Mediaboss Marketing

Emerging from their first conference meeting since the setback, Republican members said the message from their leadership was direct: it's time to unify.

"I think it was the longest prayer we've ever had," New York Republican Rep. Chris Collins said, referring to the opening prayer that is part of every conference.

Many members emerging from the Tuesday morning meeting said the GOP wasn't yet ready to abandon health care despite the fact that President Donald Trump made it clear last week it was time to get on to tax reform.

To that point, the White House has quietly re-engaged on health care in recent days, despite the very public proclamation last week, according to two people familiar with the process.

The efforts, while unclear how effective or deep they may be, have been driven by chief strategist Steve Bannon and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, who believe there is a way to bridge the gap that helped collapse the effort, the sources said.

The paralyzing issues for the conference remain unchanged, however. Significant shifts toward the conservative House Freedom Caucus would only serve to drive even more moderate members away from the bill. Move the bill back toward the center and the Freedom Caucus will buck the effort as a bloc. The bigger issue may be the President himself, who made clear his patience had run out on the issue and was champing at the bit to move onto tax reform.

North Carolina Rep. Richard Hudson said if Republicans could find the votes, the House could again bring up last week's bill as early as this week, noting that the House Freedom Caucus was "probably feeling a lot of heat."

Asked about the White House posture, Hudson told reporters, "I think if we called the President today and said, 'We've got the votes,' I think he'd be back on board."

During their leadership news conference Tuesday morning, Republican Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana said that Democrats' celebration Friday had been "premature."

"To my Democrat colleagues who were celebrating Friday's action, I think their celebration is premature because I think we're closer today to repealing Obamacare than we've ever been before, and are surely even closer than we were Friday," Scalise said.

House Speaker Paul Ryan also said Republicans would continue to push for repeal and replace.

"I won't tell you the timeline because we want to get it right," Ryan said, adding that members had a "very constructive meeting" where some who had pledged to defeat the bill last week appeared open to working with the rest of the conference to find a solution.

Ryan specifically advocated that the health care bill was still the best path to defund Planned Parenthood, a key conservative agenda item. The Wisconsin Republican said the health care bill was a better option for defunding the organization than including the provision in the upcoming must-pass spending bill.

"We think reconciliation is the tool because that gets it in law," Ryan said. "Reconciliation is the way to go."

Rep. Mo Brooks, a Republican from Alabama and a member of the House Freedom Caucus, said the message from Ryan was "this issue is not going away."

Iowa Rep Steve King told reporters that the discussion at Tuesday morning's meeting reminded him of an impasse that House Republicans faced in 2014 on a border security bill. "we circled back together and we resolved the issue. I think that mood exists today." He added, "the minds that have been in the starkest disagreement are now going to put their heads together."

Members of the hard-right wing of the conference seemed committed to not move on from health care. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Rep. Mark Meadows told reporters that he and others still wanted to get to "yes."

Meadows told reporters after the extended closed door meeting, "everybody wants to find a way to get this passed and we're going to work real hard to do that."

"We're going to get a yes. We're going get to yes. It will be a better bill. And I think everyone is going to be very happy in the end," said Virginia Rep. David Brat, a member of the Freedom Caucus.

Meadows told reporters after the extended closed door meeting "everybody wants to find a way to get this passed and we're going to work real hard to do that."

Rep. Barry Loudermilk, a Republican from Georgia, said every House Republican who went to open mic during the GOP conference meeting pushed to get health care done.

"It's halftime," he said. "The game isn't over and it's not starting over again. We're just coming back out after halftime and we still have the ball and we're going on the field."

Go here to see the original:
Republicans not yet ready to abandon health care - CNN

Slide: 1 / of 1. Caption: Then One/WIRED

On the surface, bitcoin is having a very good year. The price of the digital currency reached record highs well over $1,000 after years of stagnation following a major crash. But if you pull back the curtain, the civil war rages.

The global community of companies, coders, and opportunists who control the bitcoin network is now on the verge of revolt after more than two years of infighting. Basically, the bitcoin network is moving data at a painfully slow pace, and the community cant agree on how to fix it. So, one increasingly powerful group is threatening to hard fork the project. In other words: They could split bitcoin into two separate digital currencies.

The ongoing battle represents a fundamental flaw not only with bitcoin, but with so many other projects based on the idea of a blockchain, the underlying technology that makes bitcoin possible. A blockchain is designed to operate without a central authority, securely verifying and recording transactions through a network machines rather a single government, bank, or company. Across Silicon Valley and beyond, many see this big idea as a way of significantly streamlining the exchange of moneymaybe even changing what it means to build a business. But at the same time, the decentralized nature of these projects is a burden. Theres no good way for the many participants to readily change the underlying technology.

If we have a process for dealing with disagreement we wont have all the collateral damage we see with bitcoin. Arthur Breitman, Tezos

The community behind Ethereum, another influential part of this movement, recently forked its project after hackers exploited a bug in its code. That was their best option. And now, bitcoin is facing much the same conundrum. Its a flaw that could ultimately bring the digital currency crashing down.

But Arthur and Kathleen Breitman are working to eliminate this flaw. Theyre building a new blockchain where the stakeholders can change the underlying technology through a kind of online voting systema blockchain that can evolve according to the will of its community. If we have a process for dealing with disagreement, for being constructive and moving on, we wont have all the collateral damage we see with bitcoin, says Arthur Brietman, 35, a French-born financial trader and technologist who spent several years with big-name banks like Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs. The biggest risk to bitcoin is a split in the community. That would harm the network. This is the kind of thing were trying to avoid.

The project may indeed provide a better way of building this kind of vastly distributed systemand possibly create a new kind of business. But it also raises questions about the fundamental nature of these projects and, indeed, the fundamental nature of democracy.

The Brietmans are husband-and-wife entrepreneurs based in Silicon Valley. Part of the vibrant, idealistic, and sometimes strange community of young free thinkers working to build a new kind of company using blockchain technologies, they call their creation Tezos. Under the cheeky pseudonym LM Goodmana thinly veiled reference to the Newsweek journalist who incorrectly identified the creator of bitcointhey first released a paper describing the project in 2014. Now, as they prepare to unveil the technology amid the battle over bitcoin, it carries a new significance.

On the bitcoin blockchain, transactions are processed and recorded by a vast network of miners, specialized machines that lend their computing power to the operation. In exchange for their participation, the miners receive bitcoin. But Tezos doesnt work that way. It will sell its tokens to the world at large, and then the token holders will help process and record the transactions. Basically, in recording each transaction, the system asks for help from a random token holder.

Whats more, these token holders will have the right to suggest and vote on changes to the network itself. The more tokens you hold, the more voting power you have. In other words, the token holders control the system in full. In this way, Tezos becomes a working democracy. Everyone can vote, and the vote decides outcomes. Some blockchain veterans believe Tezos could fundamentally change the dynamics of blockchain technology, helping to move projects closer to the grand ideals they espouse.

Its like the American democratic system, says Olaf Carlson-Wee, the first employee at Coinbase, Silicon Valleys most important bitcoin company, who has invested in Tezos through his hedge fund, Polychain. When you vote, even if your candidate doesnt win, you accept that democracy was in action. When people participate in a Tezos network, theyre accepting that the democratic vote of the other coin holders will govern the way the protocol moves.

Bitcoin, you could argue, is also a democracy. But the system operates in an ad hoc way. Participants must individually and manually upgrade the software running on miners and other machines, and this leads to the kind of thing you now see with the digital currency: months of people arguing, both online and off, about how the network should evolve. Tezos removes this unorganized in-fightingand then some. Through the Tezos voting system, stakeholders can also change the voting system. We are not necessarily beholden to voting as a governance mechanism, Breitman says. Every part of the system can evolve, including the governance system itself. He compares this means of self-correction to a constitutional amendmentanother powerful idea in light of the conflict over bitcoin.

If Tezos works, the knock-on effect is potentially enormous. Like Ethereum, the Tezos blockchain is designed to run smart contracts, online agreements built with computer code that can be used to bootstrap all sorts of other businesses and applications. (Ethereum, for instance, is now driving everything from hedge funds to distributed supercomputers.)

Tezos could extend this growing trend. But its also another invitation to completely start over. Though Bitcoin and Ethereum have the momentum, Tezos is asking coders and companies to move onto yet another blockchain. And how that will play out is anyones guess. Breitman argues that bitcoin and Ethereum are still relatively smalland in the future, distributed networks will be significantly larger. If you compare them to any other industry, their capitalization is very small and the amount of programming work is still tiny, he says. It is still early in this game.

Over the next several weeks, Breitman and his company will put this stance to the test. First, they will launch an ICO, or initial coin offering, letting anyone buy a digital token tied directly into the operation of the Tezos network. Such offerings are now common practice in the blockchain world, a new way of funding online companies, but also a new way of running them. Those who hold the tokens actually own and control the operation, something thats particularly true with Tezos.

But Breitmans and their idealism may run into reality. It will work crytopgraphically, just in terms of programming language theory, says Zooko Wilcox, who created the bitcoin alternative ZCash. But it is an experiment. Naturally, Wilcox mentions the DAO, an effort to create a kind of automated venture capital fund atop Ethereum.

The DAO was the largest crowdfunded project ever, and thanks to a bug in its smart contract, it was hacked to the tune of $50 million. This catastrophe is what eventually led to the Ethereum fork. Imagine that there is a bug in the version you have all upgraded to, he says, imagining one potential future for Tezos. What if thats a bug prevents future upgrades?

Brietman admits that his democracy could go wrong. But he also points out that this is true of any democracy, including the one here in the US of A. Democracy isnt necessarily about making good choices, he says. Its about avoiding conflict. Of course, there are other ways of avoiding conflict, and in the online agethe post-Trump ageits worth asking whether a true democracy is the best method. The crowds dont always get things right. The hope is that at the very least, democracy will eventually produce more good than bad.

View post:
A Plan to Save Blockchain Democracy From Bitcoin's Civil War - Wired - WIRED

Block by block, snide release by snide release, Wikileaks is eroding the ability of a state to protect itself and society, an act of sabotage that yet many view as heroic. I can tell you, as one who devoted his life to serve the Constitution of the United States from within the national security establishment, one should view Wikileaks as a public danger, not as the little guys hero.

The damage to U.S. security and intelligence capabilities from Assanges release of what are supposed to beand which appear legitimateCIA programs to conduct cyber espionage appears at least as serious as the last catastrophic leaks by the likely-traitor, Edward Snowden. The malign hand of Russian intelligence also seems quite clear, even if out of sight and, as yet, unprovable. Western intelligence servicesand for that matter, private but alert observershave long since come to view Wikileaks as a tool of Russian intelligence operations, whatever Wilileaks possible libertarian origins.

It takes thousands of man hours, and probably many millions of dollars, to develop such capabilities; it will take longer to replace them, and indeed, many capabilities may never be replaceable. For a long time going forward, the U.S. intelligence community, and therefore U.S. policymakers, will be substantially blinder and dumber than before; and the United States will be that much more at risk from hostile parties, ranging from terrorists, to ISIS, to criminals, to states such as Russia and North Korea. The self-satisfied Wikileaks (and Russian-aided) triumphwhich seems to have evoked a smirk as a response from the current titular Commander in Chief of the United Stateshas placed many lives, and the safety of the nation, at greater risk.

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange makes a speech from the balcony of the Ecuadorian Embassy, London, February 5, 2016. Peter Nicholls/Reuters

The mission of the CIA is to learn the plans and intentions of foreign individuals and countries that can affect the well-being of the United States. Obtaining information from technical means, which is what cyber intelligence does, is one of a range of approaches intelligence services takehuman sources and satellites are othersto provide policymakers with an understanding of what is on the far side of the hill. If a policymaker does not know, sometimes someone nasty comes thundering out of the blue over the ridge. Yet, a cardinal principle in intelligence is that a secret shared is a secret lost, a capability revealed is a capability neutralized. The type of capabilities exposed can cost billions of dollars to develop, and are as insubstantial as a whisper in the wind. The purported reason given to commit such a breach of the CIAs secret practices is so that the public can decide whether these programs are justified. But every operation the CIA takes, every capability the CIA develops, is assessed for its legality in advance of the operation, or the deployment of the capability.

The CIA and the entire U.S. intelligence community are profoundly law-abiding institutions. This seems a contradiction, if not a lie, to many private citizens: The CIA exists to break laws, doesnt it? Dont play us for fools, runs a common perspective. But this defensive cynicism is wrong. A standard, weary and frustrated observation of my colleagues and me in the field was that an officer could not even sneeze without first obtaining authorization. The CIA is careful and oh-so-accountable; the rogue CIA of legend, and the dark, dangerous-to-civil-liberties CIA that Wikipedia claims to call to account is a mytha myth sincerely believed by many good citizens, but also one fomented by Russian intelligence, so as to weaken the United States.

