World
Istanbul airport blasts: 36 killed; Turkish PM blames IS
Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim on Wednesday blamed the Islamic State (IS) for the bombing attacks that killed 36 people and injured 60 others at Istanbul's Ataturk Airport on Tuesday night, the media reported.
 
Addressing the press at the airport, the premier said the attacks were carried out by three suicide bombers and all blew themselves up, Xinhua news agency reported.
 
US officials said the attack bears the hallmarks of IS because of the target and method, CNN reported.
 
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the attack should serve as a turning point in the global fight against militant groups, BBC reported. 
 
"The bombs that exploded in Istanbul could have gone off at any airport in any city around the world," Erdogan said.
 
Turkish Justice Minister Bekir Bozdag said earlier in Ankara that one terrorist opened fire with a Kalashnikov rifle and then blew himself up.
 
A Turkish official was quoted as saying on Twitter that the vast majority of casualties are Turkish citizens, with foreigners among the dead and wounded.
 
The police have closed the entrances and exits of the airport, and some inbound flights to the airport have been diverted in the aftermath of the attacks, press reports said.
 
Prime Minister Binali Yildirim has ordered the formation of a crisis desk.
 
Kerem Kinik, the head of Turkish Red Crescent, has appealed for blood donation.
 
The security situation in Turkey has deteriorated over the past year, with Istanbul, the national capital of Ankara and other cities having already been hit by a number of bombing attacks.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
  

 

User

Queen Elizabeth in line for pay rise
Britain's Queen Elizabeth is set to receive a $ 72,000 a week pay rise, an official report revealed.
 
The Queen's income is based on a percentage of money earned by the Crown Estate, one of the wealthiest real estate owners in Britain, Xinhua news agency reported.
 
In its annual report issued on Tuesday, the Crown Estate disclosed that it has delivered a record $405 million to the Treasury in the past year.
 
Unless the current formula is altered, it will mean that in 2017 the Queen's pay packet will be almost $61 million, 6.5 per cent higher than the %57 million she is receiving this year, and representing a 57 per cent increase over what was paid in 2012.
 
The sum is worked out by paying to the Queen 15 per cent of the surplus made by the Royal Estate, paid two years in arrears.
 
The figure can only be changed by three royal trustees, the Prime Minister, Chancellor of the Exchequer and Alan Reid, who has the title of the Queen's Keeper of the Privy Purse.
 
The three are currently in the process of a review which could affect the amount due to the monarch next year, a government official said.
 
A spokesman at Buckingham Palace said that it was too early to speculate on what the result would be or what amount the Queen would receive for 2017-18.
 
The report also showed the monarchy cost British taxpayers $53.5 million in 2015-16, with more than $21 million spent on the upkeep of royal households such as Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle, as well as other royal households and buildings.
 
The 90-year-old Queen and the royal family's official travel cost the taxpayer $5.4 million in the past year, a reduction of more than $1 million compared to 2015.
 
The Crown Estate owns London's Regent Street as well as the entire seabed around Great Britain. It also owns Windsor Great Park, and Ascot's famous racecourse, as well as estates and properties in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and across England.
 
The office of the Crown Estate was started in 1760 when it was agreed that surplus revenue from the crown's estate would go to the Government Treasury. In return reigning monarchs receive an annual payment, 15 per cent of the annual surplus of the estate to support official royal duties.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
  

 

User

Cameron has left Europe and the global community floundering
British Prime Minister David Cameron's exit speech, with his quivering lower lip, won praise from some in the social media. Very quickly, however, sentiments changed with the recognition that it was his disastrous decision, coupled with bad timing and strategic misreading of sentiment, that plunged global markets into turmoil and uncertainty. Across the globe, the reaction quickly moved from shock and horror to ridicule and contempt.
 
Through the years that the UK has been part of the EU, it has, at best, done so in a half-hearted and hesitant manner. In Churchill's admission to General de Gaulle, the UK preferred the open sea to Europe if it was forced to make a choice. That sentiment has never wavered. Indeed, even though the European Coal and Steel Community [ECSC] was set up in 1951, through the Treaty of Paris, after World War II to unify a devastated Europe, it was only in 1961 that Britain applied to join the European Economic Community that the ECSC had evolved into. It took over a decade, thereafter, for Britain to join the EEC.
 
