Another week, another Brexit vote

The Prime Minister is planning to go back to the EU this week to argue for a renegotiation of Britain’s exit deal. But the approach at Westminster to next steps remains far from clear.

Labour MP Yvette Cooper on Tuesday pushed for a Commons amendment which would allow Parliament to vote on whether to extend article 50. However, 14 Labour MPs voted with Theresa May’s government, voting down Cooper’s amendment by 321 votes to 298.

However, a majority in the Commons did vote in favour of both a non-binding amendment that rejected a no-deal Brexit, and another amendment put forward by Graham Brady, chair of the 1922 backbench committee. This amendment declared that Parliament would pass the Withdrawal Agreement if the backstop was replaced with “alternative arrangements to avoid a hard border”.

What exactly are these “alternative arrangements” I hear you ask? We were also asking this, alongside these seven questions put forward in a thread by Queen’s University academic Katy Hayward you should ask anyone who purports to have an alternative ‘solution’ to the Irish border:

Despite MPs backing the Brady amendment on Tuesday by 317 vote to 301, the next steps in Brexit negotiations and renegotiations remain unclear — especially as it took less than ten minutes for spokesperson for European Council’s President to reject the MPs’ demands, stating that: “The withdrawal agreement is and remains the best and only way to ensure an orderly withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. The backstop is part of the withdrawal agreement, and the withdrawal agreement is not open for re-negotiation. The December European Council conclusions are very clear on this point.”

Minutes after the Brady amendment passed, the SNP stated that the Conservative party had “effectively ripped apart the Good Friday Agreement.”

As we hurtle closer and closer to the deadline of March 29th, questions continue to be asked about May’s ability to renegotiate a deal, the possibility of a no-deal Brexit, and what exactly is going to happen along the Irish border. Meanwhile Jacob Rees-Mogg, in Northern Ireland to attend a DUP fundraiser in Ballymena, reassured us all that there will not be a hard border on the island of Ireland, even in the event of a no-deal Brexit. How nice of him.

Still confused about the backstop? The Irish Times produced this handy explainer video using cricket.

 

When Hell freezes over

While the UK and Ireland have been mildly disrupted by snow and ice this week, the polar vortex in the American Midwest and Northeast has taken the lives of at least 21 people, with approximately 90 million people experienced temperatures of -17C or below.

As nearly a third of the US attempted to avoid frostbite and serious illness in the face of record-breaking frigid temperatures, President Donald Trump has been echoing questions posed by climate-change skeptics —If the earth is getting warmer, how can winter still be so cold? And what, exactly, is Global “Waming”?

Scientists quickly took to Twitter to remind the President and many climate change deniers of the difference between climate and weather:

This Arctic-like temperatures are part of series of weather events that have become more common in recent years, which scientific organisations continue to link to climate change and human activities responsible for global warming.

On a slightly lighter note, the freezing temperatures in the American Midwest have also hit a town located 60 miles west of Detroit called Hell. This means that yes, at temperatures as low as -26C, Hell has literally frozen over.

 

US-Afghanistan peace deal

Washington’s top negotiator announced that US and Taliban negotiators have agreed on a draft framework for a peace deal seeking to put an end to the 17-year conflict in Afghanistan. This draft framework was the culmination of six days of talks held between US negotiators and the Taliban.

This agreement for a framework to pull out US troops in exchange for the Taliban joining a unity government and ensuring that the country won’t be used by armed groups such as the Islamic State or Al Qaeda has come in the wake of President Trump’s orders to withdraw up to 14,000 US troops in the country.

Despite the Former US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence David Sedney stating that it is that “best chance for peace in almost 20 years,” the Taliban still refuses to negotiate with the Afghan government, which it considers to be an ‘American puppet’.  Afghan President Ashraf Ghani has released a statement stating calling on the Taliban to “remove themselves from strangers’ evil plans, accept the demands of Afghans and start talks seriously with the government”, warning that a deal without Afghan government involvement would be “catastrophic.”

As steps begin to be made towards peace, the world will now begin to consider the legacy that the US will leave behind in Afghanistan after spending more that $132 billion on the reconstruction of Afghanistan and an estimated $800 billion on warfighting. Considering the fact that the Taliban now control more territory today than they did in 2001, commentators are looking especially at the cost that the conflict has had on the rights of Afghan women.

 

US to withdraw from INF nuclear treaty

On Friday US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced that the US is suspending the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a Cold War-era arms control treaty between the US and Russia that banned the use of short and medium-range missiles by both countries. Russia also suspended its involvement in the treaty following the US’ decision.

In his announcement, Secretary Pompeo stated that Russia has been violating the terms of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty “for years,” putting “millions of Europeans and Americans at greater risk.”  This suspension has raised fears that the world is at the cusp of a new nuclear arms race, as Russia has consistently denied violating the treaty and mistrust grows between it and the US. However NATO has urged Russia to use the next six months to “return to full and verifiable compliance to preserve the INF Treaty”.

 

Finally, we have a government!

And by we, I mean Lebanon — not Northern Ireland.

This week Lebanon finally established its new government after nearly nine months of discussions. (Imagine not having a government for only nine months!)

As Prime Minister Saad Hariri enters his third term, he has promised to initiate urgent economic and political reforms, including nearly $11bn (£8bn) in pledged international aid and loans.

After months of wrangling, Hariri has formed a cabinet composed  of most of the country’s rival factions (including the Iranian-backed Shia group Hezbollah) despite pressure from the US to not have the group involved in the government (Hezbollah is on the US’s list of terrorist organizations.)

As Hariri vows that it is “time to turn the page” after the eight-month political crisis for power-sharing in Lebanon, I personally have one question — if they can form a government, why can’t we?

Find out more about power-sharing around the world from Northern Slant here.