Britain's upper house of parliament on Tuesday inflicted a new defeat on Prime Minister Theresa May’s government on Tuesday, challenging her decision to fix a date next year to leave the European Union.

The House of Lords voted for an amendment to a draft law, removing a proposed fixed time for a Brexit departure of 11 p.m. on March 29 next year.

The government has already set the clock ticking on a two-year exit process that has so far failed to deliver a divorce deal and which was damaged by her gamble on a snap election which cost her party its majority in parliament.

Some lawmakers criticised the government's plan to impose a specific date for Britain leaving the EU, saying it would create significant difficulties if negotiations with Brussels went down to the wire.

"It creates a rod for the UK negotiators' backs, weakens any UK negotiating position, and adds unnecessary pressure to those in the executive trying to deliver Brexit in a coherent measured fashion," said Arthur Wellesley, a Conservative member of the House of Lords, who introduced the amendment.

"We should give ministers a bit more flexibility to secure and obtain ratification of the best possible deal which will do the least damage to the economy and the national interest."

This is the 12th time in recent weeks that the government has been defeated in the House of Lords on the draft legislation that will formally terminate Britain's EU membership.

The vote can be overturned by the lower house, the House of Commons, but underscores the deep divisions over Brexit across parliament and could encourage lawmakers who hope to derail May's plans to forge a new relationship with the EU.

Earlier, opposition parties in the Lords and rebels in May's Conservative Party voted in favour of the amendment that means Britain should participate in EU agencies after leaving the bloc next year.

The government has proposed retaining membership of some EU agencies for medicine, chemicals and aviation while leaving others after Brexit.

Britain is likely to leave the EU police agency Europol and lose automatic membership to bodies like the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Environment Agency.

Agencies that oversee Europe's banks and pharmaceutical sector have announced they will move from London to cities on the continent after Brexit, highlighting potential job losses for Britain's economy from leaving the EU.

After the Lords, the bill will return to the House of Commons. Both houses have to agree on the final wording of the bill before it can become law.

Lawmakers will have to decide whether to back the government or reject the law — with the risk that Britain could crash out of the EU next year without any deal in place.

This is the penultimate session for the bill in the upper chamber during the report stage, where members have already voted in favour of amendments including to compel ministers to seek a form of customs union with the EU.

The upper house voted for an amendment to a draft law

Britain's upper house of parliament on Tuesday inflicted a new defeat on Prime Minister Theresa May’s government on Tuesday, challenging her decision to fix a date next year to leave the European Union. The House of Lords voted for an amendment to a draft law, removing a proposed fixed time for a Brexit departure of 11 p.m. on March 29 next year. The government has already set the clock ticking on a two-year exit process that has so far failed to deliver a divorce deal and which was damaged by her gamble on a snap election which cost her party its majority in parliament. Some lawmakers criticised the government's plan to impose a specific date for Britain leaving the EU, saying it would create significant difficulties if negotiations with Brussels went down to the wire. "It creates a rod for the UK negotiators' backs, weakens any UK negotiating position, and adds unnecessary pressure to those in the executive trying to deliver Brexit in a coherent measured fashion," said Arthur Wellesley, a Conservative member of the House of Lords, who introduced the amendment. "We should give ministers a bit more flexibility to secure and obtain ratification of the best possible deal which will do the least damage to the economy and the national interest." This is the 12th time in recent weeks that the government has been defeated in the House of Lords on the draft legislation that will formally terminate Britain's EU membership. The vote can be overturned by the lower house, the House of Commons, but underscores the deep divisions over Brexit across parliament and could encourage lawmakers who hope to derail May's plans to forge a new relationship with the EU. Earlier, opposition parties in the Lords and rebels in May's Conservative Party voted in favour of the amendment that means Britain should participate in EU agencies after leaving the bloc next year. The government has proposed retaining membership of some EU agencies for medicine, chemicals and aviation while leaving others after Brexit. Britain is likely to leave the EU police agency Europol and lose automatic membership to bodies like the European Maritime Safety Agency and the European Environment Agency. Agencies that oversee Europe's banks and pharmaceutical sector have announced they will move from London to cities on the continent after Brexit, highlighting potential job losses for Britain's economy from leaving the EU. After the Lords, the bill will return to the House of Commons. Both houses have to agree on the final wording of the bill before it can become law. Lawmakers will have to decide whether to back the government or reject the law — with the risk that Britain could crash out of the EU next year without any deal in place. This is the penultimate session for the bill in the upper chamber during the report stage, where members have already voted in favour of amendments including to compel ministers to seek a form of customs union with the EU.

