Say Goodbye To The Beta Trade, This Year May Be All About Alpha

Say Goodbye To The Beta Trade, This Year May Be All About Alpha

By Ven Ram, Bloomberg Markets Live analyst and commentator

In the past few years, you could have closed your eyes and gone long beta.

Preferably even higher beta if you felt a bit more adventurous. And the markets would have rewarded you with returns far, far higher than even your rose-tinted marketing material could have possibly projected.

Fast forward three weeks into the new year, and those portfolios and closet-index trades have taken it on their knuckles.

Given Monday’s stock rebound, the mood may have turned again for now, though traders may prefer to revive their best bets — short or long — after the Fed has spoken on Wednesday. However, whatever the color of their trade, it’s clear that the coming months and years will belong to those who have done their homework, back that up with conviction, have the guts to drown the incessant noise thereafter and hold their poise.

If you rewound life back to say, 2019 — or any other year before the pandemic for that matter — you had little by way of (officially recorded) inflation, no tensions surrounding Russia and Ukraine and certainly no uncertainty to the broader macroeconomy stemming from possible variants. Now, each one of those has to be accounted for: will inflation in the U.S., already running at 7%, head even higher as crude prices threaten to push toward $100 a barrel, or will the numbers go mellow from the second half? Will geopolitical tensions spill over into a full-fledged confrontation, cause even more supply bottlenecks and send commodity prices a-soaring as colleague Jake Lloyd-Smith notes?

You could possibly solve for all those variables and arrive at a Grand Theory of where the Fed will be a couple of years down the line and what that means for asset prices — though you would run the very real risk of supplanting simplicity with complexity and false precision.

As Benjamin Graham counseled Warren Buffett, “You are neither right nor wrong because the crowd disagrees with you. You are right because your data and reasoning are right.”

And if your conviction is high that your reasoning is right, sit tight and let your alpha do the work for you — chances are, you will stand out from the crowd and come out smiling.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 06:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3nWuUeE Tyler Durden

Client Sues Deutsche Bank For Selling Loss-Making Derivatives It Could “Neither Value Or Understand”

Client Sues Deutsche Bank For Selling Loss-Making Derivatives It Could “Neither Value Or Understand”

Deutsche Bank appears to finally be shaking off its image as “the sick man of Europe”. For more than a decade, that image was informed by the recidivist behavior that elicited more than $20 billion in fines, and a series of trading blowups that shook confidence in the acumen of DB’s trading desks.

And while DB has notably side-stepped the big market blowups of the last year, most notably the Archegos blowup that saddled Credit Suisse with $5 billion in losses (and that’s not counting the losses of Nomura and other prime brokers that had made the mistake of taking on Archegos as a client), the bank finds itself Tuesday morning embroiled in a $500 million court battle with a Spanish hotel chain that’s insisting DB misled it about the risks of “complex” derivatives trades.

According to Bloomberg, which cited documents from the European court where the legal battle is being waged, Spanish hotel chain owner Palladium Group claimed DB had taken advantage of its ignorance to sell the firm currency derivatives that ultimately soured.

Ibiza-based Palladium Group alleged in the lawsuit that it entered into hundreds of “highly complex” transactions with the German lender, that were “impossible” for Palladium to “price, value or understand.” But Deutsche Bank’s lawyers said that the family behind the group were “sophisticated and experienced market participants” with the ability and experience to understand the transactions.

But DB’s lawyers insisted that Palladium’s depiction of events was a fabrication, and that in actuality the company’s finance people had insisted on the trade, ignoring Deutsche Bank’s official “advice”.

“Palladium’s claim is without foundation and we will be vigorously defending ourselves against it,” a Deutsche Bank spokesperson said. “Palladium well understood both the potential benefits and risks involved.”

Court documents explained that Palladium had “benefited” from its hedging trades with DB until 2016, then started losing money on them from 2017 on, with the biggest losses piling up in 2018. DB said it had recommended in 2017 and 2018 that Palladium bet on a stronger dollar instead of a stronger euro, but the company insisted on trading based on its strategy, or so said one of the DB traders who has been named in the dispute.

Palladium “caused or contributed to its loss by being at fault in the care of its own affairs” including its trading decisions and failing to understand the “clear terms” of the transactions. While Deutsche Bank expressed its own views on the trading strategy from time to time, their relationship wasn’t advisory, its lawyers said.

Palladium is insisting that DB and its star salesman Amedeo Ferri-Ricchi, who was the company’s “point of contact” at DB, had a “duty of care” to steer the Ibiza-based company in the right direction. Of course, that would seemingly be null and void if the firm truly did reject the bank’s trading advice (not that we blame them for being skeptical).

