Month: June 2022

Australia in 2021 cancelled a multi-billion dollar contract with a French firm to build the submarines.

It instead signed a new defence pact with the US and the UK, infuriating French President Emmanuel Macron.

He accused then leader Scott Morrison of lying to him, briefly recalling France’s ambassador in protest.

Mr Albanese – who was elected in May – will travel to Madrid next week for the Nato summit. He will make a detour to Paris to smooth over ties.

“It is important that a reset occur,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation.

The relationship is key because France is not only a central power in Europe but – like Australia – in the Pacific too, he said.

“We’ve already had very constructive discussions… Next week’s visit is a very concrete sign of the repair that’s been done already,” he said.

Australia earlier this month announced a €555m ($584m; £476m) settlement with France’s Naval Group as compensation for scrapping the contract in favour of the Aukus deal.

Mr Albanese has also been invited by Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky to visit the country while in Europe.

He said his delegation was getting national security advice before making a decision: “We don’t want to cause a circumstance whereby there’s risk to Australian personnel by undertaking such a visit.”

Justice department officials said they told Mr Trump there was zero evidence for his claims of mass voter fraud.

The attorneys also testified that the president’s plan to reverse his loss in key states was “a murder-suicide pact”.

The panel is investigating last year’s US Capitol riot as an attempted coup.

The House of Representatives select committee is seeking to build a case that Mr Trump’s efforts to stay in power in the lead-up to the violent raid by a horde of his supporters on Congress on 6 January 2021 amounted to illegal conduct.

Mr Trump, a Republican, has described the inquiry as a “kangaroo court” designed to distract Americans from the “disaster” of Democratic-led governance and spiralling inflation ahead of November’s mid-term elections.

With President Joe Biden’s popularity at an all-time low, Mr Trump has been indicating he may run for president again in 2024.

Thursday’s public hearing, the fifth so far, focused on a pressure campaign waged by Mr Trump against the Department of Justice – the federal agency that enforces US law and is supposed to be independent from the White House.

Former acting Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen said Mr Trump had reached out to him “virtually every day” before the attack on the Capitol, where lawmakers were assembled to certify Mr Biden’s election win.

According to Mr Rosen, Mr Trump asked that the justice department issue a statement calling the election results into question, adding “leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen”.

Mr Rosen said he refused. “We did not think they were appropriate based on the facts or the law,” he told the committee.

Former acting Deputy Attorney General Richard Donoghue testified that he had knocked down Mr Trump’s “arsenal of [voter fraud] allegations” one by one in a 90-minute conversation in December 2020.

Committee member Adam Kinzinger, an Illinois Republican, noted that Trump administration officials had at one point investigated a bogus claim that Italian satellites switched votes from Mr Trump to Mr Biden.

“This is one of the best examples of the lengths to which President Trump would go to stay in power, scouring the internet to support his conspiracy theories,” he said.

The session heard that at least five allies of Mr Trump, who had supported his attempts to overturn the election, had asked for presidential pardons to protect them from any future prosecutions.

The session also heard of an explosive Oval Office showdown on the night of 3 January 2021 between Mr Trump and three top justice department officials.

Mr Trump outlined a plan during the meeting to replace Mr Rosen with a loyalist named Jeffrey Clark, an environmental lawyer, who had no relevant experience to run the department, the committee heard.

On official letterhead, Mr Clark had drafted a memo advising lawmakers in states that Mr Trump narrowly lost on how to throw out their election results.

Pat Cipollone, then the White House counsel, had warned the letter would be “a murder-suicide pact”, Mr Donoghue said.

He testified that he, Mr Rosen and another senior official, Steven Engel, warned the president there would be a mass exodus from the justice department if he installed Mr Clark. Mr Trump ultimately backed off the plan.

The committee said Mr Clark had refused to answer its questions, invoking his right not to self-incriminate. Thursday’s hearing was held shortly after it was reported that the FBI had raided Mr Clark’s home.

The BBC’s Tara McKelvey, who was at the hearing, said the search of Mr Clark’s property raises the possibility of criminal charges over the alleged election plot, including against the former president himself.

Thursday’s session also heard claims that six congressional Republicans had requested preemptive presidential pardons from Mr Trump in case they were prosecuted after he left office for having backed his challenge to the election results.

