Teen climate activist <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/world/we-cant-wait-for-people-like-me-to-grow-up-and-be-the-ones-in-charge-climate-activist-greta-warns-212059&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjUmsybvebhAhXBOY8KHWszCWwQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw1SkHm3NAyVIEgwu9SJUp4A">Greta Thunberg</a> met a cross-party group of British MPs on Tuesday including opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, as environmental protesters staged a ninth day of demonstrations in London.

<a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.wionews.com/world/young-swedish-activist-greta-thunberg-nominated-for-nobel-peace-prize-203378&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwjUmsybvebhAhXBOY8KHWszCWwQFggIMAE&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0lSvtHR9Yr1owJSHmr00jS">The Swedish activist</a>, who is due to address the protests in Westminster later on Tuesday, met Corbyn along with Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas and others in parliament.

"We just want people to listen to the science," the 16-year-old told those assembled for a roundtable discussion on climate change.

Organisers of the meeting pointedly left a place empty for Prime Minister Theresa May, who was reportedly invited but chairing a cabinet meeting in Downing Street at the time.

They said there was no response to their invitation. May's official spokesman said he was "not aware" of the request.

The UK Student Climate Network, an environmentalist group, said the meeting with the Westminster leaders had seen an agreement reached "on some important first steps they can take together to tackle the climate crisis."

"We need to keep the pressure up to ensure actions, not just words," it said on Twitter.

Thunberg has inspired tens of thousands of children worldwide to boycott classes to draw attention to climate change after starting a solitary solo protest last year.

Meanwhile, she has been visiting European capitals pressing for politicians to take the issue more seriously.

Thunberg travelled to Britain over the weekend to support fellow activists who have been causing gridlock in parts of central London since last Monday with sit-in protests.

Addressing the ongoing demonstrations organised by the Extinction Rebellion group on Sunday, she declared: "the struggle has barely begun. It's only the beginning."

On Tuesday, protesters carrying flags and banners marched to drums and chants from their makeshift camp at Marble Arch in central London to rally outside parliament on the first day MPs are back after an Easter break.&nbsp;

Police have arrested more than a thousand activists since they began their protests last week, and on Tuesday announced 71 people will face charges over their actions.

Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg met a cross-party group of British MPs on Tuesday including opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, as environmental protesters staged a ninth day of demonstrations in London.

Teen climate activist Greta Thunberg met a cross-party group of British MPs on Tuesday including opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn, as environmental protesters staged a ninth day of demonstrations in London. The Swedish activist, who is due to address the protests in Westminster later on Tuesday, met Corbyn along with Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable, Green Party MP Caroline Lucas and others in parliament. "We just want people to listen to the science," the 16-year-old told those assembled for a roundtable discussion on climate change. Organisers of the meeting pointedly left a place empty for Prime Minister Theresa May, who was reportedly invited but chairing a cabinet meeting in Downing Street at the time. They said there was no response to their invitation. May's official spokesman said he was "not aware" of the request. The UK Student Climate Network, an environmentalist group, said the meeting with the Westminster leaders had seen an agreement reached "on some important first steps they can take together to tackle the climate crisis." "We need to keep the pressure up to ensure actions, not just words," it said on Twitter. Thunberg has inspired tens of thousands of children worldwide to boycott classes to draw attention to climate change after starting a solitary solo protest last year. Meanwhile, she has been visiting European capitals pressing for politicians to take the issue more seriously. Thunberg travelled to Britain over the weekend to support fellow activists who have been causing gridlock in parts of central London since last Monday with sit-in protests. Addressing the ongoing demonstrations organised by the Extinction Rebellion group on Sunday, she declared: "the struggle has barely begun. It's only the beginning." On Tuesday, protesters carrying flags and banners marched to drums and chants from their makeshift camp at Marble Arch in central London to rally outside parliament on the first day MPs are back after an Easter break. Police have arrested more than a thousand activists since they began their protests last week, and on Tuesday announced 71 people will face charges over their actions.

Teen activist Greta Thunberg meets UK MPs as climate protests continue

A top member of Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party will tell her in the coming week that she must step down by the end of June or her lawmakers will try again to depose her, the Sunday Times reported, without citing sources.

May survived a vote of no confidence in December and although party rules mean lawmakers cannot challenge her again until a year has passed, lawmaker Graham Brady will tell her the rules will be changed unless she quits, the newspaper said.

Brady, who chairs the Conservative Party’s influential 1922 Committee of backbench lawmakers, will tell her that 70 percent of her members of parliament want her to resign over her handling of Brexit, the Sunday Times said.

Britain was originally due to leave the European Union on March 29, but that deadline was pushed back to April 12 and then again to Oct. 31 as May failed to break an impasse in parliament on the terms of Brexit.

A top member of Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party will tell her in the coming week that she must step down by the end of June or her lawmakers will try again to depose her, the Sunday Times reported, without citing sources.

A top member of Prime Minister Theresa May’s Conservative Party will tell her in the coming week that she must step down by the end of June or her lawmakers will try again to depose her, the Sunday Times reported, without citing sources. May survived a vote of no confidence in December and although party rules mean lawmakers cannot challenge her again until a year has passed, lawmaker Graham Brady will tell her the rules will be changed unless she quits, the newspaper said. Brady, who chairs the Conservative Party’s influential 1922 Committee of backbench lawmakers, will tell her that 70 percent of her members of parliament want her to resign over her handling of Brexit, the Sunday Times said. Britain was originally due to leave the European Union on March 29, but that deadline was pushed back to April 12 and then again to Oct. 31 as May failed to break an impasse in parliament on the terms of Brexit.

UK PM May to be told to quit by top Conservative: Report

By Jonathan Perraton 
 
EU leaders have agreed on a short extension to Brexit until October 31 at the latest, in order to give the British parliament time to seal a deal. This date avoids the UK still being a member when the next EU budget cycle starts – but what does it mean for the “divorce bill”, the money the UK will pay the EU after its departure?

The withdrawal agreement, which provides the legal framework for the UK’s exit from the European Union, includes arrangements to determine its financial settlement with the EU.

The essential principles of the financial settlement have been set out for months and the EU has made it clear that it regards the withdrawal agreement as settled. If and when the British parliament does agree on a Brexit deal, this financial settlement is likely to apply – but it won’t change directly as a result of the extension from the original March 29 Brexit date to October 31.

The final figure is yet to be determined, both because of uncertainties over future developments – including of course the date when the UK actually leaves the EU – and also because the bill is to be settled in euros and therefore depends on the future exchange rate between the pound and the euro.

Under the financial settlement, the UK will continue to participate in the EU’s budgets over 2019 and 2020, which takes us up to the end of the current EU budget cycle. This can be seen as the UK simply honouring the commitments it made as an EU member state at the start of the current EU budget round, and continuing to receive agreed funds through payments from the Common Agricultural Policy, structural funds and other EU programmes.

A key principle is that the UK should not pay more than it would have done as an EU member, nor should it be expected to make any payments earlier than it would have been required to do as a member. The UK’s net payments include its long-negotiated budget rebate. The UK is the third-largest contributor to the EU budget in total. It is a net contributor to the EU budget payments, when the funds the UK receives back are taken into account, although it is only sixth in terms of net payments relative to its GDP.

The key uncertainties over the future payments arise from future contingencies and the final settlement of accounts with the EU. A key principle here is that of the UK not making payments any sooner than it would have done as a member. The annual EU budget makes future expenditure commitments under what are called reste à liquider arrangements, outstanding commitments which have been made but not yet translated into payments.

Under the final settlement, the UK continues to be liable for spending commitments undertaken during the current EU budget round while it has still been a member – although it will also receive back its share of assets including capital in the European Investment Bank. The largest item in the outstanding liabilities is for EU staff pensions and other benefits. EU staff pension commitments are unfunded, meaning the EU has not set aside a provision for these future payments, as it operates on a “pay as you go” system. This means there is uncertainty over the size of future EU pension liabilities and therefore the UK’s future commitments to paying them.

Estimating the final bill

HM Treasury has estimated the total payments will be around £35-£39 billion. The independent Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has also produced similar estimates. Crucially, the most recent OBR estimates from March 2019 indicate that most of the final settlement will be made up of the reste à liquider commitments. Settlement of the outstanding net liabilities – including future EU pension liabilities – would account for less than 10 per cent&nbsp;of the total.

Payments from the UK to the EU will continue for many years into the future (up to the 2060s), although the OBR estimates that these would be small with around three-quarters of the payments completed by 2022. There is also uncertainty over the euro-sterling exchange rate and UK economic growth, which determines the relative size of the UK economy and its contribution to the EU budget until 2020 from “own resources”, the payments determined by a member’s gross national income.

