#mp legislative assembly

[just-ray]

What do you think about Northern Ireland or Manitoba's politics? I went to the Manitoba Legislative Assembly the other month and I quite enjoyed the tour. The tour guide was raised Francophone, which is interesting. They had a provincial election last year and the NDP won, meaning the premier now has the somewhat confusing title of first First Nations premier (mainly a confusing title because you say "first" twice in a row), which is not to say first Indigenous premier—Manitoba's first premier was a Métis man—because there are three main Indigenous groups in Canada. Also, I think Nunavut has only had Indigenous premiers, but I think they're Inuit, so Kinew is the first First Nations premier.

As for Sinn Féin, I don't mind them and I would probably vote for them if I was Irish, but some of their politics in the Republic seems like they aren't accounting for practicalities.

I think the Northern Irish political system is very interesting and kind of Alaskan.

This stream of consiousness is dated 20 September 2024 19:23 UTC-5

Ah lad that's a lot of words

But a lot of interesting words.

I find the difference between MPs and MLAs really interesting. In ireland, we have councillors (very local level. No national imput. Tends to be the start of someone's political career), Teachta Dala's (hs a constituency and can also work on a national level. Has a seat in the lower, widely considered MAIN house if the irish parliament) and Senators (usually the later years of someone's political career, but not necessarily. Does not have constituents, and will be corrected if they try to work on a level of constituency rather than a national level. Also arguably less power than TD's)

It's interesting because I researched Canadian and northern Irish MLAs for a bit after reading this and I know it's bad to compare, but I find that MLAs seem to be a mix of TD's and Councillors, while MPs seem to be a mix of TD's and Senators, although I could be wrong. I also find it interesting that MLAs and MPs mostly only have soft/agenda setting power. Irish TD's are allowed to be quite active in their constituencies.

May I also ask what you think of the NDP? As when I hear anything with the word democratic my brain goes "ding ding ding!" And I tend to like that party, however in Ireland, the theoretical most democratically and socially positive parties don't always take the most practical action, so it's about finding a balance, and it would be interesting to hear about how they are and how they're doing.

Also excuse my lack of knowledge on Northern Irish and Canadian politics, but can I ask, do Legislative Assembly parties mirror to Parliamentary (?) Parties. Eg, if you have party A, let's call them Tusa, in a Legislative Assembly, do you also have Tusa MP's?

Thanknyouuuuuuuuuiyu

[allthecanadianpolitics]

Indigenous Services Minister Patty Hajdu and Assembly of First Nations National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak are urging MPs across party lines to support legislation to ensure First Nations have clean drinking water in their communities. The government has put forward a bill that seeks to do just that, and also seeks to protect source-water on First Nations territories. Hajdu has called it the first piece of truly co-developed legislation between Canada and First Nations — even though some First Nations disagree with that framing. The bill has been before a House of Commons committee for months, where MPs have heard chiefs and experts raise concerns that the legislation does not go far enough to protect their rights. They also question how robust it will be in ensuring their communities receive adequate funding to maintain and operate water treatment plants.

Continue Reading

Tagging: @newsfromstolenland

[zvaigzdelasas]

[Machine Translation]

LIVE. Future Prime Minister: Macron rules out NFP government option and will resume consultations on Tuesday

Almost two months after the second round of the legislative elections, Emmanuel Macron continues this Monday to receive party leaders at the Élysée Palace, as well as the presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly. With a question in the background: with whom to govern?[...]

[19:38]: Macron rules out NFP government option in name of 'institutional stability' "At the end of the consultations, the President of the Republic noted that a government based solely on the program and parties proposed by the alliance with the largest number of MPs, the New Popular Front, would be immediately censored by all the other groups represented in the National Assembly," the Élysée Palace said in a statement. "Such a government would therefore immediately have a majority of more than 350 MPs against it, effectively preventing it from acting. Given the views of the political leaders consulted, the institutional stability of our country therefore requires that this option not be retained," it added.[...]

[19:59]: "This is an anti-democratic coup that is completely unacceptable," reacts Manuel Bompard.

On BFM TV, the coordinator of France Insoumise, a member of the NFP, castigates Emmanuel Macron's statements refusing a left-wing coalition government. "It's a completely unacceptable anti-democratic coup," judges Manuel Bompard, considering that Emmanuel Macron's argument "makes no sense." "If there is another possible coalition, then the President of the Republic must tell us which one. The President of the Republic is ignoring the results of the legislative elections and acting as if there had not been a vote," continues the LFI elected official. "It is the NFP that must form the country's next government," he insists.[...]

[20:16]: Roussel calls for rallies for the NFP Dissatisfied with Emmanuel Macron's opposition to an NFP government, the communist leader called on BFMTV for "a large popular mobilization" and rallies, particularly in front of "the prefectures."

