UK and EU agree deal hailing a 'new chapter' in post-Brexit relations

UK and EU agree deal hailing a 'new chapter' in post-Brexit relations

Silvia Amaro@linkedin.com/in/sílvia-amaro-12188846

Share

Key Points

• The U.K. and European Union finally agreed to reset relations Monday after Britain’s bitter exit from the EU in 2020
• The deal covers a range of matters including security, energy, trade, travel and fisheries
• British officials said the agreement marked a “historic day” for the two sides

Britain’s Prime Minister Keir Starmer and European Commission president Ursula Von der Leyen at the European Political Community summit, in Tirana on May 16, 2025.

Leon Neal | Afp | Getty Images

The U.K. and European Union announced a landmark deal to reset relations Monday after Britain’s acrimonious exit from the bloc in 2020.

British officials said the signing of the agreement — which covers a range of matters including security, energy, trade, travel and fisheries — with EU officials in London marked a “historic day” for the two sides, and a “new chapter” in their relationship after years of tense post-Brexit relations.

Here are some key takeaways from the deal and how it will affect British consumers and businesses:

Firstly, the deal will make it easier for British food and drink to be imported and exported as it reduces red tape for businesses which have led to lengthy lorry queues at the border. Some routine checks on animal and plant products will also be removed completely, allowing products like British sausages and burgers to be sold back into the EU again.

When it comes to security and defense, the U.K. and EU agreed on a new partnership paving the way for the U.K. defense industry to participate in the EU’s proposed new £150 billion “Security Action for Europe” defense fund.

Fisheries was a big (and thorny) part of the talks ahead of the summit. This new deal extends fishing rights for EU trawlers in U.K. waters until 2038, an agreement particularly coveted by Brussels as an existing deal was due to expire next year.

British holidaymakers will be cheering at least one aspect of the deal, which will enable them to use more “eGates” in EU airports rather than having to have their passports physically checked when they travel to the continent. That agreement should end what the government described as “the dreaded queues at border control.”

Some issues are not entirely resolved, however, including a “youth experience scheme.” Both sides said they would work toward a deal that would make it easier for young people to live and work across the continent.

The program will be designed to enable young people to work and travel freely in Europe again, but will be capped and time-limited, mirroring existing schemes the U.K. has with countries such as Australia and New Zealand.

Alberta Follows Familiar Playbook to Help Fossils Sidestep Well Cleanup Obligations

Alberta Follows Familiar Playbook to Help Fossils Sidestep Well Cleanup Obligations

Critics warn that taxpayers and local communities could be on the hook for cleaning up a growing inventory of abandoned oil wells and fossil fuel infrastructure in Alberta under a new “mature assets” strategy proposed by industry veteran David Yager.

The report, published in April, reflects a well-known pattern the industry has used for decades to avoid responsibility for clean-up costs.

Yager’s report acknowledges the scale of the problem: the province houses more than 270,000 wellbores that are barely profitable, inactive, or decommissioned—with reclamation not yet complete. In addition, about half of the 38,000 production facilities built by the industry are inactive or decommissioned, but not reclaimed. And about 40% of the 440,000 kilometres of pipelines criss-crossing the province are decommissioned or not operating.

This aging infrastructure hasn’t been properly cleaned up and poses environmental and financial risks—yet industry players have so far largely avoided the full cost of closure. Yager’s advice, now being reviewed by the province, on how to deal with these “mature assets” align with industry interests: extract more value from old wells and extend their life, speed up reclamation by adopting “flexible regulatory frameworks,” breathe “new life” into a challenged sector with higher gas prices that reflect well closure costs, and introduce asset insurance that could be managed by the province.

Some of these strategies are part of a well-documented “playbook” used by oil and gas producers in the Permian Basin, reported ProPublica in December.

Oil and gas producers—having received generous government subsidies and tax breaks to pump oil profitably—sidestep their cleanup obligations through asset transfers and legal loopholes.

 

Beware Princes Bearing Gifts

by William Kristol

I’m old enough to remember when this was a republic. A proud republic. We were proud to be different from the principalities and powers of the old world. We were confident of our superiority to the hereditary aristocracies and monarchies that had dominated political life everywhere on the globe, and that still did in many places.

In those older and simpler days we spoke of and even believed in republican virtue. And so we nodded along to passages like this, from Federalist No. 39:

The first question that offers itself is, whether the general form and aspect of the government be strictly republican. It is evident that no other form would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution; or with that honorable determination which animates every votary of freedom, to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.

We old republicans tended to take this “honorable determination” for granted. We also took for granted some of the provisions of the Constitution that followed from this principle. They seemed a little old-fashioned and quaint, but still meaningful—such as Article I, Section 9, Clause 8.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

How naive we were back then.

Now, the president of the United States is boasting of receiving as a gift a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane from the Qatari royal family. The plane will be upgraded to serve not as the Air Force One but as his Air Force One, since it will only be available for use by the government of the United States during his time in office. It will then revert to him—well, nominally to his presidential library, but it will of course be totally at his disposal—after he leaves office.

This sure seems like a “present” or “emolument” to a person holding “an office of trust” from “a King, Prince, or foreign state.”

But not to worry. Attorney General Pam Bondi—once a registered lobbyist for Qatar, as it happens—has concluded that the transaction is permissible under U.S. law and the Constitution.

How nice that the Trump administration still pretends to maintain some facade of respect for the Constitution even as it flouts it.

But Trump can’t really conceal his contempt for the old republican ways. Last night, he posted this on social media:

So the fact that the Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40 year old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane. Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!

This is the voice of old-world autocracy. Those who take seriously the constraints and requirements of republican government are fools. Those who care that our republican government not be dependent on foreign states, that our elected leaders not take favors from foreign princes, they are losers.

Leave aside all the questions about Qatar’s ties with Iran and Hamas. Leave aside that Qatar, on the other hand, has been designated a major non-NATO ally, and that Qatar hosts the largest U.S. military installation in the Middle East.

This isn’t about Qatar. It’s about us.

Leave a comment

Think about it this way: If Trump can accept this gift, why shouldn’t every military service member stationed in Qatar be able to accept gifts from its government or wealthy individuals there? Why should the commander in chief be able to accept emoluments when platoon commanders can’t?

He shouldn’t be.

There is one out available to Trump if he wishes both to take the gift and obey the Constitution. The Framers understood that there might be some occasions when it could be in our national interest for individuals holding an office of trust to accept a foreign gift. The Constitution doesn’t say that no gift can ever be accepted. It says that no gift can be accepted “without the consent of Congress.”

So Trump can submit his request for an exception to the ban on emoluments to the people’s representatives in Congress.

And whether Trump submits the request or not, Congress can and should take up the question of Trump’s gift. It should debate the issue in a way that honors our determination “to rest all our political experiments on the capacity of mankind for self-government.”

If we still hold to that determination.

If you still hold that determination, you’ll love being a Bulwark+ member. Join our pro-democracy (and pro-republic) community and get the best newsletters, podcasts, and live events anywhere.

The CRISPR patents are back in play.

 

MIT Technology Review · 7 hours ago

by Antonio Regalado · Biotechnology and health

The CRISPR patents are back in play.

On Monday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier will get another chance to show they ought to own the key patents on what many consider the defining biotechnology invention of the 21st century.

The pair shared a 2020 Nobel Prize for developing the versatile gene-editing system, which is already being used to treat various genetic disorders, including sickle cell disease. 

But when US patent rights were granted in 2014 to Feng Zhang of the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, the decision set off a bitter dispute in which hundreds of millions of dollars—as well as scientific bragging rights—are at stake.

The new decision is a boost for the Nobelists, who had previously faced a string of demoralizing reversals over the patent rights in both the US and Europe.

“This goes to who was the first to invent, who has priority, and who is entitled to the broadest patents,” says Jacob Sherkow, a law professor at the University of Illinois. 

He says there is now at least a chance that Doudna and Charpentier “could walk away as the clear winner.”

The CRISPR patent battle is among the most byzantine ever, putting the technology alongside the steam engine, the telephone, the lightbulb, and the laser among the most hotly contested inventions in history.

In 2012, Doudna and Charpentier were first to publish a description of a CRISPR gene editor that could be programmed to precisely cut DNA in a test tube. There’s no dispute about that.

However, the patent fight relates to the use of CRISPR to edit inside animal cells—like those of human beings. That’s considered a distinct invention, and one both sides say they were first to come up with that very same year. 

In patent law, this moment is known as conception—the instant a lightbulb appears over an inventor’s head, revealing a definite and workable plan for how an invention is going to function.

In 2022, a specialized body called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, or PTAB, decided that Doudna and Charpentier hadn’t fully conceived the invention because they initially encountered trouble getting their editor to work in fish and other species. Indeed, they had so much trouble that Zhang scooped them with a 2013 publication demonstrating he could use CRISPR to edit human cells.

The Nobelists appealed the finding, and yesterday the appeals court vacated it, saying the patent board applied the wrong standard and needs to reconsider the case. 

According to the court, Doudna and Charpentier didn’t have to “know their invention would work” to get credit for conceiving it. What should matter more, the court said, is that it actually did work in the end. 

In a statement, the University of California, Berkeley, applauded the call for a do-over.  

“Today’s decision creates an opportunity for the PTAB to reevaluate the evidence under the correct legal standard and confirm what the rest of the world has recognized: that the Doudna and Charpentier team were the first to develop this groundbreaking technology for the world to share,” Jeff Lamken, one of Berkeley’s attorneys, said in the statement.

The Broad Institute posted a statement saying it is “confident” the appeals board “will again confirm Broad’s patents, because the underlying facts have not changed.”

The decision is likely to reopen the investigation into what was written in 13-year-old lab notebooks and whether Zhang based his research, in part, on what he learned from Doudna and Charpentier’s publications. 

The case will now return to the patent board for a further look, although Sherkow says the court finding can also be appealed directly to the US Supreme Court. 

Liberty org pushes back against Bill 94, calls for repeal in name of rights and inclusion

 Liberty org pushes back against Bill 94, calls for repeal in name of rights and inclusion

Sherbrooke Record · 6 days ago

by Matthew Mccully · News

By William Crooks

Local Journalism Initiative

The Ligue des droits et libertés (LDL) is calling for the complete withdrawal of Quebec’s proposed Bill 94, denouncing it as a setback for human rights and the province’s long-standing secular tradition.

Officially titled An Act mainly to strengthen the secular nature of the school network and to amend various legislative provisions, Bill 94 was introduced by the Quebec government to broaden restrictions on the display of religious symbols in the education system. If adopted, it would extend existing bans—first implemented under Bill 21 in 2019—beyond teachers to include other school staff and students, and would impose limitations on the use of languages other than French in educational settings. The legislation also pre-emptively invokes the notwithstanding clause of both the Quebec and Canadian Charters, shielding it from constitutional challenges.

In its presentation at public hearings before the National Assembly’s Commission on Culture and Education on April 22, the LDL argued that the bill is fundamentally incompatible with a respectful and inclusive approach to secularism. “We believe Bill 94 should be withdrawn,” said Laurence Guénette, Coordinator for the LDL, in an interview with The Record. “We are very in favour of the secularism of the state, but this bill does not embody true secularism—it undermines fundamental rights and discriminates against specific groups.”

According to the LDL, secularism should ensure the separation of religion and state while protecting the freedom of belief and expression for everyone. “There is a fundamental confusion between proselytism and the wearing of religious symbols,” Guénette explained. “Wearing a symbol is not an attempt to convert or influence others—it is a personal expression, protected by freedom of religion.”

Guénette noted that state neutrality is not about erasing personal identity, but rather about treating all citizens equally, regardless of belief. “The neutrality of the state must be reflected in its actions, not in the appearance of its employees,” she said. “Whatever they wear does not make them guilty of being non-neutral.”

Subscribe to read this story and more

L’article Liberty org pushes back against Bill 94, calls for repeal in name of rights and inclusion est apparu en premier sur Sherbrooke Record.

 

Foreign tourists are shunning the US

Anna Kim, Photos: Adobe Stock

Contentious foreign relations, a rising dollar, and fears about visiting a country that has detained overseas visitors are resulting in the US hemorrhaging tourism money like it’s Baby Billy’s production of Teenjus. The World Travel & Tourism Council (WTTC) projects the US to lose $12.5 billion in travel revenue in 2025—a 7% dip from last year and a 22.5% drop from 2019, when international spending reached a record $217.4 billion. Of the 184 foreign economies tracked by the WTTC, the US is the only one on pace to see a decline in tourism revenue. Everyone is staying away In March, US airports that have historically served throngs of international visitors who want to see Disney parks and the Grand Canyon were experiencing massive year over year declines in international arrivals: Arrivals from the UK and South Korea both dipped 15%. Tourists from Germany plummeted 28%. Other markets that had previously been staples, including Spain and Ireland, fell between 24% and 33%. According to the US Travel Association, foreign travelers spend an average of $4,000 per trip, eight times more than domestic travelers. That’s putting a major dent in US tourism, which makes up 9% of the US economy. New York feels Canada’s wrath While some of this can be explained by a fluctuating US dollar and other factors, Canada’s response to President Trump’s rhetoric about annexation is giving New York far more problems than the Boston Celtics: New York City expects a 17% decline in tourism in 2025, with the biggest drop coming from Canada. Gov. Kathy Hochul said 66% of northern regions of the state near Montreal and Ottawa have felt a “significant decrease” in Canadian bookings this year. Expedia says US travel from Canada is down 30% this year. Big picture: Travel analysts have expressed uncertainty about the future, but should trade wars continue or anti-American sentiment rise, things may worsen.—DL

'We're citizens!': Oklahoma City family traumatized after ICE raids home, but they weren't suspects

'We're citizens!': Oklahoma City family traumatized after ICE raids home, but they weren't suspects

OKLAHOMA CITY (KFOR) — A woman says her family’s fresh start in Oklahoma turned into a nightmare after federal immigration agents raided their home, taking their phones, laptops and life savings — even though they were not the suspects the agents were looking for.

The agents had a search warrant for the home, the woman said, but the suspects listed on it do not live there.

Operation Assad: the air mission to smuggle the Syrian despot's valuables | Reuters

Operation Assad: the air mission to smuggle the Syrian despot's valuables | Reuters

Operation Assad: the air mission to smuggle the Syrian despot's valuables

By Feras Dalatey, Joanna Plucinska, Reade Levinson and Maha El Dahan

April 16, 202511:51 PM PDTUpdated 4 hours ago

Item 1 of 9 A satellite image, according to Reuters analysis, shows the C5-SKY jet taxiing to the runway before its flight out of Syria, at Hmeimim air base, Syria December 8, 2024. 2025 Planet Labs PBC/Handout via REUTERS

[1/9]A satellite image, according to Reuters analysis, shows the C5-SKY jet taxiing to the runway before its flight out of Syria, at Hmeimim air base, Syria December 8, 2024. 2025 Planet Labs PBC/Handout via REUTERS Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab

• Summary

• Ousted Syrian ruler used private jet to move cash, valuables, and documents to Abu Dhabi, sources say
• Plane made four flights in last days of Assad's regime, the last one from Russian base
• Jet carried documents and hard drives mapping Assad's corporate empire
• Syria's new government wants to recover assets linked to Assad's network

DAMASCUS/LONDON/DUBAI, April 17 (Reuters) - As his enemies closed in on Damascus, Bashar al-Assad, who ruled over Syria with an iron fist for 24 years, used a private jet to spirit away cash, valuables and confidential documents mapping the corporate web behind his wealth.

Yasar Ibrahim, the president's top economic adviser, arranged the leasing of the plane to transport Assad's treasured assets, relatives, aides and presidential palace personnel to the United Arab Emirates aboard four flights, according to an account of the operation pieced together by Reuters from more than a dozen sources.