Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Uncategorized

Prime Minister May says she’ll step down if Brexit deal OK’d

Published

9 minute read

LONDON — British Prime Minister Theresa May told Conservative lawmakers Wednesday that she will step down once the U.K.’s exit from the European Union is delivered — a dramatic concession meant to bring enough of her colleagues on board to push her deal over the line.

May told a party meeting of legislators that she was aware of a desire for a new approach – and new leadership – in the second phase of the Brexit negotiations.

“I am prepared to leave this job earlier than I intended in order to do what is right for our country and our party,” she said, according to a transcript released by her office. “I ask everyone in this room to back the deal so we can complete our historic duty – to deliver on the decision of the British people and leave the European Union with a smooth and orderly exit.”

May has been under mounting pressure from pro-Brexit members of her Conservative Party to quit. Several have said they would support the withdrawal deal if another leader was chosen to lead the next stage of negotiations, which will determine Britain’s future relations with the EU.

In a packed meeting described by participants as “sombre,” May finally conceded she would have to go, although she did not set a departure date.

Anti-EU lawmaker Jacob Rees-Mogg, who has clashed with May throughout the Brexit process, said she had been “very clear” that if Britain leaves the EU on May 22, she will quit soon after.

He said the prime minister had been “very dignified.”

“She out her case well, and reiterated that she had done her duty,” he said.

May’s announcement came as British lawmakers debated multiple options for leaving the EU as they sought to bring some clarity to the tortured Brexit process and stop the country tumbling out of the bloc within weeks with no exit plan in place.

In the wake of two overwhelming defeats for May’s withdrawal agreement with the EU, the House of Commons seized control of the parliamentary timetable for debate and votes on a range of Brexit alternatives.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow selected eight widely differing options for votes from a list of 16 submitted by lawmakers. They include calls to leave the EU without a deal, to stay in the EU’s customs union and single market, to put any EU divorce deal to a public referendum, and to cancel Brexit if the prospect of a no-deal departure gets close.

Later in the day, lawmakers will vote on all of the options they could accept. The plan is for the most popular ideas to move to a second vote Monday to find one option that can command a majority. Parliament would then instruct the government to negotiate it with the EU.

May has said she will consider the outcome of the votes, though she has refused to be bound by the result.

The government condemned lawmakers’ move to seize control because it upends the usual practice in which the government sets the timetable for debate and votes in Parliament.

But Conservative lawmaker Oliver Letwin, one of those behind Wednesday’s votes, said “this is not an insurgency.”

“This process has come about as a result of the increasing concern that many of us have had across the House of Commons that we were heading not towards an approval of the prime minister’s deal, but alas towards a no-deal exit,” he said.

Almost three years after Britons voted to leave the EU, the date and terms of its departure are up in the air. Last week, the EU granted Britain a delay to the scheduled March 29 exit date, saying that if Parliament approves the proposed divorce deal this week, the U.K. will leave the EU on May 22. If not, the government has until April 12 to tell the 27 remaining EU countries what it plans to do — leave without a deal, cancel Brexit or propose a radically new path.

May, meanwhile, still hopes to bring the divorce deal that the government struck with the EU back for another vote in the House of Commons — if she can win over enough opponents to ensure passage. Lawmakers rejected the deal by 230 votes in January and by 149 votes earlier this month, primarily because of concerns about the Northern Ireland border.

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said he had introduced a motion to have Parliament meet on Friday if needed so a vote could be held. But it remained unclear whether it would go ahead, since Bercow said Wednesday he would not accept another vote on the twice-rejected deal unless substantial changes were made.

House of Commons leader Andrea Leadsom told the BBC there was a “real possibility” the unpopular agreement would be brought back for a vote on Thursday or Friday.

Tony Travers, a professor of government at the London School of Economics, said the parliamentary votes could boost support for May’s deal by convincing pro-Brexit lawmakers that a withdrawal might be delayed or abandoned.

Rees-Mogg, who has sought a complete break from the bloc, said May’s deal is still a bad one, but “the risk is, if I don’t back it, we don’t leave the EU at all.”

“I think we have got to the point where legally leaving is better than not leaving at all,” he told the BBC. “Half a loaf is better than no bread.”

But Rees-Mogg said he would not back the deal unless Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party decided to vote for it. The DUP, which has 10 seats in the House of Commons, said Tuesday it still wasn’t prepared to support the “toxic” deal.

Wednesday’s votes in Parliament could potentially produce conflicting and inconclusive results. But they could push Britain in the direction of a softer Brexit that keeps Britain closely tied economically to the EU.

That would probably require the U.K. to seek a longer delay, although that would mean that the country would have to take part in May 23-26 European Parliament elections.

Many EU officials are keen to avoid the messy participation of a departing member state.

But the chief of the European Council told European lawmakers that the EU should let Britain take part if the country indicated it planned to change course on Brexit.

Donald Tusk said the bloc could not “betray” the millions of Britons who want to stay in the EU.

“They may feel they are not sufficiently represented by the U.K. Parliament but they must feel that are represented by you in this chamber. Because they are Europeans,” Tusk said.

____

Gregory Katz and Tobie Mathew in London, and Raf Casert in Strasbourg, France, contributed.

___

Follow AP’s full coverage of Brexit at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

Jill Lawless And Danica Kirka, The Associated Press

















Before Post

Storytelling is in our DNA. We provide credible, compelling multimedia storytelling and services in English and French to help captivate your digital, broadcast and print audiences. As Canada’s national news agency for 100 years, we give Canadians an unbiased news source, driven by truth, accuracy and timeliness.

Follow Author

Uncategorized

Poilievre on 2025 Election Interference – Carney sill hasn’t fired Liberal MP in Chinese election interference scandal

Published on

From Conservative Party Communications

Yes. He must be disqualified. I find it incredible that Mark Carney would allow someone to run for his party that called for a Canadian citizen to be handed over to a foreign government on a bounty, a foreign government that would almost certainly execute that Canadian citizen.

 

“Think about that for a second. We have a Liberal MP saying that a Canadian citizen should be handed over to a foreign dictatorship to get a bounty so that that citizen could be murdered. And Mark Carney says he should stay on as a candidate. What does that say about whether Mark Carney would protect Canadians?

“Mark Carney is deeply conflicted. Just in November, he went to Beijing and secured a quarter-billion-dollar loan for his company from a state-owned Chinese bank. He’s deeply compromised, and he will never stand up for Canada against any foreign regime. It is another reason why Mr. Carney must show us all his assets, all the money he owes, all the money that his companies owe to foreign hostile regimes. And this story might not be entirely the story of the bounty, and a Liberal MP calling for a Canadian to be handed over for execution to a foreign government might not be something that the everyday Canadian can relate to because it’s so outrageous. But I ask you this, if Mark Carney would allow his Liberal MP to make a comment like this, when would he ever protect Canada or Canadians against foreign hostility?

“He has never put Canada first, and that’s why we cannot have a fourth Liberal term. After the Lost Liberal Decade, our country is a playground for foreign interference. Our economy is weaker than ever before. Our people more divided. We need a change to put Canada first with a new government that will stand up for the security and economy of our citizens and take back control of our destiny. Let’s bring it home.”

 

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Canada Needs A Real Plan To Compete Globally

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Génie 

Ottawa’s ideological policies have left Canada vulnerable. Strategic action is needed now

As Canada navigates an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, the next federal government must move beyond reflexive anti—Americanism regardless of its political leanings. Instead, Canada should prioritize national interests while avoiding unnecessary conflict and subservience.

The notion that Canada can stand alone is as misguided as the idea that it is only an economic appendage of the United States. Both perspectives have influenced policy in Ottawa at different times, leading to mistakes.

Rather than engaging in futile name-calling or trade disputes, Canada must take strategic steps to reinforce its autonomy. This approach requires a pragmatic view rooted in Realpolitik—recognizing global realities, mitigating risks, governing for the whole country, and seizing opportunities while abandoning failed ideologies.

However, if Washington continues to pursue protectionist measures, Canada must find effective ways to counteract the weakened position Ottawa has placed the country in over the past decade.

One key strategy is diversifying trade relationships, notably by expanding economic ties with emerging markets such as India and Southeast Asia. This will require repairing Canada’s strained relationship with India and regaining political respect in China.

Unlike past Liberal trade missions, which often prioritized ideological talking points over substance, Canada must negotiate deals that protect domestic industries rather than turning summits into platforms for moral posturing.

A more effective approach would be strengthening partnerships with countries that value Canadian resources instead of vilifying them under misguided environmental policies. Expand LNG exports to Europe and Asia and leverage Canada’s critical minerals sector to establish reciprocal supply chains with non-Western economies, reducing economic reliance on the U.S.

Decades of complacency have left Canada vulnerable to American influence over its resource sector. Foreign-funded environmental groups have weakened domestic energy production, handing U.S. industries a strategic advantage. Ottawa must counter this by ensuring Canadian energy is developed at home rather than allowing suppressed domestic production to benefit foreign competitors.

Likewise, a robust industrial policy—prioritizing mining, manufacturing, and agricultural resilience—could reduce dependence on U.S. and Chinese imports. This does not mean adopting European-style subsidies but rather eliminating excessive regulations that make Canadian businesses uncompetitive, including costly domestic carbon tariffs.

Another key vulnerability is Canada’s growing military dependence on the U.S. through NORAD and NATO. While alliances are essential, decades of underfunding and neglect have turned the Canadian Armed Forces into little more than a symbolic force. Canada must learn self-reliance and commit to serious investment in defence.

Increasing defence spending—not to meet NATO targets but to build deterrence—is essential. Ottawa must reform its outdated procurement processes and develop a domestic defence manufacturing base, reducing reliance on foreign arms deals.

Canada’s vast Arctic is also at risk. Without continued investment in northern sovereignty, Ottawa may find itself locked out of its own backyard by more assertive global powers.

For too long, Canada has relied on an economic model that prioritizes federal redistribution over wealth creation and productivity. A competitive tax regime—one that attracts investment instead of punishing success—is essential.

A capital gains tax hike might satisfy activists in Toronto, but it does little to attract investments and encourage economic growth. Likewise, Ottawa must abandon ideological green policies that threaten agri-food production, whether by overregulating farmers or ranchers. At the same time, it must address inefficiencies in supply management once and for all. Canada must be able to feed a growing world without unnecessary bureaucratic obstacles.

Ottawa must also create an environment where businesses can innovate and grow without excessive regulatory burdens. This includes eliminating interprovincial trade barriers that stifle commerce.

Similarly, Canada’s tech sector, long hindered by predatory regulations, should be freed from excessive government interference. Instead of suffocating innovation with compliance mandates, Ottawa should focus on deregulation while implementing stronger security measures for foreign tech firms operating in Canada.

Perhaps Ottawa’s greatest mistake is its knee-jerk reactions to American policies, made without a coherent long-term strategy. Performative trade disputes with Washington and symbolic grandstanding in multilateral organizations do little to advance Canada’s interests.

Instead of reacting emotionally, Canada must take proactive steps to secure its economic, resource, and defence future. That is the role of a responsible government.

History’s best strategists understood that one should never fight an opponent’s war but instead dictate the terms of engagement. Canada’s future does not depend on reacting to Washington’s policies—these are calculated strategies, not whims. Instead, Canada’s success will be determined by its ability to act in the interests of citizens in all regions of the country, and seeing the world as it is rather than how ideological narratives wish it to be.

Marco Navarro-Génie is the vice president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy. With Barry Cooper, he is co-author of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Trending

X