Watch: WION Fineprint, 14th January, 2019

Fineprint: Will lawmakers 'frustrate' UK PM Theresa May?

Prime Minister Theresa May will on Monday repeat weekend <a href="http://www.wionews.com/videos/theresa-may-requests-mps-to-back-brexit-deal-190017">warnings to MPs</a> poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-in-dates-from-leave-shock-to-no-confidence-vote-183632">Brexit </a>would be "catastrophic" for British democracy.

On the eve of Tuesday's monumental vote in parliament on her withdrawal agreement -- forged from 18 months of gruelling negotiations with European leaders -- May is set to address factory workers in Stoke, a Brexit-backing city in central England.

The <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/british-pm-warns-of-catastrophe-if-lawmakers-dont-back-brexit-deal-189952">embattled leader</a>, who is widely expected to lose the House of Commons vote by a wide margin, will make a final bid for support by arguing: "We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum.

"I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy," May is expected to say, according to excerpts of her speech released by her office.

"What if we found ourselves in a situation where parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?" she will ask.

"People's faith in the democratic process and their politicians would suffer catastrophic harm."

'No confidence in the government'

Britain is set to leave the European Union on March 29 but, with less than 11 weeks left, has yet to finalise the terms of its departure.

May's deal agrees a 21-month transition period under current terms while the future relationship with the bloc is negotiated, but it has drawn steadfast opposition from both Brexiteers and Remainers.&nbsp;

The prime minister has said rejecting it will throw Britain into "uncharted territory" and put the country at risk of crashing out without an agreement, or even no Brexit at all.

The opposition Labour Party, which favours remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU, has suggested it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs throw out the plan.

The Observer newspaper reported Sunday that its lawmakers have been told it could be tabled "within hours" of that on Tuesday, with the confidence vote to be held the following day.

If the government lose a no-confidence motion, there will be a period of 14 days in which parties can seek to find an alternative working majority in parliament.

If they fail to do so, a general election would be called.

"We will table a motion of no confidence in the government at a time of our choosing, but it's going to be soon, don't worry about it," Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC on Sunday.

Corbyn conceded if the party won power, parliament would likely need to delay Brexit beyond March 29 so it could renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

'A very British coup'

The prime minister already postponed a House of Commons vote on her plan in December to avoid defeat -- and MPs look set to reject it again on Tuesday.

Lawmakers who believe it either leaves Britain too close or too distant from the bloc, fired ominous warning shots this week, voting to force the prime minister to quickly set out an alternative plan for Brexit if she loses the vote.

It was her second setback in 24 hours after MPs also voted to deny the government certain taxation powers in a no-deal scenario -- in a bid to avoid such an outcome.&nbsp;

The Sunday Times said a group of senior cross-party backbench rebels are now plotting to change House of Commons rules to enable them to override government business if the deal falls.

Described as "a very British coup", the plan would see May lose control of parliamentary business to MPs, threatening her ability to govern, the newspaper said.&nbsp;

It said Downing Street was "extremely concerned" about the possibility, which could see lawmakers then delay Brexit through new legislation.&nbsp;

Conservative MP Nick Boles, who favours a Norway-style relationship which would keep Britain in the EU's single market, told the paper he was exploring tactics in the Commons to rule out a no-deal scenario.

"We have a mechanism which will give parliament control of the Brexit negotiations and ensure we do not leave the EU without a deal on March 29," he said.

"I am working on ways to achieve that outcome," Boles said, indicating he would publish the plan on Tuesday.

Prime Minister Theresa May will on Monday repeat weekend warnings to MPs poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver Brexit would be "catastrophic" for British democracy.

Prime Minister Theresa May will on Monday repeat weekend warnings to MPs poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver Brexit would be "catastrophic" for British democracy. On the eve of Tuesday's monumental vote in parliament on her withdrawal agreement -- forged from 18 months of gruelling negotiations with European leaders -- May is set to address factory workers in Stoke, a Brexit-backing city in central England. The embattled leader, who is widely expected to lose the House of Commons vote by a wide margin, will make a final bid for support by arguing: "We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum. "I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy," May is expected to say, according to excerpts of her speech released by her office. "What if we found ourselves in a situation where parliament tried to take the UK out of the EU in opposition to a remain vote?" she will ask. "People's faith in the democratic process and their politicians would suffer catastrophic harm." 'No confidence in the government' Britain is set to leave the European Union on March 29 but, with less than 11 weeks left, has yet to finalise the terms of its departure. May's deal agrees a 21-month transition period under current terms while the future relationship with the bloc is negotiated, but it has drawn steadfast opposition from both Brexiteers and Remainers. The prime minister has said rejecting it will throw Britain into "uncharted territory" and put the country at risk of crashing out without an agreement, or even no Brexit at all. The opposition Labour Party, which favours remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU, has suggested it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs throw out the plan. The Observer newspaper reported Sunday that its lawmakers have been told it could be tabled "within hours" of that on Tuesday, with the confidence vote to be held the following day. If the government lose a no-confidence motion, there will be a period of 14 days in which parties can seek to find an alternative working majority in parliament. If they fail to do so, a general election would be called. "We will table a motion of no confidence in the government at a time of our choosing, but it's going to be soon, don't worry about it," Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC on Sunday. Corbyn conceded if the party won power, parliament would likely need to delay Brexit beyond March 29 so it could renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. 'A very British coup' The prime minister already postponed a House of Commons vote on her plan in December to avoid defeat -- and MPs look set to reject it again on Tuesday. Lawmakers who believe it either leaves Britain too close or too distant from the bloc, fired ominous warning shots this week, voting to force the prime minister to quickly set out an alternative plan for Brexit if she loses the vote. It was her second setback in 24 hours after MPs also voted to deny the government certain taxation powers in a no-deal scenario -- in a bid to avoid such an outcome. The Sunday Times said a group of senior cross-party backbench rebels are now plotting to change House of Commons rules to enable them to override government business if the deal falls. Described as "a very British coup", the plan would see May lose control of parliamentary business to MPs, threatening her ability to govern, the newspaper said. It said Downing Street was "extremely concerned" about the possibility, which could see lawmakers then delay Brexit through new legislation. Conservative MP Nick Boles, who favours a Norway-style relationship which would keep Britain in the EU's single market, told the paper he was exploring tactics in the Commons to rule out a no-deal scenario. "We have a mechanism which will give parliament control of the Brexit negotiations and ensure we do not leave the EU without a deal on March 29," he said. "I am working on ways to achieve that outcome," Boles said, indicating he would publish the plan on Tuesday.

Theresa May heads to Brexit-backing city to make last-ditch plea to rebel MPs

Watch: WION Dispatch, 14th January 2019

Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday published further assurances from the EU on the eve of a crucial parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal and warned MPs that rejecting it would lead to "paralysis" that could see Britain stay in the bloc.

European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Council President Donald Tusk repeated in a letter that they would not reopen the divorce deal, but said they could offer clarifications with "legal value" on a controversial clause on Ireland.

In a speech shortly afterwards in Stoke, a Brexit-backing city in central England, May admitted their offer fell short of what she wanted.

But she said, "I'm convinced that MPs now have the clearest assurances that <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/brexit-supporting-mps-say-they-will-try-again-to-unseat-pm-theresa-may-178430">this is the best deal possible</a> and is worthy of their support."

May had promised clarifications on the so-called Irish backstop arrangement when she postponed a vote on the agreement in December, facing certain defeat in the House of Commons.

But as MPs prepare to finally cast their judgement on Tuesday evening, large numbers of her own Conservative MPs and her Northern Irish allies are still strongly opposed.

Anti-Brexit MPs have now stepped up efforts to tie the government's hands in parliament in a bid to avoid the damaging prospect of Britain leaving the EU on March 29 with no deal at all.

May repeated that the only way to avoid "no deal" was to support her agreement, saying that "if no deal is as bad as you believe it is, it will be the height of recklessness to do anything else".

But with growing calls to delay Brexit or call a second referendum to resolve the issue, she said: "It's now my judgment that a more likely outcome is a paralysis in parliament that risks there being no Brexit."

Assurances with 'legal value'

May signed the divorce deal with other EU leaders in November after 18 months of tough negotiations, but it has faced huge opposition in Britain.

The most contentious element is the backstop, which would keep Britain tied to some EU trade rules, with even closer alignment for the province of Northern Ireland, if and until another way was found to avoid border checks with Ireland.

Tusk and Juncker said the EU "does not wish to see the backstop enter into force" and noted that if it was necessary, it would only be temporary.

They promised to work quickly to find alternatives to keep open the border, including using technology, a solution backed by Brexit supporters.

The pair repeated that similar assurances to this nature made at an EU summit in December "have legal value".

May conceded however that the EU had rejected her request for a time limit to the backstop should it come into effect.&nbsp;

Nigel Dodds of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up May's government in parliament, was dismissive.

The EU leaders admitted they had no mandate to reopen the Brexit deal, he told the BBC, and so "obviously can't do what is necessary for the House of Commons".

Delaying Brexit?

The opposition Labour party, which favours remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU, has suggested it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs reject May's plan.

If the government loses, parties would have 14 days to find an alternative that had the support of a majority of MPs, or an election would be called.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has conceded that, if the party won power, parliament would likely need to delay Brexit so it could renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

Speculation is growing in Brussels and London that May could also seek an extension to the Article 50 exit process if she loses the vote on Tuesday.

She has denied this repeatedly, but asked about this in Stoke, gave what some viewed as an equivocal answer, saying: "I don't believe we should be extending Article 50."

May repeated her opposition to a second referendum, which a growing minority of MPs support as the only way out of the parliamentary deadlock on Brexit.

There is also talk of MPs taking control of the situation by altering the rules of parliament.

Conservative MP Nick Boles, who wants to keep Britain attached to the EU's single market like Norway, proposes that senior MPs be allowed to frame a "compromise" Brexit deal.

Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday published further assurances from the EU on the eve of a crucial parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal and warned MPs that rejecting it would lead to "paralysis" that could see Britain stay in the bloc.

Prime Minister Theresa May on Monday published further assurances from the EU on the eve of a crucial parliamentary vote on her Brexit deal and warned MPs that rejecting it would lead to "paralysis" that could see Britain stay in the bloc. European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker and European Council President Donald Tusk repeated in a letter that they would not reopen the divorce deal, but said they could offer clarifications with "legal value" on a controversial clause on Ireland. In a speech shortly afterwards in Stoke, a Brexit-backing city in central England, May admitted their offer fell short of what she wanted. But she said, "I'm convinced that MPs now have the clearest assurances that this is the best deal possible and is worthy of their support." May had promised clarifications on the so-called Irish backstop arrangement when she postponed a vote on the agreement in December, facing certain defeat in the House of Commons. But as MPs prepare to finally cast their judgement on Tuesday evening, large numbers of her own Conservative MPs and her Northern Irish allies are still strongly opposed. Anti-Brexit MPs have now stepped up efforts to tie the government's hands in parliament in a bid to avoid the damaging prospect of Britain leaving the EU on March 29 with no deal at all. May repeated that the only way to avoid "no deal" was to support her agreement, saying that "if no deal is as bad as you believe it is, it will be the height of recklessness to do anything else". But with growing calls to delay Brexit or call a second referendum to resolve the issue, she said: "It's now my judgment that a more likely outcome is a paralysis in parliament that risks there being no Brexit." Assurances with 'legal value' May signed the divorce deal with other EU leaders in November after 18 months of tough negotiations, but it has faced huge opposition in Britain. The most contentious element is the backstop, which would keep Britain tied to some EU trade rules, with even closer alignment for the province of Northern Ireland, if and until another way was found to avoid border checks with Ireland. Tusk and Juncker said the EU "does not wish to see the backstop enter into force" and noted that if it was necessary, it would only be temporary. They promised to work quickly to find alternatives to keep open the border, including using technology, a solution backed by Brexit supporters. The pair repeated that similar assurances to this nature made at an EU summit in December "have legal value". May conceded however that the EU had rejected her request for a time limit to the backstop should it come into effect. Nigel Dodds of Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up May's government in parliament, was dismissive. The EU leaders admitted they had no mandate to reopen the Brexit deal, he told the BBC, and so "obviously can't do what is necessary for the House of Commons". Delaying Brexit? The opposition Labour party, which favours remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU, has suggested it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs reject May's plan. If the government loses, parties would have 14 days to find an alternative that had the support of a majority of MPs, or an election would be called. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has conceded that, if the party won power, parliament would likely need to delay Brexit so it could renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. Speculation is growing in Brussels and London that May could also seek an extension to the Article 50 exit process if she loses the vote on Tuesday. She has denied this repeatedly, but asked about this in Stoke, gave what some viewed as an equivocal answer, saying: "I don't believe we should be extending Article 50." May repeated her opposition to a second referendum, which a growing minority of MPs support as the only way out of the parliamentary deadlock on Brexit. There is also talk of MPs taking control of the situation by altering the rules of parliament. Conservative MP Nick Boles, who wants to keep Britain attached to the EU's single market like Norway, proposes that senior MPs be allowed to frame a "compromise" Brexit deal.

'This is the best deal possible,' May says on Brexit deal; EU says it will not better it

Dispatch: UK PM Theresa May warns ahead of vote on her Brexit deal

Prime Minister <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/may-heads-to-brexit-backing-city-to-make-last-ditch-plea-to-rebel-mps-190098">Theresa May</a> was on Monday to ramp up warnings to MPs poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver Brexit would be "catastrophic" for British democracy.

On the eve of Tuesday's monumental vote in parliament on her withdrawal agreement — forged from 18 months of gruelling negotiations with European leaders — May is set to address factory workers in Stoke, a Brexit-backing city in central England.

The embattled leader, who is widely expected to lose the House of Commons vote by a wide margin, will make a final bid for support by warning Brexit-supporting MPs that they risk sabotaging the whole process, and reminding EU supporters of their democratic responsibilities.

"We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum," she was to say, according to extracts released early.

"I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy," May is expected to say, asking what the response would have been if parliament tried to take Britain out of the EU had Remain had won the 2016 vote.

She is also set to later make a statement to parliament, setting out reassurances from Brussels over contentious aspects of the deal, although there appears little prospect of her unveiling anything with legal force.

Leave-supporting MPs fear one provision in the deal for a "backstop", designed to prevent a hard border between the British province of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, would keep Britain indefinitely tied into a form of EU customs union.

