Home » Archives by category » News » Politics (Page 24)
Nicolas Sarkozy tells David Cameron: shut up over the euro

• Anglo-French row holds up EU summit • PM braced for biggest Commons revolt David Cameron has begun a week of intense political infighting over Europe by becoming embroiled in a furious row with Nicolas Sarkozy over Britain’s role in talks to solve the crisis enveloping the euro. The bust-up between Cameron and Sarkozy held up the conclusion of the EU-27 summit for almost two hours, with the French president expressing rage at the constant criticism and lectures from UK ministers. Sarkozy bluntly told Cameron: “You have lost a good opportunity to shut up.” He added: “We are sick of you criticising us and telling us what to do. You say you hate the euro and now you want to interfere in our meetings.” The prime minister has torn up his travel plans this week – a move urged on him by Labour leader Ed Miliband in a Guardian interview on Saturday – to attend an emergency heads of state meeting on Wednesday, and has demanded that all 27 EU countries be given the final say over measures to prevent the eurozone’s sovereign debt crisis spreading and Europe sliding into deep recession. On Monday the prime minister is facing both the largest Commons revolt of his premiership and the largest rebellion of eurosceptics suffered by a Conservative prime minister when parliament votes on whether the UK should have a referendum on Europe. Cameron will meet parliamentary aides in Downing Street before the vote in an attempt to dissuade as many as 10 members of the government minded to rebel against the prime minister, requiring them to resign their posts. The government is sticking to its decision to impose a three-line whip on MPs to vote against the motion despite criticism it has been too heavy-handed. Officials who witnessed the angry exchanges between Cameron and Sarkozy said the prime minister insisted that the package to be adopted on Wednesday by the 17 eurozone countries had serious implications for non-euro countries in the EU and their interests must be safeguarded. Eventually, after what Donald Tusk, the Polish prime minister, who chaired the summit, called a “stormy” discussion, the French president secured an agreement that all 27 leaders will first debate the three-pronged package of measures to recapitalise banks, build up the bailout find and write down Greek debt, but then the eurosummit would have the final say at back-to-back summits on Wednesday. Cameron, however, got his fellow leaders to insert into the final communique recognition that laws on the single market must be upheld and a level playing field safeguarded for countries not in the euro. He later brushed aside the divisions, saying that what mattered was that markets regain confidence that the eurozone is preventing contagion from the Greek debt crisis. The vote in parliament on Monday will be a testy encounter with his own party on Britain’s membership of the EU. The vote calls for a nationwide referendum on whether Britain should leave the EU, renegotiate its treaty with Brussels, or remain a member on current terms. The government will not suffer a defeat, since Labour and the Lib Dems will vote down the motion, but a voluble and sizeable group believe the prime minister should honour pledges once made to allow a national poll on Britain’s relationship with Europe. They would like the repatriation of social and employment rights. On Sunday in Brussels, Cameron used a press conference to appeal directly to potential rebels, talking up the chance of repatriating powers with the “possibility” of treaty change coming on to the agenda as early as December, as euro countries push towards fiscal integration. He claimed he had proved his ability last year to “exact” a good price when he agreed an EU treaty change that created a new mechanism for bailing out troubled eurozone countries but exempted Britain from having to pay for bailouts from 2013. It is not clear if this would trigger the government’s stated commitment to a referendum because it is due to stage a vote only if new powers are transferred from Westminster to Brussels, and any change by Cameron would be likely to do the reverse. “If there is a treaty change, that gives Britain an opportunity,” Cameron said. “Treaty change can only happen if it is agreed by all the 27 member states of the European Union. “Any treaty change – as the last treaty change did – is an opportunity for Britain to advance our national interest. The last limited treaty change which brought about the European stability mechanism gave us the opportunity to get out of the euro bailout fund that the last government opted into.” Cameron said: “I’ve also argued that this crisis means that greater fiscal and economic integration of the eurozone is inevitable. But this must not be at the expense of Britain’s national interest. So I’ve secured a commitment today, which will be in the council’s conclusions, that we must safeguard the interests of countries that want to stay outside of the euro, particularly with respect to the integrity of the single market for all 27 countries of the EU. Academics at Nottingham University predict the number rebelling against the government is likely to top the 41 Conservative MPs who voted against John Major in May 1993 on the third reading of the Maastricht bill – the biggest backbench rebellion for a Tory PM on Europe on whipped business. They also said 41 was the number who rebelled in October last year over an attempt to make using insulting language a criminal act, which was then the biggest rebellion of Cameron’s premiership. The two sides in the referendum battle fortified their positions, with government ministers defending the decision to impose a three-line whip on the vote brought to the Commons by a petition. The defence secretary, Philip Hammond, said the whip had been put in place because the motion was contrary to government policy and holding a referendum on the EU would be “just a distraction”. The former Conservative leader Lord Howard also weighed in, saying that an EU referendum would be a mistake in current conditions. The former foreign secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind said he believed a vote for a referendum would make Britain a “laughing stock”. But Cameron faces the likely resignations of some parliamentary aides to ministers and rebellion by the chairman of the 1922 committee, Graham Brady. Lord Tebbit suggested that “not even Ted Heath faced the chairman of the 1922 voting against him”. The number rebelling could hit 90 if the 68 who signed up to the original amendment tabled by the MP for Bury North, David Nuttall combine with another 33 who have signed compromise amendments which ministers say also run counter to government policy. Nuttall would commit the government to holding a referendum by May 2013 but would give the public three options – keeping the status quo, leaving the EU or reforming the terms of the UK’s membership. An amendment from George Eustice, a new but influential MP who used to work for Cameron, calls on the coalition to publish a white paper in the next two years setting out which powers ministers would repatriate from Brussels. The government would then renegotiate the UK’s relationship with the EU and hold a referendum on the outcome. Some names on Eustice’s list may have signed up in the brief window when they thought Eustice’s amendment would come to be adopted by the government as a way of the party high command giving backbenchers a compromise to vote through.The Commons speaker John Bercow may however choose not to call Eustice’s amendment. European Union David Cameron Euro European debt crisis Foreign policy Nicolas Sarkozy House of Commons Allegra Stratton David Gow guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Fox Panel Pushes for Privatizing the United States Post Office