UK government's plans for fixed Brexit date defeated in House of Lords

Scores of Indian doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs and other professionals are challenging the UK government in court over being denied the right to live and work in Britain.

The professionals brought together under the banner of the 'Highly Skilled Migrants' group, were back opposite Parliament Square in London today to protest against "unjustified" refusals by the UK Home Office of their applications for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in Britain.

Since their last protest in February, many of the professionals refused ILR have appealed against the Home Office decision in the First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal  the courts which hear immigration appeals.

"Given the Windrush scandal involving innocent migrants being denied their citizenship rights and the new Home Secretary (Sajid Javid) assuring the public that the Home Office will be fair in its immigration decisions, these cases take on an added significance," said Aditi Bhardwaj, one of the convenors of the group.

"The way some of these skilled professionals have been treated is worse than criminals. We have evidence to show that the entire approach of the Home Office is unfair because it is based on how to find a way to deny someone's legitimate application to live and work in the country," she said.

The common factor among all the professionals, from non-European Union countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, is that they were in the UK on a Tier 1 (General) visa.

They were entitled to apply for ILR or permanent residency status after a minimum of five years' lawful residency in the UK.

While the visa category itself was discontinued in 2010, former applicants were eligible to apply for ILR until April this year if they met the necessary requirements.

But legal experts have noted a pattern of many such applications being turned down on the basis of Rule 322(5), a discretionary rule linked to an applicant's "good character".

The reason for refusal under this rule is most often a discrepancy in the earnings declared to the Home Office and that to the UK's tax department.

While in some cases there may be a legal case of downplaying income for tax reasons or overstating for immigration purposes, experts believe the rule has been used unfairly as a blanket reason for turning down most applications under the Tier 1 (General) route.

"In the last couple of years, this refusal reason seems to have become near-automatic. The Home Office should not be treating legitimate businesspeople as dishonest where there may be an innocent explanation," said Mark Symes, a senior immigration barrister aware of several such cases where the UK Home Office seems to have displayed a "shoot first mentality".

"The main potential for injustice is the seemingly automatic refusal of applications even when there are good explanations provided, for example where an accountant has admitted their own error in writing," he said.

A 31-year-old Indian professional, who underwent a similar situation due to a minor correction in his tax return, is now fighting his case in the UK's Court of Appeal.

The former Heathrow Airport worker's case has the potential of becoming a test case for hundreds of others who have been denied their ILR on similar grounds.

"The judge has indicated that the grounds of appeal have a good prospect of success," said the professional on condition of anonymity.

"My entire life has been on hold for two years, during which I have been unable to work or focus on anything else.

The Home Office is just interested in its immigration targets and finding any means to deny what is our right as skilled professionals who have been working hard and paying our taxes in this country," he said.

His case comes up for its next hearing in June and could pave the way for a wider class action legal challenge.

"It is possible that a class action would be a good way for getting the law and the legal requirement for fairness to be clarified," said Symes.

The group's protest outside Parliament comes just days after newly-appointed Home Secretary Sajid Javid took charge amid an ongoing immigration crisis dubbed the "Windrush scandal" involving hundreds of Caribbean immigrants to Britain, and vowed to "do right" by migrants who had a legitimate right to be in the country.

Javid replaced Amber Rudd who resigned after admitting that she had "inadvertently misled" Parliament over the existence of deportation targets for illegal immigrants.

The UK Home Office claims that any refusals are a direct result of discrepancies in the tax data quoted by applicants.

"Where there has been clear evidence that these applicants have lied on their visa forms, the courts have upheld our refusal decisions in most cases when these decisions are challenged," a Home Office statement said.

Scores of Indian doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs and other professionals are challenging the UK government in court over being denied the right to live and work in Britain.

Scores of Indian doctors, teachers, entrepreneurs and other professionals are challenging the UK government in court over being denied the right to live and work in Britain. The professionals brought together under the banner of the 'Highly Skilled Migrants' group, were back opposite Parliament Square in London today to protest against "unjustified" refusals by the UK Home Office of their applications for indefinite leave to remain (ILR) in Britain. Since their last protest in February, many of the professionals refused ILR have appealed against the Home Office decision in the First Tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal  the courts which hear immigration appeals. "Given the Windrush scandal involving innocent migrants being denied their citizenship rights and the new Home Secretary (Sajid Javid) assuring the public that the Home Office will be fair in its immigration decisions, these cases take on an added significance," said Aditi Bhardwaj, one of the convenors of the group. "The way some of these skilled professionals have been treated is worse than criminals. We have evidence to show that the entire approach of the Home Office is unfair because it is based on how to find a way to deny someone's legitimate application to live and work in the country," she said. The common factor among all the professionals, from non-European Union countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Nigeria, is that they were in the UK on a Tier 1 (General) visa. They were entitled to apply for ILR or permanent residency status after a minimum of five years' lawful residency in the UK. While the visa category itself was discontinued in 2010, former applicants were eligible to apply for ILR until April this year if they met the necessary requirements. But legal experts have noted a pattern of many such applications being turned down on the basis of Rule 322(5), a discretionary rule linked to an applicant's "good character". The reason for refusal under this rule is most often a discrepancy in the earnings declared to the Home Office and that to the UK's tax department. While in some cases there may be a legal case of downplaying income for tax reasons or overstating for immigration purposes, experts believe the rule has been used unfairly as a blanket reason for turning down most applications under the Tier 1 (General) route. "In the last couple of years, this refusal reason seems to have become near-automatic. The Home Office should not be treating legitimate businesspeople as dishonest where there may be an innocent explanation," said Mark Symes, a senior immigration barrister aware of several such cases where the UK Home Office seems to have displayed a "shoot first mentality". "The main potential for injustice is the seemingly automatic refusal of applications even when there are good explanations provided, for example where an accountant has admitted their own error in writing," he said. A 31-year-old Indian professional, who underwent a similar situation due to a minor correction in his tax return, is now fighting his case in the UK's Court of Appeal. The former Heathrow Airport worker's case has the potential of becoming a test case for hundreds of others who have been denied their ILR on similar grounds. "The judge has indicated that the grounds of appeal have a good prospect of success," said the professional on condition of anonymity. "My entire life has been on hold for two years, during which I have been unable to work or focus on anything else. The Home Office is just interested in its immigration targets and finding any means to deny what is our right as skilled professionals who have been working hard and paying our taxes in this country," he said. His case comes up for its next hearing in June and could pave the way for a wider class action legal challenge. "It is possible that a class action would be a good way for getting the law and the legal requirement for fairness to be clarified," said Symes. The group's protest outside Parliament comes just days after newly-appointed Home Secretary Sajid Javid took charge amid an ongoing immigration crisis dubbed the "Windrush scandal" involving hundreds of Caribbean immigrants to Britain, and vowed to "do right" by migrants who had a legitimate right to be in the country. Javid replaced Amber Rudd who resigned after admitting that she had "inadvertently misled" Parliament over the existence of deportation targets for illegal immigrants. The UK Home Office claims that any refusals are a direct result of discrepancies in the tax data quoted by applicants. "Where there has been clear evidence that these applicants have lied on their visa forms, the courts have upheld our refusal decisions in most cases when these decisions are challenged," a Home Office statement said.

Indian professionals challenge UK government in court over visas

European Council President Donald Tusk on Friday dismissed as &quot;pure illusion&quot; the ideas floated by Britain so far on what sort of relationship it wants with the European Union after it leaves the bloc.

Tusk said he hoped to get more clarity when he meets Theresa May next Thursday, a day before the British prime minister is due to deliver a speech to outline London&#39;s vision of its future ties with the EU.

&quot;I am glad that the UK government seems to be moving towards a more detailed position,&quot; Tusk told journalists after 27 EU leaders - all apart from May - met in Brussels on Friday.

&quot;However ... I am afraid that the UK position today is based on pure illusion. It seems like the &#39;cake&#39; philosophy is still alive. From the very start it has been a key clear principle of the EU 27 that there can be no cherry-picking and no single market &#39;a la carte&#39;.&quot;

British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has famously said he wants Britain to get the best of both worlds - to &quot;have its cake and eat it&quot;.

EU leaders have long been asking May for details of London&#39;s vision for future relations, but she has been hampered by divisions within her ruling Conservative Party, with some backing close trading ties and others seeking a &quot;clean break&quot;.

