EU Refuses British Citizens Their Right To A Passport

Last night I attended the annual meeting of the British Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines at which the British Embassy explained current government policies and decisions regarding the issuance of passorts and visas.

The British Consul, Joanne Finnamore-Crorkin (JFC) was the presenter of the changes regarding the issuing of British passports. Interestingly she said that by 2011 all British passports will be issued in London, and the current 88 locations around the world where passports are currently being issued, will be closed. By the end of 2009, the 88 locations are being regionalised so that only 20 centres will be able to issue passorts as an interim measure.

The policy as regards permission by parents to the issuing of passport to children had also clarified to me in a phone call the previous day from JFC. The reasons that the permission of both parents was required was not 'security' as the junior staff had stated to me previously, but as part of the British Government's ''international agreements on child abduction''.

There has been, it appears, a move on the part of many countries 'around the world' to attempt to stop the growing problem of international abduction by parents.

The leaflet supplied to me by the Consulate mentions only the Hague Convention which are old and well etsbalished. The new rules that JFC mentioned to me and others, are in fact not made in Britain, as the Embassy tries to infer. They are EU Rules, the true source of which, as usual, is carefully disguised by the British Government and presented as British.

At least JFC's explanation makes a little more sense than the notion that security was somehow threatened by giving a passport to a baby. But as with all do-gooder regimes, brought in to prevent one wrong, in this case that of child abduction, there are as with this new measure, unintended consequences, where even greater damage is being done. Families are now being needlessly severed from each other across the globe.

I was able to correct one wrong notion that JFC had about Philippines child custody. It is not the law that children aged up to seven automatically go to the mother, as she believed. There is a presumption that up to the age of seven the child will go to the mother, if the parents are not married, but the decision will be taken based on the interests of the child at every stage, not based on the presumption alone. Likewise, after the age of seven the presumption is that the child will go to the father.

The British Embassy now has a policy of not giving a passport to a British registered child if one parent does not agree, until the age of 16. It is worth mentioning that British citizenship cannot be obtained in the first place without the consent of both parents. So a parent can agree to British citizenship one minute, and effectively revoke it the next, in the sense that a passport can be denied until the child is effectively adult.

One has to ask if this is an entirely wise approach to be taking.

In my case payment of money (to the mother) would have secured the passport had I known in advance that the rule changes were coming in. But as I was told that a passport was a mere formality once British citizenship had been obtained, I did not give obtaining a passport for my son top priority a year ago.

The situation now is that I cannot take my son to the UK. I would not easily obtain a Philippine passport, and even if I did, the British Visa Section has the same policy as to obtaining the permission of the mother.

For every potential child abduction prevented, there will be dozens or hundreds of other cases like that of my son, where there is no intention to carry out an international abduction, but there is the notion that he is entitled to meet his blood relatives, and that his human rights are being denied to him.

I hope he reads this when he is older, and, if I am not around, can see why he was cut off from his British family.

Surely the situation could be handled in other ways.

If I was intending to abduct my son I would surely have gone ahead and secured his passport at an earlier stage. If the government wishes to prevent an abduction, is the withholding of a passport the only way such a thing can be achieved? Surely, other methods could be used, such as the withdrawal of my passport if my son were not to be returned to the Philippines as agreed prior to travel.

Or alternatively the removal of my passport and the issuing of a temporary travel document to me, and my son, my passport to be returned to me only if I return to the Philippines as agreed.

Or the depositing of money, or both etc etc.

That way my mother need not suffer the sadness of not meeting her grandson, and there is a strong enough incentive to prevent me from breaking my word.

Who Can Resolve The Situation?

The trouble with Britain signing up to blanket policy decision taken at international level i.e The EU, is that new policies are rarely thought through down to the detail. Sledgehammer methods sound very attractive to law-makers far removed from the reality of life and the real situations that people face.

In Britain they get enacted without scrutiny from Parliament anyway, as MPs are bypassed these days, and it is only when real people start to suffer the consequences of badly thought-out rules that the protest and questioning process begins. Tragically then it can be many years before the injustices caused by stupid rules are undone. Let's hope that with the British Government's craven acceptance of international demands as regards child abduction, the rules can be altered soon.

In my son's case, he will inherit a sizeable business (100 employees) in the UK eventually, but will never meet his future employees as a child which they don't like much, let alone the British relatives that his decisions might affect as regards family property. There are many consequences to blanket and devastating measures such as the refusal to issue a passport.

Now if Britain would quit the EU as David Cameron occasionally seems to be suggesting, then we could get back to a democratic process of government where such issues as this might be resolved intelligently and not by the sledgehammer of bureaucratic high-mindedness. The loss of democracy in Britain is why I left the country in the first place, and it is no surprise to find the same stupidity emanating from London ruling across the globe.

Joanne Finnamore Crorkin is a highly intelligent and capable Consul. It is a shame that she has to apply such ill-thought-out measures as blanket passport refusal agreed at international level. I am convinced that Britain alone could solve the problems of child abduction without cutting families off from each other across the globe.

David Cameron, this is another one for you to take on, I think.

German Parliament To Tell The Kids When To Come Home

The German Constitutional Court has spoken. What has it said? A copy in English of its decision appears on Grahnlaw. I am trying to read it disturbed by kids on all sides demanding attention, which is not ideal, but life is like that these days!

To my way of thinking, it asks a question of the German Parliament and that question is simply 'are you sure you want to legislate away the democratic rights of the German people?.

If so you are entitled to do so, but so that the courts can be certain, we need each of the powers vested in you to be legislated away in clear form, not with one broad brush stroke merely handing over your power to another body in perpetuity (the EU).

The EU does not have a democratic basis (but one based solely on international agreement) and handing power to the EU permanently, so that no ratification of its actions are required would not be allowed.

The EU cannot commit its member states to making war, for example, in any circumstances, and other crucial areas of government decision making cannot be handed over to the EU.

In other words the Lisbon Treaty and no other Treaty can be permitted to take away the powers of the German parliament, as the only basis for action that the EU has in Germany is and has to be founded entirely on the agreement of the German Parliament.

It's like saying to the kids, 'ok you can all go to the party, but just remember that you have to come home when we, or rather when the German Parliament says so.'

Ralph Grahn, the EU lawyer, doesn't see it that way of course. He's gone off with a lyrical poetic ode, praising the joys of the new world order where lawyers can make even more money without having to bother listening to anyone - not even the German Constitutional Court, it appears!

He writes as follows - If and when a uniform European people is constituted as the subject of legitimisation, and it is able to express its majority will in a politically effective manner that takes due account of equality in the context of the foundation of a European federal state, the road to a European federation is clear.

Dream on, Ralph! Your totalitarian state has been well and truly rumbled, and a few well-crafted words cannot hide the fact.

The EU party's not quite over yet sadly, but your ship is holed below the water line and listing. All we need is the coming financial crash and you lot are all mincemeat. Enjoy the jelly and ice cream. It might be your last scoop.

The party will soon be over. The German Constitutional Court has just informed you that the EU doesn't hit the necessary standard of acceptability, and nor is it likely to. They said it, however in such polite language that you missed the primary message completely.

I find that when children won't listen to a kind rebuke, next stop is usually a firmer reprimand. Don't cry though, Ralph. We all love you really.

UPDATE 7th July 2009 - From Hermitter writing in comments on Nosemonkey..

UPDATE - From Hermitter writing in Nosemonkey comments...

ne should not overlook that quite influential and powerful political forces were backing this constitutional complaint. E.g., Dr Peter Gauweiler is not only a “simple” Bundestag MP, but is acting on behalf of the most powerful conservative fraction within the CDU/CSU. Dr Gregor Gysi is the head of the Socialists, who are very strong in former East Germany; and Baden-Wurttemberg, as one of the most powerful laender, filed the complaint on behalf of the Bundesrat and rest of the Bundeslaender.

So, it wasn’t just “one individual” complaining to the Court, but the most powerful political forces (besides the federal government) in the country. Different from the US Supreme Court, the German Constitutional Court has a ruling-history of seeking consensus and seldom writes opinions that are dissenting too far from “public opinion”. The court uses often “proportionality” to decide what is conform with the Basic Law (and what not). E.g., possessing a small bag of cannabis for one’s own use is fine, says the BVerfG, because law enforcement must be balanced against the right to “free development of personality”. The same “proportionality” is normally applied as a lubricant when the BVerfG meshes with EU law. Each side is jealous of its prerogatives but also eager to avoid confrontation. If seen under this perspective, this ruling of June 30, 2009, is rather a “tsunami” than a “gentle breeze”. You have to read the whole decision very closely (including the complainants’ arguments) to understand this . . . and don’t be fooled by the polite, moderate wording of the verdict. This is just part of this court’s disposition.

As a matter of fact, this dicision ended the “dream” of a European Federation for good (at least as long as Germany is part of the Club.

British Embassies Assist Blackmail And The Break-Up Of Families Across The Globe

My son, aged 1 and a half years, is a British Citizen living in the Philippines.

Today I wrote to the brand new British Embassy in Manila (Pictured) to enquire as to why they are refusing him a passport, in the following terms -



RE PASSPORT FOR MY SON

Previously, once my son was registered as a British Citizen his passport would have been issued as a formality, as I was told in 2008. The problem now is the withdrawal of consent from the mother, who is demanding a figure of GBP 100,000 for her cooperation.

Under the new rules, without her consent, my son cannot get a passport.

I now wonder over what period of time the mother's consent would be required before my son is permitted to receive a British Passport.

If for example this cannot be obtained for 50 years, it would seem unfair to a British Citizen that his own mother can so limit his prospects. In fact what is your rule as to age limit for this restriction? Does one exist?

Answer came back from the Consul. At 16 years of age the child can apply for his own passport

Whose interests are served by preventing a child from ever meeting his grandparents and British relatives, because of a separation from the mother? Divorce and separation are very common amongst relationships between expats and Filipinas. Is there now going to be a lost generation of British citizens unable to visit their own country or be educated in the UK? It appears so.

Children who have in many cases lost contact, or who have reduced contact with one of their parents, are now to be also cut off from their grandparents, uncles and aunts, half brother and sisters. It hardly seems right.

My mother is still alive and would like to meet her Grandson. Does it please Her Majesty that she will, now most probably, never do so?

Why is the British Government concerning itself with such personal issues, and creating such an injustice?

I was told by the Consul that the reasons that children from divorced and separated couples cannot obtain British passports is to prevent international abduction from taking place.

Giving a mother a veto over the obtaining of a passport, however (when, in my case, she had previously supported the citizenship application), offers the ideal opportunity for blackmail, which in poor countries such as the Philippines, is an ever-present likelihood. In most divorce situations or separations, it is going to be difficult if not impossible to get permission from the non-custodial parent to obtain a passport, or an ideal opportunity for blackmail has been created.

Is it, in any case, really right to allow a parent to so damage the prospects of the child in order to prevent a possible international abduction? There are many other ways that abduction could be prevented, such as demanding the handing in of the passport from the parent and the issuing of temporary travel documents, the payment of a bond etc etc. There could be other measures taken with a little thought and care applied to the situation, but the European bureaucracy has preferred, it seems to take a sledge-hammer to the problem.

The non-granting of passports to separated parents until their child reaches the age of 16, means that British families across the globe will now be broken away from each other by the thousand. This is all being done to prevent a much smaller number of tragic events, the problem of international abduction. It seems that as ever, the government, no doubt implementing EU Regulations, has created a far worse situation with its rules, than the ills the rules were designed to prevent.



Picture At Top and Above - British Ambassador to The Philippines, Sir Peter Beckingham. At top, he stands behind a group of kids. The circumstances that exist in far flung corners of the world are not always easily understood back in Whitehall. As for Brussels, I doubt they even care.

British Citizens Refused British Passports By EU Rules

Last night I attended the annual meeting of the British Chamber of Commerce in the Philippines at which the British Embassy explained current government policies and decisions regarding the issuance of passorts and visas.

The British Consul, Joanne Finnamore-Crorkin (JFC) was the presenter of the changes regarding the issuing of British passports. Interestingly she said that by 2011 all British passports will be issued in London, and the current 88 locations around the world where passports are currently being issued, will be closed. By the end of 2009, the 88 locations are being regionalised so that only 20 centres will be able to issue passorts as an interim measure.

The policy as regards permission by parents to the issuing of passport to children had also clarified to me in a phone call the previous day from JFC. The reasons that the permission of both parents was required was not 'security' as the junior staff had stated to me previously, but as part of the British Government's international agreements on child abduction.

There has been, it appears, a move on the part of many countries 'around the world' to attempt to stop the growing problem of international abduction by parents.

The leaflet supplied to me by the Consulate mentions only the Hague Convention which are old and well etsbalished. The new rules that JFC mentions are in fact EU Rules, as usual disguised by the British Government and presented as British.

At least JFC's explanation makes a little more sense than the notion that security was somehow threatened by giving a passport to a baby. But as with all do-gooder regimes, brought in to prevent one wrong, there are with this new measure unintended consequences, where even greater damage is being done.

I was able to correct one wrong notion that JFC had about Philippines child custody. It is not the law that children aged up to seven automatically go to the mother, as she believed. There is a presumption that up to the age of seven the child will go to the mother, but the decision will be taken based on the interests of the child at every stage. Likewise, after the age of seven the presumption is that the child will go to the father.

The situation is not as clear cut as the Embassy would obviously like it to be.

The British Embassy now has a policy of not giving a passport to a British registered child if one parent does not agree, until the age of 16. It is worth mentioning that British citizenship cannot be obtained in the first place without the consent of both parents. So a parent can agree to British citizenship one minute, and effectively revoke it the next, in the sense that a passport can be denied until the child is effectively adult.

One has to ask if this is an entirely wise approach to be taking.

In my case payment of money (to the mother) would have secured the passport had I known in advance that the rule changes were coming in. But as I was told that a passport was a mere formality once British citizenship had been obtained, I did not give obtaining a passport for my son top priority a year ago.

The situation now is that I cannot take my son to the UK. I would not easily obtain a Philippine passport, and even if I did, the British Visa Section has the same policy as to obtaining the permission of the mother.

For every potential child abduction prevented, there will be dozens or hundreds of other cases like that of my son, where there is no intention to carry out an international abduction, but there is the notion that he is entitled to meet his blood relatives, and that his human rights are being denied to him.

I hope he reads this when he is older, and, if I am not around, can see why he was cut off from his British family.

My mother is getting on and has health problems. She would like to meet her grandson before she dies, but it will not now be possible to get him to see her as the British Government is so concerned about the possibility that I might be intending to abduct him, that it prefers my mother to pass away with this sadness not resolved.

Surely the situation could be handled in other ways.

If I was intending to abduct my son I would surely have gone ahead and secured his passport at an earlier stage. If the government wishes to prevent an abduction, is the withholding of a passport the only way such a thing can be achieved? Surely, other methods could be used, such as the withdrawal of my passport if my son were not to be returned to the Philippines as agreed prior to travel.

Or alternatively the removal of my passport and the issuing of a temporary travel document to me, and my son, my passport to be returned to me only if I return to the Philippines as agreed.

Or the depositing of money, or both etc etc.

That way my mother need not suffer the sadness of not meeting her grandson, and there is a strong enough incentive to prevent me from breaking my word.

Who Can Resolve The Situation?

The trouble with Britain signing up to blanket policy decision taken at international level i.e The EU, is that new policies are rarely thought through down to the detail. Sledgehammer methods sound very attractive to law-makers far removed from the reality of life and the real situations that people face.

In Britain they get enacted without scrutiny from Parliament anyway, as MPs are bypassed these days, and it is only when real people start to suffer the consequences of badly thought-out rules that the protest and questioning process begins. Tragically then it can be many years before the injustices caused by stupid rules are undone. Let's hope that with the British Government's craven acceptance of international demands as regards child abduction, the rules can be altered soon.

In my son's case, he will inherit a sizeable business (100 employees) in the UK eventually, but will never meet his future employees as a child which they don't like much, let alone the British relatives that his decisions might affect as regards family property. There are many consequences to blanket and devastating measures such as the refusal to issue a passport.

Now if Britain would quit the EU as David Cameron occasionally seems to be suggesting, then we could get back to a democratic process of government where such issues as this might be resolved intelligently and not by the sledgehammer of bureaucratic high-mindedness. The loss of democracy in Britain is why I left the country in the first place, and it is no surprise to find the same stupidity emanating from London ruling across the globe.

Joanne Finnamore Crorkin is a highly intelligent and capable Consul. It is a shame that she has to apply such ill-thought-out measures as blanket passport refusal agreed at international level. I am convinced that Britain alone could solve the problems of child abduction without cutting families off from each other across the globe.

David Cameron, this is another one for you to take on, I think.

Eurozone Central Banks Spend Reserves

While Mexican swine flu is being used to fill newspaper headlines, one is forced to search hard to find the real stories that are being hidden away in the background. Governments are still peddling hard to try to stop the financial crisis from engulfing the 'system'. In the US, Paulson and Bernanke are in court defending their actions in the takeover of Bank Of America. In Europe who on earth knows what is going on, as little of any significance gets reported.

We are told, however, by Reuters that last week Eurozone Central Banks found it necessary to part company with 16 billion euros of reserves. That's nearly 1% of their total reserves going west in a week. If that rate is maintained for a year, the effect will be to reduce reserves by about 50% - getting close to Euros 1 trillion in a year. With no war being fought, this is a colossal figure to explain away.

ECB says gold reserves down by 823 mln euros on wk
FRANKFURT, April 28 (Reuters) - Gold and gold receivables held by euro zone central banks fell by 823 million euros ($1.1 billion) to 240.84 billion euros in the week ending April 24, the European Central Bank said on Tuesday.

Net foreign exchange reserves in the Eurosystem of central banks fell by 11.8 billion euros to 265.4 billion euros, the ECB said in its regular weekly consolidated financial statement.
Gold holdings fell because of sales by two euro zone central banks, consistent with the 2004 Central Bank Gold Agreement, the ECB said.
It added its balance sheet had decreased in size by over 16 billion euros in the last week to 1.824 trillion euros.
For details of the report, please see the website: http://www.ecb.int/press

If this rate of spend from reserves is continued, the euro might start to catch Mexican chill. Presumably there are also borrowing and tax revenues being spent in addition. Is it possible that in a year or so from now the IMF will be called to bail out the eurozone, raising money from around the globe to do so? I cannot imagine that the Chinese government or others will be too keen on the idea, pouring good money after bad.

Mexican Flu Con Blankets Real News

Mexican swine fever is sure as hell filling the airwaves. This is most convenient for politicians especially those in the US who might have something to hide. According to the Wall Street Journal, the takeover of Merrill Lynch by Bank of America was carried out under duress. Bernanke and Paulson are on their way to court accused of illegally enforcing it. This has yet to be mentioned on CNN or the BBC, but ought to be big news worldwide. The story is being suppressed by those who control the media, and it is appearing as a sub-story in financial newspapers, making it appear as of minor importance.

Stock markets continue with their recovery around the globe blissfully unaware how close to collapse the American banking system had come.

Instead we are treated to endless details about a pandemic which never was. The headlines about Mexican flu in the BBC are indeed terrifying. But look at the details. It really is laughable.

In almost all swine flu cases outside Mexico, people have been only mildly ill and have made a full recovery.'

Link to Paulson/Bernanke story HERE. Pictured while testifying, Ken Lewis, Bank Of America chief executive.

EXTRACT -

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and then-Treasury Department chief Henry Paulson pressured Bank of America Corp. to not discuss its increasingly troubled plan to buy Merrill Lynch & Co. -- a deal that later triggered a government bailout of BofA -- according to testimony by Kenneth Lewis, the bank's chief executive.

Mr. Lewis, testifying under oath before New York's attorney general in February, told prosecutors that he believed Messrs. Paulson and Bernanke were instructing him to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill, the struggling brokerage giant. As part of his testimony, a transcript of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal, Mr. Lewis said the government wanted him to keep quiet while the two sides negotiated government funding to help BofA absorb Merrill and its huge losses.

Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis testified he was pressured to keep silent about deepening financial difficulties at Merrill Lynch. Here is a art of his testimony -

Q: Were you instructed not to tell your shareholders what the transaction was going to be?

A: I was instructed that 'We do not want a public disclosure.'

Q: Who said that to you?

A: Paulson...

Q: Had it been up to you would you [have] made the disclosure?

A: It wasn't up to me.

Q: Had it been up to you.

A: It wasn't.

Under normal circumstances, banks must alert their shareholders of any materially significant financial hits. But these weren't normal times: Late last year, Wall Street was crumbling and BofA faced intense government pressure to buy Merrill to keep the crisis from spreading. Disclosing losses at Merrill -- which eventually totaled $15.84 billion for the fourth quarter -- could have given BofA's shareholders an opportunity to stop the deal and let Merrill collapse instead.

"Isn't that something that any shareholder at Bank of America...would want to know?" Mr. Lewis was asked by a representative of New York's attorney general, Andrew Cuomo, according to the transcript.

"It wasn't up to me," Mr. Lewis said. The BofA chief said he was told by Messrs. Bernanke and Paulson that the deal needed to be completed, otherwise it would "impose a big risk to the financial system" of the U.S. as a whole.

