The minute that self-appointed militiamen stepped onto the property of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge , liberals started worrying that these folks would not be held accountable for their criminal behavior . The group , led by the two sons of right wing radical Cliven Bundy , took over the refuge , demanding that the taxpayers turn over federal lands so that folks like the Bundys and other farmers , miners and other private interests could profit handsomely off the land without having to pay for it . It 's clear that the militiamen expected the feds to rush the compound , causing a firefight in which they could be martyrs for the right wing cause of giving white conservatives a lot of free money while leaving the rest of us out to dry .\nBut that did n't happen . Instead , the federal government seemingly did n't do anything for many weeks , letting these guys get comfortable at the refuge and even go back and forth from it for grocery-shopping , media events , and whatever else their hearts desired . Only one occupier was arrested , for using a stolen vehicle to drive to the store .\nThis lack of interest in having a big ol ' shootout right away on government property did n't just disappoint the militiamen . A number of liberal commentators were miffed that the feds seemed to be twiddling their thumbs , often arguing that if the occupiers were people of color , the shootout would have happened already . The criticism had some merit , of course , but the solution for such a double standard is n't to have more shootouts , so much as it 's an argument against the quick-to-violence reactions law enforcement regrettably has when dealing with non-white suspects .\nThe occupation was expensive and disruptive , of course , leading the Democratic governor of Oregon to ask for the feds to step in . This only reinforced liberal suspicions that the feds were blowing this off and were not going to hold these yahoos accountable for their actions .\nWell , those fears were proven most dramatically wrong Tuesday afternoon , when law enforcement confronted the militiamen on the open highway . A shootout did ensue , which was expected since these folks all have ridiculous martyr fantasies , and one person was killed . So far , there have been eight arrests , and the leaders of this fiasco are in custody . Now the feds have closed in on the refuge , closing roads and access . Without leadership or access to the outside , it wo n't be surprising if the rest of the people inside just give up soon enough .\nThe worrywarts were getting all worked up over nothing . Despite all the hand-wringing over whether the feds were taking this seriously enough , in the end , it turns out that the feds were right and the worrywarts were wrong . Waiting this out a bit , while unfortunately disruptive to the area , ended up being a far more sensible way of dealing with this than trying to raid the wildlife refuge .\nRaiding the refuge was always a bad idea . For one thing it would give these wannabe martyrs exactly what they want , an opportunity to get hurt or die at government hands and become fuel for radical right wing propaganda . They even brought children onto the property to raise the stakes . In the past , federal raids under similar circumstances involving children -- -most notably in Waco -- -not only resulted in innocent lives being lost , but in providing right wing radicals even more justification to demonize federal authorities .\nAnd while the occupation was disruptive and expensive , it would have been far more costly to give the militia the shootout at the refuge they wanted . These guys bragged about how they anticipated violence . They openly threatened that this would become another Waco . Rushing them at the compound would have caused expensive damage to the building , and possibly a fire if the militiamen made good on these threats . Repairing that would have cost a fortune and kept the refuge employees on leave even longer .\nInstead , the feds let the militia get complacent and bored . They let the media attention drift away , forcing the militia to have to take more risks and leave the refuge more to get attention . What looked like federal inattention now looks a whole lot more like it was a trap being set to draw the militia members out .\nIf so , it worked perfectly . The militia members felt emboldened enough to travel 100 miles away from the refuge , and it was out there , without the shelter of the refuge , the presence of cameras , or the ability to use children or neighbors as human shields , that they were finally nabbed by law enforcement . No expensive destruction of property , no dead kids , no officers killed . Only one would-be martyr lost his life .\nBut this was n't just a success from a damage control perspective , either . The federal strategy also kneecapped the propaganda value of this occupation . As I wrote earlier this month , the lengthy occupation gave the militiamen near-daily opportunities to show the world their true colors , proving that they are n't manly warriors taking a stand so much as a bunch of clowns playing dress-up .\nThe arrest is more of the same . Instead of staging some Alamo-inspired last stand in the refuge , they apprehended in the middle of nowhere because they were stupid enough to go on a road trip . The only way this could have been more demoralizing for their cause is if they were wearing adult diapers when they got caught .\nThe entire debacle is n't quite over yet . There are still some militia members holed up in the refuge . But their leaders have all been apprehended . Considering what idiots the leaders were , it 's not unreasonable to think the people who were left to hold down the fort are even less capable of managing this situation . The federal strategy of being patient and waiting for an opportunity will most likely continue to pay off .\nInstead of being angry that the feds did n't rush this compound , liberals should use this story to push for smarter , less aggressive policing generally . We 're in the midst , prompted by the Black Lives Matter movement , of a nationwide discussion about the dangers of the `` shoot first '' philosophy of policing . This story if a perfect example of why it 's better for police to be patient and focused on minimizing damage rather than trying to strong-arm the suspects in every situation . It 's not just the right thing to do , but it 's often the most effective way to get the bad guys without hurting innocent people in the process .


In a single moment , the Orlando shooting brought together three of the most contentious issues in the United States .\nWithin 12 hours of the attack , President Obama disparaged lax gun laws , Donald Trump tweeted about radical Islamic terrorism , and gay and lesbian celebrities decried a hate crime that took the lives of 49 people at a popular gay nightclub .\nIn the days since the attack , it has become increasingly clear that the actions of Omar Mateen did not fit into a single category of hate crime , mass shooting , or jihadist terror .\n“ I would call it a hate crime . I would call it terrorism . It ’ s both , ” said Federal Bureau of Investigation Special Agent Ronald Hopper on Wednesday .\nThe question for federal officials now is : How should they respond ?\nOrlando is further evidence that the nature of terrorism in the US is changing , making the job of federal investigators harder .\nThe Islamic State , in particular , is less concerned with strategic goals than simply spreading fear as widely as possible . It preys on any disgruntled Muslim angry enough to pick up a gun .\nIt doesn ’ t require them to go to Syria for training . It doesn ’ t require them to talk to jihadists online for instructions . It doesn ’ t require them even to know how to build bombs ; guns will suffice .\nFederal agencies are coping with this evolving threat . But the fact that Mateen was investigated twice by the FBI but not stopped speaks to vulnerabilities . Without more resources to cope with an exploding caseload , federal agencies will be hard-pressed to do more .\nFor this reason , the ultimate solution lies in fixing the issues in American society that are giving rise to lone wolf terrorists , some say .\nThere have been signs this was coming . “ The threat has changed from simply worrying about foreigners coming here , to worrying about people in the United States , ” said then-Attorney General Eric Holder to ABC News in 2010 . “ You didn ’ t worry about this even two years ago – about individuals , about Americans , to the extent that we now do . ”\nWhat 's made the issue much more urgent is the rise of Islamic State and its approach to terrorism . While Al Qaeda aimed at winning the hearts and minds of Muslims , the Islamic State is determined to scare them – and everyone else – into submission .\n“ Most people , al-Qaeda ’ s leaders among them , can ’ t imagine that political success could come from enraging the masses rather than charming them , ” wrote William McCants , a terrorism expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington , in a Politico article last year .\nSince the goal is pure terror , there 's no need for spectacular , highly planned attacks like 9/11 . Any act of mass violence will do . Proper training is no longer a must , only the will to commit violence .\n“ The biggest change in terrorism since 9/11 is the jihadists ’ embrace of mass shootings , ” Mr. McCants writes in an e-mail . “ They , like many other terrorists , used to be fixated on building bombs . But they ’ ve learned that mass shootings are easier to organize without detection and generate just as much media attention . ISIS has been exceptionally good at inspiring young men to carry out these attacks in its name . ”\nMateen , an American citizen born to Afghan parents in New York , offers a picture of the difficulties in sniffing out such terrorists .\nThe FBI put him on a watch list in May 2013 after he made comments to coworkers claiming he had family and friends affiliated with Hezbollah and Al Qaeda . ( That seemed unlikely since the two groups are enemies . )\nAgents interviewed him twice before closing the investigation in March 2014 with too little evidence , according to FBI Director James Comey .\nMateen again came to their attention shortly afterward when the agency found he attended the same mosque as a Syrian suicide bomber . Again , the investigation was closed when the agency found “ no ties of consequence , ” according to Director Comey .\nSo , two years later , when Mateen walked into the St. Lucie ( Fla. ) Shooting Center to purchase a semiautomatic rifle and pistol , it raised no flags . He had the valid licenses . He passed the background check .\nThe owner of a different local gun store , however , says that his employees refused to sell Mateen body armor and bulk ammunition after he began asking `` suspicious '' questions , according to ABC News . Robert Abell of Lotus Gunworks in Jensen Beach , Fla. , says he contacted authorities about Mateen before the massacre ; the FBI did not respond to ABC News 's request for comment .\nIn its defense , the FBI notes that it is already stepping up antiterror efforts . As of last fall , there were some 900 active investigations of ISIS sympathizers who live in the United States , according to the report from George Washington University ’ s Program on Extremism . Last year , officials arrested 56 of them , the highest number of terror-related arrests in any year since the 9/11 terror attacks .\nYet the FBI has to walk a fine line , says Seamus Hughes , deputy director of the program and coauthor of the report . The FBI investigates thousands of potential domestic terrorists at any given time , the vast majority of whom never plan a terrorist act .\nFrances Townsend , who served as Homeland Security adviser to President George W. Bush , worries that the current guidelines for domestic counterterror investigations may constrain investigators . Specifically , she says they harm agents ’ ability to include social media activity and postings in their investigations .\n“ We have to make sure we don ’ t let the attorney general ’ s guidelines become what ‘ the wall ’ was to 9/11 , ” said Ms. Townsend , referring to the firewall preventing the sharing of information among intelligence agencies that existed before the 9/11 terrorist attacks .\nBut even if everything works , there ’ s an element of guesswork in figuring out who will move from being a mere sympathizer to taking up arms . “ In most cases the motivations are complicated , ” says Mr. Hughes at George Washington University . “ People are complex and they do things for a variety of reasons . ”\nThat ’ s certainly true for Mateen , who proclaimed allegiance to ISIS in a 911 call during the shooting and often angrily denounced gays to friends and family , but also frequently attended the gay nightclub he attacked , according to reports .\nAddressing the rising lone wolf threat isn ’ t just a matter of what can and can ’ t be done in an investigation but will almost certainly entail additional resources , said Ms. Townsend .\n“ The question is , if we want the FBI to cover more threats , do we give the FBI more resources , more agents ? ” she asked in a conference call with reporters Monday .\nOthers suggest that the answers could lie beyond law enforcement alone .\nMany lone wolf terrorists are driven to suicide for the same reasons that ordinary people are , as they try to cope with depression and marital strife , argues Adam Lankford , a University of Alabama criminology professor and author of a 2013 book , “ The Myth of Martyrdom . ”\n“ The Orlando shooter and many mass shooters fall within this demographic and seek to die , even when they claim to be ‘ martyrs ’ or attempt to hide their psychological pain , ” says Mr. Lankford , via e-mail . “ If we can make major progress on reducing suicides and helping people with suicidal thoughts , that would be an incredibly important step for America , and I believe a side effect would be a reduction in mass shootings . ”\nAnother option is a comprehensive preventative approach to radicalization , argues Hughes of George Washington University . “ You have a number of cases where there ’ s not enough evidence to prosecute , but the FBI is still concerned about the individual . ”\nThat would mean targeted intervention from other groups than law enforcement . For example , the World Organization for Resource Development and Education has developed an innovative program in Maryland 's Montgomery County that aims to empower community members to intervene with vulnerable youth before they choose a path of violence .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nThe model could spread to other jurisdictions . It 's better that it 's a local rather than federal government solution , Hughes says , reducing the footprint of government intervention . At the federal level , too , he is confident Congress can push beyond partisan divisions to come up with ways to reduce lone-wolf terrorism .\n“ You tend to see a coalescing of congressional and other leaders to search for solutions ” after events such as the Orlando shooting , Hughes says . “ I am ever the optimist .... I think there ’ s always going to be a reevaluation . ”


