The Supreme Court on Friday sided with a Christian graphic web designer, Lorie Smith, who objected to designing wedding websites for same-sex couples.

The 6-3 decision, split among ideological lines, cam after Smith sued the state of Colorado over its anti-discrimination law prohibiting businesses from denying services based on a customer’s sexual orientation.

In its ruling, the Court’s conservative majority ruled that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing “an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”

Smith, who owns design company 303 Creative – which has previously served gay customers – only wants to work with heterosexual couples for her wedding website business. She argued that Colorado’s law would force her and other artists to offer customized messages which violate her beliefs and First Amendment rights.

Supporters of Colorado’s law say the decision could allow businesses to discriminate against a wide range of customers – including interfaith couples or those of other races.

In a dissent, Justice Sotomayor wrote: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”

Describing the majority’s conclusion as “profoundly wrong,” J. Sotomayor writes, “Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.” pic.twitter.com/FWBzeeVfgS

— Brianne Gorod (@BrianneGorod) June 30, 2023

The case is reminiscent of the ‘gay wedding cake’ controversy that arose a decade ago, after Colorado baker Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, also on religious grounds. The court ruled for the baker, however the decision – penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy – did not settle whether the First Amendment applies to discrimination based on religious beliefs.

By Todd Maiden of FreightWaves,

With questions swirling around the fate of the nation’s third-largest less-than-truckload carrier, Yellow Corp., industry analysts have started looking at which carriers stand to benefit the most if the company fails.

Seemingly running out of options, Yellow filed a $137 million lawsuit against the Teamsters union on Tuesday. The suit alleges the union is unjustifiably blocking proposed operational changes that the carrier is contractually allowed to implement. Yellow asserts the union’s slow response and unwillingness to negotiate have added to the company’s deteriorating financial condition.

Yellow recently asked health and welfare and pension funds if it could delay contribution payments for the months of July and August in order to preserve its cash, which it says will be depleted by mid-July. Also, the lawsuit revealed Yellow unsuccessfully solicited the White House’s help brokering a deal.

“YELL’s situation creates huge benefits for the remaining, stronger LTL players that are able to profitably handle the extra volumes,” Deutsche Bank equity research analyst Amit Mehrotra told clients on Wednesday.

He said the negative press has likely resulted in more freight leaving the company.

A recent intraquarter report from Yellow showed its tonnage was down 16% year over year in April and May and 33% lower than in the same two months of 2021. Some of the declines can be attributed to recent yield improvement initiatives and the dislocation caused by a multiyear restructuring, which has allowed it to consolidate its four LTL brands and reduce its terminal footprint.

However, Mehrotra notes, customers are also seeking other transportation options given Yellow’s inability to reach a deal with the Teamsters.

“Based on all the developments over the last two weeks, we continue to think it’s more likely than not that a meaningful piece of Yellow’s business is diverted away to competitors.”

He also pointed to a final report issued Tuesday from the congressional oversight commission tasked with overseeing the 2020 COVID-relief lending program. The report noted numerous mistakes made by government agencies during the approval process of a $700 million Treasury loan to Yellow. It also advised the Treasury to unwind its debt and equity holdings in the company.

“These developments make it highly unlikely, in our view, for a last-minute deal via outside intervention,” Mehrotra said.  

Yellow has narrowly averted bankruptcy in the past by orchestrating wages and benefits concessions from Teamsters as well as eleventh-hour debt restructurings. With the unfavorable loan commission report and the Biden administration’s recent pass on lending a hand, it doesn’t appear the government is interested in a bailout.

TD Cowen analyst Jason Seidl said union carriers like ABF Freight, an ArcBest subsidiary, and TForce Freight, a TFI International company, would likely be the biggest winners of Yellow’s $5.2 billion slice of the LTL industry.

