ISIS sex slave Nadia Murad appeals for UK help - Independent

In the wake of the publication of the Chilcot report, a woman who was taken as a sex salve by Isis has described how she and other young women were captured and repeatedly raped by members of the terror group.
Nadia Murad, 22, was one of more than 5,000 Yazidi women kidnapped by Isis when the group took hold of territories in northern Iraq.
Speaking to the Mirror, Ms Murad revealed how in the summer of 2014 Isis fighters rounded up all Yazidis in the village of Kocho, where she lived in Iraq, killing 312 people and taking the younger women as “sabia” – slaves.

Isis told Yazidis “Convert to Islam or die,” said Ms Murad. “But no one agreed to convert”.

Nadia Murad, (C), human rights activist, testifies during Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on Capitol Hill (Getty Images )
“They laughed at us. They said, ‘You are owned by IS. You will be married to us’.”
Ms Murad says she was taken to Mosul with 150 other girls where they were scrutinised by fighters and forced to “marry” them.
She described being taken as a slave by a man with a wife and daughter, who Ms Murad never met, however she would see hs daughter’s name – Sarah – light up on his phone as he raped her.
“I never met her or his wife, but they knew what he was doing to me. They accepted their men were raping us. To IS women, we are not worth the value of animals,” she said.
In November 2014, Ms Murad sucessfully escaped from her captor after three months of abuse and torture, and made her way via a refugee camp to seek asylum in Stuttgart, Germany. She said she escaped knowing she would be killed if caught - “I preferred to be killed and just finally stop it”, she said.


Isis using Whatsapp and Telegram to sell sex slaves
She told the UN that an earlier escape attempt led to her being beaten up and gang raped by six militants as a form of punishment.
Following the publication of the Chilcot report, which found that former Prime Minister Tony Blair had overstated the case for military action in March 2003 as there was “no imminent threat” posed by Saddam Hussein, many have reiterated the case that the Iraq War may have contributed to the rise of Isis.
Isis began as an off-shoot of the militant group Al-Qaeda. It can trace its origins back to the Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, who in 2004, a year after the invasion of Iraq, allied himself to Osama Bin Laden and formed al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI). In 2006, after Zarqawi's death, AQI created an umbrella organisation, Islamic State in Iraq.

Assessments made by Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) in 2005, which are referenced  in the Chilcot report, said Islamist insurgencies launched in response to the invasion had strengthened Al-Qaeda in the area. “Al Qaeda has capitalized on the Iraq jihad," an assessment in April said.
A later assessment in June said: “The merger of Al-Zarqawi’s organization with Al-Qaeda…has firmly placed it in a pre-eminent position in Iraq…a unified jihadist command may be emerging. Iraq is now seen by Al Qaeda as its main theater of operations.”
An estimated 3,000 Yazidi women and girls are currently held captive by Isis. The majority were taken prisoner in 2014.
The Yazidis, a religious Kurdish community, have been attacked and killed by Isis in both Iraq and Syria, in what constitutes an act of genocide according to United Nations' investigators.
Attempts have been made to rescue the women, but many who do so are killed, according to the Associated Press.

Ms Murad is now campaigning for European governments, including Britain, to do more to help Yazidis.
A Change.org petition has been set up by Rozin Khalil, a Yazidi teenager who came to Britain from Iraq in 2008, asking Home Secretary Theresa May, Secretary of State for International Development Justine Greening, and Foreign Minister Philip Hammond to “prepare an action plan” to help the Yazdidi women and children held captive by Isis.
Ms Murad said: “What IS has done to the Yazidi people is genocide, the UK must offer more asylum to refugees. So many are in camps and they have been through terrible suffering.

How Tony Blair comes to be so unpopular ? - BBC News

No British prime minister in modern times has experienced a plunge in fortune like Tony Blair's.
Cheered to the echo as he left the Commons chamber for the last time as prime minister in 2007, after 10 years of largely untroubled dominance, the tragedy of Iraq quickly ensnared him so completely that by this summer he admitted he would be a liability in the campaign to keep Britain in the European Union. The old Blair magic had turned to sand.
But it had once seemed like magic. A parliamentary majority in 1997 of proportions that no-one in politics could remember, and along with it a feeling that like Margaret Thatcher, whom he'd watched in amazement as a young MP in the 1980s, he had set a national mood that made a permanent break with the past.
Then, after Bill Clinton had welcomed him on to the world stage, came George W Bush.
The Chilcot report lays out the consequences of that relationship - the "whatever" memo of support to the president in 2002 will surely stand as its emblem - and catalogues Blair's journey to the assault on Baghdad and his inability to control, perhaps even to influence, the chaos that followed.

Why?
I watched him in Chicago in April 1999 talking about a new world order in a now-famous speech, a rookie prime minister - in office for less than two years - making the case for liberal interventionism against despotic regimes as if he were a veteran statesman.
He was buoyed by a natural self-confidence, and something more at that particular moment - the belief that he had succeeded in persuading an American president to commit ground troops in the Balkans, against the weight of congressional and public opinion, to get rid of the last of the satellite Soviet dinosaurs, Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia.

That deal with Clinton was the making of his relationship with Bush.
When the Twin Towers came down nine months after Bush entered the White House, Blair's words were the most powerful that Americans heard from abroad - eloquent, and from the heart.
Most of them knew little of him but, by the time he went to Washington for private conversations in the days after 9/11, he had already started to take on heroic status. And some of those with him on that day marked a decisive change in his demeanour and belief after talking with Bush, alone in the Blue Room of the White House.
The conviction that the world had changed irrevocably was one that would always torment him, and it fed a habit when talking about world affairs - in contrast, intriguingly, with his attitude at home - to talk about black and white, good and evil.
In parts of the Bush White House, that was a gift from the gods. Vice-President Dick Cheney was the leader of those whose eyes had never turned from Iraq, and the most determined of those who called themselves neo-conservatives.
They saw the 1990-91 Gulf War as unfinished business, and could hardly believe their luck in having a Labour prime minister who was willing to join a war coalition. It was in effect to give powerful cover to an administration struggling for international support - with Blair setting aside the concerns of many of his officials (including some who saw the "whatever" memo before it was sent to the White House and were horrified by its tone, and the implicit promise of unconditional support).
Such was Blair's confidence at that time - greatly bolstered by the Tories' leadership travails and the consequent weakness of the parliamentary opposition - that no-one could hold him back. His instinct for "sofa government" had full reign, and the relationship with Washington after 9/11 was so strong that a near-inevitable course was set.
Gordon Brown, his iron chancellor, absorbed himself in the economy and declined to intervene strongly in foreign affairs. In the Foreign Office itself, Jack Straw shared his own worries in many hours of phone calls with his American counterpart, Gen Colin Powell.
But Powell, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was a weak secretary of state - not trusted by the ideologues who were pressing the president towards a confrontation with Saddam, and outside the White House inner core.

