Last weekend, as Poles set out to elect their next president, Europe’s ideological divisions were thrown into sharp relief. In one corner, the incumbent Andrzej Duda — a man indicative of Eastern Europe’s growing conservatism — standing on a platform of nationalistic populism. In the other, Rafal Trzaskowski, a Europhile liberal and defender of minority rights.

Who Won Poland’s Election, Duda or Trzaskowski?

With the first-round votes counted, neither one had reached the requisite 50% (Duda took just under 44% of the vote, while Trzaskowski recorded just over 30%), triggering a runoff ballot to be held on July 12.

The decision ahead of Poles reflects a far wider crisis of unity afflicting Europe: the rise of nationalist governments who have generated controversy over their approach to press freedom and the rule of law in the East, versus the enduring liberal traditions of the West.

Though more moderate than, say, Serbia’s president Aleksandar Vucic or Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Duda has much in common with these right-wing leaders.

Taking a Look at PiS

Poland’s ruling Law & Justice Party (PiS) — with which he is aligned — is wedded to a program of state transformation, including new laws that limit media freedoms and punish judges who are considered to have inaccurately maligned the government or ruled by activist sympathies. As president, Duda has waved through these measures, chipping away at Poland’s democratic credentials.

Yet, the 48-year-old still clearly enjoys significant support, even though he failed to meet the 50% threshold for a first-round triumph.

Duda’s Popularity is in Decline

Duda’s popularity is in decline, however. Prior to the COVID-19 outbreak, he looked set for a stonking victory. But the government’s lackluster performance on the pandemic and recent allegations of corruption have seen his support base ebb away.

The emergence of Trzaskowski — Warsaw’s cosmopolitan mayor — as a viable candidate has also stung the incumbent. Perturbed at the country’s trajectory under PiS’s brand of nationalistic conservatism, many Poles have turned to Trzaskowski in the hope that he will be a check and balance against the PiS’s right-wing policies. As president, the Warsaw man would have an effective veto on government legislation.

Gay Rights Becomes a Focal Point

Startled by Trzaskowski’s striking rise in the polls, Duda’s campaign shifted gears in the weeks running up to the first-round vote, forcing the conversation onto social issues. The rights of LGBT people has been a particularly fierce battleground.

Seeking support from Poland’s rural, Catholic voter base which remains staunchly against same-sex marriage — Duda has played the family values card, promising to protect the nation against the proliferation of “LGBT ideology.”

A strong supporter of gay rights, Trzaskowski has offered Poles a very different vision with regard to equality. Elements of the media — which various mainstream and left-leaning analysts say is largely under the thumb of the administration — have sought to turn this against the moderate candidate. Sieci, a pro-PiS weekly magazine, recently published a front-cover depicting a hooded Trzaskowski wearing a rainbow armband, with the caption: “the extremist candidate”.

What Happens Next?

This attempted character assassination appears not to have worked, however. By taking 30% of the vote, Trzaskowski has secured himself a strong position for the second-round runoff. Indeed, if electoral polling is to be trusted, he — not Duda — is the odds-on favorite to win the deciding ballot next month.

That would send a strong signal that Eastern Europe still holds dear the core democratic values upon which the continent is built.

L'articolo Poland’s Presidential Race Reflects Europe’s East-West Ideological Divide proviene da InsideOver.

Little can shock observers of European politics these days, but on Saturday in Ireland jaws hit the floor. Sinn Féin—a group once synonymous with sectarian violence—won the popular vote in the Irish general election. It marked a seismic shift in the island nation’s political landscape, tearing apart a century of two-party rule.

What Happened In The Irish Election?

Fine Gael—the party of government led by prime minister Leo Varadkar—suffered a stinging electoral rebuke, taking little over one-fifth of the vote. Fianna Fáil—who have alternated national leadership with Fine Gael for 90 years—fared only marginally better. Sinn Féin, long ostracised by Ireland’s political mainstream, won the trust of almost a quarter of all voters.

The result marked a quantum leap for the left-leaning group, whose popularity has been growing gradually for a decade. Bit by bit, they’ve chipped away at their tainted public image, distancing themselves from the IRA terrorists with whom they were once aligned.Sinn Féin’s centrist opponents have not made it easy, invoking incessantly the party’s ugly past. But with the ebbing threat of militant republicanism—a process commenced by 198’s Good Friday peace deal—the stigma of supporting Sinn Féin has receded. 

