Brexit: Cameron hands task of EU divorce to next PM – CNN

Story highlights

  • UK Chancellor says economy “fundamentally strong” but markets drop
  • 19 senior Labour MPs resign in opposition party scandal
A vote last week to pull out of the European Union has left Britain with a nasty hangover, sending the currency spiraling, dampening markets, creating a leadership vacuum and triggering talks of Scottish secession from Britain, forcing the government into damage control.
But the divorce is already looking messy, with Prime Minister David Cameron and key EU leaders in disagreement on how to even begin.
Cameron, who resigned after the vote and plans to step down in October, said he would not yet officially inform the EU of Britain’s withdrawal from the bloc.
“Before we do that, we need to determine the kind of relationship we want with the EU,” he said. “Any new negotiation to leave the EU will begin under a new prime minister.”
But German Chancellor Angela Merkel made clear that Britain’s official notice must come first, which involves invoking a clause in the treaty that binds the union.
“We cannot start some sort of informal talks without having received the notice from Great Britain. This is very clear to me,” she told journalists in Berlin on Monday as EU leaders huddled ahead of a major meeting in Brussels. U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry will also attend, although Cameron is not expected to take part in much of the session.
She said the EU does “not want a stalemate.” “But we have to be sure we are not hanging in the balance, and the first step must be taken by Great Britain,” she said.
Total results
/ 382 districts reporting
Breakdown by region
/ districts reporting
French President Francois Hollande and Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi agreed with Merkel, saying Britain must “waste no time” to get the separation started.
Opposition Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who backed Britain remaining in the EU, said Cameron’s announcement would leave Britain in “a state of paralysis,” delaying for months what could be a two-year separation process, potentially followed by more years of trade talks.
But Corbyn faces a political meltdown of his own and his Labour Party is offering no more certainty to the British public than the ruling Conservatives.
Nineteen Labour Party MPs have resigned from senior posts in an act of no confidence in the divisive leftist leader.
Cameron was quick to jump on fallout from an attempted Labour Party coup, appearing chirpy despite the failure of his campaign to keep Britain in the European Union.
“And I thought I was having a bad day,” he said of Corbyn’s party struggles.

Broken promises

Like the markets, Brits are jittery, not knowing who will lead their country come October or whether any of the promises made by the leave camp will even come into fruition.
Leave campaigners are already back-pedaling on their promises, and many who voted to leave say they feel cheated, and regret their vote.
The Brexit battle bus claiming Britain sends £50 million a day to the EU that could be spent on healthcare.

The Brexit battle bus claiming Britain sends £50 million a day to the EU that could be spent on healthcare.

The leave camp said pulling out of the European Union would save Britain £350 million a week, money that could be poured into the country’s stretched National Health Service. Now they are saying they can’t guarantee that would actually happen.
In fact, nothing will change until Britain invokes Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Who’s in charge?

Cameron announced in parliament that a new unit would be established to deal specifically with the EU divorce in what he described as one of the “most complex” tasks assigned to the civil service in decades.
It would bring together members of various bodies and services, including the cabinet office, the foreign office and the Treasury, among others.
Earlier a spokeswoman from the prime minister’s office said that Oliver Letwin, one of Cameron’s influential policy advisers, would lead the unit.
Letwin is an old friend of Cameron’s from Eton College. Cameron had come under criticism for peppering his cabinet with old school friends from the expensive institution.

‘Open for business’

Leaders are now trying to allay fears that Britain may be heading for recession and are trying to boost confidence in its markets and currency to avoid an economic meltdown.
Cameron reminded parliament that Britain has “one of the strongest major advanced economies in the world.”
“We are well placed to face the challenges ahead,” he said.
“The [central] bank’s stress tests show that UK institutions have enough capital and liquidity reserves to withstand a scenario more severe than the country currently faces.”
Cameron’s comments echoed those of UK Treasury chief George Osborne, who said earlier that the economy remained “fundamentally strong.”
“To companies, large and small, I would say this: the British economy is fundamentally strong, highly competitive and we are open for business.”
But the shock outcome of the Brexit vote pushed the British pound down to its lowest leve in around three decades, and hit the country’s markets hard.
Does Brexit leave the Kremlin smiling?

Does Brexit leave the Kremlin smiling?

The pound was down to 1.31 to the dollar by the afternoon and London’s FTSE 250, which is made up of mostly mid-sized British companies, closed 7% lower Monday.
Former London mayor and prominent leave campaigner Boris Johnson — tipped as a favorite to stand in for Cameron as prime minister — welcomed Osborne’s decision not to make any changes to the budget until after a new prime minister is installed. He said “project fear” is over, referring to what he said was economic fear-mongering from remain campaigners trying to keep Britain in the bloc.
But Adam Marshall, Acting Director General of the British Chambers of Commerce, said that businesses wanted a clear timetable for exit.
“While it is prudent for the UK government to delay firing the starting gun on negotiations with the European Union, firms want a clear timetable, and simultaneous action to support the wider economy,” he said.

Labour’s own meltdown

The jockeying for power is not exclusive to Cameron’s Conservative Party. Labour MPs have seized the Brexit turmoil to try to oust party leader Corbyn, who has taken the party in a new direction after two consecutive election losses to the Conservatives.
Corbyn is a divisive figure among Labour MPs — his leftist economic vision is seen as radical, including salary caps and nationalization of essential services like public transportation.
Labour MPs argue that Corbyn is popular but not realistically electable, and could keep the party in the political doldrums for years to come.

Labour MPs argue that Corbyn is popular but not realistically electable, and could keep the party in the political doldrums for years to come.

But he is popular among Britain’s left. He has brought tens of thousands of new members to the party and an attempt to oust him could easily backfire, as party members across the country could easily vote him back in should his leadership be officially challenged.
Labour MPs argue that Corbyn is popular but not realistically electable, and could keep the party in the political doldrums for years to come.
On Monday, Corbyn announced a new-look “shadow” cabinet, following the resignations of senior party members from their positions.
Britain’s main opposition party typically creates a shadow cabinet mirroring the party in power. Shadow ministers are assigned portfolios, and it is their job to challenge cabinet ministers on specific issues.
By the late afternoon, 19 of these shadow ministers had resigned. Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn was given the boot after he was accused of being behind the leadership coup against Corbyn that is still simmering.
Labour confirmed 10 new appointments, including key allies Diane Abbott as shadow health secretary and Emily Thornberry as shadow foreign secretary to replace Benn. While his parliamentary colleagues are set to discuss a no confidence motion against Corbyn, the beleaguered leader has stated that he will stand in any future leadership contests.
“Those who want to change Labour’s leadership will have to stand in a democratic election, in which I will be a candidate,” he said.
Critics within his own party have criticized Corbyn’s lukewarm campaigning for the UK to remain within the EU, and suggest the blame for the country’s exit should at least partially fall on his shoulders.
At the time of writing, an online petition to retain Corbyn as leader had garnered just over 200,000 signatures.

