If “Brexit means Brexit”, what does Brexit mean?

Brexit mapThe summer is over, and the UK government now has the job of deciding its objectives for the Brexit negotiations. These, like all major negotiations, will no doubt be long and difficult.  They will also inevitably create major uncertainty for companies, investors and individuals as they progress.

I have personally led major negotiations in a wide variety of cultures, and also participated in them as a team member. So I have a reasonable idea of the challenges that the Brexit negotiations will create.  But they are unique in their complexity, and in their political nature:

□  If one takes the chemical industry as an example, tariff negotiation is only a part of the discussion – rules and regulations around environmental, health and safety issues will probably end up being far more important
□  Political developments will create further complexity – Italy has a referendum this year, whilst elections are due next year in major EU countries including Germany and France, and the USA will have a new Administration

The UK’s new premier, Theresa May, has stated that “Brexit means Brexit”.  But she is also well aware there are at least 5 major potential options for a Brexit agreement, as the authoritative Institute for Government has outlined:

□  ”Membership of the European Economic Area (EEA): the ‘Norway model’. This offers almost complete access to the Single Market in goods and services, with some restrictions on agricultural and fisheries products. In return for this access, EEA members must accept free movement of people. They make a significant contribution to the EU budget and must accept all EU laws and regulations related to the Single Market, with minimal influence over their content.
□  ”Membership of the European Free Trade Agreement (EFTA) plus bilateral deals: the ‘Swiss model’. EFTA provides access to the Single Market in all non-agricultural goods. Switzerland has added a series of bilateral agreements allowing for trade in some services, and also has a treaty accepting free movement of people. Switzerland contributes to the EU budget to cover the costs of programmes it participates in. It must adapt domestic legislation to meet EU laws in the areas of the Single Market that it participates in, and has no formal influence over those laws.
□  ”A customs union.  Members of a customs union agree to trade agreed categories of goods (for example, industrial or agricultural) between themselves without applying any tariffs. If the UK were to take this path and agree a customs union with the EU, it would not face tariffs in exporting goods to the EU, but would be obliged to adopt existing and future EU rules relating to the regulation of goods. Customs unions are bespoke, with different versions covering different types of goods… An important feature of a customs union is that members apply a common external tariff to all third parties (unlike an FTA, where members can have their own tariff policy with other countries). The EU operates an advanced form of a customs union in that the common tariff is then pooled across the EU.
□  ”A bilateral free trade agreement, such as the Canadian or Singaporean models. Both these bilateral agreements, when ratified, will offer almost complete access to the Single Market in goods, but less access to the market in services, with some sectors excluded. Neither agreement requires free movement of people. Exporters must comply with EU rules and regulations when exporting to the Single Market, and will have no influence over these rules and regulations. Before the UK could sign an FTA with the EU (or with any other entity), it will probably need to have its WTO arrangements set out – potential FTA partners need to know what terms the UK is offering the rest of the world, before they can know what ‘preferential’ terms to seek for themselves.
□  ”Membership of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This would offer the most complete break with the EU. As a WTO member, Britain would be able to negotiate free trade agreements with other members, including the EU. In the period before these agreements were put in place, the UK would have to offer equal ‘most favoured nation’ status and equal tariffs to all countries wishing to trade with it. UK exports to the EU would also face the EU’s external tariff.”

PROTECTIONISM IS RISING AROUND THE WORLD
Protectionism Sept16The government will now have to decide which of these options to pursue.  And at the same time, it is uncomfortably aware that trade deals, as such, are becoming very unpopular in many major countries, as the above chart from Global Trade Alert confirms.  Some even suggest we may be moving away from trade agreements to trade wars.

Evidence for this paradigm shift can be seen in the fact that last December’s WTO negotiations ended in failure, whilst risks are rising over ratification of the proposed TPP deal between 12 Pacific Rim countries.  Pressure to abandon the proposed TTIP deal between the EU and NAFTA is also rising.

Another critical fact is that all negotiations are about compromise – if the UK wants control over immigration, for example, this will limit its negotiating options with countries that currently have relatively open access to the UK – such as China, the USA, India and others, as well as the EU.

