<<

United Kingdom

2016 Country Review

http://www.countrywatch.com Table of Contents

Chapter 1 1 Country Overview 1 Country Overview 2 Key Data 4 5 6 Chapter 2 8 Political Overview 8 9 Political Conditions 13 Political Risk Index 111 Political Stability 126 Freedom Rankings 141 Human Rights 153 Functions 156 Government Structure 158 Principal Government Officials 172 Leader Biography 173 Leader Biography 173 Foreign Relations 175 National Security 210 Defense Forces 213 Appendix: Northern 214 Appendix: 239 Appendix: 248 Appendix: British and 248 Chapter 3 286 Economic Overview 286 Economic Overview 287 Nominal GDP and Components 297 Population and GDP Per Capita 299 Real GDP and Inflation 300 Government Spending and Taxation 301 Money Supply, Interest Rates and Unemployment 302 Foreign Trade and the Exchange Rate 303 Data in US Dollars 304 Energy Consumption and Production Standard Units 305 Energy Consumption and Production QUADS 307 Energy Price Summary 308 CO2 Emissions 309 Agriculture Consumption and Production 310 World Agriculture Pricing Summary 313 Metals Consumption and Production 314 World Metals Pricing Summary 317 Economic Performance Index 318 Chapter 4 330 Investment Overview 330 Foreign Investment Climate 331 Foreign Investment Index 333 Corruption Perceptions Index 346 Competitiveness Ranking 358 Taxation 367 Stock Market 368 Partner Links 369 Chapter 5 370 Social Overview 370 People 371 Human Development Index 372 Life Satisfaction Index 376 Happy Planet Index 387 Status of Women 397 Global Gender Gap Index 399 Culture and Arts 409 Etiquette 409 Travel Information 411 Diseases/ Data 422 Chapter 6 428 Environmental Overview 428 Environmental Issues 429 Environmental Policy 430 Greenhouse Gas Ranking 432 Global Environmental Snapshot 443 Global Environmental Concepts 454 International Environmental Agreements and Associations 468 Appendices 493 Bibliography 494 United Kingdom

Chapter 1 Country Overview

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 1 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Country Overview

THE UNITED KINGDOM

Located in Western Europe, between the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, just to the northwest of France, the United Kingdom is made up of , Wales, Scotland and . Northern Ireland is to be found on the northern one-sixth of the island of Ireland.

It should be noted that the terms "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" cannot correctly be used in an interchangeable manner. Great Britain refers to the island to the west of France and east of Ireland that consists of three related -- England, Scotland, and Wales. However, Great Britain is not the proper name of any current sovereign , as it excludes Northern Ireland, which is also part of the country called the United Kingdom. In fact, the official name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Scotland and England were joined in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, to claim the British throne. In 1707, the Act of Union created a new country, Great Britain. Ireland had been conquered by the early 17th century, and the 1801 British Acts of Union established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922, 26 of Ireland gained independence from , with the other six counties remaining in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly were established in 1999. The latter was suspended until May 2007 due to wrangling over the peace process, but devolution was fully completed in 2010. In 2013, a process was started to allow for a referendum for Scottish independence. That vote was to take place in 2014. In order for Scotland to become independent, regardless of the result of the internal referendum, the British Parliament would have to dissolve the Acts of Union.

At the beginning of the 20th century the British Empire had been the foremost global power, stretching over one-fourth of the earth's surface. But World War I significantly weakened the United Kingdom, and the years following World War II saw the demise of the empire with many gaining independence. Nevertheless, the country remains a major world economic and military power, with considerable political and cultural influence around the world. As the world's

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 2 of 506 pages United Kingdom first industrialized country, the economy of the United Kingdom is one of the largest in the world as well as one of the strongest in Europe, and is considered to be a leading trading power and financial center.

It should also be noted that the United Kingdom has historically played a leading role in developing parliamentary democracy and in advancing literature and science. The country has a long history as a major player in international affairs and fulfills an important role in the European Union, the United and NATO. The United Kingdom is also an active member of the European Union, although it to remain outside the Economic and Monetary Union. The government has said a series of economic criteria must be met before the issue can be put to a referendum.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 3 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Key Data

Key Data

Region: Europe

Population: 64088224

Climate: Temperate; more than one-half of the days are overcast

English, Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic and several other international Languages: languages

Currency: 1 British pound = 100 pence

Birthday of the Queen is the second Saturday in June, Boxing Day is 26 Holiday: December

Area Total: 244820

Area : 241590

Coast Line: 12429

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 4 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United Kingdom

Country Map

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 5 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Europe

Regional Map

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 6 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 7 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Chapter 2

Political Overview

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 8 of 506 pages United Kingdom

History

Introduction

The contemporary country referred to as the United Kingdom finds its historical roots in the story of Britain (the historic name of the ). The Roman invasion of Britain in 55 B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and most of Britain's subsequent incorporation into the Roman Empire stimulated development and brought more active contacts with the rest of Europe. As Rome's strength declined, the country again was exposed to invasion, including the pivotal incursions of the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes in the 5th and 6th centuries C.E. (Common Era) up to the in 1066. Norman rule effectively ensured Britain's safety from further intrusions; certain institutions, which remain characteristic of Britain, developed. Among these are a political, administrative, cultural and economic center in London; a separate but established church; a system of ; distinctive university education; and representative government.

Union

Both Wales and Scotland were independent kingdoms that resisted English rule. The English conquest of Wales succeeded in 1282 under Edward I, and the Statute of Rhuddlan established English rule two years later. To appease the Welsh, Edward's son (later Edward II), who had been born in Wales, was made Prince of Wales in 1301. The tradition of bestowing this title on the eldest son of the British continues today. In 1536, the political and administrative union of England and Wales was completed.

While maintaining separate parliaments, England and Scotland were ruled under one crown beginning in 1603, when James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin Elizabeth I, becoming James I of England. In the ensuing 100 years, strong religious and political differences divided the kingdoms. Finally, in 1707, England and Scotland were unified as Great Britain, sharing a single parliament at Westminster.

Ireland's invasion by the Anglo-Normans in 1170 led to centuries of strife. Successive English kings sought to conquer Ireland. In the early 17th century, large-scale settlement of the north from Scotland and England began. After its defeat, Ireland was subjected, with varying degrees of

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 9 of 506 pages United Kingdom success, to control and regulation by Britain.

The legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was completed on January 1, 1801, under the name of the United Kingdom. Armed struggle for independence continued sporadically, however, into the 20th century. The Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 established the Irish , which subsequently left the Commonwealth and became a republic after World War II. Six northern, predominantly Protestant, Irish counties remained part of the United Kingdom.

British Expansion and Empire

Begun initially to support William the Conqueror's (c. 1029-1087) holdings in France, Britain's policy of active involvement in continental European affairs endured for several hundred years. By the end of the 14th century, foreign trade, originally based on wool exports to Europe, had emerged as a cornerstone of national policy.

The foundations of sea power were gradually laid to protect English trade and open up new routes. Defeat of the Spanish Armada in 1588 firmly established England as a major sea power. Thereafter, its interests outside Europe grew steadily. Attracted by the spice trade, English mercantile interests spread first to the Far East. In search of an alternate route to the Spice Islands, John Cabot reached the North American in 1498. Sir Walter Raleigh organized the first, short-lived in Virginia in 1584, and permanent English settlement began in 1607 at Jamestown, Virginia. During the next two centuries, Britain extended its influence abroad and consolidated its political development at home.

Great Britain's industrial revolution greatly strengthened its ability to oppose Napoleonic France. By the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815, the United Kingdom was the foremost European power, and its navy ruled the seas. Peace in Europe allowed the British to focus their interests on more remote parts of the world, and during this period the British Empire reached its zenith. British colonial expansion reached its height largely during the reign of Queen (1837-1901). Queen Victoria's reign witnessed the spread of British technology, commerce, language and government throughout the British Empire, which at its greatest extent encompassed roughly one-fifth to one- quarter of the world's area and population. British colonies contributed to the United Kingdom's extraordinary economic growth and strengthened its voice in world affairs. Even as the United Kingdom extended its imperial reach overseas, it continued to develop and broaden its democratic institutions at home.

The 20th Century and Early 21st Century

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 10 of 506 pages United Kingdom

By the time of Queen Victoria's death in 1901, other nations, including the and Germany, had developed their own industries. The United Kingdom's comparative economic advantage had lessened, and the ambitions of its rivals had grown. The losses and destruction of World War I, the depression of the 1930s, and decades of relatively slow growth eroded the United Kingdom's preeminent international position of the previous century.

Britain's control over its empire loosened during the interwar period. As noted above, Ireland, with the exception of six northern counties, gained independence from the United Kingdom in 1921. Nationalism became stronger in other parts of the British Empire, particularly in and Egypt.

In 1926, the United Kingdom completing a process begun a century earlier, granted Australia, Canada and New Zealand complete autonomy within the empire. They became charter members of the British Commonwealth of Nations (now known as the Commonwealth), an informal but closely-knit association that succeeded the empire. Beginning with the independence of India and in 1947, the of the British Empire was almost completely dismantled. Today, most of Britain's former colonies belong to the Commonwealth, almost all of them as independent members. There are, however, 13 former British colonies - including Bermuda, , the Falkland Islands, and others - which continue their political links with London and are known as United Kingdom Overseas Territories.

In 1973, the United Kingdom joined the European Communities (EC) after French President Charles de Gaulle had blocked two previous attempts. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became the first woman prime minister and held the office for 11 years. In the early years of her tenure, she engaged the country in a war with Argentina over the Falkland/Malvinas Islands. In terms of domestic policy, Prime Minister Thatcher reversed the trend toward the nationalization of industry, advocating instead "laissez-faire," or noninterference, policies of free market competition. The Conservative Party remained in control even after Thatcher was forced to resign by an internal party vote in 1990. Prime Minister John Major, who succeeded Thatcher, then went on to win the 1992 general election.

The British recession of the 1990s and infighting among Conservatives over Britain's place in the European Communities (EC) took their toll, and the Conservatives under Major lost the 1997 general election to the Labour Party led by Tony Blair. As leader of the Labour Party since 1994, Blair had led an internal party campaign to reform Labour's policies, especially the revocation of Labour's commitment to nationalize major industries. Labour won by a substantial margin and controlled a large majority of the seats in the House of Commons. Since taking office, the Blair government has been responsible for numerous reforms of key British institutions and for redefining the United Kingdom's role in Europe and elsewhere.

Although real political power is exercised by the government (prime minister and cabinet ministers) and by the Parliament, the monarchy remains a central historical and cultural institution. Despite

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 11 of 506 pages United Kingdom the high costs of maintaining the royal family and numerous scandals, the public continues to support the monarchy - at least as an institution - as evidenced by the public grief displayed after Princess Diana's death in 1997 and the media attention given to the affairs of the royal family.

Note: Parliamentary elections in 2001 and 2005, as well as the issues currently facing the Blair government are discussed under the "Political Conditions" section of this country review.

Northern Ireland

The decades-old conflict in Northern Ireland remains one of the central political problems in the United Kingdom. Although Northern Ireland was not granted independence along with the rest of the Irish island in 1921, it did have its own regional parliament and government within the United Kingdom until 1972. Escalation in the sectarian conflict between the majority Protestants and minority Catholics led the British government to suspend Northern Ireland's autonomous institutions and institute direct rule from London. Control over Northern Ireland rested with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, a ministerial position within the British cabinet until the time of renewed devolution in 2007.

The Catholic "nationalists" or "republicans" have been led by the (IRA) and sought independence from the United Kingdom and unification with the . Protestant "unionists" or "loyalists," often symbolized by the members of the Orange Order on periodic marches through Catholic neighborhoods, sought to maintain the union with the rest of the United Kingdom and opposed the IRA. The imposition of direct rule in 1972, the strong British military presence in Northern Ireland, and the suspension of certain civil rights, served to increased sectarian conflict.

Note: For a full accounting of events from the time of the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement granting Ireland a formal voice in Northern Ireland affairs, through the "Downing Street Declaration" in 1993, the Framework Document of 1995, the "Good Friday" peace agreement of 1998, the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive Committee in 2000, followed by the re-assertion of direct rule by London, and the subsequent measures taken since 2000 on the path toward devolution, please see the "Political Conditions" and "Appendix: Northern Ireland" of this Country Review.

Note on History: In certain entries, open source content from the State Department Background Notes and Country Guides have been used. A full listing of sources is available in the Bibliography.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 12 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Political Conditions

Introduction

Since taking office in 1997, the Blair government continued to propose legislation that is consistent with "New Labour's" doctrine of the "Third Way." Generally, the "Third Way" is characterized as a policy outlook that is business friendly, but still sensitive to social welfare and a goal of greater democratization in the United Kingdom. Examples include legislation that made monetary decisions by the Bank of England independent from government decisions, various proposals for reforming British welfare programs, and different constitutional changes. These changes are outlined in the "Government" section of this country review.

Also as noted in the "Government" section, the maximum parliamentary term for the House of Commons is five years, but the prime minister may ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call a general election at any time. This may occur after a government has lost an important vote, or if the government feels a new election is necessary to increase or maintain its majority in Parliament.

Early in 2001, there was much speculation that Prime Minister Blair would call early parliamentary elections -- on May 3 -- to coincide with previously scheduled local elections. The February outbreak and subsequent spread of foot and mouth disease throughout the United Kingdom, however, caused the prime minister to delay both the local elections and calling parliamentary elections.

Foot and mouth is known to be an extremely infectious viral disease that affects livestock such as cattle, goats, sheep, and swine. It can be readily transmitted from place to place on clothing, shoes, tires, etc., and can even be spread by airborne dust particles. While it is believed to not affect humans - and usually kills only very young or very old animals - it is commercially devastating to farmers. Animals infected with the disease put on less weight, produce less milk, etc., and so become commercially unviable.

Since the disease is so highly contagious, the United Kingdom government instituted a policy whereby animals infected with the disease were culled - as were all other animals within the vicinity of those afflicted. By July 2001, there had been about 1,800 confirmed cases of animals infected with foot and mouth, and approximately 3.5 million animals had been culled. In an attempt to halt the spread of the disease, farms with - or near - infected animals were quarantined; travel throughout the countryside was severely curtailed; procedures to disinfect travelers and vehicles were implemented; and the military was called in to assist with the disposal of the culled animals.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 13 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The British agricultural sector suffered terrible losses - as did the tourism industry and businesses in rural settings, more generally.

Prime Minister Blair delayed both the previously scheduled local elections and the call for parliamentary elections because the quarantines and travel restrictions would have made campaigning and voting in the countryside difficult. In addition, the Labour Party did not want to seem uncaring in the face of the farmers' and other rural residents' plight. Eventually, in early May -- when the foot and mouth crisis at last appeared to be coming under a semblance of control -- Blair announced that both local and national elections would be held on June 7.

Elections of 2001

In the run-up to the parliamentary elections, Blair's Labour Party focused on further reforming public services, in particular, education, health care, and transportation and other infrastructure. In contrast, the Conservatives (also known as the Tories) ran a campaign based on "keeping the pound," that is, keeping the United Kingdom out of the European Union's Economic and Monetary Union.

The elections returned Blair's Labour government to power. With 40.8 percent of the vote, Labour took 413 seats (out of 659) in the House of Commons. Although a decrease from the party's showing in the 1997 elections (down from 43 percent and 419 seats), it was still a landslide victory over second-place finisher, the Conservative Party, which only managed 31.8 percent of the vote and 166 seats (up from 30.7 percent and 165 seats in 1997).

The Conservatives' loss was so crushing that party leader, William Hague, resigned in the aftermath of the election. The battle for leadership of the Tories became a long, drawn-out debate over the future direction of the party lasting well into the autumn.

One of the main points of contention was the Conservative Party's position on joining the European Union's Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), and adopting the single European Union (EU) currency, the euro. As noted above, the Conservatives campaigned against EMU membership, but key elements within the party, in particular, certain financial and business interests, are increasingly pro-EMU. Finally, at the party conference in autumn 2001, Ian Duncan Smith was chosen party leader.

Although Ian Duncan Smith was much more opposed to EMU membership than some of the other potential Conservative Party leaders - in particular, Kenneth Clarke, Duncan Smith's election should not necessarily be viewed as a decisive move on the part of the Conservative Party away from the euro. In fact, the party remained split over this issue; the internal divisions became deeper throughout 2002 when the reality of the euro -- as an actual currency -- hit home, both on the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 14 of 506 pages United Kingdom

European continent and on the British Isles.

In contrast to the Conservative's election troubles, the other main opposition party, Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, fared quite well, capturing 52 seats with 18.3 percent of the vote (up from 46 seats and 16.8 percent in 1997). Six other, largely regional, parties and an independent candidate shared the remaining 9.1 percent of the vote. The Scottish National Party (SNP) won five seats, down from its previous six. "Playd Cymru" (the Party of Wales or PC) kept its four seats. David Trimble's more moderate Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) lost ground to the more extremist Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of . The UUP only managed six seats at Westminster this time around, down from ten in the 1997 election. In contrast, the DUP won five seats, up from its previous two. The United Kingdom Unionist Party (UKUP) lost its one seat. The moderate nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) of John Hume kept its three seats in the House of Commons, while ' more radically nationalist Sinn Féin (SF) picked up two, for a total of four. These national election results were mirrored in the local elections, with both the Democratic Unionists and Sinn Féin gaining at the expense of the Ulster Unionists and the Social Democrats.

Despite Labour's strong showing, it was worth noting that voter turnout, at approximately 59 percent, was the lowest in a general election since 1918. In other words, more people failed to go to the polls than voted for Labour. This lack of participation may have been the result of many factors, among them the opinion polls in the run-up to the election indicating a commanding lead for Labour. Perhaps people simply did not bother to vote in a race that seemed to have a "foregone conclusion." Labour's opponents, primarily the Conservatives, suggested that the level of citizen apathy was indicative of a lack of support for the Blair government and its policies.

After the election, the Blair government promised to take seriously the "mandate" to reform public services. In keeping with this pledge, the initial agenda submitted to Parliament in the Queen's Speech in June 2001 focused on improving education, the National Health Service, the rail and road systems, the criminal justice system, and many other public services. (By tradition, the Queen delivers the opening speech to Parliament, known as the "Queen's Speech," although the cabinet government writes the text).

Presumably for the purpose of better implementing the government's election pledges, Prime Minister Blair reshuffled his cabinet after the election. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott retained his post - while also taking on the newly-created position of first secretary of state at the Cabinet Office. There, he was placed in charge of coordinating the implementation of the government's election promises. In the aftermath of the foot and mouth disease crisis, the former Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food was, in essence, taken over by a new ministry - Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs. Former leader of the House of Commons, Margaret Beckett, assumed that portfolio. Perhaps the biggest change of all was the replacement of Foreign Secretary Robin Cook with former Home Secretary Jack Straw. Speculation about the cause of

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 15 of 506 pages United Kingdom this particular change centered on disagreements over the United Kingdom's relations with Europe between then Foreign Secretary Cook and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Cook was perceived to be more "pro-Europe" than Brown, especially with regard to joining the EU's Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). Many view new Foreign Secretary Straw as more euro- skeptical than Cook.

Politics of the European Bloc

Although Labour played down this issue in the run-up to the election, persuading a skeptical public of the benefits of joining the EMU has currently been one of the most difficult challenges facing the Blair government. Along with and Sweden, the United Kingdom was not (and still is not) a participating member of the EMU. The other twelve EU states, however, do belong to the EMU. As of Jan. 1, 2002, euro banknotes and coins had become legal tender in the EMU countries. Within the next two months of 2002, these states' former currencies were phased out - leaving the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Sweden the last EU members states to retain their national currencies.

The Blair government has stated a willingness to join the EMU and adopt the single European currency, the euro, provided the United Kingdom's economy meets five economic tests. These tests, as laid out in October 1997 by Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, were as follows: 1. Are the United Kingdom's and the euro-zone's business cycles and economic structures compatible? That is, are these business cycles largely moving in unison, or not? Are economic structures sufficiently similar that business cycles could be expected to move largely in tandem? Joining the EMU means that U.K. interest rates, as for the entire euro-zone, would be set by the European Central Bank. If the U.K. economy were largely in sync with the EMU members, then the loss of control over this monetary policy instrument would be less of a concern. If, however, the U.K. economy were to experience a downturn, the inability unilaterally to adjust interest rates could be highly problematic.

2. Is the United Kingdom's labor market flexible enough to absorb economic problems that might develop due to EMU membership?

3.Would EMU membership increase investment (both foreign direct investment and investment by U.K. firms) in the United Kingdom?

4. Would EMU membership positively or negatively affect "the " (London), the center of the U.K.'s financial services sector?

5. How will EMU membership affect (un)employment in the U.K.?

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 16 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Early in 2001, Prime Minister Blair promised that, if re-elected, the Labour government would assess these criteria within two years -- in essence, by a deadline of mid-2003. Provided that the United Kingdom's economy passed these five tests, EMU membership would then be put to the British public in a national referendum. The Blair government has repeatedly stated that the United Kingdom would only join the EMU if a majority of citizens vote in favor.

In addition to the five domestic criteria for EMU membership and the national referendum, the United Kingdom would have to meet the Maastricht Treaty's Growth and Stability Pact criteria. Those criteria, in brief, are as follows:

1. U.K. government debt cannot exceed 60 percent of the state's GDP.

2. The U.K. annual budget deficit cannot exceed three percent of GDP.

3. U.K. inflation can only exceed that of the three lowest-inflation EMU members by 1.5 percent.

4. The U.K. exchange rate must be stable for an agreed-upon period of time.

Unfortunately for the Blair government, the pronounced drop in the value of the euro since its inception (over 15 percent against the pound and over 30 percent against the United States dollar) increased the already strong opposition to joining the EMU. Opinion polls consistently indicated that a majority of the British continued to be highly skeptical, to say the least, about EMU membership. (Note: The rise in the value of the value of the euro against the United States dollar in 2002 and 2003, however, might well shift opinion in favor of EMU inclusion.)

Throughout 2001, the Blair government, in particular, Chancellor Gordon Brown, continued to insist that the United Kingdom would not put EMU membership to a national referendum prematurely, but as promised, the five economic tests of membership would be conducted by the aforementioned deadline of mid-2003. Such statements seemed largely a response to the precipitous, post-election drop in the pound (around 15 percent against the euro) caused, most probably, by financial markets' belief that the Blair government would push for an early referendum on EMU membership. Since the pound was widely believed to be overvalued against the euro (perhaps by 10 to 20 percent), the markets were anticipating a necessary, pre-EMU membership devaluation.

The Blair government's stance on EMU was part of a broader effort by the government to reverse Britain's isolation from European affairs, especially those in the European Union (EU). This effort has been impeded by the continuing situation regarding "mad cow disease." Although the EU lifted its 1996 ban on British beef in 1999, the French government continued its ban based on the recommendation of its own Food Safety Agency. The French policy strengthened anti-European sentiment in the United Kingdom and led to the European Commission taking legal action against

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 17 of 506 pages United Kingdom the French.

Domestic Agenda

On the domestic front, despite dire predictions about the fate of the British pound and the effects of EMU involvement, in early 2002, the British housing market appeared to be in the midst of a boom period. Prices of houses increased at an exponential annual rate and economists and financial pundits wonder if the British housing market was out of control.

Issues surrounding the British monarchy featured prominently in the media in the first half of 2002. In February 2002, Queen Elizabeth's sister, Princess Margaret, died at age 71, following a stroke and associated heart problems. Her death was followed by the death of the Queen Mother in March 2002. The Queen Mother, who lived to the age of 101 years old, had grown increasingly frail in the years leading up to her passing away. In the aftermath of her death, there were some inferences that she had accrued a substantial overdraft by the time she died. In fact, her overdraft was quite modest in comparison with the millions of pounds that she was rumored to have owed the bank. The summer of 2002 promised to be a more optimistic time for the reigning Queen Elizabeth II as she celebrated her Golden Jubilee -- 50 years on the British throne. Although periodic speculation abounds regarding the viability of the British monarchy in a post-colonial world, as was predicted, the Golden Jubilee shored up public support for this enduring institution.

Meanwhile, by mid-June 2002, the Blair government had reportedly lost a great deal of public support. The decrease appeared to be attributable to the ever-rising rate of crime, the perception that the Blair government was ensconced in a game of political spin-doctoring in the media, and the associated view that the Blair government could not be trusted. Whether or nor these perceptions will have long-term political effects, including an increase in support for conservative factions, is yet to be seen. A political scandal involving a friend of Cherie Blair, the wife of the prime minister, did not help to rehabilitate a rather unfavorable view of Blair's government.

Geopolitics and Global Security

Meanwhile, following the terrorist attacks in the United States in September 2001, the government of the United Kingdom pledged support for the global war on terrorism. The United Kingdom also contributed troops toward military action in Afghanistan aimed at removing the ruling Taliban regime, which had sponsored terrorist activities by the al-Qaida group.

In the spring of 2002, as the war in Afghanistan continued and as concerns over terrorism remained in the public purview, European law enforcement agencies were given extensive -- and arguably, indiscriminate -- powers to monitor telephone, internet and e-mail traffic. Detractors have

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 18 of 506 pages United Kingdom condemned the measures as being some of the most disturbing in a generation; they note that they jeopardize privacy rights in a substantial manner.

At the start of 2003, the world was bracing itself for the possibility of a war against . Blair stated his country would not rush into such a war and that before embarking on any such action, the United Kingdom would seek approval from the .

Yet, the prime minister in January 2003 faced increasing scrutiny at home as people and parliamentarians wondered about military action when no conclusive evidence against Iraq had been found. As well, other European countries, such as France and Germany, expressed great resistance to the notion of military action against Iraq, especially as the weapons inspections process was ongoing.

In mid-January 2003, Prime Minister Blair asserted that he was committed to disarming Iraq via the United Nations. He said he believed that the United Nations Security Council would back military action against Iraq if it contravened against the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which requires the relinquishment of weapons of mass destruction. Blair, however, warned against unilateral voting by any Security Council member. In the event of a veto, Blair reiterated the United Kingdom's right to take military action against Iraq if the country failed to give up its alleged weapons arsenal. By Jan. 20, 2003, up to 31, 000 British troops -- much more than initially expected -- were deployed to the Gulf for a possible war with Iraq.

Internally, the country faced its own turmoil. Also in January 2003, Prime Minister Blair expressed outrage over the death of a policeman who was killed during a terrorism investigation which centered on a discovery of the deadly poison ricin. Three North Africans were detained in a raid; one broke free and stabbed the policeman.

Shortly after the policeman's death, seven persons were detained in another terrorism-related raid at a mosque in north London. Those detained were believed to be tied to terrorist organizations and allegedly linked with the ricin discovery. Six of the seven detained men were North African and the seventh was reported to be east European. Police authorities asserted that the mosque had been instrumental in both the recruitment of terrorists, as well as the support of terrorism in the United Kingdom and abroad. Early investigations showed that some weapons and documents (passports, credit cards and identity cards) were found at the mosque. The significance of these items are not yet known.

Sheikh Abu Hamza, the cleric of the mosque that had been raided, insisted there was no terrorism connection to be found. Hamza, however, was facing expulsion from this very mosque for polemical preaching. The Charity Commission was hoping to have him removed as the agent of the mosque's trust because of his political and vitriolic speeches.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 19 of 506 pages United Kingdom

In the wake of the unfortunate death of the British policeman mentioned above, Blair pledged in early 2003 to redouble his country's efforts in fighting militant groups and terrorism. Both groups of detainees were arrested under the aegis of the United Kingdom's Terrorism Act 2000. As the year began, the United Kingdom was conducting a national operation to root out a network of Algerian militants. The United Kingdom's Home Secretary, David Blunkett, expressed complete support for such anti-terrorism efforts.

Meanwhile, the case for a prospective war against Iraq was emerging. As the United States and the United Kingdom faced opposition from various key European states, such as France, Germany, and , on using military action against Iraq, they were hit with allegations of discredited intelligence. An intelligence report from the United Kingdom, which was also cited by United States Secretary of State Colin Powell to bolster his argument for military action against Iraq at a presentation to the United Nations, was criticized for gross plagiarism. A British academic recognized certain features in the report from an in a journal called the Review of International Affairs. Further review showed that various excerpts from a thesis on the build-up to the Gulf War in 1991 by a California doctoral student, Ibrahim al-Marashi, had been copied verbatim and used in the intelligence report. The thesis was later published in the journal identified by the British academic. Other excerpts from the intelligence report were plagiarized from Jane's Intelligence Review. All of the plagiarized material showed consistent grammatical and stylistic errors, making it clearly apparent that the material had been copied directly and without editing.

British government representatives brushed aside criticism of the plagiarized report by stating they had never claimed the material to be original. They also maintained the view that the information was credible, regardless of its sources. Various critics, including some parliamentarians, however, observed that if the information came from open sources, such as published articles and reviews, it could hardly be classified as intelligence in the first place. They also questioned the credibility of the information, given the scandal surrounding its composition.

Other problems have also arisen for the government in regard to the report. First, it appears that the information cited was ten years out of date and as such, it hardly represented the current scenario in the area of Iraq. Second, the content itself in the original source had referenced "opposition groups" and not terrorists, yet in the plagiarized version, which was used for the intelligence report, the term "opposition groups" was replaced with terrorists instead. Both issues have been highly damaging to British intelligence, and by extension, to American intelligence sources as well. Moreover, they contributed to the argument that the "proof" about Iraq's weapons arsenal and connections to al Qaida may well have been specious allegations. Indeed, some critics in the United Kingdom have said that the intelligence report demonstrated an attempt to "mislead" the public as to the justifications for a war against Iraq. British parliamentarian Glenda Jackson went so far as to say, "And of course to mislead is a Parliamentary euphemism for lying."

A peace rally in London in Feb. 15, 2003, like many others held across the world, saw over a

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 20 of 506 pages United Kingdom million people demonstrate against a prospective war against Iraq. Tony Blair was faced with opposition within his own party and mass opposition among the people of the United Kingdom.

On March 17, 2003, United Kingdom Ambassador to the United Nations Jeremy Greenstock announced that the diplomatic process in relation to Iraq had been concluded and that his country would withdraw its second draft resolution. Despite the unsuccessful effort by the Prime Minister Tony Blair to get a second resolution passed, the United Kingdom intended to pursue military action anyway, albeit under the aegis of the existing United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which warned of consequences in the event of Iraqi non-compliance. Although many legal experts disagree as to whether or nor it is possible to preserve the legality of such action by relying on Security Resolution 1441, United Kingdom Lord Goldsmith asserted that action against Iraq would be legal, based on the protections of this existing resolution. Contrary opinions by legal experts and the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan were not addressed by Lord Goldsmith.

Nevertheless, Blair faced a crisis within his own government as a consequence of his choices regarding Iraq. One of Blair's cabinet ministers, Clare Short, the Minister for International Development, announced that she would resign if the United Kingdom involved itself in a war without legitimate United Nations support. Saying that she could not "stay and defend the indefensible," Short explained that if there was no United Nations authority for military action, and if there were no provisions made for the reconstruction of Iraq, she would not uphold a breach of international law, and she would not condone the undermining of the United Nations (as stated in an interview with the BBC). Short also noted that she was quite shocked at Prime Minister Tony Blair's "recklessness" in regard to Iraq, and that despite the government's responsiveness to her concerns in private, she had seen no moderating shift in the current rush to war against Iraq.

Short's announcement came as an unwelcome surprise to the rest of the government, and other Cabinet Secretaries criticized her untimely lack of discretion. Nevertheless, Member of Parliament, Andy Reed, also announced that he was resigning as Parliamentary Aide to Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett. Four other Parliamentary Secretaries -- Members of Parliament who assist Cabinet Ministers -- announced that they would also resign if military action was pursued without sanction from the United Nations. Earlier, Conservative Whip, John Randall, resigned after stating that the case had not yet been made for war. Robin Cook, the country's former Foreign Secretary and Leader of the Commons issued the most significant resignation.

Meanwhile, a group of parliamentarians were drafting amendments intended to express support for British troops, while challenging the moral authority of unsanctioned military action against Iraq.

Once British forces commenced fighting in Iraq, Blair reported to the British parliament that the war against Iraq was going according to plan. Still, he warned of "difficult days ahead" and predicted pockets of resistance in certain areas. In the early days of fighting, British troops had

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 21 of 506 pages United Kingdom been killed and Blair expressed gratitude for their service. Three helicopters and a Royal Air Force Tornado had been lost in accidents. The Tornado may well have been shot down in friendly fire by a United States Patriot missile. An investigation was pending in this regard. There were also several combat casualties. As the war ensued, the political developments at home did not bode well for Prime Minister Blair. In a recent vote, several Members of Parliament from his own Labor Party voted against him in regard to Iraq. Although he did not immediately face a threat to his leadership, the number of dissenting voices and the force of active opposition was sure to increase. Many Labor members who had either abstained from the vote on Iraq or agreed to go along with Blair's position for reasons of loyalty, promised that they would not take the path of least resistance again.

While not experiencing the resounding support for the war as his counterpart in the United States, Blair received a spike in support just after the start of the war. That spike lessened as the war progressed and new polls showed that the British public was reacting to inaccurate reporting about the fall of Basra, military casualties, and reports of Iraqi resistance. (Source: Daily Telegraph poll taken on March 30, 2003)

In April 2003, United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair and United States President George Bush met for a summit at Hillsborough Castle on the outskirts of in Northern Ireland. The summit focused on an administrative agenda for a post-war Iraq. The leaders of both countries concurred on the basis of a three-part strategy: (1) security and infrastructure control by the United States Pentagon; (2) a multi-ethnic Iraqi interim authority; and (3) transition to full Iraqi autonomy. Nevertheless, the details of the plan were largely unspecified and officials from both countries have issued contradictory statements about the role of the United Nations and other international bodies in a post-war Iraq. Middle East peace was also be on the agenda.

A Matter of Peace

The summit was followed with peace process discussions that included Irish and the leaders of the three major parties -- the Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and the SDLP. The talks aimed at restoring devolution and would prepare the political agenda for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in May. A large anti-war protest was expected with demonstrators coming from all across Ireland to deliver their message to Blair and Bush of dismay regarding the controversial war in the Middle East.

Impact of Iraq on Domestic Politics

In local elections held in the United Kingdom in the spring of 2003, Prime Minister Tony Blair's Labour Party suffered its poorest showing since 1979. Labor garnered only 30 percent of the votes

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 22 of 506 pages United Kingdom cast while the conservative Tories garnered 34 percent themselves. While the Tories hardly commanded a victory, the real story of the election was not the showing of the Tories, but that of Labour. Indeed, despite growing support for Prime Minister Blair during the course of military action against Iraq, the war seems to have caused a backlash of sorts for the Labour party.

In some predominantly Muslim constituencies -- usually a Labour stronghold -- people felt that their voices of protest against the war went unheard. As such, these constituencies did not feel compelled to support Labour. Similarly, in areas such as Bristol, where public services have been severely degraded, the usual Labour party supporters did not feel compelled to show their approval for a party and a prime minister who (in their collective view) appeared to be more focused on international affairs than domestic concerns. For them, improving the lives of people in Basra did not seem to be quite as important as the improvement of the quality of life at home.

Compounding matters was the fact that statistic showed that about 60 percent of people in the United Kingdom did not believe that the war in Iraq would stave off terrorism. Instead, respondents and experts concluded that it has made the United Kingdom more of a target than before. People also feared that no weapons of mass destruction would be found -- the primary impetus for taking pre-emptive action in the first place. Should such weapons be found in the future, the discovery would be helpful to Blair, and by extension, his party. In the meanwhile, people have also been concerned that the war has damaged inter-European relations.

The convergence of all these factors were believed to have contributed to the abysmal showing of Labour in these local elections.

Post-War Issues

In May 2003, following the cessation of military action in Iraq, United Kingdom International Development Minister, Clare Short (mentioned above), resigned from the cabinet of the Prime Minister because of the United Nations' minor role in a post-war Iraq. In her resignation statement, Short blasted Blair for breaking promises and assurances about the role of the United Nations. Short also accused Blair of being unduly concerned about his political legacy and referred to his government as excessively controlled. Some political insiders suggested that Blair had already intended to sack Short.

In the aftermath of the war, the United Kingdom's coalition partner -- the United States -- presented a resolution to the United Nations Security Council in regard to Iraq. The resolution would suspend sanctions; legalize the sale of oil -- the revenues of which would be used for reconstruction purposes -- and transition the Iraqi "oil-for-food" program into the realm of United States control. The resolution would also ensure that products of Iraq and associated proceeds would be immune from judicial and administrative challenges. The interests of any entities not

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 23 of 506 pages United Kingdom associated with the United States-led coalition in Iraq would be removed. The passage of the resolution would also facilitate the eventual involvement of the and the International Monetary Fund. Although the United Nations would be involved in appointing a coordinator to help with reconstruction efforts, this role would be nominal in its authority. Moreover, any role for United Nations weapons inspectors would be officially eliminated.

The resolution would retroactively convey international approval to the United States-led coalition's endeavors in Iraq. The list of propositions exceeded the degree to which states opposing the war, such as France and Russia, have been willing to compromise. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom -- the United States' main coalition partner -- was believed to have found the tone of the resolution rather antagonistic. That very tonality, however, might have been intended to compel international concurrence on the issue of Iraq.

As questions increased about the credibility of its intelligence on Iraq in mid-2003, Downing Street was hit by another scandal. David Kelly, a scientist called to give testimony before a parliamentary inquiry panel on Iraq intelligence, was found dead from an apparent suicide. Kelly had been accused by panel members of being an informant who gave information to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), which ultimately led to allegations that Downing Street had "sexed up" its dossier on Iraq. The matter led to a nasty row between the BBC and Prime Minister Tony Blair's communications director, Alistair Campbell. Kelly's family said the accusations by the panel had led to Kelly becoming very despondent. The actual cause of the apparent suicide, however, remained unconfirmed, but questions still arose as to whether pressure placed on Kelly by the panel members contributed to the suicide.

The BBC was not exempt from accountability and admitted that Kelly was the principal source of its allegations against the British government. As well, it was revealed that the account offered by Kelly to the inquiry panel on Iraq intelligence did not precisely correspond with claims made by the BBC. Kelly told the panel that he could not believe that he was responsible for the claim that the 45-minute deployment of banned weapons had been overstated. The 45-minute claim was precisely why the government was accused of inflating the evidence in the dossier. The disconnection between Kelly's account to the inquiry panel and what the BBC actually reported has evoked questions of the BBC's credibility. Although the BBC maintained it "accurately interpreted and reported" the information conveyed by Kelly, several board members resigned as a result of the episode.

A judicial inquiry regarding the apparent suicide by Kelly was set to begin in early August. Prime Minister Tony Blair said his government would fully cooperate with the inquiry.

Faced with the media firestorm both at home and across the Atlantic regarding allegations of spurious intelligence, however, Prime Minister Tony Blair began to suffer politically. At home, the general consensus has been emerging that the prime minister overstated the evidence about

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 24 of 506 pages United Kingdom weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Indeed, a poll by ICM for the Daily Mirror last week showed that about two-thirds (66 percent) of those questioned believe that Blair misrepresented the facts -- and either knowingly or unknowingly -- misled the British public before sending troops to fight a war in Iraq. A YouGov poll for this week showed that 68 percent of those questioned believed that the government was not trustworthy on issues related to Iraq. The same poll also showed that over 70 percent of those polled thought it was wrong of the government to have allowed Kelly's identity to become public, thus subjecting the mild-mannered scientist to the stress of the media spotlight. The turmoil seemingly led to slide in the value of the British pound, possibly demonstrating a general climate of political uncertainty.

By early 2004, however, the judicial inquiry into Kelly's death exonerated the Blair government and heavily criticized the BBC for its coverage of the situation.

In May 2004, reports of abuse surfaced implicating United Kingdom forces in the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees. At first, officials denounced the incriminating photographs claiming they were inauthentic. With Downing Street's confirmation of a Red Cross report from February 2004 raising allegations of abuse and mistreatment, Prime Minister Tony Blair apologized in an interview on French television and promised punishment under military rules of those responsible. In London, Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon was expected to respond to questions by Members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The incriminating pictures, however, were later determined to be of questionable credibility.

Relations with European Union

The war in Iraq had been an illustration of the United Kingdom's "special relationship" with the United States, which, in and of itself, strained relations between the United Kingdom and other European countries.

Meanwhile, the United Kingdom was still faced with the possible prospect of a referendum on EMU inclusion in 2003. The government continued to promise a referendum on this issue while cabinet ministers studied the United Kingdom's Treasury analysis about the possible implications of adopting the euro currency. One significant difference that has shifted perspectives on EMU inclusion has been the increasing strength of the euro against the United States dollar. By mid- 2003, the British government decided to delay a possible date for a referendum on euro adoption. Ultimately, the decision regarding the adoption of the euro and disbanding the British pound has been a significant constitutional matter affecting notions of .

In June 2004, early indications from the European Union (EU) parliamentary elections showed there had been a record low turnout of only 44.2 percent for the EU. Early indications also showed that turnout among the 10 new member states was even lower than the overall average at only 26

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 25 of 506 pages United Kingdom percent. Insofar as the actual election results were concerned, gains for opposition parties across Europe appeared to be on the horizon. Early results in the United Kingdom suggested that Tony Blair's Labour Party lost 10 percent of their expected voter share while the Conservatives fared little better, losing about 6 percent of the expected vote share. Meanwhile, the Independence Party, known for its skepticism toward the EU, won its first representative at the EU Parliament.

Domestic Scene

On the domestic political scene, in late 2004, following the resignation of David Blunkett from the cabinet post of home secretary, former British Education Secretary Charles Clarke was named as his replacement. Meanwhile, Ruth Kelly took over as education secretary. At the age of 36, Kelly became the youngest Cabinet minister in British history.

Elections of 2005

In April 2005, Prime Minister Tony Blair called a snap election to be held a month later in May 2005. On May 5, 2005, citizens of the United Kingdom went to the polls to elect its new government. Voters were to select members of parliament in 645 constituencies. The party that secured the majority in parliament was expected to form the government. Prime Minister Tony Blair and his Labour Party hoped to secure a third consecutive term in office. Turnout was predicted to be around 60 and was just over 61 percent in actuality.

Leading up to the elections, both Tony Blair's Labour Party and Michael Howard's Conservatives (or Tories) were expected to focus on matters pertaining to the economy. Whereas the Labour Party concentrated its campaign platform on the regeneration of the inner , the Conservatives chose to highlight tax incentives and a plan benefiting business interests. The Conservatives also wielded an anti- platform. For its part, however, Charles Kennedy's Liberal Democrats decided to direct their efforts to the war in Iraq. Indeed, they repeatedly called for a full public inquiry into the Iraq war, and they also demanded that the attorney general's full legal advice on the war be released to the public. The demand by the Liberal Democrats came after a newspaper reported on a memorandum that allegedly raised questions about the legality of the war. The leaked memorandum was eventually published, and both main opposition parties stepped up their attacks on the prime minister for his perceived deceit over the legal implications of the Iraq war. Moreover, the media's attention remained almost singularly fixated on the matter.

Despite the preoccupation by the media with this issue of the war, Prime Minister Tony Blair launched a rigorous campaign across the country on the basis of his party's economic record and with a focus on domestic concerns. To his benefit, some voters who had been surveyed expressed scant interest in prioritizing Iraq as an election issue. Instead, they generally noted their decisions

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 26 of 506 pages United Kingdom would be far more broad-based. Still, Blair and the Labour Party were faced with the prospect of a diminished majority in parliament due to the Muslim and pacifist voters for whom the war was a key concern.

Charles Kennedy's campaign schedule across the country was slightly more strenuous than Tony Blair's and garnered much positive attention. As the only major party to oppose the war, the Liberal Democrats also hoped to gain from the fact that they were the only main political party to stake out unambiguous anti-war terrain. Indeed, Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats were positioned uniquely to frame the election as a "referendum on the war." Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were also trying to push a strong challenge to the Tories in conservative areas where the Labour Party was not a factor.

Meanwhile, even though the Conservative Tories attempted to capitalize on the Iraq memorandum scandal, the fact that Howard's party did not actually oppose the war put them at a comparative disadvantage among the anti-war crowd. As such, Howard's Conservative Tories were hoping to yield positive results from their aforementioned anti-immigrant campaign. They also hoped to consolidate support in the south and southwest, where they have traditionally done well, despite the challenge from the Liberal Democrats.

Polls taken on the eve of the election in late April 2005 showed Blair's Labour Party commanding a lead over his opponents, but the same polls showed he might ultimately end up with a smaller majority in parliament. Some polls showed Howard's Tories holding steady while others showed the party losing ground somewhat. Finally, Kennedy's Liberal Democrats, according to the polls, showed increased support. A full 25 percent of those surveyed just prior to the election, however, said they were still undecided.

As exit polling data was released at the close of election day, it appeared that Tony Blair and the Labour Party could potentially assume an historic third term in office, albeit with a diminished majority in parliament. The exit poll trends held steady and in the end, Blair and the Labour Party garnered approximately 36 percent of the votes cast and held a majority in parliament with 355 seats. The Conservative Tories of Michael Howard had about 33 percent of the votes cast and a slightly enlarged presence in parliament with 197 seats. The Liberal Democrats had about 22.2 percent of the votes cast and 62 seats in parliament. Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats were confident they had met their goals of a better overall election performance than the last time. (Note: At the time of writing, six seats were undeclared).

Some of the key members of Blair's cabinet, such as Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, held their constituencies. But election night was also filled with several surprises. Ousted Labour Party member George Galloway, who had been an outspoken opponent to the war in Iraq, defeated Labour Member of Parliament Oona King in the Bethnal Green constituency. The Conservative Tories took back Putney and Wimbledon from Labour, secured Shipley, and seemed to have had a somewhat better showing in parts of London. The Tories also took Newbury from the Liberal

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 27 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Democrats. At the same time, an Independent grabbed Labour's safest Welsh seat of Blaenau Gwent. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats held on to Cheadle despite attacks by the Tories, and were victorious over Labour in key constituencies, such as Birmingham Yardley, Manchester Withington, and Cardiff Central.

Blair actually increased his vote share in his constituency of Sedgefield to win his seat convincingly. However, one of his opponents was the father of a soldier killed in Iraq. He ran against Blair purely to protest the war, its (perceived) questionable legality, and the loss of soldiers like his son. For Blair's part, his sober victory speech given at Sedgefield reflected his cognizance that Labour's overall victory was a muted one. Blair and the Labour Party's success has been likely due to his stewardship of the economy, but the diminished majority in parliament made it apparent that Iraq was a factor in the election outcome. This was something Blair took time to acknowledge in his speech thanking the voters for returning him as the Sedgefield Member of Parliament, and possibly as the head of government. He said, "It seems clear ... that also the British people wanted the return of a Labour government but with a reduced majority."

Indeed, Blair went on to resume the leadership over government as the only Labour leader to ever achieve three consecutive election wins. But Blair also bore the responsibility of presiding over the lowest vote share for a ruling party in recent history. As a result, some political experts initiated a debate as to how long Tony Blair would stay on as prime minister before he turned the reins over to a successor -- more than likely to be Foreign Minister Gordon Brown. Before such changes were made, however, the immediate business was the formation of a new government. A day after the election -- which was also Blair's birthday -- he was asked by Queen Elizabeth II to form a new government and went on to orchestrate a cabinet reshuffle.

In a similar case of "mixed results," even as the Conservatives could claim they had increased their popularity and seats in parliament, they were also faced with the reality that it was one of the worst performances for their party. The day after the election Tory leader Michael Howard said he would step down in order to make room for younger leadership of the party.

Likewise, Kennedy and the Liberal Democrats achieved both positive and negative election results. Whereas Kennedy's Liberal Democrats were not able to pick off certain key targets in Tory strongholds, they were able to enjoy the achievement of an overall improved election performance and increased popularity among voters.

Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, there were fears that the moderate parties may be routed. Speculation abounded as to whether David Trimble of the Ulster Union would hold his Upper Bann seat. This news was later confirmed. Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party picked up Trimble's seat and enjoyed other gains. Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams held on to his West Belfast seat with an increased vote share. In general, Sinn Fein retained their seats. Largely due to the defeat of David Trimble and the Ulster Union in Northern Ireland, the prospects for peace, set forth by the Good Friday Agreement, were very much in doubt. Trimble, who resigned due to his

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 28 of 506 pages United Kingdom party's showing, noted that the people had voted against progress on the peace process and "for stalemate." The depressed prospects for peace, however, were nont long-lasting as several months later , the IRA officially announced an end to its armed campaign after three decades of violence. See the section titled "Northern Ireland" below, as well as the Appendix: Northern Ireland," for more details.

Developments in the Monarchy

In the backdrop of these political developments was the April 2005 wedding of Heir Apparent Prince Charles to Camilla Parker-Bowles -- a rather controversial figure since the death of the mother of the Prince's children, Princess Diana. After Bowles wed Prince Charles, she was to be known as the Princess Consort. Whether or not this position automatically makes her Queen when the Heir Apparent accedes to the throne is a matter of discussion.

Terrorist Attacks in London

At 8:51 a.m. GMT on July 7, 2005, the first in a series of blasts exploded through London's transport network. The first blast occurred about 100 yards from Liverpool Underground Station, in the direction of Algate East. Five minutes later between Russell Square and King's Cross Station, there was another explosion on a train. At 9:17 a.m., a third blast occurred at Edgware Road Station. Then at 9:47 a.m., there was a fourth blast -- this time on a double decker bus at the corner of Tavistock Square and Upper Woburn Place. All the explosions on the Underground appeared to have involved the Circle Line or possibly the Central Line. Both are older Underground lines located closer to ground level in the tube system.

About 50 people were reported to have been killed and more than 700 injured. It was believed that several people died at each of the four blast sites although most appeared to have died in the blast on a train between Russel Square and King's Cross Station. It was unknown as to how many people died in the bus blast.

On the ground in London, emergency services said they had treated scores of injured patients. The types of injuries ranged from minor lacerations and smoke inhalation to more critical cases of burns, amputations, fractured limbs and chest injuries. While Underground train services were suspended for at least a day, bus service resumed within London's Zone One, and mainline train service was open. As well, many of the Metropolitan Police officers who had been sent to Scotland for the G-8 summit were expected to return to London.

When the explosions first occurred within the Underground, many early reports suggested they were due to a power surge. These initial assumptions were laid aside as it became increasingly

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 29 of 506 pages United Kingdom clear that the blasts were the work of terrorists. Officials noted there had been no advance warning. They also said they were trying to determine if the blast on the bus had been the work of a suicide bomber, although they noted it could very easily have been a simple explosive device left on the bus.

Although there was no confirmation as to the validity of its claims, a hitherto unknown group called Secret Organization Group of al-Qaida - Jihad Organization in Europe claimed responsibility in a statement posted on an Islamist website. The group stated that its motivation for the attacks was to avenge the "massacres" committed by the United Kingdom in Iraq and Afghanistan. It also expressed the hope that the United Kingdom was "burning with fear and panic."

United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair responded by promising, "the most intense police and security service action to make sure we bring those responsible to justice." He also made note of the contrast between the purpose of the G-8 summit he was attending and the purpose of the terrorists responsible for the London attacks. In this regard, he said, "It's particularly barbaric that this has happened on a day when people are meeting to try to help the problems of poverty and ." The prime minister then returned to London from the summit, vowing, however, that the meetings would go on.

Also in the United Kingdom, the British Monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, expressed deep shock at the events, and conveyed her deepest sympathies to those affected. She also ordered the Union to fly at half mast over Buckingham Palace. London's Mayor, Ken Livingstone, who was in for the announcement of London as the venue for the 2012 Olympics, extolled the strength of London's diverse people who have lived in harmony and who would not be divided by the "cowardly attack." From , Pope Benedict described the blasts as "barbaric acts against humanity" and sent a message of condolence to the Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Cormac Murphy O'Connor. United States President George W. Bush, who was in Gleneagles in Scotland for the G-8 summit, said: "The war on terror goes on."

Mohammed Sidique Khan, Hasib Mir Hussein, Shehzad Tanweer and Germaine Lindsay were the four men identified as the suicide bombers responsible for the July 2005 terrorist attacks in London. A report in the media revealed that MI5 had investigated Mohammad Sidique Khan, but concluded that he was not a threat. Nevertheless, no official inquiry was convened on the question of why the bombers were not tagged as threats by United Kingdom's security services. Instead, attention was focused on new anti-terrorism measures and legislation. These new laws included the following:

-Outlawing "acts preparatory to terrorism" -New offence of indirect incitement to commit terrorist acts -New law for those providing or receiving terrorist training

Meanwhile, as the investigation about the attacks were ongoing, Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 30 of 506 pages United Kingdom expressed anticipation about a "clear al-Qaeda link." As well, the authorities were searching for those who supported, financed, or armed the attackers. In another development, an Egyptian chemistry student, Magdi El-Nashar, was detained in Cairo in connection with the attacks. Finally, explosives were found in a house in Leeds -- the where most of the July 2005 suicide bombers lived.

In another development, Chatham House released a report in mid-July 2005 which said in its conclusion: "There is no doubt that the situation over Iraq has posed particular difficulties for the UK, and for the wider coalition against terrorism." Although it did not suggest that the issue of Iraq laid at the heart of the London attacks, it intimated that there was a connection. The report also noted that while the United Kingdom has been carrying out counter-terrorism policy in tandem with the United States, it was not an equal decision-maker in the relationship. Instead, directives were being driven by the United States.

Two weeks after the fatal bombings across London's transport network, an apparent attempt to replicate those attacks ensued on July 21, 2005 on three Underground trains and one bus. The bombs detonated but failed to ignite, thus sparring London of further tragedy. Four suspects fled the scene and authorities issued images of the men thought to be responsible for attempted suicide attacks. Three men were arrested under the Terrorism Act in connection with the attempted attacks and were being questioned. As the days wore on, all the apparent attempted suicide bombers had been apprehended along with several other suspects.

Meanwhile, a day after the attempted bombings, a man was shot dead at the Stockwell Underground Station after failing to respond to police who were pursuing him. Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair said at a news conference that the shooting was part of anti-terrorist operations. Days later, however, the authorities admitted that the man killed, Jean Charles de Menezes, was a Brazilian national who was not connected to any terrorist activities. Sir Ian Blair apologized to the man's family, characterizing his untimely death as a "tragedy," but also warning that more people could similarly be shot as the police searched for the suspects.

At the diplomatic level, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim met Foreign Office officials in London to seek an explanation for the killing of the 27-year old electrician. He noted that while stood in solidarity with the United Kingdom against terrorism, it deplored the loss of innocent life. He also said that Foreign Minister Jack Straw had promised a full investigation.

Death of a Political Icon

In early August 2005, former British Cabinet Minister and Leader of the Commons Robin Cook died after collapsing in north-west Scotland. He was pronounced dead at Raigmore Hospital in Inverness. As news of his untimely death spread, friends and colleagues paid tribute to the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 31 of 506 pages United Kingdom parliamentarian who was known for his strong opinions on the political issues of the day. Prime Minister Tony Blair characterized Cook as "an outstanding, extraordinary talent" in a statement released by Downing Street. Michael Howard, the leader of the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom said: "He is a very great loss. He was someone who made an immense contribution to our political life." Charles Kennedy, leader of the Liberal Democrats said: "Scottish, British and international politics have lost a good and gifted man."

Robin Cook first became a Member of Parliament for Edinburgh Central in 1974. He was appointed the shadow Health Secretary in 1989, and became shadow Trade and Industry Secretary in 1992. Two years later in 1994, he became the shadow Foreign Secretary and he held that position until the 1997 election. With the Labour Party's landslide victory, he then held the portfolio for the Foreign Secretary within the British Cabinet. In 2001, there was a reshuffle and he took on the job of Leader of the Commons instead, with Jack Straw replacing him at the Foreign Office. Cook's strenuous opposition to the war in Iraq led to his resignation from that post in 2003 (noted above). On the matter of the Iraq war, Cook notably said, "I cannot support a war without international agreement or domestic support." He then continued to be a strong critic of Tony Blair's foreign policy from the backbench of the British Parliament.

Regarding the Monarchy

April 21, 2006 marked Queen Elizabeth II's 80th birthday. The British monarch celebrated this personal milestone at Windsor Castle. Thousands of well-wishers were on hand to greet her while Irish Guards played the song, "Happy Birthday" in the background. She was scheduled to join her family for a private birthday dinner hosted by her son and Heir Apparent, Prince Charles.

State of the Blair Government

May 2006 was marked by a cabinet shakeup in the United Kingdom. The changes appeared intended to highlight Prime Minister Tony Blair's continued governing power, even in the face of scandals and other negative news coverage. Opposition leaders, however, said that cabinet shakeups could not mask the need for a new government altogether.

The most significant change centered on the dismissal of the country's Foreign Secretary. It was believed that growing philosophical differences and concomitant tensions between Prime Minister Tony Blair and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw precipitated the move. Indeed, there were reports that Straw had privately conveyed his concerns about the Iraq war. As well, he publicly rebuked the notion of military action against Iran, and even went so far as to characterize the United States' contingency plans for a tactical nuclear strike against Iran as "completely nuts." Prime Minister Blair replaced Straw with the head of the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 32 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Margaret Beckett. Her appointment was notable since she became the first woman to hold the Foreign Affairs portfolio in the British government.

Another important change was the dismissal of Home Secretary Charles Clarke. It was believed that Clarke's dismissal was due to a politically-heated and particularly damaging imbroglio involving a failure to deport foreign criminals. That issue involved the government's acknowledgment that over 1,000 foreign criminals slated for deportation were not screened before freeing them from prison. Although Prime Minister Blair initially expressed support for Clarke, he subsequently made the decision to dismiss his Home Secretary saying, "I felt that it was very difficult, given the level of genuine public concern, for Charles to continue." Clarke was replaced with Defense Secretary John Reid, while Des Browne, Chief Secretary at the Treasury, took on the Defense portfolio in his stead.

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott's responsibilities were curtailed after his scandalous admission that he had an affair with a secretary. He was, however, allowed to keep his title.

The cabinet shuffle occurred on the heels of local elections, which were largely regarded as a referendum on the Blair government. The election resulted in a poor showing by the Labour Party and led to some calls for Prime Minister Blair to step down. In those elections, Labour suffered something of a rout -- exemplified by a loss of seats along with significant gains for the Conservative Party.

Within the Labour Party, there was increasing factionalism between the Blairists and standpoint Labour members. Gordon Brown, the Treasury Head and the de facto "heir apparent" to Blair, warned that in order to stem the political losses to Labour in the long term, voters' concerns regarding crime, terrorism, employment and financial security had to be addressed in the very near future.

Policy issues aside, there were demands for a strong shift in the direction of the party itself. Frank Dobson, a former cabinet secretary, called for new management of the party in short order. Even more radical were the emerging calls for Prime Minister Blair to step down from office. In fact, cabinet secretary John Reid said that there was a left-wing plot to oust Blair out of his leadership role. Certainly, there were reports that approximately 50 Labour parliamentarians issued a letter to Blair asking him to identify a departure date, for the purpose of ending the damaging speculation about the leadership of the party. Of course, the counterpoint argument was that changing the leadership would be terribly damaging at a time when party unity was needed.

On September 5, 2006, a week after British Prime Minister Tony Blair rejected the notion of a timetable for his departure, 17 parliamentarians from the Labour Party dispatched a letter asking him to resign. The call for Blair to resign had been increasing in mid-2006, prompting news that Blair might step down within 12 months. This timetable was deemed acceptable by several parliamentarians who signed a statement to that effect. However, another cadre of Labour

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 33 of 506 pages United Kingdom parliamentarians said that Blair's resignation should be immediate.

These developments came amidst revelations about an apparent leaked memorandum, which suggested that Blair would embark on a farewell tour. The memorandum was reported to have been crafted by a number of Blair's allies, including pollster Philip Gould, and said, "He needs to go with the crowd wanting more." The document emerged around the same time that a Populus poll was published showing that Conservatives were advancing strong support over Labour, regardless of whether or not Blair stayed on in power.

On September 7, 2006, British Prime Minister Tony Blair confirmed that he will step down as prime minister within a year. Speaking at a London school, Blair said, "The next party conference in a couple of weeks will be my last party conference as party leader."

Some members of Blair's Labour Party suggested that Blair would announce a timetable for stepping down from office in early 2007, followed by a handover of power in May. However, others noted that no specific timeline had been decided other than the general timeline of 12 months.

In late September 2006, Blair bid his party goodbye in final swansong speech as Labour Party leader. In his speech before the party faithful, he declined to give a precise date of departure, instead focusing on the accomplishments of the party while he was at the helm.

In the meanwhile, relations within the Labour Party remained rather fractious over the issue of Blair's tenure as prime minister, as well as the question of succession. In this latter regard, Blair and his possible successor, Gordon Brown, were reported to have had a contentious discussion on the prospective schedule for the prime minister's departure. Brown apparently advocated a faster departure, ahead of elections in Scotland, Wales and England, while Blair allies urged a later departure date. The matter led to something of a conflict between respective Blair and Brown camps within the Labour Party, as well as a spate of resignations from members of government.

Northern Ireland Developments in 2006

In 2006, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern traveled to Northern Ireland to reveal their plan for restoring devolution. To this end, they gave Northern Ireland Assembly members a deadline of November 24, 2006 to establish power-sharing governance.

May 2006 marked the first time since October 2002 that Northern Ireland's politicians took their seats at the Stormont assembly. There was no expectation that a power-sharing executive

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 34 of 506 pages United Kingdom government would be immediately formed. Still, it was hoped that the process of convening Assembly Members at Stormont would at least facilitate the possibility of an agreement being forged ahead of the November 24, 2006 deadline. Essentially, politicians were given six weeks to form an executive. Should the six week period pass without agreement, they would be given another 12 weeks to do so. But if the November deadline was reached without resolution, the salaries of Assembly Members would be halted. Ultimately, implementation of the Good Friday Agreement was at stake.

September 2006 saw the DUP begin an internal consultative process by which it was considering whether or not to share power with Sinn Fein. A month later, intensive multi-party talks were convened at St. Andrews in Scotland aimed at moving the sides toward a commitment to devolution. A deadline of November 10, 2006 was set by which all Northern Ireland parties were to respond to the St. Andrews Agreement. This new deadline was followed by the unveiling of a roadmap to devolution, in which the date March 26, 2007 was set for the establishment of a new operational executive. Also in October 2006, an anticipated meeting between Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley at Stormont was postponed after the DUP insisted on a pledge of policing in Northern Ireland. This issue came to the fore again at the close of 2006 when Sinn Fein announced that it was convening a special meeting to discuss possible republican support for policing. Such support would essentially remove a major obstacle to the devolution process.

In November 2006, in keeping with the aforementioned deadline, a transitional assembly was established. The transitional assembly was to be in effect until the close of January 2007. As well, March 2007 was confirmed as the time when elections would be held for the new executive. Proceedings to hear ministerial choices of the DUP and Sinn Fein were interrupted when an apparent loyalist assassin, Michael Stone, tried to enter into the compound at Stormont. He was subsquently charged with attempted murder.

Terror Attacks Foiled in United Kingdom

On Aug. 10, 2006, British authorities announced that they had foiled an attempt by terrorists to bring down several airliners, ultimately killing thousands of people. British police said that following a lengthy probe starting more than six months earlier, over 20 people had been arrested in connection with the terrorist plot, which, according to reports, involved approximately 10 airliners traveling from the United Kingdom to the United States. Details emerging about the plot suggested that the terrorists intended to carry concealed bomb-making materials with them in their carry-on luggage and, presumably, construct and detonate the bombs in-flight over the Atlantic. A day after the attacks were reported to have been foiled, Italian authorities detained around 40 suspects for questioning in connection with the planned terrorist attacks. A few days later, Pakistani authorities also arrested several people in that country, including two British nationals with Pakistani roots, in connection with the apparent terrorist plot. In the United Kingdom, even as suspects in custody

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 35 of 506 pages United Kingdom were being interrogated, British police were still carrying out investigations, including the search for evidence in wooded areas of Buckinghamshire.

While United States spokespersons and media quickly speculated that the terrorist plan was, perhaps, carried out by the notorious Islamic militant group, al-Qaida, British counterparts were far more reticent about expressing ideas about who might be responsible. British analysts acknowledged that the terrorist plan bore the hallmark of typical al-Qaida operations -- complex and coordinated orchestration of attacks intended to be extensive in scope and yielding maximum carnage. That said, they suggested that if those responsible had not been trained at al-Qaida camps, they were at least likely to be al-Qaida inspired.

While little information was initially released about the individuals arrested, it appeared that many of them were British-born Muslims, many of Pakistani ethnicity. Two of the suspects were reported to have traveled to Pakistan and later received money from a source there. Another suspect was believed to be a worker at an Islamic charity. Yet another was reported to be an employee of Heathrow Airport with an all-area access pass. Two suspects apparently left "martyrdom tapes" typical of Islamic suicide bombers. Overall, it was surmised that this group of would-be terrorists were much like the self-radicalized types who carried out the attacks on London's Underground in July 2005. (Although largely self-radicalized, even that group had links to al-Qaida, as was discovered some time after the attacks took place.)

It was also revealed that British police had ideally wanted to continue its investigation further, in order to glean even more information. However, when signs began to indicate that the terrorists were ready to activate their plan, the police had no choice but to immediately arrest those believed to be conspiring to carry out the terrorist attacks. Apparently following a number of arrests in Pakistan, information came to light suggesting that a terrorist act was imminent. Following the arrests on Aug. 10, 2006 came the revelation that while as many people were detained as possible, there was no guarantee that all members of the terrorist enclave had been taken into police custody. With a possible security threat still in the offing, the of the United Kingdom and the United States immediately raised their security threat indices to the highest levels. In addition, transportation authorities in the United Kingdom and the United States immediately instituted draconian measures on air travel.

In the United Kingdom, all hand luggage was immediately banned, forcing travelers to place only identity documents, cash, credit cards and keys into clear plastic bags during travel. In the United States, international travelers were to be subjected to stringent security procedures, while all travelers on overseas and domestic flights were prohibited from carrying all liquid, lotion, cream and gel-like substances in their hand luggage. These policies were instituted in response to revelations that the would-be terrorists intended to detonate a liquid-based explosive, composed of a sports drink and peroxide-based paste. Ignition of the explosion could, theoretically, be achieved using an electrical device such as a cell phone.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 36 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Air transport across the world was compromised. London's Heathrow Airport -- the world's busiest airport and the connection hub for global carriers -- was at the center of the plot. As such, air carriers flying from or to Heathrow cancelled or delayed flights. From Europe in the east and west across the Atlantic to the United States, repercussions were felt as air traffic came to a halt. At the same time, at airports where flights were still departing and arriving, passengers were dealing with particularly lengthy security lines.

While British Home Secretary John Reid acknowledged on Aug. 13, 2006 that the new regime of security restrictions was taking a particularly difficult toll on the air travel industry, he noted that it was necessary given the "substantial threat" posed by terrorists. Still, a day later, the United Kingdom's threat level was downgraded from critical to severe, indicating that an attack was now considered "highly likely" rather than "imminent." The change was made by the Joint Terrorism and Analysis Centre on the basis of recent intelligence. The downgraded status indicated the possibility that some of the security restrictions might be eased, such as the re-introduction of limited hand luggage.

In the midst of these developments, a British Airways flight from Heathrow Airport en route to New York was forced to turn back when a mobile phone, which has been officially banned, rang on board.

Also on Aug. 13, 2006, Home Secretary Reid declared that the recent terrorist plot -- involving the use of liquid explosives on trans-Atlantic flights -- was among at least four such plots, which had been thwarted in the last year since the July 7, 2005 attacks on London's transit system. Reid, however, noted that al-Qaida activities had been operational in the United Kingdom as far back as 2000.

In other developments, Reid responded to a letter written by a group of British Muslim leaders expressing the view that the country's foreign policy was linked with the terror threat. He said that such a position was a "dreadful misjudgement that foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole, under the threat of terrorism activity." Shadow Home Secretary David Davis reflected a similar sentiment saying, "There are plenty of people with legitimate arguments with the government's foreign policy on Iraq, in Afghanistan, in and the Middle East but none of them take the stance of attempting to murder many thousands of their fellow citizens."

Meanwhile, United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed his gratitude to security personnel for their efforts in foiling the terrorist attack. United States President George W. Bush reminded people that the United States was still at war with "Islamic fascists." Bush also thanked Blair for "busting this plot."

British Policy on Iraq

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 37 of 506 pages United Kingdom

On February 21, 2007, British Prime Minister Blair announced the withdrawal of some troops from Iraq over the course of the following months. He said that the 7,100 British troops serving in southern Iraq would be reduced to 5,500 and he hoped that another 500 troops could leave by late summer. He expected the remaining troops to stay in Iraq until 2008. Prime Minister Blair defined a new objective for British troops in Iraq, saying that they would be expected to provide requisite support for Iraqi forces and securing the borders. He also made clear that Iraqis would write the next chapter" in their country's history.

The announcement by the British prime minister was soon followed with news that the few Danish troops operating in Iraq would also be withdrawn. As well, said that they were considering the removal of their troops from Iraq.

Even as the news from these three countries was being made public, the United States was moving to increase its troop presence in Iraq under President George W. Bush's controversial plan for escalation. For its part, the United States characterized Blair's announcement as a positive sign of success in Iraq. Still, the fact of the matter was that the period had seen an exodus of coalition troops from Iraq, as the war in that country became ever more unpopular across the globe. Indeed, troops remaining in Iraq from countries belonging to the coalition numbered few in comparison with their United States counterpart. United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice responded to criticism of the dwindling presence of foreign forces in Iraq by saying that that the coalition "remains intact."

Imbroglio with Iran

The British presence in Iraq was a key issue in March 2007 when 15 members of the British Navy were captured by members. The incident occurred on March 23, 2007 when the British Navy personnel boarded a vessel just off the coast of Iraq on the basis of suspected smuggling activities. The servicemen from the HMS Cornwall were apparently seized by gunpoint by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett demanded both the immediate and safe return of the servicemen, as well as a "full explanation" from Iran about its actions.

On March 26, 2007, the Iranian government in Tehran said that the British Navy personnel had illegally entered Iranian waters. The Iranian government also noted that the 15 Navy servicemen were undergoing questioning, and offered assurances to the British ambassador about the good health of those captured. In addition, Iran dismissed the notion that they had been taken in exchange for five Iranian diplomats who had earlier detained in Iraq by the United States military.

The British government countered the claim made by Iran saying that its Navy personnel were conducting routine patrols in Iraqi waters. To this end, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "It simply is not true that they went into Iranian territorial waters and I hope the Iranian government understands how fundamental an issue this is for us." Blair characterized the detention of the 15

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 38 of 506 pages United Kingdom members of the Royal Navy as "unjustified and wrong." To underline the gravity of the situation, the British government also suspended bilateral contacts with Iran.

It was yet to be seen how Iran would react, given the fact that the diplomatic climate abroad, as well as the political climate at home, were not particularly favorable in March 2007. First, new sanctions were being imposed by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council on Iran in regard to its nuclear program. As well, students at home were reacting to the government's claims about the Royal Navy personnel entry into Iranian waters by calling for them to face trial.

Days later, Iranian authorities published excerpts of letters by Leading Seaman Faye Turney -- one of the Royal Navy personnel captured. In the letters, Turney allegedly wrote that she was sorry that she and her fellow Royal Navy servicemen entered Iranian waters. On March 28, 2007, Iranian state television showed an interview with Turney in which she said, "Obviously we trespassed" into Iranian waters. Nevertheless, Iran said that Turney would be released within days.

British officials responded saying that they expected that Turney had been forced to express such a position, and they did not believe the letters or interview statements were willingly offered. As well, Prime Minister Blair told the House of Commons that the time had come to "ratchet up" pressure on Iran. Earlier, Blair warned of a "different phase" in diplomatic efforts if current initiatives to free the 15 crew members failed. Meanwhile, the Royal Navy offered Global Positioning Systems (GPS) evidence making clear that the 15 crew members, who were functioning under a United Nations mandate, were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized.

On March 29, 2007, following a request by the United Kingdom (U.K.), the United Nations Security Council issued a statement conveying "grave concern" for the capture of the British Navy personnel by Iran, and calling on Iran to ensure that the U.K. received consular access.

For its part, Iran released video footage depicting the 15 British crew members being seized in what it has claimed to be Iranian waters. Iran also announced that it was freezing the scheduled release of Leading Seaman Turney on the basis of the U.K.'s supposed "incorrect attitude."

A day later, Iranian state television aired an interview with a second British Royal Navy serviceman, Nathan Summers. In that footage, Summer apologized for "trespassing" in Iranian waters. Prime Minister Blair disparaged the footage, saying that the exploitation of the British crew would serve only to "enhance people's sense of disgust with Iran."

On the diplomatic front, Iran sent a formal note to the U.K. in which it condemned the Royal Navy's "illegal act" and called for guarantees that such trespassing would not be repeated. Meanwhile, the European Union expressed "unconditional support" for the position of the U.K. and urged the "immediate and unconditional release" of the 15 Royal Navy personnel.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 39 of 506 pages United Kingdom

On April 1, 2007, two other Royal Navy servicemen were shown on Iranian state television. Captain Chris Ayre and Lieutenant Felix Carman were respectively shown in front of an Iranian map of the Gulf. Ayre noted that the Iranian maps depicted the area in which he and his associates were captured as Iranian territorial waters. He said, "Approximately about ten o'clock in the morning we were seized - apparently at this point here from their maps on the GPS they've shown us - which is inside Iranian territorial waters." Carman expressed understanding for the Iranian perspective about the "intrusion."

On the ground in Iran, hard-line students hurled rockets and firecrackers into the compound housing the British embassy, presumably to protest the brewing dissention between the two countries. As well, about 200 students took to the streets to demonstrate against the alleged trespassing by the British Navy personnel into Iranian waters.

On the other side of the equation, the British Foreign Office decried the televised footage and characterized it as both "a charade" and "unacceptable." The statement by the British Foreign Office included the following assertion: "It is completely unacceptable for these pictures to be shown on television, given the potential to cause distress to their families."

A day later, the climate appeared to have calmed somewhat, despite the airing of new footage of the 15 who had been detained. Iran noted that a shift from the U.K. could help to resolve the crisis, and in so doing refined its hard-line tone. Meanwhile, the U.K. Defense Secretary Des Browne said that diplomatic efforts to end the crisis were ongoing, and that London and Tehran were engaging in "direct bilateral communication."

On April 4, 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmandinejad held a media conference in Tehran. At that media event, which was held to present medals of honor to the Republican Guard who had detained the British crew members, he also announced that the British Navy servicemen would be given amnesty and released. He intimated that the decision was gesture of goodwill to the British, and that it was being offered in honor of two upcoming events -- the birthday of the Islamic Prophet Mohammed and the Christian celebration of Easter. Iranian state television showed Ahmadinejad greeting the 15 servicemen in what appeared to be a climate of amity. Some analysts characterized the display as being "a piece of theater." Regardless, British Prime Minister Tony Blair reacted to the news saying that the release of the 15 Britons would be "a profound relief" to the crew and their families.

On the diplomatic front, the Iranian leader said that no concessions or deals had been made with the British government to secure the release of the 15 servicemen, although the U.K. made it clear that such an incident would not be repeated. Meanwhile, the British prime minister did not offer either an apology to Iran for the alleged intrusion into Iranian waters, or thanks for the release of the British Navy personnel. However, Blair addressed the Iranian people saying, "We bear you no ill will. On the contrary, we respect Iran as an ancient civilisation, as a nation with a proud and

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 40 of 506 pages United Kingdom dignified history. The disagreements we have with your government we wish to resolve peacefully through dialogue. I hope - as I've always hoped - that in the future we are able to do so."

Note: The 15 released servicemen later noted that their statements to Iranian state media had been coerced.

Northern Ireland Developments in 2007

At the start of 2007, the issue of policing (discussed above) returned to the political purview when Sinn Fein accused DUP leader Ian Paisley of not providing a "positive enough" response to the special meeting its was convening to deal with the crucial issue of policing. The situation took another turn when Paisley denied ever agreeing to the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly by 2008. Paisley also noted that there was no provision for such a move in the St. Andrews Agreement.

Regardless, on January 28, 2007, at a special party conference in , Sinn Fein voted to support policing in Northern Ireland. The vote was carried overwhelmingly with 90 percent support. It was the first such move in the party's history and was considered a key component in the progress toward devolution in Northern Ireland.

Another key aspects on the path toward restoring devolution has been the question of the DUP's commitment to power-sharing with Sinn Fein in a devolved government by the target date of March 26, 2007.

In March 2007, the election for the new Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland took place. Results showed the two hard-line Protestant/Unionist and Catholic/Nationalists parties winning most of the seats at stake.

The election was intended to facilitate the creation of a new power-sharing government, which would represent diverse sectarian interests. That power-sharing executive entity had to be formed by a deadline of March 26, 2007, in order to move away from direct rule. However, a failure to do so would leave little chance of restoring the devolved government, and ultimately, it would result in the abandonment of the Northern Ireland's Legislative Assembly at Stormount. At issue was the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Now, with the elections completed, and with the March 26, 2007 deadline looming ahead, Secretary of State said that he would require a status report from the parties within two weeks, in order to meet the deadline for devolution. He warned that the assembly would be abandoned if the parties were not signatories to a power-sharing executive. That power-sharing executive, if formed, would be made up of four DUP ministers, three Sinn Fein ministers, two

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 41 of 506 pages United Kingdom

UUP ministers and one SDLP minister. Absent from the executive would be the Alliance Party, the Green Party and the PUP

As midnight struck heralding March 26, 2007, Peter Hain signed an order restarting devolution and effectively restoring power to the Northern Ireland Assembly. But its revived existence could have had a short life if the deadline for the formation of the power-sharing executive was not met.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland warned that the assembly at Stormount would be dissolved if agreement on the power-sharing executive was not forged by the deadline. That said, Hain also suggested that he was willing to consider alternative arrangement if the parties could come to some consensus on the issues at stake.

For its part, the DUP said that it would enter into a power-sharing government with Sinn Fein, however, it also issued a caveat of sorts by stating that it would not enter into such an arrangement until May. In response, Sinn Fein charged the DUP with attempting to "frustrate the will of the electorate." DUP parliamentarian Jeffrey Donaldson defended his party's decision by noting that the decision to agree to govern jointly with Sinn Fein was one of historic proportions, but that more time was needed to resolve outstanding issues, including departmental pre-briefings, the finalization of a government program, as well as raising confidence levels within the community regarding devolution.

Nevertheless, before the passage of the deadline, the DUP and Sinn Fein announced an historic agreement to form a power-sharing executive on May 8, 2007. Two main rivals -- the DUP's Ian Paisley and Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams -- met for direct talks to discuss the deal. It was agreed that Paisley would be the first minister in the new administration and Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness would be deputy first minister.

Following the unprecedented meeting between Paisley and Adams, the DUP leader expressed full commitement saying, "The DUP executive overwhelmingly endorsed a motion committing our party to support and participate fully in government in May of this year - this is a binding resolution." Paisley's nationalist counterpart, Adams, responded to the DUP's endorsement and commitment to joint governance saying, "I believe the agreement reached between Sinn Fein and the DUP - including the unequivocal commitment made by their party executive and reiterated today - to the restoration of political institutions on 8 May marks the beginning of a new era of politics on this island."

British Prime Minister Blair said that the agreement between the DUP and Sinn Fein was an important one for the people and the history of Northern Ireland. Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern reacted to the developments by characterizing the agreement was both unprecedented and very positive.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 42 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Then, May 8, 2007 saw the establishment of the historic power-sharing at Stormount in Northern Ireland. Direct rule ended as DUP leader, Ian Paisley, and Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein, took office as the first and deputy ministers of the new executive respectively. Paisley marked the occasion saying, "Today we are starting upon the road which I believe will take us to lasting peace in our ." McGuinness expressed confidence that he would be able to work with Paisley despite the challenges of the past, saying, "We must overcome the difficulties which we face in order to achieve our goals and seize the opportunities that now exist." Witnessing the occasion, British Prime Minister Tony Blair noted that Northern Ireland now had the opportunity to be freed from "the heavy chains of history" while charting a new course. His Irish counterpart, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern expressed his gratitude to politicians who had worked hard to achieve peace.

Note: The creation of a new power-sharing government at Stormount was intended to both restore the devolved government and to represent diverse sectarian interests. The historic occasion marked the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Developments on Domestic Agenda

May 2007 saw Tony Blair's Labour Party suffer some defeats in local elections. These defeats were largely blamed on the unpopular war in Iraq as well as a domestic scandal involving payments for honor. Nevertheless, Blair characterized his party's performance as being unexpectedly good noting, "You always take a hit in the midterm, but these results provide a perfectly good springboard to go on and win the next national election." Indeed, the Labour Party's performance was slightly better than in local elections of 2006.

These elections were held for local councils across England. As well, elections were held in Scotland for local representatives, as well as representatives to the Scottish Parliament, seated in Edinburgh. In Wales, voters chose representatives to the National Assembly, seated in Cardiff.

While the Labour Party's overall loss was smaller than had originally been anticipated, the most significant shift was seen in the closeness of the election in Scotland, typically viewed as a Labour Party stronghold. There, the Labour Party lost its advantage over the Scottish nationalists. In fact, the strong showing of the Scottish National Party, which promised to hold a referendum on independence by 2010 if it won power, evoked questions about the political terrain there. In Wales, the Labour Party lost some seats but still tallied twice as many in the end, as compared with the nationalist party, Plaid Cymru.

The election came ahead of Blair's anticipated announcement that he would resign as prime minister. There was some speculation that his likely successor, Gordon Brown, would benefit from the fact that despite the losses just suffered by the Labour Party, the Conservatives in opposition were hardly enjoying a notable ascendant trend.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 43 of 506 pages United Kingdom

On May 10, 2007, Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom issued his long-awaited announcement that he was stepping down from the Labour Party's leadership position and head of government. Blair's announcement made in his Sedgefield constituency and was of an emotional nature.

The prime minister made clear the triumphs achieved by the Labour Party under his leadership, saying, "There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: more jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter." At the same time, he also appeared to acknowledge with regret some of the failings of his administration saying, "I give my thanks to you, the British people for the times that I have succeeded and my apologies for the times I have fallen short." In what some interpreted as a nuanced reference to British involvement in the Iraq war, Blair also said, "I may have been wrong, but I did what I thought was right for our country."

Now with Blair's departure imminent, attention turned to his likely successor. The head of the Treasury, Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, has been viewed as Blair's "heir apparent" for some time. With several leading members of the Labour Party bowing out, Brown was expected to win the party's internal contest for the leadership position.

In the third week of June 2007, Chancellor Gordon Brown officially became the new leader of the United Kingdom's Labour Party. The move came days before outgoing Prime Minister Tony Blair prepared to step down as the British head of government on June 27, 2007. On that day, Brown would become the new prime minister and head of government in the United Kingdom.

In his acceptance speech, Brown praised Blair for his service to the Labour Party and to the country, and promised to forge not merely political policies, but also a “soul” for the country's leading political party, as it responded to the changing needs of the British people. To this end, he began his speech stating, "It is with humility, pride and a great sense of duty that I accept the privilege and the great responsibility of leading our party and changing our country." On policy, he identified priority areas as being education, affordable housing, childhood poverty, constitutional reform, and modernizing the National Health Service (NHS). In the area of foreign affairs, Brown said that lessons had to be learned, and he acknowledged the divisive nature of the war in Iraq.

In other developments in the Labour Party, Harriet Harman won a slim victory over five rivals to take the position as deputy party leader, thus succeeding John Prescott. Brown announced that Deputy Leader Harman would also act as party chairman, and he noted that all party members would have a say in the development of policy initiatives. No deputy prime minister was announced.

Meanwhile, the change in leadership at the helm of the Labour Party appeared to be yielding positive results for a party that had suffered waning public support in recent times. Now, an

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 44 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Ipsos/Mori opinion poll showed that support for the Labour Party had risen to 39 percent in June 2007, while both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats had lost support, with the two parties slipping to 36 percent and 15 percent respectively.

On June 27, 2007, Tony Blair issued his resignation from office to the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, following a short private meeting. As he left parliament for the final time, Blair received a rousing standing ovation. He also traveled to his constituency of Sedgefield where he bid farewell to local party members following his tenure as their parliamentarian for 24 years. Blair was set to move on to work as the new Middle East peace envoy for the Middle East quartet, composed of the European Union, the United Nations, United States and Russia.

Blair’s exit was followed by the Queen appointing Gordon Brown, as the head of the Labour Party, to be the United Kingdom’s new prime minister. Queen Elizabeth II also spent almost an hour in a private audience with Brown. In his first address as head of government, Prime Minister Brown said, "Let the work of change begin." He pledged to meet his expressed policy goals "try my utmost” – a reference to his student motto. Just before entering 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Brown said, “I will be strong in purpose, steadfast in will, resolute in action in the service of what matters to the British people, meeting the concerns and aspirations of our whole country."

A new cabinet was announced a day later on June 28, 2007, with significant changes at stake. Every portfolio in cabinet, with the exception of Defense Minister Des Brown, was changed. Certain key Blairites were leaving the political scene. John Reid was retiring as Home Secretary and Patricia Hewitt was resigning both as Health Secretary and from government. Margaret Beckett was leaving the role of Foreign Secretary. Of note was the fact that the country would have its first female Home Secretary Jacqui Smith. A stalwart of the Brown camp, Alistair Darling, was set to become the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, while David Miliband was the new Foreign Secretary. Jack Straw was to become the new Justice Secretary.

The new cabinet convened on June 28, 2007 for the first time.

New Prime Minister Confronts Renewed Threat of Terrorism

On June 29, 2007, two cars loaded with explosives, nails and gas cylinders, were found in London. Neither car detonated, thus sparing people from the potential violence and loss of life that might have been caused by the car bombs exploding. A day later, a burning vehicle, also loaded with gas cylinders, rammed into the main terminal of Airport in Scotland. Again, that incident yielded no loss of life. The attempted attack in Glasgow was deemed to be related to the two earlier attempted attacks in London.

British authorities later said that all three incidences were clearly attempted acts of terrorism

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 45 of 506 pages United Kingdom attributable to associates of al-Qaida. Several people were soon arrested in connection with the apparent terror plot, including the two individuals responsible for driving the burning Jeep into the airport at Glasgow. Also included in those detained were a handful of doctors studying or practicing medicine in the United Kingdom. Searches were being carried out across the country for others who might have been involved in these attempted acts of terrorism. At least one suspect was said to be "on the run." None of the suspects were said to be of British origin, with certain suspects being identified as being of Iraqi and Jordanian background.

The timing of the incidences -- about two years after the July 2005 terror attacks on London's transit system, along with the fact that Gordon Brown had only assumed governing power days before -- appeared to be significant. Nevertheless, Prime Minister Brown signaled his intent to take the threat of terrorism in the United Kingdom seriously, raising the terror alert in the country to "critical," and urging the British people to stay "constantly vigilant" against what he warned would be a "long-term and sustained threat." In an interview with the BBC, Prime Minister Brown said, "It's obvious that we have a group of people - not just in this country, but round the world - who're prepared at any time to inflict what they want to be maximum damage on civilians, irrespective of the religion of these people who are killed or maimed." He also noted that his country would not yield, despite the violent intent of al-Qaida.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith was granted no grace period in her new position. She convened meetings at the government's emergency response unit, known by the name Cobra. Following the fourth Cobra meeting within the space of days, Smith noted that the British people would not be intimidated and that life would go on as ever. She also announced that a formal statement would be offered before the House of Commons on July 2, 2007.

Meanwhile, attention was turning toward the authorization to hold terror suspects for up to 90 days without charges being levied. This measure had been defeated a few years prior in parliament by a coalition of Conservative, Liberal Democratic and Labour backbenchers, however, in light of the current landscape, it was expected to be revived.

Other Developments

The close of July 2007 saw new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hold official talks with his American counterpart, United States President George W. Bush, for the first time since succeeding Tony Blair. The two heads of government met at Camp David in the United States. At issue was the state of the trans-Atlantic relationship, given Tony Blair's exit from the office of the prime minister, and Brown's entry into that role. Brown signaled goodwill by noting that the world owed the United States a debt of gratitude for its leadership in the global war on terror. Yet unknown was the matter of whether or not there would be a change in the United Kingdom's role in Iraq.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 46 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Then, on October 8, 2007, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that his country’s troops in Iraq would be reduced to 2,500 by the spring of 2008. Speaking to parliamentarians, Brown said that the reduction was possible because Iraqis were now better positioned to take responsibility for their own security. He also noted that the handover of Basra would ensue on a phased basis.

Two days before British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced the reduction of troops in Iraq, he said that he would not be calling an election anytime soon, since he needed time to put forth his “vision” for the United Kingdom. The political opposition blasted the move, saying that Brown was opting out of an immediate election contest because of his party’s poor polling numbers.

Special Entry:

Global credit crisis; effects felt in Europe

Summary:

A financial farrago, rooted in the credit crisis, became a global phenomenon by the start of October 2008. In the United States, after failure of the passage of a controversial bailout plan in the lower chamber of , an amended piece of legislation finally passed through both houses of Congress. There were hopes that its passage would calm jitters on Wall Street and restore confidence in the country's financial regime. However, a volatile week on Wall Street followed, most sharply characterized by a precipitous 18 percent drop of the Dow Jones. With the situation requiring rapid and radical action, a new proposal for the government to bank stakes was gaining steam. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, with banks also in jeopardy of failing, and with no coordinated efforts to stem the tide by varying countries of the European Union, there were rising anxieties not only about the resolving the financial crisis, but also about the viability of the European bloc. Nevertheless, European leaders were able to forge an agreement aimed at easing the credit crunch in that region of the world. Following is an exploration, first, of the situation in the United States, and, second, of the situation unfolding in Europe.

Report:

On Sept. 28, 2008, as the United States was reeling from the unfolding credit crisis, Europe's banking sector was also hit by its own woes when the Dutch operations of the European banking and insurance entity, Fortis, was partly nationalized in an effort to prevent its ultimate demise. Radical action was spurred by anxieties that Fortis was too much of a banking and financial giant to be allowed to fail. The , Belgium and Luxembourg forged an agreement to contribute more than 11 billion euros (approximately US$16 billion) to shore up Fortis, whose share price fell precipitously due to worries about its bad debts.

A day later, the mortgage lender -- Bradford and Bingley -- in the United Kingdom was

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 47 of 506 pages United Kingdom nationalized when the British government took control of the bank's mortgages and loans. Left out of the nationalization scheme were the savings and branch operations, which were sold off to Santander of Spain. Earlier, the struggling mortgage lender, Northern Rock, had itself been nationalized. The head of the British Treasury, Alistair Darling, indicated that "big steps" that would not normally be taken were in the offing, given the unprecedented nature of the credit crisis.

On the same day, financial woes came to a head in Iceland when the government was compelled to seize control of the country's third-largest bank , Glitnir, due to financial problems and fears that it would go insolvent. Iceland was said to be in serious financial trouble, given the fact that its liabilities were in gross excess of the country's GDP. Further action was anticipated in Iceland, as a result.

On Sept 30, 2008, another European bank -- Dexia -- was the victim of the intensifying global banking and financial crisis. In order to keep Dexia afloat, the governments of France, Belgium, and Luxembourg convened talks and agreed to contribute close to 6.5 billion euros (approximately US$9 billion) to keep Dexia from suffering a demise.

Only days later, the aforementioned Fortis bank returned to the forefront of the discussion in Europe. Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme said he was hoping to locate a new owner with the aim of restoring confidence in Fortis, and thusly, preventing a further downturn in the markets. Leterme said that the authorities were considering takeover bids for the Belgian operations of the company (the Dutch operations were nationalized as noted above.)

By Sept. 5, 2008, one of Germany's biggest banks, Hypo Real Estate, was at risk of failing. In response, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said she would exhaust all efforts to save the bank. A rescue plan by the government and banking institutions was eventually agreed upon at a cost of 50 billion euros (approximately US$70 billion). This agreement involved a higher cost than was previously discussed.

Meanwhile, as intimated above, Iceland was enduring further financial shocks to its entire banking system. As such, the government of Iceland was involved in intense discussions aimed at saving the country's financial regime, which were now at severe risk of collapse due to insolvency of the country's commercial banks.

Meanwhile, on Sept. 4, 2008, the leaders of key European states -- United Kingdom, France, Germany, and -- met in the French of Paris to discuss the financial farrago and to consider possible action. The talks, which were hosted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, ended without consensus on what should be done to deal with the credit crisis, which was rapidly becoming a global phenomenon. The only thing that the four European countries agreed upon was that there would not be a grand rescue plan, akin to the type that was initiated in the United States. As well, they jointly called for more greater regulation and a coordinated response. To that latter end, President Nicolas Sarkozy said, "Each government will operate with its own

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 48 of 506 pages United Kingdom methods and means, but in a coordinated manner."

This call came after Ireland took independent action to deal with the burgeoning financial crisis. Notably, the Irish government decided days earlier to fully guarantee all deposits in the country's major banks for a period of two years. The Greek government soon followed suit with a similar action. These actions by Ireland and raised the ire of other European countries, and evoked questions of whether Ireland and Greece had violated any European Union charters. An investigation by the European Union was pending into whether or not Ireland's guarantee of all savings deposits was anti-competitive in nature.

Nevertheless, as anxieties about the safety of bank deposits rose across Europe, Ireland and Greece saw an influx of new banking customers from across the continent, presumably seeking the security of knowing their money would be safe amidst a financial meltdown. And even with questions rising about the decisions of the Irish and Greek government, the government of Germany decided to go down a similar path by guaranteeing all private bank accounts. For his part, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that his government would increase the limit on guaranteed bank deposits from £35,000 to £50,000.

In these various ways, it was clear that there was no concurrence among some of Europe's most important economies. In fact, despite the meeting in France, which called for coordination among the countries of the European bloc, there was no unified response to the global financial crisis. Instead, that meeting laid bare the divisions within the countries of the European Union, and called into question the very viability of the European bloc. Perhaps that question of viability would be answered at a forthcoming G8 summit, as recommended by those participating in the Paris talks.

A week later, another meeting of European leaders in Paris ended with concurrence that no large institution would be allowed to fail. The meeting, which was attended by leaders of euro zone countries, resulted in an agreement to guarantee loans between banks until the end of 2009, with an eye on easing the credit crunch. The proposal, which would apply in 15 countries, also included a plan for capital infusions by means of purchasing preference shares from banks.

The United Kingdom, which is outside the euro zone, had already announced a similar strategy. Indeed, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown gained cachet for his steady handling of the financial crisis. Brown said that his government had to be the "rock of stability" during the crisis and explained that injections of capital by the British Treasury and the government takeover of banks was "unprecedented but necessary."

French President Nicolas Sarkozy argued that these unprecedented measures were of vital importance. The French leader said, "The crisis has over the past few days entered into a phase that makes it intolerable to opt for procrastination and a go-it-alone approach." He also tried to ease growing frustration that such measures would benefit the wealthy by explaining that the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 49 of 506 pages United Kingdom strategy would not constitute "a gift to banks."

While these developments were aimed at restoring confidence in the financial regime in Europe, Iceland continued to struggle. Indeed, the country's economy stood precipitously close to collapse. Three banks, including the country's largest one -- Kaupthing -- had to be rescued by the government. Landsbanki and Glitnir had been nationalized. A spokesperson for Iceland's Financial Supervisory Authority said, "The action taken... was a necessary first step in achieving the objectives of the Icelandic government and parliament to ensure the continued orderly operation of domestic banking and the safety of domestic deposits."

With the country in a state of economic panic, trading on the OMX Nordic Exchange was suspended temporarily, although it was expected to reopen on October 13, 2008. Once re-opened, the OMX Nordic Exchange experienced a high degree of volatility -- initially plunging before recouping some losses.

Iceland's Prime Minister Geir Haarde said that his country was considering whether to seek assistance from the International Monetary Fund to weather the crisis. As well, Iceland's Central Bank drew upon more than half-billion dollars from Scandinavian swap facility, thus enabling access to euros as the stock exchange reopened after a temporary suspension, as discussed above. Iceland was also courting financial assistance from Russia; to that end, Icelandic authorities were seeking a loan from Moscow of about four billion euros or $5.5 billion USD.

Iceland was also ensconced in a mini-imbroglio with the United Kingdom over that country's decision to freeze Icelandic bank assets. At issue was the United Kingdon's reaction to the unfolding crisis in Iceland, which the British authorities said left deposits by its own citizens at risk. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown particularly condemned the government of Iceland for its poor stewardship of the situation and also its failure to guarantee British savers' deposits (Icelandic domestic deposits, by contrast, had been guaranteed by the country's Financial Supervisory Authority). That said, the United Kingdom Treasury was eventually able to arrange for some British deposits to Kaupthing to be moved under the control of ING Direct. There were also arrangements being made for a payout to Landsbanki's depositors.

Europe facing financial crisis as banking bail-out looms large in early 2009:

According to the European Commission, European banks may be in need of as much as several trillion in bailout funding. Impaired or toxic assets factor highly on the European Union bank balance sheets, with credit default swaps on Irish debt running at 355 basis points higher at the time of writing -- the highest rate in Europe and well on its way down the path of Iceland. Anxieties were so high in Dublin that tens of thousands of people took to the streets to protest the growing financial crisis.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 50 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Meanwhile, the fallout from the housing bubble was deleteriously affecting the United Kingdom, with anxieties being stoked about whether British banks could at all be saved.

