Part of the difficulty and of the opportunity lies in the definition of hard and soft. Last month, the BBC explained, “‘hard’ Brexit could involve the UK refusing to compromise on issues like the free movement of people, leaving the EU single market and trading with the EU as if it were any other country outside Europe, based on World Trade Organization rules.

“This would mean – at least in the short term before a trade deal was done – the UK and EU would probably apply tariffs and other trade restrictions on each other.

“At the other end of the scale, a ‘soft’ Brexit might involve some form of membership of the European Union single market, in return for a degree of free movement.”

Scotland under Ms. Sturgeon would insist on some powers being repatriated from Brussels be devolved to Edinburgh. This would mean Scottish control of agriculture, fisheries and environmental protection. Her office has also suggested further powers move north including employment law, immigration and import and export control. It starts to look like Devo-Max that David Cameron and the other unionist politicians offered if Scotland voted to stay in the UK.

Ms. Sturgeon wants Scotland to secure greater and preferential access to the EU relative to the rest of the UK upon Brexit, and to do that, she wants Scottish membership in the European Free Trade Area and the European Economic Area. That is the same arrangement Norway has. However, constitutional experts in the UK doubt this can work, with Scotland having a different arrangement than the rest of the UK.

Her detractors say that Ms. Sturgeon is merely acknowledging that there is no majority for independence among Scots in recent polls. It’s stuck at the 45% that the Yes vote got in the October referendum. Ruth Davidson, the Scottish Conservative party leader, said: “The first minister knows that if another referendum on independence was called tomorrow, she’d lose. Polls show fewer and fewer Scots agree with her separation obsession, and support for the question being asked again has collapsed.”

Ms. Sturgeon’s supporters note that that is higher than the 35% they had before the campaign began. They believe a campaign would add to their vote and form a majority. Besides, the effects of Scotland losing access to the EU as a member would probably increase support for independence; Scotland benefits greatly from membership.

As Ms. Sturgeon tweeted, the ball is in Teresa May’s court as far as Scotland goes. With regard to Brexit, it is difficult to see whose move it is. This week, she had to replace her ambassador to Brussels. Sir Ivan Rogers was replaced by Sir Tim Barrow, but the Department for Exiting the EU tried to take control. The Financial Times reports, “Olly Robbins, the permanent secretary at the Department for Exiting the EU (Dexeu), attempted a land grab following the resignation of Sir Ivan Rogers from the Brussels post this week, the officials said.

“The officials told the Financial Times that Mr Robbins suggested downgrading the job of UK ambassador to a director-general, with a reporting line to Mr Robbins at Dexeu.

“But the Foreign Office sees the role in Brussels as a vital diplomatic post and moved to block Mr Robbins, officials said. Sir Tim’s nomination was also supported by Sir Jeremy Heywood, the powerful cabinet secretary who heads the civil service.”

It’s impossible to tell whose move it is when the players don’t even know if they are in the game. Brexit looks harder all the time. Ms. Sturgeon is ready if it is.

The post Soft Brexit May Prevent Second Scottish Independence Referendum appeared first on .

The Obama administration has not been an Israeli lapdog the way the Republican Party, and some Democrats would like (Joe Lieberman was the Senator for Tel Aviv not Connecticut), have been. Often, Israel has managed to get the White House and Congress to do things that not only aren’t good for America (oil policy) but don’t do much to benefit Israel — instead, they benefit the right wing parties in Israel. The Obama administration has been much more independent of Israel, which has annoyed many.

The resolution was filled with such humdrum and inoffensive demands as “Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror,” “Calls upon both parties to act on the basis of international law, including international humanitarian law, and their previous agreements and obligations,” and “Calls upon all parties to continue, in the interest of the promotion of peace and security, to exert collective efforts to launch credible negotiations on all final status issues in the Middle East peace process.” Abstaining was actually shameful; the American abmassador should have voted for the resolution.

The settlements are the main bone of contention between the two sides in the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Ultimately, the fight is over land and where the boundary lies if a two-state solution is indeed the final settlement of the issue. Both parties know that the partition of the area (the word is used advisedly) will be more successful if the Jews wind up on the Israeli side, and the non-Jews wind up on the Palestinian. When Pakistan and India were partitioned, those who found themselves on the “wrong side,” wound up as refugees or corpses in many cases. For the Holy Land, that would be particularly nasty.

