sell! sell! sell!

[eek.]

One big positive with the UK out of the EU.
We were apparently a major factor in the "stirring up shit with Russia" camp, something I was unaware of.

With us gone, the chances of peaceful respect between Europe and Russia increase, which is great news

It looks like a lot of our establishment is seriously pissed off over the loss of this negative influence, hence the bitching. They spent decades getting this influence... and lost it all in 12 hours
Put simply, our EU Neocon community got shitcanned in a single night, wow

"Of all EU states, Britain has been the most aggressive towards Russia," writes political analyst Alexei Mukhin in the tabloid Moskovsky Komsomolets. "It has always criticised us and tried to harm us economically, financially and politically. Brexit will make the European Union more friendly towards Russia."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36629146

 

[tiznow]

[h=1]Hussman Funds - Weekly Market Comment[/h]

June 27, 2016Brexit and the Bubble in Search of A Pin

John P. Hussman, Ph.D.
All rights reserved and actively enforced.
Reprint Policy
First things first. While the full attention of financial market participants is focused on “Brexit” - last week’s British referendum to exit the European Union - the singular factor to recognize here is that the vulnerability of the financial markets to steep losses has very little to do with Brexit per se. Rather, years of yield-seeking speculation, encouraged by central banks, had already brought the financial markets to a precipice prior to last week’s vote. It’s not entirely clear whether Brexit is a sufficient catalyst to burst the bubble, as we recall that the failure of Bear Stearns in early-2008 was followed by a period of calm before the crisis was sealed by Lehman's failure, and numerous dot-com stocks had already been obliterated by September 2000, when the tech bubble began its collapse in earnest. We’ll take the evidence as it comes, but we’re certainly defensive at present, for reasons that have little to do with Brexit at all.
The high-level churning in global financial markets since late-2014 represents what we view as the top formation of the third speculative bubble in 16 years. For the U.S. market, valuation measures most reliably correlated with actual subsequent market returns pushed to the third most offensive extreme in history at the May 2015 market high, eclipsed only by the 2000 and 1929 peaks (see Choose Your Weapon for a ranking of various measures, and the chart series in Imagine for a current perspective). Because this speculative episode has infected nearly every asset class, rather than favoring tech stocks or mortgage securities as in previous bubbles, the median price/revenue ratio across individual U.S. stocks actually pushed to the most extreme level on record in recent weeks, before promptly retreating on Friday.
As I noted a month ago in Latent Risks and Critical Points:
“My impression is that the best way to understand the next stage of the current market cycle is to recognize the difference between observed conditions and latent risks. This distinction will be most helpful before, not after, the S&P 500 drops hundreds of points in a handful of sessions. That essentially describes how a coordinated attempt by trend-followers to exit this steeply overvalued market could unfold, since value-conscious investors may have little interest in absorbing those shares at nearby prices, and in equilibrium, every seller requires a buyer.
“Imagine the error of skating on thin ice and plunging through. While we might examine the hole in the ice in hindsight, and find some particular fracture that contributed to the collapse, this is much like looking for the particular pebble of sand that triggers an avalanche, or the specific vibration that triggers an earthquake. In each case, the collapse actually reflects the expression of sub-surface conditions that were already in place long before the collapse - the realization of previously latent risks.
“Finding the specific trigger that causes the skaters to plunge through the ice isn’t particularly informative. The fact is that catastrophe is inevitable the moment the skaters ignore the latent risk, or rely on faulty evidence to conclude that the ice is stable. The fracture in some particular span of ice is just one of numerous other spots that might have otherwise given way if the skaters had chosen a different course. Hitting that spot creates the specific occasion for the underlying risk to be expressed, but an unfortunate outcome was already inevitable much earlier.”
As I’ve regularly emphasized over time, particularly since mid-2014, valuations are the primary determinant of market returns on horizons of 7-12 years, but have a much weaker relationship with returns over shorter horizons. Over shorter segments of the market cycle, the hinge that distinguishes an overvalued market that continues to advance from an overvalued market that drops like a rock is psychological - the attitude of investors toward risk-seeking or risk-aversion. Because risk-seeking tends to be indiscriminate, we find that the most reliable measure to distinguish risk-seeking from risk-aversion is the uniformity or divergence of market internals across a wide range of individual stocks, industries, and security types, including debt securities of varying creditworthiness. Those measures deteriorated materially in late-2014, as investors finally began a subtle shift toward risk aversion that has persisted during the recent top-formation.
For those inclined to dismiss the dangerous combination of extreme valuations and unfavorable market internals here, on the basis of our own struggle with QE-driven speculation during the advancing half-cycle since 2009, see the Box in The Next Big Shortfor the full narrative. Given that our measures of market internals are unfavorable here, and our valuation measures didn’t miss a beat even at the 2009 lows, the bulk of our present concerns are based on factors that had no part in that struggle.
Despite the potential for Brexit to act as a trigger to express latent risks that have been steeply elevated for some time now, my strong view is that investors should not be misled into thinking that the specifics of this particular trigger matter all that much. We could write pages on the potential renegotiation points that Britain and the EU will need to hash out as Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is invoked. But for investors, the main objects of focus should be the condition of valuations and market action, particularly the status of market internals, and the position of the major indices relative to various trigger points that might result in concerted selling attempts by trend-followers. That’s particularly important since value-conscious investors will likely have little interest in absorbing shares at nearby prices.
Brexit and the untenable structure of the EU
Having emphasized that Brexit is only one of many possible disruptions to a bubble in search of a pin, some aspects of Brexit are certainly worthy of discussion.
As long-time followers know, I’ve often expressed concern over what I see as an untenable structure underlying the European Union. There’s certainly merit in promoting flexible trade among European nations, and in the ideal of a common European identity. But the additional fact is that Europe is virtually unequalled in its economic and cultural dispersion. It includes some of the strongest but also weakest economies in the developed world, with diverse languages and deeply-held cultural identities that are immediately invoked by the names of each country - the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, Greece, Sweden, Ireland, Poland, Spain, and many others. These individual national identities are not unanimously seen as insignificant relics, and it is a source of greater discord, not less, to imagine that they don’t exist. Nor is it reasonable to assume that the same fiscal and monetary policies are appropriate to all of them.
Probably the most poorly structured element of the EU in this regard is the euro, which binds many (though not all) of these members together under a common currency. A stable common currency requires that its member states pursue common fiscal policies, and presumes that a common monetary policy is appropriate for all of them. This has been a disaster for Europe. The clearest symptom of this untenable structure is the European Central Bank under Mario Draghi. The blindly frantic “anything it takes” monetary dysfunction promoted by the ECB has enabled the development of massive sovereign debt burdens, Humpty Dumpty banks across Europe (with Deutsche Bank being the most leveraged among major institutions, and Credit Suisse not far behind), and negative interest rates across Europe, with the ECB now buying the bonds of even private corporations.
Given that Britain has its own currency, part of the support behind the Brexit vote relates the relatively free migration of workers under the Common Market. While I do believe that every country has the right to immigration policies that contribute to the relative stability of its own culture, I don’t defend the ugly leap to intolerance that some have demonstrated in Britain, and that has also become an unfortunate and offensive element in the U.S. political debate. My own concern with the structure of the EU is primarily focused on the misguided structure of the common currency, and the underlying requirement for fiscal and monetary harmony that it imposes on countries that desperately need the flexibility to pursue substantially divergent policies. Those constraints have brought Greece close to a depression, while at the same time shoveling default-prone sovereign debt onto the balance sheets of European banks and the ECB.
Compared with what might result from the exit of another major EU member, Britain actually has a relatively easy course over the next two years (which is the period over which existing agreements with the EU will be renegotiated, and can be extended by the EU if necessary). There is every reason to expect provisions that are mutually beneficial to each side to be preserved. The transition will be substantially eased by the fact that many of these provisions have broad public support in Britain across a wide range of sectors. Despite protests that “everything has gone back to square one,” it’s not as if all of those mutually beneficial provisions have suddenly gone up in flames and have to be redrafted from scratch. The discord will be among provisions that have “political” features; those that might benefit one group within Britain versus another.
Any country that shares the euro as a common currency would have a more difficult exit course, because currency uncertainties would suddenly be introduced, disrupting a wide range of securities and private contracts. That’s not to say that Brexit will be easy, but the main risk of Brexit is actually the risk of a domino effect that might encourage defection of other EU members, particularly those that share the euro. Also, some EU members, particularly Germany, look at the unrestrained behavior of the European Central Bank with increasing dismay. If Europe experiences another round of economic weakness, there may be increasing strains on this passive acceptance by Germany, which is currently required to preserve the euro.
The dignity of a united European identity can survive without forcing each member country into an inappropriately identical fiscal, monetary and political shoe. Think of the EU, in its current ill-structured form, as a kind of Ponzi scheme, and Britain as the guy who just asked for his money back. There are undoubtedly greater prospects for near-term disruption after last week’s vote, but the hallmark of a Ponzi scheme is the attempt to use progressively greater distortions in order to preserve a structure that is fundamentally unsound and increasingly bankrupt. Of any large country that could leave the EU, Britain was the best first mover. I have no immediate concerns about a domino effect, but if one was to emerge, my view is that the exit of Germany, France, and the Nordic countries would be preferable to the exit of Greece, Italy, Spain, or Portugal. It would be better to leave the euro intact and capable of steep devaluation among the weaker members than to sustain a system where the stronger and larger members of the euro become even more deeply entrenched in its flaws.
As for the prospects for Britain itself, given that recessions are generally periods where the mix of goods demanded by an economy becomes misaligned with the mix of goods being supplied, a recession in Britain appears likely. The decline in the British pound may serve as something of an automatic stabilizer, reducing imports and increasing demand for exports, but that still requires some adjustment in the relative composition of demand and supply, so some amount of disruption is inevitable.
From a currency standpoint, I observed in March 2015 that both the Japanese yen (then at about $0.0082/yen or 122 yen/$) and the euro (then at about $1.05/euro) had become substantially undervalued relative to the U.S. dollar based on our “joint parity” estimates (see Extremes in Every Pendulum). As of Friday, the yen has advanced by nearly 20%, to about $0.0098/yen or 102 yen/$), which I view as fully valued, though not rich.
In contrast, as of Friday, both the euro and the British pound appear modestly undervalued relative to the U.S. dollar, by about the same amount. While the euro has advanced nearly 6%, the move to negative rates across Europe has reduced our fair value estimates, which we peg at just under $1.20/euro, narrowing our expectation for much appreciation. Given the choice of a poorly structured and crisis-prone euro and the British pound, I’d much rather hold the pound over time. Our joint parity estimate for the pound currently stands at about $1.50, though that value would be degraded somewhat in the event of an ill-advised move toward negative rates by the Bank of England. While near-term pressures may drive the pound well below the current exchange rate of $1.37, my impression is that this would improve an already modestly favorable valuation.
Late note - over the weekend, the foreign ministers of Germany, France, Belgium, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands released a statement of willingness to work toward an orderly departure of Britain from the EU, and observed “we shall also recognize different levels of ambition amongst Member States when it comes to the project of European Integration. While not stepping back from what we have achieved, we have to find better ways of dealing with those different levels of ambition so as to ensure that Europe delivers better on the expectations of all European citizens.”
One wishes that those “different levels of ambition” had originally included flexibility for member countries to pursue reasonable, if constrained, differences in their monetary, fiscal, and immigration policies, scrapping the notion of a common currency. The ideal of workable integration would be much easier to achieve, the European economy would be struggling less, and the ECB would not be able to engineer an increasingly extreme choice between monetary dysfunction and financial crisis. That choice has already become a double bind; either option is ultimately likely to bring the same end. Unfortunately, financial and monetary extremes have already been taken too far to allow a return to long-term stability along anything other than a difficult road.
Still, even in a highly repressed financial system, volatility also brings opportunity. Though Japanese interest rates have been pegged near zero for two decades, the Nikkei has experienced multiple bull and bear markets, including two losses in excess of -60%, even after the -60% loss that followed the 1990 peak. As long as investors focus on the joint condition of valuations and market action (particularly the uniformity or divergence of market internals as they change over time), and as long as they avoid the mistake of equating zero interest rates with stock market stability, I expect that a patient, flexible, value-conscious discipline will serve investors well in the market cycles ahead.

