Connect with us

Published

on

The government has announced plans to reinstate EU equality laws before they expire at the end of the year – admitting the move is required to avoid a “clear gap in protections” for workers.

Ministers will today lay a statutory instrument intended to “enshrine” key rights and principles derived from the European Union into British law.

Politics Live: Braverman is ‘dangerous’ and ‘divisive’, ex-Tory minister tells Sophy Ridge

It follows questions over whether some employment protections related to things like equal pay and maternity leave would be scrapped from January when The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill comes into effect.

The controversial legislation – also known as the “Brexit Freedoms Bill” – will dispense with hundreds of Brussels-derived laws still on British statue books. It will also end the supremacy of EU law over UK law, erasing previous case law principles.

Trade unions and employment lawyers had warned this would create uncertainty over key protections for British workers which derive from the EU and don’t exist in British law.

The government said its update today means “that necessary protections are clearly stated in our domestic legislation”.

One legal expert welcomed the announcement – but said it raised “legitimate questions” around what gains had been made from post-Brexit sovereignty if EU laws are simply going to be replicated.

The protections being retained include the “single-source” test, which gives women the right to equal pay with men for doing work of equal value, and preventing women from experiencing less favourable treatment at work because they are breastfeeding.

Other laws being retained include:

• Protecting women from unfavourable treatment after they return from maternity leave, where that treatment is in connection with a pregnancy or a pregnancy-related illness occurring before their return;

• Ensuring that women can continue to receive special treatment from their employer in connection with maternity, for example through enhanced occupational maternity schemes;

• Confirming that the definition of disability in the context of employment will explicitly cover working life;

• Holding employers accountable if they create or allow discriminatory recruitment conditions, such as if they make public discriminatory statements about access to employment in their organisation;

• Providing explicit protections from indirect discrimination by association, so that those who may be caught up and disadvantaged by discrimination against others are also protected.

The move could risk angering Eurosceptic Tories, who want to see the UK move away from the EU’s influence.

Max Winthrop, the chair of the Law Society’s Employment Law Committee, welcomed the clarification that vital rights “would not be for the legislative dustbin as of December 31st”.

Click to subscribe to Politics at Jack and Sam’s wherever you get your podcasts

However, he said the move does raise “legitimate questions” about the point of Brexit, from a sovereignty standpoint.

“When we are effectively replicating legislation from the EU, and I can understand why the government have done that because it would not be particularly popular to say ‘let’s scrap maternity rights’, it does leave the big question as to what exactly is it that we’ve gained from leaving the EU,” he told Sky News.

“We haven’t gained what was sometimes referred to as the Singapore-on-the-Thames approach. In other words, to deregulate the marketplace. So you then have to ask yourself the question, is the loss of seamless trade throughout the European Economic Area really worth the cattle?”.

He added that the announcement shows why the original plan to scrap all remaining EU laws by the end of this year “would have probably been disastrous”.

“It shows the complexity of junking 40 years worth of (EU) legislation, and the sorts of steps we’ve had to go through to maintain the protections that a lot of people probably thought they already had.”

The Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill was originally intended to scrap all EU-era laws which were kept in place after the Brexit transition period in order to minimise disruption to businesses.

But the promised bonfire of Brussels rules and regulations was dramatically scaled-back in May, with less than 600 now set to be junked by the end of this year.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Kemi Badenoch was told off in the House of Commons by the Speaker of the House

Business Secretary Kemi Badenoch said the change was necessary because of the “risks of legal uncertainty” caused by automatically scrapping some 4,000 laws, but there was significant backlash from within the Conservative Party, with arch-Brexiteer Jacob Rees-Mogg accusing the prime minister of “behaving like a Borgia”.

Notes accidently left on the press release announcing today’s measures suggest some concern that retaining the protections could rile up the right wing of the party.

The notes discussed how to answer questions about why the government isn’t scrapping the protections, and whether maintaining discrimination laws would threaten free speech and “make businesses feel they must follow the woke agenda”.

Read more:
Government to unveil plans centred around criminal justice
Hard to see how Rishi Sunak’s first King’s Speech won’t be his last

The document stresses that if the EU laws aren’t retained, “employers would in some circumstances be able to make statements, for example, that they wouldn’t hire people because they are black. That is not right and not in line with Britain’s proud history of equality and fair play”.

“We are only restating laws where there would otherwise be a clear gap in protections: this is an area where we think the law needs to be strong and clear,” the document says.