In June 2018, parliament’s Public Accounts Committee questioned the Treasury’s estimates, indicating that payments could be as much as £10 billion higher. In particular, they note potential commitments under the European Development Fund of overseas expenditure on aid programmes.

The next multi-annual financial framework for the EU budget is scheduled for 2021-27. Should the withdrawal agreement eventually be agreed by parliament, a short extension of Brexit beyond October 31 would not lead to large changes in the financial settlement, but a longer extension into 2020 could potentially lead to greater commitments if the UK remains a member into the next budgetary period. 
 
 
(Jonathan Perraton is Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Sheffield)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-extension-how-much-will-it-actually-cost-the-uk-to-leave-the-eu-115486">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;

By Jonathan Perraton EU leaders have agreed on a short extension to Brexit until October 31 at the latest, in order to give the British parliament time to seal a deal.

By Jonathan Perraton EU leaders have agreed on a short extension to Brexit until October 31 at the latest, in order to give the British parliament time to seal a deal. This date avoids the UK still being a member when the next EU budget cycle starts – but what does it mean for the “divorce bill”, the money the UK will pay the EU after its departure? The withdrawal agreement, which provides the legal framework for the UK’s exit from the European Union, includes arrangements to determine its financial settlement with the EU. The essential principles of the financial settlement have been set out for months and the EU has made it clear that it regards the withdrawal agreement as settled. If and when the British parliament does agree on a Brexit deal, this financial settlement is likely to apply – but it won’t change directly as a result of the extension from the original March 29 Brexit date to October 31. The final figure is yet to be determined, both because of uncertainties over future developments – including of course the date when the UK actually leaves the EU – and also because the bill is to be settled in euros and therefore depends on the future exchange rate between the pound and the euro. Under the financial settlement, the UK will continue to participate in the EU’s budgets over 2019 and 2020, which takes us up to the end of the current EU budget cycle. This can be seen as the UK simply honouring the commitments it made as an EU member state at the start of the current EU budget round, and continuing to receive agreed funds through payments from the Common Agricultural Policy, structural funds and other EU programmes. A key principle is that the UK should not pay more than it would have done as an EU member, nor should it be expected to make any payments earlier than it would have been required to do as a member. The UK’s net payments include its long-negotiated budget rebate. The UK is the third-largest contributor to the EU budget in total. It is a net contributor to the EU budget payments, when the funds the UK receives back are taken into account, although it is only sixth in terms of net payments relative to its GDP. The key uncertainties over the future payments arise from future contingencies and the final settlement of accounts with the EU. A key principle here is that of the UK not making payments any sooner than it would have done as a member. The annual EU budget makes future expenditure commitments under what are called reste à liquider arrangements, outstanding commitments which have been made but not yet translated into payments. Under the final settlement, the UK continues to be liable for spending commitments undertaken during the current EU budget round while it has still been a member – although it will also receive back its share of assets including capital in the European Investment Bank. The largest item in the outstanding liabilities is for EU staff pensions and other benefits. EU staff pension commitments are unfunded, meaning the EU has not set aside a provision for these future payments, as it operates on a “pay as you go” system. This means there is uncertainty over the size of future EU pension liabilities and therefore the UK’s future commitments to paying them. Estimating the final bill HM Treasury has estimated the total payments will be around £35-£39 billion. The independent Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) has also produced similar estimates. Crucially, the most recent OBR estimates from March 2019 indicate that most of the final settlement will be made up of the reste à liquider commitments. Settlement of the outstanding net liabilities – including future EU pension liabilities – would account for less than 10 per cent of the total. Payments from the UK to the EU will continue for many years into the future (up to the 2060s), although the OBR estimates that these would be small with around three-quarters of the payments completed by 2022. There is also uncertainty over the euro-sterling exchange rate and UK economic growth, which determines the relative size of the UK economy and its contribution to the EU budget until 2020 from “own resources”, the payments determined by a member’s gross national income. In June 2018, parliament’s Public Accounts Committee questioned the Treasury’s estimates, indicating that payments could be as much as £10 billion higher. In particular, they note potential commitments under the European Development Fund of overseas expenditure on aid programmes. The next multi-annual financial framework for the EU budget is scheduled for 2021-27. Should the withdrawal agreement eventually be agreed by parliament, a short extension of Brexit beyond October 31 would not lead to large changes in the financial settlement, but a longer extension into 2020 could potentially lead to greater commitments if the UK remains a member into the next budgetary period. (Jonathan Perraton is Senior Lecturer in Economics, 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 extension: How much will it actually cost the UK to leave the EU?

Britain in July is set to become the first country in the world to introduce age-verification to access online pornography, the government said on Wednesday.

Child protection groups welcomed the move but digital rights groups warned of the possibility of data leaks and the implications for online privacy.

The new law, which comes into force on July 15, will require commercial providers of internet pornography to check on users' ages to ensure that they are 18 or over.

Different sites will use different verification methods ranging from online passport or credit card checks to special vouchers that can be bought in shops.

"Adult content is currently far too easy for children to access online," Minister for Digital Margot James said in a statement.

Websites that fail to implement the verification technology could have payment services withdrawn or be blocked for British users, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS).

It is the latest move by British authorities to crack down on the spread of online abuses and crimes.

The government announced earlier this month proposals to make social media bosses personally liable for harmful content and shut down offending platforms.

The latest step to bring in age-verification for pornography follows public consultation and parliamentary debate on the issue last year.

Research conducted as part of that outreach found that 88 per cent of parents with children aged seven to 17 supported new controls, DCMS said.

The department insisted the range of checks to be carried out by providers would be "rigorous" and go beyond users simply entering their date of birth or ticking a box.

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) will be responsible for ensuring compliance.

The government said it had "listened carefully" to privacy concerns and was clear the arrangements should only be concerned with verifying age -- not identity.

The BBFC will therefore also create -- in cooperation with industry -- a voluntary certification scheme to assess the data security standards of the providers.

Internet Matters, a non-profit organisation concerned with online child safety, said it was "delighted" that the government tackling the issue but also sounded a cautionary note.

"We must recognise that digital solutions aren't the only answer," said its CEO Carolyn Bunting.

"There is no substitute to having regular and honest conversations with your child about what they're getting up to online."

Will Gardner, chief executive of Childnet, welcomed the move, saying it brings in "the same protections that we use offline to protect children".

But the Open Rights Group said age verification was "dangerous and irresponsible".

Jim Killock, executive director of the campaign group, said privacy standards should be enforced alongside the legislation.

"Data leaks could be disastrous. And they will be the government's own fault," he said.

"The government needs to shape up and legislate for privacy before their own policy results in people being outed, careers destroyed or suicides being provoked," he said.&nbsp;

Britain in July is set to become the first country in the world to introduce age-verification to access online pornography, the government said on Wednesday. Child protection groups welcomed the move but digital rights groups warned of the possibility of data leaks and the implications for online privacy.

Britain in July is set to become the first country in the world to introduce age-verification to access online pornography, the government said on Wednesday. Child protection groups welcomed the move but digital rights groups warned of the possibility of data leaks and the implications for online privacy. The new law, which comes into force on July 15, will require commercial providers of internet pornography to check on users' ages to ensure that they are 18 or over. Different sites will use different verification methods ranging from online passport or credit card checks to special vouchers that can be bought in shops. "Adult content is currently far too easy for children to access online," Minister for Digital Margot James said in a statement. Websites that fail to implement the verification technology could have payment services withdrawn or be blocked for British users, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). It is the latest move by British authorities to crack down on the spread of online abuses and crimes. The government announced earlier this month proposals to make social media bosses personally liable for harmful content and shut down offending platforms. The latest step to bring in age-verification for pornography follows public consultation and parliamentary debate on the issue last year. Research conducted as part of that outreach found that 88 per cent of parents with children aged seven to 17 supported new controls, DCMS said. The department insisted the range of checks to be carried out by providers would be "rigorous" and go beyond users simply entering their date of birth or ticking a box. The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) will be responsible for ensuring compliance. The government said it had "listened carefully" to privacy concerns and was clear the arrangements should only be concerned with verifying age -- not identity. The BBFC will therefore also create -- in cooperation with industry -- a voluntary certification scheme to assess the data security standards of the providers. Internet Matters, a non-profit organisation concerned with online child safety, said it was "delighted" that the government tackling the issue but also sounded a cautionary note. "We must recognise that digital solutions aren't the only answer," said its CEO Carolyn Bunting. "There is no substitute to having regular and honest conversations with your child about what they're getting up to online." Will Gardner, chief executive of Childnet, welcomed the move, saying it brings in "the same protections that we use offline to protect children". But the Open Rights Group said age verification was "dangerous and irresponsible". Jim Killock, executive director of the campaign group, said privacy standards should be enforced alongside the legislation. "Data leaks could be disastrous. And they will be the government's own fault," he said. "The government needs to shape up and legislate for privacy before their own policy results in people being outed, careers destroyed or suicides being provoked," he said.

