Tag Archives: Mark Carney

French Grape juice and a shipyard

There are issues stirring in the land of grapes and cheese. In France things are becoming slightly restless. Now, I have had my doubts about Emmanuel Macron for several reasons, but not on this. The Express (at http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/834196/France-Emmanuel-Macron-en-march-crisis-polls-fall-French-president) gives us “Several members of French ruling party En Marche! have accused President Emmanuel Macron and party directors of going against the root values of the movement by trying to change the internal guidelines regulating the candidates’ selection process“, which gives my initial response ‘And?‘, you see, being in a new party, being in front and shouting the loudest does not automatically grant the rights to wield a multibillion wallet for defence or healthcare. In the end, the selected party needs to place the right people in the right places, those with knowledge and the ability to push a nation forward. This would have been the one nightmare for Nigel Farage if he had won the elections the last time around. No matter how we feel about UKIP, it is not really seeded with senior cabinet quality fuel. The same can be stated for En Marche! That view is well phrased in “French politics expert Ariane Bogane from Northumbria University told France 24 that the party had justified its decision to change key elements of the movement, such as internal election, by saying that it was in order to avoid “personal ambition,” “rivalry” and “in-fighting”“. So what is going on, is it merely the infighting, or the disillusion of those who did work hard and expected to become part of the French government? Those bragging on the post they are considered for and having to go home realising that the carefully phrased ‘we are considering‘, becomes, ‘we were forced to find the person with the ability much more suiting the expertise required‘? Politics is all about finding the pushing forward party, within the party it will almost never be about to compromise.

Yet the title gives another image. With ‘‘Oligarchy is coming!’ Macron faces nightmare political CLASHES as he PLUMMETS in polls‘ we are confronted with two part. As the express hid in the dictionary trying to tell us that a small group of people is in control in France is not new. Those who keep their eyes open are aware of that, for example, Natixis is surpassing a trillion euro value before the end of 2018, and its 15 members of the board have a large say for well over 20% of France, which is one hell of an impact. I am not referring that they have something to say, like for example Mark Carney as Governor of the British bank, no these 15 can lay down the law in unspoken ways. Actually, one of them had a (large) setback as the Wall Street Journal reported in 2014 with “Henri Proglio’s contract as chief executive of Electricité de France SA, sidelining a powerful businessman who has been close to the country’s center-right political camp“, yet there are several indications that this was merely a resignation on political grounds as some equally powerful players got to feel the heat of more than the mere risk of the Hinkley Point C nuclear project (yet, we will remain silent on those accusers, won’t we Credit Agricole SA?); in all this, the players have a point as the costs at one point was expected to surpass over 10% and on £18 billion it starts to add up fast. This is merely part one, in part two we need to look at the plummeting and so on. Yet overall, why becomes the question. I think it is more than that the current president is a mere former banker. In this the Independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/emmanuel-macron-popularity-rating-plummets-french-president-worst-in-20-years-july-ifop-budget-cuts-a7856986.html) gives us “Results come after the 39-year-old former banker unveiled key budget cuts in public spending and military finances – a move which has been heavily criticised“, which might be a valid reason for some to nag, yet what they forgot is that the previous administrations left France with a minus €2.1 trillion on the French governmental credit card and their economy is nowhere near the English one. In addition, France has a mere 64 million people, do that equation as debt per person bites in equality. The money is gone! The UK has been in this mode for well over half a decade and the French better wizen up fast, because the people now complaining had not as much as a hard time because harsh changes were required as early as 2010, nothing in that regard was seriously done. Another quote is “Mr Macron ended up overruling his own prime minister by vowing to go ahead with tax cuts in 2018, and plans to cut housing benefits were received unfavourably“, which everyone sneers at (the decision that is), yet perhaps you remember the French actor Gérard Depardieu who moved to Russia of all places because of outlandish taxation. When we consider some of the French numbers, we see the quote “less than 50% of inhabitants in France pay any income tax at all; only around 14% pay at the rate of 30%, and less than 1% pay at the rate of 45%” (source French Property). Under those conditions, we might expect that plenty have to complain about housing benefits, it might well be those not paying income tax at all. So when we see housing benefits, whilst the French are down well over 2 trillion, we have to consider how valid the polls are, perhaps better stated how fair they are one Emmanuel Macron. We all knew that the promises made by Emmanuel Macron would be hard to keep, yet not impossible. As a banker he knows that if the tax hike works and the hike become thousands of jobs, he has a start, the one thing about the French is that they are proud, yet those who are part of this Oligarchy tend to invest nationally as that is where their power and influence are.

For this we make a small sidestep to the dictionary. You see there are difference (which is also odd)

In the Cambridge dictionary we see “A type of government by powerful people in a small group is called oligarchy“, Merriam-Webster gives us “A small group exercises control especially for corrupt and selfish purposes in a type of government” and Oxford states “Oligarchy is a type of government controlled by a small group of people” so as we see the En Marche group cry in a Merriam-Webster style, whilst the reality is that the reality is merely the Oxford/Cambridge application of the issue. None of them invoke a social governing and even as the En Marche people are now moving towards Fascism accusations (none have been formally made at present), we need to realise that none of it matter if the French economy does not make a decent step forward. The social structures have drained the French nation too much. France has seen strike after strike; the French labour unions are a debilitating power, a fact even acknowledged by many French citizens. Now, I have never been against labour unions, yet they have to realise that their time as they perceive themselves to be is over, if the French have to default even once, their existence stops, the money flow stops and that will change the game forever in France. There are other parts and there is an issue whether a blame game applies. We have heard for some time on labour reforms, and even as we see the validity due to massive French debts, in this Bloomberg offers (at https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-24/macron-s-uphill-battle-against-france-s-labor-law-quicktake-q-a) questions and answers that I now can avoid. We know that there are issues, yet it comes from a civil law system, with the French labour code set in over 3000 pages, as such reform now becomes essential. We see reports like “French unions say making it easier to fire people won’t create jobs, and that unemployment results from the tight budget policies forced by EU-imposed austerity“, this is not an invalid response (read: consideration), yet in equal measure we see that there is little space for short term jobs and as such, backpackers all over Europe get to take some of the economic cream from the top of the revenue, something that might be valid work for the French, yet some of them are not going near any short term jobs in hear of long term consequences. The Bloomberg quote “His three immediate predecessors all viewed France’s labour laws as too restrictive. In 2003 and 2005, Jacques Chirac managed to loosen the 35-hour cap on the working week, making it easier and cheaper for companies to add extra hours. In 2008, Nicolas Sarkozy cut taxes on overtime work and made it simpler for individual workers to negotiate their own departures. And Francois Hollande’s reforms of 2013 and 2016 made it easier to justify layoffs due to a downturn in business” is the clearest one, you see three administrations have seen the folly of the labour restrictions. Whether the unions are in fear of the power they wield, and the fear of how they become obsolete, that is how I see it, four administrations realise that companies with 49 have growth limits, pushing themselves into foreign ground through partnerships when it becomes an option, slicing the French economy at least twice in a negative way.

The second issue is less on the things he does and more about how it is done. The New Statesman is referring to ‘the Macron Con‘, the Evening standard is all about ‘shedding the banker image‘ and some have even less nice things to say, yet some is of his own volition, with ‘My thoughts are ‘too complex’ for journalists, says Emmanuel Macron‘ the Telegraph paraphrases “An Elysée official told Le Monde newspaper that the 39-year-old centrist leader’s “complex thought process lends itself badly to the game of question-and-answer with journalists” that is held every year on the July 14 national holiday“, it is not a good way to make friends in that area of people who still at times laughingly refer to themselves as ‘journalists‘. It now becomes the question how they will see and report on the STX France nationalisation. In this there is validity to at least some degree. There is no guarantee that the Italians will keep it as is, there is no guarantee that there will not be a ‘transfer’ of grounds towards very different applicable destinations. When we consider USA Today as a source with: “STX France is the only shipyard in France big enough to build big warships. It’s also a significant employer in France“, if so, can anyone explain to me how handing it to the Italians was a clever move to begin with? If the EU will builds its force on EU ground, than France would fare a lot better keeping the one place where they could be build French property, that is merely good business. In addition, as it is still doing jobs, which are unlikely to be completed before the end of 2018, how is changing hands of the shipyard a good idea?

There is no doubt that the STX war is not over and I am not even going to speculate how this will turn out at present, you see being pre-emptive is one thing, the danger is that some shareholders will offer what they have in different ways to get the most out of their shares and greed can make a shareholder creative in getting the coin they expected. Yet, Trikkles (at http://trikkles.com/2017/07/28/french-government-to-nationalize-stx-france-economy.html), gives us “President Macron jettisoned his pro-business agenda and threatened to nationalise France’s leading shipyard to prevent its takeover by Fincantieri“, is that true? Keeping STX French might be very pro-business indeed. If it becomes Fincantieri property, there would be consequences. The Higher echelons could end up being replaced by Italians, so that is a chunk of funds not remaining in France, in addition, with procurement scandals first in Taipei in 2000 and now in India 2016, there are other considerations to make, so there are issues beyond the ship that is to be build. The interesting part is that in the entire emission control solution, I would have thought that they would focus on bringing jobs to the US, not ending up with a French place and getting loads of Americans and Italians to Normandy, let’s face it, it is no longer 1944.

