Tweet of the Week

Today: This tweet is unavailable
Soon: The press office is unavailable
Then: The facts are unavailable
Finally: Your rights are unavailable

— Beau Willimon (@BeauWillimon) January 24, 2017

Not content with last year's omnibus bill, Turnbull unleashed his inner b@stard on the poor again in 2017

Pick a paragraph, almost any paragraph - if you are from a working class family someone you care about is likely to find themselves affected.

The First Omnibus Bill……

Turnbull Government, Budget Savings (Omnibus) Bill 2016 as passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate on 15 September 2016, assented to 16 September 2016:

Summary

Amends:

the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to establish a minimum repayment threshold for HELP debts of two per cent when a person’s income reaches $51 957 from the 2018-19 financial year; and replace the Higher Education Grants Index with the consumer price index for the purposes of indexing all grants and regulated student contribution amounts; the Higher Education Support Act 2003 and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to discontinue the HECS-HELP benefit from 1 July 2017;

the Social Security Act 1991, Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, Farm Household Support Act 2014 and Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to discontinue the job commitment bonus;

the Australian Renewable Energy Agency Act 2011 to reduce the agency’s available appropriation;

the Private Health Insurance Act 2007 to pause the income thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge and the government rebate on private health insurance for a further three years from 1 July 2018;

the National Health Reform Act 2011 to abolish the National Health Performance Authority; the Aged Care Act 1997 to: increase the secretary’s compliance powers in relation to reviews of care recipient appraisals submitted by aged care providers to receive Commonwealth subsidies;

abolish adviser and administrator panel arrangements; and require approved providers to notify the secretary of certain changes to any key personnel in certain circumstances;

the Age Discrimination Act 2004, Dental Benefits Act 2008 and Human Services (Medicare) Act 1973 to close the Child Dental Benefits Schedule from 31 December 2016 and establish the Child and Adult Public Dental Scheme from 1 January 2017;

the Social Security Act 1991, Social Security Legislation Amendment (Newly Arrived Resident’s Waiting Periods and Other Measures) Act 1997 and Farm Household Support Act 2014 to remove the exemption from the 104 week newly arrived resident’s waiting period for new migrants who are family members of Australian citizens or long-term permanent residents;

the Social Security Act 1991, Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and Student Assistance Act 1973 to cease the student start-up scholarship payment from 1 July 2017;

five Acts to apply an interest charge to outstanding debts owed by former recipients of social welfare payments who have failed to enter into, or have not complied with, an acceptable repayment arrangement;

five Acts to enable the making of departure prohibition orders to prevent certain social welfare debtors from leaving the country;

the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) (Administration) Act 1999, Paid Parental Leave Act 2010, Social Security Act 1991 and Student Assistance Act 1973 to remove the six-year limit on welfare debt recovery; the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to provide that parental leave payments and dad and partner pay payments are included in the income test for income support payments;

the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 and Social Security Act 1991 to change the way fringe benefits are treated under the income tests for family assistance and youth income support payments and for related purposes; the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to align carer allowance and carer payment start day provisions;

the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and Paid Parental Leave Act 2010 to pause indexation for family tax benefit (FTB) Part A, the primary earner income limit for FTB Part B and the Paid Parental Leave income limit for a further three years from 1 July 2017;

the Social Security Act 1991 and Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986 to remove the pension income and assets test exemptions currently available to pensioners in aged care who rent out their former home and pay their aged care accommodation costs by periodic payments;

the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999 and Social Security Act 1991 to remove the exemption from the income test for FTB Part A recipients and the exemption from the parental income test for certain dependent young people receiving youth allowance and ABSTUDY living allowance;

the Social Security Act 1991 to provide that certain persons cannot be paid social security payments when they are in psychiatric confinement because they have been charged with a serious offence;

six Acts to prevent new recipients of welfare payments or concession cards from being paid the energy supplement from 20 March 2017;

the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to reduce the refundable and non-refundable rates of the tax offset available under the research and development tax incentive for the first $100 million of eligible expenditure;

six Acts to require larger entities to provide payroll and superannuation information at the time it is created through the single touch payroll reporting framework; and

the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act 2004 to create a single appeal path for the review of original determinations made by the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission.

