Agrégateur de flux

Dès les premiers jours du déploiement de l'armée française en Guinée dans le cadre de la lutte contre Ebola, les experts des systèmes d'information et de communication (SIC) et du soutien de quartier général (SQG) ont mis en place un dispositif opérationnel adapté aux conditions atypiques de cette mission. Il doit permettre au personnel du centre de traitement pour les soignants (CTS), ainsi qu'aux patients pris en charge au centre, d'être en permanence connectés.

Après l’Egypte et l’Inde, et peut-être la Malaisie et les Émirats arabes unis, le Qatar vient d’annoncer à son tour l’achat de 24 avions Rafale. Comment expliquer ce succès après une décennie d’échecs à l’exportation ?
Cela peut paraître étonnant mais cela est un peu dû au hasard. Il y a peu de débouchés pour ce type d’avions. Les échecs sur dix ans, c’est aussi moins d’une dizaine de pays dont certains étaient la chasse gardée des États-Unis comme la Corée du Sud ou Singapour. Avec ces trois contrats, la France atteint un taux de réussite d’environ 30%, ce qui n’est pas mal car il y a en général quatre concurrents sur les marchés à l’exportation : les Américains avec plusieurs types d’avions selon les demandes, les Russes, les Européens avec l’Eurofighter, et le Gripen suédois. Sur les trois contrats, deux d’entre eux étaient attendus car le choix du Rafale était arrêté : celui du Qatar et de l’Inde. En revanche, l’Egypte est une surprise ; la décision finale est liée au refroidissement de ses relations avec les États-Unis.
Une autre raison vient du fait que le Rafale est aujourd’hui à la fois un avion moderne mais éprouvé. Les Américains vont de plus en plus promouvoir le F-35, qui est plus cher, face au Rafale qui, en vieillissant, devient une meilleure option. De plus, le Rafale est un avion qui est régulièrement employé depuis cinq ans dans le cadre des opérations extérieures en Afghanistan, en Libye et au Mali.
En troisième lieu, l’État français et Dassault ont travaillé ensemble pour promouvoir cet équipement, ce qui ne fut pas toujours le cas dans le passé, notamment lors de l’échec au Maroc. On ne peut exporter des équipements aussi stratégiques et aussi chers sans une coordination étroite entre cette entreprise et l’État. Le fait que François Hollande signe en personne le contrat au Qatar, témoigne de l’importance de cette vente.
Enfin – et cela a été peu souligné -, l’Egypte, le Qatar et l’Inde disposaient de Mirage 2000. Les Indiens ont même décidé il y a quelques années de moderniser leur Mirage 2000-5. C’est une preuve de confiance quant à la qualité du matériel qui doit être soulignée.

Que penser de la négociation des contrats de vente des Rafale ? Peuvent-ils être préjudiciables à long terme, notamment ceux concernant l’Inde et le Qatar ?
Pour l’Inde, le contrat qui vient d’être signé ne comprend pas, pour l’heure, de transfert de technologie… et c’est sans doute plus un handicap qu’une bonne nouvelle sur le long terme. A court terme, il est certain que les trente-six avions vendus seront fabriqués en France. C’est de l’emploi garanti pour les cinq prochaines années, notamment en Aquitaine. Sur le long terme, l’Inde souhaite développer son industrie aéronautique militaire et ne peut pas le faire sans partenariat technologique. Nous connaissons parfaitement les mesures à prendre pour conserver une longueur d’avance, même avec des transferts de technologie, et donc limiter les risques de concurrence dans le futur. Le contrat pour la vente de cent vingt-six avions prévu initialement, et qui continuera à être négocié, nous permettrait d’avoir un partenariat avec l’Inde sur le long terme. C’est un choix politique qui est fait, c’est aussi un choix industriel et technologique qui est plus compliqué car il peut nous conduire à des obligations d’assistance technologique qu’il faut maîtriser.
En ce qui concerne le Qatar, on se trouve dans un cas plus classique de troc, c’est-à-dire que le pays acheteur souhaite obtenir des compensations vis-à-vis de son achat, qui ne sont pas directement liés à l’acquisition de Rafale. En l’occurrence, le Qatar aurait demandé des droits de trafic supplémentaires pour sa compagnie aérienne en France sur Nice et Lyon. Dans ce cas, il est donc nécessaire d’arbitrer entre l’intérêt commercial du constructeur aéronautique Dassault et celui d’Air France, qui ont chacun des intérêts qui relèvent de l’intérêt général tant l’impact en termes d’image et d’emploi est important dans les deux cas. Il est sûr que cette vente intervient dans une période très conflictuelle à ce niveau puisque la France et l’Allemagne ont par ailleurs demandé à la Commission européenne de négocier un accord équitable avec les compagnies aériennes du Golfe, accusées de concurrence déloyale.