 

[tiznow]

Big government whore status quoers continue to show their true color in the aftermath.. Good stuff..

------

If anyone needs another confirmation that the European Union is fundamentally the most anti-democratic entity currently in existence, then the following statement by European Parliament Martin Schultz should put all confusion to rest.
Schulz: "The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate".

 

[tiznow]

Iceland beats England lol

 

[eek.]

It's-not-been-a-good-week-if-you-live-in-England

However, if you put 1000 on Brexit and let it ride for Iceland/England you'd have about 100k now

...although 100k this week is worth about 75k in last weeks money...

 

[eek.]

Looks like we're going to have to play hardball, and since we buy a bucketload more from them than they buy from us the ultimate $$ loser will be the EU. Every third car in any UK street comes from Germany or France

If the choice is to be a poor free man or a rich slave then the UK has already made its choice
---------

EU referendum: German car makers warn on free movement

German car makers have said that the UK will have to accept the free movement of EU citizens in return for access to the single market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36646251

 

[tiznow]

The End Game Of Bubble Finance - Political Revolt

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,
During Friday’s bloodbath I heard a CNBC anchor lady assuring her (scant) remaining audience that Brexit wasn’t a big sweat. That’s because it is purportedly a political crisis, not a financial one.
Presumably in the rarified canyons of Wall Street, politics doesn’t matter much. After all, when things get desperate enough, Washington caves and does “whatever it takes” to get the stock averages moving upward again.
Here’s a news flash. That’s all about to change.
The era of Bubble Finance was enabled by a political abdication nearly 50 years ago. But as Donald Trump rightly observed in the wake of Brexit, the voters are about to take back their governments, meaning that the financial elites of the world are in for a rude awakening.
To be sure, the apparent lesson of the first TARP vote when the bailout was rejected by the House in September 2008 was that politics didn’t matter so much.
Wall Street’s 800 point hissy fit was all it took to prostrate the politicians. Indeed, the presumptive free market party then domiciled in the White House quickly shed its Adam Smith neckties and forced the congressional rubes from the red states to walk the plank a second time in order to reverse the decision.
There was a crucial predicate for this classic crony capitalist capture of the authority and purse of the state, however, that should not be overlooked. Namely, that in the mid-cycle period of the world’s 20-year experiment in central bank driven Bubble Finance the rubes had not yet come to fully appreciate that they were getting the short end of the stick.
Indeed, the earlier phases of the bubble era witnessed an enormous inflation of residential housing prices. For instance, between Greenspan’s arrival at the Fed in August 1987 and the housing bubble peak in 2007, the value of residential housing rose from $5.5 trillion to $22.5 trillion or by 4X.
The greatest extent of the housing bubble occurred in the bicoastal precincts, of course. But it did lift handsomely the value of 50 million owner occupied homes in the flyover zone, as well.
Accordingly, the latter did not yet see that the new regime was stacked in favor of the top 10% of the economic and wealth ladder, which owns 85% of the non-housing financial assets. Nor was it yet evident as to the degree to which massive money printing under conditions of Peak Debt almost exclusively stimulates Wall Street speculation, not main street production, jobs, incomes and spending.
In any event, by the eve of the great financial crisis, the GOP was actually controlled by the racketeers of the Beltway and the Wall Street gamblers, not the red state voters who had elected it.
In fact, Goldman’s Sach’s plenipotentiary to Washington, Hank Paulson, was in complete command of the elected side of government. At the same time, the Bush White House had populated the central banking branch of the state with proponents of monetary activism, who were more than ready to authorize “heroic” measures to reflate the bubble.
Needless to say, the leader of the pack, Ben Bernanke, had been groomed for the role of chief bailster by none other than Milton Freidman. The latter, in turn, had led Nixon astray at Camp David 37 year earlier when he persuaded Tricky Dick to default on the dollar’s link to gold, thereby opening the door to fiat money, massive credit expansion and the modern era of Bubble Finance.
There is a straight line of linkage from that great historical inflection point to Friday’s Brexit uprising. Namely, Nixon’s abandonment of the Bretton Woods gold exchange standard, as deficient as it had been, was also a profoundly political act.
It resulted in the abdication of economic and financial policy to an unelected elite and their eventual capture by Wall Street and the forces of speculation and financialization unleashed by unanchored central bank money and credit.
Nixon’s destruction of Bretton Woods was the enabling event. It turned central bankers and financial officialdom loose to operate a dictatorship of bailouts, bubbles and financialization of economic life. And to spread this baleful regime to Europe, Japan and the rest of the world, too.
To be sure, it took more than two decades to fully materialize. There were deeply embedded institutional cultures and ideologies among policy-makers that restrained opened-ended resort to the printing press and financial bailouts.
The Paul Volcker interlude in the US and the determined sound money regime of the Bundesbank are cases in point.
But eventually the old regime gave way.There emerged Greenspan’s dotcom and housing bubbles, the rise of the ECB and the financial rulers of Brussels, the massive bailouts triggered by the global crisis of 2008-2009, the hideous expansion of central bank balance sheets during the era of QE and ZIRP, the emergence of the destructive “whatever it takes” regime of Draghi and the current financial lunacy of subzero interest rates across much of the planet.
But here’s the thing. The rubes are on to the rig.
Twenty-years of Bubble Finance have made the City of London an oasis of splendor and prosperity, for example, but it has left the hinterlands of Britain hollowed-out industrially, resentful of the unearned prosperity of the elites and fearful of the open-ended flow if immigrants and imports enabled by the superstate in Brussels. As on observer put it, the geography of the vote said it all:

