Monday, 26 August 2019

Just how smart are Europe's leaders? If energy policy is any guide, then they could be anywhere on a spectrum between stupidly thick to wilfully treacherous

Amidst the vacuous, diversionary theatre of Brexit, the real world carries on.  Time to put Brexit into context.

The continuing hegemony of so-called "liberal democracy" is demonstrably at stake.  Since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States of America, the post-1945 political settlement between America and Europe is today under immense pressure from America's choice to change tack, specifically towards resurgent, nationalistic mercantilism.  America has chosen to be as mercantilism as the Germans have been since 1945.

America's change of task is an existential threat to the technocratic institutions of the eugenicist-based "liberal democracy" hegemony.  In Europe, chief amongst those institutions is the European Union and its various agencies.  The European Union does not know how to handle this existential threat.

Energy policy: a timely review from alternative media

A recent article by Wenyuan Wu ("Will Europe Ever Shake Its Dependence On Russian Energy?", 24Aug2019, analyses recent developments in the energy sector in Europe and, in so doing, illustrates the tears in the fabric of the hegemonic "liberal democrats".

The article pauses for thought about how Europe has reacted disjointedly to the Russian supply of gas via pipeline-under-construction Nord Stream 2.

In short:

  • Some EU Member Nations want to buy energy from Russia; other EU Member Nations don't; the EU itself appear incapable of arbitrage between the binary positions.
  • The EU has belatedly squawked an alarm about Europe's apparent dependence on energy from Russia, in spite of EU sanctions against Russia because of the American-led false-flag operation in Ukraine.  But the same EU has seemingly made no credible attempt to propose a means to plug the energy gap, instead preferring to jump on the "climate emergency" bandwagon (presumably as a smokescreen to conceal a distinct lack of competence in the Tough Policy Choice Proposal Department).
  • The EU having already correctly identified that the Chinese Belt & Road Initiative is a rival - an existential threat - to the European Economic Area ("EEA"), the EU watches on helplessly as Chinese interests buy strategic assets in the European energy industry, gaming the EEA towards further Chinese interests from within the EEA.  In so doing, the Chinese are also tearing holes into the European Energy Union and the European Single Energy Market.
  • American energy interests clearly want the Europeans to buy energy exclusively from American interests.  American interests gain significant advantage from America's sanctions on Russia and a tariff war on China.
  • Within Europe, vested interests within the energy sector are keen to support Nord Stream 2, contrary to the preferences of American vested interests or the European Union's ego.

In all of these points above, a once-united set of vested interests are now diverging, and doing so at an alarming rate (months rather than years).  I have written before about how game theory well defines Europe's approach to policy choices and "solidarity".

The wider world beyond the energy sector

Beyond Wu's article, we have also recently heard comments in Aug 2019 from the outgoing bankster of the Bank of England, Mark Carney, that the American Dollar is no longer viable as the world's reserve currency.

This follows propaganda from the Russian news agency TASS in May 2019 that Russia and China are preparing to dump the American Dollar as a medium for trade (it might yet move from propaganda to reality - let's wait and see what actually happens - but as an announcement of proposed strategy, it is crystal clear).

And yet, it wasn't that long ago that the Anglo-American Empire of Chaos (sometimes referred to as the "Round Table") arranged for the murder of Colonel Quaddafi when Quaddafi suggested a gold-based currency for all of Africa, thus undermining the monopoly of the American dollar as a trading medium, triggering France to intervene for France's own interests (presumably before the Americans got involved first).  Saddam Hussein did a similar thing, proposing the Euro instead of gold, and look what happened to him (meanwhile, we plebs are expected to fall for the pack of plausibly-deniable lies that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that could be mobilised in 45 minutes).

In Sep 2018, Russia publicly mused trading oil with currencies other than the Euro or American Dollar.  A blog post in the same month collated some historic context and projected propaganda from RT and South China Morning Post that there now existed a genuine petro-yuan to replace the petro-dollar.

Meanwhile, corrupt monetary policy continues to debase Western fiat currencies.  The policy has facilitates a massive shift of wealth from honest, ordinary Western plebs with modest savers to über-reckless, elitist, global over-borrowers.  The middle classes are all but extinct in the West - the working classes are already extinct in the West, by eugenic design - yet if any pleb (of whatever class) dares so much as to complain, the "liberal democratic" elite are quick to smear the plebs as "a basket of deplorables" (what a great electioneering slogan by Clinton H).

Oh, and central banksters successfully engineered a reversal of the yield curve in Aug 2019.  Some say this is a leading indicator of a recession.  Perhaps.  More likely, it is a leading indicator of the next round of fleecing intangible, unrealised wealth from honest, ordinary Western plebs with modest savers to über-reckless, elitist, global over-borrowers.

Just where in the world are Europe's ruling elites in all of this mess?

The most obvious answer is that they are hiding in their dark, little holes, hoping the real world will just go away.

Even when these supine cowards pipe up, their words reveal a mindset still stuck in the 1950s, a realm of little, tin-pot nationalistic states, contrary to the "liberal democratic" globalist dogma that all of them - all of them - signed up to shortly after 1945.  Say one thing, do another, hope no-body notices, keep the public dumb (the public are paying for it anyway, so who cares?).  So much for European solidarity.  They continue to avoid the tough - and rough - policy choices that they need to take to secure their own elite families' energy future (and that of their general populations, too, but, hey, what member of any elite gives a damn about the riff-raff?).

And these are the very same people who reckon we should centralise power, law and authority in Brussels, so as to institutionalise on-going negligence of key policy matters to the benefit of corporations' short-term profitability.  Thus, instead of a viable and useful energy policy, the European elite instead give us virtue-signalling "climate emergencies".

It is as this point where we really need to ask whether the European elites are stupidly thick or wilfully treacherous.

It is abundantly clear to the small number of us plebs in this world with their heads out of their own backsides that the Anglo-American Empire of Chaos is now entering its last phase of life.  Every empire fails, partly because its victims eventually unify to by-pass the levers of oppression, partly because running an empire ultimately requires totalitarianism, whereby costs (especially opportunity costs) inevitably exceed benefits.  Of the Anglo-American Empire of Chaos - including its European wing, perhaps we should call it the Anglo-Dutch-American Empire of Chaos? - all of the major policy choices are now fine-tuned to cause maximum aggravation, be it energy policy, monetary policy, trade policy or fiscal policy (which the European Union member nations can't agree on).

Whether we in the West like it or not, the medium-term future is Sino-Russian.  This future rests upon an unstable relationship that will require key support from Iran and, less critically, India (assuming Pakistan hasn't nuked India off the map by then).  China will eventually program its numerous economic-only colonies around the world to obey the script when the time is right.  But the only thing that holds Russia and China together is antipathy towards America and Britain.  So, when America and Britain cease to be a credible threat to both Russia and China, Russia and China will slowly diverge (whether peacefully or violently is open to question).

The virtue-signalling policy choices of the EU in energy "policy" fail conspicuously to address this tectonic shift in geo-politics.  The inability of the EU to complete its own monetary union by complementing it with a fiscal union reveals more of the same divisions now visible in energy policy (or lack thereof).  The choice of the EU to reject the Chinese Belt & Road Initiative was Frankish, egotistical, megalomaniac, self-inflicted stupidity: had the EU taken advice from its infamous problem lobbyist Microsoft, the EU might have been told to "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish".  Having picked precisely the wrong policies to screw up, the EU itself is now liable to be asked by any member nation, "What is the point of the EU?"

As at today, the EU still serves a role as a useful, plausibly deniable alibi, but even this extends only to matters that are within the scope of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union as EU competences.  In early days, the EU probably thought of itself as quite clever to have a mechanism whereby it could simply take power from its member nations without challenge, and the member nations were probably more than happy to have the policy responsibility taken from them ("All the pay, none of the work!  Wa-hay!  Cash it in!!").  Nowadays, the EU's inactivity sets the EU onto a collision course with a fast-changing American mercantilism; the EU simply cannot move so fast; the EU's position in America's eyes is precarious, to say the least.

So far, it looks as if the Europeans are probably more stupidly thick than wilfully treacherous.  But there is another aspect to consider.

The EU and its "liberal democrat" sycophants might have decided that today is too soon to act decisively.  Far better, they might reason, to delay any action, maximise frustration, maximise the wasting of opportunities, wait for the American sanctions with Russia to become visibly counter-productive, wait for the American trade war with China to become visibly counter-productive within the current president's core voter base, to park everything with the EU for the bureaucracy to snarl it all up in red tape and pretend that any solution is hopeless.

This position would make sense if one believed in a multi-polar world.  But that isn't part of the "liberal democrat" globalist dogma.  To accept a multi-polar world means accepting the end of globalism in the medium-term.  It would mean people like Nick Clegg suddenly arguing against everything - everything - they've ever said they stand for.  Even with the European Right to be Forgotten (aka the Right to Hide Corruption), enough of the riff-raff will irritatingly find out how the rhetoric changes with the wind, and announce to anybody listening that the "globalists are lying again".  Google/YouTube, Facebook, Twitter etc are likely to need to scale up their industrial-sized censorship algorithms to cope with the public fallout: who is going to "nudge" the tech giants to do so?

And this aspect re-introduces the possibility that the EU's "liberal democrat" globalist elite are still likely wilfully treacherous.  As at Aug 2019, it is far too early to call whereabouts on the spectrum the EU and its sycophants actually sit.

The next opportunity for the EU's "liberal democrat" globalist elite to screw up shall be when (if?) China and America revert to hot war to resolve their differences.  Although banksters saw profit in bankrolling wars during 20th century, it now thought that America's military-industrial complex cannot afford total war in Iran.  This suggests that American strategy is more likely to be focused on containing China in oceans around the Chinese coast.  This will put the EU in an impossible position.  The only certainty one can predict now is that the EU will do whatever it takes to fudge the issue... and in so doing will lose support from within (the member nations), from America, from Russia, from China.  The EU will have parked itself in the ultimate no-win situation.  Schmart.

So what does this mean for Brexit?

To live in Britain, and to follow only the fakestream media, you'd never understand the assumed precepts of the above comment and analysis.

