World
EU hits back after UK moves to change post-Brexit trade rules
The EU has threatened to make use of “all of the measures at its disposal” after the UK signalled it could introduce laws to vary the post-Brexit standing of Northern Eire.
Britain says its transfer to vary the legally binding treaty — an obvious breach of worldwide regulation — is an insurance coverage coverage in case it will possibly’t attain an settlement with the bloc to finish a long-running dispute over post-Brexit commerce guidelines.
“Our choice is to achieve a negotiated end result with the EU,” mentioned International Secretary Liz Truss.
The announcement drew a pointy response from the EU, which has lengthy accused Prime Minister Boris Johnson of making an attempt to wriggle out of a deal that his authorities negotiated and signed as a part of the U.Okay.’s exit from the bloc in 2020. The spat raises the possibilities of a commerce conflict between Britain and the 27-nation bloc that’s — even after Brexit — its main financial associate.
Britain’s Conservative authorities says post-Brexit commerce guidelines — which London signed as much as — are hurting the economic system and undermining peace in Northern Eire, the one a part of the UK that shares a border with an EU member state.
When Britain left the bloc and its borderless free-trade zone, a deal was agreed to maintain the Irish land border freed from customs posts and different checks, as a result of an open border is a key pillar of the peace course of that ended a long time of violence in Northern Eire.
As a substitute, to guard the EU’s single market, there are checks on some items, equivalent to meat and eggs, coming into Northern Eire from the remainder of the UK.
The association is opposed by British unionists in Northern Eire, who say the brand new checks have put a burden on companies and frayed the bonds between Northern Eire and the remainder of the UK.
The Democratic Unionist Social gathering, Northern Eire’s largest unionist celebration, is obstructing the formation of a brand new power-sharing regional authorities in Belfast till the checks are scrapped.
The British authorities agrees that the commerce rules, generally known as the Northern Eire Protocol, are destabilising a peace settlement that depends on help from each Protestant unionist and Catholic nationalist communities.
Whereas the DUP needs the Protocol scrapped, most different events in Northern Eire need to maintain it, with tweaks to ease the burden on companies.
Johnson says his authorities needs to repair, relatively than scrap, the preparations, utilizing know-how and trusted-trader packages to create a check-free “inexperienced lane” for items destined for Northern Eire which might be at little threat of coming into the EU.
The British authorities hopes its risk of laws — which might take months to cross by means of Parliament — will improve strain on the EU to compromise.
The bloc insists the treaty can’t be renegotiated, although it’s prepared to be versatile about how the foundations are applied. The EU may hit again with authorized motion, and probably commerce sanctions, if Britain doesn’t again down.
Critics of Johnson’s authorities say a UK-EU feud is the very last thing Europe wants because it seeks unity in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, and dangers damaging the British economic system amid a worsening cost-of-living disaster.
“This isn’t a time for posturing or high-stakes brinksmanship,” mentioned Labour Social gathering lawmaker Stephen Doughty.
“The prime minister negotiated this deal, signed it, ran an election marketing campaign on it. He should take duty for it and make it work.”
Johnson denied the transfer breached worldwide regulation, saying Britain’s “increased responsibility” was to uphold the Good Friday Settlement, Northern Eire’s 1998 peace accord.
However some Conservatives expressed misgivings.
“Respect for the rule of regulation … runs deep in our Tory veins,” mentioned Conservative legislator Simon Hoare. “I discover it extraordinary {that a} Tory authorities must be reminded of that.”
Justices at the United States Supreme Court have signalled scepticism towards a challenge brought by the video-sharing platform TikTok, as it seeks to overturn a law that would force the app’s sale or ban it by January 19.
Friday’s hearing is the latest in a legal saga that has pitted the US government against ByteDance, TikTok’s parent company, in a battle over free speech and national security concerns.
The law in question was signed in April, declaring that ByteDance would face a deadline to sell its US shares or face a ban.
The bill had strong bipartisan support, with lawmakers citing fears that the Chinese-based ByteDance could collect user data and deliver it to the Chinese government. Outgoing US President Joe Biden ultimately signed it into law.
But ByteDance and TikTok users have challenged the law’s constitutionality, arguing that banning the app would limit their free speech rights.
During Friday’s oral arguments, the Supreme Court seemed swayed by the government’s position that the app enables China’s government to spy on Americans and carry out covert influence operations.