This “fact of life” is, after all, why recent Conservative and Labour governments never implemented major cutbacks. Reducing immigration would have important “second-order effects”, as three-quarters of immigrants move to the UK for work or study.  Universities, for example, often depend on fee income from foreign students for their finances, whilst the National Health Service relies on its 57,000 foreign workers.  As the BBC noted before the Brexit vote:

The UK isn’t bound to accept non-EU migrants by any international treaties, but nevertheless let 277,000 of them move over last year alone.

Individual industries also risk finding themselves being made part of “trade-offs” to obtain benefits for another industry. The lobbying power of the financial services industry might, for example, mean that it is allowed to keep some form of passporting rights (to sell its services into the EU after Brexit).  In exchange, the UK might have to accept greater restrictions on another industry.

The conclusion is clear.  Anyone who thinks they know what is going to happen with Brexit, simply doesn’t understand the key issues.  And anyone who thinks that Brexit has nothing to do with them or their business, may well have a surprise ahead of them.

 

Brexit moves from ‘Snakes and Ladders’ to cricket

The Brexit debate had appeared to be a simple game of Snakes & Ladders till now.  The Leave campaign landed on the ladders that led to its goal of No Deal, whilst the throw of the dice left Remain on the snakes, tumbling down towards irrelevance.

Yet today, at the very last minute, there are signs that we might instead now be starting to play the far more complex English game of cricket where captaincy is all-important, as one famous Australian cricketer has remarked:

“Captaincy is 90% luck and 10% skill. But don’t try it without that 10%”.

The Brexiters should certainly have won by now, if we were playing Snakes & Ladders.  They landed on a ladder early in the game when premier May set 29 March 2019 as Brexit Day.  By default, this meant the UK would then leave the EU without a deal – unless a Withdrawal and Transition Agreement could be finalised before then.

No Deal is, of course, the Brexiter dream as the leading Brexit economist, Prof Patrick Minford, argued in May when suggesting its result would be:

“Plus £651 billion ($875bn) for the UK versus minus £507bn for the EU: it could not be more open and shut who least wants a breakdown.“

As I noted in The pH Report at the time:

“Even if May can somehow achieve a deal with the DUP (the Democratic Unionists on whom she depends for her Commons majority), she would still have to agree it with the Leave enthusiasts in the Conservative Party. They are convinced that the real cost of Brexit will be borne by the EU27…. 

It therefore seems unlikely May can find a deal that is acceptable to the Leavers, given their belief that a “hard Brexit” represents the best negotiating strategy for the UK.

Today, it is clear that the DUP and the Tory Leavers will indeed vote against May’s Deal next week.

So by now, the Leavers should be celebrating.  But they aren’t.  Somehow leading Leavers such as Boris Johnson, David Davis and Dominic Raab all managed to land on their own personal snakes by resigning from the Cabinet at critical moments.

THE LEAVERS HAVE FAILED TO PRESS HOME THEIR ADVANTAGE

In life, as in cricket, one has to seize the advantage when it comes your way.  This is where the 10% of skill is all important, as it tells you when to grasp the moment.  Clearly Leave, led by the former Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, has so far failed to hit the all important ball to the boundary and secure victory.

In cricketing terms, Remain may therefore have just managed to avoid an innings defeat, giving them the chance to go into bat again.  Skillful captaincy will then be all-important.  The next few weeks will therefore be the most critical period for the UK economy in recent history as competing visions of the future battle it out:

  • Prof Minford told the UK Treasury Committee in October that the UK auto industry needs to disappear: “You are going to have to run it down … in the same way we ran down the coal industry and steel industry. These things happen.”
  • Yet it is not clear that UK’s industrial heartlands who gave Leave its majority share this vision.  They, after all, were told at the time that Brexit would simply mean giving the National Health Service “the £350m the EU takes every week

3 Scenarios therefore seem possible over the next few weeks.

SCENARIO 1 – MAY LOSES NEXT WEEK’S VOTE, AND LOSES A NEW VOTE IN JANUARY
A week is a long time in politics, but it seems relatively safe to say that May is unlikely to win next week’s Commons vote on her Withdrawal Agreement. Her aides, however, have been busy playing up the likely size of her defeat, suggesting she could lose by 100+ votes.  And so, politics being politics, they will likely spin this as a success if she now loses by “only” 50 votes.

In turn, this would probably enable her to defeat a motion of No Confidence, and then bring a slightly modified version of the Agreement back for a new vote in January.  At that stage, it would be too late for any new deal to be agreed with the EU27.  So if she then loses this second vote, the Brexiters will win by default.  No Deal would become almost inevitable on 29 March.

SCENARIO 2 – MAY WINS A NEW VOTE IN JANUARY
UK politics is tribal, as I have been told many times over the past 2 years by leading MPs from all parties.  As such, it is very, very difficult for a Tory MP to vote to bring down their government.  So if May does “only” lose by less than 50 votes next week, then it is also possible that the Christmas break would provide time for reflection and give her a small majority in a second vote.

This, of course, would still mean the UK exiting the EU on 29 March.  But in cricketing terms, it would essentially be a draw – where neither side could claim victory, due to the Irish “backstop” (originally a cricket term).  In today’s Brexit version, it means that the UK would be bound to the EU unless and until the 27 agreed that the nightmare of a hard Irish border had disappeared.

SCENARIO 3 – MAY LOSES THE VOTE(S) BY A LARGE MARGIN AND THERE IS A NEW REFERENDUM

Scenario 1 is clearly the most likely outcome.  But the current row over the legal advice being given to the government gives Remain the chance to build a solid opening stand in the battle for a new People’s Vote.

It is a complex legal area, as the timeline from the House of Commons Library confirms, which is why skilful tactics by the Remain captain, Sir Keir Starmer, will continue to be critical:

  • Remain go in to bat this week to secure the detailed legal advice given to the government
  • By resisting this move, May risks alienating the moderate Tory MPs that she needs for her survival
  • If they vote against her on the issue of Parliamentary privilege, they might feel emboldened to do so again
  • But this would still represent an extraordinary development as it has only happened twice before in recent history
    • After premier Eden was forced to resign after the humiliation of the Suez crisis in 1956
    • After the disastrous Norwegian campaign in May 1940, when Churchill replaced Chamberlain

In the background, however, is the key fact that an overwhelming majority of MPs voted to Remain.  It is therefore not impossible that they could force a new referendum – particularly as the first was only “advisory”.  Remain would then have to campaign positively on the issue of peace and prosperity – as I argued here in May 2016.

But then, at least, the British people would have a real chance to decide on the future they wanted for themselves and their children.

Your ‘A-Z Guide’ to the Brexit Negotiations

The UK is now facing a national crisis”, according to Margaret Thatcher’s former Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, speaking to a dinner in London on Thursday night.  Brexit continues to tear the UK apart, and places the economy at greater and greater risk.

On Thursday, premier Theresa May had unveiled her draft Withdrawal Agreement with the EU27.  Within a few hours, another 5 Ministers had resigned including her Brexit Secretary.  Over the summer, she had already lost her previous Brexit Secretary and her Foreign Secretary, plus other Ministers.  And 5 Ministers – including Michael Gove and Trade Secretary Liam Fox – are now planning to produce their own revised deal on the Irish question, in opposition to the draft agreement

Businesses are far too complacent about the risks of a No Deal Brexit, as I told BBC News on Thursday:

“If the deal went through Parliament, then we could be reassured that we had until the end of 2020 before anything happened. But looking at what’s happened this morning, it seems less likely that’s going to happen, and therefore the default position is that we leave without a deal on 29 March.  And that, I think, panics SMEs, small businesses, because if you don’t know what’s happening that’s worse than almost anything else. “

If you, or a colleague, now need to get up to speed with Brexit developments – and what they may mean for your business and your investments, here is my ‘A – Z Guide to the Brexit Negotiations’:

Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty sets out the rules for leaving the European Union.  As with most negotiations, it assumed the leaving country would present its proposals for the post-withdrawal period – which would then be finalised with the other members.  But the UK Cabinet was split on the key issues, and so the 2 year’s notice was given on 29 March 2017 without any firm proposals being made for the future UK-EU27 relationship beyond 7 “negotiating principles and “the desire for a “close partnership”.

