Ten days before the EU referendum in the UK, leaders of the European Council and Commission have suggested Brexit would destroy Western political civilization.  In an interview with Germany's Bild newspaper published on Monday (13 June), the council president Donald Tusk said that a British exit from the EU would have "long term consequences that nobody can foresee".  "Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction not only of the EU but also of the whole Western political civilisation," he said, adding that he was speaking "as an historian".  He said that "all radical anti-Europeans in EU member states would rejoice" and also that "external enemies would drink champagne".  But he said he was sure that the EU would "survive, even if the price would be high".  The civilisational warning is not just Tusk's personal opinion.  A European Commission spokeswoman told press in Brussels on Monday that the commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, and Tusk "meet regularly" and have "discussed the matter several times".  "Therefore president Juncker conveyed exactly the same message in his own words, for example on 12 May in Berlin”, she said.  Speaking at a forum organised by a German radio broadcaster, West Deutscher Rundfunk, Juncker said that a Brexit would create "manifold problems". Asked at that the time if it would be a catastrophe, he answered: "Yes."

Peter Mandelson, the former EU trade commissioner and ex-business secretary, said Schäuble’s comments “finally knocks on the head the leave campaign’s claim that we can leave the EU and still enjoy the benefits of the single market”.  “We cannot leave the club and continue to use its facilities,” the Labour peer said. “Being outside the single market wold be a hammer blow to the UK economy. Our future trade [would] be hit and our manufacturing sector, which relies on the single market’s free movement of goods and people, [would] be at risk. This is the cold reality of Brexit that the British people must face. If we leave we lose the economic gains of being the world’s largest free-trade zone, putting jobs and livelihoods at risk.”  Iain Duncan Smith, the former work and pensions secretary, said of Schäuble’s comments: “To quote Mandy Rice-Davis, he would say that, wouldn’t he? … What I call the realpolitik underneath the surface is that they don’t want to get into spats. Of course they don’t. We’re a friend, we cooperate in Nato, the G8 and G20. Mr Schauble’s bound to say what he said. Come on. Don’t tell me that Mr Osborne hasn’t been on that line to him almost permanently for the last few weeks …“You’ll probably get a load of these statements. Every finance minister in Europe is going to line up. They’ve probably got them every day between now and the referendum.”

The leave campaign has said it does not want to be in the single market, because it would not want the UK to have free movement. But its leading advocates, including Boris Johnson and Gove, dismiss the idea that Germany or other EU countries would impose trade tariffs given they sell the UK more in manufactured goods than they buy.

 Having come into effect almost a month ago, the Law of giving in payment continues to produce tensions, controversies, as well as hilarious situations, as officials of respectable institutions continue to contradict over its effects.  After the uncertainty on whether debtors would need to pay taxes on giving away their homes under the giving in payment procedure, contradictory statements over the number of notifications that the customers have sent to banks have appeared. A major blunder, which would be funny if it weren't pathetic, was made yesterday by the National Bank of Romania itself, which distanced itself from the statements made by Eugen Rădulescu, the head of the NBR's Financial Stability department - according to whom about 4,000 notifications have been made so far -, and stated that those were his personal estimates.  In other words, Mr. Rădulescu should be praised for being the only one who succeeded in doing, using his "personal" tools, what banks, notaries and lawyers couldn't - estimate how many giving in payment requests have been made. Congratulations for personally having what to make these measurements with and also congratulations for personally being in charge of making these estimates, because the Central bank doesn't have that in its job description, according to the response it sent us, through the Mass-media Division, the Communication Office. The clarifications made yesterday by the NBR, after the conference in which Eugen Rădulescu spoke, are as follows: "The number of notifications sent to banks by customer based on the Law no. 77/2016 mentioned today, 08.06.2016, by Mr. Eugen Rădulescu represents his personal estimate. That data is not official data from the NBR.  It bears mentioning that according to the law, the NBR is not tasked with processing data about the notifications filed by debtors.  We also mention that the National Bank of Romania doesn't currently hold data concerning the extinguishment of the obligations undertaken through loans as a result of the application of the Law no. 77/2016".  Mr. Florin Dănescu, the executive chairman of the Romania Banking Association (ARB), said: "We do not have, we have not requested or received information about the giving in payment notifications. We have our own concerns. We hope that this law will not embolden far too much those who can pay, but no longer want to. Only the NBR has these statistics, which it monitors, but it is premature to make them public. We are carefully watching the communication of this issue, because we do not want to increase the risk, through our statements".

     The head of the Financial Stability Department of the NBR yesterday said, in a seminar which was held at the Romanian Banking Institute (IBR): "Since 2013 we have reentered a positive trend, both when it comes to real estate assets, as well as net financial assets. I am afraid that 2016 will not continue that trend. I expect that in the second half of the year the value of real estate assets will continue to drop, if we are going to still have the Law of giving in payment in effect. The market will be depressed, it will go into a compression process, which will lead to the drop of the value of all the real estate assets. Not everyone is looking to sell their home right now, except there is a psychological factor that matters and which unfortunately will continue to manifest itself, meaning that we will notice that we are less rich because all the apartments and all of the real estate assets which we have aren't worth what they were. It won't be a significant compression. We anticipate that it will stop between 5-10%, but think that this means quite a lot compared to the total of the real estate assets. So far, the number of those who have asked to hand in the keys to their homes under the Law of giving in payment is about 4,000 people. 4,000 versus 10 million holders of real estate assets. This is the major achievement of this law".  According to Mr. Rădulescu, this legislative initiative will cost all of us dearly: "Someone may win some elections based on these things, assuming by the time the elections come around people don't wake up and realize they stand only to lose from this".

