Archive for June 23, 2016

President Mahmoud Abbas: The Palestinian “Untouchable”

June 23, 2016

President Mahmoud Abbas: The Palestinian “Untouchable”

By Khaled Abu Toameh

June 23, 2016 at 5:00 am

Source: President Mahmoud Abbas: The Palestinian “Untouchable”

  • For many years, Palestinians hoped that one day they would enjoy public freedoms under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority (PA), like the freedoms their neighbors in Israel have. But more than two decades after the establishment of the PA, democracy and freedom of speech are still far from being introduced to Palestinian society.
  • A PA court sentenced Anas Saad Awwad to a year in prison for posting on Facebook a photoshopped picture of Abbas wearing a Real Madrid shirt.
  • “Come and invest in the Palestinian areas, but if you don’t bribe their corrupt officials, the Palestinian Authority will arrest you. This is a desperate political arrest by an undemocratic Palestinian Authority president who has no credibility amongst his people. ” — Khaled al-Sabawi, son of Palestinian-Canadian investor Mohamed al-Sabawi, who was jailed for recommending the removal of Mahmoud Abbas from power.

It is not easy for an Arab journalist to criticize his or her leaders. If there is one thing Arab dictators cannot tolerate, it is criticism, especially when it comes from an Arab journalist, columnist or political opponent.

For many years, Palestinians were hoping that one day they would enjoy freedom of expression under the leadership of the Palestinian Authority (PA). But more than two decades after the establishment of the PA, Palestinians have learned that democracy and freedom of speech are still far from being introduced to their society.

Since then, Palestinians have also learned that their leaders are “untouchable” and above criticism. Both Mahmoud Abbas and his predecessor, Yasser Arafat, have even taught Palestinians that “insulting” their president is a crime and an act of treason.

Both Mahmoud Abbas (right) and his predecessor, Yasser Arafat (left) have taught Palestinians that “insulting” their president is a crime and an act of treason. Pictured above: A Fatah propaganda poster featuring Abbas and Arafat. The Arabic text reads “Bearer of the trust” on top.

During the past two decades, several Palestinians who dared to criticize Abbas or Arafat have been punished in different ways.

The latest victim of this campaign against critics is Jihad al-Khazen, a prominent Lebanese journalist and columnist who recently wrote on article about the need for the “failed and corrupt” Palestinian Authority leadership to retire.

Al-Khazen, a veteran journalist with the London-based pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat, is now under attack by the PA. The goal: deterrence of free speech.

In the Looking Glass land of the Palestinian Authority, criticism of Abbas is classed as “insult to the president” and has landed critics behind bars — or worse.

In 2013, a Palestinian journalist working for the al-Quds TV channel in Bethlehem, Mamdouh Hamamreh, was sentenced to one year in prison for posting a picture on Facebook that was deemed insulting to President Abbas. Abbas was depicted in the image as a fictional character who collaborated with French colonial forces in Syria. Abbas later pardoned the journalist.

That same year, a Palestinian Authority court sentenced Anas Saad Awwad, from the West Bank village of Awarta, to a year in prison for posting on Facebook a photoshopped picture of Abbas wearing a Real Madrid shirt.

Also in 2013, PA security forces detained a Palestinian-Canadian investor, Mohamed al-Sabawi, 68, on charges of insulting Abbas. Al-Sabawi was president of the Board of Directors of Ahlia Insurance Group, which employs hundreds of Palestinians in the West Bank. He was detained for two weeks after he publicly called for the removal of Abbas from power.

The businessman’s son, Khaled, who is from Ontario, Canada, said that the detention of his father showed that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s plan to bring $4 billion in private investment to the Palestinian territories was “nonsense.” He added:

“Come and invest in the Palestinian areas, but if you don’t bribe their corrupt officials, the Palestinian Authority will arrest you. This is a desperate political arrest by an undemocratic Palestinian Authority president who has no credibility amongst his people. I think my father hurt President Abbas’s feelings.”

In the past few years, Palestinian officials who have also dared to criticize Abbas, or were accused of insulting him, paid a heavy price. The list of officials who were punished for raising their voices against their president includes Mohamed Dahlan, Yasser Abed Rabbo and Salam Fayyad.