The cake problem

Tusk said the remaining 27 EU states would adopt their joint stance on that in March, whether London provided input or not. He said the bloc would be &quot;extremely realistic in our assessment of possible new proposals&quot;.

Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who saw May this week, echoed those comments in talking to reporters separately after the Brussels meeting.

&quot;I made it clear to Theresa May that I believe it is crucial for the UK to set out its position on the transition, on issues like the Irish border, and particularly on the future relationship,&quot; he said.

&quot;We don&#39;t like cherry-picking, so it will be difficult to come to a bespoke deal along the lines that some in the UK are suggesting.&quot;

The EU has rejected British ideas for a three-pronged deal in which Britain would stick to the bloc&#39;s rules after Brexit in some areas, diverge moderately in others and go for distinctively different solutions for the rest.

The issue of avoiding erecting a border between EU member Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland after Britain leaves has emerged as the most sensitive in the divorce negotiations, as both sides fear a return to the violence that beset the region for decades.

The EU expects Britain to come up with proposals on that, adding that London&#39;s desire to leave the bloc&#39;s single market and customs union means a border would be virtually unavoidable.

&quot;I don&#39;t think the United Kingdom has yet squared the circle,&quot; Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told journalists. &quot;You&#39;re hearing this idea of three baskets. But that&#39;s not a significant step away from having your cake and eating it.&quot;

Tusk said he hoped to get more clarity when he meets Theresa May next Thursday, a day before the British prime minister is due to deliver a speech to outline London's vision of its future ties with the EU.

European Council President Donald Tusk on Friday dismissed as "pure illusion" the ideas floated by Britain so far on what sort of relationship it wants with the European Union after it leaves the bloc. Tusk said he hoped to get more clarity when he meets Theresa May next Thursday, a day before the British prime minister is due to deliver a speech to outline London's vision of its future ties with the EU. "I am glad that the UK government seems to be moving towards a more detailed position," Tusk told journalists after 27 EU leaders - all apart from May - met in Brussels on Friday. "However ... I am afraid that the UK position today is based on pure illusion. It seems like the 'cake' philosophy is still alive. From the very start it has been a key clear principle of the EU 27 that there can be no cherry-picking and no single market 'a la carte'." British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson has famously said he wants Britain to get the best of both worlds - to "have its cake and eat it". EU leaders have long been asking May for details of London's vision for future relations, but she has been hampered by divisions within her ruling Conservative Party, with some backing close trading ties and others seeking a "clean break". The cake problem Tusk said the remaining 27 EU states would adopt their joint stance on that in March, whether London provided input or not. He said the bloc would be "extremely realistic in our assessment of possible new proposals". Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, who saw May this week, echoed those comments in talking to reporters separately after the Brussels meeting. "I made it clear to Theresa May that I believe it is crucial for the UK to set out its position on the transition, on issues like the Irish border, and particularly on the future relationship," he said. "We don't like cherry-picking, so it will be difficult to come to a bespoke deal along the lines that some in the UK are suggesting." The EU has rejected British ideas for a three-pronged deal in which Britain would stick to the bloc's rules after Brexit in some areas, diverge moderately in others and go for distinctively different solutions for the rest. The issue of avoiding erecting a border between EU member Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland after Britain leaves has emerged as the most sensitive in the divorce negotiations, as both sides fear a return to the violence that beset the region for decades. The EU expects Britain to come up with proposals on that, adding that London's desire to leave the bloc's single market and customs union means a border would be virtually unavoidable. "I don't think the United Kingdom has yet squared the circle," Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told journalists. "You're hearing this idea of three baskets. But that's not a significant step away from having your cake and eating it."

UK ideas on post-Brexit ties are 'pure illusion', says European Council President Donald Tusk

The UK government was under pressure Tuesday to publish its latest Brexit analysis after a leaked internal report said Britain would be worse off whatever deal it strikes with the EU.

The economic impact assessment, drawn up for the Brexit ministry and seen by the BuzzFeed News website, showed growth would be lower under a range of potential scenarios.

The leak comes as Prime Minister Theresa May prepares to fly out on a three-day trade mission to China and as parliament`s upper House of Lords begins scrutinising the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, a key plank of Brexit legislation.

