EU Sues Poland, Hungary And Czech Republic For Refusing To Accept Refugees

The European Commission has launched a legal case against Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic, for refusing to take in asylum seekers, escalating a bitter feud within the 28-nation bloc about how to deal with the Pandora"s box opened up Angela Merkel"s 2015 "Open Door" policy (since shut).

The reason for Brussels" ire is that the eurosceptic governments in Poland and Hungary refused to take in anyone under a plan agreed by a majority of EU leaders in 2015 to relocate migrants from frontline states Italy and Greece to help ease their burden. The Czech Republic initially accepted 12 people but has since said it would not welcome more. It is perhaps worth noting that the three countries are among the very few who have had virtually no terrorist attacks in the past two years.

At stake in the dispute is the bloc"s unity, already tested by Britain"s unprecedented decision to leave, weak economies and higher support for eurosceptic parties across the EU. Beyond its borders, the EU is also facing what it says is a "threat" from Russia and a foundering new relationship with President Donald Trump. But two years of arm-wrestling have so far produced no results and EU leaders are unlikely to be able to break the impasse when they discuss the matter next week in Brussels, according to Reuters.

In September 2015, EU ministers took up a plan to relocate over 100,000 migrants who have already reached the continent, throughout Europe. However, not all EU states have found the measures acceptable, saying that the migrant crisis cannot be solved through obligatory quotas. The Czech Republic, Romania, Slovakia and Hungary have staunchly opposed the plan. Despite warnings from Brussels, Budapest is determined to tighten its policy towards asylum seekers and carry on with its own border fence plan.

It all culminated yesterday, when Europe finally took legal action against the holdout states.

"I regret to see that, despite our repeated calls to pledge to relocate, the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland have not yet taken the necessary action," the EU"s migration commissioner, Dimitris Avramopoulos, told a news conference cited by Reuters. He said the Commission was therefore launching so-called infringement procedures against the three, a way for the executive arm to take to task countries that fail to meet their obligations.

It opens the way for months, even years, of legal wrangling before a top EU court could potentially impose fines.

Earlier, in an statement the commission said that the three EU states have acted “in breach of their legal obligations,” adding that it had previously warned the countries to observe “their commitments to Greece, Italy and other member states.” The Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland “have not yet taken the necessary action,” the statement says, claiming that the three EU members “have not yet relocated a single person.”

“Against this background… the Commission has decided to launch infringement procedures against these three Member States.” Since January, other countries within the bloc have relocated almost 10,300 people from Italy and Greece, according to the commission. “The pace of relocation has significantly increased,” it added, saying it has witnessed “a fivefold increase” compared to the same period last year. In total, nearly 21,000 asylum-seekers have been distributed throughout Europe, some 14,000 from Greece and the rest from Italy.

The prosecuted states were not amused.

"From the political point of view, this action ... unnecessarily heats up political tensions, of which there are already too many in the European Union," Polish Deputy Foreign Minister Konrad Szymanski told state TV on Tuesday. He also called the 2015 plan “erroneous,” and argued that Warsaw contributes to solving the migrant crisis by “engaging in protection of EU’s external borders and systematically strengthening its humanitarian involvement in the region.”

"If necessary, Poland is ready to defend its legal arguments in court" he concluded.

"The Czech Republic does not agree with the system of relocation," Prime Minister Bohuslav Sobotka said in response calling Brussels" plan to deal with migrants “dysfunctional.”

"With regard to the worsened security situation in Europe and dysfunctionality of the quota system, it will not participate in it. The European Commission blindly insists on pushing ahead with dysfunctional quotas which decreased citizens’ trust in EU abilities and pushed back working and conceptual solutions to the migration crisis."

In a separate legal battle on the matter, Hungary and Slovakia have challenged the relocation agreement in a top EU court, with an initial indication of the ruling due next month.

The former Soviet satellite nations rightfully justify their stance on asylum seekers by citing security concerns, noting a series of militant Islamist attacks in western Europe since late 2015. The bulk of refugees come from the mainly Muslim Middle East and North Africa. Their resistance to what they present as pressure from Brussels also earns them credit with eurosceptic voters at home.

Many other EU states have also dragged their feet over taking in refugees, with fewer than 21,000 people relocated from Italy and Greece so far under a plan that had been due to cover 160,000 people. As a reminder, the EU has been using the Greek bank insolvency as leverage, forcing Greece to house "temporarily" thousands of refugees until a permanent place is found for them somewhere else. Needless to say, the process has ground to a halt.