We now know, from Chilcot, what the consequences were. Fragmentary and thin intelligence was used to feed certainty, not to spread doubt; Blair's formidable political command meant that some officials became courtiers; there was too little appetite to question the assumptions that were driving policy. In short, the fabled Whitehall machine didn't do its work.
Alastair Campbell, director of communications, was having video conference calls with the White House every afternoon. Blair and Bush were talking regularly, so intimately and informally that some officials who saw the transcripts afterwards had to work hard to decipher precisely what each of them had meant in their exchanges.
This is not to say that Blair was determined on war, come what may. He wasn't. Along with his hope - however far-fetched - that Saddam might be persuaded to co-operate with UN weapons inspectors, he argued well into the spring of 2003 for a second UN resolution to authorise war if necessary. It was meant to give everyone more time.
But the Americans were on a fast track, and in the end Blair's commitment to Bush was too strong. He came to believe that scepticism would be a kind of betrayal - a surrender to the policy of appeasement that he'd warned against in Chicago in 1999.
Since he believed absolutely in the existence of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction - mistakenly - he convinced himself that too much delay would be a display of weakness. No-one could change his mind.
Although he defended his judgements after Chilcot was published, he knows well how great the cost has been. In Iraq, and for him.
The prime minister who showed patience and ingenuity in Northern Ireland, subtlety in Europe, and who was notably suspicious of an ideological approach to domestic affairs, become a true believer. There was an element of naivete in his approach to the hard-liners around Bush - confessing, for example, that he didn't really know what a neo-conservative was.

once heard Hillary Clinton in a private moment expressing astonishment at his lack of doubt, using a withering American phrase popularised after the Jonestown mass suicide. "What's happened to Tony," she asked. "He's started drinking the Kool Aid."
She meant that he had abandoned all caution and every sliver of scepticism. And he had. Although it would be foolish to suggest that he didn't understand the cost of war, nor give it deep thought, his loyalty to Bush had become so strong after 9/11 that it trumped everything else.
The result was the invasion of 2003. The American timetable was set, and Blair couldn't change it. Or at least believed that he couldn't.
One lingering question remains, and will lie unanswered. Could Blair have exercised decisive restraint if he had threatened to withdraw his support? Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld would have been contemptuous, but what of the American people?
There are some people who believe that he underestimated his own significance at that time. A public signal of real alarm from America's principal ally, a figure hugely popular in the United States, might have had more impact than even he believed.
We can't know. We do know that he had become determined to show no sign of weakness, and it was costly. Great conviction; not enough doubt.
Think of one day, a few months after the war began. Blair addressed both houses of Congress in Washington and got more than a dozen standing ovations. Heady stuff.

A few hours later, flying over the Pacific, he was told of a melancholy event at home. Dr David Kelly, a weapons expert at the Ministry of Defence, had been found dead, two days after giving evidence to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee about his doubts over weapons of mass destruction.
Two separate events. One tragedy.
Iraq has come to dominate the Blair legacy to such an extent that many of his notable achievements - the Good Friday agreement, devolution to Scotland and Wales, the minimum wage and a number of social reforms are doomed to shelter under its shadow.
Historians in the future will be able to restore some balance to the record (and to assess whether some classic Blair reforms, like the Private Finance Initiative and student loans and NHS reorganisation, have stood the test of time), but not yet.
His tragedy is that the progressive figure he wanted to be - the first prime minister born after World War Two, who gave the Labour Party a new appeal to the generation dubbed "the millennials" - will be obscured by his most momentous decision.
All his party's current travails tend to be interpreted against that background, as if it is still essentially an argument about him. He will have to wait for that to change, and it may take some time.
James Naughtie is BBC News Book Editor and presents Bookclub on BBC Radio 4. He was a presenter on the Today programme from 1994 to 2015.

US police should be more professional & respectful - New York Times

Videos of two fatal shootings of African-American men have again documented what appear to be almost casual killing by the police. They prompt the deepest shock at what the nation has witnessed over and over again: a chance encounter with the police and an innocent black life ended.
In the first killing, videos showed Alton Sterling on Tuesday pinned to the ground outside a store in Baton Rouge, La., when he was shot in the chest and back at close range by police officers.
The second death came on Wednesday in Minnesota when Philando Castile was stopped for an alleged traffic infraction in a St. Paul suburb and was shot several times by a police officer. The video starts seconds after, taken by a woman next to the wounded man. “He was just getting his license and registration, sir,” she calmly tells the officer. She says to the camera that he was not reaching for the gun he was licensed to carry.
“Would this have happened if the passengers, the drivers were white? I don’t think it would have,” Gov. Mark Dayton said at a news conference on Thursday. “All of us in Minnesota are forced to confront that this kind of racism exists.”
Mr. Castile’s mother, Valerie Castile, said she told her son: “If you get stopped by the police, comply. Comply, comply, comply.” She added, “I think he was just black in the wrong place.”
The Justice Department has been called on to investigate the two shootings. It speaks volumes that local law enforcement is not to be trusted to carry out investigations, as communities take to the streets to demand justice.
The shootings seem part of some gruesome loop of episodes of law enforcement gone amok. For African-Americans, the threat of police abuse — in the form of random stops, assaults and violations of civil rights — has long been part of life. Yet this grievous reality became a national issue only with the 2014 killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager, in an encounter with a white officer in Ferguson, Mo.

After a year and a half of racial upheaval in Ferguson, the local government there agreed to reforms of a law enforcement system that Department of Justice investigators found regularly violated constitutional rights. Minority citizens were routinely harassed by police officers and shuttled through a court system that further exploited and victimized local residents.
Unfortunately, after Ferguson, police shootings of black citizens have continued, with the police too often maintaining their wall of resistance with the help of local prosecutors. Until ordered to do so by a judge, Chicago officials fought release of a dashboard video of the 2014 shooting of 17-year-old Laquan McDonald. He was shot 16 times by a police officer later indicted on charges of first-degree murder.
The killing in Minnesota on Wednesday was the 123rd killing of a black person by law enforcement in America so far this year, according to the American Civil Liberties Union.
Fortunately, the rise of social media and smartphones in the hands of witnesses has delivered video evidence to much of the nation of what black communities have known all too well.

The latest killings are grim reminders that far more reforms are needed to make law enforcement officers more professional and respectful of the citizens they have a duty to protect. Intensive training, stricter use-of-force standards and prosecutions of officers who kill innocent people are necessary to begin to repair systems that have tolerated this bloodshed.
And beyond that, with killings happening in cities, suburbs and rural communities, there needs to be leadership in every police department in the country that insists on cultural and attitudinal change. Credible civilian oversight of the police has to be a factor if community trust is ever to be restored. The latest ghastly images show how much has not been done, two years after Ferguson.

Bitcoin value depends on China miners - Bloomberg

China is home to 90% of bitcoin trades and 70% of mining
Key meeting this month as network gets closer to max capacity

Wu Jihan still remembers the exhilaration he felt after learning about bitcoin in 2011.