Mohamed Dahlan, an elected Fatah member of the Palestinian Legislative Council and a former PA security commander in the Gaza Strip, was expelled from Fatah in 2011 at the request of Abbas. Dahlan was also forced to flee the West Bank after Abbas sent his security forces to raid the Dahlan’s Ramallah residence and arrest some of his supporters. Dahlan has since found refuge in the United Arab Emirates.

Until recently, Yasser Abed Rabbo served as Secretary-General of the PLO and was considered one of Abbas’s closest aides. Last year, however, Abbas removed him from his job after he reportedly criticized the president in closed meetings.

Salam Fayyad, the former Palestinian Authority prime minister, was also punished for allegedly criticizing Abbas. Last year, the PA froze Fayyad’s bank account and accused him of money laundering. The decision came after Fayyad received a large sum from the United Arab Emirates for a non-governmental organization that he, Fayyad, heads. Under pressure from the international community and some Arab countries, Abbas was later forced to rescind the decision.

Now Jihad al-Khazen has joined the list of critics who are being targeted by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority. Al-Khazen’s crime is that he wrote an article lambasting Abbas and the veteran leadership of the PA.

The controversial article was published earlier this month in the Al-Hayat daily.

The article quotes an unnamed senior Gulf official saying that the time has come for Abbas and the entire Palestinian Authority leadership to retire. “We don’t trust them,” the Gulf official is quoted as saying, referring to the PA leadership. Although the Gulf official is not mentioned by name, Abbas and his aides in Ramallah say they believe the man is Crown Prince Mohamed bin Zayed of Abu Dhabi (the emirate that hosts and funds Abbas’s arch-enemy, Mohammed Dahlan).

Commenting on Abbas’s decision to freeze the bank account of Fayyad, the senior Gulf official is quoted in the article as having said:

“Do you really believe that the United Arab Emirates would choose to launder money though the Palestinian territories? The Palestinian prosecutor-general later admitted that Abu Mazen [Abbas] had ordered him to fabricate the charge. The United Arab Emirates is now demanding a public apology from Abbas. We have suspended all aid to the Palestinian Authority.”

Al-Khazen said that the Gulf official also spoke with him about Abbas and his wife and children. “But I have decided not to publish these things,” he added. Al-Khazen said he spent nearly two hours talking to the Gulf official whom he quotes in the article.

The response from the Palestinian Authority was swift. In Ramallah, calling for the retirement of the president and the PA leadership in an influential Arab newspaper is a deadly serious matter. The 77-year-old al-Khazen can consider himself fortunate that he does not live in the fair city of Ramallah with the PA leadership.

The first attack on al-Khazen was framed in the traditional Palestinian theory of a Zionist conspiracy. Published by the official Palestinian Authority news agency Wafa, which is controlled by Abbas loyalists, the article referred to the al-Khazen’s charges as “vulgarities,” and attempted to establish a link between Israeli “incitement” against the PA and the article in Al-Hayat.

Next we read of the beleaguered defensive posture. Abbas’s agency notes that the article aired at a time when the Palestinian Authority is “facing the Zionist project on all fronts.” Finally, we get to the heart of the matter: dictatorial censorship. As in, where is it?

“Does a respected and responsible newspaper have the right to allow such filthy words to appear on its pages?” the Wafa agency asks. “And does Jihad al-Khazen or anyone else have the right to say whatever they want without any control? And do they have the right to insult people or Arab leaders without being held accountable?”

Abbas’s ruling Fatah faction has also been recruited to defend its leader’s reputation. Again, the faction resorted to the famous tactic of linking any legitimate criticism of Abbas to Israel. In a statement, Fatah accused the columnist of “serving the state of occupation [Israel] and those who are working towards undermining President Abbas, Fatah, the Palestinian leadership and the Palestinian people.” The statement added: “This is a service for the [Israeli] government of Binyamin Netanyahu, which is interested in stepping up its organized campaign against President Abbas.”

In the eyes — and words — of Abbas and his cronies, anyone who opens his mouth in criticism of the Palestinian president — from a Gulf leader to a respected Arab columnist — is a mouthpiece for the Zionist project.

