Brazil reaches breaking point

A second impeachment case has been filed against Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff for obstructing justice.

The request was filed by the Brazilian Bar Association,  and also includes fiscal accounting manipulation, as well as granting FIFA tax-exemption during the 2014 World Cup.

According to FIFA’s website, World Cup generated revenues of $4.8bn, a profit of $2.6bn.

Ms Rousseff already faces an impeachment process for altering government accounts; these accounts dictate that the other political parties allowed her to increase her public spending in the last election (also in 2014).

President Rousseff has landed herself in some rather hot water

She isn’t the first Brazilian president to face impeachment – Fernando Collor de Mello and Hélio de Oliveira Santos were both removed from office in this way, in 1992 and 2011 respectively.

In response to this, the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB) is today voting to abandon its coalition with President Rousseff’s Worker’s Party, thus collapsing government.

So what happens next?

If the PMDB collapses government, then there will be another election; though President Rousseff still has many supporters, it is unlikely that she has enough for re-election.

Brazil desperately needs the Olympics to be a success

However, an election such as this is the opposite of what Brazil really needs.

The Brazilian economy is collapsing; inflation skyrocketed by 4% in 2015, and GDP growth has slowed considerably. Brazilians are relying heavily on the economic success of the Olympic Games in Rio this summer, otherwise they may face a severe recession.

President Rousseff is, arguably, not fit for government, but right now, the alternative is an unstable country, with no government and no money.

Terrorism: A perpetual global threat

When news broke of the Brussels attacks, the reaction of many people across the world was “not again”.

Europe has been the frequent target of Islamic State’s terror attacks, dating all the way back to 2013.

Republican US presidential candidate Donald Trump says that Britain and Europe are not safe places.

This flag has become a familiar sight across the world

“When you look at Brussels, when you look at the way they’ve handled things from law enforcement standpoints, when you look at Paris, when you look at so many other places, no, it’s not (safe)”.

However, it is not just an issue that affects Europe, or even just the western world; all nations are in danger from Islamic State’s violent tendencies.

Most of ISIL’s attacks have been carried out in the Middle East; Iraq has seen eight attacks in the last four years and Egypt has been targeted four times.

Though it would seem that the main targets are the western world and the Fertile Crescent, the rest of the world certainly has cause for concern.

For example, in December 2014, 17 hostages were held in an Australian café by ISIL supporter Haron Monis.

Referred to as the ‘Sydney Siege’, it highlighted the fact that nowhere in the world is 100% safe.

Yusuf Kanali of the Hurriyet Daily News believes that “neither the millionaire nor the beggar at the corner of a crowded street of a slum city somewhere in the underdeveloped world can think for a second that he is safe. No one is safe, anywhere.”

EU referendum campaign begins

A DATE for the UK’s referendum on EU membership has been set.

On 23^rd June this year, the general public will go to polling stations across the country, to decide whether or not Great Britain should stay in the European Union.

In a speech outside 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister David Cameron said “It is time for the British people to have their say. It is time to settle this European question in British politics.”

With the announcement of the referendum, many politicians have been forced to take sides, regardless of party allegiance.

Though David Cameron and most of the Cabinet will be campaigning for a ‘No’ vote – that is, to stay in the EU – some in the Conservative Party have joined the ‘Yes’ campaign.

Cameron’s most notable losses are Justice Secretary Michael Gove, and Boris Johnson, the Mayor of London.

The UK joined the European Union in 1973, alongside Ireland and Denmark, after initially refusing to become a founding member.

According to Edward Heath (who was Prime Minister at the time) the main reason for application was the improved economic connection to mainland Europe.

However, with the European Union continuing to evolve, it has caused many to question whether our membership is worthwhile.

The ‘Labour Leave’ campaign states on their official website that the UK needs to ensure that “our laws are made in London rather than Brussels and that our public services are protected from the provisions of EU free trade deals.”

On his stance for a ‘No’ vote, the Prime Minister says: “ I will not rest until this debate is won. For the future of my country, for the success of the European Union, and for the prosperity of our peoples for generations to come.”