By placing Jewish settlements on land that is, at best, disputed, the Netanyahu government, and its predecessors, are trying to change the facts on the ground so that the boundary, when drawn, is as favorable to Israel as possible.

The settlements are going to go ahead on the schedule that existed before the resolution passed. The encroachment of settlers into lands they don’t have a right to will persist. And the Palestinians will continue to resent the erosion of their position at any future negotiating table.

All that the resolution does is demonstrate to the Netanyahu government that the Obama administration had nothing to lose by letting the motion pass and that the White House was sick and tired of Mr. Netanyahu going behind the president’s back to tamper with American politics.

What comes next? Mr. Trump takes the oath of office, and because he is the anti-Obama, he will largely go along to get along with Mr. Netanyahu. An op-ed in today’s Jerusalem Post described what that means, “The responses by the Israeli government to the United Nations Security Council resolution passed late Friday provide all the evidence one needs to understand that Israel has no intention of ending the occupation anytime soon. Recently proposed legislation would even set a new precedent toward de facto annexation of the West Bank.”

When that happens, no one will remember Friday’s abstention. It won’t matter.

The post Obama Lets UNSC Pass Resolution Against Israel Settlements appeared first on .

Trump spokesman Jason Miller said in a statement to NBC News that “President-elect Trump was referring to the threat of nuclear proliferation and the critical need to prevent it — particularly to and among terrorist organizations and unstable and rogue regimes. He has also emphasized the need to improve and modernize our deterrent capability as a vital way to pursue peace through strength.”

Perhaps, Mr. Miller is reading a different tweet. Mr. Trump used the word “expand.” That means only one thing; it means more nuclear warheads. Even if newly appointed White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway was correct when she explained that he meant America needed to be more prepared, that is not how the tweet will be viewed in Moscow, Beijing, or Pyongyang.

Some have charitably noted that Mr. Trump’s tweet could have been in response to a statement Russian President Vladimir Putin made a few hours sooner. As reported in the British newspaper The Independent, he said, “We need to strengthen the military potential of strategic nuclear forces, especially with missile complexes that can reliably penetrate any existing and prospective missile defence systems. We must carefully monitor any changes in the balance of power and in the political-military situation in the world, especially along Russian borders, and quickly adapt plans for neutralising threats to our country. We can say with certainty – we are stronger now than any potential aggressor. Anyone!”

Mr. Trump about an hour ago was asked to clarify what he meant in his tweet. His response was, “Let it be an arms race. We will outmatch them at every pass and outlast them all,” MSNBC reported. Messrs. Putin and Trump have made it clear. They are willing, anxious even, to start building more nuclear weapons, reverse decades of common policy.

There are approximately 15,000 nuclear weapons in the world, 95% of which belong to the US and USSR, in rough parity — more than 7,000 each. If just 1,000 Russian nukes were dropped on the 1,000 largest American cities, there would be no urban settlement in the US with more than 39,000 people. The other 6,000 can be used to wipe out Europe, Asia and there will be plenty left over. In economic vocabulary, the marginal value of extra nuclear weapons at this point is zero. More bombs will not make the world safer.

However, if the US and Russia decide to go down that path, it will not occur in a vacuum. China, France, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea will all be tempted to increase their arsenals. Non-nuclear powers (e.g., Japan, South Korea) may be tempted to develop fission and fusion weapons of their own.

The world has been fortunate that cool heads have prevailed in matters nuclear — so far. However, more nations with nukes means more world leaders with nukes. When the balance of terror meant just America and Russia, few people needed to make the right choice. As the number of nuclear nations expands, more people have to get it right. One mistake can kill millions.

And that doesn’t begin to address the threat of a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of a non-state (i.e., terrorist) actor. More nukes, more nations with nukes, means less secure nuclear weapons. If Mr. Trump believes this creates some advantage for America, he is wrong and dangerous. If he simply is ignorant of these and related matters, then he is dangerous and ill-informed. Either way, what he did yesterday makes the entire world less safe.

The post Trump Tweet Threatens to Spark Nuclear Arms Race appeared first on .

From the beginning of the campaign, there was a massive “enthusiasm gap.” Apart from older white women who identified with Hillary Clinton, there was little excitement at the thought of her winning the White House. The passionate campaign belonged to Bernie Sanders, a man whose decades old message resonated among the kids who came of age in the Great Recession. However, Mrs. Clinton prevailed because she was the choice of the party establishment.

Meanwhile among the gaggle of candidates in the GOP nomination hunt, only three really had any real passionate followers. Mr. Trump’s were clearly excited to throw their bombs. Marco Rubio’s people were not as numerous nor quite as passionate, but there was a core of them prepared to march on broken glass barefooted for him. And Ted Cruz was the darling of the religious and social right. Interestingly, these were the three most successful at winning delegates.

In the general election, the media were confident of a Clinton victory (and this journal was just as wrong), but every story one read included caveats about the enthusiasm of Trump voters far surpassing that of Clinton backers.

Mrs. Clinton knows the difference between Shi’ites and Sunnis, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, and has policy papers she probably drafted herself based on 30 years of policy study. Mr. Trump most assuredly knows less about policy and political problems, and he would be the first to admit it were he an honest man about such things. So, why did he beat her in the electoral college?

People will turn up and vote for rock stars of their own volition. Messrs. T. Roosevelt, F. Roosevelt, Reagan, Obama, and Trump all possess or possessed the charisma that a leader can tap into in order to get the people to move. Having good ideas really doesn’t matter much in a leader. That’s what the leader’s staff is for.

Consider the founding of the Republic. George Washington is known as the “Father of His Country.” He was a looming figure in the War for Independence to be sure. He was the richest man in Virginia thanks to Martha’s inheritance, he was a veteran of the French and Indian War (where he lost to the French), and was, at six feet three inches in height (188 cm) much bigger physically than most Americans of the 18th century. In a small nation of a few millions that included Messrs. Jefferson, Franklin, J. Adams, S. Adams, Patrick Henry, and all the other founding fathers, it was George Washington to whom all deferred as leader.

Yet consider the policy knowledge and writings of President Washington in comparison to the others. Alexander Hamilton wrote more just about the Constitution than the man from Mount Vernon did in his whole life. The polymaths of the time were President Jefferson and Citizen Franklin; General Washington, not really in the same league. But President Washington could get people to follow where he led better than the others. That made him first among equals.

The next president, whether elected in 2020 or 2024, may be of either sex, any race, any religion (but not an atheist — this is still America), but what he or she must have is the charisma to get people to follow. One can resent this, that the policy mavens can’t win with wonkery alone, but it remains a fact. Politics is show business for the ugly, it has been said. Even the aesthetically challenged need some star power to succeed in their version of show biz.

The post Voters Want Rock Stars, Not Policy Wonks appeared first on .

In practical terms, this means that Prime Minister May’s desire to start the talks with Brussels on Britain’s departure in March are now on hold. The Supreme Court (the highest court in Britain these days) will most certainly hear the appeal, and how long before a finally final ruling comes is anyone’s guess. Fortunately, the Supreme Court can only rule one of two ways. It can overturn the ruling, in which case, the government can go ahead. Alternatively, it can uphold the ruling, which throws everything into the House of Commons.

Eleanor Garnier, a BBC correspondent, put the situation this way, “This decision has huge implications, not just on the timing of Brexit but on the terms of Brexit. That’s because it’s given the initiative to those on the Remain side in the House of Commons who, it’s now likely, will argue Article 50 can only be triggered when Parliament is ready and that could mean when they’re happy with the terms of any future deal. Of course, it will be immensely difficult to satisfy and get agreement from all those MPs who voted to remain. Could an early general election be on the cards after all?”

Presuming the Supreme Court upholds the ruling of the High Court, the British negotiating position will most assuredly be undermined. Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn stated, “This ruling underlines the need for the government to bring its negotiating terms to Parliament without delay. Labour respects the decision of the British people to leave the European Union. But there must be transparency and accountability to parliament on the terms of Brexit.” This is tantamount to telling Brussels what the negotiating position is before sitting down at the table. Because same European leaders believe Brexit should be as painful for Britain as possible to prevent others following suit, giving away the position beforehand guarantees that the EU can virtually dictate terms.

The ruling, however, does offer some hope of keeping Scotland in the UK. The nation voted against leaving the EU, but it being pulled out by votes from England and Wales (Northern Ireland is in a similar position but has vastly different political considerations). If the SNP is given enough in Westminster, if the terms of Brexit give Scotland’s concerns enough consideration, it makes a second independence referendum much harder to justify.