In Britain, in Aug 2019, we still have people who think that the EU is the best thing since sliced bread: those verminous bloody Remainiacs.  For more than 40 years, the UK government has disembowelled itself, giving power away to its great alibi, the EU.  But the EU has failed to be anything as useful as a government, and now seems to be failing as a suitable centrepoint for corporate lobbyists.  Just as Russia and China seek to by-pass the Anglo-American Empire of Chaos, corporate lobbyists probably now see the maximum use of the EU is to have a unilateral law of corporate-based feudalism, then lock the EU down to ensure that it can never revoke such law.  That would be a de facto fascist state.  It's not much of a future for the EU, even less is it a future for the citizens of the EU's member nations (especially for those in the east who lived through communism: for them, plus ça change, plus ça ne change plus).

One has to wonder: are Remainiacs the type of people who would have campaigned amongst Africans to keep the trans-Atlantic slave trade going, "because it would be an economic disaster for us all if you didn't get sold to the American colonies"?

The Brexiteers are no better.  Having conspired with the Remainaics to sabotage the only viable way of starting the multi-decade Brexit process (the EFTA/EEA method), the Brexiteers - specifically, the European Research Group of the British Conservative Party - are now campaigning for closer orbit to America's political economy, necessarily at the expense of any trading relationship with Europe.  This makes no sense.  No investor would rationally put all of their eggs into one basket, they'd diversify.  But, to extend the metaphor, Brexiteers want to us to burn one of our two chicken farms for the sake of it, and unnecessary replace all of the healthy chickens in the remaining chicken farm with somebody else's genetically-modified-buy-a-new-batch-every-season chickens.  And then pretend that nothing bad is going to happen.

One has to wonder: are Brexiteers the type of people who believe that the Round Table is worth fighting for?  In spite of the inconvenient fact that President Trump has clearly rumbled something when Trump sanctioned the then UK ambassador Darroch?  In spite of the other inconvenient fact that the Remainiac British elite successfully drafted in Obama to tell the Brits that Brexit put Britain "at the end of the queue"? (i.e. the American political establishment is not as friendly as the Brexiteers expect it to be.)

Whether it's Brexit or no-Brexit, whether it's a deal-Brexit or a no-deal-Brexit, the Brexit issue is now no more than arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

Sunday, 26 May 2019

The bits missing from Theresa May's resignation speech Fri 24May2019

Theresa May, British Prime Minster and leader of the British Conservative and Unionist Party announced on 24May2019 her resignation of these two offices on 07Jun2019.

I thought it might benefit historians of the future to know what might have been missing from the delivered speech.  So, here goes.

May said: "It is and will always remain a matter of deep regret to me that I have not been able to deliver Brexit."

Missing from this: "... to (and for) my handler, the European Commission.  The Withdrawal Agreement is the best chance globalists have ever had to accelerate Britain's deepening integration with the European Union, taking Britain deeper into a technocratic regime of power without accountability, to the extent that the Withdrawal Agreement undermines the integrity of Britain's defence and security policies, converting Britain and its miserable ordinary plebs into a cash cow - a form of modern slavery - to the benefit of the Davos Crowd, effectively erasing the British state off the map of the world.  We even had Parliamentary support for the strategy, at least in the early days, but now the Parliamentary fools have cold feet, as if somehow they have suddenly, belatedly, twigged the end-game.  Thankfully, I have left in situ Messrs Sidwell and Robbins to railroad my successors to the same policy destination."

May said: "We have completed the work that David Cameron and George Osborne started. The deficit is almost eliminated, our national debt is falling and we are bringing an end to austerity."

Missing from this: "We have continued to promote the myths that our welfare state is sustainable and affordable.  We have successfully maintained the pretence of austerity, even though we never actually implemented it!  We have continued to extend Cultural Marxism, to bring ideological requirements into every level of government in the UK, to continue to destablise the state and wider society, to flip the country over, to lay the first foundations of a Chinese-style system of social credit.  We have continued our drive to, and by, our Common Purpose.  We regret that our achievements are slower than those of our predecessors in Czechoslovakia between 1945-1948, but our desire to impose totalitarian communism onto the masses is as strong as ever."

May said: "My focus has been on ensuring that the good jobs of the future will be created in communities across the whole country - not just in London and the south-east - through our modern industrial strategy."

Missing from this: "Our modern industrial strategy remains to de-industrialise wherever possible: to exterminate all opportunities to improve our standards of living, irrespective of the efficiency of so doing, or the efficiency resulting from such improvements."

May said: "We have helped more people than ever enjoy the security of a job."

Missing from this: "We achieved this by ensuring, as part of our de-industrialisation policy, that the lucky few with a job are protected from the consequences of their own bad and corrupt decisions.  We have opened our borders to ensure that many more non-Britons have a better chance at finding employment than Britons, with the latter being properly locked out of the job market, especially straight white males, in the interests of social justice. "

May said: "And we are protecting the environment: eliminating plastic waste, tackling climate change and improving air quality."

Missing from this: "We continue to create an extensive unaccountable monopoly in the energy supply, akin to the same unaccountable monopoly we gifted decades ago to the banking sector regarding monetary policy.  To save the planet, we have continued our policy of Malthusian de-population.  We continue to create an extensive unaccountable oligopoly in the supply of agricultural seeds, for which we intend to replace chemical pesticides by genetically-modified plants whereby the plants themselves are their own pesticides, whose pesticidal effect remains active in the human gut.  We are grateful to the social media companies for censoring, de-monetising, de-platforming and de-employing numerous empiricists who refuse to kow-tow to our policy agenda."

"I do so [leaving office] with no ill will, but with enormous and enduring gratitude to have had the opportunity to serve the country I love."

Missing from this: "... to denigrade, to destroy and to sabotage."

The full text of May's speech is available from various media sources.

Tuesday, 7 May 2019

May regrets Britain will hold European elections: yeah, right!

A slightly ranty piece, this one.

May regrets Britain will hold European elections (Reuters).  Yeah, right.

When Britain voted to leave the European Union, ultimately it voted in favour of an accountable political system, the opposite of the European Union's carefully-cultivated authoritarian, protectionist, lobbyist-driven, corporate communism.

May's Remainiac triumph has been to bring to the Remainiac UK Parliament a Withdrawal Agreement that is so toxic, that even the most zombie-like of Britain's democratically-elected quarter-wits could spot political suicide without even bothering to read the Withdrawal Agreement.

But May has form prior to her current position as Prime Minister.  As Home Secretary, she signed-off on the under-funding of the police force, while at the same time maintaining (or increasing?) the numbers of criminal acts the police were obliged to police.  A "skinny police state" it might be, but still an authoritarian police state Britain has become under May's watch.  May's watch extended the foundations of the Blair government of the early 2000s.  Post-May, the Home Office is still extending those foundations.  Case in point: as at May 2019, the government is seriously considering the hard-wiring Leftist thought police into the foundations of regulation to counter freedom of speech on the internet (see UKGov's white paper Online Harms).

So why does May regret European elections?  To my mind, there is only one reasonable basis for her regret: May cannot like elections at all.  May's Withdrawal Agreement is crystal clear: whether in the joint committee phase, or in the backstop phase, the Withdrawal Agreement enables the European Union to call the shots, without the encumbrance of choreographed elections to the tin-pot European Parliament.  It would result in a cheaper way to achieve a deeper level of political integration with the European Project, without the democratic bits, a level far deeper than would have been possible had Britain voted to remain in the European Union.  In essence, it seems that May's regret is triggered by the possibility that her dream of an authoritarian, statist autocracy looks like it might slip through her fingers.

Saturday, 30 March 2019

It's Brexit betrayal, Jim, but not as we knew it...

It's 30Mar2019.  We were supposed to have Brexitted today.

But it hasn't happened.  The UK is still in the European Union.

Other commentators have written more than enough detail about how the UK political establishment ("UKPE") has sought to thwart Brexit.  Here's my take, from a higher altitude, looking down.

Blairite Remainiacs are still fighting the referendum, by hook and by crook

Some members of the UKPE have undertaken a specific crusade to do undermine Brexit and therefore also the will of the people.

I refer to them as "Blairite Remainiacs" ("BRs"), whose representatives include the UK Government (the Civil Service, the Prime Minister's office and the Treasury), The Independent Group ("TIG") and the mainstream media (online, print and broadcast, especially the BBC, the Financial Times and the Grauniad).

Other BRs are more covert: they act as sleeping agents within other political parties, contaminating both Labour and Conservative Parties accordingly.

The TIG and their sleeping agents in other political parties account for the sole elected element of this mafia: that they represent themselves more than they represent their constituents is rather one of two overarching points to vote to leave the EU in the first place.

From BRs, there is absolute silence about why the European Union is a good thing, but lots of disinformation about why freedom from the EU is absolutely impossible in every way, so should be abandoned.

Accompanying BRs' disinformation is the tangible snobbery from PRs against us ordinary plebs - we are "thick gammons", "poorly educated" (as if education is the sole path to enlightenment, contrary to >2,000 years of world history), "deceived in the campaign, but only by the Leave side", "mis-sold the myth that life can exist at all outside the European Union" (again, contrary to >2,000 years of world history), "trashing our childrens' futures"  - demonstrating a nasty, sociopathic, narcissistic, virtue-signalling superiority of PRs themselves.

The BRs aim to socialise us into succumbing to the corporate and social communist coffin that the EU is selflessly building for us.  Us ordinary taxpaying plebs should just shut up and keep on paying for it, both with our taxes and, more importantly, the future freedom of our grand-children.

Why Blairite?  Because these agents appear at a distance to be working with some "Common Purpose" (wiki).  The cat is out of the bag.

The Ultra Brexiteers are still ignorant about how the real world actually works

Other members of the UKPE have unwittingly sought to undermine Brexit as a predictable consequence of their deep ignorance and general stupidity.  Predictable, that is, to those of us with brains, not predictable to the members of the UKPE so afflicted.

I refer to them as the "Ultras", whose representatives include the European Research Group ("ERG"), the now-blatantly corrupt corporatist lobby group the Institute of Economic Affairs ("IEA") and BrexitCentral.  The ERG is the sole elected element, and, like its BR antidote, that they represent themselves more than they represent their constituents is rather one of two overarching points to vote to leave the EU in the first place.

From the Ultras, there is absolute silence about how the real world trades.  Where Ultras have dared to comment publicly, they say/imply that the real world still trades with the same legal infrastructure as it did in the 1980s.  Their knowledge is highly selective; the ignorance even more so.  Every time they open their mouths, Ultras prove their total ignorance about how non-tariff barriers to trade have comprehensively negated the otherwise-beneficial purposes of the Free Trade Agreements of the 1980s.  I can't tell whether the Ultras are genuinely ignorant, or wilfully ignorant: either way, it takes a lot of effort to remain so blissfully, selectively ignorant about the real world.

The Ultras also offer us a deafening silence about how the European Union is actually a problem.  For those of us with brains, we did our own research and quickly concluded that the EU is fundamentally a technocratic project whose primary mission is anti-democratic, to centralise power for anti-democratic forces (including corporatists, a.k.a. "corporate communism", or more properly "fascism" (which leftists still wrongly think is only about ethnic cleansing)).

We also concluded that we could not rely upon the UKPE or its sinister propagandist machine - the mainstream media - to tell us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  Looking back at this blog's historic entries, I've marched down the same path that many other brainful people have marched.  We've all recognised the lies-by-omission.

Yet, there is a special place in hell - Tusk, take note - for the toxicity of public policy choices that the European Union has taken, all of which Ultras should have been screaming from every rooftop in the land.  Examples:

  • The Notification Procedure of the Services Directive 2006 is a direct over-ruling of democratic choice by unaccountable regulatory arrogance.
  • The European Parliament recently agreed to the Copyright Directive, which deliberately seeks to use copyright law to censor the internet (in particular, to replace the truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth with leftist, woke, fake-truth).
  • The European Union's members had a consorted role in the development of the Paris Accord on Climate Change, the outcome of which has been policies which:
    • remove the greatest threat to the fossil fuel industry (nuclear power);
    • entrench the greatest aid to the fossil fuel industry (unreliable wind & solar power);
    • extend the fossil fuel monopoly to profit from other wasteful uses of irreplaceable ores & elements; and
    • entrench a self-serving groupthink by justifying the whole policy set on the false theory of man-made global warming (i.e. that man - straight white men in particular - is the sole source of all forms of climate change).

But the Ultras speak nothing of this deliberately dysfunctional governance.  Even less do the Ultras recognise cultural Marxism as the means by which such nasty, sociopathic, narcissistic, virtue-signalling policies and frameworks come about.

The middling establishmentists refuse to surrender their lazy little sweet spot

The remainder of the UKPE sees no benefit to Brexit.

Whether civil servant or elected Parliamentarian, being paid a full-time salary for having zero accountability for anything smells like a nice, easy life.  To them, it's worth surrendering all influence over policy choices taken at the European Union.

Better still, they no longer have to fend off the continuous flow of corrupt, corporatist lobbyists who seek entrenched monopolistic protections in law in favour of their corporate clients.  That European law tends towards favouring such lobby groups at the expense of democratic accountability is another one of two overarching points to vote to leave the EU in the first place.

The outside world now sees why the UKPE was never a safe pair of hands

Outside of the UK, foreign political establishments wonder how on earth this has come about.

The EU has known for years that the British delegation is the most amateur, unprepared, issue-illiterate and missing the point about just about everything.  Yet, the very public performance of the UKPE's stupidity has had the most extraordinary international consequences.

The United States of America is soooooo looking forward to negotiating future deals with the UK (an Open Skies Agreement is allegedly already in place, contrary to European law).

The European Free Trade Association might once have considered the UK to be an ally to overcome the onerous dominance of the European Union, but which probably ought to consider the UKPE as toxic as the EU itself.

The United Nations, and its members, are almost certainly asking serious questions about the mental health of the UKPE given the UKPE's obsessive Russiaphobia.  (Note: Russiaphobia seems to be a unholy alliance between those who think that Russia is about to nuke the world and those leftists who recognise that Russia is too savvy to become "woke" any time soon).

Which leaves us where?

On 23Jun2016, the UK electoral voted to take back control, with a long list of grievances to support their desire to take back control (ranging from trade, to immigration to sovereignty, and everything else in between).

We knew at the time that our political system was substantially crippled by a supra-national organisation that severely limited what our political system could achieve.  This is why it was so important to see whether UKGov had a strategy within the EU.  It spent months leading up to the referendum proving that it had none.  Since the referendum, it has proven why it had none.

Today, we realise that our political system wasn't just crippled by an external agency, but that it is equally crippled by its own internal agents.

Taking back control, it seems, is going to be a much, much harder objective to achieve.  Whether it is worth taking back control for a British electorate known for its laziness, complacency, denial and ubiquitous selective ignorance is another blog post for another day.

Sunday, 3 March 2019

Fewer than 29 days to go: state of the nation

With fewer than 29 days to go before Brexit Day, here's a brief list of current developments, in no particular order and no particular completeness.

Toxic Debt: 2006 all over again

Toxic debt on the rise again, and it feels about ready to go pop (sources: Strategian, the MoneyGPS, Epic Economist, background from the Corbett Report; note the absence of mainstream media sources).  In particular, the Chinese people appear to have gone into the buy-to-let market... in a market where renting properties isn't mainstream.  So, this means buy-to-leave-empty-and-have-no-income.  Yet the muppets buying these flats - to hoard empty properties! -  are doing so by borrowing.  Debt without income to service it!  In other words, bad debt.  Really?!  Really???!!!!

Worse, the properties being built are con-jobs: knocked up so quickly that they fall down of their own accord (source: ADV China).

The sources above have all the relevant numbers, so I won't repeat them here, suffice it to say that the unmeasured growth of unmeasured bad debt in China is likely to be as large - if not larger - than the sub-prime debt crisis of America in 2006.  The impact on the non-Chinese world is likely to be significant, because although Chinese financial instruments might not be as embedded in Western banks like American sub-prime securitised debt was in the 2000s, virtually every aspect of Western economic life depends upon Chinese economic activity in some way shape or form.  Cut the funding from those activities - very few of them are truly autonomous from the Chinese Communist State - and they will collapse.  This shall include even Vietnam, to which a number of Chinese industrialists are sub-contracting... because China has become too expensive!

Meanwhile, a growing number of Americans cannot service the loans on their cars.  The lower-end of the American income scale is borrowing simply to feed the kids.  Even without securitisation, the incestuous nature of cross-borrowing between financial institutions makes for a very uncomfortable process of contagion when the truth about bad debt is "officially" recognised.

All governments have, to varying degrees opted to drown in debt, to make themselves beholden to the globalist banksters, encouraged by the corruption of Davos Man.

The end-game ain't looking pretty.  Although there is clearly air hissing from the debt bubble, the slow-motion burst will gather pace quickly as contagion kicks in.  Epic Economist reckons that we'll see the big bang in "summer or autumn this year [2019]", which I interpret to be 2019Q3.

Italy and France: a marriage of debt

As Bernard Connolly predicted in 1997 (source: Moneyweek), ignoring the demos is the sure-fire way to populism, a point which Nick Clegg inadvertently re-prove to Merryn Somerset Webb in 2015.

A common trigger point is recession, especially one that feel's self-induced (even though it's probably down to banksters fleecing the system to enrich themselves at everybody else's expense).  One country in which financialisation has ripened beautifully for the banksters to shake the tree is Italy.  And the Italian economy makes itself very close to that point (sources: Wolf Street, ZeroHedge).

Debt is a major part of the Italian problem, compounded by the tradition of retail investors being investors of their banks.  The banks are, in reality, bankrupt, but officially can continue to report that everything is lovely (this scam is common throughout the Eurozone: the truth must be suppressed at all costs).

And guess who piled into Italian debt?  Like they piled into Greek debt?  Yes, that's right, the masters of interpreting every toxic opportunity as a "buy" signal: French banks.

This is thus evidence that either Italian & French banks won't learn, or that the French government still hasn't realised how banksters have played the French state.

Italy doesn't seem to be as encumbered as France, although its current leaders have a lot to learn about powerless they really are.  While Macron is proposing the measures of the Ceaușescu state to brutalise the gilets jaunes, Italy voted for a populist government which seems set to roll back the excesses of globalism (co-ordinating its efforts with Austria and the Visegrad Four).

But how?  To take a small example, there was a suggestion - exaggerated into an international coprophagous media feeding frenzy - that the Italian government reminded the Italian central bank (what's left of it) that Italian gold belongs to the sovereign state of Italy, not the banksters.  Problem is, this might not be factually correct: some reports from the industry state that the bank does indeed own the gold, not the state (source: Bullionstar).  Ouch.  Whether this makes Salvini a target for bankster-sponsored assassination remains to be seen.

At the point where somebody in Italy suffers a loss of confidence, Italy and France are likely to descend quickly into a financial death spiral.  As they are both members of the Eurozone with Germany, that leaves Germany taxpayers on the hook to fund it, or to fund loans from banksters to bail out Italy and France.  Either way: banksters 3-0 taxpayers.

The Germans have banned short-selling of one particular company

Never willing to miss any opportunity to be as cretinously stupid as possible, the German financial regulator BaFin has banned short-selling of Wirecard (source: Moneyweek).

BaFin reckons it's protecting a new entrant from the harshness of the market.  But this, of course, is garbage.  What BaFin is actually protecting is a dodgy, opaque business model.  Typically European, BaFin addresses the symptoms, not the root cause, and provides relief for the people running Wirecard to keep on being as opaque as possible with their use (waste?) of investors' money.  The stench of corruption is overpowering.

This is thus evidence that BaFin won't learn.  Ever.  How very European.

Contraction of the car market, especially for diesel-fuelled engines

With the dieselgate scandal continuing its erosion of diesel-flavoured vested interests, demand for car has collapsed.  The two events are unlikely to be directly linked, but the co-incidence is more than merely a surprise.  Car manufacturers are retrenching, reducing production as marginal costs exceed marginal revenue, in part because of the increase of marginal costs imposed by the state(s) for emission controls.  In the American market, there even appears to be a shift by consumers away from cars and towards plush trucks (SUVs, 4x4, "Chelsea Tractors") (source: WolfStreet 1, WolfStreet 2).  Not so in Europe (at least, there's no evidence so far); if so, one has to question what economies of scale in manufacture could be possible at all.

Britain's mainstream media created its own feeding-frenzy fake-news fodder out of the story when Honda announced the closure of its factory in Swindon (I would link to a sample, but for the Corporate Communist Copyright Directive, see below).  In reality, with the Japanese very nearly in the the European Union's as-yet uncodefied equivalent of the European Economic Area, Honda probably finds it cheaper to manufacture in Japan and ship directly to the European continent, rather than to have production facilities in the European Union (especially the relatively-expensive and under-skilled UK).

Of course, the retards in the mainstream media whitter on about this being a consequence of Brexit and blah blah blah.  Issue-illiterate nonsense.  As one would expect.  The mainstream media is there only to lie to us.

