https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-protests-london-riots-unrest-far-right-boris-johnson-no-deal-a9095161.html

Far-right groups are threatening to riot over Brexit amid warnings that some of Boris Johnson’s language is “calling to” nationalists. The Metropolitan Police said it was “ready to share resources across the country” if disorder breaks out at protests planned for Saturday... The protests were organised amid a surge in anger over parliament’s moves to prevent a no-deal Brexit with a bill that was approved by the House of Lords on Friday. Extremists using numerous far-right channels on the encrypted Telegram messaging app calling MPs who backed the bill “traitors” and “scum” while planning rallies...

... Senior police officers have been calling for politicians and other political figures to avoid worsening tensions with inflammatory language. Martin Hewitt, chair of the National Police Chiefs’ Council, issued a warning over the “incredibly febrile atmosphere”. “If you’re in a position where you know you’re going to be listened to, you need to be very careful about the language you are using so it doesn’t end up with consequences that weren’t intended,” he urged...

... Experts said the prime minister and some other pro-Brexit politicians were “using the language of the far right” and playing into extremist narratives. Chloe Colliver, who leads the digital research unit at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue think-tank, said that by using the phrase “surrender bill” and positioning himself as enacting the “will of the people”, Mr Johnson was “calling successfully to a nationalist interpretation of the Brexit debate”. “It seems very purposeful to me and it really harks back to the Second World War nostalgia in this debate, which plays powerfully to the far right and nationalist groups,” she told The Independent...

... Mr Johnson is currently receiving substantial support from key far-right figures, including former Britain First leader Jayda Fransen, who praised him for “purging the traitors” in his party and called on others to fall behind him. The operators of Tommy Robinson’s official Telegram channel called on people to “back Boris”, while supporters shared memes depicting him as Winston Churchill. Ms Colliver warned that if the far right feel Mr Johnson is “in their corner”, it may reduce unrest in the short term but make them feel that their ideals have mainstream support. She said the political stalemate over Brexit was undermining faith in democratic processes, and being “used to channel violent undemocratic objectives to a newly broad and receptive audience in the UK.” ...

https://www.cherokee.org/media/abbelmas/constitution_english.pdf
...
Article VII. Executive, SECTION 1. The executive power shall be vested in a Principal Chief, who shall be styled “The Principal Chief of the Cherokee Nation”. The Principal Chief shall hold office for a term of four (4) years. No person having been elected to the office of Principal Chief in two (2) consecutive elections shall be eligible to file for the office of Principal Chief in the election next following his or her second term of office. The Principal Chief shall be elected by the registered voters on the same day and in the same manner, except as otherwise provided by this Constitution, as they shall respectively vote for members of the Council in the year 2003 and every four years thereafter...
...
Article VI. Legislative, Section 10. Every enactment which shall have been approved by a majority of the members in attendance at the Council shall, before it becomes effective be presented to the Principal Chief, who may approve the enactment by signing it; if not, the Principal Chief shall return it with objections to the Council, which shall enter the objections in the Journal and proceed to reconsider it. If, after such reconsideration, two-thirds (2/3) of the entire council shall agree to pass the enactment, it shall become fully effective and operational notwithstanding the objections of veto of the Principal Chief. In all such cases, the vote of the Council shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the members voting shall be entered on the Council's Journal. If any enactment shall not be returned by the Principal Chief within five (5) days (Sundays and holidays excepted) after it shall have been presented, the same shall be law in like manner as if approved by the Principal Chief.
...
SECTION 12. In accordance with Article 12 of the Treaty with the Cherokees, dated November 28, 1785 (Treaty of Hopewell), and Article 7 of the Treaty with the Cherokees dated December 29, 1835 (Treaty of New Echota), there shall be created the office of Delegate to the United States House of Representatives, appointed by the Principal Chief and confirmed by the Council. The Delegate shall be a citizen of the Nation and upon recognition by the United States shall be seated in accordance with federal law. The Delegate shall endeavor to participate in congressional activities and shall at all times advocate the best interests of the Cherokee People...

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-delay-extension-france-macron-veto-article-50-boris-johnson-a9094221.html

Emmanuel Macron will be strongly tempted to veto another delay to Brexit because of the “deteriorating situation” in the UK, a former top French diplomat is warning...