26 Aug 24

[whinlatter]

Could you explain more what you mean by “shows how the wizarding world, which does not seem to be a representative democracy”? Like I feel I probably agree with you but I want to understand it more because like from what little we know of canon wizards do get a say in ministry (ex Fudge lied to public about Voldemort so the public wanted him out and chose Scrimgeour, etc) but cause we don’t see general elections but snap elections it’s unclear ?

The British wizarding world when asked to prove that it's a functioning democracy:

Would love to say a bit more about this (briefly mentioned in the author’s note for Beasts chapter six) 🤸‍♀️ It’s definitely true that the opinions of the wizarding public do hold large sway over the appointment of the Minister of Magic in canon in ways that could imply the existence of wizarding. democracy. But it just seems to me that if the wizarding world in Britain is a democracy, then it's so weak or partial a democracy that I don't think we can really call it one at all. I know that old Pottermore post insists Ministers for Magic are democratically elected, and, as you say, in canon, the Minister of Magic seems to be somehow answerable to public opinion and support in a way that implies some idea of popular self-government through some form of representative democracy. But my view is that, in canon, it's basically not a democracy, for reasons I've put below the cut. (Thank you for letting me waffle on about this!)

The reason I think the wizarding world basically doesn’t seem to function as a representative democracy:

None of the four Ministers of Magic in post in the core timeline of the series participate in (or win) a free and fair election during the canon timeline, and most well-informed characters refer to the post as one filled by appointment (possibly by the Wizengamot). In OotP, Arthur gives a bit of insight on the process of appointment when he's talking about Fudge and Dumbledore's rivalry: '[Dumbledore] never wanted the Minister’s job, even though a lot of people wanted him to take it when Millicent Bagnold retired. Fudge came to power instead, but he’s never quite forgotten how much popular support Dumbledore had, even though Dumbledore never applied for the job.” 'Applied for the job' would be a strange way of describing running for elected office, and Bagnold having 'retired' again doesn't imply an election was held. At the start of HBP, Fudge says he's been 'sacked', and while he says that the public were calling for his resignation, there’s no mention of a snap election. You’re completely right that there could have been one, but to me this sounds more like Scrimgeour is an internal emergency appointment (that he's an Auror suggests to me that it's a bit like bringing in the military, along the lines of a state of emergency provision). That Fudge can stay on 'in an advisory capacity' as a Ministry employee also suggests there are other governmental actors who have the power to 'keep on' outgoing Ministers, suggesting again that the Minister of Magic is usually an appointed rather than elected office. Obviously, Thicknesse becomes Minister in... not very democratic circumstances. And then Kingsley gets 'named temporary Minister for Magic' in a decision made by who bloody knows at the end of DH, which again suggests the existence of an unelected body called upon to appoint Ministers, at the very least, in times of emergency.

Even if we buy the idea that the Minister of Magic is elected sometimes, the Wizengamot doesn't ever seem to be, and it seems likely they're body with the power to appoint or dismiss the Minister of Magic without an election. Even if you take the Pottermore post on its own terms, it seems the wizarding community only get to elect the office of the Minister for Magic and not any representatives of an elected chamber who would legislate on their behalf, and who might sit in an assembly like MPs in a parliament or congressmen or senators from different regions. There also doesn’t seem to be a system where the proportion of votes corresponds with the number of representatives and therefore majority/minority control of an elected chamber, either with or without a party-political system. In canon, the Wizengamot really doesn't seem to be a body of elected representatives. They seem to be much more like an unelected legislative body of grandees, some with inherited titles, some appointed as an honours system, like the House of Lords in the UK, but also with the power to hold court trials. (There's a great meta on this that I really enjoyed - it's a bit ahistorical, but it's super rich and fun exploration of different models for the Wizengamot's strange blend of executive and legislative power in the British political tradition).

Popular opinion can matter in non-democracies, and popular opinion and support for political figures seems to matter a lot in the wizarding world. In GoF, Sirius gives us an insight, admittedly that of an outsider, of the process of ministerial appointments when he talks about Barty Crouch Sr. Sirius says Crouch was 'tipped for the next Minister of Magic' and had 'his supporters': 'Plenty of people thought he was going about things the right way, and there were a lot of witches and wizards clamouring for him to take over as Minister of Magic.' This sounds like strong popular support, likely communicated through wizarding media, but also just through hearsay and gossip through Ministry and adjacent circles. But what Sirius describes doesn't sound like a support base of voters, and certainly Crouch doesn't seem to have run against Fudge in an election.