Brexit means Brexit“, has been the UK’s core statement since Article 50 was tabled.  But as I noted back in September 2016, Brexit can actually mean a variety of different outcomes – and they have very different implications as the chart shows.  At one extreme, the ‘Norway model’ is very similar to full EU membership, but with no say on EU decisions.  Whereas the ‘Canada model’ is simply a free trade agreement offering some access to the Single Market (qv) for goods, but less access for services (which are 80% of the UK economy).  A ‘No Deal Brexit’ (qv) means working under WTO rules with arbitrary tariffs and regulations.

The European Commission manages the day-to-day business of the European Union (qv) on behalf of the European Council, and is effectively its civil service.  Its president is Jean-Claude Juncker and he appointed Michel Barnier to lead the Brexit negotiations.   Barnier’s first step, as mandated by the Council, was to agree within the EU 27 “the overall positions and principles that the EU will pursue“.  He understood that in any negotiation, the team that writes the drafts and controls the timescale usually has the upper hand. The UK’s failure to finalise its own detailed objectives before tabling Article 50 meant it gave up this critical advantage.

The Default date for Brexit is 29 March 2019.  It has also been agreed that if a Withdrawal Agreement (qv) is finalised, then a Transition Agreement (qv) could operate until 31 December 2020.  Unfortunately, many people have therefore assumed they can wait until 2020 before starting to plan for Brexit.  But as the Commission warned in its ‘Guidelines for Brexit Negotiations on 29 April 2017, “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed“. So No Deal also means no Transition Agreement.

The European Union is a treaty-based organisation of 28 countries.  As its website notes, it was “set up with the aim of ending the frequent and bloody wars between neighbours, which culminated in the Second World War“.  The UK joined the original 6 members (Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands) in 1973, along with Ireland (qv) and Denmark. Further expansions took place, especially after the end of the Cold War between the West and Russia.  At the suggestion of then UK premier Margaret Thatcher, it was agreed to establish a Single Market (qv) and Customs Union based on 4 key freedoms – free movement of goods, services, people and money – and this transformed trading relationships across the continent.

The Financial Settlement or ‘divorce bill’ covers the costs of the programmes that the UK agreed to support during the period of its EU membership.  Like most organisations, the EU operates on a pay-as-you-go basis and only charges member countries as and when bills actually come due.  The UK calculates this to be between £36bn – £39bn (€40bn – €44bn), depending on the assumptions used.

The Labour Party want a General Election if the government fails to get Parliament’s approval for its proposed Withdrawal Agreement.  But there is considerable uncertainty about what might happen next, if Labour won the election.  Some suggest Labour could renegotiate the deal, others that there could be a second referendum. Either option would mean a new government asking the EU to ‘stop the clock’ on Article 50. As a result, support is rising for the idea of a ‘People’s Vote’, or second referendum, as this might be more able to achieve all-party support. The European Parliament elections in May also complicate the picture as a referendum would apparently take 22 weeks to organise.

A Hostile No-Deal would be the worst of all possible outcomes. But Theresa May has warned Parliament that “without a deal the position changes” on the £39bn Financial Settlement, contradicting her Chancellor, Philip Hammond.  We do not know what would happen if the UK refused to pay, but one fears it could lead to a Hostile No-Deal if the EU then reacted very negatively in terms of future co-operation.

Ireland has proved to be a key sticking-point in the negotiations, as nobody wants to disturb the peace created by the Good Friday Agreement in 1998.  The issue is the potential need to reintroduce a border between Ireland and the North to secure the Single Market.  The draft Withdrawal Agreement devotes a full section to this issue, which remains a potential deal-breaker due to Brexiter concerns about N Ireland remaining in the Single Market and the UK remaining in the Customs Union. This expert Explainer from the impartial Institute for Government highlights the key issues.