He said these carriers are more compatible with the way Yellow operates and could hit the upper end of the earnings-per-share growth ranges he calculated. The high end of the EPS range was 32% for ArcBest and 14% for TFI. XPO had an EPS growth range of 9% to 35% but presumably with a lower confidence level assigned.

He doesn’t see Old Dominion as a big beneficiary due to its “strict pricing discipline and freight profile.” He also noted some “strong private carriers” would likely see incremental volumes if Yellow were to fail.

Seidl said he wasn’t predicting Yellow’s demise or its survival, just providing some math in case the carrier exits.

He drew on comparisons to the 2002 failure of Consolidated Freightways, the third-largest LTL carrier at the time. That company was generating more than $2 billion in revenue with 20,000 employees, 14,500 of whom were Teamsters.

Seidl said that competitor ArcBest reported an 11% increase in daily tonnage the month that followed the announcement of CF’s bankruptcy. ArcBest’s tonnage was down 2.4% in the month prior to CF’s bankruptcy.

However, Mehrotra said the events at Yellow create the potential for “massive earnings accretion,” noting Old Dominion and Saia could see their earnings increase by more than 20%. He said a “wall of freight” could present some execution challenges to network-centric businesses like LTLs, but believes high-quality service standards at Old Dominion and Saia will allow them to more effectively onboard any windfall.

“The bottom line is we continue to see significant further upside in LTL shares on the back of developments at YELL,” Mehrotra said.

Shares of YELL were down again on Wednesday, off 19% following a 22% decline on Tuesday. Shares of other LTL carriers were up slightly to as much as 4% on the day, following mid- to high-single-digit increases on Tuesday.

The final print for UMich sentiment’s findings on inflation expectations were unchanged from the flash print with 1Yr outlook at 3.3% – the lowest since March 2021 – and 5-10Y inflation exp eased down to 3.00%…

Source: Bloomberg

However, we do note that these expectations remained elevated relative to the 2.2 – 2.6% range seen in the two years pre-pandemic.

Also good news is that the uncertainty around the inflation outlook has fallen as consumers seem more confident that The Fed has things under control…

The headline sentiment print rose further intra-month to 64.4 from 63.09 flash

Source: Bloomberg

Buying Conditions improved modestly…

Source: Bloomberg

As UMich reports, the year-ahead economic outlook soared 28% over last month, and long-run expectations rose 11% as well.

Democrats are leading the resurgence in confidence…

Overall, this striking upswing reflects a recovery in attitudes generated by the early-month resolution of the debt ceiling crisis, along with more positive feelings over softening inflation.

Gary Gensler’s crusade against crypto continues… but today’s news may be a silver lining.

The Wall Street Journal reports, citing people familiar with the matter, The Securities and Exchange Commission said a recent wave of applications filed by asset managers to launch spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds are inadequate.

Gensler’s goons reportedly told BlackRock, Fidelity, and a wave of other asset managers that the filings aren’t sufficiently clear and comprehensive.

Cathie Wood’s Ark Investment Management, Invesco, WisdomTree, Bitwise Asset Management and Valkyrie all reactivated or amended their applications for a spot bitcoin ETF in recent days.

An ETF that tracks the actual price of bitcoin would mark a watershed moment for the industry because it would provide wider access to the cryptocurrency.

It would allow investors to buy and sell bitcoin through a brokerage account as easily as shares of stock.

The kneejerk reaction was to sell Bitcoin, pushing it back to $30,000…

The SEC has repeatedly rejected such funds going back to 2017 on the grounds that they are vulnerable to fraud and market manipulation.

At least half a dozen ETFs that own bitcoin futures are already on the market.

As WSJ concludes, some industry watchers predicted that BlackRock’s filing would appease the SEC’s concerns through an agreement to share “surveillance” of a spot bitcoin-trading platform with Nasdaq, which would list the ETF.

Interestingly, while the initial reaction appears to be negative, one could argue this is actually positive with the SEC engaging with asset managers and offering suggestions on what they should do.