The January 2018 study, titled &quot;EU Exit Analysis&quot;, examined three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios.

If found that if Britain remained in the European single market, growth would be two percent lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts.

Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union, growth would be five percent lower, it said.

And if London and Brussels end up with a &quot;no deal&quot; scenario and revert to World Trade Organization rules, growth would be reduced by eight percent over the same period, the report said, according to BuzzFeed News.

Responding to the leak, a government source said officials across the ministries were undertaking &quot;a wide range of ongoing analysis&quot;.

&quot;An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist,&quot; the source said.

&quot;It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome -- a new deep and special partnership with the EU.

&quot;It also contains a significant number of caveats...significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis.&quot;

Opposition Labour lawmaker Chris Leslie, part of the Open Britain group -- the continuity Remain campaign from Britain`s 2016 referendum on EU membership -- urged the government to make its assessment public.

&quot;The government must now publish their analysis in full so that MPs and the public can see for themselves the impact that Brexit will have and judge for themselves whether it is the right thing for our country,&quot; he said.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group of MPs from May`s governing Conservative Party, said the findings were &quot;highly speculative&quot;.

Meanwhile, parliament`s foreign affairs scrutiny committee said Britain`s diplomatic network was spread too thinly and needed to be bolstered to cope with Brexit.

The panel of MPs said British representation in EU capitals, particularly Berlin and Paris, needed to be significantly increased to help maintain influence in Europe.

The January 2018 study, titled "EU Exit Analysis", examined three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios

The UK government was under pressure Tuesday to publish its latest Brexit analysis after a leaked internal report said Britain would be worse off whatever deal it strikes with the EU. The economic impact assessment, drawn up for the Brexit ministry and seen by the BuzzFeed News website, showed growth would be lower under a range of potential scenarios. The leak comes as Prime Minister Theresa May prepares to fly out on a three-day trade mission to China and as parliament`s upper House of Lords begins scrutinising the EU (Withdrawal) Bill, a key plank of Brexit legislation. The January 2018 study, titled "EU Exit Analysis", examined three of the most plausible Brexit scenarios. If found that if Britain remained in the European single market, growth would be two percent lower over the next 15 years compared to current forecasts. Under a comprehensive free trade agreement with the European Union, growth would be five percent lower, it said. And if London and Brussels end up with a "no deal" scenario and revert to World Trade Organization rules, growth would be reduced by eight percent over the same period, the report said, according to BuzzFeed News. Responding to the leak, a government source said officials across the ministries were undertaking "a wide range of ongoing analysis". "An early draft of this next stage of analysis has looked at different off-the-shelf arrangements that currently exist," the source said. "It does not, however, set out or measure the details of our desired outcome -- a new deep and special partnership with the EU. "It also contains a significant number of caveats...significantly more work needs to be carried out to make use of this analysis." Opposition Labour lawmaker Chris Leslie, part of the Open Britain group -- the continuity Remain campaign from Britain`s 2016 referendum on EU membership -- urged the government to make its assessment public. "The government must now publish their analysis in full so that MPs and the public can see for themselves the impact that Brexit will have and judge for themselves whether it is the right thing for our country," he said. Jacob Rees-Mogg, the chairman of the pro-Brexit European Research Group of MPs from May`s governing Conservative Party, said the findings were "highly speculative". Meanwhile, parliament`s foreign affairs scrutiny committee said Britain`s diplomatic network was spread too thinly and needed to be bolstered to cope with Brexit. The panel of MPs said British representation in EU capitals, particularly Berlin and Paris, needed to be significantly increased to help maintain influence in Europe.

Britain worse off under any Brexit scenario: Report

Britain&#39;s government on Thursday published a draft law that would authorise Prime Minister Theresa May to begin the procedure for leaving the European Union in an important milestone towards Brexit.

&quot;The British people have made the decision to leave the EU... so today we have introduced a bill in parliament which will allow us to formally trigger Article 50 by the end of March,&quot; said Brexit minister David Davis.

The two-clause &quot;European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill&quot; asks parliament to give May authority to start the formal mechanism by which Britain will leave the bloc.

The government said MPs would get their first chance to debate and vote on it on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. 
 
May&#39;s&nbsp;government was forced to go to parliament following a landmark Supreme Court ruling this week that rejected its argument that executive powers allowed it to proceed.

The ruling Conservatives have a small majority in the House of Commons and the bill is expected to get the go-ahead from MPs, although opposition parties have said they plan put forward amendments that could slow it down.

Davis said he hoped that parliament would &quot;respect the decision taken by the British people and pass the legislation quickly,&quot; arguing that MPs had supported holding the referendum in the first place.

House of Commons leader David Lidington told parliament that the bill`s third and final reading in the House of Commons -- followed by a final vote by MPs -- would be on February 8.

The bill will then pass to the upper House of Lords, where progress is less certain as the government has no majority there and no control over the timing.

&quot;The Lords will not block or wreck the bill but they will want to give it proper scrutiny, especially if they think the scrutiny in the Commons has been inadequate,&quot; Robert Hazel and Alan Renwick from University College London`s Constitution Unit said.

If approved by the House of Lords, the bill would then have to be signed off by Queen Elizabeth II before May can trigger Article 50 of the EU`s Lisbon Treaty -- the formal process for leaving the bloc.May has said she is confident she will be able to stick to her timetable of triggering Article 50 by the end of March at the latest and the government has said it hopes to start Brexit talks before the summer.

Britain voted to leave the European Union in a referendum on June 23 last year following a bitter campaign and divisions have persisted since then.

A majority of Britain&#39;s 11 Supreme Court judges on Tuesday ruled that withdrawing from the EU meant there would have to be changes in Britain&#39;s domestic laws and therefore parliament had to be involved.

There were shouts of &quot;disgraceful&quot; from MPs as the government outlined its rapid timetable for the bill.

The main opposition Labour Party has said it is planning amendments including a clause calling for the protection of workers` rights, while the Scottish National Party wants to put forward dozens of changes.

May&#39;s Conservative government currently has a working majority of 16 in the 650-member parliament.

The bill came as official data showed Britain`s economy grew solidly in the final months of last year, even as it prepares for a difficult departure from the EU.

Gross domestic product expanded 0.6 per cent between October and December, matching growth during the previous two quarters, the Office for National Statistics said.

For 2016 as a whole, British growth reached 2.0 per cent, a decline from the previous year`s increase of 2.2 per cent.&nbsp;The economy has performed better than expected since the Brexit vote, though analysts have said they expect a more difficult 2017.

(AFP) 
&nbsp;

The government said MPs would get their first chance to debate and vote on it next week

Britain's government on Thursday published a draft law that would authorise Prime Minister Theresa May to begin the procedure for leaving the European Union in an important milestone towards Brexit. "The British people have made the decision to leave the EU... so today we have introduced a bill in parliament which will allow us to formally trigger Article 50 by the end of March," said Brexit minister David Davis. The two-clause "European Union Notification of Withdrawal Bill" asks parliament to give May authority to start the formal mechanism by which Britain will leave the bloc. The government said MPs would get their first chance to debate and vote on it on Tuesday and Wednesday next week. May's government was forced to go to parliament following a landmark Supreme Court ruling this week that rejected its argument that executive powers allowed it to proceed. The ruling Conservatives have a small majority in the House of Commons and the bill is expected to get the go-ahead from MPs, although opposition parties have said they plan put forward amendments that could slow it down. Davis said he hoped that parliament would "respect the decision taken by the British people and pass the legislation quickly," arguing that MPs had supported holding the referendum in the first place. House of Commons leader David Lidington told parliament that the bill`s third and final reading in the House of Commons -- followed by a final vote by MPs -- would be on February 8. The bill will then pass to the upper House of Lords, where progress is less certain as the government has no majority there and no control over the timing. "The Lords will not block or wreck the bill but they will want to give it proper scrutiny, especially if they think the scrutiny in the Commons has been inadequate," Robert Hazel and Alan Renwick from University College London`s Constitution Unit said. If approved by the House of Lords, the bill would then have to be signed off by Queen Elizabeth II before May can trigger Article 50 of the EU`s Lisbon Treaty -- the formal process for leaving the bloc.May has said she is confident she will be able to stick to her timetable of triggering Article 50 by the end of March at the latest and the government has said it hopes to start Brexit talks before the summer. Britain voted to leave the European Union in a referendum on June 23 last year following a bitter campaign and divisions have persisted since then. A majority of Britain's 11 Supreme Court judges on Tuesday ruled that withdrawing from the EU meant there would have to be changes in Britain's domestic laws and therefore parliament had to be involved. There were shouts of "disgraceful" from MPs as the government outlined its rapid timetable for the bill. The main opposition Labour Party has said it is planning amendments including a clause calling for the protection of workers` rights, while the Scottish National Party wants to put forward dozens of changes. May's Conservative government currently has a working majority of 16 in the 650-member parliament. The bill came as official data showed Britain`s economy grew solidly in the final months of last year, even as it prepares for a difficult departure from the EU. Gross domestic product expanded 0.6 per cent between October and December, matching growth during the previous two quarters, the Office for National Statistics said. For 2016 as a whole, British growth reached 2.0 per cent, a decline from the previous year`s increase of 2.2 per cent. The economy has performed better than expected since the Brexit vote, though analysts have said they expect a more difficult 2017. (AFP)

