RUTHFULLY YOURS

A move by Italy — the third-largest economy in the eurozone — to abandon the euro could strike a potentially fatal blow to the currency and to the bloc itself.

Meanwhile, at more than 130% of GDP, Italy has one of the biggest public debt burdens in Europe, second only to Greece.

“A perfect storm of slow or zero Italian economic growth, low interest rates and politically connected, often corrupt, lending have combined to create a situation where the Italian financial system is in need of a large rescue.” — Mihir Kapadia, Sun Global Investments.

M5S blames the euro for Italy’s woes, and many Italians agree.

The eurosceptic Five Star Movement (M5S) has overtaken Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s Democratic Party (PD) in several opinion polls and is now the most popular political party in Italy.

The poll results represent a significant shift in Italy’s political landscape and have potentially far-reaching implications for the future of the European Union.

M5S, which would win national elections if they were held today, has called for a referendum on whether Italy, which is facing the collapse of its banking system, should keep the euro, the single currency of the European Union, or bring back the Italian lira.

A move by Italy — the third-largest economy in the eurozone — to abandon the euro could strike a potentially fatal blow to the currency and to the bloc itself.

An Ipsos poll, published by the newspaper Corriere della Sera on July 5, gave M5S 30.6% of the vote, up from 28.9% in April, while Renzi’s center-left PD fell to 29.8% from 31.1%.

A Demos poll, published by La Repubblica on July 1, gave M5S 32.3% of the vote, compared to 30.2% for the PD. An EMG Acqua poll for TeleGiornale La7 television on June 28 gave M5S 31.7%, compared to 31.2% for the PD.

According to Ipsos pollster Nando Pagnoncelli, the polls show that M5S “is increasingly viewed as a political force that is capable of governing the country.”

The anti-establishment M5S was founded in 2009 by Beppe Grillo, a well-known comedian and blogger who has led a popular fight against rampant corruption in Italy’s political system. The party advocates for direct democracy — a system in which political decision making is devolved from the government to citizens — as a way to bypass traditional political parties embroiled in corruption scandals.

M5S, which portrays itself as post-ideological and draws support from both the left and right sides of the political aisle, has leveraged the internet to attract millions of voters, especially among the young.

The 67-year-old Grillo recently handed over the reins of the party to a new “directorate” of five young leaders, of which 30-year-old Luigi Di Maio has become the most prominent. He is widely expected to be the party’s candidate for prime minister at the next election.

Britain is a very small island, a tiny off-shore fragment. England taken alone has a population of over fifty million crammed into a land area about twice the size of Tasmania. Due to immigration England now has the highest population density in Europe and the fifth-highest in the world. The last thing such a country, one that was once a major source of emigration, needs is more people. Yet it is experiencing very high levels of immigration due to the stupidity and wilfulness of its political rulers, who are happy to ignore the resentment felt by the ordinary citizen at this influx and some of whom, like Gordon Brown when he was prime minister, even condemn these ordinary voters as “racist”.

Between 1995 and 2014 an extra four million foreign-born people settled in the United Kingdom. In any one year as many as half a million new long-term immigrants arrive. England now has 419 people per square kilometre, which is up from 379 in 2001. England has overtaken the Netherlands in population density and it is England, not Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, where the immigrants are settling. It is projected that the density of population will rise to 460 people per square kilometre by 2030. The prospect is intolerable.

The result of this mass immigration has been a marked but deliberately concealed fall in the standard of living of the indigenous population and a large rise in inequality. The lying politicians, notably Tony Blair, have boasted about the rise in total national income due to the extra labour the migrants have provided, but most of this increase has gone in wages and welfare payments and services to the migrants themselves. Very little of it has ended up in the pockets of the indigenous population and that little has been completely offset by a rapid and substantial rise in house prices, as more people are crammed into a fixed space. Rents and mortgage payments have rocketed and these are of course a very large part of the expenditure of British citizens and particularly the poorer ones. Not only can the building industry not provide new dwellings fast enough, but as it tries to do so it gobbles up our unspoilt countryside. Britain is being concreted over and is ceasing to be a green and pleasant land. Travel has become impossible, with clogged roads and crowded trains. Our land has been stolen from us. Immigration is theft.

The Left-liberal proponents of an open-door policy, the ones who have imposed this hell on an unwilling people, are the same ideologues who whine about rising inequality. Yet immigration is a key cause of rising inequality. If there is an influx of relatively unskilled migrants, it is those among the indigenous population without skills or capital who are bound to lose out. The leftists were recently excited about Thomas Piketty’s best-selling and utterly misguided book Capital, which set out in an over-simple algebraic formula why we were getting more unequal. However, by capital Piketty meant wealth and a large part of that wealth consists of land and housing. It is the value of these that has risen enormously. When house prices rise there is a transfer of wealth in favour of those who own one from those who do not. Those who lose out are the ones struggling to purchase or rent one. My own modest house is worth ten times what I paid for it, far more than the rate of inflation. Today I could not afford to buy it. The situation is made worse by affluent foreigners buying up the better-quality housing purely as a speculative investment.

“Curse You, Curse You, Curse You, Mr Blair!”

Just what makes Anthony Charles Lynton Blair tick is very hard to fathom. Admired by some, and loathed by others, this “all-over-the-place” politician may well be judged by history (as he is judged by many already) the worst prime minister of the British twentieth century.

The usual suspects of the Left view Blair as a war criminal for the “lies” that took Britain into the war that toppled Saddam Hussein, and feel exonerated by the Chilcot Report, but to numerous men and women Blair’s crimes are those he committed against his own country during his prime ministership (1997-2007).

In the current issue of the Australian conservative intellectual and literary magazine Quadrant Welshman Christie Davies (author of The Strange Death of Moral Britain) articulates this viewpoint with clarity and passion.

Pointing out the societal, economic, and ecological problems associated with Britain’s record high levels of immigration over the last two decades, with England now the most densely populated country in Europe (419 people per square km) and projected to become even more congested by 2030 (460 people per square km), Davies notes that the warnings of demographers during the 1960s regarding future overcrowding if the birthrate did not fall are never alluded to today.

(Anyone seen the slogan “Zero Population Growth” lately? No. Didn’t think so. Since the immigrant population is driving up the birthrate these days it’s much too politically incorrect to suggest that the maximum number of babies per family should be two. Ever seen the Greens arguing that immigration numbers should be restricted, given the fact that swathes of unspoiled countryside and greenbelt land are now being cemented over to meet the need for housing consequent upon today’s massive population surge? Ah, that’ll be the day!)

International support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) – despite its rejection of the 1922 League of Nations Mandate for Palestine and Article 80 of the United Nations Charter – could be exploited by China to blunt international action following an unfavourable ruling by the Permanent Court of Arbitration against China in The Hague.

Having boycotted those proceedings, Chinese President Xi Jinping then immediately dismissed the decision – which denied China had any legal basis to claim historic rights to the bulk of the South China Sea:

“China will never accept any claim or action based on those awards”

His rejection was as peremptory as that of the PLO – which declared in Article 18 of its original 1964 Charter:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate system and all that has been based upon them are considered fraud.”

This position was revised when the Charter was redrafted in 1968 – Article 20 declaring:

“The Balfour Declaration, the Mandate for Palestine, and everything that has been based upon them, are deemed null and void.”

These provisions have been a major contributing factor in preventing a resolution of the Jewish-Arab conflict for the last 52 years.

The international community has not punished the PLO for its unilateral demolition of these international-law building blocks but to the contrary has granted the PLO diplomatic recognition whilst also welcoming the PLO into the United Nations.

Should China be demonised because it also chooses to ignore a determination in international law that it regards as inimical to its national interest?

https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/07/13/theresa-may-becomes-prime-minister-immediately-stages-shocking-coup-by-appointing-boris-johnson-foreign-secretary/ Well, well … it seems like Britain’s new prime minister, Theresa May, is as tough as a box of rocks. While most commentators expected her to play it safe after officially succeeding David Cameron today, she actually caused a ruckus by sacking Chancellor George Osborne (a close ally of Cameron) and appointing Brexiteer Boris Johnson […]

Where do professional climateers and deep-green academics look for the mother’s milk of government funding when their dire predictions continue to fall short? Why, the trick is to invent a new threat and crisis, then spout the same old catastropharian nonsense!As ironclad evidence for the falsity of predictions regarding catastrophic anthropogenic global warming continues to evade the notice of the dedicated climate science community, the efforts of alarmists to shore up their industry turn naturally to scaremongering – drumming up frightening scenarios that might happen if we are so foolish as to continue on our fossil-fuelled ways.

Polar bears are now passe, possibly because the overwhelming observational evidence is that their population is not in decline at all (but it might be at some point in the future if if we don’t act now!). So it’s the Great Barrier Reef that has emerged as the latest iconic victim. Just like polar bears, most people will never see it, — and those that do, unlike a close encounter with ursus maritimus, will not risk being torn limb from limb after getting up close and personal.

We’re used to hearing about the reef’s imminent demise almost on a daily basis, but one recent Guardian article pushes the boundary of rigorous argument to breaking point. Professor Hugh Possingham, of the University of Queensland, billed as an expert on “conservation modelling”, tells us that it is now too late to save the entire reef. Therefore, we must determine what bits we can save and concentrate on them. The Guardian tells us:

He conceded it could be “suicide” for politicians to talk of abandoning some parts of the reef over others.

“In politics, there’s a lot of: ‘We can do everything’,” he said.

But a “difficult discussion” was needed with time running out for more research, limits on funding, and the real chance of a “Sophie’s choice” looming for the reef, Possingham said.

Notice the subtlety. The good professor is not actually telling us the sky is falling; he is holding out a flicker of hope. The inference is that we will cry ‘No, some of the reef is not enough. We must save it all. We must act now…” followed by, “We demand more funding for research.”

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on Wednesday marked the first anniversary of his country’s landmark nuclear deal with the U.S. and other world powers with a warning that Tehran could quickly restore its nuclear capacity if the terms of accord are breached.

Under the landmark deal reached in Vienna, Iran agreed to pull back its nuclear program from the verge of weapons-making capacity in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions that had crippled its economy. The pact went into effect in January.

On Wednesday, Mr. Rouhani, a strong proponent of the accord, said Iran would continue to adhere to the terms of the deal but expressed wariness over whether the other signatories would do so.

“We always keep our word,” the Iranian leader said on state television. “But if they want to breach their commitment, our nuclear capabilities are such that we can reach the level we want in a short period of time.”

Tehran has complained that the accord hasn’t produced as much economic relief to Iran as expected. The country is still subject to unilateral American sanctions and the country has struggled to attract big foreign investments, partly because it is having trouble gaining access to the international banking system.

Iranian officials have accused the U.S. of deliberately discouraging business dealings with Iran, an allegation the Obama administration has denied.

The plan by Boeing Co. to sell 80 passenger aircraft to Iran’s national carrier has faced opposition from U.S. Congress, with some lawmakers seeking to block the $17.6-billion deal.

In a bid to help restore Iran to the global economic system, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry in recent months has said businesses should not use U.S. sanctions on Iran as an excuse for avoiding business with Tehran. He reiterated his support for the nuclear accord on Wednesday.

“The nuclear deal is in the interest of all countries and parties. It is good for peace and stability, for the region, for the world,” said Mr. Kerry, noting the accord had allowed Iran to resume oil exports and deterred possible military intervention in the country. CONTINUE AT SITE

Community hails its ‘friend and champion’ at Number 10
Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis led tributes to the new Prime Minister, heralding her ‘values of tolerance and understanding’

Prime Minister Theresa May’s arrival at Downing Street has been welcomed by Jewish leaders and politicians as David Cameron was told he would “always be welcome in our community”.

The long-time home secretary entered Number 10 after her predecessor was applauded during his final prime minister’s questions and bid farewell with his family before tendering his resignation to the Queen.

In her previous role, May was at the forefront of the fight against terrorism and anti-Semitism – famously holding a sign proclaiming ‘je suis juif’ days after the attack on a kosher supermarket in Paris and announcing a renewed funding for communal security as recently as March this year.

Her commitment to the community was underlined by her attendance at a long-scheduled dinner at the chief rabbi’s north London residence on Tuesday night, just 20 hours before becoming Britain’s second female premier.

Saying he was delighted to have the opportunity to give “my blessings”, Ephraim Mirvis said: “She has proved herself to be a friend and champion of our community and of other faith communities who share her values of tolerance and understanding.

“Theresa May becomes Prime Minister at a time of great political, social and economic uncertainty. Few people are more talented or better qualified to tackle these immense challenges. I recall the speed and the sensitivity with which she reached out to the Jewish community following the terror attacks on Jewish targets in Europe last year. As she made clear then – “Without its Jews, Britain would not be Britain”.

The new British leader also this week showed her support for Holocaust education when she backed the HET’s #shapethefuture campaign. As MP for Maidenhead, she enjoyed a close relationship with constituent and Holocaust hero Sir Nicholas Winton and his family – hailing the release of a Royal Mail stamp in his honour following a Jewish News campaign.

Welcoming her accession to the top job, Sir Mick Davis, Chairman of the Jewish Leadership Council, said: “She has consistently worked to support and understand the issues that affect British Jews, and we look forward to building on those foundations to create a strong and enduring relationship.”

As the global nuclear deal with Iran marks its one-year anniversary this week, Tehran is maintaining its fierce anti-Americanism, receiving $100 billion-plus in sanctions relief with which it can better confront the United States in its region and beyond, and apparently trying to cheat its way to nuclear weaponry.

Notwithstanding President Barack Obama’s boast in announcing the deal last July 14 that it “makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure,” evidence continues to mount that it’s doing just the opposite.

With the deal coming together in the spring of 2015, Obama expressed hope that it would empower moderate Iranian forces who would convince the regime to invest the billions in sanctions relief in its economy rather than its “war machine.” But Tehran offers no signs of moderation, and if anything is doubling down on the anti-Americanism that has fueled the regime since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.

