Britain-Theresa May is a disaster Could Labour’s Corbyn Actually Win the British Elections? - by  Maria Margaronis

 This may be the strangest election of my lifetime. Called by Prime Minister Theresa May after she vowed repeatedly that she’d do no such thing, it seemed at first like an assured triumph for the Tories—and possibly the coup de grâce for Jeremy Corbyn’s divided and floundering Labour Party. But six days before the vote, the poll gap has shrunk from 22 points to an astonishing four, with some projections even predicting a hung Parliament.

Corbyn, seems to have found his voice. Always happier on the campaign trail than in Parliament, he comes across as direct, relaxed, and confident. The sanctimonious tinge has gone; so has the nervous pretense of being above the game. He’s being allowed to go for broke and campaign (for the most part) on what he believes. For the first time since the Blair era, the Labour manifesto makes a wholehearted argument against austerity. It promises to restore the welfare state through public investment in the health service, energy, and transport; universal childcare; and free university tuition—to be financed by reversing cuts to corporation taxes and raising taxes for those earning £80,000 or more. Zero-hours contracts will be banned. The minimum wage will go up to £10 an hour. Borrowing will fund a national investment bank for infrastructure development.

Note EU-Digest: Vote for Corbyn and make Britain really great again by rejoining the EU  

Read  more: Could Labour’s Corbyn Actually Win the British Elections? | The Nation

Terrorism Britain: London Bridge: Police declare two terror incidents

Police in London were dealing with what appeared to be a coordinated terror attack on at least two locations late Saturday night, after a van mowed down pedestrians on London Bridge and a knife attack was reported in a cafe nearby.

Eyewitnesses reported panic in the vicinity of the attacks, close to a major transport hub and in an area packed with restaurants and bars.  British Prime Minister Theresa May said authorities were dealing with a "terrible incident" and London's Metropolitan Police Service said incidents at London Bridge and nearby Borough Market were being treated as terrorism. London Mayor Sadiq Khan said it was "deliberate and cowardly attack" on Londoners enjoying Saturday night out.

Read more: London Bridge: Police declare two terror incidents - CNN.com

Paris Agreement: Leaving Could Hurt American Businesses-by Jeff McDermott

Adopted in 2015, the historic Paris Agreement brought together 195 nations to ambitiously address the impacts and causes of climate change. Donald Trump is now considering withdrawing from it, which would not only have ramifications on new energy technology efforts, but on American economic progress.

Pulling out of the Paris Agreement means the country won’t have to reduce its carbon emissions, which means it won’t have to invest in new wind, solar, or energy-efficiency technologies. But those technologies are where the job growth is. Solar jobs—which require lots of people to put panels on roofs—grew 25% last year, while wind jobs grew 32%, according to the U.S. Department of Energy's 2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report. Those two industries now employ nearly a half million Americans. Coal mining is mostly done by machine, and now employs just 74,000 people, a decline of 39% from 2009. Because coal mining is largely mechanized, those jobs are not coming back even if we burn more coal. Wind and solar are where the jobs are, and if we don’t have to reduce emissions, they won’t grow as fast.

In communications, defense, and other industries, America has created jobs and enormous wealth by leading in technology advancement. It makes no sense for the Trump administration to throttle new energy technology—wind and solar, batteries for electricity storage, smart grids, and electric vehicles, among others.

Note EU-Digest: President Trumps arguments for pulling out of the Paris Agreement were a number of nebulous financial fake figures that he pulled out of his hat. They made no sense at all and already some of the major signatory members of the Paris Agreement have decided to continue with the agreement.

Read more: The Paris Agreement: Leaving Could Hurt American Businesses | Fortune.com

Paris Agreement on Global Warming: Donald Trump Dumps agreement as US Conservatives and Evangelicals applaud move

Noah Could Be Back In Business

Donald Trump has announced the withdrawal of the US from the global Paris agreement on climate change - in a huge blow to efforts to curb the effects of global warming. The president said he wants to "renegotiate" a "more fair" deal for the US with Democrats and other countries.

He added: "if we can get a deal, that's great. If not, that's fine."

Mr Trump, who had made pulling out of the pact - which has been signed by almost 200 nations - a central plank of his run for the presidency, said that in withdrawing he was "keeping his campaign promise to put American workers first".

He said he wants to talk to citizens of "Pittsburgh, not Paris" to cheers in the crowd of the Rose Garden at the White House.

The President had been put under extreme pressure by allies around the world to stay in the agreement, and though administration said his views on the subject were "evolving" - having previously claimed climate change was a "hoax" - Mr Trump refused to be backed into a corner.

He has said that the deal would hit the US coal industry hard and that it would prove "too costly" for US to stick to the Paris accord to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

But Mr Trump ignores the fact that new money in renewable energy outpaced new investments in fossil fuels for the first time in 2015 to the tune of $350bn.

Pulling out of the agreement outright would take four years under the standard cooling-off period for new international treaties - the route Mr Trump is likely to take, but he said that the US is out "as of today."

Note EU-Digest: Of the world's countries, the climate change denial industry is most powerful in the United States. 

The Koch brothers, industry advocates and libertarian think tanks, often in the United States. More than 90% of papers sceptical on climate change originate from right-wing think tanks.The total annual income of these climate change counter-movement-organizations is roughly $900 million.

Between 2002 and 2010, nearly $120 million (euro 136 million) was anonymously donated via the Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund to more than 100 organizations seeking to undermine the public perception of the science on climate change.. In 2013 the Center for Media and Democracy reported that the State Policy Network (SPN), an umbrella group of 64 U.S. think tanks, had been lobbying on behalf of major corporations and conservative donors to oppose climate change regulation.

Since the late 1970s, oil companies have published research broadly in line with the standard views on global warming. Despite this, oil companies organized a climate change denial campaign to disseminate public disinformation for several decades, a strategy that has been compared to the organized denial of the hazards of tobacco smoking by tobacco companies.

Also for millions of Americans evangelical Christians belief in the science of global warming is well below the national average.

Recent data from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication suggests that while 64 percent of Americans think global warming is real and caused by human beings, only 44 percent of evangelicals do. 

Evangelicals in general, tend to be more politically conservative, and can be quite distrusting of scientists (believing, incorrectly, that they’re all a bunch of atheists). Plus, since some evangelicals really do go in for that whole “the world is ending” thing—not an outlook likely to inspire much care for the environment. 

EU-Digest 

The Global Order Shuffling The Cards: China and Europe are moving forward without Trump

The EU looks ahead at the future without TRUMPLAND

Beijing is in prime position to capitalize on major policy fissures that have emerged between Europe and the Trump administration on climate, trade and defense.

The new dynamic will be on full display on Thursday (June 1)  in Brussels, when Chinese Premier Li Keqiang meets with EU counterparts at the annual EU-China Summit. 

Hours later, President Trump is expected to announce the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris climate agreement.

"If peace and prosperity are the object of the global economic order, the Trump administration offers neither to Europeans," wrote analysts at High Frequency Economics, a research firm. "A new axis of power, based on economic power, will form between Europe and China if the U.S. continues to shirk its role as global leader."

Beijing appears to be chomping at the bit, having asked for the summit to be moved forward to June.

A closer relationship between the two giant economies is easier said than done, however. There are major questions over the compatibility of the economic systems promoted by Europe and China, as well as differences over flashpoint issues including human rights.

"If peace and prosperity are the object of the global economic order, the Trump administration offers neither to Europeans," wrote analysts at High Frequency Economics, a research firm. "A new axis of power, based on economic power, will form between Europe and China if the U.S. continues to shirk its role as global leader." 

Note EU=Digest: "The United States and Europe appear to be hurtling toward a messy breakup. China, meanwhile, is ready to pounce. The EU, however, better not jump in bed with China immediately, before making certain all bases are covered", said an EU Commissioner

EU-Digest

Aviation Industry: US laptop ban won't include Europe, officials say - by Clark Mindock

The United States has opted not to introduce a ban on bringing laptops into aircraft cabins for flights coming from Europe.

The US and its European partners have agreed to intensify talks on technical solutions to security concerns to find a common solution, a US official told Politico.

The decision was made during a conference call between US Department of Homeland Security Secretary John Kelly, European Home Affairs Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos, and European Transport Commissioner Violeta Bulc.

Note EU-Digest: With all the potential terrorist in Europe as is so often stated by US authorities this does not seem logical.

Details of the talks were not immediately available.

Read more: US laptop ban won't include Europe, officials say | The Independent

Germany: Trump's anti-German stance is stupid and dangerous-by Fred Kaplan

The fallout from President Trump’s disastrous trip to Europe continues to poison the trans-Atlantic climate. His comments about Germany have been particularly toxic—and, beyond that, stupid, reflecting no understanding of the country’s strategic importance or its dreadful history.

Chancellor Angela Merkel stated the matter plainly in a speech on Sunday in Bavaria. Europeans “must take our fate into our own hands,” she said, because the “times in which we could rely fully on others … are somewhat over.” This, she added, “is what I experienced in the last few days”—a reference to Trump’s behavior in Brussels and Rome, where, among other bits of rudeness, he declined to pay even lip service to the pledge, enshrined in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty, that the United States would defend any member of NATO that comes under attack.

As if in piqued response, Trump tweeted on Tuesday, “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO and military. Very bad for U.S. This will change.” While overseas, Trump had reportedly told Jean-Claude Juncker, president of the European Union, “The Germans are bad, very bad. Look at the millions of cars that they’re selling in the USA. Horrible. We’re gonna stop that.” Press Secretary Sean Spicer denied the report, which appeared in Der Spiegel, but Trump’s Tuesday tweet undercut the denial and underscored his complaint. It wasn’t some loose remark, he seemed to be saying; he meant it.

But Trump’s ire is misplaced or unwise on several levels. First, yes, Americans buy a lot of German cars, but this isn’t because Germany is dumping BMWs and Volkswagens on the U.S. market; it’s because a lot of Americans like those cars. Second, as my colleague Daniel Gross has pointed out, lots of those German cars are made in the United States; a BMW plant in South Carolina—the company’s biggest plant in the world—churns out 400,000 cars a year.

The thing is, Trump knows this. When Merkel visited Washington in March, she brought along the CEOs of BMW, Siemens, and Schaeffler, an industrial-parts manufacturer, who met with Trump for an hour, briefing him on their $300 billion investment in the American economy and the 750,000 American jobs that their plants had created. By all accounts, Trump was impressed.

Perhaps the most wondrous thing about the world that took form after World War II has been the absence of war between the longstanding rivals in Europe—not just the absence of wars but the disappearance of the notion that European wars were inevitable. This feat didn’t come about by some miracle or accident. It was the result of painstaking effort to build an alliance based on shared values and common interests, requiring trillions of dollars in aid and investment, the maintenance of massive military bases, and—in particularly trying times—a crisis or two that risked another, far more cataclysmic war. It is this alliance—and the international order on which it stands—that Trump’s tantrums and indifference are endangering.

European leaders realized last week (you could see it on their faces as they watched Trump speak)—that the alliance will be in some degree of abeyance as long as this guy is president.

It may be no coincidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s chief foreign-policy goal is to restore the old Soviet Union. He can do that only if the European Union is weakened and the ties between the United States and Europe are severed. He may have reason to believe that his dream might come true. Whatever the probes reveal about Trump’s ties or obligations (or lack of any connections whatever) to Russia, his signs of indifference to the fate of Europe are no doubt causing Putin to salivate more than he thought he ever would.
 

Read more: Trump's anti-German stance is stupid and dang