Look at the map of those results, and that huge island of “in” voting in London and the south-east; or those jaw-dropping vote-shares for remain in the centre of the capital:69% in Tory Kensington and Chelsea; 75% in Camden; 78% in Hackney, contrasted with comparable shares for leave in such places as Great Yarmouth (71%), Castle Point in Essex (73%), and Redcar and Cleveland (66%). Here is a country so imbalanced it has effectively fallen over.
​

The rise of Trumpism in the US reflects the same social and economic fracture.To wit, Bubble Finance has also drastically unbalanced the US as between the bicoastal zones of prosperity it has enabled and the fly-over zones its has effectively left behind.
It goes without saying that massive debt monetization and 90 months of zero interest rates has been a boon for the Imperial City. With almost no restraints on its ability to borrow and spend, the military/industry/security/surveillance complex has prospered like never before, as has the medical care cartel, the education syndicate and the lesser beltway rackets such as green energy and the farm subsidy/food stamp/ethanol alliance.
Likewise, asset gatherers, financial intermediaries, brokers, punters, financial engineers and corporate strip-miners have prospered enormously because the market has been rigged every since Black Monday in October 1987. That is, the cost of debt and carry trades have been falsified, downside hedging insurance in the casino has become dirt cheap and time after time the Fed’s put has bailed-out speculations gone bust.
Even what passes for entrepreneurial breakouts in the world of social media and new tech isn’t really. It’s just another variant of the dotcom bubble in which a few good innovations are being drastically over-valued (e.g. Uber) while a tsunami of worthless and pointless start-ups have become giant cash burning machines (e.g. Tesla).
Taken altogether, they are funding a ephemeral complex of pseudo businesses, pseudo jobs and pseudo start-up networks that are attracting tens of billions in venture capital that amount to malinvestment.
Meanwhile, the main street economy has atrophied. The first round of Bubble Finance buried the middle class in debt, while the post-crisis intensification has turned the C-suites of America into a giant stock trading and financial engineering arena.
Contrary to the bubblevision patter, in fact, there has been no business deleveraging at all. On the eve of the crisis in Q4 2007, total non-financial business debt outstanding was $11 trillion, and it is now $13.5 trillion.
But on the margin, ever dime of that massive swelling of the business debt burden represents real economic resources cycled out of the flyover zones and pumped back into the financial casino’s and the bicoastal elites which fatten on them.
The recent studies of the Census Bureau data which show that just 20 counties have generated half of all start-ups since the financial crisis provides another take on the underlying fissure:

Americans in small towns and rural communities are dramatically less likely to start new businesses than they have been in the past, an unprecedented trend that jeopardizes the economic future of vast swaths of the country.
The recovery from the Great Recession has seen a nationwide slowdown in the creation of new businesses, or start-ups. What growth has occurred has been largely confined to a handful of large and innovative areas, including Silicon Valley in California, New York City and parts of Texas, according to a new analysis of Census Bureau data by the Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan research and advocacy organization that was founded by the Silicon Valley entrepreneur Sean Parker and small group of investors.
That concentration of start-up activity is unusual, economists say. In the early 1990s recovery, 125 counties combined to generate half the total new business establishments in the country. In this recovery, just 20 counties have generated half the growth.
The data suggest highly populated areas are not adding start-ups faster now than they did in the past; they appear simply to be treading water. But rural areas have seen their business formation fall off a cliff.
Economists say the divergence appears to reflect a combination of trends, all of which have harmed small businesses in rural America. Those include the rise of big-box retailers such as Walmart, the loss of millions of manufacturing and construction jobs across the country and a pullback in business lending that appears to have stung small-town and rural borrowers particularly hard.
The changes also reflect a fundamental shift over the past two decades in which workers and industries power the country’s economic growth. That shift advantages highly educated urbanites at the expense of everyone else. Polling suggests it is one of the driving forces in the political unrest among working-class Americans — particularly rural white men — who have flocked to Republican Donald Trump’s presidential campaign this year.
​

In short, Bubble Finance is a giant engine of reverse Robin Hood redistribution. It embodies a sweeping fiscal intervention in the natural flows of the free market that punishes savers, laborers, self-funded main street entrepreneurs and the retired populations in favor of speculators and the holders of existing financial assets.
Bubble Finance is an affront to both democratic governance and true prosperity. The Trump voters, the Brexit voters, the masses rallying to the populist banners throughout Europe above all else represent a reactivation of the political machinery in a last ditch campaign to stop the financial elite and their regime of Bubble Finance.
Yes, this time is different, and this time there will be no reflation of the financial bubble like there was after Black Monday, the S&L bust, the dotcom crash and the great financial crisis of 2008-2009.
Needless to say, the Wall Street dip-buyers and perma-bulls who take their cues from the modern day financial ruling class are in for a shock. And today’s statement by Martin Schulz, the President of the EU parliament good not more aptly explain why.
Said Schulz,

“The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate“.
​

We think not.

 

[eek.]

I'm not even in favour of the EEA anymore, too much downside, too many rules and regulations, too many conditions, and way too many egos

There's no point in trying to get a sensible deal with the French at the table, getting peace in Ireland would be an easier task

Lets get totally out, 100% out and go WTO tariffs.

Then we can do as we please, control our own destiny, invest as we want in industry, have our own policies on immigration and anything else that we need to address, and the most beautiful thing of all, no interference from Brussels.

In is in and out is out.

 

[tiznow]

[h=1]Lowry: Brexit vote a victory for self-government[/h]Democracy is too important to be left to the people.
That is the global elite's collective reaction to Britain's vote to exit the European Union, which is being portrayed as the work of ill-informed xenophobes who never should have been entrusted with a decision of such world-historical importance.
Judging by their dismissive tone, critics of Brexit believe that the EU's lack of basic democratic accountability is one of its institutional advantages — the better to insulate consequential decisions from backward and shortsighted voters.
The opiate of the Western political class is cosmopolitanism, making it almost impossible for elites to understand the Brexit vote on its own terms.

Britain gave us Magna Carta and such foundational thinkers on the road to democratic rule as John Locke, Algernon Sidney and John Milton. It resisted centralizing monarchs in the turbulence of the 17th century, and defeated continental threats to its sovereignty emanating from Spain (King Philip II), France (Napoleon) and Germany (Hitler). Should it be shocking that it said "no thanks" to continuing to subsume itself in a budding European superstate?
Maintaining British sovereignty, broadly construed, was the overwhelming rationale for Brexit. According to a survey by Lord Ashcroft Polls, 49 percent of leave voters said the biggest reason for exiting the EU was "that decisions about the U.K. should be taken in the U.K." Another 33 percent said it was the best way to regain power over the U.K.'s borders, and 13 percent said they worried the U.K. couldn't control how the EU "expanded its membership or its powers."
All the critics of Brexit see in the vote, though, is hostility to immigrants. There is no doubt that immigration played a large role. But a country controlling its own borders is a necessary element of sovereignty. The foreign-born population of Britain has doubled in the past 20 years, with the government powerless to stop much of the influx. It, self-evidently, should be the right of the British people to decide whether they want less or more immigration.
A constant refrain of Brexit critics is that leaving the EU was much too complex and important an issue to put to a referendum. But at bottom the question was simple: Shall parliament remain the supreme lawmaking body in Britain or not? This is a foundational decision that it makes sense to put directly before the voters.
Princeton historian David Bell is a critic of government by referenda, but has noted how referenda are appropriate when fundamental constitutional questions are at stake: "They represent instances when sovereign power, always ultimately held by the people, but mediated by constitutional structures, temporarily reverts to the people directly, so that they can modify or replace these structures."
The British people voted to reject the EU superstructure that had been hoisted on top of their traditional political institutions.
The vote roiled the markets, and another theme of Brexit critics is that leave voters now regret their temper tantrum. But a poll for the Sunday Mirror newspaper found that 92 percent of leave voters were happy with the outcome of the referendum.
There may indeed be an economic cost to Brexit, but politics isn't reducible to a stock index — something that Americans, having once made their own tumultuous exit from an offshore power, should reflexively understand. "You are not to inquire how your trade may be increased, nor how you are to become a great and powerful people, but how your liberties can be secured," Patrick Henry declared during a 1788 debate over ratifying the Constitution, "for liberty ought to be the direct end of your Government."
In the Brexit vote, a free people insisted, despite the risks, that they will govern themselves. That is an admirable thing, made even more stirring by the fact that the great and good regard the move with such bemusement and derision.
comments.lowry@nationalreview.com

 

[tiznow]

We been too busy spending and debting hoards on the military industrial complex to stir up trouble over a few boogiemen to worry about the health and safety of our own citizens

MERICA!