By contrast, economic research consultancy, Capital Economics, believe that the UK’s economic differences inside and out of the EU are negligible.

In their report, ‘The economic impact of Brexit’ they claim “Britain has pulled ahead of the European Union in recent years, and we expect that gap to widen over the next few years regardless of whether Brexit occurs.”

The Great Christmas Robbery

Christmas is a time for celebration, spending time with family, giving and receiving presents… and chocolate.

However, it would seem that as the years go by, the amount of chocolate sold is being reduced, whilst prices remain the same.

Fabulously Fox’s £6 tin has shrunk from 650g to 600g; Maynard’s Wine Gums have been cut by almost 15%.

Just this year, tins of Cadbury’s Heroes have shrunk from 780g to 695g.

So why is this happening during the ‘season of goodwill’?

Confectionery companies claim that the reductions are due to smaller supply of raw materials to make the tins, as well as ever-tightening health targets.

Cadbury reported that this was due to “economic issues”… even though the UK economy is growing, and Cadbury made a £96.5m profit in 2014.

According to the Money Advice Trust’s National Debtline, the average UK citizen has spent around £800 on Christmas this year.

If you were to purchase 4 tins to last throughout the Christmas period, you will have spent 3% of an average Christmas budget, just on chocolate.

That’s before buying presents, food (turkey alone is around £25), Christmas crackers, cards and potentially paying for travel.

Merry Christmas.

Syria: A Game-Changing Intervention

Russian President Vladimir Putin has increased his countries military presence in Syria, according to reports.

President Putin has deployed a force of 2,000 men, as well as aircraft and armour, to assist Syria’s President Bashar Assad as he struggles to keep control of the country.

It is well known that Syria, whilst still undergoing a rebellion, is also the main base of operations for Islamic State. On top of this, there are numerous other Islamist regimes in control of certain areas.

Europe and the USA have already begun to take action against Islamic State, with precision airstrikes on known target locations. But what impact will Russia’s presence have on proceedings?

Russian President Vladimir Putin

With Vladimir Putin moving his forces in to support President Assad, it would seem that he is trying to help bring stability to a nation in chaos; the inevitability of Russian airstrikes will give Assad’s army a major advantage as the push back against the rogue factions.

However, there are those who worry about whether this will be a repeat of last year’s coup in Eastern Ukraine. After all, Putin is well-known for his volatile tendencies; with an army the size of his, and the significantly weakened position of President Assad, it would be all too easy to take complete control.

That being said, the situation here is in strong contrast to Ukraine, for a number of reasons.

1. Vladimir Putin and Bashar Assad are more than just allies; they’re good friends, and have been for many years.
2. They are working against a common enemy in Islamic State.
3. Though it is not explicitly stated, there is a silent alliance with the western world, based on the idea that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
4. If a takeover were to happen, it would’ve been done already, due to how weak the Syrian government and military is; this move from Russia is about stabilising the situation in the Middle East.

It remains to be seen how significant Russia’s presence will turn out to be, and the length of time that this presence is felt; but for the time being, it would seem that this is beneficial for all sides.

#Budget2015: The Good, The Bad & The Ugly

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced the government’s summer budget yesterday, to a generally negative reception from the general public.

Independent blogger Simon Wren-Lewis says that the budget “makes little economic sense”. But is the budget really as bad as people are making it out to be?

THE GOOD

First off, it would seem that the government is shifting its focus away from austerity; the Chancellor promised that there won’t be any cuts as severe as the ones seen between 2011 and 2013. Instead, attention has moved to increasing national productivity.

A cut in corporation tax down to 18% aims to make firms more profitable; the introduction of a living wage of £7.20 per hour (which will rise to £9 by 2020) and an apprenticeship levy on businesses, in combination with benefit cuts, is designed to eradicate the country’s ‘benefits trap’ – currently, people are better off on benefits than they would be with a minimum wage job.

By removing the benefits trap, UK unemployment should decrease further (it has already dropped to just 5.5%), thus increasing productivity and allowing us to expand our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

Welfare reforms were, naturally, a major part of George Osborne’s speech. As aforementioned, the cuts to certain benefits aims to counter the benefits trap; a prime example of this is the ‘youth obligation’, whereby young people ages 18-21 cannot claim benefits – “you learn or you earn” said the Chancellor. But the reforms don’t stop there.

It was announced that greater support will be given to the elderly, vulnerable, disabled and also abuse victims. We also saw child tax credit being limited to two children per household (with exceptions for twins, triplets etc).

Housing benefit is to be reduced by 1% for the next four years, and there is now a four year freeze on tax credit.

Essentially, these reforms are meant to give further benefit support to those who need it the most, whilst simultaneously battling against those who abuse the system.

Speaking of abusing the system, George Osborne promised that £750m will be spent on fighting tax avoidance, and inherited non-dom tax status will be abolished.

However, perhaps the most significant announcement was the increase in devolved powers for Greater Manchester. The government aims to transform the city into a ‘northern powerhouse’, with the hope of re-igniting the regional economy. Whilst it is surprising that Westminster relieved power so readily, this could have a massively positive impact on economic growth.

THE BAD

Unfortunately, yesterday’s budget was far from being all sunshine and rainbows.

The Chancellor announced that a government budget surplus (whereby income exceeds expenditure) will be delayed until 2019.

Many analysts also feel that the poorest people in society have been targeted in the budget, with an unwavering devotion to the Right To Buy and a benefit cap of £20,000 per year.

But the news that came as an unexpected shock, and caused the largest uproar on social media, was the abolition of maintenance grants for university students.

The reasoning behind this is that universities are, currently, financially unsustainable. The government has done this in an attempt to cut down on their own expenditure.

Despite these grants being replaced with a loan expansion (which will allow students to borrow much more than they do currently), the issue of student debt is now a larger issue than ever.

University degrees are the cornerstone of well-paid, economically stimulating jobs. The removal of maintenance grants may force some potential university students to reconsider their options, which could damage the economy in the long-term.

THE UGLY

The final segment of the summer budget was, for lack of a better description, madness.

Despite seeing numerous strikes in the last five years over pay and pension schemes, the government has decided to freeze public sector pay at 1%, and announced that 430,000 more public sector jobs will be cut.

The public sector of the UK economy is a fundamental building block of our society. Education, transport, defence, the NHS… it’s all dependent on this specific workforce, who are given less recognition than they perhaps deserve.

To promise the safety of the NHS at the start of your speech, then announce cuts for it towards the end, is mind-blowing, and has made George Osborne look a tad foolish in the eyes of the media.

7/7: Ten years on, are we any safer?

Today marks the 10th anniversary of the tragic 7/7 bombings in London.

A minute’s silence was held across the United Kingdom at 11:30am, a decade after four separate al-Qaeda terrorist attacks struck London’s Underground and bus services.

Prime Minister David Cameron has also laid a wreath at Hyde Park, where a service will be held later today.

52 people lost their lives in the attacks.

After this devastating attack, a number of new laws were created, aiming to prevent another terrorism act happening on UK soil. But, ten years later, is the general public better protected?

After the 7/7 bombings, amendments were made to the Terrorism Act. Changes included revising the number of days a terrorist suspect could be detained without charge, increasing it to 28. The justification for this was that with encrypted evidence stored on one of thousands of hard drives, it would take this long to search through them.

The United Nations also issued counter-terrorism measures in 2006, allowing the Treasury to freeze the assets of terrorist suspects. However, this was deemed to be ultra vires (beyond their legal authority) and was scrapped in 2010.

Moreover, stories seem to always be surfacing about foiled terrorist plots. In January, MI5 Director-General Andrew Parker said that four major terrorist attacks were prevented in the last 12 months, with a further six dating back to 2005.

On the other hand, this is statistic is alarming in itself. The UK seems to be a massive terrorism target at the moment, so much so that the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre raised the international terrorism threat level from ‘substantial’ to ‘severe’,  which Mr Parker describes as “an evidence-based judgment that an attack on the UK is highly likely.”

In addition, he claimed that MI5 is becoming increasingly incapable of dealing with these issues; it is therefore possible that, at some point in the near future, a terrorist plot may slip through the net.

Is enough being done to ensure that something like this never happens again?

All over the developed world, we have seen terrorist attacks unfold before our eyes. The Charlie Hebdo attacks; the Sydney Siege; and, more recently, the Tunisia and Charleston shootings.

These tragedies continue to occur, regardless of how many security measures are put in place, or how many civil liberties we sacrifice in the name of counter-terrorism.

Former Prime Minister Tony Blair has stated that a “force on the ground” is needed to tackle Islamist militants. However, this does not factor in the issue of home-grown terrorism; Dylann Roof is a prime example of this (albeit related to an incident on US soil), and we hear of numerous UK citizens running away to the Middle East, to be trained as terrorists.

On July 7th, 2005, The Economist stated that the terrorism attacks “should not, and will not, make any difference to the way Londoners live and work.” Whilst this may ring true, the threat of terrorism is still very real, and the UK public remain in grave danger.

#EndAusterityNow… or should we?

Thousands of people have gathered in London today to protest against government cuts.

Starting outside the Bank of England, and finishing outside the Houses of Parliament, the rally intends to make the government rethink its austerity-focused economic strategy.

After the global economic crisis of 2007-08, the Conservatives made the decision to reduce government spending, in a bid to reduce the deficit. However, it is argued that this has had a hugely detrimental impact on economic growth.

An Oxfam report, titled ‘The true cost of austerity and inequality‘ states that “economic stagnation, the rising cost of living, cuts to social security and public services, falling incomes, and rising unemployment have combined to create a deeply damaging situation in which millions are struggling to make ends meet.”

The report goes on to say that “just one example among many is the unprecedented rise in the need for emergency food aid, with at least half a million people using food banks each year.”

Foodbanks continue to grow in popularity, a symbol of ever-expanding UK poverty.

In addition, these cuts have had a dramatic effect on numerous public services; despite pledges in the Conservative Party’s 2015 manifesto, the NHS continues to struggle under a tight economic squeeze. The education system is also under threat, with rumours circling of another increase in tuition fees.

This leaves us with a big question: are these austerity measures really working?

On the surface, it would appear that the answer is no. Today’s anti-austerity rally is strong evidence of the UK public’s distaste for government cuts. Supporting this are the public sector strikes we’ve seen in the past five years, most notably in November 2011 and July 2014 (both over pensions, pay and budget cuts).

Moreover, many would argue that the austerity measures have restricted economic growth, rather than encouraging it. Large cuts to government spending can lead to a fall in nominal GDP; an example of this would be Greece in 2011, who saw a 6% drop in GDP, meaning that there was less money available to help pay off the debt.

However, when an economy is so fragile, especially in an instance where national debt is so high (e.g. UK or Greece), increased government spending can have dangerous consequences.

Common sense dictates that if you’re in debt, this is not a good idea.

Austerity measures are typically used for one single purpose – cut down government spending in order to pay off national debt. The reason that this is such an issue is that, if national debt becomes too high, then the entire country can face economic meltdown, with a national market failure.

This is exactly what has happened in Greece; national debt reached €320bn, a figure which they were simply unable to repay, because the Greek government spent all of their money on public sector wages and the pension scheme.

By contrast, the UK national debt is £1.56 TRILLION.

In support of this,economist Tejvan Pettinger says that the primary motive behind austerity is “the morality that the government shouldn’t be spending money they don’t have.”

Furthermore, we must take into account the fact that the UK economy is now growing at a steady rate. Since 2010, we have only had 2 quarters of negative economic growth, wages are continuing to rise and unemployment is at it’s lowest in seven years (1.83 million).

Nobody can dispute the fact that austerity is squeezing everyone’s pockets, and it’s unfortunate that those who are slightly worse off are suffering the most. However, with the future of the economy still hanging in the balance, it’s probably the best option; the lesser of two evils, if you will.

Greek economy close to collapse

The economic proposals of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and European Central Bank (ECB) are “absurd”, according to Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras.

After five months of negotiations, Tsipras has slammed the EU, ECB and IMF for being uncompromising with their demands.

In an article for Le Monde, the Greek Prime Minister said that the stalemate in negotiations “is due to the insistence of certain institutional actors on submitting absurd proposals and displaying a total indifference to the recent democratic choice of the Greek people.”

The news comes as the Greek economy continues to near collapse, with officials in both Brussels and Athens conceding that, without their help, Greece can only support itself for another couple of weeks.

Alexis Tspiras has been in power for three months now, and the situation looks just as bleak as it did before the election; Greece is €320bn in debt, with the European bailout of €240bn, they still owe €80bn. In light of this, they have attempted to renegotiate the terms of their repayments.

However, the IMF has stood firm, saying that the Greek governments bailout programme is too vague, and thus, the repayments cannot be scheduled.

Alexis Tsipras had promised to renegotiate the austerity measures put into place by Europe.

Speaking on Greek TV, Finance Minister Nikos Voutsis said that “The four instalments for the IMF in June are €1.6bn, this money will not be given and is not there to be given… some parts of out program could be pushed back by six months or maybe by a year, so that there is some balance.”

In order to keep Greece within the Eurozone, the IMF and the ECB negotiated with Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras, leader of the Syriza Party. Advocating anti-austerity measures that would kick-start the Greek economy, Mr Tsipras arranged to pay the IMF in instalments, so that they could pay off their national debt.

However, this revelation that they do not have the financial capacity to pay the next instalment shows that they are struggling more than they may like to admit.

Unemployment in Greece is over 30%, with youth unemployment being twice as high (Eurostat)

On 5th June, the Greek government will pay €304m to the IMF; but many experts are wondering whether Greece will completely default on it’s debt.

There is still talk of Greece switching over to its own autonomous currency, in a move known as a ‘Grexit. Whilst this is still considered to be an unlikely outcome, something needs to change. Officials in both Brussels and Athens have conceded that, without their help, Greece can only support itself until the middle of June.

But how has this economic collapse come about?

The snowball began to roll when Greek inflation rates rose to 4% in 2000, and national debt started to spiral out of control. By joining the EU (and thus entering the Eurozone) Greece was able to stabilise it’s economy, by borrowing money at an easier rate.

However, this money was spent on increasing public sector wages and sustaining the Greek pension scheme (one of the most lavish in the world). This, in combination with an ageing population, tax evasion and hosting a €5.4bn Olympic Games in 2004, left Greece with a national debt which was higher than their GDP.

Alexis Tsipras promised much when he brought the Syriza Party into government; an end to austerity measures, a transition to an independent currency, and tougher attitudes towards Europe.

However, it would seem that his radical ideas need to be taken back to the drawing board, with Greece’s economic fate currently hanging on a knife edge.

Thomas Cook’s reputation continues to plummet

The Chief Executive of Thomas Cook is to receive a bonus of £10,507,730 next month.

According to the Mail On Sunday, Harriet Green has been on ‘gardening leave’ since November, and has come under heavy criticism for the way she has handled the deaths of two children in a Thomas Cook property in Corfu.

Harriet Green lives a lavish lifestyle

Ms Green took ownership of Thomas Cook in 2012, two years after employees were cleared of any responsibility for the deaths of Christi and Bobby Shepherd. However, an inquest this month has decided that Thomas Cook breached it’s ‘duty of care’ to the family.

The mother of the two children, Sharon Wood, says that “Harriet Wood has behaved shamefully towards us; she refused to meet us. She should hand this bonus back, or pay it to children’s charities.

Additionally, it has been revealed that the building in which the two children were unlawfully killed is now back in use, under a different house number.

The hotel’s legal firm, Hill Dickinson, has revealed that the building is indeed in use again, but says that it wasn’t used between 2006 and 2013.

Ms Green’s salary payments will stop on 30^th June, but can still take money from Thomas Cook shares (worth more than £10.5mil).

MP Mary Creagh has been supporting the family for many years

Mary Creagh MP, who has worked with the family in the wake of the tragedy and is also running for Labour Party leadership, has vowed to raise this issue in Parliament this week.

She says that “If Thomas Cook want to begin to restore their shattered public trust, they should cancel this bonus and use the money to install carbon monoxide monitors in every hotel to ensure no other family suffers a similar tragedy on one of their holidays.