This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 4th, 2019

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-boris-johnson-vows-to-stay-put-to-hit-october-31-brexit-deadline-252702">British Prime Minister Boris Johnson </a>has told a court he will request a Brexit delay if he fails to strike a deal with the EU by October 19, according to documents published online Friday.

Parliament has passed legislation requiring the premier to ask the other 27 EU leaders for an extension if no deal emerges from a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-not-eu-needs-to-do-more-work-on-brexit-offer-brussels-253520">Brussels</a> summit on October 17-18.

But he is now facing a legal challenge to ensure he does not follow through on his threat to take Britain out of the bloc on October 31 come what may.

Johnson has repeatedly promised to both follow the law and take Britain out by the deadline -- a contradictory position prompting speculation the government may have identified a loophole to end its EU membership.

Lawyer Jo Maugham, a key opponent to Brexit and claimant in the case, posted the documents on Twitter on Friday.

He said the government had submitted documents to Scotland's highest civil court stating that Johnson "accepts that... he will send a letter (asking for an extension) by no later than 19 October 2019" if there is still no new deal.

UK media have speculated Johnson could still try to get Brexit done on time by sending a second letter alongside the request, stating he did not want the extension and was only following the law.

Others suggested he could ask one of the EU leaders to veto the extension, which requires unanimous support.

According to the documents submitted to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Johnson says he accepts "he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions.

"Thus he cannot act so as to prevent the letter requesting the specific extension in the act from being sent," the court document says.

Maugham said despite that, the court itself could still decide "to sign the letter for the prime minister" if Johnson still tried to stick to his promise to leave on October 31.

He and others behind the case also want the court to require Johnson to seek an extension to avoid leaving the EU without a deal.

A full hearing would be set for Tuesday if the judge decided to issue a formal ruling in the case, Maugham said. 
&nbsp;

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has told a court he will request a Brexit delay if he fails to strike a deal with the EU by October 19, according to documents published online Friday.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has told a court he will request a Brexit delay if he fails to strike a deal with the EU by October 19, according to documents published online Friday. Parliament has passed legislation requiring the premier to ask the other 27 EU leaders for an extension if no deal emerges from a Brussels summit on October 17-18. But he is now facing a legal challenge to ensure he does not follow through on his threat to take Britain out of the bloc on October 31 come what may. Johnson has repeatedly promised to both follow the law and take Britain out by the deadline -- a contradictory position prompting speculation the government may have identified a loophole to end its EU membership. Lawyer Jo Maugham, a key opponent to Brexit and claimant in the case, posted the documents on Twitter on Friday. He said the government had submitted documents to Scotland's highest civil court stating that Johnson "accepts that... he will send a letter (asking for an extension) by no later than 19 October 2019" if there is still no new deal. UK media have speculated Johnson could still try to get Brexit done on time by sending a second letter alongside the request, stating he did not want the extension and was only following the law. Others suggested he could ask one of the EU leaders to veto the extension, which requires unanimous support. According to the documents submitted to the Court of Session in Edinburgh, Johnson says he accepts "he is subject to the public law principle that he cannot frustrate its purpose or the purpose of its provisions. "Thus he cannot act so as to prevent the letter requesting the specific extension in the act from being sent," the court document says. Maugham said despite that, the court itself could still decide "to sign the letter for the prime minister" if Johnson still tried to stick to his promise to leave on October 31. He and others behind the case also want the court to require Johnson to seek an extension to avoid leaving the EU without a deal. A full hearing would be set for Tuesday if the judge decided to issue a formal ruling in the case, Maugham said.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells court he may seek Brexit delay: Report

Why the UK's Brexit proposal falls short for the European Union

Canadian police illegally shared details of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/huawei-cfos-arrest-at-airport-to-be-focus-of-vancouver-hearing-251487">Meng Wanzhou</a>'s phone with US authorities, lawyers said Thursday, in a bid to have an extradition case against the top Huawei executive thrown out.

The 47-year-old chief financial officer of the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/malaysias-5g-plan-a-potential-boon-for-chinas-huawei-251771"> Chinese telco gian</a>t was detained during a stopover at Vancouver airport last December on a US warrant.

The United States wants to put Meng on trial for fraud for allegedly violating Iran sanctions and lying about it to US banks -- accusations her lawyers dispute.

Meng's lawyers alleged that Canadian border agents and police conducted a "covert criminal investigation" of the Huawei executive on behalf of the American Federal Bureau of Investigations.

This included the unlawful sharing of serial numbers of her phone and other electronic devices, her defence team claimed.

Prosecutors disputed the charges in court filings, saying that Canadian officers were following standard procedures and that Meng's lawyers were on a "fishing expedition."

Meng's team is seeking to prove that her rights were violated during her arrest, in an attempt to put pressure on Canadian authorities to reconsider a decision to proceed with her extradition.

They have also alleged that she was questioned by Canadian border officers for three hours without being advised of her rights or told of the warrant for her extradition.

Meng's detention caused an unprecedented diplomatic rift between Canada and China.

Nine days after Meng's arrest, Beijing detained two Canadians -- former diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor -- accusing them of espionage in a move widely viewed as retaliation.

China has also blocked billions worth of Canadian agricultural shipments, while Canada has rallied the support of allies including Britain, France, Germany and the US, as well as the EU, NATO and the G7.

Meng's defence, arguing that the case is politically motivated, has also pounced on US President Donald Trump's remarks that he might seek to have the charges against Meng dropped in exchange for trade concessions from China.

Canada has insisted that it was following the rule of law in Meng's case, while calling the arrest of its two nationals arbitrary.

It sacked its ambassador to China in January for suggesting that Meng had a "strong case" against extradition, citing Trump's remarks.

Canadian police illegally shared details of Meng Wanzhou's phone with US authorities, lawyers said Thursday, in a bid to have an extradition case against the top Huawei executive thrown out.

Canadian police illegally shared details of Meng Wanzhou's phone with US authorities, lawyers said Thursday, in a bid to have an extradition case against the top Huawei executive thrown out. The 47-year-old chief financial officer of the Chinese telco giant was detained during a stopover at Vancouver airport last December on a US warrant. The United States wants to put Meng on trial for fraud for allegedly violating Iran sanctions and lying about it to US banks -- accusations her lawyers dispute. Meng's lawyers alleged that Canadian border agents and police conducted a "covert criminal investigation" of the Huawei executive on behalf of the American Federal Bureau of Investigations. This included the unlawful sharing of serial numbers of her phone and other electronic devices, her defence team claimed. Prosecutors disputed the charges in court filings, saying that Canadian officers were following standard procedures and that Meng's lawyers were on a "fishing expedition." Meng's team is seeking to prove that her rights were violated during her arrest, in an attempt to put pressure on Canadian authorities to reconsider a decision to proceed with her extradition. They have also alleged that she was questioned by Canadian border officers for three hours without being advised of her rights or told of the warrant for her extradition. Meng's detention caused an unprecedented diplomatic rift between Canada and China. Nine days after Meng's arrest, Beijing detained two Canadians -- former diplomat Michael Kovrig and businessman Michael Spavor -- accusing them of espionage in a move widely viewed as retaliation. China has also blocked billions worth of Canadian agricultural shipments, while Canada has rallied the support of allies including Britain, France, Germany and the US, as well as the EU, NATO and the G7. Meng's defence, arguing that the case is politically motivated, has also pounced on US President Donald Trump's remarks that he might seek to have the charges against Meng dropped in exchange for trade concessions from China. Canada has insisted that it was following the rule of law in Meng's case, while calling the arrest of its two nationals arbitrary. It sacked its ambassador to China in January for suggesting that Meng had a "strong case" against extradition, citing Trump's remarks.

Canadian police illegally shared info on Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou: Lawyers

British Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/opinions/brexit-row-boris-johnson-defeated-by-uk-supreme-court-but-he-could-still-emerge-as-a-winner-251957">Boris Johnson </a>made a final Brexit offer to the European Union on Wednesday, pitching a possible compromise for a last-minute exit deal that was cautiously welcomed by the EU though the two sides remain far apart.

In what Johnson's supporters cast as a moment of truth after more than three years of Brexit crisis, Johnson urged Brussels to compromise but warned that if it did not then Britain would leave the European Union without a deal on October 31.

Watch: British PM Boris Johnson plans to suspend parliament again from October 8

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/british-pm-boris-johnson-plans-to-suspend-parliament-again-from-october-8-253411/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Johnson went further than many expected on the most contentious issue - the border between British-ruled Northern Ireland and European Union member Ireland - with a proposal for an all-island regulatory zone to cover all goods, replacing the so-called backstop arrangement he says he cannot accept.

Besides the concession though, Johnson proposed giving Northern Ireland institutions the ongoing power to abide by or exit the regulatory zone - a possible step too far for Ireland and the European Union.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker welcomed "positive advances" in Johnson's proposals, such as the full regulatory alignment for all goods, but noted some problems.

"There are still some problematic points that will need further work in the coming days, notably with regards to the governance of the backstop," the Commission said in a statement issued after Johnson and Juncker spoke on a call.

"The European Union wants a deal. We remain united and ready to work 24/7 to make this happen – as we have been for over three years now," it said.

Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told Johnson that the proposals did not fully meet agreed objectives, his spokesman said after the two leaders spoke by phone, but agreed to study them in more detail and consult with EU partners.

With less than a month left until Britain is due to leave the EU, the future of Brexit, its most significant geopolitical move since World War Two, is uncertain. It could leave with a deal or without one - or not leave at all.

Deutsche Bank said it saw a 50 percent chance of a no-deal Brexit by the end of the year. This would spook financial markets, send shockwaves through the global economy, snarl ports on both sides of the Channel and divide the West.

Phoney Brexit battle

While London's last-minute proposals do mark some movement on the Irish border, the biggest sticking point of the Brexit negotiations, many EU diplomats are convinced that the United Kingdom is heading towards either a delay or a no-deal exit.

Johnson says he wants to get a deal at an October 17-18 European Union summit. A law passed by his opponents forces him to delay Brexit unless he strikes a deal. Johnson said further delay was "pointless and expensive".

Amid so much pessimism about the possibility of a deal in just weeks, many diplomats say a phoney struggle is underway between London and Brussels to apportion blame.

"It's a game of cat and mouse," said one EU diplomat.Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said the proposals marked progress but more work was needed. Guy Verhofstadt, head of the European Parliament's Brexit Steering Group, was less convinced.

Asked by a reporter if the proposal was a serious attempt to break the deadlock or designed to shift the blame on to Brussels if Britain leaves the EU without a deal, he said: "I think that last point was not so bad."

Raoul Ruparel, former Europe adviser to Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, said the offer appeared unlikely to win over the EU.

"I cannot see the EU and Ireland agreeing to these proposals, they may not even see them as a basis for negotiations," he told Reuters.

Opposition Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said Johnson's proposals were too vague and that the EU would not accept them.

Irish problem

Ireland, whose 500 km (300 mile) land border with the United Kingdom will become the frontier of the EU's single market and customs union after Brexit, is crucial to any deal.

The problem is how to prevent Northern Ireland becoming a "back door" into the EU market without erecting border controls that could undermine the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (GFA), which ended decades of political and sectarian violence in Northern Ireland in which more than 3,600 people were killed.

Britain said its proposals were compatible with the peace agreement and suggested a zone of regulatory compliance across Northern Ireland and the EU to eliminate checks for trade in goods.

Before the end of a transition period after Brexit in December 2020, the Northern Ireland assembly and executive that were established under the 1998 deal would be required to give their consent to this arrangement and every four years afterwards, the seven-page document said.

Northern Ireland would stay part of the United Kingdom's customs territory but to avoid customs checks, a declaration system would be introduced with a simplified process for small traders, along with a trusted-traders scheme.

"We are tabling what I believe are constructive and reasonable proposals which provide a compromise for both sides," Johnson said in a speech to his Conservative party's annual conference. "I hope very much that our friends understand that and compromise in their turn."

Asked if the proposal meant Britain expected the EU to change its customs rules, a UK official said: "We are asking them that because we agreed there will be flexible and creative solutions on the island of Ireland and part of it is adjusting legislation to enable it."

The Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, supporters of British rule of the province who back Johnson's government, welcomed his proposals, saying they ensured that Northern Ireland would be out of the customs union and single market.

DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds said the proposals gave his party an effective veto over regulatory alignment with the EU, allowing them to back the plan.

Some lawmakers in Britain's opposition Labour Party also signalled they could back the deal in a parliamentary vote if it was accepted by Europe and Dublin.

A senior British official said: "The government is either going to be negotiating a new deal or working on no deal - nobody will work on delay."

