Queen Elizabeth II's 97-year-old husband <a href="https://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.wionews.com/world/uks-prince-philip-97-escapes-unhurt-from-car-crash-191090&amp;sa=U&amp;ved=0ahUKEwiYr8_go_ffAhWMto8KHfLpA7QQFggFMAA&amp;client=internal-uds-cse&amp;cx=006054055338965708568:09spwrlibei&amp;usg=AOvVaw0D9hLQxzkTVSOjw3_ffdXB">Prince Philip</a> emerged "shocked and shaken" but unhurt from a car crash that flipped his Land Rover on its side and stirred up the UK debate on Friday about old age and driving.

A nine-month-old baby who was in the back seat of the Kia hatchback involved was uninjured, while one of the two women inside hurt her wrist, local police said.

"We are aware of the public interest, in this case, however, as with any other investigation it would be inappropriate to speculate on the causes of the collision until an investigation is carried out," the police said in a statement.

Images published by UK media showed a dark Land Rover standing on its side by the curb, driver's side down, its windscreen smashed, glass and metal debris scattered across a road running by a leafy park.

"I was driving home and I saw a car, a black (Land) Rover come out from a side road and it rolled," witness Roy Warne told BBC Radio on Friday.

"There was a huge collision with another car. I went to the other car and there was a baby in the back" in a harness.

Warne said one of the two other women in the Kia "was the mother of the child and she was quite upset".

Philip and the other driver were given breath tests, which is standard police procedure. No alcohol was detected.

The accident created banner headlines in most British papers, which cover the royals' every move, and a robust media debate about the wisdom of driving at Philip's age.

"MY LEGS! MY LEGS!" The Sun tabloid splashed on its front page — reportedly the phrase Prince Philip "yelled" as he was pulled from the wreckage.

It quoted him as saying: "I was blinded by the sun."

Love for speed

Philip, known for his forthright manner and off-colour jokes, retired from public life in 2017 and underwent a hip replacement operation last April.

Tall, slim and built like a retired soldier, the former air force pilot spends most of his time driving, gardening and enjoying family life at royal estates, according to Buckingham Palace.

He was last seen in public with the queen at Princess Eugenie's wedding in October.

But he missed the royal family's annual Christmas Day church service gathering.

Known as the Duke of Edinburgh in Britain, Philip is also famous for his love for speed.

The royal family website says the duke "learned to fly all type of aircraft", passing a Royal Air Force test in 1953.

In 2016, alongside the queen, he drove former US president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle around Windsor Castle after they landed nearby in the presidential helicopter.

'Age-old debate'

The accident stirred up what The Sun described as Britain's "age-old debate" about whether and when the elderly should give up driving.

The issue is especially sensitive in the case of the royals, with the Daily Mail noting: "There's only one person who can tell him to stop driving. But will she dare?"

The queen was reportedly at the duke's side when he checked in for a brief hospital visit, but has issued no public comment.

Official figures cited by UK media show more than 100,000 drivers in the UK over the age of 90.

In Britain, licenses expire when a person turns 70 and are renewed through a simple self-assessment test.

"There will be some surprise that the duke still drives himself on public roads," BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond wrote in a commentary.

"But he has always been fiercely independent, and would have resisted any suggestion that he be denied the right to drive himself."

The Daily Mail asked whether the duke would now "sacrifice one of his last indulgences".

The BBC's Dymond suggested that he might.

"It might be that the duke is about to be persuaded to give up the wheel." 
&nbsp;

Queen Elizabeth II's 97-year-old husband Prince Philip emerged "shocked and shaken" but unhurt from a car crash that flipped his Land Rover on its side and stirred up the UK debate on Friday about old age and driving.

Queen Elizabeth II's 97-year-old husband Prince Philip emerged "shocked and shaken" but unhurt from a car crash that flipped his Land Rover on its side and stirred up the UK debate on Friday about old age and driving. A nine-month-old baby who was in the back seat of the Kia hatchback involved was uninjured, while one of the two women inside hurt her wrist, local police said. "We are aware of the public interest, in this case, however, as with any other investigation it would be inappropriate to speculate on the causes of the collision until an investigation is carried out," the police said in a statement. Images published by UK media showed a dark Land Rover standing on its side by the curb, driver's side down, its windscreen smashed, glass and metal debris scattered across a road running by a leafy park. "I was driving home and I saw a car, a black (Land) Rover come out from a side road and it rolled," witness Roy Warne told BBC Radio on Friday. "There was a huge collision with another car. I went to the other car and there was a baby in the back" in a harness. Warne said one of the two other women in the Kia "was the mother of the child and she was quite upset". Philip and the other driver were given breath tests, which is standard police procedure. No alcohol was detected. The accident created banner headlines in most British papers, which cover the royals' every move, and a robust media debate about the wisdom of driving at Philip's age. "MY LEGS! MY LEGS!" The Sun tabloid splashed on its front page — reportedly the phrase Prince Philip "yelled" as he was pulled from the wreckage. It quoted him as saying: "I was blinded by the sun." Love for speed Philip, known for his forthright manner and off-colour jokes, retired from public life in 2017 and underwent a hip replacement operation last April. Tall, slim and built like a retired soldier, the former air force pilot spends most of his time driving, gardening and enjoying family life at royal estates, according to Buckingham Palace. He was last seen in public with the queen at Princess Eugenie's wedding in October. But he missed the royal family's annual Christmas Day church service gathering. Known as the Duke of Edinburgh in Britain, Philip is also famous for his love for speed. The royal family website says the duke "learned to fly all type of aircraft", passing a Royal Air Force test in 1953. In 2016, alongside the queen, he drove former US president Barack Obama and his wife Michelle around Windsor Castle after they landed nearby in the presidential helicopter. 'Age-old debate' The accident stirred up what The Sun described as Britain's "age-old debate" about whether and when the elderly should give up driving. The issue is especially sensitive in the case of the royals, with the Daily Mail noting: "There's only one person who can tell him to stop driving. But will she dare?" The queen was reportedly at the duke's side when he checked in for a brief hospital visit, but has issued no public comment. Official figures cited by UK media show more than 100,000 drivers in the UK over the age of 90. In Britain, licenses expire when a person turns 70 and are renewed through a simple self-assessment test. "There will be some surprise that the duke still drives himself on public roads," BBC royal correspondent Jonny Dymond wrote in a commentary. "But he has always been fiercely independent, and would have resisted any suggestion that he be denied the right to drive himself." The Daily Mail asked whether the duke would now "sacrifice one of his last indulgences". The BBC's Dymond suggested that he might. "It might be that the duke is about to be persuaded to give up the wheel."

UK's Prince Philip 'shocked and shaken' after car crash

By Chris Stafford

Just 24 hours after suffering a historic defeat in parliament over her Brexit deal, the prime minister has survived a vote of no confidence in her government – thanks to the support of her backbench MPs. Up until this point, these same backbench MPs have been all too willing to vote against her and her Brexit deal.

The result was expected, given that a Conservative rebellion would have likely resulted in a general election that might have gone very badly for the party. Ousting the prime minister is less appealing when, instead of offering the potential for career advancement, there is a strong chance that it would instead lead to a demotion to the shadow cabinet.

With the very public plotting and scheming that has been displayed over Brexit, it is little wonder that British people have become profoundly mistrustful of their elected representatives and their motivations. What happens next is, therefore, crucial not only for the prime minister and the country but also the public’s faith in the nation’s democracy.

