Month: June 2017

SCOTUS Rejects Deportation of Immigrant Who Had Sex With His 16-Year-Old Girlfriend When He Was 20

This week the Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a lawful permanent resident cannot be deported merely for having consensual sex with his girlfriend when he was 20 and she was 16. The opinion, written by Justice Clarence Thomas and joined by all of his colleagues except for Neil Gorsuch, who did not participate in the case, hinges on statutory interpretation but implicitly recognizes the danger of lumping all “sex crimes” together in an undifferentiated mass.

The case, which Lenore Skenazy covered here in February, involves Juan Esquivel-Quintana, who in 2000 emigrated with his parents from Mexico to Sacramento, California. In 2009 he pleaded no contest to “unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator.” California’s law defines a minor as anyone younger than 18 and says violations can be treated as misdemeanors or felonies.

Esquivel-Quintana’s sentence—90 days in jail, plus five years of probation—suggests the judge did not view his behavior as particularly heinous, and it would not even have qualified as a crime in most states. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia currently set the age of consent at 16, while several other states have close-in-age exceptions that would cover a difference of four years. The Department of Homeland Security nevertheless argued that Esquivel-Quintana’s intimacy with his girlfriend qualified as an “aggravated felony”—specifically, “sexual abuse of a minor”—under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), making him subject to deportation. An immigration judge and the Board of Immigration Appeals agreed, and a federal appeals court deferred to their interpretation of the statute.

The Supreme Court overturned those decisions. “Absent some special relationship of trust,” Thomas writes, “consensual sexual conduct involving a younger partner who is at least 16 years of age does not qualify as sexual abuse of a minor under the INA, regardless of the age differential between the two participants.” When Congress added that offense to the INA in 1996, Thomas notes, the age of consent was 16 or younger in 34 states and the District of Columbia. “Reliable dictionaries provide evidence that the ‘generic’ age—in 1996 and today—is 16,” he says. Adding to that impression, a federal law dealing with “sexual abuse of a minor or ward,” enacted in 1986 and amended in 1996, explicitly applies only when the victim is younger than 16. Thomas notes that Congress updated that statute “in the same omnibus law that added sexual abuse of a minor to the INA, which suggests that Congress understood that phrase to cover victims under age 16.”

More generally, Thomas notes that the INA describes sexual abuse of a minor as an “aggravated” felony and lists it in the same subparagraph as murder and rape. “The structure of the INA therefore suggests that sexual abuse of a minor encompasses only especially egregious felonies,” he writes.

The government argued that its interpretation of the INA should receive deference under the Chevron doctrine, which gives executive agencies broad discretion to decide the meaning of ambiguous statutes. Esquivel-Quintana’s lawyers, by contrast, said any ambiguity should be resolved to his benefit under the rule of lenity, which favors the defendant when the meaning of a criminal law is unclear. The Supreme Court says neither argument is apposite, since the law is not really ambiguous. “We have no need to resolve whether the rule of lenity or Chevron receives priority in this case,” Thomas writes, “because the statute, read in context, unambiguously forecloses the Board’s interpretation.”

Strictly speaking, this decision hinges on figuring out what the law says. Had Congress wanted to make actions like Esquivel-Quintana’s deportable offenses, it could have done so explicitly, and in that case he would have had no grounds to argue that he was not covered by the relevant provision of the INA. But the ruling also highlights the arbitrariness of statutory rape laws, which in some states criminalize conduct that is perfectly legal in others, and the importance of drawing distinctions among so-called sex crimes. By acknowledging that only some offenses in that category can reasonably be described as “especially egregious felonies,” the Court strikes a blow for rationality and proportionality in an area of the law dominated by hysteria and senseless severity.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2rtSeE2
via IFTTT

Report: Obama’s Final Year Included a Mind-Boggling, Record-Breaking Number of Federal Regulations

During the final year of the Obama administration, federal regulations drained more than $1.9 trillion (about $15,000 per family) out of Americans’ wallets, and the number of rules created by the federal government grew to an all-time high.

