Mediaboss Marketing

Iran and Qatar strengthened bilateral ties through a sum of 14 cooperation documents last month which covered various sectors.

Iran plans to launch its project to link its energy grid to Qatar, in a deal that was sealed last month during the Iranian presidents visit to Doha.

Irans Energy Minister, Ali Akbar Mehrabian, noted that the energy connectivity with the Gulf country will enable Tehran to maximise its hard currency revenues from electricity exports.

The Islamic Republics electrical grid is currently connected to seven neighbouring countries which include, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Turkey, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

Iran and Qatar sign 14 official cooperation documents

Iran exports electricity more than 10 months of the year, with countries like Iraq, relying increasingly on electricity and natural gas exports from Iran to fuel its power sector, according to reports.

The annual revenues derived from electricity exports, which account for a small portion of Irans total power output, is almost equivalent to the income gained from selling electricity to domestic customers, according to local media.

With Qatar being added as the potential eighth country, Mehrabian expressed that Iran will be able to allocate more electricity supplies to exports in the upcoming years.

The minister explained that a potential link-up with Russia could occur within a year.

Located in the Persian Gulf, the worlds biggest natural gas reserve is shared between Iran, which calls its portion South Pars, and Qatar, owner of the North Field, which is also referred to as the North Dome.

Qatar along with international firms have used the field and transformed it into the worlds largest exporter of liquefied natural gas. Iran, however, due to crippling international sanctions has experienced a slow development in its South Pars.

In December 2013, Qatar offered its help in response to a request from Iran to develop its share (South Pars) of the gas field, so that both can enjoy maximum and long-term rewards from the extractions.

The giant gas field holds approximately all of Qatars gas production and around 60 percent of its export revenues.

Follow Doha News onTwitter,Instagram,FacebookandYoutube

See original here:
Iran to begin project on power grid to Qatar - Doha News

The countrys overstretched patience with its southwestern neighbour is wearing thin over the Baloch insurgency.

In the dead of night on January 25, dozens of militants bearing advanced assault rifles and night-vision devices swooped down on a solitary paramilitary checkpost in Kech, some 180 km from Pakistans border with Iran, in the southwestern province of Balochistan. The sudden assault lasted for more than five hours, claiming the lives of 10 Pakistani troopers. The attackers reportedly fled to Iran.

The attack was later claimed by the Baloch Liberation Front (BLF), one of the most lethal Baloch separatist groups stoking a decades-long armed struggle against the Pakistan Army, which operates out of southeastern Iran.

While relations between Iran and Pakistan have steadily deteriorated over cross-border militancy in the past few years, analysts assess that the sharp increase in terrorist attacks since last year, mainly in Pakistans restive Balochistan province, has put the country's security establishment on tenterhooks.

Three days after the attack in Kech, Pakistans Federal Investigation Agency stumbled upon a surprising discovery in the backroom of a money exchange company in Karachi. They found a network funneling millions of rupees from "a foreign intelligence agency" to proscribed militant groups in the country. Thirteen employees were rounded up, and days later, a senior bureaucrat was arrested in connection with the raid.

While the foreign intelligence agency behind the racket was barely identified in press conferences and local media coverage, a senior security official, on condition of anonymity, confirmed to TRT World that it belonged to Iran.

Then, on February 2, a coordinated attack on the paramilitary Frontier Corps headquarters in the towns of Panjgur and Noshki areas close to the Iran border and the Baloch-majority regions in Afghanistan, respectively stunned the nation. It took the army three days to clear the sites of the suicide attackers who, it said, were trained in Afghanistan by the Indian intelligence.

On February 14, Irans interior minister Ahmad Vahidi arrived in Islamabad for a day-long visit with the Commander of the Iranian Border Guards, Brigadier General Ahmad Ali Goudarzi, among other high-ranking officials.

While Pakistani leadership hailed the historic brotherly ties with Iran, privately the delegation was given a stern warning: He was given the message that we know [about the use of Iranian soil by Baloch insurgents]. If there are more attacks, we will take decisive action, says the security official, who is privy to details of the meeting.