Deterrence is the name of this game. And prison is probably the best place some would-be whistleblowers can hope for. This is not what Palestinians were hoping for when the Oslo Accords were signed with Israel, paving the way for the creation of the Palestinian Authority. Many Palestinians were hoping back then that, under the PA, they would enjoy public freedoms like the ones their neighbors in Israel have. Sadly, most Palestinians are no longer living under the illusion that their current leaders would ever bring them democracy and freedom of speech.

The case of al-Khazen, who is facing a campaign of intimidation and insults, serves as a reminder to Palestinians that their leaders are infallible and untouchable, and that the liberty they had hoped for is still far, far away.

Turkey: Blockade on Gaza must be removed

June 23, 2016

Turkish Foreign Minister: Removal of Gaza siege remains a demand for reconciliation agreement The Turkish Foreign Minister stated today that Ankara will not back down from its demand to lift the blockade on Gaza.

Jun 23, 2016, 1:50PM

Source: Turkey: Blockade on Gaza must be removed | JerusalemOnline

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan (archives) Photo Credit: Reuters/Channel 2 News

Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu declared today (Thursday) that his country will not back down from the condition it set for the signing of an reconciliation agreement- the lifting of the siege on Gaza.

Cavusoglu’s statement comes after it was reported by Turkish news agencies that the two sides have reached a compromise, according to which Israel will allow Turkish aid for building hospitals and restoring infrastructures into the Gaza Strip. It was also reported that all shipments will be channeled through the Israeli port of Ashdod before entering Gaza.

According to the reports, the reconciliation agreement between the countries is expected to become official on Sunday. However, Cavusoglu’s statement today is expected to change the understandings that were agreed upon so far because Israel has never agreed to lift the blockade in the past.

Number of Refugees Arrested for Terror Higher than Reported

June 23, 2016

Number of Refugees Arrested for Terror Higher than Reported, Clarion ProjectRyan Mauro, June 23, 2016

Boston-Marathon-Bombing-Inset-Bombers-HPThe Tsarnaev brothers (inset) who committed the Boston bombings were in the U.S. because their father is an asylum-seeker; they are not even included in the count.(Photo: © Reuters)

The obvious conclusion from the fresh data is that counter-terrorism efforts should be laser-focused on immigration and screening policies, particularly in regards to Muslim countries that are terror hotbeds, since over 65% of cases involved foreigners who came to the United States.

**************************

New data from the Senate Judiciary Committee reveals that 40 refugees have been arrested on terrorism-related charges since 9/11; a number far higher than the State Department’s previous estimate of a dozen.

Clarion Project reported in November 2015 that a little-noticed poll showed that 13% of Syrian refugees express favorable feelings towards the Islamic State (ISIS/ISIL). The Obama Administration plans to resettle between 8,000 and 10,000 Syrian refugees by the end of this year. It is about half way towards that goal, having resettled about 4,000.

The new congressional numbers show that 580 individuals have been convicted on terrorism-related charges since 9/11, with 131 convictions happening since early 2014 when ISIS burst onto the scene.

Of the 580, at least 40 are refugees (a little less than 7 percent of the total) and 380 are foreign-born (65.5% of the total). The top countries of origin are Pakistan (by far), followed far behind by Somalia, Yemen, Colombia and Iraq.

The convicts are most commonly associated with Al-Qaeda or one of its branches. The second most common allegiance is to Hezbollah, followed by the Colombian FARC narco-terrorist group; Hamas; Lashker-a-Taiba; the Taliban (if you combine the Afghan and Pakistani branches); the Tamil Tigers; the United Self-Defense Forces of Columbia; ISIS and Jaish-e-Mohammed.

The obvious conclusion from the fresh data is that counter-terrorism efforts should be laser-focused on immigration and screening policies, particularly in regards to Muslim countries that are terror hotbeds, since over 65% of cases involved foreigners who came to the United States.

That number doesn’t include convicts whose parents came into the U.S. and may have brought ideas that helped radicalize their children. A clear example is Orlando shooter Omar Mateen’s father, who has praised the Taliban and is now known to have served as an official in a Muslim Brotherhood-linked Islamist organization in 1997.