The Second Omnibus Bill……

Turnbull Government, Social Services Legislation Amendment (Omnibus Savings and Child Care Reform) Bill 2017, presented in the House of Representatives, 8 February 2017:

A Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to family assistance, social security, paid parental leave, veterans’ entitlements, military rehabilitation and compensation and farm household support, and for related purposes

Explanatory Memorandum, excerpt:

This bill contains the following Schedules:

1. Payment rates

The family tax benefit Part A standard fortnightly rate will be increased by $20.02 for each FTB child in the family aged up to 19. An equivalent rate increase, of around $19.37 per fortnight, will apply to youth allowance and disability support pension recipients aged under 18 and living at home. These increases will apply from 1 July 2018.

2. Family tax benefits Part B rate

From 1 July 2017, the Bill will introduce a reform to family tax benefit Part B that removes entitlement to FTB Part B for single parent families who are not single parents aged 60 or more or grandparents or great-grandparents, from 1 January of the calendar year their youngest child turns 17.

3. Family tax benefit supplements

This Schedule will phase out the family tax benefit Part A supplement for families with an adjusted taxable income of $80,000 a year or less by reducing it to $602.25 a year from 1 July 2016, and to $302.95 a year from 1 July 2017. It will then be withdrawn from 1 July 2018. The family tax benefit Part A supplement has already been withdrawn for families with an adjusted taxable income over $80,000 a year under the Budget Savings (Omnibus) Act 2016. The family tax benefit Part B supplement will also be phased out. It will be reduced to $302.95 a year from 1 July 2016, and to $153.30 a year from 1 July 2017. It will then be withdrawn from 1 July 2018.

4. Jobs for Families Child Care Package

The purpose of Schedule 4 is to introduce key aspects of the Jobs for Families Child Care Package, as announced in the 2015-16 and 2016-17 Budget. The Schedule will, through the introduction of a new Child Care Subsidy and other enhancements, deliver a simpler, more affordable, more flexible and more accessible child care system for families.

5. Proportional payments of pensions outside Australia

This Schedule reduces from 26 weeks to six weeks the period during which age pension, and a small number of other payments with unlimited portability, can be paid outside Australia at the basic means-tested rate. 4 After six weeks, payment will be adjusted according to the length of the pensioner’s Australian working life residence.

6. Pensioner education supplement

This Schedule ceases pensioner education supplement from the first 1 January or 1 July after the day the Act receives Royal Assent.

7. Education entry payment

This measure ceases the education entry payment from the first 1 January or 1 July after the Act receives Royal Assent.

8. Indexation

This Schedule implements the following changes to Australian Government payments:

· maintain at level for three years from 1 July of the first financial year beginning on or after the day this Act receives Royal Assent the income free areas for all working age allowances (other than student payments) and for parenting payment single; and

· maintain at level for three years from 1 January of the first calendar year beginning on or after the day this Act receives Royal Assent the income free areas and other means test thresholds for student payments, including the student income bank limits.

9. Close the energy supplement to new welfare recipients

This Schedule ceases, from 20 September 2017, payment of the energy supplement to recipients who were not receiving a welfare payment on 19 September 2016 and closes the energy supplement to new welfare recipients from 20 September 2017.

10.Stopping the payment of pension supplement after six weeks overseas

This Schedule will stop the payment of pension supplement after six weeks temporary absence overseas and immediately for permanent departures.

11.Automation of income stream review processes

This Schedule will allow for the automation of the regular income stream review process by enabling the Secretary to require income stream providers to transfer a dataset to the Department of Human Services (DHS) on a regular basis. 5

12.Seasonal horticultural work income exemption

Schedule 12 to the Bill provides a social security income test incentive aimed at increasing the number of job seekers who undertake specified seasonal horticultural work, such as fruit picking.

13.Ordinary waiting periods

This Schedule makes amendments to extend and simplify the ordinary waiting period for working age payments.