In Spain, unemployment was in double digit and industrial production plunged 20 percent from where it was a year earlier. It was anticipated that credit default swaps for Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece would double over the course of the next year. In other parts of Europe, according to economist Nouriel Roubini, the economies of Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania appeared to be on the brink of disaster.

Regarding Ukraine, there were fears that it would might not abide with terms of a loan from the International Monetary Fund and thusly default on its debt. Meanwhile in , the currency was falling and in Russia, even as the rouble fell, the Kremli warned of economic contraction.

Overall, Eastern European countries borrowed heavily from Western European banks. Thus, even if the currencies on the eastern part of the continent collapse, effects will be felt in the western part of Europe as well. For example, Swiss banks that gave billions of credit to Eastern Europe cannot look forward to repayment anytime soon. As well, Austrian banks have had extensive exposure to Eastern Europe, and can anticipate a highly increased cost of insuring its debt.

German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck has warned that as many as 16 European Union countries will require assistance. Indeed, his statements suggest the need for a regional rescue effort. Of consideration is the fact that, according to the Maastricht Treaty, state-funded bailouts are prohibited.

By the close of February 2009, it was announced that the banking sectors in Central and Eastern Europe would receive a rescue package of $31 billion, via the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the European Investment Bank (EIB) and the World Bank. The rescue package was aimed at assisting the survival of small financial institutions and included equity and debt financing, as well as access to credit and risk insurance aimed at encouraging lending.

European Union backs financial regulation overhaul:

With the global financial crisis intensifying, leaders of European Union countries backed sweeping financial regulations. Included in the package of market reforms were sanctions on tax havens, caps on bonus payments to management, greater hedge fund regulation, and increased influence by the International Monetary Fund. European leaders also backed a charter of sustainable economic activity, that would subject all global financial activities to both regulation and accountability by credit rating agencies.

These moves were made ahead of the Group of 20 summit scheduled for April 2, 2009, in London. It was not known whether other countries outside Europe, such as the United States, Japan, India and , would support the new and aggressive regime of market regulation. That

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 51 of 506 pages United Kingdom said, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in that Europe had a responsibility to chart this track. She said, "Europe will own up to its responsibility in the world."

For its part, the Obama administration in Washington did not provide particularized feedback on the measures being pushed forward in Europe. However, the Obama administration indicated that it wanted to work with the international community to advance improvements, including regulation, to the financial regime.

Leaders forge $1 trillion deal at G-20 summit in London

Leaders of the world’s largest economies, known as the “G-20,” met in London to explore possible responses to the global financial crisis. To that end, they forged a deal valued at more than one trillion dollars (USD).

Central to the agreement was an infusion of $750 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was aimed at helping troubled economies. Up to $100 billion of that amount was earmarked to assist the world’s very poorest countries -- an amount far greater than had been expected. In many senses, the infusion of funding to the IMF marked a strengthening of that body unseen since the 1980s.

In addition, the G-20 leaders settled on a $250 billion increase in global trade. The world’s poorest countries would also benefit from the availability of $250 billion of trade credit.

After some debate, the G-20 leaders decided to levy sanctions against clandestine tax havens and to institute strict financial regulations. Such regulations included tougher controls on banking professionals’ salaries and bonuses, and increased oversight of hedge funds and credit rating agencies. A Financial Stability Board was to be established that would work in concert with the IMF to facilitate cross-border cooperation, and also to provide early warnings regarding the financial system.

Aside from these measures, the G-20 countries were already implementing their own economic stimulus measures at home, aimed at reversing the global recession. Together, these economic stimulus packages would inject approximately $5 trillion by the end of 2010.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown played host at the meeting, which most concurred went off successfully, despite the presence of anti-globalization and anarchist protestors. Prime Minister Brown warned that there was "no quick fix" for the economic woes facing the international community, but he drew attention to the consensus that had been forged in the interest of the common good. He said, "This is the day that the world came together to fight back against the global recession, not with words, but with a plan for global recovery and for reform and with a clear timetable for its delivery.”

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 52 of 506 pages United Kingdom

All eyes were on United States President Barack Obama, who characterized the G-20 summit as “a turning point” in the effort towards global economic recovery. He also hailed the advances agreed upon to reform the failed regulatory regime that contributed to the financial crisis that has gripped many of the economies across the globe. Thusly, President Obama declared the London summit to be historic saying, "It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenges that we face and because of the timeliness and the magnitude of our response.”

Ahead of the summit, there were reports of a growing rift between the respective duos of France and Germany -- and -- the United States and the United Kingdom. While France and Germany were emphasizing stricter financial regulations, the United States and the United Kingdom were advocating public spending to deal with the economic crisis. Indeed, French President Nicolas Sarkozy had threatened to bolt the meeting if his priority issues were not addressed. But such an end did not occur, although tensions were existent.

To that end, President Obama was hailed for his diplomatic skills after he brokered an agreement between France and China on tax havens. The American president played the role of peacemaker between French President Sarkozy and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, paving the way for a meeting of the minds on the matter of tax havens.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the concurrence reached at the G-20 summit were "more than we could have hoped for." President Sarkozy also credited President Obama for the American president’s leadership at the summit, effusively stating: "President Obama really found the consensus. He didn't focus exclusively on stimulus ... In fact it was he who managed to help me persuade [Chinese] President Hu Jintao to agree to the reference to the ... publication of a list of tax havens, and I wish to thank him for that."

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel also expressed positive feedback about the success of the summit noting that the new measures would give the international arena a "clearer financial market architecture." She noted that the agreement reached was "a very, very good, almost historic compromise." Finally, Chancellor Merkel had warm words of praise for President Obama. “The American president also put his hand into this,” said Merkel.

Note: The G-20 leaders agreed to meet again in September 2009 in New York to assess the progress of their agenda.

Special Entry:

"Real IRA" claims responsibility for attack on British army base

March 2009 was marked by an attack by two gunmen at an army base, which left two soldiers dead. Both soldiers were due to be deployed to Afghanistan. At the Antrim army base, the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 53 of 506 pages United Kingdom gunmen also injured four people, including two pizza delivery men. The incident marked the first killing of soldiers in Northern Ireland since the assassination of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick in 1997.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the attack as "evil" and vowed that it would not impeded the peace process. He also promised to bring those responsible to justice saying, "We will do everything in our power to make sure that Northern Ireland is safe and secure and I assure you we will bring these murderers to justice."

Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, characterized the attack as and attempt to derail the peace process and noted that it was "wrong and counter-productive."

Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister Martin McGuiness, who was a former member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), decried the attack saying, "I supported the IRA during the conflict, I myself was a member of the IRA but that war is over. Now the people responsible for that last night's incident are clearly signaling that they want to resume or restart that war."

Northern Ireland's First Minister Peter Robinson, who was also Democratic Unionist Party leader, said that cast the attack as a "terrible reminder of the events of the past."

In the aftermath of the attack, the "Real IRA" claimed responsibility. The "Real IRA" emerged due to a split within the Provisional IRA in 1997 due to Sinn Fein's decision to participate in the peace process. The "Real IRA" was behind the bombing of the Tyrone town of Omagh that left 29 people dead in 1998.

Recent Developments

June 2009 saw British Prime Minister Gordon Brown try to hold onto power by carrying out a cabinet reshuffle. At issue was an unfolding scandal involving the expense accounts of parliamentarians. The matter contributed to a wave of resignations from parliamentarians within Prime Minister Brown's cabinet, including Home Secretary Jacqui Smith and Communities and Local Government Secretary Hazel Blears.

But the decision to keep Chancellor Alistair Darling in his post as the head of the Treasury, despite the allegations that he inappropriately charged services to his parliamentary account, was decried even from within the Labour Party. Indeed, Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell said he was resigning "for the good of the Labor Party" and expressed no confidence in Prime Minister Brown himself. Defense Secretary John Hutton, however, expressed support for the prime minister, who himself was accountable for the sage. Prime Minister Brown said, "I admit mistakes have been made and I accept full responsibility." He promised an independent audit of parliamentarians' expense accounts, pledge to stamp out the abuses, and expend his effort on

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 54 of 506 pages United Kingdom economic recovery and political reform.

In the background of the political chaos for Prime Minister Brown's government were local English elections, as well as elections to the parliament of the European Union. Observers noted that if Brown's Labour Party fared badly in these two sets of elections, it would intensify the calls for either the prime minister's resignation -- or -- snap elections. Either option would not bode well for the political fate of the Labour Party.

To that end, the Labour Party suffered a trouncing at the local level. Indeed, the party was no longer in control of any country council in the country. Results showed Conservatives winning 38 percent of the vote, the Liberal Democrats took 28 percent, and the Labour Party slid into decline with a poor 23 percent showing.

In European Union elections, Labour also suffered a weak third place performance. The Conservatives took little solace in the fact that they were unable to significantly increase their share of seats at the European parliament. Perhaps more important was the success of small parties, including the extreme right-wing British Nationalist Party, which gained representation to the dismay of both the Labour Party and the Conservatives. But that result was expected to hit Brown and Labour most hard, with those from within the party blaming the ongoing political chaos on the outcome that an extremist political party would have seats in Brussels.

With an increasing chorus for snap elections to be held, broader polling data indicated that the Labour Party (at 22 percent support) was now trailing the Liberal Democratic Party (25 percent) in popular support for the first time in more than two decades. The expense scandal was largely to blame for the loss of support, although the Conservatives, who polled highest (40 percent), were also viewed as having been damaged as a result of the scandal, suggesting that voters were generally disillusioned by the politicians of the two main parties. In this way, the Liberal Democrats were the only major party to see a marked amplification in political fortune.

Scotland's jurisprudence came under fire in the aftermath of the decision to free Abdel Baset al- Megrahi -- the man responsible for the bombing of the Pan American flight that exploded over the town of Lockerbie in 1988. Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill justified the decision on compassionate grounds since al-Magrahi was terminally ill with prostate cancer. MacAskill said the decision "was not based on political, economic or diplomatic considerations" but was one that he made alone and he would have to live with the consequences. MacAskill conceded that Libya had acted wrongly by giving al-Megrahi a hero's welcome when he arrived back home on Libyan soil. In an address to parliament, he said, "It is a matter of great regret that Mr. Megrahi was received in such an inappropriate manner. It showed no compassion or sensitivity to the families of the 270 victims of Lockerbie." Indeed, the matter has been a source of embarrassment for the Scots at home who were chagrined to see their flag being waved in Libya in support for the return of a convicted terrorist.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 55 of 506 pages United Kingdom

On the other side of the Atlantic -- and home to many of the Lockerbie victims -- the United States Department of State made it clear that it "passionately" disagreed with the decision. Still, the United States acknowledged that the matter would not rupture good relations with the United Kingdom. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said: "We made it quite clear that we disagreed passionately with this decision, because we thought it sent the wrong signal to, not only the families, but also to terrorists. But I really discourage you from thinking that we necessarily have to have some kind of tit-for-tat retaliation because of it. I just don't see it - not with Britain." That said, there remained grassroots rumblings of a trade boycott of Scotland as a result of the situation.

The case became marred by further controversy after a Times of London news story was published suggesting an "oil for freedom" deal between Libya and the United Kingdom. But on Aug. 31, 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that al-Megrahi was not released as part of an oil exploration deal with Libya. The office of the prime minister insisted there was no deal associated with the release of al-Megrahi, and denied the Times of London charge that the move was made in order to facilitate oil exploration rights in Libya by the British energy company, British Petroleum.

In November 2009, former Prime Minister Tony Blair's role in the rationale for the Iraq war re- emerged. According to the British newspaper, the Telegraph, secret documents indicated a "critical failure" in the government's case for war in Iraq. The Telegraph alleged that in 2002, former Prime Minister Tony Blair misled the public and parliament when he said that the United Kingdom's objective was "disarmament, not regime change" and there was no plan for military action. Instead, the documents reportedly showed that there was indeed preparation for the invasion and and overthrow of the regime of Saddam Hussein in 2002. The documents also reportedly showed that British forces were unprepared and poorly equipped for the 2003 invasion. The Telegraph did not confirm whether or not it would publish the secret documents that formed the basis for the news article.

In the first week of 2010, two former British cabinet ministers challenged the authority of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown by calling for a secret ballot on his leadership. The call, which was issued by Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt of Brown's own ruling Labour Party, came only months ahead of general elections in the United Kingdom. In a letter to fellow Labour Party parliamentarians, Hoon and Hewitt wrote: "As we move towards a general election, it remains the case that the Parliamentary Labour Party is deeply divided over the question of the leadership. Many colleagues have expressed their frustration at the way in which this question is affecting our political performance. We have therefore come to the conclusion that the only way to resolve this issue would be to allow every member to express their view in a secret ballot." The office of the prime minister rejected the call for such a vote on Brown's leadership, in fact characterizing the move as "ludicrous" and unhelpful to the Labour Party ahead of the general election. While the chairman of the Parliamentary Labour Party, Tony Lloyd, said there was "very little support" for a secret vote on Brown's leadership, there were nonetheless elements within the party who have

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 56 of 506 pages United Kingdom viewed Brown's performance as a likely death knell to their electoral prospects. Indeed, polling data ahead of the anticipated elections have shown the opposition Conservatives with a double-digit lead over Labour.

On January 29, 2010, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair defended his decision to draw his country into the United States-led invasion of Iraq and ensuing war, explaining that the September 11, 2001 terror attacks changed the way in which the threat of terrorism could be viewed. Speaking at a commission charged with inquiring into the events leading to British involvement in the Iraq war, Blair said: "Here's what changed for me: the whole calculus of risk. The point about this terrorist act was over 3,000 people had been killed, an absolutely horrific event. But if these people -- inspired by this religious fanaticism -- could have killed 30,000, they would have." He went on to explain that terrorism with a direct political purpose, such as violence by the Irish Republican Army, was "within a framework you could understand." He also suggested that before the terror attacks of 2001, the policy of containment against Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq made sense. However, Blair testified that the terror attacks of 2001 were of such a different variety that it required action against countries such as Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Iraq.

On Feb. 23, 2010, a car bomb exploded close to a court house and popular cafes and bars in the city of Newry in Northern Ireland. The explosion was blamed on Irish republican dissidents, according to authorities on the scene. No one was hurt as a result of the attack. Anonymous warnings were issued to businesses and a hospital stating that a bomb would explode within 30 minutes. In actuality, the car bomb was detonated less than 20 minutes after the warnings were issued. The bombing occurred only weeks after a compromise deal was struck, aimed at transferring responsibility for the justice system (police and courts) to the government of Northern Ireland. That compromise deal was sanctioned by both the Democratic Unionist Party and Sinn Fein. Because the bombing occurred close to a courthouse, there was some speculation that it was motivated by republican dissidents' frustration over that agreement. For some time, the justice system in Northern Ireland has been a source of consternation with Catholics viewing the police and courts as unfairly favoring the majority Protestant population. See "Appendix" for more details related to Northern Ireland.

A spy scandal that implicated Israeli nationals on March 23, 2010 led to the decision by the United Kingdom to expel an Israeli diplomat. At issue was the use of forged British passports in the suspected Mossad assassination of a Hamas commander, Mahmoud Al Mabhouh, in a Dubai hotel room. The move came after an investigation into the matter and was made official with an address by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband to parliamentarians in the House of Commons. To date, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the apparent targeted assassination of al-Mabhouh.

2010 Parliamentary Elections

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 57 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Summary

With the votes counted, it was clear that the anticipated inconclusive election outcome had come to pass with no party winning a clear majority. The last time a British election produced such a result was in 1974. While the Conservatives or Tories were set to become the largest party in parliament, they were yet short of a parliamentary majority. As expected, Labour lost their majority. But with a "hung parliament" looming before the United Kingdom, all eyes were on the Liberal Democrats, whose party was likely to be the most influential player in the election. To that end, the Liberal Democrats entered negotiations with both potential coalition partners, yielding more positive results with the Conservatives rather than Labour. As a result, Prime Minister Gordon Brown resigned as head of government, paving the way for to become the new prime minister of the United Kingdom.

Background

On April 6, 2010, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced that a general election would be held on May 6, 2010. He said the anticipated elections would allow the British citizenry to decide whether to give his Labour Party a clear mandate for his main policy initiative: job creation. Prime Minister Brown sought consent from the head of state, Queen Elizabeth II, to dissolve parliament at a meeting in Buckingham Palace. He then said, "It will come as no surprise to all of you, and it's probably the least well kept secret of recent years but the queen has kindly agreed to the dissolution of parliament and a general election will take place on May 6."

The actual dissolution of parliament was scheduled for April 12, 2010, offering less than one month for an election campaign. To that end, Prime Minister Brown indicated that his roots derived from an "ordinary middle class family in an ordinary town" had informed his desire to fight on behalf of families of modest means. Prime Minister Brown also emphasized his economic credentials by noting that the country was on the road to economic recovery, and that the leader of government should get the "big decisions right."

On the other side of the equation, Conservative Party leader and opposition leader David Cameron expressed delight that he would finally be able to commence campaigning. For his part, Cameron offered up the Conservatives or Tories as the party that would offer the United Kingdom a fresh start. Speaking to this theme, Cameron said, "If we win this election, there will be real change. You don't have to put up with another five years of Gordon Brown."

Meanwhile, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was quick to offer a far more substantive transformation for British citizens, noting that his party offered something completely new, as compared with the dichotomous old politics of the two main parties.

Ahead of election day, British citizens would for the first time be subject to three televised debates

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 58 of 506 pages United Kingdom between the three main political leaders. Traditional election themes of economic development, deficits, taxation, and public service were expected to factor highly in those exchanges.

Polling Data and the Debate Effect

At the time the election was called, polling data showed the Conservatives were leading Labor, albeit by varying margins. An ICM survey showed the Conservatives (Tories) with 37 percent, Labour with 33 percent and the Liberal Democrats with 21 percent. A survey by YouGov poll gave the Tories a 10 percent lead over Labour -- a necessary margin if Cameron hoped to secure an outright parliamentary majority (326 seats) in the United Kingdom's "first past the post" system.

By mid-April 2010, following a televised debate among the three main parties' leaders, a shift of fortune had unfolded. A strong performance by Clegg -- hitherto an unknown commodity on the British political landscape -- appeared to have resulted in increased public support. Snap polls conducted after the debate showed that Clegg was the clear winner, according to the newspaper, the Telegraph. Indeed, a survey by YouGov for The Sun gave Clegg the most impressive polling result with 51 percent of respondents favoring him, as compared with Cameron, who had 29 percent, and Brown with 19 percent. Similar results were registered by a ComRes poll for ITV News, showing that 43 percent of respondents thought Clegg was the debate winner, compared to Cameron's 26 percent and Brown's 20 percent. Sky News' text-message poll showed closer results but, again, with Clegg as the winner with 37 percent; Brown was in second place with 32 percent and Cameron was in third place with 31 percent.

While the public's perceptions of which political leader won the debate was not a clear indicator of voting preferences, it certainly opened the possibility that the election contest was wider than originally conceived. To this end, Jeremy John Durham Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrats leader, declared that Clegg's debate performance had "made this a three-way race." He continued, "Nick made it clear that change to the Tories or to Labour is not change." With an eye on electoral strategy, Ashdown said, "If the Liberal Democrats can win 25 percent in the polls and Labour gets 27 percent, then you have changed the dynamic of this election."

Cleggs's success may have rested not only on his strong performance but on another factor. Specifically, the disaffection by the British electorate for the two major parties, partially fueled by the public's disgust regarding a parliamentarians' expense accounts. That scandal, which forced several parliamentarians into early retirement ahead of the polls, appeared to be pushing many voters toward a third viable option in the form of the Liberal Democrats.

Indeed, by the third week of April 2010, it was clear that the public's perception of the debate had actually translated into transformations in voters' preferences. A post-debate ComRes poll for the Independent showed the Conservatives with a receding lead of 31 percent, the Liberal Democrats now surging past Labour into second place with 29 percent, and Labour trailing with 27 percent.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 59 of 506 pages United Kingdom

A YouGive poll actually showed the Liberal Democrats now carrying a lead with 33 percent, the Tories in second place with 33 percent, and Labour again in third place with 26 percent. The polling variances notwithstanding, it was apparent that in the United Kingdom's first past the post system, these forthcoming elections could well end in a hung parliament. With the rising fortune of the Liberal Democrats, there was now no party likely to have enough seats in parliament to form a majority government.

Attention soon refocused on the second televised debate, which was to concentrate on foreign policy. The two institutionalized parties were banking on Clegg's lack of expertise in this arena to reassert themselves in the electoral race. Indeed, the second debate was marked by fractious exchanges. Brown accused Cameron of being "anti-European" and Clegg of being "anti- American." Burnishing his internationalist credentials, Brown said: "I am afraid David is anti- European, Nick is anti- American. Both of them are out of touch with reality." But Cameron countered with a populist argument, saying that decisions made in Brussels -- the headquarters of the European Union -- should always be questioned in favor of the nationalist interests. Meanwhile, Clegg tried to outline what the Liberal Democrats' foreign policy would look like by saying, "I want us to lead in the world and I want us to lead in Europe, not complain from the sidelines."

Despite greater media scrutiny in the days leading up to the second debate, Clegg appeared to have pulled off another debate victory with post-debate surveys showing him to be the winner again in the eyes of viewers. A poll by ComRes showed that 33 percent of respondents believed Clegg to be the debate winner; both Brown and Cameron garnered 30 percent respectively. While Clegg's held a more modest advantage the second time around, the public's reaction nonetheless demonstrated that he had surpassed the critics' expectations that he would not fare as well, now that the novelty of a viable third choice had worn off. It was yet to be seen how the third debate, which would focus on the economy, would affect the impending elections.

In the backdrop appeared to be a growing sense of anxiety among the Conservatives who, until recently, had expected to defeat the incumbent Labour Party and cruise to victory. Now, their anticipated victory was slipping away. In many senses, the meteoric rise of the Liberal Democrats was translating into a far more complicated voting landscape, which would not benefit the Conservatives' fortune at the polls. Indeed, as noted by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, "There is deep panic in the Tory ranks and in Tory-supporting newspapers." Miliband's reference to Tory-supporting newspapers related to a new trend by conservative journals to pillory Clegg over bank account contributions, which ultimately was resolved when the Liberal Democratic leader disclosed all the banking details showing that there was no impropriety. Ironically, as this dissonance was breaking out, Clegg and the Liberal Democrats had found an unexpected ally in the form of the Labor Party, which had suddenly jumped to the defense of Clegg. It was quite likely that Labour was realistic about its prospects at the polls; Labour likely realized that its only hope of hanging onto power would involve a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 60 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Fortune smiled on the anxiety-stricken Conservatives at the close of April 2010 when the party leaders participated in the third and final debate. Tory leader, Cameron, was perceived as having won the debate by 36 percent of those surveyed; 30 percent said Clegg won the debate, while 23 percent said Brown was the debate winner.

The Angus Reid poll also showed that Tory leader, Cameron, enjoyed the best performance in that debate, and was viewed as "a better person to handle most economic policy issues." Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg was viewed as having the best advantage when in came to connecting with undecided voters. Prime Minister Gordon Brown suffered his worst performance, despite his warning that a coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats would put the economy "at risk." Brown's debate performance aside, his election prospects were not helped by the fact that around the same time, he referred to a voter as a "bigot" spurring controversy, and fueling the flames of suspicion that he had a temperament problem.

Indeed, days ahead of the election, some of the earlier bloom on the Liberal Democrats appeared to have faded with voters returning to their baseline preferences. Polling data by ComRes for ITV News and the Independent newspaper at that time showed that the Conservatives had 37 percent support, Labour had 29 percent, and the Liberal Democrats on 26 percent. This data appeared in line with survey results from YouGov/Sun showing the Conservatives with 35 percent, Labour with 30 percent, and the Liberal Democrats with 24 percent.

Election Results

With the votes counted, it was clear that the anticipated inconclusive election outcome had come to pass with no party winning a clear majority. The last time a British election produced such a result was in 1974. In 2010, there were suggestions that the inconclusive election result was tantamount to a no-confidence vote in government at large. That being said, the Conservatives or Tories were set to become the largest party in parliament, event though they had been denied a parliamentary majority by the British voters. As expected, Labour lost their majority and was relegated to the second largest force in parliament. But with a "hung parliament" looming before the United Kingdom, all eyes were on the third place finisher -- the Liberal Democrats -- who were very likely to become the most influential player in the election.

Quick to take control over the public relations aspect of the election result after winning his own constituency, Conservative leader, David Cameron said, "We have to wait for the full results, but it is clear the Labour government has lost its mandate to govern this country." But Foreign Secretary David Miliband of the Labour Party pushed back saying in an interview with British Sky News, "If no party has a majority in the House of Commons, no party has a moral right to a monopoly of power." Prime Minister Brown appeared to acknowledge that the election result delivered a message to the Labour Party, but stopped short of suggesting that the message was one of defeat. He said. "The voters have given us an injunction to talk to each other to see if strong and stable government can be secured." Meanwhile, Liberal Democratic leader, Nick Clegg, admitted his

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 61 of 506 pages United Kingdom party's disappointment that his strong debate performance had not translated into more parliamentary seats. He called on all the political players to "take a little time" to ensure people got the government they deserved.

The full results ultimately gave the Tories 306 parliamentary seats -- short of the 326 needed to command control of 650-member House of Commons. The Labour Party placed second with 258 seats. The Liberal Democrats secured 57 seats and the right to play kingmaker in the quest for the future government. Also winning seats were the nationalist Welsh and Scottish parties that could also become crucial players in coalition deal-making that was sure to follow. As intimated above, a "hung parliament" would necessitate the formation of a coalition government, with the other parties expected to play crucial roles therein. Absent from that group of likely players was the ultra-right wing British Nationalist Party, often regarded as xenophobic in orientation, which suffered dwindling support at the polls.

Coalition Prospects

In regards to the formation of a coalition government, both Cameron and Brown made it clear that they were looking to the Liberal Democrats for partnership in forming a coalition government. In a clear call for cooperation from Liberal Democratic leader, Clegg, Cameron said, "I want to make a big, open and comprehensive offer to the Liberal Democrats." Cameron also urged a quick government formation process, noting the need to calm volatile markets that were in dire need of stabilizing moves. Meanwhile, Brown made a similar overture to the Liberal Democrats. For his part, Clegg made clear that the country and not party politics were at stake. He said, "It is vital that all parties, all political leaders, act in the national interest and not out of narrow party political advantage."

Brown signaled quickly that he would welcome a coalition with the Liberal Democrats, and indeed a Labour-Liberal coalition would appear to be the easiest ideological alliance. For example, the Liberal Democrats and Labour have agreed that spending cuts should not be imposed until a time when economic recovery in the United Kingdom has been advanced. In contrast, the Conservatives have backed aggressive deficit reduction. But Liberal Democratic-Labour synergy was especially emphasized by the fact that Labour has backed the Liberal Democrats' biggest demand -- that of electoral reform. Indeed, in a bid to show solidarity with the third place finisher, Brown said: "My view is clear - there needs to be immediate legislation on this to begin to restore the public trust in politics and to improve parliament's standing and reputation, a fairer voting system is central."

Nevertheless, Brown's cause would not be helped by the fact that Clegg made clear that he was not keen on Brown staying on as prime minister, although he did not dismiss the idea of a coalition with Labour under the stewardship of another leader. As well, Clegg said that with the Conservatives winning the most seats, they should have the first chance to try to form a government. But whether or not such a government could include the Liberal Democrats was yet

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 62 of 506 pages United Kingdom to be seen. Of concern for the Liberal Democrats has been the Tories' opposition to the notion of electoral reform to a proportional system. Such a move would practically foreclose political domination of any one party going forward -- an idea that has left the Tories balking in dismay.

Nonetheless, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats entered talks aimed at forging a possible coalition arrangement. Liberal Democratic leader, Clegg, laid down the proverbial gauntlet as he asserted: "It is now for the Conservative Party to prove that it is capable of seeking to govern in the national interest." His Tory counterpart, Cameron, offered his response saying, "I want us to work together to tackle the debt crisis, social problems and the broken political system." It was yet to be seen whether or not these two statements by Clegg and Cameron were signs of a foundation for a forthcoming coalition.

While both parties characterized their initial talks as "constructive," there remained several unresolved issues. Significantly, Cameron indicated that there would be little room for compromise in areas such as defense, relations with the European Union, immigration, and the timing of public spending cuts. On that latter issue, Cameron said, "The biggest threat is the deficit. Starting to deal with the deficit this year is essential." As well, the aforementioned matter of electoral reform continued to be a sticking point. The Conservatives were making clear electoral reform would only be considered in a committee of inquiry, while the Liberal Democrats were affirming its priority status.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Brown appeared to acknowledge the reality of the political landscape with the Liberal Democrats first engaging with the Conservatives. Opening the door for possible talks between the any of the other parties and his Labour Party, Brown said, "I understand and respect the position of Mr. Clegg in saying he first wishes to make contact with the leader of the Conservative Party." He continued, "Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg should clearly be entitled to take as much time as they feel necessary. For my part I should make clear I should be pleased to see any of the party leaders."

Political wrangling was expected to dominate the landscape for the immediate future. With no written constitution in the United Kingdom, the job was left to senior civil service to craft rules aimed at the government formation process. At the intra-party level, activists from all three parties were urging the respective leadership branches not to cede excessive accommodation in their discussions with potential coalition partners. Indeed, party loyalists were concerned about that seizing the levers of power would come at too high a price to pay -- specifically, in the way of core party principles.

By May 10, 2010, reports had emerged that a deal was in the works between the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives. Central to that deal was a "final offer" by the Conservatives to the Liberal Democrats to hold a referendum on electoral reform. Another possible option would be a "bare minimum" agreement in which the Liberal Democrats would agree not to bring down the Conservative government in a confidence vote. Whether or not that deal would involve the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 63 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Liberal Democrats as part of a coalition government, or, as the enablers of an effective minority Conservative government was yet to be seen.

With the Conservatives eagerly seeking to seal the deal via such overtures, there were suggestions that a new government might be afoot. Moreover, Clegg , leader of the Liberal Democrats, appeared to place a stamp of approval on the deal-making process. He said that he was "very grateful to David Cameron and his negotiation team" and noted that the negotiations yielded a "great deal of progress." Nevertheless, Clegg, leader of the Liberal Democrats, sought to calm such speculation, asking instead for patience as the negotiations process was exhausted. To that end, he said: "Bear with us a little bit longer and we hope we will be able to provide you with full announcement as soon as possible." At the same time, the Liberal Democrats were indicating that they would not shut the door on negotiations with the Labour Party, however, such a move would be contingent upon Brown stepping down as prime minister.

Perhaps in a bid to advance their prospects with the Liberal Democrats, on that same day -- May 10, 2010 -- Gordon Brown announced he would indeed step down as Labour leader and prime minister by September 2010. This move made it clear that Brown was inclined to put party and progressive principles before personal ambitions. Indeed, Brown noted that the United Kingdom was home to a "parliamentary and not presidential system" and observed that there was a "progressive majority" of voters. In an attempt to show the Liberal Democrats that he would not be a key player for long, Brown also said that he would not participate in a forthcoming leadership race within the Labour Party, saying, "I will play no part in that contest, I will back no individual candidate."

Clegg of the Liberal Democrats indicated tacit approval of the move saying. "Gordon Brown has taken a difficult personal decision in the national interest." This statement came ahead of anticipated negotiations between the Liberal Democrats and Labour, with Clegg noting that such talks would be "sensible and in the national interest."

Political Change: Brown out; Cameron in

On May 11, 2010, it was clear there would be no Labour-Liberal Democratic coalition. Thus, Gordon Brown resigned as prime minister of the United Kingdom, ending 13 years of Labour rule in that country. In his resignation address to the British people, Brown said, "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." It was clear that the Labour Party would move into the position of being the only progressive option among the major parties on the British political scene.

Brown's resignation paved the way for David Cameron to become prime minister. To that end, Cameron went to Buckingham Palace to officially accept Queen Elizabeth II's request to form the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 64 of 506 pages United Kingdom next government of the United Kingdom, and then entered 10 Downing Street at the country's new prime minister. David Cameron had the distinction of being Britain's youngest head of government in about 200 years.

Cameron lauded Gordon Brown for his years of public service and then gave some indication of the type of leadership to come. Cameron said that his government's priorities would concentrate of immediate challenges, such as the debt crisis as well as the loss of public trust in the political system. He warned that "difficult decisions" laid ahead, but struck a positive tone saying he looked toward "better times ahead" for the British people. Indeed, Cameron said: "I think the service our country needs right now is to face up to our big challenges, to confront our problems, take difficult decisions, lead people through those decisions, so that together we can reach better times ahead."

On the matter of the type of government to be formed, it was yet to be determined of Cameron would be at the helm of a minority government, or would hold sway over a majority government with the help of the Liberal Democrats. To that end, Cameron said his objective was to form a "proper and full coalition" with the Liberal Democrats, in the interests of "strong, stable government." Cameron added that he hoped he and Nick Clegg could "put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and the national interest." That being said, Clegg had not yet received majority consent from members of parliament from his party, as well as the federal executive ruling body of the party, to enter a coalition with the Conservatives.

Meanwhile, members of both the Liberal Democrats and Labour began to offer explanations of the failure of their negotiations. From the perspective of the Liberal Democrats, the talks failed because Labour did not seem seriously invested in forging a reformist-minded, progressive government. In fact, according to BBC News, one spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats suggested that core members of the Labour team "gave every impression of wanting the process to fail." The spokesman said that some 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." But on the other side of the equation, Labour suggested that the negotiations were fatally hindered by impediments erected by the Liberal Democrats. Lord Mandelson of the Labour Party said in an interview with BBC News, that while his party sanctioned the notion of an agreement with the Liberal Democrats, that party "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."

Post-Election Policy Agenda

At the broader level, the issue of economic and financial stability was at stake. Indeed, the new government would have to deal with formidable challenges as the United Kingdom grapples with recession and budget deficit reduction.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 65 of 506 pages United Kingdom

On May 13, 2010, the new coalition government of Prime Minister David Cameron and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg held an unprecedented news conference aimed at delineating its policies, and demonstrating a sense of coalition unity. At the rhetorical level, Cameron said that the coalition government was emblematic of a "historic and seismic shift" in the political landscape of the United Kingdom. He described the alliance as follows: "It will be an administration united behind three key principles: freedom, fairness and responsibility." He continued, "And it will be an administration united behind one key purpose ... the strong and stable and determined leadership that we need for the long term."

At stake would be the practical application of the allied interests of the center-right Conservatives and the center-left Liberal Democrats. Of particular note was the compromise struck on the timetable for a reduction of public spending. To that end, the Liberal Democrats made the concession of signing onto the Conservatives' aggressive agenda to address the United Kingdom's debt woes. Such a move, while necessary in practice, was likely to come with a political cost. Resultantly, some analysts were casting the new government as a kind of sacrificial lamb that would enact difficult but requisite economic policies. Such moves, though, could enrage the public and exact a political price in the longer term.

Also at stake was the Conservatives' concession to the Liberal Democrats -- electoral reform. As noted above, agreement was forged on holding a referendum to ratify the proposed alternative voting system to replace the existing "first past the post" system. Should the move be ratified, then voters could specify two candidates in terms of ranking, with the vote for the top choice going to the alternate option if that top choice was ultimately eliminated. If implemented, the change could boost the presence of smaller party candidates in parliament. Still, even agreement on a referendum was not reform-minded enough for the Liberal Democrats, however, that party could take heart in changes to be made in the House of Lords where rolling elections would now be implemented.

One controversial proposal by the new coalition has been the plan for fixed term parliaments. In essence, the plan would commit a government to a five-year tern, precluding the prime minister from calling an election at any time within a five year period. While the current threshold for a no- confidence vote to bring down a government has been 50 percent plus one parliamentarian, the new rule would provide for dissolution with the backing of 55 percent or more in parliament.

In the face of criticism, Cameron characterized the change as a good one. However, members of his own party, as well as the opposition Labour Party, have railed against it as potentially damaging for democracy. Indeed, Tory Christopher Chope went further in characterizing the rule change as a "recipe for anarchy." He explained in an interview with the BBC, "It could mean, in practice, that if the present government was to lose its majority in parliament, and wasn't able to operate as a minority government because it didn't enjoy the confidence of a sufficient number of MPs ... it

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 66 of 506 pages United Kingdom would be able to carry on. But that would be basically a recipe for anarchy, because it would mean that the government wouldn't have a majority." Labour figures David Blunkett characterized the move as "a stitch up" while Jack Straw said that it was "completely undemocratic and totally unworkable."

In terms of representation, the Liberal Democrats were given several important portfolios in Cameron's cabinet, not the least of which was the position of deputy prime minister going to Clegg himself. Other than Clegg, these included the first secretary to the treasury David Laws, Chris Huhne as energy secretary; and Vincent Cable as business secretary. That being said, the three key ministerial roles -- finance, foreign affairs and the home office -- were to be held by Conservatives , William Hague and Theresa May respectively.

The first test of the new Cameron-Clegg coalition government would come within 50 days with a vote on an emergency budget. It would be a sign of whether theoretical concurrence on policy could translate into practical application. It would also be a harbinger of the likely stability and viability of the Conservative-Liberal Democratic alliance.

On May 25, 2010, Queen Elizabeth II presided over the opening of a new session of Britain's parliament. Following tradition, the queen delivered the speech detailing the policy agenda of the incoming government, which is this case was that of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. Consistent with the agreement forged between the two allied parties, that policy agenda included tackling the country's problematic deficit, restoring economic growth, and establishing a new Office for Budget Responsibility. There were also plans for certain reforms to the political system, such as a referendum on a new voting system for members of the House of Commons, and, a proposal to make the House of Lords "wholly or mainly elected," according to Queen Elizabeth II. As well, there was the intent to abolish the notion of a national identity card. Encapsulating the thrust of the reformist agenda, the Queen announced: "My government will propose parliamentary and political reform to restore trust in democratic institutions and rebalance the relationship between the citizen and the state."

Foreign relations were on the agenda months later as the British-based energy company, British Petroleum (BP) was in the news due to a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster in Gulf intersected with global politics as BP was subject to increased scrutiny, ultimately resting on the question of whether that company played a role in the early release of the Libyan Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi (discussed above), and spurring debate again as to whether or not BP lobbied for his release in exchange for lucrative oil deals in Libya. In fact, BP acknowledged that it had conveyed concern over the slow action being taken to transfer Megrahi out of British jurisdiction and home to Libya. The company stopped short of admitting that it played a part in the release of the terrorist.

As well, British Prime Minister David Cameron, in the United States for meetings with President

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 67 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Barack Obama, dismissed a request for a new investigation into the matter. Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, insisted before the House of Commons that the decision to release the Libyan terrorist was made "in good faith." Still, with this scandal brewing, pressure was building on both sides of the Atlantic -- in the United States for a investigation into the allegations against BP related to the bomber's release, and in the United Kingdom for a full and independent inquiry into the bombing itself and the decision to grant a terrorist freedom on compassionate grounds.

In the autumn of 2010, following a battle for the leadership of the United Kingdom's Labor Party, claimed victory at the helm of the country's major opposition party. Ed Miliband beat out his older, more well-known brother former Foreign Secretary David Miliband, for the party's top post. For his part, David Miliband said that he would not be involved in Ed Miliband's leadership team, while the new Labor leader made clear that he would be forming his own shadow cabinet without his brother.

On May 6, 2011, British voters rejected electoral reform in a highly-anticipated referendum. Up to 69 percent of voters opposed the change whole only 31 percent voted in its favor. At issue were proposed changes from a "First Past The Post" (FPTP) system to an "Alternative Vote" (AV) system. While Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron has eschewed this change, it was championed by hiscoalition partner, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats and the referendum itself was a key component of the coalition deal formed between the two parties at the helm of power in the United Kingdom. Now, with the proposal going down to defeat, a season of discontent was expected to prevail between the two coalition partners. That coalition was formed in the aftermath of the inconclusive 2010 general election, which brought an end to the 13-year rule of the Labor Party but gave no party an outright majority to form a government. Following coalition talks, the Conservatives entered a pact with the center-left Liberal Democrats, and formed a government. As noted here, the coalition deal was contingent upon the holding of this referendum. With the vote out of the way and the cause of electoral reform almost lost, Clegg and the Liberal Democrats were being left in a weakened position in relation to Cameron and the Conservatives.

Other Recent Developments

On May 25, 2011, United States President Barack Obama made history by becoming the first United States president to address the British parliament at Westminster Hall. In that speech, President Obama emphasized the strong and enduring bond between the two countries -- the United States and the United Kingdom -- characterizing the trans-Atlantic relationship as "one of the oldest and strongest alliances the world has ever known." President Obama also noted that the primacy of the West -- of the United states and allied European countries -- would be "indispensable" in the 21st century, given the ascendancy of new world powers, and the spread of democracy. Linking these two themes, President Obama said, "There are few nations that stand firmer, speak louder and fight harder to defend democratic values around the world than the United

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 68 of 506 pages United Kingdom

States and the United Kingdom."

British Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as former Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, and Sir John Major, were in attendance for President Obama's address at Westminster Hall. The reception by British members of parliament and peers to President Obama was extraordinarily warm, with the United States leader receiving extended standing ovations at the start and at the close of the address respectively. The prior night, President Obama and Mrs. Obama were guests of the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and her consort, Prince Phillip, at an official state dinner.

June 2011 saw riots rock Northern Ireland's capital of Belfast, with police saying that several hundred people had taken to the streets to participate in sectarian violence. The epicenter of the violence appeared to be a Catholic enclave in the eastern part of the city, which has endured tensions between Catholics and Protestants in the past. Still, with petrol bombs, fireworks, and missiles being hurled at police, and gunshots being fired, it was clearly the worst episode of violence in Belfast in at least a decade. Several people were reported to have been injured, including a photographer, and calls for calm had gone unheeded.

July 2011 saw a resurgence of sectarian violence as petrol bombs were hurled at police during rioting in the northern part of Belfast. The explosion of violence occurred at a parade by the Orange Institution, a Protestant fraternal order, in the area of Ardoyne, which is nationalist enclave. It should be noted that the nationalists are no longer united in Northern Ireland with those loyal to Sinn Fein pledging allegiance to the peace process, and other republicans who do not. It would seem that the latter group was involved in the fracas that ensued when riot police took up positions. Indeed, the presence of riot police appeared to raise the ire of people on the scene who began to throw stones, glass bottles, bricks, and even petrol bombs at the police as the security forces used water cannons to try to quell the angry crowds.

See "Appendix" for more information related to Northern Ireland.

At the start of August 2011, London was rocked by riots as young people took to the streets to protest the shooting death of a man in Tottemham at the hands of police. The situation began when the relatives of Mark Duggan, the man who died in the police raid, decided to participate in a peaceful protest, which soon turned violent. The situation escalated when a young man was searched by police who found nothing incriminating in the individual's possession. Soon, the protesters were embroiled in a rampage of street violence that was stretching from the British capital to parts elsewhere in the country. In London, angry set shops and a bus ablaze, threw rocks at police, and vandalized police vehicles. Widespread looting was also reported to have taken place. Bursts of violence erupted in Manchester, the West Midlands, and elsewhere outside of London.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 69 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The clashes with police left 35 police officers injured. By Aug. 11, 2011, more than 1,000 people had been arrested and more than 400 persons had been charged with crimes of violence, disorder, and looting in London. Elsewhere in the country, more than 330 people were arrested in the West Midlands and about 140 people were arrested in Manchester and Salford.

The uprising by youth appeared to be driven by a sense of outrage over perceived victimization by the Metropolitan Police Force. That is to say, the killing of Duggan may well have tapped into latent frustration from young minority and immigrant communities who have for some time been subject to particular scrutiny by the police over the years. Certainly, the Metropolitan Police Force has earned a notorious reputation for the beating death of a peaceful protester as far back as 1979, and the more recent killing of a man by police at the G-20 meetings in 2009. These incidences of apparent injustice were -- to some extent -- linked with broader social and economic grievances; however, the explosion of unrest and violence over a course of days soon overshadowed any notion of rational explanation or background causal factors. Indeed, what began as street protests to register discontent over police injustice had effectively been transformed into massive riots, rampant criminality, and a climate of chaos in pockets across the country.

In a perplexing twist, while many youth involved were described as individuals suffering from socio-economic challenges, a good many young people detained were university students pursuing professional paths without previous criminal records. Those records were set to change since most deemed to have committed crimes would face serious charges in the crown court.

In terms of security, riot police were being deployed across the city to try to quell the violence. Meanwhile, London's Mayor Boris Johnson and Home Secretary Theresa May were expected to meet with the Metropolitan Police (Met) to determine what action should be taken in regard to the unrest. For her part, Home Secretary May promised the London rioters would "be brought to justice" and would "face the consequences of their actions."

British Prime Minister David Cameron returned home from his vacation to monitor the unfolding situation, convened a special meeting of his cabinet, and initiated an emergency recall of the British Parliament. In an address to the House of Commons, he placed blame for the unrest gripping the country on "criminality pure and simple." Prime Minister Cameron also noted that the police had initially used ineffectual anti-riot tactics, which may have added to the destruction and harm suffered by innocent bystanders, homes, and businesses. Prime Minister Cameron additionally acknowledged that "there were simply far too few police deployed" on to the streets and "the tactics they were using weren't working." More police were being sent to "hot spot" areas and the number of security personnel would be boosted with the inclusion of police officers from Scotland to assist in maintaining law and order. The increased deployment of police on the streets of London was expected to remain in place for the immediate future.

With an eye on responding with a firmer hand to the unrest, Prime Minister Cameron said, "To the law abiding people who play by the rules, and who are the overwhelming majority in our country, I

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 70 of 506 pages United Kingdom say: the fightback has begun, we will protect you. If you've had your livelihood and property damaged, we will compensate you. We are on your side. And to the lawless minority, the criminals who have taken what they can get, I say this: We will track you down, we will find you, we will charge you, we will punish you. You will pay for what you have done."

The prime minister said that the authorities were banning the use of face masks, considering limits of social media among people known to be plotting acts of violence, reviewing the implementation of curfews, and readying the use of water cannons to disperse crowds. Also under consideration was the strengthening of court sentences, the expansion of powers for landlords to evict criminals from welfare housing, in addition to the introduction of anti-gang programs. Prime Minister Cameron emphasized that all efforts would be made to restore law and order to the streets of the country. It should also be noted that the prime minister announced a plan to assist and/or compensate people whose homes and businesses were vandalized or destroyed by youth rioters.

The unrest reached into the political dimension, as it drew attention to the Conservative government's plans to cut funding for police as part of the government's overall austerity thrust. Now, with the exacerbation of the unrest being partially blamed on insufficient police on the streets, questions were being raised about the wisdom of such spending cuts. In the House of Commons, Labour Party leader, Ed Miliband, called for a reconsideration of the plans to reduce police saying, "The events of the last few days have been a stark reminder to us all that police on our streets make our communities safer and make the public feel safer." He continued, "Given the absolute priority the public attaches to a visible and active police presence, does the prime minister understand why they would think it is not right that he goes ahead with the cuts to police numbers? Will he now think again on this issue?" For his part, Cameron maintained that the cuts could be achieved without reducing the visible presence of police on the streets.

On Oct. 14, 2011, British Defense Secretary Liam Fox resigned following a scandal involving one of his closest friends. Adam Werritty -- a self-proclaimed "adviser" to Fox -- was exposed for funding links to companies that might benefit from government decisions, and was reported to have been granted extremely close access to Fox, even accompanying him on foreign visits of an official nature. The situation resulted in questions about a conflict of interest for Fox. For his part, Fox said in his letter of resignation, "I mistakenly allowed the distinction between my personal interest and my government activities to become blurred. The consequences of this have become clearer in recent days. I have also repeatedly said that the national interest must always come before personal interest. I now have to hold myself to my own standard." The scenario also forced British Prime Minister David Cameron to carry out a cabinet shuffle. Transport Minister Philip Hammond was given the defense portfolio, while Justice Greening replaced Hammond with the transport portfolio.

Special Report

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 71 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Iran under isolation; effects on ties with the United Kingdom --

Due to revelations about Iran's nuclear development program, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution expressing "deep and increasing concern" about Iran's nuclear program, and demanded that Iran clarify outstanding questions related the country's nuclear capabilities. The resolution was adopted following a vote at the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, with 32 votes inits favor and only and voting against it. Iran's IAEA envoy, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh , dismissed the development and said the resolution would only strengthen Iran's resolve to go forward with its nuclear development. He said, "It will be business as usual... We will continue our work as before."

While Iran was not on the verge of a declaration of its nuclear breakout capability, clearly, these revelations would serve to reinvigorate the debate about what method could be used to stop Iran from accessing a nuclear weapon. Under consideration would be options ranging from sanctions, to sabotage and military action. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assertion that the report made clear the need for global action to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Russia wasted no time in foreclosing the possibility of its support for fresh sanctions. With United Nations sanctions unlikely, on Nov. 21, 2011, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada slapped fresh sanctions on Iran's financial and energy sectors.

In addition to the IAEA resolution discussed above, Iran was also subject to further diplomatic pressure and went further down the road to global isolation when the United Nations General Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution condemning an alleged assassination plot targeting the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The resolution stopped short of directly accusing Tehran of the plot, but nonetheless demanded that Iran "comply with all of its obligations under international law" and "co-operate with states seeking to bring to justice all those who participated in the planning, sponsoring, organization and attempted execution of the plot."

With international pressure being intensified against Iran, the Iranian regime appeared to be reacting by lashing out at the Western world. With hostilities already high between Iran and the United States, Tehran appeared to be taking aim at the United Kingdom. To this end, by the close of November 2011, Iran's Guardian Council of the Constitution unanimously voted to reduce diplomatic ties with the United Kingdom. The change would downgrade diplomatic ties with the United Kingdom from the ambassador level to the level of charge d'affaires within a two-week timeframe. Ratification by Council came after a vote in the Iranian Majlis or parliament, approving this move. Iranian radio reported that during the vote, several members of parliament changed "death to Britain." Iran was reacting to pressure from Western countries, including the United Kingdom, to place greater political and economic pressure on Iran, and particularly, the Central Bank of Iran, in the wake of the aforementioned report by the IAEA.

In a further sign that Iran's relations with the countries of the West were on a downward slide,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 72 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Nov. 29, 2011 saw militant students aligned with the hard line conservative government in Tehran storm the British embassy compound. This action appeared to be part of a violent demonstration against the government of the United Kingdom, which joined the United States in issuing new financial sanctions against Iran. The militant activists reportedly chanted, "death to England ," vandalized the embassy offices, seized sensitive documents, briefly detained some diplomatic personnel, and burned the British flag in acts that constituted flagrant violations of diplomatic norms. A separate attack by militant students and activists on a British diplomatic compound in northern Tehran was also confirmed by the British Foreign Office. The scenario disturbingly recalled the shocking on the American Embassy in 1979 following Iran's Islamic Revolution.

Although Iran expressed "regret" over the attacks on the British embassy and secondary diplomatic compound, witnesses on the ground in Iran suggested that Iranian security forces did little to quickly end the outbreak of violence against a diplomatic interest. Indeed, police reportedly allowed the scene to play out for several hours before taking control of the situation. There were serious allegations mounting that the assault on the British embassy compounds had taken place with approval from Iranian authorities. Furthermore, speculation rested on the involvement of the regime-backed Basiji . For his part, British Prime Minister David Cameron said: "The attack on the British embassy in Tehran today was outrageous and indefensible." British authorities warned its citizens in Iran to remain indoors and await advice; they also warned of consequences for Iran in the offing, and summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires.

The United Kingdom on Nov. 30, 2011 officially downgraded its ties with Iran. The United Kingdom withdrew all its diplomats from Iran, closed its embassy in Tehran, urged its citizens to exit that country, and gave Iran 48 hours to remove all its staff from the Iranian diplomatic mission in London. Officials in the United Kingdom also went on the record to note that they believe the attacks on the British embassy in Tehran and the secondary compound were carried out with the tacit approval of Iran's leadership. British Foreign Secretary William Hague, asserted that there had been "some degree of regime consent" in the attacks on the embassy and the other diplomatic compound in Tehran. Dominick Chilcott, the newly-appointed British ambassador to Iran, said: "This was a state-supported activity." In an interview with BBC News, Ambassador Chilcott said that Iran was a country in which an attack on an embassy was conducted only "with the acquiescence and the support of the state." These moves collectively marked the worst deterioration of ties between the United Kingdom and Iran in decades.

The United Kingdom was backed by the 15-nation United Nations Security Council, which condemned the attack "in the strongest terms." Separately, United States President Barack Obama called for the Iranian government to ensure those responsible faced justice. Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle characterized the attacks on the British embassy compounds as "a violation of international law." French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe placed the blame on the Iranian government, saying: "The Iranian regime has shown what little consideration it has for

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 73 of 506 pages United Kingdom international law."

Several European countries -- such as France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands -- wasted no time in joining the Western thrust to diplomatically isolate Iran by recalling their own ambassadors from Tehran. France took a further step by withdrawing its embassy staff from Iran. French officials said the move was being made out of an abundance of caution, given the security risks in Iran to Western interests. France's calls for a ban on Iranian oil imports and a freeze on central bank assets was expected to heighten bilateral tensions, and effectively place France in Iran's firing line, along with the United Kingdom. Russia, which has often been accused by the West of being "soft" on Iran joined the condemnation of the attacks.

At home in Iran, militant activist students in that country were at the airport in Tehran, waiting to welcome the expelled Iranian diplomats from London, and chanting slogans, such as "Death to Britain." The returning diplomats, however, never had any direct encounters with the students at the airport.

The situation appeared to highlight cleavages in the Iranian leadership regarding the diplomatic farrago. For example, in an interview with Iran's state-run IRNA , Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said, "There is no doubt that Britain is one of the oldest enemies of Iran." He appeared to offer a slight rebuke to the militant activists who attacked the British embassy, adding: "Young revolutionaries should not go beyond the law." Meanwhile, the Iranian government targeted the United Kingdom for exacerbating tensions between that country and the West, as Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, said: "The British government is trying to extend to other European countries the problem between the two of us.”

Special Report

U.K. outside the European Union circle as bloc looks to new financial compact

In the first part of December 2011, the leaders of the two biggest players in the euro zone -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- issued a joint call for serious changes to Europe’s governing treaties, aimed at ameliorated economic governance for the 17 countries that make up the euro currency bloc. French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel met for talks on the matter in Paris as the euro zone countries continue to grapple with the sovereign debt crisis, emanating from "ground zero" in Greece, but extending regionally across the European bloc. This crisis has left the euro vulnerable, risked fragmenting the currency union, and could yet imperil the fragile global economic recovery.

At issue has been the problematic debt to GDP ratio in countries across the euro zone of the European Union (EU), and concomitant anxieties about various countries, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and even Ireland, defaulting on their respective debts. These mostly southern European

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 74 of 506 pages United Kingdom economies were plagued not only by high deficits but also inherent structural economic weakness, which could affect other countries in the euro zone in something of a contagion. While rescue packages for Greece and Ireland were put into effect, such measures forlarger economies, such as Italy and Spain, was simply unaffordable. General expectations were that Spain might barely escape default because its debt-to-GDP ratio -- while poor -- was still better than that of Italy. But at the broader level, attention began to rest on the need to expand a rescue fund for Europe's heavily indebted countries, which in September 2011 led to what is now known as the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).

While the expansion of the EFSF breathed necessary life into the euro stabilization entity, it should be noted that the treatment for the debt ailment infecting the euro zone has become imbued by controversy. While the participants of the global economy have been anxious for action to be taken in response to the debt crisis, German stakeholders have been incensed that they would be the major contributors to the rescue fund, which would benefit countries, such as Greece. Stated differently, the debt crisis in Europe has led not only to instability in the international markets, but also to political imbroglios across the euro zone.

Of equally significant has been the growing chorus of complaints about the slow and protracted political response to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and theassociated euro zone challenges, which were largely due to the EU's institutional structure. It was with an eye on addressing that latter issue that French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel were meeting in Paris to seek a pathway to stabilizing the euro zone. That meeting resulted in the aforementioned call for radical changes to Europe’s governing treaties, characterized by heightened economic governance in the EU.

Included in their proposal were: (1) the creation of a monetary fund for Europe, (2) automatic penalties for countries that exceed European deficit limits, and (3) monthly meetings of European leaders. The proposal entailed compromises by both European leaders. President Sarkozy had to accept the notion of automatic sanctions for countries in violation of debt limit rules, while Chancellor Merkel had to accept that the European Court of Justice will not be empowered with the power of veto over budgets. Meanwhile, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which was intended to replace the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) in 2013, would be advanced earlier in 2012.

President Sarkozy said that they were looking to March 2012 to complete negotiations on the new treaty. Ideally, the new treaty would be ratified by all 27 member states of the European Union. However, if concurrence at that level proved impossible, then the 17 states of the euro zone would have to approve it. It should also be noted that European Council President Herman Van Rompuy has said that tougher budget rules for the euro zone may not require changing any existing European Union treaties.

President Sarkozy emphasized the imperative that such a crisis not re-emerge in the future. He

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 75 of 506 pages United Kingdom said, "We are conscious of the gravity of the situation and of the responsibility that rests on our shoulders." For her part, Chancellor Merkel said her country, working in concert with France, was "absolutely determined" to maintain a stable euro. She also advocated for "structural changes which go beyond agreements."

While the new measures would certainly go a long way to addressing the issue of improved economic governance in the euro zone, they did not deal with the question of how many euro zone countries would deal with their debt challenges in a climate of low growth. Nevertheless, in the short run, the steadfast and unified message of intent by the two European leaders was, at least, expected to calm markets and facilitate lower borrowing costs for debt-ridden economies such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal.

The proverbial "fly in the ointment" emerged on Dec. 5, 2011 when the credit ratings agency, Standard and Poor's, placed the countries of the euro zone on a "credit watch" with negative implications.* Even power house economies of Germany and France were included in the move, which presaged a downgrade to come in the future. A day later, Standard and Poor's even warned that the euro zone bailout fund -- the EFSF -- could lose its own AAA rating. These moves have raised eyebrows across the world as regards the credibility of the ratings agency, which failed to warn the world of the sub-prime meltdown in 2008 that ultimately let to the global financial crisis. There were suggestions that this downgrade threat to euro zone countries, in conjunction with the downgrade of the United States months earlier following a particularly ferocious debt ceiling debate in that country, were evidence that the credit ratings agency was trying to "save face" by proving its tougher standards at this time. Standard and Poor's newly-discovered hard-line stance was being questioned by analysts, who pointed to the timing of the warning against euro zone countries. But this warning came precisely at a time when France and Germany were leading the charge in the EU to solve the regional debt crisis, as discussed here.

The move by Standard and Poor's aside, Europe re-focused on the task at hand: to institute ameliorated economic governance in the EU. By mid-December 2011, 26 out of the 27 EU member states backed the notion of a new tax and budget concord that would amend the Lisbon Treaty -- the EU's operational and constitutional foundation. Included in the cadre of 26 affirmative countries were all of the 17 euro zone countries. Of course, for many countries, support was contingent upon additional political ratification either in parliament or via referendum. Still, the signals of positive joint action were clear from these 26 countries.

The United Kingdom emerged as the lone "holdout" with British Prime Minister David Cameron insisting that he had to act to protect key British interests, including the financial markets. French President Nicolas Sarkozy noted that the sticking point for Prime Minister Cameron involved a protocol that would allow the United Kingdom to opt-out of changes on financial services. President Sarkozy said that measure wasunacceptable . Explaining his position, Prime Minister Cameron said, "We were offered a treaty that didn't have proper safeguards for Britain, and I decided it was not right to sign that treaty." He continued by noting that the United Kingdom

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 76 of 506 pages United Kingdom remained in the EU, saying, "We're still in the single market."

Nevertheless, this move by the United Kingdom was an operational veto of the initiative to get all 27 EU countries to support changes to the bloc's Lisbon Treaty. As intimated above, it would effectively force the EU to go down the road of instituting a "fiscal compact," rather than a new treaty. While the institution of a fiscal pact could probably occur more quickly than ratification of a new treaty, it would entail far less rigor and strength as a guiding maxim of the EU.

Across Europe, the British government was being criticized for plunging the United Kingdom into a position of isolation, while economic analysts from the Economist and the Financial Times, warned that Europe was now being faced by fragmentation.

In the United Kingdom, the move by Prime Minister Cameron was creating tensions within his own coalition government. Notably, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg -- the leader of the Liberal Democrats -- said that David Cameron's veto of EU treaty changes was "bad for Britain" and he warned that it could leave his country "isolated and marginalized" in Europe. He continued, "I don't think that's good for jobs, in the city (re: London) or elsewhere, I don't think it's good for growth or for families up and down the country." Clegg's bitter denunciation of the veto by Cameron exposed fissures in the British ruling coalition between the Conservative Euro-skeptics and the pro-European Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party -- the main political opposition in the United Kingdom -- was more scathing in its rebuke of Cameron's decision. Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said of Cameron: "He did this because the Euro-skeptic wing of the Conservative Party has effectively taken over and that isn't good for the national interest." Miliband also appeared to encourage the Liberal Democrats to look to Labour to overturn the decision as he said: "What I say to Liberal Democrats and others is that we will work with anybody who thinks this position can not stand. We must find a better way forward for Britain."

By the start of 2012, 25 of the 27 European Union member states agreed to join the new fiscal agreement. The two holdouts were the United Kingdom and the .Earlier in late 2011 (as discussed here), British Prime Minister David Cameron said that his country would not sign on to the notion of a new treaty, and effectively forced the European Union to go down the road of instituting a "fiscal compact," rather than a new treaty. But now in 2012, the United Kingdom was continuing its opposition, and said that the compact would threaten British interests and that there were "legal concerns" about the use of European Union institutions in enforcing the fiscal compact. Meanwhile, the Czechs said that there were "constitutional reasons" for their refusal to sign on to the compact. At issue was the fact thateuro skeptic President Vaclav Klaus has been a vocal opponent to the compact.

*Note: In January 2012, the credit ratings agency, Standard & Poor’s, downgraded the status of a number of European countries. The stability of the euro zone and the European Union has become a major concern in recent years, largely emanating from the Greek debt crisis, but

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 77 of 506 pages United Kingdom extending regionally, as discussed here.

Political Update (2010-2012):

After coming to power following close parliamentary elections in May 2010, the Conservatives formed a ruling coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Now, more than two years later in April 2012, polling data has found that the bloom was off the proverbial rose and British voters were now disenchanted with both ruling parties. Conversely, the opposition Labor Party, which lost the control of government in those elections, was enjoying a reversal of fortune as the favored political party in the country. According to a YouGov-Sun poll, Labor had a lead of 11 percentage points ahead of the Conservatives or "Tories." Another poll by Populus for The Times of London showed showed similar results with Labor ahead of the Tories by nine percentage points. The Liberal Democrats were slipping the most precipitously with the Euro-skeptic United Kingdom Independence Party edging into the third place slot in terms of popularity.

One of the policy issues that may have contributed to the ascendancy of Labor, along with the associated erosion of support for the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, included the budget put forth by Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne. At issue were policies such as the so-called granny tax that infuriated retirees, as well as the "pasty tax," which would involve a value-added tax on hot "takeout" food, and adversely affect wide swaths of the population. Also of concern was the proposal to expand value added taxes on repairs to listed historic buildings, which would affect the Church of England.

Policy aside, the ruling coalition of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats was experiencing cleavages at the end of April 2012. At issue was the announcement by British Prime Minister David Cameron that a referendum be held on converting the House of Lords to a largely elected body. This move evoked the tensions of Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, who pointed to the fact that all three of the country's main political parties promised reform of the upper house of parliament during the 2010 election campaign. Clegg said that those campaign commitments should make a referendum unnecessary. But in an interview with BBC News, Prime Minister Cameron appeared unwilling to step away from the notion of a ratification vote saying, "My view is that you shouldn't rule it out."

Political challenges for Prime Minister Cameron continued as April 2012 came to a close. At issue was the status of his Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt. At issue was Hunt's involvement in News Corp.'s bid to acquire BSkyB. Specifically, Hunt was accused of being improperly involved with the deal -- a claim that came to light after the Leveson Inquiry released e-mails between Hunt's special adviser, Adam Smith, and News Corp. Public Affairs Director Frederic Michel. The details of the email led to Smith's resignation but have so far left Hunt unaffected. For his part, Prime Minister Cameron said: "I don't think it would be right in every circumstance if a special adviser

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 78 of 506 pages United Kingdom gets something wrong to automatically sack the minister. I think he's doing an excellent job on the Olympics and, frankly, I do think people deserve to have these things looked into properly."

Editor's Note on the Monarchy:

The year 2012 saw the ruling monarch of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II, mark the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. While the official celebration of Queen Elizabeth's six- decade long rein as the United Kingdom's ruling monarch was to be held mid-year, the official date of accession was at the start of February 2012. of course, the date also marks the commemoration of the death of her father, the beloved KingGeorge VI. Queen Elizabeth II said that she was dedicating herself "anew" to the service of the British people and that she was "deeply moved" by the massive outpouring of popular support for her Diamond Jubilee. Those Jubilee celebrations ensued in the summer of 2012. Elizabeth II joins her great-great grandmother, Queen Victoria, as the only other British monarch to achieve this milestone.

Special Report:

London 2012 -- The Games of the XXX Olympiad

London -- the capital city of the United Kingdom -- welcomed the world on July 27, 2012, at the start of the Games of the XXX Olympiad. The Opening Ceremony on July 27, 2012, was witnessed by 80,000 people in Olympic Stadium as well as up to one billion people watching via broadcast across the world. That ceremony culminated with the symbolic lighting of the Olympic Cauldron from the Olympic flame that has journeyed across the host country of the United States for the previous months. National and international dignitaries, including the reigning monarch of the United Kingdom - Queen Elizabeth II - would be in attendance. Ahead of the ceremony, Big Ben -- one of London's landmark features -- rang for three minutes. It was the first such tribute to the historic nature of the event since the funeral of King George VI in 1952.

While attention on July 27, 2012, would rightly be on the highly-anticipated Opening Ceremony, which was being coordinated by Oscar- winning film director Danny Boyle, the preparation for 2012 Olympics had been ongoing for several years, with attention to appropriate infrastructure, facilities, logistics, and security in one of the world's largest and most dynamic cities. Of particular note has been the revitalization effort of East London, which International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge lauded, saying that leaves London with a "tangible legacy" of the Games of the XXX Olympiad. While these costly and inconvenient preparations often raised the ire of Londoners in the period leading up to the 2012 Olympics, now most citizens appeared to be proud and excited about the historic event on their home country, with crowds dressed in national colors in a rare extroversion of patriotism.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 79 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Speaking in a tone of national pride, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron said of the London Olympics, "It's a great opportunity to show the world the best of Britain, a country that's got an incredibly rich past but also a very exciting future." Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair, who served as head of government in 2005 when London won the right to host the Olympics, said in an interview with BBC News: "It's a party atmosphere but also an immense sense of national pride -- of what we are and what we can show the world." London Mayor Boris Johnson spoke of the so-called "Olympic fever" spreading across the city in an interview with the BBC, saying, "What's so amazing is just the wave of excitement seems to pass from person to person like some benign form of contagion. Everybody is getting it."

The London 2012 Olympics included participation from about 10,000 athletes representing about 200 countries or national entities (operating under the aegis of National Olympic Committees). The athletes would compete in 26 sports, further sub-divided into 39 disciplines.

Visitors from across the world were present in London -- arguably the world's most cosmopolitan capital city already -- in a show of global goodwill and enthusiasm. The premise of the modern Olympics have been to provide a venue for individuals, rather than states or nations, to compete against each other in sports held every four years, and in peaceful competition, without the burden of politics, war, ethnicity, or religion.

The ancient Olympics -- the roots of the modern Olympics -- can trace their origins to the eighth century before the common era (B.C.E.). The games were dedicated to the 12 Olympian Gods and were hosted on the ancient green plains of Olympia. Those games in Greek antiquity constituted a time of union, where athletes from across the Greek world came together to compete for the prize of the olive wreath and would return to their home city-states marked as heroes. Political and religious dynamics -- such as the conquest by the Romans and accusations about the Pagan connection to the games' origins in the post-Christian world -- contributed to the demise of the Olympics. They were revived as the modern Olympics in the late 19th century by the French Baron Pierre de Coubertin in the late 19th century.

Coubertin's background in philosophy and education informed his emerging advocacy for sports. Particularly, he drew upon the notion of competition among amateurs rather than professional athletes. The legacy of a political truce during the ancient games also imbued its own flavor onto the modern games, influencing the emerging understanding of the Olympics as an international venue to promote peace and spread cultural understanding. These ideals have been transposed into the purpose of the modern Olympics that go forth in contemporary times. Indeed, according to the Olympic Charter, the Olympic Games are competitions between athletes in individual or team events and not between countries. Moreover, as expressed in the Olympic Creed: "The most important thing in the Olympic Games is not to win but to take part, just as the most important thing in life is not the triumph but the struggle. The essential thing is not to have conquered but to have fought well."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 80 of 506 pages United Kingdom

It should be noted that contentious politics and shocking world events have, occasionally, often crept into the domain of this international sporting event. There have been boycotts including that of African countries to protest apartheid in in the 1970s, and the Cold War boycotts of the Moscow and Los Angeles games in the 1980s. There was also the domestic terrorist bombing at the Atlantic games of 1996. Perhaps more importantly, there was the notorious massacre of Israeli athletes by Palestinian terrorists at the Munich Olympics in 1972.

In these London 2012 Olympics, a Greek athlete, Paraskevi Papachristou, was expelled from the games ahead of the opening ceremony because of a racist Twitter message. As well, United States Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney set off a blaze of controversy when he questioned London's readiness for the 2012 Olympics, during a trip intended to burnish his foreign policy credentials against incumbent President Barack Obama. Such incidences aside, attention of the world was quickly refocused on the Olympics themselves, and the rare opportunity for the world to come together to compete in the interests of sport and amity.

The closing ceremony of the Games of the XXX Olympiad would commence on Aug. 12, 2012, and include a handover by London Mayor Boris Johnson to Eduardo Paes, Mayor of -- the host city of the 2016 Olympics.

Special Report:

Ecuador grants asylum to WikiLeaks founder; U.K. threatens to storm embassy

On Aug. 16, 2012, the government of Ecuador announced it would grant asylum to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. In June of 2012, Assange took refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom to avoid extradition. Now, months later, the United Kingdom was making it abundantly clear that Assange would not be granted safe passage out of the country.

WikiLeaks is an online database of leaked classified documents and private diplomatic cables from government sources, news organizations, and whistleblowers. Launched in 2006 by Assange, an Australian Internet activist, WikiLeaks has led to outrage across the world, embarrassment for several governments, and accusations that the dissemination of classified materials constitutes to a threat to global security. Assange's personal legal problems (as regards to alleged sexual offenses in Sweden) has been viewed as the means to apprehend him, with the possibility of extradition to the United States to face charges related to WikiLeaks' publication of private diplomatic cables.

To these ends, and with news emerging that Ecuador was providing sanctuary to Assange via its embassy in London, the United Kingdom wasted little time in warning that it would fulfill its "obligation" to extradite Assange. Indeed, the United Kingdom did not foreclose the possibility of storming the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 81 of 506 pages United Kingdom

In response, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said during a news conference: "Today we received from the United Kingdom the express threat, in writing, that they could assault our embassy in London if Ecuador didn't hand over Julian Assange. We want to make this absolutely clear. We are not a colony of Britain."

But the United Kingdom was in no mood to back down, posting a message via social media that read: "We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador. U.K. has a legal obligation to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offenses." The Foreign Office continued, "Throughout this process we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law. For example, extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to legal status of diplomatic premises in the U.K."

Amping up the rhetoric, United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague said, "Under our law, with Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We must carry out that obligation and, of course, we fully intend to do so." Explaining that the United Kingdom was not bound by legal instruments requiring the recognition of diplomatic asylum by a foreign embassy, Hague said that diplomatic asylum "should not be used for the purposes of escaping the regular processes of the courts."

For his part, Assange himself entered the debate on Aug. 19, 2012, when he appeared on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy and offered a statement. In that statement, he urged the United States to end its "witch-hunt" against Wikileaks. He specifically demanded that the United States stop going after whistleblowers, saying: "The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful." Assange also called for the release of Bradley Manning, who faces trial due to accusations that he [Manning] leaked the classified documents to Wikileaks.

Note that as the end of August 2012 was near, the diplomatic standoff between the United Kingdom and Ecuador came to a close. Ecuador's President Correa announced that the United Kingdom had withdrawn its threat to enter Ecuador's embassy in London to arrest Assange. Ecuador's government said it had received a message from the British Foreign Office confirming that "there was no threat to enter the embassy."

Special Note on the Monarchy

At the start of December 2012, legal measures were underway to change the rule of royal succession. At issue was the prevailing principle of male primogeniture, by which male heirs take precedence over women in line to the British throne. The new measures were intended to ensure

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 82 of 506 pages United Kingdom that the first born of monarch would be the heir apparent, regardless of gender. The new measures would effectively end the dictate that privileges males over females in the line of succession and ensure that the first child of the current Duke and Duchess of Cambridge would become monarch, whether that offspring is a boy or a girl. To that end, all Commonwealth realms concurred with the proposed legislation, facilitating the path for the British parliament to introduce the new Succession to the Crown Bill in the House of Commons.

That succession bill would require certain amendments to constitutional documents, including the Bill of Rights and Coronation Oath Act of 1688. Passage of the legislation would come at a time when the Duchess Catherine of Cambridge was hospitalized for acute morning sickness, or hyperemesis gravidarum, ahead of the birth of the child who would be third in line to the throne after Heir Apparent Prince Charles and the Duke William of Cambridge respectively. It should be noted that the Succession to the Crown Bill would also end the prohibition of anyone in the line of succession from marrying a Roman Catholic.

Special Note on Economy

In the last week of February 2013, the credit ratings agency, Moody's, downgraded the United Kingdom from its top AAA rating to AA1. It was the first downgrade since 1978. Moody's said that the United Kingdom's austerity measures were contributing to subdued growth, and that the British government's debt reduction program faced significant challenges, cautioning the United Kingdom's debt burdens were not likely to be reversed until 2016 anyway. Moody's further said that all expectations were that growth would "remain sluggish over the next few years." Still, Moody's maintained that the United Kingdom's outlook was stable.

The downgrade did not appear to deter the conservative government from following the path of austerity. Instead, Chancellor George Osborne said that Moody's decision was "a stark reminder of the debt problems facing our country." He continued, "Far from weakening our resolve to deliver our economic recovery plan, this decision redoubles it. We will go on delivering the plan that has cut the deficit by a quarter." Shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, wasted no time in blasting the government for its measures. He said the decision by Moody's to downgrade the United Kingdom's credit rating was a "humiliating blow to a prime minister and chancellor who said keeping our AAA rating was the test of their economic and political credibility."

Special Entry: Death of Britain's conservative "Iron Lady" Margaret Thatcher

On April 8, 2013, Baroness Margaret Thatcher died following a stroke at the age of 87 years. The conservative icon, known as the "Iron Lady," served as the United Kingdom's prime minister for 11 years, starting in 1979.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 83 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Thatcher has been regarded as a transformational figure, not only on the British political landscape, but also socio-politically across the world in modern times.

As the first female head of government of a major world power, Thatcher was culturally regarded as a trailblazer for women in politics. And on the matter of policy, her austere and hardline conservative outlook shifted the British political and economic scene by breaking open the path towards greater privatization. As well, her alliance with former United States President Ronald Reagan has been credited with ending the Cold War. At home, she was lauded for leading the charge to win the war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands in 1982.

Her record as a female leader and champion of capitalism and democracy aside, Thatcher's domestic policy record has to be understood as deeply divisive. Indeed, her poll tax proposal and anti-union policies led to protests, and ultimately to her exit from the leadership faction of the Conservative Party. It could also be argued that Thatcher stood on the wrong side of history in the international realm as regards apartheid South Africa. She did not back sanctions against apartheid South Africa and infamously referred to Nelson Mandela's African National Congress (ANC) as "a typical terrorist organization."

This mixed record aside, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron paid tribute to Thatcher's legacy, characterizing her as "a great Briton." He said, "Margaret Thatcher succeeded against all the odds. The real thing is she didn't just lead our country; she saved our country." Queen Elizabeth II expressed sadness over the news of Thatcher's death, while United States President Obama noted that "America has lost a true friend." Meanwhile the Union Jack at Number 10 Downing Street was being flown at half mast, and the country prepared to say goodbye to her at a formal funeral at London's St Paul's Cathedral, where she would be accorded full military honors.

Special Note on Attack by Islamic Extremists in London

In the last week of May 2013, two men attacked and brutally murdered a British soldier in the south eastern London suburb of Woolwich. The victim was identified as Lee Rigby, while his two attackers were identified as Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale -- British citizens of Nigerian descent who were adherents of Islam. The two men did not seem eager to flee the scene of their vicious and bloody assault on Rigby; instead witnesses on the scene were able to film one of the two suspects justifying the murder of British soldiers on the basis of the fact that they killed Muslims during the course of their military duties abroad. The grizzly attack on Rigby notwithstanding, Adebolajo was shown on the footage claiming, "These people are mistreating us, we are innocent." Both Adebolajo and Adebowale were reported to be in police custody.

While British citizens awaited news over what type of charges the two men would ultimately face, the British Foreign Office soon acknowledged that Adebolajo was given consular assistance when

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 84 of 506 pages United Kingdom he was arrested in in 2010. It was now believed that Adebolajo had been in Kenya en route to where he may have intended to join the al-Qaida affiliated terror group, al- Shabab. The British government would undoubtedly face criticism for their consular assistance to an individual with terrorist connections.

Special Note on Northern Ireland

It should be noted that sectarian violence erupted in Northern Ireland in January 2013 as a result of a contentious debate over flying the British flag at City Hall in Belfast. Officials voted to limit the number of days the British flag might be flown at City Hall. The decision spurred outrage by loyalists and sparked an outbreak of riots, which were marked by violent clashes between protesters and police that left more than 100 police officers dead and as many as 120 arrests made. A banned loyalist group, the Ulster Volunteer Force, was blamed for fueling the ire of people and even orchestrating some of the riots and chaos that ensued as a result of the outrage. With passions inflamed and a rising casualty list in what was now being called the "Union Flag crisis," government ministers convened talks with the Northern Ireland secretary of state and the Irish foreign minister. Secretary of State Theresa Villers then released a statement that read as follows: "The violence is intolerable and these protests have to come off the streets. They have to be replaced by dialogue." Meanwhile, a number of political groups from varied backgrounds echoed the call for an end to the violence. Indeed, appeals for an end to the crisis were backed and sanctioned by dozens of organizations, including loyalist entities, Irish paramilitary cadres, community groups, and church leaders.

In mid-July 2013, the capital of Northern Ireland -- Belfast -- was rocked by riots. On July 12, 2013, alone, more than 30 police officers and member of parliament, Nigel Dodds, were injured in the violence unfolding in Belfast. Indeed, despite his appeal for calm and an end to the violence, Dodds was knocked unconscious when loyalists hurled missiles in the direction of the police. He was hospitalized at the Royal Victoria Hospital as a result of the incident.

At issue was a ban on a proposed march by the Orange Order (i.e. the Protestant unionist movement). Police moved to enforce that ban but were met with resistance in the northern part of the city as the Orange Order called for mass protests along the thoroughfare that divided Republican (Catholic Irish nationalist) and Orange Order (Protestant unionist) communities. Although the Orange Order subsequently said it would suspend its demonstrations, violence nonetheless erupted and engulfed families and children. Weapons ranging from bricks and stones to petrol bombs and ceremonial swords were hurled at police; in response, police attempted to disperse the crowds by using water cannons and plastic batons.

Typically, Orange men march from April to August, with particular attention on the July 12 date, which marks the occasion when William of Orange won victory over the Catholic King James II at

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 85 of 506 pages United Kingdom the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland in 1690. The July 12 annual parade commemorates that victory. For Catholic Irish nationalists, the marches, and particularly, the July 12 parade, denotes triumphalism. As such, power brokers have noted that they serve only to stoke sectarian and political tensions between Catholic nationalists and Protestant loyalists. The decision to ban the parade in northern Belfast was intended to prevent an outbreak of violence but resulted in outraging unionists and particularly the Orange Order, ultimately resulting with the riots discussed here.

The rioting went on for a second day, with hundreds of police being deployed to quell the violence. Although the unrest continued on July 13, 2013, the violence was not as acute as the day before. Authorities appeared to blame the Unionists for using reckless language and behavior to spark hostilities. Secretary of State Theresa Villiers "utterly condemned" the rioting and urged the Orange Order to call off its mass action saying, "It is the clear responsibility of everyone who has influence, including the Orange Order, community leaders and politicians, to do what they can to calm the situation. We need temperate language over coming days."

But unionists were quick to defend their ranks with Ulster Unionist councilor Mark Cosgrove suggesting that it was "irresponsible" of police to blame the Orange Order for the unrest. He said, "There were hundreds of thousands of people from both the loyal orders and the bands, the supporters out in Belfast and all over Northern Ireland yesterday and, I think, to try and apportion blame to the Orange Order is totally wrong." Not surprisingly, nationalists had a very different view of the events unfolding in Belfast. Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein said: "In my opinion, the leadership of the Orange Order failed the Orange Order and they failed these communities." He continued, "The decision announced some hours ago, that they are suspending their protests, was a massive admission by themselves that they were culpable for what happened here last night."

Just ahead of the "marching season" in Northern Ireland in 2014, police were investigating a 1972 murder arrested Irish nationalist leader, Gerry Adams. He was released following several days of extensive interrogations. At issue for the police was the murder of Jean McConville, who was kidnapped in full view of her children in 1972 when the Irish Republican Army was carrying out its violent and hardline nationalist campaign.

In the background of this particular investigation were prevailing accusations that Adama was involved in the Irish Republican Army's more nefarious activities. For his part, Adams has denied being involved in the murder of anyone -- including McConville. Regardless of the veracity of his statement, the police referred the case against Adams -- a member of parliament in the Republic of Ireland -- to prosecutors who would decide whether charges should be advanced.

But the investigation into Adams appeared to have sparked sectarian tensions between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland with supporters of Adams' Sinn Fein party outraged over his arrest, and pro-unionists angry that he was released from police custody. Indeed, unionists

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 86 of 506 pages United Kingdom blockaded a road and threw petrol bombs to register their anger over Adams' release.

While the tensions did not immediately contribute to a fierce outbreak of violence, there were fears that the overall political climate was negatively affected ahead of the so-called "marching season." The summer "marching season" typically featured Protestants parades marking their historic victories against Catholics. Of particular importance was the July 12 march marking the victory of William of Orange over the Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland in 1690.

For their part, Catholics regard the parades as provocations and they have been particularly incensed over the July 12 march, saying that it smacked of triumphalism. As such, power brokers have noted that the parades serve only to stoke sectarian and political tensions between Catholic nationalists and Protestant loyalists. The decision in 2013 to ban the parade in northern Belfast was intended to prevent an outbreak of violence but instead managed to outrage the unionists and particularly the Orange Order. Ultimately, violent riots erupted in Belfast in 2013. Indeed, it was the worst outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland since the late 1990s.

Now in 2014, with the Gerry Adams case featuring prominently ahead of the marching season, anxieties were elevated along with renewed Catholic versus Protestant tensions.

2014 Political Update

At the start of February 2014, Minister of Immigration Mark Harper of the United Kingdom resigned from office amidst revelations that he employed an illegal immigrant as a house cleaner at his home.

The discovery that Harper -- a Conservative member of parliament and immigration minister since 2012 -- had employed a worker in the United Kingdom illegally to clean his home caused an embarrassing quasi-scandal, reflecting negatively on Prime Minister David Cameron's government. Of note was the fact that the Cameron government was trying to stave off a threat from the anti- immigration far right flank by promising to reduce immigration. This revelation about the immigration minister employing an illegal immigrant undoubtedly cast a negative light on the Cameron government's seriousness on the issue.

As a result, Harper announced his resignation from his cabinet post, although he would continue to function as a member of parliament. In his resignation letter to Prime Minister Cameron, Harper insisted that he had, in fact, checked the cleaner's immigration status when he first employed her in 2007. He added, "When you then appointed me as Immigration Minister ... I went through a similar consideration process and once again concluded that no further check was necessary." According to Harper, the problem was that he had not checked the worker's credentials more "thoroughly."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 87 of 506 pages United Kingdom

For his part, Prime Minister Cameron, whose Conservative Party was languishing in pre-election polls, accepted Harper's resignation saying, "There is no suggestion that Mr. Harper knowingly employed an illegal immigrant."

In April 2014, United Kingdom's Culture Minister Maria Miller was forced to resign from office amidst an emerging scandal over her expense accounts. At issue were allegations that Miller over- claimed mortgage costs and other expenses amounting to as much as 45,000 pounds ($75,400). She was cleared of the allegation that she used her expense allowance to fund her parents, however, the other accusations appeared to hold merit. The issue of expense accounts by politicians has been a controversial one in the United Kingdom since 2009 when legislators' expense reports were leaked to the press thus exposing gross abuse.

At the political level, the resignation of Miller exposed United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron to criticism over his bad judgment and political leadership. Cameron's critics excoriated him for his failure to take charge of the situation by simply sacking Miller from the onset. Instead, Cameron clung to the fact that Miller was cleared of one -- but not all -- of the allegations against her (as discussed above), and continued to tout Miller as being an excellent public servant. For her part, Miller prevailed for some time, hanging onto her portfolio and delivering a weak apology that only did further damage to the already dismal image of the Conservative Party. Ultimately, Miller bowed to public pressure and resigned from office, saying that she believed the scandal was becoming a distraction from the work of the government.

Opposition parties wasted little time in casting the Conservatives (also known as "Tories") as elitist and out of touch with the common populace. As stated by Labor leader, Ed Miliband, of Prime Minister Cameron: "He still doesn't understand what she (Miller) did wrong..." Miliband continued, "The reason the public was so appalled was if it had happened in any other business there would have been no question about them staying in their job. Why was he the last person in the country to realize her position was untenable?"

Note: Prime Minister Cameron named Sajid Javid -- a rising star in the Conservative Party -- as the person to replace Miller as the new Culture Minister. Prime Minister Cameron also announced other cabinet changes such as the appointment of Nicky Morgan as financial secretary at the Treasury, and the appointment of Andrea Leadsom as the new Economic Secretary.

In July 2014, United Kingdom (U.K.) Foreign Secretary William Hague announced his resignation as the country's top diplomat after four years at that post. He was set to assume the position of Leader of the House of Commons where he would be tasked with coordinating relations between the executive government and the lower parliamentary chamber. Via the social media outlet, Twitter, Hague wrote: "Tonight I am standing down as Foreign Secretary after 4 years to serve as Leader of the House of Commons." The move was part of a cabinet shuffle undertaken by Prime

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 88 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Minister David Cameron. That overhaul of the cabinet appeared to be in preparation for parliamentary elections, which were scheduled to be held in 2015.

A year ahead of those elections, it was not Prime Minister Cameron's governing Conservatives who had the edge, but the opposition Labour Party. Led by Ed Miliband, Labour was in the lead in terms of voters' preferences by about four percentage points ahead of the Conservatives. That being said, Miliband was being weighed down by the fact that most British voters did not view him as a future prime minister. At issue for Miliband was the public's perception that he was socially awkward, overly-intellectual, and a clear contrast to telegenic Cameron, whose public relations background aided his self presentation style. Cognizant of this contrast, Miliband took on his "image" problem in a direct fashion, saying that if the focus was on policies and substance rather than photo opportunities and superficialities, he would have no trouble leading his left-leaning Labour Party to victory. In a speech to supporters, Miliband said, "David Cameron is a very sophisticated and successful exponent of a politics driven by image. I am not going to be able to compete with that. And I don't intend to. I want to offer something different." He continued, "If you want the politician from central casting, it's just not me, it's the other guy. And if you want a politician who thinks that a good photo is the most important thing, then don't vote for me ... I believe people would quite like somebody to stand up and say there is more to politics than the photo-op."

Special Note on Northern Ireland

In the second week of September 2014, Ian Paisley, the former leader of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party died at the age of 88. Known for his decision to enter a power-sharing executive with the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein movement at Stormont, Paisely was one of the keystone figures of the decades-long struggle between unionists and republican nationalists in Northern Ireland. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron paid tribute to Paisley saying he was "one of the most forceful and instantly recognizable characters in British politics for nearly half a century." Cameron continued, "In particular, his decision to take his party into government with Sinn Fein in 2007 required great courage and leadership, for which everyone in these islands should be grateful." Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein expressed sadness over the news of Paisley's death, saying, "Over a number of decades we were political opponents and held very different views on many, many issues but the one thing we were absolutely united on was the principle that our people were better able to govern themselves than any British government." He continued, "I want to pay tribute to and comment on the work he did in the latter days of his political life in building agreement and leading unionism into a new accommodation with republicans and nationalists."

Special Report on Scottish Independence:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 89 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The Union holds as Scotland votes "no" in landmark independence referendum --

Summary:

A referendum on Scottish independence was held on Sept. 18, 2014. The referendum posed the following question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Scotland's future status was at stake. In the months leading up to the independence vote, the pro-unity side of the debate had the advantage; however, in the weeks just before the referendum was set to take place, nationalist passions flared to the benefit of the pro-independence flank. Pre-referendum polling data showed a close race to the finish with the current structure of the United Kingdom poised for possible transformation. Would that transformation be limited to increased autonomy within the preserved United Kingdom, or would that transformation see a fully independent Scotland emerge on the global scene? The answer to these questions came democratically on Sept. 18, 2014, with a decisive "no" to independence and in favor of holding together the United Kingdom. That being said, there would be changes afoot for increased self-determination for Scotland under the aegis of a unified British . With a voter turnout rate of between 85 and 90 percent, the Scottish independence vote stood as a reminder to the world of how participatory democracy works in a mature nation state.

Background:

Going back to February 2013, the Scottish National Party declared that if voters ratified sovereignty and independence in a referendum to be held in 2014, Scotland would become an independent country in March 2016. Scottish nationalists released an ambitious timetable for independence that included a detailed itinerary of measures to be undertaken that would remove Scotland from the United Kingdom, establish a separate Treasury, and apply for accession to the European Union in less than 20 months after ratification.

A year later in February 2014, with an independence referendum set to be held in September 2014, the government of the United Kingdom made an impassioned plea for Scotland to stay within the union. At the start of 2014, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said, "We would be deeply diminished without Scotland." He continued, "If we lost Scotland, if the U.K. changed, we would rip the rug from under our own reputation. The plain fact is we matter more in the world together." If his positive and affirmative message of unity failed to resonate with Scottish nationalists, Prime Minister Cameron was also willing to argue for a unified country on the basis of negative consequences. To that particular end, his government warned that an independent Scotland would not be able to use the British pound sterling as its currency.

The Liberal Democratic Party (in a coalition government with Prime Minister Cameron's Conservatives), as well as the opposition Labor Party, joined the Conservatives in issuing a

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 90 of 506 pages United Kingdom warning to Scottish nationalists. Regardless of their partisan divisions, all three parties closed ranks to caution Scottish nationalists that an independent Scotland would be prohibited from retaining the British pound sterling as its currency. As noted by the United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, “There's no legal reason why the rest of the U.K. would need to share its currency with Scotland.”

The pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) seemed undeterred by the threat, casting it as just an attempt “to bully and intimidate.” However, the notion that an independent Scotland would not have access to the established British pound sterling as the national currency would likely cause some referendum voters to think critically about the costs of sovereignty. Already, they would have to consider the ambitious independence timetable of holding a referendum in September 2014, followed by independent nation state status in the first part of 2016.

For its part, the SNP has said that its aggressive plan for independence was in keeping with other shifts in the status of nation states in Europe, such as the splitting of the former Czechoslolvakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But representatives of the government of the United Kingdom were not quite so sanguine about the prospects of a sovereignty and independence schedule of less than two years. Alistair Darling, the former press secretary of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and current leader of an anti-independence group, Better Together, was on the record dismissing the timetable as unrealistic. He said, "Even with the best will in the world, even if there is no disagreement over some of the major issues like what happens to our currency, how we divide up our pension system, and how we split the national debt, achieving this timetable is a tall order."

Indeed, in less than 20 months after ratification (assuming there was a "yes" vote), Scotland would have to be removed from the United Kingdom, and then establish a separate Treasury, and apply for accession to the European Union. other issues would be the division of military interests, such as the United Kingdom's submarine fleet, which was based in Scotland, as well as the United Kingdom's claim to a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Regardless, the Sept. 18, 2014, date set for a referendum on Scotland's independence from the United Kingdom was moving forward. The date was set to coincide with a re-enactment of the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, a historic Scottish victory over the English. In accordance with the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, the referendum would pose the following question to voters for a "yes" or "no" response: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

On the issue of the Scottish independence, Salmond said, "It will be a historic day and one on which this ancient nation decides its place in the world." For his part, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron has said that Scotland would be better off if it remained under the collective flag of the United Kingdom. He warned that fragmentation of the United Kingdom

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 91 of 506 pages United Kingdom would result in diminished economic strength, national security, and international influence. Perhaps not surprisingly, Scottish First Minister Salmond held a different view, believing that Scotland would be better positioned as a sovereign nation state. To this end, Salmond argued: "Only the powers of an independent parliament with control of the economy, of international representation and of security will allow us to make the most of our huge national potential."

The road to the Independence Referendum --

At the start of March 2014, with the independence referendum only months away, Salmond -- the Scottish leader -- called on British citizens to support the independence campaign. He argued that an independent Scotland would act as a countervailing power against London-centered domination. He said, "After Scottish independence, the growth of a strong economic power in the north of these islands would benefit everyone -- our closest neighbors in the north of England more than anyone." He continued, "There would be a 'Northern Light' to redress the influence of the 'dark star' -- rebalancing the economic center of gravity of these islands."

But British Prime Minister David Cameron was carrying out his own pro-unity campaign (colloquially referred to as "love bombing") in which he called on British citizens in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to remind their Scottish friends and relatives that they were all better off together.

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- a Scot -- entered the debate in mid- March 2014 to join the non-partisan call for national unity, and to advocate for more increased autonomy for Scotland rather than independence. Speaking from Glasgow, Brown said, "The majority of Scottish people do not want separation but equally they do want change." He continued, "I want to move us from the old highly centralized, uniform Britain dominated by out- of-date ideas of an undivided Westminster sovereignty to a new diverse power-sharing, risk- sharing, resource-sharing U.K. which is best defined ... as a modern, constitutional partnership of nations."

Polling data has -- for some time -- indicated that most people in Scotland actually do not favor independence from the United Kingdom, preferring to maintain the current union. In March 2014, an Ipsos-Mori poll showed only 32 percent support for Scottish independence, with 57 percent against it, and 11 percent undecided Nevertheless, the pro-independence forces planned for a robust campaign and with the intent of persuading people of their sovereignty argument.

In August 2014, with only a month to go before the referendum on Scottish independence was set to take place in September 2014, the advantage appeared to reside with the pro-unity side. This advantage was displayed during an initial debate between Alex Salmond, the head of the pro- independence Scottish National Party (SNP) and the leader of the campaign for Scottish, and Alistair Darling, the leader of the campaign to retain Scotland as part of the United Kingdom.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 92 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The energetic debate, which was broadcast in the media, ended with the conclusion that Salmond - - usually a powerful speaker -- had not effectively made the case for independence, particularly as regards the economic path for a sovereign Scotland. On the other hand, Darling -- not known for his command of rhetoric -- offered a solid performance by challenging Salmond's vision for post- independence currency and revenue. Drawing attention to the fact that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to use the British pound sterling, Darling posed the following question to Salmond: "What is plan B?" Salmond was unable to substantially address this challenge, and instead asserted, "I am in favor of keeping the pound sterling," while claiming that that the pound belonged to both England and Scotland. But the fact of the matter was that the United Kingdom had already rejected the notion of a currency union that would allow Scotland to use the British pound sterling as its legal tender. To this end, Darling noted that the use by an independent Scotland of the British pound would be like another country in the Americas using the United States or Canadian dollar. He declared: "That's using sterling like Panama or Ecuador uses the dollar."

It should be noted that a second debate was held in the last week of August 2014. During that engagement, Salmond enjoyed a much better performance with most observers concluding that he had "won" the argument against Darling -- at least for the night. It was to be seen if this strong rhetorical presentation would persuade voters to move to the pro-independence position ahead of the actual referendum.

Note that as August 2014 was coming to a close, polling data showed little movement in the views of voters. While there was some mild improvement towards the pro-independence side of the equation, the pro-unity faction continued to command the advatage. A so-called "poll of polls" in mid-August 2014 showed that support for Scottish independence stood at 43 percent while support for United Kingdom's unity stood at 57 percent.