... “The situation of the UK as a member state becomes every day more awkward and strained,” the former French ambassador to the EU warned. Mr Sellal did not rule out a French veto – if, as expected, the prime minister is legally forced to request one – saying the UK was failing to present “a credible acceptable alternative” to the deal it had rejected.

Arguing Mr Macron would require “a sufficient level of trust”, he told BBC Radio 4: “Maybe what is missing today is this trust about the way your country sees its future with the European Union... In this regard, I believe that the situation has been deteriorating. It is very difficult to have the necessary trust that could justify a new examination of a new date.”

If France did veto an extension, the UK would crash out of the EU on 31 October, unless parliament suddenly approved the divorce deal – or revoked Article 50 altogether...

Iran to develop nuclear centrifuges as US dismisses French plan to ease tension

The US state department has shrugged off a French initiative aimed at defusing tensions with Iran, and stepped up economic pressure once more, offering a reward for information that helps disrupt Iranian oil smuggling. A few hours later, Iran’s president, Hassan Rouhani, said that the country would expand its development work on new centrifuges for enriching uranium, in a third phased step away from compliance with a 2015 multilateral nuclear deal, likely to escalate the standoff with the US even further.

France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, had sought to mediate in the standoff, and tried at last month’s G7 in Biarritz to persuade Donald Trump to accept a confidence-building proposal, by which Iran would return to compliance with the 2015 deal in return for partial relief from US oil sanctions, and a $15bn credit line to finance oil sales. Trump responded positively in Biarritz, suggesting he would accept the scheme if the US did not have to contribute to the credit line.

However, on Wednesday, the state department’s special representative for Iran, Brian Hook, called into question the very existence of the French proposal. Asked about the initiative on Wednesday, Hook said: “There is no concrete proposal. We have no idea if there will be one. So we’re not going to comment on something that doesn’t exist.” Hook announced a ratcheting up of the Trump administration’s “maximum pressure” campaign against Iran, offering a $15m reward for anyone offering information that led to the disruption of oil smuggling the US says is being carried out by Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The state department also imposed sanctions on 16 entities and 10 individuals it accused of being part of an IRGC network smuggling oil to the Assad regime in Syria and Hezbullah in Lebanon, “and other terrorist actors”.

As he was making the announcement, the Financial Times reported that Hook had personally emailed the captain of a tanker carrying Iranian oil, and offered him millions of dollars if he would steer the ship, the Grace 1, to a country where it could be impounded. According to the account, which was confirmed by the state department, the first email was sent 11 days after the ship (now renamed the Adrian Darya 1) was released by Gibraltar, where it was temporarily held on suspicion of shipping oil to Syria. “With this money you can have any life you wish and be well-off in old age,” Hook, the head of the state department’s Iran Action Group, emailed the ship’s captain, . It warned him: “If you choose not to take this easy path, life will be much harder for you.” After the captain did not respond, he was placed under US treasury sanctions. Hook emailed or texted “roughly a dozen” captains in recent months to cajole or scare them out of helping Iran evade oil sanctions...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/04/us-iran-french-initiative-economic-pressure-brian-hook

Hook, Line and Sinker: The State Department's Iran Hand Steps Up the Pressure on Tehran
September 4, by Matthew Petti
NEW: Brian Hook is taking a swipe at the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Does he want to bring Iran to the table or overthrow its government?

As President Donald Trump inches towards a meeting with Iran’s leaders, his own secretary of state, Mike Pompeo, is sprinting towards de-recognizing the country’s government. Brian Hook, the State Department’s Special Representative on Iran, announced unprecedented diplomatic moves against the Iranian government today, putting the Iranian military on par with renegade militias in the Middle East. Meanwhile, he attempted to walk back Trump’s earlier statements, discounting the possibility of a high-level meeting in the near future...

... The move may suggest that the State Department no longer considers the Islamic Republic the legitimate government of Iran. “Today’s announcement is historic. It’s the first time that the United States has offered a reward for information that disrupts a government entity's financial operations,” Hook explained. “We’ve taken this step because the IRGC operates more like a terrorist organization than it does a government.” ...

... “You want to see continued depreciation of the rial relative to the dollar on the unofficial market. You want to see sustained stagflation of the Iranian economy. You want to make sure GDP continues to go down,” Taleblu said, explaining the goals of maximum pressure, which he believes will force Iran to negotiate. “You want to see sustained macroeconomic contraction.” ...

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/hook-line-and-sinker-state-departments-iran-hand-steps-pressure-tehran-78031

PARIS/DUBAI (Reuters) - France has proposed offering Iran about $15 billion (12 billion pounds) in credit lines until year-end if Tehran comes fully back into compliance with its 2015 nuclear deal, a move that hinges on Washington not blocking it, Western and Iranian sources said.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves le Drian said talks on the credit arrangement, which would be guaranteed by Iranian oil revenues, were continuing, but U.S. approval would be crucial. The idea is “to exchange a credit line guaranteed by oil in return for, one, a return to the JCPOA (Iran nuclear deal)...and two, security in the Gulf and the opening of negotiations on regional security and a post-2025 (nuclear programme),” le Drian told reporters. “All this (pre)supposes that President Trump issues waivers.”

European leaders have struggled to dampen brewing confrontation between Tehran and Washington since U.S. President Donald Trump pulled out of the deal, which assures Iran access to world trade in return for curbs on its nuclear programme...

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-usa-france/france-pushes-15-billion-credit-line-plan-for-iran-if-u-s-allows-it-idUKKCN1VO1AD

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/imran-khan-the-world-cant-ignore-kashmir-we-are-all-in-danger-ny-times.633587/

... On May 23, after Mr. Modi’s re-election, I congratulated him and hoped we could work for “peace, progress and prosperity in South Asia.” In June, I sent another letter to Mr. Modi offering dialogue to work toward peace. Again, India chose not to respond. And we found out that while I was making peace overtures, India had been lobbying to get Pakistan placed on the “blacklist” at the intergovernmental Financial Action Task Force, which could lead to severe economic sanctions and push us toward bankruptcy. Evidently Mr. Modi had mistaken our desire for peace in a nuclear neighborhood as appeasement. We were not simply up against a hostile government. We were up against a “New India,” which is governed by leaders and a party that are the products of the Hindu supremacist mother ship, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, or the R.S.S...

... I had hoped that being elected prime minister might lead Mr. Modi to cast aside his old ways as the chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat, when he gained global notoriety for the 2002 pogrom against local Muslims on his watch and was denied a visa to travel to the United States under its International Religious Freedom Act — a list of visa denials that included associates of Slobodan Milosevic. Mr. Modi’s first term as prime minister had been marked by lynching of Muslims, Christians and Dalits by extremist Hindu mobs. In Indian-occupied Kashmir, we have witnessed increased state violence against defiant Kashmiris. Pellet-firing shotguns were introduced and aimed at the eyes of young Kashmiri protesters, blinding hundreds.

On Aug. 5, in its most brazen and egregious move, Mr. Modi’s government altered the status of Indian-occupied Kashmir through the revocation of Article 370 and 35A of the Indian Constitution. The move is illegal under the Constitution of India, but more important, it is a violation of the United Nations Security Council resolutions on Kashmir and the Shimla Agreement between India and Pakistan.

And Mr. Modi’s “New India” chose to do this by imposing a military curfew in Kashmir, imprisoning its population in their homes and cutting off their phone, internet and television connections, rendering them without news of the world or their loved ones. The siege was followed by a purge: Thousands of Kashmiris have been arrested and thrown into prisons across India. A blood bath is feared in Kashmir when the curfew is lifted. Already, Kashmiris coming out in defiance of the curfew are being shot and killed.

If the world does nothing to stop the Indian assault on Kashmir and its people, there will be consequences for the whole world as two nuclear-armed states get ever closer to a direct military confrontation...

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/imran-khan-the-world-cant-ignore-kashmir-we-are-all-in-danger-ny-times.633587/

https://theconversation.com/mps-are-threatening-to-barricade-themselves-in-if-boris-johnson-prorogues-parliament-heres-why-they-should-be-taken-seriously-122591

... The use of these prerogative powers, once exercised by a monarch to “get around” the tiresome practices of a democratic practice, have never been effectively repealed. They lurk behind the scenes until such an occasion as this and now reside in the hands of the executive. However, monarchs were enjoined to understand that they were used, even in the past, with extreme caution. When they were not, they could inspire dramatic and revolutionary reactions.