The way forward is not clear and many in the EU would like to know just what it is the UK actually wants. In an attempt to find out, May has promised to consult with leading parliamentarians over the way forward. She has been criticised for not doing this sooner and, while it could perhaps throw up a fresh idea to move things forward, it is hard to see what assurances the prime minister or the European Union can give that would placate anyone.

Re-open the negotiations?

Realistically speaking the only way to get the major changes on the controversial issues would be to re-open Brexit negotiations with the European Union and extend the article 50 period. While there is some support for the latter, the former has not been an acceptable option on the continent for some time now. That doesn’t appear likely to change.

Many prominent hard Brexit supporters have suggested that parliament’s dismissal of the deal will put the EU under pressure. They think Brussels will come back to the negotiating table once the screws are turned. But, as things stand, this looks like misplaced bravado and even wishful thinking.

To suggest that the defeat of the deal in parliament will somehow force the EU to waver is a perfect display of the flawed logic that created this situation in the first place. While the prospect of a no-deal Brexit is, of course, concerning to them, the remaining EU member states are prepared to weather the storm of a no-deal if they must. They would rather not have to, but if it is a choice between that or threatening the integrity of the single market and the European project itself, the choice is clear – and has been since before article 50 was even triggered.

A government cornered

Ultimately, if a new deal is well and truly off the table, there are a limited set of options the government can pursue. Brexit could be cancelled or it could be put to another referendum. Neither is likely to be popular options within the Conservative Party. More likely, it has been suggested that the government may keep making parliament vote on the deal, or some version of it, until it passes, although the legality of this is now in question. If the deal cannot get through the Commons, there may be no other option but to leave without a deal. Conservative MPs, therefore, need to either get behind the deal or resign themselves to endorsing a no-deal scenario.

It is also decision time for Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. Having failed to win the vote of no confidence and force their preferred option of a general election, they too have to either get behind the deal or consign the country to a no-deal scenario. That said, there is, of course, the ever-controversial option of a second referendum. Corbyn has resisted calls for this so far – but, with mounting pressure from MPs and the membership, as well as a desperate need for some distinctiveness on Brexit between the two major parties, it may prove hard to keep voting down the prime minister’s deal without offering a viable alternative.

Parliament takes back control

Having successfully showed their desire and ability to assert themselves in the Brexit process in parliament, the MPs themselves may be the key to ending the deadlock. There is the looming threat that they will seize complete control of the issue, legislating to prevent a no-deal scenario from even being possible.

Given the historic defeat over the Brexit deal, it is not implausible that such a move could get the support it needs. However, if the EU refuses to budge on the deal or the timing of Brexit, it is again hard to see where this would ultimately lead. Despite claims that Brexit would allow the UK to “take back control”, it still seems that it is the European Union that is very much in charge of the situation.

(Chris Stafford is Doctoral Researcher, University of Nottingham)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-theresa-may-survives-confidence-vote-but-brussels-is-in-charge-now-109976">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Chris Stafford Just 24 hours after suffering a historic defeat in parliament over her Brexit deal, the prime minister has survived a vote of no confidence in her government – thanks to the support of her backbench MPs.

By Chris Stafford Just 24 hours after suffering a historic defeat in parliament over her Brexit deal, the prime minister has survived a vote of no confidence in her government – thanks to the support of her backbench MPs. Up until this point, these same backbench MPs have been all too willing to vote against her and her Brexit deal. The result was expected, given that a Conservative rebellion would have likely resulted in a general election that might have gone very badly for the party. Ousting the prime minister is less appealing when, instead of offering the potential for career advancement, there is a strong chance that it would instead lead to a demotion to the shadow cabinet. With the very public plotting and scheming that has been displayed over Brexit, it is little wonder that British people have become profoundly mistrustful of their elected representatives and their motivations. What happens next is, therefore, crucial not only for the prime minister and the country but also the public’s faith in the nation’s democracy. The way forward is not clear and many in the EU would like to know just what it is the UK actually wants. In an attempt to find out, May has promised to consult with leading parliamentarians over the way forward. She has been criticised for not doing this sooner and, while it could perhaps throw up a fresh idea to move things forward, it is hard to see what assurances the prime minister or the European Union can give that would placate anyone. Re-open the negotiations? Realistically speaking the only way to get the major changes on the controversial issues would be to re-open Brexit negotiations with the European Union and extend the article 50 period. While there is some support for the latter, the former has not been an acceptable option on the continent for some time now. That doesn’t appear likely to change. Many prominent hard Brexit supporters have suggested that parliament’s dismissal of the deal will put the EU under pressure. They think Brussels will come back to the negotiating table once the screws are turned. But, as things stand, this looks like misplaced bravado and even wishful thinking. To suggest that the defeat of the deal in parliament will somehow force the EU to waver is a perfect display of the flawed logic that created this situation in the first place. While the prospect of a no-deal Brexit is, of course, concerning to them, the remaining EU member states are prepared to weather the storm of a no-deal if they must. They would rather not have to, but if it is a choice between that or threatening the integrity of the single market and the European project itself, the choice is clear – and has been since before article 50 was even triggered. A government cornered Ultimately, if a new deal is well and truly off the table, there are a limited set of options the government can pursue. Brexit could be cancelled or it could be put to another referendum. Neither is likely to be popular options within the Conservative Party. More likely, it has been suggested that the government may keep making parliament vote on the deal, or some version of it, until it passes, although the legality of this is now in question. If the deal cannot get through the Commons, there may be no other option but to leave without a deal. Conservative MPs, therefore, need to either get behind the deal or resign themselves to endorsing a no-deal scenario. It is also decision time for Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party. Having failed to win the vote of no confidence and force their preferred option of a general election, they too have to either get behind the deal or consign the country to a no-deal scenario. That said, there is, of course, the ever-controversial option of a second referendum. Corbyn has resisted calls for this so far – but, with mounting pressure from MPs and the membership, as well as a desperate need for some distinctiveness on Brexit between the two major parties, it may prove hard to keep voting down the prime minister’s deal without offering a viable alternative. Parliament takes back control Having successfully showed their desire and ability to assert themselves in the Brexit process in parliament, the MPs themselves may be the key to ending the deadlock. There is the looming threat that they will seize complete control of the issue, legislating to prevent a no-deal scenario from even being possible. Given the historic defeat over the Brexit deal, it is not implausible that such a move could get the support it needs. However, if the EU refuses to budge on the deal or the timing of Brexit, it is again hard to see where this would ultimately lead. Despite claims that Brexit would allow the UK to “take back control”, it still seems that it is the European Union that is very much in charge of the situation. (Chris Stafford is Doctoral Researcher, University of Nottingham) (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)

Theresa May survives confidence vote, but Brussels is in charge now

UK Parliament rejects Brexit deal; Theresa May faces no confidence motion in 24 hrs

Watch: WION Gravitas, 15th January, 2019

Watch: WION Fineprint, 15th January, 2019

Gravitas: House of Commons set to vote for Theresa May's Brexit deal today

British Prime Minister Theresa May will force a second parliamentary vote on her <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/britains-brexit-vote-how-many-lawmakers-are-backing-pm-may-190324">Brexit deal</a> despite facing defeat, The Sun reported on Monday.

The British parliament is widely expected to vote against May's <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-brexit-vote-set-for-january-15-amid-talk-of-delay-189103">deal on Tuesday</a>, opening up outcomes ranging from a disorderly divorce to reversing Brexit.

