USA -State of the Union: FactChecking Trump's State of the Union - by Editorial Staff

President Donald Trump’s first State of the Union address was filled with several repeat claims about the economy, tax cuts and immigration that we’ve fact-checked before, as well as new false and misleading statements on auto plants, judicial appointments and development aid.

• Trump claimed credit for 2.4 million new jobs “since the election,” when more than a half a million of those jobs were created under then-President Obama.
• He claimed that wages are “finally” going up, when they’ve been on a generally upward trend since the 1990s.
• Trump boasted that the African American unemployment rate was the “lowest rate ever recorded” and that Hispanic unemployment was at the “lowest levels in history.” True, but both rates have been in steady decline for about seven years. And the recent Hispanic rate matches the record low in October 2006.
• Trump falsely said car companies have not built or expanded plants in the U.S. “for decades.” Two new assembly plants were announced and others expanded in the last nine years.
• The president said he had appointed “more circuit court judges than any new administration” in history. True, but appointments by Presidents Nixon and Kennedy had a greater impact since there were far fewer appellate court seats back then.
• Trump said the U.S. does “more than any other country … to help the needy, the struggling, and the underprivileged all over the world.” In raw dollars of development aid, it’s true. But as a proportion of gross national income, the U.S. ranked 22nd in 2016.
• The president wrongly said that the U.S. is “an exporter of energy to the world.” The Energy Information Administration estimates the U.S. won’t be a net exporter of energy until 2026.
• Trump again wrongly said that “we enacted the biggest tax cuts and reforms in American history.” There have been larger cuts as a percentage of gross domestic product and in inflation-adjusted dollars
• The president said the new tax law gives “tremendous relief for the middle class.” The middle quintile in terms of income gets an average tax cut of $930 in 2018, but the top quintile gets a little more than 65 percent of the tax cut benefits.
• Trump said cutting the corporate tax rate will “increase average family income by more than $4,000.” This is a rosy, long-term estimate from White House economic advisers based on questionable assumptions.
• Trump wrongly said the Diversity Immigrant Visa Program “hands out green cards without any regard for skill … or the safety of the American people.” There are both education or work experience requirements, and a background check for all who are selected.
• Trump said that “America has also finally turned the page on decades of unfair trade deals.” But the trade deficit that he promised to reduce has grown larger during his presidency.
• Trump said the U.S. is “restoring our … standing abroad.” But a recent Gallup Poll found “approval of U.S. leadership across 134 countries and areas stands at a new low.”

The president’s speech on Jan. 30 clocked in at an hour and 20 minutes (and 31 seconds), the third longest dating back to 1966, according to the American Presidency Project. That means there was plenty of time for repeat claims and some new twists on the facts.

Trump claimed credit for creating 561,000 jobs that actually were added before he took office, and for starting a rise in wages that began years earlier.

Trump said: "Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone. Tremendous number. After years and years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages".

Trump claimed credit for creating 561,000 jobs that actually were added before he took office, and for starting a rise in wages that began years earlier.

Trump: Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs, including 200,000 new jobs in manufacturing alone. Tremendous number. After years and years of wage stagnation, we are finally seeing rising wages.

As he has done numerous times recently, Trump boasted about record-low unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans. That’s accurate, but unemployment rates for African American and Hispanic Americans — as well as for all Americans — have been in steady decline for about the last seven years.

Trump said: "And something I am very proud of, African American unemployment stands at the lowest rate ever recorded. And Hispanic American unemployment has also reached the lowest levels in history"

As we noted when Trump recently claimed the black unemployment rate is the lowest in recorded history “because of my policies,” the years-long downward trend in unemployment rates has continued under Trump, but at a slower pace than in recent years.

When Trump took office in January 2017, the black unemployment rate was 7.8 percent, the lowest it had been in nearly 10 years, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Under Trump, it dropped a full percentage point to 6.8 percent in December. That’s the lowest rate since the bureau began regularly breaking out unemployment rates by race in 1972.

A similar drop of 1 percentage point was recorded during the same 11-month period in 2016. But even larger drops were recorded in each of the three years before that. The rate fell 1.9 percentage points in 2015, 1.5 percentage points in 2014 and 1.8 percentage points in 2013.

The gap between white and black unemployment remains largely unchanged under Trump. While black unemployment fell to 6.8 percent in December, the white unemployment rate that month was 3.7 percent. So the white rate is 46 percent lower than the black rate, about the same as the gap in December 2016.

The Hispanic unemployment rate dipped to 4.8 percent in June, October and November, matching a record low recorded in October 2006. The rate dropped by a full percentage point under Trump, from 5.9 percent in January 2017 to 4.9 percent in December. But again, despite remaining constant during 2016, the rate has been declining for years, going from 12.9 percent in December 2010 to 6.2 percent in December 2015.

Trump made a series of misstatements in talking about the auto industry.

Trump said: "Many car companies are now building and expanding plants in the United States — something we haven’t seen for decades. Chrysler is moving a major plant from Mexico to Michigan. Toyota and Mazda are opening up a plant in Alabama — a big one. And we haven’t seen this in a long time. It’s all coming back".

There is a lot to unpack here, but let’s start with the fact that the president is wrong when he says the U.S. has not seen the construction of new auto plants and expansion of existing ones “for decades.”
The Center for Automotive Research, a government-funded research group based in Michigan, tracks auto manufacturing investments in the U.S. Kristin Dziczek, the center’s director of the industry, labor & economics group, told us that most investments in recent years have been for “expansion and retooling of existing facilities.” But, she said, two new auto assembly plants were announced in the nine years before Trump took office.

For example, Volkswagen chose Chattanooga, Tennessee, as the hub of its U.S. manufacturing operations in 2008. Volvo announced its first U.S. plant in 2015, and BMW expanded its South Carolina facility as recently as 2016.

Trump was also wrong when he said, “Chrysler is moving a major plant from Mexico to Michigan.” In early January, Fiat Chrysler announced plans to move production of its heavy-duty trucks from Mexico to the United States, but the Mexico plant is expected to continue its operations and switch to a new vehicle line.

The president has gotten the facts wrong about Fiat Chrysler before, including in a recent tweet where he claimed Chrysler “is leaving Mexico and coming back to the USA.”
Trump is right that Toyota and Mazda have announced the construction of a joint auto assembly plant in Alabama. But it’s not clear how much credit Trump can claim.

In a press release announcing the new plant, Toyota said it has been negotiating a joint venture with Mazda for two years — ever since the two companies entered an agreement in May 2015 to partner on business ventures.

