Brexit could cause break-up of UK, says ex-Chancellor George Osborne | Daily Mail Online


So, George Osbourne, former Chancellor of the Exchequer, is saying Brexit could be the cause of the break up of the UK, well, if it is then so be it.

But, it is not Brexit, but the actions of previous Governments, with Brexit being the easiest reason to put forward, for previous Governments, be they Labour or Conservative, could not be the cause, could they!

George was never in favour of Brexit, but, then, I was never in favour of George.

Brexit will, eventually, be good for England and any other country within the UK who stays with England.

As to Brexit, I did vote to leave and my conviction to do so, is only strengthened more each day, when I see how the EU is prolonging the discussions on the terms of a Trade Deal between the UK and the EU, for they only wish to punish the UK for daring to leave the EU and to show others who are not happy being in the EU, how they would be treated, if they wished to leave,

What I would say, is if I had known in 1975 what I know now I would have voted to leave then, instead, I mistakenly voted to stay in 1975, my worst vote ever.

Goodbye EU, but hello Europe, for we wish to trade with Europe not the EU.

 

Source: Brexit could cause break-up of UK, says ex-Chancellor George Osborne | Daily Mail Online

Explainer: Europe’s coronavirus smartphone contact tracing apps – Reuters


BERLIN (Reuters) – More than 20 countries and territories in Europe have launched or plan smartphone apps that seek to break the chain of coronavirus infection by tracking encounters between people and issuing a warning should one of them test positive.

 

Source: Explainer: Europe’s coronavirus smartphone contact tracing apps – Reuters

The Cyprus rape case is a chilling reminder of the price women pay for speaking up | Gaby Hinsliff | Opinion | The Guardian


It is impossible to feel justice has been done for the British teenager in the Cyprus rape case, says Guardian columnist Gaby Hinsliff

Source: The Cyprus rape case is a chilling reminder of the price women pay for speaking up | Gaby Hinsliff | Opinion | The Guardian

My love letter to Britain: family ties can never really be severed | Frans Timmermans | Opinion | The Guardian


Since I went to a British school, you have always been part of me. Now you are leaving, and it breaks my heart

Source: My love letter to Britain: family ties can never really be severed | Frans Timmermans | Opinion | The Guardian

The Supreme Court’s ruling. Why not now go all the way – and let Bercow deliver the Queen’s Speech? | Conservative Home


‘Be it enacted by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows’.

Those are the words of the Enacting Formula – the standard pattern of words which, with certain variations, precede the clauses of Bills at Westminster.  In a single sentence, they capture the meaning of Parliamentary sovereignty.

They clearly don’t say that the legislature is the only source of this sovereignty – in other words, of law-making power.  Rather, they tell a story.  It is one of that power being shared by the Queen, through the executive branch of government, with the legislature.

That’s why it’s said that we’re governed by the Queen-in-Parliament: it is the place where the monarch, her Government, and the legislature come together.  Parliament should work with harmony of a stately dance (come to think of it, “stately” is le mot juste), in which each dancer has his or her part to play.  Some of the most riveting steps in their movements came about because of the English Civil War. The dance continues to this day.

The best way of understanding the Supreme Court’s ruling on Tuesday is to grasp that it reads the dance very differently – and, frankly, wrongly. “As long ago as 1611,” its ruling declared, the court held that “the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him”.  The Court clearly has that civil war, and long-run up to it, very much in mind.

But the King (or, in this case, the Queen) is no longer “the government” – a truth that the learned judges seem to have forgotten as soon as they uttered it.  Government is now a shared exercise between “the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty” and those “Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons”.  Or, to put it another way, Boris Johnson in no way resembles a Stuart Monarch.  Quite apart from anything else, Charles I did not offer the Roundheads the chance to vote him out of office.

Neither is Dominic Grieve John Hampden; nor Lady Hale, Sir Edward Coke; nor Dominic Cummings “Black Tom Tyrant” – the Earl of Stafford, Charles I’s formidable adviser, who was eventually sacrificed as a scapegoat.  If anyone thought they were.  Above all, this Gollum of a Speaker is not, repeat not, John Lenthall.

 

Source: The Supreme Court’s ruling. Why not now go all the way – and let Bercow deliver the Queen’s Speech? | Conservative Home

Catalan Independence Trial: Summary Most Important Testimonies May 22 and 23 – Josep Goded


May 22, Day 45 of Trial 

Wednesday’s session started with the testimonies of Catalan government officials and ended with the beginning of the “expert phase.”

– Jordi Martínez Soler, a social media advisor for the Parliament, explained that he managed Forcadell’s social media accounts in Autumn 2017 and explained the content of the tweets he tweeted during that time.

– Ricard Gené, who was part of the Catalan National Assembly (ANC)’s secretariat at the same time as Carme Forcadell, explained that the role of Forcadell, currently accused of rebellion, was as a ”representative and not an executive.”

“Forcadell was not involved in elaborating the ANC’s roadmap,” he said.

– Rosa Maria Sans, who is the head of management of the use of government facilities and equipment by non-profit organizations at the Catalan Department of Labour, Social Affairs and Families, explained how was his work during the 2017 Autumn.

 

Source: Catalan Independence Trial: Summary Most Important Testimonies May 22 and 23 – Josep Goded

French court finds Monsanto guilty of poisoning farmer | Business | The Guardian


A French appeals court has said US chemicals giant Monsanto was guilty of poisoning a farmer who said he suffered neurological damage after accidentally inhaling fumes from a weedkiller made by the company.

Paul François, a cereal farmer, had already won previous lawsuits against Monsanto, which was bought by Germany’s Bayer last year, in 2012 and 2015.

He said he fell ill in 2004 after being exposed to Lasso, a weedkiller containing monochlorobenzene that was legal in France until 2007 but had already been banned in 1985 in Canada and in 1992 in Belgium and Britain.

François argued that Monsanto was aware of Lasso’s dangers long before it was withdrawn from the French market and sought damages of more than €1m (£860,000) for chronic neurological damage that led to long hospital stays.

The court in Lyon rejected the company’s appeal on Tuesday but did not rule on how much Monsanto might have to pay, which will be determined in a separate ruling. It ordered the company to pay €50,000 immediately for François’s legal fees.

In its ruling, the court found that Monsanto should have clearly indicated on Lasso’s labelling and instructions for use “a notice on the specific dangers of using the product in vats and reservoirs”.

“The plaintiff’s assumed technical knowledge does not excuse the lack of information on the product and its harmful effects – a farmer is not a chemist,” it added.

Speaking after the verdict, a lawyer for Monsanto France, Jean-Daniel Bretzner, said the company would probably appeal, since the ruling applied to Lasso’s producer – in this case, Monsanto Europe.

It was the latest judgment against Monsanto involving its weedkillers and pesticides, which have been widely used around the world for years.

Last month, a San Francisco court ordered the company to pay about $80mto a retiree who blames its popular Roundup weedkiller, which contains glyphosate, for causing his non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

The company said it would appeal, as it faces thousands of similar lawsuits in the US.

Monsanto denies that the weedkiller causes cancer and has challenged findings by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, which classified glyphosate as a “probable carcinogen” in 2015.

 

Source: French court finds Monsanto guilty of poisoning farmer | Business | The Guardian