The Washington Post has also addressed some misconceptions and semantics games when it comes to the security issues surrounding the estimated 800,000 refugees who have come into America since 9/11. Counts of terror-linked refugees may not include asylum-seekers and their families who are in the U.S. but have not yet acquired the refugee label.

The Post mentions that the Tsarnaev brothers who committed the Boston bombings were in the U.S. because their father is an asylum-seeker and they are not included in the counts.

In addition, the aforementioned numbers do not include information about those arrested but not convicted and those under investigation. A senior FBI official said in 2013 that there are dozens of counter-terrorism investigations into refugee suspects. That was before the dramatic spike in radicalization sparked by the success of ISIS and its declaration of a caliphate.

As Clarion explained, the U.S. can benefit from accepting some properly-vetted Muslim refugees, including those from Syria. A ban on all Muslim immigration isn’t feasible (putting aside the moral question), but a vetting process aimed at detecting Islamists is. Such ideological vetting can help genuine moderate Muslims by identifying them and possibly expediting their processing.

Homeland Security whistleblower Philip Haney had great success in detecting extremists by tracking associations with Islamist movements and institutions until the overlapping extremism of political correctness and Islamism stopped him from continuing. Almost every time someone is arrested on terror-related charges, we hear about previous signs of extremism such as attending a radical mosque or a social media posting.

The new data shows that the majority of terrorist convicts come from foreign countries, and a small but worrisome percentage are refugees. It isn’t Islamophobic or bigoted to recognize the intersection between national security and immigration and make proper adjustments to reflect reality.

Israeli control of West Bank fostering global terror, Abbas tells EU

June 23, 2016

Israeli control of West Bank fostering global terror, Abbas tells EU Addressing parliament in Brussels, PA leader backs peace bids, accuses Israel of turning territories into an ‘open-air prison,’ repeats hoax story of rabbi calling for poisoning Palestinian wells

By Tamar Pileggi

June 23, 2016, 2:45 pm

Source: Israeli control of West Bank fostering global terror, Abbas tells EU | The Times of Israel

President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas delivers a speech at the European Union Parliament in Brussels on June 23, 2016. (AFP / JOHN THYS)

In an appeal to the European Union on reaching a two-state solution to the conflict with Israel, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday said an end to Israeli presence in the West Bank and East Jerusalem would eradicate terrorism across the globe.

Speaking to European Parliament lawmakers, Abbas also underscored Ramallah’s support for a two-state solution as outlined in the current French peace plan and the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, and pleaded with EU lawmakers to save Palestinians from Israeli “provocations,” including what he said were calls by rabbis to poison Palestinians’ water — repeating a hoax story.

 “We are against terrorism, in whatever form it may take, and whoever carries it out,” Abbas told members of the European Parliament to a resounding applause.

“Once the occupation ends, terrorism will disappear, there will be no more terrorism in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world,” he said.

Speaking a day after his Israeli counterpart Reuven Rivlin spoke in the same venue and rejected the French multilateral peace push, Abbas rebuffed the possibility of reaching an interim peace agreement with Israel as an exercise in pointlessness.

“We reject any suggestion of temporary borders or an interim agreement because it’s a waste of time and does not lead anywhere,” he said.

“We favor a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital, and the solution will be based on the Arab Peace Initiative that was approved in 2002 with no changes to it,” Abbas said. “Our hands are extended with a desire for peace, we have the political will to achieve peace.”

An international conference aimed at resurrecting the stalled peace talks, to be held later as part of the French plan, must include a “set schedule for negotiations and the implementation of decisions, and constitute a mechanism for the implementation and monitoring of the decisions, as happened in the negotiations with Iran,” he said.

The Palestinian leader went on to condemn Israel’s “never-ending provocations” and “fascist policies,” and pointed as proof to sharp criticism of Israel’s current leadership made recently by former prime minister Ehud Barak and former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon.

Israel, Abbas charged, has started three wars in Gaza and killed thousands of people in the process. Since 1967, the PA leader continued, Israel has imprisoned over 1 million Palestinians.

“Israel has “turned our country into an open-air prison,” Abbas told EU lawmakers. “You are our friends, help us.”

In his address, Abbas also touched on the persistent Israeli accusations of Palestinian incitement, saying he was willing to re-start the Tripartite Committee on Incitement watchdog group to monitor calls for violence on either side, a move Israel has consistently rejected.

