Latest news with #CommonMarket
Scotsman
24-06-2025
- Health
- Scotsman
Readers' letters: Assisted dying is too important to be left to politicians
Readers call for a referendum to decide if assisted dying should be implemented Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Like other Scots exiled south ot the Border I will, it seems, soon be able to choose to die. Of course I understand the feelings of those supporters of the bill. Many, or most, of them have had to witness the horrific death of loved ones and would not want to see this experience repeated. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad My fear is that, despite the many sincere and well meaning safeguards that will undoubtably be put in place, the passage of time will see those safeguards eroded or relaxed. Who amongst the supporters of the bill can guarantee that future generations will want the 'choice' not to be entirely that of the patient? Supporters of assisted dying celebrate after MPs voted in favour of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill last week (Picture:) Little has been heard of the Hippocratic Oath in this debate. I understand that the oath has been subject to a number of interpretations but I suspect Hippocrates would flinch at the prospect of his successors offering patients a pill that will kill them. This is too important an issue to be left to parliamentarians and a referendum is the only and clearest way for Scotland to take stock. John Rhind, Beadnell, Northumberland Peer pressure After that favourable Commons' vote on assisted dying is it really now down to the unelected upper house to declare its opinion about what the people need, seemingly regardless of what the people actually want? Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Isn't assisted dying legislation a classic case of a law that should be decided instead by the people as a whole through an informed national referendum? Too often we the people have been obliged to obey laws without our say so. Blair obliged us to invade Iraq; Major took us from the Common Market into the European Union; Cameron obliged us to invade Libya, (but to his eternal credit did permit us to decide if we wished to stay in the EU). We were all on Thatcher's side when she ordered the recapture of the Falkland Islands, but I doubt that'll be so if the Lords deliberately procrastinate to ensure the bill fails because it has run out of time. I agree that what has been passed has several faults which the Lords could sort out. Eight years ago I was given a terminal diagnosis for melanoma cancer. I put my affairs in order and awaited the end, only for a doctor to put me on to an experimental drug called Pembrulizumab which set in motion a successful immunotherapy, and so here I am still at 88. I mention that as I would make assisted dying available, at first anyway, only to mentally competent persons over 80 years of age because before then the possibility of 'miracle' cures exists, as I now have proven. An informed referendum, please, on an improved bill. Tim Flinn, Edinburgh Rogue states For a man who managed to give money to Gaza that was given to Holyrood to be spent on the Scottish people, Humza Yousaf is certainly persistent. He now wishes to extend his personal interest in the politics of the Middle East into domestic politics by denying US aircraft the use of airports in Scotland. This is in line with his party's similar policy of wanting to deny Nato vessels carrying nuclear weapons to come here, despite being part of our defence shield. Mind you, the SNP is loudly against defending ourselves. Mr Yousaf's latest outburst echoes his comments that Israel is a 'rogue state'. Like all nations, Israel has its fair share of black marks on its copybook. Consider the mass killing in the King David Hotel bombing by Jewish terrorists in 1946. Israel is quite open when it uses force. Following the recent terrorist outrage in Kashmir, India struck back against the people they blame for it, namely Pakistan. The world is too full of such attacks on 'soft' targets and nations are entitled to respond against those they see as the puppet-masters behind such attacks. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Who can blame Israel when Iranian proxies massacred their citizens at a music festival and hold others hostage? We all know that Iran's uranium enrichment has only one purpose, which is to make a nuclear bomb to drop on Israel and wipe it off the map. Does Mr Yousaf really expect Israelis, or anyone else to just sit and let them do it? There is only one 'rogue state' I can see and that is Iran. Peter Hopkins, Edinburgh Day jobs Why are John Swinney and indeed Humza Yousaf pontificating about the situation in Iran (Scotsman, June 23)? Foreign affairs are wholly retained by Westminster and, as per the Scotland Act, are explicitly outwith the jurisdiction of Holyrood. Yousaf is yesterday's man, and few care what he thinks, but Swinney, like it or not, heads up a devolved administration. The taxpayer employs MPs at Westminster to address international affairs while we pay Swinney and Yousaf to focus on such crucially important areas as the NHS, education, housing and roads. But perhaps this is simply too dreary for them? SNP politicians seemingly imagine that speaking out on international conflicts bigs them up in our eyes, yet the opposite is very much the case. It draws attention to their dismal performance in managing a vitally important raft of public services that the people of Scotland rely on each and every day. Martin Redfern, Melrose, Scottish Borders International law Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Gerald Edwards' support for Israel is ludicrous, as is his support for Trump's bombing of Iran (Letters, June 23). When Israel attacked Iran without warning it breached international law. A state is only permitted to attack another state if it presents an imminent danger. Netanyahu claimed that Israel was about to manufacture a nuclear weapon. Tulsi Gabbard, the US Director of National Intelligence, refuted that. Trump's bombing of Iran also broke international law, and also broke the constitution of the United States because it was an act of war. The US President can only declare war if Congress approves it. Congress can only approve war against a country if that country poses an immediate and grave military threat. Iran posed no threat to the United States. By breaking the constitution, Trump lays himself open to impeachment. Israel assassinated a number of Iranian nuclear scientists including the lead negotiator in the talks to discuss Iran's nuclear programme which were scheduled to take place on the Sunday after Israel attacked in what was described as a 'Pearl Harbour moment' for Iran, without declaration of war, and therefore a war crime. Like many, I believed Donald Trump's pre-election claims that he would end America's endless wars. Sadly I was wrong. As American military analyst Colonel Douglas Macgregor said commenting after the bombing of Iran: 'We are the rogue state in support of the other rogue state.' William Loneskie. Lauder, Scottish Borders No sense of shame Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad So Douglas Alexander, MP for Lothian East – who was complicit as a cabinet minister in the UK Government in taking the UK into an illegal war in Iraq and is now complicit in supporting a fanatical Israeli government regime accused of genocide in Gaza and engaged in bombing Syria, Yemen and Iran – proclaims that Scotland is in a 'voluntary union' but yet he cannot state (as evidenced on BBC Scotland's Sunday Show) a democratic route for Scotland to leave this union. It appears not only that Mr Alexander and the Labour Party have abandoned any remaining principles but they unapologetically have no sense of shame, having apparently learned little from past mistakes and resultant catastrophes. We can do better and the parliament we elect should have the power to conduct a constitutional referendum so that we in Scotland can determine our own future, including our own non-imperialist foreign policy. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry, East Lothian Gael force I am delighted that the national importance of Gaelic has been recognised, unanimously, by the Scottish Parliament. Gaelic is more than a language, it is part of the cultural identity of our nation. It is heritage and history, vital to the story of Scotland's sovereignty and indeed predates English by well over 1000 years. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad For those detractors that say it is a dead and useless language and a financial drain, I say shame on you. Through centuries of oppression and abuse Gaelic has survived and now with music and the arts and a longing for independence, there is a resurgence. Only in knowing the history of your country, can there ever be confidence in its future destiny. Wrapped around its ancient Celtic identity, Scotland remains a reawakening nation that has, in the past, given much to the world. Grant Frazer, Newtonmore, Highland Matter of principal I'm a proud son of Edinburgh and as a graduate (MA, 1966) of the Tounis College, I keep a strong interest in developments there. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However, news can take time to reach London, where I am now based; and so I have only just seen an account of the Principal and Vice-Chancellor's appearance earlier this month in front of of the Education Committee of the Scottish Parliament. For Sir Peter Mathieson to say 'I do not carry the figure about in my head' when asked about his salary doesn't just beggar belief, it smacks of arrogance and disrespect. It's also worrying that, faced with a financial crisis in the university, its head seems not to be able to remember basic numbers. The principal has lost credibility and, I would suggest, any respect. He should at least try to preserve some fragment of his reputation, do the decent (and right) thing by the University of Edinburgh and resign. Sir James HodgeLondon Write to The Scotsman
Irish Independent
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Irish Independent
Donal Fallon: How Margaret Thatcher and her knitted jumper helped nip the first attempt at Brexit in the bud, 50 years ago
Today at 21:30 While referendums are somewhat commonplace in Ireland, thanks to Bunreacht na hÉireann's requirement for questions to go before the citizenry, they are much rarer occurrences next door. Fifty years ago this month, Britain and a considerable chunk of this island were asked to answer a question: 'Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?' Coming less than three years after British membership of the European Economic Community, the referendum was in some ways more complex than the 2016 one that ultimately removed Britain from the EU.
Daily Mail
27-04-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
Fish for weapons? Yet another EU surrender we don't need to make
Imagine if Brussels suddenly announced that the vast vineyards of France were a 'common resource' and that everyone in the EU could come along and pick their grapes. This is more or less what happened to Britain's fishing grounds when we first joined the Common Market. In one of the great ambushes of history, British negotiators suddenly found that membership would involve an invasion of our waters by foreign fishermen, which meant years of disaster for a once-thriving industry. The sheer underhand legal chicanery involved in this episode is one of the many reasons why those affected came ever afterwards to mistrust the Brussels monster, and also one of the reasons why Norway has continued to stay out of the EU. The EU's takeover of our fishing grounds devastated the UK fishing fleet. One of the great opportunities given to this country by Brexit was the chance to reverse the Common Fisheries Policy and to re-establish a flourishing British fishing sector. Since we left, we have made real progress, including increased quotas for our fishermen and less access for foreign vessels. But with so much at stake, it was never going to be that simple. Several EU countries were determined to lose as little as possible, and to exact as high a price as possible for any gains we might make. So it is no great surprise to discover the shape of their latest effort. Sir Keir Starmer is close to agreeing a 'reset' with the European Union which will allow British defence companies to bid for a share of a new €150billion European defence fund. But in return, it appears we are expected to make significant concessions on fishing rights and on another vexed issue – so-called freedom of movement, otherwise known as control of our own borders. No doubt Brussels enthusiasts will attempt to claim that the two are not connected, but the EU octopus knows very well what all its tentacles are doing. Obviously, the extra defence cash would be welcome to major contractors such as BAE Systems and Babcock. The Security Action For Europe fund is aimed at helping countries invest in missile defence, drones, ammunition and cyber security. British companies were originally excluded from it, supposedly because the UK has not signed a defence and security pact with Brussels. But these British firms can surely survive without EU cash if they have to, especially if Britain itself expands its defence budget, as it must. And national strategic assets, such as our own home waters, should surely not be for sale – now that we have at last got them back. Tory leader Kemi Badenoch is raising the alarm over this deal, due to be unveiled on May 19, and she is wise to do so. Mrs Badenoch, who has recently been giving Sir Keir a run for his money, says 'instead of capitulating to the EU, Labour should be pressing home our Brexit benefits'. She is doubly right to speak in this fashion. Firstly, she is correct in principle. This country needs to make full use of all the freedoms it regained through Brexit.
Zawya
24-04-2025
- Politics
- Zawya
Africa: EAC ministers meet in Arusha to address security challenges, cash crunch
The East African Community (EAC) Council of Ministers is meeting in Arusha this week to discuss issues affecting the region, including the deteriorating security situation in eastern Congo and budgetary constraints hampering the operations of the Secretariat. The ministers are expected to review the interventions of the joint EAC-SADC (Southern African Development Community) initiatives to restore peace, security and stability in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. A paper from the Secretariat notes that since the start of the year, more than 700,000 people have been displaced in the Congolese provinces of North and South Kivu due to the resurgence of the M23 armed group.'The resurgence has also worsened the humanitarian situation in the two provinces,' the EAC says. The ministers will also review the bloc's financial situation, which has affected the implementation of its mandate and the payment of statutory obligations, including staff salaries. Read: EAC on the brink: Cash crunch bites as defaults mountSomalis movementMeanwhile, Somalia has complained to the Secretariat about the challenges its citizens face when travelling within EAC member states. Mogadishu says Somali officials, including those holding diplomatic and service passports, face obstacles in obtaining visas in advance, hence hindering their ability to travel and participate fully in regional initiatives.'In this respect, member states are reminded of their commitment to observe and implement the provisions of the [Common Market] Protocol and to provide reciprocal treatment to citizens of partner states in matters enshrined in the Protocol,' the Secretariat says. © Copyright 2022 Nation Media Group. All Rights Reserved. Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