Specifically, the SEC told the exchanges that it returned the filings because they didn’t name the spot bitcoin exchange with which they are expected to have a “surveillance-sharing agreement” or provide enough information about the details of those surveillance arrangements. Indeed, as Bloomberg ETF guru Eric Balchunas writes:“this isn’t as bad as headline. The key paragraph is deep in story. Basically SEC wants them to name the “crypto exchange” and give more details on SSA. That’s understandable, arguably good news. I was under impression they’d have to update that as well.“

Hold up a second, this isn’t as bad as headline. The key paragraph is deep in story. Basically SEC wants them to name the “crypto exchange” and give more details on SSA. That’s understandable, arguably good news. I was under impression they’d have to update that as well. pic.twitter.com/bh9qn65Xh2

— Eric Balchunas (@EricBalchunas) June 30, 2023

And As ETF Store’s Nate Geraci adds, this may actually be a greenlighting for the Blackrock ETF

My guess? There’s only one ETF issuer that can definitively name that spot crypto exchange & confidently say they’ll have a surveillance sharing agreement in place… https://t.co/dBFdAyrgY8

— Nate Geraci (@NateGeraci) June 30, 2023

The police killing of a 17-year-old during a traffic stop on Tuesday has unleashed three consecutive days of social unrest across France. 

Bloomberg reports more than 600 people were arrested Thursday night into Friday, with a majority of them between the ages of 14 and 18. 

France showing heat map of riots

This after the pension riots and fuel riots pic.twitter.com/UQ5lV02NwJ

— Kalu Aja (@FinPlanKaluAja1) June 30, 2023

Rioters targeted municipal buildings, town halls, and libraries in various major cities, stores were looted, and all hell broke out nationwide as the government deployed 40,000 police officers yesterday afternoon to quell the violence. About 200 officers were injured overnight in the Paris suburb of Nanterre, where the teen was killed. 

The unrest is so bad that President Emmanuel Macron left an EU summit in Brussels, where he will hold another emergency security meeting Friday, AFP reported, citing his office. 

Video and pictures on social media of the rioting are absolutely shocking. 

France has fallen…

Police are unable to control the migrant and left-wing riots taking place across the country. French media has surrendered and cannot keep track of the number of towns and cities across the country being looted, set on fire, and destroyed.

Islamic attacks,… pic.twitter.com/s0m4CRLjIL

— Amy Mek (@AmyMek) June 30, 2023

A large shopping center in the suburbs of Paris is completely destroyed by fire. #FranceRiots pic.twitter.com/75Q78qVj0b

— Paul Golding (@GoldingBF) June 30, 2023

#WATCH : A huge fire is raging in an RATP bus depot in Aubervilliers (Paris suburb) #emeutes #Nanterre#FranceRiots #FranceProtests #RiotsFrance #Paris #FranceProtests #franceViolence pic.twitter.com/O8j46ixrin

— upuknews (@upuknews1) June 30, 2023

🇫🇷🇫🇷🇫🇷#France is in a Mess#France #Protests #Riots pic.twitter.com/pwG3Vmfs92

— Freedom (@MassAdi15176401) June 30, 2023

Protestesters in France burning down the largest public library in the city of Marseille. #Paris #Internationalleaks #France #FranceRiots pic.twitter.com/cNwNsPmS0a

— The Notorious HbK (@The5HbK) June 30, 2023

France has some serious demographics problms that seems to increase by the day. This is going to be tough. The future doesn’t look too bright. Paris must learn from Poland. #FranceRiots must be eye opening.

This is Cultural Enrichment in #Macron‘s #Francepic.twitter.com/JPGG6HFdTZ

— Mukesh Chaudhary (@MukeshG0dara) June 30, 2023

Burning bus stations, banks, police stations, cranes, and car bombs.

