TBR News June 9, 2017

Jun 09 2017

The Voice of the White House

Washington, D.C., June 9, 2017: “The devastating results of the British election coupled with the failure of the oligarchy in America to put Hillary into the White House shows clearly that the machinery of control is falling apart. Trump has so upset a Europe that had gotten used to American control of its policies that they are returning to an independent Europe. NATO and the EU were both set up to facilitate American economic and military control. And many European intelligence agencies like the British and especially the German BND were firmly in the CIA’s pockets. Now, with the shifting of power, America’s poodles will end up in the dog pound.”

Table of Contents

  • Earn minimum wage in the US? You can afford to live in exactly 12 counties
  • James Comey, a Washington Operator, Knows How to Play the Game
  • Donald Trump lawyers to file complaint against ‘leaker’ James Comey
  • Theresa May has ‘no intention of resigning,’ strikes deal with Democratic Unionists
  • Theresa May’s devastating miscalculation
  • Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?
  • N.S.A. Contractor May Have Mishandled Secrets Before, Prosecutor Says
  • Полное Внесение в список Всех Единиц Флота российской Республики    “The Entire Russian Fleet”
  • Interview with Jean-Claude Juncker

Earn minimum wage in the US? You can afford to live in exactly 12 counties

Study finds one-bedroom rentals are affordable in a dozen mostly rural counties in the west, and two-bedrooms are entirely out of reach for low-income workers

June 8, 2017

by Alastair Gee

The Guardian

A person working a full-time minimum-wage job will find it virtually impossible to rent an affordable home anywhere in the US, according to a study that sheds new light the country’s housing crisis.

The report reveals that there is not a single county or metropolitan area in which a minimum-wage worker can afford a modest two-bedroom home, which the federal government defines as paying less than 30% of a household’s income for rent and utilities. And in only 12 counties in the country is a modest one-bedroom home affordable, according to the report, published Thursday by the National Low Income Housing Coalition.

This applies even in places that have raised their minimum wage higher than the baseline federal level of $7.25, which equates to around $15,000 a year. In Los Angeles County the minimum wage is rising to $15 for all employers by 2021, but the current wage required for a one-bedroom there is $22.98. In New York City the minimum wage is rising to $15 for all employers by 2019, but the wage needed for a one-bedroom soars above this, at $27.29.

Less-overheated real estate markets present difficulties to low-income workers as well. Averaging rents across Alabama and Montana, someone earning minimum wage would have to work approximately one-and-a-half full-time jobs to be able to afford a one-bedroom home.

Americans earning minimum wage are do not need a study to know how difficult things are.

Alicia Hamiel, 23, a mother of two children in Philadelphia, earns $7.75 an hour at McDonald’s and works 26-38 hours a week, based on what the scheduler allots her. She and her family are currently living in a single room that rents for $400 a month.

“I feel like I’m failing as a mom,” she said. “If I can’t make sure they have a roof over their heads, what am I doing? I feel like I’m doing the best that I can.”

She was once so desperate that looked into staying at a homeless shelter, but there was no room. “I apply for other jobs, I call, I go to interviews. And it’s just like, either I’m not qualified or they just tell me, you know, they don’t want to hire me.”

The study is “well-executed”, said David Bieri, an associate professor of public policy at Virginia Tech, who was not involved with the project. “We learn from it that housing in the coastal US is exceedingly expensive,” he said, and that in cities, wages are “not really moving in line with increased pressures”.

The most expensive counties and metropolitan areas in the US are indeed maritime, or thereabouts: in the San Francisco bay area and in the Honolulu, New York, Los Angeles and Washington DC areas. San Francisco renters must earn $58.04 an hour to afford a two-bed home. The 12 counties where a one-bedroom is affordable are in Arizona, Oregon and Washington – as the report notes, these are states with their own, higher minimum wages – and are mostly rural.

While numerous localities and states have boosted the minimum wage, they may need to be more ambitious. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, the minimum wage is about $8.50, but housing costs for a one-bedroom would require a wage of $13.77 an hour. In Saint Louis, Missouri, the minimum wage is $10 but $13.27 is needed; in Tacoma, Washington, the minimum wage is $11.15, lagging the one-bed cost of $17.02.

Raising the minimum wage “definitely is something that would increase quality of life for low-wage workers and is important”, said Andrew Aurand, the principal author of the study, but it “still does not raise the minimum wage to a level that would allow a minimum wage worker to afford a home”.

He suggested that the government could offer increased rental assistance and boost programs such as the National Housing Trust Fund, which invests in affordable homes. The Trump administration has signaled it is moving in the opposite direction, proposing cutting funding for the federal housing agency by almost 15% and indicating it would like to ax the trust fund.

Elsewhere in the report, the authors note that some of the occupations predicted by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics to add the most positions in coming years – such as nursing assistants, retail salespersons and home health aides – all currently earn too little to be able to pay for a one-bedroom apartment, as calculated on a national basis.

Those opposed to raising the minimum wage contend that it could cause job losses and does not help to reduce poverty levels, and their arguments seem to have won out in around two dozen states that have passed laws preempting cities from raising the minimum wage.

Yet this “is bad for workers and it’s bad for the economy because it’s stifling consumer spending”, said Tsedeye Gebreselassie, a senior staff attorney at the National Employment Law Project. Extensive research, she pointed out, finds a positive effect.

Marco Ascencio, 21, who lives with his mother and two sisters in a two-bedroom house in Inglewood, in Los Angeles County, has no doubt that it should be higher.

He works around 37 hours a week cleaning aircraft for American Airlines and 15 hours making pizza dough at Little Caesars, earning $10.55 an hour for both; his mother also has a full-time minimum wage job cleaning planes, and a sister has just started in a new position. “How is it that three people are working,” he said, “and we’re still struggling?”

Their home rents for around $2,000 a month, and in addition to paying for housing, Ascencio is saving for college tuition. He feels as though the family lives on a knife edge: if his mother became injured and lost her job, or if they were evicted and had to move into a more expensive place, he fears their financial net would break.

“I don’t want to be a 25-year-old still working, earning $10 an hour, and still living in my mom’s house, in the living room – it’s kind of scary.”

James Comey, a Washington Operator, Knows How to Play the Game

June 8 2017

by Mattathias Schwartz and Ryan Devereaux

The Intercept

Former FBI Director James Comey cut an impressive figure during his sworn testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday. His presentation was poised, low-key, and almost cold-blooded as he laid out what amounted to a meticulously constructed case against President Donald Trump. Two overflow rooms and multiple live network broadcasts suggested that Comey’s mastery of public relations and the theater of government rivaled that of his former boss. The image of a decent government man dutifully saying his piece stood in defiant contrast to the atmosphere of vulgarity and naked self-interest that Trump has brought to the Oval Office.

But the character who appears in Comey’s written accounts of his meetings with Trump — the James Comey who the former FBI director asked the committee to believe — was a far humbler man than the one who showed up for the hearing. Despite Comey’s self-reported concerns that Trump’s pattern of inappropriate and possibly illegal conduct was a threat to the independence of the FBI, he never fully voiced those concerns to Trump’s face while he was among the nation’s top law enforcement officials. Instead, he wrote them down.

Today, Comey revealed that his release of details from his conversations with Trump was carefully timed to trigger the appointment of a special counsel, a development that could bring about the end of Trump’s presidency. Beneath the mask of the by-the-book, duty-driven Comey was a more cunning man, an operator who quickly identified a dangerous adversary and plotted several moves ahead in order to get the best of him.

Comey’s private accounting began on January 6, when he met Trump for the first time in a conference room at Trump Tower. Gen. James Clapper, the director of national intelligence at the time, asked Comey to stay behind and brief Trump on a dossier of salacious allegations that had been circulating in the media. Comey wrote, “I felt compelled to document my first conversation with the president-elect in a memo.” Today, he offered the committee a more detailed account of his motives. It was “a combination of things,” Comey said. “I think the circumstances, the subject matter, and the person I was interacting with.”

“Circumstances: First, I was alone with the president of the United States, or the president-elect, soon to be president,” Comey went on. “The subject matter: I was talking about matters that touch on the FBI’s core responsibility and that relate to the president-elect personally. And then the nature of the person. I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document. That combination of things I had never experienced before, but it led me to believe I got to write it down, and I got to write it down in a very detailed way.”

Comey said that he began chronicling the first meeting immediately upon getting back to his car, on a classified laptop. (Comey’s personal memos on Trump, he said on Thursday, were written in such a way as to avoid containing classified information.) His initial instincts about Trump’s integrity were correct. Trump fired Comey, offered a shifting and contradictory series of explanations, and claimed in a tweet that his meetings with Comey had been taped.

“Lordy, I hope there are tapes,” Comey said on Thursday. He said that Trump’s claim about tapes offered the prospect that his account of Trump’s conduct — including an explicit demand that Comey pledge his loyalty to Trump — could be corroborated. “Holy cow, there might be tapes!” is how Comey put it. “And if there are tapes, it’s not just my word against his.”

Comey, who led an FBI that investigated multiple leakers of classified information under President Barack Obama, awoke in the middle of the night and decided to leak against the president. He gave portions of his records to a friend, whom he described as a law professor at Columbia University, who passed portions of them on to the media. “My judgment was that I needed to get that out into the public square,” Comey said. (A Washington Post reporter confirmed that the professor was Dan Richman.)

Comey knew exactly what would happen if he leaked the memo. “Didn’t do it myself for a variety of reasons,” he said, “but I asked him to because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel. So I asked a close friend of mine to do it.” When news of the memo — which recalled Trump’s request to back off investigating then-National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s Russia ties — emerged in the New York Times in mid-May, it quickly became the loudest drumbeat toward a special investigation. A day later, Rod Rosenstein, the acting attorney general for the investigation into Trump’s Russia ties, appointed former FBI Director Robert Mueller to the special counsel position. Comey’s plan worked to a tee.

Comey said that he did try, at times, to educate the new president about the role of the FBI. “I also tried to explain to him why the FBI should be apart,” he said, speaking of the January 27 meeting, where, by Comey’s account, Trump asked for loyalty. “It got very awkward.” Comey’s statement said he told Trump that “blurring those boundaries” between the White House and the FBI “ultimately makes [White House] problems worse by undermining public trust in the institutions and their work.” Nevertheless, Comey wrote, Trump persisted in complaining to him about the FBI’s investigation of Flynn. Trump repeatedly called it “a cloud” over the White House.

Comey vigorously defended the intelligence community’s assessment that Russia attempted to interfere in the 2016 election. “It was an active measures campaign driven by the top of that government,” he said. “That happened. It is not a close call. That is about as unfake as you can possibly get.” He said he had seen no evidence that the Russians had succeeded in changing the actual vote. (Earlier this week, The Intercept released a top-secret NSA document describing Russian attempts to penetrate a private company that supplies voting software and the accounts of more than 100 local election officials.) Nor did Comey say whether the ongoing investigation of links between the Trump campaign and the Russian government had produced evidence of collusion.

Throughout the hearing, Comey was repeatedly asked about the role Attorney General Jeff Sessions played in the Russia-Trump saga. Comey and other senior officials at the FBI had decided to withhold Trump’s alleged pressure regarding the Flynn investigation from Sessions, their boss by virtue of his position atop the Department of Justice. In both his prepared remarks and his testimony, Comey maintained that Trump requested Sessions to leave the room during the February 14 meeting at the Oval Office in which the president asked the former FBI director to let go of the investigation into Flynn. “My impression was something big is about to happen,” Comey said of the moment Sessions was reportedly asked to step out. “My sense was the attorney general knew he shouldn’t be leaving.”

Comey claims to have shared the details of his conversations with the president with a circle of senior officials at the FBI. He said the group included “the deputy director, my chief of staff, the general counsel, the deputy director’s chief counsel, and I think in a number of circumstances, the No. 3 in the FBI, and a few of the conversations included the head of the national security branch.”

“I think they were as shocked and troubled by it as I was,” Comey said of Trump’s comments on Flynn. The question, Comey testified, then became, “Should we share this with any senior officials at the Justice Department?” He added that the FBI’s first priority was to ensure that the president’s comments were not shared with the FBI agents working the investigation into Flynn. Beyond that, Comey said, the plan was to keep the details of Trump’s comments close, to “hold it, keep it in a box.” He explained, “It was our word against the president’s.” Comey testified that he “specifically did not” tell Sessions about Trump’s comments on Flynn. “He was very close to and inevitably going to recuse himself for a variety of reasons” from the FBI’s Russia investigation, Comey said, which he described as “touching” but “separate” from the government’s investigation into Flynn.

How exactly Comey and his colleagues at the FBI knew that Sessions’s recusal was imminent is not entirely clear, though Comey did testify that there were additional facts regarding the decision not to inform Sessions that could not be described in open session. Following the February 14 conversation with Trump regarding Flynn, Comey claims to have asked Sessions to never again be left alone with Trump. “I report to you, it’s very important that you be between me and the White House,” Comey said of the message he conveyed to the attorney general. Comey testified that his request was met with silence, and that Sessions’s “body language gave me the sense, like, ‘What am I gonna do?’”

Did Trump’s conduct amount to obstruction of justice? “I don’t think it’s for me to say,” Comey replied when asked by Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., the committee’s chair. But Comey’s language could be interpreted to suggest that he now believes Trump committed a crime. A person committing obstruction of justice is defined by law as “whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter of communication, endeavors to influence” court proceedings, or “the administration of justice,” which could include the Flynn investigation. Comey used the word “endeavor” toward the end of his testimony. “I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” he said. “The endeavor was to change the way the Russia investigation was being conducted.” And Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., said that Trump’s conduct on January 27 was a “threat.” “The president appears to have threatened the director’s job,” Warner said, “while saying, ‘I expect loyalty.’”

Donald Trump lawyers to file complaint against ‘leaker’ James Comey

President claims ‘vindication’ in tweeted response to Senate hearing

June 9.2017

by Sabrina Siddiqui and Lauren Gambino

The Guardian

Washington-Donald Trump called his former FBI director a “leaker” on Friday, one day after James Comey testified under oath that the president lied about his firing and the FBI in an effort to undermine the agency’s investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia.

Trump’s legal team was confirmed to be preparing to file a complaint against Comey, for sharing his memos of meetings with the president with the New York Times.

“Despite so many false statements and lies, total and complete vindication … and WOW, Comey is a leaker!” Trump tweeted in his first public comments on Thursday’s Senate intelligence committee hearing, bringing to a close an unusually prolonged silence for a president whose first line of defense is often expressed in 140 characters or less.

