None
Hegseth meets with moderate Sen. Collins as he lobbies for key votes in the Senate
Albertsons sues Kroger for failing to win approval of their proposed supermarket merger
French President Emmanuel Macron named a new government Monday evening, putting together a team under Francois Bayrou, his fourth prime minister of the year, to drag the second-largest EU economy out of political crisis. Macron named former prime minister Elisabeth Borne, 63, education minister in a new cabinet under centrist Bayrou, announced Elysee secretary-general Alexis Kohler. Another former premier, Manuel Valls, 62, returned as overseas territories minister, while former interior minister Gerald Darmanin became justice minister. Both Defence Minister Sebastien Lecornu and Foreign Minister Jean-Noel Barrot kept their jobs, the presidency said. Lecornu, a 38-year-old loyalist with a keen political nose, has served in every government since Macron's first election as president in 2017. Conservative Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau, who has vowed to crack down on illegal immigration, and right-wing Culture Minister Rachida Dati, also stayed in their posts. The difficult job of delivering a budget plan for next year falls to Eric Lombard, head of public-sector lender Caisse des Depots (CDC), who was named economy minister. "I'm very proud of the team we're presenting this evening," Bayrou said on X, adding his "experienced" cabinet would aim to "rebuild trust". The inclusion of two former prime ministers indicates Macron's desire for a heavyweight government that will enjoy stability and not share the fate of Bayrou's predecessor, Michel Barnier, ousted in a no-confidence vote. Bayrou had hoped to bring in figures from the left, right and centre to protect his government from possible censure, but his 35-member team does not include any members of the left-wing coalition New Popular Front. Macron will assemble Bayrou's team on January 3 for a first Council of Ministers meeting, the presidency said. Barnier was brought down over his failure to win support for an austerity budget to shore up France's shaky finances with spending cuts and tax rises. The priority for 73-year-old Bayrou is to make sure his government can survive a no-confidence vote and that it passes a cost-cutting budget for 2025. The unexpected comeback of Valls, premier from 2014 to 2016, as the head of the overseas territories ministry indicates the importance of the post after authorities were strongly criticised for their response to the deadly cyclone on the Indian Ocean territory of Mayotte, which killed at least 35 people. Darmanin had long been known to covet the post of foreign minister, but after days of intense discussions will have to content himself with the justice ministry. Just before the official announcement, heavyweight right-wing politician Xavier Bertrand, who had been tipped for the health ministry, announced he would not be part of the government. He alleged that it had been formed with the implicit "backing" of far-right leader Marine Le Pen, who will play a key role in ensuring its survival. "The prime minister informed me this morning, contrary to what he had proposed yesterday, that he was no longer in a position to entrust me with responsibility for the justice ministry due to opposition from (Le Pen's) National Rally," Bertrand said in a statement. "Despite his new proposals, I refuse to take part in a government of France formed with the backing of Marine Le Pen." Bertrand is a major irritant for the far right, which he has long opposed. Le Pen on March 31, 2025 faces the verdict in an embezzlement trial on charges she denies. If convicted, she could lose the chance of standing in the 2027 elections and with it her best chance yet of winning the presidency. The announcement came as France observed a day of mourning for victims in cyclone-hit Mayotte, France's poorest overseas territory. Bayrou, the head of the centrist MoDem group, which is allied to Macron's party, was appointed on December 13. He is the sixth prime minister of Macron's mandate. Many already predict Bayrou will struggle to survive. France has been mired in deadlock since Macron gambled on snap elections this summer in the hopes of bolstering his authority. The move backfired, with voters electing a parliament fractured between three rival blocs. Le Pen suggested Macron has been weakened by months of political crisis and would eventually have to resign. "I am preparing for an early presidential election," she told French newspaper Le Parisien last week. bur-as/jhbAmber Heard criticises social media in response to Blake Lively complaint
