Carola Rothchild (Warburg)

Birthdate: January 3, 1896  (91)

Birthplace:  New Yorj, NY, USA

Death: August 29, 1987 (91)

Katonah, Bedford, Westchester County, NY, USA

Immediate Family:  Daughter of Felix Mortitz Warburg and Freida Faanny Warburg

Wife of Walter Nathan Rothchild,

Mother of:  Carol Noyes, Bradford; Walter Nathan Rothchild, Jr. and Phyllis Frederica Farley, Peters

Sister of: Frederick Marcus MWarburg; Gerald Felix Warburg; Paul Felix Solomon Warburg and Edward Mortimer Morris Watburg.

Handy​ Easy Email and World News Links
​GoogleSearch  bahai.org   Facebook   Twitter   YahooMail   HotMail  GMail   AOLMail  USAMAIL  MyWayEmail  AustralianDailyNews   wikipedia.org    WikiLeaks  INLNews    AWNNews    EuropeanNews    nytimes.com

RussianNews-themoscowtimes.com RussiaBeyond   Australia_.ABC  USAToday  guardian.com/international

​​BBCNews  TheTimesUK   WashingtonPostNews    WashingtonTimesNews     CNNWorld   SMH,com.au 

Natalie Kenway
May 28 2019 7:17 AM

The Brexit Party has triumphed in the European elections, sending panic through already split Conservative and Labour parties. 
In the UK, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party took 31% off the vote — far ahead of any other party — and won 29 seats.
The newly resurgent - and pro-EU - Liberal Democrats took the second highest share with 19.6%, followed by Labour (13.6%), Green Party (11.8%), and Conservatives coming in fifth with 8.8% share of the votes.
The European elections, which had the UK’s second-highest turnout at 37% reported the Financial Times, have ripped the two mainstream parties further apart over Brexit, making it even less likely they will ever agree to Theresa May’s compromise deal.
There are now nine Tory MPs in the running for the role of leader of the Conservative Party, and Prime Minister, with Boris Johnson endorsing a no-deal exit if no better deal were on offer, while Jeremy Hunt has said a no-deal would be "political suicide".
 Natalie Kenway


May 24 2019 1:22 PM
 Charles Hepworth, Investment Director at GAM, said:
“As Theresa May’s immovable Brexit plan finally collides with the unstoppable force of Parliament and its voting arithmetic, her resilience has finally waned. Her resignation in two weeks’ time means that she will have held office for just a few days longer than Gordon Brown and her failure to deliver on the Conservative party’s Brexit promise means that we must now face the likelihood of a hard Brexiteer successor as PM – with odds on Boris Johnson as the most likely candidate.
“The Pound Sterling has already discounted this to some degree, falling to levels seen in the immediate aftermath of the referendum in 2016 - and the decline is almost entirely due to the lingering effects of economic slowdown and the increased likelihood of a no-deal Brexit.  However, the outcome has not been entirely accounted for, as whoever wins the Tory leadership race will still have to force their Brexit vision through an unwilling parliament and so the obscurity around Brexit continues.
“These obstacles mean that Sterling is likely to come under further pressure and the UK economy can be expected to slow as the political landscape remains impossible to predict.”
 Natalie Kenway

May 24 2019 12:23 PM
Azad Zangana, senior European economist and strategist at Schroders, warns of recession risk following the Prime Minister's resignation:
Hard-line Brexiteer [Boris Johnson] may look to take the UK out of the European Union (EU) without a deal, despite Parliament voting in favour of essentially removing the option. He could do this by failing to comply with the EU's demands that the UK should continue to follow the rules. This presumably would lead to the EU agreeing to terminate the relationship in October.
If this were to happen, we would anticipate the economy to slow and fall into recession around the turn of the year. While the Bank of England would probably cut interest rates eventually, the expected depreciation in the pound would cause inflation to spike. The household sector has already run down its safety buffer in the form of its savings rate, therefore a contraction in demand is very likely.
beth.brearley

May 24 2019 11:21 AM
Adrian Lowcock, head of personal investing, Willis Owen, commented:
“The new Prime Minister will need to convince the EU to re-open negotiations, and if they don’t succeed then they face the same challenge May did – getting a bad deal or no deal through Parliament.
“The possibility of a general election later in the year will rise and markets will need to consider the potential of a Corbyn-led government. So the uncertainty is set to continue for much of this year and during that time international investors are likely to sit on the sidelines and await some clarity.
“For UK investors, patience is critical. While Brexit and political games occupy the news, UK markets are going to remain under pressure; but once these issues are resolved the focus can shift onto the reasonably healthy economy and  international investors will return as the valuations of UK equities are currently attractive.
Natalie Kenway

May 24 2019 10:48 AM
Saker Nusseibeh, chief executive at Hermes Investment Management, said:
“Sadly, there was an inevitability to this end. We are, however, no nearer to an end of this uncertainty with the fabric of British politics shredded by the emotive debate over the past three years and the balance of negotiating power between the UK and the EU unchanged. What is clear is that Westminster has a long hard road ahead of it to restore its reputation with the majority of voters and the country clearly needs leadership that heals its divisions.”
Natalie Kenway

Amber Rudd MP✔@AmberRuddHR
 May 24, 2019
The Prime Minister has shown great courage.
She is a public servant who did all she could to bring Brexit to a resolution.
Her sense of duty is something everyone should admire and aspire to.
Amber Rudd MP✔@AmberRuddHR
As a Party we must come together to make a success of the next phase of our Party’s great story.
Brexit is a process and compromise is needed to pass a Deal that works for everyone.
We must show we can lead this great country to the strong future that I know we can deliver.
10:19 AM - May 24, 2019

May 24 2019 10:20 AM
You can view Theresa May's full resignation speech by clicking here
https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1131848450411077632
Natalie Kenway

Brexit Consequences for the U.K., the EU, and the United States
Parliament Voted Down the Brexit Plan. Now What?
BY KIMBERLY AMADEO   May 30, 2019
https://www.thebalance.com/brexit-consequences-4062999

Note:
The U.K. will pay a 50.7 billion euro "divorce bill." It fulfills any remaining financial commitments.
 
Important:
Brexit's biggest disadvantage is that it's slowing the U.K.'s economic growth. Most of this has been due to the uncertainty surrounding the final outcome.

Important:
Trade and travel on the island of Ireland would become more complicated under a no-deal Brexit.

Note: Brexit dampens business growth for companies that operate in Europe. U.S. businesses are the most significant investors in Great Britain.

Note: Most of the pro-Brexit voters were older, working-class residents of England's countryside. They were afraid of the free movement of immigrants and refugees.

Brexit is the June 23, 2016, referendum where the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. The residents decided that the benefits of belonging to the unified monetary body no longer outweighed the costs of free movement of immigration. Brexit is the nickname for "British exit" from the EU. The vote was 17.4 million in favor of leaving versus 15.1 million voting to remain.

On March 29, 2017, the U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May submitted the Article 50 withdrawal notification to the EU. It gave the U.K. and EU until March 29, 2019, to negotiate an agreement. The EU has extended that deadline to October 31, 2019.

In summary, the Brexit vote imposed these three hard choices on the U.K.:

1. Keep May's deal or one similar to it. The U.K. doesn't have the economic clout to negotiate a better one. Many in Parliament vehemently disagree with that assessment.

2. Leave with no deal, known as "no deal Brexit." Many of May's opponents favor this outcome. But without a trade agreement, ports would be blocked and airlines grounded. In no time, imported food and drugs would run short. Since the deadline is drawing near, many companies are preparing for this outcome. The opposition Labour party leader said he won't meet with May unless she takes the "no deal Brexit" off the table.

3.Vote again on Brexit. Some of May's opponents want to remain in the EU. Polls show the U.K. would reject Brexit if the referendum were held today. They argue that voters did not understand the economic hardships that Brexit would impose. On December 10, the European Court of Justice ruledthat the U.K. could revoke its Brexit application unilaterally. No other EU body is needed to approve the withdrawal.

The Wall Street Journal analyzed a total of nine possible outcomes.


Current Status
On March 29, 2019, Parliament voted against Prime Minister May's Brexit deal for the third time. May had negotiated the 21-month transition plan with the EU on March 19, 2018. A fourth vote is scheduled for the week of June 3, 2019.
Ms. May announced she would announce her resignation plans after the vote. There are no assurances that May's replacement could unite a bitterly divided Parliament.
Some of May's opponents within her Conservative party won't be happy until they get rid of her and negotiate a "hard Brexit." That means leaving the EU with no restrictions other than a new free trade agreement.

Some members of the opposing Labour party are calling for another referendum. They don't want the U.K. to leave the EU at all. Some other members of Labour want a modified deal that keeps the U.K. in the EU market and accepts immigrants.
Support for a new referendum is growing. An online petition gathered 4 million signatures. On March 23, a "No Brexit" rally projected attendance of 1 million demonstrators.

On April 3, Parliament approved the Cooper Bill. It makes a no-deal Brexit illegal. That could make a second referendum necessary to break the gridlock in Parliament and buy more time from the EU.
But many businesses are still planning for a no-deal Brexit. On February 11, 2019, the U.K. signed a bilateral trade agreement with Switzerland to avoid tariffs in case of a "no deal Brexit."

Brexit Plan Summary
The agreement May negotiated has two parts. One is the binding withdrawal agreement. The other is a non-binding set of principles to guide future negotiations.

Under the plan, the U.K. remains within a "customs union" with the EU for an unspecified period. This continues the trade that both parties wanted. The two sides will not impose tariffs on each other's imports. They are free to tax imports from other countries. Critics want the freedom to negotiate separate trade deals with other countries.
The U.K. retains complete access to capital. The 3 million European nationalsliving in the U.K. can continue to live and work in the country without work visas. The 1.3 million U.K. citizens can continue to do the same in the EU.

The U.K. would also abide by the European Court of Judgment and EU laws. But, since it's no longer a member of the EU, the U.K. can no longer vote on the laws. That is similar to Norway's relationship with the EU. But critics oppose this arrangement.
Since the U.K. remains in the EU customs union, it prevents a "hard border" between northern and southern Ireland. Northern Ireland is part of the U.K. and southern Ireland is an independent country and a member of the EU. Until 1998, this was a militarized border due to sectarian violence that left more than 3,500 people dead.

But once the transitional period is over, this issue must again be confronted. The U.K. could only leave the customs union if it negotiates a trade agreement with the EU that eliminates border controls in Ireland. It might also find a technological solution that avoids border infrastructure.

The deal is similar to the "Jersey deal" offered by the European Council on August 9, 2018. The deal would keep the U.K. in the single market for trade while allowing it to restrict immigrants. In return, the U.K. must abide by all EU environmental, social, and customs rules. The deal is what the British dependency of Jersey already has. It would avoid borders between Northern Ireland and the U.K. or Ireland.

If the deal had been approved by Parliament, then the U.K. and EU would draft a detailed trade declaration. Another EU summit would rule on that declaration. Any plan must then be approved by the European Council, the 20 EU countries with 65% of the population, and the European and U.K. Parliaments.

Once those major hurdles were overcome, then the U.K. would copy the EU laws into its laws, which can later be amended or repealed.

Consequences of the Deal for the U.K.
May's plan did not allow the U.K. to prohibit the free flow of people from the EU. That was the primary reason people voted for Brexit. They were concerned about an increase in refugees from Africa and the Middle East. 

Uncertainty over Brexit slowed the U.K.'s growth to 1.3% in 2018. U.K.'s Treasury Chief Philip Hammond reported that it would slow to 1.9% in 2019 and 1.6% in 2020. A resolution should allow the economy to improve to 2% in 2019.
Bank of America is spending $400 million to transfer its European headquarters to Dublin. EasyJet, the U.K.’s largest airline, is transferring ownership to non-British Europeans. The British pound is 14% lower than before the referendum. That helps exports but increases the prices of imports. The pound would strengthen if a deal is approved.
Critics of May's plan said the U.K. must still follow EU guidelines and pay EU exit fees. But, since it's no longer a member, it won't be able to vote on those guidelines.

Consequences of a Hard Brexit
A hard Brexit without a trade agreement would eliminate Britain's tariff-free trade status with the other EU members. Tariffs would raise the cost of exports. That would hurt exporters as their goods became higher-priced in Europe.

Even with a trade agreement, a hard Brexit could be disastrous for The City, the U.K.'s financial center. Companies would no longer use it as an English-speaking entry into the EU economy. The City of London reported that 5,000 jobs could be lost. That could lead to a real estate collapse. There are many new office buildings under construction that would sit empty. Housing priceshave already started to fall. Many businesses have already left. The City's reputation as a bastion for business is permanently damaged.
The United Kingdom would lose the advantages of the EU’s state-of-the-art technologies. The EU grants these to its members in environmental protection, research and development, and energy. 
Also, U.K. companies could lose the ability to bid on public contracts in any EU country. These are open to bidders from any member country. The most significant loss to London is in services, especially banking. Practitioners would lose the ability to operate in all member countries. A hard Brexit could raise the cost of airfares, the internet, and even phone services.

A hard Brexit would hurt Britain's younger workers. Germany is projected to have a labor shortage of 2 million workers by 2030. Those jobs will no longer be as readily available to the U.K.'s workers after Brexit.
London is already losing many nurses and other health care professionals. In the year following the referendum, almost 10,000 quit. The number of nurses from Europe registering to practice in Britain has dropped by almost 90%.
Under a hard Brexit, the U.K. could lose Scotland. It could join the EU on its own, as some countries within the kingdom of Denmark have. It may even have a referendum to leave the United Kingdom. 

Consequences of a No Deal Brexit
The most likely scenario is that nothing happens before the April 2019 deadline. In that case, the U.K. would no longer be a member of the EU, and it would have no trade agreement. It would have all of the disadvantages of a hard Brexit and there would be no trade agreement.

Britain would have to pay its outstanding EU bills of $51 billion. It would have to find a way to guarantee rights to EU citizens living in the U.K.

Custom delays could create food shortages. The U.K. is vulnerable because an extreme heat wave and summer drought caused by global warming have already reduced food output.

Tariffs would be reimposed. They are as high as 74% for tobacco, 22% for orange juice, and 10% for automobiles. That would hurt exporters. Some of that pain would be offset by a weaker pound.

Tariffs would increase prices of imports into the U.K. One-third of its foodcomes from the EU. Higher import prices would create inflation and lower the standard of living for U.K. residents.

Northern Ireland would remain with the United Kingdom. The country of Ireland, with which it shares a border, would stay a part of the EU. A no-deal Brexit would create a customs border between the two.
This could reignite The Troubles. It was a 30-year conflict in Northern Ireland between mainly Catholic Irish nationalists and pro-British Protestants. In 1998, it ended with the promise of no border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. It would also force 35,000 commuters to go through customs on their way to and from work. Some of those in Northern Ireland who want to remain in the EU could call for a referendum to rejoin the country of Ireland.
Prime Minister May has rejected the EU proposal that there be a customs border between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The United Kingdom is Ireland's second-biggest export destination. But under a no-deal Brexit, she would have no choice.

Consequences for the EU

The Brexit vote has strengthened anti-immigration parties throughout Europe. As a result, Germany's Chancellor Merkel has already announced she will not run for re-election. If these parties gain enough ground in France and Germany, they could force an anti-EU vote. If either of those countries left, the EU would lose its most robust economies and would dissolve.
On the other hand, new polls show that many in Europe feel a new cohesiveness. The U.K. often voted against many EU policies that other members supported. International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde said, “The years are over when Europe cannot follow a course because the British will object.” She added, “Now the British are going, Europe can find a new elan.” 

Consequences for the United States

The day after the Brexit vote, the Dow fell 610.32 points. Currency markets were also in turmoil. The euro fell 2% to $1.11. The pound fell. Both increased the value of the dollar. That strength is not good for U.S. stock markets. It makes American shares more expensive for foreign investors. As a result, gold prices rose 6% from $1,255 to $1,330. 

A weak pound also makes U.S. exports to the U.K. more expensive. It affects the U.S. farming and manufacturing sectors. The U.K. is America's fourth-largest export market.
U.S. companies invested $588 billion and employed more than a million people. These companies use it as the gateway to free trade with the 28 EU nations. Many have opened subsidiaries elsewhere in Europe to protect against a hard Brexit or no deal.
Britain's investment in the United States is at the same level. That could impact up to 2 million U.S./British jobs. It's unknown exactly how many are held by U.S. citizens. The uncertainty over their future will dampen growth. 
Brexit is a vote against globalization. It takes the United Kingdom off the main stage of the financial world. It creates uncertainty throughout the U.K. as The City seeks to keep its international clients. U.S. stability means London's loss could be New York's gain.  

Causes
In June 2016, Former Prime Minister David Cameron called for the referendum. He wanted to silence pro-Brexit opponents within his Conservative party. He thought the referendum would resolve the issue in his favor. Unfortunately for him, the anti-immigration and anti-EU arguments won.
They felt that EU membership was changing their national identity. They didn't like the budgetary constraints and regulations the EU imposed. They didn't see how the free movement of capital and trade with the EU benefited them. 
Younger voters and those in London, Scotland, and Northern Ireland wanted to stay in the EU. They were outnumbered by older voters who turned out in droves. 

Little Britain? The UK loses its mojo in Washington
Close observers say Britain’s influence in Washington is at a low point.
By NAHAL TOOSI    5/30/19, 
https://www.politico.eu/article/little-britain-the-uk-loses-its-mojo-in-washington-donald-trump-theresa-may-brexit-special-relationship/  
“Trump is always looking for leverage” — Former British Embassy staffer

"You talk to the Brits, but you don’t expect a lot because they’re so tied up in their own drama” — former Pentagon official Derek Chollet

“Insufficient security will impede the United States’ ability to share certain information within trusted networks” — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

“Insufficient security will impede the United States’ ability to share certain information within trusted networks” — U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo

WASHINGTON — When he visited Britain last year, President Donald Trump nodded to the venerable “special relationship" between the United States and the United Kingdom. "Our bond is like no other,” he proclaimed.
But as he prepares for his first state visit to the longtime ally next week, close observers say Britain’s influence in Washington is at a low point, suffering from a long-term decline accelerated by the one-two punch of Brexit and the election of Trump, whose actions have done more to harm the relationship than his words may suggest.
On the military front, Britain is arguably less important to the United States than in years past, as its armed forces have shrunk and France has stepped up to catch wandering American eyes. On economics, the Trump administration is already pushing a hard-line stance ahead of potential negotiations for a trade deal that would take effect once Britain leaves the European Union. Even the two countries’ famously close intelligence relationship is hitting obstacles as Trump aides threaten to withhold secrets if Britain doesn’t bar the Chinese firm Huawei from building its cellular networks.

Diplomats say that despite his occasional oratorical assurances, Trump himself appears to care little for the countries’ “special relationship” or international alliances in general. He has accused Britain of spying on his presidential campaign and undermined outgoing British Prime Minister Theresa May in interviews and on Twitter, essentially endorsing one of May’s critics for her post and questioning her efforts to engineer a proper Brexit.
“At no moment has the fact of being an ally in any way prevented Trump from trying to twist the arm of the other side,” said Gérard Araud, until recently the French ambassador to the United States. “The special relationship was more special on the British side than the American side.”

The state of the relationship will face intense scrutiny next week, when Trump travels to Britain for his official state visit. The visit, which the British promised early on in Trump’s tenure, was once seen as a chance to reaffirm the countries’ bond, but the pomp and circumstance-filled event is likely to instead expose the spreading cracks.
Trump will land in Britain amid chaos. May is due to quit her post within days of Trump’s departure, she has no clear successor and British politicians have been unable to settle on a plan to leave the EU. The British are wary that Trump will wade into the fractious debate, perhaps endorsing Brexit hard-liner Boris Johnson to replace May, or even meeting with Nigel Farage, leader of the populist Brexit Party.

During Trump’s trip to the U.K. last year, dubbed a “working visit,” London erupted with demonstrations, generating lasting images of a giant diapered and screaming baby Trump balloon. Protests are expected this time, too.
The British Embassy did not offer anyone for comment, while the White House pointed to Trump’s past comments praising the British-U.K. relationship. But a former staffer at the British Embassy in D.C. told POLITICO that the main change in the “special relationship” is simple — Trump.

“Trump is always looking for leverage,” the former staffer complained.

A White House official pushed back on the characterization.
“The special relationship between the United States and the United Kingdom is fundamental to our shared security and prosperity,” the official said. “The United States has no closer partner than the U.K.”

On trade, Trump and his aides have shown no inclination to offer favorable terms to London, which is desperate to strike a bilateral deal with Washington once it leaves the EU.
The Trump administration is already pursuing tough terms sure to be deeply unpopular in Britain. For instance, the U.S. wants the British to drop restrictions on GMOs — genetically modified foods — and chlorine-washed chicken products. Such restrictions currently align the U.K. with EU standards on food products.
America’s ambassador to Britain, Woody Johnson, recently published a column in which he urged the British to embrace the American approach to such products and ignore the “smear campaign from people with their own protectionist agenda.”

Trump has long taken a hard line on trade negotiations, convinced that even U.S. allies are cheating Americans on such deals, so his administration’s treatment of the U.K. so far isn’t exactly a surprise.
Araud, perhaps, put it most bluntly. “Trump is really very transactional,” he told POLITICO. “I don’t see any reason to believe that he will be nice with the British.”
Democrats have similarly cautioned that Brexit could hurt the two countries’ future trading relationship.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi recently told the Irish parliament that there will be no post-Brexit U.S.-U.K. trade deal if Britain’s departure from the EU threatens the 1998 Good Friday peace accord that eased tensions in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, a notable remark given that Trump will likely need lawmakers’ approval for any trade deal.
Britain’s expected exit from the EU has raised concerns that a border will have to be imposed between Northern Ireland and the Republic. The notion of imposing a “hard border” has already to led to warnings that violence could return to the region.
While Britain will remain a member of the NATO alliance, the bilateral U.S.-U.K. military relationship has grown weaker, observers say.

When speaking of how the British have “vanished” in Washington, Araud told the Financial Times earlier this year: “The British ambassador told me — and I loved it — that every time the British military is meeting with the American military, the Americans are talking about the French.”

Former U.S. officials and analysts say Araud is not entirely exaggerating.

The size of the British armed forces has shrunk in recent decades, and the country has imposed repeated funding cuts while struggling to articulate a military vision and get new recruits, according to analysts.

“You talk to the Brits, but you don’t expect a lot because they’re so tied up in their own drama,” said Derek Chollet, a former top Pentagon official in the Obama administration. “For many years, for decades, they stood out from the pack of partners. Now they’re kind of back in the pack a little bit, and others are playing a role that traditionally they would play.”

Michael Shurkin, a senior political scientist with the RAND Corporation, said it’s not so much that the U.S. thinks less of the British as it is that it’s intrigued by the French. He compared the situation to the famous meme of the young man walking with his girlfriend while eyeing another woman.

“The French have this incredible cohesion and coherence when it comes to their vision of what their military is for,” Shurkin said. “The money is there, they know what to do with it and they’re moving forward.”

While the British joined the French and the U.S. in intervening in Libya against dictator Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, the U.K. parliament voted down an attempt to pursue military strikes against the Syrian regime in 2013 after it was alleged to have used chemical weapons.
“We could look back and see Libya as kind of the last gasp of the U.K. in terms of its meaning in the world,” Chollet said.

Even the British-U.S. intelligence relationship faces new strain.

Amid his praise of the “special relationship” on a recent visit to Britain, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo cautiously warned the British that if they move ahead with using the Chinese firm Huawei to help them build their future telecommunications networks, the U.S. will think twice about sharing information with them.

“Insufficient security will impede the United States’ ability to share certain information within trusted networks,” Pompeo said.

Despite the strains, compared to most other bilateral relationships, the one between Britain and the United States remains unusually tight, even the most cynical observers acknowledge.
The cultural and linguistic similarities between the two countries run deep, as does the shared history encompassing World War II and its aftermath. During Trump’s state visit next week, he will attend a ceremony to commemorate the 75th anniversary of D-Day, a powerful reminder of how the two countries have stood by each other in the darkest moments.

“Our countries cherish the same beliefs in liberty, democracy and the rule of law,” said Jeremy Hunt, the British foreign secretary, when he hosted Pompeo earlier this month.

In turn, Pompeo repeatedly praised U.S.-U.K. ties, pointing out that British diplomats even get unusually broad access to the State Department. “The ‘special relationship’ is the beating heart of the entire free world,” Pompeo said.
But Brexit has so thoroughly dominated British politics that the country appears to have little capacity for much else, analysts and officials say.
The bitter divorce with the EU was supposed to have already taken place, but political disarray has led to several extensions, with no end in sight. And when the expected separation takes effect, a huge chunk of the British apparatus will have to focus for years on actually implementing it.
Former U.S. officials and analysts described Brexit as a self-imposed wound that is hastening the decadeslong downward trend in British influence worldwide.

Some even say that due to Brexit, Trump or other reasons, the U.K.-U.S. relationship is at its worst point since the Suez Canal crisis of 1956, which saw a falling out between the two countries over Britain's decision to join a military campaign against Egypt.
“I think it’s much worse than the Suez crisis, in the sense that the Suez crisis occurred during the Cold War so there still was this external threat that was pushing the United States and the U.K. together,” said Charles Kupchan, a former Obama administration official now with the Council on Foreign Relations.

The former British Embassy staffer who bemoaned Trump’s effect on U.S.-U.K. ties took some solace in pointing out that — in the grand scheme — it’s not just Britain that has had tensions with America under Trump. Neither France nor Germany have fared much better.
Instead, Trump appears to save his kindest words for strongmen in countries such as Russia and North Korea, while the leaders of traditional allies are left scratching their heads over how to respond to his unpredictable moods.
“The president has a preference for autocratic regimes,” the ex-staffer said. “Everything is so reactionary for all Western countries in Washington.”

This article is part of POLITICO’s premium Brexit service for professionals: Brexit Pro. To test our our expert policy coverage of the implications and next steps per industry, email pro@politico.eu for a complimentary trial.

