High court to declare if government has right to trigger Brexit

High court to declare if government has right to trigger Brexit

Verdict on Thursday will determine whether or not the UK’s decision to leave European Union must be subject to a vote by parliament

Owen Bowcott Legal affairs correspondent

Thursday 3 November 2016 04.23 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/03/high-court-parliament-brexit-theresa-may-chief-justice

The lord chief justice is to deliver the high court’s momentous decision on whether parliament or the government has the constitutional power to trigger Brexit.

After less than three weeks considering the politically charged case with two other senior judges, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd will read out a summary of their decision at 10am on Thursday to a packed courtroom in London’s Royal Courts of Justice.

In order to prevent leaks of the market-sensitive ruling, which involves a large number of parties, preliminary drafts of the judgment have unusually not been sent out in advance to the lawyers.

The outcome of the case, which ventures into constitutionally untested ground, will resolve whether MPs or ministers have the authority to formally inform Brussels about whether the UK intends to leave the European Union.

The legal dispute focuses on article 50 of the treaty on European Union, which states that any member state may leave “in accordance with its own constitutional requirements” – an undefined term that has allowed both sides to pursue rival interpretations.

The arguments deployed during the three-day hearing last month appear, at the very least, to have reinforced political pressure for parliament to be given a greater role in negotiating Brexit.

Whether the high court finds in favour of the claimants or Theresa May’s assertion that the prime minister has power under the royal prerogative to inform Brussels of the UK’s intention to leave, one side or the other is likely to appeal to the supreme court.

However, there has been speculation that the government could decide not to appeal if it loses, calculating that enough MPs will feel bound by the result of the referendum to vote to leave the EU. There may be stiffer opposition in the House of Lords.

A case heard in the high court would normally go up to the court of appeal, but arrangements have been made for the case to “leapfrog” directly to the supreme court if permission is granted.

Space has been cleared in the supreme court’s diary for a possible hearing on 7 and 8 December. It would be heard by at least nine justices; an odd number is required to prevent a tie.

Because the initial case was heard in the high court, it has not been televised. The three judges who considered the challenge were the lord chief justice, Lord Thomas; the master of the rolls, Sir Terence Etherton; and Lord Justice Sales.

The two lead claimants are Gina Miller, a businesswoman and philanthropist, and Deir dos Santos, a hairdresser. Both are British nationals.

They have been supported by other interested parties, including the crowd-funded People’s Challenge, whose members live in England, France, Gibraltar, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It has to date raised more than £100,000 from almost 5,000 supporters to finance the case. Another group, Fair Deal for Expats, is backed by British expatriates living abroad in 10 EU states.

British expats challenge EU head over ban on negotiations with UK over Brexit

Read more

A related challenge heard in Northern Ireland’s courts – emphasising the complexities of devolution legislation – has already been won by the government. That challenge may also be appealed to the supreme court and joined with the London claims.

Lawyers for the claimants were relatively upbeat about their prospects at the end of the hearing in mid-October. The challenge has been described as one of the most important constitutional cases in generations.

At the the Conservative party conference, May said she intended to trigger article 50 by the end of March 2017.

Opening the case for the government, the attorney general, Jeremy Wright QC, said that the claimants were attempting to invalidate the referendum result.

In their final submissions, government lawyers revealed that parliament is “very likely” to be asked to ratify any future treaty agreement with the European Union.

The lack of agreement over fundamental political principles has prompted concerns that the UK’s unwritten constitutional arrangements may need to be updated.

In a speech released on Wednesday, the president of the supreme court, Lord Neuberger, suggested that “there is undoubtedly a case for saying that the time has come for the United Kingdom to adopt a formal written coherent constitution.

“However, in that context, the typically British and pragmatic argument ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’, has obvious resonance. Having said that, there are some people who feel that it is broke, and others who feel that there is a duty to act before it gets broke.

“But, even those people must accept not merely that the grass always seems greener on the other side of the fence, but also that experience shows that the fact that a particular arrangement works well in one country, even in most countries, does not necessarily mean that it will work here.”

The strange career of Günther Oettinger

The strange career of Günther Oettinger

In all likelihood, the German commissioner will use same successful formula to ride out uproar over off-color remarks.

By JOANNA PLUCINSKA, CHRIS SPILLANE AND MATTHEW KARNITSCHNIG 11/2/16, 7:50 PM CET Updated 11/2/16, 11:10 PM CET

http://www.politico.eu/article/the-strange-successful-career-of-gunther-oettinger-european-commission/

Günther Oettinger has never been one to bite his tongue.

There was that time back in 2000 when he broke into the banned “Deutschland,-Deutschland-über-Alles” verse at a celebration of his German nationalist fraternity. Or the time as Baden-Württemberg premier he lamented that Germany was surrounded by friendly neighbors: “The unfortunate thing is, there won’t be another war,” he joked. Then there was the time this year he said he would “shoot myself” if Frauke Petry, the populist leader of the Alternative for Germany, were his wife.

Then, as now, Oettinger’s folksiness was central to his appeal. With a Swabian accent so thick it could be mistaken for a speech impediment, he has survived by being what most politicians aren’t — himself.

That explains why he will, in all likelihood, withstand the present uproar over his off-color remarks about the Chinese, gay marriage, Walloons and women with careers.

As her spokesman made clear this week, Angela Merkel has no interest in letting him fall. The Commission, taking its cue from Berlin, refused to comment on Oettinger’s remarks. Jean-Claude Juncker’s spokesman Margaritis Schinas said that as far as he was aware, the Commission president hadn’t discussed the matter with Oettinger, much less demanded an apology.

Speaking at a business event in Hamburg, he called Chinese people “slant eyes,” joked that German legislators would soon introduce a law for “mandatory gay marriage,” called Wallonia a “micro-region ruled by communists,” and noted that a recent delegation from China to Germany had “no women,” perhaps because there are no quotas for women in top jobs in China.

“There is nothing to apologize for,” a defiant Oettinger told a EurActiv reporter Wednesday.

“That’s just how our Oetti is,” a columnist for Oettinger’s hometown paper, the Stuttgarter Nachrichten, concluded this week, dismissing the commissioner’s critics as “Twitter horny” and “politically correct vultures.”

While the support for their hometown boy isn’t surprising, the reality is that for all the outrage among Brussels cosmopolitans over the comments, neither Germany nor Europe seems particularly bothered by them. So far, none of Germany’s main television news programs have devoted much attention to the controversy. Claus Kleber, a popular public television anchorman, offered a typical German reaction via Twitter, saying he had no time for the “polished talk” one hears from “image consultants, defenders of political correctness and lawyers.”

The real question is whether the affair will impair Oettinger’s effectiveness in his new role as budget commissioner and vice president. Unlike with the digital portfolio, which he came to with almost no background, Oettinger, a trained tax lawyer, possesses all the technical skills to be the Commission’s top number-cruncher. Whether he has the political acumen to navigate tricky budget negotiations is less clear.

Oetti’s Brussels adventures

For all his shortcomings and propensity to put his foot in his mouth, Oettinger counts within the Commission as one of its more competent officials. That wasn’t always the case.

Back in 2014, Brussels didn’t have high hopes for him when he shifted from energy to take over the digital economy portfolio. He could be curt, tearing up his notes if he deemed a subject unworthy of his attention. In the often pretentious world of Brussels officialdom, he came across as unintellectual and unserious — more likely to obsess over cars or football than trade deals or European Union directives.

To make matters worse, as a die-hard Luddite, he seemed uniquely unqualified for his new position. His more tech-savvy boss, Commission Vice President for the Digital Single Market Andrus Ansip, was at ease on social media or on the trendiest apps, like Pokémon Go.

Oettinger has arguably had more influence on European digital policy during the Juncker Commission than any other official, including Ansip.

Oettinger, as he told the crowd at his now-infamous Hamburg speech last week, preferred an old-fashioned newspaper to Twitter and document printouts to a tablet or iPhone. As he settled into his office, his aides rushed to install a computer and carry away piles of paper stacked precariously on every available surface.

In the 22 months since his appointment, Oettinger has changed little. He continues to express more interest in breakthroughs in the automotive industry than the more abstract areas of his portfolio, such as data flows or ICT standards. His home in Brussels, he told a group of reporters and tech lobbyists recently, is not set up for Wi-Fi — something he attributes to his long hours at the office. At home, he prefers “a nice bottle of Bordeaux” to a broadband connection, he added.

Digital victories

Nonetheless, Oettinger has arguably had more influence on European digital policy during the Juncker Commission than any other official, including Ansip.

While Ansip has struggled to push forward his ambitious agenda centered around breaking down digital barriers, often referred to as geo-blocking, Oettinger has used his negotiating skills to deliver for his allies in industry, like the German publishing sector, a series of high-profile victories.

During the summer, he strong-armed his way into negotiations on boosting European startups, infuriating his more innovation-focused colleagues. Before that, he bulldozed past Vodafone to accept a plan that would keep some power over German copper network cables in the hands of giant Deutsche Telekom.

“He is a real fan of monopolies and a fan of supporting the bigger companies, and not looking at all at the smaller players” — German Greens MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht

And when the Commission unveiled its epochal overhaul of copyright law in September, it was clear that Oettinger had won again.

Following intense lobbying from the likes of German media giants Bertelsmann and Axel Springer — which is a co-owner of POLITICO’s European publication — the Commission swatted aside the concerns of American internet giants like Google and Yahoo and introduced a new measure that would allow publishers to better control and monetize snippets of their works used online.

“It’s specific sectors. He has the ear of specific businesses,” said Dutch liberal MEP Marietje Schaake. And in leaning on these players, Oettinger continues to cross things off his digital to-do list. “He has learned a lot about the digital economy going from someone who is new on the issue,” said the vice president for Europe at the Computer and Communications Industry Association, James Waterworth. “He is clearly a powerful commissioner.”

Oettinger declined to comment for this article.

Latin bonds

Oettinger was born in 1953 in Stuttgart, where his father was a local politician. After earning a law degree from the University of Tubingen, he worked as a small-town lawyer and a district councilor in Ludwigsburg, a town of fewer than 100,000 inhabitants in his home state of Baden-Württemberg.

In his twenties, he quickly started getting involved in the local political scene in addition to his legal profession.

Oettinger signed up to the youth wing of Germany’s leading conservative political party, the Christian Democratic Union. And that’s when his political aspirations began to take off.

One of the formative moments of his early political career, and that of many of his CDU brethren, was a 1979 trip to Venezuela and Chile organized by the party. The trip was intended as a bond-building exercise for young promising CDU politicians.

The other travelers included Roland Koch, who would become the prime minister of Hesse, where Germany’s financial capital Frankfurt lies; Peter Müller, who later become the head of the state of Saarland; and Christian Wulff, who became premier of Lower Saxony before being elected Germany’s president in 2010. On a flight over the Andes, the young men formed a political alliance, swearing to work together and never to run against each other.

At the time of his arrival in Brussels, Oettinger could barely speak English and wasn’t particularly charming either. “He had quite an individual way of giving a speech,” said one source. “It was often a stream of consciousness.” He quickly earned a reputation for ending meetings abruptly when he lost interest.

Oettinger joined a lifelong exclusive club. “He was networked in,” said Professor Ed Turner, a specialist in German politics at Aston University.

From there, he became the head of Baden-Württemberg’s Junge Union, or youth chapter, which propelled him to a position in the state’s parliament. By 1991, he was leading the region’s entire CDU unit. That same year, he was caught driving under the influence of alcohol and his license was revoked. The setback did little to halt his ascent. He continued to build his influence within the party until in 2005, his colleagues selected him as state premier.

In his new position, Oettinger was in charge of running a state far larger than many European countries, and he quickly obtained a reputation as one of the most pro-business politicians in Germany. The state is home to the headquarters of carmakers Porsche and Mercedes, as well as auto-parts giant Robert Bosch. By developing close ties with these industrial powers and others, Oettinger could promote the region’s economy. And with their support, he could push through difficult legislation.

“He is a real fan of monopolies and a fan of supporting the bigger companies, and not looking at all at the smaller players,” said German Greens MEP Jan Philipp Albrecht.

His life in German politics seemed charmed. He was a celebrity at local beer festivals and industrial fairs. His position at the head of Baden-Württemberg made him one of Germany’s most powerful men, and he was a sought-after guest at many of the country’s most important political events.

Then Merkel took over.

She was a new figure in the CDU’s power structure — an underdog from East Germany with few connections and much to prove.

“Undoubtedly Merkel sat outside of this West German Junge Union network,” said Turner. “She may have had something to prove and had to establish herself.”

In Merkel’s stiff, calculating, hyper-effective CDU, there was no time for backslapping or beer-swigging — and no place for the old boys’ club of the Junge Union.

“He was basically pushed off his high horse” — Ex-Commission source

Oettinger clashed with Merkel on budget policy and other issues. His star seemed to be fading.

At home, a scandal involving the delivery of a eulogy that was widely seen as the defense of a former Nazi politician eroded his popularity.

At the same time, he faced an ambitious internal rival for his job. In 2010, Oettinger surprised everyone by taking the post as the EU’s energy commissioner.

Whether Merkel saw the move as chance to get rid of a meddlesome critic or an opportunity to lift Germany’s influence on the Commission isn’t clear.

For Oettinger, what many viewed as banishment to the soft Siberia of Brussels turned out to be a gracious exit with propitious timing.

Soon after he left, demonstrations over an expensive new railway station in Stuttgart erupted and his party struggled to deal with the public backlash. A year later, the CDU failed to win enough support to build a coalition and was out of power in the state.

