The Hand Out Collection - G8 Profile

With no headquarters, budget or permanent staff, the Group of Eight is an informal but exclusive body whose members set out to tackle global challenges through discussion and action.

The G8 comprises seven of the world's leading industrialised nations, and Russia.

The leaders of these countries meet face-to-face at an annual summit that has become a focus of media attention and protest action.

The G8's roots lie in the oil crisis and global economic recession of the early 1970s.

In 1973, these challenges prompted the US to form the Library Group - an informal gathering of senior financial officials from Europe, Japan and the US.

At the instigation of the French, the 1975 meeting drew in heads of government. The delegates agreed to meet annually. The six nations involved became known as the G6, and later the G7 and G8 after the respective entries of Canada (1976) and Russia (1998).

Though the G8 was set up as a forum for economic and trade matters, politics crept onto the agenda in the late 1970s. Recent summits have considered the developing world, global security, Middle East peace and reconstruction in Iraq.

G8 members can agree on policies and can set objectives, but compliance with these is voluntary. The G8 has clout in other world bodies because of the economic and political muscle of its members.

The workings of the G8 are a far cry from the "fireside chats" of the Library Group in the 1970s. Holed up behind fortress-like security, the delegates are accompanied by an army of officials. Elaborate preparations are made for their meetings, statements and photo-calls.

Nevertheless, G8 leaders strive to keep at least some of their encounters free from bureaucracy and ceremony. On the second day of their summit the leaders gather for an informal retreat, where they can talk without being encumbered by officials or the media.

The European Union is represented at the G8 by the president of the European Commission and by the leader of the country that holds the EU presidency. The EU does not take part in G8 political discussions.

 Rotating leadership

The presidency of the G8 rotates between the group's member nations on an annual basis.

The country holding the presidency in a given year is responsible for hosting the annual summit and for handling the security arrangements.

The next summit in 2017 is in Italy

As the foremost economic and political power in the G8, the US is regarded as the dominant member of the group, although this position is not formally enshrined.

Unrepresentative?

Critics of the G8 have accused the body of representing the interests of an elite group of industrialised nations, to the detriment of the needs of the wider world.

Important countries with fast-growing economies and large populations, including China and India, are not represented. There are no African or Latin American members.

The G8's positive stance on globalisation has provoked a vigorous response from opponents, and riots have sometimes overshadowed summit agendas, most notably in Italy in 2001.

Since 2001, there has been a tendency for the summits to be held in more remote locations, with the aim of avoiding mass protests. The lengths to which security forces have gone to shield the politicians from demonstrators has served to reinforce the G8's closed-door image.

Within the last decade or so, the G8 has launched drives to counter disease, including HIV/Aids, and has announced development programmes and debt-relief schemes. Aid is often conditional on the respect for democracy and good governance in the recipient countries. Critics say that spending on such initiatives is inadequate.

Basic disagreements sometimes emerge within the G8: Global warming was a sticking point at the 2001 Genoa summit, where US President George W Bush underlined his rejection of the Kyoto treaty on emissions.

The subject was revisited at the 2007 Heiligendamm summit, where an agreement among leaders on the need to tackle climate change was hailed as an important step forward.

Since 2009, summit talks have focused on finding a common approach to stabilising the world economy and stimulating growth in the face of continuing global financial upheaval.

Questions

 Explain the role of the G8

What are the main criticisms against the G8

Russia and the West: Are we experiencing another cold war?

It is hard to imagine a period since the end of the Cold War when relations between Russia and the United States have been quite so bad.

US officials have described the joint Russian-Syrian onslaught against Aleppo as "barbarism" and warned that war crimes are being carried out.

The Russian president has spoken explicitly about the worsening climate between Washington and Moscow, insisting that what the Obama administration wants is "diktat" rather than dialogue.

But Russia and the US both realise that they have a vital role to play in Syria

A permanent war in Syria doesn't benefit Moscow any more than Washington.

But without that basic trust and understanding between them, any dialogue rests upon shaky foundations.

It was never supposed to be like this. The end of the Cold War was supposed to usher in a new era.

For a time Russia retreated from the world stage, but now it is back with a vengeance, eager to consolidate its position nearer home; to restore something of its former global role and to make up for perceived slights perpetrated by the West.

Why have things now got so bad and is it correct to describe the present state of affairs as a "new Cold War"?

For Paul R Pillar, a senior fellow at the Centre for Security Studies at Georgetown University the initial fault lies with the West.

"The relationship went wrong when the West did not treat Russia as a nation that had shaken off Soviet Communism,"

"It should have been welcomed as such into a new community of nations - but instead it was regarded as the successor state of the USSR, inheriting its status as the principal focus of Western distrust."

This omission was compounded by the West's enthusiasm for Nato expansion, first taking in countries like Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary, who had long struggled against rule from Moscow.

In short, Russia believes that it has been treated unfairly since the end of the Cold War.

This, of course, is not the conventional view in the West, which prefers to focus on Russian "revanchism" (reclaim lost territory) - personified by Vladimir Putin, a man who has described the collapse of the Soviet Union as "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century.

Sir John Sawers, the former head of MI6, prefers to focus on the more recent period Russian action in Syria.

He said that the West had not paid sufficient attention to building the right strategic relationship with Russia over the last eight years.

"If there was a clear understanding between Washington and Moscow about the rules of the road - that we are not trying to bring down each other's systems - then solving regional problems like Syria or Ukraine or North Korea - would be easier

Several experts point to the failure of the Obama administration's diplomacy and the mixed signals it has often sent.

Washington's absolute power may be declining. Is it prepared to back up its rhetoric with force? (In Syria the answer has been no.)

And has it really thought through the implications of the positions that it has taken towards Moscow?

In 2014, in the wake of Russia's annexation of the Crimea, Mr Putin spoke to the Russian Duma, noting that "if you compress the spring all the way to its limit it will snap back hard. You must remember this", he stressed.

As Nikolas K Gvosdev noted  "The prudent response would either be to find ways to de-escalate the pressure on the spring or to prepare for its snapback and to be able to cushion the shock".

So, are we entering a "new Cold War"?

Pillar, thinks this is not the right term. "There is not the sort of global ideological competition that characterised the Cold War and fortunately we do not have another nuclear arms race,”

"What is left is great competition for influence and Russia is a power of a lesser order than the Soviet Union was and than the superpower United States still is."

The situation is reminiscent of 2008 when US-Russia relations went into the freezer in the wake of the Russia-Georgia war. This left the Bush administration's policy towards Moscow in a shambles and it is this mess that President Obama inherited.

Sir John told the BBC that, in his view, "there is a big responsibility on the next US president to establish a different sort of relationship. We are not looking for a warmer relationship with Russia and we are not looking for a frostier relationship with Russia", he asserts.

"What we are looking for is a strategic understanding with Moscow about how we provide for global stability, for stability across Europe between Russia and the US, so that the fundamental stability of the world is put on a firmer basis than it has been."

Pax Americana - the American unipolar moment - he notes, "was very short-lived and it is now over".

Questions

·         What have US officials have described the joint Russian/Syrian attack on Aleppo as, and what does this mean?

·         What did the Russian President say about the Obama administration?

·         What does the article say about trust between the US and Russia?

·         Who does Pillar blame for the relationship going wrong?  What reasons does he give?

·         What is the conventional view in the West about the deterioration of relations?

·         What does Sawers say about the breakdown in the relationship?

·         What do you think Putin meant when he said "if you compress the spring all the way to its limit it will snap back hard. You must remember this"

·         Why does Pillar thing we are not entering a new cold war?

Why does the falling value of the pound matter?

Read the article and summarise the three main reasons for sterling’s fall in value

Harold Wilson might have claimed that a devaluation of sterling doesn't affect the pound in your pocket, but it certainly affects the way the economy operates and therefore all of us.

There are three broad reasons for the sickly state of the pound, which has been falling since the Brexit vote.

'Flash crash'

First, and fundamentally, it is a market judgement on the future growth potential of the UK economy relative to the future growth potential of competitor economies, and their currencies.

If it is judged that the value of UK assets will grow less quickly in the future - and most economists have downgraded growth next year following the Brexit vote - then investors will discount those assets, sell sterling and buy more favourable currencies such as the dollar.

Second, this downward trajectory is then emphasised by near-term market makers who "short" the currency, making a profit margin on the pound's decline.

Mix that with millions of electronic trading programmes which automatically follow sell or buy trades and toxic and destabilising events such as the "flash crash" of  Friday  7 October are the result.

Everyone becomes a little more nervous and the market for sterling becomes a little more sickly.

Particularly as the government prepares for a "hard" Brexit - where the UK leaves the European Union single market - which many investors believe will be a poor outcome for the economy.

Third, differential (differences in) interest rate expectations drive currency moves.

In Britain, the Bank of England has made it clear it expects to engage in more monetary loosening before the end of the year.

That could mean an interest rate cut to 0.1% next month,

At the same time, the Federal Reserve, America's central bank, is signalling a rate rise.

Interest rate rises usually strengthen currencies - so the dollar becomes a better buy than sterling.

Nicola Sturgeon not rushing towards another Scottish Independence referendum

Nicola Sturgeon has insisted she is not "rushing towards" another Scottish independence referendum.

The SNP leader announced on Thursday that a bill beginning a consultation on a second independence vote would be published next week.

In a BBC interview she promised to explore all options short of independence that would maintain Scotland's place in the single market.

But, if that fails, she said Scots had a right to consider a "different path".

She told BBC Radio Four's Today programme that 300,000 Scottish jobs were dependent on maintaining Scotland's place in the single market following the Brexit vote.

She said she hoped her proposals on access to the single market would guide Theresa May's Brexit negotiations.

Ms Sturgeon also said she though it "inconceivable" that the UK government would try to block a second independence vote if it was backed by the Scottish Parliament.

Questions

·         Which party does Nicola Sturgeon Lead?

·         What do you think the consultation bill will determine?

·         Why does she think it is important to stay in the single market?

·         Write a short paragraph that summarises the article.

Conservative Economic Policy Revised

Chancellor Philip Hammond is planning  a major shift  on economic policy as the government embraces a more interventionist approach with increased spending on infrastructure projects.

The chancellor is expected to herald a move towards a greater focus on fiscal policy - tax and spending - in his Autumn Statement on 23 November.

The move towards a more Keynesian approach towards the economy will mark a departure from Mrs May's predecessor George Osborne's reliance on what he called "monetary activism". This covered interest rates and the purchase of assets by the Bank of England known as quantitative easing.

The PM said ultra low interest rates had produced "bad side effects", notably by hitting savers.

'Listen to the roar'

PM believes that in future it would be wise to lean in favour of tax and spending to allow for greater public investment.

"Those with assets have done very much better than those without. We have to listen to the roar we heard this year and we have to think with money available at 0% - and we want to drive an industrial strategy, getting infrastructure built - we need to make sure we are looking at all the mechanisms for making that money flows properly."

He confirmed Downing Street still supports the Bank of England's independence which means it has sole control over monetary policy and it will face no restrictions on the setting of interest rates.

Mrs May believes a new approach is needed for two reasons. In the first place she believes that a new economic era, as the government relaxes Mr Osborne's deficit reduction plan in light of the EU referendum, requires a fresh approach to economic management.

But she also believes that the government needs to do more to help lower income groups. She thinks low interest rates have helped people with assets but have hit those who rely on savings.

 "People with assets have got richer. People without them have suffered. People with mortgages have found their debts cheaper. People with savings have found themselves poorer."

High Court Case Challenges Brexit - Article 50

Read the article and answer the questions

In today's constitution the Royal Prerogative is basically a collection of executive powers held by the Crown.

They go back to medieval times but are now placed in the hands of ministers. They're used, for instance, in some areas of foreign affairs which Parliament has left to the government.

But prerogative powers remain controversial because they're exercised without any parliamentary authority.

The case has huge constitutional importance and should provide clarity on whether executive powers can, in effect, trump an act of Parliament.

Those bringing the case argue that legislation can only be altered by legislation. The government says it intends to give effect to the outcome of the referendum by bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU.

And that that is a proper constitutional and lawful step to take, using prerogative powers, in light of the referendum result and the democratic mandate it has provided.

Ms Miller told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the case raised "fundamental constitutional" issues.

"We are asking MPs to do the things we pay them for," she said.

"Did the people who voted to leave really vote... for the prime minister and a handful of her ministers to bypass Parliament?"

But ex-Conservative minister Dominic Raab said the challenge was fuelled by a "special kind of arrogance".

Mr Raab, a former government lawyer, told Today: "We have had three debates already - the idea that Parliament is being side-stepped is ludicrous."

He added: "But Parliament doesn't get a veto over beginning the Brexit negotiations."

In July, High Court judges ruled that Ms Miller should be the lead case in the action.

Other applicants include London hairdresser Deir Dos Santos, 37, as well as the People's Challenge group set up by Grahame Pigney and a campaign group called Fair Deal for Expats.

The government, to be represented by Attorney General Jeremy Wright, is expected to argue it is giving effect to the will of the people provided for in the 2015 EU Referendum Act authorising the poll and that was "clearly understood" before June's vote.

According to documents published this summer, ministers believe the use of prerogative powers once held by the Sovereign but now residing in the executive to enact the referendum result is "constitutionally proper and consistent with domestic law".

For the courts to require Parliament to pass legislation to implement the outcome of the referendum would be an "impermissible" intrusion on its proceedings.

"The decision to withdraw from the EU is not justiciable," they stated. "It is a matter of the highest policy reserved to the Crown."

The hearing comes amid growing calls from MPs on all sides of the House for the UK's blueprint for its Brexit negotiating to be subject to far greater parliamentary scrutiny.

While the government has not ruled out giving MPs a vote on the final settlement reached with the EU, it has said on several occasions that it will not hold a vote on the timing of Article 50 or its strategy ahead of negotations.

The losing side in the case is likely to launch an appeal. It has already been announced that any appeal will be fast-tracked to the Supreme Court to ensure a final judgement before the end of the year.

Questions

What is the Royal Prerogative?

Why is it controversial in terms of the timing of Article 50?

In five words, what affect does the royal prerogative have on Parliament?

Summarise both sides of the argument and give your own opinion on what the result of the case should be.  Justify your answer.