Corbyn and Labour surge but Tories are favourites thanks to ‘grey vote’ - Guardian

Corbyn and Labour surge but Tories are favourites thanks to ‘grey vote’

Robert Ford

Sunday 4 June 2017 09.04 AEST

When Theresa May announced the snap election in mid-April, most expected a dull campaign and a foregone conclusion. The prime minister had strong approval ratings and the Conservative party had a huge lead over the Labour opposition. The election looked like an easy way for the Tories to lock in their advantages over a weak opponent.

We should have known better. As the great political philosopher and boxer “Iron” Mike Tyson once observed: “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

Labour support has surged in the polls, rising by around eight points in the polling average. The Conservatives have held on to most of their own earlier poll surge, achieved mainly through the mass defection of 2015 Ukip voters, so they remain ahead, but the gap has closed sharply. A lead of over 20 points has halved to under 10, with a lot of disagreement between pollsters. Some polls and projections now suggest May could even end up losing ground this week.

Who should I vote for? The UK election manifestos compared

Read more

The smaller parties have been left behind as two-party politics returns with a vengeance. The hopes of the Liberal Democrats for a “Remain surge” have turned to dust, and the party now has a fight on its hands just to hold on to its handful of MPs. Ukip support has collapsed and is on the brink of extinction. Support for the Green party has halved. Voters have not consolidated behind the big two like this for more than a generation.

Such big shifts during campaigns are rare, although not unheard of – the 2010 election campaign, for example, also produced a large swing in the polls but, on that occasion, the projections pointing to a surge in Lib Dem support proved to be mistaken, as they were in 2015 when the campaign polling was more stable.

Will the current Labour surge be a third miss in a row for campaign polling, or are the pollsters – who all made changes to their methods after the 2015 miss – picking up a real shift?

A case can be made either way. Believers in the Labour surge can point to the broader polling evidence – it is not just Labour’s headline support that has improved but Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership ratings have also risen sharply, albeit from a low base, while May’s are down. Labour’s ratings on the issues have also improved, while pollsters suggest that the Tories’ very unpopular “dementia tax” social care proposal is the main policy to have “cut through” with voters during the campaign.

Surge sceptics, however, can also build a convincing case. Labour’s rise in the polls has been concentrated in demographics – in particular, younger voters and former non-voters – who tend to turn out at low levels but are now apparently very keen to vote. The Tories continue to win the other side of the generation game, with a huge and stable lead among pensioners.

Judgments of the Labour surge in the polls – and prospects on 8 June – hinge very strongly on whether the traditional “grey advantage” in turnout is reduced this time. There are two reasons to think it won’t be: the historical record and the record of the polls. Large generation gaps in turnout have been recorded in all the recent British elections, including the very high turnout for the EU and Scottish independence referendums. The polls also have longstanding problems with political engagement – they recruit too many political enthusiasts, and people taking polls tend to exaggerate their likelihood of voting. Pollsters also have a longstanding (and most likely related) tendency to overstate Labour support and understate Tory support – a pattern that has held in every election but one since 1987.

Labour surge sceptics can also draw different conclusions from a deep dive into the polling. While Corbyn has closed the gap on May in the leadership ratings, he still remains a long way behind. Much of Labour’s support still comes from voters who say they back the party but not its leader. Tory voters, by contrast, are rarely conflicted in this way.

Labour’s position on the issues has improved, but the Conservatives retain commanding leads on many of the central issues at stake, such as Brexit, economic management and immigration. Since the “dementia tax” U-turn, events have shifted the campaign agenda on to security and foreign policy, traditionally stronger terrain for the Tories.

The Conservatives remain strong favourites because they still hold the better hand – they retain a poll lead and strong support is from the most reliable voters in the electorate. Labour will require unusual voters to turn out in unlikely numbers. But, as any American knows, such upsets can happen in politics.

Robert Ford is professor of political science at the University of Manchester and the author, with Matthew Goodwin, of Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain

The 5 Overlooked Countries Shaping Russia's Future - TIME

The 5 Overlooked Countries Shaping Russia's Future

Ian Bremmer

Jun 03, 2017

Plenty of ink is being spilled over Russia’s contentious relations with the West these days, and with good reason. But while Russian President Vladimir Putin plays games with the U.S. and Europe — and continues a murky alliance with Syria and Iran — the other countries that will determine Russia’s future shouldn’t be overlooked. Here are five you should be keeping tabs on.

China

Let’s start with the most obvious. Russia had hoped its eastern pivot towards China would make up for lost Western investment and trade ties in the wake of the Ukraine crisis of 2014. U.S./E.U. sanctions and Russian counter-sanctions are estimated to have cost Russia between 1 and 1.5 percent of its GDP in the first year alone; the IMF forecasts the hit could be as much as 9 percent over the medium term. And while China did indeed step up financing for Russian projects (Chinese investment in Russia grew by 172 percent in the first half of 2016), it wasn’t enough to overcome the losses in growth and financing that Western sanctions knocked off in 2016. Making matters worse, Beijing never endorsed Russia’s annexation of Crimea, as Moscow once hoped it would.

But that’s the thing—while China will sign more deals with Russia, it needs no part in Russia’s geopolitical games. China’s happy to do more business with Russia now that the Russians, with fewer options, have to give China favorable terms and prices. But the global status quo has been good to China, and Beijing wants to see it continue, albeit with some modifications; Russia wants to upend it entirely. In addition, China will continue to compete for influence with Russia, particularly in Central Asia. Don’t expect China to become best friends with Russia anytime soon. Or ever.

Japan

Japan has been part of Russia’s Asia outreach for years now—partly to hedge against China, and partly out of hope that Japanese investment in Russia would lead to absorption of Japanese technology, experience and efficiency in Russian industry. While some of that did happen (especially in the energy and automotive sectors), it never hit the levels the Kremlin had hoped.

But when discussing the future of Russia/Japan relations, it’s history and geopolitics that weigh most heavily. Tokyo and Moscow continue to dispute the status of Kuril Islands, a chain of four islands in the Pacific that both countries claim as their own. And to this day, Russia and Japan have failed to sign a peace treaty that would officially end World War II. Then there’s the fact that Japan finds itself in an increasingly challenging geopolitical situation in Asia; China is throwing elbows next door, and North Korea’s kicking up dirt. Russia is not equipped to handle either of those situations; and for all the chaos in U.S. politics at the moment, America’s military prowess still holds sway in the region (as do the 54,000 military personnel stationed in Japan). The U.S. remains the must-have ally in the region if you’re Tokyo. That’s also why Russia would like to edge closer to Japan.

Saudi Arabia

In Syria, Russia has shown it’s ready to rush in where the U.S. still fears to tread. That makes Russia a significant player in the region, more than its economic and military strength would otherwise suggest (Russia is the 12th largest economy, and while it’s 3rd largest in military expenditure, it shells out only about one tenth of what the U.S. does).

While Saudi Arabia and Russia are on opposite sides of the Syrian war, they’ve managed to work together to backstop the fall in oil prices that devastated both countries. There’s also potential here—Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman played a critical role in creating a $10 billion partnership between the Saudi Public Investment Fund and Russia's Direct Investment Fund, and an improved relationship with Saudi Arabia supports Russian efforts to engage the broader Gulf region. And while the Saudis might be glad to have Donald Trump in the White House at the moment, there are no guarantees for what comes next. Given that, it’s good to have options.

Turkey

Russia and Turkey are helmed by two of the world’s most colorful strongmen, and both are prime players in the unfolding Syria drama. In November 2015, Turkey downed a Russian fighter jet that was skirting its airspace; Russia retaliated with trade sanctions, but quickly reached a rapprochement when Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan apologized. This was followed by the shooting of the Russian ambassador by an off-duty police officer in Ankara about a year later.

RISK REPORT

The 5 Biggest Problems for Presidents Trump and Xi to Tackle

In normal times, these things might be cause for war. But as Erdogan chafes under criticism of his government from the West, Russia and Turkey have a greater incentive to work together. Now the countries are pushing to bring the Turkish Stream natural gas pipeline online to shuttle Russian gas to Europe, Turkey is serving as the NATO proxy in the Astana format peace talks on Syria, and Ankara is happy to deflect Western criticism of growing authoritarianism at home by holding up its friendship with Moscow.

Still, Erdogan and Putin don't quite see eye-to-eye on the role that President Bashar al-Assad should play in Syria's future — and the question of a Syrian Kurdish territory, anathema to Turkey, will be another source of suspicion.

Venezuela

The last country on this list may also get the least attention. Venezuela is convulsing, and its citizens are taking to the streets daily to protest Nicolas Maduro and the lack of basic food and medicines. Given that Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world, it’s a spectacular fall for one of Latin America’s former powerhouses.

