Editorial Simplified : 15th Day of March 2017
This Series of posts covers the essential Editorial from prominent newspapers. The Editorial from the newspapers are compiled by the Subject Teachers form the Academy and provided in notes format so that the aspirants does not waste their precious time in sifting through the newspapers.
Editorial : On the rocks
Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s first minister, has sought a second referendum on independence for Scotland from the U.K.
- The thought of separation from the British union has never fully been excised from the popular imagination in Scotland, despite the referendum in 2014 that gave a resounding victory to ‘Stay’
- Scots, who had voted overwhelmingly in June 2016 to remain in the EU, are now seeing the U.K. prepare for Brexit, and this is leading to a surge of demand of independence in Scotland
- As Brexit looms, the government under Ms. May should put forward a coherent and convincing case for Scotland to remain in the U.K.
- The economic argument for Edinburgh to leave is apparently at its weakest, given the recent slump in oil prices and a mounting fiscal deficit.
- The champions of access to the common market of EU are silenced by the argument that a large share of Scotland’s trade is within the U.K.
- But such rational arguments against independence may not be very effective as such issues are generally argued on emotional lines.
- Votaries of independence may argue that if London can rip apart a European partnership of four decades so easily on grounds of restoring national sovereignty, it may well one day reconsider Scottish devolution.
- Scotland may not find the EU very sympathetic to its moves.
- Edinburgh’s EU entry would have to be ratified by every single member state, a prospect that would commit them to make similar concessions like Britain or other EU countries have.
- Europe’s leaders, alive to the sensitivities of undermining the sovereignty of member nations, have repeatedly cautioned against expectations of an automatic guarantee of admission in the event that Edinburgh exits Britain.
The Indian Express
Editorial : No, Governor
Claims of partisanship on the part of Governors of Goa and Manipur
The Governors of Goa and Manipur have ignored the established principle of inviting the leader of the single largest party to form the government by inviting BJP, despite the fact that Congress was the Single Largest Party in both states.
Sinha’s (Governer of Goa) invitation to the BJP ostensibly rests on that party hastily submitting letters of support from smaller parties — the MGP and the Goa Forward Party with three MLAs each — and three independents to claim a majority in the House.
The premise of her decision is questionable: These parties did not fight the election as part of a coalition.
There have been occasions in the past where a party with the support of the largest number of legislators has been preferred over the single largest party in the assembly in government formation but even then those decisions were disputed on grounds of procedure and propriety.
The Congress approached the SC to stay the swearing-in of Mr. Parrikar but the SC gave it 48-hours to prove majority onstead of the 15 days given by the governer. The Court argued that had the Congress party had a majority it would’ve approached the governer and not the Court.
However, the decision of the SC to not uphold the priciple of inviting the single largest party is controversial, at best.
The Justice M.M. Punchhi Commission on Centre-State Relations in 2010 laid down some guidelines to be followed in the appointment of a chief minister by a governor.
It said the governor should invite the leader of “a pre-poll alliance commanding the largest number” or the “largest single party” to form the government in case no party or pre-poll coalition has a clear majority.
The Sarkaria Commission, which studied Centre-state relations in the 1980s, had held a similar view.
The CM thus appointed must prove majority as per the guidelines laid down in the Bommai judgment — on the floor of the assembly.
The Indian Express
Editorial : Look who’s talking
The show-down between Turkey and Netherlands and the use of terms such as Nazis and Fascists to hurl slurs at opponents
Turkey is set for a referendum in April that seeks to extend Erdogan’s powers. It is feared that if successful, Erdogan will take Turkey from parliamentary democracy to a presidential system.
This referendum is divisive enough that a 10 percent swing voter group can be considered vital and hence Erdogan is campaigning amongst the 4,00,000-strong Turkish migrant community
The Dutch government for did not allow Erdogan’s ministers to campaign in the Netherlands prompting the slur of “acting like Nazis” by Erdogan.
The episode has gone beyond flinging charges; Turkey has expelled the Dutch ambassador, threatened sanctions against the Netherlands, even hinted at undoing the EU deal that funds Turkey to stem migrants into Europe.
Critics claim this deal has given Erdogan astonishing liberty, with European nations turning a strategic blind eye to tumult in Turkey.
Europe itself, confounded by its challenges of – Brexit, migration, terrorism, a far-right on an upswing – must resist the temptation of slipping into using such terminology.
We at RMISG would appreciate your feedback and comments below. This will help us to know more about your doubts and provide you with even better experience on the website. Do take few minutes and give us your feedback in the comments section below.
To Download the pdf : Click Here
Just Scroll down to give your feedback NOW.