But don't think about all this. Look instead at the terrors of a flu outbreak that has yet to kill a single human being outside of Mexico. That's far more important.

French Hate EU

The French have had enough of their beloved EU. The organisation that kept the Germans in check and guaranteed French farmers riches for eternity is no longer loved. No details are passed on in the survey reported by Open Europe below, explaining why but surely it is a most significant day when even the French have had enough of 'ever closer union'.

Le Figaro and Cevipof have undertaken a study on the changing attitudes of the French population towards the EU. The study emphasises that France and Greece have experienced the sharpest decline in confidence in the EU and also cites the Eurobarometer survey, in which only 49% of French people said that France being a member of the EU was a positive thing. In 1987, 74% said that it was a positive thing.

Euro About To Receive Market Kicking

I've been blogging a while, predicting various market moves. My favourite one of these is undoubtedly the sinking value of the Euro versus all other currencies. The last two months have seen the Euro moving the other way, rising a little against the dollar. But the underlying weakness of the Euro is about to send it reeling.

I am posting two charts here, one showing how the euro is moving into the next downwave. This is occurring just as capital market liquidity is collapsing. The capital market fall in liquidity in October sent the euro tumbling and the dollar on a major rise. The collapse in liquidity on this occasion is of a much greater scale as the second chart shows.

I'm not trying to be gloomy, but the coming reversals in markets are likely to be of the stunning variety, with the Euro leading the way to the floor. As for the parity with Sterling predicted by so many last January, Sterling is now 13% higher.

The only problem will be what to do with all the worthless Euro notes in circulation. Wallpaper? Not in my house,obviously, but many might be drawn to the idea.

Euro Predicted To Melt In The Crash

Following the movements of markets is currently a challenge, it might be said. Making sense of the world's economy since around 2000 has been very hard. Years of irrational exuberance with record high valuations for stocks and commodities has turned into a long slow deflationary spiral downwards. Companies that are interested in future price movements have their work cut out in explaining it all, but one forecaster attempting to see the underlying trends in political terms this month is particularly interesting, seeing the end of the eurozone as the likely consequence of the crash.

I give you the preamble -

Taking a Hard Look at the Survivability of the European Union

The first question you have to ask yourself is, Why was the eurozone – the group of European nations that share the euro – created in 1999? What was so special about that year that made it possible?

Believe it or not, once you answer this question, you will understand not only what really holds the EU together, but also why (and when) its unity is most likely to be tested in the future.

You answer this question by plotting the recent major European social events on the chart of the DAX, Germany's main stock index. What you'll see is that, amazingly, every single major positive event in recent history occurred when stocks were rallying or near a top.

You can see this chart now, on page 2 of the April issue of EWI's European Financial Forecast. It explains at a glance why the tensions between member nations are flaring up again: With European stocks cut in half or more by this bear market, Europe's social mood is at the lowest point it's been in years.

What does it mean for European stocks? What does it mean for the future of the EU?

The Euro came out of the era of irrational exuberance. Will it now disappear in the era or more sober valuations and pessimism? It seems that the writers from Elliott Wave International think so.

PICTURE - Adelies on melting ice. I apologise to the birds for any implied suggestion that they are as dumb as the fools who constructed the eurozone.

Another aspect of the Euro's reporting in financial circles that caught my attention is that the Euro is not regarded as a currency that began in 1999, but one that started at the end of WW2 under the aegis of Konrad Adenauer. The currency is invariably referred to as the DM/Euro and long term charts going back 40 years present the currency as an unbroken single entity.

That gives a clue as to how it will unravel. The Euro will be regarded as the DM once more. Each country will have to negotiate the value of its Euro assets and debts with Germany, and the road to economic sanity will lie open for countries like Ireland to relaunch the Punt.

The exact events which EWI foresees I cannot say as I am not a subscriber to their newsletter. But I find their free tasters which arrive by email to be very enlightening. A further crash in the DAX is obviously one thing that is likely, and a falling of the value of the Euro as the banking crises and national debt crises across Europe start to impact - with no bailouts except from the IMF, which only has $500 billion on hand. The Eurozone would need five or ten times that figure, and no one in their right mind is going to bother raising that - especially Germany which has had enough of bailing people out. Investors too are already choking on excess government debt. The Euro's game is over. It's only a matter of time.