US and Russian warships nearly collide in the Pacific - CNN

The US and Russian warships came somewhere between 50 feet and 165 feet of each other, according to the two opposing reports, with both sides alleging their ships were forced to perform emergency maneuvers to avoid a collision, which can be seen in video and a picture of the event obtained by CNN.

In the video taken from the American ship, the two ships come so close that Russian sailors can be seen appearing to sunbathe on the stern of their vessel.

"A Russian destroyer .... made an unsafe maneuver against USS Chancellorsville, closing to 50-100 feet, putting the safety of her crew and ship at risk," US Navy spokesman Cmdr. Clayton Doss told CNN in a statement.

"This unsafe action forced Chancellorsville to execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision," Doss said.

This latest incident comes just days after the US Navy accused Russia of intercepting a US aircraft and amid tensions with Moscow on a wide range of geopolitical issues.

Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met Russian Vladimir Putin in the resort town of Sochi, where he warned Russia about interfering in US elections, taking a tougher public line than President Donald Trump on the issue.

It also comes at a time of increasing cooperation between China and Russia. After a meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the Kremlin Wednesday, Russian leader Vladimir Putin said relations between the two countries have reached an "unprecedented level."

Russia's geopolitical views align with those of China on many international and regional issues, Putin added.

Both leaders agreed that there is no alternative to a peaceful solution on the Korean Peninsula. They discussed joint efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria and attempts to stabilize the situation in Venezuela, he said.

Xi called the Russian President a "a friend," and reiterated Putin's view, saying that "our cooperation is based on mutual trust."

'Unsafe and unprofessional'

The US guided-missile cruiser was traveling in a straight line and trying to recover its helicopter when the incident occurred, he said.

"We consider Russia's actions during this interaction as unsafe and unprofessional," Doss said.

CNN obtained the video and picture of the event after a US official told CNN earlier that the Navy was working to declassify images to dispute the Russian narrative that the US was at fault.

Two navy officials tell CNN the Russian wake in the photo could only come from a steep turn that has to be executed at high speed.

"The wakes suggest the Russian ship didn't adhere to either the rules of the road or the incidents at sea agreement," according to Carl Schuster, a retired US Navy captain and former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center.

International maritime law requires ships to maintain a safe distance, normally interpreted as 1,000 yards, when passing another. It also requires navies not to interfere with another ship conducting flight operations, he said.

The US account was contradicted by Russia's Pacific Fleet, which claimed it was the US ship that instigated the incident, according to comments carried by the state-run RIA-Novosti news agency.

"When moving (on) parallel courses of a detachment of ships of the Pacific Fleet and a carrier group of the US Navy, the cruiser Chancellorsville suddenly changed its direction and crossed within 50 meters of the Admiral Vinogradov," forcing the Russian destroyer to take emergency evasive action, the RIA-Novosti report said.

The US Navy said the incident occurred in the Philippine Sea while the Russian report said it happened in the East China Sea. The boundary between the two bodies of water is the Senakaku Islands (also known as the Diaoyu islands in China), to the south of Japan and east of Taiwan.

Regardless, the incident occurred in international waters and unusually far away from Russia, Schuster said.

"The Russians normally harass our ships when they are operating in waters the Russian consider to be within their sphere of Influence (Black Sea, Barents Sea and the waters off Validvostok," said Schuster, who spent 12 years at sea on US warships.

Sending a message?

Retired rear admiral and CNN military analyst John Kirby added that the timing of the encounter is also noteworthy as it coincides with Xi's visit to Moscow.

"Clearly this sends a strong message to President Xi, from Putin's perspective, that we are on your team," Kirby told CNN's Jim Sciutto.

"We have seen the Russians and Chinese cooperate increasingly ... when it suits their interests," he said, adding that the two countries participated in a major military exercise together just last year.

But at the end of the day, both Kirby and Schuster said that Friday's incident was primarily about sending a message to the US.

"Putin clearly has ordered the Russian Navy to pressure the USN whenever opportunities exist. It may possibly be a show of political support for China while Xi is in Moscow, but more likely to signal that Russia is willing to challenge the US dominance on the world stage and at sea," Schuster said.