-------------
5300 U.S. water systems are in violation of lead rules

(CNN) - Eighteen million Americans live in communities where the water systems are in violation of the law. Moreover, the federal agency in charge of making sure those systems are safe not only knows the issues exist, but it's done very little to stop them, according to a new report and information provided to CNN by multiple sources and water experts.
"Imagine a cop sitting, watching people run stop signs, and speed at 90 miles per hour in small communities and still doing absolutely nothing about it -- knowing the people who are violating the law. And doing nothing. That's unfortunately what we have now," said Erik Olson, health program director at Natural Resources Defense Council, which analyzed the EPA's data for its report.
In this case, the "cop" is a combination of the states and the EPA. States are the first line of enforcement, but when they fail -- as they did recently in Flint, Michigan -- the EPA is supposed to step in. But in many cases, the agency hasn't.
Advertisement



More than 5,300 water systems in America are in violation of the EPA's lead and copper rule, a federal regulation in place to safeguard America's drinking water from its aging infrastructure.
Violations include failure to properly test water for lead, failure to report contamination to residents, and failure to treat water properly to avoid lead contamination. Yet, states took action in 817 cases; the EPA took action in just 88 cases, according to NRDC's report.
What's worse, the report reveals that the EPA is also aware that many utilities "game the system," using flawed or questionable testing methods in order to avoid detecting high levels of lead.
That means there could be many more communities violating the laws, exposing residents to dangerous levels of lead. And the public has no idea.
Even Flint, a city with the most notorious case of lead in water discovered, is still not listed as having violated the EPA's lead and copper rule.
Many of the drinking water systems that NRDC cites in its analysis are already working to resolve past violations and return to compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, in consultation with state regulators or EPA.
In response to the report, the EPA said it works closely with states "who are responsible for and do take the majority of the drinking water enforcement actions and are the first line of oversight of drinking water systems."
The agency added that, "it's important to note that many of the drinking water systems that NRDC cites in its analysis are already working to resolve past violations and return to compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act in consultation with state regulators or EPA."
Gaming the system for years
A Virginia Tech researcher credited with exposing two of the nation's largest lead-in-water crises -- in Washington D.C. in the early 2000s, and in Flint last year -- said he noticed several years ago that the EPA was turning a blind eye to the "cheating" by local water utilities.
"Cheating became something you didn't even hide," researcher Marc Edwards told CNN.
Among the bad practices adopted by water utilities: selectively testing homes that are unlikely to have high levels of lead, asking residents to "pre-flush" their taps, and taking water samples "slowly," which reduces lead levels.
He wrote a paper on this in 2009. Then in 2011, Edwards said he overheard a local water official openly brag about cheating on the lead and copper rule.
"Right in front of EPA," Edwards said. "And I went back after that conference and I wrote EPA and I said, "How can you allow this to occur? I mean, what are you going to do about this?" He later shared that letter in congressional testimony. It concludes with a line saying the EPA, "does not care whether children are lead poisoned from public drinking water."
The EPA says it's working on strengthening the lead and copper rule, and "focusing on enhanced oversight of the states, including implementation of the existing rule."
But Alan Morrissey, former senior attorney in the EPA's office of water enforcement, told CNN that addressing the problem could create even more violations for the already-strapped EPA water department. Morrissey left the EPA in 2015, frustrated by a lack of emphasis on water.
"If you fix the problem of the game in the system, you now have hundreds -- and thousands perhaps -- of municipalities that have direct violation," he said.
What's happening in Philadelphia
Experts say Philadelphia is a perfect example of the EPA unwilling to act, and having too cozy a relationship with local regulators.
The city has come under scrutiny recently for only testing less than 40 of an estimated 50,000 homes with lead service lines. City officials say that's all they could find after putting out 8,000 requests to residents. Seven homes had high lead levels.
After the Flint water crisis, the EPA in February issued new guidance instructing water authorities to stop pre-flushing taps and other practices that were considered "cheating."
A class-action lawsuit alleged that Philadelphia "tests an inordinate amount of low risk homes, diluting its testing pool and skewing the results in such a way as to paint a woefully inaccurate picture of the City's overall lead contamination."
The director of Philadelphia's water system, Gary Burlingame, said the EPA's language is merely "guidance," so it didn't have to be followed. Burlingame has been required to work with consultants who the EPA has hired on four separate occasions since 2000.
The EPA should at least "issue immediate alert to the people in Philadelphia to let people know it is very possible that the results are not reliable and that people should protect themselves," said Yanna Lambrinidou, a Virginia Tech researcher who has been advocating for a change in the city's policy.
The EPA says enforcement of Philadelphia was left to the state of Pennsylvania. The federal guidelines are only guidelines and can't be enforced. The Philadelphia Mayor's office says it will follow the EPA's new guidelines in the next round of testing -- that's in 2017.
"Meanwhile you have an entire city that hasn't been protected," Edwards said.
There are other cities like Philadelphia. Almost 97 percent of lead-related violations recorded by the EPA are for failing to properly monitor lead levels.
"I think that the basic problem is that the federal EPA and the water officials, and a lot of communities across the country are very tight. And the EPA has been very reluctant to take enforcement action against them in most cases. They're friends, they hang out with each other, they ask for each other's advice, and you get close after a while," Olson said.
No action
Flint illuminated an invisible infrastructure problem.
Under the ground, in front yards across the nation, the service lines that bring water to our homes are, in many cases, made of lead. Though toxic, lead used to be preferable for its durability.
But just as science eventually told us that lead paint and leaded gasoline were bad ideas, so too we gradually began to realize that lead pipes should not be used to carry our drinking water. Federal regulations now mandate that water systems have an anti-corrosion plan, typically consisting of treating the water with an orthophosphate agent that forms a film to protect water moving through lead pipes.
In Flint, the lead pipes began leaching toxins into the water after the state of Michigan decided to switch the financially ailing city's drinking water source, and failed to properly treat the water with orthophosphates. To make matters worse, officials who could see the lead water levels rising didn't say anything for months. Meanwhile, families continued drinking the water.
There is no safe level of lead, but the EPA set a threshold back in 1990 of 15 parts per billion (ppb) -- the level at which regulators are supposed to step in and force water utilities to correct a contamination problem.
While Flint's astronomically high lead levels -- some homes more than 10,000 ppb -- appear to be the worst case scenario, the city is not alone.
EPA data collected by the NRDC reveals that a Utah water system serving 1,675 people had test results at 6,000 ppb. There are eight water systems in seven different states and territories with lead levels above 1,000 ppb. And 25 water systems with lead levels above 200 ppb.

 

[tiznow]

Another tantrum thrown.. The status quo political elites essentially the same as spoiled children they always get their way and the second they don't there will be hell to pay..

oldy but goodie from juncker

When it becomes serious, you have to lie.
— Juncker when asked about Greece's economic crisis.[SUP][31][/SUP][SUP][34][/SUP]

--------

'Why are you still here?' asks EU's Juncker amid barrage of Nigel Farage | World news | The Guardian

Nigel Farage tells MEPs: You have never done a proper job – videoThe European commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has clashed bitterly with Nigel Farage, pointedly asking the Ukip leader in front of the European parliament in Brussels: “Why are you still here?”

In extraordinary scenes, Juncker said on Tuesday that he respected British democracy and last Thursday’s seismic vote for the UK to leave the European Union. There was a smattering of applause in the chamber.
The former Luxembourg prime minister then broke off from his speech in French and addressed Farage, sitting to his immediate right, in English. “That’s the last time you are applauding here. And to some extent I’m really surprised that you are here,” Juncker said.
“You were fighting for the exit. The British people voted in favour of the exit; why are you here?” he asked.

Earlier the two men had embraced each other, and swapped a few words, ahead of the parliamentary session in the Belgian capital and a summit attended by David Cameron and other European leaders. Juncker even air-kissed Farage near the cheek.
But the proceedings quickly degenerated into noisy near-farce. In his own speech Farage began by sardonically thanking his fellow MEPs for “the warm welcome”, before putting the boot in.
“When I came here 17 years ago and said I wanted to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the European Union you all laughed at me. Well, I have to say, you’re not laughing now are you?” he taunted.
“And the reason you’re so upset, the reason you’re so angry, has been perfectly clear from all the angry exchanges this morning. You, as a political project, are in denial. You are in denial that your currency is failing,” Farage said.
Despite urging a “grown-up” conversation between the EU and Britain, Farage continued in a similarly mocking vein throughout his monologue, at one point telling MEPs: “Virtually none of you have ever done a proper job in your lives.”
The MEPs responded to his oration with a mixture of boos, groans, shouts and ironic applause.
Amid uproar, the parliament’s president, Martin Schulz, tried to restore order while himself taking a dig at Farage. He told MEPs: “I understand that you are emotional, but you’re acting like Ukip normally acts in the chamber. So please don’t imitate them.”

His efforts did little to calm the atmosphere as Farage went on to tell MEPs that any attempt to impose trade barriers on the UK would backfire, claiming German car-assembly workers as being among those who would suffer. He said Britain could be “your greatest friend” provided the EU did not thwart the UK’s global ambition.
The UK should invoke article 50 of the Lisbon treaty soon to begin its withdrawal from the EU, Farage said. “I don’t think we should spend too long doing it.”
Farage enjoyed support from the far-right French politician and Front National leader, Marine Le Pen, who spoke next. She called last Thursday’s referendum vote the “people’s spring” and “the most important historic event on the continent since the fall of the Berlin Wall”.
‘Why are you here?’: Juncker to Farage in EU parliamentIn almost poetic tones, Le Pen exclaimed: “Dear colleagues, why are you getting het up? Look how beautiful history is! The UK is leaving!” She said Brexit was “a sign of liberty and freedom”, “a cry of love” even, and signified “the great emancipation” of the British people.
Nigel Farage and Jean-Claude Juncker. Photograph: John Thys/AFP/GettyOthers, however, dished it back to Farage in terms of bitter sarcasm.
The former Belgian prime minister Guy Verhofstadt said: “I am shocked, Mr Farage. You are presenting yourself as the defender of the little man, while you have an offshore financial construction.”
As Farage laughed, Verhofstadt added: “OK, let’s be positive, we are getting rid of the biggest waste of EU budget: your salary.”
The German MEP Manfred Weber, a close ally of Angela Merkel, accused Farage of lying over his promise that the NHS would receive £350m a week in the wake of Brexit. “Shame on you,” he said, to loud applause.
Ukip’s only Westminster MP, Douglas Carswell, was similarly unimpressed by Farage’s performance. He told LBC radio that “resorting to that sort of language is possibly not in the national interest. It struck precisely the wrong tone.”
When the Farage kerfuffle was over, the session moved on.
The warmest applause – indeed, a standing ovation – came for an emotional Scottish MEP, Alyn Smith. “We will need cool heads and warm hearts,” he urged his fellow parliamentarians. “But please, remember this: Scotland did not let you down. I beg you, do not let Scotland down now.”