‘I don’t like McDonald’s’

Not that Brussels was easy for the German. For the first time in his career, Oettinger found himself living outside of Germany.

European commissioners tend to be multilingual and worldly. Ansip, for example, speaks English, Russian, Estonian, some Finnish and German, and is now studying French. European Commissioner for Research and Innovation Carlos Moedas went to the Harvard Business School, speaks English, French, Portuguese and Spanish, and has lived in the U.S., U.K., France and Belgium on top of his native Portugal.

At the time of his arrival, Oettinger could barely speak English and had never really ever left Baden-Württemberg. “I never needed English [in Germany],” he told a Brussels audience at the DLDeurope conference in early September. “I don’t like McDonald’s.” He knew enough to make small talk, he added, and for his purposes that had always been enough.

He wasn’t particularly charming, either. He had a penchant for going off-script at speaking engagements, ranting about seemingly random issues unrelated to the event at hand. This made his aides and his fellow commissioners nervous. “He had quite an individual way of giving a speech,” said one energy industry source. “It was often a stream of consciousness.” He quickly earned a reputation for ending meetings abruptly when he lost interest.

As the criticism mounted, Oettinger realized that if we was going to accomplish anything, he’d have to make some changes, say sources close to him. He signed up for English classes, started listening to the experts on his staff, and began reading up on energy policy.

“He was basically pushed off his high horse,” said an ex-Commission source. “He probably realized: I might have to start listening to people and learn something new.”

Energy highs

As energy commissioner, Oettinger was responsible for negotiating with some of the biggest businesses and biggest countries in Europe, and as he began to figure out how to navigate the Commission, his old skills — and workaholic habits — started to come in handy. And in deal after deal, he started to earn the respect of the most powerful players in the world of energy policy.

He was credited with breaking down long-stagnant barriers to ease the flow of gas across European borders. His work arbitrating a gas dispute between Ukraine and Russia around the time of Crimea’s annexation in 2014, for example, won him respect in EU and Russian circles alike. Among those he stood up to were Merkel and Russian President Vladimir Putin, when he championed the EU becoming more independent of Russian energy supplies. “If he can take on Gazprom, he can take on anyone,” said Gregoire Verdeaux, international policy director at Vodafone.

“Anyone stupid enough to put a naked photo of themselves on the internet, cannot expect us to protect them” — Günther Oettinger

It’s also when his reputation for favoring big business started expanding across Brussels. As the EU started to try to bring in higher standards for fuel efficiency and a low carbon energy system, Oettinger pushed back. “He stood up for the classical fossil fuels industry interest,” said Wendel Trio, the director of the Climate Action Network. “I think he was seen as defending the status quo and the big companies.”

But his successes kept mounting, along with his political clout. As the Greek financial crisis unfolded, he became a leading source of commentary in German and European media, cementing his stature not just as an energy heavyweight, but as a leading political figure.

“Oettinger realized he could reinvent himself, and he’s done that in the Commission,” said a German think tank source.

By the time the next Commission was being formed, Oettinger had racked up an impressive four years. German media speculated that he was headed for a more senior role. Perhaps he would be given the trade portfolio, or maybe one of the coveted vice presidential positions.

‘Facepalm’

Instead, he was assigned the digital portfolio, a subject for which he could hardly be less qualified.

Julia Reda, the European Parliament’s sole Pirate Party member and a vocal critic of his, remembers the exact moment she first heard about Oettinger’s impending appointment as digital commissioner. She was at a conference when a lobbyist floated the rumor. Reda remembers that a conservative parliamentary colleague sitting nearby reacted with a “facepalm” — the colloquial term for slapping one’s forehead with despair.

Oettinger at first seemed completely uneducated on his portfolio and out of sync with his colleagues. He compared net neutrality activists to the Taliban. He ranted about connected cars but didn’t appear to understand how they worked.

And in one of his most egregious trip-ups, he blamed celebrities for their own naked photo leaks. “Anyone stupid enough to put a naked photo of themselves on the internet, cannot expect us to protect them,” Oettinger said at a parliamentary hearing.

The backlash was swift. The celebrities, victims of a crime, had done no such thing. But while he may never have grasped the intricacies of digital policy, he seems to have approached his job with a better understanding of what makes Brussels work: power.

While the other commissioners theorize about data flows and virtual reality, Oettinger is more likely to be attending an industry event, talking late into the night with the CEOs of major telecom companies or publishing houses. “While Ansip sees the need for reforms to create new companies and sectors, Oettinger is more comfortable with reforms that help current companies and sectors,” said Fredrik Erixon, the director of the European Centre for International Political Economy.

“If you talk to German telecom or others, they’re happy with him because they got a lot of access,” said a German think tank source. “He was more open to engaging what he perceived as big players in his field, [including the] big publishers.”

Meanwhile, inside the Commission, Oettinger has used his position to place himself between his boss and the drafting of legislation, according to three sources with firsthand knowledge.

The results are best seen in the copyright overhaul, in which Oettinger’s allies in the publishing world triumphed over their digital counterparts. “The copyright review reads like it was copy-pasted from German media law,” said Reda, who was on the other side from him in this debate. Similarly, Oettinger has promised leaders in the telecoms industry the power to build new networks and compete for coveted 5G real estate. A new overhaul of communications rules will give more incentive to companies to build up sophisticated digital infrastructure.

What worries some media and telecom industry executives about Oettinger’s new assignment is that all of the work he did on digital will go out the window, especially if Ansip, who is regarded as less friendly to industry, takes over. “If Oettinger goes away, many things might be put into question,” one senior telecom lobbyist said.

Ryan Heath and Zoya Sheftalovich contributed reporting.

Trump teen rape accuser abruptly cancels news conference

Trump teen rape accuser abruptly cancels news conference

The accuser alleges the real estate mogul raped her on several occasions when she was 13.

By JOSH GERSTEIN AND TIMOTHY NOAH 11/3/16, 2:12 AM CET

http://www.politico.eu/article/trump-teen-rape-accuser-cancels-conference/

LOS ANGELES — A woman who has filed federal lawsuits accusing Donald Trump of repeatedly raping her two decades ago, when she was 13, abruptly canceled a news conference Wednesday where she was to detail her extraordinary claims against the U.S. Republican presidential nominee.

In the most recent suit, Trump’s accuser asserts that while she was exploring a modeling career in 1994, she attended a series of parties at the Manhattan home of prominent investor Jeffrey Epstein. She alleges that during those parties the real estate mogul raped her on several occasions, including one instance in which she says Trump tied her to a bed.

Attorney and legal commentator Lisa Bloom announced earlier Wednesday that the woman would appear at Bloom’s Woodland Hills law office at 3 p.m. local time and apparently give up the “Jane Doe” pseudonym used in her recent suits.

However, at the appointed hour, Bloom said the news conference was off.

