'Sufficient progress' in Brexit talks announced after May's dash to Brussels

Theresa May and Jean-Claude Juncker announce agreement after last-minute talks, paving the way for trade discussions

• Brexit border deal – follow the latest updates

Brexit breakthrough: Jean-Claude Juncker says talks ready for next phase – video

Daniel Boffey in Brussels-Friday 8 December 2017 08.50 GMT

Theresa May has heralded an agreement with the European commission to move the Brexit negotiations on to trade discussions as “hard won” and “in the interests of all” after days of intense bargaining at home and abroad.

The British prime minister and the European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced the deal at a press conference early on Friday after May and David Davis, the UK’s Brexit secretary, travelled to Brussels for last-minute talks.

Juncker said “sufficient progress” had been made in the first phase of negotiations to allow movement to the next phase, while May said that the agreement ensured there would be “no hard border” in Ireland.

But the president of the European council, Donald Tusk, said soon afterwards that after months of negotiations over the opening issues of citizens’ rights, the divorce bill and the Irish border, the toughest talks were to come.

“While being satisfied with today’s agreement, which is obviously the personal success of Prime Minister Theresa May, let us remember that the most difficult challenge is still ahead,” Tusk said.
“We all know that breaking up is hard. But breaking up and building a new relation is much harder.
“Since the Brexit referendum, a year and a half has passed. So much time has been devoted to the easier part of the task. And now, to negotiate a transition arrangement and the framework for our future relationship, we have de facto less than a year.”

After the joint text is signed off by leaders of the EU member states at a summit next week, the new phase of Brexit negotiations will begin on a future relationship, including the terms of a transition period to cushion Britain’s exit from the bloc in 2019.

Tusk said that during a two-year transition period requested by May, the UK would have to accept EU law, including new law, its budgetary commitments and the continued jurisdiction of the European court of justice while having no role in the bloc’s decision-making.


Theresa May and Donald Tusk in Brussels on Friday. Photograph: Zuma/Rex/Shutterstock

“All of what I have said seems to be the only reasonable solution, and it is in the interest of all our citizens that it is agreed as soon as possible,” Tusk said. “This is why I will ask the EU leaders to mandate our negotiator to start these talks immediately.”

Tusk also said that as yet it was unclear to the EU what the UK wanted out of the future relationship once it left the single market and customs union. “So far, we have heard a number of various ideas,” he said.

May said she looked forward to the discussions. “Getting to this point has required give and take on both sides,” the prime minister said. “And I believe that the joint report being published is in the best interests of the whole of the UK.

“I very much welcome the prospect of moving ahead to the next phase, to talk about trade and security and to discuss the positive and ambitious future relationship that is in all of our interests.”
The issue of avoiding a hard border with Ireland had emerged as the biggest stumbling block in recent weeks to moving the talks on from the opening issues, which also include citizens’ rights and the divorce bill.

A new text agreed late into the night on Thursday with the Democratic Unionist party (DUP) on avoiding a hard border was said to be a “significant improvement” by the prime minister, ensuring the continued “constitutional and economic integrity of the UK” after Brexit.

The DUP torpedoed the British government’s plans last Monday when an original agreement with Brussels on moving talks on was leaked.

It was concerned that the wording then suggested a customs border could materialise between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK due to a commitment to keep the province aligned with the EU.

The new text offers guarantees that Northern Ireland will have regulatory alignment with the Republic, but that in such an event no obstacles to trade will emerge between Northern Ireland and the UK.

Earlier this week, Davis had suggested this would be undertaken by continued alignment of the whole of the UK with the EU.

The British government is seeking a trade deal with the bloc that makes any sort of hard border with Ireland unnecessary, the text says.

“Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland,” it adds.

“In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and the customs union which, now or in the future, support north-south cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the 1998 agreement ...

“The United Kingdom will ensure that no new regulatory barriers develop between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom, unless, consistent with the 1998 agreement, the Northern Ireland executive and assembly agree that distinct arrangements are appropriate for Northern Ireland.

“In all circumstances, the United Kingdom will continue to ensure the same unfettered access for Northern Ireland’s businesses to the whole of the United Kingdom internal market.”

An Irish government spokesman said it was “a very good day for Ireland, north and south”. “On the border, we have achieved the most important commitment,” the spokesman added. “We always welcomed the UK aspiration to avoid a hard border, but we held out this time for detail on how that could be achieved.

“And for the first time now we have that, in terms of the stated commitment to maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and customs union which, now or in the future, support north-south cooperation, the all-island economy and the protection of the Good Friday agreement.”

Juncker said May had informed him that the joint text had the support of her wider government. “On that basis I believe we have now made the breakthrough we needed,” he said.

“Today’s result is of course a compromise. It is the result of a long and intense discussion between the commission negotiators and those of the UK. As in any negotiation, both sides have to listen to each other, adjust their position and show a willingness to compromise.

“This was a difficult negotiation for the European Union as well as for the United Kingdom.”
On citizens’ rights, both sides said the agreement would ensure that EU nationals in the UK would retain the same rights after Brexit as they enjoyed before.

May said the agreement on the estimated €60bn (£52bn) financial settlement was “fair to the British taxpayer” but would ensure the UK could spend more money on its own priorities such a “housing, schools and the NHS”.

Earlier, the DUP leader, Arlene Foster, said her party had won “six substantive changes” to the text on the Irish border in overnight talks, ensuring there would be “no red line down the Irish Sea”.

On a morning of drama in Brussels, May was met by Juncker and his chief of staff, Martin Selmayr, shortly before 7am local time. Their meeting followed a flurry of diplomacy by the prime minister late on Thursday that fuelled speculation an agreement was edging closer.

Expectations that an announcement was imminent intensified when Selmayr tweeted a picture of white smoke emerging from the Vatican, the Catholic church’s signal that a new pope had been chosen.

View image on Twitter

 

Martin Selmayr

✔@MartinSelmayr

1:06 AM - Dec 8, 2017

After a week of false starts and frustration, May had been warned that she had until midnight on Sunday to salvage the agreement or face a long delay in starting Brexit trade talks.

BuzzFeed Subpoenas Companies for DNC Hacking Information

Amid legal battle, the news site is continuing its efforts to validate the Trump dossier.

The logo of news website BuzzFeed as seen on a computer screen in Washington on March 25, 2014. (Nicholas Kamm/AFP) 

BY ELIAS GROLL, JANA WINTER-

DECEMBER 7, 2017, 9:12 AM
The online news outlet BuzzFeed has subpoenaed the internet firm Bitly and the cybersecurity company Secureworks as part of its efforts to defend itself against a libel suit brought against the outlet over its decision to publish a collection of memos alleging ties between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russia.

According to legal documents reviewed by Foreign Policy, BuzzFeed is seeking technical information from the two companies related to the hacking attacks on Democratic Party leadership, the Hillary Clinton campaign, and staffers including John Podesta in the run-up to the 2016 election.

Aleksej Gubarev, a Russian technology executive, sued BuzzFeed for libel in February after the news organization published the memos authored by former British spy Christopher Steele. Those memos include claims — strongly denied by Gubarev — that he and his companies were recruited by the Kremlin’s security organs to break into Democratic Party computer systems ahead of the 2016 election.

The memos, part of a so-called dossier, circulated widely among journalists and American officials in the fall of 2016. After CNN reported in January 2017 that Trump was briefed on the dossier, BuzzFeed published it in full, prompting Gubarev’s lawsuit.

BuzzFeed’s lawyers are now seeking technical information held by the two firms to determine whether there is any truth to Steele’s allegation that Gubarev and his company played a role in breaking into the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

“The subpoena seeks information on what Bitly knows about how its links were used to hack various targets throughout 2016,” said Matt Mittenthal, a spokesman for BuzzFeed.

“We would be remiss if we didn’t use every tool to determine the truth of what actually happened — and whether, as the dossier claims, Mr. Gubarev’s servers were behind the DNC hack,” Mittenthal added.

A spokesperson for Bitly said the company does not comment on particular legal cases but said it complies “with valid and applicable subpoena requests after careful internal review.”

A spokesperson for Secureworks said the company does not comment on ongoing litigation.
Hackers working on behalf of the Russian government are believed to have used Bitly — a service for shortening links — to hack into the email accounts of Democratic operatives. Bitly allows its users to input a web address, and get a shorter version of that link.

That shortened link disguises the actual website a user will visit when he clicks the link, and can be used by hackers to visit sites laced with malicious software.

Gubarev’s lawyers dismissed BuzzFeed’s latest subpoenas as a fishing expedition. “Buzzfeed is looking for this information in the hope that they can prove that our clients were involved with the hack into the DNC so that they can justify what they published without doing any investigation,” said Evan Fray-Witzer, one of the lawyers representing the Russian technology executive. “The problem that they’re going to have is that our clients weren’t involved, so they can subpoena whomever they like – it won’t change the simple fact that they libeled our clients.”

BuzzFeed’s effort to verify elements of the dossier runs in parallel with ongoing U.S. government investigations examining some of the same issues.

A January report by the American intelligence community concluded that Russian operatives broke into the email accounts of Democratic officials as part of their effort to boost Trump’s electoral prospects. Emails and documents stolen from those accounts were later published online on a variety of websites, including WikiLeaks.

In June 2016, Secureworks published a public report documenting how hackers likely working on behalf of Russian intelligence used Bitly to target the email accounts of Democratic Party operatives.
According to the Secureworks research, the hackers appear to have inadvertently used a public Bitly account to send malicious links to Democratic officials. When clicked, those links took targeted users to a page where they would be prompted to input their email and password.

Using the Bitly data, Secureworks researchers were able to examine who the links targeted and how many times they had been clicked.

BuzzFeed is asking Secureworks to turn over the technical data and other material that served as the basis of their report.

These latest subpoenas in the case are part of a flurry of legal activity related to Gubarev’s libel suit. BuzzFeed’s lawyers are also attempting to compel the government to answer questions about whether law enforcement and intelligence officials reviewed the Steele dossier and whether it contributed to its investigations of Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Separately, Gubarev’s legal team is attempting to compel a slew of news outlets to give up information about how they obtained copies of the dossier. Those efforts have so far been unsuccessful.

From postal survey to Parliament: How Australia legalised same-sex marriage

Liberal MP Warren Entsch lifts up Labor MP Linda Burney as they celebrate the passing of the Marriage Amendment Bill in the House of Representatives at Parliament House in Canberra December 7, 2017. Source: AAP/Lukas Coch/via Reuters

By The Conversation | 8th December 2017

THE Australian Parliament has passed legislation to permit same-sex marriage.

The Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill passed the Senate on Nov 28. It was then passed in the House of Representatives on Thursday by 

an overwhelming majority: around 130 MPs voted in favour, just four voted against, and a small number abstained.

To confirm the new statute as law, it went to the governor-general for royal assent. This formality made the bill an act of Parliament.

Attorney-General George Brandis has said that same-sex marriages will be permitted from Jan 9, taking into account the one-month notice period required under the Marriage Act.

Origins of the reform

Thursday’s Lower House vote followed a drawn-out debate in Parliament. But prior to the bill being introduced to Parliament, the government arranged for the Australian Bureau of Statistics to conduct the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey.

This voluntary, non-binding expression of opinion came at a cost of around A$100 million. The survey results, released on Nov 15, showed 61.6 percent of respondents supported changing the law to allow same-sex marriage.

Supporters of the ‘Yes’ vote for marriage equality celebrate after it was announced the majority of Australians support same-sex marriage in a national survey, at a rally in Sydney. Source: Reuters

That evening, Brandis moved a Private Member’s Bill in the Senate to begin the necessary legislative reform.

Liberal senator Dean Smith was the key proponent of this Bill. It emerged from a cross-party Senate inquiry which concluded that legislation to permit same-sex marriage should also ensure some protection for religious freedoms.

Substance of the act

The new law changes the definition of marriage in the Marriage Act by removing the words “a man and a woman” and replacing them with “2 people”. This was the minimum required reform to enable same-sex marriage.

However, the Bill goes beyond that minimalist change. It will insert a section into the act that reads:

It is an object of this act to create a legal framework: 

a) to allow civil celebrants to solemnise marriage, understood as the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life; and 

b) to allow ministers of religion to solemnise marriage, respecting the doctrines, tenets and beliefs of their religion, the views of their religious community or their own religious beliefs; and 

c) to allow equal access to marriage while protecting religious freedom in relation to marriage.

There are three main features of the marriage reform law that attempt to balance marriage equality with religious freedoms.

First, some gain the capacity to be identified as “religious marriage celebrants”. To meet this definition, a person must be both a registered marriage celebrant and a minister of religion. This category covers people who are not ministers of religion of a recognised denomination, but regardless identify as ministers of religion.

SEE ALSO: Gay marriage is now legal in Australia

An exceptional case is also permitted for people to identify as religious marriage celebrants even if they are not ministers of religion. The criteria for this case require a person to:

• be already registered as a marriage celebrant;
• give notice within 90 days of the new law’s assent that they wish to be identified as a religious marriage celebrant;
• confirm that this wish is based on their religious beliefs.

Second, the law sets out circumstances in which ministers of religion and religious marriage celebrants can refuse to solemnise marriages. Although the grounds for refusal are not limited to same-sex marriages, these provisions have been included in the bill so that ministers and religious celebrants cannot be required to solemnise same-sex marriages.

Ministers of religion may refuse to solemnise a marriage where any of the following conditions apply:

a) the refusal conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the minister’s religious body or religious organisation;

b) the refusal is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion; 

c) the minister’s religious beliefs do not allow the minister to solemnise the marriage.

Religious marriage celebrants may refuse to solemnise a marriage “if the celebrant’s religious beliefs do not allow the celebrant to solemnise the marriage”.

There is a parallel exception for armed forces officers authorised to conduct marriage ceremonies.

Third, the law permits bodies established for religious purposes to refuse to make facilities available or provide goods and services in relation to the solemnisation of marriages. The circumstances in which this applies are if the refusal:

a) conforms to the doctrines, tenets or beliefs of the religion of the body; or

b) is necessary to avoid injury to the religious susceptibilities of adherents of that religion.

So, for example, a same-sex couple could be refused the use of a church or church hall for their wedding ceremony, if that refusal meets the above conditions.

The marriage reform law also makes amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act. These changes ensure that no complaints of unlawful discrimination can be made in relation to refusals to solemnise marriages that are permitted under the Marriage Act.

Same-sex marriage campaigners pose for pictures during an equality rally outside Parliament House in Canberra, on Dec 7, 2017. Source: AAP/Lukas Coch/via Reuters

Amendments defeated

Soon after the survey results were announced, Treasurer Scott Morrison said more than four million “No” voters were coming to terms with being a minority on the question of same-sex marriage. But, as Parliament has recognised, a law serving all Australians did not require elevating the rights of a minority over the rights of all.

A state-recognised institution – marriage – was closed to some members of the population on discriminatory grounds. In attending to that problem, there was no sense in arguing for multiple new forms of discrimination.

SEE ALSO: Asian couples expected to flock to Australia after same-sex marriage passed

It was fortunate that Parliament had a well-established Bill to consider following the postal survey outcome. This meant that various amendments seeking to extend “protections” for religious freedom did not gain majority support, because most MPs were already satisfied with the Smith bill.

As it is, the new law already goes well beyond what was necessary to permit same-sex marriage. It would have been unconscionable to amend the bill in ways that privileged religious freedom over rights to equality and non-discrimination.

Nevertheless, the debate about the protection of religious freedom will persist. Prior to the passage of the marriage reform bill, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced an inquiry into “religious freedom protection in Australia”. Chaired by former MP Philip Ruddock, the inquiry is due to report by March 31 next year.

Here’s the moment the #MarriageEquality bill passed the Australian Parliament #auspol pic.twitter.com/MUoBTgBIhk

— Political Alert (@political_alert) 7 December 2017

Political Alert‏ @political_alert

Here’s the moment the #MarriageEquality bill passed the Australian Parliament #auspol

11:17 pm - 6 Dec 2017

Violence Against Women: Why the UN Secretary-General Got it Wrong

Perpetrators of violence learn their craft in childhood. If you inflict violence on a child, they learn to inflict violence on others. The terrorist suffered violence as a child. The political leader who wages war suffered violence as a child. The man who inflicts violence on women suffered violence as a child.

by Robert J. Burrowes- Dec 6, 2017

( December 6, 2017, Victoria, Sri Lanka Guardian) In his remarks on the recent International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women – see ‘Violence Against Women is Fundamentally About Power’ – United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres inadvertantly demonstrated why well-meaning efforts being undertaken globally to reduce violence against women fail to make any progress in addressing this pervasive crisis.

Violence Against Women Why the UN Secretary-General Got it Wrong.docx by Thavam on Scribd

'I beat type 2 diabetes with 200-calorie drinks'

JAMES GALLAGHERImage captionIsobel Murray no longer thinks of herself as diabetic

By James Gallagher-5 December 2017

Nearly half of patients have reversed type 2 diabetes in a "watershed" trial, say doctors in Newcastle and Glasgow.

People spent up to five months on a low-calorie diet of soups and shakes to trigger massive weight loss.

Isobel Murray, 65, who had weighed 15 stone, lost over four stone (25kg) and no longer needs diabetes pills. She says: "I've got my life back."

The charity Diabetes UK says the trial is a landmark and has the potential to help millions of patients.

Isobel, from Largs in North Ayrshire, was one of 298 people on the trial.

Her blood sugar levels were too high, and every time she went to the doctors they increased her medication.

So, she went on to the all-liquid diet for 17 weeks - giving up cooking and shopping. She even ate apart from her husband, Jim.

Instead, she had four liquid meals a day.

It is hardly Masterchef - a sachet of powder is stirred in water to make a soup or shake. They contain about 200 calories, but also the right balance of nutrients.

Isobel told the BBC it was relatively easy as "you don't have to think about what you eat".

Once the weight has been lost, dieticians then help patients introduce healthy, solid meals.

"Eating normal food is the hardest bit," says Isobel.

The trial results, simultaneously published in the Lancet medical journal and presented at the International Diabetes Federation, showed:

• 46% of patients who started the trial were in remission a year later
• 86% who lost 15kg (2st 5lb) or more put their type 2 diabetes into remission
• Only 4% went into remission with the best treatments currently used

Prof Roy Taylor, from Newcastle University, told the BBC: "It's a real watershed moment.

"Before we started this line of work, doctors and specialists regarded type 2 as irreversible.

"But if we grasp the nettle and get people out of their dangerous state, they can get remission of diabetes."

However, doctors are not calling this a cure. If the weight goes back on, then the diabetes will return.

"I will never go there again," says Isobel. So far, she has kept the weight off for two years.

Why does losing weight work?

Body fat building up around the pancreas causes stress to the beta cells in the organ that controls blood sugar levels.

They stop producing enough of the hormone insulin, and that causes blood sugar levels to rise out of control.

Dieting loses the fat, and then the pancreas works properly again.

The trial looked at only patients diagnosed in the past six years. It is thought having type 2 diabetes for very long periods of time may cause irreversible damage.

Prof Mike Lean, from Glasgow University, told the BBC: "It's hugely exciting."

"We now have clear evidence that weight loss of 10-15kg is enough to turn this disease around.

One in 11 adults worldwide has diabetes, and most of them have type 2.

Uncontrolled sugar levels cause damage throughout the body, leading to organ failure, blindness and limb amputations.

Treating the disease costs the UK's NHS about £10bn a year.

Dr Elizabeth Robertson, the director of research at Diabetes UK, said: "[The trial has] the potential to transform the lives of millions of people.

"The trial is ongoing, so that we can understand the long-term effects of an approach like this."

Isobel said: "I don't look at myself as a diabetic at all.

"You have to be fired up, you have to be prepared, but anybody can do it if you feel strongly enough."

Follow James on Twitter.

Ripley’s believe it or not put in the shade -Revealing who banned LeN imperils national security !!

(Lanka-e-News - 07.Dec.2017, 9.30PM)  When the convener of ‘ Internet media activist’ and editor of  ‘Vikalpa’ (alternative) website Sampath Samarakoon , as well as ‘Mathram’  website editor Selvaraja  asked for details under the right to information enactment regarding the  ban imposed on  LeN within Sri Lanka , from the SL Telecom Regulatory Commission (TRC) , they were told , ‘because of national security and government’s  security  that cannot be disclosed ,and as it can  militate against country’s security , the request cannot be granted’

Even Ripley’s believe it or not will have no story to match this vis a vis  its morbidity , stupidity and incredibility. 

The chairman of the TRC is Austin Fernando . Some time ago when LeN editor asked him  via phone , why LeN was banned , his answer was , he was abroad in Vienna and his Director General was in Nepal when the ban was imposed , and therefore both of them do not know anything about it.

When it was inquired  whether at least now that would be probed into , the president’s secretary and Commission’s chairman replied,  if  an inquiry is made legally , an answer will be furnished.  Accordingly , lawyer for LeN , Upul Kumaraperuma sent a letter on 23 rd November to Austin Fernando inquiring about the matter. 

This letter was on the same lines  that  was sent to the former Director General (News).

In the letter it was plainly inquired whether the website news publication was obstructed based on a court order , or on the instructions of an Institution or any individual , and if so on what legal  or other  grounds?  Sadly , neither the  Commission chairman nor the Director General (News) has given any answer so far . Unbelievably , it is under such circumstances , the Commission’s information officer refused  to provide the information sought while taking refuge under the defense that revealing the information would militate against government’s and national security.

The letter to that effect sent to us by the Commission’s information officer is hereunder.

---------------------------
by     (2017-12-07 16:29:15)

Rs 10 Billion Fertilizer Deal Suffers Tender Bender: Agriculture Minister Threatens To Sack Secretary

author: COLOMBO TELEGRAPH -–December 6 2017 

Sri Lanka once known as the Granary of the East is yet again betraying its farmers with the latest allegations of irregularities tainting the Yahapalana government’s Rs 10 billion urea fertilizer deal, with the initial Rs 3.5 billion tender being pressurized to be awarded to a errant bidder, by the highest echelons of the so-called Yahapalana Administration.

Famous English sea captain in the service of the British East India Company – Robert Knox is attributed the axiom that the “farmer is fit enough to be king (Raja) once you wash off his mud”, but the very minister from heartland of paddy – Rajarata, is said to be at the heart of these irregularities in connivance with his close buddy at the helm of the Ceylon Fertilizer Company, sources at the Ministry of Agriculture confirmed.

Colombo Telegraph has in its possession a letter issued by no less than Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, B. Wijeyaratne imploring the Chairman of Ceylon Fertilizer Corporation- Ruchith Roshana Waduge (a close confidante of Agriculture Minister and SLFP General Secretary Duminda Dissanayake) to terminate this tainted deal by letter dated 24 November, 2017.

However sources at the Ministry informed Colombo Telegraph that instead of the initial bidder- JAT Agro (Pvt) Ltd, a bogus company- Masters (Pvt) Ltd, of which the son of the MD of the initial company is a Director; is to be awarded the latest tender, most likely day after tomorrow (8 December 2017).

In addition Hasanjith Kuruppuarachchi, who is said to be a close friend CCF Chairman Ruchith Roshana Waduge, is a Director of both companies in question, establishing the nexus in this fraudulent collusion.

As stated in the letter, due to grave irregularities in the tender for the first consignment of urea amounting to over Rs 3.5 billion (out of the total Rs 10 billion fertilizer to be supplied to Sri Lanka), the first tender was terminated on 28 November, Colombo Telegraph learns.

Although the pre-qualification criteria required the bidder to have a minimum of 2 years prior experience in the fertilizer business, surprisingly, JAT Agro, a company without any experience in the business, was pre-qualified bidder selected.

Furthermore Ministry sources said that although specifications stipulated for the Urea consignment required was ‘B1’ the consignment ordered did not meet the criteria and as such was unsuitable for the purpose. In addition it is learned that the Agriculture Ministry had probed into the analysis certificate submitted by JAT Holdings and found out it to be fake.

“Further surprising is the fact that the supplier – Mepet of UAE, had never ever supplied fertilizer to Sri Lanka,” a source at the Ministry of Agriculture said.

“In addition although the purchase order stipulates that South Africa is the country of the origin for the consignment, now both the bidder and supplier want this changed to China, which is a clear breach of tender specifications,” a source said.

Due to all these irregularities, the first tender in question was terminated last November 28 and the Ministry called for fresh tenders the right next day, which was scheduled to close on December 5. (The first tender was closed on or around November 08 and the tender was awarded to JAT Agro on November 20)

“However it is very surprising as to why such a vital tender (i.e. first calling of tender) bringing fertilizer for the whole country, was open only for seven days going against internationally recognized tender practices and more confusing as to why even the second tender too is only open for seven days.”

Sources say that the price quoted is USD 328 per metric tonne for 78,000 metric tonnes; and that persons involved in this deal are allegedly getting close to Rs 200 million.

Furthermore, although the Ministry requires the full stock to be handed over to the CCF by December 20, unless the consignments have already been shipped, there is absolutely no chance of the bidder meeting the deadline, sources added.

Read More