In all this Emmanuel Macron seems to be getting a rough time. As the newspapers focussed on the largest drop, it seems that they are all in denial that both the UK and France are merely two players who have an astronomical deficit to deal with. In all this the Financial Times gives us another view (at https://www.ft.com/content/c826f982-7383-11e7-93ff-99f383b09ff9), as they state “Macron’s pro-EU stand is tested by Italy on the waterfront“, some will call it ‘betrayal’, yet who voice that and for what reasons? Here we also see the quote from Pier Carlo Padoan as he accused Mr Macron of abandoning his professed “pro-Europeanism and liberal values” by his decision to take STX France. So is it non-liberal or an essential step not to endanger the Normandy economy in the longer run? As we realise that STX is one of the few places in Europe where building an aircraft carrier is possible, as well as the fact that the largest cruise ship in history is getting build here, why leave it to the Italians? In this, the quote “Fincantieri had pledged to keep jobs and orders in France for five years” reads like a hollow joke, it merely not mentions that after 2022 syphoning the French economy towards Italy would be a given and with the French economy being a mere 1%, that syphoning could potentially kill the French options. So when I see the additional hollow quote “and Italian ministers rightly point out that Mr Macron’s demand to renegotiate suggests a lack of trust“, would that be a lack of trust, or a lack of Italian consideration when the clock strikes August 1st 2022?

In this there is one part that the complaining French seem to fail to grasp, if STX is only the first of a few reallocations to foreign owners, how deep in unemployment could France get? I have in the past never professed to be any kind of consideration to bankers like Emmanuel Macron, yet in equality I have been for the most always been on the side of giving all a fair chance, it seems that the French are not giving that to Emmanuel Macron, which as French citizens is their right (freedom of speech and so on). I merely hope that these people are looking further forward than the issues due next week, because in the long run France will need to adjust to a larger degree, the question becomes how and that is the issue that the previous 3 administrations have fought over for the longest time of their administration.

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Military, Politics

Upstairs, Basement

We have all seen the TV shows, and felt with both sides of the Victorian houses that had an upstairs and downstairs in London, places like Downton Abbey or were merely in Brideshead and we decided to revisit them. Hugh Bonneville, Michelle Dockery, Brendan Coyle, Jim Carter, Maggie Smith, Jeremy Irons, John Gielgud, Laurence Olivier, Ian Ogilvy and Anthony Andrews. Some of the biggest stars have been identified and idolised with this Victorian era view, some even in more than one of these series. We have felt for the high side and the low side, yet in all these times, there was always a feel of justice and acceptance for both sides. So why on earth the utter idiocy and non-acceptable acts of Lord Philipps, 4th Viscunt St Davids (pun with the additional missing ‘right’ and ‘honourable’ intended) Rhodri Colwyn Philipps decided to state “£5,000 for the first person to ‘accidentally’ run over this bloody troublesome first generation immigrant.” on social media is completely beyond me. I myself have been mostly outspoken in favour of Brexit, yet that does not take away the right of any Bremainer to voice their issues. Now I admit that plenty of those do not really voice it that clear, complete or correct. Yet it is still their right and of course those who fail to make the decent point will work in my Brexit favour and I was on the fence for the longest of time. It was the voice of Mark Carney in the House of Lords who got me from Brexit and moved me towards neutral on the fence. In the end the lack of insightfulness by Mario Draghi as he decided to print a trillion euro’s and wantonly spend it on no one knows what pushed me clearly back into the Brexit field. These issues all matter, because anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller had every right to campaign for her Bremain conviction. In all this, we might also ask a few questions regarding senior district judge Emma Arbuthnot at this point. That is based on the following in the article we see the quote “Mine includes, torturing Tony Blair, Hilary Clinton, Isis, Dave (PM) the forgettable, Murdoch … Oh and that hideous jumped up immigrant Gina Miller.“, which was the one that was found racially aggravating. Yet when we see the other responses, like “Please will someone smoke this ghastly insult to our country? Why should I pay tax to feed these monkeys? A return to Planet of the Apes is not acceptable” another vocal attack on Gina Miller. Now, the judge found that this was not menacing and acquitted Lord Phillips of the charge related to that post. So in this case let’s take a step back to the 14th of march when we see (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/mar/14/face-off-mps-and-social-media-giants-online-hate-speech-facebook-twitter), where we see “Social Media companies including Twitter, Facebook and Google have come under pressure from MPs for failing to take tougher action to tackle hate speech online” so as we see people like Yvette Cooper taking cheap shots at technological complicated issues to get a few easy points before the election, it seems that in regards to Gina Miller, UK’s little Yvette seems to be either really really quiet, or the media decided just to not take notice of her. Is that not weird too? It is all a little too sanctimonious to me.

Another post from this Lord Thingamajig was “I will open the bidding. £2,000 in cash for the first person to carve Arnold Sube into pieces, piece of shit” which was seen by her honour to be ‘menacing’ but not ‘racially aggravated’. Let’s take you through the legality. In the assault side we see ‘the actus reus of assault is committed when one person causes another to apprehend or fear that force is about to be used to cause some degree of personal contact and possible injury. There must be some quality of reasonableness to the apprehension on the part of the victim‘. So this is supposedly a lord, a wealthy man and for all intent and purpose an intolerable buffoon (read: legally speaking a man who is not very nice). In support I offer R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534, “The defendant made a series of silent telephone calls over three months to three different women. He was convicted under s.47 Offences against the Person Act 1861. He appealed contending that silence cannot amount to an assault and that psychiatric injury is not bodily harm“, yet in social media, empty screens have no value and the specific part “Holroyd J. to a jury that “no words or singing are equivalent to an assault”: Meade’s and Belt’s case 1 (1823) 1 Lew. C.C. 184” could also give rise that poetry and prose within social media texts could carry the same weight, allowing for less defence by the defending abuser on social media, especially if that person would try to rely on some obscure dark comedy aspect. In addition to the earlier given, as the quote included ‘£2,000 in cash for the first person‘ making it a contest (read: race to the target) and here we see again in the case R v Ireland [1997] 3 WLR 534 the issue given as ‘to fear an immediate application of force‘ now comes into play with £2,000 and with 20,000 dimes it would become anyone’s dime to relieve economic hardship, which is overwhelming to many people in the UK.

Although he has been found guilty, it seems to me that as he was acquitted from some parts. Yet these parts are part of a whole, this whole is not just his mere right of communication, it is the abusive approach he makes in all this and as such in the Mens Rea part we need to find that ‘in contact to the other and that contact was caused either intentionally or recklessly‘, well it seems to me that the published texts clearly shows the reckless part, which is evidently seen by thousands if not millions of others. Although the precise places were not given to me, a case could be made that it could have been intentional. You see, some were responses to categories. I am guessing that the ‘naughty ideas on orgasm‘ were in some ‘girly’ page or a given section on sex in for example the Guardian, as such it will be hard to prove that there was ‘intent’, yet reckless had already been established and that was enough.

In all of this there is no given defence. The options offered by the accused on the matter like “It’s not for first generation immigrants to behave the way Gina Miller did” is one I can immediately counter. She is a resident of the UK, a legal one (which has no influence), as such she has a freedom of speech, a freedom of opinion and a right to be politically aligned in any direction. As I stated, I am in opposition of her Bremain view, but it remains a valid view, whether right or wrong is in the eyes of the beholder. In her eyes I am the one with the wrong view on ‘Brexit v Bremain’. In the article (at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jul/11/man-jail-offering-money-run-over-gina-miller-rhodri-philipps-viscount-brexit) that started all this is also the quote “The judge added: “To some who don’t know you they would perceive the offers of bounty as menacing.”“, her honour seems to step over the issue that there were two money offering events as such there is a pattern, in the second there is the issue that in this economic day and age there is the risk that too many people would take a member of the aristocracy at their word, as such these were two oral contracts towards establishing a criminal act. The fact that I see no mention of this is actually a larger issue. In this we see a lot more at revolvy.com (not sure about the source at present regarding correctness of data). Here we see that he holds half a dozen titles, all inherited. In addition we see “Following a complaint made in November 2016, Philipps was arrested in January 2017 by Metropolitan Police officers investigating online abuse against a 51-year-old woman. In March 2017 he was charged with malicious communications with racially aggravated factors, over alleged threats against Gina Miller, the woman behind a successful legal challenge against the UK government’s intention to give notice to leave the European Union without an act of parliament“, this implies that Rhodri Philipps is an optional repeat offender, a fact that the Guardian did not make mention of.

So as I seem to have wrapped that up neat and decently tight, it seems that any upcoming article on Twitter social media and online hate speech should be thrown in the faces of any MP (literally throw that paper into their faces I mean), with the mention that unless they are a lot more consistent in their actions and silence regarding Gina Miller, they should shut the ‘eff’ up and start doing something useful for a living.

The other part that irritates me a little is the sterility of the event as the article shows. Now, from the Guardian points of view that makes sense, the reality is that this is an emotional situation and as such emotions will run high soon as such it makes sense. In addition, there is nothing wrong with the article that Julia Gregory wrote, yet the fact that I got a lot more issues, events and facts in front of me in about 5 minutes gives rise that the lack of illumination of acts that several papers show in the last 6 months regarding Rhodri Philipps, the 4th Viscount St Davids give rise to a loosely translated ‘structural problem’ with this person and the way how he communicates. Now as stated before we all have the freedom of speech and expression, which is not in question, yet this person bankrupt three times, another implied pending case as well as.

We will hear tomorrow what the man has coming, I wonder if it will be another suspended sentence like in Germany, if that is so that the House of Lords would need to take a sitting on the situation and discuss whether a Viscount should be allowed to hold his title when there is the larger consideration that it allows the person to evade jail sentences. We can all agree that any person, living upstairs or downstairs in the mansion has rights to speak and sometimes is might be grammatically correct, yet it is a lot less refined that that of a London Dockworker; these moments do occur (we all have these issues, especially during a sports match), yet as it is seen in repetition, should a person in such an elevated position of privilege not be held to higher standards? If so, should he be allowed to keep all those titles? In the end the House of Lords would rule against my request, yet it is important to hold that conversation. Merely because this is not some revamping of words and an edited view of some interview, these are the words that he submitted to social media, ready to be seen by thousands and more. In his case we get an actual first that in the consideration of upstairs, downstairs that he is the one who should reside in the basement and the staff members on the first flow, sleeping in a lovely bedroom with a nice view.

To be regarded in high esteem is one thing, to actually live up to it, quite another. In all that it seems to me that Rhodri Colwyn Philipps, 4th Viscount St Davids failed on every level possible, that might be seen as an accomplishment, yet is it the one we should allow for?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Politics

This last day

This last day should be a day of reflection, a day of consideration. I feel none of these things as I am observing the mistakes that Marine Le Pen is now making. I get why she would get the referendum vamped up and get stronger waves towards Frexit, yet her call to leave NATO makes a lot less sense. For one, NATO still does mean the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, France is part of that North Atlantic, she has a duty of care there (a lot less so for the EC, the EEC or the Euro for that matter). She does make a point when we look at the expansion into Eastern Europe. Let’s face it, when we look into the original line, there was Germany which goes a lot to the south, then basically it is Italy. Getting into Eastern Europe makes a lot less sense. Let’s not forget, the Americans at present no longer have the means to play this game. A fact Lockheed needs to take into consideration, even if the price of the F-35 is given without an engine ($133 million, without engine), making it basically the most expensive paperweight in history. In addition, it came with a truckload of issues in 2014, whilst the 2015 report states “the majority of the fixes and for capability deficiencies being discovered are being deferred to later blocks rather than being resolved“, with new items of concern added. I found the additional quote form the 2015 report “inherent design problems that are only becoming more obvious and difficult to fix” most amusing, so if Marine Le Pen has in mind to not go anywhere near a Lockheed design, that would make sense. Now I do not want to brag, but with all my flying hours in the Microsoft Flight Simulator (2004), I might actually beat that latest flawed Lockheed F-35 with my experience in a Mikoyan MiG-35 (OK, I am bragging a little as I have never flown ANY jet in my life). What is the issue is that the politicians have not kept a good accord on the military abilities of the armed forces, not the people mind you, but the equipment they get stuck with. As such we see a 1.5 trillion dollar project showing more holes than an IKEA Pasta insert (named ‘Stabil’, which is hilarious as it is also means stable in Swedish). A project $160 billion over budget and 7 years behind schedule, and these were the numbers in 2014. A defence project that was too big to kill and that is what the NATO partners have to content with?

So why these topics? The world is changing, it is changing faster than ever before and the minders of the store have been so selfish in regards to their own personal needs (read: visibility of self via ego) and achievements that the duty they had was pushed under the rug. This is how I personally see the F-35 project.

The financial sector in the UK alone these financial boys (girls also) had the bulk of the £44bn in bonuses this year, so did your quality of life increase any (the topic jump will make sense in a few moments)? Now, even as wealth increased, it did not do so to that extent. It is not that fair to just have a go at the financial sector, apart from the fact that they ended up with bonuses of 1900% more than the amount all the others got, so balance is not that much in play. That view is shown stronger as we look at Forbes this week (at http://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2016/12/28/greece-the-game-is-on-again/#2585dbd946e5), the quotes that matter here are “Euclid Tsakalotos, the normally mild-mannered Finance Minister, accused the IMF writers of “economizing on the truth”. He pointed out that the main reason why so few Greeks pay income taxes is that their incomes have crashed, and that nearly half of Greek pensioners are living below the poverty line” and “The IMF’s case is that pension cost as a proportion of GDP is now unsustainable, and further, that the creditors are not going to agree to debt relief while pension cost remains so high. It is probably right on both counts. But once again, what really matters is the psychological framing“, in that regard I will be on the side of the Greeks, but not on the side of Greece. You see when their previous governments got loans and misrepresented their value, they had zero consideration on what pensions were in regards to the loans that they were getting under false pretense, in that regard, did any of those politicians go to jail? Did they refund 90% of their incomes? I am certain that the answer to both is ‘No!’, in addition those elected officials are sitting pretty and nowhere near the poverty line. Yet in all this the hardship is not over, in addition, the facts (as I personally see them) requires a little more digging, especially when I read “Attica Bank, the country’s fifth-largest lender, was poised to install a new management team he thought was capable of turning round the struggling lender” which were the thoughts of Yannis Stournaras, the governor of the central bank of Greece, which was followed by “While he was in the air, the government in Athens reversed the decision to award the job to Mr Pantalakis. It was his introduction to a web of allegedly related events, ranging from a raid on his wife’s business to an unsuccessful bid for TV rights backed by Attica loans“, this gives the implied issues on Yannis Stournaras, which gives more cause concern when we see “A confidential report on Attica carried out this year by the European Central Bank, the Eurozone’s top bank supervisor, and seen by the Financial Times, cited “severe findings” of poor governance and inadequate controls on lending. With some 70 per cent of its loans rated as non-performing, Mr Stournaras and others believed Attica urgently needed a professional banker at the helm. Government sources denied any intervention in the process to select Attica’s CEO” (at https://www.ft.com/content/aab0aaba-c6db-11e6-8f29-9445cac8966f). The implications are on a few levels especially in the light of ‘government sources denied‘, there is a mess on a few levels and the idea that personal needs were adamant in decisions is not without probable cause. The levels that are in question cannot be set because too much information is missing, but there are issues, make no mistake about that.

These issues connect, not directly but in the view of national voters, governments have made absolute shambles of their nations giving power to those with key wealth management options, in that need those who need to be at the helm are politicised and set to markers that are off the table and outside of the scope of visibility to scrutinise, whilst the presentations are showing markers that do not fit the person best suited for the job, in that Greece is not the only place with such issues. In the UK Mark Carney is facing similar issues, yet in the opposite direction. The best person for the job is the one the elected government seems to have an issue with. The independent (at http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/bank-of-england-mark-carney-theresa-may-attack-monetary-policy-tory-conference-speech-a7380016.html) gives us “Mr Carney argued that the monetary policy pursued by the Bank in recent years has had a positive impact that is “without parallel”, despite the Prime Minister using her speech to claim it had led to “bad side effects”“, in addition we see “Since quantitative easing was first introduced in the economy in 2009 … there’s been 2.6 million jobs created, GDP is up 16 per cent, per capita income is up 9 per cent and this is following a trauma in the economy“, we might see this as good news, but the good news is in the UK not dripping down to the other people just yet. In addition, the dangers will change if sharp budgets are not maintained. Getting the debt down is an absolute first, it will have additional benefits down the road, yet the initial benefit is that money could go to other destinations than paying for the interest of the debt, the interest of a debt amount that is currently in excess of 1.6 trillion. This was not the first attack, Michael Gove had a go at England’s Marky Mark in October. It is always nice when a person is called arrogant, especially when that person has proven to be amongst the very best in his field on the planet. I myself had had some issues in the past with Mark Carney, yet not against the man, but the economic issues that the UK faced because of actions (read objectives) pushed for by politicians, however his speech in the House of Lords showed him to be the expert he is and he nearly got me away from the Brexit team. Yet Mark Carney himself states it very well when he said: “Politicians have done a very good job of setting up the system. Where it can be difficult, sometimes, is if there are political comments on our policies as opposed to political comments on our objectives“, in this we see the issue that is part of the problem. as the politicians set up the objectives, they are then confronted with the policies from technocrats and those two groups do not see eye to eye, so friction goes back and forth, the Lockheed F-35 lightning is an excellent example here, in addition that part got an extra iteration as the military requirements were added by yet another group (read: the military). In all this the political objective is hampering the essential need against ‘it needs to be done by date X for no more than amount Y‘, which gives us the political joke that the NHS IT project was. A present from the Labour government which boiled down to a £11.2 billion wrapper around an empty box. Two projects set through objectives that ended up being off the wall and the back and forth friction that resulted in something unmanageable and non-functional. I reckon the political side of both events needs a new level of scrutiny, one that we have not considered before. In that regard having people like Mark Carney around is essential for the wheels of a state to remain functional, because if there is one clear thing, it is that America lost that oversight some time ago, before this Democratic Administration, the previous republican one lost sight of the needs and the accountability of the intelligence network and data processing side no later than 2006, we can all agree that the 2007-2012 total budget of $435 billion was money massively spent in all the wrong ways. This was shown in a Foreign office document that was quoted in an article stating “Army officials, though, said Palantir wasn’t up to the job. Now, a 57-page report by the Pentagon’s acquisitions arm basically says the Army was wrong to dismiss the Palantir system. The study instead gives Palantir high marks on most of the Army’s 20 key requirements for the intelligence system, including the ability to analyse large amounts of information, including critical data about terrorist networks and the locations of explosive devices, and synchronize it in a way that helps troops on the ground combat their enemies more effectively“, so there too billions were spent when millions could have sufficed. When the EGO of an individual with the power to decide is on the line, the results could be disastrous. In my personal view, if we accept the wrongful spending of 25 billion, how many extra troops could have been saved by adding fire support groups to those in IRAQ in those years? How many of the 4486 fatalities could have been prevented?

