web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > Posts tagged "Politics and Government"

Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads

Westlake Legal Group merlin_163177695_a8bcff7f-50cb-4cb9-b101-3862aadda7ac-facebookJumbo Dissent Erupts at Facebook Over Hands-Off Stance on Political Ads Zuckerberg, Mark E United States Politics and Government Social Media Rumors and Misinformation Presidential Election of 2020 Politics and Government Political Advertising Online Advertising Freedom of Speech and Expression Facebook Inc Computers and the Internet

SAN FRANCISCO — The letter was aimed at Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s chief executive, and his top lieutenants. It decried the social network’s recent decision to let politicians post any claims they wanted — even false ones — in ads on the site. It asked Facebook’s leaders to rethink the stance.

Facebook’s position on political advertising is “a threat to what FB stands for,” said the letter, which was obtained by The New York Times. “We strongly object to this policy as it stands.”

The message was written by Facebook’s own employees. For the past two weeks, the text has been publicly visible on Facebook Workplace, a software program that the Silicon Valley company uses to communicate internally. More than 250 employees have signed the letter, according to three people who have seen it and who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation.

While the number of signatures on the letter was a fraction of Facebook’s 35,000-plus work force, it was one sign of the resistance that the company is now facing internally over how it treats political ads.

Many employees have been discussing Mr. Zuckerberg’s decision to let politicians post anything they want in Facebook ads because those ads can go viral and spread misinformation widely. The worker dissatisfaction has spilled out across winding, heated threads on Facebook Workplace, the people said.

For weeks, Facebook has been under attack by presidential candidates, lawmakers and civil rights groups over its position on political ads. But the employee actions — which are a rare moment of internal strife for the company — show that even some of its own workers are not convinced the political ads policy is sound. The dissent is adding to Facebook’s woes as it heads into the 2020 presidential election season.

“Facebook’s culture is built on openness, so we appreciate our employees voicing their thoughts on this important topic,” Bertie Thomson, a Facebook spokeswoman, said in a statement. “We remain committed to not censoring political speech, and will continue exploring additional steps we can take to bring increased transparency to political ads.”

Facebook has been struggling to respond to misinformation on its site since the 2016 presidential election, when Russians used the social network to spread inflammatory and divisive messages to influence the American electorate. Mr. Zuckerberg has since appointed tens of thousands of people to work on platform security and to deter coordinated disinformation efforts.

But figuring out what is and isn’t allowed on the social network is slippery. And last month, Facebook announced that politicians and their campaigns would have nearly free rein over content they post there. Previously, the company had prohibited the use of paid political ads that “include claims debunked by third-party fact checkers.”

This month, President Trump’s campaign began circulating an ad on Facebook that made false claims about former vice president Joseph R. Biden Jr., who is running for president. When Mr. Biden’s campaign asked Facebook to remove the ad, the company refused, saying ads from politicians were newsworthy and important for discourse.

Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat from Massachusetts who is also running for president, soon took Facebook to task. She bought a political ad on Facebook that falsely claimed Mr. Zuckerberg and his company supported Mr. Trump for president. (Neither Mr. Zuckerberg nor Facebook have endorsed a political candidate.)

Ms. Warren said she wanted to see how far she could take it on the site. Mr. Zuckerberg had turned his company into a “disinformation-for-profit machine,” she said.

But Mr. Zuckerberg doubled down. In a 5,000-word speech to students at Georgetown University in Washington this month, the chief executive defended his treatment of political ads by citing freedom of expression. He said Facebook’s policies would be seen positively in the long run, especially when compared with policies in countries like China, where the government suppresses online speech.

“People having the power to express themselves at scale is a new kind of force in the world — a Fifth Estate alongside the other power structures of society,” Mr. Zuckerberg said at the time.

Mr. Zuckerberg also said Facebook’s policies were largely in line with what other social networks — like YouTube and Twitter — and most television broadcasters had decided to run on their networks. Federal law mandates that broadcast networks cannot censor political ads from candidates running for office.

Inside Facebook, Mr. Zuckerberg’s decision to be hands-off on political ads has supporters. But dissenters said Facebook was not doing enough to check the lies from spreading across the platform.

While internal debate is not uncommon at the social network, it historically has seen less internal turmoil than other tech companies because of a strong sense of mission among its rank and file workers.

That has set it apart from Google and Amazon, which for the last few years have grappled with several employee uprisings. Most notably, 20,000 Google workers walked off the job in 2018 to protest the company’s massive payouts to executives accused of sexual harassment.

Last week, Google employees again challenged management over new software that some staff said was a surveillance tool to keep tabs on workplace dissent. At an employee meeting on Thursday, Sundar Pichai, Google’s chief executive, said he was working on ways to improve trust with employees, while acknowledging it was challenging to maintain transparency as the company grows. A video of Mr. Pichai’s comments was leaked to The Washington Post.

Amazon has faced employee pressure for nearly a year to do more to address the company’s impact on climate change. Some employees worked on a shareholder resolution to push the company on the matter, and more than 7,500 Amazon workers publicly signed a letter to support the proposal. In September, Jeff Bezos, Amazon’s chief executive, announced the company was accelerating its climate goals, aiming to be carbon neutral by 2040.

In the Facebook employee letter to Mr. Zuckerberg and other executives, the workers said the policy change on political advertising “doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.”

It added, “We want to work with our leadership to develop better solutions that both protect our business and the people who use our products.”

The letter then laid out product changes and other actions that Facebook could take to reduce the harm from false claims in advertising from politicians. Among the proposals: Changing the visual design treatment for political ads, restricting some of the options for targeting users with those ads, and instituting spending caps for individual politicians.

“This is still our company,” the letter concluded.

Daisuke Wakabayashi and Karen Weise contributed reporting from Seattle.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pentagon, With an Eye on China, Pushes for Help From American Tech

Westlake Legal Group 00pentagonchip-facebookJumbo-v2 Pentagon, With an Eye on China, Pushes for Help From American Tech United States Defense and Military Forces Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd Politics and Government Mobile Applications GlobalFoundries Factories and Manufacturing Defense Department Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Computers and the Internet Computer Chips

SAN FRANCISCO — Pentagon officials have been holding private discussions with tech industry executives to wrestle with a key question: how to ensure future supplies of the advanced computer chips needed to retain America’s military edge.

The talks, some of which predate the Trump administration, recently took on an increased urgency, according to people who were involved or briefed on the discussions. Pentagon officials encouraged chip executives to consider new production lines for semiconductors in the United States, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks were confidential.

The discussions are being driven by the Pentagon’s increased dependence on chips made abroad, especially in Taiwan, as well as recent tensions with China, these people said.

One chip maker, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, better known as TSMC, plays a particularly crucial role producing commercial chips that also have applications for aircraft, satellites, drones and wireless communications. And because of unrest over the past few months in the semiautonomous Chinese territory of Hong Kong, some Pentagon officials and chip executives have wondered about situations that could force suppliers in Taiwan to limit or cut off silicon shipments, the people said.

Mark Liu, the chairman of TSMC, said he had recently discussed options for a new factory in the United States with the Commerce Department. The stumbling block was money; major subsidies would be required, he said, as it is more expensive to operate in America than Taiwan.

“It is all up to when we can close the cost gap,” he said in an interview.

The conversations are a sign of how federal agencies are grappling with a deep-rooted technology conundrum. The United States has long fielded the most advanced weaponry by exploiting electronic components once exclusively produced in the country. Chips help tanks, aircraft, rockets and ships navigate, communicate with one another and engage enemy targets.

But domestic production lines of many chips have long since moved overseas, raising questions about supply interruptions in the event of political or military crises abroad. Those fears have been exacerbated by the increasing importance of particular components — such as programmable chips that figure prominently in the F-35 fighter jet, which are designed by the Silicon Valley company Xilinx and mainly fabricated in Taiwan.

Some chips, such as the wireless baseband processors needed for new 5G communications abilities that Pentagon officials covet, require advanced manufacturing technology that has become a key selling point of TSMC.

“We in the Defense Department cannot afford to be shut out of all of those capabilities,” said Lisa Porter, deputy under secretary for research and engineering, in remarks at an event in July that were later widely circulated among chip makers.

Dr. Porter, at a technology event in Los Angeles on Wednesday, said secure supply chains for both essential components and software were a “macro” issue that the Pentagon and the tech industry had to collaborate on. She declined to discuss specific efforts to bolster American chip production. A Defense Department spokesman also declined to comment.

In another sign of action, Skywater Technology, a Minnesota chip manufacturing service, said this week that the Defense Department would invest up to $170 million to increase its production and enhance technologies, such as the ability to produce chips that can withstand radiation in space.

The Skywater investment illustrates how the Pentagon is also wrestling with how to upgrade aging technology at domestic companies that make small volumes of classified chips tailored for the military. Such “trusted” factories, as they are called, operate under Pentagon rules aimed at preventing sabotage or data theft.

Dr. Porter and other Pentagon officials have pushed for new technical safeguards besides guards and employee background checks to keep sensitive chip designs secure, a strategy that would help the Defense Department use more advanced commercial factories. She called the idea a “zero-trust” philosophy.

TSMC, which dominates the build-to-order services called foundries, recently took the lead from Intel in shrinking chip circuitry to give chips greater capability. Its production edge is one reason the company has continued to win business from big American chip designers such as Apple, Qualcomm and Nvidia, whose chips have become increasingly important for defense as well as civilian applications.

The United States remains the leading supplier and innovator in most chip technologies, including the processors that Intel sells for nearly all personal computers and server systems. But the Pentagon’s research arm — DARPA, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — has been trying since 2017 to spur chip innovations under a $1.5 billion Electronics Resurgence Initiative.

Its goals include finding alternatives to silicon for manufacturing and packaging small “chiplets” together instead of making big monolithic chips.

“We have vulnerabilities we really need to address, but we are still the dominant producer of electronics in the world,” said Mark Rosker, the director of DARPA’s microsystems technology office. He said questions about the American semiconductor industry called for “a graceful and considered kind of panic.”

Much of the recent urgency stems from China’s growing stature as a chip innovator. Designers there have developed chips for sensitive applications such as supercomputers. Many of the designers — including Huawei, a key target of the Trump administration in the trade war — also rely on TSMC for manufacturing.

Another impetus for action stems from a recent pullback by GlobalFoundries. The chip maker, owned by investors in Abu Dhabi, has spent around $12 billion on a sophisticated factory in Malta, N.Y. But it announced last year that it would stop trying to create smaller circuitry than that on its existing production processes.

GlobalFoundries now produces classified chips under the trusted foundry rules in two former IBM factories it took over in 2015. Company executives believe the technology in its Malta facility remains advanced enough to also serve military needs for years, and it is negotiating with officials to handle future classified work through proposed modifications to the government’s trusted foundry regulations. It recently filed a lawsuit accusing TSMC of patent infringement, an action that it said was aimed partly at protecting the American manufacturing base.

The company, which announced plans for a $10 billion factory in China in 2017, is also rethinking that project as the promised demand from customers there now seems uncertain, said Thomas Caufield, the chief executive of GlobalFoundries.

Influencing the chip industry used to be easier when the Defense Department accounted for a major portion of chip sales. Now defense applications are dwarfed by civilian uses, such as smartphones and personal computers. More of the Pentagon’s budget now goes to chips like memory and processors whose designs are shaped by commercial needs.

At a recent panel of semiconductor industry veterans in Silicon Valley, the concern about an overreliance on TSMC was evident.

“What will happen when China makes its drive toward Taiwan? What will happen to TSMC?” asked Diane Bryant, a former Intel executive who is now a technology investor. “What is our way out of this pickle?”

The panelists suggested that the federal government should subsidize more domestic chip production. But advanced commercial factories can cost as much as $15 billion, plus the additional recurring costs to run, staff and supply such facilities.

“It’s a big dilemma,” said Handel Jones, a semiconductor consultant with International Business Strategies. “Our assessment was you have to spend big money.”

Dr. Liu of TSMC dismissed fears about Taiwan’s continued autonomy. He said he was weighing the pros and cons of a new American factory, though it was too early for a decision. If the financial challenges are overcome, he said, any new facility is likely to be smaller than TSMC’s massive plants in Taiwan and built near a factory it operates in Camas, Wash.

“We want to do what makes the best sense for our customers to help them to be competitive, and also deal with national-security concerns,” Dr. Liu said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Pentagon Pushes Tech Industry to Help U.S. Retain Military Edge

Westlake Legal Group 00pentagonchip-facebookJumbo Pentagon Pushes Tech Industry to Help U.S. Retain Military Edge United States Defense and Military Forces Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd Politics and Government Mobile Applications GlobalFoundries Factories and Manufacturing Defense Department Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency Computers and the Internet Computer Chips

SAN FRANCISCO — Pentagon officials have been holding private discussions with tech industry executives to wrestle with a key question: how to ensure future supplies of the advanced computer chips needed to retain America’s military edge.

The talks, some of which predate the Trump administration, recently took on an increased urgency, according to people who were involved or briefed on the discussions. Pentagon officials encouraged chip executives to consider new production lines for semiconductors in the United States, said the people, who declined to be identified because the talks were confidential.

The discussions are being driven by the Pentagon’s increased dependence on chips made abroad, especially in Taiwan, as well as recent tensions with China, these people said.

One chip maker, the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, better known as TSMC, plays a particularly crucial role producing commercial chips that also have applications for aircraft, satellites, drones and wireless communications. And because of unrest over the past few months in the semiautonomous Chinese territory of Hong Kong, some Pentagon officials and chip executives have wondered about situations that could force suppliers in Taiwan to limit or cut off silicon shipments, the people said.

Mark Liu, the chairman of TSMC, said he had recently discussed options for a new factory in the United States with the Commerce Department. The stumbling block was money; major subsidies would be required, he said, as it is more expensive to operate in America than Taiwan.

“It is all up to when we can close the cost gap,” he said in an interview.

The conversations are a sign of how federal agencies are grappling with a deep-rooted technology conundrum. The United States has long fielded the most advanced weaponry by exploiting electronic components once exclusively produced in the country. Chips help tanks, aircraft, rockets and ships navigate, communicate with one another and engage enemy targets.

But domestic production lines of many chips have long since moved overseas, raising questions about supply interruptions in the event of political or military crises abroad. Those fears have been exacerbated by the increasing importance of particular components — such as programmable chips that figure prominently in the F-35 fighter jet, which are designed by the Silicon Valley company Xilinx and mainly fabricated in Taiwan.

Some chips, such as the wireless baseband processors needed for new 5G communications abilities that Pentagon officials covet, require advanced manufacturing technology that has become a key selling point of TSMC.

“We in the Defense Department cannot afford to be shut out of all of those capabilities,” said Lisa Porter, deputy under secretary for research and engineering, in remarks at an event in July that were later widely circulated among chip makers.

Dr. Porter, at a technology event in Los Angeles on Wednesday, said secure supply chains for both essential components and software were a “macro” issue that the Pentagon and the tech industry had to collaborate on. She declined to discuss specific efforts to bolster American chip production. A Defense Department spokesman also declined to comment.

In another sign of action, Skywater Technology, a Minnesota chip manufacturing service, said this week that the Defense Department would invest up to $170 million to increase its production and enhance technologies, such as the ability to produce chips that can withstand radiation in space.

The Skywater investment illustrates how the Pentagon is also wrestling with how to upgrade aging technology at domestic companies that make small volumes of classified chips tailored for the military. Such “trusted” factories, as they are called, operate under Pentagon rules aimed at preventing sabotage or data theft.

Dr. Porter and other Pentagon officials have pushed for new technical safeguards besides guards and employee background checks to keep sensitive chip designs secure, a strategy that would help the Defense Department use more advanced commercial factories. She called the idea a “zero-trust” philosophy.

TSMC, which dominates the build-to-order services called foundries, recently took the lead from Intel in shrinking chip circuitry to give chips greater capability. Its production edge is one reason the company has continued to win business from big American chip designers such as Apple, Qualcomm and Nvidia, whose chips have become increasingly important for defense as well as civilian applications.

The United States remains the leading supplier and innovator in most chip technologies, including the processors that Intel sells for nearly all personal computers and server systems. But the Pentagon’s research arm — DARPA, for the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency — has been trying since 2017 to spur chip innovations under a $1.5 billion Electronics Resurgence Initiative.

Its goals include finding alternatives to silicon for manufacturing and packaging small “chiplets” together instead of making big monolithic chips.

“We have vulnerabilities we really need to address, but we are still the dominant producer of electronics in the world,” said Mark Rosker, the director of DARPA’s microsystems technology office. He said questions about the American semiconductor industry called for “a graceful and considered kind of panic.”

Much of the recent urgency stems from China’s growing stature as a chip innovator. Designers there have developed chips for sensitive applications such as supercomputers. Many of the designers — including Huawei, a key target of the Trump administration in the trade war — also rely on TSMC for manufacturing.

Another impetus for action stems from a recent pullback by GlobalFoundries. The chip maker, owned by investors in Abu Dhabi, has spent around $12 billion on a sophisticated factory in Malta, N.Y. But it announced last year that it would stop trying to create smaller circuitry than that on its existing production processes.

GlobalFoundries now produces classified chips under the trusted foundry rules in two former IBM factories it took over in 2015. Company executives believe the technology in its Malta facility remains advanced enough to also serve military needs for years, and it is negotiating with officials to handle future classified work through proposed modifications to the government’s trusted foundry regulations. It recently filed a lawsuit accusing TSMC of patent infringement, an action that it said was aimed partly at protecting the American manufacturing base.

The company, which announced plans for a $10 billion factory in China in 2017, is also rethinking that project as the promised demand from customers there now seems uncertain, said Thomas Caufield, the chief executive of GlobalFoundries.

Influencing the chip industry used to be easier when the Defense Department accounted for a major portion of chip sales. Now defense applications are dwarfed by civilian uses, such as smartphones and personal computers. More of the Pentagon’s budget now goes to chips like memory and processors whose designs are shaped by commercial needs.

At a recent panel of semiconductor industry veterans in Silicon Valley, the concern about an overreliance on TSMC was evident.

“What will happen when China makes its drive toward Taiwan? What will happen to TSMC?” asked Diane Bryant, a former Intel executive who is now a technology investor. “What is our way out of this pickle?”

The panelists suggested that the federal government should subsidize more domestic chip production. But advanced commercial factories can cost as much as $15 billion, plus the additional recurring costs to run, staff and supply such facilities.

“It’s a big dilemma,” said Handel Jones, a semiconductor consultant with International Business Strategies. “Our assessment was you have to spend big money.”

Dr. Liu of TSMC dismissed fears about Taiwan’s continued autonomy. He said he was weighing the pros and cons of a new American factory, though it was too early for a decision. If the financial challenges are overcome, he said, any new facility is likely to be smaller than TSMC’s massive plants in Taiwan and built near a factory it operates in Camas, Wash.

“We want to do what makes the best sense for our customers to help them to be competitive, and also deal with national-security concerns,” Dr. Liu said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Boris Johnson Loses a Critical Brexit Vote, Throwing the Process Into Disarray

Westlake Legal Group 22brexit-hfo-loose-promo-facebookJumbo-v2 Boris Johnson Loses a Critical Brexit Vote, Throwing the Process Into Disarray Politics and Government May, Theresa M Legislatures and Parliaments Johnson, Boris Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain European Union Europe Corbyn, Jeremy (1949- )

LONDON — Prime Minister Boris Johnson suffered a damaging setback Tuesday in his quest to take Britain out of the European Union, losing a critical vote in Parliament and putting his plans for Brexit on hold, as Britain’s three-year struggle to resolve the issue continued to defy any solution.

Mr. Johnson’s latest defeat came only 15 minutes after his first victory in Parliament. Lawmakers granted preliminary approval to the withdrawal deal he struck with the European Union last week, a major step toward achieving the prime minister’s goal of Brexit and one that broke a string of defeats for him.

But the lawmakers refused in a crucial follow-up vote to put legislation enacting Britain’s departure on a fast track to passage, which could have enabled Mr. Johnson to meet his deadline of leaving the European Union by Oct. 31.

Now, however, Parliament has thrown the whole process into a legislative netherworld that could mean months of further delays to a process that the nation has long since wearied of and just wants to see end.

It is entirely conceivable that Mr. Johnson’s deal will kick around Parliament for weeks, potentially becoming encumbered with amendments that either Mr. Johnson or the European Union would reject as unacceptable. The best option then, analysts said, would be to give the voters a chance to make themselves heard in a general election.

The back-to-back votes captured the one-step-forward, one-step-back nature of the Brexit saga. While lawmakers endorsed the contours of Mr. Johnson’s plan — something they had never done for his predecessor, Theresa May — they balked at being stampeded into passing the necessary legislation in three days.

The European Union will now have to decide how long an extension to grant Britain. Mr. Johnson said after the votes that he would “pause” the legislation and call European leaders to deliver the message that Britain was not interested in another extension.

Earlier on Tuesday, he said that if the deadlock slipped into next year, he would rather pull the bill altogether and face the voters, calculating that he could still win a popular mandate for a swift Brexit.

But if the European Union offers only a short-term extension of a few weeks, Mr. Johnson might well continue battling for passage of his Brexit blueprint, betting that the pressure would increase on Parliament to pass a deal that its members had already shown support for in principle.

Some critics noted that the legislation — which runs to 435 pages including annexes, and would have profound consequences for the future of the country — was going to have less time for scrutiny in the House of Commons than a recent bill prohibiting the use of wild animals in traveling circuses.

On a day that encapsulated both the high drama and recurring gridlock of the Brexit debate, Mr. Johnson tried to put a good face on the split decision, noting it was the first time a Brexit agreement won a Parliamentary vote.

“How welcome it is, even joyful, that for the first time in this long saga, this House has actually accepted its responsibilities together, come together, and embraced a deal,” Mr. Johnson said.

But he expressed dismay that lawmakers “voted for delay” and said the government would accelerate its preparations to leave the European Union without any deal. “One way or the other,” Mr. Johnson insisted, Britain will leave Europe with “this deal, to which this House has given its assent.”

Earlier in the day, Mr. Johnson said that if his government was thwarted by Parliament, he would pull the legislation and demand an election. “I will argue at that election, ‘Let’s get Brexit done,’” he said.

Whether Mr. Johnson is serious about shelving his own deal — or was simply using it as a threat to pressure wavering lawmakers — was open to interpretation. On Tuesday evening, officials suggested he was keeping his options open.

But it made for another day of political theater in the House of Commons, where lawmakers rose one after another to condemn the government’s strong-arm tactics or to plead for an end to the endless frustration of Brexit.

“The devil is in the detail,” said the leader of the Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, “and having seen the detail it confirms everything we thought about this rotten deal: a charter for deregulation across the board, paving the way for a Trump-style trade deal that will attack jobs, rights and protections.”

Labour lawmakers promised to push for a series of amendments to the deal that could act as a kind of poison pill — demanding that there be a second referendum on whether to leave the European Union or putting all of the United Kingdom into the European Union’s customs union. A provision like that helped torpedo Mrs. May’s withdrawal agreement with Brussels earlier this year.

“We will seek a very clear commitment to a customs union, a strong single market relationship, hard-wired commitments on workers’ rights, non-regression of environmental standards and loopholes closed to avoid the threat of a no-deal Brexit once and for all,” Mr. Corbyn said after the votes.

Former allies of Mr. Johnson complained about the government’s pressure tactics. Waving a doorstop-size bound copy of the bill, Rory Stewart, a member of the Conservative Party who was purged by Mr. Johnson after breaking with him on a no-deal Brexit, said, “This is a hell of a big document.”

“We cannot pretend” that this is enough time to scrutinize the bill, Mr. Stewart said. “This is our Parliament. We cannot do down our Parliament.”

The negative vote on the legislation leaves the European Union with a difficult decision because it is almost impossible for Mr. Johnson’s Brexit deal to be ratified by Oct. 31, the next deadline.

On Saturday, Mr. Johnson was forced to request a new delay to Brexit, until Jan. 31, but it is up to the leaders of the bloc to decide unanimously on whether — and for how long — to delay Brexit again.

European leaders share Britain’s fatigue with the process and want Mr. Johnson’s deal to go through. On Tuesday in Brussels, the outgoing president of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker, declared that Brexit had been a “waste of time and energy.”

But they also want to avert any risk of Britain leaving without any agreement, because that would hurt some fragile economies in mainland Europe, albeit not as hard as Britain’s.

Giving Britain a deadline of a few weeks, until mid-November, would put pressure on Parliament to ratify the Brexit deal, but it would be high risk. If lawmakers were unable to agree on the plan, Mr. Johnson would be under no obligation to request a further delay, and a “no deal” Brexit could result.

So European leaders might recycle a tactic they have used before and make Mr. Johnson a conditional offer: Allow Parliament a little more time if the deal can be ratified — potentially getting Britain out of the bloc quickly — but keep open the possibility of a longer delay if that proves impossible.

When Parliament rejected Mrs. May’s deal for a third time, Mrs. May requested an extension until June 30. But European leaders offered something different — a delay until June 1 if the British did not take part in elections for the European Parliament, or until Oct. 31 if they did.

Mrs. May took the second option.

In the current circumstances, a delay until Jan. 31 could allow time for a general election, though Britain would almost certainly need a longer extension to hold a second referendum on Brexit. The difficulty for the European Union is that Parliament has so far agreed to neither of those options.

The fierce maneuvering in the hours leading up to the votes attested to the complex political crosscurrents of the Brexit debate, more than three years after Britons voted to leave the European Union.

Mr. Johnson lined up support for the first vote on the deal from a handful of members of the Labour Party, which, along with a solid showing by his fellow Conservatives, gave him an unexpectedly healthy margin of 329 to 299.

Yet he lost support from Mr. Stewart and other exiled members of the Conservative Party on the timing of the legislation. That, along with a rejection by Labour members and the Democratic Unionist Party, left him with a losing margin of 308 to 322 for securing final approval of the bill by Thursday.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Netanyahu Fails to Form a Government, Leaving Israel as Divided as Ever

Westlake Legal Group 21israel-copy-facebookJumbo-v2 Netanyahu Fails to Form a Government, Leaving Israel as Divided as Ever Rivlin, Reuven Politics and Government Netanyahu, Benjamin Likud Party (Israel) Israel Gantz, Benny Blue and White (Israeli Political Party)

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel abandoned his latest attempt to form a government on Monday, clearing the way for his chief rival to take a shot but leaving a divided country no closer to knowing who its next leader would be.

It remained to be seen whether the move was the beginning of the end for Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving prime minister, or just another twist in a political standoff that has paralyzed the government for six months.

President Reuven Rivlin said he would give Benny Gantz, the former army chief whose party won one more parliamentary seat than Mr. Netanyahu’s in last month’s election, the mandate to try to become the country’s next leader.

But Mr. Gantz, a political newcomer who has capitalized on pending corruption cases against Mr. Netanyahu, has no clear path to assembling the required 61-seat majority in Israel’s Parliament.

He has 28 days to try. If he fails, Israel could be forced into an unprecedented third election, a prospect few Israelis would relish.

Two days before his 28-day deadline was up, Mr. Netanyahu, 70, who has been prime minister since 2009, told Mr. Rivlin that he had been unable to put together a parliamentary majority.

Mr. Rivlin said he would give the mandate to Mr. Gantz, 60, “as soon as possible.”

“The time of spin is over, and it is now time for action,” Mr. Gantz’s Blue and White party said in a statement. “Blue and White is determined to form the liberal unity government, led by Benny Gantz, that the people of Israel voted for a month ago.”

Mr. Gantz had resisted entreaties from Mr. Netanyahu to join him in a unity government, saying that he would not serve under a prime minister facing indictment. That left open the possibility that Mr. Netanyahu might prevail upon a few centrist lawmakers to give him a majority.

They did not, and Mr. Gantz’s gamble has paid off, so far.

Now, he will get his chance to try to assemble a majority. Arguing that 80 percent of Israelis agree on 80 percent of the issues, he has promised to seek a broad government with conservative partners by working “from the center out.”

But achieving what Mr. Netanyahu could not would be quite a feat. Mr. Gantz would need to recruit defectors from the political right, perhaps from within Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party, or persuade Avigdor Liberman, leader of the right-wing Yisrael Beiteinu party, to do what so far appears unthinkable: collaborate with Arab politicians.

Mr. Netanyahu, who remains prime minister until a new government is formed, is counting on Mr. Gantz to fail, forcing a new election.

In a video posted to his Twitter account on Monday, shortly after the end of the Sukkot holiday in Israel, Mr. Netanyahu said he had “worked relentlessly, in the open but also in secret, in an effort to form a broad national unity government” with Mr. Gantz.

“This is what the people want,” Mr. Netanyahu wrote. “This is also what Israel needs in the face of security challenges that are growing by the day, by the hour.”

He said he had made “every effort” to negotiate a unity government with Mr. Gantz, but “to my regret, time and time again, he simply refused.”

For Mr. Netanyahu, who in July surpassed Israel’s founding leader, David Ben-Gurion, to become its longest-serving prime minister, his failure to assemble a majority was a humbling and potentially career-ending blow.

The last time an Israeli politician beside him had the chance to form a government was in 2009, when Tzipi Livni, then the foreign minister, narrowly edged Mr. Netanyahu in an election. But she failed to muster a majority and Mr. Netanyahu succeeded, completing a comeback after having served a previous term as prime minister in the late 1990s.

Mr. Gantz, a career soldier making his first run for office, tied with Mr. Netanyahu in their first contest in April, but Mr. Netanyahu had more supporters in Parliament and was given the chance to form a government. He appeared well on his way to a fourth consecutive term only to be thwarted by a surprise defection by Mr. Liberman.

Rather than let Mr. Gantz be given a chance, Mr. Netanyahu orchestrated a second election, held on Sept. 17.

Mr. Gantz narrowly edged Mr. Netanyahu in that election, but Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition of right-wing and ultrareligious parties again came away with a larger bloc in Parliament than Mr. Gantz’s alliance of center-left parties. Once more, Mr. Netanyahu was handed the first attempt at forming a government.

Mr. Netanyahu may still have another path back to the premiership: If Mr. Gantz cannot form a government within his allotted time, the president can hand the task to Parliament, giving lawmakers an additional 21 days to come up with a candidate who can command a majority. Mr. Netanyahu may be hoping, at that point, that the public and political pressure to avoid a third election will persuade the half-dozen additional lawmakers whose support he needs to come to his side.

Analysts have also speculated that Mr. Netanyahu may prefer a third election, perhaps believing that the attorney general would ultimately drop the bribery indictment, the heaviest of three charges he is facing. Under such an outcome, Mr. Netanyahu could claim a degree of vindication and campaign while facing lesser charges of fraud and breach of trust, and insisting that they, too, would come to naught in court.

The gamesmanship between Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Gantz since the election last month has resembled a chess match in which Mr. Netanyahu’s position was weaker than after the April election but the conclusion was hardly foregone.

With neither man finding a politically palatable way of achieving a 61-seat majority, a unity government of one sort or another appeared unavoidable, and Mr. Rivlin urged both men to agree on one.

One major stumbling block, if they agreed to rotate the premiership, was the question of who would serve first and at what point Mr. Netanyahu would step aside if charged.

Mr. Netanyahu accepted a proposal suggested by Mr. Rivlin under which Mr. Netanyahu would serve as prime minister first, but if charged, would declare himself incapacitated while he sorted out his legal troubles. Mr. Gantz would then serve as acting prime minister with full powers.

Such an arrangement left many questions, including at what point Mr. Netanyahu would step aside, and would have required legal changes that could be challenged in court.

Moreover, Mr. Netanyahu has insisted that any unity government include his longstanding allies in the right-wing and religious parties. Mr. Gantz has demanded that Likud negotiate a unity government without its allied parties.

Mr. Netanyahu repeatedly and publicly chastised Mr. Gantz for refusing to negotiate with him on terms for building a grand coalition including both their parties. Mr. Gantz said the terms proposed by Mr. Netanyahu were impossible to accept.

Most recently, Mr. Netanyahu asserted that Mr. Gantz’s plan all along was to thwart any efforts to form a unity government and instead set up a minority government with the backing of Arab parties — an unlikely move that would be deeply unpopular with many Blue and White voters, as well as with many of the party’s lawmakers.

The rise of such a minority government would only be possible with the tacit cooperation of Avigdor Liberman, which Mr. Liberman has all but ruled out.

Critics said Mr. Netanyahu had been showing signs of panic. He pressed his right-wing and religious allies to sign multiple loyalty oaths. And he proposed a Likud party primary, but then abruptly canceled the idea after a popular younger rival, Gideon Saar, declared himself ready to challenge Mr. Netanyahu for the party leadership.

Mr. Gantz, meanwhile, has been calmly seeking to strengthen his leadership credentials, issuing prime ministerial-like statements in response to local and world events. He hosted the German ambassador to Israel, Dr. Susanne Wasum-Rainer, in his sukkah, the temporary hut or tabernacle that Jews construct for the Sukkot holiday, and said they discussed anti-Semitism and Germany’s decision to cease weapons sales to Turkey, for which he expressed gratitude.

Last week, Mr. Gantz requested, and was granted, a meeting with the military chief of staff to update himself on security developments in the region. That meeting was held with the approval of Mr. Netanyahu.

Still, Mr. Netanyahu has far from given up.

On Monday night he posted a photo of himself and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, thanked Mr. Putin for telephoning him with birthday greetings and said they had discussed the situation in Syria, among other things.

“It is still not too late,” he declared in his video. It would still be possible to form a unity government, he said, “if Gantz comes to his senses.”

“This has always been the solution, and this remains the solution,” he said.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Netanyahu Fails to Form a Government. Israel Turns to Gantz.

Westlake Legal Group 21israel-copy-facebookJumbo-v2 Netanyahu Fails to Form a Government. Israel Turns to Gantz. Rivlin, Reuven Politics and Government Netanyahu, Benjamin Likud Party (Israel) Israel Gantz, Benny Blue and White (Israeli Political Party)

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has given up his latest attempt to form a government, clearing the way for Benny Gantz, the former army chief who narrowly defeated him in last month’s election, to try to become the country’s next leader.

Mr. Netanyahu, who turned 70 on Monday and has been prime minister since 2009, told President Reuven Rivlin Monday evening that he had been unable to put together a 61-seat majority coalition in Parliament.

Mr. Rivlin said he would give Mr. Gantz, leader of the centrist Blue and White party, the mandate to form a government “as soon as possible.” Under the law, Mr. Gantz will have 28 days to do so.

“The time of spin is over, and it is now time for action,” Mr. Gantz’s party said in a statement. “Blue and White is determined to form the liberal unity government, led by Benny Gantz, that the people of Israel voted for a month ago.”

It is unclear, however, whether Mr. Gantz will have any greater chance of succeeding. Mr. Netanyahu is counting on Mr. Gantz to fail. That could force a third election, a prospect that few Israelis would relish aside from Mr. Netanyahu’s most devoted supporters.

Mr. Gantz, in his first run for office, tied Mr. Netanyahu in their first contest in April. He narrowly edged Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud party on Sept. 17, but Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition of right-wing and ultrareligious parties came away with a larger bloc in Parliament than Mr. Gantz’s alliance of center-left parties, earning the incumbent the first attempt at forming a government.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

ISIS Reaps Gains of U.S. Pullout From Syria

Westlake Legal Group 20isis5-sub-facebookJumbo ISIS Reaps Gains of U.S. Pullout From Syria United States International Relations United States Defense and Military Forces Trump, Donald J Terrorism Syrian Democratic Forces Syria Politics and Government Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) Iraq Defense and Military Forces

American forces and their Kurdish-led partners in Syria had been conducting as many as a dozen counterterrorism missions a day against Islamic State militants, officials said. That has stopped.

Those same partners, the Syrian Democratic Forces, had also been quietly releasing some Islamic State prisoners and incorporating them into their ranks, in part as a way to keep them under watch. That, too, is now in jeopardy.

And across Syria’s porous border with Iraq, Islamic State fighters are conducting a campaign of assassination against local village headmen, in part to intimidate government informants.

When President Trump announced this month that he would pull American troops out of northern Syria and make way for a Turkish attack on the Kurds, Washington’s onetime allies, many warned that he was removing the spearhead of the campaign to defeat the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

Now, analysts say that Mr. Trump’s pullout has handed the Islamic State its biggest win in more than four years and greatly improved its prospects. With American forces rushing for the exits, in fact, American officials said last week that they were already losing their ability to collect critical intelligence about the group’s operations on the ground.

“There is no question that ISIS is one of the big winners in what is happening in Syria,” said Lina Khatib, director of the Middle East and North Africa Program at Chatham House, a research center in London.

Cutting support for the Syrian Democratic Forces has crippled the ability of the United States and its former partners to hunt down the group’s remnants.

News of the American withdrawal set off jubilation among Islamic State supporters on social media and encrypted chat networks. It has lifted the morale of fighters in affiliates as far away as Libya and Nigeria.

And, by removing a critical counterforce, the pullout has eased the re-emergence of the Islamic State’s core as a terrorist network or a more conventional, and potentially long-lasting, insurgency based in Syria and Iraq.

Although Mr. Trump has repeatedly declared victory over the Islamic State — even boasting to congressional leaders last week that he had personally “captured ISIS” — it remains a threat. After the loss in March of the last patch of the territory it once held across Syria and Iraq, the Islamic State dispersed its supporters and fighters to blend in with the larger population or to hide out in remote deserts and mountains.

The group retains as many as 18,000 “members” in Iraq and Syria, including up to 3,000 foreigners, according to estimates cited in a recent Pentagon report. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the Islamic State’s self-proclaimed caliph, is still at large.

“Our battle today is one of attrition and stretching the enemy,” Mr. al-Baghdadi declared in a video message released in April. Looking comfortable and well fed, he sat on the floor of a bare room, surrounded by fighters, with an assault rifle by his side.

“Jihad is ongoing until the day of judgment,” he told his supporters, according to a transcript provided by SITE Intelligence Group.

Against the benchmark of the Islamic State’s former grip on a broad swath of geography, any possibility of a comeback to that extent remains highly remote.

Changes in the political context in Syria and Iraq have diminished the Islamic State’s ability to whip up sectarian animosity out of the frustrations of Sunni Muslims over the Shiite or Shiite-linked authorities in Syria and Iraq — the militants’ trademark.

The government in Baghdad has broadened its support among Sunni Iraqis. President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, by crushing the revolt against him, has left Sunni militants less space to mobilize. And many Syrians and Iraqis who lived under the harsh dominion of the Islamic State strongly oppose its return.

But as an underground insurgency, the Islamic State appears to be on the upswing.

Militants have been carrying out “assassinations, suicide attacks, abductions, and arson of crops in both Iraq and Syria,” according to a report this summer by the Pentagon inspector general for operations against the Islamic State. It is establishing “resurgent cells” in Syria, the report said, and “seeking to expand its command and control nodes in Iraq.”

The militants have been burning crops and emptying out whole villages. They have been raising money by carrying out kidnappings for ransom and extorting “taxes” from local officials, often skimming a cut of rebuilding contracts.

Their attacks on village headmen — at least 30 were killed in Iraq in 2018, according to the Pentagon report — are an apparent attempt to scare others out of cooperating with Baghdad.

“The high operational tempo with multiple attacks taking place over a wide area” may be intended to create the appearance that the Islamic State can strike anywhere with “impunity,” the report said.

Mr. Trump first said in December 2018 that he intended to withdraw the last 2,000 American troops from Syria; the Pentagon scaled that back, pulling out about half of those troops.

Military officials, though, say that helping the Syrian Democratic Forces hunt down underground cells and fugitive fighters required more training and intelligence support than an open battle for territory. Even the partial drawdown, the Pentagon inspector general’s report found, could be “detrimental” to the American mission in Iraq and Syria.

Last month, as if to prove its continued vitality, the Islamic State claimed responsibility for a minibus bombing that killed a dozen people near the entrance to a Shiite pilgrimage site in the Iraqi city of Karbala. It was its deadliest attack since the loss of its last territory.

And within hours of Mr. Trump’s announcement almost two weeks ago that American forces were moving away from the Syrian border with Turkey, two ISIS suicide bombers attacked a base of the Syrian Democratic Forces in the Syrian city of Raqqa.

“The crusaders have given up,” Islamic State supporters crowed, according to Laith Alkhouri of the business risk consulting company Flashpoint Global Partners, who monitors the group’s online messages.

Other messages “urged ISIS ‘soldiers’ everywhere to double their efforts,” Mr. Alkhouri said.

The missions against the Islamic State conducted by the Syrian Democratic Forces — sometimes as many as two dozen a day — had included both counterterrorism patrols and raids on militant cells. Some were carried out jointly with American soldiers, others alone, according to United States officials.

But the Kurds, an ethnic minority sometimes disparaged by Arab Syrians, faced resentment among the Arab residents of northeastern Syria.

In part to try to win support from those communities, the Kurdish-led forces pardoned and released hundreds of detained ISIS fighters or supporters in so-called reconciliation deals, relying on informal relationships with community leaders to handle their reintegration.

The Kurdish-led militia even incorporated some of the released Islamic State detainees into its own forces, said Dareen Khalifa, a researcher with the International Crisis Group who has traveled to the region extensively and documented the “reconciliation” pardons in a report last summer.

The Kurdish militia leaders said: “What do you want us to do, kill them all? Imprison them all? The best way forward is to keep a close eye on them by keeping them within the S.D.F.,” Ms. Khalifa said in an interview. She said that those enlisted had not been Islamic State leaders and that so far there had been no recidivism.

But now the American withdrawal and the Turkish incursion are threatening the informal supervision of those former prisoners, Ms. Khalifa said, creating a risk that some might gravitate back to fighting for the Islamic State.

Turkey, which has battled Kurdish separatist militants at home for decades, launched the invasion primarily to push back the Kurdish-led forces in Syria. Without American protection, the Kurdish leaders are now switching sides to ally with Mr. al-Assad.

In Iraq, too, some say opportunities may be emerging for the Islamic State to revive its appeals to Sunni resentments in the areas it once controlled. Promises of postwar reconstruction have gone unfilled. And Shiite militias that rose up to defeat the Islamic State remain in place, sometimes seeking to profit off the local populations.

“People in the liberated areas say: ‘Why are all these armed groups still around? Why do they still call us all ISIS, and why are they taxing us or extorting us and taking all of our money?’,” said Renad Mansour, the director of the Iraq Initiative at Chatham House.

The campaign against the Islamic State, he said, “was a military solution to what is a social and political problem.”

Mr. Trump, for his part, has insisted repeatedly that Turkey should take over the fight against the Islamic State in Syria. “It’s going to be your responsibility,” Mr. Trump said he told the country’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

But current and former United States officials say the Turkish military has a bleak track record at counterterrorism and little hope of filling the void left by the Americans and the Syrian Democratic Forces.

“That is wishful thinking as far as I can tell,” said Dana Stroul, co-chairwoman of the congressionally sponsored Syria Study Group and a former Pentagon official.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Boris Johnson Forced to Seek Brexit Extension After Rebuke from Lawmakers

LONDON — Prime Minister Boris Johnson suffered a stinging defeat on Saturday as Parliament rebuffed his campaign to take Britain out of the European Union by the end of the month and forced him to seek an extension that he had vowed never to pursue.

The turbulent events left Mr. Johnson’s agreement in limbo and threw British politics once again into chaos, with any number of outcomes possible: a no-deal exit from the European Union, a second referendum on whether to leave at all, or a general election that could shift the balance in Parliament. The only sure result was continuing frustration and confusion among the British public.

Late on Saturday night, Mr. Johnson formally applied to the European Union, in an unsigned letter, for another extension of Britain’s departure, something he said he would rather be “dead in a ditch” than do.

Mr. Johnson sent a separate signed letter to the president of the European Council, Donald Tusk, in which he said a “further extension would damage the interests of the U.K. and our E.U. partners, and the relationship between us.”

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_162959685_21eca3f1-47f4-4ee1-9955-cbedf70bc68f-articleLarge Boris Johnson Forced to Seek Brexit Extension After Rebuke from Lawmakers Politics and Government Letwin, Oliver (1956- ) Legislatures and Parliaments Johnson, Boris Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain

“We are now reaching a crucial moment in the Brexit crisis,” organizers of Saturday’s rally in London said.CreditAndrew Testa for The New York Times

The conflicting letters left it to the European Union to decide how to respond to Mr. Johnson. Most analysts expected it would grant an extension, though that was unlikely to clarify the muddled situation in London.

It capped a dramatic day of legislative maneuvering in which lawmakers debated Mr. Johnson’s deal while enormous crowds of anti-Brexit protesters marched outside Parliament. Mr. Johnson implored lawmakers to approve the agreement, which would pave the way for Britain to leave the European Union at the end of the month.

The prime minister argued that it was the best deal Britain could hope to strike — one that, in his telling, would position the country for a thriving future as an agile, free agent in the global economy — and that any further delay would be “pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust.”

Instead, by a vote of 322 to 306, lawmakers passed a last-minute amendment, brought by Oliver Letwin, an expelled member of Mr. Johnson’s Conservative Party, that would delay final approval on the agreement until after Parliament passes the detailed legislation to enact it.

How Parliament Voted on a Measure that Disrupted Boris Johnson’s Brexit Deal

Westlake Legal Group brexit-vote-600 Boris Johnson Forced to Seek Brexit Extension After Rebuke from Lawmakers Politics and Government Letwin, Oliver (1956- ) Legislatures and Parliaments Johnson, Boris Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain

Approve AMENDMENT

Reject AMENDMENT

Reject AMENDMENT

Labour

231

Conservative

283

Scottish Nat. Party

35

Liberal Democrats

19

Independent

17

Independent

17

Westlake Legal Group brexit-vote-335 Boris Johnson Forced to Seek Brexit Extension After Rebuke from Lawmakers Politics and Government Letwin, Oliver (1956- ) Legislatures and Parliaments Johnson, Boris Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) Great Britain

Approve AMENDMENT

Reject AMENDMENT

Labour

231

Conservative

283

Scottish Nat. Party

35

Lib Dems

19

Independent

17

Independent

17

By Allison McCann

Note: Totals do not include the Speaker of the House of Commons, his three deputies, Sinn Fein members of parliament and those who did not vote.

A defiant Mr. Johnson said he would push for another vote on his agreement early next week. But that could present opponents with an opportunity to try to amend his plan.

“I’m not daunted or dismayed by this particular result,” Mr. Johnson said.

Still, it was a stinging setback for the prime minister — and as with his previous defeats in Parliament, one that came at the hands of a former member of his own party.

Mr. Letwin, a veteran Conservative lawmaker, was purged from the party last month for supporting a law intended to prevent Britain from leaving the European Union without any agreement, which many see as risking a disorderly, economically damaging rupture.

Mr. Letwin, who supports Mr. Johnson’s Brexit deal, argued that the amendment was simply a safety net to prevent pro-Brexit hard-liners from sabotaging the implementing legislation and, in the ensuing political vacuum before the Oct. 31 deadline, engineering the no-deal rupture that some want.

Yet some opponents of Mr. Johnson’s Brexit deal supported the Letwin amendment, too — in hopes that further delays might open the door to other options.

For the prime minister, who has staked his claim to 10 Downing Street on delivering the withdrawal, the amendment was another in a series of setbacks in Parliament, preventing him from forcing lawmakers into a binary decision on whether to support his plan.

Assuming that Mr. Johnson does request another Brexit extension, the European Union would have to decide whether to grant a delay of a few more weeks to resolve the technical details, or a longer delay to allow a general election or perhaps a second referendum.

Meeting on a Saturday for the first time since the Falklands War in 1982, members of the House of Commons rose, one after the other, to fervently endorse or reject Mr. Johnson’s deal. The debate seemed to be ultimately less about the details of the plan, with its fiendishly complicated arrangements for trade with Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, than about whether Britain could finally put Brexit behind it.

Opponents of the plan accused Mr. Johnson of negotiating a shoddy deal that would leave a post-Brexit Britain vulnerable to predatory trade deals with other countries, not least the United States.

“This deal would inevitably lead to a Trump trade deal, forcing the U.K. to diverge from the highest standards and expose our families to chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-treated beef,” said the leader of the opposition Labour Party, Jeremy Corbyn, referring to fears of chemically treated imports from the United States.

For Mr. Johnson, 55, a flamboyant politician and former mayor of London who has been in office since July, it was a crucial moment. He spoke with a tone of gravity and conciliation that contrasted starkly with the inflammatory language he has used during previous parliamentary debates over Brexit.

Mr. Johnson’s deal differs from those of his predecessor, Theresa May, primarily in its treatment of Northern Ireland. Needing to avoid physical border checks, Mrs. May opted to keep the entire United Kingdom in the European Union’s customs union, which was unacceptable to hard-line Brexiteers.

Mr. Johnson sought to satisfy them by keeping Northern Ireland subject to the bloc’s rules in a practical sense, but legally outside it with the rest of Britain.

His deal is at the extreme end of divorce settlements that Britain could have negotiated with the European Union. It commits the country to very little alignment with the bloc on trade or regulations, turning its back on much of the web of rules that critics in Britain consider stifling or a threat to their sovereignty.

By keeping the European Union at arm’s length, Mr. Johnson and his lieutenants contend, Britain can set out to transform itself into an agile, lightly regulated competitor in the global economy — or “Singapore-on-Thames,” to use a phrase coined by Brexit evangelists.

To do that, however, Britain must first negotiate new trade agreements with dozens of parties, including the European Union and the United States, a painstaking process that could take several years. And Mr. Johnson’s plan allows for only a transitional period ending in 14 months, though this could be extended for a maximum of two years.

The debate on Saturday came after more than three tumultuous years of division and discord over Brexit, an ordeal that has shaken British politics and tested traditional loyalties, both among lawmakers and voters.

In 2017, Mrs. May called an election betting that she could persuade voters to give her a big majority in Parliament to negotiate a Brexit accord. That proved a fatal error when she lost her majority — and with it, much of her authority within the governing Conservative Party.

Though she later succeeded in negotiating a Brexit deal, she failed three times to get it through the House of Commons and was ultimately forced to request two Brexit delays. Even before that, her enemies were circling — not least Mr. Johnson, who resigned from her cabinet after complaining that her deal would make Britain a vassal state of the European Union.

That helped feed a narrative that has polarized British politics, with many supporters of Brexit moving toward a more brutal rupture with the European Union than its proponents suggested in the 2016 referendum.

At the same time, Brexit opponents became less inclined to settle on a compromise that they saw as the worst of both worlds. Voters increasingly came to identify themselves more as “leavers” or “remainers” than by traditional loyalty to any party.

Facing competition from the Brexit Party, led by Nigel Farage, the Conservatives have now embraced a hard-line form of exit, a transition that gained momentum last month with the purge of 21 Conservative rebels, including Mr. Letwin.

The Labour Party still says it wants to negotiate a different, softer Brexit deal, and would put that to a referendum, with remaining in the European Union being the alternative. The smaller and more pro-European Liberal Democrats say they would stay in the bloc without holding a second vote.

But while political sentiment has fled the center ground, there is a growing sense of exhaustion among many voters about Parliament’s endless haggling over Brexit.

That has proved a powerful weapon for Mr. Johnson, who has argued that he would “get Brexit done” — even if the reality is that Britain’s legal departure from the European Union is only a stage in a much longer process.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Boris Johnson Has a Trust Problem in Parliament

Westlake Legal Group 19brexit-trust-facebookJumbo Boris Johnson Has a Trust Problem in Parliament Referendums Politics and Government Letwin, Oliver (1956- ) Law and Legislation Johnson, Boris House of Commons (Great Britain) Great Britain European Union Conservative Party (Great Britain)

LONDON — For the ever-wary lawmakers who sit behind Prime Minister Boris Johnson in Britain’s House of Commons, one insurance policy on his rollicking leadership was not enough. So on Saturday, they took out another.

So distrustful have lawmakers become of their famously brazen prime minister — and of one another — that they voted on Saturday not to vote at all on Mr. Johnson’s much-heralded Brexit plan.

They had already passed a law to prevent the prime minister from abruptly pulling Britain out of the European Union without a deal managing future relations. But on Saturday they went further, saying that even the deal that Mr. Johnson had struck with the European Union was not a strong enough guarantee that Britain would not leave without one.

So they bought themselves a second layer of protection against such an outcome, forcing the government to ask for an extension and putting off the fateful decision on his deal until a no-deal departure was a more remote possibility.

In an era of fractious disagreements and high-stakes political gridlock in Britain, the decision to add extra insurance was more evidence of the hollowing out of confidence among lawmakers that their colleagues would abide by the courtly traditions and effete codes of conduct that once dominated the chamber.

“The arteries of Parliament are built on this sort of trust,” said Alan Wager, a research associate at The U.K. in a Changing Europe, a research institute.

“It’s founded on the good-chap theory of government, the idea that people will abide by norms and culture, and that’s where the breakdown is,” he said. “The fury and frustration in the House of Commons is because of the magnitude of the decisions and the tightness of the votes.”

Lawmakers said they had good reason to distrust Mr. Johnson.

In an effort to quash dissenting voices in Parliament and push his Brexit plan through, Mr. Johnson had already asked Queen Elizabeth II to suspend Parliament, a move the Supreme Court deemed unlawful. And in striking a deal this past week with the European Union on the terms of Britain’s departure, he broke a major promise of his about how he would treat trade in Northern Ireland.

As a result of their misgivings, lawmakers have repeatedly tied the government’s hands, going so far as to pre-write a letter to the European Union for the prime minister because they did not trust him to follow the chamber’s edicts. A pregnant Labour lawmaker even delayed giving birth to appear for a pivotal vote in a wheelchair, suspicious that her pro-Brexit adversaries would not honor the usual system of taking medical absences into account.

The delay to Saturday’s vote on Mr. Johnson’s new Brexit agreement came in the form of an amendment put forward by Oliver Letwin, a former Conservative lawmaker exiled from the party by Mr. Johnson. Mr. Letwin supported the deal, as did some other lawmakers who voted to force a postponement.

But Mr. Letwin and other lawmakers said they worried that it was a prelude to parliamentary chicanery by Mr. Johnson or his hard-line Conservative allies that would result in a catastrophic no-deal Brexit within weeks. His amendment delays final approval of the agreement until after Parliament passes the detailed legislation to enact it.

That guarded against British lawmakers’ approving Mr. Johnson’s deal in principle on Saturday, but then holding up the detailed legislation that would follow.

Despite the earlier law seeking to avert a no-deal departure, that sequence of events would have left Parliament powerless to stop a no-deal Brexit on Oct. 31.

Among the most important backers of delaying a decision were a group of lawmakers furious at Mr. Johnson over the deal. In order to avoid imposing a border on the island of Ireland, his agreement creates a regulatory and customs border of sorts between Britain and Northern Ireland.

That angered unionist lawmakers for whom close ties between those two regions are sacrosanct — all the more so because Mr. Johnson had earlier promised not to put any distance between the two.

Philip Hammond, a Conservative ex-chancellor, on Saturday compared Mr. Johnson’s deal to getting on a bus without knowing where it was going.

“Before I decide whether to jump on the prime minister’s bus,” he said, “I’d like to be just a little clearer about the destination.”

For a prime minister who thought he was on the verge of a breakthrough, the voting on Saturday amounted to a remarkable comedown. But some of the anger at the prime minister was fueled by the very tactics that his allies credit for getting him a new deal.

In the delicate last stage of trying to win approval, though, Mr. Johnson is finding that those fights have depleted a precious reserve of good will among his colleagues, analysts said.

“It rebounds on him,” Mr. Wager said. “He got the agreement because he was willing to break the rules. And now people’s knowledge of the rules is coming back to haunt him.”

He added, “The attempts to second-guess the intentions of the government and safeguard against specific actions of the government — this is a new element, and it’s because of a lack of trust.”

Not all the lawmakers who voted to disrupt Mr. Johnson’s Brexit plan on Saturday did it because of worries about procedural trickery. Some opposition lawmakers simply want to delay and ultimately reverse Brexit, and depriving Mr. Johnson of a fast, up-or-down vote helped their cause.

But even lawmakers who were considering supporting Mr. Johnson’s agreement said they worried they were being “duped,” as Mr. Hammond put it, into voting for a no-deal Brexit in disguise. They fear that after clinching approval, Mr. Johnson will run down the clock on a transition period and fail to secure a free-trade agreement with the European Union, allowing Britain to effectively leave the bloc without a deal protecting trading ties and other arrangements in December 2020.

John Baron, a Brexiteer in the hard-line European Research Group, said as much in a televised interview. He described how senior government ministers had given him “clear assurance” that Britain would effectively leave the European Union on no-deal terms at the end of 2020 if trade talks failed.

Rob Ford, a professor of politics at the University of Manchester, said, “The European Research Group keep saying the silent bit out loud.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

What Happened in Today’s Brexit Vote

Oct. 19, 2019Updated 12:00 p.m. ET

Here’s what you need to know:

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_162959829_c02e1da5-9e1b-4c2a-96c1-4effc6f49654-articleLarge What Happened in Today’s Brexit Vote Politics and Government Legislatures and Parliaments Johnson, Boris Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) European Union Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland) Conservative Party (Great Britain)

Huge anti-Brexit crowds marched near Parliament in London on Saturday.CreditAndrew Testa for The New York Times

British lawmakers on Saturday scuttled Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s carefully choreographed plan to push his Brexit deal through a special Saturday session of Parliament.

They voted 322-306 in favor of an amendment that puts off the moment of decision until they have had more time to scrutinize his plan.

It was the latest twist in a debate that has convulsed the country for three anguished years, ever since the British public voted in 2016 for a divorce from the European Union.

The move to postpone the crucial Brexit vote on Saturday muddled Mr. Johnson’s path to a Brexit deal, though it also could end up increasing the chance that some moderate lawmakers will vote for his deal down the road.

The whiplash developments mean he is legally obliged to seek yet another extension for Britain’s departure from the European Union, which he had vowed never to do.

In fact, after the vote on the amendment, Mr. Johnson declared, “I will not negotiate a delay with the E.U.,” he said, “and neither does the law compel me to do so.”

“I wish the House to know I’m not daunted or dismayed by this particular result,” the prime minister added. “I will tell our friends and colleagues in the E.U. exactly what I’ve told everyone in the last 88 days: that further delay would be bad for this country, bad for the European Union and bad for democracy.”

How Parliament Voted on a Measure that Disrupted Boris Johnson’s Brexit Deal

Westlake Legal Group brexit-vote-600 What Happened in Today’s Brexit Vote Politics and Government Legislatures and Parliaments Johnson, Boris Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) European Union Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland) Conservative Party (Great Britain)

Approve AMENDMENT

Reject AMENDMENT

Reject AMENDMENT

Labour

231

Conservative

283

Scottish Nat. Party

35

Liberal Democrats

19

Independent

17

Independent

17

Westlake Legal Group brexit-vote-335 What Happened in Today’s Brexit Vote Politics and Government Legislatures and Parliaments Johnson, Boris Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) European Union Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland) Conservative Party (Great Britain)

Approve AMENDMENT

Reject AMENDMENT

Labour

231

Conservative

283

Scottish Nat. Party

35

Lib Dems

19

Independent

17

Independent

17

By Allison McCann

Note: Totals do not include the Speaker of the House of Commons, his three deputies, Sinn Fein members of parliament and those who did not vote.

Crowds of anti-Brexit marchers in Parliament Square erupted in cheers and applause at the news that the amendment had passed.

The amendment essentially turned Mr. Johnson’s up-or-down vote on his deal into a weaker one, saying only that “this House has considered the matter but withholds approval unless and until implementing legislation is passed.”

Lawmakers were worried that, were they to approve Mr. Johnson’s deal on Saturday, hard-line Brexiteer lawmakers would delay passing accompanying legislation next week, pushing Britain out of the European Union without a deal on Oct. 31.

The passage of the amendment means that Mr. Johnson is forced by law to send a letter to the European Union on Saturday night saying that, because he could not pass his deal in time in Britain’s Parliament, he needed an extension.

quagmire.

Even lawmakers who support Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal didn’t trust him or his hard-line Brexit backers, fearing that they might pull a procedural trick to force Britain to crash out of the European Union without a deal.

They also worried that Parliament could approve Mr. Johnson’s deal on Saturday, absolving the prime minister of any obligation to delay the Brexit deadline.

So a former Conservative lawmaker, Oliver Letwin, whom Mr. Johnson had kicked out of the party, put forward an amendment as sort of insurance policy to make approval of the deal conditional on also passing necessary legislation.

In essence, the so-called Letwin Amendment, which the speaker of the House of Commons, John Bercow, selected for a vote, aimed to turn Parliament’s up-or-down vote on Mr. Johnson’s deal into a much weaker motion.

It means that Saturday was not the day that lawmakers would fully endorse or reject the Brexit deal.

Read the Draft Withdrawal Agreement

The European Commission released a copy of the draft withdrawal agreement shortly after the deal was announced.

Westlake Legal Group thumbnail What Happened in Today’s Brexit Vote Politics and Government Legislatures and Parliaments Johnson, Boris Great Britain Withdrawal from EU (Brexit) European Union Democratic Unionist Party (Northern Ireland) Conservative Party (Great Britain)   64 pages, 0.92 MB

Now that the amendment has passed, lawmakers get to not only cast a definitive vote on Mr. Johnson’s deal, but also to debate, amend and vote on legislation putting that deal into law.

The Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, which stridently objects to Mr. Johnson’s deal, earlier signaled that it would vote for the Letwin amendment. Sammy Wilson, a Democratic Unionist lawmaker, said that “we would be failing in our duty” if the party did not try to force changes to the Brexit deal.

On a high-wire day in British politics, a crucial question now is how the government will respond to the upending of Mr. Johnson’s plan.

British news outlets reported that the government could put forward the legislation accompanying Mr. Johnson’s deal as soon as Monday or Tuesday and push for a quick vote then.

And Saturday afternoon, Jacob Rees-Mogg, a hard-line Conservative Brexiteer, announced in the Commons that the government would bring back another “meaningful” vote on Monday.

The defeat means that Prime Minister Boris Johnson is legally obliged by 11 p.m. Saturday local time to request another delay to Brexit until Jan 31, 2020, from Brussels.

Mr. Johnson was careful to choose his words carefully, saying that he would not “negotiate” a delay but not that his office would refuse to send the required letter.

That seemed to open a path to Mr. Johnson or someone else in the government signing the required letter, but with the prime minister’s refusing to put his weight behind the request and telling European leaders that he did not want it.

After his comments, Downing Street refused to clarify what the prime minister meant.

The developments place the leaders of he European Union in a tricky position, since they do not want a potentially damaging no-deal departure, but will want Britain to justify any further extension. All member countries of the bloc will have to agree on the delay.

By the time they consider a request, however, Parliament will most likely have had more votes on Brexit because Mr. Johnson said he would press on with legislation needed to effect his plan next week.

When the legislation comes to Parliament, that will also provide an opportunity for its opponents to try to amendment the plan. So next week may, or may not, provide more clarity.

In what commentators called the biggest speech of his political career, Prime Minister Boris Johnson argued strenuously in the House of Commons on Saturday that his deal was the best available Brexit deal and that Britain could not waste another day in extracting itself from the European Union.

“Now is the time for this great House of Commons to come together,” he said before the vote on the amendment. Amid shouts from the opposition benches, he added that any further delay to Brexit would be “pointless, expensive and deeply corrosive of public trust.”

Mr. Johnson cast his deal as a fulfillment of decades of conflict in Britain over its place in the European Union. He said it would allow the entire country to benefit from future trade deals and avoid a dreaded hard border on the island of Ireland.

Mr. Johnson’s odds were complicated by the fact that he does not have a working majority in Parliament and has not won a major vote there in the three months he has been in office.

Many of the lawmakers he needs to back his deal include the 21 members of Parliament he purged from the Conservative Party after they voted for a measure to prevent Britain from leaving the European Union without a deal.

His allies in Northern Ireland, 10 lawmakers from the Democratic Unionist Party, flatly rejected his Brexit deal, accusing Mr. Johnson of selling the territory short by accepting checks on some goods passing through Northern Ireland to get a deal.

In a striking moment on Saturday afternoon, as the debate dragged on before the vote, Theresa May, Boris Johnson’s predecessor as prime minister, stood up and give an impassioned speech in the House of Commons.

“Standing here, I have a distinct sense of déjà vu,” Mrs. May said to knowing laughter, given that her deal had been rejected in the same chamber three times.

For Mrs. May, it was a dramatic intervention, given that she was showing support for Mr. Johnson, who had often not supported her.

She said it was time for Parliament to vote for a deal on Brexit, having promised to abide by the democratic will of the people.

“If the Parliament did not mean it, then it is guilty of the most egregious con trick on the British people,” Mrs. May said. “You cannot have a second referendum simply because you don’t agree with the results of the first.”

“If you don’t want ‘no deal,’” she declared, “you have to vote for a deal.”

Cheers erupted at from the backbenchers the end of her speech.

It was the most visible appearance by Mrs. May in the nation’s Brexit debate since she stepped down from her job and relinquished leadership of the Conservative Party in the wake of her own stinging defeats.

But it also put her in an awkward position. During her negotiations with Brussels, Mrs. May said that no British prime minister could accept a deal that would keep Northern Ireland in the European Union’s customs territory.

Although Northern Ireland would remain in the United Kingdom’s customs territory under Mr. Johnson’s deal, the arrangement would impose the same customs checks between Britain and Northern Ireland that Mrs. May once ruled out.

Jeremy Corbyn, Britain’s left-wing opposition leader, who spoke after Prime Minister Boris Johnson but before Theresa May in the Commons on Saturday, earlier urged lawmakers to vote against the deal.

“This deal is not good for jobs, damaging to our industry and a threat to our environment and our natural world,” he said. “It should be voted down today by this House.”

He argued that the deal was worse than the agreement reached by Mr. Johnson’s predecessor, Theresa May.

“We simply cannot vote for a deal that is even worse than the House rejected three times,” he said.

Mr. Corbyn argued that the new deal would cost every citizen in the country, on average, more than $2,500 and would lead to “a race to the bottom in regulation and standards.”

.

Huge crowds of protesters streamed to Westminster on Saturday in a march to demand another referendum on Brexit — a show of defiance as British lawmakers voted on the deal outlining the nation’s exit from the European Union.

Organizers of the People’s Vote march said they had drawn about one million people, which would make it one of the largest demonstrations on record in Britain.

“We are now reaching a crucial moment in the Brexit crisis,” the organizers said in a statement. “The government has adopted the slogan ‘Get Brexit Done’ to try and browbeat an exhausted public into accepting whatever botched Brexit Boris Johnson presents to them, but we know this slogan is a lie.”

Outside Westminster on Saturday, Milou de Castellane, 52, who works as a nanny in London, said she had voted to remain in the European Union and would like to have a second referendum or to remain in Europe.

Before the parliamentary vote on Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s deal, she said: “I hope that the deal will not pass, but I have a sinking feeling that it might. But it cannot just be a rabbit-out-of-a hat scenario. We have to know what is in the deal.”

Three 16-year-olds who attend school together in Oxford descended on Parliament Square on Saturday before the vote.

“We came here today because we want to let our voices be heard; we have not been able to do it any other way,” said Anoushka Nairac, a student at Magdalen College School in Oxford. She added that “we have been living with the consequences” of the referendum.

“My father is an immigrant who set up his own company and provided jobs for citizens,” she said. “It makes me annoyed; people are not looking at the facts.”

She added: “The deal is appalling. They have taken Theresa May’s deal and wrapped it in new packaging. The deal is uncaring about E.U. citizens and the Northern Ireland border. ”

Michelle and Mike Megan, both 60, have been coming from Newbury to protest outside Westminster for a few days each week since January.

Ms. Megan said: “As a leave voter, we are here to counteract the people’s vote to remain in the E.U. Remainers are asking for a people’s vote, but the people already voted in 2016. We were told it was a once-in-a-generation referendum.”

Ms. Megan added: “So far, Boris Johnson has done a good job. I would never have called myself a Boris fan, but he is now our only hope of getting Brexit done. He has his faults, but so do great leaders in the past.”

When news of the vote on the amendment spread, marchers like Aleksandr Pessina, who says she has Italian and Russian heritage and works as a software engineer, called it “a great victory for democracy.”

She added that it would allow “more time for people to think it through, and it might eventually lead to the rejection of Brexit altogether.”

Reporting was contributed by Stephen Castle, Mark Landler, Ben Mueller, Marc Santora, Anna Schaverien, Claire Moses, Alan Yuhas and Megan Specia.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com