This is Cultural Enrichment in #Macron‘s #France#PARIS #Nanterre #FranceRiots #FranceProtests #RiotsFrance #protest #protests pic.twitter.com/6NtbRRyZzl

— MidnightVisions (@MidnightVision5) June 30, 2023

The front entrance of a grocery store in #Nantes, #France has been smashed by a car and is curretly being looted, as Muslim riots enter the 3de night. pic.twitter.com/LXeGS9Fo1z

— Sotiri Dimpinoudis (@sotiridi) June 29, 2023

The looting of an Apple store in France.https://t.co/ryUF9UkUAP

pic.twitter.com/kXaJyx8ken

— Russian Market (@runews) June 30, 2023

NOW – Looting, violent riots spread to several cities in France. The situation is out of control in parts of the country. pic.twitter.com/ngsGcVVNol

— Disclose.tv (@disclosetv) June 30, 2023

Muslims in the french city of #Rennes have stolen a forklift from an construction site and are destroying infrastructure, as violent Muslim riots enters its 3de night in #France. pic.twitter.com/u8Vkux91HU

— Sotiri Dimpinoudis (@sotiridi) June 29, 2023

If Macron wants to get a grip on the violence, he might have to declare an emergency. Fox News said the president has been close to announcing one but has stopped short. 

“Nothing justifies the violence that’s occurred,” said Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne. 

Borne is correct. Looting stores and burning buildings isn’t a typical response for those grieving over the death of a young man killed by police. France is supposedly a first-world country with a law and judicial system that will ensure justice will be served. 

We must ask critical questions, perhaps some that will trigger mainstream journos, of who exactly is sparking these riots. If it’s organized crime gangs, migrants, or just teenagers. 

Submitted by J.B. Shurk via American Thinker,

Generally speaking, central banks are empowered to control the supply of money by employing a number of tools that include buying government debt, selling government bonds, adjusting reserve requirements, and setting official interest rates.  Operating under various legal mandates to sustain an overall healthy economy, central banks ostensibly pursue policies that will produce relatively low inflation, steady economic growth, and low public unemployment.  

What if these stated goals are merely talking points meant to justify a central bank’s continued monopoly over a nation’s creation of money, and the true objective of any central bank is to maximize wealth for the wealthiest economic players?  Central banks, after all, are usually institutionally independent from government interference.  They are private firms managed by the world’s financial elite.  How might a central bank pursue a hidden agenda to grow the wealth of its friends at the public’s expense?

The easiest and most effective way would be to create artificial “boom and bust” cycles during which economies greatly expand and then quickly shrink.  How does this work in practice?  First, a central bank lowers interest rates — the cost of borrowing money — and thereby encourages ordinary citizens to take out loans.  These loans are used to buy houses and cars and start small businesses.  By artificially lowering interest rates below the natural market rate, central banks stimulate consumer purchases and small business expenditures beyond what Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” would have rendered on its own.  Investors who have an economic interest in selling houses, cars, and inventories for small businesses all benefit from the central bank’s intervention.

Additionally, because central banks have encouraged borrowing, they have pumped more money into the greater economy.  With the supply of money artificially increased, some individuals are willing to pay more now than before for the same goods or services.  Consequently, the prices of goods and services increase, producing inflation.  There are two important effects stemming from inflation: (1) a middle-class citizen on a fixed income must now pay more for living expenses, while (2) a higher-class citizen who owns stocks, homes, and other assets will see the currency-denominated value of those assets increase.  In other words, inflation acts as a tax on poorer individuals who own little and a supplement for wealthier individuals who own much.  While a middle-class citizen living paycheck-to-paycheck will effectively have less income, a higher-class citizen whose principal wealth exists in the form of assets will have increased net wealth.  Inflation effects a wealth transfer from the poor to the rich.