It’s no surprise that President Donald Trump’s election was due, in part, to his promise to “drain the swamp” and slash the federal regulatory state, which had grown to never-before-seen levels during the last 16 years under the watch of both Democratic and Republican administrations. The latest annual regulatory report from the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free market think tank based in Washington, D.C., provides a sense of the scale of that federal regulatory state—and, perhaps more importantly, provides a benchmark against which to measure Trump’s efforts to cut red tape.

The size of the federal regulatory burden is almost too large to conceptualize, but if you’re willing to try, here’s a few numbers you should know. The $1.9 trillion price tag for all federal regulations and interventions during 2016 is roughly equal to the $1.93 trillion in personal and corporate income taxes collected by the IRS, according to the CEI report. The Federal Registry, that behemoth of a book that annually tracks the growth of the federal leviathan, had more than 95,000 pages added to it in 2016, far outpacing the previous record (set just one year earlier) of 80,260 pages. Including last year’s record-breaker, 13 of the 15 longest registers in American history have been authored by the past two presidential administrations (Barack Obama owns seven of the top eight, with George W. Bush filling in most of the rest).

So far, Trump is on pace to fall well short of those totals in 2017—and that’s just fine.

“This year’s report offers an important benchmark that will allow us to measure President Trump’s commitment to cutting red tape against his predecessors,” says Clyde Wayne Crews, CEI’s vice president of policy and the author of the annual Ten Thousand Commandments report released Wednesday. “If you compare President Trump’s first four months to the same period under President Obama in 2016, Obama issued 1,164 rules, while the Trump administration issued 897 rules. That’s a 23 percent decrease.”

That’s along the same lines as what Bloomberg identified last week, in a piece highlighting how agency rule-making has ground to a halt in the new administration. According to Bloomberg’s analysis, just 39 new rules have been submitted to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs since Jan. 20 when Trump took office. By comparison, Obama had submitted 118 rules by the same point in his first year in office.

Combined with Trump’s efforts to roll-back federal regulatons—like using the Congressional Review Act to repeal some Obama-era rules, and the appointment of high level officials who are skeptical of government regulation—the new administration’s efforts to limit the growth of new federal rules are laudable. Trump’s plans for “systemic reform,” of regulatory policy will have lasting effects beyond one presidency, Andrew Bremberg, the director of the White House’s Domestic Policy Council, told Politico.

Still, as Matt Welch pointed out here last week (and in the cover story for last month’s edition of the print magazine), the growth of federal regulations are largely the result of Congress handing over too much rule-making authority to federal agencies, and failing to hold agencies accountable for the rules they create.

The new CEI report highlights that Congress passed 214 laws last year, while there were 3,853 separate rules created by executive branch regulatory agencies.

If the Trump administration wants to make regulatory reforms stick, that relationship will have to be adjusted. One possible way to do that would be to press for passage of the REINS Act, which cleared the House earlier this year and was approved by a Senate committee last week. The proposal would require every new regulation that costs more than $100 million to be approved by Congress. As it is now, executive branch agencies can pass those rules unilaterally.

There’s almost no doubt that Trump’s first year in office will produce fewer federal regulations than what we’ve seen in recent years (under both Bush and Obama). Credit where it is due, but that’s just one way to judge the new administration. Real change will require more.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2srX2XS
via IFTTT

Soros: The European Union Is Now In An “Existential Crisis” And Trump’s America Is A “Hostile Power”

Commenting on the current state of the European experiment, George Soros warned the European Union has plunged it into an existential crisis as a result of “dysfunctional” institutions and austerity mandates, and will require the bloc to reinvent itself to survive. Speaking at the Brussels Economic Forum, the billionaire investor said the EU had “lost its momentum” as he urged policymakers to abandon hopes of “ever closer union” driven by a top-down approach from Brussels, a statement which will likely displease Germany.

“The European Union is now in an existential crisis,” Soros told a Brussels audience. “Most Europeans of my generation were supporters of further integration. Subsequent generations came to regard the EU as an enemy that deprives them of a secure and promising future.”

Just a day after Brussels published a paper mapping out its vision of eurozone integration, Mr Soros warned that the single currency area had become “the exact opposite of what was originally intended” according to the Telegraph.

Quoted by CNBC, Soros said Europe’s “reinvention would have to revive the support that the European Union used to enjoy.” The reinvention would have to review past mistakes and explain what went wrong, and make proposals to make things right.

Soros welcomed a German idea to cut European funds aimed at reducing income inequalities at the regional level for those countries disrespecting the rule of law. Both Hungary and Poland, which are net recipients of the so-called cohesion funds, have been criticized by European institution for their weak standards with regards to the rule of law.

The billionaire also reminded his hosts that “the European Union was meant to be a voluntary association of like-minded states that were willing to surrender part of their sovereignty for the common good. After the financial crisis of 2008, the eurozone was transformed into a creditor/debtor relationship where the debtor countries couldn’t meet their obligations and the creditor countries dictated the terms that the debtors had to meet.”

“By imposing an austerity policy they made it practically impossible for the debtor countries to grow out of their debts. The net result was neither voluntary nor equal.“

He, correctly, said loss of trust in the EU has paved the way for support for anti-European political parties and said the goal of “an ever closer union” had to be abandoned.

“Now we need a collaborative effort that combines the top-down approach of the EU institutions with the bottom-up movements that are necessary to engage the electorate,” said Soros and added that “instead of a “multi-speed” Europe we should aim for a “multi-track” Europe that would allow member states a wider variety of choices. This would have a far-reaching beneficial effect.”

He urged the bloc to focus on three key areas – dealing with the refugee crisis, Brexit and “the lack of an economic growth strategy”.

Fight Xenophobia and Hostile Powers

Predictably, the man who some have alleged was behind the great migration movement that sent 1 million mostly Syrian refugees in Germany in the past 2 years, Soros said Europe needs to overcome the current “existential crisis” by fighting together against the rise of anti-European sentiment, xenophobic feelings and surrounding “hostile powers.”

“Externally the EU is now surrounded by hostile powers: Putin’s Russia, Erdogan’s Turkey, Sisi’s Egypt and the America that Trump would like to create but can’t,” Soros said.

He called for an update of European treaties to make the EU work better and allow a “multitrack” bloc where countries would have a wider variety of choices when it comes to integration.

Brexit

Discussing Brexit, Soros – who rose to prominence as the man who broke the Bank of England for his bets against the pound in the early 1990s – warned Brussels against punishing Britain in forthcoming Brexit negotiations and said Brussels should not get distracted with the upcoming EU exit negotiations with the U.K. and continue their work to regain the trust of EU citizens.

“Brexit will be an immensely damaging process, harmful to both sides. Most of the damage is felt right now, when the European Union is in an existential crisis, but its attention is diverted to negotiating the separation from Britain,” he said.

He also said Brexit is likely to take “as long as five years” and that the EU should approach negotiations in a “constructive spirit” and should use Brexit “to transform itself into an organization that other countries like Britain would want to join”, instead of seeking to punish Britain.

“The European Union must resist temptation to punish Britain and approach the negotiations in a constructive spirit. It should use Brexit as a catalyst for introducing far-reaching reforms,” Soros said. “The divorce will be a long process taking a long as five years… During that time the EU could transform itself into an organization that other countries like Britain would want to join. If that happens the two sides will want to be reunited even before the divorce is completed.”

via http://ift.tt/2qJIukR Tyler Durden

Can Trump Unilaterally Withdraw from International Climate Agreements?

ParisAgreementJeffMaletPhotographyNewscomAccording to several anonymously sourced stories, President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate change. Activist groups have reacted with rage (if against) or glee (if for). After a day of this online angst, the president tweeted, “I will be announcing my decision on Paris Accord, Thursday at 3:00 P.M. The White House Rose Garden. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!”

Can the president withdraw from international agreements at his whim? A comprehensive legal analysis by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) basically concludes that he can. The analysis, published in February, observes that presidents have historically closed three types of deals with other countries: treaties, executive agreements, and political commitments.

Under the Constitution, a treaty does not enter into force until it is endorsed by a two-thirds majority of the Senate and is subsequently signed by the president. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is a treaty, and the Senate approved it in 1992. Executive agreements are legally binding pacts that the president enters without seeking the advice and consent of the Senate, based on his sole authority to negotiate with foreign nations. The Obama administration treated the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement subsidiary to the UNFCCC. Political commitments are not legally binding, but they may include other inducements that encourage parties to honor them.

The CRS concludes that since the Obama administration regarded the Paris Agreement as an executive agreement, a new president has the authority to “unilaterally withdraw from it without seeking approval from the legislative branch.”

There is one wrinkle. Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, termination or withdrawal from treaties can take place only “in conformity with the provisions of the treaty” or by mutual consent of the parties. Although the United States does not consider an executive agreement to be a treaty, under public international law executive agreements do count. As it happens, the Paris Agreement does not allow parties to withdraw until three years after it has come into force. So under the Vienna Convention, the Trump administration would have to wait until November 2019 to complete its withdrawal from the agreement.

On the other hand, although the U.S. signed the Vienna Convention in 1970, the country is not actually a party to that treaty, since the Senate has not given its advice and consent to it. The State Department does note, “The United States considers many of the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties to constitute customary international law on the law of treaties.”

If the Trump administration wanted to speed up the process of getting out of the Paris Agreement, the president could withdraw from the underlying UNFCCC. If the president chose this option, the CRS analysis notes, “Withdrawal from both the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement would become effective one year later.”

But surely if it takes the consent of two thirds of the Senate to approve a treaty, it must take a similar vote to withdraw from one, right? “The Constitution sets forth a definite procedure for the President to make treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate, but it does not describe how they should be terminated,” observes the CRS analysis. “In most cases, this unilateral presidential action has not generated significant opposition in either chamber of Congress.” On those rare occasions that members of Congress have challenged the right of presidents to unilaterally terminate ratified treaties, the federal courts have basically stepped aside, letting the other two political branches to fight it out.

Given the highly polarized public debate over the Paris Agreement, a presidential withdrawal from the UNFCCC would surely provoke some members of Congress to challenge that decision in federal court. One way to avoid this legal wrangling would be for the president to submit (with or without a recommendation for ratification) the Paris Agreement to the Senate as a treaty, seeking its advice and consent. After all, the vast majority of other Paris Agreement signatories have formally ratified it.

Bonus video: Yesterday I discussed Trump and the Paris Agreement on CNBC with Dan Kanninen, who served as Obama’s White House liason at the EPA:

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2shXOY5
via IFTTT

A.M. Links: Trump Weighs Paris Climate Change Agreement, James Comey to Testify Before Senate, Obamas Buy $8.1 Million House in D.C.

  • President Donald Trump is expected to announce today whether or not he is pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
  • Former FBI Director James Comey is expected to testify next week before the Senate.
  • Nigel Farage, the former leader of the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party, is reportedly a “person of interest” in the FBI investigation into Trump and Russia.
  • “Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler urged those planning to participate in Sunday’s demonstrations to ‘exercise common sense’ and ‘reject violence’ after federal officials announced Wednesday that they will not revoke the permit for a pro-Trump free speech rally set to take place across from City Hall Sunday.”
  • Former President Barack Obama and former First Lady Michelle Obama have purchased an $8.1 million home in Washington, D.C.
  • The National Spelling Bee finals will be held tonight.

Follow us on Facebook and Twitter, and don’t forget to sign up for Reason’s daily updates for more content.

from Hit & Run http://ift.tt/2rIBeL5
via IFTTT

Why A Judiciary Committee Member Said “I’d Be Surprised If Comey Testifies That Trump Pressured Him”

Echoing the thoughts of many who have watched this farce from outside the Beltway, Senator Mike Lee said early Thursday that he would be surprised to hear former FBI Director James Comey testify that President Trump pressed him to end a federal investigation into former national security advisor Michael Flynn.

Speaking on CNN's "New Day", Lee said "that would surprise me" when asked if Comey would testify that Trump pressured him. His reasoning is simple…

"I'm on the Judiciary Committee and just a few weeks ago we had, still Director Comey, come and testify. Someone asked him about political pressure and he said, 'This is something I haven't seen, something in my experience has not occurred.'"

As a reminder, testifying under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 3rd, Comey states that he has not been pressured to close an investigation for political purposes, "not in my experience."

COMEY: Not in my experience. Because it would be a big deal to tell the FBI to stop doing something like that — without an appropriate purpose.

 

I mean where oftentimes they give us opinions that we don't see a case there and so you ought to stop investing resources in it. But I'm talking about a situation where we were told to stop something for a political reason, that would be a very big deal.

 

It's not happened in my experience.

Caught on tape?

As The Hill reports, recent reports said Comey is expected to testify that he believes Trump was trying to meddle in the FBI's investigation of Russian interference in the presidential election.

Lee said he hasn't personally seen Comey's memos related to Trump's reported requests to the former FBI director to end the investigation into Flynn.

 

"Those memos, if they exist, if he said those things, would seem to contradict his testimony," Lee said.

 

"So that'll be my first question …, 'How do you reconcile that memo, if in fact it does say that, with the testimony you provided with the committee in early May?' "

 

Lee said there are an "infinite number of possibilities" about what could happen.

 

"I'm not going to pre-judge the fact until I have them," he said, "but I will have a whole bunch of follow-up questions for him if these things turn out to be the case."

This comes a day after reports that Comey would testify publicly.

via http://ift.tt/2rtyksO Tyler Durden

Bitcoin Surges Back Above $2450 After China Eases Exchange Controls

Bitcoin has retraced over half its losses from last week's tumble, rallying back above $2450 oveenight after news that China's three largest bitcoin exchanges are allowing customers to withdraw bitcoins from their accounts.

As CoinTelegraph reports, on May 31, local Chinese Bitcoin and cryptocurrency news source cnLedger reported that OKCoin China resumed withdrawals for traders.

OKCoin is the largest Bitcoin exchange in China which processes 31 percent of trades within the Chinese Bitcoin exchange market. In February, OKCoin and Huobi, the two largest Bitcoin exchanges in China, were flagged by the People’s Bank of China for operating a trading platform without appropriate Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) systems.

 

And the reaction is positive…

The OKCoin trading platform’s withdrawal resumption acting as a catalyst to trigger the interest and demand for Bitcoin from local investors. Currently, Bitcoin is being traded in China at a premium rate, which the global market hasn’t seen since last year.

The global average Bitcoin price at the time of reporting is $2,300 and traders within the Chinese Bitcoin exchange market is trading Bitcoin at over $2,340, around $50 higher than that of the US. In comparison to South Korea, which is demonstrating a $400 premium, the premium rate of the Chinese market is significantly small. However, the recovery of the Chinese Bitcoin exchange market is a positive sign of growth and recovery for the global market.

Due to extensive mainstream media coverage of Bitcoin as digital gold in China, the demand for Bitcoin within the country and amongst local traders has already been on the rise.

As CoinTelegraph concludes, the resumption of withdrawals by OKCoin will further fuel the growth of the Bitcoin market in China and when the People’s Bank of China completes the final regulatory framework on Bitcoin by this month, the Chinese market will stabilize and Bitcoin price will likely increase as a result.

via http://ift.tt/2qF6v1p Tyler Durden

ADP Employment Surges Despite Biggest Job Cuts Spike In 2 Years

Despite Challenger's headlines of a 71% jump in job cuts YoY in May, ADP reported a bigger-than-expected 253k rise in employment for May (above all economist expectations) after a big plunge in April.

May saw the biggest YoY jump in job cuts since September 2015…

But ADP reports a massive surge in employment.

Services jobs outpaced goods-producing jobs once again (+205k vs +48k) with medium-sized business seeing the biggest jump.

From the report:

“May proved to be a very strong month for job growth,” said Ahu Yildirmaz, vice president and co-head of the ADP Research Institute. “Professional and business services had the strongest monthly increase since 2014. This may be an indicator of broader strength in the workforce since these services are relied on by many industries.”

 

Mark Zandi, chief economist of Moody’s Analytics said, “Job growth is rip-roaring. The current pace of job growth is nearly three times the rate necessary to absorb growth in the labor force. Increasingly, businesses’ number one challenge will be a shortage of labor.”

Which is not at all what he predicted before Trump won the election.

Meanwhile, Citi quickly poured some cold water on the report, saying "ADP bests consensus but…"

This is the type of ADP prints that traders get excited about. The headline rise of 253k blasts 180k expected, with 205k from service producing jobs and 48k from goods. US 10y yields have shot up 1.5bps towars 2.23% on the print, while USDJPY trades higher from the 111.15 area to 111.40.

 

While this move is decent, the risk is that it proves short-lived and as we type, there's evidence that it will. More jobs are great but remember that the market is looking for more money – via a higher Average Hourly Earnings (AHE) print – on Friday. AHE is currently expected to rise 0.2%MoM or 2.6%YoY, while NFP (likely to be revised up following ADP) is seen at 173k.
can i add to ADP

Some more details:

Change in Nonfarm Private Employment

Change in Total Nonfarm Private Employment

Change in Total Nonfarm Private Employment by Company Size

Full infographic:

<br /> ADP National Employment Report: Private Sector Employment Increased by 253,000 Jobs in May<br /> ” border=”0″ height=”1598″ src=”<a href=http://ift.tt/2rtllr8…” width=”598″ />

 

Citi notes that this is the type of ADP prints that traders get excited about. The headline rise of 253k blasts 180k expected, with 205k from service producing jobs and 48k from goods. US 10y yields have shot up 1.5bps towars 2.23% on the print, while USDJPY trades higher from the 111.15 area to 111.40.

While this move is decent, the risk is that it proves short-lived and as we type, there's evidence that it will. More jobs are great but remember that the market is looking for more money – via a higher Average Hourly Earnings (AHE) print – on Friday. AHE is currently expected to rise 0.2%MoM or 2.6%YoY, while NFP (likely to be revised up following ADP) is seen at 173k.

via http://ift.tt/2qEx1Uq Tyler Durden

Oil Jumps On First ‘OPEC Sources’ Headline Of The Day

WTI Crude had erased its post-API (big crude draw) gains this morning after weak China PMI overnight and so something had to be done to keep the oil-normalization dream alive. OPEC sources stepped up…

  • OPEC COULD REVIVE IDEA OF DEEPER SUPPLY CUT AT NEXT MEETING IF OIL INVENTORIES STAY HIGH – TWO SOURCES FAMILIAR WITH MATTER

And the reaction was a kneejerk higher oiff the pre-API levels…

via http://ift.tt/2rnZn6A Tyler Durden

Gold to benefit from Uncertainty thanks to Twitter and UK elections

  • Gold hits five-week high

Gold to benefit from Uncertainty thanks to Twitter and UK elections

  • Reaches $1,273.74/oz, highest since April 25th
  • Sterling recovers after UK polls point towards a hung Parliament
  • Expected Fed-tightening capped gains
  • 90-dead in Kabul, further signs of increasing tension in Middle East
  • Trump expected to pull out of Paris Accord and Trump’s anti-Iran axis already feuding

Yesterday gold hit $1,273.74/oz, a level not seen for five weeks. Analysts point to some safe-haven demand for the yellow metal on account of the geopolitical tensions, upcoming UK elections and tomorrow’s non-farm payroll data.

We suggest investors look beyond data releases and political peacocking, and instead look at what the greater picture shows which is uncertainty on all fronts.

All about the Federal Reserve

Amongst mainstream financial analysts, all eyes appear to be on the expected Federal Reserve rate hikes. Thomson Reuters data shows traders see an 87% chance of a 25-basis-point hike at the next Federal Reserve meeting, this month.

Softer economic data of late, may mean that the Janet Yellen and her team might not be so keen to ramp up rates this month. Investigations into Russia’s alleged involvement in the 2016 U.S. election and possible collusion with Trump’s campaign also have clouded the prospect of a rate hike next month. The plan was for two further rate hikes this year in order to tighten the central bank’s balance sheet.

Fed policy tightening is expected to be negative for gold. But times might be changing as we note that in both December and March, following rate rises, gold decided to rally. This might be on account of expectations of over-tightening by the Fed and which would tip the country into a recession. Good news for gold.

Should the Fed over tighten, then they are likely to return forward guidance. As we know this is a great environment for the gold price due to increased inflation and a weaker currency.

Jitters over UK elections

In what feels like groundhog day for many UK-voters, there will be an election next week. To listen to the international media one could be forgiven the election is about Brexit. It is a general election which has consequences far beyond Brexit negotiations. Many of these consequences are unknown, which suggests a positive environment for gold regardless of the outcome.

When the election was initially called it seemed as though Mrs May’s election was a dead cert, however the polls suggest it might not be so easy. This morning news of a YouGov poll commissioned by the Times show Mrs May has a battle ahead of her. YouGov found the Conservative lead has slipped dramatically in recent weeks and is now within the margin of error. In April, when the election was first called, the Tories had a 24-point lead over Labour.

The YouGov Poll also found 30% of respondents think Jeremy Corbyn would be a better Prime Minister, this is the highest it has ever been. Meanwhile, Teresa May’s personal favourability has slipped to by 2%, to 43%.

Investors would be prudent to remember that whilst Mrs May is using the “promise of Brexit” to improve the country’s fortunes, the outcome of the ‘divorce’ remains unknown regardless of who is elected. With a Conservative victory the market might feel slightly reassured as there is no change in management, however we are still unsure how Brexit will actually look. A Labour victory is effectively double the uncertainty as we have not seen Corbyn lead, let alone run a Brexit negotiation.

Trump tension

Trump continues to be a cause for concern in both the US and the wider community. Concern comes from the usual basket of goodies the President serves on a daily basis, namely strange tweets, misinformed statements on foreign relations and the desire to show independence when the opposite is required.

One example of this came on Tuesday when Trump tweeted, “We have a MASSIVE trade deficit with Germany, plus they pay FAR LESS than they should on NATO & military. Very bad for U.S. This will change,”

This tweet from Trump harks back to 1987 when US Treasury Secretary James Baker took issue with German policy. For many this resulted in the stock market crash of October 1987.

This morning the US dollar hovered near a 6-1/2 month low against a basket of major currencies on. Today, markets will also be closely watching for Trump’s announcement on whether or not the United States will continue to be part of the Paris Accord.

Whilst an agreement over whether or not to fight climate change may seem a tenuous link to make with precious metal prices, Trump’s decision will say so much more than his thoughts on global warming. A step away from the Paris Accord shows once again Trump’s desire to focus on his ‘America First’. In isolation the decision might not count for much but is the statement about Trump’s intentions to work with others, that are of most concern. He is pushing further towards an isolationist and protectionist agenda.

This adds to geopolitical tensions that are already quite fraught. Trump’s decision to effectively reject what is really the rest of the world’s view in terms of how to deal with something, could see the tension gauge ramp up an extra couple of notches, something else that is good for gold.

Middle East problems remain despite Trump (!)

All eyes were on the Middle East just ten days ago when President Trump made his first international visit to the region. The President made a few speeches and all concerned were expected to feel revived and reunited in the fight against those wanting to cause harm in the Middle East. However, no sooner had the President left the region, media attentions were back on Western problems such as handshakes, photo-op barging and angry tweets.

It hasn’t taken long for the Middle East to demonstrate that it needs a bit more than some FaceTime. Yesterday an attack in Kabul left 90 dead. Whilst no one has claimed responsibility for it Afghanistan’s intelligence service, the National Directorate of Security, issued a statement attributing blame to the Haqqani Network, a Taliban-affiliated group in Pakistan. The National Directorate also claimed the group had received help from ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service.

Trump’s anti-Iran axis is also already beginning to fray around the edges. Less than two weeks after his visit. Qatar is embroiled in a public feud with both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) over their conciliatory line on Iran and support for the Muslim Brotherhood. A spat between Doha and other members of the GCC could have major implications for the Middle East with long-term repercussions.

Conclusion: We’re still uncertain

It seems we conclude many market updates with reference to the overall uncertainty regarding geopolitics and finance. But there is little else to say.

It can be both entertaining and worrying to look at Trump’s behaviour and attribute much of the blame for the current chaos, to him. But the truth is, whether he had been elected or not, we would still be watching the UK general election, the Middle East would still have major problems and the Federal Reserve would still be turning it’s back on the realities of the damage that it has caused.

The future might seem uncertain but the ways in which we can protect ourselves remain constant and certain. Gold and silver act as both financial insurance and portfolio diversifiers.

Data shows more people are choosing to invest in gold. This tells us that savers are no longer concerned about the increasingly lower, opportunity cost of holding gold. Instead they are realising that the uncertainty we see across the globe is not because of one event such as an election or tweet, instead it is the general air of uncertainty and concern as to how this will pan out.

Those looking to insure their portfolio against global events should ignore the day-to-day reports and instead prepare for these uncertain times by diversifying and owning gold and silver. For many years, gold and silver have protected investors and savers from uncertainty, both economic and political.

News and Commentary

Gold holds near five-week highs, but potential U.S. rate hike drags (Reuters)

Asia Stocks Rise as Yuan Strengthens, Oil Rebounds (Bloomberg)

Marc Faber—aka Dr. Doom—warns that in financial markets ‘there is a bubble in everything’ (MarketWatch)

Gold ends higher, then pulls back as Fed Beige Book ups odds of June rate hike (MarketWatch)

Fed Survey Shows Modest Growth With Tight Labor and Tame Prices (Bloomberg)

India’s Hunger for Gold is Legendary – But who are these Gold Buyers? (Commodity Trade Mantra)

GOLD – The Ultimate Buy and Hold (SilverSeek)

SWOT Analysis: Deutsche Bank Says Investors Should Prepare for Flight to Gold (GoldSeek)

Is Bitcoin Standing In For Gold? (ZeroHedge)

The Next Recession May Be A Complete Reset Of All Asset Valuations (Mauldin Economics)

 

7RealRisksBlogBanner

Avoid Digital & ETF Gold – Key Gold Storage Must Haves

Gold Prices (LBMA AM)

01 Jun: USD 1,266.15, GBP 984.81 & EUR 1,128.01 per ounce
31 May: USD 1,263.80, GBP 987.79 & EUR 1,129.96 per ounce
30 May: USD 1,262.80, GBP 982.46 & EUR 1,132.23 per ounce
26 May: USD 1,265.00, GBP 983.41 & EUR 1,127.87 per ounce
25 May: USD 1,257.10, GBP 969.48 & EUR 1,119.57 per ounce
24 May: USD 1,251.35, GBP 963.29 & EUR 1,119.58 per ounce
23 May: USD 1,259.90, GBP 969.62 & EUR 1,119.17 per ounce

Silver Prices (LBMA)

01 Jun: USD 17.13, GBP 13.33 & EUR 15.26 per ounce
31 May: USD 17.31, GBP 13.48 & EUR 15.43 per ounce
30 May: USD 17.27, GBP 13.42 & EUR 15.49 per ounce
26 May: USD 17.29, GBP 13.45 & EUR 15.41 per ounce
25 May: USD 17.15, GBP 13.23 & EUR 15.29 per ounce
24 May: USD 17.03, GBP 13.14 & EUR 15.22 per ounce
23 May: USD 17.14, GBP 13.22 & EUR 15.25 per ounce


Recent Market Updates

– Is China manipulating the gold market?
– Why Sharia Gold and Bitcoin Point to a Change in Views
– Bitcoin volatility and why it’s good for gold
– Should I Invest My Fortune in Gold? Inaugural Lecture by Dr Brian Lucey
– Gold and Silver Bullion Now Treated As Money In Arizona
– Manchester Attack Sees Asian Stocks Fall, Gold Firm
– James Rickards: Gold’s “Decisive Turn Around” – “Next Stop Is $1,300 Or Higher”
– Gold and Silver Bullion Coins See Sales “Explosion” In UK On “Wave Of Political Turmoil”
– Gold Investment Is the Ultimate Guide for Tech Investors In 500 Words
– Gold Spikes On Heavy Volume On Trump, U.S. Political “Mess”
– Cyber Wars Could Crash Markets and Threat To Humanity – Rickards and Buffett
– Cyber Attacks Show Vulnerability of Digital Systems and Digital Currencies
– History of Gold – Interesting Facts and Changes Over 50 Years
– U.S. Gold Exports To China and India Surge In 2017

Access Award Winning Daily and Weekly Updates Here

 

via http://ift.tt/2reHw3x GoldCore