In recent days, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei blamed “recent bombings in Muslim countries” on the “security services of America, the Zionist regime and England” and said Tehran will “never cooperate” with Washington on Syria and other regional problems. And with tens of thousands of Iranians chanting “death to America” at Quds Day rallies on July 1, President Hassan Rouhani declared that “the global arrogance” (a euphemism for America and its allies) “wants to create discord among Muslims.”

Tehran’s latest anti-American vitriol coincides with revelations about Iranian nuclear-related activities that conflict with the nuclear deal as well as with related United Nations Security Council resolutions.

For starters, Iran has mounted a “clandestine” effort to acquire illicit nuclear technology and equipment from German companies “at what is, even by international standards, a quantitatively high level,” including at least nine attempts to acquire technology that could be used for nuclear weapons, according to Germany’s domestic intelligence agency. Iran, the agency predicted, “will continue its intensive procurement activities in Germany using clandestine methods to achieve its objectives.”

In a related matter, the Institute for Science and International Security, a Washington, D.C. nonproliferation think tank, reported that Iran recently tried to buy “tons of controlled carbon fiber,” which is used to build advanced centrifuges that can enrich uranium to atomic weapons-grade levels, from another nation. Since Iran already has enough carbon fiber to replace its existing advanced centrifuges, the Institute’s David Albright and Andrea Stricker wrote, it may be preparing to bypass the nuclear deal and build far more advanced centrifuges than the deal allows.

Meanwhile, Iran’s tests of its increasingly sophisticated ballistic missiles, on which it could later mount nuclear warheads, remain a central concern of global leaders. Reuters reported last week that in a confidential report to the Security Council, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said that Iran’s missile tests “are not consistent with the constructive spirit” of the nuclear deal. That’s something of an understatement; in its resolution that approved the nuclear deal, the Security Council “called upon” Iran not to work on ballistic missiles that could carry nuclear warheads for up to eight years.

In respect of the Palestinian problem, the European political elites have only the means to destabilize the status quo without installing an alternative. But Israel’s leaders can take heart. Any declarations made at French President François Hollande’s conference will be unenforceable, because the EU on its own lacks the means and because its energies must now focus on stopping its own disintegration.

The underlying reasons for Brexit and for EU disintegration in general have still not been widely understood. Brexit was not merely a vote of no confidence in the EU but also in the UK establishment. Similar gaps between establishment and electorate now exist in several other major European states. In some cases, however, governments are united with their electorates in detesting the EU dictatorship in Brussels.

The June 23 vote by the United Kingdom electorate to leave the European Union should be seen in the context of two other recent European events. Three days earlier, on June 20, the EU’s Foreign Ministers Council decided to solve the Palestinian problem by Christmas with its endorsement of French President François Hollande’s “peace initiative.” Three days after the vote, on June 26, the second election in Spain within a few months failed once again to produce a viable majority for any government. Worse still, the steadily rising popularity of nationalist parties in France, Germany, Austria and the Netherlands suggests that political paralysis in other EU countries is on the way.

In short, the ambitions of the ruling political cliques of Europe to solve the problems of the world are being undermined by their own neglected electorates, which are increasingly furious at the failure of those cliques to solve the problems of Europe itself. Four years ago, we wrote about Europe’s Imminent Revolution. Two years ago, about the attempt and failure of those cliques to turn the EU into a make-believe copy of the United States. Today, that revolution is creeping ahead month by month.

Before threatening Israel’s security and local supremacy, the EU foreign ministers could have recalled the results of their previous nonchalant meddling in the area. We were all rightly horrified by the threat of Muammar Gaddafi to hunt down his enemies “street by street, house by house,” as he began by shooting hundreds in his capital, in February 2011. Hollande’s predecessor, Nicolas Sarkozy, rallied European leaders — first and foremost the UK’s David Cameron — to do something about it. President Obama turned up to give a speech, something that he is good at. More importantly, Obama supplied warplanes from the NATO base in Naples. The idea was to enable victory for the Libyan rebel forces by paralyzing Gaddafi’s own air force and bombing his land forces.

Victory was achieved. But the rebels were united only in their hatred of Gaddafi. So Libya has descended into a chaos that could have been prevented only by a massive long-term presence of European land forces, which Europe — after repeated cuts in army strength — does not have. Now it is the local franchise of the Islamic State, among others, that is hunting down enemies house by house.

Europe was incapable of achieving anything in Libya without the United States, and incapable of replacing a detestable regime with a superior alternative. The lesson could have been learned from Iraq. Here, a massive American military presence accompanied a constitutional revolution and the beginnings of parliamentary rule. But the whole costly achievement collapsed when Obama decided to remove even the residual military presence needed to perpetuate it.