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a final Brexit offer to the European Union on Wednesday, pitching a possible compromise for a last-minute exit deal that was cautiously welcomed by the EU though the two sides remain far apart.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson made a final Brexit offer to the European Union on Wednesday, pitching a possible compromise for a last-minute exit deal that was cautiously welcomed by the EU though the two sides remain far apart. In what Johnson's supporters cast as a moment of truth after more than three years of Brexit crisis, Johnson urged Brussels to compromise but warned that if it did not then Britain would leave the European Union without a deal on October 31. Watch: British PM Boris Johnson plans to suspend parliament again from October 8 Johnson went further than many expected on the most contentious issue - the border between British-ruled Northern Ireland and European Union member Ireland - with a proposal for an all-island regulatory zone to cover all goods, replacing the so-called backstop arrangement he says he cannot accept. Besides the concession though, Johnson proposed giving Northern Ireland institutions the ongoing power to abide by or exit the regulatory zone - a possible step too far for Ireland and the European Union. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker welcomed "positive advances" in Johnson's proposals, such as the full regulatory alignment for all goods, but noted some problems. "There are still some problematic points that will need further work in the coming days, notably with regards to the governance of the backstop," the Commission said in a statement issued after Johnson and Juncker spoke on a call. "The European Union wants a deal. We remain united and ready to work 24/7 to make this happen – as we have been for over three years now," it said. Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told Johnson that the proposals did not fully meet agreed objectives, his spokesman said after the two leaders spoke by phone, but agreed to study them in more detail and consult with EU partners. With less than a month left until Britain is due to leave the EU, the future of Brexit, its most significant geopolitical move since World War Two, is uncertain. It could leave with a deal or without one - or not leave at all. Deutsche Bank said it saw a 50 percent chance of a no-deal Brexit by the end of the year. This would spook financial markets, send shockwaves through the global economy, snarl ports on both sides of the Channel and divide the West. Phoney Brexit battle While London's last-minute proposals do mark some movement on the Irish border, the biggest sticking point of the Brexit negotiations, many EU diplomats are convinced that the United Kingdom is heading towards either a delay or a no-deal exit. Johnson says he wants to get a deal at an October 17-18 European Union summit. A law passed by his opponents forces him to delay Brexit unless he strikes a deal. Johnson said further delay was "pointless and expensive". Amid so much pessimism about the possibility of a deal in just weeks, many diplomats say a phoney struggle is underway between London and Brussels to apportion blame. "It's a game of cat and mouse," said one EU diplomat.Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier said the proposals marked progress but more work was needed. Guy Verhofstadt, head of the European Parliament's Brexit Steering Group, was less convinced. Asked by a reporter if the proposal was a serious attempt to break the deadlock or designed to shift the blame on to Brussels if Britain leaves the EU without a deal, he said: "I think that last point was not so bad." Raoul Ruparel, former Europe adviser to Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, said the offer appeared unlikely to win over the EU. "I cannot see the EU and Ireland agreeing to these proposals, they may not even see them as a basis for negotiations," he told Reuters. Opposition Party leader Jeremy Corbyn said Johnson's proposals were too vague and that the EU would not accept them. Irish problem Ireland, whose 500 km (300 mile) land border with the United Kingdom will become the frontier of the EU's single market and customs union after Brexit, is crucial to any deal. The problem is how to prevent Northern Ireland becoming a "back door" into the EU market without erecting border controls that could undermine the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (GFA), which ended decades of political and sectarian violence in Northern Ireland in which more than 3,600 people were killed. Britain said its proposals were compatible with the peace agreement and suggested a zone of regulatory compliance across Northern Ireland and the EU to eliminate checks for trade in goods. Before the end of a transition period after Brexit in December 2020, the Northern Ireland assembly and executive that were established under the 1998 deal would be required to give their consent to this arrangement and every four years afterwards, the seven-page document said. Northern Ireland would stay part of the United Kingdom's customs territory but to avoid customs checks, a declaration system would be introduced with a simplified process for small traders, along with a trusted-traders scheme. "We are tabling what I believe are constructive and reasonable proposals which provide a compromise for both sides," Johnson said in a speech to his Conservative party's annual conference. "I hope very much that our friends understand that and compromise in their turn." Asked if the proposal meant Britain expected the EU to change its customs rules, a UK official said: "We are asking them that because we agreed there will be flexible and creative solutions on the island of Ireland and part of it is adjusting legislation to enable it." The Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party, supporters of British rule of the province who back Johnson's government, welcomed his proposals, saying they ensured that Northern Ireland would be out of the customs union and single market. DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds said the proposals gave his party an effective veto over regulatory alignment with the EU, allowing them to back the plan. Some lawmakers in Britain's opposition Labour Party also signalled they could back the deal in a parliamentary vote if it was accepted by Europe and Dublin. A senior British official said: "The government is either going to be negotiating a new deal or working on no deal - nobody will work on delay."

Boris Johnson makes final Brexit offer, draws guarded welcome from European Union

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson plans to suspend parliament again from October 8. Watch this video to know more.

British PM Boris Johnson plans to suspend parliament again from October 8

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 3rd, 2019

Prime Minister Boris Johnson said on Wednesday it was time to get Brexit done, pledging again that he would take Britain out of the European Union on October 31 "come what may". Watch this video to know more.

Let's get Brexit done, UK PM Johnson tells Conservative Party

<h1><meta name="uuid" content="uuidv58rANfm1MRo" /><meta charset="utf-8" /></h1>

It is up to Britain, not Brussels, to address problems the EU sees in the UK's latest Brexit proposal, a spokeswoman for the European Commission said Thursday.

"As we have said there are problematic points in the United Kingdom's proposal and further work is needed. But that work needs to be done by the United Kingdom and not the other way around," spokeswoman Natasha Bertaud told a media briefing.

The British government on Wednesday submitted its proposal for a new withdrawal agreement from the European Union to back up Prime Minister Boris Johnson's vow to pull his country out of the bloc on October 31.

While the EU has cautiously said the document contained some progress on the sticking point of Northern Ireland it also had problems.&nbsp;

Those are understood to focus on the reliance on UK good will and untested technology to prevent a border springing up anew between the British province and EU member Ireland, and a provision periodically allowing part of the Northern Ireland assembly to veto the agreement.

Johnson's ministers have suggested that, having handed over the Brexit proposal, the ball was now in the EU's court.

But the spokeswoman said "we would disagree."

She added: "We would remind you that it's the UK leaving the European Union and not the European Union leaving the UK and we are doing everything in our power to ensure that exit is on an orderly basis.

"And we are willing to engage constructively with our counterparts. But we are not going to be the ones left holding the bag, the ball or any other kind of object."

It is up to Britain, not Brussels, to address problems the EU sees in the UK's latest Brexit proposal, a spokeswoman for the European Commission said Thursday. "As we have said there are problematic points in the United Kingdom's proposal and further work is needed.

It is up to Britain, not Brussels, to address problems the EU sees in the UK's latest Brexit proposal, a spokeswoman for the European Commission said Thursday. "As we have said there are problematic points in the United Kingdom's proposal and further work is needed. But that work needs to be done by the United Kingdom and not the other way around," spokeswoman Natasha Bertaud told a media briefing. The British government on Wednesday submitted its proposal for a new withdrawal agreement from the European Union to back up Prime Minister Boris Johnson's vow to pull his country out of the bloc on October 31. While the EU has cautiously said the document contained some progress on the sticking point of Northern Ireland it also had problems. Those are understood to focus on the reliance on UK good will and untested technology to prevent a border springing up anew between the British province and EU member Ireland, and a provision periodically allowing part of the Northern Ireland assembly to veto the agreement. Johnson's ministers have suggested that, having handed over the Brexit proposal, the ball was now in the EU's court. But the spokeswoman said "we would disagree." She added: "We would remind you that it's the UK leaving the European Union and not the European Union leaving the UK and we are doing everything in our power to ensure that exit is on an orderly basis. "And we are willing to engage constructively with our counterparts. But we are not going to be the ones left holding the bag, the ball or any other kind of object."

UK, not EU, needs to do more work on Brexit offer: Brussels

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-kingdom-prime-minister-johnson-to-submit-brexit-grand-bargain-but-ireland-sceptical-253001">Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a> will on Wednesday unveil his final Brexit offer to the European Union and make clear that if Brussels does not engage with the proposal, Britain will not negotiate further and will leave on October&nbsp;31.

In his closing speech to his governing Conservatives' annual conference, Johnson will stick to his hard line on Brexit, offering the party faithful the first details of what he will describe as his "fair and reasonable compromise".

With less than a month until Britain is due to leave the EU, the future of Brexit, the country's biggest trade and foreign policy shift in more than 40 years, is uncertain. Britain could leave with a deal, without one or no&nbsp;exit at all.

Johnson, who says Britain will leave the bloc on October&nbsp;31 no matter what will tell the conference he will send his proposal to Brussels, an attempt to secure a deal to smooth the country's departure and avoid a potentially damaging no-deal Brexit.

"My friends, I am afraid that after three-and-a-half years people are beginning to feel that they are being taken for fools. They are beginning to suspect that there are forces in this country that simply don't want Brexit delivered at all," he will say, according to extracts released by his office.

"Let's get Brexit done on October 31 so in 2020 our country can move on", he added.

More than three years after Britain voted to leave the EU in a 2016 referendum, Brexit talks are at an impasse.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-boris-johnson-vows-to-stay-put-to-hit-october-31-brexit-deadline-252702">Johnson has been firm that the October&nbsp;31 deadline will be met</a>, but parliament has put roadblocks in his way - passing a law that requires the prime minister to request a Brexit delay if he fails to secure an acceptable deal at an EU summit on October&nbsp;17.

The EU has repeatedly asked Britain to come up with "legal and operational" proposals for the changes Johnson wants to a deal his predecessor negotiated with the bloc last year.

'Nobody will work on a delay'

Following its rejection three times by parliament, <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/european-commissions-juncker-says-britain-will-be-responsible-if-no-brexit-deal-252324">Johnson has demanded changes to the Withdrawal Agreement</a>, especially over new arrangements with the bloc for the border between the British province of Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland.

But after weeks of talks, since Johnson took power that has made little headway to break the Brexit stand-off, the prime minister will make his last gambit - a new proposal which British officials describe as a final offer.

The Telegraph newspaper cited a briefing to European capitals that Britain was suggesting a plan that would leave Northern Ireland in a special relationship with the EU until 2025, after which Belfast would decide whether to remain aligned to the bloc or return to following British rules.

The proposal would be aimed at replacing the so-called backstop -&nbsp;an insurance policy to prevent the return of a hard border on the island of Ireland -- that has become the biggest hurdle to securing an agreement with Brussels.

A senior British government official said: "The government is either going to be negotiating a new deal or working on no-deal — nobody will work on delay."

"We will keep fighting to respect the biggest democratic vote in British history. The EU is obliged by EU law only to negotiate with member state governments, they cannot negotiate with parliament, and this government will not negotiate delay."

Johnson has made the gamble that by pressing a hardline position on Brexit he will steal votes from parties such as the Brexit Party led by veteran eurosceptic Nigel Farage at an election, widely expected to come before the end of the year.

He also has the main opposition Labour Party in his sights and will use his speech to attack its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has led efforts to try to stop the prime minister taking Britain out of the EU without a deal.

"Can you imagine another three years of this? That is the Corbyn agenda – stay in the EU beyond October 31, paying $1.23 billion&nbsp;a month for the privilege, followed by years of uncertainty for business and everyone else," he will say.

"That is why we are coming out of the EU on October 31. Let's get Brexit done - we can, we must and we will", he added.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson will on Wednesday unveil his final Brexit offer to the European Union and make clear that if Brussels does not engage with the proposal, Britain will not negotiate further and will leave on October 31.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson will on Wednesday unveil his final Brexit offer to the European Union and make clear that if Brussels does not engage with the proposal, Britain will not negotiate further and will leave on October 31. In his closing speech to his governing Conservatives' annual conference, Johnson will stick to his hard line on Brexit, offering the party faithful the first details of what he will describe as his "fair and reasonable compromise". With less than a month until Britain is due to leave the EU, the future of Brexit, the country's biggest trade and foreign policy shift in more than 40 years, is uncertain. Britain could leave with a deal, without one or no exit at all. Johnson, who says Britain will leave the bloc on October 31 no matter what will tell the conference he will send his proposal to Brussels, an attempt to secure a deal to smooth the country's departure and avoid a potentially damaging no-deal Brexit. "My friends, I am afraid that after three-and-a-half years people are beginning to feel that they are being taken for fools. They are beginning to suspect that there are forces in this country that simply don't want Brexit delivered at all," he will say, according to extracts released by his office. "Let's get Brexit done on October 31 so in 2020 our country can move on", he added. More than three years after Britain voted to leave the EU in a 2016 referendum, Brexit talks are at an impasse. Johnson has been firm that the October 31 deadline will be met, but parliament has put roadblocks in his way - passing a law that requires the prime minister to request a Brexit delay if he fails to secure an acceptable deal at an EU summit on October 17. The EU has repeatedly asked Britain to come up with "legal and operational" proposals for the changes Johnson wants to a deal his predecessor negotiated with the bloc last year. 'Nobody will work on a delay' Following its rejection three times by parliament, Johnson has demanded changes to the Withdrawal Agreement, especially over new arrangements with the bloc for the border between the British province of Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland. But after weeks of talks, since Johnson took power that has made little headway to break the Brexit stand-off, the prime minister will make his last gambit - a new proposal which British officials describe as a final offer. The Telegraph newspaper cited a briefing to European capitals that Britain was suggesting a plan that would leave Northern Ireland in a special relationship with the EU until 2025, after which Belfast would decide whether to remain aligned to the bloc or return to following British rules. The proposal would be aimed at replacing the so-called backstop - an insurance policy to prevent the return of a hard border on the island of Ireland -- that has become the biggest hurdle to securing an agreement with Brussels. A senior British government official said: "The government is either going to be negotiating a new deal or working on no-deal — nobody will work on delay." "We will keep fighting to respect the biggest democratic vote in British history. The EU is obliged by EU law only to negotiate with member state governments, they cannot negotiate with parliament, and this government will not negotiate delay." Johnson has made the gamble that by pressing a hardline position on Brexit he will steal votes from parties such as the Brexit Party led by veteran eurosceptic Nigel Farage at an election, widely expected to come before the end of the year. He also has the main opposition Labour Party in his sights and will use his speech to attack its leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has led efforts to try to stop the prime minister taking Britain out of the EU without a deal. "Can you imagine another three years of this? That is the Corbyn agenda – stay in the EU beyond October 31, paying $1.23 billion a month for the privilege, followed by years of uncertainty for business and everyone else," he will say. "That is why we are coming out of the EU on October 31. Let's get Brexit done - we can, we must and we will", he added.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson to unveil final Brexit offer to European Union

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-kingdom-prime-minister-johnson-to-submit-brexit-grand-bargain-but-ireland-sceptical-253001">European Union</a> called Tuesday for "de-escalation and restraint" in Hong Kong after a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/east-asia/police-shoot-hong-kong-protester-in-chest-during-clashes-253085">police officer shot a demonstrator </a>during a flare-up in the political protests roiling the territory.