Now, a central banker will insist that artificially low interest rates and easy borrowing have made it possible for consumers to own more things and for fledgling entrepreneurs to start small businesses that would have otherwise never existed.  A less charitable description would be that low interest rates have induced ordinary citizens to buy things that they cannot afford, take on long-term debt, and risk their financial futures on business start-ups that may well fail.  Sometimes those risks pay off and produce rags-to-riches success stories.  When interest rates suddenly rise, however, they often end with unpaid bills and the eventual bank seizure of those cars, homes, and business assets.  A central bank’s easy money programs momentarily increase consumer ownership and small business creation before inviting financial distress and repossession as rent, payroll, inventory expenses, and other fixed costs increase.

During the “boom” side of the cycle, central banks produce a lot of momentary “winners” and increase overall national wealth by encouraging consumer spending and inflating the currency-denominated value of assets.  During the inevitable “bust” side of the cycle, however, the real winners emerge when the super-wealthy scoop up a bankrupt population’s primary assets for pennies on the dollar.  

For the globe’s largest corporations, banks, and investment groups capable of quickly transitioning into gold, silver, or other relatively stable mediums for preserving wealth, economic crises are like giant “going out of business” sales, where everything a nation owns “must go,” no matter how low the final sale price.  While ordinary consumers lose their life savings and small businesses quickly fold, the über-wealthy who directly or indirectly run central bank policy gobble up housing properties and other assets that have been used as collateral to secure risky loans.  Multinational corporations acquire competing mom-and-pop stores for peanuts; banking conglomerates fold local and regional banks into their portfolios; and monster-sized investment groups take controlling interests in an even greater share of a nation’s raw materials, commodities, and publicly traded stocks.

When central banks manipulate interest rates and inflation to create the illusion of real economic growth, some boats float with a rising tide, while other boats sink.

When the dust finally settles, fewer people own more than ever before.  Then, invariably, after enough public suffering and business consolidation, the “boom and bust” cycle begins again.  Momentary “winners” rise again.  Inflationary bubbles expand again.  When those bubbles burst, the über-wealthy acquire even more than they did the last time around.  The whole process is like the reverse of a snake shedding its skin, wherein central bankers and the financial behemoths behind them add one layer of wealth after the next, until they own everything.  By that time, any mouse that happens to get in their way is so scrawny and desperate that he will gladly be eaten or accept the smallest morsel in return for a promise to obey.  In this way, central bank snakes see everyone else as either easy prey or a future debt slave. 

Why would nations give a bunch of global bankers a monopoly to control the supply of money, when that awesome power allows them to impoverish and manage everyone else?  Why would politicians who claim to care about income inequality perpetuate a system that specializes in producing income inequality?  The answer is simple: governments are concerned exclusively with power and do not care about preserving democratic ideals, personal freedom, or the livelihoods of their people.

In front of television cameras, politicians voice commitment to civic virtues.  When those cameras turn off, everything they do is transactional.  If I do this, what will you do for me?

Central banks permit politicians to supersize their transactional powers in two ways: (1) by buying government debt and increasing the supply of money, they make it possible for governments to spend much more than tax revenues would otherwise permit, and (2) by devaluing currency over time and hollowing out middle-class savings, central banks force citizens to depend more upon government services and benefits for basic needs.  In effect, central bank money-printing enables politicians to spend money for votes and influence, as well as to offer welfare and other forms of government assistance to an increasingly impoverished population in exchange for their continued electoral support.  

There is no one so obedient as a man who must depend upon another for his survival.  If the costs of health care, heating fuel, gasoline, and food are all too expensive after years of steady inflation, then government discretion over who gets what turns politicians into princes.

Conversely, a person free from debts to either financial institutions or government apparatchiks is a person free to chart a life beyond the reach of their coercion.  Therefore, those who seek to maximize wealth and power have a perverse incentive to rule over destitute nations.

Call it the road to serfdom.  Call it socialism hiding inside the Trojan horse of late-stage capitalism.  Call it Marxist globalism intent on creating a small class of masters and several continents of slaves.  Whatever it is called, it represents the controlled demolition of entire nation-states.  When central banks and politicians work together to fleece ordinary citizens, they create the conditions for despotism, poverty, and…sometimes…revolutions for change.

