Wednesday night’s Democratic debate Pt. II allowed a smattering of underdog candidates a chance to try and raise their profile by taking shots at two of the race’s frontrunners – Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Kamala Harris.
But it was Joe Biden who took the most heat Wednesday night, taking fire from all sides regarding his record on abortion rights, crime and immigration. Many also questioned whether a candidate like Biden, who is out of touch with progressive base voters who favor an agenda set by the “Squad,” could successfully mobilize the base and boost turnout.
Biden and Harris led in terms of speaking time, with the vice president commanding 20 whole minutes (while Harris came in second with 17.7 minutes).
The night’s most-tweeted moment was this exchange between Sen. Cory Booker and Biden, where Booker accused Biden of hypocrisy after the VP questioned Booker’s embrace of tough-on-crime policing tactics like stop-and-frisk, as well as the hiring of a former Giuliani advisor during his time as mayor of Newark.
Of course, Biden’s record involves helping write the controversial 1994 crime bill that dramatically widened sentencing disparities between black and white inmates.
“If you want to compare records, and I’m shocked that you do, I’m happy to do that,” Booker said to Biden Wednesday.
Another widely discussed moment from the debate on Twitter was this exchange between Rep. Tulsi Gabbard and Sen. Harris, where Gabbard took Harris to task for jailing thousands of offenders for low-level marijuana-relaed offenses: “I’m concerned about this record of Senator Harris. She put over 1,500 people in jail for marijuana violations and laughed about it when she was asked if she ever smoked marijuana.”
But perhaps the most embarrassing moment of the night for either frontrunner was this gaffe involving Biden, where the former vice president during his closing statement told viewers “If you agree with me, go to Joe 30330 and help me in this fight.” However, that site didn’t exist, and viewers soon concluded that Biden had meant to say “Text JOE to 30330.”
Joe Biden ended his debate night with a viral gaffe. He stared straight into the camera and said: “If you agree with me, go to Joe 30330 and help me in this fight.” Cue immediate confusion. (Viewers concluded Biden meant to tell his supporters to text his name to the number.) pic.twitter.com/vsYm4eHkgG
But rival campaigns were quick to strike: Domains like ‘www.joe30330.com‘ were soon redirecting people to Buttigieg’s campaign site.
Another one of the most tweeted moments from last night’s debate came courtesy of Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who said that “the first thing I’m going to do when I’m president is I’m going to Clorox the Oval Office.”
Those were the top moments according to Twitter. And while Harris and Biden, the two leading candidates in the debate, were busy defending more centrist positions like private health care and keeping border-crossing illegal, critics and left-wing media personalities alike soon noted that the tone of the Democratic debates is moving increasingly leftward.
CNN’s Chris Cuomo notes that the Democrat presidential candidates do not represent the party’s voters:
“In the party … 8 of 10 say, ‘We are center left, not far-left.’ … that’s not what you are getting on these debate stages” pic.twitter.com/hhPtQAJo90
With the pound tumbling below 1.21 ahead of today’s BOE announcement, traders indicated a virtual certainty that the central bank would be dovish, and why not when even the Fed had cut rate less than 24 hour earlier. So it was perhaps a modest surprise – even if the outcome was as consensus expected – that the BOE did not cut rates, and instead voted unanimously to keep rates at 0.75% and to keep asset purchases unchanged, while noting that it is less confident than usual about the outlook for the economy because of Brexit while offering little new insight into the impact of how it would react to a “no deal” outcome.
Specifically, when it comes to its view on Brexit, the MPC specifically excluded the possibility of no deal, assuming a smooth Brexit and reiterated that interest rates will need to gradually rise to bring inflation to target. while noting that evidence suggests that uncertainty over the UK’s future trading relationship with the EU has become more entrenched.
Among its other underlying assumptions of projections, the BOE’s MPC notes that projections are impacted by an inconsistency between the Bank’s smooth Brexit assumption underpinning the forecasts and the prevailing market asset prices on which the forecasts are also conditioned.
