WASHINGTON (AP) — The longest, loudest standing ovation of the Kennedy Center Honors gala wasn’t reserved for Al Pacino, Mavis Staples or the Eagles. Instead, it went to the man sitting to their left, attending his eighth and most likely his last honors presentation: President Barack Obama.
While politics were absent from the tributes to the performers who were recognized for influencing American culture on Sunday night, the arts community’s affection for Obama — and its nervousness about President-elect Donald Trump — was palpable in the Kennedy Center Opera House.
The president and first lady Michelle Obama were introduced last, after Pacino and his fellow honorees: gospel singer Staples; pianist Martha Argerich; singer-songwriter James Taylor; and Don Henley, Timothy B. Schmidt and Joe Walsh, the surviving members of the Eagles.
After a sustained ovation, host Stephen Colbert greeted the crowd of Washington insiders as “endangered swamp-dwellers,” referencing Trump’s “drain the swamp” campaign pledge. He joked that Obama would need to receive the honor to attend again and that “unlike the Nobel Peace Prize, they don’t just give these away.”
The Kennedy Center Honors are in their 39th year, a period that has included six presidents — three Republicans, three Democrats — and all have taken time to welcome the recipients. But the 2016 election was noteworthy for the way A-list performers lined up behind Obama and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, while Trump had relatively few celebrity endorsements.
Although the president has no say in who receives the awards, Colbert joked that next year’s honorees would include Scott Baio, Gary Busey and Meat Loaf.
“For the past eight years, the White House has given us a leader who’s passionate, intelligent and dignified,” Colbert said, and the crowd rose for another prolonged ovation, prompting Obama to stand and wave.
“Sir, I don’t even know why you stood up. I was talking about Michelle,” Colbert said.
Earlier, at the White House, Obama welcomed the honorees at a reception and said participating in the gala was “one of the perks of the job.”
“The arts have always been part of life at the White House because the arts are always central to American life,” Obama said. “That’s why over the past eight years Michelle and I have invited some of the best writers, musicians, actors and dancers to share their gifts with the American people and to help tell the story of who we are.”
Kennedy Center chairman David Rubenstein also thanked the Obamas, noting that the president isn’t required to attend the honors or host a reception. He offered them a “golden ticket” good for free admission to any event at the center.
“Parking is extra,” Rubenstein said.
Another standing ovation went to Bill Clinton, who made a surprise appearance on stage to talk about how Taylor’s music resonated with him and the American public in times that tested the nation’s resolve.
“Our nation was reeling from the pain of Vietnam,” Clinton said. “James was there to satisfy our hunger for both intimacy and authenticity.”
Politics aside, the honors proceeded as usual, with musicians and actors taking the stage to pay tribute to the honorees, who stood on a balcony, waving and applauding as they wore the event’s signature rainbow-colored garlands. The ceremony will be broadcast Dec. 27 on CBS.
The tribute to Pacino included remarks by Sean Penn and recitations of Shakespeare by Laurence Fishburne and Lily Rabe. Chris O’Donnell and Gabrielle Anwar re-enacted the tango that Pacino danced with Anwar in “Scent of a Woman,” the 1992 movie that won Pacino his long-overdue Oscar.
Kevin Spacey gave a virtuoso tutorial on how to impersonate the actor whose passionate delivery has helped create some of the most memorable lines in American cinema. The keys are to look surprised and exhale loudly, Spacey said.
“Al seems to have a lot of air,” he said.
Garth Brooks, Sheryl Crow and Darius Rucker performed medleys of Taylor’s music. Yitzhak Perlman played violin and Yuja Wang played piano to honor the Argentine-born Argerich.
Staples’ songs were performed by Elle King, Bonnie Raitt and Andra Day, and actor Don Cheadle spoke about the civil rights legacy of Staples and her family, who were close to Martin Luther King Jr. and performed at John F. Kennedy’s inauguration.
“She’s still fighting. She’s still singing freedom songs,” Cheadle said.
The Eagles were originally selected to be honored last year, but the band opted to delay participation because of founding member Glenn Frey’s poor health. Frey died in January at age 67, making the event a bittersweet one for the surviving Eagles, who were joined by Frey’s widow, Cindy Frey. Henley has said the band will never perform again. Bob Seger, Vince Gill and Kings of Leon performed the Eagles’ music on Sunday.
“I want to dedicate this evening to our brother Glenn,” Henley said as the band accepted its honors Saturday night at the State Department. “He was so much a part of our success. He was the driving force in this band. He believed in the American dream.”
The band’s longtime manager, Irving Azoff, sobbed as he raised a glass to Frey.
“For our Eagles family,” he said, “2016 couldn’t have had a harder beginning or a more appropriate ending.”
Sunday, December 4, 2016
We need to resist censorship of cyberspace
The hacking effort - aimed at prominent thinkers including New York Times Pulitzer laureate Paul Krugman , Stanford professor and former diplomat Michael McFaul, Newsweek political editor Matthew Cooper, New York Magazine writer Jonathan Chait, and others - comes after Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign emails were stolen by Russian hackers and amid a new effort to create a national "watchlist" of liberal professors. Questions have also surfaced over whether the US presidential election was hacked.
Together, these developments suggest something even more chilling: The halcyon WikiLeaks era when our chief fear was that the whole truth might emerge online is officially over. Cyberspace is rapidly becoming censored.
Although the end game of the hackers who targeted my private email account and that of other journalists and professors is unclear, several scenarios are imaginable.
Did they seek to disrupt our ability to research and write by cutting off access to our files and contacts? Do a "data dump" of embarrassing emails to undercut our authority? Foment internal feuds to divide us, as they did with the emails of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and Democratic National Committee staffers? Intimidate us into thinking twice before criticising Donald Trump in the future? All of the above?
Whatever the strategy, it's clear that censorship was the goal. This can also only be the aim of Professor Watchlist, the new McCarthy-like project by Turning Point USA, which asks students to report their professors for espousing liberal beliefs, so that a public registry can be formed.
Expanding Internet censorship
There's another way in which the internet has become a tool of censorship, albeit unintentionally. In 2014, Facebook changed its algorithm so that content which the platform detects that an individual user most likes shows up on our respective newsfeeds. As a result, political content that doesn't fit with a person's pre-existing beliefs is censored.
As Buzzfeed's Ryan Broderick explains, "algorithms identify that a user likes one particular page and suggest others, creating an echo-chamber effect that can lead to some pretty scary places." Broderick says this has helped radicalise Facebook users across the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and Australia, bolstering support for far-right candidates and causes.
More diabolically, The New York Times reported recently that Facebook is working on a tool to censor posts by Chinese citizens, so that it can re-enter the Chinese market, where the government currently blocks access to the site - a practice the social network has already used in Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan.
The small possibility that the US election was hacked - following attempts to hack voting infrastructure in Ukraine, Norway, and the Netherlands - would, if true, be the ultimate form of cyber censorship. We do know that hackers breached voter registration systems in at least two states and targeted more than 20 states.
All of these developments are a direct threat to the marketplace of ideas that John Stuart Mill explained are necessary to a society, so that we can arrive at, and act upon, truths through the consideration of different points of view.
How can we fix this?
First, the US government must strike back at the state-backed hackers targeting opinion leaders and Democratic operatives. It's wholly unacceptable for a foreign government to meddle in an election, just as it's intolerable for an outside state to attempt to attack the watchdogs of democracy. Although a counter-cyberattack is warranted, the US should also consider other options, such as sanctions and publicly exposing, and freezing the assets of, the state sponsors of these attacks. This response needs to begin under President Obama, but it must continue under President Trump.
The way journalists and professors should respond to this attack is simple. We should share our views even more. Sadly, in order for us to do this, we will need more help securing our communications from technology companies and from the universities and media companies that provide us with our email accounts.
Journalists and media organisations around the globe can also work together to identify and expose the hackers. This approach was recently used by the German
ewspaper, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, when it brought together reporters from 107 media outlets around the globe, with the help of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, to analyse 11.5 million documents exposing how the world's wealthiest people shield their money from taxes and commit other financial crimes.
Third, Facebook must alter its algorithms. Today. Although the current debate in the media is largely focused on how Facebook can fight fake news, combating censorship must be an equal and urgent priority. The free flow of information and the debate it generates is essential to democracy.
The renowned legal theorist Thomas Emerson argued that the First Amendment to the US Constitution contains a positive right to information because "the reverse side of the coin from the right to communicate" is "first, the right to read, to listen, to see, and to otherwise receive communications; and second, the right to obtain information as a basis for transmitting ideas or facts to others." While we also have the right not to consume news we prefer to ignore, that decision should be ours to make. It shouldn't be decided for us by executives in Silicon Valley, who decree that dissenting views be deleted from our newsfeeds.
Finally, the US needs a publicly funded recount of paper ballots and examination of electronic voting machines in several states. It shouldn't be up to Green Party supporters or the Clinton campaign to pay for it. The US government also needs to better protect voting systems for 2020.
We need to take the internet back, not as liberals responding to these attacks, but as citizens of every creed demanding that cyberspace not be censored.
Kara Alaimo is Assistant Professor of Public Relations at Hofstra University and author of "Pitch, Tweet, or Engage on the Street: How to Practice Global Public Relations and Strategic Communication."
Together, these developments suggest something even more chilling: The halcyon WikiLeaks era when our chief fear was that the whole truth might emerge online is officially over. Cyberspace is rapidly becoming censored.
Although the end game of the hackers who targeted my private email account and that of other journalists and professors is unclear, several scenarios are imaginable.
Did they seek to disrupt our ability to research and write by cutting off access to our files and contacts? Do a "data dump" of embarrassing emails to undercut our authority? Foment internal feuds to divide us, as they did with the emails of Clinton campaign manager John Podesta and Democratic National Committee staffers? Intimidate us into thinking twice before criticising Donald Trump in the future? All of the above?
Whatever the strategy, it's clear that censorship was the goal. This can also only be the aim of Professor Watchlist, the new McCarthy-like project by Turning Point USA, which asks students to report their professors for espousing liberal beliefs, so that a public registry can be formed.
Expanding Internet censorship
There's another way in which the internet has become a tool of censorship, albeit unintentionally. In 2014, Facebook changed its algorithm so that content which the platform detects that an individual user most likes shows up on our respective newsfeeds. As a result, political content that doesn't fit with a person's pre-existing beliefs is censored.
As Buzzfeed's Ryan Broderick explains, "algorithms identify that a user likes one particular page and suggest others, creating an echo-chamber effect that can lead to some pretty scary places." Broderick says this has helped radicalise Facebook users across the United States, Britain, France, Russia, and Australia, bolstering support for far-right candidates and causes.
More diabolically, The New York Times reported recently that Facebook is working on a tool to censor posts by Chinese citizens, so that it can re-enter the Chinese market, where the government currently blocks access to the site - a practice the social network has already used in Russia, Turkey, and Pakistan.
The small possibility that the US election was hacked - following attempts to hack voting infrastructure in Ukraine, Norway, and the Netherlands - would, if true, be the ultimate form of cyber censorship. We do know that hackers breached voter registration systems in at least two states and targeted more than 20 states.
All of these developments are a direct threat to the marketplace of ideas that John Stuart Mill explained are necessary to a society, so that we can arrive at, and act upon, truths through the consideration of different points of view.
How can we fix this?
First, the US government must strike back at the state-backed hackers targeting opinion leaders and Democratic operatives. It's wholly unacceptable for a foreign government to meddle in an election, just as it's intolerable for an outside state to attempt to attack the watchdogs of democracy. Although a counter-cyberattack is warranted, the US should also consider other options, such as sanctions and publicly exposing, and freezing the assets of, the state sponsors of these attacks. This response needs to begin under President Obama, but it must continue under President Trump.
The way journalists and professors should respond to this attack is simple. We should share our views even more. Sadly, in order for us to do this, we will need more help securing our communications from technology companies and from the universities and media companies that provide us with our email accounts.
Journalists and media organisations around the globe can also work together to identify and expose the hackers. This approach was recently used by the German
ewspaper, Sueddeutsche Zeitung, when it brought together reporters from 107 media outlets around the globe, with the help of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, to analyse 11.5 million documents exposing how the world's wealthiest people shield their money from taxes and commit other financial crimes.
Third, Facebook must alter its algorithms. Today. Although the current debate in the media is largely focused on how Facebook can fight fake news, combating censorship must be an equal and urgent priority. The free flow of information and the debate it generates is essential to democracy.
The renowned legal theorist Thomas Emerson argued that the First Amendment to the US Constitution contains a positive right to information because "the reverse side of the coin from the right to communicate" is "first, the right to read, to listen, to see, and to otherwise receive communications; and second, the right to obtain information as a basis for transmitting ideas or facts to others." While we also have the right not to consume news we prefer to ignore, that decision should be ours to make. It shouldn't be decided for us by executives in Silicon Valley, who decree that dissenting views be deleted from our newsfeeds.
Finally, the US needs a publicly funded recount of paper ballots and examination of electronic voting machines in several states. It shouldn't be up to Green Party supporters or the Clinton campaign to pay for it. The US government also needs to better protect voting systems for 2020.
We need to take the internet back, not as liberals responding to these attacks, but as citizens of every creed demanding that cyberspace not be censored.
Kara Alaimo is Assistant Professor of Public Relations at Hofstra University and author of "Pitch, Tweet, or Engage on the Street: How to Practice Global Public Relations and Strategic Communication."
Apple reveals self-driving car plans
Apple has acknowledged for the first time that it is investing in building a self-driving car.
In a letter to US transport regulators, Apple said it was "excited about the potential of automated systems in many areas, including transportation".
It added that there were "significant societal benefits of automated vehicles" to be realised.
There have long been rumours about the firm's plans but it has not publicly admitted them.
However, Ford, which itself plans to have self-driving cars on the road by 2021, has said it was working on the basis that Apple was building one.
The tech firm has already registered several car-related internet domains, including apple.car and apple.auto.
Sharing data
A company spokesman for Apple said that the letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was prompted by its "heavy investment in machine learning and autonomous systems" and that it wanted to help define best practices in the industry.
The five-page letter, written by Apple's director of product integrity Steve Kenner, urges the regulator to not introduce too many rules on the testing of self-driving cars, saying that "established manufacturers and new entrants should be treated equally."
It also proposes that companies in the industry share data from crashes and near-misses in order to build a more comprehensive picture than one company could manage alone, and therefore enable the design of better systems.
However, it adds that an individual's privacy should not be compromised by the sharing of such data. It suggests that the industry and regulators "address privacy challenges associated with the collection, use, and sharing of automated vehicle data", with collaboration from privacy experts outside the automotive industry.
Google is already testing self-driving cars on the roads. In October, electric carmaker Tesla announced that all the cars it now builds will have the hardware installed to drive on their own.
In the UK, an autonomous vehicle was test-driven in Milton Keynes in the summer, with further trials in London planned.
In a letter to US transport regulators, Apple said it was "excited about the potential of automated systems in many areas, including transportation".
It added that there were "significant societal benefits of automated vehicles" to be realised.
There have long been rumours about the firm's plans but it has not publicly admitted them.
However, Ford, which itself plans to have self-driving cars on the road by 2021, has said it was working on the basis that Apple was building one.
The tech firm has already registered several car-related internet domains, including apple.car and apple.auto.
Sharing data
A company spokesman for Apple said that the letter to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was prompted by its "heavy investment in machine learning and autonomous systems" and that it wanted to help define best practices in the industry.
The five-page letter, written by Apple's director of product integrity Steve Kenner, urges the regulator to not introduce too many rules on the testing of self-driving cars, saying that "established manufacturers and new entrants should be treated equally."
It also proposes that companies in the industry share data from crashes and near-misses in order to build a more comprehensive picture than one company could manage alone, and therefore enable the design of better systems.
However, it adds that an individual's privacy should not be compromised by the sharing of such data. It suggests that the industry and regulators "address privacy challenges associated with the collection, use, and sharing of automated vehicle data", with collaboration from privacy experts outside the automotive industry.
Google is already testing self-driving cars on the roads. In October, electric carmaker Tesla announced that all the cars it now builds will have the hardware installed to drive on their own.
In the UK, an autonomous vehicle was test-driven in Milton Keynes in the summer, with further trials in London planned.
Donald Trump's growing list of secretary of state finalists
At Trump Tower, the Manhattan headquarters of the next president of the United States, Kellyanne Conway emerges from the gold elevator doors with some news.
US President-elect Donald Trump is no longer considering only four people for secretary of state, the crown jewel in cabinet-level appointments at the White House. The list is growing, according to Conway.
"It's a big decision and nobody should rush through it," says Trump's former campaign manager and senior adviser.
Up until Sunday, the talk focused largely on two contenders: Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Utah governor Mitt Romney.
Trump has paraded the two men in front of the media like contestants on his hit reality-TV series The Apprentice. But Conway's remarks open the possibility that Trump is now backing off those picks in favour of other people.
Still, many Trump supporters know who they want.
"I like Rudy," says Julie Pickering, 51, a retired registered nurse from Mississippi, hanging out in the busy lobby of Trump Tower. "He stood by Trump and deserves that position."
"You want people who will be with you through the good times and the bad times," says Angela Bounds, 53, a retired financial adviser.
"You never saw Rudy Giuliani turn his back on Donald no matter how many times the media reported negative and fake news about Donald."
That's not the case, they say, with Romney, who ran for president in 2012. Both women campaigned for him during his bid for the White House but they were "shocked" when he came out in March and denounced Trump.
"If we, the Republicans, choose Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished," Romney told an audience in Salt Lake City.
"Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy, he is very, very not smart."
It was a brutal takedown of the man who would win the election and led to a mea culpa of sorts from Romney himself last week in New York.
The Republican, who lost to US President Barack Obama, dined with the man who will replace him and emerged from dinner with a completely different tone.
"I happen to think that America's best days are ahead of us," he told reporters at Trump Tower. He said the meeting filled him with "increasing hope that President-elect Trump is the very man who can lead us to that better future".
Indeed, the choice of secretary of state will be key in this administration and anyone seeking the position got a taste recently of how challenging it truly will be under Trump.
Taiwan phonecall
On Friday, Trump broke decades of protocol and took a call from the Taiwan president, sparking a diplomatic firestorm that upset the Chinese government which lodged a formal protest.
China considers neighbouring Taiwan a province and the US has abided by its wishes for 37 years by having no formal direct government-to-government relations with Taipei in an effort to maintain good ties with Communist China.
No US president or president-elect has spoken or had direct talks with any Taiwanese president in that time.
Anthony Arend, a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University, calls the Taiwan exchange "troubling". He also believes Giuliani would be a disastrous pick.
"He seems to bring the 'shoot-from-the-hip' approach that Trump himself has," argues Arend. "If anything, we need a secretary who comes across as thoughtful, consistent, trustworthy and predictable."
Romney, in Arend's opinion, is that person.
"Having lived abroad for over two years when he was younger, he also know the importances of understanding different cultures and the role culture plays in international politics.
"He would also likely be able to bring into the state department many of the traditional Republican foreign policy experts that had previously indicated that they would not support Trump."
Other names that are reportedly in the mix include former CIA director General David Petraeus, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who served as ambassador to China.
Both Bounds and Pickering believe Trump will make the right choice in the end. Still, Bounds adds, "I just wouldn't trust Mitt Romney."
US President-elect Donald Trump is no longer considering only four people for secretary of state, the crown jewel in cabinet-level appointments at the White House. The list is growing, according to Conway.
"It's a big decision and nobody should rush through it," says Trump's former campaign manager and senior adviser.
Up until Sunday, the talk focused largely on two contenders: Former New York mayor Rudy Giuliani and former Utah governor Mitt Romney.
Trump has paraded the two men in front of the media like contestants on his hit reality-TV series The Apprentice. But Conway's remarks open the possibility that Trump is now backing off those picks in favour of other people.
Still, many Trump supporters know who they want.
"I like Rudy," says Julie Pickering, 51, a retired registered nurse from Mississippi, hanging out in the busy lobby of Trump Tower. "He stood by Trump and deserves that position."
"You want people who will be with you through the good times and the bad times," says Angela Bounds, 53, a retired financial adviser.
"You never saw Rudy Giuliani turn his back on Donald no matter how many times the media reported negative and fake news about Donald."
That's not the case, they say, with Romney, who ran for president in 2012. Both women campaigned for him during his bid for the White House but they were "shocked" when he came out in March and denounced Trump.
"If we, the Republicans, choose Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished," Romney told an audience in Salt Lake City.
"Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy, he is very, very not smart."
It was a brutal takedown of the man who would win the election and led to a mea culpa of sorts from Romney himself last week in New York.
The Republican, who lost to US President Barack Obama, dined with the man who will replace him and emerged from dinner with a completely different tone.
"I happen to think that America's best days are ahead of us," he told reporters at Trump Tower. He said the meeting filled him with "increasing hope that President-elect Trump is the very man who can lead us to that better future".
Indeed, the choice of secretary of state will be key in this administration and anyone seeking the position got a taste recently of how challenging it truly will be under Trump.
Taiwan phonecall
On Friday, Trump broke decades of protocol and took a call from the Taiwan president, sparking a diplomatic firestorm that upset the Chinese government which lodged a formal protest.
China considers neighbouring Taiwan a province and the US has abided by its wishes for 37 years by having no formal direct government-to-government relations with Taipei in an effort to maintain good ties with Communist China.
No US president or president-elect has spoken or had direct talks with any Taiwanese president in that time.
Anthony Arend, a professor of government and foreign service at Georgetown University, calls the Taiwan exchange "troubling". He also believes Giuliani would be a disastrous pick.
"He seems to bring the 'shoot-from-the-hip' approach that Trump himself has," argues Arend. "If anything, we need a secretary who comes across as thoughtful, consistent, trustworthy and predictable."
Romney, in Arend's opinion, is that person.
"Having lived abroad for over two years when he was younger, he also know the importances of understanding different cultures and the role culture plays in international politics.
"He would also likely be able to bring into the state department many of the traditional Republican foreign policy experts that had previously indicated that they would not support Trump."
Other names that are reportedly in the mix include former CIA director General David Petraeus, California Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, Tennessee Senator Bob Corker and former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who served as ambassador to China.
Both Bounds and Pickering believe Trump will make the right choice in the end. Still, Bounds adds, "I just wouldn't trust Mitt Romney."
Supreme Court to hear Government's Brexit appeal
The Government will take its battle to start the process of leaving the EU to the Supreme Court today, in what is seen as one of the most significant constitutional battles in decades.
Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC will argue that Theresa May can trigger Article 50 using so-called prerogative powers - meaning MPs do not have to vote on the matter in Parliament.
The Government is appealing against an earlier decision by the High Court which ruled in favour of businesswoman Gina Miller and others who want to see Parliament decide.
Ms Miller told Sky News that the court battle "is about two very fundamental constitutional questions".
She said: "One is that Parliament is sovereign and you cannot bypass it.
"Second, the Government can't use prerogative powers to strip people of rights and we will lose rights if we leave the EU."
Ms Miller said that since the High Court ruling she has suffered threats and intimidation.
She added: "There have been, as you would expect, a lot of trolls and keyboard warriors.
"But it has moved beyond that to sexual and racial threats and death threats that have come via emails, phone calls and letters to my office.
"My staff have been bombarded, my family threatened, there is even a bounty on my head via social media."
:: Attorney General prepares for Supreme Court Brexit battle
It is a sign of the strength of feeling around the issue that the High Court judges who handed victory to Ms Miller have themselves come under attack.
Many will now be looking to the Supreme Court to overturn that decision and such is the significance of the case that for the first time ever all of the court's eleven justices will sit together to consider the Government's appeal.
Constitutional law expert Professor Vernon Bogdanor believes both sides have strong legal cases.
He told Sky News: "The legal strength of the Government's position is that treaty matters are for the executive (the government) and therefore they are an exercise of prerogative power and that, I think it is agreed, would be true of every treaty.
"But the case on the other side is that the treaty concerned with the European Union is not just an ordinary treaty because it has been incorporated into British law."
Prof Bogdanor added: "If the arguments were cut and dried they would have been settled at a much lower level.
"The fact that they are going to the Supreme Court shows that there are strong arguments on each of the debate."
The worry for the Government is that if Parliament gets to vote it could interfere with the timetable for triggering Article 50 or, in a very unlikely scenario, thwart it.
The case was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court to avoid any accusation that the judiciary was holding up the political process, but a former attorney general fears there may be a backlash against the court regardless of which result emerges.
Dominic Grieve QC told Sky News: "The judiciary are there to uphold our constitution.
"We don't have a written constitution in this country but we do have perfectly clear principles and they have to be interpreted by our judges."
He added: "When the judges go about this work, whether it is the decision in the High Court or the decision that will come out of the Supreme Court, they are doing exactly what we require them to do.
"Whilst you can certainly disagree with the decision they might come up with…to attack them for doing their job is quite wrong".
Mr Grieve's warning is unlikely to prevent a strong reaction whatever the outcome - such are the sensitivities around Brexit.
The Government will have to wait until January to hear if it has won its appeal.
Attorney General Jeremy Wright QC will argue that Theresa May can trigger Article 50 using so-called prerogative powers - meaning MPs do not have to vote on the matter in Parliament.
The Government is appealing against an earlier decision by the High Court which ruled in favour of businesswoman Gina Miller and others who want to see Parliament decide.
Ms Miller told Sky News that the court battle "is about two very fundamental constitutional questions".
She said: "One is that Parliament is sovereign and you cannot bypass it.
"Second, the Government can't use prerogative powers to strip people of rights and we will lose rights if we leave the EU."
Ms Miller said that since the High Court ruling she has suffered threats and intimidation.
She added: "There have been, as you would expect, a lot of trolls and keyboard warriors.
"But it has moved beyond that to sexual and racial threats and death threats that have come via emails, phone calls and letters to my office.
"My staff have been bombarded, my family threatened, there is even a bounty on my head via social media."
:: Attorney General prepares for Supreme Court Brexit battle
It is a sign of the strength of feeling around the issue that the High Court judges who handed victory to Ms Miller have themselves come under attack.
Many will now be looking to the Supreme Court to overturn that decision and such is the significance of the case that for the first time ever all of the court's eleven justices will sit together to consider the Government's appeal.
Constitutional law expert Professor Vernon Bogdanor believes both sides have strong legal cases.
He told Sky News: "The legal strength of the Government's position is that treaty matters are for the executive (the government) and therefore they are an exercise of prerogative power and that, I think it is agreed, would be true of every treaty.
"But the case on the other side is that the treaty concerned with the European Union is not just an ordinary treaty because it has been incorporated into British law."
Prof Bogdanor added: "If the arguments were cut and dried they would have been settled at a much lower level.
"The fact that they are going to the Supreme Court shows that there are strong arguments on each of the debate."
The worry for the Government is that if Parliament gets to vote it could interfere with the timetable for triggering Article 50 or, in a very unlikely scenario, thwart it.
The case was fast-tracked to the Supreme Court to avoid any accusation that the judiciary was holding up the political process, but a former attorney general fears there may be a backlash against the court regardless of which result emerges.
Dominic Grieve QC told Sky News: "The judiciary are there to uphold our constitution.
"We don't have a written constitution in this country but we do have perfectly clear principles and they have to be interpreted by our judges."
He added: "When the judges go about this work, whether it is the decision in the High Court or the decision that will come out of the Supreme Court, they are doing exactly what we require them to do.
"Whilst you can certainly disagree with the decision they might come up with…to attack them for doing their job is quite wrong".
Mr Grieve's warning is unlikely to prevent a strong reaction whatever the outcome - such are the sensitivities around Brexit.
The Government will have to wait until January to hear if it has won its appeal.
New Zealand Prime Minister John Key in surprise resignation
John Key has announced that he will resign as prime minister of New Zealand, after eight years in the job.
Called it "the hardest decision I've ever made," an emotional Mr Key said "I don't know what I'll do next".
Deputy PM Bill English is likely to take over until the National Party holds a caucus to choose a new PM.
Mr Key, a popular leader, is stepping down at the request of his wife Bronagh, the New Zealand Herald reports.
He won a third term for the National Party at elections in September 2014. He said he would not be contesting the 2017 election.
Profile: John Key from financier to three-term president
'Nothing left'
Mr Key made the announcement during his weekly press conference, citing family reasons for the surprise decision. He set a date of 12 December for the formal resignation.
He said his job required great sacrifices "from those who are dearest to me" and that his children had coped with "an extraordinary level of intrusion".
"All I can say is that I gave it everything I had. I have left nothing in the tank."
My Key, who was formerly at Merrill Lynch as a foreign exchange dealer, ended nine years of Labour Party rule in 2008 when he ousted Helen Clark as prime minister.
Labour leader Andrew Little tweeted: "John Key has served New Zealand generously and with dedication. I wish him and his family the best for the future."
Green Party co-leader Meteria Turei also wished him well.
"I fought every day against John's politics but always supported his right to be a dad and a husband first," she tweeted.
Known by the local media as "Teflon John" because very little controversy has stuck to him during his time in office, Mr Key is credited with steering New Zealand through the 2008 global economic crisis and out of recession.
He has sought to build closer ties with the US, taking a leading role in supporting President Barack Obama's Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP) - a 12 country trade deal covering 40% of the world economy.
However, Donald Trump's recent victory in the US has derailed that process, our correspondent says, with his announcement the US would be quitting the TPP on his first day in office in January.
Great loss'
When Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull learned of the news, he sent Mr Key a text message reading "say it ain't so, bro".
Mr Turnbull said New Zealand had boxed above its weight under Mr Key's leadership.
"He will be a great loss to New Zealand and a great loss to the world," Mr Turnbull said.
Former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott played on their two countries' cricketing rivalry to say Mr Key had enjoyed a "fine innings".
"Not many pollies retire unbeaten on a double ton," he tweeted.
Australian Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said: "John Key has been a good friend to Australia. I wish him and his family all the best."
Virgin Galactic test flight success above California's Mojave Desert
A Virgin Galactic spaceship has come safely through a free-flying test above the Mojave Desert in southern California.
Sir Richard Branson was watching as SpaceShipTwo - known as VSS Unity - landed about 10 minutes after detaching from its carrier aircraft.
The carrier - WhiteKnightTwo - also made it safely back to the ground.
It comes more than two years after a man was killed when the first craft crashed during a powered test flight.
An investigation last year by the National Transportation Safety Body found the October 2014 accident was caused by a catastrophic structural failure.
It was triggered when co-pilot Michael Alsbury unlocked the craft's braking system early.
Mr Alsbury was killed and pilot Peter Siebold seriously injured when the spaceship broke apart - again over the Mojave Desert.
As this weekend's test got underway, British astronaut Tim Peake tweeted: "Good luck with this new phase of the test programme @virgingalactic - safe flight #pushingboundaries."
Sir Richard, the Virgin Group founder, was with Virgin Galactic chief executive George Whitesides as the test was carried out.
The two men were later pictured congratulating Chief Pilot Dave Mackay and Test Pilot Mark Stucky.
There will be further glide flights, after which the team will check the Unity's hybrid motor during rocket-powered tests.
Virgin Galactic has said it will begin a commercial operation from Spaceport America in New Mexico "once it believes it is safe to do so".
It will also need regulatory approval.
Sir Richard Branson was watching as SpaceShipTwo - known as VSS Unity - landed about 10 minutes after detaching from its carrier aircraft.
The carrier - WhiteKnightTwo - also made it safely back to the ground.
It comes more than two years after a man was killed when the first craft crashed during a powered test flight.
An investigation last year by the National Transportation Safety Body found the October 2014 accident was caused by a catastrophic structural failure.
It was triggered when co-pilot Michael Alsbury unlocked the craft's braking system early.
Mr Alsbury was killed and pilot Peter Siebold seriously injured when the spaceship broke apart - again over the Mojave Desert.
As this weekend's test got underway, British astronaut Tim Peake tweeted: "Good luck with this new phase of the test programme @virgingalactic - safe flight #pushingboundaries."
Sir Richard, the Virgin Group founder, was with Virgin Galactic chief executive George Whitesides as the test was carried out.
The two men were later pictured congratulating Chief Pilot Dave Mackay and Test Pilot Mark Stucky.
There will be further glide flights, after which the team will check the Unity's hybrid motor during rocket-powered tests.
Virgin Galactic has said it will begin a commercial operation from Spaceport America in New Mexico "once it believes it is safe to do so".
It will also need regulatory approval.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)