"In light of the continuing unrest and violence in Hong Kong, the European Union continues to stress that dialogue, de-escalation and restraint are the only way forward," EU spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic told reporters.

A <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/hand-in-hand-hong-kong-protesters-form-human-chain-252941">Hong Kong</a> police source said the officer had shot the pro-democracy protester in the chest when his unit was attacked by demonstrators during sustained clashes -- the first such injury from a live round in nearly four months of protests in the financial hub.

Footage of the incident shows demonstrators, some using umbrellas and metal poles as weapons, clashing with police.

"While initial positive steps to engage members of the public and various sectors of society in dialogue have been taken, further efforts are needed to restore trust," Kocijancic said.

"More than three months since the protests began, the right to assembly and the right to protest peacefully must continue to be upheld in line with the (Hong Kong) basic law and international commitments."

The violence in Hong Kong cast a shadow over celebrations in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/chinas-xi-says-country-will-stay-on-path-of-peaceful-development-252973">China marking 70 years of Communist Party rule</a>, including a massive military parade in Beijing.

The European Union called Tuesday for "de-escalation and restraint" in Hong Kong after a police officer shot a demonstrator during a flare-up in the political protests roiling the territory.

The European Union called Tuesday for "de-escalation and restraint" in Hong Kong after a police officer shot a demonstrator during a flare-up in the political protests roiling the territory. "In light of the continuing unrest and violence in Hong Kong, the European Union continues to stress that dialogue, de-escalation and restraint are the only way forward," EU spokeswoman Maja Kocijancic told reporters. A Hong Kong police source said the officer had shot the pro-democracy protester in the chest when his unit was attacked by demonstrators during sustained clashes -- the first such injury from a live round in nearly four months of protests in the financial hub. Footage of the incident shows demonstrators, some using umbrellas and metal poles as weapons, clashing with police. "While initial positive steps to engage members of the public and various sectors of society in dialogue have been taken, further efforts are needed to restore trust," Kocijancic said. "More than three months since the protests began, the right to assembly and the right to protest peacefully must continue to be upheld in line with the (Hong Kong) basic law and international commitments." The violence in Hong Kong cast a shadow over celebrations in China marking 70 years of Communist Party rule, including a massive military parade in Beijing.

EU urges 'de-escalation' after Hong Kong protester shot

Brexit: 30 days to go

The United Kingdom will <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-boris-johnson-vows-to-stay-put-to-hit-october-31-brexit-deadline-252702">leave the European Union</a> on October 31, hopefully, with a deal, Finance Minister Sajid Javid said on Monday.

"Hopefully we leave with a deal," Javid told ITV. "If we cannot strike a deal, I think it is important to leave in any case and leave with no deal. It is not perfect but it is appropriate that we leave on the 31st."

Javid repeatedly refused to set out how the government could deliver <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/european-commissions-juncker-says-britain-will-be-responsible-if-no-brexit-deal-252324">Brexit</a> if there was no deal given a law which demands the prime minister delay Brexit in such a scenario.

"The legislation that parliament has passed of course has made things more difficult, but we are clear our own policy is completely unchanged, we will be leaving on 31st," Javid said.

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on October 31, hopefully, with a deal, Finance Minister Sajid Javid said on Monday. "Hopefully we leave with a deal," Javid told ITV.

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on October 31, hopefully, with a deal, Finance Minister Sajid Javid said on Monday. "Hopefully we leave with a deal," Javid told ITV. "If we cannot strike a deal, I think it is important to leave in any case and leave with no deal. It is not perfect but it is appropriate that we leave on the 31st." Javid repeatedly refused to set out how the government could deliver Brexit if there was no deal given a law which demands the prime minister delay Brexit in such a scenario. "The legislation that parliament has passed of course has made things more difficult, but we are clear our own policy is completely unchanged, we will be leaving on 31st," Javid said.

UK will leave European Union on October 31, Finance Minister Javid says

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/somalia-security-forces-end-militant-attack-on-hotel-that-killed-13-including-two-journalists-police-235464">Al-Shabaab terrorist&nbsp;group </a>struck a United States airbase in Somalia and a convoy of European Union military advisers in separate attacks on Monday, a security officer and witnesses said.&nbsp;

"Two heavy explosions occurred, the first one bigger than the other. There was also a heavy exchange of gunfire after the blasts but we don't know about the details," Mohamed Adan, a Somali elder close to the scene of the attack on the US base at Baledogle, said.

Omar Abikar, a Somali security officer, confirmed the second, separate attack in the capital Mogadishu on Monday morning against a convoy carrying EU advisers, adding "there are casualties".

In a statement, Al-Shabaab said: "In the early hours of Monday morning, an elite unit of soldiers... launched a daring raid on the US military base".

"After breaching the perimeter of the heavily fortified base, the Mujahideen (holy fighters) stormed the military complex, engaging the crusaders in an intense firefight."

The US Mission to Somalia denied Al-Shabaab fighters penetrated the camp defences, saying Somali security forces repelled the attack.

"The security forces stopped this ultimately failed attack due to their alertness and swift response, not allowing the attackers to breach the outer defensive perimeters of the base," the mission said in a statement.

"We are thankful that there were no SNA (Somali National Army) casualties between the multiple attacks."

Baledogle is a major launching site for US drone operations against Al-Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda-linked group which controls large parts of Somalia, and the Islamic State in Somalia outfit.&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

The Al-Shabaab terrorist group struck a United States airbase in Somalia and a convoy of European Union military advisers in separate attacks on Monday, a security officer and witnesses said.

The Al-Shabaab terrorist group struck a United States airbase in Somalia and a convoy of European Union military advisers in separate attacks on Monday, a security officer and witnesses said. "Two heavy explosions occurred, the first one bigger than the other. There was also a heavy exchange of gunfire after the blasts but we don't know about the details," Mohamed Adan, a Somali elder close to the scene of the attack on the US base at Baledogle, said. Omar Abikar, a Somali security officer, confirmed the second, separate attack in the capital Mogadishu on Monday morning against a convoy carrying EU advisers, adding "there are casualties". In a statement, Al-Shabaab said: "In the early hours of Monday morning, an elite unit of soldiers... launched a daring raid on the US military base". "After breaching the perimeter of the heavily fortified base, the Mujahideen (holy fighters) stormed the military complex, engaging the crusaders in an intense firefight." The US Mission to Somalia denied Al-Shabaab fighters penetrated the camp defences, saying Somali security forces repelled the attack. "The security forces stopped this ultimately failed attack due to their alertness and swift response, not allowing the attackers to breach the outer defensive perimeters of the base," the mission said in a statement. "We are thankful that there were no SNA (Somali National Army) casualties between the multiple attacks." Baledogle is a major launching site for US drone operations against Al-Shabaab, an Al-Qaeda-linked group which controls large parts of Somalia, and the Islamic State in Somalia outfit.

Al-Shabaab attacks US base, EU convoy in Somalia

Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, said that he&nbsp;and the European Union`s Chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier were doing all that they could to get a Brexit deal and if they failed it would be Britain`s responsibility.

In an interview with a German newspaper, Juncker said he and Barnier were working intensively for a deal because it would be a catastrophe for <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/outrage-at-johnsons-rhetoric-in-brexit-impasse-252210">Britain and Europe</a> if Britain left the EU without an organised withdrawal process.

"Our chief negotiator Michel Barnier and I are doing everything possible to get an agreement," he told the Augsburger Allgemeine newspaper. "But if we don`t succeed in the end, the responsibility would lie exclusively on the British side", he said.

Britain is scheduled to leave the EU on October&nbsp;31. Officials in Brussels say <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/boris-johnson-flies-back-to-face-uk-parliament-as-brexit-chaos-deepens-251977">Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a> has made little progress in negotiating a new exit deal to replace the one agreed by his predecessor Theresa May, but which was rejected three times by the British parliament.

Juncker added that negotiations on a future trade relationship between Britain and the EU would be greatly complicated by a disorderly Brexit.

"We will want to and need to seal a free trade agreement," he said. "But that won`t happen just like that, as some in Britain imagine. Some of the trade deals we sealed in my term of office took many years to reach", he added.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, said that he and the European Union`s Chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier were doing all that they could to get a Brexit deal and if they failed it would be Britain`s responsibility.

Jean-Claude Juncker, the President of the European Commission, said that he and the European Union`s Chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier were doing all that they could to get a Brexit deal and if they failed it would be Britain`s responsibility. In an interview with a German newspaper, Juncker said he and Barnier were working intensively for a deal because it would be a catastrophe for Britain and Europe if Britain left the EU without an organised withdrawal process. "Our chief negotiator Michel Barnier and I are doing everything possible to get an agreement," he told the Augsburger Allgemeine newspaper. "But if we don`t succeed in the end, the responsibility would lie exclusively on the British side", he said. Britain is scheduled to leave the EU on October 31. Officials in Brussels say Prime Minister Boris Johnson has made little progress in negotiating a new exit deal to replace the one agreed by his predecessor Theresa May, but which was rejected three times by the British parliament. Juncker added that negotiations on a future trade relationship between Britain and the EU would be greatly complicated by a disorderly Brexit. "We will want to and need to seal a free trade agreement," he said. "But that won`t happen just like that, as some in Britain imagine. Some of the trade deals we sealed in my term of office took many years to reach", he added.

European Commission's Juncker says Britain will be responsible if no Brexit deal

The U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday voted to send a team of investigators to probe alleged violations, including extrajudicial executions and torture, in crisis-wracked Venezuela.

A resolution tabled by more than a dozen countries from Latin America and elsewhere was adopted by the 47-member council with 19 votes in favour, seven opposed and 21 abstaining.

It called for the U.N.'s top rights body to "dispatch urgently an independent international fact-finding mission" to Venezuela.

The mission, the text said, should "investigate extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment".

"Venezuelans, men and women, cannot wait any longer" for justice, said the representative of Peru, on behalf of the sponsoring nations, who also included Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Israel.

The one-year mission should carry out its investigation "with a view to ensuring full accountability for perpetrators and justice for victims," said the text, which also received the backing of the European Union.

Venezuelan Ambassador Jorge Valero slammed the resolution as a "hostile initiative", and said his country had no intention of cooperating with the new probe.

"The imposition of an additional monitoring mechanism will never receive the consent of my country," he told the council.

Even when they are not granted access to a country, U.N. investigators can nonetheless carry out probes from abroad, as has been the case with investigations into abuses in Syria and Myanmar.

'Systematic abuse'&nbsp;

The investigative team will be expected to present a report to the council in a year.

Venezuela is caught in an economic crisis and a political standoff between President Nicolas Maduro's government and National Assembly leader Juan Guaido.

The oil-rich country suffers from hyperinflation and shortages of basic goods from food to medicine, a crisis that has forced some 3.6 million people to flee since 2016.

Friday's resolution deplored "the systematic abuse of state institutions accelerating the erosion of the rule of law and of democratic institutions" in Venezuela.

It also urged Caracas to release all "political prisoners" and voiced "grave concern" over UN rights office findings in July suggesting that many of the more than 6,000 killings in alleged confrontations with state forces since early 2018 may, in fact, have been "executions".

"It must be clear to all at this Council that when violations of this gravity and scale are reported to us, we must respond in an equally serious manner," British Ambassador Julian Braithwaite, whose country backed the resolution, told the council.

The U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday voted to send a team of investigators to probe alleged violations, including extrajudicial executions and torture, in crisis-wracked Venezuela.