Senate liberals know they are going to lose the battle over fast-track trade authority . But they ’ re doing all they can to prolong the fight — perhaps even past the Memorial Day recess into June — in hopes that a long delay will damage the bill ’ s already difficult prospects in the House .\nA coalition of Senate Democrats who ’ ve long opposed new trade agreements , led by Sherrod Brown of Ohio , say they are planning to throw up procedural roadblocks and offer amendments that would expand worker protections and undermine GOP support for the fast-track measure . While they can ’ t win the battle , Brown and his allies hope their resistance will stoke popular sentiment against the bill and encourage Democrats to vote against it in the House , where Republican leaders warn they still need about 20 more votes for approval .\n“ The handwriting ’ s on the wall , ” Brown said of the prospects of beating the bill in the Senate . But , he said : “ There ’ s real opportunity in the House to defeat it . ”\n“ We ’ re going to work as hard as we can to defeat this legislation , ” added Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-Vt. ) in an interview Thursday . “ Time is on our side . The longer we keep it on the floor , the more the American people understand what a disastrous agreement this is , the better it is for us . ”\nSenate rules will work in their favor , given that any single member can drag out debate for days by objecting to time and amendment agreements . Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ’ s promise to have an open amendment process will also help liberals , as they mull offering amendments on currency manipulation and additional worker protections that could be tough for vulnerable Republicans to oppose . And lawmakers need to deal with the expiring PATRIOT Act next week , along with transportation law , putting the squeeze on the Senate ’ s tight schedule .\nThe White House and Senate Republicans are pressing the pace to keep momentum on their side after they broke a filibuster this week . Fast-track Trade Promotion Authority is the centerpiece of President Barack Obama ’ s economic agenda , and it is necessary if he wants to speed a huge trade pact with 12 Pacific Rim nations through Congress without amendment .\nRepublicans even tried to schedule a rare Friday Senate session to begin debating amendments , an effort that proved unsuccessful . The GOP is already blaming Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid ( D-Nev. ) for delaying votes and debate on the bill .\nMeanwhile , liberal Democrats huddled this week with Brown to plot the measure ’ s defeat and are continuing to formulate a plan of attack . They remain tight-lipped about what exactly they will do to jam up McConnell ’ s priorities , but they ’ ve promised to make it an ugly skirmish .\n“ The procedural tools will come out , ” warned Sen. Brian Schatz ( D-Hawaii ) .\nThe time crunch is going to work against McConnell . Dealing with the high-stakes trade measure and a controversial extension of surveillance programs at the same time is going to be difficult , if not impossible . When push comes to shove , Republicans may be forced to punt trade until after the recess to deal with the more pressing PATRIOT Act .\n“ Sen . McConnell has written more checks than he can cash on the schedule , ” said Adam Jentleson , a spokesman for Reid . “ Something ’ s got ta give , it ’ s just not clear what . ”\nMcConnell ( R-Ky. ) shrugged off the pessimism . “ We will finish it next week , ” he said of TPA on Thursday afternoon .\n“ We ’ re running out of time , ” added McConnell ’ s whip , Sen. John Cornyn of Texas . “ My goal is to finish it next week . I ’ m an optimist . ”\nBut Republicans are already preparing for the worst . Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch ( R-Utah ) said in an interview that if he had his way , the Senate would stay in through the recess to finish his bill . That ’ s highly unlikely given that four senators are already running for president ; and the Senate barely works on Fridays anymore .\n“ Anything beyond next week is obstructionism , ” Hatch said of Democrats ’ threats to hold up the bill . This week ’ s filibuster , he added , smacked of a Democratic strategy “ so that they can claim that they don ’ t have enough time to bring up amendments . ”\nPotentially problematic amendments began piling up as soon as the Senate voted to begin debate on the bill . Brown wants to crank up spending on the Trade Adjustment Assistance program , which could appeal to several Rust Belt Republicans looking to assure their constituents that any job losses from new trade bills will be blunted by the TAA program .\n“ If McConnell wants to keep us in , late nights and all , I ’ m fine , ” Brown said . “ I want to make sure we get these amendments out there . ”\nRepublicans already have begrudgingly agreed to move a trade assistance measure along with the fast-track bill , but expanding the TAA protections even further could erode GOP support for the fast-track measure it ’ s paired with .\nRepublicans have offered an amendment to strip the bill of the trade-assistance program , which likely would fail if it gets a vote but serves as a direct challenge to Brown .\n“ If they want to defeat it , they might be able to defeat it with some amendments that just make it improbable to use , ” Hatch said of fast-track .\nSen. James Lankford ( R-Okla. ) wants the Senate to attach a provision that would require that religious liberty be factored into any new trade deals , injecting a social issues debate into an already fraught battle over economics and prosperity . He and Brown will get votes on their proposals on Monday evening .\nAnd Sens . Jeff Sessions ( R-Ala. ) and Ted Cruz ( R-Texas ) have offered amendments aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration . Cruz says he won ’ t support anything that doesn ’ t include his amendment .\n“ We should put it in writing and make it binding law . I am a strong supporter of free trade , but I can not support legislation that would allow the president to once again circumvent Congress to enact his own immigration laws , ” Cruz said .\nDemocrats say that even if McConnell moves to block or limit the amendment jockeying early next week , their liberal members are likely to object to swift consideration of the fast-track bill . That could drag out the bill until the end of the week , which would then crash into the McConnell ’ s efforts to extend portions of the PATRIOT Act .\nRepublicans privately complained that Reid was playing both sides by working to delay the bill and block amendments , only to then complain about not getting votes on Democratic amendments .\nLiberals and libertarians are vowing to fight McConnell ’ s effort to offer a clean extension of current surveillance law , including the bulk data-collection program , meaning the Senate may have to devote significant time to that , too .\nIn the middle of it all is Sen. Ron Wyden ( D-Ore. ) , Hatch ’ s primary dance partner on trade issues . And though he said in an interview he ’ s doing everything he can to move the trade bill before the recess , he ’ s also vowed to filibuster any effort to extend the PATRIOT Act without reforms to bulk data collection .\n“ I ’ m going to pull out all the stops to do both , ” Wyden said .


