After the events in Nice, some citizens justifiably complained about the failure of the security measures, in an event celebrating the National Day of France. Furthermore, some of them have announced that they were going to ask the courts to decide who and to what extent was guilty for these criminal "lapses" in the procedures and measures for ensuring people's safety in a public event, which was known and prepared months in advance!!! What was the reaction of the "state"? More specifically, of some of those wallowing in the luxury of the privileges offered by the high official institutions, starting with impotent Hollande himself? They got offended!!! How can that be, some lowly citizens daring to accuse Its Majesty, the State, of failing to honor its contractual obligations???!!! And to add insult to injury, the Internal Affairs minister has announced the subjects of the state of Freedom, Equality and Fraternity that from now on, they can expect events like the one in Nice all the time, events which the state won't be able to prevent in the future, just like it wasn't able to deal with them in the past, as a result of universal fatality!!! The same chilling wind has started blowing in Germany, as, in less than two weeks, there have been three events involving lethal violence in public. So what is the State doing? Sleeping on the job? Who cares about all the paperwork, plans, resolutions and stamps put on who knows what papers, when people are getting killed by bullets, axes or machetes, or by devastating explosions? It is clear that somebody, and not just some persons, but institutions of the state, if not the State itself, is seriously, criminally liable to its citizens!!! It seems the time has come for citizens to hold the state to account. To note the failure to meet the contractual obligations and to plan the restructuring of the institutions that we collectively call the State from the ground up.

 The "standard" model of coups organized by officers and failed is the Operation Valkyrie (Unternehmen Walkure), organized during WW2, to overthrow Hitler. The success or the failure of coups planned and executed by soldiers depends on successfully resolving three problems. The first is "concealment". Officers can't meet in secret in parks to plan a coup and they don't live for decades in foreign countries from where they are "dropped" in the country where they have to execute the coup! The solution always assumes the fact that the planning and staging activities of the coup are visible for the one whose removal from power is being sought, the supreme authority within the state, the supreme commander of the army, whether they are president or king. If the concealment of the coup doesn't work, then the military putsch will often fail in its embryo stage. In the case of Operation Valkyrie, the planning and organization was done under the pretense of a plan for exceptional situations, approved by Hitler himself, meant to prevent the loss of power under the pressure of a mass uprising of the population against the regime, due to the growing discontent and increasing sacrifices made in times of war, on the front as well as at home. It provided for the total transfer of the power in the hands of the reserve army, the legal dissolution and the dismantling of the other institutions of authority such as the SS or the Nazi party (NSDAP), the arrest of the leaders and the placing of the troops under the command of the commanders of military regions. The second condition is the quick removal of the head of state from the game, who legally holds authority over the army. Armies cannot function efficiently with divided loyalties. If the removal doesn't happen as soon as the coup starts, the odds of success fall proportionally, the longer the coup takes.

The 1943 version of the first public statement from the Valkyrie plan began with the words: "Fuhrer Adolf Hitler is dead" !!! In the real "movie" of the operation this item didn't work out, due to the failure of the attack of July 20th.

The eurozone economy grew by 0.6 percent in this year’s first four months, compared to 0.4 percent in last year’s final quarter. Growth is expected to continue this year, although at a lower pace.

Draghi stressed that it was “essential that the bank lending channel continues to function well” in the eurozone.  He said that non-performing loans (NPLs) - bad loans that weigh on banks' results - were a “significant problem for future profitability and for the capacity and the ability the banks have for lending."  The problem is acute in Italy, where banks are faced with up to €360 billion of bad debts. Draghi, a former governor of the Bank of Italy, said the Italian banks issue was “a big problem” that will take time to address.  He said the solution was to create a market to trade NPLs and that governments should pass legislation to foster its development.  He also suggested that public money could be used as a backstop “when in times of exceptional circumstances the NPL market is not well functioning” and to avoid fire sales.  He said the measure would be “useful” but should be agreed with the European Commission.

 He stopped short of saying a public backstop should be put in place to solve the Italian banking crisis. Eurozone politicians outside Italy have so far said this was not necessary.  Pressed to comment on the possibility that Spain and Portugal could be sanctioned by the EU for their excessive deficits, Draghi said the decision was “entirely in the hands of European Commission”.  The EU executive “has the responsibility, the power and the knowledge to take a decision,” he said.