Politicians, advisors and ego are a really dangerous combination in many ways, even as we look at what is coming now, we need to be mindful of the changes that some are pushing for. Even if we are in favour of dropping the EC altogether, pushing NATO boundaries might not be the best solution. France might be privy to one of the better intelligence machines, that machine is also dependent on the intelligence it is fed from allies, an essential element that will fall away when NATO does, Marine Le Pen should be very mindful of that.

Yet this year and more important 2017 will go beyond Frexit. There is still a large debate on the Netherlands making any move away from the European Community, the numbers require people to be realistic on what will happen, yet those numbers are nowhere near the numbers Brexit had, so it is still unlikely that this will happen at present, no matter how certain Frexit will be. Italy might not have any manoeuvring space, it requires a massive infuse of funds, when we see the Reuters quote “An Italian government official told Reuters on Tuesday that €20bn earmarked for the rescue of the Italian banking system should suffice“, we need to wonder in how much trouble Italy is. This question is raised as we see Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena will issue €15 billion of debt next year (source: RTE). So we see another iteration where “The Treasury may have to put up around €6.6 billion to salvage the lender, including €2 billion to compensate around 40,000 retail bond holders“, so, how exactly is it acceptable that people ‘invest’ with a risk, yet when that risk comes calling, they still get compensated? How did any of us ever sign up for that?

Anyone who mentions that it is for the good of all is of their rocker plain and simple. Here too we see connection between France and Italy, mainly that the Natixis Global Asset Management (NGAM) thought it was a good idea to list Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena as a major purchase right next to Ubisoft. I reckon a little less ‘lack of nationalism’ and putting all of that cash in addition to the other amount into Ubisoft might have been a decently better idea. I feel certain that next year when we see the ‘Top Ten Holdings’ in the Natixis report will not make mention of Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, which could just be me though.

So in this last day we see that we have quite the collection of choices to deal with, some good and many bad ones. Yet no matter what is happening, no matter what will fall, there is a decent indication that unless changes are made 2017 will not be a good year. I might be too negative to see some level of collapse in Q2 (no later than Q3) in the next year, yet the proper setting and if the key players are willing to forego ego and focus on cooperation, they would be setting the stage for a lucrative 2018, that is beside the initial technological presentations of the new age of G5. G5 will be the pushing power in IP, especially Trade Marks, yet that path is also loaded with new growth opportunities for IT and developers as they start setting the tone of what 5G could personalise, it will be the first firm push to switch providers to SaaS. That is almost without question, the degree to it happening is very much depending on actual cooperation. In that the Telco providers need to realise as per immediate that thinking SaaS whilst selling Paas and charging IaaS, which sounds nice on bonus day. Yet the boomerang effect is that clients will walk away a lot faster and they will also automatically entice 10 personal connection to not seek the services of the telecom provider being that stupid. Infrastructure as a Service is almost a thing of the past. It seems weird, because there should be space for it, yet in our new outfits we see that infrastructure is a long term commitment and with annual mobile purchase the people have learned to be as flexible as possible, so the limited mobiles that some sell (32Gb instead of 64Gb editions) is why people are realising to walk away from those offering limitations instead of solutions. It is at times harder with Platform as a Service. You see, PaaS might sound nice when we see Apple and SAP connecting, yet the bulk of the revenue will be the smaller fish in the pond, the small players will be 80% of the revenue, one can argue the actual taxable cake of government will be largely depending on those players and for them IaaS is a laughable solution when they are trying to get as much as possible in the first few years and those smaller players want as much flexibility as possible taking to some extent PaaS from the table. SaaS will be solution of choice and those now adhering to that need will fall short in 2018 and they are unlikely to be part of anything in 2019. In that we see the government need of objectives that cater to what the SME’s need. A mere application of supply and requirement. You might think that this is not connected to the previous parts, but it is. When we see the NHS, Banks and government, their needs to address their audience, they need to consider that no matter the infrastructure or platform for communications, they all need to see that their clientele is no longer rigid, no longer bound to certain paths for the simple reason that the infrastructure of places like the NHS can no longer deal with. It is by definition a mobile customer base that needs addressing, this means, or at least implies that the SaaS solutions require a wider setup, other paths of non-repudiation and a very different approach to data, its quality, its controls and the application of the results in any report or estimation towards costings and profit. It is a path of contribution, which is set as revenue minus costing.

For the better part an entirely new path in a setting that has for too long been about a rigid collection of data, which when compared to a setting in a flexible framework no longer holds a candle and will come with the implied death of data quality. in these places there will be a growing need for a data team that has the sole purpose of managing the quality of data, this path is one that IT has never worked on to the degree it had, because in the past systems were set in concrete and after the correct data pass had been made, the data usually would not require ‘resetting’ it in another framework, a change that will be almost evident in the systems we will see start in the next 4 years. There, for some the problem becomes that they have never contemplated the changes, which now also means that once they go into the deep of it all, the time required and the resources required will be a lot more draining than ever before. It is in that path that we see the danger of politicians and technocrats in the required path of objectives and policies. As there is plenty of evidence that so far this track record is not that great, we will see a squandering of funds and a dangerous curve of unprotected data whilst no one will be actually held accountable for the transgressions against those consumers aka victims.

So on this last day there is no way that any solution will be found, just take in the information and next week wonder what on earth is about to hit you, there is some speculation in this, yet I believe that the ‘objective callers’ (read: politicians) will rely on the word ‘glitch’ a lot more than ever before, it might just become the most popular word for 2017.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Media, Military, Politics

When everyone is a winner

You have heard of these special schools? The school where everyone wins, no one has a bad grade and everyone is special. Yes, we are talking about the Eurozone, the one school where lessons are not learned, where those who posture (read: all) win a prize, or perhaps they fetch a price. What matters is that this social path does not get us anywhere.

You see, I am not some anti-social person, I understand that we can be compassionate, but I do have a problem when grown men, all making 7 figure incomes are given that level benefit of doubt. Mainly because I could do a better job for half the price. We see the first issue a few days ago when Wolfgang Schäuble makes the statement (source: the Guardian) “Greece must implement economic reforms if it is to keep its place in the Eurozone“, and when we see the degrees that this man has, we might consider that he is not a demented toddler, so when we consider the knowledge that we have obtained over the last year:

1. A nation can only voluntarily leave the Eurozone.
2. Considering the UK and the hassle it is facing just to get past article 50.
3. The fact that Grexit was not a possibility, which drove the UK towards Brexit and France towards Frexit.

Can we sincerely ask the question why this man is opening his mouth posturing some level of adulthood (or adultery for those with a sarcastic look at the EU charter), whilst all know that this is basically an empty statement?

So, if the statement “If Greece wants to stay in the euro, there is no way around it – in fact completely regardless of the debt level”, the entire Brexit could have been avoided when the children of the EEC commission had acted when they should have (read: all the way back in August 2014), so because the denied ‘status quo group‘ who tried to keep the gravy train going we all had enough and most Britons decided that going it alone is just the best solution, now that we see that this same group is realising what they are about to lose, it is only now that we see the first noises to make the hardest decisions, all because they are about to lose trillions. The fact that this comes from Germany is not a surprise and it isn’t linked to the hardship the Deutsche Bank faces. Yet, the people behind Schäuble (Wall Street and the IMF, which is my personal speculation), we now see desperate steering towards alternative solutions hoping to find an option to thwart Brexit and perhaps steer Frexit away from a referendum course. It might work, but we all need to realise that French pride has already been dented, so there is no way to accurately tell how that part will pan out.

We see a diversionary tactic in the quote “With his own popularity plummeting in the face of fury over creditor-mandated cutbacks, the prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, had hoped to wrap up a second review of policy measures in time for Monday’s meeting as part of a broader strategy to secure short-term debt relief and participation of Greek bonds in the European Central Bank’s quantitative easing programme“, yet this is all true. So why do I call it a diversion? You see, the players behind the screens are about to lose thousands of billions (read: trillions), so Greece and their 300 billion really do not add too much on the entirety of the big picture. Even as the US is heralding such huge achievements in unemployment figures, most will not realise that in February, after thanksgiving, after Christmas and after January sales, the shops will downsize by a lot. There is a lot of speculation on Black Sunday and the other shopping spree numbers, but as too many speculations are given here from too many sources, we actually will not know the actual outcome until mid-January and after that any action and all numbers will get quietly hushed to page 23 of newspapers. That is done because the Democrats really do not want anything in that regard to receive too much visibility until January 20th when all eyes will be on the start of the Blame Trump campaign.

What is a given is that the American administration is facing dire moments and their only fortune is that this impacts Wall Street, the IMF and the Rothschild’s, so their all uniting in finding any solution that keeps their Status Quo. They might not be related to the band, but the tour that these players have been preparing for will include hits like ‘Whatever I want‘, ‘Roll over stay down‘ and ‘Rocking for all that I own‘. Now, what is the link between the IMF and the Rothschild banks? Well, it is not what some conspiracy theorists states like: ‘Rothschild Bankers Looting Nations through World Bank/IMF‘ or ‘Hungary Becomes First European Country to Ban Rothschild Banks‘, what is of principle matter is the claim that ‘The International Monetary Fund is an international development banker. It makes loans to governments. It gets its funding from member governments‘. Yet, when you consider the debt these members are in, with the top 5 having a total debt that surpasses 35 trillion, can anyone explain where their money is actually coming from? The short answer is that the funds are fictive and virtual, and basically as I personally see it based on fraudulent economic settings to say the least; which now implies that only the larger (read: largest) players with the Rothschild family at the very top are included as behind the screen underwriters (for a percentage of course, they are not philanthropists), that is the reality of banking and those underwriters want to see their money. So at this point losing 300 billion is nowhere near the issue as losing an amount surpassing 5 trillion. So there is every issue in play and the German Wolfgang Schäuble is doing the ‘kick off’ whilst everyone is slightly less interested in economy and more into the Christmas parties with the office assistant in a horny accommodating outfit that in the mind would include transparent Red Santa lingerie, willing to engage in activities of a ménage-a-troy kind.

