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.

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.

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.

At the end of last year, the United Nations launched a working group to discuss the “arbitrary detention” of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange has been living in London’s Ecuadorian embassy since 2012, after his 2010 arrest in London, where he was brought in on charges regarding sexual assault and molestation in Sweden.

Both of the women who reported these assaults have remained anonymous in the press, but police have revealed that both incidents took place in August 2010. One of the charges was dropped in 2015, but the other still stands today. In a controversial move that alienated him from several political allies, the Ecuadorian ambassador granted Assange political asylum on the grounds that Ecuador has historically protected those who are vulnerable. Assange was concerned that if he was deported to Sweden, he might then be deported to the United States, where his involvement with Wikileaks could lead to him being tried for treason–and, according to Assange and his supporters, could face the death penalty. In July 2015, Assange requested asylum in France but his request was denied by Francois Hollande. For a series of several months, British police forces did guard the Ecuadorian embassy but they never made overt threats or attempts to forcibly remove Assange from his place of refuge.

The Guardian ran a poll this week to gauge popular opinion on the United Nation’s ruling that Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained–66 percent of Britons polled felt that the UN had made the wrong call. British politicians also fell into this camp–Prime Minister David Cameron said that the only person detaining Assange was “himself” and Secretary of State Philip Hammond rejected the UN decision via Twitter.

The UN may have handed down a ruling from on high, but British law enforcement still has agency over how to proceed with Assange. Assange has called the UN’s decision a victory that is legally binding, but the overwhelmingly negative response from British officials has led Assange to remain within the Ecuadorian embassy for the time being.  Swedish officials have supported the British decision to reject the UN ruling, leaving Assange essentially in the exact same position he was before the UN working group was formed. The UN has claimed that he should be allowed to walk free of the embassy and is even entitled to compensation but it did not specify how and when the UK and Sweden should go about dropping the charges against him and ensuring his reintegration into society.

The UN has effectively asked two governments to abandon a sexual assault case for no better reason than that the defendant is living a life of relative discomfort. Neither of these governments have tortured or committed any form of violence against Assange, they simply want to bring him in for questioning and put him on trial if necessary. Assange’s ruling should not be considered a landmark case because it is not one that will apply to any other situation. If any other criminal sought refuge within an embassy for several years, he would still be asked to undergo questioning and trial after leaving his place of asylum. Assange may have the satisfaction of a UN stamp of approval but the ruling likely has no leg to stand on in a legal setting.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Julian Assange’s Partial Victory: A UN Declaration with No Teeth appeared first on Law Street.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that a large swath of the Pacific Ocean in British territory will be delineated for protection. Focusing around the Pitcairn Islands in the center of the South Pacific, this reserve will be larger than California and represents a very momentous step forward in conservation.

Beneath the unassuming Pitcairn Island lies an aquatic wonderland. Courtesy of Fotorus via Flickr.

The marine habitat in this region is a thriving and delicate ecosystem. Due to its remoteness, human impact has been minimal; scientists are under the impression that there exist here a substantial number of species yet to be discovered. Furthermore, there are coral reefs, submerged mountains, and water quality of a cleanliness difficult to match elsewhere on Earth.

Prior to the designation as a reserve, threats to the health of the place loomed as illegal fishing activity has been drawing near in recent years. Seafloor mining is also now out of the equation. Old fashioned, low-scale fishing by the 60 or so residents of Pitcairn Island itself, most widely known as the settlement site of the mutineers in Mutiny on the Bounty, will be permitted.

So why is protecting this region such a big deal? First of all, for the sake of the locals and for the British government, the pristine, beautiful region is now guaranteed to remain so, and tourism is expected to increase. The Pitcairn Island is so remote that it is not often that people venture down there. In fact, National Geographic Explorer Enric Sala pointed out that between boats and planes it takes most people longer to arrive there than at the Moon. But applying this protective title increases its appeal. Furthermore, the loss of about $30,000 per year in fishing licenses would be easily recovered by tourist revenue and the benefits of being designated an Exclusive Economic Zone.

The Palmyra Atoll in the Central Pacific. Courtesy of USFWS-Pacific Region/Jim Maragos via Flickr.

Anything that can be done to preserve the health of an ecosystem is desirable. Just because the region around the Pitcairn Island is remote does not mean that any damage it might suffer would not affect other areas on the planet. We have already seen how human beings themselves, in addition to both aquatic and land-bound biodiversity, face threats from accumulating plastic in the oceans. A complex chain of relationships means that even a slight disturbance can cover large geographic and biological distances.