Democratic congressional leaders are loath to acknowledge it , but President Trump has them cornered with his threat to terminate NAFTA if his new trade deal with Mexico and Canada isn ’ t approved .\nScrapping the North American Free Trade Agreement without a replacement would deliver a heavy blow to the U.S. economy . In the short term , it would reduce real U.S. gross domestic product — the total output of goods and services — by as much as $ 231 billion , more than 1 percent during the first five years , according to an analysis commissioned by the Business Roundtable .\n“ Terminating NAFTA would have negative impacts on jobs , exports and output even after new supply chains are formed . In this longer run , we estimate that U.S. GDP would remain depressed by over 0.2 percent , permanently , ” said the report for the Business Roundtable , an association of chief executive officers from major U.S. corporations .\nThe impact on the U.S. GDP , about $ 19.3 trillion in 2017 , would depend on the reactions of Mexico and Canada . Alternative scenarios in the analysis pegged the reduced annual GDP at $ 119 billion to $ 231 billion , with job losses from 1.8 million to 3.6 million in the five-year window .\nSen. Charles E. Grassley , the Iowa Republican who next year will take charge of the Senate Finance Committee , which oversees trade agreements , said the president has Congress over a barrel .\n“ It seems to me it is going to force Congress to act — even if you disagree with parts of it , ” he said in an interview on the “ Adams on Agriculture ” program on the American Ag Radio Network .\n“ Now that is a hard-nosed approach , but sometimes a president has to use that if he wants to get things accomplished , ” Mr. Grassley said .\nCapitol Hill Democrats shrugged off Mr. Trump ’ s threat and vowed to tinker with the proposed U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement ( USMCA ) , potentially derailing a deal that legislatures in all three countries must approve .\nMr. Trump and his counterparts in Mexico and Canada signed the agreement on Nov. 30 , capping a year of intense negotiations that produced a trade deal that many said would be impossible to make .\nTwo days after signing the accord in Buenos Aires while the three leaders were attending the Group of 20 summit , Mr. Trump put Congress on notice .\n“ I will be formally terminating NAFTA shortly , ” he told reporters on the Air Force One flight back to Washington . “ Then Congress will have a choice of approving the USMCA , which is a phenomenal deal . Much , much better than NAFTA . A great deal . ”\nThe president threatened to rip up NAFTA , which he called the “ worst trade deal ever made. ” The threat helped force Mexico and Canada to the negotiating table .\nMr. Trump has found more agreement with Democrats than his fellow Republicans in criticizing the 24-year-old NAFTA , which is blamed for shipping jobs to Mexico and hastening the demise of U.S. manufacturing .\nBut Democrats , who take control of the House next month , have been less than enthusiastic about approving an agreement that would allow Mr. Trump to check off a major campaign promise .\nThe USMCA sets new rules on agriculture , technology and auto imports , protects autoworkers ’ jobs in the U.S. and opens Canada to American dairy products .\nHouse Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi , the California Democrat who is poised to become speaker of the House , described the new pact as a warmed-over NAFTA that doesn ’ t go far enough .\nShe joked that it was “ the bill formerly known as Prince , ” a reference to the late musician who once changed his name to an unpronounceable symbol .\nMrs. Pelosi said Democrats will fight for measures to accompany USMCA that enforce labor and environmental requirements , as well as legislation in Mexico to address wages and working conditions .\n“ I said it was a work in progress , ” she said . “ I know it ’ s work ; I hope it ’ s progress . ”\nRep. Bill Pascrell Jr. of New Jersey , the top Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee ’ s trade panel , said he doesn ’ t believe Mr. Trump would carry out the threat .\n“ He ’ s not someone I take at his word . Trump boasted about what a great deal the USMCA was , yet a day after signing is resorting to threats to force Congress ‘ hand , ” he said . “ This doesn ’ t display confidence in the deal he made . I have more confidence in Congress continuing to work with [ U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer ] than it would seem Trump does . ”\n“ Continuing the status quo of NAFTA is not an option . Too many jobs have been outsourced and wages lost to let the old agreement stand , ” he said . “ But simply withdrawing won ’ t do anything to raise wages here or in Mexico or reverse NAFTA ’ s destruction . ”\nMr. Trump has the authority to terminate the deal under NAFTA ’ s Article 2205 , which is the exit clause for member countries . Invoking it would begin a six-month waiting period before Mr. Trump could quit the deal .\nInvoking Article 2205 would impose a six-month deadline on Congress to approve USMCA or revert to trade laws that were in effect in 1993 before NAFTA .\nCongress might test Mr. Trump ’ s resolve , but the president has insisted that the U.S. would be just fine without NAFTA .


As the president ’ s trade agenda approaches reality this week , misconceptions about it abound – partly because the noisy arguments for and against it have obscured the issue , and partly because of the emotionalism that trade stirs up .\nThe trade debate is a combination of both factual information about what ’ s actually in the legislation and of emotions about job loss , says Gary Chaison , a professor of labor relations at Clark University in Worcester , Ma .\n“ Trade agreements are always difficult because they are very emotional things , ” he says . They invariably benefit some people and negatively affect others . “ For the winners we look at the facts , and for the losers we look at emotions . ”\nOn Wednesday , the Senate passed `` fast track , '' which prevents Congress from amending trade bills negotiated by President Obama , by a 60-to-38 vote . That now goes to Mr. Obama 's desk for a signature . It also approved assistance for workers displaced by global trade . That goes back to the House for final approval .\nWith all that in mind , here are five common misconceptions about free trade agreements and the president ’ s trade agenda .\nFiguring job losses and gains from trade is not an exact science .\nOpponents argue vigorously that trade deals such as the 1993 North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) are job killers and wage suppressors , while proponents argue they lead to economic growth .\nBut in April , the independent Congressional Research Service reported that “ the overall economic impact of NAFTA is difficult to measure ” because trade and investment are influenced by many variables . “ NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters , ” it concluded .\nPredicting losses or gains from the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership – the historic trade deal that the US is negotiating with 11 other Pacific Rim nations – is even harder because it involves so many countries , says Steve Bell , senior director of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center think tank in Washington .\nIt ’ s “ virtually impossible to estimate with any reliability the job impact or the cost impact or the [ economic ] impact . People who say that are pretty much making that stuff up , ” he says .\nFor that reason , he and others argue , trade deals should be judged on whether they expand America ’ s positive influence in the world , whether they break down export barriers to US goods , and whether they improve labor , environmental , and human rights standards abroad .\nProfessor Chaison argues they must be accompanied by assistance for displaced American workers , because “ we don ’ t fully appreciate ” the radical way in which real people ’ s lives can be harmed by trade .\nChina is not part of the Pacific trade agreement , or any US trade deal .\nLawmakers and labor often point to jobs lost to a China trade deal . For example , Rep. Barbara Lee ( D ) of California recently said that communities of color have disproportionately suffered because of a “ US-China trade deal . ”\nYes , minorities have disproportionately suffered job losses over the years , but the way it 's described makes it sound like the losses come from America 's trade agreement with China . There is no US-China trade deal .\nRepresentative Lee is getting her data – 35 percent of minority jobs lost to China along with a 30 percent drop in wages – from the Communications Workers of America . The union cites “ the China deal , ” but what it ’ s really referring to is China joining the World Trade Organization in 2001 .\nBeing in the WTO is not the same as entering into a negotiated free trade agreement , which could be potentially stricter , between two countries or even a dozen countries . Some argue that China should be part of the Pacific Rim deal or some future US free trade agreement because it ’ s too big to ignore .\nBut for now , the Obama administration is arguing that the Pacific agreement is needed as a geostrategic counterweight to China .\nGlobalization and free trade deals are not the same thing .\nWhen opponents of free trade agreements cite job losses , lower wages , or outsourcing , they often lump in the phenomenon of “ globalization ” with free trade agreements .\nGlobalization is what ’ s happening with the world economy and culture – the spread of interconnectedness hastened by the digital age . Its downside can mean Americans losing business to international retailers over the Internet , losing call centers to India ( with which the US has no trade agreement ) , or being undercut by Chinese currency manipulation .\nFree trade agreements try to bring structure to this free-wheeling world by setting up common standards . They , too , have downsides that result in job losses in some sectors , but the deals are an attempt to bring order to globalization .\n“ Globalization is an economic evolution . A trade agreement is just the opposite . It ’ s a construct , ” says Bell .\nThe secrecy surrounding the Pacific trade deal is not so unusual .\nIt ’ s true that members of Congress have to go to a special room to read the draft Pacific trade agreement ; that they must surrender their cell phones before going in ; that they can take notes – but not with them when they leave ; that they may not divulge its contents to outsiders , even experts who might help them better understand the contents .\nWhy the secrecy ? The administration says it ’ s to protect its negotiating power . How can it negotiate sensitive points with 11 countries while 535 members of Congress and the general public weigh in ? Besides , any member of Congress will be able to go to the trade negotiations or consult with the administration . And the final deal will be available to the public for 60 days before it ’ s voted on in Congress .\nDeal-making in secret is not an unusual negotiating strategy , supporters say .\n“ This is really not substantially different than how labor unions themselves negotiate their contracts , ” says Rep. Gregory Meeks ( D ) of New York , one of the president ’ s few Democratic trade supporters in the House . For example , top union officials negotiate contracts , and then take the results back to the members for ratification .\nOn Wednesday , the Senate approved fast track trading authority for the president .\nBut this was a vote about process , not a vote on a trade agreement . Fast track allows the president to negotiate a trade deal with the assurance that Congress can ’ t change it once he ’ s sealed the deal ; it can only approve or disapprove it . The actual vote on a trade deal would come only after it ’ s finalized .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nThis week ’ s votes also include assistance to help workers displaced by global trade . Republicans generally view such aid as welfare , but it ’ s the price that Democrats , including the president , are demanding because trade deals inevitably displace some workers ( see point No . 1 ) .\nAfter a difficult journey through Congress , both fast track and help for displaced workers are expected to reach the president for signature by the end of this week .


