All posts in "Politics"

Professor that predicted that Trump would win also predicts he’ll be impeached!

Allan Lichtman

Image courtesy of CNN.com.

"Prediction professor" Allan Lichtman has correctly named the winner of every presidential election since 1984, and now he's willing to hazard a guess about how a presidency will end. "There's a very good chance that Donald Trump could face impeachment," Lichtman told CNN's Erin Burnett on Erin Burnett OutFront on Wednesday.

Lichtman, a political historian who teaches at the American University in Washington, says he uses his own system of 13 true or false statements to judge whether the incumbent party will retain the White House. However, when it came to his bold prediction of a Trump impeachment, he told Burnett it's based on his instinct.

As for Trump's impeachment, there is no data other than Lichtman's own hunch. "First of all, throughout his life [Trump] has played fast and loose with the law," Lichtman explained. "He has run an illegal charity in New York state. He has made an illegal campaign contribution through that charity. He has used the charity to settle personal business debts. He faces a [Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act] lawsuit."

"The Republicans are nervous about Donald Trump," Lichtman said. "He is a loose cannon. Nobody knows what he really believes or really where he stands. He can't be controlled. The Republicans would vastly prefer to have Mike Pence, an absolutely predictable down-the-pipe conservative Republican."

Burnett pushed back at Lichtman's claim, noting his allegations have not been proven in a court of law and went on to ask why he thought Trump could be impeached when Republicans hold both the House and Senate.

Burnett points out that Republicans hold both the Senate and the House, making the process of an impeachment seem a whole lot trickier to pull off. Lichtman, though, isn't convinced that will be a hindrance, as he explains below. Jeva Lange

Continue reading >
0 Shares

French PM Vows To Wipe Out Poison Of Islam

CRACKDOWN ON FANATICS French PM vows to shut down mosques and vet sermons to wipe out the ‘poison’ of Islamic extremism after priest’s murder by ISIS

Prime Minister Manuel Valls called on entire country to ‘mobilise’ against terror radicals

FRENCH Prime Minister Manuel Valls has announced a devastating crackdown on the “poison” of Islamic fundamentalism.

islam

Image courtesy of The SUN

Valls says authorities will close problem mosques, cut foreign funding and police sermons in a bid to halt the extremist violence.

This uncompromising statement comes after the horrific murder of 86-year-old Catholic priest Father Jacques Hamel last Tuesday, who was killed by two homegrown terror thugs in the Normandy town of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray.

Speaking with a French newspaper, the Prime Minister highlighted mosques supporting Salafism – an ultra-conservative ideology based on ‘physical’ jihadism which Valls says has taken many Muslims “hostage”.

He said: “All Salafists are not jihadists … but almost all are jihadist Salafists.

“A terrible poison has spread.

“Slowly, insidiously, on a background of influences from abroad and rising communalism, developed against a model of society, a model against the Republic and its values.

“Many Muslims in France are taken hostage by the fundamentalist Salafism, who worship a weapon against others.

“The places of worship that house preachers will be closed systematically.

“It is necessary to rethink the training of imams and chaplains completely.

“France must become a European centre of excellence in the teaching of Islamic theology.”

The French government is also considering introducing laws which will allow the expulsion of dual national citizens.

And Valls called on the entire country, including the Muslim communities, to ‘mobilise’ against the threat of Islamic extremism.

He said: “This fight against radicalisation requires an unprecedented mobilisation of public authorities.

“We need a general mobilisation of all public and civil society as a whole.

“But beyond that there is the question of the construction of Islam in France.

“And Muslims therefore have a huge responsibility.”

The attack in Normandy has united both Christian and Muslim communities in grief and revulsion at the terrifying crime.

Mohammed Karabila, one of Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray Islamic leaders, said local Muslims refused to bury the bodies of the two 19-year-old brainwashed thugs.

He said: “We’re not going to taint Islam with this person.

“We won’t participate in preparing the body or the burial.”