Corporate Communist Copyright Directive

The European Parliament is still progressing with making the proposed Copyright Directive a de facto method of censoring the internet, using copyright law as the means to abolish-by-stealth freedom of expression.

The root issue, as explained by Billboard, is that the music/artist industries remain as deeply issue-illiterate as they always have been.  Essentially rent-seekers by nature, the artistic industries believe that if they have a right to intellectual property, then they can use it to print money just like a central bank can.  So anybody else who uses the alleged intellectual property is, in their minds, guilty-without-defence of theft.  So when social media platforms provide the tools by which ordinary plebs can do so without recourse, this is systemic theft.  On an industrial scale.

This, of course, is the same stupidity of the industry that had the industry wanting ban video recorders and cassette recorders.  They lost those two battles and to their "surprise", demand rose: the economic catastrophe they wrongly foresaw never happened.  But, having refused to learn the right lessons from those two battles, they are back at the table demanding money-making censorship... and this time the European Union is more than ready to listen to them.  (Offers of well-paid consultancies presumably help to open the appropriate ears.)

So much for the parasitic rent-takers of the artist industries.

But what Billboard judiciously omits is the impact of Article 11, the "link tax" (opinion from pressure group: Electronic Frontier Foundation).  Some artistry is written.  All written material has some sort of copyright behind it, including output from artists.  This blog, for example, links to copyrighted sources that the rights holders have chosen to publish for free on the internet.  Nevertheless, Article 11 requires the platform of the blog to pay the rights holders a fee for having linked to the copyrighted material (with fatuous exemptions).

This is state-sponsored parasitism.  This is crony, corporate communism at its most disgusting.  (Technically, it is a fascist state, but we can't say fascist state because loads of ignorant, issue-illiterate, snowflake Lefists think fascism is something to do with a man adorning a pencil moustache sending people to gas chambers).

The Copyright Directive is law that remain voters ultimately want to see happen, hence why they voted to remain.  They voted for it.  Bear that in mind, if the UK ever undergoes a truth and reconciliation process.

Man-made global warming

I read Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth (no link, it'll be taxed).  I'll admit, I was ready to be taken in by it, and I was.  For years, I believed that I understood how man-made "carbon emissions" cooked the planet.

But when I started to question the honesty of the mainstream media, I challenged just about everything I thought I know about politics, philosophy and economics.  And the sinister dogma of man-made global warming was one of the major causalities.

It's amazing what a little bit of learning can achieve.

  • We now know that the "97% of scientist agree" is a fiction invented by a cartoonist.
  • We continue to know that we have no means of measuring: i) what percentage of climate change is caused by mankind; and ii) what percentage of climate change is caused by natural forces.
  • We now know that peaks of carbon dioxide levels in the relevant layers of the atmosphere follow peaks of temperature, not the other way around.
  • We continue to know that there is a very strong co-relation between sunspot activity and the "average" measurements of temperature around the world.
  • We know that carbon dioxide is the 5th least-significant greenhouse gas (the most significant is water vapour).
  • We also know that humankind's carbon dioxide emissions are very, very small compared to natural sources of carbon dioxide emissions (e.g. volcanoes) (yet we still can't link human activity to a percentage of climate change).
  • We know that only one of the many models for climate change are consistently wrong, with no attempt to make the models relevant (the one that works is a Russian model, but, apparently, anything Russian is fake news, so we're not allowed to believe it).
  • We know that just about any study promoting or advocating or trying to measure the human contribution/cause of climate change typically rests upon very selective/cherry-picked interpretations of comparable "baseline" data.
  • We know that any graph looking like a hockey stick is normally a falsehood, because statistically it cannot stack up.  Yet, the infamous hockey stick graph has become a touchstone for the alarmists because it says what they desperately want to believe.  But the graph's co-author, Michael Mann, was held in contempt of a Canadian court in 2017 when the court demanded Mann's workings to prove that the graph was not fraudulent, but Mann refused.  What has Mann got to hide?  It demonstrates just how without credibility, honesty and integrity the alarmist crusade is.

And this is just the stuff I can grasp.

Yet there's more.  The next thing for me to get my head around is the possibility that the models used by climate alarmists are so demonstrably fake that only an utter moron would believe anything a climate alarmist would say.  Publicised by The Red Elephant's Vincent James and Newsblaze, astrophysicist Joseph Postma (who made it onto the Denier's List, which thus enhances Postma's credibility in my eyes), Postma's idea is that alarmists' models assume a flat earth.  Yes, a flat earth!  They also assume that the heat from the sun hits the surface of the flat earth at the temperate of -18°C (yet, negative eighteen degrees Celsius, below the freezing point of water).  Somehow, this "heat" "radiates" into the single-layered atmosphere and gets trapped by something causing a greenhouse effect which eventually boils the planet and kills everything.

Interestingly, this means that every time a climate alarmist whitters on about the "ozone layer", they are talking off-script from the models that they use to prop up their superstitious propaganda.

What is the obsession with carbon dioxide anyway?  The answer turns out to be very simple: carbon dioxide emissions happen when humans generate energy and when humans consume energy.  With the right "regulation" in place, it thus becomes possible to tax both sides of the energy transaction.  And if it's possible to tax it, then it's also possible to charge a price for each event.  All that is required is the same raft of "financialisation" law to be imported into the energy sector.

And this is what it's really all about.  To control the carbon dioxide "supply" is to control the entire energy sector.  And as energy is as fundamental to human life as you can get, the control of the energy sector is control of everything.  It is perfect corporate communism.

And, of course, the European Union is fully on board with the mission to save the planet from carbon dioxide.

The vast legions of journalists, Leftist, pseudo-scientists, taxpayer-funded non-governmental organisations/lobby groups who support the underlying Malthusian theories of man-made global warming are just really useful idiots to help to prop up a narrative that the idiots themselves don't understand.  By the time they'll figure it out, it'll be too late: they'll be stitched up, like the rest of us.  An Inconvenient Lie, indeed.

A shift in empire: from America, but to where?

The demise of the British empire in favour of the American empire took a long time coming, but it was ultimately the Suez Crisis of 1956 which was the final nail in the coffin for any chance of Britain reprising its imperial ambitions.

A similar story appears to be panning out for America.  The runes are reading in a similar way.  America, under President Trump, is probably less social-justice-warriory than at any time in the past 30 years, yet the neo-liberal and neo-conservative agenda continue to push out bile which undermines America's domestic agenda and, when involved in foreign wars, undermines America's international agenda.

The Cuban Missile Crisis, Vietnam, the Iraq Wars, Afghanistan, responses to Russia's re-annexation of the Crimea (contrary to American demands that Crimea be part of the sovereign state of Ukraine), America's ruthless fleecing of Russia in President Yeltsin's era, America's bombastic economic sanctions against Russia in President Putin's era, America's dogmatic economic sanctions against anybody who trades with Iran, America's destabilising presence in the Middle East, the Foreign Account and Tax Compliance Act (which led to some American ex-pats to renounce their citizenship just to get hold of a bank account in their host country, just to feed the kids) and, just to cap it all, America's forceful fake choice to Europe regarding NATO, "America or Russia: choose now."  Coming up soon: a fake-flag "war" in Venezuela.

America and Europe have both allowed the rule of law to become the law of rules.  This is perversion of what should exist to support a democratic state, but it is a necessary step for the increasing control freakery of the Leftist, globalist super-state (of which the European Union is the first major prototype).  Yet, if the European Union moves away from the United States of America, then it's likely that the whole house of cards collapses (not least because the banksters who rig the system will spot an opportunity to fleece the underlying taxpayers and private savers to the advantage of the banksters, literally taking any potential gains of control freakery from under the noses of the globalist Left).

And yet, America defies its own the rule of law at will.  It now smells very likely that the "private server" run by Hilary Clinton was necessary to protect the sources of funding for the Clinton Foundation from investigation under money laundering rules.  The benefit of hindsight makes it quite clear that the second Iraq war (George W Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney) was most likely a marketing campaign for the arms industry (and who cares about the consequences?).

Some argue that the Chinese empire is the next one to watch.  Perhaps.  Although China has many strategic interests around the world, so strategic that it would embarrass the feckless idiots of the Western ruling classes, The President of the People's Republic of China was converted in 2018 to a job-for-life.  This is the classic measure of the imperialist dream.  The incumbent is President Xi Jinping; it is too early to say what his longer-term plan might be, but we know from Chinese history that crap policy choices are equally likely in China than anywhere in the Western world.

Mao Tse Tung starved a chunk of his own population to death based on the false belief that sparrows ate grain.  He ordered peasants to rattle cans in fields all day, killing sparrows.  Without sparrow to eat insects, insects ate the grain unimpeded.  China starved.  It's a classic example of why centrally planned economies never work.  Jinping must know this, and yet there is no clear evidence of how he is going to approach the debt bubble that smothers his country's embryonic middle classes.  Jinping's only effective "solution" is the usual shortcut: to allow the Western bankster mentality to take over, wipe out the middle classes, revert the whole population to peasantry and penury, under usury, a form of neo-feudalism (or, perhaps in China, "back to normal", "恢復正常", translated via Google Translate).

China clearly has military ambitions and is ready to test America's military resolve.  China has deployed its military to play stupid little games in the South China Sea, illegitimately claiming rights over the Spratly Islands (amongst others).  America is also there, playing its role in the same stupid game.  And China, like Russia and Iran (allegedly), support the incumbent socialist President of Venezuela, standing opposite the view of America.  Moreover, there look to be a number of parallels between China's policy deployments today and those of Japan in the 1930s.

I'm not convinced yet that China is going to be the next empire.  As at today, the next empire feels likely to be an unstable coalition of Russia, China and India against a fragmented, bankrupted disarray of Europe and America.  The root cause of the instability of the coalition empire shall be who carves up the spoils of Old Europe and the Disunited States of America.  Through this transition, I suspect that both old and new empires are going to have to deal with the irritant of Islamic Fundamentalism, although all parties need Islamic Fundamentalism to ensure the Middle East remains paralysed by its own factions (and thus keep the oil flowing!).

The next few decades are going to be extremely messy.


And somewhere in this quagmire of international tectonic political plate-shifting, there is this Brexit thing.  Oh yeah, that's what this blog was supposed to be about, wasn't it?

All of a sudden, Brexit seems quite trivially academic.

Breaking out of the European Union offers the UK a great deal of freedom... supposedly.  In all probability, the maximum freedom in the foreseeable future is to cherrypick bits of globalist stupidity that i) the European Union has been implementing for years; and ii) still benefit the UK.

Yet, hope is vision on the horizon.  Although globalisation shall likely continue - and for good reasons - globalism is looking very ill.  Globalism is the Leftist campaign for One World Socialist Government.  Many of us ordinary plebs are waking up.  We are "woke", but not in the way that Leftists want us to be.

In another whisper of hope, America has appointed David Malpass as the President of the World Bank, which some pundits reckon is potentially a game-changer (opinion: American Thinker, note the contrast between expectations on Malpass and the issue-illiterate social justice eco warrior mentality of Obama's choice Kim.  Note also some choice quotes attributed to Malpass, offered by ZeroHedge).

A Brexited Britain will need to be patient while the rest of the world's democracies catch up, and make their own opportunities to destroy their globalist overlords, the self-serving monopolists and banksters who seek to impose neo-feudalism.  In reality, a Brexited Britain will need to be equally patient with its own idiotic ruling classes.

Since the referendum, us ordinary plebs have little to do but watch the stupidity of the British Prime Minster Theresa May see Brexit as "damage limitation" exercise that results in a Withdrawal Agreement far more abominable than membership of the EU.  We've watched the stupidity of a self-serving Parliament, which desperately wants to turn the clock back to the pre-referendum days, so it can continue to juice the gravy train to which it had become overly accustomed.  We've learnt not to watch the deceitful mainstream media that has so disserved its customers/readers in all policy areas for decades.

The overwhelming and fundamental change that British society needs is one that most British are genetically pre-disposed to ignore.  The mindset of the typical British voter is all about solving challenges with the most breathtaking of issue-illiterate complacency, denial and arrogance, in particular a pathetic faith in the "reasonableness" of others, with not a jot of political literacy to accept just how sick in the head Leftist control freaks really are.  In this mindset, change is incremental, honest, reasonable and never, ever radical.  Unsurprisingly, this is the mindset that allowed the ruling elite (howsoever branded) to cause the UK to drift into the evil grip of the European Economic Community, wilfully deceiving the population along the way.  Membership of the EEC was very radical, and the ruling elite got away with it by lying to a population who was happy to be lied to, because the lies sounded comforting.

While the world is undergoing further significant, if incremental, changes in the next 50 years, the British population is probably best served by riding the waves of these changes.  To do this, we require issue-literate leaders and implementors to keep a hawk's eye on developments, being ready to deploy the right policies to protect our interests.  None of our current ruling elite meets this requirement.  Yet, to change the ruling elite requires overturning the mindset of the typical British voter.  It means the typical British voter getting off his lazy, fat arse, and getting involved, even to the extent of fighting hard against deeply entrenched, bullying, threatening, potentially violent vested interests who's much prefer to impose neo-feudalism, thank you very much.  The fight of the French state against its own gilets jaunes is instructive.

Brexit on its own does not solve this, but it is a necessary step to building the solution.  Brexit is the last throw of the dice for freedom of the British people from the tyranny of Britain's own state and other supra-national "regulators" that conspire to move us towards the socialist, globalist, neo-feudalism beloved of the military industrial complex.  It sounds all very conspiratorial and, sure, there are some forces which attempt to fight the tyranny.  But it will all amount to nowt if ordinary plebs continue to sit on their arses and watch mainstream telly, pretending that the fight above their heads about who owns the plebs' resources doesn't really matter to the plebs.

After all, the 48% who voted remain voted in favour the Copyright Directive and the Single European Army, whether they like to admit it or not.  How many of these 48% will come to their senses is an open question.  But, just as they voted in favour of their democratic, political and economic suicide within a neo-feudalist European Union, they shall likely continue to vote for the same moronic objectives whenever the opportunity arises.  And all of them will wrongly reckon that it'll do them good and give them lots of future opportunities.  Tell that to the long-term unemployed youth of France, preferably because the French police beat the long-term unemployed youth to death for wearing a gilet jaune.

Friday, 28 December 2018

Queen and the Bish talk about "tribalism". The BBC's response is... erm... tribal.

Christmas Day was originally an ancient pagan festival of generally jovial equinox-related debauchery.  In later years, a bunch of extreme cultists - sometimes known as "Christian State", also known as the "Holy Roman Empire", apparently - culturally misappropriated said pagan festival by means of a Germanic Victorian ritual involving 12 sordid days of turkey sandwiches.  In more recent years, even the culturally misappropriated ex-pagan party got culturally re-misappropriated.  Corporates hijacked the ex-pagan, ex-Christian party converting it to a new, post-modern ritual of trashy consumerism - where success is measured by the number of transactions typed up into a spreadsheet - shallow celebrity, family rows over which social media channel to watch at the Christmas lunch table, and a politicised vulture-fest by the legacy mainstream media (largely feeding on itself).

The culturally misappropriated Christmas Day is a perfect opportunity for the Queen (the head of the British State and Church of England) and the Archbishop of Canterbury (the permanent secretary of the Church of England, with more political power than the Queen) to say something on the telly.  Although most of us ordinary taxpaying plebs were too busy having a blazing family row about what to return to to pay attention to either of them, some people would have watched them in their original broadcast.  Most of us would have caught the carefully re-spun headlines sensationalised by the legacy mainstream media.

Where is there a media performance to be re-spun, the legacy mainstream media will be there to re-spin it to meet the legacy mainstream media's own cynical agenda.  And, predictably, first past the line is the BBC.

From each media performance, two particular opportunities for some cynical re-spinning were:

"Perhaps part of that wisdom is to recognise some of life's baffling paradoxes, such as the way human beings have a huge propensity for good, and yet a capacity for evil. Even the power of faith, which frequently inspires great generosity and self-sacrifice, can fall victim to tribalism." (Queen)

"God’s language of love is exclusive. It requires us to forget other languages of hatred, tribalism, rivalry, political advantage and of materialism, pride, greed, and so many more." (Archbishop of Canterbury)
What each speaker intended is irrelevant.  The BBC took both media events, re-spinning each event to serve the BBC's long-preordained position of their beloved anti-Brexit agenda.

The BBC linked Queenie immediately to Brexit, cynically stating, "The monarch, 92, highlighted the importance of people with opposing views treating each other with respect.  It comes as Parliament remains divided over the PM's Brexit deal, as the UK prepares to leave the EU in March."  No reader/listener needed this spelling out to them, but in view of all other more important difficulties in the world, it is an extraordinarily tribal choice by the BBC editors to link Brexit unnecessarily to the Queen.  Thus the BBC indulged in tribalism on the back off a speech that decried tribalism.

The BBC needed a bit of help from a Churchie stooge to link the Bish to Brexit.  The most confident unassisted spin of the BBC was the scribble, "While he [the Bish] did not specifically mention the UK's political future, he stressed the importance of the language of love replacing the language of conflict."  The BBC needed some helpful soundbitey gibberish techno-babble from another Bish, this one being the Bishop of London, Bishop Mullally. "Debates in politics around the EU referendum have created division," wrote the BBC as a terribly convenient quotation from the Bishop of London. "My belief is that diversity creates strong community; division weakens it."

From the two Bishs' words, the BBC thus promoted two narratives of its ideological agenda.  For the first narrative, the BBC allegedly managed to find somebody whose world view is allegedly soooo culturally Marxist that the speaker implied a series of re-bundled artificial distinctions between "diversity", "division" and "difference", loading the terms with unnecessary emotionalism.  Unbundle the artificial distinctions and the quotation is just plain nonsense (unless one takes the quotation as an advocacy of "divide-and-rule", a traditional position of the Church).  Allegedly.  Either the BBC correctly reported Bish Mullally's words, or made them up for her ('ere ya go, luv, read this aaaat").  Allegedly.  Howsoever justified, the BBC indulged in tribalism on the back off a speech that decried tribalism, and even "found" another Bish to prop up the tribalism of the BBC's editorial policy.

For the second narrative, the BBC achieved a position of near-perfect cognitive dissonance.  Since before 2016, the BBC has always promoted the Remainiac cause, taking every opportunity to denigrate the fight for freedom from technocracy that the vote to leave ultimately represented, being careful to ensure that the denigration was done in the most "impartial" way possible, whilst blocking out any rational voices and non-metropolitan voices within the scope of the issue.  Again, the BBC indulged in tribalism on the back off a speech that decried tribalism.

It looks like "taking back control" is going to be a much harder and longer job than any leave voter might have wanted to believe as at 23 June 2016.  Taxation without representation continues apace.  In the world of the legacy mainstream media, led by the taxpayer-funded BBC, tribalism lives on.

We can be confident that the BBC will continue to present all issues in a tribal, bi-polar way, to meet the BBC's own tribal requirements, for the foreseeable future.

Thursday, 27 December 2018

Open Skies agreements in place between UK and US? Is this even legal?

Mendacity continues.

If Sky is any credible yardstick, then in July 2017, some American airlines muttered something about the stark reality of the UK’s crashing out of the European Common Aviation Airspace (“ECAA”), and in November 2018, the UK & the US governments “agreed” an open skies deal between them.  Reuters has also reported the story, adding that the UK is engaged in serial bi-lateralism with other countries for air access.

It seems that Sky might be onto something.  Perhaps Sky fed from Reuters, or perhaps Sky read something from UK Gov itself, but on 28Nov2018, the UK government itself bragged about the US-UK Open Sky agreement.  Trade press (one example) jumped on the story on the same day (so no choreography there, then).

Has anybody told the UK government that, if it has indeed concluded trade deals with third countries before 29Mar2019, then UKGov has broken EU law?

TOFU Article 218 makes it very clear that only the EU may conclude commercial deals; the UK would have needed permission in an agreed Withdrawal Agreement to have opened negotiations for air access with third countries while the UK were still a member of the EU (until 29Mar2019).  The UK’s transgression in this respect will certainly have registered with European Commission and Remainiacs (such as Blair, Clegg, the litigious Miller et al): when (if?) Brexit comes closer to happening, we can be confident that Project Sabotage will be wheeled out once again to derail the UK’s new deals with third countries.