Meanwhile, wealthier EU states including Italy - which is now the main gateway to Europe for African migrants and refugees - have threatened to reduce generous development funds earmarked to help the easterners close the gap in living standards.

* * *

The Commission is backed in the feud by Germany and Sweden, countries that took in most of the people who arrived in the EU; the two - together with France - have been hit by an unprecedented series of refugee terrorist attacks, usually by ISIS sympathizers.  Not surprisingly, Brussels" confidence has been boosted by ardently pro-EU French President Emmanuel Macron"s victory over eurosceptics and nationalists, which gave the EU a renewed confidence a year after Brexit thrust it into an existential crisis.

But Avramopoulos said the timing of the decision came after the executive had been warning governments for months to change tack and had simply "exhausted all options" with the holdouts. An EU official said that despite its legal challenge, Slovakia had heeded the call to take in refugees and so escaped sanction.

After more than a million migrants and refugees reached the EU in 2015, mostly via Greece, Brussels sealed an accord with non EU-member Turkey that sharply cut the overall number of arrivals, though the deal was criticised by rights groups. Turkey has used the deal as a bargaining chip to obtain funding from Europe and allowed Erdogan to usurp effectively supreme power while arresting over 100,000 without as much as a peep from its "humanitarian" European neighbors.

Meanwhile, Italy remains under pressure, but the EU treats the vast majority of the 64,000 people who made it to Italian shores this year as migrants - rather than refugees requiring legal protection - and does not plan to let them stay, as Europe"s "open doors" are now mostly shut.

The internal EU dispute over relocating asylum-seekers is a political one about values, as Avramopoulos stressed in his renewed appeal to the easterners. "Europe is not only about requesting funds or ensuring security. Europe is also about sharing difficult moments and challenges," he said.

For now, the "easterners" have told Brussels to shove it. It is unlikely this will change any time soon unless the EU imposes further pressure, which in turn threatens to tear apart the already fragile union.

Trump Saves Obamacare Again... For Now

The Trump administration and the House have officially asked for another 90 days to work out a lawsuit over subsidies that help poorer people afford to use their Obamacare insurance plans, further delaying a long-running legal fight that’s already destabilizing the health law.

As Axio snotes, the key point is - "The parties continue to discuss measures that would obviate the need for judicial determination of this appeal, including potential legislative action."

Full motion below...

Bloomberg continues...

Without the payments, insurers have threatened to drop out of Obamacare or substantially raise premiums, and customers could face thousands of dollars in unexpected costs. The Trump administration could still choose to drop the appeal, though other parties are attempting to take up defense of the payments.

State officials, the health industry and Democrats in Congress have pushed for the payments to continue, saying that ending them would upend the insurance market and cost millions of people their health insurance.

“We need swift action and long-term certainty on this critical program,” Cathryn Donaldson, a spokeswoman for America’s Health Insurance Plans, said in an email.

“It is the single most destabilizing factor in the individual market, and millions of Americans could soon feel the impact of fewer choices, higher costs, and reduced access to care.”

The group is one of the main lobbying associations for health insurers.

However, as Bloomberg reports, while the latest delay is a reprieve for Obamacare, it does little to resolve the underlying uncertainty created by the case and by Republican efforts in Congress to repeal and replace large parts of the law. Health insurers are in the midst of deciding whether to participate in the Affordable Care Act next year, and what to charge customers. Some have already said they’ll raise premiums in 2018 because of uncertainty around the subsidies.

Trump previously threatened to use the CSR payments as a bargaining chip to bring Democrats to the table on health care if Republicans can’t muster enough repeal votes in the Senate. He also tried to use them as leverage to gain funding for a border wall with Mexico, saying he’d give Democrats a dollar in CSR money for every dollar for the wall.

Of course,  the Democrats had plenty to say...

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the decision to continue the funding showed the administration knows that continuing the payments is the right thing to do. He criticized the uncertainty from Trump on their future.

"Unfortunately, by kicking the can down the road once again, the administration is continuing to sow uncertainty in the markets that will hurt millions of Americans," Schumer said in a statement. "Instead of hemming and hawing, they ought to step up to the plate and say once and for all that they will make these payments permanently, which help millions of Americans pay less for their health care."

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, criticized the action to delay the lawsuit further rather than resolve it once and for all.

“Republicans cynically continue to sow uncertainty in the health coverage of millions of Americans,” Pelosi said in a statement. “At a critical period when insurers are deciding premiums for next year, Republicans are pouring uncertainty into the health insurance marketplaces.”

