Flights at airports across the US have been cancelled Monday morning as Delta, Southwest, American, United and Alaska Air all reported widespread system outages, per reports on social media.
The glitch is believed to involve Aerodata, a system that monitors weight and balance issues for planes. Due to the outage, flights aren’t receiving clearance to take off. Southwest, United and Delta have confirmed the outages and are posting apologies and explanations to frustrated customers on social media, including this response by Delta.
@Delta flight DL 6210 to Detroit says delayed until 7am…has the tech issue been resolved, or is my app going to tell me it’s been delayed again even further? 😡
Hello Robert. I do see that the flight is delayed until 7am at this time. It is best to get to the airport in time for the flight, just in case it is changed to an earlier time. Thank you so much and our apologies for the delay. Thank you for your patience. TMS https://t.co/6iDGBJRMTU
I’m aware. I was early. The fact that @Delta can’t give an update on an outage of this magnitude is mind boggling. If I miss my connecting flight, I expect reimbursement.
I’m aware. I was early. The fact that @Delta can’t give an update on an outage of this magnitude is mind boggling. If I miss my connecting flight, I expect reimbursement.
This is with a company that handles the Delta Connection Carriers as well as several other carriers. We have no update here either. As soon as I can get you an update, I will send it to you. TMS
The organizers of ‘furry convention’ warned participants to check their flights before arriving at the airport.
Hey @FurryFiesta#tff2019 furs heading back home today. If you’re on the following airlines, CHECK YOUR FLIGHT! They’re having major system issues delaying flights: American, Delta, Southwest, United, Alaska Air.
— STrRedWolf @ FurTheMore (@strredwolf) April 1, 2019
Tired of the Commons’ interminable bickering and Theresa May’s ineffectual leadership, Brussels warned last week that the UK will ‘likely’ leave Europe without a withdrawal deal on April 12 after the third ‘meaningful vote’ on May’s withdrawal agreement failed by a margin of 58 votes. Though that margin has shrunk considerably since the first two votes, it’s becoming increasingly clear that there’s no way May can pass the deal, even if she does manage to bring it back for a fourth vote ahead of the emergency Brexit summit that begins on April 10.
What’s worse, an ‘indicative vote’ on Brexit alternatives forced by backbencher MPs last week affirmed the Tory leadership’s suspicions that no alternative to May’s deal could garner a majority of support in the Commons, as none of the eight options on the ballot manged to secure a majority of votes (MPs were asked to vote ‘yes’ or ‘no’ on each listed option).
Though the indicative vote only further muddied the waters, the Commons is planning to hold another round on Monday, albeit with a slightly different slate of alternatives, as MPs reportedly rally around a ‘softer’ Brexit deal that would call for the UK to remain in the customs union after Brexit Day.
If this, too, fails, the likelihood that May will at least formally call for a general election, an option that she is loathe to consider, will rise. Though most Tories will likely insist that May step down before they support another general vote (last time around, when May called a general election in the summer of 2017, it ended up being perhaps the biggest political miscalculation of her tenure at No. 10).
Even if Monday’s second indicative vote does produce a majority of support for a modified Brexit arrangement, it’s doubtful that the EU would accept it so late in the game. May would likely need to ask for a lengthy Brexit extension – which she may or may not get.
In any event, the pound has rallied on Monday amid reports that at least 40 Tory MPs are preparing to support the customs union alternative, which is also expected to garner support from the opposition.
Debate begins at 3:30 pm (10:30 am ET), with voting expected to start around 8 pm (3 pm). Here are the options that Speaker Bercow is expected to select (text courtesy of CNN):
Motion A, Unilateral right of exit from backstop — This proposes that the UK shall leave the European Union on May 22 with the Withdrawal Agreement amended to allow the UK unilaterally to exit the Northern Ireland backstop.
Motion B, No deal in the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement — This alternative calls for support from MPs for a no-deal Brexit if the House has not backed May’s Withdrawal Agreement.
Motion C, Customs Union — This motion calls on the Government to ensure that the Brexit plan includes a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU.
Motion D, Common Market 2.0 – This proposal wants the Political Declaration – which covers the future relationship between the UK and the EU – to be renegotiated so that the UK joins the European Free Trade Association, through which is retains its membership of the European Economic Area, or Single Market. The UK would also seek to negotiate a “comprehensive customs arrangement” with the EU.
