Thursday, March 30, 2017

Brexit - more than the British bargained for

I favor the loosely tied confederate model of governance that the European Union has become.  It is modeled on past attempts at confederate states, examples of which are pre-Christian township of central Europe such as Lusitan, Prussian and Swiss Confederation (the only one surviving at present), Great Tartaria of Central Asia and Siberia, Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and last but not least - the United States of America.    More often then not, adoption of the confederation model resulted in more civil rights because attempts by the local authorities to skew the system their way, could be challenged by the people using federal legislation. One interesting example was Ireland joining the EU which gradually washed away the autocratic rule of De Valera's theocrats resulting in more individual freedom.   Britain seems to be going the other way around, from a balance of power tied between the EU and the local government, towards giving all the power to the later.  That was probably the original intention behind the UKIP backers behind the scene as suggested by former prime minister Tony Blair in his recent "Open Britain" speech.     I am guessing, but that is the only reason that makes a sense  (actually there may be another non-exclusive reason that also makes a sense, see this post) .  Sure - British establishments wants more power and they will now be able to get it.  I guess they can hardly wait!.    The article I linked below describes some of the details of the process.  We can probably safely assume that it is just the beginning of the slippage towards authocracy in Britain, since once their elites taste the rule by decree it may be hard to revert to democracy.

The following article is the main reason I decided to post my today's rant:

What are Henry VIII powers? How Theresa May will use 'infamous' clauses to rewrite EU law

By Alice Foster (published Thu, Mar 30, 2017


HENRY VIII powers will allow civil servants and ministers to change EU law without much parliamentary scrutiny before Brexit Day.


Prof Barnard, a senior fellow at the UK in a Changing Europe initiative, said it was a paradox because Brexit supporters voted to restore parliamentary sovereignty.

"People who voted to leave the EU thought they were taking back powers back to Parliament, to Westminster," she said during a briefing at King’s College London.

"What they didn’t think they would be doing is taking powers back to the executive - to the civil service, to the Government - over which there will be very little parliamentary scrutiny."

The huge volume of corrections needed to EU law mean that it would be impossible for each change to be done by Acts of Parliaments.

To solve the problem, the Great Repeal Bill White Paper published today said that the bill will "create powers to make secondary legislation".

It said: "The Great Repeal Bill will provide a power to correct the statute book, where necessary, to rectify problems occurring as a consequence of leaving the EU. "

Update 30-April-2017 - "May lives in parallel reality" article

Brexit negotiations began with a blazing row yesterday as Brussels flatly rejected Theresa May’s negotiating position and accused the British prime minister of living in a “parallel reality”.

The other 27 EU member states took just four minutes to agree a hardline stance on Brexit at a summit meeting in Brussels before Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the European Commission, and Michel Barnier, the chief European Union Brexit negotiator, rounded on the British prime minister.

They told EU leaders that May had used a meeting with them on Wednesday night to demand that a “detailed outline” of a future free trade deal be in place before the UK agrees to pay any money to Brussels as part of the Brexit divorce deal. An EU diplomat said: “This was a rather incredible demand. It seemed as if it came from a parallel reality.”

Juncker warned yesterday that that approach would lead to an “early crash”, with Britain leaving the EU without a deal.

In an eight-page document outlining their position, the other 27 countries said the EU would “prepare itself to be able to handle the situation if the negotiations were to fail”. The guidelines also include offering Northern Ireland automatic EU membership should it join the Irish republic - a move seen as provocative in London - and giving Spain a veto over Gibraltar’s future relationship with the bloc.

Juncker and Barnier told leaders that the Wednesday dinner at May’s country retreat, known as Chequers, had also revealed huge differences over plans to recognise the rights of British citizens and EU nationals in each other’s countries.

Donald Tusk, president of the European Council, said a “serious offer” was needed on migrant rights from the UK before trade talks could begin.

An EU diplomat told The Sunday Times: “The UK’s position is miles apart, both on their financial obligations and on the EU citizens’ rights. The UK government simply wants to create a new category of ‘former EU citizens’ in their migration law, but our position is that we must go much further than that.”

The British prime minister’s stance that trade must come first was met with incredulity by EU officials, who said her chief EU sherpa, Oliver Robbins, had already agreed that the methodology for agreeing the Brexit bill would be ironed out first - along with the rights of EU citizens in Britain and the issue of the Irish border.

“She took a firm position against something we thought we had agreed,” a diplomatic source said. “It was completely unreal.” The source said the prime minister’s views on the financial settlement “border on the delusional”.

Over dinner, Juncker slapped down May by pulling out a copy of the EU-Canada trade deal, a 2,000-page document that took nearly a decade to negotiate, and recommended that the prime minister study its complexity.

Juncker’s aides said he then called Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, and complained that May appeared unaware of issues communicated to her staff. According to one of Juncker’s aides, he told Merkel: “It went very badly. She is in a different galaxy. Based on the meeting, no deal is much more likely than finding agreement.”

Saturday, March 11, 2017

How Canadian political elite extracts money from the private sector

By first throttling the private sector with manufactured regulations, red tape and taxes to trigger recession, then by offsetting the deflationary trend by lowering the interest rates, generating money and credit - benefiting through their own controlled banking  and public sector system!

 A normally inflationary effect of the government stimulus, is balanced by the apparently intentionally engineered contraction in the private sector , such that the net effect is the overall stable currency.   However the net effect on the economy is anything but balanced - since the people working in the private sector, end up somehow earning less and less while people employed (I intentionally didn't put "work") in the public sector get paid more and more.  Especially in the high echelons of government departments and in the management of state or semi-state corporations.  The lavish pay is not only limited to the higher management but to the mid-ranking staff.  As anybody living in Canada, sooner or later notices the six-figure salaries of the employed firefighters, police officers, and doctors.

This is basically the applied Keynesian economics at it worst.

Originally   Keynes postulated, among other things, that during a recession, the government ought to stimulate the economy by investing counter-cyclically, using state reserves or debt, during the time when private sector is contracting.  Conversely, during economic expansion, the government ought to accumulate budgetary surplus by collecting higher taxes which also works to slow down the growth but will then serve as the resource to re-stimulate the economy during the next down cycle.

Our present Canadian oligarchs have improved the Keynesian system.  First they must have noticed that the flow of stimulus money and credit during recessionary time, flows mostly through their own government controlled institutions, enriching their personnel and management first, subsequently it may trickles down to the rest of the economy, if there is anything left, including the private sector (if lucky).

The must have noticed that the biggest post-WWII expansion of the government+banking sector in Canada and in the USA occurred during 1970-ties - at a time of severe oil crisis and recession - for the reason stated above!

The corrupt elites probably realized that they do not necessary have to wait each cycle for a next recessionary downturn to enjoy an opportunity associated with the "stimulus",  but they could simply manufacture such occurrences bu manipulating interest rates and spewing the red tape!

How did it happen in the 1980-ties and 1990-ties that the investment capital begun flowing out of the North American economies into China and elsewhere, creating local unemployment and rendering the large portion of Canadian and American working class destitute?

     When private business cannot make a profit by investing in certain countries, they of course don't invest there, their capital simply moves elsewhere!    But the interesting question is not "why" but "who"!

 Who set up the dis-incentives in the private sector to slow all productive investments?  Who set up the red tape, tax structure, labor and environmental laws to make it difficult to conduct business here?

  Who really benefits from government-imposed carbon tax and government engineered energy disaster in Ontario (and Alberta) resulting in the highest electricity prices in North America!

I submit the thesis that the government elites did engineer the crises in the recent times, and they are the main beneficiaries of their policies, while everybody else has to pay higher taxes and earns less!

Stan Bleszynski

Saturday, November 19, 2016

Deflationary recession is now increasingly probable!

US bond yield has gone up by 50% in just 2 months reversing the long term trend!  This begun before  the recent US presidential election and is rapidly rising since the election, in the last couple of weeks.

The yield increase causes the financial asset values and the value of debt held as collateral - to decrease. This is highly deflationary! It can no longer be offset by "quantitative easing"(*) and any of the recently employed financial stimulation techniques, because injecting more cash into circulation causes the interest rates to increase or to decline less rapidly, which prevents the fixed assets and bond prices to recover or to reverse the declining trend. Providing a cash stimulus may even accelerate the banking and corporate collateral collapse by raising the interest rates and yields even further! On the other hand, the recently favored method of stimulating the large corporate economy by offering them cheap low interest credit might not work anymore (**) now that the interest rates have risen and the large corporate assets that can be used as the collateral for new loans - have declined in value!

