&mdash

All posts tagged &mdash

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday announced that it had deadlocked in a case challenging President Obama’s plan to shield millions of immigrants from deportation and allow them to work. The 4-4 tie left in place an appeals court ruling blocking the plan, dealing a sharp blow to an ambitious program that Mr. Obama had hoped would become one of his central legacies. Instead, even as the court deadlocked, it amplified the already contentious election-year debate over the nation’s immigration policy and presidential power.

The case, United States v. Texas, No. 15-674, concerned a plan to allow as many as five million unauthorized immigrants who are the parents of citizens or of lawful permanent residents to apply for a program that would spare them from deportation and provide them with work permits. The program was called Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents, or DAPA.

Mr. Obama has said he took action in 2014 after years of frustration with Republicans in Congress who had repeatedly refused to support bipartisan Senate legislation to update immigration laws. A coalition of 26 states, led by Texas, promptly challenged the plan, accusing the president of ignoring administrative procedures for changing rules and of abusing the power of his office by circumventing Congress.

In February 2015, Judge Andrew S. Hanen of Federal District Court in Brownsville, Tex., entered a preliminary injunction shutting down the program while the legal case proceeded. The government appealed, and a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans affirmed the injunction.

Interactive Feature | Breaking News Emails Sign up to receive an email from The New York Times as soon as important news breaks around the world.

In their Supreme Court briefs, the states acknowledged that the president had wide authority over immigration matters, telling the justices that “the executive does have enforcement discretion to forbear from removing aliens on an individual basis.” Their quarrel, they said, was with what they called a blanket grant of “lawful presence” to millions of immigrants, entitling them to various benefits.

In response, Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli Jr. told the justices that this “lawful presence” was merely what had always followed from the executive branch’s decision not to deport someone for a given period of time.

“Deferred action does not provide these individuals with any lawful status under the immigration laws,” he said. “But it provides some measure of dignity and decent treatment.”

“It recognizes the damage that would be wreaked by tearing apart families,” Mr. Verrilli added, “and it allows individuals to leave the shadow economy and work on the books to provide for their families, thereby reducing exploitation and distortion in our labor markets.”

The states said they had suffered the sort of direct and concrete injury that gave them standing to sue.

Graphic | How a Vacancy on the Supreme Court Affects Cases in the 2015-16 Term The empty seat left by Justice Antonin Scalia’s death leaves the court with two basic options for cases left on the docket this term if the justices are deadlocked at 4 to 4.

Judge Jerry E. Smith, writing for the majority in the appeals court, focused on an injury said to have been suffered by Texas, which he said would have to spend millions of dollars to provide driver’s licenses to immigrants as a consequence of the federal program.

Mr. Verrilli told the justices that Texas’ injury was self-inflicted, a product of its decision to offer driver’s licenses for less than they cost to produce and to tie eligibility for them to federal standards.

Texas responded that being required to change its laws was itself the sort of harm that conferred standing. “Such a forced change in Texas law would impair Texas’s sovereign interest in ‘the power to create and enforce a legal code,’” the state’s lawyers wrote in a brief.

Judge Hanen grounded his injunction on the Obama administration’s failure to give notice and seek public comments on its new program. He found that notice and comment were required because the program gave blanket relief to entire categories of people, notwithstanding the administration’s assertion that it required case-by-case determinations about who was eligible for the program.

The appeals court affirmed that ruling and added a broader one. The program, it said, also exceeded Mr. Obama’s statutory authority.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

By , and ,

LONDON — Britons from the far Scottish isles to the tip of Gibraltar had their say Thursday in a historic referendum that could reshape Britain’s place in Europe and radiate economic, political and security implications across the globe.

After months of bitter campaigning that sharply divided the country over questions of immigration and identity, election day dawned with a cliffhanger on whether Britain will remain in the European Union.

Among the five polls released on the eve of the vote, two showed a lead for “in,” two gave the edge to “out” and one forecast a tie. The final average of all polls on the day before the vote was 50-50, reflecting the too-close-to-call drama on one of the biggest questions to face Britain in decades.

At mid-day Thursday, however, two new results appeared to show a late-breaking shift toward the “remain” camp. Surveys from the polling firms Ipsos Mori and Populus both found a clear lead for those seeking to keep Britain from an E.U. break.

The U.S.-based firm SurveyMonkey, one of the few forecasters to correctly call last year’s British election, also reported a potentially decisive shift toward “in” over the final days of the campaign.

[If Britain leaves, who could be next?]

Although “leave” had been leading the polls as of last week, “remain” drew even after pro-E.U. member of Parliament Jo Cox was fatally shot and stabbed a week ago, jolting the country and prompting calls for an end to some of the campaign’s more hateful rhetoric.

Financial markets nudged higher in Asia, and were sharply up in Europe in an apparent sign that traders and investors were betting Britain would stay within the 28-nation bloc. A possible British exit — popularly known as Brexit — would inject huge uncertainties into global financial networks.

Voting takes place throughout the day Thursday, and the results are expected early Friday (Thursday evening Eastern time). As of mid-day, there appeared to be heavy turnout, with voters lining up at polling stations and both sides working frantically to rally their supporters.

Most analysts believe that high voter turnout favors “remain” because “leave” voters are generally considered more committed to their cause, and there was little question they would show up at polling stations.

Speaking to reporters before he cast his ballot, anti-E.U. firebrand Nigel Farage said there was a “very strong chance” of a victory for the “leave” side, but acknowledged it would hinge on “those soft ‘remainers’ staying at home.”

The referendum marks an existential decision that could dramatically alter Britain’s global role in a way not seen since London shed its empire after World War II. It could also lead to another push on Scottish secession, the further unraveling of the European Union and the fall of Prime Minister David Cameron’s government.

As the first votes were cast — with the often-variable British weather running the gamut from a torrential downpour in London to sunny, clear skies in Scotland — anxiety was the prevailing mood.

Hilary Clarke, a 45 year-old stay-at-home mom, was the first to vote at a southwest London polling station. She said she would use her stubby pencil to check “remain” on her ballot.

“If I had been confident I wouldn’t be standing in the rain at 7 in the morning,” she said as she sheltered beneath a colorful umbrella. “The reason I’m first in the queue is I’m going straight to the airport to go to Barcelona, and I may not return if vote goes the wrong way.”

Clarke, who had endured a sleepless night tuned to the cracks of thunder and the cries of woken children, said she could not understand the logic of those pushing for “leave.”

[13 Brexit facts to ease American angst over their own election]

“I can see that sometimes it seems we are hemorrhaging money to the E.U.,” she said. “But at the same time we seem to get so much more back than we give. Even if you’re disagreeing with what’s said at the table, it’s better to have a place at it.”

But for “leave” voters, Britain’s four decades of membership in the European Union and its precursors have only dragged the country down.

Andreas Hajialexandrou, a 48-year-old businessman of Greek-Cypriot heritage, said the country could simply not withstand the impact of record numbers of immigrants from elsewhere in Europe.

“There are pressures on local services. I speak to our local [doctors] and they are just swamped,” he said. “The question is, how long can you support that level of immigration?”

[3 reasons why Americans should care about British vote]

Other voters still had not made their minds up as they prepared to enter the polling station.

At Methodist Central Hall, in the shadow of Westminster Abbey, Steve Devereux was still weighing his options Thursday morning. He said that while he would likely vote “remain” because he worried about the concussive impact of an exit, he felt the pull to leave.

“Giving the government a kick in the backside and really telling them actually they can’t take people for granted,” he said. “I think that’s the big thing I really want to say.”

Cameron, the prime minister and a leading voice for E.U. ties, voted in central London Thursday morning alongside his wife, Samantha, giving a quick wave to photographers before entering the polling station.

Leading Brexit campaigner Michael Gove cast his ballot later with a red-and-white “Vote Leave” umbrella in hand. The Justice Secretary was accompanied by his wife. In a reflection of the complex web of personal friendships that are being tested by a highly vitriolic political campaign, she is godmother to one of Cameron’s children.

Advocates for a British exit argue that tossing off the shackles of E.U. bureaucracy will restore Britain’s sovereignty. A powerful selling point for many votes is the claim that a farewell to E.U. ties could give the country the latitude to dramatically reduce immigration, which has hit record highs as Poles, Hungarians, Romanians and others from across Europe have flocked to the relative prosperity of the British economy.