Everyone seems to think of the Ministry as holding a broadly technocratic role in wizarding life (even though it's actually extremely political and also functions as the justice system). The Ministry of Magic seems to exist to both shield Muggles from knowledge of magic, to make and enforce law, and to function as a bureaucracy overseeing and ensuring the smooth running of education, trade, communication, transport etc. It doesn't seem to function as a social democracy in the sense of having any kind of welfare state. But this (false) idea of the Ministry as having a fundamentally apolitical social role lends itself to this idea of the wizarding world being a tepid democracy, with a populace broadly happy to give up certain democratic freedoms if it's in the public interest, trading off elements of self-government in exchange for greater efficiency or seeming sense of safety.

It seems possible, even likely, that Kingsley, as a progressive, would try to make his appointment as Minister official and legitimate through a free and fair election after the war (Lee Jordan says Kingsley's “got his vote” if he runs for office after the war - it's extremely funny to me that the only character to talk about voting in the entire series is the deeply unserious Lee Jordan in a jokey radio segment). We don't know that for sure, though, and when the series ends, it is with an unelected Shacklebolt caretaker government. The goodies might win, but democracy continues to elude the wizarding world as the series concludes.

...Basically, you know that scene in OotP when they're at the Hog's Head planning the DA? It's sort of a perfect illustration of the wizarding world's approach to democracy lol. Hermione is one of the nuisance progressives trying to do something mad like 'hold an election', Cho is the voice of the Wizengamot:

“Well, I’ve been thinking about the sort of stuff we ought to do first and — er —” He noticed a raised hand. “What, Hermione?” “I think we ought to elect a leader,” said Hermione. “Harry’s leader,” said Cho at once, looking at Hermione as though she were mad, and Harry’s stomach did yet another back flip. “Yes, but I think we ought to vote on it properly,” said Hermione, unperturbed. “It makes it formal and it gives him authority. So — everyone who thinks Harry ought to be our leader?” Everybody put up their hands, even Zacharias Smith, though he did it very halfheartedly. “Er — right, thanks,” said Harry, who could feel his face burning.

[head-post]

81 MPs from NFP demand Macron’s impeachment

81 lawmakers from the New Popular Front (NFP) signed a motion for a resolution of impeachment against Emmanuel Macron, according to France Info.

This was announced on Wednesday, 4 September, by La France Insoumise, the party behind the initiative. The text was signed by 72 MPs, six elected environmentalists (Benjamin Lucas, Sandrine Rousseau, Clémentine Autain, Alexis Corbière, Hendrik Davi, Danielle Simonnet), and three elected members of The Democratic and Republican Left group (Frédéric Maillot, Karine Lebon, Emeline K/Bidi).

Faced with President Emmanuel Macron’s refusal to appoint a Prime Minister from the coalition that came out on top in the legislative elections on 7 July, the authors of the motion for a resolution wish Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President of the Republic.

The impeachment procedure must follow a long process governed by Article 68 of the Constitution. The next stage would be to pass through the bureau of the National Assembly to ensure that the proposal is acceptable.

Read more HERE

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Jon Henley, Jennifer Rankin, and Lisa O'Carroll at The Guardian:

France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, has been accused of gambling with French democracy after announcing that he will dissolve parliament and call snap legislative elections in the wake of his allies’ crushing defeat to Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (RN) in Sunday’s European parliament elections. On a night that saw far-right parties make significant but far from conclusive gains in Europe, the RN won about 32% of French votes, more than double the 15% or so scored by Macron’s allies, according to projections, with the Socialists just behind on about 14%. The first round of elections for the national assembly will take place on 30 June and the second on 7 July, Macron announced in an address to the nation, in a huge gamble on his political future three years before the end of his second term as president. The outcome of the European parliament elections was “not a good result for parties who defend Europe”, the French president said, noting that, led by RN, far-right parties in France had taken almost 40% of the national vote.

“I cannot act as if nothing had happened,” he said. “I have decided to give you the choice ... Therefore I will dissolve the National Assembly tonight.” He said the decision was “serious and heavy”, but called it “an act of confidence”. Less than two months before the start of the 2024 Paris summer Olympic Games, Macron said he had confidence in “the capacity of the French people to make the best choice for themselves and for future generations”. He added: “This is an essential time for clarification. I have heard your message, your concerns, and I will not leave them unanswered … France needs a clear majority to act in serenity and harmony.” Others were less convinced. Raphaël Glucksmann, who headed the Socialist party’s list, said Macron had “given in” to Bardella. “This is a very dangerous game to play with democracy and the institutions. I am flabbergasted.”

