MPs have voted in favour of the Government's timetable to trigger the formal process for leaving the European Union by March 2017, as long as the Prime Minister reveals her plan for Brexit.
The symbolic motion, which is not legally binding, was approved by 448 votes to 75 - a majority of 373.
Faced with a revolt by up to 40 Conservative MPs, Prime Minister Theresa May on Tuesday bowed to pressure and backed a Labour motion which said she should publish a plan before triggering Article 50.
In return, most of the rebels and Labour backed a compromise Government amendment to support Mrs May's pledge to invoke Article 50 to start Brexit before 31 March 2017.
MPs held two votes, with the first to add the Government amendment to the original Labour motion approved by 461 votes to 89, majority 372.
This was opposed by 23 Labour MPs and one Conservative in the form of Mr Clarke.
Mr Clarke was the sole Conservative to vote against the motion.
Labour rebels included Ben Bradshaw, David Lammy and former shadow chancellor Chris Leslie.
The Government's amendment was backed by some 150 Labour MPs.
Iain Duncan Smith, who campaigned extensively for Brexit, told Sky News that Labour's motion has created a "historic moment" in Parliament.
After the first vote, the former Tory leader said: "This is the first time ever that a majority of parliamentarians have actually voted to leave the European Union."
Shadow Brexit secretary Sir Keir Starmer told Sky News that the Brexit plan needs to include answers to key questions such as whether the Government is aiming to be in the customs union, and what its position on the single market is.
"We need Parliament to be able to do its job in terms of scrutiny," the Labour MP said.
Sir Keir denied that Labour is out to frustrate the process of leaving the European Union - and said such allegations were "unhelpful".
The vote followed a day of debate in which Brexit Secretary David Davis promised MPs that the Government will set out its "strategic plans" before triggering the formal process to withdraw the UK from the EU, but said it will not reveal anything which might "jeopardise our negotiating position".
Mr Davis faced calls from Opposition MPs and some Conservative backbenchers for the plan to be detailed enough to be subject to rigorous scrutiny in the Commons before the planned launch of negotiations under Article 50.
During the debate, Mr Clarke said Mrs May's promise to reveal her plan was "extremely vague", and called for it to be set out in detail in a white paper for publication before Article 50 is invoked.
But Mr Davis insisted the Government must retain "room for manoeuvre" to respond with "a high degree of agility and speed" to developments in extremely complex negotiations expected to last up to two years.
The debate came as the Government was embroiled in day three of its Brexit battle at the Supreme Court.
Wednesday, December 7, 2016
Iraqi army mistakenly bombs civilians in ISIL-held city
At least 52 people have been killed when air strikes by Iraqi forces mistakenly targeted civilians gathering in the ISIL-held western city of al-Qaim, military officials told Al Jazeera.
Dozens of other people reportedly waiting for their salaries outside an exchange facility and a livestock market were also wounded in Wednesday's air raid.
Mohammed al-Karbouli, an Iraqi member of parliament in Anbar province, said in an official statement on his Facebook page it was not the first time civilians have been bombed by the Iraqi air force.
"We demand the government to establish an investigation commission to find out who is behind these repeated accidents of killing civilians, lately in al-Qaim city," Karbouli said.
"To repeat the mistakes of bombing civilians is to distort the reputation of our troops."
He also said the incidents raised questions on the validity of the intelligence the army is using in targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.
"This gives an opportunity to the terrorist organisation of promoting information through their media that harms our forces," Karbouli said.
Amaq, the media arm of ISIL, reported on the raid saying at least 60 civilians were killed by Iraqi warplanes.
Dozens of other people reportedly waiting for their salaries outside an exchange facility and a livestock market were also wounded in Wednesday's air raid.
Mohammed al-Karbouli, an Iraqi member of parliament in Anbar province, said in an official statement on his Facebook page it was not the first time civilians have been bombed by the Iraqi air force.
"We demand the government to establish an investigation commission to find out who is behind these repeated accidents of killing civilians, lately in al-Qaim city," Karbouli said.
"To repeat the mistakes of bombing civilians is to distort the reputation of our troops."
He also said the incidents raised questions on the validity of the intelligence the army is using in targeting the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) group.
"This gives an opportunity to the terrorist organisation of promoting information through their media that harms our forces," Karbouli said.
Amaq, the media arm of ISIL, reported on the raid saying at least 60 civilians were killed by Iraqi warplanes.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan
When a rogue faction of Turkey’s military moved to seize control of the country on the night of July 15, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan was on vacation in the Mediterranean city of Marmaris. Alerted to the coup attempt, he escaped his hotel just ahead of commandos sent to capture or possibly kill him, clinging to power by a thread. Yet in response he flew not to the capital, Ankara, where warplanes were bombing the parliament building, but to Istanbul, where he had come of age and begun his career in politics, and is still remembered as the mayor who brought running water to the city’s slums. The capital was slightly closer and contained the levers of power that the putschists scrambled to control. But Erdogan placed his bet on the people who had known him longest—and who he knew would fight for him.
For much of that night, doubt clouded the one thing that had been clear for close to 14 years in Turkey: who was in charge. A turning point came when Erdogan—unable to address the public on TV stations commandeered by coup plotters—connected to a private Turkish newscaster over the iPhone app FaceTime. As the anchor held her phone up to the camera, the President urged his supporters to take to the streets. It was after midnight. In the hours that followed, more than 265 people would be killed, but by dawn, troops participating in the coup were fleeing. Later that day, a triumphant Erdogan appeared before throngs in Istanbul, calling for prosecution of the plotters. “We want execution!” the crowd chanted back. The President had emerged from his near-death experience stronger than ever—and ever more determined to tighten his grip on power.
Watershed moments have not been scarce in the Middle East lately, but in recent decades it has been rare for one to take place in Istanbul, the city that reigned over the entire region for 400 years. The sultans of the Ottoman Empire ruled from palaces overlooking the Bosporus Strait, but when their empire collapsed after World War I, what followed was not royal drama but process—the methodical construction of what would replace empires in organizing the world: a nation-state. The new
Republic of Turkey, founded by the indomitable Kemal Ataturk, was democratic and oriented to the West, which in the early years of the Cold War made it the easternmost member of NATO. And the hope ardently voiced by visiting U.S. diplomats—and by the Turkish generals who repeatedly succeeded in deposing elected governments deemed too religious or unpredictable—was that it would inspire secular, democratic imitators in nearby lands.
It never did. Not even, as it turned out, in Turkey. Erdogan, 62, had survived, and with him, his grip on power. In the neighborhood around Erdogan’s house, one group pushed through the crowd, carrying the Turkish flag—the banner of what surveys count as one of the most nationalistic nations on earth—and chanting “Allahu akbar!” or “God is great!” “We believe,” said Ayse Kol, 20, on a corner two blocks from the President’s home, “that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a world leader.”
He is that, if only by dint of how much of the world gathers around him, awaiting his decisions. The strands of crises from both Europe and Asia now collide in Turkey. The European Union has all but outsourced its refugee crisis to Erdogan and, with it, the future of Europe’s own elected leaders, if not the E.U. itself. The democratic leaders of Western Europe now implore and bargain with the Turkish autocrat to cease the flow of Syrian refugees and other migrants into a continent whose politics is increasingly defined by backlash to outsiders. At the same time, Erdogan has inserted Turkey directly into the wars raging on its borders—sending troops into Iraq, whether they are welcome or not, in the assault on ISIS-held Mosul, and crossing the border into Syria’s inferno. In both countries, Turkey’s goal is both to suppress the radical extremists of ISIS—the jihadists who have repeatedly drawn blood on Turkish soil—and also to check the military might of Kurdish guerrillas who are fighting ISIS within Syria even as their brothers battle the state inside Turkey.
And just as authoritarianism surges back onto the world stage, Erdogan shows all the signs of a strongman in full. He has company. To the north lies Russia, the massive threat that Turkey has mistrusted since the days of competing empire, through the Cold War to the chilly equilibrium Erdogan now maintains with Vladimir Putin. The Turkish leader clashed with President Obama, but now Erdogan has welcomed the election of a fellow populist in Donald Trump. The President-elect’s first conversation with the Turkish leader, however, made news for Trump’s raising his own business interests in Turkey, quoting his business partner to Erdogan as “your great admirer.” In a speech in Ankara on Nov. 9, Erdogan said Trump’s election would bring “a new era” in U.S.-Turkey relations.