Allies claim that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has offered May last-minute help after saying the European Union could grant extra concessions if MPs reject her deal, the report said.

The concessions include persuading Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar to agree to an end date to the so-called Irish backstop, the report added.

The EU has told May that it stood by commitments to find ways to avoid triggering the Irish backstop, an insurance policy to avoid the return of a hard border in Ireland, in their Brexit deal and that this pledge had legal weight.

Earlier this month, May spoke with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to secure concessions from Brussels to help get her Brexit deal through parliament. She has also spoken to Germany's Angela Merkel twice in recent weeks.

May's office said at that time the prime minister was speaking to several European leaders to secure further reassurances ahead of the vote.

British Prime Minister Theresa May will force a second parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal despite facing defeat, The Sun reported on Monday. The British parliament is widely expected to vote against May's deal on Tuesday, opening up outcomes ranging from a disorderly divorce to reversing Brexit.

British Prime Minister Theresa May will force a second parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal despite facing defeat, The Sun reported on Monday. The British parliament is widely expected to vote against May's deal on Tuesday, opening up outcomes ranging from a disorderly divorce to reversing Brexit. Allies claim that German Chancellor Angela Merkel has offered May last-minute help after saying the European Union could grant extra concessions if MPs reject her deal, the report said. The concessions include persuading Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar to agree to an end date to the so-called Irish backstop, the report added. The EU has told May that it stood by commitments to find ways to avoid triggering the Irish backstop, an insurance policy to avoid the return of a hard border in Ireland, in their Brexit deal and that this pledge had legal weight. Earlier this month, May spoke with European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker to secure concessions from Brussels to help get her Brexit deal through parliament. She has also spoken to Germany's Angela Merkel twice in recent weeks. May's office said at that time the prime minister was speaking to several European leaders to secure further reassurances ahead of the vote.

UK PM May to force second vote on Brexit deal: Reports

Watch: WION Dispatch, 15th January, 2019

Dispatch: UK Parliament set to vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal today

Supermarkets in UK stockpile goods, raise prices amid Brexit uncertainty

Watch: WION Dispatch, 14th January 2019

Theresa May requests MPs to back Brexit deal

By Louise Thompson&nbsp;

A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15. The manoeuvre changes the parliamentary timetable to give the prime minister just three days to come up with a new plan if she loses the vote. This was highly controversial in constitutional terms and the debate was extremely heated. Here’s what it means for the next stage of Brexit.

What does the amendment passed by parliament say?

Since the meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal was delayed in December, MPs have been pulling out all the stops to find creative ways of forcing the government’s hand. The amendments made to the Finance Bill were an example of this.

Now, MPs have voted through a business motion that drastically shortens the Brexit timeline should May lose the vote on her final Brexit deal on January 15. According to the amendment, she must return to the House of Commons within three days for a vote on the further options. This is instead of the plan currently in place, which would have given her 21 days to present a new plan.

Who is behind the amendment?

This is a cross-party amendment. A quick glance at the list of signatories shows some very familiar faces. Conservative backbencher Dominic Grieve has been a continual thorn in May’s side as she tries to pass Brexit legislation. Back in September 2017, he was writing about the need to challenge the government on its withdrawal legislation, which he felt was not up to scratch. His crusade to strengthen parliament’s voice on the issue has continued ever since. Now you can expect to see a “Grieve amendment” attached to almost any piece of Brexit-related legislation in parliament.

Also on the list is Chris Leslie, the Labour backbencher who has been similarly passionate about holding the government to account, tabling hundreds of amendments to May’s Brexit bills. Both are on the Politico’s list of Brexit troublemakers, where Leslie is described as an “amendment tabling machine”.

The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens have also signed up to the amendment. The smaller parties would typically always work together, but opposition to the prime minister’s Brexit timetable is now coming from MPs of all parties, including a significant number of her own.

Why was the selection of the amendment so controversial?

MPs spent the morning of January 9 in a heated debate about whether or not the amendment was constitutional – did it fall within the boundaries of parliamentary procedure? Many directed significant ire at Speaker John Bercow for selecting it for consideration, implying that he may be straying from the impartiality which the occupant of the chair should stand by. For some, it was a case of the speaker rewriting or reinterpreting parliamentary rules, something that parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy described as a “massive ruling” that could alter the course of Brexit should the prime minister lose the vote on the final deal.

This was because the amendment was tabled to a business motion. This is different from tabling amendments to a piece of legislation like the EU Withdrawal Bill. Typically, only the government can amend the business or timetable of the House and as such, amendments would normally only come from government. There was some speculation that the amendment was a test, putting the speaker in an awkward position as he had to decide what to do with it. It later became apparent that the amendment had been selected (perhaps to placate MPs and allow the matter to be on the record). In the speaker’s words, it came down to a distinction between motion and an amendment, with this being one of the latter, as well as a discussion about the meaning of the word “forthwith” and whether this meant that a motion was unamendable or not.

It was clearly a difficult decision for Bercow, who repeatedly said he had to think carefully and make a judgement. But with reports that the House of Commons clerks had advised against the move, it seemed that the speaker really was taking a decision alone. It means that although parliament was not able to debate the amendment, Grieve was able to officially move it, and as a result, the House of Commons could vote on it. It was passed by 308 votes to 297.

Is this amendment enough to stop a no-deal Brexit?It is clear evidence of opposition to a no-deal Brexit and a growing consensus around the need for a clear decision to be expressed by parliament on a suitable alternative to the deal currently on the table.

On its own, the amendment is not going to stop a no-deal Brexit. But it does speed up the timetable by which the government would need to come back to the House of Commons with a new plan of action should the vote on the deal be lost. As such, it is part of parliament’s wider attempt to rewrite the Brexit story.

Does it currently look like May will lose the Brexit deal vote?

The prime minister’s assurances over Christmas about the Northern Ireland border may have quelled the opposition from a handful of MPs, but it still looks likely that she will lose the vote on the final deal. It was reported that she planned to repeatedly put the deal to a vote until it passed. Grieve’s amendment aimed to prevent this. But it’s not really clear if the prime minister has a Plan B.

What is Labour planning on doing if she loses the vote?

At the moment we are expecting Labour to table a &nbsp;motion of no confidence in the government if the prime minister loses the vote on January 15. But the Grieve amendment may complicate things a little bit. Should party leader Jeremy Corbyn hang tight and see what comes back in the three-day window, or table it right away? His chances of winning would depend on the timing and on whether or not a plan B does emerge from the government benches.

(Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-what-does-the-latest-parliamentary-upset-mean-for-theresa-may-109591">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Louise Thompson A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15.