“Jane Doe has received numerous threats today,” Bloom told the assembled journalists and TV cameras. “She has decided she is too afraid to show her face … She is in terrible fear.”

Bloom apologized to the press corps, but declined to answer any shouted questions including one asking if she’d been in touch with Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign.

Through his attorney, Trump has flatly denied the anonymous woman’s allegations.

“It is categorically untrue. It is completely frivolous. It is baseless. It is irresponsible,” Trump attorney Alan Garten told POLITICO in September. “I won’t even discuss the merits because it gives it credibility that it doesn’t deserve.”

The woman making the claims is referred to as “Jane Doe” in the most recent court complaints filed in New York, but as “Katie Johnson” in a similar suit filed in California earlier this year.

“I loudly pleaded with Defendant Trump to stop, but he did not,” Jane Doe wrote in a formal declaration accompanying her recent suits. “Defendant Trump responded to my pleas by violently striking me in the face with his open hand and screaming that he would do whatever he wanted. … Immediately following this rape, Defendant Trump threatened me that, were I ever to reveal any of the details of Defendant Trump’s sexual and physical abuse of me, my family and I would be physically harmed if not killed.”

Doe names Trump and Epstein as defendants in the suits and says they knew she was well under 17 — the age of consent. “I understood that both Mr. Trump and Mr. Epstein knew that I was 13 years old,” she wrote.

A lawyer for Epstein declined to the comment on the lawsuits.

Trump’s accuser also submitted declarations from two other women, both anonymous. One says she worked as a party planner for Epstein, was tasked with getting “attractive adolescent women to attend these parties” and “personally witnessed the Plaintiff being forced to perform various sexual acts with Donald J. Trump and Mr. Epstein.”

The other woman says she attended school with Trump’s accuser at the time and was told by her about being “subject to sexual contact by the Defendants at parties in New York City during the summer of 1994.”

About a decade ago, Epstein came under investigation by local and federal authorities near his Palm Beach, Florida, home over allegations that he solicited underage girls to have sex with him at that residence and another on an island he owned in the U.S. Virgin Islands.

Epstein pleaded guilty in June 2008 to two state felony charges relating to prostitution and was sentenced to 18 months in jail. He served only 13 months before being released but was required to register as a sex offender.

Trump has publicly acknowledged that he knew Epstein and was aware of the investor’s interest in “younger” women.

“I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy,” Trump told New York Magazine back in 2002. “He’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side. No doubt about it — Jeffrey enjoys his social life.”

A Trump associate told POLITICO last year that Trump wasn’t aware of any wrongdoing by Epstein and that he and the billionaire investor were not particularly close.

“He was a member of one of Trump’s clubs where he would visit with women and business associates, but there was no formal relationship,”

the source close to Trump said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

The potential political implications of the allegations are complicated for Hillary Clinton because her husband, former President Bill Clinton, also had significant ties to Epstein. After leaving office in 2001, Bill Clinton took celebrities on Epstein’s 727 for a trip to Africa to look at Clinton Foundation anti-AIDS work.

Bill Clinton reportedly took more than two dozen flights on Epstein-owned planes, according to flight logs. In addition, during Epstein’s plea negotiations in 2007, lawyers for the financier claimed he helped found the Clinton Global Initiative, one of the Clinton Foundation’s key projects.

“Mr. Epstein was part of the original group that conceived the Clinton Global Initiative,” attorneys Alan Dershowitz and Gerald Lefcourt wrote, in a letter obtained by Fox News.

Spokespeople for the former president and the Clinton Foundation did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the Epstein connection.

In addition to the anonymity of the accuser and the supporting witnesses, some of the circumstances under which the story of the alleged rapes emerged earlier this year have led to questions about its credibility. News reports have said that a man who formerly served as a producer for tabloid talk-show host Jerry Springer was offering an interview with the alleged victim in exchange for money.

The first suit over the alleged rapes was filed in federal court in Riverside, California, in April by someone acting without an attorney and using the name “Katie Johnson.” That suit named both Trump and Epstein as defendants, alleging that the two men held Johnson as a “sex slave” and repeatedly forced her to engage in sexual acts against her will.

U.S. District Court Judge Dolly Gee dismissed the case in May, ruling that Johnson’s complaint didn’t raise valid claims under federal law. Gee, an appointee of President Barack Obama, noted that the suit cited a criminal statute that doesn’t give rise to civil damages and that the civil statute Johnson cited only applies to actions based on “race-based or class-based animus.”

Subsequent news reports raised doubts about who filed the suit. Johnson claimed she had just $300 in assets and that she was living at a home in Twentynine Palms, California, but Radar Online reported neighbors said the home had been foreclosed upon and vacant since its owner died last year.

A new suit was filed in New York in June, seeking to proceed against Trump and Epstein under the Jane Doe pseudonym. The case was brought by a New Jersey-based attorney, Tom Meagher.

However, the suit was withdrawn Sept. 16 after the plaintiff apparently failed to serve the complaint on Trump or Epstein.

Another complaint was filed in federal court in Manhattan on Sept. 30. Several other lawyers have joined the case on Doe’s behalf, but there is still no indication that Trump or Epstein have been formally served with the suit.

Authors:

Josh Gerstein and Timothy Noah  

Airbnb faces worldwide opposition. It plans a movement to rise up in its defence

Airbnb faces worldwide opposition. It plans a movement to rise up in its defence

The room-rental website, now worth $30bn, faces a critical year as city authorities clamp down

Shane Hickey and Franki Cookney

Saturday 29 October 2016 22.02 BST

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/oct/29/airbnb-backlash-customers-fight-back-london?CMP=fb_gu

In the back room of a pub in Kentish Town, a group of middle-class Londoners are perched on velvet-covered stools, eating hummus and talking about property. On the wall, above a pile of empty beer kegs, a slide presentation is in progress. A video of Airbnb’s recent advert shows smiling hosts opening their front doors and declaring their support for Sadiq Khan’s post-Brexit “London is open” campaign.

The audience of Airbnb hosts are there after receiving individual invitations from the company to a “home sharers” meet-up – a concept largely unfamiliar to the slightly bemused crowd. Jonathan, an enthusiastic Californian Airbnb employee, who was recently seconded to London to set up the clubs, is happy to explain: “Homesharing clubs are simply a way of organising this into something … that has a unified voice … then actually takes actions as a collective,” he says, in a less than clear answer.

More simply, homesharing clubs are advocacy groups made up of Airbnb hosts – loose, informal lobbying groups that push the company’s agenda to politicians. The clubs are part of a what is fast becoming a concerted fightback by Airbnb, the website founded in 2008 when three college friends rented out air mattresses in their San Francisco flat as a way of making money, to become one of the biggest online travel brands in the world.

But its phenomenal growth is proving to be its greatest liability. Authorities in cities around the world fear the impact it is having on their communities and are now seeking to arrest Airbnb’s near unfettered expansion.

The latest in a series of attempts around the world to curb its growth came earlier this month when New York governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill that will fine tenants or landlords who let out unoccupied flatsfor less than 30 days.

Meanwhile, in Dublin, the owners of one flat have recently been prohibited from using it as an Airbnb let without planning permission, raising the prospect of copycat actions elsewhere.

Elizabeth Warren is right. Unless this trend reverses, our cities will become cheap places to stay for tourists – and unaffordable for the rest of us

Read more

In Berlin, people who let more than half of their flat short-term without obtaining permission from the city council now risk a fine of €100,000. And in London, a 90-day rule was introduced last year under which no property can be rented out on Airbnb, or any similar service, for more than three months a year without planning permission.

So how is Airbnb responding? In New York the company has filed a lawsuit in the US federal court. But at a wider level the company is now supporting efforts to prevent these types of actions from taking place in the first place. And the best way to do this, Airbnb thinks, is to get its millions of hosts to rise up on its behalf.

Last year the company announced plans for 2016 to create homesharing clubs in 100 cities around the world. The aim, it said, was to form “a powerful people-to-people based political advocacy bloc”.

The bulk of the clubs are in North America, with a couple in Australia, South America and Asia, and an increasing number in Europe. In Britain, however, the number of clubs is negligible, even though there are more than 40,000 listings on Airbnb. The company is concentrating its efforts on building this UK base. Meetings, such as the one at the Abbey Tavern in Kentish Town, have been happening all over London as Airbnb seeks to build a grassroots campaign to fight the threat of greater regulation and more restrictive policies.

The hosts at the Kentish Town meeting are told that, earlier this year in Berlin, Airbnb “dropped the ball” after the city’s ruling on short-term lets – the suggestion being that it did not want this to happen again elsewhere. As a result of that ruling, the Berlin Home Sharers Club was created and started lobbying to try to change what it saw to be an unfair policy. In London, the 90-day rule may itself not be onerous compared to other cities, but there are growing calls for further regulations .

Airbnb’s Jonathan steers clear of telling the group that they should lobby for change. “On the one hand, would Airbnb like to see homesharing groups set up all over Europe? Absolutely,” he says. “Would it share in their interests? Absolutely. But whether those sharing clubs decide that their only interest is to share electricians and plumbers or to take political action is completely up to them,” he says.

The next slide focuses on Barcelona, a city where, in 2014, Airbnb was fined €30,000 for breaching tourism laws. Later, another slide listing “write to your MP” as a suggested activity is shown. “Writing letters to local newspapers and selected officials is obviously something that we would want to see concerned hosts do, but only if it applies to them and if they’re motivated to do so,” Jonathan says.

Chris Lehane, Airbnb’s head of global policy and communications, said the clubs act as “a voice against the powerful”.

“These folks absolutely should have the capacity to go out there and represent themselves, and we’ve been clear that we want to provide that support and provide some of the infrastructure,” he said. “This can be an incredibly effective advocacy tool. I think we’ve been pretty transparent and open about that.”

The networks of host groups, which in effect lobby on behalf of the company, are an illustration of how far Airbnb has grown since its inception in 2007. Back then, founders Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia could not afford the rent on their San Francisco flat and so put three airbeds on the floor and charged $80 a piece for their first guests.

Even by the rapid standards of growth in the tech industry, the company has expanded very quickly. It is now valued at $30bn, and claims two million property listings in 191 countries. That valuation puts the worth of the Californian firm at more than Hilton Hotels.

Wouter Geerts, an analyst for Euromonitor International, says this rapid growth has led to the “corporatisation” of Airbnb, with more listings from other hospitality companies and people with multiple properties. “That might be hotels or estate agents, serviced apartment providers. They all look at Airbnb and think ‘actually what is stopping us putting these properties on Airbnb as well and making extra money?’. And of course there are more and more stories about landlords that push out long-term tenants because they can make more money through Airbnb,” he said.

One of the most frequent criticisms of Airbnb has come from the hospitality industry, which has complained of the differences in regulation that hoteliers have to operate under, compared to Airbnb. But the organisation that acts as the voice of this industry in the UK says it is not just about them. “Many councils in London have expressed their concerns recently,” says Ufi Ibrahim, chief executive of the British Hospitality Association. “Much of that is because the sharing economy – and in particular we are talking about the unlawful professional landlords, the pseudo-landlords operating illegally – has put a huge strain on rental prices.”

Increasing levels of hostility to Airbnb have also started to come from the neighbours of those who let their homes through the website. Last month a property court in London ruled that homeowners whose leases say that their homes can be used only as a private residence cannot rent out their properties as short-term lets. The case came after the neighbours of Slovakian interior designer Iveta Nemcova informed the freeholder of the building that she was listing her flat in north London on Airbnb. As a result, Airbnb hosts have been warned that they could be in breach of the terms of their mortgages and building insurance policies.

One homeowner who spoke to the Observer said that the ground-floor flat in her building had been rented out on Airbnb by a tenant without the knowledge of the owner. As a result, the house insurance of the whole building was potentially invalidated.

In London, Westminster City Council is investigating 1,200 properties alleged to be let in excess of the 90-night limit. Enforcement notices have so far only been issued against two. “In practical terms it is a real challenge for us to gather evidence to prove that individuals are letting properties for over 90 nights,” a council spokesman said.

The scrutiny that Airbnb faces from both users and policymakers around the world comes after the site’s runaway growth. John O’Neill, director of the Centre for Hospitality Real Estate Strategy at Pennsylvania State University, estimates that the number of hosts has doubled in the last year with revenue up 60%. With that growth has come an ecosystem of support companies, typically property management firms that submit the advert for the property onto the website and then may manage guests arriving and leaving, dropping off and collecting keys, for example.

The exact effects of this growth on the hotel industry are unclear. The British Hospitality Association said it would be “unfair” to say there had been an impact on the demand for its members’ services as a result of Airbnb – and instead the association focuses its criticism on the effect on housing. Airbnb says that its growth has been a reflection of how people live, and describes the attacks from the hotel industry as “disappointing but not surprising”, rejecting claims that it has a negative effect on the housing market.

“Homesharing puts money into the pockets of regular people and spreads guests and benefits to more communities and businesses,” the company said in a statement. “Countless cities around the world have introduced clear home-sharing rules, and we will continue to be good partners to policymakers and work together on progressive measures to promote responsible homesharing.” The vast majority of hosts follow the rules, it said.

Where the Airbnb debate goes next, after such a period of rapid growth, is unclear. Some hotel companies, instead of continuing to fight Airbnb, have chosen to join it. “The larger hotel chains are moving away from trying to combat Airbnb. Initially there were some kneejerk reactions of ‘we have to lobby against this, we don’t exactly know what’s happening, they are not regulated well’. Most of the companies have moved on from that now and they have started to realise certain potentials that it brings,” said Geerts. “There is this movement of looking at short-term rentals not as a negative, but more as a positive, and seeing the changing demands of consumers.”

This was illustrated in April when French hotels group Accor, said to be Europe’s largest hotelier by room numbers, paid £118m to acquire Onefinestay, which offers short-term lets on expensive homes.

O’Neill estimates that there are 70 lobbyists working for Airbnb in the US, trying to get favourable legislation passed to benefit the company. “Most hoteliers I speak with have accepted Airbnb’s existence and growth. Their concerns have more to do with levelling the playing field between hotels and Airbnb operators, because Airbnb has so many unfair competitive advantages relative to hotels,” he said.

Others have said that regulators need to be fair in how they set out the rules that Airbnb and other similar companies must adhere to. Robert Vaughan, an economist with accountancy firm PwC, said there was a huge variation in those affected – from someone renting out their sofa, to landlords with multiple properties – and there is a difficulty in applying the same rules to all of them.

O’Neill says that while Airbnb may continue to grow, it will not have the free rein it had previously. “I don’t think there will be a free-for-all of unregulated growth as there has been in the past,” he said.

Back at the meeting in Kentish Town, the night ends with a positive response to the homesharing clubs idea. “We need to write a letter,” suggests one host. “We should meet every three months,” suggests another. As the meeting draws to a close, nearly everyone agrees on the need for a club. Jonathan jumps in again: “I do want to stress that there are other sorts of flavours to home-sharing clubs,” he says, launching into a description of a collective bedsheet-washing initiative, but few are listening. As the meeting ends, the group are asked to put their hands up if they want a local club. Nearly every hand goes up.

The Observer reporter who attended the Kentish Town meeting is an Airbnb host

Growing concern around the world

BARCELONA

Authorities in the Catalan capital recently stepped up their campaign against homes illegally rented out to tourists using homesharing websites. Hundreds of listings were ordered to be removed, and Airbnb and another online rental firm, Homeaway, faced fines of €60,000 each.

Homeowners who want to rent out properties to tourists must apply for a licence, and a team of 20 inspectors has been set up to find those who do not adhere to the rules. The city’s mayor, Ada Colau, who took office in 2015, stopped the granting of new tourist licences for homes and hotels. She has blamed the rise in Airbnb popularity for growing tensions between residents and rowdy tourists.

The number of people using Airbnb in Barcelona tripled to 900,000 in the three years to 2015.

REYKJAVIK

The 1,600 short-term property lets in Iceland’s capital have to operate under strict rules introduced in June. The legislation allows residents to let their property for 90 days a year before they must pay business tax. The move comes as Iceland’s population of 332,000 is set to welcome 1.6 million visitors this year – a 29% increase on last year – drawn by the glaciers, fjords, lava fields, hot springs, hiking trails and midnight sun.

The move is one of a series aimed at controlling the rapid rise in visitor numbers, including Game of Thrones fans travelling to the filming locations of the television drama. One report estimated there was a 124% increase in Airbnb rentals in one year as residents cashed in on the popularity of the country, with more than 100 flats available on the capital’s main street alone.

MOSCOW

Airbnb said last year that the Russian capital was one of its fastest-growing markets, fuelled by high inflation and low incomes. Activity doubled in one year, driven by an increase of single rooms in apartments, which were being listed for short-terms lets in an attempt by many homeowners to make ends meet, given the country’s economic problems.

The growing interest in Moscow on Airbnb brought it into the top 10 most popular cities by bookings on the website at a time when there was no sign of legislative regulation to restrict use of the service. The sharp increase came at the same time as falling wages, which were down 8.8% in the first half of last year. The average price of a private room for a night in the city is £27, and £45 for an entire home, according to the site.

LISBON

The city has bucked the trend of some of its European neighbours, and instead worked to make it easier for short-term rentals to operate. Hosts are required to register their properties as short-term rentals but there is no limit on the number of nights per year that they can operate.

Mayor Fernando Medina has said people should not be scared of the new tourism dynamic and wants the city to be able to take in more tourists, in turn reducing the number of empty buildings in Lisbon. Tourism is seen as an important part of Portugal’s economic recovery. Airbnb listings in the greater Lisbon area have almost tripled in the past three years.

SAN FRANCISCO

Although the city is home to Airbnb’s HQ, it also operates strict rules for hosts, who have to register with authorities. If Airbnb advertises an unregistered property it can be fined $1,000 a day for each listing. One action group has posted “wanted” flyers. The crime? “Airbnbing our community” and “destroying affordable housing for immigrant, minority, and low-income families”. Resident groups have campaigned against Airbnb and there have been reports of tenants being evicted so landlords can list on the site. Last year Airbnb successfully campaigned against Proposition F, or the “Airbnb initiative”, planned legislation that would have reduced the number of days owners can rent their properties. Airbnb’s victory was helped by its grassroots homesharing club, which voted in large numbers against the law.

Clinton campaign dismisses polls putting Donald Trump in the lead

Clinton campaign dismisses polls putting Donald Trump in the lead

A senior Clinton campaign official says a new ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll which put Trump one point ahead is ‘not what we see at all’

Dan Roberts in Tampa and Ben Jacobs in Washington

Tuesday 1 November 2016 18.51 GMT

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/01/donald-trump-polls-lead-hillary-clinton-campaign

Clinton campaign officials have dismissed a poll suggesting that Donald Trump may have taken the lead in the final days before Tuesday’s election, insisting they see no evidence of a negative impact from Friday’s new FBI email disclosures.

Speaking as Hillary Clinton flew to Florida for a whirlwind series of campaign events, a senior campaign official conceded there was a tightening in the polls but only what they had already expected would happen after the debates finished.

Asked by reporters on the campaign plane to respond specifically to a new ABC News/Washington Post tracking poll which put Trump one point ahead, the aide described it as “bad polling”.

“It’s not what we see at all,” said the official. “There seems to be something about that model that seems odd. The race has tightened the way that we thought it would tighten, but we do not see anything that would suggest [the new tracking poll] is right.”

Democrats also dispute the findings of several polls since Friday that the letter from the FBI director, James Comey, saying his staff were examining emails that may be related to the previous investigation into Clinton’s private email server has had a negative marginal affect on voter enthusiasm for the Democratic candidate.

“We do not see any evidence that the Comey story has had an impact,” said the aide. “We’ve seen anecdotal evidence about turnout and our voter registering, volunteer numbers, etc, that suggests that if anything it has encouraged our supporters.”

Clinton is not expected to address the email question again on Tuesday during her three scheduled events in Florida, but aides defended her decision to begin two speeches in Ohio on Monday raising the issue. “Obviously it is something that has got a lot of attention in the last few days, so we did think it was important for her to address.”

Instead, the focus in Florida is expected to be on reminding voters how much is at stake in next week’s election.

“There is no state that is more important and we think it is a state that she will win and Donald Trump has to win,” said the aide. “If she wins Florida, that … will put her over the top.”

Voters should also brace for a deluge of new advertising nationwide, however, as the Clinton campaign spends its remaining money on television commercials across the US.

“You’ll see us back on the air in a lot of states over the last week or so,” said the aide, who agreed only to speak anonymously to reporters on the plane. “We’ve been able to raise a lot of money and it’s the last week to spend it. So you’ll see us spending in a lot of states where we haven’t.”

Donald Trump, in a rally in Eau Claire, Wisconsin, renewed his attacks on Clinton over the email investigation. He warned the crowd of thousands that if his rival were elected “it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis and the work of government would grind to an unbelievable, unglorious [sic] halt.”

He also reminded Clinton voters in the Badger State that they can change their ballots if they have already voted absentee and now feel “a bad case of buyer’s remorse.”

The event carried all the trappings of a normal presidential rally as Republican elected officials like Senator Ron Johnson, facing an uphill fight for re-election, and Governor Scott Walker appeared with their party’s nominee. It marked the first time that Johnson who is considered an underdog in his Senate bid against former Senator Russ Feingold appeared at an event with Trump.

The Republican nominee also unveiled his closing ad on Tuesday entitled Choice. It cast the election as referendum between staying “on the road to stagnation” with Clinton, or getting “the change we’re waiting for” with Trump.

Theresa May’s secret business love affair

Theresa May’s secret business love affair

Business may find more to like in the UK prime minister’s actions than in her words.

By TOM MCTAGUE 11/2/16, 5:33 AM CET

http://www.politico.eu/article/theresa-may-not-so-anti-business-brexit-uk-british-industry/

LONDON – Theresa May has finally agreed to meet Britain’s leading big business body, after months of hostile rhetoric and cold-shouldering sparked widespread industry alarm.

The U.K. prime minister will hold clear-the-air talks with the head of the Confederation of British Industry Carolyn Fairbairn in Downing Street later this month, senior business and government sources confirmed.

The CBI’s mounting frustration with Number 10 became public last month when Fairbairn, its director general, publicly accused the prime minister of “closing the door” on Britain’s open economy in an interview with the Times.

The intervention gave voice to broad industry concern that the new prime minister was proving far less business friendly than her predecessor David Cameron.

May entered Downing Street with a promise to be guided “not by the interests of the privileged few” but by the concerns of ordinary workers. A few months later, her hardline rhetoric on immigration at the Conservative Party conference, which suggested the government was headed for a hard-Brexit outside the European single market, sparked boardroom concern that 30 years of liberal economic consensus was coming to an end.

It was also in stark contrast to the vision laid out by the leading Brexiteers during the referendum campaign, which promised to turn Britain into a free-market dynamo outside the EU.

Fairburn’s public attack on May infuriated Number 10, said one senior Tory source with close connections to Downing Street. “She took a decision to go nuclear,” the source said, before warning the prime minister’s team continues to view Fairbairn’s close connection to George Osborne, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, with suspicion.

Industry insiders privately acknowledge the interview was “intentional and calculated” but insist it was necessary to check what they saw as Number 10’s hostile rhetoric. “It was the kick up the arse they needed,” one well-placed big business lobbyist said on condition of anonymity.

Within a week, the CBI secured a meeting with the prime minister, and talks with her joint chiefs of staff Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill were also hastily arranged.

“Things have been tougher, there’s no doubt,” the big business lobbyist said. “There isn’t the warmth there that we’re used to.”

The episode lifts the lid on the fractious, uneasy relationship that has developed between business and the new Conservative government. After Cameron’s cosy embrace, May’s cold detachment has come as a shock to the system.

More Cameron than Cameron

On closer inspection, however, it is hard to argue that May’s government offers a sharp break from the pro-business agenda of Cameron and Osborne.

Emboldened by soaring opinion polls and the prospect of working class voters abandoning the Labour Party and U.K. Independence Party, which are both in disarray, it is clearly in May’s electoral interests to pursue a “pro-workers” agenda.

But, in practice rather than in rhetoric, May is already showing signs of being even more friendly to business interests than the previous regime.

One of the government’s first acts was to water down Cameron’s childhood obesity strategy, which was opposed by much of the food and drink industry.

Last week the government also sneaked out changes to the apprenticeship levy on business to answer some industry concerns, while it was reported in the Financial Times that ministers were looking at ways to dilute the PM’s pledge to put workers on company boards.

After a short delay, May also signed off a new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point and broke years of political deadlock to back Heathrow’s extension. And while it is the PM that has been criticized by business, it was Cameron and Osborne who introduced the increased “living wage” and, of course, agreed to hold the EU referendum in the first place.

“Theresa doesn’t see many people – she doesn’t want to spend her evenings hobnobbing.” – Government source

May is certainly not an instinctive economic liberal like Cameron and Osborne, who used their pro-business credentials as a wedge to differentiate the Tories from Labour. But the prime minister isn’t an economic populist, either, having spent her early career at the Bank of England.

In May’s inner circle there is also far more real-world business experience than in Cameron’s, including the Chancellor Philip Hammond, a self-made millionaire.

City of London veteran John Godfrey, who has spent 20 years in the Square Mile including almost a decade at Legal & General, was quickly brought across to head up Downing Street’s policy unit.

Katie Perrior, the director of communication, was also persuaded to leave her job running a successful PR firm. In contrast, Craig Oliver, Cameron’s spin chief, was hired from the BBC.

May has also created a business outreach team at the heart of Number 10, headed up by former Bell Pottinger PR executive and business lobbyist James McLoughlin, the son of Conservative Party chairman Patrick McLoughlin. The outreach unit is strongly backed by Fiona Hill, one of May’s joint chiefs of staff. It is tasked with regularly consulting leading industry figures.

Business Secretary Greg Clark and Brexit Secretary David Davis have also been meeting business groups on a regular basis. Clark has even gone as far as to set up formal, weekly meetings with the CBI and other lobbying groups.

The Federation of Small Businesses, unlike the CBI, has had regular dialogue with Number 10 since May took office. Senior government sources said she had also arranged two business dinners in Downing Street, hosted financial services firms and investors in New York and held one-to-one meetings with global CEOs in Number 10.

“Theresa doesn’t see many people – she doesn’t want to spend her evenings hobnobbing. But the City doesn’t have much to complain about,” said one senior government source.

A Downing Street source added: “We have constant, positive engagement with the business community who, like us, want to grasp the opportunities that Brexit provides. Whether it’s selling UK plc in India, attracting investment from Nissan or taking a decision on Heathrow, where politicians have frustrated businesses for decades, we’re getting on with the job and ensuring the UK is a competitive place to set up and run a business.”

Immigration worries

That said, perceptions matter – particularly for the City of London.

The U.K.’s financial services sector employs 2.2 million and generates £66 billion in tax revenues for the Treasury each year. Its ability to continue attracting foreign investment is key to its success.