Romania will certainly see its sovereign rating downgraded, if another "wacky thing" like the law of giving in payment shows up, the head of the NBR said, and he went on to say: "A potential cut of the rating will put additional pressure on the borrowing cost. We are currently doing very good in that regard, because we have both a favorable international situation with high liquidity, as well as a favorable position in the eyes of investors, of the Romanian economy. If we get close to the 3% public deficit threshold this year, and we will, then that will mean a warning signal for investors and if measures to reverse that trend aren't taken immediately after the elections, then things may not look good at all. If we pass the 3% level in 2017, then we will do so by a lot, because the refinancing of the foreign debt will cost us a lot". Romania has a BBB-/BBB rating, with a stable outlook, from Fitch, a Baa3 rating (investment grade) from Moody's and a BBB minus with a stable outlook from StandardPoor's. (sourcebursa.ro)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        

Germany’s finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has slammed the door on Britain retaining access to the single market if it votes to the leave the European Union.

In an interview in a Brexit-themed issue of German weekly Der Spiegel, the influential veteran politician ruled out the possibility of the UK following a Swiss or Norwegian model that would allow it to enjoy the benefits of the single market without being an EU member.

“That won’t work,” Schäuble told Der Spiegel. “It would require the country to abide by the rules of a club from which it currently wants to withdraw. If the majority in Britain opts for Brexit, that would be a decision against the single market. In is in. Out is out. One has to respect the sovereignty of the British people.”...Supporters of the British leave campaign argue that it is in Germany’s economic interest to maintain barrier-free trade relations with the United Kingdom. Britain is the third-largest export market for German car manufacturers and the destination of around 7% of total German exports. In a debate on the BBC, Nigel Farage, the Ukip leader, went even further than the official leave campaign and suggested getting rid of tariffs on goods traded with all countries.

The ASI survey of more than 1,750 adults, carried out by YouGov on June 8, showed that 54pc of Britons would  support Britain pursuing such a deal for five to 10 years immediately following Brexit were the UK to leave. Just 25pc said that they would oppose such an arrangement. Norway, as one member of the four-strong European Free Trade Association (EFTA), is also a part of the European Economic Area (EEA), commonly referred to as the European single market. Sam Bowman, executive director of the ASI, said that a deal that kept the UK in the EEA would “take the risk out of leaving the EU, providing the time it would take to come up with a unique British solution” for trade with the economic bloc.  Experts at the Treasury, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research (Niesr), and the London School of Economics have all found that remaining a part of the EEA would pose the least severe economic risk to  the UK after a decision to split from the EU.  The potential hit to gross domestic product (GDP) from such a move compares favourably with other post-EU options, including a bespoke deal along the lines of that enjoyed by Switzerland, or deciding not to forge a trade agreement at all, and instead relying on the minimum tariff rates secured by the UK’s membership of the World Trade Organization. Other polls show that a large proportion of support for withdrawal is motivated by opposition to EU migration. As such, political experts have suggested that joining up to EFTA, which requires members to allow EU citizens to come and live and work in the UK, could be politically unpalatable.

Euroscepticism is on the rise across Europe, new research has suggested, with little more than two weeks to go before Britons decide whether to remain within the EU.

Nonetheless, the Pew Research Center report found that a slim majority - a median of 51% - of respondents across 10 EU countries still favoured the EU.

Forty-two percent want more power returned to their national capitals.

Another poll has found most Europeans want the UK to stay in the EU.

How Eurosceptic is the European Parliament?

Eurosceptic 'earthquake' in EU elections

Would Brexit make Putin happy?

Germany conflicted on Brexit

The findings, by TNS (in French), contrasted with its survey among Britons, which found that 41% supported remaining within the 28-member bloc, compared with 43% in favour of leaving.

The UK holds a referendum on 23 June on whether it should stay in the EU or leave.

In its poll results released on Tuesday, the Pew Research Center found a majority of people were unfavourable towards the EU in Greece (71%) and France (61%).

That followed a steep decline in EU favourability in France (down 17 percentage points from 2015 to 2016) and Spain (down 16 points over the same period). In the UK, support was down eight points, and in Italy six.

In five of the six nations surveyed in both 2015 and 2016, it found favourability had declined.

Sharapova announced in March she had tested positive for meldonium, insisting she had been prescribed the drug since 2006 for "several health issues", including irregular heart test results and a family history of diabetes.  The 29-year-old also claimed she was unaware meldonium, which boosts blood-flow and can improve endurance, had been added to the World Anti-Doping Agency's banned list from January 1 th Sharapova described the two-year suspension as "unfairly harsh" and says she will lodge an appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.  "While the tribunal concluded correctly that I did not intentionally violate the anti-doping rules, I cannot accept an unfairly harsh two-year suspension," Sharapova wrote on Facebook.  "The tribunal, whose members were selected by the ITF, agreed that I did not do anything intentionally wrong, yet they seek to keep me from playing tennis for two years. "I will immediately appeal the suspension portion of this ruling to CAS, the Court of Arbitration for Sport."

Meldonium was on Wada's watch list last year and in September the agency announced it would be banned from the start of 2016, citing "evidence of its use by athletes with the intention of enhancing performance".  Sharapova's results at the Australian Open, where she lost to Serena Williams in the quarter-finals, as well as her prize money and ranking points earned at the event have also been disqualified.  The Independent Tribunal's report concluded: "The contravention of the anti-doping rules was not intentional as Ms Sharapova did not appreciate that Mildronate contained a substance prohibited from 1 January 2016.  "However she does bear sole responsibility for the contravention, and very significant fault, in failing to take any steps to check whether the continued use of this medicine was permissible. "If she had not concealed her use of Mildronate from the anti-doping authorities, members of her own support team and the doctors whom she consulted, but had sought advice, then the contravention would have been avoided. She is the sole author of her own misfortune."