Opinion: Renaissance of handcrafts in a digital worldWild moment group of eshays pick a fight with international students in Sydney
Donations pouring in for residents displaced by Crown Point fire
Some quotations from Jimmy Carter . We have a tendency to exalt ourselves and to dwell on the weaknesses and mistakes of others. I have come to realize that in every person there is something fine and pure and noble, along with a desire for self-fulfillment. Political and religious leaders must attempt to provide a society within which these human attributes can be nurtured and enhanced. — from 1975 book “Why Not the Best?” Our government can express the highest common ideals of human beings — if we demand of government true standards of excellence. At this Bicentennial time of introspection and concern, we must demand such standards. — “Why Not the Best?” I am a Southerner and an American, I am a farmer, an engineer, a father and husband, a Christian, a politician and former governor, a planner, a businessman, a nuclear physicist, a naval officer, a canoeist, and among other things a lover of Bob Dylan’s songs and Dylan Thomas’s poetry. — “Why Not the Best?” Christ said, “I tell you that anyone who looks on a woman with lust has in his heart already committed adultery.” I’ve looked on a lot of women with lust. I’ve committed adultery in my heart many times. This is something that God recognizes I will do — and I have done it — and God forgives me for it. But that doesn’t mean that I condemn someone who not only looks on a woman with lust but who leaves his wife and shacks up with somebody out of wedlock. — Interview, November 1976 Playboy. This inauguration ceremony marks a new beginning, a new dedication within our Government, and a new spirit among us all. A President may sense and proclaim that new spirit, but only a people can provide it. — Inaugural address, January 1977. It’s clear that the true problems of our nation are much deeper — deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation and recession. ... All the legislation in the world can’t fix what’s wrong with America. ... It is a crisis of confidence. — So-called “malaise” speech, July 1979. But we know that democracy is always an unfinished creation. Each generation must renew its foundations. Each generation must rediscover the meaning of this hallowed vision in the light of its own modern challenges. For this generation, ours, life is nuclear survival; liberty is human rights; the pursuit of happiness is a planet whose resources are devoted to the physical and spiritual nourishment of its inhabitants. — Farewell Address, January 1981. We appreciate the past. We are grateful for the present and we’re looking forward to the future with great anticipation and commitment. — October 1986, at the dedication of the Carter Presidential Library and Museum. War may sometimes be a necessary evil. But no matter how necessary, it is always an evil, never a good. We will not learn to live together in peace by killing each other’s children. — December 2002, Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech. Fundamentalists have become increasingly influential in both religion and government, and have managed to change the nuances and subtleties of historic debate into black-and-white rigidities and the personal derogation of those who dare to disagree. ... The influence of these various trends poses a threat to many of our nation’s historic customs and moral commitments, both in government and in houses of worship. — From 2005 book “Our Endangered Values.” I think that this breakthrough by Barack Obama has been remarkable. When he made his speech (on race) a few months ago in Philadelphia, I wept. I sat in front of the television and cried, because I saw that as the most enlightening and transforming analysis of racism and a potential end of it that I ever saw in my life. — August 2008, commenting on then-Sen. Barack Obama’s candidacy. I think it’s based on racism. There is an inherent feeling among many in this country that an African-American should not be president. ... No matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect. — September 2009, reacting to Rep. Joe Wilson’s shout of “You lie!” during a speech to Congress by President Barack Obama. I’m still determined to outlive the last guinea worm. — 2010, on The Carter Center’s work to eradicate guinea worm disease. You know how much