It is more difficult to think of a distant and highly inaccessible portion of the ocean as needing protection from humans, or as being vulnerable to human activity, as it is to regard portions of the land such as rainforests or mountain ranges as such. While we more easily and often see the consequences of our actions on land, we are more detached from the oceans and conditions in the water, both geographically and mentally. For this former reason, the last century has seen the creation of a wealth of national parks, UNESCO biosphere reserves, and vocal conservation organizations. These policies have done many great things to advocate for the health of the land, but only just recently have these motivations extended to the seas.

Marine reserves are oceanic equivalents of national parks. They are protected areas, encourage people to come see their beauty, and make statements as to the importance of our environments. The new Pitcairn reserve represents one of the largest manifestations of that sentiment, spreading environmental awareness and conservation to the farthest corners, yet equally interconnected, portions of the globe.

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Part of the Pacific is Being Legally Protected; Here’s Why It’s Important appeared first on Law Street.

The violence in Paris several weeks ago united Europe as little else has in recent years. Plagued by economic decline, some of the more prosperous nations have voiced discontent with the state of the European Union. Partly leading this surge is a wave of far-right political movements. These nationalist movements are gaining traction from Berlin to Paris to London as people tire of stagnant economic growth and demands for bail outs.

Additionally in many of these countries, a dramatic demographic change is occurring in which traditional peoples and cultures are finding themselves increasingly co-habitating with people who have different beliefs and practices. Read on to learn about the political shift and rise of right-wing groups in Europe after years of economic concerns and changing demographics in the region.

History of the European Union

The European Union, unsurprisingly, traces its roots to the aftermath of WWII. With the continent in ruins, several representatives from leading nations attempted to finally find some way to unify the region and put an end to the seemingly endless fighting that had just led to the most destructive war the world has ever known.

The process started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, which had six founding members: West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. These six nations agreed to unite their coal and steel production. The foundation was built up further with the Treaty of Rome in 1957, which created the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1967 the European Parliament was created and in 1979 it had its first direct elections.

The European Union itself was codified in 1993 through the Treaty of Maastricht. In 2002, the Euro replaced the currency of 12 of the 15 members of the organization. The Euro reached its highest value against the dollar in 2008; however, like much of the rest of the developed world, the EU was then rocked by the global economic crisis. Since this time, the EU has been attempting to fight off recession and recover, with the only real bright spot being the addition of its twenty-eighth member country Croatia in 2013. The video below gives a succinct explanation of the EU.

Economic Turmoil

In 2008 the global financial crisis hit the European Union and the results have been devastating both economically and with regard to the unity of the region.

The Rich

The economic crisis has hit both rich and poor countries within the Eurozone alike. While many of the rich countries were not in need of bail outs, they still suffered from high debt. First, they had to bail out those troubled fellow EU members that were unable to pay off their high debts after the crisis hit. They also lost markets to sell goods as the cash-strapped nations to the south could not afford to buy as much of their products.

Furthermore, while some indicators of a healthy economy appear to show rich countries in the EU doing well, these can be misleading. In the case of Germany for example, unemployment sits at a very respectable five percent; however, economic growth is virtually flat. In the third quarter of 2014 the economy only grew 0.1 percent, which followed on the heels of a second quarter in which Germany’s economy actually shrunk by 0.1 percent.

Germany is far from the only and certainly not the worst-off wealthy nation in the Eurozone either. France, the second largest economy in the EU, has an unemployment rate of over ten percent and grew only 0.3 percent during the third quarter of 2013. This miniscule growth, similar to that of Germany, also followed a second quarter contraction. Other cases include Spain, the number four economy, and Italy, the number three economy in the Eurozone, with unemployment rates of about 24 percent and 13 percent respectfully.

The Struggling

While the economic crisis certainly hit both wealthy and poor European nations, as is usually the case, the less robust economies ended up worse off. It begins of course with the bail outs. Ireland, Portugal, Greece, Spain, and Cyprus all had to accept large sums of money from other EU members to avoid default.

Furthermore, as a result of the bail outs, these countries and others struggling with the debt crisis have had to employ austerity measures; however, this strategy limits growth especially because creditors will be hesitant to lend money to struggling economies. This then creates a brutal cycle in which these countries have a difficult time paying off their debts because growth is low and unemployment will remain high. The video below gives a great explanation of the European Union’s economic problems.