The U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday voted to send a team of investigators to probe alleged violations, including extrajudicial executions and torture, in crisis-wracked Venezuela. A resolution tabled by more than a dozen countries from Latin America and elsewhere was adopted by the 47-member council with 19 votes in favour, seven opposed and 21 abstaining. It called for the U.N.'s top rights body to "dispatch urgently an independent international fact-finding mission" to Venezuela. The mission, the text said, should "investigate extrajudicial executions, enforced disappearances, arbitrary detentions, and torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment". "Venezuelans, men and women, cannot wait any longer" for justice, said the representative of Peru, on behalf of the sponsoring nations, who also included Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada and Israel. The one-year mission should carry out its investigation "with a view to ensuring full accountability for perpetrators and justice for victims," said the text, which also received the backing of the European Union. Venezuelan Ambassador Jorge Valero slammed the resolution as a "hostile initiative", and said his country had no intention of cooperating with the new probe. "The imposition of an additional monitoring mechanism will never receive the consent of my country," he told the council. Even when they are not granted access to a country, U.N. investigators can nonetheless carry out probes from abroad, as has been the case with investigations into abuses in Syria and Myanmar. 'Systematic abuse' The investigative team will be expected to present a report to the council in a year. Venezuela is caught in an economic crisis and a political standoff between President Nicolas Maduro's government and National Assembly leader Juan Guaido. The oil-rich country suffers from hyperinflation and shortages of basic goods from food to medicine, a crisis that has forced some 3.6 million people to flee since 2016. Friday's resolution deplored "the systematic abuse of state institutions accelerating the erosion of the rule of law and of democratic institutions" in Venezuela. It also urged Caracas to release all "political prisoners" and voiced "grave concern" over UN rights office findings in July suggesting that many of the more than 6,000 killings in alleged confrontations with state forces since early 2018 may, in fact, have been "executions". "It must be clear to all at this Council that when violations of this gravity and scale are reported to us, we must respond in an equally serious manner," British Ambassador Julian Braithwaite, whose country backed the resolution, told the council.

United Nations launches probe into Venezuela rights abuses

The EU on Thursday defended the "unprecedented" support it has given to Ukraine after it emerged US President <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/trump-bans-venezuelan-officials-from-us-boosts-aid-in-support-of-opposition-252092">Donald Trump</a> and his Ukrainian counterpart had attacked the bloc for not doing enough.

A spokesman for the European Commission, said the bloc had given <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ukraine-president-caught-in-trump-row-says-nobody-can-pressure-me-251999">Ukraine</a> more than 15 billion euros in grants and loans since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, calling it "the largest support package in the history of the EU."

The comments came after the White House released details of a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the US leader said Europe should do more to help Kiev.

Zelensky, who came to power in May, said he agreed "1,000 percent" and claimed the US was "a much bigger partner" for his country than the EU.

Commission spokesman Carlos Martin Ruiz De Gordejuela said the EU was a "staunch supporter" of Ukraine and its efforts to reform.

"It is important to say that the European Union's support to Ukraine is unprecedented. In these five years we have put together for Ukraine the largest support package in the history of the European Union," he told a daily briefing.

"On military and security support in Ukraine, we fully and resolutely support Ukraine's territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty."

As well as financial and technical support, the EU has also backed Ukraine with a raft of sanctions linked to Moscow's annexation of Crimea and the continuing conflict against pro-Kremlin rebels in the country's east.

The EU on Thursday defended the "unprecedented" support it has given to Ukraine after it emerged US President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart had attacked the bloc for not doing enough.

The EU on Thursday defended the "unprecedented" support it has given to Ukraine after it emerged US President Donald Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart had attacked the bloc for not doing enough. A spokesman for the European Commission, said the bloc had given Ukraine more than 15 billion euros in grants and loans since 2014, when Russia annexed Crimea, calling it "the largest support package in the history of the EU." The comments came after the White House released details of a July phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, in which the US leader said Europe should do more to help Kiev. Zelensky, who came to power in May, said he agreed "1,000 percent" and claimed the US was "a much bigger partner" for his country than the EU. Commission spokesman Carlos Martin Ruiz De Gordejuela said the EU was a "staunch supporter" of Ukraine and its efforts to reform. "It is important to say that the European Union's support to Ukraine is unprecedented. In these five years we have put together for Ukraine the largest support package in the history of the European Union," he told a daily briefing. "On military and security support in Ukraine, we fully and resolutely support Ukraine's territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty." As well as financial and technical support, the EU has also backed Ukraine with a raft of sanctions linked to Moscow's annexation of Crimea and the continuing conflict against pro-Kremlin rebels in the country's east.

European Union defends Ukraine support after Trump call row

British Prime Minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-mps-return-to-parliament-after-supreme-court-ruling-251945">Boris Johnson</a> on Wednesday challenged opposition parties to call a vote of no confidence in his government, telling them in parliament, "what are they scared of?"

As he faced MPs for the first time since the Supreme Court quashed his suspension of parliament, Johnson asked, "Will they have the courage to act?... Come on, then."

Johnson was reaction follows the Labour opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn calling on Johnson to resign while also adding that he would not call a no-confidence vote in the parliament until the possibility of a no-deal Brexit had been eliminated.

"Our first priority is to prevent a no-deal exit from the European Union on October 31," Corbyn was quoted as saying by local media.

Watch: Trouble follows Boris Johnson, wherever he goes!

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-trouble-follows-boris-johnson-wherever-he-goes-250683/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

Reacting on Supreme Court's ruling, Johnson said the top court was "wrong" to get involved in "what is essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy".

The court's judgement has challenged Johnson's authority, prompting calls for his resignation and casting further doubt on his promise to pull Britain out of the European Union on October 31.

The ruling throws Johnson's Brexit planning into disarray - coming after a series of defeats in the parliament that have curbed his plans for Brexit even if there is no divorce deal with Brussels.

The Prime Minister is likely to also renew his call for an early election to end the stand-off with parliament, having said in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday that it was "the obvious thing to do".

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Wednesday challenged opposition parties to call a vote of no confidence in his government, telling them in parliament, "what are they scared of?

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson on Wednesday challenged opposition parties to call a vote of no confidence in his government, telling them in parliament, "what are they scared of?" As he faced MPs for the first time since the Supreme Court quashed his suspension of parliament, Johnson asked, "Will they have the courage to act?... Come on, then." Johnson was reaction follows the Labour opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn calling on Johnson to resign while also adding that he would not call a no-confidence vote in the parliament until the possibility of a no-deal Brexit had been eliminated. "Our first priority is to prevent a no-deal exit from the European Union on October 31," Corbyn was quoted as saying by local media. Watch: Trouble follows Boris Johnson, wherever he goes! × Reacting on Supreme Court's ruling, Johnson said the top court was "wrong" to get involved in "what is essentially a political question at a time of great national controversy". The court's judgement has challenged Johnson's authority, prompting calls for his resignation and casting further doubt on his promise to pull Britain out of the European Union on October 31. The ruling throws Johnson's Brexit planning into disarray - coming after a series of defeats in the parliament that have curbed his plans for Brexit even if there is no divorce deal with Brussels. The Prime Minister is likely to also renew his call for an early election to end the stand-off with parliament, having said in New York on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly on Tuesday that it was "the obvious thing to do".

'What are they scared of?': UK PM Johnson challenges opposition to call confidence vote

By Matthew Flinders

It’s fairly clear that the tectonic plates of the British constitution are shifting. After a grating and grinding battle between the legislature and the constitution, the main friction point moved to the judicial sphere.

And the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the process by which prime minister prorogued parliament for five weeks in the run-up the October 31 date when Brexit is now due was not lawful. What happens now in terms of process is unclear but what appears to have been almost completely overlooked in the generally turgid and jargon-rich commentaries that have surrounded the case is that the result is unlikely to matter.

In fact, despite losing this specific trial of strength, Johnson may still come out the winner.

The goal of the teams taking on the government in court was to stop executive overreach. They argued that the government had devised a lengthy prorogation to limit the time available for parliament to hold the government to account over Brexit ahead of the October 31 deadline. The government insisted that the break was needed to organise a new parliamentary session. The courts have decided this was not the case.

But judicial bravery in highly contested constitutional waters may have the unintended consequence of delivering a major “Boris boost” in terms of public support. Whether through serendipity or strategy (probably the former) the prime minister has created a win-win situation that nobody seems to have noticed.

The Supreme Court upheld campaigner Gina Miller’s appeal and overturned a ruling by the English High Court that suspending parliament was “not a matter” for the judiciary.

In so doing, the court is, in effect, siding with the highest court in Scotland, which ruled earlier this month that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful as “it had the purpose of stymieing parliament”.

This decision is certain to spark the political equivalent of a volcanic eruption with claims and counter-claims of judicial activism and political incompetence. Academics will undoubtedly scuttle off to the library in an attempt to somehow reconcile the Supreme Court’s decision with legal scholar JAG Griffith’s classic account of “the political constitution” in the United Kingdom (Modern Law Review, 1979 and still well worth reading).

In reality, such matters are relatively simple. The court’s decision is constitutionally legitimate on the basis that it was upholding the basic tenet of parliamentary sovereignty. Far from undermining the political constitution, the Supreme Court would from this position be protecting it, while retaining a politically subservient position.

But what no one seems to have considered is that Johnson is an explicitly populist politician. He will live to whiff-whaff another day. His whole approach to gaining the keys to No.10 has revolved around constantly responding to – and to some extent amplifying – the populist signal, not least over Brexit. In this context, a Supreme Court defeat risks simply playing into Johnson’s gameplan. It will not stop Brexit. But for Johnson and, especially for his shady apparatchiks, it will be yet another example of “them” (that is, the elite, the experts, the untouchables that wield power without responsibility) against “us” (the Great British public).

The rules of political engagement have already been altered almost beyond recognition, and Johnson’s entire brand is based on being an unconventional politician.

The great risk of the Supreme Court ruling is that it will add fuel to a populist fire that is already raging about the need for a strong leader. Indeed, one of the few similarities between all the different manifestations of populism that have emerged around the world over the past decade is the existence of a charismatic and strong leader who can mobilise the masses and manipulate how dominant issues are framed. In the UK it is Johnson who seems to be staking the greatest claim to this role – and his popularity amongst Conservative Party members provides a powerful platform.

Britain’s threadbare constitutional framework makes it particularly vulnerable to the wrath of a strong leader. Where other countries have adopted a codified constitution, clear rules of engagement and an explicit role for the courts in curbing executive power, the British constitution operates through what the eminent constitutional historian Peter Hennessy has called “the good chaps theory of government”, which presumes that all politicians will exercise a high degree of self-restraint, respecting the unwritten rules of the constitution.

What’s worrying is that the words “Boris Johnson” and “self-restraint” have rarely – if ever – been used in the same sentence. He is not a man to play by the rules and the power of populism appears far too tempting. This is reflected in his refusal to rule out simply suspending parliament again. This tendency to pander to populism is exactly why a judicial loss risks boosting rather than wounding the prime minister.

(Matthew Flinders is Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-boris-johnson-defeated-by-uk-supreme-court-but-he-could-still-emerge-as-a-winner-123819"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Matthew Flinders It’s fairly clear that the tectonic plates of the British constitution are shifting. After a grating and grinding battle between the legislature and the constitution, the main friction point moved to the judicial sphere.

By Matthew Flinders It’s fairly clear that the tectonic plates of the British constitution are shifting. After a grating and grinding battle between the legislature and the constitution, the main friction point moved to the judicial sphere. And the UK Supreme Court has ruled that the process by which prime minister prorogued parliament for five weeks in the run-up the October 31 date when Brexit is now due was not lawful. What happens now in terms of process is unclear but what appears to have been almost completely overlooked in the generally turgid and jargon-rich commentaries that have surrounded the case is that the result is unlikely to matter. In fact, despite losing this specific trial of strength, Johnson may still come out the winner. The goal of the teams taking on the government in court was to stop executive overreach. They argued that the government had devised a lengthy prorogation to limit the time available for parliament to hold the government to account over Brexit ahead of the October 31 deadline. The government insisted that the break was needed to organise a new parliamentary session. The courts have decided this was not the case. But judicial bravery in highly contested constitutional waters may have the unintended consequence of delivering a major “Boris boost” in terms of public support. Whether through serendipity or strategy (probably the former) the prime minister has created a win-win situation that nobody seems to have noticed. The Supreme Court upheld campaigner Gina Miller’s appeal and overturned a ruling by the English High Court that suspending parliament was “not a matter” for the judiciary. In so doing, the court is, in effect, siding with the highest court in Scotland, which ruled earlier this month that the prorogation of parliament was unlawful as “it had the purpose of stymieing parliament”. This decision is certain to spark the political equivalent of a volcanic eruption with claims and counter-claims of judicial activism and political incompetence. Academics will undoubtedly scuttle off to the library in an attempt to somehow reconcile the Supreme Court’s decision with legal scholar JAG Griffith’s classic account of “the political constitution” in the United Kingdom (Modern Law Review, 1979 and still well worth reading). In reality, such matters are relatively simple. The court’s decision is constitutionally legitimate on the basis that it was upholding the basic tenet of parliamentary sovereignty. Far from undermining the political constitution, the Supreme Court would from this position be protecting it, while retaining a politically subservient position. But what no one seems to have considered is that Johnson is an explicitly populist politician. He will live to whiff-whaff another day. His whole approach to gaining the keys to No.10 has revolved around constantly responding to – and to some extent amplifying – the populist signal, not least over Brexit. In this context, a Supreme Court defeat risks simply playing into Johnson’s gameplan. It will not stop Brexit. But for Johnson and, especially for his shady apparatchiks, it will be yet another example of “them” (that is, the elite, the experts, the untouchables that wield power without responsibility) against “us” (the Great British public). The rules of political engagement have already been altered almost beyond recognition, and Johnson’s entire brand is based on being an unconventional politician. The great risk of the Supreme Court ruling is that it will add fuel to a populist fire that is already raging about the need for a strong leader. Indeed, one of the few similarities between all the different manifestations of populism that have emerged around the world over the past decade is the existence of a charismatic and strong leader who can mobilise the masses and manipulate how dominant issues are framed. In the UK it is Johnson who seems to be staking the greatest claim to this role – and his popularity amongst Conservative Party members provides a powerful platform. Britain’s threadbare constitutional framework makes it particularly vulnerable to the wrath of a strong leader. Where other countries have adopted a codified constitution, clear rules of engagement and an explicit role for the courts in curbing executive power, the British constitution operates through what the eminent constitutional historian Peter Hennessy has called “the good chaps theory of government”, which presumes that all politicians will exercise a high degree of self-restraint, respecting the unwritten rules of the constitution. What’s worrying is that the words “Boris Johnson” and “self-restraint” have rarely – if ever – been used in the same sentence. He is not a man to play by the rules and the power of populism appears far too tempting. This is reflected in his refusal to rule out simply suspending parliament again. This tendency to pander to populism is exactly why a judicial loss risks boosting rather than wounding the prime minister. (Matthew Flinders is Founding Director of the Sir Bernard Crick Centre for the Public Understanding of Politics, University of Sheffield) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit row: Boris Johnson defeated by UK Supreme Court – but he could still emerge as a winner

The UK <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-supreme-court-told-boris-johnson-is-father-of-lies-250462">Supreme Court</a> will say on Tuesday whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully when he suspended parliament just weeks before Brexit, a ruling that may further complicate his plans to lead his country out of the European Union next month.

A decision against him could lead to parliament reconvening earlier than scheduled, giving it extra time to thwart his Brexit-or-bust agenda to depart the EU by Oct. 31, with or without an exit deal agreed with the bloc.

His foes allege that Johnson suspended the assembly, where he lacks a majority, to sidestep opposition to his plan. Most lawmakers are opposed to a so-called "no-deal Brexit" scenario, fearing that it would cause economic damage and severe disruption, including to food and medicine supply chains.

He says the suspension was necessary to give the government time to prepare a new legislative agenda.

The Supreme Court's ruling is due to be delivered at&nbsp;09.30 GMT. With a constitutional crisis engulfing Britain, there is a high degree of uncertainty on exactly what it might say, and what the ramifications will be for Johnson and for parliament.

On one end of the spectrum, the justices could say that the suspension was a political matter on which they cannot pass judgment. On&nbsp;the other end, they could say that Johnson acted unlawfully and give instructions as to how and when parliament should be recalled. Other outcomes in between the two extremes are possible too.

Striking a defiant tone ahead of the ruling, Johnson rejected criticism from his opponents that his decision to suspend parliament for five weeks at such a crucial time was to prevent it from challenging his Brexit policies.

"Parliament will have bags of time to scrutinise the deal that I hope I will be able to do (with the EU's 27 other members)," he told reporters on Monday during a flight to New York, where he was due to attend the UN General Assembly.

"'Donnez-moi un break (give me a break)&nbsp;is my message to those who say there will be no parliamentary scrutiny. Absolute nonsense," he said.

The Queen Mislead?

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/if-he-loses-in-court-pm-boris-johnson-could-suspend-parliament-again-250663">parliament was suspended</a>, or prorogued in the British jargon, from September 10 to October&nbsp;14. The prorogation was approved by Queen Elizabeth, Britain's politically neutral Head of State, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister as she is required to do under the country's complex, uncodified constitution.

Johnson told the monarch that the suspension was required to give him time to prepare a Queen's Speech, another term of jargon referring to a new legislative agenda. The legal challenge hinges on whether he gave a false pretext and abused the power of prorogation.

Prior to the<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/not-for-courts-to-decide-parliament-suspension-uk-pm-boris-johnsons-lawyer-250441"> suspension</a>, he had lost&nbsp;a series of crucial votes on how and when Britain should execute its exit from the EU, decided in a 2016 referendum that split the nation bitterly.

Asked on the flight to New York whether a ruling by the Supreme Court that he had deliberately misled the queen would make his position as Prime Minister untenable, he replied: "No. I think that the reasons for wanting a Queen's Speech are extremely good."

Before the prorogation, a cross-party rebel alliance of lawmakers managed to force through a law aimed at stopping a no-deal Brexit by requiring Johnson to ask for a three-month extension if he has not been able to strike a deal by October&nbsp;19.

Johnson and other government ministers have maintained that Britain will exit on October&nbsp;31 and will not accept any further delays, indicating that they might seek to ignore the legislation and possibly bring about further court battles.

The UK Supreme Court will say on Tuesday whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully when he suspended parliament just weeks before Brexit, a ruling that may further complicate his plans to lead his country out of the European Union next month.

The UK Supreme Court will say on Tuesday whether Prime Minister Boris Johnson acted unlawfully when he suspended parliament just weeks before Brexit, a ruling that may further complicate his plans to lead his country out of the European Union next month. A decision against him could lead to parliament reconvening earlier than scheduled, giving it extra time to thwart his Brexit-or-bust agenda to depart the EU by Oct. 31, with or without an exit deal agreed with the bloc. His foes allege that Johnson suspended the assembly, where he lacks a majority, to sidestep opposition to his plan. Most lawmakers are opposed to a so-called "no-deal Brexit" scenario, fearing that it would cause economic damage and severe disruption, including to food and medicine supply chains. He says the suspension was necessary to give the government time to prepare a new legislative agenda. The Supreme Court's ruling is due to be delivered at 09.30 GMT. With a constitutional crisis engulfing Britain, there is a high degree of uncertainty on exactly what it might say, and what the ramifications will be for Johnson and for parliament. On one end of the spectrum, the justices could say that the suspension was a political matter on which they cannot pass judgment. On the other end, they could say that Johnson acted unlawfully and give instructions as to how and when parliament should be recalled. Other outcomes in between the two extremes are possible too. Striking a defiant tone ahead of the ruling, Johnson rejected criticism from his opponents that his decision to suspend parliament for five weeks at such a crucial time was to prevent it from challenging his Brexit policies. "Parliament will have bags of time to scrutinise the deal that I hope I will be able to do (with the EU's 27 other members)," he told reporters on Monday during a flight to New York, where he was due to attend the UN General Assembly. "'Donnez-moi un break (give me a break) is my message to those who say there will be no parliamentary scrutiny. Absolute nonsense," he said. The Queen Mislead? The parliament was suspended, or prorogued in the British jargon, from September 10 to October 14. The prorogation was approved by Queen Elizabeth, Britain's politically neutral Head of State, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister as she is required to do under the country's complex, uncodified constitution. Johnson told the monarch that the suspension was required to give him time to prepare a Queen's Speech, another term of jargon referring to a new legislative agenda. The legal challenge hinges on whether he gave a false pretext and abused the power of prorogation. Prior to the suspension, he had lost a series of crucial votes on how and when Britain should execute its exit from the EU, decided in a 2016 referendum that split the nation bitterly. Asked on the flight to New York whether a ruling by the Supreme Court that he had deliberately misled the queen would make his position as Prime Minister untenable, he replied: "No. I think that the reasons for wanting a Queen's Speech are extremely good." Before the prorogation, a cross-party rebel alliance of lawmakers managed to force through a law aimed at stopping a no-deal Brexit by requiring Johnson to ask for a three-month extension if he has not been able to strike a deal by October 19. Johnson and other government ministers have maintained that Britain will exit on October 31 and will not accept any further delays, indicating that they might seek to ignore the legislation and possibly bring about further court battles.

UK Supreme Court ruling could throw Boris Johnson's Brexit plan into more disarray

A&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/britain-and-eu-spar-over-brexit-as-clock-ticks-down-250908">European Union (EU)</a> court on Tuesday annulled an order by Brussels that Starbucks pay 30 Million Euros to the Netherlands, saying regulators had failed to demonstrate it received illegal state aid.

In a separate decision, however, the same court said Fiat must pay roughly the same amount to Luxembourg, upholding a similar EU order from 2015.

The split decision will be closely watched by Apple, which was ordered to repay Ireland 13 Billion Euros in 2016 in a blockbuster case that is also making its way through EU courts.

The cases can now be appealed at the EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice.

"The general court annuls the commission's decision on the aid measure implemented by the Netherlands in favour of Starbucks," the statement said.

"The commission was unable to demonstrate the existence of an advantage in favour of Starbucks," it added.

The cases from 2015 were the first out of the gate in the crackdown by the EU's anti-trust supremo Margarethe Vestager against member states that had sealed sweetheart tax deals with multinationals.

In her landmark rulings, Vestager said Dutch authorities must recoup unpaid taxes from Starbucks because it illegally allowed an elaborate tax set-up that allowed it to shift revenue abroad.

"I am pleased that the European Commission's case on Starbucks against the Netherlands on state aid has been clarified," Dutch secretary of state for finance Menno Snel said in a statement.

"This decision proves that the Dutch tax authorities treated Starbucks like any other company, and no better or different," he added.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/starbucks-opens-silent-cafe-in-china-220127">Starbucks</a> and <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/volkswagen-fiat-chrysler-could-face-2021-eu-emissions-fines-study-230743">Fiat</a> cases are dwarfed by the blockbuster order in 2016 that Apple repays Ireland 13 Billion Euros.

That case drew global attention, helping Vestager become the EU's highest-profile official.&nbsp;

In the new commission, she has been promoted to Executive Vice President and will effectively become Europe's tech regulation czar, while still holding on to her powerful anti-trust portfolio.

EU member states such as Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands have attracted multinationals over many years by offering extremely favourable tax deals to generate jobs and investment.

The issue hit close to home in 2014 with the LuxLeaks scandal which revealed that European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker's native Luxembourg gave companies favourable tax deals while he was prime minister.

Luxembourg has also been ordered&nbsp;by Brussels to recoup 250 million euros from Amazon and 120 million euros&nbsp;from French energy giant Engie.

The same court handed the commission the first setback in 2019, when it threw out a tax deal decision against Belgium, but mainly on procedural grounds. The commission last week refiled the case.

The commission is also investigating tax deals with Ikea and Nike in the Netherlands. Brussels dropped a keenly-watched case against McDonald's.

A European Union (EU) court on Tuesday annulled an order by Brussels that Starbucks pay 30 Million Euros to the Netherlands, saying regulators had failed to demonstrate it received illegal state aid.

A European Union (EU) court on Tuesday annulled an order by Brussels that Starbucks pay 30 Million Euros to the Netherlands, saying regulators had failed to demonstrate it received illegal state aid. In a separate decision, however, the same court said Fiat must pay roughly the same amount to Luxembourg, upholding a similar EU order from 2015. The split decision will be closely watched by Apple, which was ordered to repay Ireland 13 Billion Euros in 2016 in a blockbuster case that is also making its way through EU courts. The cases can now be appealed at the EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice. "The general court annuls the commission's decision on the aid measure implemented by the Netherlands in favour of Starbucks," the statement said. "The commission was unable to demonstrate the existence of an advantage in favour of Starbucks," it added. The cases from 2015 were the first out of the gate in the crackdown by the EU's anti-trust supremo Margarethe Vestager against member states that had sealed sweetheart tax deals with multinationals. In her landmark rulings, Vestager said Dutch authorities must recoup unpaid taxes from Starbucks because it illegally allowed an elaborate tax set-up that allowed it to shift revenue abroad. "I am pleased that the European Commission's case on Starbucks against the Netherlands on state aid has been clarified," Dutch secretary of state for finance Menno Snel said in a statement. "This decision proves that the Dutch tax authorities treated Starbucks like any other company, and no better or different," he added. The Starbucks and Fiat cases are dwarfed by the blockbuster order in 2016 that Apple repays Ireland 13 Billion Euros. That case drew global attention, helping Vestager become the EU's highest-profile official. In the new commission, she has been promoted to Executive Vice President and will effectively become Europe's tech regulation czar, while still holding on to her powerful anti-trust portfolio. EU member states such as Belgium, Ireland, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands have attracted multinationals over many years by offering extremely favourable tax deals to generate jobs and investment. The issue hit close to home in 2014 with the LuxLeaks scandal which revealed that European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker's native Luxembourg gave companies favourable tax deals while he was prime minister. Luxembourg has also been ordered by Brussels to recoup 250 million euros from Amazon and 120 million euros from French energy giant Engie. The same court handed the commission the first setback in 2019, when it threw out a tax deal decision against Belgium, but mainly on procedural grounds. The commission last week refiled the case. The commission is also investigating tax deals with Ikea and Nike in the Netherlands. Brussels dropped a keenly-watched case against McDonald's.