In a first, UK to introduce age-verification to access online pornography

Britain Prime Minister Theresa May says that United Kingdom is feeling regretful for Jallianwala Bagh massacre. Watch video to know more.

Britain refuses to apologise for Jallianwala Bagh massacre

A UK court on Thursday found Julian Assange guilty on the charge of breaching his bail conditions after the Wikileaks co-founder was arrested by Scotland Yard officers from his <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/ecuadors-withdrawal-of-asylum-for-assange-illegal-wikileaks-209553">Ecuador Embassy</a> hideout in London as the South American country withdrew the asylum granted to him.

Assange, who has also been arrested on a provisional US extradition warrant, was produced before Westminster Magistrates Court in London where he pleaded not guilty to the charge of failing to surrender.&nbsp;

Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/julian-assange-is-no-hero-british-foreign-secretary-jeremy-hunt-209613">Julian Assange 'is no hero': British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt</a>

Describing his behaviour as that of a "narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest", District Judge Michael Snow ruled Assange was guilty for breaching bail and ordered him to appear via videolink on May 2 for an <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/julian-assange-to-fight-us-extradition-request-lawyer-209644">extradition hearing</a>.

The court heard that during his arrest at the embassy after nearly seven years in hiding, the 47-year-old had to be restrained as he shouted, "This is unlawful, I am not leaving."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/timeline-key-developments-leading-to-julian-assanges-arrest-209585">Timeline: Key developments leading to Julian Assange's arrest</a>

Scotland Yard said after his initial arrest on breach of bail conditions in the UK, Assange was further arrested on behalf of the US authorities after his arrival at a central London police station on an extradition warrant.

British Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed the arrest in Parliament, describing it as a "legal matter" as Assange now faces extradition proceedings to the US on "charges relating to computer offences".

"He has also been arrested in relation to an extradition request from the United States authorities," May told the Commons in a statement. "This goes to show that in the United Kingdom, no one is above the law," she said.

Assange, who was seen in public after many years as he was dragged out of the Ecuador Embassy, appeared visibly aged and sporting a long white beard. He waved a thumbs-up sign at the public gallery in court as he was produced in court. He now faces a 12-month sentence in the UK on the charge of failure to surrender and will remain in judicial custody until he is sentenced at Southwark Crown Court in London next month. According to details that emerged in court, his extradition to the US is sought on alleged conspiracy charges related to one of the largest leaks of government secrets.

Earlier on Thursday, the Metropolitan Police said its officers had executed a warrant against Assange dating back to June 29, 2012 for "failing to surrender"&nbsp;before a UK.&nbsp;

The Australian-born campaigner has been holed up in a back room of the Ecuador embassy in central London for nearly seven years since his arrest on sexual assault charges in Sweden.&nbsp;

He had claimed asylum on the grounds that he feared ultimate extradition to the US, where he claims to face a possible death sentence or torture for Wikileaks' alleged leak of American secrets.&nbsp;

Assange sought refuge at the Ecuador Embassy in Knightsbridge in June 2012, having lost an appeal against extradition to Sweden for questioning on allegations of rape and sexual assault that went up to the UK Supreme Court.&nbsp;

While the Swedish case has since been dropped, Assange was wanted by Scotland Yard for breach of bail and faced arrest the moment he stepped out of the diplomatically immune territory. But once that immunity was lifted, he was taken into custody.

The UK government welcomed the arrest, which it said was the result of "extensive dialogue" between the UK and Ecuador. A Downing Street spokesperson stressed that the UK did not lobby for his arrest in any way and the "decision to revoke asylum"&nbsp;was entirely made by Ecuador.&nbsp;

"Ecuador's actions recognise that the UK's justice system is one in which rights are protected and in which, contrary to what Mr Assange and his supporters may claim, he and his legitimate interests will be protected," UK home secretary Sajid Javid said in a statement to Parliament.

UK foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, stressed in his statement that Assange was no "hero"&nbsp;as he had hidden from the truth for years.&nbsp;

Ecuador's President, Lenin Moreno, said the country had withdrawn Assange's asylum after he repeatedly violated the conditions of his asylum. 
Wikileaks tweeted that Ecuador had acted illegally in terminating Assange's political asylum "in violation of international law".

The relationship between Assange and his host country had soured considerably in recent months, resulting in the Wikileaks co-founder taking legal action against Ecuador last October for allegedly violating his "fundamental rights and freedoms". He was placed under a new set of house rules and allowed only limited internet access.&nbsp;

The US authorities have never officially confirmed that they have charged Assange but the criminal charges related to the publication of classified documents were accidentally made public last year.&nbsp;

In December 2017, Ecuador gave Assange citizenship and was reportedly preparing to appoint him to a diplomatic post in Russia, but the British government made clear that if he left the embassy, he would be arrested.&nbsp;

Assange set up Wikileaks in 2006 with the stated aim of obtaining and publishing confidential documents and images. The organisation hit the headlines four years later when it released footage of US soldiers killing civilians from a helicopter in Iraq.&nbsp;

The US Department of Justice said in a statement that the extradition request was in connection with federal charges of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, relating to the Chelsea Manning revelations. They carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison.&nbsp;

A UK court on Thursday found Julian Assange guilty on the charge of breaching his bail conditions after the Wikileaks co-founder was arrested by Scotland Yard officers from his Ecuador Embassy hideout in London as the South American country withdrew the asylum granted to him.

A UK court on Thursday found Julian Assange guilty on the charge of breaching his bail conditions after the Wikileaks co-founder was arrested by Scotland Yard officers from his Ecuador Embassy hideout in London as the South American country withdrew the asylum granted to him. Assange, who has also been arrested on a provisional US extradition warrant, was produced before Westminster Magistrates Court in London where he pleaded not guilty to the charge of failing to surrender. Also read: Julian Assange 'is no hero': British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt Describing his behaviour as that of a "narcissist who cannot get beyond his own selfish interest", District Judge Michael Snow ruled Assange was guilty for breaching bail and ordered him to appear via videolink on May 2 for an extradition hearing. The court heard that during his arrest at the embassy after nearly seven years in hiding, the 47-year-old had to be restrained as he shouted, "This is unlawful, I am not leaving." Timeline: Key developments leading to Julian Assange's arrest Scotland Yard said after his initial arrest on breach of bail conditions in the UK, Assange was further arrested on behalf of the US authorities after his arrival at a central London police station on an extradition warrant. British Prime Minister Theresa May confirmed the arrest in Parliament, describing it as a "legal matter" as Assange now faces extradition proceedings to the US on "charges relating to computer offences". "He has also been arrested in relation to an extradition request from the United States authorities," May told the Commons in a statement. "This goes to show that in the United Kingdom, no one is above the law," she said. Assange, who was seen in public after many years as he was dragged out of the Ecuador Embassy, appeared visibly aged and sporting a long white beard. He waved a thumbs-up sign at the public gallery in court as he was produced in court. He now faces a 12-month sentence in the UK on the charge of failure to surrender and will remain in judicial custody until he is sentenced at Southwark Crown Court in London next month. According to details that emerged in court, his extradition to the US is sought on alleged conspiracy charges related to one of the largest leaks of government secrets. Earlier on Thursday, the Metropolitan Police said its officers had executed a warrant against Assange dating back to June 29, 2012 for "failing to surrender" before a UK. The Australian-born campaigner has been holed up in a back room of the Ecuador embassy in central London for nearly seven years since his arrest on sexual assault charges in Sweden. He had claimed asylum on the grounds that he feared ultimate extradition to the US, where he claims to face a possible death sentence or torture for Wikileaks' alleged leak of American secrets. Assange sought refuge at the Ecuador Embassy in Knightsbridge in June 2012, having lost an appeal against extradition to Sweden for questioning on allegations of rape and sexual assault that went up to the UK Supreme Court. While the Swedish case has since been dropped, Assange was wanted by Scotland Yard for breach of bail and faced arrest the moment he stepped out of the diplomatically immune territory. But once that immunity was lifted, he was taken into custody. The UK government welcomed the arrest, which it said was the result of "extensive dialogue" between the UK and Ecuador. A Downing Street spokesperson stressed that the UK did not lobby for his arrest in any way and the "decision to revoke asylum" was entirely made by Ecuador. "Ecuador's actions recognise that the UK's justice system is one in which rights are protected and in which, contrary to what Mr Assange and his supporters may claim, he and his legitimate interests will be protected," UK home secretary Sajid Javid said in a statement to Parliament. UK foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt, stressed in his statement that Assange was no "hero" as he had hidden from the truth for years. Ecuador's President, Lenin Moreno, said the country had withdrawn Assange's asylum after he repeatedly violated the conditions of his asylum. Wikileaks tweeted that Ecuador had acted illegally in terminating Assange's political asylum "in violation of international law". The relationship between Assange and his host country had soured considerably in recent months, resulting in the Wikileaks co-founder taking legal action against Ecuador last October for allegedly violating his "fundamental rights and freedoms". He was placed under a new set of house rules and allowed only limited internet access. The US authorities have never officially confirmed that they have charged Assange but the criminal charges related to the publication of classified documents were accidentally made public last year. In December 2017, Ecuador gave Assange citizenship and was reportedly preparing to appoint him to a diplomatic post in Russia, but the British government made clear that if he left the embassy, he would be arrested. Assange set up Wikileaks in 2006 with the stated aim of obtaining and publishing confidential documents and images. The organisation hit the headlines four years later when it released footage of US soldiers killing civilians from a helicopter in Iraq. The US Department of Justice said in a statement that the extradition request was in connection with federal charges of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion, relating to the Chelsea Manning revelations. They carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison.