UK takes first step towards triggering Brexit, tables draft bill

The UK Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Theresa May must get Parliament&#39;s approval before she begins Britain&#39;s formal exit from the European Union.

The UK&#39;s highest judicial body dismissed the government&#39;s argument that May could simply use executive powers known as &quot;royal prerogative&quot; to invoke Article 50 of the EU&#39;s Lisbon Treaty and begin two years of divorce talks.

However, the court rejected arguments that the UK&#39;s devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales should give their assent before Article 50 is invoked.

&quot;The referendum is of great political significance, but the act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result,&quot; said David Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court which ruled by 8-3 against the government.

&quot;So any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by an Act of Parliament.&quot;

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="videos-block">
<div class="embed-responsive embed-responsive-16by9"><iframe class="embed-responsive-item" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gXhNOhdwgXs"></iframe></div>
</div>

<div class="media-description">
UK Supreme Court ruled that PM Theresa May must get Parliament&#39;s approval before she begins Britain&#39;s formal exit from the European Union (WION)
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">&times;</a></div>

PM Theresa May has repeatedly said she would trigger Article 50 before the end of March but she will now have to seek the consent of lawmakers first, potentially meaning her plans could be amended or delayed, although the main opposition Labour Party has said it would not slow her timetable.&nbsp;

(Reuters)

UK Supreme Court ruled that PM Theresa May must get Parliament's approval before she begins Britain's formal exit from the European Union

The UK Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that Prime Minister Theresa May must get Parliament's approval before she begins Britain's formal exit from the European Union. The UK's highest judicial body dismissed the government's argument that May could simply use executive powers known as "royal prerogative" to invoke Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty and begin two years of divorce talks. However, the court rejected arguments that the UK's devolved assemblies in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales should give their assent before Article 50 is invoked. "The referendum is of great political significance, but the act of Parliament which established it did not say what should happen as a result," said David Neuberger, president of the Supreme Court which ruled by 8-3 against the government. "So any change in the law to give effect to the referendum must be made in the only way permitted by the UK constitution, namely by an Act of Parliament." UK Supreme Court ruled that PM Theresa May must get Parliament's approval before she begins Britain's formal exit from the European Union (WION) × PM Theresa May has repeatedly said she would trigger Article 50 before the end of March but she will now have to seek the consent of lawmakers first, potentially meaning her plans could be amended or delayed, although the main opposition Labour Party has said it would not slow her timetable. (Reuters)

Brexit: UK government loses appeal to trigger EU exit

A UK-based Sikh campaign group today said it has launched an appeal to make public the secret files believed to hold details of Britain&#39;s alleged involvement in the 1984 Operation Blue Star that killed hundreds of people.

Sikh Federation UK&#39;s appeal with the UK&#39;s Information Tribunal will be heard in the New Year.

It centres around four files &quot;withheld&quot; during an official UK government inquiry ordered by former prime minister David Cameron into Britain&#39;s alleged involvement in the military action on Golden Temple in 1984.

&quot;The first tier tribunal will consider this case in the New Year and it would be inappropriate to comment any further,&quot; a UK Cabinet Office spokesperson said. 
The files include one titled &quot;UK/Indian relations: situation in Punjab; activities of Sikh extremists; proposed visit to UK by Rajiv Gandhi in June 1985&quot;.

The other documents include a Joint Intelligence Committee file on India; one with details of then British PM Margaret Thatcher&#39;s meetings with a close adviser of Indira Gandhi; and other papers under &quot;India: Political&quot; related to events around Mrs Gandhi&#39;s assassination in October 1984.

Sikh Federation UK, which believes the closed files will shed more light on the extent of Britain&#39;s alleged involvement in the military operation in Amritsar, had earlier complained to the UK&#39;s Information Commissioner to make these documents public but it was decided to keep the files closed as they were &quot;too sensitive&quot;.

The group has now issued an appeal against this decision on the grounds that the Commissioner did not take into account the &quot;thousands of civilian casualties during the Amritsar massacre as a public interest factor in favour of disclosing the information&quot;.

It claims the decision to keep the documents secret is &quot;political&quot; rather than security related and that the &quot;public has a right to know what happened 30 years ago&quot;. 
Bhai Amrik Singh, chair of Sikh Federation UK, said in a statement: &quot;This shows the lengths we are having to go to try and get to the truth and why we believe an

independent public inquiry is necessary to get to the information the UK government will continue to withhold.

&quot;We will take legal and other steps in 2017 to get to the truth of UK involvement and the ongoing conspiracy against Sikhs. Working with like-minded Sikhs in Punjab we will expose the role of Akali leaders, the Congress and BJP in the attempted genocide of the Sikhs to simply hold on to power.&quot;

In 2014, Cameron had ordered the Heywood Review into the exact nature of British involvement in the operation at Golden Temple in June 1984 after documents released previously under the 30-year declassification rule had implied British SAS commanders had advised the Indian government as it drew up plans?for the removal of militants from the Sikh shrine.

The report concluded that the nature of the UK&#39;s assistance was &quot;purely advisory&quot; and provided to the Indian government at an early stage of planning.

(PTI)

The files were "withheld" during an official UK government inquiry ordered by former prime minister David Cameron

A UK-based Sikh campaign group today said it has launched an appeal to make public the secret files believed to hold details of Britain's alleged involvement in the 1984 Operation Blue Star that killed hundreds of people. Sikh Federation UK's appeal with the UK's Information Tribunal will be heard in the New Year. It centres around four files "withheld" during an official UK government inquiry ordered by former prime minister David Cameron into Britain's alleged involvement in the military action on Golden Temple in 1984. "The first tier tribunal will consider this case in the New Year and it would be inappropriate to comment any further," a UK Cabinet Office spokesperson said. The files include one titled "UK/Indian relations: situation in Punjab; activities of Sikh extremists; proposed visit to UK by Rajiv Gandhi in June 1985". The other documents include a Joint Intelligence Committee file on India; one with details of then British PM Margaret Thatcher's meetings with a close adviser of Indira Gandhi; and other papers under "India: Political" related to events around Mrs Gandhi's assassination in October 1984. Sikh Federation UK, which believes the closed files will shed more light on the extent of Britain's alleged involvement in the military operation in Amritsar, had earlier complained to the UK's Information Commissioner to make these documents public but it was decided to keep the files closed as they were "too sensitive". The group has now issued an appeal against this decision on the grounds that the Commissioner did not take into account the "thousands of civilian casualties during the Amritsar massacre as a public interest factor in favour of disclosing the information". It claims the decision to keep the documents secret is "political" rather than security related and that the "public has a right to know what happened 30 years ago". Bhai Amrik Singh, chair of Sikh Federation UK, said in a statement: "This shows the lengths we are having to go to try and get to the truth and why we believe an independent public inquiry is necessary to get to the information the UK government will continue to withhold. "We will take legal and other steps in 2017 to get to the truth of UK involvement and the ongoing conspiracy against Sikhs. Working with like-minded Sikhs in Punjab we will expose the role of Akali leaders, the Congress and BJP in the attempted genocide of the Sikhs to simply hold on to power." In 2014, Cameron had ordered the Heywood Review into the exact nature of British involvement in the operation at Golden Temple in June 1984 after documents released previously under the 30-year declassification rule had implied British SAS commanders had advised the Indian government as it drew up plans?for the removal of militants from the Sikh shrine. The report concluded that the nature of the UK's assistance was "purely advisory" and provided to the Indian government at an early stage of planning. (PTI)

Sikh group to UK tribunal: Release Operation Blue Star files

uk-government

Uk Government, News on Uk Government, stories on Uk Government, articles on Uk Government, Uk Government stories at Wion, Uk Government news, Uk Government latest news

uk government