EU loses big Starbucks tax case, wins on Fiat

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reiterated a call for "flexibility" from the EU in Brexit talks during a meeting with Council President Donald Tusk in New York Monday that failed to yield a breakthrough.

Johnson and Tusk met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly as Britain races towards its October 31 departure without an exit agreement and the prospect of economic disruption.

The British prime minister underlined to Tusk that his preference is for an exit agreement, a Downing Street spokesperson said, adding that the pair discussed finding an alternative to the so-called "Irish backstop."

They also discussed three papers recently submitted by London with ideas on replacing the backstop provisions in the Brexit deal struck last year but rejected by British lawmakers.

"The Prime Minister emphasized that in order to secure a deal we will now need to see movement and flexibility from the EU," said the spokesman.

"The leaders agreed to keep in touch over the coming weeks," they added.

Tusk tweeted that there had been, "No breakthrough. No breakdown," adding that there was "no time to lose."

The meeting came as the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said Monday that London's current position did not offer any "basis to find an agreement" on leaving the bloc.

He said it was "difficult to see how we can arrive at a legally operative solution which fulfils all the objectives of the backstop."

The "backstop" is intended to guarantee that there is no hard border between EU member Ireland and the UK's province of Northern Ireland and to protect the EU's single market.

The British government has admitted leaving without an exit agreement could cause food shortages and spark civil unrest.

Johnson also held a 30-minute meeting with Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium, in which Brexit was discussed, the spokesperson for the British prime minister said.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reiterated a call for "flexibility" from the EU in Brexit talks during a meeting with Council President Donald Tusk in New York Monday that failed to yield a breakthrough.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson reiterated a call for "flexibility" from the EU in Brexit talks during a meeting with Council President Donald Tusk in New York Monday that failed to yield a breakthrough. Johnson and Tusk met on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly as Britain races towards its October 31 departure without an exit agreement and the prospect of economic disruption. The British prime minister underlined to Tusk that his preference is for an exit agreement, a Downing Street spokesperson said, adding that the pair discussed finding an alternative to the so-called "Irish backstop." They also discussed three papers recently submitted by London with ideas on replacing the backstop provisions in the Brexit deal struck last year but rejected by British lawmakers. "The Prime Minister emphasized that in order to secure a deal we will now need to see movement and flexibility from the EU," said the spokesman. "The leaders agreed to keep in touch over the coming weeks," they added. Tusk tweeted that there had been, "No breakthrough. No breakdown," adding that there was "no time to lose." The meeting came as the EU's chief Brexit negotiator, Michel Barnier, said Monday that London's current position did not offer any "basis to find an agreement" on leaving the bloc. He said it was "difficult to see how we can arrive at a legally operative solution which fulfils all the objectives of the backstop." The "backstop" is intended to guarantee that there is no hard border between EU member Ireland and the UK's province of Northern Ireland and to protect the EU's single market. The British government has admitted leaving without an exit agreement could cause food shortages and spark civil unrest. Johnson also held a 30-minute meeting with Prime Minister Charles Michel of Belgium, in which Brexit was discussed, the spokesperson for the British prime minister said.

No breakthrough as EU's Donald Tusk, Britain's Boris Johnson meet in New York

Google&nbsp;is not required to apply an EU "right to be forgotten" to its search engine domains outside Europe, the EU's top court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision.

The European Court of Justice handed victory to&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/european-union-fines-google-149-billion-euros-for-anti-trust-breach-204538">Google</a>&nbsp;in the case, seen as crucial in determining whether EU online regulation should apply beyond Europe's borders or not.&nbsp;

The US internet giant had argued that the removal of search results required under EU law should not extend to its&nbsp;google.com domain or its other non-EU sites.

The court ruled that, while a search engine operator such as&nbsp;Google&nbsp;must carry out "de-referencing" of links as demanded by a regulator or court in an EU state to all European versions of its sites, that "right to be forgotten" did not need to go further.

"There is no obligation under EU law" for search engine operators such as&nbsp;Google&nbsp;"to carry out such a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine," the court said.

The case, seen as pitting individuals' rights to privacy online against freedom of information, stemmed from a legal battle waged by France since 2014 to have&nbsp;Google&nbsp;apply the "right to be forgotten" to all its search domains.

If France had won, it could have deepened <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-preparing-antitrust-probe-of-google-report-223296">a rift between Europe and the United States</a>, which is home to most of the internet's behemoths and whose President Donald Trump has railed against what he sees as EU meddling in US business.

In the end, though, the EU court found that EU law on the issue did not seek to have its "right to be forgotten" extend beyond its borders.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/google-translates-sad-to-happy-angering-hong-kong-protesters-against-china-extradition-law-228536">Google</a>&nbsp;hailed Tuesday's decision by the EU court.

"It's good to see that the court agreed with our arguments," its lawyer, Peter Fleischer, said in a statement, adding that&nbsp;Google&nbsp;has worked "to strike a sensible balance between people's rights of access to information and privacy".

The US company and other stakeholders had warned that authoritarian countries outside Europe could abuse global de-referencing requests to cover up rights violations.

Closely Watched Case

Google's position was bolstered in January by a non-binding opinion from the EU court's top legal advisor, advocate general Maciej Szpunar, that recommended the judges "should limit the scope of the de-referencing that search engine operators are required to carry out, to the EU".

The case had been closely watched, especially as Europe has also already emerged as a global rule-setter in terms of data protection on the internet.&nbsp;

A 2016 General Data Protection Regulation it enacted that covers all EU citizens and residents has forced many sites and companies around the globe to comply with its measures.

In terms of the "right to be forgotten" legal fight, France's data regulator, the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertes (CNIL), had argued that, for de-referencing to be effective, it must apply to all domains wherever they are.

In 2016, CNIL fined&nbsp;Google&nbsp;100,000 euros ($110,000) for non-compliance.&nbsp;Google&nbsp;appealed to France's highest court, which in turn referred to the European Court of Justice, ending up with Tuesday's ruling.

Google is not required to apply an EU "right to be forgotten" to its search engine domains outside Europe, the EU's top court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision.

Google is not required to apply an EU "right to be forgotten" to its search engine domains outside Europe, the EU's top court ruled Tuesday in a landmark decision. The European Court of Justice handed victory to Google in the case, seen as crucial in determining whether EU online regulation should apply beyond Europe's borders or not. The US internet giant had argued that the removal of search results required under EU law should not extend to its google.com domain or its other non-EU sites. The court ruled that, while a search engine operator such as Google must carry out "de-referencing" of links as demanded by a regulator or court in an EU state to all European versions of its sites, that "right to be forgotten" did not need to go further. "There is no obligation under EU law" for search engine operators such as Google "to carry out such a de-referencing on all the versions of its search engine," the court said. The case, seen as pitting individuals' rights to privacy online against freedom of information, stemmed from a legal battle waged by France since 2014 to have Google apply the "right to be forgotten" to all its search domains. If France had won, it could have deepened a rift between Europe and the United States, which is home to most of the internet's behemoths and whose President Donald Trump has railed against what he sees as EU meddling in US business. In the end, though, the EU court found that EU law on the issue did not seek to have its "right to be forgotten" extend beyond its borders. Google hailed Tuesday's decision by the EU court. "It's good to see that the court agreed with our arguments," its lawyer, Peter Fleischer, said in a statement, adding that Google has worked "to strike a sensible balance between people's rights of access to information and privacy". The US company and other stakeholders had warned that authoritarian countries outside Europe could abuse global de-referencing requests to cover up rights violations. Closely Watched Case Google's position was bolstered in January by a non-binding opinion from the EU court's top legal advisor, advocate general Maciej Szpunar, that recommended the judges "should limit the scope of the de-referencing that search engine operators are required to carry out, to the EU". The case had been closely watched, especially as Europe has also already emerged as a global rule-setter in terms of data protection on the internet. A 2016 General Data Protection Regulation it enacted that covers all EU citizens and residents has forced many sites and companies around the globe to comply with its measures. In terms of the "right to be forgotten" legal fight, France's data regulator, the Commission Nationale de l'Informatique et des Libertes (CNIL), had argued that, for de-referencing to be effective, it must apply to all domains wherever they are. In 2016, CNIL fined Google 100,000 euros ($110,000) for non-compliance. Google appealed to France's highest court, which in turn referred to the European Court of Justice, ending up with Tuesday's ruling.

Google wins 'right to be forgotten' case against France's privacy watchdog

Interior ministers from four European Union (EU) countries will meet on Monday in <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/malta-to-relocate-migrants-on-german-rescue-ship-233903">Malta</a> to try to work out an automatic system to determine which countries will welcome migrants rescued in the central Mediterranean.

The ministers from France, Germany, Italy, and Malta hope to end the long, drawn-out negotiations that have seen vulnerable asylum seekers including babies stranded at sea, sometimes for weeks.

They take place ahead of a European summit in October in Luxembourg.

The mooted automatic distribution system would only be a temporary solution until the current system, the "Dublin regulation", can be revised.

Its critics have long argued that it places an unfair burden on the Mediterranean frontier countries Italy, Malta, Greece,&nbsp; and Spain.

Italy's new, pro-EU government has moved quickly to turn the page on the anti-migrant policies pursued by former far-right interior minister Matteo Salvini, who closed the ports to those rescued.

After a meeting last week, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and French President Emmanuel Macron both called for a reform of Europe's "ineffective" policy.

Countries that did not volunteer to take migrants should face financial penalties, they argued.

Rotation? 
 
At an informal meeting of foreign and interior ministers in Paris in June, 15 countries agreed to the creation of a "European Solidarity Mechanism".

Croatia, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Portugal said they would "actively" take part.

But Hungary's nationalist prime minister, Viktor Orban, rejected redistribution quotas in comments made during a visit to Rome Saturday.

Monday's meeting in Malta will try to decide where those<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/malta-rescues-216-migrants-in-upsurge-of-mediterranean-crossings-221578"> rescued</a> can be relocated -- and whether that covers just those fleeing wars and persecution, or economic migrants too.

France and Germany are reportedly willing to receive 25 per cent of people plucked from vessels in the Mediterranean.&nbsp;

But they are not keen on Italy's idea for migrants to be sent to countries across southern Europe on a rotation basis.

Italy could take 10 per cent of new arrivals - a lower proportion because it has already hosted tens of thousands of new arrivals.

The number of migrants arriving in Europe via the Mediterranean has dropped sharply in recent years. The UN's refugee body recorded nearly 115,000 arrivals in 2018, down from 170,000 in 2017 and over one million in 2015.

European migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos will also attend the Malta talks, as will Finland's interior minister - as they hold the EU presidency.&nbsp;

Interior ministers from four European Union (EU) countries will meet on Monday in Malta to try to work out an automatic system to determine which countries will welcome migrants rescued in the central Mediterranean.

Interior ministers from four European Union (EU) countries will meet on Monday in Malta to try to work out an automatic system to determine which countries will welcome migrants rescued in the central Mediterranean. The ministers from France, Germany, Italy, and Malta hope to end the long, drawn-out negotiations that have seen vulnerable asylum seekers including babies stranded at sea, sometimes for weeks. They take place ahead of a European summit in October in Luxembourg. The mooted automatic distribution system would only be a temporary solution until the current system, the "Dublin regulation", can be revised. Its critics have long argued that it places an unfair burden on the Mediterranean frontier countries Italy, Malta, Greece, and Spain. Italy's new, pro-EU government has moved quickly to turn the page on the anti-migrant policies pursued by former far-right interior minister Matteo Salvini, who closed the ports to those rescued. After a meeting last week, Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte and French President Emmanuel Macron both called for a reform of Europe's "ineffective" policy. Countries that did not volunteer to take migrants should face financial penalties, they argued. Rotation? At an informal meeting of foreign and interior ministers in Paris in June, 15 countries agreed to the creation of a "European Solidarity Mechanism". Croatia, Finland, France, Ireland, Germany, Lithuania, Luxembourg and Portugal said they would "actively" take part. But Hungary's nationalist prime minister, Viktor Orban, rejected redistribution quotas in comments made during a visit to Rome Saturday. Monday's meeting in Malta will try to decide where those rescued can be relocated -- and whether that covers just those fleeing wars and persecution, or economic migrants too. France and Germany are reportedly willing to receive 25 per cent of people plucked from vessels in the Mediterranean. But they are not keen on Italy's idea for migrants to be sent to countries across southern Europe on a rotation basis. Italy could take 10 per cent of new arrivals - a lower proportion because it has already hosted tens of thousands of new arrivals. The number of migrants arriving in Europe via the Mediterranean has dropped sharply in recent years. The UN's refugee body recorded nearly 115,000 arrivals in 2018, down from 170,000 in 2017 and over one million in 2015. European migration commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos will also attend the Malta talks, as will Finland's interior minister - as they hold the EU presidency.

European Union ministers in Malta to create a new migrant system

Britain said on Friday a Brexit deal with the European Union could be reached at a summit next month, but EU member Ireland said the sides were far from agreement and London had not yet made serious proposals.