He called for the EU to join the joint US- Israeli-Palestinian commission.

While Israel typically accuses Palestinian officials of encouraging violence against Israelis, Abbas claimed that rabbis in Israel had recently called for the poisoning of Palestinian water supplies to murder Palestinians.

“The Israelis are doing this as well… certain rabbis in Israel have said very clearly to their government that our water should be poisoned in order to have Palestinians killed,” he said, repeating an anti-Semitic canard.

A story reported in the Turkish press earlier in June claimed a rabbi had made such a call, leading to denunciations by the Palestine Liberation Organization, though the story was quickly debunked.

Abbas went on to press EU lawmakers on why Israel was “free to act with impunity” and was not held accountable under international law.

“Why is international law not being applied in the case of Israel?” he asked to applause by MEP lawmakers.

The European Union has been pressing hard to get the stalled Middle East peace process back on track based on a two-state solution.

EU foreign ministers on Monday backed a French initiative to call an international conference on the Middle East aimed at restarting Israeli-Palestinian talks, which have been deadlocked since 2014.

On Wednesday Rivlin addressed the EU parliament, saying the French plan was doomed to fail and suffered from “very fundamental faults.

Like other international initiatives to reach a peace agreement, the president said the plan’s inflexible “all or nothing” approach to the implementation of a two-state solution ignores the total lack of trust between Israelis and Palestinians.

Rivlin urged EU nations to instead show patience and facilitate trust-building measures between Israel and the Palestinians.

Later Thursday, President Reuven Rivlin was set to meet with EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini.

Abbas met with Mogherini earlier in the day, and told a press conference he had doubts about Israel’s commitment to peace

“If Israel wanted peace with its Arab neighbors, it must end its control over our people and home country first by withdrawing from our lands and acknowledging the rights of our people, which also has a significant interest for Israel as it would be possible then to apply the Arab Peace Initiative in accordance with the Beirut conference of 2002,” Abbas said.

Earlier in the day, Rivlin’s office said Abbas had spurned an attempt to broker a sit-down between the two while in Brussels.

Presidential Campaign Changes

June 23, 2016

Presidential Campaign Changes, Gingrich Productions, Newt Gingrich, June 22, 2016

Monday’s hot political news was Cory Lewandowski’s departure as manager of the Trump campaign.

The news media focused immediately on the change as if it was a sign of failure by Trump.

In fact, the transition in the Trump campaign was natural and had a clear precedent in the career of the most famous conservative president.

Ronald Reagan’s replacement of John Sears with Bill Casey in 1980 was very similar to what happened this week.

Sears was a widely respected professional who had dominated the Reagan campaign.

Heading into the first primaries, Sears was convinced that Reagan should run above the crowd. In polls, Reagan was clearly the frontrunner. Furthermore, Reagan had almost beaten President Ford in 1976.

Based on these assumptions, Sears kept Reagan from participating in a debate in Iowa. Iowans were unimpressed. As Lyn Nofziger, Reagan’s long-time aide (who Sears had forced out of the campaign) quipped, “Sears wanted to run a Rose Garden strategy, but he didn’t have the Rose Garden”.

Iowa voted for George H. W. Bush in the caucuses and gave Reagan a stinging defeat in a state where his radio career had begun and where he felt very comfortable as a midwesterner.

The Iowa defeat crystallized a discomfort that had been growing for Nancy and Ronnie. They decided that they had to replace Sears.

For two weeks, Reagan drove his own campaign. He knew that New Hampshire voters loved retail, face-to-face politics, so he criss-crossed the state with an aggressive schedule. He also took on both Bush and the moderator in a debate, which contrasted his strength with Bush’s perceived timidity.

On primary day, Reagan dismissed Sears before the results were in. He was confident that he needed a new team leader if he was going to win.

Reagan did not turn to another professional consultant to run the campaign.

Instead, he recruited Bill Casey. Casey was a very successful corporate lawyer. In World War II, he had been a leader in the OSS (Office of Strategic Services, a precursor to the CIA) fighting Nazis behind the lines in Europe. He had been chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Casey managed the political consultants who implemented the daily campaign. His great strength was the ability to see the forest and not just the trees. He could keep Reagan focused in the big picture.

Months later, in the August before the general election, the Reagan team hit another rough patch and Casey and Reagan had to spend several weeks getting the campaign focused and stabilized.

Reagan went on to beat President Jimmy Carter in the largest electoral defeat of any incumbent president in American history.

This week, Trump faced a similar challenge to Reagan. His campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, had been much more successful than John Sears. In fact, any analysis of the current situation has to start with an acknowledgment of the stunning, almost unimaginable, success of the Trump-Lewandowski team.

No candidate before Trump has launched his or her first campaign by beating 16 other candidates (many of them seasoned elected officials).

No other Republican has won as many votes in the primaries as Trump.

No candidate has relied on social media and minimized paid advertising on the scale Trump has achieved.

No candidate but Trump has created issues that resonated with millions of Americans who were desperate for someone authentic with the guts to say what they believe.

In every one of these remarkable achievements, Lewandowski was Trump’s aide and implementer.

Victory in the nomination process, however, forces a profound change in a presidential campaign.

The primaries were state-by-state events that could be managed in sequence with intense focus. The campaign plane could be the center of both deciding and implementing the campaign.

The general election, on the other hand, is a very different challenge.

All fifty states and D.C. are engaged simultaneously.

The Democrats will throw massively greater human and financial resources into the fight.

The news media will shift into a relentlessly anti-Trump attack mode.

The unions, left-wing activist groups and left-wing billionaires will all pile on.

Even on the Republican side, the need to communicate with hundreds of other Republican leaders is overwhelming compared to the primaries.

Lewandowski’s strengths in the nominating process became weaknesses in the general election.

Trump recognized that a bigger, more professional system had to be built.

Like Reagan, he made a difficult and necessary decision. This is a big step toward winning the general election.

Complete insanity , Unbelievable !!

June 23, 2016

MATEEN WIFE MISSING: Loretta Lynch Admits That Federal Authorities Have Lost The Orlando Shooter’s Wife

June 22, 2016

Omar Mateen’s wife, Noor Salman, cased Disneyland with her husband. She knew he was planning and plotting and practicing to wage jihad. He left the house with a duffel bag full of guns the night of his jihad slaughter. She texted him, “I love you.”

And she wasn’t arrested? Not even house arrest? The enemy is running in power. The enemy is running the country. We are indeed sitting ducks.

“Loretta Lynch Admits That Federal Authorities Have Lost The Orlando Shooter’s Wife,” by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Jun 22, 2016:

According to CNN, Federal investigators are trying to find out more specifically what Omar Mateen’s wife, Noor Salman, knew about the planned attack at the Pulse Nightclub in Orlando. The intent is to bring evidence before a federal grand jury to determine whether or not charges will be brought against Salman.

As US Attorney General Loretta Lynch said today, federal authorities are going back and looking at all of the contact with Omar Mateen, as well as those around him in order find out if there is anything that was missed.

 

However there is one rather large problem with one key person in the investigation, it appears that Noor Salman is missing and may not even be in the state of Florida anymore. In an interview the Sun Sentinel conducted with Seddique Mateen, the shooter’s father, Seddique said that Salman was “not around here.”

“If you’re looking for Noor, she’s not here. I cannot say where she’s gone, but she’s not around here.” Seddique said.

 

 

The Sentinel went on to report that while reporters were outside Seddique’s house, St. Lucie County sheriff’s deputies arrived, went into the house for a few minutes, and then left without comment.

 

And perhaps most disturbing of all, according to Breaking911 citing CNN, US Attorney General Loretta Lynch says that she doesn’t know if Salman has left the state or not.

We believe the source to CNN’s assertion that Lynch doesn’t know where Salman is came from a press conference held today whereby Lynch said the following in response to an inaudible question: “right now I do not know exactly the answer to that, I believe she was going to travel but I do not know exactly her location now”

The Brexit vote: Everything you need to know about the referendum

June 23, 2016

The Brexit vote: Everything you need to know about the referendum

Published: June 22, 2016 2:59 a.m. ET

Source: The Brexit vote: Everything you need to know about the referendum – MarketWatch

Getty Images

There’s only one day to the British referendum that will decide the U.K.’s relationship with Europe for generations to come—high time for a look at what will happen in the vote itself.