A self-described computer geek fresh out of China’s top university, Wu soaked up everything he could about the digital currency’s mysterious founder and its users’ ambitions to transform the global financial system. Within a year, he quit his job at a private equity firm to launch a bitcoin startup. Today, his company is one of the world’s biggest players in bitcoin mining, a computing process that makes transactions with the cryptocurrency possible.

Yet for Wu, and the rest of bitcoin’s online community, feelings of exhilaration have been replaced by apprehension over what could be the biggest hurdle to the cryptocurrency’s growth since its emergence in 2009. Because of a pre-programmed cap on the amount of data bitcoin’s network is allowed to process, the current system for verifying payments needs to boost its capacity, or transaction times will balloon and undermine bitcoin’s 4,475 percent advance over the past five years.
In theory, there’s a simple fix: With some coding tweaks, transactions could continue apace. But the problem is that any change to bitcoin’s architecture will inevitably create losers, and the motley crew of miners, software developers, libertarians and entrepreneurs who comprise the bitcoin universe have yet to form a consensus. After at least five attempts in the past year, enthusiasts will try once again at a conference in Silicon Valley this month. Any solution will almost certainly need the support of attendees from China, now home to 70 percent of the world’s bitcoin mining power and 90 percent of trades.
"This truly is one of the biggest tests to global collaboration," said Wu, who runs AntPool, the world’s second-largest mining collective, and is also one of the largest manufacturers of mining hardware. "There’s a lot of money and emotions involved, and people have very different ideas on what they want bitcoin to be."
For a QuickTake explainer on bitcoin, click here.
It could be the opinions of Wu and his compatriots that matter most. Chinese miners have leveraged their access to cheap labor, inexpensive electricity and local chipmaking factories to outmaneuver their global peers in performing the complex calculations needed to verify bitcoin transactions -- a service for which they’re compensated in newly-minted bitcoin. When the cryptocurrency’s price tumbled from about $1,000 in late 2013 to below $200 in early 2015, lower costs in China allowed them to stay afloat even as many Western operators folded.

Bitcoin’s volatility, meanwhile, has attracted China’s horde of speculative individual investors, who are keener than ever to diversify out of yuan-denominated assets after a shock devaluation in the nation’s currency last year.
Mining Power
The concentration of bitcoin activity in China has some worried that the system could become vulnerable to meddling by the ruling Communist Party, which restricts cross-border capital flows and has tight control over the Internet. It’s of particular concern to libertarians who value the cryptocurrency’s decentralized nature above all else. Unlike most major units of exchange, bitcoin has no single authority, such as a central bank, with control over the money supply. The maximum number of bitcoins is capped at 21 million.
Having so much mining power in China “is a very negative thing,” Peter Todd, an active bitcoin code contributor based in Toronto, wrote in an e-mail interview. “It’d be all too easy for the Chinese government to do a lot of harm.”
While China’s central bank has said bitcoin isn’t a “real” currency and has taken steps to prevent it from becoming entrenched in the domestic financial system, there’s little evidence that policy makers are trying to gain control over its global development.
Instead, the influence lies with privately-run Chinese miners. Because the current system is dominated by the software miners use most, any proposal to update bitcoin’s architecture will need their validation.
Block Sizes
“The miners control the real voting power,” said Wang Chun, co-owner and chief administrator of F2Pool, the world’s largest mining collective.
The debate over how to resolve the digital currency’s capacity problem is split primarily into two camps. One group, known as Bitcoin Classic, says the size of digital “blocks” that contain bitcoin transactions should be increased as soon as possible to ensure that processing times don’t jump.
The other, Bitcoin Core, argues that it’s too soon to make major changes because it will take time to ensure that the new software is secure. They’re also worried that a major boost to block sizes will give too much power to the handful of miners with the processing capacity to handle the lengthy calculations associated with larger blocks.
Core supporters have been primarily focused on introducing features to increase transaction efficiency, while some have agreed to a capped increase in block sizes. They place a priority on widespread adoption before big changes are made, fearing a split in the bitcoin community that could send prices tumbling. The cryptocurrency dropped 4.4 percent to $645.33 on Thursday, paring this year’s gain to 49 percent.
Waiting Game
Major Chinese miners and a group of Core developers agreed on a proposed fix at a meeting in Hong Kong in February. The new code is due to become available this month, and could be activated by July 2017 if it gains broad support.
HaoBTC’s mining data center in Sichuan, China.
HaoBTC’s mining data center in Sichuan, China. Source: HaoBTC
"If the consensus is implemented successfully, it will set an example for future collaborations between all parties," said Wu Gang, chief executive officer of HaoBTC, which accounts for about five percent of the computing power used to verify bitcoin transactions.
If no agreement is reached, processing times could potentially climb to hours or even days, making the digital currency inconvenient for many users who can get almost instant confirmations on payments through their credit-card providers or online money-transfer services like PayPal. In its current iteration, the bitcoin network can handle about seven transactions per second. Visa Inc., the world’s largest payment processor, is capable of more than 24,000 per second.
Close all those tabs. Open this email.
Get Bloomberg's daily newsletter.
 Sign Up
A surge in processing times would give credence to the views of bitcoin skeptics including JPMorgan Chase & Co. CEO Jamie Dimon, who says a digital currency without any central authority has no chance of survival in the $5.3 trillion-a-day foreign exchange market. Even after its surge over the past five years, the total market value of outstanding bitcoin is less than $11 billion, with a network that handles about $120 million of transactions daily.
Despite the challenges, AntPool’s Wu is optimistic. He’s planning to attend the meeting of bitcoin enthusiasts in California this month and says miners from China are set to play a bigger role in driving the global community toward consensus.
"There’s no way we will be at this impasse forever," Wu said. "You have got to believe that with so many smart people in the industry, they will make the right decisions."

Italian banking crisis may spread over Europe - Bloomberg

Italy’s banking crisis could spread to the rest of Europe, and rules limiting state aid to lenders should be reconsidered to prevent greater upheaval, Societe Generale SA Chairman Lorenzo Bini Smaghi said.
“The whole banking market is under pressure,” the former European Central Bank executive board member said in an interview with Bloomberg Television on Wednesday. “We adopted rules on public money; these rules must be assessed in a market that has a potential crisis to decide whether some suspension needs to be applied.”

Lorenzo Bini Smaghi  Photographer: Luke MacGregor/Bloomberg
With about 360 billion euros ($389 billion) in soured loans saddling Italian banks, the government has sounding out regulators on ways to shore up lenders bruised by a renewed selloff after the British vote to leave the European Union. The government would invoke an EU rule allowing temporary state aid if regulatory stress tests uncover a shortfall at Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA, a person with knowledge of the discussions said Tuesday.

European banking stocks resumed their descent as policy makers disagreed and sometimes issued contradictory statements about what may come next. Deutsche Bank AG, Germany’s largest lender, slid 6.1 percent to its lowest level since at least 1989. Societe Generale, France’s second-biggest bank, which Bini Smaghi has chaired for just over a year, fell 1.8 percent as of 2 p.m. in Paris.
The Bloomberg Europe 500 Banks and Financial Services Index fell 2.3 percent to its lowest since November 2011, in the midst of the the European debt crisis.
Italian Finance Undersecretary Pier Paolo Baretta said in an interview on RAI radio Wednesday morning that a “technical solution” on Monte Paschi could be hours away, before issuing a statement an hour later that said “no intervention is expected in the next few hours.”
German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble, speaking at a news conference in Berlin hours later, said his Italian counterpart Pier Carlo Padoan told him that Italy intends to stick to the banking-union rules.

Among the worst-hit Italian banks is Monte Paschi, which built up a pile of soured loans as the nation’s longest recession since World War II left businesses and households struggling to repay debt. Its market capitalization has sunk below 1 billion euros. The largest Italian lender, UniCredit SpA, has slumped more than 60 percent this year and replaced its chief executive officer amid speculation the bank will need to tap its investors for more capital. Its shares fell 1.4 percent Wednesday.

Despite the struggling market, it’s important to protect the regulations established for European banks since the financial crisis, Klaus Regling, managing director of the European Stability Mechanism, said in a separate television interview. Many solutions under the existing rules are still available to Italy, he said.
"The Italian government is in a dialog with the European Commission on how to apply the framework to these specific circumstances,” Regling said. “I am confident they will find a way."

Unprofitable Banks

Bini Smaghi said on Bloomberg TV that Europe’s banking market faces the risk of a system-wide crisis unless governments accept the idea of taxpayer money as the ultimate recourse. Any intervention should be as swift as possible, he said.
Both Italy and Germany have too many banks that are not profitable and more consolidation is needed, he said. Italy must do more to deal with non-performing loans, and Prime Minister Matteo Renzi will have to take politically unpopular steps, including encouraging mergers that will lead to job cuts, Bini Smaghi said.
“What’s needed is a European solution,” he said. “So far, we’ve had national solutions. We need a clear backstop.”
On Brexit, Bini Smaghi said he expects “very long” negotiations. He expressed concern that Britain’s proposal to reduce corporate taxes to attract companies could lead to risky tax competition across Europe.
Watch Next: Could the Next Banking Crisis Come From Italy?

“We are in a privileged position, being both on the continent and in London,” he said. “We think London will remain a major financial center. Whether it will be the only one remains to be seen.”

Posible Swiss model for Brexit - Financial Times

Micheline Calmy-Rey, a former Swiss president, thinks she knows what lies in store for Britain after its historic vote to leave the EU last month. She believes the UK has little option but to follow Switzerland itself.
“There isn’t what you can call a ‘Swiss model’; there is a ‘Swiss way’,” says Ms Calmy-Rey, who now teaches at Geneva university, referring to the more than 120 bilateral deals that provide Switzerland access to EU markets without some of the burdens of membership.

“I think it is inevitable that the UK will go the same way,” she adds. “I can’t see any other alternatives working.”
Such a path might prove highly attractive for a UK government pondering life after the EU and keen to establish controls over European immigration while minimising economic damage. The Swiss are one of the wealthiest nations in the world, their 8m strong country a stable, low-tax democracy.
Christoph Blocher, a veteran Swiss People’s party politician, argues that there are clear parallels between Brexit and his own successful campaign against Switzerland joining the European Economic Area — a waystation to membership — two-and-a-half decades ago.
“It was the same in our 1992 referendum,” he says. “All of the experts had predicted it would be our downfall. It would be an economic disaster, we would be isolated. None of that happened.”
And yet Switzerland’s arrangement with the EU may be difficult for Bern to maintain, let alone for the UK to replicate.
While Europe’s leaders scramble to deal with the UK, Swiss politicians are frantically seeking ways to preserve a web of trade and other agreements while implementing the outcome of a referendum that has caused problems of its own.
In February 2014 the Swiss voted narrowly for quotas on EU immigration — in direct contradiction with the EU’s cherished principle of the free movement of people across the continent.
“Like in the UK, nobody has a plan,” says Max Stern, co-founder of Foraus, a Swiss foreign policy forum. “There are ideas about what we might do but we don’t know how the EU will react. It’s a super high-risk situation.”

UK Brexiters might in any case object to the way Switzerland pays into EU programmes and has to adopt many of the bloc’s rules — without having any say over them.
But with Switzerland formally abandoning its goal to join the EU, Brussels has refused to deepen ties any further until the country has signed up to a broader deal to adopt EU rules as they evolve. Swiss voters would almost certainly reject any agreement to obey rulings of the European Court of Justice — also one of Brexiters’ chief causes of complaint.
If Bern also reneges on the principle of free movement of people, many of the most important existing bilateral deals with the EU could also become void.
Already, the stand-off has cast doubt over the future participation of Swiss universities in European research projects. To the dismay of Swiss banks, talks have been shelved on a financial services agreement.
Some Swiss see the UK vote as helpful in finding a way out. “Great Britain is a bigger power, it has leverage,” says Ms Calmy-Rey. “Switzerland could benefit from Brexit because it gets a de facto ally in its negotiations with the EU.”
When it comes to scientific research programmes, “the EU will not want to exclude the UK’s world-class universities”, argues Thomas Aeschi, one of a new generation of Swiss People’s party leaders. So there would be concessions too for top Swiss institutions, he says

The debate over the UK could open possibilities that would work for Switzerland, Mr Aeschi adds. “The EU has to recognise that it needs models which allow different countries to move at different speeds — including on the free movement of people.”
But the timing of the UK vote was bad for Switzerland. A three-year deadline for implementing the 2014 referendum result expires next February.
“It will penalise Switzerland because we don’t know the policy trade-offs that will be decided for the UK — and won’t for some time
”
- Alexis Lautenberg
“Brexit will mean a bumpy ride because of the spillovers,” says Alexis Lautenberg, former Swiss ambassador to the UK. “Short term, it will penalise Switzerland because we don’t know the policy trade-offs that will be decided for the UK — and won’t for some time.”
Swiss officials are working on compromise solutions, such as introducing an “emergency brake” procedure to halt immigration if the country becomes overwhelmed. A solution might have to be temporary pending resolution of the UK’s own immigration concern. To break the stalemate, however, Switzerland will probably need another referendum on its relationship with the EU.
“Up until now we could always find compromises that were in the interests of both sides,” says Christa Markwalder, a senior politician in the liberal FDP party. “I don’t know whether the pragmatism on the EU side is still there.”

UK Chilcot report find fault with involvement in Iraq war - Independent

Bereaved families of some of the 179 British servicepeople killed during the Iraq war burst into loud applause after hearing Sir John Chilcot deliver a summary of the long-awaited report into the conflict.
At their own press coneference, held immediately after Sir John delivered his findings, Sarah O'Connor, the sister of one dead soldier was cheered as she decribed Tony Blair as "the world's worst terrorist".
Ms O'Connor, whose brother Sergeant Bob O'Connor was killed in 2005 when the aircraft he was in was bought down by insurgents, said: "There is one terrorist that the world needs to be aware of and his name is Tony Blair, the world's worst terrorist."

The bereaved families made clear they would now be considering legal action on the basis of the Chilcot and that Tony Blair was likely to be one of their targets.
Grieving mothers, fathers, partners and other family members were present in the Queen Elizabeth II centre in London to read as much as they could of the 2.6 million-word, 12-volume tome, and to hear Sir John Chilcot read a summary of the findings.
They had arrived saying that had Sir John’s report not given grounds for them taking legal action in relation to the war, there would be “something terribly wrong with our political process”.
In the event, families burst into loud applause after hearing Sir John deliver a summary which including searing criticism of the failure to equip troops in Iraq properly and which stated that in the run-up to the war the alleged threat posed by Iraq was “presented with a certainty that was not justified.”
They also heard Sir John say that  "Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were under-estimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were wholly inadequate. The Government failed to achieve its stated objectives."
The Ministry of Defence was "slow" to respond to the threat from insurgents' roadside bombs, resulting in delays in the supply of armoured vehicles to protect troops which "should not have been tolerated".
This appeared to echo the comments of Richard and Maureen Bacon whose son Matthew died when his Snatch Land Rover was hit by an IED (Improvised Explosive Device) in Basra in September 2005.
Hourse before Sir John delivered his verdict, Mr Bacon told The Independent, that Tony Blair had delayed military planning and equipment procurement for the war “Because he didn’t want it to be seen that he was pre-empting any UN resolution.  He was manipulating the system.”
The result, said Mr Bacon, was that his son died in a Snatch Land Rover with inadequate detection systems to protect against IEDs that could go through the insufficiently armoured vehicle “like a knife through butter.”
Mr Bacon said: “There were 27 incidents in which a serviceman got killed by an IED while travelling in a Snatch Land Rover.  The first incident had been in 2004.  With Snatch Land Rovers it was like Russian roulette.
“If the IED had been laid on that patrol’s route, and if the insurgents had people in place to set it off, then that vehicle was going to get hit.”
Mr Bacon, a retired police officer, added that there had to be “consequences” for leaders who sent soldiers to war unnecessarily.
“Because the consequences for the people they send is that some of them die doing the job they were told to do.”
As a result of the Chilcot Report, he added, “There has to be a basis for some kind of [legal] action, to ensure this never happens again.  If not, I would say there is something terribly wrong with the political process.”
*

Why Hillary Clinton’s Student Debt Idea Is Smart - TIME

Why Hillary Clinton’s Student Debt Idea Is Smart Posted: 29 Jun 2016 06:19 AM PDT Foroohar is an assistant managing editor at TIME and the magazine’s economics columnist. She’s the author of Makers and Takers: The Rise of Finance and the Fall of American Business. One of the most interesting economic solutions proposed by Hillary Clinton recently on the campaign trail is that the financial burden of education be eased for future entrepreneurs. Under her proposal, college graduates who start a business may end up being able to get their student loans deferred, interest-free, for up to three years as they launch new ventures. Those who locate in “distressed communities” or start a social enterprise also could ask the government to forgive as much as $17,500 in loans after five years in business. The goal is not just to create jobs and encourage entrepreneurship amongst millennials, who are graduating with record debt and entering a still weaker-than-normal job market, but also to help boost enterprise creation in general, which has fallen dramatically in this country since the 1970s. This is a big deal, because it ties into the most important economic question of the day, which is why there isn’t stronger productivity growth in the economy right now (economic growth is essential productivity plus demographics). In a speech Tuesday, Fed Governor Jerome Powell touched on the issue and the stakes: “One factor that may contribute to low productivity growth is the notable decline in recent decades in measures of the dynamism of our economy. Entrepreneurs start new firms; most of them fail, but a few of them succeed, grow very rapidly, and account for significant amounts of job formation. Older firms shrink or go out of business if they fail to keep up with innovation and advances in productivity. Workers change jobs and move around the country (or the world) as their careers evolve and as companies grow and shrink. These processes can be painful and messy for both workers and firms, but they are essential to the allocation of resources to their highest, most productive uses. The high levels of innovation and fluidity of our economy have long been thought to be among the principal reasons for our high and rising living standards.” Start-ups are a key driver of productivity. But the birthrate of startups has been in decline since the 1970s. Since then, it has dovetailed with a shift in how the financial sector business model works — it no longer invests primarily in new business, but rather buys up and trades existing assets, and funding for small and mid-sized start ups is still scarce (while increasing monopoly power on the part of large firms squashes new ones, as Robert Reich and others have recently written.) As Governor Powell puts it: “New firms can be loosely grouped into two categories: those started by “lifestyle entrepreneurs” who want to be their own boss, but who have little prospect or desire for high growth; and those founded by transformational entrepreneurs who start businesses that aspire to grow dramatically and change their industry. Before 2000, the decline in new firm entry was mainly in the first sort; since 2000, it is also found among the so-called transformational firms. While the drop in the formation of lifestyle-type firms could be neutral or even a positive for productivity, as in the case of the U.S. retail sector, the reduction in the creation of high-performance new firms suggests that lower dynamism could be associated with slower productivity growth . . . Fewer start-ups has meant lower “job flows,” as measured by job creation and destruction, and fewer opportunities for workers to find better jobs. And labor market dynamism across many dimensions has declined by more than can be explained by the reduction in startups. Workers have become less likely to leave their jobs, change jobs, or move geographically to take new jobs.” This is a big deal in a country in which labor mobility has traditionally given us a leg up economically over Europe and other nations. I think Clinton’s idea to tie together entrepreneurship and student debt forgiveness is a great one, and a good way to make some of Bernie Sanders’ most popular ideas more doable. I hope to hear more about portable benefits, another key idea that could help bolster entrepreneurship, from her soon.

Here’s One Big Winner in the Brexit Chaos - Fortune

Here’s One Big Winner in the Brexit Chaos Posted: 24 Jun 2016 08:26 AM PDT Global currencies might be plunging in the wake of the historic Brexit vote, but it’s had a much different effect on Bitcoin. Bitcoin, the cryptocurrency that had been plunging in recent days, is soaring on Friday after the Brexit vote. As of this writing, Bitcoin is trading at $667.41 per unit, up significantly from a Thursday low of $582.92. At its height, Bitcoin was trading at more than $683, according to Coinbase, a company that follows the cryptocurrency’s exchange rate. Bitcoin’s gains on Friday stand in stark contrast to many major currencies after U.K. voters made the historic decision to leave the European Union in a referendum on Thursday. The move, called Brexit, has pushed the British pound’s exchange rate down 2.3% against the U.S. dollar on Friday and the euro by 0.8%. Other prominent currencies, including the yen and yuan are also down. At one point on Friday, the pound’s value was down about 10% against the U.S. dollar and more than 6% against the euro, according to Quartz. Soon after the Brexit results came in on Friday morning, investors started to invest heavily in the U.S. dollar, which they apparently believe won’t be impacted nearly as much as the euro or pound in the wake of Brexit. But investors have also seemingly found some value in Bitcoin, which lives outside the confines of a single country’s politics—a feature that has made it popular in the past, even if it can still be impacted by world events. However, Bitcoin has been on a bit of a roller coaster of late, and some had blamed Brexit for that. Earlier this week, Bitcoin—which reached a two-year high on June 18 of $774 per unit and was up up more than $300 in the last year—was down to a low of $551 on Wednesday. Speculation abounded over why Bitcoin was cratering, but CoinDesk sources said that it was likely due to concerns that the U.K. would remain in the European Union. Others blamed it on the ongoing saga of who created the currency and the rise of ethereum, a follow-up to Bitcoin that some say, is a more versatile crypto-currency. After the Brexit vote, however, it appears there was indeed some concern among investors that the U.K. might stay with the European Union. And now that they know it isn’t, they’re moving to Bitcoin to find what they hope is safe haven as Europe gets ready for a new round of uncertainty. This article originally appeared on Fortune.com

A revision of my blog on " A message to the so-called Kingmakers of Australian politics " - JKHC-NEWS(3)

With a very real possibility of a hung parliament being returned by the 2016 Australian federal election I think is is an appropriate opportunity to revisit my blog on the cross benchers in both houses who may be critical in the formation of the next government.

A more detailed blog on a possible hung parliament will be published by me should this situation eventuates.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

A short message to the so-called Australian Kingmakers - the newly elected independent MPs

With a hung parliament resulting from Australia's August 21 federal election the 4 confirmed independent MPs become the key to the formation of the next federal parliament. The election results clearly indicate that there is a trend for voters to shun the mainstream political parties. While democracy has delightfully prevailed in Australia we have also created another unhealthy political situation in which the successful formation of the next federal government will be left to the decision of the 4 independent MPs as to which main party they will support. This is supreme power in their hands. As power corrupts without any exception there could possibly be unreasonable demands from these so-called Kingmakers.

Here is my short message to them. The NATION IS WATCHING closely at your actions and decisions. Remember that the outgoing government owes its downfall to getting out of touch with the citizens' needs and aspirations. Wasteful and rash spending decisions resulting from an obsession to become the only advanced economy to stay out of recession after the 2008 financial tsunami at the nation's expense. The evil and sinister move of the party power brokers to dethrone a prime minister who though has become egocentric Kevin 07 was nevertheless given a people's mandate in the 2007 election. The voters should decide their own prime minister in the then upcoming election and to hell with all power brokers who are nothing but shadowy instigators treating themselves as uncrowned kings of the nation.

While it is understandable that the newly elected independent MPs are obligated to get a better deal for their electorate out of the necessary horse-trading in the process of negotiating with the mainstream parties they must not hold the country at ransom for the purpose of achieving personal glory or selfish ends. The wider interests of the country at large must be equally served.

As most of the so-called Kingmakers represent Australian rural interest issues such as broadband coverage, irrigation and health services could be key issues on the negotiation table. Tough bargaining will be on the cards. Nevertheless, the ultimate Kingmakers are the voters so never attempt to disfranchise the small people by serving narrow group, party or personal interests. Voters have put the so-called Kingmakers where they are now and so can they remove them if the so-called Kingmakers are out of line.

Given the fact that independents usually have very specific reasons be they personal or policy issues to stand as independent candidates it is very easy for them to treat this Kingmaker opportunity as payback time. Mind you don't get intoxicated by your momentary crown of control but rather do the right thing and serve the wider interests of the people and you just might become kings of people's hearts.

I attach herewith a link to the press interview of one so-called Kingmakers as he arrived at the Australian capital city of Canberra. Do we have to worry about them being intoxicated by their momentary power and glory ? Make your own judgment :- http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/08/24/2992392.htm

JKHC ( 25/8/10 )

New Philippines president tells people to kill drug addicts - Independent

 The strongman president of the Philippines has told people to “go ahead and kill” drug addicts.
Former lawyer Rodrigo Duterte was only sworn in at the end of June but has already incited the killing of large numbers of criminals, in particular drug traffickers.
The controversial figure is known for his hardline stance on crime, with his favoured position to simply kill people he regards as lawbreakers. During his time as mayor of Davao city, once crime ridden but now peaceful, he gained a reputation for being involved in extra-judicial killings.

It appears his presidency could be marked by the same trait. Just after his inauguration, he told an audience in a Manila slum: “If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourself as getting their parents to do it would be too painful.”

Drug dealers are also in Mr Duterte’s sights. In a separate engagement, he said: “These sons of whores are destroying our children. I warn you, don’t go into that, even if you’re a policeman, because I will really kill you.”
Hundreds of drug addicts and pushers have recently surrendered to authorities, concerned they would be killed in an imminent crackdown, officials have told the media.
In recent weeks, dozens of suspected drug dealers have been killed, either in reported gun battles with police or under mysterious circumstances. On 1 July, 10 drug dealers were killed separately in gunfights with police in Bulacan province, north of Manila, as the nationwide crackdown commenced, according to police.

Brexit vote makes united Ireland suddenly thinkable - Reuters

Protestant unionists are queuing for Irish passports in Belfast and once quiet Catholic nationalists are openly campaigning for a united Ireland, signs of deep shifts in the United Kingdom's most troubled province since Britain voted to leave the EU. 

Eighteen years after a peace deal ended decades of fighting between mainly Catholic nationalists who favor a united Ireland and mainly Protestant unionists who favor remaining part of the United Kingdom, Britain's Brexit vote is making people on both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland think the unthinkable.

Northern Ireland, like neighboring Scotland, voted to stay in the European Union, with 56 percent in favor, even though Britain as a whole voted to leave the bloc.

"I was always a 'small u' unionist. But I could not in all good conscience say I could vote for Northern Ireland to remain a member of the United Kingdom," said Christopher Woodhouse, a 25-year-old from Belfast. 

"I am softening to the idea of Irish unity, purely on economic issues," he said. "I am a European."

For years, a firm majority of people in Northern Ireland -- many Catholics as well as nearly all Protestants -- have favored continuing as part of the United Kingdom, drawn to the status quo as a guarantee of stability and prosperity.

But that has been jeopardized at a stroke by the prospect that Britain could quit the European Union and Scotland break away from the United Kingdom.

The Brexit referendum suggests a new center ground could form of people from both faith communities who fear the economic uncertainty of leaving the EU.

"People are saying for the first time in their life they would vote for united Ireland, having never contemplated it before," said Steven Agnew, the leader of the Green Party in Northern Ireland.

CORNERSTONE OF PEACE

The membership of both Ireland and Britain in the European Union was a cornerstone of the 1998 agreement that ended the fighting over whether the predominately Protestant six counties of northeast Ireland should be British or Irish.

EU rules ensure free trade and travel, and allow British or Irish citizens to work, claim benefits and be treated in hospitals in either country. People living on either side of the border may hold either passport or both, with little practical effect on how they are treated by either state.

Although Northern Irish citizens are entitled to passports from Ireland, many unionists would not apply for them. But there were several unionists in a queue seeking Irish passport application forms at the main post office in Belfast this week.

One said she was shocked and disappointed by the Brexit vote, and saw an Irish passport as the only way to retain her EU citizenship. None would give their names, as applying for an Irish passport can be controversial among unionists.

COSTS OF LEAVING 

Quitting the EU would have direct costs on a poor province that relies on it more than other parts of the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland's largest bank, Ulster Bank, said uncertainty around the terms for Britain's exit from the EU could make Northern Ireland a "no-go zone" for some foreign direct investment. Brexit could cause lower growth, higher unemployment and cutbacks in government spending.

"My stomach is churning at all that's happening," said Robert McClenaghan, an Irish Republican Army member turned community worker, describing the potential loss of hundreds of millions of euros of EU funds for former militants, victims groups, and cross-community youth work.

"We are in danger of a return to conflict - at a low intensity level - if those funds are taken away," he said.

Many believe the biggest threat to the peace would be the appearance of some kind of border checks. The huge military checkpoints that dotted the border were dismantled in the wake of the peace deal.

Pro-Brexit politicians have said the Irish frontier would remain open once Britain leaves the EU, but Remain supporters say this would be impossible if Britain wants to limit migration from EU countries whose nationals are free to enter Ireland.

"If they put a border up, the dissidents will blow it up," said Sid Johnson, a 68-year-old unionist Leave voter shopping on Belfast's Shankill Road. If the police are forced to send in armed men to defend the posts, he said, escalation could be swift.

Under the peace deal, the largest nationalist party, Sinn Fein, co-rules the province with the unionist DUP, which campaigned for Britain to leave the EU.

Sinn Fein's party chairman pounced on the Brexit vote, saying it meant Britain had "forfeited any mandate to represent the interests of people here".

The party later cooled its rhetoric, with Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness saying a united Ireland referendum should be held "at some stage in the future". The party this week held the first of a series of rallies for a united Ireland. 

A united Ireland has been the cherished dream of Irish nationalists since Northern Ireland was formed by Britain to protect the large Protestant community in the island's northeast from the Catholic dominated state formed to the south in 1921. 

More than 3,600 people died in fighting between the late 1960s and late 1990s, between Catholics who said they were denied basic human rights and wanted to join Ireland and Protestants defending the union with Britain. 

Under the 1998 peace deal, the British government was given the power to call a referendum if it appears likely a majority of those voting would seek to form part of a united Ireland.

While higher birth rates among Catholics suggest they will become the majority in Northern Ireland within a generation, opinion polls have consistently shown as many as half of Catholics still favored the stability of the United Kingdom.

But if Brexit makes that Catholic support for the union slip away, a future referendum on Irish unification could be "very, very tight" said Peter Shirlow, head of the Institute of Irish Studies at the University of Liverpool.

"Unionists would have to rely on Catholics not wanting to be part of a united Ireland. That has been the trend up to last Friday," he said. "But I think that trend is now changing."

(Writing by Conor Humphries; editing by Guy Faulconbridge and Peter Graff)

Brexit has exposed how ignorant the educated and cosmopolitan have become about modern Britain - Independent

The final verdict on 23 June 2016 will be pronounced a long way in the future. But future generations may ponder several issues.

The fact that the referendum was ever called will be a cause of bafflement. Conservative leader David Cameron pledged to hold the referendum to placate anti-EU sections of his own party and to out-flank a perceived challenge from Ukip. Given his frequent mention of the risks of Brexit, the wisdom of calling the referendum in the first place remains puzzling.

Cameron, who did much to make the Tories electable and won a famous victory, has gone, leaving behind a divided Conservative party. The Labour Party, too, is. The episode has also left behind a divided country, which will prove difficult to unite or even hold together.

The referendum debate was unedifying; The tone was shrill, lacking civility. The participation of respected analysts, commentators and supposedly non-political public officials brought them no credit. Facts were water-boarded to support partisan positions. A future of economic damnation and a revival of Empire outside the EU are equally illusory.

The response at the result among those who voted to remain is most interesting. The wilful ignorance of the affluent, educated and cosmopolitan on how divided and polarised British society has become is striking. The voting patterns mirrored divisions along the lines of class, economic standing, education, age, residence and ethnicity.

The debate was always between economics and sovereignty (in the guise of immigration and border control). Exaggerated claims of economic losses, based on macro-economic models which have failed repeatedly over recent years, to engender fear were rejected. Some UK regions reliant on exports to the EU voted strongly to leave. For the disenfranchised, the fruits of growth, investment and international trade remain unattainable. Threats – perceived or real – to jobs, and uncertainty about nationality, are powerful forces. The inconvenience of the non-EU line at immigration or the ability to own a holiday retreat on the continent does not concern those who have never had those opportunities.

READ MORE

In Europe, as in life, we cannot have everything we want

The failure of the economic arguments to sway the vote may spell the end of economic rationalism which began with Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan.

It may be that the vote against the EU was, in part, a protest vote against the long-term changes in economic structure of the UK economy, which has destroyed many working and middle class lives. Insofar as the decision represents a retreat to economic nationalism and closed borders, it may highlight the diminishing appeal of globalisation.

Increasing scepticism about experts and expert advice may also be one longer term effect. The views of the governor of the Bank of England and the Archbishop of Canterbury were disregarded equally.

In a pivotal moment in the campaign, challenged to name a single expert who thought that Brexit would economically benefit Britain, Justice Secretary Michael Gove’s defiant response was that: “I think people in this country have had enough of experts.” The reality is that experts no longer relate to ordinary people.

Policy orthodoxy, such as free trade, de-industrialisation and, in the aftermath of the 2008 crisis, austerity and unconventional monetary policy, have not benefitted large parts of the population. Ordinary people’s appetite for sacrifice in return for unquantified future benefits promised by experts has waned.

The gravitational pull of aspiration, central to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan’s brand of conservatism, has faded as trickle-down economics has betrayed many people.

READ MORE

6 ways the Government can support the economy after Brexit

The immediate effects of the Brexit vote on currencies and interest rates were significant, but it will take time to see whether there are major casualties as a result of the usual highly leveraged bets. The decision to downgrade the UK’s credit rating to a (still very strong) AA will have little effect. The UK’s ability to meet its obligations has not changed.

The real economy and political effects will take time to emerge and is highly dependent on events not yet known. History will have to decide whether the vote was simply a mutiny on HMS Britannia or an influential decision on the shape of the modern world, the structure of society and values which resonate and lead to change in other countries.

If the latter proves correct, then the event will prove truly significant.

The Leave campaign may have won the vote but there is confusion about reshaping the UK’s relationship with the EU. Maintaining continued special access to European markets would require accepting many policies rejected by a majority of those who voted. The prospects of meaningful reform within the EU also seem remote.

Why the Tesla Crash Shouldn’t Put the Brakes On Driverless Cars - TIME

Why the Tesla Crash Shouldn’t Put the Brakes On Driverless Cars Posted: 01 Jul 2016 10:57 AM PDT Electric automaker Tesla is under investigation after what the company says is the first death of a driver using its “Autopilot” mode. That mode offers a limited form of autonomous driving, but requires drivers to remain attentive at the wheel in case they need to take over. The driver (or was he a “passenger”?–such are the many questions ahead as companies from Ford to Google race to deliver driverless technology) was Joshua D. Brown, who died May 7 after his Tesla Model S failed to spot a turning white truck against a bright sky, according to documents reviewed by the Associated Press. (The AP reported Friday that Brown had received eight speeding tickets over the past six years, though it’s unclear if excessive speed played a role in the incident.) Brown’s death is sure to exacerbate fears over driverless vehicles. But tragically, Brown was likely one of the somewhere around 90 people who died on roads that day and every day in the U.S. It does not have to be this way. To be sure, we are still far from having enough data to conclusively prove the relative safety of driverless cars versus those piloted by humans. But early estimates hold that tens of thousands of lives might be saved thanks to driverless technology. Why? Because computers have the potential to be far safer drivers than we are, as a TIME cover story earlier this year argued: [Driverless cars are] superior drivers. These words may grate in the sunburned left ears of car-loving Americans. But the computer is simply a better driver than a human. Better at keeping its eyes on other drivers; better at maintaining a steady cruising speed and thereby maximizing fuel efficiency; better at parsing GPS data, weather data, traffic data–any and all kinds of data, really–and better at making rapid-fire adjustments. The computer doesn’t get distracted by a spouse, kids or the jerk who just made an illegal lane change. It doesn’t sneak a glimpse at Snapchat, or fumble with a leaky burrito, or steer with its knees while playing air guitar. The computer couldn’t blink even if it wanted to. It never says yes to a fourth chardonnay, never convinces itself that weed improves its driving. Asking directions is a computer’s favorite activity, and unless ordered to, the computer never falls asleep. Driverless cars have a long way to go in terms of technology and policy alike. Many struggle in bad weather, for instance, and it’s unclear how they will be insured. But the potential payoff in terms of lives saved down the road means this is not a technology we should walk away from.

The Worst of the Brexit Fallout Is Still to Hit the U.K. - TIME

The Worst of the Brexit Fallout Is Still to Hit the U.K. Posted: 01 Jul 2016 09:38 AM PDT British Treasury Secretary George Osborne warned on Friday that the United Kingdom economy was exhibiting “clear signs of economic shock” in the wake of a majority of voters advocating to leave the European Union, signalling that the fallout from Brexit has begun in earnest. Clear signs of economic shock in aftermath of Leave vote. Will require supreme national effort but we can come through this challenge — George Osborne (@George_Osborne) July 1, 2016 There is indeed clear evidence for some of the shocks. The value of the pound has fallen from $1.49 to $1.33 since the vote, and the FTSE 250 group of U.K.-focused companies fell by more than 7% before staging a slight recovery. But it is not yet clear when the impact will filter down to ordinary people. One clear disadvantage for Britons already apparent is that buying dollars and euros is much more expensive, which will make holidays more costly. The devaluation of the pound will also increase the price of imported goods and anything made from them. John Van Reenen, head of the Centre for Economic Performance at the London School of Economics, said that Britain’s Brexit decision will have both short-term and long-term consequences. “There is a lot of uncertainty about the new arrangements, which will lead to less investment, slower growth, lower pay and higher unemployment. In the long run, we will not have the same access to the European single market, which will mean lower exports, less foreign investments. It will mean that we are all poorer.” Some effects will take months but others will be noticed in days, he said. “The effect on the pound is noticeable now and this will quickly be seen in the price of fruit and vegetables for example. Prices of goods that use foreign components will take longer to increase,” says Van Reenen. There are signs that property prices are set to fall. Singapore-based United Overseas Bank suspended loan applications for London residential properties because of fears that investors could lose money and find it difficult to repay loans. Major developers are also reviewing residential and commercial projects. Mark Farmer, chief executive of Cast, a real estate consultancy, told the Financial Times that most London real estate deals would be reexamined. “The centre of the storm is going to be commercial property and speculative residential for sale,” he said. “Anything that has planning consent that hasn’t been committed, or anything that [has construction ongoing] on site but is a phased project, is in harm’s way at the moment.” Falling property prices are unlikely to benefit ordinary homebuyers in a stuttering economy, Van Reenen says. “A lot of people might say that a fall in property prices is a good thing but the prices will be falling for a bad reason; because there is less money around, property will still be as unaffordable.” U.K. unemployment, which currently stands at 5.1%, is also expected to rise. Soon after the result of the referendum was announced, Siemens suspended plans to export wind turbine blades from a new factory in in the northeastern city of Hull. Juergen Maier, the Siemens UK chief executive, told the BBC that any investment decisions, especially relating to exporting to the E.U. would be “put on ice.” There were also reports of companies such as easyjet, Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan moving headquarters or large numbers of staff from Britain to the E.U. The loss of such jobs combined with a reduction in economic activity, could lead to a decrease in government revenue and force it to cut spending, further depressing the economy. Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, said that many people would feel poorer and less secure. In a speech on Thursday, he said: “Today, uncertainty has meant an inchoate sense of economic insecurity for many people, despite generalised economic prosperity. Across the advanced economies, employment appears less secure, wages more subdued and inequality more pronounced.” The fallout from Brexit could also have a cumulative effect, leading to a vicious circle of consumers reacting to an economic slowdown by consuming less and thus exacerbating the slowdown. Van Reenen concluded: “With the pound falling, this will lead to higher import prices and the cost of living will go up. As our trade goes down this will lead to lower productivity and higher prices. When faced with a crisis, people cut down on demand, which has a multiplier effect leading to greater unemployment, and further pressure on demand.” Osborne said that overcoming the worst of the economic fallout would take a “supreme national effort.” Britain had better hope that whoever takes over from Prime Minister David Cameron in the autumn can rise to the challenge.

Can Brexit be reversed ? - Independent

The frontrunners in the Conservative leadership contest, Theresa May and Michael Gove, have both said they will not trigger Article 50 - the mechanism for Britain to leave the European Union - this year.
That delay could be crucial in halting a Brexit. Crossbench peer and legal expert David Pannick QC believes that new legislation would be needed for the UK to trigger Article 50 because it is 'a notification of 'withdrawal' and does not allow for turning back".
Put simply, that means Article 50 cannot be triggered without MPs voting on it.
But with a delay in triggering Article 50, MPs will not be asked to vote on the UK leaving the European Union until 2017 at the very earliest. That delay is why some experts believe Brexit may still not happen.
As Michael Zander QC, Emeritus professor of the Law at the LSE, writes in today's Times, neither the Lords or the Commons would vote against a Brexit right now. But that could change.

Speaking to Indy100, Professor Zander explained:
If members of parliament feel that circumstances have changed to such an extent that, despite the referendum result, it no longer makes sense to go ahead with Brexit, they have a constitutional duty to refuse to give it effect.
So while that relies heavily on caveats, it is part of the reason why some people believe a Brexit maynot happen despite the Leave vote.