The current global corporate economy has entered a classical two "poison pills" stage (***)! One "poison pill" being the corporate "globalism" - a credit-based corporate expansion (with austerity for everybody else), while the other "poison pill" being the financial stimulus policy of expanding the monetary mass. One "poison pill" solution neutralizes the effects of the other thus compelling the ruling elites to employ both of them alternatively resulting in the slower (but surer) decline as opposed to applying any one of the "solutions" alone which would lead to a rapid economic collapse!

Stan Bleszynski


(*) The reason monetary stimulus cannot reverse the current deflationary assets' collapse (though it may produce a localized price inflation for services, food and commodities) is that the global amount of fixed yield investment assets is about two orders of magnitude higher than the amount of monetary mass in circulation. Any increase in monetary mass attempting to push inflation and yields up would therefore be countered by strong deflationary decline of the fixed-yield assets held by corporations, investment funds and governments.

(**) Cheap credit offered at low interest rates, might still work for small property owners who unlike large corporations, are not yet fully credit-collateral-tapped-out! This would also prevent or would slow down the property collapse.

(***) I have seen this technique employed successfully for manipulating a victim into self-destruction that is very general and not limited to economy but used extensively in consumer marketing and other areas as well. It is based on promoting two equally destructive but opposing paths , products, ideologies or beliefs, with one countering the other. The victim is entrapped into pursuing them both switching alternatively from one to the other while spiraling into oblivion. To make this work, all choices other than those two have to be hidden from view or obfuscated. It is good to know about that what is hitting us, so that we can take precautions choosing something unpredictable and none of the above. 8-:)

Monday, November 14, 2016

Quote of the day

... racism is supposedly "attacked at its root" by social engineering premised on attitude manipulation and a causal original sin.
Agency and responsibility are turned away from attacking the racist dominance structure directly; by focusing on a false and ancillary "cause", by blaming the internal beliefs of some individuals instead of emphasizing the needed praxis of liberation of all individuals subjected to the dominance hierarchy.
What results is that the slaves fight among themselves to ensure that they are oppressed fairly. There is a focus on defining and enforcing inter-slave rules instead of supporting rebellion.
(By Denis G. Rancourt)

Friday, November 11, 2016

Simultaneous defeat of fake "democratic" and fake "republican" establishment

Good luck to our southern neighbors!   What's next for us?  I would love to see our non-Liberals, Regressive Conservatives and Archaic Democrats nicely voted out.  All together.

DEAR LIBERAL FRIENDS: We need to talk...

Sunday, September 25, 2016

Excessive industrial regulatory approvals - economic weapon of mass-destruction!

I wrote a note about it some time ago, see here .  It appears, the regulatory industrial product approval "game" is still spreading like a disease, worldwide, where the winners are certification consultants and the losers are everyone else.    It seems to be unstoppable except for some of the most eager adopters going out of business sooner than the rest of them, so there may be some hope.

The key-word here is "moderation".  Nobody advocates returning to the 19-th century industrial practices of producing unsafe consumer appliances such as  gasoline-fueled irons ("Burn Down Your House" model 1900) or "Coffe-Cutor" heater  .   But, in my humble opinion, things have gone too far following a general profitable (to them) tendency of our left-leaning decision makers and politicians to legislate all risk out of life.

Adoption of excessive regulatory certification is imposing a requirement to re-approve every product each  time one makes a model upgrade or a change.  This is resulting in increasing the cost of doing business in manufacturing!  Especially in the countries like Canada, US and Europe where the cost of doing business is already very high.  The natural response of management against rising costs is shifting production to cheaper countries, resulting in the loss of manufacturing jobs and stagnant economies with careers opportunities eventually limited to firefighters, cops and a certain old profession ...   8-:)

Friday, July 22, 2016

Why Peterborough Liberal MP Ms Monsef does not seem to respond or participate?

According to a Peterborough Examiner article:

Hunger strike continues at Central East Correctional Centre; activists press Monsef to end indefinite immigration detentions

 Updating Ms Monsef story  (24-Sep-2016)

 From the original article:

Globe and Mail:   Heralded as Canada's first Afghan-born MP, Maryam Monsef shocked to discover truth of roots

 It appears that the birth certificate of Ms Monsef that was used on her immigration Canada is not valid:

 Ms. Monsef says she only learned about her Iranian birthplace last Thursday when approached by The Globe and Mail, which had been making inquiries about how she came to Canada in 1996 when she was age 11.