Here is where it gets interesting. Venezuela’s cash-strapped state oil company, PDVSA, owns the America energy company Citgo. In December, PDVSA received a loan from Russian state-oil company Rosneft, in exchange for which it put up 49.9% of Citgo for collateral.

Should PDVSA be unable to repay its debt — a distinct possibility by the end of 2017 — Rosneft will collect its collateral, and a controlling stake in the company would be easily within its reach. Aside from the strategic play to accumulate quality oil assets on the cheap, Putin just loves the idea of owning one of the largest refiners in the U.S.—and he might just get his wish.

How Cities, States and Businesses Are Already Fighting Climate Change Without Trump - TIME

How Cities, States and Businesses Are Already Fighting Climate Change Without Trump

Posted: 02 Jun 2017 10:11 AM PDT

The response to President Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change was swift and harsh—and it wasn’t just environmental groups and progressive politicians. Corporations and state and local officials on both sides of the aisle called the decision a risky move that not only will harm global efforts to halt climate change but also abdicates U.S. leadership around the world.
Beyond the symbolism, however, progress reducing greenhouse gas emissions is likely to continue even as the role of the federal government dwindles. Cities, states and corporations have announced their intention to adhere to the goals of the Paris deal, while other leaders, like former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg and California Governor Jerry Brown, will continue to represent the U.S. on the world stage. (Bloomberg has said that his charity will cover the $15 million fee the U.S. would have paid to the United Nations climate change body as part of the accord.)

“Cities and businesses have sort of played second fiddle, they now come to the fore,” says Paul Bodnar of the Rocky Mountain Institute, who helps companies adopt sustainable energy practices. “U.S. leadership continues, albeit in a different form.” Here are some of the ways others are stepping up:

States
Much of U.S. energy policy is set at the state level. State public utility commissions following local laws and regulations control many of the decisions about where Americans get their electricity. That reality presented challenges for President Obama when he tried to push the country away from coal-fired power plants as red states challenged his Clean Power Plan in court. But now the tables have turned, and many state leaders have promised to meet and exceed the goals set in the Paris Agreement even in the absence of Trump.
Following Trump’s announcement, the governors of New York, California and Washington announced the United States Climate Alliance, which commits members to working toward the targets of the Paris Agreement without federal support. Those three states alone represent more than 20% of the country’s GDP and 10% of its greenhouse gas emissions.
“Donald Trump has absolutely chosen the wrong course,” said California’s Brown on a conference call following the announcement Thursday. “California will resist… While our president may be AWOL in the battle against climate change, we’re not. “
Several states had already participated in coalitions and consortia with the same goal in mind prior to Trump’s election. In advance of the Paris Agreement, Brown helped launch a coalition called Under 2 MOU (referring to the target of keeping temperatures from rising more than 2°C by 2100). The coalition, which now includes ten states from across the country, provides a framework for states and other sub-national governments around the world to report on their progress in a transparent way. “We don’t have to wait for the federal government to say jump. We’re already moving,” Brown told TIME at its launch.
Cities 
Cities also exercise control over much of how energy is used within their jurisdiction. And in response to Trump’s announcement, nearly 70 mayors of major cities including Los Angeles, New York and Houston made the same commitment to uphold the targets of the Paris Agreement in their own backyards.
After Trump said in his remarks on withdrawing from the agreement that he “was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Pittsburgh mayor Bill Peduto issued an executive order committing the city to the goals of the accord and a rebuke on Twitter:

As the Mayor of Pittsburgh, I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future. https://t.co/3znXGTcd8C

— bill peduto (@billpeduto) June 1, 2017

Many metros are going even further. Nearly 30 cities across the country, from Orlando to Salt Lake City, have committed to getting 100% of their energy from renewable resources as part of a Sierra Club coalition. Stephen Benjamin, mayor of Columbia, S.C., is spearheading an effort to create a framework in the U.S. Conference of Mayors to formally support the 100% renewable target. “It was important before this week,” he says. “But it’s made that much more important because of the president’s decision.”
Some global coalitions, including the C40 Cities group sponsored by former New York Mayor Bloomberg, help structure city commitments to fighting climate change and have been working to that end since before the Paris Agreement was reached.
Business
The list of corporations critical of Trump’s decision is long and includes the likes of Silicon Valley tech giants like Apple and Facebook but also oil and gas companies such as ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips. Even some coal companies called on Trump to remain in the deal.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Disney CEO Bob Iger both dropped out of Trump’s business advisory councils as a result of the move:

As a matter of principle, I've resigned from the President's Council over the #ParisAgreement withdrawal.

— Robert Iger (@RobertIger) June 1, 2017

Now, attention turns to whether these companies will actually take the fight against climate change into their own hands. While not all will respond the same way, many have already made commitments. Nearly half of Fortune 500 companies have some form of target for renewable energy deployment, greenhouse gas emissions reductions or energy efficiency, according to a report from the WWF and other organizations. And a long list of nearly 100 companies that includes the likes of Walmart, Google and Bank of America have committed to sourcing 100% of their electricity from renewable energy sources. Many corporations like Microsoft have introduced internal carbon fees to reduce emissions across the company.
The switch to renewable sources is in part to aid climate change efforts, but the targets also help corporations cut costs. The WWF report estimated that 190 companies saved $3.7 billion in 2016 with projects targeting emissions. Those efforts operate outside the influence of federal policy and will likely continue.
“Simply put, the private sector already chose a low-carbon future,” President Obama said in a statement following Trump’s announcement. “And for the nations that committed themselves to that future, the Paris Agreement opened the floodgates for businesses, scientists, and engineers to unleash high-tech, low-carbon investment and innovation on an unprecedented scale.”

North Korea Missile Tests: Wary Japan Refuses to Panic - NBC News

NEWS JUN 3 2017, 4:34 AM ET

North Korea Missile Tests: Wary Japan Refuses to Panic

by ARATA YAMAMOTO and EOGHAN MACGUIRE

TOKYO — The latest ballistic missile fired by Kim Jong Un's regime plunged into the Sea of Japan earlier this week.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has described such North Korean launches as a "grave threat to our country" and "absolutely not acceptable."

But such warnings appear to be causing little concern on the streets of Tokyo.

"I don't feel any threat, nor has it affected my daily life," said Ryoji Nakajima, a 36-year-old office worker. It was a sentiment shared by several others approached by NBC News in the city's Ginza district.

While Kim's stated aim is to develop a nuclear-tipped intercontinental ballistic missile capable of striking the U.S. mainland, Japan is also home to some 54,000 U.S. military personnel. And North Korea has said it has military units positioned to strike. 

North Korea can already strike anywhere in Japan with its missiles. 

In March, Japan held its first civilian evacuation drill for a missile attack amid wariness over the military threat potentially posed by the hermit kingdom. 

But Shunji Hiraiwa, an expert in North Korean diplomacy at Nanzan University in Nagoya City, said while many people in Japan "do feel a sense of danger ... I don't think they feel that a war is imminent." 

That view was echoed by Narushige Michishita, a professor at the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies in Tokyo. 

"Fortunately, right now it's not as if there's a clear and present danger that is sending people into panic," Michishita said. 

However, he added that "people have started to understand that it might be possible for North Korea to obtain these capabilities." 

Pyongyang has launched a series of missiles as well as carrying out two nuclear tests since the beginning of 2016. 

On Thursday, the Pentagon sent aircraft carriers the USS Carl Vinson and USS Ronald Reagan to the Sea of Japan for a three-day drill alongside Tokyo's navy and air force. It involved Japanese Air Self Defence Force F-15s taking part in simulated combat with U.S. Navy F-18 fighters as part of what was characterized by Tokyo as a "major exercise." 

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has declared America's era of strategic patience with North Korea over. He has also refused to take possibility of military action off the table.

North Korea has repeatedly rejected calls to curtail its nuclear and missile programs, calling them legitimate self-defense.

Michishita believes North Korea's actions can be viewed as a broad strategy to secure its own future.

"It's not very clear why North Korea has been conducting these missile tests in rapid succession. But one possibility is that it's trying to gain the attention of the United States and to improve their bargaining position in the event of bringing the U.S. to the negotiating table," Michishita said. "If you take a step back and look at the larger picture, the reason for this is that they're trying to establish a deterrence in order to avoid a preventive attack from the United States."

Hiraiwa agreed. "The main objective is to negotiate with the United States by having them accept their present status and build a relationship based on that," he said.

A pedestrian looks at a TV screen broadcasting news of a North Korean missile launch while walking down a street in Tokyo, Japan, on Monday. FRANCK ROBICHON / EPA

Even if that is the case, however, the North Korea issue has raised questions about Japan's strictly defensive national security policy which has been in place since the end of the Second World War.

The Japan Times reported that Abe described Pyongyang's growing military capabilities as presenting "a new level of threat" after three other North Korean missiles landed in the Sea of Japan in March.

Hiraiwa says he thinks Abe's choice of words show he believes that "North Korea's threat level is starting to rise faster than the pace of Japan's defense capabilities."

But on the streets of Tokyo, one woman seemed more concerned about how Monday's launch might impact on her looming vacation.

Tsuyuko Tanaka, 69, said she was planning to go on a cruise that would pass through the area where the latest missile landed — which was in international waters but within Japan's exclusive economic zone.

"The best would be to resolve through dialogue, but I worry whether the North Koreans would listen," Tanaka said.

Arata Yamamoto reported from Tokyo. Eoghan Macguire reported from London. 

U.S. Unemployment Rate Hits 16-Year Low Despite Slower Job Growth - TIME Business

U.S. Unemployment Rate Hits 16-Year Low Despite Slower Job Growth Posted: 02 Jun 2017 06:25 AM PDT (WASHINGTON) — U.S. employers pulled back on hiring in May by adding only 138,000 jobs. Hiring was still enough to help keep pushing unemployment lower. The Labor Department said Friday that the unemployment rate fell to 4.3 percent from 4.4 percent. Hiring in the months of April and March were revised downward by a combined 66,000. Job gains have averaged 121,000 over the past three months, a deceleration from an average of 181,000 over the past 12 months. Average hourly earnings have risen a middling 2.5 percent over the past year. Restaurants and health care firms posted solid job gains. Food services added 30,300 workers, while health care contributed 24,300 jobs. Construction added 11,000 jobs. But manufacturers, retailers and governments shed workers last month. Despite the slowdown in job growth last month, the U.S. economy is running neither too hot nor too cold, with growth holding at a tepid but far from recessionary 2 percent annual rate. Few economists foresee another downturn looming, in part because the recovery from the recession has been steady but grinding, with little sign of the sort of overheated pressures that normally trigger a recession. The government’s monthly jobs report produces a net gain by estimating how many jobs were created and comparing that figure with how many it estimates were lost. If hiring maintains its current pace, it would exceed population growth, and the unemployment rate should eventually fall even further below its current 4.3 percent, a level associated with a healthy economy. Still, the jobs report produces several different measures of unemployment. The broadest gauge includes not only the officially unemployed but also part-time workers who would prefer full-time jobs and people who want a job but aren’t actively looking for one and so aren’t counted as unemployed. Known as the “U-6” rate, this measure is one of the favorite metrics for Trump administration officials. The U-6 has declined since January, an encouraging sign that jobless people who had given up hope of working are now being hired. The falling U-6 points to a strengthening economy despite weak growth during the first three months of the year. But the influx of job seekers can also inflict a drag on pay growth. As more people start seeking jobs, employers begin to have less incentive to raise pay. It’s only when employers face a shallow pool of job applicants that they tend to feel compelled to raise pay in hopes of hiring people who fit their needs. Annual growth in average hourly earnings has been so-so in recent months. And whatever meaningful pay raises that exist are going disproportionately to managers and supervisors. Many of the jobs that have been added over the past year are in the generally lower-paying leisure and hospitality industry — hotels, restaurants and amusement parks. The Trump administration has designated the pace of hiring for good-paying skilled jobs in construction, manufacturing and mining as among the categories it monitors for economic health. Hiring in those three sectors has been comparatively sluggish over the past year.

Could Trump use executive privilege to block Comey testimony? - Reuters

TOP NEWS

Fri Jun 2, 2017 | 11:58 AM EDT

Factbox: Could Trump use executive privilege to block Comey testimony?

By Jan Wolfe

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey will testify on June 8 before a congressional committee investigating Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Comey is expected to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee that President Donald Trump asked him to drop an investigation into former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn's ties to Russia. Trump fired Comey on May 9. 

Legal experts say that Trump could invoke a doctrine called executive privilege to try to stop Comey from testifying. But such a maneuver would draw a backlash and could be challenged in court, they said.

The following describes how executive privilege works and why it could backfire on Trump if he invokes it.

What is executive privilege?

Executive privilege is a legal doctrine that allows the president to withhold information from other government branches.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1974 in U.S. v Nixon that executive privilege can only be used in limited circumstances, such as protecting national security or preserving the confidentiality of sensitive communications within the executive branch.

How would Trump invoke the privilege to block Comey's testimony?

By Jan Wolfe

Former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey will testify on June 8 before a congressional committee investigating Russia's alleged meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Comey is expected to tell the Senate Intelligence Committee that President Donald Trump asked him to drop an investigation into former White House national security adviser Michael Flynn's ties to Russia. Trump fired Comey on May 9.

Legal experts say that Trump could invoke a doctrine called executive privilege to try to stop Comey from testifying. But such a maneuver would draw a backlash and could be challenged in court, they said.

The following describes how executive privilege works and why it could backfire on Trump if he invokes it.

What is executive privilege?

Executive privilege is a legal doctrine that allows the president to withhold information from other government branches.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1974 in U.S. v Nixon that executive privilege can only be used in limited circumstances, such as protecting national security or preserving the confidentiality of sensitive communications within the executive branch.

How would Trump invoke the privilege to block Comey's testimony?

Before invoking executive privilege, the president typically obtains a written memorandum justifying the decision from the Office of Legal Counsel, a division of the Department of Justice. The White House counsel is often informally involved in the decision.

After invoking the privilege, the president can direct current and former government officials to not divulge information.

Have presidents invoked executive privilege in the past?

The term was not coined until the 1950s, but most presidents have invoked some version of it, said Mark Rozell, a professor of government at George Mason University. President Barack Obama asserted the privilege in 2012 to block Congress from seeing documents relating to an investigation into Fast and Furious, a botched gunrunning operation conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

What are the odds that Trump would legally succeed in blocking Comey's testimony?

Legal experts said Trump would face an uphill climb if he asserted executive privilege to stop Comey from testifying before the congressional committee.

Trump likely would argue that Comey's testimony involves confidential conversations or matters of national security. But that claim would be undercut by the fact that the president has publicly discussed and tweeted about his conversations with Comey, said Rozell.

Trump faces another hurdle if he tries to block Comey's testimony. If Trump pressured Comey to drop the Flynn investigation, as Comey is expected to testify, then Trump may have engaged in obstruction of justice, according to some lawyers. Executive privilege cannot be used to "cover up government misconduct," said Andrew Wright, a professor at Savannah Law School.

ALSO IN POLITICS

• Exclusive: Special counsel Mueller to probe ex-Trump aide Flynn's Turkey ties
• Trump to decide whether to block Comey testimony: White House adviser

If Trump invoked the privilege, could Comey disregard it?

Typically a president uses executive privilege to prevent government employees from releasing information. Comey is now a private citizen who does not have to worry about losing his job if he does not comply. Rozell said he knows of no legal sanction for ignoring an assertion of executive privilege, but that it would be "unprecedented" for an assertion of the privilege to be ignored.

Could Trump be challenged in court if he asserts executive privilege?

The president and Congress typically hammer out a compromise when they disagree about whether privilege can be asserted, said Rozell.

But there are instances of executive privilege being challenged in court. When Obama cited the privilege to block the release of documents relating to Fast and Furious, Congress sued and asked a judge to direct then-Attorney General Eric Holder to comply with its subpoena. A judge ruled last year that the Justice Department's public disclosures about the controversy undercut the president's executive privilege claim, saying that the Justice Department had already publicly revealed much of the information it said should be kept private.

It would be procedurally complicated to challenge a decision by Trump to block Comey's testimony. First, Congress would have to issue a subpoena requiring Comey to testify. Then Congress would have to find Comey in contempt if he refused. Congress could then ask a federal judge to force Comey to comply with its subpoena. That litigation would lead to a ruling on whether Trump lawfully invoked executive privilege. "There is a path to judicial review, but a lot of things would have to take place," Wright said.

What are the political risks if Trump tries to assert privilege?

Trump would surely face public criticism if he tries to stop Comey's testimony, Rozell said. Critics could claim Trump is using privilege to thwart questions about potential ties between Russia and Flynn and Russia's alleged influence on the election. "That's the rub with executive privilege: It makes it look like you have something to hide," Rozell said.

Reuters 

Obama, Musk, Other World and Industry Leaders Call Paris Climate Deal Withdrawal a Mistake - NBC News

POLITICS JUN 2 2017, 2:32 AM ET

Obama, Musk, Other World and Industry Leaders Call Paris Climate Deal Withdrawal a Mistake

by PHIL HELSEL  and LEIGH ANN CALDWELL

Former President Barack Obama said on Thursday that the cities and businesses of the United States should step up to reduce greenhouse gases after President Donald Trump announced that America would withdraw from the Paris climate change accord.

The mayor of Pittsburgh, pushing back on Trump's statement that he was elected to represent the citizens of that former steel-making giant rather than those of Paris, condemned the withdrawal.

Tech entrepreneur Elon Musk immediately announced he will quit presidential advisory councils. Disney CEO Bob Iger said he was out, too. General Electric Chairman and CEO Jeff Immelt said "Climate change is real. Industry must now lead and not depend on government."

Elon Musk

✔

@elonmusk

Am departing presidential councils. Climate change is real. Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.

6:02 AM - 2 Jun 2017

• 191,773 191,773 Retweets
  421,940 421,940 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

"The United States joins Syria, Nicaragua & Russia in deciding not to participate with world's Paris Agreement. It's now up to cities to lead," Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto, a Democrat, said on Twitter.

Trump said at an announcement at the Rose Garden on Thursday that the United States would withdraw from the international agreement negotiated under Obama, citing a desire to protect American jobs and fuel what he has claimed would be three percent economic growth.

Related: What It Means That Trump Is Leaving the Paris Climate Agreement

Because Obama didn't ask the Senate for approval of the Paris accord, Trump can act unilaterally without the consent of Congress. Democrats, however, could slow down any action on the floor in retaliation of the decision and tie any pending nominations to the issue, actions that won't change the outcome but frustrate Republicans and the White House.

Obama said in a statement that a withdrawal means an abdication of American leadership. 

"The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs and industries created. I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack," Obama said in the statement. 

"But even in the absence of American leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I'm confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we've got," Obama said. 

Related: California and Other States Step Into the Climate Policy Void

Reaction on Capitol Hill was mostly partisan, with Republicans standing by the president's decision, praising the U.S.'s withdrawal as good for the economy. "President Trump has once again put families and jobs ahead of left-wing ideology and should be commended for his action," Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

But some Republicans in Congress opposed Trump's move. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine said on Twitter: "Climate change requires a global approach. I'm disappointed in the President's decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement."

Republican Rep. Carlos Curbelo of Florida, who is expected to have a tough re-election in his swing district in south Florida, lobbed a series of tweets in opposition.

Carlos Curbelo

✔

@carloslcurbelo

Something's not right when @POTUS is putting our country on a list with bad hombres Bashar al Assad of Syria & Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua

6:01 AM - 2 Jun 2017

• 135 135 Retweets
  269 269 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Trump had pledged on the campaign trail to withdraw from the 2015 Paris climate accord, which is a non-binding agreement that asks that all signing countries — rich and poor — take concrete steps to reduce their carbon emissions in the face of climate change.

The Obama administration pledged a 26 to 28 percent cut in U.S. emissions, which Republicans have criticized for potentially having a negative impact on the American economy and its energy sector.

Former Sectary of State John Kerry said on MSNBC that the move to withdraw from the Paris deal was "an extraordinary abdication of American leadership."

He noted that the program was voluntary, and the United States was not forced to do anything under the accord.

"It was a voluntary program. We designed the program," Kerry said. "The president was not truthful with the American people today, and the president who talked about putting 'America first' has now put America last."

Withdrawing from the climate deal could take three years, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said this week.

And French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Italian Premier Paolo Gentiloni said in a joint statement Thursday that they take note "with regret" the U.S. decision to pull out of the 2015 agreement.

The three leaders say they regard the accord as "a cornerstone in the cooperation between our countries, for effectively and timely tackling climate change."

They added that the course charted by the accord is "irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated."

Macron, Merkel and Gentiloni say they remain committed to the deal and will "step up efforts" to support the poorest and most threatened nations.

Tim Cook

✔

@tim_cook

Decision to withdraw from the #ParisAgreeement was wrong for our planet. Apple is committed to fight climate change and we will never waver.

10:36 AM - 2 Jun 2017

• 9,195 9,195 Retweets
  22,763 22,763 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric called Trump's decision a "major disappointment for global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote global security."

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said on Thursday "We are deeply disappointed that the United States federal government has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement" and said Canada is committed to fighting climate change.

Related: Fact Checking Trump's Paris Agreement Speech

Trump on Thursday left open the possibility of renegotiating what he called a better deal that would put American taxpayers first, and suggested the climate deal was a ruse that put the United States at a competitive disadvantage.

"The agreement is a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries," Trump said.

Former President Bill Clinton said on Twitter: "Walking away from Paris treaty is a mistake. Climate change is real. We owe our children more. Protecting our future also creates more jobs."

And Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein said in his first tweet from a verified account that "Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world," adding the hashtag #ParisAgreement.

Lloyd Blankfein

✔

@lloydblankfein

Today's decision is a setback for the environment and for the U.S.'s leadership position in the world. #ParisAgreement

7:20 AM - 2 Jun 2017

• 8,477 8,477 Retweets
  18,607 18,607 likes

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The governors of New York, California, and Washington state said in a statement that they would form a "United States Climate Alliance" which they called "a coalition that will convene U.S. states committed to upholding the Paris Climate Agreement and taking aggressive action on climate change."

Related: Why Trump Is Seeing Red About the 'Green Climate Fund'

A speaker at a protest near the White House called the move "treason" and the crowd chanted "lock him up," a play off of Trump supporters' chants targeting Hillary Clinton during the presidential campaign.

Trump's announced withdrawal from the climate deal was not unexpected. On Wednesday in a tweet in which Trump said he would announce his decision on Thursday, the president ended with his signature phrase: "Make America great again." 

Trump's withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord branded worst policy blunder - Independent

Trump's withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord branded worse policy blunder

Donald Trump's decision to withdraw the US from the Paris climate deal has been labelled an “international disgrace” by world leaders, US politicians and environmental groups, who all lined-up to decry the President's announcement. 

The President’s decision to pull the US out of the accord aligns the country with Syria and Nicaragua, the only two nations that did not sign up for the 195-nation deal reached in Paris in 2015.

Mr Trump called German Chancellor Angela Merkel, French President Emmanuel Macron, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and British Prime Minister Theresa May after his speech announcing his decision – but that did not stop his allies from voicing their displeasure.

Ms May told Mr Trump that she was disappointed and stressed that the UK remained committed to the agreement.

Italy, France and Germany issued a joint statement saying they regretted Mr Trump's decision to withdraw, and dismissed his suggestion that the global pact could be revised. The US President said he is seeking a “fairer deal” that would protect American workers. 

“We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris agreement cannot be renegotiated since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” the leaders of the three countries said.

The unusual French-Italian-German statement, released barely an hour after Mr Trump announced his decision, underscored the disappointment of the Eurozone's three largest economies and their resolve to plough ahead without Washington's support.

Ms Merkel said that she would continue to work to “save the Earth” while Mr Macron said there was “no plan B because there is no planet B”. Aping Mr Trump's 'Make America Great Again' slog, Mr Macron urged nations to “make our planet great again”.

Back in the US, former President Barack Obama – who helped shape the Paris accord – said Mr Trump's administration was joining “a small handful of nations that reject the future”.

Bernie Sanders, the Vermont Senator, called the US’s withdrawal an “abdication of American leadership”.  

“At this moment, when climate change is already causing devastating harm around the world, we do not have the moral right to turn our backs on efforts to preserve this planet for future generations,” Mr Sanders said.

Democratic senator Sheldon Whitehouse, co-chair of the US Senate’s Climate Action Task Force said, “ignoring reality and leaving the Paris agreement could go down as one of the worst foreign policy blunders in our nation's history.”

Democratic congresswoman Norma Torres, a member of the House’s natural resources committee, noted that the agreement was a “landmark achievement that saw unprecedented cooperation between 175 nations and all sectors of the economy.”

“To say this was a diplomatic victory for the United States would be an understatement,” Ms Torres said. “However, once again, we're seeing President Trump cede US global leadership to suit his personal political agenda.” 

Tanya Steele, chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund, said the US’s withdrawal “would make it harder for the world, to reach a safer and more prosperous future.”

“Most people in the UK want the Prime Minister to convince President Trump to stay true to what was agreed in Paris and we urge the next UK Government to press for the USA to urgently re-join the Agreement,” Ms Steele said. 

She added: “The Paris Agreement is more important than just one country and with over 196 signatories it will continue to work towards a low carbon, sustainable future. The Trump administration must not only back the agreement but be a driving force in tackling climate change.”

Anne Hidalgo, the mayor of Paris and Chair of the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, urged Mr Trump to reconsider his “short-sighted” decision.