Search Results

After the 2023 election, many analysts projected that SYRIZA, Greece's leading left-wing opposition party, would be replaced by PASOK-KINAL as the country's main opposition party to incumbent New Democracy. Political analysts expected that PASOK would overtake SYRIZA in the next election after obtaining a dismal 18% in the election with the margin between SYRIZA and PASOK narrowing to roughly 7%. This belief was strengthened with the resignation of historic Party Leader Alexis Tsipras. The party had elections for new leaders in recent weeks, and one emerging star was given the spotlight. Stefanos Kasselakis, a 35-year-old entrepreneur, has surprisingly been elected leader of Greece's new left-wing populist party after winning the first round with 44.9% and the second round with 56.6% he solidified his victory over his main opponent Effie Achtsioglou. Kasselakis after winning the SYRIZA Leadership Election Who is Stefanos Kasselakis? He was born in 1988 and was raised in the upper middle class household in north Athens. His family lost their money as a result of the financial crisis, and he was moved to the United States to attend boarding school for his final year of high school. Later, he attended the prestigious University of Pennsylvania, notably Wharton, and the even more prestigious Huntsman Program, which is specialized in international business and politics. He eventually worked for Goldman Sachs before starting his own shipping company. Kasselaki's response to the obvious controversy of his previous jobs is that his grasp of capitalism as a result of his previous experience is his greater competence is the reason he joined the left-wing socialist movement. He claims to have experienced firsthand how firms exploit lower-class labor. Threat to Incumbent Kyriakos Mitsotakis Kyriakos Mitsotakis won a landslide victory in June 2023 and is regarded as one of the most influential leaders of Greece's conservative New Democracy Party. Mitsotakis, a Harvard graduate, speaks flawless English and played the sophistication card in the election against Alexis Tsipras, whose signature outfits lacked a tie and who spoke bad English. For many voters, this made Alexis Tsipras appear less professional and less serious. Kasselakis, on the other hand, speaks fluent English and is well-educated. This clashes with Mitsotakis' refined appearance, which many SYRIZA voters thought was arrogant. This is also why so many SYRIZA members supported Kasselakis, believing that he can outperform Mitsotakis in his own game.

Britain's largest defense firm, BAE Systems, has secured a £3.95bn ($4.82bn) contract to build a new generation of submarines as the AUKUS security pact between the UK, US, and Australia progresses. The AUKUS pact, announced in March, is targeted at providing Australia with nuclear-powered attack submarines by the late 2030s. This ambitious initiative is designed to counterbalance China's regional ambitions and enhance security of the three Western nations. Charles Woodburn, the CEO of BAE Systems, took great delight in his organization's participation in this crucial trilateral submarine development. The allocated funding will support development efforts through 2028, when submarine manufacture is expected to start. In the late 2030s, the first SSN-AUKUS submarine is anticipated to be delivered. These SSN-AUKUS submarines, which are based on British designs, will be used by both the UK and Australia. The importance of this multibillion-pound expenditure was stressed by UK Defense Minister Grant Shapps, who said that it will provide the UK the long-term hunter-killer submarine capabilities required to preserve strategic advantages in a competitive international order. This agreement will supposedly bring decades of work to the Barrow-in-Furness shipyard, employing over 10,000 people. This funding will also facilitate investments in the shipyard, supply chain, and create over 5,000 jobs. Significant UK military companies, including BAE Systems, stand to profit from the AUKUS agreement in more than one way. All of the nuclear reactor plants for the SSN-AUKUS boats will be provided by Rolls-Royce Submarines, which will result in an extension of its Raynesway site in Derby. Additionally, the Ministry of Defence has inked a five-year agreement with Babcock International to work on the SSN-AUKUS design. Babcock International is in charge of maintaining and servicing the UK's submarines. The AUKUS security alliance has received continuous criticism from China since its initial announcement in September 2021, but the three participating Western nations continue to stress that the pact's main goal is to strengthen stability in the Indo-Pacific area.

The Canadian political landscape has recently been rocked by an incident that has sparked widespread controversy and ignited a national debate. Yaroslav Hunka, a Canadian-Ukrainian who was part of the elite Nazi Waffen SS during World War II, was applauded in the Canadian Parliament, leading to an uproar both within and outside political circles. This occurrence has not only stirred a wave of outrage across Canada, but it has also raised serious questions about the nation's understanding of historical events, its stance on those who collaborated with the Nazis, and its commitment to democratic values. Yaroslav Hunka is a Ukrainian veteran who was a member of the Nazi SS faction during World War II. His past came under intense scrutiny after being recognized and applauded in the Canadian Parliament. The incident has ignited a nationwide debate on historical memory and Canada's attitude towards those who were involved with Nazi atrocities. Hunka’s service in the Nazi Waffen SS has been a subject of controversy for years. His involvement with the Nazis during World War II is well-documented, and his actions during the war have been condemned by many. Despite this, he managed to escape international attention until his recognition in the Canadian Parliament brought his past back into the limelight. Yaroslav Hunka being applauded in Canadian parliament The applause given to Hunka in the Parliament has been severely criticized, with many arguing that it demonstrates a troubling lack of awareness about the horrors of Nazism and the atrocities perpetrated by Hitler's regime. Critics argue that applauding a man who served in a Nazi unit shows a blatant disregard for the millions of lives lost as a result of Nazi rule. The incident has significantly damaged the reputation of the Canadian Parliament, which is typically regarded as a symbol of democratic values. It has raised questions about the judgment and integrity of those who participated in the applause, and has sparked a heated debate about the responsibility of politicians in promoting historical accuracy and awareness. The controversy has also led to widespread condemnation from the international community. Several countries, particularly those directly affected by Nazi atrocities during World War II, have expressed their disapproval and shock at the incident. This international backlash has further tarnished Canada's image and strained its relations with several nations. The incident has led to significant political fallout. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau issued a public apology on behalf of the Parliament, expressing regret for the honour given to Hunka. Trudeau's apology, though seen as a necessary step, has been criticized by some as too little, too late. Many perceive his apology as an attempt to mitigate the political damage from the incident and distance his administration from the controversial applause, with the apology lacking much substance. In a major development, Anthony Rota, Speaker of Canada's House of Commons, resigned following the incident. His resignation is seen as a direct result of the backlash and marks a critical moment in Canadian politics. As the Speaker, Rota was responsible for maintaining order in the House of Commons he too took the blame for the incident. Consequently, his resignation has left a leadership vacuum that will be challenging to fill. Anthony Rota, declaring his resignation as Speaker of Canada's house of commons The incident has also sparked a broader discussion about the need for greater accountability in politics. Many are calling for stricter measures to prevent such incidents in the future, including better vetting of individuals recognized in the parliament and more comprehensive education of historical events for public officials. The incident comes at a crucial juncture, with Canada's elections around the corner. The controversy has added a new facet to the electoral discourse, compelling politicians to address issues related to historical memory, the nation's stance towards Nazi collaborators, and the importance of maintaining the integrity of public institutions. The controversy could also affect the electoral prospects of several candidates. Trudeau's public apology, while important, may not be enough to quell the public outrage. His handling of the incident will undoubtedly be a key issue in the upcoming elections, and his political opponents are likely to use it to question his leadership and judgment. On the other hand, this incident could also provide an opportunity for politicians to demonstrate their commitment to democratic values and historical accuracy. Candidates who take a strong stance against the recognition of Nazi collaborators and advocate for better education on historical events could gain public support. In conclusion, the recognition of a Ukrainian man who served in a Nazi unit by the Canadian Parliament has ignited outrage and led to significant political consequences. As Canada prepares for its elections, this incident serves as a stark reminder of the importance of historical memory in shaping contemporary politics. The controversy surrounding Yaroslav Hunka underscores the need for greater accountability in politics, more comprehensive education on historical events, and a renewed commitment to democratic values.

In today's interconnected world, the dynamics of global economics are continually evolving. One topic that has been gaining prominence is the contingency for the Chinese Yuan (CNY) to surpass the United States Dollar (USD) as the world's dominant currency. But what does it mean for a currency to surpass another, and why is this significant in today's world? When we speak of one currency surpassing another, we are referring to its rise in global prominence and influence. Since the end of the Second World War, the US Dollar has been the world's primary reserve currency. This means that it is widely accepted and held by central banks, governments, and financial institutions as a safe store of value and a medium of exchange for international transactions. Therefore, the significance of a currency surpassing the USD in today's world cannot be overstated. It would represent a complete reordering of global economic power with far-reaching implications. More specifically, a Yuan-dominated world would mean a shift in economic power from the West, led by the United States, to the East, with China at the forefront. This transition could reshape global trade, finance, and investment as the country controlling the dominant currency has significant influence over international financial institutions and regulations. As a result, the Yuan surpassing the USD could lead to China playing a more critical role in shaping the global geopolitical field and financial system. If the Yuan overtakes the dollar, it could be increasingly used as the preferred currency for international trade, potentially reducing the dependency on the USD in global transactions. How Could the Yuan Surpass the USD? For centuries, consumers and nations have sought refuge in safer, more dominant currencies. One of the most significant examples being the British Pound Sterling during the 19th century when the British Empire was at its zenith. Investors favored the GBP due to the empire's economic and political power, making it a safe haven for investments. Similarly, the USD rose to dominance in the 20th century, reinforced by the economic predominance of the United States and its role in post-World War II global reconstruction through initiatives like the Marshall Plan. However, the tides may shift as the Chinese Yuan (CNY) becomes a serious contender to challenge this long-standing status quo. One of the factors that could cause this economic revolution is China’s economic prowess and growth. As China races towards becoming the world's largest economy, investors are taking note. China's allure lies not only in its sheer size but also in its role as a manufacturing and export giant. China's remarkable growth trajectory serves as a testament to its economic might, attracting investors seeking both growth opportunities and a stable currency. The Yuan's appeal is strengthened by China's contributions to global trade and commerce. Another critical factor is the country’s financial market reforms and its international acceptance. China's financial market reforms have been central to the Yuan's internationalization. The inclusion of the Yuan in the International Monetary Fund's Special Drawing Rights basket marked a significant milestone, signaling its growing acceptance on the global stage. Over recent years, China has steadily opened its financial markets to foreign investors, facilitating greater access with initiatives such as the Bond Connect scheme and the inclusion of Chinese A-shares in global indices, making it easier for investors to participate in China's financial markets. On this matter, it is essential to mention China’s bilateral trade agreements and currency swaps by actively promoting the use of the Yuan in those agreements and encouraging other nations to transact its currency. The establishment of currency swap agreements with countries across Asia and Africa pushes these nations to trade in Yuan, bypassing the traditional dependence on the USD. A notable example is the China-UAE Currency Swap Agreement of 2012, which allowed the two countries to settle trade transactions in their respective currencies, bypassing the need for the USD and securing Chinese access to oil imports from the UAE, a crucial energy supplier, in Yuan. Why is the US Anxious About It Happening? The United States has legitimate concerns about the Yuan surpassing the USD. First and foremost, because of the economic impact it would have. A decline in the USD's value could lead to the US facing higher borrowing costs, potentially leading to increased government spending and corporate expenses and affecting the American economy. Secondly, the US would lose some of its influence over other nations, international institutions, and financial regulations/monetary policies. Thirdly, the USA is concerned about exchange rate-related risks as companies engaged in international trade would face currency instability making exports and imports industries more volatile. Currently, many international transactions are conducted in USD, which provides stability while a shift to Yuan could introduce more volatility into the international financial system. In conclusion, the possibility for the Yuan to surpass the USD can have far-reaching consequences, potentially impacting the US economy, borrowing costs, and currency exchange rates. While this transition has not yet been imminent and would be a complex and gradual process, it reflects the evolving global economic landscape. It would promise changes in trade, finance, and geopolitics, with implications for countries and the daily consumer, making it a topic deserving of close attention for young people everywhere.

American politics in recent years have become increasingly more polarized, and of course the different leaders of our nation are not exempt from this partisanship. Every president seems to be demonized by one party and made into a saint by the other. But no President in recent memory has been quite so divisive as the 45th, Donald Trump. Trump ascended to the presidency after a very close election against Hillary Clinton (Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won in electoral votes). Trump ran on the campaign slogan “Make America Great Again”, or MAGA (a reference to Ronald Reagan’s campaign slogan in 1980). Ultimately, MAGA would be more than just a slogan, but would transform into a populist movement; “MAGAs” would become a shorthand to describe not only Trump’s diehard supporters but the republican base as a whole. However, this article does not aim to speak about the views of MAGA or Trump’s presidency. Rather, it is about events at the end of his presidency, on January 6th, and its repercussions. Following the loss of Trump to Joe Biden in the 2020 election, there was a widespread belief among far-right groups that the election was rigged against Trump, and on January 6th over 2,000 people stormed the Capitol building, presumably to disrupt the electoral process. The attack would ultimately fail, and Biden remains in the Oval Office at the time of writing. Trump would later be indicted with four charges, listed below. - He was accused of paying undisclosed hush money to an adult film star, Stormy Daniels, whom he had an affair with in 2006, to convince her to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement on the affair. - Trump brought about 15 boxes worth of classified documents, after leaving the Oval Office in January 2021, to his home in Mar-a-Lago, Florida. FBI agents searched his home in August 2022, finding the documents stored in public locations. - He was accused of voter fraud in Georgia alongside dozens of allies, allegedly harassing lawmakers and vote counters to deliberately miscount votes, in the crucial swing state. - And finally, he was charged with conspiring in the aforementioned storming of the Capitol building. Or at the very least, his actions and discourse directly led to the events and he was conscious of such. So far, none of the trials have moved past an indictment, but the mugshot of Trump was released very recently. Trump has spent over 40 million dollars on legal expenses, and as his trial dates loom closer, it is unclear what the result will be. But a prisoner can still be elected president under American law, and as the Republican primaries rapidly approach in under a year, Trump is polling far(over 40% at the time of writing) ahead of his primary competitor, Ron DeSantis. (from ABC's 538, on 9/20/2023)

After much speculation, China is reportedly preparing to allocate a $40 billion state fund to boost its semiconductor industry, as the country aims to ameliorate its efforts to reach and surpass the U.S and other rivals. China's President, Xi Jinping, has long stressed the necessity for China to achieve independence and self-sufficiency in semiconductor production. This major investment is most likely to be the greatest in magnitude of the three launched by the 'China Integrated Circuit Funds', alternatively known as the 'Big Fund'. However, the US and its allies have sought to restrict China's access to advance chips. This restriction has arisen over concerns and speculation that the Chinese government could implement more advanced semiconductors and consequentially accelerate its military modernization and further internal control. In the past, the Big Fund has been a major beacon of support to major chip foundries, such as the 'Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation' and 'Hua Hong Semiconductor', along with a greater variety of smaller funds and enterprises. Despite previous efforts, China's chip industry has been subjected to various challenges in establishing itself as the dominant leader of the industry within the global supply chain, especially lacking in the domain of advanced chips. In addition, this investment also acts as a counter to the U.S. government's bipartisan CHIPS Act, which subsidized roughly $39 billion in the manufacturing and production of advanced chips. Moreover, this investment does not come as a surprise as in late October of 2022, the U.S. implemented a severe sanctions package that majorly reduced Chinese access to advanced chipmaking equipment, whilst simultaneously resulting in both Japan and Netherlands to implement their own respective export controls in chipmaking equipment. The importance of this investment cannot be stressed enough, with this strategic maneuver having far-reaching socioeconomic, technological, and geopolitical impacts. It signals the sheer determination of China to become an international superpower in the semiconductor sector and simultaneously eliminate its dependence on foreign sources.

With the 2024 USA Presidential Election coming, the primaries have begun. The first primary debate took place on the 23rd of August, 2023 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Attending the debate were the leading candidates such as Ron DeSantis (15%), Vivek Ramaswamy (7%), Mike Pence (4%), Nikki Haley (3%), Tim Scot (3%), Christ Christie (3%), Asa Hutchinson (1%) and Doug Burgum (0.5%). However, the primary contestant, former President Trump did not attend the debate and instead did an interview with former Fox host Tucker Carlson in X (Twitter) with more live viewers than the actual debate. His excuse for not attending was that he is "leading by 50-60 points" and he does not want to sit for 1-2 hours and be "harassed" by other "candidates who shouldn't even be running for President;" basically saying that the debate was "beneath him." However, some analysts have interpreted this as Trump fearing the debate since he would be the main target. This could also be a move from Trumps end to separate him from the other candidates and emphasize his anti-establishment standing. Note: The numbers above correspond to each candidate's poll rating pre-debate. Highlights of the Debate: Ron DeSantis: Ron DeSantis underperformed in this debate. DeSantis started his campaign in a secure second place and was challenging Trump for the Presidency for the first few months, however, it seems he underestimated the loyalty of MAGA Republicans to Donald Trump. This debate was DeSantis's opportunity to shine and be different from the candidates to restore his high rating however he failed. Nevertheless, DeSantis led the debate for sure alongside Mike Pence and Vivek Ramaswamy. In addition, since he was the highest scoring candidate in the debate he was a target to multiple attacks from the other candidates trying to take his poll share. Vivek Ramaswamy: Vivek Ramaswamy performed very well in the debate and a majority of people consider him the "winner" of this debate. He effectively hit the conservative points attracting MAGA Republicans through his clear and blunt points: "god is real", "reverse racism is racism" and "there are only two genders." In addition, he got through his anti-establishment views multiple times and again, very bluntly by claiming that he "is the only person on that stage that isn't bought or paid for." Candidates tried to target his inexperience but Vivek effectively used that as positive by attacking career politics, which includes everyone else on the stage. Vivek also showed his loyalty to Donald Trump by passionately raising his hand when asked if he would support Trump if he won the primaries, even if he run from jail. Nevertheless, Vivek was hit hard when his foreign policy inexperience was targeted by former UN ambassador Nikki Haley when he claimed he would stop aid to Ukraine. However, many Republicans, but also many Americans view this policy favorably. Mike Pence: Mike Pence performed well and helped his ratings. He repeated and got through his experience as Vice President but many viewed this as him trying to take credit for former President Trump's achievements. However, Pence also discussed his successful career in the House of Representatives, which portrayed him as a safe and pragmatic candidate. He also clashed with Vivek Ramaswamy multiple times and called him a "rookie" and claiming that now isn't the time for "on-the-job training." Pence also stated that he will put the constitution over anything when addressing Trump's attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Overall, Mike Pence left the debate in a better position than he entered. Nikki Haley: Nikki Haley, the former USA ambassador to the UN and the only woman in the debate started off by talking about abortion. Despite her nationally controversial pro-life view, especially as a woman, she attracted many Republican voters who also share similar beliefs. Nikki Haley argued with Vivek Ramaswamy about foreign policy and stating that his inexperience "shows." She believes that the United States should send money to Ukraine and called it a pro-American country and labeled Russian President Putin "a murder." She attacked the other candidates, excluding Pence and DeSantis, for US government overspending. She also mentioned how Trump raised the debt ceiling by 8 trillion. Recently the Republicans have targeted the current administration for mishandling debt this Haley picked truth over party and exposed her own parties hypocrisy in this instance which was seen favorably amongst candidates. In the end, Nikki Haley performed well however her main highlight was her argument with Vivek Ramaswamy which got her some support but also caused her to lose voters. Tim Scott: Senator Tim Scott's his Christian values are a major bonus for the Republican voter base. Even though he did not get a lot of talking time in the debate and failed to stand out, it is expected for a candidate with only 3% in the polls. Using his poor background to discuss the American Dream, Tim Scott attempted to relate with lower income voters and also emphasize the capitalist values that he was raised with that allowed him to become a successful Senator. He also voiced his anti-crime views by stating that if someone commits a crime they should go to jail, which currently is a hot topic in America with Republicans accusing Democrats of not keeping the streets safe and protecting criminals from going to jail by passing weak laws. He also expressed his stance on transgender females (biological males) playing sports with biologicals females and dominating due to their male genetics by commenting that "men should play sports with men." Overall, Tim Scott was not the center of attention during the debate but he did not make any blunders which could cost him future election attempts. Christ Christie: The expert debater and former New Jersey Governor Christ Christie underperformed in this debate. Despite being at only 3%, Christi Christie is known for his strong rebuttals and as a former TV personality he was expected to perform better against amateur candidates like Vivek Ramaswamy. His main highlights are when he claimed that he had "enough .. of a guy that sounds like ChatGPT" (referring to Vivek) and later compared him to an "amateur" like Obama which many viewers found entertaining but a quick rebuttal by Vivek established Vivek's superiority. Furthermore, he took a hit on Trump by calling his "conduct beneath the office of President" which got him booed by many of the viewers. Asa Hutchinson and Doug Burgum, both polling below 1%, were not in the center of the heated debate and therefore do not have any major key moments. However, Doug Burgum made his support of Trump clear when he raised his right away when asked if he would support an Trump behind for the Presidency if he won the primaries.

In a surprising turn of events, Gabon, a Central African nation with a population of over 2 million people and a history as a former French colony, has witnessed a coup d'état shortly after a disputed presidential election. The incumbent president, Ali Bongo Odimba, secured his third seven-year term in office amidst widespread controversy. Here's a detailed account of how the situation unfolded: Background: Gabon has a complex political history, with the Bongo family maintaining a tight grip on power for over four decades. Ali Bongo Odimba succeeded his father, Omar Bongo, as president in 2009, maintaining the family's dominance in Gabonese politics. The Controversial Election: The recent election, which marked Ali Bongo's bid for a third term, was marred by controversy from the start. Many Gabonese citizens were dissatisfied with the political status quo, including a lack of job opportunities for young people. As the election results were announced in favor of the incumbent president, allegations of voter fraud and irregularities surfaced, leading to widespread protests and discontent. The Coup Unfolds: The coup d'état began with a dramatic appearance on national television by a group of military personnel. These soldiers declared that they had taken control of the country and placed President Ali Bongo Odimba under house arrest. The televised message signaled a swift and forceful change in leadership. Gabon's new strongman General Brice Oligui Nguema (R) salutes as he is inaugurated as Gabon's interim President, in Libreville on September 4, 2023. © AFP The Role of the Internet and Curfew: The situation escalated as the government, now under military control, imposed a curfew and cut off internet access in an attempt to control the flow of information. This decision was justified by authorities as a measure to curb potential violence and the spread of misinformation. However, it has raised concerns about freedom of expression and transparency in the country. Public Reaction: The coup was met with mixed reactions among the Gabonese population. While some celebrated in the streets of the capital, Libreville, others expressed concern about the potential consequences of the sudden change in leadership. Gabon had been considered one of the more stable nations in the region, and the coup represented a departure from its usual political climate. Regional Context: This coup comes in the wake of similar political upheavals in African countries, including Niger, another former French colony. The frequency of coups in Western Central Africa since 2020 has raised questions about stability and governance and the "over-shouldering" of France in the region. Challenges Ahead: As the military assumes control of Gabon, the country faces an uncertain future. The international community, including France, which has maintained a military presence in Gabon, is likely monitoring the situation closely. The key challenges for the new military leadership will include maintaining stability, addressing the grievances of the population, and potentially paving the way for a return to civilian rule through a democratic process. Summing up, Gabon's recent coup marks a significant development in the political landscape of Central Africa. The instability and controversy surrounding the election and the subsequent military takeover have raised concerns about the country's future and the potential impact on regional stability. The coming weeks and months will be crucial in determining the direction Gabon takes under its new leadership.

Alexis Tsipras, the leader of SYRIZA, has stepped down after 15 years of leadership (2008-2023). In the elections of 25th of June 2023, New Democracy won 40.5 percent of the vote and 158 seats of the 300 available, while SYRIZA lagged far behind with only 17.8 percent and 47 seats. The party’s crushing defeat in the elections, led to an unexpected escalation of events. Tsipras conceded loss and resigned as party leader on June 29. In the first meeting of the party after its defeat in the election, there was the belief that issues concerning the next movements of the party would be raised. It appears that Tsipras had informed his colleagues that he had spent three days in his house thinking about his next move, the future of the party and how he could facilitate the further development of the party. Some members of the conference disagreed with his decision to resign, yet Tsipras stated that aside from the possible risks they would work together to minimize them. His position was that he should take a step back allowing the members to elect the new leader of the party. He resigned before the Executive office of the party and later on, he publicized his decision through a statement in the press. “I’m proud of what we achieved,” Tsipras said, with reference to the debt relief deal and the agreement of North Macedonia. “The negative election result must and should be the beginning of a new cycle.” “I understand the need for a new wave in SYRIZA, I have decided to step aside for it to pass and propose the election of a new leader from the members of the party, following the relevant procedures. I will not be a candidate,” he emphasized. Alexis Tsipras, former leader of SYRIZA party

As of 2023, the United Kingdom is the only sovereign country to leave the European Union. Brexit was proposed by Prime Minister David Cameron (conservative party) in January 2013 during his speech in Bloomberg, in which he called for reform of the EU and promised an in–out referendum on the UK's membership if the Conservative Party won a majority at the 2015 general election. The Conservatives won 330 seats at the election, giving Cameron a majority of 12, and a bill to hold a referendum was introduced to Parliament that month. The date for the referendum was set to be the 23rd June 2016 and had a turnout of 51.89% of voters casting their vote for Britain to leave the European Union. Cameron (a ‘Remainer’) handed in his resignation the following day and was replaced by Theresa May who commenced the 2-year negotiation process. The UK officially withdrew from the European Union at 23:00 GMT on the 31st January 2020. Since 2020, substantial evidence has been found to show that Brexit has been a major factor in the reasoning for the UK’s slow recovery post-COVID and was the only G-7 country projected to shrink in 2023. Business share of investment in the UK’s GDP has fallen by over 15% due to an increase in import tariffs and bureaucracy causing it to be more costly and less efficient for business owners. Furthermore, an extensive number of businesses have lost their passporting rights which leaves them unable to move and operate freely in the EU which affects the services sector- a vital part of the UK economy. Many believe Brexit was not an economic project but more of a political agenda being utilised by the government by allowing for British sovereignty and freedom of trade with the rest of the world. Although the UK is one of the most underperforming G-7 nations, since COVID, unemployment has recovered drastically faster than its competitors such as France and Germany. This has mainly been down to restrictions imposed on migrants entering the country meaning there are less people out of work due to frictional unemployment. This can be viewed as a positive yet the employment in the UK is currently below the target of 2.5% which is referred to as ‘overemployment of labour’, this reduces real incomes as inflation rises- too much money, chasing too few goods. Furthermore, after the referendum, the pound had an initial sharp decline due to uncertainty between UK and EU relationships- so investors and holders of large quantities of pounds started to leave. In addition, due to high level of inflation, that pound has seen an overall weakening due to lack of international competitiveness caused by rising inflation. In contradiction to this, the pound has had rises in PPP (purchasing power parity) due to positive UK-EU future developments which rise the confidence of offshore investors buying pounds. However, these are short-lived as uncertainties remain prevalent throughout the negotiation process. After withdrawing from the EU, the UK regained their control over its regulations and laws. This allows for establishments of new policies, yet it also requires the UK to look for new trade agreements and frameworks, which can be time-consuming, costly, and complex. It also gives power back to the UK government for the control of immigrants flowing to the country, reducing this can save money for the government but also can reduce workforces in the future. It is essential to consider these are the short-run impacts that the UK has experienced so far, and Brexit was proposed for the benefit of the economy in the long-run. Many of these factors discussed could evolve over time and greatly depend on the UK’s ability to negotiate and establish new trade deals and adapt the economy for the new realities of the post-Brexit world.

On July 26, 2023, the Niger Presidential Guard staged a coup and detained President Mohamed Bazoum and his family. Senior officers from several branches of the defence and security services (FDS) created a junta known as the National Council for the Safeguarding of the Homeland (CNSP), and declared their takeover of power on national television. The public reaction varied, with mutinous soldiers dispersing initial demonstrations in favour of Bazoum, followed by subsequent demonstrations in support of the CNSP. The Nigerien Armed Forces joined the CNSP on July 27, expressing their desire to avoid fatal confrontation and protect the president and his family. The coup has been widely criticised around the world, particularly by key stakeholders such as the United States, France, the European Union, and ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States). ECOWAS debated military involvement and threatened sanctions during a summit in Nigeria's capital Abuja, giving the junta a one-week deadline to reinstate Bazoum. The West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA) slapped immediate measures and placed Nigerien governmental assets under freeze. Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali have all expressed their support for the Nigerien junta and their reluctance to impose any sanctions on Niger. In a joint statement, Burkina Faso and Mali warned that any military intervention in Niger would be a declaration of war against the two countries. The reactions of the junta-led governments in support of Niger have set the stage for a greater rift and possible break-up of the West African bloc. The aftermath of the coup has a significant potential for domestic instability and regional conflict, an increase in militant activities, democratic backsliding and civil rights restrictions, as well as severe socioeconomic implications owing to sanctions. Furthermore, the military junta has yet to consolidate its control and is facing stiff opposition from a wide range of international interests. Bazoum is supported not only by the world community, but also by a huge portion of the Niger population, with signs of supporters counter-mobilizing for enormous demonstrations against the junta. Gen Abdourahmane Tchiani and other army commanders hold a meeting in Niger’s capital Niger is at a crossroads as the aftermath of the coup settles. With strong local and international resistance, the junta's ability to keep power and gain legitimacy is not guaranteed. The junta's position has yet to be solidified, and the situation is far from stable. Persistent support for Bazoum raises the prospect of further instability, major rallies against the junta, and violent conflict between pro-junta and pro-regime camps, adding layers of uncertainty. Because of the repercussions of the current crisis, the possible impact from this instability may affect the entire Sahel region, worsening existing security issues and possibly giving rise to new threats both locally and regionally. Insurgencies and armed groups like as JNIM, IS Sahel, ISWAP, and Boko Haram (JAS) may exploit and profit from such insecurity and conflict, resulting in increased violence. The Nigerien junta consolidating power would indicate a further expansion of democratic backsliding in the Sahel (Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Chad, The Gambia, Guinea Mauritania, Mali, Niger, Nigeria and Senegal). If this happens, all central Sahelian (Burkina Faso, Mali and Niger) states will be effectively ruled by military juntas, thereby putting an end to democracy in the subregion for the time being. Niger is likely to suffer the same effects as neighbouring Mali and Burkina Faso, where the ascension of military rulers resulted in the degradation of civil freedoms and fundamental rights, including freedom of the press and expression. Furthermore, all three countries have so far been unable to put down a burgeoning regional insurgency that is spreading across West Africa. Niger is also at risk of significant socioeconomic consequences as a result of the impending sanctions and suspension of development and budgetary help. These pressures are likely to aggravate Niger's already precarious economy.

Recently, The Supreme Court of the United States(SCOTUS) has been making many so-called “landmark cases” for a conservative perspective in 6-3 rulings. One of the rulings was over Affirmative Action in colleges, brought to court by Students For Fair Admission v Harvard University. The concept being challenged was whether race could play a factor in college admissions. The conservative point of view argues that this is an example of racial discrimination and thus unconstitutional, whereas the social-liberal point of view states that this is necessary to create a diverse point-of-view in colleges and give previously disadvantaged minorities better chances. This policy has been challenged for decades by conservatives, and was finally overturned on June 29th, with a 6-3 vote. Another major ruling was 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. A Christian web designer refused to provide her services to a gay couple due to her beliefs. After the state of Colorado decreed this refusal of service illegal, she brought it to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decreed that this refusal of service was protected under the First Amendment, in a similar 6-3 victory on May 29th. There was a minor controversy after the ruling, with some claiming that the gay couple in question either did not exist or was a heterosexual couple. Regardless, the ruling stays in place The President of the United States, Joe Biden, was very upset with this ruling, and stated the following “In America, no person should face discrimination simply because of who they are or who they love. The Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis undermines that basic truth, and painfully it comes during Pride month when millions of Americans across the country join together to celebrate the contributions, resilience, and strength of the LGBTQI+ community.” However, Mr. Biden’s opposition does naught to change the ruling. These are just two among a flurry of resolutions passed by SCOTUS recently. There were a few victories for the democrats, such as forcing the state of Alabama to change racial gerrymandering of their districts. However, this doesn’t change the larger picture, especially following the extremely controversial overruling of Roe vs Wade from 1973 concerning abortion rights; it is extremely evident that SCOTUS will continue to vote predominantly for conservative viewpoints, and will remain doing so for the foreseeable future. This article is about a month old now, I was unable to post due to our transition period.