Motion E, Confirmatory public vote – Parliament would not be allowed to ratify any Brexit deal until it has been confirmed by a public poll.
Motion F, Public vote to prevent no deal — Calls for a second referendum on exiting the European Union, if a no-deal scenario appears likely.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2Uhg7xq Tyler Durden
What appears to be Beijing’s latest military flex in the South China Sea – the contested collection of shoals and reefs that plays a crucial role in global trade and also contains vast untapped gas reserves – has reportedly set off “alarm bells” in Manila, just as the Philippines and the US were preparing to begin a round of military drills. According to Bloomberg, Philippines personnel have lodged a complaint with a joint Chinese-Flippino commission created to resolve disputes in the region, after authorities counted a mass of 200 Chinese ships around the Thitu, the second-largest island in the Spratly Islands.
With a trade deal still in limbo, military tensions in the South China Sea have intensified as the US Navy has stepped up the pace of its “freedom of navigation” operations, while Beijing has stepped up its threatening rhetoric toward Taiwan and carried out more military drills.
A Philippines official said the ships appeared to be part of China’s sea militia. Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s spokesman Salvador Panelo said he would meet China’s ambassador and ask for an explanation for the bolstered presence, after the Philippine Foreign Affairs Department lodged its protest with the committee.
Philippine soldiers will continue their patrols in the disputed area, military chief General Benjamin Madrigal Jr. told reporters separately, adding that Chinese fishing vessels have repeatedly been spotted near the island. He urged a panel with representatives from both nations tasked with resolving South China Sea disputes to address Chinese presence in the area.
“This is a concern not only for the military, but for other agencies as well, including the Coast Guard. We are looking for ways to address this,” Madrigal told reporters on the sidelines of opening ceremonies for annual joint military drills between the Philippines and the U.S.
Before Duterte came to power and opted for warmer ties with Beijing, Manila won a case in the ICC validating its claim to sovereignty over most of the South China Sea. However, Beijing has ignored this ruling (and faced zero repercussions for doing so).
However, the ships massing around Thitu (which is known by Pagasa in the Philippines) wasn’t China’s only provocation. Taiwan accused Beijing of sending Navy ships across the median line of the Taiwan Strait, violating a long-held tacit agreement.
At 11 a.m., March 31, 2 PLAAF J-11 jets violated the long-held tacit agreement by crossing the median line of the #Taiwan Strait. It was an intentional, reckless & provocative action. We’ve informed regional partners & condemn #China for such behavior.
— 外交部 Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ROC (Taiwan) 🇹🇼 (@MOFA_Taiwan) March 31, 2019
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2TLFcMK Tyler Durden
Readers propose some interesting ideas on Brexit. I also discuss how May can force MV4 over the will of Bercow.
Reader Views
Conspiracy Idea: What would May have done different if she wanted to create an exit plan that Parliament would vote down at every turn?
Accident Idea: I think you underestimate the insider will of a majority of UK MPs who instead of the accidental hard Brexit will deliver an accidental revocation of Article 50, which then means UK participating in EU elections.
The theory behind viewpoint number one is that May is purposely doing everything she can so that her deal is voted down and the UK stays in the EU. This can be on her own accord or with the explicit help of the EU, I don’t know which, so we will explore both ideas (May acting by herself and May acting with the help of the EU).
The result of theory number 2 is the same as number although it does not propose May is doing this on purpose.
Conspiracy Ideal Rebuttal
The immediate problem with #1 is an assumption of guilt. It’s like saying drug pushers always obey traffic signals and do not speed then concluding that everyone who does the same is a drug pusher.
Even if May would not have done anything differently, one cannot assume guilt, especially compared with the simple notion that May is a fool who does not know how to negotiate.
Second, May’s actions dramatically increase the odds of no-deal.
Don’t Take Macron For Granted
The single biggest risk to the entire process remains astonishing ignorance of facts and a narcissistic tendency to indulge in silly procedural games in the House of Commons.
We believe the UK should not take for granted the possibility of a longer extension. Emmanuel Macron is the most vocal member of the European Council to insist there will be only a short delay unless there is a clear majority for an alternative mandate. This has not happened yet. Also, even if the UK were to propose a second referendum a longer delay is not guaranteed. Nathalie Loiseau, who leads Macron’s party into the European elections, called a second referendum a denial of democracy. Even if it is only her personal view, you can imagine that this argument will have some traction in France and elsewhere.
The situation therefore remains highly dynamic. We would urge readers to distrust the argument that a no-Brexit cannot happen on the grounds that the UK parliament has voted to take it off the table.
Those comments are from Eurointelligence. They echo similar comments that I have made.
May’s actions, unless Macron and other are in on the grand scheme, dramatically increase the odds of no-deal. The UK parliament cannot take that off the table.
If May wants either a soft Brexit or a no-deal she can deliver. Instead, she sticks with her binary choice option at risk of an accident unless Macron and Juncker are in on it. The more people involved the messier it becomes.
If May has acted alone, she increased the odds of no-deal. Thus, she would not have followed the precise path she took.
Is Macron’s Threat Believable?
Yes! France picks up seats in the European parliament, Germany doesn’t.
France and Germany are at odds on the way forward in the EU. The UK sees things more like Germany. It is in the French best interest to have the UK out of the EU.
France wants a European Army. The UK doesn’t want the cost.
Neither France nor Germany wants UK representatives like Nigel Farage disrupting things. Theresa has no control over UK representatives in the European parliament.
My base assumption is that France now wants the UK out of the EU, it just does not want the blame. Yet, things have no gotten so ridiculous, France may be willing to take the blame.
Accident Idea Rebuttal
Unless the UK parliament votes to hold EU parliament elections by April 11 and Macron sticks to his guns, there won’t be EU parliament elections and there will not be a lengthy extension either.
For reasons noted above, France does not want the UK in the parliament. France has no choice if two things happen.
Long Extension Request Requirements
The UK agrees to parliamentary election by April 11
The UK parliament votes for an option that May will accept and that the EU accepts, again by April 11.
Those could happen, but there is no particular reason to believe both of those will happen.
On the probability of a No-Deal Brexit
In his FT column, Wolfgang Munchau [Eurointelligence founder] makes the argument that a no-deal Brexit is possible even if it is nobody’s first choice. He says the probability of a no-deal Brexit has grown since the EU summit last week. For starters, Theresa May can have a no-deal Brexit if she wants to. The UK parliament does not have the legal tools to stop it. One of the biggest and most persistent misunderstandings about Brexit is that the whole business of extension is between the prime minister herself and the European Council.
There is a reasonable chance that the indicative votes won’t get the job done. The Tories have no mechanism to oust her now. A parliamentary vote of no-confidence is technically possible, but too much of a nuclear option to be credible. Munchau’s overall conclusion is that a no-deal Brexit is not the first choice of any of the decision-makers involved, but the more relevant point is that they are not ready to pay a high political price to avoid it.
The likelihood of a no-deal Brexit has risen further in the last few days, as the European Council appears resigned to that outcome.
The odds of a referendum have collapsed. Not even Labour leader Corbyn wants that outcome. He does want a customs union.
Perhaps there is support for a customs union, but that alone is insufficient. May has to agree to it.
“One of the biggest and most persistent misunderstandings about Brexit is that the whole business of extension is between the prime minister herself and the European Council.”
The UK parliament cannot and has not taken no-deal off the table. Nor has the UK parliament taken control of anything.
Accidents Can Happen
Interestingly, MPs who believe they have taken no-deal off the table and MPs who believe May has to accept the results of non-binding indicative votes along with delusional Remainers hoping for another referendum, increase the odds of an accident.
That accident will not be a referendum, but rather “no-deal”.
Meaningful Vote Three Goes Down 344-277: The Result Isn’t Meaningful
People who voted against the deal at Meaningful Vote 2 but for it this time include: Lucy Allan, Richard Bacon, Crispin Blunt, Conor Burns, Rehman Chishti, Simon Clarke, Damian Collins, Rosie Cooper, Robert Courts, Richard Drax, Iain Duncan Smith, Charlie Elphicke, Michael Fabricant, Sir Michael Fallon, Jim Fitzpatrick, James Gray, Chris Green, Mark Harper, Gordon Henderson, Eddie Hughes, Boris Johnson, Gareth Johnson, Daniel Kawczynski, Pauline Latham, Andrew Lewer, Ian Liddell-Grainger, Jonathan Lord, Esther McVey, Anne Main, Sheryll Murray, Tom Pursglove, Dominic Raab, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Grant Shapps, Henry Smith, Royston Smith, Bob Stewart, Ross Thomson, Michael Tomlinson, Craig Tracey, Anne-Marie Trevelyan, Shailesh Vara, and John Whittingdale.
Rebels
34 Tories voted against the deal, five Labour MPs backed the deal.
Scorecard Analysis
May’s deal lost 344-286. That’s a total of 58 votes, but it’s closer than it may look. May needs to filp 29 votes and DUP is wavering.
More Brexiteers Fall in Line
The lead image shows two more hard Brexiteers supporting May’s deal, announced today.
Boris Johnson and others no-deal Brexiteers came out supporting May’s deal earlier this week.
Theresa May still has the means to pressure either Labour or the Tories by one of three means.
Threaten to resign immediately
Threaten to back a customs union
Tell Labour and the Tories that she will not honor indicative votes. Rather they have to choose between her deal and no deal.
Threat 1 puts Labour at the risk of Boris Johnson if they do not vote for her deal.
Threat 2 puts Tories at risk of a customs union.
The problem with threat 1 is hard core Tories would love to have May out of the picture.
The problem with threat 2 is no one in Labour would then vote for her deal.
However, the threats can be combined or mitigated behind the scenes.
For example, May can go to select Tories and threaten action 2 without stating so publicly. In this option, she would only talk to those on the fence, threatening a Customs Union.
Watch for a UK vote on EU parliament elections. That needs to happen by April 11, if it is to happen at all.
Option number three would cause huge disruption in Parliament, but if that is what May wants, she can have it.
Meaningful Vote #4 – Binary Choice
It is easy to believe believe that May is a poor negotiator and all she wants is a Binary Choice.
Moreover, May’s actions are consistent with the Binary Choice theory not conspiracy silliness or even act-alone ideas.
As such, and given the obvious nervousness of many Tories (and likely some Labour as well) it is highly likely there will be a meaningful vote number four.
Forcing MV4
Can may force MV4?
Yes, despite what Commons Speaker Bercow says, and despite any indicative votes.
Even assuming there is Parliament support for a customs union, all May has to do to force MV4 is go to Europe to “discuss” things then come back on April 10 with reasons she did not accept Parliament’s plan.
She can blame the EU for any number of reasons, real or imagined.
MV4 would happen in a flash.
MV3 was important in one regard. May now knows just how many votes she needs to pick up.
My Expectation
If Parliament cannot come to agreement by April 11 or if May manages to delay the final Meaningful Vote until then (and she has a means to do just that), she can then force Parliament to the binary choice that she wanted all along: My Deal or No-Deal with no time left to do anything else.
With no time left, MV4 would likely pass, reluctantly, with enough support from Labour. Alternatively, no-deal would win out. Either way, May would then resign, effective May 22.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2I4Oyku Tyler Durden
The report published last week shows world trade expanded by 2.3% in January after the index tumbled in 4Q18. The recent rebound was broad-based with the strongest seen in emerging markets Asia (+6.2%), which followed a decline of -6.5% in December.
The three-month global trade momentum shows a downward trend of -1.8%, indicating economic growth across the world continues to slide into 2Q. Bloomberg said, “that’s the biggest drop since May 2009.” On a y/y basis, global trade posted its first decline in nearly nine years in the three months.
The global 1H19 outlook remains in a cyclical downturn, which could hinder world trade further. The epicenter of the slowdown originates in China, which is partly due to a combination of China’s growth supercycle coming to an end, developed world economies slowing, Federal Reserve tightening monetary policy, and the US-China trade war that disrupted supply chains in Asia. This has global consequences:
” For example, eurozone manufacturing PMI weakened to 47.6 in March according to Markit, marking the second consecutive month this year that manufacturing activity and export orders declined in the eurozone. The indices for January and February indicate contracting manufacturing activity in most of the east-Asian economies as well,” said ING.
Transitioning into the 2Q, significant downside dangers are developing. Trade negotiations between Washington and Beijing have been a no deal trade situation at every meeting. With a no deal expected at the upcoming meeting this week, trade talks could go into several more rounds before an agreement is hammered out.
If a no deal scenario plays out in 2Q, a further escalation in tariffs or just the lack of removing the duties could spark another growth fear and a repricing event of financial assets, similar to late last year.
Another concern is the standoff between President Donald Trump and Europe on auto tariffs. If Washington and Brussels cannot come to a resolution in the next several months, U.S. tariffs on European automobile imports would crush global trade further.
Uncertainties around NAFTA countries remain, Canada and Mexico are still unsure if they are exempt from these tariffs.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2UgXgm8 Tyler Durden
Former Long Beach, Mississippi, police officer Cassie Barker has pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of her 3-year-old daughter. Barker left the girl in a car seat in her patrol car while she had sex with her supervisor at his home. Barker left the air conditioning on but it wasn’t blowing cool air and the girl overheated.
Protests that erupted six weeks ago in Algeria have now transformed into a million-strong force against aging Algerian strongman President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, with Exxon having already called the political unrest endgame when it stalled talks over a major Algerian shale deal just over a week ago.
For investors in this oil- and gas-rich venue that is critical most immediately to Europe, the uncertainty is high enough to put everything on hold.
Mass protests across Algeria erupted when Bouteflika announced he would run for a fifth term as president. Those protest forced him to rescind that decision, but the momentum against him failed to subside. Instead, it has increased and intends to do so until he steps down entirely.
On Friday, news wires around the world reported that a million had gathered to protest against the president’s rule, with fighting a losing battle using tear gas.
But what signals Bouteflika’s doom more than anything is the fact that the million-strong protests were covered live on three state TV channels. Traditionally, there would have been a local media blackout.
In other words, Bouteflika is losing support—quickly—and now everyone is watching the military kingmakers to see where this ends.
In large part, the kingmakers have already spoken, which has given further impetus to the protests. Earlier this week, the army chief called for a constitutional process to declare the aging and ill Bouteflika unfit for office.
But for investors, what happens next is a tricky transition process, for which opposition leaders have agreed to a roadmap, but for which uncertainty is the ruling element.
The current presidential appointment ends on April 28, and the opposition is suggesting the creation of a presidential authority body that would be in power for less than six months and whose representatives would not be allowed to run for office or back any candidates after the transition period.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2I8nMaZ Tyler Durden
Despite Saudi Arabia coming under intensified international scrutiny after last year’s brutal murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, a new study shows Riyadh has been on a record-setting weapons buying spree over the past two years.
And who supplies most of these arms? Of course the United States, which has by all indicators done nothing to curtail its perpetual arms pipeline to the Saudis; instead it has grown. According to a new 2019 study published in March from arms transfer monitoring group, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), 70 percent of the Saudi arsenal now comes from the United States.
Prior file photo of Saudi officers take photos during a joint military exercise of 21 Muslim nations (in 2016). Image source: Getty
Furthermore, the Saudis have hands down led the world in global weapons purchases for the past two years, and there’s little sign this trend will let up as Riyadh keeps up its merciless bombing campaign over neighboring Yemen, and as its regional ambitions have grown in competition with perceived “Iranian influence” — also given Syria’s Assad emerging victorious in the long-running proxy war in Syria, and as Hezbollah is now considered stronger than ever.
Senior researcher and Middle East specialist with SIPRI, Pieter Wezeman, told PRI the US-Saudi arms trade has continued to grow: “There’s been a very significant growth in arms supplies to Saudi Arabia by the US,” he said.
He detailed the bulk constitutes major weapons systems as follows:
To Saudi Arabia, the US supplies a very wide range of arms. The most important types of arms include combat aircraft, tanks and missiles. It includes very advanced sensors and intelligence gathering equipment, often on planes. In the coming years, it will also include frigates and other ships. So, really, the whole package of weapons which Saudi Arabia wants to have is what the US is willing to supply and already has supplied.
Wezeman also suggested the Saudis are worried about Iranian escalation in Yemen. Saudi officials have long accused Tehran of transferring ballistic missiles to Shia Houthi rebels, in order to strike at targets deep inside Saudi Arabia.
“What would have happened if one of those ballistic missiles would have killed many hundreds or if it would have killed a high-level royal family member?” Wezeman mused in his comments to PRI, reflecting Saudi fears.
He explained further that Saudi motives for its arms buying rampage of the past years remain largely concealed, leaving analysts to speculate on the more obvious geopolitical factors: “We don’t have a nice Saudi Arabian defense whitepaper which clearly explains why they want to have all these arms,”he said. “We have to look at how they behave, statements made here and there by important Saudi Arabian people, in particular, the crown prince.”
Wezeman added: “And it is quite clear that the prime motive of motives for Saudi Arabia are that it wants to be a regional power and that weapons are considered an important tool for becoming that, and that it sees Iran as an important competitor in that struggle for regional power.”
Elsewhere the SIPRI study reported that the United States remains by far the world’s undisputed lead weapons supplier, growing exports by 29% between 2009–2013 and 2014–2018. The report found and the US share of total global exports went from 30% to 36% during the same period of comparison.
Via SIPRI: The trend in international transfers of major weapons, 1979—2018.
More significant is the degree to which the United States is far outpacing Russia in the midst of what some observers have lately dubbed the “new Cold War”.
The gap between the top two arms-exporting states also increased: US exports of major arms were 75 per cent higher than Russia’s in 2014–18, while they were only 12 per cent higher in 2009–13. More than half (52 per cent) of US arms exports went to the Middle East in 2014–18.
‘The USA has further solidified its position as the world’s leading arms supplier,’ says Dr Aude Fleurant, Director of the SIPRI Arms and Military Expenditure Programme. ‘The USA exported arms to at least 98 countries in the past five years; these deliveries often included advanced weapons such as combat aircraft, short-range cruise and ballistic missiles, and large numbers of guided bombs.’
One interesting data point regarding Russia’s lagging behind in global arms sales relates to Venezuela and India: “Arms exports by Russia decreased by 17 per cent between 2009–13 and 2014–18, in particular due to the reduction in arms imports by India and Venezuela,” the report noted.
Image source: Bloomberg
Meanwhile US Congress has lately signaled it would try to put greater distance between Washington and Riyadh military cooperation, along with seeking answers to Saudi complicity in the Jamal Khashoggi murder — efforts which the White House has appeared to stonewall at every turn.
Thus for now it appears “business as usual” will remain concerning the decades long US-Saudi arms pipeline.
Between 2009–13 and 2014–18 arms imports decreased by states in the Americas (–36 per cent), in Europe (–13 per cent), and in Africa (–6.5 per cent).
Algeria accounted for 56 per cent of African imports of major arms in 2014–18. Most other states in Africa import very few major arms.
The top five arms importers in sub-Saharan Africa were Nigeria, Angola, Sudan, Cameroon and Senegal. Together, they accounted for 56 per cent of arms imports to the subregion.
Between 2009–13 and 2014–18 British arms exports increased by 5.9 per cent. In 2014–18 a total of 59 per cent of British arms exports went to the Middle East, the vast bulk of which was made up of deliveries of combat aircraft to Saudi Arabia and Oman.
Venezuelan arms imports fell by 83 per cent between 2009–13 and 2014–18.
China delivered major arms to 53 countries in 2014–18, compared with 41 in 2009–13 and 32 in 2004–2008. Pakistan was the main recipient (37 per cent) in 2014–18, as it has been for all five-year periods since 1991.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2HSoY2B Tyler Durden
With the Brexit saga’s denouement still uncertain, the European Union would do well to re-examine its performance as a daring experience in socio-political engineering on a grand scale. Even if, as expected, the United Kingdom somehow manages to fudge Brexit and remain tied to the EU, the fact remains that millions of Brits and other Europeans are unhappy with aspects of the experience.
The first problem with the EU is that, though it is called a union, it isn’t really one. To be sure it has a flag, an anthem, a parliament, a council of ministers, and even pseudo-embassies in many countries, but despite such trappings of a state, the EU is essentially an economic club; not a state.
Even then, the EU is basically concerned with two branches of the economy: industry and agriculture, sectors that represent around 32 percent of the combined gross domestic product (GDP) of the 28 member states. In the case of Britain, which is primarily a service-based economy, industry and agriculture account for around 25 percent of GDP.
The EU’s annual budget accounts for around one percent of the total GDP of its 28 members. However, on average, the state in the 28 member countries controls the expenditure of around 50 percent of GDP.
Key aspects of the economy, including taxation, interest rates and, apart from members of the Eurozone, national currencies are not within the EU’s remit.
The EU’s member states represent many different historical memories and experiences.
The British are shaped by two centuries of colonial experience, followed by a brief flirtation with social-democracy morphing into the Thatcherite version of capitalism caricaturized in a single word: greed. The EU’s Nordic members emerge from seven decades of social democracy with “welfare” as the key concept.
Germany and Austria pride themselves in their “social market” economic model, which is regarded with deep suspicion in other European countries.
Italy, and to a lesser extent Greece, Spain and Portugal have a “black-and-white” model in which the unofficial or black economy is almost as big as the official one.
The Benelux three, Belgium, Holland, and Luxembourg have lived with what they call “social capitalism” — a system in which the principal role of the state is redistributing the wealth created.
France, depending on the party in power at any given time, has vacillated between the German-Austrian and the Benelux models.
The Central and Eastern European members were all parts of the Warsaw Pact and the Soviet-dominated Comecon and used to expecting the state and the party in control, to take all decisions and cater for all needs.
The 28 member states also have different political systems, ranging from traditional monarchies to republics with a revolutionary background and nations emerging from the debris of empires.
They also have long histories of enmities with one another. Leaving aside a long history of wars, some lasting over 100 years, little love is lost between the French and the Germans or the British for that matter. For the Hungarians, the number-one hated people in the world are the Romanians who still rule over four million “captive Hungarians” whose territory they annexed in 1919.
The Irish love the Brits as much as the Dutch love the Germans, that is to say not very much. Italians still remember oppression under the Austrians and the Spanish haven’t forgotten their struggle against Napoleon.
It is a wonder that the EU has managed to bring together so many nations in a region that has the longest and most intense history of national rivalries and enmities compared to any other region in the world. Part of that success was due to fears fomented by the Cold War and hopes risen after the fall of the Soviet Empire.
The Western European nations felt they needed to set aside old enmities to face up to the Communist “beast from the East”. In the post-Soviet era, the Central and Eastern European nations hurried to join the EU and NATO to put as much blue water as possible between themselves and their Russian former oppressors.
Needless to say, the United States encouraged the formation of the original Common Market and supported its morphing into the EU as part of a grand strategy to contain the USSR. In that context, the EU played a major role in ensuring peace and stability in a continent that has witnessed most of the wars that humanity has seen in its history.
The EU has also done a great job with the so-called mise à niveau (bringing up to standard) policy of helping new members achieve some measure of parity with the founding members in key fields of the rule of law, democratic values, economic regulations, and international behavior.
Brexit has highlighted the key challenges that the EU faces. The first challenge concerns a widespread overestimation of the EU’s role. This is due to its perception as a supra-national state which it certainly is not. Local politicians in many member states like to blame the EU for their own failings even in domains that do not concern the union.
The EU is also facing the challenge posed by the return of the nation-state as the most popular model of socio-political organization across the globe. Right now all supra-national and/or international organizations, from the United Nations to NATO, are regarded with suspicion, if not outright hostility, not only in Europe but also throughout the world.
EU leaders and those who support it would do well to offer a more modest and realistic image of the union as an economic club concerned with just certain aspects of its members’ economies and not as a putative “United States of Europe.”
The EU has been pretending to be a machine trying to impose uniformity on nations that have always prided themselves in their specificity. It may survive and even prosper if it works for unity in diversity.
Even if it never actually happens, the message of Brexit to the EU is: Pull down thy vanity!
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2CQjrpf Tyler Durden
The business world has undergone considerable change in the last two decades.
While some fortunes are always reliably passed on to their respective heirs and heiresses, Visual Capitalist’s Jeff Desjardins notes that there are also entirely new industries that rise out of nowhere to shape the landscape of global wealth.
As the wealth landscape shifts, so does its geographical distribution.
The 2019 List of Billionaires
Today’s chart uses data from the most recent edition of the Forbes Billionaires List to map the distribution of the world’s richest people, and then compare that to data from 20 years prior.
We’ll start here by looking at the most recent data from 2019:
The most recent billionaires list features Jeff Bezos at the top with $131 billion, although it’s likely his recent divorce announcement will provide an upcoming shakeup to the Bezos Empire.
Bezos is just one of 21 Americans that find themselves in the top 50 list, which means that 42% of the world’s top billionaires hail from the United States.
Billionaire Geography Over Time
If we compare the top 50 list to that from 1999, it’s interesting to see what has changed over time in terms of geographical distribution.
Here’s the distribution of top countries on both lists, compared:
In the last 20 years, Russia and China have stockpiled the most top billionaires, adding five and four to the top 50 list respectively. The United States added three, going from 18 to 21 billionaires over the timeframe.
On the other end of the spectrum, Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland have lost the most billionaires from the top 50 ranking.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2JUmT88 Tyler Durden
Former Long Beach, Mississippi, police officer Cassie Barker has pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the death of her 3-year-old daughter. Barker left the girl in a car seat in her patrol car while she 