By Greg Miller of FreightWaves

Container lines are facing a triple whammy: Freight rates are weak — below breakeven in some trades — and show no signs of rising. New ships are flooding the market. And vessel leases that container lines booked at historically high rates during the boom have yet to expire. Some leases run through 2024 or 2025.

What levers can ocean carriers pull to stop the bleeding?

They do not seem to be able to raise freight rates. Demand is too low and carriers are not canceling enough sailings. They want the new ships being delivered (whether they’re owned or leased) because they benefit bottom lines via much higher fuel efficiency. Aristides Pittas, CEO of ship lessor Euroseas, said during the recent Marine Money Week conference that his company’s newbuildings “burn 40% less fuel oil than similar ships built 10 years ago.”

That leaves the long-term leases of older ships. Losses on these contracts can be mitigated.

Reports: Zim seeking early charter terminations

Israel-based Zim is the poster child of this trilemma. It’s highly exposed to falling freight rates, particularly in the Asia-U.S. East Coast market. It has a hefty orderbook of newbuildings and those ships have already begun hitting the water. And it is simultaneously highly exposed to charter costs — more so than any other ocean carrier, with over 90% of its fleet chartered versus owned.

Zim is now seeking to reduce its legacy charter liabilities, according to multiple reports.

“Zim has sought the termination of several chartered ships,” said Linerlytica. Tradewinds, citing brokers, said the carrier “is looking to terminate or even to sublet some charters of traditional Panamax container ships.” Alphaliner wrote: “Rumor has it that Zim is making some tonnage available through sublets or earlier-than-expected redeliveries.”

Without naming the carrier or carriers involved, ship brokerage Braemar said that “surplus tonnage is now being marketed, with some vessels becoming available earlier than previous charter commitments would have projected.”  

FreightWaves made multiple requests for comment on these reports to Zim’s media and investor relations teams, which did not respond.

Freight rates falling back again

There was a brief period of optimism on spot freight rates in the second half of April and a perception that they had finally bottomed. Then rates started falling again.

Since the week ending May 4, the Drewry World Container Index (WCI) global spot composite has fallen 15%, to just $1,494 per forty-foot equivalent unit in the week ending Thursday. Since June 8, the WCI Shanghai-Los Angeles spot index has declined 21% to $1,581 per FEU. The WCI Shanghai-New York spot index has fallen 16% over the same period, to $2,508 per FEU.

The Freightos Baltic Daily Index (FBX) global spot composite declined 7% between June 6 and Thursday, to $1,288 per FEU.

The FBX China-West Coast assessment dropped 17% over the same period to $1,190 per FEU, while the FBX China-East Coast spot assessment fell 9%, to $2,226 per FEU.

The trend is likewise negative for contract rates, which are more important to liner revenues than spot rates. Xeneta’s global index measuring contract rates fell 9.4% in June versus May and is down 51.7% year to date. The XSI subindex for U.S. import contract rates fell 11% in June versus May.

“One is left wondering where it will all end,” said Xeneta CEO Patrik Berglund.

Jefferies slashes earnings outlook on Zim

“Liners have limited pricing power and spot rates remain very weak across most routes,” said Jefferies shipping analyst Omar Nokta in a report released Tuesday, in which he slashed his earnings outlook for Zim.

Nokta previously forecast that Zim would post a net loss of $183.7 million for this year and $87.3 million for next year. On Tuesday, his 2023-2024 loss expectations for Zim ballooned by 150%. He now projects a net loss for Zim of $353.7 million this year and $324.7 million next year. Furthermore, he introduced his outlook for 2025, forecasting a further net loss of $150.8 million for the shipping line.

Investors made massive returns on their Zim shares as the COVID-era consumer boom hit new heights, but timing was everything. The stock peaked in mid-March 2022. Since then, it has plunged 87%.

Zim’s shares sank to $11.78 per share at one point on Tuesday, just pennies above the all-time low reached on the first day of trading after the IPO in late January 2021.  

Like all larger ocean carriers, Zim is far from in distress and still has plenty of cash amassed during the boom: $3.5 billion as of the end of the first quarter, pro forma of the dividend payout in April.

However, it’s burning through that cushion. It would make sense to proactively limit losses from high-price legacy charters as freight rates remain below breakeven and Zim’s newbuidlings enter service. 

Nokta estimated that Zim’s current quarterly cash burn is $250 million, or $1 billion per year on an annualized basis. That is “obviously not ideal, but Zim has plenty of liquidity and runway to ride out the current extreme softness in the spot market,” he maintained.

An increasing number of climate alarmists who trust “global warming science” have pitched the idea of large-scale interventions such as solar engineering to reverse ‘climate change.’ They believe human activity is the sole reason for the Earth’s increase in temperature and say large-scale intervention is immediately needed to stop the planet’s destruction. Some have even called for fleets of planes to spray chemicals into the atmosphere to deflect the sun’s rays as the world’s last hope for survival. 

But not so fast. A report published by the European Commission on Thursday outlined the potential risks and “unintended consequences” of manipulating planetary systems to fight global warming. 

The commission warned:

In the context of accelerated global warming, deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems (referred to as “geoengineering”), such as solar radiation modification, is attracting more attention. However, the risks, impacts and unintended consequences that these technologies pose are poorly understood, and necessary rules, procedures and institutions have not been developed. 

Some of these risks include:

These technologies introduce new risks to people and ecosystems, while they could also increase power imbalances between nations, spark conflicts and raises a myriad of ethical, legal, governance and political issues. 

Meanwhile, scientists from Harvard University have called for “spraying tiny particles called sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to reflect away sunlight.” And MIT recently wrote, “Geoengineering might be our final and only option.” 

Speaking to reporters this week, Frans Timmermans, the European Union climate policy chief, said, “Nobody should be conducting experiments alone with our shared planet” and “This should be discussed in the right forum, at the highest international level.” 

European leaders are worried that geoengineering experiments could go horribly wrong if unchecked. The risks of manipulating Earth’s climate need to be better understood, and necessary rules and procedures are needed.

Despite winning the “news presenter of the year” award, Nigel Farage has mixed feelings this week.

In the following clip, he reveals his concern about a recent development that may significantly impact his future career and even his ability to live in the UK.

The Brexit-provocateur shares his experience of having his bank accounts abruptly closed by a major banking group, without a valid reason provided.

Worse still, he discloses his attempts to open new accounts with several other banks, all of which have been unsuccessful so far.

Farage speculates on three possible reasons for his inability to secure a bank account:

1. the EU’s definition of a politically exposed person (PEP),

2. prejudice from corporate institutions, and

3. false allegations made by a member of Parliament regarding funds from the Russian government.

If they can do it to him, do you have any doubt that you are at risk?

Watch the full Farage address below:

The establishment are trying to force me out of the UK by closing my bank accounts.

I have been given no explanation or recourse as to why this is happening to me.

This is serious political persecution at the very highest level of our system.

If they can do it to me, they… pic.twitter.com/O4xQ1h79ub

— Nigel Farage (@Nigel_Farage) June 29, 2023

Full Transcript (emphasis ours):

Hello there.

Now you would think in the light of this that I’d be pretty happy – I mean, you know, ‘news presenter of the year’ award was pretty cool and a massive thanks to all of those people out there that voted for me.

The establishment were of course appalled because they in their little London bubble think that I’m incredibly unpopular.

Well in Notting Hill I might be maybe, not quite so in the rest of the country.

But actually truth is, I’m not full of the joys of spring.

I’ve been living with something for the last couple of months that may well fundamentally affect my future career going on from here, and whether I could even stay living in this country.

I have been with the same banking group since 1980. I’ve had my personal accounts with them since that date and my business accounts right through the 1990s when I worked in the city of London, and in recent years too, and with one of the subsidiaries of this big banking group – one with a very prestigious name.

But I won’t name them just yet.

I got a phone call a couple of months ago to say we are closing your accounts.

I asked why – no reason was given. I was told a letter would come which would explain everything. The letter came through and simply said we are closing your accounts – we want to finish it all by a date which is around about now.

I didn’t quite know what to make of it. I complained. I emailed the chairman. A Lackey phoned me to say that it was a commercial decision – which I have to say I don’t believe for a single moment.

So I thought well there we are, I’ll have to go and find a different bank.

I’ve been to six, uh no seven, banks actually and asked them all could I have a personal and a business account and the answer has been no in every single case.

There is nothing irregular or unusual about what I do – the payments that go in and come out every month are pretty much the same. I maintain in my business account quite a big positive cash balance, which I guess with interest rates where they are is pretty good for the bank too.

So why is this happening to me?

Well one explanation is this – a few years ago the European Union came up with a definition of somebody called a ‘PEP’ -a ‘politically exposed person’.

Now this could range from anybody from a prime minister down to a local councilor. I think the reason for it was, you know, ‘were people in politics open to bribery’, ‘could foreign governments from Ukraine or China or wherever else it may be, could they be pumping money into the, you know, the accounts of corrupt politicians’.

So I kind of understand that and get that.

But it’s all about interpretation isn’t it – and what the banks argue is that to maintain an account for a politically exposed person gives them increased costs of compliance.

Now I have spoken to the city minister in this country and there is some hope that this EU definition – which came into British law – may be moderated in some way, we’ll will have to see.

But, of course, any bank, any organization, can choose to interpret a ‘PEP’ and whether they want the account in any way they choose.

To my knowledge, I don’t think anybody has been treated like me in the world of politics.

But then the banks you see themselves are part of the big corporate structures in this country – these are the organizations who did not want Brexit to happen and I think in my case probably the corporate world will never ever forgive me because they know if I hadn’t done what I did with the help of thousands of people in our People’s Army that never would have been a referendum let alone a victory.

I’m the one that is to carry the blame.

So that’s the second possible reason why I can’t get a bank account – Prejudice that comes from our institutions.

But I think there’s a third reason.

A few months ago in the House of Commons Sir Chris Bryant, chairman of the Privileges committee, said using parliamentary privilege that I had received large sums of money directly from the Russian government, and he named the calendar year in which it had happened.

Truth is, I didn’t receive a penny from any source with even any link to Russia. And yet because he said it it stands.

I wrote to the speaker, I demanded an apology, nothing has been forthcoming from Sir Chris Brown.

Well I wonder whether that is what’s given me part of the problem.

I have employed a top firm of London lawyers. I’m going through a series of subject access requests to find out what is held on me by the international agencies and by the bank that wants to close me down.

But think about it – without a bank account you effectively become a non-person. You don’t actually exist. It’s like the worst regimes of the mid 20th century – be they in Russia or Germany – you literally become a non-person.

And you don’t anymore – you did in the past – but you don’t anymore actually have a right to be entitled to a bank account.

Now there is a possibility through a fintech company that I could find some means of receiving and paying money – which could be a little bit of a Lifeline. But it’s not a bank account because I won’t be able to earn any interest on positive cash balances, I won’t be able to borrow money if I need to at any point, or take out a mortgage should I so desire – that will be completely denied to me.

I won’t be able to have a debit card linked directly to my account. I won’t really be able to exist and function in a modern 21st century Britain.

So I will tell you more about this on GB news at seven o’clock tonight as to what my decision is but I’m beginning to think that perhaps life in the United Kingdom is now becoming completely unlivable because of the levels of prejudice against me. I’ll give you more of my thoughts at seven o’clock tonight on GB news.