Boris Johnson: Time for unity

In his regular Sunday Telegraph column, leave campaigner and potential future prime minister Boris Johnson sought to reassure Britain that the country remains “a part of Europe, and always will be” following Thursday’s EU referendum.
Writing his first opinion piece in the pro-Leave Telegraph since the so-called “Brexit” poll determined that a majority of voters wished to end the UK’s 43-year membership in the European project, Johnson sought to reassure “Remain” voters and the markets.
“We who are part of this narrow majority must do everything we can to reassure the Remainers,” he wrote.
“We must reach out, we must heal, we must build bridges — because it is clear that some have feelings of dismay, and of loss, and confusion.”

Renewed calls for Scotland to secede

Following the seismic vote, Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has suggested that the Scottish Parliament could yet veto the decision, the BBC reports, though the Conservative Party has rejected the idea. Sturgeon earlier said that a second independence referendum for Sctoland was very possible should Britain’s EU divorce become official.
On Sunday she said that she would “of course” ask her party’s members to refuse to give their “legislative consent” for the EU separation and that it would be “democratically unacceptable” for Scotland to lose its EU membership after voting 62% to remain. She said she would initiate talks with Brussels in the coming week about Scotland remaining in the EU.

Global economic shockwaves

The Brexit effects are still being felt around the world. In the U.S., the Dow dropped 258 points in the early afternoon and U.S. financial stocks took a hammering.
Europe’s markets closed deep in the red, with the Irish Stock Exchange losing a steep 9.5% and Germany’s DAX dropping 3%.
But some markets further afield appear to have weathered the storm. Japan’s Nikkei 225 closed up 2.39%, recovering some of Friday’s steep losses, while Australia’s S&P ASX 200 finished up 0.47%.
Delivering opening remarks at the World Economic Forum in Tianjin, China, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said that the impact of the vote was being felt worldwide and would increase global uncertainty and make it more difficult for the global economy to rebound. He added that stability for both the bloc and the breakaway UK was important to shore up the global economy.
“Europe is an important partner of China. China will keep preserving and developing both China-EU and China-UK relations. We hope to see a united and stable EU as well as a stable and prosperous UK.”

CNN’s Steven Jiang and Euan McKirdy contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Fallout From Supreme Court Ruling Against Texas Law's Abortion Restrictions – NPR

Abortion rights activists celebrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court Monday for a ruling in a case over a Texas law that places restrictions on abortion clinics.

Abortion rights activists celebrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court Monday for a ruling in a case over a Texas law that places restrictions on abortion clinics. Pete Marovich/Getty Images hide caption

toggle caption Pete Marovich/Getty Images

In a decision striking down key aspects of a Texas abortion law Monday, the Supreme Court cast doubt on similar laws in nearly two-dozen states.

At issue in the court’s decision were two specific provisions of a sweeping law to restrict abortions passed by the Texas Legislature in 2013. The provisions before the court required doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a hospital no more than 30 miles from the abortion clinic and required abortion clinics to meet the same health and safety standards as ambulatory surgical centers that perform much more complicated procedures.

Opponents of the bill argued before the court that if both requirements were to be enforced, only 10 clinics would remain to perform abortions in Texas, compared with more than 40 before the law was passed. Such limited access in a state so large would cause an “undue burden” on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion, they said.

The court has said in the past that states can regulate access to abortion but not in a way that causes an undue burden on women.

In a 5-3 ruling, written by Justice Stephen Breyer, the court said that “both the admitting privileges and the surgical-center requirements place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a previability abortion, constitute an undue burden on abortion access, and thus violate the Constitution.”

One of the key questions was which side Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has been a swing vote on abortion issues, would join. He signed onto the majority opinion with the four justices who traditionally support abortion rights.The immediate impact of the ruling means that the plaintiff in the case, Whole Women’s Health, will not have to close any more of its Texas clinics.

“Every day, Whole Woman’s Health treats our patients with compassion, respect and dignity,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, the founder and CEO of the group. “And today the Supreme Court did the same. We’re thrilled that today justice was served and our clinics stay open.”

Many of the laws were based on models written by Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion legal group. Clarke Forsythe, the group’s acting president, said today’s decision “endangers women nationwide as health and safety standards are at risk.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights, whose lawyers argued the Texas case before the Supreme Court, says the decision could have far-reaching implications. While each individual state law will have to be judged on its own merits, this decision represents “a clear statement by the court about what the standard should be in these types of cases,” said Julie Rikelman, the director of litigation for the group. “The benefits of restriction have to outweigh the burden.”

According to the Guttmacher Institute, 14 states, including Texas, require physicians that perform abortions to have admitting privileges or some other relationship with a nearby hospital, while 22 states have facility requirements that are very similar or exactly the same as requirements for ambulatory surgical centers.

Rikelman said that in several cases where state laws were blocked pending the outcome of this case, including in Wisconsin, Louisiana and Alabama, “this reinforces” lower court rulings that found those laws “were likely unconstitutional.”

The main dissent in the case was written by Justice Samuel Alito, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas. They argued that the constitutional question shouldn’t have been triggered in the case, because part of the law had previously been challenged separately and the plaintiffs lost.

“As we have said, a losing litigant deserves no rematch after a defeat fairly suffered, in adversarial proceedings, on an issue identical in substance to the one he subsequently seeks to raise,” the dissent said.

Kaiser Health News is an editorially independent news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Julie Rovner is on Twitter: @jrovner.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Trump campaign's claim that State Department gave $55.2 million to Laureate Education after hiring Bill Clinton – Washington Post


(AP Photo/Mary Altaffer)

“As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton through Laureate Education, while Bill Clinton was an honorary chairman of the group. Clinton’s State Department provided $55.2 million in grants to Laureate Education from 2010-2012. Laureate thanked Bill for providing unbelievable access to the Secretary of State by paying him off $16.5 million. This is yet another example of how Clinton treated the State Department as her own personal hedge fund, and sold out the American public to fund her lavish lifestyle.”

–Donald Trump campaign, email response to Hillary Clinton’s speech, June 21, 2016

The Trump campaign sent out a series of email and Twitter responses during Hillary Clinton’s speech attacking his business record, and among them was this claim that came to our attention. As usual, the Trump campaign did not respond to our request for supporting information. During his speech the next day attacking Clinton’s record as secretary of state, Trump repeated the charge that Clinton treated the State Department as her “personal hedge fund” with no evidence to back it up, either.

This talking point traces back to information from Peter Schweizer’s book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich.” In one chapter, in discussing Bill Clinton’s role with Laureate Education, Inc., Schweizer describes a “Clinton blur” between the activities of Bill Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. But critics, including Schweizer, have not been able to prove quid pro quo.