Julian Assange found guilty of breach of bail in UK after arrest, faces extradition to US

It has been 100 years of Jallianwala massacre but UK still didn't apologized. UK PM Theresa May only showed regret on this huge massacre.

100 yrs of Jallianwala Massacre, only regret but no apology from UK

A British minister said on Tuesday there was an "active debate" in government about apologising for the killing of hundreds of Indian civilians, as India prepared to mark the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/uk-flags-financial-implications-of-jallianwala-bagh-apology-calls-it-work-in-progress-209137">100th anniversary of the atrocity</a>.

On April 13, 1919, in Jallianwala Bagh British troops opened fire on thousands of unarmed protesters which remains an enduring scar of British colonial rule in India.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dt9RKu7i-W0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Colonial-era records show about 400 people died in the northern city of Amritsar when soldiers opened fire on men, women and children in an enclosed area, but Indian figures put the toll at closer to 1,000.

&nbsp;

Former British prime minister David Cameron described it as "deeply shameful" during a visit in 2013 but stopped short of an apology.

In a debate on the subject in London on Tuesday, foreign&nbsp;office Minister Mark Field said the massacre was a "shameful episode in our history and one that we deeply regret to this day."

He said: "It would not be appropriate for me, in the context of this particular debate, to apologise today, but I have found many of the speeches very very compelling and I will take up with the foreign secretary and number 10 Downing Street a sense that we perhaps need to do a little more than the very deep regrets that I have set out today."

He said representatives from the British High Commission would visit the site to lay a wreath and that the government would also publicly acknowledge the centenary in Britain.

A ceremony was due to take place at the site of the massacre on Saturday.

Earlier Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP who organised the debate, also called for the British government to say sorry, "not just explaining away what happened, but apologising for our involvement and what was done in our name". 
&nbsp;

A British minister said on Tuesday there was an "active debate" in government about apologising for the killing of hundreds of Indian civilians, as India prepared to mark the 100th anniversary of the atrocity.

A British minister said on Tuesday there was an "active debate" in government about apologising for the killing of hundreds of Indian civilians, as India prepared to mark the 100th anniversary of the atrocity. On April 13, 1919, in Jallianwala Bagh British troops opened fire on thousands of unarmed protesters which remains an enduring scar of British colonial rule in India. Colonial-era records show about 400 people died in the northern city of Amritsar when soldiers opened fire on men, women and children in an enclosed area, but Indian figures put the toll at closer to 1,000. Former British prime minister David Cameron described it as "deeply shameful" during a visit in 2013 but stopped short of an apology. In a debate on the subject in London on Tuesday, foreign office Minister Mark Field said the massacre was a "shameful episode in our history and one that we deeply regret to this day." He said: "It would not be appropriate for me, in the context of this particular debate, to apologise today, but I have found many of the speeches very very compelling and I will take up with the foreign secretary and number 10 Downing Street a sense that we perhaps need to do a little more than the very deep regrets that I have set out today." He said representatives from the British High Commission would visit the site to lay a wreath and that the government would also publicly acknowledge the centenary in Britain. A ceremony was due to take place at the site of the massacre on Saturday. Earlier Bob Blackman, the Conservative MP who organised the debate, also called for the British government to say sorry, "not just explaining away what happened, but apologising for our involvement and what was done in our name".

Need to do little more than very 'deep regrets' on Jallianwala Bagh: British minister Mark Fields

The British Ministry of Defence is in close touch with US officials and reviewing the status of its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/rescue-teams-find-f-35-stealth-fighter-jet-wreckage-off-japan-coast-209186">17 F-35B fighter jets</a> after the crash of a Japanese F-35 jet in the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, a ministry spokesperson said.

"Safety is of the utmost importance and very closely managed on the F-35 programme. We will continue to review the situation as further information becomes available," the spokesperson said.

Britain, which plans to buy a total of 138 F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin, declared its fleet of F-35B fighter jets ready for initial combat operations from land in January.

The British Ministry of Defence is in close touch with US officials and reviewing the status of its 17 F-35B fighter jets after the crash of a Japanese F-35 jet in the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, a ministry spokesperson said.

The British Ministry of Defence is in close touch with US officials and reviewing the status of its 17 F-35B fighter jets after the crash of a Japanese F-35 jet in the Pacific Ocean on Tuesday, a ministry spokesperson said. "Safety is of the utmost importance and very closely managed on the F-35 programme. We will continue to review the situation as further information becomes available," the spokesperson said. Britain, which plans to buy a total of 138 F-35 fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin, declared its fleet of F-35B fighter jets ready for initial combat operations from land in January.

UK reviewing status of 17 F-35s after Japan crash

UK PM Theresa May releases video statement about Brexit

The British government said on Monday it will explore making <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/facebook-rights-groups-hit-out-at-singapores-fake-news-bill-207343">social media executives personally </a>liable for harmful content published on their platforms, in a raft of new online safety proposals.

The plans unveiled in a policy paper, which also include creating an independent regulator, aim to tackle all kinds of harmful content from encouraging violence and suicide to spreading disinformation and cyberbullying.

The issue has gained added urgency with <a href="Facebook chief Zuckerberg wants 'more active' govt role regulating internet">Facebook's failure to immediately</a> halt live streams of a March 15 attack by a self-avowed white supremacist on two mosques in New Zealand that killed 50 people.

Prime Minister Theresa May warned tech companies they had "not done enough" to protect users and that her government intended to put "a legal duty of care" on the firms "to keep people safe".

"For too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content," she said in a statement. "That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently.

"Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology."&nbsp;

The new laws envisaged will apply to any company that allows users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online.

That will include file hosting sites and chat forums as well as the better known social media platforms, messaging services and search engines.

Firms could face tough penalties for failing to meet the standards.

"We are consulting on powers to issue substantial fines, block access to sites and potentially to impose liability on individual members of senior management," the government said.

Under the proposals, a new regulator would have the power to force platforms and others to publish annual transparency reports. 
They would include the levels of harmful content disseminated on their sites and how they addressed the problem.

The regulator will also be able to issue codes of practice, which could compel companies to meet certain requirements, such as hiring fact-checkers, particularly during election periods.

"The era of self-regulation for online companies is over," Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said, adding he wanted the sector to be "part of the solution".

"Those that fail to do this will face tough action," he vowed.

Proponents of tougher social media regulations welcomed the proposals.

"For too long social networks have failed to prioritise children's safety and left them exposed to grooming, abuse, and harmful content," said Peter Wanless, head of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children.

"It's high time they were forced to act through this legally binding duty to protect children, backed up with hefty punishments if they fail to do so."&nbsp;

The British government said on Monday it will explore making social media executives personally liable for harmful content published on their platforms, in a raft of new online safety proposals.

The British government said on Monday it will explore making social media executives personally liable for harmful content published on their platforms, in a raft of new online safety proposals. The plans unveiled in a policy paper, which also include creating an independent regulator, aim to tackle all kinds of harmful content from encouraging violence and suicide to spreading disinformation and cyberbullying. The issue has gained added urgency with Facebook's failure to immediately halt live streams of a March 15 attack by a self-avowed white supremacist on two mosques in New Zealand that killed 50 people. Prime Minister Theresa May warned tech companies they had "not done enough" to protect users and that her government intended to put "a legal duty of care" on the firms "to keep people safe". "For too long these companies have not done enough to protect users, especially children and young people, from harmful content," she said in a statement. "That is not good enough, and it is time to do things differently. "Online companies must start taking responsibility for their platforms, and help restore public trust in this technology." The new laws envisaged will apply to any company that allows users to share or discover user-generated content or interact with each other online. That will include file hosting sites and chat forums as well as the better known social media platforms, messaging services and search engines. Firms could face tough penalties for failing to meet the standards. "We are consulting on powers to issue substantial fines, block access to sites and potentially to impose liability on individual members of senior management," the government said. Under the proposals, a new regulator would have the power to force platforms and others to publish annual transparency reports. They would include the levels of harmful content disseminated on their sites and how they addressed the problem. The regulator will also be able to issue codes of practice, which could compel companies to meet certain requirements, such as hiring fact-checkers, particularly during election periods. "The era of self-regulation for online companies is over," Digital Secretary Jeremy Wright said, adding he wanted the sector to be "part of the solution". "Those that fail to do this will face tough action," he vowed. Proponents of tougher social media regulations welcomed the proposals. "For too long social networks have failed to prioritise children's safety and left them exposed to grooming, abuse, and harmful content," said Peter Wanless, head of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. "It's high time they were forced to act through this legally binding duty to protect children, backed up with hefty punishments if they fail to do so."

UK plans to hold social media giants liable for harmful content

Leaking roof suspends UK Parliament proceedings

Britain has begun issuing passports with the words "European Union" removed from the front cover -- <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/uk-proposes-brexit-extension-to-end-on-june-30th-pm-theresa-may-to-eu-208119">despite Brexit being delayed</a> and uncertainty over when the country will leave the bloc.

The interior ministry confirmed that some passports introduced from March 30, the day after Britain was originally due to depart, no longer include references to the EU following a 2017 decision.

However, it said some newly-issued travel documents would still bear the bloc's name -- which has sat atop British passport covers -- in a bid to save public money.

"In order to use leftover stock and achieve best value for the taxpayer, passports that include the words 'European Union’ will continue to be issued for a short period," a spokeswoman said.

"There will be no difference for British citizens whether they are using a passport that includes the words European Union, or a passport that does not," she added, noting both designs would be "equally valid for travel".

Britain was set to leave the EU on March 29 but has been forced to delay its exit amid political paralysis in Westminster over the terms of the divorce deal.

Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday was forced to ask the bloc for another extension, until June 30, to prevent the country crashing out next Friday without an accord.

But it is unclear whether the other 27 EU members, which must give unanimous backing, will grant the request or insist on an even longer delay.

British passports have become ensnared in the country's Brexit divisions after the government announced in 2017 it would return to traditional blue passports "to restore national identity".

The travel documents had dark blue covers from 1921, but Britain switched to burgundy from 1988, in common with other passports in what was then the European Community.

Brexit backers are thrilled by the highly symbolic change, while those who support remaining in the bloc have mocked their excitement.

Last year it emerged that Franco-Dutch company Gemalto had won the contract to make the new blue passports, prompting fury from Brexit campaigners and more ridicule from Remainers that a British company was not chosen.

The new production contract is to begin in October 2019, with the passports currently being issued without reference to the EU on them still in the burgundy colour.

Britain has begun issuing passports with the words "European Union" removed from the front cover -- despite Brexit being delayed and uncertainty over when the country will leave the bloc.

Britain has begun issuing passports with the words "European Union" removed from the front cover -- despite Brexit being delayed and uncertainty over when the country will leave the bloc. The interior ministry confirmed that some passports introduced from March 30, the day after Britain was originally due to depart, no longer include references to the EU following a 2017 decision. However, it said some newly-issued travel documents would still bear the bloc's name -- which has sat atop British passport covers -- in a bid to save public money. "In order to use leftover stock and achieve best value for the taxpayer, passports that include the words 'European Union’ will continue to be issued for a short period," a spokeswoman said. "There will be no difference for British citizens whether they are using a passport that includes the words European Union, or a passport that does not," she added, noting both designs would be "equally valid for travel". Britain was set to leave the EU on March 29 but has been forced to delay its exit amid political paralysis in Westminster over the terms of the divorce deal. Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday was forced to ask the bloc for another extension, until June 30, to prevent the country crashing out next Friday without an accord. But it is unclear whether the other 27 EU members, which must give unanimous backing, will grant the request or insist on an even longer delay. British passports have become ensnared in the country's Brexit divisions after the government announced in 2017 it would return to traditional blue passports "to restore national identity". The travel documents had dark blue covers from 1921, but Britain switched to burgundy from 1988, in common with other passports in what was then the European Community. Brexit backers are thrilled by the highly symbolic change, while those who support remaining in the bloc have mocked their excitement. Last year it emerged that Franco-Dutch company Gemalto had won the contract to make the new blue passports, prompting fury from Brexit campaigners and more ridicule from Remainers that a British company was not chosen. The new production contract is to begin in October 2019, with the passports currently being issued without reference to the EU on them still in the burgundy colour.

UK starts issuing passports without 'European Union' on cover

British Prime Minister Theresa May on Wednesday afternoon met with opposition Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as part of her efforts to end Brexit impasse, but it seems that Corbyn is not in a rush to make a deal, according to experts.

Fraser Cameron, senior advisor of the European Policy Center, shared his views at the program Global Insight on the China Global Television Network (CGTN).

"It is obviously different this time in that she's reaching to the Labor Party, something that she should have done obviously two years ago. Having said that, I don't think Mr Corbyn is going to be [in] any rush to make a deal with Mrs May, because I don't think he wants the Labor Party tarnished with the Brexit brush," said Cameron.

"They want the Conservative Party to own this Brexit deal, and then Labor will hopefully win an early election. That is the strategy for Mr. Corbyn. I think there's a better chance, however, of getting a deal through parliament next week, which is the second alternative that Theresa May put to the nation last night," Cameron added.

Thom Brooks, professor of law and government at Durham University, said in the program that the problem of the United Kingdom is about a withdrawal agreement instead of a trade deal. He said that the Conservatives are divided over the Brexit deal, which makes the situation even worse.

"This big disagreement, this problem that Britain is in right now, is not about any trade deal, it's about a withdrawal agreement, it's about agreeing to the terms of leaving the European Union, not about the terms of the new wonderful trade deal that many who campaigned for Brexit were hoping to be moving on to. The largest party in parliament, the Conservatives, they are this divided as to what they want. It seems you get three people in the room, you get three different views as to what Brexit means. And the way they have been publicly attacking leaders of the European Union does not bode well for the kind of trade deals that they want to have in the future. So I think it is very much political," said Brooks.

In addition, Cameron said the EU will agree to extend the Brexit deadline again.

"There are two main reasons for this. One, they don't want to be blamed for no deal. So I think that's a very important concern, even for the French. Secondly, a no-deal will be extremely sort of damaging to the EU, as well as the UK. It is obviously, damage to UK more, but they don't want to have to go through all the very bad repercussions of a no-deal," Cameron said.

"I think if they want an extension, and I think this time what will be a lengthy extension, I think Britain will have to take part in the European Parliament elections in May, but at the end of the day, I think everybody will prefer the UK to stay in, rather than to actually leave. So there may be conditions attached to the decision next week, but I think in general, they will agree to an extension," said Cameron.

British Prime Minister Theresa May on Wednesday afternoon met with opposition Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as part of her efforts to end Brexit impasse, but it seems that Corbyn is not in a rush to make a deal, according to experts.

British Prime Minister Theresa May on Wednesday afternoon met with opposition Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn as part of her efforts to end Brexit impasse, but it seems that Corbyn is not in a rush to make a deal, according to experts. Fraser Cameron, senior advisor of the European Policy Center, shared his views at the program Global Insight on the China Global Television Network (CGTN). "It is obviously different this time in that she's reaching to the Labor Party, something that she should have done obviously two years ago. Having said that, I don't think Mr Corbyn is going to be [in] any rush to make a deal with Mrs May, because I don't think he wants the Labor Party tarnished with the Brexit brush," said Cameron. "They want the Conservative Party to own this Brexit deal, and then Labor will hopefully win an early election. That is the strategy for Mr. Corbyn. I think there's a better chance, however, of getting a deal through parliament next week, which is the second alternative that Theresa May put to the nation last night," Cameron added. Thom Brooks, professor of law and government at Durham University, said in the program that the problem of the United Kingdom is about a withdrawal agreement instead of a trade deal. He said that the Conservatives are divided over the Brexit deal, which makes the situation even worse. "This big disagreement, this problem that Britain is in right now, is not about any trade deal, it's about a withdrawal agreement, it's about agreeing to the terms of leaving the European Union, not about the terms of the new wonderful trade deal that many who campaigned for Brexit were hoping to be moving on to. The largest party in parliament, the Conservatives, they are this divided as to what they want. It seems you get three people in the room, you get three different views as to what Brexit means. And the way they have been publicly attacking leaders of the European Union does not bode well for the kind of trade deals that they want to have in the future. So I think it is very much political," said Brooks. In addition, Cameron said the EU will agree to extend the Brexit deadline again. "There are two main reasons for this. One, they don't want to be blamed for no deal. So I think that's a very important concern, even for the French. Secondly, a no-deal will be extremely sort of damaging to the EU, as well as the UK. It is obviously, damage to UK more, but they don't want to have to go through all the very bad repercussions of a no-deal," Cameron said. "I think if they want an extension, and I think this time what will be a lengthy extension, I think Britain will have to take part in the European Parliament elections in May, but at the end of the day, I think everybody will prefer the UK to stay in, rather than to actually leave. So there may be conditions attached to the decision next week, but I think in general, they will agree to an extension," said Cameron.

UK's Labor Party unlikely to make deal with May quickly, say experts

Gravitas: Are referendums healthy for democracy?

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - April 2nd, 2019

Britain, France and Germany are <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/iran-says-missile-programme-defensive-after-us-alleges-it-carried-out-missile-test-180909">accusing Iran of developing missile technology</a>, following recent activities, that they said was inconsistent with a UN resolution, and are calling for a full UN report, according to a letter released Tuesday.

The European trio cited Iran's launch of a space vehicle and the unveiling of two new ballistic missiles in February as forming "part of trend of increased activity inconsistent" with the resolution, according to the letter sent to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres.

UN Security Council Resolution 2231 — adopted just after the 2015 nuclear deal — calls on Iran "not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons."&nbsp;

Tehran insists that its missile program is defensive and that it has no intention of developing a nuclear capability.

The three countries asked Guterres to "report fully and thoroughly on Iranian ballistic missile activity" in his next report, which is expected in June.

The letter from the European countries, which are signatories to the nuclear deal along with the United States and Russia, came nearly a month after the United States made a similar appeal to the council, saying it was time to bring back tougher international restrictions on Tehran.

President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear accord in May last year and reimposed sanctions on Iran, citing concerns about missile development among its reasons.

At a council meeting in December, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for tighter restrictions on Iran to curb its missile program but Russia flatly asserted that there was no proof that Iran's missiles can carry a nuclear payload.

The European countries said the Safir space launch vehicle used for a satellite blastoff on February 6 is based on two other missiles and uses technology closely related to the development of long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles.

On February 7, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards unveiled the Dezful surface-to-surface missile which they claimed had a range of 1,000 kilometers, according to the letter sent on March 25.

During a public display in Tehran on February 4, Iran revealed a variant of the Khorramshahr ballistic missile that the letter said was "potentially an intermediate-range ballistic missile."

Iran reined in most of its nuclear program under the landmark nuclear deal with major powers but has kept up development of its ballistic missile technology.

Britain, France and Germany are accusing Iran of developing missile technology, following recent activities, that they said was inconsistent with a UN resolution, and are calling for a full UN report, according to a letter released Tuesday.

Britain, France and Germany are accusing Iran of developing missile technology, following recent activities, that they said was inconsistent with a UN resolution, and are calling for a full UN report, according to a letter released Tuesday. The European trio cited Iran's launch of a space vehicle and the unveiling of two new ballistic missiles in February as forming "part of trend of increased activity inconsistent" with the resolution, according to the letter sent to UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres. UN Security Council Resolution 2231 — adopted just after the 2015 nuclear deal — calls on Iran "not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons." Tehran insists that its missile program is defensive and that it has no intention of developing a nuclear capability. The three countries asked Guterres to "report fully and thoroughly on Iranian ballistic missile activity" in his next report, which is expected in June. The letter from the European countries, which are signatories to the nuclear deal along with the United States and Russia, came nearly a month after the United States made a similar appeal to the council, saying it was time to bring back tougher international restrictions on Tehran. President Donald Trump pulled the United States out of the nuclear accord in May last year and reimposed sanctions on Iran, citing concerns about missile development among its reasons. At a council meeting in December, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo called for tighter restrictions on Iran to curb its missile program but Russia flatly asserted that there was no proof that Iran's missiles can carry a nuclear payload. The European countries said the Safir space launch vehicle used for a satellite blastoff on February 6 is based on two other missiles and uses technology closely related to the development of long-range and intercontinental ballistic missiles. On February 7, the Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guards unveiled the Dezful surface-to-surface missile which they claimed had a range of 1,000 kilometers, according to the letter sent on March 25. During a public display in Tehran on February 4, Iran revealed a variant of the Khorramshahr ballistic missile that the letter said was "potentially an intermediate-range ballistic missile." Iran reined in most of its nuclear program under the landmark nuclear deal with major powers but has kept up development of its ballistic missile technology.

UK, France, Germany accuse Iran of developing missile technology

Brexit: No consensus on what next, 11 days to Brexit deadline

By Andy Price

For all the complexity that surrounds how (and, crucially, if) the UK leaves the European Union, the story of how it got into its current situation is actually incredibly simple. The Brexit that Prime Minister Theresa May has tried to engineer, a product of the internal tensions of her own party, was doomed from the start.

Coming to power as she did in the aftermath of the referendum, May made the one decision from which all her other missteps of the last few years would stem: she chose to represent one side, and one side only of the Brexit debate, and used this as the guiding star for her entire approach to Brexit.

From the moment she took office, she drew the reddest of red lines. At her Conservative Party conference speech in 2016, she introduced the mantras that would come to define her. We heard that “Brexit means Brexit”, that Britain would have a bright future as a sovereign nation outside of the EU.

A few months later at Lancaster House, she told the country she aimed to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK. That essentially meant committing to leaving the single market and the customs union. Across these speeches, she also introduced into the political lexicon the phrase that has haunted most politicians since – that the “losers” of the 2016 referendum must respect the result as the “will of the people”.

Later still, as prime minister, May called a snap election in the name of helping her deliver Brexit. She openly dismissed anyone opposing Brexit – which at the very least meant the 16.5m who had voted remain – as “playing games with politics”.

In hock to the hardline Brexiteers within her own party, May pushed a for a version of Brexit that would make this small group of around 100 or so individuals happy, regardless of what millions out in the country though.

The impact of this approach should not be underestimated. It not only polarised the national debate, entrenching the fissures brought forth by the referendum, but it bound May to an approach to Brexit negotiations that rendered her deal dead on arrival. Her commitment to essentially a pure Brexit meant a border between the UK and the EU in Ireland or a softening of the very parameters she had staked her entire project on. It’s not hard to see how this would end.

Failings across the board 
 
May’s own mishandling of the entire project should form the centre of any analysis of how the UK got where it is now. However, she had many handmaidens helping her along the way.

Indeed, almost all MPs were blindsided by the result of the referendum. They were then rapidly cowed into submission by the “will of the people” mantra. The overwhelming parliamentary support for triggering Article 50 in February 2017 is a great example of this.

But there are individual MPs, and smaller groupings, who would help dye May’s red lines even redder. Of course, the European Research Group (ERG) has been key. Vocal ideologues like Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees Mogg have kept the pressure up, hoping for a hard Brexit. For all their protestations, such a plan has never come close to carrying majority support in parliament.

In addition to the ERG, there are individual politicians who appear to view the whole exercise as one, great political game. Boris Johnson is the example par excellence. He amends his position on May’s deal according only to how it seems to apparently benefit his own leadership aspirations. And Nigel Farage – the most arch of the arch Brexiteers, who played a major role in the Brexit campaign, even if not an official one – continues to make great personal headway out of the whole farrago. He has radio shows, TV appearances, transport in private jets. He has most recently even been seen enjoying jolly japes with his supposed enemies in the EU. 
 
But perhaps the greatest helping hand May has had in limping towards the sad end of her Brexit project has come from the opposition. Blindsided by the fact that many of their constituencies voted Leave, and led by a man who is historically a eurosceptic, Labour has failed throughout the past two years to do the one thing the House of Commons is built to engender. Labour’s approach has been constructive ambiguity.

Though this may now finally be shifting at the eleventh hour, for nearly three years, Labour has neither come out against May’s Brexit or Brexit in general out of fear of its Leave constituents. It has therefore failed to challenge the government on its legislative programme. It has robbed the country of the one thing it needed more than ever in the face of a minority government that wasn’t listening – strong and clear opposition.

None of the above is particularly new, or hidden, or opaque: it is there in the historical record, for all of us to see. And it must be seen: to move past the unparalleled failure of May’s Brexit, the UK needs to learn – and quickly – from the woeful mistakes of a woefully unprepared political class.

(Andy Price is Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-is-not-just-theresa-mays-disaster-britains-whole-political-class-has-failed-a-nation-114463">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;

By Andy Price For all the complexity that surrounds how (and, crucially, if) the UK leaves the European Union, the story of how it got into its current situation is actually incredibly simple.

By Andy Price For all the complexity that surrounds how (and, crucially, if) the UK leaves the European Union, the story of how it got into its current situation is actually incredibly simple. The Brexit that Prime Minister Theresa May has tried to engineer, a product of the internal tensions of her own party, was doomed from the start. Coming to power as she did in the aftermath of the referendum, May made the one decision from which all her other missteps of the last few years would stem: she chose to represent one side, and one side only of the Brexit debate, and used this as the guiding star for her entire approach to Brexit. From the moment she took office, she drew the reddest of red lines. At her Conservative Party conference speech in 2016, she introduced the mantras that would come to define her. We heard that “Brexit means Brexit”, that Britain would have a bright future as a sovereign nation outside of the EU. A few months later at Lancaster House, she told the country she aimed to end the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in the UK. That essentially meant committing to leaving the single market and the customs union. Across these speeches, she also introduced into the political lexicon the phrase that has haunted most politicians since – that the “losers” of the 2016 referendum must respect the result as the “will of the people”. Later still, as prime minister, May called a snap election in the name of helping her deliver Brexit. She openly dismissed anyone opposing Brexit – which at the very least meant the 16.5m who had voted remain – as “playing games with politics”. In hock to the hardline Brexiteers within her own party, May pushed a for a version of Brexit that would make this small group of around 100 or so individuals happy, regardless of what millions out in the country though. The impact of this approach should not be underestimated. It not only polarised the national debate, entrenching the fissures brought forth by the referendum, but it bound May to an approach to Brexit negotiations that rendered her deal dead on arrival. Her commitment to essentially a pure Brexit meant a border between the UK and the EU in Ireland or a softening of the very parameters she had staked her entire project on. It’s not hard to see how this would end. Failings across the board May’s own mishandling of the entire project should form the centre of any analysis of how the UK got where it is now. However, she had many handmaidens helping her along the way. Indeed, almost all MPs were blindsided by the result of the referendum. They were then rapidly cowed into submission by the “will of the people” mantra. The overwhelming parliamentary support for triggering Article 50 in February 2017 is a great example of this. But there are individual MPs, and smaller groupings, who would help dye May’s red lines even redder. Of course, the European Research Group (ERG) has been key. Vocal ideologues like Iain Duncan Smith and Jacob Rees Mogg have kept the pressure up, hoping for a hard Brexit. For all their protestations, such a plan has never come close to carrying majority support in parliament. In addition to the ERG, there are individual politicians who appear to view the whole exercise as one, great political game. Boris Johnson is the example par excellence. He amends his position on May’s deal according only to how it seems to apparently benefit his own leadership aspirations. And Nigel Farage – the most arch of the arch Brexiteers, who played a major role in the Brexit campaign, even if not an official one – continues to make great personal headway out of the whole farrago. He has radio shows, TV appearances, transport in private jets. He has most recently even been seen enjoying jolly japes with his supposed enemies in the EU. But perhaps the greatest helping hand May has had in limping towards the sad end of her Brexit project has come from the opposition. Blindsided by the fact that many of their constituencies voted Leave, and led by a man who is historically a eurosceptic, Labour has failed throughout the past two years to do the one thing the House of Commons is built to engender. Labour’s approach has been constructive ambiguity. Though this may now finally be shifting at the eleventh hour, for nearly three years, Labour has neither come out against May’s Brexit or Brexit in general out of fear of its Leave constituents. It has therefore failed to challenge the government on its legislative programme. It has robbed the country of the one thing it needed more than ever in the face of a minority government that wasn’t listening – strong and clear opposition. None of the above is particularly new, or hidden, or opaque: it is there in the historical record, for all of us to see. And it must be seen: to move past the unparalleled failure of May’s Brexit, the UK needs to learn – and quickly – from the woeful mistakes of a woefully unprepared political class. (Andy Price is Head of Politics, Sheffield Hallam University) (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 is not just Theresa May’s disaster – Britain’s whole political class has failed a nation

No end to Brexit chaos

The chairman of British Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party said all options were on the table for how to get Britain out of its <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brexit-mps-reject-theresa-mays-deal-by-58-votes-206641">Brexit impasse</a> but that seeking a customs union with the European Union would be difficult.

"We've got to look at what we can do next and we have to do something different," Brandon Lewis told BBC radio on Saturday when asked if May might try to put her withdrawal agreement to a parliamentary vote yet again.

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-mps-reject-brexit-deal-for-third-time-206565">Lawmakers rejected May's Brexit deal for a third time</a> on Friday, leaving Britain's withdrawal from the EU in turmoil on the day it was originally due to leave the bloc.

"Parliament will continue this process on Monday and we've got to look at all the options," Lewis said.

With parliament and the government deadlocked on May's deal, it remains unclear how, when or even whether Britain will leave the EU.

On Monday lawmakers will try to agree on an alternative Brexit plan that could command majority cross-party support. The options that have so far gathered most support involve closer ties to the EU and a second referendum.

Lewis said the option of a customs union would be difficult to pursue because it flew in the face of the Conservatives' pledges before the 2017 national election and did not respect the outcome of the 2016 Brexit referendum.

When asked if a way out of the impasse was to hold a fresh national election, Lewis said he did not think British voters wanted to return to the polls.

The BBC said government officials had not ruled out the possibility of a run-off vote in parliament between the most popular option proposed by lawmakers and May's deal.

Lewis backed May to continue as prime minister but said he was aware of a letter sent to her by Conservative lawmakers calling for her to resign.

The chairman of British Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party said all options were on the table for how to get Britain out of its Brexit impasse but that seeking a customs union with the European Union would be difficult.

The chairman of British Prime Minister Theresa May's Conservative Party said all options were on the table for how to get Britain out of its Brexit impasse but that seeking a customs union with the European Union would be difficult. "We've got to look at what we can do next and we have to do something different," Brandon Lewis told BBC radio on Saturday when asked if May might try to put her withdrawal agreement to a parliamentary vote yet again. Lawmakers rejected May's Brexit deal for a third time on Friday, leaving Britain's withdrawal from the EU in turmoil on the day it was originally due to leave the bloc. "Parliament will continue this process on Monday and we've got to look at all the options," Lewis said. With parliament and the government deadlocked on May's deal, it remains unclear how, when or even whether Britain will leave the EU. On Monday lawmakers will try to agree on an alternative Brexit plan that could command majority cross-party support. The options that have so far gathered most support involve closer ties to the EU and a second referendum. Lewis said the option of a customs union would be difficult to pursue because it flew in the face of the Conservatives' pledges before the 2017 national election and did not respect the outcome of the 2016 Brexit referendum. When asked if a way out of the impasse was to hold a fresh national election, Lewis said he did not think British voters wanted to return to the polls. The BBC said government officials had not ruled out the possibility of a run-off vote in parliament between the most popular option proposed by lawmakers and May's deal. Lewis backed May to continue as prime minister but said he was aware of a letter sent to her by Conservative lawmakers calling for her to resign.

All Brexit options are on the table: UK Conservatives chair

UK Parliament votes on Brexit again

MPs are set for a momentous third vote Friday on <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-theresa-may-offers-to-resign-in-parliament-on-brexit-206392">Prime Minister Theresa May</a>'s <a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/brexit-no-majority-for-any-options-after-mps-votes-206299">Brexit</a> divorce deal, which could end a months-long crisis or risk Britain crashing out of the EU in two weeks.

