Assisted dying bill might succeed – but is likely to face painful journey
It’s the most controversial battle over a private members’ bill in parliament for nearly 60 years.
Not since David Steel’s 1967 Abortion Act has a piece of legislation been so potentially consequential.
So don’t expect Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill to enjoy a smooth passage on to the statute book.
The potential for dirty tricks, delays and wrecking tactics by opponents during the long parliamentary process is enormous.
In fact, at the 11th hour, a group of MPs opposed to the bill have this week launched a last-minute bid to derail the bill, by tabling a wrecking amendment.
Back in the ’60s, it took Steel, then the baby of the House in his 20s before later becoming Liberal Party leader, 18 months of battling to get his bill through parliament.
During that time, he endured sack loads of abusive hate mail, threats of violence and attempts by opponents in parliament to delay and talk out his bill.
Crucially, a sympathetic Labour home secretary, Roy Jenkins, with whom Steel later formed the Liberal-SDP Alliance, gave the bill vital extra time to complete its stages.
But this time Kim Leadbeater could face an even tougher battle to overcome opposition to her assisted dying bill than David Steel’s abortion fight in the 1960s.
For a start, Sir Keir Starmer’s government has got itself into a mess. Yes, it’s a free vote, but while the PM insists the government is neutral, the Health Secretary, Wes Streeting, is against the bill and ministers are split.
There are claims that Ms Leadbeater was initially encouraged by No. 10 to promote assisted dying, despite never having campaigned on it previously, after she topped the private members bill ballot.
But it’s suggested the Downing Street machine, led by chief of staff Morgan McSweeney, now wants to dump the bill because of fears it could paralyse and overwhelm the government for at least a year.
Shenanigans and parliamentary dirty tricks
So what could go wrong for Ms Leadbeater and her controversial bill? The answer is… a lot, starting with a potentially highly-charged, emotional and unpredictable second reading debate on Friday.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
What is assisted dying?
Firstly, it’s a big bill, running to 59 pages and 43 clauses. That’s very long for a private members’ bill (PMB), which are often just a few short and simple clauses.
That plays into the hands of opponents, who claim a five-hour debate on a Friday is grossly inadequate for proper scrutiny.
The wrecking amendment tabled this week “declines to give a second reading” to the bill because of insufficient debate and scrutiny and calls for an independent review and public consultation.
Secondly, there aren’t usually time limits on speeches for PMBs, but there may be this time. It’s estimated that up to 150 MPs have applied to speak, which would mean two-minute speeches!
But both Sir Keir and the commons leader, Lucy Powell, have so far flatly rejected calls from MPs for more time to debate the bill, a refusal that could persuade some doubters to vote against the bill.
Read more:
Cabinet split over assisted dying
What does the assisted dying bill propose?
Britain’s longest serving MPs, Labour left-winger Diane Abbott and Thatcherite Tory Sir Edward Leigh have claimed it’s being rushed, which puts vulnerable people at risk.
Last week Sir Edward introduced an anti-assisted dying ten-minute rule bill backed by Ms Abbot and other strong opponents of Ms Leadbeater’s bill: Rachael Maskell, Sir John Hayes, Danny Kruger, Sir Christopher Chope, Sir Julian Lewis, Lincoln Jopp, Martin Vickers, Dame Meg Hillier, Saqib Bhatti, Helen Grant and Sir Roger Gale.
It was a warning of trouble ahead. There’s a real threat of shenanigans and parliamentary dirty tricks by opponents. Scores of worthy pieces of legislation have been killed off by Commons old lags who loathe PMBs.
Thirdly, this tactic, known as filibustering, is to make long, rambling speeches – often lasting for two hours or more – to “talk out” a bill, ensuring that time runs out and it can’t be put to a vote to allow it to progress.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
The Labour MP Kim Leadbeater tabled the bill
Sir Chistopher, another veteran Tory Thatcherite and one of the Leadbeater bill’s leading opponents, is the most notorious killer of PMBs. Even his fellow Conservative MPs claim he is a parliamentary dinosaur.
Bills he has blocked include a pardon for Alan Turing, banning wild animals in circuses, upskirting, protection for police dogs and horses, protecting girls from female genital mutilation and making abducting cats a criminal offence.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Details of The Terminally Ill Adults Bill revealed.
The only way for the proposer or supporter of a PMB to thwart the wrecking tactic of filibustering is to stand up and bellow: “My Speaker, I beg to move that the question be now put!”
It’s called a closure motion and requires the support of 100 MPs, which Ms Leadbeater should be able to muster. But failure to prevent a PMB being talked out is a disaster.
That’s because a bill that fails to get a second reading on its allotted day – even if was No. 1 in the ballot, as Ms Leadbeater’s was – goes to the back of the queue for PMBs, often months ahead, and is probably doomed.
Fourthly, even if Ms Leadbeater’s bill does get a second reading, her troubles could be only just beginning. Because it’s such a big bill, the scope for amendments during its line-by-line committee stage is endless.
👉 Listen to Sky News Daily on your podcast app 👈
And then, fifthly, there’s the House of Lords, full of pesky bishops, distinguished medics, pedantic lawyers and procedural bores. That’s likely to be a long and tortuous process for the assisted dying bill too.
Senior peers have told Sky News they believe the bill will struggle to get through the Lords, because there’s strong support for leading opponent Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson, the Paralympic champion.
So even if it does finally become law, this controversial legislation could face a painful journey along the way, a journey that could indeed easily take 18 months.
Ask 86-year-old David Steel about what happened with his life-and-death legislation more than 60 years ago.
US President Donald Trump will host a gala dinner for top holders of his Official Trump (TRUMP) memecoin despite bipartisan criticism and renewed calls for impeachment.
In a May 5 Truth Social post, Trump announced that he will hold a gala dinner with major TRUMP holders on May 22. The announcement follows multiple US lawmakers expressing concern over the initiative.
In late April, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren called on government officials to address questions related to Trump’s memecoin and his media company. Controversies grew after Trump announced a dinner and White House tour for some holders of his TRUMP memecoin.
“President Trump’s announcement promises exclusive access to the presidency in exchange for significant investment in one of the President’s business ventures,” a letter co-signed by California Democratic Senator Adam Schiff read.
A call for impeachment over a memecoin
Also in late April, Senator Jon Ossoff expressed support for impeaching Trump during an April 25 town hall, citing the president’s plan to host the dinner for top TRUMP memecoin holders. He said:
“When the sitting president of the United States is selling access for what are effectively payments directly to him. There is no question that that rises to the level of an impeachable offense.”
Pro-crypto Senator Cynthia Lummis and at least one other Republican in Congress were reportedly also critical of Trump for offering the top holders of his memecoin a dinner and White House tour. Lummis, of Wyoming, reportedly said that the US president offering exclusive access to himself and the White House for people willing to pay for it “gives [her] pause.”
In a May 4 post on X, Warren claimed the Trump family’s stablecoin surged in market value due to a “shady crypto deal with the United Arab Emirates,” which involved settling the investment using USD1. She argued this raised serious national security concerns and warned against the Senate passing crypto-friendly legislation.
Warren expressed concerns around foreign involvement in the US president’s finances. She also suggested that the Senate should refrain from approving pro-crypto bills:
“The Senate shouldn’t pass a crypto bill this week to facilitate this kind of corruption.“
Related: America’s crypto renaissance is already failing; but we can fix it
“These safeguards address Warren’s concerns by prioritizing transparency and accountability without stifling legitimate stablecoin development. They might ensure the U.S. remains a hub for responsible innovation while protecting against misuse by public officials or foreign actors.“
Warren’s post included a clip from a recent interview during which Trump gave conflicting answers to whether he has profited from the crypto memecoin he launched in January, just days before he reentered the White House. During the clip, the president claims not to have “even looked” to check whether he profited off his endeavours.
Related: Elizabeth Warren joins call for probe of Trump over crypto tokens
The United Arab Emirates deal
Warren was likely referring to the recent deal that saw Abu Dhabi-based investment firm MGX use USD1 to settle a $2 billion investment in Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange. According to CoinMarketCap data, the stablecoin’s market cap shot up from under $137 million on May 1 to nearly $2.13 billion on May 2.
Eric Trump announced the deal during a panel discussion at Token2049 in Dubai. Trump, the son of the president, serves as executive vice president of the Trump Organization. He said during the event:
“The US is seeing that the financial world has to progress. It’s a joke. Why do banks run nine to five, Monday to Friday, with an hour and a half of lunch break? It doesn’t make sense.”
Much like the memecoin, the USD1 stablecoin also attracted its fair share of criticism. In early April, some US lawmakers went as far as to allege that Trump wanted to replace the US dollar with USD1.
Magazine: Trump’s crypto ventures raise conflict of interest, insider trading questions
Opinion by: Shane Molidor, Founder, Forgd
For years, launching a crypto project in the United States has been a maze of uncertainty. Legal ambiguity and a hostile regulatory environment have driven founders offshore, turning places like Switzerland and the Cayman Islands into global hubs for blockchain innovation.
With Trump’s election, things finally started to change, with a US administration openly declaring its intention to be crypto-friendly. Yet, despite the rhetoric, nothing concrete has changed so far.
Launching a crypto project in the US is just as difficult as ever. US regulatory agencies continue to offer nothing but vague threats and “regulation by enforcement” lawsuits. America wants to be a leader in crypto, but, even under the Trump administration, it isn’t taking action to create the conditions that would make that happen.
Killing crypto in America
Every crypto project faces the same fundamental problem: Achieving decentralization is critical to avoid regulatory scrutiny, but until a project launches its token, a degree of centralization is unavoidable.
The SEC’s outdated Howey test ensures that nearly every legitimate crypto project gets classified as a security. The logic is self-defeating. Projects can’t decentralize without launching a token, but launching a token in the US instantly puts them in the SEC’s crosshairs.
This isn’t just a theoretical issue; it has real consequences. Liquidity providers, essential for all new token launches, won’t engage with US-based projects because they assume their tokens will be classified as securities. Centralized exchanges refuse to list tokens issued from US entities for the same reason. Even decentralized exchanges face pressure from their legal teams to avoid actively seeding liquidity for American projects. The result? US founders are boxed out of the global crypto economy before they even get started.
Offshore jurisdictions are winning
This regulatory failure has spawned an entire cottage industry of offshore legal firms specializing in setting up token-issuing entities. With its FINMA no-action letter system, Switzerland has become a hotbed for crypto projects because it offers one of the few structured ways to get legal clarity on a token’s classification. The Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands have also established themselves as crypto safe havens, providing flexible corporate structures that allow projects to operate with far less regulatory risk.
Recent: US Treasury wants to cut off Huione over ties to crypto crime
The absurdity is that the actual work — the development, the hiring, the innovation — still happens in the US. The token issuance gets pushed offshore via “Associations” and “Foundations,” which serve non-profits operating independently of US-based development shops. American founders are forced to funnel money into unnecessary legal fees, overseas operators, and shell foundations to avoid the inevitable crackdown from US regulators. This isn’t just bad for crypto; it’s bad for America. Until it can be solved, the US will continue to hemorrhage talent, investment, and influence to less myopic jurisdictions.
Make America crypto-friendly
The US has spent years fumbling crypto policy, and now, even with an administration that claims to be pro-crypto, it’s still failing to deliver real change. The solution isn’t to promise capital gains tax exemptions on crypto, as some have suggested. That does little to ameliorate the punishing regulatory landscape US-based projects are forced to navigate. If the US truly wants to lead in crypto, it also must take the lead in providing regulatory clarity.
That means finally recognizing that the same regulations that have governed traditional financial markets can’t always be applied to crypto. The Howey test doesn’t work. Instead, the government must provide a new and functional legal framework for the crypto industry.
It’s time for US legislators and regulators to acknowledge that crypto tokens can’t achieve decentralization instantaneously and almost always require the efforts of a team of core contributors to bootstrap initial growth and development. The federal government must devise a version of the Howey test that does not automatically classify every new crypto token as a security but instead allows tokens a grace period to decentralize. In conjunction with this, the US must establish new protections to ensure insiders aren’t unduly benefiting from crypto projects while they scale.
In addition to swiftly ending the “regulation by enforcement” approach employed under Gary Gensler’s SEC, a tactic seemingly designed to gradually smother crypto activity in the US, the government must provide clear guidelines. It needs to be feasible for market makers to evaluate whether US tokens are commodities or securities with a degree of stability and predictability. This is the only way to end the blanket bans market makers have placed on US tokens and bring crypto development back to America.
America’s window of opportunity is closing
Crypto founders aren’t waiting for Washington to figure it out. Every day, without clear regulations, more crypto projects are incorporated offshore. The US doesn’t even need to “embrace” crypto. It just needs to stop actively driving it away.
If this administration truly wants to make the US the leader in crypto, it needs to move beyond campaign slogans and start fixing the fundamental problems that forced this industry offshore in the first place. And it needs to act fast.
Opinion by: Shane Molidor, Founder, Forgd.
This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal or investment advice. The views, thoughts, and opinions expressed here are the author’s alone and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions of Cointelegraph.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s digital identity project World, formerly Worldcoin, is facing challenges in Indonesia amid local regulators temporarily suspending its registration certificates.
The Indonesian Ministry of Communications and Digital (Komdigi) has halted the Electronic System Operator Certificate Registration (TDPSE) for World and World ID over suspicious activity and alleged registration violations, the authority announced on May 4.
After the suspension, Komdigi plans to summon World’s local subsidiaries, PT Terang Bulan Abadi and PT Sandina Abadi Nusantara, to provide clarification on the alleged violations, it said.
According to a preliminary investigation, World’s PT Terang Bulan Abadi was allegedly operating without TDPSE, while PT Sandina Abadi Nusantara — the one World was using for providing its services — is allegedly involved in legal misrepresentation.
Indonesian law requires registration by all digital service providers
In the statement, Komdigi emphasized that all digital service providers in Indonesia must receive electronic registration in accordance with local laws.
Additionally, using another entity’s registration is considered a major breach of Indonesian digital operations law, the authority noted.
“Worldcoin services are recorded using TDPSE in the name of another legal entity, namely PT Sandina Abadi Nusantara,” Alexander Sabar, the Komdigi’s director general for digital supervision, said in the announcement, adding:
“Noncompliance with registration obligations and the use of the identity of another legal entity to carry out digital services is a serious violation.”
Community action required
According to Sabar, World’s temporary suspension in Indonesia is a measure taken to prevent potential risks to the community.
He mentioned that the digital ministry is committed to overseeing the digital ecosystem fairly and strictly to ensure the security of the national digital space.
A proper supervision would require active participation from the community, Sabar added, stating:
“We invite the public to help maintain a safe and trusted digital space for all citizens. Komdigi also appeals to the public to remain vigilant against unauthorized digital services, and to immediately report suspected violations through the official public complaint channel.”
In the meantime, the community has apparently been divided over action by Komdigi.
“Good job Indonesia — at least somebody is standing up to that scam,” one commentator wrote on Reddit.
Related: From digital identity to outer space: Projects push crypto use cases
Others fired back, hinting at potential benefits stemming from World’s offering in Indonesia for the general public.
“If giving up your iris biometrics means you can feed your loved ones for a few weeks, that might be a trade worth making. In the end, it all depends on what matters most to you,” another Redditor said.
World’s latest news from Indonesia follows World’s debut in the United States in May 2025, with the platform rolling out its digital identity tech in six cities initially.
A number of global regulators were pushing back on World’s operations since its launch in July 2023, with governments like Germany, Kenya and Brazil expressing concerns over potential risks to the security of biometric data passed by users.
Magazine: Crypto wanted to overthrow banks, now it’s becoming them in stablecoin fight
-
Sports3 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
-
Sports2 years 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