The House of Commons has approved legislation to prevent a
potentially disorderly Brexit departure next week without a deal being reached.
Yvette Cooper's bill forces prime minister Theresa May to extend the 12 April
deadline if no deal has been agreed. It passed its third reading by a majority
of only one vote, 313 votes to 312. It now has to pass the upper chamber, the
House of Lords. May said she would seek another short extension to Brexit
beyond 12 April in order to try and work with Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn to
get her thrice-rejected Brexit deal approved by parliament
Government fails to block draft law from Yvette Cooper and
Sir Oliver Letwin
Jessica Elgot Chief political correspondent
@jessicaelgot
Thu 4 Apr 2019 07.25 BST First published on Wed 3 Apr 2019
18.44 BST
'The ayes have it': bill to stop no-deal Brexit passes with
majority of one vote – video
A cross-party group of MPs has forced through an emergency
bill in less than six hours to instruct Theresa May to seek an extension to
article 50 and avoid a no-deal Brexit, despite government opposition.
The bill, spearheaded by Labour’s Yvette Cooper and the
Conservative Sir Oliver Letwin, passed late into the night, with MPs defeating
a number of obstructive amendments from both Brexiters and the government.
It finally passed its third reading about half an hour
before midnight by just one vote – 313 ayes to 312 noes – and must now pass the
House of Lords.
The bill was almost scuppered during a frenzied day in
parliament after MPs initially voted by a majority of just one – 312 to 311 –
to let the snap bill proceed.
Cooper and Letwin then had six hours to pass the bill’s
second reading, committee stage and third reading through the House of Commons.
Minutes before the narrow first vote, an amendment from
Labour’s Hilary Benn to grant more time was blocked in extraordinary
circumstances, as the Speaker, John Bercow, was forced to make the casting vote
after a tied result in the Commons.
Benn’s amendment, which would have given MPs control over
the order paper on Monday to hold further indicative votes, fell after MPs’
votes were tied with 310 each way.
Bercow said it was precedent for the Speaker to vote with
the government, which had opposed the motion and the amendments. “In accordance
with precedent and on the principle that important decisions should not be taken
except by majority, I cast my vote with the noes,” he said. “That is the proper
way in which to proceed.”
The Speaker said the situation had not occurred since 1993,
a vote that had involved the Maastricht treaty bill.
The government opposed both the Cooper-Letwin motion and
Benn’s amendment. The Commons leader, Andrea Leadsom, argued earlier in the
debate that the government had already said it would request a short extension.
Speaking in the debate, Letwin said the government’s plan to
seek an extension was an “enormously welcome development” and he did not have
doubts that they would seek to avoid a no-deal Brexit, but there was still a
need to pass legislation.
The veteran Brexiter Bill Cash called the bill
“reprehensible” and said it would set a terrible precedent for the government
to rush through legislation in a single day. “This is something profoundly
undemocratic,” he said.
Cooper said the bill would deliberately not specify the
length of an extension. “It should be for the prime minister to put a proposal
forward,” she said. “It is right she puts that forward, and then the house will
decide.”
Labour and the SNP whipped in support of the motion. MPs
voted through the second stage of the bill at 7pm and after voting on a long
series of amendments passed it around 11.30pm.
During the marathon session of late night votes, 91
Conservative MPs rebelled against a government amendment which would have
allowed the Brexit secretary to agree an extension date without needing
parliament’s approval. Dozens of Tory Brexiters opposed the amendment,
suggesting Eurosceptics wanted to reserve the right to vote down a long
extension.
The newly passed legislation could be debated in the Lords
as soon as Friday or Monday, where it is likely to encounter attempts to
frustrate its progress by Eurosceptic peers. However, Labour sources in the
Lords said supportive peers were preparing to stay up all night to insure
against any attempts to filibuster the legislation.
Europe’s big election mess
Brexit is just a small part of the EU’s chaotic and
unpredictable election year.
By DAVID M.
HERSZENHORN AND MAÏA DE LA BAUME 4/4/19,
4:01 AM CET Updated 4/4/19, 7:43 AM CET
Illustration by Luke Waller for POLITICO
The Juncker Commission doesn't end until Halloween, but the
scary season for Europe's political elite is already underway.
Polls suggest May's European Parliament election will
deliver chaotic results, including unprecedented gains for far-right and
populist parties that will force the major pro-EU groups to reach wider than
ever to form a majority coalition.
According to POLITICO's projections, Italy's largest
delegation will come from the far-right League. In France, Marine Le Pen's
National Rally is running neck-and-neck for the top spot with President
Emmanuel Macron's La République en Marche.