Baloch havens

The tri-border region of Nimroz in Afghanistan, an ethnic Baloch-dominated province straddling Pakistan and Iran in the south, is notorious for its powerful smuggling rackets dealing in weapons, opium, and human trafficking. To its east is the Helmand province, where vast poppy fields feed the global opium trade. This is also the region, along with Kandahar to its east, that welcomed fleeing Baloch brethren when former President General Pervez Musharraf ordered a military operation against Baloch insurgents in 2006. Many Baloch separatist leaders coordinated attacks on Pakistani security personnel and Chinese investments in Balochistan during the Afghan war.

When the Taliban took Kabul last year, they launched a swift crackdown on Baloch refugees and handed over many dissidents to the Pakistani authorities. Many Baloch rebels had already gone into hiding after assassination attempts in Kandahar, allegedly ordered by Pakistani officials over the past two years.

As a result, Baloch refugees have now moved west to Nimroz and into the Iranian province of Sistan and Baluchestan. Some have returned and regrouped in Pakistani Balochistan as well. Regrouping has lent them renewed vigour and purpose. Baloch separatists carried out five attacks in January alone, despite the governments offer of a dialogue.

According to a 2021 security report from the Pakistan Institute for Peace Studies, the districts of Kech and Panjgur, close to the Iranian border, were among the hardest hit by Baloch insurgents between January and December of last year.

It seems that Pakistan has now reached a tipping point [in dealing with Iran], says Abdul Basit, a research fellow at S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore.

The sophistication of weapons and the ability to conduct complex coordinated attacks through the use of suicide missions are unprecedented.

Attacks are being carried out at night through sniper rifles. Earlier, [Pakistani] drones would deter them. Now they [Baloch rebels] dont give a hoot about it, he adds.

Complicated relationship

In the face of increasing ethno-sectarian violence, Pakistani authorities are in a bind. Open confrontation with Iran could antagonize a sizable Shia community that makes up roughly 20 percent of the population and open a new front of tensions with Iran at a time when the Pakistan Army is already stretched thin on the borders with India. It also risks stoking sectarian fault lines that Pakistan largely overcame after the bloodshed of the 90s.

However, slowly but surely, Pakistans intelligence officials appear to be deliberately leaking stories to the media about Iranian-backed militancy, notes Basit. The move signals the intelligence communitys frustration with a government that wants to avoid open confrontation with its neighbour.

Iran has kept these [ethno-nationalist and sectarian] groups as counterweights to use to turn up the heat in case Pakistan facilitates Jundullah and Jaish ul-Adl, he says, referring to Iranian Baluch rebel groups said to have safe havens in Pakistan.

In Pakistan's case, Iran's revolutionary rulers have been in competition since the 1990s over Afghanistan and their role in the Gulf, says Ahmed Quraishi, an Islamabad-based journalist with expertise in the MENA region. (Middle East & North Africa)

It makes sense that Khomeinists in Iran would like to limit any Pakistani role in Afghanistan and in the Gulf region through domestic pressure operations, he said.

The Saudi factor

In 2013, Iran began recruiting young Shia men from north and western Pakistan for its Zainabiyyoun Brigade to fight for the protection of Muslim shrines in Syria. Esmail Qaani, the current chief of the Quds Force the international arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corpswho at the time oversaw the Afpak region under his predecessor, Qasem Soleimani, spent years cultivating local terror networks. But at the height of the Covid-19 outbreak in 2020, when Iran forced Pakistan to open its border for returning Shia pilgrims, many fighters were also pushed over.

While the intelligence assessment of the time discounted any security threat from the returning fighters, they were still kept under watch.

It was not until last year that several alleged Zainabiyyoun Brigade operatives were rounded up as the US decided to leave Afghanistan. In June last year, a Red Book issued by the Counter Terrorism Department of the provincial Sindh Police also listed 24 members of the pro-Iran sectarian group, Sipah-e-Muhammad Pakistan, as most wanted.

Interestingly, the string of arrests linked to Iran last year coincided with the thaw in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan relations.

The two countries fell out over the Saudi-led Organization of Islamic Councils nonchalance around the Kashmir issue when India unilaterally changed its special status to a union territory in October 2019. Saudi Arabia had abruptly asked for $3million in loan repayments, while the UAE, a close ally of the Saudis, banned new work visas for Pakistanis.

In May 2021, backdoor diplomacy paved the way for Prime Minister Imran Khans visit to Jeddah that reset soured relations.

Pakistani authorities reopened a criminal investigation into the 2011 murder of a Saudi diplomat in Karachi six months later and sent a letter to Iranian authorities asking for legal help in apprehending the alleged killer, a Sipah-e-Muhammad worker believed to be hiding in Iran.

The following month, the Saudis revived a $3 billion loan and offered a $1.2 billion oil facility on deferred payment.

Most significantly, the Saudi Interior Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Naif visited Islamabad on February 7, following the daring Baloch attacks on the Frontier Corps, with an offer of closer cooperation in intelligence sharing against Iranian proxy groups operating in Pakistan. A week later, Irans Interior Minister Vahidy was confronted in Islamabad with evidence of Baloch havens in Iran.

Last weeks arrest of another member of the pro-Iran Mehdi group, in connection with the 2011 attack on Karachis Saudi Consulate, is seen as further proof of Pak-Saudi joint intel operations.

It appears that the Saudis and the Emiratis have been rewarding Pakistans loyalty in kind. The UAE authorities picked up Pakistani businessman Hafeez Baloch from Dubai on Jan 27 and handed him over to Pakistan over suspicion of terror financing.

Source: TRT World

Read this article:
Why Pakistan is coming down hard on Iran - TRT World

I didnt support the JCPOA (known as the Iran nuclear deal) in 2015, as I believed it was a fundamentally flawed agreement. Not only did it abandon the original aim of preventing Iran from ever becoming a nuclear weapon state, but it failed to tackle Irans ballistic missile programme, its systematic destabilisation of its regional neighbours or its championing of terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.

In 2018, President Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement, blaming Irans hostage taking, its continued missile development and its active support for groups such as the Houthis, who precipitated and exacerbated the bloody conflict in Yemen. When Iran refused to sign an agreement covering these issues, tighter US sanctions saw the Iranian currency go into free fall, a massive flight of capital from the country, and a deep recession follow.

Now, negotiations are being resurrected under the Biden administration. But has anything fundamentally changed? Iran has continued its nuclear programme at pace and its stockpile of enriched uranium is now massively greater than permitted, with some of it just below the level of purity needed for a nuclear bomb. In defiance of the United Nations, it has also continued with its ballistic missile programme. In 2018, both the UK and France accused Iran of breaching its obligations by testing medium-range ballistic missiles, whichwere capable of carrying multiple warheads.

Both before and after the collapse of the JCPOA, Iran has continued its malign activities in its own country and beyond. Two Iranian diplomats were expelled from the Netherlands in June 2018 for plotting political assassinations in the country. A bomb plot to target a rally of opposition groups in Paris was foiled by French intelligence. In the UK, a terrorist cell with links to Iran was caught stockpiling tonnes of ammonium nitrate explosives at a secret bomb factory on the outskirts of London.

Iran has been an active and consistent supporter of Palestinian terrorist organisations, including Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) and Hamas. Lebanese Hezbollah remains Irans primary terrorist proxy with the groups secretary-general, Hassan Nasrallah, proudly boasting that Hezbollah gets its money and arms from Iran, and as long as Iran has money, so does Hezbollah.

The implications of lifting sanctions on Iran are crystal-clear. It is through such proxies that Iran targets Israel and Israeli interests and gives effect to the long-standing hatred of Irans leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, for the very existence of the Israeli state.

To remove sanctions on Iranian oil without guarantees of stopping such activities would risk money being poured into regional destabilisation and the funding of groups who are fundamentally anti-West and anti the allies of the West. How, in any rational world, could that be regarded as progress?

Any new agreement with Iran must answer three questions. Does it stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon state? Does it deal with Irans illegal ballistic missile programme with its ability to strike evermore distant targets? And does it restrict or rein back Irans malign influence in its own region and beyond?

When the original agreement was being drawn up, negotiators concluded that in order to make progress, they would have to isolate the nuclear deal from the other areas of concern. Abandoning the original aim of preventing Iran from developing a nuclear bomb, they eventually watered-down their ambitions and agreed to simply delay it.

Constraints on enrichment capabilities were designed to lengthen the time it would take Iran to produce enough weapons-grade uranium for a single bomb to at least one year for the first 10 years of the agreement. The effect was simply to hand the crisis to succeeding governments further downthe line.

Today, Iran has the largest and most diverse ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East, with most coming from foreign sources, especially North Korea. It is the only country to have developed a 1,200-mile missile without first having a nuclear weapons capability. The implication is blindingly obvious. Iran has unveiled 10 new ballistic missiles and three new satellite launch vehicles (SLVs) since 2015, while in his first budget, the new President, Ebrahim Raisi, earmarked almost 200 million for ballistic missile projects.

All of this comes at a time when Western governments are desperate to find a replacement source for Russian fossil fuels. It would be complete folly if, in trying to escape from our dependency on Putins oil and gas, we were to end up funding the development of another nuclear state whose political stability, human-rights record and disregard for international law is at least as bad as Russia.

We have seen in the horrors enforced on Ukraine by Putins Kremlin why wishful thinking is a poorbasis for foreign and security policy. How irresponsible and foolish we would be to repeat the mistakes with Iran.

Liam Fox is MP for North Somerset and a former defence secretary

Go here to see the original:
Resurrecting the Iran nuclear deal would be an epic mistake - The Telegraph

Andrew P. Napolitano| Special to the USA TODAY Network

Biden calls Putin 'a murderous dictator' and 'thug'

President Joe Biden called Russian President Vladimir Putin "a murderous dictator" and "pure thug" as he addressed a St. Patrick's Day luncheon at the Capitol Thursday, and thanked Ireland for standing with the world against Putin's aggression. (March 17)

AP

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the Biden administration has undertaken a vast scheme against Russian economic actors, which it characterizes as "sanctions." The scheme consists in seizing assets, freezing assets, and prohibiting lawful and constitutionally protected commercial transactions.

All of this is aimed at dissuading Russian President Vladimir Putin from his determination to use extreme state violence to neutralize the government of Ukraine and install a government more favorable to the Kremlin. Yet, the targets of these sanctions are neither Putin nor the Russian state. Rather, his friends and political supporters, as well as Russian banks and commercial entities, and even American banks and commercial entities, have been targeted and hundreds of millions of consumers and investors have been harmed.

By prohibiting the use of assets and international money transfers, the sanctions have severely harmed folks in Russia who have nothing to do with Putin's war by radically reducing their purchasing power and eliminating many everyday choices from their spending options. All of this was done by presidential edict.

Can the president constitutionally prevent Americans and foreign persons from the lawful use of their own assets and from engaging freely in lawful commercial transactions? In a word: No.

Here is the backstory.

The Constitution was written to establish the federal government and to limit it. The same document that delegates to Congress the power to keep interstate and foreign commerce regular also prohibits the states in the Contracts Clause from interfering in private contracts. But there was originally no comparable prohibition restraining the federal government.

In 1791, James Madison, the author of the Constitution, argued as a member of the House of Representatives against legislation establishing the First National Bank of the United States because he feared federal control of commerce. Of course, it became law, caused recessions and was sunset 20 years later.

Yet in 1816, shortly before the end of his second term in the White House, Madison caved to corporatism and signed into law the Second National Bank of the United States. After its constitutionality was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1824, the feds insinuated themselves into all sorts of economic activity, none of it enhancing personal liberty, all of it favoring their patrons.

While still a congressman, and fearing federal insinuation into commerce, Madison authored the Bill of Rights the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. He crafted the Fifth Amendment to protect life, liberty and property from the government.

By requiring due process a trial at which the federal government must prove fault prior to interfering with any person's life, liberty or property, Madison arguably crafted more restraints on the feds than the original Constitution imposed upon the states.

Similarly, by requiring a search warrant issued by a neutral judge based on sworn testimony of probable cause of crime before the feds could seize any person or tangible thing, Madison again added strength and vitality to his understanding of the Constitution's protections of the primacy of the individual with respect to property and privacy.

Both the Fourth and the Fifth Amendments protect all "people" and every "person," not just Americans. This is critical to an understanding of why the sanctions imposed by the Biden administration upon those as to whom there has been no due process or against whom there have been no search warrants issued are profoundly unconstitutional.

For generations, the government argued that the rights to privacy and due process protected Americans only. In the post-World War II era, the feds have lost those arguments.

Thus, when the feds seize a yacht from a person whom they believe may have financed Putin's political rise to power, or even his personal lifestyle, they are doing so in direct violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Similarly, when they freeze foreign assets in American banks, they engage in a seizure, and seizures can only constitutionally be done with a search warrant.

As well, when the feds interfere whether by presidential edict or congressional legislation with contract rights by prohibiting compliance with lawful contracts, that, too, implicates due process and can only be done constitutionally after a jury verdict in the government's favor from a trial at which the feds have proven fault.

As if to anticipate these constitutional roadblocks to its interference with free commercial choices by investors, workers and consumers, Congress enacted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act of 1977 and the Magnitsky Act of 2016. These constitutional aberrations purport to give the president the power to declare persons and entities to be violators of human rights and, by that mere executive declaration, to punish them without trial.

These laws turn the Fourth and Fifth Amendments on their heads by punishing first and engaging in a perverse variant of due process later.

How perverse? If the feds seize assets or interfere with contracts involving foreign ownership or interests, and the victims want justice, the persons or entities whose assets have been seized or whose contractual rights have been diminished must consent to the jurisdiction of American courts and prove that they are NOT human rights violators.

These statutes are a federal version of "Alice in Wonderland," whereby the punished person or entity must prove innocence. Such a burden defies all American concepts of property ownership, fairness and due process. It is antithetical to our history, repugnant to our values and mocks the Constitution that all in government have sworn to uphold. All persons are presumed innocent. The government must always prove fault.

The restrictions that the Constitution imposes upon the federal government have no emergency exceptions, nor are they theoretical or fanciful. They were crafted by men who knew and had tasted the torments of unbridled government power. They wrote the restrictions to assure that the new federal government could not do to Americans what the British had done to them.

They failed.

AndrewP.Napolitano, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge,haspublished nine books on the U.S. Constitution.

Read the original:
Sanctions on Russia violate the U.S. Constitution | Napolitano - New Jersey Herald

The state Supreme Court said in a Tuesday order the Montana Attorney General erred in halting a ballot initiative from going out for signature-gathering.

The proposed ballot initiative aims to add new environmental protections to stretches of the Gallatin and Madison rivers.

The courts unanimous opinion, written by Chief Justice Mike McGrath, also indicated that the attorney general lacks the authority to reject a proposed ballot initiative on the basis that it amounts to a government taking of private property. And in a nonbinding, concurring opinion, McGrath went further, writing that the authority to determine the constitutionality of ballot proposals rests solely with the courts not with the AG.

The court directed Secretary of State Christi Jacobsen to approve a final signature petition form to allow the environmental groups proposing the initiative to start collecting signatures to place it on the ballot. The groups have until June 17 to collect the 30,180 signatures needed to put the proposal to a statewide vote in the 2022 general election. They also need signatures from 5% of the voters in at least 34 of the states 100 House districts.

People are also reading

Ballot Initiative 24 would apply Montanas Outstanding Resource Water designation to 35 miles of the Gallatin River, from the Yellowstone National Park boundary to the Spanish Creek confluence, and to about 55 miles of the Madison River, from Hebgen Lake to Ennis Lake. It would also amend the designation to prohibit temporary pollution sources. The law authorizing the designation currently applies only to year-round sources of pollution.

Knudsen had rejected the proposal in late January, following his offices legal sufficiency review. He wrote in a legal memo that the ballot initiative would amount to a private property taking under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article II, Section 29 of the Montana Constitution, without providing compensation to potentially affected property owners.

Cottonwood Environmental Law Center, one of the groups backing the measure, filed a petition with the state Supreme Court challenging the AG offices finding last month. Cottonwood executive director John Mayer said the proposal is aimed at combating water quality degradation in the two rivers.

Last year, Republican lawmakers passed a law revising the AGs role in determining the legal sufficiency of a proposed ballot initiative. Previously, the AGs office could only block a proposal if it didnt comply with constitutional and statutory language for submitting ballot issues to voters.

House Bill 651 now requires Knudsen to determine the substantive legality of the proposed issue if approved by the voters, giving his office broader authority to reject proposals.

The seven justices unanimously ruled that Knudsens legal finding misapprehends and misapplies the law that applies to constitutional takings and contradicts the statutory scheme creating the attorney generals review process.

While the federal and state constitutions include provisions prohibiting the government from taking private property without some degree of just compensation, the justices wrote that the environmental groups proposal doesnt match up with how previous court decisions have defined takings.

There are two ways a governments action can rise to the level of a constitutional taking, they wrote either through a permanent physical invasion of property or by an action that eliminates all economically beneficial uses of the property.

Knudsen had argued that in order for I-24 to be constitutional, it would have to compensate the property owners who would be affected by the Outstanding Water Resource designation.

But the Attorney General provided no authority for this proposition, and as a matter of takings law, it is incorrect, the justices wrote. They added that nothing in the proposed initiative prevents affected property owners from suing the state to recover damages.

The justices opinion goes further, writing that Knudsens determination shows the impropriety of using an opinion about regulatory takings to determine if a ballot issue is insufficient.

In addition to the new legal sufficiency changes added by the Legislature last year, Republican lawmakers also gave the AG the power to add a warning label to signature petitions for proposed ballot initiatives that could hurt business or private property interests. Knudsen did just that, in addition to blocking the proposal based on his belief that its unconstitutional.

It would not make sense for the law to call for an advisory statement (which would be appended to a valid petition) to be warranted for a reason that would also render the petition invalid, the justices wrote.

Two other conservation groups, Gallatin Wildlife Association and Montana Rivers, are also backing I-24 and both signed onto the petition as plaintiffs.

"We are extremely gratified that the Montana Supreme Court overruled the Attorney General, Gallatin Wildlife Association President Clint Nagel said in a press release Wednesday. This is a win for all citizens of the last best place.

Mayer, with Cottonwood, said despite whats amounted to a six-week delay to start gathering signatures for the petition, he expects to get enough residents to sign on by the June deadline.

Everyone in Montana wants clean water, Mayer said. Not that many people want rich out-of-staters building vacation houses and destroying our water.

But theres a growing list of business groups and local officials, especially those in and around Big Sky, who are pushing back against the proposed initiative.

On Wednesday, the Montana Chamber of Commerce issued a statement in opposition to I-24, referring to previous attempts by conservation groups to add the Outstanding Resource Waters designation to part of the Gallatin.

The designation is the highest water designation that is typically reserved for extremely sensitive areas like national parks, and the (Department of Environmental Quality) and the courts have repeatedly declined to make such designations in this area, the group wrote, adding that it would hurt job creation and halt workforce housing progress.

In a statement, AG spokesman Kyler Nerison argued that the ruling was consistent with Knudsens finding that the ballot initiative would bypass the normal review process established in state law.

Instead of coming to this obvious conclusion, the Supreme Court justices engaged in legal gymnastics to align with radical environmentalists and maneuver toward an outcome that even two liberal Democrat governors rejected, Nerison wrote.

Questionable legal authority

But in a separate, concurring opinion, McGrath went even further in questioning Knudsens legal authority under the new law. He wrote that only the courts have the power to reject a proposed ballot initiative for running afoul of the constitution.

McGrath wrote that the attorney general lacks such power, and the Legislature equally lacks the power to confer it upon him.

That portion of the courts opinion was co-signed only by Justice Dirk Sandefur, and isnt binding as a legal precedent.

Citing a 1986 state Supreme Court opinion regarding a proposed constitutional initiative, he noted that the court has taken a careful approach to those issues in the past: We should hesitate to 'interfere with the constitutional right of the people of Montana to make and amend our laws through the initiative process.'

Anthony Johnstone, a constitutional law professor at the University of Montana, said that while the courts have at times tossed out initiative proposals that are clearly unconstitutional, the right of Montanans to directly engage in the legislative process is an area where theyve historically treaded lightly.

No one can go into the Legislature to challenge a law as unconstitutional before it gets passed,Johnstone said.

He added that the constitutionality of I-24 can still be challenged if it makes it onto the ballot and is passed by the voters.

Because theres a final bite at the apple if it actually becomes law, thats usually been a reason not to scrutinize the initiative as closely before its in effect, Johnstone said. Partially because you dont actually know how its going to work until its in effect.

Stay up-to-date on the latest in local and national government and political topics with our newsletter.

Read the original here:
MT SupCo reverses AG decision, says river protection initiative can go out for signatures - Independent Record