Forced Grexit would entrench a pervasive suspicion that EU bodies are ultimately agents of creditor enforcement. It would expose the Project’s post-war creed of solidarity as so much humbug. Greece could not plausibly remain in Nato if ejected from EMU in acrimonious circumstances. It would drift into the Russian orbit, where Hungary’s Viktor Orban already lies. The southeastern flank of Europe’s security system would fall apart.

Mr Tsipras is now playing the Russian card with an icy ruthlessness, more or less threatening to veto fresh EU measures against the Kremlin as the old set expires. “We disagree with sanctions. The new European security architecture must include Russia,” he told the TASS news agency. He offered to turn Greece into a strategic bridge, linking the two Orthodox nations. “Russian-Greek relations have very deep roots in history,” he said, hitting all the right notes before his trip to Moscow next week.

Sources close to the ruling Syriza party said the government is determined to keep public services running and pay pensions as funds run critically low. It may be forced to take the unprecedented step of missing a payment to the International Monetary Fund next week. Greece no longer has enough money to pay the IMF €458 million on April 9 and also to cover payments for salaries and social security on April 14, unless the eurozone agrees to disburse the next tranche of its interim bail-out deal in time.

“They want to put us through the ritual of humiliation and force us into sequestration. They are trying to put us in a position where we either have to default to our own people or sign up to a deal that is politically toxic for us. If that is their objective, they will have to do it without us,” the source said. Going into arrears at the IMF – even for a few days – is an extremely risky strategy. No developed country has ever defaulted to the Bretton Woods institutions. While there would be a grace period of six weeks before the IMF board declared Greece to be in technical default, the process could spin out of control at various stages.

“We are a Left-wing government. If we have to choose between a default to the IMF or a default to our own people, it is a no-brainer,” said a senior official. “We may have to go into a silent arrears process with the IMF. This will cause a furore in the markets and means that the clock will start to tick much faster,” the source told The Telegraph.

“You are hereby asked to evacuate the premises by April 2 at 7pm,” the notice reads in both Hebrew and Arabic. “Due to the work being done to rebuild the Holy Temple and the need to bring the Passover sacrifice, the area must be evacuated. We thank you for your cooperation,” the notice, signed in the name of “the Jewish People,” reads.

The notices were posted on the pathways leading to the entrance to the Mount by activists of the “Return to the Mount” organization. Two of the activists were caught while putting up the signs and were subsequently arrested by Jerusalem police. The group has also put up such notices in the past.

According to Jewish tradition, families or groups are instructed to take a lamb and roast it whole on the Temple Mount on Passover eve, for use during the evening's Passover feast. With the destruction of the Temple nearly 2,000 years ago, the requirement to bring the Sacrifice has been suspended.

As a small boy, Heyer was subjected to the misguided attention of his grandmother, who longed for a granddaughter and would dress young Walt in a purple chiffon dress, showering him with compliments as a beautiful girl, while withholding her affection whenever he was dressed as a boy. “That dress,” writes Heyer, “set in motion a life filled with gender dysphoria, sexual abuse, alcohol and drug abuse, and finally, an unnecessary gender reassignment surgery. My life was ripped apart by a trusted adult who enjoyed dressing me as a girl.”

Heyer has little patience for “enlightened” parents who think they are doing their children a favor by playing up their confusion and catering to their “dreams of being the opposite gender.” Though motivated by a desire to be open-minded and supportive, this parental behavior is ultimately destructive, says Heyer. In his early forties, Heyer eventually sought out a prominent gender psychologist for evaluation, and “he quickly assured me that I obviously suffered from gender dysphoria. A gender change, he told me, was the cure.”

Thrilled that he could finally attain his lifelong dream, Heyer underwent the surgical change, adopting his new identity as Laura Jensen, female. What followed is, according to Heyer, a common occurrence that few hear about. “The reprieve provided by surgery and life as a woman was only temporary,” he writes. “Hidden deep underneath the make-up and female clothing was the little boy carrying the hurts from traumatic childhood events, and he was making himself known.”

“Being a female turned out to be only a cover-up, not healing,” he writes. Later, a medical doctor re-diagnosed Heyer as having developed a dissociative disorder in childhood to escape the trauma of the repeated cross-dressing by his grandmother and sexual abuse by his uncle. “That should have been diagnosed and treated with psychotherapy. Instead, the gender specialist never considered my difficult childhood or even my alcoholism and saw only transgender identity,” Heyer writes.

Heyer blames gender specialists and trends in contemporary psychology for being far too quick to recur to the knife rather than helping patients deal with the deeper issues of their disorders. “It was a quick jump to prescribe hormones and irreversible surgery. Years later, when I confronted that psychologist, he admitted that he should not have approved me for surgery,” Heyer writes.

Prescription drugs have a disproportionately large effect on teenagers. A recent study published in Journal of Public Policy and Marketing sheds light on this issue, which the CDC has labeled an “epidemic.” Over 1,000 teenagers in 40 different regions around the US participated in an online survey that questioned them about their use of alcohol, tobacco, legal drugs and illegal drugs. Participants were asked if they suffer from anxiety, if they have a desire to be “popular,” how often they participate in exciting activities, and whether they consider using drugs risky.

The US government sees the China-dominated AIIB as competition to the US-dominated World Bank and Asian Development Bank. But now that it is clear even to the White House that the US can’t stop the tide, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew backpedaled vigorously on Tuesday. The government would welcome the AIIB, he suddenly said, as long as certain conditions are met, such as adequate transparency. So after this bruising setback, the US now has another opportunity to oppose China’s financial and monetary ambitions.

China is trying to get the IMF to bestow reserve currency status on the yuan, which would add the yuan to a glorious basket that includes the dollar and the euro – currently the dominant reserve currencies with a 63% and 22% share respectively. So it has been lobbying core members of the IMF behind the scenes for support, and they’re coming around despite US conniptions, the Wall Street Journal reported. Despite these US conniptions, the writing is on the wall, at least for the long term. IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde summarized it last week while in China: The yuan as a reserve currency, she said, is more a matter of when, not if.

For China, it’s part of a long-term strategy, and not dependent on the next election cycle: reign in the power of the dollar – and the benefits it conveys to the US – by elevating the yuan and transferring some of those benefits to China. It won’t happen on a straight line. A “hard landing” or the outright implosion of the China bubble would be one of the zigzags along the way. But it will happen, and the US government is only able to slow down the process.

With a swift and sudden rise to power two months ago, the machinations of Mohammed, King Salman bin Abdul-Aziz’s favored son, remain elusive and his skill untested, even as he leads an aggressive — and escalating — Arab coalition intervention against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen. In just a week of fighting, he’s become a poster boy for the Saudi-led military campaign, known as “Operation Decisive Storm,” as well as an embodiment of his country’s recent shift toward a more hawkish foreign policy in the region.

Yet he is a man whose youth and inexperience have left him almost invisible until now. Even the prince’s age is a matter of speculation and debate. Some peg him as young as 27. Others say he could be as old as 35. “He is a mystery,” says Emile Hokayem, a Middle East analyst at the International Institute for Strategic Studies. More than a half-dozen other analysts and Middle East experts interviewed by Vocativ paint the prince in equally ambiguous terms.

As questions about Prince Mohammed grow, at least one thing is clear, observers say. He’s emerged as one of the most influential players in the House of Saud, and likely the youngest to yield any real influence. After ascending to the Saudi throne in January, his father, King Salman, moved swiftly to consolidate power, appointing the prince to three key cabinet posts. He made Mohammed defense minister and head of a newly-formed economic council. He also placed the prince in the role of chief of the royal court, the equivalent of White House chief of staff.

While the finer details have yet to be elaborated, the significance of this deal should not be underestimated. It will do much to defuse tensions around the Iranian nuclear programme and represents the culmination of more than a decade of political wrangling. While it is far from a perfect deal - many will argue that it rewards Iranian bad behaviour - the alternative would have been no deal at all and a significant deterioration of the diplomatic and security context. For western powers, the agreement will roll back elements of the Iranian programme and maintain an acceptable distance between Tehran and the bomb.

Among the measures announced, Iran’s 19,000 centrifuges will be reduced by two-thirds and the underground enrichment facility at Fordow will be converted into a research facility with enrichment activity confined purely to Natanz alone. For Iran, the deal allows it to keep a good amount of its nuclear programme while providing phased relief from economic sanctions as Tehran takes steps to implement the final deal if it is agreed by the end of June. If Iran fails to implement a deal then the sanctions will ‘snap back’ into place.

Crucially, a delicate dance of diplomacy has allowed both sides to present the outcome as a victory to domestic audiences, even if the naysayers – particularly in Tehran and Washington - will remain potential thorns in the side of successful implementation of the deal. But if the deal constitutes a pragmatic solution to a complex problem, it is also something of a Faustian bargain. While limiting Tehran’s nuclear activities and providing for an intrusive inspection regime, the deal also leaves Iran with a considerable enrichment capacity and the technical know-how to advance its nuclear programme at speed.

While major world powers and Iran made genuine progress in reaching a broad agreement in Switzerland on Thursday, the real test looms at the end of June when the deal must be finalized. "This is an encouraging development, but of course the devil lies in working out the details,” said Edwin Lyman of the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that is typically highly critical of nuclear power.

The marathon talks in Lausanne had been finely balanced between success and collapse, and Obama himself cautioned on Thursday that "success is not guaranteed" despite the agreement. Obama’s Republican rivals showed no signs on Thursday of retreating from plans to propose legislation that Obama says would undermine the talks, including a bill requiring that any final deal be approved by the Republican-controlled Congress.

US Senator Marco Rubio, a prospective presidential candidate, called the initial terms of the Iran deal "very troubling" and vowed to work to impose additional sanctions. Obama faces the challenge of calming Israel, which sees Iran's nuclear program as an existential threat and has previously hinted it might attack Iran's nuclear sites if it believes Tehran is making a dash to build an atomic bomb in defiance of any eventual final deal.

“Iran’s behavior in Syria and Iraq and Yemen, all of those places, is going to continue to muddy the waters for Obama in the Middle East,” said Aaron David Miller, a former Middle East negotiator for Republican and Democratic administrations. “But there may be enough traction here to get to the next phase of negotiations.”

Netanyahu added that the deal would legitimize Iran’s nuclear program and not block their path to a bomb, but instead pave its way. The Israeli leader suggested the alternative would be standing firm and increasing pressure on the country.

The White House released a readout of Obama’s call to Netanyahu Thursday night. Obama told the Israeli leader that the deal represents significant progress toward a solution that prevents the Islamic Republic from obtaining a nuclear weapon and emphasized US commitment to Israel.

Kirk remarked that the deal, which was announced Thursday, is more generous than Neville Chamberlain's offer to Nazi leader Adolf Hitler in Munich (in 1938), and that Congress would be hovering over the White House and US President Barack Obama during the final agreement negotiations.

Kirk, a longtime proponent of additional sanctions against Iran, introduced legislation several months ago that would mandate new sanctions only if a nuclear deal is not reached by March, a timetable that has already been extended past the original November deadline. The bill co-authored by Kirk and Democrat Senator Robert Menendez is a toned down version of a previous bill they authored and which had gained momentum in Congress, but Obama lobbied hard against it and threatened to veto it.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker added that the US will have to provide more details about the framework agreement, and that a State Department fact sheet released overnight did not give enough information for an informed decision. Moreover, hours after the fact sheet was released, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif contested several key points - and insisted that the US was lying.

One core issue is whether, when, and how Washington would impose sanctions on Iran for breaking the deal. “We don’t know what they would have to do for that to occur,” Corker said. “Congress can do something by weighing in on this deal. Congress’s role in this and concerns about this area could over time affect what actually happens.”

The meeting finally wrapped up at 6am, said a senior administration official, “and that is not because we were up early.” But how that key issue was resolved remains fuzzy. An Obama administration fact sheet on the deal says only that Iran will be able to conduct “limited research and development” into the centrifuges — which are far more efficient than the relatively crude devices Iran now operates — “according to a schedule and parameters which have been agreed to” by Iran, the United States, and five other world powers.

Although Iran will be barred for a decade from enriching uranium with the advanced devices, that schedule and those parameters remain otherwise unknown. Critics of the agreement were quick to zero in on the question. “This is a bad framework that will lead to a bad and dangerous deal,” said an Israeli government source in Jerusalem, who cited as a key complaint the fact that Iran “will continue its centrifuge research and development.”

The research-and-development question is just one of a handful of key issues left unresolved, at least in public, and which could endanger the agreement’s survival.

The siege ended nearly 15 hours after the Somali group's gunmen shot their way into the Garissa University College campus in a pre-dawn attack, sparing Muslim students and taking many Christians hostage. Interior Minister Joseph Nkaissery said four gunmen strapped with explosives were behind the attack, the same number that killed 67 people during the 2013 bloodbath at a shopping mall in Nairobi.

"The operation has ended successfully. Four terrorists have been killed," Nkaissery told Kenyan media. Kenyan police chief Joseph Boinet said the attackers had "shot indiscriminately" when they entered the university compound.

Al Shabaab, who carried out the deadly attack on the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi in 2013, claimed responsibility for the raid on the campus in Garissa, a town 200 km (120 miles) from the Somali border. The group has links to al Qaeda and a record of raids on Kenyan soil in retaliation for Nairobi sending troops to fight it in its home state of Somalia.

People who have acquired rights of residence will still have those rights even if the EU treaties cease. They are known as "acquired rights", "executed rights" or "vested rights". They are so firmly established that they have acquired the status of "customary law", which means that they stand as a fundamental principle of international law, not needing a specific treaty to confirm them. There is even a parliamentary briefing note about it, so Mr Grieve has no excuse.

Mr Grieve stands in a long line of people who have got things wrong concerning the EU, starting with the late Sir Edward Heath who assured everybody in 1971 that joining it involved "no essential loss of sovereignty". Years later, on television he admitted that he knew all about the project for the euro currency and for a United States of Europe at the time he said this.

Even that enthusiastic europhile Lord Hattersley half admitted the truth deficit on a Radio 4 programme in 2000: "Not only was it wrong for us to deal superficially with what Europe involved, but we've paid the price for it ever since, because every time there is a crisis in Europe, people say, with some justification, 'Well we would not have been part of this if we'd really known the implication.'" So never take at face value any statement about the EU by a main party politician – especially by a lawyer on a matter of law!

As reasons for the need to establish stronger cooperation, the MP named the “security situation” in the Middle East as the primary reason for the need to “support the democratic development of the country [Egypt]”. Kauder also stressed the importance of parliamentary elections taking place in “foreseeable time”, and to enable the press in Egypt to work “as freely as possible”.

In the statement by the Christian Union parliamentary bloc, economic ties were mentioned “foremost” as a field for growing cooperation between the two countries. According to the statement, Al-Sisi expected German investments in his country to number roughly €20-€30 billion. Another important aspect was the security cooperation, with assurances by the German side that there was a “strong interest that the relationships to Cairo develop successfully”. Kauder called the formation of a joint military force, as decided on at the Arab League summit on Sunday, as “a very important step”, since this force could “stabilise the region more than in the past”.

He also called Al-Sisi’s confession to religious freedom, an important topic to the German MP in the past, “impressive” with Al-Sisi stating: “There are only Egyptians and no division between Christians and Muslims.” The German MP is known as an advocate for Christians abroad, stressing the importance to protect them as a minority. He voiced concerns as Morsi took power, warning not to transform the Egyptian civil state into a religious one, and to maintain dialogue with social groups, especially including Christians.