Theresa May Spurned in Austria After Making Sweetest Brexit Offer Yet

By now, we all know Theresa May, Britain’s Prime Minister since July of 2016.

‘Articulate deal-seeker who vocalizes well-written speeches on behalf of the UK and a Prime Minister offering the sweetest divorce deal in history.’

And yet in Austria on Friday among the friendliest of European allies, Theresa May couldn’t buy a friend.

It seems the European Union just doesn’t want a Brexit deal with the United Kingdom. (Which is their right, of course)

We should question the logic of such a stance, however. Surely there must be something to negotiate in the way of a Brexit deal so that politicians on both sides of the English Channel aren’t eaten alive by their own corporations after March 29, 2019 for not paving a way forward for industry.

In the absence of a timely Brexit deal, the day after the official Brexit date is likely to result in very heated exchanges with CEO’s landing in European capitals to vent their fury at their own political class. The UK won’t be exempt from this anger, either.

Perhaps this is one reason why Theresa May has gone far out of her way to offer the EU a sweetheart deal (complete with £40 billion to sweeten the pot and to salve hurt feelings) and trekking all over Europe for the past two years so that powerful corporate CEO’s will appreciate all her hard work in this regard and not take their frustrations out on her.

That’s thinking ahead, Theresa! Because in the event of a no-deal Brexit… it will hit the fan like, well, few times in the postwar era.

As usual, Britain will be on the right side of history. And we’ll all thank Theresa May for her monumental efforts to reach a deal before the cutoff date — even as continental CEO’s are pounding their fists on the desks of EU politicians for not accepting that sweetheart deal.

If so, I hope Theresa May is found having a wonderful luncheon in the White House on March 30, 2019 after formalizing a trend-setting trade deal with President Donald Trump! Because the EU politicians certainly won’t be enjoying their day. To put it mildly.


All is Not Lost

One of the smartest and most experienced politicians on the planet is thinking ahead.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called for a meeting with Theresa May at the beginning of September that could kick-start stalled Brexit negotiations into high gear — which until now have been relegated to the British Prime Minister making polite speeches throughout Europe, receiving polite but tepid applause, and hearing the same message countless times, ‘That’s just not something we can do, Theresa.’

The rest of the Prime Minister’s summer seems to be about walking in the Swiss Alps sprinkled with some minor appearances throughout Europe to promote her super-diplomatic, uber-polite and overly soft Brexit proposal based on the Chequers document, that will no doubt continue to be rebuffed by the EU leaders and negotiators she meets. (A disheartening summer for Ms. May)

By September she may be ready for high level meetings with the continent’s most capable and most experienced politician. Let’s hope for Britain’s sake that Theresa May doesn’t feel too ‘beaten down’ on account of her many discouraging summer meetings, or it’s going to go all the EU’s way.


A Desultory Summer for Theresa May, Then a Restive Conservative Party Caucus, Followed by Meetings With Europe’s Most Experienced Leader

What could possibly go wrong?


Whatever your summer plans: Enjoy the summer!

And do take the time to thank God, your parents, your favorite high school teacher or whomever is important or profound to you, that you aren’t Theresa May forced to shuttle around Europe all summer only to be told, ‘No, no, no, and more no’ at each stop for offering the most generous and overly soft divorce settlement in history — one that is practically dripping with Rote Grütze and honey — without receiving a single encouraging word from her hosts all summer, and then having to return to a fractious party ready to toss her overboard on account of her overly generous Brexit proposals.

“Curiouser and curiouser!” cried Alice.

Written by John Brian Shannon | Reposted from Letter to Britain

Will a ‘No Deal’ Brexit Harm UK Manufacturing?

Certain pro-EU commentators paint a picture of either a catastrophic Brexit crash-out (Hard Brexit) or a ‘non-Brexit’ where the UK would retain few of the rights gained by a full Brexit but would still be chained to the responsibilities of EU membership (Soft Brexit) whether via the so-called ‘Norway’ model or the ‘Norway-plus’ model, or via any other model such as the ‘Canada’ model.

Those same commentators excitedly cite potential UK manufacturing job losses in the post-Brexit timeframe even though the UK is primarily a service based economy (80.2% in 2014 and rising) and they forget to factor-in the astonishing changes occurring every day in Britain’s manufacturing sector.


UK Manufacturing = Less Than 10% of GDP

Manufacturing in the UK accounts for less than 10% of GDP (2016) and provides jobs for 3.2 million workers (2016) but a recent PwC report says that by 2030 half of all UK manufacturing jobs could be automated. That’s less than 12-years from now. And it could happen much faster and on a much larger scale than that.

Repeat; Up to half of all UK manufacturing jobs will be lost within 12-years. It’s uncertain whether British workers are aware of these looming changes.

Economic impact of artificial intelligence on the UK economy
The economic impact of artificial intelligence on the UK economy. Image courtesy of PwC. Click on the image to view or download the PDF report.

What’s Great for UK Businesses Won’t be Great for Foreign Workers

In 2018, of the 3.1 million UK manufacturing workers (a stat that falls with each passing year as automation increases) we find that over half of manufacturing workers in the UK are citizens of other countries — primarily from eastern Europe, but also western Europe.

So, expect UK-based eastern European workers to be replaced by automation.

Increasing automation and Artificial Intelligence (AI) will cause UK companies to choose between UK-born workers and eastern European workers, and it’s likely that hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of eastern Europeans will be returning home with plenty of UK coin in their pocket. (And why not, they earned it)

I hope you didn’t expect the UK to lay-off its own British-born workers in order to protect the jobs of eastern European-born workers as automation proceeds, did you? Would EU companies show that level of courtesy to UK workers in the European Union, were the situation reversed?

Profits for UK manufacturing companies are projected to rise significantly as automation and AI become one with the system, while UK-born manufacturing workers should find themselves at 100% employment.

What’s not to like?


UK Manufacturing Job Losses Due to Automation – Not Brexit

If you’re one of the EU elites who fear that hundreds of thousands of eastern European workers in Britain will lose their UK manufacturing jobs due to Brexit you couldn’t be more wrong.

Let’s be perfectly clear; Half of all UK manufacturing jobs will be lost to automation by 2030 — and it won’t be on account of Brexit!


Summary

The narrative that says the UK economy will be severely damaged on account of manufacturing job losses due to a Hard Brexit is a complete and utter fantasy.

Every day from now until 2030, automation and AI will replace eastern European workers, Brexit or no Brexit. Meanwhile, British-born manufacturing workers will find themselves at full employment.

It’s all good!

Written by John Brian Shannon


Related Articles:

  • How will artificial intelligence affect the UK economy? (PwC)
  • The economic impact of artificial intelligence on the UK economy (PwC)
  • What would be the cost to the UK of regulation by a foreign power and major competitor? (BrexitCentral.com)
  • Why the UK Needs a Tax on Job-Stealing Robots (kleef.asia)

Brexit Committee says ‘Not Enough Time to Execute Brexit’ by Target Date

“The Brexit Committee has warned that even under the most optimistic scenario, there may not be enough time to complete all necessary work before the UK is scheduled to leave the EU. The Brexit Committee report also calls for an extension to the exit timetable if a deal has not been finalised.”The Express


What *Have* They Been Doing?

Two years on from the June 2016 Brexit referendum and with almost one more year to go before the stated target date of March 29, 2019 and the Brexit Committee says that “even under the most optimistic scenario, there may not be enough time to complete all the necessary work before the UK is scheduled to leave the EU.”

That’s the definition of ‘Low Ambition‘ right there.

Whether the fault lies in Brussels or at 10 Downing, or even because of the infighting that happens within the Conservative Party itself, governments need to remember that the people have spoken (and quite apart from that) sentiment continues to grow among the UK voting public for the government to ‘just get on with it’.

Even people who voted Remain now think the best thing for the country is for a quick and streamlined Brexit agreement — one that is fair to citizens and industry on both sides of the English Channel.

If two years and nine months isn’t enough time to get it done, what is?

Do the politicians in London and Brussels think they have carte blanche to spend the rest of the decade and part of the next to arrange a suitable Brexit deal? If so, that’s very telling… and not in a good way.

Citizens on both sides of Brexit need to know and industry needs to know what to expect so they can prepare for life after Brexit. And they needed to know a year ago.


How Hard Can it Be?

Most of the existing EU laws will simply continue unchanged following Brexit, therefore, more will stay the same than will change.


FISHERIES

It was originally thought that the UK would be leaving The Common Fisheries Agreement by March 29, 2019, or at the latest, by July 2019.

Therefore the UK had been negotiating with the EU in good faith so they could make some basic decisions about how to manage UK fisheries after Brexit. Micheal Gove is surely an able enough minister to easily handle it, yet, the EU indicated that the Common Fisheries Agreement will remain in place until 2020 and there will be no negotiation about it. And that was the end of that.

Read this important article about UK fisheries policy between March 29, 2019 and January 1, 2021. Michael Gove shares fishing industry ‘disappointment’

Actually, the EU might’ve done the UK a favour by sidelining fisheries policy until after Brexit. Imagine that!

As off-putting as that sounds, it dramatically lightens the load of UK government negotiators because it’s one less sector that needs to be debated with EU negotiating teams. All of which should have conspired to put both the UK and EU six months *ahead* of schedule on the Brexit negotiation timeline!

So we can’t blame Brexit delays on Micheal Gove, the Common Fisheries agreement, or the EU for delays to that timeline.


DEFENCE

Both the UK and EU will remain members of NATO post-Brexit and as the UK already operates its own defence infrastructure there isn’t much change expected there.

Apart from arranging the return of any non-NATO-dedicated Royal Air Force jets presently in EU countries, or removing Royal Navy ships from EU waters (unless there by invitation of an EU country or while taking part in a NATO exercise) there isn’t much for Gavin Williamson the Secretary of State for Defence of the United Kingdom to handle for this part of Brexit. A few phone calls before the Brexit date should cover it.

So we can’t blame the lack of progress on Gavin Williamson or his EU defence counterparts for agreements not reached in time for Brexit.


CUSTOMS and SINGLE MARKET

Thus far, the EU seemed to be in denial that the UK was actually leaving the bloc, so quite logically from their point of view; Why would they want to entertain UK negotiations allowing the UK to leave the customs agreement and the EU’s single market architectures?

But now that the UK Parliament have voted in favour of the EU Withdrawal Bill you’d think the EU would accept the UK is leaving the bloc and that it is time to begin crafting an agreement setting the dates and terms to allow Britain to leave both the Customs Union and the Single Market.

But since the Withdrawal Bill passed last week, some in the EU suddenly began saying that negotiations with the UK can’t continue because the UK’s ruling Conservative party is ‘deeply divided’ and that ‘the EU can’t be certain who it is dealing with’ — yet, the UK government easily passed the EU Withdrawal Bill which it said it would do all along.

Full marks here to Prime Minister Theresa May for shepherding this bill through and making it look easy. Brilliant!

Read this important article about: How MP’s voted on the EU Withdrawal Bill amendments

Until the Withdrawal Bill was signed into law, any Brexit timeline delays were the fault of UK Conservative Party MP’s and the EU bore no particular blame for its lack of enthusiasm regarding the furtherance of Brexit negotiations.

However, now that the bill has been made into law, negotiations must begin in earnest.


FREE TRADE BETWEEN THE UK and THE EU POST-BREXIT

Almost everything that applies to the delays in the customs and single market negotiations (see above) applies here too.

To reiterate: Until the Withdrawal Bill was signed into UK law, delays to the negotiation timeline are to be blamed on the UK side and not on the EU side for the simple reason that until the UK side got serious about Brexit, why would the EU get serious about it?

Fortunately, and better late than never, PM Theresa May got the job done and now things must advance in the interests of industry and citizens on both sides of the Channel.

Not that the UK can suddenly afford to make Brexit ‘the EU’s emergency’ as the UK pursued the Withdrawal Bill in a most leisurely fashion over the past 32 months.

“A lack of planning on your part doesn’t necessarily constitute an emergency on my part.”

Yet because trading arrangements will benefit business on both sides of the Channel things must now move smartly along or delays will hurt business on both sides.

I wouldn’t want to be the German Chancellor or the British Prime Minister (for example) who failed to get a trade agreement ready in time for Brexit, or the leader who failed to make the necessary modifications to their respective departments to allow trade to continue uninterrupted.


IMMIGRATION and FREE MOVEMENT FOLLOWING BREXIT

It looks like this is a non-negotiable for the UK government. Too many British citizens spoke too loudly and too clearly for any UK Prime Minister to dare overrule their wishes.

Each EU citizen wishing to remain in the UK after Brexit will pay a nominal annual fee (about the price of a passport) and will be required to provide an up-to-date address and telephone number for the Home Office. Simple enough.

EU citizens wanting to move to the UK after Brexit will face the same requirements as EU citizens who’ve elected to stay on in Britain.

Non-EU citizens can probably expect about the same, although emigrating to the UK *after* Brexit will be much easier if you’re an EU citizen or Commonwealth citizen.


Now that the EU Withdrawal Bill Has Finally Passed It’s Time to Lift Those Anchors!

For industry, change is always negative but still doable. But late changes are lethal to business on both sides.

And UK leaders and EU27 leaders must remember that!

Industry needs clear and timely regulations (with a long lead time) that must rank higher than the ideological differences between the heads of European states (including the UK) higher than the (occasional) personality conflicts between politicians, and must always rank above the partisan politics within a country.

From the day the Withdrawal Bill was finally signed into law, every day must now count, be counted, and be accountable — or the UK and the EU27 will be racing with ‘their anchors still in the water’ against every other ‘ship of state’ in the world.

And that’s not how you win races, whether nautical or economic.

Written by John Brian Shannon

Is the US ‘Too Big’ for the G7?

Q: Are the concerns of a superpower relevant to the other G7 members? A: Not really.

Maybe it’s time for a superpower group of the US, China, the EU, Russia, and The Commonwealth of Nations to form up, instead of the G7 group that has worked very well until now.

Even the sage Moses who lived 3400-years ago, suggested, “Thou shall not plow with an ox and a donkey yoked together” and the reason is quite clear to every farmer. Being so dissimilar in size and power, both the ox and the donkey will be miserable the entire time they try to plow forward together and the farmer will spend most of his time ‘arbitrating’ disputes between the two and the plowing enterprise will get little actual plowing done.

It’s unfair to the US, it’s unfair to the smaller or weaker members of the G7 club and it’s unfair — even to near-superpowers like Japan and Germany which have far different challenges and causes to ‘plow’ than those of the superpowers.

Steve Hilton: Trump’s criticism of G-7 is ‘unprecedented’ scream the elite -- That’s the whole point of Trump!
Trump’s Criticism of G-7 is ‘Unprecedented’ Scream the Elite – That’s the whole point of Trump! | Steve Hilton, Fox News

Shall I list the ways?

If so, this would become a very long blog post indeed!

For just three examples:

  1. Which of the G7 partners have a negative balance of trade of $862.8 billion for 2017? The entire G7 combined doesn’t have a negative balance of trade anywhere approaching that of the United States.
  2. Which of the other G7 members have an inventory of nuclear warheads like the United States which includes 6450 nuclear warheads; 1750 that are retired and awaiting dismantlement, and 3800 that remain part of the U.S. stockpile?
  3. If we’re talking GDP, the US represents 52.8% of the Group of Seven’s GDP, while the next largest country in the group (Japan) represents 13.3% of GDP, with only Germany at 10% remaining as the only other double-digit GDP member of the G7.

Population figures and economic growth indicators may be even more telling than the above indicators of superpower status.


Should the US Join It’s Own 1-Member Club?

That may be a tempting thought for President Donald Trump and certain members of his administration, but there are common concerns among superpowers that only apply to superpowers (and there’s no doubt the US remains the Number One superpower by a significant margin) and it’s those superpowers that must work together to deliver solutions for their large populations.


If we look at a superpower club of 5 members: The United States, China, the EU, The Commonwealth of Nations and Russia, we’re looking at a group that is roughly comparable to each other and have similar challenges.

Let’s look at our three main indicators, just to be certain:

GDP

Big 5 (Nominal) GDP
U.S.A. --------- $20.3 trillion (USD) (Focuseconomics.com)
China ---------- $13.0 trillion (USD) (Focuseconomics.com)
EU ------------- $19.7 trillion (USD) (IMF)
Commonwealth --- $10.4 trillion (USD) (Commonwealth.org)
Russia --------- $1.72 trillion (USD) (IMF/StatisticsTimes.com)

Although there are some disparities in nominal GDP among the five countries, we must remember that China is on an exponential growth curve while The Commonwealth of Nations statistic (provided by commonwealth.org) is from 2017 and their economic group is also growing at a rapid rate ($13 trillion by 2020). Russia is the outlier in this group, however, as we shall see, that country has other (huge) chips on the table when it comes to retaining its superpower status.

Top 10 Countries as ranked by GDP includes G7 countries. Image courtesy of FocusEconomics.com
Top 10 Countries as ranked by GDP — includes G7 countries. Image courtesy of FocusEconomics.com

Nuclear Warheads

Big 5 Nuclear Warheads
U.S.A. --------- 6450 (Federation of American Scientists)
China ----------  270 (Federation of American Scientists)
EU -------------  300 (Federation of American Scientists)
Commonwealth ---  485 (Federation of American Scientists)
Russia --------- 6850 (Federation of American Scientists)

Although nuclear stockpiles vary, the US and Russia were the main protagonists of the Cold War which lasted from 1950 through 1990 which is why they own far more nuclear weapons than all other countries combined. The only EU country to publish their ownership of nuclear weapons is France, with 300 warheads. The Commonwealth of Nations countries that publish ownership of nuclear weapons include the UK, Pakistan and India.

G7 comparison: Estimated Nuclear Warhead Inventories, 2018. Federation of American Scientists
Estimated Nuclear Warhead Inventories, 2018. Federation of American Scientists

Balance of Trade Issues

Big 5 Balance of Trade (in US Dollars)
U.S.A. --------- $-862.8 billion (2017) (Handlesblatt/IMF/WTO)
China ---------- $+98.46 billion (2017) (TradingEconomics.com)
EU ------------- $+44.45 billion (2016) (Statista.com)
Commonwealth --- $-187.5 billion (2015) (Commonwealth.org)
Russia --------- $+115.3 billion (2017) (Statista.com)

GDP and Balance of Trade among the G7 countries in 2017

While balance of trade issues vary wildly between the United States, China, the EU, The Commonwealth of Nations and Russia, very few countries can play in the triple-digit or even high double-digit space occupied by those nations. Especially when analyzed using their (Nominal) and (Purchasing Power Parity) GDP numbers, these are exceptional nations and groupings of nations, which put them in a different category than other countries.


The Big 5 (B5) A Better ‘Fit’ for the United States, China, the EU, The Commonwealth and Russia

There is nothing wrong with small countries and there is nothing wrong with big countries. But small countries have far different challenges than large countries, and everything happens on a truly massive scale for the bigger countries and in country groupings like the EU and The Commonwealth of Nations.

And those differences cause irritations.

Instead of heads of government trying to plow forward with their challenges and issues while ‘yoked’ to dissimilar and dissimilar-sized partners, why not make it easier on everyone and ‘put like with like’ to gain a more comfortable fit?

It’s so obvious this should be done and the latest G7 meeting proves that the problems in that organization are systemic problems and are the sole cause of divisions between the oddly mismatched countries of that group.


The ‘Big 5’ followed by the ‘Next 20’

Every country stuck in a trade or political grouping that doesn’t match it’s particular talents will suffer. Therefore, the Big 5 must form into a group of their own, and the G20 (minus the by-then departed ‘Big 5’ members) must attract ‘the Next 20 nations’ to their refashioned N20 organization.


Helping Every Country and Individual to ‘Become All That They Can and Should Be’

In that way, the top 25 countries in the world can finally become all that they can and should be instead of being held back by arbitrary, mismatched, or outdated groupings.

And, isn’t that’ what it’s really all about?

!!!

Written by John Brian Shannon | Reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com


Read the next blog post: G7 – Please Save Our Seas!

The Iran Nuclear Deal: Obligation or Opportunity?

by John Brian Shannon | Reposted from JohnBrianShannon.com

It’s always helpful to look at a country’s actions over the past 200 years to help understand what its intentions may be here and now, and in the future.

The burgeoning but relatively isolated country of Iran hasn’t militarily attacked another country for over 200 years, and it was Saddam Hussein’s Iraq that militarily attacked Iran in September 1980 — a conflict that finally ended in August 1988 with 1 million casualties and an economic cost of $680 million to $1 trillion dollars — with no clear winner and no benefit to either country.

After all that blood and treasure, no benefit to either country(!) although via the UN-sponsored peace accord and as a penalty to Iraq for starting the war, Iran gained access to the Shatt al-Arab waterway which runs into the Persian Gulf.

Since 2000, Iran has purportedly financed organizations (some listed as terrorist organizations, and others not) throughout the Middle East and most recently in Syria, Iraq, and perhaps Lebanon, in an attempt to exert some control on the various forces operating around their region. (Every country uses various methods to control what happens in its own region, so no news there)

But nothing captures the world’s attention like the Iran nuclear deal.

U.S. President Donald Trump says the deal is a bad one for the West and shouldn’t have been signed and wants to walk away from the deal, reserving the right to act unilaterally if he feels the country is a danger to the U.S.A. or its Middle East allies.

Last week, France’s President Emmanuel Macron flew to Washington to meet with the U.S. President to convince him to stay in the deal or to embrace a ‘third way’ which means renegotiating some of the agreement to better suit U.S. concerns.

Iran barely signed the previous agreement… so it will be interesting to see how the U.S. can get everything it wants from a renegotiated deal while still obtaining Iran’s signature to a new agreement. A deal isn’t a deal unless both sides sign on the dotted line.


Why Would the U.S. Care About Iran? (and Syria, for that matter)

From a strategic perspective, there isn’t a country in the world that could be less important to the security of the United States than Iran, and ditto for Syria.

Neither country has the kind of military that could threaten America, nor could they project their power anywhere near the North American continent.

Unless the United States is actively working for Israel — a country which has an irrational fear of Iran (again, Iran hasn’t invaded any other country for over 200 years) and is willing to spend billions or even another trillion dollars to wage another Iraq War-style conflict against Iran, there’s no reason for the U.S. to have any dealings with Iran whatsoever.

If the United States is actively working for Saudi Arabia — a country that views Iran as an unwelcome competitor in the race to dominate the region, the same advice applies. Why should the U.S. spend multi-billions and sacrifice thousands of young soldiers to satisfy the Saudi ambition to be the local hegemon?

Iran is a regional power at best, and will remain so for approximately the next 30-years as it hasn’t the capacity to be anything else.


Why is Iranian Oil in Such High Demand?

It’s not like Iran is withholding oil deliveries. On the contrary, Iranian oil is easily obtainable with a phone call — the country is highly motivated to sell every drop of oil due to high spending on social programmes by the Iranian government which are largely funded by oil revenue.

And Iran’s crude oil is rated either #2 (sweet) or #3 (semi-sweet) which means it’s in high demand around the world. Global oil producers have already pumped all their #2 sweet crude out of the ground years ago; only Iran and Venezuela have significant reserves of sweet crude in the 21st-century.

As for oil refineries, they need Iran’s (or Venezuela’s) #2 sweet crude oil to blend with the oil supplied by their producers which is almost always #4 (sour) or #4.75 (very sour) like the Canadian oil sands product.

Most refineries won’t accept sour crude oil unless plenty of #2 or #3 sweet crude is blended into the sour crude. It’s just too toxic to refine ‘sour’ as it requires a much more stringent maintenance protocol, meaning the refinery needs to shut down and go into ‘maintenance mode’ more often. That downtime represents a significant loss of revenue for oil refineries.

Therefore, as long as Iran continues to ship huge quantities of sweet crude, the United States should be facilitating that oil business instead of trying to curtail it.


The EU View of Iran is a Mature View

Say what you want about the Europeans, but they don’t allow themselves to be used by countries like Israel that have an irrational fear of Iran and want to use the United States and the EU to keep the Iranians ‘down’ and in their ‘proper’ place and thereby become the regional superpower, or countries like Saudi Arabia that want to use the United States and the EU to keep the Iranians ‘down’ and in their ‘proper’ place and thereby become the regional superpower.

To oversimplify the EU view; As long as Iran’s sweet crude continues to flow (it is) and as long as Iran isn’t actively invading any other country (it isn’t) then there’s no reason to use some imagined breach of the Iranian nuclear deal to launch another trillion dollar war in the Middle East. And, as always, the EU continues to refuse to allow itself to be used by regional powers such as Israel and Saudi Arabia.

In the final analysis, the EU’s position on the Iranian nuclear deal is the most enlightened of all and it is the view the United States should support.