November 21, 2018 archives – haaretz daily gas estimator


Following reports last night that Renault wouldn’t dismiss Ghosn as CEO – at least not yet – Bloomberg reported Wednesday morning that some Nissan board members are resisting CEO Hirohito Saikawa’s push to oust Ghosn as chairman. ortega y gasset la rebelion de las masas The board is expected to decide Ghosn’s fate during a board meeting on Thursday. The Nissan board members’ objections sound similar to those voiced by the France’s Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire, who said Tuesday that the French government would wait until it learns more about the charges that Ghosn is facing before it decides whether to take action. Despite the fact that the investigation into Ghosn was said to have been initiated internally, board members say they have been given too little information about Ghosn’s alleged financial improprieties.

But one of Nissan’s directors told Bloomberg News that not enough information had been provided about the investigation for them to be able to decide how to vote on Thursday. Securing a unanimous decision to oust Ghosn as chair will likely be difficult because Nissan directors that used to work at Renault may not back the dismissal until the allegations against Ghosn are made clear, according to people familiar with board members’ deliberations.

Nissan’s board includes Ghosn, Saikawa and Kelly, as well as two external board members. Votes at Thursday’s meeting will be cast one-by-one on an anonymized basis. The outcome will be determined by a simple majority. This means there must be four votes in favor for the motion to oust Ghosn and Kelly to pass. No new directors will be named between Wednesday and Thursday’s meeting.

Ghosn famously rankled the Japanese establishment when he arrived at Nissan in 1999 and implemented radical changes that disrespected Japan’s deep-seated respect for seniority. He also imposed painful cost cuts that further horrified the Japanese press. So the notion that Ghosn loyalists might take the view that his imprisonment – which has been extended by 10 days as prosecutors finalize the filing of charges – is more about vengeance than justice. If he avoids being ousted, we imagine investors could take this as a positive for Nissan and Renault shares, which were hammered after the news broke.

Over two years of conflict between people who voted to leave the European Union and those who opted to remain has predominately been contested through the political rather than economic paradigm. 2018 has seen this conflict exacerbate amidst warnings of the UK potentially vacating the EU with no withdrawal agreement, coupled with increased talk of a second referendum.

The latest anti-Brexit gathering to demand a referendum on the terms of exit served only to accentuate the division between both camps. Many of those against the UK leaving the EU continued to denounce it as a ‘Tory Brexit‘ and a manifestation of the hard right, whilst those in favour described the ‘March for the Future‘ protest in London as ‘remoaners‘ trying to thwart the ‘will of the people‘.

In articles posted throughout 2018, I have written extensively about how a no deal scenario between the UK and EU is advantageous to the Bank of England as they continue to ‘normalise‘ monetary policy by raising interest rates. electricity song billy elliot The economic ramifications from a no deal are not difficult to speculate on. An inevitable sharp depreciation of sterling would, as witnessed after the 2016 referendum, serve to push up the rate of inflation and give cause for the bank to persist in hiking rates. Add to that constricted trade supplies and increased tariffs, and the troublesome realisation of higher borrowing costs and higher consumer prices coalesce as one.

In the event of no deal, if you believe the Bank of England would come to the rescue of the British economy by cutting interest rates and pumping further hundreds of billions of pounds into the financial system, official communications from the bank might make you think otherwise. BOE governor Mark Carney has made it clear that the only way rates could be cut was if a ‘disorderly‘ Brexit proved DIS-INFLATIONARY. There are no circumstances in which a no deal exit fit this criteria.

But the bank cut rates and recommenced with quantitative easing after the first referendum. Would they not seek to do the same again? The problem is that whilst it is true that the bank did indeed loosen policy in the aftermath of the leave vote, they did so with inflation running at 0.5%. With inflation today running above the bank’s 2% target, a no deal exit would see it spike further. 2015 electricity increase Brexit, in short, is inflationary. And inflation is what the Bank of England are basing the majority of their reasoning on to raise rates.