The short answer here is: Laureate Education Inc. did not receive $55.2 million in grants from the State Department while Bill Clinton was being paid by the company. This talking point actually conflates two organizations that are independent of each other, and is worth unraveling for our readers. So we explored it.

The Facts

Laureate Education Inc., is a for-profit higher education company that owns 85 campus-based and online schools around the world. It mainly operates overseas and is known as the world’s largest for-profit education company — larger than University of Phoenix, which may be a more familiar name to Americans.

President Bill Clinton was an honorary chancellor of Laureate International Universities, which is a part of Laureate Education Inc., from 2010 through 2014. In a news release announcing his role, Clinton said he had visited Laureate’s schools the prior year and found that private universities “exemplify the same principles of innovation and social responsibility in education that we worked to advance during my Presidency and now through my [Clinton] Foundation.”

He was paid $16.5 million between 2010 and 2015, his federal tax returns show.

Clinton’s main responsibility was to speak to students at Laureate campuses around the world, from Turkey to Peru to Malaysia and beyond, about the “importance of their lives as young people in the world today,” his spokesperson said. He also advised Laureate on youth leadership and expanding access to higher education.

Trump says Laureate received $55.2 million in grants from the State Department from 2010 to 2012. We found no evidence of direct grants from State Department to Laureate in those years, or any other point during Hillary Clinton’s term as secretary of state. However, Laureate said the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development awarded less than $1.5 million in grants and scholarships for four of its schools in other countries between 2009 and 2016.

The scholarships were given to students attending those schools, and grants were given to “promote access to a free and open internet and integrate technology in teaching to enhance student learning,” Laureate’s spokesperson said. The bulk of the grants were awarded between 2013 and 2016, after Hillary Clinton’s term, the spokesperson said. Three scholarships worth less than $15,000 total were awarded between 2010 and 2014.

State Department Spokesman John Kirby said in a statement to The Fact Checker: “The State Department is not aware of any grants provided directly to Laureate Education since 2009, though we are aware of some grants to educational institutions within or affiliated with the Laureate Education network.” USAID directed us to Kirby’s statement in lieu of its own response.

So where does the $55.2 million figure come from?

It’s a reference to grants received by another organization: International Youth Foundation (IYF), a nonprofit that promotes education and employment opportunities for youth around the world. Since 1999, IYF has received grants from USAID, the State Department and the Department of Labor to support its various initiatives. IYF received 13 grants from USAID between 2009 and 2013, valued at $52 million. It also received a $30.2 million grant in March 2009 that was negotiated under the George W. Bush administration, according to the IYF president. It competed for and was awarded $1.9 million State Department grant in March 2012 for a workforce development project.

Critics of the Clintons have conflated IYF and Laureate because of Doug Becker, Laureate’s founder and chief executive. He also is the chairman of IYF’s 14-member volunteer board of directors — but Becker’s role is unpaid, and the two organizations are independent of each other. (Schweizer notes in his book that the two organizations once launched a youth program together that Bill Clinton supported.)

Did Laureate gain “unbelievable access” to the State Department thanks to Bill Clinton? We asked both Clinton’s staff and Laureate Education, Inc., if there were any arrangements made for his role as honorary chancellor regarding access Laureate may have to Hillary Clinton as secretary of state. Both sides said there were none.

Laureate has partnered with Clinton Global Initiative, an arm of the Clinton Foundation, since 2008. But while Hillary Clinton was secretary of state, Clinton Global Initiative spun off and incorporated as its own entity apart from the Clinton Foundation, under an ethics agreement between the foundation and the Obama administration.

There was a reference to Laureate in one of Hillary Clinton’s emails released by the State Department, as reported by Inside Higher Ed. She wrote to an aide that Laureate “should be represented” at a closed-door higher education policy dinner. She described it as “the fastest-growing college network in the world,” which was “started by Doug Becker, who Bill likes a lot.” That email was sent in 2009, before Bill Clinton’s official role began with Laureate.

The Pinocchio Test

Trump’s campaign wasn’t raising questions about Doug Becker’s role with IYF, or suggesting there was more going on behind the scenes than meets the eye. Instead, Trump’s campaign flat-out said “Hillary Clinton laundered money to Bill Clinton through Laureate Education” and gave $55.2 million in grants to Laureate after Laureate hired Bill Clinton for the $16.5 million position.

As with so many claims by Trump and his campaign, we’ve done our part to chase down any possible way that Laureate could have received $55.2 million from the State Department under Hillary Clinton, or any evidence of quid pro quo. We found none; this is a conflated and inaccurate talking point. If the campaign wants to stand by it, they need to give us some real information to back it up, rather than throw out a bombastic charge that is simply not credible. We award Four Pinocchios.

Four Pinocchios

(About our rating scale)

Send us facts to check by filling out this form

Check out our 2016 candidates fact-check page

Sign up for The Fact Checker weekly newsletter

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Billionaire Soros Was 'Long' on Pound Before Vote on Brexit – Bloomberg

George Soros, the billionaire who forged his reputation on a 1992 bet that the U.K. would devalue the pound, was “long” the currency before Britain’s historic vote to leave the European Union on Friday.

Soros didn’t “speculate against sterling while he was arguing for Britain to remain in the European Union,” a spokesman said in an e-mailed statement Monday. “Because of his generally bearish outlook on world markets,” Soros did profit from other investments, according to the statement.


For full coverage of the referendum, click here


In the days before the vote that marked a rupture between the U.K. and the EU, Soros had warned that the pound may slump more than 20 percent against the dollar as voters were grossly underestimating the true cost of Brexit. Sterling plunged by a record on Friday, and tumbled again on Monday.

“Now the catastrophic scenario that many feared has materialized, making the disintegration of the EU practically irreversible,” Soros wrote in a June 25 essay reflecting on the U.K. vote for the Project Syndicate.

Soros rose to fame as the money manager who broke the Bank of England in 1992, netting a profit of $1 billion with a wager that the U.K. would be forced to devalue the pound and pull it from the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. Soros said in an opinion piece last week in the U.K.’s Guardian newspaper that he was “fortunate” to make a substantial profit for his hedge-fund investors at the expense of the BOE and the British government.

Before it’s here, it’s on the Bloomberg Terminal. LEARN MORE

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Hillary Clinton leads, but Donald Trump supporters are more certain they'll vote – Washington Post

Addressing a conference U.S. mayors in the wake of the Brexit outcome, Democratic presumptive nominee Hillary Clinton said the next U.S. president should put the interests of the American people ahead of their own. (Reuters)

There’s a very good reason that political hacks and the hacks who love them like to insist that elections all come down to turnout: Elections all come down to turnout.

For a salient recent example, we can peek over the Atlantic at the results of the British referendum on leaving the European Union. Young Brits overwhelmingly preferred to stay in the E.U., but older ones wanted to leave — and those voters turned out more heavily. If more younger voters had gotten to the polls, the narrow result would probably have flipped to the other side. It all came down to turnout.