14.Age requirements for various Commonwealth payments

This Schedule provides that young unemployed people aged 22 to 24 would no longer be eligible for newstart allowance or sickness allowance until they turn 25 years of age and would, instead, be able to claim and qualify for youth allowance. To enable this, youth allowance for all types of people who can satisfy the activity test, will be available to people who have not yet reached 25.

15.Income support waiting periods

This Schedule introduces a four-week waiting period, for job ready young people who are looking for work, to receive income support payments. During this fourweek period, job seekers under 25 years of age who have been classified as job ready (Stream A) by the Job Seeker Classification Instrument will also be required to complete assigned activities, through a new program, RapidConnect Plus, that will help them prepare for and find work.

16.Other waiting period amendments (Rapid Activation of young job seekers)

This Schedule implements the Rapid Activation of young job seekers 2015-16 Budget measure.

17.Adjustments for Primary Carer Pay

This and the following Schedule introduce the revised arrangements for the Paid Parental Leave scheme announced in the 2015-16 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook and previously introduced in the Fairer Paid Parental Leave Bill 2016, which will now be withdrawn. The measure is changed in that the maximum PPL period for which a person may be paid parental leave pay is increased from the current 18 weeks to 20 weeks. The measure will commence on the first 1 January, 1 April, 1 July or 1 October that is 9 months after the date the Act receives royal assent, with an earliest commencement date of 1 January 2018.

18.Employer Opt-In (PPL) Schedule

18 removes the employer paymaster role in administering the Paid Parental Leave scheme.

Australian Financial Review graphic, 9 February 2017:

A Plea to see reason……

Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), media release, 8 February 2017:

ACOSS urges Parliament to reject latest attempt to cut incomes of poorest in new Omnibus Bill

ACOSS today urged the Federal Parliament to stand firm against measures in the new Government Omnibus Bill that will cut the incomes of some of the poorest people, including families, to fund child care reforms.

“This is the latest attempt by the Government to push through harsh cuts that will rip $7 billion from the social security budget. It includes previously rejected ‘zombie’ measures, such as the five-week wait for unemployment payments, further cuts to family payments, and abolition of the energy supplement, which will slash the incomes of two million future recipients of income support,” said ACOSS CEO Dr Cassandra Goldie.

“The so-called concessions the Government has made will be wiped out by other changes in the Bill, leaving many low-income people worse off.

“Of course we all want greater support for families to get better quality childcare but it cannot be funded on the backs of some of the most disadvantaged people in our country.

“This is not the way to build a strong community – caring for each other through all stages of our lives has served our nation well. This new bill risks weakening our social fabric.

“The increase to the Family Tax Benefit Part A for families with children by $10 a week does not make up for cuts to the supplements. A sole parent with two children aged 13 and 15 will still lose between $14 and $20 per week, or around $1,000 a year.

“Although this is less of a hit than under the previous proposal, it will still severely impact single parents, most of whom are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children as well as provide for them in the new school year.

“We are concerned the new Bill also includes unfair measures previously and repeatedly rejected by Federal Parliament and the broader community, such as making young people who become unemployed wait five weeks to receive income support.  This measure will not create jobs and merely punishes people who lose one.

“Abolishing the energy supplement will cut between $4-$7 a week from people on the lowest incomes, including pensioners, students, families, and people locked out of paid work.

“We have been consistent in our opposition to any watering down of paid parental leave and oppose any weakening of the current system, which currently ranks second to last in the OECD.

“This zombie Bill would only serve to increase poverty and inequality in Australia and Parliament must reject it,” Dr Goldie said.

More information on ‘zombie’ measures:

http://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Quick-guide-to-zombie-bills.pdf

NBN roll out is still a dog's breakfast

Tasmanian Times on 5 February 2017 reminding Australia that the National Broadband Network (NBN) roll out is still a dog’s breakfast:

Letter to the Editor on the NBN

Alex Ratkai
05.02.17 6:45 am

We (in part of Nobelius Drive) have been experiencing constant loss of internet services since November 2015. When it is working, the speed is slower than cable internet- often taking between 10 and 30 minutes to view my mail, though we have high speed ADSL. Last July we received communication that the NBN was now available in Nobelius Drive. There was a Telstra truck parked near the shopping centre in Legana. With joy, I immediately went and signed up, with the promise that the NBN will be connected within a couple of weeks. In a couple of weeks’ time we received a call that part of our street wasn’t being connected, including us. I asked why and also for an indication of a time frame within which we may get it, asking whether it is weeks, months or years. Absolutely no commitment has been given. I was told that the local Telstra substation cannot handle the increased telephone and internet volumes and they aren’t able to do anything. They promised a fast internet service, when I signed up, delivering it for only a few years. Now we are left with no internet service often also an extremely poor or failing telephone service. We are in despair and no one seems to want to help. We live in an advanced country with a third world telephone and internet service. Is that what our country is to look forward to???
Help, someone help.

Baird may be gone but mining versus farming land conflicts remain

NSW Dept. of Industry: Energy and Resources:

On 1 December 2016, the Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access Arbitration) Act 2015 was commenced to reform the land access arbitration framework. It introduced a range of improvements in line with recommendations of the 2014 Walker Report. Read more about the Walker Report.....

In line with the recommendations of the Walker Report, the Act requires the holder of the prospecting title to pay the reasonable costs of a landholder’s participation in negotiating the access arrangement (section 142).

To ensure these costs do not become uncontrollable at the stage of negotiation, they have been capped at $1,500 for exempt prospecting operations and $2,500 for assessable prospecting operations (both exclusive of GST). The explorer must pay the GST amount in addition to the landholder’s capped costs. Caps are set out in a Ministerial Order published in the NSW Gazette.

No cap has been set on the reasonable costs payable by an explorer at mediation and arbitration as these processes can vary substantially depending on the circumstances. The explorer must still cover the landholder’s costs in making the access arrangement during these stages of the process.

The particulars of each case at mediation and arbitration are to be considered in the determination of reasonable costs at these stages. Nothing in the legislation prevents a titleholder from paying an amount above these caps. If parties cannot come to an agreement on reasonable costs, the arbitrator or the courts will make this determination.

See: Mining and Petroleum Legislation Amendment (Land Access Arbitration) Act 2015 No 41

The Land, 9 December 2016:

NEW regulations to balance mining and gas development against private property rights threatens to cause perverse outcomes, pushing landholders to lock the gate and head straight to court.

An alliance of Cotton Australia and NSW Farmers, Irrigators and Country Women’s Association (CWA) hit out at the caps on costs to be borne by mining and gas explorers, saying they fall short, leaving landholders potentially thousands of dollars out of pocket.

The group issued a statement “calling out the NSW government” and putting it on notice ahead of a compulsory review of the new regulations, set to kick off in six months. 

“The caps announced by the NSW government are a far cry from the actual costs likely to be incurred,” said NSW Farmers president Derek Schoen.

NSW CWA president Annette Turner said “unfortunately, (the regulation) fails to live up to the promise of a balance between landholders and resource companies”.

To be continued.....

The 'Archie Bunker' of Clarence Valley has offered his head for public washing again...

The ‘Archie Bunker’ of Clarence Valley John Ibbotson has offered his head for public washing again…..

Letter to the Editor, The Daily Examiner, 2 February 2017, page 9:

No science to it aka Climate sceptic's howlers insult to mainstream science

A good general knowledge implies knowing a fair bit about a wide range of subjects but it can also mean not knowing enough about anything specific in order to become to become an authority. John Ibbotson and climate science is a classic example.

Because of his lack of knowledge John's letters have a tendency to contain scientifically indefensible howlers.

From the many, an Ibbotson clanger highlights reel would include (and I paraphrase):

1. "CO2 is a harmless, benign compound!"

2. "Ocean acidification is impossible because sea water is alkaline!"

3. "Velocity ratio for a wind turbine is an absurdity!" and so on.

No doubt with some prompting, John's grasp of climate science has improved over time, but it still begs the question: is it too easy to believe you are absolutely correct when you don't, won't or can't understand the basic science which would show that you are just simply wrong?

The kindest thing that can be said about John's letters on climate is that his offerings on other topics (apart from maybe being too frequent), are more or less based on fact.

In his latest climate letter (DEX Jan 1) John quite graciously confirms that the last two decades for the planet have been abnormally warm but he will be most disappointed to learn that contrary to his assertion I am decidedly of any colour other than green.

In fact I am just a very average DEX reader who is more than willing to defend mainstream science from unjustified denigration by self-indulgent sceptic opportunists such as John Ibbotson, the esteemed Viv Forbes and others.

Ted Strong, Seelands

President Tantrump threatens Prince Charles with a yuuge hissy fit

U.S. President  Donald J. Tantrump obviously fears those with more polish and prestige than he will ever have and this is manifesting itself as a desire to avoid the heir-apparent to the English throne.

Typically of a schoolyard bully the threat display is juvenile and done at a safe distance.

Hopefully, Prince Charles will not commit his grand-uncle’s mistake of accommodating a fascist leader and his two sons will follow suit.

After all images like this have a life measured in centuries:

The Independent, 19 January 2015

Hopefully also, the British Prime Minister Theresa May will think better of a Trump state visit while he is still not house trained and, diplomatically suggest to the White House Administration that such a high profile formal visit be postponed until an unspecified later date.

BACKGROUND

The New York Post, 29 January 2017:

President Trump is being a royal pain to Prince Charles' climate-change agenda.

Members of Trump's inner circle have warned British officials that it would be counterproductive for Charles to “lecture” Trump on green issues during the president's June visit to Britain, and that the president will “erupt” if pushed, the Sunday Times of London reported.

Trump has called climate change “a hoax.” Hours after he took office, references to the issue were removed from the White House Web site. By contrast, Charles has called climate change “the wolf at the door.”

A source close to Trump told the newspaper the president “won't put up with being lectured by anyone.”

The Independent, 29 January 2017:

Donald Trump and Prince Charles are reportedly engaged in a diplomatic row about climate change, which threatens to damage US-British relations ahead of the new President’s first state visit to the UK.

The royal is a famously vocal environmentalist, who runs Duchy Originals, an organic food company. Conversely, President Trump is a loud climate change denier, who has claimed that global warming is a hoax invented by the Chinese.

The difference of opinion is said to be a growing sore spot, about which both camps are nervous ahead of Mr Trump’s first visit to the UK. Prime Minister Theresa May was the first foreign leader to visit Mr Trump following his inauguration and she announced that he has also accepted an invitation on behalf of Queen Elizabeth to visit the UK for an official state visit later this year.

Members of the Republican politician’s staff have warned that Prince Charles, Queen Elizabeth’s son, should not “lecture” him on climate change during the visit in case the fiery politician “erupts” in return, The Sunday Times reports. He has reportedly expressed a preference that the younger generation of royals, such as Prince Charles’ sons William and Harry, meet him instead.

The Sunday Times, 29 January 2017:

Donald Trump is engaged in an extraordinary diplomatic row with the Prince of Wales over climate change that threatens to disrupt his state visit to the UK.

The new president is reluctant to meet the prince when he comes to Britain in June because of their violently divergent views on global warming.

Members of Trump’s inner circle have warned officials and ministers that it would be counterproductive for Charles to “lecture” Trump on green issues and that he will “erupt” if pushed.

They want the younger princes, William and Harry, to greet the president instead. Royal aides insist that he should meet Trump.

Senior government officials now believe Charles is one of the most serious “risk factors” for the visit.

Metro UK, 30 January 2017:

Trump has also talked about Princess Diana, mother of Prince William and Prince Harry.

Days after she died in a car crash, President Trump said on the radio that he could have slept with her.

Howard Stern asked him: 'Why do people think it's egotistical of you to say you could've gotten with Lady Di? You could've gotten her, right? You could've nailed her.'

'I think I could have,' Trump replied.

The Times, 31 January 2017:

Theresa May has put the Queen in a “very difficult position” and should downgrade Donald Trump’s invitation from a state visit to spare her further controversy, the former head of the Foreign Office says.

Lord Ricketts, who was permanent secretary at the Foreign Office between 2006 and 2010 before serving as David Cameron’s national security adviser, condemns the “premature” offer of a state visit in a letter to The Times. Mrs May must “move fast” to protect the Queen from more controversy, he says.

Pointing out that it is unprecedented for US presidents to be given a state visit in their first year in the White House, he questions whether Mr Trump is “specially deserving of this exceptional honour”……

Achived Donald J. Trump Verified account‏ @realDonaldTrump

Who wouldn't take Kate's picture and make lots of money if she does the nude sunbathing thing. Come on Kate!

      RETWEETS 3,546

      LIKES 1,712

      

4:04 AM - 18 Sep 2012

804 replies 3,546 retweets 1,712 likes

Reply

The British Parliament will debate the anti-Trump visit petition at https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/171928 on 20 February 2017.

This petition currently stands at 1,851,079 signatures.

U.K. map of where signatures came from at http://petitionmap.unboxedconsulting.com/?petition=171928&area=uk.

February 2017: can you hear the warning sirens?

Image via @SeanKing

De Spiegel, 5 February 2017:

There are times in life that really do count. Times when a person's character is revealed, when the important is separated from the unimportant. Soon decisions are taken that will determine the further path a person takes. With some, this can be tragic, and the moment comes too soon in their youth at a time when they aren't mature enough yet to foresee all the potential consequences. They make the decisions cheerfully and they lead to either luck or bad luck. But countries and governments are seldom as innocent when it comes to their decisions.

That's the kind of situation now approaching. The people who will soon have to decide are already grown up. They now have to start preparing, even if it will be painful.

Germany must stand up in opposition to the 45th president of the United States and his government. That's difficult enough already for two reasons: Because it is from the Americans that we obtained our liberal democracy in the first place; and because it is unclear how the brute and choleric man on the other side will react to diplomatic pressure. The fact that opposition to the American government can only succeed when mounted together with Asian and African partners -- and no doubt with our partners in Europe, with the EU -- doesn't make the situation any easier.

So far, Germany has viewed its leadership role -- at least the leadership understanding of Chancellor Angela Merkel and Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble -- as one that is by all means in opposition to the interests of other European countries. Whether Schäuble's austerity policies or Merkel's migration policies, it all happened without much co-coordination and with considerable force. It is thus somewhat ironical that it is Germany, the country that is politically and economically dominant in Europe, that will now have to fill in many of the gaps created by America's withdrawal from the old world order, the one referred to by former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer as "Pax Americana." At the same time, Germany must build an alliance against Donald Trump, because it otherwise won't take shape. It is, however, absolutely necessary.

It is literally painful to write this sentence, but the president of the United States is a pathological liar. The president of the U.S. is a racist (it also hurts to write this). He is attempting a coup from the top; he wants to establish an illiberal democracy, or worse; he wants to undermine the balance of power. He fired an acting attorney general who held a differing opinion from his own and accused her of "betrayal." This is the vocabulary used by Nero, the emperor and destroyer of Rome. It is the way tyrants think.

A Serious Threat

Donald Trump and his fire-starter Stephen Bannon discriminate against certain people by decree, but not against those from countries in which Trump does business. The contempt the president of the United States and his most important adviser have for science and education is so blatant that it's almost difficult to write. But their disdain for climate and environmental policies has to be stated, because four or eight years of it could become a serious threat.

Among the things that counted as true progress during the 20th century were multilateralism and free trade. The world has become so complex that no single country can solve the major problems on its own -- that was our recognition. Organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, NATO and the EU were all created for this reason. None of these organizations is perfect, but they are what we launched -- and we do need them. Bannon now wants to wipe them away, and either Trump is executing Bannon's intentions or he shares them......

Klaus Brinkbäumer is the editor-in-chief of DER SPIEGEL.

Read the full article here.

The Australian, 8 February 2017:

In the weeks since Donald Trump’s inauguration as US President, it has become clear that he intends to roll back to the starting block the progressive egalitarian agenda that is commonly associated with political correctness — not just in the US, but globally.

Stephen Bannon, Trump’s White House Svengali and former CEO of the extreme-right Breitbart News, has long pursued this ideological project, and we now know that what he or Trump says must be taken both seriously and literally.

Trump’s transition was initially reassuring, because he nominated many undeniably serious (if also seriously well-heeled) people to his cabinet. But after the inauguration all hell broke loose as Trump and Bannon began to implement their project in earnest.

First, Trump appointed Bannon to the National Security Council’s highest body, the principals committee. Then he nominated Ted Malloch, an obscure business studies professor at the University of Reading, in England, as US ambassador to the EU. Malloch recently expressed a desire to “short the euro”, and predicted that the currency would not survive another 18 months. Trump has also increased the likelihood of a trade war with Mexico, and he has been willing to confront major US corporations over his executive order banning travellers from seven Muslim-majority countries.

The ideological project that Trump and Bannon will seek to carry out could have far-reaching geopolitical and economic implications that should worry not only progressives, but also dyed-in-the-wool conservatives like me. To understand how far they are willing to go, one must understand their ultimate aims.

Most disturbingly, Trump and Bannon’s agenda seems likely to entail policies to weaken, destabilise, or even ultimately dismantle the EU. No motive other than ideology can explain Trump’s open hostility to the bloc, his bizarre ambassadorial appointment, or his question to EU president Donald Tusk: “What country is next to leave?”

In conventional geostrategic terms, the EU is almost a costless extension of US political and military power. Owing to NATO’s significant military superiority, and the EU’s role as a barrier to Russian expansion, the US can avoid becoming entangled in a “hot war” with Russia. Meanwhile, the EU — together with Japan — is a dependable economic and military ally, whose friendship allows the US to speak for the “international community”.

There are no circumstances in which dismantling the Western international order is in America’s national interest — even when perceived through a nationalist lens. A truly “America first” administration would rightly expect its allies to pull their weight in NATO, and to defer to US foreign policies on non-European issues. But it would never gratuitously dismantle an essentially free multiplier of US power, as Trump’s foreign policy threatens to do.

If I am right about Trump and Bannon’s ideological agenda, we can expect them to find a way to support far-right National Front leader Marine Le Pen in the French presidential election this year, and to encourage a “hard Brexit” for Britain (only to leave it in the lurch afterwards). Trump is likely to lift the sanctions the US imposed on Russia after its 2014 annexation of Crimea. After all, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Bannon are ideological twins.

We should not put much stock in any security assurances Secretary of Defence James Mattis may have offered to South Korea and Japan last week. Such promises are worth as little as Trump’s pledge to Polish President Andrzej Duda that “Poland can count on America”.

Americans should be prepared to watch the administration dismiss officials who do not defend its agenda, and disregard court orders that inhibit its actions. We have already seen signs of this when complaints emerged that immigration agents in New York were ignoring a federal judge’s emergency stay on Trump’s travel ban.

The prospects for business are just as sobering. Sooner or later, Trump’s destabilising foreign policy will lead to global economic turbulence, uncertainty, and reduced investment — even barring trade wars. And domestically, his weakening of the rule of law will negate any economic benefits from tax cuts and deregulation.

Implementing this project is undoubtedly a dangerous strategy for Trump. By polarising the US public to such an extent, he and the Republicans could suffer defeat in the 2018 midterm elections or in the 2020 presidential election; and he could even expose himself to the risk of impeachment.

There are two possible explanations for why Trump would take these risks. The first is that divisiveness has worked for him. Politicians tend to stick with what works — until it fails.

The second explanation is that Bannon is calling the political shots, and is more interested in building a permanent populist “movement” than he is in getting Trump re-elected. If Bannon wants to transform the US political landscape, an impeached or defeated Trump could become an ideal martyr for his movement.

That may not bode well for Trump himself, but, in this scenario, Trump’s fate will not weigh heavily on Bannon, who has set his sights on achieving goals that will leave the US and the world very different from how he and his putative boss found them.

Jack Rostowski was Poland’s finance minister and deputy prime minister from 2007 to 2013.