Polish President Andrzej Duda vetoed two of three bills on Monday that would have broadened the government’s powers in shaping the Supreme Court. The three laws, proposed by the populist Law and Justice Party (PiS) and passed by parliament last week, ignited protests across the country. They also brought swift condemnation from the European Union and the U.S. State Department.

In a televised statement, Duda said the judicial reforms would “not strengthen the sense of justice” in Poland. Duda added that he supports reform, “but a wise reform.”

The vetoed legislation would have allowed the Justice Ministry to remake the Supreme Court. Current justices would have been pushed out, forced into early retirement, while new judges would have been selected by the justice minister. The third bill, which Duda approved, gives the justice minister the authority to select judges to fill Poland’s lower courts.

Despite Duda’s surprising decision to veto the controversial bills, PiS can still push through the reform measures with a three-fifths majority vote. PiS could not achieve that unilaterally however, and would need an assist from other parties. Given the bill’s unpopularity outside the right-wing PiS, a veto-proof majority is an unlikely scenario.

The effort by PiS, the ruling party, to reshape the courts prompted protests in at least 100 cities over the weekend. In Warsaw, thousands of people packed the streets to protest the legislation, waving EU and Polish flags, and carrying signs that read “constitution.” Some protests turned violent.

“People can demonstrate in the streets, can show their dissatisfaction, but not resort to violence,” Duda said in his address.

The EU and the U.S. also disapproved of the reforms. Last week, Donald Tusk, the European Council president and former leader of Poland, said the bills would “ruin the already tarnished public opinion about Polish democracy.” The EU also threatened to trigger Article 7 and impose sanctions on Poland, a rarely used diplomatic maneuver.

The State Department also chimed in, saying in a statement on Friday that the legislation “appears to undermine judicial independence and weaken the rule of law in Poland.”

“We urge all sides to ensure that any judicial reform does not violate Poland’s constitution or international legal obligations and respects the principles of judicial independence and separation of powers,” the statement from State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert continued.

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 Polish President Vetoes Controversial Judicial Reform Bills appeared first on Law Street.

YouTube is facing renewed pressure from musicians and their lawyers over the share of revenue that artists receive from the site compared to other music platforms.

The issue stems from the fact that artists receive $1 per 1,000 plays on YouTube, but $7 per 1,000 plays from companies like Spotify or Apple Music, according to the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA).

Earlier this Spring the RIAA claimed that YouTube, which is owned by Google, “wrongly exploits legal loopholes” to minimally pay musicians, according to NBC News. It is able to do this because of its standing as a third-party resource, which is protected by federal laws that distance the company from what its users post on the site.

YouTube is not liable due to the “safe harbor” rules, which state that platform sites are not liable if someone uploads a copyrighted song until the copyright holder files a complaint.

“It isn’t a level playing field,” said one music executive who spoke with Washington Post on the condition of anonymity. “Because ultimately you’re negotiating with a party who is going to have your content no matter what.”

The issue has become particularly relevant since the European Union decided to crack down on the issue within its territory. Noting the “value gap” between music services, the E.U. plans to release new regulations that can close the gap and provide artists the royalties that they want. So, the battle against YouTube is heating up.

YouTube’s main argument against these claims is that it provides exposure to musicians who wouldn’t normally get that publicity. The company also notes that it already spends $1 billion in royalties each year. The company claims that if it removed music from its website 85 percent of people would flock to services that offer even lower, or no, royalties. One issue with the validity of this claim is that it is based on a study that was commissioned by YouTube.

YouTube mainly generates its revenue from advertisements and sponsored content, but that money stream has dried up to some degree in recent months. Mega corporations such as Verizon, AT&T, and Enterprise recently pulled ads from YouTube after being displeased with their ads coinciding with videos they didn’t approve, according to Recode. So even though the company has had the money in the past to pay for expensive royalties, they may not have that much extra cash in the coming years.

Artists and those representing them have ample evidence that they are being ripped off by YouTube. Irving Azoff, who has represented musicians like Christina Aguilera, told the Washington Post that one of his other clients gets 33 percent of her streams from YouTube but that yields only 10 percent of her streaming revenue.

Another example: Cello player Zoe Keating showed the Washington Post that she earned $940 from 230,000 streams on Spotify and only $261 from 1.42 million views on YouTube. She said that the YouTube money is so negligible she barely pays attention.

Another issue is that even when YouTube signs licensing agreements with music labels they are signed begrudgingly. When Warner Music Group signed a new deal with YouTube, a memo from chief executive Steve Cooper leaked out revealing his feelings on the “very difficult circumstances”–his company caved instead of continuing to pay $2 million to remove its music from the site.

“There’s no getting around the fact that, even if YouTube doesn’t have licenses, our music will still be available but not monetized at all,” the memo said.

Just as the music industry struggled to adapt to emerging software in the 1990s with the emergence of Napster and Limewire, artists are once again trying to navigate a murky situation with music and video streaming services. Whatever the European Union chooses to do going forward could pave the way for what the American industry will do.

For now, you can still enjoy your favorite music on YouTube, Spotify, Apple Music, or any number of other services, but it’s worth noting how the service you choose affects the money going into the pockets of your favorite musicians. It may not make a difference for well-known artists like Pharrell or Arcade Fire, who have both complained, but it certainly matters for less popular artists like Keating.

Read More: Streaming Music: Good Business or an Attack on Artists?

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 YouTube Faces Pressure From Music Artists To Pay Up appeared first on Law Street.

Protests began Tuesday evening in Hamburg, Germany, ahead of the G-20 summit where leaders from 19 countries and the EU will gather on Friday and Saturday to discuss global issues, including trade and climate change.

Thousands of G-20 protesters gathered in Hamburg to protest capitalism, environmental inaction, and the G-20 summit itself. The protesters believe the summit is undemocratic because a select group of world leaders is making decisions that will impact the entire world. German police fired water cannons to disperse a group of about 500 protesters on Tuesday, according to the UK news outlet The Daily Express.

On Wednesday, 1,000 performance artists clad in clay-covered clothes crept and crawled through the streets of Hamburg. The performance by artist collective “1000 Gestalten” (1,000 figures) was meant to represent individuals’ advancement of themselves rather than society as a whole, and to get people engaged in the political process, according to the group’s website.

The demonstrators, coated head-to-toe in gray clay, inched their way down the street with dull expressions on their faces. Eventually, they stripped off their gray clothing to reveal colorful clothes–and for some, naked bodies–underneath as a symbol for joyous liberation.

Germany: Actors smeared in clay protest #G20 summit https://t.co/UgnAmmrVmT pic.twitter.com/IbmCdu8PjL

— RT (@RT_com) July 6, 2017

Peaceful protests continued on Wednesday and Thursday, including a march resembling a block party with music and dancing.

In Germany, they protest the #G20 with dragons on top of cars, beer, and serious, serious techno. pic.twitter.com/egGxSKMqVy

— James H-H (@jamesonthewaves) July 5, 2017

Stores boarded up their windows in preparation for property destruction and looting.

Hamburg: stores closed/boarded up in anticipation of (anti-NATO/IMF) #G20 protesters,”Hamburg macht dicht” #G20HAMpic.twitter.com/jrWIdn3OJc

— Kristina Dei (@2kdei) July 6, 2017

One group of protesters dressed as the heads of state present at the summit to protest the leaders. Another group carried a sign reading “Welcome to Hell,” a phrase which became the moniker of Thursday’s march.

G20 Welcome to Hell – My pictures of yesterday are online. Escalated After Police attack https://t.co/pclzlbMUTn #g20 #nog20 #w2h #nog20en pic.twitter.com/FEiePPHhWA

— Fabian Schumann (@schumann_fabian) July 7, 2017

According to the Guardian, the “Welcome to Hell” march was supposed to travel from Hamburg’s harbor toward the convention center where the summit is being held, however police stopped the protesters from proceeding shortly after the march began.

Hamburg police deployed water cannons and tear gas against protesters Thursday evening around 7 p.m. Some protesters began tossing bottles and other objects back at police, according to The Daily Express.

Demonstrators clashed with police in Hamburg during an anti-G20 protest, with tear gas and water cannon being used #G20 pic.twitter.com/eYyTIWksqk

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 6, 2017

Protests at the G-20 summit are nothing new. During the 2010 G-20 summit in Toronto, peaceful protests were interrupted by a group of anarchists who destroyed police cars, store windows, and other property. Police used batons, tear gas, pepper spray and plastic bullets against protesters, and detained more than 1,000 people.

While the G-20 has seen protests before, the events leading up to this year’s summit were especially tense given protesters’ opposition to President Donald Trump. Trump visited Poland’s President Andrzej Duda in Warsaw, Poland, on Thursday and gave a speech questioning “whether the West has the will to survive.”

Trump then flew to Germany later that day for the G-20 summit, arriving amidst the protests in Hamburg, where he met with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. The president declined to say what he and Merkel discussed behind closed doors. However, Merkel told the German parliament on June 29 that “we cannot expect easy talks in Hamburg” on climate issues.

On Friday, the first day of the summit, demonstrators resumed peaceful protests with sit-ins and marches.

RAW: Police cleared a sit-in protest ahead of the opening of #G20 summit (Video: Sebastian Kroeck) pic.twitter.com/96Ai6X1WE7

— dwnews (@dwnews) July 7, 2017

“You are 20, we are plenty,” reads a banner shown at a #G20 protest rally in #Hamburg. #G20HAM17pic.twitter.com/7yEKqGfRiE

— Arafatul Islam (@arafatul) July 7, 2017

With the start of the G-20 summit, Trump will continue to meet with fellow heads of state, including his first face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin meet for the first time at the G20 summit in Hamburg pic.twitter.com/LQmSKkWQks

— Sky News (@SkyNews) July 7, 2017

If one thing is clear, it’s that demonstrators from Germany and around the world are dissatisfied with the G-20 summit and the direction in which the world’s top leaders are moving.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protesters and Police Clashed Ahead of G-20 Summit in Germany appeared first on Law Street.

The world watched with bated breath on Sunday to see if the tide of nationalism sweeping through Western democracies would rise even higher in France. By voting in Emmanuel Macron–a proponent of the European Union–the French people, for the time being, stemmed that rising tide. But Sunday’s election, in which Macron won over 66 percent of the vote, was not a death knell for populism.

Marine Le Pen, the face of France’s populist movement, was roundly defeated by Macron, but one-third of the country supported her populist nationalism and anti-EU posturing. Equally as important to the future of France, however, is the parliamentary elections set to take place between June 11 and 18, which will shape France’s government and determine the length of Macron’s leash as he pursues his agenda.

As France moves beyond this divisive election, it is unclear exactly where it is heading. For one, Le Pen’s National Front party resonated with some 10 million people, a great deal more than it did in 2002 when her father was crushed in the run-off by Republican Jacques Chirac. But the far-right National Front was not the only fringe player this time around. Far-left candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon attracted hordes of young people and others who are equally as disaffected by the European project and its moneyed elites.

Populist yearnings, or at least curiosities, will not simply vanish because of Macron’s resounding victory. In 2017, for the first time in decades, France’s top two parties were not of the traditional left-wing, right-wing dichotomy. People in France–and, seemingly, around the globe–are craving change. If Macron is able to deliver tangible benefits to the people–from the factory worker in France’s hinterlands to the young, unemployed Parisian–then perhaps he can bring about a new stability that will defend against hard-liners like Le Pen and Mélenchon.

The first test of Macron’s effectiveness will come next month, during the two-round parliamentary elections, which follow the runoff format used in the presidential election. His En Marche! (Onward!) party, formed last year, will have to attract a sizable swath of parliamentary seats to carry out Macron’s centrist vision.

Conditions in France have clearly enabled populism to grow–on both ends of the political spectrum. Macron’s most important–and most challenging–task will be to appeal to those who voted him in (many who did so reluctantly, more against Le Pen than for Macron), and to create conditions and opportunities that snuff the growing populist flame. After Sunday’s vote, Macron appeared ready for the myriad challenges that face him and the republic he will now lead.

“I understand the divisions of our country that have led some to vote for extremists,” he said. “I understand the anger, the anxiety, the doubts that a great part among us have also expressed.” Later Sunday evening, Macron, standing in front of the Louvre, pledged to make good on his all-inclusive platform: “I will do everything I can in the coming five years to make sure you never have a reason to vote for extremism again,” 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 Emmanuel Macron Won the French Election, but Populism is Not Dead 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.

Private employers in European Union member-states can now legally ban employees from wearing head scarves or other religious garb, the bloc’s highest court ruled on Tuesday. The European Court of Justice’s ruling comes at a time of creeping anti-immigrant and anti-Muslim sentiment across Europe, most notably in France, Germany, and the Netherlands.

Head scarves are not the only targeted religious ornaments; the ruling could affect Sikh men who wear turbans or Jews who wear yarmulkes, for instance. Applying only to the workplace, the ban is binding for EU member-states, as all ECJ rulings are. Some European politicians who are bracing for heated elections later this year welcomed the ruling. Francois Fillon, the scandal-plagued presidential candidate in France, called the ruling an “immense relief,” and said it would be “a factor in cohesion and social peace.”

France’s far-right candidate, Marine Le Pen, has built her campaign around anti-immigrant, and specifically anti-Muslim, policies. She is expected to advance to the second round of voting, which will take place on May 7. In Germany, the far-right Alternative for Germany party is seeking to supplant Chancellor Angela Merkel in an election in September, though the party has recently dipped in the polls. The party’s Berlin leader, Georg Pazderski, applauded the ECJ’s ruling, saying it “sends out the right signal, especially for Germany.”

The ruling was based on two separate cases brought to the court by France and Belgium. In the first case, Samira Achbita, who worked for a security company in Belgium, was fired when she refused to remove her head scarf while at work. The ECJ ruled that Achbita had not been discriminated against because her workplace’s ban of religious attire applied to all religions, not just Islam.

“An internal rule of an undertaking which prohibits the visible wearing of any political, philosophical or religious sign does not constitute direct discrimination,” the court said, adding that the rule “treats all employees to the undertaking in the same way, notably by requiring them, generally and without any differentiation, to dress neutrally.”

In the second case, Asthma Bougnaoui was fired after a customer of her France-based IT consultancy firm complained that her head scarf was “embarrassing.” The ECJ ruled that she had, unlike Achbita, been discriminated against, because a customer complaint does not justify the firing of an employee. But that does not mean an employer cannot have a policy that employees are forbidden to wear religious attire in the workplace. The ECJ ruling allows for such a policy, which many religious and civil rights groups worry could lead to discrimination, specifically against Muslim women.

“It will lead to Muslim women being discriminated in the workplace, but also Jewish men who wear kippas, Sikh men who wear turbans, people who wear crosses,” said Maryam H’madoun of the Open Society Justice Initiative. “It affects all of them, but disproportionately Muslim women.”   

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 European Court of Justice Rules That Employers Can Ban Religious Attire 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.

