Trump Nominates Army Chief To Lead Joint Chiefs Of Staff

After hinting on Friday that he might reveal his nominee to succeed Joseph Dunford as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ahead of Saturday’s Army Navy game, the president did exactly that, revealing in a tweet that he intends to nominate four-star General Mark Milley – presently the chief of staff for the US Army – to lead the committee of America’s most powerful military commanders who are responsible for advising the president on all military-related matters.

JCOS

Mark Milley

The date of Milley’s takeover has yet to be determined. Milley’s nomination comes months earlier than expected; Dunford still has nearly 10 months left in his term (in the past, JCOS chairmen have typically been nominated in the Spring).

Milley must now be confirmed by the Senate. Assuming he is, he will become the first JCOS chairman to serve a single four-year term instead of a two-year term with the option for a second, a change that was included in the latest National Defense Authorization Act.

Dunford was nominated in 2015 by former US President Barack Obama, before being nominated by Trump for a second two-year term last year.

Milley became chief of staff of the Army in 2015 after serving at the commander of Army Forces in Fort Bragg, North Carolina. He also served in the US Army special forces as a Green Beret. A Massachusetts native and Princeton University graduate, Milley served three tours in Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom. He also served as deputy commanding general of US forces in Afghanistan. Before that, he served in Panama, Haiti, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Somalia, among other countries, according to the Hill.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2UrbPR8 Tyler Durden

Talk Of Revoking ‘Article 50’ Might Not Be All That It Seems

Via Steven Guinness’ blog,

A couple of days ago the European Court of Justice issued a press release stating that the Advocate General of the ECJ, Campos Sanchez-Bordona, had advised the court that the UK should be allowed to unilaterally revoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and remain in the European Union.

The ECJ has since announced that it will give its verdict on December 10th as to whether the UK would be permitted to ‘cancel‘ Brexit ahead of the March 29th deadline. The decision will come just 24 hours before parliament is due to vote on the withdrawal agreement.

The independently minded among us may consider the timing of the ECJ’s announcement as suspect. Traditionally the ECJ concurs with the feelings of the Advocate General, which makes it likely that prior to the vote in parliament MP’s will be informed that the UK has the authority to unilaterally repeal Article 50 if it so chooses.

If coverage of Brexit over the past week is an accurate indicator, then such a development would only intensity support in the House of Commons for voting down the deal.

The reaction to the Advocate General from people who support leaving the EU has been largely predictable. Those that have labelled warnings over a ‘no deal‘ Brexit from the Bank of England as ‘project fear 2.0‘ believe that this is an attempt to sabotage the UK’s withdrawal from the EU ahead of March 2019. Whilst that is possible, it is not my interpretation of what is going on here.

Immediately after the ECJ’s press release was distributed, Lord Kerr – the author of Article 50 and leading campaigner for a second referendum – commented on the Advocate General’s position:

  • This is no surprise and, if it the Court agrees, will confirm that it is still up to us to decide whether we want to keep the existing deal we’ve got in the EU rather than leave on the Government’s terms.
  • We can choose to change course. There is still time and, until the UK has left the EU, the Article 50 letter can be withdrawn.
  • With support growing across the country for a People’s Vote, it is clear to me that this is the best way forward. The people should have the right to choose.

Anyone that has followed closely the communications of Lord Kerr will know that over the past two years he has persistently stated that the UK has the right to ‘take back‘ the Article 50 letter before March 29th 2019 if it wants to.

What needs pointing out here is that Kerr – who remains on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission – did not include within the text of Article 50 that a nation state has the right to unilaterally revoke the article. In this context, Article 50 was not definitive from a legal perspective. It would be fair to ask Kerr why that was. Because the article neither says it can or it cannot be revoked unilaterally, it has allowed this latest piece of theatre to gestate just months before the UK is due to leave the EU.

That said, the European Commission in March 2017 were very clear on their stance regarding the revocation of Article 50:

  • It is up to the United Kingdom to trigger Article 50. But once triggered, it cannot be unilaterally reversed. Notification is a point of no return. Article 50 does not provide for the unilateral withdrawal of notification.

It appears that this will now not prove the case. But before committing to the theory that this is emblematic of a ‘Brexit Betrayal‘, there is an alternative way of looking at it.

I believe that the ECJ’s impending verdict on Article 50 is part of the drive to begin the process of the government legislating for a second referendum. If you decipher the words of Lord Kerr, he is not suggesting that the article be revoked through an act of parliament. Rather, his position is that the British people should have the final say on whether a majority still wants to leave the EU. This is why he is advocating for a remain option on any future ballot paper.

Rejection of the withdrawal agreement through parliament also appears to be part of this process. Fellow Trilateral Commission member Keir Starmer (shadow Brexit secretary) recently told Robert Peston of ITV:

  • Unless the deal falls, then other options simply aren’t available.

Starmer followed up these comments with further insight when interviewed by Sophy Ridge on Sky News:

  • If we get to a question of a public vote, it will be because the option of a deal has been taken off the table by the Prime Minister who will have failed to put something before parliament that we can have confidence in. She’s pushing these other options by the failure to have got the option of a deal that parliament can support.

Assuming the deal does fall, it will happen just as the ECJ will likely have ruled that Article 50 can be unilaterally revoked. The pathway would then be clear for legislation to begin on another referendum. The People’s Vote and other anti-Brexit campaigners would inevitably double down and rally behind the cause.

So does this mean that the goal is to see Article 50 revoked via the ballot box? Whilst that might be the case, I think the opposite scenario of leaving the EU on World Trade Organisation Terms is more likely. This would mean that the ballot for a second referendum would have to include a ‘no deal‘ option.