Gallery: Brexit timeline: Charting Britain's turbulent exodus from Europe(Deutsche Welle)

History of the Bank of International Settlement (BIS)
The BIS was established in 1930 by an intergovernmental agreement between Germany, Belgium, France, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, the United States, and Switzerland.[4][5] It opened its doors in Basel, Switzerland, on 17 May 1930.
The BIS was originally intended to facilitate reparations imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles after World War I, and to act as the trustee for the German Government International Loan (Young Loan) that was floated in 1930.[6] The need to establish a dedicated institution for this purpose was suggested in 1929 by the Young Committee, and was agreed to in August of that year at a conference at The Hague. The charter for the bank was drafted at the International Bankers Conference at Baden-Baden in November, and adopted at a second Hague Conference on January 20, 1930. According to the charter, shares in the bank could be held by individuals and non-governmental entities. However, the rights of voting and representation at the Bank's General Meeting were to be exercised exclusively by the central banks of the countries in which shares had been issued. By agreement with Switzerland, the BIS had its corporate existence and headquarters there. It also enjoyed certain immunities in the contracting states (Brussels Protocol 1936).
The BIS’s original task of facilitating World War I reparation payments quickly became obsolete. Reparation payments were first suspended (Hoover moratorium, June 1931) and then abolished altogether (Lausanne Agreement, July 1932). Instead, the BIS focused on its second statutory task, i.e. fostering the cooperation between its member central banks. It acted as a meeting forum for central banks and provided banking facilities to them. For instance, in the late 1930s, the BIS was instrumental in helping continental European central banks shipping out part of their gold reserves to London and New York.[7]At the same time, the BIS fell under the spell of the appeasement illusion. The most notorious incident in this context was the transfer of 23 tons of gold held by the BIS in London on behalf of the Czechoslovakian national bank to the German Reichsbank after Nazi Germany occupied Czechoslovakia in March 1939.[8]
At the outbreak of World War II in September 1939, the BIS Board of Directors – on which the main European central banks were represented – decided that the Bank should remain open, but that, for the duration of hostilities, no meetings of the Board of Directors were to take place and that the Bank should maintain a neutral stance in the conduct of its business. However, as the war dragged on evidence mounted that the BIS conducted operations that were helpful to the Germans. Also, throughout the war, the Allies accused the Nazis of looting and pled with the BIS not to accept gold from the Reichsbank in payment for prewar obligations linked to the Young Plan. This was to no avail as remelted gold was either confiscated from prisoners or seized in victory and thus acceptable as payment to the BIS.[9] Operations conducted by the BIS were viewed with increasing suspicion from London and Washington. The fact that top level German industrialists and advisors sat on the BIS board seemed to provide ample evidence of how the BIS might be used by Hitler throughout the war, with the help of American, British and French banks. Between 1933 and 1945 the BIS board of directors included Walther Funk, a prominent Nazi official, and Emil Puhl responsible for processing dental gold looted from concentration camp victims, as well as Hermann Schmitz, the director of IG Farben, and Baron von Schroeder, the owner of the J.H. Stein Bank [de], all of whom have been later convicted of war crimes or crimes against humanity.[10]

The 1944 Bretton Woods Conference recommended the "liquidation of the Bank for International Settlements at the earliest possible moment". This resulted in the BIS being the subject of a disagreement between the U.S. and British delegations. The liquidation of the bank was supported by other European delegates, as well as Americans (including Harry Dexter White and Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau Jr.).[11] But it was opposed by John Maynard Keynes, head of the British delegation.

Keynes went to Morgenthau hoping to prevent or postpone the dissolution, but the next day it was approved. However, the liquidation of the bank was never actually undertaken.[12] In April 1945, the new U.S. president Harry S. Truman and the British government suspended the dissolution, and the decision to liquidate the BIS was officially reversed in 1948.[13]

After World War II, the BIS retained a distinct European focus. It acted as Agent for the European Payments Union (EPU, 1950–58), an intra-European clearing arrangement designed to help the European countries in restoring currency convertibility and free, multilateral trade.[14] During the 1960s – the heyday of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate system– the BIS once again became the locus for transatlantic monetary cooperation. It coordinated the central banks’ Gold Pool and a number of currency support operations (e.g. Sterling Group Arrangements of 1966 and 1968). The Group of Ten (G10), including the main European economies, Canada, Japan, and the United States, became the most prominent grouping.

With the end of the Bretton Woods system (1971–73) and the transition to floating exchange rates, financial stability issues came to the fore. The collapse of some internationally active banks, such as Herstatt Bank (1974), highlighted the need for improved banking supervision at an international level. The G10 Governors created the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS), which remains active to this day. The BIS developed into a global meeting place for regulators and for developing international standards (Basel Concordat, Basel Capital Accord, Basel II and III). Through its member central banks, the BIS was actively involved in the resolution of the Latin American debt crisis (1982).

From 1964 until 1993, the BIS provided the secretariat for the Committee of Governors of the Central Banks of the Member States of the European Community (Committee of Governors).[15] This Committee had been created by European Council decision to improve monetary cooperation among the EC central banks. Likewise, the BIS in 1988–89 hosted most of the meetings of the Delors Committee (Committee for the Study of Economic and Monetary Union), which produced a blueprint for monetary unification subsequently adopted in the Maastricht Treaty (1992). In 1993, when the Committee of Governors was replaced by the European Monetary Institute (EMI – the precursor of the ECB), it moved from Basel to Frankfurt, cutting its ties with the BIS.

In the 1990s–2000s, the BIS successfully globalised, breaking out of its traditional European core. This was reflected in a gradual increase in its membership (from 33 shareholding central bank members in 1995 to 60 in 2013, which together represent roughly 95% of global GDP), and also in the much more global composition of the BIS Board of Directors. In 1998, the BIS opened a Representative Office for Asia and the Pacific in the Hong Kong SAR. A BIS Representative Office for the Americas was established in 2002 in Mexico DF.

The BIS was originally owned by both central banks and private individuals, since the United States, Belgium and France had decided to sell all or some of the shares allocated to their central banks to private investors. BIS shares traded on stock markets, which made the bank an unusual organization: an international organization (in the technical sense of public international law), yet allowed for private shareholders. Many central banks had similarly started as such private institutions; for example, the Bank of England was privately owned until 1946. In more recent years the BIS has bought back its once publicly traded shares.[16] It is now wholly owned by BIS members (central banks) but still operates in the private market as a counterparty, asset manager and lender for central banks and international financial institutions.[17] Profits from its transactions are used, among other things, to fund the bank's other international activities.

Organization of Central Banks
As an organization of central banks, the BIS seeks to make monetary policymore predictable and transparent among its 60-member central banks, except in the case of Eurozone countries which forfeited the right to conduct monetary policy in order to implement the euro. While monetary policy is determined by most sovereign nations, it is subject to central and private banking scrutiny and potentially to speculation that affects foreign exchange rates and especially the fate of export economies. Failures to keep monetary policy in line with reality and make monetary reforms in time, preferably as a simultaneous policy among all 60 member banks and also involving the International Monetary Fund, have historically led to losses in the billions as banks try to maintain a policy using open market methods that have proven to be based on unrealistic assumptions.

Central banks do not unilaterally "set" rates, rather they set goals and intervene using their massive financial resources and regulatory powers to achieve monetary targets they set. One reason to coordinate policy closely is to ensure that this does not become too expensive and that opportunities for private arbitrage exploiting shifts in policy or difference in policy, are rare and quickly removed.
Two aspects of monetary policy have proven to be particularly sensitive, and the BIS therefore has two specific goals: to regulate capital adequacy and make reserve requirements transparent.

Regulates capital adequacy
Capital adequacy policy applies to equity and capital assets. These can be overvalued in many circumstances because they do not always reflect current market conditions or adequately assess the risk of every trading position. Accordingly, the Basel standards require the capital/asset ratio of internationally active commercial banks to be above a prescribed minimum international standard, to improve the resilience of the banking sector.
The main role of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, hosted by the BIS, is setting capital adequacy requirements. From an international point of view, ensuring capital adequacy is key for central banks, as speculative lending based on inadequate underlying capital and widely varying liability rules causes economic crises as "bad money drives out good" (Gresham's Law).

Encourages reserve transparency
Reserve policy is also important, especially to consumers and the domestic economy. To ensure liquidity and limit liability to the larger economy, banks cannot create money in specific industries or regions without limit. To make bank depositing and borrowing safer for customers and reduce risk of bank runs, banks are required to set aside or "reserve".
Reserve policy is harder to standardize, as it depends on local conditions and is often fine-tuned to make industry-specific or region-specific changes, especially within large developing nations. For instance, the People's Bank of China requires urban banks to hold 7% reserves while letting rural banks continue to hold only 6%, and simultaneously telling all banks that reserve requirements on certain overheated industries would rise sharply or penalties would be laid if investments in them did not stop completely. The PBoC is thus unusual in acting as a national bank, focused on the country and not on the currency, but its desire to control asset inflation is increasingly shared among BIS members who fear "bubbles", and among exporting countries that find it difficult to manage the diverse requirements of the domestic economy, especially rural agriculture, and an export economy, especially in manufactured goods.

Effectively, the PBoC sets different reserve levels for domestic and export styles of development. Historically, the United States also did this, by dividing federal monetary management into nine regions, in which the less-developed western United States had looser policies.
For various reasons it has become quite difficult to accurately assess reserves on more than simple loan instruments, and this plus the regional differences has tended to discourage standardizing any reserve rules at the global BIS scale. Historically, the BIS did set some standards which favoured lending money to private landowners (at about 5 to 1) and for-profit corporations (at about 2 to 1) over loans to individuals. These distinctions reflecting classical economics were superseded by policies relying on undifferentiated market values – more in line with neoclassical economics.

Goal: monetary and financial stability
The stated mission of the BIS is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks. The BIS pursues its mission by:
fostering discussion and facilitating collaboration among central banks;
supporting dialogue with other authorities that are responsible for promoting financial stability;
carrying out research and policy analysis on issues of relevance for monetary and financial stability;
acting as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions; and
serving as an agent or trustee in connection with international financial operations.

The role that the BIS plays today goes beyond its historical role. The original goal of the BIS was "to promote the co-operation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international financial operations; and to act as trustee or agent in regard to international financial settlements entrusted to it under agreements with the parties concerned", as stated in its Statutes of 1930.[18]

Role In Banking Supervision
The BIS hosts the Secretariat of the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision and with it has played a central role in establishing the Basel Capital Accords of 1988, Basel II framework in 2004 and more recently Basel III framework.

Financial Results
The balance sheet total of the BIS on 31 March 2017 was SDR 242.2 billion.[19]

Members
The number of countries represented in each continent are: 35 in Europe, 13 in Asia, 5 in South America, 3 in North America, 2 in Oceania, and 2 in Africa. The sixty member central banks or monetary authorities represent the following countries:
 Bank of Algeria
 Central Bank of Argentina
 Reserve Bank of Australia
 Oesterreichische Nationalbank
 National Bank of Belgium
 Central Bank of Bosnia and Herzegovina
 Central Bank of Brazil
 Bulgarian National Bank
 Bank of Canada
 Central Bank of Chile
 People's Bank of China
 Bank of the Republic of Colombia
 Croatian National Bank
 Czech National Bank
 Danmarks Nationalbank
 Bank of Estonia
 European Central Bank
 Bank of Finland
 Bank of France
 Deutsche Bundesbank
 Bank of Greece
 Hong Kong Monetary Authority
 Hungarian National Bank
 Central Bank of Iceland
 Reserve Bank of India
 Bank Indonesia
 Central Bank of Ireland
 Bank of Israel
 Bank of Italy
 Bank of Japan
 Bank of Korea
 Bank of Latvia
 Bank of Lithuania
 Central Bank of Luxembourg
 Bank Negara Malaysia
 Bank of Mexico
 De Nederlandsche Bank
 Reserve Bank of New Zealand
 National Bank of the Republic of North Macedonia
 Norges Bank
 Central Reserve Bank of Peru
 Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas
 Narodowy Bank Polski
 Banco de Portugal
 National Bank of Romania
 Central Bank of the Russian Federation
 Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency
 National Bank of Serbia
 Monetary Authority of Singapore
 National Bank of Slovakia
 Bank of Slovenia
 South African Reserve Bank
 Bank of Spain
 Sveriges Riksbank
 Swiss National Bank
 Bank of Thailand
 Central Bank of the Republic of Turkey
 Central Bank of the United Arab Emirates
 Bank of England
 Federal Reserve System

LEADERSHIP
The first chairman was Gates W. McGarrah (1863–1940). In 1898 he became cashier of the Leather Manufacturers National Bank, succeeding to the presidency in 1902. The institution merged with the Mechanics National Bank in 1904 and McGarrah was chosen president. He headed this bank until its merger with the Chase National in 1926. He was the first Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York May 1925 through February 1930. August 30, 1924 he was appointed as the American director of the general council of the Reichsbank. He was a past president of the New York Clearing House Association.[20]
Chairperson and President/General Manager
Board of Directors

Board of directors
Mark Carney, London
Alejandro Díaz de León Carrillo (es), Mexico City
Juyeol Lee, Seoul
Mario Draghi, Frankfurt am Main
John C Williams, New York
Ilan Goldfajn, Brasília
Pablo Hernández de Cos, Madrid[27]
Thomas Jordan, Zurich
Klaas Knot, Amsterdam
Haruhiko Kuroda, Tokyo
Anne Le Lorier, Paris
Fabio Panetta, Rome
Shaktikanta Das, Mumbai
Stephen S Poloz, Ottawa
Jan Smets (nl), Brussels
François Villeroy de Galhau, Paris
Ignazio Visco, Rome
Pierre Wunsch, Brussels
Jerome Powell, Washington, D.C.
Yi Gang, Beijing

Red Books
One of the Group's first projects, a detailed review of payment system developments in the G10 countries, was published by the BIS in 1985 in the first of a series that has become known as "Red Books". Currently the red books cover countries participating in the Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures (CPMI).[28] A sample of statistical data in the red books appears in the table below, where local currency is converted to US dollars using end-of-year rates.[29]

Banknotes and coin in circulation (12/31/2016)
Per Capita
Country
Billions of Dollars
$9,516.04

Switzerland
$79.68
$7,341.34

Hong Kong SAR
$54.16
$7,214.21

Japan
$915.72
$5,241.81

Singapore
$29.39
$4,671.03

United States
$1,509.34
$3,579.10

Euro area
$1,217.91
$2,379.05

Australia
$57.71
$1,787.01

Canada
$64.40
$1,677.72

Saudi Arabia
$53.33
$1,584.11

Korea
$80.48
$1,428.55

United Kingdom
$93.78
$989.34

Russia
$145.11
$688.80

Sweden
$6.88
$565.17

Mexico
$68.71
$443.58

Turkey
$35.40
$345.64

Brazil
$71.23
$151.26

India
$196.49
$130.90

South Africa
$7.20
$1,598.16

CPMI
$4,686.91


The most notable currency not included in this table since 2009 is the Chinese yuan where statistics are listed "not available". In the year 2009 China was listed as having a banknotes and coins of value $606.59 billion and $456 per capita using an exchange rate of 6.8282 RMB per USD.
Sweden is a wealthy country without much cash per capita compared to other countries 

Members
The number of countries represented in each continent are: 35 in Europe, 13 in Asia, 5 in South America, 3 in North America, 2 in Oceania, and 2 in Africa. The sixty member central banks or monetary authorities represent the following countries:

BIS members
General manager: Agustín Carstens
Main organ: Board of directors
Website: www.bis.org
 
About BIS - overview
Our recently launched medium-term strategy, Innovation BIS 2025, leverages technology and new collaboration channels to serve the central banking community in this fast-changing world.
In research and analysis, banking services and knowledge-sharing, we are continuously innovating to support our stakeholders in the pursuit of monetary and financial stability.
Our mission is to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in those areas and to act as a bank for central banks.
Established in 1930, the BIS is owned by 60 central banks, representing countries from around the world that together account for about 95% of world GDP. Its head office is in Basel, Switzerland and it has two representative offices: in Hong Kong SAR and in Mexico City.

We pursue our mission by:
fostering discussion and facilitating collaboration among central banks
supporting dialogue with other authorities that are responsible for promoting financial stability
carrying out research and policy analysis on issues of relevance for monetary and financial stability
acting as a prime counterparty for central banks in their financial transactions
serving as an agent or trustee in connection with international financial operations
As part of our work in the area of monetary and financial stability, we regularly publish related analyses and international banking and financial statistics that underpin policymaking, academic research and public debate.
With regard to our banking activities, our customers are central banks and international organisations. We do not accept deposits from, or provide financial services to, private individuals or corporate entities.

Related information
The BIS: promoting global monetary and financial stability through international cooperation (pdf, 555kb)
This PDF provides a brief overview of the Bank for International Settlements.
(Also available in French, German, Italian and Spanish.)
The BIS's Basel buildings
https://www.bis.org/central_bank_hub_overview.htm

Central bank hub
The BIS is a forum for discussion, policy analysis and information-sharing among central banks and within the international financial and supervisory community.
We act as a central bank hub by:
centralising access to central bank publications (speeches, research and the International Journal of Central Banking)
hosting and supporting the central bank governance forum, with a view to fostering the good governance of central banks as public policy institutions
providing a single point of entry to the websites of central banks, monetary authorities, regulatory authorities and supervisory agencies

Cooperation and information-sharing
As part of our mission, we promote international cooperation among monetary authorities and financial supervisory officials.
The central bank governance forum compiles, analyses and disseminates among central banks a wide variety of information on governance and organisational arrangements. Two bodies help the work:
Central Bank Governance Group - a discussion group of Governors focusing on the institutional setting in which central banks pursue their policies
Central Bank Governance Network - a network of central bankers that facilitates the flow of information on central bank governance and organisational issues between central banks
https://www.bis.org/list/bispapers/index.htm

BIS Papers - last 2 years
This series typically contains volumes of papers prepared for meetings of senior officials from central banks held at the BIS as well as one-off publications by members of the BIS staff. The contributions come from the central bank participants as well as from BIS staff. Historical BIS conference, economic and policy papers published in 1979-2000 are also available
 
Proceeding with caution - a survey on central bank digital currency
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap101.htm

BIS Papers  |  No 101  |  
08 January 2019
by  Christian Barontini and Henry Holden
24 pages

The hypothetical benefits and risks of central bank digital currencies are being widely discussed. This BIS paper adds to these discussions by taking stock of how progress and plans in this area are developing, based on a global survey of central banks. Responses show that central banks are proceeding with caution and most are only at a conceptual stage with their work. However, a handful have moved to considering practical issues and a couple of central banks with idiosyncratic circumstances might issue a digital currency in the short or medium term.
JEL classification: E42, E58, O33
Keywords: central bank digital currencies, CBDC, digital innovation, money flower, cryptocurrencies, crypto-assets, financial inclusion
About the authors
Christian Barontini and Henry Holden
Related information
Central bank digital currencies
Money in the digital age: what role for central banks?

Central bank cryptocurrencies
Globalisation and deglobalisation
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap100.htm 
Dec 2018
BIS Papers  |  No 100  |  
21 December 2018
369 pages

Globalisation has had a profound effect on economic outcomes, especially in emerging market economies (EMEs). In particular, it is widely acknowledged to have been a major driver of the strong income growth and reduction in poverty witnessed in EMEs in the past few decades. Despite these benefits, there has recently been a backlash against globalisation and growing support for inward looking policies in many parts of the world. Against this backdrop, this volume takes stock of the EME experience with two facets of globalisation-trade and migration. It summarises different country experiences with regard to the aggregate as well as distributional consequences. In doing so, it highlights several examples and avenues for policy action to continue to harness the benefits of globalisation while limiting the costs.
JEL classification: F60, F61, F62, F68
Keywords: globalisation, trade, migration

Central banks and debt: emerging risks to the effectiveness of monetary policy in Africa?
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap99.htm
Updated 26 November 2018: the new pdf version contains revisions to graph 2 and Tables A5 and A7. 

In a period of rising trade protectionism and higher interest rates abroad, there is renewed urgency to ensure that debt, already on an upward path, does not impede the effectiveness of monetary policy in African countries. While central banks can affect the level and composition of debt held or owed by the financial sector if they have supervisory powers, they can only influence government debt indirectly, notably through communications. Advising the government and state-owned companies on debt management and macroeconomic developments might help slow a build-up in debt. Should debt nevertheless rise, certain institutional arrangements, such as rules against direct funding of the government budget, setting an inflation target for monetary policy, and operational independence, could help protect the effectiveness of monetary policy. Pursuing reforms that implement such arrangements could be one way forward for some African central banks.
JEL Classification: E58, F34, H63
Benedicte Vibe Christensen and Jochen Schanz

Low for long or turning point?
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap98.htm
BIS Papers  |  No 98  |  
11 July 2018
by  Jaime Caruana, Alan Blinder and Philip Lowe
18 pages

The 16th BIS Annual Conference took place in Lucerne, Switzerland, on 23 June 2017. The event brought together a distinguished group of central bank Governors, leading academics and former public officials to exchange views on the topic "Low for long or turning point?".

The papers presented at the conference and the discussants' comments are released as BIS Working Papers.
BIS Papers no 98 contains the opening address by Jaime Caruana (Former General Manager, BIS) and remarks by Alan Blinder (Princeton University) and Philip Lowe (Reserve Bank of Australia).

The global factor in neutral policy rates: some implications for exchange rates, monetary policy, and policy coordination, BIS Working Papers No 732 by Richard Clarida
Comments by Narayana Kocherlakota and Lucrezia Reichlin

A risk-centric model of demand recessions and macroprudential policy, BIS Working Papers

No 733 by Ricardo J Caballero and Alp Simsek
Comments by Mohamed A El-Erian and David Laidler

Payments, credit and asset prices, BIS Working Papers No 734
by Monika Piazzesi and Martin Schneider
Comments by Sukudhew Singh

The authors
Jaime Caruana,  Alan Blinder and Philip Lowe

Financial spillovers, spillbacks, and the scope for international macroprudential policy coordination
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap97.htm
BIS Papers  |  No 97  |  
12 April 2018
by  Pierre-Richard Agénor and Luiz Awazu Pereira da Silva
59 pages

This paper discusses the scope for international macroprudential policy coordination in a financially integrated world economy. It first reviews the transmission channels associated with, and the empirical evidence on, financial spillovers and spillbacks - which have both increased in magnitude since the global financial crisis. Then it proceeds with evaluating the potential gains associated with cross-border macroprudential coordination, dwelling on both recent analytical contributions and quantitative studies based on multi-country models with financial market frictions. The particular case of currency unions is discussed, and so is the issue of whether coordination of macroprudential policies simultaneously requires some degree of monetary policy coordination. Much of this analysis focuses on the potential for countercyclical policy coordination between major advanced economies and a group identified as systemic middle-income countries (SMICs). Finally, the paper considers practical ways to promote international macroprudential policy coordination. Following a discussion of Basel III's principle of reciprocity and ways to improve it, the paper advocates a further strengthening of the current statistical, empirical and analytical work conducted by the Bank for International Settlements, the Financial Stability Board and the International Monetary Fund to evaluate and raise awareness of the gains from international coordination of macroprudential policies.
JEL Classification: D53, D78, E02, E42, E44, E52, E61, F33, F36, F42, G20, G21
The authors
Pierre-Richard Agénor and Luiz Awazu Pereira da Silva

The price, real and financial effects of exchange rates
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap96.htm
BIS Papers  |  No 96  |  
28 March 2018   -  162 pages
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority and the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) co-hosted a research conference on "The price, real and financial effects of exchange rates " on 28-29 August 2017 in Hong Kong. The event was the wrap-up conference of a research programme of the BIS Representative Office for Asia and the Pacific on exchange rates that had been endorsed by the Asian Consultative Council of central bank Governors in February 2016.
The conference brought together senior officials and researchers from central banks, international organisations and academia. This volume is a collection of the speeches, papers and prepared discussant remarks from the conference. Topics covered include exchange rate puzzles; deviations from covered interest parity; devaluations and intraregional trade; exchange rates and corporate risk-taking; FX hedging and creditors' rights; and a risk-taking channel of FX reserves accumulation. The foreword summarises the contents of the conference and provides a synopsis of the discussions for time-constrained readers.
Contributed Papers
Revisiting exchange rate puzzles
Authors:  Charles Engel and Feng Zhu
Discussion of Charles Engel and Feng Zhu's paper
Author:  Michael B Devereu
FX hedging and creditor rights
Authors:  Madhusudan Mohanty and Suresh Sundaresan
Discussion of M S Mohanty and Suresh Sundaresan's paper
Author:  Vidhan Goyal
Does the accumulation of foreign currency reserves affect risk-taking? An event study approach
Authors:  Rasmus Fatum and James Yetman
Discussion of Rasmus Fatum and James Yetman's paper
Author:  Hans Genberg
Breakdown of covered interest parity: mystery or myth?
Authors:  Alfred Wong and Jiayue Zhang
Discussion of Alfred Wong and Jiayue Zhang's paper
Author:  Yiping Huang
Keynote address
Finding equilibrium: on the relation between exchange rates and monetary policy
Author:  Sebastian Edwards
Contributed Papers (cont)
Dollar invoicing, exchange rates and international trade
Authors:  David Cook and Nikhil Patel
Discussion of David Cook and Nikhil Patel's paper
Author:  Jian Wang
Discussion of Sebnem Kalemli-Ozcan, Xiaoxi Liu and Ilhyock Shim's paper
Author:  Filippo Di Mauro
Remarks on the Policy Panel
Exchange rate challenges: how should policymakers respond?
Author:  Grant Spencer
Exchange rate puzzles and dilemmas: how can policymakers respond?
Author:  Diwa C Guinigundo
Exchange rate puzzles and dilemmas: how can policymakers respond?
Author:  Sebastian Edwards

Frontiers of macrofinancial linkages
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap95.htm
BIS Papers  |  No 95  |  
12 January 2018
by  Stijn Claessens and M Ayhan Kose
199 pages
The Great Financial Crisis of 2007-09 confirmed the vital importance of advancing our understanding of macrofinancial linkages, the two-way interactions between the real economy and the financial sector. The crisis was a bitter reminder of how sharp fluctuations in asset prices, credit and capital flows can have dramatic impact on the financial positions of households, corporations and sovereign nations. As fluctuations were amplified, the global financial system was brought to the brink of collapse and the deepest contraction in world output in more than half a century followed. Moreover, unprecedented challenges for fiscal, monetary and financial regulatory policies resulted.
The crisis revived an old debate in the economics profession about the importance of macrofinancial linkages. Some argue that the crisis was a painful reminder of our limited knowledge of these linkages. Others claim that the profession had already made substantial progress in understanding them but that there was too much emphasis on narrow approaches and modelling choices. Yet, most also recognise that the absence of a unifying framework to study these two-way interactions has limited the practical applications of existing knowledge and impeded the formulation of policies.
With these observations in mind, this paper presents a systematic review of the rapidly expanding literature on macrofinancial linkages. It first surveys the literature on the linkages between asset prices and macroeconomic outcomes. It then reviews the literature on the macroeconomic implications of financial imperfections. It also examines the global dimensions of macrofinancial linkages and documents the main stylized facts about the linkages between the real economy and the financial sector. The topic of macrofinancial linkages promises to remain an exciting area of research, given the many open questions and significant policy interest. The paper concludes with a discussion of possible directions for future research, stressing the need for richer theoretical models, more robust empirical work and better quality data so as to advance knowledge and help guide policymakers going forward.
JEL classification: D53, E21, E32, E44, E51, F36, F44, F65, G01, G10, G12, G14, G15, G21
The authors
Stijn Claessen and  M Ayhan Kose

