U.S. voters look to game election system by ‘trading’ ballots

A voter wears a shirt with words from the United States Constitution while casting his ballot early as long lines of voters vote at the San Diego County Elections Office in San Diego, California,

By Joseph Ax

NEW YORK (Reuters) – Sophy Warner wanted to vote for third-party U.S. presidential candidate Jill Stein. But she worried that her ballot, cast in the swing state of Ohio, might help Republican Donald Trump capture the White House.

Through the website “Trump Traders,” the 20-year-old biology student at Cleveland State University got in touch with Marc Baluda, 44, a Republican corporate lawyer in California who opposes Trump’s candidacy and planned to vote for Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.

The two strange bedfellows made a deal worthy of congressional horse-trading: Warner would vote for Clinton in Ohio, where polls show a tight race, while Baluda would cast a ballot for the Green Party candidate Stein in California, where Clinton is assured of winning the state’s electoral votes.

Tens of thousands of voters, the vast majority seeking to prevent a Trump presidency, have signed up on “vote-swapping” exchanges in advance of Tuesday’s Election Day. There is no way to verify the ballots are cast as agreed, though some people are taking “ballot selfies” in states where such photos are legal.

The swaps take advantage of a unique feature of U.S. presidential elections. The winner is decided not by the national popular vote. Rather, the outcome depends on what are known as electoral votes, which are awarded to the victor of each state’s presidential election, with rare exception.

The overall electoral vote winner becomes president, and the national contest thus often comes down to votes in a handful of states.

“Swing states” such as Ohio are hotly contested because their voters can swing either to Republicans or Democrats year after year and so play a decisive role. By contrast, pollsters view states such as California as reliably Democratic.

40,000 MATCHES

Trump Traders had matched 40,000 voters as of Monday, according to co-founder John Stubbs. Although that may be a small fraction of the electorate, a few hundred votes could make a difference in a state where the race is close.

The practice appears to be legal. In 2007, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco ruled that swapping votes is a protected form of free speech, even if some disagreed with the tactic.

Vote trading first gained attention in 2000, when some voters sought to ensure Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate, did not siphon off enough support from Democrat Al Gore to hand the election to Republican George W. Bush.

The so-called “Nader Traders” failed when Bush famously won the election after capturing Florida by only 537 votes. Nader drew more than 97,000 votes there.

Stein and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson together are drawing nearly 7 percent in opinion polls, far more than normal for those parties and enough to raise the specter of another Nader-style outcome in 2016.

The digital exchanges seek to solve a quadrennial conundrum for voters “trapped” in one of the 40 or so noncompetitive states: how can I make my vote count?

For supporters of third-party candidates like Stein and Johnson who have almost no chance of capturing electoral votes, however, all that matters is their raw national totals.

That difference is what allows the type of vote trading that occurs on Trump Traders and #NeverTrump, a mobile app launched this fall by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Amit Kumar.

“Living in California, our votes aren’t that important in determining who wins,” he said in a phone interview.

Kumar said the app has been downloaded 20,000 times, with around 8,000 active users.

Trump Traders’ Stubbs, a Republican, said technology advances since 2000, including social networking sites and mobile phones, made vote-trading exponentially easier.

For Republican voters like Baluda, even saying aloud that he is supporting Clinton is difficult. But he said he had no regrets about trying to maximize the power of his vote by commoditizing it.

“Votes do matter, and Floridians found that out 16 years ago,” he said.

(Reporting by Joseph Ax; Editing by Howard Goller)

For the Future of America, Friends of Jim Bakker Speak Out!

The time is short before this historical election comes to an end, and the future of the United States of America hangs in the balance.  The fight to make our country strong will begin as each voter arrives at their polling place stands up for the morals that, as Christians, we have watched rapidly deteriorate.  The safety of this nation and the future nation that we leave for our children is on the line.  As a whole, we have passively trusted our government.

NOW is the time for us to show that as believers our votes count!

Please watch this video  of some of the most influential Christian teachers in America and friends of  The Jim Bakker Show and hear what they have to say about this election!  

Please be praying for God’s blessings as we fight for what is right at the polls!  

PLEASE VOTE!!!

Australia turns down national vote on same-sex marriage

Gay rights activists hold a rainbow flag during a rally to support same-sex marriage in central Sydney August

SYDNEY (Reuters) – Australia’s bid to hold a national vote on whether to legalize same-sex marriage was defeated on Monday in the upper house of parliament, or Senate, potentially delaying legal unions for years.

The proposal to hold the vote, or plebiscite, in February next year was voted down in the Senate by 33 votes to 29.

Australia’s center-right coalition government, led by Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull, in August voted to take the issue of legalizing same-sex marriage to a national poll.

The bill required the support of some opposition lawmakers because Turnbull’s Liberal-National coalition has only a one-vote majority in the lower house of parliament and does not have a majority in the upper house.

The rejection is a blow to Turnbull, who has seen his popularity wane amid frustration that he has failed to live up to his progressive reputation.

Australian Attorney-General George Brandis had warned that a defeat would result in delaying same sex marriage in Australia for years to come.

In opposing the vote, the opposition Labor Party said it would have resulted in harmful debate against the gay and lesbian community and instead sought a direct vote in Parliament.

“Now that the plebiscite legislation is dead, we again call marriage equality supporters across all political parties to work together to find a pathway,” said Alex Greenwich, co-chair of rights group Australian Marriage Equality.

“It’s time our parliamentarians found a fair and dignified pathway that ensures every Australian is treated equally.”        There have only been three plebiscites in Australian history, two relating to conscription during World War I, and one to choose a national song in 1977.

Same-sex marriage is supported by 61 percent of Australians, a Gallup poll in August found.

Several independent MPs had already ruled out supporting the national plebiscite on same-sex marriage. A rejection by the center-left Labor party, which wants same-sex marriages legalized by parliament, ended any hope the plebiscite bill could pass.    A plebiscite represented an “unnecessary detour … through difficult terrain,” Janet Rice, the Greens Party spokeswoman for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex affairs, told reporters.

“It is at least insensitive to the LGBT community … and at best, it will result in divisive hurtful campaigning with no guarantee of progressing marriage equality,” she added.

(Reporting by James Regan; Editing by Clarence Fernandez)

U.S. vote authorities warned to be alert to Russian hacks faking fraud: officials

Sample ballot

By David Rohde and Mark Hosenball

(Reuters) – U.S. intelligence and law enforcement officials are warning that hackers with ties to Russia’s intelligence services could try to undermine the credibility of the presidential election by posting documents online purporting to show evidence of voter fraud.

The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said however, that the U.S. election system is so large, diffuse and antiquated that hackers would not be able to change the outcome of the Nov. 8 election.

But hackers could post documents, some of which might be falsified, that are designed to create public perceptions of widespread voter fraud, the officials said.

They said that they did not have specific evidence of such a plan, but state and local election authorities had been warned to be vigilant for hacking attempts.

On Oct. 7, the U.S. government formally accused Russia for the first time of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations to interfere with the election process.

U.S. officials familiar with hacking directed against American voting systems said evidence indicates that suspected Russian government-backed hackers have so far tried to attack voter registration databases operated by more than 20 states. Tracing the attacks can be difficult but breaches of only two such databases have been confirmed, they said.

The officials said there is no evidence that any hackers have succeeded in accessing equipment or databases used to record votes. Many states use systems that would be difficult to hack or defraud, including paper ballots which initially are tallied by machines.

U.S. elections are run by state and local officials, not the federal government. On Nov. 8, votes will be cast in hundreds of thousands of polling stations in 9,000 different jurisdictions, according to the National Association of Secretaries of State.

The U.S. officials declined to comment on Republican candidate Donald Trump’s contention that the election is being “rigged.” Trump said in the third and final presidential debate with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton on Wednesday night that he would not say until the election results were known whether or not he would accept the outcome.

Trump and his campaign officials have repeatedly said that the potential for voter fraud remains high but they have not provided any evidence.

On Thursday, Trump said he would accept the results of the election “if I win.” He said he reserved the “right to contest or file a legal challenge in the case of a questionable result.”

Clinton supporters said Trump is unwittingly aiding an effort by Russian President Vladimir Putin to undercut the credibility of the vote. Washington and Moscow are at odds over several issues, from Russian involvement in the Ukraine conflict, the war in Syria and cyber attacks.

“Trump does not even know he is being manipulated,” said Michael Morell, a former deputy CIA director who has endorsed Clinton. “Trump is an unwitting agent of Putin.”