Ces 84 avions de combat vendus ou en passe de l’être, et bientôt 50 hélicoptères en Pologne, font de l’année 2015 une année record pour la vente d’armes à l’exportation de la France. Peut-on imaginer que cette situation perdure à l’avenir ou n’est-ce finalement qu’une bouffée d’oxygène sans lendemain ?
En moyenne, nous vendons pour six à sept milliards d’euros d’armement par an. En 2015, le chiffre des prises de commandes pourrait avoisiner les dix-huit milliards d’euros. C’est sans précédent. C’est une conjonction extraordinaire et cela va permettre d’alimenter notre industrie pendant cinq à six ans dans la mesure où on ne construit pas 84 avions de combat et 50 hélicoptères du jour au lendemain. Par le passé, nous avions déjà connu une autre année exceptionnelle en 1984, avec un montant de 61 milliards de francs. Si on prend en compte l’inflation, le montant n’était donc certainement pas très éloigné de celui qui sera atteint en 2015. La mesure des ventes d’armes se fait donc plus sur des périodes de cinq ou dix ans. L’objectif pourrait être de maintenir une moyenne de huit à neuf milliards d’euros, plus élevé qu’il ne l’est actuellement, mais en deçà du chiffre que l’on atteindra en 2015.

Du 28 avril au 2 mai 2015, le groupe aéronaval composé du porte-avions Charles de Gaulle, de la frégate de défense aérienne Chevalier Paul, de la frégate anti sous-marine Jean de Vienne et du pétrolier ravitailleur Meuse, a conduit la 14e édition de l’exercice Varuna au large de la côte ouest de l’Inde avec le groupe aéronaval indien, constitué autour du porte-avions Viraat. C’était la 5ème fois que la Task Force 473 participait à cet exercice depuis 2001, la dernière datant de 2011, lors de la mission Agapanthe.

Provides an overview of Eritrea, including key events and facts for this country on the Horn of Africa.

Fin avril 2015, la frégate anti-aérienne Cassard a terminé sa mission de présence en Méditerranée centrale et orientale.

Du 20 au 30 avril 2015, la base aérienne 118 de Mont-de-Marsan a abrité un exercice d’ampleur nationale. L’exercice VOLFA 15-2 a regroupé pas moins de 460 militaires issus de 12 bases aériennes françaises autour d’un scénario grandeur nature.

Public hearing "The implementation of the security research programme for conflict prevention and peace building".
Location : Paul-Henri Spaak 5B001
Programme
Draft progarmme
Poster
Poster
Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Le chef de l'Etat promet une augmentation du budget de la Défense de plusieurs milliards et annule la suppression de 18500 postes. Avec quel argent ? Mystère...

Here’s the second installment of my reporting from the 2015 MCIS conference. This one and the next will focus on Russian views of NATO as the primary source of military threat to the Russian Federation. The first speech was by General Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the General Staff. His topic was the military threats and dangers facing Russia in the contemporary period. He launched into a discussion of how the West saw Russia’s efforts to stabilize the situation in Ukraine as unacceptable independence in standing up for its national interests. He argued that this reaction was the cause of the increase in international tension over the last year, as the Western countries have sought to put political and economic pressure on Russia in order to “put it in its place.” He argues that while many Western experts believe that the Ukraine crisis has led to a sudden and rapid collapse of world order, the reality is that the situation has been developing since the start of the 1990s. The problems were caused by the collapse of the bipolar system, which allowed the US to consider itself the winner of the Cold War and to attempt to build a system in which it had total domination over international security. In such a system, the US would decide unilaterally which countries could be considered democratic and which were “evil empires,” which were freedom fighters and which terrorists and separatists. In doing so, the US stopped considering the interests of other states and would only selectively follow the norms of international law.

Russia has had to respond to this threat and has done so in its new military doctrine, which strictly follows international norms. The key points, as presented by Gerasimov in the slide below, include using violent means only as a last resort, using military force to contain and prevent conflicts, and preventing all (but especially nuclear) military conflicts. At the same time, the doctrine states that the current international security system does not provide for all countries to have security in equal measure. In other words, Russian military leaders continue to feel that Russian security is infringed by the current international security system and imply that they would like to see it revised.

The most significant threat facing Russia, in Gerasimov’s view, comes from NATO. In particular, he highlights the threat from NATO enlargement to the east, noting that all 12 new members added since 1999 were formerly either members of the Warsaw Pact or Soviet republics. This process is continuing, with the potential future inclusion of former Yugoslav republics and continuing talk of perspective Euroatlantic integration of Ukraine and Georgia. Political arguments about creating a single Europe sharing common values have outweighed purely military and security in enlargement discussions, with many new members added even though they did not fulfill the economic and military criteria for membership. This expansion has had a serious negative effect on Russia’s military security.

In addition to NATO enlargement, NATO has also expanded cooperation with non-member countries in the region through programs such as the Partnership Interoperability Initiative, which includes Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine among 24 priority countries for cooperation, and Privileged Partnership, which will allow NATO to use infrastructure in Finland and Sweden to transfer troops to northern Europe. Furthermore, NATO is actively seeking to increase its influence in Central Asia and the Caucasus.

NATO is using the crisis in Ukraine as an excuse to strengthen the forces it has arrayed against Russia. It has openly blamed Russia for aggressive policies in the post-Soviet space and has made containment of Russia the prime force for future development of NATO. The decisions made at the Wales NATO summit in September 2014 confirm this.

While NATO military activity near Russia was relatively stable through 2013, it has increased substantially over the last year. NATO states’ naval presence in the Black Sea has quadrupled, flights by reconnaissance and tactical aviation have doubled, and flights by long range early warning aircraft have increased by a factor of nine. US UAVs are flying over the Black Sea, while German and Polish intelligence ships are constantly present in the Baltic. The number of NATO exercises increased by 80% in 2014 compared to the previous year. The character of these exercises has also changed. Whereas in the past they were focused primarily on crisis response and counter-terrorism, now they are clearly aimed at practicing military action against Russia.

The action plan approved in Wales included a significant increase in NATO military presence in Eastern Europe and the Baltics, including a rapid reaction force and a constant presence of a limited contingent of forces rotating through the region. This will allow a large number of NATO military personnel to be trained to conduct operations against Russia. At the same time, military infrastructure, including weapons storage facilities, is being built up in Eastern Europe. Gerasimov argued that on the basis of all of these developments, it is clear that efforts to strengthen NATO’s military capabilities are not primarily defensive in nature.

Gerasimov then turned to the question of US efforts to develop global ballistic missile defense systems. He argued that Russia views the development of these systems as yet another move by the US and its allies to dismantle the existing international security system on their way to world domination. Over the last four years, US BMD systems have begun to appear near Russian borders, including Aegis-equipped ships in the Mediterranean and Black Seas, Aegis Ashore systems in Romania and Poland, and anti-missile systems being deployed in the Asia-Pacific region with Japanese and South Korean cooperation.