Trump appeared to be accusing Comey of lying to Congress in a hearing that was watched across the country. After Comey’s testimony, Trump’s lawyer Marc Kasowitz said in a brief statement to the press the former FBI director had “admitted that he unilaterally and surreptitiously made unauthorised disclosures to the press of privileged communications with the president”.

The legal complaint will be filed with the office of the inspector general for the Department of Justice early next week, according to a source close to the legal team who did not want to speak on the record before the complaint was filed.

The legal team will also send a complaint to the Senate judiciary committee regarding Comey’s testimony before that panel last month – as well as his testimony before the intelligence committee – to clarify on the record what Trump’s legal team views as discrepancies and falsehoods in the displaced FBI director’s testimony.

Richard Painter, a White House ethics counsel under George W Bush, said such an action would only amplify the notion that Trump was trying to impede the investigation. “Trying to get DOJ to go after Comey – a material witness – over ‘leak’ is yet more obstruction of Justice,” he tweeted.

At least one Democratic senator, Brian Schatz of Hawaii, suggested Trump should now testify before Congress himself, to offer his account of the interactions with Comey now in dispute. “This is not just another silly tweet,” Schatz tweeted. “It is essential for our country that the president offer his testimony to Congress about what exactly happened.”

Comey, who was fired by Trump on 9 May, told the Senate intelligence committee he believed the president fired him over his handling of the investigation into findings of Russian interference of the US election, which US authorities have concluded was designed to thwart Hillary Clinton’s candidacy.

Comey confirmed that he detailed several conversations with Trump in memos, in which the president asked him to drop his inquiry into former national security adviser Michael Flynn – saying “I hope you can let this go” – and sought a pledge of loyalty that Comey deemed inappropriate, given FBI independence.

In the hearing, Comey branded Trump a liar and said the president had mischaracterized their conversations to justify his abrupt dismissal.

“The administration chose to defame me and, more importantly, the FBI, by saying that the organisation was in disarray, that it was poorly led, that the workforce had lost confidence in its leader,” Comey said. “Those were lies, plain and simple, and I’m so sorry that the FBI workforce had to hear them, and I’m so sorry the American people were told them.”

Comey also said he told Trump on three occasions he was not personally under investigation. Federal investigators have cautioned that their inquiry into contacts between Trump and Moscow remains inconclusive, but Trump’s lawyers and supporters nonetheless seized on that piece of information to claim the president had been cleared of wrongdoing.

Comey also suggested that Robert Mueller, the special counsel appointed in the wake of Comey’s firing to take over the Russia inquiry, was investigating whether Trump’s actions amounted to obstruction of justice.

“It’s my judgment that I was fired because of the Russia investigation,” Comey said. “I was fired in some way to change, or the endeavor was to change, the way the Russia investigation was being conducted. That is a very big deal.”

Comey said he asked a friend, a member of the law department of Columbia University, to give to the New York Times details of his memos about his interactions with Trump, “because I thought that might prompt the appointment of a special counsel”. Mueller, a former FBI director, was appointed as special counsel on 17 May.

Comey explained that he documented each meeting with Trump because he thought the president might be dishonest about what transpired.

“I was honestly concerned that he might lie about the nature of our meeting, and so I thought it really important to document,” he said of their first conversation at Trump Tower in New York in January.

On Friday, Trump is due to face the media in a scheduled a joint news conference with the Romanian president, Klaus Iohannis.

He issued a second tweet just before 7am, writing about what is reportedly his favored morning show: “Great reporting by @foxandfriends and so many others. Thank you!”

Theresa May has ‘no intention of resigning,’ strikes deal with Democratic Unionists

June 8, 2017

RT

Prime Minister Theresa May has no intention of resigning and has instead struck a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) of Northern Ireland.

The PM was humiliated in the UK general election, failing to secure a majority for her Conservative Party, leaving the country with a hung parliament.

The PM says she has no “intention of quitting.”

Reports indicate she has struck a confidence and supply arrangement with the ideologically similar DUP. They have 10 seats in the Commons.

Spectator magazine journalist James Forysth reports Tory officials inside Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ) attribute the devastating result to three issues: people are fed up with austerity, Brexit backlash and “Theresa May turned out not to be who the voters thought she was.”

Former Tory Chancellor George Osborne, who was sacked by Theresa May when she took office last year, said the result would be “completely catastrophic” for the party and the PM.

Pundits predict May will be forced to resign, making her one of the shortest serving prime ministers in history.

When May took the extraordinary step of calling a snap election in April, the Conservatives enjoyed a 24 point lead over Labour in the opinion polls.

At the time, the PM denied she was taking advantage of Labour’s weak standing in the polls and instead claimed she was seeking a larger mandate from the country in order enter Brexit negotiations with a strong hand.

Reaction to the polls came in fast, with a Labour spokesperson telling the Independent the result would be “extraordinary” if it played out and would punish the Tories for “taking the British people for granted

If this poll turns out to be anywhere near accurate, it would be an extraordinary result.

“There’s never been such a turnaround in a course of a campaign … Labour has run a positive and honest campaign – we haven’t engaged in smears or personal attacks.”

Labour’s Shadow Defense Secretary Emily Thornberry called on May to resign.

Thornberry told Sky News: “I think she should go, because I think she has manifestly failed.”

Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell told the BBC he thinks May’s position has become “untenable.”

Former shadow cabinet minister Clive Lewis was less diplomatic in his language, simply tweeting: “Whatever happens May is TOAST!”

Leave campaigners are concerned the hung parliament could put the brakes on Brexit.

UKIP leader Paul Nuttall, who has since resigned after failing to win any seats, tweeted: “If the exit poll is true then Theresa May has put Brexit in jeopardy. I said at the start this election was wrong. Hubris.”

Theresa May’s devastating miscalculation

The British Prime Minister had called snap elections because she wanted a greater majority. But she has been left with even fewer seats, striking a major blow against her ability to lead

June 9, 2017

by Barbara Wesel

DW

Theresa May was so confident of her position. She wanted a mandate to form a stronger government with which to lead her country, in case of doubt, through the tough Brexit negotiations. Her campaign mantra became “strong and stable.” But instead, it seems that she has triggered her own downfall. The British voters have shown her the finger and plunged the country into a deep political crisis.

Can anyone remember the overconfident Tories, who, before the election, were dreaming of a 150, or even 200-seat majority? And who predicted the complete demise of the opposition Labour Party? Once again it has been shown that all the polls belonged in the dumpster and that voters had other ideas. They are no longer allowing themselves to be pushed into old voting patterns and change camps easily.

A disastrous campaign

This must have been the worst election campaign that a British politician has run for decades. Theresa May treated the British like children, whose future could be dictated. She refused to take part in public debate, avoided any discussion with voters and endlessly repeated the same terms and phrases to every question. Her robot-like repetition of empty slogans earned her the nickname “Maybot.”

In the last weeks, the British have suddenly been able to observe their prime minister outside her protected role. She showed herself to be cut off, staying in her own small group of trusted people, not trusting anyone else, unable to listen. May appeared insensitive, lacking any understanding of people’s real concerns. And these concerns are to do with education, the health system, and the public financing of aged care. Reviled as a “dementia tax,” her suggestion that elderly people in need of care would have to finance it themselves –  and her subsequent turnaround in this issue – damaged her enormously. It is unbelievable that someone could even make such an absurd suggestion during an election campaign. Theresa May must have a penchant for self-destruction.