While the delay will move the next update for the case to mid-August, the deadline for insurers to submit their 2018 plans for Obamacare" exchanges in most states is June 21.

First Post-Brexit Tremors: Theresa May "Would Go To War" To Protect Gibraltar

The ink has yet to dry on Theresa May"s Article 50 signature from last week which officially started the UK"s 2-year long divorce from the EU, and already Europe has been traumatized by comments from former Conservative leader Michael Howard, who suggested that Theresa May is be prepared to go to war to protect Gibraltar as Margaret Thatcher once did for the Falklands, comments which according to the Guardian were "immediately criticized as inflammatory."

Howard told Sky News on Sunday that: "There is no question whatever that our Government will stand by Gibraltar... 35 years ago this week another woman Prime Minister sent a task force half way across the World to defend the freedom of another small group of British people against another Spanish-speaking country.... I am absolutely certain our current Prime Minister will show the same resolve in standing by the people of Gibraltar."

As The Telegraph adds, Howard said the British Government will stand by Gibraltar during Brexit talks amid claims of an EU “land grab” for the territory by Spain. It came as Spain confirmed that it would not initially block an independent Scotland"s attempts to join the European Union (EU). Alfonso Dastis, Madrid"s foreign minister, reportedly said Spain would not veto an independent Scotland"s EU hopes - while stressing he does not want to see the country leave the United Kingdom.

Aerial view of Gibraltar

A European Council document on Friday suggested that Spain will be given an effective veto on whether the Brexit deal applies to Gibraltar. Downing Street said May had called Fabian Picardo, the chief minister of Gibraltar, on Sunday morning to say the UK remained “steadfastly committed to our support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy”.

Taking British officials by surprise, the draft guidelines drawn up by EU leaders state that the Brexit deal will not apply to Gibraltar without an "agreement between the kingdom of Spain and the UK".  One official told The Telegraph it is "absolutely unacceptable" and gives Spain too much power over the future of Gibraltar.

In response, on Sunday the Prime Minister told Gibraltar"s chief minister that Britain will never allow Spain to take over the peninsula against its will. Sir Michael Fallon, the Defence Secretary,  has also pledged to "protect" Gibraltar "all the way". Speaking to the BBC"s Andrew Marr show, Fallon said: "The people of Gibraltar have made it clear that they don"t want to live under the sovereignty of Spain. Gibraltar is going to be protected all the way."

"The Rock", a British Overseas Territory since 1713 with 30,000 residents, remains a major source of diplomatic tensions. Gibraltar"s chief minister has warned the territory should not be used by Spain as a bargaining chip for Britain’s Brexit negotiations.

Fabian Picardo told the BBC this morning  that sharing sovereignty with Spain would be "absolutely awful" and  comparable to "living in somebody else’s land."

He said he was "working closely with the British Government" and he would support the British Prime Minister in the upcoming negotiations to get the best deal.

"I am sure the UK will be batting for Gibraltar," he said. "Gibraltar is not on the table as a chip".

On Sunday, May told Mr Picardo that the UK is  "absolutely dedicated to working with Gibraltar for the best possible outcome  on Brexit", Downing Street said. Quoted by The Telegraph, a May spokeswoman said Mrs May "reiterated our long-standing position that the UK remains steadfastly committed to our support for Gibraltar, its people and its economy".

"The Prime Minister said we will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes, nor will we ever enter into a process of sovereignty negotiations with which Gibraltar is not content."

"The Prime Minister said we remain absolutely dedicated to working with Gibraltar for the best possible outcome on Brexit and will continue to involve them fully in the process."

Last night Boris Johnson, the Foreign Secretary, said that the UK’s support for Gibraltar will remain “implacable and rock-like”.

Elsehwere, when asked about the controversy surrounding May’s apparent threat to weaken security cooperation if Brexit talks turn sour, Defense Secretary Fallon said the negotiations had to cover both a trade deal and issues such as counter-terrorism and police cooperation. “It is very important to link trade and security because what we are now looking for is a deep and special relationship that covers both economic and security cooperation. Those two things go together,” he said.

“It is very important that we go on committed to the security of the continent.”

Fallon then talked about sending 800 troops to Estonia, others to Poland, and RAF Typhoons to Romania, which are all under Britain’s Nato commitments not linked to EU membership. “We are stepping up security because it remains our continent and this is a very uncertain time for Europe and right we should be playing our time on that. We’d all be worse off if there wasn’t a deal – we are expecting to have a deal.”