Conservative Justice Samuel Alito also floated the possibility of issuing what is called an administrative stay that would put the law on hold temporarily while the court decides how to proceed.
The Supreme Court’s consideration of the case comes at a time of continued trade tensions between the US and China, the world’s two biggest economies.
President-elect Donald Trump, who is due to begin his second term a day after the ban kicks in, had promised to “save” the platform during his presidential campaign.
That marks a reversal from his first term in office, when he unsuccessfully tried to ban TikTok.
In December, Trump called on the Supreme Court to put the law’s implementation on hold to give his administration “the opportunity to pursue a political resolution of the questions at issue in the case”.
Noel Francisco, a lawyer for TikTok and ByteDance, emphasised to the court that the law risked shuttering one of the most popular platforms in the US.
“This act should not stand,” Francisco said. He dismissed the fear “that Americans, even if fully informed, could be persuaded by Chinese misinformation” as a “decision that the First Amendment leaves to the people”.
Francisco asked the justices to, at minimum, put a temporary hold on the law, “which will allow you to carefully consider this momentous issue and, for the reasons explained by the president-elect, potentially moot the case”.
‘Weaponise TikTok’ to harm US
TikTok has about 170 million American users, about half the US population.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the Biden administration, said that Chinese control of TikTok poses a grave threat to US national security.
The immense amount of data the app could collect on users and their contacts could give China a powerful tool for harassment, recruitment and espionage, she explained.
China could then “could weaponise TikTok at any time to harm the United States”.
Prelogar added that the First Amendment does not bar Congress from taking steps to protect Americans and their data.
Several justices seemed receptive to those arguments during Friday’s hearing. Conservative Chief Justice John Roberts pressed TikTok’s lawyers on the company’s Chinese ownership.
“Are we supposed to ignore the fact that the ultimate parent is, in fact, subject to doing intelligence work for the Chinese government?” Roberts asked.
“It seems to me that you’re ignoring the major concern here of Congress — which was Chinese manipulation of the content and acquisition and harvesting of the content.”
“Congress doesn’t care about what’s on TikTok,” Roberts added, appearing to brush aside free speech arguments.
Left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan also suggested that April’s TikTok law “is only targeted at this foreign corporation, which doesn’t have First Amendment rights”.
TikTok, ByteDance and app users had appealed a lower court’s ruling that upheld the law and rejected their argument that it violates the US Constitution’s free speech protections under the First Amendment.
Flo Rida joined by Flavor Flav, White Boy Rick in a different sort of Detroit Auto Show gala
Prince Harry, Meghan Markle visit Southern California to support wildfire victims, recovery efforts
How a San Francisco program helped a new mom turn around her life
Dallas faces conference rival Denver
Carson Beck, gf Hanna Cavinder do Miami ‘U’ dance to celebrate transfer from Georgia
Colorado Rockies game no. 116 thread: Zac Gallen vs José Ureña
Why Marjorie Taylor Greene was ‘kicked out’ of the Freedom Caucus according to Rep. Buck
See it: Tesla crashes into Columbus convention center at 70 mph
Fox News Politics: Georgia the whole day through
Death of missing Oregon girl found in stream ruled homicide
Trump Blames L.A. Wildfires on Newsom Using Familiar Tactics
'Deeply disgusted': GOP senator shreds Biden admin in scathing letter on new immigrant deportation shield
US Supreme Court critical of TikTok arguments against looming ban
Tiktok’s Final Appeal to the Supreme Court Didn’t Go Too Well
Drone Collision Grounds Firefighting Plane in Los Angeles
-
Business1 week agoThese are the top 7 issues facing the struggling restaurant industry in 2025
-
Culture1 week agoThe 25 worst losses in college football history, including Baylor’s 2024 entry at Colorado
-
Sports1 week agoThe top out-of-contract players available as free transfers: Kimmich, De Bruyne, Van Dijk…
-
Politics1 week agoNew Orleans attacker had 'remote detonator' for explosives in French Quarter, Biden says
-
Politics1 week agoCarter's judicial picks reshaped the federal bench across the country
-
Politics6 days agoWho Are the Recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom?
-
Health5 days agoOzempic ‘microdosing’ is the new weight-loss trend: Should you try it?
-
World1 week agoIvory Coast says French troops to leave country after decades