Even at that time, the British were not convinced of the gains of joining and it was only through a referendum, in 1975, that Labour Prime Minister Harold Wilson renegotiated and won Britain's membership. Cameron hoped to emulate his illustrious predecessor but failed to read the innumerable warning signs.
 
Indeed, in October last year, The Economist magazine, in an article titled "The Reluctant European", predicted that thanks to Europe's migration crisis and the euro mess, there was a realistic possibility of a majority of Britons wanting out if a referendum was held.
 
The real reasons behind the exit vote are yet to be fully analyzed and understood, though three things are clear: first, 58 percent of those who wanted to leave were 65 years old and more; second, Northern Ireland and Scotland want to stay in the EU; and third, London voted against Brexit.
 
Those who wanted out, as per statements published in social media, are reported to have blamed the influx of migrants, especially from Islamic countries and the on-going Syrian crisis; the volatile euro; the deepening financial crisis in several European countries such as Greece and Portugal; the aggressive Brussels bureaucracy and the loss of sovereignty.
 
The full implications of Brexit are yet to be fully understood and would, in large part, need to be negotiated between London and the EU member states. However, in the aftermath of the vote, the immediate consequence is one of significant uncertainty and hence confusion.
 
Northern Ireland and Scotland have already voiced views about breaking away from the UK. Bizarrely, lobbying has started within the UK for London to remain a part of the EU! To confound confusion, there is talk of a second referendum!
 
Ultra-rightest lobbies are likely to capitalize on the vote and given how emotive the migration issue is, there is genuine fear that disintegrative forces would be unleashed. A gloating Marine Le Pen of France has already said that the UK has started a movement that will not stop. There is credible anxiety of the contagion spreading and threatening the very idea of European integration and unity.
 
The exit vote, as per Article 50 of EU Law, requires that within two years, a new relationship between the EU and the UK has to be negotiated. This is not as simple as it sounds. Will a post-Brexit Britain be excluded from the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership? Does the UK go it alone in the WTO? What happens to EU nationals working in the UK and vice versa? These are only some of the multiple questions that have been thrown up.
 
The annoyance at the vote is considerable and though Cameron has said that he will step down only later in the year, when the party elects a new Prime Minister, there is pressure to commence the negotiations immediately and begin the process of clarity.
 
German Chancellor Angela Merket, known for her sagacity and far-sightedness, clearly anticipated this and, immediately after the vote, convened a meeting of the six founding states -- Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands -- to gauge the sentiment on next steps. She cautioned against a quick divorce and said that while there needs to be clear roadmap, rushing into an exit was unwarranted. This was in sharp contrast to the position taken by the EU president, who wanted the UK out and fast.
 
These are difficult times and once again, all eyes will turn to Merkel's cool head to steer the dangerously damaged EU ship. What an extraordinary development that it is Germany, post-World War II, that has emerged as the ultimate European!
 
Perhaps the most remarkable tragedy is not that Britain is isolated or that the global economy is in turmoil but rather that when the majority of persons who voted for out were senior citizens, it is the young in the UK who would be denied the opportunity of taking advantage of the opportunities that EU offers. They would be the biggest losers. Perhaps the British Prime Minister ought to have gauged the implications with greater sobriety.
 
Cameron might have hoped to go down in history. He will, most certainly, do so but it is least likely that the biographies would be kind. As democracies, we are aware of the importance of respecting the will of the people. But democratic governance is also responsible governance. If anything, the timing of the referendum was an irresponsible and strategic blunder. Cameron didn't just let down the UK, he let Europe and the global community floundering. This surely was not the mark of statesmanship.
 
Disclaimer: Information, facts or opinions expressed in this news article are presented as sourced from IANS and do not reflect views of Moneylife and hence Moneylife is not responsible or liable for the same. As a source and news provider, IANS is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.

User

We are listening!

Solve the equation and enter in the Captcha field.
  Loading...
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email
Close

To continue


Please
Sign Up or Sign In
with

Email

BUY NOW

The Scam
24 Year Of The Scam: The Perennial Bestseller, reads like a Thriller!
Moneylife Magazine
Fiercely independent and pro-consumer information on personal finance
Stockletters in 3 Flavours
Outstanding research that beats mutual funds year after year
MAS: Complete Online Financial Advisory
(Includes Moneylife Magazine and Lion Stockletter)