These forces present a real threat to Russian strategic nuclear forces and could also strike Russian satellite systems. Washington has so far refused to share command authority for global BMD systems, even with its allies, making it clear that it alone will decide which NATO member states it will defend from missile threats. Since Russia will have no choice but to take counter-measures against global BMD systems, this may subject non-nuclear NATO-member states to the risk of being early targets of Russian response measures.

What’s more, the deployment of anti-missile systems violates the INF treaty, since the Aegis Ashore systems can be armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles as easily as with SM-3 anti-missile systems.

Russia is also concerned with the development of the concept of Prompt Global Strike, which will also damage the strategic nuclear balance that currently provides the main guarantee for international stability.

In its efforts to “put Russia on its knees,” Washington and its NATO partners continue to create crises in territories on Russia’s borders. Having successfully carried out regime change scenarios under the guise of colored revolutions in Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova, the US was able to place anti-Russian governments in power in a number of states bordering Russia. The radicals and Russophobes who came to power in Ukraine in 2014 have based their policies on blaming Russia for all of Ukraine’s problems while persecuting the country’s Russophone population. They are now trying to use force to repress their own citizens who expressed a lack of confidence in this new government. As a result, Ukraine has been plunged into civil war. Gerasimov said that it is difficult to know how the conflict will end, since “we don’t know what directives Ukrainian leaders will receive from their Western ‘curators’ and where Kiev’s aggression may be directed in the future.” But it is clear that these actions pose a military threat to Russia, much as the Georgian attacks on Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia in 2008 did. Gerasimov also noted that Mikheil Saakashvili, who ordered these attacks, is now an advisor to Ukrainian President Poroshenko.

Gerasimov then moved on to a discussion of other frozen conflicts in the post-Soviet space, noting the increased risk that these conflicts may be “unfrozen” as a result of the currently heightened threat environment. He noted statements by the current Georgian government reflecting its intention to restore control of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by force. The Moldovan government has been pressing for the withdrawal of Russian peacekeepers from Transnistria while continuing its economic blockade of the region. This is all leading to an increase in tension in these regions and may result in response measures from the Russian side.

In conclusion, Gerasimov turned to the threat posed by global terrorism. He noted that the number of members of various extremist organizations has grown from 2000 in the 1960s-70s, to 50,000 in the 1990s, to over 150,000 today. He also expressed concern about the growth of transnational terrorist networks, including some such as ISIS that have developed certain aspects of statehood. Some ISIS fighters are Russian citizens. These fighters threaten the entire world and attempts to fight the threat by a US-led airstrike operation have so far not achieved visible results. As a result, Washington and Brussels have once again turned to developing new armed groups among so-called “moderate Islamists.” But such projects do not take into account how such terrorist empires have formed in the past. Al-Qaeda, for example, formed from mujahideen who were funded by the US and its allies. Similarly, ISIS fighters until recently were “good” fighters but have now gone out of Western control and started to threaten their former sponsors.

In response to this range of threats, Russia has continued to develop its armed forces. Nuclear forces are maintained at a level designed to guarantee nuclear deterrence, including modern systems that can overcome US BMD systems. Russian Air-space defense systems continue to be developed. Defensive forces have been placed in Crimea. Russian bases have been placed in Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. These bases will serve as a guarantee of stability and security in these regions.

At the same time, Gerasimov noted that Russia understands that most modern security threats affect entire regions and even the whole world so that their solution requires international dialog and cooperation.

—-

I’ll have some reactions to this speech in a follow-up post. For now, let me just say that it was interesting to see the shift to the discussion of “old school” military threats, following last year’s focus on colored revolutions and hybrid warfare.

jQuery(document).ready(function(){jQuery("#isloaderfor-mtqznn").fadeOut(2000, function () { jQuery(".pagwrap-mtqznn").fadeIn(1000);});});

A group of high-level international diplomats and government representatives said the proliferation of conflicts in Africa points to the need for the United Nations (UN) to rethink the way it works with the African Union (AU) in promoting peace and security on the continent.