A government spokesperson said: “We are committed to ensuring that the fundamental rights and freedoms of people in the United Kingdom remain protected.

“Our work is ensuring that necessary protections are retained and will end the inherent uncertainty of relying on judicial interpretations of EU law.

“Today’s update will ensure that Great Britain maintains its proud history of equality and that necessary protections are clearly stated in our domestic legislation.”

King’s Speech live: Watch our special programme on Sky News, hosted by Sophy Ridge, from 10.30am on Tuesday. You will also be able to follow the event live via the Politics Hub on the Sky News app and website.

Continue Reading

Politics

Coinbase CEO says the next major crypto bill is a ‘freight train’

Published

on

By

Coinbase CEO says the next major crypto bill is a ‘freight train’

Coinbase CEO says the next major crypto bill is a ‘freight train’

Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong said he has never been more bullish about the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act being passed after his time in Washington, DC this week.

Continue Reading

Politics

Sadiq Khan calls out Gaza ‘genocide’, as Starmer ‘delays’ recognising Palestinian state until end of Trump’s state visit

Published

on

By

Sadiq Khan calls out Gaza 'genocide', as Starmer 'delays' recognising Palestinian state until end of Trump's state visit

London’s mayor Sir Sadiq Khan has for the first time described the situation in Gaza as a “genocide”, becoming the most senior Labour figure to contradict the government’s official position.

Earlier this week, a UN Commission said a genocide was taking place in Gaza – something repeatedly denied by Israel.

Meanwhile, Sir Keir Starmer has been under pressure to raise Israel’s bombardment of the territory with Donald Trump during his state visit to the UK.

The prime minister is due to have discussions with the president today, but reports suggest he will delay formally recognising a Palestinian state until this weekend, after Mr Trump has left Britain.

It is claimed the government wants to avoid the issue dominating a news conference the two men plan to hold, according to The Times.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump meets Starmer: What can we expect?

The prime minister has found himself at odds with the US administration over the move, which is opposed to official recognition of Palestine.

The mayor of London, who has engaged in a long-running spat with Mr Trump, has added to the political tension by contradicting official Labour policy at a people’s question time event on Wednesday.

“I think it’s inescapable to draw the conclusion in Gaza we are seeing before our very eyes a genocide,” said Sir Sadiq.

Sir Keir has previously pledged to recognise Palestinian statehood ahead of next week’s United Nations General Assembly in New York if Israel does not meet a series of conditions to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

Other nations, including France, Australia and Canada, have said they plan to take the same step at the UN gathering.

Explainer: What does recognising a Palestinian state mean?

The UK has consistently argued that the issue of whether Israel has committed genocide was a matter for the courts. Israel is fighting a case at the International Court of Justice in The Hague in which the country is accused of genocide.

But some opposition leaders, including Zack Polanski for the Green Party, and the Liberal Democrats’ Sir Ed Davey have specifically referred to the situation in Gaza as genocide.

Read more from Sky News:
Watch: Israel’s Gaza City offensive
MPs denied entry into West Bank

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Is Israel committing genocide?

On Tuesday, the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory released a report, claiming: “It is clear that there is an intent to destroy the Palestinians in Gaza”.

It said Israel’s actions meet the criteria set down for defining a genocide.

The UK government has said its official position was it “has not concluded that Israel is acting with that [genocidal] intent“.

Israel is currently undertaking a major ground offensive in Gaza, with thousands forced to flee from Gaza City in recent days.

Continue Reading

Politics

Trump-Starmer talks could be landmark moment – and join pantheon of UK-US summits

Published

on

By

Trump-Starmer talks could be landmark moment - and join pantheon of UK-US summits

In years to come, it may become known simply as Chequers ’25.

But today’s summit between Sir Keir Starmer and Donald Trump, at the prime minister’s country retreat, has the potential to be a landmark moment in UK-US history.

There’s plenty of scope for it to go horribly wrong, of course: over Jeffrey Epstein, Sir Keir’s pledge to recognise Palestine, the president’s lukewarm support for Ukraine, the Chagos Islands sell-off, or free speech.

Trump state visit live – read the latest

But on the other hand, it could be a triumph for the so-called “special relationship” – as well as relations between these two unlikely allies – with deals on trade and tariffs and an improbably blossoming bromance.

Either way, this Chequers summit – on the president’s historic second state visit to the UK – could turn out to be one of the most notable one-to-one meetings between PM and president in 20th and 21st century history.

Sir Keir and Mr Trump have already met several times, most recently at The Donald’s golf courses in Scotland in late July and, before that, memorably at the White House in February.

Donald Trump and Keir Starmer wave as they board Air Force One on a previous trip. Pic: AP
Image:
Donald Trump and Keir Starmer wave as they board Air Force One on a previous trip. Pic: AP

It was then that the PM theatrically pulled King Charles’s invitation for this week’s visit out of his inside pocket in a spectacular stunt surely masterminded by the “Prince of Darkness”, spin doctor-turned-ambassador (until last week, anyway) Peter Mandelson.

And over the years, there have been some remarkable and historic meetings and relationships, good and bad, between UK prime ministers and American presidents.

From Churchill and Roosevelt to Eden and Eisenhower, from Macmillan and JFK to Wilson and Johnson, from Thatcher and Reagan, to Blair and Bush, and from Cameron and Obama… to Starmer and Trump, perhaps?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘History’ that binds the UK and US

A brief history of relationships between PMs and presidents

Throughout UK-US history, there have been many examples of a good relationship and close bond between a Labour prime minister and a Republican president. And vice versa.

Also, it has not always been rosy between prime ministers and presidents of the two sister parties. There have been big fallings out: over Suez, Vietnam and the Caribbean island of Grenada.

Leading up to this Chequers summit, the omens have not been good.

First, the PM was forced to sack his vital link between Downing Street and the Oval Office, Lord Mandelson, over his friendship with Epstein.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Trump meets Starmer: What can we expect?

Second, the president arrived in the UK to a barrage of criticism from London Mayor Sir Sadiq Khan, who accused him of doing more than anyone else to encourage the intolerant far right across the globe.

And third, in a video-link to the ‘Unite the Kingdom’ march in London last weekend, one-time Trump ally Elon Musk called for a dissolution of parliament and a change of government and appeared to encourage violent protest.

Churchill and FDR

Churchill and FDR at the White House in 1941. Pic: AP
Image:
Churchill and FDR at the White House in 1941. Pic: AP

Back in the mid-20th century, the godfather of the “special relationship” was wartime leader Sir Winston Churchill, though it was 1946 before he first coined the phrase in a speech in the US, in which he also spoke of the “iron curtain”.

It was in 1941 that Churchill held one of the most significant meetings with a US president, Franklin D Roosevelt, at a Washington conference to plot the defeat of Germany after Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbour.

Churchill arrived in Washington in December after a rough 10-day voyage on a Royal Navy battleship and stayed three weeks, spending Christmas in the White House and on Boxing Day becoming the first UK PM to address Congress.

The close bond between Churchill and Roosevelt was described as a friendship that saved the world. It was even claimed one reason the pair got on famously was that they were both renowned cigar smokers.

Churchill and Truman

Churchill and Truman catch a train from Washington in 1946. Pic: AP
Image:
Churchill and Truman catch a train from Washington in 1946. Pic: AP

After the war ended, Churchill’s “special relationship” speech, describing the alliance between the UK and US, was delivered at Westminster College, in Fulton, Missouri in March 1946.

The speech was introduced by President Harry Truman, a Democrat, with whom Churchill had attended the Potsdam Conference in 1945 to negotiate the terms of ending the war.

These two were also close friends and would write handwritten letters to each other and address one another as Harry and Winston. Mr Truman was also the only US president to visit Churchill at Chartwell, his family home.

Eden and Eisenhower

Eden and Eisenhower shake hands at the conclusion of their three-day conference in 1956. Pic: AP
Image:
Eden and Eisenhower shake hands at the conclusion of their three-day conference in 1956. Pic: AP

But the transatlantic cosiness came to an abrupt end in the 1950s, when Churchill’s Conservative successor Anthony Eden fell out badly with the Republican president Dwight Eisenhower over the Suez Crisis.

Mr Eden did visit Mr Eisenhower in Washington in January 1956, and the official record of the meeting describes the discussion as focussing on “policy differences and Cold War problems”.

Macmillan and JFK

Harold Macmillan and John F Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base. Pic: AP
Image:
Harold Macmillan and John F Kennedy at Andrews Air Force Base. Pic: AP

But in the early 1960s, a Conservative prime minister and a Democrat president with seemingly nothing in common, the stuffy and diffident Harold Macmillan, and the charismatic John F Kennedy, repaired the damage.

They were credited with rescuing the special relationship after the rupture of the Suez Crisis, at a time of high tensions around the world: the Berlin Wall, the Cuban missile crisis, and the threat of nuclear weapons.

