August 21, 2018.
What Microsoft's Revelation about Russian Hacking Means for the Midterms
Trump, Putin Deny Russian Meddling in the 2016 Election.
Here’s what they had to say.
By HALLIE DETRICK 5:41 AM EDT
Microsoft announced Monday that it had detected and thwarted the early stages of an attempted attack on the U.S. Senate and two conservative think tanks by Fancy Bear, the Russia-linked group that hacked the Democratic National Committee in 2016.
Microsoft president Brad Smith told The New York Times that the latest detected threat demonstrates a broadening in the types of websites hackers are going after, to now include organizations that are “informally tied to Republicans.”
Eric Rosenbach, the director of the Defending Digital Democracy project at Harvard University, similarly emphasized to the Times that Russians are attacking organizations based on their own self-interest rather than a preference between the two major American parties: “It’s about disrupting and diminishing any group that challenges how Putin’s Russia is operating at home and around the world.”
This latest attempt to gain access to political leaders ahead of the midterms is not the only one that has been detected. Last week it emerged that two Democratic congressional primary candidates were hacked, though the attacker has not yet been publicly identified.
Microsoft received a court order to take control of six websites that were designed to resemble Congressional domains, such as “senate.group” and “adfs-senate.email.” The Hudson Institute and the International Republican Institute were also targeted. Using these domains, hackers could have carried out a “spearphishing” attack to obtain user credentials, similar to the one that brought down Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta in 2016.
The latest revelation comes amid rising tensions between the U.S. and Russia ahead of the midterm elections. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of links between the Trump campaign and Russia continues, and a U.S. grand jury indicted 12 Russian intelligence officers on charges of hacking the computer networks of the Democratic Party and Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2016. Meanwhile, President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin continue to deny any Russian meddling in the election, even as politicians and experts warn that the system remains vulnerable to attack.
Tuesday, August 21, 2018
Despite Talks With China, Trump Is in No Rush to Call Off His Trade War - Daily Intelligencer ( New York Magazine )
August 21, 2018.
Despite Talks With China, Trump Is in No Rush to Call Off His Trade War
By Jonah Shepp
Trump’s not expecting much from talks with China. Photo: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Stock markets rose around the world on Monday on the news that the U.S. and China are beginning mid-level talks in Washington this week to try to resolve the escalating trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies, even as another $16 billion round of tariffs comes into effect. By the end of the trading day, Wall Street had dipped after President Donald Trump told Reuters in an interview that he was “not thrilled” with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s agenda of raising interest rates.
The rest of the Reuters interview was released after the closing bell and was not priced into Monday’s trading, but likely would have erased more of those gains, as Trump said he wasn’t expecting much to come out of this week’s talks. “I’m like them, I have a long horizon,” Trump told the agency, explaining that he had “no time frame” for ending the dispute.
It’s never clear whether Trump is on the same page of the policy agenda as his officials, but in this case, the president’s statement appeared to contradict what American and Chinese officials told the Wall Street Journal on Friday, which is that they are aiming to reach a deal to avert a trade war by the time Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the G20 summit in November.
The Chinese government is eager to see the dispute settled quickly, for obvious reasons: A protracted trade conflict with the U.S. would damage China economically and complicate Xi’s plans to transform the country from a low-wage manufacturing powerhouse into a global leader in high technology. He has reportedly instructed his deputies to stabilize the relationship with the U.S. as soon as possible.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, is not in such a rush. November is still three long months away, and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office wants to delay negotiations and keep ratcheting up the tariff pressure in an attempt to secure a deal from a position of dominance in October.
Needless to say, the U.S. business community is not thrilled at the prospect of even more barriers to trade with a country they rely on for all manner of raw materials and finished goods. The U.S. has so far slapped duties on $34 billion of Chinese goods, but the USTR wants to impose another $200 billion on a wider range of imports, including for the first time an array of consumer goods.
In the first of six days of public hearings on the new proposed tariffs on Monday, business owners warned that they would lead to huge price hikes, driving up consumer costs and putting tremendous, possibly ruinous strain on import-dependent American businesses. Meanwhile, the CEO of the global shipping giant Maersk said in a presentation on Friday that Trump’s protectionist tariffs on China and other countries could slow U.S. trade growth by up to 3 or 4 percent: a huge hit.
Granted, these businesses have a direct interest in the public believing that claim and in the administration forgoing another round of tariffs, but it’s not hard to see how raising the price of Chinese furniture and lighting products, tires, chemicals, and plastics, among other things, by as much as 25 percent would hit Americans in the wallet and disrupt a variety of U.S. industries. Of course, Trump might in that case turn around and blame these companies for passing the costs onto consumers.
The deal with Beijing the administration hopes to negotiate would see China reduce industrial subsidies, cut production in industries like steel and aluminum where overproduction has been depressing global prices, stop pressuring U.S. companies to hand over proprietary technology, buy more U.S. goods and services, and bolster the value of its currency, the yuan, to make the dollar more competitive.
This is a hefty slate of demands, but significantly pared down from the completely unreasonable proposal U.S. negotiators put forth in May, which would have compelled China to cut its trade surplus by $200 billion, abandon its industrial policies, and refrain from contesting U.S. lawsuits against it at the World Trade Organization. That was never going to happen. Under pressure and eager to reach a resolution, China may be more amenable to the less stringent terms now on offer, or some approximation thereof.
On the other hand, the Trump administration needs to be wary of China accepting a deal, then failing to fulfill its side of the bargain. Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that China has failed to keep its promises on trade in the past and has been evasive about the behaviors this deal would seek to curb, such as intellectual property theft. The administration, Scissors argues, will need to enforce any deal rigorously, using the threat of sanctions.
Beijing might well balk at such conditions, however, and even if Xi is eager to make a deal, he will not bend over backwards to accept whatever the U.S. is magnanimous enough to give him. The economic impact of a full-on trade war would complicate things politically for Xi, but giving into American demands to his country’s disadvantage would be even more damaging to his prestige. Xi has consolidated his power in Beijing, indeed to a troubling extent, and will likely remain in control of the country for another decade or more no matter what, but if he is given a choice between belt-tightening and national humiliation, he won’t have to think too hard about that decision.
Anyway, China’s efforts to become a global economic superpower are proceeding apace in other realms, such as Belt and Road Initiative, a drive to massively upgrade overland trade infrastructure between China, Central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as sea routes to Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa. This huge endeavor will project Chinese trade power in these regions, particularly Africa, to an even greater degree than its influence is already being felt.
There is a strong current in Chinese political discourse today that its rise to superpower status is unstoppable, even in the face of American resistance. Indeed, a trade war would much more likely slow that process than stop it completely. China’s dominance of global manufacturing was as much an organic product of globalization as a deliberate consequence of Chinese industrial policy or U.S. trade policy. Xi’s high-tech ambitions today reflect the fact that China is actually beginning to lose low-cost manufacturing operations to other, less developed Asian countries with lower labor costs.
China is going to keep on being China, no matter what Trump does. Yes, Beijing needs to be held accountable for its anti-competitive trade practices, but there may be limits to how far a trade war can go toward achieving that goal without doing unacceptable damage to the U.S. economy instead.
Perhaps the most important question to ask about these trade wars is what would it mean to win them? Trump’s obsession with trade deficits, based on the unorthodox theories embraced by his key economic advisers, has led to these deficits actually expanding as U.S. buyers rush to place import orders before prices go up. Trump’s economic policies in general are unlikely to reduce the U.S.’s current account deficit, economist Scott Sumner argues in an op-ed at The Hill, and hardly anyone other than Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and the president himself believes that trade deficits reduce American economic output.
No matter what Trump believes, trade is not zero-sum. Before the administration embarks on a trade war with China, perhaps it should explain to the American people exactly what it would mean to win it.
Despite Talks With China, Trump Is in No Rush to Call Off His Trade War
By Jonah Shepp
Trump’s not expecting much from talks with China. Photo: Bloomberg/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Stock markets rose around the world on Monday on the news that the U.S. and China are beginning mid-level talks in Washington this week to try to resolve the escalating trade conflict between the world’s two largest economies, even as another $16 billion round of tariffs comes into effect. By the end of the trading day, Wall Street had dipped after President Donald Trump told Reuters in an interview that he was “not thrilled” with Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell’s agenda of raising interest rates.
The rest of the Reuters interview was released after the closing bell and was not priced into Monday’s trading, but likely would have erased more of those gains, as Trump said he wasn’t expecting much to come out of this week’s talks. “I’m like them, I have a long horizon,” Trump told the agency, explaining that he had “no time frame” for ending the dispute.
It’s never clear whether Trump is on the same page of the policy agenda as his officials, but in this case, the president’s statement appeared to contradict what American and Chinese officials told the Wall Street Journal on Friday, which is that they are aiming to reach a deal to avert a trade war by the time Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping are scheduled to meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum and the G20 summit in November.
The Chinese government is eager to see the dispute settled quickly, for obvious reasons: A protracted trade conflict with the U.S. would damage China economically and complicate Xi’s plans to transform the country from a low-wage manufacturing powerhouse into a global leader in high technology. He has reportedly instructed his deputies to stabilize the relationship with the U.S. as soon as possible.
The Trump administration, on the other hand, is not in such a rush. November is still three long months away, and the U.S. Trade Representative’s office wants to delay negotiations and keep ratcheting up the tariff pressure in an attempt to secure a deal from a position of dominance in October.
Needless to say, the U.S. business community is not thrilled at the prospect of even more barriers to trade with a country they rely on for all manner of raw materials and finished goods. The U.S. has so far slapped duties on $34 billion of Chinese goods, but the USTR wants to impose another $200 billion on a wider range of imports, including for the first time an array of consumer goods.
In the first of six days of public hearings on the new proposed tariffs on Monday, business owners warned that they would lead to huge price hikes, driving up consumer costs and putting tremendous, possibly ruinous strain on import-dependent American businesses. Meanwhile, the CEO of the global shipping giant Maersk said in a presentation on Friday that Trump’s protectionist tariffs on China and other countries could slow U.S. trade growth by up to 3 or 4 percent: a huge hit.
Granted, these businesses have a direct interest in the public believing that claim and in the administration forgoing another round of tariffs, but it’s not hard to see how raising the price of Chinese furniture and lighting products, tires, chemicals, and plastics, among other things, by as much as 25 percent would hit Americans in the wallet and disrupt a variety of U.S. industries. Of course, Trump might in that case turn around and blame these companies for passing the costs onto consumers.
The deal with Beijing the administration hopes to negotiate would see China reduce industrial subsidies, cut production in industries like steel and aluminum where overproduction has been depressing global prices, stop pressuring U.S. companies to hand over proprietary technology, buy more U.S. goods and services, and bolster the value of its currency, the yuan, to make the dollar more competitive.
This is a hefty slate of demands, but significantly pared down from the completely unreasonable proposal U.S. negotiators put forth in May, which would have compelled China to cut its trade surplus by $200 billion, abandon its industrial policies, and refrain from contesting U.S. lawsuits against it at the World Trade Organization. That was never going to happen. Under pressure and eager to reach a resolution, China may be more amenable to the less stringent terms now on offer, or some approximation thereof.
On the other hand, the Trump administration needs to be wary of China accepting a deal, then failing to fulfill its side of the bargain. Derek Scissors, a China expert at the American Enterprise Institute, points out that China has failed to keep its promises on trade in the past and has been evasive about the behaviors this deal would seek to curb, such as intellectual property theft. The administration, Scissors argues, will need to enforce any deal rigorously, using the threat of sanctions.
Beijing might well balk at such conditions, however, and even if Xi is eager to make a deal, he will not bend over backwards to accept whatever the U.S. is magnanimous enough to give him. The economic impact of a full-on trade war would complicate things politically for Xi, but giving into American demands to his country’s disadvantage would be even more damaging to his prestige. Xi has consolidated his power in Beijing, indeed to a troubling extent, and will likely remain in control of the country for another decade or more no matter what, but if he is given a choice between belt-tightening and national humiliation, he won’t have to think too hard about that decision.
Anyway, China’s efforts to become a global economic superpower are proceeding apace in other realms, such as Belt and Road Initiative, a drive to massively upgrade overland trade infrastructure between China, Central Asia, Europe, and the Middle East, as well as sea routes to Southeast Asia, South Asia, and Africa. This huge endeavor will project Chinese trade power in these regions, particularly Africa, to an even greater degree than its influence is already being felt.
There is a strong current in Chinese political discourse today that its rise to superpower status is unstoppable, even in the face of American resistance. Indeed, a trade war would much more likely slow that process than stop it completely. China’s dominance of global manufacturing was as much an organic product of globalization as a deliberate consequence of Chinese industrial policy or U.S. trade policy. Xi’s high-tech ambitions today reflect the fact that China is actually beginning to lose low-cost manufacturing operations to other, less developed Asian countries with lower labor costs.
China is going to keep on being China, no matter what Trump does. Yes, Beijing needs to be held accountable for its anti-competitive trade practices, but there may be limits to how far a trade war can go toward achieving that goal without doing unacceptable damage to the U.S. economy instead.
Perhaps the most important question to ask about these trade wars is what would it mean to win them? Trump’s obsession with trade deficits, based on the unorthodox theories embraced by his key economic advisers, has led to these deficits actually expanding as U.S. buyers rush to place import orders before prices go up. Trump’s economic policies in general are unlikely to reduce the U.S.’s current account deficit, economist Scott Sumner argues in an op-ed at The Hill, and hardly anyone other than Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and the president himself believes that trade deficits reduce American economic output.
No matter what Trump believes, trade is not zero-sum. Before the administration embarks on a trade war with China, perhaps it should explain to the American people exactly what it would mean to win it.
Trump floats possibility of taking over Mueller probe: 'I can go in and I could do whatever, I could run it if I want' - Fox News
August 21, 2018.
Trump floats possibility of taking over Mueller probe: 'I can go in and I could do whatever, I could run it if I want'
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
Trump expresses increasing frustration with Mueller probe
President accuses Democrats of using the special counsel to impact midterm elections; Kevin Corke reports from the White House.
President Trump asserted on Monday that he would be "totally allowed" to take over Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe if he wanted to, in another thinly veiled broadside against an investigation he has repeatedly derided as a partisan "witch hunt."
"I can go in, and I could do whatever — I could run it if I want," Trump told Reuters. "But I decided to stay out. I’m totally allowed to be involved if I wanted to be. So far, I haven’t chosen to be involved. I’ll stay out."
The extraordinary comment -- apparently a reference to Trump's executive authority to order Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department to fire or replace Mueller -- came as jurors continued to deliberate in the first trial brought as a result of Mueller's probe. There was no verdict in the case on Monday, raising the defense team's hopes after three days of deliberations.
Trump also repeated the concerns raised publicly by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, that speaking with Mueller's team directly would expose him to perjury charges, even if he told the truth.
President Trump's attorney accuses the special counsel of trying to run the Russia investigation into the midterm elections on 'The Story.'
TRUMP LASHES OUT AT MUELLER 'THUGS' IN MONDAY TWEETS, CALLS SPECIAL COUNSEL A 'NATIONAL DISGRACE'
“So if I say something and [former FBI Director James Comey] says something, and it’s my word against his, and he’s best friends with Mueller, so Mueller might say: ‘Well, I believe Comey,’ and even if I’m telling the truth, that makes me a liar," Trump said. "That’s no good.”
Speaking exclusively to Fox News' "The Story with Martha MacCallum" Monday night, Giuliani defended his comment Sunday that "truth isn't truth," which drew a firestorm of criticism on social media. Prosecutors can bring perjury charges against an honest witness, Giuliani said, as long as they can find others to present an alternative version of events.
Giuliani also alleged that Mueller's team was trying to cause political damage for Trump, even though, he said, prosecutors had assured him they did not want to repeat Comey's mistakes.
"They're trying to run this right up until the election," Giuliani said, calling the investigation a "travesty."
"They're trying to do the same thing Comey did -- they're trying to be the judge and jury of the 2018 election," he added.
Giuliani also downplayed a report over the weekend that White House Counsel Don McGahn had extensive meetings with Mueller, saying McGahn is an "honorable" man who would have resigned long ago if Trump had told him to do anything illegal.
"They're trying to do the same thing Comey did -- they're trying to be the judge and jury of the 2018 election."
- Rudy Giuliani
"I can't imagine him sitting around the White House for six months with a president he thinks committed a crime," Giuliani said.
Trump also told Reuters that he hadn't "given a lot of thought" to the possibility of revoking Mueller's security clearance -- a move that would be sure to trigger a political uproar in Washington and potentially unravel the Mueller probe.
Last week, the White House terminated ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance, charging that he had misled Congress about the CIA's role in spying on Senate staffers and improperly politicized his access to classified information with his attacks on the president.
Trump told Reuters the Mueller probe had “played right into the Russians - if it was Russia - they played right into the Russians’ hands.”
Separately, Trump also responded to the news that several tech giants, including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, had removed or banned content from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
"I won't mention names, but when they take certain people off of Twitter or Facebook and they're making that decision, that is really a dangerous thing because that could be you tomorrow," Trump said.
Fox News' Martha MacCallum contributed to this report.
Trump floats possibility of taking over Mueller probe: 'I can go in and I could do whatever, I could run it if I want'
Gregg Re By Gregg Re | Fox News
Trump expresses increasing frustration with Mueller probe
President accuses Democrats of using the special counsel to impact midterm elections; Kevin Corke reports from the White House.
President Trump asserted on Monday that he would be "totally allowed" to take over Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe if he wanted to, in another thinly veiled broadside against an investigation he has repeatedly derided as a partisan "witch hunt."
"I can go in, and I could do whatever — I could run it if I want," Trump told Reuters. "But I decided to stay out. I’m totally allowed to be involved if I wanted to be. So far, I haven’t chosen to be involved. I’ll stay out."
The extraordinary comment -- apparently a reference to Trump's executive authority to order Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein at the Justice Department to fire or replace Mueller -- came as jurors continued to deliberate in the first trial brought as a result of Mueller's probe. There was no verdict in the case on Monday, raising the defense team's hopes after three days of deliberations.
Trump also repeated the concerns raised publicly by his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, that speaking with Mueller's team directly would expose him to perjury charges, even if he told the truth.
President Trump's attorney accuses the special counsel of trying to run the Russia investigation into the midterm elections on 'The Story.'
TRUMP LASHES OUT AT MUELLER 'THUGS' IN MONDAY TWEETS, CALLS SPECIAL COUNSEL A 'NATIONAL DISGRACE'
“So if I say something and [former FBI Director James Comey] says something, and it’s my word against his, and he’s best friends with Mueller, so Mueller might say: ‘Well, I believe Comey,’ and even if I’m telling the truth, that makes me a liar," Trump said. "That’s no good.”
Speaking exclusively to Fox News' "The Story with Martha MacCallum" Monday night, Giuliani defended his comment Sunday that "truth isn't truth," which drew a firestorm of criticism on social media. Prosecutors can bring perjury charges against an honest witness, Giuliani said, as long as they can find others to present an alternative version of events.
Giuliani also alleged that Mueller's team was trying to cause political damage for Trump, even though, he said, prosecutors had assured him they did not want to repeat Comey's mistakes.
"They're trying to run this right up until the election," Giuliani said, calling the investigation a "travesty."
"They're trying to do the same thing Comey did -- they're trying to be the judge and jury of the 2018 election," he added.
Giuliani also downplayed a report over the weekend that White House Counsel Don McGahn had extensive meetings with Mueller, saying McGahn is an "honorable" man who would have resigned long ago if Trump had told him to do anything illegal.
"They're trying to do the same thing Comey did -- they're trying to be the judge and jury of the 2018 election."
- Rudy Giuliani
"I can't imagine him sitting around the White House for six months with a president he thinks committed a crime," Giuliani said.
Trump also told Reuters that he hadn't "given a lot of thought" to the possibility of revoking Mueller's security clearance -- a move that would be sure to trigger a political uproar in Washington and potentially unravel the Mueller probe.
Last week, the White House terminated ex-CIA Director John Brennan's security clearance, charging that he had misled Congress about the CIA's role in spying on Senate staffers and improperly politicized his access to classified information with his attacks on the president.
Trump told Reuters the Mueller probe had “played right into the Russians - if it was Russia - they played right into the Russians’ hands.”
Separately, Trump also responded to the news that several tech giants, including Google, Apple, Facebook, and Twitter, had removed or banned content from conspiracy theorist Alex Jones.
"I won't mention names, but when they take certain people off of Twitter or Facebook and they're making that decision, that is really a dangerous thing because that could be you tomorrow," Trump said.
Fox News' Martha MacCallum contributed to this report.
Russia plans largest war games since end of Soviet Union - CNN
Russia plans largest war games since end of Soviet Union
By Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 0852 GMT (1652 HKT) August 21, 2018
A Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft makes a very-low altitude pass by the USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) April 12. Donald Cook, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, forward deployed to Rota, Spain is conducting a routine patrol in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe.
Putin announces 'invincible' new missile (March 2018)
(CNN)Russia will stage the its largest war games since the fall of the Soviet Union next month, the country's Defense Ministry said Monday.
Thousands of troops from China and Mongolia are expected to join in the exercises in Siberia, dubbed Vostok 2018, according to statements from the Russian and Chinese defense ministries.
The games will have an "unprecedented scale both in territory and number of troops involved," supreme commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces, General Sergi Shoigu, said in a statement.
Shoigu said it would be the "largest event since the Zapad-81 maneuvers," which involved as many as 150,000 troops, according to CIA documents.
Those exercises saw the Soviet Union test new weapons, including intermediate range ballistic missiles. Videos from the Zapad-81 games show huge formations of tanks and artillery as well as jet aircraft making mock attacks.
If Vostok 2018 is of the scope Shoigu suggested, it would be bigger than the Kremlin's Vostok 2014 exercises. Those involved 155,000 troops, 8,000 pieces of equipment, more than 600 aircraft and 80 naval vessels.
China's contribution to the massive exercises will be 3,200 troops, 900 weapons, and 30 planes and helicopters, which will deploy from September 11 to 15 at Russia's Tsugol training range near where the borders of Russia, China and eastern Mongolia meet, China's Defense Ministry said in a statement.
"The exercise is not directed against any third party" and will focus on "maneuver defense, firepower strikes and counterattack," it added.
The September dates announced by China overlap with the Russian-sponsored Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. Chinese President Xi Jinping is among the leaders expected to attend this year's version of the annual event, hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In preparation for the September war games, Russian military chief Shoigu ordered surprise combat readiness inspections of airborne troops as well as long-range aviation and air transport units.
The inspections involve "16 special exercises" with an emphasis on "aviation readiness" and "timely deployment of military command and control bodies."
Russia has been highlighting its military this year, with Putin in March boasting of new weaponry he claimed would render NATO defenses "completely useless." Some of those arms were shown off in a video released shortly after his July summit with US President Donald Trump.
While the US military has cast doubt on the abilities of the new Russian weapons, a US Defense Intelligence Agency report from 2017 notes Moscow is in the midst of "a massive state armaments program" aimed at equipping its forces with "70% new or modernized equipment by 2020."
At the same time, China is also modernizing its military, launching new warships, including its first domestically made aircraft carrier, and world-class guided-missile destroyers. Earlier this year Beijing pronounced its newest stealth fighter, the J-20, combat ready.