Labour leader better than his reputation

In contrast to Theresa May, Jeremy Corbyn led a far better election campaign than had been expected. In parliament, his appearances often seemed wooden, but he gained an emotional momentum through talks with voters, rounds of discussion and on public stages across the country. Corbyn came across as a down-to-earth politician, someone passionately behind his policies. The politician whose own party had signalled that he would be unsuitable for prime minister suddenly became a winner.

The votes cast by young people have helped the Labour Party. They followed a cleverly run online campaign and gave the United Kingdom its own Bernie Sanders effect: Just as in the US, young voters supported the Left, placing hope in social promises.

A political disaster for the history books

This election has once again shown that the United Kingdom is deeply divided, between north and south, city and country, young and old, Brexiteers and pro-Europeans. They make their political decisions according to their own criteria; the old loyalties, regional traditions and social ties in British politics are gone.

The problem is that the British system is not made for this sort of political situation. In other countries, parties would now set about forming a coalition – but in the United Kingdom, a government without a majority is at a dead end. As the relatively strongest party, the Conservatives could initially form a minority government. But the question is: How decisively will they be able to perform in the commencing Brexit-negotiations? The negotiations will probably have to be postponed until a government has actually been formed.

It is possibly the biggest political disaster for the Conservatives. Theresa May has willfully brought it on herself and her party. The result is the glaring opposite of “strong and stable.” The situation is chaotic, and the future looks uncertain. It is the second catastrophic misjudgement by a British prime minister, after David Cameron and his Brexit referendum. What’s next, Great Britain? In Europe they can now only throw their hands up in horror.

Are Google, Amazon and others getting too big?

June 9, 2017

by Natalie Sherman

BBC News

New York-The US tech giants Apple, Google’s parent Alphabet, Microsoft, Amazon and Facebook are the five biggest companies in the world by market capitalisation. Their increasing dominance is fuelling concerns about competition and data privacy.

So are regulators about to get tough?

Shares in Amazon and Alphabet raced past the $1,000-mark this month, the latest sign of the companies’ growing might.

Google is expected to attract more than 40% of digital advertising dollars this year; Amazon is on track to collect half of US online sales by 2021, according to at least one analyst.

But as investors cheer their rise, it’s also causing concern amongst the powers that be.

US regulators have long lagged Europe when it comes to cracking down on anti-competitive behaviour but Jonathan Kanter, a Washington-based antitrust attorney at Paul Weiss, believes attitudes may be changing.

“People are asking questions about whether the tools and principles that have been used previously are the right ones to continue using.

“There are certainly lots of people who think that there needs to be some change.”

The power of data

John Kwoka, a professor of economics at Northeastern University in Boston, believes that taking a tougher line on mergers and acquisitions won’t necessarily be enough to combat the rising power of giants like Amazon.

These firms also gain power as they amass user data and shape the flow of information, controlling consumer access to the firms using their platforms, he argues.

“They steer choice and do so in ways that have ripple effects throughout a broader economy,” Prof Kwoka says.

Lina Khan, a fellow at the New America think tank, published a paper about Amazon earlier this year.

She says there are examples of tech firms skirting the rules on competition, pointing to Amazon’s battle with diapers.com, the baby products retailer. Amazon lowered prices, undercutting the firm, then eventually acquired it.

There are signs that the politicians and regulators are waking up.

This spring, the US Congress moved to dismantle a set of Obama-era laws protecting the privacy of consumer data.

Then shortly afterwards, a group of Republicans introduced a broader proposal that would require firms such as Google and Amazon – in addition to traditional internet providers – to get user permission before sharing their data.

European lead

Could the US adopt the more muscular approach of European regulators?

In 2013, the European Commission fined Microsoft for giving preferential treatment to its own browser, Internet Explorer.

This year, it fined Facebook for providing “incorrect or misleading” information during its acquisition of messaging service WhatsApp.

Last month, Amazon promised the European Commission it would stop enforcing contracts deemed anti-competitive for other e-book publishers.

And an investigation into Google’s parent company, Alphabet, over how it allegedly gives preferential treatment to its own shopping services in search results, is still proceeding.

The EU actions show that “there are things that could be done,” Prof Kwoka says.

“Whether they would be a big deal or a little deal, it’s hard to know, but the EU has taken a crack at it and we’ve mostly taken a pass.”

Trump action?

It’s not clear how President Trump wants to steer policy.

As a candidate he adopted populist rhetoric, describing Amazon as a monopoly and saying boss Jeff Bezos had a “huge antitrust problem”.

He chose Makan Delrahim, a traditional Republican, to lead the Department of Justice antitrust division.

On the Federal Trade Commission, the other key regulatory body, several vacancies remain. But the agency said it would host a 2018 conference on privacy questions raised by emerging technologies, its third on the subject.

Prof Kwoka and others say they don’t expect to see major changes any time soon.

‘Consumer choice’

And are these tech giants as anti-competitive as some think?

Amazon may dominate digital sales, but bricks-and-mortar shopping still dwarfs the online market. Walmart alone reported sales worth more than three times Amazon’s last year.

Heavy hitters, including Microsoft and Google, are competing for customers in cloud services with the likes of IBM and Salesforce.

In the tech sector, consumers are free to head to new players from emerging markets.

The Chinese tech giants – Baidu, Alibaba and Tencent – are resisting the US hegemony pretty well, non-interventionists argue.

“It’s a competitive market just because of consumer choice,” says Ronald Josey, an internet and digital media analyst at JMP Securities.

“That’s a really important point to the whole story.”

Growth v risk

Even if US regulators do begin to flex their muscles, financial analysts say they aren’t worried about a crackdown hurting companies, even in Europe.

Their growth potential outweighs any regulatory risks, argues Paul Gallant, a technology policy analyst at investment firm Cowen & Co..

“Investors are aware that companies with this kind of power and market share are inevitably on the minds of antitrust regulators. They’re also aware that Trump has said some negative things,” says Mr Gallant.

“It’s in the back of investors’ minds, but it’s not close to overcoming what investors love about these companies,” he says.

Google and Facebook have made efforts – effective or otherwise – to address issues such as fake news, in part to pre-empt regulator action.

But James McQuivey, an analyst at the research firm Forrester, says the recent dramatic increases in share prices could be a sign investors are underestimating the likelihood of regulator action.

“If you’d said to me a year ago, ‘Is the risk factored in to the stock price?’ I would have said yes. Where it is now, at least some of the more recent buyers may not be paying attention to those risks,” he says.

Amazon and Google declined to comment for this feature.

N.S.A. Contractor May Have Mishandled Secrets Before, Prosecutor Says

June 8, 2017

by Alan Blinder

New York Times

AUGUSTA, Ga. — A federal prosecutor said on Thursday that Reality Leigh Winner, the National Security Agency contractor accused of leaking a highly classified report, might have stolen or exposed other secrets before her arrest last week.

“This was not the first time the defendant mishandled classified information,” Jennifer G. Solari, an assistant United States attorney, said during a detention hearing, in which she described a recorded jailhouse telephone call and referred to an episode last year in which Ms. Winner placed a portable storage device into a sensitive computer.

It was not clear, either in Courtroom No. 1 or even to federal investigators, whether Ms. Winner had distributed classified information beyond a single N.S.A. report related to Russian hacking activities. But Ms. Solari said the authorities were concerned because Ms. Winner referred to “documents” during a telephone call with her mother.

“I screwed up,” Ms. Winner, 25, the first person to face prosecution by the Trump administration in connection with a leak of sensitive information, said during the call, according to Ms. Solar

Magistrate Judge Brian K. Epps of United States District Court cited the “strong” weight of evidence against Ms. Winner — including a recorded confession to the F.B.I. — and other factors when he ordered her held without bond until her trial. Ms. Winner, who pleaded not guilty on Thursday, can appeal the judge’s bond decision.

The May 5 N.S.A. report that Ms. Winner is charged with releasing was classified as top secret and described hacks by a Russian intelligence service against 122 local election officials and a company that sold software related to voter registration. The Intercept, an online news outlet that, according to Ms. Solari, Ms. Winner admired and kept contact information for in a phone, published the report about an hour before Ms. Winner’s arrest was announced on Monday.

Even after Thursday’s detention hearing — a proceeding in which the traditional rules of evidence are not enforced — Ms. Winner’s motive for apparently mailing the classified document to the website remained murky. According to Ms. Solari, Ms. Winner was “mad about some things she had seen in the media, and she wanted to set the facts right.” On her social media accounts, Ms. Winner had expressed anger toward President Trump.

Prosecutors also spent part of Thursday afternoon depicting Ms. Winner as a person with a furtive and troubling side they suggested went well beyond critical Twitter posts. After calling some evidence “downright frightening,” Ms. Solari described pages of notes that Ms. Winner kept that included references to Taliban leaders and Osama bin Laden.

In one note, Ms. Solari told the judge, Ms. Winner wrote, “I want to burn the White House down.”

According to Ms. Solari, Ms. Winner also plugged a peculiar query into an internet search engine last year: “Do top secret computers detect when flash drives are inserted?” She later placed such a device, which has not been recovered, into one such computer, Judge Epps noted.

Although she said prosecutors did not believe Ms. Winner to be a Taliban sympathizer or an aspiring radical, Ms. Solari made plain that officials were troubled by the evidence they had gathered about a person with a top secret security clearance.

In a signal of the case’s significance, the acting United States attorney sat at the prosecution table on Thursday.

The government’s portrayal of Ms. Winner was in sharp contrast to one offered by her lawyers, aided by her mother, her stepfather and a friend. Billie Winner-Davis recalled that when her daughter was a child, Ms. Winner’s most grievous infraction at school was organizing “the biggest, bestest food fight that the school had ever imagined.”

Growing up in Texas, Ms. Winner was a scholastic star who was offered a full scholarship to study engineering. Instead, she chose the Air Force and became a linguist. She was honorably discharged last year, and she recently moved to Augusta, about two hours east of Atlanta, to begin work as a contractor.

“The government is scraping and clawing to build a mountain out of a molehill,” Titus T. Nichols, one of Ms. Winner’s lawyers, said before Judge Epps announced his ruling.

But on Thursday, Ms. Winner often appeared to be a solitary figure in the green-carpeted courtroom. She said little to her lawyers, cut only occasional glances to the gallery and mostly stood silently — her hands clasped behind her back and her ankles shackled — during a recess.

Yet her voice was clear and steady, especially when Judge Epps turned to her and asked, “How do you plead to the charge, Ms. Winner?”

“Not guilty, your honor.”

Полное Внесение в список Всех Единиц Флота российской Республики   

“The Entire Russian Fleet”

Translated from the Russian on 21/12/16

Ref: RSV 1801-02-115689//bd:g.81r

******Noforn******

 

February 23rd is traditionally celebrated as the Soviet Army Day (now called the Homeland Defender’s Day), and few people remember that it is also the Day of Russia’s Navy. To compensate for this apparent injustice, Kommersant Vlast analytical weekly has compiled The Entire Russian Fleet directory. It is especially topical since even Russia’s Commander-in-Chief compared himself to a slave on the galleys a week ago. The directory lists all 238 battle ships and submarines of Russia’s Naval Fleet, with their board numbers, year of entering service, name and rank of their commanders. It also contains the data telling to which unit a ship or a submarine belongs. For first-class ships, there are schemes and tactic-technical characteristics. So detailed data on all Russian Navy vessels, from missile cruisers to base type trawlers, is for the first time compiled in one directory, making it unique in the range and amount of information it covers. The Entire Russian Fleet carries on the series of publications devoted to Russia’s armed forces. Vlast has already published similar directories about the Russian Army (#17-18 in 2002, #18 in 2003, and #7 in 2005) and Russia’s military bases (#19 in 2007). As always, we draw our readers’ attention to the fact that all information has been taken from public sources only. We have used the materials of over 5,000 Russian and foreign media, analytic reports and reviews, and other publications and Internet resources.

Although several new ships and submarines have been built for Russia’s Navy recently, the fleet is in depression. Severe problems and disproportions threaten to completely undermine its military potential. Chief danger lies in the reduction in the number of vessels, their rapid ageing, and the lack of adequate substitution with modern ships. Negative trends in the Navy’s development have not been overcome, and Russia keeps facing the risk of losing its fleet.

Lopsided Development of Strategic Nuclear Forces

When the Navy’s financing was drastically reduced after 1991, developing the Naval Strategic Nuclear Forces (NSNF) became the priority. The NSNF were declared to be the basis of Russia’s nuclear-missile shield. Consequently, the country got involved in building an expensive series of Project 955 strategic nuclear submarine cruisers. It consumed the major part of financial resources allocated for the fleet’s development, and the trend keeps strengthening. In 2007, around 70 percent of funds allocated for the entire battleship building were spent on constructing just three Project 955 and Project 955A atomic-powered vessels, not to mention the test program for Bulava ballistic missile, intended as their armament.

While building new missile carriers, the Navy kept massively removing old ones from service. By now, there have remained in the Russian fleet just 12 acting submarines with ballistic missiles (six Project 667BDRM “Delfin” built in the 1980s, and six older submarines of Project 667BDR “Kalmar”). While 667BDR submarines are living their last years, 667BDRM ones undergo mid-life repair and modernization, which will allow extending their service term till 2020. They are now being re-equipped with modified R-29RMU2 “Sineva” ballistic missiles, able to carry up to ten warheads. First four serial Sineva missiles were supplied to the fleet in 2006, and 12 more missiles were produced in 2007, which allowed re-arming Tula atomic-powered ship. Meanwhile, modernizing these vessels consumes major part of money that the Navy spends on vessel repair. It hampers the work on ships of other classes (including non-strategic atomic submarines).

The situation is logical, because there is an ambitious and hardly feasible task to maintain the fleet of atomic missile carriers at the same level as the U.S. does (the U.S. has 14 submarines with ballistic missiles), while the funding in Russia is incomparably lower. By the way, the Russian Naval Fleet’s budget in 2007 (if estimated in U.S. dollars) was nearly 50 times less than the U.S. Navy’s budget. Meanwhile, the U.S. Navy is not building new missile carriers at all, and plans to begin replacing its Ohio submarines not earlier than in 2026.

Russia’s focus on developing the NSNF looks highly disputable. Supporters of this state of affairs (including the Naval Fleet’s top officials) point at high battle durability and survival potential of strategic submarines in case of first nuclear missile attack from an enemy. However, they hush up two fundamental circumstances.

First, Russia’s strategic atomic-powered vessels have low index of operative effort. Even in its best times, the Fleet was able to simultaneously maintain in military service not over 10-15 percent of its submarines (while the U.S. Navy maintains over 50 percent). Consequently, Russian missile carriers spend most of their time in military bases, thus being an extremely easy target.

Second, the Fleet’s degrading General-Purpose Naval Forces are evidently not enough to secure battle durability (protection from enemy forces’ impact) for strategic submarine cruisers at sea. When all funds are spent on building and repairing missile carriers, while forces supposed to cover them at sea are not renewed and are reduced, it is impossible to speak of the NSNF’s high survival potential. Meanwhile, the opponents able to threaten Russia’s strategic nuclear submarines (U.S and NATO fleets) have overwhelming advantage in forces at sea. By the way, the estimations meant to justify the NSNF’s advantages, including the cost-effectiveness index, usually ignore the expenditures necessary for deploying support and cover forces. However, those forces include not only atomic submarines, but also considerable groupings of surface ships, anti-submarine aircrafts, stationary hydro-acoustic lighting system, air-defense of bases, coast infrastructure, and many other important elements.

Reduction of Common-Purpose Forces

Investing nearly all funds in the naval strategic forces, Russia is spending resources on power fit for just one (and least likely) scenario of an armed conflict – the universal nuclear war. Meanwhile, solving the Fleet’s many other tasks of peaceful time and war time can be entrusted to the general-purpose non-nuclear forces only.

Strategic submarine missile-carriers are not necessary to solve a multitude of tasks like demonstrating the flag and the military presence, struggling against terrorism, participating in international and peacekeeping missions, evacuating civilians, transferring troops, guarding the coast, territorial waters and economic zone, protecting fishing and trade, securing the extraction and transportation of hydrocarbons. Just as strategic nuclear submarines will not be necessary in local conflicts. Meanwhile, the growing combat potential of the fleets of Russia’s neighbors and developing countries raises the question whether the reduced Russian general-purpose naval forces would be able enough to counteract limited aggressive actions, especially since Russia’s Naval Forces are so disconnected among the fronts.

The funds allocated to the Fleet for non-strategic components are not enough for complete new ship-building. Moreover, it is not enough even for repairing the existing vessels, which now rapidly become worthless, get removed from service, and become written off.

Once most numerous in the world, Russia’s submarine forces suffered severe reduction in the 1990s. The Russian Naval Fleet now has less nuclear submarines than the U.S. Navy does, and tends to further decline. There is practically no construction of new multi-purpose atomic submarines for the Russian Fleet. As an exception, Project 885 “Severodvinsk” submarine has been under construction since 1993. However, it will enter service not earlier than in 2010. What is worse, only six out of two tens of the Fleet’s multi-purpose atomic submarines were repaired in the last decade. Moreover, each repair dragged on for many years.

To replenish the fleet of diesel-electric submarines, new Project 677 “Saint-Petersburg” submarine was under construction at Admiralteiskie Verfi dockyard since 1997. It was launched in 2004, but its entering the service was delayed due to numerous imperfections.

The Fleet’s above-water forces keep being reduced now. Back in February 2005, Then Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Naval Fleet Vladimir Kuroedov said that battle ships are expected to leave service massively after 2010, without being replaced by new ones, and, consequently, not over fifty ships will remain by 2020. With so small a fleet, Russia’s Navy will be incapable of safeguarding the national security even in the nearest sea zone.

Unfortunately, the trend has not been overcome in recent years. “Soviet Union Fleet Admiral Kuznetsov” is the only aircraft-carrier that has remained in the Russian fleet. It is the first and the last Soviet heavy aircraft-carrying cruiser with springboard start and horizontal landing for airplanes. The ship certainly is of great importance for the Fleet both in prestige and practice. It is a school for deck aviation, which allows preserving and storing up the experience that might prove useful in the future. However, the ship’s technical condition is in decadence, and it is no longer a combat-ready unit. The matter is aggravated by the difficulty of training the pilots for the 279th independent naval fighter air regiment, which now has just 19 deck fighter jets Su-33.

Due to economic reasons, construction of new aircraft-carriers is a matter of far future, although there are design works going on now.

Escort battle ships are in a difficult situation as well. Project 956 stream-turbine destroyers have unreliable high-pressure boilers, which require costly and highly qualified technical maintenance, while the Fleet is now unable to provide it. So, just eight out of 17 built ships of that type have remained in the fleet by now, and not over three of them are in working order. Project 1155 large anti-submarine ships with gas-turbine power installations are in a somewhat better situation.

Project 22350 frigate now represents the class of ocean-zone prospective ships. “Soviet Union Fleet Admiral Sergei Gorshkov” is the first ship in the series. Its construction began in 2006 at Severnaya Verf dockyard. The construction of Project 12441 new-generation patrol ship “Novik” began in Kaliningrad in 1997 with great pomp. However, it suffered unfortunate fate: due to its technical complexity and high cost, they decided to remake it into “Borodino” training ship. Instead, the construction of simpler and cheaper Project 20380 corvettes began in 2001. “Steregushchy” lead ship is ready. However, due to financial and technical reasons, the construction of Project 22350 and Project 20380 vessels is delayed, although the Fleet optimistically plans to have up to 20 frigates and 40 corvettes accordingly.

Mosquito fleet (it includes rocket boats and artillery boats) has reduced by many times as well, and is not being replenished. The Fleet has practically stopped developing its mine-sweeper forces. Russian mine-sweepers’ major drawback is their lack of modern automatic systems for destroying mines along the course of a ship.

Large-scale modernization of the Fleet’s vessels is out of the question now. From 1991 on, qualitative development of Russia’s above-water naval forces has come to a standstill. So, those surface ships and boats which have remained in service are technically 20-30 years behind, and they lag more and more behind modern requirements and foreign vessels of corresponding types.

Two Fleets for Four Fronts

Financing the Northern Fleet’s and the Pacific Fleet’s common-purpose forces still allows maintaining in service at least a minimal number of ships able to secure battle durability for submarine missile-carriers in their coastal regions. On the contrary, the Baltic Fleet and the Back Sea Fleet have lost their combat capability, and can only carry out parade/representation functions now.

The Russian Fleet’s crisis is aggravated by its historic curse – the geographic disconnection of forces among four (or five, if counting the Caspian Sea Fleet) sea fronts, which makes it extremely difficult to maneuver among them. That is the reason why Russia has been chronically weak on each of its sea fronts.

The Northern Fleet can so far be considered the only oceanic fleet of Russia. However, its common-purpose forces have few vessels for implementing combat tasks – just three Project 949A nuclear submarines, two tens of atomic multi-purpose and diesel-electric submarines, aircraft-carrier “Admiral Kuznetsov”, missile cruisers “Peter the Great” and “Marshall Ustinov”, and several smaller ships. It allows securing the sea patrol by one strategic submarine missile cruiser, and periodical patrolling by some submarines and surface ships. Low combat-readiness of the only aircraft-carrier hampers forming more or less effective groupings for actions in the open sea. So, the Northern Fleet can now apply its forces only for a defense operation near Russia’s coast or for covering nuclear missile-carriers deployment in coastal regions. The Fleet’s inability to secure on-schedule repair of the vessels puts the Northern Fleet at risk of losing its aircraft-carrier, a number of missile cruisers, torpedo boat destroyers, and Project 949A submarines. In that case, the Northern Fleet will eventually turn into a flotilla.

The Pacific Fleet has now almost completely fallen into two groupings – in Kamchatka and in Primorie. They are almost devoid of operative connection. Kamchatka’s above-water forces are practically liquidated. It reduces to zero the ability to fully secure strategic submarines’ combat duty, although it is here where new Project 955 missile-carriers are to be supplied. The Pacific Fleet’s forces in Primorie have completely lost their nuclear submarines, and now constitute a small unit headed by “Variag” missile cruiser. The Pacific Fleet’s technical maintenance and vessel repair has always been the worst among all Russian fleets.

Russia has completely lost its century-long supremacy in the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea. Both fleets are now unable to counteract even the united naval groupings of NATO-neighboring countries, not to mention their inability to blockade strait zones. The Black Sea Fleet is a quaint mixture of solitary ships of different types, most of which now have museum value.

There are no prospects for the above-water fleet’s renovation for the coming 10-15 years. Although, several new-type vessels’ construction has been initiated recently (Project 22350 frigate, five Project 20380 corvettes, three Project 21630 small artillery ships, Project 11711 large landing ship). However, the real amount of financing turns all these programs into protracted construction. The total number of ships planned to be built under the State Weaponry Program for 2007-2015, even if it is successfully and fully implemented, will not allow counting on the equal replacement of ageing ships and the formation of homogeneous units of new-type vessels. Most likely, it will boil down to replenishing some of the fleets with a few single ships.

Interview with Jean-Claude Juncker

Europeans ‘Must Learn World Affairs’

In an interview with DER SPIEGEL, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, 62, discusses the EU’s growing self-confidence, its differences with President Trump and Brexit negotiations in the wake of an unclear election outcome in Britain.

Interview Conducted by Peter Müller and Dirk Kurbjuweit in Brussels

June 9, 2017

Spiegel

SPIEGEL: Mr. Juncker, have you recently found yourself looking at your mobile phone anxiously when you wake up each morning?

Juncker: No. Why would you think that?

SPIEGEL: We thought you’d want to know what Donald Trump tweeted during the night.

Juncker: If Mr. Trump has tweeted anything worth mentioning, I’ll be told. It doesn’t cause me to sit up agitated in bed in the morning.

SPIEGEL: But it’s different when Angela Merkel sends you a text in the morning, isn’t it?

Juncker: She texts me directly and never without reason. And that interests me. We have a solid and close relationship.

SPIEGEL: Does Donald Trump represent the last chance for Europe

Juncker: That may be going a little too far. Trump is a partner for us who cannot be easily categorized. Putting it in the noblest way possible, his understanding of politics is a little different from ours here in Europe. The way he acts forces us Europeans to take on a new responsibility. We are not standing with our backs up against the wall, but, to put it as pithily as the German chancellor has: We can no longer rely on the U.S. the way we could in the past.

SPIEGEL: The result of just a few months of Trump’s tenure is sadly clear: The new president is laying waste to the climate agreement, he is damaging trust in NATO and has shown contempt for the EU. Has the strategy of containing Trump failed?

Juncker: This attempt hasn’t even really happened yet to the full extent. Trump’s climate decision is a mistake. We tried in vain at the G-7 summit in Sicily to dissuade him from it. Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron were very strong, and even my humble self tried to persuade him. Trump knows that he is encountering a complete lack of understanding in Europe, but it’s apparent that he’s not very impressed by it. My experience, however, has been that American presidents take a greater interest in Europe over the course of their term.

SPIEGEL: Europe’s peace and prosperity in the past decades has in no small part hinged on the stability and military protection granted by the Americans. Is the West witnessing the end of trans-Atlantic cooperation?

Juncker: I have no doubt that the U.S., even under Trump, will stick to the mutual defense commitment in the NATO treaty in the event of an emergency. Trump described NATO as being obsolete during his election campaign, but he made clear afterward that he considers the alliance to be an indispensable necessity. Still, it would have been preferable if he had clearly said that in Brussels instead of lecturing the Europeans on defense spending.

SPIEGEL: Your new paper on defense policy seems strikingly ambitious. It speaks of the expansion of EU military operations, of operations against terrorist groups and of naval deployments in hostile environments. Are you not raising false expectations in suggesting that the EU will be capable of defending itself in the future?

Juncker: I am not pursuing a militarization of the EU, but we can no longer afford our small-state mentality when it comes to defense policy. Let me give you a simple example: In Europe we spend almost half of the military budget of the U.S. on defense, but we achieve only 15 percent of the Americans’ efficiency. There are 178 weapons systems in Europe, and 30 in the U.S. We have 17 types of combat tanks; the Americans have one. If we more strongly consolidated procurement, we could save 25 to 100 billion euros. We will not be conducting global affairs with brute force — the EU wasn’t conceived for that. But because the world has become what it is, global affairs is something that we Europeans are going to have to learn.

SPIEGEL: Do the Europeans have an alternative to the Americans?

Juncker: I am a champion of trans-Atlantic relations and I do not believe there is any other option available to us than working closely together with America — including Canada. There is no other alliance option, but the same is true for the U.S.

SPIEGEL: Trump obviously sees things differently. His Rose Garden speech was sheer aggressive nationalism. He spoke of “us” and “you” and that he had been elected to represent the people of Pittsburg and not Paris ……

Juncker: … … which prompted an immediate denial from the mayor of Pittsburgh. Trump’s comparison was also unfortunate because the people of Pittsburgh didn’t vote for him — they voted for Hillary Clinton. And we must also remember that even though Trump makes decision for the U.S., many large cities and American states are still committed to the climate treaty. There hasn’t been a total loss of the U.S. — many in American society think like Europeans and not like Trump.

SPIEGEL: The other strongman Europe is currently having problems with is Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. You recently had a private meeting with him. What is your impression: Does he still even want his country to become a member of the EU? And: Do you want it to?

Juncker: I told Erdogan that Turkey needs to come to terms with its European intentions. Many people in Turkey are pro-European minded, but that sentiment is very limited within the government. It appears to be aiming to hinder EU accession and pin the blame on Brussels. That, in my opinion, is not in the interest of the Turkish people. I am holding to my agreements. We declared Turkey to be an accession state at the 1999 Helsinki Summit. That still applies.

SPIEGEL: Did you discuss the detention of Turkish-German journalist Deniz Yücel with Erdogan?

Juncker: I discussed the general situation for journalists there, but I didn’t directly refer to Yücel. The man is apparently being wrongly held in jail and not even staff at the German consulate have proper access. It’s absolutely scandalous. The Turks know that if they want to join the EU, then they must respect our rules. We are a union of beliefs, not a bunch of squawking chickens. But if we continue talks with Erdogan, that doesn’t mean we have to bow down to him.

SPIEGEL: Is the EU still credible when it insists that countries like Turkey adhere to human rights? Even among its own member states, the EU tolerates countries that are acting in increasingly authoritarian ways. Poland’s government is staging an attack against the rule of law and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán wants to shut down universities he doesn’t like.

Juncker: If I may, there are still differences between Poland and Hungary, on the one hand, and those parts of the world that deny human rights, including elements in Turkey, on the other. It is, however, true that we inside the Commission are currently engaged in a contentious debate with Poland and Hungary. We are making very clear in what areas we do not share these governments’ interpretation of the law. For that, we need the kind of patience that you do not seem to have, but which I am going to have to muster.

SPIEGEL: The German government is also losing its patience and is calling for countries that violate the foundations of a constitutional state to be denied European subsidies. You’ve rejected such calls. Why?

Juncker: To be totally honest: There are times when I, too, would like to revoke subsidies for stubborn countries. But reason and experience have shown me that it would not be the right way. We don’t need to sow any new discord in the European Union.

SPIEGEL: The British historian Timothy Garton Ash has accused the EU of appeasement in its dealings with Orbán and Co. Consistent with that interpretation is the instance when you jovially greeted Orbán with the words, “Hello, dictator.”

Juncker: I have spoken to Orbán like that for years. But that last time, someone was hanging around with a directional microphone and caught it, thus drawing more attention to it. I get along well with Orbán, at least personally. In terms of policy, there is less understanding. We often clash.

SPIEGEL: What’s it like when the two of you fight? Does Orbán get angry?

Juncker: No, he never flips out. I’m more likely to do that. What riles me are the questionnaires he sent to Hungarian households in which he said: “Stop Brussels.” I told him: By doing that you are stopping yourself, because you are also Brussels. After all, he takes part in every decision. Acting as though Brussels was a foreign power that is secretly infiltrating Hungary with a hostile, anti-Hungarian network is something I cannot accept.

SPIEGEL: There’s also disagreement over the refugee issue. It appears that member states will once again fail to reach an agreement at the EU summit in two weeks over the permanent mechanism for redistributing refugees within Europe. The thinking of many countries is that the Germans invited the refugees, so it is up to them to solve the problem. Are you considering opening infringement procedures against member states that fail to adhere to the agreement — who, in other words, don’t take in enough refugees?

Juncker: We shouldn’t be criticizing Germany’s refugee policies — not in the slightest. That was a humanitarian emergency. All the refugees at that train station in Budapest — you don’t even have to think for a moment about what image it would have created for Germany if the chancellor had said: Take care of your own problem, I don’t care one iota. Angela Merkel did the right thing. Her decision and the extraordinary willingness of the German people to take in refugees conveyed an image of Germany that is still having positive repercussions today. Unfortunately, people in Germany are no longer seeing that.

SPIEGEL: But since then, Greece and Italy have been left on their own in dealing with refugees. The EU has failed on this point.

Juncker: Now people are criticizing Europe, the European Commission, Juncker and the whole lot because the distribution of refugees didn’t succeed immediately. But you also have to recognize that close to 20,000 refugees have already been redistributed. There are only a few member states that do not want to take part. And we will have to address the issue next week of whether we will open infringement procedures or not.

SPIEGEL: Against Slovakia and Hungary?

Juncker: Those and other countries. Those that do not take part have to assume that they will be faced with infringement procedures. The decision hasn’t been made yet, but I will say this: I am for it — not to make a threat, but to make clear that decisions that have been made are applicable law, even if you have voted against it. At issue here is European solidarity, which cannot be a one-way street. The traffic has to move in both directions.

SPIEGEL: Following the elections in Austria, the Netherlands and France, do you think the danger of the right-wing populists has been averted?

Juncker: No. With their enthusiasm over the recent election results, people are overlooking the fact that the threat of the far-right is still there. The monster is still going strong. The right-wing populists gathered millions of votes in all three countries. The problem is that many in the traditional parties parrot everything the populists do. In doing so, they become populists themselves rather than standing in their way.

SPIEGEL: Europe has a new poster boy, freshly elected French President Macron. Does this ever make you a little jealous?

Juncker: No. Why would I be jealous?

SPIEGEL: We had that impression. You recently mentioned that you were already winning elections with pro-European policies 30 years ago.

Juncker: It’s true. But that’s also easier in Luxembourg than in France. I like Macron a lot and I very much welcome him — particularly the fact that he made Europe one of the main topics of the election debate.

SPIEGEL: Should the German government make overtures to him?

Juncker: Now we’re sliding into the romantic depths of the German-French relationship. Many in Germany are saying that Macron should be helped. That’s also how I see it. But Germany cannot solve France’s problems. The French president and his government will have to seriously knuckle down in order to pull France out of its slump.

SPIEGEL: Who is better suited to push Europe forward at France’s side after Germany’s national election this fall? The chancellor or your friend Martin Schulz?

Juncker: I understand the hostile intention of your question and am not amused. So here you go: Both can do it.

SPIEGEL: Elections in Britain on Thursday did not deliver the clarity which had been hoped for. Theresa May’s party has lost its absolute majority and has to rely on the support of other parties. What will that mean for Brexit negotiations?

Juncker: The dust still has to settle in Britain. We have been prepared to negotiate for months now. We could start early tomorrow morning. The ball is now in the British court.

SPIEGEL: Many observers are anticipating the talks will collapse early on. Do you have a Plan B?

Juncker: No. I have a plan. It entails leading to a fair deal and relationship with the British. We will be reasonable, but we will also negotiate firmly and without gullibility. I believe we must come to an agreement for the people of Britain and the people on the Continent, but not under exclusively British terms.

SPIEGEL: With all due respect to your optimism … …

Juncker: … … I am not optimistic at all ……

SPIEGEL: … … you can’t really deny that a confrontation is approaching. The EU first wants to talk about the rights of its citizens and the money Britain will owe, but the British want to talk about future relations. How can this dilemma be solved?

Juncker: We must discuss the terms of the divorce first before we can enter into a detailed discussion about future relations.

SPIEGEL: The outside world has learned very little that was flattering about the dinner you had with Theresa May. Are the British really entering Brexit negotiations with such naiveté?

Juncker: It was a very friendly and open discussion, during which our contradictory views became apparent. I sincerely regret that the content of our discussion wasn’t always perfectly accurately portrayed to the public, even though we are constantly accused of not being transparent. But this kind of transparency is not something I wanted.

SPIEGEL: Why, then, did your head of cabinet leak details of the dinner to the press?

Juncker: We don’t know where the leak came from. I also didn’t ask my cabinet chief because I trust him. He does good work and I have an excellent team.

SPIEGEL: You recently said: “I assumed office to bring the EU to a point from which there is no going back. Instead, I am having to unwind the EU to a certain extent.” Would you say that Brexit is your greatest political defeat of your career?

Juncker: No. Contrary to the widely held belief, I don’t feel responsible for Brexit. We didn’t interfere in the referendum campaign. But it is true that negotiating Brexit is not a pleasant future task. It is the unwinding of a grand vision. I continue to see Brexit as a tragedy. I enjoy getting married more than I do getting divorced. And now I am spending most of my workweek on Brexit.

SPIEGEL: You recently affirmed that you do not intend to continue beyond the end of your term in 2019. What great deeds can we still expect from you?

Juncker: They have long since gone on record.

SPIEGEL: There’s nothing left to come?

Juncker: Let me tell you why I announced that I wouldn’t seek a second term: So that the parties involved can get used to this terrible event. I haven’t yet given everything: I am still full of energy. But I wanted to make it clear that I don’t have to make unwarranted concessions to national governments or to parliament. I want to avoid the impression that I am doing things just to ensure that I am re-elected. That’s not the case. I have had my career.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Juncker, we thank you for this interview.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No responses yet

Leave a Reply