By Louise Thompson A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15. The manoeuvre changes the parliamentary timetable to give the prime minister just three days to come up with a new plan if she loses the vote. This was highly controversial in constitutional terms and the debate was extremely heated. Here’s what it means for the next stage of Brexit. What does the amendment passed by parliament say? Since the meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal was delayed in December, MPs have been pulling out all the stops to find creative ways of forcing the government’s hand. The amendments made to the Finance Bill were an example of this. Now, MPs have voted through a business motion that drastically shortens the Brexit timeline should May lose the vote on her final Brexit deal on January 15. According to the amendment, she must return to the House of Commons within three days for a vote on the further options. This is instead of the plan currently in place, which would have given her 21 days to present a new plan. Who is behind the amendment? This is a cross-party amendment. A quick glance at the list of signatories shows some very familiar faces. Conservative backbencher Dominic Grieve has been a continual thorn in May’s side as she tries to pass Brexit legislation. Back in September 2017, he was writing about the need to challenge the government on its withdrawal legislation, which he felt was not up to scratch. His crusade to strengthen parliament’s voice on the issue has continued ever since. Now you can expect to see a “Grieve amendment” attached to almost any piece of Brexit-related legislation in parliament. Also on the list is Chris Leslie, the Labour backbencher who has been similarly passionate about holding the government to account, tabling hundreds of amendments to May’s Brexit bills. Both are on the Politico’s list of Brexit troublemakers, where Leslie is described as an “amendment tabling machine”. The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens have also signed up to the amendment. The smaller parties would typically always work together, but opposition to the prime minister’s Brexit timetable is now coming from MPs of all parties, including a significant number of her own. Why was the selection of the amendment so controversial? MPs spent the morning of January 9 in a heated debate about whether or not the amendment was constitutional – did it fall within the boundaries of parliamentary procedure? Many directed significant ire at Speaker John Bercow for selecting it for consideration, implying that he may be straying from the impartiality which the occupant of the chair should stand by. For some, it was a case of the speaker rewriting or reinterpreting parliamentary rules, something that parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy described as a “massive ruling” that could alter the course of Brexit should the prime minister lose the vote on the final deal. This was because the amendment was tabled to a business motion. This is different from tabling amendments to a piece of legislation like the EU Withdrawal Bill. Typically, only the government can amend the business or timetable of the House and as such, amendments would normally only come from government. There was some speculation that the amendment was a test, putting the speaker in an awkward position as he had to decide what to do with it. It later became apparent that the amendment had been selected (perhaps to placate MPs and allow the matter to be on the record). In the speaker’s words, it came down to a distinction between motion and an amendment, with this being one of the latter, as well as a discussion about the meaning of the word “forthwith” and whether this meant that a motion was unamendable or not. It was clearly a difficult decision for Bercow, who repeatedly said he had to think carefully and make a judgement. But with reports that the House of Commons clerks had advised against the move, it seemed that the speaker really was taking a decision alone. It means that although parliament was not able to debate the amendment, Grieve was able to officially move it, and as a result, the House of Commons could vote on it. It was passed by 308 votes to 297. Is this amendment enough to stop a no-deal Brexit?It is clear evidence of opposition to a no-deal Brexit and a growing consensus around the need for a clear decision to be expressed by parliament on a suitable alternative to the deal currently on the table. On its own, the amendment is not going to stop a no-deal Brexit. But it does speed up the timetable by which the government would need to come back to the House of Commons with a new plan of action should the vote on the deal be lost. As such, it is part of parliament’s wider attempt to rewrite the Brexit story. Does it currently look like May will lose the Brexit deal vote? The prime minister’s assurances over Christmas about the Northern Ireland border may have quelled the opposition from a handful of MPs, but it still looks likely that she will lose the vote on the final deal. It was reported that she planned to repeatedly put the deal to a vote until it passed. Grieve’s amendment aimed to prevent this. But it’s not really clear if the prime minister has a Plan B. What is Labour planning on doing if she loses the vote? At the moment we are expecting Labour to table a motion of no confidence in the government if the prime minister loses the vote on January 15. But the Grieve amendment may complicate things a little bit. Should party leader Jeremy Corbyn hang tight and see what comes back in the three-day window, or table it right away? His chances of winning would depend on the timing and on whether or not a plan B does emerge from the government benches. (Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit row: What does the latest parliamentary upset mean for Theresa May?

Meghan Markle, the wife of Britain's Prince Harry, announced on Thursday she would become the patron of four organisations to champion causes close to her heart, including the National Theatre and charities supporting women and animal welfare. 
 
Queen Elizabeth, 92, has passed on her patronages of the National Theatre and the Association of Commonwealth Universities, which she has held for decades, to Meghan, who married the queen's grandson last year. 
 
Known as the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan will also become the patron of Smart Works, a charity helping long-term unemployed women, and animal welfare charity Mayhew.

"The Duchess is delighted to become Patron of both national and grassroots organisations that are part of the fabric of the UK, and is very much looking forward to working with them to bring wider public attention to their causes," Kensington Palace said in a statement. 
 
The National Theatre said it was a privilege to welcome Meghan, an American former actress who starred in television drama Suits before she married Harry. 
 
"The Duchess shares our deeply-held conviction that theatre has the power to bring together people from all communities and walks of life. I very much look forward to working closely with Her Royal Highness in the years to come," Rufus Norris, the director of the National Theatre, said.

Meghan, who is pregnant with her first child, will visit Smart Works on Thursday.

Meghan Markle, the wife of Britain's Prince Harry, announced on Thursday she would become the patron of four organisations to champion causes close to her heart, including the National Theatre and charities supporting women and animal welfare.

Meghan Markle, the wife of Britain's Prince Harry, announced on Thursday she would become the patron of four organisations to champion causes close to her heart, including the National Theatre and charities supporting women and animal welfare. Queen Elizabeth, 92, has passed on her patronages of the National Theatre and the Association of Commonwealth Universities, which she has held for decades, to Meghan, who married the queen's grandson last year. Known as the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan will also become the patron of Smart Works, a charity helping long-term unemployed women, and animal welfare charity Mayhew. "The Duchess is delighted to become Patron of both national and grassroots organisations that are part of the fabric of the UK, and is very much looking forward to working with them to bring wider public attention to their causes," Kensington Palace said in a statement. The National Theatre said it was a privilege to welcome Meghan, an American former actress who starred in television drama Suits before she married Harry. "The Duchess shares our deeply-held conviction that theatre has the power to bring together people from all communities and walks of life. I very much look forward to working closely with Her Royal Highness in the years to come," Rufus Norris, the director of the National Theatre, said. Meghan, who is pregnant with her first child, will visit Smart Works on Thursday.

Meghan Markle takes royal roles at UK charities for women and animals

British MPs will vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's EU withdrawal deal on January 15, the government said Tuesday while denying growing speculation it might seek to delay Brexit if the agreement is rejected.

May postponed an initial vote last month in the face of opposition from all sides of the House of Commons, but has now set it for next Tuesday evening after 1900 GMT, following five days of debate which start on Wednesday.

May is still struggling to convince both opposition lawmakers and her own Conservative party to back the divorce agreement, heightening fears Britain could leave the European Union on March 29 without a deal.

She has promised to secure further assurances from the EU on the most controversial elements of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland, and has held talks with European leaders in recent days.

"The work to secure those assurances is ongoing," her spokesman said, adding that the prime minister hoped to have something to offer MPs before next week's vote.

May is hosting several drinks parties for lawmakers this week in a bid to win them round, arguing her deal is the best compromise that ends EU membership while protecting jobs.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove told cabinet colleagues that critics holding out for a better deal were like swingers in their mid-50s waiting for Hollywood star Scarlett Johansson to turn up on a date.

But with opposition among MPs still strong, there is growing speculation London could seek to delay the EU's two-year Article 50 exit process to allow more time to get the deal through parliament.

A source in Brussels told AFP several weeks ago that Britain has been discussing the possibility with European officials, and a junior British minister, Margot James, publicly voiced the idea on Monday.

But May's spokesman insisted: "We will not be extending Article 50.

"There are people in the European Union who are discussing this issue, but that is not the position of the UK government."

'Very hypothetical'

The other 27 EU leaders have repeatedly said they will not reopen the deal struck with Britain in November, which covers key separation issues such as money and expatriate citizens' rights.

But they issued a joint statement at an EU summit last month emphasising the temporary nature of the so-called backstop arrangement designed to keep open the UK border with Ireland after Brexit.

And Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told the Irish Times there were discussions on whether the EU could offer "a further set of written guarantees, explanations and assurances".

The backstop would keep open the border between British Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland after Brexit by temporarily aligning Britain with EU trade rules.

Eurosceptic Conservatives and Northern Ireland's tiny Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up May's government, fear it could tie London to Brussels for years to come.

However, France's Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau said "there is nothing more that we can do" -- and warned against putting too much faith in talk of extending Article 50.

"I don't work on hypotheses -- the current situation is complex enough... Let's stick to where we are now," she added.

An EU diplomat also told AFP that the idea of delaying Brexit "is a very hypothetical option".

Any extension to Britain's departure would be complicated by the elections to the European Parliament in May. After Brexit, it will no longer be represented in the assembly.

No deal plans

May is looking at a possible time limit to the backstop arrangement and increased parliamentary scrutiny to try to sway MPs.

But if her efforts fail, many fear Britain could leave the EU with no deal, with potentially disastrous legal and economic consequences.

A cross-party group of MPs sought Tuesday to amend a finance law to limit the government's tax-raising powers in the event of "no deal", as a way of forcing it to stop such a scenario.

The impact of a disorderly Brexit would also be felt across Europe, including in the EU budget.

May's deal sets out plans for a post-Brexit transition period in which Britain would keep making financial contributions until December 2020.

EU budget commissioner Gunther Oettinger said that without this, "we would be short a figure in the billions of euros for the rest of the year and a higher figure for 2020".

British MPs will vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's EU withdrawal deal on January 15, the government said Tuesday while denying growing speculation it might seek to delay Brexit if the agreement is rejected.

British MPs will vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's EU withdrawal deal on January 15, the government said Tuesday while denying growing speculation it might seek to delay Brexit if the agreement is rejected. May postponed an initial vote last month in the face of opposition from all sides of the House of Commons, but has now set it for next Tuesday evening after 1900 GMT, following five days of debate which start on Wednesday. May is still struggling to convince both opposition lawmakers and her own Conservative party to back the divorce agreement, heightening fears Britain could leave the European Union on March 29 without a deal. She has promised to secure further assurances from the EU on the most controversial elements of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland, and has held talks with European leaders in recent days. "The work to secure those assurances is ongoing," her spokesman said, adding that the prime minister hoped to have something to offer MPs before next week's vote. May is hosting several drinks parties for lawmakers this week in a bid to win them round, arguing her deal is the best compromise that ends EU membership while protecting jobs. Environment Secretary Michael Gove told cabinet colleagues that critics holding out for a better deal were like swingers in their mid-50s waiting for Hollywood star Scarlett Johansson to turn up on a date. But with opposition among MPs still strong, there is growing speculation London could seek to delay the EU's two-year Article 50 exit process to allow more time to get the deal through parliament. A source in Brussels told AFP several weeks ago that Britain has been discussing the possibility with European officials, and a junior British minister, Margot James, publicly voiced the idea on Monday. But May's spokesman insisted: "We will not be extending Article 50. "There are people in the European Union who are discussing this issue, but that is not the position of the UK government." 'Very hypothetical' The other 27 EU leaders have repeatedly said they will not reopen the deal struck with Britain in November, which covers key separation issues such as money and expatriate citizens' rights. But they issued a joint statement at an EU summit last month emphasising the temporary nature of the so-called backstop arrangement designed to keep open the UK border with Ireland after Brexit. And Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told the Irish Times there were discussions on whether the EU could offer "a further set of written guarantees, explanations and assurances". The backstop would keep open the border between British Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland after Brexit by temporarily aligning Britain with EU trade rules. Eurosceptic Conservatives and Northern Ireland's tiny Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up May's government, fear it could tie London to Brussels for years to come. However, France's Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau said "there is nothing more that we can do" -- and warned against putting too much faith in talk of extending Article 50. "I don't work on hypotheses -- the current situation is complex enough... Let's stick to where we are now," she added. An EU diplomat also told AFP that the idea of delaying Brexit "is a very hypothetical option". Any extension to Britain's departure would be complicated by the elections to the European Parliament in May. After Brexit, it will no longer be represented in the assembly. No deal plans May is looking at a possible time limit to the backstop arrangement and increased parliamentary scrutiny to try to sway MPs. But if her efforts fail, many fear Britain could leave the EU with no deal, with potentially disastrous legal and economic consequences. A cross-party group of MPs sought Tuesday to amend a finance law to limit the government's tax-raising powers in the event of "no deal", as a way of forcing it to stop such a scenario. The impact of a disorderly Brexit would also be felt across Europe, including in the EU budget. May's deal sets out plans for a post-Brexit transition period in which Britain would keep making financial contributions until December 2020. EU budget commissioner Gunther Oettinger said that without this, "we would be short a figure in the billions of euros for the rest of the year and a higher figure for 2020".

UK Brexit vote set for January 15 amid talk of delay

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on March 29 and is not looking to<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-pm-may-says-any-article-50-extension-reopens-the-brexit-negotiations-180269"> extend the Article 50 exit process</a>, Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said on Tuesday.

The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU amid fears a Brexit deal will not be approved by March 29.

"The government's policy is clear on this, the prime minister has said it on many an occasion: We are leaving the European Union on the 29th of March. We are not looking to extend," Barclay told Sky News.

When asked if any lawmakers in the Conservative Party had changed their minds on opposing May's deal, Barclay said: "Some have said they are much more open to but it is obviously challenging."

The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU.

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on March 29 and is not looking to extend the Article 50 exit process, Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said on Tuesday. The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU amid fears a Brexit deal will not be approved by March 29. "The government's policy is clear on this, the prime minister has said it on many an occasion: We are leaving the European Union on the 29th of March. We are not looking to extend," Barclay told Sky News. When asked if any lawmakers in the Conservative Party had changed their minds on opposing May's deal, Barclay said: "Some have said they are much more open to but it is obviously challenging."

UK not looking to extend Article 50: Brexit minister Stephen Barclay

By John Bruton

It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit.

Most people understand that when the UK leaves the EU on March 29, the only land boundary between the United Kingdom and the European Union will be the 300-mile-long border in Ireland. Some do understand that if the UK leaves the EU, there will have to be border controls. After all, leaving the union was supposed to be about taking back “control,” and given that countries can only exercise control in their own territory, there is a logical necessity to have controls at the border of a country’s territory.

This is not something made up by the EU to annoy Brits but is a logical consequence of Brexit, which is, as we all know, something Britons have chosen for themselves and not something imposed on them by the European Union.

The proposed backstop in British Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal with the EU involves the whole of the UK staying in a close customs arrangement with the union. The original idea was that the backstop would be confined to Northern Ireland, but the British government preferred a backstop arrangement that would cover the whole UK, so as to minimize the controls that would otherwise have to be imposed between Britain and Northern Ireland. The object of the entire exercise is to avoid having controls at the 300 crossing points between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Some in Britain think the UK should be free to leave the EU, and that the British and Irish governments should then just decide, between themselves, that they were simply not going to have controls on the Irish border. That would not work because Ireland would still be in the European Union and would be breaking EU rules if it failed to control its portion of the EU land border.

Apart from being illegal, it would be impractical. The UK, once outside the European Union, would immediately go off and try to make trade deals with non-EU countries. These would inevitably involve agreeing to different standards and tariffs on goods coming from these non-EU countries to the ones that the European Union (including Ireland) would be applying to these nations. So, if there were no controls on the Irish border, goods from these non-EU states with which the UK had made its own trade deals could enter the European Union via Northern Ireland, without complying with EU standards or paying EU tariffs.

That would destroy the single market, which is based on common rules and tariffs, made, enforced and interpreted in the same way for all 27 EU members, including the Republic of Ireland.

Outside of the EU, under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the United Kingdom would also have to impose tariffs on its side of the Irish border — unless it wanted to collect no tariffs at all — on goods coming into the UK from any country in the world. This is because of a WTO rule that says in the absence of a broad trade agreement, a country cannot discriminate between WTO member countries in the rate of tariffs it charges on goods coming from those countries (the most favoured nation rule).

So, in the absence of a trade deal with the EU, the UK must charge the same tariffs on Irish goods as it would charge on goods coming from any WTO members, with whom it has no trade deal — which, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, would be every WTO country. If it attempted to discriminate unilaterally, the UK would be taken to the WTO court by some or all of the WTO countries who would not be getting the same concessions.

The UK is a trading nation. As such, it benefits from a rules-based world trading system. So, it would not be in the UK’s interest to start breaking WTO rules on the day it left the EU, just to solve a problem that is of its own making.

The two allegiances in Ireland

The other big reason for having an Irish backstop and for avoiding a hard border is about human beings, rather than just about commerce. For the past four centuries, two communities with different allegiances have lived together, geographically intermingled, in the Irish province of Ulster.

One community feels a sense of allegiance to Britain, its monarch, its historic narrative and its flag. The other feels an allegiance to Ireland and identifies itself with different historic narrative and different symbols. The two communities have different religious allegiances too, but the disagreements between them are not primarily about religious matters — they are all about national identity.

For centuries, the contest between these two identities was a zero-sum game. Either the British identity had to win or the Irish identity had to win. That zero-sum approach led to wars, threats of wars or uprisings from the 17th century all the way up until the late 20th century. These conflicts caused many casualties in Ireland and in Britain, too.

British and Irish political leaders have, for the last 40 years, been trying to find a different way forward. Rather than a zero-sum game where if one identity won, the other had to lose, these leaders sought to create conditions in which both identities could coexist comfortably together within Northern Ireland, without either of them winning or losing. The aim was to ensure that neither would feel cut off from the focus of their emotional allegiance. The nationalists would not feel cut off from Dublin, and Unionists would not feel cut off from London or the “mainland” as they would call it.

The Belfast Agreement of 1998 achieved this. Crafted between Ireland and the United Kingdom, when both were members of the barrier-free EU, it created structures to have a comfort zone for both communities. This was done through establishing three interlocking structures of cooperation, incorporated in an overarching international treaty, namely: power-sharing within Northern Ireland; cooperation between north and south; and cooperation between Dublin and London. On the strength of this agreement, Ireland changed its constitution to remove a territorial claim it had on Northern Ireland.

Now, 20 years later, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union puts these structures at risk because Brexit requires barriers to go up between the UK and Ireland, where previously there was free exchange. This is why, at a meeting in London, long before the referendum in 2016, I described Brexit as an “unfriendly act” by the UK vis-à-vis my country.

The backstop is simply an effort to mitigate the damage. It is a second-best option — and a bad second best at that. The only option that will not damage the structure of peace we have so painstakingly built between Ireland and Britain, and within the island of Ireland, would be for the UK to decide to stay in the EU after all.

(John Bruton is a former Irish prime minister and an international business leader)

(This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/what-is-irish-backstop-european-union-brexit-deal-no-deal-world-news-today-29083/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By John Bruton It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit.

By John Bruton It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit. Most people understand that when the UK leaves the EU on March 29, the only land boundary between the United Kingdom and the European Union will be the 300-mile-long border in Ireland. Some do understand that if the UK leaves the EU, there will have to be border controls. After all, leaving the union was supposed to be about taking back “control,” and given that countries can only exercise control in their own territory, there is a logical necessity to have controls at the border of a country’s territory. This is not something made up by the EU to annoy Brits but is a logical consequence of Brexit, which is, as we all know, something Britons have chosen for themselves and not something imposed on them by the European Union. The proposed backstop in British Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal with the EU involves the whole of the UK staying in a close customs arrangement with the union. The original idea was that the backstop would be confined to Northern Ireland, but the British government preferred a backstop arrangement that would cover the whole UK, so as to minimize the controls that would otherwise have to be imposed between Britain and Northern Ireland. The object of the entire exercise is to avoid having controls at the 300 crossing points between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Some in Britain think the UK should be free to leave the EU, and that the British and Irish governments should then just decide, between themselves, that they were simply not going to have controls on the Irish border. That would not work because Ireland would still be in the European Union and would be breaking EU rules if it failed to control its portion of the EU land border. Apart from being illegal, it would be impractical. The UK, once outside the European Union, would immediately go off and try to make trade deals with non-EU countries. These would inevitably involve agreeing to different standards and tariffs on goods coming from these non-EU countries to the ones that the European Union (including Ireland) would be applying to these nations. So, if there were no controls on the Irish border, goods from these non-EU states with which the UK had made its own trade deals could enter the European Union via Northern Ireland, without complying with EU standards or paying EU tariffs. That would destroy the single market, which is based on common rules and tariffs, made, enforced and interpreted in the same way for all 27 EU members, including the Republic of Ireland. Outside of the EU, under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the United Kingdom would also have to impose tariffs on its side of the Irish border — unless it wanted to collect no tariffs at all — on goods coming into the UK from any country in the world. This is because of a WTO rule that says in the absence of a broad trade agreement, a country cannot discriminate between WTO member countries in the rate of tariffs it charges on goods coming from those countries (the most favoured nation rule). So, in the absence of a trade deal with the EU, the UK must charge the same tariffs on Irish goods as it would charge on goods coming from any WTO members, with whom it has no trade deal — which, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, would be every WTO country. If it attempted to discriminate unilaterally, the UK would be taken to the WTO court by some or all of the WTO countries who would not be getting the same concessions. The UK is a trading nation. As such, it benefits from a rules-based world trading system. So, it would not be in the UK’s interest to start breaking WTO rules on the day it left the EU, just to solve a problem that is of its own making. The two allegiances in Ireland The other big reason for having an Irish backstop and for avoiding a hard border is about human beings, rather than just about commerce. For the past four centuries, two communities with different allegiances have lived together, geographically intermingled, in the Irish province of Ulster. One community feels a sense of allegiance to Britain, its monarch, its historic narrative and its flag. The other feels an allegiance to Ireland and identifies itself with different historic narrative and different symbols. The two communities have different religious allegiances too, but the disagreements between them are not primarily about religious matters — they are all about national identity. For centuries, the contest between these two identities was a zero-sum game. Either the British identity had to win or the Irish identity had to win. That zero-sum approach led to wars, threats of wars or uprisings from the 17th century all the way up until the late 20th century. These conflicts caused many casualties in Ireland and in Britain, too. British and Irish political leaders have, for the last 40 years, been trying to find a different way forward. Rather than a zero-sum game where if one identity won, the other had to lose, these leaders sought to create conditions in which both identities could coexist comfortably together within Northern Ireland, without either of them winning or losing. The aim was to ensure that neither would feel cut off from the focus of their emotional allegiance. The nationalists would not feel cut off from Dublin, and Unionists would not feel cut off from London or the “mainland” as they would call it. The Belfast Agreement of 1998 achieved this. Crafted between Ireland and the United Kingdom, when both were members of the barrier-free EU, it created structures to have a comfort zone for both communities. This was done through establishing three interlocking structures of cooperation, incorporated in an overarching international treaty, namely: power-sharing within Northern Ireland; cooperation between north and south; and cooperation between Dublin and London. On the strength of this agreement, Ireland changed its constitution to remove a territorial claim it had on Northern Ireland. Now, 20 years later, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union puts these structures at risk because Brexit requires barriers to go up between the UK and Ireland, where previously there was free exchange. This is why, at a meeting in London, long before the referendum in 2016, I described Brexit as an “unfriendly act” by the UK vis-à-vis my country. The backstop is simply an effort to mitigate the damage. It is a second-best option — and a bad second best at that. The only option that will not damage the structure of peace we have so painstakingly built between Ireland and Britain, and within the island of Ireland, would be for the UK to decide to stay in the EU after all. (John Bruton is a former Irish prime minister and an international business leader) (This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit row: Why is there an Irish backstop?

Britain's battle over <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pm-may-says-if-brexit-deal-is-rejected-uk-will-be-in-uncharted-territory-188563">Brexit </a>resumes Monday when parliament returns from its Christmas break to debate and -- most likely -- defeat Prime Minister Theresa May's unpopular EU divorce deal.

The stakes could hardly be higher as the clock ticks down to the moment the world's fifth-biggest economy splits from it main trading partner on March 29.

May and the other 27 EU leaders agreed on a draft in November designed to keep the process as orderly and undamaging as possible.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pm-may-says-if-brexit-deal-is-rejected-uk-will-be-in-uncharted-territory-188563">Also read: UK's May could seek more time before final Brexit vote, Report</a>

It took nearly two years to negotiate and has managed to upset just about everyone in British politics.

May survived her party's resulting no-confidence motion but was forced to abort a December vote on the pact after admitting it would lose by a "significant margin".

There are few signs that much has changed since.

May returned empty-handed from a subsequent EU summit she had hoped could address the concerns of her disgruntled Northern Irish coalition partners.

Vote to go ahead

Brexit-backing MPs in her Conservative party are still in revolt while opposition Labour leaders are angling for new elections.

May insisted on Sunday that the vote will go ahead as planned on or around January 15. The formal debate kicks off in parliament Wednesday.

But she also warned the deal's defeat would put Britain "in unchartered territory (in which) I don't think anybody can say exactly what will happen".

London has been swirling with rumours about how exactly May intends to avoid Britain crashing out of the bloc without any trade or other arrangements in place.

One idea mentioned by advisers involves the government simply re-introducing more or less the same version of the draft over and over again.

"If we have to have the vote 30 times, we will," a Downing Street source told BuzzFeed News.

May refused to rule out the possibility of a second or third vote in parliament when pressed about it in a BBC interview Sunday.

Other reports said she intends to invite her party's most vocal opponents over for private drinks on Monday and Wednesday.

The arm twisting will be accompanied by a new government campaign designed to prepare Britons for the full impact of a disruptive no-deal scenario.

One test on Monday will see up to 150 trucks sent down a highway to the Channel port of Dover to determine how the authorities deal with gridlock.

Dover handles most of Britain's trade with Europe and is expected to get quickly plugged up if no customs arrangements are made.

But Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said reports that he and other EU sceptics could be persuaded by May's arguments about a calamitous no-deal Brexit were "wishful thinking".

Most Conservatives either "think that these fears are exaggerated or that (it) is a price worth paying for leaving the shackles of the European Union," he wrote in the Sunday Express.

Involving parliament

May outlined a formal plan of action Sunday that included the possibility of giving parliament a bigger say in a new round of trade talks with Brussels that begins once Brexit enters into force.

These "future relationship" negotiations will also try to resolve the prickly issue of keeping the Irish border open while preserving the integrity of the EU.

The temporary solution laid out in the draft withdrawal agreement does not suit Northern Ireland's tiny Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) that props up May's government.

"There's a number of ways which we're looking to see how we can involve parliament in a greater way in the future," May told the BBC.

She also promised to continue to seek "further assurances from the European Union" about the border issue ahead of next week's vote.

The DUP wants a binding guarantee from Brussels that Northern Ireland's trade with the rest of Britain will not be subjected to any types of checks.

May spent part of her holidays ringing up EU leaders about possible concessions. Brussels has made clear it will cede nothing before the vote.

Britain's battle over Brexit resumes Monday when parliament returns from its Christmas break to debate and -- most likely -- defeat Prime Minister Theresa May's unpopular EU divorce deal.

Britain's battle over Brexit resumes Monday when parliament returns from its Christmas break to debate and -- most likely -- defeat Prime Minister Theresa May's unpopular EU divorce deal. The stakes could hardly be higher as the clock ticks down to the moment the world's fifth-biggest economy splits from it main trading partner on March 29. May and the other 27 EU leaders agreed on a draft in November designed to keep the process as orderly and undamaging as possible. Also read: UK's May could seek more time before final Brexit vote, Report It took nearly two years to negotiate and has managed to upset just about everyone in British politics. May survived her party's resulting no-confidence motion but was forced to abort a December vote on the pact after admitting it would lose by a "significant margin". There are few signs that much has changed since. May returned empty-handed from a subsequent EU summit she had hoped could address the concerns of her disgruntled Northern Irish coalition partners. Vote to go ahead Brexit-backing MPs in her Conservative party are still in revolt while opposition Labour leaders are angling for new elections. May insisted on Sunday that the vote will go ahead as planned on or around January 15. The formal debate kicks off in parliament Wednesday. But she also warned the deal's defeat would put Britain "in unchartered territory (in which) I don't think anybody can say exactly what will happen". London has been swirling with rumours about how exactly May intends to avoid Britain crashing out of the bloc without any trade or other arrangements in place. One idea mentioned by advisers involves the government simply re-introducing more or less the same version of the draft over and over again. "If we have to have the vote 30 times, we will," a Downing Street source told BuzzFeed News. May refused to rule out the possibility of a second or third vote in parliament when pressed about it in a BBC interview Sunday. Other reports said she intends to invite her party's most vocal opponents over for private drinks on Monday and Wednesday. The arm twisting will be accompanied by a new government campaign designed to prepare Britons for the full impact of a disruptive no-deal scenario. One test on Monday will see up to 150 trucks sent down a highway to the Channel port of Dover to determine how the authorities deal with gridlock. Dover handles most of Britain's trade with Europe and is expected to get quickly plugged up if no customs arrangements are made. But Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said reports that he and other EU sceptics could be persuaded by May's arguments about a calamitous no-deal Brexit were "wishful thinking". Most Conservatives either "think that these fears are exaggerated or that (it) is a price worth paying for leaving the shackles of the European Union," he wrote in the Sunday Express. Involving parliament May outlined a formal plan of action Sunday that included the possibility of giving parliament a bigger say in a new round of trade talks with Brussels that begins once Brexit enters into force. These "future relationship" negotiations will also try to resolve the prickly issue of keeping the Irish border open while preserving the integrity of the EU. The temporary solution laid out in the draft withdrawal agreement does not suit Northern Ireland's tiny Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) that props up May's government. "There's a number of ways which we're looking to see how we can involve parliament in a greater way in the future," May told the BBC. She also promised to continue to seek "further assurances from the European Union" about the border issue ahead of next week's vote. The DUP wants a binding guarantee from Brussels that Northern Ireland's trade with the rest of Britain will not be subjected to any types of checks. May spent part of her holidays ringing up EU leaders about possible concessions. Brussels has made clear it will cede nothing before the vote.