The two leaders exchanged handwritten notes, as well as Christmas and birthday cards. The Macmillans visited the Kennedys twice at the White House, in 1961 and 1962 – the second described in the US as a “momentous” meeting on the Cuban crisis.

The relationship was abruptly cut short in 1963 by “Supermac’s” demise prompted by the Profumo scandal, and JFK’s assassination in Dallas. But after her husband’s death, Jacqueline Kennedy was said to have had a father-daughter relationship with Macmillan, who was said to have been enchanted with her.

Wilson and LBJ

Johnson meeting with Wilson. Pic: Glasshouse Images/Shutterstock
Image:
Johnson meeting with Wilson. Pic: Glasshouse Images/Shutterstock

After JFK, the so-called “special relationship” cooled once again – and under a Labour prime minister and Democrat president – when Harold Wilson rejected pressure from Lyndon B Johnson to send British troops to Vietnam.

Mr Wilson became prime minister in 1964, just two months after LBJ sent US troops. His first overseas trip was to the White House, in December 1964, and the PM returned to tell his cabinet: “Lyndon Johnson is begging me even to send a bagpipe band to Vietnam.”

Thatcher and Reagan

Thatcher at Reagan's 83rd birthday celebrations. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Thatcher at Reagan’s 83rd birthday celebrations. Pic: Reuters

And even though Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were ideological soulmates, Thatcher was furious when she wasn’t consulted before the Americans invaded Grenada in 1983 to topple a Marxist regime.

Even worse, according to Mrs Thatcher allies, a year earlier, Reagan had stayed neutral during the Falklands war. Reagan said he couldn’t understand why two US allies were arguing over “that little ice-cold bunch of land down there”.

Thatcher and Reagan became firm friends. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Thatcher and Reagan became firm friends. Pic: Reuters

But their relationship didn’t just survive, it flourished, including at one memorable visit to the presidential retreat at Camp David in 1984, where President Reagan famously drove Mrs T around in a golf buggy.

They would also memorably dance together at White House balls.

Blair and Bush

Blair hosts Bush in Durham in 2003. Pic: PA
Image:
Blair hosts Bush in Durham in 2003. Pic: PA

Camp David was also where in 2001 the Republican president George W Bush and Labour’s Sir Tony Blair embarked on the defining mission of his premiership: the Iraq War. It was to prove to be an historic encounter.

The war was the turning point of Sir Tony’s decade in Number 10. He was branded a liar over claims about Saddam Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction”, he was vilified by the Labour left, and it was the beginning of the end for him.

And to add to the suspicion among Sir Tony’s critics that he was Mr Bush’s poodle, in 2006 at a G8 summit in St Petersburg – that wouldn’t happen now – a rogue microphone picked up the president calling, “Yo, Blair! How are you doing?”

Cameron and Obama

Cameron and Obama serve food at a barbecue in the garden of 10 Downing Street. Pic: Reuters
Image:
Cameron and Obama serve food at a barbecue in the garden of 10 Downing Street. Pic: Reuters

Some years later, the Tory prime minister sometimes called the “heir to Blair”, David Cameron, bonded over burgers with the Democrat president Barack Obama, serving a BBQ lunch to military families in the Downing Street garden. They also played golf at the exclusive Grove resort in 2016.

They seemed unlikely allies: Obama, the first African-American president, and Cameron, the 19th old Etonian prime minister. It was claimed they had a “transatlantic bromance” in office. “Yes, he sometimes calls me bro,” Lord Cameron admitted.

But not everything went well.

The Tory PM persuaded Mr Obama to help the Remain campaign in the 2016 Brexit referendum, when he claimed the UK would be “at the back of the queue” on trade deals with the US, if it left the EU. It backfired, of course.

Now it’s Sir Keir Starmer’s turn to tread a delicate and potentially hazardous political tightrope as he entertains the latest – and most unconventional – US president.

The greatest dangers for Sir Keir will be a news conference in the afternoon, in the gardens, if the weather permits.

Good luck, as they say, with that.

Before then, there’s the potential for what the Americans call a “pool spray”, one of those impromptu, rambling and unpredictable Q&As we’ve seen so many times in the Oval Office.

For Sir Keir, what could possibly go wrong?

Chequers ’25 could be memorable and notable, like so many previous meetings between a PM and a president. But not necessarily for the right reasons for this UK prime minister.

Continue Reading

Trending