Younger voters voting less heavily is not unique to the U.K. We’ve noted before how age and turnout correlate here, as well. Younger voters — who are more likely to move frequently, have jobs that demand odd hours and may not be in the habit of voting — turn out out less than older voters, across the board.

But there are differences among other groups, too. And when we consider the new Washington Post/ABC News poll of the 2016 general-election campaign, Hillary Clinton’s large lead looks a bit shakier when we consider who is firmly committed to getting to the polls in November.

We asked that question explicitly in the poll. Different demographic groups had different rates at which they said, yes, I’m absolutely certain to vote in the general election — and by comparing those figures to similar Post/ABC polling in the past two presidential elections, we can get a sense for what the electorate might look like.

By race. Seventy-three percent of white men said they were certain to vote, compared with 70 percent of whites overall. Among non-whites, the rates were much lower, with 55 percent saying the same. That’s a much lower rate than in 2012 for non-white voters, which was itself down from 2008. Bear in mind, there are more non-white people eligible to vote now than there were eight years ago. As we’ve pointed out before, the electorate in 2014 was as diverse as it was in 2008.

Most alarming to Clinton supporters may be that only 44 percent of Hispanics said they were certain to vote in November. (Without data for that group from 2008 and 2012, it isn’t shown on the chart above.)

By age. Here we can see the pattern above. Voters ages 30 to 39 have become much less likely to say they’re certain to vote, while only half of those younger than 30 said in the most recent poll that they were certain to do so. Older voters are more likely to be committed to turning out in November.

By education and income. These two groups overlap to some extent (which is to say that income and education levels are correlated). Those who earn more and are more educated are much more likely to be committed to voting in November.

But let’s dive into why this is a problem for Clinton, in case it wasn’t already obvious: The groups that are less likely to say they’re certain to vote are also groups among which Clinton does better.

Overall, slightly more Donald Trump supporters say they’re certain to vote than are backers of Clinton. Seventy-six percent of Clinton backers say they’re certainly or probably going to vote in November; 84 percent of Trump backers say the same.

Consider the race/gender split. We don’t yet know how white and non-white voters will cast their ballots, but we know whom they prefer in our most recent poll. If we compare those margins to the exit poll results from 2008 and 2012, the concern becomes apparent: same support from non-white voters, but less certainty of actually voting.

Clinton gets the same support from non-white voters in our current poll as Barack Obama got in 2008 and 2012. But at this point, those voters are much less likely to say they’re certain to vote than they were four and eight years ago. Meanwhile, Trump does about as well with white men as did Mitt Romney four years ago — and white men are just as likely to say they’re going to vote as they were then. White women are much less supportive of Trump than Romney, but they are also less likely to say they’re certain to turn out to vote.

Part of this probably overlaps with the general dissatisfaction with both candidates. White women are less likely to support Trump than they were Romney and less certain to vote — perhaps because neither option was palatable. That may also be the case with younger voters. They prefer Clinton to Trump but heavily backed Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. They, too, may be more indifferent to voting in November as a result.

It’s worth noting that the figures above include data from people who aren’t necessarily registered to vote. Just among those who are registered, though, the graph above doesn’t change much. Registered voters are more likely to say they’re certain to vote (again, in part, because voting tends to be a habitual act). The most noticeable change here is that the drop among non-white voters is much smaller than in past polling.

But then we loop back to those figures among Hispanic voters. The Democrats will and are putting a huge emphasis on registering and turning out Hispanic voters, a group that heavily prefers Clinton. In fact, the graphs above tell the story of the most recent elections: When the electorate is younger and more diverse, Democrats often do better.

This election, like every other, will come down to the voters who make it to the polls in November. There may be a more succinct way to say that, which we will leave as an exercise to the reader.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Fractures From 'Brexit' Vote Spread Into Opposition Labour Party – New York Times

LONDON — Britain’s political crisis intensified on Sunday after its decision to leave the European Union, with the opposition Labour Party splitting into warring camps, Scotland’s leader suggesting that its local Parliament might try to block the departure and many Britons wondering if there was a plausible way for the nation to reconsider its drastic choice.

The hostilities in the Labour Party broke out as the battle lines became clearer among the governing Conservatives, left in turmoil by the vote on the European Union and the subsequent announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron that he would resign once his party chose a successor.

Michael Gove, the justice minister and one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, threw his support to the former London mayor Boris Johnson, the most prominent figure in the anti-Europe movement. Aides to Theresa May, the home secretary, who backed the Remain side in the referendum on Thursday, were calling legislators to seek their support to take on Mr. Johnson.

The British news media reported that close allies of Mr. Cameron were also working to stop Mr. Johnson, reflecting the sense of betrayal on Downing Street over Mr. Johnson’s decision to tie his political ambitions to the movement to leave Europe. Other cabinet ministers were considering whether to run, including Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, and Liam Fox, a former defense secretary.

Hanging over the jockeying for power was intensifying discussion of whether the British exit, or “Brexit,” might somehow be avoided or circumvented. Mr. Cameron has said he will leave to his successor the decision on whether and when to begin formal divorce proceedings, and neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Gove has been demanding such a step, leaving open at least the possibility that Britain could negotiate new terms of membership with Brussels and hold another referendum.

Mr. Johnson said from the start of the campaign that a vote to leave would push European Union nations into a new negotiation with Britain to keep it in the bloc. Leaders on the Continent have little appetite at the moment for such a deal, and circumventing the clear will of British voters would appear politically problematic for whoever succeeds Mr. Cameron.

But both Britain and the European Union have a tradition of muddling through crises and finding compromises to avoid the worst outcomes.

Sunday’s developments underscored how the stunning vote to leave the European Union has upended politics and exacerbated ideological and regional strains in Britain, leaving the nation with no unifying figure, at risk of coming apart and facing jittery financial markets.

The turmoil spread on Sunday to the Labour Party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a leftist, now faces a challenge from members of Parliament who have never favored him.

Early Sunday, Mr. Corbyn abruptly fired his shadow foreign secretary — the party’s spokesman on foreign affairs — to try to head off a coup begun by some Labour members of Parliament disappointed with Mr. Corbyn’s lackluster campaign to keep Britain in Europe.

With the Conservatives in disarray and the possibility of another general election within the year, some Labour legislators see this as a good moment to try to dethrone Mr. Corbyn, 67, whom they think would lead the party to electoral disaster.

Over the course of Sunday, at least 11 of the Labour shadow cabinet’s 30 members, not counting the foreign secretary, resigned as a signal of their opposition to his leadership. Mr. Corbyn’s office insisted that he would remain party leader and would beat back any challenge by appealing to grass-roots Labour Party members who elected him overwhelmingly in the first place.