'No confidence in the government'

Britain is set to leave the European Union on March 29 but, with less than 11 weeks left, has yet to finalise the terms of its departure.

May's deal agrees a 21-month transition period under current terms while the future relationship with the bloc is negotiated, but it has drawn steadfast opposition from both Brexiteers and Remainers.&nbsp;

The prime minister has said rejecting it will throw Britain into "uncharted territory" and put the country at risk of crashing out without an agreement, or even no Brexit at all.

The opposition Labour Party, which favours remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU, has suggested it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs throw out the plan.

The Observer newspaper reported Sunday that its lawmakers have been told it could be tabled "within hours" of that on Tuesday, with the confidence vote to be held the following day.

If the government loses a no-confidence motion, there will be a period of 14 days in which parties can seek to find an alternative working majority in parliament.

If they fail to do so, a general election would be called.

"We will table a motion of no confidence in the government at a time of our choosing, but it's going to be soon," Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC on Sunday.

Corbyn conceded that, if the party won power, parliament would likely need to delay Brexit beyond March 29 so it could renegotiate the withdrawal agreement.

'A very British coup'

Lawmakers who believe the deal either leaves Britain too close or too distant from the bloc, fired ominous warning shots this week, voting to force the prime minister to quickly set out an alternative plan for Brexit if she loses the vote.

The Sunday Times said a group of senior cross-party backbench rebels are now plotting to change House of Commons rules to enable them to override government business if the deal falls.

Described as "a very British coup", the plan would see May lose control of parliamentary business to MPs, threatening her ability to govern, the newspaper said.&nbsp;

It said Downing Street was "extremely concerned" about the possibility, which could see lawmakers then delay Brexit through new legislation.&nbsp;

Conservative MP Nick Boles, who favours a Norway-style relationship which would keep Britain attached to the EU's single market, told BBC radio he was set to publish a bill that would allow MPs to frame a "compromise" Brexit deal.

"The European Union Withdrawal Number 2 Bill" would see parliament's Liaison Committee take a key role if the prime minister's withdrawal agreement is rejected by parliament.

Prime Minister Theresa May was on Monday to ramp up warnings to MPs poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver Brexit would be "catastrophic" for British democracy.

Prime Minister Theresa May was on Monday to ramp up warnings to MPs poised to reject her EU divorce deal that failing to deliver Brexit would be "catastrophic" for British democracy. On the eve of Tuesday's monumental vote in parliament on her withdrawal agreement — forged from 18 months of gruelling negotiations with European leaders — May is set to address factory workers in Stoke, a Brexit-backing city in central England. The embattled leader, who is widely expected to lose the House of Commons vote by a wide margin, will make a final bid for support by warning Brexit-supporting MPs that they risk sabotaging the whole process, and reminding EU supporters of their democratic responsibilities. "We all have a duty to implement the result of the referendum," she was to say, according to extracts released early. "I ask MPs to consider the consequences of their actions on the faith of the British people in our democracy," May is expected to say, asking what the response would have been if parliament tried to take Britain out of the EU had Remain had won the 2016 vote. She is also set to later make a statement to parliament, setting out reassurances from Brussels over contentious aspects of the deal, although there appears little prospect of her unveiling anything with legal force. Leave-supporting MPs fear one provision in the deal for a "backstop", designed to prevent a hard border between the British province of Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, would keep Britain indefinitely tied into a form of EU customs union. 'No confidence in the government' Britain is set to leave the European Union on March 29 but, with less than 11 weeks left, has yet to finalise the terms of its departure. May's deal agrees a 21-month transition period under current terms while the future relationship with the bloc is negotiated, but it has drawn steadfast opposition from both Brexiteers and Remainers. The prime minister has said rejecting it will throw Britain into "uncharted territory" and put the country at risk of crashing out without an agreement, or even no Brexit at all. The opposition Labour Party, which favours remaining in a permanent customs union with the EU, has suggested it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs throw out the plan. The Observer newspaper reported Sunday that its lawmakers have been told it could be tabled "within hours" of that on Tuesday, with the confidence vote to be held the following day. If the government loses a no-confidence motion, there will be a period of 14 days in which parties can seek to find an alternative working majority in parliament. If they fail to do so, a general election would be called. "We will table a motion of no confidence in the government at a time of our choosing, but it's going to be soon," Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn told the BBC on Sunday. Corbyn conceded that, if the party won power, parliament would likely need to delay Brexit beyond March 29 so it could renegotiate the withdrawal agreement. 'A very British coup' Lawmakers who believe the deal either leaves Britain too close or too distant from the bloc, fired ominous warning shots this week, voting to force the prime minister to quickly set out an alternative plan for Brexit if she loses the vote. The Sunday Times said a group of senior cross-party backbench rebels are now plotting to change House of Commons rules to enable them to override government business if the deal falls. Described as "a very British coup", the plan would see May lose control of parliamentary business to MPs, threatening her ability to govern, the newspaper said. It said Downing Street was "extremely concerned" about the possibility, which could see lawmakers then delay Brexit through new legislation. Conservative MP Nick Boles, who favours a Norway-style relationship which would keep Britain attached to the EU's single market, told BBC radio he was set to publish a bill that would allow MPs to frame a "compromise" Brexit deal. "The European Union Withdrawal Number 2 Bill" would see parliament's Liaison Committee take a key role if the prime minister's withdrawal agreement is rejected by parliament.

Approve Brexit deal or Britain may end up at risk of not leaving European Union: Thersa May

By Andrew Urquhart and Brian Lucey

Uncertainty over what is happening with Brexit caused the pound to take another significant dive on December 10. It was the day before MPs were due to vote on the proposed Brexit deal agreed between the UK and the EU. The deal had backing from business leaders because of the certainty it brought and the fact that it kept the UK in the free trade area for goods.

But the prime minister’s decision on December 10 to call off the vote means investors – like everyone else – were left with little idea of what will happen next. Interestingly, the internal Conservative party challenge to Theresa May’s leadership that took place this week has had little impact on the financial markets – probably because the challenge does not change the fundamental uncertainty that surrounds the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Market turbulence, no matter how unpleasant, is both to be expected and to be somewhat welcomed, as it provides an unbiased verdict on political events.

The impact of Brexit on financial markets began in earnest in June 2016 when the British public voted to leave the EU. Given that many opinion polls suggested the Remain campaign would win, this came as a big shock to markets. The day after the referendum, June 24, the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985, marking the pound down 10% against the US dollar and 7% against the euro. The FTSE 100 index lost nearly £85 billion and had fallen more than 500 points, while the FTSE 250 was down nearly 14%.

The impact of the vote was not just contained in the UK. The euro was down almost 4% against the US dollar on June 24, and the French and German markets both fell by more than 10% upon opening. The Chinese yuan also fell dramatically, as did markets in the US, Canada and Brazil.

This sudden fall in equity and currency markets was mostly down to the uncertainty associated with the outcome of the vote. Financial markets traditionally react negatively to uncertainty as investors aim to hedge the risk of the outcome and invest in so called “safe-haven” assets such as gold. Uncertainty here should not be confused with risk – risk can be quantified and its magnitude fed into pricing and value models, but this is not the case with uncertainty.

This was seen after the Brexit vote itself when the price of gold increased quite considerably. Financial markets and sterling have both recovered somewhat from June 2016, with sterling rising whenever some positive news or certainty over future relations has come to the fore.

Endless uncertainty? 
 
If the Brexit deal had gone ahead and been passed by MPs, this would have brought certainty over what the future looks like. Sterling would have stabilised and increased in value. But it would not necessarily have meant an increase for the FTSE 100.

There is usually a negative correlation between markets and their own currency, since a fall in sterling generates higher revenues from UK firms that sell their goods abroad. Therefore the reaction of the stock market may be quite different to that of sterling in the long run. But in the short term, a deal would bring certainty and therefore we would expect an initial appreciation of sterling and possible rise in the FTSE 100 as investors have more confidence in the UK market.

As it is, there are a number of scenarios that could play out: 
1. A vote on a revised deal 
2. No deal 
3. A second referendum 
4. A no confidence vote 
5. General election

Any of these five outcomes brings huge uncertainty – not to mention the uncertainty over which of these paths will be taken – that could go on for weeks. Therefore we would expect sterling to depreciate considerably and an initial sell off in the FTSE100.

Investors are moving their assets from UK stocks to safer assets, such as gold, government bonds and to other currencies such as the Japanese yen and Australian dollar that may actually benefit from the ongoing uncertainty in the UK. There was suggestion that some MPs would have voted for May’s Brexit deal just to avoid the potentially huge negative impact of a no deal on financial markets, even if they were not entirely happy with the deal.

Many investors may have already hedged their portfolio so that whatever the outcome is, they will be unaffected. Nevertheless, Brexit – and the uncertainty that surrounds it – will continue to have a dramatic effect on the financial markets of the UK, Europe and beyond. Investors with skin in the game will take a cold hard look at the chaotic state of UK politics and deliver their unsentimental judgement.

(Andrew Urquhart is Associate Professor, Henley Business School, University of Reading; Brian Lucey is 
Professor, Trinity College Dublin) 
 
(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the<a href="https://theconversation.com/why-brexit-is-causing-turmoil-for-the-pound-and-other-markets-108577"> original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

&nbsp; 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

By Andrew Urquhart and Brian Lucey Uncertainty over what is happening with Brexit caused the pound to take another significant dive on December 10. It was the day before MPs were due to vote on the proposed Brexit deal agreed between the UK and the EU.

By Andrew Urquhart and Brian Lucey Uncertainty over what is happening with Brexit caused the pound to take another significant dive on December 10. It was the day before MPs were due to vote on the proposed Brexit deal agreed between the UK and the EU. The deal had backing from business leaders because of the certainty it brought and the fact that it kept the UK in the free trade area for goods. But the prime minister’s decision on December 10 to call off the vote means investors – like everyone else – were left with little idea of what will happen next. Interestingly, the internal Conservative party challenge to Theresa May’s leadership that took place this week has had little impact on the financial markets – probably because the challenge does not change the fundamental uncertainty that surrounds the UK’s future relationship with the EU. Market turbulence, no matter how unpleasant, is both to be expected and to be somewhat welcomed, as it provides an unbiased verdict on political events. The impact of Brexit on financial markets began in earnest in June 2016 when the British public voted to leave the EU. Given that many opinion polls suggested the Remain campaign would win, this came as a big shock to markets. The day after the referendum, June 24, the pound sterling fell to its lowest level against the US dollar since 1985, marking the pound down 10% against the US dollar and 7% against the euro. The FTSE 100 index lost nearly £85 billion and had fallen more than 500 points, while the FTSE 250 was down nearly 14%. The impact of the vote was not just contained in the UK. The euro was down almost 4% against the US dollar on June 24, and the French and German markets both fell by more than 10% upon opening. The Chinese yuan also fell dramatically, as did markets in the US, Canada and Brazil. This sudden fall in equity and currency markets was mostly down to the uncertainty associated with the outcome of the vote. Financial markets traditionally react negatively to uncertainty as investors aim to hedge the risk of the outcome and invest in so called “safe-haven” assets such as gold. Uncertainty here should not be confused with risk – risk can be quantified and its magnitude fed into pricing and value models, but this is not the case with uncertainty. This was seen after the Brexit vote itself when the price of gold increased quite considerably. Financial markets and sterling have both recovered somewhat from June 2016, with sterling rising whenever some positive news or certainty over future relations has come to the fore. Endless uncertainty? If the Brexit deal had gone ahead and been passed by MPs, this would have brought certainty over what the future looks like. Sterling would have stabilised and increased in value. But it would not necessarily have meant an increase for the FTSE 100. There is usually a negative correlation between markets and their own currency, since a fall in sterling generates higher revenues from UK firms that sell their goods abroad. Therefore the reaction of the stock market may be quite different to that of sterling in the long run. But in the short term, a deal would bring certainty and therefore we would expect an initial appreciation of sterling and possible rise in the FTSE 100 as investors have more confidence in the UK market. As it is, there are a number of scenarios that could play out: 1. A vote on a revised deal 2. No deal 3. A second referendum 4. A no confidence vote 5. General election Any of these five outcomes brings huge uncertainty – not to mention the uncertainty over which of these paths will be taken – that could go on for weeks. Therefore we would expect sterling to depreciate considerably and an initial sell off in the FTSE100. Investors are moving their assets from UK stocks to safer assets, such as gold, government bonds and to other currencies such as the Japanese yen and Australian dollar that may actually benefit from the ongoing uncertainty in the UK. There was suggestion that some MPs would have voted for May’s Brexit deal just to avoid the potentially huge negative impact of a no deal on financial markets, even if they were not entirely happy with the deal. Many investors may have already hedged their portfolio so that whatever the outcome is, they will be unaffected. Nevertheless, Brexit – and the uncertainty that surrounds it – will continue to have a dramatic effect on the financial markets of the UK, Europe and beyond. Investors with skin in the game will take a cold hard look at the chaotic state of UK politics and deliver their unsentimental judgement. (Andrew Urquhart is Associate Professor, Henley Business School, University of Reading; Brian Lucey is Professor, Trinity College Dublin) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Why Brexit is causing turmoil for the pound and other markets

Theresa May requests MPs to back Brexit deal

By Louise Thompson&nbsp;

A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15. The manoeuvre changes the parliamentary timetable to give the prime minister just three days to come up with a new plan if she loses the vote. This was highly controversial in constitutional terms and the debate was extremely heated. Here’s what it means for the next stage of Brexit.

What does the amendment passed by parliament say?

Since the meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal was delayed in December, MPs have been pulling out all the stops to find creative ways of forcing the government’s hand. The amendments made to the Finance Bill were an example of this.

Now, MPs have voted through a business motion that drastically shortens the Brexit timeline should May lose the vote on her final Brexit deal on January 15. According to the amendment, she must return to the House of Commons within three days for a vote on the further options. This is instead of the plan currently in place, which would have given her 21 days to present a new plan.

Who is behind the amendment?

This is a cross-party amendment. A quick glance at the list of signatories shows some very familiar faces. Conservative backbencher Dominic Grieve has been a continual thorn in May’s side as she tries to pass Brexit legislation. Back in September 2017, he was writing about the need to challenge the government on its withdrawal legislation, which he felt was not up to scratch. His crusade to strengthen parliament’s voice on the issue has continued ever since. Now you can expect to see a “Grieve amendment” attached to almost any piece of Brexit-related legislation in parliament.

Also on the list is Chris Leslie, the Labour backbencher who has been similarly passionate about holding the government to account, tabling hundreds of amendments to May’s Brexit bills. Both are on the Politico’s list of Brexit troublemakers, where Leslie is described as an “amendment tabling machine”.

The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens have also signed up to the amendment. The smaller parties would typically always work together, but opposition to the prime minister’s Brexit timetable is now coming from MPs of all parties, including a significant number of her own.

Why was the selection of the amendment so controversial?

MPs spent the morning of January 9 in a heated debate about whether or not the amendment was constitutional – did it fall within the boundaries of parliamentary procedure? Many directed significant ire at Speaker John Bercow for selecting it for consideration, implying that he may be straying from the impartiality which the occupant of the chair should stand by. For some, it was a case of the speaker rewriting or reinterpreting parliamentary rules, something that parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy described as a “massive ruling” that could alter the course of Brexit should the prime minister lose the vote on the final deal.

This was because the amendment was tabled to a business motion. This is different from tabling amendments to a piece of legislation like the EU Withdrawal Bill. Typically, only the government can amend the business or timetable of the House and as such, amendments would normally only come from government. There was some speculation that the amendment was a test, putting the speaker in an awkward position as he had to decide what to do with it. It later became apparent that the amendment had been selected (perhaps to placate MPs and allow the matter to be on the record). In the speaker’s words, it came down to a distinction between motion and an amendment, with this being one of the latter, as well as a discussion about the meaning of the word “forthwith” and whether this meant that a motion was unamendable or not.

It was clearly a difficult decision for Bercow, who repeatedly said he had to think carefully and make a judgement. But with reports that the House of Commons clerks had advised against the move, it seemed that the speaker really was taking a decision alone. It means that although parliament was not able to debate the amendment, Grieve was able to officially move it, and as a result, the House of Commons could vote on it. It was passed by 308 votes to 297.

Is this amendment enough to stop a no-deal Brexit?It is clear evidence of opposition to a no-deal Brexit and a growing consensus around the need for a clear decision to be expressed by parliament on a suitable alternative to the deal currently on the table.

On its own, the amendment is not going to stop a no-deal Brexit. But it does speed up the timetable by which the government would need to come back to the House of Commons with a new plan of action should the vote on the deal be lost. As such, it is part of parliament’s wider attempt to rewrite the Brexit story.

Does it currently look like May will lose the Brexit deal vote?

The prime minister’s assurances over Christmas about the Northern Ireland border may have quelled the opposition from a handful of MPs, but it still looks likely that she will lose the vote on the final deal. It was reported that she planned to repeatedly put the deal to a vote until it passed. Grieve’s amendment aimed to prevent this. But it’s not really clear if the prime minister has a Plan B.

What is Labour planning on doing if she loses the vote?

At the moment we are expecting Labour to table a &nbsp;motion of no confidence in the government if the prime minister loses the vote on January 15. But the Grieve amendment may complicate things a little bit. Should party leader Jeremy Corbyn hang tight and see what comes back in the three-day window, or table it right away? His chances of winning would depend on the timing and on whether or not a plan B does emerge from the government benches.

(Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester)

(This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/brexit-what-does-the-latest-parliamentary-upset-mean-for-theresa-may-109591">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL) 
&nbsp;

By Louise Thompson A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15.

By Louise Thompson A cross-parliamentary group of MPs has struck again, landing another major blow against the government ahead of the vote on Theresa May’s Brexit deal on January 15. The manoeuvre changes the parliamentary timetable to give the prime minister just three days to come up with a new plan if she loses the vote. This was highly controversial in constitutional terms and the debate was extremely heated. Here’s what it means for the next stage of Brexit. What does the amendment passed by parliament say? Since the meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal was delayed in December, MPs have been pulling out all the stops to find creative ways of forcing the government’s hand. The amendments made to the Finance Bill were an example of this. Now, MPs have voted through a business motion that drastically shortens the Brexit timeline should May lose the vote on her final Brexit deal on January 15. According to the amendment, she must return to the House of Commons within three days for a vote on the further options. This is instead of the plan currently in place, which would have given her 21 days to present a new plan. Who is behind the amendment? This is a cross-party amendment. A quick glance at the list of signatories shows some very familiar faces. Conservative backbencher Dominic Grieve has been a continual thorn in May’s side as she tries to pass Brexit legislation. Back in September 2017, he was writing about the need to challenge the government on its withdrawal legislation, which he felt was not up to scratch. His crusade to strengthen parliament’s voice on the issue has continued ever since. Now you can expect to see a “Grieve amendment” attached to almost any piece of Brexit-related legislation in parliament. Also on the list is Chris Leslie, the Labour backbencher who has been similarly passionate about holding the government to account, tabling hundreds of amendments to May’s Brexit bills. Both are on the Politico’s list of Brexit troublemakers, where Leslie is described as an “amendment tabling machine”. The SNP, Lib Dems, Plaid and the Greens have also signed up to the amendment. The smaller parties would typically always work together, but opposition to the prime minister’s Brexit timetable is now coming from MPs of all parties, including a significant number of her own. Why was the selection of the amendment so controversial? MPs spent the morning of January 9 in a heated debate about whether or not the amendment was constitutional – did it fall within the boundaries of parliamentary procedure? Many directed significant ire at Speaker John Bercow for selecting it for consideration, implying that he may be straying from the impartiality which the occupant of the chair should stand by. For some, it was a case of the speaker rewriting or reinterpreting parliamentary rules, something that parliamentary correspondent Mark D'Arcy described as a “massive ruling” that could alter the course of Brexit should the prime minister lose the vote on the final deal. This was because the amendment was tabled to a business motion. This is different from tabling amendments to a piece of legislation like the EU Withdrawal Bill. Typically, only the government can amend the business or timetable of the House and as such, amendments would normally only come from government. There was some speculation that the amendment was a test, putting the speaker in an awkward position as he had to decide what to do with it. It later became apparent that the amendment had been selected (perhaps to placate MPs and allow the matter to be on the record). In the speaker’s words, it came down to a distinction between motion and an amendment, with this being one of the latter, as well as a discussion about the meaning of the word “forthwith” and whether this meant that a motion was unamendable or not. It was clearly a difficult decision for Bercow, who repeatedly said he had to think carefully and make a judgement. But with reports that the House of Commons clerks had advised against the move, it seemed that the speaker really was taking a decision alone. It means that although parliament was not able to debate the amendment, Grieve was able to officially move it, and as a result, the House of Commons could vote on it. It was passed by 308 votes to 297. Is this amendment enough to stop a no-deal Brexit?It is clear evidence of opposition to a no-deal Brexit and a growing consensus around the need for a clear decision to be expressed by parliament on a suitable alternative to the deal currently on the table. On its own, the amendment is not going to stop a no-deal Brexit. But it does speed up the timetable by which the government would need to come back to the House of Commons with a new plan of action should the vote on the deal be lost. As such, it is part of parliament’s wider attempt to rewrite the Brexit story. Does it currently look like May will lose the Brexit deal vote? The prime minister’s assurances over Christmas about the Northern Ireland border may have quelled the opposition from a handful of MPs, but it still looks likely that she will lose the vote on the final deal. It was reported that she planned to repeatedly put the deal to a vote until it passed. Grieve’s amendment aimed to prevent this. But it’s not really clear if the prime minister has a Plan B. What is Labour planning on doing if she loses the vote? At the moment we are expecting Labour to table a motion of no confidence in the government if the prime minister loses the vote on January 15. But the Grieve amendment may complicate things a little bit. Should party leader Jeremy Corbyn hang tight and see what comes back in the three-day window, or table it right away? His chances of winning would depend on the timing and on whether or not a plan B does emerge from the government benches. (Louise Thompson is Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Manchester) (This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit row: What does the latest parliamentary upset mean for Theresa May?

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday he hoped Britain would avoid crashing out of the European Union without an agreement, as he threw his support behind the government's contentious Brexit deal days before a vote by MPs.

Flanked by British Prime Minister Theresa May during a visit to London, Abe said Japanese businesses "very much welcomed" her draft divorce deal, which a majority of British lawmakers look set to reject in parliament next Tuesday amid fierce opposition.

"We truly hope that a no-deal Brexit will be avoided and in fact that is the... wish of the whole world," the Japanese leader told a Downing Street press conference.

"This draft agreement for transition and legal stability for Japanese businesses is very much welcomed," he added.

The endorsement came as pressure grew on May to rule out a no-deal Brexit if her agreement is rejected by MPs next week.

Business minister Greg Clark broke ranks earlier Thursday to warn that leaving the European Union on March 29 with no agreement in place would be a calamity.

It would be "a disastrous situation in which we move to the most rudimentary terms of trade with our closest partners," he told BBC radio.

However, May reiterated the only way for Britain to avoid leaving without an agreement was to back her plan.

"There is a good deal on the table," she said. "I want to see this deal getting through parliament."

Triple blow

Brexit-supporting Conservative MPs are opposed to the deal, arguing it leaves the country too closely tied to Europe, and May has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming.

Most MPs supported staying in the EU in the 2016 referendum, and many have vowed to do everything within their power to prevent a no-deal scenario.

But unless Britain actively decides to delay or revoke the legal process, it will leave the bloc at the end of March regardless.

In such a scenario, it would be forced to trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, which could mean much higher tariffs for some products such as cars.

Japanese firms have invested billions of pounds in Britain, and are especially crucial in the car industry, using the country as a business-friendly home from which to trade across the continent.

"Even post-Brexit Japan intends to maintain this very good relationship," Abe said when asked if Britain was jeopardising this.&nbsp;

"We truly hope that more investment will be done by Japanese businesses in the United Kingdom."

However the British car sector suffered a triple blow on Thursday when three of its biggest manufacturers, including Japanese firm Honda and US maker Ford, announced job and production cuts.

Indian-owned carmaker Jaguar Land Rover announced the largest redundancies, with plans to reduce its 44,000 workforce by 4,500 under plans to make £2.5 billion of cost savings.

May and Abe pledged new cooperation on robotics and artificial intelligence, while Japan also announced an end to a 13-year ban on British beef and lamb.

General election threat

May faces daunting odds in getting her deal passed, and was dealt a stinging defeat on Wednesday when MPs voted for an amendment demanding she produce new plans within three days if the agreement is voted down.

Aiming to capitalise on her weakness, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on Thursday made a Brexit speech in Wakefield, northern England, in which he called for a general election to resolve the deadlock.

"If the government cannot pass its most important legislation, then there must be a general election at the earliest opportunity," he said.

Corbyn has said he will seek a vote of no confidence in the government if it loses next week's Brexit vote, which could force fresh elections.

Many in his party hope that he will call for a second referendum, but the veteran leftist, a long-time critic of the European Union, has so far resisted.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday he hoped Britain would avoid crashing out of the European Union without an agreement, as he threw his support behind the government's contentious Brexit deal days before a vote by MPs.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said Thursday he hoped Britain would avoid crashing out of the European Union without an agreement, as he threw his support behind the government's contentious Brexit deal days before a vote by MPs. Flanked by British Prime Minister Theresa May during a visit to London, Abe said Japanese businesses "very much welcomed" her draft divorce deal, which a majority of British lawmakers look set to reject in parliament next Tuesday amid fierce opposition. "We truly hope that a no-deal Brexit will be avoided and in fact that is the... wish of the whole world," the Japanese leader told a Downing Street press conference. "This draft agreement for transition and legal stability for Japanese businesses is very much welcomed," he added. The endorsement came as pressure grew on May to rule out a no-deal Brexit if her agreement is rejected by MPs next week. Business minister Greg Clark broke ranks earlier Thursday to warn that leaving the European Union on March 29 with no agreement in place would be a calamity. It would be "a disastrous situation in which we move to the most rudimentary terms of trade with our closest partners," he told BBC radio. However, May reiterated the only way for Britain to avoid leaving without an agreement was to back her plan. "There is a good deal on the table," she said. "I want to see this deal getting through parliament." Triple blow Brexit-supporting Conservative MPs are opposed to the deal, arguing it leaves the country too closely tied to Europe, and May has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming. Most MPs supported staying in the EU in the 2016 referendum, and many have vowed to do everything within their power to prevent a no-deal scenario. But unless Britain actively decides to delay or revoke the legal process, it will leave the bloc at the end of March regardless. In such a scenario, it would be forced to trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, which could mean much higher tariffs for some products such as cars. Japanese firms have invested billions of pounds in Britain, and are especially crucial in the car industry, using the country as a business-friendly home from which to trade across the continent. "Even post-Brexit Japan intends to maintain this very good relationship," Abe said when asked if Britain was jeopardising this. "We truly hope that more investment will be done by Japanese businesses in the United Kingdom." However the British car sector suffered a triple blow on Thursday when three of its biggest manufacturers, including Japanese firm Honda and US maker Ford, announced job and production cuts. Indian-owned carmaker Jaguar Land Rover announced the largest redundancies, with plans to reduce its 44,000 workforce by 4,500 under plans to make £2.5 billion of cost savings. May and Abe pledged new cooperation on robotics and artificial intelligence, while Japan also announced an end to a 13-year ban on British beef and lamb. General election threat May faces daunting odds in getting her deal passed, and was dealt a stinging defeat on Wednesday when MPs voted for an amendment demanding she produce new plans within three days if the agreement is voted down. Aiming to capitalise on her weakness, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn on Thursday made a Brexit speech in Wakefield, northern England, in which he called for a general election to resolve the deadlock. "If the government cannot pass its most important legislation, then there must be a general election at the earliest opportunity," he said. Corbyn has said he will seek a vote of no confidence in the government if it loses next week's Brexit vote, which could force fresh elections. Many in his party hope that he will call for a second referendum, but the veteran leftist, a long-time critic of the European Union, has so far resisted.

Japanese PM voices hope Britain can avoid no-deal Brexit

WION Speed News: Watch top national and international news of the morning, January 11th 2019

Two of the biggest donors to the Brexit campaign say they now believe the project they championed will eventually be abandoned by the government and that the United Kingdom will stay in the European Union.

Peter Hargreaves, the billionaire who was the second biggest donor to the 2016 leave campaign, and veteran hedge fund manager Crispin Odey told Reuters they expect Britain to stay in the EU despite their campaign victory in the 2016 referendum.

As a result, Odey, who runs his hedge fund Odey Asset Management, said he is now positioning for the pound to strengthen after his flagship fund previously reaped the benefit of betting against UK assets amid wider market fears about the impact of Brexit.

The donors' pessimism comes amid deadlock in Britain's parliament over the exit deal that Prime Minister Theresa May has struck with the EU, which has cast significant uncertainty over how, or even if, Brexit will happen.

"I have totally given up. I am totally in despair, I don't think Brexit will happen at all," said Hargreaves, 72, who is one of Britain's wealthiest men and donated 3.2 million pounds ($4.08 million) to the leave campaign.

"They (pro-Europeans) are banking on the fact that people are so fed up with it that will just say 'sod it we will stay'. I do see that attitude. The problem is when something doesn't happen for so long you feel less angry about it."

Two of the biggest donors to the Brexit campaign say they now believe the project they championed will eventually be abandoned by the government and that the United Kingdom will stay in the European Union.

Two of the biggest donors to the Brexit campaign say they now believe the project they championed will eventually be abandoned by the government and that the United Kingdom will stay in the European Union. Peter Hargreaves, the billionaire who was the second biggest donor to the 2016 leave campaign, and veteran hedge fund manager Crispin Odey told Reuters they expect Britain to stay in the EU despite their campaign victory in the 2016 referendum. As a result, Odey, who runs his hedge fund Odey Asset Management, said he is now positioning for the pound to strengthen after his flagship fund previously reaped the benefit of betting against UK assets amid wider market fears about the impact of Brexit. The donors' pessimism comes amid deadlock in Britain's parliament over the exit deal that Prime Minister Theresa May has struck with the EU, which has cast significant uncertainty over how, or even if, Brexit will happen. "I have totally given up. I am totally in despair, I don't think Brexit will happen at all," said Hargreaves, 72, who is one of Britain's wealthiest men and donated 3.2 million pounds ($4.08 million) to the leave campaign. "They (pro-Europeans) are banking on the fact that people are so fed up with it that will just say 'sod it we will stay'. I do see that attitude. The problem is when something doesn't happen for so long you feel less angry about it."

Leading Brexit donors say Britain will reverse decision to leave EU

Know the difference between Hard and Soft Brexit deal

Theresa May's 2nd Brexit defeat in 2 days

In an exclusive interview to WION, Spain's foreign minister Josep Borrell said that India is a remarkable example of unity in diversity and that it has an important role to play together with the western democracies in combating terrorism.

He also spoke on Brexit and called for a moratorium on redrawing of borders in order to prevent separatist movements from carving out new countries around the world.

Here is the full transcript of the interview:

WION: We are meeting just hours after Trump gave a televised speech about border wall. He spoke about fears of uncontrolled illegal migration and described it as a crisis of the soul. Now, this is the same president who told you last year that the European Union can build a wall across the Sahara to stop people from entering Europe. Do you agree with him? Or do you think good fences make good neighbours?

Josep Borrell: I don't think so. Walls do not solve any problems, we do not need to build a wall. We already have a big wall, that is the Mediterranean Sea; people are dying every year trying to enter Europe. It is problem of relationship, the problem between Europe and Africa, or US and South America, will never be solved by putting a wall. It is a matter of cooperation and development.

WION: Lawmakers in the UK are debating about Brexit, they might vote on it next week. There are calls for a second referendum. Do you support the second referendum? Or do you think we are way past the point of no return - that this is it, take it or leave it?

Josep Borrell: Well, the Britishers said ‘Brexit is Brexit’. They repeated it many times. But what does Brexit mean? It is upto them to decide, we are waiting, we will like to know their final decision. There is a deal on the table, they can accept it or refuse it. If they refuse it, they have to decide what to do. An abrupt, hard Brexit will be very damaging for both the EU and the UK. They have to decide whether to postpone the decision, or to take longer time to discuss the deal. But we have EU elections in May. What are we going to do?

WION: About the second referendum, you said and I quote, "I don't like second referendums, it's something that doesn't look very democratic". What is undemocratic about a second referendum?

Josep Borrell: People expressed their will (with the referendum) and (now) you (want to) tell them that you made the bad choice, (that) you have to repeat the vote. Until when? Until you make the good choice. And what is the good choice? Who decides about the good choices? You know, we’ve had repeated referendums several times - in Ireland, in Denmark - where they voted (for) something, the elite did not like it and told them to vote again. I think the idea that people have to vote and re-vote until someone says this is a good answer is not a good thing.

WION: You support referendums, don't you? Be it Brexit or Catalonia or anywhere else in the world? Or are you against referendums?

Josep Borrell: I think referendum is not a good way of making a decision, it is too binary, black or white, one or zero. The world is much more complex. And I think it is impossible for the British people to be aware of the consequences of deciding to leave. It is too complex and there were a lot of lies told to them: ‘If you leave, you will have a lot of money’, ‘if you leave, we will manage better’, ‘if you leave, we will again be the big empire in the world’. Here in India you know something about it. Well, you cannot make people decide with a fake news, with incapacity of providing a good understanding of what is at stake. I think parliaments, public discussion, is a better way of taking this kind of difficult and complex decision.

WION: So, what you are saying is that referendums, be it in Catalonia or Brexit, do not necessarily solve the problem?

Josep Borrell: No, I do not think it is the best way of solving a problem. In Catalonia, additionally, it is again the Spanish constitution, as it is in France, Germany, Italy or the United States. So, I do not think it is the best way of making this kind of decision that splits the country, divides the society and confronts, in equal proportion, people.

WION: Let’s talk a bit about separatism. Countries around the world, including Spain and India, are faced with separatism, separatist tendencies, separatist elements. Do you think there is a need for a moratorium on redrawing of borders - be it Catalonia or Brexit or anything else?

Josep Borrell: In Europe, we have a moratorium after the end of World War that borders are the way they are and can only be modified by a common understanding and agreement. Brexit is not a modification of borders, in fact it has nothing to do with borders. Separatism in north of Italy or half of Belgium or Scotland or Catalonia is a different thing. And there is a big consensus in Europe to not go to redefinition of borders.

WION: Do you think it should apply to all conflict areas around the world? That there should be no new state created out of this separatist tendency?

Josep Borrell: Separatism is one thing, decolonisation is another thing. Decolonisation created new states, for sure, because it was a colonial domination. But who can believe that Catalonia is a colony of Spain?

WION: I want to come back to the issue of immigration. You have been quoted as saying that "European societies are not structured to absorb more than a certain percentage of migrants, especially if they are Muslims". What did you mean by that? And what might be the solution?

Josep Borrell: I don’t know if I said that exactly. I said especially if they are culturally and religiously different. For example, in Spain, it is easy for us to absorb migrants coming from Latin America because they speak the same language, they have the same religion - if they have one. For a Spanish coming from Argentina or Peru or Mexico, it is a kind of a member of the family. If there are people coming from other cultures, other religions without historical ties, it is much more difficult to integrate and there is a certain limit in societies above which tensions start, especially if there are no good policies to prevent this kind of things from happening and to push and to help in integration.

WION: Would you favour Muslims coming to Europe? Are Muslims welcome in Europe today and going forward?

Josep Borrell: Look, one of the pillars of European Union is no discrimination by religion. You cannot discriminate by saying ‘you, yes’ because you are a Christian, ‘you, no’ because you are a Hindu or Muslim. No discrimination by gender, no discrimination by religion so the question would not be accepted in Europe.

WION: I want to talk about India and Spain. We have seen that separatism affects both countries. Do you think India and Spain can learn together from each other's experiences of separatism? In Spain, you say talks only within the constitution. So, is there scope for learning between India and Spain when it comes to separatism?

Josep Borrell: Well, I do not know history of India and the political situation in the country as much as I should in order to answer your question. But India is a special case because you built a political union before building an economic union. In Europe, we are doing just the contrary, we are building an economic union before building a political union because we have too much history behind us and in order to build political union, you have to share markets, goods, economic relationships, to create what Jacques Delors (French politician) called solidarity of the fact. And on this solidarity of the fact, you can construct a bigger union, a stronger union, a deeper union. India is a remarkable example of how you can be united in diversity. In Europe, we say, united in diversity but when I come to India I say ‘my god, here is diversity!’

WION: Some people say that a thin line separates separatism from terrorism. Some countries around the world are afflicted by this phenomenon. Is there scope for EU and India to collaborate for combating this menace?

Josep Borrell: For combating terrorism, all democratic countries have to cooperate.

WION: ...especially in South Asia...

Josep Borrell: The south of the world, all this band going from the Mediterranean and sub-Saharan Africa to the Indian peninsula, all this part of the world - West Asia, Syria, the Horn of Africa, the Spanish navy is patrolling the Horn of Africa to prevent terrorist attacks against ships, and India as a big, democratic country the biggest democracy in the world - has an important role to play together with western nations to fight terrorism.

WION: I want to talk about regional and global issues like what’s happening in Iran and Venezuela. President Maduro will take the oath on January 10. What are your views on impositions of sanctions against Venezuela? I am told that you do not want to see more sanctions imposed on Venezuela?

Josep Borrell: History says that sanctions do not bring a solution. Look at what happened with Cuba. The US has been blockading Cuba for decades, but the regime is still there. You have to sanction when you have to sanction, do not sanction the people, do not sanction the Venezuelan people. If you have to impose sanctions, impose it on the leaders, the ones who are guilty of doing something bad. But at the same time, try to push through a democratic dialogue, you have to put both things together, just the politics of punishing, history says, is not very effective.

WION: I want to talk about China. The Prime Minister of Norway said at the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi that might is not right, that countries must play by the rules-based world order. She spoke about ocean management and was hinting at China. How do you see China's Belt and Road Initiative?

Josep Borrell: It is an important initiative. China is projecting out of its borders. China is coming back to the history. It was out of the history, it saw colonial domination, an awful war with Japan, years of communist domination, poverty and now it is a giant. Economical, technological, political and even a military power. The important thing is to be able to build, as you have said, a world ruled by rules not by power because if it is only power. If it is in the hands of the Chinese, or it is in the hands of the US, Russia or whoever, the power is being used and it needs counter powers. A multilateral world, a world based on rules accepted by the humankind, by international community is something that we have to fight for.

WION: And it applies equally to China?

Josep Borrell: Of course, for sure, why not? You cannot imagine a world where one part of humanity as important as China cannot be taken into consideration or not participating.

WION: I want to shift our focus to West Asia. Saudi Arabia has lately been in the news for the wrong reasons, for the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Yet, the Spanish government insists on selling arms to Saudi Arabia. Why?

Josep Borrell: The number of arms (being sent) to Saudi Arabia is a tiny part of what Saudi Arabia is buying. Since this (Spanish) government has been in place, we have not signed any new contract, but we will honour the contract signed by the previous government.

WION: Israel is another country in the region. What do you make of the trend of some countries shifting their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Do you think it is part of the solution?

Josep Borrell: For sure it is not a part of the solution, it is creating more tensions.

WION: Why do you say that?

Josep Borrell: Because one of the part feels attacked. If you were a Palestinian, you wanted Jerusalem to be the capital of imaginary country that some day will come. And people say no, this is the capital of another country. You will not be very happy and I think we have to calm down the situation which could become explosive. I think it was a wrong decision by the Americans and it is a wrong decision by anyone who is following it.

WION: In conclusion, Mr minister, you have studied and taught both mathematics and economics at universities and institutes in Europe. But what is your first love - mathematics or economics?

Josep Borrell: It is mathematics.

WION: What do you the most - academia or politics?

Josep Borrell: There is a lot of politics in academia, no? I have been engaged in politics for much longer than academia. But if you share both approaches, you could have at the same time the rationality of the academia (as well as) the scientific approach with social engagement of the politician. The world would be much better. You know the book by John Von Neumann about the science and the politics? I read it every time I can.

WION: FC Barcelona or Real Madrid?

Josep Borrell: I don't follow football very much.

WION: Pizza or Paella?

Josep Borrell: Pizza.

WION: Will Donald Trump get a second term as US President?

Josep Borrell: I'm afraid he could have to.

WION: What should the border wall be made of: Steel or concrete?

Josep Borrell: No wall.

WION: Who is a bigger challenge: Russia or China?

Josep Borrell: I would not say they are challenges, they are actors that have to be taken into consideration because both of them want to have its place in the history. They are big enough, powerful enough in order not to be neglected.

WION: On that note, thank you.

Josep Borrell: It has been a very intelligent interview.

WION: Thank you.

Josep Borrell: It does not happen often.

In an exclusive interview to WION, Spain's foreign minister Josep Borrell said that India is a remarkable example of unity in diversity and that it has an important role to play together with the western democracies in combating terrorism.

In an exclusive interview to WION, Spain's foreign minister Josep Borrell said that India is a remarkable example of unity in diversity and that it has an important role to play together with the western democracies in combating terrorism. He also spoke on Brexit and called for a moratorium on redrawing of borders in order to prevent separatist movements from carving out new countries around the world. Here is the full transcript of the interview: WION: We are meeting just hours after Trump gave a televised speech about border wall. He spoke about fears of uncontrolled illegal migration and described it as a crisis of the soul. Now, this is the same president who told you last year that the European Union can build a wall across the Sahara to stop people from entering Europe. Do you agree with him? Or do you think good fences make good neighbours? Josep Borrell: I don't think so. Walls do not solve any problems, we do not need to build a wall. We already have a big wall, that is the Mediterranean Sea; people are dying every year trying to enter Europe. It is problem of relationship, the problem between Europe and Africa, or US and South America, will never be solved by putting a wall. It is a matter of cooperation and development. WION: Lawmakers in the UK are debating about Brexit, they might vote on it next week. There are calls for a second referendum. Do you support the second referendum? Or do you think we are way past the point of no return - that this is it, take it or leave it? Josep Borrell: Well, the Britishers said ‘Brexit is Brexit’. They repeated it many times. But what does Brexit mean? It is upto them to decide, we are waiting, we will like to know their final decision. There is a deal on the table, they can accept it or refuse it. If they refuse it, they have to decide what to do. An abrupt, hard Brexit will be very damaging for both the EU and the UK. They have to decide whether to postpone the decision, or to take longer time to discuss the deal. But we have EU elections in May. What are we going to do? WION: About the second referendum, you said and I quote, "I don't like second referendums, it's something that doesn't look very democratic". What is undemocratic about a second referendum? Josep Borrell: People expressed their will (with the referendum) and (now) you (want to) tell them that you made the bad choice, (that) you have to repeat the vote. Until when? Until you make the good choice. And what is the good choice? Who decides about the good choices? You know, we’ve had repeated referendums several times - in Ireland, in Denmark - where they voted (for) something, the elite did not like it and told them to vote again. I think the idea that people have to vote and re-vote until someone says this is a good answer is not a good thing. WION: You support referendums, don't you? Be it Brexit or Catalonia or anywhere else in the world? Or are you against referendums? Josep Borrell: I think referendum is not a good way of making a decision, it is too binary, black or white, one or zero. The world is much more complex. And I think it is impossible for the British people to be aware of the consequences of deciding to leave. It is too complex and there were a lot of lies told to them: ‘If you leave, you will have a lot of money’, ‘if you leave, we will manage better’, ‘if you leave, we will again be the big empire in the world’. Here in India you know something about it. Well, you cannot make people decide with a fake news, with incapacity of providing a good understanding of what is at stake. I think parliaments, public discussion, is a better way of taking this kind of difficult and complex decision. WION: So, what you are saying is that referendums, be it in Catalonia or Brexit, do not necessarily solve the problem? Josep Borrell: No, I do not think it is the best way of solving a problem. In Catalonia, additionally, it is again the Spanish constitution, as it is in France, Germany, Italy or the United States. So, I do not think it is the best way of making this kind of decision that splits the country, divides the society and confronts, in equal proportion, people. WION: Let’s talk a bit about separatism. Countries around the world, including Spain and India, are faced with separatism, separatist tendencies, separatist elements. Do you think there is a need for a moratorium on redrawing of borders - be it Catalonia or Brexit or anything else? Josep Borrell: In Europe, we have a moratorium after the end of World War that borders are the way they are and can only be modified by a common understanding and agreement. Brexit is not a modification of borders, in fact it has nothing to do with borders. Separatism in north of Italy or half of Belgium or Scotland or Catalonia is a different thing. And there is a big consensus in Europe to not go to redefinition of borders. WION: Do you think it should apply to all conflict areas around the world? That there should be no new state created out of this separatist tendency? Josep Borrell: Separatism is one thing, decolonisation is another thing. Decolonisation created new states, for sure, because it was a colonial domination. But who can believe that Catalonia is a colony of Spain? WION: I want to come back to the issue of immigration. You have been quoted as saying that "European societies are not structured to absorb more than a certain percentage of migrants, especially if they are Muslims". What did you mean by that? And what might be the solution? Josep Borrell: I don’t know if I said that exactly. I said especially if they are culturally and religiously different. For example, in Spain, it is easy for us to absorb migrants coming from Latin America because they speak the same language, they have the same religion - if they have one. For a Spanish coming from Argentina or Peru or Mexico, it is a kind of a member of the family. If there are people coming from other cultures, other religions without historical ties, it is much more difficult to integrate and there is a certain limit in societies above which tensions start, especially if there are no good policies to prevent this kind of things from happening and to push and to help in integration. WION: Would you favour Muslims coming to Europe? Are Muslims welcome in Europe today and going forward? Josep Borrell: Look, one of the pillars of European Union is no discrimination by religion. You cannot discriminate by saying ‘you, yes’ because you are a Christian, ‘you, no’ because you are a Hindu or Muslim. No discrimination by gender, no discrimination by religion so the question would not be accepted in Europe. WION: I want to talk about India and Spain. We have seen that separatism affects both countries. Do you think India and Spain can learn together from each other's experiences of separatism? In Spain, you say talks only within the constitution. So, is there scope for learning between India and Spain when it comes to separatism? Josep Borrell: Well, I do not know history of India and the political situation in the country as much as I should in order to answer your question. But India is a special case because you built a political union before building an economic union. In Europe, we are doing just the contrary, we are building an economic union before building a political union because we have too much history behind us and in order to build political union, you have to share markets, goods, economic relationships, to create what Jacques Delors (French politician) called solidarity of the fact. And on this solidarity of the fact, you can construct a bigger union, a stronger union, a deeper union. India is a remarkable example of how you can be united in diversity. In Europe, we say, united in diversity but when I come to India I say ‘my god, here is diversity!’ WION: Some people say that a thin line separates separatism from terrorism. Some countries around the world are afflicted by this phenomenon. Is there scope for EU and India to collaborate for combating this menace? Josep Borrell: For combating terrorism, all democratic countries have to cooperate. WION: ...especially in South Asia... Josep Borrell: The south of the world, all this band going from the Mediterranean and sub-Saharan Africa to the Indian peninsula, all this part of the world - West Asia, Syria, the Horn of Africa, the Spanish navy is patrolling the Horn of Africa to prevent terrorist attacks against ships, and India as a big, democratic country the biggest democracy in the world - has an important role to play together with western nations to fight terrorism. WION: I want to talk about regional and global issues like what’s happening in Iran and Venezuela. President Maduro will take the oath on January 10. What are your views on impositions of sanctions against Venezuela? I am told that you do not want to see more sanctions imposed on Venezuela? Josep Borrell: History says that sanctions do not bring a solution. Look at what happened with Cuba. The US has been blockading Cuba for decades, but the regime is still there. You have to sanction when you have to sanction, do not sanction the people, do not sanction the Venezuelan people. If you have to impose sanctions, impose it on the leaders, the ones who are guilty of doing something bad. But at the same time, try to push through a democratic dialogue, you have to put both things together, just the politics of punishing, history says, is not very effective. WION: I want to talk about China. The Prime Minister of Norway said at the Raisina Dialogue in New Delhi that might is not right, that countries must play by the rules-based world order. She spoke about ocean management and was hinting at China. How do you see China's Belt and Road Initiative? Josep Borrell: It is an important initiative. China is projecting out of its borders. China is coming back to the history. It was out of the history, it saw colonial domination, an awful war with Japan, years of communist domination, poverty and now it is a giant. Economical, technological, political and even a military power. The important thing is to be able to build, as you have said, a world ruled by rules not by power because if it is only power. If it is in the hands of the Chinese, or it is in the hands of the US, Russia or whoever, the power is being used and it needs counter powers. A multilateral world, a world based on rules accepted by the humankind, by international community is something that we have to fight for. WION: And it applies equally to China? Josep Borrell: Of course, for sure, why not? You cannot imagine a world where one part of humanity as important as China cannot be taken into consideration or not participating. WION: I want to shift our focus to West Asia. Saudi Arabia has lately been in the news for the wrong reasons, for the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Yet, the Spanish government insists on selling arms to Saudi Arabia. Why? Josep Borrell: The number of arms (being sent) to Saudi Arabia is a tiny part of what Saudi Arabia is buying. Since this (Spanish) government has been in place, we have not signed any new contract, but we will honour the contract signed by the previous government. WION: Israel is another country in the region. What do you make of the trend of some countries shifting their embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? Do you think it is part of the solution? Josep Borrell: For sure it is not a part of the solution, it is creating more tensions. WION: Why do you say that? Josep Borrell: Because one of the part feels attacked. If you were a Palestinian, you wanted Jerusalem to be the capital of imaginary country that some day will come. And people say no, this is the capital of another country. You will not be very happy and I think we have to calm down the situation which could become explosive. I think it was a wrong decision by the Americans and it is a wrong decision by anyone who is following it. WION: In conclusion, Mr minister, you have studied and taught both mathematics and economics at universities and institutes in Europe. But what is your first love - mathematics or economics? Josep Borrell: It is mathematics. WION: What do you the most - academia or politics? Josep Borrell: There is a lot of politics in academia, no? I have been engaged in politics for much longer than academia. But if you share both approaches, you could have at the same time the rationality of the academia (as well as) the scientific approach with social engagement of the politician. The world would be much better. You know the book by John Von Neumann about the science and the politics? I read it every time I can. WION: FC Barcelona or Real Madrid? Josep Borrell: I don't follow football very much. WION: Pizza or Paella? Josep Borrell: Pizza. WION: Will Donald Trump get a second term as US President? Josep Borrell: I'm afraid he could have to. WION: What should the border wall be made of: Steel or concrete? Josep Borrell: No wall. WION: Who is a bigger challenge: Russia or China? Josep Borrell: I would not say they are challenges, they are actors that have to be taken into consideration because both of them want to have its place in the history. They are big enough, powerful enough in order not to be neglected. WION: On that note, thank you. Josep Borrell: It has been a very intelligent interview. WION: Thank you. Josep Borrell: It does not happen often.

Referendum not a good way to decide on Brexit: Spain foreign minister to WION

Britain's business minister on Thursday warned that the prospect of crashing out of the European Union without an agreement would be "disastrous" for the country, as fractious MPs prepare to vote on a contentious Brexit deal.

Greg Clark's comments contradicted official government policy of not ruling out a no-deal Brexit and exposed further divisions after embattled Prime Minister Theresa May suffered a series of setbacks in parliament.

A no-deal Brexit would be "a disastrous situation in which we move to the most rudimentary terms of trade with our closest partners," Greg Clark told BBC radio.

In such a scenario, Britain would be forced to trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, which could mean much higher tariffs for some products such as cars.

As things stand, Britain will leave the EU with no official deal on March 29 if parliament fails to approve an agreement the government has struck with the bloc.

MPs are set to vote on the agreement on Tuesday.

"It is my strong view that we need to come together now, we need to act to avoid no-deal because I don't think there is anything remotely like a majority in parliament that will tolerate it," he said.

Brexit supporting MPs are opposed to the deal, and May has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming.

Most MPs supported staying in the EU in the 2016 referendum, and many have vowed to do everything within their power to prevent a no-deal scenario.

As Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits Britain on Thursday, Clark said of Japanese businesses: "We need to resolve this concern, this very real concern that they have of us crashing out on March 29".

Japanese firms have invested billions of pounds in Britain, and are especially crucial in the car industry, using the country as a business-friendly home from which to trade across the continent.

The car sector was rocked on Thursday by reports that Jaguar Land Rover is set to announce up to 5,000 job cuts, with Brexit uncertainty cited as a factor.

Parliamentary fireworks

May is making a desperate last push to win MPs over to her Brexit deal, ahead of Tuesday's vote.

She faces daunting odds in getting the deal passed, and suffered a stinging defeat on Wednesday when MPs voted for an amendment demanding she produce new plans within three days if the agreement is voted down.

Aiming to capitalise on her weakness, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was on Thursday to make a Brexit speech in Wakefield, northern England, in which he was expected to call for a general election to resolve the deadlock.

"Let there be no doubt: Theresa May's deal is a bad deal and Labour will vote against it next week in parliament," he was to say, according to extracts released by his office.

"If the government cannot pass its most important legislation, then there must be a general election at the earliest opportunity."

Many in his party hope that he will call for a second referendum, but the veteran leftist, a long-time critic of the European Union, has so far resisted.

MPs were on Thursday to hold the second of five days of debate ahead of the historic vote, after explosive scenes in the House on Wednesday.

Brexiteers accused speaker of the house John Bercow of anti-Brexit bias when he apparently ignored the advice of Commons officials and selected the amendment demanding May bring forward new plans in the event of defeat.

Britain's business minister on Thursday warned that the prospect of crashing out of the European Union without an agreement would be "disastrous" for the country, as fractious MPs prepare to vote on a contentious Brexit deal.

Britain's business minister on Thursday warned that the prospect of crashing out of the European Union without an agreement would be "disastrous" for the country, as fractious MPs prepare to vote on a contentious Brexit deal. Greg Clark's comments contradicted official government policy of not ruling out a no-deal Brexit and exposed further divisions after embattled Prime Minister Theresa May suffered a series of setbacks in parliament. A no-deal Brexit would be "a disastrous situation in which we move to the most rudimentary terms of trade with our closest partners," Greg Clark told BBC radio. In such a scenario, Britain would be forced to trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, which could mean much higher tariffs for some products such as cars. As things stand, Britain will leave the EU with no official deal on March 29 if parliament fails to approve an agreement the government has struck with the bloc. MPs are set to vote on the agreement on Tuesday. "It is my strong view that we need to come together now, we need to act to avoid no-deal because I don't think there is anything remotely like a majority in parliament that will tolerate it," he said. Brexit supporting MPs are opposed to the deal, and May has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming. Most MPs supported staying in the EU in the 2016 referendum, and many have vowed to do everything within their power to prevent a no-deal scenario. As Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visits Britain on Thursday, Clark said of Japanese businesses: "We need to resolve this concern, this very real concern that they have of us crashing out on March 29". Japanese firms have invested billions of pounds in Britain, and are especially crucial in the car industry, using the country as a business-friendly home from which to trade across the continent. The car sector was rocked on Thursday by reports that Jaguar Land Rover is set to announce up to 5,000 job cuts, with Brexit uncertainty cited as a factor. Parliamentary fireworks May is making a desperate last push to win MPs over to her Brexit deal, ahead of Tuesday's vote. She faces daunting odds in getting the deal passed, and suffered a stinging defeat on Wednesday when MPs voted for an amendment demanding she produce new plans within three days if the agreement is voted down. Aiming to capitalise on her weakness, opposition Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn was on Thursday to make a Brexit speech in Wakefield, northern England, in which he was expected to call for a general election to resolve the deadlock. "Let there be no doubt: Theresa May's deal is a bad deal and Labour will vote against it next week in parliament," he was to say, according to extracts released by his office. "If the government cannot pass its most important legislation, then there must be a general election at the earliest opportunity." Many in his party hope that he will call for a second referendum, but the veteran leftist, a long-time critic of the European Union, has so far resisted. MPs were on Thursday to hold the second of five days of debate ahead of the historic vote, after explosive scenes in the House on Wednesday. Brexiteers accused speaker of the house John Bercow of anti-Brexit bias when he apparently ignored the advice of Commons officials and selected the amendment demanding May bring forward new plans in the event of defeat.

No-deal Brexit would be disastrous: UK minister

British MPs on Wednesday begin five days of debate ahead of a historic <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-opposition-leader-corbyn-allegedly-calls-pm-theresa-may-stupid-woman-185370">delayed vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal</a>, a day after giving her a stinging blow aimed at preventing the country from crashing out of the EU with no agreement.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/theresa-may-says-further-brexit-talks-with-eu-in-coming-days-184100">May's attempts to win over MPs</a>&nbsp;from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up her government in parliament but is firmly opposed to the Brexit deal, were also rebuffed on Wednesday.

The government said it would grant local lawmakers in Northern Ireland greater powers to block legislation if their province ever found itself in a contentious "backstop" arrangement to avoid a hard border in Ireland.

But DUP Brexit spokesman Sammy Wilson told Sky News that the proposals were "window dressing" and that there would still have to be checks between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain in the event the backstop is enacted.

May faced another possible setback later on Wednesday as rebel Conservative MPs pushed for a vote that would force the government to reveal its plans within three days if the Brexit deal is not approved next Tuesday.

Lawmakers next week will be voting on the agreement that May has negotiated with the EU over the last 18 months, which faces daunting opposition as the clock ticks down before Britain leaves the European Union on March 29.

The prime minister has warned rebels in her own party that defeat will lead to a no-deal Brexit or no departure from the bloc at all.

But in a vote on Tuesday that raised the chances of a defeat in next week's historic vote, MPs including former ministers approved an amendment that will curtail the government's tax powers in case of a no-deal Brexit.

Brexit 'fantasies'&nbsp;

David Lidington, May's effective deputy, called the House of Commons defeat "inconvenient" yet ineffectual and insisted the government remained focused on winning approval for the prime minister's plan.

"We are focused on getting any possible vote in favour of the PM's deal," he told BBC radio.&nbsp;

"I don't think the British public are served by fantasies about magical alternative deals.&nbsp;

"The choice the people have is this deal or no deal, or — as some MPs advocate — to reverse the 2016 referendum entirely."

The prime minister has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming, and has said a loss for the government would plunge Britain into "uncharted territory".

She is still seeking assurances from the EU on the most controversial elements of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland, in a bid to convince critics to back the agreement.

These assurances are set to be delivered to lawmakers before they vote, although not before they start their debate on Wednesday.

"The work to secure those assurances is ongoing. I think what's important is that if we are to secure assurances, MPs are aware of what they are before the vote takes place," a Downing Street spokesman said Tuesday.

Brexit delayed?&nbsp;

Some MPs would be in favour of a second referendum but such a move would likely cause outrage among Brexit voters and raise the issue of the framing of the question.

The battle has reached fever pitch as the deadline looms, with second referendum campaigners setting up stalls at markets nationwide and Brexiteers touring the country to persuade Britons they have nothing to fear from a clean break.

May insists Britain will leave the EU in March whatever happens, but there is growing talk of delaying the two-year Article 50 exit process to give her some breathing space to get her deal agreed.

An EU diplomat told AFP on Tuesday that "we are convinced that Theresa May will request a postponement after the agreement is rejected in the British parliament."

Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay denied reports about a possible delay, saying "there are people in the European Union who are discussing this issue, but that is not the position of the UK government."

The prime minister survived a half-hearted attempt by her party to oust her before Christmas, but the level of rebellion has left her weakened.

The main opposition Labour Party on Wednesday confirmed it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs reject May's Brexit deal next week.

British MPs on Wednesday begin five days of debate ahead of a historic delayed vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal, a day after giving her a stinging blow aimed at preventing the country from crashing out of the EU with no agreement.

British MPs on Wednesday begin five days of debate ahead of a historic delayed vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's Brexit deal, a day after giving her a stinging blow aimed at preventing the country from crashing out of the EU with no agreement. May's attempts to win over MPs from Northern Ireland's Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up her government in parliament but is firmly opposed to the Brexit deal, were also rebuffed on Wednesday. The government said it would grant local lawmakers in Northern Ireland greater powers to block legislation if their province ever found itself in a contentious "backstop" arrangement to avoid a hard border in Ireland. But DUP Brexit spokesman Sammy Wilson told Sky News that the proposals were "window dressing" and that there would still have to be checks between Northern Ireland and mainland Britain in the event the backstop is enacted. May faced another possible setback later on Wednesday as rebel Conservative MPs pushed for a vote that would force the government to reveal its plans within three days if the Brexit deal is not approved next Tuesday. Lawmakers next week will be voting on the agreement that May has negotiated with the EU over the last 18 months, which faces daunting opposition as the clock ticks down before Britain leaves the European Union on March 29. The prime minister has warned rebels in her own party that defeat will lead to a no-deal Brexit or no departure from the bloc at all. But in a vote on Tuesday that raised the chances of a defeat in next week's historic vote, MPs including former ministers approved an amendment that will curtail the government's tax powers in case of a no-deal Brexit. Brexit 'fantasies' David Lidington, May's effective deputy, called the House of Commons defeat "inconvenient" yet ineffectual and insisted the government remained focused on winning approval for the prime minister's plan. "We are focused on getting any possible vote in favour of the PM's deal," he told BBC radio. "I don't think the British public are served by fantasies about magical alternative deals. "The choice the people have is this deal or no deal, or — as some MPs advocate — to reverse the 2016 referendum entirely." The prime minister has already pulled the vote once with defeat looming, and has said a loss for the government would plunge Britain into "uncharted territory". She is still seeking assurances from the EU on the most controversial elements of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland, in a bid to convince critics to back the agreement. These assurances are set to be delivered to lawmakers before they vote, although not before they start their debate on Wednesday. "The work to secure those assurances is ongoing. I think what's important is that if we are to secure assurances, MPs are aware of what they are before the vote takes place," a Downing Street spokesman said Tuesday. Brexit delayed? Some MPs would be in favour of a second referendum but such a move would likely cause outrage among Brexit voters and raise the issue of the framing of the question. The battle has reached fever pitch as the deadline looms, with second referendum campaigners setting up stalls at markets nationwide and Brexiteers touring the country to persuade Britons they have nothing to fear from a clean break. May insists Britain will leave the EU in March whatever happens, but there is growing talk of delaying the two-year Article 50 exit process to give her some breathing space to get her deal agreed. An EU diplomat told AFP on Tuesday that "we are convinced that Theresa May will request a postponement after the agreement is rejected in the British parliament." Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay denied reports about a possible delay, saying "there are people in the European Union who are discussing this issue, but that is not the position of the UK government." The prime minister survived a half-hearted attempt by her party to oust her before Christmas, but the level of rebellion has left her weakened. The main opposition Labour Party on Wednesday confirmed it will seek a no-confidence vote in the government if MPs reject May's Brexit deal next week.

British MPs begin 5 days of debate before vote on Brexit deal

British MPs will vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's EU withdrawal deal on January 15, the government said Tuesday while denying growing speculation it might seek to delay Brexit if the agreement is rejected.

May postponed an initial vote last month in the face of opposition from all sides of the House of Commons, but has now set it for next Tuesday evening after 1900 GMT, following five days of debate which start on Wednesday.

May is still struggling to convince both opposition lawmakers and her own Conservative party to back the divorce agreement, heightening fears Britain could leave the European Union on March 29 without a deal.

She has promised to secure further assurances from the EU on the most controversial elements of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland, and has held talks with European leaders in recent days.

"The work to secure those assurances is ongoing," her spokesman said, adding that the prime minister hoped to have something to offer MPs before next week's vote.

May is hosting several drinks parties for lawmakers this week in a bid to win them round, arguing her deal is the best compromise that ends EU membership while protecting jobs.

Environment Secretary Michael Gove told cabinet colleagues that critics holding out for a better deal were like swingers in their mid-50s waiting for Hollywood star Scarlett Johansson to turn up on a date.

But with opposition among MPs still strong, there is growing speculation London could seek to delay the EU's two-year Article 50 exit process to allow more time to get the deal through parliament.

A source in Brussels told AFP several weeks ago that Britain has been discussing the possibility with European officials, and a junior British minister, Margot James, publicly voiced the idea on Monday.

But May's spokesman insisted: "We will not be extending Article 50.

"There are people in the European Union who are discussing this issue, but that is not the position of the UK government."

'Very hypothetical'

The other 27 EU leaders have repeatedly said they will not reopen the deal struck with Britain in November, which covers key separation issues such as money and expatriate citizens' rights.

But they issued a joint statement at an EU summit last month emphasising the temporary nature of the so-called backstop arrangement designed to keep open the UK border with Ireland after Brexit.

And Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told the Irish Times there were discussions on whether the EU could offer "a further set of written guarantees, explanations and assurances".

The backstop would keep open the border between British Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland after Brexit by temporarily aligning Britain with EU trade rules.

Eurosceptic Conservatives and Northern Ireland's tiny Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up May's government, fear it could tie London to Brussels for years to come.

However, France's Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau said "there is nothing more that we can do" -- and warned against putting too much faith in talk of extending Article 50.

"I don't work on hypotheses -- the current situation is complex enough... Let's stick to where we are now," she added.

An EU diplomat also told AFP that the idea of delaying Brexit "is a very hypothetical option".

Any extension to Britain's departure would be complicated by the elections to the European Parliament in May. After Brexit, it will no longer be represented in the assembly.

No deal plans

May is looking at a possible time limit to the backstop arrangement and increased parliamentary scrutiny to try to sway MPs.

But if her efforts fail, many fear Britain could leave the EU with no deal, with potentially disastrous legal and economic consequences.

A cross-party group of MPs sought Tuesday to amend a finance law to limit the government's tax-raising powers in the event of "no deal", as a way of forcing it to stop such a scenario.

The impact of a disorderly Brexit would also be felt across Europe, including in the EU budget.

May's deal sets out plans for a post-Brexit transition period in which Britain would keep making financial contributions until December 2020.

EU budget commissioner Gunther Oettinger said that without this, "we would be short a figure in the billions of euros for the rest of the year and a higher figure for 2020".

British MPs will vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's EU withdrawal deal on January 15, the government said Tuesday while denying growing speculation it might seek to delay Brexit if the agreement is rejected.

British MPs will vote on Prime Minister Theresa May's EU withdrawal deal on January 15, the government said Tuesday while denying growing speculation it might seek to delay Brexit if the agreement is rejected. May postponed an initial vote last month in the face of opposition from all sides of the House of Commons, but has now set it for next Tuesday evening after 1900 GMT, following five days of debate which start on Wednesday. May is still struggling to convince both opposition lawmakers and her own Conservative party to back the divorce agreement, heightening fears Britain could leave the European Union on March 29 without a deal. She has promised to secure further assurances from the EU on the most controversial elements of the Brexit deal relating to Northern Ireland, and has held talks with European leaders in recent days. "The work to secure those assurances is ongoing," her spokesman said, adding that the prime minister hoped to have something to offer MPs before next week's vote. May is hosting several drinks parties for lawmakers this week in a bid to win them round, arguing her deal is the best compromise that ends EU membership while protecting jobs. Environment Secretary Michael Gove told cabinet colleagues that critics holding out for a better deal were like swingers in their mid-50s waiting for Hollywood star Scarlett Johansson to turn up on a date. But with opposition among MPs still strong, there is growing speculation London could seek to delay the EU's two-year Article 50 exit process to allow more time to get the deal through parliament. A source in Brussels told AFP several weeks ago that Britain has been discussing the possibility with European officials, and a junior British minister, Margot James, publicly voiced the idea on Monday. But May's spokesman insisted: "We will not be extending Article 50. "There are people in the European Union who are discussing this issue, but that is not the position of the UK government." 'Very hypothetical' The other 27 EU leaders have repeatedly said they will not reopen the deal struck with Britain in November, which covers key separation issues such as money and expatriate citizens' rights. But they issued a joint statement at an EU summit last month emphasising the temporary nature of the so-called backstop arrangement designed to keep open the UK border with Ireland after Brexit. And Irish Prime Minister Leo Varadkar told the Irish Times there were discussions on whether the EU could offer "a further set of written guarantees, explanations and assurances". The backstop would keep open the border between British Northern Ireland and EU member Ireland after Brexit by temporarily aligning Britain with EU trade rules. Eurosceptic Conservatives and Northern Ireland's tiny Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), which props up May's government, fear it could tie London to Brussels for years to come. However, France's Europe Minister Nathalie Loiseau said "there is nothing more that we can do" -- and warned against putting too much faith in talk of extending Article 50. "I don't work on hypotheses -- the current situation is complex enough... Let's stick to where we are now," she added. An EU diplomat also told AFP that the idea of delaying Brexit "is a very hypothetical option". Any extension to Britain's departure would be complicated by the elections to the European Parliament in May. After Brexit, it will no longer be represented in the assembly. No deal plans May is looking at a possible time limit to the backstop arrangement and increased parliamentary scrutiny to try to sway MPs. But if her efforts fail, many fear Britain could leave the EU with no deal, with potentially disastrous legal and economic consequences. A cross-party group of MPs sought Tuesday to amend a finance law to limit the government's tax-raising powers in the event of "no deal", as a way of forcing it to stop such a scenario. The impact of a disorderly Brexit would also be felt across Europe, including in the EU budget. May's deal sets out plans for a post-Brexit transition period in which Britain would keep making financial contributions until December 2020. EU budget commissioner Gunther Oettinger said that without this, "we would be short a figure in the billions of euros for the rest of the year and a higher figure for 2020".

UK Brexit vote set for January 15 amid talk of delay

British lawmakers called on the police on Tuesday to do more to tackle intimidation of politicians and journalists outside parliament after protesters shouted verbal abuse at a prominent pro-EU Conservative during live television interviews.

More than 2-1/2 years since Britain voted by 52 to 48 per cent to leave the European Union, the country remains deeply divided and both pro-Brexit and pro-EU protesters are a regular fixture in the gardens opposite parliament.

Some campaigners wrap themselves in huge EU flags while others hold banners on long poles so they can be seen in the background of temporary broadcast studios on raised platforms.&nbsp;

The area, a public space, is regularly used by media for interviews and while protests have been largely peaceful, politicians and journalists have complained the atmosphere has turned increasingly nasty in recent weeks.

On Monday, Conservative lawmaker Anna Soubry, who has called for a second referendum on Brexit, faced chants of "Soubry is a Nazi" and "liar" as she was interviewed. 
"I do object to being called a Nazi," Soubry interrupted the interview to say. "I just think this is astonishing. This is what has happened to our country."

The abuse continued as Soubry walked back across the road to parliament after the interview, with mobile phone footage shared on Twitter showing her surrounded by men, some sporting the yellow vests similar to those worn by protesters in Paris, shouting "liar", "fascist" and "scum" at her.

Sky News journalist Kay Burley, one of the broadcasters whose interview with Soubry was overshadowed by the protests, has also faced abuse and says she now has security protection.

In a letter to the Commissioner of London`s Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, a group of 60 lawmakers said they were concerned about the "deteriorating public order and security situation" around parliament.

"An ugly element of individuals with strong far right and extreme right connections ... have increasingly engaged in intimidatory and potentially criminal acts," the lawmakers, both pro-EU and pro-Brexit and from all political parties, wrote.

House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said he too has written to police on the issue.

"UNLEASHING SUCH UGLINESS"

Laurence Taylor, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Met Operations, said there was an "appropriate policing plan in place" around parliament and police were assessing whether any crimes had been committed.

"We will deal robustly with incidents of harassment and abuse against anyone where that harassment or abuse constitutes a criminal offence," he said in a statement.&nbsp;

Labour lawmaker Stephen Doughty, who organised the letter, told BBC TV that there could be a repeat of the murder of Labour lawmaker Jo Cox, killed in a frenzied street attack a week before the 2016 Brexit vote by a man obsessed with Nazis and extreme right-wing ideology.

Last year, a man accused of being a member of a far-right group pleaded guilty to plotting to kill another female Labour lawmaker who, like Cox, was targeted because she was perceived as supporting immigration.&nbsp;

Abuse has taken place across the political divide, with left-wing author and Labour supporter Owen Jones also posting a video on Twitter of protesters shouting insults like "traitor" at him as he walked down the street outside parliament.

While many of those facing abuse have been supporters of remaining in the EU, pro-Brexit campaigners have also been targeted.

In September, Conservative lawmaker Jacob Rees-Mogg, a prominent campaigner for Brexit, was confronted outside his home by activists who told his children "your daddy is a horrible person" and "lots of people hate him".

British lawmakers called on the police on Tuesday to do more to tackle intimidation of politicians and journalists outside parliament after protesters shouted verbal abuse at a prominent pro-EU Conservative during live television interviews.

British lawmakers called on the police on Tuesday to do more to tackle intimidation of politicians and journalists outside parliament after protesters shouted verbal abuse at a prominent pro-EU Conservative during live television interviews. More than 2-1/2 years since Britain voted by 52 to 48 per cent to leave the European Union, the country remains deeply divided and both pro-Brexit and pro-EU protesters are a regular fixture in the gardens opposite parliament. Some campaigners wrap themselves in huge EU flags while others hold banners on long poles so they can be seen in the background of temporary broadcast studios on raised platforms. The area, a public space, is regularly used by media for interviews and while protests have been largely peaceful, politicians and journalists have complained the atmosphere has turned increasingly nasty in recent weeks. On Monday, Conservative lawmaker Anna Soubry, who has called for a second referendum on Brexit, faced chants of "Soubry is a Nazi" and "liar" as she was interviewed. "I do object to being called a Nazi," Soubry interrupted the interview to say. "I just think this is astonishing. This is what has happened to our country." The abuse continued as Soubry walked back across the road to parliament after the interview, with mobile phone footage shared on Twitter showing her surrounded by men, some sporting the yellow vests similar to those worn by protesters in Paris, shouting "liar", "fascist" and "scum" at her. Sky News journalist Kay Burley, one of the broadcasters whose interview with Soubry was overshadowed by the protests, has also faced abuse and says she now has security protection. In a letter to the Commissioner of London`s Metropolitan Police, Cressida Dick, a group of 60 lawmakers said they were concerned about the "deteriorating public order and security situation" around parliament. "An ugly element of individuals with strong far right and extreme right connections ... have increasingly engaged in intimidatory and potentially criminal acts," the lawmakers, both pro-EU and pro-Brexit and from all political parties, wrote. House of Commons Speaker John Bercow said he too has written to police on the issue. "UNLEASHING SUCH UGLINESS" Laurence Taylor, Deputy Assistant Commissioner for Met Operations, said there was an "appropriate policing plan in place" around parliament and police were assessing whether any crimes had been committed. "We will deal robustly with incidents of harassment and abuse against anyone where that harassment or abuse constitutes a criminal offence," he said in a statement. Labour lawmaker Stephen Doughty, who organised the letter, told BBC TV that there could be a repeat of the murder of Labour lawmaker Jo Cox, killed in a frenzied street attack a week before the 2016 Brexit vote by a man obsessed with Nazis and extreme right-wing ideology. Last year, a man accused of being a member of a far-right group pleaded guilty to plotting to kill another female Labour lawmaker who, like Cox, was targeted because she was perceived as supporting immigration. Abuse has taken place across the political divide, with left-wing author and Labour supporter Owen Jones also posting a video on Twitter of protesters shouting insults like "traitor" at him as he walked down the street outside parliament. While many of those facing abuse have been supporters of remaining in the EU, pro-Brexit campaigners have also been targeted. In September, Conservative lawmaker Jacob Rees-Mogg, a prominent campaigner for Brexit, was confronted outside his home by activists who told his children "your daddy is a horrible person" and "lots of people hate him".

Facing chants of 'Nazi' and 'scum', UK lawmakers ask police to act over Brexit abuse

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/india-born-gita-gopinath-appointed-imf-chief-economist-168840">Prominent Indian-American economist Gita Gopinath </a>has joined as the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, becoming the first woman to occupy the top post at the global lender.

Gopinath, 47, joined last week at a time, when she believes the world is experiencing a retreat from globalisation, posing challenges to multilateral institutions.

The John Zwaanstra professor of International Studies and Economics at Harvard University, Gopinath, a US citizen, succeeds Maurice (Maury) Obstfeld as Economic Counsellor and Director of the IMF's Research Department. Obstfeld retired December 31.

Announcing her appointment on October 1, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde described her as "one of the world's outstanding economists with impeccable academic credentials, a proven track record of intellectual leadership and extensive international experience."

The 11th chief economist of the IMF, Mysore-born Gopinath in a recent interview to The Harvard Gazette described her appointment at the IMF as a "tremendous honour" and said the appointment of the first ever woman for this position speaks highly of IMF's Managing Director Lagarde.

"She is phenomenal, not just in her leadership of the IMF but as a role model for women around the world," she said.

Identifying some of her top priorities at the IMF, Gopinath told The Harvard Gazette that she would like the IMF to continue to be a place that provides intellectual leadership on important policy questions.

Among the research issues that I would like to push, one would be understanding the role of dominant currencies like the dollar in international trade and finance. We could do more on the empirical side to try to understand countries' dollar exposures and on the theoretical side in terms of the implications for international spillovers, consequences of dollar shortages, etc, she said.

Most countries invoice their trade in dollars and borrow internationally in dollars. This is a central part of the international price system and the international financial system and it will be exciting to explore its consequences in greater depth with the IMF, she said.

Gopinath considers the perceived retreat from globalisation as one of the top challenges being faced by the IMF.

"The one (biggest issues being faced by the IMF) that is absolutely clear and present is that we are seeing the first serious retreat from globalisation. This has not happened in the past 50 or 60 years when the world moved toward lower tariffs and increasing trade across countries," she told the prestigious Harvard publication.

"Over the past several months, we have the US-imposed tariffs and retaliation to them from China and other nations. There is in general growing uncertainty about trade policy, including the one arising out of Brexit (the British move to leave the European Union)."

"While the trade has reduced global poverty and raised livelihoods, its consequences for inequality, and on whether the rules of engagement are fair, are real concerns that need to be addressed," she said.

Gopinath said there is also a concern about whether there is the right multilateral institutions and frameworks in place to make sure everybody feels that there is fairness in trade. "And the same goes for capital flows," she added.

"Foreign direct investment (FDI) was always viewed very favourably by countries. But because most of the FDI is now in tech-heavy firms, there are growing concerns about national security and international property theft. So I believe this retreat from globalisation and this retreat from multilateralism is quite unique to the times we are living in," Gopinath said.

Another important concern, she said, is the health of emerging markets as the US continues to normalize its interest rates.

The capital flows to several markets have reversed, putting pressure on their exchange rates and consequently on inflation, and on balance sheets, given that several emerging markets borrow heavily in dollars, said the IMF chief economist.

Gita Gopinath considers the perceived retreat from globalisation as one of the top challenges being faced by the IMF.

Prominent Indian-American economist Gita Gopinath has joined as the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, becoming the first woman to occupy the top post at the global lender. Gopinath, 47, joined last week at a time, when she believes the world is experiencing a retreat from globalisation, posing challenges to multilateral institutions. The John Zwaanstra professor of International Studies and Economics at Harvard University, Gopinath, a US citizen, succeeds Maurice (Maury) Obstfeld as Economic Counsellor and Director of the IMF's Research Department. Obstfeld retired December 31. Announcing her appointment on October 1, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde described her as "one of the world's outstanding economists with impeccable academic credentials, a proven track record of intellectual leadership and extensive international experience." The 11th chief economist of the IMF, Mysore-born Gopinath in a recent interview to The Harvard Gazette described her appointment at the IMF as a "tremendous honour" and said the appointment of the first ever woman for this position speaks highly of IMF's Managing Director Lagarde. "She is phenomenal, not just in her leadership of the IMF but as a role model for women around the world," she said. Identifying some of her top priorities at the IMF, Gopinath told The Harvard Gazette that she would like the IMF to continue to be a place that provides intellectual leadership on important policy questions. Among the research issues that I would like to push, one would be understanding the role of dominant currencies like the dollar in international trade and finance. We could do more on the empirical side to try to understand countries' dollar exposures and on the theoretical side in terms of the implications for international spillovers, consequences of dollar shortages, etc, she said. Most countries invoice their trade in dollars and borrow internationally in dollars. This is a central part of the international price system and the international financial system and it will be exciting to explore its consequences in greater depth with the IMF, she said. Gopinath considers the perceived retreat from globalisation as one of the top challenges being faced by the IMF. "The one (biggest issues being faced by the IMF) that is absolutely clear and present is that we are seeing the first serious retreat from globalisation. This has not happened in the past 50 or 60 years when the world moved toward lower tariffs and increasing trade across countries," she told the prestigious Harvard publication. "Over the past several months, we have the US-imposed tariffs and retaliation to them from China and other nations. There is in general growing uncertainty about trade policy, including the one arising out of Brexit (the British move to leave the European Union)." "While the trade has reduced global poverty and raised livelihoods, its consequences for inequality, and on whether the rules of engagement are fair, are real concerns that need to be addressed," she said. Gopinath said there is also a concern about whether there is the right multilateral institutions and frameworks in place to make sure everybody feels that there is fairness in trade. "And the same goes for capital flows," she added. "Foreign direct investment (FDI) was always viewed very favourably by countries. But because most of the FDI is now in tech-heavy firms, there are growing concerns about national security and international property theft. So I believe this retreat from globalisation and this retreat from multilateralism is quite unique to the times we are living in," Gopinath said. Another important concern, she said, is the health of emerging markets as the US continues to normalize its interest rates. The capital flows to several markets have reversed, putting pressure on their exchange rates and consequently on inflation, and on balance sheets, given that several emerging markets borrow heavily in dollars, said the IMF chief economist.

Indian-American Gita Gopinath joins IMF as first female chief economist

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on March 29 and is not looking to<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uk-pm-may-says-any-article-50-extension-reopens-the-brexit-negotiations-180269"> extend the Article 50 exit process</a>, Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said on Tuesday.

The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU amid fears a Brexit deal will not be approved by March 29.

"The government's policy is clear on this, the prime minister has said it on many an occasion: We are leaving the European Union on the 29th of March. We are not looking to extend," Barclay told Sky News.

When asked if any lawmakers in the Conservative Party had changed their minds on opposing May's deal, Barclay said: "Some have said they are much more open to but it is obviously challenging."

The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU.

The United Kingdom will leave the European Union on March 29 and is not looking to extend the Article 50 exit process, Brexit Secretary Stephen Barclay said on Tuesday. The Daily Telegraph reported that British and European officials are discussing the possibility of extending Britain's formal notice to withdraw from the EU amid fears a Brexit deal will not be approved by March 29. "The government's policy is clear on this, the prime minister has said it on many an occasion: We are leaving the European Union on the 29th of March. We are not looking to extend," Barclay told Sky News. When asked if any lawmakers in the Conservative Party had changed their minds on opposing May's deal, Barclay said: "Some have said they are much more open to but it is obviously challenging."

UK not looking to extend Article 50: Brexit minister Stephen Barclay

By John Bruton

It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit.

Most people understand that when the UK leaves the EU on March 29, the only land boundary between the United Kingdom and the European Union will be the 300-mile-long border in Ireland. Some do understand that if the UK leaves the EU, there will have to be border controls. After all, leaving the union was supposed to be about taking back “control,” and given that countries can only exercise control in their own territory, there is a logical necessity to have controls at the border of a country’s territory.

This is not something made up by the EU to annoy Brits but is a logical consequence of Brexit, which is, as we all know, something Britons have chosen for themselves and not something imposed on them by the European Union.

The proposed backstop in British Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal with the EU involves the whole of the UK staying in a close customs arrangement with the union. The original idea was that the backstop would be confined to Northern Ireland, but the British government preferred a backstop arrangement that would cover the whole UK, so as to minimize the controls that would otherwise have to be imposed between Britain and Northern Ireland. The object of the entire exercise is to avoid having controls at the 300 crossing points between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

Some in Britain think the UK should be free to leave the EU, and that the British and Irish governments should then just decide, between themselves, that they were simply not going to have controls on the Irish border. That would not work because Ireland would still be in the European Union and would be breaking EU rules if it failed to control its portion of the EU land border.

Apart from being illegal, it would be impractical. The UK, once outside the European Union, would immediately go off and try to make trade deals with non-EU countries. These would inevitably involve agreeing to different standards and tariffs on goods coming from these non-EU countries to the ones that the European Union (including Ireland) would be applying to these nations. So, if there were no controls on the Irish border, goods from these non-EU states with which the UK had made its own trade deals could enter the European Union via Northern Ireland, without complying with EU standards or paying EU tariffs.

That would destroy the single market, which is based on common rules and tariffs, made, enforced and interpreted in the same way for all 27 EU members, including the Republic of Ireland.

Outside of the EU, under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the United Kingdom would also have to impose tariffs on its side of the Irish border — unless it wanted to collect no tariffs at all — on goods coming into the UK from any country in the world. This is because of a WTO rule that says in the absence of a broad trade agreement, a country cannot discriminate between WTO member countries in the rate of tariffs it charges on goods coming from those countries (the most favoured nation rule).

So, in the absence of a trade deal with the EU, the UK must charge the same tariffs on Irish goods as it would charge on goods coming from any WTO members, with whom it has no trade deal — which, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, would be every WTO country. If it attempted to discriminate unilaterally, the UK would be taken to the WTO court by some or all of the WTO countries who would not be getting the same concessions.

The UK is a trading nation. As such, it benefits from a rules-based world trading system. So, it would not be in the UK’s interest to start breaking WTO rules on the day it left the EU, just to solve a problem that is of its own making.

The two allegiances in Ireland

The other big reason for having an Irish backstop and for avoiding a hard border is about human beings, rather than just about commerce. For the past four centuries, two communities with different allegiances have lived together, geographically intermingled, in the Irish province of Ulster.

One community feels a sense of allegiance to Britain, its monarch, its historic narrative and its flag. The other feels an allegiance to Ireland and identifies itself with different historic narrative and different symbols. The two communities have different religious allegiances too, but the disagreements between them are not primarily about religious matters — they are all about national identity.

For centuries, the contest between these two identities was a zero-sum game. Either the British identity had to win or the Irish identity had to win. That zero-sum approach led to wars, threats of wars or uprisings from the 17th century all the way up until the late 20th century. These conflicts caused many casualties in Ireland and in Britain, too.

British and Irish political leaders have, for the last 40 years, been trying to find a different way forward. Rather than a zero-sum game where if one identity won, the other had to lose, these leaders sought to create conditions in which both identities could coexist comfortably together within Northern Ireland, without either of them winning or losing. The aim was to ensure that neither would feel cut off from the focus of their emotional allegiance. The nationalists would not feel cut off from Dublin, and Unionists would not feel cut off from London or the “mainland” as they would call it.

The Belfast Agreement of 1998 achieved this. Crafted between Ireland and the United Kingdom, when both were members of the barrier-free EU, it created structures to have a comfort zone for both communities. This was done through establishing three interlocking structures of cooperation, incorporated in an overarching international treaty, namely: power-sharing within Northern Ireland; cooperation between north and south; and cooperation between Dublin and London. On the strength of this agreement, Ireland changed its constitution to remove a territorial claim it had on Northern Ireland.

Now, 20 years later, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union puts these structures at risk because Brexit requires barriers to go up between the UK and Ireland, where previously there was free exchange. This is why, at a meeting in London, long before the referendum in 2016, I described Brexit as an “unfriendly act” by the UK vis-à-vis my country.

The backstop is simply an effort to mitigate the damage. It is a second-best option — and a bad second best at that. The only option that will not damage the structure of peace we have so painstakingly built between Ireland and Britain, and within the island of Ireland, would be for the UK to decide to stay in the EU after all.

(John Bruton is a former Irish prime minister and an international business leader)

(This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the <a href="https://www.fairobserver.com/region/europe/what-is-irish-backstop-european-union-brexit-deal-no-deal-world-news-today-29083/">original article</a>)

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

By John Bruton It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit.

By John Bruton It puzzles many people in Britain that something known as an “Irish backstop” should be at the heart of an increasingly bitter dispute. This is over the deal the UK government has made with the European Union on the terms for Brexit. Most people understand that when the UK leaves the EU on March 29, the only land boundary between the United Kingdom and the European Union will be the 300-mile-long border in Ireland. Some do understand that if the UK leaves the EU, there will have to be border controls. After all, leaving the union was supposed to be about taking back “control,” and given that countries can only exercise control in their own territory, there is a logical necessity to have controls at the border of a country’s territory. This is not something made up by the EU to annoy Brits but is a logical consequence of Brexit, which is, as we all know, something Britons have chosen for themselves and not something imposed on them by the European Union. The proposed backstop in British Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal with the EU involves the whole of the UK staying in a close customs arrangement with the union. The original idea was that the backstop would be confined to Northern Ireland, but the British government preferred a backstop arrangement that would cover the whole UK, so as to minimize the controls that would otherwise have to be imposed between Britain and Northern Ireland. The object of the entire exercise is to avoid having controls at the 300 crossing points between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Some in Britain think the UK should be free to leave the EU, and that the British and Irish governments should then just decide, between themselves, that they were simply not going to have controls on the Irish border. That would not work because Ireland would still be in the European Union and would be breaking EU rules if it failed to control its portion of the EU land border. Apart from being illegal, it would be impractical. The UK, once outside the European Union, would immediately go off and try to make trade deals with non-EU countries. These would inevitably involve agreeing to different standards and tariffs on goods coming from these non-EU countries to the ones that the European Union (including Ireland) would be applying to these nations. So, if there were no controls on the Irish border, goods from these non-EU states with which the UK had made its own trade deals could enter the European Union via Northern Ireland, without complying with EU standards or paying EU tariffs. That would destroy the single market, which is based on common rules and tariffs, made, enforced and interpreted in the same way for all 27 EU members, including the Republic of Ireland. Outside of the EU, under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, the United Kingdom would also have to impose tariffs on its side of the Irish border — unless it wanted to collect no tariffs at all — on goods coming into the UK from any country in the world. This is because of a WTO rule that says in the absence of a broad trade agreement, a country cannot discriminate between WTO member countries in the rate of tariffs it charges on goods coming from those countries (the most favoured nation rule). So, in the absence of a trade deal with the EU, the UK must charge the same tariffs on Irish goods as it would charge on goods coming from any WTO members, with whom it has no trade deal — which, if the UK leaves the EU without a deal, would be every WTO country. If it attempted to discriminate unilaterally, the UK would be taken to the WTO court by some or all of the WTO countries who would not be getting the same concessions. The UK is a trading nation. As such, it benefits from a rules-based world trading system. So, it would not be in the UK’s interest to start breaking WTO rules on the day it left the EU, just to solve a problem that is of its own making. The two allegiances in Ireland The other big reason for having an Irish backstop and for avoiding a hard border is about human beings, rather than just about commerce. For the past four centuries, two communities with different allegiances have lived together, geographically intermingled, in the Irish province of Ulster. One community feels a sense of allegiance to Britain, its monarch, its historic narrative and its flag. The other feels an allegiance to Ireland and identifies itself with different historic narrative and different symbols. The two communities have different religious allegiances too, but the disagreements between them are not primarily about religious matters — they are all about national identity. For centuries, the contest between these two identities was a zero-sum game. Either the British identity had to win or the Irish identity had to win. That zero-sum approach led to wars, threats of wars or uprisings from the 17th century all the way up until the late 20th century. These conflicts caused many casualties in Ireland and in Britain, too. British and Irish political leaders have, for the last 40 years, been trying to find a different way forward. Rather than a zero-sum game where if one identity won, the other had to lose, these leaders sought to create conditions in which both identities could coexist comfortably together within Northern Ireland, without either of them winning or losing. The aim was to ensure that neither would feel cut off from the focus of their emotional allegiance. The nationalists would not feel cut off from Dublin, and Unionists would not feel cut off from London or the “mainland” as they would call it. The Belfast Agreement of 1998 achieved this. Crafted between Ireland and the United Kingdom, when both were members of the barrier-free EU, it created structures to have a comfort zone for both communities. This was done through establishing three interlocking structures of cooperation, incorporated in an overarching international treaty, namely: power-sharing within Northern Ireland; cooperation between north and south; and cooperation between Dublin and London. On the strength of this agreement, Ireland changed its constitution to remove a territorial claim it had on Northern Ireland. Now, 20 years later, the UK’s decision to leave the European Union puts these structures at risk because Brexit requires barriers to go up between the UK and Ireland, where previously there was free exchange. This is why, at a meeting in London, long before the referendum in 2016, I described Brexit as an “unfriendly act” by the UK vis-à-vis my country. The backstop is simply an effort to mitigate the damage. It is a second-best option — and a bad second best at that. The only option that will not damage the structure of peace we have so painstakingly built between Ireland and Britain, and within the island of Ireland, would be for the UK to decide to stay in the EU after all. (John Bruton is a former Irish prime minister and an international business leader) (This article was originally published on The Fair Observer. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Brexit row: Why is there an Irish backstop?

Britain's battle over <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pm-may-says-if-brexit-deal-is-rejected-uk-will-be-in-uncharted-territory-188563">Brexit </a>resumes Monday when parliament returns from its Christmas break to debate and -- most likely -- defeat Prime Minister Theresa May's unpopular EU divorce deal.

The stakes could hardly be higher as the clock ticks down to the moment the world's fifth-biggest economy splits from it main trading partner on March 29.

May and the other 27 EU leaders agreed on a draft in November designed to keep the process as orderly and undamaging as possible.

<a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/pm-may-says-if-brexit-deal-is-rejected-uk-will-be-in-uncharted-territory-188563">Also read: UK's May could seek more time before final Brexit vote, Report</a>

It took nearly two years to negotiate and has managed to upset just about everyone in British politics.

May survived her party's resulting no-confidence motion but was forced to abort a December vote on the pact after admitting it would lose by a "significant margin".

There are few signs that much has changed since.

May returned empty-handed from a subsequent EU summit she had hoped could address the concerns of her disgruntled Northern Irish coalition partners.

Vote to go ahead

Brexit-backing MPs in her Conservative party are still in revolt while opposition Labour leaders are angling for new elections.

May insisted on Sunday that the vote will go ahead as planned on or around January 15. The formal debate kicks off in parliament Wednesday.

But she also warned the deal's defeat would put Britain "in unchartered territory (in which) I don't think anybody can say exactly what will happen".

London has been swirling with rumours about how exactly May intends to avoid Britain crashing out of the bloc without any trade or other arrangements in place.

One idea mentioned by advisers involves the government simply re-introducing more or less the same version of the draft over and over again.

"If we have to have the vote 30 times, we will," a Downing Street source told BuzzFeed News.

May refused to rule out the possibility of a second or third vote in parliament when pressed about it in a BBC interview Sunday.

Other reports said she intends to invite her party's most vocal opponents over for private drinks on Monday and Wednesday.

The arm twisting will be accompanied by a new government campaign designed to prepare Britons for the full impact of a disruptive no-deal scenario.

One test on Monday will see up to 150 trucks sent down a highway to the Channel port of Dover to determine how the authorities deal with gridlock.

Dover handles most of Britain's trade with Europe and is expected to get quickly plugged up if no customs arrangements are made.

But Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said reports that he and other EU sceptics could be persuaded by May's arguments about a calamitous no-deal Brexit were "wishful thinking".

Most Conservatives either "think that these fears are exaggerated or that (it) is a price worth paying for leaving the shackles of the European Union," he wrote in the Sunday Express.

Involving parliament

May outlined a formal plan of action Sunday that included the possibility of giving parliament a bigger say in a new round of trade talks with Brussels that begins once Brexit enters into force.

These "future relationship" negotiations will also try to resolve the prickly issue of keeping the Irish border open while preserving the integrity of the EU.

The temporary solution laid out in the draft withdrawal agreement does not suit Northern Ireland's tiny Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) that props up May's government.

"There's a number of ways which we're looking to see how we can involve parliament in a greater way in the future," May told the BBC.

She also promised to continue to seek "further assurances from the European Union" about the border issue ahead of next week's vote.

The DUP wants a binding guarantee from Brussels that Northern Ireland's trade with the rest of Britain will not be subjected to any types of checks.

May spent part of her holidays ringing up EU leaders about possible concessions. Brussels has made clear it will cede nothing before the vote.

Britain's battle over Brexit resumes Monday when parliament returns from its Christmas break to debate and -- most likely -- defeat Prime Minister Theresa May's unpopular EU divorce deal.

Britain's battle over Brexit resumes Monday when parliament returns from its Christmas break to debate and -- most likely -- defeat Prime Minister Theresa May's unpopular EU divorce deal. The stakes could hardly be higher as the clock ticks down to the moment the world's fifth-biggest economy splits from it main trading partner on March 29. May and the other 27 EU leaders agreed on a draft in November designed to keep the process as orderly and undamaging as possible. Also read: UK's May could seek more time before final Brexit vote, Report It took nearly two years to negotiate and has managed to upset just about everyone in British politics. May survived her party's resulting no-confidence motion but was forced to abort a December vote on the pact after admitting it would lose by a "significant margin". There are few signs that much has changed since. May returned empty-handed from a subsequent EU summit she had hoped could address the concerns of her disgruntled Northern Irish coalition partners. Vote to go ahead Brexit-backing MPs in her Conservative party are still in revolt while opposition Labour leaders are angling for new elections. May insisted on Sunday that the vote will go ahead as planned on or around January 15. The formal debate kicks off in parliament Wednesday. But she also warned the deal's defeat would put Britain "in unchartered territory (in which) I don't think anybody can say exactly what will happen". London has been swirling with rumours about how exactly May intends to avoid Britain crashing out of the bloc without any trade or other arrangements in place. One idea mentioned by advisers involves the government simply re-introducing more or less the same version of the draft over and over again. "If we have to have the vote 30 times, we will," a Downing Street source told BuzzFeed News. May refused to rule out the possibility of a second or third vote in parliament when pressed about it in a BBC interview Sunday. Other reports said she intends to invite her party's most vocal opponents over for private drinks on Monday and Wednesday. The arm twisting will be accompanied by a new government campaign designed to prepare Britons for the full impact of a disruptive no-deal scenario. One test on Monday will see up to 150 trucks sent down a highway to the Channel port of Dover to determine how the authorities deal with gridlock. Dover handles most of Britain's trade with Europe and is expected to get quickly plugged up if no customs arrangements are made. But Conservative MP Jacob Rees-Mogg said reports that he and other EU sceptics could be persuaded by May's arguments about a calamitous no-deal Brexit were "wishful thinking". Most Conservatives either "think that these fears are exaggerated or that (it) is a price worth paying for leaving the shackles of the European Union," he wrote in the Sunday Express. Involving parliament May outlined a formal plan of action Sunday that included the possibility of giving parliament a bigger say in a new round of trade talks with Brussels that begins once Brexit enters into force. These "future relationship" negotiations will also try to resolve the prickly issue of keeping the Irish border open while preserving the integrity of the EU. The temporary solution laid out in the draft withdrawal agreement does not suit Northern Ireland's tiny Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) that props up May's government. "There's a number of ways which we're looking to see how we can involve parliament in a greater way in the future," May told the BBC. She also promised to continue to seek "further assurances from the European Union" about the border issue ahead of next week's vote. The DUP wants a binding guarantee from Brussels that Northern Ireland's trade with the rest of Britain will not be subjected to any types of checks. May spent part of her holidays ringing up EU leaders about possible concessions. Brussels has made clear it will cede nothing before the vote.

Britain's battle over Brexit resumes ahead of big vote

brexit-0

Brexit, News on Brexit, stories on Brexit, articles on Brexit, Brexit stories at Wion, Brexit news, Brexit latest news

brexit 0