- Experts say movement behind Brexit could help usher in Trump presidency, but here’s why not everyone agrees
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 3:11 PM:)<>
Political observers aren't dancing around it — Brexit, many of them say, is a huge win for Donald Trump.
From veteran Republican pollster Frank Luntz and conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos to Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haas and former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, the acknowledgement is there: The forces behind Brexit are the forces behind Trump.
And Brexit just won at the polls.
"Populism is rising everywhere as people decide that government does not listen and does not care," Luntz told Business Insider. "But this is even more significant, because Britain has never been the source of populist uprisings like this. If Britain can vote itself out of Europe, America can vote itself in for Trump."
Blair said the movement that pushed through the British referendum to leave the European Union passing "a strange coming together of populism from the left and right."
Exactly what Trump needs to win in the fall.
The presumptive Republican nominee himself wasted no time spinning the shock results at the polls into a big win for his candidacy.
"People want to take their country back," Trump said during a Friday press conference at what turned out to be an extremely well-timed trip to his Scottish golf course. "They want to have independence in a sense. And you see it with Europe, all over Europe. You're going to have more than just ... what happened last night."
Later Friday on Twitter, he echoed similar sentiment about Brexit was caused by similar forces that are bolstering his candidacy in the states.
"Many people are equating BREXIT, and what is going on in Great Britain, with what is happening in the U.S," he tweeted. "People want their country back!"
Haas called the unprecedented decision a "warning" to presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton during a Friday conference call with reporters, adding that Brexit shows "the potential breadth and depth of disaffection against Washington."
"We’re seeing opposition to quote-unquote traditional politicians," he said. "We’re seeing rejection of what had been decades of bipartisan support for free trade. We’re seeing, again, a streak of anti-establishmentism in our politics. So I think what this does is show that what is happening in the United States is by no means unique."
He added the forces that put Brexit over the top are the same forces that are very close to Trump's base.
During a Friday conference call of their own, Clinton's team kept hammering home a counterpoint to the perceived momentum Brexit has for Trump — the US and UK are different.
While Jake Sullivan, the senior policy adviser for Clinton's campaign, said Clinton is "far from underestimating what is happening out there" and is "acknowledging that "a sense of deep frustration and alienation on behalf of the voters" was part of the reason the British chose to leave the EU — he argued "other factors" unique to the United Kingdom played a big role.
"Hillary Clinton is focused on not what's happening in the United Kingdom, but rather, what is happening in the United States, what are the uniquely American challenges we are facing and what are the uniquely American solutions that we can bring to address those problems and help working families get ahead."
Sullivan would later say it's important to acknowledge that the election this fall "is about what's happening in America and not what's happening in Yorkshire" and that Americans "are big-hearted" and "have common sense."
Clinton's communications director Jennifer Palmieri outlined a number of ways the two countries are different as well.
When told about the argument that the Brexit vote isn't indicative of any tide turning in Trump's favor, conservative provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos called it a "dumb" and "totally bogus and pretty panicky line to take after the fact." He would add that the two countries are very much alike.
The Breitbart editor, who voted Leave, called the Brexit vote "fabulous for Trump" and the "biggest single sign Trump will win in the fall."
"The media is completely and totally on one side of the argument," he said. "Americans have been emboldened by the Brexit vote to think they might actually get what they vote for. And it doesn't matter if there ... it doesn't matter if these unaccountable remote losers ... are calling them names and that they're crazy for doing this. They're going to do it anyway and they might just get the president they want. I think it's going to embolden people to take more risks at the ballot box, and that's good."
The potential economic collapse won't matter to any of these voters, he said.
Already, the pound has collapsed and international markets have plummeted in the aftermath of the Brexit vote.
"Everyone was told this [collapse] was going to happen, and it did happen, and the people who voted for leave were still celebrating anyway when the pound was plummeting because they don't care," Yiannopoulos said. "They're not interested in the global economy. They want to protect their civilization."
"Don't underestimate the frustration of voters upon immigration and trade, Mr. Trump's two big issues," he continued. "Brexit just won on the two things Trump complains about all the time. What do you think this is going to do to his campaign? Of course it's going to be great."
But like Clinton's team, not everyone is taking Brexit as a major moment in Trump's candidacy — or a sign of the impending Trump presidency
Ian Bremmer, president of the Eurasia Group, echoed that sentiment, telling Business Insider that although both the Brexit vote and the US presidential election are all about domestic factors — those who fear a Trump presidency need not have any additional anxiety because of the British decision.
The move to leave the EU, he added, will lead to a weakening of Europe and likely the disintegration of the supranational governing body. But it won't happen fast enough for any major impact on the November vote.
And, he said, it won't have any pull on the voters Trump still needs to swing in his direction.
"This is really not something that will move likely voters that are swing between Trump and Hillary [Clinton]," he said.
Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard professor and former adviser to Vice President Al Gore, told Business Insider that although Americans are "right to worry" about how the Brexit vote will bolster Trump's candidacy and that anti-immigrant sentiment will be "driving" both votes, there's a major difference between both electorates.
"Our immigrants get integrated pretty quickly and vote," she said, later adding, "We have a lot of recent immigrants in American who can vote and are mobilized to vote. Look at his number with Hispanics."
She expressed surprise though at how great the rallying cry is behind anti-immigrant sentiment in the US.
"Clearly a piece of the American electorate is very worried about this," she said. "But let's face it, Europe is in a totally different situation than us because of the situation in the Middle East. There's a fear of being overrun."
- The US Navy just flexed its muscles in the world's most contested region
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 3:01 PM:)<>
- NOMURA: Brexit will cause widespread 'contagion' in Asia
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 2:57 PM:)<>
Britain's vote to leave the European Union is going to cause widespread "contagion" across the globe, with Asia's markets and economies being hit hardest, according to research from Japanese bank Nomura.
In a special report on the Asian Markets following Britain's Brexit vote, Nomura analysts argue that the impact of Brexit is going to be felt widely across the globe, but suggests that the impact on Asia could be potential the most significant and least noticed of any financial impact from the referendum which has sent financial markets across the globe tumbling.
Here is a key extract from the research report sent to clients earlier on Friday (emphasis ours):
"At first glance, it would seem that the financial and economic impact of this result should be largely confined to the UK, given that its economic size is quite small at less than 4% of world GDP and world imports in 2015. However, we believe that this is too simplistic of a view and that the impact of the Brexit will be far reaching and long lasting."
"To assess the global impact of this surprise result, it is important to look beyond the trade channel. Once the financial, confidence and psychology channels are taken into account our warning is to not underestimate the depth and reach of financial market contagion to Asia."
As a result, Nomura argues, it is likely that central banks across Asia will need to engage in monetary policy easing. The bank has adjusted its forecasts accordingly:
"We now expect significantly more monetary policy easing in Asia. Between now and year-end, we expect the central bank of India to cut by 25bp (no cut previously), Korea by 50bp (25bp previously), Indonesia by 50bp (25bp), Thailand by 50bp (50bp), Malaysia by 25bp (no cut previously). For China we have increased the number of RRR cuts by year-end from two to three (in addition to one interest rate cut). The only Asian central bank that we expect to keep rate on hold is in the Philippines. We now expect the Monetary Authority of Singapore to re-centre the midpoint of the S$NEER policy band lower at, or before, its October policy meeting."
Being a Japanese bank, Nomura is clearly heavily focused on the Asian markets, and as a result of the Brexit vote has not only predicted more monetary easing, but also cut all of its forecasts for growth in Asia's main economies in 2016 substantially. Here is the chart from the bank:
And here is the key takeaway provided by analysts led by Rob Subbaraman (emphasis ours):
For Asia ex-Japan, we have tentatively lowered our aggregate GDP growth forecast in 2016 from 5.9% to 5.6%. The sheer size of China’s internally driven economy – its share in Asia ex-Japan’s GDP was 53% last year – masks larger cuts and variation in our GDP forecasts for other individual economies. In terms of our 2016 GDP growth forecasts the percentage point (pp) downgrades are largest for Hong Kong (1.0pp) and Singapore (0.7pp), reflecting their very open economies, status as financial hubs and their managed exchange rates, especially the HKD peg to USD.
- 'These are not allies': The most potent force fighting ISIS in Iraq has been accused of torturing and executing civilians
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 2:18 PM:)<>
The US has been leaning heavily on militias in its fight against ISIS in Iraq and Syria, and while these forces have proved very effective on the ground, some have been accused of committing atrocities akin to their enemies.
A new Human Rights Watch report details allegations of torture and abuse at the hands of Shia militias in Iraq, which have been instrumental in aiding Iraqi Security Forces in seizing territory back from ISIS (also known as the Islamic State, ISIL, or Daesh).
The organization has "received credible allegations of summary executions, beatings of unarmed men, enforced disappearances, and mutilation of corpses by government forces" that have been fighting on the outskirts of Fallujah to retake the city from ISIS, according to the report.
Here are some of the allegations from the report:
- Human Rights Watch interviewed witnesses to one alleged atrocity near Fallujah who said Shia militia fighters and federal police had "separated men from women, marched the men to where the troops' officers were, lined them up, and shot at least 17 of them, including one teenage boy."
- Another witness told the organization that he saw Shia militia fighters and federal police near Fallujah "fatally shoot civilians with white flags raised fleeing toward the government forces." He claims one fighter "told him his superior officer had ordered the shootings."
- Some men whom Shia militias had recently released from detention "showed signs of torture, including rape, burns, knife cuts, and bruising from beatings."
The abuse allegations, which have become widespread in Iraq, are deepening the very sectarian tensions that facilitated the rise of ISIS in the first place. ISIS is a Sunni terror group that markets itself as a protector of Sunni civilians who have become targets of Shia militias, which have the support of the Shia-dominated Iraqi government.
Iran, a Shia theocracy and ally of Iraq, also backs these militias as it attempts to extend its influence in the Middle East.
As the Human Rights Watch report makes clear, civilians often end up caught in the middle of this sectarian power struggle.
The Iraqi government, wanting to keep Iran happy, hasn't done much to rein in these militias. As a result, they often go unchecked, using their power to suppress Sunnis.
"It's a concerted effort [on behalf of the Shia militias] to punish the Sunni population for, in their minds, accepting ISIS or allowing ISIS," Michael Pregent, an adjunct fellow at the Hudson Institute and former US Army intelligence officer in Iraq, told Business Insider.
"But in reality [Sunnis] had nowhere to go. They couldn't call the police. They couldn't call the army."
And it doesn't help that Fallujah has historically been a stronghold for extremists in Iraq.
Phillip Smyth, a researcher at the University of Maryland who is a leading expert on Shia militias, told Business Insider that people in Fallujah "gave Americans problems" during the Iraq War, and "gave the Iraqi government problems," so the militias' solution to routing the extremists "is to just smash" everything.
The Human Rights Watch report notes a video posted online that shows a Shia commander telling a room full of fighters that "Fallujah had been a bastion of terrorism since 2004 and that no civilians or true Muslims were left inside the city."
Treating all civilians in Fallujah as ISIS sympathizers plays right into ISIS' hand. If civilians are targeted by the militias that are supposedly liberating them from terrorist control, they become even more likely to turn against the Iraqi government.
"If the US continues to support Iraqi units that integrate Shia militias into their operations, they're simply resetting the conditions that led to ISIS to begin with," Pregent said. "You're further entrenching Sunni distrust of their government … and the United States."
These Shia militias are no friend to the US, either.
"These are not allies," Pregent said. "Everybody keeps thinking that these militias are working on a friendly basis with the US. They still hate us as much as they hate ISIS."
Still, there aren't many good alternatives, and it might be too late for the Iraqi government to rein in the militias without facing blowback from Iran.
"There's very, very little that can really be done in order to turn this ship and make this all go away," Smyth said. "The genie has now been let out of the bottle, so how do you react to that?"
Militias are now deeply entrenched in Iraq.
"These groups are extremely powerful," Smyth said. "They have sometimes tens of thousands of members, they're actively deployed in multiple battlefronts. And beyond that they have very strong backers, particularly Iran."
On top of that, the Iraqi Army has been depleted so much as a fighting force that they can't effectively take on ISIS without the help of these militias.
"When you really look at it from a government point of view, they are not on the strong end of this," Smyth said. "They also have to deal with these forces because they're the ones taking the battle to the Islamic State."
Despite the evidence of Shia militia abuses, they're unlikely to face much punishment. There's too much support for the militias in the Shia-dominated Iraqi government — these organizations have fully integrated themselves not just on the battlefield, but in Iraqi politics as well.
"I don't think anything is going to come of it because if [Iraqi Prime Minister Haider] al-Abadi opposes the militias, he's likely to be deposed. … He has to accept their role in these operations," Pregent said.
"He could come back and say 'a couple of guys were punished,' but we don't ever really see these groups punished."
And it's not just the militias — Shiites from these organizations have also permeated the Iraqi Security Forces and federal police, Smyth said.
"You're not going to get much done," Smyth said. "They are integrated into the system."
- SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon wants to host a major summit for every EU nation
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 2:12 PM:)<>
Scotland's first minister and SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon says that she will hold a summit for leaders from the European Union's 27 other members to discuss Scotland's ongoing relationship with Brussels and the wider EU.
"One group we want to reassure is EU citizens living here in Scotland. Those who have done us the honour of making Scotland their home will be protected. I will be inviting all members of the 27 EU members states to Bute House here," she said at a news conference on Saturday morning.
Speaking outside Bute House, the official residence of the Scottish first minister, Nicola Sturgeon also once again reiterated her desire for Scotland to hold another referendum on being part of the United Kingdom, following the UK's decision to leave the European Union following Thursday's referendum.
Sturgeon said that the option of another referendum on independence is "very much on the table" and that her government is taking steps to make sure the right legislation is in place to allow such a referendum to occur.
Here is the key extract from Sturgeon's speech a little earlier:
"The cabinet expressed its pride at the overwhelming vote to stay in the EU. We are determined to act decisively and to build unity. A second independence referendum is an option that is very much on the table and to ensure that option is a deliverable one and steps will be taken now to ensure the necessary legislation is in place. Cabinet this morning formally agreed that work."
"The Scottish Government will be working hard to protect Scotland's interests but we will not be taking or eye off the ball. While Westminster is in turmoil we have stable government and we will continue our work."
Scotland voted 62% to 38% to remain in the EU in a referendum on Thursday, sharply contrasting with Britain's overall 52%-48% vote to leave. That result could be justification for another independence vote, the Scottish government argues.
- Harvard just won big after the Supreme Court's ruling on affirmative action
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 2:12 PM:)<>
The US Supreme Court ruled in favor of affirmative action at the University of Texas Austin (UT) on Thursday, further validating the use of race in admissions policies around the country.
That decision "makes it less likely that [other] affirmative action policies will be struck down by the courts," including Harvard University's policy, UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told Business Insider on Friday.
"The fact of how Fisher came out really does impact the [Harvard] case significantly," Winkler said.
At Harvard, an anti-affirmative action group called Students for Fair Admissions filed a complaint against the Ivy League school in 2014 for alleged discrimination against Asian American students. The suit claims Asian American applicants are held to a higher standard than others and must achieve, for example, higher test scores to be accepted. In February, Harvard had stalled the case, noting that the court should wait for the Fisher verdict before continuing.
Harvard was surely aware of the stakes at hand, should the Supreme Court rule in favor of Texas. In fact, the ruling crystallized and strengthened the court's past ruling on the legality of affirmative action.
"The court has reaffirmed the Grutter decision that said diversity is a compelling governmental interest, and seemingly lowered the bar for universities seeking to justify race based affirmative action," Winkler explained.
With Grutter v. Bollinger n 2003, the Supreme Court previously affirmed use of race in admissions, as long as it was used to achieve diversity and was only a partial determinant in the admissions process. That practice has become known as "holistic" review.
In addition to Grutter, the court's recent ruling in regard to Texas to have made it easier for schools to argue their admission's policies are constitutional, according to Winkler.
The Fisher case considered if UT effectively demonstrated that it needed to use its "holistic" review process to achieve acceptable levels of diversity, as required under a legal standard known as "strict scrutiny." The ruling by the majority, that it had in fact shown enough evidence, lowers the bar for colleges in the future arguing the same.
Abigail Fisher, a white woman denied admission to Texas' flagship public university in 2008, claimed her race played a factor in her rejection. She argued that the university denied her admission in favor of less-qualified black and Hispanic students, and that her constitutional right to equal protection was violated.
The court ruled 4-3 in the university's favor.
While both the majority opinion and dissent in the Fisher case go to great lengths to specify the ruling pertains to just UT's admission's policy, Winkler said the ruling provides cover to lower courts to come to similar rulings.
"Although the court in this case we are only talking about this one policy, it still sends a huge signal to other courts and other judges that these plans are not problematic from the Supreme Court's point of view; that they can withstand scrutiny," he explained.
- EU politicians are shutting down the Brexiteers' plan to leave the bloc when they think is best
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 1:55 PM:)<>
The first hurdle to the negotiations between the UK and the EU, now that Brits have decided to leave the bloc, is already here.
The six founding members of the European Union sent a clear message to Britain on Saturday to leave the bloc as soon as possible after Britons voted to quit in the biggest blow to the project since World War Two.
Eager to shore up the EU for its other 27 members, foreign ministers from the six founding countries pressed Britain to trigger the process for exiting the bloc so that they are not left in limbo and can concentrate shaping the future of Europe.
"We now expect the UK government to provide clarity and give effect to this decision as soon as possible," the ministers from Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Luxembourg said in a joint statement.
The UK's Leave campaign, on the other hand, does not seem eager to start the process.
Britain should begin informal negotiations on a full settlement governing its post-Brexit relationship with the European Union before invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the chief executive of the Vote Leave campaign said on Saturday.
"We don't think there is a need to swiftly invoke Article 50," Matthew Elliott told Reuters in an interview. "It's best for the dust to settle over the summer and during that time for there to be informal negotiations with other states," he said.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel said the negotiations with Britain should not be conducted in such a way as to be seen as a deterrent to other countries, and that there was no hurry for London to trigger the process for leaving.
"Quite honestly, it should not take ages, that is true, but I would not fight now for a short time frame," Merkel told a news conference at a meeting of her party outside Berlin.
On Friday, Former London mayor Boris Johnson, a leading campaigner for Britain to leave the EU and the bookmakers' favorite to replace David Cameron as prime minister, said nothing would change over the short term following the Brexit vote.
Only Britain can invoke Article 50 of the EU treaty required to set in motion the process to exit the bloc.
Already yesterday, Martin Schulz, the head of the EU Parliament, told The Guardian that it was hard to accept that "a whole continent is taken hostage because of an internal fight in the Tory party," and that lawyers were currently looking to speed up the triggering of the article.
EU officials are British politicians know that now they have decided to leave, they don't also get to pick when exactly they will do so just to best accommodate their needs.
The foreign ministers of both France and Luxembourg warned Britain not to play games by drawing out the process. "There's no reason to play a cat and mouse game. That would not be respectful after deciding to organize this referendum," French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault told a joint news conference after the meeting of the six in Berlin.
"It's in Britain's interest and in the interest of Europeans not to have a period of uncertainty that would have financial consequences, and that could have economic and political consequences," he said.
European leaders will probably want to convince Cameron, who said he would not invoke article 50, to invoke it anyway, as they will not want to wait until at least October for it to be triggered.
Ayrault, the French foreign minister, said earlier other EU leaders would press Cameron at a summit meeting next week to act quickly: "There will be a lot of pressure on Cameron on Tuesday to move ahead," he said.
The fallout from the Brits' vote was felt worldwide as global stock markets plunged and sterling saw its biggest one-day drop in more than 30 years. The vote is also leaving millions of Europeans living in the United Kingdom and Britons living in Europe worried about their future.
Ratings agency Moody's downgraded its outlook for Britain, saying its creditworthiness was now at greater risk as the country would face substantial challenges to successfully negotiating its exit from the bloc.
In their statement, the six foreign ministers lamented the watershed brought by the 'Brexit' vote. They said the EU was losing "not just a member state but history, tradition and experience."
In Colmar in eastern France, French President Francois Hollande echoed their sentiment, saying: "It will be painful for Britain but ... like in all divorces, it will be painful for those who stay behind too."
Merkel also said Britain must say what kind of relationship it wants with the EU before the bloc examines how to respond while European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker said he wanted to begin negotiating Britain's departure immediately .
Since the result of the referendum became clear on Friday morning, more than a million people have signed a petition for a new EU referendum that would require a higher level of support for taking a decision on membership.
But Elliott said the referendum decision to leave the EU had been made by the British people and that it would be implemented. "This is the decision that has been made - it is going to happen. There is no way of wriggling out of it," he said.
- The UK may have just opened 'Pandora's box' in Europe
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 12:38 PM:)<>
It's official: Britain has chosen to leave the European Union.
Britons voted Thursday on whether the UK should stay in or leave the 28-nation bloc, with the results counted overnight.
As of 7 a.m. BST (2 a.m. ET) on Friday, the final results showed that 51.9% voted to leave the EU versus 48.1% that voted for Britain to stay within the EU.
Notably, a team of Barclays analysts previously argued that should the Brits choose to leave, the outcome could have serious consequences for the rest of Europe.
Here's what they wrote (emphasis ours):
"A UK exit would set an unwelcome precedent for countries to leave the EU whenever domestic priorities conflict, and would do so at a time when political risks and potential for sovereign-EU confrontation already high. Simultaneously the UK would present Continental opponents of immigration with a politically potent example (and threat) of how to deal with one of the thorniest and most emotionally charged trans-national issues confronting European voters: immigration. [...]
The precedent of a member state leaving the union would open Pandora's box: it could be used as a political argument by populist and extreme parties in several countries, both from the right and the left, to push for an EU exit, including for some euro area countries. [...]
Such events would certainly revive the 'redenomination risk' in the euro area."
More recently, a Morgan Stanley research team led by Elga Bartsch wrote something similar in a note to clients:
"... in our view, the political discontent that is being displayed around the public debate about Brexit is deep-rooted and likely to be echoed elsewhere. The political fragmentation that currently manifests itself in an increasingly populist debate about the UK's EU membership is neither limited to the UK or Europe nor it is likely to dissipate quickly, we think. In our view, the voter backlash against established political parties and international institutions is on the rise."
As an example of the kind of backlash Bartsch describes, Austria nearly elected in May the first far-right European head of state since World War II.
Another example, which many people might have missed given the anxiety surrounding the Brexit vote, is that the Eurosceptic, antiestablishment Five Star Movement was the big winner in Italy's recent municipal elections. Most notably, Five Star's candidate for mayor of Rome, Virginia Raggi, won 67% of the vote, which is more than twice the vote share that the mainstream center-left Democratic Party (PD) candidate got.
And Europe has a bunch of other elections coming up. The Spanish will head to vote again on June 26 after elections in December failed to produce a government. And over the next year, the Netherlands, France, and Germany — three major countries where far-right populist parties are growing in popularity — will have elections, too.
Plus, almost immediately after news outlets called a Brexit, several European politicians made comments about having their own referendums. As Business Insider's Natasha Bertrand outlined:
- Scotland's first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, announced that Scotland "sees its future as part of the EU," suggesting that Scotland may hold another referendum to decide whether to separate from Britain and re-negotiate an entry into the EU as an independent country.
- The Irish political party Sinn Fein, meanwhile, called for a referendum on uniting Northern Ireland with the rest of Ireland as the Brexit results came in.
- France's Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right National Front party, called the Brexit "victory" — and then changed her Twitter avatar to the Union Jack. Meanwhile, the party's vice president, Florian Philippot, called for a French referendum on leaving the EU.
- Geert Wilders, the leader of the far-right Dutch Party for Freedom, called on the country to have its own EU referendum in light of Britain's successful Leave campaign.
"Overall, Eurosceptic movements could receive a significant boost from a UK decision to leave the EU," argued Deutsche Bank's Jim Reid in his daily morning note to clients.
"This is akin to a cascade of 'prisoner's dilemma' scenarios, with an increasing probability of getting stuck in the non-cooperative solution over multiple games. As such, the risk of disintegration would not materialize as a 'big bang' but rather as a drawn-out process, implying multiple points at which Europe could still put things back on a more positive path. In this scenario, the EU would become increasingly irrelevant for its members, for its neighbourhood and on a global scale."
A few days ahead of the Brexit vote, another Deutsche Bank research team wrote in a note to clients, highlighting the upcoming elections as well as the migrant crisis and Greece:
"Beyond the immediate risk events of the Brexit referendum and Spain election, geopolitical agenda remains in focus. This backdrop makes policy progress very unlikely as domestic politics drive the agenda [leading to] limited room for country-level structural reform [and] little progress toward EU or eurozone reform or integration."
The team added that "policy uncertainty is and will remain high," noting that policy uncertainty in Europe is now around 2011-2012 levels during the height of the eurozone crisis.
And, for what it's worth, Yanis Varoufakis, the former Greek finance minister and outspoken political activist, had a few things to say about the Brexit vote, too.
"OUT won because the EU establishment have made it impossible, through their anti-democratic reign (not to mention the asphyxiation of weaker countries like Greece), for the people of Britain to imagine a democratic EU," he argued in a post Friday on the blog OpenDemocracy.
"The EU's disintegration is now running at full speed," he added.
SEE ALSO: This is Saudi Arabia's "Achilles' heel"
- BREMMER: Brexit is the world's most significant political risk since the Cuban Missile Crisis
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 12:26 PM:)<>
It's official: Britain has chosen to leave the European Union.
And markets are getting whacked.
But while the markets may have seen violent swings in the immediate aftermath of the vote to leave, the longer-term political ramifications of a Brexit are interesting to consider, too.
Earlier in the day, Eurasia Group President Ian Bremmer tweeted that the Brexit is "the most significant political risk the world has experienced since the Cuban Missile Crisis."
When asked to explain what he meant by that comparison, Bremmer told Business Insider in an email: "Yes it's a significant shock for the near term. But it's the tipping point it reflects longer term that really matters. Much, much more G-Zero."
The term "G-Zero world," coined by Bremmer and political scientist David F. Gordon, refers to a power-vacuum world in which "major powers set aside aspirations for global leadership — alone, coordinated, or otherwise — and look primarily inward for their policy priorities."
In this kind of environment, global governance institutions become confrontational hotspots, and, as a result, economic growth and efficiency slows.
As for the Brexit, it has "enormous long-term and structural impact" and "critically undermines the Transatlantic Alliance — the most important alliance in the postwar era," Bremmer said.
It "sharply weakens and probably leads to eventual disintegration of the UK" and "also ends further EU integration," he said, "while the Brits need to be maximally punished by EU countries to ensure there isn't a path for further exit."
For what it's worth, Bremmer isn't the only one who warned of long-term political ramifications of a Brexit, including less EU integration going forward.
Ahead of the Brexit vote, a Citi Global Economics research team led by Ebrahim Rahbari, Willem Buiter, and Tina M. Fordham expressed similar sentiments in a note:
"We are very skeptical that the Eurozone and EU would respond to Brexit with attempts to deepen integration in the near-term. ... Opposition to further European integration is fairly widespread across EU countries, both north and south and both debtor and creditor countries. We would therefore mostly expect a 'freeze' in terms of integration even though some areas may well see further headway (e.g. for existing initiatives in various areas, including banking union, capital markets union or energy union or some movement towards a Eurozone chamber in the European Parliament)."
Similarly, earlier in the week, a Deutsche Bank research team argued that in light of upcoming European elections and ongoing large-scale economic and political challenges like the migrant crisis, Europe is unlikely to see deeper coordination:
"Beyond the immediate risk events of the Brexit referendum and Spain election, geopolitical agenda remains in focus. This backdrop makes policy progress very unlikely as domestic politics drive the agenda [leading to] limited room for country-level structural reform [and] little progress toward EU or eurozone reform or integration."
The team added that "policy uncertainty is and will remain high," and noted that policy uncertainty in Europe is now around 2011-12 levels comparable to those during the height of the eurozone crisis.
Things are certainty starting to churn in Europe.
- The world in photos this week
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 12:21 PM:)<>
A selection of photos from some of the biggest news that you might have missed this week.
A worker on a lift adjusts the EU flags in front of EU headquarters in Brussels. Voters in the United Kingdom took part in a referendum to decide whether Britain remains part of the EU or leaves the 28-nation bloc.
Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, celebrates and poses for photographers as he leaves a "Leave.EU" organization party for the British EU-membership referendum in London.
A Los Angeles County fire helicopter makes a night drop while battling the so-called Fish Fire above Azusa, California.
See the rest of the story at Business Insider > <>
- The most dangerous place in the world is about to get a whole lot scarier
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 12:18 PM:)<>
Next week, Rodrigo Duterte will be sworn is as the 16th president of the Philippines, and the whole world will get a lot more dangerous.
That's because he will now have a hand in what is arguably the most dangerous dispute in the world — the fight for who controls the waters in the South China Sea.
The Chinese claim the lion's share of the region. Duterte disagrees. And generally, when he disagrees with something, there is violence.
That said, Duterte's rhetoric on this matter has been as erratic as it has been bombastic — you can apply that to much of his policy dicta. At one point on the campaign trail, he said that he would ride a jet ski to the disputed Spratly Islands and plant the Philippine flag there.
At other times, though, he has said that if the Chinese leave his waters alone, then he can work with that.
"He could start a war with China. He's very inconsistent in what he says," one Manila resident, Joyce Asilo, told The New York Times last month.
So this is going to be a wild one, people.
A little bit about this guy
Duterte was the mayor of the Philippine city of Davao for six terms. In that time, he came to be known for his bombastic, off-the-cuff, and sometimes violent rhetoric. As a candidate, he often used that rhetoric to frame how he would rid the Philippines of violence, drugs, gangs, and corruption — that's what won him the presidency.
That has led a lot of Western media to compare him to US Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump, for example, has an obvious distaste for the media. Duterte shares that, and happens to be in a country with one of the highest murder rates for journalists in the world.
"Just because you're a journalist you are not exempted from assassination, if you're a son of a b----," he said at a press conference earlier this month.
When it comes to the South China Sea lately, Duterte has exhibited another Trump-like quality. He says that he's ready to talk to China if the US — the main ally to smaller countries countering China's dominance in the region, including Brunei, Vietnam, Malaysia, and Taiwan — does not support his country the way he thinks it should. From now on, all negotiations will consider the Philippines first.
"We have this pact with the West, but I want everybody to know that we will be charting a course of our own," he said, according to a Reuters report. "It will not be dependent on America. And it will be a line that is not intended to please anybody but the Filipino interest."
He later point-blank asked the US ambassador to the Philippines, Philip Goldberg, "Are you with us?"
Goldberg said that the US would back the Philippines only in the event of a Chinese attack.
That didn't seem to be the response Duterte was looking for, as he later said that he would send a representative to China to talk.
"Can you [the US] match the offer? Because if you cannot match the offer, I will accept the goodwill of China," he said, according to Reuters.
That said, China isn't in the mood for "offers" right now.
Duterte's ascension to power is happening at a delicate time in the relationship between the two countries.
The outgoing president of the Philippines filed an arbitration under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) over China's actions in the waters. Duterte said that he would wait to see what the UN says before he decides what to do, but either way China is upset about that, to say the least.
From Chinese state-media outlet Xinhua:
"The three 'NOs' are: the Philippine action has no basis on international law, the international arbitration tribunal has no jurisdiction over the case, and the tribunal has no legitimacy, explained Zhou Jian, a representative for boundary and ocean affairs of the Chinese Foreign Ministry.
"China's stance on the South China Sea issue has won many countries' support. However, some nations for their own interests called China 'despising international law' or 'fearing to lose.'
"In response to such slander, Zhou said it is the Philippines that initiated the arbitration against international law."
Yes, people. Slander. Again, this should indicate that China is not in a negotiating mood.
A little about this water (and why everyone wants it)
The South China Sea will undoubtedly be the battleground of the future.
The aforementioned territorial claims from Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei, the Philippines, Taiwan, and China make the South China Sea one of the most disputed places on the planet.
What's more, this contested region is home to $5 trillion in annual global trade, so the tit for tat over crumbs of land in these waters isn't for nothing.
These waters have proven oil reserves of 7 billion barrels, and an estimated 900 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to Robert D. Kaplan, an author and the chief geopolitical analyst for Stratfor.
And if Chinese calculations are correct, then the South China Sea will ultimately yield 130 billion barrels of oil, which is second only to Saudi Arabia, making the South China Sea "the second Persian Gulf."
China, by far, has helped itself to the largest slice of cake in the South China Sea, staking out it's claim with its Nine Dash Line.
All the while, Chinese President Xi Jinping has steadily consolidated the world's largest military coupled with roughly $356 billion in military spending power.
In short, China is dominating the maritime heart of Southeast Asia.
Enter the Philippines, stage left.
The Philippines is formally arguing China's Nine Dash Line, and an international-court ruling is expected in the coming weeks.
And while the consensus among experts is that The Hague's ruling will go largely against Beijing, the South China Sea remains in a dangerous limbo.
- The UK's most senior EU official just resigned
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 12:03 PM:)<>
Britain's EU commissioner, Lord Jonathan Hill, just resigned.
Hill was the most senior British EU official. His resignation comes one day after Britons voted to leave the EU in a nationwide referendum.
Hill said in a statement that when he went to Brussels, he went as someone who had campaigned against the UK joining the union, but that he would "leave it certain that, despite its frustrations, our membership was good for our place in the world and good for our economy.
"But what is done cannot be undone and now we have to get on with making our new relationship with Europe work as well as possible."
Hill was a former adviser to Kenneth Clarke and John Major and was the European commissioner for financial stability, financial services, and capital markets union. He had been working for the Commission since October 2014.
On Saturday, German newspaper Bild asked EU Commissioner Jean-Claude Juncker whether Hill would remain in office, to which Juncker answered: "First and foremost that is something that Lord Hill, an experienced politician for whom I have great respect, will have to decide."
In his statement, Hill said that he was very disappointed with the result of the referendum and thanked Juncker for giving him the opportunity to work "on financial services and for the opportunity to help support jobs and growth in Europe," and said he did not believe it was right to carry on "as though nothing had happened."
Hill will continue working with the commission in the weeks ahead to ensure an "orderly handover."
- David Cameron could go down in history as the man who lost Europe, Scotland and Northern Ireland
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 7:09 AM:)<>
On Thursday, it felt as if Britain would vote to Remain in the EU and we'd all go back to normal.
By Friday morning, this happened:
- The UK voted Leave.
- Prime Minister David Cameron resigned in disgrace.
- SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon began the process of a new Scottish Independence referendum.
- And now we're talking seriously about whether Northern Ireland — which voted Remain — should be reunited with Ireland in order to stay in the EU (Ireland, of course, uses the euro not the pound sterling).
- The Brexit result emboldened nationalists across Europe, who are now demanding their own in/out referenda, threatening the entire existence of the EU.
This is all Cameron's fault.
In a historic gamble, he promised in 2013 to hold an in/out EU referendum in order to appease the nationalist wing of the Conservative Party and, hopefully, snuff out the UKIP threat that was peeling votes from the Tories. His bet was that Britain would do the expected thing: To realise that its economic bread was buttered on the European side.
In hindsight, Cameron's bet was a colossal blunder that could lead to the end of the "United Kingdom" of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland as a whole. This nation has existed peacefully and prosperously with itself since 1707 (except for the Irish bit, but we solved that in 1994). And it looks as if that one wrong decision from Cameron could destroy the whole thing.
The Scotland move is obvious: The SNP has only become more popular since the Scottish referendum of 2015, and English Leave votes just demonstrated to even loyal British Scots that the folks down South can't be trusted, again. It is really hard to see the Scottish "No" to independence majority re-emerging again to stay inside a UK that isn't European.
The Ireland thing, however, is just astonishing.
Why should Northern Ireland be pulled out of the EU by English and Welsh votes? It's a legitimate, real question that has never been asked before. It has just never come up! Now it's a foreseeable reality.
The BBC's map, above, really shows how geographically split the country is right now. Scotland is European. England and Wales are "independent." And Northern Ireland, separated by a sea from both Scotland and the mainland, voted to remain European as its historic motherland.
Irish reunification outside of the UK suddenly, weirdly, makes a lot of sense (although Irish Unionists will oppose it bitterly) both politically and geographically.
It will be incredibly sad if Great Britain disappears because of this. There was nothing inherently wrong with the UK. It wasn't engaged in civil war. No one was deprived of the vote. We didn't divide the home countries into castes or ranks. People's movement wasn't restricted. Their wealth was not taxed or confiscated unfairly. (True, Northern Ireland was occupied by British troops for many years — but everyone hated that and, again, it was solved through the democratic process.)
Europe, too: The EU is a deeply flawed institution but it has one shining achievement: There has not been a World War in Europe for 66 years. People forget that the original premise of the EU was to bind the countries together so that it would be economically impossible for them to wage war on each other again, as they did twice in the last century. It worked.
That's the true tragedy here. We had a United Kingdom and peace in Europe in 2013. And then Cameron opened his mouth.
This is what he said today when he resigned:
"I will do everything I can as Prime Minister to steady the ship over the coming weeks and months but I do not think it would be right for me to try to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination."
It is interesting that he admitted "the ship" is not steady. Because he will forever go down in history as the captain who drove it onto the rocks.
- The 15 places where people live the longest in the world
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 7:00 AM:)<>
The World Economic Forum (WEF)'s Global Competitiveness Survey doesn't just look at the financial health of countries around the world – it also looks at the health of populations.
The WEF ranked places in terms of the average life expectancy, showing where in the world people live the longest.
As you would expect, the more developed the economy, the more likely it is to have a longer life expectancy due to access to a high level of healthcare, as well as typically healthier diets.
However, what is interesting is that some of the places listed have a lower life expectancy than expected due to the rise in mental health related issues resulting in suicide.
WEF ranked the top 10 but places coming in joint spots means there are actually 15. We have cross referenced the ranking against OECD data on each country to try and figure out why people there live so long — check it out.
T-14. South Korea — 81.4 years. Life expectancy in the country has risen over the last few years due to the improvement in the economy generating a more prolific middle class. However, the OECD warns pollution is still high compared to other member countries.
T-14. Luxembourg — 81.4 years. The country has a tiny population compared the rest of Europe and a high income per capita — meaning access to a healthy diet and the best healthcare is pretty easy.
T-12. Norway — 81.5 years. Life expectancy in Norway has steadily increased over the last few decades, thanks to the reduction in the infant mortality rate. The nation also has a high rate of people keeping active into old age.
See the rest of the story at Business Insider > <>
- Britain's most celebrated statesman was a huge party monster and racked up an absurd amount of debt
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 3:13 AM:)<>
Britain's most celebrated statesman, who became prime minister 76 years ago on Tuesday, spent much of his seemingly extravagant life on the edge of a financial cliff, according to retired banker and Oxford history scholar David Lough.
In Lough's "No More Champagne: Churchill and His Money," he outlines how Winston Churchill flirted with severe debt while projecting an image of wealth, with his limitless appetite for cigars and champagne.
Churchill's private finances often threatened his political career, which spanned more than a half century, including two stints as prime minister.
To compensate for his financial woes, Churchill focused on becoming a prolific writer; however, his prose wasn't enough on its own, Lough notes.
Therefore, Churchill took an emergency bank loan, which brought his borrowings to £30,000 in 1925, or $2.1 million at current exchange rates and adjusting for inflation (inflation multiples: UK£ x 50).
Feeling the financial pinch, Churchill made several budget cuts to Chartwell, his country estate, in the summer of 1926.
He began by selling all of the cattle, chickens, pigs, and ponies housed on the estate.
Churchill cut the estate's monthly expenses, which cost nearly $33,400 (£480) and included food, wages, maintenance, and cars, in half.
"Nothing expensive is to be bought, by either of us, without talking it over," Churchill wrote to this wife Clementine, according to Lough.
"No more champagne is to be bought. Unless special directions are given only white or red wine, or whisky and soda will be offered at luncheon, or dinner. The Wine Book to be shown to me every week. No more port is to be opened without special instructions."
"Cigars must be reduced to four a day. None should be put on the table; but only produced out of my case."
In addition to the proposed savings, the Churchills would "very rarely, if at all," invite guests over to the estate and would discontinue serving fish during dinner.
Within a year, Churchill's cost-saving plan unraveled and his family shipped off for a lengthy cruise around the Mediterranean.
While traveling, Churchill added a stop to Normandy to enjoy a wild pig-hunt with the duke of Westminister and the duke's new girlfriend Coco Chanel.
Churchill made a second detour to a nearby casino and gambled away $24,350 (£350).
Meanwhile, Churchill was still dodging bills from his architect Philip Tilden who was hired in 1923 to build a new wing to the Chartwell estate.
According to Lough, the Churchill's wanted "larger bedrooms, new bathrooms and kitchen, a library, a large study, and a room for entertaining."
At the time, Churchill had not approved Tilden's building cost estimates before work began on Chartwell. The swelling modernization costs soared, resulting in a series of allegations and delayed payments for Tilden.
"There were renewed threats of legal action on both sides, but the financial trail disappears at this point because Churchill's bank accounts for the last part of 1927 and 1928 are missing from his archive," Lough notes.
In 1927, the Chartwell estate and its furnishings are estimated to have cost at least $2,783,400 (£40,000), nearly triple Churchill's original estimate.
Churchill went on to become prime minster in 1940 and helped craft a successful Allied strategy against the Nazi's during World War II.
He was elected prime minister again in 1951, however, his financial woes shadowed the remainder of his life.
- Publicis CEO Maurice Lévy on Brexit: I was stunned to the point that it felt 'as if I had no legs' (PUB, PUBGY)
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 12:33 AM:)<>
At 11 last night Publicis Groupe CEO Maurice Lévy went to bed comfortably certain Britain was going to vote to remain in the EU.
But when he awoke this morning at 4 he was "stunned" and unhappy to see that Britain had voted, by a slim 51.89% majority, to leave.
"I was stunned to the point that it did exactly feel as if I had no legs," Lévy told Business Insider. "It was terrible news. It's terrible for the future of Europe, for the future of the UK, and I believe the UK will suffer more than Europe."
The Paris-based advertising CEO said he respects the "decision of the people" but regrets that people often get it wrong.
There's one possible positive effect: "What I'm hoping is that the Europeans will take this as a wake-up call and they will regroup and they will start to work on an enthusiastic project for the future and for the youth of the European people. I'm really hoping that this is what we will be seeing."
Lévy is confident the Brexit won't have "much consequence" on his business, which has a large presence in the UK.
"We pay our salary, we pay the charges, we pay the costs in British pounds and we receive the revenue in British pounds, so it is limited only to the profit we are making in that country," Lévy said. "The UK will have a currency which will be relatively low, so it will probably mitigate some of the consequence that they get because their product will be cheaper and they will be able to export. Therefore the economic crisis that people are expecting will probably not be that tough."
It will be "much tougher psychologically," Lévy thinks, adding that the situation will be complicated in the long-run. To that effect, he immediately wrote a letter to his teams in the UK on Friday to reassure them that Publicis sees the UK as "a long-term investment, we are not there just to play games."
Lévy on Cameron: 'There are not words tough enough for his legacy'
British Prime Minister David Cameron — who had wanted the UK to remain in the EU but had nevertheless been the man to call the referendum — announced his resignation following the results on Friday.
Lévy said: "The fact that Cameron has left is not really something interesting. He is responsible to history for what happened. History will judge him, and I think there are not words tough enough for his legacy."
Former London Mayor and leader of the Leave campaign Boris Johnson is the bookmaker's favorite to replace Cameron at No. 10 Downing St.
Lévy isn't enthused: "I think that he has taken advantage of the fear regarding the problem of immigration and he was just making decisions and lying to the people — considering what Europe has given to the UK ... I don't believe he will [continue to benefit from this]. I think that Europe will be extremely tough and the benefit he is expecting will not be that easy to get."
Cannes and Publicis' new Paris tech expo is hoping to make an annual event like CES
Lévy was speaking to us from the Cannes Lions advertising festival where he had just appeared on stage alongside UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon and WPP CEO Sir Martin Sorrell, Havas CEO Yannick Bolloré, IPG CEO Michael Roth, Omnicom CEO John Wren, and Dentsu CEO Tadashi Ishii (via video).
They were announcing that all of the "big six" holding companies were launching a joint advert sing initiative to help raise awareness of the UN's 17 sustainable development goals.
Lévy said: "We had a ceasefire for a few hours and we got together ... there was Bolloré, Roth, Sorrell, Wren, and myself on stage and no-one was trying to show off that he is more clever, more intelligent, no-one was nasty, and everyone was really working positively and constructively on helping the UN."
Next week, once Cannes is over, Publicis Groupe is opening its inaugural Viva Technology Paris expo event, which will include speakers such as Alphabet chairman Eric Schmidt and Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales.
Publicis will also announce the winners of investment from its "Publicis 90" startup fund and mentorship program.
Lévy said Publicis has invested 10 million euros in the fund and 10 million euros in the event and that the company hopes to break even. The ad-agency holding group has also called on partners and media companies to match each investment, which will range between 10,000 euros and 500,000 euros.
"The success that we are seeing [with Viva Technology] happening is such that people are already asking: 'When is the next one?' We will review and we will have another meeting and hopefully it will become a yearly one. We will see," Lévy said.
- Former Trump adviser: Lewandowski firing 'came out of' fallout from attacks on federal judge
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 12:32 AM:)<>
A former Donald Trump adviser said Friday that the wave of negative news resulting from the presumptive Republican nominee’s attacks on a US federal judge ultimately led to the firing of campaign manager Corey Lewandowski.
In a conversation with “Kilmeade and Friends,” the adviser, Michael Caputo, said the campaign recognized the attacks on US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel were a mistake and that was reflected with a “drop in the polls.”
“I think there are a lot of lessons learned all around,” Caputo said of the Curiel attacks.
Trump's Curiel comments were strongly rebuked at the time by House Speaker Paul Ryan and condemned from all sides of the party. Trump had insisted that Curiel's Mexican heritage compromised his impartiality in cases involving Trump University because of Trump's campaign pledge to build a wall along the US-Mexico border.
“I think the leadership change came out of that as well,” Caputo said, in apparent reference to Lewandowski’s firing. “And you’re going to see a whole different campaign going forward.”
The remarks were first flagged by BuzzFeed.
Caputo said in the interview that he was “exuberant at the change,” explaining that his excitement got the best of him when he celebrated the firing on Twitter. He later resigned as a result.
“There were some rivalries that existed long before,” Caputo said when asked why he didn’t get along with Lewandowski.
CNN announced Thursday that Lewandowski had been hired by the network as a political commentator.
- The absurd life of Boris Johnson, the man who could be Britain's next Conservative prime minister
(Politics - June 25 2016 - 12:12 AM:)<>
Former London Mayor Boris Johnson led the campaign for Britain to leave the EU, and now he has reason to celebrate.
Thursday's referendum ended in a narrow win for the "Leave" side.
Not only did Boris' cause emerge victorious, but he's also a favorite to replace David Cameron as prime minister, now that Cameron has announced his intention to resign.
Johnson is a clownish character, but he's got enviable popularity levels and is known by his first name across the UK. He's even affectionately referred to as "BoJo" over social media.
Here are some pictures of his life and rise to power.
Mike Bird contributed to a previous version of this article.
While at Oxford University, Boris was president of the Oxford Union, a position held by former Conservative leader William Hague and ex-Prime Minister Edward Heath.
Johnson went to Eton College and university with Prime Minister David Cameron, but Boris was much more obviously political at the time.
Johnson was sacked after a brief career at London-based newspaper The Times, and then worked for The Daily Telegraph as the paper's Brussels correspondent, gaining a name for himself in the center-right press.
See the rest of the story at Business Insider > <>
- A new 'Dump Trump' ad paints a stark comparison between Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan
(Politics - June 24 2016 - 11:46 PM:)<>
A group committed to thwarting Donald Trump from winning the Republican presidential nomination revealed an ad aimed at GOP delegates ahead of the party's convention.
The group, Delegates Unbound, posted the ad, "Follow Your Conscience," on YouTube. It compares less than flattering clips of Trump next to decidedly more statesmanlike snippets of former President Ronald Reagan.
At one point, Reagan is seen commenting on matters of war, saying, "Use of force is always and only a last resort."
A clip of Trump plays immediately after, in which he says, "I would bomb the s--- out of 'em," referring to ISIS during an Iowa campaign rally in November.
The ad will be geared toward Fox and Fox News, The New York Times reported.
Delegates Unbound founder Eric O'Keefe told The Times, "Our goal is simple, to ensure the delegates are not misled to believe they must follow orders or rules set by others."
At least one Republican operative has called for an "insurrection" at the party's national convention, which kicks off in Cleveland on July 18.
"I don't care what the rules are," a Ted Cruz ally, Steve Lonegan, said on CNN earlier this month. "Break the rules, unbind yourself."
Trump has called efforts to push him aside "totally illegal."
Watch the 'Follow Your Conscience' ad here:
- Putin is 'essentially trolling the US' by complimenting Trump, and the Brexit vote explains why
(Politics - June 24 2016 - 9:16 PM:)<>
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump have been quite complimentary of each other during the brash billionaire's bid for the US presidency.
First, the presumptive Republican nominee suggested in December that he'd welcome deeper relations with Russia if he won the White House. Then, the Russian president praised Trump as "very talented" and said that he was an "absolute leader of the presidential race."
Trump responded that it was a "great honor to be so nicely complimented by a man so highly respected within his own country and beyond."
There's — perhaps obviously — something sinister underlying Putin's praise, and Britain's recent vote to leave the European Union helps put the Russian strongman's thinking into perspective.
"Vladimir Putin has never complimented Donald Trump," Michael Kofman, a Russia expert and public-policy fellow at the Wilson Center, told Business Insider. "He's essentially trolling the US, and by complimenting Donald Trump, he's essentially complimenting himself."
"This is a validation of Russia's political system. What Vladimir Putin was doing with Trump is saying, 'Look, with a liberal democracy they want a strongman nationalist like me, too. The fact that they chose Trump as a major party candidate is a validation of me and my vision of politics.'"
The UK vote to leave the EU, known colloquially as the "Brexit," signifies the rise of nationalist and isolationist thought in the Western world. As British voters decided that the UK would be better off on its own, Trump campaigns on the promise of "America first," emphasizing the need to put US interests above all else.
It's the sort of message Putin has been pushing for years.
"He's saying, 'Look, this validates my argument. If the UK publicly wants to leave, what does that say about the European Union? The European dream, it's fake, it doesn't work. ... My system is better.'
"It's a validation of the Russian view, it's a validation of the domestic politics and internal messaging the Kremlin has been doing in Russia for a long time now. It's the same thing with Donald Trump in the US."
Therefore, by complimenting Trump's politics, he's essentially patting himself on the back.
"Brexit validates Russia's view of Europe, whereas Donald Trump validates the fact that liberal democracy is not a good model and that people ultimately want a leader like Vladimir Putin," Kofman said, explaining Putin's thinking.
Britain leaving the EU is a stunning break from the post-World War II spirit of reconciliation and cooperation in Europe.
Kofman ticked off a list of what this signifies for Britain: "The rise of conservative sentiments, of unabashed nationalism, and of nativism, the concern over immigration, and the questioning of what truly makes for national identity."
These are all issues close to Putin's heart.
"These are all elements of Russian politics and state ideation driven by the Kremlin," Kofman said.
Richard Haass, the Council on Foreign Relations president, said on a Friday conference call that the Brexit signals "intensity, both the breadth and depth, of unhappiness with the status quo, with traditional institutions and probably more broadly a continuing disquiet with the real and perceived consequences of globalization."
These sentiments are also present in the US.
"I think for the United States what this shows is the potential breadth and depth of disaffection against Washington," Haass said. "And we've seen it. We've seen a lot of this in the strength of the [Bernie] Sanders and Trump campaigns. We're seeing opposition to 'traditional politicians.'"