A Trump Win Shocks the World

It’s a shock to the world that Donald Trump has just won the Presidential election. The polls had predicted that Hillary Clinton would be on the winning podium outlining her Presidency and thanking her supporters, but Trump has managed to use his divisive policies and political campaigning to effect.

By Ali Shaker/VOA 

What this result has shown, and is some what similar to the Brexit vote in the UK, and the rise of support for far right parties in Europe, is that large sections of the population in these countries feel  they have been failed by the established political and social institutions, even neoliberalism itself. The old political and social base has been argued as not brought prosperity to all people, especially those living in areas with high unemployment due to the closure of factories over the last few decades. So on this note, past policies by former administrations, not just President Obama have reorientated from manufacturing to a services based economy, without offering more higher education training towards this new economic structure. Although past policies can not fully take the blame, people in these areas also need to take responsibility in gaining a higher education.  

In the U.S, many of the states where majority voted for Trump, the economic issues seemed to have influenced their decisions on who to vote for. With this, during economic downturn, although the worst of the global economic crisis is past us, immigration becomes a leading contentious issue, which have galvanised anti-immigration rhetoric by Trump and others in both the U.S and around the globe. The easiest way to blame an economic downturn is on claiming that immigrants have taken away jobs, but in reality ineffective  policies and old societal thinking have made the present.

Furthermore, on the issue of immigration, fear has creeped into the rhetoric in both the U.S and around the world. By taking a tougher anti-immigration line, especially against Muslims, Trump has been able to influence voters fears of Islamic terrorism invading the streets of America, galvanising the minds of voters. All this fear and division, even racism was just a campaign ploy to gain voters trust. I am not saying that racism played no part in the results, as clearly a anti-foreigner stance was impliced in some voters decision making and views, although I think that most people voted on economic and anti-establishment issues, which have been more decisive in the results in both the U.S and in the rising support for far right parties around the globe.   

As Trump campaigned on fear, division, racism, sexism and exclusion, he has a tough job to unite all Americans, although influenced by his rhetoric, a large minority still do not support his views or policies. I think that much of his stated policy announcements over the last couple of years will not transpire, as he will need the support of the establishment of both the Democrats and Republicans, which in reality still hold the real power and, pulls the economic strings on Capital Hill.   

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.

Another Failed Ceasefire in Syria

It seems that another ceasefire in Syria is crumbling even before it could get off the ground.

At the start of the cessation of hostilities on the 12th August, hopes that this attempt at peace, even just for a short period could at least last for the seven days, as was its intention, but this has not been the case. In the last few days, tragic incidents of violations by all parties to the conflict has meant that the ceasefire has failed in its stated goals. The most recent violation – been the targeting of aid convoys on their way to delivering urgent supplies to civilians in Aleppo – has all but destroyed any chance of a ceasefire renewal.  

The aim of months of negotiations between the United States and Russia, was for a cessation of hostilities between Syrian armed forces and opposition groups – excluding so called Islamic-State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham – for seven days. As part of the agreement, humanitarian aid was to  be allowed to be sent to ease the suffering of civilians in the besieged city of Aleppo, and other areas of Syria. If the violence ceased for seven days, and there was access for humanitarian aid, both the U.S and Russia agreed to coordinate joint strikes against ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

When the agreement was announced, I was a little sceptical on the purpose of such a narrow and limited negotiated terms. Firstly, there seemed to be no plan for what would happen after the seven days, even if they were successful in their stated goals. I would assume that the U.S and Russia may both honour their agreed joint cooperation in targeting ISIS and other extremist groups – but what about Assad's siege of Aleppo – and his forces deliberately targeting civilians? Secondly, let's say humanitarian aid was sent to Aleppo, and other parts of Syria – but how long would lets say 20-30 trucks of food, water and medical supplies last – especially as Assad’s forces begin bombing again?  

As safe passage of humanitarian aid has not occurred and there has been violations of the ceasefire, the conflict looks likely to intensify over the next few days. I don’t think that the ceasefire will be renewed by either Assad or any of the opposition groups, especially as all sides have put blame on each other for its failure.

 

All that has seemed to occurred, is that mistrust between the U.S and Russia has deepened, especially since U.S-led forces accidentally bombed and killed 62 Syrian soldiers on Friday. This agreement was the first time in this conflict that both countries were planning to cooperate in joint action against jihadist groups in Syria. Although it would not resolve the main issue of ending the fighting between Assad and opposition parties, but at least it was a first step, that could lead to negotiations on the future governance of Syria.

Also, what the last week has signalled, is that  both these countries may not have as much influence over their respective groups they support, as we once thought. Russia has been unable to persuade Assad to allow access for humanitarian aid, a major point in the agreement. And as for the U.S, trying to make the more moderate opposition groups distance themselves from jihadist, seems difficult.

The question now is how can a new path towards peace be found in a conflict with so many complexities? The recent failed attempt towards peace, has only antagonised more mistrust between the U.S and Russia, and this will affect any future negotiations. What is required now is for both countries to renegotiate a new plan towards cooperation to jointly fight ISIS and other Jihadist groups, without unrealistic conditions. If U.S and Russian forces can fight together against ISIS – at least one element of the conflict could be resolved – perhaps leading towards a political solution in Syria. The main problem or sticking point in the conflict has been the jihadist fighters amongst more moderate groups, which has become a major concern for a lack of peace. Perhaps if extremist forces could be defeated or weakened, Assad might be willing, with persuasion from Russia, to reconsider his role in the future governance of Syria.   

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.  

The Forgotten Conflict in Eastern Ukraine

The forgotten crisis in Ukraine has not been fully resolved, even recent events have not been covered or mention in the main stream media.Though the Syrian conflict still makes the headlines, especially when major events occur, but for Ukraine, the two year conflict does not seem to appeal to our western concerns.

Yes, the fighting and death toll has decreased dramatically since the middle of last year, especially since the German/French brokered Minsk Protocol was agreed to by Ukraine, Russia and the separatist in February 2015. The Minsk agreement has set out a path to peace and stability in the eastern part of Ukraine in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (collectively known as the Donbass). It called for a full ceasefire, local elections,withdrawal of heavy weapons and release of prisoners, etc. As stated earlier, reports suggest that until June this year, the fighting had subsided with just a few daily skirmishes between Ukraine and separatist forces. Though in the last two months, the fighting has become more tense and reports of casualties has increased, leading to the UN Human Rights chief condemning both sides, for 69  civilian casualties in June and 73 in July.

The situation on the ground seems volatile and could spark renewed heavy fighting by both sides, especially since further steps have not been put in place to meet the requirements of the Minsk Protocol. What should have happened already was for a plan to hold local elections, but the Ukrainian government have not been able to past legislation in Parliament, and the ceasing of fighting, including the withdrawal of heavy weapons and for foreign soldiers or mercenaries to leave Ukrainian territory, though there has not been enough progress on any of these issues.

On the issue of foreign soldiers and mercenaries fighting mainly on behalf of the  separatist forces, but also Ukraine, is a contentious point in the conflict, with Moscow denying that any Russian soldiers were officially fighting alongside separatist forces, until end last year, when President Putin announced that some specialist military intelligence personnel have been present in Eastern Ukraine. Although Putin has stated limited military support for rebel forces, evidence suggest that regular Russian military personnel have been fighting along with Pro-Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine.

The presents of Russian armed forces or other military support will not allow for a situation of stability, it will rather add more fuel to the fire. This also goes for NATO’s military support for Ukraine. The best thing that Russia and NATO members could undertake is to assist in bringing peace and stability in Ukraine, by agree to a reduction or even a full withdrawal of support to either side of the conflict. Though in reality, such actions will unlikely transpire, as the conflict in Ukraine goes beyond the situation on the ground. The battle is more like Russian sign of  dominance in the region, and western counter action, rather than events in the Donbass and the Crimean Peninsula.     

As the representative of the separatist, Denis Pushilin, has announced in recent days, that unless Ukrainian forces withdraw from the ‘contact line,’ there could be a resumption of the fighting. The Ukrainian government have also claimed various violations by Russian backed rebels. So as it currently stands, progress towards future stability and long term peace in Eastern Ukraine seems to be in jeopardy, unless all the measures of the Minsk Protocol are met. What needs to happen now is for both sides to withdraw their forces, especially heavy weapons from the ‘contact line,’ and cease the targeting of civilians.

As for the Ukrainian government, constitutional reforms and planned local elections in the Donbass needs to be put in place, giving some autonomy to the region. Though, as the current situation stands, many politicians in Kiev are unwilling to agree to these constitutional reforms, which is just fuelling renewed fighting in the region. Without an agreement in the Ukrainian Parliament, the long term future stability of Eastern Ukraine will just spark continued civil conflict between pro-Russian and Ukrainian sections of the population.

To end the two year crisis, firstly, full implementation of the Minsk agreement must occur and be respected by both sides, and secondly,  outside influence must change tact from power rivalry to assisting towards a solution of stability and peace in Ukraine.

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?

Yet Another Turning Point For The Conflict In Syria

Last week a leaked memo by 51 officials at the State Department in the United States, concerning current policies of the U.S government, has spurred increasing debate over the conflict in Syria. Some U.S based newspapers claim to have viewed this leaked document and have released snippets of what was outlined by the mainly mid-level staff in the Department.

Much of what was outlined stated a critical view of President Obama’s reluctance to step up intervention into ending the conflict. The memo which was lodged through a system called the ‘Dissent Channel,’ which allows State Department staff to offer their views to senior government officials including the President and Secretary of State. They have called for the President to consider using the threat of military force to persuade Bashar al-Assad to adhere to his government's responsibilities under the  Cessation of Hostilities (CoH) agreement, signed by Assad,opposition groups, U.S, Russia and others in February, all agreeing to holt the violence and negotiate a ‘road map’ to peace, as decided in the United Nations last December.

With the conflict in Syria raging for over 6 years, with over 400,000 killed and producing millions of external and internal refugees, the memo comes at a critical juncture for the international community and the Assad regime. In the first couple of months since the CoH, the violence decreased, but over the last few months Assad’s backed forces have continued indiscriminate bombings of cities and towns, killing large numbers of civilians.

As part of the CoH, the delivery of humanitarian supplies to places like Aleppo and others have become a necessity for the tens of thousands trapped by the fighting. On numerous occasions, the UN has persuaded the Syrian Regime to allow humanitarian relief to be sent to affected areas, only for Syrian and Russian forces to bomb those locations soon after the trucks had left.

As this conflict has become very complicated with so many different groups involved, full scale military  intervention by the U.S and its allies in forcing the removal of Assad and his regime would likely further destabilise Syria and the region, but as the situation stands, a more forceful stance against Assad is required. I agree with the authors of the memo, that a threat of military intervention should be an option for the U.S President, as clearly Assad and his regime are unwilling to stop the indiscriminate bombings of civilian areas or seriously willing to negotiate with opposition groups. Assad with military and diplomatic support from Russia is in a situation that without the threat of punishment, he calculates that his forces can commit these acts of violence without repercussion, but this must end now.  

The U.S and its western allies have been seen as weak when it comes to the conflict in Syria, and have been reluctant to stand up to Russia, who have been pulling the strings over the last few years. Although there might not be much material interest for a more assertive U.S policy in Syria, but a continued destabilising conflict in the Middle East is increasing the threat of international terrorism and effecting allied countries in the region, and also don’t forget the affects on the Syrian people. The soft power and diplomatic policy of the Obama administration has done well to bring Assad and the opposition to start negotiations over the future of Syria, but these have since stalled, as the violence continues in opposition held areas. The diplomatic road is on the verge of collapse, especially when Assad vows that his forces will reclaim every inch of Syria. This does not spell out any desire for a peaceful settlement by Assad, so perhaps a threat of military force by the U.S and its western allies may be required, even if this affects relations with Russia.  

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.  

The Spectacle of the U.S Party Nominations Has Truly Begun

The gloves are truly off, as both the Democratic and Republican parties have begun their primary elections to choose their candidates, to contest the Presidential elections in November. The caucus held on the 1^st February in the state of Iowa will be the first of many over the next 5/6 months, with the Hollywood style rallies and big spending candidates, debating and trying to persuade voters and delegates.      

The first blow in this long contest has been made in Iowa, with a somewhat surprise outcome for the Republican candidacy, with Senator Ted Cruz taking 27.7% popular vote, with Donald Trump 24.3% and Marco Rubio 23.1%. On the Democrat side, there was no surprising outcome, with Hilary Clinton with 49.9% of the popular vote, just snatching victory over fellow Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders 49.6%, and in third place Martin O'Malley taking only 0.06% of the vote, who has since ended his campaign, with only Clinton and Sanders left. So after the first caucus by both parties, the results show a tie within the Democrats and a narrow lead by Ted Cruz

 The polls and media got the Republican Caucus wrong with most polling agencies tipping a victory for Trump, but with an evangelical and more liberal state like Iowa, it seems Trump’s conservative anti-immigration focused campaign did not persuade voters in this small rural state in middle America. As for the Democrats, the campaign could become more contested than first thought.  With Iowa been a small state with a population of around three million, the numerical outcome for both parties is minor compared to the bigger states, but with it been the first time the public has had the chance to vote in this campaign, the outcome could be a sign of how the rest of the nation may vote and could sway the delegates at the party Conventions in June. We will have to wait and see. The real signs of who could become their party’s nominee will be when we find out the results of the so called ‘super Tuesday,’ when both parties hold the most primary/caucuses on the same day, to take place on 1^st March. This day is very important and could make or break a candidate’s campaign with almost half the total delegates on offer. With such a large amount of delegates to be gained by either candidates, the outcome could become crucial come convention time.

With such divides in policy and even ideology between and within the Democratic and Republican parties, and with an unconventional candidate in Donald Trump, this election campaign could become one of the most interesting ever. with so many diverse candidates, we cannot really predict who will win the party nominations or even become President, as the polls are failing to show a true outcome of results. Perhaps after ‘Super Tuesday,’ we might have a clearer picture, especially when some candidates end their campaigns.  

 As an Australian currently living in the UK, my opinion on the election outcome will not count for much, but the party nominees and the final candidate elected to become the next U.S President impacts indirectly the economics, politics and societies in Australia, UK and elsewhere.  For this I think that electing a candidate who will be in divisive and multilateral will be important for both the U.S and the rest of the world, especially at a time of global change. 

With my understanding of American politics leant from taking this subject during my undergraduate studies, reading about the current elections, and listening to expert analysis, it’s a safe bet that the spectacle of the Donald Trump show will fizzle out come convention time, and voters and delegates will choose a different Republican candidate. Which one I am not sure, but surly America and the rest of the world do not want another Bush to be Commander-in-Chief. So that realistically leaves Cruz and Rubio, and for me, Rubio seems the least divisive and the safest bet for the Republican nominee. 

As for the Democrats, with O’Malley gone, the chose has got easier. Clinton seems the most likely chance to win the nomination, although becoming the first women President, I am not sure. Her association with the establishment and resent scandals over private emails, along with it seems conservative public, it will be interesting if she can make it to the White House. As for Sanders, his socialist liberal ideology and policy pledges will not stand for much in a country with many who dislike socialism or socialist ideas. At 74, his age would surely be a factor in voters and delegates minds, even though so far he has gained much support from younger voters, with his free education pledges. But I think he will not be able to carry on this support or gain others as the campaign carries on. In the end, If I was legible to cast my vote I would elect Hillary Clinton regardless of the minor scandal, the name and the links with the establishment as the next and first women President of the United States of America, because she has experience on the international stage (former Secretary of State) and holding elected office (Senator for New York), and she will be the least divisive and have a multilateral approach on the national and international stage.