This emerged from a May 4th policy forum on the topic of “Advancing Chapter VIII: The AU-UN experience” co-hosted by IPI, the African Union Commission, and the Permanent Mission of Sweden to the UN. During the event, top AU and UN officials said that when it comes to solving Africa’s conflicts, Chapter VIII of the UN Charter should serve as the main point of reference. However, they also lamented that its text has largely been neglected over the years.

Chapter VIII of the UN Charter states that UN members should “make every effort to achieve pacific settlement of local disputes through such regional arrangements or by such regional agencies before referring them to the Security Council.” Over the years, the provision has been interpreted as urging the UN to support such regional arrangements in order to help maintain the peace.

“The very simple conclusion is that we cannot do it alone,” said UN Deputy Secretary-General Jan Eliasson. “There is no organization, whether it’s the United Nations, regional organizations, or a government, that can handle today’s problems alone. In today’s globalized, complex world,” he continued, “we have to find solutions together.”

Mr. Eliasson said some of the conflict-mediation tools used so far are no longer relevant because the changing nature of conflict and the rise of new military actors have changed the calculus when it comes to war and peace. Organizations like the UN and the AU, he said, should adjust to this switch and realize that effective conflict resolution can only come through cooperation.

The first step to take would be for the UN to change the mindset with which it operates, he said, going from a vertical to a horizontal approach to regional organizations. “This means [we have to] look at the competences we have, identify the problems, put the problem at the center, and then ask ourselves who can do something about it,” he said, adding that this would ideally lead to an effective division of labor between the UN and other organizations.

The deputy chairperson of the African Union Commission, Erastus Mwencha, agreed with Mr. Eliasson on the need for better communication between the UN and regional bodies such as the AU. “Let’s be candid and agree that we are sometimes part of the problem and therefore should be part of the solution,” he said. Africa currently hosts the vast majority of UN peacekeeping missions, he said, and at the various meetings and summits the discussions are always the same, covering the same issues.

“There is a danger that we are either working in silos [or] prescribing the same things,” he said. “We should ask ourselves: Can we be more innovative? Can we be active on the ground? Can we see action?”

Better cooperation in maintaining peace and security is all the more timely, the panelists said, given recent global developments. According to Peter Wallensteen, professor of Peace and Conflict Research at Uppsala University in Sweden, 2014 was one of the deadliest years in recent history in terms of battle-related casualties.

“We calculated that last year about 100,000 people died in political battles involving the use of weapons for political purposes,” he said. “Half of those deaths are recorded in Syria.”

The most striking factor behind these conflicts, Mr. Wallensteen said, is how internationalized they have become. “They are not just fought in a territory of one country,” he noted. “[There’s] a lot of international involvement, not only by far away countries but by neighbors”—which indicates that regions are also failing to ensure the peace.

For its part, the AU has been actively involved in conflict management and resolution on the continent, the panelists said. Annika Söder, Sweden’s vice-minister for Foreign Affairs, praised the work carried out by the AU over the past 15 years, noting that the situation now is very different from what it was back then. That said, she also stressed that there are some aspects of the AU-UN relationship that could be reassessed, first among them the issue of inclusivity, especially when it comes to peacebuilding efforts.

“If you do not involve ordinary people, if we do not see to it that there’s an ownership of the processes that we engage in,” she said, “they will obviously not last.”

Watch event:

2015. május 1-jén, immáron harmadszorra rendezték meg Budapesten a Nagy Futam nevű rendezvényt, mely idén is nagy tömeget vonzott a fővárosba! Lapunk profiljából adódóan most a légishow-ra koncentrálunk, ahol számtalan különleges repülőgéptípus képviseltette magát a helyszínre kilátogatók legnagyobb örömére. Láthatóak voltak a Red Bull oldalunkon is bemutatott típusai, a Goldtimer Alapítvány Li-2-ese, Po-2-ese és R-18-asa, Imreh Lajos Mi-2-es demoja, a Magyar Honvédség Mi-8-as (3301) helikoptere, illetve az ejtőernyős válogatott tagjai is aktív szerepet vállaltak a rendezvényen, hiszen a Duna közepén lehorgonyzott pontonra hajtottak végre sikeres ugrásokat. Besenyei Péter és Veres Zoltán ismét látványos programot repült, de színesítette a légishow-t a Farnair légitársaság Boeing 737-es cargogépének áthúzása is! Kérjük, tekintsék meg galériánkat!

Source : © European Union, 2015 - EP

Romancier, essayiste et dramaturge, Roger Vailland (1907-1965) a également connu une longue carrière de journaliste. L'un de ses articles, paru dans l'hebdomadaire communiste « Action » le 28 septembre 1945, relate la transformation d'un village français. / France, Agriculture, Communisme, Culture, (...) / France, Agriculture, Communisme, Culture, Histoire, Idées, Littérature, Personnalités, Presse, Région, Seconde guerre mondiale 1939-1945, Mouvement de libération - 2015/04

Voir le CV du professeur FERNANDEZ.

With the UK’s general election on 7th May, it is looking highly likely that the Scottish National Party will displace the Lib-Dems as the UK’s third-biggest party, possibly winning almost all of Scotland’s 59 seats at Westminster (where today they hold only six seats, and Labour hold forty-one).

The SNP has campaigned not on independence but on an anti-austerity and ‘progressive’ ticket. In both Scotland and England, the debate has focused on domestic policy even though the Conservatives are committed to an EU referendum, if they win, that could lead to a potential ‘Brexit’.

With the SNP potentially holding the balance of power after 7th May – since neither the Tories nor Labour are expected to get anywhere near a majority – how might the SNP MPs impact on the UK’s approach to the EU?

Scotland and the EU

Humza Yousaf, Minister for Europe and International Development in the Scottish Government, says the campaign is going “phenomenally well in Scotland, as the polls and our own canvass results reflect”. He sees the “tectonic plates of Scottish politics shifting”.

Yousaf thinks that, in Scotland, “there is a more pro-European stance here”. There is much more outside interest in Scotland and its external policies, says Yousaf, with many more ambassadors and other visitors coming since the referendum, despite the ‘no’ vote.

Does Scotland at present have enough influence on British positions on key EU policies? “No, definitely not enough” says Yousaf. He explains there are quarterly joint ministerial meetings between the UK and Scotland on EU issues but “there isn’t enough discussion on policy formation…Smith [the Smith Commission Report which looked at further devolution post-referendum] left the door open a bit and said we would need to discuss more how to represent Scotland’s views on the global stage”. It’s a big issue that has been left hanging.

Yousaf complains strongly that even where Scotland has the most competent and experienced minister – for instance on fisheries – London will not let Scottish ministers speak for the UK in Brussels’ councils, pulling in unelected Lords or British diplomats instead when UK ministers are absent. Pressure for a more fair and rational approach for Scotland in the EU is likely to grow.

Scottish interests overlap with, but are not identical to, England’s. Scotland produces about 25% of the EU’s total wind energy, and has the most ambitious renewables targets in the EU. It has a greater focus on oil, food and drink, and fisheries amongst other areas, as well as its more anti-austerity and pro-EU attitudes, than England.

Asked about Greece’s struggles to escape austerity, Yousaf is sympathetic but cautious: “I don’t believe it is necessary for Greece to leave [the euro] for stability, any member leaving would be a disaster for the EU. I have faith they will find a manageable compromise’. He talks about Syriza having to “navigate” the promises they made to their voters to find a way to a compromise.

EU Referendum and ‘Brexit’ – only for England?

Humza Yousaf sees ‘Brexit’ as possible, if the Tories manage to put together an informal coalition after 7th May. Yousaf says “it [a referendum] is playing with fire, exit could have devastating consequences for the whole of the UK”.

But Yousaf is cautious about the impact of a possible ‘no’ vote on the push for Scottish independence if there is an EU in-out referendum: “This election is not about another [independence] referendum….If Scotland voted to stay in the EU and the rest of the UK to leave and we were about to be dragged out against our will that might be a trigger, and people would say we would rather be an independent country and in Europe.”

Yousaf refers to Irish anxieties about a possible Brexit (given shared borders and other common interests) and obviously sees similar concerns potentially for Scotland. He thinks it is better for the whole of the UK to stay in the EU. There is a conundrum here since while an EU referendum with an English ‘no’ vote might be a positive catalyst for Scottish independence, it would in many ways be better for an independent Scotland if England too remained in the EU.

Asked who might be the main allies of a one-day independent Scotland in the EU, Yousaf says “primarily the [rest of the] UK would be a natural ally in the EU and Ireland, first and foremost, we would work closely with them, and yes with some of the Nordics – Sweden, Finland and Denmark.”

Yousaf says he is sure if they had won the Scottish referendum, Scotland would have stayed in the EU: “Brussels would have found a way, there is no doubt in my mind. The EU is a pragmatic organisation as it was when East Germany joined. We have been in for 40 years and our laws reflect the acquis, we have €100,000 citizens here in Scotland, 25% of EU wind energy….so you could imagine the practical problems if we weren’t in the EU for a day, the disruption.”

Most attention on SNP foreign policies has been on their aim of getting rid of Trident. Trident, says Yousaf, has no moral, political or economic purpose. But he goes on to emphasise “we are not a party of pacifists” and attacks the current government for not investing enough in conventional forces.

Migration is another issue where the SNP has positioned itself in a progressive position compared to the UK’s main parties. Yousaf talks of needing a ‘tier and points’ system for migration and insists migration is positive and necessary for Scotland given its aging population. Such an outlook may be helpful in the debate around free movement of labour in the EU, one that is likely to continue even under a Labour government to some extent.

 

The SNP’s role at Westminster – plenty to discuss

David Cameron has been attacking Labour for much of the election over the possibility that it might end up as a minority government supported by the SNP, a party committed to independence from the UK.

This attack, effectively on the legitimacy of SNP MPs voting at Westminster has gone down very badly in Scotland. “The anger”, says Yousaf, “is tangible. From six or seven months ago”, he goes on, “when Cameron was saying ‘you should not leave the UK’ to saying ‘your voice is illegitimate and you should have no say in a future government’….people are apoplectic, very angry”.

Ed Miliband has also shocked some on the left in England, by not only ruling out a formal coalition with the SNP, but even a so-called ‘confidence and supply’ arrangement. This suggests he thinks he can govern as a minority government, with some votes in support on key policies from the SNP, but without negotiating with them – this seems implausible.

Both Scottish and British politics look like being interesting indeed after the results come in on 7th May. The SNP will certainly be a key voice in many areas, even without a formal agreement, if there is a minority Labour government. And a Conservative coalition or more informal agreement with the Lib-Dems, Democratic Ulster Unionists and UKIP may find itself fracturing over an EU referendum – something the SNP would not support – so in a more unstable governing context, watching the SNP is now going to be a key part of following Britain’s politics.

 

An earlier version of this article was published in Open Democracy.

 

IMAGE CREDITS: CC / FLICKR – the SNP

The post How the Scottish National Party’s likely triumph at the polls may impact on the UK’s EU policy appeared first on Europe’s World.

Hollandia, Lengyelország és Norvégia közösen kíván légi utántöltő repülőgépflottát kiépíteni. A tervek szerint május elején heteken belül árajánlatot kérnek az Airbustól, az A330MRTT többfeladatú tanker- és szállítógép típus megvásárlására.

Source : © Union européenne, 2015 - PE