Ex-White House aides named the lawmakers as Mo Brooks of Alabama, Matt Gaetz of Florida, Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania and Andy Biggs of Arizona. None of them received pardons.

Two more open hearings will take place next month before the committee prepares a report on the Capitol attacks.

The panel cannot bring charges against the former president, but is expected to refer its findings to the justice department.

Fifteen Republicans joined Democrats in the upper chamber of Congress to approve the measure by 65 votes to 33.

It follows mass shootings last month at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York, and a primary school in Uvalde, Texas, that left 31 people dead.

The bill will now have to pass in the House of Representatives before President Biden can sign it into law.

In a statement released after the vote, the president called on members of the House to “promptly vote on this bipartisan bill and send it to my desk”.

“Tonight, after 28 years of inaction, bipartisan members of Congress came together to heed the call of families across the country and passed legislation to address the scourge of gun violence in our communities,” Mr Biden said. “Families in Uvalde and Buffalo — and too many tragic shootings before — have demanded action. And tonight, we acted.”

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has vowed to take the bill through the House quickly, despite Republican leader Kevin McCarthy urging his members to vote against the bill.

“First thing tomorrow morning, the Rules Committee will meet to advance this life-saving legislation to the floor,” Ms Pelosi said after the vote.

Although significant, the proposals fall far short of what many Democrats and activists have called for.

The reforms include tougher background checks for buyers younger than 21 and $15bn (£12.2bn) in federal funding for mental health programs and school security upgrades.

It also calls for funding to encourage states to implement “red flag” laws to remove firearms from people considered a threat.

And it closes the so-called “boyfriend loophole” by blocking gun sales to those convicted of abusing unmarried intimate partners.

The bill is also significant because it is the first time in decades that proposed reforms have received this level of support from both Democrats and Republicans. Historically, efforts to strengthen US gun laws have been blocked by the Republican party.

All 50 Democrats, including the party’s most conservative members, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema, were joined by deal-making Republicans, including the party’s Senate Leader Mitch McConnell and close Trump ally Lindsey Graham.

A host of traditionally conservative-leaning advocacy organisations, including the Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police, also backed the bill.

Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas, who co-led the negotiations with Democratic Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut, said on the chamber floor that the bill would make Americans safer.

“I don’t believe in doing nothing in the face of what we saw in Uvalde and what we’ve seen in far too many communities,” Mr Cornyn said.

“Doing nothing is an abdication of our responsibility as representatives of the American people here in the United States Senate.”

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said: “This is not a cure-all for the ways gun violence affects our nation, but it is a long overdue step in the right direction.”

However, two-thirds of Republicans opposed the legislation, and all of those who backed it, except for Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski and Indiana’s Todd Young, will not face voters this year or have announced their intention not to seek re-election.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who is widely tipped to seek the Republican presidential nomination in 2024, condemned the bill as an attempt to “to try to disarm law-abiding citizens rather than take serious measures to protect our children”.

Gun safety group March For Our Lives – founded by survivors of the 2018 Parkland school shooting in Florida – welcomed the advancement of the bill.

“We know there’s A LOT more work to be done to end this epidemic. But a lot of hard work got us to tonight. We refuse to quit or be silenced. Ending gun violence is the fight of our lifetime,” the group tweeted.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) has opposed the bill, and argued that it will not stop the violence.

President Biden earlier this month said the proposals were “steps in the right direction” but are still not enough.

He has pushed for bigger reforms – including a ban on assault rifles, which were used in the Texas and Buffalo mass shootings last month – or at least an increase in the age at which they can be purchased. The gunman in the Texas shooting is believed to have purchased two semi-automatic rifles days after turning 18.

The US has the highest rate of firearms deaths among the world’s wealthy nations – more than 20,900 people have been killed in gun violence in the US this year, including through homicide and suicide, according to the Gun Violence Archive, a non-profit research group.

But it is also a country where many cherish gun rights that are protected by the Constitution’s Second Amendment to “keep and bear arms”.

The last significant federal gun control legislation was passed in 1994, banning the manufacture for civilian use of assault rifles and large capacity magazines – but it expired a decade later.

After the 2012 Sandy Hook school shooting in Connecticut – in which 20 children and six adults were killed – attempts to tighten the laws failed to get enough votes in Congress.

Thursday’s vote happened hours after the Supreme Court struck down a New York law restricting who can legally carry a gun – effectively expanding gun rights and illustrating the deep divide in the United States over the issue.

The court found that New York’s requirement for residents to prove “proper cause” – or a good reason – to carry concealed firearms in public violates the Constitution.

Mr McConnell said with the court’s decision, combined with Thursday’s legislation, made for “two landmark victories”

Mr Jack said the UK government did not know of a way indyref2 could happen without Westminster agreement through what is known as a section 30 order.

He said he was waiting to see what First Minister Nicola Sturgeon proposes next week.

Ms Sturgeon will set out a “route map” to another referendum on Tuesday.

This is expected to include details of how she will seek to hold a referendum in October of next year even if the UK government does not grant formal consent.

She has said she is determined to deliver her election promise to hold another vote on independence, and has accused UK ministers of trying to deny democracy.

But the first minister has not yet formally asked for a section 30 order, and would still need to pass legislation to hold a referendum in the Scottish Parliament.

Speaking to BBC Scotland at the Royal Highland Show in Edinburgh, Mr Jack said the UK government would consider any request for a section 30.

But he reiterated that the government believed that “now is not the time” for wrangling about the constitution, with the country dealing with the cost of living crisis and war in Ukraine.

He said any referendum bill in the Scottish Parliament would be looked at by UK law officers, who have previously challenged Scottish government legislation in court.

Mr Jack said it was “well known” that all matters relating to the constitution are reserved to the Westminster.

He said that he would discuss any proposal for a section 30 with the prime minister, but stressed: “We have been very clear that we are not in the position of having another referendum”.

He also said he does not consider the pro-independence majority formed by the SNP and Greens at Holyrood as a mandate for another referendum because “less than a third of the electorate” voted for Ms Sturgeon’s party.

Mr Jack added: “My advice to her is to get on with the priorities of the Scottish people.

“Improve education standards, deal with the NHS backlog after Covid, build some ferries for the Highlands and islands, sort out the record drug deaths in Scotland.

“That is what people want her to do, that is what she was elected to do”.

The first minister will make her statement just two days before Holyrood goes into recess for the summer holidays.

She has described it as a “significant update” on how a “lawful” vote could be held without the UK government agreeing to a section 30, which was put in place ahead of the referendum in 2014.

And she has said her plan would show how the Scottish government intends to “forge a way forward, if necessary without a section 30 order”.

However, Ms Sturgeon stressed that this must be done “in a lawful manner” – which has led to speculation that she could be preparing for a “consultative” referendum on independence.

This could see proposals for people to be asked a different question to the straight yes/no on whether Scotland should become an independent country that they were asked in the 2014 referendum.

For example, voters could instead be asked of they believe the Scottish government should begin negotiations with the UK government on Scotland leaving the UK.

Some commentators believe this is less likely to be successfully blocked by the UK government through the courts.

There have been suggestions that the pro-UK parties could boycott any referendum that was held without the consent of the UK government – which could potentially refuse to recognise the result.

According to polling expert Prof Sir John Curtice, the last six polls have – on average – put support for independence at 48%, with 52% against, once “don’t know” votes are excluded.

Patrick Grady was suspended from Parliament for two days after he was found to have made a sexual advance to a teenage SNP staffer.

Mr Blackford said he regretted that the victim did not feel supported.

But the staffer said the SNP had not learned anything from the case.

He accused the party of closing ranks and attempting to discredit the victim in order to limit the damage that was caused, rather than genuinely attempting to tackle the issues that had been raised.

Mr Grady, the party’s former chief whip, was found by an independent panel to have touched and stroked the neck, hair and back of his colleague during a social event in 2016.

The panel recommended he be suspended from the Commons for two days – with the SNP understood to have also suspended him until his parliamentary suspension was complete.

In an audio recording of a subsequent SNP group meeting that was leaked to the Daily Mail newspaper, Mr Blackford could be heard urging his colleagues to “give as much support as possible” to Mr Grady.

Another SNP MP, Amy Callaghan, also told the meeting that the party should be “rallying together” to support Mr Grady.

Both politicians later apologised, with Mr Blackford facing calls from the Conservatives and Labour to resign.

Mr Blackford’s written statement expressed his “regret” that the complainant did not feel fully supported by the party.

He said: “The way that this situation has played out publicly over the last few days, including recordings from the parliamentary group, has caused distress to the complainant amongst others and I am sorry that is the case.”

Mr Blackford also said Mr Grady’s behaviour towards the member of staff was “completely unacceptable and should never have happened”, adding: “I’m sorry it did”.

Responding to the statement, the staffer said it felt like a “non-apology and a bit of a cop out”.

He told the BBC’s Good Morning Scotland programme: “Ian Blackford has never contacted me privately to give me a private apology.

“I was also given zero notice that this so called apology was going to be published or given to broadcasters to use.

“I found out like everybody else, so to me it’s a publicity stunt and he has done it to protect his position and protect his reputation.”

He said he believed the SNP was more focused on limiting the damage to the party and finding the source of the leaked audio than it was in addressing what was said during the meeting.

He added: “It seems like the SNP under Ian Blackford at Westminster hasn’t learnt a thing – they are still trying to close ranks and discredit the victim.”

The staffer said he had been contacted by Ms Callaghan before she issued her apology, which he had accepted as he believed it was heartfelt and that she had “learned and reflected and realised why that was wrong”.

But he said he had only received support from perhaps “a couple” of the party’s other MPs, and that he believed this was due in part to Mr Blackford “directing them to support Patrick Grady instead of myself”.

The staffer welcomed Mr Blackford’s announcement of an external review of support available to SNP staff who make complaints as a “good first step”, but said nobody could believe the party was going to take it seriously.

He is currently off work, and said he did not believe he could return to his job while Mr Blackford and Mr Grady remained in their post – but that he hoped by speaking out he would give confidence to other victims.

He accused Mr Blackford of attempting to “ambush” him after he initially made his complaint by inviting him to a meeting without telling him Mr Grady was also going to be there.

He said he believed this was done because their view that he was “young and inexperienced” and that the complaint would be “over and done with” if Mr Grady offered an apology.

The staffer added: “For three years after that, he kept reappointing Patrick as the chief whip while I was working there.

“I had to go in every day and face him at work. It was torture. It was a living hell in that regard.”

First Minister Nicola Sturgeon was questioned by opposition leaders in the Scottish Parliament about the victim’s interview, and said she would be willing to meet him to apologise in person.

Ms Sturgeon, the SNP leader, said she had already given a written apology to him, and described some of the comments made during her party’s group meeting at Westminster as “utterly unacceptable”.

She added: “I take these issues very seriously. But these issues are not unique to the SNP. All of us have lessons to learn.”

Mr Blackford refused an invitation to appear on Good Morning Scotland to respond to the complaints made about his handling of the case, but did agree to speak to BBC Scotland on Thursday evening.

He said he was also willing to meet with the victim, adding: “If the complainant feels aggrieved, then I am sorry for that.”

He said he had not yet had an opportunity to apologise in person because the investigation process had only just concluded, and said he also had a duty of “pastoral care” to Mr Grady.

He said he “regrets the fact the discussion took place the way it did” during the SNP group meeting, but denied his authority had been undermined by the situation.Mr Blackford also refused to directly call for Mr Grady to stand down but suggested he needed to “reflect on his behaviour”.

A deeply uncomfortable afternoon for the first minister at Holyrood underlined the difficulty the SNP are in over this matter.

Nicola Sturgeon faced questions from both the Tories and Labour about the Patrick Grady case – and it was striking that she made no attempt to defend the MP, or how things have played out with her party’s Westminster group.

She did not want to make the same mistake they did, when they were recorded giving their support first and foremost to Mr Grady rather than his victim.

The overriding concern will be that, in future, people who are subject to inappropriate behaviour feel supported to come forward.

This is a familiar concern to the Scottish government, which has just refreshed its own internal complaints process in the wake of the botched handling of allegations against Alex Salmond.

Ms Sturgeon faced almost two years of questions about that case. The last thing she wants is to be mired in similar difficulties again.

In its report, the Independent Expert Panel – which recommends punishments for MPs over bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct – wrote: “An unwanted physical touching, with sexual intent, from a senior MP to a junior member of staff, even on a single occasion, is a significant breach of the policy.”

It noted that Mr Grady had shown “genuine remorse” and made “efforts to address his behaviour”.

But it recommended that he “be suspended for two sitting days, make a public apology in the House of Commons, and a private one to the complainant”.

Mr Grady, the MP for Glasgow North, has admitted his behaviour and said he apologised unreservedly for it.

He told the Commons: “I am profoundly sorry for my behaviour and I deeply regret my actions and their consequences.”

He also pledged that “such behaviour on my part will never happen again”.

Meanwhile, SNP MP Patricia Gibson has been cleared of allegations of sexual misconduct against the same male staff member.

The complaint against her was initially upheld by the Parliament’s Standard’s Commissioner, which found that she had made unwelcome physical contact of a sexual nature in Stranger’s Bar in Parliament in January 2020 while she was drunk.

But she appealed to the Independent Expert Panel, which has now ruled that the initial investigation “was materially flawed in a way that affected the decision of the Commissioner”.

Ms Gibson said: “I have found this period extremely traumatic but I am pleased that my reputation has been restored and now wish to draw a line under this matter and look to the future”.

The Lib Dems overturned a huge Tory majority in Tiverton and Honiton, Devon, their third by-election victory over Boris Johnson’s party this year.

And Labour retook the seat of Wakefield, West Yorkshire, which it lost at the 2019 general election.

Mr Dowden said Tory supporters were “distressed and disappointed”.

In a letter to Mr Johnson, he wrote: “We cannot carry on with business as usual. Somebody must take responsibility and I have concluded that, in these circumstances, it would not be right for me to remain in office.”

Mr Dowden also called his resignation “a deeply personal decision that I have taken alone” following a “run of very poor results for our party”.

Speaking in Rwanda, where he is attending a Commonwealth heads of government meeting, Mr Johnson said: “We’ve got to recognise there is more we’ve got to do and we certainly will.

“We will keep going, addressing the concerns of people until we get through this patch.”

The by-election losses follow months of criticism of the prime minister over parties in Downing Street during lockdown.

They also come amid soaring inflation and concerns over the cost of living, and after a narrower-than-expected vote of confidence by Tory MPs in Mr Johnson earlier this month.

In Tiverton and Honiton, where former MP Neil Parish quit after he was found watching pornography in the House of Commons, the Lib Dems took 22,537 votes, beating the Conservatives by 6,144.

At the last general election, the Tories had a 24,239 majority in the mostly rural constituency.

In his victory speech, the Lib Dems’ new MP Richard Foord said: “Tonight, the people of Tiverton and Honiton have spoken for Britain.

“They’ve sent a loud and clear message: It’s time for Boris Johnson to go, and go now.”

Party leader Sir Ed Davey added: “The Liberal Democrats have made political history with this stunning win. It is the biggest by-election victory our country has ever seen.”

The Lib Dems also won by-elections in Chesham and Amersham and North Shropshire earlier this year, taking what had previously been safe Conservative seats.

A Conservative source called the result in Tiverton and Honiton “disappointing but not unexpected”, telling the BBC the party was confident it could retake the seat at the next general election.

Nothing reeks of panic quite like a resignation letter at 5:35am.

Not just any resignation letter. But the party chairman. Until now, at least, utterly loyal to Boris Johnson.

He manages five paragraphs, not one of which endorses him.

So, does he have confidence in Mr Johnson? He and his team are silent.

What we’ve seen overnight in miniature is the electoral pincer movement the Conservatives most fear.

Labour’s return to seats like Wakefield it could once nonchalantly bank.

The Liberal Democrats planting flags in England’s south west once again; a region that not long ago sent a minibus full of such MPs to Westminster.

Conservative MPs from the top down have the jitters this morning; the dawn decision of their former chairman quickening their pulse further.

In Wakefield, where a Labour victory had been largely expected, the party’s candidate, Simon Lightwood, won by 4,925 votes.

The previous MP, Imran Ahmad, resigned after being convicted of sexually assaulting a 15-year-old boy.

Reacting to his party’s win in Wakefield, Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said it showed the “country has lost confidence in the Tories”.

“This result is a clear judgement on a Conservative Party that has run out of energy and ideas. Britain deserves better,” he added.

At the 2019 general election, Labour lost Wakefield – one of its so-called “red wall” of safe seats in northern England and the Midlands – for the first time since 1932.

Tory MP Simon Hoare, who has previously been critical of Mr Johnson, called Mr Dowden “an honourable man”, adding that he was “not responsible” for the by-election losses.