On Tuesday, the US accused Russia of intercepting a US aircraft flying in international airspace over the Mediterranean Sea three times in just under three hours.

The second of the three interactions "was determined to be unsafe" due to the Russian aircraft "conducting a high speed pass directly in front of the mission aircraft, which put our pilots and crew at risk," the US Navy said.

The Russian aircraft was armed and passed about 150 feet directly in front of the US plane, according to two US officials.

The Russian military disputed the US Navy's characterization of the intercept as unsafe.

"All flights of Russian aircraft were carried out in accordance with the international rules for the use of airspace," the Russian Ministry of Defense told reporters Wednesday. "There were no questions or complaints from the American center of flight deconfliction line in Syria to the Russian command."

CNN's Mary Ilyushina contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/politics/us-russia-navy-near-collision-intl/index.html

2019-06-07 14:31:00Z
52780310465763

US and Russian warships nearly collide in the Pacific - CNN

The US and Russian warships came somewhere between 50 feet and 165 feet of each other, according to the two opposing reports, with both sides alleging their ships were forced to perform emergency maneuvers to avoid a collision, which can be seen in video and a picture of the event obtained by CNN.

This latest incident comes just days after the US Navy accused Russia of intercepting a US aircraft and amid tensions with Moscow on a wide range of geopolitical issues. Last month, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo met Russian Vladimir Putin in the resort town of Sochi, where he warned Russia about interfering in US elections, taking a tougher public line than President Donald Trump on the issue.

"A Russian destroyer .... made an unsafe maneuver against USS Chancellorsville, closing to 50-100 feet, putting the safety of her crew and ship at risk," US Navy spokesman Cmdr. Clayton Doss told CNN in a statement.

"This unsafe action forced Chancellorsville to execute all engines back full and to maneuver to avoid collision," Doss said.

The US guided-missile cruiser was traveling in a straight line and trying to recover its helicopter when the incident occurred, he said.

"We consider Russia's actions during this interaction as unsafe and unprofessional," Doss said.

The US account was contradicted by Russia's Pacific Fleet, which claimed it was the US ship that instigated the incident, according to comments carried by the state-run RIA-Novosti news agency.

CNN obtained the video and picture of the event after a US official told CNN earlier that the Navy was working to declassify images to dispute the Russian narrative that the US was at fault.

Two navy officials tell CNN the Russian wake in the photo could only come from a steep turn that has to be executed at high speed.

"When moving (on) parallel courses of a detachment of ships of the Pacific Fleet and a carrier group of the US Navy, the cruiser Chancellorsville suddenly changed its direction and crossed within 50 meters of the Admiral Vinogradov," forcing the Russian destroyer to take emergency evasive action, the RIA-Novosti report said.

The US Navy said the incident occurred in the Philippine Sea while the Russian report said it happened in the East China Sea. The boundary between the two bodies of water is the Senakaku Islands (also known as the Diaoyu islands in China), to the south of Japan and east of Taiwan.

Regardless, the incident occurred in international waters and unusually far away from Russia, according to Carl Schuster, a retired US Navy captain and former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center.

"The Russians normally harass our ships when they are operating in waters the Russian consider to be within their sphere of Influence (Black Sea, Barents Sea and the waters off Validvostok," said Schuster, who spent 12 years at sea on US warships.

"Putin clearly has ordered the Russian Navy to pressure the USN whenever opportunities exist. It may possibly be a show of political support for China while Xi is in Moscow, but more likely to signal that Russia is willing to challenge the US dominance on the world stage and at sea," he said.

International maritime law requires ships to maintain a safe distance, normally interpreted as 1,000 yards, when passing another, Schuster added. It also requires navies not to interfere with another ship conducting flight operations, he said.

On Tuesday, the US accused Russia of intercepting a US aircraft flying in international airspace over the Mediterranean Sea three times in just under three hours.

The second of the three interactions "was determined to be unsafe" due to the Russian aircraft "conducting a high speed pass directly in front of the mission aircraft, which put our pilots and crew at risk," the US Navy said.

