Category: Non-EU Countries

British Holiday Mother “kills 2 children”

A British mother has been arrested on suspicion of murdering her two young children who were found dead in a Spanish hotel.

The woman has confessed to killing her one-year-old son and daughter aged five at the four-star Hotel Miramar in the Costa Brava resort of Lloret de Mar, police sources said.

Her children may have been suffocated, investigators believe. Emergency services were called but paramedics could do nothing to save the lives of the children who reportedly showed no outward signs of injury.

The woman, who is in her 30s, was said to have driven to the resort – about 72km (45 miles) north-east of Barcelona – with her children on Monday evening for a few days’ holiday.

Shortly before 2pm yesterday, she called police herself to the modern, beachfront hotel, where officers found the dead youngsters.

Police said the cause of death was not known and postmortem examinations are due to be carried out tomorrow.

The mother reconstructed the tragic events in front of a judge and officers in the room before being taken to a police station this evening.

The Metro

May 19, 2010
The UK-US Alliance Under the Microscope

[from the Royal United Services Institute]

Nick Clegg’s statement that it is time to ‘turn the page on the default Atlanticism’ of successive British governments highlights a growing unease over the UK’s most important alliance. However, the true debate is not about the merits of the alliance but Britain’s position in the world.

By John Hemmings for RUSI.org

The UK-US alliance is a deeply-entrenched one, vital to Britain’s security interests and central to the nation’s position in the world. But is it under threat? Is the ‘special relationship’ no longer as special as it once was or is this merely a narrative driven by an over-anxious media? Certainly, reporting on the subject this side of the Atlantic would seem to suggest that there are serious problems, structural as well as cosmetic. On the cosmetic side, the lack of warmth between Gordon Brown and Barack Obama has been seized upon as evidence of a failing relationship. In addition, the last two years have seen a number of complications – insignificant on their own – but in combination add to this sense of crisis. These have included the release of Al Megrahi, the man convicted of the Lockerbie bombing; the extradition to the US of Gary McKinnon, the British hacker diagnosed with autism; and remarks made by Hillary Clinton implying that the US supported Argentinean attempts to reopen negotiations over the Falkland Islands.

The structural architecture of the relationship

The ‘special relationship’ should not and cannot be understood as merely the relationship between a given president and prime minister. This part of the alliance is simply too cyclical, based as it is on the continual shift of democratic elections. Far more significant is the structural side of the ‘special relationship’. Birthed during war and shaped by the UK-USA Security Agreement, the military and security side of the alliance is arguably the ‘bread and butter’ of this bond and perhaps the real reason the relationship is described as special.[1] Since 1943, the US and UK have developed a complex network of close links between their defence and intelligence communities. These communities regularly grant privileged access to intelligence, planning and defence development that would be unthinkable between most other states. Personnel develop strong working relationship and contacts due to the high number of secondments within each others’ organisations. While relationships between Foreign Ministers and Heads of State wax and wane, the real partnerships take place in Whitehall and Foggy Bottom, in Langley and Vauxhall Cross, and in the combined command structures in Kabul.

There are some disturbing signs that this structural side of the special relationship is now being reconsidered due to changes in the strategic environment: the removal of the Soviet Union as a strategic competitor, the rise of Islamic fundamentalism and the growing variance in approach. The rise of China, distant from British shores, has revealed a gap in security priorities between the two. While China’s growing military assertiveness is a cause for consternation for American and Japanese policy-makers, Britons and their EU counterparts continue to view the relationship with China as an economic one. Furthermore, not all recent UK-US cooperation has been fruitful: the perception – real or supposed – of an inferior capability of British forces in Basra and Helmand seems to undermine the benefits of being seen as a faithful ally. Are British contributions being taken seriously, or even worse, do they truly deserve to be?

The British role in the world

Within the defence community in the UK, some of these questions are causing a rethink of the relationship: a recent RUSI survey of defence specialists found that nearly one-third of respondents disagreed with the proposition that a relationship with the United States, maintained above all others, best served British interests. While a finding of this kind taken from a sample of the British public might not be surprising following the deeply unpopular Iraq War, it is disturbing to find it so prevalent in the defence community, given the fact that the two sides are active partners engaged in an ongoing conflict. One cannot imagine drawing such results during the heady days of the Second World War. However one wonders if the ‘greatest generation’ would have taken such a poll in the first place. The predicted cuts to British defence spending and the potential, though unlikely, unilateral withdrawal of its independent nuclear deterrent – a point of debate in the 2010 election – mean that the UK’s future capability to partner with the US is now a concern on both sides of the Atlantic. A recent paper by Professor Malcolm Chalmers indicates that this scale-down could seriously impact the British ability to ‘punch above our weight’ in global politics.

Has Britain effectively managed to answer Dean Acheson’s slightly belittling question: ‘What is Britain’s role in the dusk of Empire?’ American thinker Walter Russell Mead points to the historical British role in shaping the modern world and says that this explains Britain’s post-war alignment with US policy-makers.[2] Following the Imperial drawdown, it was not that Britain chose to subvert itself to US policy-makers, but rather that Britain chose to partner with the US because of the similarities in long-term political and economic objectives.

To some extent, the Cold War revealed a major alignment of US and UK political assumptions about free market economics, the desirability of liberal democracy, and support for international organisations as a preventative of major-state conflict. While thinkers on both sides of the Atlantic debated the details, the commonality of these assumptions set the two states apart from even their closest allies. The question that is now being asked on both sides of the Atlantic is a good one: do these assumptions still hold, and do they play a major role in deciding the security priorities of both states? Despite the election of a US President who seems to share many British and European positions on nuclear weapons, multilateralism, and a preference for diplomatic over military solutions, the Tea Party syndrome and popularity of right-wing figures like Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin indicate a growing chasm between the US and the UK political culture. Furthermore, the financial scandal has raised the spectre of US protectionism of its home market, though this has yet to turn into a reality.

A true partner

Expectations must not be allowed to build beyond what is possible between the two states. Britain is in the strange position of having been surpassed by its own construct, but can and should still continue to contribute to a political discussion that it initiated. The deficit between the two has not been merely in hard power or trade but also in self-confidence. Arguably, the current malaise is not at all about the relationship, but about Britain losing sight of its vital role in building and maintaining the free market principles, the international institutions, and the political values that underpin the global order. With the rise of superpower economies – Brazil, Russia, India, and China – the United States does not need a subordinate, neither does it want a go-it-alone Britain, it needs a true intellectual partner. In defence terms, the UK will have to make difficult choices, but these need not be permanent. It must refrain from underselling its defence and intelligence contribution to the partnership: Britain’s part has been praised by senior US political and military leaders, as well as the many troops on the ground. There may be major disagreements on the details of process or planning but that is a consequence of working so closely together on complex issues, rather than a systematic failure and should be treated as such. The main problem arises when political leaders on either side of the Atlantic, use these differences for domestic reasons. The reality of the relationship is quite promising: away from the anxious eyes of the press, away from the political heads, the relationship is extremely functional, and under the twin pressures of Islamic fundamentalism and insurgency, interoperability within the defence and intelligence communities has never been better.

It is easy to view the relationship in terms of its failings, but the simple fact is that the ‘special relationship’ is the envy of most other US partners, and has a unique place in history. The US cannot decide Britain’s role for it, but whatever the UK decides, the US needs a strong and faithful ally.

The views expressed above are the author’s own, and do not necessarily reflect those of RUSI.

NOTES

1. This sharing includes New Zealand, Canada, and Australia, so technically they are part of the ‘special relationship’.

2. Walter Russell Meade, God and Gold: Britain, America and the Making of the Modern World’ (2009)

May 16, 2010
Turkish and Turkish Cypriot NGOs to unite and form stronger lobby task force

Turkish and Turkish Cypriot NGOs to unite and form stronger lobby task force

A breakfast meeting was held in London’s Sofra Restaurant on Sunday 9^th May 2010 to discuss the subject of the Cyprus Problem. It was organised and hosted jointly by the Association of Turkish Cypriots Abroad, Turkish Forum WTA, Cyprus Turkish Association and the UK Konsey.

The guest and keynote speaker was world renowned historian and author Professor Dr. Sonyel. He highlighted that historically the Turkish Cypriots have been unjustly treated and continue to remain isolated in the World. He concluded by saying that the Greek Cypriot strategy has always been to eradicate the Turkish Cypriots from the island of Cyprus. It is highly unlikely that they will accept any agreement based on equality of power and sovereignty.

The meeting developed into general discussion points on how to be more effective and unitary principally against the Greek, Greek Cypriot and Armenian propaganda.

It was unanimously agreed by all the NGOs present that all groups should put aside their past differences and unite as a stronger and effective lobby force. It was generally agreed that they should use the relevant umbrella organisations such as the UK Turkish Cypriot Konsey and the Turkish Federation. Turkish Forum, World Turkish Alliance which serves Turkish communities worldwide will help co-ordinate efforts with its mass distribution lists, grassroots teams and distinguished advisors in five continents.

Türk ve Kıbrıs Türk Sivil Toplum Örgütleri daha güçlü bir lobi kuvveti oluşturmak için toplandı

Kıbrıs Sorunu’nu tartışmak amacı ile 9 Mayıs 2010 Pazar günü Londra’da Sofra Restorant’ta toplantı yapıldı.Toplantı aynı zamanda daveti veren ATCA (Association of Turkish Cypriots Abroad), Turkish Forum Dünya Türkleri Birliği (Turkısh Forum World Turkish Alliance) ve UK (Birleşik Krallık) Konsey’i tarafından organize edildi.

Toplantıya ana konusmacı olarak misafir olan dünyaca ünlü tarihçi ve yazar Profesör Doktor Selahi Sonyel katıldı. Prof. Dr. Selahi Sonyel konuşmasında geçmişte Kıbrıs Türklerine karşı adil olmayan tavırların sürdüğünü ve Kıbrıs Türklerinin izolasyona uğradığını irdeledi. Sonuç olarak ta Kıbrıslı Rumların Kıbrıslı Türklere uyguladıkları stratejinin her zaman Kıbrıs Türklerini adadan def etmek olduğunu belirtti. Kıbrıslı Rumların, eşit olan iki halk olarak adada hakimiyet paylaşımını kabul ederek antlaşmaya varmalarının çok düşük bir ihtimal olduğunu ifade etti.

Toplantının ana konusu, Yunanlılar, Kıbrıs Rumları ve Ermeni propagandasına karşı çoğunluk olarak nasıl daha etkili birlik oluştururuz şeklinde gelişti.

Toplantıda bulunan tüm sivil toplum örgütleri, geçmişte olan aralarındaki tüm farklılıkları bir kenara bırakmaya, daha güçlü ve etkili bir lobi kuvveti oluşturmaya oy birliği ile karar verdi. Ana hatlarıyla İngiltere Kıbrıs Türk Konseyi (UK Turkish Cypriot Konsey) Türk federasyonu (Turkish Federation) şemsiye organizasyonunun koordinasyonuna karar verildi. Türk toplumuna dünya çapında hizmet eden, Turkish Forum Dünya Türkleri Birliği, kitle dağıtım listeleriyle, halktan oluşan takımlarıyla ve seçkin danışmanlarıyla bu gayretleri beş kıtada koordine edecek.

Cetin Ramadan, ATCA – UK Representative

&

Haluk Demirbag, Turkish Forum WTA

May 12, 2010
David Cameron is UKs new prime minister

Conservative leader David Cameron is the new UK prime minister after the resignation of Gordon Brown.

Mr Cameron, 43, is in Downing Street after travelling to Buckingham Palace to formally accept the Queen’s request to form the next government.

He said he aimed to form a ‘proper and full coalition’ with the Lib Dems to provide ‘strong, stable government’.

His party won the most seats in the UK general election last week, but not an overall majority.

In a speech at Downing Street, Mr Cameron said he and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg would “put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest”.

He paid tribute to outgoing PM Gordon Brown for his long years of public service and said he would tackle Britain’s “pressing problems” – the deficit, social problems and reforming the political system.

Mr Cameron stressed there would be “difficult decisions” but said he wanted to take people through them to reach “better times ahead”.

The Conservatives have been in days of negotiations with the Lib Dems – who were also negotiating with Labour – after the UK election resulted in a hung parliament.

But the Lib Dems said talks with Labour failed because “the Labour Party never took seriously the prospects of forming a progressive, reforming government”.

Formal agreement

A spokesman said key members of the Labour team “gave every impression of wanting the process to fail” and the party had made “no attempt at all” to agree a common approach on issues like schools funding and tax reform.

“Certain key Labour cabinet ministers were determined to undermine any agreement by holding out on policy issues and suggesting that Labour would not deliver on proportional representation and might not marshal the votes to secure even the most modest form of electoral reform,” he said.

However Labour’s Lord Mandelson told the BBC they had been “up for” a deal with the Lib Dems, but they had “created so many barriers and obstacles that perhaps they thought their interests lay on the Tory side, on the Conservative side, rather than the progressive side”.

After it became clear the talks had failed, Mr Brown tendered his resignation and said he wished the next prime minister well.

In an emotional resignation statement outside Number Ten, Mr Brown thanked his staff, his wife Sarah and their children, who joined the couple as they left for Buckingham Palace.

Mr Brown said it had been “a privilege to serve” adding: “I loved the job not for its prestige, its titles and its ceremony – which I do not love at all. No, I loved the job for its potential to make this country I love fairer, more tolerant, more green, more democratic, more prosperous and more just – truly a greater Britain.”

‘My fault’

He also paid tribute to the courage of the armed forces, adding: “I will never forget all those who have died in honour and whose families today live in grief.”

Later he thanked Labour activists and MPs for all their efforts and told them Labour’s general election performance was “my fault, and my fault alone”.

The Lib Dem and Conservative teams met for hours of negotiations at the Cabinet Office on Tuesday – four days after the UK general election resulted in a hung parliament.

The talks resumed after Lib Dem negotiators met a Labour team, which followed Mr Brown’s announcement on Monday that he would step down as Labour leader by September.

But there were signs throughout the afternoon that the two parties – who together would still not command an overall majority in the House of Commons – would not reach a deal.

Several senior Labour figures, including John Reid and David Blunkett, warned against a coalition with the Lib Dems, particularly if the price involved offering them a referendum on changing the voting system to proportional representation.

After Mr Brown announced he would be stepping down and would see if Labour could do a deal with the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives upped their offer to a promise of a referendum on changing the voting system from existing first past the post system to AV.

BBC

May 11, 2010
Gordon Brown to quit as a Labour Party leader

Gordon Brown ‘stepping down as Labour leader’

Gordon Brown is to step down as Labour leader by September – as his party opens formal talks with the Lib Dems about forming a government.

His announcement came as he and the Conservatives woo the Lib Dems in a battle to form the next government.

Mr Brown’s presence was seen as harming Labour’s chances of Lib Dem backing.

Following the news the Conservatives made a ‘final offer’ to the Lib Dems of a referendum on changing the voting method to the Alternative Vote system.

Further clarification

BBC political editor Nick Robinson said Mr Brown’s resignation was an audacious bid by Mr Brown to keep Labour in power – and himself in power for a limited period – and Tory MPs would be furious.

It comes after further talks between the Tory and Lib Dem negotiating teams and another meeting between Tory leader David Cameron and Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg.

In his statement, Mr Brown said Britain had a “parliamentary and not presidential system” and said there was a “progressive majority” of voters.

He said if the national interest could be best served by a coalition between the Lib Dems and Labour he would “discharge that duty to form that government”.

But he added that no party had won an overall majority in the UK general election and, as Labour leader, he had to accept that as a judgement on him.

Leadership process

“I therefore intend to ask the Labour Party to set in train the processes needed for its own leadership election.

“I would hope that it would be completed in time for the new leader to be in post by the time of the Labour Party conference.

“I will play no part in that contest, I will back no individual candidate.”

Lib Dem leader Mr Clegg had requested formal negotiations with Labour and it was “sensible and in the national interest” to respond positively to the request, Mr Brown said.

It emerged earlier that the Lib Dem negotiating team, who have held days of talks with the Conservatives, had also met senior Labour figures in private.

But it was understood that one of the stumbling blocks to any Labour-Lib Dem deal was Mr Brown himself.

Mr Clegg said he was “very grateful to David Cameron and his negotiation team” and they had had “very constructive talks” and made a “great deal of progress”.

‘Smooth transition’

But he said they had not “reached a comprehensive partnership agreement for a full Parliament” so far and it was the “responsible thing to do” to open negotiations with the Labour Party on the same basis, while continuing talks with the Tories.

“Gordon Brown has taken a difficult personal decision in the national interest,” he said.

“And I think without prejudice to the talks that will now happen between Labour and the Liberal Democrats, Gordon Brown’s decision is an important element which could help ensure a smooth transition to the stable government that everyone deserves.”

The Lib Dems have long campaigned for a change to the voting system – something which the Conservatives have strongly opposed.

But speaking after a meeting of Conservative MPs, following Mr Brown’s statement, shadow foreign secretary William Hague said they were prepared to “go the extra mile” on electoral reform – and offer a referendum on switching to AV in return for a coalition government.

He said the Lib Dems had to choose whether to back them or a government that would not be stable – because it would have to rely on the votes of other minor parties – and would have an “unelected prime minister” for the second time in a row.

Labour scepticism

He also said the Labour offer was for a switch to the AV system, without a referendum, which he believed was undemocratic. The BBC understands, from Lib Dem sources, that the Labour offer is legislation to introduce AV, followed by a referendum on proportional representation.

Under AV no candidate is elected without at least 50% of the vote, after second preferences are taken into account, but it is not considered full proportional representation.

Meanwhile BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said he understood some Cabinet members were sceptical about the idea of a “progressive alliance” with the Lib Dems and were concerned it would look bad.

And he said Mr Brown would be asking Cabinet ministers not to launch immediate leadership campaigns, for fear it would look undignified.

John Mann, the first Labour MP to call for him to go after the election result, said Mr Brown had made a “wise and brave” decision.

Cabinet minister Douglas Alexander told Sky News Mr Brown had decided to step down last week but was “very keen to ensure that he meets his constitutional obligations which is to ensure that a government is formed”.

And the SNP’s Westminster leader Angus Robertson said it was “inevitable” Mr Brown would have to go and he had “done the right thing”.

But Conservative MP Nigel Evans told the BBC: “The fact he’s going in September, I think the country passed its verdict. Gordon, they want you to go now.”

Labour backbencher Graham Stringer said he did not believe a coalition with the Lib Dems would work and could damage the party: “I don’t think it makes sense in the arithmetic – the numbers don’t add up.”

The Tories secured 306 of the 649 constituencies contested on 6 May. It leaves the party short of the 326 MPs needed for an outright majority, with the Thirsk and Malton seat – where the election was postponed after the death of a candidate – still to vote.

Labour finished with 258 MPs, down 91, the Lib Dems 57, down five, and other parties 28.

If Labour and the Lib Dems joined forces, they would still not have an overall majority.

With the support of the Northern Irish SDLP, one Alliance MP, and nationalists from Scotland and Wales they would reach 328, rising to 338 if the DUP, the independent unionist and the new Green MP joined them.

BBC

May 10, 2010
Andrew Dismore ousted!

Andrew Dismore was a big burden on the British-Turkish relations.

Türk düşmanı Andrew Dismore’u İngiliz halkı defetti…

—

Andrew Dismore ousted by 106 votes

Labour’s Andrew Dismore has lost his Hendon seat to the Conservative Party candidate, Matthew Offord, by 106 votes following a recount.

Mr Dismore pulled in 19 529 or 42.1% of the overall vote, compared to Mr Offord’s 19 635 votes – 42.3% of the votes.

Mr Dismore had been caught up in the expenses scandal, and was accused of “flipping” his second home designation.

, 07 May 2010

Election result: Hendon

By Marcus Dysch

New Face

Conservative candidate Matthew Offord has ousted Labour’s Andrew Dismore to win the Hendon constituency in one of the country’s closest election battles.

Mr Offord, a former deputy leader of Barnet Council, won by just 106 votes following a recount.

He received 19,635 votes to Mr Dismore’s 19,529.

The result represented a swing of 5.2 per cent to the Tories from Labour.

[…]

Mr Dismore, who had held the seat since 1997, was understandably disappointed by the result. In his farewell speech he accused Mr Offord of a “dirty” campaign.

He had worked tirelessly for Jewish and Israeli causes but was mired by expenses allegations in the past 12 months.

[…]

, May 7, 2010

Ousted Labour MP Andrew Dismore makes vitriolic speech

Alex Hayes

DEFEATED Labour candidate Andrew Dismore accused his Conservative opponent of “mud-slinging” during a vitriolic speech after results were announced.

Mr Dismore lost the key marginal seat by just 106 votes following a recount, with the result announced just after 9am after a mammoth count.

In the address he accused newly elected Matthew Offord of “name calling” and accused him of being disrespectful towards his long-term partner.

He said: “This has not been a clean fight, in my view it’s been a pretty dirty campaign. It’s my eighth public election and I have never seen such a barrage of personal slurs and lies in this campaign.

“I’m humbled by the fact so many of my fellow residents voted for me. The election result was a close one, only by a whisker in a seat the Conservatives thought they would take by a huge margin.

“People voted for me because they appreciated the work I’ve done for them and their communities.”

He warned the other candidates the precarious hung Parliament could see another election called in the next few months.

, May 7, 2010

Andrew Dismore may make legal challenge to Hendon result

Alex Hayes

ANDREW Dismore, who lost his Hendon seat by just 106 votes this morning, has not ruled out the possibility of a legal challenge over the staging of the vote.

The Labour candidate lost after a recount of votes to Conservative Matthew Offord, but accused the Tory man of dirty tricks during the election campaign in his losers speech.

Mr Offord said he was not ruling out legal action over problems with postal votes not arriving, queues at polling stations making people turn away and voters being given wrong information on which station to use.

He said: “I have to speak to lawyers before I make any decisions on this. Yesterday there were problems of lots of people not having their postal votes.

“I also saw a lot of people leaving big queues at polling stations because there were not enough staff on to cope with it, so in these areas those votes could have made all the difference.

“There are also some things he (Mr Offord) was writing on his leaflets I will refer to lawyers as well.”

The former barrister, who took control of the seat in 1997 added: “I don’t think there was anything me or my team could have done. If we had had more support in door knocking I think we could have won.

“The Conservatives had the Ashcroft funded billboards all over the borough and we just couldn’t compete with that sort of money.”

, May 7 2010

May 7, 2010