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-mps-vote-against-all-alternative-brexit-options-206122">House of Commons</a> has twice rejected May's withdrawal agreement, both times by large margins, but has been unable to agree any alternative -- and time is running out.

The pivotal vote takes place on the day Britain was supposed to leave the European Union until May asked the bloc's leaders last week for a little more time.

In a last-ditch bid to garner the support of discontented Conservative colleagues, she dramatically promised Wednesday to resign if the deal passed.

She appealed to Brexit supporters to back her, saying that under the delay plan hatched with Brussels, approval on Friday could see Britain out of the bloc on May 22.

But if the deal falls again, she must set out a new plan by April 12 -- with the options including a potentially catastrophic "no deal" Brexit, or a lengthy delay.

May's sacrifice swayed some of her critics, including former foreign minister Boris Johnson, but more than a dozen Conservative MPs still publicly oppose her deal.

Her Northern Irish allies, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), also continue to insist that its arrangements for the Irish border are unacceptable.

'Blindfold Brexit'

Without the support of her own side, May would have to rely on opposition Labour votes to get her deal through, but leader Jeremy Corbyn has vowed to vote against her.

Tory minister Andrea Leadsom issued a rallying cry, tweeting that "we can still make the 29th March the day we unite to make leaving the EU a reality.&nbsp;

"I hope colleagues across the House will take this last opportunity."

The government has decided to put only one part of the Brexit package to MPs, separating out the withdrawal terms from an accompanying political declaration on future ties.

Another vote will be required for Brexit to happen, but a date has not been set.

Labour's Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer said separating the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration was "not part of a plan, it's a desperate measure," that the party would not vote for.

"Take the political declaration off and it's completely blind, you've no idea what you're really voting for."

Britain is leaving the EU after 46 years of membership following a divisive 2016 referendum in which voters decided 52 to 48 percent for Brexit.

But MPs appear incapable of agreeing on how to implement the result, reflecting the nationwide divisions that persist on the issue.

The ensuing chaos has led business leaders and trade unions to warn of a "national emergency", while the pound slipped again on Thursday amid fears of what might happen.

May admits her agreement, reached last November during more than 18 months of negotiations, is a compromise but insists it is the best available.

It covers citizens' rights, Britain's financial settlement, plans for the Irish border and for a transition period to ease the split until new trade terms are agreed.

'Give people certainty'

Ardent Brexit supporters say it keeps Britain too close to the EU, but others say it does not do enough to protect relations with Britain's largest trading partner.

The crunch vote caps a tumultuous week in Westminster which also saw MPs seize control of parliamentary business for a day to test support for various Brexit options.&nbsp;

However, none of the eight options drawn up by various lawmakers secured a majority, although they are hoping to narrow down the field in another round of votes next Monday.

Any new approach at this point would likely require a much longer extension that would force Britain to take part in European Parliament elections in May.

"The EU will only agree an extension until&nbsp;May 22 if the withdrawal agreement is approved this week," said Leadsom.

"I encourage all MPs to support it and ensure that we leave the EU... giving people and businesses the certainty they need."&nbsp;

MPs were not originally due to sit on Friday but the government called an emergency session, starting at 9.30am (0930 GMT) with voting due at 2.30pm (1430 GMT).

MPs are set for a momentous third vote Friday on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit divorce deal, which could end a months-long crisis or risk Britain crashing out of the EU in two weeks.

MPs are set for a momentous third vote Friday on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit divorce deal, which could end a months-long crisis or risk Britain crashing out of the EU in two weeks. The House of Commons has twice rejected May's withdrawal agreement, both times by large margins, but has been unable to agree any alternative -- and time is running out. The pivotal vote takes place on the day Britain was supposed to leave the European Union until May asked the bloc's leaders last week for a little more time. In a last-ditch bid to garner the support of discontented Conservative colleagues, she dramatically promised Wednesday to resign if the deal passed. She appealed to Brexit supporters to back her, saying that under the delay plan hatched with Brussels, approval on Friday could see Britain out of the bloc on May 22. But if the deal falls again, she must set out a new plan by April 12 -- with the options including a potentially catastrophic "no deal" Brexit, or a lengthy delay. May's sacrifice swayed some of her critics, including former foreign minister Boris Johnson, but more than a dozen Conservative MPs still publicly oppose her deal. Her Northern Irish allies, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), also continue to insist that its arrangements for the Irish border are unacceptable. 'Blindfold Brexit' Without the support of her own side, May would have to rely on opposition Labour votes to get her deal through, but leader Jeremy Corbyn has vowed to vote against her. Tory minister Andrea Leadsom issued a rallying cry, tweeting that "we can still make the 29th March the day we unite to make leaving the EU a reality. "I hope colleagues across the House will take this last opportunity." The government has decided to put only one part of the Brexit package to MPs, separating out the withdrawal terms from an accompanying political declaration on future ties. Another vote will be required for Brexit to happen, but a date has not been set. Labour's Brexit spokesman Keir Starmer said separating the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration was "not part of a plan, it's a desperate measure," that the party would not vote for. "Take the political declaration off and it's completely blind, you've no idea what you're really voting for." Britain is leaving the EU after 46 years of membership following a divisive 2016 referendum in which voters decided 52 to 48 percent for Brexit. But MPs appear incapable of agreeing on how to implement the result, reflecting the nationwide divisions that persist on the issue. The ensuing chaos has led business leaders and trade unions to warn of a "national emergency", while the pound slipped again on Thursday amid fears of what might happen. May admits her agreement, reached last November during more than 18 months of negotiations, is a compromise but insists it is the best available. It covers citizens' rights, Britain's financial settlement, plans for the Irish border and for a transition period to ease the split until new trade terms are agreed. 'Give people certainty' Ardent Brexit supporters say it keeps Britain too close to the EU, but others say it does not do enough to protect relations with Britain's largest trading partner. The crunch vote caps a tumultuous week in Westminster which also saw MPs seize control of parliamentary business for a day to test support for various Brexit options. However, none of the eight options drawn up by various lawmakers secured a majority, although they are hoping to narrow down the field in another round of votes next Monday. Any new approach at this point would likely require a much longer extension that would force Britain to take part in European Parliament elections in May. "The EU will only agree an extension until May 22 if the withdrawal agreement is approved this week," said Leadsom. "I encourage all MPs to support it and ensure that we leave the EU... giving people and businesses the certainty they need." MPs were not originally due to sit on Friday but the government called an emergency session, starting at 9.30am (0930 GMT) with voting due at 2.30pm (1430 GMT).

UK lawmakers to vote for pivotal vote on May's Brexit deal

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-mps-vote-against-all-alternative-brexit-options-206122">Britain's government</a> said it intended to hold a third parliamentary vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal on Friday but was awaiting the go-ahead from House of Commons speaker.

"We recognise that any motion brought forward tomorrow will need to be compliant with the speaker's ruling and that discussion is ongoing," Andrea Leadsom, who represents the government in parliament, told MPs.

"A motion will be tabled just as soon as possible and obviously by later today," Leadsom said Thursday.

Commons Speaker John Bercow has previously blocked a third vote on the deal, invoking a 17th-century statute that prevents parliament from voting on the same thing again and again.

"The only way we ensure we leave in good time on May 22 is by approving the withdrawal agreement by 11:00 pm on March 29," she said.

Leadsom pointed out that EU leaders had granted an extension until May 22 "provided that the withdrawal agreement is approved by the House of Commons this week".

 
&nbsp;

Britain's government said it intended to hold a third parliamentary vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal on Friday but was awaiting the go-ahead from House of Commons speaker.

Britain's government said it intended to hold a third parliamentary vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal on Friday but was awaiting the go-ahead from House of Commons speaker. "We recognise that any motion brought forward tomorrow will need to be compliant with the speaker's ruling and that discussion is ongoing," Andrea Leadsom, who represents the government in parliament, told MPs. "A motion will be tabled just as soon as possible and obviously by later today," Leadsom said Thursday. Commons Speaker John Bercow has previously blocked a third vote on the deal, invoking a 17th-century statute that prevents parliament from voting on the same thing again and again. "The only way we ensure we leave in good time on May 22 is by approving the withdrawal agreement by 11:00 pm on March 29," she said. Leadsom pointed out that EU leaders had granted an extension until May 22 "provided that the withdrawal agreement is approved by the House of Commons this week".

UK government plans third Brexit deal vote on Friday

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