 

[tiznow]

More good news.. As the great awakening continues.. Such a slow process lol

--------

71% of Americans believe economy is 'rigged'

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) - The overwhelming majority of Americans believe the economy is rigged.
Seventy-one percent think the U.S. economic system is "rigged in favor of certain groups," according to a new poll by Marketplace and Edison Research.
The poll asked a simple question: Which of the following comes closer to your opinion on the economic system in the U.S. People could select between three options:
1. The economic system is rigged in favor of certain groups 2. The economy system is fair to all Americans 3. Don't know
Most selected rigged economy. It didn't matter if the person was white, black or Hispanic or whether they identified as Republican, Democrat or Independent. The majority feel the American Dream comes with huge asterisk that reads "only for the favored few."
No wonder the "rigged economy" has become one of the biggest talking points on the 2016 campaign trail. Bernie Sanders may have started it, but Donald Trump now uses that exact term and Hillary Clinton talks often about how she'll help those "left behind."
Why Americans feel this way
Americans have good reason to think this way. The typical middle class family is earning about the same amount of money -- just under $54,000 -- as they did in 1996, once you adjust for inflation.
That means a lot of people aren't getting paid more. On top of that, the Great Recession knocked out many people's safety net savings as they lost jobs or homes or both. Even people who have jobs tell CNNMoney that they feel one step away from financial ruin. They fear a life of "dead-end crap jobs with crap wages."
Inequality, however you measure it, has been on the rise. The middle class is shrinking -- partly because the upper middle class is thriving.
This week, actor Jesse Williams speech at the BET awards highlighting all this went viral. It began: "A system built to divide, impoverish and destroy us cannot stand if we do." He called on his fellow Black celebrities -- many of whom are part of the favored few -- to do their part to fix inequality too.
Williams' words are notable since 83% of African-Americans believe the economy is rigged, according to the Marketplace poll. It's the highest group to think that, although the majority of Americans across all racial groups feel that way.
What Trump and Clinton propose
Trump and Clinton are fighting to prove they are the candidate with the best solutions to help the working class.
Clinton has accused Trump of being exactly the kind of person who's rigging the system for Wall Street elites. He's only in it to enrich himself, she argues.
Trump fires back at Clinton that she's been in Washington for much of the past 20 years as the middle class has shrunk and gotten such a raw deal.
Trump says America must start by bringing back jobs from China, Mexico and elsewhere. It's a tough task that many experts say could backfire, not to mention make goods more expensive for working families.
Clinton pushes more safety nets like raising the minimum wage to at least $12, enacting paid family leave and universal day care.
Copyright 2016 by CNN NewSource. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

 

[tiznow]

Obama the puppet for once does something useful lol

---------

[h=1]Nigel Farage Batters Obama: "He Came To Britain And Behaved Disgracefully"[/h]Back in April President Obama took a trip over to the UK in order to lecture another country on how to vote - Obama of course was staunchly in the Remain camp. Obama even penned an op-edtitled: "As your friend, let me say that the EU makes Britain even greater."
Of course, we all know the historic outcome of the Brexit vote, and we have even asked if it was Barack Obama who actually was the deciding factor:

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has never been shy of course, but lately has been making sure to remember all of those who tried to downplay or influence the vote. For example, in his first appearance in the European Parliament since the Brexit vote, Farage took the time to make sure the audience knew he hadn't forgotten that everyone laughed when Farage said that he was going to lead a campaign to get Britain to leave the EU, saying "You're not laughing now are you."
Farage hadn't forgotten Obama's attempt to influence the vote either. In a recent interview with Fox News, Farage was asked what can be done about Putin if the UK isn't in the EU, to which Farage raged that Obama had behaved disgracefully when compared to Putin.

"Well ultimately let me say this, Vladimir Putin behaved in a more statesmanlike manner than President Obama did in this referendum campaign. Obama came to Britain and I think behaved disgracefully, telling us we'd be at the back of the queue. Treating us, America's strongest, oldest ally, in this extraordinary way. Vladimir Putin maintained his silence throughout the whole campaign."
​

* * *
Oh that does it, Obama won't be inviting Farage on any of the remaining 36-hold golf outings!

 

[eek.]

Nigel Farage....

He turned up at the EU Parliament to slag 'em all off yesterday, tsk tsk tsk
Hopefully he won't be a part of serious negotiations, the guy has terrible personal ego issues

His heart is in the right place but his diplomatic skills are truly awful, he just irritates people and distracts from the big issues

In his case a dash of humility would go a long way towards helping his political career

 

[eek.]

Now here's a historic picture. The EU leaders meeting in Brussels, 29 June, 2016

Brexit: EU leaders meet without Cameron
European Union leaders are meeting on day two of what has become a crisis summit in Brussels, but without the UK after its vote to leave the bloc.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36659229

 

[tiznow]

I say screw humility and typical politics.. The status quo whores had this coming for a long time.. Let the punches roll when you get your chance...

Political haggling within the eu system is gonna get you absolutely nowhere .. They are all status quo whores that hate u... as far as how uk comes out of all this...

On the other hand the more the EU is stressed and the more countries that begin looking to leave the better it is for uk.. Stir that Fin pot, throw punches, get angry, and let these status quo whores show their true colors, with gems such as this The British have violated the rules. It is not the EU philosophy that the crowd can decide its fate".

this way you will get more Europeans on your side and the right side of history..

 

[tiznow]

The system is completely corrupted at this point the only way to fix it is to blow it up an start over..

need more europeans to want to blow it all up and take the short term hit for the long term vision of liberty to reach this end...

playing nice will get you nowhere... U got the momentum run with it..

 

[eek.]

They'll go for a deal to start with and Farage will be excluded I reckon

With no Farage at the table the only people who can fuck things up are the French, otherwise the status quo brigade will hammer out a deal IMO

 

[eek.]

The only REAL hope of a proper exit is if they decide to "make an example of the UK", which is what I'm hoping for

The EU is an organisation which relies heavily on fear as a tool for controlling the masses and their biggest priority is stopping a domino effect of exit votes

I'm praying for a secret EU decision of excommunication for the UK

 

[tiznow]

Brexit now bullish! Weeeee...

nothing new will happen other than central bankers will be more prone to keep slamming the print/EZ money button!! LPR (let's print radically!!)