And now Brexit has added even more volatility to the mix.
Britain was meant to have left the European Union by now but may yet find
itself participating in the EU election. Should that happen, the entire process
will be thrown into disarray with the EU required to reverse a complex
reapportionment of Parliament seats, potentially leaving dozens of candidates
in limbo, while returning some of the most shrill anti-EU voices to the
chamber.
Another prospect raised by the political turmoil in London
is that Britain may leave without a deal right in the middle of the election
campaign. Who would benefit most in the election from that scenario is anyone's
guess.
“The pro-European forces have to fight together against
populism and nationalism" — Luis Garicano, Spanish Liberal candidate
The contest for European Commission president is also
fraught with uncertainty.
The European People's Party is sticking firmly to the
Spitzenkandidat process — by which the European Council is meant to choose a
"lead candidate" from the European Parliament election to run the EU
executive — with its nominee Manfred Weber kicking off his campaign in Brussels
on Wednesday evening.
The process is intended to make the European election more
like a national one, in the sense that a leader from one of the big parties
wins the top job. It was first used to select Jean-Claude Juncker in 2014 but
it's highly unclear that it will survive a second election cycle.
That is not least because one of its main backers last time,
the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe (ALDE), has moved to
undermine it, by nominating a slate of seven contenders rather than just one
lead candidate. That move has brought them closer to their ally Macron, who has
declared his opposition to the Spitzenkandidat process.
In recent days, the political rhetoric has sharpened. The
hand-to-hand combat of the election season is now clearly underway.
“The pro-European forces have to fight together against
populism and nationalism,” said Luis Garicano, a Spanish economics professor
and a candidate on the Liberals’ slate. “However, I also think that the two
incumbent powers, the Socialists and the EPP, have been to some extent
responsible for the inability of Europe to solve the problems of citizens that
have caused this backlash.”
Garicano, a member of the Ciudadanos party in Spain, laughed
at the notion of Weber, a leader of Germany’s Christian Social Union, trying to
portray himself as a reformer. “Personally, he doesn’t seem like an agent of
change to me,” Garicano said.
Shadowkandidat
Weber is trying to put pressure on others to stick to the
Spitzenkandidat process — even though the European Council has insisted it
cannot be bound by the system when it nominates a candidate for the Commission
presidency later this year.
"It should not be forgotten that most of the European
parties and many heads of state and government have supported the
Spitzenkandidat principle," Weber said in a recent interview with the
German newspaper Der Tagesspiegel. "If they suddenly forget this, that
would be a huge step backwards for the democracy and participation of voters in
Europe."
Weber faces uncertainty over whether the EPP's leaders in
governments around Europe will stand by him, even if — as seems almost certain
— he emerges as the leader of the largest bloc in the next Parliament. Weber is
shadowed by rumors that he will be replaced by the EU's chief Brexit
negotiator, Michel Barnier.
The French former minister and two-time European
commissioner has been popping up regularly with speeches and statements to
outline a vision for Europe that goes far beyond his Brexit remit.
Liberals and Socialists could seek to form an alliance to
block Weber’s candidacy, potentially leaving Barnier as a compromise
alternative.
With nearly all of the EU's top jobs coming open later this
year — not just Commission president but also president of the Council,
president of the Parliament, president of the European Central Bank, and the
high representative for foreign affairs — many of the big decisions will be
influenced by the election but ultimately determined by horse-trading among
power brokers.
Frans Timmermans, the nominee of the center-left Party of
European Socialists (PES), is not even guaranteed a consolation prize given his
party's weak standing in his home country of the Netherlands. His future depends on Prime Minister Mark
Rutte staying in power and remaining committed to what appears to be a plan to
send Timmermans back to Brussels as the Dutch commissioner despite their
different party affiliations.
Timmermans took a shot at Weber on Wednesday as the election
campaign intruded into the European Commission's midday news conference. His
remarks came after he was asked about Weber's assertion that the Commission has
been tougher on rule of law in Hungary — ruled by an EPP government — than
Romania, which is run by Social Democrats.
“I can understand the feeling of embarrassment of Mr. Weber
after all these discussions about Hungary,” Timmermans said, making reference
to Weber’s previous close relationship with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor
Orbán.
Tortuous talks
The negotiations over the top jobs are almost bound to be
tortuous as leaders try to achieve a balance among various political groups and
geographical regions. Almost two months before the election, talks on the top
posts are already under way.
The Irish government said that Prime Minister Leo Varadkar
would raise "the appointment of a new European Commission, Council
president and high representative" in discussions with Macron and German
Chancellor Angela Merkel this week.