Abe to Congress : Japan wo n't shy away from reforms needed for trade pact\nJapanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said his country will not shy away from domestic reforms vital for its participation in a massive Asia-Pacific trade deal Tokyo is trying to close with the U.S. and other Asia-Pacific countries .\n“ Japan ’ s agriculture is at a crossroads , ” Abe said in his historic address to a joint session of Congress on Wednesday , the first by a Japanese prime minister . “ In order for it to survive , it has to change now . ”\nThe U.S. is pressing Tokyo to open access to a number of so-called sacred sectors , such as rice , dairy , beef and pork , through the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks . Japan has been cautious in meeting those demands , and Abe ’ s ruling Liberal Democratic Party is seen as tightly under the grip of the country ’ s powerful agriculture lobby .\nThe Japanese leader , however , said he is bringing “ great reforms ” to agricultural policy , noting that the average Japanese farmer is older than 66 and Japanese farming is shrinking as a percentage of the country ’ s economy .\nAbe also said he is committed to overhauling regulations in medicine , energy and other areas .\n“ Please do come and see the new Japan , where we have regained our spirit of reform and our sense of speed , ” he said . “ Japan will not run away from any reforms . ”\nThe prime minister has sought to turn around Japan ’ s stagnant economy through his “ Abenomics ” plan , which rests on regulatory reforms and participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal . The “ goal is near ” in the U.S. and Japan ’ s talks on agriculture and auto trade issues important for the success of the broader Asia-Pacific pact , he said .\n“ Let us bring the TPP to a successful conclusion through our joint leadership , ” he said . U.S. lawmakers are currently considering trade promotion authority legislation considered vital to closing the trade deal and expediting its passage in Congress .\nAbe also stressed the strategic importance of the trade deal , highlighting its role in spreading the shared values of rule of law and democracy in the region .\n“ We must take the lead to build a market that is fair , dynamic , sustainable and is also free from the arbitrary intentions of any nation , ” he said , an apparent reference to China ’ s growing dominance in the region .\n“ In the Pacific market , we can not overlook sweatshops or burdens on the environment , ” he said . “ Nor can we simply allow free riders on intellectual property . ”\nAbe ’ s trip to Washington this week also focused on strengthening security ties with the U.S. through new defense cooperation guidelines .\nIn a meeting with President Barack Obama on Tuesday , Abe said the two leaders fully agreed on the significance of the new defense policy .\nThe reforms , which will be fully implemented by this summer , will give the East Asian country more leeway to deploy its military forces to intervene in foreign conflicts and move away from constitutional self-defense restrictions .\nJapan is keen to expand its military operations to counter China ’ s claims over a group of islands in the East China Sea and respond to North Korea ’ s growing nuclear arsenal .\nAbe capped his visit to Washington with the speech to Congress — the first time a Japanese leader has addressed both chambers — where he also spent some time addressing his country ’ s past transgressions during World War II .\n“ Our actions brought suffering to the peoples in Asian countries , ” he said . “ We must not avert our eyes from that . ”\nThe conciliatory statements to U.S. lawmakers , however , stopped short of a full apology for Japan ’ s wartime conduct in the Asia-Pacific region , including its World War II practice of providing so-called comfort women , by and large non-Japanese sex slaves , to Japanese soldiers .\n“ History is harsh , ” he said . “ What is done can not be undone . ”


We hear quite a bit of misleading rhetoric against China these days . Let 's grant , for argument 's sake , that the Chinese overproduce steel , dump some of that steel into Canada and Europe before it makes its way to the United States , pilfer intellectual property and have a plan to dominate the world by 2025 . It 's still not a good ███ to protect a few privileged American producers by slapping tariffs on the stuff other U.S. firms use to manufacture their goods—or for the government to restrict the supply of goods that households consume to raise their standard of living .\nSince when do free market advocates believe that a communist authoritarian regime like the one in China can successfully and centrally plan and execute economic growth ? These days , newspapers are full of quotes by noted free marketeers who would usually oppose trade barriers such as those put in place by the Trump administration but nevertheless support such barriers because they worry that China 's 2025 `` plan '' will successfully lead to its domination of many industries .\nIt 's puzzling . George Mason University economist Don Boudreaux correctly commented on this inconsistency by writing that those on the political right who usually believe in markets `` correctly understand that the U.S. government can not out-perform the market at 'picking ' winners , but they … nevertheless believe that foreign governments , especially those governments with authoritarian histories and that currently possess authoritarian powers , are invested with uncanny abilities to improve the performance of their economies with subsidies , trade restraints , and industrial policies . ''\nIf these guys really believe that such a top-down government-controlled economy can work in China , why not try it here ? And if it works so well in China , why does n't it work in Venezuela or Cuba ?\nAlso puzzling is the constant refrain about China producing more than it needs . Even if this overcapacity were a boon for China , it would still be to the benefit of millions of American consumers . It lowers costs for thousands of small U.S. manufacturers and steel consumers . But in reality , this `` overproduction '' is a tragedy for the Chinese people because their government 's subsidization of steel production inevitably diverts resources from other areas of the Chinese economy . I do n't hear Americans and Europeans complaining about all the stuff China is n't producing because its government stupidly wants to produce a lot of steel . So the next time you encounter someone lamenting China 's overcapacity , shed a tear or two for the Chinese people and recognize that some American non-steel production might fall if ( and when ) Beijing stops diverting so many resources into Chinese steel factories .\n`` But what about American steel producers ? ! '' some plead . If you think trade is the main culprit in the steel-industry woes , think again . For decades , Americans have imported between 25 and 30 percent of our steel . That leaves domestic steel with a healthy 70 to 75 percent of the market . To the extent that steel jobs were lost , the ███ is that American steel executives implemented labor-saving innovations ( read : technology ) just like the rest of the manufacturing industries . These innovations made individual steel workers more productive and raised their wages . As a reminder , steel employment in the United States actually peaked in 1956 , long before China entered in the picture .\n`` But the Chinese steal intellectual property from us ! '' others say . Still , the best way to protect the property rights of some Americans—many of whom freely choose to operate in China under these conditions—is n't to impose import taxes ( tariffs ) and thereby penalize millions of American consumers . Such `` retaliation '' by the U.S. government is a policy of picking winners and losers , which is unfair and inefficient . It also puts thousands of other American jobs in jeopardy , exposes us to retaliation and causes U.S. companies ( like Harley-Davidson ) to move their production abroad . The best solutions use international organizations to challenge China 's actions and form alliances with like-minded allies .\nI hope you wo n't read this piece as a defense of the Chinese regime . There 's no excuse for the way it treats its people , abuses human rights and deprives the Chinese from free market economic policies . However , many of the arguments levied against China as they relate to trade either misidentify the true victims or advocate the wrong remedies . And let 's not forget that new U.S. trade and investment restrictions wo n't make China more like us , but more government control over the U.S. economy will make us more like China .


CLOSE After a week of hints and uncertainty , President Donald Trump on Thursday announced tariffs on imported steel and aluminum but with temporary exemptions for Canada and Mexico as he seeks to revise the North American Free Trade Agreement . ( March 8 ) AP\nWASHINGTON — Despite warnings by allies that a trade war will increase prices for consumers worldwide , President Trump signed proclamations Thursday imposing tariffs on steel and aluminum imports and said they are designed to protect American industries .\nIn statements from the White House , Trump said his plan does exempt Canada and Mexico from the tariffs , pending the outcome of ongoing trade negotiations , and allows other countries to apply for relief from the new duties .\n`` We have to protect and build our steel and aluminum industries , while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are really friends of ours , '' Trump said while surrounded by steel and aluminum workers invited to the White House .\nCLOSE The last time a trade war happened in the U.S. , things did n't go well for the economy . Will history repeat itself as Trump puts a tariff on steel and aluminum ? Here are the facts . Just the FAQs\nHe also described the move as `` vital to our national security , '' and said more trade policy changes are on the way .\nTrump said there would be 25 % tariffs on steel and 10 % on aluminum , but there would be exemptions and possible changes .\n`` I 'll have a right to go up or down , depending on the country , and I 'll have a right to drop out countries or add countries , '' he told his Cabinet earlier in theb day . `` We just want fairness . Because we have not been treated fairly by other countries . ''\nWhen Trump announced his tariff plans a week ago , aides said there would be no exemptions or carve outs .\nThe European Union and other allies have threatened to retaliate with tariffs of their own on American products , from Florida orange juice to Wisconsin motorcycles to Kentucky bourbon . Trump 's decision `` will put thousands of European jobs in jeopardy and it has to be met by firm and proportionate response , '' said Cecilia Malmström , the EU commissioner for trade .\nIn addition to threatening to go after American products , other countries ridiculed Trump 's claim that the tariffs serve the need of national defense , saying the penalties fall more on allies like Canada than potential adversaries like China .\nMany fellow Republicans also objected to Trump 's tariffs , predicting a trade war that will increase costs for consumers everywhere .\nOutgoing Sen. Jeff Flake , R-Ariz. , who vowed to introduce legislation nullify Trump 's action , ridiculed the notion of `` flexible '' tariffs : `` What does that mean ? One day you wake up and you say , ‘ I don ’ t like Australia ? ’ ... That ’ s unbelievable . ”\nLooking forward to 3:30 P.M. meeting today at the White House . We have to protect & build our Steel and Aluminum Industries while at the same time showing great flexibility and cooperation toward those that are real friends and treat us fairly on both trade and the military . — Donald J. Trump ( @ realDonaldTrump ) March 8 , 2018\nThe critics include House Speaker Paul Ryan , R-Wisc. , who said that `` I 'm just not a fan of broad based and across the board tariffs because there are a lot of unintended consequences . ''\nTrump justified the decision by citing `` shuttered plants and mills , '' laid-off workers , and `` the decimation of entire communities , '' all the result of what he called decades of unfair foreign trade practices that targeted U.S. industries . Economists said automation has killed off more factory jobs , and that free trade has bolstered many sectors of the U.S. economy .\nDuring the signing ceremony , Trump invited some of the steel workers , hard hats in hands , to speak about how their town have been hurt by the decline of the industry .\nThe trade debate played a major role in Trump 's 2016 presidential campaign .\nDuring the Cabinet meeting , Trump said he would flexible with `` real friends . '' In addition to Canada and Mexico , Trump mentioned Australia — `` we have a trade surplus with Australia '' — while criticizing Germany for what he considers a lack of defense spending .\n`` We have some friends and some enemies , where we have been tremendously taken advantage of over the years , on trade , and on military , '' Trump said .\nMore : Trump claims 'trade wars ' are 'easy to win ' day after tariff talk roils stock market\nMore : Trump escalates trade war rhetoric with threat of European auto tariffs\nTrump said Canada and Mexico , the U.S. partners in the North American Free Trade Agreement , could avoid tariffs if they grant concessions during ongoing negotiations to re-work NAFTA , a trade deal the president has long criticized .\n`` With Mexico and Canada , we 're going to be throwing NAFTA into the loop , '' Trump told his Cabinet , though officials in those countries have denounced the president 's plan to link tariffs to the long-term trade deal .\nTrump announced his pledge in a surprise move a week ago , telling a group of executives he would impose 25 % tariffs on steel imports and 10 % on aluminum imports .\nThe tariff issue created major divisions within the White House itself , and led in part to this week 's resignation announcement by top economic adviser Gary Cohn .\nDuring his session with aides , Trump noted that it would be Cohn 's last Cabinet meeting . He also joked about his soon-to-be-ex-aide 's support of free trade , saying that Cohn “ may be a globalist , but I still like him . ''\nA number of Republicans , nominal allies of Trump , have criticized the tariffs .\nMore : Free trade foes are winning in economic battle in Trump 's White House\nHouse Republicans focused on trade , however , were not as hard on Trump as their Senate colleagues .\nRep. Kevin Brady , the Texas Republican who chairs the Ways and Means Committee , said exempting Canada and Mexico was “ a good first step . ”\n“ I urge the White House to go further to narrow these tariffs so they hit the intended target – and not U.S. workers , businesses , and families , ” Brady said .\nRep. David Reichert , R-Wash. , said the process for excluding countries needs to be effective .\n“ With 40 % of jobs tied to trade in my home state of Washington , we can not take actions that hurt the ability of our exporters to sell their American-made goods and services around the world , ” said Reichert , chairman of the trade subcommittee of Ways and Means .\nIn a letter released Wednesday , 107 House Republicans led by Brady urged Trump to “ tailor ” the tariffs to punish “ bad actors who trade unfairly and hurt America ” such as China .\nSen. Charles Schumer , D-N.Y. , minority leader in the Senate , said he sympathizes with Trump 's criticism of trade rules , but the main culprit is China . Trump 's plan does n't address the Chinese , he said , because other countries supply more steel and aluminum to the U.S .\n`` Instead of getting right at China , the president ’ s across-the-board tariffs will cause more damage to key allies and other domestic industries , '' Schumer said . He also hit `` the haphazard way these tariffs were put together , '' and that Trump `` makes up his mind one day and changes it the next . ''\nTrump cast the tariffs at a first step in a series of trade changes . During the signing ceremony , he outlined a `` reciprocal tax '' to combat duties that China and other countries place on U.S. products .\nLike other business groups , the National Retail Federation called the tariffs `` a self-inflicted wound '' that will lead to `` higher prices for products ranging from canned goods to cars to electronics . ''\nSome economists defended Trump 's plan , saying trade has sucked the life out of American manufacturing .\nPeter Morici , a business professor at the University of Maryland , tweeted that Trump `` is not starting a trade war '' because `` we are already in one , '' especially with China .\n`` The other side has bazookas & we have been using water pistols , '' Morici said . `` China has targeted one U.S. industry after another , thrown millions of Americans out of work . Time to fight back . ''


In a move met by applause from at least one congressman , the Energy Department announced a pilot program for research into domestic mining of rare earth elements .\nRare earth elements are a series of seemingly obscure elements on the Periodic Table that are crucial for production of electronics , military equipment and some medications .\nAccording to Rep. Lou Barletta ( R-Pa. ) , 100 percent of America 's supply of these elements comes from China .\nChina supplies 85 percent of the world 's overall production , according to the congressman .\nThe elements - which include Yttrium , Scandium , Neodymium and Cerium - can be extracted in a variety of ways , including in the aftermath of coal mining .\nThe Energy Department said it will invest nearly $ 7 million into researching ways to mine and produce these elements in the United States .\nFirst New Coal Mine of Trump Era Opens in Pennsylvania\nHuckabee : Trump Supporters Being Subjected to 'Terrorism ' for Their Vote\nPirro Blasts GOP : 'You 're In Power - Do Something ' to Pass Trump Agenda\nBarletta said one of the sites the grant will fund is on the site of the Jeddo coal operation in Hazleton , Pa. , near Tamaqua .\n`` Studies have shown that the Appalachian coal fields throughout northeastern Pennsylvania contain some of the highest concentrations of rare earth elements , '' Barletta said in a press release .\nHe said it was a matter of national security that the U.S. be able to mine its own rare earth elements so that sectors like the military and healthcare do not need to depend on China .\nOther areas targeted by the Energy Department for the program include Albany , Ga. , Tuscaloosa , Ala. and Bluefield , Va. , on the West Virginia border .\nEarlier this month , President Trump celebrated the opening of the first American coal mine in recent times ..\nWatch the clip above to find out more about the administration 's plans for mining .\nScalise Shooter Had List of at Least 6 GOP Lawmakers ' Names


Americans are being subjected to a massive public relations assault attempting to persuade them that “ fracking ” for natural gas and oil is the key to America ’ s energy future and that this change will free them forever from the bondage of oil imports .\nWhat has really changed is the nation ’ s energy conversation . Until recently , it was about how the United States should reduce its dependency on climate-changing fossil fuels . Now the “ conversation ” has become a harangue about the energy , jobs , and tax revenues the industry insists will flow from fracking and how these outweigh environmental concerns .\nThe data do not adequately support these claims . Though the fracking revolution is only a few years old , it ’ s already losing steam . There are several reasons why .\nFracking , or hydraulic fracturing , is a method of extracting natural gas and oil from low-permeability ( usually shale ) rock formations that don ’ t yield to conventional technologies . In the process , water , sand , and various chemicals are injected into shale rock at high pressure to open fractures in the rock and release gas or oil .\nA few years ago , fracking for shale gas or tight oil was still novel and confined to small regions , but now tens of thousands of wells have been drilled . Millions of Americans have personal experience with the noise , truck traffic , fumes , and local political turmoil that seem inevitably to follow in fracking ’ s wake . Hundreds of anti-fracking citizen groups have formed , public sentiment seems to be turning , and communities have begun seeking bans or moratoriums on the practice .\nEnvironmental problems can ’ t be swept under the carpet any longer . The image of a home-owner lighting his tap water on fire in Josh Fox ’ s documentary film “ Gasland ” has become a cliché ; still , for a while the natural gas industry successfully argued that adverse effects from fracking on water , air , soil , wildlife , livestock , and human health are negligible .\nIndustry-funded studies declared the practice safe , and the Environmental Protection Agency appeared to back them up . Drilling companies tended to target economically depressed regions , where poverty forced most townsfolk to take whatever short-term jobs and production royalties were offered . Meanwhile , citizens who have suffered ill health effects or property damage that they link to fracking were led to sign non-disclosure agreements in order to receive settlement payoffs ( including two children ages 7 and 10 who have been given lifetime bans from speaking about fracking ) .\nBut the bad news just keeps leaking , like methane through a bad well casing . Former Mobil Oil vice president , Louis W. Allstadt , who spent his career running oil production operations and company mergers , now speaks on behalf of anti-fracking resistance groups . He points to studies revealing that compromised casings ( and resulting instances of water contamination ) are far more common than the industry claims .\nMeanwhile the Los Angeles Times has uncovered documents suggesting that the EPA has ignored evidence of environmental harms from fracking , choosing not to publicize or act on data collected by its own staff .\nWayne County , Pa. , activists are currently celebrating the cancellation of 1,500 drilling leases covering 100,000 acres of land . New York State ’ s moratorium on fracking remains in effect , despite massive industry efforts to end it . Meanwhile the Colorado city of Longmont has voted to ban fracking altogether , and the State of Colorado is suing the city in an attempt to overturn the ban .\nBut fracking has another problem that is even bigger than environmental and health problems or shifting public opinion , though less publicized : Its production potential seems to have been oversold .\nEveryone who pays attention to energy issues has heard that America has a hundred years or more of natural gas thanks to the application of fracking to shale reservoirs , and that the US is on track to outproduce Saudi Arabia now that oil is flowing from fracked fields in North Dakota and Texas . To most , the news at first sounded hopeful and reassuring . Yet as actual production numbers accumulate , it appears that claims made for fracking were simply too good to be true .\nIt turns out there are only a few geological formations in the US from which shale gas is being produced . In virtually all of them , except the Marcellus ( in Pennsylvania and West Virginia ) , studies such as one from the Post Carbon Institute show that production rates have plateaued or are in decline .\nWhy so soon ? A major challenge bedeviling drillers is the high variability within shale . Each tight oil or shale gas-bearing geologic formation tends to be characterized by a small core area ( usually a few counties ) where production is profitable and plentiful , surrounded by a much larger region where per-well production rates are lower to start with and drop fast – often falling 60 percent during the first year .\nGiven the expense of horizontal drilling and fracking , it ’ s hard to make money in noncore areas unless oil and gas prices are stratospheric . As the “ sweet spots ” get drilled to capacity , producers are being forced to the fringes , taking on more debt because sales of product don ’ t cover operating expenses .\nWith decline rates so high , promised production volumes are turning out to be more hype than reality . America ’ s hundred years of natural gas , heralded by President Obama as a national energy game changer , is based on unrealistic estimates – the amount of gas the Energy Information Administration says is “ technically recoverable. ” But this quantity includes resources that will never be produced for economic reasons . Some estimate that shale gas and tight oil production will top out and start to decline before 2020 .\nIn August , Shell took a $ 2 billion write-down on its liquids-rich shale assets in North America . While no details were released , it ’ s likely the company was simply acknowledging the unprofitability of leases in noncore regions . It could be that the oil industry itself is starting to learn that the shale revolution just ain ’ t all it was fracked up to be .\nGet the Monitor Stories you care about delivered to your inbox . By signing up , you agree to our Privacy Policy\nIt is highly important that we return America ’ s energy focus to the most critical imperative of our time – the necessary and inevitable transition away from our current dependence on fossil fuels .\nRichard Heinberg is senior fellow of the Post Carbon Institute and author of 11 books , most recently “ Snake Oil : How Fracking ’ s False Promise of Plenty Imperils Our Future . ”


Lawmakers are pushing to impose federal standards for protecting the country 's electric grid from attack in the wake of a new report about a sniper assault on a California electrical substation last year that has raised fears the power grid is vulnerable to terrorism .\nThe Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein , D-Calif. , said she and fellow senators plan to ask the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission , which has jurisdiction over the electric grid 's reliability , to `` set minimum security standards for critical substations . ''\nThe April 16 , 2013 the attack on Pacific Gas & Electric ’ s Metcalf transmission substation involved snipping AT & T fiber-optic lines to knock out phone and 911 service , and firing shots into a PG & E substation , causing outages . The assault had not been widely publicized until The Wall Street Journal reported new details in a story on Wednesday .\nThe FBI is the lead agency in the investigation and an agency spokesman told the newspaper it doesn ’ t think the incident was a terror attack . However , Jon Wellinghoff , chairman of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission at the time , called it `` the most significant incident of domestic terrorism involving the U.S. power grid that has ever occurred . ''\nThe incident began when intruders lifted heavy manhole covers at about 1:30 a.m. in two places on Monterey Highway south of San Jose , climbed under the road , and cut AT & T fiber optic cables , temporarily knocking out 911 service and phone service .\nIn a 19-minute period , gunmen fired more than 100 rounds into substation equipment , disabling 17 of 20 big transformers , causing about $ 16 million in damage , according to The Wall Street Journal . No arrests have been made in the case .\nIn December , during an oversight hearing , Rep. Henry Waxman , D-Calif. , described `` an unprecedented and sophisticated attack on an electric grid substation with military-style weapons . Communications were disrupted . The attack inflicted substantial damage . ''\nHe said he would withhold details of the incident to avoid harming the investigation but added he had been in touch with the FBI about it .\nOne proposal being discussed in Congress is would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the power to write and impose interim rules on grid defenses . The utility industry would still be able to influence any permanent requirements , according to the Journal .\nRep. Trent Franks , R-Ariz. , said `` the last thing I want to do is regulate any industry . '' But he told the newspaper utilities must do more to protect the grid for the sake of national security .\nUnder current law , the commission has to accept or reject proposals written by an industry-dominated group , but can not alter them , according to the report .\nSome utility industry executives told the Journal it would be difficult to come up with rules for improving security that would work in both urban and rural areas .\n`` One size fits all may not get you true resiliency , '' said Lisa Barton , executive vice president of transmission for American Electric Power , adding that increasing protections could be costly . `` I 'm not saying it is n't worth it , '' she said .


The Senate on Monday confirmed Dan Brouillette as the next U.S. energy secretary . Brouillette succeeds Rick Perry , who leaves the job as questions swirl in the impeachment inquiry about whether his dealings with Ukraine .\nBrouillette , 57 , has served as the Energy Department 's deputy secretary since 2017 , and he previously worked for the department under the administration of former President George W. Bush . In between those administrations , he was an executive at the United Services Automobile Association ( USAA ) and the Ford Motor Company . He is also a longtime Republican donor .\nThe Senate confirmed Brouillette 70-15 . Several Democrats voted against him after alleging that he failed to give sufficient answers about Perry 's dealings with Ukraine . Senator Ron Wyden , a Democrat from Oregon , accused Brouillette of waging a `` full-court stonewall , '' while Senator Joe Manchin , a Democrat from West Virginia , '' called Brouillette a `` good man . ''\n`` He has been forthcoming , '' Manchin said . `` He has not held anything back . ''\nDan Brouillette seen Monday , September 9 , 2019 . Jon Gambrell / AP\nPerry — whose last day on the job was Sunday — is facing scrutiny about whether he was involved in the withholding of military aid for Ukraine . President Trump 's tying that aid to a request for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens is now the center of the House 's impeachment inquiry against him .\nGordon Sondland , the U.S. ambassador to the European Union , testified in an impeachment hearing that he worked with Perry on Ukraine matters `` at the express direction '' of Mr. Trump . Sondland , Perry and former special envoy Kurt Volker were the so-called `` three amigos '' Mr. Trump tapped to handle Ukraine matters .\nTrump says Energy Secretary Rick Perry asked him to call Ukrainian president\nDuring his confirmation hearings , Brouillette said he was not a part of any conversation tied to the matters behind the impeachment inquiry . `` I 'm not aware of the conversations that Secretary Perry had or did not have '' with Ukraine , he said .


Some who follow the issue say Keystone remains a tough call for the administration . Keystone foes pin hopes on Obama\nGreen activists aren ’ t resigned to losing the Keystone battle . But Friday ’ s latest blow was yet another disappointment in their often strained relationship with President Barack Obama .\nThe new State Department report that discounted most of the environmental community ’ s warnings about the Keystone XL oil pipeline puts the final decision on the project closer to Obama ’ s desk , after years in which he ’ s been able to dodge rendering a verdict .\nIt all may come down to which Obama makes the final call : the president who declared in Tuesday ’ s State of the Union that “ climate change is a fact ” or the one who , in the same speech , touted an “ all of the above ” approach to energy policy — a phrase that environmentalists had specifically urged him to stop using .\nThis is also the same White House that picked health care over a giant cap-and-trade bill in 2010 but three years later launched the biggest-ever regulatory attack on carbon pollution from coal-burning power plants .\nAdding to the tension for deep-pocketed , politically connected greens is the fact that Friday ’ s unwelcome message on Keystone came from a department led by one of their most passionate champions , Secretary of State John Kerry .\nSome environmentalists fumed , while others looked for silver linings , including some additional language in the sprawling final document that could be used to bolster their arguments .\n“ It ’ s just a study ; it doesn ’ t recommend a course of action , ” said Kenny Bruno , a lead spokesman in the campaign against tapping Canadian oil sands . Pipeline critics , he said , have “ the winds at our backs ” because the decision is “ no longer in the hands of lower-level bureaucrats in the State Department . It ’ s in the hands of climate champions Barack Obama and John Kerry . ”\nSierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune said the analysis gives Obama and Kerry “ everything ” they need to reject the pipeline . “ We are cautiously confident that he will make the right choice , ” Brune said of Obama .\nThe analysis is “ just an input , ” billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer said . “ So we don ’ t have an answer yet , and the fight is far from over . ”\nBut others denounced the entire review process so far as corrupt and flawed .\n“ This document will be seen by the entire environmental community — in which I certainly include myself — as a sham , ” said Rep. Raul Grijalva ( D-Ariz. ) . He was one of several Keystone opponents who complained about news reports in which oil industry groups or Canadian officials offered previews of what they had heard the study would say .\n“ The fact that the Canadian government and the oil industry were reportedly briefed on today ’ s news before Congress was given the courtesy of a heads-up speaks volumes , ” Grijalva said . “ It encourages the already widely held impression that the fix was in from the beginning . If the administration expects to avoid the lasting stink of having ignored every red flag in the book , it needs to explain itself . ”\nThe added details in the final version will allow Obama and Kerry to use them as they see fit , said one former Obama administration official closely following the Keystone process .\n“ I think it would be wrong to conclude that this is a rubber stamp for the project and right to conclude it provides additional information that the administration will be looking at before a final decision is made , ” the former official said . “ The administration is looking to keep its options open here . ”\nObama has offered some hints that he thinks both sides have overstated the impact of the Alberta-to-Texas oil pipeline , which the State Department study indicates will be neither a major environmental problem nor a powerhouse job creator . But by letting the decision linger for years , Obama has also allowed pipeline opponents to elevate its political significance — adding it to the holy trinity of green litmus tests alongside drilling in Alaska ’ s Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and saving the Pacific Northwest ’ s spotted owl .\n“ I don ’ t necessarily think that there ’ s a real climate change impact in this decision , ” said another former administration official who worked on energy issues . “ The oil is there . It ’ s going to be extracted . Its going to be sold to someone . By trying to frame this as a big political battle and a test of the president ’ s courage , I think it was a strategic miscalculation by the environmental community . ”\nPolitically , though , some who follow the issue say Keystone remains a tough call for the administration . It plays green activists and Democratic donors against each other headed into this year ’ s midterm elections . And several party activists offered contrasting arguments for whether a pro-Keystone or anti-Keystone decision works more to the Democrats ’ benefit .\nThe second former administration official said Obama would have reason to consider making a pro-Keystone decision now to take away a potent Republican talking point . Keystone has become “ a dog whistle for their [ GOP ] base , probably because the environmental community made it one , ” the ex-official said .\nBut Chris Lehane , a longtime party operative who worked for Al Gore ’ s 2000 campaign and is now affiliated with Steyer ’ s anti-Keystone super PAC , said Obama would risk dampening midterm turnout among two critical Democratic voting demographics — Hispanics and under-30s — by permitting the pipeline . “ If you ’ re talking about the raw politics of this , if you ’ re a Democrat and trying to maximize turnout , you have to look at which cohorts you ’ re trying to maximize , ” he said .\nLehane also recalled Obama ’ s recent comments to The New Yorker ’ s David Remnick about a president having a chance to influence only one paragraph in the history books . “ This would fall square in the type of paragraph the president was addressing in that conversation , ” Lehane said .\n“ Is it politically easier for him to approve this thing ? Maybe , ” said Roger Ballentine , a former environmental adviser to Kerry and President Bill Clinton . “ But I don ’ t think it ’ s politically hard to reject it . ”\nHe argued that the need for a new pipeline to send Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast is unwarranted when U.S. oil production levels have topped exports for the first time since 1995 .\n“ If I ’ m a senator and someone tries to beat me up on this , I say , ‘ Look , what we should be doing is focusing on the infrastructure we need to responsibly develop , ’ ” said Ballentine , now president of Green Strategies .\nObama is in a no-win situation as he weighs the appeals from greens , Republicans , industry and Canada , which is both a leading U.S. trading partner and “ one of our best friends in the world , ” said former State Department spokesman P.J . Crowley .\n“ The politics are complicated and to a large extent zero-sum , ” Crowley said . “ Which is why the administration is taking its time trying to manage a least-bad outcome . ”\nOn the pipeline ’ s merits , people on both sides said the final State Department report left Obama some room to either kill or reject the project . For instance , the report said building Keystone is unlikely by itself to cause Canada to dramatically expand production from its western oil sands , increasing greenhouse gas emissions . That may happen — or not happen — for reasons besides the pipeline .\nThe analysis was clearly a disappointment to many pipeline critics , who wanted the State Department to deem the pipeline an outright climate and environmental hazard .\nBut pipeline opponents also offered differing interpretations on whether the report had softened the State Department ’ s past view that the project wouldn ’ t pose significant environmental harm .\n“ In this report , for the very first time , the State Department acknowledges a scenario in which the Keystone XL tar sands export pipeline dramatically increases carbon pollution , ” said National Wildlife Federation CEO Larry Schweiger . “ That ’ s a welcome and long overdue change , and it gives President Obama all the evidence he needs to reject Keystone XL . ”\nClimate activist Bill McKibben , a Vermont-based author spearheading the fight against the pipeline , was less optimistic . He said the report “ reflects some grudging movement ” by the State Department to recognize the environmental impact of the pipeline . “ They ’ re at the point of saying night is late afternoon , ” he said .\nMeanwhile , at the State Department on Friday afternoon , Assistant Secretary Kerri-Ann Jones repeatedly told reporters , “ Whether one pipeline specifically would affect the overall development of the oil sands , that specific answer is not in this document . ”


After spending more than five years and billions of dollars trying to re-create the U.S. shale boom overseas , some of the world ’ s biggest oil companies are starting to give up amid a world-wide collapse in crude prices .\nChevron Corp. CVX -0.02 % , Exxon Mobil Corp. XOM -0.78 % and Royal Dutch Shell PLC have packed up nearly all of their hydraulic fracturing wildcatting in Europe , Russia and China . The reasons vary from sanctions in Russia , a ban in France , a moratorium in Germany and poor results in Poland to crude prices below what it can cost to produce a barrel of shale oil .\nChevron halted its last European fracking operations in February when it pulled out of Romania . Shell said it is cutting world-wide shale spending by 30 % in places including Turkey , Ukraine and Argentina . Exxon has pulled out of Poland and Hungary , and its German fracking operations are on hold .\nThe result : Outside the U.S. , where fracking has produced a historic glut of oil , only China , Argentina and Canada have commercial shale production , the U.S. Energy Information Administration says , though America holds less than 10 % of the world ’ s estimated shale reserves . Europe , including Russia , and China alone have nearly triple the reserves of the U.S. , according to the EIA .\n“ The pace of development outside North America is slower everywhere than people thought it would be , ” Simon Henry , Shell ’ s chief financial officer , said in a recent interview .\nA recovery in oil prices could change the equation , giving big companies more room to take risky bets on shale . And bright spots for shale prospectors outside North America still exist .\nRegions of Argentina and Algeria appear to be “ as good as the U.S. , ” says Faouzi Aloulou , an EIA project manager who analyzes shale prospects . Two French companies and a British firm are planning to drill in the U.K. , where there is a debate over the practice ’ s health and environmental effects . In Poland , small companies—the kind that pioneered the U.S. shale boom—are still drilling despite their big rivals ’ discouraging results .\n“ The publicity is bad , but the reality is it ’ s going to be down to the smaller companies to prove the play , as they did in the U.S. , ” says Oisín Fanning , the executive chairman of San Leon Energy PLC , a U.K.-listed explorer that announced a commercial gas discovery in Poland in February and expects its first sales in early 2016 .\nFracking works by using water , sand and chemicals to fracture underground rock and hold the cracks open , allowing oil and gas trapped in the rocks to flow . Unlike the long-term projects that the world ’ s biggest oil companies specialize in , shale wells tend to have short lives , and developing a shale field requires drilling many holes over a short period .\nThe technology worked well for small producers in North America , but oil giants like Exxon and Shell , with their thick layers of management and slow drilling-approval processes , largely missed out on the profits there .\nKnowing other countries had shale , the big companies last decade looked elsewhere to see if they could build a boom from scratch . Eastern European officials who were eager to wean their nations off Russian gas welcomed the explorers .\nChevron beginning late last decade invested in Romania , Lithuania and Poland , which some geologists and oil-business-development specialists said had Europe ’ s most attractive shale potential .\n“ In Poland you had a mix of a higher resource estimate plus a government keen on promoting shale gas to reduce dependence on Russian gas , ” said Richard Sarsfield-Hall of Finnish consulting and engineering firm Pöyry .\nChevron kept drilling , even after the EIA in 2013 lowered its estimates of Poland ’ s shale-gas reserve by about 20 % and other producers like France ’ s Total SA threw in the towel .\nBy 2014 , Chevron ’ s Eastern Europe bet wasn ’ t looking good . It exited Lithuania last summer . Last fall , Romania ’ s president said the country didn ’ t appear to have any shale resources . Then , in January , Chevron said it had decided to leave Poland .\n“ Shale gas opportunities across Central and Eastern Europe do not compete with other opportunities within Chevron ’ s global portfolio , ” a spokeswoman said . The company is still evaluating shale gas exploration in South Africa , a spokesman said ..\nConocoPhillips is the only large oil company still working in Poland .\nExxon had similar letdowns in Hungary , which it left in 2009 , and Poland , which it exited in 2012 . Exxon ’ s efforts in Germany have been thwarted by a fracking moratorium , and Western sanctions over Ukraine have kept it and other international oil companies from developing Russian shale .\nNow , an Exxon spokesman says , the company ’ s only ongoing non-North America shale exploration is in Argentina and Colombia .\nOne problem the companies have faced is the high cost of shale drilling outside the U.S. when oil prices are low . Exploration wells in new areas require experimentation and lack the economies of scale in a more developed area . Wells in Poland and China can cost up to $ 25 million each , while American wells on average cost about $ 5 million , said Melissa Stark , lead author of a 2014 shale report by Accenture LLP .\nShell first discussed shale exploration with Chinese officials in 2006 , said people familiar with the matter . At the time , the Anglo-Dutch company was looking for shale resources around the world , and struck deals in Sweden , Turkey , Russia and Ukraine .\nThe Ukraine conflict and resulting sanctions derailed plans in Russia and Ukraine . Shell left Sweden in 2011 after exploration was unsuccessful . A Shell spokeswoman said the company is analyzing the results of wells drilled with a partner in Turkey , and is waiting to hear from the South African government about proceeding with shale projects there .\nIn China , Shell found shale gas in 2011 . But problematic geology , infrastructure and local protests delayed progress , company officials and documents say . Last fall , Shell decided to pull back efforts there .\nMs. Stark of Accenture said countries with strong national oil companies such as China , Argentina and Saudi Arabia were more likely to lead shale development outside the U.S . They have a mandate to extract their countries ’ resources , government support , and lots of money .\n“ You need a player with deep pockets and who can be there for several years , ” she said . State-run companies “ are there for the long term so they can invest for the long-term . ”