Less than two weeks before the Normandy murder, an Islamic extremist killed 84 people in the southern French city of Nice.

The victims, who were mowed down by a 19 tonne truck, were watching a fireworks display as part of the Bastille Day celebrations.

Continue reading >
1 Shares

Debbie Wasserman Shultz Rigged DNC Campaign

PHILADELPHIA – Debbie Wasserman Schultz announced Sunday she will soon step down as Democratic National Committee chairwoman, amid the fallout over leaked emails indicating an anti-Bernie Sanders bias in her operation -- a stunning development just hours before the start of her party's convention.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz

photo by www.nowtheendbegins.com.

In a written statement, the controversial party leader said she was "privileged to serve as the DNC Chair for five and a half years."

She said her first priority is serving the people of her Florida congressional district while stressing the importance of helping elect Hillary Clinton, adding: "Going forward, the best way for me to accomplish those goals is to step down as Party Chair at the end of this convention."

She said she would still "open and close the convention," which begins Monday in Philadelphia, and address delegates "about the stakes involved in this election," in her role as party chair.

She apparently will step down at the end of the convention. Vice Chairwoman Donna Brazile is slated to take over as interim chair during the rest of the general election campaign.

The announcement came just hours after reports first surfaced that Wasserman Schultz may be denied a speaking role at the convention, and that she would not be presiding -- a decision apparently made under pressure from the Clinton campaign and the White House.

Rep. Marcia Fudge, D-Ohio, the former chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus, will instead preside over the Democratic proceedings as convention chairwoman. On the sidelines, party officials were already discussing Wasserman Schultz' role as DNC chairwoman.

One Democratic source told Fox News, “Debbie is being forced out sooner than later.”

The rapid-fire set of developments ahead of the convention kick-off raise immediate questions about whether the party can unite its battling factions in Philadelphia this week.

Officials were clearly trying to prevent anger over the email leak controversy and other issues from disrupting proceedings. The emails only bolstered claims from Sanders – and Republican nominee Donald Trump – that the system was rigged against the Vermont senator.

Sanders himself blasted the DNC and Wasserman Schultz in interviews earlier Sunday, demanding her resignation as party chairwoman.

“I think [Wasserman Schultz] should resign. Period. And I think we need a new chair who is going the lead us in a very different direction,” Sanders told ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, hours before the resignation was announced.

He later issued a statement thanking her for her service, and saying she made "the right decision for the future of the Democratic Party."

President Obama and Clinton both issued statements thanking Wasserman Schultz for her service.

"I am grateful to Debbie for getting the Democratic Party to this year's historic convention in Philadelphia, and I know that this week's events will be a success thanks to her hard work and leadership," Clinton said, adding that she will serve as "honorary chair of my campaign's 50-state program to gain ground and elect Democrats in every part of the country" and act as a surrogate.

The WikiLeaks document dump, which included emails from January 2015 to May 2016, purportedly came from the accounts of seven DNC officials. In a May 5 email, a DNC employee asked a colleague to collect information on his religious beliefs – claiming it might sway voters in West Virginia and Kentucky. In that particular email, Sanders' name was not mentioned, but he was the only other candidate in the race at that time against Clinton.

DNC chief financial officer Brad Marshall wrote, “This would make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.”

Others from Wasserman Schultz herself contained very strong language, raising questions about her status as an ostensibly neutral party official.

Responding to Sanders’ complaints the party hasn’t been fair to him, she wrote to a staffer in an April email: “Spoken like someone who has never been a member of the Democratic Party and has no understanding of what we do.”

Responding to the same staffer a month later regarding Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver blaming the Nevada state party for a raucous convention, she wrote, “Damn liar. Particularly scummy that he barely acknowledges the violent and threatening behavior that occurred.”

Continue reading >
0 Shares

Canada Introduces a Bill That Would Make It Easy to Move There

If you're like most people, you probably watched the Republican debate last night curled up in a ball, under a blanket, while you rocked yourself back and forth whispering, "This can't happen, this can't happen" over and over again.

Or as it's sometimes known, "a typical Republican debate viewing."

Well, now there's slightly less reason to worry about the invincibility of America's own racist, fascist inevitable Republican nominee, Donald Trump.

canada bill

Because if the unthinkable happens and, come November, we're staring down the barrel of a Trump presidency, our fine neighbors to the north (and I do mean FOINE) are making it easier for people to immigrate to the Great White North.

In addition to removing "terrorism" and "crimes against the national interest" as reasons to revoke citizenship (as opposed to simply trying those suspects as Canadians), the Canadian Press also reports that the Canadian government is making things a little bit speedier with the introduction of a new citizenship bill:

"The bill also shortens the length of time someone must be physically present in Canada before qualifying for citizenship, and allows time already spent as permanent residents to count towards the residency requirement."

Right now it takes six years of living in Canada to become a citizen.

By that point, Trump might be out of office or the country might be a burning pile of rubble, well on its way to the Hunger Games future that we've been promised by our culture.

("We're gonna have a bunch of kids killing each other. We'll televise it. I know how to do it, because I've produced excellent TV before. Just wonderful TV. So don't worry, our Hunger Games ratings will be yuge." Trump in two years, probably.)

But if the bill passes, that requirement will be three years.

That's doable.

You can be a Canadian citizen enjoying free universal health care before Trump's second term. Of course, it might not matter.

It's only a matter of time before President Trump is so threatened by Justin Trudeau's boyish good looks that he just nukes the entire thing and claims it as the 51st state.

Continue reading >
1 Shares

European Police Admit ‘Banning Guns Has Not Worked’

banning guns

Police in Europe are now saying that banning guns has failed them. Terrorists have managed to get a hold of high powered, black market assault rifles, in spite of the fact that these are virtually impossible to get through legal means in most European nations.

As well, many law enforcement agencies are armed with little or nothing, and finding out quickly that criminals do not obey gun laws, they simply buy illegal arms from the robust black market.

 In Europe it is just as easy to get weapons on the black market as it is to walk into a gun store in the United States. In many cases, the prices you pay on the black market are considerably less expensive than in nations where the same arms can be purchased through legal avenues.

Europol chief of staff Brian Donald recently said that there were two “large seizures” of firearms, mostly “assault weapons”, in the past two weeks alone. None of these were stolen from the gun stores or the homes of law abiding citizens. Yet in spite of the laws against them, it has been relatively easy to easy to get your hands on pretty much anything you want – even easier than in the United States for many select fire, fully automatic weapons.

It would seem that the more guns have been banned by the governments of Europe, the more robust the black market has grown and the more available the weapons have become to those who are willing to break the law.

TIME magazine reports that terrorists in Europe have been able to arm themselves with weapons that typically cost $20,000 or more in the United States to acquire legally. But on the European black market, these weapons were fetched for what would be under $1,000 USD.

When the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo’s headquarters was attacked on January 7, no one around the terrorists was armed.

Cherif and Said Kouachi “were armed with Kalashnikov rifles and could easily outgun the police officers who tried to apprehend them with pistols.”

But both the citizens and the police officers weren’t armed.

Amedy Coulibaly, the third attacker, “had an even greater collection of military grade weapons.”

The terrorists also had illegal grenade launchers and Czech Scorpion machine guns. The AFP reported that Coulibaly almost all of these weapons on the Belgium black market.

TIME reports finding a new assault weapon on streets of Europe only takes a couple of hours in most nations where such weapons are illegal.

Watch the report below and let us know if you think banning guns actually keeps them out of the hands of criminals, or if it just creates a more robust black market for illegal weapons.

Continue reading >
1 Shares

Late night meeting with DOJ leads to no charges for Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

NEW YORK – MARCH 10: Former United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton speaks to the media after keynoting a Women’s Empowerment Event at the United Nations on March 10, 2015 in New York City. Clinton answered questions about recent allegations of an improperly used email account during her tenure as Secretary of State. (Photo by Yana Paskova/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, on Tuesday recommended no criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information while she was secretary of state, lifting an enormous legal cloud from her presidential campaign less than two hours before she boarded Air Force One for her first joint campaign appearance with President Obama.

But on a day of political high drama in Washington, Mr. Comey rebuked Mrs. Clinton as being “extremely careless” in using a private email address and server. He raised questions about her judgment, contradicted statements she has made about her email practices, said it was possible that hostile foreign governments had gained access to her account, and declared that a person still employed by the government — Mrs. Clinton left the State Department in 2013 — could have faced disciplinary action for doing what she did.

To warrant a criminal charge, Mr. Comey said, there had to be evidence that Mrs. Clinton intentionally transmitted or willfully mishandled classified information. The F.B.I. found neither, and as a result, he said, “our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

The Justice Department is highly likely to accept the F.B.I.’s guidance, which a law enforcement official said also cleared three top aides of Mrs. Clinton who were implicated in the case: Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin and Cheryl D. Mills. Attorney General Loretta Lynch said last week that she would accept the recommendation of the F.B.I. and career prosecutors in the case after a storm of criticism about an impromptu meeting between her and former President Bill Clinton on an airport tarmac in Phoenix.

Mr. Comey’s 15-minute announcement, delivered with no advance warning only three days after his investigators interviewed Mrs. Clinton in the case, riveted official Washington and is likely to reverberate for the rest of the campaign. In offices across the capital, all eyes turned to television screens to hear the outcome of a yearlong investigation that could have thrown the 2016 presidential election into disarray and changed history.

As Mr. Comey strode to the lectern at the F.B.I. headquarters at 11 a.m., Mrs. Clinton was waiting backstage a few blocks away to address the National Education Association. Her aides said she did not know what Mr. Comey was going to say. Five minutes into Mr. Comey’s remarks, and before he announced that the F.B.I. would not seek charges, a smiling Mrs. Clinton began her speech.

Photo

Attorney General Loretta Lynch said last week that she would accept the recommendation of the F.B.I. Credit Nancy Wiechec/Reuters

By 2:45 p.m., she and Mr. Obama were descending the stairs of Air Force One for a campaign rally in Charlotte, N.C., while back in Washington the State Department spokesman, John Kirby, was fending off questions from reporters about what Mr. Comey described as the department’s lax security in handling classified information.

White House officials said Mr. Obama also did not know about Mr. Comey’s plans ahead of time. The F.B.I. director said he did not coordinate the statement with the Justice Department or any other agency. “They do not know what I am about to say,” he declared.

A Republican former federal prosecutor, Mr. Comey seemed at first to be laying the groundwork for some kind of legal charge. Speaking sternly, and in far more detail than he usually does, he listed several previously undisclosed findings from the F.B.I.’s investigation:

■ Of 30,000 emails Mrs. Clinton handed over to the State Department, 110 contained information that was classified at the time she sent or received them. Of those, Mr. Comey said, “a very small number” bore markings that identified them as classified. This finding is at odds with Mrs. Clinton’s repeated assertions that none of the emails were classified at the time she sent or received them. The F.B.I. did not disclose the topics of the classified emails, but a number of the 110 are believed to have involved drone strikes.

■ The F.B.I. discovered “several thousand” work-related emails that were not in the original trove of 30,000 turned over by Mrs. Clinton to the State Department. Three of those contained information that agencies have concluded was classified, though Mr. Comey said he did not believe Mrs. Clinton deliberately deleted or withheld them from investigators.

■ In saying that it was “possible” that hostile foreign governments had gained access to Mrs. Clinton’s personal account, Mr. Comey noted that she used her mobile device extensively while traveling outside the United States, including trips “in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.”

■ Mrs. Clinton used multiple private servers for her personal and government business, not just a single server at her home in New York that has been the focus of media reporting for more than a year. Her use of these servers — some of which were taken out of service and stored — made the F.B.I.’s job enormously complicated as it struggled to put together, in Mr. Comey’s words, a jigsaw puzzle with “millions of email fragments” in it.

Despite all that, Mr. Comey said the F.B.I. did not find that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct revealed “intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.” But a person in her position, he said, “should have known that an unclassified system was no place” for the emails she was sending. And he said it raised troubling questions about how the State Department handled classified information.

The White House press secretary, Josh Earnest, declined to comment, except to say it was clear from Mr. Comey’s remarks that “they’ve looked at this in excruciating detail.” Mr. Obama, he said, remained “enthusiastic” about Mrs. Clinton’s candidacy.

The Clinton campaign clearly hoped that the announcement would bring to a close a saga that has haunted Mrs. Clinton since March 2015, when the existence of her personal email account surfaced.

“We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the department is appropriate,” said the campaign’s spokesman, Brian Fallon. “As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved.”

Republicans seized on Mr. Comey’s sharp criticism, saying it raised doubts about Mrs. Clinton’s fitness for high office. Donald J. Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee, asserted in a post on Twitter that David H. Petraeus, the former C.I.A. director, had been charged for doing far less than Mrs. Clinton, and the lack of charges showed that the system was “rigged.”

In fact, F.B.I. officials have long said that what Mr. Petraeus did — knowingly handing a diary with classified information to his biographer and lover, then lying about it to investigators — was worse than what Mrs. Clinton did. In the Petraeus case, the F.B.I. recommended a felony indictment, but the Justice Department allowed him to plead to a misdemeanor. The deal that Mr. Petraeus received shadowed Mrs. Clinton’s case from the start because it appeared to set a higher bar for bringing charges against her.

“In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information,” Mr. Comey said, “we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.”

Congressional Republicans swiftly called for the F.B.I. to release more details about its findings. “If it wants to avoid giving the impression that the F.B.I. was pulling punches,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, “the agency must now be more transparent than ever in releasing information.”
Breaking News Alerts

Sign up to receive an email from The New York Times as soon as important news breaks around the world.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan was equally critical. “While I respect the professionals at the F.B.I., this announcement defies explanation,” he said in a Twitter post. “No one should be above the law.”

For an agency that seemed to be in no rush, the F.B.I.’s investigation wrapped up quickly. By the time the investigators interviewed Mrs. Clinton in three and a half hours of questioning on Saturday, they had compiled months of findings. Mrs. Clinton appeared to say nothing to contradict what they had already discovered about how the private server was used, a law enforcement official said. The investigators then worked with Mr. Comey through the holiday weekend to review her testimony and determine whether there was any new information that might warrant criminal charges, law enforcement officials said. They found none.

For weeks, F.B.I. agents expected the investigation would not yield charges. They shared Mr. Comey’s conclusion that Mrs. Clinton had showed poor judgment but that she had not committed a crime.

In the spring, Mr. Comey declared that the campaign calendar would not dictate the pace of the investigation. But the Democratic National Convention begins on July 25 in Philadelphia, and F.B.I. officials did not want to be seen as influencing the outcome of the election after the nomination.

Mr. Comey’s announcement was believed to be the first time that the F.B.I. had ever publicly disclosed its recommendations to the Justice Department about whether to charge someone in any high-profile case, let alone a presidential candidate. His decision to announce the results of the investigation was made before the uproar over Ms. Lynch’s meeting with Mr. Clinton, according to a law enforcement official. He decided to make his findings public, the official said, because he wanted to make the F.B.I.’s position clear before referring the case to the Justice Department.

While the F.B.I.’s recommendation spares Mrs. Clinton and her aides criminal charges, it does not remove the possibility that they could be denied security clearances if Mrs. Clinton is elected and she appoints them to jobs that require such clearance. The State Department plans to conduct its own administrative review after the Justice Department acts.

“We don’t share the broad assessment made of our institution that there’s a lax culture here when it comes to protecting classified information,” said Mr. Kirby, the State Department spokesman. “We take it very, very seriously.”