At the start of September 2014, the landscape shifted significantly. A YouGov survey for showed that, for the first time, the pro-independence side had taken the lead. The "Yes" to Independence campaign now was yielding 51 percent of support while the unionists had close to 49 percent. Clearly, for advocates of Scottish independence, the movement was peaking at precisely the right time -- just two weeks ahead of the referendum. The shift was attributed to the strong performance of pro-independence orchestrator, Salmond, in the second televised debate.

Underlining the reality that the referendum would go down to the wire and that Scots might, in fact, opt for independence, a INS poll showed the "no" vote dropping to 39 percent with the "yes" vote within the statistical margin of error with 38 percent. Several other polling surveys at the start of September 2014 showed momentum for the "yes" vote.

Independence for Scotland would involve negotiations over usage of the pound sterling currency --

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 93 of 506 pages United Kingdom something the "Better Together" unity camp has warned would not end well for a sovereign Scotland, as discussed above. Also to be determined would be the division of the national debt of the United Kingdom, control over oil in the North Sea, and the fate of the nuclear submarine base located in Scotland. Other likely consequences of an independent Scotland would be the loss of defense and financial sector jobs, along with obstacles to European Union accession.

Politically, the consequences of a successful "yes" campaign in Scotland would create dire consequences for both of the two major parties in the United Kingdom. Should Scotland vote to exit the United Kingdom, the humiliation for Prime Minister David Cameron would be great, and would likely include demands that the Conservative leader resign from office. But the situation would be no rosier for the Labor Party, which would lose key support since the current Scottish members of parliament would be effectively removed from the scene.

With such possible ends at hand -- especially given the sudden burst of support for the independence movement --there were plans afoot from the "Better Together" unionist campaign. At issue was an attractive package that would offer more powers to Scotland over its taxes, as well as its social and economic affairs. This so-called "devolution" plan was intended to regain support of Scots looking for more autonomy and control, while not entirely interested in exiting the United Kingdom. It was to be seen if this federal powers package would gain support.

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on fellow Labor Party supporters to consider his party's plan for devolution of powers, saying, "This moves us as close to federalism as we can. Scotland is already a nation. We are proud of our history and culture. Do we want to sever all constitutional links with our friends, our neighbors, our relatives in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?"

A week later, on the eve of the referendum, the official devolution package (brokered by former Prime Minister Brown) offered Scotland a guarantee of high levels of public spending as well as self-determination over health care spending. At the end of the day, even if Scotland were to vote "no" to independence, as shown by this package, the structure of the United Kingdom was destined to change. That change would involve the devolution of powers away from the central government in London.

Meanwhile, the British political establishment was making an impassioned plea for unity. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron declared, "In the end, it is for the Scottish people to decide, but I want them to know that the rest of the United Kingdom -- and I speak as prime minister -- want them to stay."

Prime Minister Cameron subsequently emphasized the significance of a "yes" vote to ratify Scotland's independence aspiration. He warned that saying "yes" to independence would be a final stance with no room for reversal, as he declared: "There's no going back from this. No re-run. If

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 94 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Scotland votes 'yes' the U.K. will split and we will go our separate ways forever. "

The Bank of England issued a stark reminder to Scots that an independent Scotland would not be able to keep the British pound sterling currency. The bank's governor, Mark Carney, warned that a currency union between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom would be incompatible with the very notion of sovereignty.

The fact of the matter was that there would be nothing stopping an independent Scotland from using the British pound sterling as its currency. However, without a currency and monetary arrangement -- something the Bank of England has said it will not entertain -- an independent Scotland would need a stockpile of pound sterling. As well, there would be potentially disastrous consequences for Scotland since the Bank of England would no longer be last lender of resort for Scotland's banking industry. Moreover, Scotland would have no say in monetary policy, which would be dictated by the Bank of England.

Meanwhile, in an open letter, 14 former heads of the United Kingdom's Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force warned that a "yes" vote for independence would be detrimental to the defense of both the United Kingdom and a future independent Scotland. As stated in the piece, "The division of the U.K. may or may not be politically or economically sensible, but in military terms we are clear: it will weaken us all."

On the eve of the referendum, a slate of polls showed a close race to the finish, with the "no" vote recouping a slight advantage. The closeness of the pre-election polls suggested that there was no known guarantee of the outcome of the referendum. Three pollsters -- ICM, Opinium, and Survation -- showed support for independence at 48 percent while support for retaining the union stood at 52 percent. With a significant share of Scotland's voters (around 10 percent) still undecided, the result could conceivably go either way.

Referendum and Result

Ultimately, on Sept. 18, 2014, Scottish voters were set to give their answer -- "yes" or "no" -- to the question, "Should Scotland be an independent country?". Regardless of the outcome, the current structure of the United Kingdom was destined to change. Would that transformation be limited to increased autonomy within the preserved United Kingdom, or, would that transformation see a fully independent Scotland emerge on the global scene?

The answer to these questions came democratically on Sept. 18, 2014, with a decisive "no" vote to independence and in favor of holding together the union. The pro-union vote share outperformed the pre-referendum polling data with 55 percent voting "no" and in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom, and 45 percent voting "yes" and for Scottish independence.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 95 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Of the 32 councils in Scotland, only four voted "yes" in favor of independence, while 28 voted "no" and in favor of staying in the United Kingdom. The divided sentiment of the electorate was illustrated by the fact that Glasgow -- the largest city in Scotland -- was a stronghold for the "yes" vote while Edinburgh -- the capital of Scotland -- voted "no." That being said, the breakdown of the vote results from the 32 councils in Scotland suggested that the "no" vote was stronger in constituencies with better socio-economic conditions than in less comfortable constituencies where the "yes" vote saw a better performance.

At the end of the day, the Scottish independence referendum on Sept. 18, 2014, was marked by the highest voter turnout rate -- between 85 and 90 percent -- in a national election. As such, the Scottish independence vote stood as a reminder to the rest of the world of how participatory democracy works in a mature nation state.

Alistair Darling, the head of the "Better Together" pro-unity campaign declared victory, saying, "We have chosen unity over division, and positive change rather than needless separation."

Meanwhile, Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond conceded defeat but warned that the government in London would have to honor its commitments to extend greater powers to Scotland. He said, "There are 1.6 million people who made a choice for independence. I think the 1.6 million people will speak and speak loud if there is a retreat from the commitments made." Salmond also announced that he would resign as leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, saying: "For me as leader my time is nearly over but for Scotland the campaign continues and the dream will never die." Salmond's deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, was seen as a likely successor and the favored choice to be the future leader of the Scottish Nationalists.

For his part, Prime Minister David Cameron issued a public statement hailing the referendum result, and noting that the question of Scottish independence had now been settled for a generation. He said, "There can be no disputes, no re-runs, we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people." Cameron also promised to honor the commitments to convey greater powers of self determination to Scotland, while also addressing nationalist sentiment in Northern Ireland, Wales, and England, as he asserted: "Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland should be able to vote on these issues."

Queen Elizabeth issued a statement of national unity, declaring: "Knowing the people of Scotland as I do, I have no doubt that Scots ... are able to express strongly-held opinions before coming together again in a spirit of mutual respect and support, to work constructively for the future of Scotland and indeed all parts of this country."

While the question of Scottish independence was now settled, there would nonetheless be changes afoot for increased self-determination and autonomy for Scotland under the aegis of the United

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 96 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Kingdom. The question of how those proposed transformations would go forward remained a matter of debate.

Of note was the fact that Prime Minister Cameron's proposal was not being embraced by former Labor Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who lobbied hard for unity. Brown and other Labor leaders were highly skeptical of Cameron's call for increased autonomy for the other member state of the United Kingdom -- particularly in England, where Labor's influence could be diminished. Labor Leader, Ed Milliband, made it clear that his party -- which helped to seal the "no" vote -- would not sign on to Prime Minister Cameron's plan to use the Scottish devolution measures to give more power to English members of parliament. Instead, he has called for a national constitutional convention that would be tasked with crafting a plan to move forward.

Prime Minister Cameron was also facing headwinds from within his own Conservative party with some members of parliament angry that Scotland should be “rewarded:” for its independence aspirations and at the expense of the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly England. It was for this reason that Cameron had introduced the notion of special provisions for all parts of the union. But, as discussed here, that was a proposition was not being embraced by the Labor Party.

At the same time, Cameron’s proposal caused grave consternation among Scottish nationalists, with the outgoing leader, Salmond, accusing the prime minister of “tricking” Scottish voters with promises of enhanced autonomy and special powers over taxes, social welfare, and spending before the vote, only to subsume those pledges as part of a restructuring plan guaranteed to help his own Tory base with English constituents. Addressing this complaint, Cameron was forced to respond with a promise that there would be no linkage between an eventual Scottish self- determination plan and a deal to assuage English conservatives. His office was compelled to issue a statement confirming that Scotland would receive more autonomy with no "ifs or buts."

In practical terms, the scale of constitutional changes that would be necessitated to meet Scotland's needs for greater autonomy and self determination would be significant, and thus promised to be a laborious endeavor.

Editor's Note on the United Kingdom:

Located in Western Europe, between the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, just to the northwest of France, the United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is to be found on the northern one-sixth of the island of Ireland.

It should be noted that the terms "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" cannot correctly be used in an interchangeable manner. Great Britain refers to the island to the west of France and east of Ireland that consists of three related regions -- England, Scotland, and Wales. However, Great Britain is not the proper name of any current sovereign nation state, as it excludes Northern

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 97 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Ireland, which is also part of the country called the United Kingdom. In fact, the official name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Scotland and England were joined in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, to claim the British throne. In 1707, the Act of Union created a new country, Great Britain. Ireland had been conquered by the early 17th century, and the 1801 British Acts of Union established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922, 26 counties of Ireland gained independence from London, with the other six counties remaining in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly were established in 1999. The latter was suspended until May 2007 due to wrangling over the peace process, but devolution was fully completed in March 2010.

In 2013, a process was started to allow for a referendum for Scottish independence. That vote was to take place in 2014. The result of that referendum gave a decisive victory to the pro-union side, effectively squashing the independence thrust at least for a generation in favor of increased Scottish autonomy. It should be noted that in order for Scotland to become independent, regardless of the result of the internal referendum, the British Parliament would have to dissolve the Acts of Union.

At the beginning of the 20th century the British Empire had been the foremost global power, stretching over one-fourth of the earth's surface. But World War I significantly weakened the United Kingdom, and the years following World War II saw the demise of the empire with many colonies gaining independence. Nevertheless, the country remains a major world economic and military power, with considerable political and cultural influence around the world. As the world's first industrialized country, the economy of the United Kingdom is one of the largest in the world as well as one of the strongest in Europe, and is considered to be a leading trading power and financial center.

It should also be noted that the United Kingdom has historically played a leading role in developing parliamentary democracy and in advancing literature and science. The country has a long history as a major player in international affairs and fulfills an important role in the European Union, the United Nations and NATO. The United Kingdom is also an active member of the European Union, although it chose to remain outside the Economic and Monetary Union. The government has said a series of economic criteria must be met before the issue can be put to a referendum.

Editor's Note on the United Kingdom:

Located in Western Europe, between the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, just to the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 98 of 506 pages United Kingdom northwest of France, the United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is to be found on the northern one-sixth of the island of Ireland.

It should be noted that the terms "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" cannot correctly be used in an interchangeable manner. Great Britain refers to the island to the west of France and east of Ireland that consists of three related regions -- England, Scotland, and Wales. However, Great Britain is not the proper name of any current sovereign nation state, as it excludes Northern Ireland, which is also part of the country called the United Kingdom. In fact, the official name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Scotland and England were joined in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, to claim the British throne. In 1707, the Act of Union created a new country, Great Britain. Ireland had been conquered by the early 17th century, and the 1801 British Acts of Union established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922, 26 counties of Ireland gained independence from London, with the other six counties remaining in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly were established in 1999. The latter was suspended until May 2007 due to wrangling over the peace process, but devolution was fully completed in March 2010.

In 2013, a process was started to allow for a referendum for Scottish independence. That vote was to take place in 2014. In order for Scotland to become independent, regardless of the result of the internal referendum, the British Parliament would have to dissolve the Acts of Union.

At the beginning of the 20th century the British Empire had been the foremost global power, stretching over one-fourth of the earth's surface. But World War I significantly weakened the United Kingdom, and the years following World War II saw the demise of the empire with many colonies gaining independence. Nevertheless, the country remains a major world economic and military power, with considerable political and cultural influence around the world. As the world's first industrialized country, the economy of the United Kingdom is one of the largest in the world as well as one of the strongest in Europe, and is considered to be a leading trading power and financial center.

It should also be noted that the United Kingdom has historically played a leading role in developing parliamentary democracy and in advancing literature and science. The country has a long history as a major player in international affairs and fulfills an important role in the European Union, the United Nations and NATO. The United Kingdom is also an active member of the European Union, although it chose to remain outside the Economic and Monetary Union. The government has said a series of economic criteria must be met before the issue can be put to a referendum.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 99 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Last British combat troops exit Afghanistan

In late October 2014, United States and United Kingdom forces exited their main military bases in Helmand province, effectively turning security over to Afghan forces. While the complete withdrawal of United States forces would not ensue until 2016, a phased draw-down was certainly taking place and would continue over the course of the next year. At the same time, this particular exit from Helmand was significant for the United Kingdom as it marked the withdrawal of the last British combat forces from Afghanistan after being in the Afghan combat zone for more than a decade. For its part, the Afghan military said that it was prepared to take responsibility for the security of the country, pointing to the fact that increasingly, support from United States and United Kingdom forces had become more psychological than in the battlefield.

United Kingdom and United States announce plans for counter-terrorism cooperation

During a state visit to the United States, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron joined his American counterpart, President Barack Obama, in announcing a plan for counter-terrorism cooperation. Among the measures to be implemented were the establishment of a counter- terrorism task force and the deployment of more drones aimed at targeting the terror group, Islamic State. In the effort to track terrorists, the two leaders were advocating greater cooperation with technology companies, with an eye on accessing encrypted communications that terrorists may use to plot attacks.

The leaders of the two countries emphasized the closeness of the trans-Atlantic partnership, with both men offering fulsome assurances of their personal friendship as well as the strength and depth of the United Kingdom-United States alliance. Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama made clear that their two countries were committed to sharing information, intelligence, and expertise in the effort to prevent Islamist radicalism and to address "violent extremism" in their respective countries.

Speaking of the threat posed by Islamist terrorists in the wake of the Paris attacks, Prime Minister Cameron noted that his country, along with the United States, faced a "poisonous and fanatical ideology." He said: "We face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants to pervert one of the world's major religions, Islam, and create conflict, terror and death. With our allies we will confront it wherever it appears." President Obama struck a similar tone, saying that his country would work with the United Kingdom and other allies "seamlessly to prevent attacks and defeat these terrorist networks." Explaining the challenge posed by radicalized extremists who carry out acts of terror, he said "This is a problem that causes great heartache and tragedy and destruction. But it is one that ultimately we are going to defeat."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 100 of 506 pages United Kingdom

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Johnson warns of threat to Western shopping centers by Somalia-based terror group al-Shabab

On Feb. 22, 2015, United States Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a warning to Westerners regarding possible attacks on shopping centers by the Somalia-based terror group, al- Shabab. At issue was the emergence of a videotaped message from al-Shabab urging its supporters to carry out attacks at shopping malls in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. An al-Sahab terrorist with a British accent specifically mentioned three large shopping malls -- the Mall of America in Minnesota, the West Edmonton Mall in Canada, and Oxford Street in London -- as desirable targets of attack.

Of significance was the fact that al-Shabab had already carried out a horrific and brutal massacre at the Westgate shopping mall in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi in 2013, killing close to 70 people. Given this record of bloodthirsty violence, the United States homeland security chief was taking this new threat from al-Shabab seriously. In an interview with CNN, Secretary Johnson said, "Anytime a terrorist organisation calls for an attack on a specific place, we've got to take that seriously." He further noted that there was a "new phase" of terrorism looming in which attacks would increasingly come from "independent actors in their homelands."

2015 parliamentary elections in United Kingdom

Citizens of United Kingdom make their choice in parliamentary elections; PM David Cameron's Conservatives secure decisive victory while the Labour Party is routed by nationalists in Scotland - -

Summary:

The citizens of the United Kingdom were set to go to polls to vote in parliamentary elections to be held on May 7, 2015. While the major dividing line in the election stood between the Conservative Party (known colloquially as the Tories) and the Labour Party, the traditional political dichotomy was cross-cut by popular support for the nationalist parties -- the right-wing United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) and the the left-leaning Scottish National Party (SNP).

Going into the election, pre-election polling data suggested that no one party would secure an outright majority, and instead the election was likely to produce yet another "hung parliament." The expected election discussion was to focus on the party receiving the plurality of seats, and thus being positioned to form a coalition government. Despite their contracting support, the Liberal Democrats -- the junior party in the outgoing Conservative-led government -- insisted they would again play a kingmaker role. In truth, however, the Scottish Nationalists were hoping that they

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 101 of 506 pages United Kingdom would gain that kingmaker status even as the major contest would be set against Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Tories and Ed Milliband's Labour Party.

In reality, however, pre-election polling data turned out not to be predictive of what actually happened on election day. Instead, Prime Minister David Cameron and the Conservative Party secured a decisive election victory and a parliamentary majority. For its part, the Labour Party endured a disappointing performance, as well as a rout in Scotland where the Scottish Nationalists won the lion's share of seats. This result augured the end of Ed Milliband's career at the helm of Labour. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats -- the junior partner in the outgoing Tory-led government -- saw a spectacular erosion of support, albeit not complete decimation. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, quickly made clear that it was time for his exit at the helm of his party. Finally, while Nicola Sturgeon could celebrate the triumph of the Scottish Nationalists, it was to be seen what role that party would play in the political environs of parliament.

In Detail:

Parliamentary elections were set to be held in the United Kingdom on May 7, 2015. At issue would be control over the legislative branch of government. In the United Kingdom, the bicameral parliament consists of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords has 788 seats; there are approximately 670 life peers, 92 hereditary peers, and 26 clergy; membership is not static. The House of Commons has 650 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms unless the House is dissolved earlier. Political leadership is based on control over the lower chamber -- the House of Commons -- where the leader of the majority party or coalition is the prime minister and head of government. As such, in the United Kingdom, election action is concentrated on the House of Commons.

Since the last elections, which were held in May 2010, the United Kingdom has been politically led by Prime Minister David Cameron (of the Conservative Party or "Tories") and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (of the Liberal Democrats) in a coalition government. In those 2010 elections, no one party had control over the House of Commons. Cameron's center-right Conservatives garnered a plurality of the vote but not an absolute majority; they entered a coalition government with the third place center-left Liberal Democrats, while second place left-leaning Labour Party moved from being the party in power into the party in opposition. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown stepped down as leader of the Labour Party and moved to the position of backbench member of parliament.

In 2015, it was to be seen which party would be victorious. The main parties expected to contest these electons included the center-right Conservative Party (known colloquially as the Tories), led by Prime Minister Cameron; the center-left Liberal Democrats and junior partner in the outgoing coalition, led by Deputy Prime Minister Clegg; the left-leaning Labour Party, led by Ed Milliband, who was aspiring to become the new prime minister; the right-wing United Kingdom Independent

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 102 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Party (UKIP), led by Nigel Farage; and the left-leaning Scottish National Party, led by Nicola Sturgeon. Also contesting the election would be a number of other nationalist parties, such as the Democratic Unionist Party or DUP (Northern Ireland); Ulster Unionist Party (Northern Ireland); Sinn Fein (Northern Ireland); Social Democratic and Labor Party or SDLP (Northern Ireland); and Party of Wales, also known as Plaid Cymru.

Survey data released in February 2015 ahead of the elections indicated that no one party would likely gain an absolute majority at the polls. The research compiled by by the pollster group, Populus, and the public affairs company, Hanover, suggested that while Labour would lose several seats in Scotland to the Scottish nationalists, it would nonetheless have a better chance of forming a majority leftist or center-left coalition than the Conservative Tories, who would likely have to rely on consolidating their seats with the Liberal Democrats again in order to control parliament. They might also have to look to the Democratic Unionist Party or DUP in Northern Ireland to hold a majority. The Conservatives would themselves lose seats to the right-wing UKIP.

However, polling data by Ashcroft in early February 2015 gave Prime Minister Cameron's Conservative Party a three percentage point lead over Milliband's Labour Party -- 34 percent to 31 percent respectively. In third place was UKIP with 14 percent, followed by the Liberal Democrats with nine percent, and then the Greens with six percent. While this polling result offered a more positive pathway to victory for Prime Minister Cameron, he would still need a far more significant lead to win an outright majority in parliament. As before, were he to secure a plurality of the vote share but not a majority, he would once again have to form a coalition government.

By mid-February 2015, two polls gave contradictory forecasts of the elections to come. The Guardian/ICM poll gave the Conservatives (Tories) 36 percent -- an increase of six points from the previous month and the highest level since 2012. Labour had fallen one point to 32 percent. The Liberal Democrats were at ten percent, UKIP was at nine percent, the Green Party was at seven points. However, a Populus poll gave the Labour Party with lead with 33 percent, with the Conservatives slightly behind with 31 percent.

At the start of March 2015, these trends remained roughly in place with the Tories holding a slight lead over Labour, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP in competition for the right to play "kingmaker" in the case of a "hung parliament." Of note was the consistently significant vote share being carried by the Scottish Nationalists to the detriment of the Labour Party. It was apparent that in the aftermath of the Scottish Independence referendum, and the slow movement in achieving the promises advocated by the pro-unionists, Scottish voters were going their own way in these polls.

Also of note at the start of March 2015 was the fact that a political imbroglio was unfolding. At issue was the fact that the Conservative leader David Cameron would consent to only one 90- minute televised debate ahead of the elections. His rivals from other parties, including Labour

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 103 of 506 pages United Kingdom leader Ed Miliband, Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg, UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett of the Green Party, Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National Party and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru, pilloried the Tory leader for refusing to engage in a thorough competition.

A spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats noted that it was not right for one party to "dictate their terms" regarding the debates. A UKIP spokesperson offered a more painful rebuke, saying, "After praising what a good thing debates were for democracy as recently as 2014, why is David Cameron now acting chicken and running as far away from them as possible?" Meanwhile, Douglas Adams of the Labour Party said, "This is an outrageous attempt from the prime minister to bully the broadcasters into dropping their proposals for a head-to-head debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband."

Meanwhile, another issue was brewing as regards the splitting of the right-wing vote between the Conservatives (Tories) and UKIP. At issue was the South Thanet constituency of southern England, which has been a Conservative stronghold held by the Tories for most of the last 130 years. In 2015, polling data indicated that UKIP's leader, Nigel Farage, had a decent chance of winning this seat and grabbing control of a parliamentary seat long-thought to be a safe win for the Tories. For his part, Farage said if he failed to win the South Thanet seat, he would resign as the leader of UKIP. As stated by Farage, "The consequences of me failing to secure a seat for myself in the Commons would be significant for both myself and the party." He continued, "It is frankly just not credible for me to continue to lead the party without a Westminster seat ... If I fail to win South Thanet, it is curtains for me. I will have to step down."

Tory leader Cameron entered the fray with his own pledge. The prime minister said that if his Conservative Party were to win the forthcoming parliamentary elections, then he would not seek a third term in office. Instead, Cameron said he would serve the full five-year term in government, if his party were to gain victory; however, he would not seek to lead the country beyond that next five-year term. In the interview with BBC News, Cameron said, "There definitely comes a time when a fresh pair of eyes and fresh leadership would be good, and the Conservative Party has some great people coming up." Cameron's pledge did not resonate positively with the main opposition Labor Party. David Alexander, the head of Labor's election campaign, said, "It is typically arrogant of David Cameron to presume a third Tory term in 2020 before the British public have been given the chance to have their say in this election."

Playing to the nationalists and euro-skeptics -- an ultra-conservative voting base that might be vulnerable to transferring their support to UKIP -- Cameron was promising to hold a referendum on European Union membership. The move was yielding results and boosting Cameron's prospects (as noted below) to hold onto his job as his Tories were now advancing a lead over Labor. In response, Miliband was warning voters that a win for the Conservatives could herald the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, with financial and business woes to follow. The fact of the matter, however, was that in late March 2015, the advantage appeared to be with

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 104 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Cameron and the Tories as discussed below.

Polling data by ComRes for ITV News and the Daily Mail newspaper in late March 2015 showed Prime Minister Cameron's Conservatives leading Miliband's Labour Party by four percentage points. The Conservatives were now sporting 36 percent support, with Labour holding onto 32 percent support. UKIP was at 12 percent; the Liberal Democrats were sitting just short of double digits with nine percent; and the Greens had five percent. It was to be seen if this trend would hold until election day.

A televised political debate on April 2, 2015, produced no clear winner, with post-debate data showing that Prime Minister Cameron, Labour leader Miliband, Scottish Nationalist leader Nicola Sturgeon and UKIP leader Farage, all scoring well in terms of performance.

That debate performance was translating into a similarly close pre-election polling results with a Guardian/ICM poll showing Miliband slightly ahead of Cameron -- 25 percent to 24 percent -- in terms of which candidate was viewed as the debate winner. A separate YouGov opinion poll surveyed overall voting preferences and showed Cameron's Conservatives slightly ahead of Miliband's Labour Party -- 37 percent to 35 percent respectively. Meanwhile, a poll for the Daily Mirror publication gave the reverse result with Labour slightly ahead of the Conservatives -- 33 percent to 31 percent respectively.

By mid-April 2015, YouGov polling data showed a close race between Labour and the Conservatives. A series of polls by YouGov showed Labour hovering about 34-35 percent, just slightly ahead of the Conservatives, who had 33 percent. UKIP was in third place with 13 percent, the Liberal Democrats had eight percent and the Greens had five to six percent.

Taken together, these results presaged a close election, with no one party likely to gain an outright parliamentary majority, and with many citizens opting for other parties, such as UKIP and the Scottish Nationalists. That being said, research by Deutsche Bank in mid-April 2015 suggested that while the election would very likely produce no clear winner and thus a "hung parliament," Labour might be better positioned to form a government than the Conservatives.

Labour, in pure numbers, would lose significant seats in Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists due to Scottish outrage that few of the pre-independence referendum promises were kept. But the Scottish Nationalists would nevertheless throw their support behind a Labour-led government, whereas they would shun the Conservatives. While the Liberal Democrats -- the junior partner in Cameron's Conservative-led government -- were actually eroding support; they remained aware that they could play kingmaker in either a Labour-led or a Conservative-led government in the future. By contrast, the Conservative Party was losing support to UKIP, an unlikely coalition partner, while its current coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats was not likely to see a particularly strong performance, and so could provide only limited (albeit crucial) support in a future

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 105 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Conservative-led government. Stated differently, even with its outgoing coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, the road to a coalition would thus be comparatively more difficult for the Conservatives. As such, the conclusion was that in a close election, Labour would have more options of secondary parties in forming a sustainable coalition government.

Labour received a boost in the third week of April 2015 following a final televised debate. Post- debate surveys -- which actually did not include Cameron -- concluded that Miliband, the Labour Party leader, had won the rhetorical exercise. However, that success was not necessarily translating into a boost at the polls. Instead, most polls taken during this period actually gave the Conservatives the edge. The daily YouGov poll gave Labour a one point advantage -- 35 percent - - to the Conservatives with 34 percent, but its assessment in the next few days showed the Conservatives gaining support. A subsequent poll by YouGov showed the two main parties ties at 34 percent, while another one showed the Conservatives capturing the lead and holding 35 percent with Labour at 34 percent. A separate poll by Survation showed a similar result with the Conservatives holding 34 percent and Labour was down to 33 percent.

As April 2015 came to a close, the daily YouGov poll showed the Tories with a single percent lead of 35 percent to 34 percent ahead of Labour. That one percent advantage was also reflected in an Opinium poll for the Observer newspaper that showed the Tories with a single point lead of 34 percent to 33 percent ahead of Labour. But soon thereafter, another daily poll by YouGov showed Labour with the one point lead -- 35 percent -- against the Conservatives, who had 34 percent. As before, neither party could claim it was on track for an outright majority in parliament.

In the final days before the election, the two parties made their final case for support. For Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative party, the emphasis was on their stewardship of the economy, matched by dire warnings of increased taxation, should the country by led by Milliband and Labour. In an attempt to curry favor with the euro-skeptics and xenophobes that the Tories were losing to UKIP, Prime Minister Cameron also promised that, should he hold onto power, a referendum would be held to decide whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union.

The prime minister also mocked a move by Labour leader Milliband to burnish his leadership credentials by producing campaign promises literally engraved "in stone" upon a stone block. To this end, some critics acerbically cast Milliband as the biblical Moses. For his part, Cameron referred to the stone block as a "tombstone," suggesting that Milliband's political ambitions were about to see a death of sorts. But despite Cameron's glib words, the fact of the matter was that his Tories were unable to advance a notable lead against their main rivals, the Labour Party.

It was apparent that Milliband's passionate advocation of the United Kingdom's reverred national health service had strong resonance among a significant portion of the population. Likewise, Milliband had managed to challenge Cameron's claimed accomplishments on the economy by

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 106 of 506 pages United Kingdom reminding frustrated voters that all too often, impressive macroeconomic data points did not translate into improved economic conditions in the quotidian lives of people. Labour's effort to cast the Tories' budget, which cut welfare spending, as mean-spirited also bolstered the argument that the Conservatives were not just indifferent to those struggling to make ends meet, but also balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

Indeed, the final pre-election polls continued to show a close race, consistent with the slate of polling data discussed above. For example, both the daily YouGov poll and the Populus opinion poll showed the two parties tied at 33 percent and 34 percent respectively, while the Survation opinion poll showed Labour Leading by a single point -- 34 percent -- to the Conservatives with 33 percent; the Ashcroft poll had the Conservatives ahead slightly with 32 percent against Labour with 30 percent.

As the voters of the United Kingdom prepared to go to the polls to cast their ballots on May 7, 2015, the political landscape remained static: No one party expected to secure an outright majority, and instead with the election likely to produce yet another "hung parliament." Accordingly, all expectations were that the party receiving the plurality of seats would have the chance to form a coalition government. Despite their contracting support, the Liberal Democrats -- the junior party in the outgoing Conservative-led government -- could again play a kingmaker role. In truth, however, the Liberal Democrats would compete with the UKIP and SNP for that kingmaker status, even as the major contest would be set against Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Tories and Ed Milliband's Labour Party.

Note on Political Procedure:

Typically, the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons is the head of government and is appointed officially by the British monarch. The government (prime minister and cabinet ministers) must maintain the support of a majority of the members of the House of Commons to remain in office.

If an election produces a "hung parliament," there is the possibility of another election being called -- presumably with the objective of garnering a more decisive result in the Round 2 election. However, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it difficult for early elections to be called. In the past, a prime minister could simply choose to dissolve parliament and call an election. Since the advent of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, there are only two routes to an early election. One option would require the parliament to approve the early election with the support of a two-thirds majority. It was conceivable that the two-third majority support would only be secured with some sort of alliance across party lines. The second option would involve a motion of no confidence in the government, requiring only a simple majority. If the no confidence motion passed successfully, a 14-day timeline would follow in which there would be attempts to form a new government. The failure of those attempts failed would facilitate an early election.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 107 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Given those parameters required for early elections to be called, the more attractive (and practical) option would be to form a sustainable coalition government.

Election Results:

With most constituencies reporting their results, it was apparent that Prime Minister David Cameron had won a shock victory and would form a Conservative government.

In contrast to the predictions of the pre-election polling data, which forecast that no one party would likely secure a majority, the voters in United Kingdom had a different idea on election day and instead delivered an outright majority to the Conservative Party. With very few constituencies yet to count at the time of writing, the Tories won 330 seats -- just over half of the 650 parliamentary seats in total needed for a simply majority -- and 37 percent of the total vote share.

The Labour Party saw a slight decline in the overall popular support from what was expected in the pre-election data and and secured about 31 percent of the vote share. The Labour Party was on track to secure approximately 232 seats. It should be noted that Labour's best performance was actually in the London area.

The Liberal Democrats appeared to have been punished at the polls, presumably for being the junior party in the outgoing Cameron-led coalition government. The Liberal Democrats were on track to win less than ten seats and saw about eight percent of the vote share.

The Scottish Nationalists enjoyed an overwhelmingly strong performance at the polls, wiping out the Labour Party from this northern stronghold and winning all but a handful of seats there. Indeed, the SNP garnered 56 seats.

Despite all the nationalist and sometimes vituperative rhetoric, there were only limited gains for UKIP to celebrate. Indeed, UKIP was on track to win only one or two seats.

Other smaller parties, such as the Greens, as well as the regional parties, such as Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, and the Democratic Ulster Union were also expected to gain representation in parliament.

Prime Minister Cameron celebrated the victory of his Conservative Party, which outperformed the polling surveys with impressive results. On the morning of May 8, 2015, he traveled to Buckingham Palace for an audience with Queen Elizabeth II, the head of state in the United Kingdom, where he was asked to lead the next government.

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg resigned as the head of the Liberal Democrats, citing the disastrous performance and "catastrophic losses" of his party at the 2015 polls. He noted that it was the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 108 of 506 pages United Kingdom worst election experience of Liberal Democrats since the founding of the party.

While Labour's defeat was not quite so punishing as the Liberal Democrats' experience at the polls, Ed Milliband nonetheless took responsibility for the losses endured by his party, offered his congratulations to David Cameron, and tendered his resignation, saying, "I am truly sorry I did not succeed."

Nigel Farage of UKIP, who did not win his own seat, indicated there would have to be a fresh leadership contest within the party to set the course moving forward.

The only party leader other than Cameron celebrating was Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish Nationalists, who saw a rout in Scotland, winning almost every seat there. Of course, it was hard to say how the strength of the SNP would translate into political strength since the SNP has made clear it would never work with a Tory government, while the Tories were not in need of assistance in parliament from the Scottish Nationalists to advance their agenda.

Nevertheless, the election result for the Scottish Nationalists, juxtaposed against the Scottish independence referendum earlier in the year, showed that the position of Scotland in the Union would have to change in some form or fashion. It was to be seen how that change might be envisioned. For his part, Prime Minister Cameron quickly foreclosed the notion of another independence referendum for Scotland, saying in an interview with the media: "We had a referendum. Scotland voted emphatically to stay in the United Kingdom. There isn't going to be another referendum."

Meanwhile, with Cameron making a campaign promise regarding a future referendum on the United Kingdom's participation in the European Union, it was also clear that regional relations were on the agenda. Of course, given the close friendship between David Cameron and President Barack Obama in the United States, the trans-Atlantic relationship was expected to remain strong.

Foreign Relations Note on Syrian Crisis

Since early 2011, anti-government protests have spread and escalated across the Arab world; emerged as an addition to the list of countries experiencing unrest in 2011. At first, protesters stopped short of demanding the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, instead demanding greater political freedom and efforts to end corruption. But over time, as protests continued, and as the Assad regime carried out a hardline crackdown on dissent, tensions escalated between the government and the protesters. The result was a full-scale .

As of 2015, Syria was beset by two sets of intersecting challenges -- the ongoing civil war between the Assad regime and rebel forces on one end, and the horrific dangers posed by the notorious

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 109 of 506 pages United Kingdom terror group, Islamic State, which had seized wide swaths of territory in Syria and left an appalling death toll. It was generally understood that the civil war conditions in Syria, to some extent, facilitated the emergence of Islamic State in that country. Syrian President Assad's priority to hold onto power, and thus the center of power in Damascus, had allowed a power chasm to flourish in other parts of the country, which Islamic State has been able to exploit. The result has been a mass exodus of Syrians fleeing the country and seeking refuge in Europe. The so-called migrant influx in Europe has raised questions as to how to legally and humanely deal with a burgeoning humanitarian refugee crisis.

Following devastating terror attacks by the Islamist terror network that killed hundreds of Russian and French citizens in the autumn of 2015, Russia and France intensified their efforts to go after Islamic State targets in Syria . At issue was the fact that Islamic State was claiming responsibility for a bomb that exploded on a Russian jet flying from the Egyptian resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh, killing more than 200 Russians on board. Also at issue was the Islamic State claim of responsibility for a spate of appalling terror attacks in the French capital city of Paris, which killed approximately 130 people. Islamic State made clear that its brutal acts were being carried out because of the international community's engagement in Syria. Islamic State also promised that attacks were to come in the United States and other Western countries.

In response to what could only be understood as acts of war by Islamic State, in November 2015, Russian and French warplanes had wasted no time before stepping up their respective air campaigns in Syria, targeting Islamic State targets in the terror group's stronghold of Raqqa in a sustained manner. France also deployed its air craft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, to the Middle Eastern region for the purpose of supporting the effort against Islamic State. Of note was the fact that France was not limiting its air strike campaign from the Charles de Gaulle only to Islamic State targets in Syria, such as the terror group stronghold of Raqqa; indeed, France soon expanded its scope to hit Islamic State targets in Ramadi and Mosul in Iraq.

While the United Kingdom was not, at the time, engaged in the Syrian crisis, the British government gave France the use of its air base in Cyprus from which it could strike Islamist terror groups in the region. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron said that his country would provide air-to-air refueling services and that he would recommend that the British parliament vote in favor of the his country joining the United States-led air campaign to strike Islamic State targets.

To that end, a vote in the United Kingdom's House of Commons on Dec. 3, 2015 ended with overwhelming support for that country to enter the multilateral air campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Following more than 10 hours of passionate debate in the British legislative chamber, 397 members of parliament voted in favor of the measure while 223 members of parliament voted against it. The vote tally was bipartisan with 66 members of parliament from the Labour Party siding with Prime Minister Cameron's Conservatives. Prime Minister Cameron hailed the vote outcome, saying that the House of Commons had "taken the right decision to keep the country

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 110 of 506 pages United Kingdom safe." British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said the vote was a move in the right direction as he declared, "Military strikes alone won't help Syria, won't keep us safe from Daesh. But this multi-strand approach will." Of course, the vote outcome generated outrage from both inside and outside parliament. Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, insisted that the United Kingdom's engagement in Syria would only make the country less safe. Outside the parliamentary buildings, anti-war protesters from various groups including the "Stop the War" Coalition gathered to oppose the move.

-- January 2016

Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, www.countrywatch.com . General research sources listed in Bibliography. Supplementary sources include: The BBC News. URL: The British Embassy. Washington, DC. URL: Financial Times. URL: The Prime Minister's Home Page. "10 Downing Street." URL: ; The Independent; The Guardian; The Daily Mirror; The Daily Telegragh.

Political Risk Index

Political Risk Index

The Political Risk Index is a proprietary index measuring the level of risk posed to governments, corporations, and investors, based on a myriad of political and economic factors. The Political Risk Index is calculated using an established methodology by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on varied criteria* including the following consideration: political stability, political representation, democratic accountability, freedom of expression, security and crime, risk of conflict, human development, jurisprudence and regulatory transparency, economic risk, foreign investment considerations, possibility of sovereign default, and corruption. Scores are assigned from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the highest political risk, while a score of 10 marks the lowest political risk. Stated differently, countries with the lowest scores pose the greatest political risk. A score of 0 marks the most dire level of political risk and an ultimate

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 111 of 506 pages United Kingdom nadir, while a score of 10 marks the lowest possible level of political risk, according to this proprietary index. Rarely will there be scores of 0 or 10 due to the reality that countries contain complex landscapes; as such, the index offers a range of possibilities ranging from lesser to greater risk.

Country Assessment

Afghanistan 2

Albania 4

Algeria 6

Andorra 9

Angola 4

Antigua 8

Argentina 4

Armenia 4-5

Australia 9.5

Austria 9.5

Azerbaijan 4

Bahamas 8.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 112 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Bahrain 6

Bangladesh 3.5

Barbados 8.5-9

Belarus 3

Belgium 9

Belize 8

Benin 5

Bhutan 5

Bolivia 5

Bosnia-Herzegovina 4

Botswana 7

Brazil 7

Brunei 7

Bulgaria 6

Burkina Faso 4

Burma (Myanmar) 4.5

Burundi 3

Cambodia 4

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 113 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Cameroon 5

Canada 9.5

Cape Verde 6

Central African Republic 3

Chad 4

Chile 9

China 7

China: 8

China: Taiwan 8

Colombia 7

Comoros 5

Congo DRC 3

Congo RC 4

Costa Rica 8

Cote d'Ivoire 4.5

Croatia 7

Cuba 4-4.5

Cyprus 5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 114 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Czech Republic 8

Denmark 9.5

Djibouti 4.5

Dominica 7

Dominican Republic 6

East Timor 5

Ecuador 6

Egypt 5

El Salvador 7

Equatorial Guinea 4

Eritrea 3

Estonia 8

Ethiopia 4

Fiji 5

Finland 9

Fr.YugoslavRep.Macedonia 5

France 9

Gabon 5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 115 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Gambia 4

Georgia 5

Germany 9.5

Ghana 6

Greece 4.5-5

Grenada 8

Guatemala 6

Guinea 3.5

Guinea-Bissau 3.5

Guyana 4.5

Haiti 3.5

Holy See (Vatican) 9

Honduras 4.5-5

Hungary 7

Iceland 8.5-9

India 7.5-8

Indonesia 6

Iran 3.5-4

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 116 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Iraq 2.5-3

Ireland 8-8.5

Israel 8

Italy 7.5

Jamaica 6.5-7

Japan 9

Jordan 6.5

Kazakhstan 6

Kenya 5

Kiribati 7

Korea, North 1

Korea, South 8

Kosovo 4

Kuwait 7

Kyrgyzstan 4.5

Laos 4.5

Latvia 7

Lebanon 5.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 117 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Lesotho 6

Liberia 3.5

Libya 2

Liechtenstein 9

Lithuania 7.5

Luxembourg 9

Madagascar 4

Malawi 4

Malaysia 8

Maldives 4.5

Mali 4

Malta 8

Marshall Islands 6

Mauritania 4.5-5

Mauritius 7

Mexico 6.5

Micronesia 7

Moldova 5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 118 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Monaco 9

Mongolia 5

Montenegro 6

Morocco 6.5

Mozambique 4.5-5

Namibia 6.5-7

Nauru 6

Nepal 4

Netherlands 9.5

New Zealand 9.5

Nicaragua 5

Niger 4

Nigeria 4.5

Norway 9.5

Oman 7

Pakistan 3.5

Palau 7

Panama 7.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 119 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Papua New Guinea 5

Paraguay 6.5-7

Peru 7

Philippines 6

Poland 8

Portugal 7.5

Qatar 7.5

Romania 5.5

Russia 5.5

Rwanda 5

Saint Kitts and Nevis 8

Saint Lucia 8

Saint Vincent and Grenadines 8

Samoa 7

San Marino 9

Sao Tome and Principe 5.5

Saudi Arabia 6

Senegal 6

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 120 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Serbia 5

Seychelles 7

Sierra Leone 4.5

Singapore 9

Slovak Republic (Slovakia) 8

Slovenia 8

Solomon Islands 6

Somalia 2

South Africa 7

Spain 7.5

Sri Lanka 5

Sudan 3.5

Suriname 5

Swaziland 5

Sweden 9.5

Switzerland 9.5

Syria 2

Tajikistan 4.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 121 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Tanzania 6

Thailand 6.5

Togo 4.5

Tonga 7

Trinidad and Tobago 8

Tunisia 6

Turkey 7

Turkmenistan 4.5

Tuvalu 7

Uganda 6

Ukraine 3.5-4

United Arab Emirates 7

United Kingdom 9

United States 9.5

Uruguay 8

Uzbekistan 4

Vanuatu 7

Venezuela 4

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 122 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Vietnam 5

Yemen 3

Zambia 4.5

Zimbabwe 3

*Methodology

The Political Risk Index is calculated by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on the combined scoring of varied criteria as follows --

1. political stability (record of peaceful transitions of power, ability of government to stay in office and carry out policies as a result of productive executive-legislative relationship, perhaps with popular support vis a vis risk of government collapse)

2. political representation (right of suffrage, free and fair elections, multi-party participation, and influence of foreign powers)

3. democratic accountability (record of respect for political rights, human rights, and civil liberties, backed by constitutional protections)

4. freedom of expression (media freedom and freedom of expression, right to dissent or express political opposition, backed by constitutional protections)

5. security and crime (the degree to which a country has security mechanisms that ensures safety of citizens and ensures law and order, without resorting to extra-judicial measures)

6. risk of conflict (the presence of conflict; record of coups or civil disturbances; threat of war; threats posed by internal or external tensions; threat or record of terrorism or insurgencies)

7. human development (quality of life; access to education; socio-economic conditions; systemic concern for the status of women and children)

8. jurisprudence and regulatory transparency (the impartiality of the legal system, the degree of transparency within the regulatory system of a country and the durability of that structure)

9. economic conditions (economic stability, investment climate, degree of nationalization of

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 123 of 506 pages United Kingdom industries, property rights, labor force development)

10. corruption ( the degree of corruption in a country and/or efforts by the government to address graft and other irregularities)

Editor's Note:

As of 2015, the current climate of upheaval internationally -- both politically and economically -- has affected the ratings for several countries across the world.

North Korea, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Zimbabwe -- retain their low rankings.

Several Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq and were downgraded in recent years due to political instability occurring in the "season of unrest" sweeping the region since 2011 and continuing today. The worst downgrades affected Syria where civil war is at play, along with the rampage of terror being carried out by Islamist terrorists who have also seized control over part of Syrian territory. Iraq has been further downgraded due to the rampage of Islamist terrorists and their takeover of wide swaths of Iraqi territory. Libya has also been downgraded further due to its slippage into failed state status; at issue in Libya have been an ongoing power struggle between rival . Yemen continues to hold steady with a poor ranking due to continued unrest at the hands of Houthi rebels, secessinionists, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula, and Islamic State. Its landscape has been further complicated by the fact that it is now the site of a proxy war between Iran and . Conversely, Tunisia and Egypt have seen slight upgrades as these countries stabilize.

In Africa, Zimbabwe continues to be one of the bleak spots of the world with the Mugabe regime effectively destroying the country's once vibrant economy, and miring Zimbabwe with an exceedingly high rate of inflation, debilitating unemployment, devolving public services, and critical food shortages; rampant crime and political oppression round out the landscape. Somalia also sports a poor ranking due to the continuing influence of the terror group, al-Shabab, which was not operating across the border in Kenya. On the upside, Nigeria, which was ineffectively dealing with the threat posed by the terror group, Boko Haram, was making some strides on the national security front with its new president at the helm. Mali was slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and Islamists. But the Central African Republic was downgraded due to the takeover of the government by Muslim Seleka rebels and a continued state of lawlessness in that country. -- the world's newest nation state -- has not been officially included in this assessment; however, it can be unofficially assessed to be in the vicinity of "3" due to its manifold political and economic challenges. Burkina Faso, Burundi and Guinea have been downgraded due to political

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 124 of 506 pages United Kingdom unrest, with Guinea also having to deal with the burgeoning Ebola crisis.

In Europe, Ukraine was downgraded due to the unrest facing that country following its Maidan revolution that triggered a pro-Russian uprising in the eastern part of the country. Russia was also implicated in the Ukrainian crisis due to its intervention on behalf of pro-Russian separatists, as well as its annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Strains on the infrastructure of southern and eastern European countries, such as Serbia, Croatia, and Hungary, due to an influx of refugees was expected to pose social and economic challenges, and slight downgrades were made accordingly. So too, a corruption crisis for the Romanian prime minister has affected the ranking of that country. Meanwhile, the rankings for Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy were maintained due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation, was earlier downgraded due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, no further downgrade was added since the country was able to successfully forge a bailout rescue deal with creditor institutions. Cyprus' exposure to Greek banks yielded a downgrade in its case.

In , Nepal was downgraded in response to continuous political instability and a constitutional crisis that prevails well after landmark elections were held. Both India and China retain their rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic representation and accountability. Increasing violence and political instability in Pakistan resulted in a downgrade for this country's already low rating. Meanwhile, Singapore retained its strong rankings due to its continued effective stewardship of the economy and political stability.

In the Americas, ongoing political and economic woes, as well as crime and corruption have affected the rankings for Mexico , Guatemala, and Brazil. Argentina was downgraded due to its default on debt following the failure of talks with bond holders. Venezuela was downgraded due to its mix of market unfriendly policies and political oppression. For the moment, the United States maintains a strong ranking along with Canada, and most of the English-speaking countries of the ; however, a renewed debt ceiling crisis could cause the United States to be downgraded in a future edition. Finally, a small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States.

Source:

Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com

Updated:

2015

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 125 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Political Stability

Political Stability

The Political Stability Index is a proprietary index measuring a country's level of stability, standard of good governance, record of constitutional order, respect for human rights, and overall strength of democracy. The Political StabilityIndex is calculated using an established methodology* by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on a given country's record of peaceful transitions of power, ability of a government to stay in office and carry out its policies vis a vis risk credible risks of government collapse. Threats include coups, domestic violence and instability, terrorism, etc. This index measures the dynamic between the quality of a country's government and the threats that can compromise and undermine stability. Scores are assigned from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the lowest level of political stability and an ultimate nadir, while a score of 10 marks the highest level of political stability possible, according to this proprietary index. Rarely will there be scores of 0 or 10 due to the reality that countries contain complex landscapes; as such, the index offers a range of possibilities ranging from lesser to greater stability.

Country Assessment

Afghanistan 2

Albania 4.5-5

Algeria 5

Andorra 9.5

Angola 4.5-5

Antigua 8.5-9

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 126 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Argentina 7

Armenia 5.5

Australia 9.5

Austria 9.5

Azerbaijan 5

Bahamas 9

Bahrain 6

Bangladesh 4.5

Barbados 9

Belarus 4

Belgium 9

Belize 8

Benin 5

Bhutan 5

Bolivia 6

Bosnia-Herzegovina 5

Botswana 8.5

Brazil 7

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 127 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Brunei 8

Bulgaria 7.5

Burkina Faso 4

Burma (Myanmar) 4.5

Burundi 4

Cambodia 4.5-5

Cameroon 6

Canada 9.5

Cape Verde 6

Central African Republic 3

Chad 4.5

Chile 9

China 7

China: Hong Kong 8

China: Taiwan 8

Colombia 7.5

Comoros 5

Congo DRC 3

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 128 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Congo RC 5

Costa Rica 9.5

Cote d'Ivoire 3.5

Croatia 7.5

Cuba 4.5

Cyprus 8

Czech Republic 8.5

Denmark 9.5

Djibouti 5

Dominica 8.5

Dominican Republic 7

East Timor 5

Ecuador 7

Egypt 4.5-5

El Salvador 7.5-8

Equatorial Guinea 4.5

Eritrea 4

Estonia 9

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 129 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Ethiopia 4.5

Fiji 5

Finland 9

Fr.YugoslavRep.Macedonia 6.5

France 9

Gabon 5

Gambia 4.5

Georgia 5

Germany 9.5

Ghana 7

Greece 6

Grenada 8.5

Guatemala 7

Guinea 3.5-4

Guinea-Bissau 4

Guyana 6

Haiti 3.5-4

Holy See (Vatican) 9.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 130 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Honduras 6

Hungary 7.5

Iceland 9

India 8

Indonesia 7

Iran 3.5

Iraq 2.5

Ireland 9.5

Israel 8

Italy 8.5-9

Jamaica 8

Japan 9

Jordan 6

Kazakhstan 6

Kenya 5

Kiribati 8

Korea, North 2

Korea, South 8.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 131 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Kosovo 5.5

Kuwait 7

Kyrgyzstan 5

Laos 5

Latvia 8.5

Lebanon 5.5

Lesotho 5

Liberia 3.5-4

Libya 2

Liechtenstein 9

Lithuania 9

Luxembourg 9.5

Madagascar 4

Malawi 5

Malaysia 8

Maldives 4.5-5

Mali 4.5-5

Malta 9

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 132 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Marshall Islands 8

Mauritania 6

Mauritius 8

Mexico 6.5-7

Micronesia 8

Moldova 5.5

Monaco 9.5

Mongolia 6.5-7

Montenegro 8

Morocco 7

Mozambique 5

Namibia 8.5

Nauru 8

Nepal 4.5

Netherlands 9.5

New Zealand 9.5

Nicaragua 6

Niger 4.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 133 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Nigeria 4.5

Norway 9.5

Oman 7

Pakistan 3

Palau 8

Panama 8.5

Papua New Guinea 6

Paraguay 8

Peru 7.5

Philippines 6

Poland 9

Portugal 9

Qatar 7

Romania 7

Russia 6

Rwanda 5

Saint Kitts and Nevis 9

Saint Lucia 9

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 134 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Saint Vincent and Grenadines 9

Samoa 8

San Marino 9.5

Sao Tome and Principe 7

Saudi Arabia 6

Senegal 7.5

Serbia 6.5

Seychelles 8

Sierra Leone 4.5

Singapore 9.5

Slovak Republic (Slovakia) 8.5

Slovenia 9

Solomon Islands 6.5-7

Somalia 2

South Africa 7.5

Spain 9

Sri Lanka 5

Sudan 3

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 135 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Suriname 5

Swaziland 5

Sweden 9.5

Switzerland 9.5

Syria 2

Tajikistan 4.5

Tanzania 6

Thailand 6

Togo 5

Tonga 7

Trinidad and Tobago 8

Tunisia 5

Turkey 7.5

Turkmenistan 5

Tuvalu 8.5

Uganda 6

Ukraine 3.5-4

United Arab Emirates 7

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 136 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United Kingdom 9

United States 9

Uruguay 8.5

Uzbekistan 4

Vanuatu 8.5

Venezuela 4.5-5

Vietnam 4.5

Yemen 2.5

Zambia 5

Zimbabwe 3

*Methodology

The Political Stability Index is calculated by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on the combined scoring of varied criteria as follows --

1. record of peaceful transitions of power ( free and fair elections; adherence to political accords)

2. record of democratic representation, presence of instruments of democracy; systemic accountability

3. respect for human rights; respect for civil rights

4. strength of the system of jurisprudence, adherence to constitutional order, and good governance

5. ability of a government to stay in office and carry out its policies vis a vis risk credible risks of government collapse (i.e. government stability versus a country being deemed "ungovernable")

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 137 of 506 pages United Kingdom

6. threat of coups, insurgencies, and insurrection

7. level of unchecked crime and corruption

8. risk of terrorism and other threats to national security

9. relationship with regional powers and international community; record of bilateral or multilateral cooperation

10. degree of economic strife (i.e. economic and financial challenges)

Editor's Note:

As of 2015, the current climate of upheaval internationally -- both politically and economically -- has affected the ratings for several countries across the world. The usual suspects -- North Korea, Afghanistan, and Somalia -- retain their low rankings. The reclusive and ultra-dictatorial North Korean regime, which has terrified the world with its nuclear threats, has exhibited internal instability. Of note was a cut-throat purge of hundreds of high ranking officials deemed to be a threat to Kim Jung-un. Despite their attempts to recover from years of lawlessness, war, and warlordism, both Afghanistan and Somalia continue to be beset by terrorism and turmoil. In Afghanistan, while international forces have seen success in the effort against the terror group, al- Qaida, the other Islamist extremist group, the Taliban, continues to carry out a vicious insurgency using terrorism. In Somalia, while the government attempts to do the nation's business, the terror group, al-Shabab continues to make its presence known not only in Somalia, but across the border into Kenya with devastating results/ Also in this category is Iraq, which continues to be rocked by horrific violence and terrorism at the hands of Islamic State, which has taken over wide swaths of Iraqi territory.

Syria, Libya, and Yemen have been added to this unfortunate echelon of the world's most politically unstable countries. Syria has been mired by the twin hazards of 1. a civil war as rebels oppose the Assad regime; and 2. the rampage of terror being carried out by Islamic State, which also seized control over vast portions of Syrian territory. Meanwhile, the post-Qaddhafi landscape of Libya has devolved into chaos as rival militias battle for control -- the elected government of the country notwithstanding. Rounding out this grim triad is Yemen, which was dealing with a Houthi rebellion, secesionists in the south, as well as the threat of terrorism from al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula as well as Islamic State, while also being the site of a proxy war between Shi'a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia.

Meanwhile, several Middle Eastern and North African countries, such as Tunisia, Egypt, and

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 138 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Bahrain were downgraded in recent years due to political instability occurring in the "season of unrest" sweeping the region since 2011 and continuing today. All three of these countries have stabilized in recent years and have been upgraded accordingly. In Bahrain, the landscape had calmed. In Egypt, the secular military-backed government has generated criticism for its crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood; however, the country had ratified the presidency via democratic elections and were on track to hold parliamentary elections as the country moved along the path of democratization. Perhaps the most impressive story was coming out of Tunisia -- the country whose Jasmine Revolution sparked the entire Arab Spring -- and where after a few years of strife, a new progressive constitution was passed into law and a secular government had been elected to power. Tunisia, Egypt, and Bahrain have seen slight upgrades as these countries stabilize.

In Africa, the Central African Republic was downgraded the previous year due to the takeover of the government by Muslim Seleka rebels. Although the country has been trying to emerge from this crisis, the fact of the matter was that it was difficult to halt the precipitous decline into lawlessness in that country. Zimbabwe has maintained its consistently poor ranking due to the dictatorial regime of Mugabe, who continues to hold a tight grip on power, intimidates the opposition, squashes dissent, and oppresses the white farmer population of the country. Moving in a slightly improved direction is Nigeria, which has sported abysmal ratings due to the government's fecklessness in dealing with the threat posed by the Islamist terror group, Boko Haram. Under its newly-elected government, there appears to be more of a concerted effort to make national security a priority action item. Mali was also slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and Islamists. Political instability has visited Burkina Faso and Burundi as the leaders of those countries attempted to side-step constitutional limits to hold onto power. In Burundi, an attempted coup ensued but quelled, and the president won a (questionable) new term in office; unrest has since punctuated the landscape. In Burkina Faso, the political climate has turned stormy as a result of a successful coup that ended the rule of the president, and then a putsch against the transitional government. These two African countries have been downgraded as a result.

It should be noted that the African country of South Sudan -- the world's newest nation state -- has not been officially included in this assessment; however, it can be unofficially assessed to be in the vicinity of "3" due to its manifold political and economic challenges. Guinea has endured poor rankings throughout, but was slightly downgraded further over fears of social unrest and the Ebola heath crisis.

In Europe, Ukraine was downgraded due to the unrest facing that country following its Maidan revolution that triggered a pro-Russian uprising in the eastern part of the country. Russia was also implicated in the Ukrainian crisis due to its intervention on behalf of pro-Russian separatists, as well as its annexation of the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Serbia and Albania were slightly downgraded due to eruptions of unrest, while Romania was slightly downgraded on the basis of

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 139 of 506 pages United Kingdom corruption charges against the prime minister. Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy were downgraded due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation, was downgraded the previous year due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, the country successfully forged a rescue deal with international creditors and stayed within the Euro zone. Greek voters rewarded the hitherto unknown upstart party at the polls for these efforts. As a result, Greece was actually upgraded slightly as it proved to the world that it could endure the political and economic storms. Meanwhile, Germany, France, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, and the Scandinavian countries continue to post impressive ranking consistent with these countries' strong records of democracy, freedom, and peaceful transfers of power.

In Asia, Nepal was downgraded in response to continuous political instability well after landmark elections that prevails today. Cambodia was very slighly downgraded due to post-election instability that has resulted in occasional flares of violence. Despite the "trifecta of tragedy" in Japan in 2011 -- the earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the resulting nuclear crisis -- and the appreciable destabilization of the economic and political terrain therein, this country has only slightly been downgraded. Japan's challenges have been assessed to be transient, the government remains accountable, and there is little risk of default. Both India and China retain their rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic representation and accountability. Increasing violence and political instability in Pakistan resulted in a downgrade for this country's already low rating.

In the Americas, Haiti retained its downgraded status due to ongoing political and economic woes. Mexico was downgraded due to its alarming rate of crime. Guatemala was downgraded due to charges of corruption, the arrest of the president, and uncertainty over the outcome of elections. Brazil was downgraded due to the corruption charges erupting on the political landscape, the stalling of the economy, and the increasingly loud calls for the impeachment of President Rousseff. Argentina was downgraded due to its default on debt following the failure of talks with bond holders. Venezuela was downgraded due to the fact that the country's post-Chavez government is every bit as autocratic and nationalistic, but even more inclined to oppress its political opponents. Colombia was upgraded slightly due to efforts aimed at securing a peace deal with the FARC insurgents. A small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States. Meanwhile, the United States, Canada, Costa Rica, Panama, and most of the English-speaking countries of the Caribbean retain their strong rankings due to their records of stability and peaceful transfers of power.

In the Pacific, Fiji was upgraded due to its return to constitutional order and democracy with the holding of the first elections in eight years.

In Oceania, Maldives has been slightly downgraded due to the government's continued and rather relentless persecution of the country's former pro-democracy leader - former President Nasheed.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 140 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Source:

Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com

Updated:

2015

Freedom Rankings

Freedom Rankings

Freedom in the World

Editor's Note: This ranking by Freedom House quantifies political freedom and civil liberties into a single combined index on each sovereign country's level of freedom and liberty. The initials "PR" and "CL" stand for Political Rights and Civil Liberties, respectively. The number 1 represents the most free countries and the number 7 represents the least free. Several countries fall in the continuum in between. The freedom ratings reflect an overall judgment based on survey results.

Trend Country PR CL Freedom Status Arrow

Afghanistan 6 ? 6 Not Free

Albania* 3 3 Partly Free

Algeria 6 5 Not Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 141 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Andorra* 1 1 Free

Angola 6 5 Not Free

Antigua and Barbuda* 3 ? 2 Free

Argentina* 2 2 Free

Armenia 6 4 Partly Free

Australia* 1 1 Free

Austria* 1 1 Free

Azerbaijan 6 5 Not Free

Bahamas* 1 1 Free

Bahrain 6 ? 5 Not Free ?

Bangladesh* 3 ? 4 Partly Free

Barbados* 1 1 Free

Belarus 7 6 Not Free

Belgium* 1 1 Free

Belize* 1 2 Free

Benin* 2 2 Free

Bhutan 4 5 Partly Free

Bolivia* 3 3 Partly Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 142 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Bosnia-Herzegovina* 4 3 Partly Free

Botswana* 3 ? 2 Free

Brazil* 2 2 Free

Brunei 6 5 Not Free

Bulgaria* 2 2 Free

Burkina Faso 5 3 Partly Free

Burma 7 7 Not Free

Burundi* 4 5 Partly Free ⇑

Cambodia 6 5 Not Free ⇓

Cameroon 6 6 Not Free

Canada* 1 1 Free

Cape Verde* 1 1 Free

Central African Republic 5 5 Partly Free

Chad 7 6 Not Free

Chile* 1 1 Free

China 7 6 Not Free

Colombia* 3 4 Partly Free

Comoros* 3 4 Partly Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 143 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Congo (Brazzaville ) 6 5 Not Free ⇓

Congo (Kinshasa) 6 6 Not Free ⇓

Costa Rica* 1 1 Free

Cote d’Ivoire 6 5 Not Free

Croatia* 1 ? 2 Free

Cuba 7 6 Not Free

Cyprus* 1 1 Free

Czech Republic* 1 1 Free

Denmark* 1 1 Free

Djibouti 5 5 Partly Free

Dominica* 1 1 Free

Dominican Republic* 2 2 Free ⇓

East Timor* 3 4 Partly Free

Ecuador* 3 3 Partly Free

Egypt 6 5 Not Free

El Salvador* 2 3 Free

Equatorial Guinea 7 7 Not Free

Eritrea 7 7 ? Not Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 144 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Estonia* 1 1 Free

Ethiopia 5 5 Partly Free ⇓

Fiji 6 4 Partly Free

Finland* 1 1 Free

France* 1 1 Free

Gabon 6 5 ? Not Free ?

The Gambia 5 5 ? Partly Free

Georgia 4 4 Partly Free

Germany* 1 1 Free

Ghana* 1 2 Free

Greece* 1 2 Free

Grenada* 1 2 Free

Guatemala* 4 ? 4 Partly Free

Guinea 7 6 ? Not Free

Guinea-Bissau* 4 4 Partly Free

Guyana* 2 3 Free

Haiti* 4 5 Partly Free

Honduras 4 ? 4 ? Partly Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 145 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Hungary* 1 1 Free

Iceland* 1 1 Free

India* 2 3 Free

Indonesia* 2 3 Free

Iran 6 6 Not Free ⇓

Iraq 5 ? 6 Not Free

Ireland* 1 1 Free

Israel* 1 2 Free

Italy* 1 2 Free

Jamaica* 2 3 Free

Japan* 1 2 Free

Jordan 6 ? 5 Not Free ?

Kazakhstan 6 5 Not Free ⇓

Kenya 4 4 ? Partly Free

Kiribati* 1 1 Free

Kosovo 5 ? 4 ? Partly Free ?

Kuwait 4 4 Partly Free

Kyrgyzstan 6 ? 5 ? Not Free ?

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 146 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Laos 7 6 Not Free

Latvia* 2 1 Free

Lebanon 5 3 ? Partly Free

Lesotho* 3 ? 3 Partly Free ?

Liberia* 3 4 Partly Free

Libya 7 7 Not Free

Liechtenstein* 1 1 Free

Lithuania* 1 1 Free

Luxembourg* 1 1 Free

Macedonia* 3 3 Partly Free ⇑

Madagascar 6 ? 4 ? Partly Free

Malawi* 3 ? 4 Partly Free

Malaysia 4 4 Partly Free

Maldives* 3 ? 4 Partly Free

Mali* 2 3 Free

Malta* 1 1 Free ⇓

Marshall Islands* 1 1 Free

Mauritania 6 5 Not Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 147 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Mauritius* 1 2 Free

Mexico* 2 3 Free

Micronesia* 1 1 Free

Moldova* 3 ? 4 Partly Free

Monaco* 2 1 Free

Mongolia* 2 2 Free ⇑

Montenegro* 3 2 ? Free ?

Morocco 5 4 Partly Free ⇓

Mozambique 4 ? 3 Partly Free

Namibia* 2 2 Free

Nauru* 1 1 Free

Nepal 4 4 Partly Free

Netherlands* 1 1 Free

New Zealand* 1 1 Free

Nicaragua* 4 4 ? Partly Free

Niger 5 ? 4 Partly Free

Nigeria 5 4 Partly Free ⇓

North Korea 7 7 Not Free ⇓

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 148 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Norway* 1 1 Free

Oman 6 5 Not Free

Pakistan 4 5 Partly Free

Palau* 1 1 Free

Panama* 1 2 Free

Papua New Guinea* 4 3 Partly Free

Paraguay* 3 3 Partly Free

Peru* 2 3 Free

Philippines 4 3 Partly Free ⇓

Poland* 1 1 Free

Portugal* 1 1 Free

Qatar 6 5 Not Free

Romania* 2 2 Free

Russia 6 5 Not Free ⇓

Rwanda 6 5 Not Free

Saint Kitts and Nevis* 1 1 Free

Saint Lucia* 1 1 Free

Saint Vincent and

Grenadines* 2 1 Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 149 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Samoa* 2 2 Free

San Marino* 1 1 Free

Sao Tome and Principe* 2 2 Free

Saudi Arabia 7 6 Not Free

Senegal* 3 3 Partly Free

Serbia* 2 ? 2 Free

Seychelles* 3 3 Partly Free

Sierra Leone* 3 3 Partly Free

Singapore 5 4 Partly Free

Slovakia* 1 1 Free ⇓

Slovenia* 1 1 Free

Solomon Islands 4 3 Partly Free

Somalia 7 7 Not Free

South Africa* 2 2 Free

South Korea* 1 2 Free

Spain* 1 1 Free

Sri Lanka* 4 4 Partly Free

Sudan 7 7 Not Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 150 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Suriname* 2 2 Free

Swaziland 7 5 Not Free

Sweden* 1 1 Free

Switzerland* 1 1 Free ⇓

Syria 7 6 Not Free

Taiwan* 1 ? 2 ? Free

Tajikistan 6 5 Not Free

Tanzania 4 3 Partly Free

Thailand 5 4 Partly Free

Togo 5 4 ? Partly Free

Tonga 5 3 Partly Free

Trinidad and Tobago* 2 2 Free

Tunisia 7 5 Not Free

Turkey* 3 3 Partly Free ⇓

Turkmenistan 7 7 Not Free

Tuvalu* 1 1 Free

Uganda 5 4 Partly Free

Ukraine* 3 2 Free

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 151 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United Arab Emirates 6 5 Not Free

United Kingdom* 1 1 Free

United States* 1 1 Free

Uruguay* 1 1 Free

Uzbekistan 7 7 Not Free

Vanuatu* 2 2 Free

Venezuela 5 ? 4 Partly Free

Vietnam 7 5 Not Free ⇓

Yemen 6 ? 5 Not Free ?

Zambia* 3 4 ? Partly Free

Zimbabwe 6 ? 6 Not Free

Methodology: PR and CL stand for political rights and civil liberties, respectively; 1 represents the most free and 7 the least free rating. The ratings reflect an overall judgment based on survey results.

? ? up or down indicates a change in political rights, civil liberties, or status since the last survey. ⇑ ⇓ up or down indicates a trend of positive or negative changes that took place but that were not sufficient to result in a change in political rights or civil liberties ratings of 1-7.

* indicates a country’s status as an electoral democracy.

Source:

This data is derived from the latest edition of Freedom House’s Freedom in the World 2010 edition.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 152 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Available at URL: http://www.freedomhouse.org

Updated:

Reviewed in 2015

Human Rights

Overview of Human Rights in United Kingdom

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary form of government. Citizens participate in free and fair elections to pick their representatives. Government procedures are considered to be transparent and democratic. The human rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom are generally respected and the country has a very good record of human rights.

When occasional abuses are reported, the law provides effective means for addressing them. Police are known to occasionally abuse detainees and others in custody. Overcrowding, high rates of self- inflicted deaths, and inadequate prison conditions continue to be areas of concern. Acts of violence and discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, as well as children, are societal concerns. Human trafficking is also a problem.

Note: Several thousands of British troops are stationed in Iraq. Allegations have arrisen that some of these troops have participated in unlawful killings, torture and ill-treatment of Iraqi civilians. In March 2008, the British military acknowledged that it violated the human rights of an Iraqi man in its custody who ultimately died; it also admitted violations against other detained Iraqis. As well, following terror attacks on London's underground train system, a Brazilian national was killed by police erroneously. His killing appeared to have been the result of overly-zealous police action, aimed at preventing further terror attacks. The same criticisms of over-zealous police action has been used periodically to criticize the United Kingdom for its treatment of people suspected of links with Irish nationalists.

Human Development Index (HDI) Rank:

See full list in Social Overview of Country Review

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 153 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Human Poverty Index Rank:

15th out of 18

Note- The United Kingdom is ranked on the HPI-2 scale with is only for the OECD countries, Eastern Europe and the CIS

Gini Index:

36.8

Life Expectancy at Birth (years):

78 years

Unemployment Rate:

4.7%

Population living on $1 a day (%):

N/A

Population living on $2 a day (%):

N/A

Population living beneath the Poverty Line (%):

17%

Internally Displaced People:

N/A Note- There are some 277,000 refugees in the United Kingdom

Total Crime Rate (%):

26.4%

Health Expenditure (% of GDP):

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 154 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Public: 6.6%

% of GDP Spent on Education:

5.7%

Human Rights Conventions Party to:

• International Convention on the Prevention and Punishment and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide • International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights • Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women • Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment • Conventions on the Rights of the Child • Convention relating to the Status of Refugees • Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

*Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite index that measures the level of well-being in 177 nations in the world. It uses factors such as poverty, literacy, life-expectancy, education, gross domestic product, and purchasing power parity to assess the average achievements in each nation. It has been used in the United Nation’s Human Development Report since 1993.

*Human Poverty Index Ranking is based on certain indicators used to calculate the Human Poverty Index. Probability at birth of not surviving to age 40, adult literacy rate, population without sustainable access to an improved water source, and population below income poverty line are the indicators assessed in this measure.

*The Gini Index measures inequality based on the distribution of family income or consumption. A value of 0 represents perfect equality (income being distributed equally), and a value of 100 perfect inequality (income all going to one individual).

*The calculation of the total crime rate is the % of the total population which has been effected by property crime, robbery, sexual assault, assault, or bribery (corruption) related occurrences.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 155 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Government Functions

Laws and Customs Guiding Governance

The United Kingdom does not have a written constitution. The equivalent body of law is based on statute, common law, and "traditional rights," or custom. Changes may come about formally through new acts of parliament, informally through the acceptance of new practices and usage, or by judicial precedents. Although parliament has the theoretical power to make or repeal any law, known as parliamentary sovereignty, the actual practice of legislating has been restrained by centuries of tradition.

Executive Authority

Executive government rests nominally with the monarch, but is actually exercised by a committee of ministers including the prime minister (cabinet/government), traditionally selected from among the members of the parliament-the House of Commons and, to a lesser extent, the House of Lords. The prime minister is chosen by a majority in the House of Commons, and together the cabinet and prime minister are dependent upon the support of a majority in the House of Commons to stay in power. In practice, the prime minister has been the leader of the majority party and relies upon the majority his or her party holds in Parliament to pass legislative programs.

Legislative Authority

Parliament, often referred to by the name of the building in which it is located, Westminster, is made up of two chambers. The first is the House of Commons; the second is the House of Lords. The maximum parliamentary term for the House of Commons is five years, but the prime minister may ask the monarch to dissolve Parliament and call a general election at any time. This may occur after a government has lost an important vote, or if the government feels a new election is necessary to increase or maintain its majority in Parliament.

The focus of legislative power is the House of Commons, which has sole jurisdiction over finance. It is from the House of Commons that the prime minister and most members of his or her cabinet are chosen. After the government proposes legislation, it is necessary for the House of Commons to vote on and pass the proposal before it can become law.

The House of Lords cannot legislate but can still review, amend, or delay temporarily any bills that

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 156 of 506 pages United Kingdom are passed by the House of Commons except those relating to the budget. Historically, the House of Lords represented the nobility, but in more modern times people have been appointed to the House of Lords because of achievements in their private or public lives. Members of the House of Lords who inherit their seat because of a familial heritage of nobility are known as "hereditary peers." Members who are appointed because of their achievements are known as "life peers."

House of Lords: 760 seats -- membership not fixed (there are 816 lords eligible for taking part in the work of the House of Lords consisting of 698 life peers, 86 hereditary peers, and 26 clergy); members are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister and non-party political members recommended by the House of Lords Appointments Commission

House of Commons: 650 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms unless the House is dissolved earlier

Judicial Authority

In addition to reforms of the House of Lords, the Blair government has also altered the role of the judiciary in the British system. The tradition of parliamentary sovereignty and the lack of a written constitution have meant that the courts do not possess the power of judicial review. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into British law and certain aspects of the European Union legal system, however, have together introduced forms of judicial review. There are currently magistrate's courts, county courts, high courts, and appellate courts in the United Kingdom, but the role of a supreme court is filled by Law Lords who are appointed members of the House of Lords. The Lord Chancellor, who is both a member of the government and the Legislature, appoints other judges. Changes in Britain's "constitution" have led to calls for the creation of an independent Supreme Court and greater independence for other judges.

Jurisdiction

A final area of major constitutional changes under the Blair government has been the devolution of power to the non-English nations of Scotland and Wales. In 1997, separate referenda proposing devolution were voted upon and passed by the Scottish and Welsh populations. The newly created Scottish Parliament has authority over much of Scotland's social policies and limited powers of taxation. The newly-created Welsh Assembly currently has less power than the Scottish Parliament but has been demanding more legislative authority. Additionally, the highly centralized British political system is being changed by the strengthening of regional authorities through such measures as the creation of regional development agencies and the popular election of mayors. In addition to Scotland and Wales, devolution of power to Northern Ireland is a key component of the "Good Friday Agreement." This is discussed further under the "Political Conditions" and "Appendix:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 157 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Northern Ireland" of this Country Review.

Administration

The country is divided into , counties, cities, London boroughs, county boroughs, , and royal boroughs. There are also dependent areas across the world that are still under indirect or semi-direct British administration.

Editor's Note --

In 2010, the Cameron-Clegg ruling coalition, composed of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats proposed a number of governing changes. These included a plan to for rolling elections in regard to those seated in the upper legislative chamber, the House of Lords. More controversially, there was a plan for fixed term parliaments. In essence, the plan would commit a government to a five- year tern, precluding the prime minister from calling an election at any time within a five year period. While the current threshold for a no-confidence vote to bring down a government has been 50 percent plus one parliamentarian, the new rule would provide for dissolution with the backing of 55 percent or more in parliament. Critics from across party lines have labeled the move as undemocratic, as it would allow a minority government to function even if it that government did not enjoy the confidence of the majority in parliament. See "Political Conditions" for details.

Government Structure

Names: Conventional long form: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland Conventional short form: United Kingdom

Note: England has existed as a unified entity since the 10th century; the union between England and

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 158 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Wales, begun in 1284 with the Statute of Rhuddlan, was not formalized until 1536 with an Act of Union; in another Act of Union in 1707, England and Scotland agreed to permanently join as Great Britain; the legislative union of Great Britain and Ireland was implemented in 1801, with the adoption of the name the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland; the Anglo-Irish treaty of 1921 formalized a partition of Ireland; six northern Irish counties remained part of the United Kingdom as Northern Ireland and the current name of the country, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, was adopted in 1927.

Type: Constitutional monarchy, Westminster parliamentary system

Executive Branch: Head of State: Queen ELIZABETH II (since Feb. 6, 1952); hereditary monarch Heir Apparent Prince CHARLES; son of the queen, born Nov. 14, 1948

Note: The monarchy is hereditary

Head of Government: Prime Minister David Cameron (since 2010; position ratified in 2015 after elections of that year which were decisively won by Cameron's Conservatives; see below for details).

Note: Typically, the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons is the head of government and is appointed officially by the British monarch. The government (prime minister and cabinet ministers) must maintain the support of a majority of the members of the House of Commons to remain in office.

2015 Parliamentary Elections: The citizens of the United Kingdom were set to go to polls to vote in parliamentary elections to be held on May 7, 2015. While the major dividing line in the election stood between the Conservative Party (known colloquially as the Tories) and the Labour Party, the traditional political dichotomy was cross-cut by popular support for the nationalist parties -- the right-wing United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) and the the left-leaning Scottish National Party (SNP).

Going into the election, pre-election polling data suggested that no one party would secure an outright majority, and instead the election was likely to produce yet another "hung parliament." The expected election discussion was to focus on the party receiving the plurality of seats, and thus

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 159 of 506 pages United Kingdom being positioned to form a coalition government. Despite their contracting support, the Liberal Democrats -- the junior party in the outgoing Conservative-led government -- insisted they would again play a kingmaker role. In truth, however, the Scottish Nationalists were hoping that they would gain that kingmaker status even as the major contest would be set against Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Tories and Ed Milliband's Labour Party.

In reality, however, pre-election polling data turned out not to be predictive of what actually happened on election day. Instead, Prime Minister David Cameron and the Conservative Party secured a decisive election victory and a parliamentary majority. For its part, the Labour Party endured a disappointing performance, as well as a rout in Scotland where the Scottish Nationalists won the lion's share of seats. This result augured the end of Ed Milliband's career at the helm of Labour. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats -- the junior partner in the outgoing Tory-led government -- saw a spectacular erosion of support, albeit not complete decimation. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, quickly made clear that it was time for his exit at the helm of his party. Finally, while Nicola Sturgeon could celebrate the triumph of the Scottish Nationalists, it was to be seen what role that party would play in the political environs of parliament.

See Primer below for details.

Cabinet: Cabinet of Ministers; appointed by the prime minister

Legislative Branch: Bicameral Parliament: Consists of the House of Lords and the House of Commons

House of Lords: 760 seats -- membership not fixed (there are 816 lords eligible for taking part in the work of the House of Lords consisting of 698 life peers, 86 hereditary peers, and 26 clergy); members are appointed by the monarch on the advice of the prime minister and non-party political members recommended by the House of Lords Appointments Commission

Note: Please see the "Government Functions" section in this Country Review regarding recent reforms to the House of Lords.

House of Commons: 650 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve five-year terms unless the House is dissolved earlier

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 160 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Primer on 2015 parliamentary elections in United Kingdom May 7, 2015 -- Citizens of United Kingdom make their choice in parliamentary elections; PM David Cameron's Conservatives secure decisive victory while the Labour Party is routed by nationalists in Scotland - -

Summary:

The citizens of the United Kingdom were set to go to polls to vote in parliamentary elections to be held on May 7, 2015. While the major dividing line in the election stood between the Conservative Party (known colloquially as the Tories) and the Labour Party, the traditional political dichotomy was cross-cut by popular support for the nationalist parties -- the right-wing United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP) and the the left-leaning Scottish National Party (SNP).

Going into the election, pre-election polling data suggested that no one party would secure an outright majority, and instead the election was likely to produce yet another "hung parliament." The expected election discussion was to focus on the party receiving the plurality of seats, and thus being positioned to form a coalition government. Despite their contracting support, the Liberal Democrats -- the junior party in the outgoing Conservative-led government -- insisted they would again play a kingmaker role. In truth, however, the Scottish Nationalists were hoping that they would gain that kingmaker status even as the major contest would be set against Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative Tories and Ed Milliband's Labour Party.

In reality, however, pre-election polling data turned out not to be predictive of what actually happened on election day. Instead, Prime Minister David Cameron and the Conservative Party secured a decisive election victory and a parliamentary majority. For its part, the Labour Party endured a disappointing performance, as well as a rout in Scotland where the Scottish Nationalists won the lion's share of seats. This result augured the end of Ed Milliband's career at the helm of Labour. Meanwhile, the Liberal Democrats -- the junior partner in the outgoing Tory-led government -- saw a spectacular erosion of support, albeit not complete decimation. The leader of the Liberal Democrats, Nick Clegg, quickly made clear that it was time for his exit at the helm of his party. Finally, while Nicola Sturgeon could celebrate the triumph of the Scottish Nationalists, it was to be seen what role that party would play in the political environs of parliament.

In Detail:

Parliamentary elections were set to be held in the United Kingdom on May 7, 2015. At issue would be control over the legislative branch of government. In the United Kingdom, the bicameral parliament consists of the House of Lords and the House of Commons. The House of Lords has 788 seats; there are approximately 670 life peers, 92 hereditary peers, and 26 clergy; membership is not static. The House of Commons has 650 seats; members elected by popular vote to serve

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 161 of 506 pages United Kingdom five-year terms unless the House is dissolved earlier. Political leadership is based on control over the lower chamber -- the House of Commons -- where the leader of the majority party or coalition is the prime minister and head of government. As such, in the United Kingdom, election action is concentrated on the House of Commons.

Since the last elections, which were held in May 2010, the United Kingdom has been politically led by Prime Minister David Cameron (of the Conservative Party or "Tories") and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg (of the Liberal Democrats) in a coalition government. In those 2010 elections, no one party had control over the House of Commons. Cameron's center-right Conservatives garnered a plurality of the vote count but not an absolute majority; they entered a coalition government with the third place center-left Liberal Democrats, while second place left-leaning Labour Party moved from being the party in power into the party in opposition. Former Prime Minister Gordon Brown stepped down as leader of the Labour Party and moved to the position of backbench member of parliament.

In 2015, it was to be seen which party would be victorious. The main parties expected to contest these electons included the center-right Conservative Party (known colloquially as the Tories), led by Prime Minister Cameron; the center-left Liberal Democrats and junior partner in the outgoing coalition, led by Deputy Prime Minister Clegg; the left-leaning Labour Party, led by Ed Milliband, who was aspiring to become the new prime minister; the right-wing United Kingdom Independent Party (UKIP), led by Nigel Farage; and the left-leaning Scottish National Party, led by Nicola Sturgeon. Also contesting the election would be a number of other nationalist parties, such as the Democratic Unionist Party or DUP (Northern Ireland); Ulster Unionist Party (Northern Ireland); Sinn Fein (Northern Ireland); Social Democratic and Labor Party or SDLP (Northern Ireland); and Party of Wales, also known as Plaid Cymru.

Survey data released in February 2015 ahead of the elections indicated that no one party would likely gain an absolute majority at the polls. The research compiled by by the pollster group, Populus, and the public affairs company, Hanover, suggested that while Labour would lose several seats in Scotland to the Scottish nationalists, it would nonetheless have a better chance of forming a majority leftist or center-left coalition than the Conservative Tories, who would likely have to rely on consolidating their seats with the Liberal Democrats again in order to control parliament. They might also have to look to the Democratic Unionist Party or DUP in Northern Ireland to hold a majority. The Conservatives would themselves lose seats to the right-wing UKIP.

However, polling data by Ashcroft in early February 2015 gave Prime Minister Cameron's Conservative Party a three percentage point lead over Milliband's Labour Party -- 34 percent to 31 percent respectively. In third place was UKIP with 14 percent, followed by the Liberal Democrats with nine percent, and then the Greens with six percent. While this polling result offered a more positive pathway to victory for Prime Minister Cameron, he would still need a far more significant lead to win an outright majority in parliament. As before, were he to secure a plurality of the vote

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 162 of 506 pages United Kingdom share but not a majority, he would once again have to form a coalition government.

By mid-February 2015, two polls gave contradictory forecasts of the elections to come. The Guardian/ICM poll gave the Conservatives (Tories) 36 percent -- an increase of six points from the previous month and the highest level since 2012. Labour had fallen one point to 32 percent. The Liberal Democrats were at ten percent, UKIP was at nine percent, the Green Party was at seven points. However, a Populus poll gave the Labour Party with lead with 33 percent, with the Conservatives slightly behind with 31 percent.

At the start of March 2015, these trends remained roughly in place with the Tories holding a slight lead over Labour, the Liberal Democrats and UKIP in competition for the right to play "kingmaker" in the case of a "hung parliament." Of note was the consistently significant vote share being carried by the Scottish Nationalists to the detriment of the Labour Party. It was apparent that in the aftermath of the Scottish Independence referendum, and the slow movement in achieving the promises advocated by the pro-unionists, Scottish voters were going their own way in these polls.

Also of note at the start of March 2015 was the fact that a political imbroglio was unfolding. At issue was the fact that the Conservative leader David Cameron would consent to only one 90- minute televised debate ahead of the elections. His rivals from other parties, including Labour leader Ed Miliband, Liberal Democratic leader Nick Clegg, UKIP leader Nigel Farage, Natalie Bennett of the Green Party, Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish National Party and Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru, pilloried the Tory leader for refusing to engage in a thorough competition.

A spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats noted that it was not right for one party to "dictate their terms" regarding the debates. A UKIP spokesperson offered a more painful rebuke, saying, "After praising what a good thing debates were for democracy as recently as 2014, why is David Cameron now acting chicken and running as far away from them as possible?" Meanwhile, Douglas Adams of the Labour Party said, "This is an outrageous attempt from the prime minister to bully the broadcasters into dropping their proposals for a head-to-head debate between David Cameron and Ed Miliband."

Meanwhile, another issue was brewing as regards the splitting of the right-wing vote between the Conservatives (Tories) and UKIP. At issue was the South Thanet constituency of southern England, which has been a Conservative stronghold held by the Tories for most of the last 130 years. In 2015, polling data indicated that UKIP's leader, Nigel Farage, had a decent chance of winning this seat and grabbing control of a parliamentary seat long-thought to be a safe win for the Tories. For his part, Farage said if he failed to win the South Thanet seat, he would resign as the leader of UKIP. As stated by Farage, "The consequences of me failing to secure a seat for myself in the Commons would be significant for both myself and the party." He continued, "It is frankly just not credible for me to continue to lead the party without a Westminster seat ... If I fail to win

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 163 of 506 pages United Kingdom

South Thanet, it is curtains for me. I will have to step down."

Tory leader Cameron entered the fray with his own pledge. The prime minister said that if his Conservative Party were to win the forthcoming parliamentary elections, then he would not seek a third term in office. Instead, Cameron said he would serve the full five-year term in government, if his party were to gain victory; however, he would not seek to lead the country beyond that next five-year term. In the interview with BBC News, Cameron said, "There definitely comes a time when a fresh pair of eyes and fresh leadership would be good, and the Conservative Party has some great people coming up." Cameron's pledge did not resonate positively with the main opposition Labor Party. David Alexander, the head of Labor's election campaign, said, "It is typically arrogant of David Cameron to presume a third Tory term in 2020 before the British public have been given the chance to have their say in this election."

Playing to the nationalists and euro-skeptics -- an ultra-conservative voting base that might be vulnerable to transferring their support to UKIP -- Cameron was promising to hold a referendum on European Union membership. The move was yielding results and boosting Cameron's prospects (as noted below) to hold onto his job as his Tories were now advancing a lead over Labor. In response, Miliband was warning voters that a win for the Conservatives could herald the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, with financial and business woes to follow. The fact of the matter, however, was that in late March 2015, the advantage appeared to be with Cameron and the Tories as discussed below.

Polling data by ComRes for ITV News and the Daily Mail newspaper in late March 2015 showed Prime Minister Cameron's Conservatives leading Miliband's Labour Party by four percentage points. The Conservatives were now sporting 36 percent support, with Labour holding onto 32 percent support. UKIP was at 12 percent; the Liberal Democrats were sitting just short of double digits with nine percent; and the Greens had five percent. It was to be seen if this trend would hold until election day.

A televised political debate on April 2, 2015, produced no clear winner, with post-debate data showing that Prime Minister Cameron, Labour leader Miliband, Scottish Nationalist leader Nicola Sturgeon and UKIP leader Farage, all scoring well in terms of performance.

That debate performance was translating into a similarly close pre-election polling results with a Guardian/ICM poll showing Miliband slightly ahead of Cameron -- 25 percent to 24 percent -- in terms of which candidate was viewed as the debate winner. A separate YouGov opinion poll surveyed overall voting preferences and showed Cameron's Conservatives slightly ahead of Miliband's Labour Party -- 37 percent to 35 percent respectively. Meanwhile, a poll for the Daily Mirror publication gave the reverse result with Labour slightly ahead of the Conservatives -- 33 percent to 31 percent respectively.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 164 of 506 pages United Kingdom

By mid-April 2015, YouGov polling data showed a close race between Labour and the Conservatives. A series of polls by YouGov showed Labour hovering about 34-35 percent, just slightly ahead of the Conservatives, who had 33 percent. UKIP was in third place with 13 percent, the Liberal Democrats had eight percent and the Greens had five to six percent.

Taken together, these results presaged a close election, with no one party likely to gain an outright parliamentary majority, and with many citizens opting for other parties, such as UKIP and the Scottish Nationalists. That being said, research by Deutsche Bank in mid-April 2015 suggested that while the election would very likely produce no clear winner and thus a "hung parliament," Labour might be better positioned to form a government than the Conservatives.

Labour, in pure numbers, would lose significant seats in Scotland to the Scottish Nationalists due to Scottish outrage that few of the pre-independence referendum promises were kept. But the Scottish Nationalists would nevertheless throw their support behind a Labour-led government, whereas they would shun the Conservatives. While the Liberal Democrats -- the junior partner in Cameron's Conservative-led government -- were actually eroding support; they remained aware that they could play kingmaker in either a Labour-led or a Conservative-led government in the future. By contrast, the Conservative Party was losing support to UKIP, an unlikely coalition partner, while its current coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats was not likely to see a particularly strong performance, and so could provide only limited (albeit crucial) support in a future Conservative-led government. Stated differently, even with its outgoing coalition partner, the Liberal Democrats, the road to a coalition would thus be comparatively more difficult for the Conservatives. As such, the conclusion was that in a close election, Labour would have more options of secondary parties in forming a sustainable coalition government.

Labour received a boost in the third week of April 2015 following a final televised debate. Post- debate surveys -- which actually did not include Cameron -- concluded that Miliband, the Labour Party leader, had won the rhetorical exercise. However, that success was not necessarily translating into a boost at the polls. Instead, most polls taken during this period actually gave the Conservatives the edge. The daily YouGov poll gave Labour a one point advantage -- 35 percent - - to the Conservatives with 34 percent, but its assessment in the next few days showed the Conservatives gaining support. A subsequent poll by YouGov showed the two main parties ties at 34 percent, while another one showed the Conservatives capturing the lead and holding 35 percent with Labour at 34 percent. A separate poll by Survation showed a similar result with the Conservatives holding 34 percent and Labour was down to 33 percent.

As April 2015 came to a close, the daily YouGov poll showed the Tories with a single percent lead of 35 percent to 34 percent ahead of Labour. That one percent advantage was also reflected in an Opinium poll for the Observer newspaper that showed the Tories with a single point lead of 34 percent to 33 percent ahead of Labour. But soon thereafter, another daily poll by YouGov showed Labour with the one point lead -- 35 percent -- against the Conservatives, who had 34 percent. As

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 165 of 506 pages United Kingdom before, neither party could claim it was on track for an outright majority in parliament.

In the final days before the election, the two parties made their final case for support. For Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative party, the emphasis was on their stewardship of the economy, matched by dire warnings of increased taxation, should the country by led by Milliband and Labour. In an attempt to curry favor with the euro-skeptics and xenophobes that the Tories were losing to UKIP, Prime Minister Cameron also promised that, should he hold onto power, a referendum would be held to decide whether the United Kingdom should remain in the European Union.

The prime minister also mocked a move by Labour leader Milliband to burnish his leadership credentials by producing campaign promises literally engraved "in stone" upon a stone block. To this end, some critics acerbically cast Milliband as the biblical Moses. For his part, Cameron referred to the stone block as a "tombstone," suggesting that Milliband's political ambitions were about to see a death of sorts. But despite Cameron's glib words, the fact of the matter was that his Tories were unable to advance a notable lead against their main rivals, the Labour Party.

It was apparent that Milliband's passionate advocation of the United Kingdom's reverred national health service had strong resonance among a significant portion of the population. Likewise, Milliband had managed to challenge Cameron's claimed accomplishments on the economy by reminding frustrated voters that all too often, impressive macroeconomic data points did not translate into improved economic conditions in the quotidian lives of people. Labour's effort to cast the Tories' budget, which cut welfare spending, as mean-spirited also bolstered the argument that the Conservatives were not just indifferent to those struggling to make ends meet, but also balancing the budget on the backs of the poor.

Indeed, the final pre-election polls continued to show a close race, consistent with the slate of polling data discussed above. For example, both the daily YouGov poll and the Populus opinion poll showed the two parties tied at 33 percent and 34 percent respectively, while the Survation opinion poll showed Labour Leading by a single point -- 34 percent -- to the Conservatives with 33 percent; the Ashcroft poll had the Conservatives ahead slightly with 32 percent against Labour with 30 percent.

As the voters of the United Kingdom prepared to go to the polls to cast their ballots on May 7, 2015, the political landscape remained static: No one party expected to secure an outright majority, and instead with the election likely to produce yet another "hung parliament." Accordingly, all expectations were that the party receiving the plurality of seats would have the chance to form a coalition government. Despite their contracting support, the Liberal Democrats -- the junior party in the outgoing Conservative-led government -- could again play a kingmaker role. In truth, however, the Liberal Democrats would compete with the UKIP and SNP for that kingmaker status, even as the major contest would be set against Prime Minister David Cameron's Conservative

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 166 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Tories and Ed Milliband's Labour Party.

Note on Political Procedure:

Typically, the leader of the majority party in the House of Commons is the head of government and is appointed officially by the British monarch. The government (prime minister and cabinet ministers) must maintain the support of a majority of the members of the House of Commons to remain in office.

If an election produces a "hung parliament," there is the possibility of another election being called -- presumably with the objective of garnering a more decisive result in the Round 2 election. However, the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act of 2011 makes it difficult for early elections to be called. In the past, a prime minister could simply choose to dissolve parliament and call an election. Since the advent of the Fixed-Term Parliaments Act, there are only two routes to an early election. One option would require the parliament to approve the early election with the support of a two-thirds majority. It was conceivable that the two-third majority support would only be secured with some sort of alliance across party lines. The second option would involve a motion of no confidence in the government, requiring only a simple majority. If the no confidence motion passed successfully, a 14-day timeline would follow in which there would be attempts to form a new government. The failure of those attempts failed would facilitate an early election. Given those parameters required for early elections to be called, the more attractive (and practical) option would be to form a sustainable coalition government.

Election Results:

With most constituencies reporting their results, it was apparent that Prime Minister David Cameron had won a shock victory and would form a Conservative government.

In contrast to the predictions of the pre-election polling data, which forecast that no one party would likely secure a majority, the voters in United Kingdom had a different idea on election day and instead delivered an outright majority to the Conservative Party. With very few constituencies yet to count at the time of writing, the Tories won 330 seats -- just over half of the 650 parliamentary seats in total needed for a simply majority -- and 37 percent of the total vote share.

The Labour Party saw a slight decline in the overall popular support from what was expected in the pre-election data and and secured about 31 percent of the vote share. The Labour Party was on track to secure approximately 232 seats. It should be noted that Labour's best performance was actually in the London area.

The Liberal Democrats appeared to have been punished at the polls, presumably for being the junior party in the outgoing Cameron-led coalition government. The Liberal Democrats were on

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 167 of 506 pages United Kingdom track to win less than ten seats and saw about eight percent of the vote share.

The Scottish Nationalists enjoyed an overwhelmingly strong performance at the polls, wiping out the Labour Party from this northern stronghold and winning all but a handful of seats there. Indeed, the SNP garnered 56 seats.

Despite all the nationalist and sometimes vituperative rhetoric, there were only limited gains for UKIP to celebrate. Indeed, UKIP was on track to win only one or two seats.

Other smaller parties, such as the Greens, as well as the regional parties, such as Plaid Cymru, Sinn Fein, and the Democratic Ulster Union were also expected to gain representation in parliament.

Prime Minister Cameron celebrated the victory of his Conservative Party, which outperformed the polling surveys with impressive results. On the morning of May 8, 2015, he traveled to Buckingham Palace for an audience with Queen Elizabeth II, the head of state in the United Kingdom, where he was asked to lead the next government.

Meanwhile, Nick Clegg resigned as the head of the Liberal Democrats, citing the disastrous performance and "catastrophic losses" of his party at the 2015 polls. He noted that it was the worst election experience of Liberal Democrats since the founding of the party.

While Labour's defeat was not quite so punishing as the Liberal Democrats' experience at the polls, Ed Milliband nonetheless took responsibility for the losses endured by his party, offered his congratulations to David Cameron, and tendered his resignation, saying, "I am truly sorry I did not succeed."

Nigel Farage of UKIP, who did not win his own seat, indicated there would have to be a fresh leadership contest within the party to set the course moving forward.

The only party leader other than Cameron celebrating was Nicola Sturgeon of the Scottish Nationalists, who saw a rout in Scotland, winning almost every seat there. Of course, it was hard to say how the strength of the SNP would translate into political strength since the SNP has made clear it would never work with a Tory government, while the Tories were not in need of assistance in parliament from the Scottish Nationalists to advance their agenda.

Nevertheless, the election result for the Scottish Nationalists, juxtaposed against the Scottish independence referendum earlier in the year, showed that the position of Scotland in the Union would have to change in some form or fashion. It was to be seen how that change might be envisioned. For his part, Prime Minister Cameron quickly foreclosed the notion of another independence referendum for Scotland, saying in an interview with the media: "We had a

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 168 of 506 pages United Kingdom referendum. Scotland voted emphatically to stay in the United Kingdom. There isn't going to be another referendum."

Meanwhile, with Cameron making a campaign promise regarding a future referendum on the United Kingdom's participation in the European Union, it was also clear that regional relations were on the agenda. Of course, given the close friendship between David Cameron and President Barack Obama in the United States, the trans-Atlantic relationship was expected to remain strong.

Judicial Branch House of Lords (highest court of appeal; several Lords of Appeal in Ordinary are appointed by the monarch for life); Supreme Courts of England, Wales, and Northern Ireland (comprising the Courts of Appeal, the High Courts of Justice, and the Crown Courts); Scotland's Court of Session and Court of the Justiciary

Constitution: Unwritten constitution; body of law based on statutes, common law, and "traditional rights" or custom

Legal System: Common law tradition, with early Roman and modern continental influences; has nonbinding judicial review of Acts of Parliament under the Human Rights Act of 1998; accepts compulsory ICJ jurisdiction, with reservations

Administrative Divisions: England: 27 two-tier counties, 32 London boroughs and 1 City of London or Greater London, 36 metropolitan districts, 56 unitary authorities (including 4 single-tier counties*) two-tier counties: Buckinghamshire, Cambridgeshire, Cumbria, Derbyshire, Devon, Dorset, East Sussex, Essex, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Kent, Lancashire, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Northamptonshire, Nottinghamshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Warwickshire, West Sussex, Worcestershire

London boroughs and City of London or Greater London: Barking and Dagenham, Barnet, Bexley, Brent, Bromley, Camden, Croydon, Ealing, Enfield, Greenwich, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey, Harrow, Havering, Hillingdon,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 169 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Hounslow, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, City of London, Merton, Newham, Redbridge, Richmond upon Thames, Southwark, Sutton, Tower Hamlets, Waltham Forest, Wandsworth, Westminster metropolitan districts: Barnsley, Birmingham, Bolton, Bradford, Bury, Calderdale, Coventry, Doncaster, Dudley, Gateshead, Kirklees, Knowlsey, Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, Oldham, Rochdale, Rotherham, Salford, Sandwell, Sefton, Sheffield, Solihull, South Tyneside, St. Helens, Stockport, Sunderland, Tameside, Trafford, Wakefield, Walsall, Wigan, Wirral, Wolverhampton unitary authorities: Bath and North East Somerset, Blackburn with Darwen, Bedford, Blackpool, Bournemouth, Bracknell Forest, Brighton and Hove, City of Bristol, Central Bedfordshire, Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, Cornwall, Darlington, Derby, Durham County*, East of Yorkshire, Halton, Hartlepool, Herefordshire*, Isle of Wight*, Isles of Scilly*, City of Kingston upon Hull, Leicester, Luton, Medway, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, North East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, North Somerset, Northumberland*, Nottingham, Peterborough, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth, Reading, Redcar and Cleveland, Rutland, Shropshire, Slough, South Gloucestershire, Southampton, Southend-on-Sea, Stockton-on-Tees, Stoke-on-Trent, Swindon, Telford and Wrekin, Thurrock, Torbay, Warrington, West Berkshire, Wiltshire, Windsor and Maidenhead, Wokingham, York

Northern Ireland: 26 council areas district council areas: Antrim, Ards, Armagh, Ballymena, Ballymoney, Banbridge, Belfast, Carrickfergus, Castlereagh, Coleraine, Cookstown, Craigavon, Derry, Down, Dungannon, Fermanagh, Larne, Limavady, Lisburn, Magherafelt, Moyle, Newry and Mourne, Newtownabbey, North Down, Omagh, Strabane

Scotland: 32 council areas council areas: Aberdeen City, Aberdeenshire, Angus, Argyll and Bute, Clackmannanshire, Dumfries and Galloway, Dundee City, East Ayrshire, East Dunbartonshire, East Lothian, East Renfrewshire, City of Edinburgh, Eilean Siar (Western Isles), Falkirk, Fife, Glasgow City, Highland, Inverclyde, Midlothian, Moray, North Ayrshire, North Lanarkshire, Orkney Islands, Perth and Kinross,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 170 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Renfrewshire, Shetland Islands, South Ayrshire, South Lanarkshire, Stirling, The Scottish Borders, West Dunbartonshire, West Lothian

Wales: 22 unitary authorities unitary authorities: Blaenau Gwent; Bridgend; Caerphilly; Cardiff; Carmarthenshire; Ceredigion; Conwy; Denbighshire; Flintshire; Gwynedd; Isle of Anglesey; Merthyr Tydfil; Monmouthshire; Neath Port Talbot; Newport; Pembrokeshire; Powys; Rhondda Cynon Taff; ; The Vale of Glamorgan; Torfaen; Wrexham

Dependencies: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, , Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension, and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Turks and Caicos Islands

Political Parties and Leaders: Alliance Party (Northerm Ireland) [David FORD] Conservative and Unionist Party [David CAMERON] Democratic Unionist Party or DUP (Northern Ireland) [Peter ROBINSON; note - expected to be replaced by Arlene FOSTER around 11 January 2016] Green Party of England and Wales or Greens [Natalie BENNETT] Labor Party [Jeremy CORBYN] Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) [Tim FARRON] Party of Wales (Plaid Cymru) [Leanne WOOD] Scottish National Party or SNP [Nicola STURGEON] Sinn Fein (Northern Ireland) [Gerry ADAMS] Social Democratic and Labor Party or SDLP (Northern Ireland) [Colum EASTWOOD] Ulster Unionist Party (Northern Ireland) [Mike NESBITT] UK Independence Party or UKIP [Nigel FARAGE]

Note: Political parties and leaders are subject to change and this listing reflects government data available at the time of writing only.

Suffrage: 18 years of age; universal

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 171 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Principal Government Officials

Leadership and Cabinet of United Kingdom

The leadership of the country is as follows --

Queen ELIZABETH II Prime Min., First Lord of the Treasury, & Min. for the Civil Service David William Donald CAMERON First Sec. of State & Chancellor of the Exchequer George Gideon Oliver OSBORNE Sec. of State for Business, Innovation, & Skills Sajid JAVID Sec. of State for Communities & Local Govt. Greg CLARK Sec. of State for Culture, Media, & Sport John WHITTINGDALE Sec. of State for Defense Michael FALLON Sec. of State for Education & Min. for Women & Equalities Nicky MORGAN Sec. of State for Energy & Climate Change Amber RUDD Sec. of State for the Environment, Food, & Rural Affairs Elizabeth TRUSS Sec. of State for Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs Philip HAMMOND Sec. of State for Health Jeremy HUNT Sec. of State for the Home Dept. Theresa Mary MAY

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 172 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Sec. of State for Intl. Development Justine GREENING Sec. of State for Justice & Lord Chancellor Michael GOVE Sec. of State for Northern Ireland Theresa Anne VILLIERS Sec. of State for Scotland David MUNDELL Sec. of State for Transport Patrick MCLOUGHLIN Sec. of State for Wales Stephen CRABB Sec. of State for Work & Pensions George Iain DUNCAN SMITH Leader of the House of Lords & Lord Privy Seal STOWELL , Baroness Leader of the House of Commons & Lord President of the Council Chris GRAYLING Min. for the Cabinet Office & Paymaster Gen. Matthew HANCOCK Chief Sec. to the Treasury Greg HANDS Chief Whip & Parliamentary Sec. to the Treasury Mark HARPER Governor, Bank of England Mark CARNEY Ambassador to the US Peter John WESTMACOTT , Sir Permanent Representative to the UN, New York Matthew RYCROFT

-- as of 2016

Leader Biography

Leader Biography

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 173 of 506 pages United Kingdom

HEAD OF STATE: QUEEN ELIZABETH II

Queen Elizabeth II

Queen Elizabeth II's ascension to the British throne was facilitated following an unexpected turn of events. At the close of 1936, then-ruling monarch King Edward VIII abdicated from the throne to marry a divorced American -- Wallis Simpson. Edward VIII's brother, George VI, then assumed the throne to become king. With only two daughters as offspring, Elizabeth II became the heir to the throne.

During World War II, her mother gained the love of a nation when she refused to evacuate from London during the "blitz," preferring to stand with her fellow Britons in the face of war. Meanwhile, Elizabeth II gained the respect of the nation by her efforts driving and maintaining vehicles during the war effort. She later married Phillip Mountbatten, her third cousin, and together they have had four children.

In early 1952, King George VI died of lung cancer. On June 2, 1953, Elizabeth II was crowed Queen and assumed the throne as Britain's monarchy. One of the longest-reigning monarchs in the world today, Queen Elizabeth II has consistently dismissed speculation about her possible abdication from the throne to make way for her son, Prince Charles. She has said that her coronation vows were sacred and they required her to remain on the throne for life.

Editor's Note:

February 2012 saw the ruling monarch of the United Kingdom, Queen Elizabeth II, mark the 60th anniversary of her accession to the throne. While the official celebration of Queen Elizabeth's six- decade long rein as the United Kingdom's ruling monarch was to be held mid-year, the official date

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 174 of 506 pages United Kingdom of accession was at the start of February 2012. of course, the date also marks the commemoration of the death of her father, the beloved KingGeorge VI. Queen Elizabeth II said that she was dedicating herself "anew" to the service of the British people and that she was "deeply moved" by the massive outpouring of popular support for her Diamond Jubilee. Elizabeth II joins her great- great grandmother, Queen Victoria, as the only other British monarch to achieve this milestone.

Foreign Relations

General Relations

The United Kingdom (U.K.) is a member of numerous international organizations including the United Nations (where it has a permanent seat on the Security Council), many U.N. specialized and regional agencies, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (World Bank), the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

The United Kingdom is also a member of the European Union (EU), the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), and the Council of Europe.

Regional Relations

The European Union (EU)

Editor's Summary of the European Union:

The European Community's original member states were Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, Italy and West Germany. Then, in 1973, United Kingdom, Denmark and Ireland joined the grouping. In the 1980s, Greece, Spain and Portugal joined in the 1980s. The European Union

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 175 of 506 pages United Kingdom was officially established in 1993 under the Maastricht Treaty. Two years later, Austria, Sweden and Finland joined the European bloc. In 2002, the euro was introduced in 12 member states; since then, the euro zone expanded to include 16 countries. In 2004, the new entrants to the EU were the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia. Bulgaria and Romania joined in 2007. To date, entry talks have been ongoing for Croatia, accession talks have been ongoing for Turkey, and the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia has submitted a request to join.

Meanwhile, in 2005, the EU moved in the direction of official endorsement of the body's constitution. Ratification votes against that draft document in various countries (France and Netherlands) placed it in doubt. A new Reform Treaty emerged in 2007, which was later known as the Lisbon Treaty because it was signed in the Portuguese capital. It was intended to be the new operational foundation of European Union. Indeed, the Lisbon Treaty contains provisions for dealing with the European body's expansion into the eastern part of the continent and was intended to replace the European constitution. It also created two new posts -- a permanent European Union President and a foreign policy chief -- for the purpose of augmenting the influence of the regional bloc on the international stage.

Supporters see the Lisbon Treaty as fundamental to the European Union's success, explaining that without it, the body's processes would remain cumbersome. For example, contained within it is a provision for more decisions to be made by majority vote instead of unanimity. But detractors have argued that the Lisbon Treaty is part of a federalist agenda and that it is threatening to the sovereignty of nation states.

The Lisbon Treaty was originally scheduled to become effective at the start of 2009; however, its fate was placed in doubt in 2008 when Irish voters decisively rejected the accord. Irish ratification in 2009 finally took place and revitalized the process. Problems with the ratification process in Poland, and legal challenges in the Czech Republic, led to the renewed risk of collapse. Ultimately, the Lisbon Treaty could not be have been implemented unless it was approved by all 27 EU states. With that prerequisite fulfilled, the stage was set for the treaty to go into force before Jan. 1, 2010. To that end, a signing ceremony took place in the city of Lisbon on Dec. 1, 2009.

In full:

The U.K. successfully joined the European Communities (EC) in 1973 after French President Charles de Gualle had blocked two previous attempts. The most important of the three communities was the European Economic Community (EEC), which created a common market that abolished tariffs between the member-states. The EC has experienced several episodes of major institutional development since the U.K. joined in 1973 including:

-- the introduction of direct elections to the European Parliament in 1979

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 176 of 506 pages United Kingdom

-- the Single Europe Act of 1986 - which sought to create a single market in goods and services

-- the Maastricht Treaty of 1992-which renamed the EC to the European Union (EU), altered relations between the EU's legislative institutions, set a timeline for the adoption of a single EU- wide currency, and established the criteria that the member-states had to meet in order to join the single currency

-- the Treaty of 1997-which further altered relations between the EU's institutions

-- the launch of the single currency, the euro, in 1999

-- proposals for the development of common foreign and security policies (CFSP) within the EU

The U.K. has often been perceived as an "awkward partner" in the EC/EU. Many of its public policies are seen as more laissez-faire than the continental norm, and the long campaign by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher to slow the pace of European integration soured relations between the U.K. and the other member states of the EC/EU. Although the Thatcher government did not succeed in halting the progress of integration, it did prevail in winning a budget rebate from the EC/EU that corrected the balance between what the U.K. paid into the EC/EU and what it received in turn. Under the former Conservative Prime Minister John Major, the U.K. also obtained an "opt out" from joining the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), a decision, which reflected its earlier bad experience with the EC's Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

As discussed under "Political Conditions," Labour, under Prime Minister Blair, has pushed for joining the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) once certain economic conditions are met. The Conservatives, however, have continued the Thatcher-Major-Hague opposition to joining the EMU, though there are splits within the party. The U.K. also "opted out" of the Schengen Agreement that removed all borders between EU member states.

The Blair government's attempts to strengthen the U.K.'s role in the EU have been hindered by the continuing fallout from the "mad cow disease" debacle. A rare disease in British cattle was discovered in the late 1980s and subsequently connected to a potentially fatal disease in humans. After first restricting exports of British beef in 1989 and 1990, the EC implemented a total ban on U.K. beef exports in 1996. This led the government of John Major to pursue a policy of impeding all EU business in retaliation to the ban. After securing an agreement for the conditional removal of the ban, the Major government ended its policy of non-cooperation. Although the U.K. met the conditions laid out by the EU, which subsequently removed the ban in August 1999, France maintained its ban on imports of British beef following the advice of its own food safety agency. The issue fueled anti-EU sentiment in the U.K. and increased tensions between the U.K. and France. After the European Court of Justice (ECJ), the arbitrator in EU affairs, ruled the ban illegal, it then appeared likely that there would have to be a legal resolution of the conflict.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 177 of 506 pages United Kingdom

One area in which the Blair government has sought to change the U.K.'s role in the EU pertains to a European Security and Defense Identity (ESDI). In December 1998, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac issued what became known as the "St. Malo Declaration," stating that the European Union should have the capability to act autonomously in security matters. This has long been a stated objective by various European leaders and has given rise to various failed attempts at security/defense cooperation. Examples include the European Defense Community (done away with at the draft stage) and the less ambitious Western European Union (which includes some NATO and non-NATO members and some EU and non-EU members).

The problems have been the lack of a common foreign policy (without which a common security policy is not possible); the so-called "special relationship" between the U.S. and the U.K.; and the lack of consolidation in the European defense industry. That Prime Minister Blair advocated a common security arrangement within the EU was seen as a major breakthrough. Other NATO members subsequently supported this at the April 1999 50th anniversary summit (including, most importantly, the U.S. and hesitantly, Turkey).

At the June 1999 EU Summit in Cologne, Germany, EU leaders agreed on a common defense/security program. At the summit, it was agreed that the WEU would be incorporated into the EU by the end of 2000. In November 1999, former NATO secretary-general and current head of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) agency of the EU, Javier Solana, was appointed head of the WEU. Also in November 1999, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and French President Jacques Chirac called for the creation of a European rapid deployment force under the auspices of the WEU. It was suggested that the new WEU would be able to use NATO equipment without necessarily having other NATO members involved, though other NATO members would be consulted. Problems could arise, however, because of non-overlapping memberships (see listing below).

Joint Members in the EU, WEU and NATO: Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, U.K.

EU and NATO Member and WEU Observer: Denmark

EU Members and WEU Observers: Austria, Finland, Ireland, Sweden

NATO Members and WEU Associate Members: Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, Norway, Poland, Turkey

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 178 of 506 pages United Kingdom

WEU Associate Partners: Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia

In late 2000, the EU agreed to create a "rapid reaction force" consisting of approximately 60,000 troops to be deployed on humanitarian missions, peacekeeping missions, and in crisis situations, more generally. Serious concerns remain on the part of EU member states and non-EU members of NATO (particularly, the United States and Turkey) about the nature and command of this force - and its compatibility with NATO. For its part, the U.K. government has been adamant that the rapid reaction force not be a "European army," and that it must not detract from the trans-Atlantic alliance between Europe and the United States. At the December 2001 Laeken Summit (discussed below), the EU governments declared the proposed rapid reaction force, which eventually will number 60,000 troops, to be operational.

As mentioned above, the U.K. is not a member of the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), but the EMU is a defining feature of the EU and, as such, is important to the U.K.'s relations with other EU member states. In May 1998, the European Council defined the list of countries participating in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU): Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain. (Greece became a participating member in 2001). The euro was launched on Jan. 1, 1999; conversion rates of all 12 EMU member states' currencies to the euro were irrevocably fixed. As of Jan. 1, 2002, euro banknotes and coins became legal tender in the 12 EMU countries. Within the next two months, these states' former currencies were to be phased out.

In 2003, the United Kingdom was again faced with the possible prospect of a referendum on EMU inclusion in 2003. The government continued to promise a referendum on this issue while cabinet ministers studied the United Kingdom's Treasury analysis about the possible implications of adopting the euro currency. One significant difference that has shifted perspectives on EMU inclusion has been the increasing strength of the euro against the United States dollar. Regardless, a decision on the favorability of euro adoption was to be announced on June 9, 2003, and would then be followed by a referendum. An unfavorable finding on euro adoption would, ostensibly, not result in support for a referendum in EMU inclusion. In mid-2003, it was decided to wait on a decision regarding euro adoption. Ultimately, the decision regarding the adoption of the euro and disbanding the British pound will be a significant constitutional matter affecting notions of sovereignty.

In addition to the EMU and ESDI, changes to the EU's institutional arrangements will also have a great influence on relations between the member states. The Treaty of Amsterdam was signed on Oct. 2, 1997; it entered into force on May 1, 1999. The treaty makes significant changes to the way in which the "three pillars" of the European Union will be dealt with in the future. These "three pillars" are first, the single common market; second, common foreign and security policy;

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 179 of 506 pages United Kingdom and third, justice and home affairs.

The treaty extends the co-decision procedure (in which the European Parliament wields significant amendment and veto powers) to 38 policy areas, that is, most of the policy areas concerning the promotion of the European common market, and therefore, most areas of European Union legislation. It also grants the European Parliament the power to approve or disapprove the choice (made by member governments) of Commission president. (The new president, Romano Prodi, was approved under this procedure). For the Council of Ministers, the treaty extends the areas in which qualified majority voting (QMV) applies. This makes it less likely for single countries to veto policy proposals. The treaty also moves certain policy areas of the 'third pillar' of justice and home affairs, which previously have been decided by intergovernmental bargaining without influence from the Commission or the European Parliament, to the "first pillar" of single market issues. This change should increase the policy-making influence of the Commission and the Parliament. The Schengen accord falls into this category. Finally, the treaty calls for the creation of a "High Representative" for common foreign and security policy (CFSP). Javier Solana, former secretary- general of NATO, has been appointed as the first high representative. To date, this "second pillar" has been a matter of intergovernmental bargaining, though with QMV. The belief is that the EU will have greater international influence if it is able to speak with one voice on matters of foreign policy.

Throughout 2000, the member states of the EU were engaged in an intergovernmental conference (IGC) tasked with designing a new treaty that prepares the EU for eventual enlargement that will nearly double the number of member countries in the EU. Enlargement will initially include Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, and Slovenia. Six more countries are expected to follow; they are: Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Romania and Slovakia. Turkey has also been asked to begin negotiations for future accession to the EU. The larger membership necessarily requires changes in the EU institutions, which were designed for a far smaller number of member states.

In particular, the IGC was focused on three primary institutional decisions. The first issue was how to limit the size of the European Commission, the EU's executive branch, and how to distribute the commission's positions among the member states. Currently, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom obtain two commission positions each while the other 10 countries each receive one commission position. The second institutional issue concerned reformulating the voting procedure in the Council of Ministers, the EU legislature responsible for representing the member states' governments, to better reflect the population size of the member states. Currently, the smaller states are favored in the Council of Ministers' system of weighted votes. The third issue was altering the treaties to allow for more majority voting, based on weighted votes, in the Council of Ministers. Enlargement will make it more difficult to pass legislation in those issue areas that currently require unanimity in the Council of Ministers by granting even more countries the ability to single-handedly stop changes in EU policy. Treaty changes, which would allow for majority voting in some of these areas, would significantly facilitate the EU's legislative process.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 180 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The IGC concluded at a summit in Nice, France with France holding the six-month rotating presidency of the Council of the European Union. While French president Chirac claimed success, many analysts noted that the IGC was the longest and one of the most contentious summits in the EU's history with much of the controversy surrounding the re-weighting of votes in the Council of Ministers. The so-called Franco-German axis was threatened by the French refusal to give up voting power parity with Germany, even though Germany has a substantially larger population and economy. Additionally, large states were pitted against small states as the larger states sought to have the weight of votes more accurately reflect the population size of the member-states. In the end, an even more complicated weighting of votes was devised which increased the voting power of the larger states relative to that of the smaller states. In addition to re-weighting, the new rules for calculating a qualified majority, which will go into effect after enlargement, contain two new elements: a qualified majority in the Council of Ministers, according to vote weights, must also represent at least one-half of the member-states and 62 percent of the EU total population.

The other two institutional questions addressed at the Nice summit concerned the size of the European Commission and increasing the number of policy areas where qualified majority voting in the Council is applied. On the first question, the large states, which currently have two members in the Commission, agreed to give up their second member by 2005. Also, agreement was reached to limit the total size of the Commission to 27 members after enlargement. On the second question, qualified majority was extended to 39 new policy areas, which means that the vast majority of policy made at the European level is now covered by the qualified majority rule in the Council of Ministers, though countries retain vetoes over certain sensitive issue areas. In addition to agreeing to some institutional reforms, the participants at Nice signed a Charter of Fundamental Rights, which codifies a number of civil, political, and social rights for EU citizens. However, the leaders of the 15 member-states did not include the Charter in the Nice Treaty, thereby weakening the Charter's legal force.

Another pivotal summit was held in Laeken, Belgium in December 2001 during the Belgian EU presidency. The principal outcome of the "Laeken declaration" was an agreement to establish a 105-member convention with the responsibility to assess problems with the EU's political structure and propose possible changes. Many have likened the proposed convention to a constitutional convention with a responsibility to consolidate the existing treaties that form the basis of the EU into a single document with constitutional force. In 2003, the convention was ongoing.

In 2004, the EU expanded its body when it welcomed new member states. Also in 2004, EU parliamentary elections were held. The outcome of EU elections in the U.K. did not bring particularly good news to the ruling Labour government. (See "Political Conditions" for details.) Further expansion ensued in 2007.

Meanwhile, in 2005, movement toward the ratification of the new European constitution began.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 181 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The future of the European charter was placed in doubt, however, after both France and the Netherlands voted overwhelmingly against it in national referenda. However, by 2007, German Chancellor Merkel was calling for reinvigorated efforts towards ratification.

To that end, a new Reform Treaty emerged in 2007, as discussed above, which was later known as the Lisbon Treaty because it was signed in the Portuguese capital. It was aimed at operating as the operational foundation of European Union. The Lisbon Treaty's fate was placed in doubt in 2008 when Irish voters decisively rejected the accord. Irish ratification in 2009 finally took place and revitalized the process. Problems with the ratification process in Poland, and legal challenges in the Czech Republic, led to the renewed risk of collapse.

That being said, once support from all member states was finalized, the Lisbon Treaty -- the foundation of the new decision-making process of the European Union -- went into force on Dec. 1, 2009. The signing ceremony took place in the city of Lisbon where the treaty was originally signed two years earlier. Jose Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, said: "The Treaty of Lisbon puts citizens at the center of the European project." He continued, "I'm delighted that we now have the right institutions to act and a period of stability, so that we can focus all our energy on delivering what matters to our citizens."

Earlier, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy and British Trade Commissioner Catherine Ashton were chosen for the newly-established positions of permanent European Union president and foreign policy chief respectively.

U.K. outside the European Union circle as bloc looks to new financial compact --

In the first part of December 2011, the leaders of the two biggest players in the euro zone -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- issued a joint call for serious changes to Europe’s governing treaties, aimed at ameliorated economic governance for the 17 countries that make up the euro currency bloc. French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel met for talks on the matter in Paris as the euro zone countries continue to grapple with the sovereign debt crisis, emanating from "ground zero" in Greece, but extending regionally across the European bloc. This crisis has left the euro vulnerable, risked fragmenting the currency union, and could yet imperil the fragile global economic recovery.

At issue has been the problematic debt to GDP ratio in countries across the euro zone of the European Union (EU), and concomitant anxieties about various countries, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and even Ireland, defaulting on their respective debts. These mostly southern European economies were plagued not only by high deficits but also inherent structural economic weakness, which could affect other countries in the euro zone in something of a contagion. While rescue packages for Greece and Ireland were put into effect, such measures forlarger economies, such as

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 182 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Italy and Spain, was simply unaffordable. General expectations were that Spain might barely escape default because its debt-to-GDP ratio -- while poor -- was still better than that of Italy. But at the broader level, attention began to rest on the need to expand a rescue fund for Europe's heavily indebted countries, which in September 2011 led to what is now known as the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).

While the expansion of the EFSF breathed necessary life into the euro stabilization entity, it should be noted that the treatment for the debt ailment infecting the euro zone has become imbued by controversy. While the participants of the global economy have been anxious for action to be taken in response to the debt crisis, German stakeholders have been incensed that they would be the major contributors to the rescue fund, which would benefit countries, such as Greece. Stated differently, the debt crisis in Europe has led not only to instability in the international markets, but also to political imbroglios across the euro zone.

Of equally significant has been the growing chorus of complaints about the slow and protracted political response to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and theassociated euro zone challenges, which were largely due to the EU's institutional structure. It was with an eye on addressing that latter issue that French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel were meeting in Paris to seek a pathway to stabilizing the euro zone. That meeting resulted in the aforementioned call for radical changes to Europe’s governing treaties, characterized by heightened economic governance in the EU.

Included in their proposal were: (1) the creation of a monetary fund for Europe, (2) automatic penalties for countries that exceed European deficit limits, and (3) monthly meetings of European leaders. The proposal entailed compromises by both European leaders. President Sarkozy had to accept the notion of automatic sanctions for countries in violation of debt limit rules, while Chancellor Merkel had to accept that the European Court of Justice will not be empowered with the power of veto over budgets. Meanwhile, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which was intended to replace the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) in 2013, would be advanced earlier in 2012.

President Sarkozy said that they were looking to March 2012 to complete negotiations on the new treaty. Ideally, the new treaty would be ratified by all 27 member states of the European Union. However, if concurrence at that level proved impossible, then the 17 states of the euro zone would have to approve it. It should also be noted that European Council President Herman Van Rompuy has said that tougher budget rules for the euro zone may not require changing any existing European Union treaties.

President Sarkozy emphasized the imperative that such a crisis not re-emerge in the future. He said, "We are conscious of the gravity of the situation and of the responsibility that rests on our shoulders." For her part, Chancellor Merkel said her country, working in concert with France, was

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 183 of 506 pages United Kingdom

"absolutely determined" to maintain a stable euro. She also advocated for "structural changes which go beyond agreements."

While the new measures would certainly go a long way to addressing the issue of improved economic governance in the euro zone, they did not deal with the question of how many euro zone countries would deal with their debt challenges in a climate of low growth. Nevertheless, in the short run, the steadfast and unified message of intent by the two European leaders was, at least, expected to calm markets and facilitate lower borrowing costs for debt-ridden economies such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal.

The proverbial "fly in the ointment" emerged on Dec. 5, 2011 when the credit ratings agency, Standard and Poor's, placed the countries of the euro zone on a "credit watch" with negative implications. Even power house economies of Germany and France were included in the move, which presaged a downgrade to come in the future. A day later, Standard and Poor's even warned that the euro zone bailout fund -- the EFSF -- could lose its own AAA rating. These moves have raised eyebrows across the world as regards the credibility of the ratings agency, which failed to warn the world of the sub-prime meltdown in 2008 that ultimately let to the global financial crisis. There were suggestions that this downgrade threat to euro zone countries, in conjunction with the downgrade of the United States months earlier following a particularly ferocious debt ceiling debate in that country, were evidence that the credit ratings agency was trying to "save face" by proving its tougher standards at this time. Standard and Poor's newly-discovered hard-line stance was being questioned by analysts, who pointed to the timing of the warning against euro zone countries. But this warning came precisely at a time when France and Germany were leading the charge in the EU to solve the regional debt crisis, as discussed here.

The move by Standard and Poor's aside, Europe re-focused on the task at hand: to institute ameliorated economic governance in the EU. By mid-December 2011, 26 out of the 27 EU member states backed the notion of a new tax and budget concord that would amend the Lisbon Treaty -- the EU's operational and constitutional foundation. Included in the cadre of 26 affirmative countries were all of the 17 euro zone countries. Of course, for many countries, support was contingent upon additional political ratification either in parliament or via referendum. Still, the signals of positive joint action were clear from these 26 countries.

The United Kingdom emerged as the lone "holdout" with British Prime Minister David Cameron insisting that he had to act to protect key British interests, including the financial markets. French President Nicolas Sarkozy noted that the sticking point for Prime Minister Cameron involved a protocol that would allow the United Kingdom to opt-out of changes on financial services. President Sarkozy said that measure wasunacceptable . Explaining his position, Prime Minister Cameron said, "We were offered a treaty that didn't have proper safeguards for Britain, and I decided it was not right to sign that treaty." He continued by noting that the United Kingdom remained in the EU, saying, "We're still in the single market."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 184 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Nevertheless, this move by the United Kingdom was an operational veto of the initiative to get all 27 EU countries to support changes to the bloc's Lisbon Treaty. As intimated above, it would effectively force the EU to go down the road of instituting a "fiscal compact," rather than a new treaty. While the institution of a fiscal pact could probably occur more quickly than ratification of a new treaty, it would entail far less rigor and strength as a guiding maxim of the EU. Across Europe, the British government was being criticized for plunging the United Kingdom into a position of isolation, while economic analysts from the Economist and the Financial Times, warned that Europe was now being faced by fragmentation.

In the United Kingdom, the move by Prime Minister Cameron was creating tensions within his own coalition government. Notably, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg -- the leader of the Liberal Democrats -- said that David Cameron's veto of EU treaty changes was "bad for Britain" and he warned that it could leave his country "isolated and marginalized" in Europe. He continued, "I don't think that's good for jobs, in the city (re: London) or elsewhere, I don't think it's good for growth or for families up and down the country." Clegg's bitter denunciation of the veto by Cameron exposed fissures in the British ruling coalition between the Conservative Euro-skeptics and the pro-European Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party -- the main political opposition in the United Kingdom -- was more scathing in its rebuke of Cameron's decision. Labour leader, Ed Miliband, said of Cameron: "He did this because the Euro-skeptic wing of the Conservative Party has effectively taken over and that isn't good for the national interest." Miliband also appeared to encourage the Liberal Democrats to look to Labour to overturn the decision as he said: "What I say to Liberal Democrats and others is that we will work with anybody who thinks this position can not stand. We must find a better way forward for Britain."

Other Significant Relations

Relations with Russia

The mysterious poisoning death of a former Russian spy, Alexander Litvinenko, in a London hospital in late 2006 resurfaced in mid-2007. In July 2007, Russian Prosecutor-General Yuri Chayka ruled against the extradition of a former KGB agent Andrei Lugovoi, whom the British authorities said was responsible for Litvinenko's death. Chayka said that extradition of Lugovoi to the United Kingdom would contradict the Russian constitution. Meanwhile, Russia said that it would carry out its own investigation and would be willing to prosecute a Russian citizen accused of a crime in another country, using "evidence provided by the foreign state."

For its part, the United Kingdom had earlier noted that Russia had signed the European Union 1957 convention on extradition. Now with the official Russian decision on the extradition issued, the British authorities responded by expelling four diplomats from the Russian embassy in

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 185 of 506 pages United Kingdom

London. The British Foreign Secretary David Miliband additionally noted that his country was reviewing its cooperation with Russia on a number of issues.

Soon thereafter, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko noted that the expulsion of its diplomats from London could very well hinder bilateral cooperation on counter-terrorism efforts. As well, Russian announced that it would also expel four staffers from the British embassy in Moscow. The United Kingdom responded to this action by noting that Russia decision to retaliate in kind was "not justified."

Consequently, in 2007, British-Russian relations were at one of their lowest points in recent history.

Relations with the United States

The United Kingdom is often considered to be the bridge between the United States and continental Europe, exercising considerable influence in trans-Atlantic relations. Although much of the post-war period has been characterized by Britain's "special relationship" with the United States, the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair has attempted to foster closer relations with continental Europe. The United Kingdom also maintains close relations with its former colonies through such international forums as the Commonwealth.

It should be noted, however, that in the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 events in the United States, the United Kingdom has been the Bush Administration's staunchest supporter. Due to the war against terrorism, the "special relationship" between the United Kingdom and the United States may have been largely renewed.

In addition to cooperating with the United States in the diplomatic, economic, and military actions taken against the Taliban and the al-Qaida network, the Blair government pledged to play an active role in the reconstruction of Afghanistan, beginning with leading the international peacekeeping force. The war in Iraq (discussed below) added another dimension to the trans-Atlantic relationship. It certainly melded the possible fates of the two countries together as regards this controversial matter.

The close of July 2007 saw new British Prime Minister Gordon Brown hold official talks with his American counterpart, United States President George W. Bush, for the first time since succeeding Tony Blair. The two heads of government met at Camp David in the United States. At issue was the state of the trans-Atlantic relationship, given Tony Blair's exit from the office of the prime minister, and Brown's entry into that role. Brown signaled goodwill by noting that the world owed the United States a debt of gratitude for its leadership in the global war on terror.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 186 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The election of Barack Obama in the United States in 2008 has ushered in expected policy changes on the global landscape, largely marked by a spirit of engagement. To that end, Obama and Brown have worked cooperatively to deal with the global financial crisis of 2008-2009, and have expressed shared goals on matters affectibg global security.

In mid-2009, with casualties mounting amidst troops from the United States and the United Kingdom fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, there have been increasing anxieties about Western efforts in that country to crush Islamic militants. Indeed, recent times have seen resurgent Taliban become increasingly violent and brutal in their attacks while Western forces have seen ever- increasing casualty lists. In July 2009, the United Kingdom and the United States had lost several soldiers as a result of attacks by resurgent Taliban. Indeed, as many as 15 British troops died in the space of days while four United States marines died in two separate roadside bombings.

Given this climate, United States President Barack Obama sought to quell anxieties by staking out a clear set of objectives for United States and allied troops trying to repel the Taliban in Afghanistan. To this end, President Obama characterized the war effort in Afghanistan as a "serious fight" against terrorism, and the crucial need to establish regional stability. President Obama said that United States and allied troops had enjoyed some success but were immediately tasked with the mission of seeing Afghanistan through the forthcoming presidential election set for August 2009.

Across the Atlantic in the United Kingdom, the British Prime Minister was compelled to justify his country's continuing effort in Afghanistan by explaining that there was a vital interest to his country in fighting terrorism. President Obama had also emphasized the fact that the effort against the Taliban was as much in the interests of Europe as it was for the United States. He said, "The mission in Afghanistan is one that the Europeans have as much if not more of a stake in than we do. The likelihood of a terrorist attack in London is at least as high, if not higher, than it is in the United States."

On May 25, 2011, United States President Barack Obama made history by becoming the first United States president to address the British parliament at Westminster Hall. In that speech, President Obama emphasized the strong and enduring bond between the two countries -- the United States and the United Kingdom -- characterizing the trans-Atlantic relationship as "one of the oldest and strongest alliances the world has ever known." President Obama also noted that the primacy of the West -- of the United states and allied European countries -- would be "indispensable" in the 21st century, given the ascendancy of new world powers, and the spread of democracy. Linking these two themes, President Obama said, "There are few nations that stand firmer, speak louder and fight harder to defend democratic values around the world than the United States and the United Kingdom."

British Prime Minister David Cameron, as well as former Prime Minister Tony Blair, former Prime

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 187 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Minister Gordon Brown, and Sir John Major, were in attendance for President Obama's address at Westminster Hall. The reception by British members of parliament and peers to President Obama was extraordinarily warm, with the United States leader receiving extended standing ovations at the start and at the close of the address respectively. The prior night, President Obama and Mrs. Obama were guests of the British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, and her consort, Prince Phillip, at an official state dinner.

Note on The War in Iraq

In mid-January 2003, Prime Minister Blair asserted he was committed to disarming Iraq via the United Nations. He said he believed that the United Nations Security Council would back military action against Iraq if it contravened against the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, which requires the relinquishment of weapons of mass destruction. Blair, however, warned against unilateral voting by any Security Council member. In the event of a veto, Blair reiterated the United Kingdom's right to take military action against Iraq if the country failed to give up its alleged weapons arsenal. By Jan. 20, 2003, up to 31, 000 British troops -- much more than initially expected -- were deployed to the Gulf for a possible war with Iraq. Once British forces commenced fighting in Iraq, Blair reported to the British parliament that the war against Iraq was going according to plan. The war was decalred over in May 2003, however, conflict has continued to date.

In the aftermath of the war, the United Kingdom's coalition partner -- the United States -- presented a resolution to the United Nations Security Council in regard to Iraq. The resolution would suspend sanctions; legalize the sale of oil -- the revenues of which would be used for reconstruction purposes -- and transition the Iraqi "oil-for-food" program into the realm of United States control. The resolution would also ensure that products of Iraq and associated proceeds would be immune from judicial and administrative challenges. The interests of any entities not associated with the United States-led coalition in Iraq would be removed. The passage of the resolution would also facilitate the eventual involvement of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. Although the United Nations would be involved in appointing a coordinator to help with reconstruction efforts, this role would be nominal in its authority. Moreover, any role for United Nations weapons inspectors would be officially eliminated.

If passed, the resolution would retroactively convey international approval to the United States-led coalition's endeavors in Iraq. The list of propositions exceeds the degree to which states opposing the war, such as France and Russia, have been willing to compromise. Meanwhile, the United States' main coalition partner -- the United Kingdom -- might find the tone of the resolution rather antagonistic. That very tonality, however, may have been intended to compel international concurrence on the issue of Iraq.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 188 of 506 pages United Kingdom

In 2004, the Labour government continued to be criticized for its alliance with the United States in regards to the war in Iraq. The war in Iraq has been an illustration of the United Kingdom's "special relationship" with the United States, which has, in and of itself, strained relations between the United Kingdom and other European countries.

By 2005, this scenario continued. It was also believed that the Labour government's diminished popularity in the elections of 2005 were largely due to public outcry against the involvement of the United Kingdom in the war.

The situation was little changed in 2006, and in fact, may have contributed to Prime Minister Blair's indications that he would step away from the leadership position in the Labour Party.

In early 2007, Blair announced the withdrawal of some troops from Iraq over the course of the following months. He said that the 7,100 British troops serving in southern Iraq would be reduced to 5,500 and he hoped that another 500 troops could leave by late summer. He expected the remaining troops to stay in Iraq until 2008. Prime Minister Blair defined a new objective for British troops in Iraq, saying that they would be expected to provide requisite support for Iraqi forces and securing the borders. He also made clear that Iraqis would write the next chapter" in their country's history.

In 2009, with the new British leadership, under the aegis of Prime Minister Gordon Brown, along with the new Obama administration in the United States, the war effort in Iraq was expected to be in its closing stages. (Note that Brown would soon be succeeded by Prime Minister Cameron in the U.K.)

As of 2012, relations between the Obama White House in the United States and Downing Street under the rule of Cameron were regarded to be highly positive.

Imbroglio with Iran

On March 23, 2007, 15 members of the British Navy were captured by members of Iranian forces. The incident occurred when the British Navy personnel boarded a vessel just off the coast of Iraq on the basis of suspected smuggling activities. The servicemen from the HMS Cornwall were apparently seized by gunpoint by Iran's Revolutionary Guard. British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett demanded both the immediate and safe return of the servicemen, as well as a "full explanation" from Iran about its actions.

On March 26, 2007, the Iranian government in Tehran said that the British Navy personnel had illegally entered Iranian waters. The British government countered the claim made by Iran saying that its Navy personnel were conducting routine patrols in Iraqi waters. British Prime Minister

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 189 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Tony Blair characterized the detention of the 15 members of the Royal Navy as "unjustified and wrong." To underline the gravity of the situation, the British government also suspended bilateral contacts with Iran.

Days later, Iranian authorities published excerpts of letters and an interview by Leading Seaman Faye Turney -- one of the Royal Navy personnel captured -- in which she expressed regret that she and her fellow Royal Navy servicemen entered Iranian waters. Subsequently, Iranian state television aired other captured Royal Navy crew members admitting that they had seemingly entered Iranian waters.

For its part, British officials said that they expected that Turney and the other servicemen had been forced to express such a position, and they did not believe the letters or interview statements were willingly offered. As well, Prime Minister Blair told the House of Commons that the time had come to "ratchet up" pressure on Iran. Earlier, Blair warned of a "different phase" in diplomatic efforts if current initiatives to free the 15 crew members failed.

Meanwhile, the Royal Navy offered Global Positioning Systems (GPS) evidence making clear that the 15 crew members, who were functioning under a United Nations mandate, were 1.7 nautical miles inside Iraqi waters when they were seized. On the other hand, Iran released video footage depicting the 15 British crew members being seized in what it has claimed to be Iranian waters. Iran also announced that it was freezing the scheduled release of Leading Seaman Turney on the basis of the U.K.'s supposed "incorrect attitude."

On March 29, 2007, following a request by the United Kingdom (U.K.), the United Nations Security Council issued a statement conveying "grave concern" for the capture of the British Navy personnel by Iran, and calling on Iran to ensure that the U.K. received consular access.

On the diplomatic front, Iran sent a formal note to the U.K. in which it condemned the Royal Navy's "illegal act" and called for guarantees that such trespassing would not be repeated. Meanwhile, the European Union expressed "unconditional support" for the position of the U.K. and urged the "immediate and unconditional release" of the 15 Royal Navy personnel.

Days later, the climate appeared to have calmed somewhat, despite the airing of new footage of the 15 who had been detained. Iran noted that a shift from the U.K. could help to resolve the crisis, and in so doing refined its hard-line tone. Meanwhile, the U.K. Defense Secretary Des Browne said that diplomatic efforts to end the crisis were ongoing, and that London and Tehran were engaging in "direct bilateral communication."

See Special Report below as regards the historic downgrade of relations between Iran and the United Kingdom.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 190 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The Indian Sub-Continent

Prime Minister Blair took a personal interest in the situation in Afghanistan - and also in neighboring Pakistan and India. Blair traveled to the region in early 2002, meeting with the new Afghani interim government, and also with both Pakistani President Musharraf and Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee in an attempt to calm the tension - namely the talk of war - between these two nuclear powers. As the situation between these two former British colonies intensified, it was apparent that British diplomacy will be called upon to help defuse the situation. In 2005, with India under the leadership of Prime Minister Singh and the Congress Party, many experts believed that the path to reconciliation on the sub-continent might be more fruitful. But as of 2009, with extremists playng a greater role in Pakistan, stabilizing efforts in the region were considered to be a top priority.

Middle East Peace

The Blair government has been advocating for more involvement from the West, particularly the United States, in brokering peace between Israelis and Palestinians. As well, the Blair government was instrumental in bringing Libya back into the fold of the international community, and has worked with other European powers to deal with the challenge of Iran's nuclear ambitions. Also since 2007, Iran's nuclear ambitions have been at the forefront of the United Kingdom's foreign policy concerns along with the presence of British troops in Iraq (discussed above). The Brown government did not appear to institute any significant policy changes. However, with the Obama administration in the United States expressing an end date for operations in Iraq and commitment to the peace between Israelis and Palestinians, trans-Atlantic efforts in these regards were likely to be reinvigorated.

Controversy with Libya

Scotland's jurisprudence came under fire in the aftermath of the decision to free Abdel Baset al- Megrahi -- the man responsible for the bombing of the Pan American flight that exploded over the town of Lockerbie in 1988. Scotland's Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill justified the decision on compassionate grounds since al-Magrahi was terminally ill with prostate cancer. MacAskill said the decision "was not based on political, economic or diplomatic considerations" but was one that he made alone and he would have to live with the consequences. MacAskill conceded that Libya had acted wrongly by giving al-Megrahi a hero's welcome when he arrived back home on Libyan soil. In an address to parliament, he said, "It is a matter of great regret that Mr. Megrahi was received in such an inappropriate manner. It showed no compassion or sensitivity to the families of the 270 victims of Lockerbie." Indeed, the matter has been a source of embarrassment for the Scots at

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 191 of 506 pages United Kingdom home who were chagrined to see their flag being waved in Libya in support for the return of a convicted terrorist.

On the other side of the Atlantic -- and home to many of the Lockerbie victims -- the United States Department of State made it clear that it "passionately" disagreed with the decision. Still, the United States acknowledged that the matter would not rupture good relations with the United Kingdom. State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said: "We made it quite clear that we disagreed passionately with this decision, because we thought it sent the wrong signal to, not only the families, but also to terrorists. But I really discourage you from thinking that we necessarily have to have some kind of tit-for-tat retaliation because of it. I just don't see it - not with Britain." That said, there remained grassroots rumblings of a trade boycott of Scotland as a result of the situation.

The case became marred by further controversy after a Times of London news story was published suggesting an "oil for freedom" deal between Libya and the United Kingdom. But on Aug. 31, 2009, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that al-Megrahi was not released as part of an oil exploration deal with Libya. The office of the prime minister insisted there was no deal associated with the release of al-Megrahi, and denied the Times of London charge that the move was made in order to facilitate oil exploration rights in Libya by the British energy company, BP.

This issue was evoked again in 2010 when BP was in the news due to a massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. The disaster in Gulf intersected with global politics as BP was subject to increased scrutiny, ultimately resting on the question of whether that company played a role in the early release of the Libyan Lockerbie bomber al-Megrahi, and spurring debate again as to whether or not BP lobbied for his release in exchange for lucrative oil deals in Libya. In fact, BP acknowledged that it had conveyed concern over the slow action being taken to transfer Megrahi out of British jurisdiction and home to Libya. The company stopped short of admitting that it played a part in the release of the terrorist.

As well, British Prime Minister David Cameron, in the United States for meetings with President Barack Obama, dismissed a request for a new investigation into the matter. Scottish Secretary, Michael Moore, insisted before the House of Commons that the decision to release the Libyan terrorist was made "in good faith." Still, with this scandal brewing, pressure was building on both sides of the Atlantic -- in the United States for a investigation into the allegations against BP related to the bomber's release, and in the United Kingdom for a full and independent inquiry into the bombing itself and the decision to grant a terrorist freedom on compassionate grounds.

Note that the United Kingdom, along with the United States and France, spearheaded the NATO effort to protect civilians in Libya during that country's pro-democracy revolution in 2011, leading to the ousting of Qadhafi from power in that country.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 192 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Special Report: Leaders forge $1 trillion deal at G-20 summit in London

Leaders of the world’s largest economies, known as the “G-20,” met in London to explore possible responses to the global financial crisis. To that end, they forged a deal valued at more than one trillion dollars (USD).

Central to the agreement was an infusion of $750 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was aimed at helping troubled economies. Up to $100 billion of that amount was earmarked to assist the world’s very poorest countries -- an amount far greater than had been expected. In many senses, the infusion of funding to the IMF marked a strengthening of that body unseen since the 1980s.

In addition, the G-20 leaders settled on a $250 billion increase in global trade. The world’s poorest countries would also benefit from the availability of $250 billion of trade credit.

After some debate, the G-20 leaders decided to levy sanctions against clandestine tax havens and to institute strict financial regulations. Such regulations included tougher controls on banking professionals’ salaries and bonuses, and increased oversight of hedge funds and credit rating agencies. A Financial Stability Board was to be established that would work in concert with the IMF to facilitate cross-border cooperation, and also to provide early warnings regarding the financial system.

Aside from these measures, the G-20 countries were already implementing their own economic stimulus measures at home, aimed at reversing the global recession. Together, these economic stimulus packages would inject approximately $5 trillion by the end of 2010.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown played host at the meeting, which most concurred went off successfully, despite the presence of anti-globalization and anarchist protestors. Prime Minister Brown warned that there was "no quick fix" for the economic woes facing the international community, but he drew attention to the consensus that had been forged in the interest of the common good. He said, "This is the day that the world came together to fight back against the global recession, not with words, but with a plan for global recovery and for reform and with a clear timetable for its delivery.”

All eyes were on United States President Barack Obama, who characterized the G-20 summit as “a turning point” in the effort towards global economic recovery. He also hailed the advances agreed upon to reform the failed regulatory regime that contributed to the financial crisis that has gripped many of the economies across the globe. Thusly, President Obama declared the London summit to be historic saying, "It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenges that we face and because of the timeliness and the magnitude of our response.”

Ahead of the summit, there were reports of a growing rift between the respective duos of France

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 193 of 506 pages United Kingdom and Germany -- and -- the United States and the United Kingdom. While France and Germany were emphasizing stricter financial regulations, the United States and the United Kingdom were advocating public spending to deal with the economic crisis. Indeed, French President Nicolas Sarkozy had threatened to bolt the meeting if his priority issues were not addressed. But such an end did not occur, although tensions were existent.

To that end, President Obama was hailed for his diplomatic skills after he brokered an agreement between France and China on tax havens. The American president played the role of peacemaker between French President Sarkozy and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, paving the way for a meeting of the minds on the matter of tax havens.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said that the concurrence reached at the G-20 summit were "more than we could have hoped for." President Sarkozy also credited President Obama for the American president’s leadership at the summit, effusively stating: "President Obama really found the consensus. He didn't focus exclusively on stimulus ... In fact it was he who managed to help me persuade [Chinese] President Hu Jintao to agree to the reference to the ... publication of a list of tax havens, and I wish to thank him for that."

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel also expressed positive feedback about the success of the summit noting that the new measures would give the international arena a "clearer financial market architecture." She noted that the agreement reached was "a very, very good, almost historic compromise." Finally, Chancellor Merkel had warm words of praise for President Obama. “The American president also put his hand into this,” said Merkel.

Note: The G-20 leaders agreed to meet again in September 2009 in New York to assess the progress of their agenda.

NATO meeting in Strasbourg marks 60th anniversary and the return of France to the command structure

On the heels of the G-20 summit in London, leaders of NATO member states met in the French city of Strasbourg amidst fierce --and sometimes violent --protests. At the NATO meetings, United States President Barack Obama emphasized the need to repairing his country’s ties with Europe in the wake of the Bush era, when unilateralism was the dominating philosophy. President Obama called for both greater responsibility and increased cooperation for the purpose of advancing global peace and security.

EU-US leaders meet in Czech Republic to discuss trans-Atlantic ties

On April 5, 2009, the joint European Union (EU)-United States (U.S.) summit opened in the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 194 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Czech capital of Prague. The leaders of the EU and the U.S. met to discuss trans-Atlantic ties, including cooperation on climate change, energy, security, and international relations. The meeting came on the heels of the G-20 summit in London and the NATO summit in Strasbourg. United States President Barack Obama was expected to continue to strike a cooperative tone as he highlights the need for advancing global peace and security. He was also expected to request further assistance in Afghanistan.

Spy scandal with Israel

A spy scandal that implicated Israeli nationals on March 23, 2010 led to the decision by the United Kingdom to expel an Israeli diplomat. At issue was the use of forged British passports in the suspected Mossad assassination of a Hamas commander, Mahmoud Al Mabhouh, in a Dubai hotel room. The move came after an investigation into the matter and was made official with an address by British Foreign Secretary David Miliband to parliamentarians in the House of Commons. To date, Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement in the apparent targeted assassination of al-Mabhouh.

Special Report: Iran under isolation; effects on ties with the United Kingdom --

Due to revelations about Iran's nuclear development program, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) passed a resolution expressing "deep and increasing concern" about Iran's nuclear program, and demanded that Iran clarify outstanding questions related the country's nuclear capabilities. The resolution was adopted following a vote at the United Nations nuclear watchdog agency, with 32 votes inits favor and only Cuba and Ecuador voting against it. Iran's IAEA envoy, Ali Ashgar Soltanieh , dismissed the development and said the resolution would only strengthen Iran's resolve to go forward with its nuclear development. He said, "It will be business as usual... We will continue our work as before."

While Iran was not on the verge of a declaration of its nuclear breakout capability, clearly, these revelations would serve to reinvigorate the debate about what method could be used to stop Iran from accessing a nuclear weapon. Under consideration would be options ranging from sanctions, to sabotage and military action. Despite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's assertion that the report made clear the need for global action to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, Russia wasted no time in foreclosing the possibility of its support for fresh sanctions. With United Nations sanctions unlikely, on Nov. 21, 2011, the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada slapped fresh sanctions on Iran's financial and energy sectors.

In addition to the IAEA resolution discussed above, Iran was also subject to further diplomatic pressure and went further down the road to global isolation when the United Nations General

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 195 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Assembly voted overwhelmingly in favor of a resolution condemning an alleged assassination plot targeting the Saudi ambassador to the United States. The resolution stopped short of directly accusing Tehran of the plot, but nonetheless demanded that Iran "comply with all of its obligations under international law" and "co-operate with states seeking to bring to justice all those who participated in the planning, sponsoring, organization and attempted execution of the plot."

With international pressure being intensified against Iran, the Iranian regime appeared to be reacting by lashing out at the Western world. With hostilities already high between Iran and the United States, Tehran appeared to be taking aim at the United Kingdom. To this end, by the close of November 2011, Iran's Guardian Council of the Constitution unanimously voted to reduce diplomatic ties with the United Kingdom. The change would downgrade diplomatic ties with the United Kingdom from the ambassador level to the level of charge d'affaires within a two-week timeframe. Ratification by the Guardian Council came after a vote in the Iranian Majlis or parliament, approving this move. Iranian radio reported that during the vote, several members of parliament changed "death to Britain." Iran was reacting to pressure from Western countries, including the United Kingdom, to place greater political and economic pressure on Iran, and particularly, the Central Bank of Iran, in the wake of the aforementioned report by the IAEA.

In a further sign that Iran's relations with the countries of the West were on a downward slide, Nov. 29, 2011 saw militant students aligned with the hard line conservative government in Tehran storm the British embassy compound. This action appeared to be part of a violent demonstration against the government of the United Kingdom, which joined the United States in issuing new financial sanctions against Iran. The militant activists reportedly chanted, "death to England ," vandalized the embassy offices, seized sensitive documents, briefly detained some diplomatic personnel, and burned the British flag in acts that constituted flagrant violations of diplomatic norms. A separate attack by militant students and activists on a British diplomatic compound in northern Tehran was also confirmed by the British Foreign Office. The scenario disturbingly recalled the shocking assault on the American Embassy in 1979 following Iran's Islamic Revolution.

Although Iran expressed "regret" over the attacks on the British embassy and secondary diplomatic compound, witnesses on the ground in Iran suggested that Iranian security forces did little to quickly end the outbreak of violence against a diplomatic interest. Indeed, police reportedly allowed the scene to play out for several hours before taking control of the situation. There were serious allegations mounting that the assault on the British embassy compounds had taken place with approval from Iranian authorities. Furthermore, speculation rested on the involvement of the regime-backed Basiji militia. For his part, British Prime Minister David Cameron said: "The attack on the British embassy in Tehran today was outrageous and indefensible." British authorities warned its citizens in Iran to remain indoors and await advice; they also warned of consequences for Iran in the offing, and summoned the Iranian charge d'affaires.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 196 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The United Kingdom on Nov. 30, 2011 officially downgraded its ties with Iran. The United Kingdom withdrew all its diplomats from Iran, closed its embassy in Tehran, urged its citizens to exit that country, and gave Iran 48 hours to remove all its staff from the Iranian diplomatic mission in London. Officials in the United Kingdom also went on the record to note that they believe the attacks on the British embassy in Tehran and the secondary compound were carried out with the tacit approval of Iran's leadership. British Foreign Secretary William Hague, asserted that there had been "some degree of regime consent" in the attacks on the embassy and the other diplomatic compound in Tehran. Dominick Chilcott, the newly-appointed British ambassador to Iran, said: "This was a state-supported activity." In an interview with BBC News, Ambassador Chilcott said that Iran was a country in which an attack on an embassy was conducted only "with the acquiescence and the support of the state." These moves collectively marked the worst deterioration of ties between the United Kingdom and Iran in decades.

The United Kingdom was backed by the 15-nation United Nations Security Council, which condemned the attack "in the strongest terms." Separately, United States President Barack Obama called for the Iranian government to ensure those responsible faced justice. Germany's Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle characterized the attacks on the British embassy compounds as "a violation of international law." French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe placed the blame on the Iranian government, saying: "The Iranian regime has shown what little consideration it has for international law."

Several European countries -- such as France, Germany, Italy and the Netherlands -- wasted no time in joining the Western thrust to diplomatically isolate Iran by recalling their own ambassadors from Tehran. France took a further step by withdrawing its embassy staff from Iran. French officials said the move was being made out of an abundance of caution, given the security risks in Iran to Western interests. France's calls for a ban on Iranian oil imports and a freeze on central bank assets was expected to heighten bilateral tensions, and effectively place France in Iran's firing line, along with the United Kingdom. Russia, which has often been accused by the West of being "soft" on Iran joined the condemnation of the attacks.

At home in Iran, militant activist students in that country were at the airport in Tehran, waiting to welcome the expelled Iranian diplomats from London, and chanting slogans, such as "Death to Britain." The returning diplomats, however, never had any direct encounters with the students at the airport.

The situation appeared to highlight cleavages in the Iranian leadership regarding the diplomatic farrago. For example, in an interview with Iran's state-run IRNA news agency, Grand Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi said, "There is no doubt that Britain is one of the oldest enemies of Iran." He appeared to offer a slight rebuke to the militant activists who attacked the British embassy, adding: "Young revolutionaries should not go beyond the law." Meanwhile, the Iranian government targeted the United Kingdom for exacerbating tensions between that country and the West, as Iranian foreign ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast, said: "The British government

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 197 of 506 pages United Kingdom is trying to extend to other European countries the problem between the two of us.”

Special Report: Ecuador grants asylum to WikiLeaks founder; U.K. threatens to storm embassy

On Aug. 16, 2012, the government of Ecuador announced it would grant asylum to Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks. In June of 2012, Assange took refuge at the Ecuadorian embassy in the United Kingdom to avoid extradition. Now, months later, the United Kingdom was making it abundantly clear that Assange would not be granted safe passage out of the country.

WikiLeaks is an online database of leaked classified documents and private diplomatic cables from government sources, news organizations, and whistleblowers. Launched in 2006 by Assange, an Australian Internet activist, WikiLeaks has led to outrage across the world, embarrassment for several governments, and accusations that the dissemination of classified materials constitutes to a threat to global security. Assange's personal legal problems (as regards to alleged sexual offenses in Sweden) has been viewed as the means to apprehend him, with the possibility of extradition to the United States to face charges related to WikiLeaks' publication of private diplomatic cables.

To these ends, and with news emerging that Ecuador was providing sanctuary to Assange via its embassy in London, the United Kingdom wasted little time in warning that it would fulfill its "obligation" to extradite Assange. Indeed, the United Kingdom did not foreclose the possibility of storming the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

In response, Ecuadorian Foreign Minister Ricardo Patino said during a news conference: "Today we received from the United Kingdom the express threat, in writing, that they could assault our embassy in London if Ecuador didn't hand over Julian Assange. We want to make this absolutely clear. We are not a colony of Britain."

But the United Kingdom was in no mood to back down, posting a message via social media that read: "We have consistently made our position clear in our discussions with the government of Ecuador. U.K. has a legal obligation to extradite Mr. Assange to Sweden to face questioning over allegations of sexual offenses." The Foreign Office continued, "Throughout this process we have drawn the Ecuadorians' attention to relevant provisions of our law. For example, extensive human rights safeguards in our extradition procedures, or to legal status of diplomatic premises in the U.K."

Amping up the rhetoric, United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague said, "Under our law, with Assange having exhausted all options of appeal, the British authorities are under a binding obligation to extradite him to Sweden. We must carry out that obligation and, of course, we fully intend to do so." Explaining that the United Kingdom was not bound by legal instruments requiring

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 198 of 506 pages United Kingdom the recognition of diplomatic asylum by a foreign embassy, Hague said that diplomatic asylum "should not be used for the purposes of escaping the regular processes of the courts."

For his part, Assange himself entered the debate on Aug. 19, 2012, when he appeared on the balcony of the Ecuadorian embassy and offered a statement. In that statement, he urged the United States to end its "witch-hunt" against Wikileaks. He specifically demanded that the United States stop going after whistleblowers, saying: "The United States must pledge before the world that it will not pursue journalists for shining a light on the secret crimes of the powerful." Assange also called for the release of Bradley Manning, who faces trial due to accusations that he [Manning] leaked the classified documents to Wikileaks.

Note that as the end of August 2012 was near, the diplomatic standoff between the United Kingdom and Ecuador came to a close. Ecuador's President Correa announced that the United Kingdom had withdrawn its threat to enter Ecuador's embassy in London to arrest Assange. Ecuador's government said it had received a message from the British Foreign Office confirming that "there was no threat to enter the embassy."

Special Report on the Syrian Crisis and the U.K. position

Summary:

Since early 2011, anti-government protests have spread and escalated across the Arab world; Syria emerged as an addition to the list of countries experiencing unrest in March 2011. At first, protesters stopped short of demanding the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, instead demanding greater political freedom and efforts to end corruption. For his part, President Assad announced he would advance a reform agenda, which would include lifting the emergency laws that had been in place for decades, and increased rights to the country's disenfranchised Kurdish population. These moves were aimed at quelling the rising climate of unrest gripping the country. But over time, as protests continued, and as the Assad regime carried out a hard line crackdown on dissent, tensions escalated between the government and the protesters.

In mid-2011, the United Nations Security Council and the Arab League respectively issued condemnations of the violence in Syria. As well, the United Nations Human Rights Council called for an independent inquiry into the violent crackdown on dissent. Meanwhile, global leaders were calling for President Assad to step down from power, given the brutality of the Syrian regime's crackdown on protesters. As of 2012, the bloody crackdown by the Assad regime on anti- government protesters was ongoing. In fact, the crackdown appeared to become more relentless in places such as Homs and Aleppo. Despite widespread condemnation from the West, a United Nations Security Resolution on the situation in Syria was subject to veto by Russia and China. A subsequent vote in the United Nations General Assembly overwhelmingly condemned Syria for its

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 199 of 506 pages United Kingdom brutal crackdown. A prevailing truce, brokered by the joint United Nations/Arab League envoy, Kofi Annan, was established in the interests of preventing further bloodshed; however, it was revealed to be an exercise in theory rather than practice and eventually the United Nations monitoring mission ended in failure.

Syria has, meanwhile, been subject to sanctions by various countries and was sliding into pariah status in the international community. Assassinations, alleged massacres, geopolitical tensions with Turkey and Israel, and most recently, suspicions about the use of chemical weapons, have since mired the Syrian landscape. Indeed, it was increasingly clear that Syria had slipped into a state of civil war and was facing a devastating humanitarian crisis. That crisis reached new heights in August 2013 with claims that Syrian forces launched a chemical attack on the outskirts of Damascus. Was this the clear sign that United States President Barack Obama's "red line" had definitively been crossed? And would the international community become more involved in the Syrian crisis? The answers to those questions were yet to be determined.

Chemical weapons issue resurfaces:

On Aug. 21, 2013, Syrian opposition activists and rebels said that chemical weapons had killed hundreds of people on the outskirts of Damascus. They said that government forces launched a major bombardment on rebel forces in the area of Ghouta using rockets with toxic agents. The Syrian government dismissed the accusations as "illogical and fabricated." The Syrian military further said that rebel forces were suffering major defeat and were using claims of chemical attacks to draw attention away from the fact that they were losing the war.

The claims and counter-claims set up rival theories that could not be verified simply by looking at the videotaped footage of victims that immediately surfaced online. Stated differently, while the international media was able to obtain visual evidence of victims who had died, that footage could not prove whether they died as a result of conventional military bombardment or due to exposure to toxic substances. However, there was an increasing chorus of disturbing assertions by medical staff that the victims, particularly children, appeared to have suffered suffocation and blurred vision. As well, further videotaped footage was starting to surface about the purported attacks, this time showing victims enduring convulsions or distinctly encountering breathing problems. In an interview with BBC News, Professor Alexander Kekule of the Institute for Medical Microbiology at Halle University in Germany, admitted that the videotaped images of the victims certainly suggested they had been subject to a chemical agent of some kind. However, he made a point of noting that none of the victims showed signs that they had been exposed to chemicals such as sarin or organophosphorous nerve agents.

The international community seemed initially wary to accept the claims of chemical attacks, perhaps with the memory of the inconclusive chemical weapons claims so fresh in their minds from earlier in the year (2013). Only recently, United Nations investigators traveled to Syria to

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 200 of 506 pages United Kingdom look into those earlier claims. In August 2013, the United Nations convened an emergency meeting to discuss the newest chemical attack claims and its immediate response was to seek clarification on the situation in Syria. As noted by Maria Cristina Perceval, Argentina's United Nations Ambassador, "There is a strong concern among council members about the allegations and a general sense that there must be clarity on what happened and the situation must be followed closely."

That being said, individual countries -- such as France and the United Kingdom-- were going further and demanding that United Nations inspectors who were already investigating the earlier allegations of chemical attacks in Syria now look into these fresh claims. The United States echoed their call via White House spokesperson Josh Earnest, who said: "The United States is deeply concerned by reports that hundreds of Syrian civilians have been killed in an attack by Syrian government forces, including by the use of chemical weapons, near Damascus earlier today. We are formally requesting that the United Nations urgently investigate this new allegation. The United Nations investigative team, which is currently in Syria, is prepared to do so, and that is consistent with its purpose and mandate." Both the European Union and the Arab League entered the fray, adding their own voices to the call for United Nations inspectors to go look into the matter.

Perhaps not surprisingly, Russia had a different view and noted that the timing of the fresh claims of chemical attacks came just as United Nations inspectors were in Syria to investigate the chemical claims from earlier in 2013 The Russian foreign ministry said, "This makes us think that we are once again dealing with a premeditated provocation." Indeed, there was a legitimate question as to why the Syrian government would choose to use chemical weapons at a time when United Nations inspectors were "in country" and especially given United States President Barack Obama's 2012 famous statement that his country would not be involving itself in the Syrian crisis unless the Assad regime used chemical weapons -- essentially crossing a vital "red line" -- that could augur international military action.

There was incremental movement in that direction on Aug. 22, 2013, when the United Kingdom, France, and Turkey all demanded that the international community take a strong stand against the Syrian regime, if the chemical weapons attack was verified. France went further with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius saying that if the claims of a chemical attack proved to be true, a "reaction of force" would result. The United Kingdom issued a similar threat via the British Foreign Office, noting, "We believe a political solution is the best way to end the bloodshed" but also warning that the government of Prime Minister David Cameron "has said many times we cannot rule out any option that might save innocent lives in Syria." Meanwhile, Turkey goaded the United Nations about its symbolic "foot dragging" as Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu declared: "All red lines have been crossed but still the United Nations Security Council has not even been able to take a decision."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 201 of 506 pages United Kingdom

On Aug. 23, 2013, United States President Barack Obama offered comments on the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria saying that the claims constituted a "big event, of grave concern." In an interview with CNN, President Obama noted that the conflict in Syria would have a bearing on United States national interests "both in terms of us making sure that weapons of mass destruction are not proliferating, as well as needing to protect our allies, our bases in the region." Nevertheless, the United States leader struck a cautious note, reminding journalists that his country was still in the process of seeking confirmation on the matter of chemical weapons usage; however, he asserted that if the allegations proved to be true, the crisis would "require America's attention." Left unsaid was the nature of that attention. For his part, President Obama urged prudent action, tacitly reminding people of the consequences of the reckless military intervention of his predecessor, George W. Bush, into Iraq. The United States president said: "Sometimes what we've seen is that folks will call for immediate action, jumping into stuff, that does not turn out well, gets us mired in very difficult situations, can result in us being drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region."

Around this time, Russia maintained its belief that the use of chemical agents might be a provocation by the opposition. Still, Russia was now urging Syria to cooperate with an "objective investigation" by United Nations chemical weapons experts. United Kingdom Foreign Secretary William Hague indirectly addressed this suggestion that the use of chemical agents was a provocation by rebel forces saying, "I know that some people in the world would like to say this is some kind of conspiracy brought about by the opposition in Syria. I think the chances of that are vanishingly small and so we do believe that this is a chemical attack by the Assad regime on a large scale."

United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon demanded an immediate investigation to clear up the matter. He said: "I can think of no good reason why any party -- either government or opposition forces -- would decline this opportunity to get to the truth of the matter." Ban also emphasized the fact that any use of chemical weapons -- by any actor or party -- would be a violation of international law, which would inevitably result in "serious consequences for the perpetrator."

On Aug. 24, 2013, the international medical assistance organization, Medecins Sans Frontieres, or MSF, ("Doctors Without Borders" in English), confirmed that it had treated as many as 3,600 patients with "neurotoxic symptoms," and noted that 355 of those patients had died. This news from MSF augmented the claim that the use of chemical agents were used in Syria in the final week of August 2013 although the international medical assistance organization was careful to note that it could not "scientifically confirm" the use of chemical weapons. MSF Director of Operations Bart Janssens said: "MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events, characterized by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 202 of 506 pages United Kingdom medical and first workers, strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent." He continued, "This would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, which absolutely prohibits the use of chemical and biological weapons."

On Aug. 25, 2013, the Assad regime again dismissed charges that it had used chemical toxins or poisons on Syrian citizens but did agree to allow United Nations inspectors to travel to suspected sites of chemical attacks to investigate the prevailing accusations. The United Nations said that Syria had agreed to allow investigators to operate in an environment of safety, even promising a ceasefire during inspections. However, as the convoy of vehicles carrying chemical weapons inspectors was driving to the Damascus suburb to carry out the investigation on Aug. 26, 2013, they were fired upon by snipers. The first vehicle in the convoy was repeatedly hit by gunfire, forcing it to discontinue its path. The other vehicles in the convoy, however, were able to get to the suspected sites and collect samples from victims, despite coming under gunfire. The United Nations released a statement describing what happened and condemning the attack on its convoy as follows: "The first vehicle of the Chemical Weapons Investigation Team was deliberately shot at multiple times by unidentified snipers in the buffer zone area. It has to be stressed again that all sides need to extend their cooperation so that the team can safely carry out their important work."

Should the United Nations' investigation end with evidence of the use of chemical agents, toxins, or poisons, the general consensus was that such confirmation would bolster the case for an international intervention into Syria. There were few hopes that veto-wielding Russia and China would sanction the use of force in Syria at the United Nations Security Council. However, there was a pertinent precedent for international action on the basis of humanitarian reasons. Specifically, the NATO campaign against Serbia to protect the people of Kosovo was undertaken without a United Nations Security Council Resolution and against the wishes of Russia -- an ally of Serbia. It was, thus, possible that Western powers could again go the NATO route -- this time in Syria.

A meeting of leaders from the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and other NATO allies was in the offing to discuss possible options. United States Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel appeared to be reflecting the Obama administration's cautious stance regarding action in Syria when he said: "The United States is looking at all options regarding the situation in Syria. We're working with our allies and the international community. We are analyzing the intelligence. And we will get the facts. And if there is any action taken, it will be in concert with the international community and within the framework of legal justification."

Of course, the official report on the suspected chemical weapons usage in Syria by the United Nations was expected to take weeks to prepare. As such, the United States was indicating that there was a "clear" and "compelling" case to be made of those charges against the Assad regime in Syria. On Aug. 30, 2013, United States Secretary of State John Kerry released an unclassified intelligence report on the matter. Secretary of State Kerry said: “Read for yourselves the evidence

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 203 of 506 pages United Kingdom from thousands of sources. This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.” The United States' top diplomat also delivered the shocking claim that more than 1,400 people were killed in the chemical attack -- at least 400 of whom were children.

France was also giving weight to the United States' claims regarding a massive chemical attack in Syria, with French Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault releasing a report in parliament. That report went so far as to note that while the Syrian army had already -- and repeatedly -- used chemical weapons against the Syrian people, on Aug. 21, 2013, it launched an attack using "massive use of chemical agents." The French report further alleged that the chemical attack at that time "could not have been ordered and carried out by anyone but the Syrian government." The French report additionally noted that Syria's arsenal of chemical weapons was "massive and diverse" and included both the nerve agent, sarin, and the toxic known agent, VX.

France was, therefore, maintaining its stance that there should be an international response to Syria's use of chemical weapons. On the issue of France's role in that response, Prime Minister Ayrault said, "France is determined to penalize the use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime and to dissuade with a forceful and firm response." He also indicated that France was working with international partners to build a coalition that would carry out a possible course of action against Syria. The French government was being very emphatic about the obligation of world powers to respond to the use of chemical weapons in defiance of international conventions. As stated by French President Francois Hollande on Sept. 3, 2013: "When a chemical massacre takes place, when the world is informed of it, when the evidence is delivered, when the guilty parties are known, then there must be an answer." The French leader urged other European countries to show unity on the issue.

The claims about Syria's use of chemical weapons by the United States and France were augmented by the statement of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen, who declared that he was personally convinced that a chemical attack had, indeed, taken place, and that the Assad regime was responsible for that attack. That being said, there was no suggestion that NATO would be involved in any intervention into the Syrian crisis in the manner in which the regional security bloc was engaged in Libya.

On Sept. 4, 2013, United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that any intervention into the Syrian crisis should have the blessing of the United Nations, and urged the Security Council to take action. He also declared, "This is a larger issue than the conflict in Syria. This is about our collective responsibility to humankind." Left unsaid by Secretary General Ban was the fact that veto-wielding Russia and China were not eager to accommodate a resolution that would authorize such intervention.

Meanwhile, even as the evidence was increasing to support the claim of a chemical weapons attack

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 204 of 506 pages United Kingdom in Syria, the political will to build an international coalition to act against Syria was eroding. At issue was a parliamentary vote in the United Kingdom's House of Commons urging an international response to the Syria chemical weapons crisis. The vote came amidst British Prime Minister David Cameron's vociferous condemnation of Syria's apparent use of chemical weapons, and his suggestion that the United Kingdom would join the United States and France in delivering some kind of punitive action against Syria. But when the parliamentary vote went down to defeat in the House on Commons on Aug. 29, 2013, it was apparent that the United Kingdom would not be a player in any kind of military intervention.

Irrespective of the political developments across the Atlantic, in the United States, President Barack Obama on Aug. 30, 2013, made clear that he was still considering the full range of options in response to Syria's use of chemical weapons against its own citizens. Referring to the aforementioned report on the suspected chemical weapons usage in Syria released by Secretary of State Kerry, President Obama said, "As you've seen, today we've released our unclassified assessment detailing with high confidence that the Syrian regime carried out a chemical weapons attack that killed well over 1,000 people, including hundreds of children. This follows the horrific images that shocked us all."

With an eye on showing why the use of chemical weapons required a response, President Obama said, "This kind of attack is a challenge to the world. We cannot accept a world where women and children and innocent civilians are gassed on a terrible scale." He continued, "So, I have said before, and I meant what I said that, the world has an obligation to make sure that we maintain the norm against the use of chemical weapons." In this way, the United States president was making it clear that the international community had an obligation to respond to Syria's use of chemical weapons -- an act that was undertaken in defiance of international law and in contravention to international norms.

President Obama indicated that several options were under review, as he noted, "Now, I have not made a final decision about various actions that might be taken to help enforce that norm. But as I've already said, I have had my military and our team look at a wide range of options." That being said, President Obama noted that a long-term campaign involving a ground force in Syria (reminiscent of Iraq) were not among those possibilities. He expressly said, "We're not considering any open-ended commitment. We're not considering any boots on the ground approach. What we will do is consider options that meet the narrow concern around chemical weapons." Evidently, although President Obama believed there was a moral obligation to act against Syria for its use of chemical weapons, he was not eager to see the United States mired in another war in the world's most volatile region. Stated differently, it was through the prism of the Iraq debacle that the United States leader was viewing his options for dealing with Syria.

Given the fears of the United States becoming bogged down in another Iraq-like quagmire, Secretary of State John Kerry aimed to articulate the objectives of the United States in any

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 205 of 506 pages United Kingdom potential military action in Syria. During a senate committee hearing ahead of a congressional authorization vote on Sept. 3, 2013, Secretary of State Kerry said : "The goal of United States policy is not stalemate. The goal of United States policy is a negotiated settlement that results in the departure of Assad and the free voice of the Syrian people for their future."

For his part, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has repeatedly denied that his forces launched any chemical attacks. The Syrian leader has warned of a wider Middle Eastern war if foreign countries decide to move forward with military action against Syria. That wider war could occur if Assad decided to react to a yet-to-occur military strike by international powers on Syria. Some of the possibilities available to Assad would include retaliatory attacks on pro-Western allies of the United States, such as Israel, Jordan, and Turkey. But the reality was that Syria's military already had its hands full fighting the civil war at home. Moreover, Syria likely could not risk sparking the ire of Israel, with its own well-armed military, or Jordan, which hosts United States fighter jets, missiles and troops, or Turkey -- a NATO member state. Indeed, an attack on any NATO country, such as Turkey, would prompt a response from the entire security alliance.

The bottom line for the United Kingdom, however, was the fact that the parliamentary vote on engagement ensured that no British military would be involved in any action against Syria, irrespective of the position of British Prime Minister Cameron.

Last British combat troops exit Afghanistan

In late October 2014, United States and United Kingdom forces exited their main military bases in Helmand province, effectively turning security over to Afghan forces. While the complete withdrawal of United States forces would not ensue until 2016, a phased draw-down was certainly taking place and would continue over the course of the next year. At the same time, this particular exit from Helmand was significant for the United Kingdom as it marked the withdrawal of the last British combat forces from Afghanistan after being in the Afghan combat zone for more than a decade. For its part, the Afghan military said that it was prepared to take responsibility for the security of the country, pointing to the fact that increasingly, support from United States and United Kingdom forces had become more psychological than in the battlefield.

Special Entry

United Kingdom and United States announce plans for counter-terrorism cooperation

During a state visit to the United States, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron joined his American counterpart, President Barack Obama, in announcing a plan for counter-terrorism cooperation. Among the measures to be implemented were the establishment of a counter-

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 206 of 506 pages United Kingdom terrorism task force and the deployment of more drones aimed at targeting the terror group, Islamic State. In the effort to track terrorists, the two leaders were advocating greater cooperation with technology companies, with an eye on accessing encrypted communications that terrorists may use to plot attacks.

The leaders of the two countries emphasized the closeness of the trans-Atlantic partnership, with both men offering fulsome assurances of their personal friendship as well as the strength and depth of the United Kingdom-United States alliance. Prime Minister Cameron and President Obama made clear that their two countries were committed to sharing information, intelligence, and expertise in the effort to prevent Islamist radicalism and to address "violent extremism" in their respective countries.

Speaking of the threat posed by Islamist terrorists in the wake of the Paris attacks, Prime Minister Cameron noted that his country, along with the United States, faced a "poisonous and fanatical ideology." He said: "We face a poisonous and fanatical ideology that wants to pervert one of the world's major religions, Islam, and create conflict, terror and death. With our allies we will confront it wherever it appears." President Obama struck a similar tone, saying that his country would work with the United Kingdom and other allies "seamlessly to prevent attacks and defeat these terrorist networks." Explaining the challenge posed by radicalized extremists who carry out acts of terror, he said "This is a problem that causes great heartache and tragedy and destruction. But it is one that ultimately we are going to defeat."

Special Security Note

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Johnson warns of threat to Western shopping centers by Somalia-based terror group al-Shabab

On Feb. 22, 2015, United States Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson issued a warning to Westerners regarding possible attacks on shopping centers by the Somalia-based terror group, al- Shabab. At issue was the emergence of a videotaped message from al-Shabab urging its supporters to carry out attacks at shopping malls in the United States, Canada, and the United States. An al- Sahab terrorist with a British accent specifically mentioned three large shopping malls -- the Mall of America in Minnesota, the West Edmonton Mall in Canada, and Oxford Street in London -- as desirable targets of attack.

Of significance was the fact that al-Shabab had already carried out a horrific and brutal massacre at the Westgate shopping mall in the Kenyan capital of Nairobi in 2013, killing close to 70 people. Given this record of bloodthirsty violence, the United States homeland security chief was taking this new threat from al-Shabab seriously. In an interview with CNN, Secretary Johnson said, "Anytime a terrorist organisation calls for an attack on a specific place, we've got to take that

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 207 of 506 pages United Kingdom seriously." He further noted that there was a "new phase" of terrorism looming in which attacks would increasingly come from "independent actors in their homelands."

Special Global Security Entry

P5+1 multilateral negotiations result in historic framework deal on Iran's nuclear program; significant achievement in diplomacy faces political challenges in U.S. and Iran --

Summary:

The international community has been focused on aggressive multilateral negotiations in Switzerland between Iran and the P5+1 countries of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, and China, aimed at arriving at a landmark nuclear deal. At issue was the goal of arriving at an accord that would regulate Iran's nuclear program, its stockpile of enriched uranium, and curtail Iran's ability to develop a nuclear bomb. For Iran, the objectives were twofold. First, Iran hoped to prove that its nuclear development was for peaceful purposes and not aimed at weaponization, as charged by the West. Second, Iran was keen to end a painful international sanctions regime that has badly damaged Iran's economy.

Going back to January 2014, an interim Iranian nuclear deal went into force. Under the terms of that interim agreement, Iran began the process of diluting its stockpile of uranium enriched to 20 percent, with all such uranium expected to be eliminated within a six-month period. There were also provisions for inspections at the Arak heavy water reactor and the Fordo uranium enrichment site close to Qom. While the interim deal constituted only a first step in the diplomatic track, it was certainly a significant step in that process aimed at establishing an enduring accord. Indeed, it represented a sea change in Iran's relationship with the United States, which was actively evolving from one marked by hostility to one of engagement. Now, with a final nuclear deal at stake, it was to be seen if that engagement would be ultimately deemed productive.

At the end of March 2015, the P5+1 multilateral talks with Iran were set to end, with all eyes on a framework for a long-term agreement. But the negotiations were mired by various sticking points, prompting the parties to extend the negotiating process.

Finally, on April 2, 2015, after marathon talks in Switzerland, the P5+1 countries and Iran announced that the hard work of negotiations and diplomacy had yielded results, and that a framework agreement on Iran's nuclear program had been reached. The agreement presaged a long-term deal, which would have to be made by the final "hard" deadline on June 30, 2015. The prevailing question continued to dominate: Can a final accord on Iran's nuclear program be forged? The answer to that question remained the same at the time of writing: It was yet to be determined if the nuclear negotiations would actually end in a viable and enduring deal; however,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 208 of 506 pages United Kingdom the successful framework agreement reached on April 2, 2015, marked a massive breakthrough in the realm of international diplomacy for the purpose of global security.

Note: On July 14, 2015, Iran and the so-called P5+1 world powers officially reached a historic accord on Iran's controversial nuclear program.

Foreign Relations Note on Syrian Crisis

Since early 2011, anti-government protests have spread and escalated across the Arab world; Syria emerged as an addition to the list of countries experiencing unrest in 2011. At first, protesters stopped short of demanding the resignation of President Bashar al-Assad, instead demanding greater political freedom and efforts to end corruption. But over time, as protests continued, and as the Assad regime carried out a hardline crackdown on dissent, tensions escalated between the government and the protesters. The result was a full-scale civil war.

As of 2015, Syria was beset by two sets of intersecting challenges -- the ongoing civil war between the Assad regime and rebel forces on one end, and the horrific dangers posed by the notorious terror group, Islamic State, which had seized wide swaths of territory in Syria and left an appalling death toll. It was generally understood that the civil war conditions in Syria, to some extent, facilitated the emergence of Islamic State in that country. Syrian President Assad's priority to hold onto power, and thus the center of power in Damascus, had allowed a power chasm to flourish in other parts of the country, which Islamic State has been able to exploit. The result has been a mass exodus of Syrians fleeing the country and seeking refuge in Europe. The so-called migrant influx in Europe has raised questions as to how to legally and humanely deal with a burgeoning humanitarian refugee crisis.

Following devastating terror attacks by the Islamist terror network that killed hundreds of Russian and French citizens in the autumn of 2015, Russia and France intensified their efforts to go after Islamic State targets in Syria . At issue was the fact that Islamic State was claiming responsibility for a bomb that exploded on a Russian jet flying from the Egyptian resort of Sharm-el-Sheikh, killing more than 200 Russians on board. Also at issue was the Islamic State claim of responsibility for a spate of appalling terror attacks in the French capital city of Paris, which killed approximately 130 people. Islamic State made clear that its brutal acts were being carried out because of the international community's engagement in Syria. Islamic State also promised that attacks were to come in the United States and other Western countries.

In response to what could only be understood as acts of war by Islamic State, in November 2015, Russian and French warplanes had wasted no time before stepping up their respective air campaigns in Syria, targeting Islamic State targets in the terror group's stronghold of Raqqa in a sustained manner. France also deployed its air craft carrier, the Charles de Gaulle, to the Middle

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 209 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Eastern region for the purpose of supporting the effort against Islamic State. Of note was the fact that France was not limiting its air strike campaign from the Charles de Gaulle only to Islamic State targets in Syria, such as the terror group stronghold of Raqqa; indeed, France soon expanded its scope to hit Islamic State targets in Ramadi and Mosul in Iraq.

While the United Kingdom was not, at the time, engaged in the Syrian crisis, the British government gave France the use of its air base in Cyprus from which it could strike Islamist terror groups in the region. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron said that his country would provide air-to-air refueling services and that he would recommend that the British parliament vote in favor of the his country joining the United States-led air campaign to strike Islamic State targets.

To that end, a vote in the United Kingdom's House of Commons on Dec. 3, 2015 ended with overwhelming support for that country to enter the multilateral air campaign against Islamic State in Syria. Following more than 10 hours of passionate debate in the British legislative chamber, 397 members of parliament voted in favor of the measure while 223 members of parliament voted against it. The vote tally was bipartisan with 66 members of parliament from the Labour Party siding with Prime Minister Cameron's Conservatives. Prime Minister Cameron hailed the vote outcome, saying that the House of Commons had "taken the right decision to keep the country safe." British Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond said the vote was a move in the right direction as he declared, "Military strikes alone won't help Syria, won't keep us safe from Daesh. But this multi-strand approach will." Of course, the vote outcome generated outrage from both inside and outside parliament. Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, insisted that the United Kingdom's engagement in Syria would only make the country less safe. Outside the parliamentary buildings, anti-war ranks protesters from various groups including the "Stop the War" Coalition gathered to oppose the move.

Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, www.countrywatch.com; see Bibliography for research sources.

National Security

External Threats

The United Kingdom (U.K.) is involved in several territorial disputes. The British and Spanish governments continue to disagree over Gibraltar 's future. Though physically part of the Spanish

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 210 of 506 pages United Kingdom , the isthmus has been under British control since 1713. The local inhabitants voted to remain a British dependency in 1967 and again in 2002. In 2003, they voted against a shared sovereignty arrangement. Spain objects to the U.K. 's plans to grant Gibraltar greater autonomy. In 1982 the U.K. and Argentina fought a brief war with over the Falkland Islands (Islas Malvinas), as well as South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (located approximately 620 miles east of the Falklands), which the U.K. won. Argentinastill claims the islands in its constitution. In 1995, however, the Argentine government rescinded the right to use armed force as a means to assert that claim. Mauritius and the Seychelles claim the Chagos Archipelago, a U.K.overseas territorial possession.

Crime

The United Kingdombenefits from a generally low rate of crime. However, crime, especially violent crime has increased over the past few years. It is also a major consumer market for illicit substances and small amounts of synthetic drugs and precursor chemicals are produced there.

Insurgencies

Northern Irish separatists continue to pose a risk to the United Kingdom (U.K.). Northern Ireland is part of the U.K., but elements hostile to British rule have been waging a violent campaign to procure the independence of the region for decades. Towards that end, various militant organizations, including the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and the more recently formed Real IRA (RIRA), have perpetrated acts of terrorism against British targets of interest. The governments of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the United States (U.S.) played an instrumental role in fostering an end to sectarian violence in Northern Ireland. Ireland and the U.K.negotiated a ceasefire there in 1994. Four years later, the U.S.brokered the Good Friday Agreement. While the peace has generally held, periodic outbreaks of hostilities continue to occur in Northern Ireland. In 2001, Irish extremists detonated two explosive devices in the suburbs of London. This incident wounded eight and left property damaged. The risk that Irish extremists will attack British targets in the future remains credible. That said, in recent years Irish nationalist have disavowed violence and the movement toward peace and devolution has seen significant progress.

Terrorism

In addition to Northern Irish separatists, Islamic extremist organizations have perpetrated terrorist attacks against British targets of interest and threaten to do so again in the future. A May 2003 suicide bomb attack at a housing compound in Saudi Arabiaclaimed the life of one British citizen. Elements with ties to the al-Qaida network allegedly orchestrated several attacks against Jewish and British targets in Turkeyin the fall of 2003. On November 15, suicide bombers detonated truck

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 211 of 506 pages United Kingdom bombs outside the Beth Israel and Neve Shalom synagogues in Istanbul. Five days later terrorists struck again, this time the British Consulate and HSBC Bank in Istanbul. In total, the attacks killed at least 61 individuals, including the British Consul General.

On July 7, 2005, a series of coordinated attacks carried out on the London Underground and bus system recently called attention to the reality of terrorist activity in the U.K. These attacks occurred at the height of the morning rush hour and appear to have been intended to cause harm to as many innocent civilians as possible. A group calling itself the "Secret Organization Group of al- Qaida of Jihad in Europe " claimed responsibility for the attacks. There were hunreds of casualties including approximately 52 known fatalities. This attack came on the first day of the G8 conference, where British Prime Minister Tony Blair was set to push for increased aid to Africa and global climate change as his major agenda items. It also came on the heels of Londonbeing announced as the host city of the 2012 Olympics.

On August 10, 2006, British authorities announced that they had foiled an attempt by terrorists to bring down several airliners, ultimately killing thousands of people. British police said that following a lengthy probe starting more than six months earlier, over 20 people had been arrested in connection with the terrorist plot, which, according to reports, involved approximately 10 airliners traveling from the United Kingdom to the United States. Details emerging about the plot suggested that the terrorists intended to carry concealed bomb-making materials with them in their carry-on luggage and, presumably, construct and detonate the bombs in-flight over the Atlantic.

While United States spokespersons and media quickly speculated that the terrorist plan was, perhaps, carried out by the notorious Islamic militant group, al-Qaida, British counterparts were far more reticient about expressing ideas about who might be responsible. British analysts acknowledged that the terrorist plan bore the hallmark of typical al-Qaida operations -- complex and coordinated orchestration of attacks intended to be extensive in scope and yielding maximum carnage. That said, they suggested that if those responsible had not been trained at al-Qaida camps, they were at least likely to be al-Qaida inspired.

Note: The United Kingdomis party to all twelve of the international conventions and protocols pertaining to terrorism. As of early 2008, the U.K. had approximately 12,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan but was planning a withdrawal from Iraq. An extended stay in Afghanistan was expected, though.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 212 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Defense Forces

Military Data

The British Armed Forces are charged with protecting the United Kingdom and its overseas territories, promoting Britain's wider security interests, and supporting international peacekeeping efforts. The Royal Navy, which includes several thousand Royal Marine commandos, is in charge of the United Kingdom's independent strategic nuclear arm, consisting of four Trident missile submarines. The British Army, the Royal Air Force along with the Royal Navy and Royal Marines are active and regular participants in NATO and other coalition operations.

Military Branches:

Army, Royal Navy (includes Royal Marines), Royal Air Force

Eligible age to enter service:

16-33 years of age (officers 17-28) for voluntary military service (with parental consent under 18)

Mandatory Service Terms: no conscription; women serve in military services, but are excluded from ground combat positions and some naval postings; must be citizen of the UK, Commonwealth, or Republic of Ireland; reservists serve a minimum of 3 years, to age 45 or 55; 17 years 6 months of age for voluntary military service by Nepalese citizens in the Brigade of Gurkhas; 16-34 years of age for voluntary military service by Papua New Guinean citizens

Manpower in general population-fit for military service:

N/A

Manpower reaching eligible age annually:

N/A

Military Expenditures-Percent of GDP:

2.5%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 213 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Appendix: Northern Ireland

Introduction

The decades-old conflict in Northern Ireland remains one of the central political problems facing the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Although Northern Ireland was not granted independence along with the rest of the Irish island in 1921, it did have its own regional parliament and government within the United Kingdom until 1972. Escalation in the sectarian conflict between the majority Protestants and minority Catholics led the British government to suspend Northern Ireland's autonomous institutions and institute direct rule from London. Control over Northern Ireland rested with the secretary of state for Northern Ireland, a ministerial position within the British cabinet.

The Catholic "nationalists" or "republicans" were led by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and sought both independence from the United Kingdom, as well as unification with the Republic of Ireland. Protestant "unionists" or "loyalists," exemplified by members of the Orange Order that engages in periodic marches through Catholic neighborhoods, sought to maintain the union with the rest of the United Kingdom and opposed the IRA. The imposition of direct rule in 1972, the strong British military presence in Northern Ireland, and the suspension of certain civil rights increased sectarian conflict between the two sides.

With an eye on ending the conflict and instituting a political settlement, the Irish peace process ensued over the course of decades. The peace process has broadly involved a series of measures undertaken with these goals in Northern Ireland.

In 1988, John Hume, the leader at the time of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), convened a meeting with Gerry Adams, the president at the time of Sinn Féin (SF) -- the major Irish Republican political entity. It was the first of a series of meetings that would go on until 1993. These meetings did not go smoothly at all time, often breaking down, and finally moving in a

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 214 of 506 pages United Kingdom productive direction in 1993. At that time the the Hume/Adams initiatives were launched and formed the basis of the so-called Downing Street Declaration, which was jointly issued by the British and Irish governments.

In 1994, the IRA announced its "cessation" of military action, and is generally regarded as a seminal moment in the peace process.

The peace process was marred by the IRA Bombing at the Canary Wharf in 1996; however, that incident did not entirely sabotage efforts to bring an end to the Northern Ireland conflict. Finally, on April 10, 1998, the "Good Friday" agreement was forged, which is generally regarded as the fulcrum of the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Central to the "Good Friday" agreement was a roadmap to devolution -- that is to say, the transition from direct rule of Northern Ireland from London through the process of devolution to rule from Northern Ireland's Legislative Assembly at Stormont. The road map to that destination involved the creation of a power-sharing government that would represent diverse sectarian interests.

IN truth, the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement has been difficult, first with the unionists refusing to establish the various institutions of devolved government, and also with nationalists stalling on the issue of decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. But in late 1999, unionists joined with Sinn Fein to enter an executive government, and the devolution of power from London to Stormont in Belfast was finally realized.

The road to peace continued to be marked by turbulence as in 2000, unionists were not pleased by the lack of progress on paramilitary decommissioning and warned that they intended to resign from the power-sharing executive government.

As such, the government of the United Kingdom quickly announced that it would suspend the executive government along with its related institutions and instruments of administration in Northern Ireland and re-introduce "direct rule." Although the executive was reinstated later in the year, various tactical measures of suspension followed over the course of the next few years, with an eye on finding resolution between the two sides.

Despite the fact that the IRA decommissioned all its weapons by 2005, unionists held no trust for the nationalists and were not interested in re-entering the power-sharing executive. In fact, the year 2005 was marked by violence in the streets of Belfast as sectarian tensions reached new heights. As such, as of 2006, the devolved institutions remained suspended and Northern Ireland at the time was ruled by appointed ministers.

The peace process appeared to have been revitalized by the apparent murder of former senior Sinn Fein member, Denis Donaldson, in 2006. Donaldson had been expelled from Sinn Fein in late 2005 because of the charges that he had been a British agent (a charge that he later admitted). Even so,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 215 of 506 pages United Kingdom his death was condemned by both the British and Irish governments, as well as the IRA. Moreover, the leader of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, stated that he wished to "disassociate" all republicans who supported the peace process from this killing.

On the heels of the murder of Donaldson, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern traveled to Northern Ireland to reveal their plan for restoring devolution. May 2006 marked the first time since October 2002 that Northern Ireland's politicians took their seats at the Stormont assembly. Months later, intensive multi-party talks were convened at St. Andrews in Scotland aimed at moving the sides toward a commitment to devolution by the November 2006 deadline, and the establishment of a new operational executive in 2007. Disagreements between unionists and republicans over a variety of issues, including policing, marred the next several months.

Nevertheless, in March 2007, the election for the new Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland took place. Results showed the two hard-line Protestant/Unionist and Catholic/Nationalists parties winning most of the seats at stake. Now attention shifted to the matter of trying to form a power- sharing government. To that end, Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, warned that the assembly at Stormont would be dissolved if agreement was not reached in short order. Finally, May 2007 saw the establishment of the historic power-sharing at Stormont in Northern Ireland. Direct rule ended as Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, and Martin McGuinness, the leader of Sinn Fein, took office as the first and deputy ministers of the new executive respectively. The historic occasion marked the official implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Note: Since 2007, Northern Ireland has occasionally been subject to eruptions of sectarian violence, as exemplified in the 2012 situation discussed above.

Policy, Agreements and Developments from 1985-2000

Since the 1985 Anglo-Irish Agreement granting Ireland a formal voice in Northern Ireland affairs, there has been an extensive dialogue between the governments of Ireland and the United Kingdom on how to bring about a peaceful, democratic resolution of the conflict. In December 1993, the "Downing Street Declaration," holding out the promise of inclusive political talks on the future of Northern Ireland, was issued. This led the Irish Republican Army (IRA) to call a "total cessation" of military operations on Aug. 31, 1994. This was followed six weeks later by a similar cease-fire by the loyalist paramilitaries.

Following up on the cease-fires, the two governments in February 1995 issued the Framework Document, which proposed a basis for negotiations. Generally welcomed by nationalists, it was rejected by unionists, who disparaged it as a "blueprint for a united Ireland." Despite the negative

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 216 of 506 pages United Kingdom unionist reaction, the two governments tried to launch the negotiating process by announcing they would hold a series of bilateral discussions with all the parties in the north.

The process stalled in 1995, due to disagreements between the British government and "Sinn Féin," the political arm of the IRA led by Gerry Adams, about the decommissioning of IRA weapons. President Clinton's visit to Ireland in December 1995 led to the establishment later the same month of an International Commission, chaired by former U.S. Senator George Mitchell, to recommend a solution to this impasse.

The January 1996 "Mitchell Report" recommended decommissioning be addressed during a negotiating process. The British government's decision to hold elections for a negotiating body, however, was seen as a step backwards, and in February 1996, the IRA officially ended its cease- fire with a bomb attack in London that killed two.

At the end of February 1996, the two governments announced that all-party talks would begin in June and be open to all parties disavowing violence. In May 1996, elections were held to determine participation in the talks, with "Sinn Féin" gaining nearly 16 percent of the vote. The party was turned away from the negotiations when they began on June 10, however, because of the IRA's continued campaign of violence.

Throughout the latter half of 1996 and early 1997, the negotiations made little progress. The May 1997 election of Tony Blair and the Labour Party government in the U.K., however, re-energized the process and led to increasing pressure on the IRA to restore the cease-fire. After gaining assurances that the negotiation process would be time-limited and that decommissioning would not again become a stumbling block, the IRA did restore its cease-fire in July 1997, and "Sinn Féin" was admitted to the talks in September 1997. The negotiations moved from process to substance in October 1997. A final marathon push in April 1998 included the personal intervention of President Clinton, and on April 10, all parties signed an agreement. The "Good Friday" agreement (April 10 was Good Friday) was put to a vote, and overwhelming majorities in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland approved it in simultaneous referenda on May 22, 1998.

The agreement provides for a 108-member Northern Ireland elected assembly to be overseen by a 12-minister Executive Committee in which unionists and nationalists would share responsibility for governing. The agreement will institutionalize the cross-border cooperation with Ireland and will create mechanisms to guarantee the rights of all.

Members of the 108-seat assembly were elected on June 25, 1998. The results of the election confirmed that four parties will play a dominant role in this legislative body. On the unionist side, the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP) won 28 seats, and the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) won 20 seats. On the nationalist side, the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SLDP) won 24 seats and "Sinn Féin," 18 seats. Assembly members were to meet in 'shadow" mode for some months while

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 217 of 506 pages United Kingdom preparing the procedures of the new legislative and executive bodies, and were expected to assume governing responsibilities as early as 1999.

On Aug. 15, 1998, a car bomb exploded in Omagh, County Tyrone, Northern Ireland, killing 29 people and injuring more than 220. A splinter group of the IRA, the "Real IRA," claimed responsibility. The IRA and its political wing "Sinn Féin" quickly condemned the bombing, as did the governments of the United Kingdom, Ireland, and officials in Northern Ireland. In September, the "Real IRA" declared a total cease-fire. The government of Ireland cracked down on terrorism via a set of measures that Prime Minister Bertie Ahern called "draconian" but necessary. The British government also instituted new anti-terrorist legislation.

Despite intense negotiations involving the leaders of the political parties represented in the Northern Ireland Assembly, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, and British Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam, attempts to create a power sharing executive for Northern Ireland failed on July 15, 1999. The talks broke down over the composition of the executive, because the UUP, under the leadership of David Trimble, refused to form a government with "Sinn Féin" until the IRA decommissioned its arms.

Former United States (U.S.) Senator George Mitchell re-entered negotiations and, in November 1999, offered a plan in which the IRA would contact the international decommissioning body created by the Good Friday Agreement immediately following the establishment of the cross-party executive. UUP leader and First Minister designate David Trimble endorsed the Mitchell plan after assurances from London that devolution would be reversed if the IRA did not satisfy the decommissioning requirement of the Good Friday Agreement. After a majority of the UUP voted in support of Trimble's position on Nov. 27, 1999, the formal process of devolution to the Northern Ireland Assembly and executive began with the election of the 10 ministers to the Executive Committee that will operate as Northern Ireland's government. That government took office on Dec. 2, 1999.

The awarding of ministries was based on a proportional formula laid out in the Good Friday Agreement. The UUP and SDLP, the moderate unionist and nationalist parties respectively, were each awarded three ministries. The less moderate DUP and "Sinn Féin" were each awarded two ministries. The UUP's David Trimble was made head of the cross-party executive body as the designated First Minister; the SDLP's Seamus Mallon was made deputy first minister.

After nine weeks in power, on Feb. 12, 2000, the British secretary for Northern Ireland, Peter Mandelson, suspended the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive Committee, and direct rule by the central government in London was re-established. The cause for the suspension of devolution and the re-establishment of direct rule was the failure of the IRA, and subsequently the "loyalist" paramilitary groups, to commit to the decommissioning of weapons to the satisfaction of an independent body instituted to monitor the process, and consequently to the satisfaction of the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 218 of 506 pages United Kingdom

British government. Subsequent to the dissolution of the Assembly, the IRA announced that it would no longer cooperate with the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD).

One point of confusion in the peace process that contributed to the breakdown of negotiations was the relationship between "Sinn Féin" and the IRA. While "Sinn Féin" is the political arm of the IRA, its leader, Gerry Adams, stated often that he did not control the IRA. After the suspension of the Assembly and Executive Council, and amid accusations and recriminations among the various parties, the IRA argued that it had not broken any agreement because it had not signed any, including the Good Friday Agreement. Rather, "Sinn Féin" was a party to the agreements. Thus, the IRA argued that it was the British government - not the IRA - that was at fault for the suspension of devolution.

The apparent impasse on decommissioning of IRA and "unionist" paramilitaries' weapons was broken after the IRA announced that it would "completely and verifiably put IRA arms beyond use" on May 6, 2000. As part of its pledge, the IRA also announced that it would send a representative to the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) and resume negotiations with the IICD on arms issues. Rather than agree to the destruction of its weapons, the IRA proposed that third parties be allowed periodically to inspect arms caches and report back to the IICD that the weapons were not being used. Although short of agreeing to the destruction of its weapons, the IRA announcement was seen as a significant move on its part, not least because the IRA made the announcement directly, not through "Sinn Féin."

The British and Irish governments also moved the negotiation process forward by outlining a schedule for implementation of the Good Friday Agreement including legislation dealing with the Northern Ireland police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC). Negotiations concerning the police force had been especially contentious. Most unionists, led by the DUP and the UUP, opposed the proposed renaming of the RUC, a major demand of the nationalists. Many also opposed changes to the RUC's recruiting practices; the vast majority of the RUC's forces have historically been Protestants and often unionist sympathizers. The joint statement by the British and Irish governments also proposed restoration of the Assembly on May 22, 2000. Additionally, the joint statement declared June 2001 as the date by which the Good Friday Agreement should be fully implemented.

The May 22 date was postponed, however, to allow the leader of the UUP, David Trimble, to campaign for restoration of devolution prior to an internal party vote on whether the UUP would participate in the multi-party Executive Committee. Many in the UUP argued that the IRA's announcement did not go far enough on the issue of decommissioning, and many opposed changes to the name of the RUC and other symbolic issues under negotiation, such as what could be flown on public buildings. In an effort to increase support within the UUP for participation in the power-sharing government, British Secretary of State for Northern Ireland Peter Mandelson

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 219 of 506 pages United Kingdom proposed legislation that would delay changing the name of the RUC until September 2001, at which point the secretary of state would have final say over the name of the force.

The May 27 meeting of leaders in the UUP proved successful for Trimble and other supporters of restoring devolution and participating in the power-sharing government, with 53 percent of the members in favor of Trimble's position.

After the vote within the UUP, the way was cleared for the British government to restore the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive Committee on May 30, thus re-establishing the devolved institutions that had been suspended on February 12. However, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) led by the Reverend Ian Paisley continued to oppose the Good Friday Agreement. Paisley's party announced that it would take its two seats on the multi-party Executive Committee but would boycott its meetings.

From 2000 to 2004

Since the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive Committee were restored on May 30, 2000, several issues have continued to plague the "peace process." The unionists assert that the IRA, and, by extension, Sinn Féin, have not held up their part of the Good Friday Agreement to decommission arms. Sinn Féin and the IRA counter that the other parties to the agreement have not seen through sufficient reforms of the Ulster police force, the Royal Ulster Constabulary, or the promised demilitarization (meaning the withdrawal of British troops from Northern Ireland). Sinn Féin also remains angered by First Minister David Trimble's refusal to allow them to join cross- border Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland ministerial meetings (also known as North/South meetings).

In May 2001, United Kingdom (U.K.) Prime Minister Tony Blair called parliamentary elections and rescheduled local elections for June 7. Shortly afterward, First Minister David Trimble of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee (and leader of the relatively moderate Ulster Unionist Party) promised to resign his post on July 1 if the IRA failed to make progress, as per the Good Friday Agreement and subsequent promises, on decommissioning arms. Trimble did, indeed, resign his post - which precipitated the automatic stepping down of Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee Seamus Mallon (of the relatively moderate, nationalist Social Democratic and Labour Party). The Northern Ireland Assembly then had six weeks either to reinstate Trimble and Mallon - or choose new First and Deputy First Ministers.

As the Assembly was unable to do so, the U.K. government (in the person of Secretary for Northern Ireland John Reid) had to choose between suspending the Assembly and Executive and returning Northern Ireland to direct rule from Westminster - or calling new Assembly elections. The British government found neither of these options attractive. On the one hand, suspending the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 220 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Northern Irish institutions would not go over well in the Republic of Ireland, always sensitive to perceived British heavy-handedness in Ulster. On the other hand, new elections might further increase the influence of the more extreme unionist party, Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionists, and the more extreme nationalist party, Sinn Féin. Both of these parties gained in the June 7 national and local elections at the expense of the more moderate Ulster Unionists and Social Democrats.

Throughout the summer of 2001, tensions remained high between the unionist and nationalist communities in Northern Ireland - with some of the worst inter-community riots in years taking place. The marching season - where unionist Northern Irish commemorate William of Orange's 17th century victory - did not make agreement in the Assembly any easier.

The Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid, Irish Foreign Minister Brian Cowen, and even British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern continued to talk with all parties throughout the summer. The British made it clear that they would pressure Sinn Féin and the IRA to make good on the promised decommissioning. The July 2001 report from the Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) headed by Canadian General John de Chastelain noted that, while the IRA continued to make a "good faith" effort in the decommissioning process (for example, by allowing arms inspectors to visit depots on three occasions), no weapons had been completely given up.

In August 2001, Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid was forced to suspend the Northern Ireland Assembly - but did not call elections. Instead, he gave the parties additional time to try to work out their differences. This process of trying to keep the parties talking - by suspending the Assembly and then reconvening the Assembly (without holding fresh elections) - continued throughout autumn 2001. In the midst of this, two key events occurred. First, in October, the IRA announced that it had put some weapons "beyond use" - in the language of the Good Friday Agreement. The Independent International Commission on Decommissioning (IICD) headed by Canadian General John de Chastelain confirmed this. Then, David Trimble, leader of the moderate UUP confirmed that, indeed, the arms had been put "verifiably beyond use."

In addition to this breakthrough, in November 2001, the Assembly finally elected David Trimble First Minister and Mark Durkan (new leader of the SDLP after the resignation of former leader, John Hume) Deputy First Minister of the Northern Ireland Executive. The fact that this election took place after the Northern Ireland Secretary's deadline for (yet again) dissolving the Assembly led to a legal challenge by some members of the more extreme Democratic Unionists - who had wanted fresh Assembly elections to be called. In December, the first court to hear the case dismissed the claim - ruling that John Reid was allowed to use his discretion when determining whether or not to dissolve the Assembly (and possibly call new elections). The claim might yet be appealed, however.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 221 of 506 pages United Kingdom

As of early 2002, Northern Ireland found itself with a reconstituted Assembly and Executive - and at least some movement on decommissioning. In June 2002, however, fresh incidences of sectarian violence erupted. In one of two incidences, two men were shot in Cluan Place as rival republican and loyalist gangs fought in the area. In the other incident, a bus driver was attacked by a gunman in Lower Newtownards Road. Days earlier, the police were attacked when they tried to defuse sectarian violence in a North Belfast area inhabited by both Protestants and Catholics. About 10 officers were injured after several days of fighting between rival groups. These various events actually followed rioting in east Belfast. Until these eruptions, police and military had been functioning as shields between rival communities. The loyalists' celebration of the Queen's Jubilee appeared to have sparked the violence. Several hundred troops were scheduled for transfer to other duties related to the Queen's Jubilee celebration. Given the circumstances in Belfast, however, 250 troops were duly retained.

By October 2002, the Northern Ireland Assembly had been suspended in the aftermath of an argument regarding allegations of IRA activity, which included intelligence gathering. In that argument, talks were being held between the British and Irish governments, with the leader of the Ulster Union present. In those meetings, a position paper describing ongoing IRA activity was leaked. David Trimble of the Ulster Union walked out of the meetings as a result and expressed doubts about the re-opening of the Assembly against this backdrop of mistrust. In response, British Prime Minister Tony Blair urged the Irish republican movement to demonstrate that it had made the transition from violence to democracy, so that the elements of the Good Friday Agreement could be implemented. For its part, Sinn Fein placed the blame for the political breakdown on the British government and the unionists, while the IRA declared that the demands of the British government and the unionists were unreasonable. By the end of 2002, however, both Sinn Fein and the IRA stated that they were committed to the cause of peace. Nevertheless, both trust and common ground would have to be forged before power-sharing governance could be re-instituted.

Several rounds of talks followed the suspension of the Assembly and the conflict surrounding the leaked information about IRA activity. In discussions held in the first part of January 2003, Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams warned that unionists' expectations of what was needed to restore the devolved political institutions were too high. In this way, he reiterated a previous charge that the demands of unionists and the British government were too great. The issue of whether or not Assembly elections should occur emerged, and doubts were expressed about the feasibility of elections at a time when trust and confidence was so low. Complicating matters, various loyalist entities -- both political and paramilitary -- were reported to be "drifting" away from the peace process. Frustration, a lack of confidence and fear that secret deals were being made by some of the players have only served to undermine the efforts to return to the peace process.

In mid-January 2003, a meeting was scheduled between the Irish and British prime ministers. The meeting was viewed as significant. Indeed, Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein observed that the following months would be the most critical in the last century of Ireland's history. The focus of

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 222 of 506 pages United Kingdom the meetings involved the restoration of trust and confidence of all invested parties and groups in Northern Ireland. It was hoped that successful talks would serve to reopen the Assembly, hold elections, and move toward peace, as put forth in the Good Friday Agreement.

In April 2003, the British and Irish governments decided to postpone the publication of a blueprint aimed at restoring devolution to Northern Ireland. (It was published soon thereafter.) A month later, Prime Minister Tony Blair announced that he was postponing elections to the Assembly because of confusion over the IRA's position. He claimed that the IRA had refused to give up all paramilitary-related behavior as described by the governments.

In May 2003, on the heels of a summit between United Kingdom Prime Minister Tony Blair and United States President George Bush in Northern Ireland, Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern joined the duo for discussions about the peace process. The leaders of the three major Good Friday Agreement parties -- the Ulster Unionists, Sinn Fein and the SDLP were also scheduled to be present for the talks, which aimed at restoring devolution and preparing the political agenda for elections to the Northern Ireland Assembly in May. With Blair and Ahern scheduled to promulgate a joint declaration on the fifth anniversary of the Good Friday Agreement, it was hoped that the IRA would re-commit itself to the peace process.

Meanwhile, a large anti-war protest was expected with demonstrators coming from all across Ireland to deliver their message to Blair and Bush. Factions of various peace and anti-war groups expressed their dismay that the two leaders ensconced in a controversial war in the Middle East would meet in Northern Ireland to discuss peace. The leaders of all three parties to the Good Friday peace agreement expressed grave misgivings about the timing and location of the summit, as well as the conflation of Iraq with the issues facing Northern Ireland. The leader of Sinn Fein expressed his outright opposition to the war, referring to it as "the Iraq adventure." As well, the Green Parties of both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland issued a joint condemnation of Bush's visit in this regard.

In October 2003, mostly under the radar, talks were held between Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionists, as well as British and Irish officials, aimed at forging an agreement to restore devolution (i.e. the devolution of political institutions as noted above). Also in October 2003, the British government announced that there would be an assembly election in late November. This announcement was followed by a declaration that another wave of IRA decommissioning had taken place. The Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble, however, charged that the declaration and its associated report were insufficient. He said that the pre-election agreement should be placed "on hold" as a result although Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that elections would take place as scheduled. By the end of the month, talks had resumed in these regards.

From 2004-2006

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 223 of 506 pages United Kingdom

At the start of 2004, a review of the working of the Good Friday Agreement began at Stormont and involved all the pertinent parties. By March 2004, the process was stalled in the aftermath of an incident in which a , Bobby Tohill, was taken from a Belfast bar in what some characterized as an abduction attempt by the IRA, and what other viewed as an attempted imprisonment.

Also in March 2004, Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish leader Bertie Ahern met with the respective parties in Belfast in the hopes of brokering a breakthrough prior to the European elections in June. One of the key outcomes of the European election was that the Democratic Unionists' Jim Allister replaced party leader Ian Paisley in Europe.

In June 2004, talks were resumed at Stormont. A month later, in July 2004, the Northern Ireland Office confirmed that the British and Irish leaders-- Tony Blair and Bertie Ahern -- would host a new round of political talks aimed at re-opening the Assembly and working on the peace process. The talks were to take place at Leeds Castle in Kent in September 2004. But the three days of intense negotiations ended without agreement. Nevertheless, in early October 2004, Democratic Unionist leader Ian Paisley held a significant meeting in Dublin with Irish leader Bertie Ahern. Yet even this breakthrough was not enough as later in the month, Sinn Fein chairman Mitchel McLaughlin accused Democratic Unionists of seeking to humiliate the IRA over the demand for visible decommissioning. In this way, a stalemate between Sinn Fein and the Democratic Unionists presented another unwelcome challenge.

Meanwhile, a report by the Independent Monitoring Commission said that the IRA showed few signs of no reducing its capability. The report also noted that although paramilitary violence by loyalists was on the decrease, it was still a threat.

In late 2004, the leadership of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland put forth proposals aimed at resolving the matters at hand. The plans followed months of negotiations aimed at transcending the problems faced at the meetings at Leeds Castle in September. The details of the plan, however, was not made public. As of early 2005, however, assembly elections had not yet transpired and discussions about dialogue continued.

Meanwhile, also in late 2004, there was a massive bank robbery at the Northern Bank in Belfast involving nationalist militants. During the incident, a Belfast truck driver was slain and the incident dominated the public airwaves. By February 2005, an Irish Security Service report revealed evidence suggesting that the IRA was involved, and that the leaders of Sinn Fein were aware of it. For its part, Sinn Fein denied any involvement of the incident, however, it did not expressly deny that the IRA was not involved. The refusal of either entity to admit any involvement in the incident contributed to a political crisis of sorts, exemplified by the decision in early 2005 by the IRA to withdraw its offer of permanent disarmament. Sanctions and penalties

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 224 of 506 pages United Kingdom against Sinn Fein were put into effect soon thereafter, while the British government threatened to ban Sinn Fein from its privileges in parliament there. Indeed, the situation suggested a breakdown of the peace process and precipitated discussions in March 2005 between the Irish and British heads of government.

In the 2005 general election, there were fears that the moderate parties may be routed. Speculation abounded as to whether David Trimble of the Ulster Union would hold his Upper Bann seat. This news was later confirmed. Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party picked up Trimble's seat and enjoyed other gains. Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams held on to his West Belfast seat with an increased vote share. In general, Sinn Fein retained their seats. Largely due to the defeat of David Trimble and the Ulster Union in Northern Ireland, the prospects for peace, set forth by the Good Friday Agreement, had been left very much in doubt. Trimble, who resigned due to his party's showing, noted that the people had voted against progress on the peace process and "for stalemate."

The depressed prospects for peace did not last long. A year after talks ended in failure, on July 28, 2005, the IRA officially announced an end to its armed campaign after three decades of violence. The IRA also said that it would now pursue only peaceful means to assure Irish freedom. The official statement was read by former IRA prisoner, Seanna Walsh. In the statement contained the order to put down arms, and to work toward verification of decommissioning, for the purpose of enhancing public confidence. It was also announced that independent witnesses from Catholic and Protestant churches had been asked to witness the decommissioning process. Apparently there had already been a meeting between the IRA and the head of the organization in charge of decommissioning, General John de Chastelain.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair said, "It is what we have striven for and worked for throughout the eight years since the Good Friday Agreement." Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern welcomed the announcement by the IRA and noted that this was the outcome they had been working for since the ceasefire of 1994.

Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams, who in April 2005 championed the cause of Irish freedom through politics and not violence, said that it was a "defining point in the search for a lasting peace with justice." He also acknowledged that the historic shift would present its own challenges. He particularly noted, "It means that unionists who are for the Good Friday Agreement must end their ambivalence." Indeed, DUP leader Ian Paisley responded with little enthusiasm warning that the IRA had given other "historic" statement before and then "reverted to type." He also pointed to a legacy of failed attempts to provide requisite transparency for the purpose of building confidence. Sir Reg Empey of the Ulster Unionist Party Sir Reg Empey expressed similar skepticism. Nevertheless, Mark Durkan, leader of the SDLP, was encouraged by the statement from the IRA and characterized it as "clear, clean and complete."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 225 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Violence descended on the streets of the capital of Northern Ireland, Belfast, in the form of a demonstration by over 700 loyalists in the second week of September 2005. Media reports said that bombs and missiles were thrown at security lines in the eastern part of the city, leaving at least one police officer injured. As well, mob apparently set fire to a hijacked car and a van in southern Belfast. Seizures of vehicles and attacks on police by about 100 masked men in the north were also reported. Meanwhile, about 15 people were arrested in the eastern part of the city for various offences. The rioting by loyalists was sparked after the re-routing of an Orange Order march away from a predominantly Catholic area. Northern Ireland's Chief Constable, Sir Hugh Orde, said that he had ordered an investigation into what happened. He also blamed the violence of loyalist paramilitaries, saying that they had orchestrated the events. He said that those responsibility that no police had been killed. For its part, the Orange Order described Orde's words as "inflammatory."

In April 2006, former senior Sinn Fein member, Denis Donaldson, was found dead from gunshot wounds at his cottage in in Ireland. Donaldson had been arrested in connection with alleged spying charges in 2002 but was subsequently acquitted of the charges in 2005 on the basis of "the public interest." He was, however, expelled from Sinn Fein in late 2005 because of the charges that he had been a British agent. Donaldson later revealed that he had, indeed, been acting as a paid spy of the British government for two decades. He also expressed regret for his activities therein. At a media conference at the time these revelations emerged, Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams, noted that Donaldson was under no threat by the republican movement for his past clandestine activities, his expulsion from the party notwithstanding.

Soon after news of Donaldson's death became public knowledge, the IRA released a statement making clear that is had "no involvement whatsoever" in the matter. Indeed, Sinn Fein leader, Gerry Adams, emphatically stated that he wished to "disassociate [Sinn Fein] and all republicans who support the peace process from this killing." Adams offered no speculation about who might have committed the murder but said, "It has to be condemned. We are living in a different era, and in the future in which everyone could share. This killing seems to have been carried out by those who have not accepted that." He also said that he had spoken personally with Donaldson's family.

Meanwhile, Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, Northern Ireland Secretary Peter Hain, and a spokeperson for British Prime Minister Tony Blair, condemned the murder. DUP leader, Ian Paisley warned that Donaldson's killing could be a setback for the peace process. He noted, "If this man has been murdered because of his connection with the IRA/Sinn Fein, and because of the past happenings, then it strikes a blow at what the two governments are trying to do."

The Path to Devolution: 2006-2007

On the heels of the murder of Donaldson, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Prime

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 226 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Minister Bertie Ahern traveled to Northern Ireland to reveal their plan for restoring devolution. To this end, they gave Northern Ireland Assembly members a deadline of November 24, 2006 to establish power-sharing governance.

May 2006 marked the first time since October 2002 that Northern Ireland's politicians took their seats at the Stormont assembly. There was no expectation that a power-sharing executive government would be immediately formed. Still, it was hoped that the process of convening Assembly Members at Stormont would at least facilitate the possibility of an agreement being forged ahead of the November 24, 2006 deadline.

Essentially, politicians were given six weeks to form an executive. Should the six week period pass without agreement, they would be given another 12 weeks to do so. But if the November deadline was reached without resolution, the salaries of Assembly Members would be halted. Ultimately, implementation of the Good Friday Agreement was at stake.

At the Assembly, Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams addressed the priority of his party saying, "Our focus will be about getting the executive formed as quickly as possible. It's about making the Good Friday Agreement work and that's about making both governments [stay] very, very firmly on course." While Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) leader Ian Paisley said that it was possible to work with Sinn Fein, he warned that the republicans would have to conform with the rules. He suggested that such compliance had not yet occurred saying, "All of us have to bow to the rules, but they haven't."

September 2006 saw the DUP begin an internal consultative process by which it was considering whether or not to share power with Sinn Fein.

A month later, intensive multi-party talks were convened at St. Andrews in Scotland aimed at moving the sides toward a commitment to devolution. A deadline of November 10, 2006 was set by which all Northern Ireland parties were to respond to the St. Andrews Agreement. This new deadline was followed by the unveiling of a roadmap to devolution, in which the date March 26, 2007 was set for the establishment of a new operational executive.

Also in October 2006, an anticipated meeting between Gerry Adams and Ian Paisley at Stormont was postponed after the DUP insisted on a pledge of policing in Northern Ireland. This issue came to the fore again at the close of 2006 when Sinn Fein announced that it was convening a special meeting to discuss possible republican support for policing. Such support would essentially remove a major obstacle to the devolution process.

Meanwhile, in November 2006, in keeping with the aforementioned deadline, a transitional assembly was established. The transitional assembly was to be in effect until the close of January 2007. As well, March 2007 was confirmed as the time when elections would be held for the new

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 227 of 506 pages United Kingdom executive. Proceedings to hear ministerial choices of the DUP and Sinn Fein were interrupted when an apparent loyalist assassin, Michael Stone, tried to enter into the compound at Stormont. He was subsquently charged with attempted murder.

At the start of 2007, the issue of policing returned to the political purview when Sinn Fein accused DUP leader Ian Paisley of not providing a "positive enough" response to the special meeting its was convening to deal with the crucial issue of policing. The situation took another turn when Paisley denied ever agreeing to the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Northern Ireland Assembly by 2008. Paisley also noted that there was no provision for such a move in the St. Andrews Agreement.

Regardless, on January 28, 2007, at a special party conference in Dublin, Sinn Fein voted to support policing in Northern Ireland. The vote was carried overwhelmingly with 90 percent support. It was the first such move in the party's history and was considered a key component in the progress toward devolution in Northern Ireland. Indeed, it would result in the transfer of policing and justice powers to the Northen Ireland Assembly.

Following the historic vote, Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams addressed his group saying, "Today you have created the potential to change the political landscape on this island forever." He continued, "You have created the opportunity to significantly advance our struggle and you have seized the opportunity to further our primary objective of united Ireland through the building of greater political strength." Speaking of the compromise between republicanism and unionism, Adams noted, ""If the promise and hope of the peace process is to deliver peace and prosperity, that means beginning a real dialogue, an anti-sectarian dialogue, a dialogue which will move us to a real future."

Another key aspect of the path toward restoring devolution has been the question of the DUP's commitment to power-sharing with Sinn Fein in a devolved government by the target date of March 26, 2007.

In March 2007, the election for the new Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland took place. Results showed the two hard-line Protestant/Unionist and Catholic/Nationalists parties winning most of the seats at stake.

In fact, Ian Paisley's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) won 36 of the 108 seats, making it the largest party. Sinn Fein, led by Gerry Adams, secured 28 seats and the second highest number of seats. Both parties increased their representation since the last election and both parties won more than half the "first preference" votes under Northern Ireland's complex system of allotting representation. The more moderate parties of Northern Ireland lost a few seats but still managed respectable showings with the Ulster Unionist Party winning 18 seats and the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP) taking 16 seats. The non-sectarian Alliance Party, which has advocated

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 228 of 506 pages United Kingdom cooperation between Unionists and Nationalists, had a particularly good performance winning an additional seat for a total of seven. The Green Party won its first seat in the Legislative Assembly. The Progressive Unionist Party (PUP) also took one seat. The United Kingdom Unionist Party (UKUP) leader, Bob McCartney, lost his seat.

The election was intended to facilitate the creation of a new power-sharing government, which would represent diverse sectarian interests. That power-sharing executive entity had to be formed by a deadline of March 26, 2007, in order to move away from direct rule. However, a failure to do so would leave little chance of restoring the devolved government, and ultimately, it would result in the abandonment of the Northern Ireland's Legislative Assembly at Stormount. At issue was the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Now, with the elections completed, and with the March 26, 2007 deadline looming ahead, Secretary of State Peter Hain said that he would require a status report from the parties within two weeks, in order to meet the deadline for devolution. He warned that the assembly would be abandoned if the parties were not signatories to a power-sharing executive. That power-sharing executive, if formed, would be made up of four DUP ministers, three Sinn Fein ministers, two UUP ministers and one SDLP minister. Absent from the executive would be the Alliance Party, the Green Party and the PUP.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern urged the DUP and Sinn Fein to work together to form an executive body, which they characterized as "an opportunity of historic proportions." In a joint message, the two leaders said, "The message of the electorate is clear: after so many years of frustration and disappointment, they want Northern Ireland to move on to build a better future together through the devolved institutions."

In media interviews, Gerry Adams, the leader of Sinn Fein, said that he would have "no problem" shaking the had of DUP leader, Ian Paisley, and working with Protestants advocating continued union with the United Kingdom. While such a response augured positively, Ian Paisley struck a note of caution in his media interviews, noting that the successful formation of a power-sharing executive would rest upon Sinn Fein's commitment to meeting its obligations.

As midnight struck heralding March 26, 2007, Peter Hain signed an order restarting devolution and effectively restoring power to the Northern Ireland Assembly. But its revived existence could have had a short life if the deadline for the formation of the power-sharing executive was not met.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland warned that the assembly at Stormount would be dissolved if agreement on the power-sharing executive was not forged by the deadline. Indeed, Peter Hain asserted, "Success tomorrow would be devolution, failure would be dissolution. I don't at the moment see any other way, I only see it our way." That said, he also suggested that he was willing to consider alternative arrangement if the parties could come to some consensus on the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 229 of 506 pages United Kingdom issues at stake. To this end, Hain added: "If there is another way if the parties have got their own way then they need to jointly agree it and come back to me pretty quickly, because otherwise the law kicks in and there's nothing I can do about it."

For its part, the DUP said that it would enter into a power-sharing government with Sinn Fein, however, it also issued a caveat of sorts by stating that it would not enter into such an arrangement until May. In response, Sinn Fein charged the DUP with attempting to "frustrate the will of the electorate."

DUP parliamentarian Jeffrey Donaldson defended his party's decision by noting that the decision to agree to govern jointly with Sinn Fein was one of historic proportions, but that more time was needed to resolve outstanding issues. At issue, according to the DUP, were matters such as departmental pre-briefings, the finalization of a government program, as well as raising confidence levels within the community regarding devolution.

Nevertheless, before the passage of the deadline, the DUP and Sinn Fein announced an historic agreement to form a power-sharing executive on May 8, 2007. Two main rivals -- the DUP's Ian Paisley and Sinn Fein's Gerry Adams -- met for direct talks to discuss the deal. It was agreed that Paisley would be the first minister in the new administration and Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness would be deputy first minister.

Following the unprecedented meeting between Paisley and Adams, the DUP leader expressed full commitement saying, "The DUP executive overwhelmingly endorsed a motion committing our party to support and participate fully in government in May of this year - this is a binding resolution." He also said, "Our goal has been to see devolution returned in a context where it can make a real, meaningful improvement in the lives of all the people of this part of the United Kingdom."

Paisley's nationalist counterpart, Adams, responded to the DUP's endorsement and commitment to joint governance saying, "I believe the agreement reached between Sinn Fein and the DUP - including the unequivocal commitment made by their party executive and reiterated today - to the restoration of political institutions on 8 May marks the beginning of a new era of politics on this island." He went on to state, "The basis of the agreement between Sinn Fein and the DUP follows Ian Paisley's unequivocal and welcome commitment to support and participate fully in the political institutions on 8 May."

British Prime Minister Blair said that the agreement between the DUP and Sinn Fein was an important one for the people and the history of Northern Ireland. He also noted, "Everything we have done over the last 10 years has been a preparation for this moment."

Irish Taoiseach Bertie Ahern reacted to the developments by characterizing the agreement was

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 230 of 506 pages United Kingdom both unprecedented and very positive. He also noted that the agreement contained the potential "to transform the future of this island."

Then, May 8, 2007 saw the establishment of the historic power-sharing at Stormount in Northern Ireland. Direct rule ended as DUP leader, Ian Paisley, and Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein, took office as the first and deputy ministers of the new executive respectively. Paisley marked the occasion saying, "Today we are starting upon the road which I believe will take us to lasting peace in our province." McGuinness expressed confidence that he would be able to work with Paisley despite the challenges of the past, saying, "We must overcome the difficulties which we face in order to achieve our goals and seize the opportunities that now exist."

Witnessing the occasion, British Prime Minister Tony Blair noted that Northern Ireland now had the opportunity to be freed from "the heavy chains of history" while charting a new course. His Irish counterpart, Taoiseach Bertie Ahern expressed his gratitude to politicians who had worked hard to achieve peace.

Note: The creation of a new power-sharing government at Stormount was intended to both restore the devolved government and to represent diverse sectarian interests. The historic occasion marked the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

At the close of 2007, a former DUP member, Jim Allister, formed a new anti-agreement party called the Traditional Unionist Voice. It was aimed at opposing power-sharing at Stormont.

Also in December 2007, Sinn Fein president, Gerry Adams, asserted that a priority for the (2008) would be the transfer of policing and justice powers from Westminster to Stormont. However, a few months later, the DUP noted that the devolution of policing and justice powers were not possible by the May 2008 target date that had been set, due to a lack of public confidence.

Recent Developments

Meanwhile, in January 2008, as Northern Ireland looked to dealing with its historic legacy, a controversy erupted over how that legacy would be represented. At issue was the question of whether the British government would officially state that it fought a war against the IRA. The situation was also not helped by increasing ire of unionists who balk at the notion of amnesty for those involved in the violence of the conflict.

In March 2008, First Minister Ian Paisley said that he would resign from both his governing post as well as his leadership role in the DUP. He said that he intended to remain in the roles of parliamentarian and legislator for North Antrim.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 231 of 506 pages United Kingdom

March 2009 was marked by an attack by two gunmen at an army base, which left two soldiers dead. Both soldiers were due to be deployed to Afghanistan. At the Antrim army base, the gunmen also injured four people, including two pizza delivery men. The incident marked the first killing of soldiers in Northern Ireland since the assassination of Lance Bombardier Stephen Restorick in 1997.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown described the attack as "evil" and vowed that it would not impeded the peace process. He also promised to bring those responsible to justice saying, "We will do everything in our power to make sure that Northern Ireland is safe and secure and I assure you we will bring these murderers to justice."

Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, characterized the attack as and attempt to derail the peace process and noted that it was "wrong and counter-productive."

Northern Ireland Deputy First Minister Martin McGuiness, who was a former member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA), decried the attack saying, "I supported the IRA during the conflict, I myself was a member of the IRA but that war is over. Now the people responsible for that last night's incident are clearly signaling that they want to resume or restart that war."

Northern Ireland's First Minister Peter Robinson, who was also Democratic Unionist Party leader, said that cast the attack as a "terrible reminder of the events of the past."

In the aftermath of the attack, the "Real IRA" claimed responsibility. The "Real IRA" emerged due to a split within the Provisional IRA in 1997 due to Sinn Fein's decision to participate in the peace process. The "Real IRA" was behind the bombing of the County Tyrone town of Omagh that left 29 people dead in 1998.

On February 4, 2010, the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) agreed to a compromise deal aimed at transferring responsibility for the justice system (police and courts) to the government of Northern Ireland.

The devolution agreement was reportedly sanctioned by members of the DUP within the provincial assembly. As noted by DUP leader, Peter Robinson, "Everyone present believes this is consistent with our election manifesto and pledges that we have made to the people."

On the other side of the equation, Gerry Adams, the president of Sinn Fein, expressed satisfaction with the results of weeks of negotiations. He said, "I believe that the assembly and political institutions can now proceed on the basis of equality, fairness and partnership." Accordingly, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and Irish Taoiseach Brian Cowen were scheduled to go to Belfast to sign the agreement.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 232 of 506 pages United Kingdom

For some time, the justice system in Northern Ireland has been a source of consternation with Catholics viewing the police and courts as unfairly favoring the majority Protestant population.

On Feb. 23, 2010, a car bomb exploded close to a court house and popular cafes and bars in the city of Newry in Northern Ireland. The explosion was blamed on Irish republican dissidents, according to authorities on the scene. No one was hurt as a result of the attack. Anonymous warnings were issued to businesses and a hospital stating that a bomb would explode within 30 minutes. In actuality, the car bomb was detonated less than 20 minutes after the warnings were issued.

The bombing occurred only weeks after a compromise deal was struck, aimed at transferring responsibility for the justice system (police and courts) to the government of Northern Ireland as noted above. Because the bombing occurred close to a courthouse, there was some speculation that it was motivated by republican dissidents' frustration over that agreement.

June 2011 saw riots rock Northern Ireland's capital of Belfast, with police saying that several hundred people had taken to the streets to participate in sectarian violence. The epicenter of the violence appeared to be a Catholic enclave in the eastern part of the city, which has endured tensions between Catholics and Protestants in the past. Still, with petrol bombs, fireworks, and missiles being hurled at police, and gunshots being fired, it was clearly the worst episode of violence in Belfast in at least a decade. Several people were reported to have been injured, including a photographer, and calls for calm had gone unheeded.

July 2011 saw a resurgence of sectarian violence as petrol bombs were hurled at police during rioting in the northern part of Belfast. The explosion of violence occurred at a parade by the Orange Institution, a Protestant fraternal order, in the area of Ardoyne, which is nationalist enclave. It should be noted that the nationalists are no longer united in Northern Ireland with those loyal to Sinn Fein pledging allegiance to the peace process, and other republicans who do not. It would seem that the latter group was involved in the fracas that ensued when riot police took up positions. Indeed, the presence of riot police appeared to raise the ire of people on the scene who began to throw stones, glass bottles, bricks, and even petrol bombs at the police as the security forces used water cannons to try to quell the angry crowds.

Sectarian violence erupted in Northern Ireland in January 2013 as a result of a contentious debate over flying the British flag at City Hall in Belfast. Officials voted to limit the number of days the British flag might be flown at City Hall. The decision spurred outrage by loyalists and sparked an outbreak of riots, which were marked by violent clashes between protesters and police that left more than 100 police officers dead and as many as 120 arrests made. A banned loyalist group, the Ulster Volunteer Force, was blamed for fueling the ire of people and even orchestrating some of the riots and chaos that ensued as a result of the outrage. With passions inflamed and a rising casualty list in what was now being called the "Union Flag crisis," government ministers convened talks with United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 233 of 506 pages United Kingdom list in what was now being called the "Union Flag crisis," government ministers convened talks with the Northern Ireland secretary of state and the Irish foreign minister. Secretary of State Theresa Villers then released a statement that read as follows: "The violence is intolerable and these protests have to come off the streets. They have to be replaced by dialogue." Meanwhile, a number of political groups from varied backgrounds echoed the call for an end to the violence. Indeed, appeals for an end to the crisis were backed and sanctioned by dozens of organizations, including loyalist entities, Irish paramilitary cadres, community groups, and church leaders.

In mid-July 2013, the capital of Northern Ireland -- Belfast -- was rocked by riots. On July 12, 2013, alone, more than 30 police officers and member of parliament, Nigel Dodds, were injured in the violence unfolding in Belfast. Indeed, despite his appeal for calm and an end to the violence, Dodds was knocked unconscious when loyalists hurled missiles in the direction of the police. He was hospitalized at the Royal Victoria Hospital as a result of the incident.

At issue was a ban on a proposed march by the Orange Order (i.e. the Protestant unionist movement). Police moved to enforce that ban but were met with resistance in the northern part of the city as the Orange Order called for mass protests along the thoroughfare that divided Republican (Catholic Irish nationalist) and Orange Order (Protestant unionist) communities. Although the Orange Order subsequently said it would suspend its demonstrations, violence nonetheless erupted and engulfed families and children. Weapons ranging from bricks and stones to petrol bombs and ceremonial swords were hurled at police; in response, police attempted to disperse the crowds by using water cannons and plastic batons.

Typically, Orange men march from April to August, with particular attention on the July 12 date, which marks the occasion when William of Orange won victory over the Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland in 1690. The July 12 annual parade commemorates that victory. For Catholic Irish nationalists, the marches, and particularly, the July 12 parade, denotes triumphalism. As such, power brokers have noted that they serve only to stoke sectarian and political tensions between Catholic nationalists and Protestant loyalists. The decision to ban the parade in northern Belfast was intended to prevent an outbreak of violence but resulted in outraging unionists and particularly the Orange Order, ultimately resulting with the riots discussed here.

The rioting went on for a second day, with hundreds of police being deployed to quell the violence. Although the unrest continued on July 13, 2013, the violence was not as acute as the day before. Authorities appeared to blame the Unionists for using reckless language and behavior to spark hostilities. Secretary of State Theresa Villiers "utterly condemned" the rioting and urged the Orange Order to call off its mass action saying, "It is the clear responsibility of everyone who has influence, including the Orange Order, community leaders and politicians, to do what they can to calm the situation. We need temperate language over coming days."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 234 of 506 pages United Kingdom

But unionists were quick to defend their ranks with Ulster Unionist councilor Mark Cosgrove suggesting that it was "irresponsible" of police to blame the Orange Order for the unrest. He said, "There were hundreds of thousands of people from both the loyal orders and the bands, the supporters out in Belfast and all over Northern Ireland yesterday and, I think, to try and apportion blame to the Orange Order is totally wrong." Not surprisingly, nationalists had a very different view of the events unfolding in Belfast. Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein said: "In my opinion, the leadership of the Orange Order failed the Orange Order and they failed these communities." He continued, "The decision announced some hours ago, that they are suspending their protests, was a massive admission by themselves that they were culpable for what happened here last night."

Just ahead of the "marching season" in Northern Ireland in 2014, police were investigating a 1972 murder arrested Irish nationalist leader, Gerry Adams. He was released following several days of extensive interrogations. At issue for the police was the murder of Jean McConville, who was kidnapped in full view of her children in 1972 when the Irish Republican Army was carrying out its violent and hardline nationalist campaign.

In the background of this particular investigation were prevailing accusations that Adama was involved in the Irish Republican Army's more nefarious activities. For his part, Adams has denied being involved in the murder of anyone -- including McConville. Regardless of the veracity of his statement, the police referred the case against Adams -- a member of parliament in the Republic of Ireland -- to prosecutors who would decide whether charges should be advanced.

But the investigation into Adams appeared to have sparked sectarian tensions between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland with supporters of Adams' Sinn Fein party outraged over his arrest, and pro-unionists angry that he was released from police custody. Indeed, unionists blockaded a road and threw petrol bombs to register their anger over Adams' release.

While the tensions did not immediately contribute to a fierce outbreak of violence, there were fears that the overall political climate was negatively affected ahead of the so-called "marching season." The summer "marching season" typically featured Protestants parades marking their historic victories against Catholics. Of particular importance was the July 12 march marking the victory of William of Orange over the Catholic King James II at the Battle of the Boyne in Ireland in 1690.

For their part, Catholics regard the parades as provocations and they have been particularly incensed over the July 12 march, saying that it smacked of triumphalism. As such, power brokers have noted that the parades serve only to stoke sectarian and political tensions between Catholic nationalists and Protestant loyalists. The decision in 2013 to ban the parade in northern Belfast was intended to prevent an outbreak of violence but instead managed to outrage the unionists and particularly the Orange Order. Ultimately, violent riots erupted in Belfast in 2013. Indeed, it was the worst outbreak of violence in Northern Ireland since the late 1990s.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 235 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Now in 2014, with the Gerry Adams case featuring prominently ahead of the marching season, anxieties were elevated along with renewed Catholic versus Protestant tensions.

Note on Death of Ian Paisley

In the second week of September 2014, Ian Paisley, the former leader of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party died at the age of 88. Known for his decision to enter a power-sharing executive with the Irish nationalist Sinn Fein movement at Stormont, Paisely was one of the keystone figures of the decades-long struggle between unionists and republican nationalists in Northern Ireland. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron paid tribute to Paisley saying he was "one of the most forceful and instantly recognizable characters in British politics for nearly half a century." Cameron continued, "In particular, his decision to take his party into government with Sinn Fein in 2007 required great courage and leadership, for which everyone in these islands should be grateful." Martin McGuinness of Sinn Fein expressed sadness over the news of Paisley's death, saying, "Over a number of decades we were political opponents and held very different views on many, many issues but the one thing we were absolutely united on was the principle that our people were better able to govern themselves than any British government." He continued, "I want to pay tribute to and comment on the work he did in the latter days of his political life in building agreement and leading unionism into a new accommodation with republicans and nationalists."

Editor's Summary on the Northern Ireland Conflict and Peace Process:

The decades-old conflict in Northern Ireland remains one of the central political problems facing the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom. Although Northern Ireland was not granted independence along with the rest of the Irish island in 1921, it did have its own regional parliament and government within the United Kingdom until 1972. Escalation in the sectarian conflict between the majority Protestants and minority Catholics led the British government to suspend Northern Ireland's autonomous institutions and institute direct rule from London. Control over Northern Ireland rested with the secretary of state for Northern Ireland, a ministerial position within the British cabinet.

The Catholic "nationalists" or "republicans" were led by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and sought both independence from the United Kingdom, as well as unification with the Republic of Ireland. Protestant "unionists" or "loyalists," exemplified by members of the Orange Order that engages in periodic marches through Catholic neighborhoods, sought to maintain the union with the rest of the United Kingdom and opposed the IRA. The imposition of direct rule in 1972, the strong British military presence in Northern Ireland, and the suspension of certain civil rights increased sectarian conflict between the two sides.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 236 of 506 pages United Kingdom

With an eye on ending the conflict and instituting a political settlement, the Irish peace process ensued over the course of decades. The peace process has broadly involved a series of measures undertaken with these goals in Northern Ireland.

In 1988, John Hume, the leader at the time of the Social Democratic and Labour Party (SDLP), convened a meeting with Gerry Adams, the president at the time of Sinn Féin (SF) -- the major Irish Republican political entity. It was the first of a series of meetings that would go on until 1993. These meetings did not go smoothly at all time, often breaking down, and finally moving in a productive direction in 1993. At that time the the Hume/Adams initiatives were launched and formed the basis of the so-called Downing Street Declaration, which was jointly issued by the British and Irish governments.

In 1994, the IRA announced its "cessation" of military action, and is generally regarded as a seminal moment in the peace process.

The peace process was marred by the IRA Bombing at the Canary Wharf in 1996; however, that incident did not entirely sabotage efforts to bring an end to the Northern Ireland conflict. Finally, on April 10, 1998, the "Good Friday" agreement was forged, which is generally regarded as the fulcrum of the peace agreement in Northern Ireland. Central to the "Good Friday" agreement was a roadmap to devolution -- that is to say, the transition from direct rule of Northern Ireland from London through the process of devolution to rule from Northern Ireland's Legislative Assembly at Stormont. The road map to that destination involved the creation of a power-sharing government that would represent diverse sectarian interests.

IN truth, the implementation of the Good Friday Agreement has been difficult, first with the unionists refusing to establish the various institutions of devolved government, and also with nationalists stalling on the issue of decommissioning of paramilitary weapons. But in late 1999, unionists joined with Sinn Fein to enter an executive government, and the devolution of power from London to Stormont in Belfast was finally realized.

The road to peace continued to be marked by turbulence as in 2000, unionists were not pleased by the lack of progress on paramilitary decommissioning and warned that they intended to resign from the power-sharing executive government.

As such, the government of the United Kingdom quickly announced that it would suspend the executive government along with its related institutions and instruments of administration in Northern Ireland and re-introduce "direct rule." Although the executive was reinstated later in the year, various tactical measures of suspension followed over the course of the next few years, with an eye on finding resolution between the two sides.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 237 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Despite the fact that the IRA decommissioned all its weapons by 2005, unionists held no trust for the nationalists and were not interested in re-entering the power-sharing executive. In fact, the year 2005 was marked by violence in the streets of Belfast as sectarian tensions reached new heights. As such, as of 2006, the devolved institutions remained suspended and Northern Ireland at the time was ruled by appointed ministers.

The peace process appeared to have been revitalized by the apparent murder of former senior Sinn Fein member, Denis Donaldson, in 2006. Donaldson had been expelled from Sinn Fein in late 2005 because of the charges that he had been a British agent (a charge that he later admitted). Even so, his death was condemned by both the British and Irish governments, as well as the IRA. Moreover, the leader of Sinn Fein, Gerry Adams, stated that he wished to "disassociate" all republicans who supported the peace process from this killing.

On the heels of the murder of Donaldson, British Prime Minister Tony Blair and Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern traveled to Northern Ireland to reveal their plan for restoring devolution. May 2006 marked the first time since October 2002 that Northern Ireland's politicians took their seats at the Stormont assembly. Months later, intensive multi-party talks were convened at St. Andrews in Scotland aimed at moving the sides toward a commitment to devolution by the November 2006 deadline, and the establishment of a new operational executive in 2007. Disagreements between unionists and republicans over a variety of issues, including policing, marred the next several months.

Nevertheless, in March 2007, the election for the new Legislative Assembly of Northern Ireland took place. Results showed the two hard-line Protestant/Unionist and Catholic/Nationalists parties winning most of the seats at stake. Now attention shifted to the matter of trying to form a power- sharing government. To that end, Peter Hain, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, warned that the assembly at Stormont would be dissolved if agreement was not reached in short order. Finally, May 2007 saw the establishment of the historic power-sharing at Stormont in Northern Ireland. Direct rule ended as Ian Paisley, the leader of the Democratic Unionist Party, and Martin McGuinness, the leader of Sinn Fein, took office as the first and deputy ministers of the new executive respectively. The historic occasion marked the official implementation of the Good Friday Agreement.

Note: Since 2007, Northern Ireland has occasionally been subject to eruptions of sectarian violence, as discussed above.

Written by Dr. Denise Coleman, Editor in Chief at CountryWatch.com; see Bibliography for research sources.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 238 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Appendix: Scotland

Europe: United Kingdom

Special Report on Scottish Independence: The Union holds as Scotland votes "no" in landmark independence referendum

Summary:

A referendum on Scottish independence was held on Sept. 18, 2014. The referendum posed the following question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" Scotland's future status was at stake. In the months leading up to the independence vote, the pro-unity side of the debate had the advantage; however, in the weeks just before the referendum was set to take place, nationalist passions flared to the benefit of the pro-independence flank. Pre-referendum polling data showed a close race to the finish with the current structure of the United Kingdom poised for possible transformation. Would that transformation be limited to increased autonomy within the preserved United Kingdom, or would that transformation see a fully independent Scotland emerge on the global scene? The answer to these questions came democratically on Sept. 18, 2014, with a decisive "no" to independence and in favor of holding together the United Kingdom. That being said, there would be changes afoot for increased self-determination for Scotland under the aegis of a unified British nation state. With a voter turnout rate of between 85 and 90 percent, the Scottish independence vote stood as a reminder to the world of how participatory democracy works in a mature nation state.

Background:

Going back to February 2013, the Scottish National Party declared that if voters ratified sovereignty and independence in a referendum to be held in 2014, Scotland would become an independent country in March 2016. Scottish nationalists released an ambitious timetable for independence that included a detailed itinerary of measures to be undertaken that would remove

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 239 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Scotland from the United Kingdom, establish a separate Treasury, and apply for accession to the European Union in less than 20 months after ratification.

A year later in February 2014, with an independence referendum set to be held in September 2014, the government of the United Kingdom made an impassioned plea for Scotland to stay within the union. At the start of 2014, Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron said, "We would be deeply diminished without Scotland." He continued, "If we lost Scotland, if the U.K. changed, we would rip the rug from under our own reputation. The plain fact is we matter more in the world together." If his positive and affirmative message of unity failed to resonate with Scottish nationalists, Prime Minister Cameron was also willing to argue for a unified country on the basis of negative consequences. To that particular end, his government warned that an independent Scotland would not be able to use the British pound sterling as its currency.

The Liberal Democratic Party (in a coalition government with Prime Minister Cameron's Conservatives), as well as the opposition Labor Party, joined the Conservatives in issuing a warning to Scottish nationalists. Regardless of their partisan divisions, all three parties closed ranks to caution Scottish nationalists that an independent Scotland would be prohibited from retaining the British pound sterling as its currency. As noted by the United Kingdom's Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne, “There's no legal reason why the rest of the U.K. would need to share its currency with Scotland.”

The pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) seemed undeterred by the threat, casting it as just an attempt “to bully and intimidate.” However, the notion that an independent Scotland would not have access to the established British pound sterling as the national currency would likely cause some referendum voters to think critically about the costs of sovereignty. Already, they would have to consider the ambitious independence timetable of holding a referendum in September 2014, followed by independent nation state status in the first part of 2016.

For its part, the SNP has said that its aggressive plan for independence was in keeping with other shifts in the status of nation states in Europe, such as the splitting of the former Czechoslolvakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. But representatives of the government of the United Kingdom were not quite so sanguine about the prospects of a sovereignty and independence schedule of less than two years. Alistair Darling, the former press secretary of British Prime Minister Tony Blair and current leader of an anti-independence group, Better Together, was on the record dismissing the timetable as unrealistic. He said, "Even with the best will in the world, even if there is no disagreement over some of the major issues like what happens to our currency, how we divide up our pension system, and how we split the national debt, achieving this timetable is a tall order."

Indeed, in less than 20 months after ratification (assuming there was a "yes" vote), Scotland would have to be removed from the United Kingdom, and then establish a separate Treasury, and

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 240 of 506 pages United Kingdom apply for accession to the European Union. other issues would be the division of military interests, such as the United Kingdom's submarine fleet, which was based in Scotland, as well as the United Kingdom's claim to a permanent seat at the United Nations Security Council.

Regardless, the Sept. 18, 2014, date set for a referendum on Scotland's independence from the United Kingdom was moving forward. The date was set to coincide with a re-enactment of the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, a historic Scottish victory over the English. In accordance with the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, the referendum would pose the following question to voters for a "yes" or "no" response: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

On the issue of the Scottish independence, Salmond said, "It will be a historic day and one on which this ancient nation decides its place in the world." For his part, United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron has said that Scotland would be better off if it remained under the collective flag of the United Kingdom. He warned that fragmentation of the United Kingdom would result in diminished economic strength, national security, and international influence. Perhaps not surprisingly, Scottish First Minister Salmond held a different view, believing that Scotland would be better positioned as a sovereign nation state. To this end, Salmond argued: "Only the powers of an independent parliament with control of the economy, of international representation and of security will allow us to make the most of our huge national potential."

The road to the Independence Referendum --

At the start of March 2014, with the independence referendum only months away, Salmond -- the Scottish leader -- called on British citizens to support the independence campaign. He argued that an independent Scotland would act as a countervailing power against London-centered domination. He said, "After Scottish independence, the growth of a strong economic power in the north of these islands would benefit everyone -- our closest neighbors in the north of England more than anyone." He continued, "There would be a 'Northern Light' to redress the influence of the 'dark star' -- rebalancing the economic center of gravity of these islands."

But British Prime Minister David Cameron was carrying out his own pro-unity campaign (colloquially referred to as "love bombing") in which he called on British citizens in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland to remind their Scottish friends and relatives that they were all better off together.

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown -- a Scot -- entered the debate in mid- March 2014 to join the non-partisan call for national unity, and to advocate for more increased autonomy for Scotland rather than independence. Speaking from Glasgow, Brown said, "The majority of Scottish people do not want separation but equally they do want change." He continued, "I want to move us from the old highly centralized, uniform Britain dominated by out-

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 241 of 506 pages United Kingdom of-date ideas of an undivided Westminster sovereignty to a new diverse power-sharing, risk- sharing, resource-sharing U.K. which is best defined ... as a modern, constitutional partnership of nations."

Polling data has -- for some time -- indicated that most people in Scotland actually do not favor independence from the United Kingdom, preferring to maintain the current union. In March 2014, an Ipsos-Mori poll showed only 32 percent support for Scottish independence, with 57 percent against it, and 11 percent undecided Nevertheless, the pro-independence forces planned for a robust campaign and with the intent of persuading people of their sovereignty argument.

In August 2014, with only a month to go before the referendum on Scottish independence was set to take place in September 2014, the advantage appeared to reside with the pro-unity side. This advantage was displayed during an initial debate between Alex Salmond, the head of the pro- independence Scottish National Party (SNP) and the leader of the campaign for Scottish, and Alistair Darling, the leader of the campaign to retain Scotland as part of the United Kingdom.

The energetic debate, which was broadcast in the media, ended with the conclusion that Salmond - - usually a powerful speaker -- had not effectively made the case for independence, particularly as regards the economic path for a sovereign Scotland. On the other hand, Darling -- not known for his command of rhetoric -- offered a solid performance by challenging Salmond's vision for post- independence currency and revenue. Drawing attention to the fact that an independent Scotland would not be allowed to use the British pound sterling, Darling posed the following question to Salmond: "What is plan B?" Salmond was unable to substantially address this challenge, and instead asserted, "I am in favor of keeping the pound sterling," while claiming that that the pound belonged to both England and Scotland. But the fact of the matter was that the United Kingdom had already rejected the notion of a currency union that would allow Scotland to use the British pound sterling as its legal tender. To this end, Darling noted that the use by an independent Scotland of the British pound would be like another country in the Americas using the United States or Canadian dollar. He declared: "That's using sterling like Panama or Ecuador uses the dollar."

It should be noted that a second debate was held in the last week of August 2014. During that engagement, Salmond enjoyed a much better performance with most observers concluding that he had "won" the argument against Darling -- at least for the night. It was to be seen if this strong rhetorical presentation would persuade voters to move to the pro-independence position ahead of the actual referendum.

Note that as August 2014 was coming to a close, polling data showed little movement in the views of voters. While there was some mild improvement towards the pro-independence side of the equation, the pro-unity faction continued to command the advatage. A so-called "poll of polls" in mid-August 2014 showed that support for Scottish independence stood at 43 percent while

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 242 of 506 pages United Kingdom support for United Kingdom's unity stood at 57 percent.

At the start of September 2014, the landscape shifted significantly. A YouGov survey for the Sunday Times showed that, for the first time, the pro-independence side had taken the lead. The "Yes" to Independence campaign now was yielding 51 percent of support while the unionists had close to 49 percent. Clearly, for advocates of Scottish independence, the movement was peaking at precisely the right time -- just two weeks ahead of the referendum. The shift was attributed to the strong performance of pro-independence orchestrator, Salmond, in the second televised debate.

Underlining the reality that the referendum would go down to the wire and that Scots might, in fact, opt for independence, a INS poll showed the "no" vote dropping to 39 percent with the "yes" vote within the statistical margin of error with 38 percent. Several other polling surveys at the start of September 2014 showed momentum for the "yes" vote.

Independence for Scotland would involve negotiations over usage of the pound sterling currency -- something the "Better Together" unity camp has warned would not end well for a sovereign Scotland, as discussed above. Also to be determined would be the division of the national debt of the United Kingdom, control over oil in the North Sea, and the fate of the nuclear submarine base located in Scotland. Other likely consequences of an independent Scotland would be the loss of defense and financial sector jobs, along with obstacles to European Union accession.

Politically, the consequences of a successful "yes" campaign in Scotland would create dire consequences for both of the two major parties in the United Kingdom. Should Scotland vote to exit the United Kingdom, the humiliation for Prime Minister David Cameron would be great, and would likely include demands that the Conservative leader resign from office. But the situation would be no rosier for the Labor Party, which would lose key support since the current Scottish members of parliament would be effectively removed from the scene.

With such possible ends at hand -- especially given the sudden burst of support for the independence movement --there were plans afoot from the "Better Together" unionist campaign. At issue was an attractive package that would offer more powers to Scotland over its taxes, as well as its social and economic affairs. This so-called "devolution" plan was intended to regain support of Scots looking for more autonomy and control, while not entirely interested in exiting the United Kingdom. It was to be seen if this federal powers package would gain support.

Former United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown called on fellow Labor Party supporters to consider his party's plan for devolution of powers, saying, "This moves us as close to federalism as we can. Scotland is already a nation. We are proud of our history and culture. Do we want to sever all constitutional links with our friends, our neighbors, our relatives in England, Wales and Northern Ireland?"

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 243 of 506 pages United Kingdom

A week later, on the eve of the referendum, the official devolution package (brokered by former Prime Minister Brown) offered Scotland a guarantee of high levels of public spending as well as self-determination over health care spending. At the end of the day, even if Scotland were to vote "no" to independence, as shown by this package, the structure of the United Kingdom was destined to change. That change would involve the devolution of powers away from the central government in London.

Meanwhile, the British political establishment was making an impassioned plea for unity. United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron declared, "In the end, it is for the Scottish people to decide, but I want them to know that the rest of the United Kingdom -- and I speak as prime minister -- want them to stay."

Prime Minister Cameron subsequently emphasized the significance of a "yes" vote to ratify Scotland's independence aspiration. He warned that saying "yes" to independence would be a final stance with no room for reversal, as he declared: "There's no going back from this. No re-run. If Scotland votes 'yes' the U.K. will split and we will go our separate ways forever. "

The Bank of England issued a stark reminder to Scots that an independent Scotland would not be able to keep the British pound sterling currency. The bank's governor, Mark Carney, warned that a currency union between an independent Scotland and the remainder of the United Kingdom would be incompatible with the very notion of sovereignty.

The fact of the matter was that there would be nothing stopping an independent Scotland from using the British pound sterling as its currency. However, without a currency and monetary arrangement -- something the Bank of England has said it will not entertain -- an independent Scotland would need a stockpile of pound sterling. As well, there would be potentially disastrous consequences for Scotland since the Bank of England would no longer be last lender of resort for Scotland's banking industry. Moreover, Scotland would have no say in monetary policy, which would be dictated by the Bank of England.

Meanwhile, in an open letter, 14 former heads of the United Kingdom's Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force warned that a "yes" vote for independence would be detrimental to the defense of both the United Kingdom and a future independent Scotland. As stated in the piece, "The division of the U.K. may or may not be politically or economically sensible, but in military terms we are clear: it will weaken us all."

On the eve of the referendum, a slate of polls showed a close race to the finish, with the "no" vote recouping a slight advantage. The closeness of the pre-election polls suggested that there was no known guarantee of the outcome of the referendum. Three pollsters -- ICM, Opinium, and Survation -- showed support for independence at 48 percent while support for retaining the union stood at 52 percent. With a significant share of Scotland's voters (around 10 percent) still

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 244 of 506 pages United Kingdom undecided, the result could conceivably go either way.

Referendum and Result

Ultimately, on Sept. 18, 2014, Scottish voters were set to give their answer -- "yes" or "no" -- to the question, "Should Scotland be an independent country?". Regardless of the outcome, the current structure of the United Kingdom was destined to change. Would that transformation be limited to increased autonomy within the preserved United Kingdom, or, would that transformation see a fully independent Scotland emerge on the global scene?

The answer to these questions came democratically on Sept. 18, 2014, with a decisive "no" vote to independence and in favor of holding together the union. The pro-union vote share outperformed the pre-referendum polling data with 55 percent voting "no" and in favor of remaining in the United Kingdom, and 45 percent voting "yes" and for Scottish independence.

Of the 32 councils in Scotland, only four voted "yes" in favor of independence, while 28 voted "no" and in favor of staying in the United Kingdom. The divided sentiment of the electorate was illustrated by the fact that Glasgow -- the largest city in Scotland -- was a stronghold for the "yes" vote while Edinburgh -- the capital of Scotland -- voted "no." That being said, the breakdown of the vote results from the 32 councils in Scotland suggested that the "no" vote was stronger in constituencies with better socio-economic conditions than in less comfortable constituencies where the "yes" vote saw a better performance.

At the end of the day, the Scottish independence referendum on Sept. 18, 2014, was marked by the highest voter turnout rate -- between 85 and 90 percent -- in a national election. As such, the Scottish independence vote stood as a reminder to the rest of the world of how participatory democracy works in a mature nation state.

Alistair Darling, the head of the "Better Together" pro-unity campaign declared victory, saying, "We have chosen unity over division, and positive change rather than needless separation."

Meanwhile, Scottish nationalist leader Alex Salmond conceded defeat but warned that the government in London would have to honor its commitments to extend greater powers to Scotland. He said, "There are 1.6 million people who made a choice for independence. I think the 1.6 million people will speak and speak loud if there is a retreat from the commitments made." Salmond also announced that he would resign as leader of the Scottish Nationalist Party, saying: "For me as leader my time is nearly over but for Scotland the campaign continues and the dream will never die." Salmond's deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, was seen as a likely successor and the favored choice to be the future leader of the Scottish Nationalists.

For his part, Prime Minister David Cameron issued a public statement hailing the referendum

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 245 of 506 pages United Kingdom result, and noting that the question of Scottish independence had now been settled for a generation. He said, "There can be no disputes, no re-runs, we have heard the settled will of the Scottish people." Cameron also promised to honor the commitments to convey greater powers of self determination to Scotland, while also addressing nationalist sentiment in Northern Ireland, Wales, and England, as he asserted: "Just as Scotland will vote separately in the Scottish parliament on their issues of tax, spending and welfare, so too England, as well as Wales and Northern Ireland should be able to vote on these issues."

Queen Elizabeth issued a statement of national unity, declaring: "Knowing the people of Scotland as I do, I have no doubt that Scots ... are able to express strongly-held opinions before coming together again in a spirit of mutual respect and support, to work constructively for the future of Scotland and indeed all parts of this country."

While the question of Scottish independence was now settled, there would nonetheless be changes afoot for increased self-determination and autonomy for Scotland under the aegis of the United Kingdom. The question of how those proposed transformations would go forward remained a matter of debate.

Of note was the fact that Prime Minister Cameron's proposal was not being embraced by former Labor Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who lobbied hard for unity. Brown and other Labor leaders were highly skeptical of Cameron's call for increased autonomy for the other member state of the United Kingdom -- particularly in England, where Labor's influence could be diminished. Labor Leader, Ed Milliband, made it clear that his party -- which helped to seal the "no" vote -- would not sign on to Prime Minister Cameron's plan to use the Scottish devolution measures to give more power to English members of parliament. Instead, he has called for a national constitutional convention that would be tasked with crafting a plan to move forward.

Prime Minister Cameron was also facing headwinds from within his own Conservative party with some members of parliament angry that Scotland should be “rewarded:” for its independence aspirations and at the expense of the rest of the United Kingdom, particularly England. It was for this reason that Cameron had introduced the notion of special provisions for all parts of the union. But, as discussed here, that was a proposition was not being embraced by the Labor Party.

At the same time, Cameron’s proposal caused grave consternation among Scottish nationalists, with the outgoing leader, Salmond, accusing the prime minister of “tricking” Scottish voters with promises of enhanced autonomy and special powers over taxes, social welfare, and spending before the vote, only to subsume those pledges as part of a restructuring plan guaranteed to help his own Tory base with English constituents. Addressing this complaint, Cameron was forced to respond with a promise that there would be no linkage between an eventual Scottish self- determination plan and a deal to assuage English conservatives. His office was compelled to issue a statement confirming that Scotland would receive more autonomy with no "ifs or buts."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 246 of 506 pages United Kingdom

In practical terms, the scale of constitutional changes that would be necessitated to meet Scotland's needs for greater autonomy and self determination would be significant, and thus promised to be a laborious endeavor.

***

Editor's Note on the United Kingdom:

Located in Western Europe, between the North Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea, just to the northwest of France, the United Kingdom is made up of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is to be found on the northern one-sixth of the island of Ireland.

It should be noted that the terms "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" cannot correctly be used in an interchangeable manner. Great Britain refers to the island to the west of France and east of Ireland that consists of three related regions -- England, Scotland, and Wales. However, Great Britain is not the proper name of any current sovereign nation state, as it excludes Northern Ireland, which is also part of the country called the United Kingdom. In fact, the official name of the country is "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland."

Scotland and England were joined in 1603 when King James VI of Scotland succeeded his cousin, Queen Elizabeth I, to claim the British throne. In 1707, the Act of Union created a new country, Great Britain. Ireland had been conquered by the early 17th century, and the 1801 British Acts of Union established the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In 1922, 26 counties of Ireland gained independence from London, with the other six counties remaining in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly were established in 1999. The latter was suspended until May 2007 due to wrangling over the peace process, but devolution was fully completed in March 2010.

In 2013, a process was started to allow for a referendum for Scottish independence. That vote was to take place in 2014. The result of that referendum gave a decisive victory to the pro-union side, effectively squashing the independence thrust at least for a generation in favor of increased Scottish autonomy. It should be noted that in order for Scotland to become independent, regardless of the result of the internal referendum, the British Parliament would have to dissolve the Acts of Union.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 247 of 506 pages United Kingdom

At the beginning of the 20th century the British Empire had been the foremost global power, stretching over one-fourth of the earth's surface. But World War I significantly weakened the United Kingdom, and the years following World War II saw the demise of the empire with many colonies gaining independence. Nevertheless, the country remains a major world economic and military power, with considerable political and cultural influence around the world. As the world's first industrialized country, the economy of the United Kingdom is one of the largest in the world as well as one of the strongest in Europe, and is considered to be a leading trading power and financial center.

It should also be noted that the United Kingdom has historically played a leading role in developing parliamentary democracy and in advancing literature and science. The country has a long history as a major player in international affairs and fulfills an important role in the European Union, the United Nations and NATO. The United Kingdom is also an active member of the European Union, although it chose to remain outside the Economic and Monetary Union. The government has said a series of economic criteria must be met before the issue can be put to a referendum.

Appendix: Wales

Coming soon..

Appendix: British Territories and Jurisdiction

UNITED KINGDOM TERRITORIES AND JURISDICTION

Included in this report is coverage of the following --

British Virgin Islands Turks and Caicos Cayman Islands Montserrat Anguilla Bermuda

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 248 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Bermuda Gibraltar Isle of Man

***

British Virgin Islands

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Comprising almost sixty islands in the eastern Caribbean, the British Virgin Islands are part of a larger archipelago known as the Virgin Islands, which also includes the US Virgin Islands. They were inhabited first by the Arawak tribe, until the Caribs took over in the 1500s. Christopher Columbus’ second American voyage sighted them in 1493, and the Spanish Empire claimed them in the early 1500s, but failed to create any permanent settlements. Piracy flourished as the British, French, Dutch, Spanish, and Danish all vied for control over the area.

In 1648 the Dutch created the first permanent settlement on the island of Tortola, but in 1672 the English wrested control of Tortola and in 1680 took over the islands of Anegada and Virgin Gorda. The Danish controlled the other major islands in the group, St. Thomas, St. John, and St. Croix, from 1672 until the US purchased them in 1917, making them the US Virgin Islands.

Originally administered as part of the British Leeward Islands (along with St. Kitts and Nevis), the British Virgin Islands attained separate colony status in 1960, and became self-governing in 1967. They are currently an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.

The major islands are Tortola, Aneganda, Virgin Gorda, and Jost Van Dyke.

Government

Like other overseas territories of the United Kingdom, the Queen is the head of state and appoints a governor to represent the sovereign nation and execute the duties within its jurisdiction, which are civil service, defense, internal security, external affairs, and administration of the courts. The governor is also in charge of appointing local officials to executive branch posts: the Premier, who is the head of the government and usually the leader of the majority party in the House of Assembly, and the Executive Council, the cabinet body whose members are drawn from the House of Assembly.

The House of Assembly comprises thirteen members elected by popular vote, and on ex officio appointee who does not vote on any measures. Its members serve four-year terms.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 249 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Its judicial responsibilities fall under the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, which comprises the High Court of Justice, presided over by a resident of the islands, and the Court of Appeal, the Magistrate’s Court, the Juvenile Court, and the lower level Court of Summary Jurisdiction. The judiciary is independent of the executive branch.

The legal system is based on English common law.

Politics

Voters elect a representative from each of the nine electoral districts, as well as four at-large members of the House of Assembly. Elections occur every four years. Suffrage is universal for all citizens over the age of 18.

The major parties are the Virgin Islands Party (VIP), the United Party (UP), and the Concerned Citizen’s Movement (CCM).

Economy

Tourism and financial services are the largest economic sectors. Tourism makes up about 45% of total national income.

In the mid-1980s, the BVI emerged as an offshore financial center, allowing companies to incorporate in its territory for tax reduction purposes. In 1994, the BVI became even more attractive to international businesses when it adopted an insurance law that ensured confidentiality of transactions and protected businesses from investigation of criminal offenses through regulated statutory gateways. Incorporation fees currently make up a large portion of the territory’s revenue.

Like the US Virgin Islands, the currency is the dollar.

Demographics

The population is estimated at 25,383 people. Birth rates are low, at 1.71 children per woman of childbearing age, but high net migration rates (7.41 of every 1,000 individuals are immigrants) keep the total population growing.

About 40% of the population is classified as urbanized. Road Town, the capital and largest city, has 9,000 residents.

82% of the population is of black African descent, 6.8% are European Caucasians, and the remaining 11.2% is made up of Indian and mixed race individuals.

Culture

English is the official language and literacy stands at 97.8%.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 250 of 506 pages United Kingdom

About 86% of the population identifies as Protestant 86%, with Methodists and Anglicans forming the largest denominations. Roman Catholics make up another 10% of the population.

Like much of the Caribbean, the culture is a Creole mixture of European, African, and indigenous tribal influences. The local linguistic dialect is Virgin Islands Creole. The island’s signature dish is a cornmeal and okra stew known as fungi, which is traditionally served with saltfish.

Sources

Official website of the British Virgin Islands

History: http://www.britishvirginislands.com/ntk_history.htm

People and Culture: http://www.britishvirginislands.com/ntk_people.htm

BBC News Country Profiles http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/3776675.stm

CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/vi.html

***

Turks and Caicos

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Located in the North Atlantic Ocean, the Turks and Caicos is a British Overseas Crown Territory that consists of two island groups in the Lucayan Archipelago, which also includes the Bahamas. The approximately 40 islands that constitute the territory are north of the island of Hispaniola (Haiti and the Dominican Republic), northeast of Cuba, and about 600 miles off the coast of Miami in the United States. Because they do not have any coastline bordering on the , the islands are not classified as Caribbean, although they are part of the larger West Indies region. Only 8 of the islands have significant populations- Grand Turk and Salt Cay in the Turks Islands, and South Caicos, East Caicos, West Caicos, North Caicos, and Providenciales in the Caicos Islands. The capital city and seat of government is Cockburn Town on Grand Turk Island. Providenciales is the most populated island and home to a large number of luxury resorts and vacation homes.

Historical Summary

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 251 of 506 pages United Kingdom

In the pre-Columbian era the island’s inhabitants were Lucayan and Taino Indians. Within two decades of the first Spanish ships’ arrivals in 1492, the native population was completely gone, mostly due their enslavement and relocation to replace the decimated populations of the island of Hispaniola. The islands were mostly uninhabited until salt farming began in 1680.In 1783, the French took over the islands, and then in 1799 the British annexed the islands as part of the Bahamas. For a period of 25 years beginning in 1848, Turks and Caicos existed as a separate colony with its own Crown governor, until in 1873 the islands became part of the Jamaica colony. In 1959, the islands became a separate colony but retained the Jamaican governor as the local head of state. After Jamaica gained independence from the Crown, Turks and Caicos came under the jurisdiction of the Bahamian governor between 1965 until 1973, when the islands received their own governor. Today the islands are a British Overseas Crown Territory.

Government

Under normal circumstances, Turks and Caicos is a parliamentary democracy with a unicameral House of Assembly whose members are elected by universal adult suffrage (age 18 and older). The British monarch is the ceremonial chief of state who appoints a local governor as her representative. The governor, in turn, appoints the premier as the head of local government, usually the leader of the majority party or coalition in Parliament. Additionally, the governor represents the United Kingdom regarding the duties for which the sovereign is responsible, which are defense, external affairs, international and offshore financial relations, internal security, appointment of certain government officials, complaints commissioner, and other general orders for the public service. The United Nations lists Turks and Caicos on its list of non-self-governing territories, classifying it as colonized.

However, in August 2009 the United Kingdom’s foreign minister issued an Order in Council suspending the local government and imposing direct rule after an investigation into corruption and misconduct allegations. The order expired two years later, in August 2011, and the territory is slated to elect and appoint an entirely new set of public officials, along with a newly revised constitution. Elections scheduled for July 2011 were postponed until 2012 due to official claims of financial unpreparedness. During the period of the injunction government the Crown-appointed governor ran the Turks and Caicos’ government, although the internal affairs were largely the responsibility of his appointed deputy the Chief Executive.

Politics

The two major parties are the People’s Democratic Movement (PDM) and the Progressive National Party (PNP).

Economy

Fishing was the islands’ major industry until the 1980s, when the first resorts appeared in

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 252 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Providenciales. In the 21st century, the largest contributor to GDP is the tourism industry, which has grown significantly in the past decade due to the boom in construction of new resorts and luxury vacation homes. Over three quarters of tourists are from the United States (as per 2004 data).

In addition tourism, Turks and Caicos has also established itself as a center for offshore financial service. Its “zero tax” policy, with a total lack of income, capital gains, corporate profits, or inheritance and estate taxes, has encouraged foreign business incorporation and investment. In lieu of taxes, government revenues come primarily from import duties, stamp taxes, work permit- associated fees, and fees from offshore financial activities.

Most capital goods and agricultural products are imported, although fishing remains a viable industry. The country’s primary material exports are lobster and conch.

The territory uses the US dollar as its currency.

Demographics

In recent years, the total estimated population is 44,819 residents. Although birth rates are not high (at 17.76 babies per 1,000 people per year) and the fertility rate is well below the replacement rate (1.7 children born per woman), Turks and Caicos has the fourth-highest rate of population growth in the world (3.485% per year) thanks to an extremely high rate of net migration (20.08 migrants per 1,000 people each year, the second highest net migration rate in the world).

Ethnically, 87.6% of the population is black of African descent, 7.9% is European-descended Caucasian, 1.3% are East Indian, and 2.5% are mixed.

Culture

The island’s native-born population is mostly descended from African slaves who worked in colonial cotton plantations on the island of Providenciales or Bahamians who moved to the islands for the salt-raking industry. It was also once a popular destination for British Loyalists fleeing the American Revolution, and many of their descendants still live on the island. Many of the island’s residents are expatriates, mostly British, American, French, Canadian, Haitians, Dominicans and Scandinavians.

A notable element of native culture is the Ripsaw style of music, also known as “Rake ‘N Scrape”. Its main instrument is a carpenter’s basic handsaw, paired with a simple metal tool like a nail, screwdriver, or fork, which the musician grates against the teeth of the saw while moving and bending the saw to produce a range of high and low sounds. It is often compared to the sound of ripping paper and is accompanied by instruments such as the accordion and concertina, conga drums, maracas, triangles, and the box guitar.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 253 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Christianity is the dominant religion, with the most popular denominations being Baptist (35.8%), Church of God (11.7%), Roman Catholic (11.4%), Anglican (10%), Methodist (9.3%), Seventh Day Adventist (6%), and Jehovah's Witnesses (1.8%). The non-Christian population is 14%.

93% of the population is urbanized.

Sources

Turks and Caicos Official Tourist Board http://www.turksandcaicostourism.com/history-and-culture.html http://www.turksandcaicostourism.com/songs-of-the-island.html http://www.turksandcaicostourism.com/islands-overview.html

European Union EEAS “EU Relations with Turks and Caicos” http://eeas.europa.eu/turks_and_caicos_islands/index_en.htm

Turks and Caicos Government Site http://www.turksandcaicos.tc/government/

State Department Information Site http://travel.his.com/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1048.html

BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/4489209.stm

***

Cayman Islands

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

The Cayman Islands are a group of three islands in the Caribbean Sea, approximately 144 miles south of Cuba and 160 miles northwest of Jamaica. Grand Cayman is the largest of the three; the capital city, George Town is located there. Two smaller islands, Little Cayman and Cayman Banc, are to the northwest.

Acquired by the British under the Treaty of Madrid in 1670, the first permanent settlements were established in the by British colonists from Jamaica. The British continued to govern the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 254 of 506 pages United Kingdom islands informally until 1863, when the Cayman Islands became an official dependency of Jamaica. When Jamaica won independence from Britain in 1962, the Cayman Islands chose to retain British sovereignty. It is currently designated as an Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom.

Government

The Cayman Islands is a parliamentary democracy with three branches of government: legislative, executive, and judicial. As a UK dependency, the Queen appoints the head of the executive branch, the Governor, who presides over the Cabinet and appoints members of the judiciary. He or she executes the powers delegated to the sovereign nation--defense, internal security, police and civil service, and international relations. On all other matters, the governor must heed the advice of the Cabinet, although he or she still has veto power over any recommendations deemed detrimental to the public interest. The Cabinet consists of seven members, five of whom are elected members of the Legislative Assembly, while the remaining two are appointed by the Queen.

The main governing body for local affairs is the Legislative Assembly, which consists of seventeen members, fifteen of whom are elected by popular vote, as well as two appointees of the Queen, the deputy governor and the attorney general, who also serve as ex officio members of the Cabinet. However, since the most recent revision of the Constitution in 2009, the appointed members are not allowed to vote on any measures. The fifteen elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) vote amongst themselves to select the five elected Cabinet ministers; the governor then appoints one of the five ministers as Premier. The 2009 Constitutional revision includes a plan for expanding the number of elected MLAs to eighteen, which will be carried out in the 2013 elections.

The judicial branch consists of three resident judges, three magistrates, and over 140 justices of the peace, all of who are appointed by the governor on the advice of the Judicial and Legal Services Commission. There are three levels of justice—the Summary Court, the Grand Court, and the Court of Appeal. Occasional cases may be appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

Economy

The Cayman Islands enjoy the highest per capita income and standard of living in the Caribbean, thanks to its financial services industry. With $1.5 trillion in banking liabilities, the Cayman Islands are the world’s fifth-largest banking center. Behind the success of the finance industry, which accounts for 55% of the national GPA, is a complete lack of direct taxes—there are no income, corporate, inheritance, capital gains, or gift taxes. As a result of this tax policy, the Cayman Islands are a famous, and occasionally infamous, “tax shelter” for foreign corporations and individuals looking to avoid taxation. The government is funded entirely by indirect taxes such as duties on imported goods, sales, and stamp taxes.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 255 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Tourism is also a booming industry, thanks to numerous resorts.

Politics

Elections for Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) take place every four years. There are two major parties, the United Democratic Party (UDP) and the People’s Progressive Movement (PPM).

Demographics

The most recent census counted 54,397 residents, nearly all of whom live in urban or cities. About half the population lives in the capital city, George Town (27,704), with most of the remainder residing in the next largest cities of West Bay (11,269) and Bodden Town (10,341).

Thanks to its status as an international financial hub, the expatriate population is unusually high, at around 20% of the total residents. Of the remaining 80% who are native-born Caymanians, half are of mixed Afro-European ancestry, and the rest are split between African and European ancestry. English is the official language, spoken by 95% of the population, and the literacy rate is over 98%.

Fertility is relatively low, with an average 1.87 children born per woman. Population growth (2.287% estimated in 2011) is fueled in large part by immigration—with15.72 new immigrants for every 1,000 people, the Cayman Islands have the world’s 5th highest net migration rate. Life expectancy is 80.68 years overall—78.02 for men, 83.39 for women.

Culture Christianity dominates the religious groups on the island. About a quarter (25.5%) of residents are affiliated with the Church of God. The next most popular denominations, in descending order, are Roman Catholic (12.6%), the Presbyterian/Congregational United Church of Jamaica and Grand Cayman (9.2%), Seventh Day Adventist (8.4%), Baptist (8.3%), Pentecostal (6.7%), and Anglican (3.9%).

Soccer is the most popular sport.

The island has two newspapers, the Cayman Compass and the Cayman Net News. There is one local television station and fourteen local radio stations.

Sources:

CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/cj.html

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 256 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Cayman Islands Government official site: http://www.gov.ky

US Government Accountability Office report, “Cayman Islands: Business and Tax Advantages Attract U.S. Persons and Enforcement Challenges Exist”: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08778.pdf

Cayman Islands 2010 Population and Housing Census Preliminary Report: http://www.eso.ky/UserFiles/File/Preliminary%202010%20Census%20Report%20FINAL.pdf

***

Montserrat

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Montserrat is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom located in the eastern Caribbean Sea, southeast of Puerto Rico.

Named by Christopher Columbus in 1493 after the Santa Maria de Montserrate abbey near Barcelona, Montserrat drew its first settlers in 1632, when English and Irish colonists, many of them Catholic and indentured servants, moved to the island from nearby St. Kitts. African slaves arrived thirty years later under a short period of French control, and a plantation economy developed. Montserrat served as both a haven for persecuted Catholics and a place of and enslavement for political prisoners, particularly Irish Catholics. The British and French fought over control of the island until 1783, when the Peace of Paris treaty confirmed Montserrat as an official possession of the British Empire. Slavery was abolished in 1834, although the island continued to enjoy a relatively prosperous agrarian export economy. Montserrat joined the Leeward Islands Colony of Britain in 1871, and in 1958 briefly joined the West Indies until its dissolution in 1962; since then it has remained a of the United Kingdom in its own right.

A series of natural disasters, the most dramatic of which was the eruption of the Soufrière Hills volcano beginning in 1995, has devastated the island. Two-thirds of the population evacuated, and most of the island was destroyed or rendered uninhabitable due to dangerous volcanic flows. Fledgling revitalization and resettlement efforts are underway, including the construction of a new capital city to replace the former capital at Plymouth, which was wiped out by the volcano in 1997.

Government

The United Kingdom is responsible for foreign affairs, defense, internal security, public service,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 257 of 506 pages United Kingdom and the offshore financial sector. Due to the recent natural disasters and subsequent economic struggles, Montserrat has become extremely dependent on the UK for aid and investment. Since 2002, native residents possess British .

Montserrat is a full member of the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) and is a member of the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS), sharing with other members (Antigua and Barbuda, Dominica, Grenada, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and Anguilla) a Central Bank (ECCB) and a common currency, the Eastern Caribbean dollar. Sovereign approval is required for all international commitments.

At the local level, a crown-appointed governor serves as the sovereign representative. The parliamentary democracy consists of three branches: the 11-member unicameral Legislative Council, with nine members elected by universal adult suffrage for five-year terms and two ex- officio; an executive branch led by the premier, who is usually the leader of the majority party in the legislature, and the Executive Council cabinet; and the judiciary, wherein the superior court is the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (members come from OECS countries, with one High Court representative from Montserrat) based in St. Lucia.

The legal system relies upon English common law.

There are three administrative divisions: St. Peter , St. Georges Parish, and St. Anthony Parish. After the Soufrière Hills eruptions in the 1990s, the only inhabited parish is St. Peter in the island’s north, since it is the deemed safe from the still-active volcano. The southern “exclusion zone” of land vulnerable to volcanic activity has been fully evacuated and is illegal to enter. The capital, Plymouth, was abandoned and largely destroyed by the volcano; the de facto capital and base of government moved to Brades in the north. A new capital, Little Bay, is currently under construction adjacent to Brades.

A new constitution was adopted in September 2011, calling for increased territorial autonomy and expressing a dedication to economic development.

Politics

The political parties are: Movement for Change and Prosperity (MCAP), Montserrat Democratic Party (MDP), and New People’s Liberation Movement (NPLM).

The UN currently categorizes Montserrat as a Non-Self-Governing Territory, one of sixteen such territories remaining in the world. In 2012, Montserrat Premier Reuben Meade urged UN Committee on Decolonization to use its resources to benefit those on the list of colonized countries, and expressed an intention to remove itself from the list and to move toward greater independence from Great Britain.

Economy

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 258 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Natural disasters have played a dramatic role in the history and economy of the island, with earthquakes and hurricanes periodically disrupting the island’s stability and productive capacities. Starting in 1995, the Soufrière Hills volcano began erupting, causing evacuations in the populous southern region of the island. In June 1997, the most catastrophic of the eruptions forced further evacuations and the closing of air and seaports. Over the following months, continued lava surges rendered the southern half of the island uninhabitable, including the capital city of Plymouth, and over 12,000 residents were evacuated, most of who have not returned to the territory since. The diminished factors of production, including a reduction of inhabitable land and the loss of a majority of the labor force, proved devastating to the island’s economy.

Recently the territory has sought foreign investment to revitalize the economy. In May 2012 the UK Department for International Development signed an agreement with the Government of Montserrat pledging to support the territory’s efforts to improve its business environment, enhance its capacity for growth, and develop a robust tourism industry. The agreement also expresses an intent to explore the island’s potential as a source of geothermal reserves, and seeks to increase the proportion of private sector GDP to 50% or higher by 2020.

At present, the public sector contributes three-quarters of the GDP, which in 2012 was estimated at 45.5 million US dollars. Despite continued environmental instability and economic struggles, the territory’s per capita GDP of 9,056 US dollars is similar to that of Jamaica and the Dominican Republic, and its Gini coefficient of 0.3 indicates that Montserrat has one of the most equitable wealth distributions in the region.

For 2012 GDP the projected real growth rate is 5%. In 2010, GDP contracted by 5.6% but shows signs of a steady recovery.

Economic prospects hinge on volcanic behavior, continued public sector construction, and direct foreign investment. With the southern region of the island rendered uninhabitable by the volcanic eruptions, development efforts are focused on the northern third of the island, where the risk of volcanic damage is lowest. The centerpiece of the economic stimulus program is a project to construct a new capital and port city named Little Bay; other initiatives include developing tourism products, improving infrastructure, facilitating access to the island, implementing a sustainable strategy for exporting volcanic sands, and increasing the population.

Repatriation of the diaspora is key to increasing the labor force. Limited available housing limited the ability of refugees to return, although the new stimulus projects have made housing construction a priority.

Demographics

The most recent census counted both the “population present” on the island and the “usual

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 259 of 506 pages United Kingdom resident” population, as the latter also includes people who were temporarily absent at the time of the census and people who expressed an intention to reside on Montserrat during census time but were not physically present. The latter number is used for policy and planning purposes.

The usual resident population, as counted by the government census, was 4,922. An estimated 8,000 people left the island after massive volcanic flows began in 1995, reducing the island’s population by two-thirds.

Population growth is very low, at .484%, and low fertility rates of 1.27 children per woman are among the lowest in the world. Efforts to encourage repatriation have met limited success, although recently adopted economic growth plans include a more serious government-led campaign to incentive members of the diaspora to return. Net migration was zero in 2011, indicating that although immigration remains low, few island residents have left.

Montserrat has nearly universal literacy.

The census reported a high rate of diabetes, at 9% of the total population.

Culture

Montserrat’s history of Irish settlement has significantly impacted its culture, although few of its residents are of full or even partial Irish ancestry. The national emblem is the shamrock, which is engraved on government buildings. Its national crest, which is featured on its flag, shows a woman dressed in green holding a harp and embracing a Christian cross. St. Patrick’s Day is a national holiday, not only as a nod to Irish cultural heritage, but also as a commemoration of the slave uprising that occurred on March 17, 1768.

Most of the residents are of African or Anglo-Irish-African creole ancestry, and like much of the Caribbean, the culture reflects a mix of African, European, and Native traditions. The official language is English.

Sources

2011 Government Census, “Montserrat at a Glance” http://www.gov.ms/wp- content/uploads/2011/02/Montserrat-At-A-Glance.pdf

National Geographic, “Last Colonies” http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/geopedia/Last_Colonies

Caribbean Journal, “Montserrat Premier Reuben Meade Survives No-Confidence Motion” http://www.caribjournal.com/2012/06/27/montserrat-premier-reuben-meade-survives-no- confidence-motion/

Montserrat Volcano Observatory

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 260 of 506 pages United Kingdom http://www.mvo.ms/

UK Department for International Development http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Montserrat http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/2011/ovseas-terr-dept-1.pdf http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/op/ovseas-terr-dept-2011.pdf

European Commission Europeaid Development and Cooperation http://ec.europa.eu/europeaid/where/octs_and_greenland/countries/montserrat_en.htm

Caribbean Community (CARICOM) Secretariat http://www.caricom.org/

Montserrat Economic Development Unit http://www.devunit.gov.ms/

UK in Montserrat – Territorial Government http://ukinmontserrat.fco.gov.uk/en/island-of-montserrat/ http://ukinmontserrat.fco.gov.uk/en/news/?view=News&id=661739682

International Monetary Fund 2011 Article IV Consultations http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr1209.pdf

CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/mh.html

Montserrat Tourist Board http://www.visitmontserrat.com/Facts

The Montserrat Reporter http://www.themontserratreporter.com/ http://www.themontserratreporter.com/premier-signs-mou-with-dfid-on-gom-for-reforms-towards- economic-growth/

BBC Country Profile http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/3666502.stm

Government of Montserrat http://www.gov.ms/ http://zjb.gov.ms/?page_id=63 http://www.gov.ms/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/Montserrat-At-A-Glance.pdf

***

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 261 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Anguilla

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Anguilla is a British Overseas Territory in the eastern Caribbean. It is part of the northern Leeward Islands chain in the Lesser Antilles island group. The main island of Anguilla is 91 square kilometers (about half the size of Washington DC) and the territory also includes a number of uninhabited surrounding islands and cays.

Native Americans inhabited the island in the pre-colonial era. Europeans from other parts of the Caribbean began to settle there in the 17th century, bringing along with them African slaves. The British government administered the island first through the colonial government in Antigua, and then in the 19th century switched its jurisdiction to the colonial government in St. Kitts. After St. Kitts and Nevis achieved internal autonomy in 1967, the British subsumed Anguilla under the newly formed dependency of St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, a move that was unpopular with Anguillan residents. Two rebellions followed in 1967 and 1969, and the island declared itself an independent republic for a brief period until the British re-imposed full authority in 1971. Finally in 1980 the British government granted Anguilla permission to secede from St Kitts and Nevis and form a separate overseas territory.

The UK is responsible for Anguilla’s internal and external defense, offshore finance, and foreign affairs.

Government

The chief of state is the British monarch, represented locally by the appointed Governor who fulfills a largely ceremonial role. The main government body is the House of Assembly legislature, which is unicameral and has 11 members, 7 of whom are elected directly by universal adult suffrage, 2 of whom are ex officio members, and 2 are appointees. Members serve five-year terms.

The governor appoints the chief minister from the elected members of the House of Assembly, usually the leader of the ruling party or coalition; he or she also appoints the members of the Executive Council cabinet body from among elected Assembly members.

In addition to the local magistrates’ and juvenile courts, there is the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court, which has a High Court branch based in Anguilla and a regional Court of Appeal located in St. Lucia. The highest appeals court is the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London.

Politics

There are five major parties, one of which is merged into a single coalition of two parties.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 262 of 506 pages United Kingdom

There is the Anguilla Progressive Party (APP), the Anguilla Strategic Alternative (ANSA), the Anguilla United Front (AUF), which is a coalition of the Anguilla Democratic Party (ADP) and the Anguilla National Alliance (ANA), and the Anguilla United Movement (AUM).

Economy

Like many West Indies islands with few natural resources, Anguilla’s economy depends primarily on externally oriented industries—the largest economic sectors are luxury tourism, offshore financial services, and remittances from emigrants living abroad. Boat building and fishing are also significant contributors to the economy. Construction related to the booming tourism industry has expanded that sector significantly in the past decade, and the local government has begun to push development of the offshore banking industry. The future success of the Anguillan economy relies largely upon economic recovery in wealthy and industrialized nations

Major exports are lobster, fish, livestock, salt, rum, and concrete. Anguilla imports most of its food, fuel, and manufactured and raw goods.

The currency is the East Caribbean dollar.

Demographics

In recent years, the population estimate has been 15,094 residents. The average age is 33.3 years and the population is growing rapidly at a rate of 2.173% per year. Although fertility rates are low (1.71 children per woman, lower than the replacement rate), population growth continues because of an extremely high rate of immigration (13.25 migrants per 1,000 people, the 7th highest of any country or territory in the world). 100% of the population is urbanized and the largest town is the capital The Valley, with 2,000 residents.

Infant mortality is low, with 3.47 deaths for every 1,000 live births, and the life expectancy is among the highest in the world, at 80.87 years.

As per the most recent census, 90.1% of the population is black of African descent, 4.6% are mixed race, and 3.7%, are white.

Culture

Anguillan culture is dominated by its proximity to the sea. Boat racing is the national sport, and the local cuisine is rich in seafood.

British colonial influence is also evident in the local culture, with popular sports like rugby and cricket, and the celebration of British national holidays. Christianity is another legacy of European influence, with Anglicanism being the most popular denomination, claiming nearly a third of residents as adherents. About 90% of the total population is Christian.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 263 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Although English is the official language, the most commonly spoken local dialect is Anguillan Creole, which is similar to Virgin Islands and other Caribbean English creoles, particularly those of the Netherlands Antilles.

Sources

CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/av.html

UK Government Country profile http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/north- central-america/anguilla/?profile=all

Government of Anguilla http://www.gov.ai/

Anguilla Department of Statistics

Census 2001 http://www.gov.ai/census/

National Accounts Statistics 2009 http://www.gov.ai/statistics/NA_Publi_09.htm

Review of Economic Activity 2009 http://www.gov.ai/statistics/images/09_National.pdf

Trade Statistics Report http://www.gov.ai/statistics/2008_Trade_Publication.htm

External Trade press releases http://www.gov.ai/statistics/external_monthly.htm

BBC Country Profile http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/country_profiles/4377063.stm

Culture of Anguilla http://www.everyculture.com/A-Bo/Anguilla.html

Anguilla National Trust http://www.axanationaltrust.org/

Anguilla Guide

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 264 of 506 pages United Kingdom http://www.anguillaguide.com/article/view/20/1/71

***

Bermuda

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Bermuda is located in the North Atlantic Ocean, close to the United States east coast (about 630 miles WNW of Cape Hatteras, North Carolina). Its territory consists of approximately 138 islands and islets.

It is a self-governing overseas territory of the United Kingdom, claimed first for Spain in the early 1500s by Juan Bermudez, but left uninhabited until 1609, when a Virginia-bound British ship called the Sea Venture wrecked off Bermuda’s coast. Three of the shipwreck’s survivors remained on the island to establish a permanent settlement, and by 1612 Bermuda became an official British territory. St. George, the town established that year, became Bermuda’s first capital and remains the oldest continually inhabited English in the Americas.

It served as a British base in the Revolutionary War and in the War of 1812. The British military left the island in 1952, and in 1968 it adopted a new constitution establishing self-government under the British crown. The prospect of full independence from the United Kingdom has been raised several times in public referenda, most recently in 1995, but has been consistently rejected.

Government

Bermuda is an overseas territory of the United Kingdom and as such, the British monarch is the official head of state, represented locally by the Governor, whom the Queen appoints on the recommendation of the British Government. However, just as in the sovereign nation, monarchal positions are largely ceremonial. The Governor has the power to appoint the members of the Senate, Government (Cabinet and Premier), and Judiciary, but the Bermuda Constitution must follow certain protocols to ensure that elected officials have authority over appointments.

Bermuda’s government system follows the “Westminster model”, functioning with similar structure as the main UK government in London. The main government body is the bicameral Legislature, which comprises the House of Assembly and the Senate.

The House of Assembly has 36 members, one for each parliamentary constituency, who are elected by universal adult suffrage for five-year terms. Constituency boundaries are re-evaluated every seven years. The body elects a Speaker and a Deputy Speaker from among its members.

The Senate has 11 members appointed by the Governor on the recommendation of elected officials. The Premier recommends five, the Leader of the Opposition recommends three, and

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 265 of 506 pages United Kingdom three more are appointed as Independents. The Senate members then elect a President and Vice- President from its Independent members.

The House of Assembly is the most powerful chamber of the Bermudan government, and the executive branch is formed from its members. The leader of the majority party becomes the Premier and appoints a Cabinet, known as the “Government”, which is responsible to the Legislature. The minority party forms a Shadow Government/Cabinet, with its leader taking on the title of Leader of the Opposition.

The three branches of the judiciary are the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal, and the Magistrate Courts. The Governor appoints judges to these courts.

Politics

Elections are held every five years. The two major parties are the Progressive Labor Party (PLP), and the United Bermuda (UBP).

Economy

Thanks to its highly developed financial services and tourism sectors, Bermuda has the third highest per capita income in the world at US$86,875 (2009), coming in behind only Qatar and Lichtenstein. The average cost of a house is over US$1 million. The economy has become increasingly popular as US re-insurance companies began to locate there in growing numbers after the September 11 attacks in 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

The currency is the Bermuda Dollar, whose exchange rate is pegged 1:1 to the US Dollar.

The main industries are insurance, re-insurance, international finance, tourism, and light manufacturing.

80% of tourists are from the United States.

It imports almost all of its food and capital equipment. Its major exports are re-exports of pharmaceutical products.

Demographics

The estimated population in recent years has been 68,679. The population growth rate is 0.594% (world rank: 145), net migration is 2.1 per 1,000 people (world rank: 39), and the fertility and birth rates are low (1.99 children born per woman, 16.1 births per 1,00 people). 100% of the population is considered urbanized, with the largest cities being the capital city Hamilton (pop. 12,000) and St. George.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 266 of 506 pages United Kingdom

55% of the population identifies as black, 34% as white, and 6.5% as mixed race.

Literacy is at 98% and compulsory schooling is 12 years.

Culture

Modern Bermudan society reflects a mix of influences from the US and Great Britain, and it has inherited a Creole culture from the various African, West Indian, and European (significantly Portuguese) populations that have settled there over the years. British influence continues to be especially strong—for example, Bermudans drive on the left side of the road, judges wear powdered wigs, and cricket is one of the most popular sports. The British aspect of the culture is also apparent in the culture’s formal bent. Etiquette and manners hold a great deal of importance.

Whitewashed, step-carved roofs are a distinctive feature of Bermudan architecture; however, they serve an essential practical function—since the island has no rivers or lakes, this design channels rainwater into underground tanks to be used as the major source of freshwater.

Bermuda shorts came from the knee-length uniforms worn by British military officers in the island’s tropical climates. In present-day Bermuda, they are worn as formalwear, often with jackets and ties. Bermuda has even passed a law forbidding shorts that are higher than six inches above the knee.

Reggae and calypso music are popular local genres of music and are often performed in street festivals.

English is the official language, but Portuguese is also spoken widely.

Christianity is the dominant religion. 23% of the population is Anglican, 15% are Roman Catholic, 11% are African Methodist Episcopal, and 18% are other Protestant denominations.

Sources

State Department Background Notes http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/5375.htm

CIA World Factbook Entry https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/bd.html

Government of Bermuda Official Site http://www.gov.bm/portal/server.pt Gov’t Organization: http://www.gov.bm/portal/server.pt?

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 267 of 506 pages United Kingdom open=512&objID=897&mode=2&in_hi_userid=234&cached=true

UK Government Country Profile and Travel Advice http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/north- central-america/bermuda/?profile=all

Bermuda Official Tourism Site: Culture Notes http://www.gotobermuda.com/about-bermuda/our-island/culture/

Bermuda roof shot from Wikimedia Commons http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b0/Bermuda_roof.jpg/800px- Bermuda_roof.jpg

Smithsonian: Bermuda History and Heritage http://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/destination-hunter/bermuda-history-heritage.html

***

Gibraltar

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Great Britain acquired Gibraltar from Spain in the 1713 Treaty of ; it formally became a colony in 1830. Although granted autonomy by the UK in 1969, Gibraltans have remained loyal to the British crown. In 1967 they voted to remain a British dependency after independence; in another 2002 referendum they rejected a proposal for Spain and Great Britain to share sovereignty.

Spain continues to protest British rule over the territory. After gaining autonomy in 1969, Spain closed its border to Gibraltar and cut all communications. In 2009 Spain and the UK had a nonviolent dispute over the surrounding maritime territory.

Located on a 6.5 square mile peninsula on the southern Spanish coast, it has long served as a strategically important naval garrison for Britain. It is surrounded by the Strait of Gibraltar, which separates the Mediterranean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean.

Gibraltar is one of fourteen Overseas Territories of the United Kingdom.

Government

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 268 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Gibraltan voters have twice rejected referenda to accept shared sovereignty between Spain and the UK, once in 1967 and again in 2002. However, in 2006 a referendum to resolve disputes between Spain, the UK, and Gibraltar was passed, enshrining cooperative agreements on local issues such as taxation and financial services, communications and maritime security, policy, legal, and customs services, environmental protection, and education and visa services.

Queen Elizabeth II of Britain is the head of state, represented locally by Governor Vice Admiral Sir Adrian Johns. He executes the responsibilities delegated to the sovereign nations--defense, foreign relations, internal security, and financial stability. However, Gibraltar’s government is a parliamentary democracy and mostly autonomous, as elected officials make the decisions on non-sovereign issues. Parliament is unicameral and has 18 seats, 17 of which are filled through popular election, and the remaining seat is the Speaker, who is appointed by the elected members. The leader of the majority party is the Chief Minister, the most powerful position in the local government (a position currently held by Peter Caruana). Rounding out the executive branch, the governor and chief minister appoint their ten-person cabinet, called the Council of Ministers, from the elected members of Parliament. The Chief Minister is also responsible for making recommendations for judiciary appointments to the Queen.

Parliament is unicameral and has 18 seats, 17 of which are filled through popular election, and the remaining seat is the speaker, who is appointed by the elected members.

Politics

Suffrage is universal over the age of 18; British citizens with over 6 months of residency can also vote in Gibraltan elections.

Gibraltar has a Parliamentary system in which votes are cast for parties. There are three major parties- the Gibraltar Social Democrats (GLD), the Gibraltar Socialist Labor Party (GSLP), and the Gibraltar Liberal Party (GLP).

Economy

Shipping, offshore banking, and tourism are the largest industries, with each contributing 25-30% to the total GDP. Telecommunications is about 10%, and the British military contributes about 7%.

Gibraltar is quite self-sufficient, and has recently undergone a transition from a majority public sector economy to a largely private sector economy. In 1984 the British military presence contributed about 60% of GDP.

In recent years GDP was $1.106 billion and growing at a rate of 3.7% per year. The per-capita GDP, one of the major measures of wealth, was $38,400.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 269 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Culture

The official language, used in schools and for all other official purposes, is English, although Spanish, Italian, and Portuguese are also spoken.

Roman Catholicism is the majority religion, with 78.1% of the population reported as adherents. 7% belong to the Church of England, and there are also small Muslim (4%), Jewish (2.1%), and Hindu (1.9%) minorities.

Demographics

In recent years, total estimated population was 28,877. Population growth was 0.27%. The fertility rate is 1.96 children per woman, slightly below the general replacement rate of 2.1 children per women. Life expectancy at birth is approximately 76 for men, 82 for women.

It is one of the most densely populated territories in the world, and 100% of the population is classified as urban.

Sources:

CIA World Factbook: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gi.html

Government of Gibraltar, Abstract of Statistics 2009 http://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/images/stories/PDF/statistics/2009/Abstract%20of%20Statistics%20Report%202009%20Website.pdf [HYPERLINK]

***

Isle of Man

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Situated in the Irish Sea, about midway between southwestern Scotland and Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man is officially a British Crown Dependency. While Britain is responsible for its defense and foreign affairs, it is not a constituent member of the United Kingdom, and it is an associate, rather than a full member, of the European Union.

Inhabited by Celts for at least 2,500 years, Vikings subsumed the island under Norse leadership at the end of the 8th century AD. Scotland took over of the Isle of Man from the Norse kings in 1265, and for the next century control passed between England and Scotland during the Anglo- Scottish wars. England seized control in the late 13th century, and granted local royal autonomy to

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 270 of 506 pages United Kingdom the Lord of Man. In 1405 England granted Sir John Stanley the Lordship, and his descendants ruled the island for 300 years. In 1765, Britain officially took control of the island and proceeded to make it a Crown Dependency. Since the late 19th century, however, the Isle of Man has been increasingly democratic and autonomous.

Government

As a Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom, the sovereign monarch plays a limited role in the government, serving as the symbolic head of state under the title Lord of Man, represented locally by the Lieutenant Governor who serves as a vice-regal and has the power to give Royal Assent. The Lieutenant Governor, however, has limited discretionary power in certain instances.

The Tynwald is the Isle of Man’s bicameral legislative assembly and primary government body. Founded in 979 by the Vikings, it is the oldest continuously functioning parliament in Europe, although its organizational structure and designated powers have evolved during the course of its existence.

The lower chamber is the House of Keys, which has 24 members elected via universal suffrage (age 16 and older) for five-year terms. There are fifteen constituencies, one with three representatives, five with two representatives, and eight with one representative. The House of Keys elects a speaker as its presiding officer, who has the sole privilege of abstaining from votes unless a deciding vote is needed. Members of the House of Keys (MHKs) elect from among themselves a Chief Minister to serve as the head of government, and nine other cabinet ministers.

The upper chamber is the eleven-member Legislative Council and it is mostly a revisionary body, as it does not introduce new legislation. MHKs elect eight Members of the Legislative Council (MLCs) by secret ballot for four-year terms. These elected MLCs are often members of the House of Keys, but are not required to be, and they are not responsible to or delegates of the lower chamber. Three ex-officio members also serve on the Legislative Council—the President of the Tynwald, the Lord Bishop of Sodor and Man, and the Attorney General. The Attorney General is appointed by the Queen as a legal advisor and does not vote.

The entire Tynwald votes as a single body to elect the President of the Tynwald. The Deputy President is the Speaker of the House of Keys.

The judiciary system comprises a number of lower courts presided over by local magistrates, such as the Summary Courts, Licensing Court, and Land Court, as well as the High Court of Justice, which is the superior court whose members are appointed by the Crown. The British monarch appoints three high court judges—the First and Second Deemsters and one part time Judge of Appeal—and one legal advisor, the Attorney General, on the advice of the Secretary of State for Justice, who is an elected member of the UK Parliament and a member of the Cabinet. The Lieutenant Governor, on the other hand, may use his own personal discretion in appointing the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 271 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Bailiff and Deputy to the High Court of Justice, and can appoint additional Deemsters. The First Deemster appointed by the Queen is also an ex-officio Deputy Governor who can recommend appointments for Deemsters, and can serve in the capacity of the Lieutenant Governor if the latter is absent or if the seat is vacant. The Attorney General serves as the top legal advisor to the Manx government and holds an ex officio, non-voting seat in the Legislative Council, the upper chamber of the Tynwald.

Politics

Unlike in Great Britain, politics in the Isle of Man are not party-driven. Of the 24 members of the House of Keys, 22 are independents. There are parties—as of the 2006 election the Liberal Vannin Party seats one the Alliance for Progressive Government seats one and the Manx Labor Party seats one—but they are not nearly as significant as they are in most parliamentary democracies. The Alliance for Progressive Government is a political pressure group that sometimes as a party affiliation. There is also a Manx Nationalist Party and the Vannin party, which wants to establish a sovereign republic and cut ties with Britain.

Elections are held every five years.

Economy

Thanks to a number of high-income industries that have established presences on the island, most notably offshore banking, tourism, manufacturing, and burgeoning high-tech and film industry sectors, residents enjoy a high standard of living, low unemployment, and a per-capita income on par with wealthy Western European nations. In 2005, the last year for which data is readily available, the per capita income was $35,000 per person. With 1.8% unemployment, the Isle of Man has one of the lowest unemployment rates in the world.

Low taxes and regulation have attracted companies to incorporate there, and in recent years a thriving online gambling industry has flourished.

The Isle of Man has traditionally had an agricultural economy, and in the past nearly 80% of the land was fertile, although that proportion has dwindled to less than 50% in the last century. Although agricultural production, including fishing and ranching, now makes up only 1% of the economy, it remains a viable industry as beef, lamb, and herring are significant export commodities.

The United Kingdom is the Isle of Man’s major trading partner. Under current regulations, it has open access to the European Union goods markets, but is limited in EU labor, service, and financial markets.

Demographics

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 272 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The estimated population in recent years was 84, 655 people. The population tends to be older, with a median age of 42.6 years. Birth/fertility rates are low (11.42 yearly births per 1,000 people and 1.96 children born per woman, respectively), but the population continues to grow (at a rate of 0.921% per year) thanks to a high net migration rate (at 7.71 migrants per 1,000 people, it is one of the highest net migration rates in the world). Many of the migrants are Britons who come to work in the island’s booming financial services industry.

About half the population is urbanized. The major population center is the capital Douglas, which has 26,000 residents, nearly a third of the island’s total population. The other towns of significant size are Onchan, Peel, Ramsey, Castletown, Port Erin, and Port St. Mary.

Culture

Although close in proximity to its sovereign nation, the Isle of Man has a distinct culture influenced primarily by two groups who came to the island over a millennium ago, the Celts and the Vikings.

The Manx people are one of the major Celtic groups (the others are Scots, Irish, Welsh, Cornish, and Breton). Archaeological records indicate that Celts have lived on the island for at least 2,500 years, and Celtic missionaries introduced Christianity to the island around 500 AD. Three centuries later, the Vikings arrived, beginning a long period of cultural and economic exchange under Norse rule. Scandinavian influences are present in the music and cuisine, for instance, and in institutions like the Tynwald, yet Manx culture has remained predominantly Celtic in character and traditions.

Since the 6th century AD Christianity has been the chief religion on the island, with the Church of England being the most prevalent denomination, although there are Roman Catholic, Presbyterian, Quaker, Methodist, and Baptist minorities.

The Isle of Man has its own mythological tradition, very similar to and sometimes overlapping with Irish and other Celtic bodies of folklore. The central figure of Manx mythology is Manannan Mac Lir, Lord of the Sea and ruler of the Isle of Man who protected the island by shrouding it in mist. Manannan is seen as the patriarch of the island, and the island’s modern English name comes from him. Fairies also figure prominently into Manx folklore.

Manx Gaelic, a relative of Scots and Irish Gaelic languages, is the native language of the ethnic Manx. However, like most of the other members of the Celtic linguistic family, it has all but ceased to exist as a primary language of everyday transactions, and only about 2% of the population has any knowledge of it. However, thanks to a dedicated community of scholars and preservationists, knowledge of Manx is growing among younger generations. Manx-language primary and nursery schools now exist, and older students continue to study it as a second language. Additionally, all government documentation is bilingual, as are all public signs (street names, town names, etc). Most of the population speaks English as their primary language.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 273 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Sources

Country Website http://www.isleofman.com/

Government Website http://www.gov.im/ http://www.gov.im/mnh/heritage/story/celts.xml

BBC News Regions and Territories http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/country_profiles/7515569.stm

CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/im.html

Tynwald Site http://www.tynwald.org.im/ http://www.tynwald.org.im/keys/members.shtml

Isle of Man Museum Site http://www.gov.im/mnh/collections/archaeology/lords/

Isle of Man Treasury http://www.gov.im/treasury/

Isle of Man Investment Site http://www.gov.im/investiniom/

***

Guernsey

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Guernsey is a British Crown Dependency located in the Channel Islands, northwest of the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 274 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Normandy coast. The of Guernsey encompasses the island of Guernsey and several surrounding smaller islands, including , , Herm, Jethou, Brecqhou, and Lihou. The main island of Guernsey is about 25 square miles.

Historical Summary

Guernsey’s modern history has been strongly influenced by its geography and its relationship with France and England. Although closer in proximity to France, Guernsey has existed under the British Crown since 1066, when the Norman leader William the Conqueror took over the English throne, bringing the Channel Islands (as part of the of Normandy) into the same political realm (although the Duchy of Normandy remained a separate state). In 1204 the English leadership lost control of its Norman territory, although the Channel Islands remained loyal to the British Crown under the provision that the English monarch respect previous Norman laws and customs. The Channel Islands have served as an important strategic base for England, particularly in their frequent battles with the French. The Channel Islands were the only English territory to experience German occupation in World War II, the end of which is celebrated yearly on Liberation Day.

Government

The 10 of the main island of Guernsey, along with the surrounding islands, form the government entity of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. As a British Crown Dependency, the British monarch is the official chief of state, represented locally by the Lieutenant Governor, and the United Kingdom is responsible for defense and foreign affairs. Guernsey has no active political representation in the UK Parliament, and all primary legislation in the Bailiwick must pass Royal Assent; however, acts of Parliament passed by the United Kingdom do not extend to Guernsey unless the local government expressly votes for extension.

Crown appointees hold a number of key offices in the Bailiwick’s government, among them the chief judiciary offices of Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff. The title of “bailiwick”, shared by the neighboring Bailiwick of Jersey, refers to the unique position of the Crown-appointed bailiff in local government.

Guernsey residents are full UK citizens, but they are not EU citizens. They are prohibited from most benefits of EU citizenship, including the allowance for free movement of persons and services. Although mostly excluded from the European Union’s European Economic Community, Guernsey is entitled to Euro zone tariff exemptions.

Local Government

Although the Bailiwick of Guernsey is a singular entity encompassing several islands, there are three legislative bodies among the islands and jurisdiction arrangements are complex. The main

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 275 of 506 pages United Kingdom island of Guernsey has a parliament whose jurisdiction extends to the nearby islands Herm, Lihou, and Jethou. The islands of Alderney and Sark have separate legislatures, although Alderney also sends two representatives to the parliament on the island of Guernsey. Sark’s parliament is responsible for the island of Brecqhou.

Island of Guernsey

Guernsey is a parliamentary democracy whose main government body is the States of Deliberation, a unicameral parliament consisting of 45 Deputies elected by popular vote, as well as two representatives from the parliament of Alderney. The local head of government is the Chief Minister, internally chosen by the elected Deputies of the States of Deliberation. One Minister and four Board Members for each of the ten executive Departments are chosen from among the Deputies. The ten Ministers, along with the Chief Minister, constitute the Policy Council, which is the cabinet body.

The Crown-appointed Bailiff administers the local judiciary, which includes Royal Court of Guernsey and the Guernsey Court of Appeal. Royal Court judges are selected by the parliament, which for this particular function forms an electoral college under the name the States of Election, even though its membership is identical to the States of Deliberation.

The island is divided into ten parishes, each of which elects a chief administrator known as a Douzaine, and a Constable who carries out the Douzaine’s orders.

Island of Sark

Sark is a highly autonomous part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey, located on a 3-square mile island 25 miles off the coast of France with about 600 residents. Sark controls its own budgetary and legislative matters through its parliament, the Chief Pleas. The Chief Pleas must give consent to any external legislation, although the Chief Pleas will in certain cases extend legislative powers to Guernsey, such as in the case of criminal law.

Until 2008, Sark was the last feudal state in Europe, ruled by a mix of 40 landowners and 12 elected deputies who comprised the Chief Pleas. The Seigneur, the head of the island’s government, and the Seneschal, who served as both chief judge of the island and the head of the legislature, were hereditary crown appointments who ruled the island’s government. The Seigneur had to give permission for residents to buy and sell their houses, and had the right to collect 1/13 of every land transaction. In 2008, reforms began when Sark held its first democratic elections, choosing 28 members of the Chief Pleas by popular vote. In 2010 the Chief Pleas voted to split the role of the Seneschal.

The island of Brecqhou is a semi-autonomous part of Sark and is privately owned.

Island of Alderney

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 276 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Alderney is a 4.5-square mile island 10 miles off the coast of France with about 2400 residents. Its parliament, the States of Alderney, consists of 11 popularly elected members, two of whom serve as voting members of Guernsey’s States of Deliberation. Most governance deals with civil and financial matters.

Alderney, like the island of Guernsey, is a popular offshore tax haven for the British Isles.

Politics

Guernsey has no political parties. Suffrage is universal over the age of 16.

Economy

Although Guernsey is a small country, it is prosperous, with one of the highest-ranking GDPs per capita in the world ($47,840 in 2009, slightly higher than the United States)

Unemployment is low, at an average rate of 0.9%.

About a quarter of the labor force works in financial services, a sector which comprises banking, fund management, and insurance and accounts for 42% of total economic output (2009 figure). Guernsey’s taxation system is designed to attract offshore business. Residents and local businesses pay a flat income/ tax rate of 20%. There are no taxes for offshore businesses, trust beneficiaries who live outside the island, inheritance, capital gains, or value added. Additionally, there are no capital gains, inheritance, capital transfer, value added, or general withholding taxes. Guernsey is also the home of the Channel Islands Stock Exchange, headquartered in St. Peter Port.

Tourism is the island’s second-largest industry after finance.

The largest employers by sector are finance, with 21% of the workforce, and the public sector, with 17% of the workforce.

Tomatoes and cut flowers are the primary agricultural products, although farming as a major economic sector is declining.

Although not part of the EU’s European Economic Community, it is exempt from tariffs normally levied on non-EEC countries.

In terms of currency, Guernsey has its own Pound, but the British Pound Sterling is universally accepted.

Demographics

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 277 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Recently, the population was estimated at 65,068. Guernsey’s population is relatively old, at an average age of 41.

Net migration dropped sharply in early 2010, but in 2008 and 2009 immigration accounted for 80% of population growth. July 2011 estimates show that net migration has rebounded to a rate of 2.69 migrants for every 1000 members of the population, a figure that places it at the 30th highest net migration rate in the world.

At 1.54 children born per 1000 members of the population (July 2011), fertility rates are among the world’s lowest, and below the replacement rate. The population is projected to continue its aging trend in the coming years.

Culture

Guernsey, like many island and coastal societies, has a cultural heritage that reflects the historical importance of fishing and seafaring activities. St. Peter Port, the capital, is the major port of the Channel Islands and has existed since the Roman Empire. The Guernsey sweater, designed for the island’s fisherman, has its origins on the island.

Up until the 19th century, the main language spoken on the island was D’gernésiais, a that closely resembles the spoken at the time of William the Conqueror. Most of its everyday speakers are elderly and there is currently an organized effort to preserve the language by teaching it to children in schools. English is currently the major language spoken on the islands, particularly in the urban areas.

Along with Jersey and the Channel Islands, Guernsey was occupied by the Germans and evacuated during World War II. Every year the island celebrates the end of the occupation on May 9th, or Liberation Day.

Guernsey has a canon folklore involving typically Celtic characters such as fairies and witches. Many of the stories are well known and passed down via oral tradition.

One of the major landmarks in Guernsey is Hauteville House, where the French writer Victor Hugo lived in exile for 15 years.

Sources

Guernsey Government Site http://www.gov.gg/ccm/portal/ http://www.gov.gg/ccm/navigation/government/facts---figures/national-accounts/ (National Economic Overview PDF accounts)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 278 of 506 pages United Kingdom http://www.gov.gg/ccm/navigation/government/facts---figures/population/ (Population Bulletin 2010 PDF report)

CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gk.html

Guernsey Tourism Site http://www.visitguernsey.com/

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/ICESCR- report-part1.pdf, PG 15

Channel Islands Stock Exchange http://www.cisx.com/content.php?pageid=273

Sark Government http://www.gov.sark.gg/

BBC Articles on Sark Reforms http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/guernsey/7339172.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-guernsey-11487092

UK Times Article on Sark Reforms http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/reports/article5289216.ece

The Independent Article on Sark Reforms http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/lost-world-the-last-days-of-feudal-sark- 421545.html

Government of Alderney http://www.alderney.gov.gg/

***

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 279 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Jersey

Location and Relationship to Sovereign Power

Located in the 14 miles off the northwestern French coast and 85 miles south of England, Jersey is the largest of the Channel Islands, a group that also includes Guernsey. At 45 square miles, it is about two-thirds the size of Washington, DC. It measures ten miles across and six miles long at its widest points.

As a Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom, it is not a constituent part of the UK, although the UK government is responsible for defense and foreign affairs. Jersey is also not a full member of the European Union, although it has associate ties and enjoys certain EU economic and trade benefits.

Historical Summary

Jersey’s history is shaped by its geography—a small island that broke off from the French mainland over 8,000 years ago, it has long history in its political and economic associations with France and England. Neolithic archaeological evidence shows that the island traded with Brittany in France and England’s southern coast in prehistoric times. The Romans introduced their own pagan culture and later Christianity to the island. In the ninth century AD Norman Vikings frequently plundered Jersey, and took over the island from Brittany after gaining control of the around Rouen in northwest France, a region that became known as Normandy. Norman rule lasted from 933 until 1204. During this period in 1066, the Norman duke William the Conqueror invaded England and became King of England, although he continued to rule the Duchy of Normandy as a separate political entity, of which Jersey was a part. In 1204 England lost its Norman territory to France but retained control of the Channel Islands, including Jersey. During the Hundred Years’ War between England and France, Jersey acted as a base of defense for England and frequently experienced French attacks. The French invaded the island a number of times between the 15th and 18th centuries. During World War II the Channel Islands’ came under Nazi control, after Churchill determined that England could not mount a defense due to their proximity to Nazi-occupied France, and he demilitarized the islands. From 1940-1945 Hitler’s armies occupied Jersey and Guernsey and used slave labor to build fortifications on the island. Evidence of the Channel Island’s occupation in World War II is still evident in the present day in the form of architectural ruins and customary remembrances.

Government

As a British Crown Dependency, the chief of state is the British monarch, represented locally by her personal representative, the Lieutenant Governor. Its official title as a political entity is the Bailiwick of Jersey, a term that refers to the unique role of the Crown-appointed Bailiff position in local government. The Bailiff presides over the parliament and the judiciary, and has the unofficial

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 280 of 506 pages United Kingdom title of “first citizen”.

The United Kingdom is responsible for defense and foreign affairs. Jersey has no active political representation in the UK Parliament, and all primary legislation in the Bailiwick must pass Royal Assent. Jersey receives no voting representation in the UK parliament. Accordingly, the local government has the power to decide if measures passed by the UK parliament should extend to the Island.

Residents are full UK citizens, although they are not EU citizens, and as such they are prohibited from most benefits of EU citizenship, including the allowance for free movement of persons and services. Although mostly excluded from the European Union’s European Economic Community, Guernsey is entitled to Euro zone tariff exemptions.

Local Government

There are twelve parishes on the islands of Jersey, each of which elects a Constable (Connétable) to oversee civil matters and has a designated Rector to preside over ecclesiastical issues.

The local government sits in the capital city of St. Helier.

Jersey is a parliamentary democracy and its chief governing body is the 58-member States of Jersey legislative assembly. Five non-voting members of the assembly are Crown appointees, although the Bailiff can cast a deciding vote in case of deadlock among the elected members in his role as President and Speaker of the Assembly. The other appointed members are the Deputy Bailiff, the Dean of Jersey, the Attorney General, and the General. Of the 53 elected representatives, 12 are Senators elected for six-year terms, 12 are Connétables elected for three- year terms, and 29 are Deputies elected for three-year terms.

The States of Jersey selects the executive branch positions from among its own elected members. The head of government is the Chief Minister, and his Council of Ministers cabinet body consists of ten Ministers, one from each executive department, and up to thirteen Deputy Ministers. Up to thirty members not elected as ministers can serve on Scrutiny Panels.

Laws are based on Norman customary law, English common law, and States of Jersey-enacted statutes. There is no written constitution. The Crown-appointed Bailiff serves as President of the Royal Court of Jersey and as its Chief Justice, with the power to appoint other judges, or Commissioners, to the court. There is also a Court of Appeal that includes the Bailiff and Deputy Bailiff along with a number of Queen’s Counsel and Crown-appointed . Ultimate appeals can be made to the Privy Council in London.

Politics

Suffrage is universal for adults aged 16 and older.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 281 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Unlike in the UK, Jersey politics are mostly nonpartisan. All current elected officials are independents. There are two declared parties, the Jersey Democratic Alliance and the Centre Party, but neither has any elected representatives serving in the States of Jersey.

Economy

The financial services industry is Jersey’s dominant economic sector, accounting for nearly half of all economic activity and employing a quarter of the workforce. Activities included in that category are banking, fund management, trust administration, foreign incorporation, legal services, and accounting. Low taxes have made Jersey attractive to corporations and investors. Tourism is the second-largest industry, contributing approximately one quarter of the GDP.

In the pre-industrial era, fertile land gave Jersey a prosperous agricultural economy. During early industrial times, shipbuilding and fabric weaving were important industries. A growing electronics- manufacturing sector makes up a large proportion of present-day Jersey’s exports.

Agriculture still has its role in the economy, as Jersey’s most famous product is the Jersey breed of dairy cattle, whose rich, high butterfat and protein-content milk and high milk production capabilities make them highly desirable dairy cattle. Milk products shipped to the UK are a major export.

Nowadays Jersey imports most of its manufactured goods, machinery, fuel, and food.

Its major exports are electronics, textiles, dairy products, and cattle. Although not part of the EU’s European Economic Community, it is exempt from tariffs normally levied on non-EEC countries.

Jersey’s GDP per capita, estimated at $57,000 is 2005, is one of the highest in the world, thanks to the dominance of high-income private sector industries. Standards of living are similar to Britain.

Jersey is part of the Channel Islands Stock Exchange, along with Guernsey. It is headquartered in St. Peter Port, Guernsey.

Jersey mints its own currency, the Jersey pound, which is linked to the British pound sterling. The British pound and the Guernsey pound both circulate on the island and are accepted as legal tender.

Demographics

Recently, the population was estimated at 94, 161.

Although fertility rates are below the replacement rate at 1.66 children born per woman, the population is growing at a rate of 0.841% per year thanks to a net migration rate that is one of the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 282 of 506 pages United Kingdom highest in the world, at 5.03 migrants per 1,000 people.

Only about half the population is Jersey-born. While most of the immigrant population comes from elsewhere in the British Isles and Ireland, a significant Portuguese-speaking minority of Portuguese and Madeiran origin has existed in Jersey since the 1970s. In the 2000s a large number of Polish immigrants settled in Jersey, nearly equaling the incoming population from Portugal and Madeira.

Culture

English is the official language and is spoken by 94.5% of the population. Portuguese is the second most frequently spoken language.

The Jérrais language, closely related to Norman (from the Normandy region of Northern France) is the native language of the island, although its existence as a language of everyday use mostly disappeared in the latter half of the 20th century. It was the dominant language of the island until the 19th century, when an increase in British military and laborers in Jersey led to a shift toward English as the primary tongue. In 2001, 3.2% of residents used Jérrais in everyday life and 15% had at least some knowledge of the language. Efforts to preserve the language and to promote its education to the youth have existed formally since 1871, when an organization called Société Jérsais formed with the purpose of studying the history, language, and ancient culture of the island. The L'Assembliée d'Jèrriais, an organization dedicated to preserving the language, has existed since 1951. Children receive Jérrais education from primary school age, and the latest Jersey pound banknotes are in Jérrais in addition to English and French.

St. Helier was a 6th century AD hermit and the island’s patron saint. An annual pilgrimage to the Hermitage, a medieval chapel built over the cave where he supposedly lived, occurs on his feast day, July 16. The capital city of St. Helier is named in his honor, and the Hermitage is depicted on the 2 pence and 10 pound notes of the Jersey pound.

The Channel Islands were the only British lands that endured Nazi occupation during World War II, and German-built fortifications still stand on the island. Each year on May 9th residents celebrate Liberation Day to commemorate the end of the occupation.

Sources

Government Tourist Development Fund Site http://www.jersey.com/English/Pages/default.aspx http://www.jersey.com/English/aboutjersey/theisland/language/Pages/default.aspx

Jersey Government Site

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 283 of 506 pages United Kingdom http://www.gov.je/Pages/default.aspx http://www.statesassembly.gov.je/documents/propositions/22189-12814-1972005.htm

Economic Outlook: http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/R%20EconomicOutlook%2020110617%20JN.pdf

Jersey Legal Information Board http://www.jerseylaw.je/default.aspx

States of Jersey Statistics Bureau http://www.gov.je/Government/JerseyWorld/StatisticsUnit/Pages/default.aspx

Jersey in Statistics Report: http://www.gov.je/SiteCollectionDocuments/Government%20and%20administration/ID%20JerseyInFigures2010%2020110427%20SU.pdf

CIA World Factbook https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/je.html

Jersey BBC News Page http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world/europe/jersey/

Jersey Cows http://www.woodsidefarmcreamery.com/index.php? option=com_content&view=article&id=24&Itemid=22

Jérrais Language Page http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/geraint/jerriais.html

Jérrais Page of Jérsais Society http://members.societe-jersiaise.org/sdllj/

Channel Islands Stock Exchange http://www.cisx.com/content.php?pageid=273

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 284 of 506 pages United Kingdom

International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.justice.gov.uk/publications/docs/ICESCR- report-part1.pdf page 15

***

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 285 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Chapter 3

Economic Overview

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 286 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Economic Overview

Overview

The United Kingdom is considered to be a leading trading power and financial center. Its economy is one of the largest in the world as well as one of the strongest in Europe, with an annual GDP volume of about US$2 trillion. The country has a mature, industrialized market economy with a declining traditional manufacturing sector balanced by a vibrant, fast-growing services sector that is led by world-class banks and insurance companies and emerging technology companies. With significant North Sea reserves, the United Kingdom is also a major European oil and natural gas producer and exporter. In the 1980s, the United Kingdom initiated structural reforms aimed at facilitating flexible and product markets in response to technology changes, and shifted to a more services-oriented economic structure. A series of changes in macroeconomic policy institutions in the 1990s ensured and strengthened the benefits of the structural reforms -- including the introduction of inflation targeting, Bank of England independence, and fiscal adjustment. These changes also resulted in a strong countercyclical response to the economic slowdown between mid- 2000 and mid-2003, as domestic demand supported a steady growth in the economy.

Following a decade of robust growth, however, the United Kingdom was hit particularly hard by the global financial and economic crisis due to its large financial sector, high household indebtedness, and strong cross-border links. As a result, real GDP slowed sharply in 2008, followed by one of the largest contractions among the advanced economies in 2009. In response to the crisis, the UK government, under then-Prime Minister Gordon Brown, implemented a number of measures to stabilize the financial system and support economic activity. Such measures included expansion of the Bank of England’s liquidity facilities, significant public capital injection in several large banks, an asset protection scheme to limit losses on troubled banks, and fiscal stimulus through tax cuts and public spending on capital projects. While these forceful policies helped mitigate the impact of the crisis, public finances deteriorated markedly with the fiscal deficit and the public debt both rising sharply. The fiscal deficit reached a record high of 11 percent of GDP in 2009, one of the largest deficits among the G-20 economies. As the global economic recovery remains fragile, along with recent rising concerns over the sovereign debt risks in some euro-area countries, policy priority for the advanced economies should be on rebuilding confidence and stability. Since taking office in May 2010, the new government led by Prime Minister David Cameron has taken action in an effort to dramatically reduce the fiscal deficit from double digits to below 3 percent (possibly as low as 1 percent) of GDP in about 2015, mainly through spending cuts and a five-year austerity program. As of early 2011, the UK economy was still recovering – albeit modestly - from the recession, led by increasing domestic demand and rising exports.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 287 of 506 pages United Kingdom

However, the country is also facing a weak outlook for consumer and capital spending. Indeed, British consumer confidence was reported to have dropped drastically in January 2011 to near its weakest level since early 2009. Other risks include banking sector vulnerabilities, elevated headline inflation and declining home prices. The UK’s recovery was initially expected to gain more traction in 2012 when exports were expected to grow even more and business investment to pick up as well. Unemployment – which stood at 7.9 percent in 2011 -- was poised to gradually decline. The Bank of England (BoE) implemented an asset purchase program of about $525 billion in February 2011. During times of economic crisis, the BoE coordinates interest rate moves with the European Central Bank, but Britain remains outside the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). But then, in November 2011, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne announced additional austerity measures through 2017 because of slower-than-expected economic growth and the impact of the euro-zone debt crisis. The Cameron government raised the value added tax from 17.5 percent to 20 percent in 2011 and pledged to reduce the corporation tax rate to 23 percent by 2015.

In the first three months of 2012, the UK’s economy contracted and second quarter growth was in danger due to increasing worries about the euro’s survival. By June 2012, ratings agency Egan- Jones had cut the credit rating for the United Kingdom to AA-minus with a negative outlook from AA. “The overriding concern is whether the country will be able to continue to cut its deficit in the face of weaker economic conditions and a possible deterioration in the country's financial sector,” Egan-Jones said in a statement. “Unfortunately, we expect that the UK's debt/GDP (ratio) will continue to rise and the country will remain pressed.” Meanwhile, the UK still had an AAA rating from both Standard and Poor's and Fitch Ratings and an Aaa rating from Moody's Investors Service. Looking ahead, the overall outlook was sluggish mainly due to subdued consumer spending - a reflection of weak household income growth, sluggish major export markets and tight credit conditions, as well as headwinds from the austerity measures and weak external demand. As of December 2012, the Bank of England (BoE) implemented an asset purchase program of up to US$605 billion. Overall, for 2012, weak consumer spending and subdued business investment weighed on the economy. GDP dropped, the budget deficit remained stubbornly high and public debt continued to rise.

As of July 2013, economic recovery in the UK continued to be slow and fragile, as domestic deleveraging pressures remained and external demand was weak. Economic activity was expected to recover going forward, but the pace of expansion was likely to be weak relative to the scale of underutilized resources. In August 2013, BoE Governor Mark Carney noted that while Britain's economic recovery was broadening, it remained a long way below its pre-crisis peak. “The level of GDP is not expected to regain its pre-crisis peak until a year from now. This remains the slowest recovery in output on record,” he was quoted as saying in a Reuters article. The BoE said it expected growth would reach an annual rate of 2.6 percent in two years' time, compared to a forecast of 2.2 percent three months prior. Overall, though, growth had picked up in 2013 and this reflected favorably on British Prime Minister David Cameron. It was expected that the country

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 288 of 506 pages United Kingdom would see its strongest annual growth since 2010.

The Bank of England (BoE) implemented an asset purchase program of £375 billion (approximately US$605 billion) as of December 2013. During times of economic crisis, the BoE coordinates interest rate moves with the European Central Bank, but Britain remains outside the European Economic and Monetary Union (EMU). In 2013, GDP grew - accelerating unexpectedly in the second half of the year due to greater consumer spending and a recovering housing market. The budget deficit is declining but remained high while public debt continued to increase.

By mid-June 2014, Fitch Ratings had affirmed the United Kingdom's Long-term foreign and local currency Issuer Default Ratings (IDRs) at 'AA+' with stable outlooks. The ratings agency cited favorable macroeconomic trends, including strong GDP growth, falling unemployment and low inflation. Meanwhile in July 2014, support for Scottish independence was declining with Scots concerned about the potential economic impact of ending its union with England. They were to vote in a referendum in September 2014 on whether Scotland should end its union with England and separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. Ultimately they voted not to.

Overall, GDP accelerated unexpectedly in 2014 due to greater consumer spending and a recovering housing market. In December, the Bank of England (BoE) implemented an asset purchase program of about $586 billion. In the first quarter of 2015, the economy expanded by 0.4 percent. It then grew 0.7 percent in the April-June 2015 quarter.

In August 2015, Reuters reported that Britian’s economic recovery had slowed some starting mid- year. A Markit/CIPS services purchasing managers' index showed growth among services firms slowed more than expected in July 2015 and they hired the fewest staff since March 2014, adding to other recent signs of a cooling in Britain's employment boom. Still, Britain's service sector expansion was the second-fastest among major European economies. Also on the plus side, mortgage approvals in Britain climbed to a 17-month high in July 2015 and retail sales unexpectedly accelerated in August, according to surveys that suggested consumers would continue to drive the economy through the second half of the year.

Economic Performance

After robust growth from 2003 to 2007, real GDP declined sharply in 2008, followed by a large contraction in 2009 as a result of the global economic crisis. It turned positive again in 2010.

According to CountryWatch estimated calculations for 2014:

Real GDP growth rate was: 1.8 percent The fiscal deficit/surplus as percent of GDP (%) was: -5.5 percent Inflation was measured at: 1.7 percent

Updated in 2015

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 289 of 506 pages United Kingdom

*Please note that the figures in our Economic Performance section are estimates or forecasts based on IMF-based data that are formulated using CountryWatch models of analysis.

Supplementary Sources: Roubini Global Economics, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, International Monetary Fund and Reuters

Special Entry

Summary of 2008 credit crisis

A financial farrago, rooted in the credit crisis, became a global phenomenon by the start of October 2008. In the United States, after failure of the passage of a controversial bailout plan in the lower chamber of Congress, an amended piece of legislation finally passed through both houses of Congress. There were hopes that its passage would calm jitters on Wall Street and restore confidence in the country's financial regime. With the situation requiring rapid and radical action, a new proposal for the government to bank stakes was gaining steam. Meanwhile, across the Atlantic in Europe, a spate of banking crises resulted in nationalization measures for the United Kingdom bank, Bradford and Bingley, joint efforts by the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg to shore up Fortis, joint efforts by France, Belgium, and Luxembourg to shore up Dexia, a rescue plan for Hypo Real Estate, and the quasi-bankruptcy of Iceland's economy. Indeed, Iceland's liabilities were in gross excess of the country's GDP. With further banks also in jeopardy of failing, and with no coordinated efforts to stem the tide by varying countries of the European Union, there were rising anxieties not only about the resolving the financial crisis, but also about the viability of the European bloc.

On Sept. 4, 2008, the leaders of key European states -- United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy -- met in the French capital city of Paris to discuss the financial farrago and to consider possible action. The talks, which were hosted by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, ended without consensus on what should be done to deal with the credit crisis, which was rapidly becoming a global phenomenon. The only thing that the four European countries agreed upon was that there would not be a grand rescue plan, akin to the type that was initiated in the United States. As well, they jointly called for greater regulation and a coordinated response. To that latter end, President Nicolas Sarkozy said, "Each government will operate with its own methods and means, but in a coordinated manner."

This call came after Ireland took independent action to deal with the burgeoning financial crisis. Notably, the Irish government decided days earlier to fully guarantee all deposits in the country's major banks for a period of two years. The Greek government soon followed suit with a similar action. These actions by Ireland and Greece raised the ire of other European countries, and evoked

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 290 of 506 pages United Kingdom questions of whether Ireland and Greece had violated any European Union charters.

Nevertheless, as anxieties about the safety of bank deposits rose across Europe, Ireland and Greece saw an influx of new banking customers from across the continent, presumably seeking the security of knowing their money would be safe amidst a financial meltdown. And even with questions rising about the decisions of the Irish and Greek government, the government of Germany decided to go down a similar path by guaranteeing all private bank accounts. For his part, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said that his government would increase the limit on guaranteed bank deposits from £35,000 to £50,000.

In these various ways, it was clear that there was no concurrence among some of Europe's most important economies. In fact, despite the meeting in France, which called for coordination among the countries of the European bloc, there was no unified response to the global financial crisis. Instead, that meeting laid bare the divisions within the countries of the European Union, and called into question the very viability of the European bloc. Perhaps that question of viability would be answered at a forthcoming G8 summit, as recommended by those participating in the Paris talks.

A week later, another meeting of European leaders in Paris ended with concurrence that no large institution would be allowed to fail. The meeting, which was attended by leaders of euro zone countries, resulted in an agreement to guarantee loans between banks until the end of 2009, with an eye on easing the credit crunch. The proposal, which would apply in 15 countries, also included a plan for capital infusions by means of purchasing preference shares from banks. The United Kingdom, which is outside the euro zone, had already announced a similar strategy.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy argued that these unprecedented measures were of vital importance. The French leader said, "The crisis has over the past few days entered into a phase that makes it intolerable to opt for procrastination and a go-it-alone approach."

Europe facing financial crisis as banking bail-out looms large

In early 2009, according to the European Commission, European banks may be in need of as much as several trillion in bailout funding. Impaired or toxic assets factor highly on the European Union bank balance sheets. Economist Nouriel Roubini warned that the economies of Ukraine, Belarus, Hungary, Latvia and Lithuania appeared to be on the brink of disaster. Overall, Eastern European countries borrowed heavily from Western European banks. Thus, even if the currencies on the eastern part of the continent collapse, effects will be felt in the western part of Europe as well. For example, Swiss banks that gave billions of credit to Eastern Europe cannot look forward to repayment anytime soon. As well, Austrian banks have had extensive exposure to Eastern Europe, and can anticipate a highly increased cost of insuring its debt. German Finance Minister Peer Steinbrueck has warned that as many as 16 European Union countries would require assistance. Indeed, his statements suggested the need for a regional rescue effort.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 291 of 506 pages United Kingdom

European Union backs financial regulation overhaul

With the global financial crisis intensifying, leaders of European Union countries backed sweeping financial regulations. Included in the package of market reforms were sanctions on tax havens, caps on bonus payments to management, greater hedge fund regulation, and increased influence by the International Monetary Fund. European leaders also backed a charter of sustainable economic activity, that would subject all global financial activities to both regulation and accountability by credit rating agencies.

These moves were made ahead of the Group of 20 summit scheduled for April 2, 2009, in London. It was not known whether other countries outside Europe, such as the United States, Japan, India and China, would support the new and aggressive regime of market regulation. That said, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in Berlin that Europe had a responsibility to chart this track. She said, "Europe will own up to its responsibility in the world."

Leaders forge $1 trillion deal at G-20 summit in London

Leaders of the world's largest economies, known as the "G-20," met in London to explore possible responses to the global financial crisis. To that end, they forged a deal valued at more than US$1 trillion.

Central to the agreement was an infusion of $750 billion to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which was aimed at helping troubled economies. Up to $100 billion of that amount was earmarked to assist the world's very poorest countries -- an amount far greater than had been expected. In many senses, the infusion of funding to the IMF marked a strengthening of that body unseen since the 1980s.

In addition, the G-20 leaders settled on a $250 billion increase in global trade. The world's poorest countries would also benefit from the availability of $250 billion of trade credit.

After some debate, the G-20 leaders decided to levy sanctions against clandestine tax havens and to institute strict financial regulations. Such regulations included tougher controls on banking professionals' salaries and bonuses, and increased oversight of hedge funds and credit rating agencies. A Financial Stability Board was to be established that would work in concert with the IMF to facilitate cross-border cooperation, and also to provide early warnings regarding the financial system.

Aside from these measures, the G-20 countries were already implementing their own economic stimulus measures at home, aimed at reversing the global recession. Together, these economic stimulus packages would inject approximately $5 trillion by the end of 2010.

United Kingdom Prime Minister Gordon Brown played host at the meeting, which most concurred

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 292 of 506 pages United Kingdom went off successfully, despite the presence of anti-globalization and anarchist protestors. Prime Minister Brown warned that there was "no quick fix" for the economic woes facing the international community, but he drew attention to the consensus that had been forged in the interest of the common good. He said, "This is the day that the world came together to fight back against the global recession, not with words, but with a plan for global recovery and for reform and with a clear timetable for its delivery."

All eyes were on United States President Barack Obama, who characterized the G-20 summit as "a turning point" in the effort towards global economic recovery. He also hailed the advances agreed upon to reform the failed regulatory regime that contributed to the financial crisis that has gripped many of the economies across the globe. Thusly, President Obama declared the London summit to be historic saying, "It was historic because of the size and the scope of the challenges that we face and because of the timeliness and the magnitude of our response."

Ahead of the summit, there were reports of a growing rift between the respective duos of France and Germany and the United States and the United Kingdom. While France and Germany were emphasizing stricter financial regulations, the United States and the United Kingdom were advocating public spending to deal with the economic crisis. Indeed, French President Nicolas Sarkozy had threatened to bolt the meeting if his priority issues were not addressed. But such an end did not occur, although tensions were existent.

To that end, President Obama was hailed for his diplomatic skills after he brokered an agreement between France and China on tax havens. The American president played the role of peacemaker between French President Sarkozy and Chinese Premier Hu Jintao, paving the way for a meeting of the minds on the matter of tax havens.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the concurrence reached at the G-20 summit were "more than we could have hoped for." President Sarkozy also credited President Obama for the American president's leadership at the summit, effusively stating: "President Obama really found the consensus. He didn't focus exclusively on stimulus ... In fact it was he who managed to help me persuade [Chinese] President Hu Jintao to agree to the reference to the ... publication of a list of tax havens, and I wish to thank him for that."

Meanwhile, German Chancellor Angela Merkel also expressed positive feedback about the success of the summit noting that the new measures would give the international arena a "clearer financial market architecture." She noted the agreement reached was "a very, very good, almost historic compromise." Finally, Chancellor Merkel had warm words of praise for President Obama. "The American president also put his hand into this," said Merkel.

Note: The G-20 leaders agreed to meet again in September 2009 in New York to assess the progress of their agenda.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 293 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Special Report

U.K. outside the European Union circle as bloc looks to new financial compact

In the first part of December 2011, the leaders of the two biggest players in the euro zone -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel -- issued a joint call for serious changes to Europe’s governing treaties, aimed at ameliorated economic governance for the 17 countries that make up the euro currency bloc. French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel met for talks on the matter in Paris as the euro zone countries continue to grapple with the sovereign debt crisis, emanating from "ground zero" in Greece, but extending regionally across the European bloc. This crisis has left the euro vulnerable, risked fragmenting the currency union, and could yet imperil the fragile global economic recovery.

At issue has been the problematic debt to GDP ratio in countries across the euro zone of the European Union (EU), and concomitant anxieties about various countries, such as Portugal, Spain, Italy and even Ireland, defaulting on their respective debts. These mostly southern European economies were plagued not only by high deficits but also inherent structural economic weakness, which could affect other countries in the euro zone in something of a contagion. While rescue packages for Greece and Ireland were put into effect, such measures forlarger economies, such as Italy and Spain, was simply unaffordable. General expectations were that Spain might barely escape default because its debt-to-GDP ratio -- while poor -- was still better than that of Italy. But at the broader level, attention began to rest on the need to expand a rescue fund for Europe's heavily indebted countries, which in September 2011 led to what is now known as the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF).

While the expansion of the EFSF breathed necessary life into the euro stabilization entity, it should be noted that the treatment for the debt ailment infecting the euro zone has become imbued by controversy. While the participants of the global economy have been anxious for action to be taken in response to the debt crisis, German stakeholders have been incensed that they would be the major contributors to the rescue fund, which would benefit countries, such as Greece. Stated differently, the debt crisis in Europe has led not only to instability in the international markets, but also to political imbroglios across the euro zone.

Of equally significant has been the growing chorus of complaints about the slow and protracted political response to the sovereign debt crisis in Europe and theassociated euro zone challenges, which were largely due to the EU's institutional structure. It was with an eye on addressing that latter issue that French President Sarkozy and German Chancellor Merkel were meeting in Paris to seek a pathway to stabilizing the euro zone. That meeting resulted in the aforementioned call for

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 294 of 506 pages United Kingdom radical changes to Europe’s governing treaties, characterized by heightened economic governance in the EU.

Included in their proposal were: (1) the creation of a monetary fund for Europe, (2) automatic penalties for countries that exceed European deficit limits, and (3) monthly meetings of European leaders. The proposal entailed compromises by both European leaders. President Sarkozy had to accept the notion of automatic sanctions for countries in violation of debt limit rules, while Chancellor Merkel had to accept that the European Court of Justice will not be empowered with the power of veto over budgets. Meanwhile, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), which was intended to replace the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF) in 2013, would be advanced earlier in 2012.

President Sarkozy said that they were looking to March 2012 to complete negotiations on the new treaty. Ideally, the new treaty would be ratified by all 27 member states of the European Union. However, if concurrence at that level proved impossible, then the 17 states of the euro zone would have to approve it. It should also be noted that European Council President Herman Van Rompuy has said that tougher budget rules for the euro zone may not require changing any existing European Union treaties.

President Sarkozy emphasized the imperative that such a crisis not re-emerge in the future. He said, "We are conscious of the gravity of the situation and of the responsibility that rests on our shoulders." For her part, Chancellor Merkel said her country, working in concert with France, was "absolutely determined" to maintain a stable euro. She also advocated for "structural changes which go beyond agreements."

While the new measures would certainly go a long way to addressing the issue of improved economic governance in the euro zone, they did not deal with the question of how many euro zone countries would deal with their debt challenges in a climate of low growth. Nevertheless, in the short run, the steadfast and unified message of intent by the two European leaders was, at least, expected to calm markets and facilitate lower borrowing costs for debt-ridden economies such as Italy, Spain, and Portugal.

The proverbial "fly in the ointment" emerged on Dec. 5, 2011 when the credit ratings agency, Standard and Poor's, placed the countries of the euro zone on a "credit watch" with negative implications. Even power house economies of Germany and France were included in the move, which presaged a downgrade to come in the future. A day later, Standard and Poor's even warned that the euro zone bailout fund -- the EFSF -- could lose its own AAA rating. These moves have raised eyebrows across the world as regards the credibility of the ratings agency, which failed to warn the world of the sub-prime meltdown in 2008 that ultimately let to the global financial crisis. There were suggestions that this downgrade threat to euro zone countries, in conjunction with the downgrade of the United States months earlier following a particularly ferocious debt ceiling debate

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 295 of 506 pages United Kingdom in that country, were evidence that the credit ratings agency was trying to "save face" by proving its tougher standards at this time. Standard and Poor's newly-discovered hard-line stance was being questioned by analysts, who pointed to the timing of the warning against euro zone countries. But this warning came precisely at a time when France and Germany were leading the charge in the EU to solve the regional debt crisis, as discussed here.

The move by Standard and Poor's aside, Europe re-focused on the task at hand: to institute ameliorated economic governance in the EU. By mid-December 2011, 26 out of the 27 EU member states backed the notion of a new tax and budget concord that would amend the Lisbon Treaty -- the EU's operational and constitutional foundation. Included in the cadre of 26 affirmative countries were all of the 17 euro zone countries. Of course, for many countries, support was contingent upon additional political ratification either in parliament or via referendum. Still, the signals of positive joint action were clear from these 26 countries.

The United Kingdom emerged as the lone "holdout" with British Prime Minister David Cameron insisting that he had to act to protect key British interests, including the financial markets. French President Nicolas Sarkozy noted that the sticking point for Prime Minister Cameron involved a protocol that would allow the United Kingdom to opt-out of changes on financial services. President Sarkozy said that measure wasunacceptable . Explaining his position, Prime Minister Cameron said, "We were offered a treaty that didn't have proper safeguards for Britain, and I decided it was not right to sign that treaty." He continued by noting that the United Kingdom remained in the EU, saying, "We're still in the single market."

Nevertheless, this move by the United Kingdom was an operational veto of the initiative to get all 27 EU countries to support changes to the bloc's Lisbon Treaty. As intimated above, it would effectively force the EU to go down the road of instituting a "fiscal compact," rather than a new treaty. While the institution of a fiscal pact could probably occur more quickly than ratification of a new treaty, it would entail far less rigor and strength as a guiding maxim of the EU. Across Europe, the British government was being criticized for plunging the United Kingdom into a position of isolation, while economic analysts from the Economist and the Financial Times, warned that Europe was now being faced by fragmentation.

In the United Kingdom, the move by Prime Minister Cameron was creating tensions within his own coalition government. Notably, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg -- the leader of the Liberal Democrats -- said that David Cameron's veto of EU treaty changes was "bad for Britain" and he warned that it could leave his country "isolated and marginalized" in Europe. He continued, "I don't think that's good for jobs, in the city (re: London) or elsewhere, I don't think it's good for growth or for families up and down the country." Clegg's bitter denunciation of the veto by Cameron exposed fissures in the British ruling coalition between the Conservative Euro-skeptics and the pro-European Liberal Democrats. The Labour Party -- the main political opposition in the United Kingdom -- was more scathing in its rebuke of Cameron's decision. Labour leader, Ed

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 296 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Miliband, said of Cameron: "He did this because the Euro-skeptic wing of the Conservative Party has effectively taken over and that isn't good for the national interest." Miliband also appeared to encourage the Liberal Democrats to look to Labour to overturn the decision as he said: "What I say to Liberal Democrats and others is that we will work with anybody who thinks this position can not stand. We must find a better way forward for Britain."

By the start of 2012, 25 of the 27 European Union member states agreed to join the new fiscal agreement. The two holdouts were the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic.Earlier in late 2011 (as discussed here), British Prime Minister David Cameron said that his country would not sign on to the notion of a new treaty, and effectively forced the European Union to go down the road of instituting a "fiscal compact," rather than a new treaty. But now in 2012, the United Kingdom was continuing its opposition, and said that the compact would threaten British interests and that there were "legal concerns" about the use of European Union institutions in enforcing the fiscal compact. Meanwhile, the Czechs said that there were "constitutional reasons" for their refusal to sign on to the compact. At issue was the fact thateuro skeptic President Vaclav Klaus has been a vocal opponent to the compact.

Special Note on Economy

In the last week of February 2013, the credit ratings agency, Moody's, downgraded the United Kingdom from its top AAA rating to AA1. It was the first downgrade since 1978. Moody's said that the United Kingdom's austerity measures were contributing to subdued growth, and that the British government's debt reduction program faced significant challenges, cautioning the United Kingdom's debt burdens were not likely to be reversed until 2016 anyway. Moody's further said that all expectations were that growth would "remain sluggish over the next few years." Still, Moody's maintained that the United Kingdom's outlook was stable.

The downgrade did not appear to deter the conservative government from following the path of austerity. Instead, Chancellor George Osborne said that Moody's decision was "a stark reminder of the debt problems facing our country." He continued, "Far from weakening our resolve to deliver our economic recovery plan, this decision redoubles it. We will go on delivering the plan that has cut the deficit by a quarter." Shadow chancellor, Ed Balls, wasted no time in blasting the government for its measures. He said the decision by Moody's to downgrade the United Kingdom's credit rating was a "humiliating blow to a prime minister and chancellor who said keeping our AAA rating was the test of their economic and political credibility."

Nominal GDP and Components

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 297 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Nominal GDP and Components

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Nominal GDP (LCU 1,617.68 1,655.38 1,713.12 1,787.87 1,856.39 billions)

Nominal GDP Growth Rate 3.806 2.331 3.488 4.363 3.833 (%)

Consumption (LCU billions) 1,039.10 1,072.54 1,109.47 1,151.13 1,193.56

Government Expenditure 337.294 343.878 345.187 352.380 365.368 (LCU billions)

Gross Capital Formation 265.106 273.430 292.199 316.940 325.630 (LCU billions)

Exports of Goods & 499.452 500.735 515.892 506.868 545.614 Services (LCU billions)

Imports of Goods & 523.277 535.204 549.625 539.446 573.778 Services (LCU billions)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 298 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Population and GDP Per Capita

Population and GDP Per Capita

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Population, total 63.285 63.705 64.087 64.511 64.938 (million)

Population growth 1.643 0.6637 0.5996 0.6616 0.6619 (%)

Nominal GDP per 25,561.78 25,985.15 26,731.19 27,714.20 28,587.14 Capita (LCU 1000s)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 299 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Real GDP and Inflation

Real GDP and Inflation

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Real Gross Domestic Product (LCU billions 2005 1,617.68 1,628.34 1,655.45 1,701.13 1,747.92 base)

Real GDP Growth Rate (%) 1.645 0.6590 1.665 2.760 2.750

GDP Deflator (2005=100.0) 100.000 101.661 103.484 105.099 106.206

Inflation, GDP Deflator (%) 2.126 1.661 1.793 1.561 1.053

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 300 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Government Spending and Taxation

Government Spending and Taxation

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Government Fiscal 707.967 729.794 727.918 741.985 747.990 Budget (billions)

Fiscal Budget Growth 0.4424 3.083 -0.2571 1.932 0.8093 Rate (percentage)

National Tax Rate Net 36.128 36.311 36.751 35.816 36.044 of Transfers (%)

Government Revenues Net of Transfers (LCU 584.427 601.086 629.588 640.349 669.113 billions)

Government Surplus(-) Deficit(+) (LCU -123.5400 -128.7080 -98.3300 -101.6360 -78.8770 billions)

Government Surplus(+) -7.6369 -7.7751 -5.7398 -5.6848 -4.2489 Deficit(-) (%GDP)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 301 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Money Supply, Interest Rates and Unemployment

Money Supply, Interest Rates and Unemployment

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Money and Quasi-Money 2,512.98 2,532.33 2,585.56 2,520.03 2,616.62 (M2) (LCU billions)

Money Supply Growth Rate -4.4180 0.7699 2.102 -2.5344 3.833 (%)

Lending Interest Rate (%) 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 0.5000 6.528

Unemployment Rate (%) 8.100 7.975 7.600 6.200 5.599

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 302 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Foreign Trade and the Exchange Rate

Foreign Trade and the Exchange Rate

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Official Exchange Rate 0.6238 0.6309 0.6396 0.6060 0.6480 (LCU/$US)

Trade Balance NIPA ($US -38.1961 -54.6342 -52.7399 -53.7546 -43.4636 billions)

Trade Balance % of GDP -1.4728 -2.0822 -1.9691 -1.8222 -1.5171

Total Foreign Exchange 94.544 105.194 104.419 107.728 90.670 Reserves ($US billions)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 303 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Data in US Dollars

Data in US Dollars

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Nominal GDP ($US billions) 2,593.45 2,623.82 2,678.38 2,950.04 2,864.90

Exports ($US billions) 800.719 793.677 806.572 836.347 842.027

Imports ($US billions) 838.915 848.312 859.312 890.102 885.491

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 304 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Energy Consumption and Production Standard Units

Energy Consumption and Production Standard Units

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Petroleum Consumption 1,594.75 1,547.78 1,536.89 1,539.73 1,585.31 (TBPD)

Petroleum Production 1,166.85 998.388 911.084 886.084 873.339 (TBPD)

Petroleum Net Exports -427.8939 -549.3950 -625.8020 -653.6419 -711.9735 (TBPD)

Natural Gas Consumption 2,848.51 2,752.06 2,734.90 2,480.74 2,703.50 (bcf)

Natural Gas Production 1,547.60 1,456.92 1,361.54 1,341.04 1,394.11 (bcf)

Natural Gas Net Exports -1300.9093 -1295.1450 -1373.3634 -1139.7019 -1309.3863 (bcf)

Coal Consumption 54,889.59 69,807.17 66,439.20 51,976.70 53,574.07 (1000s st)

Coal Production 19,345.94 16,913.47 12,870.83 12,148.05 11,490.58

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 305 of 506 pages United Kingdom

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

(1000s st)

Coal Net Exports -35543.6528 -52893.7067 -53568.3700 -39828.6561 -42083.4887 (1000s st)

Nuclear Production 62.658 63.964 64.147 57.916 56.416 (bil kwh)

Hydroelectric Production 5.632 5.232 4.674 5.899 5.991 (bil kwh)

Renewables Production 30.622 35.016 47.725 56.988 62.687 (bil kwh)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 306 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Energy Consumption and Production QUADS

Energy Consumption and Production QUADS

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Petroleum Consumption (Quads) 3.405 3.305 3.282 3.288 3.385

Petroleum Production (Quads) 2.491 2.146 1.952 1.935 1.490

Petroleum Net Exports (Quads) -0.9139 -1.1586 -1.3300 -1.3524 -1.8945

Natural Gas Consumption 2.905 2.807 2.790 2.530 2.758 (Quads)

Natural Gas Production (Quads) 1.577 1.481 1.386 1.387 1.217

Natural Gas Net Exports (Quads) -1.3285 -1.3259 -1.4037 -1.1429 -1.5405

Coal Consumption (Quads) 1.098 1.396 1.329 1.040 1.071

Coal Production (Quads) 0.3945 0.3591 0.2706 0.2430 0.2072

Coal Net Exports (Quads) -0.7033 -1.0371 -1.0582 -0.7966 -0.8643

Nuclear Production (Quads) 0.6266 0.6396 0.6415 0.5792 0.5642

Hydroelectric Production (Quads) 0.0563 0.0523 0.0467 0.0590 0.0599

Renewables Production (Quads) 0.3062 0.3502 0.4772 0.5699 0.6269

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 307 of 506 pages United Kingdom

World Energy Price Summary

World Energy Price Summary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Petroleum-WTI ($/bbl) 95.054 94.159 97.943 93.112 48.709

Natural Gas-Henry Hub ($/mmbtu) 3.999 2.752 3.729 4.369 2.614

Coal Thermal-Australian ($/mt) 121.448 96.364 84.562 70.130 57.511

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 308 of 506 pages United Kingdom

CO2 Emissions

CO2 Emissions

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Petroleum Based (mm mt C) 31.024 32.390 33.106 41.647 42.149

Natural Gas Based (mm mt C) 46.215 44.650 44.371 40.248 43.862

Coal Based (mm mt C) 31.457 40.006 38.076 29.788 30.703

Total CO2 Emissions (mm mt 108.696 117.047 115.554 111.683 116.714 C)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 309 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Agriculture Consumption and Production

Agriculture Consumption and Production

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Corn Total Consumption 928.333 1,242.37 1,923.79 2,409.98 2,299.45 (1000 metric tons)

Corn Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (1000 metric tons)

Corn Net Exports -928.3330 -1242.3670 -1923.7870 -2409.9849 -2299.4535 (1000 metric tons)

Soybeans Total Consumption 771.536 802.364 657.473 602.004 558.567 (1000 metric tons)

Soybeans Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (1000 metric tons)

Soybeans Net Exports -771.5360 -802.3640 -657.4730 -602.0045 -558.5667 (1000 metric tons)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 310 of 506 pages United Kingdom

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Rice Total Consumption 10.395 9.631 9.499 5.454 5.071 (1000 metric tons)

Rice Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (1000 metric tons)

Rice Net Exports -10.3947 -9.6311 -9.4992 -5.4539 -5.0710 (1000 metric tons)

Coffee Total Consumption 140,620.00 131,738.00 139,023.00 140,903.14 137,587.29 (metric tons)

Coffee Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (metric tons)

Coffee Net Exports -140620.0000 -131738.0000 -139023.0000 -140903.1442 -137587.2906 (metric tons)

Cocoa Beans Total 88,370.00 90,474.00 71,121.00 66,809.76 70,709.65 Consumption (metric tons)

Cocoa Beans Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (metric tons)

Cocoa Beans Net Exports -88370.0000 -90474.0000 -71121.0000 -66809.7599 -70709.6509

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 311 of 506 pages United Kingdom

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

(metric tons)

Wheat Total Consumption 13,871.41 13,542.53 14,436.58 20,501.61 17,884.77 (1000 metric tons)

Wheat Production 15,223.11 13,331.20 11,902.33 16,675.80 14,548.77 (1000 metric tons)

Wheat Net Exports 1,351.70 -211.3338 -2534.2538 -3825.8015 -3336.0077 (1000 metric tons)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 312 of 506 pages United Kingdom

World Agriculture Pricing Summary

World Agriculture Pricing Summary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Corn Pricing Summary 291.684 298.417 259.389 192.881 169.750 ($/metric ton)

Soybeans Pricing Summary 540.667 591.417 538.417 491.771 390.417 ($/metric ton)

Rice Pricing Summary ($/metric 458.558 525.071 473.989 425.148 386.033 ton)

Coffee Pricing Summary 5.976 4.111 3.076 4.424 3.526 ($/kilogram)

Cocoa Beans Pricing Summary 2.980 2.392 2.439 3.062 3.135 ($/kilogram)

Wheat Pricing Summary 316.264 313.242 312.248 284.895 203.177 ($/metric ton)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 313 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Metals Consumption and Production

Metals Consumption and Production

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Copper Consumption 17,244.18 11,124.00 15,692.86 16,663.12 15,095.15 (1000 mt)

Copper Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (1000 mt)

Copper Net Exports -17244.1800 -11124.0050 -15692.8600 -16663.1160 -15095.1532 (1000 mt)

Zinc Consumption 87,494.19 71,354.24 93,528.00 98,483.63 92,309.85 (1000 mt)

Zinc Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (1000 mt)

Zinc Exports -87494.1930 -71354.2450 -93527.9970 -98483.6310 -92309.8494 (1000 mt)

Lead Consumption 266,882.22 325,794.36 312,928.48 271,450.43 237,992.55 (1000 mt)

Lead Production 266,927.47 309,058.15 290,393.24 300,100.86 289,568.19 (1000 mt)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 314 of 506 pages United Kingdom

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Lead Exports 45.249 -16736.2136 -22535.2378 28,650.42 51,575.64 (1000 mt)

Tin Consumption 2,240.41 2,659.24 5,487.74 9,052.00 8,725.75 (1000 mt)

Tin Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (1000 mt)

Tin Exports -2240.4100 -2659.2440 -5487.7350 -9051.9967 -8725.7508 (1000 mt)

Nickel Consumption 22,081.41 13,548.08 9,080.40 14,987.74 11,796.20 (1000 mt)

Nickel Production 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 (1000 mt)

Nickel Exports -22081.4090 -13548.0850 -9080.3999 -14987.7399 -11796.1954 (1000 mt)

Gold Consumption 96,902.51 92,435.37 310,119.19 467,730.31 429,368.02 (kg)

Gold Production 18,011.95 18,466.18 19,010.44 20,267.24 19,559.44 (kg)

Gold Exports -78890.5665 -73969.1879 -291108.7524 -447463.0696 -409808.5778 (kg)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 315 of 506 pages United Kingdom

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Silver Consumption 5,594.62 4,630,217.67 2,602,672.58 575,127.48 494,101.67 (mt)

Silver Production 295,575.44 310,110.43 315,117.57 326,085.24 299,680.34 (mt)

Silver 289,980.82 -4320107.2407 -2287555.0040 -249042.2467 -194421.3246 Exports (mt)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 316 of 506 pages United Kingdom

World Metals Pricing Summary

World Metals Pricing Summary

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Copper ($/mt) 8,828.19 7,962.35 7,332.10 6,863.40 5,510.46

Zinc ($/mt) 2,193.90 1,950.41 1,910.26 2,160.97 1,931.68

Tin ($/mt) 26,053.68 21,125.99 22,282.80 21,898.87 16,066.63

Lead ($/mt) 2,400.81 2,064.64 2,139.79 2,095.46 1,787.82

Nickel ($/mt) 22,910.36 17,547.55 15,031.80 16,893.38 11,862.64

Gold ($/oz) 1,569.21 1,669.52 1,411.46 1,265.58 1,160.66

Silver ($/oz) 35.224 31.137 23.850 19.071 15.721

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 317 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Economic Performance Index

Economic Performance Index

The Economic Performance rankings are calculated by CountryWatch's editorial team, and are based on criteria including sustained economic growth, monetary stability, current account deficits, budget surplus, unemployment and structural imbalances. Scores are assessed from 0 to 100 using this aforementioned criteria as well as CountryWatch's proprietary economic research data and models.

Econ.GNP Bank Monetary/ growth or stability Currency Government Empl./ decline/ risk stability Finances Unempl. forecast

0 - 100 0 - 100 0 - 100 0 - 100 %

North Americas

Canada 92 69 35 38 3.14%

United States 94 76 4 29 3.01%

Western Europe

Austria 90 27 30 63 1.33%

Belgium 88 27 19 23 1.15%

Cyprus 81 91 16 80 -0.69%

Denmark 97 70 45 78 1.20%

Finland 89 27 41 33 1.25%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 318 of 506 pages United Kingdom

France 87 27 18 27 1.52%

Germany 86 27 22 21 1.25%

Greece 79 27 5 24 -2.00%

Iceland 90 17 2 34 -3.04%

Italy 85 27 37 24 0.84%

Ireland 92 27 11 10 -1.55%

Luxembourg 99 27 28 66 2.08%

Malta 77 27 41 51 0.54%

Netherlands 91 27 26 74 1.30%

Norway 98 44 10 76 1.08%

Portugal 77 27 13 20 0.29%

Spain 83 27 9 3 -0.41%

Sweden 94 72 54 32 1.23%

Switzerland 97 86 55 77 1.53%

United Kingdom 85 12 9 37 1.34%

Central and Eastern Europe

Albania 44 60 33 6 2.30%

Armenia 45 59 49 30 1.80%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 319 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Azerbaijan 56 4 84 99 2.68%

Belarus 59 21 83 98 2.41%

Bosnia and Herzegovina 34 68 69 N/A 0.50%

Bulgaria 58 75 88 49 0.20%

Croatia 69 68 94 9 0.18%

Czech Republic 80 89 29 70 1.67%

Estonia 72 90 66 92 0.80%

Georgia 36 60 53 56 2.00%

Hungary 70 66 26 54 -0.16%

Latvia 67 100 65 44 -3.97%

Lithuania 65 91 87 79 -1.65%

Macedonia (FYR) 53 69 56 2 2.03%

Moldova 23 36 81 67 2.50%

Poland 74 74 38 12 2.72%

Romania 62 56 70 62 0.75%

Russia 73 18 90 8 4.00%

Serbia 48 49 52 5 1.97%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 320 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Montenegro 39 27 73 1 -1.70%

Slovak Republic 80 62 30 14 4.06%

Slovenia 81 27 36 65 1.12%

Ukraine 41 11 57 N/A 3.68%

Africa

Algeria 57 18 96 7 4.55%

Angola 49 1 97 N/A 7.05%

Benin 19 91 20 N/A 3.22%

Botswana 68 58 76 N/A 6.33%

Burkina Faso 16 91 13 N/A 4.41%

Burundi 2 91 6 N/A 3.85%

Cameroon 26 91 91 N/A 2.58%

Cape Verde 52 87 4 N/A 4.96%

Central African Republic 9 91 32 N/A 3.18%

Chad 22 91 89 N/A 4.42%

Congo 52 87 87 N/A 12.13%

Côte d’Ivoire 25 91 82 28 2.98%

Dem. Republic

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 321 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Congo 4 91 47 N/A 5.44%

Djibouti 31 76 50 N/A 4.47%

Egypt 37 20 24 69 5.01%

Equatorial Guinea 82 91 85 N/A 0.94%

Eritrea 1 3 1 18 1.81%

Ethiopia 6 45 8 N/A 6.96%

Gabon 64 91 96 N/A 5.36%

Gambia 8 48 86 N/A 4.82%

Ghana 9 11 69 N/A 4.50%

Guinea 10 7 91 N/A 3.03%

Guinea-Bissau 5 91 46 N/A 3.47%

Kenya 20 41 59 N/A 4.11%

Lesotho 13 40 12 N/A 2.98%

Liberia 12 73 74 N/A 5.92%

Libya 73 2 94 N/A 5.22%

Madagascar 4 22 24 N/A -1.02%

Malawi 7 25 55 N/A 5.96%

Mali 20 91 82 N/A 5.12%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 322 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Mauritania 15 13 93 N/A 4.58%

Mauritius 65 52 56 55 4.10%

Morocco 37 72 48 26 3.23%

Mozambique 12 23 71 N/A 6.45%

Namibia 40 39 62 N/A 1.70%

Niger 10 91 21 N/A 4.41%

Nigeria 30 6 61 N/A 6.98%

Rwanda 21 40 68 N/A 5.39%

Sao Tome & Principe 1 61 100 N/A 3.40%

Senegal 24 91 63 N/A 3.44%

Seychelles 60 67 97 N/A 4.01%

Sierra Leone 5 10 39 N/A 4.77%

Somalia 2 38 59 N/A 3.19%

South Africa 61 37 70 N/A 2.59%

Sudan 16 5 73 N/A 5.52%

Swaziland 32 44 79 N/A 1.09%

Tanzania 15 45 32 N/A 6.17%

Togo 8 91 92 N/A 2.56%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 323 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Tunisia 50 61 44 39 4.00%

Uganda 11 17 54 N/A 5.59%

Zambia 29 20 49 N/A 5.84%

Zimbabwe 0 8 16 N/A 2.24%

South and Central America

Argentina 66 3 80 36 3.50%

Belize 47 76 80 N/A 1.00%

Bolivia 32 51 61 81 3.99%

Brazil 71 47 78 11 5.50%

Chile 78 25 92 73 4.72%

Columbia 47 52 34 47 2.25%

Costa Rica 60 42 39 57 3.45%

Ecuador 43 76 75 64 2.51%

El Salvador 35 76 67 N/A 1.04%

Guatemala 46 59 58 N/A 2.52%

Honduras 27 47 58 N/A 2.00%

Mexico 69 42 52 61 4.07%

Nicaragua 23 49 42 N/A 1.75%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 324 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Panama 66 76 72 45 5.00%

Paraguay 35 46 66 16 5.27%

Peru 59 66 75 22 6.33%

Suriname 58 26 81 59 4.02%

Uruguay 70 26 27 N/A 5.71%

Venezuela 55 1 28 13 -2.63%

Caribbean

Antigua & Barbuda 72 76 15 N/A -2.01%

Bahamas 74 76 45 87 -0.50%

Barbados 67 76 33 15 -0.50%

Bermuda N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Cuba 45 76 18 95 0.25%

Dominica 53 76 65 N/A 1.40%

Dominican Republic 54 39 43 4 3.50%

Grenada 63 76 48 N/A 0.80%

Guyana 28 56 17 N/A 4.36%

Haiti 11 27 89 N/A -8.50%

Jamaica 42 9 85 19 -0.28%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 325 of 506 pages United Kingdom

St Lucia 55 76 67 N/A 1.14%

St Vincent & Grenadines 49 76 95 N/A 0.50%

Trinidad & Tobago 82 37 77 72 2.13%

Middle East

Bahrain 84 76 62 91 3.48%

Iran 51 19 40 58 3.01%

Iraq 48 9 8 N/A 7.27%

Israel 87 62 12 48 3.20%

Jordan 41 51 3 N/A 4.10%

Kuwait 96 4 99 N/A 3.10%

Lebanon 63 54 2 N/A 6.00%

Oman 76 16 88 N/A 4.71%

Qatar 99 16 83 N/A 18.54%

Saudi Arabia 76 8 98 N/A 3.70%

Syria 61 24 40 N/A 5.00%

Turkey 75 23 27 60 5.20%

United Arab Emirates 96 24 98 94 1.29%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 326 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Yemen 28 2 78 N/A 7.78%

Asia

Afghanistan 17 70 74 N/A 8.64%

Bangladesh 13 43 25 N/A 5.38%

Bhutan 24 55 5 N/A 6.85%

Brunei 78 19 99 75 0.48%

Cambodia 18 67 42 N/A 4.77%

China 54 90 19 68 11.03%

Hong Kong 89 76 14 82 5.02%

India 31 38 34 35 8.78%

Indonesia 42 46 37 31 6.00%

Japan 88 89 6 71 1.90%

Kazakhstan 62 13 76 42 2.40%

Korea North 18 65 23 N/A 1.50%

Korea South 83 63 22 85 4.44%

Kyrgyz Republic 24 15 84 88 4.61%

Laos 17 54 7 N/A 7.22%

Macao 91 76 14 82 3.00%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 327 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Malaysia 68 65 44 90 4.72%

Maldives 44 55 17 N/A 3.45%

Mongolia 33 5 77 93 7.22%

Myanmar 3 41 72 N/A 5.26%

Nepal 3 14 25 N/A 2.97%

Pakistan 19 15 31 41 3.00%

Papua New Guinea 75 50 11 N/A 7.96%

Philippines 30 48 53 43 3.63%

Singapore 93 75 63 40 5.68%

Sri Lanka 38 22 10 N/A 5.50%

Taiwan 84 88 35 89 6.50%

Tajikistan 6 6 60 97 4.00%

Thailand 56 64 90 96 5.46%

Turkmenistan 51 53 68 N/A 12.00%

Uzbekistan 40 10 60 100 8.00%

Vietnam 25 12 20 N/A 6.04%

Pacific

Australia 96 63 31 46 2.96%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 328 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Fiji 46 53 3 N/A 2.06%

Marshall Islands 27 76 46 N/A 1.08%

Micronesia (Fed. States) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Caledonia 96 73 51 52 2.00%

New Zealand 98 73 51 52 2.00%

Samoa 34 88 64 N/A -2.77%

Solomon Islands 14 71 1 N/A 3.36%

Tonga 26 57 38 N/A 0.60%

Vanuatu 33 58 47 N/A 3.80%

Source:

CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com

Updated:

This material was produced in 2010; it is subject to updating in 2012.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 329 of 506 pages United Kingdom div style='margin-top:40%;padding-top:40%'>

Chapter 4

Investment Overview

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 330 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Foreign Investment Climate

Foreign Investment Assessment

The government of the United Kingdom (U.K.) welcomes foreign investment and foreign-owned companies are treated no differently than local companies. With few exceptions, the U.K. tends not to discriminate between nationals and foreign individuals in the formation and operation of private companies. As well, there are few restrictions to the flow of capital. Long-term political and economic stability, a regulatory system marked by consistency and transparency, a regime that embraces market principles, as well as relatively low rates of taxation and inflation, work together to make the U.K. a very attractive site for foreign investors.

Labor Force

Labor force: 29.6 million Labor force - by occupation: agriculture 1%, industry 25%, services 74%

Agriculture and Industry

Agriculture - products: cereals, oilseed, potatoes, vegetables; cattle, sheep, poultry; fish Industries: machine tools, electric power equipment, automation equipment, railroad equipment, shipbuilding, aircraft, motor vehicles and parts, electronics and communications equipment, metals, chemicals, coal, petroleum, paper and paper products, food processing, textiles, clothing, and other consumer goods

Import Commodities and Import Partners

Imports - commodities: manufactured goods, machinery, fuels; foodstuffs Imports - partners: Germany 13.5%, US 10.2%, France 8.1%, Netherlands 6.3%, Belgium 4.9%, Italy 4.7%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 331 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Export Commodities and Export Partners

Exports - commodities: manufactured goods, fuels, chemicals; food, beverages, tobacco Exports - partners: US 15.7%, Germany 10.5%, France 9.5%, Netherlands 6.9%, Ireland 6.5%, Belgium 5.6%, Spain 4.4%, Italy 4.4%

Telephone System

Telephones - main lines in use: 34.898 million Telephones - mobile cellular: 49.677 million general assessment: technologically advanced domestic and international system domestic: equal mix of buried cables, microwave radio relay, and fiber-optic systems international: country code - 44 satellite earth stations - 10 Intelsat (7 Atlantic Ocean and 3 Indian Ocean), 1 Inmarsat (Atlantic Ocean region), and 1 Eutelsat; at least 8 large international switching centers

Internet Users

Internet hosts: 3,398,708 Internet users: 25 million

Roads, Airports, Ports and Harbors

Railways: total: 17,186 km Highways: total: 371,913 km Ports and harbors: Aberdeen, Belfast, Bristol, Cardiff, Dover, Falmouth, Felixstowe, Glasgow, Grangemouth, Hull, Leith, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Peterhead, Plymouth, Portsmouth, Ramsgate, Scapa Flow, Southampton, Sullom Voe, Teesport, Tyne Airports: 471; with paved runways -- 334

Legal System and Considerations

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 332 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The legal system is based in the common law tradition with early Roman and modern continental influences. As a member of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes, the United Kingdom (U.K.) accepts binding international arbitration between foreign investors and the state. As a signatory to the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral , the U.K. permits local enforcement of arbitration judgments decided in other signatory countries.

Corruption Perception Ranking

According to Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index (included in this Country Review), the United Kingdom is one of the least corrupt countries in the world.

Cultural Considerations

Western norms dominate although there is a greater degree of formality in the United Kingdom as compared with the United States. The British are beginning to use first names more frequently -- as is typically the case in the United States -- however one should only do so at the initiative of one's host. Erring on the side of caution and orthodoxy is recommended, unless invited to do otherwise.

Country Website

N/A

Foreign Investment Index

Foreign Investment Index

The Foreign Investment Index is a proprietary index measuring attractiveness to international investment flows. The Foreign Investment Index is calculated using an established methodology by CountryWatch's Editor-in-Chief and is based on a given country's economic stability (sustained economic growth, monetary stability, current account deficits, budget surplus), economic risk (risk of non-servicing of payments for goods or services, loans and trade-related finance, risk of sovereign default), business and investment climate (property rights, labor force and laws, regulatory transparency, openness to foreign investment, market conditions, and stability of

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 333 of 506 pages United Kingdom government). Scores are assigned from 0-10 using the aforementioned criteria. A score of 0 marks the lowest level of foreign investment viability, while a score of 10 marks the highest level of foreign investment viability, according to this proprietary index.

Country Assessment

Afghanistan 2

Albania 4.5

Algeria 6

Andorra 9

Angola 4.5-5

Antigua 8.5

Argentina 5

Armenia 5

Australia 9.5

Austria 9-9.5

Azerbaijan 5

Bahamas 9

Bahrain 7.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 334 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Bangladesh 4.5

Barbados 9

Belarus 4

Belgium 9

Belize 7.5

Benin 5.5

Bhutan 4.5

Bolivia 4.5

Bosnia-Herzegovina 5

Botswana 7.5-8

Brazil 8

Brunei 7

Bulgaria 5.5

Burkina Faso 4

Burma (Myanmar) 4.5

Burundi 4

Cambodia 4.5

Cameroon 5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 335 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Canada 9.5

Cape Verde 6

Central African Republic 3

Chad 4

Chile 9

China 7.5

China: Hong Kong 8.5

China: Taiwan 8.5

Colombia 7

Comoros 4

Congo DRC 4

Congo RC 5

Costa Rica 8

Cote d'Ivoire 4.5

Croatia 7

Cuba 4.5

Cyprus 7

Czech Republic 8.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 336 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Denmark 9.5

Djibouti 4.5

Dominica 6

Dominican Republic 6.5

East Timor 4.5

Ecuador 5.5

Egypt 4.5-5

El Salvador 6

Equatorial Guinea 4.5

Eritrea 3.5

Estonia 8

Ethiopia 4.5

Fiji 5

Finland 9

Former Yugoslav Rep. of Macedonia 5

France 9-9.5

Gabon 5.5

Gambia 5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 337 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Georgia 5

Germany 9-9.5

Ghana 5.5

Greece 5

Grenada 7.5

Guatemala 5.5

Guinea 3.5

Guinea-Bissau 3.5

Guyana 4.5

Haiti 4

Holy See (Vatican) n/a

Hong Kong (China) 8.5

Honduras 5.5

Hungary 8

Iceland 8-8.5

India 8

Indonesia 5.5

Iran 4

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 338 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Iraq 3

Ireland 8

Israel 8.5

Italy 8

Jamaica 5.5

Japan 9.5

Jordan 6

Kazakhstan 6

Kenya 5

Kiribati 5.5

Korea, North 1

Korea, South 9

Kosovo 4.5

Kuwait 8.5

Kyrgyzstan 4.5

Laos 4

Latvia 7

Lebanon 5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 339 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Lesotho 5.5

Liberia 3.5

Libya 3

Liechtenstein 9

Lithuania 7.5

Luxembourg 9-9.5

Madagascar 4.5

Malawi 4.5

Malaysia 8.5

Maldives 6.5

Mali 5

Malta 9

Marshall Islands 5

Mauritania 4.5

Mauritius 7.5-8

Mexico 6.5-7

Micronesia 5

Moldova 4.5-5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 340 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Monaco 9

Mongolia 5

Montenegro 5.5

Morocco 7.5

Mozambique 5

Namibia 7.5

Nauru 4.5

Nepal 4

Netherlands 9-9.5

New Zealand 9.5

Nicaragua 5

Niger 4.5

Nigeria 4.5

Norway 9-9.5

Oman 8

Pakistan 4

Palau 4.5-5

Panama 7

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 341 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Papua New Guinea 5

Paraguay 6

Peru 6

Philippines 6

Poland 8

Portugal 7.5-8

Qatar 9

Romania 6-6.5

Russia 6

Rwanda 4

Saint Kitts and Nevis 8

Saint Lucia 8

Saint Vincent and Grenadines 7

Samoa 7

San Marino 8.5

Sao Tome and Principe 4.5-5

Saudi Arabia 7

Senegal 6

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 342 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Serbia 6

Seychelles 5

Sierra Leone 4

Singapore 9.5

Slovak Republic (Slovakia) 8.5

Slovenia 8.5-9

Solomon Islands 5

Somalia 2

South Africa 8

Spain 7.5-8

Sri Lanka 5.5

Sudan 4

Suriname 5

Swaziland 4.5

Sweden 9.5

Switzerland 9.5

Syria 2.5

Tajikistan 4

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 343 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Taiwan (China) 8.5

Tanzania 5

Thailand 7.5-8

Togo 4.5-5

Tonga 5.5-6

Trinidad and Tobago 8-8.5

Tunisia 6

Turkey 6.5-7

Turkmenistan 4

Tuvalu 7

Uganda 5

Ukraine 4.5-5

United Arab Emirates 8.5

United Kingdom 9

United States 9

Uruguay 6.5-7

Uzbekistan 4

Vanuatu 6

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 344 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Venezuela 5

Vietnam 5.5

Yemen 3

Zambia 4.5-5

Zimbabwe 3.5

Editor's Note:

As of 2015, the global economic crisis (emerging in 2008) had affected many countries across the world, resulting in changes to their rankings. Among those countries affected were top tier economies, such as the United Kingdom, Iceland, Switzerland and Austria. However, in all these cases, their rankings have moved back upward in the last couple of years as anxieties have eased. Other top tier countries, such as Spain, Portugal, Ireland, and Italy, suffered some effects due to debt woes and the concomitant effect on the euro zone. Greece, another euro zone nation, was also downgraded due to its sovereign debt crisis; however, Greece's position on the precipice of default incurred a sharper downgrade than the other four euro zone countries mentioned above. Cyprus' exposure to Greek bank yielded a downgrade in its case. Slovenia and Latvia have been slightly downgraded due to a mix of economic and political concerns but could easily be upgraded in a future assessment, should these concerns abate. Meanwhile, the crisis in eastern Ukraine fueled downgrades in that country and neighboring Russia.

Despite the "trifecta of tragedy" in Japan in 2011 -- the earthquake, the ensuing tsunami, and the resulting nuclear crisis -- and the appreciable destabilization of the economic and political terrain therein, this country has only slightly been downgraded. Japan's challenges have been assessed to be transient, the government remains accountable, and there is little risk of default. Both India and China retain their rankings; India holds a slightly higher ranking than China due to its record of democratic representation and accountability.

There were shifts in opposite directions for Mali and Nigeria versus the Central African Republic, Burkina Faso, and Burundi. Mali was slightly upgraded due to its efforts to return to constitutional order following the 2012 coup and to neutralize the threat of separatists and Islamists. Likewise, a new government in Nigeria generated a slight upgrade as the country attempts to confront corruption, crime, and terrorism. But the Central African Republic was downgraded due to the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 345 of 506 pages United Kingdom takeover of the government by Seleka rebels and the continued decline into lawlessness in that country. Likewise, the attempts by the leaders of Burundi and Burkina Faso to hold onto power by by-passing the constitution raised eybrows and resulted in downgrades.

Political unrest in Libya and Algeria have contributed to a decision to marginally downgrade these countries as well. Syria incurred a sharper downgrade due to the devolution into de facto civil war and the dire security threat posed by Islamist terrorists. Iraq saw a similar downgrade as a result of the takeover of wide swaths of territory and the threat of genocide at the hands of Islamist terrorists. Yemen, likewise, has been downgraded due to political instability at the hands of secessionists, terrorists, Houthi rebels, and the intervention of external parties. Conversely, Egypt and Tunisia saw slight upgrades as their political environments stabilize.

At the low end of the spectrum, devolving security conditions and/or economic crisis have resulted in countries like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Zimbabwe maintaining their low ratings.

The United States continues to retain its previous slight downgrade due to the enduring threat of default surrounding the debt ceiling in that country, matched by a conflict-ridden political climate. In the case of Mexico, there is limited concern about default, but increasing alarm over the security situation in that country and the government’s ability to contain it. In Argentina, a default to bond holders resulted in a downgrade to that country. Finally, a small but significant upgrade was attributed to Cuba due to its recent pro-business reforms and its normalization of ties with the Unitd States.

Source:

CountryWatch Inc. www.countrywatch.com

Updated:

2015

Corruption Perceptions Index

Corruption Perceptions Index

Transparency International: Corruption Perceptions Index

Editor's Note:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 346 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index is a composite index which ranks countries in terms of the degree to which corruption is perceived to exist among public officials. This index indicates the views of national and international business people and analysts about the levels of corruption in each country. The highest (and best) level of transparency is indicated by the number, 10. The lower (and worse) levels of transparency are indicated by lower numbers.

Rank Country/Territory CPI 2009 Surveys Confidence Score Used Range

1 New Zealand 9.4 6 9.1 - 9.5

2 Denmark 9.3 6 9.1 - 9.5

3 Singapore 9.2 9 9.0 - 9.4

3 Sweden 9.2 6 9.0 - 9.3

5 Switzerland 9.0 6 8.9 - 9.1

6 Finland 8.9 6 8.4 - 9.4

6 Netherlands 8.9 6 8.7 - 9.0

8 Australia 8.7 8 8.3 - 9.0

8 Canada 8.7 6 8.5 - 9.0

8 Iceland 8.7 4 7.5 - 9.4

11 Norway 8.6 6 8.2 - 9.1

12 Hong Kong 8.2 8 7.9 - 8.5

12 Luxembourg 8.2 6 7.6 - 8.8

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 347 of 506 pages United Kingdom

14 Germany 8.0 6 7.7 - 8.3

14 Ireland 8.0 6 7.8 - 8.4

16 Austria 7.9 6 7.4 - 8.3

17 Japan 7.7 8 7.4 - 8.0

17 United Kingdom 7.7 6 7.3 - 8.2

19 United States 7.5 8 6.9 - 8.0

20 Barbados 7.4 4 6.6 - 8.2

21 Belgium 7.1 6 6.9 - 7.3

22 Qatar 7.0 6 5.8 - 8.1

22 Saint Lucia 7.0 3 6.7 - 7.5

24 France 6.9 6 6.5 - 7.3

25 Chile 6.7 7 6.5 - 6.9

25 Uruguay 6.7 5 6.4 - 7.1

27 Cyprus 6.6 4 6.1 - 7.1

27 Estonia 6.6 8 6.1 - 6.9

27 Slovenia 6.6 8 6.3 - 6.9

30 United Arab Emirates 6.5 5 5.5 - 7.5

31 Saint Vincent and the 6.4 3 4.9 - 7.5 Grenadines

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 348 of 506 pages United Kingdom

32 Israel 6.1 6 5.4 - 6.7

32 Spain 6.1 6 5.5 - 6.6

34 Dominica 5.9 3 4.9 - 6.7

35 Portugal 5.8 6 5.5 - 6.2

35 Puerto Rico 5.8 4 5.2 - 6.3

37 Botswana 5.6 6 5.1 - 6.3

37 Taiwan 5.6 9 5.4 - 5.9

39 Brunei Darussalam 5.5 4 4.7 - 6.4

39 Oman 5.5 5 4.4 - 6.5

39 Korea (South) 5.5 9 5.3 - 5.7

42 Mauritius 5.4 6 5.0 - 5.9

43 Costa Rica 5.3 5 4.7 - 5.9

43 Macau 5.3 3 3.3 - 6.9

45 Malta 5.2 4 4.0 - 6.2

46 Bahrain 5.1 5 4.2 - 5.8

46 Cape Verde 5.1 3 3.3 - 7.0

46 Hungary 5.1 8 4.6 - 5.7

49 Bhutan 5.0 4 4.3 - 5.6

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 349 of 506 pages United Kingdom

49 Jordan 5.0 7 3.9 - 6.1

49 Poland 5.0 8 4.5 - 5.5

52 Czech Republic 4.9 8 4.3 - 5.6

52 Lithuania 4.9 8 4.4 - 5.4

54 Seychelles 4.8 3 3.0 - 6.7

55 South Africa 4.7 8 4.3 - 4.9

56 Latvia 4.5 6 4.1 - 4.9

56 Malaysia 4.5 9 4.0 - 5.1

56 Namibia 4.5 6 3.9 - 5.1

56 Samoa 4.5 3 3.3 - 5.3

56 Slovakia 4.5 8 4.1 - 4.9

61 Cuba 4.4 3 3.5 - 5.1

61 Turkey 4.4 7 3.9 - 4.9

63 Italy 4.3 6 3.8 - 4.9

63 Saudi Arabia 4.3 5 3.1 - 5.3

65 Tunisia 4.2 6 3.0 - 5.5

66 Croatia 4.1 8 3.7 - 4.5

66 Georgia 4.1 7 3.4 - 4.7

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 350 of 506 pages United Kingdom

66 Kuwait 4.1 5 3.2 - 5.1

69 Ghana 3.9 7 3.2 - 4.6

69 Montenegro 3.9 5 3.5 - 4.4

71 Bulgaria 3.8 8 3.2 - 4.5

71 FYR Macedonia 3.8 6 3.4 - 4.2

71 Greece 3.8 6 3.2 - 4.3

71 Romania 3.8 8 3.2 - 4.3

75 Brazil 3.7 7 3.3 - 4.3

75 Colombia 3.7 7 3.1 - 4.3

75 Peru 3.7 7 3.4 - 4.1

75 Suriname 3.7 3 3.0 - 4.7

79 Burkina Faso 3.6 7 2.8 - 4.4

79 China 3.6 9 3.0 - 4.2

79 Swaziland 3.6 3 3.0 - 4.7

79 Trinidad and Tobago 3.6 4 3.0 - 4.3

83 Serbia 3.5 6 3.3 - 3.9

84 El Salvador 3.4 5 3.0 - 3.8

84 Guatemala 3.4 5 3.0 - 3.9

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 351 of 506 pages United Kingdom

84 India 3.4 10 3.2 - 3.6

84 Panama 3.4 5 3.1 - 3.7

84 Thailand 3.4 9 3.0 - 3.8

89 Lesotho 3.3 6 2.8 - 3.8

89 Malawi 3.3 7 2.7 - 3.9

89 Mexico 3.3 7 3.2 - 3.5

89 Moldova 3.3 6 2.7 - 4.0

89 Morocco 3.3 6 2.8 - 3.9

89 Rwanda 3.3 4 2.9 - 3.7

95 Albania 3.2 6 3.0 - 3.3

95 Vanuatu 3.2 3 2.3 - 4.7

97 Liberia 3.1 3 1.9 - 3.8

97 Sri Lanka 3.1 7 2.8 - 3.4

99 Bosnia and Herzegovina 3.0 7 2.6 - 3.4

99 Dominican Republic 3.0 5 2.9 - 3.2

99 Jamaica 3.0 5 2.8 - 3.3

99 Madagascar 3.0 7 2.8 - 3.2

99 Senegal 3.0 7 2.5 - 3.6

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 352 of 506 pages United Kingdom

99 Tonga 3.0 3 2.6 - 3.3

99 Zambia 3.0 7 2.8 - 3.2

106 Argentina 2.9 7 2.6 - 3.1

106 Benin 2.9 6 2.3 - 3.4

106 Gabon 2.9 3 2.6 - 3.1

106 Gambia 2.9 5 1.6 - 4.0

106 Niger 2.9 5 2.7 - 3.0

111 Algeria 2.8 6 2.5 - 3.1

111 Djibouti 2.8 4 2.3 - 3.2

111 Egypt 2.8 6 2.6 - 3.1

111 Indonesia 2.8 9 2.4 - 3.2

111 Kiribati 2.8 3 2.3 - 3.3

111 Mali 2.8 6 2.4 - 3.2

111 Sao Tome and Principe 2.8 3 2.4 - 3.3

111 Solomon Islands 2.8 3 2.3 - 3.3

111 Togo 2.8 5 1.9 - 3.9

120 Armenia 2.7 7 2.6 - 2.8

120 Bolivia 2.7 6 2.4 - 3.1

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 353 of 506 pages United Kingdom

120 Ethiopia 2.7 7 2.4 - 2.9

120 Kazakhstan 2.7 7 2.1 - 3.3

120 Mongolia 2.7 7 2.4 - 3.0

120 Vietnam 2.7 9 2.4 - 3.1

126 Eritrea 2.6 4 1.6 - 3.8

126 Guyana 2.6 4 2.5 - 2.7

126 Syria 2.6 5 2.2 - 2.9

126 Tanzania 2.6 7 2.4 - 2.9

130 Honduras 2.5 6 2.2 - 2.8

130 Lebanon 2.5 3 1.9 - 3.1

130 Libya 2.5 6 2.2 - 2.8

130 Maldives 2.5 4 1.8 - 3.2

130 Mauritania 2.5 7 2.0 - 3.3

130 Mozambique 2.5 7 2.3 - 2.8

130 Nicaragua 2.5 6 2.3 - 2.7

130 Nigeria 2.5 7 2.2 - 2.7

130 Uganda 2.5 7 2.1 - 2.8

139 Bangladesh 2.4 7 2.0 - 2.8

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 354 of 506 pages United Kingdom

139 Belarus 2.4 4 2.0 - 2.8

139 Pakistan 2.4 7 2.1 - 2.7

139 Philippines 2.4 9 2.1 - 2.7

143 Azerbaijan 2.3 7 2.0 - 2.6

143 Comoros 2.3 3 1.6 - 3.3

143 Nepal 2.3 6 2.0 - 2.6

146 Cameroon 2.2 7 1.9 - 2.6

146 Ecuador 2.2 5 2.0 - 2.5

146 Kenya 2.2 7 1.9 - 2.5

146 Russia 2.2 8 1.9 - 2.4

146 Sierra Leone 2.2 5 1.9 - 2.4

146 Timor-Leste 2.2 5 1.8 - 2.6

146 Ukraine 2.2 8 2.0 - 2.6

146 Zimbabwe 2.2 7 1.7 - 2.8

154 Côte d´Ivoire 2.1 7 1.8 - 2.4

154 Papua New Guinea 2.1 5 1.7 - 2.5

154 Paraguay 2.1 5 1.7 - 2.5

154 Yemen 2.1 4 1.6 - 2.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 355 of 506 pages United Kingdom

158 Cambodia 2.0 8 1.8 - 2.2

158 Central African Republic 2.0 4 1.9 - 2.2

158 Laos 2.0 4 1.6 - 2.6

158 Tajikistan 2.0 8 1.6 - 2.5

162 Angola 1.9 5 1.8 - 1.9

162 Congo Brazzaville 1.9 5 1.6 - 2.1

162 Democratic Republic of 1.9 5 1.7 - 2.1 Congo

162 Guinea-Bissau 1.9 3 1.8 - 2.0

162 Kyrgyzstan 1.9 7 1.8 - 2.1

162 Venezuela 1.9 7 1.8 - 2.0

168 Burundi 1.8 6 1.6 - 2.0

168 Equatorial Guinea 1.8 3 1.6 - 1.9

168 Guinea 1.8 5 1.7 - 1.8

168 Haiti 1.8 3 1.4 - 2.3

168 Iran 1.8 3 1.7 - 1.9

168 Turkmenistan 1.8 4 1.7 - 1.9

174 Uzbekistan 1.7 6 1.5 - 1.8

175 Chad 1.6 6 1.5 - 1.7

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 356 of 506 pages United Kingdom

176 Iraq 1.5 3 1.2 - 1.8

176 Sudan 1.5 5 1.4 - 1.7

178 Myanmar 1.4 3 0.9 - 1.8

179 Afghanistan 1.3 4 1.0 - 1.5

180 Somalia 1.1 3 0.9 - 1.4

Methodology:

As noted above, the highest (and best) level of transparency with the least perceived corruption is indicated by the number, 10. The lower (and worse) levels of transparency are indicated by lower numbers.

According to Transparency International, the Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) table shows a country's ranking and score, the number of surveys used to determine the score, and the confidence range of the scoring.

The rank shows how one country compares to others included in the index. The CPI score indicates the perceived level of public-sector corruption in a country/territory.

The CPI is based on 13 independent surveys. However, not all surveys include all countries. The surveys used column indicates how many surveys were relied upon to determine the score for that country.

The confidence range indicates the reliability of the CPI scores and tells us that allowing for a margin of error, we can be 90% confident that the true score for this country lies within this range.

Note:

Kosovo, which separated from the Yugoslav successor state of Serbia, is not listed above. No calculation is available for Kosovo at this time, however, a future corruption index by Transparency International may include the world's newest country in its tally. Taiwan has been listed above despite its contested status; while Taiwan claims sovereign status, China claims ultimate jurisdiction over Taiwan. Hong Kong, which is also under the rubric of Chinese

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 357 of 506 pages United Kingdom sovereignty, is listed above. Note as well that Puerto Rico, which is a United States domain, is also included in the list above. These inclusions likely have to do with the size and fairly autonomous status of their economies.

Source:

Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index; available at URL: http://www.transparency.org

Updated:

Uploaded in 2011 using most recent ranking available; reviewed in 2015.

Competitiveness Ranking

Competitiveness Ranking

Editor's Note:

The Global Competitiveness Report’s competitiveness ranking is based on the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), which was developed for the World Economic Forum. The GCI is based on a number of competitiveness considerations, and provides a comprehensive picture of the competitiveness landscape in countries around the world. The competitiveness considerations are: institutions, infrastructure, macroeconomic environment, health and primary education, higher education and training, goods market efficiency, labour market efficiency, financial market development, technological readiness, market size, business sophistication, and innovation. The rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive Opinion Survey.

GCI 2010 GCI 2010 GCI 2009 Change Country/Economy Rank Score Rank 2009-2010

Switzerland 1 5.63 1 0

Sweden 2 5.56 4 2

Singapore 3 5.48 3 0

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 358 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United States 4 5.43 2 -2

Germany 5 5.39 7 2

Japan 6 5.37 8 2

Finland 7 5.37 6 -1

Netherlands 8 5.33 10 2

Denmark 9 5.32 5 -4

Canada 10 5.30 9 -1

Hong Kong SAR 11 5.30 11 0

United Kingdom 12 5.25 13 1

Taiwan, China 13 5.21 12 -1

Norway 14 5.14 14 0

France 15 5.13 16 1

Australia 16 5.11 15 -1

Qatar 17 5.10 22 5

Austria 18 5.09 17 -1

Belgium 19 5.07 18 -1

Luxembourg 20 5.05 21 1

Saudi Arabia 21 4.95 28 7

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 359 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Korea, Rep. 22 4.93 19 -3

New Zealand 23 4.92 20 -3

Israel 24 4.91 27 3

United Arab Emirates 25 4.89 23 -2

Malaysia 26 4.88 24 -2

China 27 4.84 29 2

Brunei Darussalam 28 4.75 32 4

Ireland 29 4.74 25 -4

Chile 30 4.69 30 0

Iceland 31 4.68 26 -5

Tunisia 32 4.65 40 8

Estonia 33 4.61 35 2

Oman 34 4.61 41 7

Kuwait 35 4.59 39 4

Czech Republic 36 4.57 31 -5

Bahrain 37 4.54 38 1

Thailand 38 4.51 36 -2

Poland 39 4.51 46 7

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 360 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Cyprus 40 4.50 34 -6

Puerto Rico 41 4.49 42 1

Spain 42 4.49 33 -9

Barbados 43 4.45 44 1

Indonesia 44 4.43 54 10

Slovenia 45 4.42 37 -8

Portugal 46 4.38 43 -3

Lithuania 47 4.38 53 6

Italy 48 4.37 48 0

Montenegro 49 4.36 62 13

Malta 50 4.34 52 2

India 51 4.33 49 -2

Hungary 52 4.33 58 6

Panama 53 4.33 59 6

South Africa 54 4.32 45 -9

Mauritius 55 4.32 57 2

Costa Rica 56 4.31 55 -1

Azerbaijan 57 4.29 51 -6

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 361 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Brazil 58 4.28 56 -2

Vietnam 59 4.27 75 16

Slovak Republic 60 4.25 47 -13

Turkey 61 4.25 61 0

Sri Lanka 62 4.25 79 17

Russian Federation 63 4.24 63 0

Uruguay 64 4.23 65 1

Jordan 65 4.21 50 -15

Mexico 66 4.19 60 -6

Romania 67 4.16 64 -3

Colombia 68 4.14 69 1

Iran 69 4.14 n/a n/a

Latvia 70 4.14 68 -2

Bulgaria 71 4.13 76 5

Kazakhstan 72 4.12 67 -5

Peru 73 4.11 78 5

Namibia 74 4.09 74 0

Morocco 75 4.08 73 -2

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 362 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Botswana 76 4.05 66 -10

Croatia 77 4.04 72 -5

Guatemala 78 4.04 80 2

Macedonia, FYR 79 4.02 84 5

Rwanda 80 4.00 n/a n/a

Egypt 81 4.00 70 -11

El Salvador 82 3.99 77 -5

Greece 83 3.99 71 -12

Trinidad and Tobago 84 3.97 86 2

Philippines 85 3.96 87 2

Algeria 86 3.96 83 -3

Argentina 87 3.95 85 -2

Albania 88 3.94 96 8

Ukraine 89 3.90 82 -7

Gambia, The 90 3.90 81 -9

Honduras 91 3.89 89 -2

Lebanon 92 3.89 n/a n/a

Georgia 93 3.86 90 -3

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 363 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Moldova 94 3.86 n/a n/a

Jamaica 95 3.85 91 -4

Serbia 96 3.84 93 -3

Syria 97 3.79 94 -3

Armenia 98 3.76 97 -1

Mongolia 99 3.75 117 18

Libya 100 3.74 88 -12

Dominican Republic 101 3.72 95 -6

Bosnia and Herzegovina 102 3.70 109 7

Benin 103 3.69 103 0

Senegal 104 3.67 92 -12

Ecuador 105 3.65 105 0

Kenya 106 3.65 98 -8

Bangladesh 107 3.64 106 -1

Bolivia 108 3.64 120 12

Cambodia 109 3.63 110 1

Guyana 110 3.62 104 -6

Cameroon 111 3.58 111 0

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 364 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Nicaragua 112 3.57 115 3

Tanzania 113 3.56 100 -13

Ghana 114 3.56 114 0

Zambia 115 3.55 112 -3

Tajikistan 116 3.53 122 6

Cape Verde 117 3.51 n/a n/a

Uganda 118 3.51 108 -10

Ethiopia 119 3.51 118 -1

Paraguay 120 3.49 124 4

Kyrgyz Republic 121 3.49 123 2

Venezuela 122 3.48 113 -9

Pakistan 123 3.48 101 -22

Madagascar 124 3.46 121 -3

Malawi 125 3.45 119 -6

Swaziland 126 3.40 n/a n/a

Nigeria 127 3.38 99 -28

Lesotho 128 3.36 107 -21

Côte d'Ivoire 129 3.35 116 -13

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 365 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Nepal 130 3.34 125 -5

Mozambique 131 3.32 129 -2

Mali 132 3.28 130 -2

Timor-Leste 133 3.23 126 -7

Burkina Faso 134 3.20 128 -6

Mauritania 135 3.14 127 -8

Zimbabwe 136 3.03 132 -4

Burundi 137 2.96 133 -4

Angola 138 2.93 n/a n/a

Chad 139 2.73 131 -8

Methodology:

The competitiveness rankings are calculated from both publicly available data and the Executive Opinion Survey, a comprehensive annual survey conducted by the World Economic Forum together with its network of Partner Institutes (leading research institutes and business organizations) in the countries covered by the Report.

Highlights according to WEF --

- The United States falls two places to fourth position, overtaken by Sweden and Singapore in the rankings of the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report 2010-2011 - The People’s Republic of China continues to move up the rankings, with marked improvements in several other Asian countries - Germany moves up two places to fifth place, leading the Eurozone countries - Switzerland tops the rankings

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 366 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Source:

World Economic Forum; available at URL: http://www.weforum.org

Updated:

2011 using most recent ranking available; reviewed in 2015.

Taxation

Corporate tax

The main rate for resident companies is 30 percent on its worldwide profits, although there are lower rates for small businesses (i.e. a rate of 19 percent for companies with profits less than £300,000. Non-resident companies are subject to tax on British profits and certain assets. Dividends from resident companies are not typically taxed.

Individual tax

Individual tax rates are progressive and range from marginal rates of personal tax of 10 percent to as high as 40 percent. Individuals who do not treat the United Kingdom as their permanent home may enjoy certain favourable tax treatment.

Capital gains

Capital gains of companies and individuals are generally taxable, although there are some exemptions.

Indirect tax

The standard rate of value-added tax (VAT) is 17.5 percent. There are reduced rates of 5 percent items including fuel and installation of energy-saving materials, and a zero percent rate is in effect for some international services, food, water, books and newspapers, new home construction,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 367 of 506 pages United Kingdom passenger transport among other items.

Additional tax information

Individuals are subject to withholding tax on wages.

Tax treaties

The United Kingdom enjoys more than 115 tax treaties with other countries. As well, some tax rates in existence may be affected by these treaties or by prevailing European Union provisions.

NOTE:

Tax rates are subject to change and reflect only information available at the time of writing.

Stock Market

The United Kingdom's history of stock exchanges goes back to the 18th century.

Foreign investors are able to obtain credit in the market at normal market terms, and a wide range of credit instruments is available. The principles involved in legal, regulatory, and accounting systems are transparent. They are also consistent with such international standards as exist and with the nature of the markets. In all cases, regulations have been published and are applied on a non-discriminatory basis.

The British government restricts foreign investment in certain cases involving important national companies. Investment approval is only required for government-regulated sectors. Repatriation of funds is unrestricted.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 368 of 506 pages United Kingdom

By the end of the 1990s, the United Kingdom had 1,945 listed companies.

For information on the London Stock Exchange, see URL: http://www.londonstockexchange.com/.

Partner Links

Partner Links

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 369 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Chapter 5

Social Overview

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 370 of 506 pages United Kingdom

People

Cultural and Social Demography

Today, the United Kingdom's population -- estimated at approximately 62 million -- is the third largest in Europe and the 18th largest in the world. The overall of the United Kingdom is one of the highest in the world. Almost one-third of the population lives in England's prosperous and fertile southeast and is predominantly urban and suburban, with approximately 7.7 million in the capital of London.

Composed of a group of islands (called the British Isles), and located close to continental Europe, the United Kingdom has been subject to many invasions and migrations, especially from Scandinavia and the continent, including Roman occupation for several centuries.

Contemporary Britons are descended mainly from the varied ethnic stocks that settled there before the 11th century. The pre-Celtic, Celtic, Roman, Anglo-Saxon, and Norse influences were blended in Britain under the Normans, Scandinavian Vikings who had lived in Northern France.

Currently, approximately 82 percent of the population are English, and nearly 10 percent are Scottish. Irish make up just over two percent of the total, while the Welsh account for just under 2 percent of the population. The United Kingdom also has a substantial immigrant population from the countries of and the Caribbean. There are also immigrants from Africa, the Middle East and to a much lesser extent, the Pacific and America.

English is the predominant language. The language, English, belongs to the Indo-European family of languages, although there are relational connections of the language to Anglo-Saxon, Norman French and Germanic languages via a history of contact with these cultures. Cornish, Gaelic (Irish), Gaelic (Scottish), Manx and Welsh (Cymraeg) are also spoken. Although Celtic languages persist in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the throughout the United Kingdom is English. Of course, due to the cosmopolitan nature of cities, such as London, several other international languages are also spoken in the United Kingdom.

In terms of religious affiliation, the Anglican Church of England and the Presbyterian Church of Scotland are the official and predominant churches in their respective nations, but virtually all the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 371 of 506 pages United Kingdom world's religions are represented in the United Kingdom. In particular, there are substantial numbers of Roman Catholics, other Christian denomination, Muslim, Sikhs, Hindus and Jews.

Human Development

According to recent estimates, residents of the United Kingdom have an average life expectancy at birth of 78 years of age (75 years for males, 81 years for females). The population growth rate is estimated at .21 percent and the infant mortality rate is 5.45 deaths for every per 1,000 live births.

In terms of literacy, an estimated 99 percent of the total population, age 15 and older, can read and write. The United Kingdom's high literacy rate (99 percent) is attributable to universal public education introduced for the primary level in 1870 and secondary level in 1900. Education is mandatory from ages five through 16. About 20 percent of all British students goes on to post- secondary education.

About 9.3 percent of GDP is spent on health expenditures in this country; about 5.5 percent of GDP is spent on educational expenditures. Access to education, sanitation, water, and health is regarded to be very good.

One notable measure used to determine a country's quality of life is the Human Development Index (HDI), which has been compiled annually since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The HDI is a composite of several indicators, which measure a country's achievements in three main arenas of human development: longevity, knowledge and education, as well as economic standard of living. In recent rankings of 169 countries, the HDI placed the United Kingdom in the very high human development category, at 26th place.

Note: Although the concept of human development is complicated and cannot be properly captured by values and indices, the HDI, which is calculated and updated annually, offers a wide-ranging assessment of human development in certain countries, not based solely upon traditional economic and financial indicators.

Written by Dr. Denise Youngblood Coleman, Editor in Chief, www.countrywatch.com; see Bibliography for research sources.

Human Development Index

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 372 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Human Development Index

Human Development Index (Ranked Numerically)

The Human Development Index (HDI) is used to measure quality of life in countries across the world. The HDI has been compiled since 1990 by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on a regular basis. The HDI is a composite of several indicators, which measure a country's achievements in three main arenas of human development: longevity, education, and economic standard of living. Although the concept of human development is complicated and cannot be properly captured by values and indices, the HDI offers a wide-ranging assessment of human development in certain countries, not based solely upon traditional economic and financial indicators. For more information about the methodology used to calculate the HDI, please see the "Source Materials" in the appendices of this review.

Very High Human High Human Medium Human Low Human Development Development Development Development

1. Norway 43. Bahamas 86. Fiji 128. Kenya

2. Australia 44. Lithuania 87. Turkmenistan 129. Bangladesh

88. Dominican 3. New Zealand 45. Chile Republic 130. Ghana

4. United States 46. Argentina 89. China 131. Cameroon

132. Myanmar 5. Ireland 47. Kuwait 90. El Salvador (Burma)

6. Liechtenstein 48. Latvia 91. Sri Lanka 133. Yemen

7. Netherlands 49. Montenegro 92. Thailand 134. Benin

135. 8. Canada 50. Romania 93. Gabon Madagascar

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 373 of 506 pages United Kingdom

9. Sweden 51. Croatia 94. Surname 136. Mauritania

137. Papua 10. Germany 52. Uruguay 95. Bolivia New Guinea

11. Japan 53. Libya 96. Paraguay 138. Nepal

12. South Korea 54. Panama 97. Philippines 139. Togo

13. Switzerland 55. Saudi Arabia 98. Botswana 140. Comoros

14. France 56. Mexico 99. Moldova 141. Lesotho

15. Israel 57. Malaysia 100. Mongolia 142. Nigeria

16. Finland 58. Bulgaria 101. Egypt 143. Uganda

17. Iceland 59. Trinidad and Tobago 102. Uzbekistan 144. Senegal

18. Belgium 60. Serbia 103. Micronesia 145. Haiti

19. Denmark 61. Belarus 104. Guyana 146. Angola

20. Spain 62. Costa Rica 105. Namibia 147. Djibouti

21. Hong King 63. Peru 106. Honduras 148. Tanzania

149. Cote 22. Greece 64. Albania 107. Maldives d'Ivoire

23. Italy 65. Russian Federation 108. Indonesia 150. Zambia

24. Luxembourg 66. Kazakhstan 109. Kyrgyzstan 151. Gambia

25. Austria 67. Azerbaijan 110. South Africa 152. Rwanda

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 374 of 506 pages United Kingdom

26. United 68. Bosnia and Kingdom Herzegovina 111. Syria 153. Malawi

27. Singapore 69. Ukraine 112. Tajikistan 154. Sudan

28. Czech 155. Republic 70. Iran 113. Vietnam Afghanistan

71. The former Yugoslav 29. Slovenia Republic of Macedonia 114. Morocco 156. Guinea

30. Andorra 72. Mauritius 115. Nicaragua 157. Ethiopia

158. Sierra 31. Slovakia 73. Brazil 116. Guatemala Leone

159. Central 32. United Arab 117. Equatorial African Emirates 74. Georgia Guinea Republic

33. Malta 75. Venezuela 118. Cape Verde 160. Mali

161. Burkina 34. Estonia 76. Armenia 119. India Faso

35. Cyprus 77. Ecuador 120. East Timor 162. Liberia

36. Hungary 78. Belize 121. Swaziland 163. Chad

164. Guinea- 37. Brunei 79. Colombia 122. Laos Bissau

123. Solomon 165. 38. Qatar 80. Jamaica Islands Mozambique

39. Bahrain 81. Tunisia 124. Cambodia 166. Burundi

40. Portugal 82. Jordan 125. Pakistan 167. Niger

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 375 of 506 pages United Kingdom

168. Congo 41. Poland 83. Turkey 126. Congo RC DRC

127. Sao Tome 42. Barbados 84. Algeria and Principe 169. Zimbabwe

85. Tonga

Methodology:

For more information about the methodology used to calculate the HDI, please see the "Source Materials" in the appendices of this Country Review.

Reference:

As published in United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Report 2010.

Source:

United Nations Development Programme's Human Development Index available at URL: http://hdr.undp.org/en/statistics/

Updated:

Uploaded in 2011 using ranking available; reviewed in 2015

Life Satisfaction Index

Life Satisfaction Index

Life Satisfaction Index

Created by Adrian G. White, an Analytic Social Psychologist at the University of Leicester, the "Satisfaction with Life Index" measures subjective life satisfaction across various countries. The data was taken from a metastudy (see below for source) and associates the notion of subjective

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 376 of 506 pages United Kingdom happiness or life satisfaction with qualitative parameters such as health, wealth, and access to basic education. This assessment serves as an alternative to other measures of happiness that tend to rely on traditional and quantitative measures of policy on quality of life, such as GNP and GDP. The methodology involved the responses of 80,000 people across the globe.

Rank Country Score

1 Denmark 273.4

2 Switzerland 273.33

3 Austria 260

4 Iceland 260

5 The Bahamas 256.67

6 Finland 256.67

7 Sweden 256.67

8 Iran 253.33

9 Brunei 253.33

10 Canada 253.33

11 Ireland 253.33

12 Luxembourg 253.33

13 Costa Rica 250

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 377 of 506 pages United Kingdom

14 Malta 250

15 Netherlands 250

16 Antiguaand Barbuda 246.67

17 Malaysia 246.67

18 New Zealand 246.67

19 Norway 246.67

20 Seychelles 246.67

21 Saint Kitts and Nevis 246.67

22 United Arab Emirates 246.67

23 United States 246.67

24 Vanuatu 246.67

25 Venezuela 246.67

26 Australia 243.33

27 Barbados 243.33

28 Belgium 243.33

29 Dominica 243.33

30 Oman 243.33

31 Saudi Arabia 243.33

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 378 of 506 pages United Kingdom

32 Suriname 243.33

33 Bahrain 240

34 Colombia 240

35 Germany 240

36 Guyana 240

37 Honduras 240

38 Kuwait 240

39 Panama 240

40 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 240

41 United Kingdom 236.67

42 Dominican Republic 233.33

43 Guatemala 233.33

44 Jamaica 233.33

45 Qatar 233.33

46 Spain 233.33

47 Saint Lucia 233.33

48 Belize 230

49 Cyprus 230

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 379 of 506 pages United Kingdom

50 Italy 230

51 Mexico 230

52 Samoa 230

53 Singapore 230

54 Solomon Islands 230

55 Trinidad and Tobago 230

56 Argentina 226.67

57 Fiji 223.33

58 Israel 223.33

59 Mongolia 223.33

60 São Tomé and Príncipe 223.33

61 El Salvador 220

62 France 220

63 Hong Kong 220

64 Indonesia 220

65 Kyrgyzstan 220

66 Maldives 220

67 Slovenia 220

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 380 of 506 pages United Kingdom

68 Taiwan 220

69 East Timor 220

70 Tonga 220

71 Chile 216.67

72 Grenada 216.67

73 Mauritius 216.67

74 Namibia 216.67

75 Paraguay 216.67

76 Thailand 216.67

77 Czech Republic 213.33

78 Philippines 213.33

79 Tunisia 213.33

80 Uzbekistan 213.33

81 Brazil 210

82 China 210

83 Cuba 210

84 Greece 210

85 Nicaragua 210

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 381 of 506 pages United Kingdom

86 Papua New Guinea 210

87 Uruguay 210

88 Gabon 206.67

89 Ghana 206.67

90 Japan 206.67

91 Yemen 206.67

92 Portugal 203.33

93 Sri Lanka 203.33

94 Tajikistan 203.33

95 Vietnam 203.33

96 Bhutan 200

97 Comoros 196.67

98 Croatia 196.67

99 Poland 196.67

100 Cape Verde 193.33

101 Kazakhstan 193.33

102 South Korea 193.33

103 Madagascar 193.33

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 382 of 506 pages United Kingdom

104 Bangladesh 190

105 Republic of the Congo 190

106 The Gambia 190

107 Hungary 190

108 Libya 190

109 South Africa 190

110 Cambodia 186.67

111 Ecuador 186.67

112 Kenya 186.67

113 Lebanon 186.67

114 Morocco 186.67

115 Peru 186.67

116 Senegal 186.67

117 Bolivia 183.33

118 Haiti 183.33

119 Nepal 183.33

120 Nigeria 183.33

121 Tanzania 183.33

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 383 of 506 pages United Kingdom

122 Benin 180

123 Botswana 180

124 Guinea-Bissau 180

125 India 180

126 Laos 180

127 Mozambique 180

128 Palestinian Authority 180

129 Slovakia 180

130 Myanmar 176.67

131 Mali 176.67

132 Mauritania 176.67

133 Turkey 176.67

134 Algeria 173.33

135 Equatorial Guinea 173.33

136 Romania 173.33

137 Bosnia and Herzegovina 170

138 Cameroon 170

139 Estonia 170

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 384 of 506 pages United Kingdom

140 Guinea 170

141 Jordan 170

142 Syria 170

143 Sierra Leone 166.67

144 Azerbaijan 163.33

145 Central African Republic 163.33

146 Republic of Macedonia 163.33

147 Togo 163.33

148 Zambia 163.33

149 Angola 160

150 Djibouti 160

151 Egypt 160

152 Burkina Faso 156.67

153 Ethiopia 156.67

154 Latvia 156.67

155 Lithuania 156.67

156 Uganda 156.67

157 Albania 153.33

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 385 of 506 pages United Kingdom

158 Malawi 153.33

159 Chad 150

160 Côte d'Ivoire 150

161 Niger 150

162 Eritrea 146.67

163 Rwanda 146.67

164 Bulgaria 143.33

165 Lesotho 143.33

166 Pakistan 143.33

167 Russia 143.33

168 Swaziland 140

169 Georgia 136.67

170 Belarus 133.33

171 Turkmenistan 133.33

172 Armenia 123.33

173 Sudan 120

174 Ukraine 120

175 Moldova 116.67

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 386 of 506 pages United Kingdom

176 Democratic Republic of the Congo 110

177 Zimbabwe 110

178 Burundi 100

Commentary:

European countries, such as Denmark, Iceland, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Austria resided at the top of the ranking with highest levels of self-reported life satisfaction. Conversely, European countries such as Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine ranked low on the index. African countries such as Democratic Republic of Congo, Zimbabwe and Burundi found themselves at the very bottom of the ranking, and indeed, very few African countries could be found in the top 100. Japan was at the mid-way point in the ranking, however, other Asian countries such as Brunei and Malaysia were in the top tier, while Pakistan was close to the bottom with a low level of self-identified life satisfaction. As a region, the Middle East presented a mixed bad with Saudi Arabians reporing healthy levels of life satisfaction and Egyptians near the bottom of the ranking. As a region, Caribbean countries were ranked highly, consistently demonstrating high levels of life satisfaction. The findings showed that health was the most crucial determining factor in life satisfaction, followed by prosperity and education.

Source:

White, A. (2007). A Global Projection of Subjective Well-being: A Challenge To Positive Psychology? Psychtalk 56, 17-20. The data was extracted from a meta-analysis by Marks, Abdallah, Simms & Thompson (2006).

Uploaded:

Based on study noted above in "Source" ; reviewed in 2015

Happy Planet Index

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 387 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Happy Planet Index

The Happy Planet Index (HPI) is used to measure human well-being in conjunction with environmental impact. The HPI has been compiled since 2006 by the New Economics Foundation. The index is a composite of several indicators including subjective life satisfaction, life expectancy at birth, and ecological footprint per capita.

As noted by NEFA, the HPI "reveals the ecological efficiency with which human well-being is delivered." Indeed, the index combines environmental impact with human well-being to measure the environmental efficiency with which, country by country, people live long and happy lives. The countries ranked highest by the HPI are not necessarily the ones with the happiest people overall, but the ones that allow their citizens to live long and fulfilling lives, without negatively impacting this opportunity for either or citizens of other countries. Accordingly, a country like the United States will rank low on this list due to its large per capital ecological footprint, which uses more than its fair share of resources, and will likely cause planetary damage.

It should be noted that the HPI was designed to be a counterpoint to other well-established indices of countries' development, such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which measures overall national wealth and economic development, but often obfuscates the realities of countries with stark variances between the rich and the poor. Moreover, the objective of most of the world's people is not to be wealthy but to be happy. The HPI also differs from the Human Development Index (HDI), which measures quality of life but not ecology, since it [HPI] also includes sustainability as a key indicator.

Rank Country HPI

1 Costa Rica 76.1

2 Dominican Republic 71.8

3 Jamaica 70.1

4 Guatemala 68.4

5 Vietnam 66.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 388 of 506 pages United Kingdom

6 Colombia 66.1

7 Cuba 65.7

8 El Salvador 61.5

9 Brazil 61.0

10 Honduras 61.0

11 Nicaragua 60.5

12 Egypt 60.3

13 Saudi Arabia 59.7

14 Philippines 59.0

15 Argentina 59.0

16 Indonesia 58.9

17 Bhutan 58.5

18 Panama 57.4

19 Laos 57.3

20 China 57.1

21 Morocco 56.8

22 Sri Lanka 56.5

23 Mexico 55.6

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 389 of 506 pages United Kingdom

24 Pakistan 55.6

25 Ecuador 55.5

26 Jordan 54.6

27 Belize 54.5

28 Peru 54.4

29 Tunisia 54.3

30 Trinidad and Tobago 54.2

31 Bangladesh 54.1

32 Moldova 54.1

33 Malaysia 54.0

34 Tajikistan 53.5

35 India 53.0

36 Venezuela 52.5

37 Nepal 51.9

38 Syria 51.3

39 Burma 51.2

40 Algeria 51.2

41 Thailand 50.9

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 390 of 506 pages United Kingdom

42 Haiti 50.8

43 Netherlands 50.6

44 Malta 50.4

45 Uzbekistan 50.1

46 Chile 49.7

47 Bolivia 49.3

48 Armenia 48.3

49 Singapore 48.2

50 Yemen 48.1

51 Germany 48.1

52 Switzerland 48.1

53 Sweden 48.0

54 Albania 47.9

55 Paraguay 47.8

56 Palestinian Authority 47.7

57 Austria 47.7

58 Serbia 47.6

59 Finland 47.2

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 391 of 506 pages United Kingdom

60 Croatia 47.2

61 Kyrgyzstan 47.1

62 Cyprus 46.2

63 Guyana 45.6

64 Belgium 45.4

65 Bosnia and Herzegovina 45.0

66 Slovenia 44.5

67 Israel 44.5

68 South Korea 44.4

69 Italy 44.0

70 Romania 43.9

71 France 43.9

72 Georgia 43.6

73 Slovakia 43.5

74 United Kingdom 43.3

75 Japan 43.3

76 Spain 43.2

77 Poland 42.8

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 392 of 506 pages United Kingdom

78 Ireland 42.6

79 Iraq 42.6

80 Cambodia 42.3

81 Iran 42.1

82 Bulgaria 42.0

83 Turkey 41.7

84 Hong Kong 41.6

85 Azerbaijan 41.2

86 Lithuania 40.9

87 Djibouti 40.4

88 Norway 40.4

89 Canada 39.4

90 Hungary 38.9

91 Kazakhstan 38.5

92 Czech Republic 38.3

93 Mauritania 38.2

94 Iceland 38.1

95 Ukraine 38.1

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 393 of 506 pages United Kingdom

96 Senegal 38.0

97 Greece 37.6

98 Portugal 37.5

99 Uruguay 37.2

100 Ghana 37.1

101 Latvia 36.7

102 Australia 36.6

103 New Zealand 36.2

104 Belarus 35.7

105 Denmark 35.5

106 Mongolia 35.0

107 Malawi 34.5

108 Russia 34.5

109 Chad 34.3

110 Lebanon 33.6

111 Macedonia 32.7

112 Republic of the Congo 32.4

113 Madagascar 31.5

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 394 of 506 pages United Kingdom

114 United States 30.7

115 Nigeria 30.3

116 Guinea 30.3

117 Uganda 30.2

118 South Africa 29.7

119 Rwanda 29.6

120 Democratic Republic of the Congo 29.0

121 Sudan 28.5

122 Luxembourg 28.5

123 United Arab Emirates 28.2

124 Ethiopia 28.1

125 Kenya 27.8

126 Cameroon 27.2

127 Zambia 27.2

128 Kuwait 27.0

129 Niger 26.9

130 Angola 26.8

131 Estonia 26.4

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 395 of 506 pages United Kingdom

132 Mali 25.8

133 Mozambique 24.6

134 Benin 24.6

135 Togo 23.3

136 Sierra Leone 23.1

137 Central African Republic 22.9

138 Burkina Faso 22.4

139 Burundi 21.8

140 Namibia 21.1

141 Botswana 20.9

142 Tanzania 17.8

143 Zimbabwe 16.6

Source: This material is derived from the Happy Planet Index issued by the New Economics Foundation (NEF).

Methodology: The methodology for the calculations can be found at URL: http://www.happyplanetindex.org/

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 396 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Status of Women

Gender Related Development Index (GDI) Rank:

15th out of 140

Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) Rank:

18th out of 80

Female Population:

30.5 million

Female Life Expectancy at birth:

81 years

Total Fertility Rate:

1.7

Maternal Mortality Ratio (2000):

13

Total Number of Women Living with HIV/AIDS:

11,000-37,000

Ever Married Women, Ages 15-19 (%):

2%

Mean Age at Time of Marriage:

26

Contraceptive Use Among Married Women, Any Method (%):

84%

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 397 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Female Adult Literacy Rate:

Almost universal

Combined Female Gross enrollment ratio for Primary, Secondary and Tertiary schools:

133%

Female-Headed Households (%):

N/A

Economically Active Females (%):

53.5%

Female Contributing Family Workers (%):

68%

Female Estimated Earned Income:

$20,790

Seats in Parliament held by women (%):

Lower or Single House: 18.1% Upper House or Senate: 17.8%

Year Women Received the Right to Vote:

1918 (partial recognition) 1928 (full recognition)

Year Women Received the Right to Stand for Election:

1918 (partial recognition) 1928 (full recognition)

*The Gender Development Index (GDI) is a composite index which measures the average achievement in a country. While very similar to the Human Development Index in its use of the

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 398 of 506 pages United Kingdom same variables, the GDI adjusts the average achievement of each country in terms of life expectancy, enrollment in schools, income, and literacy in accordance to the disparities between males and females.

*The Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM) is a composite index measuring gender inequality in three of the basic dimensions of empowerment; economic participation and decision-making, political participation and decision-making, and power over economic resources.

*Total Fertility Rate (TFR) is defined as the average number of babies born to women during their reproductive years. A TFR of 2.1 is considered the replacement rate; once a TFR of a population reaches 2.1 the population will remain stable assuming no immigration or emigration takes place. When the TFR is greater than 2.1 a population will increase and when it is less than 2.1 a population will eventually decrease, although due to the age structure of a population it will take years before a low TFR is translated into lower population.

*Maternal Mortality Rate is the number of deaths to women per 100,000 live births that resulted from conditions related to pregnancy and or delivery related complications.

*Economically Active Females are the share of the female population, ages 15 and above, whom supply, or are able to supply, labor for the production of goods and services.

*Female Contributing Family Workers are those females who work without pay in an economic enterprise operated by a relative living in the same household.

*Estimated Earned Income is measured according to Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) in US dollars.

Global Gender Gap Index

Global Gender Gap Index

Editor's Note:

The Global Gender Gap Index by the World Economic Forum ranks most of the world’s countries in terms of the division of resources and opportunities among males and females. Specifically, the ranking assesses the gender inequality gap in these four arenas:

1. Economic participation and opportunity (salaries and high skilled employment participation

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 399 of 506 pages United Kingdom levels) 2. Educational attainment (access to basic and higher level education) 3. Political empowerment (representation in decision-making structures) 4. Health and survival (life expectancy and sex ratio)

2010 rank 2010 2010 2009 2009 2008 2008 2007 among rank score rank score rank score rank 2009 countries

Country

Iceland 1 0.8496 1 1 0.8276 4 0.7999 4

Norway 2 0.8404 2 3 0.8227 1 0.8239 2

Finland 3 0.8260 3 2 0.8252 2 0.8195 3

Sweden 4 0.8024 4 4 0.8139 3 0.8139 1

New 5 0.7808 5 5 0.7880 5 0.7859 5 Zealand

Ireland 6 0.7773 6 8 0.7597 8 0.7518 9

Denmark 7 0.7719 7 7 0.7628 7 0.7538 8

Lesotho 8 0.7678 8 10 0.7495 16 0.7320 26

Philippines 9 0.7654 9 9 0.7579 6 0.7568 6

Switzerland 10 0.7562 10 13 0.7426 14 0.7360 40

Spain 11 0.7554 11 17 0.7345 17 0.7281 10

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 400 of 506 pages United Kingdom

South Africa 12 0.7535 12 6 0.7709 22 0.7232 20

Germany 13 0.7530 13 12 0.7449 11 0.7394 7

Belgium 14 0.7509 14 33 0.7165 28 0.7163 19

United 15 0.7460 15 15 0.7402 13 0.7366 11 Kingdom

Sri Lanka 16 0.7458 16 16 0.7402 12 0.7371 15

Netherlands 17 0.7444 17 11 0.7490 9 0.7399 12

Latvia 18 0.7429 18 14 0.7416 10 0.7397 13

United 19 0.7411 19 31 0.7173 27 0.7179 31 States

Canada 20 0.7372 20 25 0.7196 31 0.7136 18

Trinidad and 21 0.7353 21 19 0.7298 19 0.7245 46 Tobago

Mozambique 22 0.7329 22 26 0.7195 18 0.7266 43

Australia 23 0.7271 23 20 0.7282 21 0.7241 17

Cuba 24 0.7253 24 29 0.7176 25 0.7195 22

Namibia 25 0.7238 25 32 0.7167 30 0.7141 29

Luxembourg 26 0.7231 26 63 0.6889 66 0.6802 58

Mongolia 27 0.7194 27 22 0.7221 40 0.7049 62

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 401 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Costa Rica 28 0.7194 28 27 0.7180 32 0.7111 28

Argentina 29 0.7187 29 24 0.7211 24 0.7209 33

Nicaragua 30 0.7176 30 49 0.7002 71 0.6747 90

Barbados 31 0.7176 31 21 0.7236 26 0.7188 n/a

Portugal 32 0.7171 32 46 0.7013 39 0.7051 37

Uganda 33 0.7169 33 40 0.7067 43 0.6981 50

Moldova 34 0.7160 34 36 0.7104 20 0.7244 21

Lithuania 35 0.7132 35 30 0.7175 23 0.7222 14

Bahamas 36 0.7128 36 28 0.7179 n/a n/a n/a

Austria 37 0.7091 37 42 0.7031 29 0.7153 27

Guyana 38 0.7090 38 35 0.7108 n/a n/a n/a

Panama 39 0.7072 39 43 0.7024 34 0.7095 38

Ecuador 40 0.7072 40 23 0.7220 35 0.7091 44

Kazakhstan 41 0.7055 41 47 0.7013 45 0.6976 32

Slovenia 42 0.7047 42 52 0.6982 51 0.6937 49

Poland 43 0.7037 43 50 0.6998 49 0.6951 60

Jamaica 44 0.7037 44 48 0.7013 44 0.6980 39

Russian 45 0.7036 45 51 0.6987 42 0.6994 45 Federation

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 402 of 506 pages United Kingdom

France 46 0.7025 46 18 0.7331 15 0.7341 51

Estonia 47 0.7018 47 37 0.7094 37 0.7076 30

Chile 48 0.7013 48 64 0.6884 65 0.6818 86

Macedonia, 49 0.6996 49 53 0.6950 53 0.6914 35 FYR

Bulgaria 50 0.6983 50 38 0.7072 36 0.7077 25

Kyrgyz 51 0.6973 51 41 0.7058 41 0.7045 70 Republic

Israel 52 0.6957 52 45 0.7019 56 0.6900 36

Croatia 53 0.6939 53 54 0.6944 46 0.6967 16

Honduras 54 0.6927 54 62 0.6893 47 0.6960 68

Colombia 55 0.6927 55 56 0.6939 50 0.6944 24

Singapore 56 0.6914 56 84 0.6664 84 0.6625 77

Thailand 57 0.6910 57 59 0.6907 52 0.6917 52

Greece 58 0.6908 58 85 0.6662 75 0.6727 72

Uruguay 59 0.6897 59 57 0.6936 54 0.6907 78

Peru 60 0.6895 60 44 0.7024 48 0.6959 75

China 61 0.6881 61 60 0.6907 57 0.6878 73

Botswana 62 0.6876 62 39 0.7071 63 0.6839 53

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 403 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Ukraine 63 0.6869 63 61 0.6896 62 0.6856 57

Venezuela 64 0.6863 64 69 0.6839 59 0.6875 55

Czech 65 0.6850 65 74 0.6789 69 0.6770 64 Republic

Tanzania 66 0.6829 66 73 0.6797 38 0.7068 34

Romania 67 0.6826 67 70 0.6805 70 0.6763 47

Malawi 68 0.6824 68 76 0.6738 81 0.6664 87

Paraguay 69 0.6804 69 66 0.6868 100 0.6379 69

Ghana 70 0.6782 70 80 0.6704 77 0.6679 63

Slovak 71 0.6778 71 68 0.6845 64 0.6824 54 Republic

Vietnam 72 0.6776 72 71 0.6802 68 0.6778 42

Dominican 73 0.6774 73 67 0.6859 72 0.6744 65 Republic

Italy 74 0.6765 74 72 0.6798 67 0.6788 84

Gambia, 75 0.6762 75 75 0.6752 85 0.6622 95 The

Bolivia 76 0.6751 76 82 0.6693 80 0.6667 80

Brueni 77 0.6748 77 94 0.6524 99 0.6392 n/a Darussalem

Albania 78 0.6726 78 91 0.6601 87 0.6591 66

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 404 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Hungary 79 0.6720 79 65 0.6879 60 0.6867 61

Madagascar 80 0.6713 80 77 0.6732 74 0.6736 89

Angola 81 0.6712 81 106 0.6353 114 0.6032 110

Bangladesh 82 0.6702 82 93 0.6526 90 0.6531 100

Malta 83 0.6695 83 88 0.6635 83 0.6634 76

Armenia 84 0.6669 84 90 0.6619 78 0.6677 71

Brazil 85 0.6655 85 81 0.6695 73 0.6737 74

Cyprus 86 0.6642 86 79 0.6706 76 0.6694 82

Indonesia 87 0.6615 87 92 0.6580 93 0.6473 81

Georgia 88 0.6598 88 83 0.6680 82 0.6654 67

Tajikistan 89 0.6598 89 86 0.6661 89 0.6541 79

El Salvador 90 0.6596 90 55 0.6939 58 0.6875 48

Mexico 91 0.6577 91 98 0.6503 97 0.6441 93

Zimbabwe 92 0.6574 92 95 0.6518 92 0.6485 88

Belize 93 0.6536 93 87 0.6636 86 0.6610 94

Japan 94 0.6524 94 101 0.6447 98 0.6434 91

Mauritius 95 0.6520 95 96 0.6513 95 0.6466 85

Kenya 96 0.6499 96 97 0.6512 88 0.6547 83

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 405 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Cambodia 97 0.6482 97 104 0.6410 94 0.6469 98

Malaysia 98 0.6479 98 100 0.6467 96 0.6442 92

Maldives 99 0.6452 99 99 0.6482 91 0.6501 99

Azerbaijan 100 0.6446 100 89 0.6626 61 0.6856 59

Senegal 101 0.6414 101 102 0.6427 n/a n/a n/a

Suriname 102 0.6407 102 78 0.6726 79 0.6674 56

United Arab 103 0.6397 103 112 0.6198 105 0.6220 105 Emirates

Korea, Rep. 104 0.6342 104 115 0.6146 108 0.6154 97

Kuwait 105 0.6318 105 105 0.6356 101 0.6358 96

Zambia 106 0.6293 106 107 0.6310 106 0.6205 101

Tunisia 107 0.6266 107 109 0.6233 103 0.6295 102

Fiji 108 0.6256 108 103 0.6414 n/a n/a n/a

Guatemala 109 0.6238 109 111 0.6209 112 0.6072 106

Bahrain 110 0.6217 110 116 0.6136 121 0.5927 115

Burkina 111 0.6162 111 120 0.6081 115 0.6029 117 Faso

India 112 0.6155 112 114 0.6151 113 0.6060 114

Mauritania 113 0.6152 113 119 0.6103 110 0.6117 111

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 406 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Cameroon 114 0.6110 114 118 0.6108 117 0.6017 116

Nepal 115 0.6084 115 110 0.6213 120 0.5942 125

Lebanon* 116 0.6084 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a

Qatar 117 0.6059 116 125 0.5907 119 0.5948 109

Nigeria 118 0.6055 117 108 0.6280 102 0.6339 107

Algeria 119 0.6052 118 117 0.6119 111 0.6111 108

Jordan 120 0.6048 119 113 0.6182 104 0.6275 104

Ethiopia 121 0.6019 120 122 0.5948 122 0.5867 113

Oman 122 0.5950 121 123 0.5938 118 0.5960 119

Iran 123 0.5933 122 128 0.5839 116 0.6021 118

Syria 124 0.5926 123 121 0.6072 107 0.6181 103

Egypt 125 0.5899 124 126 0.5862 124 0.5832 120

Turkey 126 0.5876 125 129 0.5828 123 0.5853 121

Morocco 127 0.5767 126 124 0.5926 125 0.5757 122

Benin 128 0.5719 127 131 0.5643 126 0.5582 123

Saudi Arabia 129 0.5713 128 130 0.5651 128 0.5537 124

Côte 130 0.5691 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a d'Ivoire*

Mali 131 0.5680 129 127 0.5860 109 0.6117 112

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 407 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Pakistan 132 0.5465 130 132 0.5458 127 0.5549 126

Chad 133 0.5330 131 133 0.5417 129 0.5290 127

Yemen 134 0.4603 132 134 0.4609 130 0.4664 128

Belarus n/a n/a n/a 34 0.7141 33 0.7099 23

Uzbekistan n/a n/a n/a 58 0.6913 55 0.6906 41

*new country 2010

Commentary:

According to the report’s index, Nordic countries, such as Iceland, Norway, Finland, and Sweden have continued to dominate at the top of the ranking for gender equality. Meanwhile, France has seen a notable decline in the ranking, largely as a result of decreased number of women holding ministerial portfolios in that country. In the Americas, the United States has risen in the ranking to top the region, predominantly as a result of a decreasing wage gap, as well as higher number of women holding key positions in the current Obama administration. Canada has continued to remain as one of the top ranking countries of the Americas, followed by the small Caribbean island nation of Trinidad and Tobago, which has the distinction of being among the top three countries of the Americans in the realm of gender equality. Lesotho and South African ranked highly in the index, leading not only among African countries but also in global context. Despite Lesotho still lagging in the area of life expectancy, its high ranking was attributed to high levels of female participation in the labor force and female literacy. The Philippines and Sri Lanka were the top ranking countries for gender equality for Asia, ranking highly also in global context. The Philippines has continued to show strong performance in all strong performance on all four dimensions (detailed above) of the index. Finally, in the Arab world, the United Arab Emirates held the highest-rank within that region of the world; however, its placement near the bottom of the global list highlights the fact that Arab countries are generally poor performers when it comes to the matter of gender equality in global scope.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 408 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Source:

This data is derived from the latest edition of The Global Gender Gap Report by the World Economic Forum.

Available at URL: http://www.weforum.org/en/Communities/Women%20Leaders%20and%20Gender%20Parity/GenderGapNetwork/index.htm

Updated:

Based on latest available data as set forth in chart; reviewed in 2014

Culture and Arts

Content coming soon.

Etiquette

• A handshake is standard for business occasions and when visiting a home. Men should wait for a woman to extend her hand first. When introduced, one should say, "How do you do?" instead of "Nice to meet you." The question is rhetorical and one should not anticipate a response.

• The British are beginning to use first names more frequently -- as is typically the case in the United States -- however one should only do so at the initiative of one's host. Erring on the side of caution and orthodoxy is recommended, unless invited to do otherwise.

• If one smokes, one should always offer the cigarettes around to others before taking one for one's self.

• It is not polite to toast those who are older or more senior in age or position.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 409 of 506 pages United Kingdom

• In general, one should maintain very proper manners. When dining, one should always keep one's hands above the table (but no elbows on the table). When dining out, one should not inquire about the food one sees around, and one should not ask to sample the dishes of others. "Sharing" dishes, a practice that is fairly common in Canada and the United States, is not common elsewhere. Of course, theses are generalizations are should be treated as such.

• Men should hold doors open for women and rise when a woman enters a room.

• In conversation, one should avoid topics such as politics or religion and other controversial issues until some degree of a realtionship is established. One should also avoid asking personal questions. Jokes about the royal family are equally inappropriate. General fare about travel, sports, music, sightseeing, theatre, movies and the like are appropriate subjects for discussion.

• Britain refers to the island on which England, Wales, and Scotland are located. Although the English are in the habit of referring to all natives of the Britain as "Brits," this term is not ubiquitously appreciated by the Welsh and the Scots. Northern Ireland shares the island of Eire with the Republic of Ireland. It is both incorrect and insulting to call someone from Eire a "Brit." Furthermore, the English often do not consider themselves European. Try to be aware of these nuances.

• If and when one is invited to a British home, one may bring flowers, liquor or champagne, and chocolates. White flowers, which signify death, are to be avoided. One may wish to ask the florist about the appropriate type and number.

• Having been invited to a British home, one should be sure to thank the host or hostess with a brief, handwritten thank you note promptly afterwards, preferably by messenger rather than by mail.

• In all correspondence, short and clipped notes (via regular mail or electronic mail), using abbreviated terms or references, is usually considered odd or impolite. Try to convey all forms of written correspondence in conventional form, avoiding initializations or incomplete sentences that are commonplace in North American cultures.

• In terms of paralanguage, it is considered impolite to talk with one's hands in one's pockets. Also, the British often do not look at the other person while they talk. Also, one should not point with one's finger, but instead indicate something with one's head. Note that sitting with your ankle resting on your knee may be seen as impolite. Note also that tapping one's nose conveys that a subject is confidential or a secret.

• One should always be aware of the culturally-determined space between people. In Britain, a

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 410 of 506 pages United Kingdom wide physical space between conversational partners is maintained.

• Unlike other cultures which are famous for their passionate gesticulations, the British are generally more restrained. As such, one should maintain an equivalent level of reticence and reserve in one's demeanor, and one should also avoid excessive hand movements.

• In casual settings, especially watching local soccer matches (which in Britain are referred to as "football matches"), one should give the "victory" sign (a "V" with two fingers) with the palm facing outward.

• The British "pub" is the centerpiece of the social life. Pubs have their own special and circumscribed etiquette, which is practiced among regular visitors. Foremost in the code of proper pub behavior is generosity in buying drinks for others. If one has a conversation with another at the bar, for example, when one orders a fresh drink, it is good etiquette to offer to buy a drink for one's acquaintance with the phrase, "And one for yourself?" Learning the extensive code of proper pub behavior is highly recommended, if one intends to visit British pubs on a regular basis.

• In Britain, the style of dress will depend upon the occasion. Business dress should be neat and conservative, typified by the traditional business suit for both men and women. Some social occasions will require a formal dress; casual dress is suitable in other settings.

Travel Information

Please Note

This is a generalized travel guide and it is intended to coalesce several resources, which a traveler might find useful, regardless of a particular destination. As such, it does not include travel warnings for specific "hot spot" destinations.

For travel alerts and warnings, please see the United States Department of State's listings available at URL: http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/english/alertswarnings.html

Please note that travel to the following countries, based on these warnings, is ill-advised, or should be undertaken with the utmost precaution:

Afghanistan, Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Colombia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Djibouti, El Salvador, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 411 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Honduras, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Mali, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Palestinian Territories of West Bank and Gaza, Philippines areas of Sulu Archipelago, Mindanao, and southern Sulu Sea, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Syria, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Yemen.

International Travel Guide

Checklist for Travelers

1. Take out travel insurance to cover hospital treatment or medical evacuation. Overseas medical costs are expensive to most international travelers, where one's domestic, nationalized or even private health insurance plans will not provide coverage outside one's home country. Learn about "reciprocal insurance plans" that some international health care companies might offer. 2. Make sure that one's travel insurance is appropriate. If one intends to indulge in adventurous activities, such as parasailing, one should be sure that one is fully insured in such cases. Many traditional insurance policies do not provide coverage in cases of extreme circumstances. 3. Take time to learn about one's destination country and culture. Read and learn about the place one is traveling. Also check political, economic and socio-cultural developments at the destination by reading country-specific travel reports and fact sheets noted below. 4. Get the necessary visas for the country (or countries) one intends to visit - but be aware that a visa does not guarantee entry. A number of useful sites regarding visa and other entry requirements are noted below. 5. Keep in regular contact with friends and relatives back at home by phone or email, and be sure to leave a travel itinerary. 6. Protect one's personal information by making copies of one's passport details, insurance policy, travelers checks and credit card numbers. Taking copies of such documents with you, while leaving another collection copies with someone at home is also good practice for travelers. Taking copies of one's passport photograph is also recommended. 7. Stay healthy by taking all possible precautions against illness. Also, be sure to take extra supplies of prescription drugs along for the trip, while also taking time to pack general pharmaceutical supplies, such as aspirin and other such painkillers, bandages, stomach ailment medication, anti- inflammatory medication and anti-bacterial medication. 8. Do not carry illicit drugs. Understand that the punishment for possession or use of illegal drugs in some countries may be capital punishment. Make sure your prescription drugs are legal in the countries you plan to visit. 9. Know the laws of one's destination country and culture; be sure to understand the repercussions of breaking those laws and regulations. Often the transparency and freedoms of the juridical system at home is not consistent with that of one's destination country. Become aware of these complexities and subtleties before you travel.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 412 of 506 pages United Kingdom

10. For longer stays in a country, or where the security situation is volatile, one should register one's self and traveling companions at the local embassy or consulate of one's country of citizenship. 11. Women should take care to be prepared both culturally and practically for traveling in a different country and culture. One should be sure to take sufficient supplies of personal feminine products and prescription drugs. One should also learn about local cultural standards for women, including norms of dressing. Be aware that it is simply inappropriate and unsafe for women to travel alone in some countries, and take the necessary precautions to avoid risk-filled situations. 12. If one is traveling with small children, one should pack extra supplies, make arrangements with the travel carrier for proper seating that would adequately accommodate children, infants or toddlers. Note also that whether one is male of female, traveling with children means that one's hands are thus not free to carry luggage and bags. Be especially aware that this makes one vulnerable to pickpockets, thieves and other sorts of crime. 13. Make proper arrangements for accommodations, well in advance of one's arrival at a destination. Some countries have limited accommodation, while others may have culturally distinctive facilities. Learning about these practicalities before one travels will greatly aid the enjoyment of one's trip. 14. Travel with different forms of currency and money (cash, traveler's checks and credit cards) in anticipation that venues may not accept one or another form of money. Also, ensuring that one's financial resources are not contained in one location, or by one person (if one is traveling with others) can be a useful measure, in the event that one loses a wallet or purse. 15. Find out about transportation in the destination country. In some places, it might be advisable to hire a local driver or taxi guide for safety reasons, while in other countries, enjoying one's travel experience may well be enhanced by renting a vehicle and seeing the local sights and culture independently. Costs may also be prohibitive for either of these choices, so again, prior planning is suggested.

Tips for Travelers

A passport is required. Tourists are not obliged to obtain a visa for stays of up to six months in the United Kingdom or to enter Gibraltar. Those wishing to remain longer than one month in Gibraltar should regularize their stay with Gibraltar immigration authorities. Further information on entry requirements may be obtained from the nearest British Embassy.

The United Kingdom is stable and modern. Political demonstrations are well policed and, except at times in Northern Ireland, generally orderly. There is, however, a history of terrorist violence related to the political situation in Northern Ireland (a part of the United Kingdom).

Numerous incidents of terrorist violence have occurred throughout England and Northern Ireland. Foreign citizens have not been specifically targeted, but some have been injured when caught up in

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 413 of 506 pages United Kingdom disturbances. In the last year, a major suburban London bridge was damaged by a bomb, various explosions occurred in high-density London neighborhoods, and an explosive device discovered on a London subway line caused major public transport delays.

In recent years, there has been widespread civil unrest throughout Northern Ireland during the summer marching season (April to August). As a result, American citizens traveling in Northern Ireland have experienced delays and disruption. Some degree of civil unrest may continue for the foreseeable future.

During the fall of 2000, fuel refinery blockades by the transport industry caused fuel shortages that curtailed emergency services, public transport (including airlines) and slowed or halted distribution of food and other vital commodities. Gas pump lines caused major traffic jams throughout the U.K. Further protest and resultant disruptions - even to tourists - cannot be ruled out if there is continued concern about high fuel prices.

While the United Kingdom and Gibraltar benefit from generally low crime rates, The U.K. has recently experienced an increase in crime, including crimes involving violence. Incidents of pickpocketing, muggings, "snatch and grab" thefts of watches and jewelry and theft of unattended bags are extremely common. According to U.K. government reports, these have increased significantly over the last year.

Pickpockets target tourists, especially at historic sites, restaurants, on buses, trains and the London Underground (subway). Thieves often target unattended cars parked at tourist sites. In London, travelers should use only licensed "black taxi cabs" or car services recommended by their hotel or tour operator. Unlicensed taxis or private cars posing as taxis may offer low fares, but are often uninsured and may have unlicensed drivers. In some instances, travelers have been robbed while using these cars.

Due to the circumstances described above, visitors should take steps to ensure the safety of their passports. Visitors in England, Scotland and Wales are not expected to produce identity documents for police authorities and thus may secure their passports in hotel safes or residences. In Northern Ireland, however, passports or other photographic I.D. should be carried at all times. The need to carry a passport to cash Travelers Checks is also minimized by an abundance of ATM's able to access systems widely used in the U.S. and offering more favorable rates of exchange.

The loss or theft of a passport should be reported immediately to the local police and the nearest embassy or consulate.

While good medical services are widely available, free care under the National Health System is allowed only to U.K. residents.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 414 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Doctors and hospitals often expect immediate cash payment for medical services. Uninsured travelers who require medical care overseas may face extreme difficulties.

Check with your own insurance company to confirm whether your policy applies overseas, including provisions for medical evacuation, and for adequacy of coverage. Generally, travel insurance cannot be purchased once you have departed your country. Serious medical problems requiring hospitalization and/or medical evacuation back to your country can be very expensive. Ascertain whether payment will be made to the overseas hospital or doctor or whether you will be reimbursed later for expenses you incur. Some insurance policies also include coverage for psychiatric treatment and for disposition of remains in the event of death.

While in a foreign country, you may encounter road conditions that differ significantly from those in your country. The information below concerning the United Kingdom is provided for general reference only, and may not be totally accurate in a particular location or circumstance.

Safety of Public Transportation: Excellent Urban Road Condition/Maintenance: Excellent Rural Road Condition/Maintenance: Excellent Availability of Roadside Assistance: Excellent

U.K. penalties for drunk driving are stiff and often result in prison sentences. Visitors uncomfortable with or intimidated by the prospect of driving on the left-hand side of the road may wish to avail themselves of extensive bus, rail and air transport networks that are reasonably inexpensive. Roads in the United Kingdom are generally good, but are narrow and often congested in urban areas. If you plan to drive while in the U.K., you may wish to obtain a copy of The Highway Code, available in the United Kingdom.

Public transport in the United Kingdom is excellent and extensive. However, poor track conditions were thought to have contributed to train derailments resulting in some fatalities. Repairs are underway and the overall safety record is excellent.

Many foreign citizens are injured every year in pedestrian accidents in the United Kingdom, forgetting that traffic moves in the opposite direction than in their country.

Care should be taken when crossing streets.

In Gibraltar, as in the U.S. and Continental Europe, driving is on the right-hand side of the road. Persons traveling overland between Gibraltar and Spain may experience long delays in clearing Spanish border controls.

The phone number for police/fire/ambulance emergency services is 999 in the United Kingdom

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 415 of 506 pages United Kingdom and 12 in Gibraltar.

British customs authorities may strictly enforce regulations regarding the import or export of certain items, including material deemed likely to incite racial hatred, firearms and personal defense items such as mace or knives. It is advisable to contact the British or one of the United Kingdom's consulates for specific information regarding customs requirements. Customs authorities encourage the use of an ATA (Admission Temporaire/Temporary Admission) Carnet for the temporary admission of professional equipment, commercial samples, and/or goods for exhibitions and fair purposes.

While in a foreign country, you are subject to that country's laws and regulations. Persons violating British law, even unknowingly, may be expelled, arrested or imprisoned. Penalties for possession, use or trafficking in illegal drugs in the United Kingdom are strict, and convicted offenders can expect jail sentences and heavy fines.

Air travelers to and from the United Kingdom should be aware that penalties against alcohol-related and other in-flight crimes ("air rage") are stiff and are being enforced with prison sentences.

Note: This information is directly quoted from the United States Department of State Consular Information Sheet.

Sources: United States Department of State Consular Information Sheet

Business Culture: Information for Business Travelers

The British class structure based on property and land ownership has been eroded by taxation, education, and social developments over the last few decades. Liberalization of business and industry has rewarded enterprise, and a new generation of professionals schooled in management, marketing and finance techniques has increasingly taken charge.

Ethnic minorities constitute about six percent of the population and have proven to be valuable contributors to the British economy.

Some fundamental cultural differences between North America and the UK remain. Variations in pace and style may be most noticeable, and sustained personal contact with potential business partners is expected. Prompt acknowledgment of correspondence, adherence to appointment schedules, and a greater formality in the conduct of business is the norm.

British executives communicate more by letter and fax than by telephone, although the Internet is widely used, and e-mail is becoming more common. The British are less likely to seek legal advice

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 416 of 506 pages United Kingdom and guidance than their North American counterparts, although a litigation culture is developing along the lines of the U.S. model - i.e. no win, no fee cases have recently been permitted.

Sources: United States Department of State Commercial Guides

Online Resources Regarding Entry Requirements and Visas

Foreign Entry Requirements for Americans from the United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html

Visa Services for Non-Americans from the United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/visa/visa_1750.html

Visa Bulletins from the United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/bulletin/bulletin_1360.html

Visa Waivers from the United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/visa/temp/without/without_1990.html - new

Passport and Visa Information from the Government of the United Kingdom http://www.bia.homeoffice.gov.uk/

Visa Information from the Government of Australia http://www.dfat.gov.au/visas/index.html

Passport Information from the Government of Australia https://www.passports.gov.au/Web/index.aspx

Passport Information from the Government of Canada http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/passport_passeport-eng.asp

Visa Information from the Government of Canada http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/visas-eng.asp

Online Visa Processing by Immigration Experts by VisaPro http://www.visapro.com

Sources: United States Department of State, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 417 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Government of Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Government of Canada Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Useful Online Resources for Travelers

Country-Specific Travel Information from United States http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1765.html

Travel Advice by Country from Government of United Kingdom http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/

General Travel Advice from Government of Australia http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/General

Travel Bulletins from the Government of Australia http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/TravelBulletins/

Travel Tips from Government of Australia http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/tips/index.html

Travel Checklist by Government of Canada http://www.voyage.gc.ca/preparation_information/checklist_sommaire-eng.asp

Travel Checklist from Government of United Kingdom http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/staying-safe/checklist

Your trip abroad from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/brochures_1225.html

A safe trip abroad from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/safety/safety_1747.html

Tips for expatriates abroad from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/living/residing/residing_1235.html

Tips for students from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/living/studying/studying_1238.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/brochures/brochures_1219.html

Medical information for travelers from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/tips/health/health_1185.html

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 418 of 506 pages United Kingdom

US Customs Travel information http://www.customs.gov/xp/cgov/travel/

Sources: United States Department of State; United States Customs Department, United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government of Australia; Government of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

Other Practical Online Resources for Travelers

Foreign Language Phrases for Travelers http://www.travlang.com/languages/ http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/index.htm

World Weather Forecasts http://www.intellicast.com/ http://www.wunderground.com/ http://www.worldweather.org/

Worldwide Time Zones, Map, World Clock http://www.timeanddate.com/ http://www.worldtimezone.com/

International Airport Codes http://www.world-airport-codes.com/

International Dialing Codes http://www.kropla.com/dialcode.htm http://www.countrycallingcodes.com/

International Phone Guide http://www.kropla.com/phones.htm

International Mobile Phone Guide http://www.kropla.com/mobilephones.htm

International Internet Café Search Engine http://cybercaptive.com/

Global Internet Roaming

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 419 of 506 pages United Kingdom http://www.kropla.com/roaming.htm

World Electric Power Guide http://www.kropla.com/electric.htm http://www.kropla.com/electric2.htm

World Television Standards and Codes http://www.kropla.com/tv.htm International Currency Exchange Rates http://www.xe.com/ucc/

Banking and Financial Institutions Across the World http://www.123world.com/banks/index.html

International Credit Card or Automated Teller Machine (ATM) Locator http://visa.via.infonow.net/locator/global/ http://www.mastercard.com/us/personal/en/cardholderservices/atmlocations/index.html

International Chambers of Commerce http://www.123world.com/chambers/index.html

World Tourism Websites http://123world.com/tourism/

Diplomatic and Consular Information

United States Diplomatic Posts Around the World http://www.usembassy.gov/

United Kingdom Diplomatic Posts Around the World http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/about-the-fco/embassies-and-posts/find-an-embassy-overseas/

Australia's Diplomatic Posts Around the World http://www.dfat.gov.au/missions/ http://www.dfat.gov.au/embassies.html

Canada's Embassies and High Commissions http://www.international.gc.ca/ciw-cdm/embassies-ambassades.aspx

Resources for Finding Embassies and other Diplomatic Posts Across the World

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 420 of 506 pages United Kingdom http://www.escapeartist.com/embassy1/embassy1.htm

Safety and Security

Travel Warnings by Country from Government of Australia http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/

Travel Warnings and Alerts from United States Department of State http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/pa/pa_1766.html

Travel Reports and Warnings by Government of Canada http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/menu-eng.asp http://www.voyage.gc.ca/countries_pays/updates_mise-a-jour-eng.asp

Travel Warnings from Government of United Kingdom http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/ http://www.fco.gov.uk/en/travelling-and-living-overseas/travel-advice-by-country/? action=noTravelAll#noTravelAll

Sources: United Kingdom Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the United States Department of State, the Government of Canada: Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Government of Australia: Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

Other Safety and Security Online Resources for Travelers

United States Department of State Information on Terrorism http://www.state.gov/s/ct/

Government of the United Kingdom Resource on the Risk of Terrorism http://www.fco.gov.uk/servlet/Front? pagename=OpenMarket/Xcelerate/ShowPage&c=Page&cid=1044011304926

Government of Canada Terrorism Guide http://www.international.gc.ca/crime/terrorism-terrorisme.aspx?lang=eng

Information on Terrorism by Government of Australia http://www.dfat.gov.au/icat/index.html

FAA Resource on Aviation Safety

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 421 of 506 pages United Kingdom http://www.faasafety.gov/

In-Flight Safety Information for Air Travel (by British Airways crew trainer, Anna Warman) http://www.warman.demon.co.uk/anna/inflight.html

Hot Spots: Travel Safety and Risk Information http://www.airsecurity.com/hotspots/HotSpots.asp

Information on Human Rights http://www.state.gov/g/drl/hr/

Sources: The United States Department of State, the United States Customs Department, the Government of Canada, the Government of United Kingdom, the Government of Australia, the Federal Aviation Authority, Anna Warman's In-flight Website, Hot Spots Travel and Risk Information

Diseases/Health Data

Please Note: Most of the entry below constitutes a generalized health advisory, which a traveler might find useful, regardless of a particular destination.

As a supplement, however, the reader will also find below a list of countries flagged with current health notices and alerts issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Please note that travel to the following countries, based on these 3 levels of warnings, is ill-advised, or should be undertaken with the utmost precaution:

Level 3 (highest level of concern; avoid non-essential travel) --

Guinea - Ebola Liberia - Ebola

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 422 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Nepal - Eathquake zone Sierra Leone - Ebola

Level 2 (intermediate level of concern; use utmost caution during travel) --

Cameroon - Polio Somalia - Polio Vanuatu - Tropical Cyclone zone Throughout Middle East and Arabia Peninsula - MERS ((Middle East Respiratory Syndrome)

Level 1 (standard level of concern; use practical caution during travel) -

Australia - Ross River disease Bosnia-Herzegovina - Measles Brazil - Dengue Fever Brazil - Malaria Brazil - Zika China - H7N9 Avian flu Cuba - Cholera Egypt - H5N1 Bird flu Ethiopia - Measles Germany - Measles Japan - Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) Kyrgyzstan - Measles Malaysia -Dengue Fever Mexico - Chikungunya Mexico - Hepatitis A Nigeria - Meningitis Philippines - Measles Scotland - Mumps Singapore - Hand, foot, and mouth disease (HFMD) South Korea - MERS ((Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) Throughout Caribbean - Chikungunya Throughout Central America - Chikungunya Throughout - Chikungunya Throughout Pacific Islands - Chikungunya

For specific information related to these health notices and alerts please see the CDC's listing available at URL: http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel/notices

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 423 of 506 pages United Kingdom

***

Health Information for Travelers to the United Kingdom

The preventive measures you need to take while traveling in Western Europe depend on the areas you visit and the length of time you stay. For most areas of this region, you should observe health precautions similar to those that would apply while traveling in the United States.

Travelers' diarrhea, the number one illness in travelers, can be caused by viruses, bacteria, or parasites, which can contaminate food or water. Infections may cause diarrhea and vomiting (E. coli, Salmonella, cholera, and parasites), fever (typhoid fever and toxoplasmosis), or liver damage (hepatitis). Make sure your food and drinking water are safe. (See below.)

A certificate of yellow fever vaccination may be required for entry into certain of these countries if you are coming from countries in tropical South America or sub-Saharan Africa. (There is no risk for yellow fever in Western Europe.) For detailed information, see Comprehensive Yellow Fever Vaccination Requirements (

Tickborne encephalitis, a viral infection of the central nervous system, occurs chiefly in Central and Western Europe. Travelers are at risk who visit or work in forested areas during the summer months and who consume unpasteurized dairy products. The vaccine for this disease is not available in the United States at this time. To prevent tickborne encephalitis, as well as Lyme disease, travelers should take precautions to prevent tick bites (see below).

CDC Recommends the Following Vaccines (as Appropriate for Age):

See your doctor at least 4-6 weeks before your trip to allow time for shots to take effect.

• Hepatitis A or immune globulin (IG). You are not at increased risk in Northern, Western, and Southern Europe, including the Mediterranean regions of Italy and Greece. • Hepatitis B, if you might be exposed to blood (for example, health-care workers), have sexual contact with the local population, stay longer than 6 months in Southern Europe, or be exposed through medical treatment. • As needed, booster doses for tetanus-diphtheria. Hepatitis B vaccine is now recommended for all infants and for children ages 11-12 years who did not complete the series as infants.

All travelers should take the following precautions, no matter the destination:

• Wash hands often with soap and water.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 424 of 506 pages United Kingdom

• Because motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of injury among travelers, walk and drive defensively. Avoid travel at night if possible and always use seat belts. • Always use latex condoms to reduce the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases. • Don't eat or drink dairy products unless you know they have been pasteurized. • Don't share needles with anyone. • Never eat undercooked ground beef and poultry, raw eggs, and unpasteurized dairy products. Raw shellfish is particularly dangerous to persons who have liver disease or compromised immune systems. (Travelers to Western Europe should also see the information on Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy ["Mad Cow Disease"] and New Variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease [nvCJD] at URL

Travelers to rural or undeveloped areas should take the following precautions:

To Stay Healthy, Do:

• Drink only bottled or boiled water, or carbonated (bubbly) drinks in cans or bottles. Avoid tap water, fountain drinks, and ice cubes. If this is not possible, make water safer by BOTH filtering through an "absolute 1-micron or less" filter AND adding iodine tablets to the filtered water. "Absolute 1-micron filters" are found in camping/outdoor supply stores. • Eat only thoroughly cooked food or fruits and vegetables you have peeled yourself. Remember: boil it, cook it, peel it, or forget it. • Protect yourself from insects by remaining in well-screened areas, using repellents (applied sparingly at 4-hour intervals), and wearing long-sleeved shirts and long pants tucked into boots or socks as a deterrent to ticks. • To prevent fungal and parasitic infections, keep feet clean and dry, and do not go barefoot.

To Avoid Getting Sick:

• Don't eat food purchased from street vendors. Do not drink beverages with ice. • Don't handle animals (especially monkeys, dogs, and cats), to avoid bites and serious diseases (including rabies and plague).

What You Need To Bring with You:

• Insect repellent containing DEET (diethylmethyltoluamide), in 30%-35% strength for adults and 6%-10% for children. The insecticide permethrin applied to clothing is an effective deterrent to ticks. • Over-the-counter antidiarrheal medicine to take if you have diarrhea. • Iodine tablets and water filters to purify water if bottled water is not available. See Food and Water Precautions and Travelers' Diarrhea Prevention ( and Risks from Food and Drink ( for more

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 425 of 506 pages United Kingdom detailed information about water filters. • Sunblock, sunglasses, hat. • Prescription medications: make sure you have enough to last during your trip, as well as a copy of the prescription(s).

After You Return Home:

If you become ill after your trip-even as long as a year after you return-tell your doctor where you have traveled.

For More Information:

Ask your doctor or check the CDC web sites for more information about how to protect yourself against diseases that occur in Western Europe, such as:

For information about diseases-

Carried by Insects Lyme disease

Carried in Food or Water Bovine spongiform encephalopathy ("mad cow disease"), Escherichia coli, diarrhea, Hepatitis A, Typhoid Fever

Person-to-Person Contact Hepatitis B, HIV/AIDS

For more information about these and other diseases, please check the Diseases ( section and the Health Topics A-Z (

Note:

The United Kingdom is located in the Western Europe health region.

Sources:

The Center for Disease Control Destinations Website:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 426 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 427 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Chapter 6

Environmental Overview

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 428 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Environmental Issues

General Overview:

The United Kingdom has significant industrial pollution including water pollution from waste dumping; air pollution from greenhouse gas and sulfur dioxide emissions; and more recently, significant levels of radiation from radon in the soil. It is also home to natural resources, such as coal, oil, and gas, as well as their associated industries. These energy-based industries have an added impact on the environment.

Current Issues:

-sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants -greenhouse gas emissions -rivers polluted by agricultural waste -coastal water pollution from large-scale disposal of sewage at sea -loss of marine life and marine life habitats, as a result of river and coastal water pollution -radon seepage from soil into inhabited structures

Total Greenhouse Gas Emissions (Mtc):

180.2

Country Rank (GHG output):

10th

Natural Hazards:

-winter windstorms -floods

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 429 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Environmental Policy

Regulation and Jurisdiction:

The regulation and protection of the environment in the United Kingdom is under the jurisdiction of the following:

Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, and Food Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions Environment Agency Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland British Library Environmental Information Service English Nature-Nature Conservancy Council for England Environment Select Committee ESRC Global Environmental Change Program Scottish Environment Protection Agency Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Major Non-Governmental Organizations:

British Herpetological Society British Organic Farmers/Organic Growers Association Care for the Wild Center for Alternative Technology in Wales Council for Posterity Earthwatch Elm Farm Research Center Environmental Investigation Agency European Council for the and Small Town Falklands Conservation Fauna and Flora Preservation Society International Council for Bird Preservation International Tree Foundation International Waterfowl and Wetlands Research Bureau International Union of Air Pollution Prevention Associations Jersey Wildlife Preservation Trust Landscape Institute

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 430 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Men of the Trees National Association for Environmental Education National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty

International Environmental Accords:

Party to:

Air Pollution Air Pollution-Nitrogen Oxides Air Pollution-Sulfur 94 Air Pollution-Volatile Organic Compounds Antarctic-Environmental Protocol Antarctic-Marine Living Resources Antarctic Seals Antarctic Treaty Biodiversity Climate Change Climate Change-Kyoto Protocol Desertification Endangered Species Environmental Modification Hazardous Wastes Law of the Sea Marine Dumping Marine Life Conservation Nuclear Test Ban Ozone Layer Protection Ship Pollution Tropical Timber 83 Tropical Timber 94 Wetlands Whaling

Signed but not ratified:

Air Pollution-Persistent Organic Pollutants

Kyoto Protocol Status (year ratified):

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 431 of 506 pages United Kingdom

2002

Greenhouse Gas Ranking

Greenhouse Gas Ranking

GHG Emissions Rankings

Country Country Rank

1 United States

2 China

4 Russia

5 Japan

6 India

7 Germany

8 United Kingdom

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 432 of 506 pages United Kingdom

9 Canada

10 Korea, South

11 Italy

12 Mexico

13 France

14 South Africa

15 Iran

16 Indonesia

17 Australia

18 Spain

19 Brazil

20 Saudi Arabia

21 Ukraine

22 Poland

23 Taiwan

24 Turkey

25 Thailand

26 Netherlands

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 433 of 506 pages United Kingdom

27 Kazakhstan

28 Malaysia

29 Egypt

30 Venezuela

31 Argentina

32 Uzbekistan

33 Czech Republic

34 Belgium

35 Pakistan

36 Romania

37 Greece

38 United Arab Emirates

39 Algeria

40 Nigeria

41 Austria

42 Iraq

43 Finland

44 Philippines

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 434 of 506 pages United Kingdom

45 Vietnam

46 Korea, North

47 Israel

48 Portugal

49 Colombia

50 Belarus

51 Kuwait

52 Hungary

53 Chile

54 Denmark

55 Serbia & Montenegro

56 Sweden

57 Syria

58 Libya

59 Bulgaria

60 Singapore

61 Switzerland

62 Ireland

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 435 of 506 pages United Kingdom

63 Turkmenistan

64 Slovakia

65 Bangladesh

66 Morocco

67 New Zealand

68 Oman

69 Qatar

70 Azerbaijan

71 Norway

72 Peru

73 Cuba

74 Ecuador

75 Trinidad & Tobago

76 Croatia

77 Tunisia

78 Dominican Republic

79 Lebanon

80 Estonia

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 436 of 506 pages United Kingdom

81 Yemen

82 Jordan

83 Slovenia

84 Bahrain

85 Angola

86 Bosnia & Herzegovina

87 Lithuania

88 Sri Lanka

89 Zimbabwe

90 Bolivia

91 Jamaica

92 Guatemala

93 Luxembourg

94 Myanmar

95 Sudan

96 Kenya

97 Macedonia

98 Mongolia

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 437 of 506 pages United Kingdom

99 Ghana

100 Cyprus

101 Moldova

102 Latvia

103 El Salvador

104 Brunei

105 Honduras

106 Cameroon

107 Panama

108 Costa Rica

109 Cote d'Ivoire

110 Kyrgyzstan

111 Tajikistan

112 Ethiopia

113 Senegal

114 Uruguay

115 Gabon

116 Albania

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 438 of 506 pages United Kingdom

117 Nicaragua

118 Botswana

119 Paraguay

120 Tanzania

121 Georgia

122 Armenia

123 Congo, RC

124 Mauritius

125 Nepal

126 Mauritius

127 Nepal

128 Mauritania

129 Malta

130 Papua New Guinea

131 Zambia

132 Suriname

133 Iceland

134 Togo

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 439 of 506 pages United Kingdom

135 Benin

136 Uganda

137 Bahamas

138 Haiti

139 Congo, DRC

140 Guyana

141 Mozambique

142 Guinea

143 Equatorial Guinea

144 Laos

145 Barbados

146 Niger

147 Fiji

148 Burkina Faso

149 Malawi

150 Swaziland

151 Belize

152 Afghanistan

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 440 of 506 pages United Kingdom

153 Sierra Leone

154 Eritrea

155 Rwanda

156 Mali

157 Seychelles

158 Cambodia

159 Liberia

160 Bhutan

161 Maldives

162 Antigua & Barbuda

163 Djibouti

164 Saint Lucia

165 Gambia

166 Guinea-Bissau

167 Central African Republic

168 Palau

169 Burundi

170 Grenada

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 441 of 506 pages United Kingdom

171 Lesotho

172 Saint Vincent & the Grenadines

173 Solomon Islands

174 Samoa

175 Cape Verde

176 Nauru

177 Dominica

178 Saint Kitts & Nevis

179 Chad

180 Tonga

181 Sao Tome & Principe

182 Comoros

183 Vanuatu

185 Kiribati

Not Ranked Andorra

Not Ranked East Timor

Not Ranked Holy See

Not Ranked Hong Kong

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 442 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Not Ranked Liechtenstein

Not Ranked Marshall Islands

Not Ranked Micronesia

Not Ranked Monaco

Not Ranked San Marino

Not Ranked Somalia

Not Ranked Tuvalu

* European Union is ranked 3rd Cook Islands are ranked 184th Niue is ranked 186th

Global Environmental Snapshot

Introduction

The countries of the world face many environmental challenges in common. Nevertheless, the nature and intensity of problem vary from region to region, as do various countries' respective capacities, in terms of affluence and infrastructure, to remediate threats to environmental quality.

Consciousness of perils affecting the global environment came to the fore in the last third or so of the 20th century has continued to intensify well into the new millennium. According to the United Nations Environment Programme, considerable environmental progress has been made at the level of institutional developments, international cooperation accords, and public participation. Approximately two-dozen international environmental protection accords with global implications have been promulgated since the late 1970s under auspices of the United Nations and other international organizations, together with many additional regional agreements. Attempts to address and rectify environmental problems take the form of legal frameworks, economic instruments,

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 443 of 506 pages United Kingdom environmentally sound technologies and cleaner production processes as well as conservation efforts. Environmental impact assessments have increasingly been applied across the globe.

Environmental degradation affects the quality, or aesthetics, of human life, but it also displays potential to undermine conditions necessary for the sustainability of human life. Attitudes toward the importance of environmental protection measures reflect ambivalence derived from this bifurcation. On one hand, steps such as cleaning up pollution, dedicating parkland, and suchlike, are seen as embellishments undertaken by wealthy societies already assured they can successfully perform those functions deemed, ostensibly, more essential-for instance, public health and education, employment and economic development. On the other hand, in poorer countries, activities causing environmental damage-for instance the land degradation effects of unregulated logging, slash-and-burn agriculture, overgrazing, and mining-can seem justified insofar as such activities provide incomes and livelihoods.

Rapid rates of resource depletion are associated with poverty and high population growth, themselves correlated, whereas consumption per capita is much higher in the most developed countries, despite these nations' recent progress in energy efficiency and conservation. It is impossible to sequester the global environmental challenge from related economic, social and political challenges.

First-tier industrialized countries have recently achieved measurable decreases in environmental pollution and the rate of resource depletion, a success not matched in middle income and developing countries. It is believed that the discrepancy is due to the fact that industrialized countries have more developed infrastructures to accommodate changes in environmental policy, to apply environmental technologies, and to invest in public education. The advanced industrialized countries incur relatively lower costs in alleviating environmental problems, in comparison to developing countries, since in the former even extensive environmental programs represent a rather minuscule percentage of total expenditures. Conversely, budget constraints, lagged provision of basic services to the population, and other factors such as debt service and militarization may preclude institution of minimal environmental protection measures in the poorest countries.

A synopsis for the current situation facing each region of the world follows:

Regional Synopsis: Africa

The African continent, the world's second-largest landmass, encompasses many of the world's least developed countries. By global standards, urbanization is comparatively low but rising at a rapid rate. More heavily industrialized areas at the northern and southern ends of the continent experience the major share of industrial pollution. In other regions the most serious environmental problems typically stem from inefficient subsistence farming methods and other forms of land

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 444 of 506 pages United Kingdom degradation, which have affected an increasingly extensive area under pressure of a widely impoverished, fast-growing population. Africa's distribution of natural resources is very uneven. It is the continent at greatest risk of desertification, especially in the Sahel region at the edge of the Sahara but also in other dry-range areas. Yet at the same time, Africa also harbors some of the earth's richest and most diverse biological zones.

Key Points:

Up to half a billion hectares of African land are moderately to severely degraded, an occurrence reflecting short-fallow shifting cultivation and overgrazing as well as a climatic pattern of recurrent droughts.

Soil degradation is severe along the expanse directly south of the Sahara, from the west to the east coasts. Parts of southern Africa, central-eastern Africa, and the neighboring island of Madagascar suffer from serious soil degradation as well.

Africa contains about 17 percent of the world's forest cover, concentrated in the tropical belt of the continent. Many of the forests, however, are severely depleted, with an estimated 70 percent showing some degree of degradation.

Population growth has resulted in continuing loss of arable land, as inefficient subsistence farming techniques affect increasingly extensive areas. Efforts to implement settled, sustainable agriculture have met with some recent success, but much further progress in this direction is needed. Especially in previously uninhabited forestlands, concern over deforestation is intensifying.

By contrast, the African savanna remains the richest grassland in the world, supporting a substantial concentration of animal and plant life. Wildlife parks are sub-Saharan Africa's greatest tourist attraction, and with proper management-giving local people a stake in conservation and controlling the pace of development-could greatly enhance African economies.

Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of northern, southern and eastern Africa are currently threatened, while the biological diversity in Mauritania and Madagascar is even further compromised with over 20 percent of the mammal species in these two countries currently under threat.

With marine catch trends increasing from 500,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 3,000,000 metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life, should this trend continue unabated.

Water resource vulnerability is a major concern in northeastern Africa, and a moderate concern across the rest of the continent. An exception is central Africa, which has plentiful water supplies.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 445 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Many Africans lack adequate access to resources, not just (if at all) because the resources are unevenly distributed geographically, but also through institutional failures such as faulty land tenure systems or political upheaval. The quality of Africa's natural resources, despite their spotty distribution, is in fact extraordinarily rich. The infrastructure needed to protect and benefit from this natural legacy, however, is largely lacking.

Regional Synopsis: Asia and the Pacific

Asia-earth's largest landmass-and the many large and nearly innumerable small islands lying off its Pacific shore display extraordinarily contrasting landscapes, levels of development, and degrees of environmental stress. In the classification used here, the world's smallest continent, Australia, is also included in the Asia-Pacific region.

The Asia-Pacific region is home to 9 of the world's 14 largest urban areas, and as energy use for utilities, industry and transport increases in developing economies, urban centers are subject to worsening air quality. Intense population density in places such as Bangladesh or Hong Kong is the quintessential image many people have of Asia, yet vast desert areas such as the Gobi and the world's highest mountain range, the Himalayas, span the continent as well. Forested areas in Southeast Asia and the islands of Indonesia and the Philippines were historically prized for their tropical hardwood, but in many places this resource is now severely depleted. Low-lying small island states are extremely vulnerable to the effects of global warming, both rising sea levels and an anticipated increase in cyclones.

Key Points:

Asian timber reserves are forecast to be depleted in the next 40 years. Loss of natural forest is irreversible in some areas, but plantation programs to restore tree cover may ameliorate a portion of the resulting land degradation.

Increased usage of fossil fuels in China and other parts of southern Asia is projected to result in a marked increase in emissions, especially in regard to carbon dioxide. The increased usage of energy has led to a marked upsurge in air pollution across the region.

Acidification is an emerging problem regionally, with sulfur dioxide emissions expected to triple by 2010 if the current growth rate is sustained. China, Thailand, India, and Korea seem to be suffering from particularly high rates of acid deposition. By contrast, Asia's most highly developed economy, Japan, has effected substantial improvements in its environmental indicators.

Water pollution in the Pacific is an urgent concern since up to 70 percent of the water discharged

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 446 of 506 pages United Kingdom into the region's waters receives no treatment. Additionally, the disposal of solid wastes, in like manner, poses a major threat in a region with many areas of high population density.

The Asia-Pacific region is the largest expanse of the world's land that is adversely affected by soil degradation.

The region around Australia reportedly suffers the largest degree of ozone depletion.

The of the Pacific suffer land loss due to global warming, and the consequent rise in the levels of ocean waters. A high-emissions scenario and anthropogenic climate impact at the upper end of the currently predicted range would probably force complete evacuation of the lowest-elevation islands sometime in this century.

The species-rich reefs surrounding Southeast Asia are highly vulnerable to the deleterious effects of coastal development, land-based pollution, over-fishing and exploitative fishing methods, as well as marine pollution from oil spills and other activities.

With marine catch trends increasing from 5,000,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 20,000,000 metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life, should this trend continue unabated.

Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of China and south- are currently threatened, while the biological diversity in India, Japan, Australia, the Philippines, Indonesia and parts of Malaysia is even further compromised with over 20 percent of the mammal species in these countries currently under threat.

Water resource vulnerability is a serious concern in areas surrounding the Indian subcontinent.

Regional Synopsis:

The Central Asian republics, formerly in the Soviet Union, experience a range of environmental problems as the result of poorly executed agricultural, industrial, and nuclear programs during the Soviet era. Relatively low population densities are the norm, especially since upon the breakup of the U.S.S.R. many ethnic Russians migrated back to European Russia. In this largely semi-arid region, drought, water shortages, and soil salinization pose major challenges.

Key Points:

The use of agricultural pesticides, such as DDT and other chemicals, has contributed to the contamination of soil and groundwater throughout the region.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 447 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Land and soil degradation, and in particular, increased salinization, is mostly attributable to faulty irrigation practices.

Significant desertification is also a problem in the region.

Air pollution is prevalent, mostly due to use of low octane automobile fuel.

Industrial pollution of the Caspian Sea and the Aral Sea, as a result of industrial effluents as well as mining and metal production, presents a challenge to the countries bordering these bodies of water.

One of the most severe environmental problems in the region is attributable to the several billion tons of hazardous materials stored in landfills across Central Asia.

Uzbekistan's particular problem involves the contraction of the Aral Sea, which has decreased in size by a third, as a consequence of river diversions and poor irrigation practices. The effect has been the near-total biological destruction of that body of water.

Kazakhstan, as a consequence of being the heartland of the former Soviet Union's nuclear program, has incurred a high of cancerous malignancies, biogenetic abnormalities and radioactive contamination.

While part of the Soviet Union, the republics in the region experienced very high levels of greenhouse gas emissions, as a consequence of rapid industrialization using cheap but dirty energy sources, especially coal.

By contrast, however, there have recently been substantial reductions in the level of greenhouse gas emissions, especially those attributable to coal burning, with further decreases anticipated over the next decade. These changes are partially due to the use of cleaner energy technologies, such as natural gas, augmented by governmental commitment to improving environmental standards.

Regional Synopsis: Europe

Western Europe underwent dramatic transformation of its landscape, virtually eliminating large- scale natural areas, during an era of rapid industrialization, which intensified upon its recovery from World War II. In Eastern Europe and European Russia, intensive land development has been less prevalent, so that some native forests and other natural areas remain. Air and water pollution from use of dirty fuels and industrial effluents, however, are more serious environmental problems in Eastern than in Western Europe, though recent trends show improvement in many indicators. Acid rain has inflicted heavy environmental damage across much of Europe, particularly on forests.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 448 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Europe and North America are the only regions in which water usage for industry exceeds that for agriculture, although in Mediterranean nations agriculture is the largest water consumer.

Key Points:

Europe contributes 36 percent of the world's chlorofluorocarbon emissions, 30 percent of carbon dioxide emissions, and 25 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions.

Sulfur and nitrogen oxide emissions are the cause of 30 to 50 percent of Central and Eastern Europe's deforestation.

Acid rain has been an environmental concern for decades and continues to be a challenge in parts of Western Europe.

Overexploitation of up to 60 percent of Europe's groundwater presents a problem in industrial and urban areas.

With marine catch trends increasing from 5,000,000 metric tons in the 1950s to over 20,000,000 metric tons by 2000, there was increasing concern about the reduction in fisheries and marine life, should this trend continue unabated.

Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of western Europe, Eastern Europe and Russia are currently threatened, while the biological diversity on the Iberian Peninsula is even further compromised with over 40 percent of the mammal species in this region currently under threat. As a result, there has been a 10 percent increase in protected areas of Europe.

A major environmental issue for Europe involves the depletion of various already endangered or threatened species, and most significantly, the decline of fish stocks. Some estimates suggest that up to 50 percent of the continent's fish species may be considered endangered species. Coastal fisheries have been over-harvested, resulting in catch limits or moratoriums on many commercially important fish species.

Fortunately, in the last few years, these policies have started to yield measurable results with decreasing trends in marine fish catch.

Recently, most European countries have adopted cleaner production technologies, and alternative methods of waste disposal, including recycling.

The countries of Eastern Europe have made air quality a major environmental priority. This is exemplified by the Russian Federation's addition to the 1995 "Berlin Mandate" (transnational legislation based on resolutions of the Rio Earth Summit) compelling nations to promote "carbon

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 449 of 506 pages United Kingdom sinks" to absorb greenhouse gases.

On a relative basis, when compared with the degree of industrial emissions emitted by many Eastern European countries until the late 1980s, there has been some marked increase in air quality in the region, as obsolete plants are closed and a transition to cleaner fuels and more efficient energy use takes place.

Regional Synopsis: The Middle and Near East

Quite possibly, the Middle East will exemplify the adage that, as the 20th century was a century fixated on oil, the 21st century will be devoted to critical decisions about water. Many (though far from all) nations in the Middle East rank among those countries with the largest oil and gas reserves, but water resources are relatively scarce throughout this predominantly dry region. Effects of global warming may cause moderately high elevation areas that now typically receive winter "snowpack" to experience mainly rain instead, which would further constrain dry-season water availability. The antiquities and religious shrines of the region render it a great magnet for tourism, which entails considerable economic growth potential but also intensifies stresses on the environment.

Key Points:

Water resource vulnerability is a serious concern across the entire region. The increased usage of, and further demand for water, has exacerbated long-standing water scarcity in the region. For instance, river diversions and industrial salt works have caused the Dead Sea to shrink by one-third from its original surface area, with further declines expected.

The oil industry in the region contributes to water pollution in the Persian Gulf, as a result of oil spills, which have averaged 1.2 million barrels of oil spilt per year (some sources suggest that this figure is understated). The consequences are severe because even after oil spills have been cleaned up, environmental damage to the food webs and ecosystems of marine life will persist for a prolonged period.

The region's coastal zone is considered one of the most fragile and endangered ecosystems of the world. Land reclamation, shoreline construction, discharge of industrial effluents, and tourism (such as diving in the Red Sea) contribute to widespread coastal damage.

Significant numbers of mammal species in parts of the Middle East are currently threatened.

Since the 1980s, 11 percent of the region's natural forest has been depleted.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 450 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Regional Synopsis: and the Caribbean

The Latin American and Caribbean region is characterized by exceedingly diverse landforms that have generally seen high rates of population growth and economic development in recent decades. The percentage of inhabitants residing in urban areas is quite high at 73.4 percent; the region includes the megacities of Mexico City, Sao Paulo, and Rio de Janeiro. The region also includes the world's second-highest mountain range, the Andes; significant expanses of desert and grassland; the coral reefs of the Caribbean Sea; and the world's largest contiguous tropical forest in the Amazon basin. Threats to the latter from subsistence and commercial farming, mineral exploitation and timbering are well publicized. Nevertheless, of eight countries worldwide that still retain at least 70 percent of their original forest cover, six are in Latin America. The region accounts for nearly half (48.3 percent) of the world's greenhouse gas emissions derived from land clearing, but as yet a comparatively minuscule share (4.3 percent) of such gases from industrial sources.

Key Points:

Although Latin America is one of the most biologically diverse regions of the world, this biodiversity is highly threatened, as exemplified by the projected extinction of up to 100,000 species in the next few decades. Much of this loss will be concentrated in the Amazon area, although the western coastline of South America will also suffer significant depletion of biological diversity. The inventory of rainforest species with potentially useful commercial or medical applications is incomplete, but presumed to include significant numbers of such species that may become extinct before they are discovered and identified.

Up to 50 percent of the region's grazing land has lost its soil fertility as a result of soil erosion, salinization, alkalinization and overgrazing.

The Caribbean Sea, the Atlantic Ocean, and the Pacific Ocean have all been contaminated by agricultural wastes, which are discharged into streams that flow into these major waters. Water pollution derived from phosphorous, nitrates and pesticides adversely affects fish stocks, contributes to oxygen depletion and fosters overgrowth of aquatic vegetation. Marine life will continue to be severely compromised as a result of these conditions.

Due to industrial development in the region, many beaches of eastern Latin America and the Caribbean suffer from tar deposits.

Most cities in the region lack adequate sewage treatment facilities, and rapid migration of the rural poor into the cities is widening the gap between current infrastructure capacity and the much greater level needed to provide satisfactory basic services.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 451 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The rainforest region of the Amazon Basin suffers from dangerously high levels of deforestation, which may be a significant contributory factor to global warming or "the greenhouse effect." In the late 1990s and into the new millennium, the rate of deforestation was around 20 million acres of rainforest being destroyed annually.

Deforestation on the steep rainforest slopes of Caribbean islands contributes to soil erosion and landslides, both of which then result in heavy sedimentation of nearby river systems. When these sedimented rivers drain into the sea and coral reefs, they poison the coral tissues, which are vital to the maintenance of the reef ecosystem. The result is marine degradation and nutrient depletion. Jamaica's coral reefs have never quite recovered from the effects of marine degradation.

The Southern Cone of Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay) suffers the effects of greatly increased ultraviolet-B radiation, as a consequence of more intense ozone depletion in the southern hemisphere.

Water resource vulnerability is an increasingly major concern in the northwestern portion of South America.

Regional Synopsis: North America

North American nations, in particular the United States and Canada, rank among the world's most highly developed industrial economies-a fact which has generated significant pollution problems, but also financial resources and skills that have enabled many problems to be corrected. Although efforts to promote energy efficiency, recycling, and suchlike have helped ease strains on the environment in a part of the world where per capita consumption levels are high, sprawling land development patterns and recent preferences many households have demonstrated for larger vehicles have offset these advances.

Meanwhile, a large portion of North America's original forest cover has been lost, though in many cases replaced by productive second-growth woodland. In recent years, attitudes toward best use of the region's remaining natural or scenic areas seem to be shifting toward recreation and preservation and away from resource extraction. With increasing attention on the energy scarcity in the United States, however, there is speculation that this shift may be short-lived. Indeed, the energy shortage on the west coast of the United States and associated calls for energy exploration, indicate a possible retrenchment toward resource extraction. At the same time, however, it has also served to highlight the need for energy conservation as well as alternative energy sources.

Despite generally successful anti-pollution efforts, various parts of the region continue to suffer significant air, water and land degradation from industrial, vehicular, and agricultural emissions and

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 452 of 506 pages United Kingdom runoff. Mexico, as a middle-income country, displays environmental problems characteristic of a developing economy, including forest depletion, pollution from inefficient industrial processes and dirty fuels, and lack of sufficient waste-treatment infrastructure.

Key Points:

Because of significantly greater motor vehicle usage in the United States (U.S.) than in the rest of the world, the U.S. contribution of urban air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide, is disproportionately high in relation to its population.

Acid rain is an enduring issue of contention in the northeastern part of the United States, on the border with Canada.

Mexico's urban areas suffer extreme air pollution from carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and other toxic air pollutants. Emissions controls on vehicles are in their infancy, compared to analogous regulations in the U.S.

The cities of Mexico, including those on the U.S. border, also discharge large quantities of untreated or poorly treated sewage, though officials are currently planning infrastructure upgrades.

Deforestation is noteworthy in various regions of the U.S., especially along the northwest coastline. Old growth forests have been largely removed, but in the northeastern and upper midwestern sections of the United States, evidence suggests that the current extent of tree cover probably surpasses the figure for the beginning of the 20th century.

Extreme weather conditions in the last few years have resulted in a high level of soil erosion along the north coast of California; in addition, the coastline itself has shifted substantially due to soil erosion and concomitant landslides.

Agricultural pollution-including nitrate contamination of well water, nutrient runoff to waterways, and pesticide exposure-is significant in various areas. Noteworthy among affected places are California's Central Valley, extensive stretches of the Midwest, and land in the Chesapeake Bay watershed.

Inland waterways, especially around the Great Lakes, have substantially improved their water quality, due to concentrated efforts at reducing water pollution by governmental, commercial and community representatives. Strict curbs on industrial effluents and near-universal implementation of sewage treatment are the chief factors responsible for this improvement.

A major environmental issue for Canada and the United States involves the depletion of various

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 453 of 506 pages United Kingdom already endangered or threatened species, and most significantly, the decline of fish stocks. Coastal fisheries have been over-harvested, resulting in catch limits or moratoriums on many commercially important fish species. In the last few years, these policies have started to yield measurable results with decreasing trends in marine fish catch.

Due to the decay of neighboring ecosystems in Central America and the Caribbean, the sea surrounding Florida has become increasingly sedimented, contributing to marine degradation, nutrient depletion of the ecosystem, depletion of fish stocks, and diseases to coral species in particular.

Polar Regions

Key Points:

The significant rise in sea level, amounting 10 to 25 centimeters in the last 100 years, is due to the melting of the Arctic ice sheets, and is attributed to global warming.

The Antarctic suffers from a significant ozone hole, first detected in 1976. By 1985, a British scientific team reported a 40 percent decrease in usual regeneration rates of the ozone. Because a sustained increase in the amount of ultraviolet-B radiation would have adverse consequences upon all planetary life, recent environmental measures have been put into effect, aimed at reversing ozone depletion. These measures are projected to garner significant results by 2050.

Due to air and ocean currents, the Arctic is a sink for toxic releases originally discharged thousands of miles away. Arctic wildlife and Canada's Inuit population have higher bodily levels of contaminants such as PCB and dioxin than those found in people and animals in much of the rest of the world.

Global Environmental Concepts

1. Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases

The Greenhouse Effect:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 454 of 506 pages United Kingdom

In the early 19th century, the French physicist, Jean Fourier, contended that the earth's atmosphere functions in much the same way as the glass of a greenhouse, thus describing what is now understood as the "greenhouse effect." Put simply, the "greenhouse effect" confines some of the sun's energy to the earth, preserving some of the planet's warmth, rather than allowing it to flow back into space. In so doing, all kinds of life forms can flourish on earth. Thus, the "greenhouse effect" is necessary to sustain and preserve life forms and ecosystems on earth.

In the late 19th century, a Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius, noticed that human activities, such as the burning of coal and other fossil fuels for heat, and the removal of forested lands for urban development, led to higher concentrations of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide and methane, in the atmosphere. This increase in the levels of greenhouse gases was believed to advance the "greenhouse effect" exponentially, and might be related to the trend in global warming.

In the wake of the Industrial Revolution, after industrial development took place on a large scale and the total human population burgeoned simultaneously with industrialization, the resulting increase in greenhouse gas emissions could, many scientists believe, be significant enough to have some bearing on climate. Indeed, many studies in recent years support the idea that there is a linkage between human activities and global warming, although there is less consensus on the extent to which this linkage may be relevant to environmental concerns.

That said, some scientists have argued that temperature fluctuations have existed throughout the evolution of the planet. Indeed, Dr. S. Fred Singer, the president of the Science and Environment Policy Project has noted that 3,000-year-old geological records of ocean sediment reveal changes in the surface temperature of the ocean. Hence, it is possible that climate variability is merely a normal fact of the planet's evolution. Yet even skeptics as to anthropogenic factors concur that any substantial changes in global temperatures would likely have an effect upon the earth's ecosystems, as well as the life forms that inhabit them.

The Relationship Between Global Warming and Greenhouse Gases:

A large number of climatologists believe that the increase in atmospheric concentrations of "greenhouse gas emissions," mostly a consequence of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels, are contributing to global warming. The cause notwithstanding, the planet has reportedly warmed 0.3°C to 0.6°C over the last century. Indeed, each year during the 1990s was one of the very warmest in the 20th century, with the mean surface temperature for 1999 being the fifth warmest on record since 1880.

In early 2000, a panel of atmospheric scientists for the National Research Council concluded in a report that global warming was, indeed, a reality. While the panel, headed by Chairman John Wallace, a professor of atmospheric sciences at the University of Washington, stated that it

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 455 of 506 pages United Kingdom remained unclear whether human activities have contributed to the earth's increasing temperatures, it was apparent that global warming exists.

In 2001, following a request for further study by the incoming Bush administration in the United States, the National Academy of Sciences again confirmed that global warming had been in existence for the last 20 years. The study also projected an increase in temperature between 2.5 degrees and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100. Furthermore, the study found the leading cause of global warming to be emissions of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels, and it noted that greenhouse gas accumulations in the earth's atmosphere was a result of human activities.

Within the scientific community, the controversy regarding has centered on the difference between surface air and upper air temperatures. Information collected since 1979 suggests that while the earth's surface temperature has increased by about a degree in the past century, the atmospheric temperature five miles above the earth's surface has indicated very little increase. Nevertheless, the panel stated that this discrepancy in temperature between surface and upper air does not invalidate the conclusion that global warming is taking place. Further, the panel noted that natural events, such as volcanic eruptions, can decrease the temperature in the upper atmosphere.

The major consequences of global warming potentially include the melting of the polar ice caps, which, in turn, contribute to the rise in sea levels. Many islands across the globe have already experienced a measurable loss of land as a result. Because global warming may increase the rate of evaporation, increased precipitation, in the form of stronger and more frequent storm systems, is another potential outcome. Other consequences of global warming may include the introduction and proliferation of new infectious diseases, loss of arable land (referred to as "desertification"), destructive changes to existing ecosystems, loss of biodiversity and the isolation of species, and concomitant adverse changes in the quality of human life.

International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming:

Regardless of what the precise nature of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming may be, it seems that there is some degree of a connection between the phenomena. Any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming trends will likely involve systematic changes in industrial operations, the use of advanced energy sources and technologies, as well as global cooperation in implementing and regulating these transformations.

In this regard, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulated the following objectives:

1. To stabilize "greenhouse gas" concentrations within the atmosphere, in such a manner that would preclude hazardous anthropogenic intervention into the existing biosphere and ecosystems of the world. This stabilization process would facilitate the natural adaptation of ecosystems to

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 456 of 506 pages United Kingdom changes in climate.

2. To ensure and enable sustainable development and food production on a global scale.

*** See section on "International Environmental Agreements and Associations" for information related to international policies related to limiting greenhouse gases and controlling climate change emanating from historic summits at Kyoto, Copenhagen, Doha, and Paris. ***

2. Air Pollution

Long before global warming reared its head as a significant issue, those concerned about the environment and public health noted the deleterious effects of human-initiated combustion upon the atmosphere. Killer smogs from coal burning triggered acute health emergencies in London and other places. At a lower level of intensity motor vehicle, power plant, and industrial emissions impaired long-range visibility and probably had some chronic adverse consequences on the respiratory systems of persons breathing such air.

In time, scientists began associating the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides released from coal burning with significant acid deposition in the atmosphere, eventually falling as "acid rain." This phenomenon has severely degraded forestlands, especially in Europe and a few parts of the United States. It has also impaired some aquatic ecosystems and eaten away the surface of some human artifacts, such as marble monuments. Scrubber technology and conversion to cleaner fuels have enabled the level of industrial production to remain at least constant while significantly reducing acid deposition. Technologies aimed at cleaning the air and curtailing acid rain, soot, and smog may, nonetheless, boomerang as the perils of global warming become increasingly serious. In brief, these particulates act as sort of a sun shade -- comparable to the effect of volcanic eruptions on the upper atmosphere whereby periods of active volcanism correlate with temporarily cooler weather conditions. Thus, while the carbon dioxide releases that are an inevitable byproduct of combustion continue, by scrubbing the atmosphere of pollutants, an industrial society opens itself to greater insolation (penetration of the sun's rays and consequent heating), and consequently, it is likely to experience a correspondingly greater rise in ambient temperatures.

The health benefits of removing the sources of acid rain and smog are indisputable, and no one would recommend a return to previous conditions. Nevertheless, the problematic climatic effects of continually increasing emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases pose a major global environmental challenge, not as yet addressed adequately.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 457 of 506 pages United Kingdom

3. Ozone Depletion

The stratospheric ozone layer functions to prevent ultraviolet radiation from reaching the earth. Normally, stratospheric ozone is systematically disintegrated and regenerated through natural photochemical processes. The stratospheric ozone layer, however, has been depleted unnaturally as a result of anthropogenic (man-made) chemicals, most especially chlorine and bromide compounds such as chloroflorocarbons (CFCs), halons, and various industrial chemicals in the form of solvents, refrigerants, foaming agents, aerosol propellants, fire retardants, and fumigants. Ozone depletion is of concern because it permits a greater degree of ultraviolet-B radiation to reach the earth, which then increases the incidences of cancerous malignancies, cataracts, and human immune deficiencies. In addition, even in small doses, ozone depletion affects the ecosystem by disturbing food chains, agriculture, fisheries and other forms of biological diversity.

Transnational policies enacted to respond to the dangers of ozone depletion include the 1985 Vienna Convention on the Protection of the Ozone Layer and the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer. The Montreal Protocol was subsequently amended in London in 1990, Copenhagen in 1992 and Vienna in 1995. By 1996, 155 countries had ratified the Montreal Protocol, which sets out a time schedule for the reduction (and eventual elimination) of ozone depleting substances (OPS), and bans exports and imports of ODS from and to non- participant countries.

In general, the Protocol stipulates that developed countries must eliminate halon consumption by 1994 and CFC consumption by 1996, while developing countries must eliminate these substances by 2010. Consumption of methyl bromide, which is used as a fumigant, was to be frozen at the 1995 in developed countries, and fully eliminated in 2010, while developing countries are to freeze consumption by 2002, based on average 1995-1998 consumption levels. Methyl chloroform is to be phased out by 2005. Under the Montreal Protocol, most ODS will be completely eliminated from use by 2010.

4. Land Degradation

In recent decades, land degradation in more arid regions of the world has become a serious concern. The problem, manifest as both "desertification" and "devegetation," is caused primarily by climate variability and human activities, such as "deforestation," excessive cultivation, overgrazing, and other forms of land resource exploitation. It is also exacerbated by inadequate irrigation practices. Although the effects of droughts on drylands have been temporary in the past, today, the productivity and sustainability of these lands have been severely compromised for the long term. Indeed, in every region of the world, land degradation has become an acute issue.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 458 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Desertification and Devegetation:

"Desertification" is a process of land degradation causing the soil to deteriorate, thus losing its nutrients and fertility, and eventually resulting in the loss of vegetation, known as "devegetation." As aforementioned, "desertification" and "devegetation" are caused by human activities, yet human beings are also the greatest casualties. Because these forms of land degradation affect the ability of the soil to produce crops, they concomitantly contribute to poverty. As population increases and demographic concentrations shift, the extent of land subject to stresses by those seeking to wrest subsistence from it has inexorably risen.

In response, the United Nations has formed the Convention to Combat Desertification-aimed at implementing programs to address the underlying causes of desertification, as well as measures to prevent and minimize its effects. Of particular significance is the formulation of policies on transboundary resources, such as areas around lakes and rivers. At a broader level, the Convention has established a Conference of Parties (COP), which includes all ratifying governments, for directing and advancing international action.

To ensure more efficacious use of funding, the Convention intends to reconfigure international aid to utilize a consultative and coordinated approach in the disbursement and expenditure of donor funds. In this way, local communities that are affected by desertification will be active participants in the solution-generation process. In-depth community education projects are envisioned as part of this new international aid program, and private donor financing is encouraged. Meanwhile, as new technologies are developed to deal with the problem of desertification, they need to be distributed for application across the world. Hence, the Convention calls for international cooperation in scientific research in this regard.

Desertification is a problem of sustainable development. It is directly connected to human challenges such as poverty, social and economic well-being and environmental protection as well. Broader environmental issues, such as climate change, biological diversity, and freshwater supplies, are indirectly related, so any effort to resolve this environmental challenge must entail coordinated research efforts and joint action.

Deforestation:

Deforestation is not a recent phenomenon. For centuries, human beings have cut down trees to clear space for land cultivation, or in order to use the wood for fuel. Over the last 200 years, and most especially after World War II, deforestation increased because the logging industry became a globally profitable endeavor, and so the clearing of forested areas was accelerated for the purposes of industrial development. In the long term, this intensified level of deforestation is considered problematic because the forest is unable to regenerate itself quickly. The deforestation that has

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 459 of 506 pages United Kingdom occurred in tropical rainforests is seen as an especially serious concern, due to the perceived adverse effects of this process upon the entire global ecosystem.

The most immediate consequence of deforestation is soil degradation. Soil, which is necessary for the growth of vegetation, can be a fragile and vital property. Organically, an extensive evolution process must take place before soil can produce vegetation, yet at the same time, the effects of natural elements, such as wind and rain, can easily and quickly degrade this resource. This phenomenon is known as soil erosion. In addition, natural elements like wind and rain reduce the amount of fertile soil on the ground, making soil scarcity a genuine problem. When fertile topsoil that already exists is removed from the landscape in the process of deforestation, soil scarcity is further exacerbated. Equally significant is the fact that once land has been cleared so that the topsoil can be cultivated for crop production, not only are the nutrient reserves in the soil depleted, thus producing crops of inferior quality, but the soil structure itself becomes stressed and deteriorates further.

Another direct result of deforestation is flooding. When forests are cleared, removing the cover of vegetation, and rainfall occurs, the flow of water increases across the surface of land. When extensive water runoff takes place, the frequency and intensity of flooding increases. Other adverse effects of deforestation include the loss of wildlife and biodiversity within the ecosystem that supports such life forms.

At a broader level, tropical rainforests play a vital role in maintaining the global environmental system. Specifically, destruction of tropical rainforests affects the carbon dioxide cycle. When forests are destroyed by burning (or rotting), carbon dioxide is released into the air, thus contributing to an intensified "greenhouse effect." The increase in greenhouse gas emissions like carbon dioxide is a major contributor to global warming, according to many environmental scientists. Indeed, trees themselves absorb carbon dioxide in the process of photosynthesis, so their loss also reduces the absorption of greenhouse gases.

Tropical rainforest destruction also adversely affects the nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen is a key nutrient for both plants and animals. Plants derive nitrogen from soil, while animals obtain it via nitrogen- enriched vegetation. This element is essential for the formation of amino acids, and thereby for proteins and biochemicals that all living things need for metabolism and growth. In the nitrogen cycle, vegetation acquires these essential proteins and biochemicals, and then cyclically returns them to the atmosphere and global ecosystem. Accordingly, when tropical rainforest ecosystems are compromised, not only is vegetation removed; the atmosphere is also affected and climates are altered. At a more immediate level, the biodiversity within tropical rainforests, including wildlife and insect species and a wealth of plant varieties, is depleted. Loss of rare plants is of particular concern because certain species as yet unknown and unused could likely yield many practical benefits, for instance as medicines.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 460 of 506 pages United Kingdom

As a result of the many challenges associated with deforestation, many environmental groups and agencies have argued for government policies on the sustainable development of forests by governments across the globe. While many countries have instituted national policies and programs aimed at reducing deforestation, and substantial research has been advanced in regard to sustainable and regenerative forestry development, there has been very little progress on an international level. Generally speaking, most tropical rainforests are located in developing and less developed countries, where economic growth is often dependent upon the exploitation of tropical rainforests. Timber resources as well as wildlife hunting tend to be particularly lucrative arenas.

In places such as the Amazon, where deforestation takes place for the construction of energy plants aimed at industrialization and economic development, there is an exacerbated effect on the environment. After forests are cleared in order to construct such projects, massive flooding usually ensues. The remaining trees then rot and decay in the wake of the flooding. As the trees deteriorate, their biochemical makeup becomes more acidic, producing poisonous substances such as hydrogen sulphide and methane gases. Acidified water subsequently corrodes the mechanical equipment and operations of the plants, which are already clogged by rotting wood after the floodwaters rise.

Deforestation generally arises from an economically plausible short-term motivation, but nonetheless poses a serious global concern because the effects go beyond national boundaries. The United Nations has established the World Commission on Forest and Sustainable Development. This body's task is to determine the optimal means of dealing with the issue of deforestation, without unduly affecting normal economic development, while emphasizing the global significance of protecting tropical forest ecosystems.

5. Water Resources

For all terrestrial fauna, including humans, water is the most immediate necessity to sustain life. As the population has increased and altered an ever-greater portion of the landscape from its natural condition, demand on water resources has intensified, especially with the development of industrialization and large-scale irrigation. The supply of freshwater is inherently limited, and moreover distributed unevenly across the earth's landmasses. Moreover, not just demand for freshwater but activities certain to degrade it are becoming more pervasive. By contrast, the oceans form a sort of "last wilderness," still little explored and in large part not seriously affected by human activity. However, coastal environments - the biologically richest part of the marine ecosystem-are experiencing major depletion due to human encroachment and over-exploitation.

Freshwater:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 461 of 506 pages United Kingdom

In various regions, for instance the Colorado River in the , current withdrawals of river water for irrigation, domestic, and industrial use consume the entire streamflow so that almost no water flows into the sea at the river's mouth. Yet development is ongoing in many such places, implying continually rising demand for water. In some areas reliant on groundwater, aquifers are being depleted at a markedly faster rate than they are being replenished. An example is the San Joaquin Valley in California, where decades of high water withdrawals for agriculture have caused land subsidence of ten meters or more in some spots. Naturally, the uncertainty of future water supplies is particularly acute in arid and semi-arid regions. Speculation that the phenomenon of global warming will alter geographic and seasonal rainfall patterns adds further uncertainty.

Water conservation measures have great potential to alleviate supply shortages. Some city water systems are so old and beset with leaking pipes that they lose as much water as they meter. Broad- scale irrigation could be replaced by drip-type irrigation, actually enhancing the sustainability of agriculture. In many areas where heavy irrigation has been used for decades, the result is deposition of salts and other chemicals in the soil such that the land becomes unproductive for farming and must be abandoned.

Farming is a major source of water pollution. Whereas restrictions on industrial effluents and other "point sources" are relatively easy to implement, comparable measures to reform hydraulic practices at farms and other "nonpoint sources" pose a significantly knottier challenge. Farm- caused water pollution takes the following main forms:

- Nitrate pollution found in wells in intensive farming areas as a consequence of heavy fertilizer use is a threat to human health. The most serious danger is to infants, who by ingesting high-nitrate water can contract methemoglobinemia, sometimes called "blue baby syndrome," a potentially fatal condition.

- Fertilizer runoff into rivers and lakes imparts unwanted nutrients that cause algae growth and eventual loss of oxygen in the body of water, degrading its ability to support fish and other desirable aquatic life.

- Toxic agricultural chemicals - insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides - are detectable in some aquifers and waterways.

In general, it is much easier to get a pollutant into water than to retrieve it out. Gasoline additives, dry cleaning chemicals, other industrial toxins, and in a few areas radionucleides have all been found in water sources intended for human use. The complexity and long time scale of subterranean hydrological movements essentially assures that pollutants already deposited in aquifers will continue to turn up for decades to come. Sophisticated water treatment processes are available, albeit expensive, to reclaim degraded water and render it fit for human consumption. Yet

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 462 of 506 pages United Kingdom source protection is unquestionably a more desirable alternative.

In much of the developing world, and even some low-income rural enclaves of the developed world, the population lacks ready access to safe water. Surface water and shallow groundwater supplies are susceptible to contamination from untreated wastewater and failing septic tanks, as well as chemical hazards. The occurrence of waterborne disease is almost certainly greatly underreported.

Marine Resources:

Coastal areas have always been desirable places for human habitation, and population pressure on them continues to increase. Many types of water degradation that affect lakes and rivers also affect coastal zones: industrial effluents, untreated or partially treated sewage, nutrient load from agriculture figure prominently in both cases. Prospects for more extreme storms as a result of global warming, as well as the pervasiveness of poorly planned development in many coastal areas, forebode that catastrophic hurricanes and landslides may increase in frequency in the future. Ongoing rise in sea levels will force remedial measures and in some cases abandonment of currently valuable coastal property.

Fisheries over much of the globe have been overharvested, and immediate conservation measures are required to preserve stocks of many species. Many governments subsidized factory-scale fishing fleets in the 1970s and 1980s, and the resultant catch increase evidently surpassed a sustainable level. It is uncertain how much of the current decline in fish stocks stems from overharvesting and how much from environmental pollution. The deep ocean remains relatively unaffected by human activity, but continental shelves near coastlines are frequently seriously polluted, and these close-to-shore areas are the major biological nurseries for food fish and the smaller organisms they feed on.

6. Environmental Toxins

Toxic chemical pollution exploded on the public consciousness with disclosure of spectacularly polluted industrial areas such as Love Canal near Buffalo, New York. There is no question that pollutants such as organophosphates or radionucleides can be highly deleterious to health, but evidence to date suggests that seriously affected areas are a localized rather than universal problem.

While some explore the possibilities for a lifestyle that fully eschews use of modern industrial chemicals, the most prevalent remediative approach is to focus on more judicious use. The most efficient chemical plants are now able to contain nearly all toxic byproducts of their production processes within the premises, minimizing the release of such substances into the environment.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 463 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Techniques such as Integrated Pest Management (IPM) dictate limited rather than broadcast use of pesticides: application only when needed using the safest available chemical, supplemented as much as possible with nontoxic controls.

While heightened public awareness and growing technical sophistication suggest a hopeful outlook on limiting the damage from manmade environmental toxins, one must grant that previous incidents of their misuse and mishandling have already caused environmental damage that will have to be dealt with for many years to come. In the case of the most hazardous radioactive substances, the time scale for successful remediation actually extends beyond that of the recorded history of civilization. Moreover, in this era of high population density and rapid economic growth, quotidian activities such as the transport of chemicals will occasionally, seemingly inevitably result in accidents with adverse environmental consequences.

7. "Islandization" and Biodiversity

With increased awareness regarding the adverse effects of unregulated hunting and habitat depletion upon wildlife species and other aspects of biodiversity, large-scale efforts across the globe have been initiated to reduce and even reverse this trend.

In every region of the world, many species of wildlife and areas of biodiversity have been saved from extinction. Nationally, many countries have adopted policies aimed at preservation and conservation of species, and one of the most tangible measures has been the proliferation of protected habitats. Such habitats exist in the form of wildlife reserves, marine life reserves, and other such areas where biodiversity can be protected from external encroachment and exploitation.

Despite these advances in wildlife and biodiversity protection, further and perhaps more intractable challenges linger. Designated reserves, while intended to prevent further species decline, exist as closed territories, fragmented from other such enclaves and disconnected from the larger ecosystem. This environmental scenario is referred to as "islandization." Habitat reserves often serve as oversized zoos or game farms, with landscapes and wildlife that have effectively been "tamed" to suit. Meanwhile, the larger surrounding ecosystem continues to be seriously degraded and transformed, while within the islandized habitat, species that are the focus of conservation efforts may not have sufficient range and may not be able to maintain healthy genetic variability.

As a consequence, many conservationists and preservationists have demanded that substantially larger portions of land be withheld as habitat reserves, and a network of biological corridors to connect continental reserves be established. While such efforts to combat islandization have considerable support in the United States, how precisely such a program would be instituted, especially across national boundaries, remains a matter of debate. International conservationists and preservationists say without a network of reserves a massive loss of biodiversity will result.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 464 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The concept of islandization illustrates why conservation and preservation of wildlife and biodiversity must consider and adopt new, broader strategies. In the past, conservation and preservation efforts have been aimed at specific species, such as the spotted owl and grizzly bear in North America, the Bengal tiger in Southeast Asia, the panda in China, elephants in Africa. Instead, the new approach is to simultaneously protect many and varied species that inhabit the same ecosystem. This method, referred to as "bio-regional conservation," may more efficaciously generate longer-term and more far-reaching results precisely because it is aimed at preserving entire ecosystems, and all the living things within.

More About Biodiversity Issues:

This section is directly taken from the United Nations Environmental Program: "Biodiversity Assessment"

The Global Biodiversity Assessment, completed by 1500 scientists under the auspices of United Nations Environmental Program in 1995, updated what is known (or unknown) about global biological diversity at the ecosystem, species and genetic levels. The assessment was uncertain of the total number of species on Earth within an order of magnitude. Of its working figure of 13 million species, only 13 percent are scientifically described. Ecological community diversity is also poorly known, as is its relationship to biological diversity, and genetic diversity has been studied for only a small number of species. The effects of human activities on biodiversity have increased so greatly that the rate of species extinctions is rising to hundreds or thousands of times the background level. These losses are driven by increasing demands on species and their habitats, and by the failure of current market systems to value biodiversity adequately. The Assessment calls for urgent action to reverse these trends.

There has been a new recognition of the importance of protecting marine and aquatic biodiversity. The first quantitative estimates of species losses due to growing coral reef destruction predict that almost 200,000 species, or one in five presently contributing to coral reef biodiversity, could die out in the next 40 years if human pressures on reefs continue to increase.

Since Rio, many countries have improved their understanding of the status and importance of their biodiversity, particularly through biodiversity country studies such as those prepared under the auspices of UNEP/GEF. The United Kingdom identified 1250 species needing monitoring, of which 400 require action plans to ensure their survival. Protective measures for biodiversity, such as legislation to protect species, can prove effective. In the USA, almost 40 percent of the plants and animals protected under the Endangered Species Act are now stable or improving as a direct result of recovery efforts. Some African countries have joined efforts to protect threatened species through the 1994 Lusaka Agreement, and more highly migratory species are being protected by

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 465 of 506 pages United Kingdom specialized cooperative agreements among range states under the Bonn Agreement.

There is an emerging realization that a major part of conservation of biological diversity must take place outside of protected areas and involve local communities. The extensive agricultural areas occupied by small farmers contain much biodiversity that is important for sustainable food production. Indigenous agricultural practices have been and continue to be important elements in the maintenance of biodiversity, but these are being displaced and lost. There is a new focus on the interrelationship between agrodiversity conservation and sustainable use and development practices in smallholder agriculture, with emphasis on use of farmers' knowledge and skills as a source of information for sustainable farming.

Perhaps even more important than the loss of biodiversity is the transformation of global biogeochemical cycles, the reduction in the total world biomass, and the decrease in the biological productivity of the planet. While quantitative measurements are not available, the eventual economic and social consequences may be so significant that the issue requires further attention.

******

Specific sources used for this section:

Bendall, Roger. 1996. "Biodiversity: the follow up to Rio". The Globe 30:4-5, April 1996.

Global Environmental Change: Human and Policy Implications. 1995. Special issue on "People, Land Management and Environmental Change", Vol. 3, No. 4, September 1995.

Golubev, Genady N. (Moscow University) In litt. 29 June 1996.

Heywood, V.H. (ed.). 1995. Global Biodiversity Assessment. United Nations Environment Programme. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Heywood, V.H. 1996. "The Global Biodiversity Assessment". The Globe, 30:2-4, April 1996.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 466 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Reaka-Kudla, Marjorie. 1996. Paper presented at American Association for Advancement of Science, February 1996. Quoted in Pain, Stephanie. "Treasures lost in reef madness". New Scientist, 17 February 1996.

Uitto, Juha I., and Akiko Ono (eds). 1996. Population, Land Management and Environmental Change. The United Nations University, Tokyo.

USFWS. 1994. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report to Congress, cited in news release 21 July 1994.

Online resources used generally in the Environmental Overview:

Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site. URL: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming

Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Forestry. URL: http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/sofo/en/

Global Warming Information Page. URL: http://globalwarming.org

United Nations Environmental Program. URL: http://www.unep.org/GEO/GEO_Products/Assessment_Reports/

United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/

Note on Edition Dates:

The edition dates for textual resources are noted above because they were used to formulate the original content. We also have used online resources (cited above) to update coverage as needed.

Information Resources

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 467 of 506 pages United Kingdom

For more information about environmental concepts, CountryWatch recommends the following resources:

The United Nations Environmental Program Network (with country profiles)

The United Nations Environment Program on Climate Change

The United Nations Environmental Program on Waters and Oceans

The United Nations Environmental Program on Forestry: "Forests in Flux"

FAO "State of the World's Forests"

World Resources Institute.

Harvard University Center for Health and the Global Environment

The University of Wisconsin Center for Sustainability and the Global Environment http://sage.aos.wisc.edu/

International Environmental Agreements and Associations

International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming: United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 468 of 506 pages United Kingdom

International Policy Development in Regard to Global Warming:

Introduction

Regardless of what the precise nature of the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming may be, it seems that there is some degree of a connection between the phenomena. Any substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and global warming trends will likely involve systematic changes in industrial operations, the use of advanced energy sources and technologies, as well as global cooperation in implementing and regulating these transformations.

In this regard, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) stipulated the following objectives:

1. To stabilize "greenhouse gas" concentrations within the atmosphere, in such a manner that would preclude hazardous anthropogenic intervention into the existing biosphere and ecosystems of the world. This stabilization process would facilitate the natural adaptation of ecosystems to changes in climate.

2. To ensure and enable sustainable development and food production on a global scale.

Following are two discusssions regarding international policies on the environment, followed by listings of international accords.

Special Entry: The Kyoto Protocol

The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, and entered into force in 1994. Over 175 parties were official participants.

Meanwhile, however, many of the larger, more industrialized nations failed to reach the emissions' reduction targets, and many UNFCCC members agreed that the voluntary approach to reducing emissions had not been successful. As such, UNFCCC members reached a consensus that legally binding limits were necessitated, and agreed to discuss such a legal paradigm at a meeting in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. At that meeting, the UNFCCC forged the Kyoto Protocol. This concord is the first legally binding international agreement that places limits on emissions from industrialized countries. The major greenhouse gas emissions addressed in the Kyoto Protocol include carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and methane.

The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol stipulate that economically advanced nations must reduce their combined emissions of greenhouse gases, by approximately five percent from their 1990

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 469 of 506 pages United Kingdom levels, before the 2008-2010 deadline. Countries with the highest carbon dioxide emissions, such as the United States (U.S.), many of the European Union (EU) countries, and Japan, are to reduce emissions by a scale of 6 to 8 percent. All economically advanced nations must show "demonstrable progress" by 2005. In contrast, no binding limits or timetable have been set on developing countries. Presumably, this distinction is due to the fact that most developing countries - - with the obvious exceptions of India and China -- simply do not emit as many greenhouse gases as do more industrially advanced countries. Meanwhile, these countries are entrenched in the process of economic development.

Regardless of the aforementioned reasoning, there has been strong opposition against the asymmetrical treatment assigned to emissions limits among developed and developing countries. Although this distinction might be regarded as unfair in principle, associations such as the Alliance of Small Island States have been vocal in expressing how global warming -- a result of greenhouse gas emissions - has contributed to the rise in sea level, and thus deleteriously affected their very existence as island nation states. For this reason, some parties have suggested that economically advanced nations, upon returning to their 1990 levels, should be required to further reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a deadline of 2005. In response, interested parties have observed that even if such reductions were undertaken by economically advanced nations, they would not be enough to completely control global warming. Indeed, a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel usage by developing nations would also be necessary to have substantial ameliorative effect on global warming. Indeed, a reduction in the rate of fossil fuel usage by developing nations would also be necessary to have substantial ameliorative effect on global warming.

As such, the Protocol established a "Clean Development Mechanism" which permits developed countries to invest in projects aimed at reducing emissions within developing countries in return for credit for the reductions. Ostensibly, the objective of this mechanism is to curtail emissions in developing countries without unduly penalizing them for their economic development. Under this model, the countries with more potential emissions credits could sell them to other signatories of the Kyoto Protocol, whose emissions are forecast to significantly rise in the next few years. Should this trading of emissions credits take place, it is estimated that the Kyoto Protocol's emissions targets could still be met.

In 1999, the International Energy Outlook projected that Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union and Newly Independent States, as well as parts of Asia, are all expected to show a marked decrease in their level of energy-related carbon emissions in 2010. Nations with the highest emissions, specifically, the U.S., the EU and Japan, are anticipated to reduce their emissions by up to 8 percent by 2012. By 2000, however, the emissions targets were not on schedule for achievement. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy estimates forecast that by 2010, there will be a 34 percent increase in carbon emissions from the 1990 levels, in the absence of major shifts in policy, economic growth, energy prices, and consumer trends. Despite this assessment in the U.S., international support for the Kyoto Protocol remained strong, especially among European countries

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 470 of 506 pages United Kingdom and island states, who view the pact as one step in the direction away from reliance on fossil fuels and other sources of greenhouse gases.

In 2001, U.S. President, George W. Bush, rejected his country's participation in the Kyoto Protocol, saying that the costs imposed on the global economic system, and especially, on the US, overshadowed the benefits of the Protocol. He also cited the unfair burden on developed nations to reduce emissions, as another primary reasons for withdrawal from the international pact, as well as insufficient evidence regarding the science of global warming. Faced with impassioned international disapproval for his position, the U.S. president stated that his administration remained interested in dealing with the matter of global warming, but would endorse alternative measures to combat the problem, such as voluntary initiatives limiting emissions. Critics of Bush's position, however, have noted that it was the failure of voluntary initiatives to reduce emissions following the Rio Summit that led to the establishment of the Kyoto Protocol in the first place.

In the wake of the Bush administration's decision, many participant countries resigned themselves to the reality that the goals of the Kyoto Protocol might not be achieved without U.S. involvement. Nevertheless, in Bonn, Germany, in July 2001, the remaining participant countries struck a political compromise on some of the key issues and sticking points, and planned to move forward with the Protocol, irrespective of the absence of the U.S. The key compromise points included the provision for countries to offset their targets with carbon sinks (these are areas of forest and farmland which can absorb carbon through the process of photosynthesis). Another compromise point within the broader Bonn Agreement was the reduction of emissions cuts of six gases from over 5 percent to a more achievable 2 percent. A third key change was the provision of funding for less wealthy countries to adopt more progressive technologies.

In late October and early November 2001, the UNFCC's 7th Conference of the Parties met in Marrakesh, Morocco, to finalize the measures needed to make the Kyoto Protocol operational. Although the UNFCC projected that ratification of the Protocol would make it legally binding within a year, many critics noted that the process had fallen short of implementing significant changes in policy that would be necessary to actually stop or even slow climate change. They also maintained that the absence of U.S. participation effectively rendered the Protocol into being a political exercise without any substance, either in terms of transnational policy or in terms of environmental concerns.

The adoption of the compromises ensconced within the Bonn Agreement had been intended to make the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol more palatable to the U.S. In this regard, it failed to achieve its objective as the Bush administration continued to eschew participation in the international accord. Still, however, the Bonn Agreement did manage to render a number of other positive outcomes. Specifically, in 2002, key countries, such as Russia, Japan and Canada agreed to ratify the protocol, bringing the number of signatories to 178. The decision by key countries to

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 471 of 506 pages United Kingdom ratify the protocol was regarded as "the kiss of life" by observers.

By 2005, on the eve of a climate change conference in London, British Prime Minister Tony Blair was hoping to deal with the problems of climate change beyond the provisions set forth in the Kyoto Protocol. Acknowledging that the Kyoto Protocol could not work in its current form, Blair wanted to open the discussion for a new climate change plan.

Blair said that although most of the world had signed on to Kyoto, the protocol could not meet any of its practical goals of cutting greenhouse gas emissions without the participation of the United States, the world's largest polluter. He also noted that any new agreement would have to include India and China -- significant producers of greenhouse gas emissions, but exempt from Kyoto because they have been classified as developing countries. Still, he said that progress on dealing with climate change had been stymied by "a reluctance to face up to reality and the practical action needed to tackle problem."

Blair also touted the "huge opportunities" in technology and pointed toward the possibilities offered by wind, solar and nuclear power, along with fuel cell technology, eco-friendly biofuels, and carbon capture and storage which could generate low carbon power. Blair also asserted that his government was committed to achieving its domestic goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 20 percent by 2010.

In the United States, President George W. Bush has said that global warming remained a debatable issue and despite conclusions reached by his own Environmental Protection Agency, he has not agreed with the conclusion that global warming and climate change are linked with human activities. Bush has also refused to ratify Kyoto on the basis of its economic costs.

Australia, an ally of the United States, has taken a similarly dim view of the Kyoto Protocol. Ahead of the November 2005 climate change meeting in Canada in which new goals for the protocol were to be discussed, Australia 's Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, said that negotiating new greenhouse gas emission levels for the Kyoto Protocol would be a waste of time. Campbell said, "There is a consensus that the caps, targets and timetables approach is flawed. If we spend the next five years arguing about that, we'll be fiddling and negotiating while Rome burns." Campbell, like the Bush administration, has also advocated a system of voluntary action in which industry takes up new technologies rather than as a result of compelling the reduction of emissions. But the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) has called on its government to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, to establish a system of emissions trading, and to set binding limits on emissions. Interestingly, although it did not sign on to Kyoto , Australia was expected to meet its emissions target by 2012 (an 8 percent increase in 1990 levels in keeping with the country's reliance on coal). But this success has nothing to do with new technologies and is due to state- based regulations on land clearing.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 472 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Note: The Kyoto Protocol calls for developed nations to cut greenhouse emissions by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels by 2012.

Special Entry: Climate Change Summit in Copenhagen (2009) --

In December 2009, the United Nations Climate Change Summit opened in the Danish capital of Copenhagen. The summit was scheduled to last from Dec. 7-18, 2009. Delegates from more than 190 countries were in attendance, and approximately 100 world leaders, including British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and United States President Barack Obama, were expected to participate. At issue was the matter of new reductions targets on greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

Despite earlier fears that little concurrence would come from the conference, effectively pushing significant actions forward to a 2010 conference in Mexico City, negotiators were now reporting that the talks were productive and several key countries, such as South Africa, had pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The two main issues that could still lead to cleavages were questions of agreement between the industrialized countries and the developing countries of the world, as well as the overall effectiveness of proposals in seriously addressing the perils of climate change.

On Dec. 9, 2009, four countries -- the United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Norway -- presented a document outlining ideas for raising and managing billions of dollars, which would be intended to help vulnerable countries dealing with the perils of climate change. Described as a "green fund," the concept could potentially help small island states at risk because of the rise in sea level. Bangladesh identified itself as a potential recipient of an assistance fund, noting that as a country plagued by devastating floods, it was particularly hard-hit by climate change. The "green fund" would fall under the rubric of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, for which developed countries have been committed to quantifying their emission reduction targets, and also to providing financial and technical support to developing countries.

The United Kingdom, Australia, Mexico and Norway also called for the creation of a new legal treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol. This new treaty, which could go into force in 2012, would focus largely on the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 2020. But Australia went even further in saying that the successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, should be one with provisions covering all countries. Such a move would be a departure from the structure of the Kyoto Protocol, which contained emissions targets for industrialized countries due to the prevailing view that developed countries had a particular historic responsibility to be accountable for climate change. More recently, it has become apparent that substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions demanded by scientists would only come to pass with the participation also of significant developing nation states, such as China and India. Indeed, one of the most pressing critiques of the Kyoto Protocol was that it was a "paper tiger" that failed to address the impact of the actions of

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 473 of 506 pages United Kingdom emerging economies like China and India, with its focus on the developed economies.

Now, in 2009, China -- as the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter -- was responding this dubious distinction by vocalizing its criticism of the current scenario and foregrounding its new commitments. Ahead of the Copenhagen summit, China had announced it would reduce the intensity of its carbon emissions per unit of its GDP in 2020 by 40 to 45 percent against 2005 levels. With that new commitment at hand, China was now accusing the United States and the European Union of shirking their own responsibilities by setting weak targets for greenhouse gas emissions cuts. Senior Chinese negotiator, Su Wei, characterized the goals of the world's second largest greenhouse gas emitter -- the United States -- as "not notable," and the European Union's target as "not enough." Su Wei also took issue with Japan for setting implausible preconditions.

On Dec. 11, 2009, China demanded that developed and wealthy countries in Copenhagen should help deliver a real agreement on climate change by delivering on their promises to reduce carbon emissions and provide financial support for developing countries to adapt to global warming. In so doing, China's Vice Foreign Minister He Yafei said his country was hoping that a "balanced outcome" would emerge from the discussions at the summit. Echoing the position of the Australian government, He Yafei spoke of a draft agreement as follows: "The final document we're going to adopt needs to be taking into account the needs and aspirations of all countries, particularly the most vulnerable ones."

China's Vice Foreign Minister emphasized the fact that climate change was "a matter of survival" for developing countries, and accordingly, such countries need wealthier and more developed countries to accentuate not only their pledges of emissions reduction targets, but also their financial commitments under the aforementioned United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. To that end, scientists and leaders of small island states in the Indian Ocean, the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea, have highlighted the existential threat posed by global warming and the concomitant rise in sea level.

China aside, attention was also on India -- another major player in the developing world and a country with an industrializing economy that was impacting the environment. At issue was the Indian government's decision to set a carbon intensity target, which would slow emissions growth by up to 25 percent by the 2020 deadline. This strong position was resisted by some elements in India, who argued that their country should not be taking such a strong position when developed wealthy countries were yet to show accountability for their previous commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The matter grew so heated that the members of the opposition stormed out of the parliament in protest as Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh defended the policy. But the political pressure at home in India was leaving the Indian delegation in Copenhagen in a state of chaos as well. In fact, India's top environmental negotiator refused to travel to Copenhagen in protest of the government's newly-announced stance.

China and India were joined by Brazil and South Africa in the crafting of a draft document calling

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 474 of 506 pages United Kingdom for a new global climate treaty to be completed by June 2010. Of concern has been the realization that there was insufficient time to find concurrence on a full legal treaty, which would leave countries only with a politically-binding text by the time the summit at Copenhagen closed. But Guyana's leader, President Bharrat Jagdeo, warned that the summit in Denmark would be classified as a failure unless a binding document was agreed upon instead of just political consensus. He urged his cohorts to act with purpose saying, "Never before have science, economics, geo-strategic self-interest and politics intersected in such a way on an issue that impacts everyone on the planet."

Likewise, Tuvalu demanded that legally binding agreements emerge from Copenhagen. Its proposal was supported by many of the vulnerable countries, from small island states and sub- Saharan Africa, all of whom warned of the catastrophic impact of climate change on their citizens. Tuvalu also called for more aggressive action, such as an amendment to the 1992 agreement, which would focus on sharp greenhouse gas emissions and the accepted rise in temperatures, due to the impact the rise in seas. The delegation from Kiribati joined the call by drawing attention to the fact that one village had to be abandoned due to waist-high water, and more such effects were likely to follow. Kiribati's Foreign Secretary, Tessie Lambourne, warned that the people of Kiribati could well be faced with no homeland in the future saying, "Nobody in this room would want to leave their homeland." But despite such impassioned pleas and irrespective of warnings from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that the rise in sea level from melting polar ice caps would deleteriously affect low-lying atolls such as such as Tuvalu and Kiribati in the Pacific, and the Maldives in the Indian Ocean, the oil-giant Saudi Arabia was able to block this move.

Meanwhile, within the developed countries, yet another power struggle was brewing. The European Union warned it would only agree to raise its target of 20 percent greenhouse gas emissions reductions to 30 percent if the United States demonstrated that it would do more to reduce its own emissions. It was unknown if such pressure would yield results. United States President Barack Obama offered a "provisional" 2020 target of 17 percent reductions, noting that he could not offer greater concessions at Copenhagen due to resistance within the United States Congress, which was already trying to pass a highly controversial "cap and trade" emissions legislation. However, should that emissions trading bill fail in the Senate, the United States Environment Protection Agency's declaration that greenhouse gases pose a danger to human health and the environment was expected to facilitate further regulations and limits on power plants and factories at the national level. These moves could potentially strengthen the Obama administration's offering at Copenhagen. As well, President Obama also signaled that he would be willing to consider the inclusion of international forestry credits.

Such moves indicated willingness by the Obama administration to play a more constructive role on the international environmental scene than its predecessor, the Bush administration. Indeed, ahead of his arrival at the Copenhagen summit, President Barack Obama's top environmental advisors

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 475 of 506 pages United Kingdom promised to work on a substantial climate change agreement. To that end, United States Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson said at a press conference, "We are seeking robust engagement with all of our partners around the world." But would this pro- engagement assertion yield actual results?

By Dec. 12, 2009, details related to a draft document prepared by Michael Zammit Cutajar, the head of the Ad-hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, were released at the Copenhagen climate conference. Included in the document were calls for countries to make major reductions in carbon emissions over the course of the next decade. According to the Washington Post, industrialized countries were called on to make cuts of between 25 percent and 40 percent below 1990 levels -- reductions that were far more draconian than the United States was likely to accept. As discussed above, President Obama had offered a provisional reduction target of 17 percent. The wide gap between the released draft and the United States' actual stated position suggested there was much more negotiating in the offing if a binding agreement could be forged, despite the Obama administration's claims that it was seeking greater engagement on this issue.

In other developments, the aforementioned call for financial support of developing countries to deal with the perils of climate change was partly answered by the European Union on Dec. 11, 2009. The European bloc pledged an amount of 2.4 billion euros (US$3.5 billion) annually from 2010 to 2012. Environment Minister Andreas Carlgren of Sweden -- the country that holds the rotating presidency of the European Union at the time of the summit -- put his weight behind the notion of a "legally binding deal." Meanwhile, Yvo de Boer, a top United Nations climate change official, focused less on the essence of the agreement and more on tangible action and effects saying, "Copenhagen will only be a success if it delivers significant and immediate action that begins the day the conference ends."

The division between developed and developing countries in Copenhagen reached new heights on Dec. 14, 2009, when some of the poor and less developed countries launched a boycott at the summit. The move, which was spurred by African countries but backed by China and India, appeared to be geared toward redirecting attention and primary responsibility to the wealthier and more industrialized countries. The impasse was resolved after the wealthier and more industrialized countries offered assurances that they did not intend on shirking from their commitments to reducing greenhouse gases. As a result, the participating countries ceased the boycott.

Outside the actual summit, thousands of protestors had gathered to demand crucial global warming, leading to clashes between police and demonstrators elsewhere in the Danish capital city. There were reports of scattered violence across Copenhagen and more than 1,000 people were arrested.

Nevertheless, by the second week of the climate change summit, hopes of forging a strong deal were eroding as developed and developing nations remained deadlocked on sharing cuts in

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 476 of 506 pages United Kingdom greenhouse gases, and particularly on the matters of financing and temperature goals. In a bid to shore up support for a new climate change, United States President Barack Obama joined other world leaders in Copenhagen. On Dec. 14, 2009, there was a standoff brewing between the United States and China. At issue was China's refusal to accept international monitoring of its expressed targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The United States argued that China's opposition to verification could be a deal-breaker.

By the close of the summit, the difficult process eventually resulted in some consensus being cultivated. A draft text called for $100 billion a year by 2020 to assist poor nations cope with climate change, while aiming to limit global warming to two degrees Celsius compared with pre- industrial levels. The deal also included specific targets for developed countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and called for reductions by developing countries as a share of their economies. Also included in the agreement was a mechanism to verify compliance. The details of the agreement were supported by President Barack Obama, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva.

This draft would stand as an interim agreement, with a legally-binding international pact unlikely to materialize until 2010. In this way, the summit in Copenhagen failed to achieve its central objective, which was to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions.

Editor's Note

In the background of these developments was the growing global consciousness related to global warming and climate change. Indeed, as the Copenhagen summit was ongoing, it was clear there was enormous concurrence on the significance of the stakes with an editorial on the matter of climate change being published in 56 newspapers in 45 countries. That editorial warned that without global action, climate change would "ravage our planet." Meanwhile, a global survey taken by Globescan showed that concern over global warming had exponentially increased from 1998 -- when only 20 percent of respondents believed it to be a serious problem -- to 64 percent in 2009. Such survey data, however, was generated ahead of the accusations by climate change skeptics that some climate scientists may have overstated the case for global warming, based on emails derived in an illicit manner from a British University.

Special Entry: Climate change talks in Doha in Qatar extend life of Kyoto Protocol (2012)

December 2012 saw climate talks ensue in the Qatari city of Doha as representatives from countries across the world gathered to discuss the fate of the Kyoto Protocol, which seeks to minimize greenhouse gas emissions. The summit yielded results with decisions made (1) to extend the Kyoto Protocol until 2020, and (2) for wealthier countries to compensate poorer countries for the losses and damage incurred as a result of climate change.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 477 of 506 pages United Kingdom

In regards to the second matter, Malia Talakai of Nauru, a leading negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States, explained the necessity of the compensation package as follows: “We are trying to say that if you pollute you must help us.”

This measure was being dubbed the "Loss and Damage" mechanism, and was being linked with United States President Barack Obama's request for $60 billion from Congress to deal with the devastation caused by Hurricane Sandy months before. The sight of a hurricane bearing down on the northern Atlantic seaboard, along with the reality of the scope of reconstruction, appeared to have illustrated the economic costs of climate change -- not so much as a distant environmental issue -- but as a danger to the quotidian lives of people. Still, there was blame to be placed on the United States and European countries -- some of world's largest emitters -- for failing to do more to reduce emissions.

To that latter end, there was in fact little progress made on the central issue of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Had those emissions been reduced, there would have been less of a need to financially deal with the devastation caused by climate change. One interpretation was that the global community was accepting the fact that industrialization was contributing to global warming, which had deleterious effects on the polar ice caps and concomitantly on the rise of sea level, with devastating effects for small island nations. Thus, wealthier countries were willing to pay around $10 billion a year through 2020, effectively in "damages," to the poor countries that could be viewed as the "collateral damage" of industrial progress. But damages today could potentially be destruction tomorrow, leaving in place the existential challenges and burdens to be born by some of the world's smallest and least wealthy island countries.

Perhaps not surprisingly, the representative for the small island nation states at the Doha summit responded with ire, characterizing the lack of progress on reducing emissions as follows: "We see the package before us as deeply deficient in mitigation (carbon cuts) and finance. It's likely to lock us on the trajectory to a 3,4,5C rise in global temperatures, even though we agreed to keep the global average temperature rise of 1.5C to ensure survival of all islands. There is no new finance (for adapting to climate change and getting clean energy) -- only promises that something might materialize in the future. Those who are obstructive need to talk not about how their people will live, but whether our people will live."

Indeed, in most small island countries not just in the Pacific, but also the Caribbean and Indian Ocean, ecological concerns and the climate crisis have been dominant themes with dire life and death consequences looming in the background for their people. Small island nations in these region are already at risk from the rise of sea-level, tropical cyclones, floods. But their very livelihoods of fishing and subsistence farming were also at risk as a result of ecological and environmental changes. Increasingly high storm surges can wipe out entire and contaminate water supplies. Accordingly, the very existence of island nations, such as Kiribati and Tuvalu, are

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 478 of 506 pages United Kingdom at severe risk of being obliterated from the map. Yet even with the existential threat of being wiped off the map in the offing, the international community has been either slow or restrictive in its efforts to deal with global warming, climate change, economic and ecological damage, as well as the emerging global challenge of environmental refugees.

A 2012 report from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and the Pacific Regional Environment Program underlined the concerns of small island nations and their people as it concluded that the livelihoods of approximately 10 million people in Pacific island communities were increasingly vulnerable to climate change. In fact, low-lying islands in that region would likely confront losses of up to 18 percent of gross domestic product due to climate change, according to the report. The report covers 21 countries and territories, including Fiji, Kiribati, Samoa and Tonga, and recommended environmental legislation intended to deal with the climate crisis facing the small island countries particularly. As noted by David Sheppard, the director general of the Pacific Regional Environment Program that co-sponsored this study: “The findings... emphasize the need more than ever to raise the bar through collective actions that address the region's environmental needs at all levels."

Regardless of the failures of the summit in Qatar (discussed above), the meeting did facilitate a process starting in 2015, which would bind both wealthy and poor countries together in the mission of forging a new binding treaty that would replace the Kyoto Protocol and tackle the central causes of climate change.

For more information on the threats faced in small island nations by climate change and the measures being undertaken to lobby for international action, please see the Alliance for Small Island States available online at the URL: http://aosis.org/

Special Report

COP 21 summit in Paris ends with historic agreement to tackle climate change; rare international consensus formed on environmental crisis facing the planet (2015) --

In mid-December 2015, the highly-anticipated United Nations climate conference of parties (COP) in Paris, France, ended with a historic agreement. In fact, it would very likely be understood as the most significant international agreement signed by all the recognized countries of the world since the Cold War. Accordingly, the Paris Agreement was being distinguished as the first multilateral pact that would compel all countries across the world to cut its carbon emissions -- one of the major causes of increasing greenhouse gas emissions, which contribute to global warming, and its deleterious effects ranging from the dangerous rise in sea level to catastrophic climate change.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 479 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The accord, which was dubbed to be the "Paris Agreement," was the work of rigorous diplomacy and fervent environmental advocacy, and it aimed to address the climate change crisis facing the planet. As many as 195 countries were represented in the negotiations that led to the landmark climate deal. Indeed, it was only after weeks of passionate debate that international concurrence was reached in addressing the environmental challenges confronting the world, with particular attention to moving beyond fossil fuels and reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The success of the COP 21 summit in Paris and the emergence of the landmark Paris Agreement was, to some extent, attributed to the efforts of France's Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius who presided over the negotiations. The French foreign minister's experience and credentials as a seasoned diplomat and respected statesman paid dividends. He skillfully guided the delegates from almost 200 countries and interest groups along the negotiations process, with ostensibly productive results and a reasonably robust deal to show for it.

On Dec. 12, 2015, French Foreign Minister Fabius officially adopted the agreement, declaring: "I now invite the COP to adopt the decision entitled Paris Agreement outlined in the document. Looking out to the room I see that the reaction is positive, I see no objections. The Paris agreement is adopted." Once Foreign Minister Fabius' gavel was struck, symbolically inaugurating the Paris Agreement into force, the COP delegate rushed to their feet with loud and bouyant cheers as well as thunderous applause.

In general, the Paris Agreement was being hailed as a victory for enviromental activists and a triumph for international diplomats, while at the same time being understood as simply an initial -- and imperfect -- move in the direction of a sustainable future. China's chief negotiator, Xie Zhenhua, issued this message, saying that while the accord was not ideal, it should "not prevent us from marching historical steps forward."

United States President Barack Obama lauded the deal as both "ambitious" and "historic," and the work of strenuous multilateral negotiations as he declared, "Together, we've shown what's possible when the world stands as one." The United States leader acknowledged that the accord was not "perfect," but he reminded the critics that it was "the best chance to save the one planet we have. "

Former United States Vice President Al Gore, one of the world's most well known environmental advocates, issued a lengthy statement on the accompishments ensconced in the Paris Agreement. He highlighted the fact that the Paris Agreement was a first step towards a future with a reduced carbon footprint on Planet Earth as he said, "The components of this agreement -- including a strong review mechanism to enhance existing commitments and a long-term goal to eliminate global-warming pollution this century -- are essential to unlocking the necessary investments in our future. No agreement is perfect, and this one must be strengthened over time, but groups across every sector of society will now begin to reduce dangerous carbon pollution through the framework of this agreement."

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 480 of 506 pages United Kingdom

The central provisions of the Paris Agreement included the following items:

- Greenhouse gas emissions should peak as quickly as possible, with a move towards balancing energy sources, and ultimately the decrease of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century - Global temperature increase would be limited to 1.5 degrees Centigrade above pre-industrial levels and would be held "well below" the two degrees Centigrade threshold - Progress on these goals would be reviewed every five years beginning in 2020 with new greenhouse gas reduction targets issued every five years - $100 billion would be expended each year in climate finance for developing countries to move forward with green technologies, with further climate financing to be advanced in the years beyond

It should be noted that there both legally binding and voluntary elements contained within the Paris Agreement. Specifically, the submission of an emissions reduction target and the regular review of that goal would be legally mandatory for all countries. Stated differently, there would be a system in place by which experts would be able to track the carbon-cutting progress of each country. At the same time, the specific targets to be set by countries would be determined at the discretion of the countries, and would not be binding. While there was some criticism over this non-binding element, the fact of the matter was that the imposition of emissions targets was believed to be a major factor in the failure of climate change talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in 2009.

In 2015, the talks faced challenges as several countries, such as China and India, objected to conditions that would stymie economic and development. In order to avoid that kind of landmine, a system Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs) was developed and formed the basis of the accord. As such, the Paris Agreement would, in fact, facilitate economic growth and development, as well as technological progress, but with the goal of long-term ecological sustainability based on low carbon sources. In fact, the agreement heralded as "the beginning of the end of the fossil fuel era." As noted by Nick Mabey, the head of the climate diplomacy organization E3G, said, "Paris means governments will go further and faster to tackle climate change than ever before. The transition to a low carbon economy is now unstoppable, ensuring the end of the fossil fuel age."

A particular sticking point in the agreement was the $100 billion earmarked for climate financing for developing countries to transition from traditional fossil fuels to green energy technologies and a low carbon future. In 2014, a report by the International Energy Agency indicated that the cost of that transition would actually be around $44 trillion by the mid-century -- an amount that would render the $100 billion being promised to be a drop in the proverbial bucket. However, the general expectation was that the Republican-controlled Senate in the United States, which would have to ratify the deal in that country, was not interested in contributing significant funds for the cause of climate change.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 481 of 506 pages United Kingdom

A key strength of the Paris Agreement was the ubiquitous application of measures to all countries. Of note was the frequently utilized concept of "flexibility" with regard to the Paris Agreement. Specifically, the varying capacities of the various countries in meeting their obligations would be anticipated and accorded flexibility. This aspect presented something of a departure from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which drew a sharp distinction between developed and developing countries, and mandated a different set of obligations for those categories of countries. Thus, under Kyoto, China and India were not held to the same standards as the United States and European countries. In the Paris Agreement, there would be commitments from all countries across the globe.

Another notable strength of the Paris Agreement was the fact that the countries of the world were finally able to reach consensus on the vital necessity to limit global temperature increases to 1.5 degrees Centrigrade. Ahead of the global consensus on the deal, and as controversy continued to surface over the targeted global temperature limits, the leaders of island countries were sounding the alarm about the melting of the Polar ice caps and the associated rise in seal level. Prime Minister Enele Sopoaga of Tuvalu issued this dismal reminder: “Tuvalu’s future … is already bleak and any further temperature increase will spell the total demise of Tuvalu. No leader in this room carries such a level of worry and responsibility. Just imagine you are in my shoes, what would you do?” It was thus something of a victory for environmental advocates that the countries of the world could find cnsensus on the lower number -- 1.5 degrees rather than 2 degrees.

A significant weak point with regard to the Paris deal was a "loss and damage" provision, which anticipates that even with all the new undertakings intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and move to a low carbon future, there would nonetheless be unavoidable climate change consequences. Those consequences ranged from the loss of arable land for farmers as well as soil erosion and contamination of potable water by sea water, to the decimation of territory in coastal zones and on small islands, due to the rise in sea level, with entire small island countries being rendered entirely uninhabitable. The reality was that peoples' homes across the world would be destroyed along with their way of life.

With that latter catastrophic effect being a clear and present danger for small island countries, the Association of Small Island States (AOSIS) demanded that the developed world acknowledge its responsibility for this irreversible damage.. Despite the fact that greenhouse gas emissions and the ensuing plague of global warming was, indeed, the consequence of development in the West (the United States and Europe) and the large power house countries, such as Russia, China and India, there was no appetite by those countries to sign on to unlimited liability. Under the Paris Agreement, there was a call for research on insurance mechanisms that would address loss and damage issues, with recommendations to come in the future.

The call for research was being regarded as an evasion of sorts and constituted the weakest aspect

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 482 of 506 pages United Kingdom of the Paris Agreement. Not surprisingly, a coalition of small island nations demanded a "Marshall Plan" for the Pacific. Borrowing the term "Marshall Plan" from the post-World War II reconstruction effort, the coalition of Pacific island nation, which included Kiribati, Tuvalu, Fiji, and the Marshall Islands, called for an initiative that would include investment in renewable energy and shoreline protection, cultural preservation, economic assistance for economies in transition, and a plan for migration and resettlement for these countries as they confront the catastrophic effects of the melting of the Polar ice caps and the concomitant rise in sea level. The precise contours of the initiative remained unknown, unspecified, and a mere exercise in theory at the time of writing. Yet such an initiative would, at some point, have to be addressed, given the realities of climate change and the slow motion calamity unfolding each day for low-lying island nations across the world.

As noted by Vice President Greg Stone of Conservation International, who also functions as an adviser to the government of Kiribati, “Imagine living in a place where you know it’s going to go away someday, but you don’t know what day that wave’s going to come over and wash your home away." He added, “It’s a disaster we know is going to happen.” Meanwhile, the intervening years promised to be filled with hardship for small island nations, such as Kiribati. Stone explained, “For every inch of sea-level rise, these islands lose 10 feet of their freshwater table to saltwater intrusion,” Stone explained. “So it’s not just about the day the water finally goes over the island; it’s also about the day that there’s just not enough water left and everyone has to move off the island.” Presaging the future for island nations that could face submersion, Stone said, “If you look ahead 50 years, a country like Kiribati could become the first aqueous nation. possibility of migration. That is, they own this big patch of ocean, and they administer it from elsewhere.”

Foreign Minister Minister Tony Debrum of the Marshall Islands emerged as the champion advocating on behalf of small island nation states and a loose coalition of concerned countries from the Pacific to the Caribbean, but with support from the United States. He addressed the comprehensive concerns of small island nations regarding the weaknesses of the deal, while simultaneously making clear that the Paris Agreement signified hope for the countries most at risk. In a formal statement, Debrum declared: "We have made history today. Emissions targets are still way off track, but this agreement has the tools to ramp up ambition, and brings a spirit of hope that we can rise to this challenge. I can go back home to my people and say we now have a pathway to survival.” Debrum highlighted the imperatives of Pacific island nations, saying, “Our High Ambition Coalition was the lightning rod we needed to lift our sights and expectations for a strong agreement here in Paris. We were joined by countries representing more than half the world. We said loud and clear that a bare-bones, minimalist agreement would not fly. We instead demanded an agreement to mark a turning point in history, and the beginning of our journey to the post-carbon era.”

Debrum of the Marshall Islands espoused the quintessential synopsis of the accord and its effects

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 483 of 506 pages United Kingdom for those most likely to be affected by climate change as he noted, “Climate change won’t stop overnight, and my country is not out of the firing line just yet, but today we all feel a little safer.”

Editor's Entry on Environmental Policy:

The low-lying Pacific island nations of the world, including Kiribati, Tuvalu, the Marshall Islands, Fiji, among others, are vulnerable to the threats posed by global warming and cimate change, derived from carbon emissions, and resulting in the rise in sea level. Other island nations in the Caribbean, as well as poor countries with coastal zones, were also at particular risk of suffering the deleterious effects of climate change.

Political policy in these countries are often connected to ecological issues, which have over time morphed into an existential crisis of sorts. Indeed, ecological concerns and the climate crisis have also been dominant themes with life and death consequences for the people of island nations in the Pacific. Indeed, the very livelihoods of fishing and subsistence farming remain at risk as a result of ecological and environmental changes. Yet even so, these countries are threatened by increasingly high storm surges, which could wipe out entire villages and contaminate water supplies. Moreover, because these are low lying island nations, the sustained rise in sea level can potentially lead to the terrain of these countries being unihabitable at best, and submerged at worst. Stated in plain terms, these countries are at severe risk of being obliterated from the map and their plight illuminates the emerging global challenge of environmental refugees. In these manifold senses, climate change is the existential crisis of the contemporary era.

Since the time of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, there have been efforts aimed at extending the life of that agreement, with an eye on minimizing greenhouse gas emissions, and thus minimizing the effects of climate change. Those endeavors have largely ended in failure, as exemplified by the unsuccessful Copenhagen talks in 2009 and the fruitless Doha talks in 2012 respectively. The success of the COP 21 talks in France, with the adoption of the landmark Paris Agreement in 2015, was regarded as the first glimmer of hope. Not only did the Paris Agreement signify the triumph of international diplomacy and global consensus, but it also marked the start of the end of the fossil fuel era, with the path forward toward a low carbon future reliant on greener technologies. Most crucially, the Paris Agreement stood as the first significant response in recent times to the central challenge of climate change and its quotidian effects on the lives of real human beings across the world.

1. Major International Environmental Accords:

General Environmental Concerns

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 484 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Convention on Environmental Impact Assessment in a Transboundary Context, Espoo, 1991.

Accords Regarding Atmosphere

Annex 16, vol. II (Environmental Protection: Aircraft Engine Emissions) to the 1044 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation, Montreal, 1981

Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution (LRTAP), Geneva, 1079

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), New York, 1002

Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, Vienna, 1985 including the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Depleted the Ozone Layer, Montreal, 1987

Accords Regarding Hazardous Substances

Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Transboundary Movements and Management of Hazardous Wastes within Africa, Bamako, 1991

Convention on Civil Liability for Damage Caused during Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road, Rail and Inland Navigation Vessels (CRTD), Geneva, 1989

Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and their Disposal (Basel Convention), Basel, 1989

Convention on the Transboundary Effects of Industrial Accidents, , 1992

Convention to Ban the Importation into Forum Island Countries of Hazardous and Radioactive Wastes and to Control the Transboundary Movement and Management of Hazardous Wastes within the South Pacific Region (Waigani Convention), Waigani, 1995

European Agreement Concerning the International Carriage of Dangerous Goods by Road (ADR), Geneva 1957

FAO International Code of Conduct on the Distribution and Use of Pesticides, Rome, 1985

2. Major International Marine Accords:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 485 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Global Conventions

Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention 1972), London, 1972

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by Protocol of 1978 relation thereto (MARPOL 73/78), London, 1973 and 1978

International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage 1969 (1969 CLC), Brussels, 1969, 1976, and 1984

International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 (1971 Fund Convention), Brussels, 1971

Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea (HNS), London 1996

International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response, and Co-operation (OPRC), London, 1990

International Convention Relation to Intervention on the High Seas in Cases of Oil Pollution Casualties (Intervention Convention), Brussels, 1969

United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), Montego Bay, 1982

Regional Conventions

Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping from Ships and Aircraft ( Convention), Oslo, 1972

Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources (Paris Convention), Paris, 1974

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR Convention), Paris, 1992

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1974 Helsinki Convention), Helsinki 1974

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (1992 Helsinki

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 486 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Convention), Helsinki 1992

Conventions within the UNEP Regional Seas Programme

Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution, Bucharest, 1992

Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment of the Wider Caribbean Region, Cartagena de , 1983

Convention for the Protection, Management, and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the Eastern African Region, Nairobi, 1985

Kuwait Regional Convention for Co-operation on the Protection of the Marine Environment from Pollution, Kuwait, 1978

Convention for the Protection and Development of the Marine Environment and Coastal Region of the Mediterranean Sea (Barcelona Convention), Barcelona, 1976

Regional Convention for the Conservation of the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden Environment, Jeddah, 1982

Convention for the Protection of the Natural Resources and Environment of the South Pacific Region, Noumea, 1986

Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and Coastal Area of the South-East Pacific, Lima, 1981

Convention for Co-operation in the Protection and Development of the Marine and Coastal Environment of the West and Central African Region, Abidjan, 1981

3. Major Conventions Regarding Living Resources:

Marine Living Resources

Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources (CCAMLR), Canberra, 1980

International Convention for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT), Rio de Janeiro, 1966

International Convention for the Regulation of Whaling (ICRW), Washington, 1946

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 487 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Nature Conservation and Terrestrial Living Resources

Antarctic Treaty, Washington, D.C., 1959

Convention Concerning the Protection of the World Cultural and Natural Heritage (World Heritage Convention), Paris, 1972

Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), Nairobi, 1992

Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS), Bonn, 1979

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), Washington, D.C., 1973

Convention on Wetlands of International Importance especially as Waterfowl Habitat (Ramsar Convention), Ramsar, 1971

Convention to Combat Desertification (CCD), Paris 1994

FAO International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources, Rome, 1983

International Tropical Timber Agreement, 1994 (ITTA, 1994), Geneva, 1994

Freshwater Resources

Convention on the Protection and Use of Transboundary Watercourses and International Lakes, Helsinki, 1992

4. Major Conventions Regarding Nuclear Safety:

Convention on Assistance in the Case of a Nuclear Accident or Radiological Emergency (Assistance Convention), Vienna, 1986

Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (Notification Convention), Vienna, 1986

Convention on Nuclear Safety, Vienna, 1994

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 488 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Vienna Convention on Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage, Vienna, 1963

5. Major Intergovernmental Organizations

Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD)

European Union (EU): Environment

Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

Global Environment Facility (GEF)

International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)

International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES)

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD)

International Labour Organization (ILO)

International Maritime Organization (IMO)

International Monetary Fund (IMF)

International Oil Pollution Compensation Funds (IOPC Funds)

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Environment Policy Committee (EPOC)

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO)

United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO)

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 489 of 506 pages United Kingdom

World Bank

World Food Programme (WFP)

World Health Organization (WHO)

World Meteorological Organization (WMO)

World Trade Organization (WTO)

6. Major Non-Governmental Organizations

Atmosphere Action Network East Asia (AANEA)

Climate Action Network (CAN)

Consumers International (CI)

Earth Council

Earthwatch Institute

Environmental Liaison Centre International (ELCI)

European Environmental Bureau (EEB)

Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)

Friends of the Earth International (FoEI)

Greenpeace International

International Chamber of Commerce (ICC)

International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU)

International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF)

International Solar Energy Society (ISES)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 490 of 506 pages United Kingdom

IUCN-The World Conservation Union

Pesticide Action Network (PAN)

Sierra Club

Society for International Development (SID)

Third World Network (TWN)

Water Environment Federation (WEF)

Women's Environment and Development Organization (WEDO)

World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD)

World Federalist Movement (WFM)

World Resources Institute (WRI)

World Wide Fund For Nature (WWF)

7. Other Networking Instruments

Arab Network for Environment and Development (RAED)

Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE)

Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe (REC)

United Nations Non-Governmental Liaison Service (UN-NGLS)

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 491 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 492 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Appendices

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 493 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Bibliography

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Sources: Key Data

Altapedia. URL: http://www.atlapedia.com/online/country_index.htm

Ethnologue. URL: http://www.ethnologue.com

Geobase Global Statistics. URL: http://www.geoba.se

Infoplease: URL: http://www.infoplease.com

The Statesman's Year Book 2006. Barry Turner, ed. London: St. Martin's Press.

United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.htm

United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

World Bank. URL: http://www.worldbank.org/

World Climate Data Online. URL: http://www.worldclimate.com

Methodology Note for Demographic Data:

The demographic numbers for cities and national populations listed in CountryWatch content are derived from the Geoba.se website, which analyzes data from the World Bank. The current demographic numbers displayed on the Countrywatch website are reflective of the latest available estimates.

The demographic information for language, ethnicity and religion listed in CountryWatch content is

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 494 of 506 pages United Kingdom derived from a mix of sources including the Altapedia, Central Intelligence Agency Factbook, Infoplease, and State Department Background Notes.

Sources: Political Overview

Agence France Presse. URL: http://www.afp.com/en/

BBC International News. URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/ (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

Britannica Book of the Year. 1998-present. David Calhoun, ed. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.

Britannica Online URL :http://www.eb.com

Britannica Year in Review. URL: http://www.britannica.com/browse/year

Chiefs of State and Cabinet Members of Foreign Governments. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/index.html

Christian Science Monitor. URL: http://www.csmonitor.com/ (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

CNN International News. URL:http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/ (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

Current Leaders of Nations. 1997. Jennifer Mossman, ed. Detroit: Gale Research

The Economist Magazine. (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

The Economist Country Briefings. URL: http://www.economist.com/countries/

Eldis Country Profiles. URL: http://www.eldis.org/country/index.htm

Elections Around the World. URL: http://www.electionworld.org/

Election Resources. URL: http://electionresources.org/

Europa World Yearbook 1999. Vols. I & II. 1999. London: Europa Publications Ltd.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 495 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Europe World Online. URL: http://www.europaworld.com/pub/

Financial Times. URL: http://www.financialtimes.com

Foreign Government Resources. URL: http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/foreign.html

Human Rights Watch. URL: http://www.hrw.org

IFES Election Guide. URL: http://www.electionguide.org

International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance. URL: http://www.idea.int/

International Who's Who 1997-1998, 61st Edition. 1997. London: Europa Publications Ltd.

Leadership Views, Chiefs of State Online. URL : http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/chiefs/index.html

Library of Congress Country Studies. URL: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

New Encyclopedia Britannica. 1998. Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica Inc.

New York Times. URL: http://www.nytimes.com (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

Patterns of Global Terrorism. n.d. United States Department of State. Washington D.C.: United States Department of State Publications.

Political Handbook of the World. n.d. Arthur S. Banks, Thomas C. Muller, ed. Binghamton, New York: CSA Publications.

Political Reference Almanac Online. URL: http://www.polisci.com/almanac/nations.htm

Reuters News. URL: http://www.reuters.com/

Rulers. URL: http://rulers.org/

The Guardian Online. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/ (Various editions and dates as cited in particular reviews)

The Statesman's Year-Book 2006. Barry Turner, ed. London: St. Martin's Press.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 496 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United Nations Development Programme. URL: http://hdr.undp.org

United Nations Refugee Agency. URL: http://www.unhcr.org

United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook.Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

United States Department of State, World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers (WMEAT) URL : http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/bureau_ac/reports_ac.html

United States Department of State, Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. URL: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2002/18245.htm

United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html

Virtual Library: International Relations Resources. URL: http://www.etown.edu/vl/countgen.html

World Bank: Governance Indicators. URL: http://info.worldbank.org/governance

-- See also list of News Wires services below, which are also used for research purposes. --

Note on Edition Dates:

The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original Country Reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above) contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.

Sources: Economic Overview

BP Statistical Review of World Energy. URL: http://www.bp.com/genericsection.do? categoryId=92&contentId=7005893

BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 1998. 1998 to present. Page 1.C. London: The British Petroleum Company.

International Monetary Fund, Direction of Trade Statistics Yearbook. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 497 of 506 pages United Kingdom

International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics. 1998 to present. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.

International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics Yearbook. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.

International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook, May 1999. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund Publication Services.

International Labour Office, World Employment Report, 1998-99. 1998 to present. Geneva: International Labour Office.

United Nations Statistical Division Online. URL: http://unstats.un.org/unsd/default.htm

United Nations Statistics Division, Monthly Bulletin of Statistics (MBS On Line), November 1999 Edition. 1999 to present. New York: United Nations.

United Nations, Statistical Yearbook, 43rd Issue. 1999. 1999 to present New York: United Nations.

United Nations, Food & Agricultural Organization, FAOSTAT Database. URL : http://apps.fao.org/ United Nations, Comtrade Data Base, http://comtrade.un.org/

United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL:http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html

United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics Database

United States Geological Service, Mineral Information

United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guides. Washington, D.C. United States of America. URL:http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/index.html

The World Bank, Global Development Finance, Country Tables. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

The World Bank Group, World Development Indicators. 1999 to present. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank.

Yearbook of Tourism Statistics, World Tourism Organization. 1998 to present. Madrid: The World Tourism Organization.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 498 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Note on Edition Dates:

The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above) contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.

Methodology Notes for Economic Data:

Estimates by CountryWatch.com of GDP in dollars in most countries are made by converting local currency GDP data from the International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook to US dollars by market exchange rates estimated from the International Monetary Fund International Financial Statistics and projected out by the CountryWatch Macroeconomic Forecast. Real GDP was estimated by deflating current dollar values by the US GDP Implicit Price Deflator.

Exceptions to this method were used for: • Bosnia-Herzegovina • Nauru • Cuba • Palau • Holy See • San Marino • Korea, North • Serbia & Montenegro • Liberia • Somalia • Liechtenstein • Tonga • Monaco • Tuvalu

In these cases, other data and/or estimates by CountryWatch.com were utilized.

Investment Overview

Corruption and Transparency Index. URL: http://www.transparency.org/documents/cpi/2001/cpi2001.html#cpi

Deloitte Tax Guides. URL: http://www.deloittetaxguides.com

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 499 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Trade Policy Reviews by the World Trade Organization . URL: http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/tpr_e/tp_rep_e.htm#bycountry

United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html

United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html

United States Department of State, Country Commercial Guides. 1996-2006. Washington, D.C. United States of America. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/com_guides/index.html

World Bank: Doing Business. URL: http://www.doingbusiness.org

World Bank: Governance Indicators. URL: http://info.worldbank.org/governance

Social Overview

Borden, G.A., Conaway, W.A., Morrison, T. 1994. Kiss, Bow, or Shake Hands: How to do Business in Sixty Countries. Holbrook, Massachusetts, 1994.

Center for Disease Control. URL: http://www.cdc.gov

Eldis Country Profiles. URL: http://www.eldis.org/country/index.htm

Ethnologue. URL: http://www.ethnologue.com/

Government of Australia Department of Foreign Affiars and Trade. URL: http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo

Government of Canada Foreign Affairs and International Trade. URL: http://www.voyage.gc.ca/consular_home-e.htm

Library of Congress Country Studies. URL: http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/cshome.html

Lonely Planet. URL: http://www.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/

Steve Kropla's Online Help For World Travelers. URL: http://www.kropla.com/

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 500 of 506 pages United Kingdom

United Kingdom Ministry of Foreign and Commonwealth Office. URL: http://www.fco.gov.uk/

United Nations Human Development Report. URL: http://www.undp.org/hdro

UNICEF Statistical Database Online. URL: http://www.unicef.org/statis/atoz.html

United States Central Intelligence Agency, World Factbook. 2001. Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography Group. URL: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

United States Department of State, Background Notes. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/background_notes/index.html

United States Department of State, Commercial and Business Affairs: Travel Tips. URL: http://www.state.gov/www/about_state/business/cba_travel.html

United States Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs. URL: http://travel.state.gov/

World Health Organization. URL: http://www.who.int/home-page/

World News Connection, National Technical Information Service. Springfield, Virginia, USA.

Internet News Service, Xinhua News Agency (U.S.) Inc. Woodside, New York. URL: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/

Note on Edition Dates:

The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above) contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.

Methodology Notes for the HDI:

Since 1990, the United Nations Development Programme, in concert with organizations across the globe, has produced the Human Development Index (or HDI). According to the UNDP, the index measures average achievement in basic human development in one simple composite index, and produces from this index a ranking of countries. The HDI is a composite of three basic components of human development: longevity, knowledge and standard of living. Longevity is measured by life expectancy. Knowledge is measured by combination of adult literacy and mean

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 501 of 506 pages United Kingdom years of schooling. Standard of living is measured by purchasing power, based on real GDP per capita (in constant US$) adjusted for differences in international living costs (or, purchasing power parity, PPP). While the index uses these social indicators to measure national performance with regard to human welfare and development, not all countries provide the same level of information for each component needed to compute the index; therefore, as in any composite indicator, the final index is predicated on projections, predictions and weighting schemes. The index is a static measure, and thus, an incomplete measure of human welfare. In fact, the UNDP says itself the concept of human development focuses on the ends rather than the means of development and progress, examining in this manner, the average condition of all people in a given country.

Specifically, the index is calculated by determining the maximum and minimum for each of the three components (as listed above) and then measuring where each country stands in relation to these scales-expressed as a value between 0 and 1. For example, the minimum adult literary rate is zero percent, the maximum is 100 percent, and the reading skills component of knowledge in the HDI for a country where the literacy rate is 75 percent would be 0.75. The scores of all indicators are then averaged into the overall index.

For a more extensive examination of human development, as well as the ranking tables for each participating country, please visit: http://www.undp.org

Note on History sections

In some CountryWatch Country Reviews, open source content from the State Department Background Notes and Country Guides have been used.

Environmental Overview

Environmental Profiles: A Global Guide to Projects and People. 1993. Linda Sobel Katz, Sarah Orrick, and Robert Honig. New York: Garland Publishing.

The Environment Encyclopedia and Directory, 2nd Edition. 1998. London: Europa.

Environmental Protection Agency Global Warming Site. URL: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming

Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations: Forestry. URL: http://www.fao.org/forestry/site/sofo/en/

Global Warming Information Page. URL: http://globalwarming.org

Introduction to Global Environmental Issues, 2nd Edition. 1997. Kevin Pickering and Lewis Owen.

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 502 of 506 pages United Kingdom

London: Routledge.

Trends: Compendium of Data on Global Change. URL: http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/em_cont.htm

United Nations Environmental Program. URL: http://www.unep.org/GEO/GEO_Products/Assessment_Reports/

United Nations Global Environmental Outlook. URL: http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/

United States Department of Energy, Country Analysis Briefs. URL: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/contents.html

World Climate Data Online. URL: http://www.worldclimate.com

World Directory of Country Environmental Studies. 1996. The World Resource Institute.

World Factbook. US Central Intelligence Agency. Washington, D.C.: Printing and Photography Group.

1998-1999 World Resources Guide to the Global Environment by the World Resources Institute. May, 1998.

1998/1999 Yearbook of International Cooperation on Environment and Development. 1998. London: Earthscan Publications.

Note on Edition Dates:

The earlier edition dates are noted above because they were used to formulate the original country reviews and serve as the baseline for some of the information covered. Later editions have been used in some cases, and are cited as such, while other more recent online resources (cited above) contain recent and ever-updated data sets used for research.

Other Sources:

General information has also been used in the compilation of this review, with the courtesy of governmental agencies from this country.

News Services:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 503 of 506 pages United Kingdom

CANA Daily Bulletin. Caribbean Media Agency Ltd., St. Michael, Barbados.

Central and Eastern Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Network for Central and Eastern Africa.

Daily News, Panafrican News Agency. Dakar, Senegal.

PACNEWS, Pacific Islands Broadcasting Association. Suva, Fiji.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Washington D.C. USA.

Reuters News. Thomson Reuters. New York, New York. USA.

Southern Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Network for Southern Africa.

Voice of America, English Service. Washington D.C.

West Africa Report, United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs - Integrated Regional Information Network for West Africa. 1998-1999

Note: Some or all these news services have been used to research various sections of this Country Review.

USING COUNTRYWATCH.COM AS AN ELECTRONIC SOURCE:

MLA STYLE OF CITATION

Commentary

For items in a "Works Cited" list, CountryWatch.com suggests that users follow recommended patterns forindentation given in the MLA Handbook, 4th edition.

Individual Works

Basic form, using an Internet protocol:

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 504 of 506 pages United Kingdom

Author/editor. Title of Print Version of Work. Edition statement (if given). Publication information (Place of publication: publisher, date), if given. Title of Electronic Work. Medium. Available Protocol (if applicable):Site/Path/File. Access date.

Examples:

Youngblood-Coleman, Denise. Country Review: France. 2003. Houston, Texas: CountryWatch Publications, 2003. Country Review:France. Online. Available URL: http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_country.asp?vCOUNTRY=61 October, 12, 2003. Note: This is the citation format used when the print version is not used in the reference.

Parts of Works

Basic form, using an Internet protocol:

Author/editor. "Part title." Title of Print Version of Work. Edition statement (if given). Publication information (Place of publication: publisher, date), if given. Title of Electronic Work. Medium. AvailableProtocol (if applicable): Site/Path/File. Access date.

Examples:

Youngblood-Coleman, Denise. "People." CountryWatch.com: France. 2003. Houston, Texas: CountryWatch Publications, 2003. CountryWatch.com: France. Online. Available URL : http://www.countrywatch.com/cw_topic.asp? vCOUNTRY=61&SECTION=SOCIAL&TOPIC=CLPEO&TYPE=TEXT. October 12, 2003.

Note: This is the citation format used when the print version is not used in the reference.

For further source citation information, please email: [email protected] or [email protected].

United Kingdom Review 2016 Page 505 of 506 pages CountryWatch

CountryWatch is an information provider for public and private sector organizations that operate globally. The management of CountryWatch has extensive international experience and has utilized this experience to provide a concise and useful set of political, economic, and business information for its clients in the form of Country Reviews, the Country Wire, CountryWatch Data, Elections Central, CountryWatch Videos and CountryWatch Forecast.

This Country Review is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold with the understanding that the publication is not intended to provide legal, accounting, investment, or other professional advice.

CountryWatch believes that the information and opinions contained here in are reliable, but does not make any warranties, express or implied, and assumes no liability for reliance on or use of the information or opinions contained herein.

The offices of CountryWatch are located at:

CountryWatch, Inc. 5005 Riverway Suite 220 Houston, Texas 77056 U.S.A. Tel: 800-879-3885 Fax: 713-355-3770 Web address: http://www.countrywatch.com Email: [email protected]

ISBN: 1- 60523- 797-3 United Kingdom Country Review 2016

ISSN: 1- 60523- 893-5

Printed in the United States of America