The Reform row: What has happened and what has been said?
Senior members of Reform UK are embroiled in a bitter row – with one of its MPs being suspended from the party.
Rupert Lowe, the Reform MP for Great Yarmouth, lost the party whip over the weekend, meaning he will now sit as an independent MP in the Commons.
It is a setback for party leader Nigel Farage, who has been on a mission to “professionalise” Reform as it seeks to capitalise on its position in the polls – which only a month ago gave the party a lead over Labour and the Conservatives for the first time.
But how did the row start, and what now for Mr Lowe?
Politics latest: Tearful daughter of murdered MP condemns government
Alleged threats of physical violence
Mr Lowe, the former chairman of Southampton Football Club, was suspended last week after Reform reported him to the police over alleged threats of physical violence towards the party’s chairman, Zia Yusuf.
A statement from Mr Yusuf and Lee Anderson, the chief whip, also said the party had received complaints from two female employees about alleged serious bullying in Mr Lowe’s offices.
Mr Lowe, who served as a member of the European Parliament for the Brexit Party, has strongly denied the allegations, calling the accusations of physical threats “outrageous and entirely untrue”. He also referenced a “vexatious complaint” made by another staff member.
Mr Yusuf and Mr Anderson claimed the Great Yarmouth MP had “on at least two occasions made threats of physical violence against” the former.
“It is with regret that we feel obligated to disclose that the party received complaints from two female employees about serious bullying in the offices of the member of parliament for Great Yarmouth, Rupert Lowe,” they said in a joint statement.
“Evidence was provided to us of workplace bullying, the targeting of female staff who raised concerns, and evidence of derogatory and discriminatory remarks made about women, including reference to a perceived disability.
“We feel we have a duty of care to all our staff, whether employed directly or indirectly. Accordingly, we appointed an independent King’s Counsel to conduct an investigation into the veracity of these complaints. To date, Mr Lowe has yet to cooperate with this investigation.
“In addition to these allegations of a disturbing pattern of behaviour, Mr Lowe has on at least two occasions made threats of physical violence against our party chairman. Accordingly, this matter is with the police.
“Reform stands for the highest standards of conduct in public life, and we will apply these standards without fear nor favour, including within our own party.”
What has Mr Lowe said?
In response to the allegations, Mr Lowe said on Friday the party leadership had a “complete inability to accept even the most mild constructive criticism without such a malicious reaction”.
In a statement posted on X, he wrote: “I am disappointed, but not surprised, to read Reform’s untrue and false allegations. Let me be abundantly clear – this investigation is based on zero credible evidence against me, as has been repeatedly stated by the neutral investigator. None has been provided.
“I have cooperated and spoken at length with the KC they instructed, at great cost to the party, to investigate a minor staff matter.”
In a further statement on X, Mr Lowe said: “Ever since this malicious attack on my reputation was launched, all I have asked for from both Reform and the KC is the credible evidence against me.”
He said that “none has been provided” because “there is no credible evidence against me”.
He added: “I will not have my name dragged through the mud as part of a political assassination because I dared to question Nigel Farage.”
War of words
Mr Lowe’s statement suggests he believes he has been suspended from the party because he chose to criticise Mr Farage.
👉Listen to Politics At Jack And Sam’s on your podcast app👈
In a recent interview with the Daily Mail, Mr Lowe said that while Mr Farage was a “fiercely independent individual” with “messianic qualities”, that did not equate to “sage leadership”.
He added: “I’m not going to be by Nigel’s side at the next election unless we have a proper plan to change the way we govern from top to bottom,” he said.
He also said he was “barely six months into being an MP” and “in the betting to be the next prime minister.”
Those words could have struck a nerve with Mr Farage after Elon Musk, the Tesla and Space X billionaire who has become one of Donald Trump’s closest allies, suggested the Reform leader “doesn’t have what it takes” and that Mr Lowe should take over.
Elon Musk suggested in January that Nigel Farage should be replaced as Reform UK leader.
Pic Reuters
Mr Farage has brushed off the incident and in an article for the Daily Telegraph on Saturday claimed Mr Lowe’s suspension was a result of “inappropriate” behaviour.
‘Sense of unity has been dented’
“If the last general election taught us anything, it is that the public does not like political parties that engage in constant infighting,” Mr Farage wrote.
“Now, thanks to one of our MPs, Rupert Lowe, unloading a barrage of criticisms against our operations and its main actors, that sense of unity has been dented.”
Mr Farage went on to claim that Mr Lowe had “managed to fall out with all his parliamentary colleagues in one way or another”, adding: “We did our best to keep a lid on things but, in the end, containment strategies invariably fail.”
He then referred to a Commons clash with transport minister Mike Kane just before Christmas after Mr Lowe staged a debate about a damaged ship containing toxic cargo docked in his Great Yarmouth constituency.
“Mr Lowe was unhappy with the answer that he received from Mr Kane and, at the end of the debate, he crossed the floor to make his feelings known,” Mr Farage wrote.
