Lake Charles

Lebanon PM offers 72-hour ultimatum amid nationwide protests

Lebanon's prime minister gave his political adversaries a 72-hour ultimatum to agree on "convincing" serious reforms amid escalating nationwide protests over the country's worsening economic crisis. In an address to the nation and with hundreds of rowdy protesters camped outside his office, Saad Hariri blamed political partners in his national unity government, which includes the Iran-backed Hezbollah group and rival political parties, for blocking is reform efforts at every turn.

Trump says Europe now willing to take IS prisoners in Syria

Claiming new progress against Islamic State extremists in Syria, President Donald Trump said Friday that some European nations are now willing to take responsibility for detained IS fighters who are from their countries. A day earlier, he had proclaimed that a U.S.-brokered cease-fire deal with Turkey marked "a great day for civilization," though the deal's effect was largely to mitigate a foreign policy crisis widely seen to be of his own making. In a series of tweets, Trump said he had spoken Friday to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan amid reports that fighting actually had not ended.

Scottish Judge Rejects Bid to Suspend Brexit Vote on Saturday

(Bloomberg) -- A Scottish judge rejected an attempt by attorney Jolyon Maugham to secure more time for Parliament to scrutinize the Brexit agreement.Judge Paul Cullen refused Maugham’s filing Friday afternoon.The decision comes as a civil-rights group, Liberty, lost its own attempt in a London court to win a declaration blocking Prime Minister Boris Johnson from flouting the Benn Act. That law requires the prime minister to extend the Brexit deadline if he doesn’t get his deal through Parliament Saturday.To contact the reporter on this story: Christopher Elser in London at celser@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Christopher Elser at celser@bloomberg.net, Eddie SpenceFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

The Latest: Trump says Erdogan assured him of cease-fire

President Donald Trump says Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is offering assurances that the cease-fire he agreed to has not already broken down. Trump also says he has "just been notified that some European Nations are now willing, for the first time, to take the (Islamic State group) Fighters that came from their nations" as he has demanded. The White House did not immediately respond to questions about which countries he'd heard from and exactly what they had agreed to.

The Latest: Lebanon PM gives foes ultimatum on reforms

Lebanon's prime minister has given his political adversaries a 72-hour ultimatum to back his reform agenda amid growing nationwide protests over the country's worsening economic crisis. In an address to the nation, Saad Hariri blamed political partners in his national unity government, which includes the Iran-backed Hezbollah group, for repeatedly blocking is reform efforts.

British PM scrambles to sell Brexit deal to MPs

Prime Minister Boris Johnson spent Friday frantically twisting arms to get wavering MPs behind his Brexit deal, with a looming vote in parliament teetering on a knife-edge. The Conservative leader pulled off a major coup in agreeing a new divorce deal with the European Union on Thursday, with only a fortnight to go before Britain is scheduled to leave the bloc on October 31. Johnson has no majority among MPs, every opposition party has come out against the deal and even his parliamentary ally, Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), says it cannot support the terms.

Can Johnson Pull Off the Impossible? We’re Counting the Votes

(Bloomberg) -- Sign up to our Brexit Bulletin, follow us @Brexit and subscribe to our podcast.Boris Johnson has managed to strike a new Brexit deal with the European Union. But does he have the numbers to get it past Parliament?Well short of a majority, he needs to persuade 61 Members of Parliament to back his deal. He looks more than half-way there, based on public comments made by lawmakers in recent days. Here’s our tally of how many have declared for him so far.Now for the health warning. This analysis is necessarily imprecise: MPs can change their minds. It’s also incomplete: There are some we would expect to back the deal but simply haven’t said so publicly yet.For Johnson, it looks tight -- but not impossible. Here’s how the numbers break down.Johnson’s Target: 320Once non-voting MPs are accounted for, Johnson needs 320 MPs on his side to win any vote in the House of Commons.May’s Baseline: 259The last time Theresa May tried to get her deal through, in March, she had the support of 279 Conservatives. They are mostly likely to back a Johnson deal too, but there are some problems.Johnson expelled a group of MPs from the party in September after they backed legislation blocking a no-deal Brexit. They were joined by Amber Rudd, who resigned in sympathy. Also out of the party is Nick Boles, who quit the Conservatives earlier this year in frustration at the Brexit deadlock.As a result there are question marks against 19 former Tories who previously backed May’s deal. On top of that number, one deal-backing Conservative, Chris Davies, lost his seat to a Liberal Democrat in a recall election.That leaves Johnson 61 votes short. Where can he go?‘Gaukeward Squad’: 19The expelled Tories, who take their name from former Justice Secretary David Gauke, are temperamentally loyalists -- some had never voted against their party before September. Many of them are looking for a way back in -- including Gauke, who says he will vote for the deal on Saturday. Given that their objection to Johnson’s strategy was the fear he was pursuing a no-deal divorce, they may be happy to get back into line if he reaches an agreement.But it’s not certain. Gauke has questioned whether Johnson’s promises can be trusted, while former Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond has warned of the economic dangers of not having a close relationship with the EU. Several of them, including Antoinette Sandbach, have suggested the U.K. needs to hold another referendum.Johnson would be doing very well if he got all of them on side.Democratic Unionist Party: 10Johnson worked hard to try to keep Northern Ireland’s DUP engaged, but they have come out firmly against the new deal. They have deep reservations about anything that creates any kind of border between Britain and Northern Ireland, such as customs checks in the Irish Sea, and want a stronger consent mechanism that hands a greater say to the regional assembly. They are now trying to persuade Tories to vote against the deal.The Spartans: 28The self-titled “Spartans” are Conservative MPs who refused to vote for May’s deal. They chose their name to recall the fearsome Ancient Greek warriors who held off a numerically superior Persian force at the Battle of Thermopylae.When Johnson became prime minister, the Spartans were adamant they opposed any but the most minimal Brexit agreement. But in recent weeks they have begun to see the virtues of compromise. This is the result of the Benn Act, legislation that aims to prevent the U.K. leaving on Oct. 31 unless Johnson has reached a deal. It’s made the Spartans fear losing Brexit altogether.The leader of the Spartans, Steve Baker, twice described the emerging deal as “tolerable” before it was unveiled. Another, former Northern Ireland Secretary Owen Paterson, was more critical. But many are desperate to get Brexit over the line -- for fear this may be their last opportunity.Two Spartans, at least, are fairly sure to back a deal: Priti Patel and Theresa Villiers are both in Johnson’s Cabinet.Labour: 31May pinned her hopes on winning the support of a significant minority of MPs from the opposition Labour Party who believe the 2016 referendum result must be honored. She struggled to get more than five to vote with her, but 15 who didn’t back her last time joined some who did in signing a letter this month urging the EU to do a deal. That might imply a commitment to actually vote for such an agreement.Against that is the fear of retribution from their party if they do so. Leader Jeremy Corbyn and his team sense that defeating Johnson’s deal is a key step on their route to beating him at an election. Others in the party see defeating a deal as essential to securing another referendum.A law unto herself is Kate Hoey, a fierce supporter of Brexit, who’s likely to vote the same way as the Spartans.Since Johnson announced his deal, some Labour MPs who previously made pro-Brexit noises have started to come out of the woodwork, so we’ve increased the number of potential Labour votes by 10.Independents: 5Four independent MPs backed May’s deal in March. A fifth, John Woodcock, might also be tempted.Other MPs: 2Two possible supporters defy categorization. Liberal Democrat Norman Lamb, who is stepping down at the next election, represents a seat that voted to leave the EU and has been critical of his party’s anti-Brexit stance. And Jo Johnson, brother of the prime minister, voted against the deal in March, agreed to join his brother’s Cabinet, then resigned. Both could potentially back a deal to settle the issue.So, Johnson Needs 61 of 85 Available VotesIt’s tight, but feasible. In charge of wooing MPs is Johnson’s political secretary, Danny Kruger, who has been speaking not just to Conservatives but to opposition lawmakers who might be tempted to support a deal. The opposite of his more famous and abrasive colleague Dominic Cummings, Kruger is a gentle and thoughtful former political speech-writer who has set up two charities to help people on the margins of society.The RisksThere is a question, however, of whether the prime minister might lose some support, for example among those Tories who voted for a deal in March and regretted doing so afterward.There’s also another intriguing possibility. When Theresa May was prime minister, she said a Brexit deal that split Northern Ireland from Great Britain was one that no prime minister could accept. Now she’s a former prime minister and if that’s the path Johnson takes, could she live with it?She’ll almost certainly stay loyal, but then Johnson did make her life very difficult, so it’s hard to be sure.The JokerIf it comes to a tie, Speaker John Bercow has a casting vote. It’s not clear how he would exercise it.(Updates count in second paragraph, table.)\--With assistance from Kitty Donaldson, Jessica Shankleman and Greg Ritchie.To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Edward Evans, Flavia Krause-JacksonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Boris Johnson to Lose Brexit Vote by Four, Spread Betting Firm Says

(Bloomberg) -- U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson is set to lose the vote on his Brexit deal by four votes, according to Sporting Index, a spread betting firm that has correctly called earlier ballots.If the vote goes ahead on Saturday, Johnson will win the backing of 316 lawmakers, compared with the 320 he needs, the spread betting firm said in an email. On Thursday, the firm predicted he’d win 313.In April, on the final vote on U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal, the spread betting firm forecast she’d lose by 60 votes. She was defeated by 58. Earlier in March, when May lost by 149 votes, Sporting Index predicted a 148 loss. In January, when she was beaten by 230, it forecast 218.Separately, 67% of all bets placed with Ladbrokes on the vote have favored the deal being rejected, the betting firm said. Still, it’s not clear if the vote will go ahead as planned on Saturday. Rebels expelled from his own Conservative Party are moving to postpone the decisive vote -- forcing the prime minister to seek a further extension from the bloc.To contact the reporter on this story: Dara Doyle in Dublin at ddoyle1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Chad Thomas at cthomas16@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

GOP Rep. Rooney Won’t Rule Out Impeachment: It’s ‘Certainly Clear’ There Was Quid Pro Quo