Welcome to the holiday season they will think, whilst on the other side the economy is decided for the largest players in a setting of debt by those not elected but enabled. The mere consequence of governments and the corporate contracts. The debt must flow, the debt must grow and the UK moving out of the EEC is the first step into giving the UK its true independence from these financial institutions. That part is now also under attack as the ‘British Balls’ (read: Labour Party Ed Balls, former Economic Secretary to the Treasury) is at the core of that part, as was shown (at https://www.ft.com/content/2616611e-a665-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1), on November 17th in the Financial Times. You see, even as I have had a few disagreements with its Governor (aka Marky Mark of the British bank), the man has steered it correctly in the direction the United Kingdom required it to go. Yet now as this does not pleases the non-governing parties at large, well Balls, let’s make a deal, shall we? If we agree to reign back the independence of the Bank of England, you must agree and sign a decree per immediate that any politician squandering treasury money due to any level of negligence (or incompetence), will have to go to prison for 10 years without the option of parole. Would you sign that Ed? Consider the NHS IT issue of 11.2 billion, how many of your friends will be set to prison? How many negligent programming contracts were signed off on? Are you willing to make that leap, because the only ‘friends’ you end up having are those of the non-UK kind and many of them mere graduates that were on your every word in that Harvard building where you made that speech and a few more in financial institutions who didn’t much care for the independence of the Bank of England. So how about it Eddy, you got the Balls for that one? I would expect some kind of other proclamation soon enough. You see what he wants is not any accountability in a setting where all is squandered away. The British people have had more than its share of that one. So as we read: “The paper comes after vehement attacks on central banks and their policies in the US, UK and Germany; criticism that would have been unthinkable in the 1990s and pre-crisis 2000s, when the fashion for central bank independence was at its peak“, where I would see that the idiotic notion of the Bank of England should be forced to fund infrastructure projects, whilst we know where 11.2 billion didn’t get the job done and there wasn’t enough money to get it sorted due to negligence and what I would regard after 20 years in IT as ‘steps of utter stupidity’, well worth of getting those decision makers in prison for the longest of time (read: while I am aware that the maximum prison term would be 10 years), a term that others would call too light, especially those who are now due to no fault of either party are getting less from the NHS that can no longer meet the high standards it gave for the longest of times.

So when we read in that same paper “Carney says politicians ‘deflect blame’ by attacking central banks’ Rising inequality is driven by more fundamental factors, argues BoE governor“, my response would be: “Right you are Marky Mark!“, although I would speculate that some of these fundamental factors would be the ignorance of the decision makers whilst relying on people trying to get the maximum they can out of the deal offered and the connections relying on them. That would a fundamental first to consider and solve. Which gets me to the point that those politicians will be held accountable for the support to these projects and they need to be dealt with if they fail. So the special prize for these non-kids is the one that every winner wants, 120 months of hotel accommodation in places like Holiday resort Wakefield, or Wandsworth Garden retreat in South West London? Would that perhaps up the game of a few politicians, or will they suddenly decide to be less enabling to those who see the independence of the Bank of England to be more than an eye sore and a factor that stops their maximum profit to continue? I am merely asking, not making a claim of any kind.

The Financial Times article has a few other sides and makes fair statements, even though the initial source is questionable from my point of view. The writer Chris Giles adds at the end “For the Fed, the problem is reversed and while it has in its Financial Stability Oversight Council sufficient political legitimacy for macro prudential policies, the US central bank does not have sufficient tools to do the job and cannot request new tools from the administration, it adds“, you see, the British and US systems might seem the same, but they are not. I would surmise that there is a Federal and State level of these issues that the UK does not have to the extent the US has them. It is not just the differences in approach and connections, I and most of us see the Bank of England as the pulse of the health of the British economy and as such, its independence, especially from a boatload of politicians, is essential to this view. Now, I might certainly be wrong, yet overall, how many would agree that many politicians seem to spend in what they truly believe to be for the best, whilst not having a clue on how proper debt levels need to be and they will happily push that bill to the next cycle, the NHS IT is not the only, but definitely one of the clearest and largest examples of mismanaged spending on several levels, having someone independent in charge of the Bank of England making sure that the tap gets closed before it is too late in this term with a clear look at what comes next and what else is due now. A view many politicians on a global scale are lacking. And as the US system has a much more isolated view regarding the economy enablers, the economy and the US treasury gives another shine on their view and their lacking demand for independence and accountability (again, as I personally see this).

You see, there is a lot more in play, this isn’t just on what is due to Greece, the UK or the Banks wanting there coin. The fact that left and right have to some degree social values and of course, the left tends to have a little more of that. Yet, when we look at ‘Greece under fire over Christmas bonus for low-income pensioners‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/09/greece-under-fire-over-christmas-bonus-for-low-income-pensioners), we need to question certain responses. The quote “A goodwill gesture to ease the plight of those hardest hit in Greece by tax increases and budget cuts has backfired spectacularly on the prime minister, Alexis Tsipras” is one that is of great concern. Consider that this is about retirees that get less than €800, so, when we consider that rent in Greece is €450 or more, with added monthly utilities of no less than €140, this means than they get to live of €310, which is abysmally little. A week of food and clothes and other things at €75 per week is the nightmare scenario for even the best miser in town. Now consider Christmas is around the corner and these Greeks and those getting even less are getting a one-time bonus for Christmas. It is a social smallest act by the Greek government and after the issues that the retirees have gone through clearly the act that should be done as soon as possible. So I would really like to know the names of these ‘International creditors pour scorn on prime minister Alexis Tsipras‘, in addition, I would like to see what their functions were and their incomes from 2004 onwards. You see, I want those people and I want to see if they were in any way enabling the imbalance that Greece developed between 2004 and 2009. Mainly because the Greeks suffering now would really like to get those names and addresses. For those following a little longer, I have had plenty of criticism towards what I used to label ‘rock band Tsipras & Varoufakis’, in addition I have had additional issues with what was done over the time period, yet I had never had issues with any solution that could be found resolving the issue, in addition, when Greek was playing hard to get, I was first in line to throw them out of the EEC and the Euro, yet the power players behind all this, and possibly the people holding onto the debt markers were equally accountable. Yet, I have never had anything negative to state over the Greek people at large (apart from the stupidity of all these strikes), so I would have no issue with Tsipras giving a little release in the one month when that makes perfect sense and likely matters the most. Yet in this social climate, we see in equal measure the debatable view by Labour people wanting central banks to be more dependent on the politicians who cause a lot of these issues to begin with. How freakin’ crazy do you need to get here?

So when we consider that special school where everyone is a winner, can we actually accept or even entertain the thought of hiring someone who is on that school of thought? How much damage must Europe endure before the people at large gets a clue? There is accountability, which I have always supported, yet in equal measure, the strain on the Greek people have been unjust been brought by those who have been facilitators of a system that should never allowed to continue to this degree, meaning that Greece should have been removed from the Euro at least 2 years ago. Doing it now, could only be done if the debt of 300 billion would be forgiven, a step that the players are unwilling to give, yet in the light of all that is passing, they are now considering certain steps, only so that they can hang onto an optional 35 trillion, that is the game in play and now, as they realise that the UK has had enough and that France is on the same side of that seesaw, now those creditors are considering the consequence of pressure so now they will divide the EEC and conquer whatever funds they can, for as much as possible. In that light the one off payment is scorned on, so how inhumane have some players become and should we even consider tailoring to their needs?

The scenario where everyone is a winner is a long time away and it is unlikely that Greece and a few others feel this way any day soon, giving even more caution to the words of a president who is on the way out. And who are Greeks creditors? What is the full list, is it not interesting how the press has the detailed specifics on the knickers (read panties) of a Kardashian and the Greek government creditors list gets trimmed to the aggregated list that serves themselves and no one else. In that I believe that Yanis Varoufakis is only scratching the surface when he states “the UK referendum was a “symptom” of a series of mismanagements from EU leaders“, in that he is right and it seems that now he is less of the rock star he presented himself to be, now we see another Yanis, one that is not just driving the nails on the head, he is quickly realising that certain players are preparing for even more issues to be added to the exit of nations from the EU. Even as some is by part to smear the cogs of Germany’s needs, the quote “To take a trip down the Danube to discuss the formation of a European army – pure irrelevance. There is no evidence unfortunately that the political class on the Continent is capable of even sitting down to address the right questions, let alone, deliver the right answers“, which is at the core of failure of any created European army. The biggest issue is not how it is formed, we will see soon enough that once Frexit is a reality, what would actually be left to actually form any decent European army with? It could be a revolutionary new Disney. As we redesign Snow White and the Seven Dwarves into Germany & the 7 minions who cannot agree on anything, will we now see new polarisation in several ways being added to the list of negative plights? In addition, if Italy remains as the larger player, the mere concept of language will be the hilarity of many. I would be willing to wager that the concept as it is failing will derive laughter from 2400 Route de Pexiora, 11452 Castelnaudary Cedex, so loud that it can be heard in both Berlin and Rome, which should make for an interesting news cycle to say the least.

I have spoken against the ideas of several people mentioned in this article, I thought that they went the wrong way about things and they got bit, which I would call ‘serves them right‘, yet I have never applauded or agreed to the level of pressure the Greek people are currently under, in addition, the German finance ministers views, as I personally see them, are not about Europe and not about what would be best for Europe or the United Kingdom. I believe some are starting cycles of facilitation and enabling that will in the end be really bad for Europe, for the United Kingdom, for France and for Europe as a whole. I will let you contemplate how wrong I could be and if that is not the case why the clear outspoken opposition against these proclaimers aren’t coming from more sides, more people and more media. Is that not weird either?

A game where everyone is a winner only knows losers, a truth that goes back to ancient Greece, they were the founding fathers of the Olympics after all!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, IT, Law, Media, Military, Politics

The editor in question

It started to be such a fine morning. I got up at 5:45, got onto the business for the day. Which started by sending a fax to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi regarding the pressure points of the Dow Jones. It was then that I realised that Mario Draghi has been in office for exactly 5 years. In addition, there is still my anger with Paul Michael Dacre regarding last Friday’s front page, with the mention “The judges who blocked Brexit: One founded a EUROPEAN law group, another charged the taxpayer millions for advice and the third is an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer”. It makes me want to ignore the law and slap the man silly on Trafalgar Square with a 25 inch pink coloured rubber dildo! This side of me wants to make it clear that I do not completely oppose the subtitle ‘journalists are free to complain about Brexit ruling, as Labour confirms it will not block article 50‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/nov/06/labour-will-not-block-article-50-jeremy-corbyn-allies-confirm), however, when I read the trivialised version of demonising three judges, who have served the nation and were instrumental in pushing (read: evolving) Common Law forward, we need to remind readers, politicians and most others, that it was the daily mail that stated “Leveson law ‘is worst threat to free speech in the modern era'”, for him I have the message: “No, Pharisee Mountebank Dacre, we wanted to hold people like you and Murdoch accountable for the things you write!“, which pretty much sums up my anger and in that regard, I tend to blame the person at the top.

516393-daily-mail-enemies-of-the-state

I do agree with the Prime Minister when I read “the prime minister said she believed the high court had every right to deliver its verdict but argued that journalists were similarly free to complain about it“, she is right, there should be freedom of the press, that was never in question, yet the reference ‘an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer‘ is to be regarded as sexual discriminatory as my view goes. Let’s face it, the Daily Mail is no Jimmy Carr sketch, although, that reference should also come with the warning that Jimmy Carr has a lot more class than the Daily Mail ever had or likely will have.

Let’s face it, those who read my blog know that I have been pro Brexit, although the well-known Marky Mark of the British Bank (read: Mark Carney, Governor of the bank of England) pulled me back on the fence, almost changing my direction regarding Brexit. His address to the House of Lords was that good and gave the clarity all Britons needed before the votes. You see, my move towards Brexit was driven to some extent towards the idiotic spending spree by Mario Draghi. The fact that many nations were losing their national identity was also a factor, but for me that was not the largest one (which is the larger issue for Frexit, if we accept the view of Marine Le Pen). You think I am digressing, but I am not. Yet, we will take a few steps back for the next part.

At [5] we see “in these proceedings is only dealing with the purest question of law” as well as “whether the executive government can use the Crow’s prerogative to give notice of withdrawal“. These are the issues that needed addressing, mainly because the UK remains a monarchy, even as the bulk (51%) wanted to withdraw from the EU, it still needs to be done legally correct. The added issue for the three man wearing wigs that would usually be found caressing the skull of Lady Gaga is that this situation has never happened before, so Common Law needed to focus on Constitutional Law as well as the national (read: domestic) effect of EU law.

In the final paragraph we get “For the reasons we have set out, we hold that the Secretary of State does not have power under the Crown’s prerogative to give notice pursuant to Article 50 of the TEU for the United Kingdom to withdraw from the European Union“, this gets us to that place where the ‘parlour minties’ live, meaning that an Act of Parliament (i.e. passing through both the House of Commons and House of Lords) is needed to actually (and legally correct) invoke Article 50.  MPs would to a certain degree vote according to the referendum result, but several will seek to influence the type of exit agreement from the EU to be sought (read: an implied alteration for what they perceive to be the common good). Moreover, the Bremainians will now seek that time to sway as many MP’s as they can to prevent Brexit. This is a perfectly valid political path, because it also treads the path that some need for their opportunity to serve the ‘masters’ that were never elected, some of them not even British. So as we see this document regarding R (Miller) -V- Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union (PDF here), we can now look at the response from the paper of PM Dacre:

1 ‘The judges who blocked Brexit‘, they did not, they ruled based on the Law that exiting the EEC will require a decision by parliament.

2 ‘One founded a EUROPEAN law group‘, this is a ‘nice’ statement. The truth is that the ELI is “an independent non-profit organisation established to initiate, conduct and facilitate research, make recommendations and provide practical guidance in the field of European legal development with a goal of enhancing the European legal integration“, so basically, Wiki pages are more eloquent in stating the identity of a European Law Group, designed to enhance legal integration than the Daily Mail is, or ever was!

3 ‘another charged the taxpayer millions for advice‘, well, the legal profession has pricing, so if that taxpayer hired a judge for a summary and consultancy of 1600 hours, then an amount well over 2 million would be due (making the statement ‘millions’ true), yet if taxation was paid, no crime was committed and proper advice was given, what value does the statement have? Especially when we see the statement that PM Dacre, by his own admission “had used the private detective Steve Whittamore, who was jailed in 2005 for illegally accessing information, but claimed that the rest of the British press had done so too” (Source: BBC News), so who needs more scrutiny?

4 ‘the third is an openly gay ex-Olympic fencer‘, so the fourth judge is not just legally able, he is also an Olympian, which might be a nice extra, yet showing a judge to be a superhuman athlete seems to be counterproductive on many fields, there is only the issue with the fact that he is depicted as gay. How does this give any indication of either academic or athletic ability?

So, 4 parts of a statement, one part inaccurate, two parts irrelevant and one part utterly incomplete and substandard.

Let’s take a look at another headline from the Daily Mail “ANZ bank chief Mike Smith paid $9.7 MILLION for just three months’ work – or 123 TIMES the average Australian wage” (at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3914880/Former-ANZ-bank-chief-executive-Mike-Smith-received-9-7m-three-months-work.html), which now gives us the question regarding that ‘expensive judge’, what were the tax costs for this person and were all taxations paid? I reckon when it comes to ‘costing the taxpayer’ the Daily Mail needs to revisit what certain values and definitions encompass. Yet when we take a look at the Guardian, we see “The Mail editor has claimed £460,000 in subsidies since 2011” (at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/mar/31/paul-dacre-eu-subsidies-hypocrisy-daily-mail-euro-lies), in addition we see in a 2014 article “Paul Dacre’s pay and bonus package soared by 25% during 2014, taking the total remuneration of Britain’s best-paid newspaper editor to £2.4m” (at https://www.theguardian.com/media/2014/dec/22/paul-dacre-earnings-up-annual-report-reveals-daily-mail), whilst his peers got marginally more, including Lord Rothermere, and the CEO of DMGT, that poor man (read: Martin Morgan) got cut down for an amount close to a million, no, Dacre went up by a lot. Now, this might all be fine and ‘correct’, yet when we see the ‘accusation’ on judges and taxpayer, whilst the man getting £460,000 in subsidies and personally getting a car allowance of £10,000 with added fuel benefit of £6,500. So can we agree that the shoddy description from the Daily Mail should be getting a better editorial in light of the news (read: in 2014 it was news), regarding its own chief editor.

In addition, the fact that the Daily Mail has a financial interest in opposing Brexit was also (as far as I know) never revealed by the Daily Mail in any way. So, as I see it Pharisee Mountebank Dacre is a worthy name of mention when regard the hypocrisy I personally categorise it to be. Of course accusation should in addition towards the Guardian by insulting Paul Dacre for being called the ‘Nigel Farage of Newspapers‘, so far Nigel Farage seems to be so much better and more a man than the Chief Editor of the Daily mail is regarded to be at present.

When we get back to target D (Mario Draghi) we see that the Daily Mail is less ‘insinuating’, it merely hides behind the words of Reuters. Isn’t it interesting that a person, whom I believe could be regarded as criminally negligent, is given wave after wave of consideration, even now, less than a day ago, so many, so eager to support another stimulus package, all written out as verbose as possible in the Wall Street Journal. In that I voice that Mario Draghi could be seen as criminally negligent, especially when the next Stimulus ends up not bringing home the bacon at which point he is still not seen as accountable.

When I see “Most European economists disagree with the conclusions of a recent report by the German Council of Economic Experts, which argued that the ECB’s easy monetary policies were no longer appropriate” (at http://www.wsj.com/articles/european-economists-back-ecb-stimulus-1478514545). So consider the following quote “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results“, it comes from Albert Einstein and it could aid Mario Draghi in his insanity plea. America has been funding labour through tax breaks leaving it currently 20 trillion in National debt. Mario Draghi is spending trillions, not stimulating anything, which is the massive reason why Brexit got pushed. Why does the British population in the end has to pay for some Italian, spending trillions with the (as I personally see it), lack of actual economic growth, fictive lowered unemployment numbers by paying for their cost of labour and in the end of that cycle, just more and more debt.

So how will this be solved? I think it is time to take another look at the Leveson report and consider the full implementation of it. Even if it merely gets us better and more accurately informed, that by itself would already be a great victory, if it cuts down certain editors by a notch, stopping them from doing the unacceptable act of assaulting three judges the way they were, that would just be the icing on the cake. I never opposed freedom of the press, I just want them to be held accountable for what they publish, in this I am seeing a large population that is in support of what I wrote, that because the outrage they created is shown nearly global. So even as Dacre is pulling a Murdoch out of his hat stating that all publicity is positive publicity.

We need to see it for hat it is, a statement that is currently as far from the truth as it could possibly get and it is time to hold the Media accountable, we sit by for too long. It took the events surrounding Milly Dowler to get the ball on the road and the outrageous statement on three judges is no less a reason to re-consider the Leveson report.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media

What is Hiding Underwater

What is the reality of surface life? That is the first question that comes to mind when I look at the fallout that Brexit is creating. You see, to comprehend this part I need to take you back to the 15th April 1912, in that year New Mexico and Arizona become part of the Union that is now regarded as the United States of America and the first Balkan War has not yet started, no at this time the titanic sinks. The world gets introduced to the dangers of an Iceberg, the danger s that 90% of an iceberg remains below the surface. A lesson that will reverberate in many ways. This one event changes the rules of safety regulations for ships at sea forever (for the better I might add). The part that has been dramatized again and again is about a ship going down. It would not be until 1997 until someone truly turned this event into a money maker (James Cameron), it would fetch a little over 2 billion dollars, not a bad result for a movie. The reality is, that for most, the unknown fact was that the Titanic was the direct cause of something else. It would be the reason for something that was created in 1914, it was the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS). Let me add a little spice here. If the Titanic had not met up with that proverbial ice cube, there is a decent chance that the amount of fatalities from WW1 and WW2 would have been a lot higher.

You see, what lies beneath the surface is an issue, especially when we do not know what is there. We can only arm ourselves with the lessons we are taught and the common sense implementation that our logic allows for. So when I saw two articles today, my mind went into wander mode. The simplest of reasons is that certain events do not make sense. I feel that we are being played. This is a feeling I have and I could be massively wrong at this point. I accept that, but let me tell you about these articles and these facts and it will be up to you to decide.

  1. Construction becomes first casualty of Brexit as housebuilders get jitters‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/04/construction-first-casualty-brexit-housebuilders-jitters-eu-referendum).

So there has been a referendum and a vote has been cast. We now read “their stockpiles will reach to the moon and back. That’s the message from private sector house builders, which have looked into the industry’s crystal ball and concluded that there is no reason to expand supply for the next six months“, in addition we get “As the former head of the civil service Lord Turnbull said last week, the industry is extremely sensitive to economic sentiment and will not build a single house more than it believes can be sold” as well as “the industry is unable to build the homes that the nation needs, where it needs them and at a reasonable price“. You see, when we see messages on house shortages, on the fact that houses are absolutely unaffordable, is it not weird that one referendum, a referendum that will take time to sort out suddenly has this effect? As I see it, the prices have been pushed up and up in a bubble and the people have been victims. This is partially sown/proven when we consider “Tony Pidgley, the chairman of Berkeley Group, who pocketed a 42% rise in his take home pay to £23m last year, could not close the supply gap even if he wanted to“, as well as “He needs to make a profit for his hungry shareholders, who have set him a target of generating £2bn in pretax profit over three years from 2015“. So we now see that we have been the play toy of ‘hungry’ (read: greedy) shareholders. Exploitation of an unacceptable level and I wonder why the people at large accept this. Pardon my ‘off grammar’ English when I state “Can we get rid of these bloody shareholders, preferably with extreme prejudice?

You see, when we reread the article in another light we get:

  1. Pity the poor brick makers; Why? Bricks are needed, they have a certain cost and they are always needed.
  2. There is no reason to expand supply for the next six months; why? There is still a housing shortage.
  3. Will not build a single house more than it believes can be sold. Wrong? This is perception of when it will be sold. There is no need to not build, mainly because there is a housing shortage. People need houses.
  4. The industry is unable to build the homes that the nation needs, where it needs them and at a reasonable price. This is now proven to be untrue. This industry has become a vulture driving up prices artificially by reselling a house at times more than once, even before the house is build.

It seems to me that the law can be adjusted, so that a house cannot be sold until 2 years after the house/building has been completed. That takes out the speculative vultures and it would drop house prices to a level where a population at least 15% larger than initial would be able to afford a house. So when I read about Tony Pidgley and his shareholders, I would suggest that if Mr Pidgley desperately needs that 2 billion in profit, he should consider explaining to these shareholders how to make £20 per half hour selling services in areas like Soho? It sounds a bit over the top, but when we see profits that run into billions, we have truly overstated levels of acceptability. Perhaps moving away from the EU forcing another path where 64 million Brits could regain a life that is affordable is truly the best thing to do. Let’s not forget that an affordable mortgage, means that families will spend on quality of life, this implies that commerce will grow and no stimulus (in the way Mario Draghi is applying it) would be required.

The second article is actually a very different channel. The article ‘Standard Life shuts property fund amid rush of Brexit withdrawals‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jul/04/standard-life-shuts-property-fund-post-brexit-withdrawals). The quote here is “The £2.9bn fund, which invests in commercial properties including shopping centres, warehouses and offices, is thought to be the first UK property fund to suspend trading since the 2007-2009 financial crisis, when some of the biggest names in investment management stopped withdrawals because they did not have the money to repay investors” and it makes me wonder what game is on here. The article links to ‘New Star halts property fund withdrawals‘ (at https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/nov/26/new-star-suspends-investor-withdrawals), which was the 2008 meltdown. So now, when we see Standard Life’s property funds referring to “Investors in Standard Life’s property funds have been told that they cannot withdraw their money, after the firm acted to stop a rush of withdrawals following the UK’s decision to leave the EU“, I wonder how many investors, where they are from and the reasoning is behind the withdrawal.

You see, there are two options. The first one, the straight path is the one where we see the links to ‘shopping centres, warehouses and offices‘, these places are still needed, commerce will go on, even if the downturn is stronger, people need food, people need their goods. This will not change. The part that will change is the one we just dealt with. Unacceptable ‘profit margins’, which implies at present that these ‘investors’ are little more than vultures, do we need more of those?

It is the next quote that implies that there is a secondary path: “The selling process for real estate can be lengthy as the fund manager needs to offer assets for sale, find prospective buyers, secure the best price and complete the legal transaction. Unless this selling process is controlled, there is a risk that the fund manager will not achieve the best deal for investors in the fund, including those who intend to remain invested over the medium to long term”, here I wonder if the fund manager has been ‘juicing’ expectations, which could only continue in a ‘Bremain’ world. The fact that the news cycles go wider as the mere intent that the reality of Brexit made the Dow buckle is equally weird (initially).

When we consider the words from Mark Carney, who stated “U.K. banks can be part of the solution, not part of the problem“, in that mindset I can offer a first option. If we get rid of Tony Pidgley and his shareholders, the UK gets to not see these 2 Billion go elsewhere. Now, let’s be fair, the UK would never make that much on it, so if the coffers can accept a mere £200 million as a profit margin, an amount that is most likely more than taxation of the 2 billion, the UK coffers still win and life becomes a little more affordable in the UK for all who buy a house.

I will be the first one to admit that my view is not realistic and too optimistic, yet am I wrong? The housing bubble is only one event that needs to be fought. Taxation loopholes have to be dealt with, dealing with the s a decade overdue and it is one of several reasons that the UK economy is in such a bad slump. Now we get additional news that the EU is in an even worse state than we have been kept informed about. The Australian gives us “Italy’s banking system is in trouble, with about $540 billion of non-performing loans and a desperate need for new capital. Given the dearth of willing alternative capital-providers, Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi wants to inject the equivalent of about $60bn of public funding into the system to try to stabilise it. The problem for Renzi and Italy — and the EU — is that the rules of the European Banking Union forbid taxpayer bailouts as the first resort for troubled banks” (at http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/opinion/stephen-bartholomeusz/italys-banking-crisis-a-bigger-problem-than-brexit/news-story/d4e0c5007fb133db959cc569f9678804), the Italian issue has been known and I have reported on it in the past, yet the fact that banks are still the biggest issue in the EU and they still have not been muzzled to the extent that they need to be remains an issue. An issue that shows on another level that Brexit was not the worst idea. So when we see Reuters stating ‘Draghi could have done more to help Italian banks in 90’s, says PM Renzi‘ whilst this issue has been known for well over a year and for the fact that Italy’s antiquated bankruptcy laws have never been properly dealt with, especially in light of the 2004 and 2008 events makes me wonder where Matteo Renzi got the idea to blame other places, when his office should have made clear priority in these matters and he should have made equal mention that people like Enrico Letta, Mario Monti and Silvio Berlusconi who had been Prime Minister in batches going back to 1994 forgot to deal with that situation, and now we see that the EU is in a state much less healthy than most predicted. I knew about several issues, but not all, it seems that all news on the stat of the EU have been overstated by way too many players in this game and it makes me wonder in equal measure how it was possible for Mario Draghi to spend over a trillion that he is still ready to spend even more.

So in light of all this, how could the UK return to a place that is killing itself, that is allowing for inaction that is not prosecuted in any way. So when you watch Rose Dawson push Leonardo DiCaprio to his icy grave, consider that the EU debt is like that Iceberg, it can sink anything and 90% is kept below the surface, sustaining the tropical life of less than 1,000 banking executives. The people in the UK need their own Safety of Life against Greed (SOLAG). If these players were decently less greedy, none of this would have happened. Perhaps one day we will see a modern European Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and we will accept his book ‘The SOLAG archipelago’ and the wave it brings as a given wisdom.

Time will tell!

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Media, Politics

Democracies are decided through Income

It has been a week, and there is a mountain of events evolving, many all about how a second referendum is needed and in addition to that, the amount of issues that are now surfacing. First we need to take a look at the valid parts. A valid part was seen on Sunday (at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2016/jul/03/parliament-must-decide-whether-or-not-to-leave-the-eu-say-lawyers), where we see ‘Law firm says article 50 cannot be triggered without full debate and vote by parliament‘, which is fair enough. Let’s face it, the people have voted on what they wanted, but in reality, Any Referendum is not legally binding, so legally the Government can ignore the results. Yet, for the Government to ignore such a massive size of a population seems to be a weird approach to democracy. Does the Law firm have a case? The quote “A prominent law firm is taking pre-emptive legal action against the government, following the EU referendum result, to try to ensure article 50 is not triggered without an act of parliament“, which is fair enough, yet this is followed by “on behalf of an anonymous group of clients, solicitors at Mishcon de Reya have been in contact with government lawyers to seek assurances over the process, and plan to pursue it through the courts if they are not satisfied“. I wonder who these ‘so called’ anonymous clients are, perhaps the banks who are now freaking out?

Yet, issues aside, how strong is this case?

First, the current government called for the referendum. Those who sit in the House of Commons called for the referendum and 72.2% of the people reacted and voted, in the end 51.89% were in favour of Brexit!

Now, we see all these new groups, all trying to create mayhem, all crying like the little bitches they are. Boo hoo hoo, so unfair, we want a second vote! It is utterly pathetic. Yet, there are a few issues that should not be ignored. The main reasons this all got started is that certain players took a stand. First there is Nigel Farage who started it and is now resigning as UKIP Leader, he apparently wants his life back. We can argue whether we have pressure issues. Perhaps I should step in as the new leader of UKIP, although, I am and will remain a Conservative. I just have an issue with people who desert when the actual work needs to be done. Second is Boris Johnson, one of the main players in Brexit, he too now seems to be turning his back on the entire process. Yet in all this the votes are still done and many of them were either Labour, Conservatives, Lib Dems and pretty much all members of UKIP. The issues is shown all over the UK. Work must now be done, yet we see a shift, we suddenly see the issues rise after the vote. Is it not interesting how we are all getting played?

Remember the voices of Grexit, how parties were all considering Grexit and how we were being played, only to learn well over a year later that expulsion from the EU was never an option, only voluntary exit is an option! Now that the UK decided to exit it voluntary, we see a massive wave of business people and people in the financial and legal industry making things near impossible to continue. No matter how we see these facts, the issue raised by the solicitors at Mishcon de Reya remains valid. Yet, is it not interesting how none of this was clearly stated all over the place before the vote? Is it not interesting that the media seems to have broomed that interesting part under the nearest rug?

Now consider the quote “The outcome of the referendum itself is not legally binding and for the current or future prime minister to invoke article 50 without the approval of parliament is unlawful“, is it not interesting how that part is equally not brought to light before the vote? It seems to me that the people of England have been played. A vote, whilst the players knew that the referendum was not even the beginning to the change. We always knew that there was more in play and as such the Brexit path was always going to take some time, yet to what extent should we see the path that the UK faces?

Now, I regard the part we see from Mishcon de Reya to be possibly very valid. Yet is that in other cases equally so? In opposition there is the article ‘Nick Clegg calls for general election before article 50 is activated’ (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/03/nick-clegg-general-election-article-50-activated-eu-referendum). My initial question becomes “Wasn’t he some politician in days gone past?” And of course, I would be right, it is the former leader of the Lib Dems, not Tim Farron mind you, who is now calling for an election before Article 50 is enacted. The quote “Our country is in a tailspin. An election of a new parliament in which MPs act responsibly to manage our historic divorce from the EU is the only way to forge some order out of the present chaos” gives the impression that we are dealing with some version of Captain Caveman. Consider the quote ‘a new parliament in which MPs act responsibly‘, so is there something wrong with the current parliament? Then we get the quote “before people have had an opportunity to cast a judgment on what life would actually look like outside the EU would be deeply undemocratic“. Eh, was that not what the referendum was all about? People made the vote. Perhaps Nick is now getting active because his daddy was the Chairman of a bank? Perhaps the banks are truly getting scared of the impact Brexit is starting to have on the Dollar and the Dow? This is perhaps speculation on my side, but only to a small degree.

In that regard all the elements are taking turns for the comical. When we see in addition Tony Blair making the quote “for as long as it takes to get an idea of how the other side looks”, I wonder how long parliament reconvened and started re-elections when the UK had WW1 and WW2 to consider. It seems that the players who were not ready to believe the danger that an irresponsible EU had been bringing that the people have had enough and now they are all reconvening for the friends they have in the banks, their friends in big business. As I see it, a wave of people panicking, all in fear of losing the Status Quo, a clear fear that was given in many occasions and the strongest by Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England in his presentation to the House of Lords. Too many people complacent on the Status Quo, relying on people not wanting change, now all screaming bloody murder!

That is not the scenario we can afford and it is one that many in the financial industry are hoping for, because the EU cannot be drained as much and it will stop soon thereafter when the EU buckles. A scenario, with Frexit on the horizon that might not be avoided.

Yet there is another item to link here. It is shown in the article discussing the departure of Nigel Farage (at http://www.theguardian.com/politics/commentisfree/2016/jul/04/the-guardian-view-on-nigel-farages-resignation-an-unserious-man-but-a-serious-party), you see the quote given in there is “Yet they never once said what leaving would actually look like. They mocked anyone who expressed concerns“, yes, that is true, mainly because nobody had a clue what would be the result. The presentation at the House of Lords by Mark Carney already implied it. There was no way of knowing and it had never been done before. Yet in all of that the UK stood in a better place than France will be. The UK had remained with the Pound, so this sterling currency has the ability to bounce back fast and remain sterling in more than one way. The article than starts to rely on what I regard to be intentional miscommunication. An opinion article devoid of identity, an editorial, so can we state now that it is Katharine Viner who is now intentionally misdirecting the audience? You see the quote “After 23 June it can no longer parrot the old cry that everything will be better if we are out of Europe. We are out of Europe. So what does Ukip stand for now?“, You see, there is still a likely truth that leaving the EU will hold better results down the line for the UK, but not immediate, that was ALWAYS a given! And the UK is not ‘out of Europe’, it is now merely in the process of seceding from the EU, which is another matter entirely. This path will take time and there are unknowns. It is likely that if played right the UKIP could grow massively, but that requires Nigel’s A-game, a part he is not playing and perhaps his knowledge on how to play an A-game is equally a mystery to him, I do not know.

What I do know is that the Guardian identity less is equally contemptible as they make Nigel Farage out to be, or Boris Johnson for that matter. What is interesting is the quote at the very end, there is a ring of truth in there, but not one the ‘editorial’ is trying to imbue. The quote “If the next Ukip leader possesses the seriousness that Mr Farage ultimately lacked, the consequences could be profound and deeply worrying“, why is that?

You see, nationalism is often treated as a dirty word, but is that true? You see one issue the EU pushed was some open border policy hoping that a blending of cultures would all make it one grey, one shade of ‘whatever’, large corporations were banking on it as they pushed debts through every European nation through political representation. Yet, the UK is and should be a proud nation, sometimes proud for the wrong reasons or in the wrong light of day, but it has a genuine right to pride, as does France, Germany and Italy. The people behind the screens forgot about that and the pushback is massive in all 4 nations. Frexit could be next. The NY Times is saying it won’t be so (at http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/why-frexit-wont-happen.html), didn’t they state the same about Brexit? You see, I am not certain it will happen, but it is a lot more realistic than Brexit was. The French population that has had enough of the EU has surpassed 61%, making it a strong majority at present. That is only the population of France, the power players are now in a direct confrontation with Germany. Any talks between France and Germany have been problematic to say the least in the past, but that was with the UK as a stabilising element, without the UK those two will come to blow sooner rather than later and Italy could be the wildcard here too. Unless it finds levels of stability the EU talks will take an interesting dimension soon enough.

There is one element that makes the NY Times the punching hammer to take notice of. The quote “Now comes the naked truth: For the past 10 years, the European Union has failed to deliver on the main objective it was set up to achieve: shielding its citizens from insecurity. Over the past few days, European leaders, in a state of shock, have hastily identified three priorities on which to focus if they want to save their union: security, migration and economic growth“, it is part of the issues that drove Brexit. Not immigration, not racism, but the realisation that the EU is not delivering, whilst its ECB is stimulating national governmental debts by spending trillions. With ‘investors’ looking towards Mario Draghi on opening new stimulus packages, we all need to wonder why is allowed to take this path. It appears that banks are back in risk taking mode, the ECB is ready to spend another trillion (exact amount is actually not known), yet no one is asking the questions that need to be asked, the reason that got us to Brexit and will soon push forward Frexit stronger and stronger. The mere inability to properly budget within governments and Mario Draghi playing ‘Spending Clause’ in July should worry the population of the EU at large.

The Guardian editorial decided not to take any of that on board, mainly because bashing Farage is still the easiest job to do and the last thing they want is to illuminate that democracy is not set to the most votes, it is set to who has the most influential income to push the votes of others, which was never any form of democracy, not in my book at least.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Finance, Law, Media, Politics