Ireland’s Younger Generation Doesn’t Attach Stigma To Sinn Fein

Young people—those who’ve growing up in a relatively peaceful Ireland—are not hampered like their parents by the memory of sectarian murder. Instead, like millennials across Europe, their focus is on living conditions, housing costs, healthcare standards, and faltering public services. Far from dwelling on its founding cause in this election of a united Ireland Sinn Féin instead ran a campaign grounded in the here-and-now.

To youngsters still living with the consequences of Ireland’s financial crash, the party offered a radical left-wing agenda. A freeze in rocketing rental costs, new taxes on the rich and a lowering of the state pension age. Beside the establishment’s unapologetically pro-business approach, Sinn Féin promised something the centrists could not: real change. 

Varadkar’s Perspective

Varadkar might well feel hard done by. The Irish economy is, after all, one of Europe’s fastest-growing, with wages on the up and the unemployment rate low. But his financial stewardship has involved biting austerity measures—rarely popular when it comes to the polls. 

Varadkar was also wrong to consider his handling of Brexit a vote winner. Varadkar was instrumental in brokering last year’s agreement on the UK’s EU departure, shielding Irish business from the likely damage of no-deal, but Brexit fell flat on the doorstep—just 1% of those surveyed in a voter exit poll cited it as an important issue. 

In a curious way, however, it was perhaps the absence of a Brexit-scale constitutional question that allowed Sinn Féin to soar. At the UK general election late last year Jeremy Corbyn—the ardently left-wing Labour leader—was roundly beaten. The reason, most agree, was because his domestic agenda was overshadowed by Brexit shortcomings. 

Sinn Féin’s Savvy Campaign

That’s not to detract from Sinn Féin’s campaign. Recognizing their potential with young voters, the group formulated a savvy social media strategy. On Instagram, their message featured in almost half of all election interactions. On Facebook, that figure leapt to 60%, despite spending up to a third less on adverts than rivals in the weeks prior to polling day.

But still, great uncertainty lies ahead. Chastened by poor local and European election results last year, Sinn Féin fielded just 42 candidates for the 160-seat contest—an effort to minimize losses. Despite their astounding success, this limited slate means the group will struggle to form a workable government. Mary Lou McDonald, the party’s leader, will now have to look to Ireland’s smaller parties—the Greens, Labour, and a host of others—in the hope of cobbling together a left-leaning coalition. 

If MacDonald succeeds at this then she will have locked Fine Gael and Fianna Fáil from power for the first time in decades. If she fails then the status quo will endure, though for how long, only time will tell.

L'articolo Sinn Féin’s Success Shocks The Irish Political Establishment proviene da InsideOver.

As the dust continues to settle after the killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, US President Donald Trump and his advisors have struggled with justifying the need for the provocative strike, which drove the US and Iran to the brink of war. Observers have also questioned the strategy behind the decision to assassinate a foreign commander and whether it was based on the pending impeachment trial in the US Senate.

New accounts on the circumstances that ultimately resulted in the go-ahead drone strike have since trickled out of Washington. A Wall Street Journal report   

“Mr Trump, after the strike, told associates he was under pressure to deal with Gen Soleimani from GOP senators he views as important supporters in his upcoming impeachment trial in the Senate,” the Jan. 9, The WSJ reported.

If true, the implications are astounding, but The WSJ only makes mention of the revelation in the aforementioned paragraph. More broadly, however, the alleged disclosure to business associates – not public officials – could give a clearer insight into the strategy behind Trump’s decision. 

Immediately following the strike, news pundits filled the airwaves, speculating on the reasoning behind the attack. Could intelligence have pointed to a possible Iranian attack on the US? Certainly, but if that were true, there would be some evidence of it. Additionally, it would lead into the question of how assassinating Suleimani would prevent said attack rather than inspire Iranians to go forward with it. Iran has the largest proxy network of any state, with its influence spread across the Middle East, Africa, and even Latin America. In believing one man’s life could put a stop to any terrorism plans, there must have been surefire intelligence to make the case. 

“Insulting and Demeaning”

If that evidence exists, the Trump administration failed at showing it during Congressional briefings in the House and Senate. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Central Intelligence Agency Director Gina Haspel, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper appeared before congresspeople to make their case, but ended the day leaving representatives and senators even more enraged. The briefings incited not only Democrats, but also Republicans and resulted in the immediate passage of a non-binding war powers resolution, effectively chastising the president. 

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah., called the Senate briefings “insulting and demeaning” to the legislature and Constitution.

“It was probably the worst briefing I’ve seen at least on a military issue in the nine years I’ve served in the United States Senate,” Lee said.

Outspoken Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., joined him in supporting the war powers resolution and condemning the killing. The trio representing the president provided no solid details such as time or place of attack and stayed for only 75 minutes. According to a senior Democratic congress member, the briefing was more of a history lesson and general overview of Iranian terrorism through the decades. 

If Suleimani’s killing was not provoked by a credible threat to America, then why risk putting the US at war? The popular “wag the dog” theory holds that a wartime president can leverage conflict to rally voters during an election. This strategy generally works and it would make sense for Trump to try it. 

Just Enough to Campaign On

Perhaps he does not need all-out war, however, in order to inspire voters. A Politico report from Nancy Cook documented Trump’s new line of messaging against Democrats as the election approaches. Mere days after the situation was deescalated by both sides, Trump and his advisors went on the air to cast Democrats as Iran sympathizers and unpatriotic. 

“I don’t hear too many people other than politicians who are trying to win the presidency. Those are the ones that are complaining, but I don’t hear anybody else complaining,” Trump said.

Both Nikki Haley, former US ambassador to the United Nations and Republican governor of South Carolina, and Kellyanne Conway, White House counselor, criticized Democrats. 

“The president took out the world’s most threatening terrorist and the Democrats are trying to take out the president. He wins!” said Conway. “The alarmists and apologists show skepticism about our own intelligence and sympathy for Soleimani.”

Haley went a step further and claimed Democrats are “mourning the loss of Suleimani.” 

To be clear, no Democrat has expressed dismay over the killing or doubted Suleimani’s role in Iran’s terrorism network. Instead, they have questioned the rationale and timing behind the killing. During the 2004 election, former President George W. Bush rallied his base 1 year after deploying troops to Iraq. A popular argument used against Democrats who opposed the war was that they were unpatriotic and disloyal. Weapons of mass destruction still have not been found, despite Bush’s insistence their presence necessitated a US intervention.

When the US went to war against the Taliban, American nationalism was even turned against the French as Republicans began calling French fries “Freedom fries” when France hesitated to become embroiled in the conflict. 

Trump’s killing of Suleimani presented him with both a new line of messaging and an accomplishment, neither of which he had before. He has failed to live up to his 2016 campaign promises, such as cancelling The Affordable Care Act and removing troops from the Middle East. Now he can advertise himself as the man who killed a terrorist leader and label anyone who does not agree with the decision unpatriotic. 

L'articolo Trump Uses Suleimani Attack to Label Opponents as Unpatriotic proviene da InsideOver.

Serving the Trump administration has given US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo a spotlight of his own, but many have speculated he could be considering a bid for the US Senate. Senator Pat Roberts, from Pompeo’s home state of Kansas, is retiring after having held the seat for 24 years. For the Republican Party, Roberts’ exit leaves the door open for a Democratic challenger for what has historically been an incredibly safe seat. 

Although Pompeo has been adamant about continuing to serve under Trump in Washington, his party (Pompeo previously served as a Republican representative) may need him to return to his roots. The 2020 election is already shaping up to be a pivotal year for the GOP after they badly lost the House of Representatives in the 2018 midterm elections. The Republican contingent of the Senate currently holds a six-seat edge over the Democrats, but many are predicting that could change after four incumbents including Roberts announced they would not seek reelection. 

Kobach, The Massively-imperfect Candidate

In Kansas, the situation is even more dire as the leading Republican candidate going into the primaries is an individual called Kris Kobach. While serving as the Kansas Secretary of State, Kobach supported controversial policies such as strict voter ID laws and a Muslim registry. In 2017, he resigned his position to run for governor, easily winning the Republican nomination. Kobach lost the election, however, to his Democratic opponent.

Kobach carries an enormous amount of baggage with him into the 2020 election. He has repeatedly marred his career with controversy, ethical complaints, and questionable election oversight. An in-depth analysis of his strengths yields few highlights. Even his appointment to Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity generated touchy court battles. Kobach effectively served as head of the commission, which was decommissioned a mere six months after its creation. 

A pattern of behavior such as Kobach’s creates legitimate concerns for the Republican Party ahead of the 2020 election. If Kobach manages to become the nominee, which is incredibly likely given his already established name recognition, Kansas could elect its first Democratic senator since 1932. Roberts’ seat itself has not been filled by a Democrat in over 100 years. Kansas is typically a Republican stronghold, to say the least.

Baggage-Free Pompeo Could Save The Kansas Seat For Republicans

Pompeo could enter the race to replace Kobach and quickly shoot to the top in the Republican primary. He is massively well-liked in Kansas and—unlike Kobach—brings no heavy baggage with him. Also unlike Kobach, Pompeo has managed to survive in Washington for longer than six months.

Both Trump and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell are supportive of the idea if they deem the situation critical enough.

“If he thought that there was a chance of losing that seat, I think he would do that and he would win in a landslide because they love him in Kansas,” Trump said recently in an interview on “Fox & Friends,” adding  “Mike would win easily in Kansas. Great state. And it’s a Trump state. He’d win easily.”

McConnell has pushed Pompeo even harder, perhaps because he is losing a solid Republican in Roberts and would like someone to fill his spot who he can rely on. Pompeo is certainly that party-line guy, aligning with the Republican Party at every opportunity. McConnell has provided Trump with poll numbers forecasting gloom in Kansas as a way of convincing him that Pompeo is their man to save the senate seat. 

What Does Pompeo Have To Say?

For his part, Pompeo has done little except deny that he will run. 

“I’ve watched my life take turns that one would never have expected. But it’s not something I want to do,” Pompeo said in a Fox News interview. “I want to stay here and continue to perform the mission that I’m serving President Trump and I hope doing a good term for the American people as well.”

However, on Dec. 27 he altered his website, MikePompeo.com, to direct users to his personal Twitter account, which was recently created. The change may be nothing more than cleaning up relics from his days serving as representative, but its timing naturally generated a buzz.

Pompeo understandably enjoys the gig he has now, but what happens if Trump loses in 2020? Where does that leave him? For a man loyal to his party, there is a certain argument to be made that sacrificing his post for the bigger picture may necessitate his run for senate. One thing is for certain: Kobach as a candidate is not an assured victory even in Kansas.

L'articolo Pompeo’s Senate Run May be Necessary to Save Seat For Republicans proviene da InsideOver.

In Iran, attention is now shifting onto elections being held in February as all 290 parliamentary seats are being contested. The standoff between the US and the Islamic Republic is likely to influence voting intentions, and whatever the result, it will determine the future direction of US-Iranian relations.

President Hassan Rouhani’s landmark achievement was the 2015 Iran Deal he signed with former US President Barack Obama, but since Donald Trump scrapped the agreement, America’s campaign of ‘maximum pressure’ has led to anger at the establishment among many citizens.

The mid-November protests, which resulted in hundreds of demonstrators being killed by security forces, showed that this event drastically changed the attitude of many politicians and people towards elections in their country. Radio Farda reported that on December 8th, a pro-reform website called Asr Iran ran an opinion poll asking voters which candidates they are likely to vote for. Over 63 percent of the 24,000 people who participated in the poll ticked ‘none of the above’, which was their way of saying they will not vote at all.

Some reformist politicians like Mostafa Tajzadeh and Abbas Abdi insist that there is no way out of Iran’s ongoing problems other than resorting to ballot boxes. But it is hard to make this argument to people when they perceive Rouhani as a liar.

During the 2017 presidential election, the current President said if Iranians re-elected him, every single sanction that has been imposed on their country by the US will be lifted. Since then, the opposite has happened.

Furthermore, the reformists are losing celebrity support. A former football player called Ali Karimi and Reza Sadeghi, a famous singer, both wrote on social media that they regret supporting Rouhani two years ago. If Trump wanted his sanctions to decrease support for Iran’s government, he has succeeded in achieving his aim.

However, if ultra-conservatives, or principlists, perform well in February’s poll, the stalemate between Tehran and Washington is only likely to intensify. Those who fundamentally oppose Trump’s policy of lifting sanctions in favour of reducing Iran’s nuclear weapons are finding that their position is being strengthened. Jalal Mirzaei told an OPEC meeting that Trump becoming US President has weakened the reformists.

But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said US sanctions had been ‘incredibly effective’, so there is no chance of the Trump administration shifting its current stance any time soon.

Some of the principlists’ most notable candidates include a former military officer and an ex-mayor of Tehran named Mohammad-Bagher Qalibaf; Vahid Yaminpour, a TV personality; and legal scholar Hamid Rasaei. If they win February’s election, then a lurch to the right risks emboldening the security services’ proxy forces in Yemen and Syria, raising the chances of a confrontation with the US.

Oil Minister Bijn Namdar Zanganeh, one of Rouhani’s closest allies, is being targeted by the ultra-conservatives for impeachment since a US ban on critical oil exports tipped the country into recession. This could cause the government to be overwhelmed by interrogations and weaken the Iranian President at a time when he is attempting to repair US-Iranian relations.

Mohammadali Abtahi, a reformist cleric jailed in 2009, told Shargh newspaper that ‘unpopular conservatives would only emerge as victorious if turnout is low.’ This is because hardliners traditionally vote under instruction from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Another factor going against the reformists is that Iran’s Guardian Council disqualified almost 3,000 of their candidates. Only 30 have been approved. Therefore, it will be harder for the reformists to contest all the 290 seats on offer.

Trump would do well to engage with Rouhani before February’s poll. Unfortunately, the US President’s actions are only likely to increase support for those who are principally opposed to American intervention at all, and that will make it harder for the Trump administration to reach an accord with Iran.

L'articolo What Impact Could Parliamentary Elections Have on US-Iranian Relations? proviene da InsideOver.

While the absolute majority is lost, Trudeau’s party remains the strongest in Ottawa’s parliament. Signs are pointing towards a minority government.

Canada’s election turned out to be the cliff-hanger it was advertised as. The Trudeau-led Liberals defended their position as governing party, receiving 33 per cent of the votes, a minus of 6.5 per cent compared to 2015. Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party received 34.4 per cent (+2.5).

In the traditional sense, Scheer is the election winner. However, Canada’s election system of majority voting will likely keep Trudeau in Office. In Mandates, his party beats his conservative opponent by 157 seats to 121.

Significant gains in votes were recorded by the regional Bloc Québécois, 7.7 per cent (+3) resulting in 32 seats, as well as the Green Party with 6.5 per cent (+3) and three seats. The New Democrats received 15.9 per cent (-3.8) and 24 seats.

The Liberals will continue to set the tone in parliament, however, not with the comfortable majority on which Trudeau could rely after his election victory in 2015. At that time, the Liberals had obtained 184 of the 338 seats in a landslide victory.

Trudeau’s losses did not come as a surprise. Many moments in which the progressive icon himself did not satisfy the lofty moral standards he had established for the country.

Trudeau’s loss of the absolute majority has not only been a statement by the Canadian people, but it will likely result in a minority government. In Canada, minority governments are quite common, while coalitions are uncommon.

While the last two elections have resulted in majorities – in 2015 for the Liberals, previously for the Conservatives – minority governments followed in the 2004, 2006 and 2008 elections. Every third election since 1921 led to such a constellation.

With the election results from Monday, the Canadian parliament gains additional power over Trudeau’s government. So far, the Liberals controlled all committees and thus their respective agendas. Times on The Hill are set to become very interesting for Trudeau.

Trudeau’s future government is likely to be solidified by the decline of the New Democrats and the starched Bloc Québécois. The New Democrats could even face a leadership crisis after a disappointing result. Hence, re-election would be the worst-case scenario for both parties. This circumstance is likely to be Trudeau’s advantage and could allow him to conduct his minority government with some support.

However, this support comes with a price: a further turn to the left. The New Democrats seek to invest a significant sum into climate-change measures. If Trudeau seeks their support, he will have to comply.

It is what will likely make or break the next government. A further left turn equals an all-in move by Trudeau, as it may not only increase fears in the Canadian financial market but likely fully alienates oil-rich provinces such as Alberta and Saskatchewan – places that already voted in favour of the Conservatives.

Nonetheless, Trudeau will seek redemption and reinvent himself as the uber-progressive, who won the 2015 election so decisively. Unfortunately, by doing so, Trudeau continues to transform into a phenomenon, he had been highly critical of in the past: a leader, who only serves his base and not the country.

L'articolo Trudeau Wins Canadian Election Despite Significant Losses proviene da InsideOver.

Last month on September 28, around three million Afghans voted for their next president amid heavy security and deadly bomb attacks. Only one-third of the total nine million registered voters had turned up to polling booths following threats from the Taliban and loss of faith in the electoral process.

The elections, fourth since the US attacked Afghanistan in 2001, have been scarred by allegations of fraud and foul play.

The polls were scheduled to be held on April 20, but the country’s election commission delayed the date to July 20 seeking time to verify voter lists and to train election workers on the biometric identification system.

However, the date was extended even further to Sept 28. But on election day, voters did not turn up to polling centers. Security threats from the Taliban coupled with the lack of trust in the elections kept them away from the ballot boxes.

Although militant attacks on voters and polling officers and centers were lower than anticipated, around five people were killed and 76 others were critically injured after some centers were attacked with rocket launchers. The process was also marred by irregularities from the Afghan election officials including voters not being able to find their names on the list and faulty biometric voting devices.

But despite a lapse of more than four weeks, the country’s election commission is nowhere near to reaching a final tally which has raised questions on the veracity of the entire exercise.

But that did not stop the two incumbent office-bearers Ashraf Ghani and the country’s chief executive Abdullah Abdullah from declaring victory. On Sept 30 — just two days after the voting was completed, Abdullah said that “we have the most votes in this election.”

Amrullah Saleh — Ghani’s running mate, while speaking to Voice of America also claimed victory, saying that “the information we have received showed that 60 to 70 percent of people voted for us.”

Around 18 contestants filed their nomination to contest elections but to win, a candidate must secure more than 50pc votes, in case s/he doesn’t, another round of voting is held between the two leading candidates.

But as Ghani and Abdullah claim victory, other candidates are levelling allegations of fraud and interference. Enayuttulah Hafiz, a presidential candidate, even warned that he will reject the results if the election commission fails to consider the “widespread fraud [that] took place on election day.”

The candidates alleged that both Ghani and Abdullah have used the state’s resources to interfere in the election by casting fraudulent votes in some parts of the country to tilt the result in their favor. Some reports suggest that in certain provinces, non-biometric votes were cast without verifying voters’ names on the lists.

The candidates have urged election commission to invalidate non-biometric votes cast during the election while warning that failure to do so will force them to reject results.

But as contestants trade barbs against each other, it seems that Afghans will have to wait for the official results for a few more weeks. The commissioner for Afghanistan’s election authority, last week on Oct 15 said the results “will not be delayed more than three or four days, or more than a week.” She added the election staff is working in three shifts to accelerate the process.

Delays in results, allegations of fraud, and interference by the incumbent leaders is likely to result in voters losing their faith in the entire electoral process.

L'articolo Presidential Candidates Allege Fraud as Afghanistan Delays Election Results proviene da InsideOver.

After months of negotiations with all political parties, Spain’s acting Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez announced that his country is going to the polls on 10th November, for the fourth time in the last four years. Despite quickly gaining popularity for his pro-European and pro-migration leftist policies, Sanchez didn’t manage to end the deadlock in the parliament. His remarkable political moves such as taking in migrants from the Aquarius ship and exhuming the remains of former dictator Francisco Franco, didn’t let him enjoy the support that he mostly had from foreign media. Ambitious politics put forward by Sanchez’s Partido Socialista Obrero Español (PSOE) failed to attract other political parties, left the party alone in talks, and faced accusations by others of not being interested in finding a solution for the country.

The emergence of two new political parties, Unidos Podemos, Ciudadanos and Vox, had a clear impact on Spain’s traditional two-party system. The 2008 economic crisis and several other political crises sharply erased the credibility towards classic political parties which are the above-mentioned PSOE and Partido Popular (PP), representing the centre-left and centre-right of the country. The centre-right Ciudadanos Party of Albert Rivera gained 13%, while leftist Unidos Podemos of Pablo Iglesias obtained 14.3% of the votes in the April 2019 national election. These two parties were the main coalition objectives of Pedro Sanchez, however things didn’t end well. Sanchez failed in coalition talks with both Ciudadanos and Unidos Podemos. The PSOE leader blamed both political parties for showing less interest in finding a solution for the country, while other political parties accused Sanchez of “not wanting to form a coalition” or “not under the nature of multi-party politics.” Such an impasse may even become an opportunity for a breakthrough for political parties like the far-right Vox Party, which is continuing to increase votes according to pollsters. Others such as the left-wing Mas Pais of Inigo Errejon and Catalan and Basque separatist parties, for now, look to play a minor role in November’s election.

Amid ongoing political tensions, the problem of Catalonian separatists didn’t help Pedro Sanchez enough during his efforts to form the new government. Some of the political parties accused Sanchez of not showing a clear stance in the Catalonia independence debate, a topic which pushes Spanish voters towards nationalist parties. The acting Prime Minister was strongly criticized for a long time by right wing parties; Partido Popular and Ciudadanos, for appeasing Catalans, hoping to have them as an alternative for a coalition government. However, this approach invited a twist when Madrid started crackdowns on accused Catalan separatists around the country. In one of the most important examples, at the end of September, several people connected with the Catalan independence movement were arrested on terror-linked charges and possession of explosives. This change of mind may become another important argument when it comes to forming alliances between political parties. PSOE’s way of thinking the Catalonia issue in a ‘right’ way may become a positive mark for right-wing parties, especially Ciudadanos, which frequently slammed PSOE’s conciliatory tone. It shows that Sanchez may have a greater chance to impress right- wing electors and parties, paving the way for a more centrist coalition government in Spain.

Polls ahead of the elections show that, again, none of the parties will have full majority. Despite Pedro Sanchez’s self-confidence, he may even fall shorter than before. However, PSOE doesn’t seem to be the only leftist political party to lose ground as Unidos Podemos may also suffer another blow after losing a key opportunity to form one of the few leftist coalition governments within the European Union. Meanwhile, numbers show that right wing political parties may gather more voters in the upcoming ballot. Surveys show that Partido Popular, Ciudadanos and even the Vox and Mas Pais parties are expected to raise their numbers. Although pollsters expect some moves from the left towards the right bloc, it seems difficult to see a right-wing government in Spain, at least after November’s polls.

Looking at the indications, it is fair to expect another election stalemate in Spain. In November, the negotiation skills of politicians will be tested once again. Pedro Sanchez will find himself in a position where he needs to build a dialogue between different political parties with different expectations. During the last coalition talks, Sanchez was accused of having less willingness towards conceding to other political parties when it came to forming
the government. After the last election, Sanchez asked electors to “speak more clearly,” adding that his party is the only viable alternative. It is fair to say that the PSOE will possibly become the political party with the most votes in the upcoming election. However, the most decisive part of the vote will be the coalition talks as this may be the last opportunity for Pedro Sanchez to secure a deal to put his country and political career back on track despite numerous political, economic and social uncertainties.

L'articolo Spanish Political Deadlock Remains Amid Sanchez’s Political Gamble proviene da InsideOver.

Britain’s Supreme Court has ruled that Boris Johnson’s advice to the Queen to prorogue Parliament until October 14th was ‘unlawful, void and of no effect.’ Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn then demanded that the Prime Minister resign. However, at the UN General Assembly in New York, he soldiered on and suggested he might try to suspend Parliament for a second time, thereby disagreeing with the Court’s decision. With the establishment against him, the chances of delivering Brexit by October 31st are becoming increasingly slim.

Attorney General Geoffrey Cox announced on Wednesday afternoon that the Government will seek approval from MPs for an early election. If the Conservatives win a majority, this will provide them with a mandate to ensure that no-deal is kept on the table during the ongoing EU negotiations. But Sky News political correspondent Lewis Goodall tweeted that the opposition will resist one until the Benn Act, which requires the Prime Minister to seek an extension to Britain’s EU withdrawal date and prevent no-deal, has been amended.

If an election is called, the Tories must seek a mandate to overturn the Benn Act. This will present the electorate with a clear choice between leaving the EU altogether under Boris’s Conservative Party, Labour’s muddled policy of retaining the UK’s Single Market and Customs Union membership, and the Liberal Democrats who intend to reverse Brexit altogether. Regardless, there is one party that could cost the Tories a majority at the next election; the Brexit Party. The only way for the Tory leader to gain a majority is through a pact between both parties.

Nigel Farage impressed many political pundits by quickly mobilising a political party in the space of six weeks and then winning this year’s European election. Videos his party have shared on social media prove that they are gearing for an election. If the Conservatives are returned to Parliament without a majority and have to depend upon the DUP for survival again, the opposition can then argue like it did after the 2017 election that the Government does not possess a majority to legislate a no-deal Brexit. Westminster will witness a repeat of the events that have continually delayed Britain’s EU exit. Therefore, Boris might have no choice but to ensure the UK leaves the EU via a heavily-amended version of Theresa May’s Withdrawal Agreement (WA).

Certain elements of the WA do help deliver Brexit. It ends the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy as well as the free movement of people. Yet it also provides the EU with a veto over when Britain leaves the bloc. The WA ensures this country must remain part of ‘a customs union’, it provides the European Court of Justice with an element of jurisdiction over this nation, and it retains the Irish backstop that separates Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. If Boris wants to make May’s deal a reality, he needs to remove these aspects of her document. It is unclear how likely Brussels is to agree to this.

The Daily Express reports that at the upcoming European Council meeting on October 17th, French President Emmanuel Macron is likely to reject another Brexit extension. With little time and no majority to amend the WA, plus a possible election, the UK’s best chance of leaving the EU could lie with the French. But this is just speculation for now.

Boris is right to remain optimistic. Despite all the attempts to thwart leaving the EU, he still has a couple of realistic options left to ensure this country leaves on October 31st. The next month will determine the fate of British politics for generations to come.

L'articolo Can Boris Still Ensure Britain Leaves The EU on October 31st? proviene da InsideOver.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu travelled to the Black Sea city of Sochi on September 12th for his 13th meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin to ostensibly discuss Iran and the “harm” it does to Israel’s security.

However, Netanyahu was interested in a more pressing issue, five days before the general election in his country, namely securing support from hundreds of thousands of Russian immigrants in his country.

Putin, who kept Netanyahu waiting for about three hours before he met him at his summer residence in the Black Sea city, was apparently aware of Netanyahu’s prime interest.

Putin made sure to make a point about his country’s interest in the September 17th Knesset election in Israel as well as about the 1.5 million Russian immigrants in Israel functioning as a bridge between Moscow and Tel Aviv.

“The results of the Knesset election are very important to Moscow,” Putin said at a press briefing following his three-hour meeting with Netanyahu. “It hopes that politicians will be elected who maintain close ties with Russia.”

Netanyahu’s interest in Russian votes in the election boils down to the fact that Russian immigrants are the main support base for his rival Avigdor Liberman and his secular nationalist Yisrael Beytenu Party.

Netanyahu was hoping to secure a statement from the administration of US President Donald Trump about creating a “‘defence pact’” with Israel to boost his chances in the election. He failed to get this. He was also hoping to get something from Putin to boost his election chances. He got nothing from the Russian leader either. Perhaps Putin’s lack of enthusiasm for Netanyahu is linked to Moscow’s anger at his latest statements that he would annex parts of the occupied Palestinian West Bank to his country following the September 17th election.

Moscow detracted the potential move two days before Netanyahu’s plane touched down in Sochi. It said the annexation of parts of the West Bank would torpedo chances for Middle East peace. Equally angry at Netanyahu’s plan are Arab states whose foreign ministers said on September 10th that the plan is an “aggression” that will undermine chances of a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. Nevertheless, the Israeli premier and the Russian leader had serious issues on the table to discuss, including security coordination between their countries in Syria, especially when it comes to Iranian threats to Israeli security.

Israel has been striking Iranian and Hezbollah positions in Syria for a long time now, but it is keen on avoiding friction with Russian troops in the war-torn Arab state. Netanyahu referred to the importance of security coordination between Israel and Russia at the press briefing with Putin.

“Security coordination is always important, but it is especially important now, in light of the past month’s sharp spike in the number and the scope of Iran’s attempts to harm Israel from Syrian territory and transfer precision missiles to Syria,” the Israeli premier said.

He added that his country would not tolerate this threat, which is why Israel and Russia needed to avoid friction, especially when Israel acts against Iran in Syria.

Iran has been a pivotal part of the ongoing war in Syria, offering solid support to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad as Russia does. Israel has always viewed Iranian presence in Syria as a danger coming close to its borders. In late August, Israel said it had struck Iranian military sites in Syria to prevent potential drone attacks by Iran. At his joint press briefing with Netanyahu, Putin seemed mindful of the Israeli concerns. He noted the importance of cooperation on security issues between Tel Aviv and Moscow. Largely thanks to Netanyahu’s efforts, he said, security ties and military cooperation between the two states have taken on a new quality.

L'articolo Netanyahu Fails to Impress Putin Ahead of Knesset Poll proviene da InsideOver.