High Court Ruling Requires Parliamentary Approval To Trigger Article 50

Some breaking news: The triggering of Article 50 by the UK government could be delayed or halted by . The High Court has put down a verdict stating that Parliament has to agree to beginning the process of leaving the European Union, not the government of the day.

The Conservative government under the leadership of Prime Minister Theresa May have argued since the June referendum that the government will not seek Parliamentary  approval for when the UK will trigger Article 50. Though a campaign lead by Investment manager Gina Miller had taken the case to the High Court, arguing that Parliament only has the power to invoke Article 50, not the government. The government has announced  that they will appeal the verdict in the Supreme Court.

It will be interesting to see what happens next over Brexit, as this verdict could leave problems in the PM’s plans to invoke the leaving process by the end of March next year. If the appeal fails, Parliament will decide when or if to trigger Article 50, and even perhaps how the process will proceed. The government thought that they could decide the moment when to begin the two year process of leaving the EU and future negotiations with the other 27 member states, on their terms, but this seems unlikely now.  

So what now? Either the government is able to just get a yes or no vote in Parliament, meaning MPs decide within a single sitting of the House of Commons (substantive motion), or legislation will have to be passed by Parliament, meaning that it will likely take months and months before the government gains approval to trigger Article 50. If there is requirement for legislation, then MPs could place conditions on the process, leading to further delays. Also, if legislation in required, both houses will vote, and as it currently stands the government does not have majority of seats in the House of Lords. And as we know most Lords are against leaving the EU. So if the House of Lords votes against the wishes of the people this could make the process even more problematic.

As majority of the people voted to leave the EU, most MPs will likely vote in favour of invoking Article 50, as not to go against their electorate's wishes. Although after the decrease in the pound over the last few months and the slight shock to the economy, some voters might decide to call for their MP to vote against invoking Article 50. We will just have to see what transpires after the Supreme Court appeal and the judgement of Parliament of when and how the UK leaves the EU.

I thing this judgement by the High Court was a great win for parliamentary democracy, as it gives the power back to the legislative and thus the people. I was not in favour of the government having sole authority to decide when to trigger Article 50, and how the process of negotiations with the EU will proceed. I voted to remain in the EU, but I support the democratic decision of the majority of the people. Though, I do not support any hard Brexit that will effect the economy and the future of the UK. As I have stated in earlier posts on this issue, the UK will still need access to the single market, even if that requires signing up to the 'freedom of movement.' So I hope that this ruling by the High Court will allow for a more substantive debate and a more democratic outcome in future negotiations between the UK and the other 27 EU member states, rather then one decided by the Conservative government.

What A Week For Brexit Reality

What a week for the United Kingdom since last week's referendum, yes that's right, the nation has decided, but now reality has kicked in. Apart from only 52 percent of the UK voting last Thursday to leave, we are now in a middle of contest for a new Prime Minister and perhaps likely a new opposition leader as well. On top of all that, the UK is divided, with almost half the voting population supported remaining in the EU, including me, and now all we can do is try making sense of it all. The Union as well is in turmoil, with Scotland, which a large majority voted to remain are considering another independence referendum, and  Northern Ireland a considering its own course of action.

It's a shame that this was the decision of a slight majority, but that was the outcome, and us remainders have to live with it and support a future outside the EU. Some, if not most leave supporters seemed to believe what  Boris Johnson and his Leave campaign colleagues indicated about immigration, extra spending for the NHS  and that the economy will be stable, but in reality they were just lies. From what has been said by leading Brexit campaigners, government ministers, and EU leaders in the last week, immigration will not decrease that greatly, the NHS will not get £350 million extra a week, any deal for access to the single market will involve allowing freedom of movement, none of us will have any more democratic decision making or gain more sovereignty, than we did last week, there will likely be job losses, not more jobs for British people and in the near future our economy in general will suffer.

As I have said, the people have decided, and now a new Prime Minister, who will not be in place until early September, has the challenge of trying to firstly unite a divided government and country, and secondly, invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, which will allow a two year process of formally breaking away from the EU and negotiate a future path for the UK. As many in the Leave campaign have either realised all along and  or have just thought of it, the UK economy needs to have access to the single market, though having the understanding that this can still happen  without freedom of movement of labour or paying into the EU. From what EU leaders are saying, this may not be the case. seriously, why would Germany, France, etc allow the UK to have full access to the single market, but without allowing EU citizens to freely live and work in the UK?

I think the best deal that the UK will receive will be either similar to Norway, who are part of the European Economic Area (EEA), along with Iceland and Liechtenstein, which in reality is similar to  been a full member, except you have less say in decision making; or like Switzerland, which has over 100 different free trade agreements with the EU and has to abide by freedom of movement rules. Some may say that the Switzerland model, on UK terms would be great, we could have access to the single markets through free trade deals, but could go one better than the Swiss, and dictate to the EU, who and how many EU citizens can live and work in the UK, but in reality that is very unlikely, especially when the Swiss have tried that, and it seems to have failed.  If the UK realistically wants full access to the single market, as Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and other Leave campaigners want, the Norway model will likely be the path to follow.But  hang on a minute, that will mean that the UK will have to abide by freedom of movement rules, allowing  EU citizens to live and work in the UK and pay into the EU, although not as much. Isn’t that almost the same as been a full member without having less say on decision making, and wouldn’t that mean the UK will lose more sovereignty and democracy? If we follow a similar path as the Norway model, what was the point of holding the referendum or listening to Boris in the first place?

Australia’s Political Situation is Calm Compared to Egypt

How exciting. With in less than a week, one country has replaced its leader and another looks on the verge of changing its leader. 

I am writing about the political situations in Australia and Egypt. 

In Australia, the governing party internally ousted the Prime Minister and re-installed a man that once experienced the fate of the unfavoured PM. All was done in a matter of hours, some cared, some didn't, and the public continue to live their lives without much interruption. 

In the case of Egypt, if the large amount of the population and the military, get their way, are intent of removing their President from office, even if the outcome is for more violence.

The political situation in Australia is calm compared to the situation in Egypt, and last week's leadership change was conducted without violent protest or threats from the military. But if you have been watching or reading the news, you would know that Egypt is once again on the verge of further political and social unrest, with violent protests and the military announcing that if President Morsi and opposition parties do not resolve the crises by this Wednesday, they may step in again, meaning more violent conflict between the different political and social groups.

In case of Australia, nothing much has changed in the daily lives of most Australian’s after Kevin Rudd ousted Julia Gillard from power, and the leadership change has not  greatly impacted on the lives of most. But in Egypt, a leadership crisis or change seems to have major implication for majority of the people. They have and still do suffer from economic and social issues that in Australia, where I am from, do not suffer on the scale as Egyptians do. Australia has a stable political and social system, with a constitution, which has protected the rights of its citizens for over 100 years, but in Egypt, this does not seem the case.

In Australia there is a peaceful manner in which most leaders are removed, and is reasonably orderly, with some short of rules governing a political coup, either through a general election, or a party ballot. But it seems in many countries around the world, political crises turns into almost a civil war, has been experienced in Egypt of the last few days, and even decades. 

The last few days has shown me that I am lucky that a political leadership change did not affect me personally and most of my fellow citizens. Of course, we will always suffer from quite mundane issues, like small rises in petrol or milk prices, or even a slight hike in our electricity bills, but compared to the situation in Egypt and other countries, facing political and social unrest, I feel quite lucky to be an Australian.

For me, I cannot imagine any short of mass violent protests on the streets of the Australian capital, Canberra, or even the military calling for the government and opposition parties to resolve any crises or they will step in and take charge of the country. For this I hope that in the future, Egypt and the many other courtiers around the world, suffering the extent of political and social unrest, that they can peacefully resolve their issues, and perhaps even one day be able to change leaders without so much violence and unrest.    

Is Berlusconi's Political Career Over

It looks like the political career of former Italian Prime Minister and media tycoon Silvio Berlusconi might be at an end, after he was found guilty, and sentenced to a seven year jail term for having sex with an under age prostitute, and abusing his power when as Prime Minister. On top of this verdict, Berlusconi is also contesting two other cases of tax evasion and corruption charges.

The case has been a long drawn out affair, with Berlusconi and the girl denying that they had sex, even though she did attend many of Berlusconi’s so called ‘banga banga' parties at one of the tycoon’s villas. The verdict has been condemned by Berlusconi’s lawyer, who said after the trial, “"This is beyond reality," and "the judges even went beyond the prosecutors' request."  Although it seems if the reports are correct that with a long appeal process which is expected, he will probably never see the inside of a prison cell.

What gets me is how can a man like Berlusconi ever be elected as a nation's leader in the first place. He has been in and out of office for over 20 years, with many millions of Italians seeming to agree or just put up with the playboy antics of the billionaire media mogul. If any other Prime Minister or President in any other democratic nation behaved the way Berlusconi has, with all the extravagant parties and strippers, they would be condemned as immoral and unfit for office. But for some reason Berlusconi has got away with it for years, until now of course.

Although I do think that even with such a damaging verdict against the former Prime Minister, this may not be the last time we see him influencing Italian politics. This is not the first time that he has been found guilty of various crimes, and he seems to find his way past judicial rulings, through either appealing or using his status to escape prison time, and then reappear on the political stage.    

I do believe his return would be unwise.

Should there be a leadership change in the Australian Labor Government?

As the federal election in Australia gets closer, so does the speculation of a leadership change in the Labor government. Ever since the 2010 election, the media and the Liberal party has been on a long campaign of speculating that any moment now, Prime Minister Julia Gillard will be removed as leader of the Labor party and government to be replaced by previous Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. On a couple of occasions the reports have been true with Rudd challenging Gillard in  caucus meetings, but in both cases failed to regain the leadership, most recently been in March this year.

“There are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” - Kevin Rudd on Sunrise

As the federal parliament sits for the last few weeks before the September election, the media and other sources are jumping over hoops to declare that Gillard will be ousted as Prime Minister, although supporters of both Gillard and Rudd have been frantic at playing down any leadership challenge. On a morning show this morning  Kevin Rudd said “there are no circumstances under which I will return to the leadership of the Australian Labor Party in the future.” Hopefully this is an indication that there will be no challenge next week, as been predicted by the media.

I agree with Labor backbencher Gary Gray’s assessment of the situation, that Rudd and his supporters should contest the leadership or “shut up.” This whole talk and rumors are getting a little tiresome to me and I suspect to the rest of Australia. All that I want is a party to govern without waking up one morning with the news of a new Prime Minister, or constant reports that there might be a leadership challenge.

The last think that the embattled Labor government needs is a disruptive leadership change, just a few months before an election. I think that Gillard is performing as good of a job as Kevin Rudd could do if he was able to take over as leader, which is a little late now.

If the polls are correct, opposition leader Tony Abbott and his Liberal party are predicted to win the September election and any leadership change this close to the ballet would likely not affect the outcome. So perhaps, before Rudd and his supporters try going for the top job they should sit back and consider that any action will probably not reinstate the Labor as the governing party. The only way of a victory for the government is for all party members to concentrate on supporting Gillard as Prime Minister and coming up with sound policy, demonstrating that they can still offer a better future for Australia, rather then a government led by Tony Abbott. 

Tony Abbot's climate change policy inconsistent

Opposition leader Tony Abbot has announced recently that if the Liberal party is elected at the end of this year, the party plan to keep some of the tax cuts and pensions in compensation for the carbon tax,introduced last July by the Labor government, despite having previously stated his party would scrap the tax.

This new carbon tax was introduced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s Labor government on the 1^st July 2012. The initiative was to tax high polluting companies, with the aim of introducing behavioural change towards cleaner energy. Every tonne of CO2 emissions requires companies to buy permits. The money raised by the tax would be invested in clean energy projects and compensation for the public, who would be feeling the cost of increased energy and other living costs associated with the carbon tax.      

When the Labor government first introduced the carbon tax, Tony Abbot went on the attack accusing the government of not caring for hard working Australian’s who would suffer because of the new tax. He further argued that business large and small would experience economic hardship that would trickle down to ordinary citizens.

While Abbot is correct that living costs would increase because of the carbon tax, the impact on the public has not been as dire as predicted by the Liberal party. Last July when the tax was implemented, many declared that the scheme would not reduce pollution, however studies revealed that after only six months of the tax, emissions have dropped by 8.6 percent. If we can already see this amount of improvement in a short time, years to come, the slight impact on families and the economy would be outweighed by cleaner air in the future.

If Abbot is true to his word, that his party would keep some of the tax cuts and pension increases in compensation for the carbon tax, why not just keep the carbon tax in place? The money spent on the  compensation is funded by the money from the permits purchased by the high polluting companies; if  Abbot removes the tax, yet continue to keep some of the tax breaks and pension increases, how is he going to pay for all these incentives for the public vote? Likely chance if Abbot wins the next election, even in a landslide victory, he would not be able to scrap the tax as the Greens would still hold the balance power in the Senate. If I was Abbot, I would just leave the tax in place and make the future for our children a brighter one. 

The Greens and Labor alliance ends in Australia

The Greens Leader Christine Milne announced today that her party will sever the alliance with the Labor party, because they have broken an agreement by supporting the mining industry. Milne said that Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her government to blame for the Greens to back away from the alliance.

Since the 2010 election which ended in a hung parliament, the Labor parties have only stayed in government because of the backing of the Greens and a number of Independent members in the House of Representatives (HOR). Prior to today's announcement, Independent MP Andrew Wilkie withdrew his support for the government 13 months ago, but this did not affect the numbers in the HOR.

Along with Independent MPs, and the Greens are losing faith in the government under Julia Gillard’s leadership, and the Labor party have suffered numerous set backs in their campaign for re-election at the end of the year. Polls have shown a lack of support for the government by voters, a number of senior cabinet members have resign in the last month and the most damaging being the Craig Thomson saga which is still ongoing and if Mr. Thomson is charged he will have to resign from parliament, forcing one less vote for the government

Although many senior Labor party members have come out and said that the party does not require the support of the Greens to win the next election, this announcement, along with all the other damaging sagas over the last year or so, are unfortunately damaging the confidence of  the voting public has for the Labor party. 

I think for the best chance for the government to win the next election, they will need to hold onto the allies that they have, seeing that they required their support  last time to form government and may need them at the end of this year. Unless the Labor party change tactics and try every measure to keep the alliance with the Greens and others, the result may mean an end to their ambitions to stay in power.