Could UKGov be so stupid?  Well, having invoked Article 50 without a viable plan to transition from EU member to EU non-member, the short answer is probably “yes”.  Or, as we can see with the currently proposed Withdrawal Agreement - and the cynical political engineering by the likes of May and Robbins to get to the proposed Withdrawal Agreement, including the scurrying back to Brussels to keep on negotiating even after the European Council approved the deal (in 30 minutes!) and closed the Commission’s mandate to negotiate - the longer answer is probably “no”, on the basis that an outcome must be seen to be impossible to justify an anti-democratic U-turn.  Hence why Project Sabotage is so important to Remainiacs.  It’s why Remainaics needed to exterminate EFTA/EEA as a means to implementing a sensible Brexit.  And, measured by their actions, May & Robbins are functionally Remainaics.

Meanwhile, on 19Dec2018, the European Commission published COM(2018) 890, “Preparing for the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union on 30
March 2019: Implementing the Commission’s Contingency Action Plan.”  This correctly reminds its readers - and anybody else, for that matter - that a “no-deal” Brexit would have the UK leave the EU along with all subsidiary agreements, including the ECAA.  As a result, airlines based in the UK would be instantly denied access to ECAA airspace and landing rights 11pm UK time 29Mar2019.  COM(2018) 890 announced temporary, transitional rules, to give EU operators enough time to close their operations with the UK tidily (pages 6-7).  The two transitional rules are:
     To the extent also granted by the UK to EU operators, to grant UK operators over-fly access and to grant UK operators emergency (non-scheduled) landings in EU airports for a maximum period of 12 months.
     To propose a regulation that assigns validity to UK holders of ECAA certifications for up to nine months to allow for some time to avoid a catch-22 situation regarding air safety regulation.

This announcement, along with much else in COM(2018) 890, is a list of the key things for the EU and the EU27 to do to withdraw tidily their affairs from the UK.  The sole reason for any of the transitional periods set out in COM(2018) 890 appears to be towards implementing the EU external border around the UK in manageable chunks.  From the perspective of the European Commission, this is the job that needs to be done.  From the perspective of the EU27, there are likely to be some unpleasant surprises following the implementation of COM(2018) 890.  Nothing insurmountable, for sure, but subtleties which will lay the groundwork for the EU to extend further into the sovereignty of the EU27, beyond that which any of the EU27 would have agreed with the UK as one of the EU28.

More short-term, without impact on sovereignty, trade flow will be the nastiest surprise, especially for those EU27 who need to import from the UK in the short-term.  The four areas to watch are air transport, road haulage, financial services and import/export of goods.  COM(2018) 890 is particularly oblique on page 7, where it says, “If the Withdrawal Agreement is not ratified, all relevant EU legislation on imported goods and exported goods will apply as of the withdrawal date.”  This is an under-statement.  The EU27, not the EU, are responsible for Border Inspection Posts, so if the EU27 want to import - or need to import - from the UK, then they are already too late to build any useful mitigating measures to keep trade flowing.  This includes the EU’s external border in Eire with Northern Ireland.

COM(2018) 890 is unlikely to be the European Commission’s final word on the subject.  But it is nevertheless an interesting window into the mind of the EU.

Sunday, 23 December 2018

Common Purpose: the puppetmaster?

At first glance, others' analyses of Common Purpose smell right (see bibliography, below).

It is certainly feasible that one organisation can have pervasive, extra-system influence throughout an entire system of government, including its agencies.  Groupthink has no barriers.

The real concern is whether Agenda 21, now presumably replaced by Agenda 2030, is aiming to bring about long-term 0% growth, 0% interest rates and zero carbon emissions in an issue-illiterate way to bring about "sustainable development".  In the twisted mind of a Leftist, all economic activity is zero-sum, so 0% growth means no change, therefore is more likely to be "sustainable" than otherwise.

In others' analysis of Common Purpose, I find that the analyses describes what I observe.  So far, I cannot fault the analyses.  Common Purpose is an agent to bring about Agenda 2030.

As a useful by-product for the Leftists, the same 0% interest rates enables misappropriation of wealth from modestly wealthy savers (the poor-ish) via the wealthy reckless borrowers (the über-rich) to the banks (the ultimate debtor).  Leftists reckon that this is equality-of-outcome; normal people see it as feudalism and serfdom.

A better by-product for the Leftists is that the agenda's policy choices also lead to taxation without representation, equality-of-outcome, the abolition of meritocracy and, consequently, the de facto redundancy of democracy.  The end-games resemble a heap of Daleks ruling over masses of "upgraded" Cybermen.

All of a sudden, the context of the European Union looks all too clear.

But is this fair criticism?

Common Purpose's own publications


Frustratingly, Common Purpose's website doesn't seem bothered about defending itself, or even selling itself!  Does it reckons that its "graduates" are so deeply embedded into governmental systems that it's work is substantially done?

CP's own website contains little of any substance that a normal charity would publicise to prove its existence, or to drum up membership/sponsorship.  CP sounds coy about its alumni, its impact, its achievements.  Its message is a seemingly all over the place, a mishmash of subtle socialisation, some incomplete tangible achievements, general nonsense, a bit of psycho-babble, comprehensive missing-the-point and inadvertent admission of wrongthink.

Impact report 2017

CP's impact report of 2017 also fails to hit the spot.  Where one would expect a series of concrete, measurable deliverables being disclosed (i.e. "We did X which made Y happen which benefited Z people by enabling them to do W at time T"), instead we get:

  • "The programme helped me reflect on how I could create better ecosystems for promoting innovation."
  • "I think I’m so open minded, I try to be politically correct."
  • "Common Purpose is the organization par excellence, with the mission to put diversity at the heart of the leadership debate. What it does in practice—and in terms of walking the talk—is bring people from different communities, different sectors, different generations together to address the challenge and opportunity of leadership."

The third example above is classic Leftist gibberish used as a tool of socialisation.  It hits the right sound-bites, gives the reader the impression that the reader understands what they've read, but, actually, it says nothing useful to the reader.  The reader will only agree with the comment if the reader is pre-disposed emotionally to want to believe it.  Completely airbrushed out of that warm, fuzzy feeling is the measurable damage that Leftist policies - issue-illiteracy, wrongthink, equality-of-outcome-at-all-costs, Malthusian philosophy, diversity over meritocracy, identity politics over tangible achievements - aim to wreak over communities, sectors and generations.

One testimonial is worth quoting at length, because, at first sniff, sounds very close to being convincing.  Charles Asiedu, MD of Ecobank, said:
"I engaged the government agency responsible for the food procurement and suggested a collaborative approach involving the Ministry of Finance, the Central Bank, the agency and Ecobank to resolve the food crisis. We brought the partners together and, after sharing what role we each thought we could play, together we designed a solution. Now we are mobilizing $50 million to support the importation of maize to help feed eight million Malawians. Prior to CSCLeaders I wouldn’t have thought more broadly about bringing in other partners to handle the crisis."
This simply doesn't make sense!  How did simply talking to other people who arguably should have already cared make a difference?  What was in the business interest of the other partners to engage in such solution, merely on the say-so of one bod from Ecobank?  The more one thinks about this example, the more a smell of something odious arises.

CP's impact report of 2017 also claims to have worked with 1,182 organisations, listing the most prestigious and well-known (PDF page 12).  It is nowadays quite common for private sector organisations to brag about their social activities ("corporate social responsibility", which is another tool of the same agenda to which CP is aligned).  There are quite a lot of banks on the list.  And these are the same banks who are so signed up to Leftist social justice that they tend to accumulate wealth at their customers' expense (customers' deposits taken, 0% interest returned to depositors, cash used to hedge purchase of assets anyway, erosion of cash value places net burden on depositor) and then expect their own corruption to be bailed-out at the taxpayers' expense.  The brazen display of such cognitive dissonance is remarkable: here, the banks are practising stealthy confiscation of wealth by rigging the monetary system, yet publicly supporting a charity that espouses equality-of-outcome.  The only way in which this couldn't be cognitive dissonance is that the equality-of-outcome is "all equally poor and enslaved to a capitalist master".

Without irony, CP even names Deutsche Bank as one of the prestigious organisations with which CP has worked!  Is this the very same Deutsche Bank which, in 2016, the German government was planning to bail-out but which the same government realised it probably couldn't afford to do so?  Oops.  Puts the European Union's state-aid rules to the test, doesn't it?  By contrast, what's really going on - stripping out politico crap - is explained by the MoneyGPS (12 minute video, source Bloomberg).  It's difficult to say whether Deutsche Bank is a good advert for CP.  On the one hand, DB represents the very model of financial impropriety, to the extent that a government looks set to change its own rules to fudge the issue.  So much for the rule of law.  Not a good advert for CP.  On the other hand, DB represents such an elegant way to defraud the people - laundering the peoples' gains away from the via the official banking system - that it is perhaps the best advert for aggressive, goalpost-moving socialism that could ever have been invented.  Marx and Trotski would have been so proud.  So perhaps a brilliant advert for CP, after all.

Annual report 2017 - Common Purpose (disclosed by own website)

CP UK discloses - as it is lawfully obliged to do - its corporate status.  It also discloses its charitable status.  Its UK company number is 3556983.  Its UK charity number is 1023384.  It also has a Scottish charitable registration, SCO41166.

A search for "Common Purpose" at Companies House lists six entities with "common purpose" in the name, sharing the same registered address, Monmouth House, 38-40 Artillery Lane, London, E1 7LS. (As at 23Dec2018).

A search for "Common Purpose" at the UK Charity Commission lists three registrants with "common purpose" in the name that look related to CP.

According to the annual report of 2017, CP UK's turnover was £1.7m (2016: £1.9m), of which £1.2m was course fees (2016: £1.1m).

I'm not convinced that 2016's numbers actually cast.  1900673+1709358=3610031, but 1747658-1785260=-37602.  The use of brackets seems to be negligently inconsistent.  2016's annual report didn't appear on CP's website as at 23Dec2018.

The balance sheet as at 31Jul2017 was in net deficit, £100,624 (2016: £63,022).  In spite of this, the trustees believed that the entity was a going-concern.  One would the trustees to say where the money comes from, but the trustees don't reveal this.  Instead, the entity discloses its ultimate controlling entity as Common Purpose Charitable Trust ("CPCT").

Annual report 2017 - Common Purpose Charitable Trust

CPCT is a company limited by guarantee.  Its company number is 02832875 and it uses the same charity number as above, 1023384.

CPCT discloses no list of members, as befits a private company.  In its Persons of Significant Control 03Jul2016 in an annual confirmation statement of 08Jul2016, "The company knows or has reasonable cause to believe that there is no registrable person or registrable relevant legal entity in relation to the company."  However, the PSC legislation caught quite a few people out.  Julia Middleton was the Person of Significant Control with effect from the regulation's effective date of 06Apr2016 to 03Jul2016.  Middleton was a registered officer of the CPCT, no longer is, yet CP holds her out as the "founder and chief executive".  Normally, a chief executive would be a currently registered director of a company.  Middleton isn't a director of CP (company 3556983) either, but she is listed as one of three people of significant control for CP (company 3556983).  As at 23Dec2018, Middleton has a total of nine past and present directorships.

CPCT's turnover was £5m in the year ending 31Jul2017 (2016: £4.7m).  In both years, course fees represented the largest plurality of income, with "income from non-UK bodies" comprising the second largest plurality of income.  2017 saw a significant increase in "other trading activities" relative to 2016.

There is no segmental analysis by geography or by function to understand the "income from non-UK bodies".  This doesn't smell right, especially for a Leftist organisation whose soulmates include the Tax Justice Network.  Here is a report from the TJN lamenting the lack of global corporate transparency, co-funded by the European Union.  The difference between what the Leftist TJN preaches and what the Leftist CPCT practices is quite stark.

Again, I'm not convinced that 2016's numbers cast: 4740733-5321632=-580899, not -581971 as reported.

CPCT's balance sheet as at 31Jul2017 was £0.8m (2016: £0.5m).  Operating cash flow was £-0.8m (2016: £0.13m).  CPCT employed 68 people in both years.  The simple average salary is £33,793pa, but the disclosure of 9 highly-paid individuals means that the lowest salaries are considerably lower than the simple average salary.  Social justice in action?

CPCT discloses no ultimate controlling entity.

Charity Commission disclosures

The registered aim of CPCT is:
"CPCT oversees the activities of CPUK, CP International,CP Customised Ltd, CP Global Customised and CP Asia Pacific. It safeguards brands, intellectual property, web domain names and trademarks, holds the overall strategic plan and supports the alumni. Our educational courses give people the inspiration, skills and connections to become better leaders at work and in society."
This sounds much more corporate than a "real" charity that us ordinary plebs would recognise as a charity.  The last sentence is cynically vague.


No wonder democracy feels frayed and exploited.

There is a strong whiff of the Leftists' "old boys network" about Common Purpose, an ideal vehicle whereby the ideology of Cultural Marxism can be spread, to perpetuate issue-illiterate policy choices at government level, to lock in corporate corruption, to lock out democratic control, to achieve the perfect state of taxation-without-representation, the global Soviet.  Leadership and training for the parasites of any political system.

Common Purpose makes no attempt to debunk allegations of its ulterior motives.  On the contrary, Common Purpose continues to evangelise diversity over meritocracy, socialisation over rationality, emotionalism over empiricism.  The only possible consequence of this evangelism is the promotion issue-illiterate policies and related groupthink.

Given Leftists' dire hatred of Vladimir Putin, the nature of Common Purpose is enough to make a normal, ordinary pleb wonder whether Putin has a valid point after all.

Bibliography: (see also the annotation from clothcap on 04Oct2010)

Monday, 26 November 2018

One size does not fit all: GDPR, family trees, employment law and financial services.

Everybody loves certainty.  Everybody positively adores predictability and forseeability.

So the notion that the General Data Protection Regulation (EU 2016/679) ("GDPR") has swept some degree of certainty into data transactions must be a good thing, right?


But what if the certainty is fake?  Or does not resemble reality closely enough to be a useful instruction?

The economic objective of GDPR: an overhead barrier to entry

To those who have already read GDPR, and/or implemented it in the private sector workplace, one already knows the real economic interest that the EU had to introduce GDPR.

Aside from playing trade politics with America, GDPR de facto requires all Data Controllers to compile contemporaneous documentation to prove the Data Controller's innocence in advance of any claims/investigations arising.  Data Protection By Design, remember (the Precautionary Principle for data)?

And, of course, documentation is inherently a manual task, therefore expensive, and must be funded by means of overhead resources.  Which means that GDPR has become traditional European form of protectionism: a barrier to entry via an obligation to have bloated overheads.

How effective is GDPR?

As to the actual effectiveness of GDPR on protecting personal data of EU member nation citizens, the jury is still out.

The European Commission is not currently satisfied with the American approach to data protection.  One lawyers' public report of 02Sep2018 pointed to a growing unease in Europe about the enforceable adequacy of the EU-US Privacy Shield  (EU, wiki).

In part, this is presumably down to the sheer impossibility of getting Americans to understand anything that doesn't fit into their own pre-conceived, bureau-legalistic outlook on the world (as the IAPP lamented on 20Jan2018, "Explaining GDPR to an American"; my response: best of luck, lots of patience... and breeeeathe...).

How workable is GDPR?  Alien law in foreign courts?

The challenge of explaining Napoleonic code mentality to a common-law American lawyer is one of the major challenges that European jurisprudence faces in the wider, non-European world.

The tick-box absolutism of EU rules, directives and regulations has been a challenge for the British (and will remain so after the fake-Brexit of 29Mar2019 asunder the Withdrawal Agreement of Nov2018).

So how the same tick-box absolutism will square up to, say, Chinese jurisprudence is going to be more than merely entertaining.

Absolutism = absurd outcomes

The core problem for the Europeans is that the absolutism of GDPR results in absurd outcomes.  GDPR does not accommodate the Anglo-Saxon legal concept of "reasonableness", largely in part because GDPR is based upon a Germanic model of data protection, enforced by a European political system based on France's fourth republic.

The absurdity arises because the rules are designed to fit too narrow range of objective outcomes, with an even narrower range of method by which to achieve the too narrow range of objective outcomes.

The range of outcomes is narrow because of the underlying ideology, contaminated by corporatist lobbying along the way.

The net result is that GDPR serves as much as barrier to trade/entry as it does some limited protection of personal data.

Like all EU regulation, it meets some of its retail objectives, but at hidden costs to the consumer that the typical consumer might have re-considered had they the choice about whether to implement the regulation.

One such cost to the consumer - and therefore also to the value-chain of producers - is the narrow range of prescribed uses of personal data.

Consumer impact: case 1, Facebook et al

GDPR is designed primarily with discriminating against Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple, to ensure that they cannot re-sell personal data of EU member nation citizens without the citizen knowing.

Of course, the care that the EU has for us ordinary taxpaying plebs is as miserably low as any tin-pot civil servant within any of the EU member nations.  The real issue for the EU is to stack Facebook et al with a tonne of irrecoverable overheads that are fundamentally tied to the core of their business, to reduce their profitability, to reduce the perceived viability of operating in the EU and/or with personal data of EU member nation citizens.

Has GDPR successfully constrained Facebook's re-sale of personal data?  Facebook is, for the moment (Nov2018) seemingly evading any meaningful investigation, but others claim to find that Facebook is hiding known breaches of GDPR.  TechRepublic summarised the chronology on 25Oct2018.

Consumer impact: case 2, the consumer's employer

GDPR specifically did not address situations where data processing is inevitable, but otherwise unrelated to internet-based consumer services.

For example, take a business running in a business-to-business market, with no consumer customers.

GDPR applies to this business as much as it does to Facebook.  It's exposure to GDPR is much smaller than it would be for Facebook, i.e. Facebook is both a Data Controller and a Data Processor.  But the small business is probably only a Data Controller, who sub-contracts the payroll to a Data Processing payroll bureau.  But, like Facebook, the small business needs to prepare tonnes of documentation to prove its innocence well in advance of something bad happening.

For those in English jurisprudence, the precautionary elements of GDPR make compliance with it the same as that of health & safety risk assessments, or fire risk assessments.  In effect, GDPR requires data risk assessments, even if the risk is self-evidently zero.  Don't assume, just keep typing (even if it detracts from running your business).

Consumer impact: case 3, a family tree

For another example, take a family that seeks to centralise its family history.

The collation of family history of dead relatives is not a problem under GDPR, and can be done on paper or digitally.

The problem comes with living relatives.

The compilation of a family tree containing personal data of living relatives cannot meet a single basis of lawful processing asunder GDPR Article 6:

  • there is no documented consent mechanism within a family: a consent mechanism could be built, but, only at humongous cost.  As at Nov2018, what software available on the market does that, and how could it work if one member of the family refuses (or cannot) use the internet?  
  • there is no contract to perform: a contract between family and member could be drafted, but it would be an absurdity;
  • there is no legal obligation on the family to compile its family history;
  • there are few cases where a family history would be vital to the interests of the Data Subject, except to track medical conditions.  Ironically, this a form of Special Data Processing subject to even more restrictions asunder GDPR Article 9.
  • there are no de facto legitimate interests that the family archivist could have to record personal data of Data Subjects, especially regarding minors (children).
And yet, much of the basic data that would justify a Data Regulator prosecuting the Data Controller (family archivist) is typically available from the Register of Births, Deaths and Marriages.  Ah, but they are state agencies, aren't they, so they enjoy a different legal system to that which the state inflicts on us ordinary plebs, don't they?

The blindingly obvious absurdity arises over time.  The generation that first compiles its family tree might be the easiest if they consent unanimously.  Fine.  But that might include their children, who may be too young to grant consent.  After a few years of wilful non-compliance with GDPR, the children grow up, mate with a complete stranger and spawn.  The archivist wants to record the mate and the spawn on the family tree.  And this decision by the archivist lays a landmine for the future, waiting to be triggered.

Roll-forward one more generation, and the family archivist - by then an elderly person - is unlikely to have met the full range of grand-children that the extended family would have spawned, especially if there were more than one child in the other families married into the family.  Yet, the same archivist will have wanted to document all of them to keep the family tree complete.  Managing consent would be a slight nightmare.  All it would take is a small family tiff, an unexpected discovery that a family archivist was recording data about the wider family, and then the archivist would be slapped with a Data Subject Erasure Request from the offended distant relative.  The Request would likely be followed by a notice of investigation from the Data Regulator.  Where, would demand the regulator of the archivist, is the signed proof that the mate and spawn consented to their personal data being in your hands?  Thus the archivist steps onto his own landmine (remember that?).  Oops.  Good luck defending against that one.

The European Right to be Forgotten

Taken in combination with the Copyright Directive (a proposal as at Nov2018) and the Right to be Forgotten (Google Spain SL, Google Inc v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos, Mario Costeja González (2014), partially codified in GDPR, wiki), we stare at a European jurisprudence that demands its populace zombies-out.  Literally, to throw its brains and memories out of the window, never to be used ever again.