If nothing else, the lawsuit once again demonstrates the risks of taking the “other side” of the trade being pushed by one’s banker.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 05:45

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/35dLPTd Tyler Durden

Italy’s Presidential Election: Whatever It Takes II

Italy’s Presidential Election: Whatever It Takes II

By Marnix Arendshorst, Rabobank Macro Strategist focusing on Italy

Summary

  • In this piece we take a closer look at the Presidential elections in Italy that started this week and for which current PM Draghi is seen as a key candidate.
  • We argue that the role of the President is more than just ceremonial: acting as a guarantor of stability in times of crisis, employing his or her informal power by moral suasion as Head of State and being the key ‘Representative of national unity’ with an important say in EU affairs.
  • We look at some of the pros and cons of a scenario where Draghi becomes President.
  • We also envisage some of the other options, including a ‘Presidential Government’, a ‘Mattarella-bis’ or the choice for a more ‘classic’ candidate.

The Italian Presidential elections started this week, gathering more attention than usual as Prime Minister Mario Draghi is among the favorites. Last year, during the health and political crisis, he was appointed by President Mattarella to provide political stability in a fragmented climate. And he succeeded: Draghi took care for a promising start of Italy’s Recovery Plan, which helped to unlock the allocated 190 billion euros of the Next Generation EU fund. Which brings us directly to the key issue: will a seemingly ceremonial ‘President Draghi’ have the same added value as the executive Prime Minister Draghi? And is there an acceptable successor as prime minister?

In this note we dig deeper into the role of the presidency and look at the implications if Draghi is indeed elected. One of the questions we ask ourselves is: isn’t the nature of the president much more than just something ‘ceremonial’? In fact, in the current circumstances, a president could have a very proactive role if he or she wields informal powers. Mario Draghi as president? This will mean that he will have to back, or influence, every decision of the new prime minister, who he will appoint, in order to ensure that the reform agenda isn’t watered down and confidence from the EU and financial markets remains secured. Whatever it takes, part II?

The president’s role: more than ceremonial

We believe it is essential to distinguish between the president’s formal and informal powers. The formal powers are ‘institutional’ and laid down in Italy’s post-war Constitution. Experience has shown that these are especially forceful during political crises, of which Italy has had a few in the not-so-distant past. In particular during times of crises, the president should take a proactive role to preserve national unity, to promote government stability and to guarantee compliance with the constitution. As such, the president has the power to dissolve both chambers of the Italian Parliament, to name the prime minister and to appoint Cabinet ministers, and to call for new elections or referendums.

In Box 1 we have summarized the most important formal powers of the president

Box 1 – Most important formal powers of the President according to the Constitution:

  • The President represents national unity (Art. 87);
  • The President of the Republic appoints the President of the Council of Ministers (the prime minister) and, on his proposal, the Ministers (Art. 92).
  • The President of the Republic may send Parliament a reasoned opinion to request that a law scheduled for promulgation be considered anew. If such law is passed again, it shall be promulgated (Art. 74).
  • In consultation with the presiding officers of Parliament, the President may dissolve one or both Houses of Parliament (Art. 88).
  • The Head of the State may send messages to the parliament.
  • The President is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
  • Finally, he presides over the High Council of the Judiciary (Art. 87).

Informal powers: important in EU issues!

Informal powers are, of course, not codified in Constitution. However, particularly if the president commands strong public support and can derive legitimacy from his or her reputation, these can be significant in new situations or in quickly changing contexts, such as when financial markets or European institutions respond adversely to one of Italy’s domestic political crises.

In 2018, for instance, President Mattarella decided to block the appointment of the eurosceptic Paolo Savona as Italy’s Finance Minister. He clearly believed that a finance minister has to be a safe pair of hands and couldn’t guarantee that Savona would adhere to the EU’s treaties and rules in both letter and spirit. Even though Article 117 of the Constitution indeed states that legislative powers shall be vested in the ‘constraints deriving from EU legislation and international obligations’, this is a rather loose interpretation. It shows the president is able to carve out certain informal powers on crucial issues, especially when political actors seem to distance from traditional foreign policy lines or pro-EU approach, Selena Grimaldi (University of Padova) stated in a written exchange with RaboResearch. The opponents of Mattarella’s move argued that it was a clear political veto against an otherwise qualified choice, which was put forward by a democratically elected government.

The president can also intervene in policymaking informally through moral suasion (see also Grimaldi). Even as there is no formal dissent in this case, presidents may suggest modifications on specific parts of a bill before they promulgate. However, formally the president has only the possibility to send an entire bill to the Chamber for reconsideration. Moral suasion has been widely used in the past by previous presidents. For example, Mattarella opted for it when the government dealt with the Recovery Fund. From this perspective, we would argue that this influence is crucial for the EU growth strategy too. An effective use of the Next Generation EU fund in Italy is decisive for paving the road to a permanent EU redistribution mechanism, that is: intra-European fiscal support with national structural reforms. Or, turning the argument upside down: a miss on this front would definitely not be welcomed in many other parts of the EU.

An example of presidential intervention in foreign affairs was president Napolitano’s informal lobby against the prime minister Berlusconi’s non-belligerency treaty with Gaddafi at the beginning of the Libyan war (2011). He insisted that Italy should operate within the framework of the UN and NATO. This informal power was strengthened by Napolitano’s huge popular support.

Looking at the current situation of heightened geopolitical concerns, an informal powerful Italian President in its institutional role can prove meaningful, by playing a role in the conflict with Russia or strengthen unity within the EU. In his political role as PM, for example, Draghi made a plea for a build-up of an European military force to deter Russia.

The 2022 Italian presidential election

The President of the Republic is elected by both chambers of Parliament, which gather in a joint session, as well as 58 representatives chosen by regional councils of each of Italy’s twenty regions. A total amount of 1,009 ‘grand electors’ will cast secret ballots. In the first three rounds, a majority of two thirds is required. From the fourth ballot onwards an absolute majority suffices.

Only twice a candidate was chosen in the first round (Cossiga and Ciampi). It could take around ten rounds to choose a new president, with outliers to 23 rounds. The election process takes several days, potentially one or two weeks.

The candidates: a classic profile, Draghi, a status quo, or…

Based on the backgrounds of the last twelve presidents, according to us a candidate’s profile with the biggest chance to win is a classic combination of:

  • independence;
  • a long and impressive career within the Italian institutions, such as the Constitutional Court;
  • executive experience as a Minister or President of the Chamber of Deputies;
  • a legal background, Professor in Law;
  • and, above all, broadly acceptable to both left- and right-wing parties.

A classic profile: Amato, Cassene

Starting from this point of vantage, two candidates make theoretically a chance to become the next President-elect from the 3rd of February. They have ‘classic profile’. First, Giuliano Amato; and second, Sabino Cassese.

Amato (83) seems to fit completely in this profile. He was Prime Minister twice (appointed by President Ciampi, the only president with a background in banking), a minister in several different governments, a judge of the Constitutional Court and a university professor. A bonus nowadays is that he is seen as a ‘European’ who believes that the ‘European identity strengthens the Italian identity’.

Sabino Cassese (85) is a former judge of the Constitutional Court as well, a brilliant professor, an independent and a ‘European’ as well. His political career is however short: he was only a one-time minister.

An advantage for both Amato and Cassese: hardly nobody talks about them in the media.

Enter Draghi

That being said, the most important candidate is current Prime Minister and former ECB-president Mario Draghi (74). His (international) prestige amongst the parties and the Italian population is beyond compare. Draghi’s “whatever it takes” approach in 2012 preserved the euro; with the same mindset he created stability within a fragmented Parliament as Italy’s prime minister. He steered the country through the pandemic, and executed the investment- and reform targets and milestones that are necessary for the ongoing disbursement of the 190 billion euros provided by Next Generation EU funds.

Most important of all: Draghi boasts strong European and international contacts. Together with French president Macron he recently signed the Quirinale Treaty, named after the Italian presidential palace (!), to strengthen the bilateral ties. Both leaders advocate for a new fiscal rules within the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) from 2023 onwards: key spending and investments must contribute to debt sustainability over the long run.

It is against this backdrop that we should probably see the ‘positive’ reception by markets of the idea that Draghi could take the Presidency. But such a decision would obviously have its cons and pros. Let’s first look at Draghi himself and one explanation for the market’s positive response.

Draghi’s motivation

What could be Draghi’s motivation to become President? Draghi likely wants to perpetuate his footprint in Europe, the preservation of the euro. As president, Draghi can use formal and –especially– informal powers within the Italian political constellation and in Europe. These powers become increasingly important when the party system is fragile and fragmented, and when there is no guarantee for a stable government.

One should also consider the alternative. As the country’s prime minister, Draghi would only be involved in executive political power until the next parliamentary elections in June 2023. Then, the parties will nominate their own candidates as prime minister and his future role in Italy’s politics would be uncertain. If Draghi gets elected as president, he will be able to influence Italian politics for the next seven years. In the eyes of investors, this means continuity.

Key risks for Draghi

However, given Italy’s major ‘implementation challenges’, there are also a number of risks and considerations that should be taken into account should Draghi be elected as president.

First, Draghi has been appointed by Mattarella to form a technocratic cabinet to help Italy out of the health, political, and economic crisis. He was never elected by the Italian citizens. Now he has to be chosen by politicians.

Second, a significant part of these politicians regard Draghi as the only person who can guarantee stability in the broad coalition. Who can replace Draghi as prime minister? Maybe former Prime Minister and current European Commissioner Paolo Gentiloni? Or one of the independent cabinet members, such as Daniele Franco or Marta Cartabia? As president, he will appoint the new prime minister in a so-called ‘presidential government’. Key, therefore, in such a situation is that Draghi finds an ‘insurance’ for Europe, to continue the reforms that are needed to modernize the country. President Draghi needs to be behind every decision of the new prime minister. That will demand a lot from his informal power.

On the other hand, there is also a risk of harm for Draghi should he stay as prime minister: he successfully pushed through the legal reforms, but the implementation is always challenging in Italy. One of his predecessors, the economist Mario Monti, started off as a popular technocratic prime minister in a ‘presidential government’, in the midst of the sovereign debt crisis, but his popularity quickly diminished due to austerity measures and labour market reforms. Only one year in office, Monti had to resign when Berlusconi (which he succeeded!) withdrew his support. President Napolitano had to dissolve parliament to manage the crisis and to calm the markets. In other words, being the PM is a risky job!

Fourth, if Draghi opts for the presidency and if he will be elected, then he needs a well-thought-out exit strategy from the coalition. The right-wing parties Forza Italia and Lega have already stated they will step out of the coalition if Draghi indeed becomes president. And without the right-wing there will be no broad coalition anymore. A fall of the government means a temporary delay, at least, in the implementation of the Recovery Plan. And time is of the essence, as we explained here.

Fifth, does a fall of the government imply snap elections, with uncertainty and discontinuity as a consequence? We would argue this risk is more contained. The Italian parliament is in a ‘phase of transition’: due to a constitutional referendum in 2020 about the reduction of the size of the Italian parliament (Chamber of Deputies: from 630 to 400; Senate: from 315 to 200), many MPs will not come back after a snap election: for MPs that could be another reason to preserve Draghi as Prime Minister, not to vote (secretly) for him as President and by this avoid snap elections. Snap elections the coming months are for another reason not very likely: it could jeopardize the deputies’ generous life pensions, if they do not serve the full term.

Box 2 – Withdrawal of Berlusconi: something in return?

The initial candidacy of Berlusconi had been supported by the right wing parties Forza Italia, Lega, and Brothers of Italy (FdI): Berlusconi nevertheless lacked the essential broad political (and public) support. Although he claimed to have enough support, he said that he “gave up for national responsibility” and that “Draghi will remain prime minister”.

A more likely reason of his withdrawal just one day before the elections is that, in case Draghi needs the essential broad support, the right-wing parties will have a better negotiation position to get something in return from Draghi for their support. If that would be a less energetic approach of the justice reform – Berlusconi is involved in several lawsuits – remains to be seen, as this reform is an essential precondition for the disbursement of the Next Generation EU Fund.

Mattarella-bis? Only 1.5 year Draghi as prime minister?

In Box 2, we explain that Mr. Berlusconi’s role cannot be entirely dismissed yet either. However, another option is that current president Mattarella (85) stays in for another one or two years. Although it is not his own preference, he could be convinced to stay on for the ‘national interest’ and to avoid political instability. The continuation of the tandem Mattarella – Draghi has at least broad political support, from centre-left to centre-right. President Napolitano once set a precedent for this construction. But, as we pointed out earlier, the consequence of Mattarella-bis is that Draghi will only have executive powers for 1.5 years, until the next parliamentary elections. There is no guarantee for a continuation.

Others then?

Further, Justice Minister Marta Cartabia probably will not get the support from the Five Star Movement (M5S), due to disagreement about justice reforms. The president of the Senate, Elisabetta Casellati, is not an independent candidate (Forza Italia) and will not get the support from the biggest left-wing Democratic Party. Former diplomat Elisabetta Belloni has been mentioned as female candidate as well: independent, and last year chosen by PM Draghi as first female Head of the Department of Information Security (DIS).

Negotiations during the elections: coalitions à la carte

During the Presidential elections, Italian media almost hourly elaborate about new statements from party leaders, bilaterals, and new candidates coming up. Under pressure everything becomes liquid. And the pressure increases every voting round. Since the last parliamentary elections (2018) Italy had a populist (Conte 1: M5S, Lega), a centre-left (Conte ll: M5S, PD), and now a broad or a ‘big tent’ coalition (Draghi: centre-right, M5S, and centre left). Currently, a fourth type of coalition ‘à la carte’ is seeking consensus for a new President, and probably, a new PM. Everyone is engaged with each other. That means: Lega meets up with PD, Salvini talks with Draghi, centre-right (Forza, Lega, FdI) is proposing a new candidate after the withdrawal of Berlusconi; and individual deputies, who are dependent on a party leader to be placed on a candidate list for the next parliamentary elections, make their own strategic considerations.

Internal party fragmentation and the latest polls make a broad consensus even more complicated: the party with most of the votes, M5S is hopelessly divided and currently halved in the polls, losing votes to Lega; and Lega in its turn is losing votes to the de facto right-wing leader FdI.

Bottom line for all the parties is continuation, the guarantee of the disbursement from the EU NextGen recovery fund, the modernization of the country, the confidence of the markets. That means, for example, that the choice for Draghi as President would also require a consensus on a new PM and/or a government reshuffle.

“Difendere il lavoro fatto”

The fragmented political system and deeply divided country makes government stability more than challenging in Italy. The outcome of the presidential election nevertheless should be an example of broad political consensus. The Italian president executes a crucial role and has important formal and informal powers. Especially a president with strong public support can make use of these informal powers, for example with regard to government stability and EU affairs. Draghi’s popularity, prestige, his people’s skills, European contacts, and, last but not least, his mission to preserve Italy –‘whatever it takes’– could make him an ideal president for Italy, the EU, and the financial markets.

And Draghi seems ready. “Difendere il lavoro fatto”, were his final words the morning before the elections: “defend the work done.” If elected, Draghi has to make effective use of his formal and informal powers for the next seven years. To guarantee continuity and get confidence from the financial markets, he will have to back, or influence, every decision by the new future prime minister. This could be a huge challenge and may still lead to hiccups in the implementation of crucial reforms.

But the game is far from over. Draghi enjoys broad political support as prime minister, but how will he get this broad support to become president? As Italians say: “When you have a name, that one will never reach the end.” The elections are not over until the last round. Recall that Mattarella only had four (!) votes in the penultimate round of the 2015 presidential election.

There is one advantage if the election process takes a long time: according to the Constitution, if the process passes the end date of Mattarella’s term (3rd of February), the Presidency will be performed temporarily by the President of the Senate. That means that Italy will get a female President, for the first time in the country’s history.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 05:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/35eRvMK Tyler Durden

Millions Without Power After Blackouts Hit Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan

Millions Without Power After Blackouts Hit Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan

A massive power outage was reported on Tuesday across several Eurasia countries that left millions in the dark. 

Reuters reports Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Kyrgyzstan found themselves without power today. All three ex-Soviet republics have interconnected power grids connected to Russia. 

The source of the disruption could be due to Kazakhstan’s North-South power line, which links its two neighbors to power stations in northern Kazakhstan and the Russian power grid. On Tuesday morning, Kazakhstan Electricity Grid Operating Company (KEGOC) said “emergency imbalances” resulted in disruptions. 

“At 11:59 [05:59 GMT], due to a significant emergency imbalance created by the energy system of Central Asia, there was a power surge for the electricity transit … As a result, an emergency separation of the transit ‘North-East-South of Kazakhstan’ occurred with the repayment of a significant part of consumers in the southern zone of Kazakhstan,” KEGOC said in a statement.

The loss of power in Tashkent, the capital of Uzbekistan, triggered citywide blackouts and brought metro stations to a standstill. 

Cable cars at a ski resort in Uzbekistan were halted, where dozens of skiers were stranded and had to be rescued by local emergency services. 

In the capital of Kyrgyzstan, Bishkek, power outages brought the city to a standstill. Water supply stopped as pumping stations went offline. Traffic chaos unfolded as red lights stopped working. Many people are complaining about the lack of heat. Luckily, the Manas International Airport in Bishkek switched to an independent power source to avoid some flight disruptions. 

Kyrgyz Energy Minister Doskul Bekmurzaev said, “this is the first time such a failure has occurred in the power system of Central Asia. It is too early to talk about its causes. An interstate commission will be created to provide answers.” 

However, a boom in cryptocurrency mining in the region could be behind the power disruption. The growth of mining increased last year as China prohibited energy-intensive mining. Many miners fled across the border to Kazakhstan.

… and some are even speculating a cyberattack. 

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 04:15

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3KV64Wm Tyler Durden

Brickbat: He Just Smiled and Gave Me a Vegemite Sandwich


vegemite_1161x653

Australian Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion calls Vegemite, a food spread made from brewer’s yeast that is popular down under, a “precursor to misery” that should perhaps be restricted. Scullion said that in indigenous communities where alcohol sales are banned because of widespread abuse, people are buying Vegemite in bulk to make moonshine liquor and beer. Scullion said those communities should consider banning Vegemite as well. As we all know, there’s no other way the people there will be able to obtain brewer’s yeast if the local stores won’t sell it.

The post Brickbat: He Just Smiled and Gave Me a Vegemite Sandwich appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3r3CSnS
via IFTTT

Brickbat: He Just Smiled and Gave Me a Vegemite Sandwich


vegemite_1161x653

Australian Indigenous Affairs Minister Nigel Scullion calls Vegemite, a food spread made from brewer’s yeast that is popular down under, a “precursor to misery” that should perhaps be restricted. Scullion said that in indigenous communities where alcohol sales are banned because of widespread abuse, people are buying Vegemite in bulk to make moonshine liquor and beer. Scullion said those communities should consider banning Vegemite as well. As we all know, there’s no other way the people there will be able to obtain brewer’s yeast if the local stores won’t sell it.

The post Brickbat: He Just Smiled and Gave Me a Vegemite Sandwich appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3r3CSnS
via IFTTT

Welsh Businesses Demand Vaccine Passport Exemptions After Government Fails To Prove They Work

Welsh Businesses Demand Vaccine Passport Exemptions After Government Fails To Prove They Work

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Businesses in Wales are demanding vaccine passport exemptions after the government failed to provide any evidence that the scheme prevents the spread of COVID-19.

COVID passes were introduced in Wales in October and applied to nightclubs, as well as indoor non-seated events for more than 500 people and outdoor events of more than 4,000 people.

In response to the Omicron outbreak, in December pubs were also restricted to the “rule of six” and table service only, while all nightclubs were ordered to close.

Despite restrictions supposedly being lifted later this week, nightclubs, cinemas and theaters will still be forced to demand COVID passports.

A Freedom of Information Act request was sent to the Welsh government asking for “any and all data that Welsh Government have used to develop the restrictions announced on 16th and 17th December 2021.”

“This should include but not be limited to: a. Statistical information regarding numbers of Covid cases developed from nightclubs b. Statistical information surrounding rates of transmission from businesses to be impacted by the one way system rule. c. Minutes of the meeting and all this in attendance held on 16th December by Welsh Government regarding the restrictions,” stated the FOIA request.

The government responded to to first two questions by stating, “This information is not available. There is no guarantee about where someone caught Covid-19, therefore there is no data on cases caught in specific locations.”

In other words, despite imposing COVID passports on nightclubs and numerous other venues, the government has no information on whether they work at all.

Publican Jon Bassett told Wales Online the response to the FOIA request was “unbelievable” and clearly shows that the restrictions aren’t justified.

“My WhatsApp group with other licensees is going crazy since this has gone into the public domain,” said Mr Bassett.

“I would have thought there would have to be more evidence for them to do it. I just don’t get it,” he added.

“I think there is a lot of anger because it’s been a dreadful two months. The concern we’ve got now is if there’s another variant come December this year and it happens again. I just fear we’re in a loop.”

The UK government’s own report into vaccine passports also found that the scheme not only failed to prevent the spread of the virus, it could actually worsen the situation.

England went ahead anyway and introduced vaccine passports for nightclubs in December, although those rules are set to expire later this week.

As we previously highlighted, COVID passports were introduced in Wales after a dodgy vote that the government won because a Conservative MP who was set to vote against the measure couldn’t log in to a Zoom call.

Welsh First Minister Mark Drakeford also stupidly claimed that Omicron was just as severe as Delta, while also boasting about how stricter lockdown measures had put Wales in a better place than England, despite Wales recording higher case numbers.

* * *

Brand new merch now available! Get it at https://www.pjwshop.com/

In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch. I need you to sign up for my free newsletter here. Support my sponsor – Turbo Force – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown. Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on Locals.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 03:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3IuHtWi Tyler Durden

WHO Suggests Europe Will Experience “Quiet” COVID-19 Period After Current Cases Subside

WHO Suggests Europe Will Experience “Quiet” COVID-19 Period After Current Cases Subside

Authored by Katabella Roberts via The Epoch Times,

The World Health Organization on Monday suggested that Europe will experience a “quiet” COVID-19 period before the virus returns toward the end of the year, albeit without a full pandemic.

WHO Regional Director of Europe, Hans Kluge, told Agence France-Presse that the highly infectious Omicron variant of the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) virus, which causes COVID-19, could infect 60 percent of Europeans by March before tapering off for some time thanks to global immunity and increased vaccinations, among other things.

Omicron cases are sweeping throughout several European countries, and the EU health agency, the European Center for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) says that the overall level of risk to public health is “very high.”

ECDC said earlier this month that it expects more cases to emerge in the coming weeks, driven by the Omicron variant, and warned of increased worker shortages among health care and other essential workers, and potential difficulties with testing and contact tracing capacities in many EU member states.

However, once the number of cases across Europe subsides, “there will be for quite some weeks and months a global immunity, either thanks to the vaccine or because people have immunity due to the infection, and also lowering seasonality,” Kluge said.

“So we anticipate that there will be a quiet period before COVID-19 may come back towards the end of the year, but not necessarily the pandemic coming back,” he said.

Kluge’s comments come after White House chief medical adviser Dr. Anthony Fauci on Sunday said that he’s “as confident as you can be” that most of the United States will reach a peak in Omicron infections in the middle of February.

“If you look at the patterns that we’ve seen in South Africa, in the UK, and in Israel and in the northeast and New England and upper Midwest states, they have peaked and [are] starting to come down rather sharply,” Fauci told ABC’s “This Week.”

While there are still some Southern and Western states that continue to see case numbers rise, if the pattern follows the downward trend seen in other places, such as the Northeast, the United States will start to see a similar “turnaround throughout the entire country,” Fauci said.

However, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases cautioned against being “overconfident” when it comes to the virus and its potential effects across the nation.

He also noted that those areas of the country that haven’t been fully vaccinated against COVID-19 or received booster shots may still see “a bit more pain and suffering with hospitalizations.”

Kluge on Monday also cautioned that it was too early to forecast the virus becoming less severe and endemic, noting that new variants could still emerge.

“There is a lot of talk about endemic but endemic means … that it is possible to predict what’s going to happen. This virus has surprised [us] more than once so we have to be very careful,” Kluge said.

The WHO’s comments come as a growing number of European countries have rolled back their COVID-19 restrictions citing declining hospitalizations and data suggesting Omicron cases have peaked.

Beginning Jan. 27, people in the United Kingdom no longer have to wear masks in public or show proof that they’ve been vaccinated to enter some venues, Prime Minister Boris Johnson announced.

Fully vaccinated people arriving into the UK will also no longer face testing requirements as of Feb. 11.

French Prime Minister Jean Castex said on Thursday the country will start to roll back restrictions within weeks, pointing to an improvement in the country’s COVID-19 case numbers and hospitalizations.

Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez also told reporters on Jan. 10 that he wants the European Union to consider approaching COVID-19 in the same way it approaches flu.

“The situation is not what we faced a year ago,” Sánchez said in a radio interview with Spain’s Cadena SER.

“I think we have to evaluate the evolution of COVID to an endemic illness, from the pandemic we have faced up until now.”

However, Austria is moving closer to implementing a COVID-19 vaccination mandate for most adults after Parliament’s lower house on Thursday voted in favor of the proposal.

Tyler Durden
Wed, 01/26/2022 – 02:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3u1fedS Tyler Durden

A Federal Judge’s Satirical Opinion Highlights Disrespect for the Second Amendment


Lawrence-VanDyke-MT-AG-office

In one opinion published last week, 9th Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said Ventura County, California, violated the Second Amendment when it shut down gun stores early in the COVID-19 pandemic. In another opinion the same day, VanDyke said the county’s policy was perfectly consistent with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

That second, tongue-in-cheek opinion was meant to illustrate the disrespect that the 9th Circuit and other federal appeals courts have shown for the Second Amendment since 2008, when the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the provision guarantees an individual right to armed self-defense. The Court may finally rectify that situation this term when it rules on the constitutionality of a New York law that gives local authorities wide discretion to decide who may carry guns in public.

For 48 days in 2020, Ventura County effectively prohibited the purchase of firearms or ammunition by ordering the closure of gun dealers, along with other businesses it deemed “nonessential.” It also barred people who already owned firearms from visiting gun ranges to hone their skills or complete the training required to obtain carry permits.

The county did all that in the name of controlling COVID-19, although it simultaneously allowed many other activities that posed similar or greater risks of virus transmission. While other retailers continued to operate, gun sales were prohibited, even by appointment or through curbside service; while outdoor activities such as biking and golfing were allowed, practice at outdoor gun ranges was banned.

Given such arbitrary distinctions, VanDyke concluded in the majority opinion for a three-judge panel, Ventura County’s policy plainly did not pass muster under “strict scrutiny,” which requires that a law be “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling government interest.” Nor could the policy survive the less demanding “intermediate scrutiny,” which requires a “reasonable fit” between a law and an “important” or “substantial” government goal.

The two other panel members agreed with VanDyke that Ventura County’s suspension of Second Amendment rights was unconstitutional. But VanDyke predicted that most of his colleagues on the 9th Circuit would reach a different conclusion after agreeing to review the decision.

“Our circuit has ruled on dozens of Second Amendment cases,” VanDyke noted, “and without fail has ultimately blessed every gun regulation challenged, so we shouldn’t expect anything less here.” Those decisions include several in which the 9th Circuit overruled three-judge panels on issues such as the right to bear arms in public and the right to own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Since VanDyke thought it was inevitable that the 9th Circuit would eventually uphold Ventura County’s shutdown of gun stores and ranges, he offered a 12-page “alternative draft opinion” to help achieve that foreordained result. His satire combines excessive deference to public health powers with blithe disregard for the right to arms—tendencies that the 9th Circuit has repeatedly displayed in previous cases.

As VanDyke sees it, the 9th Circuit creates the illusion of careful consideration by using a “two-step framework” that first examines the historical scope of the Second Amendment and then settles on a standard of review. This approach somehow always leads the court to apply intermediate scrutiny in a way that amounts to a “rational basis” test, a highly deferential standard that the Supreme Court has said is inappropriate in cases dealing with specifically enumerated constitutional rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas made the same observation in 2018, when the Court declined to review a 9th Circuit decision upholding California’s 10-day waiting period for gun buyers. Other justices have joined Thomas in complaining that lower courts routinely treat the Second Amendment with less respect than other constitutional guarantees.

After nearly a decade and a half of this subversion, the challenge to New York’s carry permit law gives the justices a chance to provide courts like the 9th Circuit with some much-needed guidance. A ruling upholding the right to bear arms would help protect what Thomas aptly calls “this Court’s constitutional orphan.”

© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post A Federal Judge's Satirical Opinion Highlights Disrespect for the Second Amendment appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3u4QrWb
via IFTTT

A Federal Judge’s Satirical Opinion Highlights Disrespect for the Second Amendment


Lawrence-VanDyke-MT-AG-office

In one opinion published last week, 9th Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke said Ventura County, California, violated the Second Amendment when it shut down gun stores early in the COVID-19 pandemic. In another opinion the same day, VanDyke said the county’s policy was perfectly consistent with the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

That second, tongue-in-cheek opinion was meant to illustrate the disrespect that the 9th Circuit and other federal appeals courts have shown for the Second Amendment since 2008, when the Supreme Court explicitly recognized that the provision guarantees an individual right to armed self-defense. The Court may finally rectify that situation this term when it rules on the constitutionality of a New York law that gives local authorities wide discretion to decide who may carry guns in public.

For 48 days in 2020, Ventura County effectively prohibited the purchase of firearms or ammunition by ordering the closure of gun dealers, along with other businesses it deemed “nonessential.” It also barred people who already owned firearms from visiting gun ranges to hone their skills or complete the training required to obtain carry permits.

The county did all that in the name of controlling COVID-19, although it simultaneously allowed many other activities that posed similar or greater risks of virus transmission. While other retailers continued to operate, gun sales were prohibited, even by appointment or through curbside service; while outdoor activities such as biking and golfing were allowed, practice at outdoor gun ranges was banned.

Given such arbitrary distinctions, VanDyke concluded in the majority opinion for a three-judge panel, Ventura County’s policy plainly did not pass muster under “strict scrutiny,” which requires that a law be “narrowly tailored” to further a “compelling government interest.” Nor could the policy survive the less demanding “intermediate scrutiny,” which requires a “reasonable fit” between a law and an “important” or “substantial” government goal.

The two other panel members agreed with VanDyke that Ventura County’s suspension of Second Amendment rights was unconstitutional. But VanDyke predicted that most of his colleagues on the 9th Circuit would reach a different conclusion after agreeing to review the decision.

“Our circuit has ruled on dozens of Second Amendment cases,” VanDyke noted, “and without fail has ultimately blessed every gun regulation challenged, so we shouldn’t expect anything less here.” Those decisions include several in which the 9th Circuit overruled three-judge panels on issues such as the right to bear arms in public and the right to own magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Since VanDyke thought it was inevitable that the 9th Circuit would eventually uphold Ventura County’s shutdown of gun stores and ranges, he offered a 12-page “alternative draft opinion” to help achieve that foreordained result. His satire combines excessive deference to public health powers with blithe disregard for the right to arms—tendencies that the 9th Circuit has repeatedly displayed in previous cases.

As VanDyke sees it, the 9th Circuit creates the illusion of careful consideration by using a “two-step framework” that first examines the historical scope of the Second Amendment and then settles on a standard of review. This approach somehow always leads the court to apply intermediate scrutiny in a way that amounts to a “rational basis” test, a highly deferential standard that the Supreme Court has said is inappropriate in cases dealing with specifically enumerated constitutional rights.

Justice Clarence Thomas made the same observation in 2018, when the Court declined to review a 9th Circuit decision upholding California’s 10-day waiting period for gun buyers. Other justices have joined Thomas in complaining that lower courts routinely treat the Second Amendment with less respect than other constitutional guarantees.

After nearly a decade and a half of this subversion, the challenge to New York’s carry permit law gives the justices a chance to provide courts like the 9th Circuit with some much-needed guidance. A ruling upholding the right to bear arms would help protect what Thomas aptly calls “this Court’s constitutional orphan.”

© Copyright 2022 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post A Federal Judge's Satirical Opinion Highlights Disrespect for the Second Amendment appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/3u4QrWb
via IFTTT