When setting out the ‘Roadmap to a People’s Vote‘ in September, Lord Kerr wrote:

  • It will ultimately be for our elected representatives to determine the precise route to a People’s Vote and the mechanics by which it would operate.

In other words, it is not for Kerr to say whether no deal should be an option or not on the ballot. And at no point has Kerr publicly stated his opposition to a no deal option. Fellow Trilateralist Keir Starmer told Sophy Ridge on Sky News that he would be ‘worried‘ about the option, but ultimately agreed with Kerr that the question on the ballot would be a matter for parliament to decide.

Far from dismissing an option for no deal, other advocates for remaining in the EU continue to call for it to be included in a referendum. Former Prime Minister Tony Blair is on the record as supporting it. Most recently MP Justine Greening produced a ‘Five Point Proposal for a Second Referendum‘ that supports a three option ballot of the withdrawal agreement, no deal or remain. Gina Miller, founder of the anti-Brexit group ‘Best for Britain‘, appeared on Sky News last weekend and backed the idea of a no deal option:

I think no deal would have to be on the ballot. We would have to be fair to everyone and that’s why I believe it would have to be all three options.

Listen carefully to the words of MP’s and you will hear them speak of how parliament cannot possibly sanction a no deal exit from the EU. Yet some of those sitting in the chamber are quite content with granting that option to the British public.

A separate question is whether Theresa May’s deal with the EU will still be put to a referendum if voted down in parliament. If not, the only other options left would leaving on WTO terms or staying as part of the bloc.

If we do end up back at the polling booth, proponents of remaining in the EU will campaign that this is the last chance to stop Brexit. Proponents of leaving will campaign that this is the last chance in our lifetimes to ‘take back control‘ and vacate the EU entirely. Polling data did not accurately reflect public opinion ahead of the 2016 referendum, and I do not believe it would a second time around. The allure of believing that you can ‘take back control‘ and ‘put one over‘ the establishment is as strong today as it was two years ago.

The ECJ sanctioning the unilateral withdrawal of Article 50 would do nothing to change the likelihood of a no deal option being put to the public. What it will do is galvanise those who are fervently calling for a second vote to take place. But do they fully comprehend what they are asking for?

As I have written before, remain campaigners are so focused on securing the option to remain that they are failing to grasp how the vehicle of another referendum could produce the result that they ardently oppose. A result that would ultimately be to the benefit of the central banking fraternity.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2EmjRGm Tyler Durden

Chinese Imports From The US Plummet 25% As Trade War Takes Toll

In the latest confirmation that global trade war and shifting supply chains are taking their toll on China, resulting in growing economic turmoil, overnight Beijing reported that growth in China’s exports decelerated meaningfully to 5.4% yoy in November, the lowest print since April 2018, half the consensus estimate of 9.9% and far below October’s 15.6% print; at the same time import growth tumbled to just 3.0% yoy, a huge miss to the 14% Wall Street estimate and an even bigger drop from October’s 20.8% print.

In sequential terms, exports contracted 2.8% M/M and imports declined 6.1% M/M, reversing October’s strong 2.9% gain; as a result of the disproportional drop in imports, China’s trade surplus widened to $44.7 billion from $34 billion. That was the highest this year.  The notable deceleration in headline trade growth was primarily due to a very high base (i.e. exports up 6% M/M and imports up 7% in November last year). Notwithstanding, sequential momentum was pretty weak.

In terms of exports to major destinations, growth decelerated broadly, with exports to the EU slowing the most to +6.0% yoy in November (from +14.6% yoy in October), while exports to the US slowed to +9.8% yoy in November (from +13.2% yoy in October), supported by continued front-loading ahead of potential tariff increases. Exports to Japan increased +4.8% yoy in November, down from +7.9% yoy in October. For major EMs, exports to ASEAN slowed meaningfully to +5.1% yoy in November following several months of double-digit growth.

Commenting on the geographic breakdown, Goldman analyst Zhennan Li said that “the notable contraction in imports was broadly consistent with weakening exports in November from Korea and Taiwan to China. Weaker-than-expected exports in November could reflect the faster than expected fading impact from front-loading ahead of tariffs levied on $200bn Chinese goods starting in late September (likely to be increased to 25% next year). With the waning of this tailwind, we expect exports to resume modest momentum in the coming months, which would weigh on overall growth.

But the most notable, and politically-relevant observation by far, was the sharp plunge in Chinese imports from the US, which tumbled 25% in November from a year earlier: this was the single biggest monthly decline since January 2016 when China’s economy and capital markets were reelilng in the aftermath of the Yuan devaluation and Shanghai Composite bubble bursting.

As a result of this plunge in imports from the US, the trade surplus with the U.S. was almost $35.6 billion, facilitated by the 9.8% rise in exports. China’s data also confirmed the trade story as seen from the US perspective: as we reported on Thursday, the US reported that the goods trade deficit with China widened to $43.1 billion in October, an all time high.

While China’s burgeoning trade surplus with the US will be welcomed in Beijing – if cause for further fury in the White House – the broader slow down in China’s trade is unmistakable, and could be observed in the imports of major commodities, where growth decelerated notably in both value and volume terms. In value terms:

  • Iron ore imports slowed to +3.3% yoy in November (vs. +11.7% yoy in October);
  • Crude oil imports grew by +57.6% yoy in November (vs. +89.0% yoy in October);
  • Steel products imports decreased by 3.7% yoy in November (vs. +19.0% yoy in October).

And in volume terms:

  • iron ore imports declined by 8.8% yoy in November (vs. +11.2% yoy in October);
  • crude oil imports grew +15.7% yoy in November (vs. +31.5% yoy in October);
  • steel products imports contracted 7.3% yoy in November (vs. +20.0% yoy in October.)

