Britain: Explained Cameron and the EU: what does a Brexit mean?

The Conservative Party, led by British Prime Minister David Cameron, beat all expectations to win a parliamentary majority in the UK’s general election on May 7.

It raises the prospect of Britons getting the chance to vote in an in/out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017.

Cameron will be hoping that this gamble will pacify the Eurosceptic wing of his party and finally see off the threat of Nigel Farage’s UK Independence Party (Ukip).

Tory infighting over Europe saw the last two Conservative premiers, John Major and Margaret Thatcher, pushed out of office by rebel ministers and backbench MPs.

Cameron says he will only offer the British public the chance to vote on severing all ties with Brussels once he has secured a series of reforms from the 28-member bloc.

Note EU-Digest: Wishful thinking by Mr. Cameron who seems to forget that the only reason he won the election was because he was the best candidate among all the terrible candidates put together. 

Read more: Explained Cameron and the EU: what does a Brexit mean? | euronews, world news

Employment Opportunities in Saudi Arabia - an ally of the US and the EU in the Middle East - by Everton Gayle

The job may also involve amputations for those convicted of lesser offences, the advert said, and no special qualifications are needed.

According to Saudi Arabia’s official press agency, the country beheaded its 85th victim on Sunday. This compares with more than 90 for the whole of last year, according to an Amnesty International report on the death penalty in 2014.

Most were executed for murder but 38 had committed drug offences. Half were from Saudi Arabia and the others were from Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Jordan, India, Indonesia, Burma, Chad, Eritrea, the Philippines and Sudan.

Diplomats have put the increase in the number of executions down to more judges being appointed, allowing for a backlog of appeal cases to be heard.

A downloadable PDF form for the job says the successful applicants would be paid at the lower end of the civil service pay scale.

Read more: Wanted: Saudi Arabia seeks eight executioners as beheadings soar | euronews, world news

Freedom of the Press: ​Americans, Europeans want non-MSM coverage of intl. news poll results show

Getting their international news only from mainstream media is not what the majority of Americans and Europeans want, an opinion poll shows. Some 60 percent desire alternative sources of news coverage.

The only country among the five polled by the British company ICM Research for Sputnik news radio, in which less than half of respondents said they would like to have an alternative source of information on world affairs, was France. Forty-nine percent of the people there said they would be ‘quite interested’ or ‘interested a lot’ in it.
 
Greeks were on the other side of the spectrum, with over 80 percent vying for such a source. The US and UK were level at 57 percent, while Germany ran at 55 percent, Sputnik reported.

The majority of Europeans - UK, French, German and Greek residents among them - distrust mainstream media coverage of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, a recent poll targeting over 4,000 people, reveals.

Greeks appear to have showed the least faith in their domestic media, with a total of 76 percent saying they were ‘fairly’ or ‘totally distrustful’ of mainstream reports on Ukraine. In Germany, the same opinion was shared by 57 percent of respondents.

Britons, on the other hand, have great trust in the mainstream media’s handling of the situation. As many as 55 percent of respondents stated they put a fair amount of trust in the coverage of events in eastern Ukraine by British media. Some 33 percent said it was biased, however.

In France, 47 percent of respondents said they don't trust the Ukraine conflict coverage.

EU-Digest
 

Turkish Elections: Ahead of Turkey's Crucial Election, Citizens Take Action to Protect Their Vote - by K. Akkoyunlu

Many things are at stake in Turkey's upcoming parliamentary poll on June 7: Will the Kurds overcome the world's highest election threshold of 10% to enter the parliament as a party for the first time? Or will the governing Justice and Development Party (AKP) win enough seats to change the constitution and introduce the system of strong presidentialism that President Tayyip Erdoğan has long wanted?

It is a historic moment where a single vote could possibly shape the course of Turkey's bloodiest conflict and its future regime type, with repercussions beyond the country's borders. With so much hanging on the outcome, this is also a crucial test for Turkey's embattled electoral system.

Turkey has never become an 'advanced' democracy: For decades, political contestation took place in the shadow of military tutelage, now being replaced with an illiberal populism under Erdoğan and the AKP. Its record on civil liberties and human rights has been bleak. Yet ever since the country held its first competitive multiparty election in 1950, the ballot box has taken on a quality as one of Turkey's few non-contested institutions to the point of becoming sacrosanct.

Politicians have routinely accepted defeat and handed over power peacefully. Turnout has been traditionally high, as well as popular trust in declared results. The fact that it has preserved this most basic democratic institution despite all other shortcomings has set Turkey apart from many of its neighbors, where elections have been thoroughly rigged or did not take place at all.

That core institution is now in jeopardy. A major survey has found that public trust in the electoral process has deteriorated sharply: only 48% believe that the upcoming poll will be conducted fairly (comparable to the level of trust for elections in Russia), down from 70% in 2007 (on par with the US). The OSCE has cited concerns about fairness and transparency and recommended appointing observers for the June election.

In part, this is a result of the country's deepening political polarization and party tribalism. It also reflects the rising number of fraud allegations at polling stations in recent elections. In an insecure political atmosphere driven by wild conspiracy theories, high level corruption scandals and judicial vendettas that can land the losers in prison, more voters appear convinced that office holders will do whatever necessary to hold on to power.

Read more: Ahead of Turkey's Crucial Election, Citizens Take Action to Protect Their Vote | Karabekir Akkoyunlu

International Banking Fraud: Six top banks fined for forex, Libor abuses

US and British regulators have slapped massive fines on six major global banks for rigging the foreign exchange market and Libor interest rates. They called the banks' frauds 'brazen schemes' to harm clients.

In a settlement announced by the US Justice Department on Wednesday, the banks agreed to pay close to $6 billion (5.3 billion euros) in fines for their manipulations.

The deal included guilty pleas from UK-based Barclays Bank and Royal Bank of Scotland, as well as US banks JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup. They admitted to conspiring to manipulate the massive currency market.

Switzerland's UBS also pleaded guilty - in its case for one count of wire fraud in connection with Libor interest rate manipulations. However, the Justice Department granted the Swiss bank conditional immunity for cooperating with the investigation.

Together, the five banks agreed to a record $2.5 billion in criminal penalties, the largest set of antitrust fines ever obtained by the Department of Justice.

In addition, these five banks, plus the Bank of America, will pay more than $1.8 billion in fines to the US Federal Reserve over "unsafe and unsound practices" in forex markets.

Note EU-Digest: If someone steals a bar of chocolate in a grocery store, he or she can go to prison for a week including paying a fine. These banker crooks just pay a fine out of the billions they already stole from you and me and continue their life.
 
Read more: Six top banks fined for forex, Libor abuses | Business | DW.DE | 20.05.2015

EU Economy: "Hanky-Panky" capitalism certainly is not an example that should be followed within the EU - by RM

Smart long term thinking when it comes to privatization unfortunately is not one of the US's strong points.

It has been proven over and over that without government regulations, greed usually takes over immediately when corporations start running privatized companies.

We don't need to make any bones about it, but today the direct result of this in America has been that 1% of the US population now controls just about all the private wealth there. At the same time corporate cartels regulate and control most of the pricing for goods and services: re the Financial Industry, Banking Industry, Food Industry, Pharmaceutical Industry, Medical Industry, Chemical Industry, Farming Industry, Communications Industry, Airline Industry, Weapons Industry, etc,, etc., This sad state of affairs in turn is supported by a corporate controlled press and worst of all corporate subsidized politicians.

While "privatization" is the magic word for many of these mainly conservative politicians, they tend to speak out of two sides of their mouth when it comes to subsidies.

On the one hand they advocate privatization of government or non-profit run corporations, while on the other hand they support subsidies to their favorite industries.

In the United States, credible estimates of annual fossil fuel subsidies range from $10 billion to 52 billion annually. Yet these figures don’t even include costs borne by taxpayers related to the climate, local environmental, and health impacts of the fossil fuel industry.

As of July 2014, Oil Change International estimates U.S. fossil fuel subsidies at $37.5 billion annually, including $21 billion in production and exploration subsidies.

Looking at the picture globally, another shocking revelation finds that the $5.3 trillion global fossil fuel subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.

This can only be qualified as "hanky-panky" capitalism and certainly is not an example that should be followed by the EU.


EU-Digest 

Pollution - Energy Sector: Fossil fuels subsidized by € 8.97 m a minute, says IMF - by Damian Carrington

Fossil fuel companies are benefiting from global subsidies of $5.3tn ( € 4.7 tn) a year, equivalent to € 8.97m a minute every day, according to a startling new estimate by the International Monetary Fund.

The IMF calls the revelation “shocking” and says the figure is an “extremely robust” estimate of the true cost of fossil fuels. The $5.3tn subsidy estimated for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments.

The vast sum is largely due to polluters not paying the costs imposed on governments by the burning of coal, oil and gas. These include the harm caused to local populations by air pollution as well as to people across the globe affected by the floods, droughts and storms being driven by climate change.

This ‘Shocking’ IMF revelation also finds $5.3tn ( € 4.7 tn) subsidy estimate for 2015 is greater than the total health spending of all the world’s governments 

Read more: Fossil fuels subsidised by $10m a minute, says IMF | Environment | The Guardian