"When it comes to choosing people for these top jobs,
there is a playoff between the president of the Commission and now the vice
president, high representative, president of the European Parliament, and other
positions," said Bobby McDonagh, a former Irish ambassador to the EU.
"The balances are extremely complex. There’s the
right-left balance, but there’s also the east-west balance, which is probably
even more important. There’s also the male-female balance. I don't think it
will be acceptable in this day and age not to have a woman in one of the top jobs.
And then there's large vs. small. For example, you can’t have another
Luxembourger as president of the Commission," he said.
“The anti-EU camp is organized in a much more clear way and
with clearer objectives than in 2014" — Green official
"With all of those factors playing in," McDonagh
said, "the outcome may well be unsure right up until the last minute. It’s
not just the selection for one job. It's the selection for a series of
jobs."
Even the bloc's most powerful national leaders can find
their usual muscle is insufficient when it comes to swaying the outcome of
deliberations over top EU posts — as evidenced in 2014 when German Chancellor
Angela Merkel and U.K. Prime Minister David Carmeron failed in their initial
bid to block Juncker's candidacy.
This time, Merkel, who eventually came around to support
Juncker, seems to be more willing to go along with the Spitzenkandidat process.
Privately, she has expressed support for Weber, both in terms of keeping the
Commission presidency in the control of her EPP political family, but also for
installing the first German as the boss of the Berlaymont since Walter
Hallstein served as the Commission's first president from 1958 to 1967.
But Macron, who upended French party politics by winning his
own election as an independent in 2017, is fiercely opposed to the
Spitzenkandidat system, with its links to traditional parties. That opposition
gives Macron further incentive to block Weber's path, in addition to the
traditional French reluctance to cede too much power to Germany.
Margrethe Vestager may be pushed forward by French President
Emmanuel Macron as a possible Spitzenkandidat | Diarmud Greene/Web summit via
Getty Images
Rumors have swirled for months that Macron will push either
for Margrethe Vestager, the Danish liberal who is the current European
commissioner for competition, or for Barnier, who is a long-standing member of
the EPP, but has the advantage to Macron of being French.
Meanwhile, polls and projections show the strong rise of
anti-EU parties creating a situation in which the mainstream groups will be
forced to reach for smaller partners in order to form a majority coalition,
potentially giving unprecedented leverage to the Greens and other smaller
political families.
For some players, the unfolding competition between pro-EU
and Euroskeptic forces is the preeminent theme of 2019, potentially marking a
clear shift on the power dynamics within the bloc.
“The anti-EU camp is organized in a much more clear way and
with clearer objectives than in 2014,” a Green official said. “People are not
really interested in the Spitzenkandidat. They are interested in the ‘good vs.
bad’ power dynamics.”
Who are Europe’s far-right identitarians?
What makes the group’s ideology so dangerous is its
invention of an imminent existential threat.
By JULIA
EBNER 4/4/19, 4:04 AM CET Updated
4/4/19, 8:35 AM CET
Martin Sellner, one of the leaders of Identitarian Movement
Austria. The alleged perpetrator of the Christchurch massacre reportedly gave
money to Sellner’s group | Georg Hochmuth/AFP via Getty Images
Europe has a major blind spot: the online reach of its
far-right extremists.
The Continent’s far-right groups are digitally savvy; they
know how to distort public perception, drive the political agenda and
intimidate journalists. They’ve disrupted democratic processes and put pressure
on politicians to back down on migration policies.
Newly revealed connections between Austria’s offshoot of
Generation Identity — one of Europe’s fastest growing far-right movements — and
the man charged with killing 50 people at mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand,
suggest they are also inciting violence and terrorism.
The attacker’s so-called manifesto referenced a conspiracy
theory dubbed “The Great Replacement.” The theory — which claims that white
populations are being gradually replaced with migrants — has been at the heart
of identitarian campaigns for years. Just a week after the Christchurch attack,
Austria’s Generation Identity group — known as Identitarian Movement Austria —
held a protest against “The Great Replacement” in Vienna, calling for
“remigration” and “de-Islamization.”
The group’s demands go beyond calls to deport criminals,
extremists and rejected asylum seekers, which would be in accordance with
migration law. “Remigration” is, in fact, a euphemism for the mass deportation
of all European residents with a migrant background or non-white skin.
In a manual called “The Art of Redpilling,” Sellner’s
movement provides instructions for step-by-step far-right radicalization.
What makes this ethno-nativist ideology so dangerous is its
invention and promotion of the idea that its members face an imminent
existential threat from an outside group.
Generation Identity does not publicly endorse violence, but
its members prepare for combat and their training materials read like a call to
arms. Every summer, members of the movement from across Europe organize
military-style training camps in rural France. Their manuals use militarized
vocabulary such as “sniper mission” and “massive air strike” when describing
online attacks.
One of the leaders of Identitarian Movement Austria is a
former neo-Nazi named Martin Sellner. If the Islamist extremist Anjem Choudary
is the foremost European hate-preacher to inspire Islamist terrorism, then
Sellner can be considered his equivalent for the far right.
Sellner, whose house was raided by intelligence forces last
week after reports emerged that the Christchurch attacker gave money to the
movement, has spearheaded sophisticated radicalization efforts across Europe.
The far-right activist — who was also a mentee of Holocaust denier Gottfried
Küssel — counts over 90,000 YouTube subscribers and 16,000 followers on
Telegram.
In a manual called “The Art of Redpilling,” Sellner’s
movement provides instructions for step-by-step far-right radicalization. It
recommends leveraging widespread grievances related to free speech or gender
equality as a starting point, before gradually introducing new recruits to
identitarian ideologies: “You sow the soft redpill seeds and then you water
them constantly. An honest question to start with, a news piece here, an email
there, and in the evening an anecdote over beer.”
Generation Identity also trains its members in the tactics
of deception and manipulation.
Their successful playbook for online “Media Guerilla
Warfare” has seen their transgressive campaigns go viral and reach a global
audience. Leading members of Generation Identity have told me they want to
create offshoots across the world, from Australia to Canada.
The ideology of the pan-European movement has transcended
the fringes of society since its start in France in 2003. Far-right populists
across Europe — from the Alternative for Germany (AfD) to the Italian League
and the Spanish Vox party — have brought the language and policy
recommendations of Generation Identity into the mainstream. These political
movements share the ideological premise of an impending “invasion of the
Occident.” Their smear campaigns against the “lying press” and minority
communities cross-pollinate and strengthen one another.
In Austria, the movement has been allowed to grow largely
thanks to a lax approach from the far-right Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ), a
member of the governing coalition whose politicians have now come under fire
for their links to Generation Identity.
There is no shortage of evidence exposing the FPÖ’s marriage
of convenience to the movement. Pictures show leading party officials — from
leaders of the parliamentary club to vice mayors — side by side with
identitarians at protests, campaign events and parties. Austria’s vice
chancellor, Heinz-Christian Strache, and FPÖ City Council Member Ursula Stenzel
have even retweeted Generation Identity campaigns. Like Generation Identity,
the FPÖ has called for “remigration.”
The movement also played a key role in pressuring Austria to
back out of the U.N. Migration Pact in late 2018. Research from the Institute
for Strategic Dialogue found that Sellner and the Austrian movement mobilized
in dedicated encrypted channels on Telegram before launching large-scale
disinformation campaigns across social media to turn public opinion against the
pact.
In response to mounting public pressure, the Austrian
government is now considering banning Identitarian Movement Austria. But
proscribing the group will do little to prevent the spread of nativist
ideologies. The approach is out of sync with today’s reality of increasingly
loose transnational far-right networks, which no longer operate as closed-off
group units. Identitarian activists are likely to continue finding innovative
solutions to circumvent laws and transport their messages to the wider public.
Security forces, policymakers and tech firms have been slow
to catch up and only dealt with a small fraction of the online extremism
problem. They have compelled social media companies to take down extremist
content related to Islamist messages but failed to tackle far-right content at
the same speed and scale.
Smaller fringe platforms that have become safe havens for
the international far right have largely been ignored. Unobserved and
unchallenged, the far right has been free to spread its violence-inciting
messages on ultra-libertarian platforms such as Gab, 8chan and Bitchute.
If we fail to act, or take seriously the threat these
networks pose, we risk allowing them to inspire a spate of new violent attacks.
Christchurch should be a wake-up call. We urgently need to
make our removal mechanisms faster, our algorithms more transparent and our
anti-hate speech measures more balanced and comprehensive.
Not all harmful content is illegal or breaks platforms’
policies, however, and groups like Austria’s Generation Identity expertly uses
these legal loopholes to its advantages. To close these gaps, we will have to
invest in upscaling our digital resilience initiatives to shield users from
harmful content that falls into legal gray zones.
If we fail to act, or take seriously the threat these
networks pose, we risk allowing them to inspire a spate of new violent attacks.
Julia Ebner is a research fellow at the Institute for
Strategic Dialogue in London and author of “The Rage: The Vicious Cycle of
Islamist and Far-Right Extremism” (IB Tauris, 2017).
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário