Month: March 2023

The UK-EU deal is designed to make trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK smoother.

It gives Stormont’s Assembly more say over EU rules, and has been welcomed by most Northern Ireland parties.

However the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) remains unconvinced and is still refusing to re-enter power-sharing.

Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris said the party – Northern Ireland’s second largest after Sinn Féin – has yet to come to terms with the significance of Wednesday’s overwhelming parliamentary vote in support of the new Brexit deal.

The joint UK-EU body that is overseeing Brexit will meet later to ratify the legal changes brought about by the Windsor Framework.

Speaking after meetings with the five main Stormont parties at Hillsborough on Thursday, Mr Heaton-Harris said the deal was done and would soon become international law.

“There is no renegotiating of that deal,” he said.

Mr Heaton-Harris’ comments came a day after MPs voted by 515 to 29 to support the deal agreed by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.

It will open the door to talks in other areas of cooperation that had been blocked – including financial services and Britain’s access to the EU’s flagship Horizon research scheme.

But the DUP and some Conservative MPs voted against the deal, saying the UK government had to make changes to it.

For the DUP, it is not clear what its next move will be.

It is likely that the UK government will offer some constitutional reassurances to the party.

But Sir Jeffrey Donaldson may put that down as nothing more than tinkering around the edges rather than meaningful negotiation.

Where that would leave a possible return to power-sharing is the question – one without an obvious answer.

Mr Heaton-Harris said he would have to set Northern Ireland’s budget for the coming year within the next few weeks if the executive was not up and running soon.

He added that Northern Ireland’s public finances were “definitely not in a good state”.

Sinn Féin vice-president Michelle O’Neill urged the DUP to stop its boycott of Stormont so that executive ministers could take control of the budget.

Ministers had to be in post to make the case to the Treasury for extra funding for Northern Ireland. ahead of a budget that Ms O’Neill said was set to cause “catastrophic damage to public services”.

Alliance Party MP Stephen Farry said Northern Ireland was “bleeding”, with problems piling up and public services in real crisis, reinforcing the impetus on the DUP to join other parties in ensuring Northern Ireland had “proper governance”.

Ulster Unionist assembly member Robbie Butler said the level of budget cuts put Northern Ireland on a cliff edge and urged the DUP to put the public ahead of its issues with the Windsor Framework.

Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) leader Colum Eastwood said the DUP had to accept that it could not get everything it wanted from the new Brexit deal.

A body representing horticultural businesses has said the framework leaves several issues unresolved for the trade in plants from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

The Horticultural Trades Association (HTA) has written to the prime minister, complaining that the deal means “several key species of trees and plants will remain prohibited for exporting to Northern Ireland”.

It said this includes popular species such as hawthorn, hazel, honeysuckle and jasmine.

However the government has suggested that those could permitted for Great Britain to Northern Ireland sales at a later date.

The EU has strict rules on plant health and, under the original Northern Ireland Protocol, species it considered high risk were banned from being sent to Northern Ireland from Great Britain.

The framework means some but not all of those species are now permitted.

A government spokesperson said: “We have paved the way for 11 banned plant species to move again by the time of the next planting season.

“Those were priority cases identified by industry itself and we will progress further cases wherever there is industry appetite.”

The HTA is also calling for the establishing of what it calls a British and Northern Irish Horticulture and Seed Potato Traders Forum to identify and work through the outstanding issues.

It is understood the government is planning to step up consultation with businesses in the coming weeks.

That is aimed at finalising the details of the trusted trader scheme and “green lane”, which will be central to easing the flow of goods from Great Britain to Northern Ireland.

If approved, the vote later this year would establish an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice – a formal body for Indigenous people to give advice on laws.

PM Anthony Albanese argues it would be a “very simple” but “momentous” change.

Constitutional referendums are fairly rare – only eight of 44 have succeeded.

The Voice is being fiercely debated with support and opposition across the political spectrum

Drafted by more than 250 Indigenous leaders, the statement is considered the best – though not unanimous – call to action for reforms which affect First Nations Australians.

On Thursday, Mr Albanese announced the proposed wording for a question to be put to Australians in a compulsory vote.

“A proposed law to alter the constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?”

In an emotional speech, Mr Albanese said the Voice would enshrine “recognition” that Australians “share this great island continent with the world’s oldest continuous culture”.

“Our nation’s birth certificate should recognise this and be proud of it,” he added.

Standing alongside, Indigenous Affairs Minister Linda Burney spoke of how she had spent the first 10 years of her life “not being counted”.

The proposal, still to be debated in parliament, states the Voice will “make representations” to MPs and policy makers “on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples”.

However, parliament would have the power to decide on the Voice’s composition, functions, powers and procedures.

Indigenous Australians feel a “powerlessness” when tackling structural problems to improve their lives, the Uluru Statement says.

These problems include having a shorter life expectancy than non-Indigenous Australians, disproportionately poorer health and education outcomes, and higher incarceration rates.

Many argue this is often because of a failure to properly consult Indigenous people on solutions.

“Non-Indigenous people [are] making decisions about communities they have never visited and people they do not know,” wrote Prof Megan Davis, an Uluru Statement signatory.

Some argue Indigenous people are already represented fairly in parliament. It currently has 11 Indigenous lawmakers – representing 4.8% of the parliament, a slightly higher percentage than the Indigenous Australian population nationwide.

But Voice supporters counter that MPs represent specific constituencies, not necessarily Indigenous interests.

Other critics say it could act like a third chamber of parliament and potentially veto legislation, but the government has ruled this out.

Support is not universal among Indigenous people, either. Some say a treaty with Indigenous people – a legally binding, negotiated agreement – should be the priority. Australia is one of the only ex-British colonies without one.

Many Indigenous Australians emphasise they never ceded their sovereignty or land. There are fears that being recognised in the constitution could amount to that.

And others argue it’s just a symbolic gesture and that money could be better spent on immediate solutions.

That’s not yet certain. If Australia votes yes, legislation designing the Voice will then be developed and debated.

One proposal suggests the advisory body could have 24 members – comprised of representatives from each state and territory, the Torres Strait Islands, and remote Aboriginal communities.

Mr Albanese sees the Voice being “an unflinching source of advice and accountability”.

Voice advocates compare it to the First Nations parliaments in Norway, Sweden and Finland for the Sami people.

They’re not parliaments in the traditional sense – they are mostly consultative bodies which do not have a formal legislative function.

In Finland, for example, the government negotiates with the Sami Parliament on specific matters like land management and legislative or administrative changes affecting Sami culture.

However, Finnish laws don’t prevent government authorities from forging ahead without negotiations.

Advocates say the Voice needs to be enshrined in the constitution rather than legislated. Such a change cannot happen without a referendum.

They argue this would give the Voice permanency, insulating it from partisan politics.

For it to succeed, a majority of Australians need to vote yes. There also needs to be majority support in at least four of Australia’s six states.

Polling has shown about three quarters of Australians support a constitutionally enshrined Voice.

The proposal has even won the support of US basketball legend Shaquille O’Neal, who will appear in promotional material.

But the result is far from assured – the last successful referendum was in 1977.

The conservative Liberal Party has previously opposed the Voice, but now says its MPs will vote to decide its position. Its junior coalition partner, the Nationals, oppose the reform.

The Greens party will support the Voice. But its previous Indigenous Affairs spokesperson, Lidia Thorpe, recently left the party over its position – she is advocating for a treaty first.

Parliament is expected to hold a vote on the proposal in June. If approved, the referendum will happen sometime after September.

If a Voice is established, the Uluru Statement calls for a Makarrata commission – a body to supervise a process of treaty-making and truth-telling about the history of Indigenous Australians.

Implementing a Voice is also seen as likely to create further impetus for an Australian republic. Mr Albanese has already indicated a referendum on the issue is likely if he wins a second term in 2025.

Ms Sturgeon made the announcement in 2015 despite “considerable negotiations” still being required, the Public Audit Committee said.

It said this had likely weakened the position of government ferry company CMAL when problems emerged.

The ferries are now five years late and massively over budget.

The criticism of the first minister was backed by a majority of MSPs on the committee in a 124-page report after months of investigations

Its two SNP members, Colin Beattie and Willie Coffey, did not agree with the committee’s conclusions about Ms Sturgeon’s role.

The committee also said there had been a lack of information, delays, incomplete answers and failure to answer from ministers and Transport Scotland during its inquiry.

The Scottish government said it had already made changes to address many of the issues raised by the report, and would respond in full to the committee once it had studied its findings.

The ferries are meant to serve island communities on CalMac routes in the west of Scotland, but are still not ready despite their price tag nearly tripling to almost £300m.

It emerged last week that both ferries have been hit by a further delay, with the Glen Sannox now not ready until the autumn rather than May of this year and hull 802 now due to enter service in the autumn of 2024 instead of March of that year.

The decision to publicly announce Ferguson Marine Engineering Ltd (FMEL) – at that point owned by businessman and prominent independence supporter Jim McColl – as the preferred bidder in 2015 came in for particular criticism in the committee report.

Mr McColl has previously said he believes the contract to build Glen Sannox and Hull 802 was awarded for political reasons, claiming that the Scottish government wanted good publicity for its party conference in 2015.

The Scottish government has dismissed that allegation, with Ms Sturgeon saying the shipyard would have closed if it had not been given the ferry contract.

One section of the cross-party committee’s report said: “Given that it was clear that considerable negotiations were still required, we question the first minister’s decision to publicly announce the preferred bidder.

“The committee is not convinced that such a public announcement was necessary or indeed appropriate for this project, especially at that time, given the considerable work and negotiation that was required before CMAL could take a decision to award the formal contract.

“We believe that this almost certainly weakened CMAL’s negotiating position with FMEL, particularly as important details of the contract were still being worked out.”

It was “particularly concerning”, the report said, that no full record exists of a meeting between Ms Sturgeon and Mr McColl from May 2017.

It said it was still unclear how large amounts of public money were spent during Mr McColl’s ownership of the yard.

And the report also said it remained unclear why the first minister led on the preferred bidder announcement and why her press release and associated social media communications did not reflect that there were “significant negotiations to be concluded”.

The launch of the Glen Sannox in November 2017 – which was attended by the first minister – was also described as premature by the report.

It later emerged that windows had been painted on to the ship to make it look more ready than it actually was.

Ministers were not aware of CMAL’s concerns about the launch but should have played a more active role, the report said.

FMEL entered administration in August 2019, with the shipyard being taken over by the Scottish government through its new publicly-owned Ferguson Marine (Port Glasgow) Limited.

Committee convener Richard Leonard, a Labour MSP, said the people of Scotland had been badly let down by the ferry saga, and that it was important for lessons to be learned for similar projects in the future.

He added: “There have been collective failures at government and agency level from the start.

“It has been dogged by a lack of transparency, by ineffective governance arrangements, by poor record keeping within the government and by baffling communication failures”.

Other members of the government and public agencies also came in for criticism in the report.

The committee expressed “serious concern” at then infrastructure secretary Keith Brown’s failure to answer key questions about his role in the awarding of the contract.

It said former transport minister Derek Mackay showed “poor judgment” in sending an email to a constituency MSP, which FMEL interpreted as waiving its requirement to provide a builders refund guarantee.

The auditor general is still investigating the procurement process for the contract, following claims made in a BBC Disclosure documentary.

Documents obtained by the programme indicated that Ferguson Marine benefited from preferential treatment during the tendering process.

The committee was also frustrated by delays in receiving evidence from Transport Scotland officials, leaving MSPs questioning the level of “respect” shown to parliamentary scrutiny.

Transport Scotland “consistently failed to accurately and timeously reflect CMAL’s significant concerns to Scottish ministers”, the MSPs said.

A spokeswoman for the Scottish government said it was “committed to transparency” and had published more than 200 documents relating to the ferry project on its website.

She added: “We have co-operated at every stage of the Public Audit Committee inquiry, as well as those previously undertaken by the Rural Economy and Connectivity Committee and Audit Scotland.

“Ministers have apologised for the delay to the ferries and the distress and difficulty caused.

“We are committed to their completion, securing a sustainable future for the yard and supporting our island communities that rely on this type of vessel on a daily basis.”

But the prevailing message from some of his most fervent supporters is: stay home.

It’s a contradiction that makes sense after investigating pro-Trump spaces online.

On mainstream social networks, messaging apps and Trump’s own Truth Social, rumours are swirling.

There’s breathless chatter about double agents and “false flags” – attacks carried out with the intention of blaming opponents for the violence.Watch: Trump supporters gather outside Mar-a-Largo

Many of the former president’s steadfast supporters believe that the Capitol riot on 6 January 2021 was instigated not by Trump fans and far-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, but instead by federal agents or left-wing “antifa” – anti-fascist activists who hoped to discredit Mr Trump.

They point to the presence, revealed in court documents, of confidential FBI sources in the crowd that day.

But that’s very different to saying there was a plot by federal authorities to spark violence. While there’s no evidence of that – and voluminous evidence that the more than 1,000 people arrested in connection with the Capitol riot were Trump supporters – fringe news sites have been filled with wild speculation and suggestions about “deep state” plots.

Some of the coverage has even filtered up to more mainstream outlets such as Fox News.

The rumours, and fear of a repeat of the events of January 2021, have dissuaded many of those who would be out on the streets protesting over Mr Trump’s possible arrest.

Ali Alexander, a far-right activist who organised protests leading up to the Capitol riot, announced that he wasn’t planning to protest and said that conspiracy theorist Alex Jones of Infowars was also staying home.

Georgia Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican known for her loyalty to Mr Trump, repeated similar concerns:

“Most of the chatter I’ve seen about protests is that they’re all going to be crawling with feds or set ups by the deep state to pull off false flags and make ‘peaceful protestors’ look bad,” says conspiracy theory expert Mike Rothschild.

Mr Rothschild, author of The Storm is Upon Us, a book on the QAnon conspiracy theory, noted that a protest on Monday held by the New York Young Republican Club drew only a few dozen supporters.

“I think some of this is genuine paranoia over being arrested, and some of it is that there’s just fewer people with the fanatical devotion to Trump that drove January 6th,” he says.

In contrast with his messages prior to the Capitol riot, Mr Trump has not been specific about a focal point or timing of any potential protest.

But there are indications that talk of violence against Trump’s opponents is rising. Advance Democracy, a non-partisan research group, found a spike in mentions of violence trebled on Truth Social after Mr Trump declared on Saturday that he would be arrested and urged his supporters to “PROTEST, TAKE OUR NATION BACK!”

Law enforcement seem to be taking such threats and the possibility of large protests seriously.

New York police are bolstering security around the courthouse where Mr Trump would be arrested. Police in Los Angeles are preparing for a pro-Trump protest on Tuesday outside a federal building, the LA Times newspaper reports.

In Washington, police say they have no specific information about pro-Trump protests but civil disturbance officers are on standby.

On Saturday, Mr Trump is scheduled to hold a rally in Waco. The central Texas city was the site of a raid on a Christian cult in 1993 which resulted in the deaths of 82 cult members and four federal agents, an incident that has long been a rallying cry for anti-government and anti-law enforcement groups.