Another critic, Valérie Pécresse, a senior figure in the conservative Les Républicains party, said: “Dissolving without giving anyone time to organise and without any campaign is playing Russian roulette with the country’s destiny.” “Emmanuel Macron is a poker player, we’ve seen that tonight,” said a Green party MP, Sandrine Rousseau. But Marine Le Pen, the RN figurehead who is seen as the front runner in 2027 presidential elections in which Macron cannot stand, said she welcomed the decision. “We are ready to put the country back on its feet. We are ready to defend the interests of the French people,” she said. Her party’s lead candidate for the European election, Jordan Bardella, 28, said voters had delivered a “a stinging rejection” of the president. Macron’s Renaissance party currently has 169 deputies in the national assembly, and the RN 88. If the far-right party wins an outright majority in the upcoming election, the president would effectively lose control over most French domestic policy.

[...]

Although exit polls indicated that the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) had made significant gains in Germany and was in second place on 16.5% of the vote, the opposition centre-right was on course for 29.5%. The AfD’s success came despite a slew of scandals, including its lead candidate saying that the SS, the Nazi’s main paramilitary force, were “not all criminals”. In Austria, meanwhile, the far-right Freedom party was forecast to come top, with a projected 27%, ahead of the conservative People’s party and the Social Democrats, on 23.5% and 23% respectively. In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’ far-right party was running a close second behind a Left-Green alliance. The Freedom party looked set to win 17.7% of the vote, while the Left-Green alliance, led by the former EU Commission vice-president, Frans Timmermans, was on 21.6%.

But it was far from a clean sweep for the far right, which fell short of expectations in Belgium. And crucially, parties on the extreme right remain divided, making them less influential in Brussels. According to an initial projection from the European parliament, MEPs from the four pro-European mainstream groups were forecast to retain a majority of seats in the assembly, but a smaller one than in 2019, which will make it increasingly difficult for them to pass laws. The European People’s party, Socialists and Democrats, the centrist Renew group and the Greens were on course for 456 of the 720 seats, a 63% share, compared with their 69.2% share in the slightly smaller outgoing parliament. These groups often find themselves on opposing sides – the Greens, for example, did not support Ursula von der Leyen as European Commission president in 2019.

The 2024 EU elections were a disasterclass for non-right-wing parties, especially in France, as that’s nation’s PM Emmanuel Macron announced the dissolution of parliament and called for new elections in the wake of the far-right surge.

[beardedmrbean]

GERB’s executive committee has decided to continue government negotiations with “BSP - United Left” and “There Is Such a People” (TISP), with the nomination of Rosen Zhelyazkov for prime minister. Zhelyazkov will also lead the negotiations for a potential government formation. The party has tasked its negotiation team with pursuing talks to secure the support of these parties for a functioning cabinet, which would focus on changes to the Electoral Code and the Judiciary Act.

Additionally, GERB has expressed openness to discussions with “Democratic Bulgaria” (DB), provided that the party is willing to support Zhelyazkov as the prime minister candidate for a regular government. The talks with DB have been complicated by DB’s insistence on first voting on changes to the law before agreeing to a governance deal. This would block the election of Borislav Sarafov as Prosecutor General. Informal talks between GERB and DB have been ongoing despite GERB previously announcing the suspension of negotiations. If these talks fail, GERB has indicated it may seek support elsewhere.

GERB confirmed via its Facebook page that government talks would proceed without DB unless the party expresses readiness to back a regular government with Zhelyazkov. The negotiations are expected to be intensive, and GERB has underscored that their primary goal remains forming a stable government that assumes political responsibility. Toma Bikov, a GERB MP, emphasized the party's commitment to ending political experiments and returning to governance according to established political norms.

Delyan Peevski from DPS-New Beginning remarked that while parliament has many unresolved issues, if the negotiations fail, early elections should be called to reallocate political responsibilities. He stressed the growing support for DPS-New Beginning, noting that the party is doing significant work for the country. Similarly, Atanas Zafirov from the Bulgarian Socialist Party (BSP) called for a new government, emphasizing the need for responsibility and transparency in governance. He also criticized the approach of seeking deals with the opposition without clear and publicly known goals.

Meanwhile, the debate continues over the possibility of a regular government and the role of the different political parties. Dzhevdet Chakarov from DPS-Dogan expressed willingness to engage in talks for a broader national agreement, excluding certain political models, and focusing on the country's priorities. The new legislative session has begun, with ongoing discussions about the judiciary and other critical reforms, although some motions have been blocked or delayed.

As the situation evolves, parliamentarians continue to outline their respective priorities for the political season, with GERB aiming to form a regular government, BSP stressing the need for an accountable administration, and other parties like “Revival” and DPS-Dogan focusing on economic issues such as electricity prices and public sector wages. With the National Assembly now in session, debates and decisions on critical matters like energy prices and the law on religions are set to take center stage.