Analysts were quick to highlight China’s sharp slowdown in trade: “Major economies excluding the U.S. have all shown slowing growth momentum, dragging on overall global demand. Meanwhile imports remain weak on sluggish domestic demand,” said Xia Le, Hong Kong-based chief Asia economist at BBVA.

“The weaker-than-expected trade growth is due to a high base, lower oil prices and the fading of front-loading ahead of tariff hikes,” said Larry Hu, a Hong Kong-based economist at Macquarie referring to exporters shipping goods faster to get them into the U.S. ahead of possible tariff hikes. As a result, the “slower exports and property investment will lead to a further slowdown in China’s economy,” Hu said adding that “export growth will decline significantly to low single-digits next year as front-loading ends.”

That said, that front-loading was likely still happening in November as the U.S. tariff hike threatened for Jan. 1, 2019 was still on the table before presidents Donald Trump and Xi Jinping met during the Group of 20 summit. That tariff hike, which has helped spur export growth since August, was delayed for at least 90 days after the high-stakes meeting last week. However, by now it is unlikely that much trade remains for frontloading.

Additionally, “the truce may buy time for manufacturers to lengthen the inventory cycle, but it is unlikely to boost the capex outlook meaningfully, unless uncertainty is eliminated completely,” Angela Hsieh, Barclays’ EM Asia economist wrote last week.

The latest data is just a continuation of even more pain for China: the official factory gauge and other early indicators have pointed to slowing domestic growth as GDP continues to drift lower, while aggregate credit growth recently collapsed to a record low print…

… as government support measures have yet to boost business sentiment and offset the effects of waning domestic and global demand.

As such, expect the trade war with the US to continue as it presents a convenient scapegoat for both sides: for Beijing, it serves to distract from the economy far broader troubles and allow Xi Jinping to blame Trump for everything that is wrong, while for Trump it serves to distract from his own domestic political scandals which, with the publication of Mueller’s report imminent, are only set to grow.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rAan1X Tyler Durden

Lettuce and Beef Recalls Show Food Safety Rules Can’t Make Us Perfectly Safe All the Time: New at Reason

This holiday season has not been a good one for food safety regulators.

In December, a months-old recall of salmonella-tainted ground beef (that initially passed USDA inspection) was expanded to include more than 12 million pounds. And widespread contamination of romaine lettuce caused the Centers for Disease Control to take the unusual step of warning Americans not to eat any romaine whatsoever.

Since the romaine outbreak began began two months ago, more than 50 people across the country have been sickened by eating lettuce contaminated with E. coli, a potentially deadly bacteria, according to reports.

These recent events have shone a new light on the failure of much ballyhooed regulations to improve food safety in America, writes Baylen Linnekin.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2BZ2A3C
via IFTTT

If US Quits INF Treaty, Europe Loses

Authored by MK Bhadrakumar via Oriental Review,

The statement issued by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization on December 4 regarding the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty following the meeting of the foreign ministers of the alliance in Brussels puts the seal on the US decision to withdraw from the pact.

Washington has successfully rallied its European allies. Armed with NATO solidarity, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo gave Russia a 60-day ultimatum to return to compliance with the Treaty. Pompeo hopes to make Russia the culpable party.

However, quite some time ago, the US had already made up it mind to scrap the treaty. The Congress even made provision in the Pentagon budget for R&D relating to intermediate missiles. But an alibi was needed. In 2002, the US unilaterally withdrew from the ABM Treaty and dealt a body blow to international security without bothering to explain. On the contrary, INF Treaty is vital to European security and an alibi is necessary.

In some ways, the INF Treaty has become an anachronism, since it stipulated that the US and Russia should not produce intermediate range missiles. Whereas, many other countries make such weapons today. Washington decided that it too must have such weapons. Pompeo actually admitted this in his remarks on December 4 in Brussels. He said,

“Secondly, while Russia is responsible for the demise of the treaty, many other states – including China, North Korea, and Iran – are not parties to the INF Treaty. This leaves them free to build all the intermediate range missiles that they would like. There is no reason the United States should continue to cede this crucial military advantage to revisionist powers like China, in particular when these weapons are being used to threaten and coerce the United States and its allies in Asia.”

“If you ask the question why the treaty wasn’t enlarged to include more nations, including China, keep in mind that it has been tried three times without any success already, and it has failed each time.”

Moscow has calmly reacted. It called the US decision “reckless” and rejected the allegation regarding its non-compliance of the treaty. Once again, Moscow challenged Washington to provide specific details of any Russian violation. But Moscow senses a fait accompli. President Vladimir Putin said yesterday,

The arguments cited are essentially clear: Russia and the United States are the only countries that do not produce weapons of this kind. This is actually true. Many other countries – probably about a dozen already – make such weapons, while Russia and the United States have limited themselves bilaterally. Now, apparently, our American partners decided that the situation has changed so much that the United States should also have such weapons.”

“What will our response be? Simple: then we will do it too.”

Arguably, it may suit Moscow to enhance its own deterrent capability by targeting Western Europe with nuclear missiles at a juncture when NATO continues to expand menacingly to the east and encircle Russia. If US scraps INF Treaty, Europe is going to be the loser. Second, Russia will arm itself to defang the NATO.

Indeed, one major dimension to the Ukraine crisis itself is the NATO’s growing power projection. The US, Canadian and British instructors are training the airborne assault and mechanised brigades of the Ukrainian armed forces in the ranges in the Zhytomyr and Lvov regions to prepare them for deployment in the conflict zone in Donbas.

