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 Considering a Pardon for Joe Arpaio

President Donald Trump said that he is seriously considering issuing a pardon for Joe Arpaio, the former Arizona sheriff who was recently found guilty of criminal contempt for repeatedly profiling Hispanic people in violation of a court order. He has been dubbed “America’s toughest sheriff” and was a staunch Obama opponent who joined Trump in the “birther” movement. And Trump seems to like him quite a bit.

“Is there anyone in local law enforcement who has done more to crack down on illegal immigration than Sheriff Joe?” Trump reportedly said during a conversation with Fox News. “He has protected people from crimes and saved lives. He doesn’t deserve to be treated this way.” Arpaio’s sentencing is scheduled for October 5 and he is facing up to six months behind bars. Trump retweeted a Fox News article about the possibility of a pardon. Yesterday, Trump finally condemned the violence in Charlottesville, so some critics believe that the Arpaio comments might be a nod to white supremacist groups.

Make no mistake: If Trump pardons Arpaio, this would be an official presidential endorsement of racism.

— ACLU National (@ACLU) August 14, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: August 15, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Cyber Attack on Multiple Countries…Again

Another massive cyber attack has made it to multiple countries. The attack is believed to have originated in Ukraine. The ransomware has affected an estimated 64 countries so far, and is mainly targeting businesses. Infected computers show a message saying that all files have been encrypted. And just like the earlier ransomware attack in May, these hackers demand ransom payments in the form of Bitcoin to unlock the owner’s data. According to cybersecurity experts, this type of ransomware has never been seen before.

However, experts reportedly found a “vaccine” against the ransomware early this morning, that could cure individual infected computers. But they still have not found a kill switch, which would stop the computers from spreading the virus to others. Now, everyone is wondering who is behind the latest hack, and why. Some say it could have political motivations or that the hackers just want to cause widespread disruption. But because Ukraine was hit the hardest and its main antagonist is Russia, many people suspect the Kremlin is behind it.

The fast-spreading Petrwrap/Petya ransomware sample we have was compiled on June 18, 2017 according to its PE timestamp. pic.twitter.com/CHUYvsiQ08

— Costin Raiu (@craiu) June 27, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: June 28, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

GOP Health Plan Will Leave 14 Million Without Coverage in First Year

The Congressional Budget Office has released its analysis of the Republican healthcare plan, and the results don’t look very good. According to the CBO, 24 million people will be without coverage by 2026, and 14 million would lose their insurance in just the first year. While the plan would save about $337 billion in the coming decade, it would come largely at the expense of the poorest Americans–as the savings would mostly come from cutting Medicaid.

Democrats say that this should be enough to stop the bill. President Donald Trump, on the other hand, says that the media is trying to make Obamacare look great so that people will look back on it positively, but that “’17 will be the very worst year.” The Trump Administration has tried to downplay the importance of the CBO over the past few days and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price said, “We disagree strenuously with the report that was put out.”

CBO report on GOP health plan:
-24 MILLION fewer insured
-$880 billion cut from Medicaid
-Premiums 20% higher by 2018

Is this “winning?”

— Mark Takano (@RepMarkTakano) March 13, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: March 14, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Hashtag of the day: #HalftimeShow. People are prepping for the Super Bowl on Sunday and Lady Gaga is the halftime performer. As Gaga has been very vocal in her critique of Donald Trump, many are expecting her to make a political statement. All she has said so far is, “I believe in the spirit of equality.” Let’s hope for a good show and read on for today’s rants:

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:

Kellyanne Conway Just Gave Us More #AlternativeFacts

Ever since Kellyanne Conway coined the term “alternative facts,” she has been on a roll. In an interview with MSNBC last night she talked about the “Bowling Green Massacre” as justification for President Donald Trump’s travel ban. She claimed that President Obama banned Iraqi refugees in 2011 after two refugees carried out a massacre in Bowling Green, Kentucky.

.@KellyannePolls says that 2 Iraqi refugees “were the masterminds behind the Bowling Green massacre.”
(There was no such massacre.) pic.twitter.com/sD3Nnb5xfE

— Joe Sonka (@joesonka) February 3, 2017

But, there was never such an attack. The Obama Administration did slow down the intake of refugees in 2011 after two Iraqi men tried to send money and weapons to al-Qaeda. But those men never planned a massacre and most certainly didn’t carry one out. And Obama’s “Iraqi refugee ban” is a significantly more complicated and nuanced issue than Conway made it out to be. People on social media immediately started having fun with the new “alternative facts,” but it’s no joke to many that some members of Trump’s team believe they can spout completely false information to justify their actions.

I was a student at BGSU when the Bowling Green Massacre didn’t happen. I’ll never be able to not forget what I didn’t see that day.

— Jim Osborne (@ozzy4873) February 3, 2017

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: February 3, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It’s Trump’s first week, but the protests haven’t stopped quite yet. For example, actor Shia LaBeouf has launched a four-year-long livestream art project called “He Will Not Divide Us.” It involves a camera outside of New York’s Museum of the Moving Image and its first featured guest was Jaden Smith. Check it out here.

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’s Team Hired Actors to Attend His First Campaign Speech

Way before President Donald Trump won the election, back when he publicly announced his candidacy in June 2015, his campaign team indirectly hired actors to be in the audience. Members of Trump’s team were accused of doing so at the time, but denied it—and they are right, in a sense. They didn’t hire the actors directly, but they worked with a contracting firm, which then subcontracted a talent agency to make sure that some actors came to cheer for the new candidate. A complaint that the American Democracy Legal Fund filed in March was made public last week and confirms the allegations. That organization supported Hillary Clinton and is alleging that Trump’s campaign team didn’t pay the agencies appropriately.

Trump hired a firm to provide actors to cheer during his 2015 campaign announcement then didn’t pay them for months https://t.co/7Ktaj6Jiec

— Liam Stack (@liamstack) January 22, 2017

A journalist from the Center for Public Integrity found that the Trump campaign also failed to pay the contracting firm until a month after the company had filed a complaint, and four months after it was originally hired. In the end, the Federal Election Commission ruled that the Trump campaign hadn’t done anything wrong. But if nothing else, it’s an embarrassing revelation for a team that only days ago claimed to have had the largest inauguration audience in history, despite photo and video evidence to the contrary.

Emma Von Zeipel

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

The post RantCrush Top 5: January 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

It may be hard to imagine that in 2016 having an abortion is still illegal in a country as developed as Ireland. As a traditionally Catholic country, it has strict laws regulating abortion, with the exception of instances in which the procedure would save the mother’s life. New data illustrates the way in which many Irish women seek abortions despite the country’s particularly restrictive laws.

To clarify: the Republic of Ireland is its own country, while Northern Ireland is a part of the United Kingdom–along with England, Scotland and Wales–which has more relaxed laws around abortion. In the U.K., the Legal Abortion Act of 1967 made abortion legal before week 24 of a pregnancy. But that law does not apply to Northern Ireland, which criminalizes abortion like the Republic of Ireland. Abortion is punishable with up to a 14-year prison sentence in Ireland and up to a life sentence in Northern Ireland.

In April a court in Northern Ireland heard a case in which a young woman from Belfast bought drugs online to terminate her pregnancy. She couldn’t afford to go to England to perform a legal abortion, so she saw the pill as her only option. Her roommates reported her to the police and she was ultimately given a suspended sentence. Had she lived in another part of the U.K., she could have gotten an abortion legally–and between 2010 and 2012, roughly 15,500 Irish women went to England or Wales to do so. Instead, this woman found herself guilty of a criminal offense because she couldn’t afford to travel.

A recent analysis of data from Women on Web–a telemedicine group that provides abortion pills and instructions to how to take them–shows that 5,650 women from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland bought these pills between 2010 and 2015. Most of the women in the study said taking the pills was the right decision for them.

The most commonly cited reason for having an abortion was that the women were not able to have a child at that point in their life, closely followed by not having enough money to raise a kid. Most of the women in the study reported that they became pregnant due to the failure or misuse of contraceptives. About 50 percent of the women were aged between 25 and 35. Three-quarters of the women were pregnant for seven weeks or less at the time they took the pills.

It is not that uncommon for birth control pills to fail. In fact, there is a 5 percent risk of becoming pregnant even if you take your pill every day, according to the American Pregnancy Association. Finding oneself with an unplanned and unwanted pregnancy while also not having the financial means to take care of a child is a nightmare for many.

“Abortion is a criminal offense in Ireland and if women are accessing these dangerous pills online and have an adverse reaction that could endanger their life, who will take responsibility?” Bernadette Smyth, a member of the pro-life group Precious Life, told the BBC. She added that abortion not is the answer. But then, what is?

Having abortion rights in Ireland will not take any anti-choicers’ rights away. The whole point is the spectrum of options, for everyone.

— Claire Brophy (@ClaireBrophy) October 17, 2016

As the debate in Ireland continues opposition to the current abortion laws may be growing. Professor Abigail Aiken, who led the study, said to the BBC that the current law dates back to 1861 and harms women by creating a climate of stigma, shame, and isolation. She also said that groups like Women on Web make the process of having an abortion much less stressful for women. She said:

I think it really demonstrates that women can make the best choice for themselves when it comes to their own reproduction. The only negative thing about this is that women reported they had to do it against the law, and they went through considerable stress and anxiety and secrecy and isolation and shame.

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 How Irish Women Buy Pills Online To Get Around Abortion Laws 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.

Two women departed from the Dublin Airport at 6:30 in the morning on Saturday. They arrived in Manchester, England, and immediately commuted to an abortion clinic. The women live-tweeted their journey from the account @TwoWomenTravel. The abortion-seeking woman–accompanied by her friend–was one of thousands of Irish women each year who leave their home country each year in hopes of getting the procedure elsewhere. Most commonly, that elsewhere is Wales or England. Abortions are illegal in Ireland, with an exception for cases where the mother faces immediate death.

#twowomentravel boarding, it’s chilly. @EndaKennyTD pic.twitter.com/mffXYkpI71

— Two Women Travel (@TwoWomenTravel) August 20, 2016

According to the pair’s final tweet, their purpose for live-tweeting the journey was as follows: “We wanted to show the very ordinariness of the situation-we wanted to show it for what it is; a series of waiting rooms, moments in transit, a sequence of tediums protracted by stigma. No filters, no monologues, just the facts.”

Her abortion was successful–though not after getting turned away from one over-crowded clinic–but the discomfort of journeying away from home for an otherwise routine procedure that is unrestricted in many countries around the world, especially in Europe and the West, was poignant. Since 1983, Ireland–a heavily Catholic country–has outlawed abortions via its constitution’s Eighth Amendment. In 2012, after a woman died when doctors refused her the procedure, an exception was made to the Eight Amendment for women whose lives were in immediate danger.

Now a waiting room,weighted by bated breaths.@EndaKennyTD we could be home by noon in another world. #twowomentravel pic.twitter.com/1Sqytx6pgM

— Two Women Travel (@TwoWomenTravel) August 20, 2016

All others, like the two that flew to England over the weekend, must travel abroad to legally procure an abortion. Those who illegally undergo the procedure in Ireland face up to 14 years in prison. Amnesty International, a human rights organization, deems Ireland’s abortion law as “one of the world’s most discriminatory and punitive.”

In 2015, nearly 3,500 Irish women traveled to Wales or England for an abortion, according to the Irish Family Planning Association. Between 1980 and 2015, roughly 167,000 Irish women traveled to a country abroad seeking an abortion. And though the number of Irish women getting abortions abroad steadily rose from 1980 to the early 2000s, they have been in decline since 2004, and recent annual figures are comparable to those in early 1980s.

Not the first or the last bleeding women about to face a long treck home @EndaKennyTD #twowomentravel pic.twitter.com/08q2CQE3Yw

— Two Women Travel (@TwoWomenTravel) August 21, 2016

Enda Kenny, Ireland’s prime minister, has remained silent on his country’s abortion law, which many have been protesting and demanding a referendum to repeal the amendment. Not everybody was happy about the two women live-tweeting their trip to England. Cora Sherlock, the spokeswoman for Pro Life Campaign Ireland, sent out a tweet on Saturday that said: “It is deeply disturbing that the ending of the life of an innocent, vulnerable human being is being live-tweeted today. Very sad.”

But Simon Harris, the Irish government’s minister for health, took to Twitter to thank @TwoWomenTravel for  “telling story of reality which faces many.”

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 Irish Woman Seeking Abortion Abroad Livetweets Journey appeared first on Law Street.

The head of the European Olympic Committees, Patrick Hickey from Ireland, was arrested in Rio on Wednesday for allegedly running a ticket scalping operation.

When the police knocked on his hotel room door, 71-year-old Hickey left to hide in an adjacent room. His wife reportedly told the police that he had already left for Ireland. When the police eventually found him he said he wasn’t feeling well, citing a previous heart condition, and they took him to a hospital.

Police believe that Hickey and at least nine others plotted to illegally sell tickets to the Olympics at sky-high prices. Another Irish executive was arrested in the same investigation last week, and four others are still wanted.

Rio police issue warrant to arrest head of European #IOC Patrick Hickey for scalping #Olympic tickets #Rio2016pic.twitter.com/ZbSB4up4Am

— People’s Daily,China (@PDChina) August 17, 2016

Hickey is also head of the Olympic Council of Ireland and has been a member of the International Olympic Committee board since 2012. An ambulance took him to a hospital following the arrest. His current condition is not known. IOC spokesman Mark Adams said:

The police have been here, I can confirm that, and Patrick Hickey has gone to [a] hospital. When we know some facts, when police give us some facts, we’ll let you know.

The AP reports that officials seized over 1,000 tickets that had been sold for high fees and distributed among members of the Olympic Council of Ireland. Police believe that British company THG Sports sold them. One of the executives wanted by police is the owner of THG’s parent company, Marcus Evans Group.

Police arrested another executive from Marcus Evans Group, Kevin Mallon, and his interpreter at the beginning of the Games in Rio since they had fake tickets. Even though OCI’s name was printed on the tickets, Irish officials said they had no idea why and that they didn’t know the arrested men.

Brazilian police investigator Ricardo Barbosa said at a news conference:

Today’s arrest shows that the law must be followed. Even more when we are talking about the biggest sporting event that should uphold ethics and an international spirit. We found out that the Irish Olympic Committee ended up facilitating the ticket scalping scheme.

According to the Irish Examiner, Hickey is now facing charges for facilitating ticket touting, the formation of a cartel, and ambush or illicit marketing. If he is found guilty he could be sentenced to up to seven years in prison.

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 Head of European Olympic Committees Arrested for Ticket Scalping 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.

A 21-year-old Irish comedian has skyrocketed to internet fame after posting a hilarious long-winded open letter to ISIS that has gone viral. Finchie Cova penned the 800+ word letter on his Facebook after the terrorist organization announced last week that it plans to attack Ireland, labeling it “Europe’s weakest link.”

Irishman writes open letter to ISIS warning dire consequences if they destroy a single pub. https://t.co/iSfcmM0ki3 pic.twitter.com/E9uiFgjlO7

— someecards (@someecards) November 30, 2015

In the letter Finchie explains to ISIS that he and his countrymen are “only here for the craic” (aka good times) and that Ireland is too neutral to join a fight they “clearly don’t want to be apart of.” But if for some reason the terrorists still plan to come to Ireland and “piss in their cornflakes”, he has a slew of a tips on how to proceed, i.e. don’t even think about bombing any pubs or Leo Burdocks!

Finchie’s effort to make light of the situation quickly resonated with others, causing it to to be shared more than 22,000 times and liked by more than 300 people so far. So if you need a nice post-Thanksgiving afternoon pick-me-up keep reading and enjoy.

The letter in full reads:

So after the past few weeks of shite that’s been floating around on Facebook iv tried to stay out of it. But I can’t, not anymore. Finchie needs to speak.

MY OPEN LETTER TO ISIS

What’s the craic lads! I don’t think we have officially met. Finchie here from Ireland, we are that non aggravating, laid back post English island to the west of the bullshit.

So how’s yourself? Been busy I hope. I see from the shallow media outlets and “copy paste” fear posting on social media that ye have been up to your neck in it the past few months. Good for you!

Sorry to be bothering ye boys while ye are busy planning the world’s biggest burning man festival in the name of Alan, (or what ever he’s called) but something has come to our attention to past few days that we need to have a quick “chat” about it.

What’s this I hear about ye adding us to a list of countries called “The Global Coalition” in some mad 80’s themed propaganda video? Ah lads come on will ya, shtep down from 3 legged horse now for a second and rewind the cassette cuz I think ye got it wrong.

First of all, lads were only here for the craic! We have been through too much shite hawking over the past couple of thousand years to be goin all “rouge and shit” and joining in fights we clearly don’t want to be part of. It’s like when a fisht fight breaks out in primary school between Vince and Iano Kelly. Most of us just watch, shout a bit and kick a bin to make noise or whatever, but we don’t bother getting involved (well Vince is English so any sly opportunity for a shneaky kick to the shins and were all over it) we couldn’t be arsed with the hole thing, we’re simply too laid back.

Now keeping that in mind let me let you in on a few tips if you do decide to come over here and piss in our cornflakes.

Don’t judge us on the actions of the lads across the pond. We don’t like that craic. I get that ye have yer fight an all, but dont drag us into it, we don’t give a left bollock for Alan and what he tells ye to do.

Sharon’s law, (or whatever it is) won’t work here. I know a Sharon, and she’s a cunt. We don’t like her either.

Don’t bomb our shit. We just finished building it back after breaking free from the very enemy you also have on your hit list. (if you want tho you can destroy leitrim, absolute shitehole lads I’m not joking)

We have more than one army. 1 official army (actually went training in north cork recently to prepare for your arrival. And yes north cork is exactly like Damascus, especially fermoy on a Friday night).

We also have a few non official, highly secretive, multi talented armies all with the same name (you get used to it after a while) who hate each other but have one very important thing in common…all mad bastards. Let that sink in

By the way the unofficial armies are all trained in guerrilla warfare. Meaning your fucked. Like actually fucked. Unless you want to buy weapons, then some of them will turn a blind eye to ” the cause” and sell ya a few AKs while you visit.

Don’t even think about blowing up Leo Burdocks!!! Consider this your harshest warning!

If any single pub is damaged during your short stay here, we will consider this an act of war!!! And we praise to our God Arthur, we will strike down on you with great vengeance and furious anger on those who attempt to destroy our drinking patterns during a time of crises!.

On a final note, remember these and you should be fine:

1. Offies close at ten
2. Don’t leave the immersion on
3. PM me for Bono’s address
4. Don’t bomb shit when the toy show is on
5. Start with leitrim
6. If your looking for virgins you won’t find any on Harcourt street
7. Get a Tesco clubcard. Trust me.
8. If you want to blow up a stadium, go to dalymount please.
9. Go to a water protest, they don’t judge you for where your from, just if you pay or not.
10. Finally, if asked for change, eyes down and keep Fucking walking!

So ISIS its good to meet you. Do yourself a favour and us, stay where you are. You don’t want to come here, were not bothered with the issues you have.

But if you do, we will beat the shit out of all of you using mammies wooden spoon, kilkenny hurlers and the bouncers from the copper faced Jack’s.

Yours unintentionally

Finchie and the rest of Ireland

EDIT: offaly, offaly too!

Clearly Finchie is enjoying his 15 minutes, taking the time to post a screenshot of an ISIS Google search on his Facebook accompanied by the caption,

Google: ISIS

Results: Finchie

Troll level: 1,000,000

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 Finchie Cova: Irish Comedian Pens Hilarious Open Letter to ISIS appeared first on Law Street.

Ireland is taking a radical approach to dealing with drugs. The nation plans on decriminalizing small amounts of marijuana, heroin, and cocaine in what’s being called a “radical cultural shift.”

Ireland’s approach comes from a public health angle; Aodhán Ó Ríordáin, the Minister in charge of the National Drugs Strategy stated:

Too often those with drug problems suffer from stigma, due to a lack of understanding or public education about the nature of addiction. This stigma can be compounded for those who end up with a criminal record due to possession of drugs for their own use. Addiction is not a choice, it’s a healthcare issue. This is why I believe it is imperative that we approach our drug problem in a more compassionate and sensitive way.

In addition to decriminalizing the drugs, Ireland will set up supervised injection facilities, where users are monitored by medical professionals. The aim there is to keep users from consuming drugs on the street, where they can be a harm to themselves and others, for example, by using dirty syringes that could spread disease.

Ireland isn’t the first country to take this approach. Portugal undertook similar steps in 2001, when it decriminalized all drugs, and emphasized the need for public health spending and efforts. Since then, the rates of drug use among both young people and adults have been dropping.

The logic behind this approach is simple–if the illegality and stigma of possessing drugs are minimized, people will be more likely to get help. A study by the Cato Institute after Portugal took similar steps found that the biggest deterrent to addicts coming forward to receive treatment was the fear of arrest. Additionally, eliminating the costly burden of prosecuting and incarcerating individuals frees up that money to be used for rehabilitation efforts.

While the possession of drugs will be decriminalized, it will still be against the law to sell, distribute, or profit from drugs. This measure aims to only help those who have fallen victim to the disease of addiction. Ó Ríordáin further explained:

Above all the mode must be person-centred and involve an integrated approach to treatment and rehabilitation based on a continuum of care with clearly defined referral pathways.

It’s become almost overwhelmingly clear that a tough-on-drugs approach doesn’t necessarily work–the United States alone provides a depressing case study to that effect. If Ireland sees successful results along the lines of Portugal, other countries may follow suit.

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 Radical Cultural Shift: Ireland to Decriminalize Certain Drugs appeared first on Law Street.

Today, there is a historic vote in the Republic of Ireland. It’s poised to become the first country to legalize same-sex marriage through a referendum. While select other nations allow same-sex marriage, those laws have come about as the result of a court decision or through legislation being passed. Ireland would be the first nation to legalize gay marriage through a popular vote, which is required to change its constitution. Given Ireland’s complicated relationship with religion, the fact that this nation has become the battleground for a gay marriage vote says quite a bit about the waning influence of Catholicism in the country.

The question posed to voters about the matter will be a “yes” or “no” one; they’ll be asked to confirm or deny the statement that: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” The vote has been widely discussed on social media, with hashtags like #YesEquality and #VoteYes taking the lead. There’s also been social media coverage of many Irish citizens living in various places abroad who are returning home to cast their votes.

Many young people had travelled from as far as New York and Brussels especially to cast their vote #hometovote pic.twitter.com/2j0zMgCNC0

— Carole Leger (@CaroleLeger) May 22, 2015

Look at this!! #hometovote Dublin Airport last night with People coming home to VOTE pic.twitter.com/G2U4MdyD5k

— David O’Reilly (@DavidOReilly25) May 22, 2015

Ireland has an incredibly long and storied Catholic tradition, and roughly 85 percent of Irish people identify as Catholic. The Catholic Church in Ireland has stood in opposition to the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. For example, the Catholic Iona Institute, along with other groups, have advocated for a “no” vote in today’s referendum. Common arguments cited in this debate over marriage equality appear to include the old argument about “redefining” marriage, despite the fact that this would only create the opportunity for same-sex civil marriages. There’s also concern from “No” voters over the prospect of children being raised by gay parents, despite the fact that such concerns have been handily debunked in numerous studies.

The fact that polls are looking very promising for the “Yes” voters–from what I’ve seen they’ve ranged from about 70-80 percent voting yes–really does say a lot about the future of Ireland as a Catholic stronghold. Of course, it hasn’t just been the Catholic Church’s hesitancy when it comes to social issues like gay marriage that have led to waning support. The highly publicized sexual abuse and pedophilia scandals of the last few decades garnered the Catholic Church significant amounts of criticism. For example, in 2011 a survey found that just 18 percent of Catholics in Ireland were regularly attending mass. That’s an incredibly sharp decline from 1984, when it was reported that 90 percent of practicing Catholics attended mass on a regular basis.

So, despite Ireland’s Catholic tradition, the campaign to allow marriage equality has moved forward. While the vote totals probably won’t be released until tomorrow, there’s been a large wave of support for the “Yes” vote to legalize marriage equality. Ireland, despite all odds, does seem in a good position to make history and become the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote.

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 Is Ireland About to Make History? appeared first on Law Street.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are all principles on which the United States was founded. Now, in my book, there’s one thing that fits very firmly into the happiness category: chocolate. So when I learned that my ability to get certain types of chocolate–particularly chocolate imported from the United Kingdom–has been hampered, I got pretty upset. After all, it’s my liberty to stuff my face with lots of chocolatey goodness, and it affects my life if I cannot do so.

The main conveyer of food from the UK to the US is called Let’s Buy British Imports (LBB). LBB just made a settlement with the American Hershey’s Company to stop importing Cadbury products. Cadbury is a British chocolate manufacturer, and if you’ve never had anything Cadbury-made, you’re missing out, because it’s damn delicious. Its most recognizable product in the U.S. is probably the Cadbury egg, but there are plenty of different variations of Cadbury sold, especially at specialty shops.

The settlement came from a claim by Hershey’s that the packaging on the chocolate made by Cadbury looked too much like some of Hershey’s, and that selling them in the United States infringed on trademark and licensing issues. It won’t just be Cadbury that won’t be imported any more, British-made KitKats are also going to be left across the pond, as well as a few other choice British sweets.

While this won’t make it illegal to have Cadbury in the US, or anything of that magnitude, sellers of the delicious creations will have a very hard time being able to stock the candy. It’s possible to import chocolate yourself, but it is very difficult to do so, given all the Food and Drug Administration and custosm hoops that require jumping through.

Those of you who have never been blessed with the pure magic that is Cadbury are probably wondering: what’s the big deal? Isn’t it just chocolate? Can’t you just eat some Hershey’s and call it a day, you weird, sugar-addicted freak?

Cadbury really is better than American chocolate. There is a legitimate, scientifically proven difference in taste. It tends to be higher in fat than American chocolate and focuses more on using milk than sugar. As Tatiana Schlossberg of The New York Times realized after a rather informal taste test:

The British Dairy Milk was slightly fudgier, allowing for a creamier taste and texture. The American Dairy Milk bar left a less pleasing coating and somewhat of a stale aftertaste.

In addition, the Telegraph pointed out:

a Hershey bar contains only 11 percent cocoa, while a British-made Dairy Milk bar – hardly a gourmet product – contains almost twice as much cocoa, at 20 per cent.

So, it’s probably not just a packaging concern on Hershey’s part. Cadbury chocolate tastes better, and has a pretty devoted following.

Most upsettingly, we’ll still see “Cadbury” on our shelves. Unfortunately it will be knockoff version, as Hershey’s has a deal to produce Cadbury products with altered recipes. Talk about adding insult to injury.

—

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 More Cadbury Chocolate For You 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.