In the meantime, three MPs have requested that their parliamentary immunities be waived, including Radostin Vassilev, Angel Georgiev, and Gunay Daloolu. This follows a request by the acting Prosecutor General for the immunity removal of six MPs, including representatives from “Revival,” DPS-Dogan, and “We Continue the Change - Democratic Bulgaria.”

[enbycrip]

There’s some pretty fucking scary shit coming out from Netpol about how the various UK Police forces are using the particularly fascist police powers the Tories have given them.

So as usual I’m fucking bothering my MP because I’m too fucking ill and disabled to go out to protest most of the time but I can usually manage to write something faintly coherent.

Here’s my letter if you’d like a template to alter to write to yours:

Dear (my MP)

I am one of your constituents and, as I have written to you about previously, I am deeply and seriously concerned about the lack of transparency about the powers now possessed by UK police forces following the introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.

Last year the Joint Committee on Human Rights heard evidence about how often police powers were already used to limit or restrict protests under existing legislation and how there is no routine collection of data about when and how these powers are used. The JCHR recommended the creation of a publicly accessible central database, containing details about how, when and in what circumstances the police impose restrictions on rights to freedom of assembly.

This sensible and proportionate recommendation to safeguard the most basic human rights of the uk population has subsequently been ignored. Research by campaigners from Netpol shows continuing difficulties in obtaining even the most basic data from the police under freedom of information legislation. The Metropolitan Police uses these powers more than any other force. The recent and incredibly damning review by Baroness Casey on the culture and standards of behaviour within the Met raises numerous concerns about whether officers in London can be trusted to use these incredibly wide-ranging powers fairly and proportionately.

Despite the absolute essential nature of freedom of assembly and freedom to protest to the functioning of democracy, there is little or no openness or transparency on the way police are using their powers. There is a very serious need for the National Police Chiefs Council (NPCC) to immediately set up a publicly accessible central database, and, if the police are unwilling to do so, for a Bill to be introduced to compel them to do so.

Please

- read Netpol's briefing explaining why this is important, which you can find at https://netpol.org/police-powers-transparency

- Write to the NPCC to require them to set up a publicly accessible database.

- Introduce questions in Parliament at PM's Question Time regarding the police's lack of cooperation with human rights bodies requesting such vital information.

- Attend, if you are available, the forthcoming online briefing for parliamentarians on this issue on Thursday 27 April at 3.30pm.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks,

(Me)

You can use https://www.writetothem.com to email your MP.

[tomorrowusa]

While the US House of Representatives ousts its weakest Speaker in modern history, , Canada gets its first black Speaker of the House of Commons.

Canada’s House of Commons has elected Liberal MP Greg Fergus as speaker — the first time a Black Canadian will hold the role. Fergus, who represents a Quebec riding across the river from Ottawa, bested six other candidates: Chris d’Entremont, Carol Hughes, Alexandra Mendès, Peter Schiefke, Sean Casey and Elizabeth May. Fergus takes on the task of presiding over a fractious House. “What motivates me, and what I vow to work night and day to promote and advance, can be summed up in one word, respect,” Fergus said during a short speech before polling stations opened in the chamber. He promised to be “firm, thoughtful, collaborative, consistent and certainly fair.”

🍁 But that's not the only political first in Canada this week. 🍁

The province of Manitoba held elections on Tuesday which swept the left of center New Democratic Party (NDP) into power defeating the incumbent Progressive Conservative Party (PC). The Manitoba Liberal Party (MLP) placed a poor third in the election.

The leader of the Manitoba NDP is Wab Kinew who will become Canada's first indigenous provincial premier.

Manitoba NDP to form majority government in historic win for First Nations premier

Wab Kinew, who is to become Canada's first First Nations provincial premier, spoke to young Indigenous people and those from all backgrounds in his victory speech Tuesday after the NDP won a majority in the Manitoba election. "I was given a second chance in life," Kinew said to a cheering crowd. "And I would like to think that I have made good on that opportunity. And you can do the same." Kinew's late father was not allowed to vote as a young man under Canadian law at the time. His mother's birthday was election night, and he brought her on stage to celebrate the historic win along with his wife and three sons.

The NDP will end up with 34 seats in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba – up from 18. The PC will have 22 – down from 35. And the MLP will have 1 – down from 3. There was one vacant seat prior to the election.

29 seats are required for a majority government.

[bizypeople]

IWD2024

Dear Friend of BPW Strathfield I hope this message finds you well. 

With sincere excitement, the Business and Professional Women Strathfield (BPWS) cordially invites you to our upcoming International Women's Day event, scheduled for March 6th, 2024. 

This event, in collaboration with Burwood Council, Strathfield Council, and ACU Strathfield, aims to champion Gender Equity through Economic Empowerment and features a lineup of distinguished international and national speakers. 