(Reporting By David Rohde in New York and Mark Hosenball; in Washington; editing by Grant McCool)

‘No doubt’ Russia behind hacks on U.S. election system: senior Democrat

Vice Presidential debate in Virginia

By Dustin Volz

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A senior Democratic lawmaker said Sunday he had “no doubt” that Russia was behind recent hacking attempts targeting state election systems, and urged the Obama administration to publicly blame Moscow for trying to undermine confidence in the Nov. 8 presidential contest.

The remarks from Representative Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee in the U.S. House of Representatives, come amid heightened concerns among U.S. and state officials about the security of voting machines and databases, and unsubstantiated allegations from Republican candidate Donald Trump that the election could be “rigged.”

“I have no doubt [this is Russia]. And I don’t think the administration has any doubt,” Schiff said during an appearance on ABC’s “This Week.”

Schiff’s call to name and shame the Kremlin came a week after Trump questioned widely held conclusions made privately by the U.S. intelligence community that Russia is responsible for the hacking activity.

“It could be Russia, but it could also be China,” Trump said during a televised debate with Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton. “It also could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds.”

On Saturday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said hackers have probed the voting systems of many U.S. states but there is no sign that they have manipulated any voting data.

Schiff said he doubted hackers could falsify vote tallies in a way to affect the election outcome. Officials and experts have said the decentralized and outdated nature of U.S. voting technology makes such hacks more unlikely.

But cyber attacks on voter registration systems could “sow discord” on election day, Schiff said. He further added that leaks of doctored emails would be difficult to disprove and could “be election altering.”

The National Security Agency, FBI and DHS all concluded weeks ago that Russian intelligence agencies conducted, directed or coordinated all the major cyberattacks on U.S. political organizations, including the Democratic National Committee, and individuals, a U.S. official who is participating in the investigations said on Sunday.

However, the official said, White House officials have resisted naming the Russians publicly because doing so could result in escalating cyberattacks, and because it is considered impossible to offer public, unclassified proof of the allegation.

Schiff and Senator Dianne Feinstein, the top Democrat on the U.S. Senate intelligence committee, said last month they had concluded Russian intelligence agencies were “making a serious and concerted effort to influence the U.S. election.”

(Reporting by Dustin Volz and John Walcott; Editing by Nick Zieminski)

Kansas, ACLU reach temporary agreement on voter ID

Kris Kobach, Kansas Secretary of State

(Recasts to show that judge has canceled contempt of court hearing scheduled for Friday, adds comment by Kansas secretary of state)

Sept 29 (Reuters) – The Kansas Secretary of State and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) have reached a temporary agreement over the state’s voter registration laws, keeping Kansas’ chief elections officer from a contempt of court hearing, according to court documents filed on Thursday.

The deal between Secretary of State Kris Kobach and the ACLU comes six weeks before the U.S. presidential election.

The two sides have been at odds over a Kansas law requiring people to prove American citizenship if they want to register to vote while applying for a driver’s license. Critics say this requirement disenfranchises voters, especially minorities.

The deal will allow people who registered at motor vehicle offices or with a federal form without providing citizenship documents to vote in the Nov. 8 election with a standard ballot, rather than be forced to use a provisional one, the ACLU and Kobach said in a status report filed on Thursday.

Kobach will also clarify his office’s website to help voters find information more easily, according to the report filed to U.S. District Judge Julie Robinson.

Robinson had ordered Kobach, a Republican, to explain by Thursday why he should not be held in contempt for failing to obey a federal order issued in May.

That order required him to register people who applied to vote at motor vehicle offices or with a federal form without proof of citizenship.

Robinson canceled the contempt hearing scheduled for Friday, according to her own court filing, citing the ACLU and Kobach’s agreement.

“Our case is ongoing, but this interim agreement is a critical victory for Kansans who want to vote in the November election. It is a shame that voters had to fight so hard to get Kris Kobach to do his job,” ACLU attorney Orion Danjuma said in a statement.

Kobach said he was pleased an agreement had been reached, but criticized the ACLU.

“The ACLU’s argument was weak at best. However, at this point the preparations for the November 8, 2016, general election must proceed with rules established to ensure the efficient administration of the election,” he said in a statement.

Kansas’ law, among the strictest voter identification statutes in the country, is defended by Republicans who say the rules are meant to prevent voter fraud.

On Tuesday, a Kansas state judge issued a separate ruling extending voting rights through the Nov. 8 election of about 17,500 people who registered to vote at motor vehicle offices.

(Reporting by Timothy Mclaughlin in Chicago; Editing by Matthew
Lewis)

Bloomberg: Trump and Netanyahu Discuss Border Fence, Status of Jerusalem

By Ben Brody

Donald Trump “discussed at length Israel’s successful experience with a security fence that helped secure its borders” during a meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that lasted longer than an hour, according to a statement from the Republican presidential nominee’s campaign.

Trump’s proposal to build a wall on the U.S. border with Mexico as way to confront illegal immigration has become a cornerstone of his campaign, although the statement did not say whether he drew direct parallels with Israel’s border fence, which is meant to combat terrorism.

The real estate investor also “acknowledged that Jerusalem has been the eternal capital of the Jewish People for over 3000 years, and that the United States, under a Trump administration, will finally accept the long-standing Congressional mandate to recognize Jerusalem as the undivided capital of the State of Israel,” his campaign said after Sunday’s meeting.

Read the full article at Bloomberg.com

Senate clears way for $1.15 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia

battle tank

By Patricia Zengerle

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate cleared the way for a $1.15 billion sale of tanks and other military equipment to Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, defending a frequent partner in the Middle East recently subject to harsh criticism in Congress.

The Senate voted 71 to 27 to kill legislation that would have stopped the sale.

The overwhelming vote stopped an effort led by Republican Senator Rand Paul and Democratic Senator Chris Murphy to block the deal over concerns including Saudi Arabia’s role in the 18-month-long war in Yemen and worries that it might fuel an ongoing regional arms race.

The Pentagon announced on Aug. 9 that the State Department had approved the potential sale of more than 130 Abrams battle tanks, 20 armored recovery vehicles and other equipment to Saudi Arabia.

The Defense Security Cooperation Agency said General Dynamics Corp would be the principal contractor for the sale.

Paul, Murphy and other opponents of the arms deal were sharply critical of the Riyadh government during debate before the vote, citing Yemen, the kingdom’s human rights record and its international support for a conservative form of Islam.

“If you’re serious about stopping the flow of extremist recruiting across this globe, then you have to be serious that the … brand of Islam that is spread by Saudi Arabia all over the world, is part of the problem,” Murphy said.

The criticism came days before lawmakers are expected to back another measure seen as anti-Saudi, a bill that would allow lawsuits against the country’s government by relatives of victims of the Sept. 11 attacks.

President Barack Obama has promised to veto that bill, but congressional leaders say there is a strong chance that lawmakers will override the veto and let the measure become law. Overriding a presidential veto requires a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.

In Yemen, where a Saudi-led coalition is battling Iranian-allied Houthis, the Houthis have accused the United States of arming and supporting the Saudis, who intervened on the side of Yemen’s exiled government.

The war has killed over 10,000 people and displaced more than 3 million.

But backers of the deal said Saudi Arabia is an important U.S. ally in a war-torn region, deserving of U.S. support.

“This motion comes at a singularly unfortunate time and would serve to convince Saudi Arabia and all other observers that the United States does not live up to its commitments,” Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said.

(Reporting by Patricia Zengerle; Editing by Grant McCool and Sandra Maler)

Supreme Court stance on North Carolina law to send signal on voting limits

Pamphlet about Voter ID Law

By Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court’s handling of North Carolina’s long-shot bid to reinstate its contentious voter identification law will set the tone for the court’s treatment of similar cases that could reach the justices before the Nov. 8 elections.

Voter identification laws were adopted by several states in recent years, generally driven by Republicans who said the laws were meant to prevent election fraud. Democrats have argued that the laws were meant to keep minorities, who tend to vote for Democrats, away from the polls. Civil rights groups have challenged the laws in court.

The Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on July 29 invalidated the North Carolina law, ruling that it intentionally discriminated against minority voters.

Attorneys for North Carolina Governor Pat McCrory, a Republican, filed court papers late on Monday with Chief Justice John Roberts, seeking restoration of parts of the law and arguing the appeals court was wrong to set it aside so close to the election.

The Supreme Court rarely grants such emergency requests, and is even less likely to do so now because it is down to only eight justices, rather than the usual nine, following the February death of conservative Justice Antonin Scalia.

He was a likely vote to put the North Carolina law back in place for the election. But the court is now split evenly between liberals and conservatives.

“With a 4-4 court they are going to be very reticent (to intervene), whatever the topic,” said Rick Hasen, an election law expert at University of California, Irvine School of Law.