I raised to run against Gerald Ford? Zero. You know how much I raised to run against Ronald Reagan? Zero. You know how much will be raised this year by all presidential, Senate and House campaigns? $6 billion. That’s 6,000 millions. — September 2012, reacting to the 2010 “Citizens United” U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting unlimited third-party political spending. I have become convinced that the most serious and unaddressed worldwide challenge is the deprivation and abuse of women and girls, largely caused by a false interpretation of carefully selected religious texts and a growing tolerance of violence and warfare, unfortunately following the example set during my lifetime by the United States. — From 2014 book “A Call to Action.” I don’t think there’s any doubt now that the NSA or other agencies monitor or record almost every telephone call made in the United States, including cellphones, and I presume email as well. We’ve gone a long way down the road of violating Americans’ basic civil rights, as far as privacy is concerned. — March 2014, commenting on U.S. intelligence monitoring after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks We accept self-congratulations about the wonderful 50th anniversary - which is wonderful - but we feel like Lyndon Johnson did it and we don’t have to do anything anymore. — April 2014, commenting on racial inequality during a celebration of the Civil Rights Act’s 40th anniversary. I had a very challenging question at Emory (University) the other night: “How would you describe the United States of America today in one word?” And I didn’t know what to say for a few moments, but I finally said, “Searching.” I think the country in which we live is still searching for what it ought to be, and what it can be, and I’m not sure we’re making much progress right at this moment. — October 2014 during a celebration of his 90th birthday. The life we have now is the best of all. We have an expanding and harmonious family, a rich life in our church and the Plains community, and a diversity of projects at The Carter Center that is adventurous and exciting. Rosalynn and I have visited more than 145 countries, and both of us are as active as we have ever been. We are blessed with good health and look to the future with eagerness and confidence, but are prepared for inevitable adversity when it comes. — From 2015 book, “A Full Life.”Joel Klatt Predicts College Football Playoff Bracket After Conference Championship WeekendNotable quotes by Jimmy Carter
Share Tweet Share Share Email The United States Supreme Court avoided a ruling on Friday about the possibility of allowing shareholders to pursue a securities fraud case against Meta’s Facebook , alleging that the social media company misled investors about the improper use of user data. TakeAway Points: The U.S. Supreme Court avoided a ruling about the possibility of allowing shareholders to continue with a securities fraud case against Meta’s Facebook, which accused the social media company of deceiving investors about the improper use of user data. The justices, who heard arguments in the case on Nov. 6, dismissed Facebook’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that allowed a 2018 class action led by an amalgamated bank to proceed. The Facebook dispute was one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court this month involving the right of private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud. Supreme court closes lawsuit against Facebook The justices, who heard arguments in the case on Nov. 6, dismissed Facebook’s appeal of a lower court’s ruling that allowed a 2018 class action led by an amalgamated bank to proceed. The Supreme Court opted not to resolve the underlying legal dispute, determining that the case should not have been taken up. Its action leaves the lower court’s decision in place. The court’s dismissal came in a one-line order that provided no explanation. The Facebook dispute was one of two cases to come before the Supreme Court this month involving the right of private litigants to hold companies to account for alleged securities fraud. The other one, involving the artificial intelligence chipmaker Nvidia, was argued on Nov. 13. The Supreme Court has not ruled yet in the Nvidia case. The Case The plaintiffs in the Facebook case claimed the company unlawfully withheld information from investors about a 2015 data breach involving British political consulting firm Cambridge Analytica that affected more than 30 million Facebook users. They accused Facebook of misleading investors in violation of the Securities Exchange Act, a 1934 federal law that requires publicly traded companies to disclose their business risks. Facebook’s stock fell following 2018 media reports that Cambridge Analytica had used improperly harvested Facebook user data in connection with Donald Trump’s successful U.S. presidential campaign in 2016. The investors have sought unspecified monetary damages in part to recoup the lost value of the Facebook stock they held. At issue was whether Facebook broke the law when it failed to detail the prior data breach in subsequent business-risk disclosures and instead portrayed the risk of such incidents as purely hypothetical. Facebook spokesperson Andy Stone expressed disappointment “in the Supreme Court’s decision not to clarify this part of the law.” “The plaintiff’s claims are baseless and we will continue to defend ourselves as this case is considered by the district court,” Stone said. Facebook argued that it was not required to reveal that its warned-of risk had already materialized because “a reasonable investor” would understand risk disclosures to be forward-looking statements. President Joe Biden’s administration supported the shareholders in the case. U.S. District Judge Edward Davila dismissed the lawsuit but the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals revived it, prompting Facebook’s appeal to the Supreme Court. George Washington University law professor Alan Morrison said that following the Supreme Court’s dismissal of Facebook’s appeal, the plaintiffs would be expected to seek discovery, process that involves the exchange of information among parties in a case. Morrison added that Facebook “might renew their motion to dismiss under a somewhat different standard – partially for purposes of delay.” The Cambridge Analytica data breach prompted U.S. government investigations into Facebook’s privacy practices, various lawsuits, and a U.S. congressional hearing. The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in 2019 brought an enforcement action against Facebook over the matter, which the company settled for $100 million. Facebook paid a separate $5 billion penalty to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission over the issue. The Supreme Court, in prior rulings, has limited the authority of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency that polices securities fraud. Related Items: Facebook , securities , Supreme court , US Share Tweet Share Share Email Recommended for you A US Judge Denies The SEC’s Attempt To Punish Elon Musk The Pentagon’s Internal Struggle To Establish A New Cyber Force Apple Pushes To End The US Smartphone Monopoly Case CommentsWith temperature dropping and everyone gearing up for the magic of Chistmas, the season for cosy hot chocolate is finally upon us. And while Jack Frost is ipping at your nose, Londoners are bundling up and warming their hands and hearts with variety of delicious cocoa treats. London's hot chocolate scene has evolved far beyond simple cocoa powder and milk, with artisanal cafes and chocolatiers offering extraordinary variations of this beloved winter warmer. From thick, Italian-style drinking chocolate to innovative flavour combinations, the city's best hot chocolate spots provide unique experiences for chocolate enthusiasts. Italian Bear Chocolate This social media sensation has revolutionised London's hot chocolate scene with their innovative triple-chocolate approach. What sets them apart is their unique layering technique: they begin by carefully melting three distinct varieties of chocolate - creamy white, smooth milk, and rich dark - which are individually ladled into each mug to create stunning visual layers before being topped with their signature hot chocolate blend. Beyond their famous drinks, their triple-layered fudge cake has become equally legendary, drawing comparisons to the infamous cake scene in Roald Dahl's Matilda. Address: 41 Broadwick St, Carnaby, London W1F 9QL, United Kingdom Timings: 10 am to 11 pm Cost for two: £10–20 Chin Chin Labs This innovative dessert laboratory has earned its reputation through experimental creativity and theatrical presentation. Their signature hot chocolate experience features a generous crown of marshmallow fluff, dramatically blow-torched to order for a caramelised finish. The brand has cleverly expanded beyond its brick-and-mortar locations by offering a premium home delivery service - their DIY hot chocolate kits contain pre-blended Valrhona chocolate (a prestigious French chocolate maker) prepared in their Soho kitchen. The addition of their famous marshmallow fluff allows customers to recreate their signature experience at home. Address: 49-50 Camden Lock Pl, London NW1 8AF, United Kingdom Timings: 12 pm to 7 pm Cost for two: £15 Ruby Violet Hidden away in King's Cross, this charming ice cream parlour offers a unique take on hot chocolate with their 'short and intense' serving. Unlike standard hot chocolates, they serve their concentrated creation in an elegant gold cup, accompanied by house-made almond brittle that provides a delightful textural contrast. The intimate setting and attention to detail make this spot perfect for chocolate purists seeking quality over quantity. While hot chocolate might not be their primary focus, they've managed to create a distinctive offering that complements their artisanal ice cream selection. Address: Midland Goods Shed, 3 Wharf Rd, London N1C 4BZ, United Kingdom Timings: 11:30 am to 9 pm Cost for two: £15 Venchi Chocolate With a heritage spanning back to 1878, this Italian chocolate institution brings authentic European chocolate craftsmanship to London. Their hot chocolate menu showcases their expertise in chocolate making, featuring various formulations that cater to modern dietary requirements including gluten-free and vegan options. Their commitment to quality ingredients and traditional methods, combined with their willingness to adapt to contemporary dietary needs, has helped maintain their position as one of London's premier chocolate destinations. Address: Unit 18 The Market Building, London WC2E 8RB, United Kingdom Timings: 10 am to 11 pm Cost for two: £10 KonditorThis established bakery chain, founded by Gerhard Jenne in 1993, has an impressive celebrity pedigree, having baked for music legends like Tina Turner and the Rolling Stones. Starting from a single Waterloo location, they've expanded to three central London stores, earning critical acclaim along the way. Their hot chocolate stands out for its rich, comforting quality - particularly appreciated during London's colder months. The combination of their baking expertise and chocolate craftsmanship has created a unique hot chocolate offering that complements their celebrated cake selection. Address: 9 Bow Ln, London EC4M 9EB, United Kingdom Timings: 8 am to 6 pm Cost for two: £10 The Parlour at Fortnum & Mason This iconic department store's parlour adapts seasonally, transitioning from summer sundaes to winter hot chocolates. Their menu features three distinct varieties: classic dark, creamy milk, and innovative salted caramel, all available with indulgent toppings of whipped cream and chocolate shavings. They offer a special £12.25 pairing menu that matches their hot chocolates with premium treats like millionaire's shortbread, honey and ginger cheesecake, or orange madeleines, creating a complete luxury chocolate experience. Address: 1st floor, Fortnum & Mason, 181 Piccadilly, London W1A 1ER, United Kingdom Timings: 10 am to 8 pm Cost for two: £20 Gelupo While primarily known for its exceptional gelato, this Soho establishment offers a sophisticated take on hot chocolate during winter months. Their interpretation is distinctly Italian in style - eschewing the typical British additions of marshmallows and whipped cream in favour of an intense, concentrated shot of melted dark chocolate. This adult-oriented approach provides a pure, unadulterated chocolate experience that's more akin to drinking liquid truffles than traditional hot chocolate. Address: 7 Archer St, London W1D 7AU, United Kingdom Timings: 12 pm to 11 pm Cost for two: £15 KnoopsThis Sussex-born chocolate specialist has successfully expanded into London with a scientific approach to hot chocolate creation. Their unique concept involves trained "Knoopologists" who guide customers through selecting their ideal chocolate percentage from an extensive "chocolate library" featuring white, milk, ruby, and dark varieties. The experience can be further customised with carefully selected additions like Maldon sea salt, Szechuan pepper, or cardamom. The presentation includes their signature homemade marshmallow square and bowl-style serving, creating an elevated hot chocolate experience that's both educational and indulgent. Address: 2 New Row, London WC2N 4LH, United Kingdom Timings: 9 am to 10:30 pm Cost for two: £10 Get Latest News Live on Times Now along with Breaking News and Top Headlines from Food Reviews, Lifestyle and around the world.
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — After the Kansas City Chiefs had beaten the Raiders when Las Vegas fumbled away a chance to kick the winning field goal on the day after Thanksgiving, just about everyone wondered when the fortunes of the Super Bowl champions would take a turn for the worst. Turns out it wasn't this week, either. One of the most charmed teams in the NFL — maybe NFL history — won its 15th straight one-possession game on Sunday night when Matthew Wright, already kicking in place of two other injured kickers, banged a 31-yard field goal off the left upright and through to give Kansas City another heart-stopping, 19-17 victory over the Los Angeles Chargers. It was the Chiefs' sixth win this season decided on the final play of the game. “I'm certainly glad that we've ended up on the winning side of those games,” said Chiefs chairman Clark Hunt, who also was able to celebrate a ninth consecutive AFC West championship, the second-longest streak of division titles in history. “As we've been going through it, I've thought a lot about last year, where we had a lot of close games and they tended to go the other way, particularly in November and December,” Hunt said. "It's a credit to the level of competition in the National Football League. All these guys are professionals, they’re very talented and you know our guys have hung in there and found ways to get the ‘W’ at the end of the game.” It all begs the age-old question: Is it better to be good or lucky? Maybe the Chiefs are a little bit of both. The Chiefs (12-1) now have a two-game lead over Buffalo after the Bills lost a shootout to the Rams, and it's hard to argue they have lucked their way into the No. 1 seed in the playoff picture. But whether it was a toe-tap out of bounds against the Ravens, or three different kickers having hit game-winning field goals, the Chiefs have been operating on razor-thin margins. So perhaps the answer is the Chiefs are simply good enough that it takes a near-perfect performance to beat them. Meanwhile, a little good fortune never hurts. “Even though I feel like we could have played better, I mean that’s a good football team," Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes said of the Chargers, who have now lost seven straight to their biggest nemesis in the division. “As long as we have a chance to go out there and have the football and make a play happen, I feel like we’re going to make it happen.” What’s working The Chiefs are unflappable with the game on the line, and that bodes well for the postseason, when most games are decided in the fourth quarter. In the case of Sunday night, the biggest play was a third-and-7 completion to Travis Kelce at the Chargers 20 with less than two minutes to go, which allowed Kansas City to run down the clock for the winning kick. What needs help The Chiefs have struggled with inconsistency on offense all season, and Sunday night was another example. The Chiefs managed three scoring drives in the first half, including a crisp, efficient one that ended with a touchdown throw to DeAndre Hopkins just before halftime for a 13-0 lead. But the offense was unable to produce in the second half until it needed it the most. Stock up Xavier Worthy certainly appears to have broken through the rookie wall. The first-round pick had five catches for 41 yards against the Chargers, giving him 18 catches for 202 yards and a touchdown in his past four games. Stock down The entire Kansas City pass defense, which not only struggled to pressure Chargers quarterback Justin Herbert — the two sacks by Tershawn Wharton notwithstanding — but also has had trouble in coverage for several weeks. Key number 80 — That's the number of receptions by Kelce this season. It is his NFL-record ninth consecutive year with at least that many catches, moving out of a tie with Torry Holt, Marvin Harrison and Jerry Rice for the longest streak. And the overall total number of years is tied with Tim Brown for third most in NFL history behind Rice (12) and Larry Fitzgerald (10). Next steps The Chiefs play three of their last four of the regular season on the road beginning Sunday in Cleveland. Stay Informed: Subscribe to Our Newsletter Today
Pacific news in brief for 30 December
Bus route diverted until December due to anti-social behaviourHow to watch Cowboys vs. Bengals on Monday Night Football: Time, channel, FREE live streamRuling on Monday after an emergency hearing at Belfast High Court, judge Mr Justice McAlinden rejected loyalist activist Jamie Bryson’s application for leave for a full judicial review hearing against Northern Ireland Secretary Hilary Benn. The judge said Mr Bryson, who represented himself as a personal litigant, had “very ably argued” his case with “perseverance and cogency”, and had raised some issues of law that caused him “some concern”. However, he found against him on the three grounds of challenge against Mr Benn. Mr Bryson had initially asked the court to grant interim relief in his challenge to prevent Tuesday’s democratic consent motion being heard in the Assembly, pending the hearing of a full judicial review. However, he abandoned that element of his leave application during proceedings on Monday, after the judge made clear he would be “very reluctant” to do anything that would be “trespassing into the realms” of a democratically elected Assembly. Mr Bryson had challenged Mr Benn’s move to initiate the democratic consent process that is required under the UK and EU’s Windsor Framework deal to extend the trading arrangements that apply to Northern Ireland. The previously stated voting intentions of the main parties suggest that Stormont MLAs will vote to continue the measures for another four years when they convene to debate the motion on Tuesday. After the ruling, Mr Bryson told the court he intended to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Any hearing was not expected to come later on Monday. In applying for leave, the activist’s argument was founded on three key grounds. The first was the assertion that Mr Benn failed to make sufficient efforts to ensure Stormont’s leaders undertook a public consultation exercise in Northern Ireland before the consent vote. The second was that the Secretary of State allegedly failed to demonstrate he had paid special regard to protecting Northern Ireland’s place in the UK customs territory in triggering the vote. The third ground centred on law changes introduced by the previous UK government earlier this year, as part of its Safeguarding the Union deal to restore powersharing at Stormont. He claimed that if the amendments achieved their purpose, namely, to safeguard Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom, then it would be unlawful to renew and extend post-Brexit trading arrangements that have created economic barriers between the region and the rest of the UK. In 2023, the UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that the trading arrangements for Northern Ireland are lawful. The appellants in the case argued that legislation passed at Westminster to give effect to the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement conflicted with the 1800 Acts of Union that formed the United Kingdom, particularly article six of that statute guaranteeing unfettered trade within the UK. The Supreme Court found that while article six of the Acts of Union has been “modified” by the arrangements, that was done with the express will of a sovereign parliament, and so therefore was lawful. Mr Bryson contended that amendments made to the Withdrawal Agreement earlier this year, as part of the Safeguarding the Union measures proposed by the Government to convince the DUP to return to powersharing, purport to reassert and reinforce Northern Ireland’s constitutional status in light of the Supreme Court judgment. He told the court that it was “quite clear” there was “inconsistency” between the different legal provisions. “That inconsistency has to be resolved – there is an arguable case,” he told the judge. However, Dr Tony McGleenan KC, representing the Government, described Mr Bryson’s argument as “hopeless” and “not even arguable”. He said all three limbs of the case had “no prospect of success and serve no utility”. He added: “This is a political argument masquerading as a point of constitutional law and the court should see that for what it is.” After rising to consider the arguments, Justice McAlinden delivered his ruling shortly after 7pm. The judge dismissed the application on the first ground around the lack consultation, noting that such an exercise was not a “mandatory” obligation on Mr Benn. On the second ground, he said there were “very clear” indications that the Secretary of State had paid special regard to the customs territory issues. On the final ground, Justice McAlinden found there was no inconsistency with the recent legislative amendments and the position stated in the Supreme Court judgment. “I don’t think any such inconsistency exists,” he said. He said the amendments were simply a “restatement” of the position as set out by the Supreme Court judgment, and only served to confirm that replacing the Northern Ireland Protocol with the Windsor Framework had not changed the constitutional fact that Article Six of the Acts of Union had been lawfully “modified” by post-Brexit trading arrangements. “It does no more than that,” he said. The framework, and its predecessor the NI Protocol, require checks and customs paperwork on goods moving from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. Under the arrangements, which were designed to ensure no hardening of the Irish land border post-Brexit, Northern Ireland continues to follow many EU trade and customs rules. This has proved highly controversial, with unionists arguing the system threatens Northern Ireland’s place in the United Kingdom. Advocates of the arrangements say they help insulate the region from negative economic consequences of Brexit. A dispute over the so-called Irish Sea border led to the collapse of the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2022, when the DUP withdrew then-first minister Paul Givan from the coalition executive. The impasse lasted two years and ended in January when the Government published its Safeguarding the Union measures. Under the terms of the framework, a Stormont vote must be held on articles five to 10 of the Windsor Framework, which underpin the EU trade laws in force in Northern Ireland, before they expire. The vote must take place before December 17. Based on the numbers in the Assembly, MLAs are expected to back the continuation of the measures for another four years, even though unionists are likely to oppose the move. DUP leader Gavin Robinson has already made clear his party will be voting against continuing the operation of the Windsor Framework. Unlike other votes on contentious issues at Stormont, the motion does not require cross-community support to pass. If it is voted through with a simple majority, the arrangements are extended for four years. In that event, the Government is obliged to hold an independent review of how the framework is working. If it wins cross-community support, which is a majority of unionists and a majority of nationalists, then it is extended for eight years. The chances of it securing such cross-community backing are highly unlikely.
Albertsons sues Kroger for failing to win approval of their proposed supermarket merger