The Russian aircraft was armed and passed about 150 feet directly in front of the US plane, according to two US officials.

The Russian military disputed the US Navy's characterization of the intercept as unsafe.

"All flights of Russian aircraft were carried out in accordance with the international rules for the use of airspace," the Russian Ministry of Defense told reporters Wednesday. "There were no questions or complaints from the American center of flight deconfliction line in Syria to the Russian command."

CNN's Mary Ilyushina contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/politics/us-russia-navy-near-collision-intl/index.html

2019-06-07 13:00:00Z
52780310465763

Diligent Theresa May failed to solve the UK's Brexit puzzle - Fox News

FILE - In this Friday, May 24, 2019 file photo, British Prime Minister Theresa May reacts as she turns away after making a speech in the street outside 10 Downing Street in London, England. May formally steps down as Conservative Party leader on Friday, June 7, 2019 defeated by the Brexit conundrum. No public event is planned to mark the occasion as May’s time at the helm ends, not with a bang but a whimper. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant, File)

LONDON – If all had gone to plan, Britain would be starting its first summer out of the European Union and Prime Minister Theresa May would be looking forward to a well-earned vacation.

Instead, May steps down Friday as leader of a Conservative Party in turmoil and a country in limbo — half in, half out of the EU. She will remain as caretaker prime minister for a few weeks during a party leadership contest to choose her successor.

May will be remembered as the latest in a long line of Conservative leaders destroyed by the party's divisions over Europe, and as a prime minister who failed in her primary mission: to lead Britain out of the EU. But history may also see her as a leader who faced a devilishly difficult situation with stubborn determination.

The daughter of a rural Anglican vicar, May attended Oxford University and worked in financial services before being elected to Parliament in 1997.

She was quiet and diligent, but also ambitious. One university friend later recalled that May hoped to be Britain's first female prime minister, and "was quite irritated when Margaret Thatcher got there first."

She was not a natural political campaigner; her stiff public appearances as prime minister landed her the nickname "The Maybot." Her only touches of flamboyance are a fondness for bold outfits and accessories like brightly patterned kitten-heel shoes.

But she soon established a reputation for solid competence and a knack for vanquishing flashier rivals.

May served for six years in the notoriously thankless job of home secretary, responsible for borders, immigration and law and order. In 2016, she beat flashier and better-known politicians to become Britain's second female prime minister.

May was the surprise winner of a Conservative leadership contest triggered when Prime Minister David Cameron stepped down after voters rejected his advice to remain in the EU, instead voting 52%-48% to leave.

In her first speech as prime minister in July 2016, May sketched out plans for an ambitious policy agenda. She spoke of giving the poor a helping hand and lifting barriers to social mobility.

But Brexit soon crowded out almost all other policies.

Like Cameron, May had campaigned to remain, but in office she became a champion of Brexit. "Brexit means Brexit" became her mantra — a meaningless one, said her detractors, as it emerged that undoing 45 years of ties with the bloc would be a fraught and complex process.

Attempting to win the support of Conservative Brexiteers suspicious of her past pro-EU leanings, May set out firm red lines in negotiations with the EU: Britain would leave the bloc's single market and customs union and end the right of EU citizens to live and work in the U.K.

For a time, May's resolve helped her unite the warring factions of her party, which for decades has been divided over policy toward Europe.

But she then gambled on a snap election in June 2017, in an attempt to bolster her slim majority in Parliament and strengthen her hand in Brexit negotiations with the EU.

The move backfired. May ran a lackluster campaign on a platform that included plans to cut benefits to pensioners and change the way they pay for long-term care — quickly dubbed a "dementia tax." The Conservatives lost their majority, and May had to strike a deal with 10 lawmakers from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party to stay in power.

The DUP's support became a complication when the border between Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland emerged as a major issue in Brexit negotiations. The unionist party strongly opposed special measures to ensure the border remained free of customs posts and other barriers, worrying they might weaken the bonds between Northern Ireland and the rest of the U.K.

May pressed on and in November 2018 struck a divorce agreement with the EU, setting out the terms of Britain's departure and establishing a transition period of almost two years for the two sides to work out their future relations.

All that remained was for the British and European Parliaments to ratify it. And that is where May's best-laid plans came undone.

Her careful compromise of an agreement was rejected by both sides of the Brexit debate. Brexiteers felt it gave too much away and left Britain bound to EU rules. Pro-EU lawmakers wanted a softer Brexit that kept close economic ties to the bloc. In January, May's deal was rejected by 230 votes, the biggest government defeat in British parliamentary history.

Whatever her flaws, May was no quitter. Late last year she likened herself to Geoffrey Boycott, a cricketer who was famous for his dull but effective batting style.

"Geoffrey Boycott stuck to it and he got the runs in the end," she said.

She tried again to get her Brexit deal approved, losing by 149 votes. A third attempt narrowed the margin of defeat to 48.

She tried talks with the Labour Party about securing a compromise, but managed only to further alienate her own lawmakers with her concessions to the opposition. A promise to let Parliament vote on whether to hold a new EU membership referendum was the final straw.

Most Conservatives, even those sympathetic to her plight, concluded that May was the problem and would have to leave before Brexit could be sorted out.

Now almost a dozen Conservative lawmakers are competing to succeed her as Conservative leader and prime minister. Party members and lawmakers are scheduled to choose the winner by the end of July.

The leading candidates, including Brexit champion Boris Johnson, Environment Secretary Michael Gove and Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, all vow to succeed where she has failed and lead Britain into the sunlit uplands outside the EU.

Only May, perhaps, knows how hard that will be.

"To succeed he or she will have to find consensus in Parliament where I have not," May said in her May 24 resignation statement. "Such a consensus can only be reached if those on all sides of the debate are willing to compromise."

___

Follow AP's full coverage of Brexit at: https://www.apnews.com/Brexit

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.foxnews.com/world/diligent-theresa-may-failed-to-solve-the-uks-brexit-puzzle

2019-06-07 11:47:15Z
52780309463110

Countdown to Trump's Mexico tariff deadline: Talks focus on asylum for migrants - USA TODAY

Deirdre Shesgreen USA TODAY

Published 7:56 AM EDT Jun 7, 2019

WASHINGTON – The biggest flashpoint in the U.S.-Mexico negotiations over tariffs and immigration revolves around asylum – specifically which country should be responsible for absorbing the desperate migrants fleeing poverty and violence in Central America.

The Trump administration wants Mexico to agree to take almost every asylum seeker that crosses into Mexico – pushing the Mexican government to sign an agreement that would essentially bar Central American migrants from trying to gain asylum in the United States.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador has resisted that step so far, although there were signs Thursday that Mexican negotiators might relent.

If that happens, the U.S. and Mexico could sign a little-known treaty – called a safe third-country agreement – that would carry huge implications for immigration in both countries.

“That’s probably the most important demand that we have of Mexico,” said Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a think tank that favors stronger limits on immigration.

Migrants generally must seek asylum in the first country they reach after fleeing their homeland – but only if that country is considered safe. If it’s not safe, migrants can pass through – as they’re doing in Mexico right now – and apply in the next country they reach, in this case the United States.

If Mexico agrees to be designated as a safe third-party country, the U.S. could deny the asylum claims of virtually all the Central American migrants now seeking refuge in the U.S.

American immigration authorities could “turn them around and send them back” to Mexico, Krikorian said. He has accused Mexico of being an “asylum free rider” by enacting liberal asylum laws but steering most refugees to the U.S. border.

Designating Mexico as a safe asylum country “would really take away most of the incentive” for migrants to trek across Mexico to the U.S. border, Krikorian said.

But immigration advocates say Mexico’s asylum system is already overwhelmed, and the country is not safe – particularly for vulnerable migrants. Trump’s own State Department has advised Americans not to travel to five Mexican states, citing rampant and often violent crime.

“Robberies, extortion, kidnapping ... these are common situations,” said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a policy analyst with the American Immigration Council, an advocacy group devoted to stronger protections for immigrants.

The council recently conducted a survey of migrant mothers detained in Mexico, and 90% said they did not feel safe. Nearly half of the 500 women said that they or their child had been robbed, sexually assaulted, threatened or subject to other harm.  

“The Mexican police and state agencies charged with providing security are often the very actors robbing migrants, charging them fees in order to pass, or handing them over to criminal groups who tax or victimize migrants,” Stephanie Leutert, director of the Mexico Security Initiative at the University of Texas, wrote in a 2018 analysis of the issue.

She and others note that Mexico has already moved to take in more refugees. Asylum requests have increased each of the past five years, with the nation on track to reach nearly 60,000 in 2019, nearly double the number from the year before, according to data from the Mexican Commission for Refugee Assistance.

Leutert said Mexico’s government institutions are too weak to absorb more migrants than they’re already taking in.

“I think the U.S. should be working with Mexico more on these issues and not pushing all this enforcement onto a country that doesn’t” have the resources to handle it, she said in an interview.

Krikorian says the U.S. might need to offer Mexico financial assistance in exchange for an asylum agreement.

“I think we should combine carrots along with the sticks,” he said, referring to President Trump’s threat to impose tariffs on all Mexican imports if the Obrador government does not stop the flow of migrants.

Indeed, Obrador has called for the U.S. to help Mexico address the root causes of the migrant crisis – urging the Trump administration to help foot the bill for economic development and other initiatives aimed at relieving the crippling poverty and corruption in Guatemala, Honduras and other Central American countries.

“The U.S. stance is centered on immigration control measures, while our focus is on development,” Roberto Velasco, a spokesman for the Mexican Foreign Ministry, tweeted on Thursday evening. “We have not yet reached an agreement but continue to negotiate.”

Mexico’s Foreign Secretary Marcelo Ebrard declined to comment Thursday on the prospect of a safe third-country agreement. And the White House did not respond to questions about the Trump administration’s demands for that.

But Krikorian said a fat financial aid package could go a long way in persuading Mexico to accede to Trump’s demand.

“We can make it worth Mexico’s while, in combination with a stick that if they don’t take our more money that they’re going to suffer some consequences,” he said.

Contributing: Alan Gomez

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2019/06/07/mexico-tariffs-trumps-demand-asylum-changes-flashpoint-talks/1370610001/

2019-06-07 10:23:00Z
52780309231204

Russian and US warships almost collide in East China Sea - BBC News

A Russian warship and a US warship have come close to collision in the western Pacific Ocean, with each side blaming the other for the incident.

Russia's Pacific Fleet said the cruiser USS Chancellorsville crossed just 50 metres (160ft) in front of the destroyer Admiral Vinogradov at 06:35 Moscow time (03:35 GMT).

It was forced to perform "emergency manoeuvring" to avoid the US ship.

But US forces blamed the Russians, claiming their ship was responsible.

US Seventh Fleet Commander Clayton Doss called the Russians "unsafe and unprofessional", saying their destroyer "made an unsafe manoeuvre against USS Chancellorsville". He dismissed the Russian allegation as "propaganda".

Admiral Vinogradov came within 50 to 100 feet (15m-30m) of the USS Chancellorsville in the Philippine Sea, the US said.

The Russian Pacific Fleet meanwhile said the incident took place in the southeast of the East China Sea, and added they had sent a message of protest to the US ship's commanders.

Both countries regularly accuse the other of dangerous military manoeuvres - at sea and in the air.

In November, the US posted footage of a Russian jet intercepting one of its planes over the Black Sea - a move they called "irresponsible", but which the Russians said was to stop "a violation of Russian airspace".

Media playback is unsupported on your device

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48553568

2019-06-07 11:03:12Z
52780310465763

Theresa May's days are ending but the Brexit fantasy lives on - CNN

After nearly three years of failing to deliver Brexit, May realized her number was up the day after last month's EU elections, in which Conservative voters flocked to the hardline, anti-EU Brexit party, led by Nigel Farage.

It's fitting that on the day May was due to formally announce her resignation, the Conservatives suffered another humiliation in a byelection in Peterborough, a city north of London. Her party slipped to third place, behind the opposition Labour party, which held onto the seat, and the Brexit party.

May will remain in post as Prime Minister until a new Conservative leader is selected. All being well, once in place, the Queen will then invite May's successor to form a government.

But it might seem odd to international observers that while the UK is paralyzed by Brexit -- and has a deadline looming on October 31 -- the party in charge is treating its citizens to a Conservative beauty pageant, rather than getting on with running the country.

But here we are. It's all very exciting, if your idea of excitement is watching endless videos of mostly white men telling you what a great job they'd do of leading.

Crucially, they all want you to know how they would succeed where May failed and strike a new Brexit deal with the EU.

Eagle-eyed readers will have already spotted the snag. Unless you live in the fantasy world of the Westminster bubble, phase one of the Brexit talks with the EU is formally closed, never to be reopened.

May's negotiators spent the best part of two years in talks with EU officials and leaders of the other member states to arrive at what is known as the Withdrawal Agreement -- commonly referred to as May's Brexit deal. Both sides thought it was a fair compromise that took into consideration the specific concerns of all involved.

But, as history tells us, the vast majority of Members of Parliament in Westminster loathed it, rejecting it three times.

Why did it fail? Largely, because of something called the Irish border backstop. This instrument was included in the Withdrawal Agreement as an emergency measure to avoid the need for physical infrastructure on the border between the Republic of Ireland (an EU member state) and Northern Ireland (part of the UK). The problem for Brexiteers is that, for legal reasons, the backstop requires the UK to stay closely linked to Europe -- something they regard as a dirty Brussels trap to keep the UK in the EU in all but name.

The three candidates currently considered most likely to succeed May all believe that, when presented with a fresh set of negotiators, EU officials in Brussels will see the light. They will be convinced that the only way to avoid a no-deal Brexit is to reopen the Withdrawal Agreement and change -- or in some cases, scrap -- the backstop. Then, Parliament would unite behind a deal and everyone can relax.

The frontrunner, Boris Johnson, is at the harder end of the backstop spectrum. In an ideal world, he would like to get rid of it. And without significant changes, Johnson says he will take the UK out of the EU on October 31, with or without a deal.

Johnson's closest ally in the 2016 leave campaign, Michael Gove, is also gunning for the top job. Like Johnson, he believes that the EU's priority will be to get a deal approved and avoid chaos. Unlike Johnson, he has refused to commit to leaving on October 31, whatever the state of a deal.

The same goes for Jeremy Hunt. He says he is not scared of no deal, but believes that he can assemble a team that would convince the EU it's in Europe's interest to change the backstop.

Why are these candidates so confident that they can make the EU blink? Two reasons.

First, they believe the EU wants to avoid a no deal at all costs. And to be fair, evidence to date backs this logic. EU leaders have twice allowed extensions to the Brexit deadline and have been accommodating of the UK's chaotic politics.

Second, they think that the EU's obstinance is because it doesn't believe anything can command a majority in the House of Commons. Again, this logic doesn't come from nowhere. Having knocked back May's deal three times, the Commons put forward alternative proposals for Brexit -- all of which failed to achieve a majority.

All the next leader needs to do is prove to the EU that they can get a majority for a tweaked deal and, hey presto, the EU avoids a no deal and Brexit is done and dusted. For now, at least.

The problem with this -- and it's a big one -- is that no one in Brussels or across Europe has given the slightest indication that the Withdrawal Agreement can be changed. That means no tweaks to the backstop and no "new deal." While it's tempting for those leadership candidates to dismiss this as public bluster that is nothing more than a negotiating position, it mirrors exactly what is being said by both European and British officials in private.

There are of course more leadership candidates than Johnson, Gove and Hunt. As things stand, 11 Conservatives have declared and represent positions varying from actively perusing a no deal and banishing all pro-EU Conservatives from the Cabinet to holding a second Brexit referendum.

There are two candidates who accept that May's deal has to be the starting point of any negotiations and that everything else is for the future relationship talks. These two men are Matt Hancock, the health secretary, and Rory Stewart, the international development secretary.

Both have attracted praise from Conservative moderates and from people outside the party, who are sick of Brexit and want to avoid no deal almost as much at the EU does.

Unfortunately for Hancock, Stewart and the EU, it's not members of the public that will ultimately elect the next leader. That honor falls to the 160,000 card-carrying members of the Conservative party. And as anyone who has followed Brexit knows, many members of that party are fine with no deal.

And the members only get a say once the list of candidates has been whittled down to two by the 313 Conservative lawmakers. They are less extreme on Brexit, but know that if they put forward anyone remotely pro-Europe to the membership, they will lose.

This is where we come back to the top three. To win this contest, you need to win over the moderate lawmakers while still appealing to the party's euroskeptic base.

When you look at it this way, the plan to renegotiate the Withdrawal Agreement or leave with no deal makes perfect sense -- which is presumably why the top three are the top three. At least, it makes sense in the bizarre Brexit vacuum that the UK seems incapable of escaping.

Of course, astonished officials in Brussels are watching this. They are now resigned to the fact that, after three years of finally making the UK understand its position, a new leader with unworkable ideas is about to come and make demands that make no sense.

As one EU official put it: "The British presumption that the Commission will budge because a new Commission is coming after the EU elections is a misunderstanding of how the EU works. That is a decision for member states, whose leaders -- and positions -- have not changed. Besides, the new Commission doesn't come in till November. If the UK wants to waste its time until then, it's going the right way about it."

Of course, the EU might perform the almightiest U-turn and back down. But the conventional wisdom suggests that next prime minister might discover that the problem wasn't Theresa May, but structural problems with Brexit. And that leader should think carefully about the fact that May is the second leader to have their career ruined by Brexit.

They might also want to reflect on the words of Donald Tusk, President of the European Council, as he announced the EU's decision to allow and extension until October 31: "Please don't waste this time."

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/06/07/uk/theresa-may-conservative-leadership-luke-mcgee-intl-gbr/index.html

2019-06-07 09:41:37Z
52780309463110

Trump escalates Pelosi duel as he ends UK trip - CNN

Trump, speaking from the Normandy American Cemetery, blasted the Pelosi as a "disgrace" after she reportedly said she would rather see him in jail than impeach him. His broadside underscored his code of striking back hard when he is criticized, whatever the circumstances.

"I've tried to be nice to her because I would've liked to have gotten some deals done," he said in the interview from France with Fox News, which aired Thursday night, in response to Pelosi's reported comment. "She's incapable of doing deals."

"She's a nasty, vindictive, horrible person," the President added.

Trump supporters might argue that Pelosi's reported comments -- made behind closed doors -- still break the unspoken "water's edge" tradition of refraining from attacking a President when he is abroad. Trump, though, has often broken the taboo himself -- for instance using a trip to Japan last month to slam Democrats and potential 2020 rival Joe Biden.

When he lands in Washington, the President, who spent the night at his Irish golf resort, will be immediately confronted with a new trade war with Mexico on which he doubled down during his trip to Britain, France and Ireland and is defying mediation efforts.

New confrontations also loom next week, with Democratic leaders who are under rising pressure from rank-and-file lawmakers for impeachment proceedings in response to what they see as Trump's abuses of power in the 2016 election and as President.

Each active front in the perpetual Trump-era political drama in Washington can all or in part be chalked up to his confrontational approach. But at least Trump can reflect, as he flies across the Atlantic, on a five-day journey in which he was both feted by a queen and performed a solemn thank you and farewell to the greatest generation.

He reveled in his welcome from Queen Elizabeth II's royal court, was magnanimous toward outgoing British Prime Minister Theresa May and delivered a moving tribute to D-Day veterans in Normandy. The President mostly kept his Twitter salvos targeting his enemies and political jabs for after hours.

British officials were relieved that Trump left the country without any political disasters. The White House, which hasn't had many overseas wins, is also pleased with the trip.

Trump's reception was a reminder of the power of the United States and the institution of the presidency, notwithstanding his poor approval ratings in Europe and the headaches he has caused for allied leaders over the past two years.

The low expectations for Trump's trip, however -- following his outbursts at summits and other unpredictable behavior -- also reflect diminished expectations for this particular White House.

Had any other US President engineered such an overt intervention in domestic UK politics with his comments on the Conservative Party leadership race and Brexit, or seemed so hazy on the details of a possible US-UK trade deal and Northern Ireland, the reaction would have been far more critical.

Mexico showdown

While Trump was in France on Thursday, his team back in Washington was frantically trying to find an off-ramp for the latest tariff confrontation with Mexico, though time to seal a deal is running short.

While the President has sent conflicting signs about his threat to impose 5% tariffs that would escalate by 5% a month if Mexico does not do more to halt the flow of migrants, his vice president and press secretary indicated Thursday that plans for the tariffs were proceeding.

"Something pretty dramatic could happen," Trump told reporters in Ireland on Thursday.

But, he added, "we've told Mexico the tariffs go on. And we mean it, too."

White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said in a statement Thursday afternoon that the US "position has not changed, and we are still moving forward with tariffs at this time."

Vice President Mike Pence echoed that message shortly afterward.

"The President announced 5% tariffs would be imposed on Monday on all goods coming from Mexico. That's the policy of the United States," he said. "The President said what he means and he means what he says."

Trump faces a Friday deadline to sign an executive order to ensure the tariffs go into effect by Monday's deadline.

Trump's sudden offensive against Mexico represents his latest effort to quell a crisis at the border that his hardline rhetoric and flexing of executive power have failed to solve.

In May, more than 144,000 migrants were encountered or arrested at the frontier -- a roughly 32% increase over April and the highest monthly tally in 13 years, according to US officials.

Uncertainty over which way the President will lean on Mexico deepened when he tweeted early Thursday that "progress is being made, but not nearly enough!"

His hint of flexibility in Ireland could be a sign that he is feeling heat from Republican senators, who have not ruled out an attempt to block the tariffs from going into force.

If the President's hard-line tactics force Mexico to do more to halt the large numbers of undocumented migrants -- or even if it offers cosmetic concessions -- Trump could claim a political victory. But the spat is yet another indication of how his reliance on tariffs as a primary foreign-policy tool maneuvers him into tough political corners.

Talks on the showdown intensified in Washington on Thursday, stretching into the night, and officials from the White House, the State Department and the Department of Homeland Security met to discuss next steps.

"What Mexico is offering is not enough," said Mercedes Schlapp, White House director of strategic communications.

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said Thursday, however, that he was "optimistic" a deal could be reached.

'I want to see him in prison'

If the President's latest clash with Mexico does get solved before Monday, next week is still certain to see a worsening of Washington's already fractious political climate.

Democrats on Thursday released the text of a contempt resolution targeting Attorney General William Barr and ex-White House counsel Don McGahn ahead of a full House vote next week.

New controversy is surrounding Pelosi, who is facing rising pressure in her Democratic caucus to subject Trump to the drama of an impeachment inquiry.

Politico reported that at a meeting on Tuesday night in which House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler asked to open proceedings against the President, Pelosi said: "I don't want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison."

The report, quoting multiple Democratic sources, was not denied by Pelosi's office. The speaker has been loath to initiate the impeachment process, fearing that it could backfire and give the President a platform to boost his reelection effort.

The report added extra spice to the already tumultuous relationship between Trump and Pelosi, the two most politically powerful figures in Washington, who are both constantly sculpting the battlefield ahead of the 2020 election.

Republicans, who control the Senate and are unlikely to vote to convict Trump in any impeachment trial, are already capitalizing on the reported remark to hint at Democratic overreach.

"She didn't say that. No, she didn't say that," said Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa. "To go to prison, you've got to violate a law. What law's been violated?"

CNN's Kate Sullivan, Jeremy Diamond and Kaitlin Collins contributed to this report.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

https://www.cnn.com/2019/06/07/politics/donald-trump-mexico-politics-dday-britain-immigration/index.html

2019-06-07 09:11:00Z
52780309231204