Best printers for Home

Best Mixer Grinder

Best wired Earphones

Best 43 Inch TV in India

Best Wi Fi Routers

Best Home Theatre in India

Smart Watch under 5000

Best Laptops for Education

Best Laptop for Students

<br /> <keyword id="71" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Prime-Minister">Prime Minister</keyword> <keyword id="6354477" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Narendra-Modi">Narendra Modi</keyword> has visited many countries and states since he assumed office, but he hasn’t visited India’s red corridor yet, but soon he would. As per an Economic Times report, Modi would be travelling to Dantewada in <keyword id="43945" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chhattisgarh">Chhattisgarh</keyword>'s Bastar region on May 9. This will be his first visit to the Naxalite-affected state as the Prime Minister. <br />
<br /> He will launch two mega projects in Chhattisgarh. Modi will inaugurate work along with <keyword id="5269" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Chief-Minister">Chief Minister</keyword> <keyword id="65641" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Raman-Singh">Raman Singh</keyword> on the 140 km Raoghat-Jagdalpur railway line to improve connectivity and sign a memorandum of understanding for an ultra mega steel plant in Dilimili village. It will be set up jointly by <keyword id="64877" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Steel-Authority-of-India-Ltd">Steel Authority of India Ltd</keyword> and <keyword id="121536" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="National-Mineral-Development-Corporation">National Mineral Development Corporation</keyword> (NMDC).<br />
<br /> Modi did not visit Dantewada for many years. He last visited the region during his election campaign as the <keyword id="58687" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Bharatiya-Janata-Party">Bharatiya Janata Party</keyword>’s prime ministerial candidate. His visit was preceded by a major attack by the Maoists. Modi’s visit comes a month before the arrival of monsoon season when the Maoists prepare themselves to make their presence felt in dense forests.<br />
<br /> He will also address a rally in Dantewada and visit Javanda, where the <keyword id="51011" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="state-government">state government</keyword> has established an educational centre with residential schools and colleges for 5,000 students. These institutions are for those whose studies have been hampered by Maoist attacks.<br />
<br /> Modi will visit a livelihood college that helps students get jobs. He will also address a rally in Naya <keyword id="45327" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Raipur">Raipur</keyword>, before leaving for Kolkata. Modi will inaugurate a low-cost housing project and a new wing of a private hospital in the new city adjacent to the state capital Raipur.<br />
 <br />
(Image: Reuters)<br />

Globetrotting Modi to now visit the heart of India’s red corridor, Chhattisgarh

<br /> <keyword id="71" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Prime-Minister">Prime Minister</keyword> <keyword id="6354477" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Narendra-Modi">Narendra Modi</keyword>’s visit to China has been an ambitious and a fruitful one till now. While back to back talks and discussions have made people inquisitive in both the countries, most Chinese dailies <keyword id="258434" type="ENTERTAINMENT" weightage="20" keywordseo="This-Morning">this morning</keyword> have put Modi’s outing in their country on top priority.<br />
<br /> Today seems to be more eventful than yesterday. After his grand reception at the Great Hall of People in the capital city of <keyword id="1333" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Beijing">Beijing</keyword>, Chinese <keyword id="4744" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="premier">Premier</keyword> <keyword id="191503" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Li-Keqiang">Li Keqiang</keyword> settled for formal talks with Modi. The topics of discussion included the controversial border issue as well as Chinese <keyword id="6362476" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="investments">investments</keyword> in India. <br />
<br />
This is the second round of bi-lateral talks Modi is holding with the Chinese leadership during his on-going three-day China trip. <br />
<br /> Yesterday, he talked over five hours with Chinese <keyword id="2540" type="POSITION" weightage="20" keywordseo="President">President</keyword> <keyword id="191809" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Xi-Jinping">Xi Jinping</keyword> during which all the contentious issues including the border issue were discussed. Today's talks were the extension of yesterday's Modi-Xi talks. <br />
<br />
As per a news report in The Economic Times, Modi is eyeing deals worth $23.5 billion to be signed as collaboration with Chinese companies. These include a  $2.5-billion financing for <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/bharti-airtel-ltd/stocks/companyid-2718.cms" target="_blank">Bharti Airtel</a> from Chinese lenders, a $3.5-billion venture by the <a href="http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/topic/Adani-Group" target="_blank">Adani Group</a> as well as big-ticket investments by <keyword id="45609" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="JSW-Steel">JSW Steel</keyword>, GMR and Welspun. With the exception of Bharti, the other companies are likely to sign joint venture agreements with Chinese partners. <br />
 <br />
In a joint statement with China's Premier Li Keqiang, Modi said, "We are pleased with the progress on the commitments from the Summit last September. This includes cooperation in the Railways, where we have identified specific projects, and the two Chinese industrial parks in Gujarat and Maharashtra." <br />
<br />
According to a news report in The Economic Times, China's Premier Li Keqiang said that China and India need to strengthen mutual political trust so that together they can build a fairer and more reasonable international order. <br />
<br />
India and China have signed twenty-four key agreements in a wide range of sectors. PM Modi is on a three-day visit to China as the two world's two largest countries by population work to boost economic ties.<br />
<br /> The official <keyword id="6354616" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Twitter">Twitter</keyword> handle of the <keyword id="6374106" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ministry-of-External-Affairs">Ministry of External Affairs</keyword> has shared on Twitter the key agreements signed between India and China. Here’s the list:<a href="https://twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/599062608075890688/photo/1">https://twitter.com/MEAIndia/status/599062608075890688/photo/1</a><br />
<br /> Modi arrived in Beijing last night from Xi’an. After rounds of meetings, Modi would address the students of <keyword id="167708" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Tsinghua-University">Tsinghua university</keyword> and attend a demonstration of Yoga-Tai Chi, a Chinese variant of the martial art.<br />
<br /> Modi’s bucket list for the last day tomorrow includes meeting a number of CEOs of top Chinese companies and open the first Gandhian studies centre at <keyword id="132970" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Fudan-University">Fudan university</keyword> and address Indian community in <keyword id="6368000" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Shanghai">Shanghai</keyword> after which he will leave for <keyword id="3663" type="COUNTRY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Mongolia">Mongolia</keyword>.<br />
<br />
(Image: Reuters)<br />

Modi’s Day in China today

<br /> Prime Minister <keyword id="6354477" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Narendra-Modi">Narendra Modi</keyword>’s travel diary could soon be having some more new places. Come July, Modi would be visiting five Central Asian countries with an intent to tap huge natural resources including hydrocarbon and uranium. As per a news report in The Economic Times, Modi plans to spend a day each in Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan and <keyword id="169344" type="COUNTRY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Tajikistan">Tajikistan</keyword>, diplomatic sources told the financial daily. The trip is being clubbed with Modi's maiden visit to <keyword id="6358826" type="COUNTRY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Russia">Russia</keyword> for the Brics summit in <keyword id="271311" type="CITY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Ufa">Ufa</keyword> on July 8 and 9, sources hinted. Modi is also expected to attend the <keyword id="157954" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="20" keywordseo="Shanghai-Cooperation-Organisation">Shanghai Cooperation Organisation</keyword> summit in the same city on July 9 and 10.<br />
<br /> <keyword id="1333" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Beijing">Beijing</keyword> has made huge inroads in the region, with which it shares geographical boundaries, by laying pipelines to harness hydrocarbon and constructing railway and road network to connect Europe via <keyword id="6360296" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="20" keywordseo="Central-Asia">Central Asia</keyword>. Prime ministerial trips to Central Asia have been few and far between notwithstanding its geographical proximity, strategic importance and abundance of natural resources.<br />
<br /> While many former Prime Minsters from <keyword id="6358441" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Narasimha-Rao">Narasimha Rao</keyword> to <keyword id="47100" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Atal-Bihari-Vajpayee">Atal Bihari Vajpayee</keyword> and <keyword id="6359397" type="PERSON" weightage="20" keywordseo="Manmohan-Singh">Manmohan Singh</keyword> have visited these countries lack of road and sea access has not allowed India to realise full trade potential with the region. This could change after India develops the Chabahar port in <keyword id="41896" type="COUNTRY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Iran">Iran</keyword> and will use the nation as a transit for Central Asia. India's defence ties with some countries of the region have been upgraded in recent years. India also shares historical bonds with Central Asia and enjoys goodwill in the region, thanks to its ties with the erstwhile <keyword id="6365126" type="COUNTRY" weightage="20" keywordseo="Soviet-Union">Soviet Union</keyword> of which the nations were a part.<br />
<br /> (Image: <keyword id="-101" type="COMPANY" weightage="20" keywordseo="India-Times">India Times</keyword>)<br />
 <br />