Changing Demographics

Coupled with a shaky economic situation are dramatic demographic changes in Europe. This change can be divided into three categories: fertility, age, and ethnicity. First Europe as a whole has a very low fertility rate. Fertility rate is basically the number of children a family can expect to have during its childbearing years. Replacement level, or the level of children being born needed to adequately replace the existing population, is 2.1 children. In 2012 the average fertility rate for countries within the European Union was 1.6 children–well below replacement levels.

Since fewer children are being born, the average populations of these countries are rapidly aging. In Poland for example, the percentage of people above the working age population, 15-64, is expected to increase from 20.9 percent in 2010 to 58 percent in 2050. A large aging population can be a double edged sword, as not only are older people more dependent on public services such as health care and pensions, but they are also less productive in the economy and save less, which affects investing.

Thus a lack of new labor and a society that increasingly needs it has led to mass migration in Europe. This migration can be broken down into two groups. First is the traditional type of immigration, specifically from countries outside the EU to countries inside of it. In 2012, for example, 1.7 million people migrated to the European Union. The other type of migration is within the European Union itself; this figure also was approximately 1.7 million for the year 2012. Both types of migration are headed in one specific direction–west. Western European nations, which not coincidentally have the best economies, are bearing the brunt of the mass movements. The top five destinations in order of descending immigrant arrivals were Germany, the UK, Italy, France, and Spain.

It’s also important to note the origin of the people immigrating. Many are coming from Eastern Europe. A large portion of the incoming people and groups are also Muslim. While it cannot be reiterated enough that the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are in every way able adaptable to European life, there is tension in Europe over this influx. Current events, such as the fact that it has been estimated that currently as many as three thousand European-born Muslims have fought on behalf of ISIS or other extremist groups in the Middle East, haven’t helped this tension.

While fear of these fighters returning home has far outstripped any actual problems, the recent shootings in Paris show what can occur when a marginalized group becomes incredibly radicalized. Unfortunately this image of radicalized Muslims plays perfectly into the hands of politicians and right-wing groups that have come to prominence at the expense of immigrant groups.

Europe has a long history of xenophobia. When it deals with mass immigration, the fear has turned into Islamaphobia.  While western Europeans may not be particularly thrilled with eastern European immigrants, Muslims are being singled out in particular because of their different culture and the historical legacy of conflict between Christian and Muslim areas of Europe and the Middle East. This fear and Islamaphobia also extends to first and second generation Muslims as well, particularly in a time of economic uncertainty.

The Reemergence of the Right Wing

All these issues–economic problems, low fertility rates, and mass immigration–have led to a resurgence in the power and appeal of right-wing parties in Europe. More specifically, what has led to this rise is how economic problems are perceived as being compounded by immigration. For example, in the European Union the youth unemployment rate as a whole is 23 percent; in Greece it has been as high as 60 percent.

In a sadly ironic twist the backlash to this has usually been against immigrants who are perceived as stealing the few precious jobs that are available; however, immigration is necessary in the first place because the birth rates are so low. Additionally, immigrant populations have even higher unemployment rates than native youth.

As a result of these concerns, in recent elections several far-right parties including France’s Front National, Greece’s Golden Dawn, Hungary’s Jobbik, and the United Kingdom’s UKIP all won a surprising number of votes. Each of these parties display different combinations of outward anti-Semitism, anti-immigrant sentiments, and racism, or have been associated with such traits in the past. While this by no means represents a majority, it does indicate a disturbing trend for the European Union.

While it seems clear that far-right political movements are on the rise in Europe, the question turns to what exactly these groups want. Just like other political groups, especially across national lines, their interests vary. Overall, the focus seems to be anti-immigration, specifically based on a fear that immigrants will take away badly needed jobs from native residents. At the forefront of this movement is the Front National in France, which won the most seats in the European Parliament of any far right party.

The Front National can be characterized as one of the most moderate of the far-right parties coming to power.  Its primary focus is on nationalism instead of more overtly far-right ideologies espoused by other groups such as Golden Dawn, Jobbik, and the accused neo-Nazi NPD group in Germany; however, Front National has its roots in exactly the same kinds of dogma that these groups maintain, namely anti-Semitism and racism. This is why the far right party in Britain, the UKIP, has refused to join with them. Thus the main connection these groups all seem to have is strong support for anti-immigration measures, which entails moving away from a united Europe and its open migration policies between nations. The video below provides further explanation of the rise of far-right parties and what they believe.

Current State of the Union

Europe appears to be in serious trouble. Its native population is dwindling because of low fertility rates and an aging population. The people migrating in to fill this void, while on the whole younger, also bring different cultures and mindsets. All this has led to a wave of right-wing parties that are in favor of closing borders, ousting immigrants, and breaking away from the ailing European Union.

Europe’s economy, while growing slightly, is still badly damaged and will likely take years just to return to pre-recession levels. Additionally, fertility rates in Europe show no signs of increasing for the most part, at least in native-born citizens. Without more people to assist the aging population, immigration is also likely to continue. This immigration is also likely to continue from Eastern Europe and nations with different ethnic and cultural backgrounds, which often include large numbers of Muslims.

In the future, however, it seems possible that significant changes could come to the union. First it is possible that the UK leaves the EU. Prime Minister David Cameron has already been cornered into a vote on whether or not to stay in the union. While a vote certainly doesn’t mean anything for certain, the mere fact that it is being forced upon him does. If the UK does leave it could have additional shockwaves on other nations such as France and Germany and may also lower confidence in the EU’s future.

A lot rides on France and Germany. They both have already invested a lot in the European Union and reaped rewards from it, so it might be a stretch for them to leave; however, calls for potential European bank reforms to mimic what they have done nationally shows not only how they view their own importance in Europe, but also is a test of how the other members view them as well.

Conclusion

Far right parties are becoming increasingly popular and powerful in Europe. This has been the result of a number of factors; notably the Eurozone economic crisis, low fertility rates, an aging population, and a large influx in immigrants. Furthermore, every indication shows that these mechanisms are only likely to keep moving down this path and not reverse course. Therefore, while it is too early to give up on the grand experiment of a United States of Europe, serious reforms are needed if the experiment is to work. Reform is also necessary if European leaders hope to quell the rising influence of far-right parties and their supporters.

Resources

Primary

World Bank: Learning About the Unknown: The Economic Impacts of Aging in Europe and Central Asia

European Commission: 2014 Autumn Economic Forecast; Slow Recovery With Very Low Inflation

European Commission: Eurostat; Migration and Migrant Population Statistics

Additional

NPR: A Brief History of the EU

Forbes: Suddenly the EU’s Break-Up Has Moved From a Long Shot to a Probability

The New York Times: Study on Wealth Fuels Euro Crisis Debate in Germany

Statista: Unemployment Rate in Member States of the European Union

Eurostat: Total Fertility Rates

Vienna Institutefor International Economic Studies: Effects of Euro Crisis on Europe’s Periphery

Telegraph: Muslim Europe; The Demographic Time Bomb Transforming Our Continent

CNN: From Antwerp to Aleppo–and Back; Europe’s Nightmare

Guardian: Eurozone Growth Figures; Germany Narrowly Avoids Triple-Dip Recession

New Geography: Will Europe Hit a Demographic Turning Point?

Huffington Post: Sudden Rise of Far-Right Groups in EU Parliament Rings Alarm Bells Across Europe

USA Today: Immigration Backlah is on the Rise in Europe

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 Right-Wing Groups in Europe: A Rising Force? appeared first on Law Street.

The people of Scotland voted to maintain their 307-year-old union with the United Kingdom yesterday, as the Scottish independence referendum was defeated by a margin of 55.3 to 45.7 percent. The referendum had numerous implications for both Scotland and the UK, and while Scottish residents decided against independence, a shift in UK politics may now be looming.

The referendum marks one of the most significant events in UK politics, and campaigning went down to the wire as preliminary polls anticipated a narrow result. On September 15, just three days before the vote took place, the three major Parties in parliament vowed to provide more power to the Scottish government. David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labour Parties respectively, all came out in support of giving Scotland more control over its budget and public policy if the independence movement were to fail. Such a promise may have influenced the results of the referendum, and may also explain why its defeat was greater than previously expected.

The Future of Devolution

The debate over Scottish autonomy has sparked a lot of discussion of the media is calling “Devo-Max.” This term, also known as Devolution Max or “independence lite,” is the concept of giving Scotland a significant amount of autonomy in taxation, spending, and internal policy matters. At its fullest extent, Devo-Max would give Scotland control over nearly all of its policy with the exception of national matters like defense and foreign policy, which would remain in the hands of the national government.

Fiscal autonomy is one area that specifically appeals to the people of Scotland. A What Scotland Thinks poll found that nearly three quarters of Scottish residents favor giving the Scottish parliament primary authority over taxation and welfare if it did not become independent. Currently, Scotland receives a block grant from parliament each year to fund policy initiatives under its authority. If devolution went as far as fiscal autonomy, nearly all of its revenue would go directly to the Scottish Parliament, rather than to the UK for parliament to allocate.

The West Lovian Question

Conventional wisdom suggests that further devolution may be favorable to both Scotland and the United Kingdom, as Scotland would have more autonomy and the UK would retain the economic benefits of the union. However, such a solution could also exacerbate the current “West Lothian Question,” in parliament. The West Lothian dilemma was created during an earlier period of devolution. This problem got its name after Tam Dalyell, a member of parliament (MP) for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian, who cautioned against further devolution of power.

The UK parliament in Westminster devolved some of its authority to create the Scottish parliament in the late 1990s, and as a result, it no longer deals with every issue related to Scotland. Scotland still has MPs in Westminster to provide Scotland with a say in issues of national importance. As a result, issues that exclusively affect England are still voted on by the national parliament – meaning members from Scotland have a say in issues that exclusively affect England. The practical consequences of this could be a vote outcome that does not reflect the views of MPs representing English districts, even if the bill only affects England. As more and more power is devolved to Scotland and other parts of the UK, this problem will continue to worsen.

Suggested solutions to the West Lovian dilemma include the creation of England’s own local government, or restricting the vote on England-only issues to MPs from English districts. However, many oppose the creation of an additional level of government, and changing who can vote on specific legislation could create two different majorities depending on the issue at hand.

Going forward

Although the extent to which Parliament will devolve power to Scotland remains unknown, it is clear that the recent referendum has shaken up politics in the UK. Momentum from the independence campaign has forced a response from parliament; however, further devolution creates its own problems. Although the 307-year-old union remains, the UK’s national politics are likely going to change.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister and strong proponent of independence, announced his resignation after the results of the referendum came out. Although the referendum failed to secure independence for Scotland, it did provoke a significant response from parliament. In his resignation statement, Salmond noted the significance of the movement saying, “We now have the opportunity to hold Westminister’s feet to the fire on the ‘vow’ that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland. This places Scotland in a very strong position.”

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [stuart anthony via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Where Does Scotland Go From Here? appeared first on Law Street.

Meriam Ibrahim, the 27-year-old Christian woman who was jailed for apostasy in Sudan and sentenced to death by hanging last May has finally been set free, again.

Ibrahim’s story has gone global as she is the only Sudanese woman to escape a death sentence without renouncing her faith. Ibrahim was convicted of apostasy, the renunciation of one’s religion, after marrying a Christian man, Daniel Wani in 2011. The Sudanese government sentenced Ibrahim to death after she birthed her child, but through the efforts of diplomats and other world leaders, Ibrahim was released from jail and the charges were dropped.

Ibrahim’s release seemed to be a step forward by the hard-ass Islamic government in Sudan. It seemed that they had finally realized how barbaric they were being. But just as I raised my hands up to applaud the Sudanese government, they went and re-arrested the poor woman.

Liars! I say liars! Ibrahim barely had 24 hours of freedom before she was arrested for trying to leave the country. Really? Just for trying to leave after being imprisoned for holding on to her faith. Sudan, I didn’t hold your policies in the highest regard before, but now I am so ashamed, I can barely look you in the eye.

So ashamed.

Thankfully she was re-released on the condition that she remains in Sudan, according to her lawyer. She now faces forgery charges because of the travel documents she attempted to use to fly out of the country. South Sudan gave visas to the family to travel to America because the husband, Wani, is recognized as a citizen there. State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said that Ibrahim had all the documents needed to travel to the U.S., but that “it is up to the government of Sudan to allow her to exit the country.” Sudan sounds like a clingy ex if you ask me.

You would think that through all this Ms. Ibrahim would at least have the support of her family right? Wrong. Her own brother was quoted by CNN saying, “The family is unconvinced by the court’s decision. We were not informed by the court that she was to be released; this came as a surprise to us…This is now an issue of honor. The Christians have tarnished our honor, and we will know how to avenge it.”

Who said blood was thicker than water?

If it wasn’t for the international outcry by so many official figures across the world, Ms. Ibrahim wouldn’t have been saved. But support has come from notable figures such as British Prime minister David Cameron who said he was “absolutely appalled,” by the sentence given by the court, and told The Times that “religious freedom is an absolute, fundamental human right, I urge the government of Sudan to overturn the sentence and immediately provide appropriate support and medical care for her and her children.”

Amnesty International headed a campaign demanding the immediate release and halted execution of Ibrahim, started a Change.org petition that has gained more than 600,000 signatures, and released a statement saying, “the fact that a woman has been sentenced to death for her religious choice, and to flogging for being married to a man of an allegedly different religion is appalling and abhorrent. Adultery and apostasy are acts which should not be considered crimes at all. It is a flagrant breach of international human rights law.”

The U.S. State Department said it was “deeply disturbed” by the sentence and called on the Sudanese government to respect Ms. Ibrahim’s religious freedoms.

And to put the sweet icing on top of the justice cake, tweets calling on the Sudanese government to release Ibrahim from Hillary Clinton, David Cameron, and British personality Laura Laverne were retweeted thousands of times.

I am absolutely appalled by the decision to sentence #MeriamIbrahim to death. The way she is being treated has no place in today's world.

— David Cameron (@David_Cameron) May 31, 2014

Meriam Yahya Ibrahim’s death sentence is abhorrent. Sudan should stop threatening religious freedom and fundamental human rights.

— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) May 24, 2014

#Sudan: pregnant mother sentenced to death for apostasy. Take action to save her life https://t.co/fQqZlRIRxx

— Lauren Laverne (@laurenlaverne) May 21, 2014

The problem at hand here is the so called “Freedom of Religion” in Sudan. In 2005 the Interim National Constitution of Sudan provided freedom of religion throughout the entire country, but in practice religious minorities exist between the North and the South. Christians in the North face strong social pressure to convert, and Muslims who express interest in converting face even stronger pressures to recant. Ibrahim was the first woman who did not have to convert religions to be released. Forcing women into believing in a certain religion doesn’t seem all that holy to me, and while the step is small, Ms. Ibrahim’s case is a step in the right direction.

Although she is being forced to stay in Sudan, I have a strong feeling that Amnesty International, the U.S. State Department, the British Parliament, and Hillary Clinton will all still have a strong voice in the matter and Ms. Ibrahim and her family will be free at last.

Bring it

—

Trevor Smith

Featured imaged courtesy of [Waiting for the Word via Flickr]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Meriam Ibrahim: Free at Last? appeared first on Law Street.

Twitter has become one of the easiest ways to provide snippets of information to the public. Celebrities, writers, and of course, politicians, can accrue followers to spread their messages. But not everyone is as twitter-savvy as they could be. In fact, some politicians have tweeted some pretty embarrassing, stupid, and ridiculous things. So….(drumroll please!)

Thank you, dog!

Let’s countdown some of the biggest political Twitter mistakes, gaffes, ridiculous statements, and abuses of 2013!

10. Rep Tom Latham’s inability to understand satire

The tweet in question:

Thanks Politiwoops, for archiving this!

The backstory: A few weeks ago, The Daily Currant published an article claiming that MSNBC pundit Chris Hayes was sickened by Veteran’s Day. Tom Latham retweeted the link, and posted about it on Facebook, stating he was sickened by the statements that Chris Hayes didn’t actually make. The problem? The Daily Currant is a satirical news outlet, much like The Onion.

Now, Latham did take down the post very quickly, but still, someone on his staff should have thought to point out that he was getting mad over a fake news story. Fact checking, guys. It really isn’t that hard.

9. Ari Fleischer publicly admitting he’s kind of a huge jerk 

The tweet in question:

Courtesy: PublicShaming

The backstory: Alright, you caught me, Ari Fleischer isn’t actually a politician, but I couldn’t pass this one up. He is a former White House Press Secretary though, so he counts. In this tweet from January of 2013, he referenced the fiscal cliff deal reached in Congress on January 1, 2013. In that deal, tax deductions for individuals donating to charities would be limited. But, it’s important to note that it would only apply to individuals making $250,000 or more, yearly. If Mr. Fleischer was worried about this change to tax breaks applying to him, he’s clearly doing relatively well. So, for him to choose to withhold money from charities because it either a) wouldn’t benefit him as much or b) because it made a political point, was pretty awful. The fact that Fleischer happily tweeted this fact for all the world to see?

Downright despicable.

8. Rep Juan Vargas’s really really bad typo 

The tweet in question:

Thanks again, PolitiWoops!

The backstory: We all make typos, and autocorrect has brought down even the most text-savvy among us. But this is very, very bad. What’s worse is that neither he nor his staff noticed this god awful typo for 8 weeks. That’s right, this tweet remained on Rep Vargas’s twitter for 2 months.

7. TN State Rep. Frank Niceley just lying to constituents on Twitter

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Everyone threw blame around during the shutdown. But most of it came from pundits and commentators, not elected officials themselves. Using the hashtag #harryreidsshutdown was pretty disingenuous, and it’s safe to say that this was simply not polite political rhetoric.

Play nice, Frank Niceley. Otherwise your name will be misleading.

Politicians are supposed to provide information to their constitutions and fight for their interests, not mock each other.

6. David Cameron proves it’s not just American politicians who are embarrassing on Twitter

The tweet in question: Well, it’s not really a tweet, it’s more something that happened on Twitter. David Cameron, the current UK Prime Minister, followed an escort agency on Twitter on November 20th. This is what Carlton of London’s Twitter looked like a few weeks ago.

The backstory: Ok, this one isn’t actually that embarrassing. It turns out this is an older Twitter account set up during the previous Prime Minister, Gordon Brown’s time in office. This account is barely used today. But it auto follows back anyone who follows it. So, a bunch of spam accounts have a Twitter follower that reads as “UK Prime Minister.” Even if this isn’t the PM’s team’s doing, they should have really taken care of these old accounts a long, long time ago.

Pretty embarrassing, right, Hedgehog?

5. Steve King meets “DREAMers”, tweets his fear

The tweet in question:

Shout out to Public Shaming!

The backstory: A group of “Dreamers,” or young, undocumented immigrants who have usually been successful in the US, visited Steve King’s DC office. They didn’t invade. They walked in to voice their concerns, as they have the right to do. I highly doubt Steve King actually felt unsafe, and if he did, it’s because he’s a racist neanderthal who does things like compare these “Dreamers” to drug mules.

I need to take a quick eye-roll timeout.

4. Jeb Bush doesn’t do his research 

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Apparently, there’s some crazy rumor going around that the US is closing its embassy in Vatican City. It’s not true. Completely not true. It’s being moved into a new compound with the Italian Embassy in Rome, but they will still have separate offices and staff. The Vatican Embassy will even have it’s own entrance. And it will actually be located .1 miles closer to the Holy See. I got all of this information by tapping top secret wires, of course.

I’m only half this coordinated.

I’m kidding. I got it through a google search. Which was apparently not something Jeb Bush thought to do before tweeting this information.

3. GOP’s “racism has ended” flub

The tweet in question:

The backstory: I would write some snarky response to the RNC’s claim that racism has ended, but the good people of the internet have already done it for me! The hashtag #RacismEndedWhen started trending and some truly inspired responses were born:

Check out this compilation, courtesy of BuzzFeed.

2. Speaking of Racism, Obama Advisor tweets N-Word 

The tweet in question:

The backstory: Dan Pfeiffer, a senior advisor to President Obama, was tweeting back and forth with New York Times journalist Jonathan Martin regarding an article about the shutdown.

Apparently he meant to say “bigger” but had a very unfortunate typo. Another Journalist, Lachlan Markay caught the error and immediately retweeted it, despite Pfeiffer’s attempts to delete it. Pfeiffer had tweeted it from his official White House account. Again, we all make typos. But if you’re going to be tweeting from your official White House Twitter handle, it really is important to double, triple, and quadruple check what you’re saying.

1. Rep. Steve Stockman thinks babies should be given guns

The tweet in question:

Public Shaming caught this one.

The backstory: There’s a lot of terrifying implications about this tweet. First, it implies that Rep. Steve Stockman thinks that women who have abortions should be shot. This comes from Stockman’s campaign Twitter, meaning that he wants people who might vote for him to know this. This is horrifyingly violent rhetoric. Rep. Stockman, put down the computer, please.  

It’s time to stop for the day.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Pete Souze via Flickr]

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 The Biggest Political Twitter Mishaps, Gaffes, and Weird Statements of 2013 appeared first on Law Street.