First, the big picture. The issue is whether the country should exit the European Union or stay within the bloc. The “Leave” camp argue the EU is a very different proposition to the European Economic Community that Britain joined in 1973. Since then, its scope has widened to cultural, judicial and other areas beyond that economic Common Market.

On the other side, the “Remain” camp argues that the U.K. gains in economic benefits, security and global influence from being a key member of a large bloc of nations.

Those are the two sides in the June vote. Below is an explanation of who is eligible to cast a ballot and the other “mechanics” of the referendum. When will the result be known? What will happen next? Here key things to know about the in/out vote over the issue widely known as Brexit.

What will the referendum question be?

The wording is:

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

There are two options for voters: “Remain a member of the European Union” or “Leave the European Union.”

The ballot.

Coming up with a format wasn’t as straightforward as might be expected. The bill passed to allow the ballot to take place had a different question: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?” with a yes/no choice of response. But the original wording was changed after complaints that it was biased in setting out only the “remain” option.

Voters in Wales will also see a Welsh version of the question on their ballot papers.

When is voting day, and when do the results come in?

Polling stations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be open on June 23 between 7 a.m. and 10 p.m. local time, or 2 a.m. to 5 p.m. Eastern Time.

The ballot count is expected to start as soon as the polling stations close. The result should be known by early morning on Friday, June 24, though this depends on the circumstances in the 382 local areas where the count is being carried out.

The first set of results look likely to be released at 12:30 a.m. local time, the official Electoral Commission has said. About half of the counting areas are expected to have reported by 4 a.m., and about 80% by 5 a.m. They are expecting the final set of results at 7 a.m.

Who can vote?

Voters must be at least 18 years of age. Anyone who voted in May 5 local elections held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland won’t need to re-register for June 23’s referendum.

Figures showing how many people have signed up to vote will be released somewhere around five days before the referendum. This is who is eligible to vote in person or via mail:

• British and Irish citizens living in the U.K.

• British and Irish citizens who live overseas—any country, not just in the EU—who have registered to vote in the U.K. in the last 15 years

• People from the Commonwealth who have permission to enter or remain in the U.K.

The Commonwealth is an organization of 53 countries that mostly were formerly part of the British Empire. That means Indians, Australians and South Africans, for example, who are U.K. residents will be among those going to the ballot box.

And while Fiji and Zimbabwe have been suspended from the Commonwealth, people from those countries who live in the U.K. can still take part in the referendum.

• But people from the EU who reside in the U.K. won’t be able to vote, apart from citizens of Malta, Cyprus and Ireland.

While people can vote by mail, one instance shows there may be risk in that. Some Britons who live in Germany and France have run into difficulties sending their prepaid Brexit ballots back to the U.K.

What do the opinion polls say

Wednesday is the final day of campaigning for the referendum, and more polls are expected to be released.

In the latest batch of surveys, ORB for the Telegraph showed 53% of respondents back EU membership, compared with 46% who want to cut ties. But YouGov for TheTimes newspaper showed Brexit support has a two point lead, at 44% to 42%. An Survation poll for IG Group put the Remain camp at 45% and the Leave camp at 44%.

A recent run of polls had overall shown a narrow resurgence in support for the U.K. staying in the EU. There had been increased focus on polls following the murder of British lawmaker Jo Cox. Cox, who was a vocal supporter of the remaining in the EU, was killed one week before the referendum.

The “outcome of the referendum is on a knife-edge and is likely to fall in between the divergent outcomes being anticipated by phone and internet polls,” said NatCen, which released its own poll results Monday, in a statement.

Credit Suisse

Electoral districts in Scotland, Northern Ireland and parts of London appear the least likely to vote for a Brexit, says Credit Suisse.

What’s at stake?

Trade agreements, immigration and labor rules, travel regulations and financial transactions are among a host of issues that would have to be renegotiated by British and European officials if the majority of Britons vote for the U.K. to leave the 28-member European Union.

Last year, 44% of exported goods and services from the U.K. went to the EU, representing 12% of Britain’s gross domestic product, according to the Office for National Statistics.