Follow Mark Landler on Twitter @MarkLandler.

Michael S. Schmidt contributed reporting

original article can be seen here http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?_r=0

Continue reading >
1 Shares

Mexico threatens to close border if Trump wins

mexico

Mexican officials are furious at the GOP nominee Trump, who is beating Hillary in all the polls, especially after her disastrous response to Orlando, and are threatening to seal off the US/Mex border. And they’re paying for it.

The Mexican government announced they will close their borders to Americans in the event that Donald Trump is elected President of the United States. President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the country fears Americans will flood their country and bring violence and chaos to their streets.

“Americans have a well-documented history of violence and we must act to keep our country safe,” President Nieto stated. “Many Americans have expressed a desire to relocate to our country in the event that Donald Trump becomes President. We can not have Mexico flooded with criminals and rapists. They are a violent nation and they won’t send us their best. We must be vigilant and keep a close eye on what could possibly transpire.”

…Not so fast!

As reported by Snopes.com

A fake news item claiming Mexico intended to close its borders if Donald Trump was elected president gained traction several months after it initially appeared.

On 13 June 2016 the web site My Fresh News published an article reporting that Mexico had announced it planned to close its borders if Donald Trump was elected to office:

The Mexican government announced they will close their borders to Americans in the event that Donald Trump is elected President of the United States. President Enrique Peña Nieto announced the country fears Americans will flood their country and bring violence and chaos to their streets.

“Americans have a well-documented history of violence and we must act to keep our country safe,” President Nieto stated. “Many Americans have expressed a desire to relocate to our country in the event that Donald Trump becomes President. We can not have Mexico flooded with criminals and rapists. They are a violent nation and they won’t send us their best. We must be vigilant and keep a close eye on what could possibly transpire.”

Many took the article at face value, despite a lack of additional reporting on what would be a notable development in foreign relations. On 2 March 2016, satirical outlet TheNewsNerd initially published the fake story. Those who scrolled down past the dozens of angry comments could easily view a disclaimer notice which held:

The stories posted on TheNewsNerd are for entertainment purposes only. The stories may mimic articles found in the headlines, but rest assured they are purely satirical.

TheNewsNerd previously published fabricated claims reporting Leonardo DiCaprio planned to wear blackface to an upcoming Martin Luther King biopic, Michael Vick was attacked by a pit bull, George Zimmerman was selling a painting of Trayvon Martin for $30,000, belief in God was classified as a mental illness by the American Psychological Association, and former Subway spokesman Jared Fogle was released from prison due to “overcrowding.”

Continue reading >
1 Shares

World stocks routed as Britain votes for Brexit

brexit

By Marc Jones

LONDON (Reuters) – World stocks saw more than $2 trillion wiped off their value on Friday as Britain’s vote to Brexit the European Union triggered 5-10 percent falls across Europe’s biggest bourses and a record plunge for sterling.

Such a body blow to global confidence could prevent the Federal Reserve from raising interest rates as planned this year, and might even provoke a new round of emergency policy easing from all the major central banks.

Risk assets were scorched as investors fled to the traditional safe-harbors of top-rated government debt, Japanese yen and gold.

Almost $1 trillion had been lost from European share prices ahead of what is expected to be a nearly 4 percent fall on Wall Street (ESc1) when it opens later.

London’s FTSE (.FTSE) dropped almost 5 percent while Frankfurt (.GDAXI) and Paris (.FCHI) fell 6 to 8 percent. Italian (FTMIB), Spanish (.IBEX) and European bank stocks (.SX7P) all headed for their sharpest one-day drops ever.

Worries that other EU states could hold their own referendums were compounded by the fact that markets had rallied on Thursday, seemingly convinced the UK would vote to stay in.

Britain’s big banks took a $100 billion battering, with Lloyds (LLOY.L), Barclays (BARC.L) and RBS (RBS.L) plunging as much as 30 percent at one point.

The British pound dived by 18 U.S. cents at one point, easily the biggest fall in living memory, to hit its lowest since 1985. The euro in turn slid 3 percent to $1.1050 (EUR=) as investors feared for its very future.

Having campaigned to keep the country in the EU, British Prime Minister David Cameron announced he would step down.

Results showed a 51.9/48.1 percent split for leaving, setting the UK on an uncertain path and dealing the largest setback to European efforts to forge greater unity since World War Two.

More angst came as Scotland’s first minister said the option of another vote for her country to split from the UK — rejected by Scottish voters two years ago — was now firmly on the table.

Sterling sank a staggering 10 percent at one point and was last down 8 percent at $1.3667 (GBP=), having carved out a range of $1.3228 to $1.5022. The fall was even larger than during the global financial crisis and the currency was moving two or three cents in the blink of an eye.

“It’s an extraordinary move for financial markets and also for democracy,” said co-head of portfolio investments of London-based currency specialist Millennium Global Richard Benson.

“The market is pricing interest rate cuts from the big central banks and we assume there will be a global liquidity add from them,” he added.

That message was being broadcast loud and clear. The Bank of England, European Central Bank and the People’s Bank of China all said they were ready to provide liquidity if needed to ensure global market stability.

SHOCKWAVES

The shockwaves affected all asset classes and regions.

The safe-haven yen sprang higher to stand at 102.15 per dollar (JPY=), having been as low as 106.81 at one stage. The dollar’s peak decline of 4 percent was the largest since 1998.

That prompted warnings from Japanese officials that excessive forex moves were undesirable. Traders said they were wary of being caught with exposed positions if the global central banks chose to step in to calm the volatility.

Emerging market currencies across Asia and eastern Europe and South Africa’s rand all buckled on fears that investors could pull out. Poland, home of eastern European immigrants to Britain, saw its zloty (PLN=) slump 5 percent.

Europe’s natural safety play, the 10-year German government bond, surged to send its yields tumbling back into negative territory and a new record low. [EUR/GVD]

MSCI’s broadest index of Asia-Pacific shares outside Japan <.MIAPJ0000PUS> slid almost 5 percent, while Shanghai stocks (.SSEC) lost 1.1 percent.

Financial markets have been gripped for months by worries about what a British exit from the EU would mean for Europe’s stability.

“Obviously, there will be a large spill-over effects across all global economies … Not only will the UK go into recession, Europe will follow suit,” predicted Matt Sherwood, head of investment strategy at fund manager Perpetual in Sydney.

BOND RALLY

Investors stampeded into low risk sovereign bonds, with U.S. 10-year Treasury futures (TYc1) jumping over 2 points in Asian hours, an unusually large move. Yields on the cash note <us10yt=rr> fell 25 basis points to 1.48 percent, the steepest one-day drop since 2009 and the lowest yield since 2012.

The rally even extended to UK bonds, despite a warning from ratings agency Standard & Poor’s that it was likely to downgrade Britain’s triple-A credit rating if it left the EU. Yields on benchmark 10-year gilts fell 27 basis points to 1.108 pct <gb10yt=tweb> .

Across the Atlantic, investors were pricing in less chance of another hike in U.S. interest rates given the Federal Reserve had cited a British exit from the EU as one reason to be cautious on tightening.

“It adds weight to the camp that the Fed would be on hold. A July (hike) is definitely off the table,” said Mike Baele, managing director with the private client reserve group at U.S. Bank in Portland, Oregon.

Fed funds futures <0#FF:> were even toying with the chance that the next move could be a cut in U.S. rates.

Commodities swung lower as Brexit is seen as a major threat to global growth. U.S. crude (CLc1) shed $3.00 to $47.11 a barrel in erratic trade while Brent (LCOc1) fell as much as 6 percent to $47.83 before clawing back to $48.18.

Industrial metal copper (CMCU3) sank 3 percent but gold (XAU=) galloped more than 6 percent higher thanks to its perceived safe haven status. [GOL/]

(EdEditing by Catherine Evans)

Continue reading >
0 Shares