Of course, the rejoinder immediately comes: Look at all the excesses, the lawlessness, the lack of accountability of the CIA! The CIA tortured! The CIA taps peoples phones! Even the man sitting in the White House right now has made such allegations (the horrifying associations of the man now in the White House with Russian intelligence, and therefore the origin and purpose of his absurd and America-weakening allegations, are shocking and important, but are an issue for another day.) There is also another bias that underpins Wikileaks sanctimony, and that resonates among many people: a libertarian conviction that the CIA and government institutions endanger personal freedom, rather than protect them. This view dangerously exalts the individual over the needs of all individuals, over society itself.

These anti-CIA charges and beliefs amount to smoke and errors: The critical truth that Wikileaks ignores, and undermines, is that the CIA and the U.S. intelligence community are held accountable for all their acts and programs including cyber penetration capabilitiesby the countrys laws and elected representatives in intelligence oversight committees in Congress; by incessant inspector general reviews of CIA operations and practices; by the laws of the land and the U.S. separation of the legislative, judicial and executive branches, and by placing budgetary control out of the hands of the institution itself. And, yes, also by a free press which recognizes the legitimacy of democratic controls on executive institutions, and does not set itself up as judge, jury and hangman, self-appointed representative of the general will. It is correct that the CIA on occasion has grievously erred: The CIA did torture; but it does not tap phones illegally; it never conducts espionage against American citizens; it is, in the end, always accountable before the law, which represents the will of the people. The allegation that the CIApart of the deep stateis working to undermine the president by tapping his phones (made by the man sitting in the White House himself) are based upon the conspiracy theories of the fascistic, anti-democratic and profoundly un-American far right, which demonizes institutions of law and democracy in favor of, well, what in another country and time was referred to as the mythical volkthe people, which, so goes the theory, only the leader can represent. But, there is no deep state. There are public institutions, responsive to and held accountable by, our elected representatives, our laws, and our separation of powers.

The Wikileaks crisis and the denigration of the integrity of the U.S. system of government brings us to an even larger issue for the United States than the manipulations and lies of Wikileaks and Russian intelligence. The legitimacy of oversight, and of our government, is undermined when the legislative branch (and potentially the judicial branch) oversight process is no longer separate from the individuals it is intended to oversee or from the executive branch, when individuals charged with the oversight function take actions that destroy the separation of powers between the Congressional oversight function and the executive branch that guarantee our democracy.

U.S. House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Representative Devin Nunes briefs reporters at the U.S. Capitol, March 24. Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Devin Nunes, has undermined the integrity of the oversight process by serving as a buffer and surrogate for the White House in the investigation of White House involvement with Russian intelligence. His recent surreptitious trip to the White House grounds to receiveso he claimsintelligence on the investigation into the associations of members of the Trump entourage with Russian intelligence whichagain, so he claimshe then briefed to the president but refuses to share with the House Intelligence Committee, has endangered the investigation, compromised the independence and impartiality of Congressional oversight of the Intelligence Community and executive branch. Worse still, his actions undermine the credibility of the separation of powers and the trustworthiness of the U.S. government.In comparison, the matter of Congressional oversight of the intelligence community fades to a secondary crisis.His shocking action surely constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor of official conduct calling for removal from office.

Nunes'actions, however, are part of the larger institutional, constitutional and even existential crisis in our government, of which the Wikileaks publication of the CIAs technical capabilities is only a small part. Caesar divorced his wife because her behavior had to be beyond even doubt; there is no doubt about what Devin Nuneshas done.As a result, the arguments of the cynics and critics of American democracy and intelligence services seem to be proven:Our institutions, branches of government, and even democracy cannot be trusted.

So, the Wikileaks publication of what appear to be CIA cyber capabilities is a catastrophe. It weakens the CIA and endangers the safety of American citizens, and the capability of the state to protect American blood and treasure. Far worse, it plays into the narrative that erodes the institutions of and faith in representative democracy in favor of a mishmash of libertarian selfishness, Russian intelligence disinformation, and fascist-based hostility to the organs of government (actually emanating from the White House!), that sap the strength of the United States, and of democracy itself.