June 2016 was the date of the referendum that voted to take the UK out of the EU.

Keeping the UK in “a single customs territory” with the EU after Brexit is a key feature of the so-called “temporary backstop arrangement” designed to avoid a hard border with Ireland.  It is intended to operate until a full free trade agreement is finalised between the UK and EU.  It was the most difficult part of the negotiations, and has provoked the most resistance from Brexiters.

Legal issues are, of course, a critical area in the negotiations as the UK currently operates under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice  (ECJ), and the UK wants to “take back control” to its own courts.  However, the Withdrawal Agreement confirms that the ECJ will have a continuing role under the Transition Agreement and potentially afterwards if the “backstop” is activated.

Tariffs on Materials and goods would be introduced between the UK and EU27 if there is a No-Deal Brexit.  Less well understood is that the UK’s trading terms would also change with countries outside the EU27, as the UK currently operates under more than 750 free trade and trade-related agreements negotiated by the EU – and it is unlikely that the UK could continue to benefit from them.

No Deal means that the UK would have to operate under WTO rules after 29 March.  This short Ready for Brexit video explains the complications this would create.  The WTO has also warned that the number of Technical Barriers to Trade “has grown significantly” in recent years, and these can often severely restrict trading opportunities. And EU laws would still have a role under WTO rules for all UK products sold into the EU27 under No Deal.  The EU Preparedness Notices, for example, also suggest there could be a ban on UK banks providing financial services as well as a whole host of other restrictions including on travel.

Preparing for Brexit.  My colleagues and I have set up Ready for Brexit. This is a subscription-based ‘one-stop shop’ and provides a curated Directory to the key areas associated with Brexit – Customs & Tariffs, Finance, Legal, Services & Employment, Supply Chain.  It includes Brexit Checklists; a BrexSure self-audit tool to highlight key risks; a Brexit Negotiation Update section linking to all the key official UK and EU websites; Brexplainer video on WTO Rules; plus news & interviews with companies about their preparations for Brexit.

Regulations can often be a much greater barrier to trade than tariffs, as they set out the rules that apply when products and services are sold in an individual country.  The EU never aimed to harmonise regulations across its member countries, as that would be an impossible task.  Instead it has focused on creating a Single Market via mutual recognition of each other’s standards, along with harmonised rules on cross-border areas such as safety, health and the environment.  Regulations are particularly important in the financial services industry, and many businesses are now relocating relevant parts of their operations into the EU27 so they can remain authorised to trade.

The Single Market seeks to guarantee the free movement of goods, services, people and money across the EU without any internal borders or other regulatory obstacles.  It includes a Customs Union, as this short BBC video explains, which seeks to ensure that there are no Customs checks or charges when goods move across individual country borders.  With a No-Deal Brexit, however, the UK will become a Third Country and no longer benefit from these arrangements.

The Transition Agreement covers the period after 29 March, and would allow the UK to operate as if it were still in the EU until 31 December 2020.  The aim is to give negotiators more time to agree how future EU-UK trade in goods and services will operate, and provide guidance for businesses on how the new deal(s) will operate.  But 21 months isn’t very long, as trade deals are very hard to do and generally take 5 – 7 years. The problem is that they create Winners and Losers whenever a market (large or small) is opened up to new foreign competition – and the incumbents usually complain.  The Transition Agreement will only operate if there is a Withdrawal Agreement and so would not happen with a No-Deal Brexit.

Unblocked, or frictionless trade, is a key aim of the negotiators.  Nobody really wants to go back to the pre-1993 world, before the Single Market arrived, when vast numbers of forms had to be filled in and lorries/ships sometimes stopped for hours for border checks.  As Honda explained in the summer (see chart) it could easily take between 2 – 9 days to move goods between the EU27 and UK without a Customs Union, compared to between 5 – 24 hours today.  The cost in terms of time and money would be enormous given that, as Eurotunnel told the Commons Treasury Committee in June, “Over the past 20 years, warehouses have become trucks rolling on the road“.