The $1.6 billion investment is part of a commitment that Toyota made in January 2017 before Trump took office to invest $10 billion in the U.S. over five years. At the time, Toyota President Akio Toyoda told reporters, “We’re always considering ways to increase production in the United States, regardless of the political situation.”

Read more of the detailed facts here: FactChecking Trump's State of the Union - FactCheck.org

EU-US Relations: Donald Trump's America First backlash: How Europe could be the unexpected beneficiary of America’s fall from global grace

US president Donald Trump has promised to put America first. His protectionist stance on trade, his implicit threats to pull military protection from countries that do not contribute sufficiently to NATO, and his decision to pull the US out of the Paris agreement on climate change are all designed to rebalance what Trump sees as a drain on American resources. But the net result may be to put America last, as allies in every part of the world seek out new relationships to shore up an international system on which they depend.

As the US loses influence, however, other countries will find opportunity. While Russia and China have aggressively courted influence, Europe, too, could be a beneficiary of America’s fall from global grace—if it plays its cards right.

Washington’s dirty secret is that America’s lead over the rest of the world—economic, military and political—has been in steep decline for decades. After World War II, the US constituted half of the global economy. Today, that share is closer to 25%, according to an analysis of the IMF’s World Economic Outlook Database. Meanwhile, challenger nations such as China have gone from having a GDP equal to less than one-fifth of the US economy in 1990 to exceeding it today (at least if GDP is adjusted for differences in purchasing power).

The miracle of American foreign policy has been the ability of successive administrations to maintain influence in the face of their country’s relative decline. US governments have attempted to ensure that every region of the world maintains a balance of power that ultimately favors American interests. This means that Washington could afford to lose weight in relative terms so long as smaller players in each region allied with America against the rising regional power—whether that regional power was China, Russia, or Iran.

The secret sauce of this strategy was the way Washington allowed its allies to share in the benefits of American hegemony. Europeans, for example, were allowed to benefit from US military spending and the security is provided without having to come up with equivalent spending on their own. Today, however, under the slogan “America First,” Trump is ripping up that playbook—and the net result could be that many American allies are forced to develop relations with regional challengers to hedge against their abandonment by Washington.

As a result, the US might well end up poorer, less influential, and less secure. The risk is not so much that the US incurs losses in individual diplomatic conflicts or isolated trade disputes. However, if America’s allies are forced into new alliances with America’s foes, the new system that emerges will be less conducive to America’s interests.

Trump’s proposals on trade policy and his Republicans tax plan has set the US on a collision course. Were Trump to implement a tariff on cars produced in Mexico, it would not only attract the wrath of Mexico—the German government could also be forced to act, given its car producers’ reliance on plants in Mexico.

Congressman Paul Ryan’s plan for a corporate tax with border tax adjustment would have effectively put a tariff on imports into the US from everywhere in the world, and would have created the equivalent of an export subsidy for everything produced in the US.

Read more: Donald Trump's America First backlash: How Europe could be the unexpected beneficiary of America’s fall from global grace — Quartz

US: Wall Street Pipe-Dream: Market momentum has never been higher but the risk of a crash is high - by Marcus Padley

I wouldn't want to scare you but have you seen a chart of the Dow Jones or the S&P 500 index recently? The RSI or Relative Strength Index, a technical indicator used by chartists to measure the speed and change of price movements, is at record highs.

In the technical world the RSI goes from zero to 100 and if a stock has an RSI below 30 it is described as "oversold", and if the RSI is over 70, it is described as "overbought"

While individual stocks are quite volatile and can regularly appear as oversold and overbought, an index like the S&P 500 index, which represents the average of 500 stock prices, is, by definition, not volatile and rarely becomes either oversold or overbought.

At the moment the RSI for the S&P 500 index is trading at 87.9. The Dow Jones RSI is currently 90.5. That means they are both overbought, which is rare enough, but more significantly, I can't see that they have ever seen an RSI number this high, even in the tech boom, ahead of the 1987 crash, or before the global financial crisis. The momentum behind the US markets has never been higher than now

On top of that, the S&P 500 price earnings ratio is now at 24.87x; that is the highest since the tech boom and higher than pre-GFC. I own a couple of businesses and I have to tell you, if someone wanted to come and pay me 24.87x post tax earnings for either of them I would retire a gazillionaire. Yet this is the average, repeat, average, valuation of $US25.12 trillion, repeat, trillion, dollars worth of US stocks in the S&P 500.

There has rarely been such positive sentiment. Trump-inspired of course although there are a myriad of other factors you could list to justify it in the short term, anything from economic recovery to anticipation of a solid results season which is ongoing in the US.

I have our portfolios almost fully invested at the moment, but I have them on a hair trigger. When I see Wall Street fall a few hundred points in one night I will quietly start selling. This herd could turn nasty at any time and with the top of the S&P 500 long-term trading range 17 per cent below where we are now, we could see a 10 per cent correction in the US markets for absolutely no fundamental reason at all, other than the herd deciding to have a sentiment change for some invisible reason, which is usually because some large fund manager somewhere holds an asset allocation meeting and decides to sell, and the rest follow.

It can happen any day. But don't be too smart for your own good by selling before it happens. These exponential moments only come around once every decade and you can't miss them.

Read more: Market momentum has never been higher but the risk of a crash is high

Russia: Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested as Russians Protest Election - by Damien Sharkov

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s most prominent critic has been arrested on the day of nationwide protests against the leader’s bid to stay in office for at least another six years.

Anti-corruption blogger Alexey Navalny mobilized two waves of protests in dozens of cities last year, incensed at the reported wealth of government officials under Putin’s protection.

As Putin announced last month he is seeking re-election in March’s presidential vote, Navalny has repeatedly called for a boycott at the ballot boxes in a bid to cast doubt on the legitimacy of Putin’s campaign by lowering turnout.

While Navalny is regularly arrested at his rallies, police went a step further in the early afternoon on Sunday, forcing their way into Navalny’s office and detaining six members of his team in a raid, according to independent monitoring group OVD-Info.

Protests gripped not only Moscow but Russia’s second most important city, St. Petersburg, as well as cities in the country’s east.

“They are the future of Russia,” Navalny tweeted with a photo of two young protesters. “Putin and his band of thieves are her past.”

Read more: Newsweek  Vladimir Putin's Top Critic Arrested as Russians Protest Election

Davos: Vision versus Economic Capacity and Power - by RM

Economic Power (USA) Versus Vision (EU)

At the end of the Davos economic gathering, it was interesting to note how much the speeches given by European leaders differed from that of the American President.

When the US President spoke, it was clear that he spoke, knowing that he could say just about anything he wanted, given the economic strength of the US. The fact that he added to his now famous slogan , "America first", the words, "but not alone*, just meant that he will support trade agreements and other multi-lateral deals only if they are based on US terms and conditions, certainly not on a multi-lateral basis.