The British press recently reported that the 77th brigade of the British armed forces is being deployed to Ukraine for conducting special cyber operations, as well as psychological and information warfare. Again, western private military contractors have been spotted on the contact line in Donbas, training Ukrainian spec ops personnel for undertaking offensive operations. In September – October, Ukraine held its annual joint military exercise, followed by a series of large air exercises, with the US and other NATO countries.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson disclosed at a briefing on Wednesday that the US is “proactively exploring a military build-up in Cyprus … with a view to setting up a forward deployment base for the US Armed Forces” with an eye on the growing Russian capability in eastern Mediterranean.

The CNN reported on December 5 that the US is preparing to sail a warship into the Black Sea to challenge Russia’s preponderant presence.

No doubt, the steady build-up of NATO on Russia’s western border provides the backdrop to the demise of the INF Treaty. The US seeks a shift in the strategic balance in its favor. And it is shaking off all constraints limiting its arms build-up.

Curiously, on Wednesday, in a blatant provocation, US Navy sailed the guided missile destroyer USS McCampbell “in the vicinity of Peter the Great Bayto challenge Russia’s excessive maritime claims and uphold the rights, freedoms, and lawful uses of the sea enjoyed by the United States and other Nations.” This is the first time in the past 35 years (since 1987) that the US conducted a “Freedom of Navigation Operation” in those waters claimed by Russia.

The Peter the Great Bay (where Vladivostok and Nakhodka Port are situated) is neither a disputed territory nor an international waterway as such and there is no conceivable reason why the US should conduct a Freedom of Navigation Operation there.

But, in layman’s language, the US simply decided to taunt Russia by getting McCampbell to pee into the bay, marking territory.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2RGRQMA Tyler Durden

Leo Ribuffo, RIP

“Insofar as my books and articles are known,” Leo Ribuffo once wrote, “they are known for the empathic examination of historical oddities: for example, Americans who anticipated the imminent arrival of the Antichrist; the minority among them who expected the Antichrist to lead an international Zionist conspiracy; and a president, Jimmy Carter, whom many citizens viewed in terms of what even his own campaign manager called the ‘weirdo factor.'”

Ribuffo, a distinguished historian of politics and religion who died last week at age 73, is best known for The Old Christian Right: The Protestant Far Right from the Great Depression to the Cold War. That book covered some very weird characters indeed, from William Dudley Pelley, who mixed spiritualism with Nazism, to Gerald B. Winrod, who thought the Illuminati were behind the New Deal. Ribuffo was well aware of how strange these figures were, but he didn’t treat them as a mere sideshow attraction. He showed that such people played notable roles in the political ecosystem of the mid-twentieth century, not least when they helped inspire a crackdown—Ribuffo coined the term “Brown Scare” to describe it—that paved the way for the better-known postwar Red Scare.

When The Old Christian Right first appeared in 1983, it was part of a wave of studies that overthrew a bunch of postwar clichés. Before Ribuffo’s cohort came along, the academy’s dominant view of the American right was set by Richard Hofstadter, Daniel Bell, and others like them, who argued that conservatives (or “pseudo-conservatives”) were “mass men” whose “status anxiety” led them to embrace “the paranoid style in American politics.” For Ribuffo and other revisionists, this was reductionist and condescending. Ribuffo wasn’t personally sympathetic to the right-wing views he wrote about, except perhaps to the small extent that they overlapped with his antiwar inclinations. He was basically a McGovern Democrat; a couple decades ago, he described himself as a man who “would like to vote for a left rooted in American realities (but most recently has had to settle for Ralph Nader).” But he wanted to understand his subjects rather than merely treat them as target practice.

That outlook went back to his boyhood, long before he was a professional historian. In the same autobiographical essay that I quoted in the opening to this obituary, Ribuffo describes his younger self as

a young “cold war liberal” who excitedly asked Norman Thomas for his autograph and excitedly distributed campaign literature for John Kennedy in 1960. Still, I felt less fervor than eclectic curiosity. I also collected Nixon campaign paraphernalia and then developed an anthropological interest in the so-called radical right. In 1962 the Young Americans for Freedom held their first major rally, at Madison Square Garden in New York City. While my fervent friends picketed the event, I wandered around collecting a glorious array of weird pamphlets. Moreover, with the possible exception of the gifted agitator Mark Lane, no one at the liberal counter rally sounded as interesting as the far right weirdos they were picketing.

Lane would later become one of the country’s foremost JFK assassination theorists, and then one of the world’s leading Jim Jones apologists, and eventually an attorney for the Liberty Lobby, which was both further to the right and far, far stranger than anyone in YAF. When it came to identifying interesting weirdos, Ribuffo’s instincts did not fail him.

That autobiographical essay, by the way, is called “Confessions of an Accidental (Or Perhaps Overdetermined) Historian,” and Ribuffo published it in 1999. Sentence for sentence, it’s one of the most entertaining mini-memoirs I’ve ever read; I’m sorry to keep quoting from the same article, but it’s filled with quotable moments. “Although standard histories of the era suggest otherwise, everyday life continued during the sixties.” “Yale had its virtues, not the least of which was that it was not Khe Sanh.” And this description of the author’s first encounter with the Gramscian concept of hegemony:

According to an Italian Marxist named Antonio Gramsci, [Eugene] Genovese explained, ruling classes retained power not only by monopolizing force but also, or even primarily, by convincing others that their values were the best values. This notion seemed sensible enough but hardly extraordinary because that was how jocks and cheerleaders dominated suburban high schools. Little did I suspect that I was present at the birth of a buzz word or that I was participating in the intellectual equivalent of buying Xerox stock when it was sold door-to-door.

Ribuffo wrote several witty essays like that, and more than a few sharp scholarly papers. But he produced only two books in his lifetime, and the other one was an essay collection. That wasn’t because he gave up on long-form writing. It’s because he dove deep into it, spending the last two decades of his life working on a book about Jimmy Carter. Andrew Hartman reports that the incomplete manuscript is reputed to be upwards of 200,000 words long. “For our sake, I hope the book is published posthumously, even if Leo never finally got it right by the lofty standards he set for himself,” Hartman writes. I agree.

Some of the phrases in Ribuffo’s description of his life’s work—”historical oddities,” “weirdo factor”—may make it sound like he was fixated on peculiar byways. But the great open secret of American history is that it’s all weird: not just the religious oddballs and political extremists, but those supposedly sober folks who run things too. Ribuffo understood that, and with his writing he helped the rest of us understand it too.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2SC2Wmm
via IFTTT

May Unleashes ‘Project Fear 3.0’ As Brexit Vote Looms: Stockpile Food, Drugs, Prepare For The Worst

On Tuesday, the UK Parliament is slated to vote on whether PM Theresa May’s Brexit deal should survive or die.

All the signs are that politicians in the House of Commons will choose overwhelmingly to stop the agreement May has struck after 18 months of talks with the EU.

And so, in what seems like a desperate last minute play, May’s government (that is whoever remains loyal to her) has issued a dramatic letter of warning to the country warning of the consequences of a ‘no’ vote and the case of the UK crashing out of the EU without a deal.

This is Project Fear 3.0 (to be clear, Project Fear 1.0 was PM Cameron’s 2016 warnings of national security threats, among other things; and Project Fear 2.0 was The Bank of England’s latest economic depression forecast)

The government is telling supermarkets to keep as much stock as possible in warehouses around the country.

“The problem for supermarkets throughout this process is the seasonality of fresh produce,” said Brian Connell, a supply chain consultant at KPMG.

“Some of the stuff they would want to stockpile hasn’t even been sown yet, let alone grown or harvested.”

Retail giants including Tesco Plc, J Sainsbury Plc, Walmart Inc.’s Asda and Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc — the country’s four biggest grocery chains — are now asking their main suppliers to ramp up their stock over concerns that half their shelves will be empty if there is a hard or no-deal Brexit, according to Joe Clarke, national officer for food, drink and tobacco at the Unite union.

As Bloomberg reports, the request is being made by ministers because in the worst-case scenario, a no-deal Brexit would cut the capacity of the country’s main EU trading route from the French port of Calais to Dover in southeast England to just 13 percent of the current level due to additional border checks.

Six government and industry officials with knowledge of the matter spoke to Bloomberg on condition of anonymity because the contingency plans aren’t public.

Worries over panic buying and loss of access to the EU’s customs union and single market are mounting for grocers, as they predict a 47 percent drop in goods and believe supply chains could dry up within two weeks of a chaotic exit from the bloc, Clarke at Unite said. They are asking their top 20 manufacturers to supply more produce in case this happens, meaning there will be less choice of brands for shoppers.

Even in the best-case no-deal Brexit scenario, officials foresee six weeks of disruption at the borders. The government is briefing organizations affected by cross-border trade on its latest no-deal planning Friday.

Separately, the Department of Health said in a letter Friday it expects up to six months of “significantly reduced access” especially on shorter shipping routes in the event of a no-deal Brexit. It didn’t give specifics on what businesses should do to prepare, though it said “six-week stockpiling activities remain a critical part of our contingency plans.”

The full letter is below:

Medicines supply contingency plans for a no-deal Brexit scenario

I am writing as part of the Government’s ongoing preparations for a March 2019 ‘no deal’ Brexit scenario and the potential impact on the supply of medicines.

On 23 August 2018, I wrote to all pharmaceutical companies that supply prescription only medicines and pharmacy medicines to the UK from, or via, the European Union or European Economic Area asking them to ensure they have a minimum of six weeks additional supply in the UK, over and above existing business-as-usual buffer stocks, by 29 March 2019.

I am writing to update you on the progress made to date and some updates to the Government planning assumptions, which may now affect you even if you do not supply prescription only or pharmacy medicines from or via the EU/EEA into the UK.

As you will be aware, the Government and the EU have now agreed the basis upon which the UK will leave the EU in March 2019. This represents a significant step towards the UK’s objective of securing an orderly exit from the EU. Nevertheless, as a responsible Government we have to plan for all scenarios.

Update to cross-Government planning assumptions

In August I advised that the cross-Government planning assumption about potential border delays would be subject to revision in light of future developments.

Government departments have been working to design customs and other control arrangements at the UK border in a way which ensures goods can continue to flow into the country, and won’t be delayed by additional controls and checks. On the UK side this work is proceeding well, and we have been clear we will not impose additional controls and checks. However, the UK Government does not have control over the checks which member states impose at the EU border. The European Commission has made it clear that, in the event of a ‘no deal’ scenario, it will impose full third country controls on people and goods entering the EU from the UK. Whether this happens or not is in their hands, not ours.

Although we cannot know exactly what each member state will do with respect to checks on the EU border, the cross-Government planning assumptions have been revised so we can prepare for the potential impacts that the imposition of third country controls by member states could have. These impacts are likely to be felt mostly on the short straits crossings into Dover and Folkestone, where the frequent and closed loop nature of these mean that both exports and imports would be affected.

The revised cross-Government planning assumptions show that there will be significantly reduced access across the short straits, for up to six months.

This is very much a worst-case scenario. In a ‘no deal’ exit from the EU we would, of course, be pressing member states hard to introduce pragmatic arrangements to ensure the continued full flow of goods which would be to their benefit as well as ours. Nevertheless, as a responsible Government, we have a duty to plan for all scenarios. And in areas where we cannot tolerate significant risk to the flow of goods, such as with medicines and medical products, we need to have contingency plans in place for this worst-case planning assumption.

This means that whilst the six-week stockpiling activities remain a critical part of our contingency plans, this now needs to be supplemented with additional actions.

The Government recognises the vital importance of medicines and medical products and is working to ensure that there is sufficient roll-on, roll-off freight capacity to enable these vital products to continue to move freely in to the UK. The Government has also agreed that medicines and medical products will be prioritised on these alternative routes to ensure that the flow of all these products will continue unimpeded after 29 March 2019.

Our data shows that you currently do not manufacture, batch test or release your products in the EU before marketing them in the UK. However, if this has changed I would ask you to contact our Medicines Supply Contingency Planning Programme.

*  *  *

The timing of the Health Department’s letter risks angering Brexiteers, who will likely see it as an attempt to exert pressure ahead of the vote, and rightfully so, as Health Secretary Matt Hancock told BBC Radio Friday the likely logistical problems were “another reason” to vote for the prime minister’s deal.

This, we suspect, is far from over…

via RSS https://ift.tt/2SDHIEB Tyler Durden

The Libertarian Party Future, Perennially Out of Reach: New at Reason

“He’s going to finish certainly no worse than second, and maybe first,” Libertarian Party (L.P.) 2016 vice presidential nominee Bill Weld enthused about Massachusetts state auditor candidate Dan Fishman in mid-October. And once Fishman grabs all those votes, Weld declared, “[We’re going] to make a list of every campaign for whatever office this year that Libertarians fare no worse than second, and then we’re going to take that and publicize it strongly. I think that’s going to be a crevasse in the two-party monopoly.”

It looked like Weld might be onto something two weeks later when The Boston Globe took the highly unusual step of endorsing the L.P. candidate for a job that’s been held, in all living memory, by Democrats. “Fishman would bring a sorely needed independent streak to the office,” the region’s dominant newspaper proclaimed. “Give this Libertarian a shot.”

Massachusetts voters declined the advice, writes Matt Welch.

View this article.

from Hit & Run https://ift.tt/2zLz9Aw
via IFTTT

Italy Adopts Hardline Immigration Law

Authored by Soeren Kern via The Gatestone Institute,

The Italian Parliament has approved a tough new immigration and security law that will make it easier to deport migrants who commit crimes and strip those convicted of terrorism of their Italian citizenship.

Italy’s lower house of parliament, the Camera dei Deputativoted 396 to 99 on November 28 to approve the new law, which was sponsored by Interior Minister Matteo Salvini. The law had previously been approved by the Italian Senate on November 7. The measure was promulgated by President Sergio Mattarella on December 3.

Also known as the “Security Decree” or the “Salvini Decree,” the new law includes several key provisions:

Eliminates Humanitarian Protection. A primary objective of the new law is to limit the number of migrants granted asylum in Italy. To achieve this aim, Article 1 of the decree abolishes residence permits for so-called humanitarian protection, a form of security available to those not eligible for refugee status.

Under the previous system, the conditions to qualify for humanitarian protection — one of the three forms of protection granted to asylum seekers, in addition to political asylum and subsidiary protection — were vague and subject to abuse. Migrants arriving in Italy were able to claim humanitarian protection, which lasted for two years and provided access to a job, social welfare benefits and housing.

Under the new law, the Italian government will only grant asylum to legitimate refugees of war or victims of political persecution. The new law also introduces a series of special permits (for health reasons or natural disasters in the country of origin) with a maximum duration of between six months and one year.

Extends Period of Detention for Migrants. Article 2 of the new law authorizes Italian authorities to detain migrants held at so-called repatriation centers (Centri di permanenza per il rimpatrio, CPR) for a maximum of 180 days, up from a maximum of 90 days. The extension is in line with the period considered necessary to verify a migrant’s identity and nationality.

In addition, Article 3 provides that asylum seekers may be held for a maximum period of 30 days at so-called hotspots, identification facilities at the EU’s external borders. If identity is not established in the 30 days, asylum seekers may also be held in repatriation centers for 180 days. In other words, asylum seekers may be held for 210 days to verify their identity.

Increases Funds for Deportation. Article 6 provides for the allocation of additional funds for repatriations: 500,000 euros ($570,000) in 2018, 1.5 million euros ($1.7 million) in 2019 and another 1.5 million euros in 2020.

Eases Revocation of Protection. Article 7 extends the list of crimes for which refugee status or subsidiary protection can be withdrawn. Asylum seekers may now lose their protection if they are convicted of crimes including: threats or violence to a public official; physical assault; female genital mutilation; and a variety of theft charges.

The asylum application may also be suspended if the applicant is in a criminal proceeding for one of the aforementioned crimes and would result in the refusal of asylum in the event of a final conviction. Furthermore, refugees who return to their country of origin, even temporarily, will lose international and subsidiary protection.

Establishes List of Safe Countries of Origin. Article 7-bis provides for the establishment of a list of safe countries of origin, namely countries which have democratic political systems and where “generally and consistently” there is no political persecution, torture or inhumane or humiliating treatment or punishment, threat of violence or armed conflict.

At least 12 EU countries already have such lists, which are used to prevent abuses of EU and national asylum systems.

According to the decree, asylum seekers from countries on the list will be required to provide proof that they face danger in their home countries. The law also introduces new categories that qualify an asylum application as “manifestly unfounded” in the case of: people who have made inconsistent statements; people who have made false information or provided false documents; people who refuse to be fingerprinted; people who are subject to deportation orders; people who constitute a danger to order and security; foreigners who entered Italian territory in an irregular manner and who did not immediately apply for asylum.

In addition to the list of safe countries of origin, Article 10 institutes the principle of “internal flight,” that is “if a foreign citizen can be repatriated in some areas of the country of origin where there are no risks of persecution, the application for international protection is rejected.”

Downsizes the Asylum Seeker Shelter System. Article 12 stipulates that henceforth only unaccompanied minors and those persons who qualify for international protection will be allowed to use the system for the reception of asylum seekers and refugees (Sistema di protezione per richiedenti asilo e rifugiati, SPRAR), the ordinary reception system managed by Italian municipalities. All other asylum seekers will be processed through the Extraordinary Reception Centers (Centri di Accoglienza Straordinaria, CAS) and by Reception Centers for Asylum Seekers (Centri di Accoglienza per Richiedenti Asilo, CARA). The changes are aimed not only at reasserting central control over the asylum process, but also at restricting access to all but the most basic social services.

Authorizes Revocation of Citizenship. Article 14 provides for revoking Italian citizenship from those who are not Italian by birth and convicted of crimes related to terrorism. Those subject to revocation include: foreigners who acquired citizenship after ten years of residence in Italy; stateless persons who acquired citizenship after five years of residence in Italy; children of foreigners born in Italy who acquired citizenship after the age of 18; spouses of Italian citizens; and adult foreigners who were adopted by an Italian citizen.

The revocation of citizenship is possible within three years of the final conviction for crimes related to terrorism, by decree of the President of the Republic on the proposal of the Minister of the Interior.

Article 14 also increases the waiting period to obtain citizenship to 48 months from 24 months.

Boosts Security Measures. The new law also introduces rules aimed at strengthening measures to guarantee public safety, with particular reference to the threat of terrorism and the fight against criminal infiltration in public tenders.

In an effort to prevent vehicular attacks on pedestrians in crowded places, Article 17 requires car rental agencies to increase controls on individuals who rent trucks and vans. Article 19 authorizes police in municipalities with populations above 100,000 persons to use electric tasers, while Article 24 includes measures to strengthen anti-mafia laws and prevention measures. The Italian mafia has been accused of profiting from the migration crisis.

At a press conference, Interior Minister Salvini said that the new law would provide order for a dysfunctional asylum system. “With criteria, common sense and excellent results, we put order, rules, seriousness, transparency and uniformity in the asylum reception system that had become a commodity, a business out of control and paid for by the Italian people.” He added:

“We must welcome those fleeing wars, but there is no room for economic migrants. In the era of global communication, a clear message is being sent to migrants in all countries of origin, and also to smugglers, who will understand that they need to change jobs. He who escapes from war is my brother, but he who comes here to sell drugs and create disorder must return to his country.”

The new law has been roundly condemned by Italy’s mainstream media, left-leaning political parties, as well as by NGOs and other groups dealing with immigration. Salvatore Geraci, of Caritas Italia, an Italian charity, described the law as “the worst in Italian history” and as “pathogenic, useless and harmful.” He added:

“The text is largely a result of prejudices and electoral calculations, simplistic approaches to a complex and articulated phenomenon.”

Salvini retorted:

“I wonder if those who contest the security decree have even read it. I do not really understand what the problem is: it deports criminals and increases the fight against the mafia, racketeering and drugs.”

Salvini, leader of the anti-immigration League (Lega) party, formed a new coalition government with the populist Five Star Movement (M5S) on June 1. The government’s program, outlined in a 39-page action plan, promised to crack down on illegal immigration and to deport up to 500,000 undocumented migrants.

Italy is a main European gateway for migrants arriving by sea: 119,369 arrived by sea in 2017, after 181,436 in 2016, according to the International Organization for Migration (IOM). An estimated 700,000 migrants have arrived in Italy during the past five years, but since Salvini took office, the number of arrivals has fallen sharply. During the first eleven months of 2018, only 23,000 migrants arrived, according to the IOM.

Meanwhile, Salvini announced that Italy will not sign the United Nations Global Compact for Migration, nor will Italian officials attend a conference in Marrakech, Morocco, on December 10 and 11 to adopt the agreement. The Global Compact not only aims to establish migration as a human right, but also to outlaw criticism of migration through hate crimes legislation.

Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte, addressing Parliament on November 28, said:

“The Global Migration Compact is a document that raises issues and questions that many citizens have strong feelings about. Therefore, we consider it right to put the debate in parliament and subject any final decision on the outcome of that debate, as Switzerland has done. So, the government will not participate in Marrakech, reserving the option to adopt the document, or not, only when parliament has expressed its opinion.”

More than a dozen countries have announced they will not sign the agreement. Western countries include: Australia, Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland, and the United States.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2Qht5tT Tyler Durden

Macron Heralds The End Of The Union

Authored by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

The concept of the EU might have worked, but still only might have, if a neverending economic boom could have been manufactured to guide it on its way. But there was never going to be such a boom. Or perhaps if the spoils that were available in boom times and bust had been spread out among nations rich and poor and citizens rich and poor a little more equally, that concept might still have carried the days.

Then again, its demise was obvious from well before the Union was ever signed into existence, in the philosophies, deliberations and meetings that paved its way in the era after a second world war in two score years fought largely on the European continent.

In hindsight, it is hard to comprehend how it’s possible that those who met and deliberated to found the Union, in and of itself a beneficial task at least on the surface in the wake of the blood of so many millions shed, were not wiser, smarter, less greedy, less driven by sociopath design and methods. It was never the goal that missed its own target or went awry, it was the execution.

Still, no matter how much we may dream, how much some of the well-meaning ‘founding fathers’ of the Union may have dreamt, without that everlasting economic boom it never stood a chance. The Union was only ever going to be tolerated, accepted, embraced by its citizens if they could feel and see tangible benefits in their daily lives of surrendering parts of their own decision making powers, and the sovereignty of their nations.

There are 28 countries in the Union at this point, and one of them is already preparing to leave. There are 28 different cultures too, and almost as many languages. It was always going to be an uphill struggle, a hill far too steep for mere greed to master and conquer. History soaked Europe in far too much diversity through the ages for that. To unify all the thousands of years of beauty and darkness, of creativity and annihilation, of love and hatred, passed on through the generations, a lot more than a naked and bland lust for wealth, power and shiny objects was needed.

And sure, maybe it just happened on the way, in the moments when everyone was making new friends and not watching their backs for a moment. But they all still should have seen it coming, because of those same thousands of years that culminated in where they found themselves. The European Union is like a wedding and marriage without a prenup, where partners are too afraid to offend each other to do what would make them not regret the ceremony later.

Today, there are far too few of the 28 EU countries that have been lifted out of their poverty and other conditions that made them want to join the Union. And within many of the countries, there are way too many people who are, and feel, left behind. While Brussels has become a bastion of power that none of the disadvantaged feel they can properly address with their grievances.

The main fault of the EU is that the biggest party at the table always in the end, when things get serious, gets its way. The 80 million or so people of Germany de facto rule the 500 million of the Union, or you know, the three handfuls that rule Germany. No important decision can or will ever be taken that Berlin does not agree with. Angela Merkel has been the CEO of Europe Inc. since November 22 2005, gathering more power as time went by. That was never going to work unless she made everyone richer. Ask the Greeks about that one.

Merkel was the leader of both Germany and of Europe, and when things got precarious, she chose to let German interests prevail above Italian or Greek ones. That’s the fundamental flaw and failure of the Union in a nutshell. All other things, the Greek crisis, Salvini, Macron, Brexit, are mere consequences of that flaw. In absence of a forever economic boom, there is nothing left to fall back on.

Traditional right/left parties have been destroyed all across Europe in recent national elections. And it’s those traditional parties that still largely hold power in Brussels. As much as anyone except Germany and perhaps the European Commission hold any power at all. The shifts that happened in the political spectrum of many countries is not yet reflected in the European Parliament. But there are European elections in less than 6 months, May 23-26 2019.

About a quarter of the votes in the last such election, in 2014, went to euroskeptic parties. It’s not a terrible stretch of the imagination to presume that they’ll get half of the votes this time. Then we’ll have half or more of representatives speaking for people who don’t have faith in what they represent.

And on the other hand you have the Brussels elite, who continue to propagate the notion that Europe’s problems can best, nay only, be solved with more Europe. Of that elite Emmanuel Macron is the most recent, and arguable most enthusiastic from the get-go, high priest. Which can’t be seen apart from his domestic nose-diving approval rating, and most certainly not from the yellow vest protests and riots.

Macron won his presidency last year solely because he ran against Marine Le Pen in the second round of the elections, and a vast majority on the French will never vote for her; they’ll literally vote for anyone else instead. In the first round, when it wasn’t one on one, Macron got less than 25% of the votes. And now France wants him to leave. That is the essence of the protests. His presidency appears already over.

Among the 28 EU countries, the UK is a very clear euroskeptic example. It’s supposed to leave on March 2019, but that’s by no means a given. Then there’s Italy, where the last election put a strongly euroskeptic government in charge. There are the four Visegrad countries, Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic and Slovakia. No love lost for Brussels there. In Belgium yesterday, PM Michel’s government ally New Flemish Alliance voted against the UN Global Compact on Migration.

Spain’s Mariana Rajoy was supported by the EU against Catalonia, and subsequently voted out. The next government is left-wing and pro EU, but given the recent right wing victory in Andalusia it’s clear there’s nothing stable there. Austria has a rightwing anti-immigration PM. Germany’s CDU party today elected a successor for Merkel (in the first such vote since 1971!), but they’ve lost bigly in last year’s elections, and their CSU partner has too, pushing both towards the right wing anti-immigrant AfD.

And with Macron gone or going, France can’t be counted on to support Brussels either. So what is left, quo vadis Europa? Well, there’s the European elections. In which national parties, often as members of a ‘voting alliance’, pick their prospective candidates for the European Parliament, then become part of a larger European alliance, and finally often of an even larger alliance. You guessed right, turnout numbers for European elections are very very low.

Of course Brussels is deaf to all the issues besieging it. The largest alliances of parties, the EPP (people’s party) and the “socialists”, have chosen their crown prince ‘spitzenkandidat’ to succeed Jean-Claude Juncker as head of the European Commission, and they expect for things to continue more or less as usual. The two main contenders are Manfred Weber and Frans Timmermans, convinced eurocrats. How that will work out with 50% or more of parliamentarians being euroskeptic, you tell me. How about they form their own alliance?

The Union appears fatally wounded, and that’s even before the next financial crisis has materialized. Speaking of which, the Fed has been hiking rates and can lower them again a little if it wants, but much of Europe ‘works’ on negative rates already. That next crisis could be a doozy.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves.

First thing on the menu is Macron tomorrow, and the yellow vests in the streets of Paris and many other French cities -and rural areas. He has called for 90,000 policemen on the streets, but they’ll come face to face with their peers who are firemen, ambulance personnel, you name it, lots of folks who also work for the government. Will they open fire?

Can Macron allow for French people to be killed in the streets? Almost certainly not. There’ll be pitchforks and guillotines. The only way out for him, the only way to calm things down, may be to announce his resignation. The French don’t fool around when they protest. And who’s going to be left to drive the reform of Europe then? Not Merkel, she’s gone, even if she wants to be German Chancellor for three more years. But then who? I’m trying to think of someone, honest, but I can’t.

It’ll be quite the day Saturday in Paris.

via RSS https://ift.tt/2rpxSKP Tyler Durden