The head of the International Monetary Fund, Christine Lagarde, will stand trial over a state payout to the French tycoon Bernard Tapie, an appeals court has ruled.  She is charged with negligence over the award to Mr Tapie of €404m ($445m; £339m) in 2008 when she was France's economy minister. Ms Lagarde had appealed against a lower court ruling from December. She is now expected to appear before a special court for government ministers.  The case stems from Mr Tapie's sale of his majority stake in the sports equipment company, Adidas, which was handled by the state-owned bank, Credit Lyonnais. The businessman sued for compensation after claiming he was defrauded by the bank and received too little from the sale in 1993.  Ms Lagarde was responsible for the rare decision to appoint an arbitration panel, rather than allowing the courts to decide on the dispute.  She served as economy minister when President Nicolas Sarkozy was in office. Mr Tapie was a supporter of Mr Sarkozy and there were allegations this may have played a role in her decision. She has always denied any wrongdoing, saying she acted in the interest of the state and with respect for the law.  After learning of the decision by France's highest appeals court, Ms Lagarde's lawyer, Patrick Maisonneuve, said he was convinced that the trial would show she was innocent. Reacting to the latest ruling, the IMF said the executive board continued to express confidence in her ability to carry out her duties and was being briefed on developments. Ms Lagarde, who was given a second five-year term as IMF managing director in January, is the third head of the organisation to face legal proceedings. For his part, Mr Tapie is currently appealing against a French court's decision to dismiss the settlement at the heart of the case.

President Francois Hollande has been trying throughout his term to reduce unemployment, long around 10 percent.  Left-wing rebels, who have already failed twice by just two votes in their bid to win a censorship motion against the bill, said they would make a last-ditch attempt to muster 60 signatures from MPs to seize France's Constitutional Council for "non respect of parliamentary debate" after the prime minister rushed through the law without a vote for the third time.  Despite the final vote, leftist unions insisted the fight to see the law scrapped - which has seen dozens of sometimes violent mass protests in recent months and blockades of fuel depots - will continue after a "summer pause". "The anger is still there. The government hasn't seen the end of this," said Philippe Martinez, whose CGT union has spearheaded militant opposition to the law. FO, another leftist union, said that the final debate on the law should have been postponed "for democratic reasons" given the "context linked to terror attacks and the debate going on in parliament on prolonging the state of emergency". The small and medium-sized businesses union, CGPME has dismissed the law, saying it "won't help in any way to create jobs". The larger employers' union Medef has called the reform "failed" as it watered down several key points but said it brings progresses in some areas. In a scathing editorial, Le Monde, the daily newspaper of reference, said the government had "pulled off the feat of turning this 'great social reform' into a fiasco" due to a "calamitous method" that has split the Left, the labour and employers' unions.

MUNICH, July 22 (Reuters) - Gunmen went on a shooting rampage in a shopping mall in the southern German city of Munich on Friday, killing and wounding many people, police said.  Authorities were evacuating people from the Olympia mall but many others were hiding inside. The Bavarian Interior Ministry said three people were dead, NTV television reported. A Munich police spokeswoman said multiple people were killed or wounded.  "We believe we are dealing with a shooting rampage," the spokeswoman said.  More than one gunman was believed to be involved and no one had been arrested, she said.  "We believe there was more than one perpetrator. The first reports came at 6 p.m., the shooting apparently began at a McDonald's in the shopping center. There are still people in the shopping center. We are trying to get the people out and take care of them."  Police special forces had arrived at the scene, NTV said.  It was not immediately clear who carried out the attack, which took place a week after an axe-wielding teenager went on a rampage on a German train. Islamic State claimed responsibility for that attack.

