Pablo Picasso Landscape 1928
They’ve managed to fool people into thinking this has relevance. Both big blocks lose bigly, but they will still deliver Juncker’s successor. And the Commission decides the big issues. Yawn.
The big centre-right and centre-left blocs in the European Parliament have lost their combined majority amid an increase in support for liberals, Greens and nationalists. The centre-right European People’s Party remains the largest bloc, and is expected to form a pro-EU coalition. The Liberals and Greens had a good night, while nationalists were set for victory in Italy and France. Turnout was the highest for 20 years, bucking decades of decline. Populists gained ground in some countries but fell short of the very significant gains some had predicted.
In the UK, the newly-formed Brexit Party claimed a big victory, and a strong performance by the Liberal Democrats came amid massive losses for the Conservatives and Labour. Analysts said the EPP was likely to form a “grand coalition” with the Socialists and Democrats bloc, with support from the Liberals and Greens. The turnout bucked a long trend of decline in voter numbers, rising to just under 51% of eligible voters across the 28 member states.
751 overpaid lackeys.
The EU Parliament will be much more fragmented over the next five years with the established centrist bloc set to fall short of securing a majority at this week’s election, early results show. The current projection from the European parliament is that center-right and center-left blocks will end up with a total of 329 seats out of 751.The lack of a majority for the centrist bloc — the center-right European People’s Party (EPP) and the center-left Socialist and Democrats (S&D) which has held power in Brussels for several decades — could further complicate decision-making at the European Union.
Pro-EU parties will hold onto two-thirds of the seats at the EU Parliament, but their nationalist opponents have also produced solid results. Italy’s anti-immigration Lega party has reportedly secured 28 seats, essentially doubling its level of national support. Euroskeptic groups in France and the U.K. look to have held the gains they saw in 2014 but that said, the results on Monday morning suggested a strong showing for Liberal and Green parties.
Time for Corbyn to leave.
Fun: both sides, remain and leave, claim that overall, they won.
An insurgent Brexit party and reinvigorated Liberal Democrats have delivered a harrowing night for the Conservatives and Labour at the European elections, prompting profound soul-searching at the top of both major parties. Nigel Farage’s Brexit party humiliated the Conservatives in their rural heartlands but also made sweeping gains in cities such as Cardiff, Leeds and Sheffield, as well as in Hillingdon, the home of Boris’ Johnson’s seat where the Tories were pushed into fourth. Farage’s success campaigning in favour of a no deal Brexit is likely to push the Conservative leadership candidates into hardline positions on leaving the EU.
Jeremy Hunt, the foreign secretary, warned the Conservative were facing an “existential threat”, while Johnson said it was a “crushing rebuke” to the government’s failure to take the UK out of the EU. The night also confirmed an extraordinary revival of the Lib Dems, who overtook the Tories in Theresa May’s Maidenhead seat and came first in Jeremy Corbyn’s north London home of Islington. Overnight, the Brexit party gained 28 seats, with the Lib Dems in second on 15 seats. Labour held 10, having lost seven so far, the Green party won seven, a gain of four, and the Tories were languishing in fifth place, with just three seats.
The results so far show that the hard Brexit vote totalled 34.9% – with the Brexit party on 31.6% and Ukip on 3.3%. The overall total for pro-leave parties was up at 44% including the Conservatives on a historically low 9.1%. The pro-remain vote added up to 40.3% – with the Lib Dems on 20.3%, the Greens on 12.1%, the SNP on 3.5%, Change UK on 3.4% and Plaid Cymru on 1%. Labour, which tried to appeal to both sides with a soft Brexit pitch or a possible confirmatory referendum, was on 14.1%.
A Brexit now would lead to civil war. Don’t do it. Postpone.
Nigel Farage demanded a seat at Brexit negotiations on Monday after his new party swept to victory in the United Kingdom’s European Parliament election, warning that he would turn British politics upside down if denied. Farage, a bombastic 55-year-old commodities broker-turned anti-establishment supremo, won by riding a wave of anger at the failure of Prime Minister Theresa May to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union. As May’s Conservative Party prepares to pick a new leader, Farage had a warning for the next prime minister: A say in the United Kingdom’s biggest decision since World War Two.
“We should be part of the team now, that’s pretty clear,” Brexit Party leader Farage told Reuters at an election count in the southern English city of Southampton. After repeated delays to Brexit, Farage said the United Kingdom had to leave the EU on Oct. 31, the current deadline for Britain’s parliament to agree an exit deal. Farage would prefer to leave without a deal. “If we don’t leave on that day, then you can expect the Brexit Party to repeat this kind of surprise in the next general election,” he said.
Alan Rusbridger is the former editor of the Guardian that publishes Luke Harding’s smear pieces on Assange. But now it’s the very same Guardian that feels threatened.
As editor of the Guardian, I worked with Assange when we jointly (along with newspapers in the US and Europe) published other material Manning had leaked. Vanity Fair called the resultant stories “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years… they have changed the way people think about how the world is run”. The stories were, indeed, significant – but the relationship with Assange was fraught. We fell out, as most people eventually do with Assange. I found him mercurial, untrustworthy and dislikable: he wasn’t keen on me, either. All the collaborating editors disapproved of him releasing unredacted material from the Manning trove in September 2011. Nevertheless, I find the Trump administration’s use of the Espionage Act against him profoundly disturbing.
The Espionage Act was a panic measure enacted by Congress to clamp down on dissent or “sedition” when the US entered the First World War in 1917. In the subsequent 102 years it has never been used to prosecute a media organisation for publishing or disseminating unlawfully disclosed classified information. Nobody prosecuted under the act is permitted to offer a public interest defence. Whatever Assange got up to in 2010-11, it was not espionage. Nor is he a US citizen. The criminal acts this Australian maverick allegedly committed all happened outside the US. As Joel Simon, director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, has observed: “Under this rubric, anyone anywhere in the world who publishes information that the US government deems to be classified could be prosecuted for espionage.”
Buybacks have gotten a bad rap from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers this year. But the stock market would be trading at a much lower level without them. Data compiled by Ned Davis Research shows the S&P 500 would be 19% lower without buybacks. The firm looked at the S&P 5002 s performance between the first quarter of 2011 and the first three months of 2019. Then they subtracted the amount of net monthly repurchases to arrive to that conclusion. The broad market is up more than 125% in that time while net buybacks have totaled about $3.5 trillion. “Without focusing too much on numbers, we can say that the S&P 500 index would probably be lower today if not for buybacks versus other uses of cash”, Ed Clissold, chief U.S. strategist at Ned Davis Research, wrote in a note last month.
Lawmakers on both sides are bashing buybacks and want to make it harder for companies to repurchase their own stock. They argue that buybacks inflate corporate executives’ pay and share price at the expense of a company’s workers. In a Feb. 20 Medium post, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY, said companies should reinvest their capital differently. Earlier in February, Schumer and Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT — a presidential hopeful — proposed in a New York Times op-ed that companies should provide living wages and health benefits to workers if a buyback program is launched. “At a time of huge income and wealth inequality, Americans should be outraged that these profitable corporations are laying off workers while spending billions of dollars to boost their stock’s value to further enrich the wealthy few, ” the senators wrote in the op-ed.
Still owned by governments, for Pete’s sake. What year is this?
Fiat Chrysler has made a “transformative” merger proposal to Renault, the Italian-American carmaker said, in a deal that would create a new third-ranked global manufacturer. The proposal, finalised in overnight talks with Renault, was being discussed at a meeting of the French group’s board early on Monday. The deal would create a carmaker selling 8.7 million vehicles annually with a strong presence across key regions, automotive markets and technologies, FCA said. It would generate 5 billion euros ($5.6 billion) in estimated annual savings. The “broad and complementary brand portfolio would provide full market coverage, from luxury to mainstream,” it added.
If successful, the FCA-Renault tie-up would alter the competitive landscape for rival carmakers from General Motors to Peugeot maker PSA Group, which recently held inconclusive talks with FCA. It could also have profound repercussions for Renault’s 20-year-old alliance with Nissan, already weakened by the crisis surrounding the arrest and ouster of former chairman Carlos Ghosn late last year. The FCA-Renault plan would see the two carmakers merged under a listed Dutch holding company. After payment of a 2.5 billion-euro dividend to current FCA shareholders, each investor group would receive 50 percent of stock in the new company.
[..] The French government, Renault’s biggest shareholder with a 15% stake, supports the merger in principle but will need to see more details, its main spokeswoman said on Monday. France will be “particularly vigilant regarding employment and industrial footprint,” another Paris official said – adding that any deal must safeguard Renault’s alliance with Nissan, which had recently rebuffed a merger proposal from the French carmaker. The Italian government may also seek a stake in the combined group to balance France’s holding, a lawmaker from the ruling League party said on Monday. [..] Nissan, which is 43.4%-owned by Renault, would be invited to nominate a director to the 11-member board of the new combined company, under the plan presented on Monday.
“Shanghai’s Pudong Development Bank was fined for using 1,493 shell companies to hide non-performing loans.”
China is ducking a bankruptcy test. Baoshang Bank, linked to missing billionaire Xiao Jianhua, has been brought under state control. Despite threats, Beijing remains wary of allowing even disgraced local lenders to fail. Interest in Baoshang, based in Inner Mongolia, comes thanks to its colourful history. Its biggest stakeholder – and a major borrower – was Tomorrow Holdings, run by Xiao until he vanished in 2017 from a Hong Kong hotel. The insurance conglomerate’s assets are now being sold off piecemeal. Rickety municipal lenders are common in China, even if Baoshang is more precarious than most: a 2018 analysis by Jason Bedford of UBS named Baoshang as one of a trio of lenders with Tier 1 capital adequacy ratios below 8 percent, the lowest in his national survey.
City banks held just 13% of total assets in the first quarter of 2019, and rural lenders another 7%, but they represent an outsize share of the country’s financial risk. As the state giants attract the best, government-guaranteed clients, small fry make do with the rest, which means more duff debt. Ruses to cover up the damage are not uncommon: in 2018, Shanghai’s Pudong Development Bank was fined for using 1,493 shell companies to hide non-performing loans. Other lenders, like Bank of Dalian, have been bailed out repeatedly. The People’s Republic rolled out a deposit protection scheme in 2015. This theoretically allows poorly run banks to collapse without hurting ordinary depositors. But work is still in progress. The national insurance fund had only $12 billion at the end of September, and officials were still talking about creating an implementation agency in March.
What did the army expect would happen?
Days ahead of an annual holiday when Americans remember those who died while serving in the armed forces, the US Army’s Twitter account asked people how their time in the military affected them and received an outpouring of grief. The question drew some 10,000 replies since it was posted late last week — many of which were anonymous or included details that could not be independently confirmed, but which paint a harrowing picture of the toll America’s wars have taken on those who fought them. “OEF, OIF ptsd with chronic pain,” one Twitter user wrote, using the US military’s acronyms for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the abbreviation for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. The US launched the war in Afghanistan in 2001 and the Iraq war in 2003.
The conflicts left thousands of American service members dead and many more wounded. US troops are still deployed in both countries to this day. “My dad came back from fighting in Iraq and was abusive, constantly angry, paranoid, and following that went through a lot of therapy but his mental and physical health are still off and he was definitely changed through all he had been through,” another user wrote. “My son served and did one tour of OEF, he made it back, re-enlisted, and shot himself in the head,” said another. “The ‘Combat Cocktail’: PTSD, severe depression, anxiety. Isolation. Suicide attempts. Never ending rage. It cost me my relationship with my eldest son and my grandson. It cost some of my men so much more,” another Twitter user wrote. “How did serving impact me? Ask my family.”
Priorities. Question should be: which came first?
The presidents of Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia criticized a recent decision by the organization that manages internet protocol to grant global retailer Amazon Inc the rights to the .amazon domain. Amazon Inc has been seeking the exclusive rights to the .amazon domain name since 2012. But Amazon basin countries – including Peru, Colombia, Ecuador and Bolivia – have argued it refers to their geographic region and should not be the monopoly of one company. The four leaders – Peru’s Martin Vizcarra, Colombia’s Ivan Duque, Ecuador’s Lenin Moreno and Bolivia’s Evo Morales – vowed to join forces to protect their countries from what they described as inadequate governance of the internet.
Last week, the global Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), which oversees internet addresses, said it decided to proceed with the designation requested by Amazon Inc pending a 30-day period of public comment. The decision sets “a grave precedent by prioritizing private commercial interests above the considerations of state public policies, the rights on indigenous people and the preservation of the Amazon,” Vizcarra, Duque, Moreno and Morales said in a joint statement on Sunday after a gathering in Lima of the Andean Community regional bloc. They added that Latin American and Caribbean countries agreed in 2013 to reject any attempt to appropriate the Amazon name or any other name that refers to geography, history, culture or nature without the consent of countries in the region.
Hundreds of rivers around the world from the Thames to the Tigris are awash with dangerously high levels of antibiotics, the largest global study on the subject has found. Antibiotic pollution is one of the key routes by which bacteria are able develop resistance to the life-saving medicines, rendering them ineffective for human use. “A lot of the resistance genes we see in human pathogens originated from environmental bacteria,” said Prof William Gaze, a microbial ecologist at the University of Exeter who studies antimicrobial resistance but was not involved in the study. The rise in antibiotic-resistant bacteria is a global health emergency that could kill 10 million people by 2050, the UN said last month.
The drugs find their way into rivers and soil via human and animal waste and leaks from wastewater treatment plants and drug manufacturing facilities. “It’s quite scary and depressing. We could have large parts of the environment that have got antibiotics at levels high enough to affect resistance,” said Alistair Boxall, an environmental scientist at the University of York, who co-led the study. The research, presented on Monday at a conference in Helsinki, shows that some of the world’s best-known rivers, including the Thames, are contaminated with antibiotics classified as critically important for the treatment of serious infections. In many cases they were detected at unsafe levels, meaning resistance is much more likely to develop and spread.
Don’t think I ever heard of this girl until recently. She’s haunting.