After newspaper reports about the planned coup against Mr. Corbyn, the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, telephoned him early Sunday to say he and other key legislators had lost confidence in Mr. Corbyn to lead the party to victory. Mr. Corbyn ended the call by firing him, Mr. Benn told The Press Association, a British news agency.

“Following the result of the E.U. referendum, we need strong and effective leadership of the Labour Party that is capable of winning public support,” Mr. Benn said. “In a phone call to Jeremy, I told him I had lost confidence in his ability to lead the party, and he dismissed me.”

Mr. Corbyn faces a vote of confidence called for on Friday, after the referendum, by two lower-ranking Labour legislators.

Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary for the Labour Party, leaves his home in London on Sunday after he was fired.

Chris J Ratcliffe / Getty Images

“If a general election is called later this year, which is a very real prospect, we believe that under Jeremy’s leadership we could be looking at political oblivion,” Margaret Hodge, who proposed the no-confidence motion, wrote in a letter to fellow Labour legislators.

Mr. Corbyn and his allies were reported to be organizing demonstrations in his support. On Sunday morning, his office issued a terse statement: “There will be no resignation of a democratically elected leader with a strong mandate from the membership.”

Adding to the confusion about how Britain would proceed, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Sunday that the Scottish Parliament might move to try to block the British exit from the European Union by withholding legislative consent.

“You’re not going to vote for something that is not in Scotland’s interests,” she said in one of numerous television interviews.

It was not clear that the devolved Scottish Parliament had the power to veto a British exit, with constitutional scholars in this country, which famously lacks a formal constitution, differing on the question.

“I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be that requirement,” Ms. Sturgeon said of the need for Scotland’s approval. “I suspect that the U.K. government will take a very different view on that, and we’ll have to see where that discussion ends up.”

Since the Scotland Act of 1998 binds the Scottish Parliament to act in accordance with European Union law, some argue that the Parliament’s consent would be required to leave. The same might hold true for the devolved Parliaments of Wales, which supported Brexit, and Northern Ireland, which did not.

Further, said Christine Bell, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh, a law that took effect in March stipulates that the British Parliament “will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.” That law was promised by Mr. Cameron to persuade Scots not to vote for independence in 2014.

A plausible argument could be made that withdrawing from the European Union over the objections of the Scottish Parliament would violate that law, Professor Bell said.

A fierce proponent of remaining within the European Union, Ms. Sturgeon said Scotland would insist on another independence referendum if Britain pulled out, and would try to negotiate with the Europeans to maintain Scottish membership in the bloc. She is “not going to be part of negotiations that accept the inevitability of Scotland exiting the E.U.,” she said.

Ms. Sturgeon’s remarks only fueled discussion of whether Britain might choose to seek a way to sidestep the results of the referendum. The formal process of unwinding Britain’s membership in the European Union begins only when the British government invokes Article 50 of the treaty governing the bloc’s operations. Yet Mr. Cameron has declined to do so, and Mr. Johnson and other leaders of the Leave campaign have avoided being pinned down on the issue.

Andrew Moravcsik, a professor of politics at Princeton University, wrote in April that Brexit was “Kabuki” theater, arguing that “under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum.”

In the end, he suggested, Britain would do what other European Union members have done after negative referendums: “It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it,” with the agreement of a public that knows little about the European Union.

But the European Union may be in no mood to dicker while the European structure burns from other problems like Greece, migration, low growth and an aggressive Russia.

Some suggest that a newly elected British Parliament might block exit, if a new referendum were a stated commitment of the victorious party, or that somehow the Europeans will just bend to the British will and grant the nation privileges no other country has to block immigration of other European Union citizens.

But for the moment, with Mr. Cameron on his way out and Mr. Corbyn possibly joining him, thoughts of how to avoid Brexit seemed a parlor game next to the political battles the vote has unleashed.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

British political turmoil deepens after EU referendum – Washington Post

By Gregory Katz | AP,

LONDON — Britain’s shocking decision to remove itself from the European Union brought more political turmoil Sunday as Scotland’s leader threatened to block the move and the opposition Labour Party’s leader faced a coup attempt from his own legislators.

The sense of unease spread as European leaders stepped up the pressure on Britain to begin its complex exit from the 28-nation EU immediately, rather than wait several months as British Prime Minister David Cameron prefers.

The vote to leave sent the pound and global stock markets plunging. Britain’s Treasury said finance minister George Osborne would make an early morning statement Monday “to provide reassurance about financial and economic stability” before the London Stock Exchange reopens.

The leaders of the successful campaign to leave the EU stayed largely out of the public eye, as opponents accused them of lacking a plan to calm the crisis the result has triggered. In his first statement since Friday morning, “leave” leader and former London Mayor Boris Johnson used his column in the Daily Telegraph newspaper to urge unity and say “the negative consequences (of the vote) are being wildly overdone.”

He said Britain would forge “a new and better relationship with the EU — based on free trade and partnership, rather than a federal system.”

The vote, however, risks causing a political schism in the United Kingdom. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she would “consider” advising the Scottish Parliament to try to use its power to prevent Britain from actually leaving the EU. She said Scottish lawmakers might be able to derail the move by withholding “legislative consent” for a British exit, or Brexit.

“If the Scottish Parliament was judging this on the basis of what’s right for Scotland, then the option of saying ‘We’re not going to vote for something that is against Scotland’s interests,’ of course, that is on the table,” she said of the possibility of withholding consent.

Sturgeon said she believes Scotland’s approval is required for the move but conceded the British government would likely take “a very different view.”

Thursday’s U.K.-wide vote to leave the EU was very unpopular in Scotland, where 62 percent cast ballots to stay, and Sturgeon says she is studying ways to keep Scotland part of the EU bloc.

The Scottish question looms large because Sturgeon also has said another referendum on Scottish independence from Britain is “highly likely” as a result of Britain’s EU vote. A Scottish referendum in 2014 ended with voters deciding to remain in Britain, but analysts believe Britain’s withdrawal from the EU may strengthen the independence movement.

In Northern Ireland, which also is part of the U.K., Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness said his priority is forging “special arrangements” to enable Northern Ireland to maintain its EU ties. Some Brexit opponents have also talked of trying to use Northern Ireland’s Assembly to try to block Britain’s departure.

Northern Ireland voters also expressed a preference for keeping Britain in the EU. The unhappiness with the results in both Scotland and Northern Ireland is adding to the sense that the Brexit vote may over time lead to the breakup of the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers, Cameron’s lead official in Belfast, played down the suggestion that the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly had the standing to prevent a British departure from the EU.

She said decision-making power resides solely in the British Parliament, which is expected to abide by the results of the referendum, which showed 52 percent of British voters wanted out.

“In the weeks and months ahead, we will be working with both the Scottish government and the Northern Ireland executive on all these matters,” she told BBC. “But ultimately it is (the British) Parliament’s decision.”

Adam Tomkins, a law professor and member of the Scottish Parliament, agreed with this assessment. The Conservative Party legislator tweeted that it was “nonsense” to suggest the Scottish party could block a British departure simply by withholding consent.

The vote is already cutting short Cameron’s career. He said after the results that he will resign as prime minister when the Conservative Party chooses a new leader, who will be charged with implementing the separation from the EU.

The new party leader, who will become prime minister, is expected to be in place by October. At that point, he or she may choose to call a quick election to solidify a mandate — and the prospect of an election in the near future may have spurred a revolt Sunday against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn that has been simmering for months.

Corbyn, a longtime critic of the EU who was criticized by many for doing a weak job presenting the party’s position favoring membership, for the first time faces an open rebellion from senior members of his “shadow cabinet” — the opposition party’s mirror government of senior lawmakers.

Eleven “shadow cabinet”members resigned Sunday after Corbyn fired shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn overnight for reportedly plotting a rebellion against him. The dissidents want Corbyn, who represents the far-left wing of the party, ousted before the next general election because many believe he cannot win.

In her resignation letter, shadow Health Secretary Heidi Alexander bluntly told Corbyn he had to go.

“I do not believe you have the capacity to shape the answers our country is demanding and I believe that if we are to form the next government, a change of leadership is essential,” she wrote.

In a statement released late Sunday, Corbyn said he would not resign and would run in any new leadership contest. Senior allies said he still has strong support among the party’s rank-and-file members, who chose him as leader last year.

“I regret there have been resignations today from my shadow cabinet,” Corbyn said. “But I am not going to betray the trust of those who voted for me — or the millions of supporters across the country who need Labour to represent them.”

Concerns about last week’s EU referendum ranged far beyond U.K. politics.

In Rome, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry urged Britain and the EU to manage their divorce responsibly for the sake of global markets and citizens. On Monday, he will be the first senior U.S. official to visit London and Brussels since the referendum, and he said he would bring a message of U.S. support to both capitals.

Pope Francis urged the EU to come up with creative ways to stay together following Britain’s vote, saying it’s clear “something isn’t working in this unwieldy union.”

“The European Union must rediscover the strength at its roots, a creativity and a healthy disunity, of giving more independence and more freedom to the countries of the union,” the pontiff told reporters as he flew home from Armenia.

The key, he said, is to rekindle the will to stay together with “creativity and new life.”

___

Associated Press writers Bradley Klapper in Rome, Jill Lawless in London and Nicole Winfield aboard the papal plane contributed to this report.

Copyright 2016 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

At least 7 injured — some stabbed — at California rally, authorities say – CNN

Two of the injured had critical stab wounds, Sacramento Fire Department spokesman Chris Harvey said. “It was a very chaotic situation and it’s unclear if all seven of the people transported had stab wounds, but there were seven (taken to hospitals),” Harvey said.
The Traditionalist Worker Party, or TWP, whose leader describes it as a “white nationalist” group, had a permit for a noon rally near the state Capitol, said Officer George Granada, California Highway Patrol public information officer with the Capitol Protection Division. Another group showed up “to stop them from carrying on their permit,” he said.
“They (counter-protesters) showed up ahead of time in a large group, probably 300 or more,” Granada said. “They were positioned around the Capitol to stop them (TWP demonstrators) from carrying on their permit.”
Around 11:45 a.m. PT, TWP members and supporters came out to a location south of the Capitol building, he said. It’s unclear how many TWP members participated, but they were clearly outnumbered.
“At that point the word spread pretty quick and a mob ran in that direction and they clashed immediately with each other,” he said.
Video showed people running and being pursued by others with sticks. Some of the people hid their faces with scarves and masks.
The victims had stab wounds that required critical medical care, said Sacramento Police Department Officer Matt McPhail. Their conditions were not immediately known but it’s believed the injuries were not life-threatening. Other people had scrapes and bruises that didn’t require hospitalization.
It was unclear which groups the injured were associated with, McPhail said.
Yvette Felarca, who said she was a member of the group By Any Means Necessary, told CNN she came out to let people know that racist and anti-immigrant viewpoints would not be tolerated.
A man injured during the rally is assisted by police and emergency personnel.

A man injured during the rally is assisted by police and emergency personnel.

“They’re not welcome,” she said of the TWP rally. “If they trip and fall in the process, good. We succeeded in shutting them down.”
Matthew Heimbach, leader of the Traditionalist Worker Party, was not at the rally but told CNN that TWP members armed themselves with knives, with blades within the California legal limit. He said they’d been threatened on social media forums. An affiliate group, the Golden State Skinheads, joined them for the rally, he said.
The TWP was charged by a group that describes itself as anti-fascist, he said.
“The anti-fascists used knives, bottles, bricks, and chunks of concrete they broke off a construction site. When they attacked, our men defended themselves to be able to drive the attackers off,” he said.
Heimbach said two “comrades” were hurt — one stabbed and the other hit in the face with a bottle.
The TWP called off its rally and a group of counter-protesters remained on the scene for about an hour, McPhail said.
So far, nobody has been arrested, authorities said.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, which monitors hate groups, the party was founded in January 2015 as part of a right-wing extremist “umbrella group that aims to indoctrinate high school and college students into white nationalism.”
The clashes Sunday at the state Capitol apparently were not unexpected by the TWP organizers of the rally. A website promoting the gathering in advance said:
“The upcoming rally this weekend on the 26th promises to be one to remember, due to the fact many stand to stop us yet we refuse to yield!”
Under the party’s banner, “many Nationalists will unite and take a stand … Although, our enemies have already openly planned to gather and use violence against us, as always we will stand our ground.”
The counter-protesters marched around before the clash, with a leader chanting “When the Nazis and skinheads come to town, what do we do?” and the rest of the group answering, “Shut them down!”
Felarca complained that the TWP was allowed to protest at all.
“They never should have gotten a permit to begin with,” she said. “The police were out here protecting them. One of our main chants is, ‘Cops and Klan go hand in hand’ because we know the police are out there to back them up.”
Art Roderick, a CNN law enforcement analyst, said it’s common for opposing groups to hold simultaneous protests, but law enforcement usually keeps them separate. It appears the counter-protesters simply overwhelmed the TWP, he said.
“They (the counter-protesters) were there for one reason and that was to use violence to break the other group up,” Roderick said. “It looks like anywhere from 100 to 200 of them showed up against 30 of the other.”

CNN’s Carma Hassan and Tony Marco contributed to this report.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

'Brexit' Vote Roils Opposition Labour Party – New York Times

By STEVEN ERLANGER
June 26, 2016

LONDON — Britain’s political crisis intensified on Sunday after its decision to leave the European Union, with the opposition Labour Party splitting into warring camps, Scotland’s leader suggesting that its local Parliament might try to block the departure and many Britons wondering if there was a plausible way for the nation to reconsider its drastic choice.

The hostilities in the Labour Party broke out as the battle lines became clearer among the governing Conservatives, left in turmoil by the vote on the European Union and the subsequent announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron that he would resign once his party chose a successor.

Michael Gove, the justice minister and one of the leaders of the “Leave” campaign, threw his support to the former London mayor Boris Johnson, the most prominent figure in the anti-Europe movement. Aides to Theresa May, the home secretary, who backed “Remain” in the referendum on Thursday, were calling legislators to seek their support to take on Mr. Johnson.

The British news media reported that close allies of Mr. Cameron were also working to stop Mr. Johnson, reflecting the sense of betrayal on Downing Street over Mr. Johnson’s decision to tie his political ambitions to the movement to leave Europe. Other cabinet ministers were considering whether to run, including Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, and Liam Fox, a former defense secretary.

Hanging over the jockeying for power was intensifying discussion of whether the British exit, or “Brexit,” might somehow be avoided or circumvented. Mr. Cameron has said he will leave to his successor the decision on whether and when to begin formal divorce proceedings, and neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Gove has been demanding such a step, leaving open at least the possibility that Britain could negotiate new terms of membership with Brussels and hold another referendum.

Mr. Johnson said from the start of the campaign that a vote to leave would push European Union nations into a new negotiation with Britain to keep it in the bloc. Leaders on the Continent have little appetite at the moment for such a deal, and circumventing the clear will of British voters would appear politically problematic for whoever succeeds Mr. Cameron.

But both Britain and the European Union have a tradition of muddling through crises and finding compromises to avoid the worst outcomes.

Sunday’s developments underscored how the stunning vote to leave the European Union has upended politics and exacerbated ideological and regional strains in Britain, leaving the nation with no unifying figure, at risk of coming apart and facing jittery financial markets.

The turmoil spread on Sunday to the Labour Party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a leftist, now faces a challenge from members of Parliament who have never favored him.

Early Sunday, Mr. Corbyn abruptly fired his shadow foreign secretary — the party’s spokesman on foreign affairs — to try to head off a coup begun by some Labour members of Parliament disappointed with Mr. Corbyn’s lackluster campaign to keep Britain in Europe.

With the Conservatives in disarray and the possibility of another general election within the year, some Labour legislators see this as a good moment to try to dethrone Mr. Corbyn, 67, whom they think would lead the party to electoral disaster.

Over the course of Sunday, at least 11 of the Labour shadow cabinet’s 30 members, not counting the foreign secretary, resigned as a signal of their opposition to his leadership. Mr. Corbyn’s office insisted that he would remain party leader and would beat back any challenge by appealing to grass-roots Labour Party members who elected him overwhelmingly in the first place.

After newspaper reports about the planned coup against Mr. Corbyn, the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, telephoned him early Sunday to say he and other key legislators had lost confidence in Mr. Corbyn to lead the party to victory. Mr. Corbyn ended the call by firing him, Mr. Benn told The Press Association, a British news agency.

“Following the result of the E.U. referendum, we need strong and effective leadership of the Labour Party that is capable of winning public support,” Mr. Benn said. “In a phone call to Jeremy, I told him I had lost confidence in his ability to lead the party, and he dismissed me.”

Mr. Corbyn faces a vote of confidence called for on Friday, after the referendum, by two lower-ranking Labour legislators.

“If a general election is called later this year, which is a very real prospect, we believe that under Jeremy’s leadership we could be looking at political oblivion,” Margaret Hodge, who proposed the no-confidence motion, wrote in a letter to fellow Labour legislators.

Mr. Corbyn and his allies were reported to be organizing demonstrations in his support. On Sunday morning, his office issued a terse statement: “There will be no resignation of a democratically elected leader with a strong mandate from the membership.”

Adding to the confusion about how Britain would proceed, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Sunday that the Scottish Parliament might move to try to block the British exit from the European Union by withholding legislative consent.

“You’re not going to vote for something that is not in Scotland’s interests,” she said in one of numerous television interviews.

It was not clear that the devolved Scottish Parliament had the power to veto a British exit, with constitutional scholars in this country, which famously lacks a formal constitution, differing on the question.

“I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be that requirement,” Ms. Sturgeon said of the need for Scotland’s approval. “I suspect that the U.K. government will take a very different view on that, and we’ll have to see where that discussion ends up.”

Since the Scotland Act of 1998 binds the Scottish Parliament to act in accordance with European Union law, some argue that the Parliament’s consent would be required to leave. The same might hold true for the devolved Parliaments of Wales, which supported Brexit, and Northern Ireland, which did not.

Further, said Christine Bell, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh, a law that took effect in March stipulates that the British Parliament “will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.” That law was promised by Mr. Cameron to persuade Scots not to vote for independence in 2014.

A plausible argument could be made that withdrawing from the European Union over the objections of the Scottish Parliament would violate that law, Professor Bell said.

A fierce proponent of remaining within the European Union, Ms. Sturgeon said Scotland would insist on another independence referendum if Britain pulled out, and would try to negotiate with the Europeans to maintain Scottish membership in the bloc. She is “not going to be part of negotiations that accept the inevitability of Scotland exiting the E.U.,” she said.

Ms. Sturgeon’s remarks only fueled discussion of whether Britain might choose to seek a way to sidestep the results of the referendum. The formal process of unwinding Britain’s membership in the European Union begins only when the British government invokes Article 50 of the treaty governing the bloc’s operations. Yet Mr. Cameron has declined to do so, and Mr. Johnson and other leaders of the “Leave” campaign have avoided being pinned down on the issue.

Andrew Moravcsik, a professor of politics at Princeton University, wrote in April that Brexit was “Kabuki” theater, arguing that “under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum.”

In the end, he suggested, Britain would do what other European Union members have done after negative referendums: “It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it,” with the agreement of a public that knows little about the European Union.

But the European Union may be in no mood to dicker while the European structure burns from other problems like Greece, migration, low growth and an aggressive Russia.

Some suggest that a newly elected British Parliament might block exit, if a new referendum were a stated commitment of the victorious party, or that somehow the Europeans will just bend to the British will and grant the nation privileges no other country has to block immigration of other European Union citizens.

But for the moment, with Mr. Cameron on his way out and Mr. Corbyn possibly joining him, thoughts of how to avoid Brexit seemed a parlor game next to the political battles the vote has unleashed.

Sewell Chan contributed reporting.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)

Fractures From 'Brexit' Vote Spread Into Opposition Labour Party – New York Times

By STEVEN ERLANGER
June 26, 2016

LONDON — Britain’s political crisis intensified on Sunday after its decision to leave the European Union, with the opposition Labour Party splitting into warring camps, Scotland’s leader suggesting that its local Parliament might try to block the departure and many Britons wondering if there was a plausible way for the nation to reconsider its drastic choice.

The hostilities in the Labour Party broke out as the battle lines became clearer among the governing Conservatives, left in turmoil by the vote on the European Union and the subsequent announcement by Prime Minister David Cameron that he would resign once his party chose a successor.

Michael Gove, the justice minister and one of the leaders of the Leave campaign, threw his support to the former London mayor Boris Johnson, the most prominent figure in the anti-Europe movement. Aides to Theresa May, the home secretary, who backed the Remain side in the referendum on Thursday, were calling legislators to seek their support to take on Mr. Johnson.

The British news media reported that close allies of Mr. Cameron were also working to stop Mr. Johnson, reflecting the sense of betrayal on Downing Street over Mr. Johnson’s decision to tie his political ambitions to the movement to leave Europe. Other cabinet ministers were considering whether to run, including Nicky Morgan, the education secretary, and Liam Fox, a former defense secretary.

Hanging over the jockeying for power was intensifying discussion of whether the British exit, or “Brexit,” might somehow be avoided or circumvented. Mr. Cameron has said he will leave to his successor the decision on whether and when to begin formal divorce proceedings, and neither Mr. Johnson nor Mr. Gove has been demanding such a step, leaving open at least the possibility that Britain could negotiate new terms of membership with Brussels and hold another referendum.

Mr. Johnson said from the start of the campaign that a vote to leave would push European Union nations into a new negotiation with Britain to keep it in the bloc. Leaders on the Continent have little appetite at the moment for such a deal, and circumventing the clear will of British voters would appear politically problematic for whoever succeeds Mr. Cameron.

But both Britain and the European Union have a tradition of muddling through crises and finding compromises to avoid the worst outcomes.

Sunday’s developments underscored how the stunning vote to leave the European Union has upended politics and exacerbated ideological and regional strains in Britain, leaving the nation with no unifying figure, at risk of coming apart and facing jittery financial markets.

The turmoil spread on Sunday to the Labour Party, whose leader, Jeremy Corbyn, a leftist, now faces a challenge from members of Parliament who have never favored him.

Early Sunday, Mr. Corbyn abruptly fired his shadow foreign secretary — the party’s spokesman on foreign affairs — to try to head off a coup begun by some Labour members of Parliament disappointed with Mr. Corbyn’s lackluster campaign to keep Britain in Europe.

With the Conservatives in disarray and the possibility of another general election within the year, some Labour legislators see this as a good moment to try to dethrone Mr. Corbyn, 67, whom they think would lead the party to electoral disaster.

Over the course of Sunday, at least 11 of the Labour shadow cabinet’s 30 members, not counting the foreign secretary, resigned as a signal of their opposition to his leadership. Mr. Corbyn’s office insisted that he would remain party leader and would beat back any challenge by appealing to grass-roots Labour Party members who elected him overwhelmingly in the first place.

After newspaper reports about the planned coup against Mr. Corbyn, the shadow foreign secretary, Hilary Benn, telephoned him early Sunday to say he and other key legislators had lost confidence in Mr. Corbyn to lead the party to victory. Mr. Corbyn ended the call by firing him, Mr. Benn told The Press Association, a British news agency.

“Following the result of the E.U. referendum, we need strong and effective leadership of the Labour Party that is capable of winning public support,” Mr. Benn said. “In a phone call to Jeremy, I told him I had lost confidence in his ability to lead the party, and he dismissed me.”

Mr. Corbyn faces a vote of confidence called for on Friday, after the referendum, by two lower-ranking Labour legislators.

“If a general election is called later this year, which is a very real prospect, we believe that under Jeremy’s leadership we could be looking at political oblivion,” Margaret Hodge, who proposed the no-confidence motion, wrote in a letter to fellow Labour legislators.

Mr. Corbyn and his allies were reported to be organizing demonstrations in his support. On Sunday morning, his office issued a terse statement: “There will be no resignation of a democratically elected leader with a strong mandate from the membership.”

Adding to the confusion about how Britain would proceed, Scotland’s first minister, Nicola Sturgeon, said on Sunday that the Scottish Parliament might move to try to block the British exit from the European Union by withholding legislative consent.

“You’re not going to vote for something that is not in Scotland’s interests,” she said in one of numerous television interviews.

It was not clear that the devolved Scottish Parliament had the power to veto a British exit, with constitutional scholars in this country, which famously lacks a formal constitution, differing on the question.

“I find it hard to believe that there wouldn’t be that requirement,” Ms. Sturgeon said of the need for Scotland’s approval. “I suspect that the U.K. government will take a very different view on that, and we’ll have to see where that discussion ends up.”

Since the Scotland Act of 1998 binds the Scottish Parliament to act in accordance with European Union law, some argue that the Parliament’s consent would be required to leave. The same might hold true for the devolved Parliaments of Wales, which supported Brexit, and Northern Ireland, which did not.

Further, said Christine Bell, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh, a law that took effect in March stipulates that the British Parliament “will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Scottish Parliament.” That law was promised by Mr. Cameron to persuade Scots not to vote for independence in 2014.

A plausible argument could be made that withdrawing from the European Union over the objections of the Scottish Parliament would violate that law, Professor Bell said.

A fierce proponent of remaining within the European Union, Ms. Sturgeon said Scotland would insist on another independence referendum if Britain pulled out, and would try to negotiate with the Europeans to maintain Scottish membership in the bloc. She is “not going to be part of negotiations that accept the inevitability of Scotland exiting the E.U.,” she said.

Ms. Sturgeon’s remarks only fueled discussion of whether Britain might choose to seek a way to sidestep the results of the referendum. The formal process of unwinding Britain’s membership in the European Union begins only when the British government invokes Article 50 of the treaty governing the bloc’s operations. Yet Mr. Cameron has declined to do so, and Mr. Johnson and other leaders of the Leave campaign have avoided being pinned down on the issue.

Andrew Moravcsik, a professor of politics at Princeton University, wrote in April that Brexit was “Kabuki” theater, arguing that “under no circumstances will Britain leave Europe, regardless of the result of the referendum.”

In the end, he suggested, Britain would do what other European Union members have done after negative referendums: “It would negotiate a new agreement, nearly identical to the old one, disguise it in opaque language and ratify it,” with the agreement of a public that knows little about the European Union.

But the European Union may be in no mood to dicker while the European structure burns from other problems like Greece, migration, low growth and an aggressive Russia.

Some suggest that a newly elected British Parliament might block exit, if a new referendum were a stated commitment of the victorious party, or that somehow the Europeans will just bend to the British will and grant the nation privileges no other country has to block immigration of other European Union citizens.

But for the moment, with Mr. Cameron on his way out and Mr. Corbyn possibly joining him, thoughts of how to avoid Brexit seemed a parlor game next to the political battles the vote has unleashed.

Sewell Chan contributed reporting.

Let’s block ads! (Why?)