Read more politics news:
Sir David Amess’s daughter criticises inquiry decision
Senior civil servants to have pay linked to performance
“A confrontation ensued. Heated language was heard. The minister’s shoulder was pushed. In the end, the Serjeant at Arms had to step in to calm things down between the two parliamentarians.”
He added: “Yet the fact is that, sadly, there have been too many similar outbursts from Mr Lowe, often involving the use of inappropriate language, to the despair of our chief whip, Lee Anderson.
“I have been surprised and saddened at this behaviour.”
On bullying allegations, Mr Farage said Reform was a “responsible political party” that had a “duty of care to every single member of staff, whether they are employed by us directly or indirectly”.
As a result, he said a lawyer had been appointed to conduct an independent inquiry into the allegations.
Reform’s deputy leader Richard Tice said it was “right and proper” that the KC had been appointed to conduct an investigation.
Speaking on Sky News’ Sunday Morning with Trevor Phillips, he said: “We’ve also got a duty of care as a party, whether people are employed directly or indirectly. So, that’s why the chairman has instructed an independent investigation by a KC, that’s the right and proper thing to do. That will run its course.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Lowe suspension was the ‘right judgement’
‘Correcting’ the record
In his own Telegraph article, Mr Lowe repeated the claim he made on X that there was no credible evidence against him and he was removed from the party before any investigation had started.
He called his treatment by the party a “witch hunt” and said he had been “entirely frozen out of the Reform machine over the last few months, in a deliberate and calculated way”.
However, the lawyer appointed to investigate the claims against Mr Lowe – who has remained anonymous – has denied saying they were “shocked” about the party’s process.
The lawyer said “I have seen a number of statements made by Mr Lowe MP which are attributed to me and which describe my reactions to the process conducted by the party into the allegations made against both Mr Lowe and his constituency manager.”
“I find myself in the unfortunate and regrettable position of having to make this statement to correct the record. I have not expressed either ‘dismay’ or ‘shock’ at any time as to the process.
“Nor have I said ‘there is zero credible evidence against [Mr Lowe]’, let alone said this ‘repeatedly’.”
Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD
Technology is advancing at the speed of light today more than ever. We have surpassed Moore’s law — computational power is doubling every six months rather than every two years — while regulations are, and have been, playing catchup.
The EU Artificial Intelligence Act just came into force in August 2024 and is already falling behind. It did not consider AI agents and is still wrestling with generative AI (GenAI) and foundation models. Article 28b was added to the act in June 2023 after the launch of ChatGPT at the end of 2022 and the flourishing of chatbot deployments. It was not on their radar when lawmakers initially drafted the act in April 2021.
As we move more into robotics and the use of virtual reality devices, a “new paradigm of AI architectures” will be developed, addressing the limitations of GenAI to create robots and virtual devices that can reason the world, unlike GenAI models. Maybe spending time drafting a new article on GenAI was not time well spent.
Furthermore, technology regulations are quite dichotomized. There are regulations on AI, like the EU AI Act; Web3, like Markets in Crypto-Assets; and the security of digital information, like the EU Cybersecurity Act and The Digital Operational Resilience Act.
This dichotomy is cumbersome for users and businesses to follow. Moreover, it does not align with how solutions and products are developed. Every solution integrates many technologies, while each technology component has separate regulations.
It might be time to reconsider the way we regulate technology.
A comprehensive approach
Tech companies have been pushing the boundaries with cutting-edge technologies, including Web3, AI, quantum computing and others yet to emerge. Other industries are following suit in the experimentation and implementation of these technologies.
Everything is digital, and every product integrates several technologies. Think of the Apple Vision Pro or Meta Quest. They have hardware, goggles, AI, biometric technology, cloud computing, cryptography, digital wallets and more, and they will soon be integrated with Web3 technology.
A comprehensive approach to regulation would be the most suitable approach for the following principal reasons.
A full-system solution
Most, if not all, solutions require the integration of several emerging technologies. If we have separate guidelines and regulations for each technology, how could we ensure the product/service is compliant? Where does one rule start and the other end?
Recent: Animoca Brands revenue climbs as AI cuts costs by 12%
Separate guidelines would probably introduce more complexity, errors and misinterpretations, which eventually might result in more harm than good. If the implementation of technologies is all-encompassing and comprehensive, the approach to regulating it should also be.
Different technologies support each other’s weaknesses
All technologies have strengths and weaknesses, and often, the strengths of one technology can support the shortcomings of the other.
For example, AI can support Web3 by enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of smart contract execution and blockchain security and monitoring. In contrast, blockchain technology can assist in manifesting “responsible AI,” as blockchain is everything that AI is not — transparent, traceable, trustworthy and tamper-free.
When AI supports Web3 and vice versa, we implement a comprehensive, safe, secure and trustworthy solution. Would these solutions be AI-compliant or Web3-compliant? With this solution, it would be challenging to dichotomize compliance. The solution should be compliant and adhere to all guidelines/policies. It would be best if these guidelines/policies encompass all technologies, including their integration.
A proactive approach
We need proactive regulation. Many of the regulation proposals, across all regions, seem to be reactions to changes we know about today and don’t go far enough in thinking about how to provide frameworks for what might come five or 10 years down the line.
If, for example, we already know that there will be a “new paradigm of AI architectures,” probably in the next five years, then why not start thinking today, not in 5 years, how to regulate it? Or better yet, find a regulatory framework that would apply no matter how technology evolves.
Think about responsible innovation. Responsible innovation, simplistically, means making new technologies work for society without causing more problems than they solve. In other words: “Do good, do no harm.”
Responsible innovation
Responsible innovation principles are designed to span all technologies, not just AI. These principles recognize that all technologies can have unintended consequences on users, bystanders and society, and that it is the responsibility of the companies and developers creating those technologies to identify and mitigate those risks.
Responsible innovation principles are overarching and international and apply to any technology that exists today and will evolve in the future. This could be the basis for technology regulation. Still, companies, regardless of regulation, should understand that innovating responsibly instills trust in users, which will translate to mainstream adoption.
Truth in Technology Act
The Securities Act of 1933, also known as the “truth in securities” law, was created to protect investors from fraud and misrepresentation and restore public confidence in the stock market as a response to the stock market crash of 1929.
At the core of the act lie honesty and transparency, the essential ingredients to instill public trust in the stock market, or in anything for that matter.
This act has withstood the test of time — an “evergreen” law. Securities trading and the financial industry have become more digital and more technological, but the core principles of this act still apply and will continue to.
Based on the principles of responsible innovation, we could design a “Truth in Technology Act,” which would instill public trust in technology, internationally, now and in the future. Fundamentally, we seek these products and services to be safe, secure, ethical, privacy-preserving, accurate, easy to understand, auditable, transparent and accountable. These values are international across regions, industries and technologies, and since technology knows no boundaries, neither should regulations.
Innovation may create value, but it may also extract or destroy it. Regulation helps limit the latter two types of innovation, while well-designed regulation may enable the first kind to survive and flourish. A global collaboration may find ways to incentivize innovation that creates value for the good of the global economy and society.
It might be time for a Truth in Technology Act — an international, comprehensive, evergreen regulation for the good of the citizens of the world.
Opinion by: Merav Ozair, PhD.
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.
Asset manager REX-Osprey is seeking to launch an exchange-traded fund (ETF) designed to hold the Movement Network’s native token, MOVE, according to a March 10 announcement.
The filing comes as Movement, a layer-2 (L2) blockchain network, launches its public mainnet beta, Movement said.
It is the latest example of a fund sponsor filing to list an ETF comprising an alternative cryptocurrency, or “altcoin.”
“Traditional investors have expressed keen interest in gaining regulated exposure to emerging blockchain technologies without directly managing tokens,” Cooper Scanlon, Movement Labs’ co-founder, said in a statement.
Movement is an Ethereum L2 blockchain designed using Move, a Rust-based programming language originally developed by Meta.
Its public mainnet has approximately $250 million in total value locked (TVL), according to Movement.
The MOVE token has a fully diluted value of around $5 billion, according to CoinMarketCap.
The US Securities and Exchange Commission authorized ETFs holding Bitcoin (BTC) and Ether (ETH) to list in the US in 2024 but has not yet approved any altcoin ETFs.
“Breaking the pattern of ETFs limited to long-established cryptocurrencies opens doors for institutional capital to support next-generation blockchain innovation,” Rushi Manche, Movement Labs’ co-founder, said in a statement.
REX-Osprey has filed for a MOVE ETF. Source: SEC
Related: Bitwise files to list a spot Aptos ETF — the 36th largest cryptocurrency
Altcoin ETFs abound
Asset managers are seeking the SEC’s approval to list ETFs for holding upward of half a dozen different altcoins.
On March 5, asset manager Bitwise filed to list a spot Aptos ETF in the US — a token created by a team led by two former Facebook (now Meta) employees in 2022.
On Feb. 25, US securities exchange Nasdaq requested to list a Grayscale ETF holding the Polkadot network’s native token, DOT (DOT).
Other altcoin ETFs awaiting approval include those holding Litecoin (LTC), Solana (SOL) and Official Trump (TRUMP), among others.
US President Donald Trump, who started his second term in January, said he wants America to become the “world’s crypto capital” and has appointed pro-crypto leaders to key regulatory agencies, including the SEC.
Bloomberg Intelligence has set the odds of the SEC approving Solana and Litecoin ETFs at 70% and 90%, respectively.
Magazine: Meet lawyer Max Burwick — ‘The ambulance chaser of crypto’
-
Sports2 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports11 months 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
-
Sports3 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
-
Business2 years agoBank of England’s extraordinary response to government policy is almost unthinkable | Ed Conway