Britain's battle over Brexit resumes ahead of big vote

British counter-terrorism police are investigating stabbings at Manchester Victoria train station that left three people injured, including a police officer, on New Year's Eve, the Greater Manchester Police said.

Police were, however, keeping an open mind as there was no intelligence suggesting a wider threat, the Greater Manchester Police said in a statement posted on Twitter. They said a man is in custody and those injured were in a "serious" but not life-threatening condition.

The stabbings occurred at about 8:50 p.m.

"Tonight's events will have understandably worried people but I need to stress that the incident is not ongoing, a man is in custody and there is currently no intelligence to suggest there is any wider threat at this time," Assistant Chief Constable Rob Potts said in a statement.

Police said the man in custody is being held for "questioning on suspicion of attempted murder."

Britain is currently on its second-highest threat level of severe, meaning an attack is considered highly likely and security officials say they are facing record levels of work in countering Islamist militants as well as far-right extremists after four major attacks last year.

Manchester itself was the scene of a suicide bomb attack in May 2017 that killed 22 people as they left an <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/ariana-grande-manchester-benefit-concert-will-stream-live-online-16402">Ariana Grande concert.</a>

A Reuters witness in Manchester said there were police officers around the train station, which remained closed several hours after the incident. All was calm as New Year revellers, including children, walked past.

A BBC producer who was a witness at the station described the attacker as wielding a large kitchen knife and who linked his actions to "bombings in other countries".

"I heard the man say, As long as you keep bombing these countries this is going to keep happening," the producer, Sam Clack, told BBC 5 Live radio. "It was very very scary," Clack said.

Police said the man in custody is being held for 'questioning on suspicion of attempted murder.'

British counter-terrorism police are investigating stabbings at Manchester Victoria train station that left three people injured, including a police officer, on New Year's Eve, the Greater Manchester Police said. Police were, however, keeping an open mind as there was no intelligence suggesting a wider threat, the Greater Manchester Police said in a statement posted on Twitter. They said a man is in custody and those injured were in a "serious" but not life-threatening condition. The stabbings occurred at about 8:50 p.m. "Tonight's events will have understandably worried people but I need to stress that the incident is not ongoing, a man is in custody and there is currently no intelligence to suggest there is any wider threat at this time," Assistant Chief Constable Rob Potts said in a statement. Police said the man in custody is being held for "questioning on suspicion of attempted murder." Britain is currently on its second-highest threat level of severe, meaning an attack is considered highly likely and security officials say they are facing record levels of work in countering Islamist militants as well as far-right extremists after four major attacks last year. Manchester itself was the scene of a suicide bomb attack in May 2017 that killed 22 people as they left an Ariana Grande concert. A Reuters witness in Manchester said there were police officers around the train station, which remained closed several hours after the incident. All was calm as New Year revellers, including children, walked past. A BBC producer who was a witness at the station described the attacker as wielding a large kitchen knife and who linked his actions to "bombings in other countries". "I heard the man say, As long as you keep bombing these countries this is going to keep happening," the producer, Sam Clack, told BBC 5 Live radio. "It was very very scary," Clack said.

UK counter-terrorism police probe New Year's Eve stabbings in Manchester

Britain has spent more than £100 million on chartering ferries to mitigate the risk of "severe congestion" at the port of Dover in <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/britons-could-face-diet-change-under-hard-brexit-report-185733">the event of a no-deal Brexit</a>, according to government documents.

The government has struck deals worth £107.7 million ($137 million, 117 million euros) with British, French and Danish ferry companies that would allow for almost 4,000 more lorries a week to use other ports on England's south coast to prevent a bottleneck at Dover, it added.

"This significant extra capacity is a small but important element of the Department for Transport's (DfT) no-deal Brexit planning," said a spokesman for the department.

"The department is helping ensure the rest of government are fully prepared for a range of scenarios, including a particular focus on a potential no-deal and to mitigate the impact of any Brexit outcome on all transport modes."

The DfT has signed contracts with French firm Brittany Ferries, Danish company DFDS and Britain's Seaborne, saying the awards were "a small but important element" of its no-deal planning.

The additional services will provide up to half a million tonnes a month in extra capacity, which the government hopes will mitigate the extra time needed to perform customs checks on incoming and outgoing freight.

Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable called the move "complete madness".

"The government has the power to stop 'no deal' at any time but instead is spending millions on last-minute contracts," he said.

The department also warned that increased border checks could "cause delivery of critical goods to be delayed", and "significant wider disruption to the UK economy".

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/theresa-may-cuts-christmas-break-short-to-prepare-for-brexit-186415">British Prime Minister Theresa May</a> secured an agreement with European Union leaders on Nov 25 that would see Britain leave the bloc on March 29 with continued close trade ties, but the odds look stacked against her getting it through a deeply divided British parliament.

The deal has been criticised from among May's Conservative lawmakers by supporters of a cleaner break with the EU and those who want to keep close ties.

Britain has spent more than £100 million on chartering ferries to mitigate the risk of "severe congestion" at the port of Dover in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to government documents.

Britain has spent more than £100 million on chartering ferries to mitigate the risk of "severe congestion" at the port of Dover in the event of a no-deal Brexit, according to government documents. The government has struck deals worth £107.7 million ($137 million, 117 million euros) with British, French and Danish ferry companies that would allow for almost 4,000 more lorries a week to use other ports on England's south coast to prevent a bottleneck at Dover, it added. "This significant extra capacity is a small but important element of the Department for Transport's (DfT) no-deal Brexit planning," said a spokesman for the department. "The department is helping ensure the rest of government are fully prepared for a range of scenarios, including a particular focus on a potential no-deal and to mitigate the impact of any Brexit outcome on all transport modes." The DfT has signed contracts with French firm Brittany Ferries, Danish company DFDS and Britain's Seaborne, saying the awards were "a small but important element" of its no-deal planning. The additional services will provide up to half a million tonnes a month in extra capacity, which the government hopes will mitigate the extra time needed to perform customs checks on incoming and outgoing freight. Liberal Democrat leader Sir Vince Cable called the move "complete madness". "The government has the power to stop 'no deal' at any time but instead is spending millions on last-minute contracts," he said. The department also warned that increased border checks could "cause delivery of critical goods to be delayed", and "significant wider disruption to the UK economy". British Prime Minister Theresa May secured an agreement with European Union leaders on Nov 25 that would see Britain leave the bloc on March 29 with continued close trade ties, but the odds look stacked against her getting it through a deeply divided British parliament. The deal has been criticised from among May's Conservative lawmakers by supporters of a cleaner break with the EU and those who want to keep close ties.

UK splashes £100 million on ferries to ease Brexit fears

Gatwick: Two arrested over drone sighting

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - December 22nd, 2018

Drone scare forces Gatwick airport to shut again

Britain sends royal ship to black sea to help Ukraine

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