Brussels ( AFP ) - Europe 's refugee and migrant crisis has escalated over the summer , leaving the continent divided over how to deal with a flood of people led by Syrians fleeing war in their homeland .\nA record surge in numbers , and the opening up of new routes over the Balkans in addition to the Mediterranean sea route , have prompted the EU to call a special meeting on the issue in two weeks .\nHere are the key questions and answers about the biggest crisis of its kind to face Europe since World War II :\nThe situation in Syria , the origin of the largest number of refugees , has worsened because of the rise of the Islamic State extremist group and continuing civil war , so more people are fleeing .\nMore people are coming directly to Europe instead of staying in refugee camps in neighbouring countries that are bursting at the seams , says Melissa Fleming , spokeswoman for the UN refugee agency .\nBut also the longer people spend in refugee camps in Lebanon , Jordan and Turkey , the more likely they are to realise they can not start a new life there and want to leave , especially with no sign of the four-year civil war ending anytime soon .\nRecently people are being drawn by Germany 's announcement that it expects to process 800,000 asylum applications this year , and Berlin 's decision to become the first EU state to stop automatically returning Syrian asylum-seekers to their first EU port of entry .\nNearly 340,000 refugees and migrants illegally crossed the border into Europe from January to July 2015 , according to the EU 's border agency Frontex . The figure compares to 280,000 for the whole of 2014 .\nThe UN refugee agency separately gives the figure of more than 300,000 migrants and refugees having crossed the Mediterranean so far this year , compared to 219,000 crossings in the whole of 2014 .\nAround 2,500 have died this year so far , compared to 3,500 for the whole of last year , it says .\nSyria and Afghanistan were the two countries most represented among migrants entering the EU , according to Frontex .\nThe top five countries for arrivals in Europe on all sea crossings are Syria ( 43 percent ) , Eritrea ( 10 percent ) , Nigeria ( 5 percent ) , Somalia ( 3 percent ) , and others ( 27 percent ) , according to the UN .\nNine out of ten of those making the Mediterranean crossing to Italy are Africans , however .\nBut nearly a fifth of those coming over the Balkans are Kosovans , leading Germany and other EU states to call for a register of 'safe ' countries to which migrants can be returned .\n- WHERE ARE THEY ARRIVING , AND BY WHAT ROUTES ? -\nGreece , Hungary and Italy are bearing the brunt of the problem .\nGreece had the most landings with nearly 200,000 this year , the UN says . Greece sees so many because of people getting boats from Turkey for the islands of Lesbos , Chios , Samos and Kos .\nItaly has seen 110,000 landings this year , with people taking the central Mediterranean route on rickety boats from Libya . But numbers have slowed due to the breakdown of order in Libya and the danger of the route .\nThe Western Balkans have seen a huge surge in arrivals of mostly asylum seekers fleeing Middle East wars , who cross the region after crossing by boat from Turkey to Greece .\nHungary alone reported more than 34,800 detections from January to July , and the area as a whole has seen 102,342 , Frontex says .\nThe most popular final destinations are Germany , Sweden and Britain .\n- WHAT HAS THE EU DONE , AND WHAT MORE CAN IT DO ? -\nThe EU was stung into action after a horrific Mediterranean shipwreck in April that left 700 migrants dead .\nThe bloc boosted its maritime search and rescue efforts and set up a military naval task force aiming to tackle people smugglers .\nIt is also setting up `` hot spots '' in frontline European countries to expedite the classification of newcomers as either refugees or economic migrants .\nBut plans for the compulsory relocation of 40,000 migrants , to take the strain off Greece and Italy , collapsed because of bickering between EU countries .\nIn the end they merely agreed to voluntary pledges to take in 32,000 , plus another 22,500 Syrian asylum seekers currently in camps outside the EU .\nMany believe those numbers are dwarfed by the scale of the problem and European Commission chief Jean-Claude Juncker will unveil new proposals in his state of the union speech next week .\nThey may include relaxing the `` Dublin rules '' that Germany has already waived , which currently mean asylum requests must be dealt with by the country where the person first arrives .\nMeanwhile , rights groups advocate other solutions , such as giving work visas to refugees and migrants , arguing that it would reduce the smuggling that leads to tragedies .


The EU ’ s chief negotiator , Michel Barnier , has welcomed Dominic Raab to Brussels with a thinly veiled critique of Theresa May ’ s Chequers plan and a 13-week deadline in which to solve the problem of the Irish border .\nAppearing with Barnier for the first time in the Belgian capital , the new Brexit secretary , clutching a copy of the UK ’ s recently published Brexit white paper , called for more “ vim , vigour and energy ” in the troubled negotiations .\nThe former Foreign Office lawyer told reporters he was “ looking forward to intensifying , heating up , the negotiations ” , after stepping into the role following the resignation of David Davis over the paper , which sets out how the UK is in effect seeking to stay in the single market for goods by following a raft of EU laws .\nThe differing priorities between the two negotiators were clearly evident , however , as they stepped out in front of reporters together at the European commission headquarters .\nTory MP casts doubt on claim pairing breach was honest mistake as row escalates - Politics live Read more\nWhile Raab conceded there were some “ gaps ” in the withdrawal agreement that needed to be filled , Barnier emphasised the “ urgency ” of finding a solution for the most thorny issue in that deal : avoiding a hard border on the island of Ireland .\nBarnier told reporters : “ We have a lot of work to do with our teams . There are , as you know , 13 weeks left , before the October European council . In this time , short time , we have two things to do . We must finalise the withdrawal agreement and we are not yet there on governance .\n“ We must also prepare a political declaration on our future relationship . On the withdrawal agreement it is a matter of urgency to agree to a legally applicable backstop on Ireland and northern Ireland . We need an all-weather insurance policy . ”\nHe added : “ On the future relationship , the EU proposed in March an unprecedented partnership not only in economic and trade where we want an ambitious free trade agreement that respects the integrity of the market but also on internal and external security , where a close partnership between us means more important than ever given the geopolitical context .\n“ Our challenge will be to find common ground between the fundamental principles that define the EU and the UK positions . That is all for now , more is to come . Stay tuned . ”\nThe two men took part in a short discussion on the UK ’ s white paper before dining together at the British embassy in Brussels .\nBarnier gave Raab the book Going to the Mountain by Nelson Mandela ’ s grandson , Ndaba Mandela , as a gift .\nRaab , in turn , gave the former French minister a copy of Isaiah Berlin ’ s The Hedgehog and the Fox . The philosopher ’ s most popular essay explores the difference between thinkers who view the world through a single defining idea and those who base their world view on experience .\nIt is understood Raab also insisted to Barnier that the Brexit talks should continue throughout the summer , despite the offer of a two-week break from the European commission .\nFollowing his first talks with Barnier , the new cabinet minister made it clear he would be spending more time in Brussels than Davis , who spent only four hours in face-to-face negotiations with his counterpart .\nRaab said : “ We had a very good , constructive conversation . We talked about the progress we ’ ve made on the withdrawal agreement . It was also an opportunity to present the white paper on the future relationship we want with the EU .\n“ We ’ ve only got 12 weeks really left to nail down the details of the agreement , so I set out our proposals , and offered to meet with Michel Barnier throughout the summer to intensify negotiations , to get some energy , get some drive and get some heat on them to make sure we can conclude this agreement in good time . I ’ m sure in good faith , if that energy and that ambition is reciprocated , as I ’ m confident it will be , we will get there . ”\nAsked if a no-deal scenario was more likely after cabinet resignations , Raab declined to directly respond but said domestic battles would not undermine his role .\nHe said : “ I think as you get closer to the line , the preparations need to be intensified. “ We ’ re going to be increasing the preparations for no deal , but we ’ re focused above all on the negotiations to get the best deal . ”\nThe meeting came as the EU issued a warning to member states in a 16-page document on the risks of a no-deal Brexit . It notes the impact of a no-deal scenario would be “ very real ” for citizens , and leaves open the possibility of a visa requirement for Britons travelling to the continent after Brexit should a deal not be in place ..\nA senior EU diplomat said the “ very volatile ” political situation in London and the lack of progress in the talks in Brussels on key issues had led many to believe that the risk of a no-deal scenario had increased in recent weeks .\n“ Contingency planning for the worst possible outcome is not a sign of mistrust in the negotiations , ” the paper says . “ The commission is devoting very significant resources and committing great efforts to achieve an agreement . This remains our goal . However , the outcome of negotiations can not be predicted . ”\nBrexit : Raab and Barnier to meet as EU steps up no-deal warnings Read more\nThe UK government also appeared to be stepping up warnings about the possibility of no deal , by asking up to 250,000 small businesses who export to the EU to prepare to make a customs declaration . The idea is intended to be one of a series of public warnings issued over the summer about the possible impact of a no-deal scenario on the UK economy .\nBarnier will discuss Brexit with European affairs ministers from the EU27 on Friday . An official said there would be a lot of questions on the white paper , which was “ detailed but still unclear to a certain extent ” .\nStressing the unpredictability of British politics , the senior EU official said they might as well “ read the entrails of animals ” to know what is happening .