In March 1629, Charles I grew tired of a parliament which would not support financially, or otherwise, his disastrous and expensive foreign policy errors and ordered the dissolution of parliament. The MPs were so incensed when speaker John Finch announced the closure of the session, they promptly left their seats and sat on him. Holding him in the chair meant that he could not rise from his seat, and thus close the house. While he writhed under at least five members, the MPs passed a series of motions condemning the king’s policies. It may well be that this should be considered a valid response to Johnson’s actions. On the other hand, as the current speaker, John Bercow, has called Johnson’s decision a “constitutional outrage” it seems unlikely that he will need sitting on. The closure of parliament in 1629 led to ten years of extra-parliamentary rule in England and Wales – known variously as Charles I’s Personal Rule or the 11 Years’ Tyranny.

The Scots rejected the king’s use of executive power in November 1638 when he tried to close down Scottish assemblies as well. No one was sat upon: this time his representative, the Marquis of Hamilton, tried to close the assembly by leaving the chamber. The door was locked against him: the key hidden. This time the meeting did not end: the king’s powers were severely dented. When the Westminster parliament again met in 1640, it was because the Scottish crisis had led to two wars, both of which Charles I’s extra-parliamentary government lost and bankrupted. Despite again using his prerogative powers to close the first parliament of 1640 after just three weeks, it got worse. The second parliament called that year passed two acts intended to secure its position in the constitution. The Triennial Act of February 1641 ended a monarch’s right to summon parliaments: a later act prevented one from closing or proroguing a parliament without its consent. Were this still the case, Johnson would not be able to get a majority to back prorogation.

This act made it impossible for the king to use his prerogative power to prorogue or close parliament. Not surprisingly, the Edinburgh parliament had already done the same thing. With the breakdown in trust between parliament and the executive across the British Isles, revolution followed and the monarchy fell a few years later...

... The outcome of the war was threefold: the trial and execution of Charles I (1649); the exile of his son, Charles II (1651); and the replacement of English monarchy with, at first, the Commonwealth of England (1649–1653) and then the Protectorate under the personal rule of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1658) and briefly his son Richard (1658–1659). In England, the monopoly of the Church of England on Christian worship was ended, while in Ireland the victors consolidated the established Protestant Ascendancy. Constitutionally, the wars established the precedent that an English monarch cannot govern without Parliament's consent, although the idea of Parliamentary sovereignty was only legally established as part of the Glorious Revolution in 1688.[2]

Boris Johnson just restarted the English Civil War. It will not end well

Do we really want to go back to the 17th century, asks Fleet Street Fox
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/boris-johnson-civil-war-19021739

... We are about to get a crash course in the English Civil War, with the exciting possibility that some of us will learn what living in the 17th century was really like. Then, Cavaliers and Roundheads spent 9 bloody years slaughtering a tenth of the population in a row about whether or not the King was in charge. After another 40-odd years of bitter argument, not helped by the fact a king was rendered 8 inches shorter than nature intended, we had a Glorious Revolution and laws for a constitutional monarchy, under which we have been united ever since.

But Ireland was destroyed. The Army stopped MPs entering Parliament. Millions suffered with starvation and disease as a small nubbin of zealots on both sides battled it out with sword, cannon and proto-propaganda. It is worth noting that the opponents each claimed to be on the side of "the people". And journalists may wish to note that pro-Royalist and pro-Roundhead publications were used to spread fake news - both sides declared victory at the Battle of Naseby in 1645. Throw forward to pro-Brexit papers proclaiming a "new deal" with the EU, while others say it's the same one we've voted down three times already.

Now that Boris Johnson has announced a longer-than-usual closure of Parliament we can expect a fervently Brexity MP to start quoting Oliver Cromwell when he dismissed the Rump Parliament of 1653. "It is high time for me to put an end your sitting in this place... ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government... You who were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance," he thundered. "Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!"

He'd have a point, if he were to see what Parliament has done with Brexit. It has voted to leave, voted down a deal, voted down not having a deal, voted down not leaving. In future, it will be known as the Plughole Parliament, because it has gone around in ever-decreasing circles...