RUTHFULLY YOURS

When the asylum is on fire and management is arguing about regulating the volume of fire buckets, even the saddest inmate will grasp that making for the door is good idea. On June 23, in a plebiscite none but the brave or foolish would presume to predict, the UK will take the measure of its sanity.
The folly of the Euro has been discussed ad nauseam. For our purpose, let us just look at the outcomes: Far from harmonising, the most efficient economies, the newly reunified Germany to the fore, reaped the benefits while the least efficient economies, led by France, were left horribly exposed when the whole house of cards collapsed after the financial crisis of 2008. Trying to run a currency union by relying on monetary policy and adherence to the rules alone was always an ill-starred project. Interest rates that suited historically stable German deutschemarks were never suitable for Italy and their inflated Lire.

Where did this leave the EU? Paralysed. The Franco-German axis has tipped. It used to be Merkozy[1], now it’s just Merkel. Her CDU party hold the balance of power in the European Parliament[2]; she herself dominates the Council of Ministers, leaving just the Commission. Their own frustrations with the supposedly democratic arms of EU government were neatly summed up by Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, back when he had to worry about such things, quipping, “We all know what to do, we just don’t know how to get re-elected after we’ve done it”[3]. While the Euro crisis unfolded it became increasingly clear that Angela Merkel was the de facto head of the EU and that the énarques had become little more than her EUnuchs while she cautiously adopted a Grand Wait & See policy.

The status quo, before the migrant crisis at least, suited Merkel very well. Like France pre-enlargement and the Euro, Germany benefits the most from the state of affairs. While the governance of Europe was French, the finances are quintessentially German. The new Members to the east have cultural and economic ties, smoothing their path into the German supply line. Historically however, Germany has never been powerful enough to completely dominate Europe and she is uncomfortable in the role now. The old German Question has resurfaced, namely: How does she deal with the lesser powers surrounding her? Fortunately, while a hundred years ago the question revolved around the military, nowadays it’s the economy[4]. Germans increasingly resent having to pay for the weaker Members who share the Euro and worry that they will club together to make them do so. They themselves see Germany’s trade and budget surpluses rise while theirs’ seem to fall in an inverse proportion and resent German economic growth at what they perceive as their expense[5].

The Euro crisis has brought up all the old European fault lines and the EU’s reaction to the migrant crisis has only deepened those divisions. After trying to ignore the crossings into Italy, the numbers choosing the much shorter route into Greece has led to extraordinary measures. While the Commission came up with a plan to distribute the refugees equally among Member States the Balkan nations, followed by the central European ones, put up fences with an alacrity that Donald Trump would envy. The EU’s passport free Schengen zone has effectively been ended[6] and while the Commission has tried its usual pan-European model that only answers the questions nobody else is asking, the Member States typically fell out over it. Merkel’s response was, against all European treaties, protocols and conventions, to invite a million into her country with no concern as to how they would get there. In doing so she has alienated her central and eastern allies.
The Brexit Countdown: Part I

The rights and wrongs of the migrant crisis will not concern us here. The British model of helping refugees closer to their homes seems eminently sensible if one is furthest away and has a moat to hide behind. The EU has fewer options and little experience in implementing them. The effects have been added political unrest amongst the citizenry and threats to social order unseen in the EU’s, but not Europe’s history. Merkel’s policy, while undoubtedly heartfelt, has undermined her authority and led to a rise in support for ultra-nationalist and xenophobic parties. Her recent Turkish deal and the backlash over the prosecution of the German comedian Jan Böhmermann, who dared exercise his right to free speech by insulting the Turkish president, has diminished her further.

The Empire Strikes Back

Merkel’s loss is the Commission’s gain. The Five Presidents’ Report[7] plots out the short, medium and long-term future of the EU. Progress must be made “towards a genuine Economic Union” – building on that “successful and stable” currency; “towards a Financial Union” which “increases risk-sharing with the private sector” – does anyone remember Moral Hazard? “towards a Fiscal Union” that somehow will deliver “fiscal sustainability” and “fiscal stabilisation” – or in other words, “harmonised” (high) tax rates; “finally, towards a Political Union” that will give the proceeding Unions “legitimacy” – which in the UK is known as the ‘Cart Before the Horse Strategy’. It promises to do all this by creating several new layers of bureaucracy with undoubtedly untold numbers of committees to help form new “Authorities” within Member States to help them towards “harmonised policies”. These Authorities would then form various “Boards” which would then work with the other EU institutions to achieve “convergence and further pooling of decision making on national budgets”. It also looks at “significant policy areas” such as “digital and capital markets” which as yet the EU has not stuck its beak into. The idea of a “Euro area treasury” is also floated. Buried at the back in Annex 3 (on the last page, where else) it has the almost obligatory catch-all that not withstanding the above the Commission reserves the right to ignore all the new levels of bureaucracy and Boards which represent Member States, so long as it can explain itself. To whose satisfaction it must justify its actions is unclear. What the report, and the whole Euro elite for that matter, seemed to have missed in building their harmonious ‘United States of Europe’ is that the United States of America works because traditionally there is variety between the states; if you don’t like the tax or regulatory regime in New York you can move to Texas…

The German Chancellor was not interested in the reinforcement of Europe’s external borders, the re-erection of its internal borders, the institution of a workable asylum vetting system and the repatriation of people who had lied to gain entry into Europe. Instead, Chancellor Merkel wanted to know how Facebook’s founder could help her restrict the free speech of Europeans, on Facebook and on other social media.

Then, on May 31, the European Union announced a new online speech code to be enforced by four major tech companies, including Facebook and YouTube.

It was clear from the outset that Facebook has a definitional problem as well as a political bias in deciding on these targets. What is Facebook’s definition of ‘racism’? What is its definition of ‘xenophobia’? What, come to that, is its definition of ‘hate speech’?

Of course the EU is a government — and an unelected government at that — so its desire not just to avoid replying to its critics — but to criminalise their views and ban their contrary expressions — is as bad as the government of any country banning or criminalising the expression of opinion which is not adulatory of the government.

People must speak up — must speak up now, and must speak up fast — in support of freedom of speech before it is taken away from them. It is, sadly, not an overstatement to say that our entire future depends on it.

It is nine months since Angela Merkel and Mark Zuckerberg tried to solve Europe’s migrant crisis. Of course having caused the migrant crisis by announcing the doors of Europe as open to the entire third-world, Angela Merkel particularly would have been in a good position actually to try to solve this crisis.

But the German Chancellor was not interested in the reinforcement of Europe’s external borders, the re-erection of its internal borders, the institution of a workable asylum vetting system and the repatriation of people who had lied to gain entry into Europe. Instead, Chancellor Merkel was interested in Facebook.

Where are the campus “justice warriors” and boycott and divest groupies? Too busy bashing a true democracy….not this internatinal outrage…..rsk

Slaves in the American South numbered four million in 1860, the last time the U.S. Census Bureau counted the victims of the “peculiar institution” before it was abolished. Today there are 18.4 million slaves in India alone and 45.8 million world-wide. The modern slave trade is as cruel as its 19th-century forerunner—and much larger than previously thought.

That’s according to the Walk Free Foundation, founded by Australian mining magnate Andrew Forrest, which publishes a Global Slavery Index to measure the scale and prevalence of modern slavery. This year’s index was compiled using a rigorous methodology involving in-person interviews with 42,000 respondents in 53 languages and 25 countries.

The report defines a slave as someone who is held against his or her will or otherwise forced to work through violence or threats of violence or abuse of authority. Modern-day slaves range from Burmese men working on Thai shrimp boats and punished with stingray tails, to Yazidi girls captured for sex slavery by Islamic State in Iraq, to Uzbek citizens forced by their government to pick cotton in harvest season, to North Koreans toiling in Kim Jong Un’s vast gulag.

How someone ends up enslaved varies by country and region, but dictatorship and slavery tend to go together. In some of the world’s least-free nations, governments do the enslaving, including China’s “re-education through labor” camps, which continue to operate despite Beijing’s claim to have formally abolished them in 2014. CONTINUE AT SITE

LONDON—British Prime Minister David Cameron and former London Mayor Boris Johnson have a lot in common. Two years apart in age, they attended the same boarding school, the same university, then entered Parliament together. Their odd-couple alliance—Mr. Cameron is refined and on message, Mr. Johnson, tousled and hip-shooting—helped their Conservative Party last year win its first general election in more than two decades.

Thirteen months later, they are at each other’s throats. The reason is Britain’s divisive June 23 referendum on whether it should remain a member of the European Union.

Mr. Cameron, 49 years old, is spearheading the push to persuade Britons to vote to remain, asserting that Britain would face economic peril if it detached from Europe. Mr. Johnson, 51, is leading the campaign to exit, or so-called Brexit, with a sharp-tongued assault on Brussels, which he says saps Britain’s sovereignty and burdens it with regulation.

Their rivalry flared in February, when Mr. Johnson informed his longtime friend and party leader Mr. Cameron, by text message moments before making his decision public, that he would support the exit campaign. Since then, both men have infused their campaign rhetoric with barbs about one another.

Mr. Johnson attacked Mr. Cameron’s case for staying in the EU as “baloney” and dismissed the prime minister’s monthslong negotiation to secure concessions from other EU leaders as having achieved “two-thirds of diddly squat.”

Mr. Cameron has accused Brexit campaigners of “resorting to total untruths” and of “literally making it up as they go along,” and has suggested Mr. Johnson is motivated by personal political ambition.

There is a deep divide within the U.K. over whether the country should cut its 40-year-old ties with Europe, as represented by the tussle between the two conservative lawmakers. The pro-EU side say a vote to leave would cause havoc to the economy and create years of uncertainty as the U.K. renegotiated international trade agreements. CONTINUE AT SITE

How Israel’s “peace partners” react when women and children are ruthlessly murdered.

The calm in Tel Aviv was shattered Wednesday night when two Arab gunmen in their 20s from the Palestinian Authority-controlled village of Yatta drew automatic weapons and began to systematically gun down every civilian in sight. When the carnage was over, four people – two men and two women – were dead and about a dozen others were wounded, three of them critically. Both terrorists were caught alive, though one sustained serious wounds during his apprehension. Israeli doctors performed life-saving emergency surgery on him while his victims were either dead or dying.

The blood on the pavement hadn’t even dried before “Palestinians,” as is their custom, celebrated the “heroic Tel Aviv operation.” In Palestinian lexicon, terrorist attacks targeting innocent civilians – men, women and children – are routinely referred to as “heroic” or “martyrdom operations.”

As Israelis were burying their dead, celebratory fireworks were going off in Hamas-controlled Gaza while elsewhere, in the PA-controlled West Bank, Palestinian Arabs were cheering and passing out sweets in recognition of their comrades’ bestial slaughter. Even the so-called “moderate” Palestinian President for Life, Mahmoud Abbas, couldn’t bring himself to call the Tel Aviv massacre, “terrorism” or “murder.” Instead, all he was able to muster was half-hearted disapproval. He issued a repulsive and disingenuous statement noting that the PA is opposed “to any ‘operation’ that harms civilians by anybody, regardless of the justifications.” Note use of the word “operation” to describe wanton violence and depravity.