As humans create smarter and more advanced robots, and they start to take over human jobs, maybe it’s about time to think about their legal status. The European Union is currently considering giving robots the rights of “electronic persons,” based on a draft report. But it’s not quite as sci-fi as it sounds. Robots won’t start thinking all by themselves and demanding equal rights anytime soon. This legal definition is instead a way to hold companies accountable for things their robots do. And it’s not law yet, only a draft of a series of recommendations for EU lawmakers. Member of European Parliament Mady Delvaux, from Luxembourg, who wrote the draft report said:

A growing number of areas of our daily lives are increasingly affected by robotics. In order to address this reality and to ensure that robots are and will remain in the service of humans, we urgently need to create a robust European legal framework.

As robots become advanced enough to make decisions without a human’s input, they can be considered to be more than simple tools. But it’s hard to say just what they are. Legislation would help define that, as well as ensure that someone is liable, for example, if a driverless car has an accident.

EU MEPs endorse Robot rights proposal: “electronic persons” status, kill switches https://t.co/HzmM9yXyMx#Legal #status #EU #robotics #AI pic.twitter.com/zcTIweoxgv

— Ian Hannigan (@IanHannigan) January 12, 2017

Delvaux and other MEPs are campaigning to create a new European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence. In such a new and quickly developing area, experts are needed to ensure that public authorities can easily get access to technical and ethical information. They also suggest streamlined rules for robot appliances and an ethical code of conduct to determine who, in case of a conflict, is to be held accountable for any social, environmental, or health impacts caused by robots. The guidelines would include the recommendation of a kill switch for all AI machines, in case of emergency.

If a robot were to be seen as an “electronic person,” it would “clarify responsibility in cases of damage,” a press release for the draft report said. So it’s not really about making a robot into a person. “Robots are not humans and will never be humans,” Delvaux said to The Verge. Legally, it just makes things less complicated. Legislation like this would ensure that companies can’t just say “it’s not our fault” if a self-driving car crashes and kills whoever is traveling in it.

The next step is for the draft to be passed on to the European Commission, the EU body that makes the laws. An actual decision on the matter could take years.

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 The EU May Legally Define Robots as “Electronic Persons” 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.

As Italians prepare to vote, observers prepare for what might be another referendum shock. From the election of Donald Trump to Brexit and the initial referendum on the Colombian peace deal, national votes have had some surprising results in 2016. While the upcoming vote in Italy has some similarities to these other contentious votes, its underlying characteristics also set it apart.

On the ballot is a major set of constitutional reforms that would dramatically change how the legislature works, with the hope of increasing the stability and efficiency of the Italian government. While the vote itself would have dramatic consequences for the Italian government, the outcome might have important implications for the rise of populism in the west and financial stability in the Eurozone. Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has already staked his job on the outcome of the vote and ongoing debt issues faced by Italian banks could worsen with little hope of a political fix in the short term.

What is the Referendum?

The reform package involves several major changes to the way the government functions. It would significantly change the nature and size of Italy’s upper chamber–going from 315 senators to 100 lawmakers from a mix of sources. Members of the upper chamber would no longer be elected directly, with 74 councilmen and 21 mayors elected by regional governments and the president appointing the remaining five senators. The chamber would also have significantly less power, as it would lose the ability to conduct votes of no confidence, which dissolve the government and force new elections, and would serve in more of an advisory role for new legislation. The lower chamber, the Chamber of Deputies, would gain much more influence and most new laws could be passed without approval from the other chamber, as is currently required.

While even some critics argue that major reforms are necessary, they take issue with the specific measures that have been proposed. Italy has the second largest parliament in Europe with 950 seats and the current system of “perfect bicameralism” requires both houses to agree on legislation before it is passed. The resulting gridlock has made it particularly difficult for the country to pass new legislation, even when it comes to noncontroversial laws. But those who oppose the referendum contend that these fixes are not the reforms that Italy needs, and may make the government vulnerable to authoritarian or populist takeovers.

The current checks and balances were put in place for a reason, as the post-World War II government was established in part to prevent the rise of another authoritarian figure like Mussolini. But the system remains particularly unstable, as the country has gone through 65 governments in 70 years, with only one serving the full five-year term. Critics may agree that the system is not particularly stable, but they argue that the proposed changes to the Senate go against democratic values and put more power in the hand of local governments that have had issues with corruption.

Immediate Consequences

The outcome of the referendum vote may spread beyond Italy. Some speculate that a “no” vote could lead to a crisis in the euro zone. Although there is a two-week polling blackout before the vote, polls conducted before the deadline show that the “no” vote had a sizable lead, although a considerable percentage of voters remained undecided.

If the referendum fails and Prime Minister Renzi resigns, it will likely lead to the appointment of a caretaker government to implement electoral changes for the 2018 election. The current election system uses different rules for both chambers–the new Italicum system essentially guarantees a governing majority to the largest party, but only applies to the Chamber of Deputies–that could result in two different majorities.

Other fears involve the rise of populism in the absence of Prime Minister Renzi. The anti-establishment Five Star Star movement led by former comedian Beppe Grillo has been gaining in popularity and could continue to gain popular support in the power vacuum. The movement has called for a vote to leave the euro and has been very skeptical of Italy’s EU membership in general.

The Looming Banking Crisis

Similarly, the country has had a looming banking crisis for several years that is now starting to peak. Italy was one of the hardest hit countries during the European downturn, with a seven-year recession hitting many important industries. Poor economic conditions and bank mismanagement led to a situation where one-fifth of all loans in the Italian banking system are considered troubled. While the crisis is potentially solvable, any solution requires dealing with some very difficult political decisions. Recent EU banking reforms prevent countries from bailing out their banks without “bailing-in” bondholders and shareholders to ensure that investors bear some of the losses. These laws present a significant challenge because Italian banks’ bondholders include a mix of institutional investors and retail investors. That means that bailing investors in would involve forcing losses on everyday citizens, which would create a significant political problem.

Some argue that a “no” vote would not necessarily lead to a crisis in the euro zone because the European Central Bank will be able to help in the event of a monetary crisis. However, Renzi’s resignation would make it harder for the Italian government to help its ailing banks. While a “yes” vote would put some momentum behind Renzi and his Democratic Party, the government still has a lot of political challenges ahead of it.

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 Political and Financial Instability Looms Over Italian Referendum appeared first on Law Street.

Earlier this week, while Americans were busy analyzing our President-elect’s latest round of ill-advised tweets, France held a presidential primary, and the results could have some major impacts on the country’s 2017 presidential elections. On Sunday, candidate François Fillon beat out his two opponents, Alain Juppé and Nicolas Sarkozy, in the primary elections for France’s center-right Republican party. The victory was a major upset, considering that just last month, Fillon, France’s former prime minister, was trailing far behind Juppé and Sarkozy in the polls, making it unlikely that he would even be a competitor.

If you’re wondering why this news should matter to an American preparing for Trump’s presidency, it’s because France is poised to be the next nation to watch as Western countries are trending strongly toward populism and ultra-nationalism. These attitudes, which led to Brexit and our own President-elect Trump, have also been on the rise in France, a country which has traditionally been known for its left-wing politics.

If you’ve heard Marine Le Pen’s name being thrown around recently, it’s because she’s the leader of France’s far-right National Front, a party that has been known for certain extreme views against immigration and the European Union. Le Pen’s father, who was the party’s former head, was expelled from leadership after anti-Semitic comments.

After the Brexit decision, Le Pen wrote an op-ed for the New York Times calling the European Union a “prison of peoples” and declaring “The People’s Spring” inevitable. While the Brexit decision certainly gave Le Pen more ammunition to use in her cause, it is likely that Trump’s election will further increase the anti-establishment attitudes reflected by Le Pen and her supporters. She herself called Trump’s win a “sign of hope” and an indication that “people are taking their country back.”

Fillon’s victory on Sunday is significant because the Republican party was considered the greatest hope to prevent Le Pen’s victory in the presidential elections. While Fillon is a social conservative who has vowed to fight “Islamic totalitarianism,” he is still considered to be preferable to the left over Le Pen, whose plans to appeal to the working class and those fed up with the “establishment” and “elites” mirror the familiar rhetoric of the Trump campaign. It is unlikely that the left will have any representation of its own in next year’s race, as the low popularity of current Socialist President François Hollande indicates that the party will be unable to compete. Hollande announced today that he would not be seeking re-election, but polls indicate that any alternative candidate chosen by the Socialist Party will likely not be able to challenge Fillon and Le Pen.

If Le Pen is victorious in 2017’s elections, it could spell trouble for the future of the European Union and would likely be a discouraging outlook for liberal politics all over the globe. As the “Trump effect” sends ripples that will undoubtedly shake up the world order, the French election is one to watch.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why You Should Care About the French Presidential Election 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.

Earlier this month Polish nationals fought for their reproductive rights after the ruling Law and Justice Party (PiS) tried to pass a bill designed to criminalize abortions. The proposed statute, which was originally brought forth by an anti-abortion citizens’ initiative and encouraged by the Catholic church, aimed to completely outlaw abortions unless the mother’s life was threatened. Prison sentences for illegal procedures would have also increased from two to five years, in addition to penalizing surgeons who perform unlawful operations.

In the wake of such a proposition, a series of protests dubbed “Black Monday” disrupted the ordinance from gaining further momentum in the predominately Catholic country. Three days after these events unfolded, the Sejm (the lower house of the Polish parliament) overturned the bill in a 352-58 vote–proving the power of an active citizenry. Considering how successful these protests were in persuading the government to discard the bill, Poland nonetheless has an array of political and cultural challenges to overcome before women achieve total self-autonomy. The following article delves into some of these obstacles.

The Magnitude of “Black Monday”

On a conceptual level, these historic actions were inspired by an Icelandic strike in 1975, where 90 percent of the country’s female population abandoned their jobs and domestic duties to denounce rampant workplace discrimination. Propelled by this example, protests were held throughout Poland and other surrounding countries on Monday October 3, 2016. Solidarity events took place in Berlin, Dusseldorf, London, and Paris, although the largest of these assemblies occurred in the Polish capital of Warsaw where approximately 30,000 individuals (clad in black clothing) gathered to rebuke the religious-based injunction. Such an outpouring of support surprised many, considering people only had a day’s notice to prepare for the event. Some even boycotted school and work to show their commitment to the cause.

“The protest was bigger than anyone expected. People were astonished,” said one activist, Agnieszka Graff. “Warsaw was swarming with women in black. It was amazing to feel the energy and the anger, the emotional intensity was incredible.”

During an interview with NPR, Reuters staff member and Polish citizen, Justyna Pawlak, also explained how the protests caught on like wild fire, despite the lack of initial planning:

There wasn’t a real kind of serious organization committee. And what’s interesting is, you know, Poland, as you said, is a very conservative country still, even though the power of the church and the – kind of the sway of the church over the heart and soul of churchgoers has been waning, bishops still have a lot of – a lot of influence over how people vote and how they think. There’s still quite a lot of opposition for abortion on demand in Poland, but many women felt that these new proposed restrictions just simply went too far.

An Unforeseen Political Response

Following these nationwide protests, the Justice and Human Rights Committee of the Polish parliament urged the PiS to reconsider the ordinance. PiS Chairman Jaroslaw Kaczynski surprised many by taking this suggestion to heart after witnessing the intensity of the Black Monday demonstrations. According to the Wall Street Journal, the right-wing politician realized that a total ban could potentially have adverse effects later down the road. From his perspective, a complete ban would only embolden future efforts among liberal politicians to ensure unabated access to abortions someday. In the end, Kacynski’s remarks resonated among other senior politicians and even the Catholic clergy, who couldn’t endorse prison sentences for women seeking abortions.

“What you’re proposing isn’t the right course of action,” said Kaczynski. “Considering the situation in the society, what you’re proposing will be a factor that will start processes whose effect will be exactly opposite to what you’re talking about.”

Poland’s Strong Catholic Roots

Compared to other countries in the European Union, Poland’s pre-existing reproductive laws were already among the most restrictive because of the nation’s Catholic roots. Last year approximately 1,000 women received legal abortions, which could only be fulfilled if the fetus was severely damaged, if the mother’s life was jeopardized, or if the pregnancy was caused by incest or rape. Although the recently initiated bill was not ratified, these stipulations still exist today. Faced with such barriers at home and fear of stigmatization, an estimated 150,000 illegal abortions are performed every year in facilities with questionable sanitary conditions. Keeping this in mind, thousands of Polish women also travel abroad to receive abortions, especially in nearby countries such as Germany, Czech Republic and Slovakia–termed “abortion tourism.”

These aforementioned policies began in 1993 as a means to replace Poland’s communist-era policies where abortions were once easily obtainable. With 95 percent of the country identifying as Catholic, it is widely acknowledged that the church yields profound “moral authority” over the population and influences people’s political decisions. Some doctors are reluctant to even facilitate abortions, even if the mother’s survival is in peril or if a pregnancy is a result of rape. There have been noted cases where doctors deliberately delayed approving abortions until the twelfth week when it’s too late to remove the fetus. Back in 2012, for example, officials tried to persuade a 14-year-old from opting out of an abortion after being raped. Another problematic incident transpired when a vision-impaired mother, Alicja Tysiąc, was forced to follow through with her pregnancy regardless of the dangers it presented to her eyesight. This brings up the question of human rights and whether or not Poland’s reproductive policies are disregarding Polish women’s wellbeing.

Interest groups such as the Stop Abortion coalition and think-tank Ordo Iuris are still actively trying to enact prohibitive laws against abortions. After all, they are the lobbyists responsible for presenting the Polish parliament with more than 400,000 signatures to start the bill in the first place. At first these groups’ endeavors were backed by the Catholic church. In the long run, though, the clergy could not promote a law allowing for the imprisonment of women and health practitioners. 

Conclusion

Public opinion over abortion appeared to drastically change once the protests materialized. Recent polls indicate that the majority of Poles now disapprove of the ban, not to mention desire the existing set of reproductive laws to become more liberalized. The Economist says that today only 14 percent of Poles condone the original ban (in hindsight), making it highly unpopular among today’s general populace.

The participants of Black Monday may have set a new precedent for other countries with restrictive abortion laws, but pro-choice activists still have a lot of work cut out for them. Certain political parties are currently drafting their own anti-abortion bills and trying to push them into legislation. For example, it is reported that PiS is pushing for a “eugenic abortions” bill that would criminalize abortions for fetuses with abnormalities–meaning that the three existing stipulations for abortions would be dwindled down to only two. So far in PiS’s tenure in Polish parliament, the group has also cut state funding for in-vitro fertilization as well as drafted legislation to ban and criminalize the morning-after pill.

To prevent further “medieval regulations” from being placed on the agenda, Poland’s opposition party, Nowoczesna (meaning “modern” in Polish), have pledged to provide women with more reproductive freedom. The liberal party partnered with the Save the Women group to plan the Black Monday protests. According to them, illegal abortions could cease to exist if the Polish government decided to introduce sex education into the classroom, allocate state-funded contraception, as well as provide wider access to qualified doctors.

Resources

BBC News: Poland Abortion: Parliament Rejects Near-Total Ban

CBC News: Poland’s Proposed Ban on Abortion Part of Broader Push to Turn Back History

Center for Reproductive Rights: Tysiąc v. Poland: Ensuring Effective Access to Legal Abortion

The Conversation: The Battle Over Abortion Rights in Poland is Not Over

Economist: Polish Women Skip Work to Protest Against an Abortion Ban

The Guardian: Poland’s Abortion Plan Near Collapse After Mass Protests

New York Times: Poland Steps Back from Stricter Anti-Abortion Law

NPR: Poland Backs Down on Abortion Plan After Extraordinary Protests

Reuters: Abortion Protests Rattle Polish Ruling Party, May Prompt Rethink

Reuters: Europe Rights Court Condemns Poland in Abortion Rape Case

Reuters: More Polish Women Seen Seeking Abortions Abroad

Vox: Poland Votes Down an Extreme Abortion Ban After Thousands of Women Go on Strike

Wall Street Journal: Poland Rejects Abortion Ban After Protests

Washington Post: Why Would Poland Make its Already Strict Abortion Law Draconian?

Jacob Atkins

Jacob Atkins is a freelance blogger and contributor for Law Street Media. After studying print journalism and international relations at American University, Jacob now resides in Madrid where he is teaching English, pursuing multimedia reporting projects and covering global news. Contact Jacob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

http://jacobson.pressfolios.com/

The post Poland’s Abortion Protests: What was “Black Monday?” appeared first on Law Street.

Recently, the European Union determined that Apple must pay $14.5 billion in back taxes to Ireland. Unsurprisingly, Apple is challenging the ruling and claiming that its arrangement with Ireland was perfectly legal. What is surprising is that Ireland may actually support Apple’s appeal and claims it doesn’t want the money, a concept that many in the United States support as well.

Read on to find out what this scandal has revealed about the tax policies in Ireland and the E.U., how corporations avoid paying higher taxes, and what the likely ramifications would be for Apple if is ultimately forced to pay the taxes in Ireland and other nations around the world.

Apple, Ireland, and Unpaid Taxes

The decision against Apple was handed down by Margrethe Vestager, the head of the E.U.’s competition committee. The competition commission has taken it upon itself to go after corporations and countries that strike unfair tax deals, with companies such as Starbucks and Amazon also under investigation. However, this is the first major case brought against a company operating in Ireland.

Ireland, for its part, already has one of the lowest tax rates in the world at 12.5 percent, something it uses as a comparative advantage to attract companies to relocate there. However, that rate is actually significantly higher than the tax rate it agreed to with Apple. In 2013, a United States’ Senate committee discovered a deal between Ireland and Apple that called for a 2 percent or lower tax rate for the company. Both parties have seemingly taken the “lower” option, though, as Apple was allegedly being taxed at a rate of 50 euros for every 1 million euros made or 0.005 percent. While that number is up for dispute, it is clear that the effective tax rate that Apple faced was remarkably low.

This remarkably low tax rate was what the E.U. had taken issue with. The E.U. argues that when countries like Ireland give special tax rates to certain companies they are engaging in anti-competitive behavior that unfairly punishes companies without these deals. But regardless of the ruling, the United States would not be able to tax the money Apple stashed overseas unless it is brought it back into the United States.

In the video below, Margrethe Vestager explains the recent E.U. ruling:

Tax Havens

For its role, Ireland has been labeled a “tax haven.” However, countries serving as tax havens, while unscrupulous, are not necessarily breaking any laws. In fact, many corporations who take advantage of what these nations are offering have made dodging taxes into a virtual art form. Individuals can use tax havens to legally refrain from paying a variety of taxes such as inheritance, capital gains, and even regular income tax while companies take advantage of low corporate tax rates.

While Ireland gets the most attention for its low tax rates because of the situation with Apple, it’s deservedly so as a quarter of Fortune 500 companies had offices there which they may use to pay lower taxes. There are a number of places, mainly in Europe and the Caribbean, in which low tax rates, lax enforcement, or protective banking laws make for attractive spots to place wealth and profit.

Companies are able to avoid paying U.S. taxes by booking their profits in countries with particularly low tax rates. We can tell that companies do this because these countries are often small, yet the profits from large multinational companies are quite big. In some cases reported profits in certain countries actually surpass the GDP there. The following quote from the Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning think tank, sheds light on what is actually happening:

It is obviously impossible for American corporations to actually earn profits in a given country that exceed that country’s total output of goods and services. Clearly, American corporations are using various tax gimmicks to shift profits actually earned in the U.S. and other countries where they actually do business into their subsidiaries in these tiny countries. This is not surprising, given that these countries impose little or no tax on corporate profits.

Corporations Not Paying their Share?

Just as Ireland is not the only country with a low corporate tax rate and a willingness to strike a deal with American companies, Apple is not alone in moving its profits abroad in order to avoid paying the high U.S. tax rate. As of this year, American companies had $2.4 trillion in income that has not been repatriated and instead is being held outside the United States. If that money was brought back to the United States, the subsequent taxes would amount to nearly $700 billion. While Apple has over $200 billion in profits held overseas, it is hardly alone. High-profile companies such as Microsoft and Pfizer also hold substantial amounts of cash outside the United States.

The main culprit for all of this is allegedly the U.S. corporate tax rate, which at 35 percent is one of the highest in the developed world and one of the highest overall. While some companies have discussed moving their money back to the United States–particularly if there were a window or a temporary tax holiday like the one in 2004–many are pursuing another course. Namely, many large companies have resorted to corporate inversions, in which an American company merges with another, often smaller, company located in a country with a low corporate tax.

Companies employ other, similar techniques as well. One is something known as earnings stripping, where a U.S. subsidiary issues debt to their foreign parent company, thereby lowering its taxable income.

The following video looks at how companies relocate to reduce their tax burden:

Ramifications of E.U. Ruling

With all the ways corporations avoid paying taxes and past efforts to close loopholes, perhaps the most surprising aspect of the European Commission’s decision to make Apple pay back taxes is who is opposed to the ruling: Ireland. Shortly after the commission made its decision, Ireland announced it will appeal. Obviously, the immediate question is why a country would be willing pass on $14.5 billion. The answer is that while Ireland would be passing up a lump sum in tax revenue, keeping Apple’s taxes low ensures the company’s continued presence there and the benefits that come with it, like jobs. If Ireland were to raise Apple’s taxes, Apple may be compelled to move somewhere else as Ireland would be less appealing. It could also have the effect of scaring away other companies who viewed Ireland as a good place to do business.

This decision is complicated further because it is not made in a vacuum. Ireland has had some notable fiscal issues and was bailed out by the E.U. and IMF in 2010. But Ireland may not want to risk losing the jobs that Apple brings as well as its reputation as a business friendly country.

Another surprising group opposed to the European Commission’s ruling is a collection of U.S. lawmakers. The members of both parties in the United States are opposed ultimately because that money would otherwise be paid to the United States. Lawmakers feel that if Apple is forced to pay Ireland it will complicate tax matters between the E.U. and the United States. If Apple ends up paying the $14.5 billion it will actually be able to use that as a credit against other taxes that it owes in the United States.

While the fight seemingly boils down to who gets the money and whether Ireland can keep Apple’s headquarters, it also has the potential to raise an even larger question. Specifically, by forcing Ireland to tax at a certain rate, the E.U. is entering the murky waters of Irish sovereignty. While the E.U. is not concerned with Ireland’s low tax rate specifically, its problem is with the special tax deal it offered Apple–the ruling does amount to the E.U. intervening in a country’s private affairs. This is a particularly awkward position given that the U.K. just voted to leave the E.U., in part, over concerns of overreach by Brussels. While talk in Ireland has certainly not approached that level yet, some people have already broached the topic with names like “Irexit.”

Conclusion

As of February, Apple was the most valuable company in the world with a market value of approximately $534 billion. It’s is not surprising that even the most basic effort to reduce Apple’s tax burden would become news. Of course, the news tends to snowball when its tax deal with Ireland violates European Union rules. While Apple’s actions are not necessarily illegal as much as they are a profit-driven company taking advantage of a terrific deal, the situation certainly raises eyebrows, particularly when it’s not unique to one company.

Whether or not the E.U. will allow Apple’s current tax arrangement in Ireland to persist remains to be seen, as an appeal would take some time to sort out. Either way, it has shone the spotlight on a very common practice by major corporations. While Apple may have the most cash and be the most egregious case, the other companies doing the same thing reads like a who’s who of major corporations.

Unfortunately, the climate is such that instead of lauding the E.U. for trying to recover owed taxes and protect competition, there was an immediate backlash against the ruling. Ireland tried to refuse $14.5 billion out of fear of losing jobs and other investment and American politicians criticized the E.U. for targeting American companies. Many questions remain in the United States. In order to really address the underlying problems, U.S. lawmakers will need to reform the corporate tax code to truly prevent American companies from engaging in international tax avoidance.

Resources

The New York Times: Apple Owes $14.5 Billion in Back Taxes to Ireland, E.U. Says

CNN Money: Ireland doesn’t want $14.5 billion in tax from Apple

The Washington Post: How U.S. companies are avoiding $695 billion in taxes

The Motley Fool: 10 Best Tax havens in the World

Yahoo Finance: US taxpayers could end up covering Apple’s back taxes in Ireland

Forbes: These Are the 10 Most Valuable Companies in the Fortune 500

Bloomberg: Pfizer-Allergen Deal may Be Imperiled by U.S. Inversion rules

The Washington Post: How the E.U.’s ruling on Apple explains why Brexit happened

Citizens for Tax Justice: American Corporations Tell IRS the Majority of Their Offshore Profits Are in 12 Tax Havens

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 Overseas and Undertaxed: How Companies Avoid Paying Taxes 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 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.

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.

First, it was a song and video, satirizing him as a “big boss” whose neck swells at the sight of press freedom. Then: a poem read by a German comic on television that skewered him, making his blood boil, finally inciting him to respond. Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is unhappy with the recent barbs aimed at him by public figures in Germany, and has embarked on a courtroom assault to punish those who have launched satirical attacks against him, stirring up important questions for Germany to mull over: Is it unlawful for a German citizen to offend a foreign leader? Can Germans be silenced from abroad?

The latest development in the notoriously thin-skinned Turkish leader’s crusade against German critics came Tuesday when a court denied his injunction against Mathias Döpfner, the head of one of Germany’s largest media outlets. Döpfner wrote a letter–championing “freedom of expression, art and satire”–in support of Jan Böhmermann, the comic who performed the scathing poem on German television in April.

Tuesday’s ruling is a blow to Erdogan’s silencing campaign. Ralf Höcker, the lawyer representing Erdogan in Germany, said his efforts to silence the “online lynch mob” are about “human dignity, namely to protect it.” The Cologne state court backed Döpfner’s right to free speech, calling it “a contribution to building public opinion in a controversial debate.” A spokeswoman for Axel Springer, the media company Döpfner is chairman of, called the case “baseless.”

Erdogan’s legal case rests on an 1871 German law that prohibits the mocking or offending of a foreign leader. In summoning the obscure, forgotten law, he joins an esteemed club of heads of state whose critics have been silenced in the past: Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran and former dictator Augusto Pinochet of Chile.

The law was first brought back from obscurity in April, when Erdogan called on a German court to prosecute the comic, Böhmermann, on the basis of the 1871 law. Some Germans expressed ire at their own leader, Merkel, for her inaction in denouncing Erdogan’s attempts to suppress free speech.

“We champion that our partners and allies guarantee freedom of opinion and the independence of justice to the same extent as they are in Europe and other countries of the democratic world,” Merkel said in April, during a press conference in which she granted Turkey the go-ahead in its legal case against the satirist Böhmermann. The trial has yet to begin, as prosecutors are still investigating the case.

Erdogan’s move to silence his German critics comes at a time of increased cooperation between his government and that of German Chancellor Angela Merkel, as the European Union tries to stem the flow of refugees uprooted from the Middle East. A favored route of the Syrians, Iraqis, and Afghanis seeking refuge in Europe goes through Anatolia, from Turkish ports to Greek ones, then into Eastern Europe and beyond. Many asylum seekers hope to eventually reach Germany, which has Europe’s strongest economy and most lenient refugee stance.

The deal between Turkey and the European Union–with Merkel as its foremost representative–went into effect in March. As the enforcement of the agreement rests largely on Erdogan, he has used his newfound leverage as a tool to extend his penchant for silencing critics beyond his own borders and into Germany. How that leverage will manifest itself in the future is certainly worth keeping an eye on.

And while Germans wait for the outcome of Böhmermann’s case, they will not stop satirizing Erdogan. Instead, they’ve found more creative outlets for their ribbing: Erdogan-Burgers, anyone?

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 Turkey’s President vs. German Satirists: A Battle Over Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

Early this week, hundreds of migrants in Greece–many of whom made perilous journeys on inflatable rafts to make it there–were placed onto ferries to be sent back to where they came from. This is the result of a new deal between the European Union and Turkey to help ease the undeterred flow of migrants into Europe, which began its implementation on Monday. The deal stipulates that un-vetted refugees who landed in Greece will be sent back to Turkey, and in exchange, a vetted refugee in Turkey can be brought to Europe to be resettled. This “one-for-one” trade sounds like a  simple enough solution for stopping an uncontrolled flow of refugees into Greece, but the endless logistical, ethical, and political issues that have arisen with it are making it a problematic solution to a complex problem.

While the State Department called the deal an “important step,” it has been criticized by many human rights organizations and aid groups who allege that Turkey is not a safe place for these migrants to return to. Amnesty International believes that there are “fatal flaws” in the deal, alleging that Turkish authorities have been forcefully sending hundreds of refugees back to war-torn Syria. The deal also doesn’t offer protections to non-Syrian migrants, who were also being deported under the deal.

Protesters dive into sea as ferry carrying #migrants prepares to leave #Lesbos returning them to turkey pic.twitter.com/q1Gz608HAG

— Sophie Long (@S0Long) April 8, 2016

The deal is facing a variety of challenges so far: BBC reports that arrivals into Turkey have already been delayed, and 3,000 migrants still sit in centers awaiting deportation (which could take weeks at minimum). Tensions have also been high in Greece, where “irregular migrants” who have arrived since March 20 (the date the deal was put into effect) have been put into holding centers that have been described as “prison-like.” Early Friday, protests broke out on the island of Chios between hundreds of migrants who had broken out of their centers and residents of the island. 

To add to that, Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan has been adding to fears that Turkey is undependable, reportedly threatening to not support the refugees if the EU did not live up to its end of the deal (which consisted of promised cash and EU membership to Turkey).

Main refugee camp on #Lesbos. Minutes earlier aggressive Greek police chased me away and deleted my photos. pic.twitter.com/WQ02iZBlBH

— Nick Squires (@NickSquires1) April 4, 2016

These are only a few of the many issues facing this deal, and it’s only gotten started. It’s hard to definitively say whether this is a step forward or a step back. While the EU clearly needs to confront the problem of an unchecked flow of refugees entering Europe, it also must be careful not to compromise the human rights of these groups, many of whom have already lived through horrific atrocities. This agreement clearly has problematic elements that make it difficult to ensure these rights; however, it remains to be seen how the deal will affect the situation of the refugees in the long-term.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Why Hundreds of Refugees are Being Shuffled Around Europe appeared first on Law Street.

Barcelona wants independence. The parliament of Catalonia, the region in which Barcelona lies, voted to secede from the Spanish government by 2017. But this may or may not happen. Spanish Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has already publicly denounced the move and has plans to fight it. The region of Catalonia, especially Barcelona, is a prime destination for tourists visiting Spain. Although the news might come as a shock to outsiders, the seed of independence has been growing in the region for years. But why? And what are its chances of success?

Recent Events

On November 9, Catalans approved a plan to eventually withdraw from Spain. The two pro-succession parties won a majority of legislative seats in the Catalan parliament in a landmark win back in September, which paved the way for the recent parliament vote. The “Together for Yes” alliance won 62 seats in the 135 member parliament. In addition to the Together for Yes alliance, the pro-independence Popular Unity Candidacy Party (CUP) won another 10 seats, adding up to a majority. The local Catalan government is led by President Artur Mas of the Democratic Convergence for Catalonia Party, which is part of the alliance.

However, there is a slight caveat. A majority of seats doesn’t necessarily equate a majority of the popular vote. An odd Spanish election law grants a greater percentage of seats to rural areas with fewer voters. In other words, the two parties received just 48 percent of the vote, but a majority of the seats. Catalans who live in rural areas tend to favor separatism more than those in urban areas, but the vote gave more voice to rural Catalans. The leading candidate of the anti-independence Citizens Party, Ines Arrimadas, responded, “[Artur Mas] said the majority of Catalans were with him. Today the majority of Catalans turned their back on him and the only thing he must do is resign.”

“Together for Yes” and the CUP both favor separatism; however, they aren’t always in tune. For example, the CUP initially claimed it wouldn’t approve a succession plan unless the two parties cumulatively received more than 50 percent of the vote. The CUP also favor immediate withdrawal, in contrast to the current 18-month succession plan supported by the Together for Yes Parties. Back in September, the CUP’s leading parliamentary candidate, Antonio Banos, claimed that the CUP would not back Mas for president. However, differences were put aside (at least temporarily) to approve the current plan.

Members Approve A Withdrawal Plan

The plan for withdrawal was approved by the regional parliament of Catalonia with a vote of 72 to 63. But after the vote, Spanish Prime Minister Rajoy immediately claimed he would appeal the decision to the Constitutional Court and would join forces with the main opposition leader fighting against the cause. However, the plan instructs the regional government to not follow a contradicting court decision, calling for Catalonia to begin drafting a constitution within 30 days. The new constitution is to be voted on in a referendum in the future and the plan instructs the government to implement a new tax office and social security administration. Anti-secessionist branches of the Catalan parliament initially tried to block the vote, but the Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the vote a week before. Although the court supported the vote, it is still expected to swiftly deem the plan illegal.

Leadership

Artur Mas’ third term is far from guaranteed. Most likely, the Catalan parliament will begin a debate over whether Mas should continue his reign as head of the region’s government. Mas only retains 62 of the required 68 votes needed to stay in his position. Obviously, the anti-independence parties are against him, as is the CUP. Mas has a history of conservative austerity policies. Either way, the regional parliament must form a government by January 9 or call for new elections.

The move toward Catalan separation will be a hot topic in Spain’s upcoming national election. Rajoy’s response to the issue may be a determining factor in whether his party, the People’s Party, will remain in power.

A Brief History of Catalonia

The Catalan people are extremely proud of their unique culture and identity. This is true for those that want to be an independent nation and for those that identify as Spaniards as well. Catalonia borders the Mediterranean Sea in the northeast of Spain and is separated from southern France by the Pyrenean mountains. Barcelona serves as the region’s capital.

Catalonia became a part of Spain when King Ferdinand of Aragon married Queen Isabella of Castille in the 15th century. Although Spanish culture seemed to be taking over the region, a resurgence of the Catalan identity emerged in the 19th century. This period saw the beginning of Catalonia’s campaign for political autonomy and at times, separatism. The movement was rewarded when Spain became a republic in 1931 and gave Catalonia its much-desired autonomy. Shortly afterward, Barcelona fell to General and dictator Francisco Franco, as did its autonomy. Franco heavily restricted the Catalan government, culture, and language.

The death of Franco in 1975 restored many freedoms to Catalonia, even though the bad blood has never quite been forgotten. Today, Catalonia has a “Generalitat” made up of its parliament and executive. The Catalan language is publicly used in education, government, and the media. Almost all Catalans are bilingual, speaking Spanish in addition to Catalan. As a region, Catalonia excels in manufacturing and technology. While it previously focused on textile production, its economy now centers on chemicals, food processing, and metalworking.

Why does Catalonia want independence?

Long story short, the desire for independence comes down to three basic elements: politics, economics, and nationalism.

Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy’s conservative People’s Party is the fourth largest in Catalonia and strongly opposes the Catalan independence movement. Artur Mas is the leader of the Convergència Democràtica de Catalunya (CDC). The CDC, along with the left wing Equerra Republicana de Catalunya Party, the conservative Christian Democrates de Catalunya Party, and the social-democratic Moviment d’Esquerres Party make up the Together for Yes coalition. Although the political leanings of these four groups vary widely, they all want Catalan independence.

Catalonia is widely considered the industrial hub of Spain. It also brings in a large amount of money from its tourism industry. All in all, it produces 18.8 percent of Spain’s economic output. Many natives feel that Catalonia gives more to Madrid in taxes than it receives in government investment. Spain’s economic crisis only exacerbated these sentiments. Lastly, Catalonia pride needs to be taken into account. Catalans are immensely proud of their traditions and culture including food, language, and football.

An Informal Vote

In November 2014, an unofficial vote took place in Catalonia asking if the region should be independent. Over two million people voted out of approximately 5.4 million eligible voters. Over 80 percent of the voters backed an official referendum on Catalan independence. The vote occurred despite strong opposition from the Spanish government.

On the ballot, there were two questions. First, if Catalonia should be a state and second, if that state should be independent. In total, 2,236,606 Catalan citizens took part in the vote. A little over 10 percent voted yes for the first question and no to the second. Approximately 4.5 percent voted no to both questions.

Spanish Justice Minister Rafael Catala declared the vote to be a “sham” and stated, “The government considers this to be a day of political propaganda organized by pro-independence forces and devoid of any kind of democratic validity.”

However, the unofficial vote was an important factor leading to the official vote on independence. It proved the strength and numbers behind the movement.

Response

The Catalan independence movement was officially halted by Spain’s Constitutional Court shortly after the regional government’s vote as the court announced it would hear the Spanish government’s appeal. This is an official suspension pending the court’s ruling.

The government appeal was swift. Prime Minister Rajoy proclaimed, “This is an appeal against a resolution that aims to break up the unity of Spain.” He said, “this is about defending a whole country.” Spain’s economic crisis has resulted in the unemployment of one in five Spaniards. A major fear is that the loss of Catalonia will disrupt the country’s recovery.

The court’s ruling stated, “This is a warning to [Catalan leaders] that if they fail to comply with the suspension, they may commit disobedience.” However, as mentioned above, the Catalan government does not plan to adhere to the Constitutional Court’s ruling.

European leaders also warn that independence could result in an ejection from the European Union and the economic and security benefits that membership has to offer. However, leaders of the independence movement believe there may be ways to side-step such an ejection.

Tensions between Catalonia and Spain are increasing considerably and will likely continue as the dispute continues. Rajoy did not invite Mas to his meeting with Spanish political leaders concerning jihadist terrorism, although Catalonia has a relatively high level of jihadist activity relative to the rest of Spain.

Conclusion

As Catalonia’s attempt to secede from Spain mounts much remains to be seen. How will the Spanish Constitutional Court rule? How will the ruling realistically affect the endurance of the movement? The upcoming national election will be extremely telling in regards to the movement’s future. It will be a hot topic on candidates’ platforms and the country’s reaction as a whole will be insightful.

Another question to keep in mind is will the anti-independence Catalan citizens make a stand? There are many people convinced that the independence-seeking citizens in Catalonia may not even constitute a majority. Regardless, the world is watching.

Resources

BBC: Catalonia Profile

BBC: Catalonia Vote

CBS: Catalonia Makes it Official

CBS: Pro-secession Parties in Catalonia Win Landmark Vote

Euro News: Spain

The Irish Times: Standoff Puts Catalonia’s Independence Plans in Jeopardy

The Telegraph: Why does Catalonia Want Independence from Spain?

The Local: Catalonia Elections

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Independence for Catalonia: Will it Become a Reality? appeared first on Law Street.

The European migrant crisis isn’t going away anytime soon. Although it has only recently become a hot topic, the number of migrants passing into Europe has been on the rise for the past five years. After a storm of tragedies this summer, the EU’s immigration problem has become an important issue for Europe and even the United States. Unfortunately, it has been a season of all questions and few answers. But recently, European leaders have shown some willingness to address the issue.

Recent Tragedies

On August 28, the bodies of 71 smuggled migrants were found in the back of an abandoned truck near Vienna, Austria. The victims included 59 men, eight women, and four children. This incident led to a strong backlash against human traffickers. Austria’s interior minister, Johanna Mikl-Leitner, released a statement saying, “This tragedy is a concern for us all. Smugglers are criminals. They have no interest in the welfare of refugees. Only profit.” Around the same time, a fishing boat and smaller boat sank off the coast of Libya, claiming the lives of approximately 150 migrants.

On September 2, the lifeless body of 3-year-old Aylan Kurdi was found by a Turkish policeman on the shore of Bodrum, Turkey. The Dogan News Agency captured the scene. An image of the Kurdish toddler face down in the sand instantly went viral– resonating with people around the world. Aylan Kurdi’s body was found after boats sank off the coast of the Greek Island of Kos. His five-year-old brother and mother were also among the dead. Teema Kurdi, his aunt, applied to sponsor the family’s entry to Canada, but was denied due to missing documents.

On the same day, September 2, migrants trying to cross from Greece to Macedonia clashed with police at the border. The police, permitting groups of 50 people at a time, inadvertently separated loved ones. In a panic, migrants rushed the border resulting in a scene of chaos. The confrontation is only the latest of several clashes at the Greece-Macedonia border.

Where are the Refugees and Migrants Coming From?

So far, 2,800 people have died in the Mediterranean this year while attempting to make it to Europe. Why are so many people putting their lives at such risk?

The Middle East

Syria has, by far, the largest dispersed population trying to find shelter in EU countries. As many as 4.1 million Syrians have fled the country since the start of its civil war in 2011 and another 7.6 million are displaced, but remain within the country’s borders. Syrians account for a little over half of the 381,000 migrants and refugees that made it to Europe this year. The EU had an estimated 210,000 asylum applications from Syrian nationals between July 2014 and July 2015.

Large areas of Syria are under the control of the Islamic State, which has further displaced a large portion of Syrians. The overwhelming amount of violence and instability in the country has caused hundreds of thousands of Syrians to leave their homes. ISIS controls several large cities in both Syria and Iraq, including Raqqa, Fallujah, Ramadi, and Mosul.

The two other countries from the Middle East that contribute to the migrant crisis are Afghanistan and Iraq, both of which are undergoing violent conflict. According to the latest figures, 32,581 Afghans traveled to the European Union through the East Mediterranean and 29,245 Afghans traveled through the West Balkans in 2015. Even though Iraqis only account for four percent of the influx of immigrants into the EU, the number is on the rise.

Africa

A large portion of the migrants leaving Africa come from Eritrea, where the oppressive rule by President Isaias Afwerki has caused hundreds of thousands of Eritreans to leave their homes. A recent report from the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea found that an estimated 5,000 Eritreans leave the country each month.

Most other African immigrants come from Somalia as well as several countries on the west coast–including Nigeria, Gambia, and Senegal. In 2014, 80 percent of African immigrants choose Libya as a gateway to the EU. The road is extremely dangerous–filled with kidnappers, corrupt smugglers, and inadequate transportation. Some boats aren’t even designed to make it all the way to their destinations but embark hoping that a merchant ship, fishing boat, or Coast Guard from an EU country will find them.

Refugee vs. Migrant

Migrants must first make the perilous journey to the EU, but then what happens when they arrive at its door? Upon arrival, migrants cannot simply walk in; they must go through a legal process before entering.

According the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, a refugee is a person, “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality, and is unable to, or owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country.” For example, Syrians and Eritreans can most easily make the case for refugee status due to, respectively, the Syrian civil war and the Afwerki regime.

Refugee status is vital. Under this protection, a person can apply for political asylum or protected status according to the 1951 Refugee Convention. Even more importantly, once someone reaches Europe and is granted refugee status, he or she cannot be forced back to his or her original country. This is a pivotal point in international law.

The term migrant is more inclusive and is applied to anyone traveling to another country for any other reason than escaping political persecution and war. Migrants often seek better opportunities by leaving impoverished countries, but they aren’t offered the same protection as refugees. Governments are legally allowed to deport migrants without legal papers.

The influx of people arriving in Europe today are mostly refugees, but not all. Both refugees and migrants take the same dangerous routes, often at the hands of human traffickers.

Where are the Migrants and Refugees Going?

381,000 refugees and migrants have reached Europe so far this year, but the distribution among EU countries is unequal. Many pass through Greece and Italy temporarily on their way to a further destination. 244,000 migrants and refugees have landed in Greece this year, almost two-thirds of the total that have reached Europe.

Among all EU countries, Germany has seen the highest number of asylum applications. This year, between January and June, Germany had 154,000 migrants seeking asylum, more than twice the number during the same period last year. The other countries receiving a relatively high number of asylum applications are France, Sweden, Turkey, Italy, and Hungary.

The situation has caused significant problems for many EU countries. According to the New York Times, there have been over 200 direct attacks on migrants in Germany this year. Violence from locals in Italy forced police to evacuate refugees and migrants at its reception centers. Hungary built an 110-mile razor-wire fence along its border with Serbia to keep refugees and migrants out. Hungary also shut down a major train station in Budapest, stopping asylum seekers trying to travel to Germany and Austria.

Greece, which is going through its own financial crisis, is struggling to provide assistance in its overwhelmed reception centers. Macedonia was forced to declare a state of emergency on August 20 in order to try and stabilize its border regions.

Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey feel the strain on their resources more than most as neighboring countries of Syria. Jordan currently hosts more than 630,000 Syrian refugees, in addition to others from Palestine and Iraq. The unemployment in Jordan has increased sharply and locals fear future consequences of more refugees. Lebanon is in the middle of its own political crisis and now has one refugee for every four people. Although Turkey has the strongest economy in the region, the massive influx of refugees is beginning to deplete available resources. Together, the three countries host more than four million Syrians.

According to the European Union’s Dublin regulation, the first country that a migrant steps foot on must take responsibility for him or her. Naturally, southern countries, like Italy, claim they suffer the worst of the burden; however, Germany, France, and Britain claim most of the migrants continue to their lands.

Many migrants avoid staying in the first country of entry, seeking a secondary country deeper in Europe in violation of the Dublin regulation. This creates a challenge for the European Union because once a person is inside the EU, they can freely travel between member-states in the Schengen zone. This area consists of 26 EU countries that have eliminated border controls.

What’s the Solution?

Previous attempts at solving the crisis have been relatively fruitless. In June, EU leaders shot down the first quota system initiative in favor of having countries voluntarily accept refugees and migrants. The initial summit, held in Brussels, dedicated more time to trying to stop illegal migration, rather than determining the best way to handle the influx of asylum seekers. By July, the EU announced it had fallen short of its voluntary distribution goals by 8,000 people, and the numbers have only increased. Additionally, some blame popular nationalist and anti-immigration platforms, which are increasingly gaining traction in the EU, for various countries’ unwillingness to provide aid.

However, European Union leaders are currently working on a new plan to more equitably distribute migrants throughout the region. Each EU country will be designated a certain number of refugees to host based on a 160,000 total. Greece, Hungary, and Italy will be exempt from the system since each country already hosts so many refugees. Britain, Ireland, and Demark are also exempt from European asylum policies based on the 2009 Lisbon Treaty. Several countries, most notably Germany, have independently announced that they will increase the number of migrants that they will accept. While these announcements are a step in the right direction, most leaders acknowledge that an EU-wide system is necessary to appropriately deal with the issue.

U.S. Involvement

Up until September, the U.S. has been silent on the resettlement issue. Although the U.S. has been a leader in providing financial aid to Syria, it has only taken in 1,500 Syrians since the start of the war. President Obama recently made headlines by pledging to house 10,000 Syrians in the upcoming fiscal year, beginning in October.

Conclusion

Clearly, the EU needs a united, comprehensive plan; the situation cannot remain as it is. Countries like Turkey and Italy will soon burn out their resources completely. Helping refugees isn’t any one country’s responsibility, but the responsibility of the world. The ongoing summit will be crucial in deciding the fate of so many. And it is high time the United States got involved. America is a global leader in humanitarian assistance and needs to contribute its fair share. The welcoming of 10,000 refugees is an important step.

Resources

Primary

United Nations: Text of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees

UN Refugee Agency: Syria Regional Refugee Response

UN Refugee Agency: Refugees/Migrants Emergency Response – Mediterranean

Additional

NPR: The Migrant Crisis, By The Numbers 

The Economist: Everything You Want to Know about Migration Across the Mediterranean

BBC: The Lisbon Treaty

BBC: Syria Iraq

BBC: Why is EU Struggling With Migrants and Asylum?

Brookings: Why 100,000s of Syrian Refugees are Fleeing to Europe 

CFR: Europe’s Migration Crisis

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to Mediterranean

The Guardian: European Leaders Scrap Plans for Migrant Quota System

The Guardian: Hungarian Police Arrest Driver of Lorry that had 71 Dead Migrants Inside

The New York Times: About 150 Migrants Feared Dead After Boats Sink Off Libya

The New York Times: Eritrea

The New York Times: Migrant or Refugee? There Is a Difference, With Legal Implications

The New York Times: Obama Increases Number of Syrian Refugees for U.S. Resettlement to 10,000

The New York Times: Which Countries Are Under the Most
Strain in the European Migration Crisis?

Time: Migrants Rush Macedonian Border as Chaos Separates Families

UNHCR: The 1951 Refugee Convention

The Washington Post: Iraqis join an intensifying flow of refugees to Europe from Turkey

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to correct the location of cities controlled by the Islamic State as well as the location of African countries where migrants have fled.

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Migrant Crisis Continues: What’s Going on in Europe? appeared first on Law Street.

The nation of Turkey sits at a crossroads. Stretching from Europe to Asia, the country serves as the major path between the two continents and has done so through one form or another for centuries. The nation is also proverbially stuck between two competing forces as well. While it has advanced economically, politically, and through foreign policy much further than many of its Middle East neighbors, recent setbacks have shown just how far this process has yet to go. On top of this is the continued threat of ISIS and homegrown groups that recently reached such a fevered pitch that Turkey has called on its NATO allies for assistance. Read on for a look at this critical junction for Turkey, examining its past, politics, economy, and security situation.

History

Present day Turkey was formerly known as Anatolia in ancient times and was part of many of the world’s strongest and longest-lasting empires such as the Romans and Byzantines. Beginning in the 11^th century however, it was invaded by a number of Turkic tribes from the Asian Steppe. These groups spent the next 200 years warring with each other, as well as with the Byzantines. Through this fighting the region gradually came to have an overwhelmingly Turkic population, leading to the origins of the nation’s present name, Turkey.

Out of that chaos rose the Ottomans, who slowly expanded the borders of the burgeoning Anatolian state and moved to finally crush the Byzantium Empire to the west. Finally in 1453, after nearly 100 years, the Ottomans conquered the Byzantine capital Constantinople. The city was renamed Istanbul and rechristened the capital of the Ottoman Empire. Following this rapid rise, the Ottomans then spent the next 300 years building and consolidating their empire.

The tide of history began to work against them though, in the 18^th century, as the empire was pinned in under threat from all sides; the Austrians to the west, the Russians to the north, and Persians to the east and south. This led a gradual decline of the Ottoman Empire, which was soon dubbed “the sick man of Europe.” Ironically, the empire survived only through efforts of European nations, which were anxious to maintain it as part of the balance of power.

This weakness was exacerbated by defeat in the Crimean War and the independence of a number of the regions under Turkish rule in the late 1800s. This also led to a reform movement, which culminated with Ataturk and the Young Turks who took control over the country in a bloodless coup in 1909 and ushered in a modern European-style democracy.

Aside from imitating European democracy, Ataturk also modernized Turkey in other ways including through farming, education, and even the Turkish language. His most lasting objective though and the most divisive to the present day, was to make Turkey a secular nation. While its inhabitants are still overwhelmingly Muslim, the country is modeled more after others in which the church and state are separate.  The video below provides an in-depth look at Turkey’s history.

Turkey and the EU

When Ataturk imitated European life he dreamed of one day ingratiating Turkey into the continent or at least being strong enough to challenge it. This has translated through the years into a desire by Turks to join the European Union. In fact, it has been a candidate for membership since 1999. The partnership would be a natural one for a number of reasons including Turkey’s growing economy, as well as its existing partnerships within NATO and the G20.

Nevertheless, after more than 15 years, Turkey remains on the outside looking in. Despite its strong economy and its capital, which is technically in Europe, the Turks have not been able to convince the EU it is worthy of membership. This is due to a number of reasons that extend beyond Turkey’s Muslim population, which it alleges is the main problem.

To start, while Turkey is wealthy, that wealth is unequally concentrated at the top. Thus while Turkey’s economy overall is growing and there are extremely wealthy people, the majority live in poverty. This could be problematic for the EU because it would bring a population even larger than Germany’s into the fold, which might need extensive government help. This is even more of a concern in the wake of the repeated bailouts of Greece, a much smaller country than Turkey both economically and population-wise. Additionally, Turkey brings further baggage through its problems with the Kurds, the contentious issue of who rules Cyprus, and its democracy, which looks increasingly less representative and more like a dictatorship.

Perhaps most importantly though, in light of Greece’s recent issues, is the slowing Turkish economy. Since its rise from the ashes of the IMF bailout it received in 2001, the economy of Turkey boomed averaging between five and ten percent annually. However, this growth has stalled and plummeted the last few years, averaging closer to three percent.

This is a result of less innovation and deregulation of the economy, regulations which helped it climb out of its earlier hole. At the center of much of this, is former Prime Minister Recep Erdogan. Erdogan has been criticized for intervening too much in the nation’s economy, particularly concerning its central bank. Erdogan claims that the central bank acting as if it is under a foreign authority has reduced confidence in the economy and the government.

The Turkish Government

Speaking of its government, since the founding of the modern state by Ataturk, Turkey has made a concerted effort, unlike its neighbors, to be secularist and not become dominated by Islamists. This attempt has been carried out, historically, by the military, which has initiated a number of coups to preserve the country as is.  The following video depicts the military’s role in the government.

However, these efforts are under threat of being rendered moot, thanks to Turkey’s most powerful politician since Ataturk, Recep Erdogan. Erdogan built his political career piece by piece, rising from professional soccer all the way to the position of Prime Minister. After serving the maximum allowable 12 years, he became the first ever directly elected president in the country’s position.

While Erdogan has been immensely popular during his rule, many view him as a threat to Turkey’s secular identity. This is due to many factors, including his religious upbringing, laws he has attempted to pass that prohibit certain freedoms with regard to Islamic doctrine, and his political leanings. The fear is growing because Erdogan is now attempting to alter the constitution in a way that grants the president far-reaching powers, which would be a massive shift for a position that until now has been mostly ceremonial. Erdogan has also had a combative foreign affairs history, including alienating a once-close ally in Israel and in failing to live up to promises offered to Kurds living in the south.  The accompanying video details Erdogan’s political career.

Security

The Kurds represent just one of the two major threats to Turkey emanating from its south. The other is ISIS whose power base in Syria and Iraq touches the nation’s southern border and threatens to spill over it.

The Kurds

Turkey’s longest term enemy is within its own borders. The Kurds are led by the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK). Since the party was outlawed by Turkey in 1984, 40,000 people have been killed as a result of the conflict. Erdogan negotiated a tentative peace with the group, however when the Kurds asked for assistance in fighting ISIS they were met with indifference.

The issue came to a head again recently when Kurdish members of the PKK ambushed and killed two Turkish police officers. This has led Turkish officials to state that they see no difference between groups such as the PKK and ISIS, in that both are viewed as terrorists. This explains recent air strikes then, against Kurdish positions in Iraq and Syria by Turkey, which effectively ends the ceasefire.  The video below discusses the issues between the Kurds and Turkey.

ISIS

For the most part Turkey has tried and been successful in avoiding conflict with the barbaric terrorist group, but recent signs suggest this may be ending. Following a recent attack by militants and in light of the nearly two million refugees flooding into Turkey from Iraq and Syria, the country is no longer able to sit on the sidelines.

On July 26,  Turkey, as a member of NATO, called for a meeting under Article 4 of the treaty organization’s charter. It was only the fifth such time since the organization’s inception that such a meeting has been called. The Turks proposed a buffer where no militants will be allowed to operate within 68 miles of their border. In return for the assistance, the Turks will also give greater access to U.S. troops and aircraft fighting ISIS.

While the coalition fighting ISIS has long desired a foothold in Turkey for targeting the group, any agreement would come with strings attached. Not only would it mean condoning attacks by the Turks on the PKK, it would also condone many of the other undemocratic actions taking place within the country.

Conclusion

Turkey is literally a land at a crossroads between Europe and Asia, Christianity and Islam. For nearly a century, the country has maintained this tenuous position by adhering to the principles of the founder of the modern Turkish state, Ataturk. He called for a secularist nation and when the country strayed from this path, it was and has been repeatedly corrected through military intervention.

Secularism was made easier following the turn of the millennium as Turkey’s economy hummed, its relations with the Kurds improved, and a path to joining the E.U. looked open. However, life has a way of presenting obstacles and Turkey has begun to encounter several, ranging from its flat-lining growth and its power-hungry leader to its continued assault on minorities within its borders and beyond. It is this intersection that now presents Turkey with its most difficult decisions in the future to come. The choices it makes could very well change its direction.

Resources

BBC News: IS Conflict NATO to discuss Turkey-Syria border crisis

History World: History of Turkey

All About Istanbul: Ataturk and the Modernization of Turkey

European Union: EU Relations With Turkey

Debating Europe: Arguments For and Against Turkey’s EU Membership

Telegraph: How Turkey’s Economy Went From Flying to Flagging and Could Get Worse

Reuters: Turkey’s Erdogan Says New Constituion a Priority After Elections

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 Turkey: A Country Perpetually at a Crossroads appeared first on Law Street.

Like the United States, many European nations increasingly face an illegal immigration problem. As the sinking of a boat carrying migrants last week showed, this problem is also very deadly. But what is inspiring these migrants to risk everything and head for Europe? Read on to learn about the immigrants coming into Europe, the groups facilitating that process, and the issues with which Europe needs to contend in light of the influx of illegal immigration.

The Sinking and Legacy

On April 19, 2015, a boat on its way to Italy carrying illegal immigrants from places as far and wide as Eritrea and Bangladesh, capsized off the coast of Libya. The overcrowded boat overturned after ramming a Portuguese cargo ship, the King Jacob. A full count of the deceased is still unknown.

A Recurring Problem

While the recent wreck was a tragedy, it certainly was not the first and likely not the last boat filled with illegal migrants headed for Europe to sink. In fact, such incidents have happened frequently and speak to a much larger trend. In 2014 for example, as many as 218,000 migrants were estimated to have crossed the Mediterranean from Africa to Europe. This year, 35,000 have already been suspected of crossing from Northern Africa into Europe.

Those who have made the crossing must be considered the lucky ones. Attempted crossings lead to a substantial number of deaths at sea. Last year 3,500 people were believed to have perished during the attempted crossing. That number sits at around 1,600 this year, with the most recent sinking taken into account. Unfortunately these numbers are only likely to increase. Prior to this incident, since October 2013, there have been at least four other occurrences in which a boat carrying migrants had sunk while carrying at least 300 people.

Human Trafficking

These trips tend to be organized by human traffickers. The traffickers are predominantly Libyan bandits, militia, and tribesmen. There are two main routes these smugglers take to get their human cargo through Africa and into Europe. The eastern route stretches as far as Somalia, while the western one reaches Senegal. Regardless of the routes’ starting points, migrants are funneled to Libya where they are then launched from either Benghazi or Tripoli in overcrowded and rickety boats toward the coast of Italy.

Unfortunately, traffickers’ tactics have recently began to change, making them even more nefarious and hard to prevent. Many traffickers have begun abandoning their ships en route to Europe–literally leaving the ships without steering of any kind. The smugglers obtain a large cargo ship, then during the trip advise their migrant-manned crews to call for help while they abandon the ship. The reason why the smugglers do this is two fold: First they are paid up front so it does not matter to them whether these migrants actually make it to Europe or not; secondly, by abandoning the boat they reduce their own chances of being arrested and can then smuggle more people and further profit. This practice has extended the smuggling season from spring and summer to all year round, but has made the crossing even more dangerous.

The industry has become especially appealing for traffickers in the last few years as traditional sources of income have disappeared as a result of government upheaval. Additionally, those doing the actual trafficking in many cases are would-be migrants themselves, which makes stopping the practice extremely difficult. The video below briefly explains the harrowing journey from Libya to Europe and all its difficulties.

Why do migrants cross the Mediterranean?

With all these dangers in mind, why do migrants risk crossing the Mediterranean? The answer varies for each individual, yet some reoccurring themes present themselves. Many of these themes are similar to the reasons why people attempt to migrate to the United States. First, many of the migrants are escaping danger back home. This ranges from country to country as well–for example, there has been an increase in migrants from Syria due to the civil war in that country.

Along with danger, another major impetus is economic. Most of the migrants attempting the journey are young men looking for opportunities. The goals of these men naturally vary, but often the promise of success and the ability to send earnings back to their families is a common desire.

While migration to Europe has become popular, it was not always the top destination for migrants. In the past, migrants had also attempted to go to places such as Israel and Saudi Arabia; however, with Israel increasing security and with Saudi Arabia engaged in a military conflict in Yemen, these routes have dried up. Whichever route the migrants take, they risk abuse ranging from robbery to rape and murder. In response to these dangers and the increasing deterioration of Libya, some migrants have tried crossing through Morocco instead, a much more difficult route.

Impact on Europe

When migrants successfully make the journey to Europe, the onus shifts from their handlers to European authorities. Since many migrants arrive in Europe without identification of any kind, it can make it much more difficult to send them back. This, in effect, makes migrants asylum seekers who are then held in refugee camps. Once in these camps, migrants may continue onward in Europe where travel restrictions have been reduced as part of the open-border aspect of the European Union.

Migrants are sometimes also allowed to move throughout Europe due simply to the cost of supporting them. Italy, the destination for many migrants, was spending as much as $12 million dollars a month on its search and rescue efforts in the Mediterranean. Another popular hub, Greece, spent $63 million in 2013 fighting illegal immigration. The problem both these countries, and other southern-European countries, face is that while they are part of the EU, the costs of their efforts have been almost entirely their own burdens to bear. These costs can be especially painful, considering the same countries that serve as these initial destinations for migrants are the ones also currently dealing with recessions. The video below highlights the issues each country in the EU deals with in regards to immigration.

The reason why countries such as Italy and Greece are footing the majority of these bills is due to their immigration laws. According to something referred to as the Dublin Regulation, a migrant must be processed as an asylum seeker upon entering a country. Once the person has been processed in that country, they become the responsibility of that particular nation. The following video shows the strategic routes immigrants take into Europe and reiterates how asylum status is achieved.

The design of this system naturally leads to problems, chief among which are accusations by richer northern-European countries that their southern neighbors are letting migrants pass north in an effort to reduce costs for themselves. In response to these allegations and as a result of bearing what it perceives to be an unfair burden, Italy cancelled its search and rescue mission last year. In its place the EU created the Triton Mission, a program similar to Italy’s, which focuses on rescuing migrants. Moreover, as part of a proposed ten-point plan in response to the most recent ship sinking, the mission is slated to increase in size. Another aspect of that plan is a program that is supposed to be implemented to return refugees to their countries. Nonetheless, even if the EU goes forward with its goal to expand the Triton mission, it will still be smaller than the one Italy disbanded last year.

Conclusion

Despite being described by several sources as modern day slavery, the practice of illegally ferrying immigrants from Africa and elsewhere to Europe is unlikely to stop or even slow down any time soon. This is the result of many things that are not likely to change in the immediate future, such as relatively high standards of living in the EU, crisis in the Middle East and Africa, EU laws regarding migrants, and the lucrative trafficking operations. But if Europe wants to fix its broken immigration system and prevent future tragedies on the scale of last week’s ship sinking it must do more than simply increase patrols.

Resources

ABC News: Libya Migrant Boat Sinking

Wall Street Journal: Rich Smuggling Trade Fuels Deadly Migration Across Mediterranean

BBC News: Mediterranean Migrants: Hundreds Feared Dead After Boat Capsizes

Atlantic: Human Traffickers Are Abandoning Ships Full of Migrants

CNN: Eating Toothpaste, Avoiding Gangs: Why Migrants Head to the Mediterranean

Human Events: Illegal Immigration is Europe Losing Control of Its Borders

Economist: Europe’s Huddled Masses

EUbusiness: Commission Proposes Ten-Point Migrant Crisis Plan

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 Illegal Immigration in Europe: Latest Shipwreck Sheds Light on Trend appeared first on Law Street.

The United States and Iran, along with a number of other world powers, reached a tentative deal on April 2, 2015, that would prevent the Iranians from developing nuclear weapons. The deal required a tremendous amount of time and work to come together. With all these moving parts it’s not surprising that there have been varied reactions around the world. Regardless, if finalized, the deal will have wide-reaching ramifications both regionally and across the globe. Read on to learn about the current agreement, its impact, and what could happen if it falls through.

The Deal

So what exactly is this “deal” to which Iran, the U.S., and the other nations agreed?

Iran’s Requirements

To begin, Iran will reduce its number of centrifuges and lessen its stockpile of low-enriched uranium. Excesses of both will be handed over to the the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for safe storage. Iran will also stop enriching uranium at its Fordow facility and will not build any new enrichment facilities. Only one plant, Natanz, will continue to enrich uranium, although in lesser amounts. Additionally, Iran will halt research on uranium enrichment concerning spent fuel rods and will either postpone or reduce research on general uranium enrichment and on advanced types of centrifuges. Iran, by following through with these commitments, will abide by its requirements as a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In addition, Iran will open itself completely to IAEA inspections. The overarching goal is to change the timeline of Iran’s ability to build a nuclear weapon from a few months to at least a year.

U.S. and E.U. Requirements

On the other side of the deal are the U.S. and the E.U. These parties will begin lifting sanctions on Iran once it has been verified that it is complying with the agreed conditions concerning the nuclear framework agreement. These sanctions include a number of limitations that have hurt the Iranian economy. Specifically, the E.U. sanctions include trade restrictions on uranium-related equipment, asset freezes, a ban on transactions with Iranian financial institutions, and a ban on Iranian energy products. The U.S. has been levying sanctions on Iran since 1979; these include most of those imposed by the E.U. as well as sanctions on basically all types of trade with Iran, other than aid-related equipment.

The sanctions lifted will only be those levied in relation to Iran’s nuclear weapons program; other sanctions that are a result of human rights violations for example, will remain in place. Additionally, if Iran violates the terms of the agreement, the original sanctions can go back into effect. The following video explains in detail what the Iranians agreed to and what the U.S. and other world powers are offering in return.

Roadblocks to the Deal

While a framework is in place and the Obama Administration hailed it as progress, there are still several potential challenges that could derail the agreement before it is finalized in June. Each side appears to have to contend with at least one formidable roadblock to the deal’s success.

In the U.S., Congress still isn’t quite on board. For the U.S. to lift sanctions, President Obama needs Congress to approve the deal; however, due to consistent fighting with Congress, the president has been reluctant to leave it in their hands. Nevertheless, thanks to an agreement on April 14, 2015, Congress will now get to vote on a finalized deal if it is reached by June 30, 2015. While this may appear as yet another defeat for the president and pose a dark outlook for the nuclear agreement, the compromise reached with Congress ensures they will have a say.

Another potential roadblock is Israel. While the country does not have any direct say in whether the deal happens or not, it is not without influence.  As Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. shows, he has Congress’ ear, and could prove an effective lobbyist.

On the Iranian side, dissent has emerged from the arguably most powerful voice in the entire country, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the country. In a recent speech he called for sanctions to be lifted immediately upon finalization of the deal, meaning Iran would not have to proove its sincerity first. Khamenei is an unquestioned power in Iran, so this could be a big problem. The video below reiterates the obstacles to finalizing an Iranian nuclear deal.

Impact of the Agreement

The impact of a successful Iran-U.S. deal would be monumental on national, regional, and global levels.

National Importance

Perhaps no party will reap the benefits of this deal as much as Iran itself. With a deal in place, Iran’s economic struggles as a result of the sanctions will be softened. Iran has the opportunity to improve its economy dramatically. When the sanctions are lifted, Iran can enjoy a $100 billion windfall in oil profits that have been frozen as part of the sanctions. Additionally, Iran can follow through on a number of oil pipeline projects it had in place, but was unable to complete due to the sanctions. Lastly, with U.S. cooperation, Iran will be able to more efficiently develop its large oil and natural gas reserves with American technology.

Regional Importance

While Iran stands to gain the most, there will also be changes for the region as a whole. In agreeing to this deal, Iran did not agree to limit its actions in the ongoing conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, and its proxy war in Yemen, which is especially important as it is part of the larger feud between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has been in competition with Iran, its ideological and religious counter, for leadership of the Middle East for years. The two have engaged indirectly in a number of conflicts for the hearts and minds of the region. While the nuclear deal likely eliminates a potential nuclear arms race between the conflicting sides, it does nothing to prevent Iran from continuing to vie for control of the region.

Israel shares a similar fear of Iran’s growing influence. Iran is a chief supporter of Hezbollah, a group based in Lebanon that strongly opposes Israel. Additionally, Israel, while not declared, is a well-known nuclear power. These nuclear weapons provide Israel with the ultimate deterrent against larger countries like Iran. Israel therefore fears the Iran nuclear deal because it believes the deal will further empower Iran.

Global Importance

Lastly is the impact of the deal within the global community, beginning with the United States. Many experts expect a huge increase in the world oil supply once the sanctions are lifted. American corporations will benefit not only from cheaper prices, but also from access to developing Iranian energy supplies.

The deal could also help countries such as India, which also benefits from cheap energy as well as increased access to development projects in Iran. China is yet another country that can use another source of cheap oil, but by agreeing to a deal with the U.S., Iran may have taken itself out of the orbit of a sympathetic China. Along a similar vein, Russia, whose economy lives and dies with energy prices, does not need another competitor to bring the price of oil down even further, which is likely to happen.  The video below explains further what the implications of the Iran nuclear deal are.

Thus the Iran deal means something different to all parties at every level of foreign affairs, but the consensus is that it is important to all sides.

 Conclusion

On paper the Iran nuclear deal is a win for most parties. The problem is the deal is not on paper yet, as only a framework has been reached. While even getting this far can seem like a monumental step when history is factored in, that same history has the potential to undo everything achieved so far. Whether or not all sides end up getting on board with this deal remains to be seen.

Resources

Business Insider: Here’s the Text of the Iran Nuclear Framework

Al Jazeera: Why Saudi Arabia and Israel Oppose the Iran Nuclear Deal

Reuters: Kerry Says He Stands by Presentation of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Obama Yields, Allowing Congress Say on Iran Nuclear Deal

BBC News: Iran Nuclear Crisis: What Are the Sanctions?

Cato Institute: Remaining Obstacles to the Iran Nuclear Deal

Daily Star: Region to Feel the Effects of Iran Nuclear Deal

The New York Times: Israeli Response to Iran Nuclear Deal Could Have Broader Implications

Quora: What Could Be an Impact on a Global Level of Iran’s Nuclear Deal?

BBC News: Iran-U.S. Relations

Atlantic: What Are the Alternatives to Obama’s Nuclear Deal with Iran

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 A Castle Made of Sand? The Iranian Nuclear Deal Moves Forward appeared first on Law Street.

On Wednesday the European Union’s antitrust chief hit Google with a double whammy. The EU formally accusing the multinational company of abusing its web dominance to the detriment of its competitors, as well as announcing it would begin officially investigating whether Google’s Android smartphone software forces phone makers to favor the company’s own services and applications.

In a press release issued by the EU, Google was accused of diverting web traffic in the European Economic Area from its rivals to favor its own products and services, particularly when it came to shopping websites. The statement warns that this kind of business practice hinders its competitors‘ “ability to compete, to the detriment of consumers, as well as stifling innovation.”

Anti-trust laws are meant as an economic safeguard to promote fair competition which benefits all consumers, while also preventing any one business from getting too big and becoming a monopoly. If the EU finds Google in violation of the anti-trust laws, the internet search giant will be forced to completely change the way it does business overseas and could also face a fine up to $6 billion.

According to the New York Times, the European Commision will also be launching an alternate investigation into Google’s “monopolistic” mobile business practices. The EU is trying to see if phone makers who want to use Google’s Android operating software–including Google owned applications like Youtube–are in fact contractually obligated to give those applications prominent features on their mobile devices.

Margrethe Vestager, the European Union competition commissioner, was quoted in the New York Times saying:

Smartphones, tablets and similar devices play an increasing role in many people’s daily lives, and I want to make sure the markets in this area can flourish without anticompetitive constraints imposed by any company.

Google responded to the investigation in a blog post Wednesday writing:

While Google may be the most-used search engine, people can now find and access information in numerous different ways — and allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide off the mark.

In 2013, the United States’ Federal Trade Commission investigated Google for similar complaints but closed its investigation, deciding not to take any action against the company even though the investigation found similar issues of search bias.

This time around the EU will have to prove that Google deliberately buries better search results, expanding beyond just e-commerce, in favor of its own company sourced content, although defining what qualifies as “better” could be tough. Subjectively speaking, Google’s actions may not actually be anti-competitive, but rather a better optimization for what consumers actually want.

Google now has 10 weeks to officially respond to the EU’s complaint, where they could settle the matter. If not, a lengthy court battle is an almost guarantee.

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 EU Goes After Google with Anti-Trust Charges appeared first on Law Street.

Winston Churchill famously said that “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” While the quote may be well worn, it is still surprisingly appropriate when discussing Russia today. Just a few years ago, old Cold War rivals Russia and the United States seemed to finally bond over their shared struggles against terrorism and to be on the path to real cooperation. But then, Russia changed course. Instead of trying to ingratiate itself into the international community, Russia took some steps that can be labeled as aggressive. Aside from a long-brewing conflict with Chechnya, it fought a war against the Republic of Georgia and is now slowly devouring Ukrainian territory. Those moves left many wondering: why did Russia feel the need to make such a drastic change in its global political relations. Read on to learn about Russia’s origins, historical political relationships, and foreign policy.

Russian History

Rise and Imperial History

While the area today known as Russia had been populated by steppe nomads for thousands of years, eastern European Slavs moved into the area only about 3,500 years ago. The Vikings also sailed into modern day Russia and founded the city of Kiev in the late ninth century. Early Russians adopted many of the practices of the Byzantine Empire, including the Orthodox religion. Following the fall of Constantinople, Russian leaders declared Moscow as its successor. Russia’s leaders adopted the title of tsar, similar to that of Caesar.

Russia continued to grow, but this growth was nearly undone when the Mongols conquered Russia in the thirteenth century, burning Kiev and sacking Moscow along the way. The Mongols then held sway over Russia for the next 200 years until the end of the fifteenth century when Russian rulers finally were strong enough to throw off the Mongol yoke.

Following this emancipation, the new rulers of Russia–the Romanovs–continued expanding, reaching the shores of the Pacific in 1649. Russia also attempted to gain further footholds in Europe, mainly by acquiring seaports in the Baltic to the north and Mediterranean to the south. As it did so, Russia came into greater contact with Europe and participated in a number of wars, including the defeat of Napoleon. Contact with Europe also forced Russia to confront its many backward policies. In the early twentieth century, reactionaries inspired by communism began to gain traction. During World War I, the Romanov family was overthrown and the Soviet Union was established.

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was the successor to Romanov rule in Russia, but not without a fight. It was established after the victory of the Bolshevik Red Army in the Russian Civil War. Following their ascent to power, the Soviets enacted a series of purges and five-year plans that left the country weak and starving heading into WWII. The Soviets initially allied with the Nazis in exchange for several eastern European countries and a partition of Poland; however, the truce was broken in 1941, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the Soviets were able to withstand the attack, push back the Nazis, and establish themselves as one of two superpowers along with the United States after the war ended.

Following the war, the USSR and U.S. engaged in a protracted Cold War. Both sides competed against the other in arms and space races. While they never engaged directly in wars, several times during this period their proxies faced off against one another. Following the Cuban Missile crisis, cooler heads began to prevail, the rhetoric surrounding nuclear war was reduced, and several arms control treaties were signed. Beginning in the 1980s, the USSR started to liberalize as its economy and empire began to crumble. Finally, in 1991 the USSR dissolved into a number of independent countries with Russia as its leading member.

Post-USSR

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was in disarray. Struggling to deal with the shift from communism to free market capitalism, inflation soared. The Russian economy, under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, was barely able to avoid total collapse and reached the point of needing to import food to stave off starvation. Following the resignation of Yeltsin and the rise of Putin, the country began to stabilize and the course of foreign policy began to take its present shape. The following video gives a brief summary of modern Russian history.

Current Foreign Policy

Russia’s current foreign policy can be summed up in one word: aggressive. The reason for this shift toward conquest, oppression, and authoritarianism can be linked to two things. First is the desire of many Russians to return to the prestige of the Soviet Union. Second is the man leading that change and the nation itself, Vladimir Putin.  The video below looks at Russia’s current foreign policy.

Vladmir Putin

The man who holds responsibility for many of Russia’s decisions since the fall of the USSR is its longtime leader, President Vladimir Putin. Putin was born in Stalingrad during the height of the Soviet Union’s glory; however, he was coming of age professionally just as the empire was disintegrating.   Even after the USSR collapsed around him, Putin was determined to restore Russia to its status as a global power. Below is an excerpt from a speech Putin gave when he was a candidate for Prime Minister in 1999:

Russia has been a great power for centuries, and remains so. It has always had and still has legitimate zones of interest abroad in both the former Soviet lands and elsewhere. We should not drop our guard in this respect, neither should we allow our opinion to be ignored.

Since Putin was elected prime minister and subsequently president following Yeltsin’s resignation, he has done everything in his power to live up to these words. His first order of business was finally crushing the independent state of Chechnya. Chechnya, a small area in the southwest Caucasus region of Russia, had actually defeated the Russian army in the 1990s and formed a short-lived nation of its own.

After reestablishing Russia’s military strength, Putin also moved to curb the power of the oligarchs who became fabulously wealthy when they took control of state-owned industries following the fall of the USSR. He arrested and silenced critics, such as the fallen oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. This policy has only continued as Putin’s strangle-hold on power has intensified. Along with leading the country since his ascent in 2000 as either president or prime minister, he has also engaged in further military actions including dispatching soldiers to crush Georgian troops and annexing Crimea. Recently Russian troops have also been implicated in separatists’ movements in Eastern Ukraine as well. The video below discusses Putin’s life.

Foray into Ukraine

While outsiders may view Russia’s recent foreign expansion into Ukrainian affairs as aggressive, the majority of its citizens hold the opposite opinion for several reasons. First, to many Russians, Ukraine is part of their historical empire and thus it is only natural that it be restored to Russia.

The conflict in Ukraine started when Russian-backed Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was ousted following his unpopular decision to remain aligned with Russia instead of integrating with the European Union. In response, Russian troops invaded an area called Crimea, occupied the area, and Crimea eventually voted in a referendum to become part of Russia. After the annexation of Crimea, Russia has continued supporting ethnic Russian Separatists in Eastern Ukraine, where they are the majority. This has aroused great controversy because despite several ceasefires, Russia has continued to provide separatists with weapons and possibly soldiers.

Many Russians also believe the entire uprising in Ukraine is the result of Western actions. A common argument is that Russia has actually intervened to protect Russian speakers the same as many western countries do for other minority groups. However, the opinions of everyday Russians are heavily influenced by the Russian media, which is indiscriminately run by the state and thus broadcasts the state’s message.

Russia’s next course of action remains up in the air. Economically it would seem obvious that Russia has to stop being so aggressive and work toward appeasing its Western creditors and consumers. Economic sanctions placed on Russia following its actions in Ukraine are beginning to be felt. The main effects of the sanctions have been in denying Russia credit and access to markets. Nonetheless, as yet another breached ceasefire implies, Russia doesn’t seem content to return Eastern Ukraine–and certainly not Crimea–back to the original status quo.

Other Foreign Policy Concerns for Russia 

Along with sanctions, an even greater problem for Russia suggests it should curtail its recent aggressive maneuvering–falling oil prices. At the beginning of the year, the price of oil dropped below $50 a barrel. This is devastating to a Russian economy that is dependent on oil as its main export.

From an economic standpoint this has been disastrous to the ruble, which has dropped by 17.5 percent compared to the dollar in just the first two weeks of 2015. The economy in general is hurting, as well, as it’s projected to retract by three to five percent this year. What this means for people on the street is also troubling. Lower crude prices mean higher prices for other goods, in particular food stuffs.

All of these economic woes have negatively impacted another grand Putin endeavor, the Eurasian Union. As the name implies, it is an economic union made up of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan that is supposed to rival the EU. However, with falling prices in Russia and declining currencies at home, all of the members are already discovering the side effects of allying with a troubled Russia. The member countries are also wary of sovereignty violations by Russia as well, similar to the ones that have already occurred in Georgia, Crimea, and now Eastern Ukraine.

It seems unlikely that Russia will stop pursuing such an aggressive approach, however. As a de facto dictator, it is crucial for Putin that he keeps his people happy enough so that they will not revolt. In this regard Putin seems to have been very successful. In December 2014 he was elected Russia’s Man of the Year for the fifteenth time in a row. Putin’s popularity level in fact has hovered at around 70 percent his entire time in office, spiking even higher during the invasion of Georgia and following the annexation of Crimea. It actually seems to Putin’s benefit to maintain his strong appearance in the face of alleged western aggression. While people in the West may question the authenticity of these ratings, any western politician would love to have the same kind of popularity.

Putin has also increased spending on the military. Even with the economy in crisis, military spending actually increased for this year rising to $50 billion. The effect of this spending has been evident in increased navy patrols, air maneuvers, improved equipment and greater activity. It also included the purchase of dozens of new state-of-the-art nuclear weapons to replace obsolete models from the Cold War.

So, Russia’s policies are working, at least in part. While they have proven very costly to the average Russian and the economy overall, it has not dissuaded Putin from his desire to restore Russian prestige. Frankly it should not be surprising either, with his high approval ratings and the West’s resistance to anything more than soft power tactics. The real question going forward is how much further Russia will go down this path. Will it stop with Eastern Ukraine or go further and risk overstretching? At some point the West will likely draw a line in the sand and if Russia crosses it, what will be next for Russia and the international community it refuses to abide by?

Resources

BBC News: Vladimir Putin

History World: History of Russia

The New York Times: Why Russians Back Putin on Ukraine

Business Insider: How Do We Know Russia Economic Crisis Has Officially Arrived?

Foreign Policy: Putin’s Eurasian Dream is Over Before it Began

Atlantic: Putin’s Popularity Much Stronger Than the Ruble

PBS: What Has Been the Effect of Western Sanctions on Russia?

U.S. News & World Report: Putin Defends Actions in Ukraine.

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 Russia’s Aggressive Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

The most recent elections in Greece are over and the relatively new Syriza party has been declared victorious. This historic election means that there will be changes in Greece–those changes, however, could be very drastic not only for the country itself but for the entirety of the European Union. The Syriza party could be a great force for change in Greece, or undo some of the economic progress that has been made in recent years.

Greece. Image courtesy of [Kevin Anderson via Flickr]. 

What was the situation in Greece leading up to the elections?

Greece has been in less-than-stellar shape since the global recession began in 2008. The country is severely in debt, has a high unemployment rate, and low wages. The government was also much-maligned; in December the Greek Parliament rejected former Prime Minister Antonis Samaras’ preferred candidate for President. When that happens an immediate election must take place, and that rush to the ballot box brought a number of parties to the forefront, including the Syriza party.

What is Syriza?

Syriza, which means “Coalition of the Radical Left,” is a fairly recently created political party in Greece. It became an official party in July 2013. Since then it remained small until this election when it won by a landslide. Syriza is led by the new president of Greece, Alexis Tsipras.

What is the Syriza Party ideology?

The Syriza Party defines itself as a party of the democratic and radical left whose ideology took root in popular struggles for Greek independence, democracy, labor, and anti-fascist movements in Greece. Even though the party consists of a collection of many different ideological currents and left cultures, the group has built its identity on a synthesis of the values of the labor movement with those of the ecological, feminist, and other new social movements.

Syriza is also well known as an anti-establishment party, and ran on a platform that promised to fight an entity known in Greece as the “Troika,” which consists of the of the European Commission, the International Monetary Fund, and the European Central Bank. Syriza wants to force these groups to forgive some Greek debt and allow the country to enact a program of stimulus spending, among other reforms.

The 2015 Election

How did Syriza fare in the 2015 elections?

The Syriza party did extremely well in the election. According to the Greek Interior Ministry, Syriza won 36.3 percent of the vote, enough to obtain 149 of the 300 seats in the Greek Parliament.  

What does Syriza’s win mean? 

The Greek Parliament requires 151 members in order for a party to become a majority, and by extension form and run the government. While Syriza won the most seats, it did not get quite enough to make a majority on its own. This requires it to form an alliance with a party or number of parties in order to make a coalition government. While Syriza is a leftist party, its choice of an ally may seem strange. It reached out and allied itself with the Independent Greek Party, which is a group on the right. The two parties have nothing in common except that they both have a mutual opposition to austerity and the way that Greece has been treated by the rest of Europe. However, their unity means that the Syriza/Independent Greek Party coalition is in control, and elevates Syriza’s leader, Tsipras, to the position of President.

How did other parties fare in the election?

After Syriza, the New Democracy Party won 27.9 percent of the vote, or 76 seats. This party ran on the vision of a new socio-economic development model for the country.

Another party that made gains was the neo-Nazi Golden Dawn Party; it acquired 6.3 percent of the vote. The To Potami party, which ran on the idea of putting the common man into government and not professional politicians, acquired a similar six percent of the vote. Both Golden Dawn and To Potami acquired 16 seats each.

The KKE Party, which is a communist party that follows the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, acquired only 5.5 percent, enough for 15 seats. The Pasok Party, which ran on a platform of freedom, democracy, and a better future, ended up with 4.7 percent percent of the vote tying it with the Independent Greeks Party, which believes in the political system of parliamentary democracy, as well as religious freedom. Each of these parties won 13 seats.

Austerity

The main issue that has united the Syriza and Independent Greek parties is austerity. Austerity in its simplest form involves policies to reduce government spending and/or higher taxes in order to try to reduce government budget deficits. According to the Atlantic, what this means in Greece’s case is a series of spending cuts and tax hikes designed to reduce the country’s enormous bailout debt, which currently equals 175 percent of its GDP.

The austerity measures, which were put into place in 2012, were beginning to work, according to outgoing Prime Minister Samaras, and he has the facts to back him up. Since 2009, Greece’s primary deficit has gone from a whopping 10.7 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), to a primary surplus of 2.7 percent of GDP. In addition, the banking sector is much stronger and more resilient than it has been since the beginning of the economic crisis.

Despite all of the economic good news, the changes have not improved life soon enough for the Greek people who have found themselves in dire straits. Four million Greeks have been reduced to poverty and they can’t do much about it because unemployment has soared to 28 percent. To make matters worse, wages have dropped 12 percent in the same time frame. The new government promises to change that by gaining debt forgiveness, even if it means going head to head with the rest of the European Union, some members of which have already said that they will not be backing down. They hope that other nations who have parties with similar ideologies will be able to gain control of their respective governments and force the EU to concede to their demands.

What does this election mean for Greece’s debt?

The election means that Greece is going to look at other methods to pay its debts, get them forgiven, or if left with no other option, default on them. The party is hoping to bully the Troika into submission, but that will be difficult since it will have a hard time asking other nations for help. The video below explains the challenge that Greece will have to deal with.

 How has the rest of Europe responded?

The main response to the elections in Greece came from Europe, and so far these responses have been cold at best. This is particularly true of the entities that make up the Troika. With Syriza’s platform so centralized on removing the austerity measures and the Troika refusing to back down, both sides are gearing up for a fight.

European Union Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker already warned that any reduction of Greece’s debt commitments is not even on the Commission’s mind. His thoughts are being echoed by Jeroen Dijsselbloem, president of the Eurogroup, who stated that “There is very little support for a write-off in Europe.” This means that Greece will have an uphill battle to get anything done in terms of debt reduction. The results of this clash will be watched by other nations that are close to being in the same boat as Greece, such as Italy and Spain.

This leaves Greece with a few options. The country could default on its bills and as a result leave the EU–an option that neither side wants to see happen as it is an extremely unpopular idea in Greece and not a popular one in the EU either. The other option is for the Troika to cave into Syriza’s demands. However this wraps up, observers fear that parties with the same ideology as Syriza’s will gain power in other nations and force the same demands, which could spell big problems for the European Union down the road.

Conclusion

Syriza, an anti-bailout, anti-austerity party in Greece, has won the latest election only to find itself in a struggle with the European Union powerhouses. If Syriza fails, Greece could be forced from the European Union; if it succeeds, the EU will be forced to alter terms with other nations that are in debt to the banks, as well. No matter what, Syriza’s election spells big changes for Greece.

Resources

Primary

Syriza: Who We Are

Additional

Independent: Greece Elections: Syriza and EU on Collision Course After Election Win for Left Wing Party

Atlantic: Europe’s Austerity Moment is Ending 

Reuters: Greek PM Tsipras Names Anti-Austerity Cabinet, Port Sale Halted

Guardian: Syriza’s Election Victory in Greece–How Europe Reacted 

Fortune: Why the Greek Elections Might Be the Beginning of the End for the Euro 

Bloomberg: Euro Area’s Pro-Default Parties May Trigger New Crisis

Time: 5 Facts About the Greek Election

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated to credit select information to the Atlantic. 

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Syriza Party: A Fresh Start for Greece? 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.

Since the top European court made a ruling in May requiring Google to field requests from members of the public to erase links associated with their names, the web search giant has removed about 230,000 URLs, according to its own data.

The European Union’s Court of Justice ruling said that Google would have to delete “inadequate, irrelevant or no longer relevant” links from its searches on its European domains, such as google.co.uk and google.fr. Removing such links doesn’t mean they’ll never appear in a Google search again; just that they’ll be omitted when they’re associated with the name of the person requesting the removal.

The rationale behind the so-called “right to be forgotten” decision is to allow members of the public to reclaim their online profiles if they’re damaged by negative content on the web. It’s up to Google whether the links should be removed. For example, Google cites an example of an Italian woman who asked that an article about her husband’s murder be dissociated with the search for her name. In another example, a German individual asked that an article about the person’s rape be removed. The links were removed in those cases, but an Italian man’s multiple requests to remove links to 20 articles about his arrest for financial crimes were denied.

This is an apparent win for private European citizens who want to be in control of their public profiles, but European Union officials last month began to push for Google to expand the program beyond just European domains. A statement from the Article 29 Data Protection Working Party said that “decisions must be implemented in such a way that they guarantee the effective and complete protection of data subjects’ rights and that EU law cannot be circumvented.” This means that Google would have to field requests for link removals on its .com domain for Europeans to be fully protected.

That has yet to happen, but if it does, it could also affect a lot of people outside Europe, based on how it is carried out. Americans could request that Google take down embarrassing, damaging, and irrelevant links. But establishing the right to be forgotten in the U.S. could be more difficult because some would argue it interferes with American freedom of speech. In a case unrelated to the European issue, a judge ruled last month in the Superior Court of California in San Francisco that Google is protected in terms of the order in which it presents its search results. The plaintiff, Louis Martin, was alleging that Google was biased in excluding his website, coastnews.com, from search results.

While the San Francisco story is in a way the backward version of the European story–a citizen is trying to get a link to be visible rather than be taken down–it could set the precedent that Google is free to present whatever results its algorithms decide are relevant, regardless of privacy.

Zaid Shoorbajee

Zaid Shoorbajee is a an undergraduate student at The George Washington University majoring in journalism and economics. He is from the Washington, D.C. area and likes reading and writing about international affairs, politics, business and technology (especially when they intersect). Contact Zaid at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Right to be Forgotten on Google: Will it Come to the U.S.? appeared first on Law Street.

While debate still surrounds issues involving climate change, scientists have agreed that global carbon emissions must begin to be reduced by the year 2020 in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change. Unsurprisingly, however, this agreement has spawned new debates concerning what to do about it. One solution that has gained political momentum in the past decade is a process commonly referred to as “Cap and Trade”.

What is Cap and Trade?

Cap and Trade, as one might surmise from its name, is a two-step system that attempts to definitively lower carbon emissions and provide an incentive for carbon-reducing technological innovations. In step one, a governing body (be it state, regional, federal, or global) sets a maximum limit of carbon emissions for all participating entities that is a certain degree lower than current emissions. Each year this cap will be gradually reduced until the coalition meets its reduction goal in x amount of years. Simple enough.

Step two involves quantifying the carbon emissions allowable under the cap into carbon credits or permits. Each permit would represent a definable amount, such as one ton of carbon emitted. These credits would then be distributed amongst polluting entities such as factories, refineries, companies, and others, forcing these entities to pollute no more than the amount of carbon credits they possess. If a company comes in under their pollution amount, they can sell their excess credits to carbon brokers or to other companies for a profit. In this way, the trade system incentivizes technological innovations that reduce carbon emissions and the companies that invest in them. In turn, companies that are in danger of exceeding their given amount or are in the process of implementing long-term carbon reduction plans, the results of which would not be seen for a number of years, will purchase carbon credits so as not to exceed their limit. The ability to purchase credits off the carbon market allows for flexibility in the way polluting entities choose to reduce their emissions. Overall, there are only as many credits as the cap allows, and as the cap is incrementally reduced each year, companies will gradually receive less credits, ensuring carbon emissions are reduced annually until a specific goal is reached.

What are some examples of Cap and Trade programs?

Cap and Trade systems exist at different levels of government and have been created for pollutants other than carbon. The 1990 amendment to the Clean Air Act, which created a permits program for sulfur pollution in an attempt to improve air quality, is seen as one of the earliest of these programs and is often hailed by advocates as a successful Cap and Trade program. However, carbon is the principal greenhouse gas affecting climate change, and proponents of Cap and Trade claim that this program can be adapted for carbon as well as a number of other pollutants.

The 1997 Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, implemented the Cap and Trade system as part of its global approach to emissions reductions. The trading program is operated by the United Nations and binds 37 industrialized countries to global emissions reductions, using several carbon emission trading schemes to accomplish the task. The global carbon market is unfortunately, to a degree, at the mercy of global politicians as they attempt to negotiate a post-Kyoto program, with the first commitment period having ended in 2012. Also at the international level, the European Trading System is a carbon Cap and Trade system created in 2005 and run by the European Union. This trading program is factory-based and distributes its emissions credits to individual companies, factories, power plants, etc. Because of this, the European Trading System is the largest Cap and Trade system in the world, incorporating more than 11,000 individual entities in 31 countries.

At the state and national levels, New South Wales and New Zealand have Cap and Trade emissions reduction systems, created in 2003 and 2009, respectively. Additionally, China plans to establish a nation-wide Cap and Trade system in 2016 in response to social unrest over increasing pollution levels in Chinese cities.

In North America, a number of American states and Canadian provinces in the American Northeast participate in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, an organization aiming to reduce carbon emissions by 10 percent by 2020 from the 2009 levels. Pennsylvania, New Brunswick, Ontario, and Quebec act as observers to the coalition, and while New Jersey was a founding member, Governor Chris Christie withdrew the state from the program in 2012. California also implemented an economy-wide Cap and Trade system in 2013 that seeks to reduce emissions by 16 percent between 2013 and 2020.

What are the advantages of a Carbon Trading program?

Advocates of Cap and Trade list a number of advantages this system has over rival emissions-reduction solutions, such as a flat carbon tax. Cap and Trade creates an assured and definite outcome, provides flexibility for the participating entities in their emission reduction methods, incentivizes technological innovation, and represents a global solution.

A flat carbon tax does not necessarily guarantee reduced emissions; it merely makes carbon more expensive in the hope of deterring polluters. Cap and Trade ensures a definite outcome through the cap on total emissions of the participating entities. As the cap is gradually lowered each year, the total emissions within that program decreases, regardless of the number of carbon permits any particular entity owns.

The gradual decrease in the emissions cap and the ability to purchase carbon credit creates the flexibility inherent in this system and the incentive for technological progress. Instead of making carbon significantly more expensive overnight, the cap is reduced in increments while the polluting parties learn to adjust to the new restrictions. It provides companies, factories, and countries time to research, develop, and implement a plan for carbon emissions reduction and provides them with more breathing room in terms of how they want to address their concerns. Some entities might want to implement long-term plans which may have large effects but the results will not be seen for a number of years, while others may want to experiment with new, emerging technology. If the plan does not work the first time around, they can purchase more carbon credits for that particular segment of the process and try something else. Entities that have more successful pollution reduction methods, however, will spend less time and less money, prompting industry and economy-wide investment in clean technology.

Lastly, Cap and Trade represents a global solution to a global problem. Because the trading aspect of the system requires a coalition of entities working in tandem and agreeing to common pollution reduction goals, the carbon market makes an international, far-reaching solution possible. The Kyoto Protocol and the European Trading System are examples of this kind of cooperative effort. A carbon tax, unless agreed upon in the United Nations (an unlikely event), can only feasibly be employed on a national level. However, pollution is a global problem, and a reduction in pollution in one country will not reduce the pollution in others.

What are the disadvantages of a Cap and Trade system?

Despite the goals it sets out to accomplish, there is significant opposition to Cap and Trade as a pollution reduction mechanism. Opponents often favor alternate solutions such as a flat carbon tax or increased public investment in emerging green technologies. Many groups find fault with Cap and Trade because they feel it will create problems with the price of carbon within the artificial carbon market, making it difficult to sustain and even more difficult to produce actual beneficial effects for the economy. James Hansen, in his New York Times Op-ed article “Cap and Fade”, argues that if all or even a large majority of participating bodies were to reduce their carbon emissions in a given year, the market would be over-saturated with carbon permits. The price of carbon would plummet and the artificial Cap and Trade market would collapse. At that point, the individual bodies will see little incentive in continued participation in the program, and Cap and Trade will have ultimately done little to reduce pollution.

Opponents also malign the various “offsets,” or alternatives to carbon reduction that are included within Cap and Trade programs. These offsets raise the overall cap for such measures as the avoidance of deforestation in Brazil or planting trees in a former industrialized area. Opponents point out that reduced pollution in one area should not allow increased pollution in another area. These offsets end up producing no net decrease in overall pollution, hindering the main purpose for which Cap and Trade systems are created.

Another issue critics have with Cap and Trade is that unless it is implemented on a global scale, with as many countries participating as possible, much of the world will continue polluting unabated. If Norway enters into a global program or creates a domestic cap and trade carbon market, that’s great, good for Norway. However, this does not compel another country, say India, to join as well. Climate change does not discriminate where its effects will be felt, and the climate over Norway will be affected the same as the climate over India, regardless of who is participating in a cap and trade program. Therefore, if not all major polluters join the cause, what incentive does that give to the countries or entities that are willing?

Critics also point to the problems experienced in the European Trading System’s carbon market in recent years as a sign that large-scale carbon trading is not a sustainable or effective solution. In early 2013 carbon prices within the European market fell considerably, so low that it threatened to destabilize the market altogether, and forced the European Union to delay credits distribution and take other measures to drag prices back up to a reasonable level. While many advocates argue that a carbon market would regulate itself, many look at the example of the ETS and remain skeptical.

Many are also afraid that Cap and Trade lends itself to corruption and big-business manipulation. Already in the carbon trading programs that currently exist, carbon brokers have materialized to service the buying and selling of carbon permits, in an attempt to get in on a piece of the Cap and Trade pie. Because Cap and Trade relies on the price of carbon and the machinations of a free market, opponents worry that a program will become another appendage of Wall St. without producing real environmental benefits.

Conclusion

Due to economic downturn in 2008 and the increased costs to consumers as a result of a carbon cap, the drive to implement a national carbon trading scheme in the United States has slowed considerably. However, Cap and Trade programs continue to appear in various shapes and sizes, and as the debate surrounding its effectiveness continues, we will wait and see how successful the current programs in effect prove to be.

Resources

Primary 

United Nations: Kyoto Protocol

European Commission: EU Emissions Trading System

Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative: Model Rule

California Environmental Protection Agency: Cap and Trade Program

Additional 

Forbes: Four Reasons California Cap and Trade Had an Extraordinary First Year

Clean Technica: Five Good Things Cap and Trade Has Done for You

Environmental Leader: Why Cap and Trade is Good for Environmental Marketing

Environment 360: The Flawed Logic of the Cap and Trade Debate

The New York Times: Cap and Fade

Chron: Risks of Cap and Trade

Grist: Beyond Baby Steps: Analyzing the Cap and Trade Flop

Washington Post: The Folly of Unilateral Cap and Trade

Council on Foreign Relations: The Debate Over Greenhouse Gas Cap and Trade

Environmental Defense Fund: How Cap and Trade Works

Center for Climate and Energy Solutions: What Is Cap and Trade?

Ecosystem Market Place: Washington State to Pursue Cap and Trade Program

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cap and Trade: The Solution to Climate Change? appeared first on Law Street.

Ukraine is a country in turmoil. There’s no other way around it. Protests have flared up in the nation’s capitol, and other cities in the northwest region of Ukraine. The movement is being called Euromaiden, and these protests are fiery, violent, and for at least five protesters at this point, deadly. The images coming out are powerful, moving, and frankly, horrifying. This one below is of a protester in Kiev with the fire that has been set by his compatriots to prevent government forces from breaching the barricade line. This is what’s happening in Ukraine right now.

So what’s going on? What we know is that the catalyst for the protests appears to be a decision made by Ukrainian President Viktor F. Yanukovych. For years, the Ukranian government has been attempting to move closer to the European Union. The proposed political and economic association pact would allow Ukrainian citizens to travel through the other EU nations without visas, leading to significantly more opportunities. The EU would gain an ally, and Ukraine would have to institute new laws as mandated by the EU. It truly seemed like a win-win by both sides.

But in November, Yanukovych backed out of the agreement. This was just the tip of the iceberg, because since then, things have gotten dramatically worse in Ukraine. The government has begun to pass laws that are being described by the protesters as draconian and dictatorial in nature. Protests have been outlawed, and protesters are being tracked. The government is using satellites to pinpoint the phone of everyone who visits the square in Kiev where dissenters are the thickest. Those numbers are being recorded, monitored, and being sent messages from the government condemning the actions of the phones’ owners. Other laws include but are no means limited to: participation in “mass disruptions” will incur 10-15 years imprisonment; it’s illegal to drive a car in a column more than 5 cars long; it’s illegal to set up a sound system without permission; setting up a tent is punishable by 15 days in prison; and the government can disable the internet at will.

This is not just a shallow protest based on the EU situation, but rather a grand debate about the future of Ukraine and the cultural ties that split the country in two. The Washington Post’s Max Fisher made an incredibly interesting infographic map that illustrates this perfectly.

This map shows the divide in Ukraine. The country is literally split in two. The northwest area is predominantly Ukrainian-speaking, has close ties to Europe, tends to have mostly Roman Catholics, and did not vote for Yanukovych. They are instead being led by a few main opposition leaders, Vladmir Klitschko, Arseniy Yatsenyuk and Oleg Tyagnybok. The southeast area is mostly Russian-speaking, is economically and culturally linked to Russia.

And that right there is the crux of this issue. Ukraine is a nation that’s facing an identity crisis. It’s pretty clear that Yanukovych caved on the EU deal because of the pressure from the Russians–Yanukovych has admitted that himself. After all, Russia has cut off gas exports and other important economic ties when Ukraine’s actions have moved outside of their interests.

This is a big international political issue for a lot of reasons. Obviously, Ukraine is not the only country to face severe protests, civil strife, and dictatorial policies this year and it would be disingenuous not to recognize that. But the reason that this situation, in particular, has caught my attention is because it is symbolic of a larger conflict. The Cold War is over but there’s still a fundamental struggle between Russia and Western Europe. There’s still a systemic distrust.

I majored in international affairs, specifically, security. That means that I have taken way too many classes on war, genocide, and civil conflict. And while, I can by no means call myself any sort of expert, I do have a background in the topic. The thing is, every theorist will tell you differently, but we don’t know why outbreaks like these happen. Theorists will weigh grievance vs. greed, identity issues, systemic issues, and external issues, such as the interplay between Europe and Russia. And the international affairs student in me wants to digest all of that, and give you a reason why this is happening. But I can’t. And that’s not just because this entire situation has yet to play out. It’s because I want to respect the protesters who are risking their lives in the name of something in which they believe so strongly. What happens in Ukraine has the potential to fundamentally transform Eastern Europe, and by extension, global politics. Again.

Editor’s Update:

Ukraine’s president accepted the resignation of his Prime Minister, Mykola Azarov, and cabinet of ministers, today, in concession to the opposition leaders and demonstrators who are currently protesting his rule. Additionally, parliament voted to scrap the laws previously mentioned above that have provoked the violent escalation in the country’s political crisis.

—

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 [Mstyslav Chernov via Wikipedia]

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 No End in Sight for Ukraine appeared first on Law Street.