The draft 585-page Withdrawal Agreement was published on Thursday and sets out the basis for the future UK – EU relationship after Brexit.  The impartial Institute for Government has produced a expert summary of its key points.  But as the resignations have shown, the deal is contentious, with observers suggesting that MPs may vote it down in Parliament next month.

Zig-zag perhaps best describes the process that has led us to this point.  It began long ago when Margaret Thatcher resigned in 1990, as the catalyst was her position over European monetary union.  Her supporters ignored the key fact that the party needed a new leader if it was to have a chance of winning the next election,  and instead blamed Europe for their loss – soon styling themselves as Eurosceptics in her honour.  Fast forward through many zigs and zags  and as I warned in March 2016, – “Slowly and surely, a Brexit win is becoming more likely“.  We can doubtless expect many more in coming months and years.

Is your business Ready for Brexit?

Time is running out for the UK government to agree a Brexit deal with Europe.  As my new analysis for ICIS Chemical Business highlights, companies need to move quickly to prepare for the “No Deal” scenario

Legendary England footballer Gary Lineker best summarised the general sense of disbelief over the state of 
the Brexit negotiations when tweeting in July:

“A wealthy nation putting itself in a position where it has to stockpile food, medicine, etc., in times of peace is utter madness. What Are We Doing?”

Lineker’s concern was confirmed last month by the head of the British Chambers of Commerce who warned that “precision is what is required” regarding the Brexit process, rather than “declaratory statements”.

Yet today, with less than six months to go before the UK officially leaves the EU, businesses still do not know if the UK will simply crash out with no deal on 29 March, with no transition agreement in place. This is almost unbelievable, given that the EU is the UK’s largest trading partner, taking 44% (£274bn) of UK exports in 2017, and provides 53% (£341bn) of all UK imports, according to a July report from the House of Commons library.

One problem is that the cabinet only finally agreed on its chosen option for the new EU relationship in August. In turn, this means the civil service is only now starting to be able to advise sector groups, trade associations and other experts on the key issues involved.

A second problem is that the new Brexit department had to be created virtually overnight after the June 2016 referendum, and the average age of its staff is just 31 years. Many have no personal experience of the enormously complex issues involved.

CHEMICALS IN NO-MAN’S LAND
Chemical companies are, of course, right in the middle of this no-man’s-land. They depend on frictionless movements of raw materials and intermediates between their various EU sites, and they are heavily integrated into just-in-time supply chains with key customers such as the auto and food industries.

The UK government has recently warned of possible major disruption if there is a No Deal Brexit, and the Key UK Risks chart highlights the key economic and business risks that lie ahead.

The current gap between the UK and EU positions was emphasised in chief EU negotiator Michel Barnier’s recent evidence to the UK Parliament:

  • He confirmed that the EU did not believe key proposals in the Chequers Plan for the Irish border and other super-critical issues can either work or be agreed
  • Instead, Barnier proposed the idea of a “Canada plus plus” deal in the form of a Free Trade Agreement covering goods (but not services), plus customs cooperation, plus participation in health, research, Erasmus, aviation and internal security
  • He also emphasised that the UK’s £39bn payment was a divorce settlement covering past UK commitments, not an up-front payment for a good trade agreement

THREE MAIN SCENARIOS AHEAD

‘May achieves a withdrawal agreement’
The UK and EU will both lose from a No Deal Brexit and so in principle they could simply “fudge” the trade issue for future discussion during the transition period until December 2020. But although both sides emphasise that 80% of the withdrawal agreement is now agreed, this only highlights that the most difficult 20% still lies ahead – issues such as Ireland, immigration and EU citizen rights, and future trade relations.

‘Markets cause a panic on Tory benches’
What happens if May does stumble at this point and fails either to gain an agreement with the EU27 or to get it safely through the Cabinet, Tory party and Parliament? As the Risks chart shows, this might well lead to financial market pressure on the pound and interest rates. This would also represent more bad news for chemical companies. If even 20 Tory Eurosceptics vote against a deal, then May would have to rely on opposition party votes, and their support looks unlikely given Labour’s “six tests” for approving any deal.