The Europeans,  including their present champion, Emmanuel Macron, spoke with no exception, not only about the positive values of global trade, but also about major issues confronting the world, such as global warming.

The obvious conclusion one could make from these speeches in Davos, listening to these two different trains of of thought, is that unless the one submits to the others way of thinking - there is no harmony possible - and this, regardless of all the enormous challenges the world is facing today.

Unfortunately for the EU, is the fact that the Union is not unified enough to speak with one voice and put their "money where their mouth is", and consequently can not only offer a carrot as an alternative, but also when needed not use a stick against "Bougie Man" Trump.

The result of all this will be, as the saying goes, "when two dogs fight over a bone, another dog will take it",

That dog, if it has not already taken the bone, will be China.

Bottom line : Europe urgently needs to put its house in order, and those member states which like the status quo, better get out, or get thrown out of the EU.

EU-Digest
 Copy Right EU-Digest

EU - Davos: New momentum for Europe?

US President Donald Trump wants to put America first. And China isnot exactly a champion of democracy and human rights. That's why someEuropeans think it's time for them to step up to the plate and play a more important role on the world stage. In their speeches in Davos, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron both spoke out for free trade, international rules and universal humanist values.

The only problem is that the EU itself is deeply divided. The financial crisis has left deep scars, unemployment is high in many countries, the migration crisis has strained relations between member states and nationalism is on the rise.

Nonetheless, EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmström believes that Europe has a lot to offer to the rest of the world. She sees the current lack of leadership by the US as an opportunity for the EU "to show we can do good trade agreements which re sustainable and mutually beneficial.

We can promote European values through that, and we can create alliances and friendship with countriesacross the globe," Malmström said in a Davos panel called "A new momentum for Europe."

Mark Rutte, prime minister of the Netherlands, agreed in principle but added that even the European common market was still far  from complete.

"We could add €1.5 trillion [$1.86 trilion] to the European economy — that's the size of the Spanish economy — by implementing the single market for digital, services, capital and
energy."

Adding these elements would create 4 million new jobs in Europe. "At the moment, we are not doing that. The European internal market is  only there for goods, only 30 percent of the European economy is part of the internal market," said Rutte.

Portugal's Prime Minister Antonio Costa tried to look on the bright side of life.

After the Brexit decision in the UK, "we have new energy for change in Europe," he said. "It's a Brexit paradox: the remaining 27 countries have made an effort to advance Europe."

Costa pointed to a closer cooperation on defense, an example that was also singled out by Merkel and Macron on the previous day.

But a Germany and a France presenting themselves as Europe's engine also have smaller countries worried, says Ireland's Prime Minister Leo Varadkar. "We don't want to see meetings in Paris and Berlin where only countries with more than 40 million people are invited to attend — and the smaller countries being told afterwards what is good for Europe."

The current migration crisis has brought to light how deep the divisions in Europe are. Countries like Hungary and Poland are refusing to take in migrants, while Italy and Greece see new boats with Africans arrive at their shores every day.

Read more: Davos: New momentum for Europe? | Business| Economy and finance news from a German perspective | DW | 25.01.2018

EU: More growth and jobs: EU invests €873 million in clean energy infrastructure

Europe's transition to a clean and modern economy is the goal of the Energy Union, a priority of the Juncker Commission. It is now becoming the new reality on the ground, and one important building block is adapting the European infrastructure to the future energy needs. Properly interconnected electricity lines and gas pipelines form the backbone of an integrated European energy market anchored on the principle of solidarity. Thus, supporting these 17 selected electricity and gas projects , signals Europe's willingness to upgrade and make the European energy system more competitive that will ultimately deliver cheaper and secure energy to all European consumers.

The EU funding for the chosen projects comes from the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF), the European support programme for trans-European infrastructure.

Commission Vice-President for Energy Union Maroš Šefčovič said: "Once more we demonstrate that cooperation and solidarity pays off and that the Energy Union is becoming a reality with tangible impact on the ground. These are important projects with major cross-border benefits and by implementing them we strengthen energy resilience of EU Member States. The Connecting Europe Facility has yet again shown tremendous added value in the modernisation of the European economy."

Commissioner for Climate Action and Energy Miguel Arias Cañete said: "The construction of the Biscay Gulf France-Spain interconnection marks an important step towards ending the isolation of the Iberian Peninsula from the rest of the European energy market. Only a fully interconnected market will improve Europe's security of supply, reducing the dependence of single suppliers and giving consumers more choice. An energy infrastructure which is fit for purpose is also essential for renewable energy sources to thrive and for delivering on the Paris Agreement on climate change."

For the complete EU Commission Press release, click here

Kurdistan: It's Time for an Independent Kurdistan - by Stanley Weiss

The dispossessed have become dangerously destabilizing. The overlooked can no longer be overlooked. And what was once a Middle Eastern flashpoint may yet become a safety valve for spiking regional tensions.

It will not be easy, but the uncertainty and plasticity in the region today offers an opportunity to secure a Kurdish homeland and remedy the capricious map-making of the early 20th century. Iraq is threatening to split into the pre-Iraq Sunni, Shia and Kurdish divisions of the Ottoman Empire, with the Kurds semi-independent and the Iran-allied Shiites ruling the Sunnis. Iran’s economy is in free-fall. Syria will soon have no central control and no choice. And while no country is eager to surrender a fifth of its population, Turkey would do well to get ahead of this issue — ending the vicious, ongoing war with the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), saving countless lives and positioning themselves to reap the benefits of a long-term strategic alliance to counterbalance Iranian influence. Not to mention, membership in the European Union will forever be out of reach for a Turkey at war with itself.

For proof of what’s possible, look no further than Iraqi Kurdistan, a pro-American, pro-Israel and semi-autonomous parliamentary democracy most Americans have never heard of. Nurtured by an American no-fly zone in the aftermath of the first Gulf War, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was established under the Iraqi Constitution in 2005, a stunning testament to the success of Muslim representative government. Of more than 4,800 American soldiers killed in the brutal battles for Iraq, not a single one has lost their life — and no foreigner has been kidnapped — within the borders of Iraqi Kurdistan. Boasting two international airports, a booming oil industry and a dawning respect for the rights of women, this 15,000 square-mile territory of nearly four million Kurds is the one part of President George W. Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” that was actually accomplished.

Building on this unanticipated success, the U.S. should rethink its previous opposition to an independent greater Kurdistan and recognize that the advantages of a friendly, democratic and strategically-positioned ally far outweigh the outdated assumption that the Kurds’ national liberation would result in regional conflagration. At this point, inaction is far more likely to provoke continued regional conflict. Whether that means calling for U.S.-brokered talks with Turkey or a temporary UN peacekeeping force, sanctions or scaled up foreign investment, the U.S. should make every effort to incentivize the consolidation and emergence of a single, stable, secure Kurdish homeland.

After a thousand years of turning a thousand blind eyes, the world can’t keep kicking the Kurdish can down the road. Somewhere along that bloodstained road to Damascus, the region needs to experience this epiphany — and soon. The first major protests in Syria began outside the Ummayad Mosque, Islam’s fourth-holiest site and the location of Saladin’s tomb. Saladin’s descendants, it seems, are on the march once more. These Kurds want to be heard. Will the U.S. - - and the world — listen?

No EU-Digest: Creating an independent Kurdistan, which stretches from the Mediterranean  to Iraq, along the borders of Syria, Turkey, Iran is the only solution to guarantee a lasting peace for countries who presently are opposing the creation of an independent Republic of Kurdistan. These include, Iran, Iraq , Syria and Turkey, which all have large local Kurdish populations.. 

Once there is an independent Kurdistan, which has the global recognition and legitimacy of an independent state, it will be far easier for specially Turkey to deal with the PKK and other Kurdish factions at home,  by offering local Kurds to either stay or migrate to this new Republic of Kurdistan. A far better proposition than fighting these factions endlessly, which so far have had no results at all.

The EU could in this case become a key player and broker in this process, together with the Russians and Americans in making this happen. So far, unfortunately, they have not had the vision and willpower to do so.

Read more: It's Time for an Independent Kurdistan | HuffPost

Switzerland - Davos: Indian PM Narendra Modi warns of three major global threats

Indian prime minister Narendra Modi told a packed forum in Davos on Wednesday that the world in its current state looked rather unprepared to face the big challenges of the future.

He urged sweeping reforms to modernize and restructure current political and economic institutions, also with a view to reflecting the needs and developments of emerging economies.

Modi singled out three major challenges mankind was facing right now. He said the greatest threat came from rapid climate change and the resulting extreme weather conditions, natural disasters and rising sea levels which threaten the lives and livelihoods of millions of people around the world.

The prime minister identified terrorism, and the radicalization of people in many societies, as the second-biggest threat. Without providing concrete examples, he criticized world powers for, in his eyes, making the problem worse by artificially distinguishing between "bad terrorists" and "good terrorists."

Thirdly, Modi said there was no denying the fact that many nations have become increasingly focused on themselves again as globalization "was losing its luster." He mentioned that many trade agreements "had come to a standstill," with cross-border financial investments dropping in many areas.

Read more: Indian PM Narendra Modi warns of three major global threats | Business| Economy and finance news from a German perspective | DW | 23.01.2018

Economic Disparity: The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017

For every $10 worth of wealth created last year, the world's richest 1 percent grabbed $8, according to a new report from Oxfam International.

"The billionaire boom is not a sign of a thriving economy but a symptom of a failing economic system," said Winnie Byanyima, executive director of Oxfam International.

The report also estimated the bottom 50 percent of the world's population saw no increase in wealth.

Note Insure-Digest: This disparity problem could easily be given some relief through the reduction of military budgets around the world, and funneling these funds to less fortunate countries. Looking at the Military Industry world-wide - the US spends $ 611.2 billion  per year on their military complex. This is double the amount of what China and Russia are spending together. Another remarkable fact is that the autocratic Kingdom of Saudi Arabia's military budget of $ 89.9 billion is more than that of Russia, which is $65.6 billion. And really, if we think about it,what has all that global military hardware brought us? Even more human misery and disparity. 

Read more: The 1% grabbed 82% of all wealth created in 2017 | SBJ

Brexit: Britain’s tired old economy isn’t strong enough for Brexit - by Phillip Inman

Brexit, at its heart, is a recognition that Britain has become steadily weaker since it spent much of its empire wealth fighting two world wars – too feeble in the years before the 2016 referendum to sustain an exchange rate of $1.60 and €1.40, just as it was too poor to cope with $4 to the pound in the 1950s and $2 to the pound in 1992.

Manufacturers were unable to make things cheaply, reliably or efficiently enough against the headwind of a high-value currency, forcing many to give up. An economy that boasted 20% of its income coming from manufacturing in the 1980s found it was the source of barely 10% at the beginning of this decade.

Surges in GDP growth in the 70 years since the war can be attributed (and this short list makes the point crudely) to periods when there were cheap raw materials and energy costs; or a growing population; or foreign ownership and management of key industries; or the offloading of vast amounts of state and mutually owned assets; or cheap borrowing. Without these in operation to improve the UK’s performance, a lower exchange rate became inevitable.

Some Brexit campaigners made a cheaper currency their explicit aim, arguing that while Britain’s wealth and standing in the world would be diminished in the short term, the breathing space given to manufacturers would allow them to sell abroad at cheaper prices, then use the funds to invest and gain the efficiencies needed to cope with a return to a higher exchange rate sometime in the next decade.

Read more: Britain’s tired old economy isn’t strong enough for Brexit | Phillip Inman | Business | The Guardian

USA: One year anniversary of Trump Presidency - a disaster for the US and the world

The US is "celebrating" Trump's one year in office today, as the President of the US, with a shutdown of the Government and demonstrations going on Nation-Wide

Trump's popularity at home and abroad are the lowest of any US President. In addition official records also show he did not tell the truth during interviews and speeches 2015 times during the first year of his presidency.

On the international scene the results are just as grim. The US relationship with Mexico and many other :Latin and Caribbean states are on a downward slope. His vulgar off the cuff  statements about Haiti and African states made him and the US enemies in both areas.

The Iran Nuclear deal and the Paris climate agreement are now both on shaky grounds,

Turkey's President Erdogan, whose nation is a member of the NATO, recently said he does not believe previous statements about keeping the Kurds at bay, made byTrump to him anymore, and today attacked the US Kurdish allies in Syria,

As Mr trump starts his second year in office, hopefully there still is a silver lining of hope above the dark clouds which seem to have covered the US. A nation which always was the shining light of democracy around the world.

EU-Digest

Switzerland -Davos: How the Fourth Industrial Revolution can help us prepare for the next natural disaster - Scott L David

In the wake of recent devastating hurricanes, floods, wildfires and earthquakes in North America, the Caribbean, Latin America and South Asia, preparing for natural disasters has never been more urgent. Some estimates suggest flooding damage to coastal cities will cost around US$1 trillion per year by 2050. The cost of naturally-caused forest fires - which exceeded $2billion this year and set a new US record - continues to rise.

The human suffering from these emergencies is beyond calculation. Threats to people and property from acts of nature can’t be prevented. Yet, the second-order vulnerabilities they create can be significantly reduced.

The “fog of indecision,” is one such vulnerability that results from institutional hesitancy to collaborate and share data in emergency settings. It’s something that can’t continue. Inaction will only contribute to avoidable suffering.

The technologies and systems of the Fourth Industrial Revolution offer very powerful assets for responding to natural disasters. With nearly 6 billion mobile phone users worldwide, connected individuals have proven to be one of the most effective and efficient ways of strengthening resilience when disaster strikes.

Likewise, social media, drones, satellite imagery and predictive analytics have all been tremendously helpful for coordinating responses and accelerating the recovery of individuals and communities in the aftermath of recent natural disasters.

Read more: How the Fourth Industrial Revolution can help us prepare for the next natural disaster | World Economic Forum

Switzerland: Davos attendees are in for one of the bleaker WEF meetings of late

The threat of large-scale cyberattacks and a "deteriorating geopolitical landscape" since the election of US President Donald Trump have jumped to the top of the global elite’s list of concerns, the World Economic Forum (WEF) said ahead of its annual meeting in Davos, Switzerland.

The growing cyber-dependency of governments and companies, and the associated risks of hacking by criminals or hostile states, has replaced social polarisation as a main threat to stability over the next decade, according to the WEF’s yearly assessment of global risks, published on Wednesday in London. The Davos forum starts on January 23 in the Swiss ski resort.

While the economic outlook has improved, nine in 10 of those surveyed said they expected political or trade clashes between major powers to worsen. About 80% expected an increased chance of war.

"Cybersecurity is the issue most on the minds of boards and executives, given the visibility of state-sponsored attacks in an environment of increasing geopolitical friction," John Drzik, president of global risk and digital at Marsh, which contributed to the study, said in an interview.

"Businesses are increasingly dependent on technology and are aware that the openings hackers have are growing. As they invest in things like artificial intelligence, they are widening their attack surface."

Drzik said recent high-profile security breaches that have fuelled this perception include the WannaCry ransomware attack, which infected more than 300,000 computers across 150 countries, and NotPetya, which caused two companies losses in excess of $300m. The cost of cybercrime to firms over the next five years could reach $8-trillion, the WEF said.

Similarly, thousands of attacks every month on critical infrastructure from European aviation systems to US nuclear power stations show state-sponsored hackers are attempting to "trigger a breakdown in the systems that keep societies functioning," the WEF said.

In the preview, which would suggest Davos attendees are in for one of the bleaker forums in recent memory, almost two-thirds of global leaders saw risks intensifying from 2017. Climate change and extreme weather remained the greatest concerns of those surveyed. Economic worries receded as a unified pick-up in growth and stocks at record highs suggest the world may finally be r

Read more: Davos attendees are in for one of the bleaker WEF meetings of late

The Netherlands: Britons in Netherlands take fight for their EU rights to Dutch court - by Daniel Boffey and Lisa O'Carroll

A group of UK nationals living in the Netherlands are going to court to challenge the right of the British government and the European commission to negotiate away their rights as EU citizens in the Brexit talks.

The claimants will argue that the rights of UK citizens are independent of the country’s EU membership, according to legal documents seen by the Guardian.

The case will be heard in Amsterdam on Wednesday, where a referral to the European court of justice will be sought, in what could be a major test of the treatment of UK nationals by the EU and UK in the Brexit talks, with potentially huge ramifications.

While the ECJ could find that only citizens who have exploited their right to free movement to live in the EU are being unlawfully treated, everyone in the UK could potentially benefit.

Five UK nationals along with the Commercial Anglo Dutch Society (Cads) and the lobby group Brexpats – Hear Our Voice are the named claimants. They are being assisted by Jolyon Maugham, the QC behind a series of recent Brexit legal challenges.

The group argue in their action against the Dutch government that after Brexit on 29 March 2019, anyone who had UK citizenship before that date should legally retain EU rights including freedom of movement and the right of residence.

They say the EU’s treaties are silent on what happens to citizens of a member state that leaves the union. But they claim the Lisbon treaty gives “real weight” to the rights of EU nationals, and that these are not coupled to the political fate of their home country.

The group’s lawyer, Christiaan Alberdingk Thijm, said he expected the court to take six weeks at most to decide whether to refer the case to the ECJ. “We are in a rush,” he said. “I’m convinced that the ECJ should assess these questions. Theresa May famously said ‘Brexit means Brexit’ but no one knows what that means.”

One of the claimants, Stephen Huyton, a director of a US firm headquartered in the Netherlands who has lived in the country for 23 years, said he was concerned about the right of his children, who have British passports and are studying in the UK, to return to the Netherlands to live and work.

“There are a number of points to this and one is emotional,” he said. “We have lived outside the UK for more than 15 years and so we were not allowed to vote in the referendum. That is the rule. So a lot of us really feel disenfranchised by the whole process. It was a raw nerve, and it remains a raw nerve.

“I did not make a lifestyle choice by moving here, I moved here for work. And when I came out I came out on a set of terms and conditions. The whole issue of the UK being able to leave the EU [through article 50 of the Lisbon treaty] wasn’t in the treaties at that point.

“In UK common law, we generally have a rule that we don’t apply law retrospectively, and in some ways that is what they are doing.”

Maugham, who is financially backing the legal action, said he was hopeful the case could have profound implications for UK citizens who want to retain their rights.

“Article 20 gives EU citizenship rights to nationals of member states but it is silent on the issue of what happens to those rights if a member state ceases to be a member state,” he said. “Previous ECJ cases have suggested that EU citizenship rights have an independent reality, not just as an adjunct to national citizenship rights.

“The question is: would anyone who is a citizen of the UK on 29 March 2019 benefit from EU citizenship rights after that date? Of course, we cannot know what the [ECJ] might say. But I can see it taking the opportunity to give meaning and resonance to those rights.”

Maugham conceded that a favourable ruling by the ECJ could throw up an “awkward asymmetry” between the way UK and EU citizens are treated on either side of the Channel.

“The question whether UK citizens can assert EU citizenship rights in the EU after Brexit is a question of EU law,” he said. “But the question whether non-UK EU citizens can assert EU citizenship rights in the UK after Brexit is a question of UK law.

“It may turn out that there is an awkward asymmetry: UK citizens enjoying generous EU rights but EU citizens suffering meagre UK rights.”

Debra Williams, 55, founder of Brexpats, one of the claimants, who has spent a decade moving between Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium for her husband’s work, said: “EU citizenship means the world to me.

“It’s not that I’m not proud to be Welsh and British; I am, but I’m also proud to be European. I’m doing this for the kids, and the grandkids, they should have what we have, to be able to travel and work freely in Europe. Otherwise it’s going to be work permits and visa, that will be a tragedy for them.”

Read more Britons in Netherlands take fight for their EU rights to Dutch court | Politics | The Guardian

America Last? EU says Trump is losing on trade

The European Union’s trade tsar has no idea what Donald Trump will tell his audience at the World Economic Forum in Davos next week, but she is clear what the EU’s message to the U.S. president will be.

America is shooting itself in the foot by withdrawing from global leadership on trade, Cecilia Malmstrom, the 49-year-old Swede who has served as Europe’s trade commissioner for the past three years, told Reuters.

Under Malmstrom’s direction, the EU has juggled a dizzying array of trade talks over the past year. In July it clinched a preliminary deal with Japan. And early this year it hopes to seal agreements with Mexico and the Latin American Mercosur bloc
.
The retreat of the United States under Trump has played a big role in this push, Malmstrom says. Countries around the world are desperate for new trading partners, and the EU, confident again after years of economic crisis and Britain’s vote in 2016 to leave the bloc, has eagerly filled the gap.

Read more: America Last? EU says Trump is losing on trade

Monopolies: The European Union Just Showed Democrats How To Take On Monopolies - by A. C. Kaufman and D. Marans

European antitrust officials slapped Google with a record $2.7 billion fine on Tuesday for manipulating search results to favor its own services.

The ruling, which came after a seven-year investigation, exposes what critics described as the failure of U.S. regulators to rein in monopolies at home, forcing their victims to seek recourse in the European Union.

“The U.S. does not do antitrust regulation,” Matt Stoller, an antitrust expert at the nonpartisan New America Foundation’s Open Markets program, told HuffPost. “That’s the key difference. [Europeans] actually do antitrust.”

But what is most surprising about America’s kid-gloves approach to antitrust policy is that it is not limited to Republicans, who are often open about their philosophical objections to regulating monopolistic behavior. In recent decades, influential Democrats have proved just as, if not more, willing to let companies with concentrated financial power off the hook, experts told HuffPost.

“It would be hard to be worse than the [Obama] administration on this,” Stoller said. “The failure of leadership was incredibly profound. That said, it could always get worse, but I don’t think we know enough.”

A monopoly is a company that controls such a large share of an industry that it has the power to dictate prices or engage in other behavior that limits competition. Sometimes companies without sole monopoly power conspire to control prices, forming what are known as cartels.

For many Americans, the word “monopoly” conjures images of robber baron-owned railroad and steel conglomerates from the turn of the 20th century. The trust-busting policies of former President Theodore Roosevelt put an end to them, a certain popular wisdom goes, giving us the thriving, competitive economy we have today.

In reality, as Stoller laid out in a lengthy essay in The Atlantic in October, cutting monopoly business and financial power down to size was the product of constant battles with big money interests that picked up significantly during the New Deal of the 1930s.

Responding to the banking abuses that led to the Great Depression, populist Democrats, often from rural parts of the country, battled the monopolies of their era in order to protect their constituent farmers and local businesses. Antitrust legislation allowed for companies that grew too large or abused their size to be fined or broken up, and Congress, together with the executive branch’s Federal Trade Commission, often put those laws

Germany: German coalition talks reach breakthrough: A look at what comes next

The all-nighter appears to have focused minds: Germany's two biggest political parties — the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and the Social Democratic Party (SPD) — announced on Friday morning that they had made a breakthrough in their exploratory talks, paving the way to formal coalition negotiations and, if all goes to plan, another iteration of the grand coalition.

The new agreement represents an important stage victory in the marathon negotiations for Chancellor Angela Merkel, who would certainly prefer a grand coalition to the other two options currently on the table: heading an unstable minority government, or a new election.

Should the negotiations with the SPD fail, a new election could well usher in the end of Merkel's time in office, as her CDU attempts to revive its fortunes following its worst election results ever. Her party took 32.9 percent in September's election, a drop of 8.6 percentage points on the 2013 result. This has resulted in much self-reflection in the party, along with speculation that Merkel's era was drawing to a close — and even debate about potential successors.

Read more: German coalition talks reach breakthrough: A look at what comes next | Germany| News and in-depth reporting from Berlin and beyond | DW | 12.01.2018

USA - Shithole: Trump’s 'Shithole Countries' Comments: What He Meant - by Ryan Teague Beckwith and Maya Rhodan

President Donald Trump’s “shithole countries” comments ricocheted around the world, spurring criticism from U.S. allies, rebuttals from Americans with roots in those countries and condemnation from some in his own party.

Lost in the furor over his “shithole” comment is the argument that Trump was making at the time.

The White House held the meeting to discuss a bipartisan immigration deal that would help undocumented immigrants brought to the U.S. as children who got relief under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival program, foreign nationals who fled manmade and natural disasters and received temporary protected status (TPS) in the U.S. and immigrants seeking to come to the U.S. through a diversity lottery.

That’s a lot to unpack, so we’ll walk through these one at a time. But here’s the short version: If you are upset about Trump calling African nations “shithole countries” and disparaging Haitians, you probably won’t like what he was proposing either.

Note EU-Digest: The new Yorker wrote: "President Trump’s credibility as a world leader has been, to borrow his vulgarity, shot to shit. With one word—just the latest in a string of slurs about other nations and peoples—he has demolished his ability to be taken seriously on the global stage. “There is no other word one can use but ‘racist,’ ” the spokesman for the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights, Rupert Colville, said at a briefing in Geneva. “You cannot dismiss entire countries and continents as ‘shitholes,’ whose entire populations, who are not white, are therefore not welcome.”

We can not agree more: Donald Trump is a disgrace for America. 

Read more: Trump’s 'Shithole Countries' Comments: What He Meant | Time

China - US Relations: Treasurys: Bond markets move because US depends on China as buyer - by Huileng Tan

Markets took a hit following a Bloomberg News report that cited unnamed sources as saying that officials in Beijing have recommended China, the largest holder of U.S. Treasurys, to slow or even halt its purchases of that debt.

U.S. stocks on Wednesday snapped a six-day winning streak, and Treasury yields, already in an upswing, moved higher with the 10-year reaching 2.597 percent, their highest level since March 15. Bond yields rise when bond prices fall.

China's foreign exchange regulator publicly refuted the Bloomberg report on Thursday, saying it cited "false information." But the jolt to markets may have been designed as a warning to Washington, which is clashing with China over trade and other issues.

China holds $1.2 trillion of U.S. debt — more than any country. When it buys U.S. bonds, it is effectively lending money to the United States. Washington uses bond sales to China and others to help finance itself.

Read more: Treasurys: Bond markets move because US depends on China as buyer

EU-US Relations: America’s Relationship With Europe: Collateral Damage if Trump Kills the Iran Deal - by Trita Parsi

Iran Nuclear deal as Atlantic Alliance Crumbles

“The fact that the U.S. is reducing its role in world affairs cannot be tied to the policies of a single president,” Germany’s Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said last month in a stunning speech. “There will be no major changes to this trend, also after the next election.” What was once only whispered is now clearly said: Europe is readying itself for a post-American world, even after the end of the Donald Trump era. And in a surprising twist, the fate of the U.S.-European Union axis may come down to what Trump decides to do with the Iran nuclear deal later this month.

Many drew a sigh of relief back in December as the congressional deadline to impose new sanctions on Iran passed. The nuclear deal had survived another challenge, they thought. But the celebrations were premature. Trump can kill the deal this week by simply doing nothing. We’ve seen this movie before—but this time America’s relationship with Europe is at the center of the drama.

Every 120 to 180 days, the United States is obliged to renew sanctions waivers under the nuclear deal. Failing to do so would put the U.S. in violation of the agreement and likely spark retaliatory measures by Tehran that could see the entire initiative fall apart. Every time the waivers have been up for renewal, fears have risen that Trump will quit the deal  simply by doing nothing.

This time around, though, it’s particularly worrisome. Trump punted the nuclear question to Congress last October by failing to certify it. This triggered a process that gave Congress 60 days to pass new sanctions on Iran or “fix” the deal through other measures. If it failed to do so, Trump promised he would “terminate” the agreement. The protests in Iran, which Trump sees himself as a champion of, have made a confrontational position towards the Iranian regime all the more likely.

But this time around, the survival of the nuclear deal is no longer just about Iran’s centrifuges and sunset clauses. It’s about whether the EU will see the U.S. as a pillar of the liberal international order or as a fifth column seeking the it’s demise. The nuclear deal has become the latest, and perhaps most consequential, international agreement or norm that the EU seeks to uphold and Trump seeks to tear down: from the Paris agreement, to the future of NATO, to the unity of the EU, to the funding of the United Nations, to the status of Jerusalem.

To Europe, two new realities have become clear. First, if the EU acquiesces on the nuclear deal, Trump will move on to target another agreement, and then another, and then another, until the very foundation of the current international order is uprooted. This will eventually force the EU to draw a line in the sand and stand up to Trump. Logic then dictates the longer the EU waits, the more damage Trump will do before he’s stopped. Hence, the EU is better off taking its stand at the Iran deal than waiting for it to be scrapped and emboldening Trump further.

Thus, EU policy chief Federica Mogherini said in mid-December that preserving and implementing the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran is “an absolute must,” in one of her sharpest criticisms of Trump’s Iran position. “We cannot afford to undermine the credibility of a multilateral agreement, endorsed by the UN Security Council Resolution,” she added.

Europe’s second realization is more ominous: Trump is not an anomaly. He may be a political outsider, but he is not an outsider to America. His presidency is the manifestation of a deep-seated sentiment in the United States that existed long before Trump entered the political arena and which will continue to exist—if not dominate politically—long after he departs. As such, neither electoral defeat nor impeachment will be enough to restore American “normalcy” because Trump is very much a part of the new “American normal.”

Germany’s Gabriel gave the clearest hints as to Europe’s new thinking last month. While he urged the Trump administration to “help develop joint strategies that preserve both the liberal international order and a global trade system that rests on a foundation of freedom, fairness, human rights and the rule of law,” he was also clear-eyed that to the U.S., the world is no longer a “global community, but rather an arena in which nations, non-state actors and corporations fight to gain advantage.”

As such, the U.S. is “no longer responsible for underpinning the structure and dome of this arena. Rather, it is one of the combatants on its sandy floor.” This leaves the EU with no choice but to chart its own way rather than submitting to American diktats—particularly on the issue of killing the Iran deal, which Gabriel said would “jeopardize” the security of the European Union.

Trump may see an irreparable break with the EU as a bonus of jettisoning the nuclear agreement. But by putting the U.S.-EU axis at risk, even the most die-hard opponents of the deal should know that they may get more than they ever bargained for.

Read moire: America’s Relationship With Europe: Collateral Damage if Trump Kills the Iran Deal | The American Conservative

Brexit: Where Brexit will hurt most in Europe – by Jacopo Barigazzi

The impact of Brexit will vary considerably across the European Union, with some regions bracing for severe costs and others less exposed.

That’s the message from data collected by the EU’s Committee of the Regions on the predicted local economic and cultural fallout of the U.K.’s departure from the bloc. The document, made up of questionnaire responses submitted by local officials and obtained by POLITICO, reveals a detailed and diverse patchwork.

The findings is sure to bolster the view among Brexiteers that there may be divisions on the EU side that can be exploited to Britain’s advantage in Phase 2 of the negotiations, which are due to start within weeks. So far, the EU has demonstrated rock-solid unity over the three divorce issues of citizens’ rights, the Brexit bill and the Northern Irish border.

But that may be harder to sustain when talks touch on issues for which countries (and regions within countries) have differing interests.

EU leaders are aware of the danger. French President Emmanuel Macron warned on Friday that the EU27 must present a “united front” or risk an outcome “unfavorable to the European Union and thus to each one of us.”

EU Unity: Rise in populism threatens European democracy, warns think tank

Institute for Global Change condemns 'inflammatory' attacks on independent institutions such as media or judiciary.

Read more: EU Unity: European politics - latest news, breaking stories and comment - The Independent

EU - Cuba Relations: As U.S. Retreats, EU Moves to Strengthen Ties With Cuba

The European Union’s top diplomat, Federica Mogherini, arrived in Cuba on Wednesday to help strengthen member countries’ economic and political ties with the Communist-run island.

Mogherini’s visit “reconfirms the strong EU-Cuban relationship,” and she will press for an “ambitious and swift joint implementation of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement,” the EU said in a statement.

As the U.S.-Cuba rapprochement unfolded in 2015-2016 the EU dropped all sanctions and negotiated the agreement, the first accord between Cuba and the 28-nation bloc.

Signed in December 2016 and ratified in November, the EU said at the time that it hoped to position its companies for Cuba’s transition to a more open economy and allow the EU to press for political freedoms on the island.

Read more: As U.S. Retreats, EU Moves to Strengthen Ties With Cuba | Fortune

EU Unity: The EU political agenda must be set by ordinary citizens says expert

Arguing for an alternative vision of European cooperation, political scientist Richard Youngs told EURACTIV that an EU rethink must include new voices and involve a fully participative process of consultation, in line with what French President Emmanuel Macron has proposed in recent months. In his new book, Youngs describes how that can be achieved.

Richard Youngs is a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe and a professor of international relations at the University of Warwick. He has authored eleven books. His latest is titled Europe Reset: New directions for the EU.

He spoke to EURACTIV’s editor-in-chief Daniela Vincenti.

Read the full interview: Expert: The EU political agenda must be set by ordinary citizens – EURACTIV.com

Global Forecast: 2018 may bring disastrous geopolitical event, says Eurasia Group

he world is moving toward crisis and a state of "geopolitical depression" as the presidency of Donald Trump accelerates divisions among citizens and the unraveling of the global order, risk consultancy Eurasia Group warns.

Liberal democracies are suffering from a deficit of legitimacy not seen since World War II, and today's leaders have largely abandoned civil society and common values, Eurasia Group says in its annual assessment of top geopolitical risks. The breakdown in norms opens the door to a major event that could rock the global economy and markets.

"In the 20 years since we started Eurasia Group, the global environment has had its ups and downs. But if we had to pick one year for a big unexpected crisis — the geopolitical equivalent of the 2008 financial meltdown — it feels like 2018," said Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer and Chairman Cliff Kupchan.

U.S. global power is "sputtering to a stall" as the Trump philosophy of retrenchment and unilateralism sows confusion among both allies and rivals, Eurasia Group says. The world now lacks leadership to steer it through the impending crisis.

"'America First' and the policies that flow from it have eroded the U.S.-led order and its guardrails, while no other country or set of countries stands ready or interested in rebuilding it … significantly increasing global risk."

Here are Eurasia Group's top risks in 2018:

In the absence of U.S. leadership, China faces less resistance in setting the international standards in trade and investment, technology development and the value of noninterference in other countries' affairs. This could force businesses to adapt to a new set of rules and may increase tensions with the Asia-Pacific region's more democratic powers.

The world has become more dangerous because there is no global power to underwrite security and many subnational and nonstate actors can carry out destablizing actions. Cyberattacks and terrorism are two top risks, but there is also the chance of a miscalculation leading to conflict as North Korea continues to test ballistic missiles in a region full of U.S. allies and as the United States and Russia back rival factions in Syria.

The United States and China are racing to dominate areas like artificial intelligence and supercomputing, setting up a battle to supply other countries with civilian infrastructure, consumer goods and security equipment. This could lead to a fragmented tech space in which China and countries in its sphere of influence seek to control the flow of information and the United States guards against foreign investment in American tech companies.

The United Kingdom is moving toward a phase of its separation from the European Union that will bring more difficult negotiations, including designing a border for Northern Ireland and finalizing the U.K.'s divorce bill. Prime Minister Theresa May needs to clarify the U.K.'s goals to reach a deal with Europe, but as she reveals her hand, her leadership may be challenged by rival political factions with contradicting priorities.

Countries are using nontraditional measures — bailouts, subsidies and "buy local" requirements — to protect intellectual property and technology, a trend that can be called "protectionism 2.0." This could lead to a surge in protectionism, a more complex and contradictory regulatory environment, and resentment among countries whose policies are seen to target one another.

Read more: 2018 may bring disastrous geopolitical event, says Eurasia Group

EU Democeacy Requirements: Could The U.S. Pass The EU’s Democracy Test?

US Democracy: for sale to the highest Bidder

You’ve probably read that the European Union, after years of trying to duck the plain reality of Poland and Hungary ceasing to be democracies, has taken the first step towards denying Poland a vote in the European Commission. The EU’s basic treaty requires its members first and foremost to be democracies.

Here’s the backstory. Since Poland’s Law and Justice Party took power in 2015, the Polish ultra-nationalist leader, Jaroslaw Kaczynski, has felt stymied by the independent judiciary. In July 2017, the government drafted legislation to give Kaczynski control of the courts.

Other EU leaders warned of dire consequences, and Poland’s President, Andrzej Duda, a close ally of the government, surprised all by refusing the sign the law. Cynics said this was just a ploy to buy some time for a kinder, gentler version of the same scheme ? and they were right.

The government went back the drawing board and drafted new legislation. The original law vetoed by Duda simply got rid of the entire Supreme Court. The new law requires judges to retire at 65, which effectively gives the governing party control of a majority of all judges. The new law also revises the process for selecting judges, giving more control to the lower house of Parliament, which is controlled by the governing party. This time, Duda signed it.

The EU, which has repeatedly violated the sovereignty of member nations for the sin of running deficits, and extracted severe punishments that resulted in deeper economic collapse, has been extremely timid about enforcing Article 7 of the EU’s founding treaty, which requires all members to be democracies. This kind of tells you where the EU’s real priorities are.

And in Hungary, when the ruling Fidesz party gerrymandered legislative districts, giving the governing party a two-thirds majority in parliament and effectively making it impossible for the opposition to come to power, the EU leadership did nothing (apparently, killing democracy is less of a crime than running deficits.)  Hungary’s leader, Viktor Orban, also expanded the size of the Supreme Court, so that he could control it.

Up until now, the EU has not moved against either Hungary or Poland. But last week the EU’s leaders took the first step towards invoking sanctions under Article 7, the most serious of which would be to deprive Poland of a vote. Poland would continue to have all of the other benefits of EU membersh

This new courage on the part of Brussels, however belated and tentative, is an important step. But I wonder: If the United States were subjected to these tests, could it pass?

Take the case of gerrymandering. In 2012, states controlled by Republican legislatures and governors resorted to extreme gerrymandering, so that Republicans begin with a head start of 20 to 25 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, relative to their share of the popular vote. Hungary, in rendering democracy purely formalistic, could learn a trick or two from the GOP.

And where courts are concerned, the Polish government is pretty tame compared to Republican Senate Leader Mitch McConnell. For the last six years of President Obama’s administration, when Republicans controlled the Senate, McConnell slow-rolled Obama’s judicial appointees, leaving a federal bench that will be controlled by Republican judges for a generation or more.

McConnell disgracefully blocked consideration of Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland, an ideological moderate, to the Supreme Court. Thanks to this strategy of total blockage, when Trump took office there were 105 vacancies on the federal judicial bench, compared to just 54 when Obama took office.

So courts and legislative districts are increasingly rigged, just as in Poland and Hungary. The United States is still a democracy ? but a narrowed one.

The revulsion against Trump is so broad and deep, that we have a good shot at repairing the several elements that the Republicans have sought to destroy.

Trump gets most of the attention as a would-be dictator. But the “mainstream” Republican Party properly deserves most of the blame.

Read more: Could The U.S. Pass The EU’s Democracy Test? | HuffPost