Get a jump start on your law and policy news this Monday with some of the best stories from last week. ICYMI–check out some of Law Street’s top trending stories below.

Vandalism as Activism: Protesting Whaling on the Faroe Islands

The iconic Little Mermaid statue in Copenhagen has taken on a new look this month: anti-whaling advocates vandalized the statue, coating it in red paint in an effort to draw attention to the endangered whales of the Faroe Islands. For a thousand years, the people of the Faroe Islands have conducted an annual grindadráp, a drive hunt where a flotilla of small boats drive whales and dolphins into a small bay where they are killed by hand with knives. The organization Sea Shepherd has worked to end these hunts since the 1980s, but the inhabitants of the islands have pushed back, arguing that the “grind” is critical for both food and preserving the islanders’ sense of community.

U.K. Election: What’s Next for the Hung Parliament?

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.

Because We All Missed it: Highlights from Infrastructure Week

Before his presidency, Donald Trump was a builder. Specifically, he built towers, golf courses, and even vineyards. Last week, he took on his biggest building job yet: America’s national infrastructure network. This push was dubbed by President Trump and his administration as “Infrastructure Week.” Using a series of events and announcements, the current administration presented a $1 trillion plan to revamp this nation’s infrastructure, which includes highways, electrical systems, waterways, and airports. Given that much of the news last week had little to do with infrastructure–notably Former FBI Director James Comey’s testimony before Congress–here are some of the highlights in case you missed it.

Alexis Evans

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

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

If you were one of the millions of people entranced by James Comey’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing last week, here’s some of the stories you may have missed. ICYMI–check out Law Street’s best of the week below!

What is the Future of British Counter-Terrorism Policy?

Sweeping changes are likely to come in Britain’s policy toward terrorism and extremism after Prime Minister Theresa May declared that “enough is enough” during a speech outside of 10 Downing Street on Sunday. The speech was prompted after another attack on Saturday night at the London Bridge where a white van struck pedestrians in a coordinated attack that killed seven and injured dozens that was later claimed by ISIS.

Reality Winner: NSA Contractor Charged With Leaking Classified Materials

A federal government contractor was charged with removing and mailing classified materials about Russian interference in the 2016 election to a news outlet, the Justice Department announced June 5. Reality Leigh Winner, a 25-year-old intelligence contractor, printed and retained classified intelligence reporting from the National Security Agency, containing classified national defense information, on or about May 9, according to the Justice Department.

Apple Takes a Stance on Texting and Driving with iOS 11

At the 2017 WorldWide Developers Conference in San Jose, California, Apple executives gave their first preview of their new software update: iOS 11. The update will include over a dozen new tools and platforms, including a new Augmented Reality feature, an enhancement to Apple Pay, and the addition of a stylus that can be used in conjunction with the iPad Pro. But one new feature stood out above the rest. During the keynote address, Apple introduced a Do Not Disturb add-on feature that will prevent an iPhone user from receiving notifications of any kind while behind the wheel. T

Alexis Evans

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

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

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.

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:

Theresa May Loses Majority in Huge Upset

Prime Minister Theresa May originally called for the snap election in the U.K. to strengthen the position of her Conservative Party, but after yesterday’s votes were counted it was clear that she came out the loser. Her party still holds a plurality, but no one party will hold a majority. This is called a hung parliament, meaning that May will need to form a coalition with other parties. And her party will have a hard time passing legislation, as the main opposition party, Labour, won so many seats. Labour’s leader Jeremy Corbyn said May should resign and that he wants to form a minority government. But May doesn’t seem likely to resign–in a speech, she announced she will form a government with a small Northern Irish Party called DUP. Now a lot of people are expressing worries about what will happen with the impending Brexit talks.

PM Theresa May says Conservatives will ensure much-needed “stability” for Britain as the party reels from a string of losses pic.twitter.com/LBIx3HK1EI

— AFP news agency (@AFP) June 9, 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 9, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

Comey Testifies in Front of the Senate

This morning at 10, the Senate Intelligence Committee hearing of former FBI Director James Comey began. The hearing is intended to address President Donald Trump’s interactions with Comey regarding the FBI’s investigation into Russian hacking of the 2016 elections. Yesterday, Comey’s prepared testimony was released and many people said the content was troubling. It described, among other things, the president’s request for loyalty during a private dinner with Comey–followed by an “awkward silence” and a staring contest. Comey then spoke to Attorney General Jeff Sessions and asked to not be left alone with the president again, as the request made him uneasy.

At the entrance to the Comey hearing room, one of the cops tells me he’s never seen anything like this pic.twitter.com/GpZx8kJ3oZ

— Adam Khan (@Khanoisseur) June 8, 2017

This is a pretty big deal, so a lot of bars opened early to let people watch the hearing live. A D.C. bar served discounted Russian vodka with “FBI sandwiches” and wrote on Facebook, “Grab your friends, grab a drink and let’s COVFEFE!”

Only in DC would a restaurant/bar play the Comey Hearing live and feature themed food and drinks. If you haven’t heard it’s at Shaw’s Tavern pic.twitter.com/iIJzxUYsKN

— Samantha-Jo Roth (@SamanthaJoRoth) June 5, 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 8, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Prime Minister Theresa May addressed activists on Tuesday about where human rights fall on her priorities following Saturday’s attack in London and the Manchester bombing in late May. “And if our human rights laws stop us from [tackling extremism and terrorism], we’ll change the law so we can do it.” she said to a crowd in Berkshire, England.

This statement follows her speech on Sunday in which she presented a four-point plan toward combatting terrorism, and comes only 36 hours before polls open for Britain’s snap election this coming Thursday. Polls show her lead continuously shrinking. May also added that she wants to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and monitor the movement of those suspects when there is a fear that they pose a threat but there’s not enough evidence to prosecute them.

While many are familiar with the human rights atrocities Britain has committed in its various roles as a colonial power, violations within its borders may come as a slight surprise to some. But May’s statements become less surprising with some context:

What “human rights laws” currently govern Britain?

There are two sets of laws that Britain currently abides by: the European Convention of Human Rights and the 1998 Human Rights Act. The former was ratified in 1953 by the then-newly-formed Council of Europe after World War II to prevent anything like Nazi Germany from happening again, protect human rights, and defend “the fundamental freedoms in Europe.” The latter was created so that the rights contained in the ECHR would be incorporated into British law, and human rights breaches could be challenged in domestic courts without having to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Wait, back up. Why do we care about the European Convention of Human Rights? Isn’t Britain leaving the EU?

The ECHR is separate from the EU so Britain doesn’t have to leave if it doesn’t want to. For the time being–it seems like the Conservatives, the current party in power, want to remain in it, according to their manifesto. The decision will be revisited after the next parliament’s term ends. Oddly enough, Conservatives are more concerned with replacing or amending the domestic Human Rights Act as they begin their Brexit.

Makes sense. But if there are two sets of human rights laws, wouldn’t that make it difficult to enact any change?

Despite May’s comments, precedent in the United Kingdom shows that the current “human rights laws” might not even need to be changed in order to accomplish the counter-terrorism policies she laid out (but we’ll get to that later).

Wait, so the UK can violate human rights?

Technically. Britain is allowed to “derogate”–or temporarily ignore–parts of the European Convention of Human Rights in a “time of emergency” that is “threatening the life of the nation” under Article 15 of the agreement. Their particular cup of tea is the suspension of habeas corpus. In 1979, for example, the European Court of Human Rights allowed them to use preventative detention without trial of PIRA terror suspects in Northern Ireland after a string of attacks killed British soldiers.

Today, terror suspects can be held for 14 days without a trial, a decision that was implemented with the Criminal Justice Act of 2003. May has stated that she is looking to revisit that number and seek derogation to extend that period to 28 days, a move that was attempted in 2011 when she was Home Secretary, the UK’s equivalent of a Director of Homeland Security, and when Conservative David Cameron was Prime Minister.

“When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days,” she said in an interview with The Sun. “We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they think is necessary for us to do.”

Even doubling the figure seems tame compared to previous attempts to extend the length of uncharged detention. In 2005, Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair attempted to lengthen the period to 90 days following the July 7 attack on London. That time, however, civil rights groups stepped in out of protest and that provision was subsequently dropped.

And even with all of this wiggle room, May wants to change the laws?

Yes. As previously stated, Conservatives don’t really view the Human Rights Act too favorably. Not necessarily in a maniacal way, more in a “we want to make a better version” way. They have wanted to replace the law with a British Bill of Rights for a few years now, and this year is no exception.

May’s comments about changing human rights laws most likely also comes from her suggested plans to expand terrorism prevention and investigation measures, a two-year designation given to terrorism suspects considered to be enough of a threat. The measures currently include overnight curfews of up to 10 hours, electronic tagging, reporting regularly to the police, exclusion from certain zones, enforced relocation, and some limitations on use of mobile phones and the internet.

When you bundle expanding all of that with her Sunday promise to “make sure the police and security services have all the powers they need,” it’s clear why she wants to remove as many legal roadblocks as possible.

What are other people saying about this?

Former director of public prosecutions and Labour shadow Brexit secretary, Sir Keir Starmer, believes that the laws should stay in place as they are because they have not gotten in the way of combatting terrorism and extremism before.

“If we start throwing away our adherence to human rights… we are throwing away the very values at the heart of our democracy,” he said in a BBC Radio 4 Today interview.

Current Labour leader, and the closest political opponent to May in the election, Jeremy Corbyn, lambasted the Prime Minister’s comments and accused her of trying to “protect the public on the cheap,” referencing that fact that she cut nearly 20,000 police officers during her time as Home Secretary.

Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron took the accusation a step further and said May’s speech about being tough on terror was just a facade.

“In her years as home secretary she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut,” he said. “We have been here before – a kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”

Whether or not the British public believes May’s words will be tested in Thursday’s election. Polls show that Conservatives are still leading Labour by about six points, down from almost a double digit vote lead when both campaigns started.

Gabe Fernandez

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

The post Theresa May’s Challenge of Human Rights Laws is Unsurprising appeared first on Law Street.

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

Special Election: California

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

General Election: Britain

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

Parliamentary Elections: France

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

Special Election: Georgia

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

Special Election: South Carolina

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

Angered by leaks of sensitive information to the American media, British officials have stopped sharing information related to the Manchester Arena bombing with the United States.

President Donald Trump released a statement Thursday pledging to investigate leaks coming from U.S. government agencies, which he called “deeply troubling,” according to the Associated Press.

British Prime Minister Theresa May has said she will confront Trump about the leaks during meetings at NATO headquarters in Brussels this week.

“TRUST IS BREACHED”

On Tuesday, U.S. television networks NBC and CBS published the name of suspected bomber 22-year-old Salman Abedi, citing U.S. officials. The next day, The New York Times published photos of crime scene evidence.

Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Ian Hopkins said the photos caused “much distress for families that are already suffering terribly with their loss.”

A spokesman for Britain’s National Counter Terrorism Policing unit released a statement condemning the leaks.

“When the trust is breached it undermines these relationships, and undermines our investigations and the confidence of victims, witnesses, and their family,” the statement said. “This damage is even greater when it involves unauthorized disclosure of potential evidence in the middle of a major counter-terrorism investigation.”

A British official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he is not authorized to speak publicly, told the AP that Manchester police will cease sharing information with the U.S. until they are guaranteed that no more information will be leaked.

British Home Secretary Amber Rudd called the leaks “irritating” in an interview with BBC Radio.

“The British police have been very clear that they want to control the flow of information in order to protect operational integrity, the element of surprise,” she said. “It is irritating if it gets released from other sources, and I have been very clear with our friends that should not happen again.”

THE MEDIA RESPONDS

The New York Times released a statement defending its decision to publish the photos, saying that it falls in line with their standards of reporting on terrorist acts.

“Our mission is to cover news and inform our readers,” the statement reads. “We have strict guidelines on how and in what ways we cover sensitive stories. Our coverage of Monday’s horrific attack has been both comprehensive and responsible.”

A FRIENDSHIP AT RISK?

The cessation of information-sharing about this attack is significant, but likely won’t be a permanent wedge between the U.S. and the U.K.

The Five Eyes intelligence sharing agreement, which originated in the 1940s, binds the U.S. and the U.K. with other English-speaking democracies–namely, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand. The intel-sharing alliance has survived leaks for decades, and experts have said it remains strong even post-Edward Snowden.

So far, the Manchester Arena bombing is the only topic where information is being withheld from U.S. officials. All other intelligence sharing will continue, according to the BBC. Furthermore, the decision to stop sharing information came directly from the Greater Manchester Police, not from Downing Street. The BBC reported that the department is “furious,” but hopes to return to the normal two-way sharing procedures soon.

Eyes are now on Trump–whose administration has been under fire for a stream of leaks to the media and to foreign officials–to, as Trump says, “get to the bottom” of the situation. If his proposed investigation and prosecution of leakers goes well and plugs the holes, the relationship between the U.S. and one of its closest allies likely won’t face irreparable damage.

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 Trump Pledges to Investigate Leaks After UK Withholds Intel appeared first on Law Street.

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

Britain Raises Threat Level, Anticipates More Attacks

British Prime Minister Theresa May raised the terror threat level in the country to its highest level yesterday evening, after ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack in Manchester on Monday night. In a speech late last night, May declared that the government anticipates more attacks. She said the move to raise the threat level was based on “not only that an attack remains highly likely, but that a further attack may be imminent.” The heightened threat level, set to the maximum for the first time in 10 years, means as many as 5,000 troops could be soon patrolling the streets. Military personnel will assist police officers in “guarding duties at key fixed locations.”

UK prime minister says threat level has been raised from “severe to critical”; another attack “may be imminent.” https://t.co/A8P88DB3nl pic.twitter.com/0TgcSxkVzm

— ABC News (@ABC) May 24, 2017

May also said that the police are investigating whether the bomber, Salman Abedi, was acting alone. “The work undertaken throughout the day has revealed that it is a possibility that we cannot ignore, that there is a wider group of individuals linked to this attack,” she said. Some of the victims have now been identified, and one of them was only eight years old.

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: May 24, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Flags at Downing Street are flying at half mast today, as U.K. political leaders respond to the terror attack that left 22 dead and at least 59 injured after a concert in Manchester Monday night.

Union flags lowered to half mast in Downing Street following Manchester Arena attackhttps://t.co/Ty9bRdV4G4

(via @ChrisMasonBBC) pic.twitter.com/S3JieUS6rp

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) May 23, 2017

The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for the attack at the Manchester Arena, where a single actor deployed an improvised explosive device just as a concert by pop singer Ariana Grande was ending. Greater Manchester Police arrested a 23-year-old man Tuesday in connection with the attack.

This attack is the largest terror incident in the U.K. since 7/7, a series of organized attacks on the London transport system in July 2005 where 52 people died and more than 700 were injured. It is the largest incident in North West England.

An Upcoming Election

In response to the attack, Prime Minister Theresa May has suspended all campaign activities for the upcoming June 8 general election.

In a statement at Downing Street, May called the attacker “warped and twisted” and resolved to “thwart” future attacks.

“All acts of terrorism are cowardly attacks on innocent people but this attack stands out for its appalling, sickening cowardice, deliberately targeting innocent, defenseless children and young people who should have been enjoying one of the most memorable nights of their lives,” May said.

Campaigning was also suspended this past Sunday, as a show of respect and memorialization for Jo Cox, the Member of Parliament who was shot and killed last June just before the Brexit referendum.

This attack comes at a time of heightened political tension surrounding immigration and security, especially in the U.K. Two months ago, four people were killed in an attack outside Parliament, one year after the Brussels airport suicide bombing.

The U.K. is approaching the one-year anniversary of its citizens voting to leave the European Union, the outcome of which many believe was connected to fear of attacks like this one. The “Leave” campaign was criticized for a tweet that directly connected the Orlando nightclub shooting to Brexit, telling voters that a similar attack could befall them if they voted to remain in the EU. The tweet was taken down, but security and terror threats have remained strongholds in Brexit negotiations and U.K. politics in general.

Now, weeks before the general election, the assault at Manchester could cement Conservative power in Parliament.

Polls from the weekend showed the center-right Conservative Party’s lead over leftist Labour slipping. Conservative Party leader May called the election to build support for her approach to Brexit negotiations and increase her party’s 17-seat working majority in Parliament.

May’s party has been stronger on Brexit and immigration. The recent polls may have indicated that a landslide victory for the Conservatives was out of the question, but the next few weeks will reveal whether the tragedy at Manchester Arena and fear of a similar attack will lead to increased support for May.

The attack also had an immediate effect on the value of the pound, which fell as low $1.2954 Tuesday morning.

Political Leaders Respond

The heads of the U.K.’s political parties have spoken out on the attack and suspended their campaign activities.

Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leader, spoke with May and agreed to suspend national campaigning.

Corbyn stated his support for the victims and their families and called the attack a “terrible incident.”

“I am horrified by the horrendous events in Manchester last night,” Corbyn said. “My thoughts are with families and friends of those who have died and  been injured. Today the whole country will grieve for the people who have lost their lives.”

Tim Farron, leader of the Liberal Democrats, canceled a speaking engagement in Gibraltar, expressing sympathy to the victims and families. Farron was scheduled to meet with voters on his trip.

“This is a shocking and horrific attack targeting children and young people who were simply enjoying a concert,” Farron said. “I would like to pay tribute to the bravery and dedication of the emergency services.”

Paul Nuttall, the leader of the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) and Member of European Parliament for North West England, canceled UKIP’s campaign activities. The BBC also canceled a scheduled interview with Nuttall.

“Just woken to the terrible news in the heart of my constituency, Manchester,” Nuttall said. “My prayers and thoughts are with those affected. Stay strong.”

“Evil Losers”

World leaders across the globe have expressed condolences to the victims and their families and condemned the attack, including U.S. President Donald Trump.

From Bethlehem, where he met with Palestinian leadership, Trump called the assailant and those involved in the attack “evil losers.” Early Tuesday morning he tweeted a message of solidarity with the British people.

We stand in absolute solidarity with the people of the United Kingdom. pic.twitter.com/X6fUUxxYXE

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2017

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., World Leaders Respond to Manchester Attack appeared first on Law Street.

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

All Eyes on Georgia’s Sixth

Today, the Sixth Congressional District of Georgia is holding a special election to fill the House seat that became vacant when Tom Price left to become the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Although the state is very red and most of the candidates are Republicans, 30-year-old Democratic candidate and documentary filmmaker Jon Ossoff is hoping to snag more than 50 percent of the vote to avoid a runoff. This election has been deemed the first litmus test for Donald Trump’s presidency. Many are hopeful that Ossoff can pull it off.

Georgia’s special election: Can Jon Ossoff land a knockout in Round 1?https://t.co/V1MXitS8Y0

— The New York Times (@nytimes) April 18, 2017

However, Republicans have countered with Islamophobic ads featuring images of Osama bin Laden. They’ve called Ossoff untrustworthy because his production company made videos for al-Jazeera, a Qatari news organization. And over the weekend, voting machines were stolen from a Cobb County precinct manager’s car. The machines reportedly have voter information in them, but it is “hard to access.” According to the county’s Elections Director Janine Eveler, the machines could not be used to fraudulently vote. But still, all eyes are on Jon Ossoff today.

Georgia! Don’t forget tomorrow’s special election. It’s either take one hour and vote or go to a town hall every week and scream until 2018.

— Full Frontal (@FullFrontalSamB) April 17, 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: April 18, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Callum Cleary

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

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

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer claimed on Thursday that British spy agency GCHQ colluded with the Obama Administration to wiretap Trump Tower. The GCHQ said those claims are “ridiculous.” The statement came after Spicer defended President Donald Trump’s claims that President Barack Obama wiretapped his Manhattan base during the 2016 campaign. Spicer, quoting a report from Fox News reporter Andrew Napolitano, said the wiretap was a collaborative effort between Obama and GCHQ.

“Three intelligence sources have informed Fox News that President Obama went outside the chain of command,” Spicer said, quoting Napolitano. “He didn’t use the N.S.A., he didn’t use the C.I.A., he didn’t use the F.B.I., and he didn’t use the Department of Justice. He used GCHQ.”

But GCHQ, or Government Communications Headquarters, one of Britain’s three spy agencies, vehemently denied the accusations. “Recent allegations made by media commentator judge Andrew Napolitano about GCHQ being asked to conduct ‘wiretapping’ against the then president-elect are nonsense,” the agency said in a rare statement. “They are utterly ridiculous and should be ignored.”

The wiretap saga began on March 4, when Trump tweeted, “Terrible! Just found out that Obama had my ‘wires tapped’ in Trump Tower just before the victory. Nothing found. This is McCarthyism!” Former Obama officials immediately denied the accusations. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence at the time, also shot down Trump’s claim.

And on Thursday, before Spicer’s remarks, high-ranking Republicans on the Senate Intelligence Committee said “we see no indications that Trump Tower was the subject of surveillance by any element of the United States government either before or after Election Day 2016.”

Even so, Trump and his advisers stood by his wiretap claims. But after Spicer’s comments rankled British officials and Prime Minister Theresa May, he met with Britain’s ambassador to the U.S. Kim Darroch Thursday evening. Spicer and H.R. McMaster, the U.S. National Security Adviser, formally apologized for the comments, according the British intelligence officials.

A spokesman for May said they told the Trump Administration “these claims are ridiculous and they should be ignored” and that they “received assurances that these allegations will not be repeated.”

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 GCHQ: Claims of Collusion with Obama to Wiretap Trump Tower are “Ridiculous” appeared first on Law Street.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

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

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

— Stephen Crowley (@Stcrow) January 27, 2017

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

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

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

“There goes that relationship.”

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

— Fusion (@Fusion) January 27, 2017

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Toni Giugliano (@ToniGiugliano) November 4, 2016

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

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

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

Alec Siegel

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

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

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

New Allegations Against Clarence Thomas Surface

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

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

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

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

— Beth Frerking (@BethFrerking) October 27, 2016

Rant Crush

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Tim Farron (@timfarron) July 11, 2016

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

Alec Siegel

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

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