  In a banking system built on the foundation of money being created by banks through granting loans and fractional reserves, insolvency is the natural state of things.  In this context, the confidence of the depositors and the guarantees granted by the state, along with the permanent support of the central banks, represent essential conditions for the functioning of financial institutions. "The truth about banks" is the title of an article from the Finance & Development magazine of the IMF (author's note vol. 53, no. 1, March 2016), in which the authors, Michael Kumhof and Zoltan Jakab, write that "banks create new money when they grant loans, a phenomenon which can start and exacerbate financial crises".   Creating money out of thin air represents "a critical vulnerability of financial systems" for two reasons which have been known at least since the time of the Great Depression in the first half of the 20th century. First of all, "if banks are free to create money when they grant loans, then that amplifies the potential to create cyclical booms and busts, especially when banks mistakenly assess the debtors' repayment ability", according to the economists of the IMF.

In Theresa May, the British home secretary who is set to become the next prime minister of the UK on Wednesday (13 July), the EU will get a pragmatic, meticulous and tough negotiator, who is unlikely to rush into Brexit talks. The 59-year-old is likely to use the summer to hammer out a negotiating position for Britain to leave the EU.  May, who was a quiet supporter of the Remain camp, ruled out a second referendum in her leadership campaign and vowed to honour the British voters' choice of leaving the EU. “Brexit means Brexit and we’re going to make a success of it,” she said when she launched her leadership bid for the Conservative Party.  “There will be no attempts to remain inside the EU, no attempts to rejoin it by the back door, and no second referendum.” May is unlikely to bow to pressure from EU leaders to start negotiations by triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty any time soon. Until the procedure is officially launched, the UK remains in control of timing and can still be at the table of the EU as a full member. She might use the time to feel out what other leaders are ready to give to the UK, and build alliances among the remaining 27 members. The EU 27 will meet in September without the UK to discuss the EU's future, and May will be ushered into her first EU summit in late October.

EU leaders are likely to want to hear how she envisages the British exit and future relationships with the block.  May needs to navigate between more pragmatic states like Germany, Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands that would want to maintain strong trading ties with the UK, and others like Belgium and France that are likely to want to make an example out of Britain. Central and Eastern European states could be sympathetic to May, as they share the UK's view of the EU as a loose cooperation, not a federal state, but rights and benefits of their citizens living and working in the UK could mean trouble for the talks.  France's presidential election in May, and Germany's general election next autumn could complicate matters, as their leaders are likely to be grounded by election campaigns and would be less flexible in the negotiations.   May might want to delay launching Article 50 further into next year, not to have Brexit negotiations held hostage by the various campaigns.  British media reported that May could appoint Liam Fox, a previous contender for the Tory leadership, or David Davis, another senior Tory MP, both Brexiteers as lead negotiatiors for the talks with the EU.

Davis suggested in a blog post that triggering Article 50 should happen before or by the beginning of next year.

...anterior post ....continued...

The argument between the two heads of the dragon called the EU is the main hurdle to the transformations and reforms that the ones who have been hit by the wave of the Brexit vote. Aside from some cosmetic measures, if they even do get taken, most likely the EU will forget the need to bring up again a constitutional project that would end the institutional aberrations, the massive democratic shortcomings, the huge waste of funds and the inability to decide precisely on the most serious issues that need to be resolved, from the energy policies, to security and financial and budgetary ones, all the way to those that concern the control of individual movement in the EU space, whether it is the control of borders, legal or illegal immigration or professional mobility caused by the dynamic of the workforce.  There is no doubt, the EU should learn something, with both of its heads: "Or first of all, history teaches us that a people that doesn't move forwards is standing still, in fact it is going backwards, that the law of progress is like that, the quicker you move, the farther you get." But I am afraid that not even one of the heads of the EU will get to that wisdom on its own, and if they do, they'll fail to agree on how to use it. Just like the Brits who one day found themselves that not only are they not going forward, but they're actually going backwards!!! 

The European Union resembles to a disturbing degree that unfortunate two headed dragon, that can't agree on any decision, or action to take: one head is the government factor and it is represented by the leaders of the member countries united in a Council, or who negotiate, discuss and even decide before getting to the official meetings; the other head is made up of the big bureaucracy in Brussels, whose top representative is the European Commission. The first reactions to the Brexit?? The government "head", through the voice of Mrs. Merkel used a very "soft" tone, has hinted, that the issue should not be approached hastily, that no one should lift the stone to throw it, that the essence of the Brexit exercise, in an almost biblical sense, shouldn't be the "death of the sinner", but their redemption, if possible, and if not, at least maintaining a relationship that is as cordial as possible, and of course, mutually beneficial. Roughly speaking, Germany has commercial exchanges of approximately 60 billion Euros, in direct commercial exchanges with the United Kingdom alone!!! To avoid making it look like it was siding with the British, by in fact defending its own interests, it changed its tune at the meeting with France and Italy and went with a sterner statement, which doesn't matter anyway: we are not going to negotiate anything with the British, neither formally, nor informally, until they submit their official request to exit the EU and they'd better hurry!!! The other head of the dragon breathed fire! Even through the "nostrils" of the President of the Commission, Claude Junker, the minute the results of the referendum in the UK were announced. The warlike message was: when it comes to the exit process, no one should expect a rain of rose petals. It will be full of thorns, unpleasant and very costly. This message has two goals. One is the attempt of the bureaucracy in Brussels to nip in the bud any other potential deserters who would think that the exit from the EU might a be a pleasant walk in the park! No it is not, it is a ride through the beast infested forest! And the exit leads into a precipice! The second target is the other head of the dragon, the governmental one. It should forget the soft approaches and do what they have to do, meaning breathe fire and burn things. Or else, it runs the risk of having the world think they are dinosaurs and just like dinosaurs evolved into birds, they will turn into chicken over time, like dinosaurs devolved into birds, that anybody can just place in a pot and boil!

The Hungarian referendum is not legally binding.  A European Commission spokeswoman told this website that the “decision making process agreed to by all EU member states and as enshrined in the treaties” would “remain the same” no matter how people voted in October.  But Zoltan Kovacs, the Orban government spokesman recently told journalists in Brussels, that the outcome of the vote “cannot be disregarded by the European Commission”. “The political implications are going to be considerable,” he added.  Slovak prime minister Robert Fico, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the EU, also told press on Wednesday (6 June) that every EU leader has a sovereign right to call a referendum. He warned that if the EU does not reform itself swiftly enough, member states, backed by angry societies, could start to pick and unpick EU policies.

“My fear is that if over the next five to six months we are not successful in finding a solution for the functioning of the EU, then there would be an increasing … possibility of referendums in different areas,” Fico said.

Hungary’s referendum aims to steer EU migration policy away from mandatory quotas and to bolster the government’s domestic support, but its political consequences could be more far-reaching.

Hungary announced Tuesday (5 June) that it would hold its referendum on migration on 2 October. “The government is asking the people of Hungary to say no to mandatory relocation and to Brussels’ immigration policy”, Antal Rogan, prime minister Viktor Orban's cabinet chief, said.

The plebiscite was first announced in February, with a government-financed campaign that started in May pasting billboards up and down the country that said: “We are sending a message to Brussels, so that they understand it too”.  Emboldened by the Brexit referendum and by the Dutch vote on Ukraine, Orban is hoping that his referendum will make him more powerful both in Europe and at home.  The question to be put to the 8 million Hungarian voters, 50 percent of whom have to show up at the ballot boxes for the outcome to be valid, asks: “Do you want the European Union to be entitled to prescribe the mandatory settlement of non-Hungarian citizens in Hungary without the consent of parliament?”.  It refers to a European Commission proposal on the reform of the EU asylum system that includes permanent quotas for distributing refugees based on member states’ size and wealth.

A previous EU decision on a one-off mandatory quota to help Greece and Italy is being challenged by Hungary and by Slovakia, the current EU presidency, at the EU court in Luxembourg.

France has suggested it is prepared to reach a deal to allow Britain to limit free movement of EU migrants while retaining access to the Single Market.  Michel Sapin, France’s finance minister, said that “everything is on the table” as he appeared to break ranks with the rest of the European Union.  Until now European leaders have insisted that Britain must continue to let in EU migrants if it wants to enjoy the benefits of free trade.  But Mr Sapin told BBC Two’s Newsnight on Wednesday night: “Everything will be on the table because Britain will make proposals, and we will negotiate all these aspects with a desire to come to an agreement.  “Britain won’t be in the same position as it was beforehand. Things will change. Things have already changed. We return to zero. As we say in France, a clean slate.  “When we negotiate with a country, a third party, Norway, Switzerland to take countries that are very close, we discuss all subjects: under what conditions there is freedom of movement of people; freedom of movement of goods; of capital.  “That is something that is very important for the UK with all the questions about financial services. So we discuss everything.”

 The comments represent a significant boost to Britain. Earlier this week, Mr Cameron attempted to lay the groundwork for Brexit negotiations by warning European leaders that they will have to reform free movement if Britain is to retain close economic ties with the continent.  In his final meeting with EU leaders before standing down as Prime Minister, Mr Cameron claimed that British voters backed a Brexit because people believe the country has “no control” of its borders.

The real reason for the ongoing trouble in the European Union, including the recent vote by the British people to leave the bloc, is that the EU is bankrupt. We know in retrospect that the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union was the real reason the Warsaw pact fell apart, with Poland acting as the first domino. For the same reason, we can predict England was the first domino in the collapse of the European Union.  The emerging consensus view is, as Pentagon analysts put it, “Brexit may lead to Frexit (French exit), the collapse of banks, populism, nationalism and anti-globalism.” This is also likely lead to an end to Khazarian mafia sponsored Muslim immigration. The situation in France has already become so chaotic that French police say they are becoming too exhausted to deal with the daily, violent demonstrations taking place throughout the country. French President Francois Hollande, who has only 11% public support, is trying to ban demonstrations but it is hard to see who will enforce his “ban.” In other words, France is headed for revolution.  “This is the worst period I recall, there is nothing like it,” is how former Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan described the general situation and the market chaos that followed the Brexit vote.

The European Council has offered a narrow window, saying that Britain has not left until Article 50 is activated formally by the Prime Minister, “if it is indeed the intention of the British government.” Mr Cameron has left it to his successor to activate it. Mrs Merkel is in no hurry. Senior EU sources say they can wait until Christmas, but prevarication would trash Britain's credit-worthiness. There are two problems. Firstly, to not activate Article 50 would be a rejection of democracy on a scale that could only be described as a coup, and would poison British public life for generations.

Secondly, a wave of movements demanding referendums on the terms of membership, given a huge boost by Mr Cameron, is tearing across Europe – in France, Denmark, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Italy, Hungary.  Marine Le Pen could will run rampant in French elections in the spring.

Leaders anticipated that Boris Johnson would pursue a 'vote leave for a better deal' strategy, and ruled it out from February, precisely to prevent this scenario.  Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday: “The repercussions of the British referendum could quickly put a stop to such crass rabble-rousing, as it should soon become clear that the UK was better off inside the EU.” Britain simply has to go, on bad terms, pour encourager les autres.

As far as Brussels is concerned, Britain has left.  At home on Friday morning, Britons were dumbstruck, agog at the result, or chuffed at having taught Brussels a lesson.  We now see street protests to overturn the result, internet petitions, suggestions that the UK or Scottish Parliament could revoke it or somehow make it go away. Westminster is occupied by Labour coups and Tory successions. Few seem to believe we are going.   In Brussels, they have been ready to say goodbye for a long time. Britain had been half-way out the door for forty years. David Cameron had announced this referendum in January 2013. He had won an election on the back of it, and many expected him to lose it. He, and they, repeated many times that it was final and binding. Patience is exhausted.  On Friday there was grave sadness, but no panic. The timetable for the talks was announced days before the vote. Martin Schulz, the president of the Parliament, spoke at dawn; Donald Tusk, the president of the Council, delivered a statement at 07.40 GMT. The founding members' foreign ministers met on Saturday; sherpas for the 27 remaining states will meet today to sketch out the months ahead.  Leaders have demanded Article 50 is activated immediately, to create certainty. Realistically, Mr Cameron has until Christmas.

Although inflation in Italy has slowed to next to nothing, it is still saddled with the effects of earlier inflation and so is uncompetitive. What the advent of the euro has done to Italy – and also to several other countries – is to impose Germanic values in one sphere while having very little effect on performance in most others. It is the combination of Germanic money and Italian practices that is so devastating.  One clear lesson from this is that the EU is far from being the only factor affecting economic performance in Europe. Within the EU, it is possible to do things relatively well, and it is also possible to do things relatively badly. (The same is true for countries outside the EU.) But the Italian experience also makes it clear that the various things the EU supposedly does to improve economic performance aren’t worth very much. Yes, Italy is in the single market and enjoys all the much-vaunted advantages of that arrangement: it has a seat at the table when regulations and standards are framed; these rules apply both in Italy and across the single market; no customs forms are needed when Italian goods head northward; no tariffs are encountered.  Similarly, when Italian goods and services are sold to other eurozone countries there are no problems about exchange rate uncertainty or the cost of changing money. Yet Italy has not been carried forward on a wave of prosperity brought about by the absence of form-filling at borders and the convenience of operating in a common currency. Funny that. It may have had some very successful companies, but Italy has rarely been blessed with stable and effective government. This is why Italy has traditionally been an extremely europhile country. Most Italians felt quite relaxed about Rome ceding power to Brussels. But now, in reaction to recent appalling economic performance, coupled with the EU’s imposition of an unelected “technocratic” prime minister in 2011, more and more Italians are thinking radically about the future. In a recent opinion poll, 58pc of Italians said they wanted a referendum on EU membership and 48pc said that they would vote to leave the EU.  Leaving the euro would be a good start. If the new lira dropped by 20pc-30pc, as it probably would, within a couple of years Italy would be enjoying an export boom as it retook market share from other countries, mostly in Europe. The result would be a resumption of decent economic growth and a fall in unemployment.  Come to think of it, is that a key reason why many business leaders in the countries to the north are pretty keen to keep Italy in?

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier says the EU must not fall into "depression and paralysis" after the UK voted to leave the bloc.  He made the comments arriving for an urgent meeting of the six EU founder members to discuss the decision.  They will consider the process and speed of Britain's exit, and are also likely to discuss how to dissuade others from doing the same.  Britain's Prime Minister David Cameron has said he will step down by October.  The six countries attending the talks in Berlin - Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands - first joined forces in the 1950s and still form the core of the EU.  The first summit of EU leaders with no British representation will be held on Wednesday. The EU has urged the UK to start negotiations to leave quickly.  European Commission head Jean-Claude Juncker stressed the "Union of the remaining 27 members will continue".  Global stock markets fell heavily on the news of the so-called "Brexit", where the UK voted by 52% to 48% to leave the EU. The value of the pound has also fallen dramatically.

Here is a longer extract from Nigel Farage's controversial 'victory' speech:  "If the predications now are right this will be a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people. We have fought against the multinationals, against the big merchant banks, against big politics, against lies against lies, corruption and deceit and today honesty and decency and belief in nation I think now is going to win.  We will have done it without having to fight, without a single bullet having been fired.  I hope this victory brings down this failed projects and brings us to a Europe of sovereign nation states trading together.  Let June the 23rd go down in our history as our independence day."

For Britain, the dangers of Brexit are not immediate. They are hazily distant and they have been well-rehearsed in this campaign. If a post-Brexit government fails to offer a credible trade and finance policy, Britain could lose its global footing and slide into decline, like the Dutch in the 18th Century. My preference is the European Economic Area, the Norwegian option, a temporary way-station to retain unfettered access to the EU market and 'passporting' rights for the City. It is a withdrawal in safe stages, with all the compromises that this entails.  Remainers warn that the EU might block this. Some even claim that it would have to crush a post-Brexit Britain as a demonstration to prevent others breaking loose. There would be no kid gloves for "deserters" in the telling words of Jean-Claude Juncker, the Commission chief.  But to argue such a case is to imply that the EU can be held together only by coercion, like the British, French, Spanish, and Russian empires in their day. It is to suggest that the EU is a prison, and if that were the case the project could not possibly have any future...

Mr Lacey made his claim about the Queen questioning dinner guests in a blog for the Daily Beast website.  He told The Telegraph: "She asked the question in the context of a general debate - she loves a bit of forthright discussion and this sort of remark is tossed around the dinner table like a ping pong ball. That is the way she frames her questions."  A spokesman for Buckingham Palace said: "We would not comment on private conversations the Queen may or may not have had, but the Queen is above politics, has remained politically neutral for the 64 years of her reign and we are very clear that the EU referendum is a matter for the British people."