Macroprudential frameworks, implementation and relationship with other policies
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap94.htm
BIS Papers  |  No 94  |  
28 December 2017
374 pages
Papers in this volume were prepared for a meeting of senior officials from central banks held at the Bank for International Settlements.
Emerging market central banks have a long history of using macroprudential instruments. But while most central banks carry a heavy responsibility for financial stability, legal objectives are generally vague, do not define success or failure, and say nothing about competing objectives. This complicates both accountability and the communication of macroprudential decisions.
Participants drew several lessons from their experience with implementing macroprudential instruments. First, macroprudential authorities need to act early if they want to address systemic risk effectively. Second, building buffers or shifting the composition of credit is easier than managing the cycle. Third, macroprudential measures tend to be better at constraining booms than at dampening busts. Fourth, although macroprudential tools could, in principle, be targeted very precisely, circumvention by lenders and borrowers require more broad-based approaches. Fifth, macroprudential measures and monetary policy can reinforce each other when used in the same direction. Sixth, the jury is still out whether macroprudential instruments could be used effectively to address regional disparities within economies.
This volume collects the background papers of a meeting of Deputy Governors of central banks from emerging market economies to exchange their experience with designing macroprudential frameworks and implementing macroprudential instruments.
JEL classification: E51, E58, G21
BIS background papers
Macroprudential frameworks, implementation and relationship with other policies - Overview
Author:  Christian Upper
Macroprudential frameworks: objectives, decisions and policy interactions
Author:  Agustín Villar
Macroprudential frameworks: implementation and effectiveness
Authors:  Yavuz Arslan and Christian Upper
Macroprudential frameworks: communication
Author:  Nikhil Patel
Macroprudential frameworks: cross-border issues
Author:  Nikhil Patel
Contributed papers
Macroprudential policy framework, implementation and relationships with other policies
Macroprudential policy in Brazil
Authors:  Maurício Costa de Mura and Fernanda Martins Bandeira
Macroeconomic and financial volatility and macroprudential policies in Chile
Authors:  Rodrigo Cifuentes, Sebastián Claro and Alejandro Jara
Macroprudential goals, implementation and cross-border communication
The macroprudential policy framework in Colombia
Authors:  Hernando Vargas-Herrera, Pamela Cardozo and Andrés Murcia Pabón
Should monetary policy pay attention to house prices? The Czech National Bank's approach
Authors:  Mojmír Hampl and Tomáš Havránek
Hong Kong's property market and macroprudential measures
Regionally-differentiated debt cap rules: a Hungarian perspective
Authors:  Péter Fáykiss, Márton Nagy and Anikó Szombati
Macroprudential frameworks, implementation, and relationship with other policies
Author:  Reserve Bank of India
Indonesia: the macroprudential framework and the central bank's policy mix
Author:  Perry Warjiyo
Assessing the impact of macroprudential tools: the case of Israel
Authors:  Nadine Baudot-Trajtenberg, Nitzan Tzur-Ilan and Roy Frayberg
Macroprudential frameworks, implementation and relationship with other policies in Korea
Authors:  Ho Soon Shin, Jung Yeoun Lee and Jungmin Park
Macroprudential frameworks: Implementation, and relationship with other policies - Malaysia
Author:  Central Bank of Malaysia
On the relationship between macroprudential policy and other policies
Authors:  Manuel Ramos-Francia and Santiago García-Verdú
Implementation of macroprudential policy in Per
Authors:  Renzo G Rossini and Zenón Quispe
Macroprudential frameworks, implementation, and communication strategies - The Philippines
Author:  Diwa C Guinigundo
Institutional and operational aspects of macroprudential policy in central and eastern European EU member states
Author:  Piotr Szpunar
The macroprudential policy framework in Russia
Authors:  Elizaveta Danilova and Maxim Morozov
Macroprudential policies: A Singapore case study
Macroprudential frameworks, implementation and relationships with other policies
Macroprudential framework - the case of Thailand
Financial stability and macroprudential policy in Turkey
Author:  Murat Uysal

Building Resilience to Global Risks: Challenges for African Central Banks
https://www.bis.org/publ/bppdf/bispap93.htm
BIS Papers  |  No 93  |  
24 August 2017
by  Benedicte Vibe Christensen and Christian Upper
19 pages
FR (pdf, 238kb)

The policy response of many African commodity exporting economies to the slump in commodity prices after mid-2014 has been markedly different from that of commodity exporters elsewhere. First, few African countries allowed their currency to depreciate as much as other EMEs, for instance in Latin America. Instead they resorted mainly to administrative controls, despite the high economic costs associated with such measures. Second, many African economies kept their policy rates very low despite considerable exchange rate pressure and rising inflation. Again, this differs from the response of many Latin American commodity exporters, who raised policy rates in order to keep inflation expectations anchored. Finally, many African economies have been less successful than other EMEs in shielding their banks from the fallout of lower commodity prices, sharp depreciation and feeble growth.
JEL classification: E58, F32, F62
Keywords: African economies, exchange rate policy, commodity prices
The authors
Benedicte Vibe Christensen and Christian Upper

Jan 2019
Proceeding with caution - a survey on central bank digital currency
BIS Papers  | No 101
Dec 2018
Globalisation and deglobalisation
BIS Papers  | No 100
Oct 2018

Central banks and debt: emerging risks to the effectiveness of monetary policy in Africa?
BIS Papers  | No 99
Also available in:  French

Jul 2018
Low for long or turning point?
BIS Papers  | No 98

Apr 2018
Financial spillovers, spillbacks, and the scope for international macroprudential policy coordination
BIS Papers  | No 97

Mar 2018
The price, real and financial effects of exchange rates
BIS Papers  | No 96

Jan 2018
Frontiers of macrofinancial linkages
BIS Papers  | No 95

Dec 2017
Macroprudential frameworks, implementation and relationship with other policies
BIS Papers  | No 94

Aug 2017
Building Resilience to Global Risks: Challenges for African Central Banks
BIS Papers  | No 93
Also available in:  French

Aug 2017
Long-term issues for central banks
BIS Papers  | No 92

Brexit Referendum Live Blog: All the reaction to the vote that divided the nation
Vote Leave wins by 51.9%
https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/analysis/2458147/brexit-referendum-live-blog-what-are-the-implications-for-investors

Brexit Blog: CBI urges PM hopefuls to consider 'long-term damage' of leaving with no deal
Brexit countdown
https://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/3006026/brexit-blog-cbi-urges-pm-hopefuls-to-consider-long-term-damage-of-leaving-with-no-deal

In this live blog, Investment Week collates the most up-to-date news, analysis and infographics to help readers digest the impact on asset managers as the UK prepares to leave the European Union
Director general of the CBI has urged the new Prime Minister to seek a new Brexit deal or the UK faces "short-term disruption and long-term damage".
The CBI's Carolyn Fairbairn said in a letter that large and small groups were concerned about their prospects should the UK leave the EU with no deal, after the likes of Boris Johnson, who has put himself up for the leadership race, said Brexit should happen regardless of a deal being made when we reach the new deadline of 31 October.
“Firms large and small are clear that leaving the EU with a deal is the best way forward,” the CBI letter was quoted in the FT. “Short-term disruption and long-term damage to British competitiveness will be severe if we leave without one. The vast majority of firms can never be prepared for no-deal, particularly our [small and medium-sized] members who cannot afford complex and costly contingency plans.”
Natalie Kenway

Chief executive of the Investment Association Chris Cummings warns ESMA's revision of the scope of the EU’s share trading obligation "does not provide the best possible outcome" for asset managers and once again urges a policy of "reciprocal equivalence":
“While this announcement mitigates some of the worst effects of a no deal Brexit on trading activity, it does not provide the best possible outcome for our industry. There is a risk that firms may be faced with overlapping obligations that cannot be met, and would risk fragmenting the market and increasing the cost of trading, hitting the pockets of investors.
“Reciprocal equivalence, which covers both share trading obligations and derivatives trading obligations under MiFIR would deliver greater clarity and certainty for the industry.”
The UK government has spent nearly £100m of public money on private consultancy firms for advice on the Brexit negotiations, including plans for a no-deal, the Guardian has revealed.
The paper has seen a leaked Whitehall report, which details how the government has spent at least £97m on Brexit consultants up until this April, criticising them for not meeting transparency standards.
The investigation by the National Audit Office (NAO) warns this type of spending could escalate to £240m by 2020, as the government is highly reliant on external consultants.
Outside of Brexit, the report also shows increased spending on external consultants on other matters, up from £513m in 2015/16 to £1.54bn in 2017/18.
Anna Fedorova   edited by Natalie Kenway


May 29 2019 9:42 AM
FCA warns of disruption under ESMA’s no-deal revisions
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has warned that pan-European regulator ESMA’s efforts to reduce the disruption caused by a no-deal Brexit by revising the scope of the EU’s share trading obligation could lead to further chaos in such a scenario.
ESMA announced a revision to the share trading framework this morning, which it said will allow investment firms and banks to continue to trade all UK shares in the UK.
However, the FCA warned that applying the EU STO to all shares issued by firms incorporated in the EU would cause disruption to “investors, some issuers and other market participants, leading to fragmentation of markets and liquidity in both the EU and UK”.
A number of EU-incorporated have both a listing, as well as their main or only significant centre of market liquidity, on UK markets, according to the FCA.
The UK regulator said the EU-incorporated firm that a share carries “does not and should not determine the scope of the share trading obligation”.
It explained: “Some shares have their main or only centre of market liquidity outside the country in which the issuer is incorporated.
“This approach would place restrictions on a company’s access to investors and freedom to choose where they seek a listing on a public stock market.”
In the event of a no-deal Brexit, the FCA said it “will continue to consider its approach to the implementation of any share trading obligation”, and will set out its approach if that outcome becomes clear.
The FCA also said the risk of disruption from potentially conflicting EU27 and UK share trading obligations “is not mitigated by the revised ESMA approach” as other EU regulations imply overlapping obligations for firms.
It said: “The FCA believes in open markets and competition between trading venues and that reciprocal equivalence - which reflects the reality - remains the best way of dealing with overlapping share trading obligations.
“The UK has onshored the same regime, making us one of the most equivalent countries in the world.  
“In the absence of reciprocal equivalence, applying both UK and EU STOs in a way that maintains the status quo for a limited period of time after exit remains an alternative way of mitigating disruption whilst longer term solutions are found.
“The FCA stands ready to use the extra time available due to the delay to the UK’s withdrawal to engage constructively with ESMA and other European authorities to achieve either of these outcomes.”
mike.sheen

May 29 2019 7:57 AM
UK falls out of top 20 most competitive economies
Brexit uncertainty, divisions in parliament and weak investments have all seen the UK drop out of the world’s top 20 most competitive economies, adding fuel to the fire as political uncertainty rages on. Iceland, Malaysia and New Zealand now rank above, according to The Telegraph.
The Telegraph revealed this is Britain’s worst performance ranking in the report’s 21-year history if you do not take into account the rise in the number of countries involved in the report over the years—in which case this is only the worst performance since the financial crisis. Nonetheless, the link between political uncertainty and the UK’s economic performance is clear to see.
In comparison, Ireland and Qatar have seen vast improvement as they broke into the top ten and Singapore nabbed top spot from the US and Hong Kong in the rankings from the IMD World Competitive Centre.  
Anna Fedorova
May 29 2019 7:56 AM

Corbyn backs a second referendum
A Thomson Reuters article has revealed that Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said earlier this week the British public should be posed the question on Brexit again, either with a general election or another referendum. He said: “With the Conservatives disintegrating and unable to govern, and parliament deadlocked, this issue will have to go back to the people, whether through a general election or a public vote.”
Anna Fedorova

May 28 2019 7:18 AM
The Brexit party had triumphed in the European Parliament elections in the UK
Vote share (%), and change on 2014 (% points)
73 our of 73 seats reporting ...Natalie Kenway

Meeting: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson with Taoiseach Leo Varadkar at Thornton Manor Hotel in Cheshire, UK.

Battle to protect new Brexit deal
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/battle-to-protect-new-brexit-deal/ar-AAIGPhn?li=BBr5KbJ&ocid=mailsignout#page=2
Jody Corcoran and Philip Ryan

​The Government has moved to protect the proposed compromise Brexit deal after a twin attack by a hard-line Brexiteer and the deputy leader of the DUP.

The British and Irish governments’ plan to break the impasse suffered an apparent setback after the DUP’s Nigel Dodds said the double customs solution “cannot work”, and Brexiteer Owen Paterson, a former Northern Ireland secretary, suggested it would “ride roughshod” over the Good Friday Agreement.

Last night, Government sources in Dublin said the comments by Mr Dodds, the DUP leader in Westminster, should “not be overblown”,  adding: “He’s only looking for political cover over the coming days and I don’t think it will impact on talks.”
Video: Boris Johnson says 'there's a way to go' on Brexit deal

The European Union was this weekend continuing Brexit negotiations with the UK government, aimed at preventing the UK from crashing out of the EU.

A spokesman for Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said the Government would not be giving “running commentary” on the current phase of Brexit negotiations.

The development centred on an article published in the Daily Telegraph newspaper on Friday by arch Brexiteer Mr Paterson, a prominent member of the hard-line ERG, which supports a no-deal Brexit.

There is some evidence that Mr Paterson’s article, and subsequent comments by Mr Dodds, may have been co-ordinated to raise doubts over the compromise plan arrived at by the UK prime minister, and Taoiseach in Liverpool last week.

In his newspaper article, Mr Paterson warned of “a danger that lurking beneath the warm words” is a plan “to keep Northern Ireland permanently in the [EU] Customs Union.”

Mr Paterson said there was a “risk” that the view of secretary-general of the European Commission, Martin Selmayr, would prevail, that Northern Ireland should be the price the UK pays for Brexit.

The two governments’ proposed new deal, in effect, would resemble the originally proposed Northern Ireland-only backstop, but would allow the UK government to keep Northern Ireland legally in the UK customs territory.

However, Mr Paterson said it would be “absurd to penalise” Northern Ireland with “EU costs and overbearing regulations” for a small proportion of trade, leaving it “unable to take advantage” of new UK trade deals. He also claimed the proposed new deal would be a “flagrant breach” of the Good Friday Agreement.
He subsequently posted the article to his Twitter account, stating the new plan would “ride roughshod over one of the core tenets of the Belfast Agreement: the principle of consent.” This would stir up problems in Northern Ireland long after Brexit was resolved, he said.
Asked about the article in Italy yesterday, Mr Dodds said Mr Paterson was “absolutely right”.
In a news report posted online by the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, Mr Dodds was quoted as saying Northern Ireland “must stay in a full UK customs union, full stop”.

The Italian newspaper quoted Mr Dodds: “There is a lot of stuff coming from Brussels, pushed by the Europeans in the last hours, but one thing is sure: Northern Ireland must remain fully part of the UK customs union. And Boris Johnson knows it very well...”
The newspaper quoted Mr Dodds rejecting as unrealistic the solution now being discussed, stating: “No, it cannot work.” However, Mr Dodds was further quoted: “We’ll wait and see.”
Mr Paterson also posted the La Repubblica article to his Twitter account last night, describing it as a “significant statement”.

Garry White@GarryWhite
Pound jumps on Theresa's resignation! Should I buy my holiday money now?
10:09 AM - May 24, 2019
Hannah Godfrey@Hannah_Godfrey
May's off on 7 June. In light of that, I refer you to one of my more successful tweets:
Hannah Godfrey@Hannah_Godfrey
Who's gonna be our next PM, then?

10:12 AM - May 24, 2019
Steve Clarke@steveclarketv
@theresa_may "this country is a union...we stand together and together we have a great future...there is so much that is good about this country.."

10:11 AM - May 24, 2019
May 24 2019 10:09 AM
"It will remain a matter of deep regret to me that i was not able to deliver Brexit".
Natalie Kenway

May 24 2019 10:08 AM
Theresa May has confirmed she will step from her role as Conservative Party leader on 7 June.
She said she will stay as Prime Minister until a successor is chosen.
Natalie Kenway

May 24 2019 7:15 AM
Prime Minister Theresa May is set to announce plans to step down from her role today, after an ill-fated three years navigating UK's departure from the European Union.
May had previously pledged to step down once a Brexit deal had been agreed with MPs and the EU, but with her most recent proposals once again rejected she has faced renewed pressure to relinquish the role from the Cabinet and the Conservative party.
It is expected she will formally depart on week of 10 June, according to the FT.
She succeeded David Cameron as PM in the aftermath of the shock vote to leave the EU in June 2016, pledging “Brexit means Brexit” despite having voted herself to remain.
Natalie Kenway

May 23 2019 3:54 PM
Prime Minister Theresa May has U-turned on her promise to publish the Brexit Withdrawal Bill in the coming days following cabinet pressure.
The bill, which is widely expected to be defeated for a fourth time, will now not be published or debated until early June.
Standing in for May, government whip Mark Spencer told MPs:
"We will update the House on the publication and introduction of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill on our return from the Whitsun recess."
"We had hoped to hold second reading on Friday 7 June
"At the moment, we have not secured agreement to this in the usual channels. Of course we will update the House when we return from recess."
mike.sheen

May 23 2019 7:43 AM
The resignation of leader of the House of Commons Andrea Leadsom has accelerated expectations of the departure of Prime Minister Theresa May, who is set to step aside or be forced out within days.
May is likely to face a fourth defeat of her Brexit proposals if they survive to be voted upon by MPs in early June, with the Prime Minister facing opposition throughout Parliament and even in her own cabinet.
Leadsom’s resignation letter described the new possibility of a second EU referendum as “dangerously divisive”, making clear her opposition to the latest draft of the EU withdrawal agreement bill.
She said: “I considered carefully the timing of this decision, but I cannot fulfil my duty as leader of the House tomorrow, to announce a bill with new elements that I fundamentally oppose.”
The Tories face electoral oblivion in today’s European Parliamentary vote – with some polls placings them in fifth place – adding to the parties woes.
May refused to meet home secretary Sajid Javid, foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt and Scotland secretary David Mundell yesterday (22 May), according to the FT.
A senior conservative source said: “She is not playing by the rules any more. It is
incredible how she just avoided the cabinet acting against her by just not meeting them.”
mike.sheen

May 22 2019 7:27 AM
Theresa May is under pressure from across the House of Commons to step down as Prime Minister immediately and abandon her Brexit deal, which she intends to bring before Parliament again in early June.
She had originally planned to leave office after initial Brexit arrangements were agreed and finalised, but she now faces calls to move the date she departs to within the next few days.
May’s inclusion of new compromises, including a Parliamentary vote on holding a second referendum, has been poorly received by opposition parties and MPs across her own party, according to Bloomberg.
A fourth defeat of her deal appears likely.
Would-be Prime Minister Boris Johnson tweeted that he “will not vote for it”, adding UK negotiators “can and must do better -- and deliver what the people voted for”.
Pro-Brexit Tory MPs were also in agreement with the Labour Party and the DUP in condemning May’s proposals, all vowing to vote against them.
mike.sheen

May 21 2019 4:51 PM
MPs will be given a vote on whether or not to hold a second referendum if they pass Theresa May’s EU Withdrawal Agreement Bill, which the Prime Minister has redrafted to include ten changes.
May told MPs today they face “one last chance” to secure Brexit and warned them a negotiated departure from the EU would be "dead in the water" if they fail to pass the bill.
The “new” deal, which will be published in the next few days, will gives MPs a vote on whether to hold another referendum, and also includes new assurances on workers' rights and environmental protections.
It will also give Parliament the right to decide the future of membership of the customs union, which it would put in place on a temporary basis.
It is expected the vote on the PM’s new deal to take place in early June.
mike.sheen

May 21 2019 7:29 AM
Bank of England deputy governor Ben Broadbent has warned UK companies are likely to entirely scrap projects previously put on hold in the event of a no-deal Brexit.
Plans were paused during 2018, and business investment declined, as management awaited more clarity on an agreement, leading to some Brexiteers suggesting Britain should leave the EU now with no agreement, as businesses would at least know they would have to revert to trade on World Trade Organization terms, reported Reuters.


However, Mark Carney's number two Broadbent said:
“It would be wrong to conclude ... that the best thing for investment is to resolve this uncertainty as soon as you can, by any means necessary.
“Deliberately choosing the outcome firms say they view most negatively is more likely to mean that capital projects that have so far been deferred are then simply canceled.”
Natalie Kenway

May 17 2019 10:54 AM
Talks between Prime Minister Theresa May and leader of the opposition Jeremy Corbyn, which were established to bring an end to the Brexit deadlock, will come to an end without an agreement being made.
Labour and the Government have spent six weeks negotiating a compromise on Brexit, following May's successive failures to pass her deal though Parliament.
However, in a statement, Corbyn told May talks have “gone as far as they can” and the parties “have been unable to bridge important policy gaps”.
mike.sheen

May 16 2019 4:04 PM
Theresa May to announce departure timetable within month
Prime Minister Theresa May has agreed to announce the timings of her departure in early June, chairman of the Conservative backbench 1922 Committee Graham Brady has said.
Despite calls for May to formally set a date for her departure she has not yet done so, but she has agreed to discuss a leadership election timetable next month, according to reports.
May will meet  Brady to confirm when she will step down after the second reading of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill in the week of 3 June, he said today (16 May), following a meeting between the Prime Minister and the 1922 executive.
Brady said:
The Prime Minister is determined to secure our departure from the European Union and is devoting her efforts to securing the second reading of the Withdrawal Agreement Bill in the week commencing 3 June 2019 and the passage of that Bill and the consequent departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union by the summer. We have agreed that she and I will meet following the second reading of the Bill to agree a timetable for the election of a new leader of the Conservative and Unionist Party.
Meanwhile Boris Johnson has confirmed he will run for the Conservative Party leadership after Theresa May stands down.
beth.brearley

May 16 2019 7:24 AM
Sterling fell 0.5% yesterday amid fears cross-party talks over Brexit between Theresa May and Labour were flagging.
The FT reported the pound fell to February lows, while risk assets retreated, as Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was urged to 'make his mind up' over the Prime Minister's revised Brexit proposal.
Sterling dipped 0.5% to trade at $1.2838 yesterday (see below chart), close to its lowest level since February 15 of $1.2770.
Natalie Kenway

May 16 2019 7:14 AM
Sterling tests the lower end of its 2019 range   Natalie Kenway

Charles Gates Dawes (August 27, 1865 – April 23, 1951) was an American banker, general, diplomat, and Republican politician who was the 30th vice president of the United States from 1925 to 1929. For his work on the Dawes Plan for World War I reparations, he was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925.
Born in Marietta, Ohio, Dawes attended Cincinnati Law School before beginning a legal career in Lincoln, Nebraska. After serving as a gas plant executive, he managed William McKinley's 1896 presidential campaign in Illinois. After the election, McKinley appointed Dawes as the Comptroller of the Currency, and he remained in that position until 1901 before forming the Central Trust Company of Illinois. Dawes served as a general during World War I, holding the position of chairman of the general purchasing board for the American Expeditionary Forces. In 1921, President Warren G. Harding appointed Dawes as the first Director of the Bureau of the Budget. Dawes also served on the Allied Reparations Commission, where he helped formulate the Dawes Plan to aid the struggling German economy, though the plan was eventually replaced by the Young Plan.

Bank of International Settlements

​Established: 17 May 1930; 89 years ago
17 May 1930; 89 years ago
Type: International financial institution
Purpose: Central bank cooperation=
Location: Basel, Switzerland(Extraterritorial jurisdiction)
Coordinates: 47°32′53″N 7°35′31″ECoordinates:  47°32′53″N 7°35′31″E
Membership: 60 central banks
General manager: Agustín Carstens
Main organL Board of directors[
Website: www.bis.org

Brexit: UK leaves the European Union - BBC News
BBC News
The UK has officially left the European Union after 47 years of membership - and more than three years after it voted to do so in a referendum.

Owen D. Young in 1924, 

Owen D. Young (October 27, 1874 – July 11, 1962) was an American industrialist, businessman, lawyer and diplomat at the Second Reparations Conference (SRC) in 1929, as a member of the German Reparations International Commission.[1]
He is best known for his SRC diplomacy and for founding the Radio Corporation of America. Young founded RCA as a subsidiary of General Electric in 1919; he became its first chairman and continued in that position until 1929.
Owen D. Young in 1924, Born: Owen D. Young
October 27, 1874, Stark, New York, 

Died: July 11, 1962 (aged 87)

Jun 28 2016 11:31 AM
UK retail investors ditch property funds after Brexit vote
UK retail investors are pulling out of property and UK equity funds in swathes, switching to global and Japan equities, following the UK's decision to leave the European Union, according to an online investment platform.
laura dew

Rothschild Banking Cartel

HSBC , Society Generale, Lloyds Group

RBS, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs

UBS, Bank of America, Deutsche Bank

Barclays, Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse

These banks and their employees have been unlawfully granted immunity from crimimal prosecution in any jurisdiction, under the "Headquarters Agreement" between Rothschild's Bank of International Settlements (BIS) and the Swiss Federal Council.

As a direct result of a stand-down notice from the Cartell, the US Government  abandoned its intended prosecutions of HSBC and its directors for money laundering, thus demonstrating that BIS is a Protection Racket for Institutionalised banking crimes.

# All The Plenarys Men 

# HSBC Money Laundering

# Rothschild Hegemony 

​

Jun 20 2016 1:15 PM
10 things to consider before the big vote 
http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2462058 /the-eu-referendum-ten-things-to-consider-before-the-big-vote
laura dew

Jun 21 2016 2:47 PM
Hold your breath and have some cash ready to be deployed on Friday, says Rowan Dartington Signature’s Guy Stephens:
Those of a certain age may recall the doom that ensued when we spectacularly crashed out of the European Exchange Rate Mechanism. It appeared like we had descended into a form of banana republic with several changes in interest rates in one day - clearly the authorities were in panic. Sterling devalued and it took a couple of days for investors to realise that this was great news for the UK economy which had been struggling with an overvalued currency.
If Sterling falls by the forecast of up to 10% on a successful leave vote, this will be a boost to exporters so there may be a very good opportunity to buy selected equities amid the turmoil. Considered investments at such moments can invariably be some of the most profitable.
So, holding some cash ahead of Friday, ready to be deployed, is probably about the best hedge an investor can make.  The vast majority of businesses will not be affected in any meaningful way in the long term. Life will carry on and we won't ever know what the outcome would have been had we voted the other way.
Hold your breath, prepare your strategy and be brave if you have the opportunity.
Hardeep Tawakley

Jun 22 2016 12:33 PM
Jeremy Lang, founder and partner at Ardevora
Much of the investment world is currently obsessed by the EU referendum. Typically we do not care too much about referendums or elections, despite the market’s fixation. What generally intrigues us is the anticipation of uncertainty attached to such events. For example, we have seen the likes of Eurotunnel struggle recently because of this phenomenon. We are looking forward to a release of anxiety following the referendum vote, which in our view will allow these stocks to perform well once again.
Anna Fedorova

Jun 23 2016 10:37 AM
Sterling shoots to a six-month high as betting odds surge to 84% chance for the remain camp - we will have more on market movements this morning on investmentweek.co.uk
Hardeep Tawakley

Jun 23 2016 10:41 AM
Analysts Winterflood Securities has given its recommendations for the trusts that could defy both a remain and a leave vote (the trusts highlighted are those in their model portfolio which in their opinion, might benefit or at least provide a safe harbour in the case of each result)
In the event that the UK votes to remain in the EU, we would expect a relief rally, which arguably has already started, in predominantly UK focused businesses. As such, we would not be surprised to see a strong short term fillip to mid and small cap companies. Our favoured names in this space remain The Mercantile Investment Trust and Henderson Smaller Companies. Both offer some value on discounts of 13% and 14% respectively to their NAV. We suspect that it would be perceived to be a good result for Europe in general and would expect funds such as Jupiter European Opportunities (3% discount) to benefit.
Meanwhile, if the UK votes to leave the EU today, they would expect a negative reaction from equity markets and a sell-off in sterling. The analyts said:
A sizeable stock market crash cannot be discounted but even in the event of a more moderate sell-off, it seems reasonable to assume that discounts will widen across the investment trust sector. In the event of a ‘leave’ result there are certain funds amongst our long-term recommendations that we would expect to outperform, certainly on a relative basis. This includes Personal Assets, managed by Sebastian Lyon of Troy Asset Management. One of the ramifications of a ‘leave’ outcome could be further central bank intervention, possibly including the bond market. We believe that this would indirectly benefit City Merchants High Yield* (3% premium), which invests in high yield credit and is predominantly exposed to European issuers.
Hardeep Tawakley

Jun 23 2016 3:12 PM

Odey: Markets have already priced in 'Bremain' vote
Crispin Odey has said markets are largely pricing in a 'remain' vote ahead of the results of the EU referendum, despite a private poll indicating strong support for the 'leave' campaign.   .... Laura Dew

John Bolton interview: Brexit is a 'triumph of democracy' that will boost UK on world stage
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/05/31/john-bolton-interview-brexit-triumph-democracy-will-boost-uk/
Con Coughlin 31 MAY 2019
Donald Trump's national security adviser said a 'separate' Britain would also help the US influence Nato
Brexit offers the opportunity for Britain to become a “strong and independent country” that will have a positive impact on the rest of the world and play a vital role in Nato.That is the considered view of John Bolton, the US National Security Advisor, and a com
Speaking exclusively to the Telegraph on the eve of US President Donald Trump’s state visit next week, Mr Bolton said the outcome of the 2016 Brexit referendum represented a “triumph of democracy”.
And he backed Mr Trump’s pledge that Washington will negotiate a trade deal that is mutually beneficial to the US and Britain.
“We have agonised with you throughout this process,” said...

Jun 24 2016 9:14 AM
Prime Minister David Cameron resigns as UK votes to leave EU
UK Prime Minister David Cameron has announced that he will step down by October, following the UK's decision to exit the European Union.      laura dew
Jun 24 2016 9:15 AM

Jun 24 2016 9:15 AM
Asset manager and bank shares dive 20% on Brexit vote
Banks and asset managers have suffered extreme share price falls in early trading, with many down as much as 20% as the Brexit vote spells uncertainty for the UK economy.
laura dew

Laura Kuenssberg 

Rothschild:
The Hidden Sovereign Power Behind the Bank of International Settlement

BIS Posted on 11th November 2017

by The Bernician

In order to prove that the House of Rothschild was the hidden hand behind the founding of the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland – purportedly the central bank for the central banks, pictured above – the following facts need to be sustained with compelling evidence:

1. The men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild when they founded the bank.
2. The governors of the central banks which became members of the BIS board of directors were working for or with the House of Rothschild in their financial policy-making.
3. The House of Rothschild has benefited, whether directly or indirectly, from any aspect of the business conducted by BIS.

BIS was founded by four men on 17/05/1930,: 
1. Hjalmar Schacht [Head of Reichsbank], 
2. Charles G Dawes [Chairman of City National Bank],

3. Owen D Young [founder of RCA and chairman of General Electric] 
and 
4. Montague Norman [governor of the Bank of England and partner in JP Morgan].

Hjalmar Schacht [Head of Reichsbank], 
Hjalmar Schacht. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970) was a German economist, banker, centre-right politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party. He served as the Currency Commissioner and President of theReichsbank under the Weimar Republic.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hjalmar_Schacht
Hjalmar Schacht. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970)
Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970) was a German economist, banker, centre-right politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party. He served as the Currency Commissioner and President of the Reichsbank under the Weimar Republic. He was a fierce critic of his country's post-World War I reparation obligations.
He was never a member of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, but served in Adolf Hitler's government as President of the National Bank (Reichsbank) 1933–1939 and became Minister of Economics (August 1934 – November 1937).

While Schacht was for a time feted for his role in the German "economic miracle", he opposed Hitler's policy of German re-armament insofar as it violated the Treaty of Versailles and (in his view) disrupted the German economy. His views in this regard led Schacht to clash with Hitler and most notably with Hermann Göring. He was dismissed as President of the Reichsbank in January 1939. He remained as a minister without portfolio, and received the same salary, until he was fully dismissed from the government in January 1943.[2]

In 1944 Schacht was arrested by the Gestapo after the assassination attempt on Hitler on 20 July 1944, because he allegedly had had contact with the assassins. Subsequently, he was interned until the end of the Third Reich in the concentration camps Ravensbrück and later at Flossenbürg. In the last days of the war, he was one of the 134 special and clan prisoners[a] who were transported by the SS from Dachau into the "Alpine Fortress" to Niederdorf in South Tyrol, where they were freed on 30 April 1945.[4]
Despite this, he was tried at Nuremberg, but was fully acquitted.
In 1955, he founded a private banking house in Düsseldorf. He also advised developing countries on economic development.

Charles G Dawes [Chairman of City National Bank],
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_G._Dawes

Charles G. Dawes
30th Vice President of the United States
In office
March 4, 1925 – March 4, 1929
President: Calvin Coolidge
Preceded by: Calvin Coolidge
Succeeded by: Charles Curtis
United States Ambassador to the United Kingdom
In office
June 15, 1929 – December 30, 1931
President: Herbert Hoover
Preceded by: Alanson B. Houghton
Succeeded by: Andrew Mellon
Director of the Bureau of the Budget
In office: June 23, 1921 – June 30, 1922
President: Warren G. Harding
Preceded by: Position established
Succeeded by:  Herbert Lord
10th Comptroller of the Currency
In office: January 1, 1898 – September 30, 1901
President: William McKinley
Preceded by:  James H. Eckels
Succeeded by: William Ridgely
Personal details
Born: August 27, 1865
Marietta, Ohio, U.S.
Died: April 23, 1951 (aged 85)
Evanston, Illinois, U.S.
Resting place: Rosehill Cemetery
Political party: Republican
Spouse(s):  Caro Blymyer (m. 1889)
Children: 2, 2 adopted
Relatives: Rufus Dawes (Father)
Education: Marietta College (BA)
University of Cincinnati (LLB)
Civilian awards
Nobel Peace Prize
Military service: 
Allegiance: United States
Branch/service
 United States Army
Years of service: 1917–1919
Rank: Brigadier General
Unit: American Expeditionary Forces
Liquidation Commission of the War Department
Battles/wars: World War I
Military awards
Army Distinguished Service Medal

Charles Gates Dawes (August 27, 1865 – April 23, 1951) was an American banker, general, diplomat, and Republican politician who was the 30th vice president of the United States from 1925 to 1929. For his work on the Dawes Plan for World War I reparations, he was a co-recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1925.
Born in Marietta, Ohio, Dawes attended Cincinnati Law School before beginning a legal career in Lincoln, Nebraska. After serving as a gas plant executive, he managed William McKinley's 1896 presidential campaign in Illinois. After the election, McKinley appointed Dawes as the Comptroller of the Currency, and he remained in that position until 1901 before forming the Central Trust Company of Illinois. Dawes served as a general during World War I, holding the position of chairman of the general purchasing board for the American Expeditionary Forces. In 1921, President Warren G. Harding appointed Dawes as the first Director of the Bureau of the Budget. Dawes also served on the Allied Reparations Commission, where he helped formulate the Dawes Plan to aid the struggling German economy, though the plan was eventually replaced by the Young Plan.

The 1924 Republican National Convention nominated President Calvin Coolidge without opposition. After Frank Lowden declined the vice presidential nomination, the convention chose Dawes as Coolidge's running mate. The Republican ticket won the 1924 presidential electionand Dawes was sworn in as vice president in 1925. Dawes helped pass the McNary–Haugen Farm Relief Bill in Congress, but the bill was vetoed by President Coolidge. Dawes was a candidate for re-nomination at the 1928 Republican National Convention, but Coolidge's opposition to Dawes helped ensure that Charles Curtis was nominated for the vice presidency instead. In 1929, President Herbert Hoover appointed Dawes to be the Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Dawes also briefly led the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which organized a government response to the Great Depression. He resigned from that position in 1932 to return to banking, and he died in 1951 of coronary thrombosis.

Owen D Young [founder of RCA and chairman of General Electric] 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Owen_D._Young

Owen D. Young (October 27, 1874 – July 11, 1962) was an American industrialist, businessman, lawyer and diplomat at the Second Reparations Conference (SRC) in 1929, as a member of the German Reparations International Commission.[1]
He is best known for his SRC diplomacy and for founding the Radio Corporation of America. Young founded RCA as a subsidiary of General Electric in 1919; he became its first chairman and continued in that position until 1929.
Owen D. Young
Young in 1924
Born: Owen D. Young
October 27, 1874
Stark, New York
Died: July 11, 1962 (aged 87)

St. Augustine, Florida

Nationality

American

Occupation: industrialist, businessman, lawyer and diplomat
and 

Montague Norman [governor of the Bank of England and partner in JP Morgan].
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/bank-of-england/10214541/Was-Montagu-Norman-a-Nazi-sympathiser.html

Was Montagu Norman a Nazi sympathiser?
Until last month, a small portrait of Sir Montagu Norman hung in the Governor’s private meeting room beside his office at the Bank of England.

Montagu Norman (pictured) was close friends with Hjalmar Schacht, Adolf Hitler's minister of economics and Reichsbank president 
By Philip Aldrick, Economics Editor
4:50PM BST 31 Jul 2013

Norman was Britain’s first modern central banker and Governor for a remarkable 24 years until 1944, amassing powers at Threadneedle Street that turned what was a cosy City institution into an arm of the state.

But he was also an economic dinosaur, whose determination to put Britain back on the gold standard in 1925 destroyed industry and condemned Britain to a more severe recession than necessary.

Adam Posen, a former Bank’s rate-setter, has said that when he could not decide which way to vote he would look at the giant portrait of Norman hanging in the Monetary Policy Committee’s meeting room and ask himself “What would Montagu do?”. Then do the opposite.

So, Mark Carney’s decision to remove the heirloom shortly after taking over as Governor on July 1 was loaded with symbolic significance. What he could not have known, though, was that another – more damaging – gold scandal involving Norman was about to erupt.

On Tuesday, in a newly digitally published history, the Bank revealed that it had helped the Nazis sell gold looted from Czechoslovakia in March 1939. The documents put Norman right at the heart of the decision, raising fresh questions about his suspected Nazi sympathies.

According to the documents, the gold was being held in the Bank’s vaults on behalf of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank for central banks. On March 21 1939, BIS requested the Bank transfer £5.6m of gold – £735m in today’s prices – from “Number 2 Account to Number 17 Account”.

The Bank was “fairly sure” the transfer was from the National Bank of Czechoslovakia to Germany’s Reichsbank, the record states. But, regardless of its suspicions, the transfer was made that very same day. Over the following 10 days, the Reichsbank sold £4m of the gold, with the proceeds poured into Germany’s ongoing rearmament.

There is little doubt the Bank was aware of the significance of its decision. The request came just days after Hitler had invaded Czechoslovakia, in direct breach of the Treaty of Munich of September 1938, when Germany was given the Sudetenland in exchange for peace.

Moreover, the request came from the then BIS president, J W Beyen, a Dutchman. The Czech central bank, under threat from its new Nazi bosses, had instructed Beyen to make the transfer. The Netherlands at the time was feeling extremely vulnerable to invasion and desperately trying to demonstrate its neutrality, so Beyen was in no position to object.

However, had it wanted, the Bank could have blocked – or at least delayed – the request. It had significant influence at BIS because its representative Sir Otto Niemeyer was chairman, a post that revolved between member countries. Yet, it took the French to suggest barring the transfer of the looted gold.

According to the historical record, Norman told the Treasury on March 22 that he had “received a telephone message from the Governor of the Bank of France proposing that they should urge their respective Treasuries to make joint protest to the President of the BIS against possible delivery of Czech assets to the Germans, and that they themselves should join in making a specific request to transfer no Czech assets pending the next meeting of the board”.

Norman “declined” the request, taking the puritanical position that “it would be wrong and dangerous ... to attempt for political reasons to influence the decisions of the president of the BIS”.
Contact with the French appears to have been made on the day both the BIS request and transfer were made, suggesting Norman green-lighted the deal personally. His defence was that BIS rules had to be followed no matter what, and he persisted with this absurd line even after war was declared on September 3.
On September 4, he wrote to senior Treasury official Sir Richard Hopkins to warn that any deviation from the BIS rules “would offer hostile propaganda an excellent opportunity for criticism that, where it is in their interest, HM Government do not hesitate to disregard their international arrangements”.

To make itself absolutely clear, the Treasury replied: “The Bank should not act upon an order of the BIS if it seems to the Bank to be likely that the order might benefit the enemy... The Bank should not act upon an order without consulting the Treasury... Neutrals are to be assured that, where the Treasury are satisfied as to ownership, orders by the BIS shown to be on behalf of neutrals will be authorised”.

The documents reinforce the impression that Norman was an inflexible aparatchik, but also renew questions about his suspected Nazi sympathies. As outlined in Liaquat Ahmed’s Lords of Finance, Norman was close friends with Hjalmar Schacht, Hitler’s minister of economics and Reichsbank president.

In January 1939, Norman went to Berlin to attend the christening of Schacht’s grandson, named Norman in his honour. Ahmed writes that Norman admired “Schacht, and during the early years of Nazi rule, even the achievements of Hitler – he is said to have told a Morgan partner that 'Hitler and Schacht are the bulwarks of civilisation in Germany’.”
Schacht later turned against Hitler and was sent to Dachau in 1944 for suspected involvement in the attempt on the Fuhrer’s life. But he played a vital role in restoring Germany’s fortunes under the Third Reich.

From the founding of the bank until at least 1939, Schacht worked closely with Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs and Montague Norman, in funneling Wall Street and City of London money into Hitler’s rearmament program; as is documented in Professor Antony Sutton’s painstaking work, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler:

“In October 1931, Warburg received a letter from Hitler which he passed on to Carter at Guaranty Trust Company, and subsequently another bankers’ meeting was called at the Guaranty Trust Company offices. Opinions at this meeting were divided. “Sidney Warburg” reported that Rockefeller, Carter, and McBean were for Hitler, while the other financiers were uncertain.
Montague Norman of the Bank of England and Glean of Royal Dutch Shell argued that the $10 million already spent on Hitler was too much, that Hitler would never act. The meeting finally agreed in principle to assist Hitler further, and Warburg again undertook a courier assignment and went back to Germany.
On this trip Warburg reportedly discussed German affairs with “a Jewish banker” in Hamburg, with an industrial magnate, and other Hitler supporters.

One meeting was with banker von Heydt and a “Luetgebrunn.” The latter stated that the Nazi storm troopers were incompletely equipped and the S.S. badly needed machine guns, revolvers, and carbines.”

This evidence shows that the transfers of those funds into the accounts held in trust by BIS for Hitler’s regime were all facilitated by the Warburgs, a family which long ago assimilated itself into the House of Rothschild by marriage and without whom the Rothschild’s hand in world affairs would not have been capable of remaining hidden for so long.

It is therefore fair to deduce from this circumstantial evidence alone that the Warburgs were acting as Rothschild proxies in the financing of Hitler’s rise to power, in which they were aided and abetted by at least two of the four BIS founders, in Schacht and Norman.

Paul Warburg was also the driving force behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve, which congressman Charles Lindbergh described as: “…the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalised… The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

Rothschild: The Hidden Sovereign Power Behind BIS
Posted on 11th November 2017 

by The Bernician

In order to prove that the House of Rothschild was the hidden hand behind the founding of the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland – purportedly the central bank for the central banks, pictured above – the following facts need to be sustained with compelling evidence:

1. The men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild when they founded the bank.
2. The governors of the central banks which became members of the BIS board of directors were working for or with the House of Rothschild in their financial policy-making.
3. The House of Rothschild has benefited, whether directly or indirectly, from any aspect of the business conducted by BIS.

BIS was founded by four men on 17/05/1930,: Hjalmar Schacht [Head of Reichsbank], Charles G Dawes [Chairman of City National Bank], Owen D Young [founder of RCA and chairman of General Electric] and Montague Norman [governor of the Bank of England and partner in JP Morgan].

From the founding of the bank until at least 1939, Schacht worked closely with Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs and Montague Norman, in funneling Wall Street and City of London money into Hitler’s rearmament program; as is documented in Professor Antony Sutton’s painstaking work, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler:

“In October 1931, Warburg received a letter from Hitler which he passed on to Carter at Guaranty Trust Company, and subsequently another bankers’ meeting was called at the Guaranty Trust Company offices. Opinions at this meeting were divided. “Sidney Warburg” reported that Rockefeller, Carter, and McBean were for Hitler, while the other financiers were uncertain.

Montague Norman of the Bank of England and Glean of Royal Dutch Shell argued that the $10 million already spent on Hitler was too much, that Hitler would never act. The meeting finally agreed in principle to assist Hitler further, and Warburg again undertook a courier assignment and went back to Germany.

On this trip Warburg reportedly discussed German affairs with “a Jewish banker” in Hamburg, with an industrial magnate, and other Hitler supporters.
One meeting was with banker von Heydt and a “Luetgebrunn.” The latter stated that the Nazi storm troopers were incompletely equipped and the S.S. badly needed machine guns, revolvers, and carbines.”
This evidence shows that the transfers of those funds into the accounts held in trust by BIS for Hitler’s regime were all facilitated by the Warburgs, a family which long ago assimilated itself into the House of Rothschild by marriage and without whom the Rothschild’s hand in world affairs would not have been capable of remaining hidden for so long.

It is therefore fair to deduce from this circumstantial evidence alone that the Warburgs were acting as Rothschild proxies in the financing of Hitler’s rise to power, in which they were aided and abetted by at least two of the four BIS founders, in Schacht and Norman.

Paul Warburg was also the driving force behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve, which congressman Charles Lindbergh described as: “…the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalised… The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

Warburg’s reward for bringing into being the U.S. Federal Reserve was to be its first chairman. While speaking before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1913, he confessed that, having emigrated to America in 1902, following an extensive education in international banking in Europe, he became a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, which was to become a Rothschild-controlled shareholder of the American central bank.

It is self-evident that the education Warburg received was given by the Rothschilds, just as it was given to Jacob Schiff whilst he lived at their Frankfurt home before emigrating to America.

Between the American Civil War and the beginning of the First World War, the main U.S. agents of the Rothschild Empire were JP Morgan, Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Newsweek magazine published a brief history of Kuhn, Loeb & Co on February 1st 1936, which stated:

“Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb were general merchandise merchants in Lafayette, Indiana, in 1850. As usual in newly settled regions, most transactions were on credit. They soon found out that they were bankers…

In 1867, they established Kuhn, Loeb and Co., bankers, in New York City, and took in a young German immigrant, Jacob Schiff, as partner. Young Schiff had important financial connections in Europe.

After ten years, Jacob Schiff was head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., Kuhn having retired. Under Schiff’s guidance, the house brought European capital into contact with American industry.”

Those European “financial connections” were the Rothschilds, in whose Frankfurt house Jacob Schiff was purportedly educated; and their German partners, the M.M. Warburg Company of Hamburg and Amsterdam, who were and remain but an extension of the same all-powerful banking house – Rothschild by anther name.

During the latter decades of the previous century, the Rothschilds provided John D. Rockefeller with enough finance to develop and dramatically expand his Standard Oil business. The mechanics of the investment were performed by the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who also financed Edward Harriman’s and Andrew Carnegie’s rail-road and steel empires; whilst JP Morgan’s empire was founded on credit extended by the Rothschild-controlled bank in New York.

It naturally follows that, on the basis that the names of Warburg, Morgan and Schiff are synonymous with that of Rothschild, the banking house is widely considered to have power, control or undue influence over every member of the Federal Reserve board, as well as the selection of its chairman.

In August 1976, the House Banking Committee Staff Report was published, detailing the history of the board members of the Federal Reserve, a portion of which can be seen below:

Rothschild: The Hidden Sovereign Power Behind BIS

Posted on 11th November 2017 by The Bernician

 

In order to prove that the House of Rothschild was the hidden hand behind the founding of the Bank of International Settlements [BIS] in Basle, Switzerland – purportedly the central bank for the central banks, pictured above – the following facts need to be sustained with compelling evidence:

1. The men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild when they founded the bank.

2. The governors of the central banks which became members of the BIS board of directors were working for or with the House of Rothschild in their financial policy-making.

3. The House of Rothschild has benefited, whether directly or indirectly, from any aspect of the business conducted by BIS.

 

BIS was founded by four men on 17/05/1930,: Hjalmar Schacht [Head of Reichsbank], Charles G Dawes [Chairman of City National Bank], Owen D Young [founder of RCA and chairman of General Electric] and Montague Norman [governor of the Bank of England and partner in JP Morgan].

 

From the founding of the bank until at least 1939, Schacht worked closely with Jacob Schiff, the Warburgs and Montague Norman, in funneling Wall Street and City of London money into Hitler’s rearmament program; as is documented in Professor Antony Sutton’s painstaking work, Wall Street and the Rise of Hitler:

“In October 1931, Warburg received a letter from Hitler which he passed on to Carter at Guaranty Trust Company, and subsequently another bankers’ meeting was called at the Guaranty Trust Company offices. Opinions at this meeting were divided. “Sidney Warburg” reported that Rockefeller, Carter, and McBean were for Hitler, while the other financiers were uncertain.

Montague Norman of the Bank of England and Glean of Royal Dutch Shell argued that the $10 million already spent on Hitler was too much, that Hitler would never act. The meeting finally agreed in principle to assist Hitler further, and Warburg again undertook a courier assignment and went back to Germany.

On this trip Warburg reportedly discussed German affairs with “a Jewish banker” in Hamburg, with an industrial magnate, and other Hitler supporters.

One meeting was with banker von Heydt and a “Luetgebrunn.” The latter stated that the Nazi storm troopers were incompletely equipped and the S.S. badly needed machine guns, revolvers, and carbines.”

This evidence shows that the transfers of those funds into the accounts held in trust by BIS for Hitler’s regime were all facilitated by the Warburgs, a family which long ago assimilated itself into the House of Rothschild by marriage and without whom the Rothschild’s hand in world affairs would not have been capable of remaining hidden for so long.

 

It is therefore fair to deduce from this circumstantial evidence alone that the Warburgs were acting as Rothschild proxies in the financing of Hitler’s rise to power, in which they were aided and abetted by at least two of the four BIS founders, in Schacht and Norman.

Paul Warburg was also the driving force behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve, which congressman Charles Lindbergh described as: “…the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalised… The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

 

Warburg’s reward for bringing into being the U.S. Federal Reserve was to be its first chairman. While speaking before the House Committee on Banking and Currency in 1913, he confessed that, having emigrated to America in 1902, following an extensive education in international banking in Europe, he became a partner of Kuhn, Loeb & Co, which was to become a Rothschild-controlled shareholder of the American central bank.

It is self-evident that the education Warburg received was given by the Rothschilds, just as it was given to Jacob Schiff whilst he lived at their Frankfurt home before emigrating to America.

Between the American Civil War and the beginning of the First World War, the main U.S. agents of the Rothschild Empire were JP Morgan, Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb. Newsweek magazine published a brief history of Kuhn, Loeb & Co on February 1st 1936, which stated:

“Abraham Kuhn and Solomon Loeb were general merchandise merchants in Lafayette, Indiana, in 1850. As usual in newly settled regions, most transactions were on credit. They soon found out that they were bankers…

In 1867, they established Kuhn, Loeb and Co., bankers, in New York City, and took in a young German immigrant, Jacob Schiff, as partner. Young Schiff had important financial connections in Europe.

After ten years, Jacob Schiff was head of Kuhn, Loeb and Co., Kuhn having retired. Under Schiff’s guidance, the house brought European capital into contact with American industry.”

Those European “financial connections” were the Rothschilds, in whose Frankfurt house Jacob Schiff was purportedly educated; and their German partners, the M.M. Warburg Company of Hamburg and Amsterdam, who were and remain but an extension of the same all-powerful banking house – Rothschild by anther name.

During the latter decades of the previous century, the Rothschilds provided John D. Rockefeller with enough finance to develop and dramatically expand his Standard Oil business. The mechanics of the investment were performed by the Warburgs and Jacob Schiff at Kuhn Loeb, who also financed Edward Harriman’s and Andrew Carnegie’s rail-road and steel empires; whilst JP Morgan’s empire was founded on credit extended by the Rothschild-controlled bank in New York.

It naturally follows that, on the basis that the names of Warburg, Morgan and Schiff are synonymous with that of Rothschild, the banking house is widely considered to have power, control or undue influence over every member of the Federal Reserve board, as well as the selection of its chairman.

In August 1976, the House Banking Committee Staff Report was published, detailing the history of the board members of the Federal Reserve, a portion of which can be seen below:

 

 

In the event this table is accurate [and there is no reason to believe it is not], there is not one individual or bank or investment company included that could not be considered a Rothschild interest, whether by partnership, investment, lending, commissioning or founding, at the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law.

 

Back in 1907, before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Rothschild-controlled Kuhn Loeb chief, Jacob Schiff, warned the New York Chamber of Commerce that:

“…unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.”

Not long after this speech, the Rothschilds’ agents created a financial panic on Wall Street by making margin calls on the market’s biggest borrowers, just as Nathan Rothschild did by selling government bonds low in the aftermath of the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, both of which resulted in an enormous transfer of wealth to the international bankers during the financial panics that ensued.

Reflecting upon the 1907 panic, Paul Warburg, when speaking to the Banking and Currency Committee, confirmed that he was a driving force behind the Aldrich Plan for the creation of a privately owned US central bank:

“In the Panic of 1907, the first suggestion I made was, “let us have a national clearing house” [Central Bank]. The Aldrich Plan [for a Central Bank] contains many things that are simply fundamental rules of banking. Your aim must be the same.”

In addition to this compelling evidence of the hidden hand of Rothschild influence and control, the Telegraph newspaper published an article on 31/07/2013, detailing the revelations contained in documents released by the Bank of England, concerning the transfer of Czech gold to the Reichsbank BIS account. The article stated:

“The documents reveal a shocking story: just six months before Britain went to war with Nazi Germany, the Bank of England willingly handed over £5.6 million worth of gold to Hitler – and it belonged to another country.

The official history of the bank, written in 1950 but posted online for the first time on Tuesday, reveals how we betrayed Czechoslovakia – not just with the infamous Munich agreement of September 1938, which allowed the Nazis to annex the Sudetenland, but also in London, where Montague Norman, the eccentric but ruthless governor of the Bank of England agreed to surrender gold owned by the National Bank of Czechoslovakia.

The Czechoslovak gold was held in London in a sub-account in the name of the Bank for International Settlements, the Basel-based bank for central banks. When the Nazis marched into Prague in March 1939 they immediately sent armed soldiers to the offices of the National Bank. The Czech directors were ordered, on pain of death, to send two transfer requests.

The first instructed the BIS to transfer 23.1 metric tons of gold from the Czechoslovak BIS account, held at the Bank of England, to the Reichsbank BIS account, also held at Threadneedle Street.

The second order instructed the Bank of England to transfer almost 27 metric tons of gold held in the National Bank of Czechoslovakia’s own name to the BIS’s gold account at the Bank of England.”

 

In more simplistic terms, Montague Norman transferred 21 tonnes of Czech gold held by BIS in a Bank of England account, to a Reichsbank account it also held in trust at the English central bank, in order that his friend and fellow central bank head Schacht could finance the final stages of the rearmament of Hitler’s Germany; in addition to transferring 27 tonnes of Czech gold into another BIS account held at the Bank of England, for purposes we can realistically suppose were of a similar criminal nature.

Before any further investigations, it is already clear that Schacht and Norman, the governors of the Reichsbank and the Bank of England respectively, turned a blind eye to a massive theft of wealth from a sovereign nation, to provide arms for the Hitler’s Reich, for whom the drums of war had been beating since 1930. This was done in their unaccountable capacities as trustees of BIS national accounts.

Whilst there is a mountain of additional evidence, for the purposes of this essay, it has already been shown that, on the balance of probabilities, two of the four men who founded BIS were working for or with the House of Rothschild, on the ground that all of the money transferred to Schacht’s Reichbank was sent by Rothschild proxy, Jacob Schiff [or his agents] at Kuhn Loeb; whilst the gold transfer from the Bank of England was authorised by Schacht’s fellow BIS founder, Montague, who both must have known that Hitler’s troops had invaded Prague and that the Czech government would never have consented to gifting such a vast amount of gold to Hitler’s Reich and BIS at the time the transfer was sanctioned.

The only question remaining is whether the House of Rothschild has benefited from the operations of BIS, but the answer arises swiftly from a summary of the answers to the other two questions posed.

We have already established that Schacht and Montague co-founded BIS in 1930 and were carrying out Nazi money laundering operations for Rothschild interests, MM Warburg and Kuhn Loeb; and that Paul Warburg was appointed the first chairman of the Federal Reserve in 1914, after the Act he drafted was passed into law; so it is reasonable to assert that the House of Rothschild benefited from these events in the following ways:

1. A Rothschild agent was placed in charge of the issue of American credit, at the helm of a new privately owned US central bank, the board of which was entirely made up of the representatives of Rothschild interests. This meant that when the heads of the central banks were appointed to the BIS board of directors, Rothschild agents were guaranteed influence over the bank’s operations.

2. This sequence of events significantly increased Rothschild influence and power over both the US Government and the European nations who needed BIS to facilitate loans to their central banks in order to wage WWII; the evidence of which can still be seen today in the form of Donald Trump’s Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross, who worked for Rothschild Inc for three decades, as well as Rothschild controlled President Macron of France.

3. The House of Rothschild clearly used their agents, Schacht, Montague, Warburg and Schiff, to fund both sides in WWII in order to provide the circumstances required for the creation of the Zionist state of Israel; which could not have been achieved with such efficiency and secrecy without the participation of BIS, the sovereign bank which grants the protection of immunity from criminal prosecution to any Rothschild agent appointed to the board or to act as its representative, under the terms its Headquarters Agreement with the Swiss Federal Council. This allows Rothschild operations to be carried out above and beyond any legal jurisdiction or national government scrutiny

.

 

There is a veritable plethora of evidence which would further substantiate the logical assertion that the Rothschilds have benefited, both directly and indirectly, from the operations of the Bank of International Settlements since its creation, but the compelling sources cited in the foregoing passages substantiate that in and of themselves.

The inescapable conclusion is therefore that BIS is and always has been a House of Rothschild interest, despite the fact that the evidence is disguised by the governors of the world’s central banks sitting on the board, every one of which is controlled in much the same way the Rothschilds control the Bank of England and the Federal Reserve. A rigged system in their favour, if ever there was one.

Invesco Perpetual's Barnett: Brexit challenges are 'not insurmountable'

Back in 1907, before the creation of the Federal Reserve, Rothschild-controlled Kuhn Loeb chief, Jacob Schiff, warned the New York Chamber of Commerce that: “…unless we have a Central Bank with adequate control of credit resources, this country is going to undergo the most severe and far reaching money panic in its history.”

Rochenda Sandall and Stephen Graham in Line of Duty series 5: ‘this might be the best yet’.

Photograph: Aiden Monaghan/BBC/World Productions

Investment Week 13 June 2016
Investment Week takes a look at all the latest commentary, analysis, charts and social media posts on the implications of the outcome of the EU referendum on 23 June, 2016

‘Still worth every Emmy going’: Julia Louis-Dreyfus in Veep. Photograph: HBO

http://www.investmentweek.co.uk
Invesco Perpetual's Mark Barnett has said the initial impact of a Brexit will be negative for markets but believes in the long term, "the UK can adapt to whatever is thrown at us".

Jun 17 2016 10:50 AM
Some thoughts from Psigma Investment Management's head of investment strategy Rory McPherson on the last few days as we approach the European referendum.
Telephone polls have been very much in favour of “remain” throughout the campaign with a 10% preference (or thereabouts) for staying in. Online polls, on the other hand, have been very much more divided, with the bookies strongly in favour of an “In” vote winning out. Interestingly, the bookies odds have shifted markedly over the last week and are now much more closely aligned to the polls. “Remain” is being priced with a 60% chance having been up around “70%” for most of the lead-up.  
We think it’ll be a very narrow victory for “remain”, with the margins much closer to those predicted by the polls than the bookies. A good turnout is key and online registration suggests it will be just that. Unlike the punters with their 32 million quid chanced on a 60% return should the “In” vote carry, we’ve taken a more cautious approach. We’ve used the currency weakness to take profits in equities and trim large overseas currency exposure. We’ve bought in and ridden the anticipatory gilt rally and also built up cash reserves – ready to deploy for whatever greets us on June 24th.
laura dew

Jun 17 2016 10:53 am
Battle for the Ages - Highest expected turnout first, showing Remain/Leave voting intention (%)    Laura Dew

Ruling The World of Money 
HARPER'S November 1983 
by Edward Jay Epstein
http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/moneyclub.htm

Ten times a year— once a mouth except in August and October— a small elite of well dressed men arrives in Basel, Switzerland. Carrying overnight bags and attache cases, they discreetly check into the Euler Hotel, across from the railroad station. They have come to this sleepy city from places as disparate as Tokyo, London, and Washington, D.C., for the regular meeting of the most exclusive, secretive, and powerful supranational club in the world. Each of the dozen or so visiting members has his own office at the club, with secure telephone lines to his home country. The members are fully serviced by a permanent staff of about 300, including chauffeurs, chefs, guards, messengers, translators, stenographers, secretaries, and researchers. Also at their disposal are a brilliant research unit and an ultramodern computer, as well as a secluded country club with tennis courts and a swimming pool, a few kilometers outside Basel. The membership of this club is restricted to a handful of powerful men who determine daily the interest rate, the availability of credit, and the money supply of the banks in their own countries. They include the governors of the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan, the Swiss National Bank, and the German Bundesbank. The club controls a bank with a $40 billion kitty in cash, government securities, and gold that constitutes about one tenth of the world's available foreign exchange. The profits earned just from renting out its hoard of gold (second only to that of Fort Knox in value) are more than sufficient to pay for the expenses of the entire organization. And the unabashed purpose of its elite monthly meetings is to coordinate and, if possible, to control all monetary activities in the industrialized world. The place where this club meets in Basel is a unique financial institution called the Bank for International Settlements-or more simply, and appropriately, the BIS (pronounced "biz" in German).THE BIS was originally established in May 1930 by bankers and diplomats of Europe and the United States to collect and disburse Germany's World War I reparation payments (hence its name). It was truly an extraordinary arrangement. Although the BIS was organized as a commercial bank with publicly held shares, its immunity from government interference, and even taxation, in both peace and war was guaranteed by an international treaty signed in The Hague in 1930. Although all its depositors are central banks, the BIS has made a profit on every transaction. And because it has been highly profitable, it has required no subsidy or aid from any government.Since it also provided, in Basel, a safe and convenient repository for the gold holdings of the European central banks, it quickly evolved into the bank for central banks. As the world depression deepened in the Thirties and- financial panics flared up in Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Germany, the governors in charge of the key central banks feared that the entire global financial system would collapse unless they could closely coordinate their rescue efforts. The obvious meeting spot for this desperately needed coordination was the BIS, where they regularly went anyway to arrange gold swaps and war-damage settlements.Even though an isolationist Congress officially refused to allow the U.S. Federal Reserve to participate in the BIS, or to accept shares in it (which were instead held in trust by the First National City Bank), the chairman of the Fed quietly slipped over to Basel for important meetings. World monetary policy was evidently too important to leave to national politicians. During World War 11, when the nations, if not their central banks, were belligerents, the BIS continued operating in Basel, though the monthly meetings were temporarily suspended. In 1944, following Czech accusations that the BIS was laundering gold that the Nazis had stolen from occupied Europe, the American government backed a resolution at the Bretton Woods Conference calling for the liquidation of the BIS. The naive idea was that the settlement and monetary-clearing functions it provided could be taken over by the new International Monetary Fund.What could not be replaced, however, was what existed behind the mask of an international clearing house: a supranational organization for setting and implementing global monetary strategy, which could not be accomplished by a democratic, United Nations-like international agency. The central bankers, not about to let their club be taken from them, quietly snuffed out the American resolution.After World War 11, the BIS reemerged as the main clearing house for European currencies and, behind the scenes, the favored meeting place of central bankers. When the dollar came under attack in the 1960s, massive swaps of money and gold were arranged at the BIS for the defense of the American currency. It was undeniably ironic that, as the president of the BIS observed, "the United States, which had wanted to kill the BIS, suddenly finds it indispensable." In any case, the Fed has become a leading member of the club, with either Chairman Paul Volcker or Governor Henry Wallich attending every "Basel weekend."Originally, the central bankers sought complete anonymity for their activities. Their headquarters were in an abandoned six story hotel, the Grand et Savoy Hotel Universe, with an annex above the adjacent Frey's Chocolate Shop. There purposely was no sign over the door identifying the BIS, so visiting central bankers and gold dealers used Frey's, which is across the street from the railroad station, as a convenient landmark. It was in the wood-paneled rooms above the shop and the hotel that decisions were reached to devalue or defend currencies, to fix the price of gold, to regulate offshore banking, and to raise or lower short-term interest rates. And though they shaped "a new world economic order" through these deliberations, according to Guido Carli, the governor of the Italian central bank,, the public, even in Basel, remained almost totally unaware of the club and its activities.In May 1977, however, the BIS gave up its anonymity, against the better judgment of some of its members, in exchange for more efficient headquarters. The new building, an eighteen story-high circular skyscraper that rises over the medieval city like some misplaced nuclear reactor, quickly became known as the "Tower of Basel" and began attracting attention from tourists. "That was the last thing we wanted," Dr. Fritz Leutwiler, its president told me, when I interviewed him in 1983. "If it had been up to me, it never would have been built." While we talked, he kept his eyes glued to the Reuters screen in his office, which signaled currency fluctuations around the globe.Despite its irksome visibility, the new headquarters does have the advantages of luxurious space and Swiss efficiency. The building is completely air-conditioned and self-contained, with its own nuclear-bomb shelter in the sub-basement, a triply redundant fire-extinguishing system (so outside firemen never have to be called in), a private hospital, and some twenty miles of subterranean archives. "We try to provide a complete clubhouse for central bankers ... a home away from home," said Gunther Schleiminger, the supercompetent general manager, as he arranged a rare tour of the headquarters for me. The top floor, with a panoramic view of three countries, Germany, France, and Switzerland, is a deluxe restaurant, used only to serve the members a buffet dinner when they arrive on Sunday evenings to begin the "Basel weekends." Aside from those ten occasions, this floor remains ghostly empty.On the floor below, Schleiminger and his small staff sit in spacious offices, administering the day-today details of the BIS and monitoring activities on lower floors as if they were running an out-of-season hotel. The next three floors down are suites of offices reserved for the central bankers. All are decorated in three colors— beige, brown, and tan— and each has a similar modernistic lithograph over the desk. Each office also has coded speed-dial telephones that at a push of a button directly connect the club members to their offices in their central banks back home. The completely deserted corridors and empty offices, with nameplates on the doors and freshly sharpened pencils in cups and neat stacks of incoming papers on the desks, are again reminiscent of a ghost town. When the members arrive for their forthcoming meeting in November, there will be a remarkable transformation, according to Schleiminger, with multilingual receptionists and secretaries at every desk, and constant meetings and briefings.On the lower floors are the BIS computer, which is directly linked to the computers of the member central banks and provides instantaneous access to data about the global monetary situation, and the actual bank, where eighteen traders, mainly from England and Switzerland, continually roll over short" term loans on the Eurodollar markets and guard against foreign-exchange losses (by simultaneously selling the currency in which the loan is due). On yet another floor, gold traders are constantly on the telephone arranging loans of the bank's gold to international arbitragers, thus allowing central banks to make interest on gold deposits.Occasionally there is an extraordinary situation, such as the decision to sell gold for the Soviet Union, which requires a decision from the "governors," as the BIS staff calls the central bankers. But most of the banking is routine, computerized, and riskless. Indeed, the BIS is prohibited by its statutes from making anything but short-term loans. Most are for thirty days or less that are government guaranteed or backed with gold deposited at the BIS. The profits the BIS receives for essentially turning over the billions of dollars deposited by the central banks amounted to $162 million last year.As skilled as the BIS may be at all this, the central banks themselves have highly competent staffs capable of investing their deposits. The German Bundesbank, for example, has a superb international trading department and 15,000 employees— at least twenty times as many as the BIS staff. Why then do the Bundesbank and the other central banks transfer some $40 billion of deposits to the BIS and thereby permit it to make such a profit?One answer is of course secrecy. By commingling part of their reserves in what amounts to a gigantic mutual fund of short term investments, the central banks created' a convenient screen behind which they can hide their own deposits and withdrawals in financial centers around the world. And the central banks are apparently willing to pay a high fee to use the cloak of the BIS.There is, however, another reason why the central banks regularly transfer deposits to the BIS: they want to provide it with a large enough profit to support the other services it provides. Despite its name, the BIS is far more than a bank. From the outside, it seems to be a small, technical organization. Just eighty-six of its 298 employees are ranked as professional staff. But the BIS is not a monolithic institution: artfully concealed within the shell of an international bank, like a series of Chinese boxes one inside another, are the real groups and services the central bankers need-and pay to support.The first box inside the bank is the board of directors, drawn from the eight European central banks (England, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, France, Belgium, Sweden, and the Netherlands), which meets on the Tuesday morning of each "Basel weekend." The board also meets twice a year in Basel with the central banks of other nations. It provides a formal apparatus for dealing with European governments and international bureaucracies like the IMF or the European Economic Community (the Common Market). The board defines the rules and territories of the central banks with the goal of preventing governments from meddling in their purview. For example, a few years ago, when the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Paris appointed a low-level committee to study the adequacy of bank reserves, the central bankers regarded it as poaching on their monetary turf and turned to the BIS board for assistance. The board then arranged for a high-level committee, under the head of Banking Supervision at the Bank of England, to preempt the issue. The OECD got the message and abandoned its effort.To deal with the world at large, there is another Chinese box called the Group of Ten, or simply the "G-10." It actually has eleven full-time members, representing the eight European central banks, the U.S. Fed, the Bank of Canada, and the Bank of Japan. It also has one unofficial member: the governor of the Saudi Arabian Monetary Authority. This powerful group, which controls most of the transferable money in the world, meets for long sessions on the Monday afternoon of the "Basel weekend." It is here that broader policy issues, such as interest rates, money-supply growth, economic stimulation (or suppression), and currency rates are discussed-if not always resolved.Directly under the G-10, and catering to all its special needs, is a small unit called the "Monetary and Economic Development Department," which is, in effect, its private think tank. The head of this unit, the Belgian economist Alexandre Larnfalussy, sits in on all the G-10 meetings, then assigns the appropriate research and analysis to the half dozen economists on his staff. This unit also produces the occasional blue-bound "economic papers" that provide central bankers from Singapore to Rio de Janeiro, even though they are not BIS members, with a convenient party line. For example, a recent paper called "Rules versus Discretion: An Essay on Monetary Policy in an Inflationary Environment," politely defused the Milton Friedmanesque dogma and suggested a more pragmatic form of monetarism. And last May, just before the Williamsburg summit conference, the unit released a blue book on currency intervention by central banks that laid down the boundaries and circumstances for such actions. When there are internal disagreements, these blue books can express positions sharply contrary to those held by some BIS members, but generally they reflect a consensus of the G-10.Over A bratwurst-and-beer lunch on the top floor of the Bundesbank, which is located in a huge concrete building (called "the bunker") outside of Frankfurt, Karl Otto Pohl, its president and a ranking governor of the BIS, complained to me in 1983 about the repetitiousness of the meetings during the "Basel weekend." "First, there is the meeting on the Gold Pool, then, after lunch, the same faces show up at the G-10, and the next day there is the board which excludes the U.S., Japan, and Canada, and the European Community meeting which excludes Sweden and Switzerland." He concluded: "They are long and strenuous-and they are not where the real business gets done." This occurs, as Pohl explained over our leisurely lunch, at still another level of the BIS: "a sort of inner club." 

The inner club is made up of the half dozen or so powerful central bankers who find themselves more or less in the same monetary boat: along with Pohl are Volcker and Wallich from the Fed, Leutwiler from the Swiss National Bank, Lamberto Dini of the Bank of Italy, Haruo Mayekawa of the Bank of Japan, and the retired governor of the Bank of England, Lord Gordon Richardson (who had presided over the G-10 meetings for the past ten years). They are all comfortable speaking English; indeed, Pohl recounted how he has found himself using English with Leutwiler, though both are of course native German-speakers. And they all speak the same language when it comes to governments, having shared similar experiences. Pohl and Volcker were both under secretaries of their respective treasuries; they worked closely with each other, and with Lord Richardson, in the futile attempts to defend the dollar and the pound in the 1960s. Dini was at the IMF in Washington, dealing with many of the same problems. Pohl had worked closely with Leutwiler in neighboring Switzerland for two decades. "Some of us are very old friends," Pohl said. Far more important, these men all share the same set of well-articulated values 'about money.The prime value, which also seems to demarcate the inner club from the rest of the BIS members, is the firm belief that central banks should act independently of their home governments. This is an easy position for Leutwiler to hold, since the Swiss National Bank is privately owned (the only central bank that is not government owned) and completely autonomous. ("I don't think many people know the name of the president of Switzerland-even in Switzerland," Pohl joked, "but everyone in Europe has heard of Leutwiler.") Almost as independent is the Bundesbank; as its president, Pohl is not required to consult with government officials or to answer the questions of Parliament-even about such critical issues as raising interest rates. He even refuses to fly to Basel in a government plane, preferring instead to drive in his Mercedes limousine.The Fed is only a shade less independent than the Bundesbank: Volcker is expected to make periodic visits to Congress and at least to take calls from the White House-but he need not follow their counsel. While in theory the Bank of Italy is under government control, in practice it is an elite institution that acts autonomously and often resists the government. (In 1979, its then governor, Paolo Baffi, was threatened with arrest, but the inner club, using unofficial channels, rallied to his support.) Although the exact relationship between the Bank of Japan and the Japanese government purposely remains inscrutable, even to the BIS governors, its chairman, Mayekawa, at least espouses the principle of autonomy. Finally, though the Bank of England is under the thumb of the British government, Lord Richardson was accepted by the inner club because of his personal adherence to this defining principle. But his successor, Robin Leigh-Pemberton, lacking the years of business and personal contact, probably won't be admitted to the inner circle.In any case, the line is drawn at the Bank of England. The Bank of France is seen as a puppet of the French government; to a lesser degree, the remaining European banks are also perceived by the inner club as extensions of their respective governments, and thus remain on the outside.A second and closely related belief of the inner club is that politicians should not be trusted to decide the fate of the international monetary system. When Leutwiler became president of the BIS in 1982, he insisted that no government official be allowed to visit during a "Basel weekend." He recalled that in 1968, U.S. Treasury undersecretary Fred Deming had been in Basel and stopped in at the bank. "When word got around that an American Treasury official was at the BIS," Leutwiler said, "bullion traders, speculating that the U.S. was about to sell its gold, began a panic in the market." Except for the annual meeting in June (called "the Jamboree" by the staff ), when the ground floor of the BIS headquarters is open to official visitors, Leutwiler has tried to enforce his rule strictly. "To be frank," he I have no use for politicians. They lack the judgment of central bankers." This effectively sums up the common antipathy of the inner club toward "government muddling," as Pohl puts it.The inner-club members also share a strong preference for pragmatism and flexibility over any ideology, whether that of Lord Keynes or Milton Friedman. Rather than resorting to rhetoric and invoking principles, the inner club seeks any remedy that will relieve a crisis. For example, earlier this year, when Brazil failed to pay back on time a BIS loan that was guaranteed by the central banks, the inner club quietly decided to extend the deadline instead of collecting the money from the guarantors. "We are constantly engaged in a balancing act-without a safety net," Leutwiler explained.THE FINAL and by far the most important belief of the inner club is the conviction that when the bell tolls for any single central bank, it tolls for them all. When Mexico faced bankruptcy in the early eighties. The issue for the inner club was not the welfare of that country but, as Dini put it, "the stability of the entire banking system." For months Mexico had been borrowing overnight funds from the interbank market in New York-as every bank recognized by the Fed is permitted to do-to pay the interest on its $80 billion external debt. Each night it had to borrow more money to repay the interest on the previous night's transactions, and, according to Dini, by August Mexico had borrowed nearly one quarter of all the "Fed Funds," as these overnight loans between banks are called.The Fed was caught in a dilemma: if it suddenly stepped in and forbade Mexico from further using the interbank market, Mexico would be unable to repay its enormous debt the next day, and 25 percent of the entire banking system's ready funds might be frozen. But if the Fed permitted Mexico to continue borrowing in New York, in a matter of months it would suck in most of the interbank funds, forcing the Fed to expand drastically the supply of money.It was clearly an emergency for the inner club. After speaking to Miguel Mancera, director of the Banco de Mexico, Volcker immediately called Leutwiler, who was vacationing in the Swiss mountain village of Grison. Leutwiler realized that the entire system was confronted by a financial time bomb: even though the IMF was prepared to extend $4.5 billion to Mexico to relieve the pressure on its long-term debt, it would require months of paperwork to get approval for the loan. And Mexico needed an immediate 1.85 billion dollar loan to get out of the interbank market, which Mancera had agreed to do. But in less than forty eight hours, Leutwiler had called the members of the inner club and arranged the temporary bridging loan.While this $1.85 billion appeared in the financial press to have come from the BIS, virtually all the funds came from the central banks in the inner club. Half came directly from the United States -$600 million from the Treasury's exchange-equalization fund and $325 million from the Fed's coffers; the remaining $925 million mainly from deposits of the Bundesbank, Swiss National Bank, Bank of England, Bank of Italy, and Bank of Japan, deposits that were specifically guaranteed by these central banks, though advanced pro forma by the BIS (with a token amount advanced by the BIS itself against the collateral of Mexican gold). The BIS undertook virtually no risk in this rescue operation; it merely provided a convenient cloak for the inner club. Otherwise, its members, especially Volcker, would have had to take the political heat individually for what appeared to be the rescue of an underdeveloped country. In fact, they were true to their paramount values: rescuing the banking system itself.Inner club members publicly pay lip service to the ideal of preserving the character of the BIS and not turning it into a lender of last resort for the world at large. Privately, however, they will undoubtedly continue their maneuvers to protect the banking system at whatever point in the world it seems most vulnerable. After all, it is ultimately the central banks' money at risk, not the BIS's. And the inner club will also keep using the BIS as its public mask, and pay the requisite price for the disguise.

http://www.edwardjayepstein.com/archived/moneyclub.htmhttp://www.edwardjayepstein.com/current.htm

Montagu Norman (pictured) was close friends with Hjalmar Schacht, Adolf Hitler's minister of economics and Reichsbank president 

Jun 28 2016 11:31 AM
FTSE and sterling rebound despite UK ratings cuts
Sterling and the FTSE 100 have rebounded this morning, clawing back some of the losses made in yesterday's trading, despite two credit ratings agencies downgrading the UK following the Brexit vote.
laura dew

Montague Norman

In more simplistic terms, Montague Norman transferred 21 tonnes of Czech gold held by BIS in a Bank of England account, to a Reichsbank account it also held in trust at the English central bank, in order that his friend and fellow central bank head Schacht could finance the final stages of the rearmament of Hitler’s Germany; in addition to transferring 27 tonnes of Czech gold into another BIS account held at the Bank of England, for purposes we can realistically suppose were of a similar criminal nature.

Jun 30 2016 1:48 PM
Fund groups resist 'knee-jerk' Brexit reaction despite M&G and Columbia Threadneedle early moves
http://www.investmentweek.co.uk
The majority of asset managers are taking a 'wait and see' approach before finalising their post-Brexit plans, although they acknowledge they may face requirements to bolster their presence in mainland Europe in the future.
Natalie Kenway

Bank of International Settlements

​Established: 17 May 1930; 89 years ago
17 May 1930; 89 years ago
Type: International financial institution
Purpose: Central bank cooperation=
Location: Basel, Switzerland(Extraterritorial jurisdiction)
Coordinates: 47°32′53″N 7°35′31″ECoordinates:  47°32′53″N 7°35′31″E
Membership: 60 central banks
General manager: Agustín Carstens
Main organL Board of directors[
Website: www.bis.org

Jun 24 2016 10:24 AM
FCA gives guidance to firms after Brexit vote
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said the longer-term impacts of Brexit on UK regulation are partly dependent on the relationship the country chooses to pursue with the EU trading block.
laura dew

Jun 29 2016 4:52 PM
How can investors handle the Brexit 'black swan'?
Fidelity International's Richard Edgar talks to head of fixed income Charles McKenzie and global CIO, equities Dominic Rossi about the impact of Brexit on global markets.
laura dew

President Donald Trump talks with British Prime Minister Theresa May during the opening day of Argentina G20 Leaders' Summit 2018 at Costa Salguero on November 30, 2018 in Buenos Aires, Argentina | Amilcar Orfali/Getty Images  

 In the event this table is accurate [and there is no reason to believe it is not], there is not one individual or bank or investment company included that could not be considered a Rothschild interest, whether by partnership, investment, lending, commissioning or founding, at the time the Federal Reserve Act was passed into law.

The Brexit Storm: 
Monday 1 April 9.00pm-10.00pm
BBC TWO
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2019/14/the-brexit-storm​
The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story offers an unprecedented insight into one of the most extraordinary political stories of our time, following the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, as she reports on the twists and turns of Parliament as the United Kingdom negotiates to leave the EU.
Laura has a front-row seat on history as it unfolds. With candid access to many of the key players of this political drama, the one-off special includes never-seen-before footage and gives audiences a chance to share Laura’s unique perspective - and glimpse the sides of her job which usually stay off-camera.

Shadowed by a film crew as she reports on this turbulent political period, the programme starts from the moment the Prime Minister announces her Chequers Plan, through Brussels, as Theresa May navigates her way towards a deal with the EU, before returning to London to witness the toughest parliamentary battles of the modern era.

Throughout the journey, the cameras capture the unstudied thoughts and debates of some of the country’s most influential parliamentarians on both sides of the Brexit debate, depicting Laura, and her interviewees, as audiences have never seen them before.
The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story (1x60') is a Vice Studios Production for BBC Two.
Filmed over nine tumultuous months, the BBC’s political editor Laura Kuenssberg takes us inside every twist and turn of the most extraordinary political story of our time - Brexit.

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/tv-radio-events/tv/the-brexit-storm

The week in TV: The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story; Veep; Our Planet and more
Laura Kuenssberg was at her lucid best in a crucial documentary on the Brexit chaos, while Veep and Line of Duty returned in style

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2019/apr/07/brexit-storm-laura-kuenssberg-inside-story-veep-our-planet-line-of-duty-alan-partridge-review

The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story (BBC Two) | iPlayer
Veep (Sky Atlantic)
Our Planet (Netflix)
Line of Duty (BBC One) | iPlayer
This Time With Alan Partridge (BBC One) | iPlayer

It might be too early, too reductively silly, certainly too likely to lead to As this Italo-Glaswegian scion of Hutchesons’ grammar school took us through not even the full 1,000 days but just the most ludicrous, post-Chequers chunk, in an intelligent mix of to-camera reports and personal asides, you could see her weariness, but also, often, her glee: Kuenssberg, you always feel, actually enjoys this kind of thing. And comes at it with a rare mix of cynicism and energy, while having to change outfits at speed about 12 times a day, and push to the front or squat in the rain to bark (generally) non-snarky questions. When the bulk of the population give in to a feeling of squirmy-head at the latest byzantine demographics, Kuenssberg is always able to understand them, which makes her, frankly, a little odd but also unassailably crucial.

Perhaps wisely, this programme opted to give us little of the presenter herself. Does she ever bitch or bake? Do karaoke or sudoku? Go for long walks down a lonely beach with the mobile left at home? Of this we learned precisely jack. Quite correct. A gal’s got a right. Instead, among the insights vouchsafed: Theresa May really doesn’t do small talk. I know everyone says it but, honestly, one could have more amiable, even insightful, chitchat with a napkin. Boris has the intelligence, but not the emotional equipment, for a journey in politics: by far most shots were of him looking simply lost, or with his head in his hands. And, crucially, a cruncher of a post-Chequers memo, leaked to Kuenssberg, revealed how virulently unloved the May deal was even at the time. It’s worth rewatching for this reveal alone.

Talking of Iannucci, the final series of Veep, the US-based spin-off of The Thick of It which he showran until series 4, began on Sky Atlantic with a roisteringly hearty bout of foot-shootery. It’s probably time that it should depart, but I’m going to miss it immensely: gag per minute, it’s as richly seamed as Brooklyn Nine-Nine. I know most people say that it’s impossible to compete satirically with the real events unfolding in the White House, but sometimes, surely, it’s just enough to get on with being very, very funny. (Besides, I wonder how much successful skewering is being done among the sharp and enlightened. When two of the highest profile “jokes” of recent times have involved a giant inflated baby, and a depiction of Trump with a small penis, you might want to regrade the parameters of “humour”.)

Anyway, Selina Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus, still worth every Emmy going) is running again for president, launching her bid at the shrine that is the birthplace of women’s rights activist Susan B Anthony. “Wow,” she gasps, “this place has feminist symbolism just… spurting out of its dickhole.” Selina simply lives, breathes, such crassnesses: gloriously, more than she should, she actually voices them.

She’s not sure about standing for “all America”. How about, an aide suggests, Real America? “I like that. We can figure out what it means later.” When finally settling on why she’s actually running – “Tell them it’s all about getting a better deal for Americans. Or some fucking crap like that” – she is congratulated: Kennedyesque. “But John, right? Not Teddy. Or the… rapey… one. Or the one that killed that little girl.” But the altogether is far from crass, and we even get a smartish explanation of the difference between metonymy and synecdoche. And, later in the series, a fine trope in which young pretty women queue up to accuse senators and congressmen of entirely “appropriate behaviour”: they are often in tears because the politicos have boastfully and falsely claimed intimate knowledge. The hashtag #notme begins to trend.

Our Planet is, by Mr Attenborough’s reckoning, worth abandoning (temporarily) the Beeb for, in order to employ Netflix’s budget and, crucially, power of global message, to reach an audience 10 times the numbers achievable with Blue Planet II. I reckon it’s been a good gamble. To nobody’s surprise, it’s phenomenally well filmed; the aerial shots of glaciers plunging into the Arctic sea just beggar belief. It is also relatively unafraid to lecture: every episode features quietly urgent warnings, about overfishing, say, or date palm overforestation. This is rather refreshing: it feels as if we are being told facts, rather than cottonwooled with cuddly animals and a mimsied semi-warning over the end credits.

splenetic bouts of disagreement, but can anyone be said to have had a “good” Brexit? My own partisanship would allow me to hope that most non-soft brains might want to include Fintan O’Toole, James O’Brien, Anna Soubry, Jess Phillips, Lisa Nandy, Donald Tusk. And, of course, Laura Kuenssberg.

She was at it again, indefatigable, lucid, unflappable, somehow managing to keep the eye-rolling to a minimum, in The Brexit Storm, a glorious, access-most-areas hour-long recap of just what a wild and crazee ride this has been. Had the programme been aired the night after the referendum, it would have either been written off as an offensive satirical misstep by the likes of Armando Iannucci, or led, for once, to real British riots on real British streets.

As this Italo-Glaswegian scion of Hutchesons’ grammar school took us through not even the full 1,000 days but just the most ludicrous, post-Chequers chunk, in an intelligent mix of to-camera reports and personal asides, you could see her weariness, but also, often, her glee: Kuenssberg, you always feel, actually enjoys this kind of thing. And comes at it with a rare mix of cynicism and energy, while having to change outfits at speed about 12 times a day, and push to the front or squat in the rain to bark (generally) non-snarky questions. When the bulk of the population give in to a feeling of squirmy-head at the latest byzantine demographics, Kuenssberg is always able to understand them, which makes her, frankly, a little odd but also unassailably crucial.

Perhaps wisely, this programme opted to give us little of the presenter herself. Does she ever bitch or bake? Do karaoke or sudoku? Go for long walks down a lonely beach with the mobile left at home? Of this we learned precisely jack. Quite correct. A gal’s got a right. Instead, among the insights vouchsafed: Theresa May really doesn’t do small talk. I know everyone says it but, honestly, one could have more amiable, even insightful, chitchat with a napkin. Boris has the intelligence, but not the emotional equipment, for a journey in politics: by far most shots were of him looking simply lost, or with his head in his hands. And, crucially, a cruncher of a post-Chequers memo, leaked to Kuenssberg, revealed how virulently unloved the May deal was even at the time. It’s worth rewatching for this reveal alone.

Talking of Iannucci, the final series of Veep, the US-based spin-off of The Thick of It which he showran until series 4, began on Sky Atlantic with a roisteringly hearty bout of foot-shootery. It’s probably time that it should depart, but I’m going to miss it immensely: gag per minute, it’s as richly seamed as Brooklyn Nine-Nine. I know most people say that it’s impossible to compete satirically with the real events unfolding in the White House, but sometimes, surely, it’s just enough to get on with being very, very funny. (Besides, I wonder how much successful skewering is being done among the sharp and enlightened. When two of the highest profile “jokes” of recent times have involved a giant inflated baby, and a depiction of Trump with a small penis, you might want to regrade the parameters of “humour”.)
Anyway, Selina Meyer (Julia Louis-Dreyfus, still worth every Emmy going) is running again for president, launching her bid at the shrine that is the birthplace of women’s rights activist Susan B Anthony. “Wow,” she gasps, “this place has feminist symbolism just… spurting out of its dickhole.” Selina simply lives, breathes, such crassnesses: gloriously, more than she should, she actually voices them.
She’s not sure about standing for “all America”. How about, an aide suggests, Real America? “I like that. We can figure out what it means later.” When finally settling on why she’s actually running – “Tell them it’s all about getting a better deal for Americans. Or some fucking crap like that” – she is congratulated: Kennedyesque. “But John, right? Not Teddy. Or the… rapey… one. Or the one that killed that little girl.” But the altogether is far from crass, and we even get a smartish explanation of the difference between metonymy and synecdoche. And, later in the series, a fine trope in which young pretty women queue up to accuse senators and congressmen of entirely “appropriate behaviour”: they are often in tears because the politicos have boastfully and falsely claimed intimate knowledge. The hashtag #notme begins to trend.
Our Planet is, by Mr Attenborough’s reckoning, worth abandoning (temporarily) the Beeb for, in order to employ Netflix’s budget and, crucially, power of global message, to reach an audience 10 times the numbers achievable with Blue Planet II. I reckon it’s been a good gamble. To nobody’s surprise, it’s phenomenally well filmed; the aerial shots of glaciers plunging into the Arctic sea just beggar belief. It is also relatively unafraid to lecture: every episode features quietly urgent warnings, about overfishing, say, or date palm overforestation. This is rather refreshing: it feels as if we are being told facts, rather than cottonwooled with cuddly animals and a mimsied semi-warning over the end credits.
It’s unafraid to engage the brain too, daring some relatively complex explanations of the interconnectedness between most biological microsystems, their careful millennia of natural balance and how the doubling of the Earth’s human population since the moon landings is jeopardising the scales. And, wonderfully, it offers some ways forward. All good, then, but, oh, the bloody music. Never mind Ellie Goulding’s dirgefest of a closing anthem, the intrusive incidental stuff grates way too often. Worst, always, is the jaunty “humorous” stuff by which perky oboes and grampus bassoons illustrate, say, baby wildebeest playfully trampolining on the savannah, or courting manakin birds, or a wolf wittily ripping the throat from a young caribou. There’s just, really, No Need.

I suspected even halfway through the opener of Line of Duty that the undercover cop we were being nudged towards (Rochenda Sandall) wasn’t an undercover cop but a nasty piece of real gang work. Well, aren’t I the clever little smugkins? So well versed are we in the writings of Jed Mercurio that he finds it hard to slip these red herrings past us; the price of success. But I certainly hadn’t guessed on it being the wonderful Stephen Graham. At least four dead cops to his direct credit after this episode alone, he, and Mercurio, are going to have to work awful hard at plausible extrication. Buckle in: this might be the best yet.
Quite accountably, in the less than loved This Time With Alan Partridge, they saved the very worst for last. I’d retained hopes for this, and some of the format worked winningly, but as soon as his co-host, the wonderful Susannah Fielding, walked off set at the very start, it fell apart: Alan was just allowed to get nasty, which was never, ever, the point. I’d love to see Alan return. Just not with those writers.
The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story: a journalist at the top of her game, a country in absolute chaos
A fascinating look at the BBC political editor's life covering Brexit, but one was left desperate to know more about Kuenssberg herself

Sarah Carson  Monday April 1st 2019
The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story
BBC2, 9pm
https://inews.co.uk/culture/television/the-brexit-storm-laura-kuenssbergs-inside-story/

★★★★
Small reassurances between Kuenssberg and the Prime Minister felt oddly intimate, before cameras went live and Kuenssberg’s fearsome intellect was on display
“I can’t say Brexit has been bad for my career,” Laura Kuenssberg recently admitted. Quite. At a most unpredictable time in modern British history, the public is reliant on the BBC’s political editor’s dispatches, scoops, insight, and interpretation of the chaos around us. The Brexit Storm, which followed her for 18 months, confirmed three things we already knew: that those on the inside are clueless, too, that nobody knows what’s going to happen next and that Kuenssberg is one of the hardest-working people in media.
Soundtracked throughout with frantic, demented violins and occasionally Apprentice-style jollity, which aroused the excitement and perpetual alertness Kuenssberg must feel each day. We are so familiar with her slick delivery, it was fascinating to hear her mutterings in moments before going live, her gasps of shock and outbursts of “crikey!” watching another of Theresa May’s deals voted down, scanning documents mumbling “blah de blah” and explaining cheerfully that some Brexiteers had “got done over”.

Hjalmar Schacht. Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970)
Hjalmar Horace Greeley Schacht (22 January 1877 – 3 June 1970) was a German economist, banker, centre-right politician, and co-founder in 1918 of the German Democratic Party. He served as the Currency Commissioner and President of the Reichsbank under the Weimar Republic. He was a fierce critic of his country's post-World War I reparation obligations.
He was never a member of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, but served in Adolf Hitler's government as President of the National Bank (Reichsbank) 1933–1939 and became Minister of Economics (August 1934 – November 1937).

U.S. first lady Melania Trump, U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Theresa May attend a dinner at Blenheim Palace, west of London, on July 12, 2018 | Geoff Pugh/AFP via Getty Images

Jun 20 2016 12:41 PM
Who are the eight fund managers that could weather a Brexit storm?.....  Laura Dew
http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/analysis/2461733 /gallery-eight-fund-managers-who-could-weather-the-brexit-storm

Battle to protect new Brexit deal
https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/battle-to-protect-new-brexit-deal/ar-AAIGPhn?li=BBr5KbJ&ocid=mailsignout#page=2
Jody Corcoran and Philip Ryan

​​The Government has moved to protect the proposed compromise Brexit deal after a twin attack by a hard-line Brexiteer and the deputy leader of the DUP. The British and Irish governments’ plan to break the impasse suffered an apparent setback after the DUP’s Nigel Dodds said the double customs solution “cannot work”, and Brexiteer Owen Paterson, a former Northern Ireland secretary, suggested it would “ride roughshod” over the Good Friday Agreement. _ Full Story further down this web page 

Ireland's Prime Minister (Taoiseach) Leo Varadkar and British Prime Minister Boris Johnson meet in Thornton Manor, Cheshire, Britain October 10, 2019

8. Extracts of INL News Report on New World Order -
Barrack Obama- 2008 BANKING COLLAPSE ESCALATES WORLD GOVERNMENT FORMATION
UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD GOVERNMENT AGENDA
EMERGENCE OF REGIONAL CURRENCIES
A “NEW WORLD ORDER” IN BANKING

 http://inlnews.com/USA_Past-Present_Future1.html

"International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.” an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy Rachman

In February of 2009, the Times Online reported that a  
“New world order in banking [is] necessary,” 
and that,  
“It is increasingly evident that the world needs a new banking system and  that it should not bear much resemblance to the one that has failed so spectacularly.”

 But of course, the ones that are shaping this new banking system  are the champions of the previous banking system.

The solutions that will follow are simply the extensions of the current system,  only sped up through them necessity posed by the current crisis.

In November of 2008, The National, a prominent United Arab Emirate newspaper, reported on Baron David de Rothschild accompanying Prime Minister Gordon Brown on a visit to the Middle East, although not as a “part of the official party” accompanying Brown. Following an interview with the Baron, it was reported that, “Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.”

In April of 2009, Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, said that,

“If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernizing multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.” 

David Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, and former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote a book titled,

Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World

They are Making, of which he is certainly a member. When discussing the role and agenda of the global “superclass”, he states that,
“In a world of global movements and threats that don’t present their passports at national borders, it is no longer possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfill its portion of the social contract.” 

He writes that,
 “even the international organizations and alliances we have today, flawed as they are, would have seemed impossible until recently, notably the success of the European Union – a unitary democratic state the size of India. The evolution and achievements of such entities against all odds suggest not isolated instances but an overall trend in the direction of what Tennyson called” 
“the Parliament of Man,” Or ‘universal law’.” 

He states that he is “optimistic that progress will continue to be made,
” but it will be difficult, because it “undercuts many national and local power structures and cultural concepts that have foundations deep in the bedrock of human civilization, namely the notion of sovereignty.” 
He quoted an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy as saying,
“Global governance is just a euphemism for global government,”

 and that the

“core of the international financial crisis is that we have global financial markets and no global rule of law.” However, Rachman states that any push towards a global government “will be a painful, slow process.” He then states that a key problem in this push can be explained with an example from the EU, which “has suffered a series of humiliating defeats in referendums, when plans for “ever closer union” have been referred to the voters. In general, the Union has progressed fastest when far-reaching deals have been agreed by technocrats and politicians – and then pushed through without direct reference to the voters.

"International governance tends to be effective, only when it is anti-democratic.” …. an adviser to French President Nicolas Sarkozy Rachman

A NEW BRETTON-WOODS
In October of 2008, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK, said that we “must have a new Bretton Woods - building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.” He continued in saying that, “we must now reform the international financial system around the agreed principles of
transparency, integrity, responsibility, good housekeeping and co-operation across borders.” An article in the Telegraph reported that Gordon Brown would want “to see the IMF reformed to become a ‘global central bank’ closely monitoring the international economy and financial system.”


On October 17, 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he said, “This week, European leaders came together to propose the guiding principles that we believe should underpin this new Bretton Woods: transparency, sound banking, responsibility, integrity and global governance. We agreed that urgent decisions implementing these principles should be made to root out the irresponsible and often undisclosed lending at the heart of our problems. To do this, we need cross-border supervision of financial institutions; shared global standards for accounting and regulation; a more responsible approach to executive remuneration that rewards hard work, effort and enterprise but not irresponsible risk-taking; and the renewal of our international institutions to make them effective early-warning systems for the world economy.”

In early October 2008, it was reported that, “as the world's central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic "policeman" to ensure the crash of 2008 can never be repeated.” Further, “any organization with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation.” A former governor of the Bank of England suggested that, “the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS),” however, “The problem is that it has no teeth. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.”

UNDERSTANDING THE WORLD GOVERNMENT AGENDA A GLOBAL CURRENCY

The Phoenix

In 1988, The Economist ran an article titled, Get Ready for the Phoenix, in which they wrote,
“THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let's say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today's national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the late twentieth century.”


The article stated that,
“The market crash [of 1987] taught [governments] that the pretence of policy cooperation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (ie, until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder.”

Amazingly the article states that,
“Several more big exchange-rate upsets, a few more stock-market crashes and probably a slump or two will be needed before politicians are willing to face squarely up to that choice. This points to a muddled sequence of emergency followed by patch-up followed by emergency, stretching out far beyond 2018-except for two things. As time passes, the damage caused by currency instability is gradually going to mount; and the very trends that will make it mount are making the utopia of monetary union feasible.”

Further, the article stated that,

“The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate-and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate-would be in its charge.
Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit.”

The author admits that,
“This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.”


The article concludes in stating that,
 “The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.”

The last sentence states,
 “Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.”

A “NEW WORLD ORDER” IN BANKING


In March of 2008, following the collapse of Bear Stearns, Reuters reported on a document released by research firm CreditSights, which said that,
“Financial firms face a ‘new world order’,”
and that,
 “More industry consolidation and acquisitions may follow after JP Morgan Chase & Co.”

 Further,
“In the event of future consolidation, potential acquirers identified by Credit Sights include JP Morgan Chase, Wells Fargo, US Bancorp, Goldman Sachs and Bank of America.”

 In June of 2008, before he was Treasury Secretary in the Obama administration, Timothy Geithner, as head of the New York Federal Reserve, wrote an article for the Financial Times following his attendance at the 2008 Bilderberg conference, in which he wrote that,
 “Banks and investment banks whose health is crucial to the global financial system should operate under a unified regulatory framework,”

and he said that,
“the US Federal Reserve should play a "central role" in the new regulatory framework, working closely with supervisors in the US and around the world.”

 In November of 2008, The National, a prominent United Arab Emirate newspaper, reported on Baron David de Rothschild accompanying Prime Minister Gordon Brown on a visit to the Middle East, although not as a “part of the official party” accompanying Brown.

Following an interview with the Baron, it was reported that,
“Rothschild shares most people’s view that there is a new world order. In his opinion, banks will deleverage and there will be a new form of global governance.”

In February of 2009, the Times Online reported that a
 “New world order in banking [is] necessary,”
and that,
“It is increasingly evident that the world needs a new banking system and that it should not bear much resemblance to the one that has failed so spectacularly.”

 But of course, the ones that are shaping this new banking system are the champions of the previous banking system. The solutions that will follow are simply the extensions of the current system, only sped up through the necessity posed by the current crisis.

AN EMERGING GLOBAL GOVERNMENT
A recent article in the Financial Post stated that,
 “The danger in the present course is that if the world moves to a “super sovereign” reserve currency engineered by experts, such as the “UN Commission of Experts” led by Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz, we would give up the possibility of a spontaneous money order and financial harmony for a centrally planned order and the politicization of money. Such a regime change would endanger not only the future value of money but, more importantly, our freedom and prosperity.”  

Further,
“An uncomfortable characteristic of the new world order may well turn out to be that global income gaps will widen because the rising powers, such as China, India and Brazil, regard those below them on the ladder as potential rivals.”

The author further states that,
 “The new world order thus won't necessarily be any better than the old one,” and that,
“What is certain, though, is that global affairs are going to be considerably different from now on.” 

In April of 2009, Robert Zoellick, President of the World Bank, said that,
“If leaders are serious about creating new global responsibilities or governance, let them start by modernizing multilateralism to empower the WTO, the IMF, and the World Bank Group to monitor national policies.” 

 David Rothkopf, a scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former Deputy Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade in the Clinton administration, and former managing director of Kissinger and Associates, and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, recently wrote a book titled, ….Superclass: The Global Power Elite and the World

 They are Making, of which he is certainly a member. When discussing the role and agenda of the global “superclass”, he states that,
“In a world of global movements and threats that don’t present their passports at national borders, it is no longer possible for a nation-state acting alone to fulfill its portion of the social contract.”

He writes that,
“even the international organizations and alliances we have today, flawed as they are, would have seemed impossible until recently, notably the success of the European Union – a unitary democratic state the size of India. The evolution and achievements of such entities against all odds suggest not isolated instances but an overall trend in the direction of what Tennyson called “the Parliament of Man,” or ‘universal law’.”

 He states that he is
“optimistic that progress will continue to be made,” but it will be difficult,
because it …..
“undercuts many national and local power structures and cultural concepts that have foundations deep in the bedrock of human civilization, namely the notion of sovereignty.”

Following the 2009 G20 summit, plans were announced for implementing the creation of a new global currency to replace the US dollar’s role as the world reserve currency. 
Point 19 of the communiqué released by the G20 at the end of the Summit stated,
“We have agreed to support a general SDR allocation which will inject $250bn (£170bn) into the world economy and increase global liquidity.”
 SDRs, or Special Drawing Rights, are
 “a synthetic paper currency issued by the International Monetary Fund.”

 As the Telegraph reported,
 “the G20 leaders have activated the IMF's power to create money and begin global "quantitative easing". In doing so, they are putting a de facto world currency into play. It is outside the control of any sovereign body. Conspiracy theorists will love it.” 

The article continued in stating that,
 “There is now a world currency in waiting. In time, SDRs are likely to evolve into a parking place for the foreign holdings of central banks, led by the People's Bank of China.” 

Further,
“The creation of a Financial Stability Board looks like the first step towards a global financial regulator,”
or,
in other words, a global central bank.

It is important to take a closer look at these “solutions” being proposed and implemented in the midst of the current global financial crisis. These are not new suggestions, as they have been in the plans of the global elite for a long time. However, in the midst of the current crisis, the elite have fast tracked their agenda of forging a New World Order in finance. It is important to address the background to these proposed and imposed “solutions” and what effects they will have on the International Monetary System (IMS) and the global political economy as a whole.

A NEW BRETTON-WOODS

In October of 2008, Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the UK, said that we “must have a new Bretton Woods - building a new international financial architecture for the years ahead.”
He continued in saying that,
“we must now reform the international financial system around the agreed principles of transparency, integrity, responsibility, good housekeeping and co-operation across borders.”

An article in the Telegraph reported that Gordon Brown would want
“to see the IMF reformed to become a ‘global central bank’ closely monitoring the international economy and financial system.”

  On October 17, 2008, Prime Minister Gordon Brown wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post in which he said,
“This week, European leaders came together to propose the guiding principles that we believe should underpin this new Bretton Woods: transparency, sound banking, responsibility, integrity and global governance. We agreed that urgent decisions implementing these principles should be made to root out the irresponsible and often undisclosed lending at the heart of our problems. To do this, we need cross-border supervision of financial institutions; shared global standards for accounting and regulation; a more responsible approach to executive remuneration that rewards hard work, effort and enterprise but not irresponsible risk-taking; and the renewal of our international institutions to make them effective early-warning systems for the world economy.”

In early October 2008, it was reported that,

“as the world's central bankers gather this week in Washington DC for an IMF-World Bank conference to discuss the crisis, the big question they face is whether it is time to establish a global economic "policeman" to ensure the crash of 2008 can never
be repeated.”

Further,
 “any organization with the power to police the global economy would have to include representatives of every major country – a United Nations of economic regulation.”

A former governor of the Bank of England suggested that, “the answer might already be staring us in the face, in the form of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS),” however,

 “The problem is that it has no teeth. The IMF tends to couch its warnings about economic problems in very diplomatic
language, but the BIS is more independent and much better placed to deal with this if it is given the power to do so.” 

On January 1, 1999, the European Union established the Euro as its regional currency. The Euro has grown in prominence over the past several years. However, it is not to be the only regional currency in the world. There are moves and calls for other regional currencies throughout the world. In 2007, Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, ran an article titled, The End of National Currency, in which it began by discussing the volatility of international currency markets, and that very few “real” solutions have been proposed to address successive currency crises. The author poses the question,

“will restoring lost sovereignty to governments put an end to financial instability?”

He answers by stating that, “This is a dangerous misdiagnosis,” and that,

“The right course is not to return to a mythical past of monetary sovereignty, with governments controlling local interest and exchange rates in blissful ignorance of the rest of the world. Governments must let go of the fatal notion that nationhood requires them to make and control the money used in their territory. National currencies and global markets simply do not mix; together they make a deadly brew of currency crises and geopolitical tension and create ready pretexts for damaging protectionism. In order to globalize safely, countries should abandon monetary nationalism and abolish unwanted currencies, the source of much of today's instability.”

The author explains that, “Monetary nationalism is simply incompatible with globalization. It has always been, even if this has only become apparent since the 1970s, when all the world's governments rendered their currencies intrinsically worthless.” The author states that,

“Since economic development outside the process of globalization is no longer possible, countries should abandon monetary nationalism. Governments should replace national currencies with the dollar or the euro or, in the case of Asia, collaborate to produce a new multinational currency over a comparably large and economically diversified area.”

Essentially, according to the author, the solution lies in regional currencies.

In October of 2008,
“European Central Bank council member Ewald Nowotny said a ``tri-polar'' global currency system is developing between Asia, Europe and the U.S. and that he's skeptical the U.S. dollar's centrality can be revived.” 

Paul M. Warburg
Vice Governor, Federal Reserve Board, 1916–1918
Member, Federal Reserve Board, 1914–1916
Born: August 10, 1868
Died: January 24, 1932

Paul Warburg was also the driving force behind the creation of the US Federal Reserve, which congressman Charles Lindbergh described as: “…the most gigantic trust on earth. When the President [Wilson] signs this Bill, the invisible government of the monetary power will be legalised… The greatest crime of the ages is perpetrated by this banking and currency bill.”

​https://www.federalreservehistory.org/people/paul_m_warburg

​Paul M. Warburg was sworn in as a member of the first Federal Reserve Board on August 10, 1914. He was appointed vice chairman (called “vice governor” before 1935) on August 10, 1916. He resigned from the Board on August 9, 1918.

Warburg was born in Hamburg, Germany, in 1868. He graduated from high school in Hamburg in 1886 and began working for an exporting firm there. He then moved on to positions at shipping and banking companies in London and Paris. He returned to Hamburg in 1895 and became a partner in the banking firm M.M. Warburg and Company, founded by his great-grandfather. 

Warburg was a partner in the family firm until 1907. However, in 1902, he moved to New York City and joined his father-in-law’s company as a partner overseeing international loans to several governments. In 1911, he became a naturalized US citizen.

Warburg was considered one of the top authorities on central banking both in Europe and the United States and was active in the monetary reform movement taking place in the United States in the early 1900s. He gave speeches, published several articles advocating the establishment of a US central bank, and was an unofficial advisor to the National Monetary Commission, which was established following the Panic of 1907 to study banking system reform. In 1910, Warburg was one of six men, including Sen. Nelson Aldrich, to participate in a secret meeting on Jekyll Island, Georgia, that resulted in a plan for a National Reserve Association. Although the “Aldrich plan” was rejected by Congress, it laid the foundation for the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, which created the Federal Reserve System. President Woodrow Wilson appointed Warburg to the new entity’s first Board in 1914.  
Although Warburg left the Federal Reserve Board in 1918, he continued to serve the Federal Reserve as a member of the Federal Advisory Council (1921–26). He resumed his activities in business and philanthropic circles as well. For example, he founded and was the first chairman of the Executive Committee of the American Acceptance Council in 1919. In 1921, he organized the International Acceptance Bank to promote US government financing of reconstruction in Europe following the war.
Warburg was also a director of the Council on Foreign Relations (1921–32), a trustee of the Institute of Economics (1922–27), and a trustee of the Brookings Institution after it merged with the Institute of Economics in 1927. He also helped establish the Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation in 1930. He served at various times as a director of the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad, Union Pacific Railroad, and Western Union Telegraph Company. Warburg was also a director of the Julliard School of Music and a trustee of Tuskegee College.
Warburg continued to take an active interest in the nation’s monetary affairs and banking system. In March 1929, he warned that the wild stock speculation resulting from stock price increases and improper bank lending practices would have disastrous results if left unchecked. On October 29 of that year, the stock market crashed.
Throughout his career, Warburg was a prolific writer. Most notable among his published works was a two-volume set on the Federal Reserve System published in 1930. The Yale University Library (Manuscripts and Archives) is the repository for Warburg’s papers dating from 1904 to 1932. The collection includes 169 volumes on banking and finance.
Warburg died at his home in New York in 1932. At the time of his death, he was chairman of the Manhattan Company and a director of the Bank of Manhattan Trust Company, Farmers Loan and Trust Company of New York, and First National Bank of Boston.
Written by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

 The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story

https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2019/14/the-brexit-storm
Monday 1 April  9.00pm-10.00pm  BBC TWO
The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story offers an unprecedented insight into one of the most extraordinary political stories of our time, following the BBC’s political editor, Laura Kuenssberg, as she reports on the twists and turns of Parliament as the United Kingdom negotiates to leave the EU.
Laura has a front-row seat on history as it unfolds. With candid access to many of the key players of this political drama, the one-off special includes never-seen-before footage and gives audiences a chance to share Laura’s unique perspective - and glimpse the sides of her job which usually stay off-camera.
Shadowed by a film crew as she reports on this turbulent political period, the programme starts from the moment the Prime Minister announces her Chequers Plan, through Brussels, as Theresa May navigates her way towards a deal with the EU, before returning to London to witness the toughest parliamentary battles of the modern era.
Throughout the journey, the cameras capture the unstudied thoughts and debates of some of the country’s most influential parliamentarians on both sides of the Brexit debate, depicting Laura, and her interviewees, as audiences have never seen them before.
The Brexit Storm: Laura Kuenssberg’s Inside Story (1x60') is a Vice Studios Production for BBC Two.
KR
UK-EU Trade After Brexit. May has advocated a "hard" Brexit, meaning that Britain would leave the EU's single market and customs union, then negotiate a trade deal to govern their future relationship. These negotiations will be conducted during a transition period that will begin when a divorce deal is ratified.
Brexit
REVIEWED BY WILL KENTON  May 24, 2019
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/brexit.asp
What Is Brexit?
Brexit is an abbreviation for "British exit," referring to the U.K.'s decision in a June 23, 2016 referendum to leave the European Union (EU). The vote's result defied expectations and roiled global markets, causing the British pound to fall to its lowest level against the dollar in 30 years. Former Prime Minister David Cameron, who called the referendum and campaigned for Britain to remain in the EU, announced his resignation the following day.
Theresa May, who replaced Cameron as leader of the Conservative party and prime minister, will step down voluntarily on June 7, 2019 after facing severe pressure to resign. Britain has to ratify a withdrawal agreement with the EU before leaving if it wants to avoid a chaotic "no-deal" exit. The deal May negotiated with the EU was rejected by the House of Commons three times, and she shelved plans to put it to a vote a fourth time after the changes and compromises she was willing to make angered many senior members of her party.
The new Brexit deadline is October 31, 2019.

What Happens Next
Britain has managed to avoid crashing out of the EU without a deal by extending the negotiating period twice. This did mean it was forced to participate in the EU Parliament elections held on May 23. Britain can leave the EU before October 31 if it chooses to, either with a deal or without.
Theresa May's resignation will kickoff a leadership contest to choose her successor from the Tory party. Brexiteer Boris Johnson and Dominic Raab are among the frontrunners. The U.K. has several options before it, and the nature of Brexit will be decided by this new leader.
If the country's next prime minister is a hardline Brexit supporter, it could leave the EU without a deal. If Britain leaves the EU without the ratification of a deal, there will be no two-year transition period. The U.K and the EU are meant to negotiate a new, long-term trade agreement during the transition period. In the absence of a deal, WTO rules will come into effect.
If the next leader prefers a "soft Brexit," the U.K. may be able to stay in the bloc's customs union and single market. A second referendum on Brexit is also a possibility in this scenario. Some MPs have been very opposed to it, but over six million people have signed a "cancel Brexit" petition on the Parliament website.
The next prime minister may choose to hold talks with the opposition party to reach a compromise and win approval for May's deal. They could also propose another round of votes on Brexit alternatives. MPs have voted twice on several options, but none were able to receive majority support.

The Referendum
"Leave" won the June 2016 referendum with 51.9% of the ballot, or 17.4 million votes; "Remain" received 48.1%, or 16.1 million. Turnout was 72.2%. The results were tallied on a U.K.-wide basis, but the overall figures conceal stark regional differences: 53.4% of English voters supported Brexit, compared to just 38.0% of Scottish voters. Because England accounts for the vast majority of the U.K.'s population, support there swayed the result in Brexit's favor. If the vote had been conducted only in Wales (where "Leave" also won), Scotland and Northern Ireland, Brexit would have received less than 45% of the vote.

Brexit referendum results
Support for Brexit      Share of UK Population
England 53.4%        83.9%
Wales 52.5%          4.8%
N Ireland 44.2%        2.9%
Scotland 38.0%         8.4%
UK   51.9 %           100%
Source: BBC

The Article 50 Negotiating Period
The process of leaving the EU formally began on March 29, 2017, when May triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. The U.K. initially had two years from that date to negotiate a new relationship with the EU. Following a snap election on June 8, 2017, May remained the country's leader. However, the Conservatives lost their outright majority in Parliament and agreed on a deal with the Euroskeptic Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). This later caused May some difficulty getting her withdrawal agreement passed in Parliament.

Talks began on June 19, 2017. Questions have swirled around the process, in part because Britain's constitution is unwritten and in part because no country has left the EU using Article 50 before (Algeria left the EU's predecessor through its independence from France in 1962, and Greenland – a self-governing Danish territory – left through a special treaty in 1985).

On November 25, 2018, Britain and the EU agreed on a 585-page withdrawal agreement, a Brexit deal, touching upon issues like citizen's rights, the divorce bill and the Irish border.

Parliament first voted on this agreement on Tuesday, January 15, 2019. Members of Parliament voted 432-202 to reject the agreement, the biggest defeat for a government in the House of Commons in recent history.

Theresa May survived a no-confidence vote held on January 16 and she unveiled her Plan B on January 21. The plan was criticized for being very similar to the original deal she presented.

On January 29, MPs voted for May to return to Brussels to remove the controversial Irish backstop portion of her plan and replace it with alternative arrangements, but the EU had said the deal is not open for re-negotiation. The backstop is a plan to avoid a hard Irish border if the U.K. and EU don't sign a free trade deal during the transition period post-Brexit.
May was seeking changes to the controversial Irish backstop provision to win Parliament's backing. The backstop is intended to be temporary, but Euroskeptic MPs worry it will last indefinitely and compromise Britain's autonomy. She was also accused by the Labor Party of "recklessly running down the clock" to force MPs to choose between her deal and a no deal outcome.
MPs voted against her deal by 391-242 votes on March 12 despite May's claim of "legally binding" changes to the agreement, setting Britain on the path to a no-deal Brexit. Parliament stepped in to delay it and the EU gave its permission.
On March 27, none of the eight Brexit alternatives voted on by Members of Parliament received a majority. May's deal was rejected again on March 29 by a margin of 58 votes, despite her vow to resign before the next stage of negotiations if it was passed.
The Labor Party faces its own crisis after almost a dozen lawmakers decided to leave and form the Independent Group in the House of Commons. They blamed Corbyn's failure to address anti-Semitism in the party and his poor Brexit policy. Three MPs belonging to May's Conservative party have also quit to join the Independent Group. They complained that the policies and priorities of the Tories are being defined by the hardline Euroskeptics in the party.
European Union (EU)
The Negotiations
Britain's lead negotiator in the talks with Brussels was David Davis, a Yorkshire MP, until July 9, 2018, when he resigned. He was replaced by housing minister Dominic Raab as Brexit secretary. Raab resigned in protest over May's deal on November 15, 2018. He was replaced by health and social care minister Stephen Barclay the following day. 
The EU's chief negotiator is Michel Barnier, a French politician.
Preparatory talks about talks exposed divisions in the two sides' approaches to the process. The U.K. wanted to negotiate the terms of its withdrawal alongside the terms of its post-Brexit relationship with Europe, while Brussels wanted to make sufficient progress on divorce terms by October 2017, only then moving on to a trade deal. In a concession that both pro- and anti-Brexit commentators took as a sign of weakness, British negotiators accepted the EU's sequenced approach.

Citizens' Rights
One of the most politically thorny issues facing Brexit negotiators has been the rights of EU citizens living in the U.K. and U.K. citizens living in the EU.
The Withdrawal Agreement allows for the free movement of EU and U.K. citizens until the end of transition period. Following the transition period, they would keep their residence rights if they continue to work, have sufficient resources, or are related to someone who does. To upgrade their residence status to permanent, they would have to apply to the host nation. The rights of these citizens can be abruptly taken away if Britain crashes out without ratifying a deal.
EU citizens have been increasingly leaving the U.K. since the referendum. "EU net migration, while still adding to the population as a whole, has fallen to a level last seen in 2009. We are also now seeing more EU8 citizens – those from Central and Eastern European countries, for example Poland – leaving the U.K. than arriving,” said Jay Lindop, Director of the Centre for International Migration, in a government quarterly report released in February 2019.
Britain's Parliament fought over the rights of EU citizens to remain in the U.K. after Brexit, publicly airing domestic divisions over migration. Following the referendum and Cameron's resignation, May's government concluded that it had the right under the "royal prerogative" to trigger Article 50 and begin the formal withdrawal process on its own. The British Supreme Court intervened, ruling that Parliament had to authorize the measure, and the House of Lords amended the resulting bill to guarantee the rights of EU-born residents. The House of Commons – which had a Tory majority at the time – struck the amendment down and the unamended bill became law on March 16, 2017.
Conservative opponents of the amendment argued that unilateral guarantees eroded Britain's negotiating position, while those in favor of it said EU citizens should not be used as "bargaining chips." Economic arguments also featured: while a third of British expats in Europe are pensioners, EU migrants are more likely to be in work than native-born Brits. That fact suggests EU migrants are greater contributors to the economy than their British counterparts; then again, "Leave" supporters read these data as pointing to foreign competition for scarce jobs in Britain.

Financial Settlement
The "Brexit bill" is the financial settlement the U.K. owes Brussels following its withdrawal.
The Withdrawal Agreement doesn't mention a specific figure, but it is estimated to be up to £39 billion, according to Downing Street. The total sum includes the financial contribution the U.K. will make during the transition period, since it will be acting like a member state of the EU, and its contribution toward the EU’s outstanding 2020 budget commitments.
The U.K. will also receive funding from EU programs during the transition period and a share of its assets at the end of it, which includes the capital it paid into the European Investment Bank (EIB).
A Dec. 2017 agreement resolved this long-standing sticking point that threatened to derail negotiations entirely. Barnier's team launched the first volley in May 2017 with the released of a document listing the 70-odd entities it would take into account when tabulating the bill. The Financial Times estimated that the gross amount requested would be €100 billion; net of certain U.K. assets, the final bill would be "in the region of €55bn to €75bn."
Davis' team, meanwhile, refused EU demands to submit the U.K.'s preferred methodology for tallying the bill. In August, he told the BBC he would not commit to a figure by October, the deadline for assessing "sufficient progress" on issues such as the bill. The following month he told the House of Commons that Brexit bill negotiations could go on "for the full duration of the negotiation."
Davis presented this refusal to the House of Lords as a negotiating tactic, but domestic politics probably explain his reticence. Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, who campaigned for Brexit, called EU estimates "extortionate" on July 11, 2017 and agreed with a Tory MP that Brussels could "go whistle" if they wanted "a penny." 
In her September 2017 speech in Florence, however, May's spokesperson said the U.K. would "honor commitments we have made during the period of our membership."

Northern Irish Border
The Withdrawal Agreement includes an Irish backstop provision, which is a guarantee that there will be no "hard border" between Northern Ireland and Ireland if a Brexit deal is not passed in both the U.K. and EU Parliaments by the end of the transition period. It is an insurance policy that keeps Britain in the EU customs union with Northern Ireland following EU single market rules. The backstop, which is meant to temporary and will be superseded by a subsequent agreement, can only be removed if both Britain and the EU give their consent.
The backstop has emerged as the main reason for the Brexit impasse. May is having difficulty garnering enough support for her deal due to it. Euroskeptic MPs want her to add legally binding changes as they fear it would compromise the country's autonomy and could last indefinitely. EU leaders have so far refused to remove it and have also ruled out a time limit or granting Britain the power to remove it. On March 11, 2019, the two sides signed a pact in Strasbourg that did not change the Withdrawal Agreement but added "meaningful legal assurances." It wasn't enough to convince hardline Brexiteers.
For decades during the second half of the 20th century, violence between Protestants and Catholics marred Northern Ireland, and the border between the British country and the Republic of Ireland to the south was militarized. The 1998 Good Friday Agreement turned the border almost invisible, except for speed limit signs, which switch from miles per hour in the north to kilometers per hour in the south. 
Both British and EU negotiators worry about the consequences of reinstating border controls, as Britain may have to do in order to end freedom of movement from the EU. Yet leaving the customs union without imposing customs checks at the Northern Irish border or between Northern Ireland and the rest of Britain leaves the door wide open for smuggling. This significant and unique challenge is one of the reasons that "soft Brexit" advocates most cite in favor of staying in the EU's customs union and perhaps its single market. In other words, the Northern Ireland conundrum may have created a back door for a soft Brexit. 
The issue is further complicated by the Tories' choice of the Northern Irish Democratic Unionist Party as a coalition partner: the DUP opposed the Good Friday Agreement and – unlike the Conservatives' leader at the time – campaigned for Brexit. Under the Good Friday Agreement, the British government is required to oversee Northern Ireland with "rigorous impartiality"; that may prove difficult for a government that depends on the cooperation of a party with an overwhelmingly Protestant support base and historical connections to Protestant paramilitary groups. Legal challenges to the Tory-DUP coalition agreement are reportedly being prepared.

Arguments For and Against Brexit
"Leave" voters base their support for Brexit on a variety of factors, including the European debt crisis, immigration, terrorism and the perceived drag of Brussels' bureaucracy on the British economy. Britain has long been wary of the European Union's projects, which Leavers feel threatens the U.K.'s sovereignty: the country never opted into the European Union's monetary union, meaning that it uses the pound instead of the euro. It also remained outside the Schengen Area, meaning that it does not share open borders with a number of other European nations.

Opponents of Brexit also cite a number of rationales for their position. One is the risk involved in pulling out of the EU's decision-making process, given that it is by far the largest destination for British exports. Another is the economic and societal benefits of the EU's "four freedoms": the free movement of goods, services, capital and people across borders. A common thread in both arguments is that leaving the EU would destabilize the British economy in the short term and make the country poorer in the long term. In July of 2018, May's cabinet suffered another shake up when Boris Johnson resigned as the U.K.'s Foreign Minister and David Davis resigned as Brexit Minister over May's plans to keep close ties to the EU. Johnson was replaced by Jeremy Hunt, who favors a soft Brexit.
Some state institutions backed the Remainers' economic arguments: Bank of England governor Mark Carney called Brexit "the biggest domestic risk to financial stability" in March 2016 and the following month the Treasury projected lasting damage to the economy under any of three possible post-Brexit scenarios: European Economic Area (EEA) membership such as Norway has; a negotiated trade deal such as the one signed between the EU and Canada in October 2016; and World Trade Organization (WTO) membership.

ANNUAL IMPACT OF LEAVING THE EU ON THE UK AFTER 15 YEARS (DIFFERENCE FROM BEING IN THE EU)
EEA
Negotiated bilateral agreement
WTO
GDP level – central
-3.8%
-6.2%
-7.5%
GDP level
-3.4% to -4.3%
-4.6% to -7.8%
-5.4% to -9.5%

GDP per capita – central*
-£1,100
-£1,800
-£2,100

GDP per capita*
-£1,000 to -£1,200
-£1,300 to -£2,200
-£1,500 to -£2,700

GPD per household – central*
-£2,600
-£4,300
-£5,200

GDP per household*
-£2,400 to -£2,900
-£3,200 to -£5,400
-£3,700 to -£6,600

Net impact on receipts
-£20 billion
-£36 billion
-£45 billion

Adapted from HM Treasury analysis: the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives, April 2016; *expressed in terms of 2015 GDP in 2015 prices, rounded to the nearest £100.
Leave supporters tended to discount such economic projections under the label "Project Fear." A pro-Brexit outfit associated with the U.K. Independence Party (UKIP), which was founded to oppose EU membership, responded by saying that the Treasury's "worst-case scenario of £4,300 per household is a bargain basement price for the restoration of national independence and safe, secure borders." 
Although Leavers have tended to stress issues of national pride, safety and sovereignty, they also muster economic arguments. For example Boris Johnson, who was mayor of London until May 2016 and became Foreign Secretary when May took office, said on the eve of the vote, "EU politicians would be banging down the door for a trade deal" the day after the vote, in light of their "commercial interests." Labor Leave, pro-Brexit Labour group, co-authored a report with a group of economists in September 2017 that forecasted a 7% boost to annual GDP, with the largest gains going to the lowest earners. 

Vote Leave, the official pro-Brexit campaign, topped the "Why Vote Leave" page on its website with the claim that the U.K. could save £350 million per week: "we can spend our money on our priorities like the NHS [National Health Service], schools, and housing." In May 2016, the U.K. Statistics Authority, an independent public body, said the figure is gross rather than net, "is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics." A mid-June poll by Ipsos MORI, however, found that 47% of the country believed the claim. The day after the referendum, Nigel Farage, who co-founded UKIP and led it until that November, disavowed the figure and said that he was not closely associated with Vote Leave. May has also declined to confirm Vote Leave's NHS promises since taking office.

Economic Response
Until an exit deal is finalized or the deadline for negotiations set by Article 50 expires, Britain remains in the EU, both benefiting from its trade links and subject to its laws and regulations.
Even so, the decision to leave the EU has had an effect on Britain's economy.
The country's GDP growth slowed down to around 1.5% in 2018 from 1.8% in 2017 and 1.9% in 2016 as business investment slumped. The IMF predicts that the country's economy will grow at 1.5% in 2019 and 2020. The Bank of England cut its growth forecast for 2019 to 1.2%, the lowest since the financial crisis.
The U.K. unemployment rate hit a 44-year low at 3.9% in the three months to January 2019. Experts attribute this to employers preferring to retain workers instead of investing in new major projects.
In 2018, the pound managed to claw back the losses it suffered after the Brexit vote, but reacted negatively as the likelihood of a no-deal Brexit increased. The currency could rally if a "soft Brexit" deal is passed or Brexit is delayed.
While the fall in the value of the pound has helped exporters, the higher price of imports passed onto consumers and has had a significant impact on the annual inflation rate. CPI inflation hit 3.1% in the 12 months leading up to November 2017, a near six-year high that well exceeded the Bank of England's 2% target. Inflation eventually began to fall in 2018 with the decline in oil and gas prices and was at 1.8% in January 2019.

A July 2017 report by the House of Lords cited evidence that British businesses would have to raise wages to attract native-born workers following Brexit, which is "likely to lead to higher prices for consumers." 
International trade is expected to fall due to Brexit, even if Britain negotiates a raft of free trade deals. Dr. Monique Ebell, former associate research director at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, forecasts a -22% reduction in total British goods and services trade if EU membership is replaced by a free trade agreement. Other free trade agreements could probably not take up the slack: Ebell sees a pact with the BRIICS (Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China and South Africa) boosting total trade by 2.2%; a pact with the U.S., Canada, Australia and New Zealand would do slightly better, at 2.6%. 
"The single market is a very deep and comprehensive trade agreement aimed at reducing non-tariff barriers," Ebell wrote in January 2017, "while most non-EU [free trade agreements] seem to be quite ineffective at reducing the non-tariff barriers that are important for services trade."

June 2017 General Election
On April 18, May called for a snap election to be held on June 8, despite previous promises not to hold one until 2020. Polling at the time suggested May would expand on her slim Parliamentary majority of 330 seats (there are 650 seats in the Commons). Labor gained rapidly in the polls, however, aided by an embarrassing Tory flip-flop on a proposal for estates to fund end-of-life care. 
The Conservatives lost their majority, winning 318 seats to Labor's 262. The Scottish National Party won 35, with other parties taking 35. The resulting hung Parliament cast doubts on May's mandate to negotiate Brexit and led the leaders of Labor and the Liberal Democrats to call on May to resign.

Speaking in front of the Prime Minister's residence at 10 Downing Street, May batted away calls for her to leave her post, saying, "It is clear that only the Conservative and Unionist Party" – the Tories' official name – "has the legitimacy and ability to provide that certainty by commanding a majority in the House of Commons." The Conservatives struck a deal with the Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland, which won 10 seats, to form a coalition. The party is little known outside of Northern Ireland, judging by a wave of curious Google searches that caused the DUP's site to crash.

Implications for Brexit
May presented the election as a chance for the Conservatives to solidify their mandate and strengthen their negotiating position with Brussels. But this backfired.
"The election served to diffuse, not concentrate political power, especially with regards to Brexit," wrote Sky News political correspondent Lewis Goodall. "Ever since election night, Brussels hasn't just been dealing with Number 10 but in effect, the House of Commons too."

In the wake of the election, many expected the government's Brexit position to soften, and they were right. May released a Brexit white paper in July 2018 that mentioned an "association agreement" and a free-trade area for goods with the EU. David Davis resigned as Brexit secretary and Boris Johnson resigned as Foreign Secretary in protest.
But the election also increased the possibility of a no deal Brexit. As the Financial Times predicted, the result made May more vulnerable to pressure from Euroskeptics and her coalition partners. We are seeing this play out with the Irish backstop tussle.
With her position weakened, May is currently struggling to unite her party behind her deal and keep control of Brexit.

Scotland's Independence Referendum
Politicians in Scotland pushed for a second independence referendum in the wake of the Brexit vote, but the results of the June 8, 2017 election cast a pall over their efforts. The Scottish National Party (SNP) lost 21 seats in the Westminster Parliament, and on June 27, 2017, Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said her government at Holyrood would "reset" its timetable on independence to focus on delivering a "soft Brexit."

Not one Scottish local area voted to leave the EU, according to the U.K.'s Electoral Commission, though Moray came close at 49.9%. The country as a whole rejected the referendum by 62.0% to 38.0%. Because Scotland only contains 8.4% of the U.K.'s population, however, its vote to Remain – along with that of Northern Ireland, which accounts for just 2.9% of the U.K.'s population – was vastly outweighed by support for Brexit in England and Wales.
Scotland joined England and Wales to form Great Britain in 1707, and the relationship has been tumultuous at times. The SNP, which was founded in the 1930s, had just six of 650 seats in Westminster in 2010. The following year, however, it formed a majority government in the devolved Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, partly owing to its the promise to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. 

That referendum, held in 2014, saw the pro-independence side lose with 44.7% of the vote; turnout was 84.6%. Far from putting the independence issue to rest, though, the vote fired up support for the nationalists. The SNP won 56 of 59 Scottish seats at Westminster the following year, overtaking the Lib Dems to become the third-largest party in the U.K. overall. Britain's electoral map suddenly showed a glaring divide between England and Wales – dominated by Tory blue with the occasional patch of Labour red – and all-yellow Scotland.
When Britain voted to leave the EU, Scotland fulminated. A combination of rising nationalism and strong support for Europe led almost immediately to calls for a new independence referendum. When the Supreme Court ruled on November 3, 2017 that devolved national assemblies such as Scotland's parliament cannot veto Brexit, the demands grew louder. On March 13 that year, Sturgeon called for a second referendum, to be held in the autumn of 2018 or spring of 2019. Holyrood backed her by a vote of 69 to 59 on March 28, the day before May's government triggered Article 50.

Sturgeon's preferred timing is significant, since the two-year countdown initiated by Article 50 will end in the spring of 2019, when the politics surrounding Brexit could be particularly volatile.

What Would Independence Look Like?
Scotland's economic situation also raises questions about its hypothetical future as an independent country. The crash in the oil price has dealt a blow to government finances. In May 2014 it forecast 2015-2016 tax receipts from North Sea drilling of £3.4 billion to £9 billion, but collected £60 million, less than 1.0% of the forecasts' midpoint. In reality these figures are hypothetical, since Scotland's finances are not fully devolved, but the estimates are based on the country's geographical share of North Sea drilling, so they illustrate what it might expect as an independent nation.
The debate over what currency an independent Scotland would use has been revived. Former SNP leader Alex Salmond, who was Scotland's First Minister until November 2014, told the Financial Times that the country could abandon the pound and introduce its own currency, allowing it to float freely or pegging it to sterling. He ruled out joining the euro, but others contend that it would be required for Scotland to join the EU. Another possibility would be to use the pound, which would mean forfeiting control over monetary policy.

Upsides for Some
On the other hand, a weak currency that floats on global markets can be a boon to U.K. producers who export goods. Industries that rely heavily on exports could actually see some benefit. In 2015, the top 10 exports from the U.K. were (in USD):
Machines, engines, pumps: US$63.9 billion (13.9% of total exports)
Gems, precious metals: $53 billion (11.5%)
Vehicles: $50.7 billion (11%)
Pharmaceuticals: $36 billion (7.8%)
Oil: $33.2 billion (7.2%)
Electronic equipment: $29 billion (6.3%)
Aircraft, spacecraft: $18.9 billion (4.1%)
Medical, technical equipment: $18.4 billion (4%)
Organic chemicals: $14 billion (3%)
Plastics: $11.8 billion (2.6%)

Some sectors are prepared to benefit from an exit. Multinationals listed on the FTSE 100 are likely to see earnings rise as a result of a soft pound. A weak currency may also benefit tourism, energy and the service industry.

In May 2016, the State Bank of India (SBIN.NS), India's largest commercial bank, suggested that the Brexit will benefit India economically. While leaving the Eurozone will mean that the U.K. will no longer have unfettered access to Europe's single market, it will allow for more focus on trade with India. India will also have more room for maneuvering if the U.K. is no longer abiding by European trade rules and regulations.

UK-EU Trade After Brexit
May has advocated a "hard" Brexit, meaning that Britain would leave the EU's single market and customs union, then negotiate a trade deal to govern their future relationship. These negotiations will be conducted during a transition period that will begin when a divorce deal is ratified. The Conservatives' poor showing in the June 2017 snap election called popular support for a hard Brexit into question, and many in the press speculated that the government could take a softer line. The Brexit White Paper released in in July 2018 revealed plans for a softer Brexit. It was too soft for many MPs belonging to her party and too audacious for the EU.

Have Your Customs Union and Eat It
The White Paper says the government plans to leave EU single market and customs union. However, it proposes the creation of a free trade area for goods which would "avoid the need for customs and regulatory checks at the border and mean that businesses would not need to complete costly customs declarations. And it would enable products to only undergo one set of approvals and authorizations in either market, before being sold in both." This means the U.K. will follow EU single market rules when it comes to goods.
The White Paper acknowledged that a borderless customs arrangement with the EU – one that allowed the U.K. to negotiate free trade agreements with third countries – is "broader in scope than any other that exists between the EU and a third country."
The government is right that there is no example of this kind of relationship in Europe today. The four broad precedents that do exist are the EU's relationship with Norway, Switzerland, Canada and World Trade Organization members.

The Norway Model: Join the EEA
The first option would be for the U.K. to join Norway, Iceland and Lichtenstein in the European Economic Area (EEA), which provides access to the EU's single market for most goods and services (agriculture and fisheries are excluded). At the same time the EEA is outside the customs union, so Britain could enter into trade deals with non-EU countries. The arrangement is hardly a win-win, however: the U.K. would be bound by some EU laws, while losing its ability to influence those laws through its European Council and European Parliament voting rights. In September 2017, May called this arrangement an unacceptable "loss of democratic control."
David Davis expressed interest in the Norway model in response to a question he received at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in Washington. "It's something we've thought about but it's not at the top of our list." He was referring specifically to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), which like the EEA offers access to the single market, but not the customs union. EFTA was once a large organization, but most of its members have left to join the EU. Today it comprises Norway, Iceland, Lichtenstein and Switzerland; all but Switzerland are also members of the EEA.

The Switzerland Model
Switzerland's relationship to the EU, which is governed by around 20 major bilateral pacts with the bloc, is broadly similar to the EEA arrangement. Along with these three, Switzerland is a member of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). Switzerland helped set up the EEA, but its people rejected membership in a 1992 referendum. 
The country allows free movement of people and is a member of the passport-free Schengen Area. It is subject to many single market rules, without having much say in making them. It is outside the customs union, allowing it to negotiate free trade agreements with third countries; usually, but not always, it has negotiated alongside the EEA countries. Switzerland has access to the single market for goods (with the exception of agriculture), but not services (with the exception of insurance). It pays a modest amount into the EU's budget. 
Brexit supporters who want to "take back control" would be unlikely to embrace the concessions the Swiss have made on immigration, budget payments and single market rules. The EU would probably not want a relationship modeled on the Swiss example, either: Switzerland's membership in EFTA but not the EEA, Schengen but not the EU, is a messy product of the complex history of European integration and – what else – a referendum.

The Canada Model: A Free Trade Agreement
A third option is to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU along the lines of the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA), a pact the EU has finalized with Canada but not ratified. The most obvious problem with this approach is that the U.K. has only two years from the triggering of Article 50 to negotiate such a deal. The EU has refused to discuss a future trading relationship until December at the earliest. 
To give a sense of how tight that timetable is, CETA negotiations began in 2009 and were concluded in 2014. Three years later, a small minority of the EU's 28 national parliaments have ratified the deal. Persuading the rest could take years. Even subnational legislatures can stand in the way of a deal: the Walloon regional parliament, which represents fewer than 4 million mainly French-speaking Belgians, single-handedly blocked CETA for a few days in 2016. In order to extend the two-year deadline for leaving the EU, Britain would need unanimous approval from the EU 27. Several British politicians, including Chancellor of the Exchequer Philip Hammond, have stressed the need for a transitional deal of a few years so that – among other reasons – Britain can negotiate EU and third country trade deals; the notion has met with resistance from hard-line Brexiteers, however.

In some ways, comparing Britain's situation to Canada's is misleading. Canada already enjoys free trade with the United States through NAFTA, meaning that a trade deal with the EU is not as crucial as it is for the U.K.. Canada's and Britain's economies are also very different: CETA does not include financial services, one of Britain's biggest exports to the EU.
Speaking in Florence in September 2017, May said the U.K. and EU "can do much better" than a CETA-style trade agreement, since they're beginning from the "unprecedented position" of sharing a body of rules and regulations. She did not elaborate on what "much better" would look like, besides calling on both parties to be "creative as well as practical."
Monique Ebell, formerly of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research stresses that even with an agreement in place, non-tariff barriers are likely to be a significant drag Britain's trade with the EU: she expects total British foreign trade – not just flows to and from the EU – under an EU-U.K. trade pact. She reasons that free-trade deals do not generally handle services trade well. Services are a major component of Britain's international trade; the country enjoys a trade surplus in that segment, which is not the case for goods. Free trade deals also struggle to rein in non-tariff barriers. Admittedly Britain and the EU are starting from a unified regulatory scheme, but divergences will only multiply post-Brexit.

WTO: Go It Alone
You want out? You're out. If Britain and the EU cannot come to an agreement regarding a future relationship, they will revert to World Trade Organization (WTO) terms. Even this default would not be entirely straightforward, however. Since Britain is currently a WTO member through the EU, it will have to split tariff schedules with the bloc and divvy out liabilities arising from ongoing trade disputes. This work has already begun.
Trading with the EU on WTO terms is the "no-deal" scenario the Conservative government has presented as an acceptable fallback – though most observers see this as a negotiating tactic. British Secretary of State for International Trade Liam Fox said in July 2017, "People talk about the WTO as if it would be the end of the world. But they forget that is how they currently trade with the United States, with China, with Japan, with India, with the Gulf, and our trading relationship is strong and healthy."
For certain industries, however, the EU's external tariff would hit hard: Britain exports 77% of the cars it manufactures, and 58% of these go to Europe. The EU levies 10% tariffs on imported cars. Monique Ebell of the NIESR estimated that leaving the EU single market would reduce overall British goods and services trade – not just that with the EU – by 22-30%.

Deals With Third Countries
Nor will the U.K. only be giving up its trade arrangements with the EU: under any of the scenarios above, it will probably lose the trade agreements the bloc has struck 63 third countries, as well as progress in negotiating other deals. Replacing these and adding new ones is an uncertain prospect. In a September 2017 interview with Politico, Trade Secretary Liam Fox said his office – formed in July 2016 – has turned away some third countries looking to negotiate free trade deals because it lacks the capacity to negotiate.
Fox wants to roll the terms of existing EU trade deals over into new agreements, but some countries may be unwilling to give Britain (66 million people, $2.6 trillion GDP) the same terms as the EU (excluding Britain, around 440 million people, $13.9 trillion GDP). 
Negotiations with third countries are technically not allowed while Britain remains an EU member, but even so informal talks have begun, particularly with the U.S.

Impact on the U.S.
Companies in the U.S. across a wide variety of sectors have made large investments in the U.K. over many years. American corporations have derived 9% of global foreign affiliate profit from the United Kingdom since 2000. In 2014 alone, U.S. companies invested a total of $588 billion into Britain. The U.S. also hires a lot of Brits. In fact, U.S. companies are one of the U.K.'s largest job markets. Output of U.S. affiliates in the United Kingdom was $153 billion in 2013. The United Kingdom plays a vital role in corporate America's global infrastructure from assets under management, international sales and research and development (R&D) advancements. American companies have viewed Britain as a strategic gateway to other countries in the European Union. Brexit will jeopardize the affiliate earnings and stock prices of many companies strategically aligned with the United Kingdom, which may see them reconsider their operations with British and European Union members.
American companies and investors that have exposure to European banks and credit markets may be affected by credit risk. European banks may have to replace $123 billion in securities depending on how the exit unfolds. Furthermore, U.K. debt may not be included in European banks' emergency cash reserves, creating liquidity problems. European asset-backed securities have been in decline since 2007. This decline is likely to intensify now that Britain has chosen to leave.

Who's Next to Leave the EU?
Political wrangling over Europe is not limited to Britain. Most EU members have strong euroskeptic movements that, while they have so far struggled to win power at the national level, heavily influence the tenor of national politics. In a few countries, there is a chance that such movements could secure referendums on EU membership. 
In May 2016, global research firm IPSOS released a report showing that a majority of respondents in Italy and France believe their country should hold a referendum on EU membership.

Italy
The fragile Italian banking sector has driven a wedge between the EU and the Italian government, which has provided bail out funds in order to save mom-and-pop bondholders from being "bailed-in," as EU rules stipulate. The government had to abandon its 2019 budget when the EU threatened it with sanctions. It lowered its planned budget deficit from 2.4% of GDP to 2.04%.
Matteo Salvini, the far-right head of Italy's Northern League and the country's deputy prime minister, called for a referendum on EU membership hours after the Brexit vote, saying, "This vote was a slap in the face for all those who say that Europe is their own business and Italians don't have to meddle with that." The Northern League has an ally in the populist Five Star Movement (M5S), whose founder, former comedian Beppe Grillo, has called for a referendum on Italy's membership in the euro – though not the EU. The two parties formed a coalition government in 2018 and made Giuseppe Conte prime minister. Conte ruled out the possibility of "Italexit" in 2018 during the budget standoff.

France
Marine Le Pen, the leader of France's euroskeptic National Front (FN), hailed the Brexit vote as win for nationalism and sovereignty across Europe: "Like a lot of French people, I'm very happy that the British people held on and made the right choice. What we thought was impossible yesterday has now become possible." She lost the French presidential election to Emmanuel Macron in May 2017, gaining just 33.9% of votes.
Macron has warned that the demand for "Frexit" will grow if the EU does not see reforms. According to a Feb. 2019 IFOP poll, 40% of French citizens want the country to leave the EU. Frexit is also one of the demands of the yellow vest protesters.

Pound jumps on Theresa's resignation! Should I buy my holiday money now?

After Brexit Day, Britain still has to work out its future relationship with the E.U
Washington Post
Brexit Day on Jan. 31 is just the beginning of an 11-month transition period. Britain has to figure out everything from trade to fisheries. Read more: https://wapo.st/38TdQfx. Subscribe to The Washington Post on YouTube: https://wapo.st/2QOdcqK Follow us: Twitter: https://twitter.com/washingtonpost Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/washingtonp... Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/washingtonpost/  

U.K. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt attends a joint press conference with U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in London on May 8, 2019 | Chris J Ratcliffe/Getty Images

Bank of International Settlements
​Established: 17 May 1930; 89 years ago
17 May 1930; 89 years ago
Type: International financial institution
Purpose: Central bank cooperation=
Location: Basel, Switzerland(Extraterritorial jurisdiction)
Coordinates: 47°32′53″N 7°35′31″ECoordinates:  47°32′53″N 7°35′31″E
Membership: 60 central banks
General manager: Agustín Carstens
Main organL Board of directors[
Website: www.bis.org

Activists inflate a giant balloon depicting U.S. President Donald Trump to protest Trump's visit to the U.K.in London on July 13, 2018 | Tolga Akmen/AFP via Getty Images

Wikipedia Exposed Media - WEM www.wikipediaexposed.org

FREEDOM TO PROVIDE FACTS, INFORMATION, OPINION AND DEBATE WIKIPEDIA EXPOSED MEDIA - TRUTHFUL NEWS MEDIA, ENCOURAGE OPEN DEBATE

The World Bank, Its Purpose, History, and Statistics
Some Say This Bank Secretly Controls the World
BY KIMBERLY AMADEO   February 07, 2019​

https://www.thebalance.com/the-purpose-of-the-world-bank-3306119

http://awn.bz/IlluminatiNewWorldOrder2.html

The World Bank is an international organization that helps emerging market countries to reduce poverty. Its first goal is to end extreme poverty. It wants to no more than 3 percent of people to live on $1.90 a day or less by 2030. Its second goal is to promote shared prosperity. It wants to improve the incomes of the bottom 40 percent of the population in each country. Since 1947, the World Bank has funded more than 12,000 projects.
The World Bank is not a bank in the conventional sense of the word. Instead, it consists of two development institutions. One is the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. It provides loans, credits, and grants.

The second is the International Development Association. It provides low- or no-interest loans to low-income countries.
The Bank works closely with three other organizations in the World Bank Group:

The International Finance Corporation provides investment, advice, and asset management to companies and governments.
The Multilateral Guarantee Agency insures lenders and investors against political risk such as war.
The International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes. It settles investment disputes between investors and countries.
The Bank's 189 member countries share ownership. The United States has a controlling voting interest.

Purpose and Function
The World Bank provides low-interest loans, interest-free credit, and grants. It focuses on improving education, health, and infrastructure. It also uses funds to modernize a country's financial sector, agriculture, and natural resourcesmanagement.
The Bank's stated purpose is to "bridge the economic divide between poor and rich countries." It does this by turning "rich country resources into poor country growth." It has a long-term vision to "achieve sustainable poverty reduction."
To achieve this goal, the Bank focuses on six areas:
Overcome poverty by spurring growth, especially in Africa.
Help reconstruct countries emerging from war, the biggest cause of extreme poverty.
Provide a customized solution to help middle-income countries remain out of poverty.
Spur governments to prevent climate change. It helps them control communicable diseases, especially HIV/AIDS, and malaria. It also manages international financial crises and promotes free trade.
Work with the Arab League on three goals. They are to improve education, build infrastructure, and provide micro-loans to small businesses.
Share its expertise with developing countries. Publicize its knowledge via reports and its interactive online database.

The Head of the World Bank

On February 6, 2019, the Trump administration nominated David Malpass, undersecretary of the U.S. Treasury Department for international affairs. He had criticized bank lending to China. Now he needs the support of China and Japan who are the top two World Bank shareholders after the United States. They will vote on his nomination between February 7 and March 14, 2019. The administration had also considered Indra Nooyi, former PepsiCo Inc chief executive, and Ray Washburne, CEO of Overseas Private Investment Corp.
The World Bank president reports to a 25-member Board of Executive Directors. The most significant contributing countries are France, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
The president of the United States has selected the World Bank president since its founding. That's because it owns 16 percent of the bank's shares, making it the largest shareholder. This unofficial agreement with the other European board members is creating dissent. Many members complain that the Bank represents the interests of the developed world and not the poor countries it assists.
Jim Yong Kim, M.D., Ph.D., was president from 2012 to 2019. He resigned on February 1, 2019, three years before his term ends. He joined private equity fund Global Infrastructure Partners. Dr. Kim resigned over the Trump administration's opposition to stopping climate change. Dr. Kim had been the president of Dartmouth College. He advocated for improved health services for his entire career.

Robert Zoellick was president from 2007 to 2012. Zoellick got his start working for President Ronald Reagan's Treasury Secretary, James Baker. Zoellick held executive positions in Fannie Mae from 1993 to 1997 and the Office of Trade Representative from 2001 to 2005. From there, he went to the State Department in 2005 until 2006 and then on to Goldman Sachs from 2006 to 2007. 

The Bank has more than 10,000 employees from over 160 countries. Two-thirds work in Washington, DC. The rest are in 100 country offices in the developing world.

The World Bank's Fight Against Climate Change

The World Bank has joined the fight against climate change because it could push another 100 million people into poverty by 2030. It's increased climate financing to 28 percent of its portfolio. That includes funding nations' plans to add 30 gigawatts of renewable energy by 2020. It also supports early warning systems for 100 million people. It's developing climate-smart agriculture for 40 countries. The Bank also uses the true cost of carbon in all its projects.

Statistics and Reports
The World Bank provides a wealth of downloadable data for more than 200 countries. In 2010, the Bank launched a new Open Data website. It provides free access to 298 major indicators, including:
Climate change, the environment, and energy.
Health, such as life expectancy.
Urban development and infrastructure.
Labor, income, and education.
Government, economic policy, and sovereign debt.
Demographics such as poverty, gender, and aid effectiveness.
Business, agriculture, and financial areas.

The Bank analyzes development issues in depth, including the annual World Development Report. Its research reports examine global trends in trade, financial flows, and commodity prices. It explains their impacts on developing countries. The Bank also publishes the World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance. It provides the Little Data Book, Little Green Data Book, and The World Bank Atlas.

History

The 1944 Bretton Woods Conference established the World Bank. Its loans helped European countries rebuild after World War II. That made it the world's first multilateral development bank. 
It was funded through the sale of World Bonds. Its first loans were to France and other European countries. In the 1970s, it lent money to Chile, Mexico, and India to build power plants and railways. By 1975, its loans had helped with a wide variety of issues. They included family planning, pollution control, and environmental protections.
World Bank lending became controversial. Many countries used their loans to prevent a sovereign debt default. Their debt was often a result of overspending and extensive borrowing. Even with the World Bank’s help, many countries devalued their currencies. That caused hyperinflation. 
To combat this, the Bank required austerity measures. The country had to agree to cut back on spending and support its currency. Unfortunately, this usually caused a recession, making it difficult to repay the Bank's loans. 

Further Investigation by the INL News Research Team

One can say with strong confidence, that the bank that seems to effectively runs the world appears to be the Bank Of International Settlement (BIS).

Besides all the in depth research into the ownership, control and running of the Bank of International Settlement, just the BIS Website is quite open and frank about their control and monitoring of the each country’s central bank, which in turn control the retail banks in each country, and provide all the lending rules and guidelines to each retail bank which are set down and supplied by the Bank of International Settlement.  

The research clearly indicates that since the 2008/2009 Banking Crisis, where the world came close to a complete financial, monetary and economic meltdown, with the financial bail out of trillions of dollar, by the BIS of most of the retail and central banks around the world, with much of this money borrowed by the individual countries to invest in their local central and retail banks as share purchases in each country’s retail banks, rather than loans …. the BIS has been able to obtain a much greater stranglehold control of the running and lending rules and guidelines of each country’s central and retail banks…. this has been confirmed by bank managers working for banks around the world. Many are starting to believe that the BIS and its powerful controllers and owners were involved in helping the create the 2008/2009 Economic, Monetary and Banking Crisis so the BIS would have the excuse to obtain a greater stranglehold control of the running and lending rules and guidelines of each country’s central and retail banks … the more ones researches this subject .. the more one starts to support the view that the BIS and its powerful controllers and owners were involved in helping the create the 2008/2009 Economic, Monetary and Banking Crisis so the BIS would have the excuse to obtain a greater stranglehold control of the running and lending rules and guidelines of each country’s central and retail banks.

This is from the BIS’s website
https://www.bis.org/ 

Welcome to the Bank of International Settlement
Promoting global monetary and financial stability through international cooperation.
https://www.bis.org/about/index.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_for_International_Settlements

The Bank for International Settlements (BIS) is an international financial institution[2] owned by central banks which "fosters international monetary and financial cooperation and serves as a bank for central banks".[3] The BIS carries out its work through its meetings, programmes and through the Basel Process – hosting international groups pursuing global financial stability and facilitating their interaction. It also provides banking services, but only to central banks and other international organizations. It is based in Basel, Switzerland, with representative offices in Hong Kong and Mexico City.

Jun 23 2016 3:29 PM
Ahead of the EU Referendum results, the FTSE100 is rising and the pound has hit its 2016 high, breaking $1.49 for the first time since December. Michelle McGrade, chief investment officer at TD Direct Investing, comments:
Today, we’re seeing experienced traders and investors juggling their positions ahead of the referendum result tomorrow. The FTSE 100 has risen strongly so far today (up 1% as we speak)  and we are seeing more selling than buying. Our traders are taking profits into this strength.  Traders will again be poised to react tomorrow, and everyone will be keeping their eye on sterling to see if we have a 1992 moment, when George Soros profited £1bn by shorting Sterling. Clearly, the Bank of England will be watching money markets closely and taking the necessary action to stabilise.
Hardeep Tawakleyedited by laura dew

 
Jun 24 2016 7:02 AM
The Bank of England has issued a statement following the news that Britain has voted to leave the European Union, stating it will take "all necessary steps" for financial stability.
The Bank of England is monitoring developments closely. It has undertaken extensive contingency planning and is working closely with HM Treasury, other domestic authorities and overseas central banks. The Bank of England will take all necessary steps to meet its responsibilities for monetary and financial stability.
laura dew

Jun 24 2016 7:38 AM
Richard Buxton, head of UK equities and CEO, Old Mutual Global Investors, gives a sombre comment on Brexit: 
The UK has voted to leave the European Union. As the initial reaction in financial markets has shown, there is no merit in pretending that for investors and companies this is not, by some margin, the worst of the two possible outcomes of the referendum. 
We had expected the result of the vote to be close, but our conviction was nevertheless that the status quo would prevail. 
The biggest sadness of today is that it is reasonable to assume that the UK will quickly enter a period of economic recession, the key reason why we believed the outcome would be different from what has materialised today. It is, in effect, likely to be the first ever “DIY recession”, as George Osborne prophetically called it. 
It is difficult to say at this stage what action the Bank of England may take, but it is not impossible to imagine that it may quickly cut interest rates. Restarting the programme of quantitative easing – a feature that has been absent from the economic landscape for some three years now – also looks a possibility. At the very least, the central bank is likely to indicate its preparedness to take such action. 
Hardeep Tawakley

Jun 24 2016 7:39 AM
Investment Association has provided a statement stating "the protections that were in place for cluents yesterday remain in place today"
Hardeep Tawakley

Jun 24 2016 7:41 AM
From the Investment Association:
Today the UK remains a member of the EU and the rules and regulations governing asset management remain unchanged, and the protections that were in place for clients yesterday remain in place today.
The focus in the short-term will be on how markets respond, but it is important that we adopt a collective long-term focus on how the UK can preserve the pre-eminence of its financial services sector including our highly successful £5.5trn asset management industry - the second largest industry of its kind in the world. 
How the UK's role in the EU will change will become clearer over time, but there are likely to be challenges ahead and we look forward to helping the Government and our industry to navigate these. 
The Investment Association is confident our industry will be able to continue to compete overseas, both in the EU and the rest of the world.  Our objective remains to play a positive role within the UK economy as a source of funding for companies, a major contributor to export earnings and as a centre of investment excellence that serves both domestic and overseas clients successfully.

Hardeep Tawakley

Jun 24 2016 7:53 AM
Crispin Odey, a backer of the Vote Leave campaign, has welcomed the result. In a statement he said: 
Ordinary people have spoken and broken ranks with the experts and their political leaders. This reflects proper disaffection in a world of low growth and almost no productivity growth which can only get worse if unanswered. People want honest appraisals, they need structures that humanise them, leaders that they can know can communicate with, solutions that, however unpalatable, are explained, communicated and preferably debated well in advance. This is a black day for those who would prefer decisions to be made in darkened rooms by experts. What a day. But it must not go to waste and we must remember how close it was but also how brave a decision it was!
Hardeep Tawakley


Jun 24 2016 8:24 AM
Prime Minister David Cameron has just announced he is to resign - the political ramifications of this referendum are already proving to be huge....
Hardeep Tawakley

Jun 24 2016 8:26 AM
Prime Minister David Cameron says Article 50 will not be triggered immediatedly, will be triggered once new Prime Minister in place.
laura dew

Jun 24 2016 8:31 AM
Update for bond markets: the yield on the benchmark 10-year UK government bonds has seen a drop of 0.31 percentage points to a record low of 1.07%, in line with dramatic falls in yields on US and German government debt. Read more here: 
 http://www.investmentweek.co.uk/investment-week/news/2462614 /sterling-plummets-to-lowest-level-since-1985-as-uk-votes-to-leave-the-eu
Hardeep Tawakley
 
Jun 24 2016 8:32 AM
Financial services firm St James' Place is the biggest faller on the FTSE 100 this morning, down 43.6% while Royal Bank of Scotland is down 34%. 
Commodity firms are the biggest winners with Randgold Resources and Fresnillo up 27% and 18% respectively. 
laura dew

Jun 24 2016 8:37 AM
Banks and housebuilders are among the hardest hit this morning on the FTSE - down about 18% so far
Hardeep Tawakley

Jun 24 2016 8:39 AM
Asset managers are also down this morning - Schroders down 20% and SJP 33% More to follow on investmentweek.co.uk
Hardeep Tawakley

Laura Kuenssberg (in red) outside 10 Downing Street 
with the BBC’s Fiona Bruce and Adam Boulton and Faisal Islam of Sky News, November 2018. Photograph: Victoria Jones/PA