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.

The Race to the United Nations Hotseat

As we are gripped by the Presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, another less newsworthy contest is taking place in another part of the United States, that been in the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

In the past 5 months, the International organisation has been in the process of deciding who will take over from  Ban-Ki Moon, as the next Secretary-General of the UN. All up 11 candidates have put their names in the hat to become the next chief diplomat and administrator of the UN. Six men and five women are contesting for the role–coming from different regions and backgrounds–some have formerly held elected office in their perspective countries or head of UN departments or other international organisations.

The process of choosing the next SG has changed slightly, with each candidate having the opportunity to be interviewed by members of the General Assembly (GA), and hold a live debate. This is the first time that such events have happened within the process of choosing a SG. Some might think that a candidate is elected by all UN members, but that is far from the truth, only the 15 members of the Security Council (UNSC), in behind closed door meetings decide in a number of rounds of what's called  ‘straw polling,’ on who they would present to the GA as their preferred candidate, who then technically rubber stamp the least objectionable person of the Permanent five UNSC members (P5: U.S, UK, France, Russia and China). So in reality the P5, especially the U.S and Russia come to some agreement on which candidate will best suit their own interests, rather than someone who can best manage the UN and deal with current and future crisis or events crippling the world.

Many UN analysts, commentators and the media predicted at the beginning of the process, that Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, the current head of UNESCO would likely become the next UNSG-but the former Portuguese Prime Minister and UN high commissioner for refugees António Guterre is leading the contest, with the most support among the UNSC members, after the first few straw poll meetings. Ms Bokova was seen as favourite, as there seems to be an unwritten rule that regions take turns to have a UNSG, and as a Eastern European has not held this position in the past, that it was time for a candidate from this region, for which Russia has supported this notion. Furthermore, there has also been support for a women Secretary-General.

Although Ms Bokova is well qualified and experienced, along with all the other candidates, but it seems the U.S and other member states are more inclined towards Mr Guterre, as the new UNSG. We must assume that the U.S own national interests lay with Mr Guterre, as a safe bet, rather than obliging to the calls for choosing  a women, and from a Eastern European state, by not considering Ms Bokova. Unless Russia begins to voice an outright rejection of Mr Guterre, and fully commit to having a Eastern European take the position, we will likely Mr Guterre or another male candidate as the next Secretary-General. If Russia does outright reject Mr Guterre, another candidate, Miroslav Lajcak, the Slovak foreign minister, has raced up to second position, and could become the preferred choice, if both the U.S and Russia are still at loggerheads.  

It is a shame that a women candidate could not be in serious consideration for the position, as it is about time that gender not be an issue when choosing the next head of the UN. Ms Bokova is as qualified and experienced as Mr Guterre, but due to past cold war animosities and the current international system, the U.S was always inclined not to proffer a candidate from an Eastern European state, especially Ms Bokova who has irritated the U.S in the past.  

So as it currently stands, a women candidate may have to wait till next time, as either the front runner Mr Guterre, or second placed Mr Lajcak are likely to become the next UNSG, unless no agreement is found over these two candidates, meaning we might get a surprise chose. The announcement of who takes over from Ban Ki-Moon should be made in November, and until then it will be interesting to see how far the U.S and Russia will go to block each others preferred  candidates. But at some stage over the next two-three months a compromise  will have to be made. Watch this space.  

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?

The United Kingdom Should Not Cut and Run from the European Project

With only one month to go, the remain or leave debate has really heated up, with politicians from all parties picking their sides to support, and hitting the campaign trail. (see an earlier post, ‘Decision Time for the United Kingdom: In or Out of Europe’). Many issue have been stated by politicians, campaigners and the general public on both sides of the divide and I will discuss some of these, and argue why the UK should remain in the EU.

Unknown Economic Risks and Instability

In economic terms, figures and statistics have been flying left, right and centre by both sides, with talk of millions of jobs threatened if we left, or money wasted if we stay in. As I am not an economic expert or would be able to access real economic data to support an opinion, I will discuss what I understand of the economic arguments. I feel that most people would be the same as me. So then, I rely on my own research and information provided by the many experts in the field, but I feel that many have their own interests and will only provide some of the detail. Although what I do know is that for me personally and my family, we are not disadvantaged by living and working in a member state of the European Union. I am a recent international relations graduate, so I am looking at gaining employment in international or European organisations in either the UK or Europe, so I see the benefits of remaining part of a reformed EU. In my daily life, I am not disadvantaged, but see the advantages of living in a EU member state, especially when doing my weekly food shopping. Compared to food prices in Australia, where I grew up in, its much cheaper in the UK and Europe. For example, you can buy exotic fruits like bananas from South America or for under 70 pence. This is just one example, but food and prices of other goods are low because of the EU and its ability as the world’s largest trading block to negotiate beneficial free trade agreements with many countries around the world.  

On the issue of the reform package agreed in February, it might not be perfect, but does seem it will protect UK economic interests, and is a good starting point for further reforms. If we left, I think that the UK economy would not necessarily benefit outside of the Union. Talk of if we left would allow the UK to negotiate its own free trade agreements (FTA’s) with other countries may not benefit more than the status quo. I would think that the UK would have to start from scratch and enter long negotiation rounds with countries such as China, India, Russia, United States, Japan, etc. At present the UK as part of the EU have joint FTA’s with many countries and are in the middle of negotiating with others. I wouldn't think that the UK would necessarily get a better deal if we negotiated FTA’s independently with China, India, Russia etc. And talk of looking at the Commonwealth nations as a new source of economic relationships seems a little unlikely, as most of them are small states in economic terms, except for India, and medium size Australia. But these two countries are turning their economic interests towards emerging Asian and African markets, not looking back to the old imperial motherland.

Although the UK are currently the fifth largest economy in the world, how long could this really last. India with the second largest population and aims of copying China’s economic rise, may likely over take the UK , and don’t forget Indonesia’s own ambitions, as well as others. So, if we left the EU we would have to sell our self’s even more to China, India and others. We will most likely not be able to compete with these rising economic giants in the future. Many will disagree with my comments, but the facts are that the UK is better of being part of a reformed trade block that can compete with these rising economic powers, keeping the UK influential and economically powerful, rather than falling behind.

In a World of Globalisation, Sovereignty Has Lost Its Appeal

There has been talk that the UK has lost its sovereignty and its democratic process to Brussels, and that the EU is unaccountable to the UK public. This is untrue, as the EU system is just an extension of the national decision making institutions in the UK. In retrospect, we as voters have as much say or input in decision making over UK laws and policy as we do in the EU, which in reality is not very much. In the case of the EU, we elect a national government to represent our interests in the Council of the European Union and the European Council , same as we elect a Member of Parliament to represent us in the House of  Commons. In the Council of the European Union, each member state governments sends ministers on a regular basis to discuss and agree EU laws and policy, and as a major power in Europe, the UK has a greater say within this institution.  If this is not enough, we are also represented in the Parliament of the European Union, which we can elect for UK Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Both these EU institutions have equal share and sole powers to legislate on EU laws.

From this perspective the UK have chosen to allow some erosion of sovereignty to elected representatives in Brussels and our own national government, all in the name of closer economic and political cooperation and benefits with our European neighbours. Almost every major EU law must have the agreement of the UK government of the day and our elected MEP’s in the EU Parliament, so we have not fully lost our sovereignty or democratic system.          

Just Scaremongering over Immigration

Migration is one of  the biggest issue in the debate, and is wrapped up in economic terms. Public opinion is steeped in this issue with many wanting the UK to leave the EU, so we can control our borders. Some people think that Eastern Europeans are coming over to the UK and are taking jobs from UK workers, but evidence suggests otherwise . One issue I have with this, is why would British companies want to give jobs to foreign workers if there were enough or willing workers in the UK? The scaremongering tactics of some Eurosceptic campaigners are suggesting that hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Eastern Europeans are coming over to claim benefits, but evidence suggests otherwise. Due to the EU out of work rules, you cannot just arrive in another EU country and claim benefits straight away, but have to prove after 3 months of residency that you have a “genuine chance of getting work”. Although, these rule are not perfect, and can be abused by a minority of people, but majority of Eastern Europeans or other EU nationals are wanting and willing to find good jobs as to provide for their families, like everyone else. Though the UK does attract large amounts of EU migrants, but Germany also deals with this issue and I do not see them protesting in mass or wanting to leave the EU.

Although EU migration, and the ’freedom of movement,’ is an issue not just for the UK, but also Germany and other member states, I do think that the EU should look into how to better manage the migration flows. I think that the UK should remain in the Union and work with its European partners to find a working solution. I agree that the migration of mainly Eastern Europeans to other EU member states looking for work can affect the receiving countries in terms of pressure on social and health services, and on the home countries in terms of ‘brain drain.’ But I do think that leaving the EU and closing our borders to this inflow of EU migrants is not the answer. Instead the UK should work with the EU to find a solution to persuading more Eastern Europeans to remain in their home countries to work. The problem is that although many nationals from Eastern Europe are well educated, but are unable to find jobs due to their countries weaker economy compared to the UK and Germany. The EU, with the UK still a member, should find ways to persuade nationals from states with higher emigration to remain in their home countries, by investing more in helping with job growth.   

      

Why Leave, When It’s not that Bad

We know what the scenario would be if we remained in the EU and can predict a future path if we stay in, but know one from the leave campaign has really said what the UK would be like if we left. Would we sign up to unifiable deals with the EU in a rush to limit the damage done by exiting, or even worse quickly try to push through FTA’s with China or even Russia, that would disadvantage us. What about the security arrangements we have with our European partners? Could leaving bring friction with EU members within NATO, especially at a time of joint threats from Russia and international terrorism. Also what about working with our European partners in tackling issues if immigration, the problems are not just UK ones, every country in the EU share the same burden of trying to resolve the issue. At this moment, the French, Belgium and Dutch authorities stop the tens of thousands of migrants waiting in their sea ports, and in Calais, French from trying to make the journey across to the UK. Do you think that these EU members will even bother to continue with this policy, if the UK leave the EU? From what I understand, these countries are not legally bound to prevent these refugees from coming across to the UK, and undertake this policy because of bilateral agreements. They are also burdened by resolving the situation.           

In the end, I think it would not be progressive to turn our backs to the European Project, especially when the UK and the rest of the world are facing new and renewed challengers of climate change and threats of terrorism. If the UK leaves the EU we will likely be this small isolated island nation on the edge of Europe, at a time of a globalised, interdependent and interconnected world. Personally, I think that the UK should not cut and run, instead remain as a vital member of the EU, and work with the rest of the Europeans to reform and rebuild the Union.

Decision Time for the United Kingdom: In or Out of Europe

Decision time for the UK public is only four months away, with the announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron, that the referendum will take place on the 23^rd June, giving the UK public the decision to either stay in the European Union or leave. So the next few months will be spent campaigning from both sites to gather support from the public. As it’s not a general election, politicians to not have to be united under party lines, instead they can choose either the in or out groups to support. The campaigns have already begun months, if not years ago, and now that the referendum date has been announced, both groups will be hitting the streets. 

Not A Bad UK-EU Reform Deal

Over last few months David Cameron has been jetting around European capitals, especially in Eastern Europe, trying to gain support for his planned reforms of the EU and the UK relationship with the Union. All that effort was to get leaders from member states to agree to a package of reforms from the EU, to take back to the UK public, before a planned in or out referendum. Last year the PM wanted a better deal for the UK, and outlined a number of measures that he thought may persuade the UK people to vote to stay in the EU. Some of these included, restricting access to in-work-benefits for nationals from other EU countries until after 4 years’ residency; safeguarding rights of non-Euro members from closer financial integration and material disadvantage from Euro zone members; reduce excessive regulations; Allow the UK to opt out of an “ever closer union,” and give more powers back to the national parliaments.

Cameron took these measures to the European Council leaders’ summit last Thursday, and after two long days, got an agreement with the EU, although not exactly what he wanted, instead one that seems to be agreeable between all of the leaders. From the start of the negotiations, the package presented by Cameron was never going to be fully agreed by all member states, especially the ‘benefit measures,’ with Poland and other Eastern European states disagreeing on this issue. Instead Cameron left Brussels on Friday night with an agreed package including, allowing the UK to put a “ emergency break” on other EU nationals from claiming in-work-benefits for a maximum of 7 years (Cameron wanted 13 years), only in extreme circumstances of high immigration; blocking child benefits claimed by EU working migrants from been sent to children overseas; economic protection for non-Euro members from Euro zone states, and reimbursing bailout funds given by the UK; protection for the City of London’s service industry  from Eurozone regulations; A treaty change to allow for the UK to opt out of a closer union with other member states; a mechanism to allow national Parliaments the power to block EU legislation; make the EU more competitive, by creating better regulations and cutting red tape, and strengthen the internal market; and limits to ‘freedom of movement’ rights for EU national marrying non-EU spouses, and excluding other EU national who are seen as a security risk from entering the UK.

Now with a negotiated agreement in place, two official campaigns can begin debating the issues of why the UK should either leave or stay in the EU. For months, even years, Eurosceptics have argued that the UK would be better off leaving, conjuring up statements of unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels, take back control of our borders, get sovereignty back, the UK share of the EU budget would be better spent on services here, leaving the EU will allow the UK to take back control over our own trade policy, and so on. Some of these statements or issue do have some merit, and there is a need for reform for a better EU, but perhaps abandoning the project could be an ill-advised path. With so many different opinions and information presented by both sides of the argument, much of it misleading, one feels that much of the public are been misguided and may make an informed chose, with the loudest campaign gaining the most support.

For me anyway, I have taken the time to do some research into the arguments and information presented by both groups, trying to find fact rather than fiction. As I have said above, the EU structure and processes are not perfect and many areas need to be reformed, and as the past few decades have shown, the EU and its member states have and still want to make the Union better, with major changers have taken place, some more welcome then others.  

More Global Cooperation Required to Fight ISIS and Bring Peace to Syria

On  24th November, a Russian Su-24 jet fighter was shot down by the Turkish military on the border between Turkey and Syria. This is the first time a Russian military aircraft has been in an incident over the skies of Syria, since began its operations in support of Syrian government forces, against Islamic State and other rebel groups in September.

This shooting down of a Russian fighter jet by a NATO member has shown the risks that a lack of cooperation between all actors, either state or non-state has in the theatre of war. It was inevitable that this sort of incident would occur, when you have so many parties involved in the fight in Syria. Apart from the United States led coalition and Russia deploying military resources in Syria, there are also the Syrian government, ISIS and many other rebel groups fighting for their own interests. It seems that all these different actors have their own agenda for fighting and in some cases targeting groups with similar interests.

The civil war in Syria is in its fourth year and many other actors have been drawn into to conflict since it began in 2011. The most divisive has been the so called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who have occupied large territory in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS seems to be fighting on a number of fronts and against a number of actors or states. They have declared war against anyone who does not support their extremists’ views and have committed many atrocities in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Paris and many more places.

The dimensions of the Syrian civil war have changed over the past few years, with an increased focus in defeating ISIS, and even more so since the latest attacks in Paris, Beirut and the Sinai Peninsula. Since these recent terrorist attacks, member states of the United Nations Security Council have voted to call for the international community to use "all necessary measures" to fight ISIS. Russia has also since September this year in support of the Syrian government started targeting ISIS and on many other occasions attacked other rebel positions. Also, since the 13^th November terrorist attacks in Paris, French has sent an aircraft carrier to the region, doubling their efforts against ISIS. In the United Kingdom, there is a debate on if RAF jets should begin participating in targeting ISIS in not just Iraq, but also Syria. Speculation is that the UK will have to get involved, although some politicians and commentators are still sceptical of this action. 

With so many different groups and countries involved in the Syrian civil war, the issue of how to end the conflict and defeat ISIS and other extremists is becoming more urgent, but also difficult, as the years and months go by. There have been opportunities for the international community to step in and halt the conflict, but concrete action has failed every time. The United States and its western allies, who support the moderate Syrian rebels, want Bashar al-Assad to step down, and for a transitional government to take over, but Russia disagrees with this plan, as they view Assad’s government as the only group to keep stability and order in Syria. Also, Russia has other more economic and strategic interests in maintaining support for Assad.

The options that I think will need to happen to bring peace and stability to Syria, is, first a global effort that includes Russia and Iran to work as a coalition of nations to combat the threat of ISIS around the world. Second, for renewed efforts from all actors involved in the Syrian conflict to find a peaceful resolution. All that ISIS are doing is using the political vacuum left because of the Syrian civil war to create a so called caliphate in the middle East and attack its enemies.

To prevent further incidents like the one on Tuesday there needs to be a better understanding and cooperation between NATO members and Russia. Having two separate operations to combat ISIS will not be effective and may lead to further cases of shooting down of each other’s aircraft. The issue is that the western coalition does not agree with Russia’s support of Assad, which is undermining efforts to bring peace to Syria. So until there is more cooperation between all sides, defeating ISIS and bringing peace to Syria may be a lot harder to achieve.       

Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

What a shock General Election in the UK

What a little shock to the political landscape of the UK that this election has turned out to be.  Almost all the experts (including the press) had predicted over the last few weeks and months that we were in for another coalition, or at least not a majority for either parties (Hung Parliament). But after months of speculation and a sleepless night for some, the final results declare that the Conservative party has won 331 seats to form a majority government and the return of Prime Minister David Cameron to Downing street.

The main shock was the Labour Party (Lab) and the Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) dismal showing with 232 and 8 respectively. One of the reasons for Labour losing or not gaining seats was due to the dissatisfaction of Scottish voters in constituencies that have usually been a strong hold for the party, and another, been the leadership not succeeding in persuading the public that Labour can balance the books, whilst solving social issues faced by this country. Although, I thought I would give them a go. As for the Lib Dems, they had a hard task of keeping loyal voters and trying to gain new ones, especially after been in a coalition with the Conservatives for the last five years, which has been a mixed experience for both the party and the UK in general.  

The least surprising outcome was in Scotland, as on the back of increasing nationalism north of the border, the Scottish National Party (SNP), managed to gain 58 seats. With that result, I predict that we will see another independence referendum by our Scottish sisters and brother in the near future, which I sadly say, and hope does not happen is a breakup of the Union. In other results, the Green party have managed to retain 1 seat, although I thought they might have got more, but environmental and it seems hard to solve social issues are not on peoples priorities at the moment.

The good news in this election, has been that the  United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have only got 1 seat. All this country and the world needs right now is a party that are pregitest, and who have no policies or ideas that solve economic or social issues, except blame immigrants and non-white people for the problems facing this country. At least one UKIP politician can’t do much damage in the Commons. On a related issue concerning UKIP, has been the party’s insistence on the UK leaving the European Union (EU). With such a bad showing at the election, hopefully the Conservatives are less scared of UKIP now, and will reassess the promise made that the UK will have a yes/no referendum on the EU (yes, all parties and Prime Ministers break some promises, that’s an aspect of governing), and instead work with the EU and the other member states to negotiate reforms, that will be in the best interest of all.

As we come to the end of another election campaign, we have to feel for Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg, who took the their ideas (with some good and bad policies) to the voters and put up a good fight, but on the day the majority of the electorate cast their ballots for the Conservative party, that hopefully will balance the books and bring further prosperity to the people of the United Kingdom.