Brexit 101: The U.K.’s EU referendum explained

(4:24)Should the U.K. remain in or leave the European Union? That’s the question the British public will decide in a referendum on June 23. Here’s what’s at stake.

The pound GBPUSD, +0.7072%  has been the investing vehicle of choice for investors preparing for the vote. Sterling earlier this year hit a seven-year low against the U.S. dollar DXY, -0.56% trading below $1.39, on the prospect of a U.K.-EU breakup.

Read: Mohamed El-Erian on how a Brexit could solve a fundamental EU problem

The pound has since recovered to see trades above $1.47. But as shown above, the race could be close—and the polls have been wrong before. Last year’s general election was expected to be too close to call, only to have the Conservative Party quickly win an outright majority in parliament.

Who’s backing “remain” in EU?

• Prime Minister David Cameron is leading the Conservative government’s efforts in campaigning hard to stave off a Brexit.

The Conservatives—also known as “Tories”—are seen as having been cornered into holding the referendum by anti-EU Tory party members and by political pressure from the popularity of the euroskeptic UK Independence Party. The Brexit issue has caused a bitter fracture in the Tory party, as individual lawmakers have been given free rein to back whichever side they want.

Here are others who have picked this side:

• An array of high-profile organizations have said a Brexit would be a risk to the U.K. economy, including the International Monetary Fund, G-7 finance leaders, the U.K. Treasury and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

• President Barack Obama is a proponent of Britain staying in the EU, as are German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President François Hollande. Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy has said a Brexit could affect the rights of Britons living in his country.

See: It isn’t just Brexit— Greece, Spain, France also on the brink

• Meanwhile, 250 British celebrities, including former “Top Gear” host Jeremy Clarkson and actress Keira Knightley, have come out against leaving the EU. U.S. actor and Oscar winner Matt Damon has called Brexit an “insane idea”. Soccer star David Beckham is backing the remain side.

• Stephen Hawking is among the 150 top scientists who have spoken out publicly for staying in the EU, saying to leave would “spell disaster.”

Who’s backing “leave”—for a Brexit?

Conservative politician and former London Mayor Boris Johnson is campaigning for the U.K. to cut ties with the EU—seen by some as positioning before a challenge to Cameron for the Tory leadership.

Stars in favor of a Brexit include actor Michael Caine, actress Joan Collins, rock star Noel Gallagher of Oasis and “Downton Abbey” creator Julian Fellowes.

As well, 250 business leaders have lent their support to the cause, including the former chief executive of banking giant HSBC HSBA, +0.95% HSBC, +0.68% Michael Geoghegan.

See: Pro-Brexit economists make case for U.K. departure

U.S. Republican-presidential nominee Donald Trump says he thinks the U.K. would be “better off” without the EU. Trump is scheduled to visit his Trump Turnberry golf resort in Scotland the day before the Brexit vote takes place.

Pub company J.D. Wetherspoon PLC JDW, +2.29%  has printed 200,000 beer mats laying out arguments for a departure, with Greece’s bailout and IMF governance among them.

 Wetherspoons’s Brexit beer mats
What happens next, if voters choose a Brexit?

If the “leave” side wins, Prime Minister David Cameron said he’ll start working on the exit negotiations straight away.

He will first need to notify the European Council of the U.K.’s decision to withdraw, as called for under Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, the international agreement that underpins the EU. From this point, the U.K. won’t be able to take part in EU decision making.

Once that declaration has been made, talks will begin between the British government and the European Commission to define the U.K.’s new relationship with the EU. These will likely cover issues such as access to the single market, immigration and agricultural policy, and there is a two-year time limit for completing them.

This puts the U.K. on the back foot in the talks, somewhat. If it rejects the deal offered by the other 27 members of the EU, there is a chance that those other nations could let the clock run down. The U.K. might then find itself exiting on those terms anyway.

Read: How Cameron could use the vote against Brexit to change Europe

Keep in mind: Article 50 has never been used, so the political waters will likely be rough for the U.K. and the EU to navigate. Expect to hear chatter about pressure for Cameron, who promised to hold the Brexit vote if the Tories won last year’s general election, to resign his post. But the prime minister has already said he won’t give up his job.