The vote of moderate liberal Justice Stephen Breyer could be key. Last month, he cast the deciding vote on a case involving a transgender student wanting to use the boys’ restroom at school. Saying he did so as a courtesy to his colleagues, Breyer voted to block a lower court decision in the student’s favor. This led some legal experts to say Breyer could vote this way again.

In 2014, the high court let some parts of the North Carolina law take effect for that year’s election. It acted similarly on a Texas voter identification law. Breyer did not publicly dissent in either case, unlike some of his liberal colleagues.

Opponents of the North Carolina law say the state’s argument about precipitous disruption of election law is weak, arguing that the 4th Circuit ruling left plenty of time for election workers to train on operating without voter ID in place.

Allison Riggs, an attorney for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, a civil rights group that challenged the law, also noted that the state waited 17 days to file its Supreme Court application.

The North Carolina law, which also limited early voting and prevented residents from registering and voting on the same day, was enacted in 2013.

Whatever the high court does is likely to signal how it would act in any other voting controversies before the election.

In recent weeks, courts have handed wins to voting rights advocates in several states, including Wisconsin and Texas. Some of those disputes could also reach the high court before the election.

North Carolina’s application does not seek to reinstate all elements of the law prior to the election, meaning some provisions, including a ban on same-day registration, will not be in effect whatever the high court does.

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Jonathan Oatis)

‘Explosive shock’ as Britain votes to leave EU, Cameron quits

Celebrating Britain leaving the EU

By Guy Faulconbridge and Kate Holton

LONDON (Reuters) – Britain voted to leave the European Union, forcing the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron and dealing the biggest blow to the European project of greater unity since World War Two.

Global financial markets plunged on Friday as results from a referendum showed a 52-48 percent victory for the campaign to leave a bloc Britain joined more than 40 years ago.

The pound fell as much as 10 percent against the dollar to touch levels last seen in 1985, on fears the decision could hit investment in the world’s fifth-largest economy, threaten London’s role as a global financial capital and usher in months of political uncertainty.

World stocks headed for one of the biggest slumps on record, and billions of dollars were wiped off the value of European companies. Britain’s big banks took a $130 billion battering, with Lloyds <LLOY.L> and Barclays <BARC.L> falling as much as 30 percent at the opening of trade.

The United Kingdom itself could now break apart, with the leader of Scotland – where nearly two-thirds of voters wanted to stay in the EU – saying a new referendum on independence from the rest of Britain was “highly likely”.

An emotional Cameron, who led the “Remain” campaign to defeat, losing the gamble he took when he called the referendum three years ago, said he would leave office by October.

“The British people have made the very clear decision to take a different path and as such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction,” he said in a televised address outside his residence.

“I do not think it would be right for me to be the captain that steers our country to its next destination,” he added, choking back tears before walking back through 10 Downing Street’s black door with his arm around his wife Samantha.

Quitting the EU could cost Britain access to the EU’s trade barrier-free single market and means it must seek new trade accords with countries around the world.

The EU for its part will be economically and politically damaged, facing the departure of a member with its biggest financial center, a U.N. Security Council veto, a powerful army and nuclear weapons. In one go, the bloc will lose around a sixth of its economic output.

“It’s an explosive shock. At stake is the break up pure and simple of the union,” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said. “Now is the time to invent another Europe.”

The result emboldened eurosceptics in other member states, with French National Front leader Marine Le Pen and Dutch far-right leader Geert Wilders demanding their countries also hold referendums. Le Pen changed her Twitter profile picture to a Union Jack and declared “Victory for freedom!”

The vote will initiate at least two years of divorce proceedings with the EU, the first exit by any member state. Cameron – who has been premier for six years and called the referendum in a bid to head off pressure from domestic eurosceptics – said it would be up to his successor to formally start the exit process.

His Conservative Party rival Boris Johnson, the former London mayor who became the most recognizable face of the “Leave” camp, is now widely tipped to seek his job.

Johnson left his home to jeers from a crowd in the mainly pro-EU capital. He spoke to reporters at Leave campaign headquarters, taking no questions on his personal ambitions.

“We can find our voice in the world again, a voice that is commensurate with the fifth-biggest economy on Earth,” he said.

‘INDEPENDENCE DAY’

There was euphoria among Britain’s eurosceptic forces, claiming a victory over the political establishment, big business and foreign leaders including U.S. President Barack Obama who had urged Britain to stay in.

“Let June 23 go down in our history as our independence day,” said Nigel Farage, leader of the eurosceptic UK Independence Party, describing the EU as “doomed” and “dying”.

On the continent, politicians reacted with dismay.

“It looks like a sad day for Europe and Britain,” said German foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier. His boss Angela Merkel invited the French and Italian leaders to Berlin to discuss future steps.

The shock hits a European bloc already reeling from a euro zone debt crisis, unprecedented mass migration and confrontation with Russia over Ukraine. Anti-immigrant and anti-EU political parties have been surging across the continent, loosening the grip of the center-left and center-right establishment that has governed Europe for generations.

U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump, whose own rise has been fueled by similar disenchantment with the political establishment, called the vote a “great thing”. Britons “took back control of their country”, he said in Scotland where he was opening a golf resort. He criticized Obama for telling Britons how to vote, and drew a comparison with his own campaign.

“I see a big parallel,” he said. “People want to take their country back.”

American Vice President Joe Biden said the United States would have preferred Britain to remain in the EU, but respected the decision.

Britain has always been ambivalent about its relations with the rest of post-war Europe. A firm supporter of free trade, tearing down internal economic barriers and expanding the EU to take in ex-communist eastern states, it opted out of joining the euro single currency or the Schengen border-free zone.

Cameron’s ruling Conservatives in particular have harbored a vocal anti-EU wing for generations, and it was partly to silence such figures that he called the referendum in 2013.

When he called the referendum, he thought it would be a sure thing. But the 11th hour decision of Johnson – a schoolmate from the same elite private boarding school – to come down on the side of Leave gave the exit campaign a credible voice.

Even until the last minute, bookmakers and financial markets had overwhelmingly predicted a Remain vote.

World leaders including Obama, Chinese President Xi Jinping, German Chancellor Angela Merkel, NATO and Commonwealth governments had all urged a “Remain” vote, saying Britain would be stronger and more influential in the EU than outside.

The four-month campaign was among the divisive ever waged in Britain, with accusations of lying and scare-mongering on both sides and rows over immigration which critics said at times unleashed overt racism.

It revealed deep splits in British society, with the pro-Brexit side drawing support from millions of voters who felt left behind by globalization and blamed EU immigration for low wages and stretched public services.

At the darkest hour, a pro-EU member of parliament was stabbed and shot to death in the street. The suspect later told a court his name was “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”.

Older voters backed Brexit; the young mainly wanted to stay in. London and Scotland supported the EU, but wide swathes of middle England, which have not shared in the capital’s prosperity, voted to leave.

THREAT OF UK BREAK-UP

The United Kingdom itself now faces a threat to its survival. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said it was “democratically unacceptable” for Scotland to be dragged out of the EU against its will.

“It is a statement of the obvious that the option of a second referendum must be on the table and it is on the table,” she told reporters, two years after Scots voted to stay in the United Kingdom. “I think an independence referendum is now highly likely.”

The global financial turmoil was the worst shock since the 2008 economic crisis, and comes at a time when interest rates around the world are already at or near zero, leaving policymakers without the usual tools to respond.

The body blow to global confidence could prevent the Federal Reserve from raising interest rates as planned this year, and might even provoke a new round of emergency policy easing from all major central banks, despite their limited options.

The Bank of England pledged a huge financial backstop to calm plunging markets. Governor Mark Carney said it was offering to provide more than 250 billion pounds ($347 billion) plus “substantial” foreign currency liquidity and it was ready to take additional measures if needed.

Other central banks around the globe also intervened in markets. The European Central Bank said it was ready to provide euro and foreign currency liquidity if necessary.

Left unclear is the relationship Britain can negotiate with the EU once it leaves.

To retain access to the single market, vital for its giant financial services sector, London may have to adopt all EU regulation without having a say in its shaping, contribute to Brussels coffers, and continue to allow free movement as Norway and Switzerland do – all things the Leave campaign vowed to end.

EU officials have said UK-based banks and financial firms would lose automatic access to sell services across Europe if Britain ceased to apply the EU principles of free movement of goods, capital, services and people.

Huge questions also face the millions of British expatriates who live freely elsewhere in the bloc and enjoy equal access to health and other benefits, as well as millions of EU citizens who live and work in Britain.

(Additional reporting by William James, Kylie MacLellan, Sarah Young, Alistair Smout, Costas Pitas, Andy Bruce and David Milliken; Writing by Mark John and Pravin Char; Editing by Peter Graff)