Modi to fly overseas yet
again in July! This time to 5 Central Asian
countries

<p></p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div><ul class="summary-list"><li><strong>Prime Minister Boris Johnson's opponents have called on him to resign following the explosive verdict of the UK Supreme Court that his suspension of parliament was illegal.</strong></li><li><strong>The UK Supreme court ruled that Johnson's decision to close down parliament was now null and void.</strong></li><li><strong>Opposition Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn said Johnson should consider his position and become the "shortest serving prime minister" ever.</strong></li><li><strong>Johnson has had a turbulent beginning to his premiership since he entered office in July. He has suffered a series of high profile resignations, including that of his own brother.</strong></li></ul><p>Boris Johnson's opponents lined up to call on him to resign and become the "shortest serving prime minister" ever on Tuesday, after the UK Supreme Court ruled that his decision to suspend the UK Parliament earlier this month was illegal.</p><p>The explosive verdict means that Johnson misled the queen when he advised her to shut down parliament. It also comes at the end of a turbulent period for Johnson who has lost multiple votes in Parliament and suffered a series of resignations from his government, including that of his own brother.</p><p><strong><em>Read more: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-says-boris-johnson-suspending-parliament-was-illegal-2019-9?r=US&amp;IR=T">The UK Supreme Court rules that Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament was illegal</a></em></strong></p><p>Politicians representing all parts of the United Kingdom joined the chorus of calls for him to stand down immediately.</p><p>The Scottish National Party member of Parliament Joanna Cherry, who helped bring the case against Johnson, said that the prime minister should now "do the decent thing and resign."</p><p>"This is a huge victory for the rule of law and for democracy," she said outside the court in central London.</p><p>She added: "His position is untenable and he should have the guts for once to the decent thing and resign."</p><h2>Boris Johnson should 'do the decent thing and resign'</h2><p>&#xa0;</p><p>The Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford should stand down as a matter of honour.</p><p>"Any normal Prime Minister would - as a matter of honour - tender their resignation after such a unanimous verdict from the UK's highest court," he <a href="https://twitter.com/fmwales/status/1176441021703643138">tweeted.</a></p><p>"It is the final straw in a pitiful episode for the country.</p><p>The prime minister, who is currently in New York meeting world leaders at the UN General Assembly, has yet to issue a statement about the verdict.</p><p>However, Downing Street officials <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/sep/24/brexit-supreme-court-latest-news-labour-conference-starmer-says-it-is-obvious-labour-will-back-remain-despite-conference-vote-live-news">told the Guardian</a> that they would need to consider what they called an "extraordinary" ruling.</p><p>Speaking to reporters ahead of the verdict on Monday, Johnson said he would not stand down and insisted he had suspended parliament in order to set out a new programme for government.</p><p>Asked whether he would resign if the court ruled against him, Johnson replied "no" <a href="https://www.politico.eu/article/boris-johnson-says-he-will-not-quit-if-parliament-suspension-ruled-illegal/">Politico reported</a>.</p><p>"I think the reasons for wanting a queen's speech were extremely good."</p><p class="tagline">Our Brexit Insider Facebook group is the best place for up-to-date news and analysis about Britain's departure from the EU, direct from Business Insider's political reporters. Join <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/267178180471848/">here.</a></p><div></div>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/reporter-luke-harding-explains-life-under-fsb-surveillance-2017-12">A reporter who lived in Russia for 4 years reveals what it was like being stalked by Russian spies</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

Boris Johnson told to resign following Supreme Court defeat and become the 'shortest-serving Prime Minister ever'

<ul class="summary-list"><li>EXCLUSIVE: Boris Johnson's nomination of disgraced Tory donor <keyword id="985238" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Peter-Cruddas">Peter Cruddas</keyword> to the <keyword id="77060" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="house-of-Lords">House of Lords</keyword> faces a legal challenge.</li><li>The <keyword id="4365353" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="good-law-project">Good Law Project</keyword> is challenging Johnson's decision, saying it was unlawful.</li><li>Cruddas gave £500,000 to the Conservatives just days after Johnson overruled official advice not to do so.</li><li>"Handing out peerages to Party donors who couldn't even pass the vetting process makes a mockery of our democracy," the Good Law Project's <keyword id="4365356" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="jolyon-maugham">Jolyon Maugham</keyword> tells Insider.</li></ul><p>Boris Johnson's decision to overrule a move to block his nomination of a disgraced Conservative Party donor to the House of Lords faces a legal challenge, Insider can reveal.</p><p>Johnson forced through the nomination of Peter Cruddas, who resigned as Conservative co-treasurer in 2012 after offering undercover reporters access to then Prime Minister David Cameron, despite objections from the <keyword id="762370" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="House-of-Lords-Appointments-Commission">House of Lords Appointments Commission</keyword> (HoLAC).</p><p>Cruddas then <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/disgraced-tory-lord-backed-by-boris-johnson-gives-conservatives-500k-2021-6">handed Johnson's party a further £500,000</a> just days after Johnson forced through his peerage.</p><p>Now that decision is being challenged by the Good Law Project, who have instructed the solicitors Bindmans to send a letter before claim as part of a proposal for a judicial review of Johnson's decision to nominate Cruddas to the peerage.</p><p>Jo Maugham, a barrister and director of the Good Law Project, told Insider: "Despite the House of Lords Appointments Commission advising against it, Boris Johnson made Peter Cruddas a Lord. Just days later, Peter Cruddas donated half a million pounds to the Conservative Party. He threw his money around and now gets to shape laws that affect all of our lives.</p><p>"Handing out peerages to Party donors who couldn't even pass the vetting process makes a mockery of our democracy. We can't allow it to continue."</p><p>In their letter, seen by Insider, the Good Law Project say that the nomination "was unlawful because of apparent bias. A fair-minded and informed observer, presented with the facts of the matter, would conclude that there was a real possibility or danger of bias in the Defendant's decision making.</p><p>"Of particular significance in this regard is the timing of major donations by Peter Cruddas. In particular, in January 2020, one month before it became public knowledge that he was to be nominated, he made a £250,000 donation. Three days after he became a peer, he made a further £500,000 donation, the single largest donation he has made to date."</p><h2>Johnson accused of unlawfully rewarding disgraced peer</h2><div type="image" title="Boris Johnson" height="1240" width="2480" msid="83456295" hostid="261"></div>The Good Law Project, which has won a <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/michael-gove-coronavirus-contract-dominic-cummings-b1862426.html">series of victories</a> against the government in recent months, says that when vetting nominees, HoLAC takes into consideration "the credibility of individuals who have made significant political donations, loans or credit arrangements".<p>They say the "obvious inference is that the past donations and the prospects of future donations were taken into account when [the Prime Minister] decided to grant the peerage. A decision taken in whole or in part on the basis of such a consideration is unlawful."</p><p>Should the case go ahead, the Good Law Project "will be seeking a declaration that the decision to nominate Peter Cruddas for a peerage was unlawful."</p><p>They will be seeking Johnson to recognize this, and then to "undertake to consider what steps should flow from that confirmation".</p><p>Rather than challenging Johnson's exercise of the prerogative power to grant honours, the Good Law Project say they are seeking a judicial review of his use of a power under the Life Peerages Act 1958. </p><p>Prerogative powers have recently been the subject of judicial review, including a case against Johnson's government and his advice in 2019 to the Queen which led to the prorogation of Parliament, which was found by the UK Supreme Court to be "null and of no effect" - as if it had never happened.</p><h2>The man winning legal victories against the UK government</h2><div type="image" title="Jolyon Maugham" height="2630" width="5260" msid="83456299" hostid="261"></div><p>Maugham and the Good Law Project have become a "target" for government ministers, due to their string of successful legal challenges against the UK government, the <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9655369/Fox-clubbing-QC-Jolyon-Maugham-faces-questions-crowdfunding-legal-cases.html">Mail on Sunday reported</a>.</p><p>On Wednesday, legal action brought by the Good Law Project against senior Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove led to the High Court ruling Gove acted unlawfully in handing a £560,000 contract to the firm Public First for market research.</p><p>The High Court said there was "apparent bias" in the decision by the Cabinet Office.</p><p>Public First's owners had both worked with Gove and Dominic Cummings, a former senior aide to both Johnson and Gove.</p><p>The advice of HoLAC has not been published, but some of their objections to Cruddas's nominations are apparent in the letter sent by Johnson to the chair of HoLAC, Lord Bew, when he explained why he was overruling their advice and nominating Cruddas to the peerage.</p><p>While co-treasurer of the Conservative Party in March 2012, the Sunday Times published an investigation carried out by undercover reporters alleging that Cruddas had offered them access to then Prime Minister David Cameron in return for £250,000 of donations. </p><p>Cruddas resigned as co-treasurer in the wake of the story, and would go on to sue the paper successfully for libel, winning £180,000 in damages. </p><p>However, the Sunday Times appealed, with damages being reduced to £50,000, and the judges finding that the central allegation of selling access to Cameron and other politicians was accurate. The judges said Cruddas's actions were "unacceptable, inappropriate and wrong".</p><p>In his letter to Lord Bew, Johnson described these concerns as "historic" and stated that "an internal Conservative Party investigation subsequently found that there had been no intentional wrongdoing on Mr Cruddas' part".</p><p>A spokesperson for the prime minister said: "All individuals are nominated in recognition of their contribution to society and their public and political service.</p><p>"Lord Cruddas has a broad range of experiences and insights across the charitable, business and political sectors which allow him to make a hugely valuable contribution to the work of the Lords."</p><p>A spokesperson for Lord Cruddas was contacted for comment.</p>

Boris Johnson's peerage to disgraced donor who gave the Conservatives £500,000 after the PM forced through his nomination, faces legal challenge

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Henry Nicholls</span></p><p class="caption">Demonstrators react on the ruling of the Supreme Court during a protest outside the Supreme Court in London, Britain September 24, 2019.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><ul class="summary-list"><li>The United Kingdom's highest court has ruled that Boris Johnson's decision to shut down Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.</li><li>Lady Hale, the President of the Supreme Court, on Tuesday morning said: "The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices."</li><li>She said the prorogation was "null and void," meaning Parliament had not been suspended.</li><li>Read Lady Hale's damning verdict in full.</li></ul><p>Boris Johnson suffered a catastrophic blow to his authority on Monday as the United Kingdom's highest court found that his suspension of Parliament for five weeks was unlawful.</p><p>Eleven Supreme Court judges <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/supreme-court-says-boris-johnson-suspending-parliament-was-illegal-2019-9?r=US&amp;IR=T" target="_blank" rel="noopener">on Tuesday morning</a> ruled unanimously that Johnson's move - widely seen as an attempt to stop his opponents legislating to stop a no-deal Brexit - was "unlawful, void and of no effect," in a dramatic move which immediately triggered calls for his resignation from opposition parties.</p><h2>Here is Supreme Court President Lady Hale's explanation of the ruling:</h2><p>"We have before us two appeals, one from the High Court of England and Wales and one from the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland. It is important, once again, to emphasise that these cases are not about when and on what terms the United Kingdom is to leave the European Union. They are only about whether the advice given by the Prime Minister to Her Majesty the Queen on 27th or 28th August, that Parliament should be prorogued from a date between 9th and 12th September until 14th October, was lawful and the legal consequences if it was not. The question arises in circumstances which have never arisen before and are unlikely to arise again. It is a "one-off".</p><p>Briefly, the Scottish case was brought by a cross party group of 75 members of Parliament and a QC on 30th July because of their concern that Parliament might be prorogued to avoid further debate in the lead up to exit day on 31st October. On 15th August, Nikki da Costa, Director of Legislative Affairs at No 10, sent a memorandum to the Prime Minister, copied to seven people, civil servants and special advisers, recommending that his Parliamentary Private Secretary approach the Palace with a request for prorogation to begin within 9th to 12th September and for a Queen's Speech on 14th October. The Prime Minister ticked 'yes' to that recommendation.</p><p>On 27th or 28th August, in a telephone call, he formally advised Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament between those dates. On 28th August, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, Leader of the House of Commons and Lord President of the Privy Council, Mr Mark Harper, chief whip, and Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, Leader of the House of Lords, attended a meeting of the Privy Council held by the Queen at Balmoral Castle. An Order in Council was made that Parliament be prorogued between those dates and that the Lord Chancellor prepare and issue a commission for proroguing Parliament accordingly. A Cabinet meeting was held by conference call shortly after that in order to bring the rest of the Cabinet "up to speed" on the decisions which had been taken. That same day, the decision was made public and the Prime Minister sent a letter to all Members of Parliament explaining it. As soon as the decision was announced, Mrs Miller began the English proceedings challenging its lawfulness.</p><h2>1.</h2><p>Parliament returned from the summer recess on 3rd September. The House of Commons voted to decide for themselves what business they would transact. The next day what became the European Union (Withdrawal) (No 2) Act passed all its stages in the Commons. It passed all its stages in the House of Lords on 6th September and received royal assent on 9th September. The object of that Act is to prevent the United Kingdom leaving the European Union without a withdrawal agreement on 31st October.</p><p>On 11th September, the High Court of England and Wales delivered judgment dismissing Mrs Miller's claim on the ground that the issue was not justiciable in a court of law. That same day, the Inner House of the Court of Session in Scotland announced its decision that the issue was justiciable, that it was motivated by the improper purpose of stymying Parliamentary scrutiny of the Government, and that it, and any prorogation which followed it, were unlawful and thus void and of no effect.</p><p>Mrs Miller's appeal against the English decision and the Advocate General's appeal against the Scottish decision were heard by this court from 17th to 19th September. Because of the importance of the case, we convened a panel of 11 Justices, the maximum number of serving Justices who are permitted to sit. This judgment is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.</p><p>The first question is whether the lawfulness of the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty is justiciable. This Court holds that it is. The courts have exercised a supervisory jurisdiction over the lawfulness of acts of the Government for centuries. As long ago as 1611, the court held that "the King [who was then the government] hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land allows him". However, in considering prerogative powers, it is necessary to distinguish between two different questions. The first is whether a prerogative power exists and if so its extent. The second is whether the exercise of that power, within its limits, is open to legal challenge. This second question may depend upon what the power is all about: some powers are not amenable to judicial review while others are. However, there is no doubt that the courts have jurisdiction to decide upon the existence and limits of a prerogative power. All the parties to this case accept that. This Court has concluded that this case is about the limits of the power to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament.</p><p>The second question, therefore, is what are the limits to that power? Two fundamental principles of our Constitution are relevant to deciding that question. The first is Parliamentary sovereignty - that Parliament can make laws which everyone must obey: this would be undermined if the executive could, through the use of the prerogative, prevent Parliament from exercising its power to make laws for as long as it pleased. The second fundamental principle is Parliamentary accountability: in the words of Lord Bingham, senior Law Lord, "the conduct of government by a Prime Minister and Cabinet collectively responsible and accountable to Parliament lies at the heart of Westminster democracy". The power to prorogue is limited by the constitutional principles with which it would otherwise conflict.</p><p>For present purposes, the relevant limit on the power to prorogue is this: that a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In judging any justification which might be put forward, the court must of course be sensitive to the responsibilities and experience of the Prime Minister and proceed with appropriate caution.</p><p>If the prorogation does have that effect, without reasonable justification, there is no need for the court to consider whether the Prime Minister's motive or purpose was unlawful.</p><h2>2.</h2><p>The third question, therefore, is whether this prorogation did have the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification. This was not a normal prorogation in the run-up to a Queen's Speech. It prevented Parliament from carrying out its constitutional role for five out of the possible eight weeks between the end of the summer recess and exit day on 31st October. Proroguing Parliament is quite different from Parliament going into recess. While Parliament is prorogued, neither House can meet, debate or pass legislation. Neither House can debate Government policy. Nor may members ask written or oral questions of Ministers or meet and take evidence in committees. In general, Bills which have not yet completed all their stages are lost and will have to start again from scratch after the Queen's Speech. During a recess, on the other hand, the House does not sit but Parliamentary business can otherwise continue as usual. This prolonged suspension of Parliamentary democracy took place in quite exceptional circumstances: the fundamental change which was due to take place in the Constitution of the United Kingdom on 31st October. Parliament, and in particular the House of Commons as the elected representatives of the people, has a right to a voice in how that change comes about. The effect upon the fundamentals of our democracy was extreme.</p><p>No justification for taking action with such an extreme effect has been put before the court. The only evidence of why it was taken is the memorandum from Nikki da Costa of 15th August. This explains why holding the Queen's Speech to open a new session of Parliament on 14th October would be desirable. It does not explain why it was necessary to bring Parliamentary business to a halt for five weeks before that, when the normal period necessary to prepare for the Queen's Speech is four to six days. It does not discuss the difference between prorogation and recess. It does not discuss the impact of prorogation on the special procedures for scrutinising the delegated legislation necessary to achieve an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, with or without a withdrawal agreement, on 31st October. It does not discuss what Parliamentary time would be needed to secure Parliamentary approval for any new withdrawal agreement, as required by section 13 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.</p><p>The Court is bound to conclude, therefore, that the decision to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament was unlawful because it had the effect of frustrating or preventing the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions without reasonable justification.</p><p>The next and final question, therefore, is what the legal effect of that finding is and therefore what remedies the Court should grant. The Court can certainly declare that the advice was unlawful. The Inner House went further and declared that any prorogation resulting from it was null and of no effect. The Government argues that the Inner House could not do that because the prorogation was a "proceeding in Parliament" which, under the Bill of Rights of 1688 cannot be impugned or questioned in any court. But it is quite clear that the prorogation is not a proceeding in Parliament. It takes place in the House of Lords chamber in the presence of members of both Houses, but it is not their decision. It is something which has been imposed upon them from outside. It is not something on which members can speak or vote. It is not the core or essential business of Parliament which the Bill of Rights protects. Quite the reverse: it brings that core or essential business to an end.</p><p>This Court has already concluded that the Prime Minister's advice to Her Majesty was unlawful, void and of no effect. This means that the Order in Council to which it led was also unlawful, void and of no effect and should be quashed. This means that when the Royal Commissioners walked into the House of Lords it was as if they walked in with a blank sheet of paper. The prorogation was also void and of no effect. Parliament has not been prorogued. This is the unanimous judgment of all 11 Justices.</p><h2>3.</h2><p>It is for Parliament, and in particular the Speaker and the Lord Speaker to decide what to do next. Unless there is some Parliamentary rule of which we are unaware, they can take immediate steps to enable each House to meet as soon as possible. It is not clear to us that any step is needed from the Prime Minister, but if it is, the court is pleased that his counsel have told the court that he will take all necessary steps to comply with the terms of any declaration made by this court.</p><p>It follows that the Advocate General's appeal in the case of Cherry is dismissed and Mrs Miller's appeal is allowed. The same declarations and orders should be made in each case."</p> <p class="tagline">Our Brexit Insider Facebook group is the best place for up-to-date news and analysis about Britain's departure from the EU, direct from Business Insider's political reporters. Join <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/267178180471848/">here.</a></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/presidential-debate-entertaining-problem-democratic-trump-reality-tv-show-2019-9">How networks treat debates like reality TV</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

