Posts Tagged ‘Raj Mehta Freelance Journalist’
Theresa May’s Urgency for an ‘Emergency Brexit’
Hasty and feisty :
This article looks at the Brexit and how Article 50 will be triggered now it has been made possible by the Supreme Court ruling which indicated the correct process, and looking at the timeframe of the deadlines and how they’ve been kept on track to meet these through haste on the UK governments part.
Theresa Brexit and Trump:
The process for Brexit seems to have been an emergency Brexit with the Government going about the process with so much urgency that it’s as if the panic button had been pressed, so much for remaining calm whilst under pressure.
Or is this rather an Emergence Brexit – an emergence of Brexit and Trump on their new found relationship. Or has Theresa May chose to ignore the large amount of people who voted to remain, do they no longer mean anything? Given that they almost nicked it to the finish line too. Why the early deadlines then? Similar to Trump and his crazy ban on Muslims he has not shown any concern and shown a lack of liberty for many; social inclusion is important and for a leader of an international country and being an international man how can he make such a devastating call. He too seems to have ignored the vast swathes of the public. Protests, Protests, and more Protests is what he got in return.
Damage:
Brexit has caused much chaos financially with the estimated EU bill between €40bn and €60bn; big companies leaving the UK, but also the economy is suffering and the evidence is in the weakened Pound. Triggering Article 50 after putting a bill together within days even before the Brexit Plan had been announced is unexpected and shocking.
The Brexit bill was voted for in a landslide majority, but there were a lot of resignations and the debate prior to the vote, was heated with many MP’s scrutinising the bill for being put together poorly in order to meet Prime-Minister May’s deadline for triggering Article 50.
Deadlines:
The date set out by the PM is March 31, 2017 and by then she will have requested that Article 50 should be triggered; by notifying the European Council of Britain’s intention to leave the EU. She is on-course to meet the deadline given and this just goes to show the intent for setting things in motion and with haste, a Brash and Bold Brexit no time for Brexit Banter.
So what has all this urgency been about by the Conservative Government and the Prime-Minister Theresa May on pressing for an early BREXIT.
We are sure to find out soon when trade negotiations will take place and President Trump is sure to play a role with the UK the USA’s closest ally.
History:
The UK joined the EU in 1973 and are now set to leave it via the Emergency exit via an ill thought out bill. Is the UK trying to keep pace with President Trump and follow his quick succession of executive orders and enforcement of a new beginning by being bullish about the Brexit and do things fast like Trump.
It certainly seems like Theresa May was out to fight when she presented her speech on her terms for Brexit which was in direct contrast to her message of a new partnership with the EU, she said she would walk away with no deal if the EU tried to impose a poor deal and not co-operate further with the EU.
Philip Hammond, the UK chancellor, told the German newspaper Welt am Sonntag this week that he wanted the UK to remain “a recognisably European-style economy with European-style taxation systems and European-style regulation systems”, trading freely with the EU on something close to current terms.
Public opinion:
The public are key and more far right views are taking to the stage – with the UK its been a close call on public opinion on remaining or leaving the EU and in the US its been close too on whether to vote for Hillary or Trump.
Now we have ongoing protests against Trump and ongoing protests again Theresa May, and also Trump’s divisive policy on Muslims entering the US. What will be Theresa May’s move after Brexit?
Conclusion:
The Government were stalled in triggering Article 50 although it was short-lived. The difficulty initially began when the Supreme Court ruled on Article 50, on 24 January 2017.
The Supreme Court’s ruling on whether Theresa May has the power to trigger Article 50 using a royal prerogative would not get the go ahead.
This was a major ruling and has set a precedent for future rulings in similar situations.
Instead the Supreme Court ruling ensured that Parliament had a vote as to when Britain will begin the formal process of exit negotiation and trigger Article 50.
The Government’s efforts in trying to secure an exit without needing a vote from Parliament proved to be a temporary problem. The Government went about producing a bill which was passed through in Parliament by a majority vote.
This bill could have proved much more problematic if it had been contested and lots of amendments requested; however Theresa May managed to get the bill through although it has been called a mockery and simplistic and there may be a few more legal requirements for the Governments involved in the Brexit from the UK to take into consideration.
Many now want the Government to work with Parliament more closely and obtain votes on key negotiations.
The UK was divided on leaving or remaining in the EU and in London the majority voted to remain. Also because it was a close call there should have been more sense about the Government’s attempts to try and execute the exit as soon as possible.
The vote in parliament over triggering article 50 happened very quickly and was a slick move by Theresa May to further keep the breeze in the Brexit going.
Scotland’s stance in this process will be interesting to keep an eye on, as they had shown on many occasions a want to remain in the EU.
Northern Ireland and Wales along with Scotland had been firm on their position that they wanted more of a role in the Brexit negotiations which could have lasted up to two years, yet it was resolved within a short amount of time.
The EU’s chief Brexit negotiator Michel Barnier has put forward his time framework to have terms finalised for the exit from the EU by the end of September 2018.
Perhaps there is no hidden agenda and the urgency is because the PM wants to get this crisis of Brexit out of the way as soon as possible. More is bound to be revealed during the next couple of weeks as there is still outstanding controversy over why this bill has been bulldozed through in such a short amount of time and seemingly a lack of preparation of the bill and lack of time for all sides.
Try tried and Trident again!?!
So here’s the run down on Trident (four submarines armed with missiles and warheads) and the outline to what the news and concerns are about Trident:
Conservatives pledge to upgrade Trident as do some other parties, good, bad, or unsure?
Whilst Shadow Labour Welsh Secretary Mr Smith hinted that Labour would ‘get rid’ of the funding for Trident.
The Trident issue will be resolved after the election, when it will be settled whether Trident will be replaced, upgraded or scrapped and the SNP and Green’s are aiming to do the latter.
The Liberal Democrats are not keen on Trident and want to make cuts to Trident with an aim to limit the current fleet of four submarines to three, this would see three subs renewed and one scrapped, and savings made.
Ukip has said that it would cancel the Trident replacement in favour of a cheaper “advanced stealth cruise-type missile” that can be delivered by land, sea or air.
With all this talk of the General Election 2015 coming up, Trident has become a focus and decisions on Trident’s future has become speculative.
Defence Secretary Michael Fallon has said about Ed Miliband as using Trident the Nuclear Deterrent as a chip to be bargaining with the SNP over, who are wanting an open vote in Parliament on the pending issue of Trident, which Labour are said to be in favour for, although prior to this Ed Miliband had said he was committed to Trident.
Trident’s missiles, warheads, and submarines are no doubt costly according to a series of statements made in Parliament by ministers of the Minstry of Defence in 2008 and 2012 the annual operating costs of the Trident programme amount to around 5 to 6 per cent of the defence budget. That’s the equivalent of between £2 to £2.4 billion.
(CND) The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament state on their website that “the current government is in favour of replacing Trident at a cost of around £100 billion. This money would be enough to fully fund A&E services for 40 years, employ 150,000 new nurses, build 1.5 million affordable homes, build 30,000 new primary schools, or cover tuition fees for 4 million students. That includes the cost of running and servicing the submarines over a projected 40-year lifespan.”
Is now the right time to do away with Trident?
Tried and tested Trident does it work as a deterrent?
Dangerous deterrent?
Trident deterrent or threat?
Tired of Trident?
Is it too costly?
Many of the campaigners and protesters against Trident have brought these questions to the Election 2015 spotlight, political parties and candidates have had to put an emphasis on this issue to optimize their opportunities to gain voters.
Unilateral Disarmament alongside the World is also what Protesters and Campaigners against Trident have been pointing out and are encouraging the stance that the UK could go further with a lateral disarmament?
Would this do the UK and the World a world of good? or not? An interesting fact is that the UK is also a signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) which is applied to Trident; as by international law Britain is committed to eliminating its nuclear arsenal under Article VI of the 1968 nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
190 states have signed the treaty, which states that: “Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.” The treaty is reviewed every five years. At the latest NPT Review Conference in New York in 2010, Britain reaffirmed its “unequivocal” commitment to disarm.
The upcoming General election has found many other questions to be asked of Trident, such as whether or not Trident has become outdated since the Cold War era, and whether it acts as a deterrent or is ineffective in today’s society as there is at present no intent to use Nuclear weaponry.
An Insurance policy, a deterrent only, as has been proclaimed from the beginning of the debates surrounding Trident.
Most recently in April 2015 David Cameron said “Trident is the ultimate insurance policy for our country.” He also stated at the Conservatives’ Manifesto Launch that he wanted to build four new Submarines not three as the Liberal Democrats want.
The latest debate on Trident has become a key highlight of the Election 2015 and is an issue which seems to have many politicians trying to appeal to a range of their potential voters.
David Cameron made clear his views on Trident making a pledge to renew, whilst Ed tries to work his Miliband magic into the office at No 10, whether Mr Miliband will waver on Trident is awaited by many.
Nicola Sturgeon leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) who has been linked to a potential coalition with Labour, should there be a hung parliament, she said of Trident, that they would make Trident a “red line” issue whereby there is no compromise on whether Trident should be given the go-ahead, “it is a red line issue and will be voted to be scrapped.”
The Green Party who have been outspoken about Trident for a long time said of the pressing issue “The government intentionally pushed the review on our nuclear weapons capability back to 2016 to prevent it becoming a general election issue,” said Lesley Grahame, peace and disarmament spokeswoman for the Green party. “Every pound spent before the decision, before parliament gets to vote on the matter, or a public debate is held, should be considered a very serious blow for democracy.”
Miss Grahame is referring to the blows most recently of an ongoing situation where money is being spent on Trident before the review has taken place which is due in 2016.
Lastly controversy surrounds Trident as it is not an ‘independent nuclear deterrent’ as many like David Cameron and Ed Miliband claim; Trident works with the US which Trident is dependent on and involved with the US; the Trident missiles are manufactured in the US and the alliance has compatible missiles which can be used in the UK submarines as well as the US ones. Yet Trident is still referred to as ‘independent’.
I spoke to Shasha Khan Green Party Candidate for Croydon North and he gave me his take on an independent Trident saying:
“It is important to dispel the myth that Trident is an independent nuclear deterrent. These missiles are dependent on US satellites.”
I asked him also what he thought about the renewal of Trident, Shasha told me:
“It is abhorrent to start spending £100 billion pounds on renewing Trident when according to Mumsnet one in five mothers regularly skips a meal so that their children can eat.
There are many dangers and concerns with Trident using the Trident arsenal would cause nuclear proliferation on a destructive scale more powerful than that of Hiroshima. Then there is the threat of Nuclear accidents with submarines, referring to the most recent accident with the Submarine in Russia which caught fire and when in 2011 a sub was carrying atomic weapons and also caught fire.
Many would argue that in today’s world with threats from rogue states and also the threat of international terrorism that Trident is a must, others are saying the costs of Trident is too expensive to the UK and will these weapons of immense destruction ever be used?
Shasha Khan and the Green Party believe strongly against Trident and he outlined his concern:
“Renewing Trident sends the wrong message to the rest of the world, it says if you want security you need nuclear missiles.”
To conclude: Trident, scrapped or saved?
Until the General Election 2015 is over Trident will be raged about in debates and the debate will rage on till 2016 which will be ‘decision time’ and Trident will have to be scrapped or saved.
Lords’ Pro-Fracking Report published yet Poll shows Fracking not in Favour!
Lord MacGregor was saying recently that Fracking in Britain holds many benefits. Recently a report published by The Lords Economic Affairs Committee, whom one or more of the members on the committee is said to have links to Pro-Fracking corporations, have given their views on drilling for Shale Gas, they have outlined in the report that they back the Government’s decision to go “all out for shale”, however they make a request to do far more to engage the public on the benefits of Fracking in the UK and say it will provide more jobs, and bring about energy security.
The report published went on to say that “Developing a successful shale gas and oil industry in the UK must be an urgent national priority.”
Although the report may have taken a liking to Fracking in terms of short-term money and making a quick buck, there are many dangers to Fracking and instead of taking a cautious approach, the committee have asked to speed up the implementation for the plans to Frack. If so many people are opposed surely they should be heard and their concerns addressed. Realistically many would now say that Fracking should not happen, as there are too many dangers involved with the focus on the wrong type of energy (fossil) instead of on green and clean renewable energy.
The Green Party Leader of Croydon Shasha Khan said upon being questioned by Raj News that “The Government should seize the opportunity to embrace energy reduction with renewables not Fracking.
Fracking is an extreme energy source” Shasha went on to speak of Cuadrilla an oil and gas exploration company in the UK who are pursuing Shale Gas in the UK by hydraulic fracturing in the ground, he said “Cuadrilla have already said that energy prices will not come down due to Fracking, so why risk polluting our water.”
The report mentioned the EU’s reliance on Russia for Gas and how Fracking would stop this reliance. They do not however mention the EU’s fine to the UK for not meeting its Air Quality/Pollution requirements, there is a pending case against the UK by the EU, which could see the UK picking up bills worth millions for not doing enough to reduce the pollution and cleaning up the air.
The UK could see these fines dropped if the Government acts now and can show there is an improvement, in air quality. With car traffic jams in areas and things like incinerators, unnecessarily burning waste when it could be recycled, where is the encouragement to the public on these issues.
The Green party have been doing their bit in Croydon, opposing an Incinerator in Beddington Lane by putting in a judicial review, against Mayor Boris Johnson’s plan to have an incinerator in Beddington Lane which would serve Croydon, Sutton, Merton and Kingston, although there is danger of toxic fumes carrying downwind, unfairly building up, to pollute areas, which do not want to be harmed, by these dangerous fumes.
With all these prominent dangers at the forefront, the Government still want to dangerously fracture the earth in an effort to unlock Shale gas, the dangers of this are creating toxic drinking water as Shasha Khan mentions and instead of trying to promote renewable energy, the Government wants to continue focusing on fossil fuels at the cost of damaging the UK – Fracking has been linked to Earthquakes.
When it comes to regulation of Fracking the Lord’s have said that regulation should be streamlined, such as in cases where a company may want to drill under people’s houses they can do so without needing a license.
The Lords’ report seems to promote fracking and Lord MacGregor said on a radio interview with the BBC that Fracking will provide the public with lower fuel bills, he also mentions the US taking up Fracking. The radio host points out that “in the USA there are vasts amounts of unpopulated land, whereas in the UK you’re looking to do Fracking in relatively populated areas.” Lord MacGregor says that they’ve looked at this problem and any effects to the environment, yet this is a cherry picked report which gives us a selected amount of information that is Pro-Fracking.
Chief scientist Dr Doug Parr of Green Peace UK says of the report: “On one page the Lords are saying public concerns should be taken seriously, on the other they urge the government to strip people of their right to say no to Fracking firms planning to drill under their homes – a move opposed by three-quarters of British people.” They also backed moves by the Government to change trespass laws so that shale companies could drill under people’s property without their permission to ensure development could go ahead “without undue delay or cost”.
Caroline Lucas of the Green Party also featured in the interview, she made it clear that Fracking is not a solution to anything and pointed out surely the UK are not going to go ahead with this. She mentioned that there are far more jobs in renewable energy compared to that of Fossil fuels. She spoke of having a cap on fossil fuel emissions, and how drilling for shale gas can cause levels in methane to increase which is dangerous, especially as the numbers on methane gas is highly underestimated.
I would stress that this is a swipe by the Government to make some quick money, rather than educate the public on this issue and listen to the people who are, now, in a poll, overall against Fracking, in the UK.
Dr Parr criticised the report, warning Fracking was a “non-solution” that would not deliver for many years, if at all. Caroline Lucas points out that Fracking would lock us into the fossil fuel industry rather than working towards a positive renewable clean energy industry.
Dr Parr’s analysis of the report was a realistic one and he said, “The Lords spent seven months cherry-picking the wafer thin evidence that fits a foregone conclusion about the benefits of shale gas. This is just more taxpayer-funded cheerleading from unelected politicians who seem all too happy to ignore the country’s legitimate concerns about Fracking.”
The Dr and Caroline Lucas and Shasha Khan echoed each other when they spoke of the real urgent national priority, which is to push ahead with the renewable technology and efficiency measures.
Although the BBC did not mention in an article about Fracking that the Green Party (whom of late have not even had much media coverage by the BBC in the elections) whose Leader Natalie Bennet is a keen campaigner against Fracking alongside Caroline Lucas who was arrested for protesting against Fracking, after having real concerns about the UK issue of Fracking and alongside Green Peace, WWF, and Friends of the Earth’s concerns – who also did not get much coverage either.
The BBC did highlight the dangers of chemicals in Fracking they said:
“Hydraulic fracturing of shale to extract gas involves pumping water, sand and chemicals are injected into the rock at high pressure to allow the gas to flow out to the head of the well.
There is a worry that chemicals used in Fracking may escape and contaminate groundwater around the Fracking site.
Another environmental concern is that Fracking uses huge amounts of water that must be transported to the Fracking site, at significant environmental cost.”
The campaigning group, Friends of the Earth, commented: “The report recognises that the regulations aren’t working – but calling for the Government to ‘simplify’ regulations and speed up the process will not reassure local communities and a public unconvinced by this risky technology.”
The WWF- UK said:
Nick Molho, Head of Climate and Energy Policy at WWF-UK said: “The Lords seemed to have overlooked the many serious analysts who have said that shale gas in the UK is unlikely to have much impact on either gas prices or the UK’s rising exposure to gas imports.
“If we are genuinely going to reduce the UK’s vulnerability to future fossil fuel price shocks, the main priority must be to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels in the first place.
“Moving rapidly towards an energy system that’s more efficient, low-carbon and better integrated with those of our European partners should therefore remain the UK’s highest national priority when it comes to energy policy.”
In conclusion:
There is a danger in going after shale gas, which is still unknown about in terms of quantity, quality and is most likely under the ground in different layers, making it difficult to access; whereas in the USA there is land which is flat and plenty in unpopulated areas, making the gas easier to extract, the same cannot be said for the UK with its populated areas and complex land structure and layers of the earth.
Fracking has added to the climate change debate, and Fracking will only damage the climate, which Fracking can have serious implications on, nevertheless it has become a part of the debate on climate change as it can cause a huge set back to the climate through air quality, natural disasters, water contamination and earthquakes; there should be a focus on renewable energy rather than using less dirtier fossil fuel (Shale gas compared to Coal), which looks set to harm the UK, residents, and environment just as much, if money was spent on Green renewable energy, this would pay off in the longterm.
There are so many alternatives yet Fracking is what the Government want to pursue. There are many out there protesting against Fracking to put a stop on it before it starts, make sure your concerns are heard write to the politicians and tell them to stop their plans as not many of the members of the public agree with Fracking and it is dangerous and also we cannot afford to miss the opportunity to work now on the future with renewable energy, which is clean, green, job making, and recyclable, renewable, and the future.
Khuda Jaane & 007 Skyfall by RM Productions
Skyfall – Sam Tsui & Kurt Hugo Schneider
RM Productions