Three years after Britons voted to leave the EU, hopes of a breakthrough over the terms of its departure have been stoked in recent days by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying the shape of a deal is emerging and European Commission President Juncker saying agreement is possible.

But diplomats say the two sides are split over London's desire to remove the Irish border "backstop" from the divorce deal struck by Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, and then work out a replacement in coming years.

The backstop is an insurance policy to keep the 500-km (300-mile) border between Ireland, which will remain in the EU, and the British province of Northern Ireland open after Brexit.

"We both want to see a deal," British Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said after talks in Brussels with EU negotiator Michel Barnier. "The meeting overran, which signals we were getting into the detail."

"There is a still a lot of work to do but there is a common purpose to secure a deal," Barclay said, adding that Juncker and Johnson also both wanted a deal.

Leaving the EU would be Britain's biggest shift in trade and foreign policy for more than 40 years and deprive the 28-nation bloc of one of its biggest economies. The EU has set a deadline for a deal to be reached by October&nbsp;31.

British parliament has rejected the deal May agreed with the EU. Johnson has said he wants to secure an amended deal at an EU summit on Oct. 17-18 but that Britain will leave the bloc if that is not possible. He will meet European Council Donald Tusk at the United Nations in New York next week.

Ireland is crucial to any Brexit solution. Unless the Irish border backstop is removed or amended, Johnson will not be able to win parliamentary approval but Ireland and the EU are unwilling to sign a deal without a solution to the border.

The EU fears a hard border could cause unrest in Northern Ireland and undermine the fragile peace provided by a 1998 peace deal that ended three decades of violence between Irish nationalists seeking a united Ireland, and the British security forces and pro-British "unionists".

The Withdrawal Agreement that was agreed with the EU last November says the United Kingdom will remain in a customs union "unless and until" alternative arrangements are found to avoid the return of border controls in Ireland.

Pound falls

The British government, worried the backstop will trap it in the EU's orbit for years to come, wants to remove it and find a solution before December 2020, when a planned transition period ends.

The British pound fell from a two-month high after the Financial Times reported Johnson had told colleagues he did not expect to reach a full "legally operable" deal next month.

Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said the mood music had improved and that both sides wanted a deal but that they were not close to an agreement.

"There is certainly a lot of commentary now and some of it is spin I think, in the context of where we are," he told the BBC. "We need to be honest with people and say that we’re not close to that deal right now."

"Everybody needs a dose of reality here, there is still quite a wide gap between what the British government have been talking about in terms of the solutions that they are proposing, and I think what Ireland and the EU will be able to support."

Britain said on Thursday it had shared documents with Brussels setting out ideas for a Brexit deal, but an EU diplomat described them as a "smokescreen" that would not prevent a disorderly exit on the Oct. 31 departure date.

Coveney, Ireland's second most powerful politician, said a no-deal could lead to civil unrest.

"Trade across 300 road crossings that has created a normality and a peace that is settled on the island of Ireland for the last 20 years, that now faces significant disruption," he said. "That is what we're fighting for here.

Britain said on Friday a Brexit deal with the European Union could be reached at a summit next month, but EU member Ireland said the sides were far from agreement and London had not yet made serious proposals.

Britain said on Friday a Brexit deal with the European Union could be reached at a summit next month, but EU member Ireland said the sides were far from agreement and London had not yet made serious proposals. Three years after Britons voted to leave the EU, hopes of a breakthrough over the terms of its departure have been stoked in recent days by British Prime Minister Boris Johnson saying the shape of a deal is emerging and European Commission President Juncker saying agreement is possible. But diplomats say the two sides are split over London's desire to remove the Irish border "backstop" from the divorce deal struck by Johnson's predecessor, Theresa May, and then work out a replacement in coming years. The backstop is an insurance policy to keep the 500-km (300-mile) border between Ireland, which will remain in the EU, and the British province of Northern Ireland open after Brexit. "We both want to see a deal," British Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said after talks in Brussels with EU negotiator Michel Barnier. "The meeting overran, which signals we were getting into the detail." "There is a still a lot of work to do but there is a common purpose to secure a deal," Barclay said, adding that Juncker and Johnson also both wanted a deal. Leaving the EU would be Britain's biggest shift in trade and foreign policy for more than 40 years and deprive the 28-nation bloc of one of its biggest economies. The EU has set a deadline for a deal to be reached by October 31. British parliament has rejected the deal May agreed with the EU. Johnson has said he wants to secure an amended deal at an EU summit on Oct. 17-18 but that Britain will leave the bloc if that is not possible. He will meet European Council Donald Tusk at the United Nations in New York next week. Ireland is crucial to any Brexit solution. Unless the Irish border backstop is removed or amended, Johnson will not be able to win parliamentary approval but Ireland and the EU are unwilling to sign a deal without a solution to the border. The EU fears a hard border could cause unrest in Northern Ireland and undermine the fragile peace provided by a 1998 peace deal that ended three decades of violence between Irish nationalists seeking a united Ireland, and the British security forces and pro-British "unionists". The Withdrawal Agreement that was agreed with the EU last November says the United Kingdom will remain in a customs union "unless and until" alternative arrangements are found to avoid the return of border controls in Ireland. Pound falls The British government, worried the backstop will trap it in the EU's orbit for years to come, wants to remove it and find a solution before December 2020, when a planned transition period ends. The British pound fell from a two-month high after the Financial Times reported Johnson had told colleagues he did not expect to reach a full "legally operable" deal next month. Irish Foreign Minister Simon Coveney said the mood music had improved and that both sides wanted a deal but that they were not close to an agreement. "There is certainly a lot of commentary now and some of it is spin I think, in the context of where we are," he told the BBC. "We need to be honest with people and say that we’re not close to that deal right now." "Everybody needs a dose of reality here, there is still quite a wide gap between what the British government have been talking about in terms of the solutions that they are proposing, and I think what Ireland and the EU will be able to support." Britain said on Thursday it had shared documents with Brussels setting out ideas for a Brexit deal, but an EU diplomat described them as a "smokescreen" that would not prevent a disorderly exit on the Oct. 31 departure date. Coveney, Ireland's second most powerful politician, said a no-deal could lead to civil unrest. "Trade across 300 road crossings that has created a normality and a peace that is settled on the island of Ireland for the last 20 years, that now faces significant disruption," he said. "That is what we're fighting for here.

Britain and EU spar over Brexit as clock ticks down

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday that Brussels could drop the so-called "backstop" solution for Brexit's Irish border dilemma if Britain came up with a fail-safe alternative.

"If the objectives are met -- all of them -- we don't need the backstop," Juncker told Britain's Sky News television.

The disputed proposal attempts to guarantee that no hard border emerges between EU member Ireland and the UK's province of Northern Ireland in any Brexit scenario.

But its effort to simultaneously ensure that the EU's single market remains protected would temporarily keep the UK in the bloc's customs union.

The fix has been repeatedly rejected by the UK parliament and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vowed to come up with a new plan -- and not sign any deal in which the backstop remains.

His government is instead trying to draft "alternative arrangements" that could make sure that no hard border is required for handling trade once Britain leaves the bloc.

Juncker said he had a "rather positive" meeting with Johnson in Luxembourg on Monday and still thought a deal could be done before the October 31 Brexit deadline.

He added that Brussels received the first outlines of Britain's new plan on Wednesday night and that he had not had time to study them yet.

"As far as the so-called alternative arrangements are concerns, allowing us and Britain to achieve the main objectives of the backstop. I don't have an erotic relation to the backstop," Juncker said with a chuckle.

"But if the results are there, I don’t care about the instruments."

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday that Brussels could drop the so-called "backstop" solution for Brexit's Irish border dilemma if Britain came up with a fail-safe alternative.

European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker said Thursday that Brussels could drop the so-called "backstop" solution for Brexit's Irish border dilemma if Britain came up with a fail-safe alternative. "If the objectives are met -- all of them -- we don't need the backstop," Juncker told Britain's Sky News television. The disputed proposal attempts to guarantee that no hard border emerges between EU member Ireland and the UK's province of Northern Ireland in any Brexit scenario. But its effort to simultaneously ensure that the EU's single market remains protected would temporarily keep the UK in the bloc's customs union. The fix has been repeatedly rejected by the UK parliament and Prime Minister Boris Johnson has vowed to come up with a new plan -- and not sign any deal in which the backstop remains. His government is instead trying to draft "alternative arrangements" that could make sure that no hard border is required for handling trade once Britain leaves the bloc. Juncker said he had a "rather positive" meeting with Johnson in Luxembourg on Monday and still thought a deal could be done before the October 31 Brexit deadline. He added that Brussels received the first outlines of Britain's new plan on Wednesday night and that he had not had time to study them yet. "As far as the so-called alternative arrangements are concerns, allowing us and Britain to achieve the main objectives of the backstop. I don't have an erotic relation to the backstop," Juncker said with a chuckle. "But if the results are there, I don’t care about the instruments."

If objectives meet, we don't need backstop in Brexit deal: European Union chief

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson could suspend parliament again even if the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-supreme-court-told-boris-johnson-is-father-of-lies-250462">Supreme Court</a> rules that his original suspension, or prorogation, was unlawful, a court document tweeted by an opposition lawyer showed on Thursday.

The document, submitted to the court by Johnson's lawyers, was disclosed as Britain's top judicial body was hearing a third and final day of legal arguments on whether the prime minister's <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/not-for-courts-to-decide-parliament-suspension-uk-pm-boris-johnsons-lawyer-250441">decision to suspend parliament</a> from September&nbsp;10 to October&nbsp;14 was lawful.

On Tuesday, one of Johnson's lawyers had told the court that if the prime minister lost the case, he could recall parliament earlier than scheduled.

This would give more time for legislators to scrutinise and oppose his plans to lead Britain out of the European Union, with or without a divorce deal, on October&nbsp;31.

But in the new document, not disclosed to media but published by lawyer Jo Maugham - one of those involved in the legal challenge - Johnson's legal team appeared to say there would still be a way for him to keep parliament from sitting, depending on the exact wording of the court's judgment.

"Depending on the court's reasoning it would still either be open or not open to the PM to consider a further prorogation," two senior lawyers representing Johnson said in a written submission to the court.

Johnson's lawyers had been asked by the judges to explain what he would do if it ruled against him. The document tweeted by Maugham was their response, he said.

"The (submissions from Johnson's lawyers) contemplate a world where the Supreme Court rules this prorogation unlawful and the government is plainly contemplating, in that world, continuing the prorogation until October 14," Maugham said on Sky News.

"So they are very delicate, very careful submissions, seeking to persuade the Supreme Court to leave that door open to the government. That is striking stuff."

Countdown to Brexit

The reason given by Johnson for suspending parliament for five weeks was that he needed time to prepare a new legislative agenda. His opponents say the real reason why he sought the suspension was to prevent parliament from interfering with his Brexit strategy.

Before the suspension, Johnson suffered one defeat after another in parliament, where he has no majority.

Most members of the House of Commons are opposed to a so-called "no-deal Brexit" scenario, predicting that it would cause economic damage and severe disruption, including to food and medicine supply chains.

A ruling could come late on Thursday at the earliest, but is more likely to be delivered in the following days. The 11 justices have given no indication of how long they would take.

Among Johnson's opponents in the Supreme Court hearing is one of his predecessors as prime minister and Conservative Party leader, John Major, who has submitted a written witness statement saying that the evidence showed that the reason given by Johnson for the suspension was not true.

"The inescapable inference to be drawn (from the evidence) is that the prorogation is to prevent parliament from exercising its right to disagree with the government and legislate as it sees fit," Major said in the witness statement, according to an excerpt read out in court by his lawyer.

Major's years in office between 1990 and 1997 were marked by bitter divisions and conflict within his party and government over Britain's relations with the EU. He described some of his own anti-EU cabinet members as "bastards".

The Conservatives are more divided than ever over the EU issue. Using his authority as an elder statesman, Major has said Britain should remain in the EU, and has warned that a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for the nation.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson could suspend parliament again even if the Supreme Court rules that his original suspension, or prorogation, was unlawful, a court document tweeted by an opposition lawyer showed on Thursday.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson could suspend parliament again even if the Supreme Court rules that his original suspension, or prorogation, was unlawful, a court document tweeted by an opposition lawyer showed on Thursday. The document, submitted to the court by Johnson's lawyers, was disclosed as Britain's top judicial body was hearing a third and final day of legal arguments on whether the prime minister's decision to suspend parliament from September 10 to October 14 was lawful. On Tuesday, one of Johnson's lawyers had told the court that if the prime minister lost the case, he could recall parliament earlier than scheduled. This would give more time for legislators to scrutinise and oppose his plans to lead Britain out of the European Union, with or without a divorce deal, on October 31. But in the new document, not disclosed to media but published by lawyer Jo Maugham - one of those involved in the legal challenge - Johnson's legal team appeared to say there would still be a way for him to keep parliament from sitting, depending on the exact wording of the court's judgment. "Depending on the court's reasoning it would still either be open or not open to the PM to consider a further prorogation," two senior lawyers representing Johnson said in a written submission to the court. Johnson's lawyers had been asked by the judges to explain what he would do if it ruled against him. The document tweeted by Maugham was their response, he said. "The (submissions from Johnson's lawyers) contemplate a world where the Supreme Court rules this prorogation unlawful and the government is plainly contemplating, in that world, continuing the prorogation until October 14," Maugham said on Sky News. "So they are very delicate, very careful submissions, seeking to persuade the Supreme Court to leave that door open to the government. That is striking stuff." Countdown to Brexit The reason given by Johnson for suspending parliament for five weeks was that he needed time to prepare a new legislative agenda. His opponents say the real reason why he sought the suspension was to prevent parliament from interfering with his Brexit strategy. Before the suspension, Johnson suffered one defeat after another in parliament, where he has no majority. Most members of the House of Commons are opposed to a so-called "no-deal Brexit" scenario, predicting that it would cause economic damage and severe disruption, including to food and medicine supply chains. A ruling could come late on Thursday at the earliest, but is more likely to be delivered in the following days. The 11 justices have given no indication of how long they would take. Among Johnson's opponents in the Supreme Court hearing is one of his predecessors as prime minister and Conservative Party leader, John Major, who has submitted a written witness statement saying that the evidence showed that the reason given by Johnson for the suspension was not true. "The inescapable inference to be drawn (from the evidence) is that the prorogation is to prevent parliament from exercising its right to disagree with the government and legislate as it sees fit," Major said in the witness statement, according to an excerpt read out in court by his lawyer. Major's years in office between 1990 and 1997 were marked by bitter divisions and conflict within his party and government over Britain's relations with the EU. He described some of his own anti-EU cabinet members as "bastards". The Conservatives are more divided than ever over the EU issue. Using his authority as an elder statesman, Major has said Britain should remain in the EU, and has warned that a no-deal Brexit would be disastrous for the nation.

If he loses in court, PM Boris Johnson could suspend parliament again: Report

Britain must deliver a written proposal for a solution to the Brexit impasse this month to avoid a no-deal Brexit, the Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne's office told AFP on Thursday.

It is "a view of prime minister Rinne that the UK must come up with a written proposal by the end of this month," a spokesperson said.

Finland currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union.

Rinne's statement comes a day after he met President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, where he said that the European Union (EU) is unlikely to grant an extension to the current October 31 deadline, and thus avoid a no-deal exit, unless London proposes concrete measures.

"Finland, nor I, nor the other 26 member states have much enthusiasm for an extension unless there is a sensible solution in sight for the future", Rinne said.

Rinne's office confirmed that he will speak with European Council president Donald Tusk by telephone to discuss the end of Septemer deadline.&nbsp;

On Thursday a French diplomatic source told AFP that "time is running out" to reach a Brexit accord, warning that it will not be possible to negotiate "directly" at the next European Council meeting in mid-October.

The 28 EU leaders are due to meet on October 17 and 18 in Brussels, less than two weeks ahead of the &nbsp;scheduled Brexit date of 31 October.

Brexit minister Stephen Barclay said on Thursday morning that he will meet EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier on Friday.

"The Prime Minister returned from talks with President (Jean-Claude) Juncker in Luxembourg on Monday with assurances that negotiations will intensify," Barclay said in a speech in Madrid.&nbsp;

"I also met with Michel Barnier at the same time and I will meet him again tomorrow," he said.

According to a European source, the Brexit timetable will also be discussed at a meeting between British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Juncker on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York next week.

Britain must deliver a written proposal for a solution to the Brexit impasse this month to avoid a no-deal Brexit, the Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne's office told AFP on Thursday.

Britain must deliver a written proposal for a solution to the Brexit impasse this month to avoid a no-deal Brexit, the Finnish Prime Minister Antti Rinne's office told AFP on Thursday. It is "a view of prime minister Rinne that the UK must come up with a written proposal by the end of this month," a spokesperson said. Finland currently holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Rinne's statement comes a day after he met President Emmanuel Macron in Paris, where he said that the European Union (EU) is unlikely to grant an extension to the current October 31 deadline, and thus avoid a no-deal exit, unless London proposes concrete measures. "Finland, nor I, nor the other 26 member states have much enthusiasm for an extension unless there is a sensible solution in sight for the future", Rinne said. Rinne's office confirmed that he will speak with European Council president Donald Tusk by telephone to discuss the end of Septemer deadline. On Thursday a French diplomatic source told AFP that "time is running out" to reach a Brexit accord, warning that it will not be possible to negotiate "directly" at the next European Council meeting in mid-October. The 28 EU leaders are due to meet on October 17 and 18 in Brussels, less than two weeks ahead of the scheduled Brexit date of 31 October. Brexit minister Stephen Barclay said on Thursday morning that he will meet EU chief negotiator Michel Barnier on Friday. "The Prime Minister returned from talks with President (Jean-Claude) Juncker in Luxembourg on Monday with assurances that negotiations will intensify," Barclay said in a speech in Madrid. "I also met with Michel Barnier at the same time and I will meet him again tomorrow," he said. According to a European source, the Brexit timetable will also be discussed at a meeting between British Prime Minister Boris Johnson and Juncker on the margins of the UN General Assembly in New York next week.

UK must give written Brexit proposal this month: Finnish PM

On recent Sunday, UK PM Boris Johnson compared himself with incredible Hulk promising that the UK will break free from European Union. But then why next day this self-proclaimed hulk went missing from a press-conference?

Gravitas: UK PM Johnson's 'Comparison With Hulk'

Apple went on the offensive against Brussels in an EU court on Tuesday, fighting the European Commission's landmark order that the iPhone-maker reimburse Ireland's $14 billion&nbsp;in back taxes.

The EU's tax demand, made three years ago, "defies reality and common sense," Apple's lawyer Daniel Beard told the EU's lower General Court.

The commission's "conclusion is wrong," he added at the start of two days of hearings.

Lawyers for the world's biggest company faced EU officials in the Luxembourg court, challenging a decision that CEO Tim Cook slammed at the time as "total political crap" with no basis in law.

Ireland, which is similarly appealing the decision, lashed out at the EU's "astonishing" interpretation of tax law.

"The Commission decision simply ignores Irish laws," Ireland's representative Maurice Collins told judges.

The commission's historic decision was delivered on August 2016 by Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, a shock decision that put Europe at the forefront of an emerging effort to rein in the power of America's largest technological companies.

The EU accuses <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/disney-ceo-bob-iger-resigns-from-apple-board-as-tv-battle-looms-249672">Apple</a> of parking untaxed revenue earned in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and India in Ireland, which has become a European hub for US-based big tech.

This privilege allegedly gave Apple an advantage over other companies, allowing it to avoid Irish taxes between 2003 and 2014 of around 13 billion euros which, according to Brussels, constituted illegal "state aid" by Ireland.

An EU lawyer pushed back at Apple and Ireland's arguments, insisting that the iPhone-maker was on the hook to pay taxes in Ireland.

The judges are not expected to hand down their decision before 2020. Any appeal would then go the EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice, for a final ruling that could land as late as 2021.

'Rewrite history'

Apple fiercely rejects the tax bill, while the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-house-panel-demands-tech-company-emails-in-antitrust-investigation-249510">US </a>government insists the order by Brussels constitutes a major breach of international tax law.

"The European Commission has tried to rewrite Apple's history in Europe, to ignore Ireland's tax laws and, in doing so, to disrupt the international tax system," Tim Cook said in an open letter in 2016.

The group insists that it is in the United States, where the company invests in research and development and thus creates wealth, that it must pay taxes on the revenue in question.

This became possible after a major tax overhaul in the US at the end of 2017 that allowed Apple to repatriate profits made abroad. Apple has promised to pay Washington a tax bill of $37 billion, in addition to the taxes already paid in the United States.

That argument is "perfectly irrelevant", said the commission's lawyer.

"There is no tax mismatch here," said the lawyer.

The two days of hearings are taking place in a tense trade context between the EU and the United States. President Donald Trump accuses Europeans of deliberately attacking American technology giants.

The EU's competition supremo, Vestager, has in particular been accused by Trump of "hating" the US. He has slammed her as the "tax lady" because of the investigations and heavy fines imposed on US tech firms such as Google.

Pending the conclusion of the case, Apple has blocked the funds in an escrow account: a total of 14.3 billion euros after interest.

The group, which has been present in Ireland since the 1980s, employs around 6,000 people in Cork, the country's second-largest city.

The first indications of how the Apple case may finish will come as early as September 24 when the same EU court will rule on whether Vestager was right to demand unpaid taxes from Starbucks and a unit of Fiat Chrysler.

Apple went on the offensive against Brussels in an EU court on Tuesday, fighting the European Commission's landmark order that the iPhone-maker reimburse Ireland's $14 billion in back taxes.

Apple went on the offensive against Brussels in an EU court on Tuesday, fighting the European Commission's landmark order that the iPhone-maker reimburse Ireland's $14 billion in back taxes. The EU's tax demand, made three years ago, "defies reality and common sense," Apple's lawyer Daniel Beard told the EU's lower General Court. The commission's "conclusion is wrong," he added at the start of two days of hearings. Lawyers for the world's biggest company faced EU officials in the Luxembourg court, challenging a decision that CEO Tim Cook slammed at the time as "total political crap" with no basis in law. Ireland, which is similarly appealing the decision, lashed out at the EU's "astonishing" interpretation of tax law. "The Commission decision simply ignores Irish laws," Ireland's representative Maurice Collins told judges. The commission's historic decision was delivered on August 2016 by Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, a shock decision that put Europe at the forefront of an emerging effort to rein in the power of America's largest technological companies. The EU accuses Apple of parking untaxed revenue earned in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and India in Ireland, which has become a European hub for US-based big tech. This privilege allegedly gave Apple an advantage over other companies, allowing it to avoid Irish taxes between 2003 and 2014 of around 13 billion euros which, according to Brussels, constituted illegal "state aid" by Ireland. An EU lawyer pushed back at Apple and Ireland's arguments, insisting that the iPhone-maker was on the hook to pay taxes in Ireland. The judges are not expected to hand down their decision before 2020. Any appeal would then go the EU's highest court, the European Court of Justice, for a final ruling that could land as late as 2021. 'Rewrite history' Apple fiercely rejects the tax bill, while the US government insists the order by Brussels constitutes a major breach of international tax law. "The European Commission has tried to rewrite Apple's history in Europe, to ignore Ireland's tax laws and, in doing so, to disrupt the international tax system," Tim Cook said in an open letter in 2016. The group insists that it is in the United States, where the company invests in research and development and thus creates wealth, that it must pay taxes on the revenue in question. This became possible after a major tax overhaul in the US at the end of 2017 that allowed Apple to repatriate profits made abroad. Apple has promised to pay Washington a tax bill of $37 billion, in addition to the taxes already paid in the United States. That argument is "perfectly irrelevant", said the commission's lawyer. "There is no tax mismatch here," said the lawyer. The two days of hearings are taking place in a tense trade context between the EU and the United States. President Donald Trump accuses Europeans of deliberately attacking American technology giants. The EU's competition supremo, Vestager, has in particular been accused by Trump of "hating" the US. He has slammed her as the "tax lady" because of the investigations and heavy fines imposed on US tech firms such as Google. Pending the conclusion of the case, Apple has blocked the funds in an escrow account: a total of 14.3 billion euros after interest. The group, which has been present in Ireland since the 1980s, employs around 6,000 people in Cork, the country's second-largest city. The first indications of how the Apple case may finish will come as early as September 24 when the same EU court will rule on whether Vestager was right to demand unpaid taxes from Starbucks and a unit of Fiat Chrysler.

Apple slams European Union as court battle over tax bill begins

european-union

European Union, News on European Union, stories on European Union, articles on European Union, European Union stories at Wion, European Union news, European Union latest news

european union

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 4th, 2019

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson tells court he may seek Brexit delay: Report

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 4th, 2019

Why the UK's Brexit proposal falls short for the European Union

Canadian police illegally shared info on Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou: Lawyers

Boris Johnson makes final Brexit offer, draws guarded welcome from European Union

British PM Boris Johnson plans to suspend parliament again from October 8

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 3rd, 2019

Let's get Brexit done, UK PM Johnson tells Conservative Party

UK, not EU, needs to do more work on Brexit offer: Brussels

United Kingdom Prime Minister Boris Johnson to unveil final Brexit offer to European Union

EU urges 'de-escalation' after Hong Kong protester shot

Brexit: 30 days to go

UK will leave European Union on October 31, Finance Minister Javid says

Al-Shabaab attacks US base, EU convoy in Somalia

European Commission's Juncker says Britain will be responsible if no Brexit deal

United Nations launches probe into Venezuela rights abuses

European Union defends Ukraine support after Trump call row

'What are they scared of?': UK PM Johnson challenges opposition to call confidence vote

Brexit row: Boris Johnson defeated by UK Supreme Court – but he could still emerge as a winner

UK Supreme Court ruling could throw Boris Johnson's Brexit plan into more disarray

EU loses big Starbucks tax case, wins on Fiat

No breakthrough as EU's Donald Tusk, Britain's Boris Johnson meet in New York

Google wins 'right to be forgotten' case against France's privacy watchdog

European Union ministers in Malta to create a new migrant system

Britain and EU spar over Brexit as clock ticks down