Boris Johnson has won the prime ministership of the UK again and now he has the mandate to move very swiftly to remove the UK from the EU, he will have great authority in negotiating new trade deals. Brexit will now finally 'get done' as Johnson has the majority.

UK Elections 2019: Boris Johnson wins, now onto Brexit

Berlin on Tuesday said it had sent proposals for a new European financial transactions tax (FTT) to nine member state capitals, as Germany hopes for a rapid conclusion to the drawn-out project.

Finance minister <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-europe-reacted-to-brexit-deal-defeat-190587">Olaf Scholz</a> on Monday offered a "final proposition" to hit trades in shares of companies worth more than one billion euros ($1.1 billion) with a 0.2-percent levy, his ministry said.

Ten countries Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Slovakia and Slovenia have agreed to close cooperation on FTT plans.

But talks have been going on for years and had appeared stalled.

"We are now in a position to reach an agreement under enhanced cooperation for the first time since 2011," Scholz wrote in a letter to his fellow finance ministers.

Berlin's planned tax would not be raised on trades in bonds and financial derivatives.

Even in share trading, certain operations could be exempt, including new flotations (IPOs) or pension funds' stock market activities.

In an initial reaction, Austria's finance ministry complained Scholz had opted for a "minimal" range of transactions to tax and left bugbears like high-frequency trading untaxed.

Germany estimates that this form of FTT would bring in around 1.5 billion euros of tax revenue a year.

Much of the sum has already been earmarked to pay for an increase in pensions for the worst-off old people, agreed in principle by Chancellor <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/merkels-coalition-in-crisis-talks-after-european-union-vote-debacle-221923">Angela Merkel</a>'s coalition government last month.

Dating back to the 1970s, the FTT concept was reinvigorated in 2011 as the financial crisis was at its worst in the EU.

France, Italy, and Britain already tax some financial transactions.

But even within Germany, center-left SPD party politician Scholz's version has already come in for criticism from elsewhere on the political spectrum, including from the ranks of his coalition partners in Merkel's center-right CDU.

"The proposals are an attack on small German investors," CDU MP Christoph Ploss told the Funke newspaper group.

Greens MEP Sven Giegold also told Funke that the latest plan was a "farce, not a real financial transactions tax" that would be paid only by "small investors".

Berlin on Tuesday said it had sent proposals for a new European financial transactions tax (FTT) to nine member state capitals, as Germany hopes for a rapid conclusion to the drawn-out project.

Berlin on Tuesday said it had sent proposals for a new European financial transactions tax (FTT) to nine member state capitals, as Germany hopes for a rapid conclusion to the drawn-out project. Finance minister Olaf Scholz on Monday offered a "final proposition" to hit trades in shares of companies worth more than one billion euros ($1.1 billion) with a 0.2-percent levy, his ministry said. Ten countries Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Slovakia and Slovenia have agreed to close cooperation on FTT plans. But talks have been going on for years and had appeared stalled. "We are now in a position to reach an agreement under enhanced cooperation for the first time since 2011," Scholz wrote in a letter to his fellow finance ministers. Berlin's planned tax would not be raised on trades in bonds and financial derivatives. Even in share trading, certain operations could be exempt, including new flotations (IPOs) or pension funds' stock market activities. In an initial reaction, Austria's finance ministry complained Scholz had opted for a "minimal" range of transactions to tax and left bugbears like high-frequency trading untaxed. Germany estimates that this form of FTT would bring in around 1.5 billion euros of tax revenue a year. Much of the sum has already been earmarked to pay for an increase in pensions for the worst-off old people, agreed in principle by Chancellor Angela Merkel's coalition government last month. Dating back to the 1970s, the FTT concept was reinvigorated in 2011 as the financial crisis was at its worst in the EU. France, Italy, and Britain already tax some financial transactions. But even within Germany, center-left SPD party politician Scholz's version has already come in for criticism from elsewhere on the political spectrum, including from the ranks of his coalition partners in Merkel's center-right CDU. "The proposals are an attack on small German investors," CDU MP Christoph Ploss told the Funke newspaper group. Greens MEP Sven Giegold also told Funke that the latest plan was a "farce, not a real financial transactions tax" that would be paid only by "small investors".

Germany launches new plan for EU financial transaction tax

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/european-union-permits-state-aid-to-develop-electric-battery-giants-267202">EU leaders</a> will renew economic sanctions against Russia when they meet for a summit this week, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said Monday.

Maas said he saw no reason to relax the measures imposed on Moscow over its role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The sanctions target whole sectors of the Russian economy, including its valuable oil and gas industries.

European measures were first put in place after Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over rebel-held eastern Ukraine in 2014, killing 298 people, and EU leaders have renewed them every six months ever since.

France is hosting a highly-anticipated four-way summit with Russia, Ukraine and Germany on Monday in the hope of making progress towards peace in Ukraine.

French President Emmanuel Macron has been pushing for a thaw between Europe and Russia, but Maas said it was too early to ease sanctions.

"We will continue what we thought was right so far,&nbsp;to extend the sanctions,&nbsp;because the reasons that led to the sanctions continue to exist," Maas said as he arrived for a meeting of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-act-and-react-as-one-european-union-on-proposed-us-tariffs-on-french-goods-265977">EU foreign ministers</a> in Brussels.

"At the moment, for me there is no reason to change anything in the sanctions policy of the European Union towards Russia."

Monday's meeting in Paris of Macron, Russian leader Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is the first so-called "Normandy Format" summit in three years.

It seeks to implement accords signed in Minsk in 2015 that call for the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the restoration of Kiev's control over its borders, wider autonomy for Donetsk and Lugansk, and the holding of local elections.

Thousands have been killed since pro-Russia militias in eastern Ukraine launched a bid for independence in 2014, kicking off a conflict that deepened Russia's estrangement from the West.

The EU insists the Minsk accords must be implemented if sanctions are to be lifted or relaxed.

EU leaders will renew economic sanctions against Russia when they meet for a summit this week, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said Monday. Maas said he saw no reason to relax the measures imposed on Moscow over its role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine.

EU leaders will renew economic sanctions against Russia when they meet for a summit this week, German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas said Monday. Maas said he saw no reason to relax the measures imposed on Moscow over its role in the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The sanctions target whole sectors of the Russian economy, including its valuable oil and gas industries. European measures were first put in place after Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 was shot down over rebel-held eastern Ukraine in 2014, killing 298 people, and EU leaders have renewed them every six months ever since. France is hosting a highly-anticipated four-way summit with Russia, Ukraine and Germany on Monday in the hope of making progress towards peace in Ukraine. French President Emmanuel Macron has been pushing for a thaw between Europe and Russia, but Maas said it was too early to ease sanctions. "We will continue what we thought was right so far, to extend the sanctions, because the reasons that led to the sanctions continue to exist," Maas said as he arrived for a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels. "At the moment, for me there is no reason to change anything in the sanctions policy of the European Union towards Russia." Monday's meeting in Paris of Macron, Russian leader Vladimir Putin, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is the first so-called "Normandy Format" summit in three years. It seeks to implement accords signed in Minsk in 2015 that call for the withdrawal of heavy weapons, the restoration of Kiev's control over its borders, wider autonomy for Donetsk and Lugansk, and the holding of local elections. Thousands have been killed since pro-Russia militias in eastern Ukraine launched a bid for independence in 2014, kicking off a conflict that deepened Russia's estrangement from the West. The EU insists the Minsk accords must be implemented if sanctions are to be lifted or relaxed.

European Union to prolong Russia sanctions: German minister

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/will-act-and-react-as-one-european-union-on-proposed-us-tariffs-on-french-goods-265977">EU's</a> powerful anti-trust authority on Monday approved billions of euros in subsidies from seven member states as Europe seeks to make up lost ground in the highly strategic sector of electric batteries.

The move is part of a major push led by Germany and France to prepare Europe for the emergence of electric cars, as gas combustible engines are phased out over concerns for the environment.

The European car industry employs over 10 million people and the EU,&nbsp;led by Germany and France,&nbsp;is deeply concerned about Europe's dependence on car batteries from Asia.

The mega subsidy of 3.2 billion euros ($3.5 billion) from Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Belgium, Sweden and Finland will go to a consortium of 17 companies and will help generate an extra 5 billion euros in private investment, a statement said.

The commission, the EU's anti-trust enforcer, usually holds a strict line against state subsidies, but in 2014 gave more leeway for countries to back strategic transnational projects.

The wave of new subsidies are part of something called the European Battery Alliance.&nbsp;

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/european-union-leaders-to-push-for-climate-neutrality-by-2050-sources-265831">The campaign</a>, launched in 2017, was designed to entice European industry to create an Airbus of batteries, in reference to the aviation giant that was born of a similar ambition a generation ago.

Companies involved include German car giant BMW and chemical multinationals BASF and Solvay.

The EU's powerful anti-trust authority on Monday approved billions of euros in subsidies from seven member states as Europe seeks to make up lost ground in the highly strategic sector of electric batteries.

The EU's powerful anti-trust authority on Monday approved billions of euros in subsidies from seven member states as Europe seeks to make up lost ground in the highly strategic sector of electric batteries. The move is part of a major push led by Germany and France to prepare Europe for the emergence of electric cars, as gas combustible engines are phased out over concerns for the environment. The European car industry employs over 10 million people and the EU, led by Germany and France, is deeply concerned about Europe's dependence on car batteries from Asia. The mega subsidy of 3.2 billion euros ($3.5 billion) from Germany, France, Italy, Poland, Belgium, Sweden and Finland will go to a consortium of 17 companies and will help generate an extra 5 billion euros in private investment, a statement said. The commission, the EU's anti-trust enforcer, usually holds a strict line against state subsidies, but in 2014 gave more leeway for countries to back strategic transnational projects. The wave of new subsidies are part of something called the European Battery Alliance. The campaign, launched in 2017, was designed to entice European industry to create an Airbus of batteries, in reference to the aviation giant that was born of a similar ambition a generation ago. Companies involved include German car giant BMW and chemical multinationals BASF and Solvay.

European Union permits state aid to develop electric battery giants

Iran said on Thursday a letter from three European powers to the U.N. Security Council accusing Tehran of having nuclear-capable ballistic missiles showed their "miserable incompetence" in fulfilling their commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal.

"Latest E3 letter to UNSG on missiles is a desperate falsehood to cover up their miserable incompetence in fulfilling bare minimum of their own #JCPOA obligations," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad&nbsp;Zarif&nbsp;tweeted, referring to the deal by its formal acronym. He urged Britain, France and Germany not to bow to "US&nbsp;bullying".

The British, German and French ambassadors, in a letter circulated on Wednesday, called on U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to inform the Security Council in his next report that Iran’s missile programme was “inconsistent” with a U.N. resolution that had endorsed the nuclear deal reached between Iran and six world powers.

The letter surfaced at a time of heightened friction between Iran and the West, with Tehran rolling back its commitments under the deal step by step in response to Washington’s pullout from the pact last year and reimposition of sanctions on Iran that has crippled its economy.

Britain, France and Germany have sought to salvage the pact, under which Iran undertook to curtail its disputed uranium enrichment programme in return for relief from sanctions. But Tehran has criticised the three European powers for failing to shield Iran's economy from the US&nbsp;penalties.

The United States, Iran's arch-foe, and its Arab allies view Tehran’s ballistic missile programme as a Middle East security threat. Tehran says its missile development activity is solely defensive in nature.

Iran said on Thursday a letter from three European powers to the U.N. Security Council accusing Tehran of having nuclear-capable ballistic missiles showed their "miserable incompetence" in fulfilling their commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal.

Iran said on Thursday a letter from three European powers to the U.N. Security Council accusing Tehran of having nuclear-capable ballistic missiles showed their "miserable incompetence" in fulfilling their commitments to a 2015 nuclear deal. "Latest E3 letter to UNSG on missiles is a desperate falsehood to cover up their miserable incompetence in fulfilling bare minimum of their own #JCPOA obligations," Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif tweeted, referring to the deal by its formal acronym. He urged Britain, France and Germany not to bow to "US bullying". The British, German and French ambassadors, in a letter circulated on Wednesday, called on U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres to inform the Security Council in his next report that Iran’s missile programme was “inconsistent” with a U.N. resolution that had endorsed the nuclear deal reached between Iran and six world powers. The letter surfaced at a time of heightened friction between Iran and the West, with Tehran rolling back its commitments under the deal step by step in response to Washington’s pullout from the pact last year and reimposition of sanctions on Iran that has crippled its economy. Britain, France and Germany have sought to salvage the pact, under which Iran undertook to curtail its disputed uranium enrichment programme in return for relief from sanctions. But Tehran has criticised the three European powers for failing to shield Iran's economy from the US penalties. The United States, Iran's arch-foe, and its Arab allies view Tehran’s ballistic missile programme as a Middle East security threat. Tehran says its missile development activity is solely defensive in nature.

EU powers' letter to U.N. on Iran's missiles shows 'miserable incompetence': Javad Zarif

"Fundamental solutions" are needed in the coming decade to avert uncontrolled climate change that could cause extreme heat waves in Europe, according to a report released on Wednesday (December 3) by the European Union Environmental Agency (EEA).

Without urgent action, yearly extreme heat waves await Europeans, EU agency says

By Raluca Bejan

Irregular migrant entries within the European Union increased by 546 per cent in 2015. The instability in the Middle East, particularly the Syrian war, led to 1,015,078 sea arrivals on the Italian and Greek coasts.

This influx prompted the European Commission to adopt two decisions intended to transfer 120,000 people to the least affected EU member states from the countries struggling to provide timely assistance with asylum claims: 15,600 people from Italy, 50,400 from Greece, and 54,000 from Hungary.

The relocations were meant to be distributed over the following two years, 2016 and 2017, on a mandatory basis and through an equalizing formula based on four national indicators: GDP (40 per cent), population size (40 per cent), unemployment rate (10 per cent) and past numbers of asylum applications (10 per cent).

It’s important to note that relocation is different from resettlement. Resettlement refers to the transfer to an EU state of non-EU/stateless people in need of international protection, whereas relocation refers to the transfer of persons already in Europe to another member state.

Spain and Germany initially contested the quota agreements. Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and the U.K. were in favour of resettlement efforts. Most of the Eastern Bloc countries refused by invoking a lack of consensus among member states and by emphasising the need for voluntary participation in the relocation scheme.

Challenged in court

The matter ended up in court by December 2015, with Hungary and Slovakia launching two separate claims at the EU Court of Justice contesting the validity of the decisions.

The claims were dismissed by the Court of Justice in July 2017. Subsequently, in October 2019, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were found to have breached EU law by refusing to participate in the relocation scheme.

The question of relocation fell out of the public eye throughout most of 2018 and 2019, as sea arrivals diminished significantly after the signing of the EU-Turkey deal in March 2016. For six billion euros and the promise of EU integration, Turkey was now accepting irregular migrants who had made it to Greece

The relocation matter returned to public attention this September, when Germany, France, Italy and Malta called for the implementation of a new system (known as the Malta Declaration) to automatically distribute migrants across the EU.

The EU’s interior ministers met in Luxembourg in October to discuss the “state of play on migration” and the newly proposed agreement.

The Malta proposal showed low uptake. Only three additional countries signed onto it: Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg, totalling seven countries out of 28 EU member states to endorse the new mechanism.

The plan intended to fast-track screening and redistribution processes but remained vague in essence.

Expedited streamlining procedures (for example, allotting a maximum of four weeks to pledge relocation commitments) will have an insignificant impact. That’s because the countries’ reluctance to participate in the scheme has little to do with the speed of the process and everything to do with varied national interpretations of what constitutes fair responsibility-sharing.

A philosophical problem 
 
I conducted a qualitative study in Romania in the spring of 2019, examining how Romanian elected representatives interpret the idea of shared responsibility among EU member states in relation to the union’s relocation system.

Preliminary findings show that the relocation scheme was generally seen as inefficient in measuring whether member states had the economic capacity to welcome asylum-seekers.

Participants argued that different qualitative and quantitative indicators needed to be included to better capture national idiosyncrasies. Those included a state’s system of service provisions and its administrative structure for managing migration. They also argued that refugees’ preferences needed to be taken into account when choosing their respective countries, and that there needed to be greater consideration of the economic capacity of a member state.

The relocation scheme was drafted on the basis of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), according to the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, which stated in its provisions that, "“In the event of one or more member states being confronted by an emergency situation characterized by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council … may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the member states concerned.”

Implicit here is the idea that member states are expected to show solidarity in emergency situations and that solidarity efforts should be equally shared by all.

The ideological debate, however, is about commonly agreeing on what constitutes an equal share of responsibility and what type of indicators are best suited to reflect a fair and equitable distributive scheme.

Why some indicators and not others?

The GDP per capita measurement was most likely chosen to reflect national wealth. Yet the GDP can be high because the rich are so rich that they pull up the average measurement, statistically speaking. It mostly accounts for marketed economic activity and not economic quality.

The GDP purchasing power parity, which divides national income per population while considering living costs, or GDP per hours worked, which divides national income by the number of countrywide working hours, might be better fitted measures to gauge a country’s economic performance.

The national unemployment rate was the second economic indicator selected in the scheme. Yet unemployment inaccurately reflects the living standard in a society.

Romania, for example, has a low unemployment rate, if compared with other EU member states. At 3.9 per cent, it’s four times lower than Greece’s unemployment rate, which sits at 16.9 per cent. However, half of the population in Romania works for minimum wage. A minimum wage indicator would therefore be better suited to account for the economic capacity of the poorer member states.

What’s population got to do with it? 
 
As for the demographic measure, it is unclear why states with larger populations are seen as better equipped to settle refugees. Is it because newcomers would mingle among nationals and become less visible in high-density places?

The incentive indicator, which considers a state’s past number of asylum applications, does little in the equation besides dividing the “good” versus the “bad” nations among the EU member states. It fails to take into account the difficulties in settling migrants, such as the lack of national migrant integration schemes.

Member states aren’t equal at the EU table. To achieve fairness, any efforts to transfer people in need of international protection must proportionally rather than equally distribute responsibility.

No workable policy has truly addressed the ongoing humanitarian crisis at the EU borders. That’s mostly because of the EU’s deep ideological divisions over what constitutes, and what should constitute, a fair method of sharing responsibility for migrants.

Consensus on solidarity efforts and on how responsibility should be shared and implemented might lead to less political friction and more fruitful co-operation in the EU.

(Raluca Bejan is Assistant Professor, Social Policy, St. Thomas University (Canada))

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-some-eu-countries-are-struggling-to-relocate-migrants-124827"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Raluca Bejan Irregular migrant entries within the European Union increased by 546 per cent in 2015. The instability in the Middle East, particularly the Syrian war, led to 1,015,078 sea arrivals on the Italian and Greek coasts.

By Raluca Bejan Irregular migrant entries within the European Union increased by 546 per cent in 2015. The instability in the Middle East, particularly the Syrian war, led to 1,015,078 sea arrivals on the Italian and Greek coasts. This influx prompted the European Commission to adopt two decisions intended to transfer 120,000 people to the least affected EU member states from the countries struggling to provide timely assistance with asylum claims: 15,600 people from Italy, 50,400 from Greece, and 54,000 from Hungary. The relocations were meant to be distributed over the following two years, 2016 and 2017, on a mandatory basis and through an equalizing formula based on four national indicators: GDP (40 per cent), population size (40 per cent), unemployment rate (10 per cent) and past numbers of asylum applications (10 per cent). It’s important to note that relocation is different from resettlement. Resettlement refers to the transfer to an EU state of non-EU/stateless people in need of international protection, whereas relocation refers to the transfer of persons already in Europe to another member state. Spain and Germany initially contested the quota agreements. Belgium, the Netherlands, Sweden and the U.K. were in favour of resettlement efforts. Most of the Eastern Bloc countries refused by invoking a lack of consensus among member states and by emphasising the need for voluntary participation in the relocation scheme. Challenged in court The matter ended up in court by December 2015, with Hungary and Slovakia launching two separate claims at the EU Court of Justice contesting the validity of the decisions. The claims were dismissed by the Court of Justice in July 2017. Subsequently, in October 2019, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland were found to have breached EU law by refusing to participate in the relocation scheme. The question of relocation fell out of the public eye throughout most of 2018 and 2019, as sea arrivals diminished significantly after the signing of the EU-Turkey deal in March 2016. For six billion euros and the promise of EU integration, Turkey was now accepting irregular migrants who had made it to Greece The relocation matter returned to public attention this September, when Germany, France, Italy and Malta called for the implementation of a new system (known as the Malta Declaration) to automatically distribute migrants across the EU. The EU’s interior ministers met in Luxembourg in October to discuss the “state of play on migration” and the newly proposed agreement. The Malta proposal showed low uptake. Only three additional countries signed onto it: Ireland, Portugal and Luxembourg, totalling seven countries out of 28 EU member states to endorse the new mechanism. The plan intended to fast-track screening and redistribution processes but remained vague in essence. Expedited streamlining procedures (for example, allotting a maximum of four weeks to pledge relocation commitments) will have an insignificant impact. That’s because the countries’ reluctance to participate in the scheme has little to do with the speed of the process and everything to do with varied national interpretations of what constitutes fair responsibility-sharing. A philosophical problem I conducted a qualitative study in Romania in the spring of 2019, examining how Romanian elected representatives interpret the idea of shared responsibility among EU member states in relation to the union’s relocation system. Preliminary findings show that the relocation scheme was generally seen as inefficient in measuring whether member states had the economic capacity to welcome asylum-seekers. Participants argued that different qualitative and quantitative indicators needed to be included to better capture national idiosyncrasies. Those included a state’s system of service provisions and its administrative structure for managing migration. They also argued that refugees’ preferences needed to be taken into account when choosing their respective countries, and that there needed to be greater consideration of the economic capacity of a member state. The relocation scheme was drafted on the basis of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), according to the principle of solidarity and fair sharing of responsibility, which stated in its provisions that, "“In the event of one or more member states being confronted by an emergency situation characterized by a sudden inflow of nationals of third countries, the Council … may adopt provisional measures for the benefit of the member states concerned.” Implicit here is the idea that member states are expected to show solidarity in emergency situations and that solidarity efforts should be equally shared by all. The ideological debate, however, is about commonly agreeing on what constitutes an equal share of responsibility and what type of indicators are best suited to reflect a fair and equitable distributive scheme. Why some indicators and not others? The GDP per capita measurement was most likely chosen to reflect national wealth. Yet the GDP can be high because the rich are so rich that they pull up the average measurement, statistically speaking. It mostly accounts for marketed economic activity and not economic quality. The GDP purchasing power parity, which divides national income per population while considering living costs, or GDP per hours worked, which divides national income by the number of countrywide working hours, might be better fitted measures to gauge a country’s economic performance. The national unemployment rate was the second economic indicator selected in the scheme. Yet unemployment inaccurately reflects the living standard in a society. Romania, for example, has a low unemployment rate, if compared with other EU member states. At 3.9 per cent, it’s four times lower than Greece’s unemployment rate, which sits at 16.9 per cent. However, half of the population in Romania works for minimum wage. A minimum wage indicator would therefore be better suited to account for the economic capacity of the poorer member states. What’s population got to do with it? As for the demographic measure, it is unclear why states with larger populations are seen as better equipped to settle refugees. Is it because newcomers would mingle among nationals and become less visible in high-density places? The incentive indicator, which considers a state’s past number of asylum applications, does little in the equation besides dividing the “good” versus the “bad” nations among the EU member states. It fails to take into account the difficulties in settling migrants, such as the lack of national migrant integration schemes. Member states aren’t equal at the EU table. To achieve fairness, any efforts to transfer people in need of international protection must proportionally rather than equally distribute responsibility. No workable policy has truly addressed the ongoing humanitarian crisis at the EU borders. That’s mostly because of the EU’s deep ideological divisions over what constitutes, and what should constitute, a fair method of sharing responsibility for migrants. Consensus on solidarity efforts and on how responsibility should be shared and implemented might lead to less political friction and more fruitful co-operation in the EU. (Raluca Bejan is Assistant Professor, Social Policy, St. Thomas University (Canada)) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why some EU countries are struggling to relocate migrants

By Simon J Smith

In the face of growing security challenges to Europe, from an antagonistic Russia, to instability in the Middle East, cyberwar and terrorism, there is a growing recognition that enhanced cooperation between the EU and NATO will be key to an effective response.

Calibrating such cooperation to respond to perceived common threats, however, has never been straightforward. The political context, as well as rivalry between the EU and NATO, have often hampered the capacity of the institutions to work together.

The meeting of NATO leaders in London on December 3-4 offers an occasion to further move that relationship forward. But having tracked EU-NATO relations for over a decade, I wouldn’t count on any major strategic or political breakthroughs.

Ever since NATO was created in 1949, with the dual aim of keeping the peace among the Allies and providing a security alliance against the Soviet Union, there has been a tension between whether or not NATO should drive the security agenda in Europe.

Since 1949, a number of European-wide organisations have tried to coordinate European defence policy – from the failed attempt at a French proposal for an integrated European Defence Community in 1954, to its alternative, the Western European Union (WEU), a military alliance of the UK, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands.

Forging a relationship 
 
The precursor to the EU, the European Community, didn’t really put security matters on its agenda. So it was in the mid-1990s following the Maastrict Treaty that the newly-formed EU began to develop its own common foreign and security policy and the relationship with NATO began to shift.

NATO had already developed a good working relationship with the WEU, but this really became germane in 1996 with attempts to use the WEU as an institutional bridge between the EU and NATO.

As long as the EU remained an organisation without a defence component to support its common security policy, and NATO an organisation focused strictly on collective defence of its members, the EU had little need to develop military ties with NATO. However, as some EU member sates started to consider an autonomous EU defence and security instrument towards the end of the 1990s, this relationship became unavoidable.

After a 1998 joint summit between the UK and France at Saint Malo, the formal process began towards creating the EU’s Security and Defence Policy (ESDP – now termed CSDP). Attention started to focus on an alternative arrangement to the WEU as the bridge between the two institutions.

Once the EU formally adopted the WEU’s “Petersberg Tasks”, which set out the conditions under which militaries could be deployed, the relationship between the EU and NATO changed from one of informal meetings to something more institutionalised. Formal committees and structures began to be mapped out by 1999.

However, cultural and institutional differences between the EU and NATO still had to be reduced before any official arrangements could be finalised. NATO retained a very strict security regime dating back to its Cold War years, while in contrast, the EU was designed as an open and transparent organisation. In order to adapt to a stricter security policy, the EU modelled its security framework on NATO. This was also helped by the fact that most EU states have also been NATO member states – currently 22 are members of both.

Formal and informal 
 
By 2000, both the US and France had overcome enough of their initial reservations about the relationship to pursue joint EU-NATO committees, set up to tackle various common security challenges. Formal political exchanges started up between NATO and the EU, such as those between the EU’s Political Security Committee (PSC) and NATO’s North Atlantic Council (NAC).

The Berlin Plus agreement was then negotiated between 1999 to 2002. This became the framework agreement between the two organisations to allow the EU to access NATO assets and capabilities that it did not possess (and in some cases, still do not) for its own operations such as the EU-led military Operation ALTHEA in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Berlin Plus arrangements also created an EU-NATO security agreement to allow non-NATO members access to classified NATO documents.

Turkey and Cyprus 
 
The American NATO expert David Yost set out the problems at the heart of the EU-NATO relationship in a 2007 book. As he put it: “Difficulties include institutional and national rivalries, the participation problem, and disagreements about the proper scope and purpose of NATO-EU cooperation.”

The “participation problem” is a central impediment to formal EU-NATO relations that stems from the ongoing dispute between Turkey (a NATO-only member) and Cyprus (an EU-only member). This led to Turkey directly blocking formal EU-NATO cooperation in 2004 beyond that of Operation ALTHEA. Formal meetings between the PSC and NAC were suspended as Turkey objected, and still does, to Cyprus sitting in on such meetings without a NATO security agreement – which Turkey refuses to allow.

Informal meetings do take place but these have been described to me by both PSC and NAC ambassadors during my research as “dull”, “highly scripted” and “uninspiring”. As a result, there has been a move towards enhancing cooperation at the inter-organisational level to compensate for deficiencies at the formal political level.

As I have argued elsewhere, the reality today is that the EU and NATO cooperate far more outside of the formal Berlin Plus relationship than they do inside it. There has been a renewed impetus to enhance relations since the signing of a EU-NATO Joint Declaration in 2016 but there are still major obstacles to an effective strategic partnership between the two institutions.

 
(Simon J Smith is Associate Professor of Security and International Relations, Staffordshire University

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/nato-and-the-eu-a-short-history-of-an-uneasy-relationship-126710"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

By Simon J Smith In the face of growing security challenges to Europe, from an antagonistic Russia, to instability in the Middle East, cyberwar and terrorism, there is a growing recognition that enhanced cooperation between the EU and NATO will be key to an effective response.

By Simon J Smith In the face of growing security challenges to Europe, from an antagonistic Russia, to instability in the Middle East, cyberwar and terrorism, there is a growing recognition that enhanced cooperation between the EU and NATO will be key to an effective response. Calibrating such cooperation to respond to perceived common threats, however, has never been straightforward. The political context, as well as rivalry between the EU and NATO, have often hampered the capacity of the institutions to work together. The meeting of NATO leaders in London on December 3-4 offers an occasion to further move that relationship forward. But having tracked EU-NATO relations for over a decade, I wouldn’t count on any major strategic or political breakthroughs. Ever since NATO was created in 1949, with the dual aim of keeping the peace among the Allies and providing a security alliance against the Soviet Union, there has been a tension between whether or not NATO should drive the security agenda in Europe. Since 1949, a number of European-wide organisations have tried to coordinate European defence policy – from the failed attempt at a French proposal for an integrated European Defence Community in 1954, to its alternative, the Western European Union (WEU), a military alliance of the UK, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Forging a relationship The precursor to the EU, the European Community, didn’t really put security matters on its agenda. So it was in the mid-1990s following the Maastrict Treaty that the newly-formed EU began to develop its own common foreign and security policy and the relationship with NATO began to shift. NATO had already developed a good working relationship with the WEU, but this really became germane in 1996 with attempts to use the WEU as an institutional bridge between the EU and NATO. As long as the EU remained an organisation without a defence component to support its common security policy, and NATO an organisation focused strictly on collective defence of its members, the EU had little need to develop military ties with NATO. However, as some EU member sates started to consider an autonomous EU defence and security instrument towards the end of the 1990s, this relationship became unavoidable. After a 1998 joint summit between the UK and France at Saint Malo, the formal process began towards creating the EU’s Security and Defence Policy (ESDP – now termed CSDP). Attention started to focus on an alternative arrangement to the WEU as the bridge between the two institutions. Once the EU formally adopted the WEU’s “Petersberg Tasks”, which set out the conditions under which militaries could be deployed, the relationship between the EU and NATO changed from one of informal meetings to something more institutionalised. Formal committees and structures began to be mapped out by 1999. However, cultural and institutional differences between the EU and NATO still had to be reduced before any official arrangements could be finalised. NATO retained a very strict security regime dating back to its Cold War years, while in contrast, the EU was designed as an open and transparent organisation. In order to adapt to a stricter security policy, the EU modelled its security framework on NATO. This was also helped by the fact that most EU states have also been NATO member states – currently 22 are members of both. Formal and informal By 2000, both the US and France had overcome enough of their initial reservations about the relationship to pursue joint EU-NATO committees, set up to tackle various common security challenges. Formal political exchanges started up between NATO and the EU, such as those between the EU’s Political Security Committee (PSC) and NATO’s North Atlantic Council (NAC). The Berlin Plus agreement was then negotiated between 1999 to 2002. This became the framework agreement between the two organisations to allow the EU to access NATO assets and capabilities that it did not possess (and in some cases, still do not) for its own operations such as the EU-led military Operation ALTHEA in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Berlin Plus arrangements also created an EU-NATO security agreement to allow non-NATO members access to classified NATO documents. Turkey and Cyprus The American NATO expert David Yost set out the problems at the heart of the EU-NATO relationship in a 2007 book. As he put it: “Difficulties include institutional and national rivalries, the participation problem, and disagreements about the proper scope and purpose of NATO-EU cooperation.” The “participation problem” is a central impediment to formal EU-NATO relations that stems from the ongoing dispute between Turkey (a NATO-only member) and Cyprus (an EU-only member). This led to Turkey directly blocking formal EU-NATO cooperation in 2004 beyond that of Operation ALTHEA. Formal meetings between the PSC and NAC were suspended as Turkey objected, and still does, to Cyprus sitting in on such meetings without a NATO security agreement – which Turkey refuses to allow. Informal meetings do take place but these have been described to me by both PSC and NAC ambassadors during my research as “dull”, “highly scripted” and “uninspiring”. As a result, there has been a move towards enhancing cooperation at the inter-organisational level to compensate for deficiencies at the formal political level. As I have argued elsewhere, the reality today is that the EU and NATO cooperate far more outside of the formal Berlin Plus relationship than they do inside it. There has been a renewed impetus to enhance relations since the signing of a EU-NATO Joint Declaration in 2016 but there are still major obstacles to an effective strategic partnership between the two institutions. (Simon J Smith is Associate Professor of Security and International Relations, Staffordshire University (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

NATO and the EU: A short history of an uneasy relationship

The death toll from the most powerful earthquake to strike<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../death-toll-in-albania-earthquake-climbs-to-30- rescuers-race-to-save-lives-264973"> Albania</a> in decades rose to 40 on Thursday after more bodies were pulled from the wreckage overnight in a tragedy that has wiped out whole families.&nbsp;

The 6.4 magnitude earthquake rocked the Balkan state while people were sleeping just before 4:00 am (0300 GMT) on Tuesday, razing buildings and trapping victims beneath the debris in towns near the Adriatic coast.

Rescue teams were still shovelling away massive chunks of collapsed apartments and hotels in the coastal city of Durres, where nearly 30 buildings were badly damaged.

Teams from around Europe have flown in to help with the effort, bringing dogs and specialised cameras to hunt for survivors, around 50 of whom have been pulled out alive, mostly on Tuesday.

As the operation stretched into day three, rescuers insisted there was still reason to hope for more survival stories.&nbsp;

"There may be hope for up to eight or ten days" for victims to live after an earthquake, Captain Joel Leroy, a French rescuer, told AFP.

His team of around 50 was searching for two people believed to be buried at the site of seven-story building in Durres, where two or three floors toppled over and sunk into the ground.&nbsp;

Victims may still be in "survival pockets" of air that allow them to breathe under the rubble, he explained.

"That's why we are working so hard, we believe in it," he added.

Search efforts ceased Thursday in the other hard-hit town of Thumane, where the defence ministry said there were no more missing after more than 20 bodies were pulled out in recent days.

During the night, emergency workers uncovered the corpses of a mother and son from the Reci family, found in an embrace.

They were crushed by the weight of a collapsed six-storey building in Durres.&nbsp;

The whole family has now perished in the quake, with the bodies of a father and daughter pulled out the day before, according to Ilir Duka, an Albanian rescuer at the scene.&nbsp;

Similar tragedies have befallen other families as the pre-dawn quake shattered their homes.

Loved ones have watched on in horror as rescuers pulled out bodies covered in a grey film of dust, many in their pyjamas.&nbsp;

On Tuesday a woman was heard crying out from inside a wrecked building, where she was stuck inside with a dead child. She was eventually rescued but later died in hospital.

'Hope dies last'&nbsp; 
Around 50 survivors have been hospitalised and are "in a state of shock and worried about their loved ones", defence ministry spokeswoman Albana Qehajaj told AFP.

The number of people who may still be buried in the rubble is unknown.

Rescuers, helped by teams from across Europe, have been working in perilous conditions as hundreds of aftershocks rattle buildings, interrupting search efforts.&nbsp;

"It's a heavy operation, but that's why we're here, we've been doing this for a long time," said an Italian rescue worker who didn't give his name.

"Hope dies last," he said, adding that survivors have been found up to four days after an earthquake in some instances.

The Italian team was working with dogs to search on a flattened four-storey house that belonged to the Lala family and their relatives.

Two toddlers and their mother were among those who have not yet been found in the debris, their neighbour Fatmira, dressed in black and whispering through tears, told AFP.

Moved to hotels&nbsp; 
Thousands of people have been displaced, either because their homes were severely damaged or were still unsafe because of the continuing aftershocks.

On Wednesday night authorities in Durres moved those who had been sleeping in tents to hotels and a sports centre.

Prime Minister Edi Rama has promised to rehouse the newly homeless by next year.

Illegal construction is rife in Albania, where chaotic development exploded after the fall of communism in 1990.

Many buildings lack proper permits and do not adhere to safety codes.&nbsp;

The earthquake was the deadliest in several decades in Albania, which lies near a tectonic fault line.&nbsp;

The death toll from the most powerful earthquake to strike Albania in decades rose to 40 on Thursday after more bodies were pulled from the wreckage overnight in a tragedy that has wiped out whole families.

The death toll from the most powerful earthquake to strike Albania in decades rose to 40 on Thursday after more bodies were pulled from the wreckage overnight in a tragedy that has wiped out whole families. The 6.4 magnitude earthquake rocked the Balkan state while people were sleeping just before 4:00 am (0300 GMT) on Tuesday, razing buildings and trapping victims beneath the debris in towns near the Adriatic coast. Rescue teams were still shovelling away massive chunks of collapsed apartments and hotels in the coastal city of Durres, where nearly 30 buildings were badly damaged. Teams from around Europe have flown in to help with the effort, bringing dogs and specialised cameras to hunt for survivors, around 50 of whom have been pulled out alive, mostly on Tuesday. As the operation stretched into day three, rescuers insisted there was still reason to hope for more survival stories. "There may be hope for up to eight or ten days" for victims to live after an earthquake, Captain Joel Leroy, a French rescuer, told AFP. His team of around 50 was searching for two people believed to be buried at the site of seven-story building in Durres, where two or three floors toppled over and sunk into the ground. Victims may still be in "survival pockets" of air that allow them to breathe under the rubble, he explained. "That's why we are working so hard, we believe in it," he added. Search efforts ceased Thursday in the other hard-hit town of Thumane, where the defence ministry said there were no more missing after more than 20 bodies were pulled out in recent days. During the night, emergency workers uncovered the corpses of a mother and son from the Reci family, found in an embrace. They were crushed by the weight of a collapsed six-storey building in Durres. The whole family has now perished in the quake, with the bodies of a father and daughter pulled out the day before, according to Ilir Duka, an Albanian rescuer at the scene. Similar tragedies have befallen other families as the pre-dawn quake shattered their homes. Loved ones have watched on in horror as rescuers pulled out bodies covered in a grey film of dust, many in their pyjamas. On Tuesday a woman was heard crying out from inside a wrecked building, where she was stuck inside with a dead child. She was eventually rescued but later died in hospital. 'Hope dies last' Around 50 survivors have been hospitalised and are "in a state of shock and worried about their loved ones", defence ministry spokeswoman Albana Qehajaj told AFP. The number of people who may still be buried in the rubble is unknown. Rescuers, helped by teams from across Europe, have been working in perilous conditions as hundreds of aftershocks rattle buildings, interrupting search efforts. "It's a heavy operation, but that's why we're here, we've been doing this for a long time," said an Italian rescue worker who didn't give his name. "Hope dies last," he said, adding that survivors have been found up to four days after an earthquake in some instances. The Italian team was working with dogs to search on a flattened four-storey house that belonged to the Lala family and their relatives. Two toddlers and their mother were among those who have not yet been found in the debris, their neighbour Fatmira, dressed in black and whispering through tears, told AFP. Moved to hotels Thousands of people have been displaced, either because their homes were severely damaged or were still unsafe because of the continuing aftershocks. On Wednesday night authorities in Durres moved those who had been sleeping in tents to hotels and a sports centre. Prime Minister Edi Rama has promised to rehouse the newly homeless by next year. Illegal construction is rife in Albania, where chaotic development exploded after the fall of communism in 1990. Many buildings lack proper permits and do not adhere to safety codes. The earthquake was the deadliest in several decades in Albania, which lies near a tectonic fault line.

Forty dead as families pulled from Albania earthquake rubble

Net <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../no-more-preferential-treatment-for-eu-migrants -after-brexit-uk-conservatives-262734">migration to Britain</a> fell to its lowest level in nearly six years during the year to June, driven by a fall in the number of European Union citizens moving to the country for work ahead of <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../wion-edit-lessons-to-learn-from-jeremy-corbyns -blunders-265031">Brexit</a>, official data showed on Thursday.

The Office for National Statistics said 212,000 more people moved to Britain than left, the lowest total since the year to September 2013.

Immigration of EU citizens fell to 199,000 the lowest level since the year ending March 2013, the ONS said, extending a declining trend since the 2016 referendum, when Britons voted by 52 per cent&nbsp;to 48 per cent&nbsp;to leave the EU.

By contrast, 151,000 EU citizens left Britain in the year to June, the largest total since records started 10 years ago.

Immigration is a hot political topic ahead of the December&nbsp;12 national election.

Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pledged to limit the number of people coming to Britain by implementing an Australian-style points system, while the opposition Labour Party said migration policy should fit the needs of the economy.

"While there are still more EU citizens moving to the UK than leaving, EU net migration has fallen since 2016, driven by fewer EU arrivals for work," the ONS said in a statement.

"In contrast, non-EU net migration has gradually increased for the past six years, largely as more non-EU citizens came to study."

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../uk-election-poll-predicts-conservative-majority- 264965">Johnson</a> has said Britain will leave the EU by the end of January if his ruling Conservatives win a parliamentary majority in a Dec. 12 election.

Net migration to Britain fell to its lowest level in nearly six years during the year to June, driven by a fall in the number of European Union citizens moving to the country for work ahead of Brexit, official data showed on Thursday.

Net migration to Britain fell to its lowest level in nearly six years during the year to June, driven by a fall in the number of European Union citizens moving to the country for work ahead of Brexit, official data showed on Thursday. The Office for National Statistics said 212,000 more people moved to Britain than left, the lowest total since the year to September 2013. Immigration of EU citizens fell to 199,000 the lowest level since the year ending March 2013, the ONS said, extending a declining trend since the 2016 referendum, when Britons voted by 52 per cent to 48 per cent to leave the EU. By contrast, 151,000 EU citizens left Britain in the year to June, the largest total since records started 10 years ago. Immigration is a hot political topic ahead of the December 12 national election. Prime Minister Boris Johnson has pledged to limit the number of people coming to Britain by implementing an Australian-style points system, while the opposition Labour Party said migration policy should fit the needs of the economy. "While there are still more EU citizens moving to the UK than leaving, EU net migration has fallen since 2016, driven by fewer EU arrivals for work," the ONS said in a statement. "In contrast, non-EU net migration has gradually increased for the past six years, largely as more non-EU citizens came to study." Johnson has said Britain will leave the EU by the end of January if his ruling Conservatives win a parliamentary majority in a Dec. 12 election.

Net migration to UK falls to lowest level in almost six years: Official data

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt

If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind.

1. Your vote does matter

The first and by far and away the most important reason to vote is that, regardless of what anyone might tell you, it matters. The ongoing saga of Brexit is very much a case in point. The way people voted in 2015 resulted in a majority Conservative Party government, which paved the way for the 2016 Brexit referendum. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

In the referendum of 2016, a majority of those who voted, voted for Leave. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

The way people voted in 2017 deprived Theresa May of a parliamentary majority – which meant the then prime minister was unable to get her deal through parliament, a problem inherited by her successor, Boris Johnson. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered.

It is true that in many parts of the UK some parties utterly dominate. There are areas of the UK that have been represented by MPs from the same party since the 1800s. In areas where one party has a massive majority it may seem that voting will make little difference, which can be deeply frustrating. However, not voting is the one thing guaranteed to make no difference.

Even if voting will not affect the outcome of the result in an individual constituency, it will affect national vote shares for the parties. Parties that cannot win can still get their agendas taken seriously by the other parties if their vote share is strong. Part of the reason why the former prime minister, David Cameron, decided to call a referendum in the first place was the rise of UKIP as a political force. The newer party had no significant presence in parliament but had Cameron’s Conservatives running scared every time it increased its vote share.

In addition, national vote share is increasingly part of the political debate after elections and your vote can be part of that story, even if it doesn’t swing your constituency result. Again, voting matters.

2. Turn up to change the system

Even if you have no hope of your vote making a difference in your constituency, at least consider going to your local polling station and spoiling your ballot paper. This is not a pointless exercise. If thousands of voters in safe constituencies spoiled their ballot papers it would give ammunition to those who are campaigning to replace the UK’s antiquated electoral system with something that gives votes everywhere more weight. The number of spoiled ballots is recorded in each constituency.

3. Defending democracy

Having the right to vote cannot be taken for granted. Just as the right to vote can be obtained, so it can be lost. There are numerous examples of countries where democratic standards were undermined, sometimes fatally so.

The UK’s democracy is still seen as being in good health. However, the Windrush scandal, the government’s attempt to prorogue parliament to avoid debate, and the potential impact of Brexit on human rights shows that the freedoms we have now are not immutable. The most simple and basic thing anyone can do to keep democracy strong is to vote. Arguably, voting is not enough in itself to protect freedoms, but it is a necessary minimum.

4. Don’t vote, can’t moan 
 
Any complaints you may have about anything related to politics (and everything is related to politics) will ring rather hollow after December 12 if you do not do the absolute minimum to make a difference by voting. Quite apart from Brexit, the plans presented by the main parties in their manifestos offer radically different futures for the country.

Voting is the most fundamental way of expressing an opinion on what the parties are planning on doing if elected. Failing to do so makes any subsequent complaints about what the government is doing fairly hypocritical. Don’t vote? Can’t moan! Want to moan? Got to vote!

5. Paying respects 
 
Having a system of government where ordinary people have a say in how they are governed is not automatic. Indeed, it was not always so in the United Kingdom.

The extension of the right to vote in the UK was a long and hard struggle with very real human costs – as exemplified by the 18 killed and hundreds injured during the Peterloo Massacre just over 200 years when cavalry (yes, men, on horses, wielding swords) attacked protesters demanding a greater say in how parliament was put together. This atrocity, and the brutality experienced by those who fought for the right of women to vote remind us how controversial the right to vote really is. Voting is a way of paying respect to those who suffered and died to secure that vote.

And finally, one last reason to vote, if the above still aren’t good enough, is that if people didn’t turn out on election day, we would not have #dogsatpollingstations.

 
(Rainbow Murray is Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London; Robin Pettitt is Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston University) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/five-reasons-to-vote-in-this-election-127666">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind.

By Rainbow Murray and Robin Pettitt If you live in a safe seat, don’t feel inspired by the choices on offer, and/or would rather spend December 12 doing your Christmas shopping, you might be considering not voting in the 2019 general election – then here are five reasons to change your mind. 1. Your vote does matter The first and by far and away the most important reason to vote is that, regardless of what anyone might tell you, it matters. The ongoing saga of Brexit is very much a case in point. The way people voted in 2015 resulted in a majority Conservative Party government, which paved the way for the 2016 Brexit referendum. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. In the referendum of 2016, a majority of those who voted, voted for Leave. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. The way people voted in 2017 deprived Theresa May of a parliamentary majority – which meant the then prime minister was unable to get her deal through parliament, a problem inherited by her successor, Boris Johnson. Regardless of whether you think that was a good thing or not, voting mattered. It is true that in many parts of the UK some parties utterly dominate. There are areas of the UK that have been represented by MPs from the same party since the 1800s. In areas where one party has a massive majority it may seem that voting will make little difference, which can be deeply frustrating. However, not voting is the one thing guaranteed to make no difference. Even if voting will not affect the outcome of the result in an individual constituency, it will affect national vote shares for the parties. Parties that cannot win can still get their agendas taken seriously by the other parties if their vote share is strong. Part of the reason why the former prime minister, David Cameron, decided to call a referendum in the first place was the rise of UKIP as a political force. The newer party had no significant presence in parliament but had Cameron’s Conservatives running scared every time it increased its vote share. In addition, national vote share is increasingly part of the political debate after elections and your vote can be part of that story, even if it doesn’t swing your constituency result. Again, voting matters. 2. Turn up to change the system Even if you have no hope of your vote making a difference in your constituency, at least consider going to your local polling station and spoiling your ballot paper. This is not a pointless exercise. If thousands of voters in safe constituencies spoiled their ballot papers it would give ammunition to those who are campaigning to replace the UK’s antiquated electoral system with something that gives votes everywhere more weight. The number of spoiled ballots is recorded in each constituency. 3. Defending democracy Having the right to vote cannot be taken for granted. Just as the right to vote can be obtained, so it can be lost. There are numerous examples of countries where democratic standards were undermined, sometimes fatally so. The UK’s democracy is still seen as being in good health. However, the Windrush scandal, the government’s attempt to prorogue parliament to avoid debate, and the potential impact of Brexit on human rights shows that the freedoms we have now are not immutable. The most simple and basic thing anyone can do to keep democracy strong is to vote. Arguably, voting is not enough in itself to protect freedoms, but it is a necessary minimum. 4. Don’t vote, can’t moan Any complaints you may have about anything related to politics (and everything is related to politics) will ring rather hollow after December 12 if you do not do the absolute minimum to make a difference by voting. Quite apart from Brexit, the plans presented by the main parties in their manifestos offer radically different futures for the country. Voting is the most fundamental way of expressing an opinion on what the parties are planning on doing if elected. Failing to do so makes any subsequent complaints about what the government is doing fairly hypocritical. Don’t vote? Can’t moan! Want to moan? Got to vote! 5. Paying respects Having a system of government where ordinary people have a say in how they are governed is not automatic. Indeed, it was not always so in the United Kingdom. The extension of the right to vote in the UK was a long and hard struggle with very real human costs – as exemplified by the 18 killed and hundreds injured during the Peterloo Massacre just over 200 years when cavalry (yes, men, on horses, wielding swords) attacked protesters demanding a greater say in how parliament was put together. This atrocity, and the brutality experienced by those who fought for the right of women to vote remind us how controversial the right to vote really is. Voting is a way of paying respect to those who suffered and died to secure that vote. And finally, one last reason to vote, if the above still aren’t good enough, is that if people didn’t turn out on election day, we would not have #dogsatpollingstations. (Rainbow Murray is Professor of Politics, Queen Mary University of London; Robin Pettitt is Senior Lecturer in Comparative Politics, Kingston University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

UK elections 2019: Five reasons to vote

Up to 20,000 opposition supporters rallied in<a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../police-in-georgia-detain-protesters-demanding- early-election-263008"> Georgia</a> on Monday, stepping up pressure on the increasingly unpopular ruling party, despite a police crackdown last week and the arrest of protesters.

Waving Georgian and European Union flags, and chanting "Change!" and "Resign!" protesters marched on the capital Tbilisi's main thoroughfare before gathering outside the parliament building.

Opposition leaders said at the rally that mass protests will continue until their demands for electoral reforms, the government's resignation and snap legislative elections are met.

"Georgian people and the entire opposition spectrum is trying to force the ruling party to introduce a fair electoral system in the country," the leader of opposition Republican Party, Levan Berdzenishvili, told AFP.

"Mass protests will continue until our demands are met," he added.

Braving sub-zero temperatures, hundreds of protesters -- who were mostly young -- stayed at the protest overnight, many dancing to electronic music.&nbsp;

They blocked entrances to parliament, vowing to prevent lawmakers from entering the building where a plenary session is set to be held on Tuesday.

In the early hours on Tuesday, police arrested five protesters and briefly detained prominent opposition MPs, Giga Bokeria of the European Georgia party, and Tengiz Gunava of Georgia's main opposition force, the United National Movement.

"The government has lost popular support and only relies on police force," one of the protesters, Elene Mikadze, 21, told AFP.

"That means its end is coming."

Pro-opposition Mtavari TV station reported that riot police has been deployed in numbers in parliament's underground compound and in the prime minister's office.

The demonstrators have held a series of mass protests after MPs from the ruling Georgian Dream party voted down on November 14 legislation to hold parliamentary elections next year under a new proportional voting system.

Opposition parties have called the rallies after forming a rare united front against Georgian Dream led by oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, whom they accuse of orchestrating the bill's failure.

"Rejected compromise"&nbsp; 
Protesters say that the current voting system unfairly favours the ruling party, which won nearly 77 percent of seats in the 2016 parliamentary election despite garnering only 48.7 per cent of the vote.

Georgian Dream has ruled out early polls and on Monday rejected the opposition's new compromise initiative of legislative amendments that would create a level playing field for all the political forces in the tiny Black Sea nation.

Last Monday, riot police used water cannons to disperse protesters and arrested several dozen people outside the parliament building.

Ten demonstrators have been jailed for terms ranging from four to 13 days for "disobeying police orders".

Georgia's public defender said at the time that the prosecution of the peaceful protesters "failed to meet minimum judicial standards."

In a joint statement last week, the embassies of the United States and European Union criticised Georgian Dream's failure to introduce the electoral reform and expressed solidarity with the protesters.

Ivanishvili had promised "large-scale political reform" following a summer of protests that saw 240 people injured in a police crackdown.

Two protesters including a teenage girl lost an eye.

In power since 2012, the ruling party has seen its popularity plummet amid widespread discontent over economic stagnation and perceived backsliding on its commitment to democracy.

Critics accuse Ivanishvili, who is widely believed to be the man in charge in Georgia,&nbsp;of persecuting political opponents, suffocating critical media, and creating a corrupt political system where his private interests dominate government decision-making.

Up to 20,000 opposition supporters rallied in Georgia on Monday, stepping up pressure on the increasingly unpopular ruling party, despite a police crackdown last week and the arrest of protesters.

Up to 20,000 opposition supporters rallied in Georgia on Monday, stepping up pressure on the increasingly unpopular ruling party, despite a police crackdown last week and the arrest of protesters. Waving Georgian and European Union flags, and chanting "Change!" and "Resign!" protesters marched on the capital Tbilisi's main thoroughfare before gathering outside the parliament building. Opposition leaders said at the rally that mass protests will continue until their demands for electoral reforms, the government's resignation and snap legislative elections are met. "Georgian people and the entire opposition spectrum is trying to force the ruling party to introduce a fair electoral system in the country," the leader of opposition Republican Party, Levan Berdzenishvili, told AFP. "Mass protests will continue until our demands are met," he added. Braving sub-zero temperatures, hundreds of protesters -- who were mostly young -- stayed at the protest overnight, many dancing to electronic music. They blocked entrances to parliament, vowing to prevent lawmakers from entering the building where a plenary session is set to be held on Tuesday. In the early hours on Tuesday, police arrested five protesters and briefly detained prominent opposition MPs, Giga Bokeria of the European Georgia party, and Tengiz Gunava of Georgia's main opposition force, the United National Movement. "The government has lost popular support and only relies on police force," one of the protesters, Elene Mikadze, 21, told AFP. "That means its end is coming." Pro-opposition Mtavari TV station reported that riot police has been deployed in numbers in parliament's underground compound and in the prime minister's office. The demonstrators have held a series of mass protests after MPs from the ruling Georgian Dream party voted down on November 14 legislation to hold parliamentary elections next year under a new proportional voting system. Opposition parties have called the rallies after forming a rare united front against Georgian Dream led by oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, whom they accuse of orchestrating the bill's failure. "Rejected compromise" Protesters say that the current voting system unfairly favours the ruling party, which won nearly 77 percent of seats in the 2016 parliamentary election despite garnering only 48.7 per cent of the vote. Georgian Dream has ruled out early polls and on Monday rejected the opposition's new compromise initiative of legislative amendments that would create a level playing field for all the political forces in the tiny Black Sea nation. Last Monday, riot police used water cannons to disperse protesters and arrested several dozen people outside the parliament building. Ten demonstrators have been jailed for terms ranging from four to 13 days for "disobeying police orders". Georgia's public defender said at the time that the prosecution of the peaceful protesters "failed to meet minimum judicial standards." In a joint statement last week, the embassies of the United States and European Union criticised Georgian Dream's failure to introduce the electoral reform and expressed solidarity with the protesters. Ivanishvili had promised "large-scale political reform" following a summer of protests that saw 240 people injured in a police crackdown. Two protesters including a teenage girl lost an eye. In power since 2012, the ruling party has seen its popularity plummet amid widespread discontent over economic stagnation and perceived backsliding on its commitment to democracy. Critics accuse Ivanishvili, who is widely believed to be the man in charge in Georgia, of persecuting political opponents, suffocating critical media, and creating a corrupt political system where his private interests dominate government decision-making.

Defiant Georgia opposition stages fresh protest despite crackdown

The United States faced stiff international and Palestinian criticism Tuesday over its decision to no longer consider Israeli settlements illegal, while the Jewish state's premier cheered on the "historic" move.

The United Nations and European Union stressed the decision would not change the reality that the settlements were illegal, while the Arab League condemned the unilateral move announced Monday by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, said he was "very moved" by the announcement.

Pompeo said that after legal consultation Washington had concluded the establishment of settlements was "not, per se, inconsistent with international law", saying he trusted the Israeli courts to decide.

The decision puts the United States at odds with virtually the whole of the rest of the international community and breaks with UN Security Council resolutions declaring settlements to be illegal as they are built in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Israeli courts, however, have declared most major settlements legal.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the US decision did "not modify existing international law, nor its interpretation by the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council".

The EU reiterated it still considers all settlement activity illegal.

Netanyahu visited the Gush Etzion settlement bloc in the West Bank south of Jerusalem on Tuesday.

"Here we are on a historic day with another tremendous achievement for the State of Israel," he told settler leaders, according to a statement.

"The Trump administration has corrected a historic injustice and lined up with truth and justice."

More than 600,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, alongside more than three million Palestinians.

Israel seized control of the territories, seen as pivotal parts of any future Palestinian state, in the 1967 Six-Day War.

Settlements are seen as one of the most difficult issues in the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

'Dangerous consequences'

The announcement is the latest in a series of pro-Israeli moves by US President Donald Trump's administration, including recognising the disputed city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital.

Analysts say it will further embolden the settlement movement and may fend off potential legal moves against Israel.

The Arab League called it an "extremely adverse development".

The Palestinian Authority — which considers the US biased and has rejected the Trump administration as a mediator if peace talks are ever revived — called for an emergency meeting of the body.

The only two Arab states to have signed peace treaties with Israel — Egypt and Jordan — also sharply criticised the US policy shift, with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi warning of "dangerous consequences".

Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said they would take a series of measures to oppose it, including calling for a United Nations Security Council debate.

"We are going to the (UN) General Assembly and we will ask... the International Criminal Court to open an official judicial investigation," he added.

'On our knees'

The US policy shift was widely seen as an attempt to change the legal context for a series of suits and complaints against Israel.&nbsp;

The European Union's top court last week ruled that EU countries must identify products made in Israeli settlements on their labels.

The ICC is expected to take key decisions on two cases against Israel in the coming weeks, including relating to Israeli settlements.

Ofer Zalzberg, the senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group think-tank, said the US was trying to weaken the legal pressure on its ally.

"The Trump administration is trying to unravel international consensus on this issue of the illegality of settlements," he said.

"It adds to a deepening politicisation of international law, making it appear to be malleable to political opinions."

Israeli settlers, who overwhelmingly form part of Netanyahu's right-wing constituency, said the US policy change paved the way for the annexation of West Bank settlements into Israel.

"The illegality of settlements has always been stated as a fact-based upon an international consensus. The breaking of that consensus is important," said Avi Bell, a senior fellow at the right-wing Kohelet Policy Forum in Israel.

Erekat said it was only the latest move by the US to try to force the Palestinians to capitulate and give up their claims to an independent state.

"They wanted us on our knees and they used every trick -- internally, externally, regionally -- to put pressure on us. We stand tall and we will stand tall."

The United States faced stiff international and Palestinian criticism Tuesday over its decision to no longer consider Israeli settlements illegal, while the Jewish state's premier cheered on the "historic" move.

The United States faced stiff international and Palestinian criticism Tuesday over its decision to no longer consider Israeli settlements illegal, while the Jewish state's premier cheered on the "historic" move. The United Nations and European Union stressed the decision would not change the reality that the settlements were illegal, while the Arab League condemned the unilateral move announced Monday by US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, however, said he was "very moved" by the announcement. Pompeo said that after legal consultation Washington had concluded the establishment of settlements was "not, per se, inconsistent with international law", saying he trusted the Israeli courts to decide. The decision puts the United States at odds with virtually the whole of the rest of the international community and breaks with UN Security Council resolutions declaring settlements to be illegal as they are built in the occupied Palestinian territories. Israeli courts, however, have declared most major settlements legal. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights said the US decision did "not modify existing international law, nor its interpretation by the International Court of Justice and the UN Security Council". The EU reiterated it still considers all settlement activity illegal. Netanyahu visited the Gush Etzion settlement bloc in the West Bank south of Jerusalem on Tuesday. "Here we are on a historic day with another tremendous achievement for the State of Israel," he told settler leaders, according to a statement. "The Trump administration has corrected a historic injustice and lined up with truth and justice." More than 600,000 Israelis live in settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, alongside more than three million Palestinians. Israel seized control of the territories, seen as pivotal parts of any future Palestinian state, in the 1967 Six-Day War. Settlements are seen as one of the most difficult issues in the decades-long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. 'Dangerous consequences' The announcement is the latest in a series of pro-Israeli moves by US President Donald Trump's administration, including recognising the disputed city of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. Analysts say it will further embolden the settlement movement and may fend off potential legal moves against Israel. The Arab League called it an "extremely adverse development". The Palestinian Authority — which considers the US biased and has rejected the Trump administration as a mediator if peace talks are ever revived — called for an emergency meeting of the body. The only two Arab states to have signed peace treaties with Israel — Egypt and Jordan — also sharply criticised the US policy shift, with Jordanian Foreign Minister Ayman Safadi warning of "dangerous consequences". Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat said they would take a series of measures to oppose it, including calling for a United Nations Security Council debate. "We are going to the (UN) General Assembly and we will ask... the International Criminal Court to open an official judicial investigation," he added. 'On our knees' The US policy shift was widely seen as an attempt to change the legal context for a series of suits and complaints against Israel. The European Union's top court last week ruled that EU countries must identify products made in Israeli settlements on their labels. The ICC is expected to take key decisions on two cases against Israel in the coming weeks, including relating to Israeli settlements. Ofer Zalzberg, the senior Middle East analyst with the International Crisis Group think-tank, said the US was trying to weaken the legal pressure on its ally. "The Trump administration is trying to unravel international consensus on this issue of the illegality of settlements," he said. "It adds to a deepening politicisation of international law, making it appear to be malleable to political opinions." Israeli settlers, who overwhelmingly form part of Netanyahu's right-wing constituency, said the US policy change paved the way for the annexation of West Bank settlements into Israel. "The illegality of settlements has always been stated as a fact-based upon an international consensus. The breaking of that consensus is important," said Avi Bell, a senior fellow at the right-wing Kohelet Policy Forum in Israel. Erekat said it was only the latest move by the US to try to force the Palestinians to capitulate and give up their claims to an independent state. "They wanted us on our knees and they used every trick -- internally, externally, regionally -- to put pressure on us. We stand tall and we will stand tall."

US faces Palestinian, international criticism of Israel settlement move

By Dimitrios Syrrakos

The eurozone has emerged from its debt crisis of 2010-18 intact, but at a very high cost to the periphery. Greece’s exit from its third bailout in August 2018, the swan song of the crisis, is perceived as successful only from a purely accounting perspective. Of the approximately €290 billion (£248 billion) lent to the country overall by the IMF, European Commission and European Central Bank, less than 12 per cent was spent on investment.

The remainder has been used to service Greece’s spiralling national debt, and even then, repayments are only covered up to 2022. Thanks to the government spending cuts implemented from 2010-18 in return for these loans, unemployment is still running at 17 per cent.

What timing for the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, to make his first official visit to Athens, intensifying a friendship between the two countries that has been developing for more than a decade. Earlier this year, Greece already became a member of China’s 17+1 initiative, which aims to deepen cooperation between Beijing and 17 states in central and eastern Europe and the Balkans.

The initiative is part of China’s One Belt One Road project to develop connectivity and trade in Eurasia and beyond, to which the Greeks committed as far back as 2009 – the first developed economy and NATO member to do so. Greece has also unnerved its Western allies in the past couple of years by obstructing EU plans to condemn China over issues like human rights and the law of the sea.

To mark Xi Jinping’s visit to Athens, 16 new bilateral agreements were announced. They build on previous Chinese investments into Greek shipping, while also covering sectors as diverse as education and agriculture. This comes just two months after the Chinese president made a similar trip to Italy. That, too, saw the announcement of trade deals covering various sectors worth multiple billions of euros. The Italians also became the first major Western power to endorse One Belt One Road.

The Chinese alternative

The timing of these Italian and Greek announcements is not a coincidence. Italy, like Greece, is saddled with high debts and is bearing the brunt of the EU external migration crisis. Both countries had been calling on the EU for pan-European investment programmes for the past three years, but were rejected outright by core eurozone members like Germany, the Netherlands and Finland.

Greece and Italy are attempting the fine balancing act of dealing with China without undermining the EU’s overarching external trade policy, but the EU and Americans are still uneasy. The EU, in particular, is worried about China promoting its alternative model of governance without democracy.

In the case of the Greek announcement, one major concern is China’s involvement in the port of Piraeus via its state-owned China Ocean Shipping Corporation (COSCO). Though COSCO has taken stakes in at least 15 European ports in recent years, including the likes of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Marseilles, the port of Piraeus is a particularly eye-catching commitment.

The Chinese became the port’s majority owner in 2016, and had already committed €800m towards upgrading its facilities. Now there will be a further €600m investment. This aims to turn Piraeus into the biggest commercial port in Europe, while raising COSCO’s stake from 51 per cent to 67 per cent by 2022. The Chinese see Piraeus as a gateway to EU markets, with a strategic role in Asia-European-African trade routes thanks to its close proximity to the Suez Canal.

Greece’s participation in China’s 17+1 initiative is also viewed by the West as particularly significant. Greece is the biggest of the five eurozone members to have joined – the others are Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Membership is part of Greece’s broader plan to realise international trade agreements via new trade routes. The move seems to have rejuvenated an initiative which has been limited to upgrading infrastructure and had stalled since 2016.

While Greece initially joined 17+1 under its hard-left Syriza government, the fact that the new conservative government is prepared to upgrade strategic relations with China demonstrates that the relationship can survive political change in Athens. Xi Jinping’s visit came just a week after prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis visited Shanghai, after China made Greece the official guest country of the 2019 China International Import Expo.

The way ahead

In truth, it looks somewhat late for the EU to be concerned about these moves by Greece and Italy. They are the direct result of the strict bailouts and the eurozone’s refusal to invest seriously in either country. Other eurozone reforms that might help these countries – a eurozone fiscal union with an unemployment insurance programme; a eurozone banking union with a pan-European deposits guarantee scheme; a single European immigration policy – are also long overdue.

To make matters worse, eurozone growth rates have slowed considerably – led by Germany, the supposed powerhouse. France seems to be the only member yet to feel the impact of US tariffs, the Brexit process and the slowdown in the Chinese economy. The gloom is being exacerbated by the likes of the new fragmented European parliament and fragile Italian banks.

This all means that there is less room for manoeuvre than there might have been two or three years ago. So while the West may wish that its Mediterranean allies were not looking eastwards, it is going to be difficult to put this particular genie back inside its bottle. The growing sense in Rome and Athens that they have been abandoned by their allies will be difficult to reverse.

(Dimitrios Syrrakos is Deputy Head - Department of Economics, Policy and International Business, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester Metropolitan University)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/chinas-relationships-with-greece-and-italy-are-deepening-eu-is-reaping-exactly-what-it-sowed-127087">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) &nbsp;

By Dimitrios Syrrakos The eurozone has emerged from its debt crisis of 2010-18 intact, but at a very high cost to the periphery. Greece’s exit from its third bailout in August 2018, the swan song of the crisis, is perceived as successful only from a purely accounting perspective.

By Dimitrios Syrrakos The eurozone has emerged from its debt crisis of 2010-18 intact, but at a very high cost to the periphery. Greece’s exit from its third bailout in August 2018, the swan song of the crisis, is perceived as successful only from a purely accounting perspective. Of the approximately €290 billion (£248 billion) lent to the country overall by the IMF, European Commission and European Central Bank, less than 12 per cent was spent on investment. The remainder has been used to service Greece’s spiralling national debt, and even then, repayments are only covered up to 2022. Thanks to the government spending cuts implemented from 2010-18 in return for these loans, unemployment is still running at 17 per cent. What timing for the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, to make his first official visit to Athens, intensifying a friendship between the two countries that has been developing for more than a decade. Earlier this year, Greece already became a member of China’s 17+1 initiative, which aims to deepen cooperation between Beijing and 17 states in central and eastern Europe and the Balkans. The initiative is part of China’s One Belt One Road project to develop connectivity and trade in Eurasia and beyond, to which the Greeks committed as far back as 2009 – the first developed economy and NATO member to do so. Greece has also unnerved its Western allies in the past couple of years by obstructing EU plans to condemn China over issues like human rights and the law of the sea. To mark Xi Jinping’s visit to Athens, 16 new bilateral agreements were announced. They build on previous Chinese investments into Greek shipping, while also covering sectors as diverse as education and agriculture. This comes just two months after the Chinese president made a similar trip to Italy. That, too, saw the announcement of trade deals covering various sectors worth multiple billions of euros. The Italians also became the first major Western power to endorse One Belt One Road. The Chinese alternative The timing of these Italian and Greek announcements is not a coincidence. Italy, like Greece, is saddled with high debts and is bearing the brunt of the EU external migration crisis. Both countries had been calling on the EU for pan-European investment programmes for the past three years, but were rejected outright by core eurozone members like Germany, the Netherlands and Finland. Greece and Italy are attempting the fine balancing act of dealing with China without undermining the EU’s overarching external trade policy, but the EU and Americans are still uneasy. The EU, in particular, is worried about China promoting its alternative model of governance without democracy. In the case of the Greek announcement, one major concern is China’s involvement in the port of Piraeus via its state-owned China Ocean Shipping Corporation (COSCO). Though COSCO has taken stakes in at least 15 European ports in recent years, including the likes of Rotterdam, Antwerp and Marseilles, the port of Piraeus is a particularly eye-catching commitment. The Chinese became the port’s majority owner in 2016, and had already committed €800m towards upgrading its facilities. Now there will be a further €600m investment. This aims to turn Piraeus into the biggest commercial port in Europe, while raising COSCO’s stake from 51 per cent to 67 per cent by 2022. The Chinese see Piraeus as a gateway to EU markets, with a strategic role in Asia-European-African trade routes thanks to its close proximity to the Suez Canal. Greece’s participation in China’s 17+1 initiative is also viewed by the West as particularly significant. Greece is the biggest of the five eurozone members to have joined – the others are Slovenia, Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia. Membership is part of Greece’s broader plan to realise international trade agreements via new trade routes. The move seems to have rejuvenated an initiative which has been limited to upgrading infrastructure and had stalled since 2016. While Greece initially joined 17+1 under its hard-left Syriza government, the fact that the new conservative government is prepared to upgrade strategic relations with China demonstrates that the relationship can survive political change in Athens. Xi Jinping’s visit came just a week after prime minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis visited Shanghai, after China made Greece the official guest country of the 2019 China International Import Expo. The way ahead In truth, it looks somewhat late for the EU to be concerned about these moves by Greece and Italy. They are the direct result of the strict bailouts and the eurozone’s refusal to invest seriously in either country. Other eurozone reforms that might help these countries – a eurozone fiscal union with an unemployment insurance programme; a eurozone banking union with a pan-European deposits guarantee scheme; a single European immigration policy – are also long overdue. To make matters worse, eurozone growth rates have slowed considerably – led by Germany, the supposed powerhouse. France seems to be the only member yet to feel the impact of US tariffs, the Brexit process and the slowdown in the Chinese economy. The gloom is being exacerbated by the likes of the new fragmented European parliament and fragile Italian banks. This all means that there is less room for manoeuvre than there might have been two or three years ago. So while the West may wish that its Mediterranean allies were not looking eastwards, it is going to be difficult to put this particular genie back inside its bottle. The growing sense in Rome and Athens that they have been abandoned by their allies will be difficult to reverse. (Dimitrios Syrrakos is Deputy Head - Department of Economics, Policy and International Business, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester Metropolitan University) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

China’s relationships with Greece and Italy are deepening – EU is reaping exactly what it sowed

The secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation on Tuesday welcomed a ruling by the <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../erdogan-defies-european-union-sanctions-threat -over-cyprus-drilling-261587">European Union</a>'s top court that Israeli settlement goods must be labelled as such.

"We welcome the decision of the European&nbsp;Court of Justice and call upon all European countries to implement what is a legal and political obligation," Saeb Erekat said in a statement.

"Our demand is not only for the correct labelling reflecting the certificate of origin&nbsp;of products coming from illegal colonial settlements but for the banning of those products from international markets."

Israel had not yet responded to the ruling but has in the past firmly opposed any such labelling.

The court said that, under EU rules on food labelling, it must be clear where products are from so that consumers can make choices based on "ethical considerations and considerations relating to the observance of international law."

The ruling comes after France's top tribunal asked for clarification of rules on labelling goods from the occupied West Bank and Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem, as well as the Golan Heights, which Israel took from Syria in 1967.

The secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation on Tuesday welcomed a ruling by the European Union's top court that Israeli settlement goods must be labelled as such.

The secretary-general of the Palestine Liberation Organisation on Tuesday welcomed a ruling by the European Union's top court that Israeli settlement goods must be labelled as such. "We welcome the decision of the European Court of Justice and call upon all European countries to implement what is a legal and political obligation," Saeb Erekat said in a statement. "Our demand is not only for the correct labelling reflecting the certificate of origin of products coming from illegal colonial settlements but for the banning of those products from international markets." Israel had not yet responded to the ruling but has in the past firmly opposed any such labelling. The court said that, under EU rules on food labelling, it must be clear where products are from so that consumers can make choices based on "ethical considerations and considerations relating to the observance of international law." The ruling comes after France's top tribunal asked for clarification of rules on labelling goods from the occupied West Bank and Israeli-annexed east Jerusalem, as well as the Golan Heights, which Israel took from Syria in 1967.

Palestine Liberation Organisation welcomes EU court ruling on labelling Israeli settlement goods

The <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../turkey-starts-repatriation-of-captured-islamic- state-militants-report-261349">European Union</a> extended sanctions against <a href="https://www.wionews.com/.../wion-wallet-teachers-continue-protest-in- venezuela-for-better-working-conditions-257868">Venezuela</a> by a year on Monday to pressure President Nicolas Maduro's government as the crisis gripping the oil-rich country rumbles on.

An embargo on arms and equipment that could be used for political repression was extended to November 14 next year, along with asset freezes and travel bans on 25 senior members of the Maduro regime blamed for rights abuses.

The European move comes less than a week after Washington slapped new sanctions on five more Venezuelan officials, vowing to maintain "maximum pressure" on the Maduro government.

The European Council, which groups the 28 member states, said the decision to extend the sanctions was taken "in light of the ongoing political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis", pointing to "persistent actions undermining democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights".

"These measures are intended to help encourage democratic shared solutions in order to bring political stability to the country and allow it to address the pressing needs of the population," the council said.

"The targeted measures are flexible and reversible and designed not to harm the Venezuelan population."

The EU imposed the arms embargo in November 2017 and has added various officials to the sanctions list since.

In January, US President Donald Trump declared Maduro illegitimate after a widely criticised election, with most Western and Latin American nations recognising opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim president.

But nearly a year of pressure has failed to dislodge Maduro, who retains the support of the military, Russia and China despite a crumbling economy.

The European Union extended sanctions against Venezuela by a year on Monday to pressure President Nicolas Maduro's government as the crisis gripping the oil-rich country rumbles on.

The European Union extended sanctions against Venezuela by a year on Monday to pressure President Nicolas Maduro's government as the crisis gripping the oil-rich country rumbles on. An embargo on arms and equipment that could be used for political repression was extended to November 14 next year, along with asset freezes and travel bans on 25 senior members of the Maduro regime blamed for rights abuses. The European move comes less than a week after Washington slapped new sanctions on five more Venezuelan officials, vowing to maintain "maximum pressure" on the Maduro government. The European Council, which groups the 28 member states, said the decision to extend the sanctions was taken "in light of the ongoing political, economic, social and humanitarian crisis", pointing to "persistent actions undermining democracy, the rule of law and the respect for human rights". "These measures are intended to help encourage democratic shared solutions in order to bring political stability to the country and allow it to address the pressing needs of the population," the council said. "The targeted measures are flexible and reversible and designed not to harm the Venezuelan population." The EU imposed the arms embargo in November 2017 and has added various officials to the sanctions list since. In January, US President Donald Trump declared Maduro illegitimate after a widely criticised election, with most Western and Latin American nations recognising opposition leader Juan Guaido as interim president. But nearly a year of pressure has failed to dislodge Maduro, who retains the support of the military, Russia and China despite a crumbling economy.

European Union extends sanctions against Venezuela for a year amid crisis

Will UK leave European Union by January 31? Watch video to know more.

Will UK leave European Union by January 31?

The European Commission declared Monday it has "zero tolerance for fraud" after the New York Times alleged the gigantic EU agriculture budget shores up political corruption in eastern member states.

The Commission has "very clear rules for how funds should be managed" and "takes any allegation of misuse very seriously," spokesman Daniel Rosario insisted.

Spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said the EU anti-fraud office, OLAF, looks into such allegations and added that the main responsibility for correct spending of the budget falls on member state governments.

"We are not here to replace national governments," she said. "We cannot and will not do the work for them."

The defensive statements came a day after a detailed New York Times report alleged that some of the EU's 59-billion-euro ($65-billion) farm subsidies from its common agriculture policy (CAP) prop up "oligarchs and political patrons" in eastern countries including, notably, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

The report found the system to be "warped by corruption and self-dealing" and argued that it had become too important to keeping the European Union together to be fundamentally reformed.

The Commission spokespeople shot back by saying that past abuses had been caught and referred to OLAF, and further investigations are ongoing.&nbsp;

But they admitted the European Union is only now about to get its first European Public Prosecutor's Office to go after wrongdoing involving EU funds that national governments are unable,&nbsp;or unwilling,&nbsp;to prosecute.

"We have a framework in place and this framework is working," Rosario said.

He added that "we are actually following up" on issues of conflict of interest as highlighted in the New York Times piece, which focused on alleged patronage under the system by Hungary's populist, and anti-EU,&nbsp;prime minister, Viktor Orban.

For its part the Hungarian government insisted that "the procedures in Hungary for administering EU agricultural subsidies fully satisfy EU rules and regulations for the management of these funds".

"The NYT's questions and sources clearly reflect a biased preconception about the topic," a government press spokesman said in a statement to AFP.

The CAP is a much-coveted line in the EU's budget. It consumes about 40 per cent of the bloc's overall budget, making it the largest single area of its spending.

While the Commission has proposed reducing it, major EU members including France and Spain firmly argue to maintain it, seeing it as essential in developing the Union and its cohesion.

The European Commission declared Monday it has "zero tolerance for fraud" after the New York Times alleged the gigantic EU agriculture budget shores up political corruption in eastern member states.

The European Commission declared Monday it has "zero tolerance for fraud" after the New York Times alleged the gigantic EU agriculture budget shores up political corruption in eastern member states. The Commission has "very clear rules for how funds should be managed" and "takes any allegation of misuse very seriously," spokesman Daniel Rosario insisted. Spokeswoman Mina Andreeva said the EU anti-fraud office, OLAF, looks into such allegations and added that the main responsibility for correct spending of the budget falls on member state governments. "We are not here to replace national governments," she said. "We cannot and will not do the work for them." The defensive statements came a day after a detailed New York Times report alleged that some of the EU's 59-billion-euro ($65-billion) farm subsidies from its common agriculture policy (CAP) prop up "oligarchs and political patrons" in eastern countries including, notably, Hungary and the Czech Republic. The report found the system to be "warped by corruption and self-dealing" and argued that it had become too important to keeping the European Union together to be fundamentally reformed. The Commission spokespeople shot back by saying that past abuses had been caught and referred to OLAF, and further investigations are ongoing. But they admitted the European Union is only now about to get its first European Public Prosecutor's Office to go after wrongdoing involving EU funds that national governments are unable, or unwilling, to prosecute. "We have a framework in place and this framework is working," Rosario said. He added that "we are actually following up" on issues of conflict of interest as highlighted in the New York Times piece, which focused on alleged patronage under the system by Hungary's populist, and anti-EU, prime minister, Viktor Orban. For its part the Hungarian government insisted that "the procedures in Hungary for administering EU agricultural subsidies fully satisfy EU rules and regulations for the management of these funds". "The NYT's questions and sources clearly reflect a biased preconception about the topic," a government press spokesman said in a statement to AFP. The CAP is a much-coveted line in the EU's budget. It consumes about 40 per cent of the bloc's overall budget, making it the largest single area of its spending. While the Commission has proposed reducing it, major EU members including France and Spain firmly argue to maintain it, seeing it as essential in developing the Union and its cohesion.

EU vows 'zero tolerance' after reported farm budget abuse

<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/british-election-campaign-kicks-off-on-no-brexit-day-259143">British Prime Minister Boris Johnson</a> sparked an angry backlash from Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage on Saturday after he rejected calls to drop his Brexit deal and embrace a clean break from the European Union, potentially splitting the eurosceptic vote.

Johnson had previously pledged to take Britain out of the EU with or without a deal on October&nbsp;31, before lawmakers voted to force him to seek an extension until January&nbsp;31.

But he has abandoned the threat of a <a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/united-kingdom-defends-brexit-deal-after-trumps-trade-warning-259275">no-deal Brexit</a> in his Conservative Party's manifesto for the December&nbsp;12 election, the Times newspaper reported on Saturday. It added that the focus would be on getting his Brexit deal approved.

On Friday, Johnson rejected a call from the Brexit Party to drop the deal he negotiated with the European Union last month in order to form a new electoral pact, saying that he could put his deal through parliament after any election win.

"What we’ve got is a fantastic deal that nobody thought we could get," Johnson said. "As soon as we get back in the middle of December, we can put that deal through."

In Britain's tortuous journey since the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU, businesses and economists have cautioned that leaving the bloc without a deal to smooth the transition would deliver a big blow to the British economy.

Proponents of a no-deal Brexit say it provides a clean break from EU rules and regulations.

"If The Times are right and Boris Johnson will abandon a clean break Brexit, and he wins an election on this, we will never be free of EU rules," Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage said in a tweet.

"The deal is simply not Brexit and does not get Brexit done."

Farage on Thursday interviewed US&nbsp;President Donald Trump, who said that Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain's opposition Labour party, would be "so bad" for Britain.

On Saturday, Corbyn said Trump was entitled to his opinion but again warned of the dangers of a trade deal with the United States, saying it threatened Britain's public National Health Service, a claim Johnson and Trump both deny.

"The reality of no-deal is (heading) straight into the arms of Donald Trump. Straight into the arms of a free trade deal with the USA... and their desire to take over our public services," Corbyn said at a rally in Swindon, 70 miles west of London.

"We will not go down that path under any circumstances. Our public services, our national health service is not for sale, to Donald Trump or anybody else."

Both major parties face battles on at least three fronts: Against each other, with the hardline Brexit Party seeking to poach leave voters, and with the Liberal Democrats seeking to win over those who oppose Brexit altogether.

Opinion polls give Johnson a sizeable lead over Labour, but also suggest that more than 10% of voters back the Brexit Party - enough to split the pro-Brexit vote in some seats and hand victory to Labour.

The Conservative manifesto will also not include a commitment to a fiscal rule, the Times reported, relaxing the government's grip on public finances. The Conservative party did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The government's previous fiscal rule pledged to hold the underlying budget deficit below 2% of the country's economic output in the 2020/21 financial year.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson sparked an angry backlash from Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage on Saturday after he rejected calls to drop his Brexit deal and embrace a clean break from the European Union, potentially splitting the eurosceptic vote.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson sparked an angry backlash from Brexit Party leader Nigel Farage on Saturday after he rejected calls to drop his Brexit deal and embrace a clean break from the European Union, potentially splitting the eurosceptic vote. Johnson had previously pledged to take Britain out of the EU with or without a deal on October 31, before lawmakers voted to force him to seek an extension until January 31. But he has abandoned the threat of a no-deal Brexit in his Conservative Party's manifesto for the December 12 election, the Times newspaper reported on Saturday. It added that the focus would be on getting his Brexit deal approved. On Friday, Johnson rejected a call from the Brexit Party to drop the deal he negotiated with the European Union last month in order to form a new electoral pact, saying that he could put his deal through parliament after any election win. "What we’ve got is a fantastic deal that nobody thought we could get," Johnson said. "As soon as we get back in the middle of December, we can put that deal through." In Britain's tortuous journey since the 2016 referendum vote to leave the EU, businesses and economists have cautioned that leaving the bloc without a deal to smooth the transition would deliver a big blow to the British economy. Proponents of a no-deal Brexit say it provides a clean break from EU rules and regulations. "If The Times are right and Boris Johnson will abandon a clean break Brexit, and he wins an election on this, we will never be free of EU rules," Brexit Party Leader Nigel Farage said in a tweet. "The deal is simply not Brexit and does not get Brexit done." Farage on Thursday interviewed US President Donald Trump, who said that Jeremy Corbyn, leader of Britain's opposition Labour party, would be "so bad" for Britain. On Saturday, Corbyn said Trump was entitled to his opinion but again warned of the dangers of a trade deal with the United States, saying it threatened Britain's public National Health Service, a claim Johnson and Trump both deny. "The reality of no-deal is (heading) straight into the arms of Donald Trump. Straight into the arms of a free trade deal with the USA... and their desire to take over our public services," Corbyn said at a rally in Swindon, 70 miles west of London. "We will not go down that path under any circumstances. Our public services, our national health service is not for sale, to Donald Trump or anybody else." Both major parties face battles on at least three fronts: Against each other, with the hardline Brexit Party seeking to poach leave voters, and with the Liberal Democrats seeking to win over those who oppose Brexit altogether. Opinion polls give Johnson a sizeable lead over Labour, but also suggest that more than 10% of voters back the Brexit Party - enough to split the pro-Brexit vote in some seats and hand victory to Labour. The Conservative manifesto will also not include a commitment to a fiscal rule, the Times reported, relaxing the government's grip on public finances. The Conservative party did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The government's previous fiscal rule pledged to hold the underlying budget deficit below 2% of the country's economic output in the 2020/21 financial year.

UK PM Boris Johnson rejects calls for no-deal Brexit in election pitch

Ministry of External Affairs Spokesperson, Raveesh Kumar shared some details of EU MPs visit to J&K.

Raveesh Kumar speaks on EU MPs visit to J&K

23 EU Lawmakers visits Kashmir in private capacity. Watch video to know more.

23 EU lawmakers visit Kashmir in personal capacity

Britain Set for December 12 Election to Break the Brexit Deadlock. Watch video to know more.

Britain set for December 12 election to break Brexit deadlock

Government's Decision To Allow EU Lawmakers To Visit Kashmir Provokes Strong Reactions A group of 28 European Union lawmakers will visit Kashmir tomorrow.

Gravitas: EU Panel To Visit Kashmir Tomorrow: Why Now & Why Them?

In all, 22 of the 27 members of European Parliament (MEPs) are Right-wing politicians in their home countries.

EU 27 Parliamentarians En route Kashmir

This segment of WION brings to you top stories of the morning from across the globe. Watch this video to get updated with the latest information.

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning - October 29th, 2019

Britain looked set Tuesday for a pre-Christmas election after the main opposition Labour party backed Prime Minister Boris Johnson's push for an early vote to try to overcome the lengthening political deadlock caused by Brexit.

Conservative leader Johnson -- overseeing a minority government -- is trying to lead Britain out of the deep crisis engulfing its EU departure that was meant to take place this Thursday.

But unable to get parliamentary support for his divorce deal with Brussels, he was forced to abandon his "do-or-die" pledge to leave the bloc on schedule and has begrudgingly accepted another extension until the end of January.

Britain's inability to break its half-century bond with the EU has halted costly "no-deal" exit preparations and reportedly seen freshly minted 50-pence commemorative Brexit coins melted down.

General elections have been held twice in the last four years -- in 2015 and 2017. The next is not scheduled to happen until 2022.

But Johnson has been trying to secure an early vote to try to win a majority to allow him to push through legislation to enact Brexit.

His third attempt to get parliament to agree to disband early and hold a general election on December 12 ended in failure on Monday after he fell well short of the required support of two-thirds of MPs.

But he was making a fresh bid for the same date on Tuesday using a different parliamentary procedure that would only require a simple majority.

He consulted his cabinet ministers to plot strategy in advance of another gruelling session of the lower House of Commons that could stretch into the night.

Johnson's new attempt amends existing laws requiring a two-thirds majority by proposing a simple bill with an election date.

"This house cannot any longer keep this country hostage," Johnson told lawmakers after they defeated Monday's election attempt.

- Date debate -

Johnson's election push received a big boost when the leader of the main opposition Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, indicated his support.

Veteran socialist Corbyn has been torn between rival camps within his own party and is facing poor polling numbers that show the Conservatives in a strong lead.

He has argued he cannot back an election until Johnson promises not to take Britain out of the EU without a new trade deal when the post-Brexit transition period ends in December 2020.

Britain would be following EU rules until that time.

But he said the latest delay to Brexit agreed by EU leaders on Monday meant "for the next there months, our condition of taking no-deal off the table has now been met".

"We will now launch the most ambitious and radical campaign for real change our country has ever seen," he added.

The sides must now settle on an election date.

Johnson insists on December 12. A rival plan proposed by the pro-European Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party (SNP) proposes December 9.

The second option is also preferred by Labour.

Some in the party say the later date reduces the number of more liberal students voting because it comes after they finish their semesters and return home for the winter break.

Labour's trade spokesman Barry Gardiner told BBC radio "the first thing" for Johnson to do to get his party's backing was "to ensure that students are not going to be disenfranchised by an election on December 12".

Corbyn did not specify a date in his statement.

"It will be a December election," a Labour source told AFP.

The last election to be held in December was in 1923, when Labour's Ramsay McDonald lost to the Conservatives led by Stanley Baldwin.

The debate appears to be one of principle.

The SNP's parliamentary leader Ian Blackford urged Labour to not "be the handmaidens to the prime minister's Brexit" and to fight for the earlier date.

Johnson is mainly concerned about amendments that could be attached to his bill.

One proposed option would extend voting rights to EU citizens -- a group that strongly opposed Brexit.

Another would lower the voting age from 18 to 16.

 
&nbsp;

Britain looked set Tuesday for a pre-Christmas election after the main opposition Labour party backed Prime Minister Boris Johnson's push for an early vote to try to overcome the lengthening political deadlock caused by Brexit.

Britain looked set Tuesday for a pre-Christmas election after the main opposition Labour party backed Prime Minister Boris Johnson's push for an early vote to try to overcome the lengthening political deadlock caused by Brexit. Conservative leader Johnson -- overseeing a minority government -- is trying to lead Britain out of the deep crisis engulfing its EU departure that was meant to take place this Thursday. But unable to get parliamentary support for his divorce deal with Brussels, he was forced to abandon his "do-or-die" pledge to leave the bloc on schedule and has begrudgingly accepted another extension until the end of January. Britain's inability to break its half-century bond with the EU has halted costly "no-deal" exit preparations and reportedly seen freshly minted 50-pence commemorative Brexit coins melted down. General elections have been held twice in the last four years -- in 2015 and 2017. The next is not scheduled to happen until 2022. But Johnson has been trying to secure an early vote to try to win a majority to allow him to push through legislation to enact Brexit. His third attempt to get parliament to agree to disband early and hold a general election on December 12 ended in failure on Monday after he fell well short of the required support of two-thirds of MPs. But he was making a fresh bid for the same date on Tuesday using a different parliamentary procedure that would only require a simple majority. He consulted his cabinet ministers to plot strategy in advance of another gruelling session of the lower House of Commons that could stretch into the night. Johnson's new attempt amends existing laws requiring a two-thirds majority by proposing a simple bill with an election date. "This house cannot any longer keep this country hostage," Johnson told lawmakers after they defeated Monday's election attempt. - Date debate - Johnson's election push received a big boost when the leader of the main opposition Labour party, Jeremy Corbyn, indicated his support. Veteran socialist Corbyn has been torn between rival camps within his own party and is facing poor polling numbers that show the Conservatives in a strong lead. He has argued he cannot back an election until Johnson promises not to take Britain out of the EU without a new trade deal when the post-Brexit transition period ends in December 2020. Britain would be following EU rules until that time. But he said the latest delay to Brexit agreed by EU leaders on Monday meant "for the next there months, our condition of taking no-deal off the table has now been met". "We will now launch the most ambitious and radical campaign for real change our country has ever seen," he added. The sides must now settle on an election date. Johnson insists on December 12. A rival plan proposed by the pro-European Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party (SNP) proposes December 9. The second option is also preferred by Labour. Some in the party say the later date reduces the number of more liberal students voting because it comes after they finish their semesters and return home for the winter break. Labour's trade spokesman Barry Gardiner told BBC radio "the first thing" for Johnson to do to get his party's backing was "to ensure that students are not going to be disenfranchised by an election on December 12". Corbyn did not specify a date in his statement. "It will be a December election," a Labour source told AFP. The last election to be held in December was in 1923, when Labour's Ramsay McDonald lost to the Conservatives led by Stanley Baldwin. The debate appears to be one of principle. The SNP's parliamentary leader Ian Blackford urged Labour to not "be the handmaidens to the prime minister's Brexit" and to fight for the earlier date. Johnson is mainly concerned about amendments that could be attached to his bill. One proposed option would extend voting rights to EU citizens -- a group that strongly opposed Brexit. Another would lower the voting age from 18 to 16.

UK set for third election in four years to try to break Brexit gridlock

The pound recovered Tuesday against the dollar and euro as Prime Minister Boris Johnson looked set to secure his wish for a general election before Christmas aimed at finally forcing through Brexit.

Traders were looking ahead also to a meeting of the Federal Reserve that was expected to end with the US central bank announcing an interest-rate cut on Wednesday.

Around 1115 GMT, sterling clawed back losses to trade at $1.2862, virtually unchanged compared with its level late Monday in New York.

The euro meanwhile reversed direction to stand 0.2-per cent lower at 86.14 pence.

"Bulls have finally escaped the selling pressure and pushed sterling higher on the back of the news that Labour is finally backing the elections," commented Naeem Aslam, chief market analyst at ThinkMarkets.&nbsp;

"The spike in sterling is decent but we are not expecting any significant moves."

Britain appeared headed for a December election after the main opposition Labour party said it would support Johnson's desire for a pre-Christmas poll.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the decision by European Union leaders on Monday to again delay Brexit meant that "for the next three months, our condition of taking 'no-deal' off the table has now been met".

David Cheetham, chief market analyst at XTB trading group, said "the pound will likely stay fairly well supported unless a no-deal outcome becomes more than marginally possible once more".

He added: "Elections are often seen as bringing heightened uncertainty and therefore negative in the near-term for affected markets, but in this case there is a hope that it will bring an end to the present quandary we find ourselves in."&nbsp;

In equities trade, London's benchmark FTSE 100 index was down 0.7 per cent in late morning deals, extending earlier losses as the stronger pound weighed on share price for multinationals that have substantial earnings in dollars.

In the eurozone, Frankfurt's DAX 30 lost 0.2 per cent and the Paris CAC 40 shed 0.1 per cent.&nbsp;

Elsewhere Tuesday, Asian stock markets diverged following another record-high close for Wall Street on Monday amid a renewed sense of hope over China-US trade talks.

Expectations for a US rate cut and some strong company earnings were also providing a much-needed lift to confidence after a rollercoaster year on global trading floors.

Oil prices extended Monday's big losses that had been sparked by reports of another pick-up in US stockpiles that indicated weak demand growth.

Key figures around 1115 GMT

Pound/dollar: DOWN slightly at $1.2862 from $1.2863 at 2100 GMT

Euro/pound: DOWN at 86.14 pence from 86.29 pence&nbsp;

Euro/dollar: DOWN at $1.1081 from $1.1100

Dollar/yen: DOWN at 108.90 yen from 108.95 yen

London - FTSE 100: DOWN 0.7 per cent at 7,278.43 points

Frankfurt - DAX 30: DOWN 0.2 per cent at 12,921

Paris - CAC 40: DOWN 0.1 per cent at 5,726.50

EURO STOXX 50: DOWN 0.2 per cent at 3,618.32

Tokyo - Nikkei 225: UP 0.5 per cent at 22,974.13 (close)

Hong Kong - Hang Seng: DOWN 0.4 per cent at 26,786.76 (close)

Shanghai - Composite: DOWN 0.9 per cent at 2,954.18 (close)

New York - Dow: UP 0.5 per cent at 27.090.72 (close)

Brent North Sea crude: DOWN 1.1 per cent at $60.87 per barrel

West Texas Intermediate: DOWN 1.2 per cent at $55.14 per barrel

The pound recovered Tuesday against the dollar and euro as Prime Minister Boris Johnson looked set to secure his wish for a general election before Christmas aimed at finally forcing through Brexit.

The pound recovered Tuesday against the dollar and euro as Prime Minister Boris Johnson looked set to secure his wish for a general election before Christmas aimed at finally forcing through Brexit. Traders were looking ahead also to a meeting of the Federal Reserve that was expected to end with the US central bank announcing an interest-rate cut on Wednesday. Around 1115 GMT, sterling clawed back losses to trade at $1.2862, virtually unchanged compared with its level late Monday in New York. The euro meanwhile reversed direction to stand 0.2-per cent lower at 86.14 pence. "Bulls have finally escaped the selling pressure and pushed sterling higher on the back of the news that Labour is finally backing the elections," commented Naeem Aslam, chief market analyst at ThinkMarkets. "The spike in sterling is decent but we are not expecting any significant moves." Britain appeared headed for a December election after the main opposition Labour party said it would support Johnson's desire for a pre-Christmas poll. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said the decision by European Union leaders on Monday to again delay Brexit meant that "for the next three months, our condition of taking 'no-deal' off the table has now been met". David Cheetham, chief market analyst at XTB trading group, said "the pound will likely stay fairly well supported unless a no-deal outcome becomes more than marginally possible once more". He added: "Elections are often seen as bringing heightened uncertainty and therefore negative in the near-term for affected markets, but in this case there is a hope that it will bring an end to the present quandary we find ourselves in." In equities trade, London's benchmark FTSE 100 index was down 0.7 per cent in late morning deals, extending earlier losses as the stronger pound weighed on share price for multinationals that have substantial earnings in dollars. In the eurozone, Frankfurt's DAX 30 lost 0.2 per cent and the Paris CAC 40 shed 0.1 per cent. Elsewhere Tuesday, Asian stock markets diverged following another record-high close for Wall Street on Monday amid a renewed sense of hope over China-US trade talks. Expectations for a US rate cut and some strong company earnings were also providing a much-needed lift to confidence after a rollercoaster year on global trading floors. Oil prices extended Monday's big losses that had been sparked by reports of another pick-up in US stockpiles that indicated weak demand growth. Key figures around 1115 GMT Pound/dollar: DOWN slightly at $1.2862 from $1.2863 at 2100 GMT Euro/pound: DOWN at 86.14 pence from 86.29 pence Euro/dollar: DOWN at $1.1081 from $1.1100 Dollar/yen: DOWN at 108.90 yen from 108.95 yen London - FTSE 100: DOWN 0.7 per cent at 7,278.43 points Frankfurt - DAX 30: DOWN 0.2 per cent at 12,921 Paris - CAC 40: DOWN 0.1 per cent at 5,726.50 EURO STOXX 50: DOWN 0.2 per cent at 3,618.32 Tokyo - Nikkei 225: UP 0.5 per cent at 22,974.13 (close) Hong Kong - Hang Seng: DOWN 0.4 per cent at 26,786.76 (close) Shanghai - Composite: DOWN 0.9 per cent at 2,954.18 (close) New York - Dow: UP 0.5 per cent at 27.090.72 (close) Brent North Sea crude: DOWN 1.1 per cent at $60.87 per barrel West Texas Intermediate: DOWN 1.2 per cent at $55.14 per barrel

Pound recovers with UK set for general election

In all, 22 of the 27 members of the European Parliament (MEPs) are Right-wing politicians in their home countries. EU panel in Srinagar for visit and Opposition put out questions. Watch this video to find out more.

EU panel in Srinagar for visit, Opposition put out questions

Britain was on course for a December election Tuesday after the main opposition Labour party said it would support Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan, although a date has not yet been fixed.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said, "I have consistently said that we are ready for an election and our support is subject to a 'no deal' Brexit being off the table."

He said the decision by EU leaders on Monday to delay Brexit to January 31 meant that "for the next three months, our condition of taking No Deal off the table has now been met.

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-election-johnson-makes-fresh-bid-to-break-the-deadlock-258648">Brexit election? Johnson makes fresh bid to break the deadlock</a>

"We will now launch the most ambitious and radical campaign for real change our country has ever seen," he said in a statement.

Johnson has called for an election on December 12 but Labour and other opposition parties are pushing for a date nearer to December 9.

"It will be a December election," a Labour party source told AFP.

The prime minister will on Tuesday bring forward a bill to legislate for the snap poll, which is expected to pass parliament in the next few days.

Britain was on course for a December election Tuesday after the main opposition Labour party said it would support Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan, although a date has not yet been fixed.

Britain was on course for a December election Tuesday after the main opposition Labour party said it would support Prime Minister Boris Johnson's plan, although a date has not yet been fixed. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said, "I have consistently said that we are ready for an election and our support is subject to a 'no deal' Brexit being off the table." He said the decision by EU leaders on Monday to delay Brexit to January 31 meant that "for the next three months, our condition of taking No Deal off the table has now been met. Also read: Brexit election? Johnson makes fresh bid to break the deadlock "We will now launch the most ambitious and radical campaign for real change our country has ever seen," he said in a statement. Johnson has called for an election on December 12 but Labour and other opposition parties are pushing for a date nearer to December 9. "It will be a December election," a Labour party source told AFP. The prime minister will on Tuesday bring forward a bill to legislate for the snap poll, which is expected to pass parliament in the next few days.

UK's opposition Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn agrees to December election

'India-EU ties based on common commitment to democracy' says PM Modi. Watch video to know more

'India-EU ties based on common commitment to democracy' says PM Modi

27 EU members agreed on the extension of Brexit. Know more from Mia Alberti, WION Correspondent

WION Dispatch: EU agrees in principal to extend Brexit

Eu, News on Eu, stories on Eu, articles on Eu, Eu stories at Wion, Eu news, Eu latest news