The defence secretary admitted some issues were inside the European treaties, and others (including Nato) not. “The letter refers to our ambition to have a completely new partnership on the economic side but also on security side,” he said, arguing that stating a fact about defence capabilities wasn’t a threat.

Meanwhile, the reaction in Gibraltar to the latest territorial posturing was quick. According to the UK"s Express.co.uk, the newspaper spoke to a host of Gibraltarians who are all adamant about one thing: there is nothing anyone could do to undermine their sovereignty as a proud nation: "one thing is very clear - people in Gibraltar are happy for Britain’s support, but said they can handle this on their own."

Justine Rovegno said: “I think Gibraltar would be more prepared to relocate its entire population before we would let Spain take-over, we are an extremely stubborn community!”

Manuel Gracia added: “If Spain takes military action we"d stand our ground and I’m sure we’ll be helped by the UK."  “If the EU cuts Gibraltar out of any deals and trade like I said Gib will stand it"s ground and look to other opportunities. "

“As far as I"m aware there"s always been talk of Spain ‘taking Gib back’ with force, politics and pretty much every way you can think of.  None of it has worked so far and I find it doubtful that it"ll come to that. There will be tensions. There will be arguments but that"s what it"s always been like.”

Danielle Barclay took a more blunt stance, referring to the actions of Spain and Donald Tusk as being: “F****** disgusting and inhumane.”

As Express adds, "the population of Gibraltar seems relatively unfazed by the prospect of a Spanish invasion, EU strong arming and political scheming and are confident they have seen it all before and will come out of this stronger - as they always have."

But there is an ominous sense of dread about what is to come, as Justine said: “I think the Gibraltarian community has survived very dark times because of Spain, I think most of them believe they have gone through the worst, and Spain going about this in such an intimidating way is just fuelling a fire that was lit many years ago.

“I felt that the younger community was learning that there was not a giant brick wall between Gibraltar and the Spanish, but I think the angst they are creating is slowly putting those thoughts back into everyone"s minds which is extremely sad.”

Not even one full week into Brexit, and nationalistic tensions - the continent"s soft spot - across Europe are once again rising, this time not the direct result of Europe"s refugee troubles. The good news: for now it is being handled diplomatically. The bad news: as the following chart from Goldman shows, the Brexit process is just beginning, and the potential for political and economic complications will only eventually be fully appreciated.

 

5 Maps That Show China's Biggest Limitations

Authored by George Friedman via MauldinEconomics.com,

As we wrote about in “China’s Strategy,” East Asia is split into four parts: The Pacific archipelago, the Chinese mainland, the Korean Peninsula, and Indochina. East Asia holds the second and third largest world economies: China and Japan. The relationship between them and the US define modern East Asian geopolitics.

China’s Power Can Be Seen from Outer Space

The above map shows the countries of East Asia lit up at night. It reveals much about the power dynamics in this region. The centers of Chinese wealth and power—including Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong—all hug China’s long coastline. Geographic features in the interior divide the country. The rest of the country is in darkness.

Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan are major industrial powers that border these waters along China’s coast. Much of the rest of East Asia is in darkness. North Korea’s darkness is particularly striking.

But relative to the bright lights of China’s coast and Japan, much of Indochina and inner China are also undeveloped.

Western China Is Nearly Uninhabitable

The below map shows population density in China with the 15-inch isohyet overlaid on top.

The area of China from this line to the coast gets enough rain to support a large population. North and west of the 15-inch isohyet, China is less populated and undeveloped.

Geography Limits China’s Expansion

The distance from Beijing to Kazakhstan is almost 2,500 miles through desert and mountains. The Himalayas box China in on the southwest. They also stop conflict between India and China.

Jungles on the border with Myanmar, Vietnam, and Thailand have always limited Chinese growth south.

It is hard for China to grow westward. When China’s power is ascendant, it can grow north, south, or east toward the Pacific. This is easier said than done. Japan continues to be the major regional power. China would still face certain defeat against Japan, especially with US support of the Japanese.

So, China is mainly focused on two things. Controlling its chaotic domestic political and economic situation as growth rates have slowed. And building its military. First for resistance and then for offensive action in the region.

The Chinese Navy Is in No Position to Take Action

The Chinese navy is still a decade away from exerting power over the islands, rocks, and shoals that limit China’s freedom to navigate along its coast.

Many countries around China have claims over these islands. The region’s other major players—Japan and South Korea—are both key US allies. They host large and permanent US military deployments. And like we recently mentioned, the Philippines recently welcomed back US forces to their bases.

This situation has created a stalemate. The US has no desire for a bad relationship with China. But it also doesn’t want any power to control the region. And China still cannot challenge US hegemony in the seas.

As we’ve discussed before, it talks of nationalism in the South China Sea mostly for domestic consumption. Japan and the other East Asian countries view China with increasing concern. They remain staunch US allies as a result.

North Korea Is China’s Bargaining Chip

When we wrote about the North Korean strategy, we said that North Korea appears dangerous with its nuclear weapons tests and its sly, bigoted strongman regime built around a top leader. Kim Jong Un is that leader and he has been consolidating his power.

North Korea happens to also be one of the few areas China is weak. The Chinese intervened in the Korean War when US forces neared the Yalu River on the border between North Korea and China.

North Korea’s unpredictable behavior gives China a big bargaining chip in its relations with the US and the region. So, China favors keeping the status quo.

China’s Limitations Determine the Future of East Asia

East Asia is the world’s most dynamic economic region. Strong countries surround bodies of water over which there is competition. These are some of the world’s most important sea lanes. Japan and China (in that order) are the region’s two most significant powers.

But as we wrote about last year, the most powerful country in the Pacific, the US, is far away. Its Navy patrols and keeps freedom of movement across the Pacific. At the center of this power struggle is China. China’s struggle against its domestic and geographic constraints is the key to understanding the future of this region.

*  *  *

Grab George Friedman"s Exclusive eBook, The World Explained in Maps reveals the panorama of geopolitical landscapes influencing today"s governments and global financial systems. Don"t miss this chance to prepare for the year ahead with the straight facts about every major country’s and region"s current geopolitical climate. You won"t find political rhetoric or media hype here. The World Explained in Maps is an essential guide for every investor as 2017 takes shape. Get your copy now—free!

Free Trade Versus "Free Trade"

NPR featured an unintentionally funny piece this week on Donald Trump"s views toward the EU and free trade. The guest, former US ambassador to the EU Anthony Gardner, rightfully criticized the president"s view that "protection will lead to great prosperity and strength," and called for continued global engagement by US companies and consumers. But he revealed, perhaps inadvertently, what political actors mean by "free trade."  

Specifically, Gardner expressed great skepticism towards the prospect of the US striking a bilateral free-trade deal with the UK, supposedly one of Trump"s top objectives in his upcoming meeting with new Prime Minister Theresa May. Free-trade agreements are complex, Gardner informed us, and negotiating one will be neither easy nor quick. 

Why? To economists, free trade means the absence of government interference with trade: no tariffs, quotas, subsidies, or other interventions, explicit or implicit.

To politicians, "free-trade" means a complex set of managed trade policies (Gardner even referred to the solemn obligation to "write the rules for global trade," which in his mind is something either our government does or a foreign government does). Which imports will be taxed, and at what rates? Which exports will be subsidized, and at what levels? How will labor, environmental, and social policies be enforced by domestic and foreign governments? For government officials, countries are engaged in "free trade" when they agree on a complex package of explicit and implicit taxes and subsidies such that neither has a special advantage over the other, nor is disadvantaged relative to some other trading partner (however such advantages are defined).

As Murray Rothbard once wrote, 

If authentic free trade ever looms on the policy horizon, there’ll be one sure way to tell. The government/media/big-business complex will oppose it tooth and nail.

We’ll see a string of op-eds “warning" about the imminent return of the 19th century. Media pundits and academics will raise all the old canards against the free market, that it’s exploitative and anarchic without government “coordination.”

The establishment would react to instituting true free trade about as enthusiastically as it would to repealing the income tax.

"In truth," as Rothbard noted, "the bipartisan establishment’s trumpeting of "free trade" since World War II fosters the opposite of genuine freedom of exchange." The Bretton Woods organizations (the World Bank and IMF) and modern trade agreements are based on the mercantilist ideas that exports make a country wealthy, imports make it poorer. (Indeed, Gardner in the interview above worried specifically that a collapse of the EU would make it harder for US manufacturers to sell their goods in Europe, but said nothing about the advantages to US and European consumers of a reduced supra-national government). That"s why governments have little interest in genuine free trade.

About fifteen years ago I was part of a delegation of US officials on a fact-finding mission to Singapore, in advance of a potential US-Singapore bilateral free-trade agreement. (We all have skeletons in our closets.)

One of our tasks was to interview US businesspeople operating in Singapore to see if they thought the Singaporean government was unfairly subsidizing local companies at their expense. The idea was to use this as a bargaining chip: "If you don"t stop subsidizing your domestic manufacturers, we won"t stop subsidizing ours." (Turns out the Singaporean government wasn"t doing much to help its own companies, so the point became moot.)

It didn"t seem to occur to anyone that, even if the Singaporean government were protecting its own firms, at the expense of its own consumers, the US would not be better off by subsidizing its own exports to Singapore, as mercantilist theory claims. The idea that the US should simply refrain from interfering in peaceful exchanges between US-based and Singapore-based entrepreneurs, investors, and consumers — i.e., support for free trade — was simply too crazy to contemplate.

Trump Says He Is Open To Lifting Russia Sanctions, Won't Label China Currency Manipulator "On Day One"

In his first full interview of the new year, President-elect Donald Trump explains his approach to foreign policy from a "realpolitik" lens, when he told the WSJ overnight that relations with China and Russia will depend on the degree to which the two countries cooperate with U.S. economic, diplomatic and military priorities. 

The interview comes one day after China"s incensed press rebuked a statement by Rex Tillerson during his confirmation hearing, when he said that China will not be granted access to the disputed South China Sea islands, responding that "such remarks are not worth taking seriously because they are a mish-mash of naivety, shortsightedness, worn-out prejudices, and unrealistic political fantasies" and  "would set a course for devastating confrontation between China and the US."
Trump says he would keep intact sanctions against Russia imposed by the Obama administration “at least for a period of time”; says he is prepared to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin after he is sworn in

Assuing further media vitriol, Trump told the WSJ he wouldn’t commit to America’s "One China" agreement with Beijing, i.e., he would continue to use Taiwan"s independence as a bargaining chip, until he saw what he considered progress from Beijing in its
currency and trade practices. Asked if he supported the One China policy on Taiwan, Mr. Trump said: “Everything is under negotiation including One China.”

Mr. Trump seemed impatient with diplomatic protocols involving China and Taiwan. After his victory he took a congratulatory phone call from Taiwan’s leader, triggering objections from Beijing and stoking concerns among some U.S. foreign policy experts who questioned whether he understood the implications of such a conversation.

Speaking of Taiwan, he said: “We sold them $2 billion of military equipment last year. We can sell them $2 billion of the latest and greatest military equipment but we’re not allowed to accept a phone call. First of all it would have been very rude not to accept the phone call.”

On the other hand, Trump also made a point of showing a holiday greeting card he received from China’s leader, Xi Jinping. “I have a beautiful card from the chairman,” he said.

Trump also made news when he said that he would not label China a currency manipulator on his first day in the White House. Previously Trump has said in the past he would label China a currency manipulator after he takes office. In the interview, he said he wouldn’t take that step on his first day in the White House. “I would talk to them first,” he said.

He added: “Certainly they are manipulators. But I’m not looking to do that.” But he made plain his displeasure with China’s currency practices. “Instead of saying, ‘We’re devaluating our currency,’ they say, ‘Oh, our currency is dropping.’ It’s not dropping. They’re doing it on purpose.

“Our companies can’t compete with them now because our currency is strong and it’s killing us.”

As explained previously China is indeed manipulating its currency, although over the past 18 months it has been doing so in the other direction, intervening to support it from weakening further as a result of hundreds of billions in capital outflows, which have resulted in unprecedented capital controls.

Naturally, Trump also discussed the ever present topic of Russia and his relationship with Putin. Trump told the WSJ that while he would be open to lifting sanctions on Russian, “at least for a period of time,” he would keep intact sanctions against Russia imposed by the Obama administration in late December in response to Moscow’s alleged cyberattacks to influence November’s election. "But he suggested he might do away with those penalties if Russia proved helpful in battling terrorists and reaching other goals important to the U.S."

“If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody’s doing some really great things?” he said.

* * *

On Saturday morning, Trump was once again active on Twitter, first slamming Congressman John Lewis, who made news on Friday saying that Trump is "not a legitimate president", saying "John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!"...

Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to......

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017

mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results. All talk, talk, talk - no action or results. Sad!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017

... and then reverted back to the key political topic of last week, namely the US intel report on Trump, tweeting that "INTELLIGENCE INSIDERS NOW CLAIM THE TRUMP DOSSIER IS "A COMPLETE FRAUD!" "

INTELLIGENCE INSIDERS NOW CLAIM THE TRUMP DOSSIER IS "A COMPLETE FRAUD!" @OANN

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 14, 2017