Pro-Brexit leaders used the hashtag #IndependenceDay on Twitter Thursday morning to exhort their followers to get out and vote for what they promise will be a liberation from Brussels.

But opponents say a vote to leave could be a grievous ­self-inflicted wound from which it would take years, if not decades, for Britain to recover.

[Mission to London: Operation Croissant]

“We don’t solve our immigration challenge by leaving the European Union, but we do create a massive problem for our economy,” Cameron told the BBC on the eve of the vote. “This is irreversible. You can’t jump out of the airplane then climb back in through the cockpit hatch.”

Most economic, political and defense authorities — including nearly all foreign leaders — have joined the call for Britain to stay, and they have issued dire warnings about the consequences of Brexit.

Economic forecasters have said a British break could push the country back into recession, with the rest of the globe vulnerable to the ripples. Many geopolitical strategists also warn that a vote to leave could divide the Western alliance and be a boon to others such as Russian President Vladimir Putin.

But many of the 46 million Britons eligible to vote have paid little heed, with surveys showing that anxiety over immigration is trumping all other voter concerns.

The “leave” campaign has played on those fears, arguing — with little supporting evidence — that Turkey will soon join the European Union and intensify the flood of migrant workers arriving on British shores under the bloc’s free-movement rules.

It has also dismissed warnings from independent experts as part of an elitist plot, what it terms “Project Fear.”

[An unlikely star emerges in British debate]

The “remain” side has returned fire in recent days.

London Mayor Sadiq Khan castigated the anti-E.U. camp’s anti-immigrant message as “Project Hate.” Meanwhile, former prime minister John Major on Wednesday called Johnson and Gove, both fellow Conservatives, “gravediggers of our prosperity.”

Whichever side wins Thursday will have to reckon with the profound and emotional schisms in British society that have come to the surface during the campaign.

When Cameron promised a referendum in January 2013, he had hoped the vote would put to rest a debate over Europe that has bedeviled Britain for decades and that has generated particularly deep fault lines in his Conservative Party.

Instead, the campaign appears only to have made those divisions worse, while also layering the debate with the added complexity of personal ambition. Several prominent campaigners — especially Johnson — are thought to be jockeying for Cameron’s job if the country defies the prime minister and votes for an exit.

[Finally a compelling reason to talk about the British weather]

Even if “remain” wins, Britain’s angst is unlikely to be resolved. Some “leave” campaigners have said they will press for another referendum if they come up short in a close vote.

Thursday’s vote also has the potential to reawaken another fundamental question of British identity. Scottish leaders say that if Britain votes to leave the European Union against the will of the pro-European Scots, they will renew their push for independence just two years after losing a referendum vote.

Cay Schroder, 72, a painter, was in Trafalgar Square on Wednesday along with thousands of others for an emotional memorial to the slain lawmaker Cox on what would have been her 42nd birthday. The event featured a speech from Nobel laureate Malala Yousafzai of Pakistan, a video message from Irish rock star Bono and a school choir featuring the classmates of Cox’s young son.

Young voters, he said, were “in” but may not vote. The “out” voters were older, and determined to recover a bygone time for Britain that cannot be re-created.

“They long for something,” he said, “that doesn’t exist anymore.”

Read more:

Would break from Brussels also splinter Britain? Probably not.

Why North America won’t copy European unity

The world marks Jo Cox’s birthday, days after British politician was slain

Today’s coverage from Post correspondents around the world

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

By and ,

ORLANDO — After an initial burst of fire between Omar Mateen and a security guard at the Pulse nightclub, a group of five or six police officers arrived on the scene within minutes, broke through a large glass window and entered the club as the killing of 49 people was underway inside, according to a Belle Isle, Fla., police officer who was among the first responders.

Officer Brandon Cornwell, 25, said the ad-hoc team spent the first seconds in the dimly lit club “trying to locate exactly where the shooter was — we kept hearing people scream and shots fired.”

He and the other officers followed the sounds to the bathroom area, where Mateen was now holed up. But instead of entering the bathroom, the officers aimed their assault rifles toward the area and were told by commanders to hold their position as the sounds of gunfire stopped, according to Cornwell. And so they waited “15 or 20 minutes — could’ve been longer” — until the SWAT team arrived, he said. Cornwell never saw Mateen.

Cornwell’s account is the first by a police officer who went inside the club during the first critical moments of the shooting. The FBI said Monday that police first responders “engaged the shooter” inside the club at 2:08 a.m., but Cornwell’s account raises questions about whether gunfire was actually exchanged, why first responders were told not to pursue Mateen into the bathroom, and whether any SWAT or other officers entered the club once the first responders retreated.

While some survivors described harried rescues by individual officers during the first half-hour or so, others inside the club remained trapped for hours. Some were rescued at 4:21 a.m. — more than two hours after the shooting began — by police working from outside the building. The FBI’s timeline does not describe any SWAT movement into the building until 5 a.m., three hours after the attack started.

“I was yelling, ‘Go in there, go in there, my friends are in there,’ ” said Jeannette McCoy, who escaped the nightclub during the first several minutes and saw the first responders gathering near the main entrance. “People are bleeding to death.”

The Orlando Police Department and the FBI declined to provide further clarification Tuesday. Cornwell also declined to further clarify what happened inside, citing the ongoing investigation and instructions not to talk about such details.

He did not second-guess the decision for the officers to hold their position outside the bathroom.

“We just basically stayed there, waited for movement, and we just held our position until SWAT got there,” said Cornwell, who never fired his weapon. “Once SWAT got there, they told us to retreat, that they’d take over because we were not really in tactical gear — we were just in our police uniforms.”

[Lesson from Columbine: It takes less than five minutes to bleed out]

As the FBI continues its investigation of the worst mass shooting in U.S. history, Cornwell and his fellow officers’ early standoff with the shooter — the second of three encounters between law enforcement and Mateen over more than three hours that morning — is being scrutinized by state and federal investigators, along with the other police encounters with the shooter.

Capt. Mark Canty, the Orlando Police Department’s SWAT commander, said that while the incident will be thoroughly reviewed for lessons learned, he believed that everyone “did a good job.”

“That’s the worst part of this. I think we did an outstanding job, but unfortunately people died,” he said.

Chris Cotillo, a former SWAT commander in Prince George’s County, Md., and the current police chief in Seat Pleasant, Md., said that in active shooter situations, officers are now trained to “immediately go in” and “engage the threat.” But in Orlando, he said, the attack presented some unusual quirks. If the shooter stopped firing — and was contained in a bathroom — that would have given officers an opportunity to take stock of the situation, clear out survivors elsewhere in the club and develop a plan.

That Cornwell was even in the vicinity of the Pulse nightclub at 2 a.m. that Sunday was largely a matter of coincidence. The tiny Belle Isle Police Department, situated just south of Orlando in a sleepy community of pale houses and Spanish moss, has an agreement to assist the community of Edgewood, which is near the club. Cornwell, a second-year officer who served with the Army National Guard in Iraq, said he was helping with a traffic stop when he heard the call on his radio that shots had been fired at Pulse. He said he arrived “in 38 seconds.”

Cornwell was in one of the first seven or so police cars to arrive on the scene, where officers were getting out of their vehicles with their assault rifles, he said.

“Some ran towards the building; some stayed back with people running out,” he said. “There was tons of people running out of the club. I grabbed my assault rifle and ran toward the club. At this point, the shooter is still actively shooting inside.”

Cornwell converged on the south side of the building, near the main entrance, with perhaps five other officers, all from the Orlando Police Department, which he referred to as OPD.

“There happens to be an OPD lieutenant commander who was there, and he says, ‘We’ve got to go in,’ ” Cornwell said. “No one disagreed. One of the officers busted out one of those side windows” — it was approximately 10 feet tall — “and we just went in and went from there.”

McCoy, the survivor, who had by then run to the south side of the club as well, described seeing a group of “six to eight” police officers gathered by the entrance with “their guns drawn.” She saw them then shoot through the window, she said.

Cornwell estimated that “no more than two minutes” had elapsed since he and the other officers arrived, and they were now inside the club.

According to the FBI’s timeline, officers “engaged the shooter” inside the club around this time, and three survivors said they heard or saw a brief gun battle.

But Cornwell said Mateen was nowhere to be seen. The club was dim — lit with a disco ball and colored lights — and quiet except for the sound of the shooter’s gunfire, screams and cries for help, Cornwell said.

“He was actively shooting,” he said. “I can’t say if he was targeting us. But he was still shooting in that location where he was at. There were bullet holes in the wall, so he had shot through the wall. But I couldn’t tell you if he was shooting at us.”

Cornwell and the other officers immediately began “clearing rooms” one by one — not knowing if there was more than one shooter — and trying to locate the source of the gunfire. The sound of the shots echoing around the club made it difficult to tell exactly where they were coming from, he said. But fairly quickly — “within minutes,” Cornwell said — officers located Mateen in the bathroom area.

At that point, he said, “we took up a tactical position by the bar standpoint in the middle of the club.” As he aimed his AR-15 assault rifle toward the bathroom door, he said, the shooting stopped. And it was then that the “15 or 20 minute” holding pattern began, he said.

Though Cornwell said he cannot recall exactly how he received his orders — whether via the radio or in person — his clear understanding was that he and his fellow officers were to hold their position rather than attempt to go into the bathroom after the shooter.

Minutes passed as he kept aiming toward the bathroom, he said. He could hear screams. There were people lying all over the floor of the club. He kept aiming, waiting for SWAT. More screaming. He and the other officers held their position, focused on the bathroom, where he could see “some movement inside,” he said.

Asked whether he felt an urge to pursue the shooter at that point, Cornwell said: “I couldn’t tell you. I was following the lieutenant’s command.”

At some point during the 15 to 20 minutes — it is unclear exactly when — Cornwell and the others in the group of first responders exited the club, he said.

“We got word from higher up, and it was communicated to the OPD lieutenant that we needed to withdraw,” he said. “So we came back outside. And waited for SWAT. SWAT arrived. SWAT handled everything from there.”

Multiple survivors have described pauses in Mateen’s gunfire, moments when he left either the main dance floor or the bathroom long enough that some of the survivors were able to place phone calls. What is unclear is whether these movements happened in the first moments, before Cornwell and the other officers entered the club, or after they withdrew.

In the main dance hall, Angel Colon said, he was shot in the first seconds, and then Mateen left the room, only to return and start “shooting everyone who’s on the floor, making sure they’re dead.” Colon told reporters last week that at first he thought the shooter’s absence would give someone else “time to tackle him.”

In the north bathroom, Patience Carter and others were able to make phone calls after Mateen shot them and then appeared to leave the bathroom.

“We laid there for hours and hours . . . hoping that the police would come through at that point in time and just save us all,” she told reporters last week.

Outside, Cornwell said, he spent the next several hours helping transport victims to ambulances. He arrived back at the Belle Isle Police Department on Sunday afternoon, his uniform and all his equipment saturated with blood.

Adam Goldman, Matt Zapotosky and Alice Crites contributed to this report.

Read more:

What the Orlando gunman told the police during his rampage

Troubled. Quiet. Macho. Angry. The volatile life of the Orlando shooter.

After Orlando, some American Muslims are anxious about what comes next

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

JERSEY CITY, N.J. (CBSNewYork/AP) — Three people were caught on an alleged vigilante mission with an arsenal of weapons, during a routine traffic stop at the Holland Tunnel on Tuesday, authorities said.

As CBS2’s Hazel Sanchez reported, John Cramsey, 50, and Dean Smith, 53, both of Zionsville, Pennsylvania, and Kimberly Arendt, 29, of Lehighton, each face several weapons charges. They were arrested as they passed through the tunnel around 7:40 a.m.

The group claimed they were vigilantes on their way to “extricate” a teenage girl who was being held by a drug dealer, police said. Initial reports said the teenage girl was in Queens, though Facebook posts from Cramsey indicated the girl was believed to be in a hotel room in Brooklyn.

Before getting busted with the cache of weapons, police said the trio of suspects certainly was not going for subtlety when they decided to head into the Holland Tunnel.

Their big-wheeled sport-utility vehicle was hard to miss, trimmed with neon paint and plastered with decals for Higher Ground Tactical – a Pennsylvania gun range. Cramsey is the owner of the gun range.

Police said they found a cache of weapons inside this vehicle during a traffic stop at the Holland Tunnel (credit: CBS2)

Police said they found a cache of weapons inside this vehicle during a traffic stop at the Holland Tunnel (credit: CBS2)

But it was actually eagle-eyed Port Authority police Officer John Basil who pulled over the vehicle at the entrance to the Holland Tunnel, after noticing a crack low on their windshield.

He told driver Smith to step out, police said.

“And upon approaching the motor vehicle, the officer observed in plain view a loaded pistol magazine,” said Port Authority of New York and New Jersey police Supervisor Michael Fedorko. “He had the driver exit the vehicle, and when then driver got out, he noticed a .45-caliber handgun on the driver’s seat.”

Inside the SUV were:

  • A pump action shotgun with a pistol grip and collapsible stock
  • An SAR-98 Salamander Arms assault rifle
  • 7 clips of ammunition for the rifle
  • 4 9mm pistols
  • 1 .45 caliber pistol, with several magazines
  • A Kevlar bullet resistant helmet with camouflage cover
  • Tactical goggles
  • Night-vision goggles
  • Body armor

Some of the guns were loaded, police said.

Sources said the suspects told police they were on their way through the city to rescue a friend who was being held hostage by a drug dealer.

While traveling to New York City, the suspects posted selfies from inside their tricked-out truck, CBS2’s Tony Aiello reported.

Holland Tunnel Weapons Defendants

(l-r) John Cramsey, 50, Kimberly Arendt, 29, and Dean Smith, 53, were arrested at the Jersey City entrance to the Holland Tunnel with an arsenal of weapons, as they headed into New York City for an alleged mission to “rescue” a teenage girl, authorities said. (Credit: John Cramsey, via Facebook)

Cramsey posted on Facebook, “The young lady is scared to death and wants to go home to her folks,” along with a graphic reading, “Enough is enough!” in boldface red letters.

Cramsey is well-known in and around Allentown as the owner of the gun shop, CBS2’s Aiello reported.

Cramsey’s 20-year-old daughter, Alexandria, died from a heroin overdose four months ago Tuesday and he has since attended town hall meetings around the Allentown area to voice his concerns over the drug epidemic, The Morning Call newspaper in Allentown, Pennsylvania, reported.

“This is a plague and we are losing our brightest and most brilliant minds,” Cramsey told the newspaper shortly after his daughter was found dead of an overdose with another man inside an Allentown home.

Friends of Cramsey’s told CBS2’s Aiello he feels tremendous guilt and began an “enough is enough” campaign. He also put decals on his truck reading, “Shoot your local heroin dealer.”

CBS2’s Aiello spoke on the phone with Cramsey’s friend, Michael Nickisher.

“Ever since his daughter died, I think it was one of those things where he wishes he could have done something to save her, and now that she’s gone, he feels this guilt in his heart that he needs to help other people,” Nickisher said.

While Cramsey likely would have known about the tough gun laws in New Jersey and New York as a licensed firearms dealer, Nickisher said his friend has not been thinking straight since his daughter died.

Police sources told CBS2 the girl the group was looking to extricate was found in Bedford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn and was also taken into police custody.

Port Authority police and the Joint Terrorism Task Force of New York and New Jersey were investigating their claims late Tuesday.

“The criminal portion of the investigation is still ongoing. However, it has been determined that there is absolutely no nexus to terrorism,” Fedorko said.

Port Authority officials said at the Holland Tunnel, their police force makes an average of one illegal weapons arrest a week due to equipment violations like they saw on Tuesday. Police emphasized the suspects had no terrorist ties, and thankfully so, because they would have made it through the tunnel if not for the cracked windshield.

(TM and © Copyright 2016 CBS Radio Inc. and its relevant subsidiaries. CBS RADIO and EYE Logo TM and Copyright 2016 CBS Broadcasting Inc. Used under license. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.)

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

COLUMBUS, Ohio — Hillary Clinton pounded away on Tuesday at Donald J. Trump’s business record and economic proposals, seeking to turn his claims of astounding financial success and genius against him and predicting a recession and global panic if he is elected president.

In a stern but earnest-sounding 45-minute speech at an education center garage here, Mrs. Clinton took care to intermingle the policy proclamations of Mr. Trump and his professed image as a business success of the highest order.