Fairbairn, the director general, said it was the government’s “messages” that were alarming.

“It’s very clear from conversations we are having that the world is watching,” she said. “International investors are watching. Companies here are watching. And they are reading a lot into the signals of this government about how committed they are to creating a strong economy.”

The warning struck a chord.

“It’s certainly the most anti-business Tory government in a long, long while.” – Lobbyist

One financial services lobbyist in the City of London said it was “absolutely true” that the government’s anti-business rhetoric was damaging to U.K.’s international reputation.

A speech by Amber Rudd, the home secretary, in which she said UK businesses hire too many immigrants, in particular, didn’t go down well, the lobbyist said, describing it as “a shock to a lot of businesses.”

“It was also very noticeable how badly it went down in Europe,” he said. “The focus seems to be on immigration and not access to the markets — security over prosperity.

“In the City of London, there is concern. It’s certainly the most anti-business Tory government in a long, long while.”

But whatever tone the prime minister takes, Number 10 is aware that the central demand of business – to stay in the European Union – cannot be delivered.

Nor can May adequately offer industry the certainty is craves. While there is high-level awareness of the frustration caused by the “no running commentary” policy on Brexit, Number 10 is convinced it cannot achieve a good deal for the U.K any other way.

Yet, beyond Brexit, May is no radical.

The prime minister has stolen UKIP’s clothes on Brexit and Labour’s on workers’ rights. But underneath she remains a traditional Tory, running a traditional Tory government.

Populist anger is ‘a gift wrapped in barbed wire’

Populist anger is ‘a gift wrapped in barbed wire’

Belgian author attempts to make sense of voters’ mounting sense of frustration.

By ESTHER KING 11/2/16, 5:30 AM CET

http://www.politico.eu/article/populism-is-a-gift-wrapped-in-barbed-wire-david-van-reybrouck/

The Flemish author and poet David Van Reybrouck has spent his career writing about those whose voices are only rarely heard. His books include a travelogue set in post-apartheid South Africa and an award-winning “Epic History of a People” about the Democratic Republic of Congo.

In his latest work, however, he has turned his attention to a group of “voiceless” people much closer to home: voters in Europe and the United States.

A feeling of disenfranchisement, Van Reybrouck argues, lies behind the anger on display among electorates across the West. The rise of populists like Donald Trump in the United States, Geert Wilders in the Netherlands, Marine Le Pen in France and Frauke Petry in Germany, and the fury on display during the Brexit debate all share a common cause: an attempt by establishment politicians to shut down the debate. It’s because citizens are feeling excluded that the shouting is getting louder.

“The anger of citizens we see today is not a danger for democracy,” says Van Reybrouck. “It’s a gift. It shows that people are committed and are willing to engage with their society. It’s a gift, but it’s wrapped in barbed wire.” The trick, with this gift, he says, is to figure out how to unwrap it.

* * *

Van Reybrouck’s insights came out of the 2010-2011 Belgian political crisis, in which the country’s elected officials failed to form a government for 541 days. What most political commentators wrote off as a quirk of an unwieldy political process became, for Van Reybrouck, the symptom of a larger problem.

The idea that citizens were given the right to speak only every four or five years, and only by ticking a box on a piece of a paper, struck him as absurd — and counterproductive. “Democracy is quintessentially people talking to each other,” he says. “But our democracies have become very, very silent. We vote in silence, and then we shout … on Facebook and Twitter. But a sort of meaningful discussion with people who might have different ideas is not taking place anymore.”

“The easiest job for a politician today is to be a populist leader.”

It is not just that people feel voiceless, it’s that they are voiceless. Governments across Europe have met anger with anger. Attacks on populism have been just as vitriolic as their targets. As those expressions of anger are dismissed as ignorant, uninformed or retrograde, the gulf between the elite and the broader public has grown. “Many of the politicians today remind me of the aristocracy in 1788,” says Van Reybrouck. “The masses are shouting and yeah that’s annoying, but the crisis won’t come. One year later, the Bastille was stormed.”

The mounting sense of frustration, he says, feeds into the populist narrative. “The easiest job for a politician today is to be a populist leader,” he says. If someone with “a little more self-control than Donald Trump” had taken up the banner of populism in the United States, he or she would easily have swept up the votes of an increasingly frustrated electorate.

Referendums may have become the tool of choice for politicians trying to reassure voters that they are being heard. But these offer only the illusion of control, says Van Reybrouck. In the Brexit debate, for instance, voters were made to believe their vote mattered, but once the polls had closed and the votes to leave had been counted, they quickly lost any say in how their decision would be implemented. “The referendum has become the toy of populist leaders,” says Van Reybrouck. “I am deeply convinced that if we refuse to update democracy, we’ll see the end of democracy, and quite soon.”

People hold signs with lights that spell out 'DUMP TRUMP' while demonstrating against Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump

* * *

In the midst of the Belgian crisis of 2011, Van Reybrouck launched G1000, an experiment in participatory democracy that brought together 704 people chosen at random to discuss ideas for solving Belgium’s political gridlock.

Participants were asked to express their feelings on various aspects of the political situation by rating the government’s response to an issue on a scale of one to 10. They proposed steps that would incrementally improve that rating by a notch or two, and then discussed the ideas with their neighbors over several rounds of debate led by academics and political experts.

When the answers were gathered by the organizers, the result was a collection of tangible policy proposals that were handed over to the country’s seven presidents of parliament. The format has since been adopted by political parties across Belgium, and the Netherlands has hosted more than 10 of its own G1000 events. The Dutch government has created a parliamentary commission to look at democratic renewal. And in the city of Utrecht, the mayor’s cabinet regularly confers with citizens for solutions to pressing policy issues, such as migration, that weren’t on the table during electoral campaigns.

“Not doing anything about our democracy is opening the gates to anarchy.”

Small European countries, especially those that have gone through a crisis such as Belgium and Iceland are more willing to innovate and should become laboratories for mechanisms of participatory democracy, he says. At the moment, Ireland leads the pack. In 2012, 66 citizens were chosen by lot to join 34 government officials in a debate on constitutional reforms. In October, the country repeated the process, randomly selecting 99 citizens to tackle some of the country’s most politically sensitive questions, including legalizing abortion and climate change.

Van Reybrouck, who has laid out his ideas in his book, “Against Elections: A Case for Democracy,” has been invited by the leader of the Belgian senate to hold an experiment in which a chamber of citizens chosen by lot would join senators in discussing issues that fall under the senate’s purview, such as constitutional reform and laws governing the organization of the federal system.

The idea, he is careful to say, is not to replace elections with a lottery. It’s to experiment with methods to bring the voices of citizens into the democratic process.

At the risk of sounding like a Cassandra prophesying the end of days, Van Reybrouck cautions that our democracies have become ticking time bombs. “I see why people fear anarchy when they hear me talk,” he says. “But not doing anything about our democracy is opening the gates to anarchy.”