International Women's Day holds immense significance, especially for our younger audience, who will be in attendance. As a committed member of your profession and a passionate advocate for gender equality and women's rights, your presence will not only mark this special occasion but also underscore your dedication to fostering understanding of gender equality, women's empowerment, and their pivotal roles in building an inclusive society.

Details: Event: International Women's Day Celebration - Gender Equity through Economic Empowerment 

Headline speaker: The Hon Jodie Harrison, MP. Member of the Legislative Assembly Member for Charlestown. Minister for Women, Minister for Seniors, and Minister for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault. 

Speakers: Dean ACU, Assoc Professor Belinda von Mengersen, Jordon Baker SMD, Sweta Gupta BPWS President. Message from 3 International BPW Members and members of the UN Standing Committee. 

Date: Wednesday March 6th, 2024 Time: 10:00 am – 12:30 pm 

Venue: Australian Catholic University Strathfield, 25a Barker Rd, Strathfield 2135. 

Collaboration: Business & Professional Women Strathfield, Burwood Council, Strathfield Council, and Australian Catholic University Strathfield Campus. 

Your attendance is sure to leave you with a lasting impression. Should you have any specific requirements or require additional event information, please don't hesitate to contact us. 

We eagerly anticipate your favourable response and sincerely hope you will REGISTER and join us in this important celebration. 

Warm regards, Sweta Gupta President BPWS (0411228445) 

Janette Weeding Director BPWS (0411135295) 

[mariacallous]

The government's controversial Legacy Bill has passed after a vote in Westminster, despite widespread opposition in Northern Ireland.

A bid by the House of Lords to amend the bill was voted down by 288 to 205.

The bill ends new Troubles-era cases and inquests and offers conditional amnesty to those accused of killings.

The Irish government is considering legal action against the UK over the bill which the Democratic Unionist Party said was "abhorrent".

The bill will return to the Lords next week before going for royal assent.

It has been widely opposed by victims groups and all of Northern Ireland's political parties.

The government has said the legislation, which applies to all former members of the security forces and ex-paramilitaries, is an attempt to draw a line under the events of the past.

Prosecutions that are currently ongoing will continue to conclusion.

Veterans groups - such as the Northern Ireland Veterans Movement - widely support the bill.

However, some other military veterans have criticised it.

On Tuesday, the Lords backed an amendment to give victims' families a greater say in granting immunity from prosecution to offenders.

But the Conservative majority in the House of Commons rejected that on Wednesday, clearing the path for the legislation to be sent for royal assent.

Northern Ireland Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris told the House of Commons it was incumbent on the government to find a process that "can deliver positive outcomes for as many of those directly affected by the Troubles as possible".

"We must be honest about what we can realistically deliver for people in circumstances where the prospects of achieving justice in the traditional sense are so vanishingly small," he added.

What has the reaction been?

Taoiseach (Irish prime minster) Leo Varadkar said it was "the wrong way to go about dealing with legacy issues in Northern Ireland".

"There aren't many things that all of the five main parties in Northern Ireland agree on but they all agreed this is wrong, and this is not victim-centred and not human-rights proofed," Mr Varadkar told reporters in County Wicklow.

He said the Irish attorney general is preparing advice on whether the case could be taken to the European Court of Human Rights, "essentially saying that this bill, this act is not compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights, of which United Kingdom is a signatory".

'Exceptionally cruel'

DUP assembly member Emma Little-Pengelly said the "abhorrent" passage of the bill represents a "dark day for innocent victims of the Troubles".

Ms Little-Pengelly said the bill "plays into the hands of those who want to airbrush the past".

SDLP leader Colum Eastwood said he was "angry and ashamed" at the outcome of the vote and called on the Irish government to intervene.

"The British Government doesn't care about the rights of victims but the international human rights standards that we all enjoy must be defended," he said.

Speaking before the debate, Sinn Féin MP John Finucane described the bill as devastating for families, adding it would unilaterally close the door on them getting truth and justice.

Mr Finucane's father, solicitor Pat Finucane, was shot dead by loyalist gunmen at his home in Belfast in 1989.

"When we had the New Decade, New Approach political agreement, the British government made a promise, a commitment, in that agreement that they would legislate for Stormont House within 100 days," he said.

"One hundred days later, they made a very public and dramatic U-turn without any consultation.

"The British government have refused to listen and refused to act, and instead they plough ahead with a piece of legislation which is exceptionally cruel."

People Before Profit assembly member Gerry Carroll said communities "must rally in opposition" to the bill.

"Truth and justice are rights that have never truly been afforded to victims here," he said. "Campaigners have vowed not to give up in their pursuit of justice and will not stop opposing this rotten legislation."

How do victims' families feel?

Grainne Teggart, of Amnesty International UK, said it was a "dark day for justice" and that the law only absolves "those responsible for conflict-related abuses - and, shamefully, all under the guise of reconciliation".

Victims' rights campaigner Raymond McCord, whose son Raymond Jnr was murdered by loyalists in 1997, said the UK government had shown no compassion for victims.

"My next step is taking the government to court, [they] simply don't care about truth and justice," he said.

Kenny Donaldson, from victims' organisation South East Fermanagh Foundation (SEFF), said the government had "effectively relinquished their responsibilities in overseeing justice".

"It is regrettable that they were not willing to accept the very reasonable amendment which came from the House of Lords yesterday which would have ensured that victims and survivors could feel somewhat empowered."

'A terrible injustice'

The family of a man who was shot and killed by a soldier in Londonderry on 15 September 1971 earlier labelled the legacy bill "a disgrace".

William McGreanery was shot in the Bogside area of Derry by a member of the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards.

His nephew, Billy McGreanery, who was just 13 when his uncle was killed, said he feared the bill could rob many families of justice.

Their own family's case is currently with the Public Prosecution Service (PPS).

"I think a terrible injustice has been done to every family in this country," Mr McGreanery told BBC Radio Foyle.

"On the worldwide stage it's a disgrace that they are treating people this way and if this was any other part of the UK, I don't think they would get away with this."

The topic of dealing with the past has been a contentious political issue for a long time in Northern Ireland.

More than 1,000 killings from the Troubles have never been solved.

It has been brought into the main news headlines in recent years as a soldier has been in court charged with murdering two people in 1972.

The man, known only as Soldier F, is accused of killing the men during what became known as Bloody Sunday, when the Army's Parachute Regiment opened fire on a civil rights march in Derry.

[simshousewindsor]

EASTON, Windenburg (SNN) - This morning, His Majesty The King officially opened Parliament in the event known as ‘The State Opening of Parliament’. King George I has opened every session of Parliament since his accession in 1992. Today marks His Majesty’s 31st State Opening of Parliament.

The State Opening of Parliament formally begins a session of Parliament. The ceremony assembles all the three elements of legislature – the House of Lords, the House of Commons and The Monarch – together as the Crown in Parliament.

Before the arrival of the sovereign, the Imperial State Crown was brought to the Palace of Windsor, together with the Great Sword of State and the Cap of Maintenance, in their own carriage.

King George travelled to the Palace of Windsor from Buckingsim Palace in the Silver Jubilee State Coach; this is the newest coach at the Royal Mews and was first used at the State Opening of Parliament in 2017.

The coach is over four meters long, weighs over three tons and, depending on the journey, can require up to six horses to pull it.

Members of the armed forces lined the processional route from Buckingsim Palace, down The Mall, to the Palace of Windsor. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and The Duke and Duchess of Kent followed in other carriages.

The King arrived at the Sovereign's Entrance under the Lara Tower; accompanied by Queen Rowena.

At King George's arrival, the national anthem was played, a gun salute was sounded in Rose Park and the Royal Standard was hoisted in place of the Union Flag at the top of the Lara Tower (where it remained until King George departed). 

King George was greeted on arrival by the Lord Great Chamberlain and the Leader of the House of Lords, before proceeding to the Robing Room, where he put on the Parliament Robe of State and the Imperial State Crown.

His Majesty then proceeded in State through the Royal Gallery to the House of Lords. Directly ahead of the monarch walk two peers: the Leader of the House of Lords, carrying the Cap of Maintenance, and a retired senior military officer, carrying the Great Sword of State.

The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge and the Duke and Duchess of Kent joined the King and Queen consort’s processional. No other members of the royal family were in attendance.

Once seated on the throne, King George, wearing the Imperial State Crown, instructs the House by saying, "My Lords, pray be seated". Queen Rowena takes her seat on the throne to King George’s left and the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge sit on chairs of state on a lower portion of the dais to the His Majesty's right. The Duke and Duchess of Kent stand to King George’s left, on a lower portion of the dais.

A House of Lords official was then sent to summon the House of Commons. The door to the Commons is first symbolically slammed in the officials face, which symbolizes the Commons' independence from the monarchy, before it is opened and they follow him back to the Lords Chamber.

The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, followed by the First Secretary of State and the Members of the House of Commons begin their processional through the House of Lords to stand at the opposite end to The King's Throne.

During the session, MPs could be seen wearing white flowers.

The lapel is a representation of charity Remembering Marvania; an organization that raises awareness of the war-torn nation.

Before either House can proceed to public business, The King must officially open Parliament by addressing both Houses in The King's Speech. The speech, also known as the "Speech from the Throne" is addressed to "My Lords and Members of the House of Commons", and outline the Government's agenda for the coming year. 

The speech is written by the Prime Minister and his cabinet members, and reflects the legislative agenda for which the Government seeks the agreement of both Houses of Parliament. 

Following the speech, the monarch and his retinue leave the chamber. The monarch bows to both sides of the House of Peers and then leaves the chamber, in the reverse order of the usual procession, before the Commons bow again and return to their Chamber.

Members of the House of Lords then removed the Cap of Maintenance and the Great Sword of State, officially opening the House floor to discuss The King’s Speech and public business.

[eaglesnick]

“The bedrock of our democracy is the rule of law and that means we have to have an independent judiciary, judges who can make decisions independent of the political winds that are blowing.”   Caroline Kennedy

Spot the difference.

1. “RUSSIA’S upper house of parliament has approved a plan to grant President Putin new powers over the judiciary, despite growing international outcry over the Kremlin’s efforts to re-establish central government control.”  (The Times: 01/10/04)

2. “In November 2016, The Daily Mail ran a cover story with the now infamous title “Enemies of the People” attacking the three judges of the High Court of England and Wales who had ruled that the UK Government needed Parliament’s consent to give notice of Brexit.” (Springer Link: (05/02/21)

3. “Tens of thousands of Israelis have rallied in Jerusalem in support of controversial plans by the far-right government to reform the judiciary. It was the biggest demonstration of its kind yet. Plans include curbing the Supreme Court and giving the government control over the appointment of judges.”

4. “Home Office accused of pressurising judiciary over immigration    decisions…That the Home Office has sought to pressure the immigration tribunal over its bail decisions during a global pandemic shows alarming disrespect for the right to liberty, the rule of law and the separation of powers.” (Guardian: 06/05/20)

5. According to the (Cuban) constitution, the National Assembly controls judicial appointments and suspensions, and the Council of State exercises these powers when the assembly is not in session. The Council of State is also empowered to issue “instructions of a general character” to the courts, whose rulings typically conform to the interests of the PCC in practice. Judges are tasked with enforcing laws on vaguely defined offences such as “public disorder,” “contempt,” “disrespect for authority,” “precriminal dangerousness,” and “aggression,” which are used to prosecute the regime’s political opponents.”  (Freedom House; Cuba: 2021)

6.” Erdogan criticises top court, stoking judicial crisis in Turkey Main opposition party calls it president’s ‘attempt to eliminate the constitutional order…’ The latest crisis showed that Erdogan wants “more control over what happens in Turkey, including a judicial system that does what he wants, such as prosecuting and imprisoning his critics and opponents”, according to analyst Gareth Jenkins." (Aljazeera: 10/11/23)

7. “Supreme Court Judges branded 'enemies of the people’ after blocking Rwanda plan. Philip Davies MP told the Express that the ruling had sparked a “constitutional crisis”. He said: “I think we have a constitutional crisis on our hands. It is clear that Parliament has passed all the necessary legislation for this to happen, and the job of judges is to implement the laws passed by Parliament, not to rule on whether or not they like the policy.” (Express: 15/11/23)

Did you spot the difference? No, of course not as there are no differences. Dictators,  far-right and far-left governments across the world try - and often succeed - in controlling their   judiciary in order to minimise any legal opposition to their policies. That this is now happening in our country, a country that once prided itself on its democracy and the rule of law is a worrying, dangerous and unwelcome development in UK politics and must be vigorously resisted.

[odnewsin]

Odisha BJP plans grand welcome for NRIs during Pravasi Bharatiya Divas

The Odisha unit of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) is all set to accord a grand welcome to Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) at the Biju Patnaik International Airport (BPIA) in Bhubaneswar during the upcoming Pravasi Bharatiya Divas convention, BJP state president, Manmohan Samal said on Monday. Samal urged all BJP Members of Parliament (MPs), Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), and party…

[digihindnews]

BJP announces first list of candidates for Delhi assembly polls, sets stage for high-profile battles

The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) released its first list of 29 candidates for the upcoming Delhi assembly elections, featuring a mix of sitting legislators, defectors, and former MPs. Notably, the party has fielded ex-Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) ministers Kailash Gahlot from Bijwasan and Raj Kumar Anand from Patel Nagar, as well as former Delhi Congress chief Arvinder Singh Lovely from Gandhi…

[euginemicah]

President Ruto, Speaker King Lead Leaders to Mourn Wetang’ula’s Mother

President William Ruto has led other leaders in mourning the death of the mother to the National Assembly Speaker Moses Wetangula and Westlands MP Timothy Wanyonyi. Anne Nanyama Wetang’ula, mother to the two legislators, passed away on Friday morning. Bungoma Governor Ken Lusaka shared the sad news, eulogising the deceased as a “remarkable community mobiliser and mentor.” “I have received the…