Last Thursday, the Senate confirmed Robert “Woody” Johnson IV, the 70-year-old owner of the New York Jets, as ambassador to the United Kingdom. Now, Johnson will move to London and serve a three-year term as the United States’ main representative in a country struggling to navigate the complex negotiations related to Brexit.

Johnson’s friendship with President Donald Trump goes back to their times as businessmen in New York City. Trump considers Johnson one of his oldest friends, according to the New York Times. Johnson is a registered Republican who helped fundraise in 2012 for Mitt Romney and again in 2016 for Trump, despite initially supporting Jeb Bush.

Many expect the Jets owner to be a mediator between Trump and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who Trump has repeatedly criticized, most notoriously after the June terrorist attack in London.

Trump had long wanted Johnson to serve as the ambassador to London, but he didn’t formally nominate him until June. Since then, the Senate has been holding hearings before his confirmation on Thursday. During one hearing last month, Florida Senator Marco Rubio brought some football into the conversation.

.@MiamiDolphins fan @marcorubio jokes to @nyjets owner Woody Johnson that Tom Brady should be made ambassador to Brazil #Patriots #WBZ pic.twitter.com/AMWQ2873hp

— Joe Giza (@JoeGiza) July 21, 2017

Before purchasing the football team in 2000 for $635 million, Johnson and his family were involved in a number of charities for lupus and juvenile diabetes, which his daughter Casey is affected by. While some NFL owners are self-made businessmen, Johnson is the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, a company worth $65 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Johnson himself is valued at $4.2 billion, according to Bloomberg, while the Jets’ estimated value is around $2.7 billion, according to Forbes.

Woody’s brother, Christopher Johnson, will take over operations of the Jets for the next few seasons. The confirmation of the Jets owner is another example of Trump’s penchant for placing businessmen with no political experience in positions of political power. Now it’s time for Johnson to move across the Atlantic Ocean and begin his work with the English government.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Jets Owner Woody Johnson Confirmed as Ambassador to UK appeared first on Law Street.

Prolonged border delays, expanded truck parking, and increased customs staffing could cost the U.K. 1 billion pounds per year after it leaves the European Union, according to a report by Oxera, an economic consultancy.

Andrew Meaney–head of transport at Oxera–wrote this analysis to see what effects Brexit will have on British ports. Using World Trade Organization statistics for trading across borders, Meaney estimated the related costs based on the assumption that Britain would try to create a new customs system that will be as close as possible to the current system. The most likely result would be a “low regulation, high enforcement” policy, he concluded.

“Enforcement is either undertaken at the ports, or on a random checks basis,” the report states. “However, the number of staff involved increases substantially, and many consignments are subject to lengthy checks.”

Meaney described the 10-figure annual cost as “extremely conservative” because it does not take into account the economic costs of uncertainty involved, extra staff, traffic congestion, and land on which to conduct the checks, which led him to conclude, “The full cost is likely to be much higher.”

Even if the billion-pound increase is something that diehard Brexit supporters want, news of the projected increase could not come at a more inconvenient time for the U.K., as the island nation scrambles to figure out how to replace funding from the European Union.

One example of this came up last week when the Local Government Association (LGA) called on Britain’s Treasury to help replace funds that would be used in smaller towns and regions near the coast–known as regeneration funds. Local authorities estimate that nearly 8.4 billion pounds were allocated through the European structural and investment funds between 2014-2020, which means that once Brexit happens, that total would fall on the British government.

“Since the referendum, one of the biggest concerns for councils has been the future of vital E.U. regeneration funding,” said Kevin Bentley, an executive member of the LGA. “Councils have used E.U. funds to help new businesses start up, create thousands of new jobs, roll out broadband, and build new roads and bridges.”

The Treasury’s commitment to these funds would likely mean an increase in domestic taxes for British citizens to maintain existing funding levels. This becomes a bit problematic when wealthier parts of the country–such as London, where a majority voted Remain–will be paying to support the regions inhabited by the people who voted Leave, and much of the tax-paying immigrant base might leave because of Brexit. In fact, Remain voters would be paying double for the government’s decisions–a National Audit Office report in 2016 found that British investments in infrastructure were not doing too well.

Ever since Britain elected to exit the European Union in June 2016, Brexit supporters have seen many troubling revelations about the withdrawal they voted for. From Prime Minister Theresa May confirming that the 350 million pounds a week promised to the NHS after the Brexit vote was a lie, to the European Union’s chief Brexit negotiator, Michael Barnier, ruling earlier this month that the government’s hope of securing “frictionless” trade once outside the E.U. was not possible, Brexit proponents have had little to hang their hats on. A projected spike in border spending only adds to the problem.

Gabe Fernandez

Gabe is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a Peruvian-American Senior at the University of Maryland pursuing a double degree in Multiplatform Journalism and Marketing. In his free time, he can be found photographing concerts, running around the city, and supporting Manchester United. Contact Gabe at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post UK Border Costs are Predicted to Surge After Brexit appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Jeff Sessions vs. Donald Trump?

It seems like Attorney General Jeff Sessions is in a bit of a spat with his boss, President Donald Trump. Trump has sent out multiple tweets specifically targeting Sessions; in addition to calling him “beleaguered” last week, he tweeted criticisms about his job performance yesterday.

Why didn’t A.G. Sessions replace Acting FBI Director Andrew McCabe, a Comey friend who was in charge of Clinton investigation but got….

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

…big dollars ($700,000) for his wife’s political run from Hillary Clinton and her representatives. Drain the Swamp!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 26, 2017

But apparently these attacks on Sessions aren’t sitting well with Republicans in Washington. Some of Trump’s top aides are reportedly frustrated with Trump’s criticism of Sessions, including Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon. And some Senate Republicans have made it clear that they won’t support a Sessions replacement. A few have even spoken out against Trump’s attacks. South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham said it was “highly inappropriate” and “says more about President Trump than it does Attorney General Sessions, and to me, it’s a sign of great weakness on the part of President Trump.”

Republicans say nothing as Trump belittles every enemy, institution, and at-risk group. He goes after Jeff Sessions? Deeply, deeply troubled

— Jared Yates Sexton (@JYSexton) July 26, 2017

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: July 27, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

June is a wonderful month: Summer is in full swing, but the heat is not quite at August-level oppressiveness. Cities are abuzz with festivals, concerts, and community barbecues. A Transformers movie is likely hitting theaters. But in 2017, June is oozing with another fun summer treat: elections. From Georgia to Britain, California to France, here is your guide to the elections to pay attention to next month.

Special Election: California

On June 6, California’s 34th District will hold a special election to replace the seat left vacant by Xavier Becerra, a Democrat selected as California’s first Latino attorney general last December. A Democratic stronghold–only nine percent of registered voters are Republican–the race for the 34th features two Democrats in a head-to-head runoff: Jimmy Gomez and Robert Lee Ahn. Gomez, a former state assemblyman, has picked up some weighty endorsements, including Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

General Election: Britain

Prime Minister Theresa May stunned the U.K. last month when she announced an early election set for June 8, contradicting a previous promise to wait before doing so. Many suspect her motivation in calling a snap election is to fill parliament with members of her Conservative Party, giving May a wider mandate in the upcoming Brexit negotiations, which are expected to unfold over two years. Recent polls suggest that the once-commanding Conservative lead is tightening; the Labor Party, led by Jeremy Corbyn, looks like it will do a bit better than initially expected.

Parliamentary Elections: France

France made history earlier this month when it elected its youngest ever president, the 39-year-old Emmanuel Macron. But his centrist ideology, rare in the ultra-polarized politics of France, will face a daunting task in the two-round parliamentary elections in mid-June. With the first round on June 11 and the second on June 18, the elections will determine the governing leverage Macron and his En Marche! party will have in fixing the social and economic frustrations that nearly propelled populist Marine Le Pen to power.

Special Election: Georgia

Since Donald Trump was elected president last November, and Republicans in Congress held their majorities in the House and Senate, Democrats have been grasping for a ray of sunshine. Many have looked to the Democratic candidate for Georgia’s Sixth District for that harbinger of hope: Jon Ossoff. The 30-year-old nearly won the election’s first-round outright in April; he narrowly missed winning 50 percent of the vote. This is a race to fill the vacant seat left by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price. The final round, held on June 20, will pit Ossoff against Republican Karen Handel.

Special Election: South Carolina

As Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Management and Budget director, helps Trump gut a number of federal programs in Washington, his vacant congressional seat is being wrangled over in South Carolina’s Fifth District. Taking place on the same day as Georgia’s special election, June 20, Democrat Archie Parnell and Republican Ralph Norman will battle for Mulvaney’s vacant seat. According to one recent poll, Norman, a longtime South Carolina legislator, is leading with 53 percent of respondents saying they would select him over Parnell.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post From California to France: Five Elections to Look Out for in June appeared first on Law Street.

Populism takes on a different flavor depending on the soil in which it takes root. Last November’s stunning election in the U.S., and the rising profile of anti-establishment figures across Europe brought populist forces back to the fore of the Western political conversation. President Donald Trump captured the frustrations of Americans who felt left behind by globalization, whose wages have stagnated, whose communities have suffered from the flight of factories, and who are feeling robbed of stability and identity.

Populism has also taken hold across the pond: Last June, Britain shocked the European continent when it voted to separate from the world’s largest and oldest bulwark of liberal democracy in the West, the European Union. And while Dutch voters recently thwarted the ascent of the populist, anti-Muslim candidate Geert Wilders, upcoming elections in France, Germany, and possibly Italy could see populist forces surge again. But while populism is undoubtedly on the rise in Europe and the U.S.–and, frankly, in many other corners of the planet–the forces propelling populism’s rise are not identical.

An Ailing Social Contract

To Constanze Stelzenmuller, a fellow at the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institute, German populism is fueled by the fragmentation of society, and insecurity following the influx of nearly one million refugees in 2015. Germany’s populist sentiment is “more about people worrying about the stability of their institutions and the ability of the state to control a situation,” than a flailing economy, Stelzenmuller said at a recent Brookings event in Washington.

At the end of 2015, German Chancellor Angela Merkel opened her country’s doors to about one million Syrian refugees. That gesture flooded a country not only with human beings, but with a real or perceived threat to social cohesion, according to Stelzenmuller. Initially applauded by Germans and the international community, a year of major terrorist attacks across Europe, and some small-scale attacks in Germany, have brought a feeling of unease to a country that prides itself on stability.

“Germans have always taken social cohesion extremely seriously,” Stelzenmuller said, adding that “a lot of attention is paid to the health of the social contract.” But of course, not all of Germany’s social woes can be attributed to the arrival of some beleaguered refugees. Traditionally, Stelzenmuller said, Germans were defined by their membership in three institutions: religion, trade unions, and political parties. “All three of these institutions for the last two decades or so have been bleeding membership,” she said, “and that’s truly a significant thing.”

France, which will hold the first round of its presidential election in two weeks, might be experiencing a similar force that is turning populism’s gears. Marine Le Pen, the leader of the National Front party, which was once unabashedly anti-Semitic and racist under the leadership of her father, is attracting hordes of voters to her anti-EU, anti-immigrant message. She is widely expected to reach the second round run-off, featuring the two highest vote getters, on May 7.

Le Pen has tapped into the insecurity of voters who feel unmoored by globalization an the rapid flow of technology, people, and cultures. According to France’s ambassador to the U.S. Gerard Araud, France’s populist moment, similar to Germany’s, reflects a feeling of social uncertainty. “A lot of French feel that they are lost in the society today,” Aruad, the ambassador since 2014, said at the Brookings event.

A Flailing Economy

This rising thirst for populism, in Europe and the U.S., cannot be illuminated solely through a cultural lens. Economic forces–like globalization’s redistribution of jobs and economic systems transitioning from industry to service–play a large role as well, especially in the U.S. Trump’s ascension to the White House relied largely on white voters from rural swaths of the country. He parlayed their frustration at the loss of manufacturing jobs and plateauing–or dropping–wages into a narrow victory.

Nicholas Eberstadt, an author and a researcher at the American Enterprise Institute, points to the long decline in work for men and a drop in workforce participation rates. This, combined with “an explosion of crime and punishment,” Eberstadt said, color America’s unique brand of populism. On the surface, the economic malaise that many feel is discordant with the country’s overall economic health. Wealth has been on the rise since 2000, for instance, and the unemployment rate is falling.

But, Eberstadt said, men in rural, predominantly white communities have not felt the windfall. In fact, the labor force participation rate among men ages 25 to 54 in the U.S. has precipitously dropped over the past few decades. Today, it is just above 85 percent, one of the lowest among developed countries, including France and Germany. This, Eberstadt said, combined with the rise in felony rates and the fatal opioids that help ease these pains, has led to “the feeling that people are stuck in a system which isn’t working for them.”

At the Brookings Institute, from left to right: Ambassador Araud, Stelzenmuller, Eberstadt. Image courtesy of Alec Siegel for Law Street Media.

Given that it’s inherently global, interconnected, and far-reaching, the consequences of globalization are a shared element of European and American populism. “I think there is a general rebellion against free trade,” Araud said. Free trade, once-accepted as hugely beneficial for growing societies, can no longer be force-fed to people as a means for good. “You have to prove it to our citizens,” Araud said. Automation, he added, is another uprooting force.

For France, Araud said, the cultural and economic crises have bred an “unhealthy quest for authority.” Le Pen is the candidate that best suits the authoritarian mold, while Emmanuel Macron, the left-leaning candidate who is expected to oppose Le Pen in the May run-off, embodies the liberal democratic values of the EU. In addition, Araud argued, automation has spurred job loss in the manufacturing sector, and, perhaps equally as important, people “underestimated the destabilizing effect of the 2008 [financial] crisis.”

Despite the building populist clouds, Eberstadt sees silver linings. “I think that there is a lot of room for hope,” he said. Some prescriptions he has in mind include: encouraging the growth of small businesses; reforming the country’s “awful” disability programs; and reforming the criminal justice system, which, he said, has far-reaching effects in communities across the country. But initial steps in countering populism’s rise, he suggested, should start at the ground level. “The first step in hope is to be able to empathize with, and to understand the arguments of, those that are in the populist camp.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why is Populism on the Rise in the U.S. and Europe? appeared first on Law Street.

Gibraltar, British Overseas Territory in Spain’s southernmost tip, could prove a sticking point in the UK’s exit negotiations with the European Union. Over the weekend, European Council President Donald Tusk published a letter containing the bloc’s guidelines for the split with Britain, or Brexit, a process that could take as long as two years. The letter contains a passage that quickly angered the British government and the leader of Gibraltar, which Britain captured in 1704:

After the United Kingdom leaves the Union, no agreement between the EU and the UK may apply to the territory of Gibraltar without the agreement between the kingdom of Spain and the UK.

In the days since the letter’s publication, the governments of Britain and Gibraltar reacted strongly to the EU’s concession to Spain, which is an EU member. In an interview with Reuters on Monday, Gibraltar’s chief minister, Fabian Picardo, said the passage was “clear Spanish bullying.” He added that Tusk “is behaving like a cuckolded husband who is taking it out on the children.”

The spat has even led a former MP to suggest that British Prime Minister Theresa May was willing to go to war to defend the territory of 30,000 people. In response to the strong reactions, Spain’s Foreign Minister Alfonso Dastis said his government “is a little surprised by the tone of comments coming out of Britain, a country known for its composure.” But May insists there will be no military conflict, and that further negotiations will smooth out any concerns. “We want to negotiate the best possible deal for the UK and the best possible deal for Gibraltar,” she said.

Britain’s exit from the EU, which 52 percent of the country supported in last June’s referendum, officially began last week, when May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. Many expect the divorce to be a painful one, and Britain’s waning influence in Europe was evident with Tusk’s mention of Gibraltar in his guidelines for the split.

Gibraltar overwhelmingly voted to remain in the EU (98 percent), but it has also repelled Spanish attempts at governing the “Rock,” as it’s affectionally nicknamed. In a 2002 referendum, 98 percent of the populace voted against a proposal for joint British-Spanish sovereignty. According to British Foreign Minister Boris Johnson, a vocal proponent of the Leave campaign last summer, the territory’s status will not change anytime soon. “The sovereignty of Gibraltar is unchanged and is not going to change,” he said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Could Gibraltar Derail the Brexit Negotiations? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official: the process for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, known as Brexit, has begun. Prime Minister Theresa May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty Wednesday afternoon, starting a two-year window of negotiations between the United Kingdom and the EU. If two years pass without a deal, an unlikely but plausible scenario, Britain would not be allowed back in to the bloc, which now consists of 27 member states.

Britain’s ambassador to the EU, Tim Barrow, hand delivered a letter, May’s official invocation of Article 50, to European Council President Donald Tusk in Brussels. The letter outlines the UK’s goals moving forward:

It is in the best interests of both the United Kingdom and the European Union that we should use the forthcoming process to deliver these objectives in a fair and orderly manner, and with as little disruption as possible on each side. We want to make sure that Europe remains strong and prosperous and is capable of projecting its values, leading in the world, and defending itself from security threats.

After receiving the six-page letter, Tusk said the goal moving forward for the EU is “to minimize the cost for EU citizens, businesses and member states.” Faced with the unenviable task of negotiating what is sure to be an uncomfortable divorce, Tusk added: “There is no need to pretend that this is a happy day, neither in Brussels or in London. After all most Europeans, including almost half the British voters, wish that we would stay together not drift apart.”

Within 48 hours, Tusk said, the European Council will draft guidelines for Britain’s withdrawal, effectively setting the parameters in which the negotiations will take place. In April or May, leaders from the remaining 27 EU states will meet to finalize the guidelines, after which negotiations will officially begin. Negotiations will feature a range of thorny issues, including immigration, the UK’s access to the EU trade market, and the status of EU citizens living in the UK.

A final agreement must pass two EU bodies before the separation can be chiseled in stone. First, the European Parliament, the bloc’s lawmaking arm, will vote. A simple majority is needed to advance the resolution to the Council of the European Union, where 20 of the 27 members must approve the agreement for it to pass.

According to a recent poll, the British public–at least in England, which decidedly voted “leave” in the June referendum–still supports the break with Europe. Sixty-nine percent of respondents said the Brexit should move forward, and 48 percent said that May has done a good job since the referendum. But not everyone is happy. Scotland, a semi-autonomous region of the UK for over 300 years, might seek a second referendum on its independence from the UK, chiefly because it would like to remain part of the EU. In fact, a majority of Scots–62 percent–voted to “remain” with the bloc.

Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon announced her intention to pursue a second independence referendum–in 2014, voters elected to remain a part of the UK–in a speech earlier this month. On Tuesday, the Scottish Parliament voted in favor of holding another referendum, but a vote cannot commence until the British Parliament supports it as well. May recently said that will not happen until the uncertain Brexit process is complete. May, in remarks after she triggered Article 50, articulated what all parties involved in the Brexit process likely are feeling: “This is a historic moment from which there can be no turning back,” she said.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Theresa May Triggers Article 50, Kicking Off Brexit Negotiations: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

Dreamer Hits Back at People Sending Her Online Threats

ASU student Belén Sisa came to the United States with her parents when she was six years old. She is protected under the DACA program and is allowed to live, study, and work in the United States. On Sunday she posted a selfie with a tax form on Instagram. She wanted to show that there are millions of immigrants who work hard and pay taxes and don’t get anything back from the system, as they are not eligible for benefits or unemployment.

Belen interned in our Phoenix office. I’m proud to see her dispelling myths about immigrants & defending #Dreamers https://t.co/ktKginIxDK

— Ruben Gallego (@RepRubenGallego) March 28, 2017

But the post resulted in a ton of hate messages on social media; people called her derogatory names, said they had reported her to ICE and that she would be deported, and claimed that she is a criminal. Someone even photoshopped a disturbing picture of her decapitated, with Trump throwing her head over a wall. But she hit back at the harassers by Instagramming pictures of their messages, with their social media names fully visible. “Those messages were to instill fear and ensure we wouldn’t fight back, but it made me do the complete opposite,” she said.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 29, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

On March 29, Prime Minister Theresa May will trigger Article 50 and initiate the United Kingdom’s official withdrawal from the European Union. Once EU officials receive notice of the UK’s intention to leave, the two parties will be able to formally negotiate the terms under which it will leave, and how it will interact with the union going forward. Much has been made about the likelihood that EU negotiators will be keen to make an example of the United Kingdom so as to send a message to other member states who may be eyeing an exit. However, if Theresa May’s political history is anything to go by, a comprehensive split with the European Union will suit her government just fine.

Following the referendum, there was much debate over whether May’s government ought to pursue a “soft Brexit,” which would have allowed Britain to stay in the Common Market, or sever all existing ties with the European Economic Area and undertake a “hard Brexit.” Polls released the day before May’s speech on her plan to leave the EU showed that more Britons supported either remaining in the European Union or at least the Common Market. May ultimately committed to a “hard Brexit,” claiming that remaining within the single market “would, for all intents and purposes, mean not leaving the EU at all.”

Controlling immigration has long been the priority for the former Home Secretary, which is a key factor in why she was elevated from her position to prime minister in the wake of a referendum result that was largely motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment. In the run up to the referendum, May backed the Remain campaign but her support was unenthusiastic; she rarely spoke in favor of EU membership. On a rare occasion May did speak, she still expressed her distaste for freedom of movement. During her time as home secretary, May put forward a number of hardline immigration policies that were criticized by many as being overtly harmful to immigrants and their families.

Considering May’s feelings on immigration, it is no surprise she opted to pursue a “hard Brexit” plan that would allow Britain to have absolute control over immigration policy. Wishing to avoid a domino-like collapse of the union, EU negotiators would have likely rejected a plan that allowed the UK to remain within the Common Market. However, considering that a “soft Brexit” would have carried provisions for the freedom of movement of people, it is unlikely May would have gone for these terms anyway.

Relations between the United Kingdom and the European Union are likely somewhat tense. Once Article 50 is triggered and negotiations begin, both sides will be trying to score political points. May’s government will hope to convince the British public and the world that the United Kingdom would be better off outside of the EU. The EU will be aiming to stem the tide of euro-skepticism by demonstrating value of EU membership and the cost that exiting the union incurs.

While the two parties have distinct goals, their plans for achieving their respective objectives appear to be largely the same: pursue a definitive break. In her speech announcing a “hard Brexit,” May declared that she would not be bullied by the EU claiming that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.” In October, President François Hollande said that “there must be a price” for leaving the EU and that Britain cannot expect to “to enjoy supposed benefits [of EU membership] without downsides.”

Both the UK and the EU have drawn lines in the sand. As of now, a “hard Brexit” appears to be the mutually agreeable course of action, but only time will tell whether both, neither, or just one of the parties were well advised in pursuing such a conclusive break.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The UK and EU Both Seem to Want a “Hard Brexit,” but for Different Reasons appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Scotland could be headed for a second independence referendum on its continued membership in the United Kingdom as early as next year, according to Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon. During an impassioned speech Monday at Bute House, Sturgeon’s residence in Edinburgh, the First Minister announced plans for Scotland to chart its own path forward.

“At times like these, it is more important than ever to have a clear plan for the way ahead–to try, as far as is possible, to be in control of events and not just at the mercy of them,” she said.

Last June, while the majority of Britain voted to leave the EU, Scotland did not–62 percent of voters backed remaining in the 28-nation bloc. During its first independence referendum in September 2014, Scotland decisively voted (54.2 percent to 45.7 percent) to remain a part of the United Kingdom, a union that has been in place since 1707.

Sturgeon believes the time is ripe for a second referendum, as Britain’s future is uncertain and Scotland cannot simply tag along for the ride.

“As a result of the Brexit vote we face a future, not just outside the EU, but also outside the world’s biggest single market,” Sturgeon said, adding that her attempts to negotiate a special trading relationship for Scotland and the EU with British Prime Minister Theresa May have also failed.

“Our efforts at compromise have instead been met with a brick wall of intransigence,” she said.

Shortly after Sturgeon delivered her speech, May responded in an interview with the BBC, in which she said that a referendum would set Scotland “on a course for more uncertainty and division.”

“Instead of playing politics with the future of our country,” May said, “the Scottish government should focus on delivering good government and public services for the people of Scotland. Politics is not a game.”

The British Parliament would have to grant Scotland permission to hold an independence referendum–known as a Section 30 order. Sturgeon said she would seek the order next week. If the British Parliament agrees to the request, the Scottish Parliament would need to do the same before a vote date is set.

With the prospect of a “hard Brexit“–a clean break from the EU that would have Britain completely abandon the single-market of the EU–looming, Sturgeon believes Scotland cannot just hope for the best. It must act.

“By taking the steps I have set out today, I am ensuring that Scotland’s future will be decided not just by me, the Scottish Government or the SNP,” Sturgeon said using the initials for her Scottish National Party. “It will be decided by the people of Scotland.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Scotland Headed for a Second Independence Referendum? appeared first on Law Street.

President Donald Trump met privately with British Prime Minister Theresa May on Friday, in his first meeting with a foreign leader since taking office. After the closed-door meeting, Trump and May held a joint press conference. During the 20-minute Q&A, Trump and May tackled a variety of topics that are in the interests of both countries, including defense alliances and Russian sanctions.

Trump began the conference by praising Britain for choosing to leave the European Union last summer. “I think Brexit is going to be a wonderful thing for your country,” Trump said. May congratulated her American counterpart for his “stunning election victory.” She also passed along an invitation from Queen Elizabeth II for Trump to visit the United Kingdom later this year for an official state visit. Trump accepted.

.@theresa_may w @realDonaldTrump during White House visit. pic.twitter.com/jCE4zlycpD

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) January 27, 2017

May quickly delved into more substantive issues. “On defense and security, we are united in our recognition of NATO as the bulwark of our collective defense,” she said, referring to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the primary defensive mechanism against Russian aggression in Eastern Europe.

In the weeks and months before taking office, Trump suggested that the U.S. rethink its membership in NATO, and said other members should pick up more of the tab. He has also said the alliance, which formed after World War II as a deterrent against Soviet aggression, is “obsolete.” But on Friday, May implied that during their private meeting, Trump said he was “100 percent” behind NATO.

Not everything went so smoothly though, as there were a few awkward exchanges:

“There goes that relationship.”

Trump smirks and scoffs when a BBC reporter takes him to task about torture, abortion and banning Muslims: pic.twitter.com/bl42L3Luoy

— Fusion (@Fusion) January 27, 2017

Trump and May also addressed sanctions the U.S. has levied on Russian officials and companies, in response to Russia’s incursion in Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. President Obama also expelled 35 Russian diplomats from the U.S. in December in response to the CIA and FBI conclusion that the Kremlin interfered in the U.S. election. Trump said it is “too early” to lift the sanctions during the press conference. May also reiterated the importance of pressuring and containing Russia with sanctions.

In an interview on “Fox and Friends” on Friday, Trump’s counselor Kellyanne Conway suggested that lifting the sanctions is “under consideration.” The topic will likely be discussed when Trump speaks with Russian President Vladimir Putin in a phone call on Saturday. In a statement on Friday, Sen. John McCain, (R-AZ), an outspoken Putin detractor, warned Trump of the dangers in dealing with the Russian leader.

“He should remember that the man on the other end of the line is a murderer and a thug who seeks to undermine American national security interests at every turn,” McCain said. “For our commander in chief to think otherwise would be naïve and dangerous.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Discusses NATO, Russian Sanctions with British PM Theresa May appeared first on Law Street.

The desire to move away from liberal economic policies toward more protectionism partly drove the Brexit vote. However, a successful protectionist push to leave the European Union could very well now result in an entrenchment of economic liberalism in the United Kingdom.

Over the past several decades economic liberalism and neoliberalism became standard economic policy throughout the developed world. Free markets, free trade, and privatization of assets were valued above all other policy. As liberalism globalized, free trade agreements such as NAFTA and economic unions like the EU were formed. However, protectionist movements on both the right and left have formed in response to this economic standard and have quickly gained traction. Just as the U.S. saw Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sanders’ protectionist platforms gain huge momentum, the British shocked the world by opting to leave the liberalist EU, with many “leave” voters crying out for more protectionist economic policy.

The “leave” vote shook the center-right government to its core, prompting the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron. However, the same pro-free-trade and pro-liberalism Conservative Party that was in power before the referendum remains in power today. Therefore, Prime Minister Theresa May’s economically liberal Conservative Party is charged with engineering the leave process. In spite of the fact that a protectionist movement established in part the mandate to begin the leave campaign, it is unlikely that May’s government will pick up the protectionist torch and reject liberal economic policy.

On Tuesday, May announced that the UK would commit to a “hard Brexit.” Under this plan, the UK would undergo a total uncoupling with EU economic infrastructure. Headlines of plans to sever ties with the EU would have pleased many protectionist “leave” voters who view the EU as an exemplar of liberalism and globalization. Yet, when considering May’s clearly stated devotion to liberal economics, it is unlikely that “hard Brexit” will produce the protectionist policy outcomes many leave voters would have hoped for.

The Sunday before May committed to “hard Brexit,” Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond stated that the UK would do “whatever” in order to keep the economy afloat following “Brexit.” He said that under “hard Brexit,” they would have to “change [the economic] model to regain competitiveness.” Supporters and critics alike took this to mean that economic policy under “hard Brexit” would see deregulation reign supreme.

May’s speech to the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Thursday all but confirmed these assumptions of future liberal policy. The Prime Minister outlined her intention to develop a British economy at the forefront of liberal economic policy. Though she posed some criticisms of globalization, May was far more critical of Donald Trump and other populist movements’ protectionist ideologies. May capped off her speech to the congregation of world leaders and financial actors by declaring that Britain would become “a forceful advocate for business, free markets and free trade.”

While many in the “leave” camp hoped to move Britain away from liberalism, May has responded with a plan that satisfies her ideological devotion to liberalism. Many opposed to the EU found the organization to be one that epitomized liberal globalization. Though many in the Conservative Party might have wanted to “remain,” it seems they are taking the “leave” vote as an opportunity to advance liberalism. No longer shackled by outside economic regulatory powers like the European Central Bank (ECB), the Conservative Party feels free to act in accordance with its ideology.

The decision to leave the European Union transformed most every aspect of Britain’s political and economic life. However, the referendum did not change the fact that a political party faithful to liberal economics was in power. Though it is not exactly clear how May’s vision will take shape, the developments over the past week have set the stage for a British economic model grounded on highly liberal economic policy. Economic protectionists who voted “leave” are unlikely to see their hopes for future economic economic policy actualized. In fact, those who hoped for protectionist economic policies may see a Britain committed to liberalism like never before.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will May’s Hard Brexit Live up to Voters’ Expectations? appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May kicked off the Brexit proceedings in a speech on Tuesday that outlined Britain’s future as an independent, globally engaged nation. After weeks of guessing at what May’s opening salvo would look like, Tuesday’s speech laid the groundwork for official negotiations between Britain and the European Union, which are set to begin in March. The entire withdrawal process is expected to take up to two years.

Speaking at the decadent Lancaster House in London, May spoke of a future where Britain is free from certain EU-related constraints while holding on to some privileges. For instance, she sees Britain as a global trading partner, outside the single market of the bloc, while also enjoying tariff-free trade with member states as part of the customs union.

“What I am proposing cannot mean remaining in the single market,” May said, adding that she wants “a new and equal partnership–between an independent, self-governing, global Britain and our friends and allies in the EU.” May specifically denounced a “half in, half out” approach to the future Britain-EU relationship. “We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave,” she said.

But in suggesting Britain can sign trade deals with non-European countries, while also engaging in tariff-free trade with the 27 members of the bloc, May laid out an ambitious plan that might be rejected in negotiations with EU officials in March. In the European single market system, members freely exchange goods, services, and people. If Britain opts out of the single market–a so-called “hard Brexit”–it will forfeit fluid capital movement within the bloc, but would gain autonomy to deal with other actors outside of it.

Some of May’s political opponents were dismayed by her insistence on leaving the single market. “She claimed people voted to leave the single market,” said Tim Farron, head of the Liberal Democrats. “They didn’t. She has made the choice to do massive damage to the British economy.” He warned that in fleeing the single market, Britain could experience “higher prices, greater instability, and rising fuel costs.”

The Brexit vote last June, when over 17 million Brits voted to leave the EU, came at a time of great concern about maintaining sovereignty in the face of increased immigration from the Middle East and Africa. But the result also caused British citizens living in other EU countries (1.2 million people), and citizens from other EU countries living in Britain (3.2 million people), to worry about their future.

May addressed those concerns in her speech. “We want to guarantee the rights of EU citizens who are already living in Britain, and the rights of British nationals in other member states, as early as we can,” she said. May added that resolving the conflict is an “important priority,” and she would like to find a solution with the EU immediately, to “give people the certainty they want straight away.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Britain’s Prime Minister Details Brexit Strategy in Long-Awaited Speech appeared first on Law Street.

President-elect Donald Trump’s victory last week has injected populist, anti-establishment figures in France with newfound confidence as they prepare for their presidential election next spring. With primary elections for top far-right candidates starting this Saturday, some have used Trump’s win as an example of what France can also achieve.

“Mr. Trump wants to defend American interests? Fine, I want to defend French interests and those of Europe. What Americans allow themselves, why should we refuse that for France?” former President Nicolas Sarkozy said at a rally in Nice on Tuesday.

Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front party, also expressed hope at a recent rally: “My election at the presidency has been called impossible for months now, it is up to the people to make it possible,” she said.

The West, with Brexit and the Trump movement as concrete examples, is in the midst of of an anti-immigration, anti-establishment swing. Mass migration and globalization are stirring populist forces, and new political movements are arising to ride their coattails. But other candidates think the movement Trump helped stoke will not reach France.

“I don’t want to pit one part of France against another, the elites against the people … It’s a dangerous political game,” Alain Juppe, a center-right candidate and ex-prime minister said at a Paris rally on Monday. Polls have Juppe ahead of Sarkozy in their primary face-off which begins this Saturday. Juppe is the mayor of Bordeaux.

France’s election will have two rounds: one in April and another in May, when the two two candidates to emerge from the first round will go head-to-head. France’s main pollsters predict Le Pen, a 48-year-old former lawyer, will make it to the second round, but lose in a landslide to whoever the center-right candidate will be, even with the boost Trump’s win provided her.

Whether she wins or not, Le Pen’s message certainly shares common themes with other right-wing parties in Europe. In an interview with CNN on Tuesday, Le Pen shared her vision for the “comeback of France” her leadership would lead to:

“The nations are not triggering the war; it is ultra-liberalism, the disappearance of borders, the great migration of people … according to the ambitions of the multinationals that creates war. There have never been as many conflicts as there are today,” she said.

Le Pen has also called the European Union a “quasi-totalitarian political system,” promising a referendum on France’s membership–a “Frexit”–should she win the presidency. France’s current President Francois Hollande is deeply unpopular, but has not explicitly said he won’t run for another term.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Will Trump’s Win Affect France’s Upcoming Election? appeared first on Law Street.

People all over the country are seeking new ways to express that they don’t like Donald Trump’s sexist or racist views. And we’re getting some inspiration from the UK–after the Brexit vote in June, a Twitter user with the handle @cheeahs came up with the idea that wearing a simple safety pin could be a way of showing solidarity with minorities in Britain. She wrote that she wanted “anyone against the sort of nationalistic, racist violence we’ve been seeing” to be able to identify themselves as a “safe ally.”

The idea being that anyone against the sort of nationalistic, racist violence we’ve been seeing could identify themselves as a “safe” ally.

— miss pommery 1926 (@cheeahs) June 26, 2016

Both the Brexit vote and the American election have been characterized by rising tensions and division between groups of people, with an emphasis on immigrants or people of color. Now Americans are donning the safety pin too.

I wear my #SafetyPin to show I am a safe place.I will protect those who are treated unfairly bc of gender, race, disability, & indiv beliefs pic.twitter.com/gn2LmcTbi5

— Sarah Lill (@SarahLill9) November 11, 2016

This is beautiful. Let’s all be safe places for people who are anxious and afraid right now. #safetypin pic.twitter.com/BBeqyIIp4k

— Jamie Tworkowski (@jamietworkowski) November 11, 2016

The pin symbolizes that the person wearing it is in solidarity with minority groups—LGBTQ, ethnic minorities, different religions, women—basically anyone who feels threatened and scared after Trump’s election.

Sir Patrick Stewart did it.

#Safetypin pic.twitter.com/MGFcjx68BP

— Patrick Stewart (@SirPatStew) November 11, 2016

It is important to remember that the safety pin doesn’t symbolize being “anti-Trump voters.” It’s simply a symbol of compassion and love for all people, and shows that the wearer is dissociating from hatred and discrimination. Even Trump supporters can wear them if they oppose the violence and racism that some people express.

The #safetypin is NOT a political statement! It’s a humanitarian statement that shows you stand against bigotry and hate. #safetypinusa

— Lara Arikan (@lararikan) November 11, 2016

@lararikan what about me? A trump voter. CA is a harsh place if you are a trump voter. Could easily get beaten up here.

— Current (@currentofficer) November 11, 2016

Now get out and get yourself a safety pin!

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Why are People Wearing Safety Pins on their Shirts? appeared first on Law Street.

Chocoholics in Britain are going crazy over the changed shape of the Toblerone chocolate bars. There used to be a tiny gap between the triangles–now it seems to have doubled!

What the what?!?! @Toblerone … when did you create a dual carriage way through the mountains?!?! pic.twitter.com/xfHPF5W5bq

— nathalie pownall (@Nathaliepownall) October 28, 2016

This is a travesty for fans of the iconic Swiss chocolate bar. But the shape has only changed in Britain. According to Mondelez International, the company that owns the brand, the rising prices of ingredients have made it more expensive to produce the mountain shaped chocolate. So the company decided to add more space in between the triangles to save a little cash. They could keep the same packaging, length, and even price, but buyers will get about 10 percent less chocolate per bar. But this was obviously not okay with chocolate consumers.

Why don’t they should just change the name to NO-blerone and be done with it? #Toblerone #TobleroneGate #TobleroneTuesday pic.twitter.com/dpMKDqwMIO

— Claire Murrihy (@ClaireMurrihy) November 8, 2016

Many people have pointed out that this change comes after the Brexit vote. The British will no longer be a part of the European Union, and no longer have the same access to delicious Swiss chocolate as other Europeans.

#toblerone #brexit I told you that leaving the EU would have serious consequences. Now I’ m really upset. pic.twitter.com/w81cWYpNl4

— Mark Greenwood (@markcjgreenwood) November 8, 2016

Since the British opted out of the EU, the value of the British pound has fallen significantly, making commodities like cacao way more expensive than before. This is yet another reason for division between the voters who voted for or against Brexit. However, last Thursday did see a rise in the pound, after the High Court in Britain ruled that Parliament has to vote before an actual Brexit can take place.

Here’s another conspiracy theory for you all: some people believe the chocolate brand chose to reshape the bars right now because no one would notice due to all the U.S. election hysteria.

I bet @Toblerone thought they could sneak their new smaller bar out today and hope #ElectionDay would cover up the news #TobleroneGate

— seanieb1983 (@seanieb1983) November 8, 2016

Financially this is a tactic that more and more companies are using to avoid raising prices, and it could hit more types of candy in the coming months. “The new gappy-teeth Toblerone is yet another example of shrinkflation, where shrinking pack contents allows for a backdoor price rise,” said retailing expert Ratula Chakraborty.

But most of us feel like this:

All this talk about #TobleroneGate is making me want #Toblerone right now.

— Busy Working Mummy (@busyworkingmum1) November 8, 2016

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Chocolate Fans Outraged Over the Changed Shape of Toblerone: Is Brexit to Blame? appeared first on Law Street.

The process involving Britain’s exit from the European Union might start later than Prime Minister Theresa May had hoped, as the High Court ruled on Thursday that Parliament must vote on the matter before the “Brexit” can begin. May, who was sworn in earlier this summer after David Cameron stepped down, immediately signaled she would appeal the decision next month, and is still targeting March 2017 as the beginning of Britain’s withdrawal from the bloc.

Gina Miller, an investment fund manager, is the lead plaintiff in the case. Her argument is that Article 50, the part of the Lisbon Treaty that allows for an exit from the EU to begin, can only be approved with a vote from Parliament. In his ruling in favor of Miller, Lord chief justice John Thomas said: “The most fundamental rule of the U.K. Constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make or unmake any law it chooses.”

On June 23, 17.4 million Brits voted in support of a British exit from the EU. The result quickly sent shockwaves domestically and abroad: Cameron stepped down after the political embarrassment, May stepped in, stock markets plunged, and the pound hit historic lows. May promised to deliver on what the majority of her country desired, and set March of next year as the point when Article 50 would be invoked, and deliberations with the EU for a smooth exit would begin.

May’d my day #Brexit pic.twitter.com/Y3oBoUijaB

— Toni Giugliano (@ToniGiugliano) November 4, 2016

But Thursday’s ruling, while unlikely to reverse the Brexit result, might stall the process, and some analysts say it could limit May’s ability to seek her terms for the exit, and give her less flexibility in negotiations with the EU. Nigel Farage, former leader of the UK Independence Party and a staunch Brexit supporter, said he fears Thursday’s ruling could lead to a “half Brexit.”

“I think we could be at the beginning, with this ruling, of a process where there is a deliberate, willful attempt by our political class to betray 17.4 million voters,” he said in an interview on BBC Radio, promising he would return to politics in 2019 if Britain has not left the EU by then.

Miller, while capturing a legal victory, experienced first-hand the anti-immigrant undertones of Brexit following Thursday’s ruling. The daughter of Guyanese immigrants, Miller got hit with a barrage of hateful messages on social media, with one user on Twitter posting the message, “Kill her, she’s not even British.” Miller has lived in the country for 41 years, since she was 10 years old.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Parliament Stop “Brexit” from Happening? appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

New Allegations Against Clarence Thomas Surface

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has been accused of sexual assault by Moira Smith, an Alaskan lawyer. Smith claimed that when she was 23–in 1999–Thomas groped her at a dinner party when she was working in DC. Thomas was already a Supreme Court justice at that point. Smith posted about the allegations on Facebook, and was then interviewed by The National Law Journal. In an interview she explained her motivations for coming forward, saying:

We now know that many men in power take advantage of vulnerable women. That willingness by men in power to take advantage of vulnerable women relies on an unspoken pact that the women will not speak up about it. Why? Because they are vulnerable. Because they are star-struck. Because they don’t want to be whiners. Because they worry about their career if they do speak out. But silence no longer feels defensible; it feels complicit.

Clarence Thomas–who was also accused of sexual harassment by Anita Hill during his Senate confirmation in 1991–denies the allegations by Smith.

Anita Hill discusses Moira Smith’s accusation that Justice Thomas groped her in 1999 https://t.co/D2DpakjdIV via @TheNLJ @ZoeTillman pic.twitter.com/5q29qpBpBo

— Beth Frerking (@BethFrerking) October 27, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Trump will never be between two ferns

Funny or Die is a website and digital production company that specializes in, well, being funny, and producing programs such as Drunk History. One of its recent hits is “Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis”–which feels like a parody of the famous “Inside the Actors Studio.”

Background aside, Galifianakis has had many celebrities and even politicians on his mostly-scripted show, including President Barack Obama and more recently Hillary Clinton. Although the show is clearly meant as a satire, this has been lost on some Trump supporters.

Scott Auckerman, the show’s director, has been quoted saying Trump does have have “…thick enough skin,” to participate in the show. But Galifianakis made it clear that there was no chance Trump would be joining him between any ferns in a quote to the L.A. Times.

Zach Galifianakis on why he won’t feature Donald Trump on “Between Two Ferns.” pic.twitter.com/gqeSmV1td0

— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) September 26, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 27, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Donald Trump loves giving people nicknames. There’s “Crooked Hillary” and “Lyin’ Ted” and “Little Marco.” His love of nicknames is so infamous that there are even Donald Trump nickname generators out there (I got “Powerless Anneliese.”) In fact, Donald Trump loves nicknames so much he recently gave himself one: “Mr. Brexit.”

They will soon be calling me MR. BREXIT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2016

No one is 100 percent sure what Trump means by that, but the leading theory is that he was referring to the fact that Brexit polls indicated the “Remain” option was winning prior to the vote. However, when the votes were actually cast, “Leave” won. Similarly, Trump is currently trailing in the polls to Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton–his tweet might mean that he thinks he’s going to defy the polls just like the Brexit vote did.

But to nickname yourself anything at all, let alone “Mr. Brexit” is pretty silly. And Twitter users have been having a lot of fun poking at Trump about the name. Check out some of the best “Mr. Brexit” entries in the slideshow below:

#MrRobot is a way better show than #MrBrexit
— Greg Pinelo (@gregpinelo) August 18, 2016

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump Nicknames Himself Mr. Brexit appeared first on Law Street.

On June 23, the United Kingdom held its long-awaited vote on whether or not to stay in the European Union. In a somewhat surprising development, 30 million people across the U.K. voted to leave the European Union. In the end, Leave voters won with 52 percent of the vote while Remain had 48 percent, in an election with the nation’s highest voter turnout since 1992.

While the debate over whether to leave the Union generated acrimony between the two sides involved, it also held the potential to leave a much larger impact on the world at large. Read on to find out more about the United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union, nicknamed Brexit, the immediate impact on the nation and the possible regional and global ramifications that may still play out.

The United Kingdom and the European Union

The European Union has its origins in the European Coal and Steel Community, an agreement made between six countries, notably including France and Germany, following World War II in an effort to prevent future wars. The agreement quickly evolved into the European Economic Community in 1957, furthering ideas such as free trade and free movement, which serve as the basis of the EU today.

Britain at first was hesitant to join, seeing itself as above the Union and on par with the great post-war powers such as the United States and the Soviet Union. However, following sluggish economic growth in the 1960s, Britain eventually reached out about joining. Britain finally joined in 1973 but in 1975, almost immediately after joining, the country actually had its first referendum on whether or not to stay in the union. In that case, the Remain vote was overwhelming.

Despite the positive referendum results, Britain’s two major political parties, Conservative and Labour, took turns decrying the EU and suggesting an exit during the 1970s and 1980s. Ultimately, though, the nation remained with some caveats, such as not buying into the union’s single currency. Support for the union increased and remained steady within British ruling politics throughout the 1990s and early 2000s. Things began to turn on their irrevocable course beginning in 2005 when David Cameron assumed leadership of the Conservative Party.

Cameron had incorporated Euro-skeptics into his winning coalition and thus had to agree to policies that began distancing Britain from the EU. That move was combined with the rise of anti-immigration sentiment, anti-EU parties, and the EU’s own economic decline following the Great Recession. As part of his most recent election victory in 2015, Cameron promised a referendum on Britain’s EU membership, which ultimately led to Brexit.

Brexit

Clearly, the Brexit vote was a long time in the making as Britain seemingly always had one foot out the door. The argument took two sides. Those who opposed exiting the EU believed that Britain, as a small island, needed to be part of a larger unit to continue to enjoy economic success and to remain secure. Conversely, those campaigning against the EU decried the perceived growing overreach from Brussels (where EU institutions are located), which they contend threatens Britain’s very sovereignty.

The Remain camp was led by then Prime Minister David Cameron, who essentially staked his reputation and political career on voters deciding to remain in the European Union. Within the U.K., Cameron was supported by most of his own Conservative Party, the opposing Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Scottish National Party. Globally his coalition was strengthened by notable world leaders including German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Chinese President Xi Jinping, and President Barack Obama. Most major businesses and prominent economists also supported staying in the union.

The opposition was headed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) then led by Nigel Farage. Supporting him were other members of Cameron’s own party including, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove. Those in favor of exiting the European Union were also endorsed by far-right parties across Europe including in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. To learn more about the recent rise of right-wing, nationalist groups in Europe check out this Law Street explainer.

To formally leave the European Union, the U.K. must invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, which was signed in 2007. According to Article 50, the U.K. will have up to two years to negotiate with other EU members the conditions of its exit covering everything from trade to immigration. Experts, however, contend the negotiations could take much longer. No one is entirely certain of how the process will work out–the U.K. is the first country to leave the EU-and until the negotiations are complete, conditions will remain the same as they are currently. The video below looks at the consequences of Brexit:

The Fallout

Although no one knew for sure what exactly the impact would be if the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union, many predicted it would be unfavorable. The speculation seemed to become a reality both economically and politically for the island nation.

While consumer spending has remained relatively flat, there are a number of other indicators that suggest not all is well. This starts with the British Pound, which quickly lost one-tenth of its value against the dollar and the FTSE 250, a domestic British index, which has also lost significant value. Additionally, hiring has gone down, while unemployment may be increasing. This quagmire is further complicated by business investment, which has also been shrinking. Even hope that a reduced Pound would lead to more travel seems quelled as inflation is rising faster than the increase in tourism.

Britain is not only struggling economically but politically as well. Following the Brexit vote, then Prime Minister David Cameron, who had wagered his career on remaining in the European Union, resigned. This move was followed by a wave of uncertainty as the main opposing party to Cameron, the Labour Party, dealt with a leadership challenge of its own and two of the major candidates for the Prime Minister position dropped out of contention.

While Theresa May ultimately assumed control of the Conservative Party, her new cabinet is a hodge-podge of those in favor of remaining in the EU and those for Brexit, including Boris Johnson who was one of the people who recently dropped out of contention for the role of Prime Minister. Although the Conservative party remains in flux, the Labour party has turned into a disaster with the leader refusing to step down despite a no-confidence vote, leading to an internal struggle.

Regional Impact

Aside from what occurred in England, is what happened and what might happen within the United Kingdom at large. Although England and Wales both voted to leave the European Union, Scotland and Northern Ireland voted with greater majorities to stay. While this may be less of a problem if these were different states within a country, they are actually all independent countries.

After all, it was only last year that the nation of Scotland voted narrowly to stay in the United Kingdom. It is unsurprising then that Scotland’s prime minister has now floated the idea of holding a second referendum for Scottish Independence following Brexit as a way to keep the country within the EU. Scotland is also likely to suffer more economically than Britain as it relies on oil sales for a large portion of its economic output, which were already hampered by low prices.

Along with a potential second Scottish referendum, some even want Ireland to hold a vote to unify following Brexit, however, that idea was quickly shot down by the leader of Northern Ireland and seems much less likely. Even the tiny British territory of Gibraltar will be affected. Situated on the southern tip of Spain, Gibraltar faces the threat of greater Spanish incursion with Britain leaving the EU. The following video looks at the impact of Brexit on Northern Ireland and Scotland:

Impact on the United States

In the United States, the impact has been relatively subdued. While it remains to be determined how Brexit will affect the close relationship between the United States and Britain as well as the European Union at large, the economy was the first to feel the brunt of the decision. Following Brexit, U.S. stocks plunged for two straight days before rebounding and actually reaching record highs a few weeks later. Since then, the effects of Brexit in the United States have been portrayed as negligible with the Federal Reserve still planning on going ahead with at least one interest rate increase this year–something unlikely if the economy was believed to be in real financial danger. The accompanying video looks at some of the potential ramifications of Brexit for the US:

Conclusion

The United Kingdom never seemed to be fully committed to the European Union, and when the EU’s downsides started to outweigh its advantages in the eyes of British citizens, it was deemed time to leave. The impact of this decision has been swift with economic consequences spanning the world. But the true extent of the damage and even what leaving the EU will mean for the U.K. will still take years to sort out.

While much of the blame for this decision rests on British politicians, they are not solely at fault. The Brexit vote was the culmination of a much larger pattern across Europe and may even have parallels to the United States. In the U.K. politicians turned to advocating for nationalism and a refocusing of government policy inwards versus abroad. This was only further exacerbated by the mass migration crisis gripping the continent. This decision, however, was also the result of a union that is stuck in a proverbial purgatory, too united in some regards and not enough in others.

Lastly, the European Union may still face some challenges to the way in which it creates rules for member states–has the process become too top-down, with little bottom-up influence? Certainly in the case of the Brexit vote, citizens at the lowest level voted to topple the existing order and cast the futures of many parts of the world into question. While Britain’s exit may now be unavoidable, this is a good opportunity for pause both for the EU and the U.K., to consider how decisions are made and how to avoid future independence movements or bouts of fragmentation.

Resources

BBC News: The U.K.’s EU Referendum: All you need to know

European Futures: How Did We Get Here? A Brief History of Britain’s Membership of the EU

The Telegraph: Theresa May Pledges to Save the Union as Nicole Sturgeon Promises Scottish Referendum Vote to EU Nationals

The New York Times: ‘Brexit’: Explaining Britain’s Vote on European Union Membership

Law Street Media: Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force?

The Economist: Straws in the Wind

NBC News: Brexit Fallout: Gibraltar Worries About Spain’s Next Move

The Financial Times: A tempest Tears Through British politics

The Week: What is Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty?

Bloomberg: Two More Fed Officials Play Down Brexit Impact on U.S. Growth

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down Brexit: What the U.K.’s Decision Means for Itself and the World appeared first on Law Street.

Britain has a new prime minister after Andrea Leadsom announced her exit from the race Monday morning. Theresa May, the 59-year-old home secretary, will replace David Cameron as the leader of the United Kingdom. Soon after Leadsom signaled her exit Monday morning, it became clear that few barriers still stood in May’s way.

First, Leadsom cleared the way for May to be the last woman standing, and the last candidate in a field that dwindled from five to two over the past few weeks. “Strong leadership is needed urgently to begin the work of withdrawing from the European Union,” Leadsom said Monday morning, reading from a letter addressed to the chairman of the 1922 committee (a group of influential lawmakers in the Conservative Party), Graham Brady. “[Theresa May] is ideally placed to implement Brexit on the best possible terms for the British people.”

So grateful for all the support – I do believe my decision is in the best interests of the country and our economy & I wish Theresa success!

— Andrea Leadsom MP (@andrealeadsom) July 11, 2016

Then, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson–two supporters of the “Leave” campaign that successfully sparked Britain’s exit from the European Union—voiced their support for May. Finally, once it became apparent that she would become his successor, Cameron read a statement in support of May, and said he would officially step down as prime minister on Wednesday. “I am delighted that Theresa May will be the next prime minister,” he said, calling her “strong, competent and more than capable.”

And at five o’clock Monday evening, May was officially coronated as the leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister of Britain. She paid tribute to her former opponents as well as Cameron, and said she was “[honored] and humbled to have been chosen by the Conservative party to become its leader.” Her statement continued:

During this campaign my case has been based on three things. First, the need for strong, proven leadership to steer us through what will be difficult and uncertain economic and political times, the need, of course, to negotiate the best deal for Britain in leaving the EU, and to forge a new role for ourselves in the world. Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a success of it.

Her second and third tenets, she said, will be to unite the country and make sure it works “not for the privileged few but that works for everyone one of us.” May will be the second female prime minister in Britain’s history, and the first since Margaret Thatcher, who led the UK from 1979 to 1990. In the months preceding Britain’s exit from the EU, May supported the “Stay” camp, though she did not project her stance as vigorously or vocally as other candidates. In her first official statement as prime minister and in remarks she gave earlier in the day, before Leadsom dropped out, May reiterated the fact that “Brexit means Brexit.” There would not be a second referendum, she said. 

Not everyone in Parliament is unanimously in support of May, however. Three parties–Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens–are calling for a general election, saying that the Conservative Party no longer has the mandate to govern since its leader, Cameron, resigned. The next scheduled general election is in 2020, five years after the Conservative Party won its parliamentary majority in 2015. 

With @TheresaMay2016‘s coronation we need an early General Election. The Tories now have no mandate. Britain deserves better than this.

— Tim Farron (@timfarron) July 11, 2016

But dissent from opposing parties will do little to halt the ascent of Britain’s newly minted leader, at least for the next four years: Prime Minister Theresa May. 

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New Day In the UK: Theresa May Is the First Female PM In 26 Years appeared first on Law Street.

Happy 4th of July Law Streeters! If you need help with your barbecue banter this Independence Day, look no further than Law Street’s top trending articles from last week. Beef up your small talk with facts on Britain’s historic Brexit vote, the integration of big data into women’s healthcare, and the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent domestic abusers from owning firearms. ICYMI–Check out the top stories below.

1. Brexit: What You Need to Know in the Aftermath of Britain’s Historic Vote

Britain voted on Thursday to end its 43-year membership in the European Union. The withdrawal process will be long–it will most likely be two years until Britain is entirely sovereign–and fraught with difficult decisions for the nation’s future, but the vote has sent tremors within the now-former EU member-state and beyond. Here is a briefing on Brexit and what it might mean for the future. Check out the full story here.

2. Big Data: A Revolution for Women’s Healthcare

Since 1990, the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®) has been advocating for innovation in women’s healthcare. The organization is on the cutting edge of the newest research trends, and each year SWHR picks a different theme to highlight at its annual gala. At this year’s event, one message rang loud and true: we’re officially in the age of big data. Almost everything we do–from voting choices, to commercial purchases, to Netflix binge-watching, can be recorded and analyzed to glean patterns. But the incorporation of big data into healthcare is particularly exciting, and promises to revolutionize medical treatment for women. Read on for a sampling of how we’re now integrating big data into patient treatments, and what it means for women’s health. Check out the full story here.

3. Supreme Court Decision Prevents Domestic Abusers from Owning Firearms

The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms. This case involves two men from Maine, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, who were convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms due to previous convictions for domestic assault. Under both state and federal law, anyone with a domestic violence conviction cannot possess firearms. Check out the full story here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Looks like the Red Cross Made A Racist Mistake?

Earlier this month, the Red Cross released posters for pool safety depicting ‘cool’ and ‘uncool’ ways to act around a pool. While pool safety is very important, the imagery used in this particular poster is very worrisome. Only children of color are shown as being unruly and uncool but white children are shown being safe and calm. Why? Because prejudice! People on social media were so ready to call them out:

Hey, @RedCross, send a new pool poster to @SalidaRec bc the current one they have w your name on it is super racist pic.twitter.com/TY8MmFB3Qk

— John Sawyer (@JSawyer330) June 21, 2016

Seriously…did no one #AmericanRedCross see the #unconsciousbias in this ‘super racist’ pool poster https://t.co/Ks7xyMiGZx

— Star Jones (@StarJonesEsq) June 27, 2016

The Red Cross has since ceased production of the posters and issued an official apology. Yikes!

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 28, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

People Are Losing It Over #TrumpGirlsBreakTheInternet

#TrumpGirlsBreakTheInternet started trending last night as women across the Internet started posting pictures of themselves and declaring their support for Donald Trump.

Let me just say that this is wrong on so many levels! The same guy who is known for being a sexist, body shaming a**hole is getting big ups from women wearing his campaign gear and showing lots of skin. I can’t EVEN!

#TrumpGirlsBreakTheInternet is blowing up and people have a lot of feelings about it https://t.co/F7guH0VgbE pic.twitter.com/Q4DntXocv1

— BuzzFeed (@BuzzFeed) June 26, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: Celebrity Edition appeared first on Law Street.

Britain voted on Thursday to end its 43-year membership in the European Union. The withdrawal process will be long–it will most likely be two years until Britain is entirely sovereign–and fraught with difficult decisions for the nation’s future, but the vote has sent tremors within the now-former EU member-state and beyond. Here is a briefing on Brexit and what it might mean for the future:

From EU Member to “See EU Later”

This is not the first time Britain has held a vote on whether it should remain in the EU or not. In 1975, a similar referendum was held, but obviously, the country voted to remain in the bloc. British ill will toward the EU has permeated the country for decades, but the stage was set for Thursday’s vote in 2013 when Prime Minister David Cameron promised a Brexit referendum. With the promise, Cameron hoped to prove to an anti-European faction within his Conservative Party that most Britons disagreed with that sentiment.

This morning’s front page: See EU later! pic.twitter.com/ntv8ofV3Kv

— Sun Politics (@SunPolitics) June 24, 2016

In February of this year, at a summit with other European leaders in Brussels, Cameron announced the date when the referendum would be held. “Leave” supporters gained steam in the weeks that followed, and in April formed an official campaign, with the UK Independence Party as its informal leader. The spring was filled with division and discord, as many young people supported EU membership while older Britons grew disillusioned with its stifling bureaucracy.

A Fractured United Kingdom

The UK might be leaving the EU, but not all of the Kingdom’s countries support that move. Voter turnout was about 72 percent turnout throughout the entire UK, with 17.4 million people (or 52 percent of the total vote) on the Leave side and 16.1 million (48 percent) in the Remain camp. England saw the widest gap between those who favored Leave over Remain–53 percent to 47 percent respectively. Wales had similar figures, though its population is three million compared to England’s 53 million.

In fact, those were the only two regions of the UK that favored leaving the bloc. Scotland voted heavily in favor of the Remain side, with 62 percent of Scots wishing for the UK to stay an EU member-state. Northern Ireland and London saw similar percentages in favor of remaining. The fissures within the UK are significant, because there may be more Leave referendums to come, and most likely Scotland will vote for a second time whether or not to secede from Britain and become its own sovereign nation.

Britain’s Political Future

Soon after Thursday’s results were announced, David Cameron announced his resignation after six years in office. Many who are disappointed with the referendum’s result pin the blame on Cameron, who offered to bring the EU question to a referendum in the first place.

Speaking at 10 Downing Street, Cameron applauded the Leave campaign for a “spirited and passionate” effort and reiterated his view that the country would be better off as a part of the now 27-member bloc. He also said:

But the British people have made a very clear decision to take a different path, and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction. I will do everything I can as prime minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months, but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination.

So who will lead in his place? The next general election is scheduled for 2020, though that could be moved up due to Thursday’s shocking result. A leading candidate to succeed Cameron is Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and a prominent voice in the Leave campaign. Home Secretary Theresa May and Chancellor George Osborne are other leading candidates.

Financial Instability

Irrespective of the potential long-term effects on the British economy, Brexit hit U.S. and global financial markets hard in the early morning hours on Friday. The British pound took a steep dive as well. As of 10:30 am Friday morning, the Dow Jones fell by 402 points, a 2.2 percent drop, and the Nasdaq dropped by 2.8 percent. In total, $450 billion of U.S. market value was erased on Friday morning. Tremors from Brexit were also felt in East Asian markets, as Japan’s Nikkei 225 index fell by more than seven percent and Hong Kong’s Hang Seng Index declined by 4.7 percent.

The British pound fell 10 percent, dropping its U.S. dollar exchange rate from $1.50 to $1.36. That is a 31-year low. The euro dropped by 3.8 percent as well. And the long-term consequences are just as bleak, according to most economists. Uncertainty might plague financial markets in at least the short-term future. Trade with Europe and the rest of the world could be hit hard, and travel will likely be restricted. John Van Reenen, director of the Center for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, told the New York Times in May:

The pro-Brexit argument that Britain will be free of lots of regulations, that there will be a bonfire of red tape that will cause us to grow rapidly and we’ll strike lots of new trade deals as this buccaneering new England–there’s just no credible scenario to any of that.

America’s Response to Brexit

Predictably, American leaders weighed in during the hours that followed the Brexit results. Barack Obama said that America’s relationship with the UK will not change, nor will its commitment to the EU, which “has done so much to promote stability, stimulate economic growth, and foster the spread of democratic values and ideals across the continent and beyond,” he said. Vice President Joe Biden, who was in Ireland when the results came in, said the United States “fully respects” the decision, but “preferred a different outcome,” adding, “And our relationship with Ireland and the European Union will remain the cornerstone of our global engagement.”

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, took to Twitter to voice his support for the UK and its “brave & brilliant vote:”

Just arrived in Scotland. Place is going wild over the vote. They took their country back, just like we will take America back. No games!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 24, 2016

Trump, whose movement in the United States has been compared to the Brexit Leave campaign, was in Turnery, Scotland to promote his new golf course. Hillary Clinton, the presumptive nominee on the Democrats’ side, used the result as an opportunity to reiterate the importance of a solid leader come November. “This time of uncertainty only underscores the need for calm, steady, experienced leadership in the White House to protect Americans’ pocketbooks and livelihoods, to support our friends and allies, to stand up to our adversaries, and to defend our interests,” she said in a statement.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Brexit: What You Need to Know in the Aftermath of Britain’s Historic Vote appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below: 

‘Trump’ Is Now A Verb in Mexico

Mexicans have responded to Trump’s presidential candidacy with their own brand of satire and turned his name into a verb meaning “to punch.” Apparently it is a trend in Mexico to turn things they hate into caricatures. For example, the state of Chihuahua has created a popular Trump taco, made with tongue, pig snout, and cow brain. Way to go Mexico! What a great way to deal with haters.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 24, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

In Sunday’s episode of “Last Week Tonight,” John Oliver explained the concept of Brexit for the American people, and presented a message to his fellow Britons. This is what he said about the European Union:

It’s a complicated, bureaucratic, ambitious, overbearing, inspirational and consistently irritating institution–and Britain would be absolutely crazy to leave it. Especially because if it stays, it can reap all the benefits while still being a total dick about everything, and that is the British way.

Britain is voting on Thursday on whether to remain in the EU, in the so-called Brexit referendum. The matter has not been widely covered in the US, and as you may wonder–why should Americans care? The fact is that Britain leaving the EU could have a huge impact on the world economy, and considering the special relationship between Britain and the US, on America’s economy as well.

Oliver listed institutions such as the Bank of England, the International Monetary Fund, and more among those who have said that leaving would have a negative impact on the British GDP. Then came a clip of the UK Justice Secretary saying he thinks people have had “enough of experts” who think they know best. “Fuck these eggheads with their studies and degrees, I get my economic forecast from clever Otis, the GDP predicting horse,” was Oliver’s ironic reply.

Among the most vocal supporters for Britain to leave the EU is the UK Independence Party, UKIP, which has the immigration issue at the top of its agenda. With refugee numbers at record highs, and increasing racism and nationalism in Europe, the situation has turned toxic. Last week pro-immigration politician Jo Cox was murdered by an assailant who seems to have had ties with white supremacist groups. He stated his name as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain” in court.

But Brits who fear immigrants may come in and steal their jobs shouldn’t be too quick to vote “leave.” As Oliver said, even if Britain were to exit the EU, it would not mean it would have complete control over their borders. As long as the nation wants to keep trading with the rest of Europe, it would have to keep abiding by some of its rules.

To cap off his tirade, Oliver said he understands the British need for telling the EU to bugger off, but suggested they do so with a profanity-laced song instead. Fast-forward to around the 14 minute mark in the above video to watch.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post John Oliver to Britain: The EU is an “Irritating Institution,” But Don’t Leave appeared first on Law Street.

The murder of British politician and Member of Parliament Jo Cox, 41, shocked Britain on Thursday. Now police are investigating whether the assailant was a white supremacist, supporter of an anti-Islam right wing group Britain First, or just a mentally disturbed loner.

What happened?

Jo Cox of the British opposition Labour party was leaving a meeting with constituents in northern England on Thursday, when a man armed with what has been described as an antique or handmade gun and a knife attacked her. She later died in the hospital. The killing came as a shock in a country where attacks on politicians are very rare, and gun laws very strict. She leaves behind her husband and two small children.

Remembering Jo Cox https://t.co/Ww6WO5DpzW pic.twitter.com/bOsGyg6ucr

— Human Rights Watch (@hrw) June 17, 2016

Britain First

The suspect Thomas Mair, 52, was arrested a few blocks from the crime scene. Early witnesses reported hearing the assailant shout “Britain First” as he shot and repeatedly stabbed Cox. This is the name of a far right wing group that wants to ban Islam, stop immigration, abolish the human rights act, and advocates for Britain to leave the EU.

Jo Cox was an active advocate for Syrian immigrants, known for her passion for human rights and refugees, as well as her campaigning against Brexit. Britain First released a video denying all involvement with the attack.

JO COX SHOOTING: Britain First official statement – https://t.co/S7etYC2Mmh pic.twitter.com/s2UlWZgxiA

— Britain First (@BritainFirst) June 16, 2016

American White Supremacists

Now reports from the Southern Poverty Law Center, a US based organization that tracks hate groups, claim that Mair bought a book about how to make a homemade gun. He reportedly bought the manual online in 1999 from the American Neo-Nazi group National Alliance, and subscribed to the group’s magazine and an apartheid magazine from South Africa.

Mair also bought a copy of the Nazi handbook “Ich Kampfe,” which is a reference to the infamous “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler and was handed out to new members of the Nazi Party in 1940’s Germany.

British Prime Minister David Cameron expressed his condolences on Twitter.

As a mark of respect for Jo Cox MP our flag is flying at half-mast over Number 10 today pic.twitter.com/vpiOEBXOKH

— UK Prime Minister (@Number10gov) June 17, 2016

A Quiet Man

But neighbors and family describe Mair as a quiet gardener who’s never been in trouble. His half-brother told ITV News “he wouldn’t hurt a fly”. This raises questions of whether Mair was deeply mentally ill, and whether the attack could have prevented with proper mental care. Mair spoke to a local newspaper in 2011 about how his volunteer work for a county park helped him with mental issues:

I can honestly say it has done me more good than all the psychotherapy and medication in the world. Many people who suffer from mental illness are socially isolated and disconnected from society, feelings of worthlessness are also common mainly caused by long-term unemployment.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn paid a tribute to Cox on Friday.

Today I travelled to Birstall to pay tribute to Jo Cox along with her colleagues, friends & the community she servedhttps://t.co/rnBoaCFif0

— Jeremy Corbyn MP (@jeremycorbyn) June 17, 2016

Neighbor David Pickles also described Mair as a peaceful man who kept to himself.

He’s just quiet. He kept himself to himself. He lived by himself. He’s been on his own for about 20 years. I’ve never seen a lot of people visiting or anything like that, but he likes gardening. He did a lot of people’s gardens round here. But he did it quietly.

In the wake of the murder of Jo Cox, the campaigning for the referendum on Brexit is suspended, but the voting will take place as planned on June 23.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suspect in Murder of British MP Jo Cox Had Ties With Neo-Nazis appeared first on Law Street.

It’s common for older politicians to go to great lengths to relate to and connect with young voters who are sometimes decades younger than themselves. David Cameron, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom–in an effort to induce young people to go to the polls on June 23 to vote for Britain to remain in the European Union–might utilize an untapped tool: Tinder.

While the 49-year-old will not be joining Tinder, or TheLADbible–a popular virtual community for young men–according to a spokesperson, he is considering using both as advertising platforms to spur young voters to participate in the June 23 referendum to prevent a “Brexit,” or a British exit from the EU.

“Cameron was holding meetings with various social media outlets to explore ways of encouraging more people to vote,” the spokesperson said in response to speculation of a Cameron Tinder profile, adding that the rumor “isn’t true.” Cameron has already engaged with Facebook and Twitter in an effort to get young people to register to vote before the June 7 deadline, hosting a meeting with representatives from the social media giants last week.

The youth vote is important to Cameron, who opposes Brexit, because polls suggest nearly two-thirds of those under 25 share his position. 

Young voters have never lived in a Britain untethered to a united Europe. The last time a similar vote occurred was 1975 when Britons took to the polls to vote on whether the island should remain in the European Economic Community–the precursor of the EU–or leave the bloc. Britain remained an EEC member with 67 percent of the vote going to the “remain” camp.

The arguments from each side largely revolve around the economy, British sovereignty, and safety. The primary arguments of Brexit supporters: immigration–those seeking jobs from other EU countries or those seeking refuge from the Middle East–is out of control and will worsen as EU ties strengthen. Greater EU cooperation–politically and economically speaking–has left Britain with a shrinking ability to act for itself. And in terms of the economy, long-term gains would outweigh short-term losses.

Arguments from the pro-Europe side, who are in favor of Britain remaining an EU member state: the bloc offers stability and security against potential threats abroad, namely Russia and China. Many leading economists argue that the uncertainty surrounding a Brexit would be detrimental to the economy. Nearly half of Britain’s exports land elsewhere in the EU, and an exit would mean less fluid trade with the continent, threatening British exports.

Young Brits would not be the only ones affected by a Brexit–1.3 million people between the ages of 18-35 who are citizens of other EU nations live and work in Britain. A vote for a Brexit could mean jobs lost and unstable futures for those without British citizenship, which at the moment, due to Britain’s EU member state status, does not prevent them from working in the country. However, that could be the case if Britain leaves the EU and gets ride of its lax immigration laws for EU members.

And while a “David Cameron, 49, prime minister seeking young voters” profile might not show up on Tinder, Bite the Ballot–a political group seeking to engage young voters–has not shot down its own partnership with the dating app: “We are in talks with Tinder… but can’t talk about specifics at this stage,” said Partnership Coordinator Kenny Imafidon.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post David Cameron on Tinder? When Wooing Young Voters, Anything is Possible appeared first on Law Street.

Last week’s verbal battle between London’s new mayor, Sadiq Khan, and Republican candidate Donald Trump is not over. Trump has now replied in an interview with British ITV, and said that Khan’s comments that he is ignorant were “very rude” and that he “will remember them.” Trump pointed out that Khan doesn’t know him and has never met him, and that he doesn’t really care about him or what he thinks. He also suggested an IQ test battle (which Khan declined).

Khan’s comments about Trump being ignorant came after several outbursts from the Republican about Islam and a possible ban on Muslims entering the U.S. After Trump’s comments, British politicians debated a ban on Trump entering their country, after a petition that was signed by over half a million people. However, the discussion in Parliament was seen more as an opportunity to discuss opinions about Trump and will probably not lead to an actual prohibition on a visit from the American. It did, however, lead to a statement from British Prime Minister David Cameron saying Trump’s suggestion to ban Muslims was “divisive, stupid and wrong.”

Donald Trump tells @piersmorgan: I may not have a 'very good relationship' with David Cameron if I become presidenthttps://t.co/Rw3Wc1ojec

— ITV News (@itvnews) May 16, 2016

In this morning’s interview Trump said that he and Cameron are “not going to have a very good relationship” if he’s elected President. In regard to Cameron’s comments, he said that he is not divisive at all, but that “unlike our president now, I’m a unifier.” He also said that Britain leaving the European Union wouldn’t matter to him and would probably not hurt Britain’s economy at all–totally contrary to what President Obama said about the issue in April. Obama said that Britain would end up in the “back of the queue,” since when the U.S. is negotiating trade deals it is primarily focusing on doing so with the bigger block that is the EU.

Britain’s possible exit from the EU, generally called “Brexit,” will be decided in a referendum on June 23. The supporters of Brexit think that the EU is holding Britain back when it comes to trade and economics, and are critical of the many rules and membership fees that the EU is charging. Another point of disagreement is the free movement principle within the EU that allows people from other countries to come and work in Britain.

In the end, Trump called Britain a great ally, and said that the nation would definitely not be at the back of the queue with him, despite his quibbling with the British officials.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Responds to “Very Rude” Statements Made by Sadiq Khan and David Cameron appeared first on Law Street.