‘No deal’ scenario
Exchange rate volatility could become a critical issue for companies and investors if this scenario is reached, with the pound possibly falling towards parity with the US dollar and the euro, causing interest rates to rise. Foreign investors currently own 28% of the government’s £1.9tn debt, and concern over the value of the pound could lead some to reduce their holdings of government bonds.The Brexit Directory chart from Ready for Brexit shows the scale of the risks involved.  It highlights how Brexit potentially involves almost every aspect of business – from Customs & Tariffs through Finance and Legal issues, to Services & Employment and the Supply Chain.

Of course, many major companies have already spent months and millions of euros in preparing detailed contingency plans. Some are already stockpiling key raw materials and products, and revising relevant contract clauses.

But smaller businesses do not have these resources. Surveys show that only one in seven have done any forward planning for a No Deal Brexit, and official government guidance for a No Deal has only just begun to appear. In turn, this creates a clear risk of widescale disruption, as today’s highly integrated supply chains are only as strong as their weakest link. The lack of just one raw material can stop a production line.

As Gary Lineker says, it is hard to believe this is happening. But it is, and so far “declaratory statements” rather than precise detail continue to dominate the process.

It is also easy to forget that a No Deal Brexit will not just impact the UK. US and EU-based businesses involved in a supply chain that involves a UK company face a clear risk of disruption.

This is why I have helped to launch Ready for Brexit with other industry colleagues. As the Scout motto reminds us, to ‘Be Prepared’ could be critical for business survival if a No Deal Brexit does occur.

 

Please click here to visit Ready for Brexit, and click here to download the full ICB analysis.

The post Is your business Ready for Brexit? appeared first on Chemicals & The Economy.

Brexit disaster looms as UK government power struggle erupts

UK voters were never very bothered about membership of the European Union (EU) before the Brexit vote last year.  Opinion polls instead showed they shared the general feeling of voters everywhere – that their country was heading in the wrong direction, and it was time for a change.  Now, last week’s Conservative Party conference showed that the government itself, and the prime minister, have also lost all sense of direction.

The problem is that nobody has any idea of a what a post-Brexit world would look like for the UK.  The Leave campaigners famously told the voters it would be a land where the UK would no longer “give” £350m/week ($455m) to Brussels, and could instead spend this money on improving health care and other worthy objectives.  This, of course, was a lie, as the head of the National Statistics Agency has since confirmed.  But then-premier Cameron failed to call out the lie at the time – fearing it would split his Conservative Party if he did.

15 months later, this lie has again come centre stage as the Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, revived it before the Conference as part of his bid to replace premier May:

“Once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week.  It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS.”

As a result, the splits in the Conservative Party are out in the open, with its former chairman now calling for a leadership election and claiming at least 30 law-makers already support the move.  Bookmakers now expect May to leave office this year (offering odds of just evens), and suggest the UK will have a new election next year (odds of 2/1), despite the fact that Parliament has nearly 5 years to run.

May’s problem is two-fold:

 As the photo shows, she was humiliated in her main speech to the Conference by a prankster handing her a P45 form (the UK’s legal dismissal notice), and claiming Johnson had asked him to do it
 Her previous set-piece speech in Florence on negotiations with Brussels over the UK’s exit arrangements had also rebounded, as it made clear the Cabinet was divided on the terms that should be negotiated

Voters don’t like being lied to, and they don’t like governments that are unable to govern because of internal splits – particularly when the splits are over such a critical issue as the UK’s economic future.  Unsurprisingly, therefore, the opposition Labour party are now favorites to win the next election, and their leader, Jeremy Corbyn, is favourite to become the next prime minister.  This, of course, would confirm my suggestion 2 years ago:

“My local MP, Jeremy Corbyn, won the UK Labour Party leadership election on Saturday with a 60% majority. An anti-NATO socialist, he has represented the constituency for 32 years, and has never held even a junior ministerial post. Now, he could possibly become the UK’s next Prime Minister.

“His path to power depends on two developments taking place, neither of which are impossible to imagine. First, he needs to win back the 40 seats that Labour lost to the Scottish Nationalists in May. And then he has to hope the ruling Conservative Party tears itself apart during the up-coming Europe Referendum.”

Unfortunately, Corbyn would be unlikely to resolve the mess over Brexit.  In the past, before becoming leader, he took the Trotskyist view that the EU is a capitalist club, set up to defraud the workers.  He has since refused to confirm or deny his views on the subject, but he did take very little part in the Referendum campaign last year.  Had he been more active in arguing the official Labour Party position of Remain, it is unlikely that Leave would have won.

Today, he is far more concerned over the likely result of a Labour Party win on financial markets, with his shadow Finance Minister admitting recently they were “war-gaming” in advance of an expected currency crisis.  UK interest rates are already rising, as foreign buyers wonder whether they should continue to hold their current 28% share of the UK government bond market.  Clearly, it is highly likely that a Labour government would need to return to capital controls after a 40-year break, to protect their finances.

A VERY HARD BREXIT IS BECOMING ALMOST CERTAIN
The confusion and growing chaos in the political world means that the detail of Brexit negotiations has taken a back seat.  The UK has still to make detailed proposals on the 3 critical issues that need to be settled before any trade talks can begin – rights of EU/UK citizens post-Brexit; status of the N Ireland/Ireland border; UK debts to Brussels for previously agreed spending.  And most European governments are now far more focused on domestic concerns:

  As I warned a year ago, the Populist Alternative für Deutschland did indeed “gain enough seats to make a continuation of the current “Grand Coalition” between the CDU/CSU/SDP impossible” in Germany
  Spain has to somehow resolve the Catalan crisis, following last week’s violence over the independence referendum
  Italy has autonomy referenda taking place in the wealthy Lombardy and Venice regions in 2 weeks, and then faces a difficult national election where the populist 5 Star movement leads most opinion polls. The scope for political chaos is clear, as the wealthy Northern regions want to reduce their tax payments to the south – whilst southern-based 5 Star want more money to go in their direction

President Trump has also undermined the Brexit position.  He initially promised a “very big and exciting” US-UK trade deal post Brexit.  But since then the US has supported a protectionist move by Boeing to effectively shut-down the vital Bombardier aircraft factory in Belfast, N Ireland, despite May’s personal appeals to him. And last week, it joined Australia, New Zealand, Argentina and Brazil in objecting to the EU-UK agreement on agricultural quotas post-Brexit.

I have taken part in trade talks and have also negotiated major contracts around the world.  So I know from experience the UK could never have achieved new deals within the 2 years promised by leading Brexiteers.

Today, it is also increasingly clear that May’s government doesn’t have the votes in Parliament to agree any financial deal that would be acceptable in Brussels.  So whilst large parts of UK industry still assume Brexit will mean “business as usual”, European companies are being more realistic.    In a most unusual move, the head of the Federation of German Industries spelt out the likely end result last week:

“The British government is lacking a clear concept despite talking a lot. German companies with a presence in Britain and Northern Ireland must now make provisions for the serious case of a very hard exit. Anything else would be naive…The unbundling of one of Germany’s closest allies is unavoidably connected with high economic losses. A disorderly exit by the British from the EU without any follow up controls would bring with it considerable upheaval for all participants. (German companies feel) not only that the sword of Damocles of insecurity is hovering over them, but even more so that they are exposed to the danger of massive devaluation.”

UK, European and global companies are already drawing up their budgets for 2018 – 2020. They cannot wait until Brexit day on 29 March 2019 before making their plans. And so, as it becomes increasingly obvious that the UK-EU talks are headed for stalemate, and that ideas of a lengthy transition period are simply a dream, they will make their own plans on the assumption that the UK will head over the Brexit cliff in 18 months time.

Nobody knows what will happen next.  But prudent companies, investors and individuals have to face the fact that Brexit, as I warned after the vote, is likely to be “a disaster for the UK, Europe and the world“.

The post Brexit disaster looms as UK government power struggle erupts appeared first on Chemicals & The Economy.