A Pentagon report on China's military released last week said Beijing was developing its fleet of long-range bombers and "likely" training its pilots for missions targeting the US.
China called the US report "irresponsible" and said Beijing's military moves are only designed to safeguard its "sovereignty and security."
CNN's Serenitie Wang and Angus Watson contributed to this report.
By Brad Lendon, CNN
Updated 0852 GMT (1652 HKT) August 21, 2018
A Russian Sukhoi Su-24 attack aircraft makes a very-low altitude pass by the USS Donald Cook (DDG 75) April 12. Donald Cook, an Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer, forward deployed to Rota, Spain is conducting a routine patrol in the U.S. 6th Fleet area of operations in support of U.S. national security interests in Europe.
Putin announces 'invincible' new missile (March 2018)
(CNN)Russia will stage the its largest war games since the fall of the Soviet Union next month, the country's Defense Ministry said Monday.
Thousands of troops from China and Mongolia are expected to join in the exercises in Siberia, dubbed Vostok 2018, according to statements from the Russian and Chinese defense ministries.
The games will have an "unprecedented scale both in territory and number of troops involved," supreme commander-in-chief of the Russian armed forces, General Sergi Shoigu, said in a statement.
Shoigu said it would be the "largest event since the Zapad-81 maneuvers," which involved as many as 150,000 troops, according to CIA documents.
Those exercises saw the Soviet Union test new weapons, including intermediate range ballistic missiles. Videos from the Zapad-81 games show huge formations of tanks and artillery as well as jet aircraft making mock attacks.
If Vostok 2018 is of the scope Shoigu suggested, it would be bigger than the Kremlin's Vostok 2014 exercises. Those involved 155,000 troops, 8,000 pieces of equipment, more than 600 aircraft and 80 naval vessels.
China's contribution to the massive exercises will be 3,200 troops, 900 weapons, and 30 planes and helicopters, which will deploy from September 11 to 15 at Russia's Tsugol training range near where the borders of Russia, China and eastern Mongolia meet, China's Defense Ministry said in a statement.
"The exercise is not directed against any third party" and will focus on "maneuver defense, firepower strikes and counterattack," it added.
The September dates announced by China overlap with the Russian-sponsored Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok. Chinese President Xi Jinping is among the leaders expected to attend this year's version of the annual event, hosted by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In preparation for the September war games, Russian military chief Shoigu ordered surprise combat readiness inspections of airborne troops as well as long-range aviation and air transport units.
The inspections involve "16 special exercises" with an emphasis on "aviation readiness" and "timely deployment of military command and control bodies."
Russia has been highlighting its military this year, with Putin in March boasting of new weaponry he claimed would render NATO defenses "completely useless." Some of those arms were shown off in a video released shortly after his July summit with US President Donald Trump.
While the US military has cast doubt on the abilities of the new Russian weapons, a US Defense Intelligence Agency report from 2017 notes Moscow is in the midst of "a massive state armaments program" aimed at equipping its forces with "70% new or modernized equipment by 2020."
At the same time, China is also modernizing its military, launching new warships, including its first domestically made aircraft carrier, and world-class guided-missile destroyers. Earlier this year Beijing pronounced its newest stealth fighter, the J-20, combat ready.
A Pentagon report on China's military released last week said Beijing was developing its fleet of long-range bombers and "likely" training its pilots for missions targeting the US.
China called the US report "irresponsible" and said Beijing's military moves are only designed to safeguard its "sovereignty and security."
CNN's Serenitie Wang and Angus Watson contributed to this report.
Microsoft claims win over 'Russian political hackers' - BBC News
August 21, 2018.
Microsoft claims win over 'Russian political hackers'
A Russian hacking group known as Fancy Bear is accused of trying to disrupt the US midterm elections
Russian attempts to launch cyber-attacks against US conservative groups have been thwarted, Microsoft says.
The software company said Russian hackers had tried to steal data from political organisations, including the International Republican Institute and the Hudson Institute think tanks.
But they had been thwarted when its security staff had won control of six net domains mimicking their websites.
Microsoft said the Fancy Bear hacking group had been behind the attacks.
Domain control
"We're concerned that these and other attempts pose security threats to a broadening array of groups connected with both American political parties in the run-up to the 2018 elections," Microsoft said in its blog detailing its work.
The thwarted attack was likely the start of a "spear phishing" campaign, said Microsoft. This would involve tricking people into visiting the mimicked domains allowing the Fancy Bear group to see and steal login information that people use.
As well as the two think-tanks, the domains seized were associated with several Senate offices and services. One domain sought to mimic Microsoft's Office 365 online service.
Hunt wants 'malign' Russia to face action
Trump relaxes rules around cyber-attacks
US accuses Russia of 'pervasive' meddling
The New York Times suggested that the two think tanks were targeted because they were former supporters of President Trump but were now foes who had called for more sanctions to be imposed on Russia.
The International Republican Institute's directors include Senator John McCain and General HR McMaster who was replaced earlier this year as the White House national security adviser.
IRI president Daniel Twining told the Times that the attacks were consistent with the "campaign of meddling" the Kremlin is known to have indulged in.
In its blog, Microsoft president Brad Smith said it had grabbed dodgy domains 12 times in two years to shut down 84 websites associated with Fancy Bear.
It said that, so far, it had no evidence that the domains had been used in any attacks.
Microsoft added that the attack activity seen around the domains "mirrors" what it saw in 2016 in the US and during the 2017 election in France.
Microsoft's action comes soon after the US charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking computer networks used by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Russia has consistently denied meddling in the elections or mounting any cyber-attacks on US institutions.
Microsoft claims win over 'Russian political hackers'
A Russian hacking group known as Fancy Bear is accused of trying to disrupt the US midterm elections
Russian attempts to launch cyber-attacks against US conservative groups have been thwarted, Microsoft says.
The software company said Russian hackers had tried to steal data from political organisations, including the International Republican Institute and the Hudson Institute think tanks.
But they had been thwarted when its security staff had won control of six net domains mimicking their websites.
Microsoft said the Fancy Bear hacking group had been behind the attacks.
Domain control
"We're concerned that these and other attempts pose security threats to a broadening array of groups connected with both American political parties in the run-up to the 2018 elections," Microsoft said in its blog detailing its work.
The thwarted attack was likely the start of a "spear phishing" campaign, said Microsoft. This would involve tricking people into visiting the mimicked domains allowing the Fancy Bear group to see and steal login information that people use.
As well as the two think-tanks, the domains seized were associated with several Senate offices and services. One domain sought to mimic Microsoft's Office 365 online service.
Hunt wants 'malign' Russia to face action
Trump relaxes rules around cyber-attacks
US accuses Russia of 'pervasive' meddling
The New York Times suggested that the two think tanks were targeted because they were former supporters of President Trump but were now foes who had called for more sanctions to be imposed on Russia.
The International Republican Institute's directors include Senator John McCain and General HR McMaster who was replaced earlier this year as the White House national security adviser.
IRI president Daniel Twining told the Times that the attacks were consistent with the "campaign of meddling" the Kremlin is known to have indulged in.
In its blog, Microsoft president Brad Smith said it had grabbed dodgy domains 12 times in two years to shut down 84 websites associated with Fancy Bear.
It said that, so far, it had no evidence that the domains had been used in any attacks.
Microsoft added that the attack activity seen around the domains "mirrors" what it saw in 2016 in the US and during the 2017 election in France.
Microsoft's action comes soon after the US charged 12 Russian intelligence officers with hacking computer networks used by Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party.
Russia has consistently denied meddling in the elections or mounting any cyber-attacks on US institutions.
Mueller inquiry: Trump fears 'perjury trap' in Russia inquiry - BBC News
August 21, 2018.
Mueller inquiry: Trump fears 'perjury trap' in Russia inquiry
President Trump has repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "witch hunt"
US President Donald Trump has said he is worried he might face perjury charges if he gives statements under oath to the investigation into Russia's alleged role in his election victory.
He told Reuters news agency he feared any discrepancies between his account and others could be used against him.
Mr Trump also suggested he could take over the investigation run by special counsel Robert Mueller, but said he'd decided to stay out of it.
He has called the inquiry a witch hunt.
Russia also strongly denies claims it interfered in the 2016 election, which saw Mr Trump defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
In the Reuters interview, Mr Trump expressed concern that any statement he made to investigators could be compared with that of others who have testified, such as former FBI chief James Comey, and that any discrepancies could be used against him.
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
He was echoing previous concerns by his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who said Mr Trump could be "trapped into perjury".
"So if I say something and he (Comey) says something, and it's my word against his, and he's best friends with Mueller, so Mueller might say: 'Well, I believe Comey,' and even if I'm telling the truth, that makes me a liar. That's no good," President Trump said.
Mr Trump also asserted that he could, if he wanted to, intervene in the investigation, but added that he had chosen not to do so for now.
"I've decided to stay out. Now I don't have to stay out. I can go in, and I could do whatever - I could run it if I want. But I decided to stay out," he said.
"I'm totally allowed to be involved if I wanted to be. So far, I haven't chosen to be involved. I'll stay out."
In an interview with NBC on Sunday, Mr Giuliani was asked whether the Trump team was stalling about a possible testimony at the Mueller inquiry.
Lawyer Rudy Giuliani was widely ridiculed for suggesting "truth isn't truth"
Mr Giuliani said: "I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so he can be trapped into perjury."
He added: "When you tell me that he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth. Not the truth."
NBC host Chuck Todd countered: "Truth is truth."
Mr Giuliani responded by saying: "Truth isn't truth." That comment was widely mocked on social media.
Special counsel Mueller is investigating whether President Trump's campaign team colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
In 2016, US intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had used a state-authorised campaign of cyber attacks and fake news stories planted on social media in an attempt to turn the election against Mrs Clinton.
Thirty-two people have now been indicted, including four members of Mr Trump's campaign team and 25 Russians.
The president's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is the first person to go on trial as a result of Mr Mueller's investigation. However, the charges are not related to the US election but instead to tax evasion and money-laundering stemming from his political consultancy work in Ukraine.
The jury in his case is in its fourth day of deliberation to reach a verdict.
Mueller inquiry: Trump fears 'perjury trap' in Russia inquiry
President Trump has repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "witch hunt"
US President Donald Trump has said he is worried he might face perjury charges if he gives statements under oath to the investigation into Russia's alleged role in his election victory.
He told Reuters news agency he feared any discrepancies between his account and others could be used against him.
Mr Trump also suggested he could take over the investigation run by special counsel Robert Mueller, but said he'd decided to stay out of it.
He has called the inquiry a witch hunt.
Russia also strongly denies claims it interfered in the 2016 election, which saw Mr Trump defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
In the Reuters interview, Mr Trump expressed concern that any statement he made to investigators could be compared with that of others who have testified, such as former FBI chief James Comey, and that any discrepancies could be used against him.
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
He was echoing previous concerns by his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, who said Mr Trump could be "trapped into perjury".
"So if I say something and he (Comey) says something, and it's my word against his, and he's best friends with Mueller, so Mueller might say: 'Well, I believe Comey,' and even if I'm telling the truth, that makes me a liar. That's no good," President Trump said.
Mr Trump also asserted that he could, if he wanted to, intervene in the investigation, but added that he had chosen not to do so for now.
"I've decided to stay out. Now I don't have to stay out. I can go in, and I could do whatever - I could run it if I want. But I decided to stay out," he said.
"I'm totally allowed to be involved if I wanted to be. So far, I haven't chosen to be involved. I'll stay out."
In an interview with NBC on Sunday, Mr Giuliani was asked whether the Trump team was stalling about a possible testimony at the Mueller inquiry.
Lawyer Rudy Giuliani was widely ridiculed for suggesting "truth isn't truth"
Mr Giuliani said: "I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so he can be trapped into perjury."
He added: "When you tell me that he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth. Not the truth."
NBC host Chuck Todd countered: "Truth is truth."
Mr Giuliani responded by saying: "Truth isn't truth." That comment was widely mocked on social media.
Special counsel Mueller is investigating whether President Trump's campaign team colluded with Russia to influence the outcome of the presidential election.
In 2016, US intelligence agencies concluded that Russia had used a state-authorised campaign of cyber attacks and fake news stories planted on social media in an attempt to turn the election against Mrs Clinton.
Thirty-two people have now been indicted, including four members of Mr Trump's campaign team and 25 Russians.
The president's former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, is the first person to go on trial as a result of Mr Mueller's investigation. However, the charges are not related to the US election but instead to tax evasion and money-laundering stemming from his political consultancy work in Ukraine.
The jury in his case is in its fourth day of deliberation to reach a verdict.
Monday, August 20, 2018
Japan's scandal-plagued Shinzo Abe eyes his place in history books - NBC News
Japan's scandal-plagued Shinzo Abe eyes his place in history books
A trickle of revelations that damaged his standing in opinion polls and contributed to a sense of arrogance at the heart of government seems like a memory.
by Daniel Hurst / Aug.20.2018
TOKYO — Only a few months ago, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appeared to be in danger of losing his job as a series of cronyism scandals dragged his popularity to perilous lows.
To make matters worse, President Donald Trump was ratcheting up trade tensions with Japan, a long-term security ally, exposing the fragility of a personal relationship that Abe had worked hard to establish since Trump was elected in 2016.
Yet Abe is on the cusp of a remarkable political recovery. After stabilizing his position in opinion polls, he has emerged as the clear front-runner in a party leadership vote due next month, according to experts.
Japan falls out of love with sake as 'Western way of living' takes root
Securing another three-year term as head of the dominant center-right party would put Abe on track to become the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese history.
Backroom factional politics within his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) are “lining up in Abe's favor,” said Kristi Govella, an assistant professor at the School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa — even as tariff disputes with the U.S. cast a shadow over Japan’s most significant international relationship.
“Given the volatility of recent American foreign policy under the Trump administration, it was inevitable that Abe would experience ups and downs in his relationship with the U.S. president,” she told NBC News. “More than in any personal rapport with Trump, Abe's advantage lies in his strength of expertise and skill on foreign policy issues in comparison to most other Japanese politicians.”
Abe is the second-longest serving leader in the G-7 after German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He wants to maintain pressure on North Korea until the regime takes concrete steps to denuclearize.
Abe has also helped to revive the trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which seemed to be at risk when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the original 12-country deal.
In both security and economics, Govella said, Abe had “a long track record of almost singularly strong foreign policy leadership, and particularly in times of uncertainty in international politics, the Japanese people see this as a valuable asset in a leader.”
Abe has dominated Japanese politics ever since he led the LDP to a landslide victory in the general election in 2012. He had a brief earlier stint as prime minister, from 2006 to 2007, but resigned because of unpopularity and personal health concerns.
Abe’s grip on power began to slip again last year as a result of twin scandals over alleged favoritism.
One involved a huge discount on state-owned land granted to a nationalistic educational group that was closely linked to Abe’s wife, Akie. The first lady had been named as the honorary principal of a proposed new elementary school before the controversy arose.
Image: Shinzo Abe, Melania Trump, Akie Abe, Donald TrumpPresident Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump dine with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and wife Akie Abe at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on April 17.MANDEL NGAN / AFP - Getty Images
The other scandal hinged on suspected preferential treatment for Japan’s first new veterinary school in more than 50 years. It was proposed by an educational institution run by one of the prime minister’s long-time friends.
Abe repeatedly denied wrongdoing and even volunteered to resign if he was found to have been involved in the 85 percent discount on the land sale.
But the trickle of revelations damaged his standing in opinion polls and contributed to a sense of growing arrogance at the heart of government. The approval rating for Abe’s cabinet dropped to 26 percent in a poll by the Mainichi newspaper in July 2017.
'Japan is the only country you can enjoy both drinking and smoking together'
Amid rising tensions with North Korea, however, Abe seized the initiative by calling a snap general election late last year.
The fragmented opposition parties were not well prepared and the ruling coalition managed to retain a two-thirds majority in the lower house — providing Abe with a political lifeline.
Abe faced renewed dangers in March when the finance ministry admitted it had tampered with official documents surrounding talks with the elementary school operator, including removing references to Abe and the first lady before the files were presented to lawmakers investigating the sale.
Several finance ministry officials were disciplined, but prosecutors decided against laying formal criminal charges. The finance minister, Taro Aso, kept his job — an important development given that Aso also serves as deputy prime minister and is a powerful factional operator.
Experts say the largest factions have locked in behind Abe, giving him a big advantage in the forthcoming vote of his fellow lawmakers.
“As of now, Prime Minister Abe is the clear front-runner in the upcoming LDP leadership race,” Govella said. “Despite clear signs that the Japanese public continues to be unhappy about the domestic scandals that have plagued Abe in recent months, his support ratings have slowly recovered.”
Yu Uchiyama, from the Department of Advanced Social and International Studies at the University of Tokyo, said while the scandals have damaged Abe, the drip-feed of incremental revelations may have contributed to a sense of public fatigue.
He pointed to a Nikkei newspaper opinion poll showing that the Cabinet’s approval rating increased by 10 points, to 52 percent, from May to June, even though seven in 10 respondents did not think Abe’s explanations were satisfactory.
“It seems to mean that the people don't put much weight on the scandal issue any longer,” Uchiyama added.
'Embarrassment capes,' singing drones aim to shame Japan's workaholics
While approval ratings are a factor in the leadership machinations, the general public does not get a direct say on the LDP leadership. The party’s lawmakers have an equal share with its grass-roots membership in the first vote. If a runoff is needed, lawmakers dominate the second vote.
The only viable challenger is an Abe nemesis, Shigeru Ishiba, who has vowed to restore trust in politics and to speak up for those who have not felt the benefits of “Abenomics,” the prime minister's economic policy.
Ishiba has previously called for substantive changes to Japan’s “pacifist” constitution.
The constitution, which has not been changed since it was adopted after World War II, prohibits Japan from retaining a full-fledged military. Abe also wants to change this section of the constitution, but has proposed a minimalist amendment to codify the existence of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.
Ishiba, a former defense minister, was popular among grass-roots LDP members when he ran in 2012. He is still a strong candidate but is unlikely to secure enough votes from lawmakers and even from the broader LDP membership, according to Ryo Sahashi, a professor of international politics at Kanagawa University.
Abe’s advantage was boosted last month when Fumio Kishida, a former foreign minister, pulled out of the race and urged his factional allies to support the incumbent.
The internal affairs minister, Seiko Noda, would become the first female prime minister if elected as LDP leader, but is expected to struggle to gain the 20 nominations needed to run.
Rising star Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of a former prime minister, is considered not yet ready for the top job.
One potential wildcard is Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on automotive imports — a move that would be more damaging to the Japanese economy than the steel and aluminum duties announced this year.
“If the U.S. were to announce automobile tariffs before the LDP election, it could complicate the leadership campaign, since it would test Abe’s claims to have forged a productive friendship with Trump,” said Tobias Harris, vice president of global consulting firm Teneo Intelligence.
If he’s still in power in November 2019, Abe would become Japan's longest-serving prime minister, totaling nearly eight years in office including his short earlier tenure.
With a lower house election able to be held as late as 2021, he appears to be in a good position to reach the milestone, although a poor showing by his party in the upper house election next year could affect his chances.
A trickle of revelations that damaged his standing in opinion polls and contributed to a sense of arrogance at the heart of government seems like a memory.
by Daniel Hurst / Aug.20.2018
TOKYO — Only a few months ago, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe appeared to be in danger of losing his job as a series of cronyism scandals dragged his popularity to perilous lows.
To make matters worse, President Donald Trump was ratcheting up trade tensions with Japan, a long-term security ally, exposing the fragility of a personal relationship that Abe had worked hard to establish since Trump was elected in 2016.
Yet Abe is on the cusp of a remarkable political recovery. After stabilizing his position in opinion polls, he has emerged as the clear front-runner in a party leadership vote due next month, according to experts.
Japan falls out of love with sake as 'Western way of living' takes root
Securing another three-year term as head of the dominant center-right party would put Abe on track to become the longest-serving prime minister in Japanese history.
Backroom factional politics within his Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) are “lining up in Abe's favor,” said Kristi Govella, an assistant professor at the School of Pacific and Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii at Mānoa — even as tariff disputes with the U.S. cast a shadow over Japan’s most significant international relationship.
“Given the volatility of recent American foreign policy under the Trump administration, it was inevitable that Abe would experience ups and downs in his relationship with the U.S. president,” she told NBC News. “More than in any personal rapport with Trump, Abe's advantage lies in his strength of expertise and skill on foreign policy issues in comparison to most other Japanese politicians.”
Abe is the second-longest serving leader in the G-7 after German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He wants to maintain pressure on North Korea until the regime takes concrete steps to denuclearize.
Abe has also helped to revive the trade pact known as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which seemed to be at risk when Trump withdrew the U.S. from the original 12-country deal.
In both security and economics, Govella said, Abe had “a long track record of almost singularly strong foreign policy leadership, and particularly in times of uncertainty in international politics, the Japanese people see this as a valuable asset in a leader.”
Abe has dominated Japanese politics ever since he led the LDP to a landslide victory in the general election in 2012. He had a brief earlier stint as prime minister, from 2006 to 2007, but resigned because of unpopularity and personal health concerns.
Abe’s grip on power began to slip again last year as a result of twin scandals over alleged favoritism.
One involved a huge discount on state-owned land granted to a nationalistic educational group that was closely linked to Abe’s wife, Akie. The first lady had been named as the honorary principal of a proposed new elementary school before the controversy arose.
Image: Shinzo Abe, Melania Trump, Akie Abe, Donald TrumpPresident Donald Trump and first lady Melania Trump dine with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and wife Akie Abe at the Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla., on April 17.MANDEL NGAN / AFP - Getty Images
The other scandal hinged on suspected preferential treatment for Japan’s first new veterinary school in more than 50 years. It was proposed by an educational institution run by one of the prime minister’s long-time friends.
Abe repeatedly denied wrongdoing and even volunteered to resign if he was found to have been involved in the 85 percent discount on the land sale.
But the trickle of revelations damaged his standing in opinion polls and contributed to a sense of growing arrogance at the heart of government. The approval rating for Abe’s cabinet dropped to 26 percent in a poll by the Mainichi newspaper in July 2017.
'Japan is the only country you can enjoy both drinking and smoking together'
Amid rising tensions with North Korea, however, Abe seized the initiative by calling a snap general election late last year.
The fragmented opposition parties were not well prepared and the ruling coalition managed to retain a two-thirds majority in the lower house — providing Abe with a political lifeline.
Abe faced renewed dangers in March when the finance ministry admitted it had tampered with official documents surrounding talks with the elementary school operator, including removing references to Abe and the first lady before the files were presented to lawmakers investigating the sale.
Several finance ministry officials were disciplined, but prosecutors decided against laying formal criminal charges. The finance minister, Taro Aso, kept his job — an important development given that Aso also serves as deputy prime minister and is a powerful factional operator.
Experts say the largest factions have locked in behind Abe, giving him a big advantage in the forthcoming vote of his fellow lawmakers.
“As of now, Prime Minister Abe is the clear front-runner in the upcoming LDP leadership race,” Govella said. “Despite clear signs that the Japanese public continues to be unhappy about the domestic scandals that have plagued Abe in recent months, his support ratings have slowly recovered.”
Yu Uchiyama, from the Department of Advanced Social and International Studies at the University of Tokyo, said while the scandals have damaged Abe, the drip-feed of incremental revelations may have contributed to a sense of public fatigue.
He pointed to a Nikkei newspaper opinion poll showing that the Cabinet’s approval rating increased by 10 points, to 52 percent, from May to June, even though seven in 10 respondents did not think Abe’s explanations were satisfactory.
“It seems to mean that the people don't put much weight on the scandal issue any longer,” Uchiyama added.
'Embarrassment capes,' singing drones aim to shame Japan's workaholics
While approval ratings are a factor in the leadership machinations, the general public does not get a direct say on the LDP leadership. The party’s lawmakers have an equal share with its grass-roots membership in the first vote. If a runoff is needed, lawmakers dominate the second vote.
The only viable challenger is an Abe nemesis, Shigeru Ishiba, who has vowed to restore trust in politics and to speak up for those who have not felt the benefits of “Abenomics,” the prime minister's economic policy.
Ishiba has previously called for substantive changes to Japan’s “pacifist” constitution.
The constitution, which has not been changed since it was adopted after World War II, prohibits Japan from retaining a full-fledged military. Abe also wants to change this section of the constitution, but has proposed a minimalist amendment to codify the existence of the Japanese Self-Defense Forces.
Ishiba, a former defense minister, was popular among grass-roots LDP members when he ran in 2012. He is still a strong candidate but is unlikely to secure enough votes from lawmakers and even from the broader LDP membership, according to Ryo Sahashi, a professor of international politics at Kanagawa University.
Abe’s advantage was boosted last month when Fumio Kishida, a former foreign minister, pulled out of the race and urged his factional allies to support the incumbent.
The internal affairs minister, Seiko Noda, would become the first female prime minister if elected as LDP leader, but is expected to struggle to gain the 20 nominations needed to run.
Rising star Shinjiro Koizumi, the son of a former prime minister, is considered not yet ready for the top job.
One potential wildcard is Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on automotive imports — a move that would be more damaging to the Japanese economy than the steel and aluminum duties announced this year.
“If the U.S. were to announce automobile tariffs before the LDP election, it could complicate the leadership campaign, since it would test Abe’s claims to have forged a productive friendship with Trump,” said Tobias Harris, vice president of global consulting firm Teneo Intelligence.
If he’s still in power in November 2019, Abe would become Japan's longest-serving prime minister, totaling nearly eight years in office including his short earlier tenure.
With a lower house election able to be held as late as 2021, he appears to be in a good position to reach the milestone, although a poor showing by his party in the upper house election next year could affect his chances.
Brussels hopes for Ankara thaw after US-Turkey spat EU sees opportunity to woo Erdogan whose help it needs in Syria and over migration - Financial Times
August 20, 2018.
Brussels hopes for Ankara thaw after US-Turkey spat
EU sees opportunity to woo Erdogan whose help it needs in Syria and over migration
Mehreen Khan in Brussels, Laura Pitel in Istanbul and Tobias Buck in Berlin
As diplomatic relations between the US and Turkey slump to fresh lows, there is quiet optimism in Europe that Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s tussles with Donald Trump will help to strengthen Ankara’s strained ties with EU capitals.
“Erdogan is learning who his real enemies are — and it’s not Europe,” said one EU diplomat last week following a tumultuous period in which the Turkish government has traded tit-for-tat barbs with the White House and outlined emergency measures to stem a sharp slide in the lira.
Despite the financial turbulence in Ankara, EU officials point to a welcome thawing in tensions with Turkey, including the government's decision last week to release from prison two Greek soldiers suspected of espionage and the detained national head of Amnesty International.
That the release orders, long called for by the EU, came in the aftermath of Ankara’s spat with Washington was “no coincidence”, said one Brussels official.
It prompted Jean-Claude Juncker, EU commission president, to make some of the warmest remarks about Mr Erdogan’s government from Brussels in many months. “Turkey has nothing to fear from its European neighbours,” said Mr Juncker. “We want to see a democratic, stable and prosperous Turkey.”
Dimitris Avramopoulos, the EU’s Greek commissioner for migration, said the move was an “important step for the relations between Turkey and Greece, and the EU as a whole”.
Ankara’s ties with European capitals were thrown into turmoil in the wake of a violent coup attempt in 2016. European leaders voiced alarm over the vast purge that followed, which was accompanied by a crackdown on media, civil society and the Kurdish opposition.
Turkey’s EU accession process was consigned to the deep freeze, while plans to grant visa-free travel to Turkish citizens to the Schengen passport-free area and an upgrade of a customs union agreement have become bogged down.
Mr Erdogan also accused Germany’s government of behaving like Nazis, hit out at Austria’s coalition for anti-Muslim bigotry, and branded the EU hypocrites over its treatment of Turkey.
Yet, conscious of the risks to the economy of such disputes with a bloc that is Turkey’s biggest trading partner, Ankara has quietly launched a drive for a reset.
In Brussels, there is renewed hope that Mr Erdogan’s flare-up with Washington will bring Turkey closer to the EU and help repair strained relations with a Nato ally whose co-operation they require in Syria and over migration.
A senior EU official said that despite Europe’s spats with Mr Erdogan, the union had clear interests in aligning with Turkey against Mr Trump’s economic aggression. “The geostrategic interests will dominate,” said the official.
Signs of a detente have been underlined by a series of telephone calls last week between the Turkish president and EU capitals, including to Germany’s Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron of France.
Mevlut Cavusoglu, Turkey’s foreign minister, will also attend a gathering of his EU counterparts in Vienna at the end of August.
Top of Brussels’ concerns about Turkey’s stability is a landmark migration deal struck with Ankara that has helped staunch the flow of Syrian refugees into the continent since 2016.
Under the deal, EU governments have already committed to providing €3bn in aid, mostly to charities and non-governmental organisations working with nearly 4m Syrians in Turkey.
EU governments in June signed off on another €3bn commitment to be spread over 2019 and 2020. Diplomats say they are confident that Turkey’s economic troubles will not jeopardise the migrant accord.
“There is no incentive for Erdogan to complicate his relationship with Europe now, jeopardising visas, more cash and the refugee deal,” said Mujtaba Rahman, lead Europe analyst at Eurasia Group.
Turkey’s financial turmoil
A chance to reset Europe’s relations with Turkey
Europe’s main economic exposure to a financial collapse in Turkey is concentrated in pockets of its banking system. A German official said the spillover risks to Germany’s economy from Turkey were “manageable” but could become significant if the situation spiralled out of control.
“If you bear in mind how large their economy is, how close our trade relationship is and how many Turks live in Germany, it has the potential to become very dangerous,” he said.
But Brussels has limited financial tools to help a non-EU country in financial trouble.
The bloc’s main instrument of macro-financial assistance can only be activated in conjunction with an IMF bailout. Turkey has not yet made any request to the IMF for help. A senior EU official added that the EU was not yet exploring more “creative” ways to assist Turkey.
Although they have found common ground in their distaste for Mr Trump's actions, European officials also continue to be alarmed by erosion of the rule of law under Mr Erdogan’s watch.
At least seven German citizens remain behind bars in Turkey on charges that Berlin views as political. Diplomats stress that progress on accession talks or a customs union upgrade would still require a drastic change in the human rights situation.
Ministers in Berlin have also urged Turkey to release the US pastor Andrew Brunson, whose detention triggered the current row with the US administration. “That would make it considerably easier to solve the economic problems that exist,” said Heiko Maas, German foreign minister, last week.
George Washington’s Legacy Shows We Should Expect More From President Trump - TIME
George Washington’s Legacy Shows We Should Expect More From President Trump
By JOHN C. DANFORTH August 18, 2018
Danforth was a Republican U.S. senator from Missouri from 1976 to 1995.
Current political strategy is to discard the moderate center and energize the angry base. This is the approach of President Donald Trump and of an increasingly doctrinaire Democratic Party. It is a strategy of attempting to win elections by polarizing the country, and it raises the question of what Americans should expect from our leaders. We can have leaders who advance causes at the cost of driving us apart, or we can have leaders who rally us to a common purpose and hold us together. Trump is the archetype of divisive leadership. George Washington set the standard of a leader who united us.
Trump’s apologists say that they can overlook moral shortcomings, because they support his policies on taxes or regulations or his nominations to the Supreme Court. Washington’s personal qualities were more significant for his leadership than any positions he held on the issues of his day. His rectitude was central to his leadership, and his presence counted much more than his policies. He presided over the Constitutional Convention but barely participated in the debates. He became president by unanimous vote of the Electoral College without a stated platform. In office, he was a commanding personage who entrusted much of the development of policy to Alexander Hamilton.
Much taller than the average man of his time, he carried himself with great dignity. As a boy, he transcribed a long list of “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” His first rule was: “Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect to those that are Present.” Giving the appearance of being aloof, he was reticent in the company of others, and avoided expressing personal opinions. In conversation, he was comfortable with interludes of silence. He did not like large crowds or invasions into his personal space. As president, he reluctantly attended weekly “levees” where he greeted guests with polite bows without shaking hands. It’s impossible to imagine Washington leading crowds of thousands in chants of “Lock her up!” or publicly boasting about private parts, or paying for the silence of a porn star.
Washington was a nation builder whose demeanor united Americans. In war, he transformed a weak confederation of separate states and an assortment of citizen soldiers eager to return to their homes into a victorious army. As president, he commanded the allegiance of his combative cabinet members, Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. In his farewell address, he pleaded with Americans to hold ourselves together as one people and avoid fragmenting into competing factions.
Washington’s dignified style that rallied our country to a common cause was intentional. He was well aware of his place in history and that he would create the precedent for what future presidents, indeed America, should be. As our first president, there were no models for him to follow. He became the model, and he applied himself to the task.
In a speech delivered after Washington’s death, his close observer and admirer, Gouverneur Morris, said of him, “So dignified his deportment, no man could approach him but with respect.” Then Morris provided an insight we would not imagine when we think about Washington’s lofty stature. He told us of Washington’s “tumultuous passions,” and said that “his wrath was terrible” and that there was “boiling in his bosom passion almost too mighty for a man.” Far from being blessed with innate equanimity, Washington was quite the opposite. It was his constant struggle to maintain the dignity that was his model for the presidency. In Morris’ words, “his first contest and first victory was over himself.” His biographer, Joseph J. Ellis, states that “Washington became the most notorious model of self-control in all of American history.”
By contrast, Trump shows no reticence or self-control. Without a governor, he says whatever pops into his head, on Twitter, in off-script comments, at home and abroad.
The legacy of George Washington is a presidency of civility and dignity that inspired his countrymen and held a nation together. It depended on self-control. The presidency of Trump is characterized by insults and coarseness that repel many Americans and drive a nation apart. It is the presidency of a man who does not control himself.
Our first president and our 45th offer contrasting examples of what we should expect from our leaders. It’s our responsibility to choose.
This op-ed is being co-published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Time Magazine.
By JOHN C. DANFORTH August 18, 2018
Danforth was a Republican U.S. senator from Missouri from 1976 to 1995.
Current political strategy is to discard the moderate center and energize the angry base. This is the approach of President Donald Trump and of an increasingly doctrinaire Democratic Party. It is a strategy of attempting to win elections by polarizing the country, and it raises the question of what Americans should expect from our leaders. We can have leaders who advance causes at the cost of driving us apart, or we can have leaders who rally us to a common purpose and hold us together. Trump is the archetype of divisive leadership. George Washington set the standard of a leader who united us.
Trump’s apologists say that they can overlook moral shortcomings, because they support his policies on taxes or regulations or his nominations to the Supreme Court. Washington’s personal qualities were more significant for his leadership than any positions he held on the issues of his day. His rectitude was central to his leadership, and his presence counted much more than his policies. He presided over the Constitutional Convention but barely participated in the debates. He became president by unanimous vote of the Electoral College without a stated platform. In office, he was a commanding personage who entrusted much of the development of policy to Alexander Hamilton.
Much taller than the average man of his time, he carried himself with great dignity. As a boy, he transcribed a long list of “Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation.” His first rule was: “Every Action done in Company, ought to be with Some Sign of Respect to those that are Present.” Giving the appearance of being aloof, he was reticent in the company of others, and avoided expressing personal opinions. In conversation, he was comfortable with interludes of silence. He did not like large crowds or invasions into his personal space. As president, he reluctantly attended weekly “levees” where he greeted guests with polite bows without shaking hands. It’s impossible to imagine Washington leading crowds of thousands in chants of “Lock her up!” or publicly boasting about private parts, or paying for the silence of a porn star.
Washington was a nation builder whose demeanor united Americans. In war, he transformed a weak confederation of separate states and an assortment of citizen soldiers eager to return to their homes into a victorious army. As president, he commanded the allegiance of his combative cabinet members, Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. In his farewell address, he pleaded with Americans to hold ourselves together as one people and avoid fragmenting into competing factions.
Washington’s dignified style that rallied our country to a common cause was intentional. He was well aware of his place in history and that he would create the precedent for what future presidents, indeed America, should be. As our first president, there were no models for him to follow. He became the model, and he applied himself to the task.
In a speech delivered after Washington’s death, his close observer and admirer, Gouverneur Morris, said of him, “So dignified his deportment, no man could approach him but with respect.” Then Morris provided an insight we would not imagine when we think about Washington’s lofty stature. He told us of Washington’s “tumultuous passions,” and said that “his wrath was terrible” and that there was “boiling in his bosom passion almost too mighty for a man.” Far from being blessed with innate equanimity, Washington was quite the opposite. It was his constant struggle to maintain the dignity that was his model for the presidency. In Morris’ words, “his first contest and first victory was over himself.” His biographer, Joseph J. Ellis, states that “Washington became the most notorious model of self-control in all of American history.”
By contrast, Trump shows no reticence or self-control. Without a governor, he says whatever pops into his head, on Twitter, in off-script comments, at home and abroad.
The legacy of George Washington is a presidency of civility and dignity that inspired his countrymen and held a nation together. It depended on self-control. The presidency of Trump is characterized by insults and coarseness that repel many Americans and drive a nation apart. It is the presidency of a man who does not control himself.
Our first president and our 45th offer contrasting examples of what we should expect from our leaders. It’s our responsibility to choose.
This op-ed is being co-published by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Time Magazine.
Trump lawyers worried over White House counsel Don McGahn's testimony to Mueller investigation - Independent
August 20, 2018.
Trump lawyers worried over White House counsel Don McGahn's testimony to Mueller investigation
Growing recognition from president's legal team that early strategy of full cooperation with Russia investigation may have been damaging
Maggie Haberman
Michael S. Schmidt
Mourinho snaps at women reporter for question about United’s chemistry
Food critic 'eats human flesh' in Who is America? prank
Brennan threatens to sue Trump over revoking of his security clearance
Giuliani says 'truth isn't truth' over risks of Mueller interview
President Donald Trump’s lawyers do not know just how much the White House counsel, Don McGahn, told the special counsel’s investigators during months of interviews, a lapse that has contributed to a growing recognition that an early strategy of full cooperation with the inquiry was a potentially damaging mistake.
The president’s lawyers said on Sunday they were confident Mr McGahn had said nothing injurious to the president during the 30 hours of interviews. But Mr McGahn’s lawyer has offered only a limited accounting of what Mr McGahn told the investigators, according to two people close to the president.
That has prompted concern among Mr Trump’s advisers that Mr McGahn’s statements could help serve as a key component for a damning report by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which the Justice Department could send to Congress, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
Giuliani says 'truth isn't truth' over risks of Mueller interview
Mr Trump’s lawyers realised on Saturday they had not been provided a full accounting after The New York Times published an article describing Mr McGahn’s extensive cooperation with Mr Mueller’s office. After Mr McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel’s office in November, Mr Trump’s lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.
Mr McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, gave the president’s lawyers a short overview of the interview but few details, and he did not inform them of what Mr McGahn said in subsequent interactions with the investigators, according to a person close to Mr Trump. Mr McGahn and Mr Burck feared that Mr Trump was setting up Mr McGahn to take the blame for any possible wrongdoing, so they embraced the opening to cooperate fully with Mr Mueller in an effort to demonstrate that Mr McGahn had done nothing wrong.
On Sunday, Mr Trump’s lead lawyer dealing with the special counsel, Rudy Giuliani, appeared to acknowledge that he had only a partial understanding of what Mr McGahn had revealed. Mr Giuliani said his knowledge was second-hand, given to him by a former Trump lawyer, John Dowd, who was one of the primary forces behind the initial strategy of full cooperation.
“I’ll use his words rather than mine, that McGahn was a strong witness for the president, so I don’t need to know much more about that,” Mr Giuliani said of Mr Dowd on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
But Mr McGahn, who as White House counsel is not the president’s personal lawyer, has repeatedly made clear to the president that his role is as a protector of the presidency, not of Mr Trump personally.
Legal experts and former White House counsels said the president’s lawyers had been careless in not asking Mr McGahn what he had planned to tell Mr Mueller’s prosecutors. The experts said Mr Trump’s lawyers had the right to know the full extent of what Mr McGahn was going to say.
inRead invented by Teads
Robert F. Bauer, a White House counsel under President Barack Obama, said Mr McGahn’s lawyer may have taken the most prudent course for his client by not addressing “each and every detail about the questions that were specifically asked and the specific answers given.”
In its article, The Times said Mr McGahn had shared detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the investigation into whether Mr Trump obstructed justice in the Russia inquiry. Some of the episodes – like Mr Trump’s attempt to fire Mr Mueller last summer – would not have been revealed to investigators without Mr McGahn’s help.
The article set off a scramble on Saturday among Mr Trump’s lawyers and advisers. The president, sequestered at his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, solicited opinions from a small group of advisers on the possible repercussions from the article. The president ordered Mr Giuliani to tell reporters that the article was wrong, but Mr Giuliani did not go that far in his television appearances.
The report by The Times also reignited a debate about whether Mr Trump had been given bad advice by his former lawyers Mr Dowd and Ty Cobb to allow full cooperation with Mr Mueller’s team, including by waiving attorney-client privilege. Mr Dowd and Mr Cobb believed the cooperation would help prove that the president had done nothing wrong and bring a swifter end to the investigation.
But the strategy “put Don McGahn in an impossible situation, because once you waive that privilege and you turn over all those documents, Don McGahn has no choice then but to go in and answer everything, every question they could ask him,” Chris Christie, a former US attorney and a close ally of Mr Trump, said on ABC News’ “This Week.”
The Times reported that Mr McGahn, over at least three interviews, laid out how Mr Trump had tried to ensure control of the special counsel investigation. Mr McGahn gave a mix of damaging and favourable information about the president, but he said Mr Trump did not go beyond his legal authorities as president.
Although Mr Trump’s lawyers have little idea what Mr McGahn told investigators, they said on Saturday and Sunday that Mr McGahn had helped the president.
In an email to members of Mr Trump’s legal team and other associates, which was obtained by The Times, Mr Dowd said he had made the right choice in urging cooperation.
“We protected President by not asserting attorney-client privilege,” Mr Dowd wrote. He added that, had the lawyers forced the Mueller team to subpoena witnesses, they would have lost the ability to exert privilege over witnesses and documents.
Still, Mr Trump was rattled by The Times report, according to people familiar with his thinking. The president, who is said to be obsessed with the role John W. Dean, the White House counsel to President Richard M. Nixon, played as an informant during Watergate, was jolted by the notion that he did not know what Mr McGahn had shared.
Mr Trump lashed out about the report on Twitter, saying that The Times had falsely insinuated that Mr McGahn had “turned” on him.
Last fall, Mr McGahn believed he was being set up to be blamed for any wrongdoing by the president in part because of an article published in The Times in September, which described a conversation that a reporter had overheard between Mr Dowd and Mr Cobb.
In the conversation – which occurred over lunch at a table on the sidewalk outside the Washington steakhouse BLT – Mr Cobb discussed the White House’s production of documents to Mr Mueller’s office. Mr Cobb talked about how Mr McGahn was opposed to cooperation and had documents locked in his safe.
After the account of the lunch conversation was published, Mr McGahn became convinced that Mr Cobb believed he was hiding documents. Concerned that he would be blamed, he decided to try to demonstrate to Mr Mueller that he and other White House lawyers had done nothing wrong.
Trump-appointed judge rules Mueller investigation is constitutional
Donald Trump would deport Melania if she divorced him, claims Omarosa
Trump's top White House lawyer 'cooperating with Mueller probe'
Mueller says former Trump aide should spend six months in jail
Trump should reset relations with Russia to counter China's influence
As Mr Trump’s lawyers have shifted to a more antagonistic approach towards Mr Mueller, it has seemed increasingly unlikely that Mr Trump will sit for a voluntary interview. On “Meet the Press,” Mr Giuliani repeated his fear of a “perjury trap.”
“It’s somebody’s version of the truth, not the truth,” Mr Giuliani said of any statements by the president in such an interview.
“Truth is truth,” the show’s host, Chuck Todd, answered.
“No, it isn’t truth,” Mr Giuliani replied. “Truth isn’t truth.”
The New York Times
Trump lawyers worried over White House counsel Don McGahn's testimony to Mueller investigation
Growing recognition from president's legal team that early strategy of full cooperation with Russia investigation may have been damaging
Maggie Haberman
Michael S. Schmidt
Mourinho snaps at women reporter for question about United’s chemistry
Food critic 'eats human flesh' in Who is America? prank
Brennan threatens to sue Trump over revoking of his security clearance
Giuliani says 'truth isn't truth' over risks of Mueller interview
President Donald Trump’s lawyers do not know just how much the White House counsel, Don McGahn, told the special counsel’s investigators during months of interviews, a lapse that has contributed to a growing recognition that an early strategy of full cooperation with the inquiry was a potentially damaging mistake.
The president’s lawyers said on Sunday they were confident Mr McGahn had said nothing injurious to the president during the 30 hours of interviews. But Mr McGahn’s lawyer has offered only a limited accounting of what Mr McGahn told the investigators, according to two people close to the president.
That has prompted concern among Mr Trump’s advisers that Mr McGahn’s statements could help serve as a key component for a damning report by the special counsel, Robert Mueller, which the Justice Department could send to Congress, according to two people familiar with the discussions.
Giuliani says 'truth isn't truth' over risks of Mueller interview
Mr Trump’s lawyers realised on Saturday they had not been provided a full accounting after The New York Times published an article describing Mr McGahn’s extensive cooperation with Mr Mueller’s office. After Mr McGahn was initially interviewed by the special counsel’s office in November, Mr Trump’s lawyers never asked for a complete description of what Mr McGahn had said, according to a person close to the president.
Mr McGahn’s lawyer, William A. Burck, gave the president’s lawyers a short overview of the interview but few details, and he did not inform them of what Mr McGahn said in subsequent interactions with the investigators, according to a person close to Mr Trump. Mr McGahn and Mr Burck feared that Mr Trump was setting up Mr McGahn to take the blame for any possible wrongdoing, so they embraced the opening to cooperate fully with Mr Mueller in an effort to demonstrate that Mr McGahn had done nothing wrong.
On Sunday, Mr Trump’s lead lawyer dealing with the special counsel, Rudy Giuliani, appeared to acknowledge that he had only a partial understanding of what Mr McGahn had revealed. Mr Giuliani said his knowledge was second-hand, given to him by a former Trump lawyer, John Dowd, who was one of the primary forces behind the initial strategy of full cooperation.
“I’ll use his words rather than mine, that McGahn was a strong witness for the president, so I don’t need to know much more about that,” Mr Giuliani said of Mr Dowd on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
But Mr McGahn, who as White House counsel is not the president’s personal lawyer, has repeatedly made clear to the president that his role is as a protector of the presidency, not of Mr Trump personally.
Legal experts and former White House counsels said the president’s lawyers had been careless in not asking Mr McGahn what he had planned to tell Mr Mueller’s prosecutors. The experts said Mr Trump’s lawyers had the right to know the full extent of what Mr McGahn was going to say.
inRead invented by Teads
Robert F. Bauer, a White House counsel under President Barack Obama, said Mr McGahn’s lawyer may have taken the most prudent course for his client by not addressing “each and every detail about the questions that were specifically asked and the specific answers given.”
In its article, The Times said Mr McGahn had shared detailed accounts about the episodes at the heart of the investigation into whether Mr Trump obstructed justice in the Russia inquiry. Some of the episodes – like Mr Trump’s attempt to fire Mr Mueller last summer – would not have been revealed to investigators without Mr McGahn’s help.
The article set off a scramble on Saturday among Mr Trump’s lawyers and advisers. The president, sequestered at his private golf club in Bedminster, New Jersey, solicited opinions from a small group of advisers on the possible repercussions from the article. The president ordered Mr Giuliani to tell reporters that the article was wrong, but Mr Giuliani did not go that far in his television appearances.
The report by The Times also reignited a debate about whether Mr Trump had been given bad advice by his former lawyers Mr Dowd and Ty Cobb to allow full cooperation with Mr Mueller’s team, including by waiving attorney-client privilege. Mr Dowd and Mr Cobb believed the cooperation would help prove that the president had done nothing wrong and bring a swifter end to the investigation.
But the strategy “put Don McGahn in an impossible situation, because once you waive that privilege and you turn over all those documents, Don McGahn has no choice then but to go in and answer everything, every question they could ask him,” Chris Christie, a former US attorney and a close ally of Mr Trump, said on ABC News’ “This Week.”
The Times reported that Mr McGahn, over at least three interviews, laid out how Mr Trump had tried to ensure control of the special counsel investigation. Mr McGahn gave a mix of damaging and favourable information about the president, but he said Mr Trump did not go beyond his legal authorities as president.
Although Mr Trump’s lawyers have little idea what Mr McGahn told investigators, they said on Saturday and Sunday that Mr McGahn had helped the president.
In an email to members of Mr Trump’s legal team and other associates, which was obtained by The Times, Mr Dowd said he had made the right choice in urging cooperation.
“We protected President by not asserting attorney-client privilege,” Mr Dowd wrote. He added that, had the lawyers forced the Mueller team to subpoena witnesses, they would have lost the ability to exert privilege over witnesses and documents.
Still, Mr Trump was rattled by The Times report, according to people familiar with his thinking. The president, who is said to be obsessed with the role John W. Dean, the White House counsel to President Richard M. Nixon, played as an informant during Watergate, was jolted by the notion that he did not know what Mr McGahn had shared.
Mr Trump lashed out about the report on Twitter, saying that The Times had falsely insinuated that Mr McGahn had “turned” on him.
Last fall, Mr McGahn believed he was being set up to be blamed for any wrongdoing by the president in part because of an article published in The Times in September, which described a conversation that a reporter had overheard between Mr Dowd and Mr Cobb.
In the conversation – which occurred over lunch at a table on the sidewalk outside the Washington steakhouse BLT – Mr Cobb discussed the White House’s production of documents to Mr Mueller’s office. Mr Cobb talked about how Mr McGahn was opposed to cooperation and had documents locked in his safe.
After the account of the lunch conversation was published, Mr McGahn became convinced that Mr Cobb believed he was hiding documents. Concerned that he would be blamed, he decided to try to demonstrate to Mr Mueller that he and other White House lawyers had done nothing wrong.
Trump-appointed judge rules Mueller investigation is constitutional
Donald Trump would deport Melania if she divorced him, claims Omarosa
Trump's top White House lawyer 'cooperating with Mueller probe'
Mueller says former Trump aide should spend six months in jail
Trump should reset relations with Russia to counter China's influence
As Mr Trump’s lawyers have shifted to a more antagonistic approach towards Mr Mueller, it has seemed increasingly unlikely that Mr Trump will sit for a voluntary interview. On “Meet the Press,” Mr Giuliani repeated his fear of a “perjury trap.”
“It’s somebody’s version of the truth, not the truth,” Mr Giuliani said of any statements by the president in such an interview.
“Truth is truth,” the show’s host, Chuck Todd, answered.
“No, it isn’t truth,” Mr Giuliani replied. “Truth isn’t truth.”
The New York Times
Crazy Rich Asians tops US box office in weekend debut - BBC News
August 20, 2018.
Crazy Rich Asians tops US box office in weekend debut
'Crazy Rich Asians' is seen as a turning point for Asian representation in Hollywood
Crazy Rich Asians beat expectations to take the top spot at the US box office on its opening weekend.
The Warner Brothers film starring Constance Wu and Henry Golding is the first romantic comedy in three years to take the top spot.
Since opening five days ago, the film - which cost $30m (£23.5m) - has made an estimated $34m (£26.7m).
It is the first major Hollywood film since The Joy Luck Club 25 years ago to feature an all-Asian cast.
Adapted from Kevin Kwan's bestseller, Crazy Rich Asians tells the story of an Asian-American woman who gets a culture shock meeting her boyfriend's ultra-wealthy family in Singapore.
Analysts have said its universal themes and entertainment value proved popular with moviegoers.
'Culturally significant'
Asian-American actress Constance Wu plays the lead role of Rachel Chu
Jeff Goldstein, Warner Brothers head of domestic distribution, said word of mouth had been key to the film's success.
"This movie is so culturally significant and so unique in that there hasn't been a cast that's predominately Asian [in years]. This is one of those few projects that a whole studio comes together with lots of passion."
Why Crazy Rich Asians could never please all
Seen as a turning point for on-screen representation, high profile, affluent Asian-Americans started a social media movement known as the #GoldOpen campaign.
The campaign offered free screenings across the US to promote the film and raise awareness about the lack of Asian representation in Hollywood.
The film took more than $25m (£19.6m) at the box office over the weekend, which appears to validate the filmmakers' decision to turn down a lucrative Netflix deal in favour of a riskier cinema release through a Hollywood studio.
In second place was the shark thriller The Meg, which earned $21.2m (£16.6m), while the Mark Wahlberg-led action movie Mile 22 placed third, with $13.6m (£10.7m).
Billionaire Boys Club was Kevin Spacey's first film release since sexual assault allegations surfaced
It wasn't such a good weekend for Kevin Spacey's new film, Billionaire Boys Club, which took a record breaking low of $126 (£98) on its opening night in US cinemas.
The film was the last project the actor worked on before sexual assault allegations began to surface, some which dated back more than 30 years.
Billionaire Boys Club had a host of big names on board, including Ansel Elgort and Taron Egerton, but failed to attract the attention of many cinemas, opening in just 10 US cities.
Spacey and Elgort's last film together, 2017's Baby Driver, took more than $20m (£15.7m) at the box office in its opening weekend.
Kevin Spacey was first accused of sexual advances in November by actor Anthony Rapp, who alleged an advance had been made in 1986 when he was 14 and Mr Spacey was 26.
Mr Spacey claimed to have no memory of the events, but publicly apologised. He has since issued an "absolute" denial of the other allegations that later emerged.
Crazy Rich Asians tops US box office in weekend debut
'Crazy Rich Asians' is seen as a turning point for Asian representation in Hollywood
Crazy Rich Asians beat expectations to take the top spot at the US box office on its opening weekend.
The Warner Brothers film starring Constance Wu and Henry Golding is the first romantic comedy in three years to take the top spot.
Since opening five days ago, the film - which cost $30m (£23.5m) - has made an estimated $34m (£26.7m).
It is the first major Hollywood film since The Joy Luck Club 25 years ago to feature an all-Asian cast.
Adapted from Kevin Kwan's bestseller, Crazy Rich Asians tells the story of an Asian-American woman who gets a culture shock meeting her boyfriend's ultra-wealthy family in Singapore.
Analysts have said its universal themes and entertainment value proved popular with moviegoers.
'Culturally significant'
Asian-American actress Constance Wu plays the lead role of Rachel Chu
Jeff Goldstein, Warner Brothers head of domestic distribution, said word of mouth had been key to the film's success.
"This movie is so culturally significant and so unique in that there hasn't been a cast that's predominately Asian [in years]. This is one of those few projects that a whole studio comes together with lots of passion."
Why Crazy Rich Asians could never please all
Seen as a turning point for on-screen representation, high profile, affluent Asian-Americans started a social media movement known as the #GoldOpen campaign.
The campaign offered free screenings across the US to promote the film and raise awareness about the lack of Asian representation in Hollywood.
The film took more than $25m (£19.6m) at the box office over the weekend, which appears to validate the filmmakers' decision to turn down a lucrative Netflix deal in favour of a riskier cinema release through a Hollywood studio.
In second place was the shark thriller The Meg, which earned $21.2m (£16.6m), while the Mark Wahlberg-led action movie Mile 22 placed third, with $13.6m (£10.7m).
Billionaire Boys Club was Kevin Spacey's first film release since sexual assault allegations surfaced
It wasn't such a good weekend for Kevin Spacey's new film, Billionaire Boys Club, which took a record breaking low of $126 (£98) on its opening night in US cinemas.
The film was the last project the actor worked on before sexual assault allegations began to surface, some which dated back more than 30 years.
Billionaire Boys Club had a host of big names on board, including Ansel Elgort and Taron Egerton, but failed to attract the attention of many cinemas, opening in just 10 US cities.
Spacey and Elgort's last film together, 2017's Baby Driver, took more than $20m (£15.7m) at the box office in its opening weekend.
Kevin Spacey was first accused of sexual advances in November by actor Anthony Rapp, who alleged an advance had been made in 1986 when he was 14 and Mr Spacey was 26.
Mr Spacey claimed to have no memory of the events, but publicly apologised. He has since issued an "absolute" denial of the other allegations that later emerged.
Greece emerges from eurozone bailout programme - BBC News
August 20, 2018.
Greece emerges from eurozone bailout programme
Athens faces years of austerity
Greece has successfully completed a three-year eurozone emergency loan programme worth €61.9bn (£55bn; $70.8bn) to tackle its debt crisis.
It was part of the biggest bailout in global financial history, totalling some €289bn, which will take the country decades to repay.
Deeply unpopular cuts to public spending, a condition of the bailout, are set to continue.
But for the first time in eight years, Greece can borrow at market rates.
Mark Lowen
✔
@marklowen
"We contemplated suicide a lot. But we said no, we struggled". After 8 years #Greece exits its bailout today. Austerity had a crippling impact. I covered the crisis as Athens correspondent and returned to see Greece's progress. With @timfacey @KallergisK https://vimeo.com/285782539?ref=tw-share …
4:37 PM - Aug 20, 2018
The economy has grown slowly in recent years and is still 25% smaller than when the crisis began.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), only four countries have shrunk economically more than Greece in the past decade: Yemen, Libya, Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea.
The last €61.9bn was provided by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in support of the Greek government's efforts to reform the economy and recapitalise banks.
The bailout - the term given to emergency loans aimed at saving the sinking Greek economy - began in 2010, when eurozone states and the IMF came together to provide a first tranche of €20bn.
The European single currency had fallen to its lowest level against the dollar since 2006 and there were fears the debt crisis in Greece would undermine Europe's recovery from the 2008 global financial crisis.
Former Prime Minister George Papandreou saw his government crumble after agreeing to the bailout
At the worst moments of the crisis, there were doubts about whether the eurozone would survive at all. There seemed to be a real possibility that Greece and perhaps others might have to give up the euro.
The response included bailout loans, for a total of five countries, and a promise from the European Central Bank that it would, if necessary, buy the government debts of countries in danger of being forced out of the eurozone.
Set up by eurozone states, the ESM had been prepared to provide a further $27bn to Greece but said the country had not needed to call on it.
"Greece can stand on its own feet," said ESM chairman Mario Centeno.
'I can't buy my little grandchildren a present'
By Mark Lowen, BBC News, Athens
Tassos Smetopoulos and his team of volunteers run a food handout in central Athens.
"The numbers are actually rising," he says, chopping up vegetables for a huge pot to serve to those who wait. "The bailout might be ending on paper - but not in reality."
Fifty-four-year-old Fotini, who was laid off three years ago, is one of the few who will speak openly. This proud nation has struggled to accept its loss of dignity.
"I don't see the crisis coming to an end," she says. "We are stressed and angry because we don't have jobs. I'm embarrassed that I can't buy my little grandchildren a present. We just want to live comfortably in our own homes so we can look our children in the eyes."
How are Greeks coping?
At the height of the crisis, unemployment soared to 28% but today it is 19.5%.
Chemistry graduate Panagiota Kalliakmani has gone from the lab to the kitchen
Those employed often have jobs for which they are overqualified, such as chemistry graduate Panagiota Kalliakmani, 34.
Seeing career prospects in her home city of Thessaloniki shattered, she is now finding work as a chef.
"The crisis was a slap in the face," she told AFP news agency. "We had grown up accustomed to the benefits of living in a European country and suddenly everything came crashing down."
"Nothing is certain," she added. "The crisis taught us not to make long-term plans."
Some 300,000 Greeks have emigrated in search of work since the crisis began while those depending on state benefits have seen their income whittled away.
Yorgos Vagelakos and his wife live in a suburb of Athens
Yorgos Vagelakos, an 81-year-old retired factory worker, took home a pension and benefits amounting to €1,250 before the debt crisis.
Today he gets €685 and his debts are growing, he told Reuters news agency. He can no longer support the families of his two sons and can barely cover his and his wife's needs.
"I wake up in the morning to a nightmare," he said. "How will I manage my finances and my responsibilities? This is what I wake up to every morning."
Has the pressure eased off?
Greece's freedom to manage its own economic affairs will be tempered by enhanced surveillance from the European Union's executive, the European Commission.
This is designed to ensure Athens does not backtrack on reforms agreed with its lenders.
Professor Costas Meghir, an economist with Yale University based in the Greek capital Athens, warned that the end of the bailout programme did not mean the Greek economy's problems had been solved.
"It's of course a very important milestone, both psychologically and in practice but it doesn't mean that the problems are over," he told the BBC.
"It doesn't mean that austerity is over either. In some sense, the Greek government has to be even more disciplined now, because it has to rely on foreign markets at reasonable interest rates to be able to borrow.
"Austerity can only end once pro-growth policies are put in place that would allow flourishing of investing, for direct investment and of business more generally and this hasn't really happened to a sufficient extent yet."
What does the Greek milestone mean for Europe?
Professor Kevin Featherstone, director of the Hellenic Observatory at the London School of Economics, said Greece had helped to safeguard the future of the eurozone by agreeing to the terms of the bailout programme.
"For a political system to have gone through these years of austerity, this depth of economic hardship, and maintained a functioning society, a functioning democracy, is testament to the robustness of Greece as a modern state," he said. "Greece has saved the euro."
Greece emerges from eurozone bailout programme
Athens faces years of austerity
Greece has successfully completed a three-year eurozone emergency loan programme worth €61.9bn (£55bn; $70.8bn) to tackle its debt crisis.
It was part of the biggest bailout in global financial history, totalling some €289bn, which will take the country decades to repay.
Deeply unpopular cuts to public spending, a condition of the bailout, are set to continue.
But for the first time in eight years, Greece can borrow at market rates.
Mark Lowen
✔
@marklowen
"We contemplated suicide a lot. But we said no, we struggled". After 8 years #Greece exits its bailout today. Austerity had a crippling impact. I covered the crisis as Athens correspondent and returned to see Greece's progress. With @timfacey @KallergisK https://vimeo.com/285782539?ref=tw-share …
4:37 PM - Aug 20, 2018
The economy has grown slowly in recent years and is still 25% smaller than when the crisis began.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), only four countries have shrunk economically more than Greece in the past decade: Yemen, Libya, Venezuela and Equatorial Guinea.
The last €61.9bn was provided by the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) in support of the Greek government's efforts to reform the economy and recapitalise banks.
The bailout - the term given to emergency loans aimed at saving the sinking Greek economy - began in 2010, when eurozone states and the IMF came together to provide a first tranche of €20bn.
The European single currency had fallen to its lowest level against the dollar since 2006 and there were fears the debt crisis in Greece would undermine Europe's recovery from the 2008 global financial crisis.
Former Prime Minister George Papandreou saw his government crumble after agreeing to the bailout
At the worst moments of the crisis, there were doubts about whether the eurozone would survive at all. There seemed to be a real possibility that Greece and perhaps others might have to give up the euro.
The response included bailout loans, for a total of five countries, and a promise from the European Central Bank that it would, if necessary, buy the government debts of countries in danger of being forced out of the eurozone.
Set up by eurozone states, the ESM had been prepared to provide a further $27bn to Greece but said the country had not needed to call on it.
"Greece can stand on its own feet," said ESM chairman Mario Centeno.
'I can't buy my little grandchildren a present'
By Mark Lowen, BBC News, Athens
Tassos Smetopoulos and his team of volunteers run a food handout in central Athens.
"The numbers are actually rising," he says, chopping up vegetables for a huge pot to serve to those who wait. "The bailout might be ending on paper - but not in reality."
Fifty-four-year-old Fotini, who was laid off three years ago, is one of the few who will speak openly. This proud nation has struggled to accept its loss of dignity.
"I don't see the crisis coming to an end," she says. "We are stressed and angry because we don't have jobs. I'm embarrassed that I can't buy my little grandchildren a present. We just want to live comfortably in our own homes so we can look our children in the eyes."
How are Greeks coping?
At the height of the crisis, unemployment soared to 28% but today it is 19.5%.
Chemistry graduate Panagiota Kalliakmani has gone from the lab to the kitchen
Those employed often have jobs for which they are overqualified, such as chemistry graduate Panagiota Kalliakmani, 34.
Seeing career prospects in her home city of Thessaloniki shattered, she is now finding work as a chef.
"The crisis was a slap in the face," she told AFP news agency. "We had grown up accustomed to the benefits of living in a European country and suddenly everything came crashing down."
"Nothing is certain," she added. "The crisis taught us not to make long-term plans."
Some 300,000 Greeks have emigrated in search of work since the crisis began while those depending on state benefits have seen their income whittled away.
Yorgos Vagelakos and his wife live in a suburb of Athens
Yorgos Vagelakos, an 81-year-old retired factory worker, took home a pension and benefits amounting to €1,250 before the debt crisis.
Today he gets €685 and his debts are growing, he told Reuters news agency. He can no longer support the families of his two sons and can barely cover his and his wife's needs.
"I wake up in the morning to a nightmare," he said. "How will I manage my finances and my responsibilities? This is what I wake up to every morning."
Has the pressure eased off?
Greece's freedom to manage its own economic affairs will be tempered by enhanced surveillance from the European Union's executive, the European Commission.
This is designed to ensure Athens does not backtrack on reforms agreed with its lenders.
Professor Costas Meghir, an economist with Yale University based in the Greek capital Athens, warned that the end of the bailout programme did not mean the Greek economy's problems had been solved.
"It's of course a very important milestone, both psychologically and in practice but it doesn't mean that the problems are over," he told the BBC.
"It doesn't mean that austerity is over either. In some sense, the Greek government has to be even more disciplined now, because it has to rely on foreign markets at reasonable interest rates to be able to borrow.
"Austerity can only end once pro-growth policies are put in place that would allow flourishing of investing, for direct investment and of business more generally and this hasn't really happened to a sufficient extent yet."
What does the Greek milestone mean for Europe?
Professor Kevin Featherstone, director of the Hellenic Observatory at the London School of Economics, said Greece had helped to safeguard the future of the eurozone by agreeing to the terms of the bailout programme.
"For a political system to have gone through these years of austerity, this depth of economic hardship, and maintained a functioning society, a functioning democracy, is testament to the robustness of Greece as a modern state," he said. "Greece has saved the euro."
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani: Truth isn't truth - BBC News
Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani: Truth isn't truth
19 August 2018
President Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has raised eyebrows by claiming that "truth isn't truth" during a television interview.
Mr Giuliani was arguing that Mr Trump should not testify to the Russia probe, as he might be "trapped into perjury".
"Truth is truth", NBC host Chuck Todd countered. Mr Giuliani denied this was the case, and said two rival versions of events were in contention.
His reply seemed to echo controversial claims from Trump aides about facts.
In January last year Kellyanne Conway told Todd's programme, Meet the Press, that the White House was entitled to present "alternative facts" - to which Todd retorted: "Alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."
From 'alternative facts' to rewriting history
Alternative facts and qualified truths
Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'
The exchange on Meet the Press on Sunday began with Mr Todd asking Mr Giuliani whether the Trump team was stalling about a possible testimony at the inquiry led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into alleged meddling by Russia in the 2016 US election.
Mr Giuliani said: "I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so can he can be trapped into perjury."
He added: "When you tell me that he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth. Not the truth."
Todd responded: "Truth is truth." Mr Giuliani said: "Truth isn't truth."
The interviewer put his hand on his forehead and said: "This is going to become a bad meme!"
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
Mr Giuliani then made his main point - that accusations of obstruction of justice against the president hinge on a conversation he had with then FBI director James Comey in February 2017, and that Mr Trump's account of that conversation differs radically from Mr Comey's.
"If you're just a genius, tell me what the truth is!" Mr Giuliani tells Todd. "We have a credibility gap between the two of them. You've got to select between the two of them."
Disbelief
Trumps critics were prompt to seize on the exchange. Preet Bharara, a Democrat who was fired as federal prosecutor by the Trump administration, suggested "truth isn't truth" would not sound convincing in a trial.
Others shared Todd's sense of disbelief.
This is not the first time that Mr Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, has spoken of irreconcilable accounts of the same event.
He told the Washington Post in May that Mr Mueller and his team "may have a different version of the truth than we do."
In the interview, Mr Giuliani characterised the Russia inquiry as "wild, crazy, unorthodox".
The president denies any collusion, and has repeatedly called the Mueller probe "a witch hunt".
Russia also denies claims it interfered in the polls two years ago, which saw Donald Trump defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
19 August 2018
President Donald Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, has raised eyebrows by claiming that "truth isn't truth" during a television interview.
Mr Giuliani was arguing that Mr Trump should not testify to the Russia probe, as he might be "trapped into perjury".
"Truth is truth", NBC host Chuck Todd countered. Mr Giuliani denied this was the case, and said two rival versions of events were in contention.
His reply seemed to echo controversial claims from Trump aides about facts.
In January last year Kellyanne Conway told Todd's programme, Meet the Press, that the White House was entitled to present "alternative facts" - to which Todd retorted: "Alternative facts are not facts. They're falsehoods."
From 'alternative facts' to rewriting history
Alternative facts and qualified truths
Donald Trump: 'What you're seeing and what you're reading is not what's happening'
The exchange on Meet the Press on Sunday began with Mr Todd asking Mr Giuliani whether the Trump team was stalling about a possible testimony at the inquiry led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller into alleged meddling by Russia in the 2016 US election.
Mr Giuliani said: "I'm not going to be rushed into having him testify so can he can be trapped into perjury."
He added: "When you tell me that he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well that's so silly because it's somebody's version of the truth. Not the truth."
Todd responded: "Truth is truth." Mr Giuliani said: "Truth isn't truth."
The interviewer put his hand on his forehead and said: "This is going to become a bad meme!"
Who's who in Trump-Russia drama?
All you need to know about Trump Russia story
Mr Giuliani then made his main point - that accusations of obstruction of justice against the president hinge on a conversation he had with then FBI director James Comey in February 2017, and that Mr Trump's account of that conversation differs radically from Mr Comey's.
"If you're just a genius, tell me what the truth is!" Mr Giuliani tells Todd. "We have a credibility gap between the two of them. You've got to select between the two of them."
Disbelief
Trumps critics were prompt to seize on the exchange. Preet Bharara, a Democrat who was fired as federal prosecutor by the Trump administration, suggested "truth isn't truth" would not sound convincing in a trial.
Others shared Todd's sense of disbelief.
This is not the first time that Mr Giuliani, a former New York City mayor, has spoken of irreconcilable accounts of the same event.
He told the Washington Post in May that Mr Mueller and his team "may have a different version of the truth than we do."
In the interview, Mr Giuliani characterised the Russia inquiry as "wild, crazy, unorthodox".
The president denies any collusion, and has repeatedly called the Mueller probe "a witch hunt".
Russia also denies claims it interfered in the polls two years ago, which saw Donald Trump defeat Democratic rival Hillary Clinton.
Sunday, August 19, 2018
Imran Khan's Lofty Rhetoric Raising Pakistan's Expectation - NDTY
Imran Khan's Lofty Rhetoric Raising Pakistan's Expectation
Imran Khan, a cricket legend and firebrand nationalist who swept to power in July, has vowed to root out corruption and lift people out of poverty.
World | Reuters | Updated: August 19, 2018 10:38 IST
by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
Aussies Over 55 With Private Health Cover Should Know This (Health Insurance Comparison)
Bring the best of the Barossa to your dinner table (Dan Murphy's)
Imran Khan's Lofty Rhetoric Raising Pakistan's Expectation
Imran Khan takes oath as the Prime Minister from President Mamnoon Hussain in Islamabad. (Reuters)
ISLAMABAD: From creating 10 million jobs to building an Islamic welfare state and restoring Pakistan's tattered image abroad, new premier Imran Khan is facing a problem of his own making: runaway expectations raised by his lofty rhetoric.
A cricket legend and firebrand nationalist who is hero-worshipped by supporters, Khan swept to power in last month's election on a populist platform vowing to root out corruption among a venal elite and lift people out of poverty.
But he inherits control of a volatile nation facing mounting problems at home and abroad, including a looming economic crisis and a fracture with historic ally the United States over Pakistan's alleged links to militants. Ties are also fraught with neighbours Afghanistan and nuclear-armed rival India.
Opponents in parliament talk of forming a grand coalition against Khan, dubbing him a "puppet" and accusing him of entering into a Faustian Pact with the powerful military, which has a history of ousting prime ministers and clashing with civilian governments over control of foreign policy.
Khan denies all accusations that the military covertly helped him win the election.
And in his victory speech, Mr Khan offered an olive branch to India and called for mutually beneficial ties with the United States.
Whether Mr Khan can become the first Pakistani prime minister to complete a full five-year term in office will depend on his relationship with influential generals, analysts say.
If his ideas on foreign policy differ from theirs, analysts say Khan would suffer a similar fate to other civilian leaders who have failed to see out their term.
"Then his future will be the same as anybody else's," political commentator Aamer Ahmed Khan said.
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
Forced to rely on smaller parties for a razor-thin majority in parliament, and with the opposition controlling the Senate, Mr Khan's coalition government could struggle to push through legislation without major compromises. An increasingly assertive judiciary could also hold it back.
Yet the mood in the country is one of unbridled optimism, especially among Mr Khan's young supporters, who believe he can build a corruption-free and prosperous "New Pakistan" for the country's 208 million people.
"His biggest challenge is managing expectations among his followers and voters because he's almost promised them the moon," said Raza Ahmad Rumi, the editor of Pakistan's Daily Times newspaper.
During Independence Day celebrations this week, when flag-waving Pakistanis flooded the streets of Islamabad, many voiced confidence that Mr Khan would deliver on promises to build world class hospitals and improve education in a nation where the illiteracy rate hovers above 40 percent.
"I have moved my daughter (from a private) to a government school, because we are confident that Pakistan is going to change," said Sheikh Farhaj, 40, who volunteered for Mr Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) party during the elections.
Others were delighted Khan has broken the decades-long dominance of the two dynastic powerhouses, the outgoing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party of jailed former premier Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of the Bhutto family.
"We have great expectations from Imran Khan," said Shah Sultan, 38, a roadside flag seller. "We are lower class people and I voted from Khan because what the politicians have done to our country. They have left it with nothing."
LOOMING ECONOMIC CRISIS
But Khan's campaign pledges are likely to be checked by a worsening economic outlook, analysts say, especially his vow to build a welfare state.
The central bank has devalued the rupee four times since December, but the current account deficit is still carrying the currency towards a crisis, while the fiscal deficit has ballooned to 6.8 percent of GDP.
Economic growth is running at nearly 6 percent, but given the unsustainability of these deficits it is easy to predict Pakistan's growth is heading for a fall.
Mr Khan's government must urgently decide whether to request more loans from China, deepening Islamabad's economic reliance on its neighbour, or ask the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for what would be its 15th bailout since 1980.
Both lenders are likely to ask for more fiscal discipline, requiring drastic spending cuts.
Shafqat Mahmood, Mr Khan's new education minister, said the economic woes pose a major problem but the party is determined to deliver a welfare system and enact badly-needed reforms.
"Everyone in the party realises we will have to work overtime to meet these huge expectations," Mahmood said.
Mahmood said Khan's image as a politician untainted by corruption could boost faith in the government and convince more people to file taxes in a nation where less than 1 percent of the population pays income tax.
Mr Khan has touted his "100 Day Plan" but many of the reforms PTI is proposing, from turning around loss-making state-run enterprises to reforming the tax collection bureau, will take far longer to accomplish.
Ending government corruption outright, or repatriating plundered wealth, is also unlikely.
"(Khan's supporters) have a simplistic idea that if there is a clean man on top, the entire machinery becomes clean. That's never the case anywhere in the world," said Rumi.
Imran Khan, a cricket legend and firebrand nationalist who swept to power in July, has vowed to root out corruption and lift people out of poverty.
World | Reuters | Updated: August 19, 2018 10:38 IST
by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored
Aussies Over 55 With Private Health Cover Should Know This (Health Insurance Comparison)
Bring the best of the Barossa to your dinner table (Dan Murphy's)
Imran Khan's Lofty Rhetoric Raising Pakistan's Expectation
Imran Khan takes oath as the Prime Minister from President Mamnoon Hussain in Islamabad. (Reuters)
ISLAMABAD: From creating 10 million jobs to building an Islamic welfare state and restoring Pakistan's tattered image abroad, new premier Imran Khan is facing a problem of his own making: runaway expectations raised by his lofty rhetoric.
A cricket legend and firebrand nationalist who is hero-worshipped by supporters, Khan swept to power in last month's election on a populist platform vowing to root out corruption among a venal elite and lift people out of poverty.
But he inherits control of a volatile nation facing mounting problems at home and abroad, including a looming economic crisis and a fracture with historic ally the United States over Pakistan's alleged links to militants. Ties are also fraught with neighbours Afghanistan and nuclear-armed rival India.
Opponents in parliament talk of forming a grand coalition against Khan, dubbing him a "puppet" and accusing him of entering into a Faustian Pact with the powerful military, which has a history of ousting prime ministers and clashing with civilian governments over control of foreign policy.
Khan denies all accusations that the military covertly helped him win the election.
And in his victory speech, Mr Khan offered an olive branch to India and called for mutually beneficial ties with the United States.
Whether Mr Khan can become the first Pakistani prime minister to complete a full five-year term in office will depend on his relationship with influential generals, analysts say.
If his ideas on foreign policy differ from theirs, analysts say Khan would suffer a similar fate to other civilian leaders who have failed to see out their term.
"Then his future will be the same as anybody else's," political commentator Aamer Ahmed Khan said.
GREAT EXPECTATIONS
Forced to rely on smaller parties for a razor-thin majority in parliament, and with the opposition controlling the Senate, Mr Khan's coalition government could struggle to push through legislation without major compromises. An increasingly assertive judiciary could also hold it back.
Yet the mood in the country is one of unbridled optimism, especially among Mr Khan's young supporters, who believe he can build a corruption-free and prosperous "New Pakistan" for the country's 208 million people.
"His biggest challenge is managing expectations among his followers and voters because he's almost promised them the moon," said Raza Ahmad Rumi, the editor of Pakistan's Daily Times newspaper.
During Independence Day celebrations this week, when flag-waving Pakistanis flooded the streets of Islamabad, many voiced confidence that Mr Khan would deliver on promises to build world class hospitals and improve education in a nation where the illiteracy rate hovers above 40 percent.
"I have moved my daughter (from a private) to a government school, because we are confident that Pakistan is going to change," said Sheikh Farhaj, 40, who volunteered for Mr Khan's Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf (PTI) party during the elections.
Others were delighted Khan has broken the decades-long dominance of the two dynastic powerhouses, the outgoing Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N) party of jailed former premier Nawaz Sharif and the Pakistan Peoples Party (PPP) of the Bhutto family.
"We have great expectations from Imran Khan," said Shah Sultan, 38, a roadside flag seller. "We are lower class people and I voted from Khan because what the politicians have done to our country. They have left it with nothing."
LOOMING ECONOMIC CRISIS
But Khan's campaign pledges are likely to be checked by a worsening economic outlook, analysts say, especially his vow to build a welfare state.
The central bank has devalued the rupee four times since December, but the current account deficit is still carrying the currency towards a crisis, while the fiscal deficit has ballooned to 6.8 percent of GDP.
Economic growth is running at nearly 6 percent, but given the unsustainability of these deficits it is easy to predict Pakistan's growth is heading for a fall.
Mr Khan's government must urgently decide whether to request more loans from China, deepening Islamabad's economic reliance on its neighbour, or ask the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for what would be its 15th bailout since 1980.
Both lenders are likely to ask for more fiscal discipline, requiring drastic spending cuts.
Shafqat Mahmood, Mr Khan's new education minister, said the economic woes pose a major problem but the party is determined to deliver a welfare system and enact badly-needed reforms.
"Everyone in the party realises we will have to work overtime to meet these huge expectations," Mahmood said.
Mahmood said Khan's image as a politician untainted by corruption could boost faith in the government and convince more people to file taxes in a nation where less than 1 percent of the population pays income tax.
Mr Khan has touted his "100 Day Plan" but many of the reforms PTI is proposing, from turning around loss-making state-run enterprises to reforming the tax collection bureau, will take far longer to accomplish.
Ending government corruption outright, or repatriating plundered wealth, is also unlikely.
"(Khan's supporters) have a simplistic idea that if there is a clean man on top, the entire machinery becomes clean. That's never the case anywhere in the world," said Rumi.
Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU - BBC News
Brexit: All you need to know about the UK leaving the EU
By Alex Hunt & Brian Wheeler
BBC News
31 July 2018
Here is an easy-to-understand guide to Brexit - beginning with the basics, then a look at the negotiations, followed by a selection of answers to questions we've been sent.
What's happening now?
The UK has voted to leave the European Union. It is scheduled to depart at 11pm UK time on Friday 29 March, 2019. The UK and EU have provisionally agreed on the three "divorce" issues of how much the UK owes the EU, what happens to the Northern Ireland border and what happens to UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK. Talks are now focusing on the detail of those issues - there is yet to be agreement on how to avoid having a physical Northern Ireland border - and on future relations. To buy more time, the two sides have agreed on a 21-month "transition" period to smooth the way to post-Brexit relations. The UK cabinet has just agreed how it sees those future relations working and will now be seeing if the EU agrees.
What is the 'transition' period?
It refers to a period of time after 29 March, 2019, to 31 December, 2020, to get everything in place and allow businesses and others to prepare for the moment when the new post-Brexit rules between the UK and the EU begin. It also allows more time for the details of the new relationship to be fully hammered out. Free movement will continue during the transition period, as the EU wanted. The UK will be able to strike its own trade deals - although they won't be able to come into force until 1 January 2021.
Further reading: UK and EU agree transition deal terms
Quick guide: Where we are with Brexit - in 300 words
In a lot of depth: The 129-page draft withdrawal agreement
Do we know how things will work in the long-term?
No. Negotiations about future relations between the UK and the EU are taking place now. Both sides hope they can agree by October on the outline of future relations on things like trade, travel and security. If all goes to plan this deal could then be given the go ahead by both sides in time for 29 March 2019. Theresa May delivered a big speech setting out her thoughts on the UK and EU's future relations on 2 March, 2018.
Theresa May's speech setting out longterm plan
May secures cabinet backing for Brexit plan
EU adopts guidelines for next Brexit phase
Key dates at-a-glance
18 October 2018: The key EU summit. Both sides hope to agree outline of future relations to allow time for UK parliament and EU members to ratify deal by Brexit day
13 December 2018: EU summit. If deal not done by October, this is the fall back option if the two sides still want to reach agreement
Commons and Lords vote on withdrawal treaty - MPs could reject the deal but it's not clear what would happen if that is the case
The UK Parliament also needs to pass an implementation bill before Brexit day
29 March 2019: As things stand, deal or no deal, Brexit is due to happen at 11pm UK time
31 December 2020: If all goes to plan a transition period will then last until midnight on this date
So is Brexit definitely happening?
The UK government and the main UK opposition party both say Brexit will happen. There are some groups campaigning for Brexit to be halted, but the focus among the UK's elected politicians has been on what relationship the UK has with the EU after Brexit, rather than whether Brexit will happen at all. Nothing is ever certain, but as things stand Britain is leaving the European Union. There is more detail on the possible hurdles further down this guide, but first let's go back to the basics...
What does Brexit mean?
It is a word that is used as a shorthand way of saying the UK leaving the EU - merging the words Britain and exit to get Brexit, in the same way as a possible Greek exit from the euro was dubbed Grexit in the past. Further reading: The rise of the word Brexit
Why is Britain leaving the European Union?
A referendum - a vote in which everyone (or nearly everyone) of voting age can take part - was held on Thursday 23 June, 2016, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 51.9% to 48.1%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting.
Find the result in your area
What was the breakdown across the UK?
England voted for Brexit, by 53.4% to 46.6%. Wales also voted for Brexit, with Leave getting 52.5% of the vote and Remain 47.5%. Scotland and Northern Ireland both backed staying in the EU. Scotland backed Remain by 62% to 38%, while 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted Remain and 44.2% Leave. See the results in more detail.
What changed in government after the referendum?
Britain got a new Prime Minister - Theresa May. The former home secretary took over from David Cameron, who announced he was resigning on the day he lost the referendum. She became PM without facing a full Conservative leadership contest after her key rivals from what had been the Leave side pulled out.
Where does Theresa May stand on Brexit?
Theresa May was against Brexit during the referendum campaign but is now in favour of it because she says it is what the British people want. Her key message has been that "Brexit means Brexit" and she triggered the two year process of leaving the EU on 29 March, 2017. She set out her negotiating goals in a letter to the EU council president Donald Tusk. She outlined her plans for a transition period after Brexit in a big speech in Florence, Italy. She then set out her thinking on the kind of trading relationship the UK wants with the EU, in a speech in March 2018.
How did the snap 2017 election change things?
Theresa May surprised almost everyone after the 2017 Easter Bank Holiday by calling an election for 8 June (it had not been due until 2020). She said she wanted to strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations with European leaders. She said Labour, the SNP and other opposition parties - and members of the House of Lords - would try to block and frustrate her strategy. However Mrs May did not increase her party's seats in the Commons and she ended up weakened, having to rely on support from the 10 MPs from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party. You can get more detail on the 2017 election here.
What has happened to the UK economy since the Brexit vote?
David Cameron, his Chancellor George Osborne and many other senior figures who wanted to stay in the EU predicted an immediate economic crisis if the UK voted to leave and it is true that the pound slumped the day after the referendum - but it has now regained its losses against the dollar, while remaining 15% down against the euro. Predictions of immediate doom were wrong, with the UK economy estimated to have grown 1.8% in 2016, second only to Germany's 1.9% among the world's G7 leading industrialised nations.
The UK economy continued to grow at almost the same rate in 2017 although there was slower growth, of 0.1% in the first three months of 2018. Inflation rose after June 2016 but has since eased to stand at 2.4%. Unemployment has continued to fall, to stand near a 40-year year low of 4.2%. Annual house price increases have steadily fallen from 9.4% in June 2016 but were still at an inflation-beating 4.2% in the year to March 2018, according to official ONS figures.
Brexit negotiations
They officially started a year after the referendum, on 19 June, 2017. Here's a picture from that first session:
The UK and EU negotiating teams met face-to-face for one week each month, with a few extra sessions also thrown in ahead of EU summits. Their first tasks were trying to get an agreement on the rights of UK and EU expat citizens after Brexit, reaching a figure for the amount of money the UK will need to pay on leaving, the so-called "divorce bill", and what happens to the Northern Ireland border. A provisional deal on these issues was reached on 8 December: 'Breakthrough' deal in Brexit talks. They then agreed terms for the "transition" phase and now have moved on to the permanent post-Brexit relationship, while trying to agree on the precise wording of the divorce issues.
What is the European Union?
The European Union - often known as the EU - is an economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries (click here if you want to see the full list). It began after World War Two to foster economic co-operation, with the idea that countries which trade together are more likely to avoid going to war with each other.
It has since grown to become a "single market" allowing goods and people to move around, basically as if the member states were one country. It has its own currency, the euro, which is used by 19 of the member countries, its own parliament and it now sets rules in a wide range of areas - including on the environment, transport, consumer rights and even things such as mobile phone charges. Click here for a beginners' guide to how the EU works.
How does the European Union work?
What is Article 50?
Article 50 is a plan for any country that wishes to exit the EU to do so. It was created as part of the Treaty of Lisbon - an agreement signed up to by all EU states which became law in 2009. Before that treaty, there was no formal mechanism for a country to leave the EU.
It's pretty short - just five paragraphs - which spell out that any EU member state may decide to quit the EU, that it must notify the European Council and negotiate its withdrawal with the EU, that there are two years to reach an agreement - unless everyone agrees to extend it - and that the exiting state cannot take part in EU internal discussions about its departure.
When is the UK due to leave the EU?
For the UK to leave the EU it had to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which gives the two sides two years to agree the terms of the split. Theresa May triggered this process on 29 March, meaning the UK is scheduled to leave at 11pm UK time on Friday, 29 March 2019. It can be extended if all 28 EU members agree, but at the moment all sides are focusing on that date as being the key one, and Theresa May has now put it into British law.
What's going to happen to all the EU laws in force in the UK?
The Conservative government has introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to Parliament. It will end the primacy of EU law in the UK on Brexit Day. This "Great Repeal Bill", as it was originally called, incorporates all EU legislation into UK law in one lump, after which the government will decide over a period of time which parts to keep, change or remove. The government is facing claims from Remain-supporting MPs that it is giving itself sweeping powers to change legislation without proper Parliamentary scrutiny. Read a full guide to the bill.
What is the Labour Party's position on Brexit?
Labour says it accepts the referendum result and that Brexit is going to happen. Leader Jeremy Corbyn says he would negotiate a permanent customs union with the EU after Brexit, which would be very similar to the one it has now. This is the only way to keep trade flowing freely and protect jobs, he says, as well as ensuring there is no return to a "hard border" in Northern Ireland. He has ruled out staying a member of the single market, as some of his pro-EU MPs want, so he can carry out his plans to nationalise key industries without being hampered by EU competition rules. He says the UK should have a very close relationship with the single market. Labour accepts that some form of free movement of people might have to continue. He also insists he could persuade Brussels to let the UK have a say in its rules post-Brexit.
What do 'soft' and 'hard' Brexit mean?
These terms are used during debate on the terms of the UK's departure from the EU. There is no strict definition of either, but they are used to refer to the closeness of the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
So at one extreme, "hard" Brexit could involve the UK refusing to compromise on issues like the free movement of people even if it meant leaving the single market or having to give up hopes of aspects of free trade arrangements. At the other end of the scale, a "soft" Brexit might follow a similar path to Norway, which is a member of the single market and has to accept the free movement of people as a result of that.
Hard Brexit. Soft Brexit. No Deal. What does Brexit mean?
What is the single market?
The single market is seen by its advocates as the EU's biggest achievement and one of the main reasons it was set up in the first place. Britain was a member of a free trade area in Europe before it joined what was then known as the common market. In a free trade area countries can trade with each other without paying tariffs - but it is not a single market because the member states do not have to merge their economies together.
The European Union single market, which was completed in 1992, allows the free movement of goods, services, money and people within the European Union, as if it was a single country. It is possible to set up a business or take a job anywhere within it. The idea was to boost trade, create jobs and lower prices. But it requires common law-making to ensure products are made to the same technical standards and imposes other rules to ensure a "level playing field".
Critics say it generates too many petty regulations and robs members of control over their own affairs. Mass migration from poorer to richer countries has also raised questions about the free movement rule. Theresa May has ruled out the UK staying in the single market, a position backed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
What's the difference between the single market and the customs union?
The customs union ensures EU member states all charge the same import duties to countries outside the EU. It allows member states to trade freely with each other, without burdensome customs checks at borders, but it limits their freedom to strike their own trade deals.
It is different from a free trade area. In a free trade area no tariffs, taxes or quotas are charged on goods and services moving within the area but members are free to strike their own external trade deals.
The government says the UK is leaving the customs union after the transition period but ministers have yet to decide on what will replace it amid divisions in cabinet over the two options - a customs partnership and a technology based "maximum facilitation" arrangement.
Reality Check: The government's customs options
Who is negotiating Britain's exit from the EU?
Theresa May set up a government department, headed by veteran Conservative MP and Leave campaigner David Davis, to take responsibility for Brexit talks. Former defence secretary, Liam Fox, who also campaigned to leave the EU, was given the new job of international trade secretary and Boris Johnson, who was a leader of the official Leave campaign, is foreign secretary. These three were each playing roles in negotiations with the EU. However that has all changed now, with Boris Johnson and David Davis resigning over Theresa May's preferred Brexit plan. Dominic Raab is the new Brexit secretary and Jeremy Hunt is foreign secretary. But Mrs May has made clear that she is in charge of the negotiations. Who's who guide to both sides' negotiators.
How long will it take for Britain to leave the EU?
The Article 50 process lasts two years so the intention is for the UK to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. EU law still stands in the UK until it ceases being a member. But as things stand there will not be a final break on that day as the two sides have agreed to a 21-month transition period to allow a smooth implementation of whatever Brexit deal is negotiated and minimise disruption to businesses and holidaymakers etc.
Why might Brexit take so long?
Unpicking 43 years of treaties and agreements covering thousands of different subjects was never going to be a straightforward task. It is further complicated by the fact that it has never been done before and negotiators are, to some extent, making it up as they go along. The post-Brexit trade deal is likely to be the most complex part of the negotiation because it needs the unanimous approval of more than 30 national and regional parliaments across Europe, some of whom may want to hold referendums.
So why can't the UK just cut all ties in March 2019?
The UK could cut all ties, but Theresa May and others would like to avoid such a "cliff-edge" where current regulations on things like cross-border trade and travel between the UK and the EU ends overnight. They think it would harm the economy.
What happens if there is no deal with the EU?
Without an agreement on trade, the UK would operate with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules, which could mean customs checks and tariffs on goods as well as longer border checks for travellers.
There are also questions about what would happen to Britain's position as a global financial centre and the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. There is also concern that Brits living abroad in the EU could lose residency rights and access to free emergency health care. Here is a full explanation of what 'no deal' could mean
What happens to EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens in the EU?
An agreement between the UK and the EU provides what Theresa May says is certainty to the 3.2 million EU citizens in the UK - as well as citizens of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland that they will be able to carry on living and working in the UK as they have done with their rights enshrined in UK law and enforced by British courts. UK citizens in the EU will also retain their current rights with what the EU's Jean-Claude Juncker called a cheap and simple administration procedure.
The proposal provides a cut-off date of Brexit day - 29 March 2019 - for those to be covered by the rules. Babies born after that date to people who have qualified under these rules will be included in the agreement. Under the plan EU citizens legally resident in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be able to leave for up to five years before losing the rights they will have as part of the proposed Brexit deal.
Healthcare rights will continue as now although it is not clear yet what status an EHIC card would have for other travellers after Brexit. For the full details please see the UK-EU agreement. As with all other aspects of Brexit, this agreement would only come into force if and when the UK and the EU agree on an overall Brexit deal.
How will EU citizens apply for the new status?
UK government ministers say there will be an online system - similar to one used to renew driving licences - that will take minutes to complete with a fee similar to getting a passport, which is about £72. Read more details here: UK unveils EU citizen registration plan
Will EU nationals have to leave the UK if there's no deal?
We don't yet know what it would mean for recent arrivals, but it's worth saying that even if no Brexit deal was done, EU nationals with a right to permanent residence, which is granted after they have lived in the UK for five years, should not see their rights affected after Brexit.
What about EU nationals who want to work in the UK?
Any EU citizen already living and working in the UK will be able to carry on working and living in the UK after Brexit. The current plan is that even after Brexit, people from the EU will be able to move to work in the UK during a "transition" phase of about two years. There is also some debate over whether they will have the same rights as those who came before, with possible restrictions on access to benefits or to vote in local elections. The EU wants them to have the same rights as now - the UK doesn't.
What happens after the transition period has yet to be decided, although it is widely expected that there will be a work permit system along the lines of that for non-EU nationals.
What does the fall in the value of the pound mean for prices in the shops?
Media captionShoppers will need to keep a close eye on how much they are spending
People travelling overseas from the UK since the Brexit vote have found their pounds buy fewer euros. A slump in the value of the dollar means the exchange rate with the pound is pretty close to where it was before the referendum.
A fall in the pound means exports get a boost as UK goods will be cheaper to buy in other countries, but some imported goods could get more expensive. The latest UK inflation figures have the rate at 3%, above the target level, but not out of kilter with recent years.
Will immigration be cut?
Prime Minister Theresa May said one of the main messages she took from the Leave vote was that the British people wanted to see a reduction in immigration. She has said this will be a focus of Brexit negotiations as she remains committed to getting net migration - the difference between the numbers entering and leaving the country - down to a "sustainable" level, which she defines as being below 100,000 a year.
The rate of increase in the size of Britain's population has slowed since the Brexit vote. Annual net migration is estimated to have fallen by nearly a third from the time of the referendum to 244,000 in the year to September 2017.
"Brexit could well be a factor in people's decision to move to or from the UK, but people's decision to migrate is complicated and can be influenced by lots of different reasons," the Office for National Statistics said. Read more: What has been Brexit effect on migration?
Could there be another referendum?
Campaigners, led by a group called the People's Vote, are calling for the public to have the final say on the final Brexit deal. Theresa May does not want another referendum, arguing that it would be an undemocratic breach of trust with the British people who clearly voted to Leave.
Labour's leaders have also spoken out against the idea, preferring the idea of a general election being called rather than another referendum. Which brings us to the next question...
Will MPs get a vote on the final Brexit deal?
Yes. Theresa May has promised there will be a Commons and Lords vote to approve whatever deal the UK and the rest of the EU agree at the end of the two year process. This vote was proposed as a "take it or leave it" one, after the deal was done.
But Mrs May suffered her first defeat as PM in December 2017 when enough Tory rebels joined with opposition parties to back an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill which puts into law the fact that any Brexit deal can only become law if MPs have voted for it.
So could MPs block Brexit?
In theory, yes, but the EU side would need to agree too. The referendum result is not legally binding and the withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament. But the UK has triggered the automatic process of leaving the EU.
MPs could vote against the exit deal between the UK and EU. This would mean the UK would be on track to leave without a deal, rather than halting the process. Some anti-Brexit MPs believe that if that happens, they could then persuade enough of their colleagues to back a second referendum.
Will I need a visa to travel to the EU?
The UK government wants to keep visa-free travel to the UK for EU visitors after Brexit and it is hoping this will be reciprocated, meaning UK citizens will continue to be able to visit EU countries for short periods without seeking official permission to travel.
If visitors from EU countries wanted to work, study or settle in the UK they would have to apply for permission under the proposals.
No agreement has been reached yet, however. If it is decided that EU citizens will need visas to come to the UK in the future, then UK citizens will need visas to travel to the EU.
Will I still be able to use my passport?
Yes. It is a British document - there is no such thing as an EU passport, so your passport will stay the same. The government has decided to change the colour to blue for anyone applying for a new or replacement British passport from October 2019.
Has any other member state ever left the EU?
No nation state has ever left the EU. But Greenland, one of Denmark's overseas territories, held a referendum in 1982, after gaining a greater degree of self government, and voted by 52% to 48% to leave, which it duly did after a period of negotiation. The BBC's Carolyn Quinn visited Greenland to find out how they did it.
What does this mean for Scotland?
Nicola Sturgeon says a new independence referendum in Scotland is likely
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in the wake of the Leave result that it was "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faced being taken out of the EU when it voted to Remain. Ms Sturgeon has officially asked for permission for a second referendum to be held. She had wanted the vote to be held between the autumn of 2018 and spring 2019, but after losing seats at the 2017 general election she has put her plans on hold with no referendum likely until 2021. Theresa May has said a second referendum should not be held during the Brexit process.
What does it mean for Northern Ireland?
The land border between Northern Ireland and EU member the Republic of Ireland has been a key part of the Brexit talks. There is currently a common travel area between the UK and the Republic. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum. The result in Northern Ireland was 56% for Remain and 44% for Leave.
Both sides in the Brexit talks agree that they do not want a return to a "hard border" - that means no physical infrastructure, such as customs posts or a network of surveillance cameras. But the wording to agree on this proved tricky and there are still many questions to be answered about how it would work in practice. It remains a stumbling block in Brexit talks.
The draft UK-EU agreement in December 2017 said that the UK "will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement'. The EU has translated this into a draft legal document, setting out its interpretation of what was agreed.
The document proposes a "common regulatory area" after Brexit on the island of Ireland - in effect keeping Northern Ireland in an EU customs union - if no other solution is found. Mrs May says this would threaten the "constitutional integrity" of the United Kingdom and lead to a border in the middle of the Irish sea, something no British prime minister could ever accept.
The UK has proposed its own temporary "backstop" arrangement if a new customs system is not ready in time by the end of the transition period.
May: UK cannot agree to EU Brexit draft
The BBC's Chris Morris outlines the Brexit deal wording on the Northern Ireland border
How much has Brexit cost so far and how much will it cost by the end?
There is much debate about the long-term costs and benefits to the UK economy of Brexit - but what we do know for certain is that the EU wants the UK to settle any outstanding bills before it leaves.
There have been no official estimates published of the size of the bill, which covers things like pension payments to EU officials, the cost of relocating London-based EU agencies and outstanding EU budget commitments.
A method for calculating the bill has been agreed, but the calculation of an exact UK share will depend on exchange rates, on interest rates, on the number of financial commitments that never turn into payments, and more.
The question of how and when payments will be made still needs to resolved, but it will be a schedule lasting for many years to come, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to give an exact figure for the size of the divorce bill.
UK sources say it will be up to £40bn, but some EU sources expect it to be higher than that. No-one can say for sure, and both sides want to keep it that way.
Why pay anything?
The UK could leave without any Brexit "divorce bill" deal but that would probably mean everyone ending up in court. If compromise can be achieved, and if payment of the bill were to be spread over many years, the amounts involved may not be that significant economically.
The UK government has ensured that it will honour pre-Brexit vote commitments
How will pensions, savings, investments and mortgages be affected?
State pensions are set to continue increasing by at least the level of earnings, inflation or 2.5% every year - whichever is the highest, no matter what happens in the Brexit negotiations.
There was an early post-referendum cut in interest rates, which has helped keep mortgage and other borrowing rates low. The reasonably strong performance of the UK economy, and the increase in inflation led to the Bank of England raising interest rates from 0.25% to 0.5% in November 2017 - the first increase in interest rates for 10 years. Interest rates going up generally makes it more expensive to pay back a mortgage or loan - but should be good news for savers as they should get amore interest on their money.
Will duty-free sales on Europe journeys return?
Journalists and writers on social media have greeted the reintroduction of duty-free sales as an "upside" or "silver lining" of Brexit. As with most Brexit consequences, whether this will happen depends on how negotiations with the EU play out - whether the "customs union" agreement between Britain and the EU is ended or continued.
Will EHIC cards still be valid?
If you are already living in another EU country on the day the UK leaves the bloc, 29 March 2019, your EHIC card - which entitles travellers to state-provided medical help for any condition or injury that requires urgent treatment, in any other country within the EU, as well as several non-EU countries - will continue to work.
After that date, for EU citizens wishing to travel to the UK or UK citizens wishing to travel to the EU, it is unclear about what will happen because no deal has yet been reached.
Will cars need new number plates?
Probably not, says BBC Europe correspondent Chris Morris, because there's no EU-wide law on vehicle registration or car number places, and the EU flag symbol is a voluntary identifier and not compulsory. The DVLA says there has been no discussion about what would happen to plates with the flag if the UK voted to leave.
Will leaving the EU mean we don't have to abide by the European Court of Human Rights?
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg is not a European Union institution. It was set up by the Council of Europe, which has 47 members including Russia and Ukraine. So quitting the EU will not exempt the UK from its decisions.
The Conservatives are committed to sticking with the Human Rights Act which requires UK courts to treat the ECHR as setting legal precedents for the UK during the Brexit process.
What about the European Court of Justice?
The Court of Justice of the European Union - to give it its full name - is the EU's highest legal authority. It is based in Luxembourg. It is an entirely different thing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
It is the ECHR not the ECJ that has often upset British politicians by making it harder, for example, to deport terrorist suspects. The ECJ interprets and enforces the rules of the single market, settling disputes between member countries over issues like free movement and trade. It is at the centre of pretty much everything the EU does and it having the power over UK actions has been a key issue for those arguing for the UK to leave to the EU to regain full sovereignty.
Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed that Britain will not be under the "direct" jurisdiction of the ECJ after Brexit. But she has suggested that elements of relations could - where the UK signs up to specific EU agencies - still be covered by the ECJ after Brexit
After that, there will need to be a new mechanism for settling disputes between the UK and the EU but what form that take has yet to be decided. There has been talk of an ombudsman, or some other third party, being appointed to settle disagreements.
The initial stages of the Brexit deal, published on 8 December 2017, do also give limited powers to the ECJ in terms of EU citizens living in the UK for up to eight years.
Will the UK be able to rejoin the EU in the future?
BBC Europe editor Katya Adler says the UK would have to start from scratch with no rebate, and enter accession talks with the EU. Every member state would have to agree to the UK re-joining. But she says with elections looming elsewhere in Europe, other leaders might not be generous towards any UK demands. New members are required to adopt the euro as their currency, once they meet the relevant criteria, although the UK could try to negotiate an opt-out.
Who wanted the UK to leave the EU?
The UK Independence Party, which received nearly four million votes - 13% of those cast - in the 2015 general election, but who saw their vote collapse to about a quarter of that at this year's election, has campaigned for many years for Britain's exit from the EU. They were joined in their call during the referendum campaign by about half the Conservative Party's MPs, including Boris Johnson and five members of the then Cabinet. A handful of Labour MPs and Northern Ireland party the DUP were also in favour of leaving.
What were their reasons for wanting the UK to leave?
They said Britain was being held back by the EU, which they said imposed too many rules on business and charged billions of pounds a year in membership fees for little in return. They also wanted the UK to make all of its own laws again, rather than being created through shared decision making with other EU nations.
Immigration was also a big issue for Brexit supporters, They wanted Britain to take back full control of its borders and reduce the number of people coming here to live and/or work.
One of the main principles of EU membership is "free movement", which means you don't need to get a visa to go and live in another EU country. The Leave campaign also objected to the idea of "ever closer union" between EU member states and what they see as moves towards the creation of a "United States of Europe".
Who wanted the UK to stay in the EU?
Then Prime Minister David Cameron was the leading voice in the Remain campaign, after reaching an agreement with other European Union leaders that would have changed the terms of Britain's membership had the country voted to stay in.
He said the deal would give Britain "special" status and help sort out some of the things British people said they didn't like about the EU, like high levels of immigration - but critics said the deal would make little difference.
Sixteen members of Mr Cameron's Cabinet, including the woman who would replace him as PM, Theresa May, also backed staying in. The Conservative Party was split on the issue and officially remained neutral in the campaign. The Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats were all in favour of staying in.
The then US president Barack Obama also wanted Britain to remain in the EU - unlike his successor, Donald Trump, who is an enthusiastic champion of Brexit - as did the leaders of other EU nations such as France and Germany.
What were their reasons for wanting the UK to stay?
Those campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU said it got a big boost from membership - it makes selling things to other EU countries easier and, they argued, the flow of immigrants, most of whom are young and keen to work, fuels economic growth and helps pay for public services.
They also said Britain's status in the world would be damaged by leaving and that we are more secure as part of the 28 nation club, rather than going it alone.
What about businesses?
Big business - with a few exceptions - tended to be in favour of Britain staying in the EU because it makes it easier for them to move money, people and products around the world.
Given the crucial role of London as a financial centre, there's interest in how many jobs may be lost to other hubs in the EU. Some UK exporters say they've had increased orders or enquiries because of the fall in the value of the pound. Others are less optimistic, fearing products for the European market may have to be made at plants in the EU.
Boris Johnson was one of the most prominent Leave campaigners
Who led the rival sides in the referendum campaign?
Britain Stronger in Europe - the main cross-party group campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU was headed by former Marks and Spencer chairman Lord Rose. It was backed by key figures from the Conservative Party, including Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, most Labour MPs, including party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Alan Johnson, who ran the Labour In for Britain campaign, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland, and the Green Party. Who funded the campaign: Britain Stronger in Europe raised £12.1m, including two donations totalling £2.3m from the supermarket magnate and Labour peer Lord Sainsbury. Other prominent Remain donors included hedge fund manager David Harding (£750,000), businessman and Travelex founder Lloyd Dorfman (£500,000) and the Tower Limited Partnership (£500,000). Read a Who's Who guide. Who else campaigned to remain: The SNP ran its own remain campaign in Scotland as it did not want to share a platform with the Conservatives. Several smaller groups also registered to campaign.
Vote Leave - A cross-party campaign that had the backing of senior Conservatives such as Michael Gove and Boris Johnson plus a handful of Labour MPs, including Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer, and UKIP's Douglas Carswell and Suzanne Evans, and the DUP in Northern Ireland. Former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson and SDP founder Lord Owen were also involved. It had a string of affiliated groups such as Farmers for Britain, Muslims for Britain and Out and Proud, a gay anti-EU group, aimed at building support in different communities. Who funded the campaign: Vote Leave raised £9.8m. Among its supporters was businessman Patrick Barbour, who gave £500,000. Former Conservative Party treasurer Peter Cruddas gave a £350,000 donation and construction mogul Terence Adams handed over £300,000. Read a Who's Who guide. Who else campaigned to leave: UKIP leader Nigel Farage was not part of Vote Leave. His party ran its own campaign and was involved in Leave.EU, a campaign run by former UKIP donor Arron Banks, which raised a total of £3.2m. The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition also ran its own out campaign. Several smaller groups also registered to campaign.
Will the EU still use English?
Yes, says BBC Europe editor Katya Adler. There will still be 27 other EU states in the bloc, and others wanting to join in the future, and the common language tends to be English - "much to France's chagrin", she says.
Will Brexit harm product safety?
Probably not, is the answer. It would depend on whether or not the UK decided to get rid of current safety standards. Even if that happened any company wanting to export to the EU would have to comply with its safety rules, and it's hard to imagine a company would want to produce two batches of the same products.
Here are a selection of questions sent in - you can ask yours via the form at the end of this page
Which MPs were for staying and which for leaving?
The good news for Edward, from Cambridge, who asked this question, is we have been working on exactly such a list. Click here for the latest version.
How much does the UK contribute to the EU and how much do we get in return?
In answer to this query from Nancy from Hornchurch - the UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out. Only France and Germany contribute more. In 2014/15, Poland was the largest beneficiary, followed by Hungary and Greece.
The UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out
The UK also gets an annual rebate that was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher and money back, in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers, which added up to £4.6bn in 2014/15. According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10.
The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn. Read more number crunching from Reality Check.
If I retire to Spain or another EU country will my healthcare costs still be covered?
David, from East Sussex, is worried about what will happen to his retirement plans. At the moment, the large British expat community in Spain gets free access to Spanish GPs and their hospital treatment is paid for by the NHS. After they become permanent residents Spain pays for their hospital treatment.
In some other EU countries such as France expats of working age are expected to pay the same healthcare costs as locals but once they reach retirement age their medical bills are paid by the NHS.
The deal agreed in principle between the UK and the EU means the position will remain unchanged for British people living in the EU before the Brexit cut off date (29 March 2019) - but it has yet to be decided what happens if you want to retire to somewhere in the EU after that date.
What will happen to protected species?
Dee, from Launceston, wanted to know what would happen to EU laws covering protected species such as bats in the event of Britain leaving the EU.
As already mentioned the plan is for all EU laws to be transferred into UK law as part of the EU (withdrawal) Bill. That means the government then has time to decide what laws to keep, scrap or change without the risk of a legal black hole on the first day after Brexit.
The status of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas, which are designated by the EU, would be reviewed to see what alternative protections could be applied. The same process would apply to European Protected Species legislation, which relate to bats and their habitats. The issue has been a hot one and Environment Secretary Michael Gove has insisted that the UK will maintain or enhance its environmental laws.
Will we be barred from the Eurovision Song Contest?
To participate in the Eurovision Song Contest countries need to be a member of the European Broadcasting Union, which is independent of the EU
Sophie from Peterborough, who asks the question, need not worry. We have consulted Alasdair Rendall, president of the UK Eurovision fan club, who says: "All participating countries must be a member of the European Broadcasting Union. The EBU - which is totally independent of the EU - includes countries both inside and outside of the EU, and also includes countries such as Israel that are outside of Europe. Indeed the UK started participating in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1957, 16 years before joining the then EEC."
What will happen to pet passports?
The answer to Alan's question, the European Commission says, is that pet passports will, like everything else, form part of the negotiations.
The UK introduced the pet passport scheme in 2000, replacing the previous quarantine laws. It means you and your dog, cat or ferret can travel between the UK and the EU (and other participating countries) as long as it has a passport, a microchip and has been vaccinated against rabies.
Of course, until the UK actually leaves the EU, the scheme continues as normal.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "The UK has a long history of world-leading animal welfare and biosecurity standards, which we are committed to safeguarding and improving, securing the best deal for Britain as we leave the EU."
Has Brexit made house prices fall?
Image copyrightPA
So far, the answer is no. The average price for property has continued to increase, although the rate of annual price rise has slowed from 6.5% in 2016 to 2.7% in 2017, according to the Halifax. It said the slowdown was driven by a squeeze on real wage growth.
What is the 'red tape' that opponents of the EU complain about?
Ged, from Liverpool, suspects "red tape" is a euphemism for employment rights and environmental protection. According to the Open Europe think tank, four of the top five most costly EU regulations are either employment or environment-related. The UK renewable energy strategy, which the think-tank says costs £4.7bn a year, tops the list. The working time directive (£4.2bn a year) - which limits the working week to 48 hours - and the temporary agency workers directive (£2.1bn a year), giving temporary staff many of the same rights as permanent ones - are also on the list.
Most of the EU-derived laws on the UK's statute books will be copied across into UK law so that businesses can continue to function on the day Britain leaves the EU, in March 2019. Future governments will then be able to amend or scrap them.
Brexit may also generate "red tape" of its own - if the UK leaves the single market and the customs union, businesses could face more paperwork as they cross borders into EU countries.
Will Britain be party to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?
Ste, in Bolton, asked about this. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - or TTIP - currently under negotiation between the EU and United States would create the biggest free trade area the world has ever seen.
Cheerleaders for TTIP, including former PM David Cameron, believed it could make American imports cheaper and boost British exports to the US to the tune of £10bn a year.
But many on the left, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, fear it will shift more power to multinational corporations, undermine public services, wreck food standards and threaten basic rights.
This debate now appears academic as US President Donald Trump is not a fan of the agreement, which means it is now seen as unlikely to be agreed - but whatever happens, when the UK quits the EU it will not be part of TTIP and will have to negotiate its own trade deal with the US.
What impact will leaving the EU have on the NHS?
Paddy, from Widnes, wanted to know how leaving the EU will affect the number of doctors we have and impact the NHS.
This became an issue in the referendum debate after the Leave campaign claimed the money Britain sends to the EU, which it claimed was £350m a week, could be spent on the NHS instead. The BBC's Reality Check team looked into this claim.
Before the vote Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned that leaving the EU would lead to budget cuts and an exodus of overseas doctors and nurses. The Leave campaign dismissed his intervention as "scaremongering" and insisted that EU membership fees could be spent on domestic services like the NHS.
Since the referendum spending on the NHS has continued at the same level as planned.
Why has leaving the European Court of Human Rights been ignored?
This is a question from Barry.
The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution and that's why discussions about leaving it have not formed a key part of the Brexit debate.
The European Court of Justice - the ECJ - is one of the primary institutions of the European Union and administers EU law. So, while it might have a role in supervising a future trade deal, part of the goal of Brexit was to remove the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction.
The European Court of Human Rights which, as Barry points out, can be even more controversial, is a body set up not by the EU but by member states of the Council of Europe, a separate institution which contains countries that aren't EU members.
It's this court which has produced rulings which have been controversial in the UK, including blocking the extradition of Abu Qatada and establishing the right of serving prisoners to vote in elections - and leaving the EU won't change anything here.
Adrian runs a small electronics company and wants to know about export tariffs after Brexit
As long as Britain has been in the EU we haven't really talked much about tariffs. That's because all trade within the European Economic Area is tariff-free. On top of that the EU has trade agreements with 52 other countries as well.
After Brexit, Britain is going to have to negotiate new deals all on its own. That's both a problem and an opportunity.
For example you can use tariffs against foreign imports to protect businesses you care about, as the EU does with agricultural produce, but you do then run the risk of retaliation from your trading partners.
The key body in all of this is the World Trade Organisation and at the moment the UK is only a member via its membership of the EU.
The UK will automatically become a member in its own right as soon as it leaves the EU.
The principle of non-discrimination means that WTO members must not treat any member less advantageously than any other.
In practice, this should prevent the EU introducing tariffs on the UK which would discriminate against us, or the UK introducing similar tariffs on the EU.
Non-food items imported into the EU currently have a tariff of about 2,3%. Cars have a 10% tariff - but if the EU were to impose a 10% tariff on UK car imports, then the UK could impose the same tariff on German and French cars. The two sides would want to avoid a tit-for-tat trade war.
They are hoping to strike a broad agreement on trading terms by March 2019 but the finer details could take years to sort out. The UK will also need to reach agreements with other nations around the world.
So if Adrian is waiting to find out the implications for his business, then he's going to have to be patient.
What impact will leaving have on the UK's long term political influence in Europe
In reply to Peter - there are basically two views on what will happen in terms of clout when outside the EU.
View one is that the UK projects power and influence in the world, working through organisations such as the EU and that on our own it'll be a much diminished force.
View two is that unencumbered by the other 27 members, the UK can get on with things and start adopting a much more independent, self-confident, assertive role on the world stage.
Will other EU nations want to leave and could the UK form its own free trade area?
If the UK were to get a fantastic Brexit deal then maybe others would be tempted to go.
But the truth is, lots of European politicians want the EU to be tough with Britain precisely to stop other countries from following it through the door.
As to Britain forming its own free trade area, it seems an awfully long shot and on balance it is unlikely, not least because there are not that many free countries around available to recruit into another free trade area.
How will access to healthcare change for expats living in the EU
Veronique, who lives in Italy asked this one. fter Brexit, there will be two possibilities.
The first and easiest would be that the negotiators come up with a reciprocal deal that keeps the current arrangements, or something a bit like them, in place.
If they don't, the situation will depend on the individual country where you live.
For the Bradleys in Italy, for example, residents from non-EU countries, and that will soon include the Brits, will have to finalise their residency status, acquire an Italian identity card and then apply for an Italian health insurance card.
If they visit the UK at the moment, access to the NHS for non-resident Brits is not straightforward unless you have a European health insurance card.
The right to treatment is based on residency, not on your tax status.
So, even if you live abroad and pay some British tax on a buy-to-let property for instance, you might find yourself getting a bill for any NHS treatment you end up getting while you are back in the UK.
What will happen to EU nationals with a British state pension
Peter, a German citizen living in the UK asked this question, and the good news is that if you are an EU national and you get a British state pension, nothing much should change, because the state pension is dependent not on where you come from, but on how long you have paid National Insurance contributions in the UK.
So it doesn't matter whether you come from Lithuania or Latvia or Transylvania or Timbuktu, what counts is how much you have paid in terms of National Insurance contributions.
There is one wrinkle though and that is that you have to have paid in for at least 10 years.
Under the current rules, if you are an EU citizen and haven't paid in for 10 years, you can point to any contributions you have made in your native country and say, "I paid in there", and that will count.
That works for EU countries and another 16 countries with which the UK has social security agreements.
Once we have left the EU, you will no longer be able to do that unless we negotiate new reciprocal agreements.
If we don't then potentially, if you have paid in fewer than than 10 years' worth of National Insurance contributions, you will not get a British state pension.
Is it possible to be both an EU citizen and not an EU citizen
Anyone born in Northern Ireland has an absolute right to carry both passports.
Declan, and Irish passport holder, might be happy to know that this is one of the few questions where I can't see a downside as long as you are happy and comfortable carrying both passports.
The Irish document means you continue to enjoy the benefits of EU citizenship, and the British passport will give you full rights in the UK at the same time.
Call it one of the clear joys of coming from Northern Ireland, alongside the rolling hills, rugged coastline and enjoyable breaks between the showers.
All you have to do is remember to carry the Irish passport when you are joining the EU citizens-only queue at the airport in future.
Is there a get-out clause for Article 50?
It's complicated. On the face of it, it looks like once we have triggered Article 50 we are locked in, and that is certainly how the European Parliament reads it.
And there is a view that if we were in this two-year process after triggering Article 50 and we wanted to get out of it, then ultimately that would be a decision for the European Court of Justice.
But the EU top brass never miss an opportunity to tell us what a big mistake they think we are making.
So although suddenly announcing we don't want to leave after all would involve a huge loss of face, other European leaders might help it happen, whatever the legal protocol but all 28 EU members would have to agree.
By Alex Hunt & Brian Wheeler
BBC News
31 July 2018
Here is an easy-to-understand guide to Brexit - beginning with the basics, then a look at the negotiations, followed by a selection of answers to questions we've been sent.
What's happening now?
The UK has voted to leave the European Union. It is scheduled to depart at 11pm UK time on Friday 29 March, 2019. The UK and EU have provisionally agreed on the three "divorce" issues of how much the UK owes the EU, what happens to the Northern Ireland border and what happens to UK citizens living elsewhere in the EU and EU citizens living in the UK. Talks are now focusing on the detail of those issues - there is yet to be agreement on how to avoid having a physical Northern Ireland border - and on future relations. To buy more time, the two sides have agreed on a 21-month "transition" period to smooth the way to post-Brexit relations. The UK cabinet has just agreed how it sees those future relations working and will now be seeing if the EU agrees.
What is the 'transition' period?
It refers to a period of time after 29 March, 2019, to 31 December, 2020, to get everything in place and allow businesses and others to prepare for the moment when the new post-Brexit rules between the UK and the EU begin. It also allows more time for the details of the new relationship to be fully hammered out. Free movement will continue during the transition period, as the EU wanted. The UK will be able to strike its own trade deals - although they won't be able to come into force until 1 January 2021.
Further reading: UK and EU agree transition deal terms
Quick guide: Where we are with Brexit - in 300 words
In a lot of depth: The 129-page draft withdrawal agreement
Do we know how things will work in the long-term?
No. Negotiations about future relations between the UK and the EU are taking place now. Both sides hope they can agree by October on the outline of future relations on things like trade, travel and security. If all goes to plan this deal could then be given the go ahead by both sides in time for 29 March 2019. Theresa May delivered a big speech setting out her thoughts on the UK and EU's future relations on 2 March, 2018.
Theresa May's speech setting out longterm plan
May secures cabinet backing for Brexit plan
EU adopts guidelines for next Brexit phase
Key dates at-a-glance
18 October 2018: The key EU summit. Both sides hope to agree outline of future relations to allow time for UK parliament and EU members to ratify deal by Brexit day
13 December 2018: EU summit. If deal not done by October, this is the fall back option if the two sides still want to reach agreement
Commons and Lords vote on withdrawal treaty - MPs could reject the deal but it's not clear what would happen if that is the case
The UK Parliament also needs to pass an implementation bill before Brexit day
29 March 2019: As things stand, deal or no deal, Brexit is due to happen at 11pm UK time
31 December 2020: If all goes to plan a transition period will then last until midnight on this date
So is Brexit definitely happening?
The UK government and the main UK opposition party both say Brexit will happen. There are some groups campaigning for Brexit to be halted, but the focus among the UK's elected politicians has been on what relationship the UK has with the EU after Brexit, rather than whether Brexit will happen at all. Nothing is ever certain, but as things stand Britain is leaving the European Union. There is more detail on the possible hurdles further down this guide, but first let's go back to the basics...
What does Brexit mean?
It is a word that is used as a shorthand way of saying the UK leaving the EU - merging the words Britain and exit to get Brexit, in the same way as a possible Greek exit from the euro was dubbed Grexit in the past. Further reading: The rise of the word Brexit
Why is Britain leaving the European Union?
A referendum - a vote in which everyone (or nearly everyone) of voting age can take part - was held on Thursday 23 June, 2016, to decide whether the UK should leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 51.9% to 48.1%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting.
Find the result in your area
What was the breakdown across the UK?
England voted for Brexit, by 53.4% to 46.6%. Wales also voted for Brexit, with Leave getting 52.5% of the vote and Remain 47.5%. Scotland and Northern Ireland both backed staying in the EU. Scotland backed Remain by 62% to 38%, while 55.8% in Northern Ireland voted Remain and 44.2% Leave. See the results in more detail.
What changed in government after the referendum?
Britain got a new Prime Minister - Theresa May. The former home secretary took over from David Cameron, who announced he was resigning on the day he lost the referendum. She became PM without facing a full Conservative leadership contest after her key rivals from what had been the Leave side pulled out.
Where does Theresa May stand on Brexit?
Theresa May was against Brexit during the referendum campaign but is now in favour of it because she says it is what the British people want. Her key message has been that "Brexit means Brexit" and she triggered the two year process of leaving the EU on 29 March, 2017. She set out her negotiating goals in a letter to the EU council president Donald Tusk. She outlined her plans for a transition period after Brexit in a big speech in Florence, Italy. She then set out her thinking on the kind of trading relationship the UK wants with the EU, in a speech in March 2018.
How did the snap 2017 election change things?
Theresa May surprised almost everyone after the 2017 Easter Bank Holiday by calling an election for 8 June (it had not been due until 2020). She said she wanted to strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations with European leaders. She said Labour, the SNP and other opposition parties - and members of the House of Lords - would try to block and frustrate her strategy. However Mrs May did not increase her party's seats in the Commons and she ended up weakened, having to rely on support from the 10 MPs from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party. You can get more detail on the 2017 election here.
What has happened to the UK economy since the Brexit vote?
David Cameron, his Chancellor George Osborne and many other senior figures who wanted to stay in the EU predicted an immediate economic crisis if the UK voted to leave and it is true that the pound slumped the day after the referendum - but it has now regained its losses against the dollar, while remaining 15% down against the euro. Predictions of immediate doom were wrong, with the UK economy estimated to have grown 1.8% in 2016, second only to Germany's 1.9% among the world's G7 leading industrialised nations.
The UK economy continued to grow at almost the same rate in 2017 although there was slower growth, of 0.1% in the first three months of 2018. Inflation rose after June 2016 but has since eased to stand at 2.4%. Unemployment has continued to fall, to stand near a 40-year year low of 4.2%. Annual house price increases have steadily fallen from 9.4% in June 2016 but were still at an inflation-beating 4.2% in the year to March 2018, according to official ONS figures.
Brexit negotiations
They officially started a year after the referendum, on 19 June, 2017. Here's a picture from that first session:
The UK and EU negotiating teams met face-to-face for one week each month, with a few extra sessions also thrown in ahead of EU summits. Their first tasks were trying to get an agreement on the rights of UK and EU expat citizens after Brexit, reaching a figure for the amount of money the UK will need to pay on leaving, the so-called "divorce bill", and what happens to the Northern Ireland border. A provisional deal on these issues was reached on 8 December: 'Breakthrough' deal in Brexit talks. They then agreed terms for the "transition" phase and now have moved on to the permanent post-Brexit relationship, while trying to agree on the precise wording of the divorce issues.
What is the European Union?
The European Union - often known as the EU - is an economic and political partnership involving 28 European countries (click here if you want to see the full list). It began after World War Two to foster economic co-operation, with the idea that countries which trade together are more likely to avoid going to war with each other.
It has since grown to become a "single market" allowing goods and people to move around, basically as if the member states were one country. It has its own currency, the euro, which is used by 19 of the member countries, its own parliament and it now sets rules in a wide range of areas - including on the environment, transport, consumer rights and even things such as mobile phone charges. Click here for a beginners' guide to how the EU works.
How does the European Union work?
What is Article 50?
Article 50 is a plan for any country that wishes to exit the EU to do so. It was created as part of the Treaty of Lisbon - an agreement signed up to by all EU states which became law in 2009. Before that treaty, there was no formal mechanism for a country to leave the EU.
It's pretty short - just five paragraphs - which spell out that any EU member state may decide to quit the EU, that it must notify the European Council and negotiate its withdrawal with the EU, that there are two years to reach an agreement - unless everyone agrees to extend it - and that the exiting state cannot take part in EU internal discussions about its departure.
When is the UK due to leave the EU?
For the UK to leave the EU it had to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which gives the two sides two years to agree the terms of the split. Theresa May triggered this process on 29 March, meaning the UK is scheduled to leave at 11pm UK time on Friday, 29 March 2019. It can be extended if all 28 EU members agree, but at the moment all sides are focusing on that date as being the key one, and Theresa May has now put it into British law.
What's going to happen to all the EU laws in force in the UK?
The Conservative government has introduced the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to Parliament. It will end the primacy of EU law in the UK on Brexit Day. This "Great Repeal Bill", as it was originally called, incorporates all EU legislation into UK law in one lump, after which the government will decide over a period of time which parts to keep, change or remove. The government is facing claims from Remain-supporting MPs that it is giving itself sweeping powers to change legislation without proper Parliamentary scrutiny. Read a full guide to the bill.
What is the Labour Party's position on Brexit?
Labour says it accepts the referendum result and that Brexit is going to happen. Leader Jeremy Corbyn says he would negotiate a permanent customs union with the EU after Brexit, which would be very similar to the one it has now. This is the only way to keep trade flowing freely and protect jobs, he says, as well as ensuring there is no return to a "hard border" in Northern Ireland. He has ruled out staying a member of the single market, as some of his pro-EU MPs want, so he can carry out his plans to nationalise key industries without being hampered by EU competition rules. He says the UK should have a very close relationship with the single market. Labour accepts that some form of free movement of people might have to continue. He also insists he could persuade Brussels to let the UK have a say in its rules post-Brexit.
What do 'soft' and 'hard' Brexit mean?
These terms are used during debate on the terms of the UK's departure from the EU. There is no strict definition of either, but they are used to refer to the closeness of the UK's relationship with the EU post-Brexit.
So at one extreme, "hard" Brexit could involve the UK refusing to compromise on issues like the free movement of people even if it meant leaving the single market or having to give up hopes of aspects of free trade arrangements. At the other end of the scale, a "soft" Brexit might follow a similar path to Norway, which is a member of the single market and has to accept the free movement of people as a result of that.
Hard Brexit. Soft Brexit. No Deal. What does Brexit mean?
What is the single market?
The single market is seen by its advocates as the EU's biggest achievement and one of the main reasons it was set up in the first place. Britain was a member of a free trade area in Europe before it joined what was then known as the common market. In a free trade area countries can trade with each other without paying tariffs - but it is not a single market because the member states do not have to merge their economies together.
The European Union single market, which was completed in 1992, allows the free movement of goods, services, money and people within the European Union, as if it was a single country. It is possible to set up a business or take a job anywhere within it. The idea was to boost trade, create jobs and lower prices. But it requires common law-making to ensure products are made to the same technical standards and imposes other rules to ensure a "level playing field".
Critics say it generates too many petty regulations and robs members of control over their own affairs. Mass migration from poorer to richer countries has also raised questions about the free movement rule. Theresa May has ruled out the UK staying in the single market, a position backed by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
What's the difference between the single market and the customs union?
The customs union ensures EU member states all charge the same import duties to countries outside the EU. It allows member states to trade freely with each other, without burdensome customs checks at borders, but it limits their freedom to strike their own trade deals.
It is different from a free trade area. In a free trade area no tariffs, taxes or quotas are charged on goods and services moving within the area but members are free to strike their own external trade deals.
The government says the UK is leaving the customs union after the transition period but ministers have yet to decide on what will replace it amid divisions in cabinet over the two options - a customs partnership and a technology based "maximum facilitation" arrangement.
Reality Check: The government's customs options
Who is negotiating Britain's exit from the EU?
Theresa May set up a government department, headed by veteran Conservative MP and Leave campaigner David Davis, to take responsibility for Brexit talks. Former defence secretary, Liam Fox, who also campaigned to leave the EU, was given the new job of international trade secretary and Boris Johnson, who was a leader of the official Leave campaign, is foreign secretary. These three were each playing roles in negotiations with the EU. However that has all changed now, with Boris Johnson and David Davis resigning over Theresa May's preferred Brexit plan. Dominic Raab is the new Brexit secretary and Jeremy Hunt is foreign secretary. But Mrs May has made clear that she is in charge of the negotiations. Who's who guide to both sides' negotiators.
How long will it take for Britain to leave the EU?
The Article 50 process lasts two years so the intention is for the UK to leave the EU on 29 March 2019. EU law still stands in the UK until it ceases being a member. But as things stand there will not be a final break on that day as the two sides have agreed to a 21-month transition period to allow a smooth implementation of whatever Brexit deal is negotiated and minimise disruption to businesses and holidaymakers etc.
Why might Brexit take so long?
Unpicking 43 years of treaties and agreements covering thousands of different subjects was never going to be a straightforward task. It is further complicated by the fact that it has never been done before and negotiators are, to some extent, making it up as they go along. The post-Brexit trade deal is likely to be the most complex part of the negotiation because it needs the unanimous approval of more than 30 national and regional parliaments across Europe, some of whom may want to hold referendums.
So why can't the UK just cut all ties in March 2019?
The UK could cut all ties, but Theresa May and others would like to avoid such a "cliff-edge" where current regulations on things like cross-border trade and travel between the UK and the EU ends overnight. They think it would harm the economy.
What happens if there is no deal with the EU?
Without an agreement on trade, the UK would operate with the EU under World Trade Organisation rules, which could mean customs checks and tariffs on goods as well as longer border checks for travellers.
There are also questions about what would happen to Britain's position as a global financial centre and the land border between the UK and the Republic of Ireland. There is also concern that Brits living abroad in the EU could lose residency rights and access to free emergency health care. Here is a full explanation of what 'no deal' could mean
What happens to EU citizens living in the UK and UK citizens in the EU?
An agreement between the UK and the EU provides what Theresa May says is certainty to the 3.2 million EU citizens in the UK - as well as citizens of Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland that they will be able to carry on living and working in the UK as they have done with their rights enshrined in UK law and enforced by British courts. UK citizens in the EU will also retain their current rights with what the EU's Jean-Claude Juncker called a cheap and simple administration procedure.
The proposal provides a cut-off date of Brexit day - 29 March 2019 - for those to be covered by the rules. Babies born after that date to people who have qualified under these rules will be included in the agreement. Under the plan EU citizens legally resident in the UK and UK citizens in the EU will be able to leave for up to five years before losing the rights they will have as part of the proposed Brexit deal.
Healthcare rights will continue as now although it is not clear yet what status an EHIC card would have for other travellers after Brexit. For the full details please see the UK-EU agreement. As with all other aspects of Brexit, this agreement would only come into force if and when the UK and the EU agree on an overall Brexit deal.
How will EU citizens apply for the new status?
UK government ministers say there will be an online system - similar to one used to renew driving licences - that will take minutes to complete with a fee similar to getting a passport, which is about £72. Read more details here: UK unveils EU citizen registration plan
Will EU nationals have to leave the UK if there's no deal?
We don't yet know what it would mean for recent arrivals, but it's worth saying that even if no Brexit deal was done, EU nationals with a right to permanent residence, which is granted after they have lived in the UK for five years, should not see their rights affected after Brexit.
What about EU nationals who want to work in the UK?
Any EU citizen already living and working in the UK will be able to carry on working and living in the UK after Brexit. The current plan is that even after Brexit, people from the EU will be able to move to work in the UK during a "transition" phase of about two years. There is also some debate over whether they will have the same rights as those who came before, with possible restrictions on access to benefits or to vote in local elections. The EU wants them to have the same rights as now - the UK doesn't.
What happens after the transition period has yet to be decided, although it is widely expected that there will be a work permit system along the lines of that for non-EU nationals.
What does the fall in the value of the pound mean for prices in the shops?
Media captionShoppers will need to keep a close eye on how much they are spending
People travelling overseas from the UK since the Brexit vote have found their pounds buy fewer euros. A slump in the value of the dollar means the exchange rate with the pound is pretty close to where it was before the referendum.
A fall in the pound means exports get a boost as UK goods will be cheaper to buy in other countries, but some imported goods could get more expensive. The latest UK inflation figures have the rate at 3%, above the target level, but not out of kilter with recent years.
Will immigration be cut?
Prime Minister Theresa May said one of the main messages she took from the Leave vote was that the British people wanted to see a reduction in immigration. She has said this will be a focus of Brexit negotiations as she remains committed to getting net migration - the difference between the numbers entering and leaving the country - down to a "sustainable" level, which she defines as being below 100,000 a year.
The rate of increase in the size of Britain's population has slowed since the Brexit vote. Annual net migration is estimated to have fallen by nearly a third from the time of the referendum to 244,000 in the year to September 2017.
"Brexit could well be a factor in people's decision to move to or from the UK, but people's decision to migrate is complicated and can be influenced by lots of different reasons," the Office for National Statistics said. Read more: What has been Brexit effect on migration?
Could there be another referendum?
Campaigners, led by a group called the People's Vote, are calling for the public to have the final say on the final Brexit deal. Theresa May does not want another referendum, arguing that it would be an undemocratic breach of trust with the British people who clearly voted to Leave.
Labour's leaders have also spoken out against the idea, preferring the idea of a general election being called rather than another referendum. Which brings us to the next question...
Will MPs get a vote on the final Brexit deal?
Yes. Theresa May has promised there will be a Commons and Lords vote to approve whatever deal the UK and the rest of the EU agree at the end of the two year process. This vote was proposed as a "take it or leave it" one, after the deal was done.
But Mrs May suffered her first defeat as PM in December 2017 when enough Tory rebels joined with opposition parties to back an amendment to the EU Withdrawal Bill which puts into law the fact that any Brexit deal can only become law if MPs have voted for it.
So could MPs block Brexit?
In theory, yes, but the EU side would need to agree too. The referendum result is not legally binding and the withdrawal agreement also has to be ratified by Parliament. But the UK has triggered the automatic process of leaving the EU.
MPs could vote against the exit deal between the UK and EU. This would mean the UK would be on track to leave without a deal, rather than halting the process. Some anti-Brexit MPs believe that if that happens, they could then persuade enough of their colleagues to back a second referendum.
Will I need a visa to travel to the EU?
The UK government wants to keep visa-free travel to the UK for EU visitors after Brexit and it is hoping this will be reciprocated, meaning UK citizens will continue to be able to visit EU countries for short periods without seeking official permission to travel.
If visitors from EU countries wanted to work, study or settle in the UK they would have to apply for permission under the proposals.
No agreement has been reached yet, however. If it is decided that EU citizens will need visas to come to the UK in the future, then UK citizens will need visas to travel to the EU.
Will I still be able to use my passport?
Yes. It is a British document - there is no such thing as an EU passport, so your passport will stay the same. The government has decided to change the colour to blue for anyone applying for a new or replacement British passport from October 2019.
Has any other member state ever left the EU?
No nation state has ever left the EU. But Greenland, one of Denmark's overseas territories, held a referendum in 1982, after gaining a greater degree of self government, and voted by 52% to 48% to leave, which it duly did after a period of negotiation. The BBC's Carolyn Quinn visited Greenland to find out how they did it.
What does this mean for Scotland?
Nicola Sturgeon says a new independence referendum in Scotland is likely
Scotland's First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said in the wake of the Leave result that it was "democratically unacceptable" that Scotland faced being taken out of the EU when it voted to Remain. Ms Sturgeon has officially asked for permission for a second referendum to be held. She had wanted the vote to be held between the autumn of 2018 and spring 2019, but after losing seats at the 2017 general election she has put her plans on hold with no referendum likely until 2021. Theresa May has said a second referendum should not be held during the Brexit process.
What does it mean for Northern Ireland?
The land border between Northern Ireland and EU member the Republic of Ireland has been a key part of the Brexit talks. There is currently a common travel area between the UK and the Republic. Like Scotland, Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU in the 2016 referendum. The result in Northern Ireland was 56% for Remain and 44% for Leave.
Both sides in the Brexit talks agree that they do not want a return to a "hard border" - that means no physical infrastructure, such as customs posts or a network of surveillance cameras. But the wording to agree on this proved tricky and there are still many questions to be answered about how it would work in practice. It remains a stumbling block in Brexit talks.
The draft UK-EU agreement in December 2017 said that the UK "will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement'. The EU has translated this into a draft legal document, setting out its interpretation of what was agreed.
The document proposes a "common regulatory area" after Brexit on the island of Ireland - in effect keeping Northern Ireland in an EU customs union - if no other solution is found. Mrs May says this would threaten the "constitutional integrity" of the United Kingdom and lead to a border in the middle of the Irish sea, something no British prime minister could ever accept.
The UK has proposed its own temporary "backstop" arrangement if a new customs system is not ready in time by the end of the transition period.
May: UK cannot agree to EU Brexit draft
The BBC's Chris Morris outlines the Brexit deal wording on the Northern Ireland border
How much has Brexit cost so far and how much will it cost by the end?
There is much debate about the long-term costs and benefits to the UK economy of Brexit - but what we do know for certain is that the EU wants the UK to settle any outstanding bills before it leaves.
There have been no official estimates published of the size of the bill, which covers things like pension payments to EU officials, the cost of relocating London-based EU agencies and outstanding EU budget commitments.
A method for calculating the bill has been agreed, but the calculation of an exact UK share will depend on exchange rates, on interest rates, on the number of financial commitments that never turn into payments, and more.
The question of how and when payments will be made still needs to resolved, but it will be a schedule lasting for many years to come, and it is highly unlikely that anyone will ever be able to give an exact figure for the size of the divorce bill.
UK sources say it will be up to £40bn, but some EU sources expect it to be higher than that. No-one can say for sure, and both sides want to keep it that way.
Why pay anything?
The UK could leave without any Brexit "divorce bill" deal but that would probably mean everyone ending up in court. If compromise can be achieved, and if payment of the bill were to be spread over many years, the amounts involved may not be that significant economically.
The UK government has ensured that it will honour pre-Brexit vote commitments
How will pensions, savings, investments and mortgages be affected?
State pensions are set to continue increasing by at least the level of earnings, inflation or 2.5% every year - whichever is the highest, no matter what happens in the Brexit negotiations.
There was an early post-referendum cut in interest rates, which has helped keep mortgage and other borrowing rates low. The reasonably strong performance of the UK economy, and the increase in inflation led to the Bank of England raising interest rates from 0.25% to 0.5% in November 2017 - the first increase in interest rates for 10 years. Interest rates going up generally makes it more expensive to pay back a mortgage or loan - but should be good news for savers as they should get amore interest on their money.
Will duty-free sales on Europe journeys return?
Journalists and writers on social media have greeted the reintroduction of duty-free sales as an "upside" or "silver lining" of Brexit. As with most Brexit consequences, whether this will happen depends on how negotiations with the EU play out - whether the "customs union" agreement between Britain and the EU is ended or continued.
Will EHIC cards still be valid?
If you are already living in another EU country on the day the UK leaves the bloc, 29 March 2019, your EHIC card - which entitles travellers to state-provided medical help for any condition or injury that requires urgent treatment, in any other country within the EU, as well as several non-EU countries - will continue to work.
After that date, for EU citizens wishing to travel to the UK or UK citizens wishing to travel to the EU, it is unclear about what will happen because no deal has yet been reached.
Will cars need new number plates?
Probably not, says BBC Europe correspondent Chris Morris, because there's no EU-wide law on vehicle registration or car number places, and the EU flag symbol is a voluntary identifier and not compulsory. The DVLA says there has been no discussion about what would happen to plates with the flag if the UK voted to leave.
Will leaving the EU mean we don't have to abide by the European Court of Human Rights?
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg is not a European Union institution. It was set up by the Council of Europe, which has 47 members including Russia and Ukraine. So quitting the EU will not exempt the UK from its decisions.
The Conservatives are committed to sticking with the Human Rights Act which requires UK courts to treat the ECHR as setting legal precedents for the UK during the Brexit process.
What about the European Court of Justice?
The Court of Justice of the European Union - to give it its full name - is the EU's highest legal authority. It is based in Luxembourg. It is an entirely different thing to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
It is the ECHR not the ECJ that has often upset British politicians by making it harder, for example, to deport terrorist suspects. The ECJ interprets and enforces the rules of the single market, settling disputes between member countries over issues like free movement and trade. It is at the centre of pretty much everything the EU does and it having the power over UK actions has been a key issue for those arguing for the UK to leave to the EU to regain full sovereignty.
Prime Minister Theresa May has vowed that Britain will not be under the "direct" jurisdiction of the ECJ after Brexit. But she has suggested that elements of relations could - where the UK signs up to specific EU agencies - still be covered by the ECJ after Brexit
After that, there will need to be a new mechanism for settling disputes between the UK and the EU but what form that take has yet to be decided. There has been talk of an ombudsman, or some other third party, being appointed to settle disagreements.
The initial stages of the Brexit deal, published on 8 December 2017, do also give limited powers to the ECJ in terms of EU citizens living in the UK for up to eight years.
Will the UK be able to rejoin the EU in the future?
BBC Europe editor Katya Adler says the UK would have to start from scratch with no rebate, and enter accession talks with the EU. Every member state would have to agree to the UK re-joining. But she says with elections looming elsewhere in Europe, other leaders might not be generous towards any UK demands. New members are required to adopt the euro as their currency, once they meet the relevant criteria, although the UK could try to negotiate an opt-out.
Who wanted the UK to leave the EU?
The UK Independence Party, which received nearly four million votes - 13% of those cast - in the 2015 general election, but who saw their vote collapse to about a quarter of that at this year's election, has campaigned for many years for Britain's exit from the EU. They were joined in their call during the referendum campaign by about half the Conservative Party's MPs, including Boris Johnson and five members of the then Cabinet. A handful of Labour MPs and Northern Ireland party the DUP were also in favour of leaving.
What were their reasons for wanting the UK to leave?
They said Britain was being held back by the EU, which they said imposed too many rules on business and charged billions of pounds a year in membership fees for little in return. They also wanted the UK to make all of its own laws again, rather than being created through shared decision making with other EU nations.
Immigration was also a big issue for Brexit supporters, They wanted Britain to take back full control of its borders and reduce the number of people coming here to live and/or work.
One of the main principles of EU membership is "free movement", which means you don't need to get a visa to go and live in another EU country. The Leave campaign also objected to the idea of "ever closer union" between EU member states and what they see as moves towards the creation of a "United States of Europe".
Who wanted the UK to stay in the EU?
Then Prime Minister David Cameron was the leading voice in the Remain campaign, after reaching an agreement with other European Union leaders that would have changed the terms of Britain's membership had the country voted to stay in.
He said the deal would give Britain "special" status and help sort out some of the things British people said they didn't like about the EU, like high levels of immigration - but critics said the deal would make little difference.
Sixteen members of Mr Cameron's Cabinet, including the woman who would replace him as PM, Theresa May, also backed staying in. The Conservative Party was split on the issue and officially remained neutral in the campaign. The Labour Party, Scottish National Party, Plaid Cymru, the Green Party and the Liberal Democrats were all in favour of staying in.
The then US president Barack Obama also wanted Britain to remain in the EU - unlike his successor, Donald Trump, who is an enthusiastic champion of Brexit - as did the leaders of other EU nations such as France and Germany.
What were their reasons for wanting the UK to stay?
Those campaigning for Britain to stay in the EU said it got a big boost from membership - it makes selling things to other EU countries easier and, they argued, the flow of immigrants, most of whom are young and keen to work, fuels economic growth and helps pay for public services.
They also said Britain's status in the world would be damaged by leaving and that we are more secure as part of the 28 nation club, rather than going it alone.
What about businesses?
Big business - with a few exceptions - tended to be in favour of Britain staying in the EU because it makes it easier for them to move money, people and products around the world.
Given the crucial role of London as a financial centre, there's interest in how many jobs may be lost to other hubs in the EU. Some UK exporters say they've had increased orders or enquiries because of the fall in the value of the pound. Others are less optimistic, fearing products for the European market may have to be made at plants in the EU.
Boris Johnson was one of the most prominent Leave campaigners
Who led the rival sides in the referendum campaign?
Britain Stronger in Europe - the main cross-party group campaigning for Britain to remain in the EU was headed by former Marks and Spencer chairman Lord Rose. It was backed by key figures from the Conservative Party, including Prime Minister David Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne, most Labour MPs, including party leader Jeremy Corbyn and Alan Johnson, who ran the Labour In for Britain campaign, the Lib Dems, Plaid Cymru, the Alliance party and the SDLP in Northern Ireland, and the Green Party. Who funded the campaign: Britain Stronger in Europe raised £12.1m, including two donations totalling £2.3m from the supermarket magnate and Labour peer Lord Sainsbury. Other prominent Remain donors included hedge fund manager David Harding (£750,000), businessman and Travelex founder Lloyd Dorfman (£500,000) and the Tower Limited Partnership (£500,000). Read a Who's Who guide. Who else campaigned to remain: The SNP ran its own remain campaign in Scotland as it did not want to share a platform with the Conservatives. Several smaller groups also registered to campaign.
Vote Leave - A cross-party campaign that had the backing of senior Conservatives such as Michael Gove and Boris Johnson plus a handful of Labour MPs, including Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer, and UKIP's Douglas Carswell and Suzanne Evans, and the DUP in Northern Ireland. Former Tory chancellor Lord Lawson and SDP founder Lord Owen were also involved. It had a string of affiliated groups such as Farmers for Britain, Muslims for Britain and Out and Proud, a gay anti-EU group, aimed at building support in different communities. Who funded the campaign: Vote Leave raised £9.8m. Among its supporters was businessman Patrick Barbour, who gave £500,000. Former Conservative Party treasurer Peter Cruddas gave a £350,000 donation and construction mogul Terence Adams handed over £300,000. Read a Who's Who guide. Who else campaigned to leave: UKIP leader Nigel Farage was not part of Vote Leave. His party ran its own campaign and was involved in Leave.EU, a campaign run by former UKIP donor Arron Banks, which raised a total of £3.2m. The Trade Union and Socialist Coalition also ran its own out campaign. Several smaller groups also registered to campaign.
Will the EU still use English?
Yes, says BBC Europe editor Katya Adler. There will still be 27 other EU states in the bloc, and others wanting to join in the future, and the common language tends to be English - "much to France's chagrin", she says.
Will Brexit harm product safety?
Probably not, is the answer. It would depend on whether or not the UK decided to get rid of current safety standards. Even if that happened any company wanting to export to the EU would have to comply with its safety rules, and it's hard to imagine a company would want to produce two batches of the same products.
Here are a selection of questions sent in - you can ask yours via the form at the end of this page
Which MPs were for staying and which for leaving?
The good news for Edward, from Cambridge, who asked this question, is we have been working on exactly such a list. Click here for the latest version.
How much does the UK contribute to the EU and how much do we get in return?
In answer to this query from Nancy from Hornchurch - the UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out. Only France and Germany contribute more. In 2014/15, Poland was the largest beneficiary, followed by Hungary and Greece.
The UK is one of 10 member states who pay more into the EU budget than they get out
The UK also gets an annual rebate that was negotiated by Margaret Thatcher and money back, in the form of regional development grants and payments to farmers, which added up to £4.6bn in 2014/15. According to the latest Treasury figures, the UK's net contribution for 2014/15 was £8.8bn - nearly double what it was in 2009/10.
The National Audit Office, using a different formula which takes into account EU money paid directly to private sector companies and universities to fund research, and measured over the EU's financial year, shows the UK's net contribution for 2014 was £5.7bn. Read more number crunching from Reality Check.
If I retire to Spain or another EU country will my healthcare costs still be covered?
David, from East Sussex, is worried about what will happen to his retirement plans. At the moment, the large British expat community in Spain gets free access to Spanish GPs and their hospital treatment is paid for by the NHS. After they become permanent residents Spain pays for their hospital treatment.
In some other EU countries such as France expats of working age are expected to pay the same healthcare costs as locals but once they reach retirement age their medical bills are paid by the NHS.
The deal agreed in principle between the UK and the EU means the position will remain unchanged for British people living in the EU before the Brexit cut off date (29 March 2019) - but it has yet to be decided what happens if you want to retire to somewhere in the EU after that date.
What will happen to protected species?
Dee, from Launceston, wanted to know what would happen to EU laws covering protected species such as bats in the event of Britain leaving the EU.
As already mentioned the plan is for all EU laws to be transferred into UK law as part of the EU (withdrawal) Bill. That means the government then has time to decide what laws to keep, scrap or change without the risk of a legal black hole on the first day after Brexit.
The status of Special Areas of Conservation and Special Protection Areas, which are designated by the EU, would be reviewed to see what alternative protections could be applied. The same process would apply to European Protected Species legislation, which relate to bats and their habitats. The issue has been a hot one and Environment Secretary Michael Gove has insisted that the UK will maintain or enhance its environmental laws.
Will we be barred from the Eurovision Song Contest?
To participate in the Eurovision Song Contest countries need to be a member of the European Broadcasting Union, which is independent of the EU
Sophie from Peterborough, who asks the question, need not worry. We have consulted Alasdair Rendall, president of the UK Eurovision fan club, who says: "All participating countries must be a member of the European Broadcasting Union. The EBU - which is totally independent of the EU - includes countries both inside and outside of the EU, and also includes countries such as Israel that are outside of Europe. Indeed the UK started participating in the Eurovision Song Contest in 1957, 16 years before joining the then EEC."
What will happen to pet passports?
The answer to Alan's question, the European Commission says, is that pet passports will, like everything else, form part of the negotiations.
The UK introduced the pet passport scheme in 2000, replacing the previous quarantine laws. It means you and your dog, cat or ferret can travel between the UK and the EU (and other participating countries) as long as it has a passport, a microchip and has been vaccinated against rabies.
Of course, until the UK actually leaves the EU, the scheme continues as normal.
The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said: "The UK has a long history of world-leading animal welfare and biosecurity standards, which we are committed to safeguarding and improving, securing the best deal for Britain as we leave the EU."
Has Brexit made house prices fall?
Image copyrightPA
So far, the answer is no. The average price for property has continued to increase, although the rate of annual price rise has slowed from 6.5% in 2016 to 2.7% in 2017, according to the Halifax. It said the slowdown was driven by a squeeze on real wage growth.
What is the 'red tape' that opponents of the EU complain about?
Ged, from Liverpool, suspects "red tape" is a euphemism for employment rights and environmental protection. According to the Open Europe think tank, four of the top five most costly EU regulations are either employment or environment-related. The UK renewable energy strategy, which the think-tank says costs £4.7bn a year, tops the list. The working time directive (£4.2bn a year) - which limits the working week to 48 hours - and the temporary agency workers directive (£2.1bn a year), giving temporary staff many of the same rights as permanent ones - are also on the list.
Most of the EU-derived laws on the UK's statute books will be copied across into UK law so that businesses can continue to function on the day Britain leaves the EU, in March 2019. Future governments will then be able to amend or scrap them.
Brexit may also generate "red tape" of its own - if the UK leaves the single market and the customs union, businesses could face more paperwork as they cross borders into EU countries.
Will Britain be party to the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership?
Ste, in Bolton, asked about this. The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership - or TTIP - currently under negotiation between the EU and United States would create the biggest free trade area the world has ever seen.
Cheerleaders for TTIP, including former PM David Cameron, believed it could make American imports cheaper and boost British exports to the US to the tune of £10bn a year.
But many on the left, including Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, fear it will shift more power to multinational corporations, undermine public services, wreck food standards and threaten basic rights.
This debate now appears academic as US President Donald Trump is not a fan of the agreement, which means it is now seen as unlikely to be agreed - but whatever happens, when the UK quits the EU it will not be part of TTIP and will have to negotiate its own trade deal with the US.
What impact will leaving the EU have on the NHS?
Paddy, from Widnes, wanted to know how leaving the EU will affect the number of doctors we have and impact the NHS.
This became an issue in the referendum debate after the Leave campaign claimed the money Britain sends to the EU, which it claimed was £350m a week, could be spent on the NHS instead. The BBC's Reality Check team looked into this claim.
Before the vote Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt warned that leaving the EU would lead to budget cuts and an exodus of overseas doctors and nurses. The Leave campaign dismissed his intervention as "scaremongering" and insisted that EU membership fees could be spent on domestic services like the NHS.
Since the referendum spending on the NHS has continued at the same level as planned.
Why has leaving the European Court of Human Rights been ignored?
This is a question from Barry.
The European Court of Human Rights is not an EU institution and that's why discussions about leaving it have not formed a key part of the Brexit debate.
The European Court of Justice - the ECJ - is one of the primary institutions of the European Union and administers EU law. So, while it might have a role in supervising a future trade deal, part of the goal of Brexit was to remove the UK from the ECJ's jurisdiction.
The European Court of Human Rights which, as Barry points out, can be even more controversial, is a body set up not by the EU but by member states of the Council of Europe, a separate institution which contains countries that aren't EU members.
It's this court which has produced rulings which have been controversial in the UK, including blocking the extradition of Abu Qatada and establishing the right of serving prisoners to vote in elections - and leaving the EU won't change anything here.
Adrian runs a small electronics company and wants to know about export tariffs after Brexit
As long as Britain has been in the EU we haven't really talked much about tariffs. That's because all trade within the European Economic Area is tariff-free. On top of that the EU has trade agreements with 52 other countries as well.
After Brexit, Britain is going to have to negotiate new deals all on its own. That's both a problem and an opportunity.
For example you can use tariffs against foreign imports to protect businesses you care about, as the EU does with agricultural produce, but you do then run the risk of retaliation from your trading partners.
The key body in all of this is the World Trade Organisation and at the moment the UK is only a member via its membership of the EU.
The UK will automatically become a member in its own right as soon as it leaves the EU.
The principle of non-discrimination means that WTO members must not treat any member less advantageously than any other.
In practice, this should prevent the EU introducing tariffs on the UK which would discriminate against us, or the UK introducing similar tariffs on the EU.
Non-food items imported into the EU currently have a tariff of about 2,3%. Cars have a 10% tariff - but if the EU were to impose a 10% tariff on UK car imports, then the UK could impose the same tariff on German and French cars. The two sides would want to avoid a tit-for-tat trade war.
They are hoping to strike a broad agreement on trading terms by March 2019 but the finer details could take years to sort out. The UK will also need to reach agreements with other nations around the world.
So if Adrian is waiting to find out the implications for his business, then he's going to have to be patient.
What impact will leaving have on the UK's long term political influence in Europe
In reply to Peter - there are basically two views on what will happen in terms of clout when outside the EU.
View one is that the UK projects power and influence in the world, working through organisations such as the EU and that on our own it'll be a much diminished force.
View two is that unencumbered by the other 27 members, the UK can get on with things and start adopting a much more independent, self-confident, assertive role on the world stage.
Will other EU nations want to leave and could the UK form its own free trade area?
If the UK were to get a fantastic Brexit deal then maybe others would be tempted to go.
But the truth is, lots of European politicians want the EU to be tough with Britain precisely to stop other countries from following it through the door.
As to Britain forming its own free trade area, it seems an awfully long shot and on balance it is unlikely, not least because there are not that many free countries around available to recruit into another free trade area.
How will access to healthcare change for expats living in the EU
Veronique, who lives in Italy asked this one. fter Brexit, there will be two possibilities.
The first and easiest would be that the negotiators come up with a reciprocal deal that keeps the current arrangements, or something a bit like them, in place.
If they don't, the situation will depend on the individual country where you live.
For the Bradleys in Italy, for example, residents from non-EU countries, and that will soon include the Brits, will have to finalise their residency status, acquire an Italian identity card and then apply for an Italian health insurance card.
If they visit the UK at the moment, access to the NHS for non-resident Brits is not straightforward unless you have a European health insurance card.
The right to treatment is based on residency, not on your tax status.
So, even if you live abroad and pay some British tax on a buy-to-let property for instance, you might find yourself getting a bill for any NHS treatment you end up getting while you are back in the UK.
What will happen to EU nationals with a British state pension
Peter, a German citizen living in the UK asked this question, and the good news is that if you are an EU national and you get a British state pension, nothing much should change, because the state pension is dependent not on where you come from, but on how long you have paid National Insurance contributions in the UK.
So it doesn't matter whether you come from Lithuania or Latvia or Transylvania or Timbuktu, what counts is how much you have paid in terms of National Insurance contributions.
There is one wrinkle though and that is that you have to have paid in for at least 10 years.
Under the current rules, if you are an EU citizen and haven't paid in for 10 years, you can point to any contributions you have made in your native country and say, "I paid in there", and that will count.
That works for EU countries and another 16 countries with which the UK has social security agreements.
Once we have left the EU, you will no longer be able to do that unless we negotiate new reciprocal agreements.
If we don't then potentially, if you have paid in fewer than than 10 years' worth of National Insurance contributions, you will not get a British state pension.
Is it possible to be both an EU citizen and not an EU citizen
Anyone born in Northern Ireland has an absolute right to carry both passports.
Declan, and Irish passport holder, might be happy to know that this is one of the few questions where I can't see a downside as long as you are happy and comfortable carrying both passports.
The Irish document means you continue to enjoy the benefits of EU citizenship, and the British passport will give you full rights in the UK at the same time.
Call it one of the clear joys of coming from Northern Ireland, alongside the rolling hills, rugged coastline and enjoyable breaks between the showers.
All you have to do is remember to carry the Irish passport when you are joining the EU citizens-only queue at the airport in future.
Is there a get-out clause for Article 50?
It's complicated. On the face of it, it looks like once we have triggered Article 50 we are locked in, and that is certainly how the European Parliament reads it.
And there is a view that if we were in this two-year process after triggering Article 50 and we wanted to get out of it, then ultimately that would be a decision for the European Court of Justice.
But the EU top brass never miss an opportunity to tell us what a big mistake they think we are making.
So although suddenly announcing we don't want to leave after all would involve a huge loss of face, other European leaders might help it happen, whatever the legal protocol but all 28 EU members would have to agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