How absurd is this outcome?  Yet, it is an inevitable consequence of European law.  Arguably a public choice to dumb down the population.  It makes it much easier for cultural Marxists to re-write history when the history has been erased by due process of law.

Making financial services to make employment hard again

Such absurdities undermine the integrity of the woolly concepts within GDPR.

The definitions of Data Subject, Data Controller and Data Processor sort-of make commercial sense in a simple commercial environment governed by one, or two, contracts of service.  But they don't work competently in a non-contractual environment like a family tree.

More pressingly, they don't work in a commercial environment where there are multiple intermediaries required to deliver a service to the end-consumer.  This is most acutely felt in the financial services industry.

Personal accident and travel insurance: the story of the customer's employee

Take a medium-sized business whose employees travel abroad for business travel.  The company needs to arrange some sort of travel insurance for its operations, to cover its employees.  The company might approach an insurer directly, but that is often impracticable (and undesirable, for both insured and insurer!), so most companies would use an insurance broker.  The insurer is regulated as a producer of financial services.  The broker is regulated as an intermediary of financial services.  The company is the end-user, and, in this context, is defined as "retail" asunder financial services law (MIFID).

So far, so good.  But translate these agents to GDPR, and the issue arises almost instantly.

The employee is clearly the Data Subject.  The employer is the Data Controller.  The insurer is.... erm... what, exactly?  A Data Processor?  No: the insurer is not being asked to receive personal data, churn it, and return it back in a particular form.  A Data Controller?  By default, it must be, because it's handling personal data.  That means that the broker is also a Data Controller, right?  Well, maybe not, because the broker is converting personal data from the employer into a format that the insurer might understand.  Umm..... but there is no contract between broker and insurer relating to data processing.... so does that mean the broker is really a Data Controller, or a non-compliant Data Processor?

So far, so bad.  But it gets worse.  During a business trip to America, the employee stubs his toe on an airline chair.  He claims on the employer's travel insurance.  To do so, he would (nowadays) need to have installed the insurer's travel agent's app on his smartphone (let's assume it's a dedicated company-owned smartphone, to keep this absurdity as simple as possible) and claim from there.  But how does the insurer's travel agent identify the employee as being an employee of the insured company?  Ah.  Well, ultimately, the employer is the Data Controller responsible, and the employee's details would have originated from the employer (most likely, the employee probably registered his smartphone app with the travel agent's claim service on instruction from his employer).  But however the personal data got passed to the travel agent, it's impossible to characterise the relevant agencies in the service chain cleanly between Controllers or Processors, or Joint Processors.  Or a hybrid.  Which GDPR doesn't define!

And it gets worse still.  Having stubbed his toe, the following day, the poor mush suffers a stroke while in America.  The American emergency services rush his wallet to hospital, desperate to find a travel insurance card to prove that the patient can afford to pay for his treatment.  But this is a European insurer: it's paperless (prior to the business trip, the employer told the employee to protect his personal data, so don't print anything out that comprises the safety of your personal data).  The only evidence of insurance is on the employee's smartphone.  Only the employee knows the 4-digit PIN to unlock the smartphone.  But the employee is unconscious.  All the hospital knows is the employee's name and nationality, because - thankfully - his passport is still a physical document.  But the delay caused by finding a way to get paid was a fatal choice by the hospital for the employee, and the employee dies later that day.  The issue is now to repatriate his body to his home country, with only his passport as a form of identity.  The American hospital now needs to breach just about every rule in GDPR to find out who the guy was, where he came from, who employed him, who insured him, who his next of kin is, where the next of kin lives, to where the body needs repatriating... And all GDPR can do is fudge it: GDPR apparently doesn't apply to dead people.  So that's alright then.

Other financial intermediaries

Insurance is the most likely area where the abnormal European mentality of "one size fits all" within GDPR causes more problems than it solves, with a wide range of absurdities waiting in the wings for future court cases to determine.  Travel insurance covering travel to non-EEA states without "adequacy assessments" by the European Commission are just the tip of this particular iceberg.

Beyond insurance, credit reference agencies, money-laundering agencies, credit/liquidity agencies (including credit unions), investment manufacturers ("PRIIPS"), pension providers, annuity providers and identity agencies (in states where the state provides no identity confirmation as a service, normally in common-law legal systems) are all processes which require data processing necessarily without the consent of the Data Subject, but whose operations are prescribed by law only as objectives, not methods (methods would be implied by case law, tort of negligence, i.e. "Would a reasonable credit reference agency think such a shoddy job was acceptable?").

In the instances listed above, the certainty imbued by GDPR's "reasonable" concepts is a false and fake certainty.  The real world does not comply with the childlike innocence of GDPR's noddyesque concepts.

The issue for financial services is so cloudy that a lawyer wrote up a pre-sales script for impacted parties to consider.

Impacts on mergers, acquisitions and capital markets?

A fundamental tenet of capitalism is that under-performing companies are bought up by aggressive buyers, turn the company around (or break its weak management up), and re-sell it.

In such deals, the names and positions of senior management are shared between buyer and seller, typically with such secrecy so as not to pervert the management decisions of the managers under discussion.

Necessarily, the sharing of the names - personal data - happens without the Data Subject's express consent.  It has no bearing to either the vital interests of the Data Subject, or the legitimate interests of the Data Subjects.

So, by virtue of normal operations, a merger/acquisition deal invariably - and unavoidably - breaches GDPR.

What would be the fix?  Under GDPR, the seller would need to obtain explicit consent from its employees whose names are to be shared with the buyer.  Were this to happen - especially for listed companies - the risk of insider trading would magnify considerably.  The confidentiality of the deal would be blown, and, consequently - especially for German capitalists - the oh-so-precious stability of equity markets would be in tatters.  Worse, if the management holds so much of the share capital, the deal would require a mechanism so far not yet designed to enable the transaction to happen at all.

There is no provision within GDPR for such circumstances, and no means of complying with both GDPR and current merger/acquisition customs.  GDPR thus appears arbitrary, wholly disconnected from the real world to which it supposedly relates.

This means that GDPR wilfully did not consider these circumstances during its design.  This much is quite obvious from a simple read of GDPR.  Or, more cynically, it could be that GDPR was designed to impede capital markets.  This much is likely when considering the mercantalist and protectionist outlooks of the top two EU member nations.

Vicarious liability under employment law

On 01Dec2017, in the case of various claimants v WM Morrisons Supermarket plc, the High Court held in favour of the claimants, resulting in Morrisons being vicariously liable for a data breach that a rogue employee wilfully committed as an act of revenge against his employer.  The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court's judgement (no online document from the court as at 25Nov2018; technical overview from a lawyer); Morrisons is said to plan a further appeal to the Supreme Court.

Irrespective of the chain of logic used by the courts to upload Morrisons as vicariously liable for the torts of the criminal offender, the point is that the courts have pinned the blame for a criminal act on the employer.  In the High Court's judgement, paras 72-73 set out the chain of complacency that the court held against Morrisons, specifically that Morrisons failed to deploy the appropriate level of snooping, spying, repeated investigations (presumably without due cause), clairvoyance and omnipotence to have assessed the risk of the employee's foreseeable criminal actions.  It was apparently Morrisons' fault not to have correctly guessed what the rogue employee was going to do.

Reasonableness - a core concept in English law - longer matters, even when considering tort of negligence in a case of this topic (judgement para 67, "The seventh principle [of data protection] does not impose a duty to take "reasonable car" as such.  Those words do not appear in the Statute.  This might suggest that the draftsman was aiming at a rather different target when he required that "appropriate" measures to be taken").

Indeed, from this judgement, we can reasonably (how ironic!) deduce that European jurisprudence is substantially more about the ticking of boxes, so if there is no box available to accommodate the messiness of real life, so be it.  The judgement even explains what real life entailed in this case (para 75, the testimony of Morrisons' officer responsible for data security): "it is impossible for any sizeable data controller completely to exclude the risk that data may be compromised, for example as a result of a criminal hack of its IT systems or the criminal misuse of data by its own employees."  The court accepted this testimony (para 80), but it appears to have no impact on Morrisons' defence.

In a common law environment, the absurdity of GDPR's implementation in the Morrison case enables the claimant to fish around for the deepest pockets for breach of their privacy asunder GDPR, but for which there is no evidence that such breach resulted in foreseeable costs to the claimants.

And yet... in para 103 is the double-irony: "The Bluecoat server [firewall] keeps a record of every website request made by the end user.  Thus, if an authorised person wishes to know what an individual employee has attempted to look at on the internet at work, it is technically possible to get Bluecoat to provide a list."  The court ended up upholding vicarious liability against Morrisons because it didn't systematically snoop for stuff that failed an unspecified sniff test.  So much for privacy!  What was GDPR for...?!

The case underlines the fake certainties embedded within GDPR's vague definitions and relationships between concepts (sort-of) defined in GDPR.  GDPR makes no attempt to be compatible with any other statute in any other legal system, so wilfully disregards reality outside the immediate environs of GDPR.

Accordingly, the case also underlines the perversion of common law by GDPR, its underlying Napoleonic nature, and similar for all law originating from the European Union. 


While the professions struggle with making GDPR workable in the real world, no-body seeks to make the case that GDPR is the wrong tool for the wrong job.

As the world's first data protection law, it pioneers a way to protect data.  But the way is backwards, so poorly designed and so poorly thought through that it provides a legal mechanism for the continuing censorship of the people, the propping-up of artificial barriers to entry into the marketplace, the monopolisation of consumer services, the protection of incumbent economic operators (far more effectively than protecting Data Subjects' personal data) and a march towards the silencing of opposition to cultural Marxism and political communism.  One size does indeed not fit all.

What started as a good idea by the innocents has been perverted by lobbyists and ideologues at the European level into an insidious form of state control, resulting in a minor war between state and IT sector as to whom has the right to subjugate the masses.  The IT sector has embarrassed the state, for showing how subjugation can be done bloodlessly; the state is jealous that the IT sector knows more about the state's serfs than the state does.

The lesson of GDPR - that one size does not fit all - will likely apply to any number of regulations in any number of jurisdictions, not just the European Union.  But for a such modern proto-state, it is unreasonable to expect the EU still to be using the tools of mid-20th century to progress its agenda.  That the EU chooses still to work in mid-20th century says an awful lot about the evil, longer-term objectives of the statist-globalists who continue to steer the EU towards its sinister end-game against the citizens of its ill-fated member nations.

End of post.