Read the UK Supreme Court's explosive verdict on why Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament was illegal

<ul><li><strong>India's Narendra Modi government has made a historic move to annul Constitutional provisions that confer Jammu and Kashmir a 'special' status that allows it to make its own laws and ward off 'outsiders.</strong></li><li><strong>India's Home Minister Amit Shah declared in the </strong><strong>Parliament today </strong><strong>that Article 370 and Article 35A of the Constitution will be abrogated.</strong></li><li><strong>The government also informed the Parliament that Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh will be split into two Union Territories, which will be the entire region directly under the Centre's rule.</strong></li><li><strong>Ahead of this announcement, Section 144 was imposed in Kashmir valley-- internet services have been suspended, political leaders like Omar Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti have been placed under house arrest-- to prevent any backlash.</strong></li></ul><br />The Narendra Modi government is keen to create history by putting an end to provisions in the Indian Constitution that confer a special status to state of Jammu and Kashmir, which has been the centre of a conflict with Pakistan as well as a hotbed for separatists in the region. <br /><br />The government's overpowering majority in the Indian Parliament as well as the fact that the state is under President's rule for now, help Modi get his way.<br /><br />India's Home Minister Amit Shah declared in Parliament that Article 35A and Article 370 of the Indian Constitution that give special status given to Kashmir -- and rights to make its own laws-- will be abrogated. "The entire constitution will be applicable to Jammu and Kashmir state,” Shah said. In a subsequent order, India’s president approved the government’s changes.<br /><br />He also proposed splitting the state into two Union Territories -- Jammu and Kashmir being one and Ladakh being the other-- bringing the entire region under New Delhi's direct rule and administration.<br /><br />
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <div type="image" title="8f37c756ff5ce3d56319fdab452cec76 (1)" msid="70532007" hostid="261"></div>














<br />Shah's declaration was faced with an uproar from the opposition leaders in the Rajya Sabha. Congress leader Ghulam Nabi Azad argued that Article 370 has been a crucial factor in keeping Jammu and Kashmir united with India since its independence in 1947.<br /><br />Shah responded saying that Azad's argument was a lie perpetuated by the Congress for decades and Article 370 only managed to isolate Kashmiris from the rest of India.<br /><br /><strong>What it means</strong><br /><br />India's first Prime Minsiter Jawaharlal Nehru and Kashmiri icon Sheikh Abdullah agreed to a 'special' status for the state of Jammu and Kashmir to protect the land rights of the 'permanent citizens'. Article 35A prohibits 'outsiders' from owning property, getting government jobs and scholarship, and from settling in the state.<br /><br />The Article, also called the Permanent Residents Law, also prohibits women from inheriting property if they marry someone from outside the state.<br /><br />Apart from the autonomy, Article 370 -- which makes Artice 35A possible-- allows the state to make its own law and also makes it compulsory for the state assembly to agree to any move proposed by the central government in New Delhi. However, as of now, the state is under President's rule and there is no need for consent from the state assembly.<br /><br />Those against the 'special' status given to Jammu and Kashmir argue that Article 370 was a 'temporary' provision but the courts, including the Supreme Court, have held that it is a permanent part of the Constitution, in a judgement as recent as 2018. However, Parliamentarians from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) argued in the Parliament the it is indeed a temporary provision, which must be abolished now.<br /><br />So this move by the Narendra Modi government is expected to land in litigation as well draw some international attention.<br /><br />
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  <div type="Article" hostid="261" msid="70529731" title="Imran Khan is asking Donald Trump to intervene in Kashmir as promised" mstype="2" mssubtype="0"></div>

































<br />It is also claimed by many experts that Article 35A stems from the powers conferred upon the President under Article 370 of the Constitution, and therefore one cannot be annulled without the other. The deletion of Article 370 will automatically render Article 35A null and void.<br /><br />Two Parliamentarians tore up copies of the Constitution in protest of the move to abrogate Article 370 and 35A. Both of them were forced out of the house by the Speaker of Rajya Sabha, Venkaiah Naidu, the country's Vice President.<br /><br /><br />SEE ALSO:<br /><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/section-144-in-kashmir-latest-news-developments/articleshow/70529285.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">All that's happened in Kashmir over the last 72 hours – from movement of troops to suspension of internet to political leaders under house arrest</a><br /><br /><a href="https://www.businessinsider.in/politics/jammu-and-kashmir-and-ladakh-will-now-be-two-separate-union-territories/articleshow/70531866.cms" data-type="tilCustomLink" target="_blank">Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh will now be two separate Union Territories</a><br /><br />

Article 370 and Article 35A which give Kashmir a special status will be annulled, Amit Shah tells Indian Parliament

<ul class="summary-list"><li>This month, Secretary of State <keyword id="3109665" type="PERSON" weightage="60" keywordseo="Mike-Pompeo">Mike Pompeo</keyword> unveiled several drastic changes to <keyword id="455100" type="ORGANIZATION" weightage="60" keywordseo="US-Foreign-Policy">US foreign policy</keyword>.</li><li>Backlash was swift, with many criticizing them as further attempts to undercut the Biden administration and as an effort by Pompeo to burnish his own political credentials.</li><li>"Pompeo is continuing with reckless, politicized foreign-policy decisions," rather than focusing "on facilitating a smooth and efficient transition," Rep. Gregory Meeks told Insider in a statement.</li></ul><p>President Donald Trump has been <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/facing-2nd-impeachment-trump-stands-largely-silent-alone-2021-1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">uncharacteristically quiet</a> in the days since the January 6 riot in the US Capitol building.</p><p>Kicked off social media, and with few allies left, Trump has said little and been seen even less. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, however, has been busy, announcing a raft of policies that are widely seen as efforts to cement his own standing and to box in President-elect Joe Biden.</p><p>Trump has been largely hands-off on foreign policy, which has been reflected in the messy process to reach that policy, according to John Gans, a historian of US foreign policy and former speechwriter at the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill.</p><p>"This has been a disorderly, chaotic administration from Day One, but I don't think anybody would have expected it to have gotten to where it's gotten in the past week to 10 days," Gans told Insider.</p><div type="image" title="Mike Pompeo and Donald Trump" height="621" width="1024" msid="80276895" hostid="261"></div><p>Many of Trump's diplomatic efforts have drawn scrutiny, but over four days this month, Pompeo unveiled four policy moves that drew swift and widespread backlash.</p><p>On January 9, the State Department announced that the US government should consider previous self-imposed restrictions on official contact with <keyword id="46274" type="COUNTRY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Taiwan">Taiwan</keyword> "<a href="https://www.state.gov/lifting-self-imposed-restrictions-on-the-u-s-taiwan-relationship/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">null and void</a>." On January 10, Pompeo <a href="https://www.state.gov/terrorist-designation-of-ansarallah-in-yemen/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> that the State Department would designate Yemen's Houthi rebels as a terrorist group.</p><p>On January 11, Pompeo said the State Department had <a href="https://www.state.gov/u-s-announces-designation-of-cuba-as-a-state-sponsor-of-terrorism/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">designated Cuba</a> a state sponsor of terror, returning it to the list five years after Obama removed it. On January 12, Pompeo claimed that <keyword id="41896" type="COUNTRY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Iran">Iran</keyword> had become "<a href="https://www.state.gov/the-iran-al-qaida-axis/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the home base</a>" for Al Qaeda, a dramatic and widely disputed assertion that many worry could be used <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/pompeo-claims-iran-home-base-al-qaeda-n1253940" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a legal basis</a> for military action.</p><p>With those measures, announced less than two weeks before leaving office, "Pompeo is continuing with reckless, politicized foreign-policy decisions," rather than focusing "on facilitating a smooth and efficient transition," Rep. Gregory Meeks, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, told Insider in a statement.</p><p>"Pompeo's policy announcements this week are more of the same kind of disastrous, rushed missteps that have characterized this administration's catastrophic foreign policy from Day One," Meeks added.</p><h2>Laying landmines</h2><div type="image" title="Mike Pompeo Israel Palestinians West Bank" height="1321" width="2000" msid="80276897" hostid="261"></div><p>Criticism has come from current and former officials as well as from overseas.</p><p><keyword id="16815" type="COUNTRY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Cuba">Cuba</keyword>'s designation has been <a href="https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/14/putting-cuba-on-the-terrorism-list-is-unjustified-and-unwise/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">widely repudiated</a>; Norway's government called it "<a href="https://www.regjeringen.no/en/aktuelt/cuba_terrorism/id2828455/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">regrettable</a>." David Miliband, a former British lawmaker who now leads the <keyword id="6356001" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="international">International</keyword> Rescue Committee, called the Houthi designation "<a href="https://www.rescue.org/press-release/24-million-yemenis-catastrophic-humanitarian-risk-following-new-us-terrorist" target="_blank" rel="noopener">pure diplomatic vandalism</a>." Together, the designations are a "salting of the earth before" Biden takes over, Paul Pillar, a former US intelligence official, <a href="https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/13/pompeo-trashes-counterterrorism-on-the-way-out/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote this week</a>.</p><p>While many welcome a review of the US's relationship with Taiwan - Taiwan itself <a href="https://taiwantoday.tw/news.php?unit=2,6,10,15,18&amp;post=1923402340" target="_blank" rel="noopener">praised</a> the decision - the timing and nature of the change <a href="https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/01/13/taiwan-contact-guidelines-pompeo-partisan-china/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">was criticized</a> for opening Taipei to retaliation from Beijing, which sees Taiwan as a renegade province, and for <a href="https://www.npr.org/2021/01/13/956506271/pompeo-shakes-up-long-standing-rules-for-u-s-taiwan-relations" target="_blank" rel="noopener">politicizing</a> that relationship.</p><p>"The idea that we should be looking at these types of issues is valid. I think Pompeo doing it to make himself a <keyword id="1334" type="COUNTRY" weightage="60" keywordseo="China">China</keyword> Hawk with less than two weeks left administration is incredibly dangerous," Ben Rhodes, deputy national security advisor during the Obama administration, said on <a href="https://crooked.com/podcast/samantha-powers-point/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a recent episode of the Pod Save the World podcast</a>.</p><p>Former Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/01/11/pompeo-is-laying-landmines-in-us-china-relations-for-the-biden-administration-says-e-australian.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told CNBC</a> this week that Pompeo has been "salting the earth in the US-China relationship in general and laying landmines on Taiwan in particular."</p><div type="image" title="Mike Pompeo" height="2000" width="3000" msid="80276899" hostid="261"></div><p>These recent moves are widely seen as an effort to saddle the Biden administration with the bureaucratic burden of reviewing those decisions and opening it to political attacks if it rescinds them.</p><p>A Trump administration official <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/17/politics/trump-biden-natsec-transition-fires/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told CNN</a> the goal was "to set so many fires that it will be hard ... to put them all out."</p><p>"If Pompeo is nothing else, he's a roadmap to what we're going to hear for the next four years," Rhodes said. "The hyperbolic criticisms of Joe Biden are going to be ... from the Iran hawks, the China hawks, and the Cuba hawks."</p><p>It's not clear what it will take to undo those last-minute policies. Some can likely be undone with a few signatures. Others, such as <keyword id="6358165" type="UNKNOWN" weightage="60" keywordseo="terrorism">terrorism</keyword> designations, normally require reviews to ensure the designee doesn't support terrorism.</p><p>But the Biden team shouldn't "abide by some scrupulous norm" to reverse policies that are "so clearly political and done by the seat of the pants," Rhodes said.</p><h2>'America will be better when he leaves'</h2><div type="image" title="Mike Pompeo Donald Trump Patrick Shanahan" height="1037" width="1383" msid="80276901" hostid="261"></div><p>When Pompeo took over the State Department in spring 2018, he said he wanted it "<a href="https://www.npr.org/2018/05/02/607728832/secretary-of-state-pompeo-promises-new-swagger-at-state-department-swearing-in" target="_blank" rel="noopener">to get its swagger back</a>," but Pompeo has often alienated the department and hewed close to Trump, embracing the president's baseless objections to the US election, even as Pompeo expounded on the importance of free and fair elections overseas.</p><p>The new policies, like others before them, are seen as Pompeo's maneuvers for a future presidential run. But if he's counting on riding his record, the trip will be short, Gans said.</p><p>"My hunch is that Pompeo's legacy and his accomplishments will be small, in the same way any mischief he's done will be small in the scale of American foreign policy," said Gans, author of <a href="https://wwnorton.com/books/9781631494567" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a history of the National Security Council</a>.</p><p>"That doesn't mean that it's not going to take work to fix the problems. It just means that it's work that can be done," Gans added, citing the George H.W. Bush administration's recovery from the "wild west" of Reagan's foreign policy.</p><p>Meeks told Insider that his committee "stands ready to work with President Biden to restore American global leadership and advance our nation from the devastation wrought by President Trump and his lead crony, Pompeo."</p><p>For some in Kansas, where Pompeo used a seat in Congress to boost his national profile with attacks on then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the end can't come soon enough.</p><p>"In about a week, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's service will mercifully come to an end," the editorial board of the Kansas City Star <a href="https://www.kansascity.com/article248454310.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote this week</a>. "America will be better when he leaves office. Kansas will be much better if he decides to stay away from his adopted home state forever."</p>

With Trump hunkered down and time running out, Mike Pompeo has been 'laying landmines' for Joe Biden

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Getty</span></p><p class="caption">Dominic Grieve</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><ul class="summary-list"><li><strong>The House of Commons passed a Brexit amendment on Wednesday designed to force the prime minister to immediately come up with a "Plan B" if her deal with the EU is rejected by MPs.</strong></li><li><strong>The "meaningful vote" amendment was heralded as parliament "taking back control" of Brexit.</strong></li><li><strong>However, parliamentary procedure experts insist that the amendment leaves the timetable for any second vote on May's deal essentially unchanged.</strong></li><li><strong>While there will be political pressure on May not to run down the clock she is under no legal obligation to do so.</strong></li></ul><p>LONDON - Theresa May's government was furious on Wednesday after the House of Commons Speaker John Bercow upended constitutional convention to let MPs vote on a motion which was designed to prevent the prime minister from "running down the clock" if she loses the vote on her Brexit deal next week.</p><p>The motion, brought forward by the former Conservative Attorney General Dominic Grieve, was subsequently backed by a majority of MPs, leading to widespread reports that MPs had <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/bercows-controversial-move-allows-commons-to-take-back-control-on-brexit-11602960">"taken back control</a>" of the Brexit process from May's government.</p><h2>Had they really?</h2><p>Well, not quite. While the intention of Grieve's amendment was to buy MPs an extra fortnight in which to shape the next stage of the process if, as expected, May's deal is voted down, Downing Street insisted on Thursday that this was a misreading of the amendment.</p><p>They pointed to advice they had received suggesting that while the amendment does mean they must bring a new motion forward within three sitting days, it does not oblige them to "move" that motion.</p><p>In other words, while Grieve's amendment will require the the government to set out what it plans to do if and when May's deal is voted down, it does not oblige them to put those plans immediately to a vote.</p><p>This interpretation was confirmed by parliamentary procedure experts Business Insider spoke to on Thursday, who suggested that Grieve's amendment essentially leaves the original timetabling procedure for any second "meaningful vote" on the Brexit deal untouched.</p><p>Technically, it changes nothing.</p><h2>So does Grieve's amendment actually make any difference?</h2><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Peter Macdiarmid / Getty</span></p><p class="caption">Tory MP and former Attorney General Dominic Grieve</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>Under <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/13/enacted" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Section 13</a><span> of the EU Withdrawal Act, the UK government has not 3 days, but 21 days to bring forward a statement on its next move if May's deal is voted down by MPs on Tuesday. Once that statement has been made, the government has a further seven House of Commons sitting days to move a vote on it.</span></p><p>Importantly, Grieve's amendment does not change that legally binding timetable.</p><h2>So does that mean that the prime minister could still run down the clock in a hope to force through her deal?</h2><p>It's certainly possible. And in that sense the Grieve amendment technically doesn't change anything.</p><p>However, doing so would go clearly against the spirit and intention of the amendment and be a provocation of the roughly 20 Remainer Conservative rebels MPs who have already demonstrated their willingness to vote against the government.</p><p>It would also be a provocation of the Commons Speaker, who has already demonstrated his determination to hand maximum powers to MPs.</p><p>And this is the crucial point. While technically Grieve's amendment may not have tied the government's hands, politically it is a clear demonstration of Parliament's will to shape the Brexit process.</p><p>The point that is often lost is that the meaningful vote is just the first step to ratifying the Brexit deal. </p><p>The meaningful vote may be important, but it is merely a precursor to the far more challenging process of passing the deal into legislation through the Withdrawal and Implementation Bil.</p><p>It is perfectly possible to imagine May managing to squeak her deal through the meaningful vote process, only for it to fall once she attempts to turn it into legislation. And if she fails to pass that bill by March 29, then the withdrawal treaty she has agreed with the EU becomes null and void.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>UK Parliament / Jessica Taylor</span></p></div><p></p></div></div>A useful comparison here is with the <a href="https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2012-13/houseoflordsreform.html">House of Lords Reform Bill</a> brought forward by the Conservative-led coalition government in 2012.</p><p>The bill, which would have made the UK Parliament's upper chamber mostly elected, was supported in principle by Conservative MPs and the Labour opposition at its Second Reading in the Commons.</p><p>However, despite the Conservative and Liberal Democrat government having a clear parliamentary majority and despite all three major parties being committed to reform, the bill ultimately failed after MPs were unable to agree on the so-called Programme Motion for the bill.</p><p>Getting a Brexit deal passed into legislation by MPs would be significantly harder than passing reform of the Lords, even if May had possession of a clear governing majority, which she does not.</p><p>For this reason, any further attempt by May to "run down the clock" as her opponents accuse her of attempting, would only make the process of passing her deal even harder both in political and logistical terms.</p><p>So Grieve's amendment, while technically not forcing May to speed up the process, is a clear demonstration of Parliament's political will to move on to debate and vote on possible alternatives to her deal.</p><p>Were May to simply ignore that, then she would make the process of getting any Brexit Withdrawal bill through Parliament even more difficult than it already is.</p>  <p class="tagline">Our Brexit Insider Facebook group is the best place for up-to-date news and <keyword id="6357018" type="DEFINITION" weightage="60" keywordseo="Analysis">analysis</keyword> about Britain's departure from the EU, direct from Business Insider's political reporters. Join <a href="https://www.facebook.com/groups/267178180471848/">here.</a></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/msnbc-host-chris-hayes-president-trump-china-trade-war-2018-12">MSNBC host Chris Hayes thinks President Trump's stance on China is 'not at all crazy'</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

Has the UK parliament really taken back control of Brexit from Theresa May?

<p><strong><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Amos Ben Gershom, Israeli Government Press Office via AP</span></p><p class="caption">Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, left, shaking hands with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, right, in Jerusalem, Friday, Sept. 30, 2016.</p></div><p></p></div></div></strong></p><ul><li><strong>Qatar said on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump's decision on Jerusalem is a "death sentence" for future peace negotiations.</strong></li><li><strong>Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called Trump's move "a deliberate undermining of all efforts to achieve peace.</strong></li><li><strong>The US has historically played a major mediating role in Israel-Palestine peace talk.</strong></li></ul><p><br />Qatar's foreign minister said on Wednesday that US President Donald Trump's <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-israel-embassy-jerusalem-capital-2017-12">decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital</a> is a "death sentence" for future peace negotiations, according to <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/world-leaders-chastise-jerusalem-escalation-171206194011198.html">Al Jazeera</a>.</p><p data-reactid="33">Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani called Trump's decision "a dangerous escalation," as other Arab world leaders joined calls to denounce Trump's declaration.</p><p data-reactid="34">Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas called Trump's move "a deliberate undermining of all efforts to achieve peace," <a href="http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/Abbas-slams-Trump-Jerusalem-move-as-condemned-unacceptable-517231">The Jerusalem Post reported</a>. "[Trump's decision] represents a declaration of the United States' withdrawal from undertaking the role as it has played over the past decades in sponsoring the peace process," Abbas added.</p><p data-reactid="34">The US has played a major mediating role <a href="https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/middle_east-jan-june06-us_05-11">in Israel-Palestine peace talks throughout the years</a>, and has facilitated<span> cease-fire agreements between Israelis and Palestinians. </span></p><p data-reactid="34">Jordan dismissed Trump's declaration as "<a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-israel-jordan/jordan-rejects-trumps-move-on-jerusalem-as-legally-null-idUSKBN1E02WQ">null and void</a>," and rejected any unilateral move to change Jerusalem's legal status. <span>Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi said later in a tweet that the US had "frustrated" peace efforts, adding that Jordan will "continue to work for an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital." </span></p><p data-reactid="34"><span>Egyptian President<strong> </strong>Abdel Fattah el-Sisi also condemned the move, and said in a statement that the US has been warned against "taking measures that would undermine the chances of peace in the Middle East".</span></p><p data-reactid="34">Palestinian political and militant group Hamas said the US' decision "<a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/jerusalem-latest-hamas-trump-gates-of-hell-day-of-rage-news-updates-response-a8095841.html">opens the gates of hell.</a>" </p><p data-reactid="34"><span>"Trump's decision on Jerusalem will not succeed in changing the fact that Jerusalem is an Arab Muslim land," a spokesman for the group added.</span></p><p data-reactid="34"><span>Some Palestinian officials have called for <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/12/palestinian-days-rage-trump-jerusalem-plan-171206103433314.html">three days of rage</a>, and encouraged protests near US and Israeli embassies.</span></p><p data-reactid="34"><span>On Wednesday, US embassies across the Arab world <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/us-embassies-bracing-for-violent-backlash-over-trumps-jerusalem-decision-2017-12">issued safety warnings for US citizens</a> as they brace for "</span>potentially violent" demonstrations.<span> </span></p>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/origins-of-us-military-salute-2017-12">The mysterious origins of the US military salute</a></h3>        <div>                    </div>    </div>

Qatar calls Trump's Jerusalem decision a 'death sentence for peace'

<p><div class="image-container" style="width:800px"><div class="image"><p class="source">REUTERS/Remo Casilli </p></div></div></p>
<p><keyword id="21474" type="COUNTRY" weightage="60" keywordseo="Italy">Italy</keyword>'s top court has confirmed a lower court's decision to <a href="http://www.thelocal.it/20130801/Berlusconi-prison-sentence-upheld-by-court">sentence former Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi to jail time</a>, the Local reports.</p>
<p>Berlusconi's sentence of four years jail time in a tax fraud case was upheld, the first clear conviction against the media tycoon and center right politician. Another decision by the lower court that would have seen Berlusconi banned from public office will be reviewed.</p>
<p>The verdict is less drastic than it sounds. While Berlusconi is technically sentenced to four years in prison, three of these years will be null due to an amnesty and Berlusconi's age (76) means that he is likely to be placed under house arrest rather than go to a prison.</p>
<p>Today's decision should be the 76-year-old's last chance to <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/berlusconi-sentenced-to-4-years-in-jail-2012-10">overturn the fraud conviction from last year</a>. <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20121026/eu-italy-berlusconi-trial-/">The case revolved around a plan</a><span> by Berlusconi's Mediaset company to purchase the rights to broadcast U.S. movies on Berlusconi's private television networks</span>. The defendants had allegedly used a series of offshore companies to avoid paying taxes. The price of the films was then inflated as they were sold internally. The difference was pocketed by the defendants, and reportedly amounted to 250 million euros ($320 million).</p>
<p>Perhaps counter-intuitively, this may be bad news for Italy. Reuters notes that Italy's coalition government, featuring Prime Minister Enrico Letta's Democratic Party and Berlusconi's PDL might fall into crisis, <a href="http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/07/31/italy-politics-berlusconi-idINDEE96U09U20130731">with serious fallout across the euro zone</a>.</p>

Italy's Top Court Confirms Berlusconi Prison Sentence

<p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span><a href="http://www.imdb.com/media/rm1047042048/tt0087800?ref_=ttmi_mi_all_pbl_16">IMDB/New Line Cinema</a></span></p><p class="caption">A Nightmare on Elm Street's Freddy Kruger.</p></div><p></p></div></div>As the Brexit worries began two weeks ago, I flagged Italian banks - more than the UK economy - <a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2016/06/the-downside-risks-introduced-by-the-uk-brexit-referendum.html">as one of my principle concerns</a>, because of the potential to cause systemic damage to the euro system. And now the contagion is spreading, with Deutsche Bank the most obvious weak link. The question now is twofold. First, does the Italian banking crisis solve itself without a major overhaul of EU institutional arrangements? Second, if not, how does the EU solve this problem? Some brief thoughts below.</p><p>About a year ago, as the Greek crisis was hot and heavy, I wrote a post on why <a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2015/06/the-euro-is-a-failure.html">the euro is a failure</a>. And in that post, I used the Italian economy and Italian banks as the most obvious economic example. The reasoning here was that Greece was only a more extreme example of what could befall other weak European economies in a generalized economic downturn. The Troika had submitted Greece to the rack under the pretense that it was a separate case. My argument was that it was not a separate case, just a more extreme case - and potentially the first case of economic collapse due to the failure of the eurozone's institutional setup.</p><p>My view then - and today - is that Italy matters to the eurozone and the EU almost as much as France and Germany, given its role as a founding member of the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951 and the European Economic Community in 1957. If Italy were forced into a desperate situation, it could be fatal for the euro. And now, a year later, this nightmare scenario is coming to pass - or at least we are getting a glimpse of it. We don't know if this is a real crisis or a mini-crisis yet.</p><p>What we do know is that the Italian banks are both under attack from investors and simultaneously undercapitalized. We know this because Italian bank shares have fallen by more than half this year. And we also know that the Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has floated the idea of injecting 40 billion euros of state-sponsored capital into the Italian banks. Meanwhile, the ECB has made liquidity available to the Italian banks - if they need it - under the proviso that solvent institutions may just be going through a liquidity crisis. But, as we saw in the US, with TARP, eventually more state capital was needed.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_left"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>REUTERS/Remo Casilli</span></p><p class="caption">Italy's Prime Minister Matteo Renzi gestures during a media conference at Chigi palace in Rome, May 26, 2014.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>Now, let's remember the constraints here. During the sovereign debt crisis, banks and sovereign credits became co-mingled because banks owned lots of sovereign debt. And so as sovereign debt soured, so too did the condition of euro banks. This eventually required a bailout of Spanish banks via the state, making clear that - given the lack of a common bank resolution mechanism - the contingent liabilities of banking systems fell to the state. The other major eurozone bubble economy, Ireland, suffered a similar fate after the sovereign was forced to bail out its banking system, mandating a Troika bailout for the state in turn. This is a situation that no one wanted repeated. In fact, if bail-ins - like the one <a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2013/03/buiter-it-was-clear-that-cyprus-was-a-laboratory.html">in Cyprus that Willem Buiter warned</a> us would become the model - were in effect, Ireland never would have needed a bailout. As people like myself suggested at the time, <a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2012/03/irish-secured-creditor-bailouts.html">banks would simply have defaulted</a>.</p><p>We have known for some time that most European banks are zombies, unable to increase lending because of a lack of capital. <a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2013/03/buiter-most-european-banks-are-zombies.html">Buiter said so explicitly</a> in 2013 during the Cyprus bail-in. And the lack of growth in Italy has made this problem far, far worse. Look at this chart from Holger Zchaepitz showing the connection with causality from bank lending to the economy - and realize that Italy has not grown since joining the eurozone, souring loans and making the capital situation worse.</p><p>But now we see the problem in Germany too, with Deutsche Bank. Everyone is talking about it because the shares have been cut in half and the contingent convertible debt carries a yield of 11% while <a href="https://twitter.com/MktOutperform/status/751080087693369344" target="_blank">Deutsche Bank CDS</a> is higher now than it was at any point during the 2008 crisis or almost any time except briefly during the sovereign debt crisis. Markets are basically saying <a href="https://twitter.com/Schuldensuehner/status/751326279631339520" target="_blank">Deutsche Bank is a junk-rated company</a> given its present capital situation - and given the post-Brexit referendum fall in shares taking away the ability tor raise more private capital.</p><p>And so what happens in Italy is inextricably linked to what happens in Germany. Is <a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2012/12/germany-concerned-about-its-own-public-finances.html">Germany concerned about its own public finances</a>? Absolutely - that's the reason for the change in its constitution to limit deficits and it's the reason for the schwarze Null - no new debt - that Schaueble is constantly after. The fact that <a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2012/07/germany-government-debt.html">Germany had been in breach of the Maastricht Treaty</a> was a point of shame for the country. And now the German finance minister wants to rectify the situation with no new debts.</p><p><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"><p class="source"><span>Thomson Reuters</span></p><p class="caption">German Economy and Finance Ministers Gabriel and Schaeuble attend a news conference in Berlin.</p></div><p></p></div></div></p><p>So we know categorically that the German finance ministry will fight tooth and nail to not bail Deutsche Bank out - and to stick to the bail-in rules already instituted. And clearly if Deutsche Bank were subject to a bail-in, then the Italian banks would have to be too.</p><p>I think this is a big problem for Europe. There is no way out of this mess given the German stance on public debt and the pre-existing rule against state financing of banks. I don't see the EU relaxing these rules, despite calls by Deutsche Chief Economist David Folkerts-Landau (<a href="http://www.welt.de/finanzen/article156924408/Deutsche-Bank-Chefoekonom-fordert-150-Milliarden.html" target="_blank">link in German</a>) - my boss at Deutsche some 15 years ago - and by SocGen chairman <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-06/italy-could-spark-systemic-banking-crisis-socgen-chairman-says" target="_blank">Lorenzo Bini-Smaghi</a>. TARP is not the way the EU is supposed to work. And without a common banking resolution mechanism, the fallout of bank crises falls on state actors that are forbidden from receiving financing via the ECB. Bail-ins are the only way around this problem.</p><p>If the situation in European banks doesn't calm down, we could be on the verge of a serious banking crisis. And that means panic, bank runs, and a meltdown in shares and the real economy. This is definitely the tail risk here. Europe should take the bull by the horns and take this tail risk off the table now - and for good. I don't think Europe will though.</p><p>As usual, I see Anglo-Saxon government bonds as the ultimate safe haven in such an environment - as all rates converge to zero (or lower).</p><div class="feed-footer-wrapper"><div class="feed-footer"><h3>More from Edward Harrison:</h3><ul><li><a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2016/07/the-problem-at-euro-banks.html" data-bi-base="http://www.creditwritedowns.com/">The problem at euro banks</a></li><li><a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2016/07/the-british-political-landscape-after-the-eu-referendum.html" data-bi-base="http://www.creditwritedowns.com/">The British political landscape after the EU referendum</a></li><li><a href="https://pro.creditwritedowns.com/2016/07/leading-uk-pm-brexit-strategies-taking-shape-may-leadsom.html" data-bi-base="http://www.creditwritedowns.com/">Leading UK PM Brexit strategies taking shape with May and Leadsom</a></li></ul></div></div>    <div class="margin-top">        <h3>NOW WATCH: <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/navy-sailors-marines-swim-call-oceans-military-2016-7">This video proves the US Navy and US Marine Corps have the best diving boards and swimming pools</a></h3>        <div>            <div>        <div class="ooyala-video-player" data-video-autoplay="false" data-video-id="NidGlrNDE61SKhlt3V3izuh5Qq1I4VY8" data-player-variable="ooyalapopvideo" id="ooyalaplayer_popvideo" style="width:1280px;height:720px"></div>        </div>        </div>            </div>

Europe's 'nightmare scenario' is coming true

<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;"><div class="KonaFilter image-container display-table float_right"><div><div class="image on-image"></div><p></p></div></div></span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Three things have happened in the last 48 hours that tell you a lot about the state of the German economy:</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">1. Inflation and GDP figures were confirmed. Germany grew by 0.1% in the third quarter, with inflation of 0.8% in October.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">2. German politicians have negotiated "<a href="http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/schwarze-null-haushaltsausschuss-bestaetigt-wolfgang-schaeubles-plan-a-1002858.html">schwarze null</a>", the first balanced budget for the country since the 1960s.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">3. Jens Weidmann, the president of Germany's Bundesbank, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/ecb-councils-weidmann-talks-down-sovereign-bond-purchases-1415824465">played down the idea of the European Central Bank buying sovereign bonds</a> (usually described as quantitative easing).</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">These are all microcosms of the problems facing Germany. Growth and inflation are at very low levels, politicians (and voters) are extremely reluctant to pursue fiscal stimulus, and Germany's monetary policy representatives are some of Europe's most hawkish.</span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It's easy to see where this is going. A relatively ageing population, low inflation, low growth, and a political climate that doesn't really seem that unhappy with any of this is what </span><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)">precisely happened to Japan in its lost decade (or two)</a><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">It's easy to get wrapped up in the fact that Japan saw <em>deflation </em>during this period. Germany might not see that, but inflation and real growth combined, known as nominal growth, looks set to be extremely low, just like it was for Japan. </span></p>
<p><span style="line-height: 1.5em;">Chris Scicluna and Robert Kuenzel at Daiwa Capital Markets have some policies that might help fend off the German economy's slump. </span></p>
<p>Here are Kuenzel and Scicluna's policy prescriptions:</p>
<ul>
<li><strong>Fiscal stimulus. </strong>Germany's budget is now practically balanced. But it's got room within the EU's fairly strict rules to run a deficit of up to 3% of GDP. Borrowing costs for the country are practically non-existent, so it's hard to see downsides to a little loosening here.</li>
<li><strong>More public investment. </strong>Thankfully, Germany has a lot of things to spend a potential stimulus on. The IMF itself has flagged up the declining quality of Germany's <a href="http://blog-imfdirect.imf.org/2014/09/30/now-is-a-good-time-to-invest-in-infrastructure/">famous infrastructure</a>, so the stimulus would also go towards with its own merits.</li>
<li><strong>Cut taxes. </strong>Building roads, bridges and fixing ports takes a while, and the effects are spread over a long period of time. If you want to boost German spending soon, tax cuts are they way to go about it.</li>
<li><strong>Structural reform. </strong>Germany's economic reforms in the early 2000s are now lauded as an example to other nations, but it has actually slipped a little. Energy policy <a href="http://uk.businessinsider.com/edf-says-germany-energy-is-a-disaster-2014-10?r=US">is in a mess</a> after Angela Merkel's 2011 nuclear moratorium, and with the <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/10-countries-on-the-verge-of-a-demographic-crisis-2010-2?op=1&amp;IR=T">population ageing</a>, which Scicluna and Kuenzel say makes a decision to cut retirement ages in some sectors "plain perverse".</li>
</ul>
<p>If that list sounds familiar, that's because it's not unlike <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abenomics">Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's three arrows</a>, with some public investment thrown in. There's no monetary arm, because German monetary policy is controlled by the ECB (although Germany policymakers could stop arguing against easing).</p>
<p>Sceptics could reasonably argue that both Japan and Germany have a problem that can't be solved by monetary or fiscal easing: that it's just the standard for an ageing, highly productive and advanced economy. But if the Japanese experience has taught us anything so far, it's that there's very little harm in trying.</p>
<p>But it took 20 years for Japan to get Shinzo Abe and Haruhiko Kuroda as Japanese PM and Bank of Japan governor. Given the attitudes of many Germans, it might take just as long to get their own radicals. </p>

You Searched For "null Prime Minister" and got 13 results

Globetrotting Modi to now visit the heart of India’s red corridor, Chhattisgarh

BI India Bureau

Modi’s Day in China today

BI India Bureau

Modi to fly overseas yet again in July! This time to 5 Central Asian countries

BI India Bureau

Boris Johnson told to resign following Supreme Court defeat and become the 'shortest-serving Prime Minister ever'

Adam Bienkov

Boris Johnson's peerage to disgraced donor who gave the Conservatives £500,000 after the PM forced through his nomination, faces legal challenge

Henry Dyer

Read the UK Supreme Court's explosive verdict on why Boris Johnson's suspension of parliament was illegal

Thomas Colson

Article 370 and Article 35A which give Kashmir a special status will be annulled, Amit Shah tells Indian Parliament

Sriram Iyer

With Trump hunkered down and time running out, Mike Pompeo has been 'laying landmines' for Joe Biden

Christopher Woody

Has the UK parliament really taken back control of Brexit from Theresa May?

Adam Bienkov

Qatar calls Trump's Jerusalem decision a 'death sentence for peace'

Rosie Perper,Rosie Perper

Italy's Top Court Confirms Berlusconi Prison Sentence

Adam Taylor

Europe's 'nightmare scenario' is coming true

Edward Harrison

Germany Is Falling Into The Same Trap That Punished Japan's Economy For 25 Years

Mike Bird

Popular Keywords

Buying Guides