 Her claim that the family fled Afghanistan's Taliban must be not entirely correct either. She was born in Iran in 1985, while Taliban was in Power between 1996 and 2001!
 ( )

 In 1985 Afghanistan was ruled by Soviet protege Babrak Karmal while an Islamic insurgency (pre-Taliban) supported by Americans was going on, quote:

 The Soviet war in Afghanistan resulted in the deaths of over 1 million Afghans, mostly civilians,[49][50][51] and the creation of about 6 million refugees who fled Afghanistan, mainly to Pakistan and Iran.[52] Faced with mounting international pressure and numerous casualties, the Soviets withdrew in 1989 but continued to support Afghan President Mohammad Najibullah until 1992.[53] 

 Her family was fleeing a pro Soviet state not Taliban! Pakistan was at that time pro-US, while Iran was anti-US. What is her family true origin? Iranian/Dari? Pashtu? Pakistani? Other? Why is Ms Monsef dribbling the small bits of facts about herself drop by drop rather than come up in full for the sake of truth? Why not?

Update 29-Sep-2016

Plot thickens.  It turns out this may not have been such a surprise, since some of her friends knew it all along.  How many more  lies inaccuracies are  going to be found?

(3-Oct-2016) It looks like the Trudeau's Liberal government is pursuing draconian deportation and revocation law with a vigor matching that of Mr. Harper's. Meanwhile our local Liberal representative appears to have done nothing to address this issue while she still could. That is until her own case came to the light.

Article (Peterborough Examiner 27-Sep-2016): "Peterborough-Kawartha MP Maryam Monsef could be stripped of citizenship without a hearing under existing laws"

... Monsef could be stripped of her citizenship without a hearing under a law the Liberals denounced while in opposition but which they’ve been enforcing aggressively since taking power, civil liberties and refugee lawyers say. ...

If Monsef’s birthplace was misrepresented on her refugee claim and was relevant to the ruling on her case, her citizenship could be revoked, regardless of whether it was an innocent mistake or the fault of her mother, said immigration lawyer Lorne Waldman. She could even be deported, said Waldman, part of a group that launched a constitutional challenge of the law Monday.

The Canadian Association of Refugee Lawyers and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association argue that the citizenship revocation law, known as Bill C-24, is procedurally unfair and a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Josh Paterson, the BCCLA’s executive director, said Monsef’s case demonstrates the absurdity of the law, which was passed by the previous Conservative government. "The minister’s situation ... is exactly the kind of situation that many other Canadians are facing right now because of this unjust process," Paterson told a news conference.
"When we get a parking ticket, we have a right to a court hearing ... You leave your garbage in the wrong place and you get a ticket, you have the right to a hearing and yet for citizens to lose their entitlement to membership in Canada based on allegations of something they may or may not have said 20 years ago, they have no hearing? It just doesn’t make any sense."

Nevertheless, repeated requests that the government stop enforcing the law until it can be changed have been ignored. As recently as two weeks ago, Paterson said Justice Department lawyers informed his group that the law would continue to be enforced.

Indeed, he said the Liberal government has been enforcing the law "aggressively," setting targets to strip 40 to 60 Canadians each month of their citizenship.

McCallum said Monday that the government is "certainly considering options for changes" in the law. He did not say why the government is enforcing it with such zeal in the meantime.

His department, meanwhile, denied that it imposes a target for the number of revocations each month. But it does have "performance standards targets" to ensure it has the resources to efficiently review and resolve cases.

According to the department, 206 individuals have been stripped of their citizenship since May 2015 - about 18 per month.

Waldman said he’ll be in court next month on a case similar to Monsef’s, in which "the government is seeking to revoke the citizenship of two children who came to Canada at a very young age, not because of anything they said but because their father allegedly misrepresented on his application for permanent residence."

"So even though the children are completely innocent ... the government is still going after the children, saying that because their father lied on his application, they should lose their citizenship and their permanent residence as well," Waldman said.

Monsef Watch Update (19-Jan-2017)

A photograph:

Strange non-responsivness to a seemingly trivial questions by a journalist: