Germany: The eternal chancellor? Merkel’s biggest obstacle to reelection will be uniting her own party

Germany’s Iron Lady, Madame Non, Mutti – Angela Merkel has been given many names during her now more than eleven years as chancellor. At a party convention last week, she was re-elected Chair of her conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) for the ninth time since 1999, officially becoming the party’s candidate for the 2017 federal elections. Since then, a new title has been circulating in the German media: the “eternal chancellor” – a title that was once applied to Konrad Adenauer, who was chancellor for 14 years (1949-1963) and Helmut Kohl, whose 16 years as chancellor (1982-1998) reached its climax with German reunification in 1990.

At first glance, Merkel appears to fit the “eternal chancellor” label perfectly. This is first of all because there appears to be nobody in the CDU capable of and willing to replace her. Despite an apparently slow demise in her power that has been colourfully termed Merkeldämmerung (an allusion to Richard Wagner’s Götterdämmerung – the twilight of the gods), no real challenger has emerged. Although facing opposition in the face of the refugee crisis, crumbling support for her Wilkommenskultur and populist attacks from the Bavarian CSU, Merkel has nevertheless stated on several occasions, most recently during her speech at last week’s party convention, that people had begged her to run once again in the hope of her acting as an anchor of stability in turbulent times. After a long period of reflection, it seems, she has humbly accepted the burden of running again: the task being portrayed as a duty that she had to fulfil, with Merkel remarkably urging her party to help her in what she describes as “the most difficult election campaign since German reunification”.

Alongside the lack of internal challengers within the CDU, the other German parties, first and foremost the Social Democrats (SPD), also find themselves in no position to challenge Merkel either. As the leader of the SPD, Sigmar Gabriel has the so-called “first right of access” to the party’s candidacy. But after three years as minister of economic affairs during which he first called for TTIP, then claimed that the free trade agreement was a “dead horse”, before subsequently pushing through CETA, his popularity is far from soaring. His attempt to bridge the gap between his roles of representing the party’s working class and progressive constituencies as SPD Chair on the one hand, and securing the interests of German industry as a minister on the other, has undermined his credibility. Another possible candidate is the current mayor of Hamburg, Olaf Scholz. Though highly popular and successful in Hamburg, Scholz is perceived as an uncharismatic technocrat in the rest of Germany.

The most promising candidate is said to be Martin Schulz, President of the European Parliament. While he has already announced his intention to leave the European political stage and to “defend Europe from Berlin”, the exact role he will play in German national politics remains unclear. The most likely outcome is that he will replace Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who is set to follow Joachim Gauck as the next German President in February 2017, as foreign minister. However, given that the federal elections will take place in September of the same year, he would only have a mere six months to gain enough momentum to really pose a threat to Merkel. Schulz is perceived as being just as authentic as Merkel and is popular for his passionate and charismatic way of doing politics. Yet, given his absence from domestic politics throughout most of his political career, he has so far remained a relatively unknown figure for many Germans. It remains to be seen if 6 months as foreign minister will be enough to allow Schulz to become a credible alternative to Merkel.

Finally, the general state of the SPD, which has suffered a decline in fortunes ever since Gerhard Schröder’s Agenda 2010 reforms, could prove to be too large a hurdle to overcome for any candidate, no matter how popular or charismatic they may be. Since Schröder lost to Merkel in 2005, the SPD has typically been assigned around 20-25 per cent of support in opinion polls. After seven years of coalition governments between the CDU and SPD (2005-09 and 2013-16), Merkel’s adoption of classic left-wing policies (the minimum wage, an end to nuclear power, calling Islam a part of Germany, and welcoming refugees) has almost made the SPD politically invisible for some voters.

Merkel, on the contrary, has taken on the role of “uber-politician”, securing Germany’s interests in European and global politics while hovering above the minor domestic quarrels that exist between the SPD and CDU. Viewed from this perspective, both parties have the feel of two wings of a larger centrist party, presided over by Merkel, rather than two competing parties representing opposing policy-platforms. That this perception even exists inside the SPD could be seen when a leading SPD politician stated in 2015 that due to Merkel’s “excellent way of governing” and the meagre chances of an SPD candidate, his party might as well consider not putting forward a candidate at all. As a consequence, the SPD is unlikely to seek another four years as a junior partner in a CDU-led government, unless it aims to further drown itself under Merkel’s all-embracing centrism.

But while there may be no obvious alternative to Merkel as chancellor at present, there are at least three reasons to question the ‘eternal’ nature of her rule. The most prominent threat to Merkel’s hegemony is undoubtedly the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany (AfD). The post-election options for a CDU-led government will depend largely on how many disappointed conservative voters the AfD, which has gained momentum during the refugee crisis, can encourage to shift allegiances. While the party narrowly failed to clear the five percent threshold required to enter parliament in 2013, it is certain that it will succeed on this front in 2017.

A recent snapshot of the polling shows the AfD around the 13 per cent mark, with the CDU around 35 per cent, the SPD around 22 per cent, the Greens on 11 per cent, Die Linke on 9 per cent, and the liberal FDP on 5 per cent. But support for the AfD may well increase once the election campaign starts for real. Currently, the party is going through a period of internal turmoil as it determines whether it will follow its present leaders Frauke Petry and Jörg Meuthen or the increasingly influential hard-line approach of Björn Höcke and Alexander Gauland. In any case, it is clear that the CDU will not enter a coalition with the AfD under Merkel, leaving only the options of a coalition with the FDP (in the unlikely event of the CDU gaining more than 40 per cent of the votes and the FDP crossing the 5 per cent threshold) or a coalition with the Greens.

This latter option seemed unthinkable just a few years ago, but the Greens have fundamentally changed since they first became a member of the SPD-led government between 1998 and 2005. Far from the stone throwing anarchists and ecological fundamentalists of their founding years, their maturity in local and national government brought to light a brand of green conservatism that is most popularly embodied by Winfried Kretschmann, who was recently reelected as Minister President in Baden-Württemberg under a coalition between the Greens and the CDU.

Kretschmann has openly stated his admiration for Merkel on several occasions, indicating that he could not imagine someone more suited to leading the country. This political romance is apparently also increasingly popular among some CDU members looking for alternative coalition options. The Minister President of Hessen, Volker Bouffier, who has been heading a CDU-Green government in the state since 2014, has shown himself to be supportive of a coalition between both parties at the national level. Yet, the progressive wing of the party may still be too dominant to allow these conservative dreams to come true.

For the complete report click here: EUROPP – The eternal chancellor? Merkel’s biggest obstacle to reelection will be uniting her own party

The Netherlands: Geert Wilders named Dutch politician of the year - Criteria, Choice And Results Questionable

Geert Wilders: Is he really so popular?

Netherlands: Populist anti-Islam politician Geert Wilders was Monday named Dutch politician of the year in a television poll that came on the heels of his conviction for discrimination.

The 53-year-old charismatic leader of the Freedom Party (PVV) got 26 percent of the 40,000 votes cast in the poll conducted by NPO1 public television.

"I thank the Dutch who elected me the politician of 2016," Wilders said in a tweet. His party's fortunes have been steadily rising in the approach to legislative elections in March.

A December 11 survey by the respected Maurice de Hond Institute found that if elections were held now, the PVV would pick up 36 out of the 150 seats in the lower house of parliament, making it the biggest single political group.

It is the fourth time Wilders has been chosen as Dutch politician of the year thrice. His previous wins were in 2010, 2013 and 2015.

In a ruling earlier this month, Wilders was found guilty of discrimination against Moroccans but acquitted of hate speech over remarks he made at an election rally in March 2014.

He had asked supporters whether they wanted "fewer or more Moroccans in your city and in the Netherlands." When the crowd shouted back "Fewer! Fewer!" a smiling Wilders answered: "We're going to organize that."

But how accurate are all these polls being analyzed and publicized?

Looking at this particular poll about Wilders and other similar polls around the world, one can not escape the feeling that these polls not always tell the real side of the story. 

The mainly corporate controlled and profit motivated media around the world is not interested in providing objective news, but rather wants to achieve high ratings and maximum exposure, through populist and sensationalist news reporting.

In the case of naming Wilders  the Netherlands most popular politicians, the headline does not really reflect a true picture of the actual situation. 

Wilders got only 26 percent  of the total vote, this also means that 74% of those voted did not like him. In fact that is very close to three out of 4 people not liking him. Popular politician - not really.

Certainly not something Mr. Wilders or his party can brag about.


EU-Digest

Spain: Anti-austerity protest attracts thousands

Thousands have marched through Madrid to demand an end to austerity measures in Spain.

The demonstration, organised by the country’s two main unions (UGT and CCOO), is the first major protest since the government was named in November, after almost a year of political uncertainty.

Josep Maria Alvarez, the UGT’s Secretary-General vowed to reach an accord on austerity.

“These demonstrations will continue if necessary. It only depends on the government’s ability not only to discuss, but also to negotiate and make agreements.”

Eva Garcia, a student protester, added:
“We are in an unsustainable situation. Many people and students can’t live like this anymore and that is why we are here protesting. We have to keep taking to the streets.”

Last week, the International Monetary Fund said Spain should step up economic reforms and gradually trim its public deficit.

Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy adopted the current policies during his first term in office, between 2011 and 2015, as Spain emerged from a deep recession.

 Read more: Spain: Anti-austerity protest attracts thousands

Germany: Truck drives into crowd at Berlin Christmas market, several, at least 9 fatalities

Police confirm at least nine people have been killed in the apparent attack. A suspect has been taken into custody.

The incident occurred on the Breitscheidplatz square, near the location of Berlin's iconic Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church along the Kurfürstendamm shopping mile. Nine people are reported to have died as a result of the attack; however, unconfirmed reports state that there may be more fatalities. Up to 50 people have been reported as injured.

The police are treating the incident as an apparent terror attack. The driver of the truck has now been arrested after fleeing the scene earlier. A person in the passenger seat was reportedly killed. The police have asked the public to cooperate with the investigation.

Read more: Truck drives into crowd at Berlin Christmas market, several fatalities - live updates +++ | Breaking News | DW.COM | 19.12.2016

EU Refugee Crises: Why Are EU Politicians Never Mentioning US Is To Blame For EU Refugee Crises ? - by A. Bacevich

The Middle East: From Bad To Worse

‘If you break it, you own it.” Colin Powell’s Pottery Barn Rule, warning George W. Bush of the consequences of invading Iraq, turned out to be dead wrong.

Make that half wrong. Bush broke it — “it” being a swath of the greater Middle East. But the U.S. adamantly refuses to accept anything like ownership of the consequences stemming from Bush’s recklessly misguided acts and you will never hear a European politician openly admit to it.

Not least among those consequences is the crisis that finds refugees fleeing Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan and other parts of the Islamic world in search of asylum in the West. The European nations most directly affected have greeted this wave with more hostility than hospitality — Germany, for a time, at least offering a notable exception.

For its part, the U.S. has responded with pronounced indifference. In a gesture of undisguised tokenism, the Obama administration has announced it will admit a grand total of 10,000 Syrians — one-eightieth the number that Germany has agreed to accept this year alone.

No doubt proximity plays a part in explaining the contrast between German and U.S. attitudes. Viewed from Wichita or Walla Walla, the plight of those who hand themselves over to human traffickers in hopes of crossing the Mediterranean plays out at a great distance.

Syria is what Neville Chamberlain would have described as a faraway country of which Americans know nothing (and care less). And Iraq and Afghanistan are faraway countries that most Americans have come to regret knowing.

Such attitudes may be understandable. They are also unconscionable.

To attribute the refugee crisis to any single cause would be misleading. A laundry list has contributed: historical and sectarian divisions within the region; the legacy of European colonialism; the absence of anything even approximating enlightened local leadership able to satisfy the aspirations of people tired of corruption, economic stagnation, and authoritarian rule; the appeal — inexplicable to Westerners — of violent Islamic radicalism. All play a role.

USA: The Creator Of The George Bush Refugee Crises 

Yet when it comes to why this fragile structure collapsed just now we can point to a single explanation — the cascading after-effects of a decision made by Bush during the spring of 2002 to embrace a doctrine of preventative war.

The previous autumn, U.S. forces toppled the government of Afghanistan, punishing the Taliban for giving sanctuary to those who plotted the 9/11 attacks. Bush effectively abandoned Afghanistan to its fate and set out to topple another regime, one that had no involvement whatsoever in 9/11.

For Bush, going after Saddam Hussein’s Iraq formed part of a larger strategy. He and his lieutenants fancied that destroying the old order in the greater Middle East would position the U.S. to create a more amenable new order. Back in 1991, after a previous Iraq encounter, Bush’s father had glimpsed a “new world order.” Now a decade later, the son set out to transform the father’s vision into reality.

The administration called this its Freedom Agenda, which would begin in Iraq but find further application throughout the greater Middle East. Coercion rather than persuasion held the key to its implementation, its plausibility resting on unstoppable military power. For Bush’s inner circle, including Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz (but not Powell), victory was foreordained.

They miscalculated. The unsettled (but largely ignored) condition of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban already hinted at the extent of that miscalculation. The chaos that descended upon Iraq as a direct result of the U.S. invasion affirmed it. The Freedom Agenda made it as far as Baghdad and there it died.

That Saddam was a brutal tyrant is a given. We need not mourn his departure. Yet while he ruled he at least kept a lid on things. Bush blew off that lid, naively expecting liberal democracy or at least deference to American authority to emerge. Instead, “liberating” Iraq produced conditions conducive to the violent radicalism today threatening to envelop the region.

The Islamic State offers but one manifestation of this phenomenon. Were it not for Bush’s invasion of Iraq, ISIL would not exist — that’s a fact. Responsibility for precipitating the rise of this vile movement rests squarely with Washington.

So rather than cluck over the reluctance of Greeks, Serbs, Hungarians and others to open their borders to those fleeing from the mess the U.S. played such a large part in creating, Americans would do better to engage in acts of contrition.

On the 10th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, former president Bush visited New Orleans, implicitly acknowledging that his administration’s response to that disaster just might have fallen a bit short. It was a handsome gesture. A similar gesture is in order toward the masses fleeing the region into Turkey and Europe.

It’s never too late to say to say you’re sorry. 

Note EU-Digest: as to our own "whimpy" EU politicians, who are supporting these totally failed US Middle East Policies, they ask no questions. They continue backing this madness with costly military assistance from the air and on the ground, financed by taxpayers money. 
Why are European Politicians not coming to their senses and develop their own independent foreign policies based on the real needs of the EU.

After all, as the saying goes, "charity begins at home" . 

Read more:  - by Andrew Bacevich The George W. Bush refugees – POLITICO

Turkey: Russian ambassador to Turkey assassinated - by Burhan Ozbilici and Suzan Fraser

A gunman in a suit and tie shouted slogans about Syria’s civil war after he killed Russia’s ambassador to Turkey in front of stunned onlookers at a photo exhibition in the Turkish capital on Monday, according to an Associated Press photographer who witnessed the shooting. Police later killed the assailant, Turkish station NTV reported.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry called it a terrorist attack.

‘‘We consider this to have been a terrorist attack,’’ Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said. ‘‘Terrorism will not pass. We will fight it decisively.’’

Ambassador Andrei Karlov, 62, was several minutes into a speech at the embassy-sponsored exhibition in Ankara when a man fired at least eight shots, according to the AP photographer in the audience.
Get Todays Headlines in your inbox:

‘‘Don’t forget Aleppo, don’t forget Syria!’’ the gunman shouted in Turkish, referring to the Syrian city where Russian bombardments have helped drive rebels from areas they had occupied for years during the war.
Photos from the assassination

The envoy was fatally shot by a gunman in a violent scene that played out in front of reporters.

    Russian ambassador to Turkey was career diplomat

He also shouted ‘‘Allahu akbar,’’ the Arabic phrase for ‘‘God is great’’ and continued in Arabic: ‘‘We are the descendants of those who supported the Prophet Muhammad, for jihad.’’

The gunman approached Karlov as he lay on the ground and shot him at least one more time at close range, according to the AP photographer. The attacker also smashed several of the framed photos hung for the exhibition. There was panic as people ran for cover. Three other people were wounded in the attack, NTV said.

The attack comes a day before a meeting of Russian, Turkish and Iranian foreign and defense ministers in Moscow to discuss Syria. Russia and Iran have backed Syrian President Bashar Assad throughout the nearly six-year conflict, while Turkey has supported Assad’s foes.

Karlov was shot ‘‘when an unidentified assailant opened chaotic gunfire during a public event in Ankara,’’ Zakharova said. She said Russia was in contact with Turkish officials about the incident.

U.S. State Department spokesman John Kirby said U.S. officials were aware of reports about the shooting.

‘‘We condemn this act of violence, whatever its source,’’ Kirby said.

The United Nations condemned the attack.

‘‘There can be no justification for an attack on an ambassador ... and we very much hope that the perpetrators will be brought to justice,’’ U.N. spokesman Stephane Dujarric said.

Melih Gokcek, the mayor for Ankara, told reporters outside the exhibition center that the ‘‘heinous’’ attack aimed to disrupt newly-re-established relations between Turkey and Russia.

Relations between Russia and Turkey were badly strained by the downing of a Russian warplanes at the Syrian border in November 2015, but Turkey’s apology earlier this year helped overcome the rift. The leaders of the two countries, Presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan, have held several meetings in recent months and spoken frequently over the phone.

Russia and Turkey have co-sponsored the evacuation of civilians and rebels from Aleppo and also discussed the prospect of organizing a new round of peace talks in Kazakhstan’s capital, Astana.

Read more: Russian ambassador to Turkey assassinated - The Boston Globe

EU-Contributor:The Netherlands is the biggest net payer into EU coffers

 The Netherlands has been the biggest net payer into the EU’s coffers over the past five years, according to research by national statistics office CBS.

The CBS calculates the EU cost each person in the Netherlands just under €150 last year – or 0.4% of gross national income. In total, the Netherlands paid €6bn into the EU and got back €3.5bn in the form of grants, subsidies and discounts.

The CBS also calculates that if Britain had not been a member, the annual bill for the Netherlands would have been €442m higher. However, the likely impact of Britain’s withdrawal on the Dutch bill for EU membership will ‘depend on what form Brexit takes and what agreements are made between the European Union and Britain,’ the CBS said.

The agency also calculates that trade between Britain and the Netherlands has been boosted since the referendum in June. Between July and October, Dutch exports to Britain totalled €13bn, a rise of 5% on the year-earlier period. British exports to the Netherlands were up almost 3% to €7.5bn

Read more: The Netherlands is the biggest net payer into EU coffers - DutchNews.nl

The head of the No. 1 investment bank in the world explains why Brexit, Trump, and everything else have been great for trading - by Matt Turner

A bunch of events in 2016 had the potential to send the market into a tailspin.

From the Brexit decision in June to the election of Donald Trump in November and the Italian vote against constitutional changes in December, there have been unexpected election results and breaks with the status quo.

And while these events spurred trading activity, they did not roil the market in the way that many had predicted. In recent weeks, the US stock market has regularly topped record highs, for example.

According to Daniel Pinto, the CEO of JPMorgan's giant investment bank, the events all triggered what has been called "good volatility." That is to say that trading has been continuous, trading volumes have been healthy, and markets have been liquid.

That kind of trading is "our business" and a "positive thing," Pinto said. Here's the relevant passage from the interview, which you can read in full here:

Turner: Brexit, the election of Trump, the Italian referendum maybe, they all seem to be breaks from the status quo. Everything is new. There's a new party in government in the US. The UK is leaving the EU. Who knows what is going to happen in Italy. The market suddenly has to make sense of a lot more new information. Does that create more volume going forward?

Pinto: Probably. The important thing is that the market functions rather than the events or nonevents. The important thing is that at the time an event happens, the market should continue providing liquidity. When asset managers or clients need to reposition their books, in whatever direction, the market liquidity is there at a certain price. Higher volumes and more volatility in a continuous market, where it doesn't gap, is a good thing. That's our business. That is a positive thing. The last two or three events were positive events because there was volatility in a market that was functioning.

Read more: The head of the No. 1 investment bank in the world explains why Brexit, Trump, and everything else have been great for trading

US Presidential Elections: Why our presidents are elected by a cabal of elites

American presidential elections are generally orderly affairs. People vote, somebody wins and life goes on. It’s our proud tradition of democratic self-governance.

And yet: The whole thing is controlled by a cabal of elites who actually pick the nation’s commander-in-chief, and who, theoretically, have the power to defy voters and stop Donald Trump from becoming America’s president.

We are talking, of course, about the electoral college, a 229-year-old contraption of democracy that the Founding Fathers had to cobble together because they couldn’t figure out a better way to pick presidents.

On Monday, 538 electors from the 50 states, including three from the District of Columbia, will convene across the country to cast the votes that decide who will sit in the Oval Office in January.

Trump is expected to win when the electors vote, even though more Americans cast ballots for Hillary Clinton. Trump was more popular in states that control more electoral votes. That’s the system. Regular Americans don’t get a direct say in who becomes president, and not all Americans’ votes are equal.

That’s the very intent of the electoral college, albeit a design forged from an 18th-century political struggle over how to balance freedom and slavery, elitism and populism, independence and accountability.

Read more: Why our presidents are elected by a cabal of eli

Computer Industry: Apple has set up a secret office in Berlin to 'cherrypick' mapping engineers from HERE

Apple has hired at least half a dozen employees from Here for a Berlin-based Apple Maps team, according to LinkedIn, but the true figure is likely to be somewhat higher.

A source, who wished to remain anonymous, said that Apple strategically moved in on Here's talent as the mapping company was passed from Nokia to Microsoft to the German automotive group.

"It's a simple story: Here was in disarray after Microsoft's acquisition of Nokia," said the source, who works in the Berlin tech scene. "Apple saw the opportunity and opened an office in Berlin, specifically to siphon Geo Information Systems (GIS) talent."

The person added: "Three people independently complained to me that Apple opened an office in Berlin specifically to cherrypick at Here." This claim was backed up by another source on the ground in Berlin.

Here, which provides mapping data, software and services to the automotive, consumer and enterprise sectors, was "bleeding talent" as Microsoft's deal with the German car consortium went through, the source said. "Things are getting a bit better now, but GIS talent is rare."

Read more: Apple has set up a secret office in Berlin to 'cherrypick' mapping engineers from Here

EU: The race for EU membership – with 10 countries still trying to get in-the gate is temporarily closed

Politico reports that the United Kingdom might be trying to check out of the European Union, but there are at least 10 countries keen to be in. There’s a problem though: The EU’s golden age of expansion is over.

Sorry No More Room At The Inn

While national governments would like to ensure political stability in the EU’s neighborhood, they have no appetite to let those countries join before 2025. For some countries, such as Turkey, there’s almost no chance of ever joining. The European Parliament and countries such as Austria are already trying to suspend membership negotiations with Turkey.

“I won’t set a speed limit on the road to Europe,” said Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner responsible for EU enlargement, who insisted “Each candidate defines speed of joining via [its] own merit.”

At the same time, Hahn told a Western Balkans policy summit hosted by Friends of Europe on December 7, that there is a majority against EU enlargement in most EU countries. Instead of pushing EU national governments before they are ready Hahn suggested candidate countries focus on economic development and anti-corruption efforts.

Shada Islam, Europe director at Friends of Europe, is pessimistic. “I think we need to stop pretending and accept that there will be no new enlargement for many years — and that all these countries have a long way to go before they meet any of the key membership criteria,” Islam said, adding that given six to 10 years of continuous effort, the six Balkan nations may have a chance at membership.

The countries lining up for EU membership are becoming restless. “Enlargement is not high on the EU’s agenda and we know it,” said Natalie Sabanadze, Georgia’s ambassador to the EU.

Prior to the closed-door policy of the Juncker Commission, leaders in countries wanting to join the EU could promise to voters that EU membership would be forthcoming in exchange for sometimes difficult institutional and policy reforms. Today, even if a country meets all of the EU’s requirements it may be blocked for political reasons.

Western Balkans countries see themselves as rooted in Europe and warn that the EU will hurt itself if it fails to draw them close. Tanja Miščevič, Serbia’s chief membership negotiator, said “The Schengen system cannot function, and energy union cannot be completed, without the Western Balkan countries.”

Ditmir Bushati, Albania’s foreign minister, said that while it is clear “No one will be able to join EU in foreseeable future” it would be dangerous to allow Russia to fill a vacuum in his region.

If anyone can become a surprise front-runner in the membership race it is Albania, already a NATO member and mostly free from the complications of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

All other prospective EU members in the Western Balkans suffer fundamental complications. For Macedonia, it’s as simple as Greece refusing to even recognize its name. Allowing Montenegro and Kosovo to join without Serbia alongside them could create a security risk for both countries. Bosnia and Herzegovina is in the worst position of all and may hold these countries back if the EU insists they join in bloc formation.

“I won’t set a speed limit on the road to Europe,” said Johannes Hahn, the European commissioner responsible for EU enlargement, who insisted “Each candidate defines speed of joining via [its] own merit.”

At the same time, Hahn told a Western Balkans policy summit hosted by Friends of Europe on December 7, that there is a majority against EU enlargement in most EU countries. Instead of pushing EU national governments before they are ready Hahn suggested candidate countries focus on economic development and anti-corruption efforts.

Shada Islam, Europe director at Friends of Europe, is pessimistic. “I think we need to stop pretending and accept that there will be no new enlargement for many years — and that all these countries have a long way to go before they meet any of the key membership criteria,” Islam said, adding that given six to 10 years of continuous effort, the six Balkan nations may have a chance at membership.

    “Georgia is stubbornly pursuing [the] European and Euro-Atlantic course despite difficulties and costs involved” — Natalie Sabanadze, the Georgian ambassador

The countries lining up for EU membership are becoming restless. “Enlargement is not high on the EU’s agenda and we know it,” said Natalie Sabanadze, Georgia’s ambassador to the EU.

Prior to the closed-door policy of the Juncker Commission, leaders in countries wanting to join the EU could promise to voters that EU membership would be forthcoming in exchange for sometimes difficult institutional and policy reforms. Today, even if a country meets all of the EU’s requirements it may be blocked for political reasons.

Western Balkans countries see themselves as rooted in Europe and warn that the EU will hurt itself if it fails to draw them close. Tanja Miščevič, Serbia’s chief membership negotiator, said “The Schengen system cannot function, and energy union cannot be completed, without the Western Balkan countries.”

Ditmir Bushati, Albania’s foreign minister, said that while it is clear “No one will be able to join EU in foreseeable future” it would be dangerous to allow Russia to fill a vacuum in his region.

If anyone can become a surprise front-runner in the membership race it is Albania, already a NATO member and mostly free from the complications of the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.

All other prospective EU members in the Western Balkans suffer fundamental complications. For Macedonia, it’s as simple as Greece refusing to even recognize its name. Allowing Montenegro and Kosovo to join without Serbia alongside them could create a security risk for both countries. Bosnia and Herzegovina is in the worst position of all and may hold these countries back if the EU insists they join in bloc formation.

Don’t expect the European Commission to give firm indications about any of this in 2017: The EU promises a policy update only in spring 2018.

Several EU officials POLITICO spoke to suggested that with Brexit and a new budget to negotiate and implement from 2020-2026, the EU simply doesn’t have room on its plate until 2027 to consider new members.

Goran Svilanović, a former Serbian foreign minister, and now head of the Regional Cooperation Council, said he is “very frustrated” by this approach and says that it would be better to “start negotiating. Keep us busy. Help us be successful.”

No country has even turned around a membership application in less than five years (Finland is the current record holder), and for former Warsaw Pact and Yugoslav states, 10-15 years is typical.

If Iceland decided to reapply for EU membership it would immediately shoot to the front of the queue, and if Scotland were to achieve independence, it would not be far behind. The Scottish government is keen. “As part of our response to the EU referendum we are exploring all options to protect Scotland’s relationship with Europe,” a government spokesperson said.

Another potential big member, Ukraine, is realistic about its membership prospects. Given the country’s internal difficulties and the rejection by Dutch voters of the country’s ‘Association Agreement’ with the EU, diplomats say neither it nor the EU are ready for membership. It would in any case be “suicidal” to join the EU while Russia is headed by Vladimir Putin, a senior diplomat told POLITICO.

Natalie Sabanadze, the Georgian ambassador, said Georgia is in a similar position. “Georgia is stubbornly pursuing [the] European and Euro-Atlantic course despite difficulties and costs involved,” she said.

THE CANDIDATES

ALBANIA
Not before 2025
Chances of joining: 80 percent

Pros: Albania has shown an ability to deliver bipartisan reforms and is “the least screwed-up country” in the Western Balkans, according to a diplomat active in the region. The country largely avoided the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s, allowing it distance from the problems of other EU applicants in the region.

Cons: Formal negotiations have not yet started, and corruption and organized crime remain serious problems, according to the European Commission. The Commission has also criticized the politicization of Albania’s courts.

MONTENEGRO
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 90 percent

Pros: Montenegro is the richest Western Balkan nation per capita and has shown ongoing willingness to be part of Western institutions, as illustrated by its nearly completed bid for NATO membership.

Cons: Corruption remains “prevalent” and a “serious problem” according to the Commission, and other political and economic progress is moderate. Allowing Montenegro membership without including Serbia would expose the small nation to a security risk.

SERBIA
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 80 percent

Pros: Serbia is the biggest of the Western Balkan countries hoping to join the EU, and could be a pro-EU stabilizing force in the region and good neighbor if kept within the EU’s orbit. The Commission has praised Serbia for aligning its legislation with the EU across the board.

Cons: There has been no progress over the past year in fighting corruption. Serbia may also continue refusing to recognize Kosovo unless offered EU membership, which may be tactically clever but breaches the spirit of EU norms.

BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA
Not before 2027, possibly much later
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: This multi-ethnic, multi-religion country could one day be a poster child for the EU’s ability to forge unity from diversity. And if the EU membership process can drag Bosnia up to speed with its neighbors, the prize could be a transformed region.

Cons: Not even the citizens of this country can agree on its basis or continued existence. The country’s constitution will also need a dramatic makeover to meet EU fundamental rights and other standards.

KOSOVO
Not before 2027
Chances of joining: 30 percent

Pros: Kosovo stands to gain strength in numbers and valuable institution-building capacity through the EU membership process, and has already adopted the euro as its currency.

Cons: It is home to a troubled EU rule-of-law mission (which at times has had 2,000 staff members), and due to deep political polarization and ongoing corruption, the journey to EU membership will be a long one. Its sovereignty is not recognized by five EU countries, nor by its biggest neighbor Serbia.

MACEDONIA
Not before 2030
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: The country has fewer internal problems than Bosnia.

Cons: Membership negotiations have been painfully slow. Greece objects to even the name “Macedonia” as it sees this as a threat to the territorial integrity of its own Macedonia region. Macedonia also has numerous disputes with Bulgaria and there are persistent concerns to democracy and rule of law.

GEORGIA
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 20 percent

Pros: Its government could not be more positive about the EU in its rhetoric. “Georgia has no alternative,” Ambassador Sabanadze told POLITICO. “Georgians want to live in a normal, European-style democracy and they want to safeguard political independence and territorial integrity.”

Cons: Georgia is saddled with its former relationship with Russia, and like Ukraine, faces a frustrated path to EU and NATO membership, independent of the reforms it delivers as part of its membership bid.

MOLDOVA
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 50 percent

Pros: Moldova has strong ties, a shared language and a similar culture to its neighbor Romania.

Cons: The small country has a breakaway republic (Transnistria) supported by a Russian military presence, and is the poorest of the prospective EU members. A pro-Russian, anti-EU president was elected last month.

UKRAINE
Not before 2035
Chances of joining: 20 percent

Pros: Millions of Ukrainians are so committed to moving into the EU’s political and economic orbit they are willing to protest or shed blood. EU links are a means to achieving stability in the post-Soviet era.

Cons: Even a loose “Association Agreement” proved too much for Dutch voters to accept in 2016, and political fears delayed EU government support for visa-free access for Ukrainians into the Schengen area. Its easter regions are war-torn and Crimea was annexed by Russia in 2014.

TURKEY
Possible joining date: Not applicable
Chances of joining: 0 percent

Pros: Inclusion of Turkey into Western institutions, and a sign that moderate Islam is welcome at the world’s top tables.

Cons: Turkey has been drifting toward authoritarianism under President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with fundamental rule of law and freedom of expression problems. Only a small percentage of the country is geographically in Europe. Some EU institutions such as the Parliament, and governments such as Austria’s, want membership talks suspended.

ICELAND
Not before 2022.
Chances of joining: 100 percent if a reapplication is made. 20 percent overall.

Pros: One of the world’s oldest democracies, Iceland boasts a strategic mid-Atlantic location, high education levels and strong cultural links to Europe.

Cons: Iceland has permanent Euroskeptic factions born from concern about protecting the nation’s fishing rights (which would be limited and partially collectivized in the EU), and the fact that it got rich on its own, and doesn’t need the EU to develop.

SCOTLAND
Possible joining date: Five years after applying, meaning not before 2024.
Chances of joining: 90 percent if application is made. 20 percent overall.

Pros: An independent Scotland in the EU would be a major prize for European integrationists. Scotland is EU-enthusiastic, with a government spokesperson calling Brexit: “a democratic outrage” against Scottish voters.

Cons: Anything short of Scotland’s full independence from the U.K. might trigger Spain to block Scotland’s bid to avoid setting a precedent for Catalan nationalists.

EU-Digest

Hate Speech: US tech giants not acting fast enough on hate speech, EU charges

Facebook, Twitter, Google and Microsoft are not acting quickly enough to tackle hate speech, according to the European Commission, which has told the companies to get their act together.

If the Silicon Valley companies do not speed up their response to tackling illegal hate speech on their platforms, they will be be held accountable under European law, the Commission said Sunday.

Back in May, the companies all voluntarily signed up to a code of conduct, in which they promised to remove hate speech within 24 hours of it being posted and to promote counter-narratives. The code arose from concerns about a proliferation of hate speech on the platforms following a spate of terror attacks in Europe and amid the refugee crisis.

Signing the code was an alternative to the EU drawing up laws on the matter. But now the EU Commissioner for Justice, Vera Jourova, has said that the Commission may be forced to enact laws after all, as only 40 percent of posts are being removed within the time frame.

"If Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Microsoft want to convince me and the ministers that the non-legislative approach can work, they will have to act quickly and make a strong effort in the coming months," she told the Financial Times.

Read more: US tech giants not acting fast enough on hate speech, EU charges - CNET

Syria: 'Safe Zones': Trump's Idea Evokes Strong Memories of Hillary Clinton's Old Plan

"We are going to build safe zones in Syria and we are going to get the Gulf states to pay for the safe zones," Trump told a thank you rally in Orlando, Florida.

"Our foreign policy needs a new direction… For too long we have been moving from one reckless foreign intervention [to another]… Instead of rebuilding foreign nations, it is time to rebuild our nation," he underscored.

Following Trump's win this November Syrian President Bashar al-Assad suggested in his interview with Portuguese television broadcaster RTP that if the US President-elect joins the fight against terrorists being waged by Russia, Damascus and Iran he may become Syria's "natural ally."

"So, we cannot tell anything about what he's [Trump] going to do, but if, let's say if he is going to fight the terrorists, of course, he will become an ally, natural ally in that regard with Russia, Iran and many other countries which seek to defeat the terrorists," Assad said.

Still the safe zones issue evokes strong memories of Hillary Clinton's plan to impose no-fly zones in Syria free from the Syrian government control.

A year ago geopolitical analyst Tony Cartalucci noted in his op-ed for New Eastern Outlook online magazine that the so-called "safe zones" or "buffer" zones could be used by Washington to fragmentize Syria.

Read more: https://sputniknews.com/politics/201612171048695173-safe-zone-trump-clinton/

Read more: 'Safe Zones': Trump's Idea Evokes Strong Memories of Hillary Clinton's Old Plan

Solar Energy: World energy hits a turning point:Solar that's cheaper than wind-by Tom Randall

Netherlands Almere Solar Energy station

There’s a transformation happening in global energy markets that’s worth noting as 2016 comes to an end: Solar power, for the first time, is becoming the cheapest form of new electricity. 

There have been isolated projects in the past where this happened: An especially competitive auction in the Middle East, for example, resulting in record-cheap solar costs. But now unsubsidized solar is beginning to outcompete coal and natural gas on a larger scale, and notably, new solar projects in emerging markets are costing less to build than wind projects, according to fresh data from Bloomberg New Energy Finance.

The average cost of new wind and solar from 58 emerging-market economies including China, India, and Brazil. While solar was bound to fall below wind eventually, given its steeper price declines, few predicted it would happen this soon.

“Solar investment has gone from nothing—literally nothing—like five years ago to quite a lot of money,” said Ethan Zindler, head of U.S. policy analysis at BNEF. “A huge part of this story is China, which has been rapidly deploying solar” and helping other countries finance their own projects.


Read more: World energy hits a turning point: Solar that's cheaper than wind

US - China Relations: Trump’s Swaggering Sparks War Talk from China

In mid-summer 2015, the Pentagon deployed a vast fleet to the Western Pacific with an invasion force of 33,000 troops. The little reported exercise was supported by warplanes and attack helicopters, along with 21 ships, including the aircraft carrier George Washington and three nuclear missile-bearing submarines.

It was only a game, the Navy said. But it looked very much like practice for the real thing on or near Chinese shores. On the night of July 4—Independence Day in the U.S.—Operation Talisman Saber kicked off with U.S. high-altitude paratroopers dropping from the sky near Fog Bay, in Australia’s Northern Territory. Naval artillery boomed. Tanks rolled ashore. The invasion was on.

A U.S. Navy press release made it sound routine, an “exercise [that] illustrates the closeness of the Australian and U.S. alliance…” But Military Times, a close observer of the Defense Department, put its finger on what it was really about: “Talisman Sabre: Trying to Deter China,” its headline said.

The problem with The Coming War on China is that it’s not so much about a future conflict as it is a dramatic rehash of America’s march to military supremacy in the Pacific, including updates on local resistance to U.S. bases. While it offers a salutary alternative to the often frantic media reports about China’s militarization of islets in the South China Sea, it only vaguely recognizes  that Beijing may be overreaching. Now the “unthinkable,” a military clash between the two, has suddenly became all too thinkable—even inevitable, in some circles. When President-elect Trump triggered Beijing’s wrath by taking  a telephone call from Taiwan’s pro-independence leader in early December—threatening four decades of diplomatic stability—the two countries inched closer to the type of incident that could lead to a dangerous string of tit-for-tat reprisals. Trump’s further disparagement of China in the following days only ratcheted up the potential for a face-saving showdown.

While Chinese President Xi Jinping has plenty of power in the Politburo to deal with Trump on several contentious matters, starting with trade, he has none on Taiwan’s status, analysts firmly believe. Beijing’s bedrock policy on Taiwan, reiterated for decades in official documents and private conversations with foreign visitors, is that the island has been a renegade province ever since U.S.-backed nationalist forces retreated there in 1949. With the triumph of its revolution in 1950, the Chinese Communist Party ended more than a century of repeated humiliations at the hands of foreign invaders—except for “breakaway” Taiwan. And it will not countenance any efforts by Trump to declare Taiwan free, says Fu Ying, a former Chinese ambassador to Britain and now spokeswoman for the National People’s Congress. “History matters,” she told a group of visiting reporters, including Newsweek’s Jonathan Broder, in June. “We’ve lost enough.”

Xi will not risk being seen as “soft” on Taiwan, Wang Dong, a professor of international relations at Peking University, tells Newsweek. "If the upcoming Trump administration pursues policies that tramp on China's core interests—sovereignty and territorial integrity—then they shouldn't expect anything short of a forceful response.”In mid-summer 2015, the Pentagon deployed a vast fleet to the Western Pacific with an invasion force of 33,000 troops. The little reported exercise was supported by warplanes and attack helicopters, along with 21 ships, including the aircraft carrier George Washington and three nuclear missile-bearing submarines.

It was only a game, the Navy said. But it looked very much like practice for the real thing on or near Chinese shores. On the night of July 4—Independence Day in the U.S.—Operation Talisman Saber kicked off with U.S. high-altitude paratroopers dropping from the sky near Fog Bay, in Australia’s Northern Territory. Naval artillery boomed. Tanks rolled ashore. The invasion was on.

A U.S. Navy press release made it sound routine, an “exercise [that] illustrates the closeness of the Australian and U.S. alliance…” But Military Times, a close observer of the Defense Department, put its finger on what it was really about: “Talisman Sabre: Trying to Deter China,” its headline said.

The problem with The Coming War on China is that it’s not so much about a future conflict as it is a dramatic rehash of America’s march to military supremacy in the Pacific, including updates on local resistance to U.S. bases. While it offers a salutary alternative to the often frantic media reports about China’s militarization of islets in the South China Sea, it only vaguely recognizes  that Beijing may be overreaching. Now the “unthinkable,” a military clash between the two, has suddenly became all too thinkable—even inevitable, in some circles. When President-elect Trump triggered Beijing’s wrath by taking  a telephone call from Taiwan’s pro-independence leader in early December—threatening four decades of diplomatic stability—the two countries inched closer to the type of incident that could lead to a dangerous string of tit-for-tat reprisals. Trump’s further disparagement of China in the following days only ratcheted up the potential for a face-saving showdown.

While Chinese President Xi Jinping has plenty of power in the Politburo to deal with Trump on several contentious matters, starting with trade, he has none on Taiwan’s status, analysts firmly believe. Beijing’s bedrock policy on Taiwan, reiterated for decades in official documents and private conversations with foreign visitors, is that the island has been a renegade province ever since U.S.-backed nationalist forces retreated there in 1949. With the triumph of its revolution in 1950, the Chinese Communist Party ended more than a century of repeated humiliations at the hands of foreign invaders—except for “breakaway” Taiwan. And it will not countenance any efforts by Trump to declare Taiwan free, says Fu Ying, a former Chinese ambassador to Britain and now spokeswoman for the National People’s Congress. “History matters,” she told a group of visiting reporters, including Newsweek’s Jonathan Broder, in June. “We’ve lost enough.”

Read more: Trump’s Swaggering Sparks War Talk from China  

Europe’s Slow-Burning Issue – Making Work Sustainable - by Greet Vermeyle

Making work sustainable is not simply a challenge for politicians and policymakers in the European Union: it is a fundamental issue that underpins the future of the world of work in Europe. It goes beyond the mantra of raising employment rates and deals with productivity and innovation – and the everyday lives of workers throughout the EU.

Sustainable work involves two main elements: first, ensuring that people in employment are able and willing to continue to work, and second, that throughout life, the situation and circumstances of workers are taken into account to enable them to enter, return, or stay part of working life – this involves having the time to engage in, say, private care activities and take care of health and employability issues throughout the course of one’s life.

The findings of the sixth European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS) help to map the situation of workers in Europe and uncover some truths which could enhance the sustainability of work for men and women.

The survey reveals stark differences between workers in Europe: more than one in four say they do not think they will be able to do their job or a similar one until 60, while one in five would like to continue to work as long as possible. This varies between countries: in Germany, Portugal, Denmark, and Finland more than four in five workers say that their work is sustainable, but fewer than three in five feel the same in France and Slovenia. Work and working conditions can play a positive role in keeping and building up health and well-being, skills and capacities. A preventative and proactive approach towards healthier and longer working lives and, where needed, ensuring that private needs (health issues, time issues, care responsibilities, employability) are taken care of, are therefore vital.

Working life can have an impact on health (whether immediate or delayed), as well as skills, motivation, and overall employability. Workers are, clearly, less likely to find work sustainable if they are exposed to physical risks, have high work intensity, do shift work or night work, fear losing their job; if they are subject to unfair treatment, or if they are exposed to bullying and harassment. Factors which make it more likely to respond positively to work being sustainable are being able to take an hour off to take care of private issues when needed, getting support from colleagues, having the perception of doing useful work, and getting recognition when doing a good job.

A key element to making work sustainable is being able to reconcile working life and private life. Throughout working life needs vary and different solutions can enhance work-life balance. For example, the care needs for small children are different than those for older children, or for other dependants such as sick partner and elderly parents. The sixth EWCS indicates that one worker in five feels that there is a bad fit between work and private commitments. This is more true of men than women, since women are more likely to adapt their work commitments to meet the demands they face in their private lives. This issue is most prevalent when there are children in the household. However, if we look at work done in the household sphere, so-called ‘unpaid work’, women continue to engage more in work here than men: both men and women increase their unpaid working hours when there are children but for women the number of unpaid working hours goes from 12 hours per week (without children) to 39 (with the youngest child under 7) and for men from 5 to 20 hours per week.

Read more:Europe’s Slow-Burning Issue – Making Work Sustainable

The Netherlands - Ukraine: E.U. Reaches Compromise With the Netherlands on Closer Ukraine Ties

Referendum:PM Rutte reaches nebulous EU compromise

European Union leaders reached a compromise with the Netherlands on Thursday that should allow the bloc to enact an agreement on closer ties with Ukraine, regarded as a landmark deal to counter the influence of Russia.

Prime Minister Mark Rutte of the Netherlands said on Thursday that he now had the necessary guarantees to start pushing the agreement through his country’s Parliament and to overcome the objections of Dutch voters, who voted against the agreement in a referendum in April.

The Netherlands has been the lone holdout in ratifying the agreement within the European bloc’s 28 member nations.

“I am going to fight to get a majority” in Parliament, Mr. Rutte said. “We will have to see. It won’t be easy. We’ll have to work hard for it.”

If it is approved, the deal would allow the European Union to show a unified front against Russia, and to boost trade and cooperation with Ukraine, which has found it difficult to remain out of Moscow’s sphere of influence.

“The E.U. can now keep a united front against the destabilizing policies of Russia,” Mr. Rutte said.

The agreement between Ukraine and the European Union had looked like a done deal until earlier this year, when the Dutch government was forced into a nonbinding, or advisory, referendum. The rejection by voters had left the bloc in a conundrum because the agreement needed unanimous approval from member countries.

Under the compromise, Mr. Rutte obtained assurances the agreement was not a step toward European Union membership for Ukraine, and that it could not be used as one in the future. The deal does not provide a collective-security guarantee or extra money for Ukraine, and it also requires the Ukrainian government to do more to counter corruption.

The Dutch prime minister said enacting the deal was essential for national and geopolitical reasons, and pointed to Russia’s involvement in the Ukrainian conflict and its annexation of Crimea.

The Netherlands will hold national elections on March 15, and the move to sidestep the advisory referendum results with an updated agreement might not play well with an electorate that has been increasingly prone to snubbing the political elite.

In a post on Twitter, Geert Wilders, a lawmaker known for his opposition to Islam, immigration and the European Union, posted a photo of Mr. Rutte with the Dutch words for “Resign and go.”

Mr. Rutte also realized the challenge ahead.

“This is not an election-winning point,” he said. “It is not a vote winner. But my job is ultimately to make decisions in the interest of the Netherlands and our security.”

Note EU-Digest: Details of the compromise were not announced and the statement by PM Rutte of the Netherlands on this so-called compromise are still nebulous .

Read more: E.U. Reaches Compromise With the Netherlands on Closer Ukraine Ties - The New York Times

Battery Cartel: EU Commission demonstrates power, busts battery cartel -

The EU Commission has announced a settlement imposing significant fines on Sanyo, Sony and Panasonic for breaching competition law. The fines relate to anti-competitive behaviour between 2004 and 2007 surrounding the distribution of rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. These batteries power most mobile phones, laptops and tablets.

Anti-competitive behaviour: The Commission investigation showed that the companies had been involved in discussions to avoid aggressive competition in the market for lithium-ion batteries. These discussions occurred mainly in Asia but sometimes in Europe. Even if discussions had taken place solely in Asia, the Commission could still have found them to be in breach of competition law if the behaviour was likely to cause a distortion to the European marketplace.

The cartel agreed on temporary price increases in 2004 and 2007 following increases in the price of a cobalt and exchanged commercially sensitive information concerning price, supply and demand forecasts, along with intentions to tender for particular contracts.

Settlement and fines: In determining the fines the Commission took into account the companies’ sales of lithium-ion batteries in the European Economic Area (EEA), the nature of the infringement, its geographic scope and duration but also the level of co-operation displayed by the firm with their investigation. Settlement alone resulted in a 10% reduction in each firm’s fine, while co-operation garnered reductions of between 20% – 50%.

Another manufacturer was given immunity for blowing the whistle on the arrangement. Regular readers of the blog will know that early and complete co-operation with a Commission investigation is generally recommended course of action and that whistle blowers always benefit.

In the end, Sony was fined €29,802,000, Panasonic €38,890,000 and Sanyo €97,149,000.

Follow on claims: As with all Commission findings of anti-competitive behaviour, it is held to be “self-proving” evidence that the behaviour took place and was illegal. Thus, if a person or business has suffered loss on account of the behaviour, they can raise a claim in their national court seeking a remedy. New rules are coming into force from 27 December 2016 that will make it easier for consumers and small businesses to pursue these claims.

Read more: n - by Brodies LLP EU Commission demonstrates power, busts battery cartel - Lexology

The Brexit Fallout - EU leaders sing from same Brexit hymn sheet - hy Katya Adler

So much said. So little known.

As Europe editor I'm often asked about the EU point of view - but Europe is waiting first and foremost to get a clear idea from Britain as to what kind of Brexit the government definitely wants.

In the meantime, one message alone emanates loud and clear from European capitals and Brussels HQ, centred round an idiom that will forever now be Brexit-linked in my mind.

The words "cherry picking" popped out of German Chancellor Angela Merkel's mouth just last week, the same day they were intoned, with charming French accent, by Michel Barnier, the European Commission's Brexit negotiator.

The mantra is that the UK (despite protestations to the contrary by the British foreign secretary) will NOT be allowed to break EU regulations by staying in the European single market while refusing to accept "freedom of movement" - the automatic right of EU citizens to live and work in the UK.

"There is no organisation in the world that will let someone say: 'I will follow this rule of yours but I won't follow that one'," Swedish Prime Minister Stefan Lofven told me when I interviewed him just now in Stockholm, ahead of an EU leaders' summit.

Cherry-picking is körsbärsplockning in Swedish, by the way.

And Mr Lofven said Britain definitely wouldn't be allowed to indulge in it when talks to thrash out a new EU-UK trade deal begin.
Raw self-interest

Sweden is one of the UK's closest EU allies: it is business-minded, Brussels-sceptic and non-eurozone nations.

Britain is also Sweden's fourth largest trading partner, so a good Brexit deal is in its interest.

So, was there really no wiggle room, I asked. Couldn't the Swedish prime minister push for a favourable deal?

Mr Lofven said he had offered Theresa May to act as a mediator - "play a practical role" as he put it - but, he insisted, the UK would still have to aim for the best deal possible within the boundaries of EU laws.

Otherwise, he said, there would be no European Union, as other countries would head for the exit door too, preferring their own bespoke EU arrangement.

And that is at the heart of European leaders' cherry-picking hymn sheet: not EU-fervour but raw self-interest.

Read more: EU leaders sing from same Brexit hymn sheet - BBC News

USA: Betrayed: America's Day of Reckoning Exposed - by JL Yastine December 15, 2016

Recently, a rogue economist walked into my office, sat down and with a calm voice that did not waver, said: “They betrayed us.”

Knowing that this economist has met with and counseled the world’s most powerful leaders including former presidents Ronald Reagan, George Bush Sr. and Bill Clinton, I immediately gave him my full attention.

“This is a bigger financial threat than Islamic terrorism or a Nuclear Iran,” he explained. Our fiercest enemies and closest allies have just formed a 57-nation alliance. They have one goal: to dethrone America as the world’s financial superpower.”

Taking documents from his briefcase, this man revealed how this “alliance” has already obtained a $47 trillion financial arsenal — 300% larger than that of the United States.

He exposed their exact plot, naming names and pulling reams of intelligence from his briefcase … diplomatic cables, photos, data sheets and more…

My stomach turned as he revealed why the financial fallout from this betrayal could equate to three Great Depressions — striking all at once — sending tens of millions of Americans from Starbucks lines to breadlines.

“Life savings will be vaporized by 80%. The stock market will plummet by 60%. Real estate will fall by 50%,” he warned. “Millions of seniors will go from luxurious retirement communities to government-sponsored nursing homes as Social Security and Medicare get slashed.”

He then handed me a video saying, “This reveals everything.”

I posted that exact video right here.Click here to watch it.

 Read more: Betrayed: America's Day of Reckoning Exposed - The Sovereign Investor