So if a no deal outcome enables the Bank of England to carry on tightening, how might this eventuality become a reality? In September The People’s Vote campaign released a ‘Roadmap to a People’s Vote‘ which detailed ways in which a second referendum could materialise. On the advisory committee of the report was Lord Kerr, the same man who conceived Article 50 and is a member on the Executive Committee of the Trilateral Commission.

The report consulted closely with a group called The Constitution Unit, who themselves published a recent paper on how a second referendum could be engineered (The Mechanics for a Further Referendum on Brexit). It also shares it’s name with a manifesto published earlier in the year by the anti-Brexit group Best for Britain (Join the roadmap to a People’s Vote).

Simplicity refers to how a deal or no deal would be presented to the electorate on any ballot paper. The report outlines a preference for a binary choice (as witnessed in 2016), which could be anything from No deal vs. Remain, Deal vs. Remain or Deal vs. No Deal. A three way option is mooted (Deal vs. No Deal vs. Remain) but is considered too complex for the carefully constructed guidelines that the roadmap advocates.

For example, legislation from 2016 could be used to simplify progress for a second vote. The Constitution Unit estimate that the process of a referendum – from the introduction of legislation to polling day – stands at 22 weeks. gas pressure definition chemistry In practice, this means the Article 50 deadline would likely be extended to accommodate the vote. They measure the first possible polling day as being in May 2019, although The People’s Vote raise the prospect of the Electoral Commission condensing the timetable. In their words, the ‘ simplest and clearest thing would be a vote before March 29th 2019.’

Finally, the organisation propose that a simple and straightforward question and format should be legislated for. The report details how the government may push to have the option of deal vs. no deal on the ballot, but it is ‘ difficult to see parliament sanctioning it.’ The Constitution Unit also view the prospect of such a ballot as unlikely.

Since The People’s Vote was launched back in March 2018, other groups campaigning for a second referendum – including Best for Britain, Our Future Our Choice (OFOL) and For Our Future’s Sake (FFS) – have focused their efforts in manoeuvring the debate around Brexit on to young people. The central message has been not only to call for another vote, but for the option of remaining in the EU to be on the ballot. It is Best for Britain that have angled their entire remit around this demand. electricity sources OFOL and FFS have dutifully taken the baton and directed their energies into wanting to stop Brexit altogether.

The People’s Vote roadmap is adamant that the option to remain must be on the ballot (a position which again falls in line with Best for Britain), but it would be for parliament to decide on the question. Lord Kerr’s position has consistently been that the final decision should be made by the British people. Most recently he commented that, ‘ informed public consent is essential.’

Consider this through an ideological lens for a moment: two years on, remainers are still fighting to overturn the original referendum result and see Brexit abandoned. Leavers perceive the push for a second referendum as a deliberate attempt to undermine the 17.4 million who voted to vacate the EU. industrial electricity prices by state As one side works to draw the country towards the ballot box again, others want a clean break from the union (even if that means leaving without a deal).

If advocates for the EU get their way and a referendum is granted, what happens after that is out of their hands. Logic dictates that large swathes of the UK would react unfavourably to remain being on the ballot, and channel their annoyance through voting for no deal should that be an option. Also possible is parliament denying voters the choice of remaining in the EU, instead legislating between the deal or leaving on WTO terms.

My concern is that both sides of the Brexit divide are being guided down the path towards no agreement. One of them through the belief that the UK’s departure can be prevented via a referendum, and the other as a reaction to Brexit negotiations being frustrated amid calls for the UK to remain. The synthesis that would bring this conflict to a head is another vote.

Public consent is key. Each expression of ‘populism‘ that globalists have exploited in order to reverse monetary accommodation – be it with Brexit or Donald Trump – has come about through the ballot box. The method has been to allow the public to bestow the breakdown of the ‘rules based global order‘ upon themselves, to trap a majority into believing that the false re-emergence of nationalism and self determination is somehow to the detriment of globalist elites like the Bank for International Settlements and the IMF.