For much of that night, doubt clouded the one thing that had been clear for close to 14 years in Turkey: who was in charge. A turning point came when Erdogan—unable to address the public on TV stations commandeered by coup plotters—connected to a private Turkish newscaster over the iPhone app FaceTime. As the anchor held her phone up to the camera, the President urged his supporters to take to the streets. It was after midnight. In the hours that followed, more than 265 people would be killed, but by dawn, troops participating in the coup were fleeing. Later that day, a triumphant Erdogan appeared before throngs in Istanbul, calling for prosecution of the plotters. “We want execution!” the crowd chanted back. The President had emerged from his near-death experience stronger than ever—and ever more determined to tighten his grip on power.
Watershed moments have not been scarce in the Middle East lately, but in recent decades it has been rare for one to take place in Istanbul, the city that reigned over the entire region for 400 years. The sultans of the Ottoman Empire ruled from palaces overlooking the Bosporus Strait, but when their empire collapsed after World War I, what followed was not royal drama but process—the methodical construction of what would replace empires in organizing the world: a nation-state. The new
Republic of Turkey, founded by the indomitable Kemal Ataturk, was democratic and oriented to the West, which in the early years of the Cold War made it the easternmost member of NATO. And the hope ardently voiced by visiting U.S. diplomats—and by the Turkish generals who repeatedly succeeded in deposing elected governments deemed too religious or unpredictable—was that it would inspire secular, democratic imitators in nearby lands.
It never did. Not even, as it turned out, in Turkey. Erdogan, 62, had survived, and with him, his grip on power. In the neighborhood around Erdogan’s house, one group pushed through the crowd, carrying the Turkish flag—the banner of what surveys count as one of the most nationalistic nations on earth—and chanting “Allahu akbar!” or “God is great!” “We believe,” said Ayse Kol, 20, on a corner two blocks from the President’s home, “that Recep Tayyip Erdogan is a world leader.”
He is that, if only by dint of how much of the world gathers around him, awaiting his decisions. The strands of crises from both Europe and Asia now collide in Turkey. The European Union has all but outsourced its refugee crisis to Erdogan and, with it, the future of Europe’s own elected leaders, if not the E.U. itself. The democratic leaders of Western Europe now implore and bargain with the Turkish autocrat to cease the flow of Syrian refugees and other migrants into a continent whose politics is increasingly defined by backlash to outsiders. At the same time, Erdogan has inserted Turkey directly into the wars raging on its borders—sending troops into Iraq, whether they are welcome or not, in the assault on ISIS-held Mosul, and crossing the border into Syria’s inferno. In both countries, Turkey’s goal is both to suppress the radical extremists of ISIS—the jihadists who have repeatedly drawn blood on Turkish soil—and also to check the military might of Kurdish guerrillas who are fighting ISIS within Syria even as their brothers battle the state inside Turkey.
And just as authoritarianism surges back onto the world stage, Erdogan shows all the signs of a strongman in full. He has company. To the north lies Russia, the massive threat that Turkey has mistrusted since the days of competing empire, through the Cold War to the chilly equilibrium Erdogan now maintains with Vladimir Putin. The Turkish leader clashed with President Obama, but now Erdogan has welcomed the election of a fellow populist in Donald Trump. The President-elect’s first conversation with the Turkish leader, however, made news for Trump’s raising his own business interests in Turkey, quoting his business partner to Erdogan as “your great admirer.” In a speech in Ankara on Nov. 9, Erdogan said Trump’s election would bring “a new era” in U.S.-Turkey relations.
Britain to deepen security cooperation with the GCC
British Prime Minister Theresa May has said that she wants to deepen defence cooperation with Gulf countries and work towards signing "an ambitious trade agreement" with them.
Addressing the Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) annual summit in the Bahraini capital Manama on Wednesday, May said that Britain wanted to "make a more permanent and more enduring commitment to the long-term security of the Gulf" and invest more than three billion pounds ($3.7bn) in defence spending in the region over the next decade.
"Gulf security is our security," she told the council, which brings together the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
"In challenging times you turn to your oldest and most dependable friends ..."
May said that she wanted a "strategic partnership" to help boost security in Gulf countries, including defence investment and military training in Bahrain and Jordan.
During here televised speech, May also touched upon issues such as the ongoing conflicts in Yemen and Syria as well as the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group.
"May talked about how they will confront the threat of ISIL together, and how they will confront Iranian involvement or interference in Yemen," Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, who had been following the GCC summit from Doha, said.
"But overall it is possible to say that she was mainly looking for the economic good news that the UK desperately needs at the moment."
Improving trade ties
The prime minister also spoke about discussions to improve trade ties with Gulf countries as Britain prepares to leave the European Union.
"I want these talks to pave the way for an ambitious trade arrangement" after Brexit, she said.
Theresa May was "in search of an alternative to the economic stability that the EU provided for the UK before the Brexit vote," Al Jazeera's Elshayyal said.
"May now sees an opportunity in the GCC, not only because of the vast natural resources that are here, but also because of the idea that the GCC countries between themselves have a lot of trade agreements already in place.
"So, to her, setting up a trade agreement here is like setting up something with a much bigger entity rather than just looking for bilateral trade ties between the UK and another country."
King Salman of Gulf heavyweight Saudi Arabia opened the two-day summit on Tuesday with a call for a "doubling of efforts" to face regional challenges.
Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) was blocked from covering the GCC summit on the ground, as Elshayyal was refused entry at Bahrain International Airport on Tuesday even though AJMN had followed all necessary procedures and submitted all requested documents to the relevant authorities on time.
Bahrain's information ministry did not immediately return repeated calls and emails seeking comment.
It was not the first time Bahraini authorities have prevented Al Jazeera from reporting on events in the country.
"Manama previously blocked Al Jazeera's reporters from covering the 30th GCC summit, without providing convincing reasons," AJMN said in a statement released on Tuesday.
"The network had prepared for special, comprehensive coverage of this important event," it added.
No official reason has been received from Bahraini officials on why AJMN was refused entry.
Addressing the Gulf Cooperation Council's (GCC) annual summit in the Bahraini capital Manama on Wednesday, May said that Britain wanted to "make a more permanent and more enduring commitment to the long-term security of the Gulf" and invest more than three billion pounds ($3.7bn) in defence spending in the region over the next decade.
"Gulf security is our security," she told the council, which brings together the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.
"In challenging times you turn to your oldest and most dependable friends ..."
May said that she wanted a "strategic partnership" to help boost security in Gulf countries, including defence investment and military training in Bahrain and Jordan.
During here televised speech, May also touched upon issues such as the ongoing conflicts in Yemen and Syria as well as the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL, also known as ISIS) group.
"May talked about how they will confront the threat of ISIL together, and how they will confront Iranian involvement or interference in Yemen," Al Jazeera's Jamal Elshayyal, who had been following the GCC summit from Doha, said.
"But overall it is possible to say that she was mainly looking for the economic good news that the UK desperately needs at the moment."
Improving trade ties
The prime minister also spoke about discussions to improve trade ties with Gulf countries as Britain prepares to leave the European Union.
"I want these talks to pave the way for an ambitious trade arrangement" after Brexit, she said.
Theresa May was "in search of an alternative to the economic stability that the EU provided for the UK before the Brexit vote," Al Jazeera's Elshayyal said.
"May now sees an opportunity in the GCC, not only because of the vast natural resources that are here, but also because of the idea that the GCC countries between themselves have a lot of trade agreements already in place.
"So, to her, setting up a trade agreement here is like setting up something with a much bigger entity rather than just looking for bilateral trade ties between the UK and another country."
King Salman of Gulf heavyweight Saudi Arabia opened the two-day summit on Tuesday with a call for a "doubling of efforts" to face regional challenges.
Al Jazeera Media Network (AJMN) was blocked from covering the GCC summit on the ground, as Elshayyal was refused entry at Bahrain International Airport on Tuesday even though AJMN had followed all necessary procedures and submitted all requested documents to the relevant authorities on time.
Bahrain's information ministry did not immediately return repeated calls and emails seeking comment.
It was not the first time Bahraini authorities have prevented Al Jazeera from reporting on events in the country.
"Manama previously blocked Al Jazeera's reporters from covering the 30th GCC summit, without providing convincing reasons," AJMN said in a statement released on Tuesday.
"The network had prepared for special, comprehensive coverage of this important event," it added.
No official reason has been received from Bahraini officials on why AJMN was refused entry.
Pakistan passenger plane 'on fire' as it crashed with 48 onboard
A plane was burning in the air before it plummeted to the ground shortly after take-off in Pakistan, according to witnesses.
The plane went missing in the country's north with 48 people on board and officials have said they do not expect to find any survivors.
"The way the plane crashed and broke into pieces, there is no chance of any survival," Sardar Aurangzeb Nalota, a local legislator, said.
"The fuel tank is still on fire. the plane debris is scattered in the mountains and residents told me that it is completely destroyed."
Pakistani TV channels reported that flight PK-661 took off from the city of Chitral but lost contact with ground control shortly afterwards.
The aircraft, operated by Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) crashed around 4.50pm local time, in the Havelian area of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
It was flying to the country's capital, Islamabad when it hit a mountain slope.
Taj Muhammad Khan, a government official based in the Havelian region, told Reuters: "All of the bodies are burned beyond recognition.
"The debris is scattered."
The army said 21 bodies had been recovered so far.
Villagers were reportedly collecting body parts in shawls and on woven beds at the site, which is only accessible on foot.
It is believed Pakistani popstar Junaid Jamshed, whose Dil Dil Pakistan was an unofficial anthem, was believed to be among the dead. The singer turned evangelical Muslim had been in Chitral.
Forty of those on board were passengers and eight believed to be crew.
Irfan Elahi, the government's aviation secretary, told media the ATR-42 turboprop aircraft suffered engine problems but it was too early to determine the cause of the accident.
Pakistan's deadliest crash was in 2010, when an Airbus 321 operated by private airline Airblue and flying from Karachi crashed into hills outside Islamabad while about to land, killing all 152 on board.
Are Elected Presidents Always Person of the Year?
With the selection of Donald Trump as Person of the Year for 2016, TIME’s editors have continued an every-four-years tradition of giving that title to the President-elect. Barack Obama and George W. Bush were each named Person of the Year twice, following their election victories.
After all, the President of the United States is said to be the leader of the free world, and the coming of a new administration can lead to a wave of change throughout the country and around the world. The Oval Office is, indisputably, a seat of immense influence. So—given that TIME’s Person of the Year is the individual who has had the most influence on the world, for good or for ill—it’s no surprise that the people who have won U.S. presidential elections tend to find themselves on the cover of that issue a few weeks later.
But, though it has been two decades since an exception has been made, it is in fact not the case that winning the U.S. presidential election is an automatic ticket to Person of the Year status.
In roughly half of the presidential election years that have passed since the franchise launched with Charles Lindbergh as 1927’s selection, the Person of the Year has been someone other than November’s victor.
Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter
The most recent exception was in 1996, when Bill Clinton was reelected and AIDS researcher Dr. David Ho was Person of the Year. Previous non-president picks include the Earth (Planet of the year 1988, over George H.W. Bush), U.S. Scientists (People of the Year 1960, over John F. Kennedy) and Queen Elizabeth II (Person of the Year 1952, over Dwight D. Eisenhower). And in 1972 the election victor shared the cover (Richard Nixon with Henry Kissinger).
When a man has become president via a means other than an election, the results are similarly mixed. Harry Truman was Person of the Year in 1945 following FDR’s death, but Martin Luther King Jr. was Person of the Year following JFK’s assassination in 1963 and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia following Nixon’s resignation in 1974. (Conversely, it doesn’t have to be an election year for a president to be influential. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, was Person of the Year three times but only once following an election, in 1932.)
Reelected presidents and same-party victors are less likely to make the cover than are presidents who represent a shift in the political life of the nation.
In short, winning a presidential election does not automatically make someone a Person of the Year. There’s more than victory to influence. But if a President-elect has in fact shaped the year’s news, for better or worse, it’s hard to deny that he belongs on the cover.
After all, the President of the United States is said to be the leader of the free world, and the coming of a new administration can lead to a wave of change throughout the country and around the world. The Oval Office is, indisputably, a seat of immense influence. So—given that TIME’s Person of the Year is the individual who has had the most influence on the world, for good or for ill—it’s no surprise that the people who have won U.S. presidential elections tend to find themselves on the cover of that issue a few weeks later.
But, though it has been two decades since an exception has been made, it is in fact not the case that winning the U.S. presidential election is an automatic ticket to Person of the Year status.
In roughly half of the presidential election years that have passed since the franchise launched with Charles Lindbergh as 1927’s selection, the Person of the Year has been someone other than November’s victor.
Get your history fix in one place: sign up for the weekly TIME History newsletter
The most recent exception was in 1996, when Bill Clinton was reelected and AIDS researcher Dr. David Ho was Person of the Year. Previous non-president picks include the Earth (Planet of the year 1988, over George H.W. Bush), U.S. Scientists (People of the Year 1960, over John F. Kennedy) and Queen Elizabeth II (Person of the Year 1952, over Dwight D. Eisenhower). And in 1972 the election victor shared the cover (Richard Nixon with Henry Kissinger).
When a man has become president via a means other than an election, the results are similarly mixed. Harry Truman was Person of the Year in 1945 following FDR’s death, but Martin Luther King Jr. was Person of the Year following JFK’s assassination in 1963 and King Faisal of Saudi Arabia following Nixon’s resignation in 1974. (Conversely, it doesn’t have to be an election year for a president to be influential. Franklin Roosevelt, for example, was Person of the Year three times but only once following an election, in 1932.)
Reelected presidents and same-party victors are less likely to make the cover than are presidents who represent a shift in the political life of the nation.
In short, winning a presidential election does not automatically make someone a Person of the Year. There’s more than victory to influence. But if a President-elect has in fact shaped the year’s news, for better or worse, it’s hard to deny that he belongs on the cover.
Could a fiver featuring Jane Austen be worth thousands of pounds?
People with £5 notes in their pockets are being urged to check them carefully, in case they could fetch thousands of pounds more.
Artist and engraver Graham Short has put four £5 notes into circulation on which he has put a tiny engraving of 18th-century author Jane Austen.
Short, who works out of Birmingham and is one of the world's most famous micro-artists, worked for two weeks on each note and then quietly put each one back into circulation.
The microscopic engraving can only be seen in certain lights.
The 70-year-old decided to use Jane Austen because next year is the 200th anniversary of her death and her image will be on the new £10 note.
The notes also have quotes from the writer's work.
The artist is not sure how much his work will be worth but said something similar was insured for £50,000.
This is not the first time the creator of the world's smallest engravings has impressed with his precise work - he engraved Nothing is Impossible on the sharp end of a razor blade and put all separate 1841 cuts of the Lord's Prayer on a pinhead.
The £5 note has already had a controversial start to life outside the printing press.
It ran into trouble only last week with the news that the polymer note which is meant to withstand considerable manhandling contains animal fat, prompting complaints from some vegans, vegetarians and religious groups.
Artist and engraver Graham Short has put four £5 notes into circulation on which he has put a tiny engraving of 18th-century author Jane Austen.
Short, who works out of Birmingham and is one of the world's most famous micro-artists, worked for two weeks on each note and then quietly put each one back into circulation.
The microscopic engraving can only be seen in certain lights.
The 70-year-old decided to use Jane Austen because next year is the 200th anniversary of her death and her image will be on the new £10 note.
The notes also have quotes from the writer's work.
The artist is not sure how much his work will be worth but said something similar was insured for £50,000.
This is not the first time the creator of the world's smallest engravings has impressed with his precise work - he engraved Nothing is Impossible on the sharp end of a razor blade and put all separate 1841 cuts of the Lord's Prayer on a pinhead.
The £5 note has already had a controversial start to life outside the printing press.
It ran into trouble only last week with the news that the polymer note which is meant to withstand considerable manhandling contains animal fat, prompting complaints from some vegans, vegetarians and religious groups.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)