No, Wikileaks is not your friend.

Glenn Carle, a retired CIA officer, was deputy national intelligence officer for transnational threats on the National Intelligence Council, responsible for the intelligence communitys most senior terrorism analyses from2003 to2007,and author ofThe Interrogator, which detailed his involvement in the interrogation of one of the top members of Al-Qaeda.

See the original post:
Wikileaks' CIA Dump and the Erosion of Democracy - Newsweek

Today is a great day for British democracy. One of the greatest ever, in fact. Tune out Project Fear, with its overblown claims that Brexit will cause economic collapse and possibly revive fascism, and just think about what is happening today. The largest democratic mandate in the history of this nation, the loudest, clearest, most populous democratic cry Britons have ever made, is finally being acted upon. The political class is starting the process of severing Britains ties with the EU not because it wants to it desperately doesnt want to but because a great swarm of its people have told it that it must. This is amazing. This is wonderful. This is democracy.

This is what generations of Britons fought for. From the Levellers of the 1640s who radically insisted that even the poorest he should have a say in politics to the working-class Chartists of the 19th century and the Suffragettes of the 20th, the ideal that animated every warrior for the franchise was precisely that ordinary people whatever their standing, whatever their education should have the right to determine their nations destiny.

Brexit follows in this radical democratic tradition. In fact it is its high point. The very sections of society that had to fight hard for the right to vote the poorest he; urban working-class men; women, particularly women over 50, a large majority of whom voted for Brexit made their political desires plain on 23 June last year. They said, in their millions, Lets leave. Brexit is not the handiwork of Ukip demagogues or buses with false promises on them. Its a result of decades and decades of the glorious expansion of the franchise to the kind of people who very often hold different ideas and values to Westminster. Brexit is the historic promise of democracy made real, made flesh.

What were witnessing in Britain today, with Theresa May triggering Article 50, is something radical: the political class is going against its own judgement under the duress of the demos. The polite, peaceful duress of the demos, it should be pointed out.

We know that 73 per cent of MPs want to stay in the EU. We know many in the House of Lords are horrified by Brexit and were keen to hold it up. We know 70 per cent of business leaders wanted Britain to remain, and that some of them launched costly legal battles to try to stymie the Brexit momentum. And yet in the end, all of them, every one, has had to roll over and give in to the masses: to the builders, nurses, teachers, mums, old blokes, unemployed people and others who effectively said to the political class: Youre wrong. We should leave. To the people surprised that such a state of affairs can exist, that the political set can be made to do something it doesnt want to by the mass of society, including even uneducated people: what did you think democracy meant? This is what it means.

I can understand why some people find this scary, this act of mass and rebellious democracy. To those who love the EU, and those who had come to think of democracy as the rather sedate business of picking a party once every four years, it must feel shocking and disorientating that 17.4million people have been able to cow the political class and change the nature and future of this nation. But personally I find it inspiring, enlivening, proof that the democratic ideal is in rude health. All the rather snotty things that have been said about the demos in recent years theyre apathetic, fearful, stuck in their ways have been magnificently disproven by Brexit. With its turnout of 72.2 per cent and its massive cry to rip up the 21st-century political rulebook, Brexit proved, once and for all, that Britains democratic citizens take their responsibilities seriously, and are willing to take huge political risks, and can think for themselves, rather than slavishly following the advice of their betters. Brexit showed that rumours of democracys death have been greatly exaggerated.

This isnt about being triumphalist over the 16.1million who voted for Remain. These are good people too, who also take their democratic duty incredibly seriously. No, its about being triumphalist about the fact that democracy survives, that in Britain in 2017 it is the people who decide. We should celebrate this. In St Marys Church in Putney in London, where the Levellers and other Parliamentarians in the Civil War met in 1647 to hammer out a pretty radical idea called democracy, the words of one Thomas Rainsborough are emblazoned on the wall: The poorest he that is in England hath a life to live as the greatest he. This is what Brexit means: recognition that the everyday, non-expert he and she ought to have as much clout in political decision-making as the greatest, most well-connected he. Happy Article 50 Day, everyone.

Read the original post:
A great day for British democracy | Coffee House - Spectator.co.uk (blog)

OMG save us from the divorce metaphor for Brexit.

The media are full of pundits comparing Britains triggering of the exit clause in the European Union treaties to the often messy process of a couple parting ways.

The Guardians Jon Henley turns Brexit into a melodrama. On a memorably stormy night last June, Britain decided its decades-long marriage with the EU had finally and irretrievably broken down, he wrote as British Prime Minister Theresa May sent the letter to start negotiations on Britains exit. Today, it files for divorce.

Chris Patten, a former British member of the European Commission, laments that the divorce is not going well, even though the proceedings have only just started. For good measure, he adds, as with any divorce, we can be fairly confident that it is the children does he mean British citizens? who will suffer the most.

Stuff and nonsense. Brexit is about power and sovereignty. It is about democracy, transparency and rule of law. It has nothing to do with a soap-opera divorce.

Britain and Europe a word in British English that historically referred to the Continent as a separate place have gone their separate ways for centuries.

Prime Minister Theresa May has officially triggered Article 50 of the EU's Lisbon Treaty and notified the bloc of the U.K.s intention to withdraw. WSJ's Jason Douglas explores the decisions, deals and conflicts that could arise over the next two years.

Geography and history divided Britain from the continent, making the island nation a latecomer to the European Communities, a reluctant member as the Common Market evolved toward a federal superstate, and finally, a sovereign nation with its own sovereign that refused to abdicate any further sovereignty to that German-dominated superstate.

Geopolitical analyst Leon Hadar, in an article titled How Germany Won World War II (in 2017), how the EU reality is at odds with the New York Times coronation of German Chancellor Angela Merkel as the liberal Wests last defender.

There is nothing liberal or democratic about a regional economic colossus dictating economic policies to weaker EU members, like Greece or Spain, who remain dependent on it, Hadar wrote this week in the National Interest, by forcing them to make structural reforms to their economies while simultaneously cutting down on spending and borrowing policies that are opposed by the majority of their citizens.

And Britain avoided a core aspect of that superstate-in-the-making a common currency EURUSD, +0.0186% like the plague. The pound sterling GBPUSD, +0.0322% financed world commerce for decades and never suffered the hyperinflation, collapse or reforms of continental currencies. Britain opted to keep the pound and its own central bank to preserve some economic sovereignty.

Also read Matt Lynn on How the triggering of Brexit will change Britain and Europe

In the coming months, France and Italy may indeed vote in euroskeptic leaders that at the very least would force radical reforms on the European Union, even if they would not actually succeed in taking their countries out of the EU or unraveling the whole European project.

But Brexit will remain sui generis because of Britains unique history as an island nation with its own far-flung empire.

What all the globalists and European federalists have been unable to accept is that it still makes a difference that Britain had an empire and retains a Commonwealth of 52 countries. Queen Elizabeth II is still sovereign not only for the United Kingdom and a clutch of Caribbean islands, but also of major nations like Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

Why would Britain want to be junior partner in a union where Germany makes all the rules?

It would be far better if Remain devotees in London and EU fanatics in Berlin and Brussels acknowledge that Britains half-in, half-out membership was never going to change and was never going to work, and get on with talks that will, as May wrote in her letter triggering Brexit, always put our citizens first.

No amount of scaremongering by the likes of Patten (the cliff beckons, the lemmings are lining up) or Sebastian Mallaby, a British journalist currently ensconced at the Council on Foreign Relations, (Mays ploddingly literal interpretation of the Brexit referendum is populism undiluted) can change the reality that Britain and the EU will have to come to terms if the EU actually survives after impending votes in France and Italy.

There were reports this week that Merkel has set up a secret Brexit task force to make sure Britain is unable to make any individual agreements, ostensibly to avoid any split in the 27 remaining states.

One would expect nothing less from a Berlin eager to preserve the benefits of the hegemony it enjoys in the EU. Germany did not hesitate to crucify Greece and force wrenching recessions on other peripheral countries in the EU, and has long since made it clear it intends to punish Britain for its temerity in leaving so that no other country will want to follow.

Germany was able to bully Greece, but it will find Britain a bigger challenge. This is not a divorce. It is not a war. It is not a moral battle for the soul of Europe. It is simply a new stage in the Realpolitik fighting for whats in the countrys best interests rather than an ideological goal that has marked Britains history with Europe.

Follow this link:
Opinion: Brexit isn't a soap-opera divorce it's democracy in action - MarketWatch