“Donald Trump has said he’s qualified to be president because of his business record,” Mrs. Clinton said. “A few days ago he said — and I quote — ‘I’m going to do for the country what I did for my business.’ So let’s take a look.”

Though she leveled predictable blows against various Trump-branded products, noting that many items — Trump ties, Trump steaks, Trump furniture — were made outside the United States, Mrs. Clinton’s most pointed refrains sought to depict Mr. Trump, her presumptive Republican opponent, as an enemy to the very people he had claimed to champion in the primary.

She checked off the stumbles of his casino business in Atlantic City; disparaged his companies’ bankruptcies (Mr. Trump’s many books about business “all seem to end at Chapter 11,” she joked); and insisted that his “one move” in business and politics was to make “over-the-top promises” and then let people down.

Mrs. Clinton invoked her father, who owned a small drapery business in Chicago, as she described Mr. Trump’s history of failing to pay painters, waiters, plumbers and other contractors who had completed work for him.

“My late father was a small-businessman,” she said. “If his customers had done what Trump did, my dad would never have made it. So I take this personally.”

She added, “This is not normal behavior.”

The barrage comes at a perilous moment for Mr. Trump, who fired his campaign manager on Monday and faces severe disadvantages in fund-raising and on-the-ground organization. One supporter introducing Mrs. Clinton said gleefully that the campaign had more staff members in Ohio than Mr. Trump had nationwide.

Although polls often show that voters see Mrs. Clinton as more qualified than Mr. Trump on foreign policy, her economic views have not always been an easy sell. In the Democratic primary race, she was dogged by criticism of her support for trade deals struck during the administrations of her husband and President Obama.

Mr. Trump, posting repeatedly on Twitter to counter Mrs. Clinton, said he planned to make his own “big speech” Wednesday to discuss her “failed policies and bad judgment.”

The Trump campaign, which has seldom engaged in rapid response, also sent a barrage of news releases to reporters in an effort to undercut Mrs. Clinton’s arguments. Their subjects included Bill Clinton’s former position on the board of a for-profit college, the loss of manufacturing jobs since 1993 and a slew of negative headlines about economic indicators under President Obama.

In one Twitter post, Mr. Trump seemed to embrace a label Mrs. Clinton had tried to make stick: that he had referred to himself as the “king of debt.”

“I am ‘the king of debt,’” Mr. Trump wrote on Tuesday. “That has been great for me as a businessman, but is bad for the country. I made a fortune off of debt, will fix U.S.”

Mrs. Clinton had taken Mr. Trump to task for suggesting that the United States might default on its debts under his leadership, arguing that Alexander Hamilton, the first Treasury secretary, “would be rolling in his grave.”

“The full faith and credit of the United States is not something you just gamble away,” she said, predicting that because the global economy “hangs on every word our president says,” even raising the possibility of a default “would cause a global panic.”

At one point, she ridiculed Mr. Trump’s suggestion that he could “sell off America’s assets” if necessary.

“Even if we sold all our aircraft carriers and the Statue of Liberty, even if we let some billionaire turn Yosemite into a private country club,” she said, “we still wouldn’t even get close.”

Mrs. Clinton attacked Mr. Trump on several other issues, including immigration and pay equality for women. She also ridiculed Mr. Trump for saying that climate change was a “hoax invented by the Chinese,” noting that it was “a lot easier to say a problem doesn’t exist than it is to actually try to solve it.”

The speech on Tuesday was the centerpiece of a coordinated attack on Mr. Trump’s fiscal sense. On Tuesday morning, Mrs. Clinton’s team released a video, “Bad Businessman,” featuring clips of figures including Mitt Romney and Senators Marco Rubio and Elizabeth Warren insulting assorted Trump-branded ventures.

“What ever happened to Trump Airlines?” Mr. Romney asks in one excerpt, taken from a speech he made in March that struck a similar tone to Mrs. Clinton’s.

The campaign introduced a website, Artofthesteal.biz, detailing Mr. Trump’s checkered history in Atlantic City, his father’s role in bolstering his fortunes and his constellation of enterprises.

By early evening, Mr. Trump’s team had responded with its own site, LyingCrookedHillary.com, which was not immediately functional but would be in coming days, according to the campaign.

In her next scheduled public appearance, on Wednesday in Raleigh, N.C., Mrs. Clinton is expected to shift to a more positive message, outlining her vision for what she has labeled a “growth and fairness economy.” Her plans include increasing the minimum wage, closing tax loopholes that encourage companies to move jobs overseas and expanding benefits for working families.

Mrs. Clinton has leaned this week on an analysis for Moody’s Analytics led by Mark Zandi, who she noted was an economic adviser to John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign. The report predicted that Mr. Trump’s proposals on trade, taxation immigration and spending would produce a lengthy downturn and significant job losses, particularly hurting low- and middle-income workers.

Mrs. Clinton quoted from the report during her speech. But moments before her remarks, Mr. Trump’s campaign emailed reporters, noting Mr. Zandi’s ties to Democrats. He has donated to Mrs. Clinton’s campaign.

As she wrapped up, Mrs. Clinton reiterated a campaign theme — “Stronger Together” — that has become more prominent in recent weeks, and argued that Mr. Trump “believes in the worst of us” and cannot be trusted at the controls.

Mr. Trump still seemed to be watching.

“Hillary defrauded America as Secy of State,” he wrote on Twitter. “She used it as a personal hedge fund to get herself rich! Corrupt, dangerous, dishonest.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

WASHINGTON — Omar Mateen, the gunman in this month’s massacre in an Orlando nightclub, told a crisis negotiator less than an hour after the attack began that the United States needed to “stop bombing Syria and Iraq” and he threatened more attacks in the coming days, according to a partial F.B.I. account released Monday morning.

The original material put out by the F.B.I. omitted any mention of the Islamic State in Mr. Mateen’s conversations with law enforcement officials. But hours later, the F.B.I. released a fuller, unedited account of a 911 call from the Pulse nightclub after coming under harsh criticism, particularly from Republican leaders who accused the administration of censoring references to Islamic radicalism.

“I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi,” the leader of the Islamic State, Mr. Mateen told the 911 caller in Arabic in a phone call from inside the club at 2:35 on the morning of the June 12 attack, according to the F.B.I.’s unedited account of that phone call. “May God protect him, on behalf of the Islamic State.”

In a joint statement, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department said the protests over the government’s initial decision to edit out parts of Mr. Mateen’s statements “caused unnecessary distraction from the hard work that the F.B.I. and our law enforcement partners have been doing to investigate this heinous crime,” and officials decided to reissue the transcript.

Even so, the F.B.I. continued to withhold parts of later phone calls on the morning of the attack between the gunman and hostage rescue negotiators.

In the portions that were released, Mr. Mateen warned — falsely, it turned out — that there were bombs in a car outside the nightclub and explosives inside it, and that “you people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid.” In a series of calls between 2:35 and 3:24 a.m. during a standoff with the police, Mr. Mateen also spoke in Arabic and claimed responsibility “in the name of God the merciful,” and linked his attack to the terrorist attacks last year in and around Paris.

At a news conference in Orlando, Ronald Hopper, an assistant agent in charge of the bureau’s Tampa Division, said the gunman had made 911 calls during the shooting in a “chilling, calm and deliberate manner.”

Negotiators spoke to him for a total of 28 minutes over three calls, the F.B.I. said.

The F.B.I.’s account of the emergency calls included no mention by Mr. Mateen of any hatred of gays or a desire to attack a gay nightclub in particular; the bureau has been investigating the attack as a possible anti-gay hate crime, but the material released on Monday offers nothing to back up that theory.

John Mina, Orlando’s police chief, addressed a question about whether any of the victims were hit by police bullets in the initial shootout with officers shortly after 2 a.m. The police have said that most of the 49 people killed and 53 wounded were shot in the first minutes of the rampage before Mr. Mateen holed up in a bathroom with hostages.

“That’s part of the investigation, but here’s what I will tell you: Those killings are on the suspect,” Chief Mina said.

It was the first time that the chief had answered the question in a way that left open the possibility that officers could have killed club patrons by accident.

In an interview, the SWAT commander, Mark Canty, said he doubted any fatalities resulted from police bullets.

Document | Timeline and Transcript of Calls During Orlando Shootings The F.B.I. on Monday released the timeline and a partial transcript of the hostage negotiation calls between the Orlando gunman, Omar Mateen, and the authorities.

“I know my guys did the best they could,” he said. “They are trained to kind of identify the targets.”

The medical examiner, Dr. Joshua Stephany, said the autopsies did not make any determination as to who killed whom.

A nearly three-hour standoff followed the shootout, which ended when law enforcement agencies stormed the building, killed the gunman and freed the hostages.

The F.B.I. released a timeline Monday that showed a half-hour passed from when Mr. Mateen warned of explosives to when the police stormed the building.

Mr. Canty said he arrived at about 2:45. “There was a lot of officers, a lot of chaos, the lights are out in the club, water on the floor,” he said.

According to the timeline, the first negotiation with the gunman began at 2:48 a.m. and lasted nine minutes. The second call, at 3:03 a.m., lasted 16 minutes; the third, at 3:24 a.m., three minutes. Mr. Canty said the police used the lull to assess the situation and save hostages.

At 4:21 a.m., according to the timeline, police officers pulled an air-conditioning unit out of a dressing room wall to save eight people.

Eight minutes later, some victims relayed that Mr. Mateen was threatening to strap bombs to the hostages. About 32 minutes later, the SWAT team and the sheriff’s office bomb squad tried to break in. The chief said it took officers time to assemble the explosives to do so.

At 5:14 a.m., officers breached the outer wall as shots were fired. Mr. Mateen stuck his head out of the breach and started firing, according to Mayor Buddy Dyer. Suddenly, Mr. Mateen fell backward in a hallway between the two bathrooms, he said. At 5:15 a.m.: Mr. Mateen was reported down.

“You saw the gunfire back and forth,” Mr. Dyer said. “You‘re hearing ‘shooters’ down’ or something like that.”

Chief Mina and other officials vigorously defended the handling of the siege from criticism that they waited too long to go in, noting that throughout the lull, officers put themselves at great risk by going into the club to rescue people.

“I think there was this misconception that we didn’t do anything for three hours, and that’s absolutely not true,” he said.

The mayor added that protocol called for the officers to retreat 1,000 feet because of the possible presence of explosives, but none did.

Graphic | How Terrorism Suspects Buy Guns — and How They Still Could, Even With a Ban Senate Democrats are hoping to resurrect legislation to prevent those on the government’s terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns.

The chief said that no shots were fired from the time Mr. Mateen retreated to a bathroom until the police began their assault. People who were trapped in that bathroom have said that the killer did shoot a few people after officers began using explosives and an armored vehicle to breach the outer wall of the building.

The F.B.I. made public only partial transcripts of Mr. Mateen’s calls on Monday, and none of the audio recordings. Though officials and shooting survivors have said publicly that in the calls, the gunman pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State, also known as ISIS, and its leader, the F.B.I. redacted those statements from the transcript, along with parts of the conversation in which Mr. Mateen voiced support for other extremist ideologies.

But that decision opened up department officials to charges that they are playing down elements of radical Islamist beliefs in the attack — a politically charged issue that Donald J. Trump and other Republicans have seized upon.

“Selectively editing this transcript is preposterous,” House Speaker Paul D. Ryan said in a statement. “We know the shooter was a radical Islamist extremist inspired by ISIS. We also know he intentionally targeted the L.G.B.T. community. The administration should release the full, unredacted transcript so the public is cleareyed about who did this, and why.”

Gov. Rick Scott of Florida, a Republican who has frequently criticized the Obama administration, said on Fox News that the limited release “doesn’t make any sense to me.”

“This is another example of not focusing on the evil here,” Mr. Scott added.

Agent Hopper said: “Part of the redacting is meant to not give credence to individuals who’ve done terrorist acts in the past. We’re not going to propagate their rhetoric, their violent rhetoric, and we see no value in putting those individuals’ names back out there.”

Justice Department officials said that they feared survivors could be harmed if they had to hear Mr. Mateen’s rants anew.

Agent Hopper said the F.B.I. would not release recordings of 911 calls from terrified people inside the club, including some who had been seriously wounded. “To expose that now would be excruciatingly painful to exploit them in that way,” he said.

The partial transcript adds another layer of detail to the horrific events of that morning, as F.B.I. counterterrorism investigators and the local authorities in Orlando continue to try to piece together the gunman’s motivations and examine any help he may have received.

Attorney General Loretta Lynch will visit Orlando on Tuesday to meet with the investigators.

The F.B.I. has interviewed Mr. Mateen’s wife, Noor Zahi Salman, at length to determine whether she will face charges in the case. She has acknowledged that she suspected her husband might be planning an attack and was with him when he went to buy ammunition and visited the Pulse nightclub beforehand, but she has insisted to investigators that she tried to talk him out of doing anything, officials said.

Investigators continue to believe that Mr. Mateen was a “lone wolf” attacker who was apparently inspired by the ideologies of the Islamic State and other terrorist groups but was not directly in contact with any of them.

“We currently have no evidence that he was connected to an Islamic terrorist group, but radicalized domestically,” Agent Hopper said at the news conference.

He appealed for patience with an investigation so complex that agents still have not finished processing the crime scene. They have collected more than 600 pieces of evidence, conducted more than 500 interviews, and received thousands of tips about Mr. Mateen, he said. The medical examiner said Monday that it had released Mr. Mateen’s body, but offered not other details.

“This investigation is one week and one day old,” Agent Hopper said, “and it may last months and even years.”

Correction: June 20, 2016

An earlier version of this article, because of a misspelling in the transcripts released by the F.B.I., misquotes the gunman in the Orlando shooting massacre. He warned that there were bombs in a car outside Pulse nightclub and explosives inside it, and that “you people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignite it if they try to do anything stupid.” He did not say, “you people are gonna get it, and I’m gonna ignore it if they try to do anything stupid.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

By Alan Fram and Mary Clare Jalonick | AP,

WASHINGTON — Eight days after Orlando’s mass shooting horror intensified pressure on lawmakers to act, a divided Senate hurtled Monday toward an election-year showdown over curbing guns that seemed likely to produce a familiar result: gridlock.

Each party was offering one plan it said would keep terrorists from obtaining firearms and a second bolstering the existing system of background checks for gun purchases. Democrats said the GOP proposals were unacceptably weak, Republicans faulted the Democrats’ plans as overly restrictive and all four faced likely defeat in largely party-line votes.

That Monday’s four roll-call votes were occurring at all was testament to the powerful political currents buffeting lawmakers after gunman Omar Mateen’s June 12 attack on a gay nightclub. The 49 victims who died made it the largest mass shooting in recent U.S. history, topping the string of such incidents that have punctuated recent years.

In addition, the FBI said Matteen — a focus of two terror investigations that were dropped — described himself as an Islamic soldier in a 911 call during the shootings. That let gun control advocates add national security and the specter of terrorism to their arguments for firearms curbs.

Even so, the expected rejection of the proposals underscored the pressure on each party to give little ground on the emotional gun issue going into November’s presidential and congressional elections. It also highlighted the potency of the National Rifle Association, which was urging its huge and fiercely loyal membership to lobby senators to oppose the Democratic bills.

“If they learn they can politicize tragedy and win, they’ll be back blaming law-abiding gun owners each time a criminal or terrorist attacks the innocent,” the NRA said in an email to supporters.

Gun control groups were also working Capitol Hill, with relatives of victims of past mass shootings and others visiting lawmakers and planning to watch the day’s debate from the Senate visitors’ gallery.

Former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., gravely wounded in a 2011 mass shooting, and husband Mark Kelly said Monday’s votes would show voters “whether their elected leaders in the Senate are on the side of the corporate gun lobby or the vast majority of Americans,” whom polls show favor some gun curbs.

Under special pressure were GOP senators facing re-election this fall from swing states like Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and elsewhere.

Monday’s votes were coming after Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., led a near 15-hour filibuster last week demanding a Senate response to the Orlando killings. Murphy entered the Senate shortly after the December 2012 massacre of 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, but that slaughter and others in San Bernardino, California, and Charleston, South Carolina, have failed to spur Congress to approve significant gun curbs. The last were enacted in 2007, when the background check system was strengthened after that year’s mass shooting at Virginia Tech.

Because of Mateen’s self-professed loyalty to extremist groups and his 10-month inclusion on a federal terrorism watch list, proposals aimed at blocking terrorists from getting guns were in the spotlight. One proposal by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., would let the government block many gun sales to known or suspected terrorists.

People buying firearms from federally licensed gun dealers can currently be denied for several reasons, chiefly for serious crimes or mental problems. There is no specific prohibition for those on the terrorist watch list, which the FBI said in 2014 had 800,000 names on it, and no background checks are required for anyone buying guns privately online or at a gun show.

The GOP response to Feinstein was an NRA-backed plan by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas. It would let the government deny a sale to a known or suspected terrorist — but only if prosecutors could convince a judge within three days that the would-be buyer was involved in terrorism.

The Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would both require notification of law enforcement officials if people like Mateen who had been a subject of a terrorism investigation within the past five years were seeking to buy firearms.

Republicans said Feinstein’s proposal gave the government too much unfettered power to deny people’s constitutional right to own a gun. They also noted that the terrorist watch list has historically mistakenly included people. Democrats said the three-day window that Cornyn’s measure gave prosecutors to prove their case made his plan ineffective.

The Senate rejected similar plans Feinstein and Cornyn proposed last December, a day after the attack in San Bernardino killed 14 people.

Murphy had a proposal widely expanding the requirement for background checks, even to many private gun transactions, that would leave few loopholes.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, would increase money for the background check system. Like Murphy’s measure, it would also prod states to do a better job of sending records to the FBI, which operates the background check system, of felons and others barred from buying guns.

Grassley’s proposal would also clarify language that prohibits some people with mental health issues from buying a gun. Democrats claimed that language would actually roll back some current protections.

Separately, moderate Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, was laboring to fashion a bipartisan bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — with just 64,000 names in 2014 — from getting guns. There were no signs Monday that it was getting wide support or would receive a vote.

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

The Interpreter

By AMANDA TAUB

WASHINGTON — With a landmark vote approaching on Thursday on whether Britain will leave the European Union, two recent events highlighted the stakes and the unique Britishness of the “Brexit” debate.

Last Wednesday, in what Britons took to calling the Battle of the Thames, both sides sent flag-waving flotillas down the river to advertise their cause. The “Leave” campaign blasted the theme song from “The Great Escape” from Westminster Bridge, and Bob Geldof, a prominent campaigner in the “Remain” campaign, bellowed facts about fishing from boat-mounted speakers.

The next day, a man fatally shot and stabbed a member of Parliament, Jo Cox, who supported staying in the European Union. The man shouted “my name is death to traitors, freedom for Britain” at a court appearance on Saturday. The killing has shocked the country and drawn attention to the increasingly heated national debate.

This is much more than a vote on membership in a 28-nation bloc. It is about national and social identity, Britain’s place in the world and the future of the European project.

1. What is Brexit?

A portmanteau of the words “Britain” and “exit,” it is the nickname for a British exit of the European Union after the June 23 referendum asking voters: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

The debate leading up to this week’s vote is playing out, however, as a broader choice over what national values to prioritize.

Pro-Brexit advocates have framed leaving the European Union as necessary to protect, or perhaps restore, the country’s identity: its culture, independence and place in the world. This argument is often expressed by opposition to immigration.

“Remain” supporters typically argue that staying in the union is better for the British economy and that concerns about migration and other issues are not important enough to outweigh the economic consequences of leaving.

The debate has also cut along the country’s famously deep class divides: Voters with less money and education are more likely to support leaving the union. Robert Tombs, a historian at the University of Cambridge, said this stems from a sense of abandonment among poor and working-class Britons. The Brexit debate has become a vessel for anti-establishment and anti-elite feelings directed at the leaders of mainstream British political parties as much as at Europe.

Neither side is defending the European Union as a meaningful or admirable institution. In part, this speaks to particularly British views that the rest of Europe is somehow alien.

This also reflects a Euroskepticism, or opposition to the European Union, rising across the bloc as the union veers from crisis to crisis. In this way, the Brexit vote is a particularly noticeable manifestation of a sense that European institutions have fallen short of their lofty promises and have created burdens, such as absorbing migrants or bailing out troubled economies, that many Europeans are tired of bearing.

2. What is the case for leaving?

A lot is implied in one of the campaign’s slogans, “Take control.” Britain’s loss of full authority over its economic policies and regulations has so rankled many of the country’s citizens that it has spawned an entire genre of urban legends over the years, called “Euromyths.”

These stories usually feature some aspect of classically British culture that is supposedly under threat. One claimed that double-decker buses were to be banned, while another suggested that fish and chips would have to be written in Latin on menus. The subtext is barely subliminal at all: Gray-suited Brussels bureaucrats are the enemy of Britishness, a threat to Britain’s identity in all its deep-fried, double-decker glory.

“There are two things at play here,” said Brian Klaas, a fellow in comparative politics at the London School of Economics. “One is the cultural nostalgia for Britain’s lost place in the world. This idea that Britain used to matter, Britain used to be able to do things without having to consult Brussels.”

Then there is immigration. “There’s this feeling that we’re losing our cultural identity and our national identity,” Mr. Klaas said, “at the same time that there’s this influx of people who are willing to work for low wages.”

A 2013 British Social Attitudes Survey found that more than three-quarters of Britons want the country’s immigration policies reduced, and about 56 percent said they should be reduced “a lot.”

Though Britain has accepted a small number of refugees relative to other European countries, British tabloids have implied the country is being overrun by an uncontrollable “swarm” or “tide” of foreigners. Labor migration, particularly from Eastern Europe, has often been painted as economically threatening.

Terrence G. Peterson, a fellow at Stanford University’s Center for International Security and Cooperation, said there is “a sense that Britain has lost something, that it has lost its sovereignty.”

“It can’t close its borders in the way that it wants,” he said. “It can’t have the economic policies it chooses.”

3. What is the case for staying?

What is most striking about the “Remain” campaign is what it has not done: countered the arguments for leaving. Rather than defending the European Union or immigration as good for Britain, the campaign warns that leaving would be disastrous for the British economy.

Most economists agree with that claim. Europe is Britain’s most important export market and its greatest source of foreign direct investment, and union membership has been crucial to establishing London as a global financial center. A British exit would jeopardize that status — and the high-paying jobs that come with it.

The mere fact of the referendum has already affected the economy; the pound is at its lowest valuation in seven years.

But it is telling that those who want to stay, including Prime Minister David Cameron and the leadership of Britain’s two main political parties, have not expressed much enthusiasm for the European Union itself. Instead, their arguments are focused narrowly on British self-interest. Their message is not that membership in the bloc is an exciting opportunity so much as a basic economic necessity.

That is a sign of how unpopular the union has become throughout Britain, according Mr. Klaas, partly because of bad public relations. “If you get funding from Europe for a road, you take credit,” he said. “But if you can’t get funding, it’s Europe’s fault.”

4. Why are Britons so wary of Europe?

Spend enough time in the United Kingdom, and you will hear people refer to “the Continent.” Travel agency windows advertise flights and package tours “to Europe,” as if it were someplace else.

As Mr. Peterson of Stanford put it, “Britain has always kept Europe at a distance, even when they were favorable to the E.U.”

Britain initially refused to join the European Economic Community when it was founded in 1957. It became a member in 1973, only to have a crisis of confidence that led to a similar exit referendum two years later. (The pro-Europe campaign won that round with 67 percent of the vote.)

A strain of populist opposition to Europe remained in the decades that followed. Britain has never joined other countries in using the euro as currency, for example, or participated in the union’s Schengen Area open-borders agreement.

5. O.K., so why now?

Recent challenges within the European Union have given Euroskepticism new urgency.

“There wouldn’t be a referendum without the eurozone crisis, which made the E.U. look badly organized and dysfunctional,” said Charles Grant, the director of the Centre for European Reform, a London-based research group. “The refugee crisis hasn’t helped either. It made the E.U. seem out of control.”

Mr. Peterson said the deeper issue is that the union remains an unfinished project, which allowed these economic and migration crises to become so severe.

The European Union never developed centralized political institutions strong enough to manage its diverse constituent countries. Individual nations have little incentive to make sacrifices for the common good, and European unity is weakest when it is needed most.

6. What will happen to Britain if it leaves?

Projections differ significantly over the precise economic effect, but there is a consensus that leaving would hurt Britain financially, at least in the short term.

Without access to the union’s open markets, Britain would probably lose trade and investment. And while the influx of migrant workers has created anxiety over British culture and identity, losing that labor force could lead to lower productivity, slower economic growth and decreased job opportunities, a study by Britain’s National Institute of Economic and Social Research found.

A Brexit could also quickly spawn, err, a “Scexit.” Nicola Sturgeon, the first minister of Scotland, has said that if Britain votes to leave the European Union, she will hold a new referendum in which Scots could vote to exit Britain — and then rejoin the union as an independent nation.

Scotland’s voters rejected such a measure by nearly 10 points in 2014, but analysts say a Brexit could change that because the Scots overwhelmingly support European Union membership.

If Scotland were to leave, that could dramatically alter Britain’s political character, as Scotland’s members of Parliament lean to the left.

7. What are the wider ramifications?

Britain makes up about a sixth of the European Union’s economy. A Brexit, Mr. Klaas said, “would be akin to California and Florida being lopped off the U.S. economy.”

That destabilization could affect the United States’ economy: Last week, the Federal Reserve in Washington cited the possibility of a Brexit as a reason to not raise interest rates.

There could be political consequences, as well. If Britain leaves the union, that could give momentum to the nationalistic, anti-migrant message and policies of populist, far-right parties that are already rising across Europe.

The implications for the European project itself are unclear, but that uncertainty may be the greatest threat to the union, which has helped bring Europe 70 years of peace and is already under growing strain.

It also undermines trust between member states, whose commitments seem less reliable every time one of them toys with leaving.

“Members of the eurozone will realize that things can come unstuck,” Mr. Grant said. “Entropy can happen.”

In his view, Germany already has too much power in the bloc, and a British exit would make that imbalance more pronounced. It would undermine the European Union’s legitimacy and make it more difficult to respond to internal crises, like the Greek economy or the migrant influx, and to outside security threats, he said.

Mr. Klaas said, “A more unified Europe is a powerful counterbalance to people like Vladimir Putin.”

“Putin has stayed silent on this,” he said of the Russian leader. “But he’s probably silently cheering the pro-Brexit side.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

PARIS — The rest of the European Union nations are looking at the possibility of a British departure from the bloc with disbelief, trepidation and anguish. But they are also preparing to retaliate.

If Britons do vote in a referendum on Thursday to leave the European Union, they can expect a tough and unforgiving response, with capitals across the Continent intent on deterring other countries from following the British example, European officials and analysts said.

In other words, Britain will be made to suffer for its choice.

With other issues pressing, including Greek debt, the migrant crisis and terrorism, the largest and most powerful European nations will want clarity, and are not likely to tolerate a long period of post-referendum confusion.

“In is in — out is out,” the powerful German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, told Spiegel magazine. “I hope and believe that the British will ultimately decide against Brexit. The withdrawal of Britain would be a heavy loss for Europe.”

The president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, spoke apocalyptically about a British exit, or “Brexit,” to the German tabloid Bild. He said all members of the European Union would suffer, as would the postwar structure of Europe that had kept the peace.

“Why is it so dangerous?” Mr. Tusk asked. “No one can foresee what the long-term consequences would be. As a historian, I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the E.U., but also of Western political civilization.”

Britain would face at least seven years of limbo during painful negotiations about a new relationship with the bloc, Mr. Tusk said.

Preparing for a British vote to withdraw, France and Germany are debating the immediate announcement of a joint initiative on European security, perhaps an operational command headquarters, to show, at least symbolically, that the European Union remains solid and will continue to progress without Britain.

But Germany has rejected some ideas from the European Commission, the permanent bureaucracy in Brussels, to respond by moving quickly toward more European political or fiscal integration, understanding that with Spanish elections this month and French and German elections next year, “more Europe” is not what voters want.

And no government wants treaty change, which would prompt more referendums at a time when populist, anti-Brussels sentiments are running strong across the Continent.

Suggestions by British politicians favoring a departure that the rest of the European Union will give Britain more favorable terms in a new trading arrangement will be rejected out of hand by European leaders, who do not want to make further concessions to a country that has rejected them, officials said. This would ensure that the British example discouraged others tempted to seek a special deal for themselves.

To that end, the main European Union nations are envisioning a two-stage negotiating process for a British exit, once the British government invokes Article 50 of the treaty governing membership in the bloc. Article 50 provides two years to haggle over the terms of a divorce from the bloc — something that has never happened.

The European Union is expected to want to talk about a future trade agreement only after Britain and the other 27 nations in the bloc have made a decision about how to unwind British membership. That process would require resolving complex legal and financial issues and addressing all kinds of topics that would affect ordinary people — what happens to pensions and health coverage, as well as the immigration status of European citizens working and living in Britain, and that of British citizens in the bloc.

Officials want to negotiate future trade and financial services arrangements with Britain as a nonmember; they do not want to allow Britain to use the status of European citizens in Britain and their rights as a bargaining chip in the trade negotiations, which could take several years to conclude, beyond the two-year time limit for exit talks.

Even then, Brussels would offer Britain one of the three existing models of varying closeness and mutual obligation — the bloc’s arrangements with Norway, Canada and the World Trade Organization — rather than offer to negotiate something new, said Charles Grant, the director of the Center for European Reform, a London research institution.

France and Belgium, and probably Germany, are almost certain to reject any British proposal to remain within the European single market — even, or especially, for financial services — without at least an agreement that Britain continue to allow European citizens to live and work in Britain, analysts and officials said. In any case, such a trade-off, the so-called Norway model, is strongly opposed by British advocates of withdrawing from the bloc, in the name of controlling immigration.

“There is no appetite to be nice on the day after,” said Camille Grand, the director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in France. “Whatever the British say or feel, there will be a price to pay, if only to prevent further attempts to exit the E.U.”

The French message, Mr. Grand said, is like Mr. Schäuble’s: “If you leave, you leave. And we won’t grant you the benefits of the single market. You won’t move to an à la carte membership.”

Interactive Feature | Today’s Headlines: European Morning Get news and analysis from Europe and around the world delivered to your inbox every day in the European morning.

The Germans and the Dutch, Mr. Grand said, “might be tempted to be more flexible, but in Paris, it’s a divorce, and we must be tough with the British to prevent the Czechs or whomever from trying to make their own deals.”

But it may be the political aspect of a British exit that worries Europeans the most, coupled with the expected financial shock, said Guntram Wolff, the director of Bruegel, an independent research institution in Brussels.

“Populists throughout Europe will celebrate this as a ‘feast of democracy,’ where finally the citizens get their say over the elites,” Mr. Wolff said. “Populists all over Europe will gain in strength. And markets could react by saying, ‘The first brick is out of the wall, and now let’s bet on another brick.’”

The next brick, Mr. Wolff said, could be economically troubled Italy, and that “could set in motion a domino effect,” with the euro dropping sharply in value along with the pound. So the European Central Bank would have to be prepared to prop up the banks and the euro against market pressure, just as the Bank of England would have to prop up the pound.

No one in Germany thinks it would be good if the British left, said Daniela Schwarzer, the director of the Europe program at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. “If the European Union is not able to prove that membership is worth having, and that in the end emotion wins over rational debates, this not only tells you something about public sentiment in Britain, but will have a contagion effect in other nations,” she said.

Added to European instability, Ms. Schwarzer said, the immediate economic shock could badly damage countries with high debt, like France, Italy and Greece.

Even if the British vote to remain, “this Europe of multiple speeds may continue to disintegrate,” said Emmanuel Macron, France’s economy minister. “But if the U.K. leaves, we will have this risk squared. Are we capable of keeping the founding promises that led to the union’s creation — peace, prosperity, freedom?”

The effect on the bloc of a British departure would be threefold, Mr. Grant said.

First, he said, a British withdrawal would be a big boost to nationalist, anti-European Union movements, with Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front, already comparing a British exit to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

“It’s not that the right will win power, but they’ll feel they have history with them, and pro-European elites in government will be on the back foot and afraid of moves toward more integration,” Mr. Grant said. “Federalism would be dead, and there would be no more referendums and treaty changes for generations, so it would be a new period of national power and not the federal future the European Commission wants.”

Second, he said, without the counterweight of Britain, “the German problem becomes more acute.” Rome, Paris and Warsaw fear that without Britain as a countervailing force in the bloc, Germany would become too powerful. The Germans themselves fear that an anti-German alliance would form.

Third, he said, the European Union without Britain’s free-market influence would be more French in its economic policy outlook and more protectionist, with little impetus for free-trade deals or for the extension of the single market to services.

“The stakes are high, because what happens in Britain will set off a domino effect and possibly a cycle of disintegration,” said Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The European Union would look like a broken project, a declining power.”

Radoslaw Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister, said a British departure from the bloc might have some benefits for those who want the nations of Europe to continue drawing closer.

“Europe could forge ahead with a common security policy, which the British have vetoed repeatedly,” he said. “And the countries of the eurozone would probably insist on all euro trade being moved out of Britain,” which could help efforts by Paris, Frankfurt and Luxembourg to establish themselves as more important financial centers relative to London.

But over all, Mr. Sikorski said, “the European Union is much better with Britain in it, providing liberal politics, liberal economics and a center of democratic political consensus of a kind needed now in Europe.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico

PARIS — The rest of the European Union nations are looking at the possibility of a British departure from the bloc with disbelief, trepidation and anguish. But they are also preparing to retaliate.

If Britons do vote in a referendum on Thursday to leave the European Union, they can expect a tough and unforgiving response, with capitals across the Continent intent on deterring other countries from following the British example, European officials and analysts said.

In other words, Britain will be made to suffer for its choice.

With other issues pressing, including Greek debt, the migrant crisis and terrorism, the largest and most powerful European nations will want clarity, and are not likely to tolerate a long period of post-referendum confusion.

“In is in — out is out,” the powerful German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, told Spiegel magazine. “I hope and believe that the British will ultimately decide against Brexit. The withdrawal of Britain would be a heavy loss for Europe.”

The president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, spoke apocalyptically about a British exit, or “Brexit,” to the German tabloid Bild. He said all members of the European Union would suffer, as would the postwar structure of Europe that had kept the peace.

“Why is it so dangerous?” Mr. Tusk asked. “No one can foresee what the long-term consequences would be. As a historian, I fear that Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the E.U., but also of Western political civilization.”

Britain would face at least seven years of limbo during painful negotiations about a new relationship with the bloc, Mr. Tusk said.

Preparing for a British vote to withdraw, France and Germany are debating the immediate announcement of a joint initiative on European security, perhaps an operational command headquarters, to show, at least symbolically, that the European Union remains solid and will continue to progress without Britain.

But Germany has rejected some ideas from the European Commission, the permanent bureaucracy in Brussels, to respond by moving quickly toward more European political or fiscal integration, understanding that with Spanish elections this month and French and German elections next year, “more Europe” is not what voters want.

And no government wants treaty change, which would prompt more referendums at a time when populist, anti-Brussels sentiments are running strong across the Continent.

Suggestions by British politicians favoring a departure that the rest of the European Union will give Britain more favorable terms in a new trading arrangement will be rejected out of hand by European leaders, who do not want to make further concessions to a country that has rejected them, officials said. This would ensure that the British example discouraged others tempted to seek a special deal for themselves.

To that end, the main European Union nations are envisioning a two-stage negotiating process for a British exit, once the British government invokes Article 50 of the treaty governing membership in the bloc. Article 50 provides two years to haggle over the terms of a divorce from the bloc — something that has never happened.

The European Union is expected to want to talk about a future trade agreement only after Britain and the other 27 nations in the bloc have made a decision about how to unwind British membership. That process would require resolving complex legal and financial issues and addressing all kinds of topics that would affect ordinary people — what happens to pensions and health coverage, as well as the immigration status of European citizens working and living in Britain, and that of British citizens in the bloc.

Officials want to negotiate future trade and financial services arrangements with Britain as a nonmember; they do not want to allow Britain to use the status of European citizens in Britain and their rights as a bargaining chip in the trade negotiations, which could take several years to conclude, beyond the two-year time limit for exit talks.

Even then, Brussels would offer Britain one of the three existing models of varying closeness and mutual obligation — the bloc’s arrangements with Norway, Canada and the World Trade Organization — rather than offer to negotiate something new, said Charles Grant, the director of the Center for European Reform, a London research institution.

France and Belgium, and probably Germany, are almost certain to reject any British proposal to remain within the European single market — even, or especially, for financial services — without at least an agreement that Britain continue to allow European citizens to live and work in Britain, analysts and officials said. In any case, such a trade-off, the so-called Norway model, is strongly opposed by British advocates of withdrawing from the bloc, in the name of controlling immigration.

“There is no appetite to be nice on the day after,” said Camille Grand, the director of the Foundation for Strategic Research in France. “Whatever the British say or feel, there will be a price to pay, if only to prevent further attempts to exit the E.U.”

The French message, Mr. Grand said, is like Mr. Schäuble’s: “If you leave, you leave. And we won’t grant you the benefits of the single market. You won’t move to an à la carte membership.”

Interactive Feature | Today’s Headlines: European Morning Get news and analysis from Europe and around the world delivered to your inbox every day in the European morning.

The Germans and the Dutch, Mr. Grand said, “might be tempted to be more flexible, but in Paris, it’s a divorce, and we must be tough with the British to prevent the Czechs or whomever from trying to make their own deals.”

But it may be the political aspect of a British exit that worries Europeans the most, coupled with the expected financial shock, said Guntram Wolff, the director of Bruegel, an independent research institution in Brussels.

“Populists throughout Europe will celebrate this as a ‘feast of democracy,’ where finally the citizens get their say over the elites,” Mr. Wolff said. “Populists all over Europe will gain in strength. And markets could react by saying, ‘The first brick is out of the wall, and now let’s bet on another brick.’”

The next brick, Mr. Wolff said, could be economically troubled Italy, and that “could set in motion a domino effect,” with the euro dropping sharply in value along with the pound. So the European Central Bank would have to be prepared to prop up the banks and the euro against market pressure, just as the Bank of England would have to prop up the pound.

No one in Germany thinks it would be good if the British left, said Daniela Schwarzer, the director of the Europe program at the German Marshall Fund in Berlin. “If the European Union is not able to prove that membership is worth having, and that in the end emotion wins over rational debates, this not only tells you something about public sentiment in Britain, but will have a contagion effect in other nations,” she said.

Added to European instability, Ms. Schwarzer said, the immediate economic shock could badly damage countries with high debt, like France, Italy and Greece.

Even if the British vote to remain, “this Europe of multiple speeds may continue to disintegrate,” said Emmanuel Macron, France’s economy minister. “But if the U.K. leaves, we will have this risk squared. Are we capable of keeping the founding promises that led to the union’s creation — peace, prosperity, freedom?”

The effect on the bloc of a British departure would be threefold, Mr. Grant said.

First, he said, a British withdrawal would be a big boost to nationalist, anti-European Union movements, with Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s far-right National Front, already comparing a British exit to the fall of the Berlin Wall.

“It’s not that the right will win power, but they’ll feel they have history with them, and pro-European elites in government will be on the back foot and afraid of moves toward more integration,” Mr. Grant said. “Federalism would be dead, and there would be no more referendums and treaty changes for generations, so it would be a new period of national power and not the federal future the European Commission wants.”

Second, he said, without the counterweight of Britain, “the German problem becomes more acute.” Rome, Paris and Warsaw fear that without Britain as a countervailing force in the bloc, Germany would become too powerful. The Germans themselves fear that an anti-German alliance would form.

Third, he said, the European Union without Britain’s free-market influence would be more French in its economic policy outlook and more protectionist, with little impetus for free-trade deals or for the extension of the single market to services.

“The stakes are high, because what happens in Britain will set off a domino effect and possibly a cycle of disintegration,” said Mark Leonard, the director of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The European Union would look like a broken project, a declining power.”

Radoslaw Sikorski, a former Polish foreign minister, said a British departure from the bloc might have some benefits for those who want the nations of Europe to continue drawing closer.

“Europe could forge ahead with a common security policy, which the British have vetoed repeatedly,” he said. “And the countries of the eurozone would probably insist on all euro trade being moved out of Britain,” which could help efforts by Paris, Frankfurt and Luxembourg to establish themselves as more important financial centers relative to London.

But over all, Mr. Sikorski said, “the European Union is much better with Britain in it, providing liberal politics, liberal economics and a center of democratic political consensus of a kind needed now in Europe.”

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Read More

Powered by WPeMatico