A day after “acting “ White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney remarkably admitted military aid to Ukraine was contingent on their investigation into an insane conspiracy theory involving the 2016 election, Rep. Francis Rooney (R-FL) said that he could not rule out impeachment while saying Mulvaney laid out a “clear” quid pro quo.“Whatever might have been gray and unclear before is certainly clear right now,” Rooney told CNN’s Poppy Harlow on Friday morning. “That the actions were related to getting someone in the Ukraine to do these things. As you put on there, Senator Murkowski said it perfectly: We’re not to use political power and prestige for political gain.”Harlow, meanwhile, wanted to know if Rooney felt this rose to the level of an impeachable offense.“That’s something I can’t answer,” the Florida lawmaker replied. “I’ve been reading about this impeachment business. I’m not really—I went to law school but didn’t practice law. I did read something today. That impeachment is whatever the House members and majority say it is. I guess anything is.”This prompted the CNN anchor to press Rooney on the issue of impeachment, noting that he had said it was “very clear” there was a quid pro quo as it relates to Ukraine.“I don’t know. I want to study it more,” he responded. “I want to hear the next set of testimony next week from a couple more ambassadors. But it’s certainly very, very serious and troubling.”Harlow continued to grill Rooney on why he was still unsure on the matter, causing the Republican congressman to say he still wants to see if this is “grave and serious” enough to impeach the president.“I don’t think this is as much as Richard Nixon did,” Rooney continued. “But I’m very mindful of the fact that back during Watergate everybody said it’s a witch hunt to get Nixon. Turns out it wasn’t a witch hunt but it was absolutely correct.”Moments later, during a discussion on the situation in Syria and the bipartisan backlash the president has faced for abandoning America’s Kurdish allies following Turkey’s invasion, Rooney said he was worried about America’s safety as Trump was ceding the Middle East to Russia.“Do you agree at all with the assessment then from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in the private meeting with the president earlier this week where she reportedly said to him, ‘Sir, all roads lead to Putin, lead to Russia.’ Do you share that concern?” Harlow wondered.“Well I’ve read some of that,” the GOP lawmaker answered. “I was skeptical of it, like most Republicans. But I have to say this business about the Ukraine server, which no one heard about until it was mentioned recently, tells me what—are we trying to exculpate Russia, who all our trained intelligence officials have consistently corroborated that Russia was behind the election meddling, not the Ukraine.”Asked whether he agreed with Pelosi, the Republican eventually stated that “she has a point.”Rooney isn’t the only potential crack in the Republican dam when it comes to impeachment. Following Mulvaney’s disastrous comments, which he’s since tried to walk back, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AL) said: “You don’t hold up foreign aid that we had previously appropriated for a political initiative.”Read more at The Daily Beast.Got a tip? Send it to The Daily Beast hereGet our top stories in your inbox every day. Sign up now!Daily Beast Membership: Beast Inside goes deeper on the stories that matter to you. Learn more.

Erdogan Explains His Safe Zone as Deaths Hit Truce: Syria Update

(Bloomberg) -- President Recep Tayyip Erdogan outlined his understanding of the Turkish-patrolled “safe zone” in northern Syria, saying the U.S. and Russia should also play a role in maintaining a corridor that he wants to stretch along a vast section of Turkey’s border.A deal reached with a top U.S. delegation on Thursday -- which secured a 120-hour cease-fire -- required Kurdish fighters to withdraw from an area 444 km long and 32 km deep, the president told foreign reporters in Istanbul on Friday. “This is what we call the safe zone. The safe zone is not just the area between Ras al-Ayn and Tal Abyad which is yet to be cleared.”But Erdogan’s view clashes with that of the Kurdish YPG, a U.S. ally in the fight against Islamic State. It’s unclear how American officials interpret Thursday’s pact when it comes to defining the area from which the militia must withdraw.Erdogan denied that fighting took place between Turkish troops and Kurdish forces on Friday. However, Syrian state-run Sana news agency said five people were killed in a Turkish airstrike in the Ras Al-Ayn area.Here is a rundown of major events in Turkish local time:Key DevelopmentsTurkish markets rally a day after the U.S.-Turkey deal. Borsa Istanbul-100 index is up 3.7%, most since June 7, as of 5:31 p.m. Two-year government bond yields fell 137 basis points, most since August 2018, to 14.29%. The lira appreciated 1.6% against the dollar in the past two daysU.S. Vice President Mike Pence, Erdogan announced cease-fire deal in Ankara after marathon talks on ThursdayTrump faces Congressional rebuke for Syria pulloutU.S. Official Says Most Fighting Has Stopped (6:35 p.m.)Most of the fighting in northeast Syria has stopped, a U.S. official said, asking not to be identified. It will take time for things to completely quiet down, which is usually the case in situations like this, the official said.Death Toll in Syria Rises, SOHR Says (6:16 p.m.)The number of people killed in northeast Syria in a day of sporadic clashes, strikes by airplanes and Turkish shelling increased to 14, according to SOHR, a monitoring groupErdogan Speaks on Trump, Graham and Syria (5:26 p.m. Friday)Erdogan said he understands Donald Trump is “under pressure,” but added that he won’t forget the Oct. 9 letter in which the U.S. president warned him not to be a “fool.” Erdogan also accused Senator Lindsey Graham of flip-flopping on whether the Kurdish militants are “terrorists.”The president said the YPG had freed 750 Islamic State detainees, including 150 Turks, during the Turkish offensive. A total of 195 militants have been recaptured, and they should be tried in their respective countries, he said.EU Leaders Stop Short of Punishing Turkey (5:10 p.m.)Erdogan’s actions were discussed at a meeting of European Union leaders in Brussels. The EU has called for Turkey to show restraint against the Kurds, but stopped short of threatening major punitive action against a NATO ally.German Chancellor Angela Merkel downplayed any link between Erdogan’s Syria operation and the threat of fresh migrants coming to Europe. French President Emmanuel Macron said he saw recent events as “a heavy mistake” by the West and NATO. “I found out via a tweet that the U.S. decided to withdraw their troops and free the zone,” he said.Turkey Halts Offensive But Skirmishes Underway (9:30 a.m. Friday)Turkey has halted its offensive but occasional skirmishes took place overnight, prompting Turkish artillery units to open fire on targets in the west of the town of Ras al-Ayn, Turkey’s IHA news agency reported Friday. The Rojava Information Center, which is aligned with the Kurdish-led forces, said fighting was continuing in the area and there was no sign yet of Kurdish fighters withdrawing.Safe Zone Definition Contradicts Turkey Aspiration (11:59 p.m. Thursday)Jim Jeffrey, the U.S. special envoy for the Syria conflict who was with Pence in Ankara, said: “We talk about the safe zone here, and the Turks talk about an aspirational safe zone based upon what we had done with them back in August, where the safe zone was from the Euphrates to the Iraqi border and we had various levels of Turkish observation or movement or whatever down to 30 kilometers, with the withdrawal of the YPG from some of them.”“What we have now is a different situation where the Turks have pushed down to that 30-kilometer level in a central part of the northeast and they’re still fighting in there, and that’s the focus of our attention now because that’s the area that we define as the Turkish-controlled safe zone.”Turkey Says ‘It’s a Temporary Pause’ Not Cease-Fire (9:02 p.m.)Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu said the one-page accord wasn’t a cease-fire, but a pause, and boasted that Turkey had gotten what it wanted from the U.S. Top of their demands was that Turkish armed forces will be oversee a 20-mile “safe zone” inside Syria. Cavusoglu said Turkey was aiming to create a safe zone that would stretch for 444 kilometers along the frontier and 30 kilometers deep in Syria.Turkey Agrees to Cease-Fire in Syria, Pence Says (8:40 p.m.)Pence said the U.S. and Turkey have agreed to end hostilities in Syria. Turkey would cease operations permanently once the Kurdish forces withdraw and work on detention centers in the affected areas would be coordinated with Turkey, Pence said. Once a permanent cessation of hostilities is in place, the U.S. will lift all sanctions slapped on Turkey earlier, he said.\--With assistance from Nick Wadhams, Saleha Mohsin, Rosalind Mathieson, Selcan Hacaoglu, David Wainer, Taylan Bilgic and Justin Sink.To contact the reporter on this story: Onur Ant in Istanbul at oant@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Lin Noueihed at lnoueihed@bloomberg.net, ;Kevin Whitelaw at kwhitelaw@bloomberg.net, Mark Williams, Onur AntFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

After deadly shooting, Pittsburgh synagogue plans reopening

Leaders of the Pittsburgh synagogue where worshippers were fatally shot last year want to rebuild and renovate the building, turning it into what they hope will be a "center for Jewish life in the United States" and a symbol against hatred. On Friday, they outlined their vision for the Tree of Life building, where three congregations — Tree of Life, Dor Hadash and New Light — had gathered on Oct. 27, 2018. The building in the city's Squirrel Hill neighborhood has not reopened since the shooting, considered the deadliest attack on Jews in U.S. history.

UK PM's "deal or no deal" Saturday showdown faces wrecking attempt

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson will have to fend off an attempt to wreck his "deal or no-deal" Brexit vote on Saturday, as a group of lawmakers propose to delay giving parliament's backing for his new exit agreement.

Macron Says U.K. Shouldn’t Get New Delay If Johnson Loses Vote

(Bloomberg) -- French President Emmanuel Macron heaped pressure on the British Parliament to back Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal, saying the U.K.’s departure from the European Union shouldn’t be delayed a moment longer.With Parliament due to vote on the revised agreement on Saturday, Macron’s remarks echoed the message Johnson himself has been sending to reticent MPs: it’s now or never. "I don’t think a new extension should be granted," Macron told reporters after a summit of EU leaders in Brussels, where the deal had been rubber stamped. "The Oct. 31 deadline must be met."Macron’s stance increases the risk that the U.K. will crash out of the EU without a deal on Oct. 31. But the reality is more nuanced, according to EU diplomats who doubt the bloc will ever throw the U.K. off a cliff without a safety net. The pound dipped on the comments, and then recovered.Selling the DealAfter sealing a revised deal with the EU on Thursday, Johnson is spending Friday frantically talking to politicians from his own and other parties as he tries to rustle up a majority. The prime minister needs to add 61 votes to the tally his predecessor Theresa May managed when her version of the Brexit deal was defeated for a third and final time in March.The new agreement differs from May’s agreement because only Northern Ireland rather than the whole U.K. will continue to apply the EU’s customs rules. That’s upset the province’s Democratic Unionist Party whose MPs say they won’t back Johnson’s deal on Saturday.If Johnson loses the vote, he’s obliged by law to request from the EU another extension by the end of the day. But any postponement must be approved unanimously by the EU’s 27 leaders so Macron would have a veto.EU officials were expecting such an intervention by Macron, who made similar noises before approving a Brexit delay in April, but they said that it’s very unlikely that he or any other leader would prevent another one, particularly if the U.K. was headed for a general election. While the bloc is just as keen to get Britain’s departure over the line as Johnson, it considers a no-deal exit in two weeks a far worse prospect than another postponement.Envoys from the 27 remaining countries and the European Commission are due to meet on Sunday to discuss next steps should Johnson’s deal fall.The French have consistently taken a hard line in Brexit negotiations and Macron argues that the tight deadline he insisted on the last time the process was extended helped force Johnson into concessions. Several EU governments privately now regret delaying Brexit from April until October, acknowledging that it took the pressure of the U.K. to pass a deal."I was alone and I don’t think I was wrong," Macron said, referring to the decision six months ago.Other leaders were more circumspect on the issue, with Leo Varadkar, the prime minister of Ireland, which stands to be affected most by a no-deal Brexit, saying a delay isn’t guaranteed and Luxembourg premier Xavier Bettel insisting the ball was now in the U.K. Parliament’s court.“We have done our job,” he said. “There’s a plan A, but there’s no plan B."(Updates with context throughout.)\--With assistance from Stephanie Bodoni.To contact the reporters on this story: Helene Fouquet in Paris at hfouquet1@bloomberg.net;Ian Wishart in Brussels at iwishart@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Ben Sills at bsills@bloomberg.netFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Hong Kong protesters don cartoon masks to defy face mask ban

Hong Kong pro-democracy protesters donned cartoon character masks as they formed human chains across the semiautonomous Chinese city on Friday night, in defiance of a government ban on face coverings at public assemblies. Chinese internet users have joked that Chinese President Xi Jinping resembles the talking bear, leading the country's censors to scrub online references to the character. The protesters were taking a lighthearted approach to oppose the government's decision this month to invoke colonial-era emergency regulations banning face masks at rallies as it struggles to contain the chaotic protest movement.

Nationwide Protests Erupt in Lebanon as Economic Crisis Deepens

(Bloomberg) -- Thousands of protesters cut off roads and started fires around Lebanon as anger over plans to impose a levy on WhatsApp calls escalated into demands for the government to resign.Demonstrators carrying Lebanese flags thronged outside government headquarters in downtown Beirut on Friday, as some of the largest protests in years entered a second day.Chants of “the people want the fall of the regime” and “revolution” rang out and scuffles erupted with riot police as the crowds demanded the politicians currently debating a proposed austerity budget step down and hold early elections.The economic stakes have rarely been higher for Lebanon, a tiny country that straddles the geopolitical fault-lines of the Middle East, since the end of the 15-year civil war in 1990. One of the most indebted countries in the world, it is struggling to find fresh sources of funding as the foreign inflows on which it has traditionally relied have dried up.The protests have increased pressure on Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri, who heads a fractious coalition government that has struggled to overcome sectarian and political differences to push through much-needed reforms.Hariri, a Sunni Muslim, has been traditionally backed by Saudi Arabia, but the kingdom has withheld support in recent years as the Iranian-backed Hezbollah militia’s political influence over the government has grown.The crisis has catapulted Lebanon into a new and unpredictable phase. If Hariri and his allies resign, Lebanon could end up with a government dominated by Hezbollah, making it even harder to attract investment. Hezbollah’s ministers and parliamentarians have oppose higher taxes to spare their supporters further financial pressure as the U.S. seeks to choke off its funding through sanctions on its members and its patron, Iran.If the government survives, few observers expect it to overcome the divisions that have frustrated public demands for change.Foreign Minister Gebran Bassil, the son-in-law of the president and an opponent of Hariri, called for urgent measures to fight corruption and warned in a televised address that the collapse of the government would result in “chaos” and undermine the currency peg.Hariri, who canceled a cabinet session planned for Friday, is expected to deliver an address to the nation at 6 p.m. local time.Persistent instability in Lebanon has shaken investor confidence and made it harder to revive an economy already struggling to absorb more than 1.5 million Syrian refugees who have fled the crisis in neighboring Syria.The yield on Lebanon’s dollar bonds due in 2021 jumped more than two percentage points to 20.38% as of 10:44 a.m. in London, snapping six days of declines. The cost of insuring Lebanese debt against default climbed, with the nation’s five-year credit-default swaps rising 87 basis points to 1,262 -- the highest level on a closing basis since the start of the month.‘Revolution’Sporadic demonstrations have erupted for months in Lebanon as the economic crisis has led to shortages of dollars and threatened the pensions of retired soldiers.The government is under pressure to cut spending, raise taxes and fight corruption -- conditions required by international donors to unlock some $11 billion in pledges made at a Paris conference in early 2018. But the measures are proving deeply unpopular with the public, which widely blames institutional corruption, nepotism and profiteering by politicians for bankrupting the government.The latest unrest was sparked by plans to impose a fee of 20 U.S. cents on the first WhatsApp call that users make every day, causing outrage in a country where communications costs are among the least competitive in the region and people widely use internet voice applications to save money. WhatsApp, a free messaging and voice platform owned by Facebook Inc., has some 1.5 billion users worldwide.On Thursday, the government also discussed a proposal for a gradual increase to the value-added tax, currently at 11%, and new levies on gasoline. But Finance Minister Ali Hasan Khalil insisted there were no additional taxes planned for next year’s budget.As protests spread to the suburbs and provinces, Telecom Minister Mohamed Choucair called LBCI television on Thursday to say Hariri had ordered him to cancel the levy on Internet calls. But the reversal came too late to appease public opinion.Walls of burning tires and debris effectively severed the main thoroughfares at the northern and southern entrances of Beirut and crowds also headed toward the presidential palace in Baabda, footage aired on Lebanese television stations showed. In downtown Beirut, protesters threw bottles, petrol bombs, metal barriers and other projectiles at riot police and occasional scuffles broke out as they tried to break through the security cordon around the government headquarters.The International Monetary Fund projects Lebanon’s current-account deficit will reach almost 30% of gross domestic product by the end of this year. Amid the violence on Thursday, it issued a new report predicting that economic growth, stagnant at 0.3% in 2018, would continue to be weak amid political and economic uncertainty and a severe contraction in the real estate sector. Public debt is projected to increase to 155% of Gross Domestic Product by the end of 2019, it said.(Updates throughout, adds quotes from Basil.)\--With assistance from Alex Nicholson.To contact the reporters on this story: Lin Noueihed in Beirut at lnoueihed@bloomberg.net;Dana Khraiche in Beirut at dkhraiche@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Lin Noueihed at lnoueihed@bloomberg.net, Mark WilliamsFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Chinese Nuclear Stockpile Clouds Prospects for U.S.-Russia Deal

(Bloomberg) -- A key hurdle to extending a landmark nuclear treaty between the U.S. and Russia isn’t Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin. It’s China.The New START treaty, the last major arms control accord between the world’s two nuclear superpowers, is set to expire in early 2021. Like another key treaty covering intermediate-range nuclear missiles, which collapsed this year after the U.S. quit that accord, Trump administration officials say the agreement may not be worth extending if China isn’t brought into the fold.A failure to renew or extend the accord would mark the effective end of decades of agreements aimed at limiting the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Experts say it would also send a worrisome signal to other nations -- from Saudi Arabia to North Korea -- already pursuing or seeking to pursue nuclear programs.U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper said in August that the U.S. should consider “multi-lateralizing” the agreement. “If we really want to go after avoiding an arms race, and capture these systems, we should multi-lateralize it.”Yet while the U.S. believes China will double its nuclear stockpile over the next decade, most arms control experts say it would be better for Washington and Moscow to settle on an extension of New START and worry about Beijing later.“China doesn’t have anything like the number of warheads the U.S. and Russia possess,” Sam Nunn, a former Democratic senator from Georgia who co-chairs the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said in an interview. “We will at some point have to have China in the equation but that won’t happen now. Common sense would be to at least extend a treaty that already exists and work from there.”Russian officials say they want the current agreement extended for the allowed five years beyond its 2021 expiration. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told reporters last month that that the U.S. continues to insist China be brought into negotiations, a message he said Secretary of State Michael Pompeo delivered to him at the annual United Nations General Assembly meetings.But Moscow says time is running out. Negotiations for a new deal would typically take as long as a year. Even settling on an extension would be lengthy.“We urge our American colleagues not to lose time anymore,” Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said in an interview with Russia’s International Affairs journal. “There’s almost none left. Simply letting this treaty die would be unforgivable. This will be perceived by the international community as neglecting one of the key pillars of international security.”Despite American efforts, Beijing has so far balked at trilateral talks, arguing it is far behind Moscow and Washington, which together hold more than 90% of the world’s nuclear weapons.“China has no interest in participating in a nuclear-arms-reduction negotiation with the U.S. or Russia, given the huge gap between China’s nuclear arsenal and those of the U.S. and Russia,” said Fu Cong, director general of the foreign ministry’s Arms Control Department. “The U.S. and Russia, as the countries possessing the largest and most advanced nuclear arsenals, bear special and primary responsibilities on nuclear disarmament.”Nine countries possess nuclear weapons, with the global nuclear warhead count at 13,865 in 2018, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. Russia and the U.S. each have more than 6,000 warheads, followed by France at 300, China at 290, the U.K. at 200, India and Pakistan each with over 100, Israel at about 80 and North Korea estimated at 20-30.China’s stockpiles are expected to grow rapidly. The country “has developed a new road-mobile intercontinental ballistic missile, a new multi-warhead version of its silo-based ICBM, and a new submarine-launched ballistic missile,” Lieutenant General Robert Ashley, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said in May. “With its announcement of a new nuclear-capable strategic bomber, China will soon field their own nuclear triad, demonstrating China’s commitment to expanding the role and centrality of nuclear forces in Beijing’s military aspirations.”Getting China to participate in any talks is complicated by Beijing’s own calculus, which involves deterring India and expanding its weapons program, said Gary Samore, a former U.S. senior director for nonproliferation and export controls during the Clinton administration.“A trilateral approach is not practical at the moment because the Chinese will not agree to institutionalize their very small numbers compared to the U.S. and Russia,” added Samore, who now directs the Crown Center for Middle East Studies at Brandeis University.The demise of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, or INF -- the Cold War-era agreement that expired this year -- is already raising tensions with Beijing. Esper recently indicated that the U.S. was looking at deploying previously-banned intermediate range missiles in Asia, angering Chinese officials. Potential bases for the missiles could be in Taiwan and Japan, Samore said.Beyond China, U.S. talks with Russia are complicated by increasing mistrust on both sides. As a UN disarmament committee sought to begin its scheduled meetings earlier this month, Russian officials wouldn’t agree to adopt the schedule in protest of a U.S. refusal to issue visas to members of its delegation, a diplomat said.The potential of an escalating arms race comes after a prolonged period of relative progress in curbing nuclear weapons.The U.S. and Russia destroyed thousands of ground-launched missiles thanks to the INF treaty. New START, reached between Presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in 2010, capped the total number of U.S. and Russian nuclear stockpiles. Crucially, after reaching that accord, the U.S. and Russia adopted a united stance against Iran’s nuclear weapons program, forcing Tehran to sign a 2015 nuclear accord that the U.S. withdrew from last year.Unlike the situation during the Cold War, the advent of new cyber, artificial intelligence, and space technologies has moved much of the nuclear arms competition in recent years away from quantity to quality, Nunn and Ernest Moniz, the former U.S. Energy secretary and the co-chair of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, recently warned in a report. That may bolster the U.S. case for China to be included in a future deal.China’s rising military and technological prowess in the decades since the first nuclear deals were ratified means the Trump administration is right in calling China to be included in new strategic talks, even if it remains in the U.S. interest to extend New START, said Robert Manning, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council.“The U.S. has historically dominated many emerging technologies such as space, but now the Chinese are growing in these areas,” Manning said. “We need strategic dialogue to tackle these new areas. Do we want autonomous weapons or not? Do we want to ban hyper-sonics or not? That’s where the next wave is, not in whether nuclear weapons should be reduced or not.”But losing New START would send a signal to the world that the two biggest nuclear powers don’t care about arms control, Nunn said. Lori Esposito Murray, an adjunct senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, agrees.“You don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater,” Murray said. “You keep the constraints you have that have produced an 80% reduction of nuclear stockpiles and then you look at a process that looks at China and advanced technologies.”(Updates to add estimated global arsenal in 12th paragraph. An earlier version of this story was corrected to say Nunn is from Georgia, not North Carolina)\--With assistance from Henry Meyer and Brendan Scott.To contact the reporter on this story: David Wainer in New York at dwainer3@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Bill Faries at wfaries@bloomberg.net, John HarneyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Pound Levels to Watch After U.K. Lawmakers Vote on Brexit Deal

(Bloomberg) -- Currency markets are likely to react sharply to the vote in Britain’s Parliament on Saturday on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal.With the pound being the main barometer to the ups and downs of the Brexit saga, here is a guide to the levels to watch when markets reopen at the end of the weekend.Bullish OutcomeThe first key pound technical resistance comes around $1.3150 and may be where a knee-jerk rally will stall; the 200-weekly moving average stands at $1.3159, while the midpoint of sterling’s losses since April 2018 comes at $1.3168 and its May 6 high is at $1.3185The next big stop doesn’t come until closer to $1.3400; the mid-March high at $1.3381 stands out, while the pivotal 61.8% Fibonacci retracement of the 2018-2019 downtrend comes at $1.3453 and a four-year trendline resistance currently stands above $1.3500Bearish OutcomeInvestors short the pound may be looking to trim their exposure around the $1.2600 area; the 38.2% Fibonacci retracement of the recent rally comes at $1.2596, with October’s breakout point seen at $1.2582, the high on Sept. 20; a key DeMark trendline comes at $1.2522 The next potential barrier comes below $1.2400; the July 17 low at 1.2382 is in close proximity to $1.2353, the 61.8% Fibonacci level of the latest rally A triple-bottom in October around $1.2200 also stands out, while at the far end lies a 31-year low at $1.1841, the 2016 troughRangebound OutcomeIn case the pound fails to sustain a big move in either direction, short-term levels to watch for include pivot resistance at $1.3004; $1.2990, the high on Oct. 17; $1.2765, pivot support; and $1.2712, the 233-daily moving averageNOTE: Vassilis Karamanis is an FX and rates strategist who writes for Bloomberg. The observations he makes are his own and are not intended as investment adviceTo contact the reporter on this story: Vassilis Karamanis in Athens at vkaramanis1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Paul Dobson at pdobson2@bloomberg.net, Neil Chatterjee, Michael HunterFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Brexit Defeat Would ‘Suck The Wind’ Out of Sterling’s 5% Rally

(Bloomberg) -- Currency strategists are ruling nothing out for Saturday’s crucial parliamentary vote on Britain’s deal to exit the European Union -- and that makes forecasting where sterling will trade something of a crapshoot.The pound could surge to $1.35 or slip to around $1.22, strategists and fund managers say as they assess the range of possible outcomes from Brexit’s climactic moment.Sterling already jumped 5% this month to around $1.29 and now it’s pinned to that marker as traders wait to see if Prime Minister Boris Johnson can convince skeptics in the House of Commons to approve the divorce deal he sealed this week. It’s fine margins, and if he can’t, that opens the door to other scenarios including an election, a second referendum, or even a move to leave the EU with no agreement in place.While Johnson’s accord has lowered the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit on Oct. 31, the risks “are not mathematically zero,” say strategists at Toronto-Dominion Bank, including Ned Rumpeltin.“Any positions predicated on an imminent no-deal crash-out look difficult to countenance at this stage,” said Rumpeltin, the European head of currency strategy at TD. “Looking forward however, we think it is still a little too early to sound an unqualified all-clear.”If Parliament does manage to pass the deal this week, the pound could test May’s peak of around $1.3185, the TD strategists forecast, though they see it struggling to move higher in the absence of fresh catalysts.UBS Global Wealth Management is more bullish. It’s retaining an overweight position in sterling against the dollar, said Chief Investment Officer Mark Haefele. A “convincing deal” could drive the pound to $1.35, he predicted.Johnson needs 61 of 85 possible votes from potential swing lawmakers, a tight but feasible number. One blow is that Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, with 10 potential supporters, came out firmly against the deal.If lawmakers were to reject it and that led to an extension beyond the Oct. 31 Brexit deadline, the risk of a general election would “suck the wind” out of sterling’s rally and see it test $1.2640-60, the TD strategists predict. And that level could come under significant pressure if Parliament’s blocking of the deal were followed by the EU rejecting a request for an extension to the Brexit deadline.Jane Foley, the head of currency strategy at Rabobank, sees even greater risks if the deal fails to pass through Parliament. Sterling could dip to around to October’s low of $1.22 before finding “solid support” -- as long as the government doesn’t ramp up its no-deal rhetoric, she said.Other scenarios -- including a potential second referendum that could cancel Brexit altogether, or a delay in the timing of the vote -- cannot be ruled out either.No wonder implied volatility on sterling is so high and risk gauges are swinging back and forth. And adding to the drama, the currency market won’t get its first chance to react to the twists and turns of the weekend until trading resumes at 7 p.m. local time (or 7 a.m. in Auckland), when liquidity can be limited and exacerbate price swings.“No deal remains a threat until either a deal or no Brexit is completed,” Rumpeltin said. “An unexpected jump to an alternative scenario would quickly return both rates and FX to the state of confusion and -- often -- contradiction that has defined much of the Brexit process so far.”(Adds Rabobank view in 10th paragraph, updates chart)To contact the reporter on this story: Anooja Debnath in London at adebnath@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Paul Dobson at pdobson2@bloomberg.net, Neil ChatterjeeFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Syria Kurds accuse Turkey of violating cease-fire

The Kurdish-led administration in northern Syria accused Turkey on Friday of violating a U.S.-brokered cease-fire that went into effect overnight, as fighters from both sides clashed in and around a border town that has been one of the fiercest fronts in the Turkish invasion. The town of Ras al-Ayn was emerging as an immediate test for the five-day cease-fire agreed on by Washington and Ankara. Before the deal's announcement, Turkish-backed forces had encircled the town and were battling fierce resistance from Kurdish fighters inside.

EU Leaders Fail to Make Headway on Their Trillion-Euro Budget

(Bloomberg) -- After managing a united front over Brexit, divisions between European Union leaders were laid bare Friday when they discussed how to plug the budget shortfall left by the U.K.’s intended departure.The trillion euro ($1.1 trillion) seven-year budget is a cornerstone of EU policy that lets farmers compete against imports from the developing world, helps poorer states catch up with the rich ones and underpins projects that bind the union together. But agreeing on the amount of cash and how to spend it is a regular source of tension between the net contributors and those who get more than they put in.Britain, of course, was a net contributor. Now richer members are calling for the hole it will leave to be covered by cuts in the budget for the 2021-2027 period. Poorer ones want everyone else to cough up more.During their meeting on Friday leaders didn’t make any headway in agreeing on a ceiling for the budget, putting at risk a self-imposed deadline to reach a final deal in December. Agreement on the volume of the funds is needed before decisions can be taken on what they should be spend it on, and the conditions attached to the disbursements.But so far, diverging positions between different countries have remained entrenched."Positions on the budget were significantly apart," said Lithuanian President Gitanas Nauseda "Divergence of opinion was too big to find a compromise today."European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said the discussion didn’t offer any guidance as leaders just repeated known positions and predicted there would be no breakthrough in December either."We’re under time pressure," German Chancellor Angela Merkel said. "We have to quickly reach an agreement under the Croat presidency if possible, otherwise we won’t be able to finalize the programs by the time the new financial framework takes effect -- which wouldn’t be good."No One Is HappyThe spat is expected to keep leaders at loggerheads for months, but at its heart it’s about a tiny amount of money when spread over the EU’s 450 million people: 0.1% of GDP. The bloc’s executive arm has proposed that member states commit around 1.1% to the joint budget, while net contributors want to cap that at 1%. Either way it’s not much more than they have put in previously.Finland, which holds the rotating presidency of the EU, has proposed 1.03% to 1.08%, according to an internal memo. The difference between those figures amounts to about 50 billion euros over seven years. Yet almost no one is happy, according to several diplomats following the issue.The EU is no stranger to fighting over small change.The 19 finance ministers representing the euro-area’s $19 trillion economy just completed a two-year negotiation over a separate budget worth less than 20 billion euros.(Updates with Nauseda and Juncker comments in six, seventh paragraphs.)\--With assistance from Milda Seputyte, Jan Bratanic, Aaron Eglitis, Lyubov Pronina, Stephanie Bodoni, Morten Buttler, Jonathan Stearns, Helene Fouquet, Ewa Krukowska, Alexander Weber, John Follain, Richard Bravo and John Ainger.To contact the reporters on this story: Nikos Chrysoloras in Brussels at nchrysoloras@bloomberg.net;Viktoria Dendrinou in Brussels at vdendrinou@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Chad Thomas at cthomas16@bloomberg.net, Ben Sills, Rosalind MathiesonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

15 Times Trump and His Allies Claimed 'No Quid Pro Quo'

WASHINGTON -- It was not the message that the White House and its supporters have been trying to hammer home in recent weeks as the impeachment investigation has intensified on Capitol Hill: Mick Mulvaney, the acting White House chief of staff, said Thursday that President Donald Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in part to pressure Kyiv to pursue a politically motivated investigation into the 2016 election.His comments -- even after he issued a statement walking back his remarks -- undercut weeks of denials from Trump, his aides, Republican lawmakers and the conservative news media that the president was seeking a quid pro quo in his dealings with the new Ukrainian president. Some of their statements were focused on a July 25 phone call between Trump and the president of Ukraine in which Trump repeatedly brought up his desire for investigations into political rivals. Others touched specifically on Trump's decision in July to hold up the $391 million package of security aid to Ukraine, a development that government officials there said they only learned about at the end of August.OCT. 16, 20191\. President Donald Trump"Now, all of a sudden, quid pro quo doesn't matter because now they see, in the call, there was no quid pro quo."-- In remarks at the White HouseThe New York Times also found several other instances of Trump's proclaiming "no quid pro quo" on Twitter, in remarks to reporters, in news conferences and at political rallies.OCT. 3, 20192\. Vice President Mike Pence"Contrast that with the president's -- the transcript of the president's phone call with President Zelenskiy where there was no quid pro quo. There was no pressure."-- In remarks to reportersOCT. 3, 20193\. Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C."What we do know is there was definitely no quid pro quo. I mean, it came out over and over."-- In remarks to reportersOCT. 13, 20194\. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin"In the Oval Office, when the president was asked about this in front of the vice premier, the president made very clear, they can do what they want. So, again, people who are trying to imply that the president is asking for things or quid pro quos, I think this is ridiculous."-- In an interview on ABCOCT. 4, 20195\. Lou Dobbs, Fox Business Network host"And it's not a difference of opinion. Any rational person looking at it, any reasonable person, can only conclude that there was no quid pro quo. There was no threat of any kind."-- on Fox NewsSEPT. 28, 20196\. Kellyanne Conway, counselor to the president"And as the president said, this was a perfect call. The Ukrainian president said on live TV the other day, up at the United Nations General Assembly, that he felt no pressure. And, in fact, if you read what's there, you see what's not there -- no quid pro quo."-- In an interview on Fox NewsSEPT. 26, 20197\. Larry Kudlow, Trump's chief economic adviser"There was no quid pro quo. There was no issue about finally getting the military assistance. And he thanked us. The Ukrainian president thanked us for our support on his anti-corruption campaign."-- In an interview on Fox NewsOCT. 14, 20198\. Rep. Steve Scalise, R-La."And I think a lot of these members in swing districts are hearing that, hey, you ran saying you were going to work with people to get things done and all you're focused on is impeaching the president over a lie about quid pro quo that never even happened. What are you people doing up there?"-- In an interview on Fox Business NetworkOCT. 14, 20199\. Rep. Lee Zeldin, R-N.Y."President Zelenskiy had no idea that there was a hold on aid during the July 25th call. The readouts of the July 25th call on both the Ukraine side and the U.S. side mention nothing about a hold on aid or a quid pro quo. July 26th, the day after that phone call, Ambassador Volker met with President Zelenskiy. During that meeting, there was no reference to a hold on aid or a quid pro quo."-- In remarks to reportersOCT. 13, 201910\. Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D."There was no quid pro quo in the -- in the phone conversation. So, no doubt that the haters are going to hate."-- In an interview on CNNOCT. 13, 201911\. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas"I think that was good because a lot what the Democrats had been raising, alleging an illegal quid pro quo, was not, in fact, backed up by the transcript."-- In an interview with CBSOCT. 8, 201912\. Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio"If they would release the transcript from Ambassador Volker's testimony and interview last week, you would see that Ambassador Volker backs up exactly what you just said. There was no quid pro quo."-- During an interview on Fox NewsOCT. 6, 201913\. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C."Every Democratic member of the House needs to be on record: Do you agree with Nancy Pelosi that the transcript is enough to impeach President Trump? Remember when Pelosi said that the transcript would show a quid pro quo? It doesn't."-- In an interview on Fox Business NetworkOCT. 8, 201914\. Mercedes Schlapp, senior adviser for the Trump campaign"But more so, what is so disgusting is the fact that the Democrats continue to try to build up this narrative on, well, there was a quid pro quo when the call -- when the call happened. They just jumped the gun without facts, without being credible."-- In an interview on Fox Business NetworkOCT. 2, 201915\. Hogan Gidley, White House spokesman"Well, right. But this doesn't have anything to do with the 2020 election, and the president was very clear about that and that wasn't in the call. What else wasn't in the call was the quid pro quo."-- In an interview on Fox NewsThis article originally appeared in The New York Times.(C) 2019 The New York Times Company

Pompeo seeks to reassure Israel amid Syria turmoil

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met with Israel's prime minister on Friday to reaffirm the countries' close ties at a time when many in Israel fear the Trump administration intends to cut and run from the Middle East. The meeting came a day after a U.S. delegation led by Vice President Mike Pence and Pompeo reached an agreement with Turkey to halt its week-old offensive against Kurdish forces in northern Syria. Israel has strongly condemned the offensive, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warning of "ethnic cleansing." Others have expressed fear that President Donald Trump's stated desire to get out of "stupid endless wars" in the Middle East makes him an unreliable ally as Israel faces threats from Iran.

UN condemns Egypt crackdown on activists

The UN on Friday condemned Egypt over the recent arrests of prominent activists and demanded that Cairo probe allegations that they were tortured by the security services while in custody. Several activists who played key roles in the 2011 revolution have been arrested in recent weeks, including blogger and journalist Esraa Abdel Fattah and Alaa Abdel Fattah, an iconic figure in Egypt. Alaa Adbel Fattah and his lawyer, Mohamed el-Baqer -- who is also being held -- have both been accused of belonging to and providing funding for a terrorist group, the United Nations human rights office said.

Emolumental: Mulvaney and Trump Like Doral for a G-7 Quid Pro Quo

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- If you’re wondering how the White House decided a Miami golf resort owned by President Donald Trump was the best venue for a major diplomatic gathering, the Group of Seven summit, the U.S. will host next June, Mick Mulvaney has answers.In a press briefing on Thursday, Trump’s acting chief of staff said his team made its choice after analyzing about a dozen criteria “used by past administrations” that included accommodations as well as “ballrooms, bilateral rooms, the number of rooms, the photo ops, the support hotels that are there, the proximity to cities and airports, helicopter landing zones, medical facilities, etc.”During a visit to Europe in July, the president himself said that he liked the idea of holding the G-7 at Trump National Doral because his Florida spread has “tremendous acreage” and “people are liking it.” But that didn’t mean Trump’s advisers would just roll over and do whatever their boss wanted. Instead, Mulvaney assured us, the White House deployed “an advance team” to examine multiple locations in several states. That scrutiny produced a list of four finalists the crack team pored over before deciding, against the odds, that Doral was the one.“Doral was, by far and away — far and away — the best physical facility for this meeting,” Mulvaney said at the press briefing. “In fact, I was talking to one of the advance teams when they came back, and I said, ‘What was it like?’ And they said, ‘Mick, you’re not going to believe this, but it’s almost like they built this facility to host this type of event.’” That means, presumably, that Mulvaney never had a conversation in the Oval Office about the selection process that might have gone like this:Mulvaney: “We’re looking at several sites and –”Trump: “Doral.”Mulvaney: “But Mr. President, if you hold the G-7 at your own place that means that the government is using taxpayer funds to fill your wallet and –”Trump: “Doral.”Mulvaney: “I just want to remind you about the grief we got when the vice president stayed at your hotel in Ireland and –”Trump: “Doral.”Mulvaney: “And the grief we got about the our military personnel staying at your golf club in Scotland because –”Trump: “Doral.”Mulvaney: “There’s also been lots of chatter about all of the diplomats who stay at your Washington hotel and –”Trump: “Doral.”Mulvaney: “Let’s not forget the Kushners used your image and name for product marketing in China, Jared’s maneuvers with 666 Fifth Avenue, the trademarks China suddenly awarded you and Ivanka, taxpayer funds used to help Don Jr. and Eric make overseas business trips or to help you golf all the time at your own clubs, or questions about why you keep appeasing guys like Putin and Erdogan, and why you haven’t really distanced yourself from your businesses or released your tax returns and –”Trump: “Doral.”Mulvaney: “Well, I’ve thought about it, and I’d like to recommend Doral to you, Mr. President.”Trump: “Thank you Mick, that’s a great idea.”Nope, a conversation like that never could have happened and Mulvaney held his press conference to make sure reporters could take his word for it. And sure enough, a reporter did ask if Trump personally intervened to get Doral on the short list of G-7 venues. Yep, he did, Mulvaney answered.“We sat around one night. We were back in the dining room and I was going over it with a couple of our advance team. We had the list, and [Trump] goes, ‘What about Doral?’  And it was like, ‘That’s not the craziest idea. It makes perfect sense.’”That’s the kind of answer that could convince skeptics Trump is violating “emoluments” provisions in the Constitution that bar presidents from accepting payments from foreign governments (since lots of foreign governments attending the G-7 will be spending money at Doral).Mulvaney tried to get in front of that by asking and then answering the most obvious question about hosting the G-7 at Doral.“Is the president going to profit from this? I think the president has pretty much made it very clear since he’s got here that he doesn’t profit from being here. He has no interest in profit from being here,” he allowed. “It’s one of the reasons that he’s not taken a salary since he’s been here. He’s given that salary to charity. Will not be profiting here.”Reporters batted some of that back, asking why Trump didn’t see the Doral move as a pure financial conflict of interest and why Mulvaney also didn’t recognize it as free marketing and brand promotion for the president’s company. Mulvaney had no patience for that but couldn’t really put the questions to rest, either.“I was aware of the political, sort of, criticism that we’d come under for doing it at Doral, which is why I was so surprised when the advance team called back and said that this is the perfect physical location to do this.”Mulvaney also swatted down comparisons between the financial practices and ethics of Trump and those of former Vice President Joe Biden and his family – addressing the topic before reporters had even asked about it. (Trump, of course, is in the middle of an impeachment inquiry for asking the president of Ukraine to unearth financial dirt involving Biden.)“There’s no issue here on him profiting from this in any way, shape, or form,” Mulvaney reiterated about Doral. “What’s the difference between this and what we’re talking about the Bidens?  Well, first of all, there’s no profit here.  Clearly, there’s profit with the Bidens.  And, second of all, I think if there’s one difference that you look at between the Trump family and the Biden family: The Trump family made their money before they went into politics.  That’s a big difference.”That’s a problematic way to frame things though because the Trump Organization has been struggling to keep revenue and profits robust at Doral – its biggest golf property -- and thus has incentives to steer government business in its own direction. Doral has also received bad press about bedbug, roach, and other insect infestations — along with hundreds of health code violations — but reporters didn’t ask Mulvaney about that.Last year, an armed man managed to sneak into Doral, steal an American flag and drape it over a lobby counter, pull a fire alarm and then start screaming about Trump before shooting at the ceiling, chandeliers and the police who ultimately apprehended him. Reporters didn’t ask Mulvaney about security concerns if the G-7 ends up at Doral.If I was at the press conference, I also would have asked Mulvaney about the tournament Doral planned to host last summer featuring strippers serving as golfers’ “caddy girls,” but that’s probably just one of the reasons the White House doesn’t invite me to its media events.Like Sean Spicer before him, Mulvaney appears entirely willing to throw himself in front of the media and dissemble while essentially serving as one of Trump’s crash test dummies. It’s also still astounding how easily Trump co-opts people like Mulvaney and how readily Mulvaney and his ilk trample on the Constitution and shred core, non-partisan public values in Trump’s service.Consider this reporter’s question at the Thursday presser about the propriety of holding the G-7 summit at Doral. “Is there any value to sending a message to the world, especially given that all that’s happened with foreign interference and attempts at foreign interference in our country, that this president and this country is not open for the kind of self-dealing that happens in other countries? Is that not an important message to send when you’re inviting the world to come here to the United States?”“No,” Mulvaney responded.To contact the author of this story: Timothy L. O'Brien at tobrien46@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Matthew Brooker at mbrooker1@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Timothy L. O’Brien is the executive editor of Bloomberg Opinion. He has been an editor and writer for the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, HuffPost and Talk magazine. His books include “TrumpNation: The Art of Being The Donald.”For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Deal between US, Turkey spawns more questions than answers

President Donald Trump hailed it as a great day for civilization, but the agreement hammered out in Ankara, Turkey, between U.S. and Turkish leaders spawned more questions than answers. Thursday's deal called for a five-day pause in fighting between Turkish and Kurdish fighters and put a temporary halt to the battle along the Syrian border. It also gave the Turks the 20-mile-deep (32-kilometer-deep) safe zone in Syria that leaders in Ankara had sought for months.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang promises 'tremendous opportunities' for US firms

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang told American business leaders in Beijing on Thursday that China will create "tremendous opportunities" for companies from the US and around the world by continuing to open up sectors of its economy.Speaking to a visiting delegation led by Evan Greenberg, chairman of the US-China Business Council, Li said the two nations must first resolve their trade disputes through dialogue and on an equal footing."I believe there is still much potential in our business cooperation, and we continue to push forward our business ties on the basis of mutual respect, equality and mutual benefits," he said."I see great prospects awaiting us on the road ahead."On Beijing's promise to improve access to its markets " made during the latest round of trade negotiations in Washington last week " Li said the "door of opening up will only open even wider"."I have strong confidence that the ever-improving business environment in China will continue to generate tremendous market opportunities for US firms and companies from all other countries who are interested in continuing to do business in China," he saidThe government would ensure companies' property and intellectual property rights, and improve the market environment for foreign firms operating in China, Li said.The meeting came as officials from Beijing and Washington work to finalise the text of a "phase one" trade deal for Presidents Xi Jinping and Donald Trump to sign when they meet at the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) summit in Chile on November 16-17.The opening up of China's financial services market, the provision of better protection for US intellectual property rights and agreements on agriculture and currencies were among the major consensuses reached in the deal.Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are set to sign a "phase one" deal when they meet at the Apec summit in Chile next month. Photo: AP alt=Presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping are set to sign a "phase one" deal when they meet at the Apec summit in Chile next month. Photo: APUS Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said on Thursday that he and US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer would speak to China's top negotiator, Vice-Premier Liu He, over the telephone next week and that the three men would meet in the Chilean capital of Santiago ahead of the planned meeting between Xi and Trump.Following the latest talks, the Trump administration suspended a planned 5 percentage point tariff rise to 30 per cent on US$250 billion worth of Chinese goods, but a separate increase on about US$156 billion of imports from China is still set to take effect on December 15.During the meeting with Li, Greenberg said that a decoupling of the world's two largest economies would not benefit American companies.US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (left) said he and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (right) would speak to Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He (centre) next week. Photo: Reuters alt=US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (left) said he and US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin (right) would speak to Chinese Vice-Premier Liu He (centre) next week. Photo: Reuters"This is an important period in the US-China relationship. Both countries, frankly speaking, are assessing the relationship and questioning the intentions of the other," he said."Both sides have strong forces that view the other as the threat and are advocating disengagement."But while those voices "are growing in popularity ... [disengagement] is not in our interest," he said.This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2019 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2019. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Hit by trade war, California winemakers see their carefully cultivated market in China shrivel

Dylan Wang and Sherry Duan hold their glasses up to the light before tasting the Atlas Peak merlot and Howell Mountain cabernet at Duckhorn Winery's tasting room, overlooking acres of ripe grapes.Wang, 39, an investment fund manager, and Duan, a 32-year-old lawyer, came here to California's famed Napa Valley from Shanghai to enjoy the wine, scenery and cool weather, and chose Duckhorn in part because president Barack Obama served its wine at his 2009 inauguration.One advantage of travelling all the way from China: they're avoiding prohibitive tariffs. California wineries, already battling tough global competitors, rising costs and labour shortages, are increasingly fearful the US-China trade war will exact irreversible damage after years of cultivating China's market as carefully as their vines."California wine exporters are worried they may never be able to recover market share in China," said Jock O'Connell, international trade adviser with Beacon Economics, "which they naturally have long seen as a huge opportunity for profit."Merlot grapes being harvested in California. Photo: Duckhorn Portfolio alt=Merlot grapes being harvested in California. Photo: Duckhorn PortfolioCalifornia wine exports to China are wilting. The Golden State accounts for some 95 per cent of US wine production and exports, with China sales set to hit US$30 million this year, down from US$78.7 million in 2017.Even as Chinese taxes and punitive tariffs on US wine have doubled to 98 per cent, a free-trade agreement Australia signed with Beijing has given that country tariff-free access to China's giant market.Wine is hardly the only California agricultural export suffering a hangover. California almond exports have fallen by a third and US dairy exports, another major California product, fell 54 per cent in the first half of 2019.While the Trump administration has handed out subsidies to compensate farmers for economic harm resulting from the trade war, some here say they are disadvantaged relative to Republican-leaning Midwestern wheat and soy farmers.According to US Department of Agriculture data acquired by Associated Press, California has received some US$76.3 million in federal subsidies, a fraction of the US$8.5 billion doled out nationwide, despite being the nation's top agricultural exporter."We all get penalised on an equal percentage, but relief goes to other farmers," said Pete Przybylinski, Duckhorn Portfolio's senior vice-president of sales and strategy. "Trump is no big fan of California, so the likelihood of him helping us was very small."Adding to frustration among wineries is concern that the trans-Pacific chest thumping hit just when years of hard work were starting to pay off. Their fear: growing suspicion of US brands will shape lifelong habits among Chinese consumers at a time when many are taking their first sip.Duckhorn started selling to China in 2006, gradually growing its customer base and learning the market. But at Shanghai's ProWine trade conference in late 2018, an attendee shouted that he would never buy California wine given his dislike of Trump, Przybylinski said. "That was a year ago. You can imagine what it's like now."Duckhorn Portfolio's senior vice-president of sales and strategy Pete Przybylinski. Photo: Mark Magnier alt=Duckhorn Portfolio's senior vice-president of sales and strategy Pete Przybylinski. Photo: Mark MagnierSome 32.6 million Chinese drink wine regularly, up from 21.6 million in 2014, according to Wine Intelligence, a London-based data firm. The market is also maturing from the early days when Chinese quaffed largely for wine's reported health benefits or for status, mixing US$1,000 bottles of Chateau Lafite Rothschild with Sprite.Wine experts say President Xi Jinping's 2012-13 campaign against conspicuous consumption inadvertently helped nudge consumers to become more discriminating.Gus Jian Zhu " who recently became the world's first Chinese national Master of Wine, an exhaustive three-year training and original research designation dominated by Britons and Europeans " says growing interest is leading more wealthy Chinese to invest in California wineries, sometimes less for profit than to squirrel money out of China or earn bragging rights with friends.China's wine market has good long-term potential, Zhu said. But not as much as some foreign wineries, mesmerised by China's massive population, might think, he added.Wine is often served cold, while Chinese tend to prefer heated drinks. And wine must contend with China's 2,000-year, deeply entrenched history with baijiu, the powerful grain-based alcohol sometimes likened to jet fuel."Baijiu's already so wedged into our culture. People still use it as a social tool or a friend-making tool," said Zhu, "or to get drunk at business meetings."One factor foreign wineries sometimes underestimate is the importance of finding the right Chinese script to represent their industry. The translation for the Spanish grape macabeo, 马家婆 (majiapo), can be read rather incongruously as "the old granny of the Ma family", while fume blanc is sometimes rendered as 白富美 (baifumei), a popular Chinese term describing a "white, rich and beautiful girl".Those that do it right, however, can create names that sing " and pay off. The translation for sauvignon blanc " 长相思 (chang xiangsi) " literally means "long lovesickness" evoking imagery used by Chinese poet and literary genius Li Bai (701-762 AD). And the Australian winery Penfolds uses 奔富 (ben fu), which not only sounds like its English name but translates as "chasing prosperity.""Of course it's selling well in China," said Zhu.Despite the setbacks, wine industry groups say they will continue to invest in educating consumers and sommeliers."Even though we're in a challenging time, our hope is that this doesn't last forever," said Honore Comfort, vice-president of international marketing for the Wine Institute. "We want to be in a good position when this is solved."Historically, China's alcohol culture was largely based on grain with relatively little, and largely localised, fermentation of fruit, other than in Xinjiang, where grapes are plentiful. Historians suggest small-scale use of grapes for wine may date as far back as the Han dynasty (206-220 BCE) or the Three Kingdoms period (220BC-265AD).While Chinese palettes are becoming more discerning, prestigious labels remain hugely popular, helping drive the counterfeit market, especially for China's most famous foreign brand, Chateau Lafite Rothschild.That has fuelled a spate of outright fakes and "lookalikes" such as Lafei Manor " Lafei is the Chinese pronunciation of Lafite " whose "2009" vintage label boasts: "This dry wine by adequate water and sunlight, making the wine more limpid harmony."In 2014, Xinshi Li, president of the Chinese Academy of Inspection and Quarantine, claimed that at least half the Lafite sold in China was "probably made on boats moored along the Chinese coast, rather than vineyards in Pauillac", Quartz reported. That same year, a single house in Wenzhou was found with 10,000 counterfeit Lafite bottles.Apparently deciding if you can't beat them, join them, Rothschild last month introduced a wine called Long Dai (瓏岱), a red blend from a vineyard in Shandong province, replete with references to lucky jade, sacred mountains and praying farmers.It sells for around US$340 per bottle with an initial output of 30,000 bottles and includes heavy anti-counterfeit labels and foil with banknote-quality graphics.One company that has managed to skirt rising Chinese tariffs is Gliding Eagle, a Napa company that ships higher-end wines directly to Chinese consumers, including vintages by Calera, ZD Wines, Migration and Dry Creek Vineyard.Shipments are subject to China's lower personal consumption taxes, allowing for door-to-door delivery at about 60 per cent below the price of US wines currently transported commercially.The company has also worked with WeChat and the California International Trade Office on a programme that translates menus and wine marketing materials to Chinese visiting Napa.Chinese taxes and tariffs on American wine have doubled to 98 per cent. Photo: EPA-EFE alt=Chinese taxes and tariffs on American wine have doubled to 98 per cent. Photo: EPA-EFEBut the company is still feeling the chill, prompting it to diversify into some 30 other countries. "There's no doubt that the sentiment of the trade war hurts more than the trade issues themselves," said Adam Ivor, Gliding Eagle's co-founder. "All our countries are up 50 per cent year on year and China is down by at least that much."While high-end wines get the spotlight, most California exports involve huge vats of bulk wine. "I get calls from Chinese saying they want a shipping container," said Peterangelo Vallis, executive director of the San Joaquin Valley Wine Growers Association."California has a premier sound to it, but they want the absolute cheapest they can get. The distribution channel is on bicycles in some areas."Wine snobbery and artificially high prices have hurt California's long-term export prospects, Vallis says, leaving more room for Australia, France and Italy to swoop in. California shouldn't be apologetic about shipping low-end fruity wines befitting a culture accustomed to the sweetness of beer, rice and even baijiu, he adds."A lot of Chinese flavours are a combination of sweet and sour," Vallis said. "It comes down to what you're happy with."As Przybylinski gazes over vines ripening in the autumn sun, he reflects on Duckhorn's future in China, vowing to soldier on despite the storm clouds. The winery is trying to keep prices steady despite the hit to profit margins, has hired a marketing representative in Hong Kong to be closer to the market and is testing gift boxes and different varietals to suit Chinese tastes."We're ready to go tomorrow if the trade war ended," he said. "I guess the good news for every US winery, it wasn't such a huge market to begin with, like with soy and corn. So the hit hasn't been so great."He added wistfully, "It's going to take time."This article originally appeared in the South China Morning Post (SCMP), the most authoritative voice reporting on China and Asia for more than a century. For more SCMP stories, please explore the SCMP app or visit the SCMP's Facebook and Twitter pages. Copyright © 2019 South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved. Copyright (c) 2019. South China Morning Post Publishers Ltd. All rights reserved.

Holding Off Stimulus in Germany Isn’t Just Political Mantra

(Bloomberg) -- When German officials get nagged about delivering major fiscal stimulus, they have plenty of answers ready for why now isn’t the moment.Their arguments don’t just rely on the national fixation with budget prudence and the avoidance of debt though. Officials also cite their assessment of the current situation in Europe’s biggest economy, as well as tactical considerations on how a stimulus package would be effective.Such reasoning might be used often this week in Washington as Finance Minister Olaf Scholz and colleagues attend meetings of the International Monetary Fund, which on Tuesday called for Germany to invest more and reduce taxes to aid its faltering economy. Two days later, Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government cut its growth forecast for 2020 to just 1%, after earlier predicting 1.5%. Data due next month may even show the economy has just slipped into recession.The IMF is far from alone. Outgoing European Central Bank President Mario Draghi said last month that it is time for “fiscal policy to take charge” in the region, and is likely to repeat that refrain at his final meeting next week. Germany, with ample fiscal space built on repeated budget surpluses, is a prime candidate. Angel Gurria, chief of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, made a smilar call on Thursday in Washington. “Even the central banks run out of ammunition -- right now, we have to complement their easing,” he told Bloomberg Television. “Countries that have room, that do not have a very big debt-to-GDP ratio, they should spend more.”While the opposition by some German lawmakers to a fiscal boost is starting to thaw, the government is holding firm for now. Here’s a look at some of the arguments they’re deploying to keep calls for stimulus at bay, based on public statements, private briefings, and confidential conversations with officials.Studying the CycleOne argument is that Germany’s slowdown doesn’t fundamentally stem from domestic weakness and the economic cycle. It’s a result of external and political factors, including global trade tensions and Brexit-related disruption. Such a situation isn’t best served by a classic stimulus response and doesn’t need measures that would normally counter the ebbing of the cycle.It’s Not AppropriateA continuation of that point is that the economy is actually close to its speed limit, with areas such as construction, where a lack of workers is causing bottlenecks, threatening to constrain expansion. Bundesbank President Jens Weidmann argued that on Wednesday, saying calls for German fiscal stimulus are “completely disconnected” from reality.“The economy is working with an almost-closed output gap,” he said in response to questions at an event in New York. “Why would you spend money when you are operating at full capacity?”Two-Speed EconomyGerman weakness has generally been limited to manufacturing and isn’t widespread, runs another argument. The auto industry has suffered from trade tensions and a slow response to the global shift toward electric vehicles. But the domestic economy remains healthy, thanks to unemployment near a record low and the benefits of extreme monetary easing.The line of reasoning holds that past spillovers from the industrial sector to the consumer aren’t happening this time, because the link between the two is weaker than it was.“It’s a two-speed Germany,” Trevor Greetham, head of multi-asset management at Royal London Asset Management, told Bloomberg Television. “The consumer is okay, and the housing market is actually rising quite strongly.”The Time Isn’t RightAnother view holds that a major budget stimulus should only be unveiled when it’s widely perceived to be needed. A fiscal boost may be more potent if announced at a time when things are really seen to be deteriorating. That was the experience in 2009 during the global financial crisis. But if ordinary people aren’t much feeling the effects of economic weakness, stimulus now could be less efficient than it otherwise would be.It Needs ThoughtA further point Weidmann made this week is that stimulus should be well aimed and not just delivered for the sake of it, suggesting the need for caution. He recommended targeted spending on infrastructure, research and education, and incentivizing work and investment through tax cuts.“It would be important to use the leeway wisely in order to promote sustainable growth in the long run and not just cause a flash in the pan,” he said.Merkel argued last month that simply spending cash isn’t what’s needed, saying “it’s currently not a lack of money” that’s the problem, and there are sufficient investment projects in the pipeline. They just need to be fast-tracked.(Updates with Gurria in fifth paragraph)\--With assistance from Francine Lacqua and Lucy Meakin.To contact the reporters on this story: Craig Stirling in Frankfurt at cstirling1@bloomberg.net;Birgit Jennen in Berlin at bjennen1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Simon Kennedy at skennedy4@bloomberg.net, Paul Gordon, Jana RandowFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Johnson Sells Brexit Deal to Parliament Before Knife-Edge Vote

(Bloomberg) -- Sign up to our Brexit Bulletin, follow us @Brexit and subscribe to our podcast.Boris Johnson is battling to sell his new Brexit deal to skeptical members of the U.K. Parliament ahead of a crucial vote on Saturday.The prime minister has no majority in the House of Commons but needs to convince his own Conservatives, as well as opposition politicians, to back the divorce accord he struck with the EU on Thursday. If he fails, he will face the choice of seeking to delay Brexit again or trying to take the country out of the bloc without a deal on Oct. 31.“This is our chance in the U.K. as democrats to get Brexit done,” Johnson told a press conference in Brussels on Thursday. “People want to move this thing on, it’s been going on for a long time.”He wouldn’t be drawn on what he would he do if he loses Saturday’s vote.Defeat could unleash a political crisis unparalleled in modern times: despite EU leaders leaving open the possibility of allowing Britain more time to leave, Johnson has repeatedly refused to contemplate delaying Brexit beyond Oct. 31. Any attempt to leave without a deal would face a legal challenge and he may have to allow his plans to be tested in a general election or even a second referendum.The parliamentary arithmetic is very tight. Johnson is trying to win Saturday’s vote without the support of Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, which has categorically rejected the agreement he reached with the EU. To get the votes he needs, the premier is wooing reluctant members of his own side and trying to persuade opposition Labour politicians to back him.Former Conservative MPs who voted to block Johnson’s threat of a no-deal divorce last month -- and were thrown out of the party as a result -- have proposed an amendment to Saturday’s motion that seeks to force the government to request a delay to Brexit until a deal is passed.Under Johnson’s plan, Northern Ireland would still be subject to some of the EU’s single market rules to mitigate the need for customs checks on the border with Ireland. That would, in effect, put a customs border in the Irish Sea. The DUP says this is completely unacceptable and its 10 MPs will vote against.Will U.K. Parliament Back Boris Johnson’s Brexit? We Do the MathTo win, Johnson needs to pick up roughly 61 votes from a pool of about 75 Members of Parliament who might be persuaded to join him.There are signs that some Tories who voted down his predecessor Theresa May’s deal -- among them Steve Baker, leader of the self-described “Spartan” group of hard-core Brexiters -- are falling into line. But the DUP’s Sammy Wilson told the BBC on Friday that he and colleagues are urging the Spartans to stand with them.Johnson is also trying to win the support of a significant minority of MPs from the opposition Labour Party who believe the 2016 referendum result must be honored. To woo them, he is preparing a package of measures, including protections for workers’ rights and environmental standards after Brexit.Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn called for a second referendum, saying Johnson’s deal -- which he described as a “sell-out” -- is worse than that put forward by May. But there are some of his MPs who may still back it. “It’s a bad deal, but if I thought we wouldn’t get Brexit at all, then I would consider voting for it,” one Labour MP, Graham Stringer, told the BBC.Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said her Scottish National Party will vote against the deal, complaining that it creates too great a separation from the EU.As attention swung toward the vote at Westminster, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker offered support to Johnson.“If we have a deal, we have a deal and there is no need for prolongation -- that’s not only the British view, that’s my view too,” Juncker said. “He and myself we don’t think that it’s possible to give another prolongation.”Even if the decision over whether to grant an extension is not his, by playing down the chances of another delay, Juncker helped frame the vote in the House of Commons as a straight choice between Johnson’s deal or no deal -- just as the British leader has tried to do himself.That increases the pressure on undecided lawmakers in Westminster to back the government -- but it also raises the cost of failure dramatically.(Updates with DUP urging Tories to stand with them in ninth paragraph.)\--With assistance from Ian Wishart, Jonathan Stearns, Viktoria Dendrinou, Nikos Chrysoloras, Helene Fouquet, Patrick Donahue, Dara Doyle, John Follain, Katharina Rosskopf, Tiago Ramos Alfaro, Milda Seputyte, Jan Bratanic and Robert Hutton.To contact the reporters on this story: Tim Ross in London at tross54@bloomberg.net;Kitty Donaldson in London at kdonaldson1@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Tim Ross at tross54@bloomberg.net, Thomas Penny, Andrew AtkinsonFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Extinction Rebellion Is Right to Target London

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- London’s Extinction Rebellion, the undeniably effective local offshoot of the global environmental protest group, has been out in force again this week, shutting down streets in the financial district and disrupting flights from City Airport. Its so-called Autumn Uprising has led to more than 1,600 arrests, and provoked some very angry commuters. People from Greta Thunberg to Stanley Johnson, the British prime minister’s dad, have lent their support.Of course there’s official criticism too. Andrea Leadsom, the Brexiter business minister in Boris Johnson’s cabinet, says Extinction Rebellion is on the wrong streets in the wrong country. Writing in London’s Evening Standard newspaper, she claimed the U.K. has a long and proud record of global leadership on the climate, “as anyone who has looked up the facts will know.”While Leadsom may be right that there are worse offenders out there, and that Britain has taken meaningful steps to clean up its climate act, there’s a worrying whiff of complacency here. As for those facts of which Leadsom is so fond, they don’t all cast the U.K. in a glowing light.This year the U.K. became the first major economy to legislate a commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It has also made great strides in the past few decades in slashing carbon emissions — by 42% since 1990.These are welcome developments, but the future is starting to look a little dim. The government’s own projections have the U.K. missing its 2023 and 2028 carbon budgets (the name for its emissions targets) by quite a margin, as the chart below shows. These targets weren’t even aimed at getting to net-zero emissions by 2050 (the U.K. only had an 80% reduction in mind when they were set), so that hardly bodes well.The U.K.’s Committee on Climate Change, set up to monitor the country’s progress on emissions, also provides a riposte to Leadsom. Since June 2018 her government has delivered only one of the 25 critical policies needed to get emissions reductions back on track, and 10 of those haven’t even been started. Hardly a government responding to a climate emergency. In fairness, impressive progress has been made in one critical area: energy (essentially electricity generation) and heating. After a speedy phasing out of coal and take-up of renewables, the sector’s emissions drop will slow to a taper. If the U.K. is going to reach net-zero, action is needed elsewhere, and soon. Transport, for example, is now the biggest emissions sinner in the U.K. Yet four out of five targets used by the CCC to track the sector’s progress weren’t met, including new car CO2 emissions, electric car registrations and biofuel uptake.While this stalling on climate action is no doubt a symptom of a government distracted by Brexit, that’s no excuse. The U.K. is hosting the UN climate summit next year and if it’s serious about being a leader on the environment, it needs to make a success of it. Overshooting legally-binding carbon budgets doesn’t set a great example. You may not agree with their tactics, but it’s hard to argue that Extinction Rebellion should be rabble-rousing somewhere else.To contact the author of this story: Lara Williams at lwilliams218@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Lara Williams manages Bloomberg Opinion's social media channels.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Extinction Rebellion Is Right to Target London

(Bloomberg Opinion) -- London’s Extinction Rebellion, the undeniably effective local offshoot of the global environmental protest group, has been out in force again this week, shutting down streets in the financial district and disrupting flights from City Airport. Its so-called Autumn Uprising has led to more than 1,600 arrests, and provoked some very angry commuters. People from Greta Thunberg to Stanley Johnson, the British prime minister’s dad, have lent their support.Of course there’s official criticism too. Andrea Leadsom, the Brexiter business minister in Boris Johnson’s cabinet, says Extinction Rebellion is on the wrong streets in the wrong country. Writing in London’s Evening Standard newspaper, she claimed the U.K. has a long and proud record of global leadership on the climate, “as anyone who has looked up the facts will know.”While Leadsom may be right that there are worse offenders out there, and that Britain has taken meaningful steps to clean up its climate act, there’s a worrying whiff of complacency here. As for those facts of which Leadsom is so fond, they don’t all cast the U.K. in a glowing light.This year the U.K. became the first major economy to legislate a commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It has also made great strides in the past few decades in slashing carbon emissions — by 42% since 1990.These are welcome developments, but the future is starting to look a little dim. The government’s own projections have the U.K. missing its 2023 and 2028 carbon budgets (the name for its emissions targets) by quite a margin, as the chart below shows. These targets weren’t even aimed at getting to net-zero emissions by 2050 (the U.K. only had an 80% reduction in mind when they were set), so that hardly bodes well.The U.K.’s Committee on Climate Change, set up to monitor the country’s progress on emissions, also provides a riposte to Leadsom. Since June 2018 her government has delivered only one of the 25 critical policies needed to get emissions reductions back on track, and 10 of those haven’t even been started. Hardly a government responding to a climate emergency. In fairness, impressive progress has been made in one critical area: energy (essentially electricity generation) and heating. After a speedy phasing out of coal and take-up of renewables, the sector’s emissions drop will slow to a taper. If the U.K. is going to reach net-zero, action is needed elsewhere, and soon. Transport, for example, is now the biggest emissions sinner in the U.K. Yet four out of five targets used by the CCC to track the sector’s progress weren’t met, including new car CO2 emissions, electric car registrations and biofuel uptake.While this stalling on climate action is no doubt a symptom of a government distracted by Brexit, that’s no excuse. The U.K. is hosting the UN climate summit next year and if it’s serious about being a leader on the environment, it needs to make a success of it. Overshooting legally-binding carbon budgets doesn’t set a great example. You may not agree with their tactics, but it’s hard to argue that Extinction Rebellion should be rabble-rousing somewhere else.To contact the author of this story: Lara Williams at lwilliams218@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: James Boxell at jboxell@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Lara Williams manages Bloomberg Opinion's social media channels.For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Americans want an end to forever wars. But that's not what Trump offers

The president’s Syria withdrawal should be a warning to those too easily seduced by his erratic opposition to US foreign involvement‘Trump, of course, did not campaign as a principled anti-interventionist or anti-imperialist but as an amoral dealmaker, willing to pull the US out of entanglements deemed too costly or arrangements with allies deemed ungrateful.’ Photograph: Delil Souleiman/AFP/Getty ImagesThe American people are tired of war. After 18 years of continuous conflict – so long that fathers and sons have fought in the same war – fatigue and frustration with the exercise of US military force abroad pervade our political culture. This is not new. Nominally anti-war candidates have won the past three presidential elections. Indeed, one of the many perverse features of the 2016 campaign was that the strongest denunciation of the 2003 US invasion of Iraq came not from the Democrat on the debate stage but from Donald Trump. So seemingly indifferent to the painful toll of endless war was Hillary Clinton’s campaign that it could very well have cost her the election.Trump, of course, did not campaign as a principled anti-interventionist or anti-imperialist but as an amoral dealmaker, willing to pull the US out of entanglements deemed too costly or arrangements with allies deemed ungrateful. Yet he has governed, at least for the bulk of his term, much more like a conventional Republican than the flouter of the bipartisan foreign policy consensus he sometimes postured to be. Hawkish generals, neocons and hardcore Islamophobes have largely occupied the key policy-making positions in his administration. Instead of “ending endless wars”, as he has periodically pledged to do, Trump has mostly done the opposite: vetoing in April a resolution that would have ended US military involvement in the Saudi-led war in Yemen; expanding US military presence in Saudi Arabia; and repeatedly risking armed conflict with Iran.It is a sad irony that Trump’s recent catastrophic decision to withdraw US troops from north-eastern Syria and approve Turkey’s invasion may be the closest his administration has come to substantially contravening the foreign policy establishment’s dictates and actually reducing US military presence abroad. The withdrawal from Syria is the exact opposite of principled anti-interventionism: incoherent, inconsistent and likely to imperil already vulnerable progressive and democratic forces. As Meredith Tax writes, it is a colossal betrayal of the Kurds, many of whom have fought and died alongside US troops trying to expel the Islamic State from their territory, and a terrible blow to the revolutionary experiment in Rojava, which has offered the international left a glimpse of a new political paradigm in practice.An unstrategic, chaotic move that has already taken innocent people’s lives, Trump’s Syria withdrawal should be a warning to those too easily seduced by the president’s erratic opposition to US foreign involvement – an orientation grounded in the mercenary logic of the protection racket, not respect for international law or a commitment to human rights. It is crucial not to confuse the president’s cruel calculus with a genuine commitment to ending protracted wars, regardless of what he might tweet.> It is crucial not to confuse the president’s cruel calculus with a genuine commitment to ending protracted wars, regardless of what he might tweetTrump’s Syria withdrawal should also serve as a reminder to liberals and leftists of the urgent need to articulate a strong alternative to the policies of imperial maintenance – a swollen defense budget, drone strikes and targeted assassinations – advocated by Democrats and Republicans alike as well as to the cruel, cynical foreign policy of Trump.This is a moral imperative: not only in light of US imperial maintenance’s direct human cost, felt most acutely by those whose countries and societies have been torn apart by US invasion or intervention, but also in light of what could be accomplished domestically by taking the substantial resources currently used to end lives abroad and reallocating them to improve and save lives at home through reinvestments in the country’s fraying social safety net.And, in the midst of a presidential election campaign, it is a political imperative. Trump’s re-election campaign may be mired in scandal and seemingly disorganized, but there is no doubt that Trump and his operatives understand the electoral benefits of an anti-interventionist posture; it worked for them before, and it could work for them again. The Syrian withdrawal should be understood with this in mind, as should Trump’s proposed drawdown of US troops from Afghanistan. After all, the places where it matters that loved ones have returned from active duty are places where the Democratic nominee will need to win if Trump is to be defeated.They will fail to do so if the Democratic foreign policy position is characterized by kneejerk defensiveness about the Obama administration’s foreign policy legacy (eg Joe Biden) or the pabulum of “American leadership” (eg Pete Buttigieg) that, in practice, means sending more US soldiers, and civilians, in countries around the world, to their deaths.Instead, the Democrats must put forward a vision of US foreign policy that pairs a principled opposition to endless wars with a commitment to begin a responsible, comprehensive pullback of US military presence abroad. Fears of a possible backlash to this are probably overstated. In ways not always intelligible as such, a war-weary people demands a respite. * Joshua Leifer is an associate editor at Dissent