sure, public companies provide a degree of disclosures and transparency, but they seem to be dying off in favor of private markets.”
Perkins also critiqued the BIS’s concern around stablecoins that it could lead to “macroeconomic instability in countries like Venezuela and Zimbabwe.”
“If there is demand for USD stablecoins and it helps improve the condition of anyone in the developing world, perhaps that is a good thing,” Perkins said.
Perkins wasn’t alone in criticizing the controversial report. Lightspark co-founder Christian Catalini also weighed in, posting a series of critiques on X that same day. Catalini summed up the report with the analogy:
“Think: writing parking regulations for a fleet of self‑driving drones — earnest work, two technological leaps behind.”
Magazine: Altcoin season to hit in Q2? Mantra’s plan to win trust: Hodler’s Digest, April 13 – 19
Unwary travellers returning from the EU risk having their sandwiches and local delicacies, such as cheese, confiscated as they enter the UK.
The luggage in which they are carrying their goodies may also be seized and destroyed – and if Border Force catch them trying to smuggle meat or dairy products without a declaration, they could face criminal charges.
The new jeopardy has come about because last weekend, the government quietly “extended” its “ban on personal meat imports to protect farmers from foot and mouth”.
This may or may not be bureaucratic over-reaction.
It’s certainly just another of the barriers EU and UK authorities are busily throwing up between each other and their citizens – at a time when political leaders keep saying the two sides should be drawing together in the face of Donald Trump’s attacks on European trade and security.
Keir Starmer’s been embarking on a reset with European leaders. Pic: Reuters
The ban on bringing back “cattle, sheep, goat, and pig meat, as well as dairy products, from EU countries into Great Britain for personal use” is meant “to protect the health of British livestock, the security of farmers, and the UK’s food security.”
There are bitter memories of previous outbreaks of foot and mouth disease in this country, in 1967 and 2001.
In 2001, there were more than 2,000 confirmed cases of infection resulting in six million sheep and cattle being destroyed. Footpaths were closed across the nation and the general election had to be delayed.
In the EU this year, there have been five cases confirmed in Slovakia and four in Hungary. There was a single outbreak in Germany in January, though Defra, the UK agriculture department, says that’s “no longer significant”.
The UK imposed bans on personal meat and dairy imports from those countries, and Austria, earlier this year.
Authorities carry disinfectant near a farm in Dunakiliti, Hungary. Pic: Reuters
Better safe than sorry?
None of the cases of infection are in the three most popular countries for UK visitors – Spain, France, and Italy – now joining the ban. Places from which travellers are most likely to bring back a bit of cheese, salami, or chorizo.
Could the government be putting on a show to farmers that it’s on their side at the price of the public’s inconvenience, when its own measures on inheritance tax and failure to match lost EU subsidies are really doing the farming community harm?
Many will say it’s better to be safe than sorry, but the question remains whether the ban is proportionate or even well targeted on likely sources of infection.
Read more: The products you can’t bring into Britain from the EU
No more gourmet chorizo brought back from Spain for you. File pic: iStock
A ‘Brexit benefit’? Don’t be fooled
The EU has already introduced emergency measures to contain the disease where it has been found. Several thousand cattle in Hungary and Slovenia have been vaccinated or destroyed.
The UK’s ability to impose the ban is not “a benefit of Brexit”. Member nations including the UK were perfectly able to ban the movement of animals and animal products during the “mad cow disease” outbreak in the 1990s, much to the annoyance of the British government of the day.
Since leaving the EU, England, Scotland and Wales are no longer under EU veterinary regulation.
Northern Ireland still is because of its open border with the Republic. The latest ban does not cover people coming into Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, or the Isle of Man.
Rather than introducing further red tape of its own, the British government is supposed to be seeking closer “alignment” with the EU on animal and vegetable trade – SPS or “sanitary and phytosanitary” measures, in the jargon.
A ban on cheese? That’s anything but cracking. Pic: iStock
UK can’t shake ties to EU
The reasons for this are obvious and potentially make or break for food producers in this country.
The EU is the recipient of 67% of UK agri-food exports, even though this has declined by more than 5% since Brexit.
The introduction of full, cumbersome, SPS checks has been delayed five times but are due to come in this October. The government estimates the cost to the industry will be £330m, food producers say it will be more like £2bn.
With Brexit, the UK became a “third country” to the EU, just like the US or China or any other nation. The UK’s ties to the European bloc, however, are much greater.
Half of the UK’s imports come from the EU and 41% of its exports go there. The US is the UK’s single largest national trading partner, but still only accounts for around 17% of trade, in or out.
The difference in the statistics for travellers are even starker – 77% of trips abroad from the UK, for business, leisure or personal reasons, are to EU countries. That is 66.7 million visits a year, compared to 4.5 million or 5% to the US.
And that was in 2023, before Donald Trump and JD Vance’s hostile words and actions put foreign visitors off.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Trump: ‘Europe is free-loading’
More bureaucratic botheration
Meanwhile, the UK and the EU are making travel between them more bothersome for their citizens and businesses.
This October, the EU’s much-delayed EES or Entry Exit System is due to come into force. Every foreigner will be required to provide biometric information – including fingerprints and scans – every time they enter or leave the Schengen area.
From October next year, visitors from countries including the UK will have to be authorised in advance by ETIAS, the European Travel and Authorisation System. Applications will cost seven euros and will be valid for three years.
Since the beginning of this month, European visitors to the UK have been subject to similar reciprocal measures. They must apply for an ETA, an Electronic Travel Authorisation. This lasts for two years or until a passport expires and costs £16.
The days of freedom of movement for people, goods, and services between the UK and its neighbours are long gone.
The British economy has lost out and British citizens and businesses suffer from greater bureaucratic botheration.
Nor has immigration into the UK gone down since leaving the EU. The numbers have actually gone up, with people from Commonwealth countries, including India, Pakistan and Nigeria, more than compensating for EU citizens who used to come and go.
Editor’s note: Hands off my focaccia sandwiches with prosciutto! Pic: iStock
Will European reset pay off?
The government is talking loudly about the possible benefits of a trade “deal” with Trump’s America.
Meanwhile, minister Nick Thomas Symonds and the civil servant Mike Ellam are engaged in low-profile negotiations with Europe – which could be of far greater economic and social significance.
The public will have to wait to see what progress is being made at least until the first-ever EU-UK summit, due to take place on 19 May this year.
Hard-pressed British food producers and travellers – not to mention young people shut out of educational opportunities in Europe – can only hope that Sir Keir Starmer considers their interests as positively as he does sucking up to the Trump administration.
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports1 year agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike
-
Business3 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway