While Americans were tuned into former FBI Director James Comey’s Senate hearing yesterday, the British were headed to the polls–again. Prime Minister Theresa May called the June 8 snap election in an effort to increase her party’s majority in Parliament and bolster support when negotiations to leave the European Union begin June 19.

But instead of achieving a stronger hold, May’s Conservative Party actually lost seats, leaving Parliament without a majority party. The country is now in uncharted waters as it enters Brexit talks. Read on to find out what happened, and what comes next.

Hung Parliament

With 649 out of 650 seats declared, no party has won the necessary 326 seats to have a majority in the House of Commons. The Conservative Party still has the highest number of seats, 318, but the body is now what is known as a “hung Parliament.”

The final seat will continue to undergo recounts through Friday evening.

The biggest surprise of the day was the 31 seats that the opposition party, left-wing Labour, gained. The Scottish National Party lost 21 seats, dashing hopes of another Scottish independence referendum. The Liberal Democrats gained three seats, bringing their total to 12. The UK Independence Party failed to gain a single seat, remaining with no representation in Parliament and prompting UKIP leader Paul Nuttall to resign Friday morning.

“A new era must begin with a new leader” – UKIP’s @paulnuttallukip stands down #GE2017 https://t.co/BZNkyAG3cX #bbcelection #hungparliament pic.twitter.com/PnekWR0zJk

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) June 9, 2017

Prime Minster’s Election Fumble

When May called the election back in April, she–and many others–assumed a Conservative victory was a done deal. Since then, a combination of poor campaigning, increased security concerns after three terror attacks, and rising popularity for Labour caused her plan to backfire.

May was criticized for refusing to engage in face-to-face debate with Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn, for proposed policies that would force the elderly to pay more for care, and for taking police officers off the streets, which some said undermined the country’s security during the Manchester Arena and London Bridge attacks.

The success of Corbyn’s party has historically been dependent on high voter turnout, and this year was no different. Labour won seats in every district where turnout increased by more than five percent.

What’s Next for May?

Even after the election results, May will remain Prime Minister. Though the monarchy has no role in politics, the Prime Minister must seek Queen Elizabeth II’s approval before forming a government. May did this Friday morning before speaking at Downing Street, announcing her intentions to form a minority government with the socially conservative Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland.

“Our two parties have enjoyed a strong relationship over many years, and this gives me the confidence to believe that we will be able to work together, in the interests of the whole United Kingdom,” May said in her statement.

This will leave her with a tiny majority of 328 seats, but will not strengthen her negotiating hand, as she had hoped. The DUP favors a soft border with Ireland, contradicting May’s stance on a “hard” Brexit.

Political analysts have already questioned the strength of May’s proposed government.

“I question whether the new government can cobble together a majority for any version of Brexit–hard, soft, poached, scrambled, or deviled with Tabasco sauce–without losing the support of some Conservative MPs, and potentially losing a Commons vote,” writes the BBC’s Mark D’Arcy.

Going forward, a number of things could happen. Minority governments like these are not as secure, as the party with more seats is dependent on the voting support of the less powerful party.

If the government fails, or May receives a vote of no confidence from the majority of MPs, there could either be yet another general election, or Corbyn could take a shot at forming a government. Corbyn has already called for May to resign, saying people have “had quite enough of austerity politics.”

“She wanted a mandate,” Corbyn said. “The mandate she’s got is lost Conservative seats, lost votes, lost support and lost confidence. I would have thought that is enough for her to go.”

Election Successes

The hung parliament is not the only interesting development to come out of yesterday’s vote. Voter turnout was unexpectedly high, especially among young people. The estimated turnout for voters ages 18-24 was 66 percent.

The election was also a major success for female politicians. More than 200 female MPs were elected, leaving this new parliament with the highest number of female seats in history. The country also elected its first female Sikh MP and the first turban-wearing Sikh MP, both Labour, according to the Telegraph.

Avery Anapol

Avery Anapol is a blogger and freelancer for Law Street Media. She holds a BA in journalism and mass communication from the George Washington University. When she’s not writing, Avery enjoys traveling, reading fiction, cooking, and waking up early. Contact Avery at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post U.K. Election: What’s Next for the Hung Parliament? appeared first on Law Street.

Capping off a years-long pursuit of power, Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan strengthened his rule on Sunday, as a referendum passed that changes the constitution from a parliamentary system to a presidential system. While supporters claim the new system will stabilize a government that faces growing internal and external threats, detractors say it will effectively give the Middle East yet another authoritarian leader. With the constitutional change, Erdogan could lead the country until 2029.

The referendum passed by a much narrower margin than many observers–including Erdogan–expected: 51.4 percent of the country supported the system change, while 48.6 percent opposed it. The narrow result shows just how divided Turkey is at a time of growing tensions both at home and abroad.

Domestically, the country is coping with the fall-out from last July’s coup attempt. Erdogan’s government has purged at least 100,000 workers from their jobs, and has jailed thousands of others, all accused of being followers of the exiled cleric Fethullah Gulen. Erdogan accuses Gulen, a onetime political ally, of fomenting the coup. Gulen lives in Pennsylvania.

Turkey has also gone from being a potential member of the European Union to being a thorn in its side. As the campaign for the referendum heated up in recent months, Erdogan sent over his ministers to Europe to drum up support among its millions of Turkish citizens who were eligible to vote–Germany alone has about three million Turkish citizens. The Netherlands, Germany, and others barred Turkish officials from campaigning; Erdogan likened their governments to Nazis. The relationship has soured ever since.

In addition to its domestic concerns, Turkey is a key player in the Syrian conflict. It holds small slices of territory in Syria’s northern border with Turkey, and cooperates with the U.S.-led coalition in airstrikes against Islamic State militants. Though differences remain between the U.S. and Turkey’s goals in the region–Turkey considers the Kurdish fighters, a U.S. ally, terrorists–the two remain vital partners in the fight against ISIS.

Sunday’s referendum result concerns those that see Erdogan as being on a mission to tighten his grip on the country’s politics. Since taking the presidential post in 2014, Erdogan has effectively swapped the job titles of prime minister and president. The presidential perch was designed to be ceremonial, and the prime minister–a position he held for ten years following his switch to president–was the position meant to wield power.

Among other sweeping changes, the new presidential system scraps the prime minister position altogether. It also allows a president to serve for up to two terms of five years each, with a possible extension to three terms. The president can directly appoint top public officials, including judges, and also has the authority to intervene in judicial decisions. New presidential and parliamentary elections are scheduled for November 3 2019.

Some observers saw Erdogan’s campaign as unfair–the main opposition party is calling for a recount. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) derided the tactics of the government.

“The campaign rhetoric was tarnished by some senior officials equating ‘No’ supporters with terrorist sympathizers, and in numerous cases ‘No’ supporters faced police interventions and violent scuffles at their events,” said OSEC in a  statement.

Immediately after the results came in, Erdogan gave a speech to his supporters in Istanbul. “We are enacting the most important governmental reform of our history,” he said. Erdogan also suggested that he would hold a referendum on bringing back the death penalty to Turkey, which would effectively end its bid to become an EU member-state.

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 Passes Referendum Giving President Erdogan Unprecedented Power appeared first on Law Street.

Update 2/23/2017: Despite earlier reports, Abu Izzadeen was not the attacker. Izzadeen is still in prison on unrelated matters. The identity of the attacker is still unknown. 

It’s unclear if it was the same car, but moments later, witnesses said a vehicle rammed the gates of Parliament. It was reported that the driver got out and stabbed a police officer. Witnesses said the officer was still moving when the assailant took off running, as other police officers shouted at him to stop. When he didn’t comply, several shots rang out and the attacker was killed.

Inside the building, the House of Commons was meeting; everyone was instructed to remain inside. Prime Minister Theresa May was quickly reported as unharmed. Witnesses outside described the situation as confused and panicked, with people running in all directions and officers giving contradictory orders.

Emergency services treat the injured outside Parliament in London.

Police are treating the Westminster attack as a “terrorist incident.” pic.twitter.com/XZ4Xioh8JK

— AJ+ (@ajplus) March 22, 2017

What made the incident even more haunting is that it occurred on the anniversary of the suicide bombings in Brussels that killed more than 30 people and injured at least 260. London has recently been spared from terror attacks–the last major attack in the city was the 2005 subway bombings that killed 52 people and injured more than 700. Now, London joins the list of European capitals that have recently been targets of terrorism. And there are similarities between some of the recent attacks–a vehicle was used as a weapon just like in France, Germany and Israel.

Eyewitnesses describe a chaotic scene after London terror attack: “I just can’t believe what I just saw.” https://t.co/EuQPjRFizI pic.twitter.com/SMzX6Gp9cf

— ABC News (@ABC) March 22, 2017

According to the Metropolitan Police in London, a “full counter terrorism investigation is already underway.” Police asked people to stay away from public areas in central London and to report any suspicious activities. Police also urged people to send in photos they took of the attacks. The head of counter terrorism, Mark Rowley, confirmed that four people are dead. “That includes the police officer that was protecting parliament and one man believed to be the attacker who was shot by a police firearms officer,” he said.

Four dead and at least 20 people injured in London terror attack, Metropolitan Police confirm pic.twitter.com/rXXqMU8Q36

— Sky News (@SkyNews) March 22, 2017

Some of the injured victims were a woman who either fell or jumped into the River Thames when the car crashed into the people on the bridge, and a group of visiting French students. Foreign Office minister Tobias Ellwood tried to revive the stabbed police officer outside of the parliament, but was unsuccessful. Lawmakers inside the House of Commons stayed on lockdown for two hours while police searched the whole building for any additional threats.

Andrew Bone was on a bus that was stopped on the bridge after the car had rammed into people and said, “I am of the generation who remembers I.R.A. bombs in London during The Troubles,” referring to the conflicts in Northern Ireland that lasted from 1968 to 1998. “We are not indifferent, but police have reacted with calm. I saw no panic.”

By Wednesday afternoon, police said the the attacker was Abu Izzadeen, who was born in London as Trevor Brooks. He was well known by authorities for his links to Islamic terrorism and had been to prison for funding, inciting, and praising terror acts. Reportedly he called for the killing of police officers and said he saw members of Parliament as infidels.

My thoughts are with the victims of the Westminster attack. Europe stands firm with the UK against terror and ready to help.

— Donald Tusk (@eucopresident) March 22, 2017

World leaders expressed their solidarity with London on Twitter, although President Donald Trump has yet to make a statement. The NYPD increased security at some high-profile locations around New York City, like the British Consulate, United Nations Mission, and Grand Central Terminal.

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 London Terror Attack: Four Dead After Assailant Drives into Crowd 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.

Honor killing: a fatal oxymoron, especially considering the killer and the killed are usually blood kin. In Pakistan (and other cultures as well), such a practice exists–husbands, brothers, and fathers sometimes murder wives, sisters, and daughters who have lost their purity. Justice has often evaded these incidents, as family members can forgive the perpetrator, absolving him of any legal punishment.

But on Thursday, Pakistan’s Parliament passed a law that should change that: it closed a loophole that let killers off the hook and mandates a minimum 25-year sentence. Family members still have the ability to pardon a death sentence, but not a life sentence.

“Honor killings are a cancer in our society. This law is being presented against this cancer,” said Naveed Qamar, a member of the Pakistan People’s Party, which helped push the bill.

Honor killings occur when a woman is seen as losing her purity, and a husband, brother, or father–to preserve their dignity–murder their wife, sister, or daughter. For example, if a woman marries a spouse of her choosing, a brother or father could carry out an honor killing. By the government’s count, honor killings amounted to more than 1,000 deaths last year, though human rights groups think that number is a low estimate.

The law, which was first introduced a year ago, faced friction from conservative Islamists who said it violates Sharia law. The Islamic Ideology Council, a group of conservative Muslim clerics, were called on by lawmakers opposed to the law to weigh in on it. They did not end up doing so. The group has a history of supporting controversial laws, such as one that allowed husbands to “lightly” beat their wives.

Before the new law passed, the laws of Qisas (retribution) and Diyat (blood money) allowed family members to forgive the killer of any crimes. Under the new law, which passed both houses of Parliament after four hours of deliberations, family members can only pardon a death sentence.

An Oscar-winning documentary film released earlier this year, “A Girl in the River,” attracted international attention to the honor killing practice, and many see the film as helping to put pressure on strengthening the consequences for these murders. The film follows a girl who survived an honor killing attempt.

Parliament also passed an anti-rape law on Thursday, which mandates DNA testing for rape cases. That law upset stringent Islamists as well, because according to Sharia law, rape can only be proven by multiple eye witnesses.

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 Pakistan Passes Stricter “Honor Killing” Laws appeared first on Law Street.

Ottawa, Canada, is on high alert after reports of multiple shooters near the National War Memorial and the Canadian Parliament building early today. Details are still largely unknown, but what is almost certain at this point is that there were at least two active shooters in Ottawa today. It is believed that they were together.

One Canadian soldier has been killed while standing guard in front of the War Memorial. Although bystanders attempted to save him, his gunshot wounds were too much to overcome. The shooter from the War Memorial is believed to still be on the loose.

A second shooter, inside the Canadian Parliament building, may have been shot and killed by the police. Eyewitness Marc-Andre Viau told i24 news — a Canadian site — that he saw a shooter run into a caucus room while police pursued. Then he heard a number of shots, estimating the number to be between ten and 20. Other estimates put the number of shots in the Parliament building from 30-50.

Large parts of the surrounding area have been put under lockdown until more details are known. Here’s a visual of the situation:

https://twitter.com/CNNJason/status/524955622765494272/photo/1

Overall, the reaction from Canadians seems understandably horrified and upset. Canada does not often see such levels of violence.

This stuff doesn't happen in Canada. I'm shocked, angered, sad. Let's keep this country safe.

— Brian G  (@brimau5) October 22, 2014

And some are concerned that this is terrorist action, especially after an accused jihadist in Canada ran over a soldier and then was shot.

Others believe that while this unprecedented shooting may change things for Canada, it’s important to focus on endurance right now:

While access to Parliament may change, we won't change as a people. We are Canada. We are some tough Canucks. Our way of life will endure.

— Jason Carlin (@the2scoops) October 22, 2014

Further details and motives are still obviously unknown, but our thoughts go to those in Ottawa right now. Hopefully the second shooter will be detained soon.

Check back here for more details as the story develops.

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 Developing: Active Shooters in Ottawa, One Soldier Dead appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

The Future of Devolution

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

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

The West Lovian Question

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

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

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

Going forward

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

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

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [stuart anthony via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

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

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