Click here to view this media From this Saturday’s Forbes on Fox, more attacks on labor unions and calls to privatize the United States Postal Service. Host David Asman opened the segment talking about the postal union’s decision to hire Ron Bloom, one of the advisers that helped steer the auto industry out of bankruptcy . That was followed by a call from panel member Dennis Kneale to just shut down the whole Post Office and allow FexEx and UPS to buy it and in his words to “chop it up.” Fellow panel member Victoria Barret, while disagreeing with Kneale that it’s not possible to just “junk the whole Post Office” and said she still likes sending Christmas cards, but of course thought that the union contracts need to be ripped up. Here was host David Asman’s response to that: ASMAN: Well Steve, you can send Christmas cards for free on the Internet now! I mean the Internet changes everything, doesn’t it? To which Barret and Forbes responded, “It’s not the same.” Well, no it’s not but how about someone reminding Asman that the Internet is not free? Forbes continued with the fearmongering that if the Post Office is not privatized, tax payers are going to be on the hook for their pension funds and finally one of their panelists actually pointed out the real problem the Post Office is facing right now, which is that Congress has forced them to over fund their pensions to the tune of $75 billion and if some of that money was returned, it would solve their problems immediately. Which was naturally met with scorn from the other panel members. When Asman also brought up the fact that shutting down the Post Office would likely harm services for those who live in rural areas, Forbes claimed that private industry would take care of the problem on its own and Dennis Kneale chimed back in and said if they’re unhappy with not having service after the business is privatized, they can…get this… just move. So if you live in a rural area, according to Kneale you’d better suck it up and move to the city if you want to get mail service. What a guy. So much for those claims of “compassionate conservatism.” Our own Kenneth Quinnell has been following this story which you can read about here: New York Times Blames Workers for Postal Service Woes, Glosses Over Real Cause of Problems here: More Details Emerge in Republican Assault on Post Office and Postal Unions and here: The Plot to Kill the Post Office…And Its Union Contracts .

Continue reading …
Fox Panel Pushes for Privatizing the United States Post Office

Click here to view this media From this Saturday’s Forbes on Fox, more attacks on labor unions and calls to privatize the United States Postal Service. Host David Asman opened the segment talking about the postal union’s decision to hire Ron Bloom, one of the advisers that helped steer the auto industry out of bankruptcy . That was followed by a call from panel member Dennis Kneale to just shut down the whole Post Office and allow FexEx and UPS to buy it and in his words to “chop it up.” Fellow panel member Victoria Barret, while disagreeing with Kneale that it’s not possible to just “junk the whole Post Office” and said she still likes sending Christmas cards, but of course thought that the union contracts need to be ripped up. Here was host David Asman’s response to that: ASMAN: Well Steve, you can send Christmas cards for free on the Internet now! I mean the Internet changes everything, doesn’t it? To which Barret and Forbes responded, “It’s not the same.” Well, no it’s not but how about someone reminding Asman that the Internet is not free? Forbes continued with the fearmongering that if the Post Office is not privatized, tax payers are going to be on the hook for their pension funds and finally one of their panelists actually pointed out the real problem the Post Office is facing right now, which is that Congress has forced them to over fund their pensions to the tune of $75 billion and if some of that money was returned, it would solve their problems immediately. Which was naturally met with scorn from the other panel members. When Asman also brought up the fact that shutting down the Post Office would likely harm services for those who live in rural areas, Forbes claimed that private industry would take care of the problem on its own and Dennis Kneale chimed back in and said if they’re unhappy with not having service after the business is privatized, they can…get this… just move. So if you live in a rural area, according to Kneale you’d better suck it up and move to the city if you want to get mail service. What a guy. So much for those claims of “compassionate conservatism.” Our own Kenneth Quinnell has been following this story which you can read about here: New York Times Blames Workers for Postal Service Woes, Glosses Over Real Cause of Problems here: More Details Emerge in Republican Assault on Post Office and Postal Unions and here: The Plot to Kill the Post Office…And Its Union Contracts .

Continue reading …
Obama’s Infrastructure Spending Wish ‘Makes All of the Sense in the World,’ Amanpour Enthuses

President Barack Obama’s new infrastructure spending plan “makes all of the sense in the world” and is an “eminently sensible idea,” ABC’s Christiane Amanpour enthused Sunday morning on This Week as if there is no rational reason to oppose the additional federal money and without a look at the impact of the already-spent stimulus spending.

Continue reading …

What is it about Donald Trump and the GOP field? Trump is a joke, he’s been a joke, and he will continue to be a joke. So is he acting as proxy for his rich buddies who will be bankrolling the 2012 election, or is it something else? First we had Herman Cain meeting with him, then Michele Bachmann sidling up next to him for a cozy radio town hall, and now we have Rick Perry going all-out birther. Via ThinkProgress : That wasn’t enough, however, to convince Rick Perry. In an interview with PARADE Magazine, Perry said that he recently met with Donald Trump and discussed the issue. Perry stated that he doesn’t “have a definitive answer” on whether Obama was born in the United States or “any idea” if Obama’s birth certificate is real. Here’s the transcript : Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States? I have no reason to think otherwise. That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”— Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate. But you’ve seen his. I don’t know. Have I? You don’t believe what’s been released? I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night. And? That came up. And he said? He doesn’t think it’s real. And you said? I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue. As Perry sinks in the polls, his strategy gets more and more desperate. After all, birthers represent the fringiest of the fringe of the lunatic GOP, yet here’s Perry out pandering to them with the standard non-answer answer. And not only that, but doing it after his little dining experience with Donald Trump! Orly Taitz’ DNA has a big helping of loon in it, so the more Perry leans into her, the less chance he has of being the GOP nominee. And that, I guess, is a good thing. Perhaps a better question to ask might be why interviewers insist on asking this question. It’s ridiculous for Perry to have answered the way he did, but it’s even more ridiculous for any interviewer to still give weight to the issue by asking him in the first place. Liberal media? Yeah, right.

Continue reading …

What is it about Donald Trump and the GOP field? Trump is a joke, he’s been a joke, and he will continue to be a joke. So is he acting as proxy for his rich buddies who will be bankrolling the 2012 election, or is it something else? First we had Herman Cain meeting with him, then Michele Bachmann sidling up next to him for a cozy radio town hall, and now we have Rick Perry going all-out birther. Via ThinkProgress : That wasn’t enough, however, to convince Rick Perry. In an interview with PARADE Magazine, Perry said that he recently met with Donald Trump and discussed the issue. Perry stated that he doesn’t “have a definitive answer” on whether Obama was born in the United States or “any idea” if Obama’s birth certificate is real. Here’s the transcript : Governor, do you believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States? I have no reason to think otherwise. That’s not a definitive, “Yes, I believe he”— Well, I don’t have a definitive answer, because he’s never seen my birth certificate. But you’ve seen his. I don’t know. Have I? You don’t believe what’s been released? I don’t know. I had dinner with Donald Trump the other night. And? That came up. And he said? He doesn’t think it’s real. And you said? I don’t have any idea. It doesn’t matter. He’s the President of the United States. He’s elected. It’s a distractive issue. As Perry sinks in the polls, his strategy gets more and more desperate. After all, birthers represent the fringiest of the fringe of the lunatic GOP, yet here’s Perry out pandering to them with the standard non-answer answer. And not only that, but doing it after his little dining experience with Donald Trump! Orly Taitz’ DNA has a big helping of loon in it, so the more Perry leans into her, the less chance he has of being the GOP nominee. And that, I guess, is a good thing. Perhaps a better question to ask might be why interviewers insist on asking this question. It’s ridiculous for Perry to have answered the way he did, but it’s even more ridiculous for any interviewer to still give weight to the issue by asking him in the first place. Liberal media? Yeah, right.

Continue reading …
Howard Kurtz: Why Isn’t Obama Getting More Credit for Gaddafi’s Death?

I'm not sure what press reports media analyst Howard Kurtz observed since Thursday's announcement that Moammar Gaddafi had been killed in Libya, but they certainly can't be what most people in this country have seen. On CNN's “Reliable Sources” Sunday, Kurtz actually asked his guests why the press aren't giving President Obama more credit (video follows with transcript and commentary): HOWARD KURTZ, HOST: Remember when President Obama was getting pounded in the press for dragging his feet on Libya? Eight months later, we got this news. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) REPORTER: Three sources, all rebel sources, are saying that Gadhafi has, in fact, been killed. (END VIDEO CLIP) KURTZ: Did most journalists give credit to the president when it paid off? I must have missed that. “Remember when President Obama was getting pounded in the press for dragging his feet on Libya?” No, I don't. Quite the contrary, back in March, Kurtz himself scolded the media for drumbeating war again and not asking skeptical questions about this mission: KURTZ ON MARCH 20, 2011: One major question about the assault on Libya, what happened to the media's skepticism? U.S. warplanes hitting targets in Libya for a second day today. And I have to say this at the outset — the media get excited by war, the journalistic adrenaline starts pumping as we talk about warships and warplanes and cruise missiles, and we put up the maps and we have the retired generals on. And sometimes something is lost in that initial excitement. It reminds me of eight years ago this very weekend, when Shock and Awe was rained down upon Baghdad and the media utterly failed to ask skeptical questions. So, I looked at my “New York Times” this morning, went through all the sections, I looked at my “Washington Post” this morning and looked through all the sections. Didn't see any skeptical articles, columns, editorials about this no-fly position. Two fine newspapers, don't see the skeptical questions. What if there's a long-term stalemate here? What is this goes on and on? What if there are American casualties? Do you stop this operation with Gadhafi still in power?

Continue reading …
Director of public prosecutions backs right to challenge bail orders

View supports Justice for Jane campaign that wants prosecutors to be allowed to appeal against judges’ decision to grant bail The director of public prosecutions has said he would welcome a right to appeal against crown court judges’ decisions to grant bail. Keir Starmer last week met the parents of nurse Jane Clough, who was stabbed to death by her ex-partner, to discuss their campaign to amend bail laws. Ambulance technician Jonathan Vass murdered the 26-year-old mother-of-one in the car park of Blackpool Victoria hospital while he was on bail charged with raping her. He was jailed for a minimum of 30 years last October. Her parents, John and Penny Clough, of Barrowford, Lancashire, launched the Justice for Jane campaign which backs an amendment to the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to allow prosecutors to appeal against a judge’s decision to grant bail. In a statement , Starmer said: “I met Mr and Mrs Clough and we discussed a number of issues. One of which is the current government proposal to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to appeal against the decision of a crown court judge to grant bail. From my perspective having given the matter careful consideration, I have come to the view that we would welcome the introduction of such a power for the prosecution.” Clough kept a diary detailing her abuse and fears of what Vass might do, Preston crown court was told during his trial. She and her family had been “rocked and devastated” when he was bailed, leaving her extremely concerned for her safety. She left home to live with her parents and recorded in the diary that she was worried “Johnny was going to do something stupid”. Starmer added: “We would not anticipate such a right of appeal being used very often; however, where it was felt that a judge had got a decision on bail wrong, and the interests of victims and the wider public demanded that such a decision be challenged, then this would be regarded as a useful and appropriate option for the prosecution to have available to it. Former victims commissioner Louise Casey, who attended the meeting, said: “As commissioner I have often had cause to challenge and criticise what can be an opaque and process-driven criminal justice system but I am enormously heartened that the director of public prosecutions has shown he has both a keen regard for the human suffering behind the cases he prosecutes and has his door open to those who propose sensible changes to the system.” Nick Herbert, the justice minister, told the Commons last month that the government was considering changing the law on bail. In June this year the Cloughs’ MP, Andrew Stephenson, introduced a bill calling for the prosecution to have a right to appeal against bail. However, the amendment has a greater chance of becoming law as it is part of a government bill, said Clough. Legal aid Judiciary UK criminal justice Prisons and probation guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Director of public prosecutions backs right to challenge bail orders

View supports Justice for Jane campaign that wants prosecutors to be allowed to appeal against judges’ decision to grant bail The director of public prosecutions has said he would welcome a right to appeal against crown court judges’ decisions to grant bail. Keir Starmer last week met the parents of nurse Jane Clough, who was stabbed to death by her ex-partner, to discuss their campaign to amend bail laws. Ambulance technician Jonathan Vass murdered the 26-year-old mother-of-one in the car park of Blackpool Victoria hospital while he was on bail charged with raping her. He was jailed for a minimum of 30 years last October. Her parents, John and Penny Clough, of Barrowford, Lancashire, launched the Justice for Jane campaign which backs an amendment to the legal aid, sentencing and punishment of offenders bill to allow prosecutors to appeal against a judge’s decision to grant bail. In a statement , Starmer said: “I met Mr and Mrs Clough and we discussed a number of issues. One of which is the current government proposal to provide the prosecution with the opportunity to appeal against the decision of a crown court judge to grant bail. From my perspective having given the matter careful consideration, I have come to the view that we would welcome the introduction of such a power for the prosecution.” Clough kept a diary detailing her abuse and fears of what Vass might do, Preston crown court was told during his trial. She and her family had been “rocked and devastated” when he was bailed, leaving her extremely concerned for her safety. She left home to live with her parents and recorded in the diary that she was worried “Johnny was going to do something stupid”. Starmer added: “We would not anticipate such a right of appeal being used very often; however, where it was felt that a judge had got a decision on bail wrong, and the interests of victims and the wider public demanded that such a decision be challenged, then this would be regarded as a useful and appropriate option for the prosecution to have available to it. Former victims commissioner Louise Casey, who attended the meeting, said: “As commissioner I have often had cause to challenge and criticise what can be an opaque and process-driven criminal justice system but I am enormously heartened that the director of public prosecutions has shown he has both a keen regard for the human suffering behind the cases he prosecutes and has his door open to those who propose sensible changes to the system.” Nick Herbert, the justice minister, told the Commons last month that the government was considering changing the law on bail. In June this year the Cloughs’ MP, Andrew Stephenson, introduced a bill calling for the prosecution to have a right to appeal against bail. However, the amendment has a greater chance of becoming law as it is part of a government bill, said Clough. Legal aid Judiciary UK criminal justice Prisons and probation guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Hamid Karzai claims on TV his country ‘will side with Pakistan if US attacks’

Afghan president accused of hypocrisy and ingratitude over remarks made soon after Hillary Clinton’s visit to the region The US reacted with dismay on Sunday after the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, said that he would side with Pakistan in the event of any war with America. Karzai’s remarks will be greeted with outrage by an American public already thinking him ungrateful for US military and financial support. In an interview on Geo Television, Pakistan’s largest satellite network, hours after a visit to the region by the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, Karzai said: “If there is war between Pakistan and America, we will stand by Pakistan.” He put his hand on his heart and described Pakistan as a “brother” country. The remark, which went further than other Karzai outbursts critical of the US, was viewed negatively not only in the US but in Afghanistan where opponents accused him of hypocrisy given Kabul’s difficult relationship with Pakistan. The US embassy in Kabul, responding to reporters’ questions, said it was up to the Afghan government to explain Karzai’s remarks. An embassy spokesman, Gavin Sundwall, tried to play down the row. He told the Associated Press: “This is not about war with each other. This is about a joint approach to a threat to all three of our countries: insurgents and terrorists who attack Afghans, Pakistanis and Americans.” A western diplomat, speaking anonymously, described Karzai’s comments as unfortunate. “The phraseology could have been better,” the diplomat said. Karzai’s words were being interpreted as an attempt to mollify Pakistan ahead of a US-Afghanistan military strategic agreement to be completed within the next few months. “[Karzai's remarks are] essentially reassurance to Pakistan that the US strategic relationship will not be used to threaten Pakistan,” the diplomat said. The statement was widely interpreted as a rhetorical flourish rather than as a significant offer of defence co-operation. Despite tension between Pakistan and the US, open warfare is a remote possibility. Clinton on Sunday said there were no plans to put US troops into Pakistan but acknowledged differences with the country over securing an Afghan peace deal. “We have to have a very firm commitment to an Afghan-led reconciliation peace process,” Clinton told CNN, adding that Pakistan was not yet fully aboard. “We’re about 90% to 95% in agreement between the US and Pakistan about the means of our moving toward what are commonly shared goals, and we have a work plan and a real commitment to making sure we are as effective as possible together.” Clinton’s comments follow her warning to Pakistan that the US would act unilaterally if Islamabad failed to crack down on the Taliban-linked Haqqani network inside its North Waziristan sanctuary. Karzai, who is scrambling to ensure his political future before the US military drawdown in 2014, needs Pakistani help to bring the Taliban to peace talks. In the event of a conflict, his army, which is dependent on US money and training, would be in no position to back Pakistan. Nevertheless, the interview with Geo was at stark variance with the tone during the visit to the region by Clinton and David Petraeus, the CIA director. Clinton had flown to Islamabad and, in a four-hour meeting with Pakistan’s top generals, called on the military to bring the Haqqanis to the negotiating table, destroy the group’s leadership, or pave the way for the US to do so. Karzai’s interview with Geo was aired barely 24 hours after Clinton left. He said Afghanistan owed Pakistan a great debt for sheltering millions of refugees over the past three decades, and stressed that his foreign policy would not be dictated by any outside power. “Anybody that attacks Pakistan, Afghanistan will stand with Pakistan,” he said. “Afghanistan will never betray their brother.” Karzai has wildly swung away from, and then closer to, Pakistan over the past 18 months as efforts to draw the Taliban into peace talks have gained momentum. First he welcomed the Pakistani military chief, General Ashfaq Kayani, and the ISI spy chief, General Shuja Pasha, to talks in Kabul but then, this month, flew to New Delhi to sign a “strategic partnership” with India that strengthened trade and security ties between the two countries but infuriated Pakistan, where the movewas seen as a fresh sign of Afghan perfidy. Karzai is trying to strike a balance, reaching a peace deal but also managing criticism from non-Pashtun groups and their political representatives, who accuse him of getting too close to Pakistan. Hamid Karzai Afghanistan Pakistan Taliban Hillary Clinton US foreign policy United States Ewen MacAskill Declan Walsh guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …