Tag: news

Susan Rice Responds To Trump Unmasking Allegations: “I Leaked Nothing To Nobody”

If anyone expected former National Security Advisor Susan Rice, the same Susan Rice who “stretched the truth” about Benghazi, to admit in her first public appearance after news that she unmasked members of the Trump team to admit she did something wrong, will be disappointed. Instead, moments ago she told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell that she categorically denied that the Obama administration inappropriately spied on members of the Trump transition team.

“The allegation is that somehow, Obama administration officials utilized intelligence for political purposes,” Rice told Mitchell. “That’s absolutely false…. My job is to protect the American people and the security of our country. ”

“There was no such collection or surveillance on Trump Tower or Trump individuals, it is important to understand, directed by the White House or targeted at Trump individuals,” Rice said.

“I don’t solicit reports,” Rice said Tuesday. “They’re giving it to me, if I read it, and I think that in order for me to understand, is it significant or not so significant, I need to know who the ‘U.S. Person’ is, I can make that request.” She did concede that it is “possible” the Trump team was picked up in “incidental surveillance.”

“The notion, which some people are trying to suggest, that by asking for the identity of the American person is the same is leaking it — that’s completely false,” Rice said. “There is no equivalence between so-called unmasking and leaking.”

That said, Rice did not discuss what motive she may have had behind what Bloomberg, Fox and others have confirmed, was her unmasking of members of the Trump team.

Rice also flatly denied exposing President Trump’s former national security advisor Michael Flynn, who was forced to resign in February after media reports revealed that he misled Vice President Pence about the contents of a phone call with the Russian ambassador. Asked by Mitchell if she seeked to unmask the names of people involved in the Trump campaign in order to spy on them, Rice says: “absolutely not, for any political purpose, to spy, expose, anything.” And yet, that is what happened. She was then asked if she leaked if she leaked the name of Mike Flynn: “I leaked nothing to nobody.”

In a follow up question, Rice said that when it comes to Mike Flynn with whom she had “civil and cordial relations”, that she learned “in the press” that he was an unregistered agent for the Turkish government.

We doubt that anyone’s opinion will change after hearing the above especially considering that, in addition to Benghazi,  Rice is the official who praised Bowe Bergdahl for his “honorable service” and claimed he was captured “on the battlefield”, and then just two weeks ago, she told PBS that she didn’t know anything about the unmasking.

It is thus hardly surprising that now that her memory has been “refreshed” about her role in the unmasking, that Rice clearly remembers doing nothing at all wrong.

On Monday night, Rand Paul and other Republicans called for Rice to testify under oath, a request she sidestepped on Tuesday. “Let’s see what comes,” she told Mitchell, when asked if she would testify on the matter. “I’m not going to sit here and prejudge.”

via http://ift.tt/2nAMJh0 Tyler Durden

Sen. Rand Paul Wants to Use Fight over Trump Snooping to Pass Surveillance Reforms

Rand PaulWouldn’t it be wonderful if Reason, not beholden to either the Donald Trump administration or the previous Barack Obama administration, could tell you exactly what to take away from Eli Lake’s Bloomberg report that former National Security Adviser Susan Rice requested the names of American citizens who showed up in foreign intelligence reports connected to the Trump transition team?

The reality is, beyond the blustering politically motivated outrage from one side and the politically motivated cool dismissal from the other (you can guess which side is which), it’s tough to interpret even basic facts here, and that’s part of the problem. Lake has been careful with his reporting on the various controversies and agendas coming into play in this heavily politicized fight. Yet even he got tripped up when Rep. Devin Nunes misled him and said the White House was not the source of the classified info that the private communications between Trump’s team and foreign officials had been incidentally collected. Subsequent reporting from The New York Times determined that the sources were indeed in the White House.

What we can say is that, assuming that Rice did indeed request the names be unmasked, there are a number of potentially legitimate reasons for her to have done so (particularly if there’s an investigation into potential criminal behavior by the foreign targets of surveillance) and it was likely legal. It also doesn’t mean that she must have been responsible for leaking anything that she saw. This afternoon she denied leaking any information in an interview with MSNBC.

But if there’s distrust of Rice’s motives here from Republicans, conservatives, libertarians or really anybody concerned about the nature of the surveillance state, Rice has certainly earned it. Rice most infamously, following the deadly attack on America’s consulate in Benghazi, Libya, took to Sunday morning talk shows to lay the blame on an anti-Muslim YouTube video as an inciting factor to downplay the possibility that the U.S. had been caught unprepared for an attack. Her deliberately misleading comments should be seen as self-serving party hackery. To assume Rice’s objectivity here is to ignore the full context of her record.

Let’s be clear though: It’s entirely likely for Rice’s unmasking request to be legal and commonplace and also partly politically motivated. A lot of this battle over intelligence community surveillance revolves around false choices driven before the public by people with agendas. It is possible to believe that it is absolutely legitimate for the intelligence community to be investigating whether there are ties between Trump’s team and the Russian government in the breach of private Democratic Party communications last year and yet still be deeply concerned about politically driven leaks intended to influence domestic politics. Likewise it is possible to believe that what Rice did was legal—even commonplace—and question why that is or whether such practices should continue.

If we are concerned at the ability of America’s intelligence apparatus being misused for political purposes (and we should, because, you know, history), now is a good time to act. It just so happens that some of the foreign surveillance authorities that may have been misused here are scheduled to sunset this year unless Congress acts. And privacy advocates are hungering for reform to better protect Americans from having their information inappropriately collected and their identities “unmasked” for reasons that have nothing to do with national security or fighting terrorism.

Among those advocates is Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) who has fought to try to keep the feds from engaging in unwarranted surveillance of Americans. Paul got media attention for golfing with President Trump over the weekend and yesterday had a short press conference to talk mostly about health care reform but also potential surveillance reform in the wake of Lake’s news story yesterday.

“It is an enormous deal,” Paul said about the prospect of Rice unmasking the names of members of Trump’s team. He pointed out that the records of millions of Americans get “incidentally” collected as part of federal surveillance and objected to the idea that this should be considered commonplace.

“They’re not so ‘incidental’ when they’re you,” he pointed out. Paul wants Rice to testify whether what Lake reported was true and to ask her under oath whether she’s at all responsible for any leaks of names to the press (like Michael Flynn, who resigned as national security adviser after his conversations with a Russian diplomat—which he misled Vice President Mike Pence about—were exposed).

Shifting away from this “deep state” fight between the Trump administration and the intelligence community, Paul said he wanted to reform the surveillance authorities themselves, and wants more restrictions on unmasking names and information. He says that if it involves somebody in a political position or a candidate for office, they should have to go to a judge to sign off. He said that he would be as concerned about the possibility of politically motivated surveillance even if the two parties were reversed.

“Do we really want the outgoing administration to be able to eavesdrop on the [incoming] administration?” he asked.

A spokesperson for Paul’s office told Reason that Paul is involved in drafting legislation that would reform some of these surveillance authorities and that it would be publicly released in the coming weeks. That Paul has Trump’s ear may end up being very important in pushing through any sort of reforms that restrict the federal government’s ability to collect and keep Americans’ private communications and data. Right before this political surveillance fight broke out big, the Trump administration said they actually don’t want any federal surveillance authorities changed. Trump himself campaigned on a pro-surveillance mindset and has historically shown very little interest in citizen privacy.

Trump has been of the attitude that whatever surveillance happened during the transition was “illegal,” and that partly explains the whole debate about whether Rice’s actions were permitted. But for privacy purposes, we’d all be better off if Paul is able to push Trump toward an understanding that the law itself needs reform. Here’s a short piece from the American Civil Liberties Union that explains some of the flaws with these surveillance authorities—despite claims that it’s used to fight terrorism and keep tabs on foreign interests, it is able to target perfectly innocent people, and this private data is also used to investigate domestic crimes while bypassing the legal requirement for a warrant.

A representative from the ACLU also participated in a recent Reason-moderated panel on federal surveillance overreach at the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas. You can listen to that discussion here.

And an oldie but a goodie: You don’t have to be a controversial president with ties to controversial foreign leaders to be worried about federal surveillance. Here are three reasons every American should be concerned about federal surveillance.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2oycIef
via IFTTT

How a Trade Barrier Aimed at Vietnam Will Batter Businesses in Virginia and Maryland

All seafood sold commercially in the United States is subject to inspection by the Food and Drug Administration. As of September, catfish will be inspected instead by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, a more laborious and costly process. That’s because catfish, unlike other fish, is now classified as “meat” for regulatory purposes. And it is classified as meat because the Mississippi catfish industry doesn’t like to compete with Vietnamese imports. The revised rule is a thinly disguised trade barrier brought to you by Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.).

We’ve noted this pending change a couple of times at Reason already; I’m bringing it up again because the Chesapeake Bay Journal‘s Rona Kobell (*) has just published a piece on what the switch will mean for the Chesapeake’s catfish catchers. Catfish weren’t introduced to the bay until the 1970s, and like many invasive species they’ve made a nuisance of themselves, gobbling up valuable crabs and menhaden. So when a local catfish industry emerged, it was a triple benefit: It meant work for fishermen and processors, it meant food for people who prefer wild catfish to the farm-raised Mississippi product, and it meant less of an invasive species. With the new regulatory burden, it’s unclear how much of that will continue:

Tim Shugrue, vice president of Congressional Seafood, said his company processes fish 16 hours every day, twice the workday length of USDA inspectors. To get an inspector on Saturdays, he said, will cost him $70 an hour, and fresh fish can’t wait to be cut until Monday.

“Many businesses will opt out of selling this invasive species rather than deal with the bureaucratic red tape,” Shugrue said, adding, “the premise of this regulation is a joke—this is being done under the guise of food safety—that somehow wild blue cat represent some grave danger to the public over and above all other seafood.”

To read the rest, go here.

(* Full disclosure: We’re married. Try not to hold her questionable taste in men against her.)

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2nTShFh
via IFTTT

Tesla Overtakes GM As America’s Most Valuable Car Company

It's official – for the first time ever, Elon Musk's government-subsidized car-maker is America's most valuable auto manufacturer.

Tesla shares surged another 1% today, amid a continued "trouble in shortville" ramp, topping $300 for the first time…

That gives the company a total value of $52.7 billion.

That's more than GM's $49.6 billion valuation. Tesla chief executive Elon Musk says he expects the company to sell 500,000 cars next year. GM, meanwhile, sold more than 20 times that many last year.

"If you look at the different auto companies on paper, it does seem a bit proposterous, where Tesla is at this moment, versus some of the more established auto companies," Jessica Caldwell, director of industry analysis with automotive research firm Edmunds, said in an interview with CBC's On The Money on Monday.

Tesla sold 76,285 cars last year. That compares to over 10 million for GM worldwide and 6.65 million for Ford.

"I think Tesla has had a very high market cap for a long time, so I don't think this comes necessarily as a surprise, but when you compare it to someone like Ford [or GM] who has a wealth of resources, it does seem a little out of whack," Caldwell said.

via http://ift.tt/2nALsXl Tyler Durden

Paul Ryan Quashes Hope For Quick Second Try At Healthcare Bill

Earlier this morning, we reported that “In An Aggressive Push, Trump Seeks Friday Passage Of Revised Healthcare Bill“, and has instructed Mike Pence to rattle the cages of both conservative and moderate Republicans, to see what the bid/ask difference is. Among the things the White House was willing to concede on: i) granting a waver to States from some, if not all, Obamacare insurance rules including the minimum benefits; and ii) a $115 billion “stability fund” for the states would be narrowed to be spent specifically on high-risk pools, as a form of coverage for those with pre-existing conditions.

Some expressed optimism that Trump’s renewed interest to pass Trump/Ryancare could take place as soon as this Friday, with Rep. Chris Collins adding “this could move fairly quickly.”

Freedom Caucus leaders said they’re open to the idea but want to see the legislative text, meanwhile White House officials were hoping to send the text to Capitol Hill as early as Tuesday night.

Or maybe not, because as Reuters reports, House Speaker Paul Ryan on Tuesday poured cold water on expectations that after last month’s Republican failure to pass their own Healthcare bill, a quick deal to repeal and replace ObamaCare would not happen and declined to say whether the House would hold a vote by the end of the week. As The Hill adds, his remarks followed a flurry of meetings between Vice President Mike Pence, other top White House officials, the Tuesday Group of centrists and the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus.

“These are ongoing talks. We want our members to talk with each other about how we can improve the bill to get consensus. Those productive talks are happening. We’re at the concept stages right now,” Ryan told reporters after a closed-door meeting with Republicans earlier. “So right now, we’re just at that conceptual stage about how to move forward in a way we can get everybody to 216 [votes]. … It’s premature to say where we are or what we’re on because we’re at that conceptual stage.”

“We don’t have a bill text or an agreement, but these are the kinds of conversations we want — all the various caucus members, the administration, those productive kinds of conversations are happening right now,” Ryan said. “It’s all about getting the premiums down.”