The Liberal Democrats, the most pro-EU party south of the border, could see a boost in their fortunes as well. Party leader Tim Farron explained, “Ultimately, the British people voted for a departure but not for a destination, which is why what really matters is allowing them to vote again on the final deal, giving them the chance to say no to an irresponsible hard Brexit that risks our economy and our jobs.” Campaigning on that message is a vote winner.

Sitting on the other side is UKIP and Nigel Farage, the once and future party leader. He said, “I worry that a betrayal may be near at hand… I now fear that every attempt will be made to block or delay the triggering of Article 50. If this is so, they have no idea of the level of public anger they will provoke.”

The referendum doesn’t seem to have settled anything.

The post High Court Says Parliament Must Approve Brexit Trigger appeared first on .

First off, the Get Out The Vote efforts of a campaign no longer focus on the last 36 or 48 hours of a campaign. GOTV now extends out weeks before the formal balloting. That means that field offices and volunteers need to be on the job for more than a couple days, and that means they need to be less casual about their actions. Organization always wins elections. Early voting merely enhances that fact.

Second, early voting means that October Surprises no longer have the same effect they have had in past elections. A sudden and unexpected development that swings the vote by a few percentage points in the waning days of the campaign don’t matter as much when many ballots were cast in September. Campaign operatives speak of banking votes, and by that, they mean building up their vote totals in pursuit of their “win number” [the number of votes they believe they need to win] by getting supporters to vote early.

Yesterday, Donald Trump appealed to Democrats who had already voted for Mrs. Clinton and were suffering a “bad case of buyer’s remorse.” He informed them they could change their votes. In some cases, the states allow that. CNN reports an early vote can be changed in Wisconsin; Minnesota; Michigan; Pennsylvania; New York; Connecticut; and Mississippi. They can’t in Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Arizona, among others. The Trump campaign claims it can turn Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan or Pennsylvania — one doubts that. However, in states that really could swing the election, a vote change is not allowed. Thus, the importance of banking the votes.

Third, pollsters have relied on exit polls to forecast elections on the final day of the campaign, but that is now passe. TargetSmart, a DC polling entity, and William and Mary College (Thomas Jefferson’s alma mater), have polled people in Florida differently from the way it has ever been done before. It is a matter of public record as to who has voted (but not how). NewsMax explained, “TargetSmart’s Tom Bonier told MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell on Tuesday night his firm’s methodology is more accurate because his pollsters call a random sample of the actual 3.6 million voters who already have cast early ballots and ask them how they cast their ballots, as well as obtain demographic data about them. We can construct a sample that’s perfectly representative of the people who’ve voted so far,’ Bonier said.”

That is significant because the poll done in Florida shows “Clinton’s 8 percent lead is a combination of early voters and those who identify as likely voters, but when counting only those who have already cast votes in person or by mail, Clinton leads 17 points, 55-38 percent.” Moreover, “Clinton has won 28 percent of registered Republicans, while Trump has been able to pick up only 6 percent or registered Democrats.”

There is a week to go, and these data are useful (if the methodology is accurate) to both the Clinton and Trump camps. The Clintonistas can assess whether they need more resources in Florida, can back off and redeploy resources elsewhere, and they can fine-tune their GOTV efforts. The Trump effort can decide whether Clinton is too far ahead and work to get electoral votes elsewhere or whether her lead is inadequate and they can take Florida. And if the data can be applied to the nation as a whole, further refinement of the last week strategies is possible.

The post Early Voting Changes Campaign Strategy appeared first on .

What happened in New Jersey’s gubernatorial race in 1981 was despicable. Armed individuals including off-duty policemen were given arm bands identifying them as ballot security officers (no swastika, though), and they proceeded to harass voters in Democratic strongholds, targeting black voters in particular. The legal case went all the way to the Supreme Court, and the GOP agreed not to do this kind of thing through the 2017 election.

Now, DNC attorney Angelo Genova submitted a motion to the federal court in New Jersey claiming there is “ample evidence that Trump has enjoyed the direct and tacit support of the RNC in its ‘ballot security’ endeavors, including the RNC’s collaboration on efforts to prevent this supposed ‘rigging’ and ‘voter fraud’.”

Politico.com notes that the motion quotes “Mike Pence as saying at a town hall that the campaign and RNC ‘are working very very closely with state governments and secretaries of states all over the country to ensure ballot integrity,’ and quoted a reporter recounting a conversation with Trump’s campaign manager in which she said said the campaign is ‘actively working with the national committee, the official party, and campaign lawyers to monitor precincts around the country’.”

The consent decree covers the RNC, its personnel and its agents. State parties are not covered by this. The RNC responded, “The filing is completely meritless. Just as in all prior elections in which the consent decree was in effect, the RNC strictly abides by the consent decree and does not take part directly or indirectly in any efforts to prevent or remedy vote fraud. Nor do we coordinate with the Trump campaign or any other campaign or party organization in any efforts they may make in this area. The RNC remains focused on getting out the vote.”

This is an argument one would hate to have to make. The Trump campaign and the RNC share funds raised. The GOP convention website states, “Rules adopted during the 2012 Republican National Convention established the formula for determining how many delegates and alternates are allocated to each state during the 2016 election cycle. They also set the timeframe as to when delegates and alternates can be elected.” Those delegates chose Mr. Trump as the nominee. It is pretty certain, therefore, that he and his campaign are agents of the RNC for legal purposes.

If the court agrees that the Trump campaign’s demands for poll watchers violates the consent decree, the expiration date can be moved out as far as 2025. Moreover, the RNC can be held in civil contempt. That could entail fines and possibly but improbably jail time for committee members.

This is, of course, the wrong way to win. It is an admission that one cannot muster a majority of the entire electorate. Therefore, removing some of the eligible voters from the active electorate is needed to win. A party that chooses this path will not evolve, will not develop policies that broaden its appeal. Eventually, the number of voters it needs to remove in order to win is too large. It then becomes a permanent minority party. That is hardly good for the future of the American right.

The post DNC Sues RNC for Violation of Voter Suppression Consent Decree appeared first on .

That case for the deal is, as usual, purely economic. Reuters reports “CETA supporters say it would increase trade between the partners by 20 percent and boost the EU economy by 12 billion euros ($13 billion) a year and Canada’s by C$12 billion (US $9 billion).”

Still, there are legitimate arguments against the agreement. Reuters suggests, “Walloons have concerns about the threat of surging pork and beef imports from Canada and an independent court system to settle disputes between states and foreign investors, which critics say allows multinationals to dictate public policy.” Moreover, when foreign corporations make investments in Belgium these days, they are much more likely to locate in Dutch-speaking Flanders in the north.

The Socialist Party in Wallonia still has the kind of power most left-wing parties in Europe and elsewhere only remember. So, there is a desire to use it, and all the more so because it is no longer part of the ruling coalition in Brussels. Daniel Beland of the University of Saskatchewan observed, “For several decades in a row, the Francophone Socialist Party was part of the ruling coalition at the central level. But now they are no longer part of that coalition so there is a sense that they have lost some of their clout, at least at the federal level.” This veto threat is a flexing of muscle for local reasons.

Marc Hooghe at the University of Leuven in Flanders noted that in addition to benefiting Flanders more than Wallonia, CETA is a precursor to approving a US-EU deal along the lines of the Transpacific Partnership. Dr. Hooghe told the Canadian Broadcast Corporation that “the real objection is to giant corporations using trade deals like CETA and its U.S.-Europe equivalent TTIP, now under negotiation, to overwhelm European values.

“Both have been combined into this monster of free trade, getting rid of all environmental standards, all social standards,” he says. “CETA is being sacrificed to stop TTIP.”

Flanders premier Geert Bourgeois said, “It’s a real shame. We’re the laughing stock of the whole world. It’s bad for Wallonia, for Flanders, for Belgium, for Europe, for the whole world.”

The deal isn’t dead by any means. It is difficult to believe that French-speaking Wallonia won’t make a deal of some sort that would help it trade with Quebec. Andre Antoine, Walloon parliament speaker, told Reuters earlier on Monday, “Ultimatums and threats are not part of democracy. We want a deal, we want a treaty, but we want to negotiate it with a minimum of courtesy and respect. A reasonable time frame would be the end of the year. With that, we could get there.”

Paul Magnette, the premier of the Wallonia region, is making a principled stand according to some. According to others, he’s playing politics to make himself the leader of the Belgian left and to boost the left in the EU. In all likelihood, this is one of those delightful situations that arise in the career of a politician where principle and opportunity are the same. Eventually, Wallonia will make a deal but not before Mr. Magnette gets his pound of flesh.

The post Wallonia Stymies EU-Canada Trade Deal appeared first on .