The House breaks for a two-week spring recess at the end of the week, creating a sense of urgency for Republicans who don’t want to return to their districts and face constituents without a healthcare victory. At least two Republicans stood up during Tuesday’s GOP conference meeting and told leadership the House should delay its recess until it passes a health bill, sources in the room said.

But when asked if there will be a health vote by the end of the week, Ryan said he didn’t know.

“I don’t want to put some kind of artificial deadline because we’re at that conceptual stage,” Ryan said. “We have very productive conversations occurring with our members. But those are productive conversations; it doesn’t mean we have language and text that’s ready to go and the votes are lined up.”

via http://ift.tt/2nGePbC Tyler Durden

Arkansas Rejects Free-Range Kids Bill Because Legislators Think They’re Better Parents Than You

KidsLast week, Arkansas voted on the very first Free-Range Kids and Parents Bill of Rights.

Oh, it wasn’t called that. Nonetheless, the proposed law would have ended “neglect” investigations of parents who simply let their children play outside, walk to school, wait in the car for under 15 minutes in temperate conditions, or come home as a latchkey kid. If the parents were otherwise neglectful or abusive, of course, the state was allowed to probe. But if the parents simply trusted their kids with a little independence, the worry that they could face charges would be lifted.

The bill was drafted by me, Adrian Moore at the Reason Foundation (which publishes Reason magazine), and Dan Greenberg, president of the Advance Arkansas Institute, along with help from some other pro bono lawyers. Arkansas State Sen. Alan Clark (R) sponsored it and darned if it didn’t sail through the Senate.

When it was then introduced to the House Judiciary Committee, Clark said in his opening statement that many Americans are “under the impression that a record number of children are being taken, and that’s not true.” He added he himself was surprised. But given that kids today are not in excess danger, “This is a bill to make sure my parents would not be criminals.” In other words, any parent today simply following their own parents’ example—sending the kids out to run around the neighborhood—would not be treated as negligent. “This is a parents’ rights bill,” said Clark.

But as Caleb Taylor in The Arkansas Project, writes:

Are Arkansas parents smart enough to know when it’s safe to leave their kids unattended?

Apparently, many legislators don’t think so.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee voted down legislation introduced by State Sen. Alan Clark to tweak the legal definitions of child neglect and maltreatment in Arkansas.

What happened? Well, House Speaker Jeremy Gillam (R) took the position that the “latest statistics” it takes just 37 seconds to carjack a vehicle with a child inside.

Which could well be true. But simply because something can happen does not mean that it is remotely likely to happen. And as Clark proceeded to point out: If kids can be kidnapped in 37 seconds from a car, the same must hold true if they are allowed to ride their bikes, or walk home from the park on their own.

And Gillam agreed that that’s so: No child is ever safe unsupervised.

The TAP article notes:

If you make the assumption that any imaginable tragedy is sufficient reason to never allow kids to be left unattended by parents, public schools should close tomorrow. It’s possible to imagine that kids could be sexually abused or beaten by a school employee. Does that mean parents who send their kids to school everyday are bad parents? Obviously not.

Well argued.

But logic did not carry the day. Nor did a list that was read aloud of parents who had indeed been investigated or arrested for letting their kids play in the backyard unsupervised, or walk home from the park. Even the story of a pregnant mom jailed overnight for letting her children wait five minutes in the air-conditioned car did not seem to move everyone.

The final nail in the bill’s coffin may have been a presentation by Lori Kumpuris from the prosecution coordinator’s office. TAP reports:

Kumpuris noted that her association was neutral towards the bill, and then proceeded to criticize the bill — stating, in particular, that she was concerned about the bill’s impact on prosecutorial discretion. It is hard to interpret such a statement as anything other than suggesting that there are some prosecutors who really do want to hold criminal penalties over the heads of parents who do nothing more sinister than allow their children to take neighborhood walks.

Why would a state want to make it easier to arrest parents who trust their kids, their neighborhoods, and their own sense of what is safe enough?

Because for some lawmakers—and prosecutors—nothing is safe enough. After all, not only are they infected by the fear of our times—that children are in constant danger—they have another fear hanging over their heads: What if an investigation is closed and later on a child is hurt? Won’t that hurt their own political career?

And so Arkansas has preserved the right of its authorities to barge in on families who simply want their kids to have a tiny taste of the independence most of us remember from our own childhoods. Why give kids freedom—why give parents freedom—when you can take it away so easily and say you’re championing safety in the process?

So here’s what should happen next time (and there will be a next time): Real parents should flood the chambers and demand their say. I want my kid to be able to walk five blocks to his friend’s house without me worrying I’ll get arrested! If I drag my triplets out of the car and across the parking lot to get a gallon of milk, I’ll be putting them in more danger than if I dash in and out! Do you really think it’ll make my daughter safer if you throw me in jail for letting her come home for an hour before I finish my shift at the plant? Why are you criminalizing normal parents who trust their kids, their neighborhoods and the actual crime stats?

Sen. Clark is right: This is a civil rights issue. And in the end, Americans will insist on the right to raise their kids as they see fit.

I am pasting a copy of the Arkansas bill here. Feel free to edit it for your own town, city or state and then—get it passed!

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2nAqhVC
via IFTTT

The Case Against National Medical Malpractice Reform: New at Reason

“Nobody wants medical tort reform more than me,” writes Dr. Jeffrey Singer.

As a surgeon in private practice for over 30 years, I feel the sting of exorbitant malpractice insurance premiums. I hear tales in the hospital doctors’ lounge of frivolous lawsuits, of suits brought by ungrateful and misinformed patients, of doctors torn between feelings of compassion and fear when they interact with many of their patients. In most states, the cost of bringing a lawsuit is negligible, while the defense costs, including those to the psyche, are enormous.

However, I wince every time I hear politicians and pundits claim that tort reform is an essential ingredient to “free-market health care reform”—that it is a “major driver” of rising health care costs. I know that if they waved a magic wand and completely eliminated the threat of medical malpractice lawsuits tomorrow, nothing much would change in the way in which my colleagues and I practice medicine. Ordering expensive, redundant, and possibly unneeded tests is now baked into the cake.

View this article.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2nYQY9E
via IFTTT

Manhattan Apartment Prices Tumble In Q1 As Sellers Fret Over Rising Rates

At the end of 4Q 2016, we noted that NYC real estate sales volumes were collapsing as sellers seemed to be having a difficult time accepting the fact that clearing prices had dropped below their exorbitant asking prices…here was our conclusion then (see “More Bad News For NYC Real Estate As Luxury Co-Op Contracts Collapse 25%“):

“The lesson seems to be that the marginal New York City buyer has been priced out of the market while sellers have not yet accepted that the bubble has burst deciding instead to maintain listing prices while letting their apartments sit on the market longer amid growing inventory levels…that should work out well…”

Now, it seems that growing fears over the flood of new inventory slated to hit the New York market combined with the Fed’s promise to keep hiking interest rates has sellers slightly more willing to compromise. 

Per the following quarterly Manhattan market update from Douglas Elliman, the median sales price for apartments in the Big Apple dropped 3.3% YoY in 1Q 2017 prompting a ‘surge’ in deal volumes which were up 0.5%.

NYC

 

As Bloomberg notes, discounts versus asking prices also rose for every type of property tracked by Douglas Elliman.

Sellers who had been holding fast to ambitious pricing goals are softening their stances as they face the prospect of higher mortgage rates and more listings being added to the Manhattan market. In the three months through March, buyers of resale homes got discounts averaging 4.5 percent off the last asking prices, up from 2.7 percent reductions a year earlier, Miller Samuel and Douglas Elliman said. Discounts also increased for all other property types tracked by the firms — condos, co-ops, new development and luxury homes — as well as for the market as a whole.

 

“Sellers getting more relaxed with their pricing has certainly helped create a lot more transactions,” said Pamela Liebman, chief executive officer of Corcoran Group, which released its own report on the market Tuesday. “With prices stabilizing, buyers feel that they’re making a safer bet now.”

Meanwhile, the number of people willing to pay over asking price for the already exorbitantly prices NYC real estate continued to hover a multi-year lows. 

NYC

 

Temporary pricing blip or beginning of a long unwind?  Tough call….$2.1 million seems like such a good deal for 1,000 square feet…that’s enough space for a bedroom AND a living room.

via http://ift.tt/2oy52sg Tyler Durden

Fading “The Beast”

Authored by Sven Henrich via NorthmanTrader.com,

I had an opportunity to speak with the Fast Money crew on CNBC last night about the Nasdaq and following the interview I received a bunch of questions via twitter and email. There’s only so much you can pack into a 4-5 min segment so I wanted to briefly expand a bit on the reasoning behind my position.

In last night’s segment I called the Nasdaq a beast, but one we were interested in fading knowing we are within the confines of continued upside risk in markets as I outlined in the recent “Final Wave“. Seasonality is generally positive in April and markets tend to have a very solid month before turning more shaky into May.

So why the thought of fading “the beast”?

Firstly for reference here’s the full clip of last night’s show including the FM crew’s comments:

Firstly we talked about negative divergences. On the $NDX specifically we see recent new highs coming on lower relative strength, that’s a negative divergence:

I’ve drawn some basic fib retraces presuming current highs hold which we can’t be certain of, but it highlights the extent of the move since the November lows and how basically uncorrected it remains.

Why are negative divergences important? Because they signal underlying problems with a rally. In this case also note that new highs have continued to come with fewer and fewer of the $NDX components above their 50 day moving average:

As I also outlined previously tops are processes and take quite a while to play out whereas bottoms tend to be more likely to be events. Take a long term chart of the $SPX as an example:

I also mentioned negative divergences on the $NDX and its components on multiple time frames.

Here is a monthly chart for example and note the resistance against a multi year trend line:

Similar divergences can be noted in individual stocks:

In addition, I mentioned large scale disconnects from longer term moving averages that make a reconnect at some stage ever more likely.

Finally i mentioned the $VIX. The pattern I discussed recently on Trading Nation is still active and I highlighted the 2 recent tags of the 200MA and note the tag again yesterday:

Is it a reasonable expectation to presume that the $VIX will never close above its 200MA in 2017? Frankly no. We are already in the historically most compressed time period in recent history with valuations at the very high end and mega cap tech stocks technically vastly disconnected.

I’m not saying any of these companies mentioned are bad, or are doing badly. I’m not saying this at all. Nor am I saying a top is in. But what I am saying is that they are technically stretched, the index and many of these stocks are completely uncorrected and to a large degree probably over-owned. In short, they have been in beast mode and risk/reward is setting up for a sizable corrective move. Even a beast needs some rest at some point.

What happens after the first real $VIX spike, when we get it, will then determine whether this market can make new highs or not. If it can’t then we may embark on what I described the coming bear market.

Given how moderately many asset classes have performed since the highs almost 2 years ago in May of 2015 a rebalancing of pricing may pose a challenge for a wide array of narratives:

Banks and tech, for example, have done very well. Other sectors or indices are either kinda flat or very much challenged.

So far $SPX has made an all-time high at the beginning of March. Yesterday $NDX made a new high almost a month later. The last time we saw an $SPX peak followed by an $NDX peak almost a month later? 2007.

My take fwiw: Bulls need a new $SPX high in April or the beast may turn on them.

via http://ift.tt/2oxXfKY Tyler Durden

Spanish Gunship Makes “Illegal Incursion” Into British Waters Off Gibraltar

Just days after a post-Brexit UK cabinet put Europe on edge when a former Conservative leader said on Sunday that Theresa May “would go to war” to protect Gibraltar, Spain has tested the former EU member’s resolve when on Tuesday afternoon the Gibraltar government tweeted that a Spanish gunship has made an illegal incursion into British waters off Gibraltar amid rising Brexit tensions over the territory.

According to SkyNews which broke the story, the Royal Navy told the ship to leave but the incident, the seventh of its kind this year, is likely to escalate already rising tensions over the sovereignty of the Rock.

The alleged incursion comes the day after Spanish foreign minister Alfonso Dastis told the UK not to “lose tempers” after the EU Brexit negotiation guidelines effectively gave Spain significant power over Gibraltar’s future.

Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson have moved to reassure the people of Gibraltar that the territory will remain under British control. Lord Howard told the Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme: “I think there’s no question whatever that our Government will stand by Gibraltar.” As we reported previously, over the weekend former Conservative leader Lord Howard told Sky News Theresa May could be willing to defend the British territory – like Margaret Thatcher had over the Falklands.

He said: “Thirty-five years ago this week, another woman prime minister sent a task force half way across the world to defend the freedom of another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country.

“I’m absolutely certain that our current prime minister will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar.”

 

Downing Street said it would not be sending a task force to Gibraltar but did not condemn Lord Howard’s comments. A spokesman said on Monday: “All that Lord Howard was trying to establish is the resolve that we will have to protect the rights of Gibraltar and its sovereignty.”

Spain has a long-standing territorial claim on Gibraltar, which has been held by the UK since 1713 and has the status of a British overseas territory; recent post-Brexit developments suggest that Europe, and especially Spain, may have renewed claims on the territory.

via http://ift.tt/2oVv3xJ Tyler Durden