On rates, the BOE maintained the view that on the basis of the assumption of a smooth Brexit and some recovery in global growth (new inclusion), the MPC continues to judge that increases in interest rates, at a gradual pace and to a limited extent, would be appropriate to return inflation sustainably to the 2% target. The response to Brexit, whatever form it takes, will not be automatic and could be in either direction
On domestic growth, the BOE maintained the view that Q2 growth is expected to be flat. On the basis of current Brexit assumptions, underlying output growth is expected to be subdued in the near-term. Thereafter, GDP is expected to accelerate to robust growth rates as Brexit-related uncertainties dissipate.
On Global Growth, the BOE noted that global trade tensions have intensified since May and global activity remains soft
On inflation, after falling in the near-term, CPI is expected to rise above the 2% target, with CPI to reach 2.4% by the end of the three-year forecast period.
On labor/wages, the central bank said that the Labur market remains tight and annual pay growth has been relatively strong
These comments were the bank’s first since Boris Johnson became prime minster on a mission to leave the European Union on Oct. 31 with or without new trading arrangements in place. If there’s no deal, the BOE merely noted again that the pound will fall, inflation will accelerate and growth will slow.
While that BOE’s non-committal forecast and lack of Brexit discussion meant Governor Mark Carney avoids a political headache, it disappointed others who are looking for more clues as to how the BOE might respond to no deal.
That communications problem has dogged the governor for some time. To account for the market currently pricing in a rate cut because of the greater chance of a bumpy departure from the EU, the BOE gave some stylized forecasts based on higher pound and interest rates. They show much slower inflation than the central scenario.
“The increased uncertainty about the nature of EU withdrawal meant that the economy could follow a wide range of paths over coming years,” the BOE said. “The appropriate path of monetary policy would depend on the balance of the effects of Brexit on demand, supply and exchange rate.”
Meanwhile, as Brexit keeps the BOE in wait-and-see mode, the world’s biggest central banks are turning dovish as global growth cools and trade tensions persist. The Federal Reserve on Wednesday delivered a quarter-point cut and suggested there’s more to come. The European Central Bank is looking at adding more stimulus as early as September.
Acknowledging the weaker global backdrop, the BOE lowered its forecast for economic growth this year, sees slower export growth and weak business investment persisting into 2020. In the stylized forecasts, one quarter-point rate hike over the next three years brings inflation below the 2% target. That compares with a central forecast, based on the market’s expectation of a quarter-point cut, for inflation to pick up to 2.4%. The forecast also sees excess demand at a whopping 1.75%. As Bloomberg notes, in normal circumstances, that would imply that the BOE should be raising rates soon. But given the uncertainty around Brexit, all nine policy makers deemed the current stance appropriate.
With cable having collapsed by a record amount heading into today’s decision, the pound barely moved after the announcement of the decision not to cut rates.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/3360SZw Tyler Durden
There isn’t much that Americans agree on these days, but one of the few issues that brings most of us together is the no-brainer effort to reform the tangle of occupational licensing rules that are strangling Americans’ mobility and prosperity. But as party-line-crossing as support for this reform may be—and despite the accumulating evidence of the damage these laws do—state governments across the country continue to launch legal assaults on entrepreneurs and willing customers doing business without government permission.
Earlier this month, Ivanka Trump urged states to end “excessive licensure.” And Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang called for easing licensing requirements that make it hard for people to move between states. “Americans are moving across state lines at multi-decade lows. This is bad for our labor market and for people who are seeking new opportunities,” Yang pointed out.
Yang’s proposal for encouraging state regulatory authorities to recognize licenses issued by other states won support from Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican. Whatever their differences, the two men agree that restrictive licensing rules are bad for Americans. “@AndrewYang – good policy knows no party,” Ducey tweeted. “Arizona has led as the first state to recognize out-of-state occupational licenses. Would love to hear this issue brought up at the next debate.”
In April, Ducey signed a law under which his state recognizes all occupational licenses issued by other states, when such licenses are required to work in Arizona. It’s an effort to alleviate the damage to mobility done by occupational licensing, since people whose work requires licenses usually must pay the fees and take the time to get licensed all over again when crossing a state border.
“The share of the workforce that falls under some sort of licensing requirement has risen from 5 percent in the 1950s to almost 25 percent in 2008,” urbanist Richard Florida noted in 2017. “Such licensing requirements make it hard for people in those professions to move from place to place, where wages are higher or where their services are more needed.”
Our ability—or inability—to move is “dividing Americans into three classes,” Florida added. “The mobile, who derive the benefits of economic dynamism; the stuck, who are trapped in place and unable to move; and the rooted, who are strongly embedded in their communities and choose not to.”
An awful lot of people are arguably stuck because of growing occupational licensing requirements.
“The percentage of Americans moving over a one-year period fell to an all time low in the United States to 11.2 percent in 2016,” according to the Census Bureau.
That’s unfortunate, because there’s a lot of room for agreement on important reforms.
Increasing interstate recognition of occupational licenses helps to increase people’s ability to move where the jobs are. But what about completely clearing away the barriers that licensing creates to unlicensed people trying to get a foothold in the economy?
As Ivanka Trump pointed out on Twitter: “In 1950 less than 5% of occupations were licensed. Today it is closer to 30%.” That means an awful lot of jobs require a permission slip from the government. That permission slip isn’t free.
“On average, the licensing laws for 102 lower-income occupations require nearly a year of education or experience, one exam, and more than $260 in fees,” the Institute for Justice found in 2017. “In serving as a bottleneck for entry into an occupation, licensing restricts the supply of practitioners, allowing those who are licensed to command more for their services—a cost that is borne by consumers and the wider economy.”
This isn’t just an issue for Ivanka Trump and her father’s administration. The previous administration shared identical concerns about occupational licensing.
“Estimates find that unlicensed workers earn 10 to 15 percent lower wages than licensed workers with similar levels of education, training, and experience,” cautioned an Obama White House report in 2015. “Licensing laws also lead to higher prices for goods and services… Moreover, in a number of other studies, licensing did not increase the quality of goods and services, suggesting that consumers are sometimes paying higher prices without getting improved goods or services.”
People who insist on official assurances that their barber isn’t lethally incompetent might take heart from a Brookings proposal that voluntary certification of professional skills could replace licensing. Those who want to see a piece of paper could go to certified providers. The rest of us could take our chances with businesses we trust through experience and reputation.
But for now, the sniping continues, and so do the crackdowns.
“Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing completes national construction fraud sting, nabs unlicensed contractors statewide with 96 Administrative Citations and $543K in fines,” the Beehive State government trumpeted last month in a press release heavy on gloating about interfering in voluntary deals among people seeking work and others eager to hire them.
“Sting Operation by New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs Catches 29 Unlicensed Movers in ‘Operation Mother’s Attic’,” Garden State officials announced after just one in a series of crackdowns on businesses that operate without jumping through government hoops.
These enforcement actions, under Republicans and Democrats alike, are also nonpartisan efforts. They’re the stupid kind of cross-aisle agreement, on which politicians from opposing affiliations can collaborate in crippling opportunity and prosperity.
Fortunately, the weight of evidence, decency, and common sense is in favor of sweeping away the worst excesses of occupational licensing. People like Trump, Obama, Yang, and Ducey all agree that it should be easier for Americans to work without asking for government permission. If they can overcome the partisan cynics and control freaks in their own parties, we all might find common ground for working together to make each other a little freer.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GHNwJs
via IFTTT
There isn’t much that Americans agree on these days, but one of the few issues that brings most of us together is the no-brainer effort to reform the tangle of occupational licensing rules that are strangling Americans’ mobility and prosperity. But as party-line-crossing as support for this reform may be—and despite the accumulating evidence of the damage these laws do—state governments across the country continue to launch legal assaults on entrepreneurs and willing customers doing business without government permission.
Earlier this month, Ivanka Trump urged states to end “excessive licensure.” And Democratic presidential hopeful Andrew Yang called for easing licensing requirements that make it hard for people to move between states. “Americans are moving across state lines at multi-decade lows. This is bad for our labor market and for people who are seeking new opportunities,” Yang pointed out.
Yang’s proposal for encouraging state regulatory authorities to recognize licenses issued by other states won support from Arizona Governor Doug Ducey, a Republican. Whatever their differences, the two men agree that restrictive licensing rules are bad for Americans. “@AndrewYang – good policy knows no party,” Ducey tweeted. “Arizona has led as the first state to recognize out-of-state occupational licenses. Would love to hear this issue brought up at the next debate.”
In April, Ducey signed a law under which his state recognizes all occupational licenses issued by other states, when such licenses are required to work in Arizona. It’s an effort to alleviate the damage to mobility done by occupational licensing, since people whose work requires licenses usually must pay the fees and take the time to get licensed all over again when crossing a state border.
“The share of the workforce that falls under some sort of licensing requirement has risen from 5 percent in the 1950s to almost 25 percent in 2008,” urbanist Richard Florida noted in 2017. “Such licensing requirements make it hard for people in those professions to move from place to place, where wages are higher or where their services are more needed.”
Our ability—or inability—to move is “dividing Americans into three classes,” Florida added. “The mobile, who derive the benefits of economic dynamism; the stuck, who are trapped in place and unable to move; and the rooted, who are strongly embedded in their communities and choose not to.”
An awful lot of people are arguably stuck because of growing occupational licensing requirements.
“The percentage of Americans moving over a one-year period fell to an all time low in the United States to 11.2 percent in 2016,” according to the Census Bureau.
That’s unfortunate, because there’s a lot of room for agreement on important reforms.
Increasing interstate recognition of occupational licenses helps to increase people’s ability to move where the jobs are. But what about completely clearing away the barriers that licensing creates to unlicensed people trying to get a foothold in the economy?
As Ivanka Trump pointed out on Twitter: “In 1950 less than 5% of occupations were licensed. Today it is closer to 30%.” That means an awful lot of jobs require a permission slip from the government. That permission slip isn’t free.
“On average, the licensing laws for 102 lower-income occupations require nearly a year of education or experience, one exam, and more than $260 in fees,” the Institute for Justice found in 2017. “In serving as a bottleneck for entry into an occupation, licensing restricts the supply of practitioners, allowing those who are licensed to command more for their services—a cost that is borne by consumers and the wider economy.”
This isn’t just an issue for Ivanka Trump and her father’s administration. The previous administration shared identical concerns about occupational licensing.
“Estimates find that unlicensed workers earn 10 to 15 percent lower wages than licensed workers with similar levels of education, training, and experience,” cautioned an Obama White House report in 2015. “Licensing laws also lead to higher prices for goods and services… Moreover, in a number of other studies, licensing did not increase the quality of goods and services, suggesting that consumers are sometimes paying higher prices without getting improved goods or services.”
People who insist on official assurances that their barber isn’t lethally incompetent might take heart from a Brookings proposal that voluntary certification of professional skills could replace licensing. Those who want to see a piece of paper could go to certified providers. The rest of us could take our chances with businesses we trust through experience and reputation.
But for now, the sniping continues, and so do the crackdowns.
“Utah Department of Commerce, Division of Occupational and Professional Licensing completes national construction fraud sting, nabs unlicensed contractors statewide with 96 Administrative Citations and $543K in fines,” the Beehive State government trumpeted last month in a press release heavy on gloating about interfering in voluntary deals among people seeking work and others eager to hire them.
“Sting Operation by New Jersey Division of Consumer Affairs Catches 29 Unlicensed Movers in ‘Operation Mother’s Attic’,” Garden State officials announced after just one in a series of crackdowns on businesses that operate without jumping through government hoops.
These enforcement actions, under Republicans and Democrats alike, are also nonpartisan efforts. They’re the stupid kind of cross-aisle agreement, on which politicians from opposing affiliations can collaborate in crippling opportunity and prosperity.
Fortunately, the weight of evidence, decency, and common sense is in favor of sweeping away the worst excesses of occupational licensing. People like Trump, Obama, Yang, and Ducey all agree that it should be easier for Americans to work without asking for government permission. If they can overcome the partisan cynics and control freaks in their own parties, we all might find common ground for working together to make each other a little freer.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2GHNwJs
via IFTTT
Given the rising tension in the Strait of Hormuz, and the mysterious spate of seemingly random attacks on tankers that some have blamed on Iran, it’s no surprise that more captains transporting shipments of crude and LNG through one of the busiest corridors for the global energy trade feel the need to keep a low profile, according to Bloomberg.
Which is apparently why more ships are turning off their transponders – “going dark”, in industry jargon – a technique that is typically used by smugglers and those hoping to avoid American sanctions.
But this time, ships are going dark mostly as a precaution. Following a buildup of military personnel in the region, most carriers fear the prospects of open war between Iran and a coalition of the Americans and the Saudis, or at the very least, more sporadic attacks on vessels that are still simply trying to scratch out a living.
In at least one way, the fact that ships are “going dark” is ironic: Because Iranian ships pioneered the technique while trying to bypass the American sanctions regime.
Copying from Iran’s own playbook, at least 20 ships turned off their transponders while passing through the strait this month, tanker-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg show. Others appear to have slightly altered their routes once inside the Persian Gulf, sailing closer than usual to Saudi Arabia’s coast en route to ports in Kuwait or Iraq.
Some ships are also trying out new routes that involve spending less time, or no time, in Iran’s territorial waters.
Before the latest increase in tensions with Iran, ships were more consistent about signaling their positions as they passed through a waterway that handles a third of seaborne petroleum. Once inside the Gulf, shipping routes took them fairly close to the Iranian coast, skirting the offshore South Pars/North gas field shared by Iran and Qatar. Most still do, but a growing number appear to be trying something new.
It’s little surprise that ships are doing everything possible to minimize risk. The Gulf region has witnessed a spate of vessel attacks, tanker seizures and drone shoot-downs since May, all against the backdrop of U.S. sanctions aimed at crippling Iran. War-risk insurance soared for tanker owners seeking to load cargoes in the region.
Two British warships are now stationed in the region, and stand ready to assist tankers flagged for Britain. The Norwegian Maritime Authority recently warned its vessels to avoid taking unnecessary risks by minimizing transit time in Iran’s territorial waters. All of this is making tanker captains increasingly nervous about the risks of getting caught in the crossfire between Iran and the US, and some ships have been looking at alternate routes that don’t involve going anywhere near the Strait.
By Bloomberg‘s count, at least 12 tankers loaded in Saudi Arabia and shut off their transponders while passing through the strait within the past month, including the supertanker Kahla, which turned off its transponder on July 20 before passing through the strait. At least eight vessels that loaded in Iraq and Kuwait went dark while leaving the Strait of Hormuz. A vessel shipping from the UAE also dropped off tracking systems.
And as long as tankers keep getting attacked, or captured, expect this trend to continue.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OAutY2 Tyler Durden
Despite termination of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty soon, deployment of new missiles is unlikely but a disrupted security environment may give rise to provocative incidents “inviting” Russia to “partake.”
Given that there is a low probability that the US will change its stance of issuing ultimatums to Russia, the treaty will be terminated in August.
Although the INF didn’t reflect the current global order as it applied only to the US and the successor states of the Soviet Union, European nations perceived it as a security guarantee against dangerous military buildups on their soil. Hence, its ripples may affect Europe.
However, the development and deployment of ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500-5500km is ruled out in the short-term.
And here are the reasons…
Potential reluctance of the energy dependent European countries
According to data from Eurostat, the EU’s statistical office, in 2018 Russia was the largest supplier of natural gas and petroleum oils to the EU with a 40.2% and 27.3% share respectively. Moreover, in 9 NATO member states (Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovenia, and Slovakia) Russia’s share of total national imports of natural gas was reportedly more than 75%.
The NATO states, that have been “entrusted” to play a key role in “countering” Russia, such as Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, and the Baltic nations, are in varying degrees dependent from it.
According to Gazprom, 9,861bcm of natural gas was sold to Poland in 2018. The Polish state-controlled oil and natural gas company PGNiG may continue to import Russian gas until 2022 under the Yamal contract with Gazprom.
Although Bulgaria has planned to diversify its supply routes by importing LNG and Caspian gas, Russia has served as the sole exporter of natural gas to the country. Bulgaria has also played a key role in transit of Russian gas. Furthermore, as the President of Bulgaria Rumen Radev mentioned recently during the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Sofia would expect even more Russian gas to flow to Central Europe through Bulgaria.
Gazprom numbers indicate that Russian exports to Romania increased in 2018.
In addition to Russian gas supplies, the Baltic countries are also dependent on Russian electricity as their power grids are connected with the Soviet-era BRELL (Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) ring. This dependency will continue until 2025 when it is expected that full synchronization with Europe’s electricity grids will occur.
To sum up, the formation of a ‘sound’ anti-Russian coalition would not be as easy as it may be perceived from the rhetoric, and news about the US’ or NATO’ ramped-up military presence, increased military aid, and plans to establish or modernize military bases in the aforementioned countries.
Taking into account the energy dependence and economic interests, it would be at least irrational if those allies decide to host missiles or ensure an unnerving military posture.
Public disapproval
The unwillingness of the European leaders to provoke a new arms race would be effectively supported by public criticism.
Nowadays, people in Europe are more sensitive to threats, considering the rise of violence in the continent, and have more tools at their disposal to allow them to protest. Widespread protests would be quite challenging for European leaders given the existing issues over Brexit, migrants, and the deteriorating situation over Iran.
Fear of the reaction from Moscow
Any drastic shifts that could pose a threat to the national interests of Russia could cause an unexpected response from it.
In his 2019 address to the Federal Assembly, President Putin, mentioned the deployment of launchers which can accommodate Tomahawk cruise missiles in Romania and Poland, as an open violation of the treaty clauses. He warnedthat Russia would “respond with mirror or asymmetric actions.” He stated that Russia would have to target the decision-making centers of the missile systems.
US decision makers and policy planners are well informed about the nature of a possible Russian response which has been tested in the past in the case of Georgia and Ukraine.
Upcoming elections in the US
The Trump administration would refrain from radical foreign policy decisions ahead of the presidential elections in 2020.
Although US foreign policy is not believed to be as important in US elections as issues such as healthcare, immigration, and gun laws, any dramatic geopolitical event for the US would definitely affect voting behavior.
While the US has been concerned about Russia’s alleged development of a ground-launched cruise missile since 2013, it is unclear what triggered Washington’s abrupt move. However, it is known from the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review 2018, that the US had already started “research and development by reviewing military concepts and options for conventional, ground-launched, intermediate-range missile systems,” as part of military measures to respond to Russia.
The explanation of the incentives of the withdrawal decision is further complicated in view of the above listed circumstances which would essentially limit the potential willingness of the US to deploy such missiles.
The move could be related to US concerns regarding China, which is not bound by the Cold War-era treaty. This is challenging for Russia too. But Russia could deploy those missiles in the East as a counterbalance against the potential US deployment to the Asia-Pacific.
Nevertheless, the US decision to walk away from the treaty will impact European security and worsen relations between the US and Russia.
Apparently, the vulnerable security situation and the lack of contacts within the NATO-Russia and US-Russia channels may give rise to incidents and provocations based on miscalculations or errors of information.
The risk of this happening has increased due to NATO’s and the US’ enhanced military presence.
As NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg noted at a press conference ahead of a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Washington in April, a 50% increase was seen in the number of days NATO ships spent in the Black Sea in 2018 compared with 2017.
It is worth mentioning the incident of a Russian Su-27 intercepting the US EP-3 Aries aircraft flying over the Black Sea. While Russia’s Defense Ministry said the crew “followed all necessary safety procedures,” the US Navy warned “unsafe actions increase the risk of miscalculation and potential for midair collisions”. Another such incident occurred last month over the Mediterranean Sea when a US P-8A Poseidon aircraft was intercepted by a Russian SU-35.
Provoking Russia to become involved in such incidents could make European leaders recalculate their strategic choices and boost military cooperation with the US and within NATO. It would also stimulate further attempts to harm Russia’s strategic energy plans, such as the Nord Stream 2 project, in order to reduce Russian leverage against Europe and open the way for LNG imports for the sake of US business interests.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2MrvVtb Tyler Durden
The questions are starting to pile up for Aston Martin after the company’s ugly first half of the year, where it swung to a loss, according to Bloomberg.
Recall, just days ago, we reported that the newly-listed company had slashed its sales forecast and saw its shares tumble as a result. The stock’s fall since its listing in October, combined with its operational challenges, have prompted speculation about capital raises and potentially becoming a takeover target.
The company’s Chief Executive Officer Andy Palmer said on Wednesday: “It’s been a tough time for all of us, but we still believe that what we’ve done is the right thing for the brand.”
The company cut its outlook on sales to dealers by more than 10% last week and reported a 1H adjusted operating loss of 35.2 million pounds, versus a 64.4 million pound profit last year. The company blamed higher costs of expansion and lower vehicle pricing as pressures on its operations. It also noted that uncertainty over Brexit continues to loom over the head of the automaker.
As the U.K. leaving the EU without an exit deal becomes likely, the company is preparing to face supply chain issues going forward.
Bernstein analyst Max Warburton said:
“The company is now on a financial knife-edge. There’s now very, very little room for error or further external pressures, a serious worry given the potential trouble that could come from Brexit.”
The company now sports a 1 billion pound market valuation, nearing the amount of its 723 million pounds in debt. Bank of America said on Tuesday that the company should consider a rights offering of up to 500 million pounds or cut its medium term outlook.
The struggles also open the door for a potential buyer, like InvestIndustrial, who is one of its largest shareholders.
Chief Financial Officer Mark Wilson said Wednesday:
“If we require some additional financing from sources with which we’re familiar, particularly in the debt market to maintain that capacity, then that’s what we’ll go out and do.”
A lot of the company’s success going forward will hinge on its new SUV, the DBX, which is set to launch next year.
It’ll be built at a new plant in Wales and is a key part of the company’s goal to raise annual production to 14,000 per year by 2023.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2yqITPw Tyler Durden
Heritage train companies, which run steam engine tours, will have to shell out big money to retrofit passenger cars to comply with new safety regulations in the United Kingdom. The new rules mandate the cars must have bars over the windows to keep passengers from leaning out. And the companies must install central locking systems that keep doors from being opened until the trains come to a complete stop. The train cars had operated for 70 years without incident until 2016, when a man died after leaning out of a window and striking his head on a signal gantry.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2MsdZym
via IFTTT
Heritage train companies, which run steam engine tours, will have to shell out big money to retrofit passenger cars to comply with new safety regulations in the United Kingdom. The new rules mandate the cars must have bars over the windows to keep passengers from leaning out. And the companies must install central locking systems that keep doors from being opened until the trains come to a complete stop. The train cars had operated for 70 years without incident until 2016, when a man died after leaning out of a window and striking his head on a signal gantry.
from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/2MsdZym
via IFTTT
“We are facing the biggest wave of migration in history. If we open the floodgates, no European government will be able to survive for more than six months. We advise them not to try our patience.” — Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu.
“Turkey is fully committed to the objective of EU membership… The finalization of the Visa Liberalization Dialogue process which will allow our citizens to travel to the Schengen area without a visa, is our first priority.” — Statement released by the Turkish Foreign Ministry, May 9, 2019.
“This doesn’t mean that I have anything against the Turks…. But if we begin to explain it — that Turkey is in Europe — European school students will have to be told that the European border lies in Syria. Where’s common sense? … Can Turkey be regarded a European country culturally, historically, and economically speaking? If we say that, we want the European Union’s death.” — Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
If the EU approves the visa waiver, tens of millions of Turks will gain immediate and unimpeded access to Europe’s passport-free zone. Critics of visa liberalization fear that millions of Turkish nationals may end up migrating to Europe. The Austrian newsmagazine, Wochenblick, reported that 11 million Turks are living in poverty and “many of them are dreaming of moving to central Europe.”
Turkey has threatened to re-open the floodgates of mass migration to Europe unless Turkish nationals are granted visa-free travel to the European Union. The EU agreed to visa liberalization in a March 2016 EU-Turkey migrant deal in which Ankara pledged to stem the flow of migrants to Europe.
Pictured: The Adiyaman refugee camp in Turkey. (Image source: UNHCR)
European officials insist that while Turkey has reduced the flow of migrants, it has not yet met all of the requirements for visa liberalization. Moreover, EU foreign ministers on July 15 decided to halt high-level talks with Ankara as part of sanctions over Turkish oil and gas drilling off the coast of Cyprus.
In an interview with Turkish television channel TGRT Haber on July 22, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Çavuşoğlu said that Turkey was backing out of the migrant deal because the EU had failed to honor its pledge to grant Turkish passport holders visa-free access to 26 European countries.
“We have suspended the readmission agreement,” he said. “We will not wait at the EU’s door.”
A day earlier, Turkish Interior Minister Süleyman Soylu accused European countries of leaving Turkey alone to deal with the migration issue. In comments published by the state news agency Anadolu Agency, he warned:
“We are facing the biggest wave of migration in history. If we open the floodgates, no European government will be able to survive for more than six months. We advise them not to try our patience.”
The migration deal, which entered into force on June 1, 2016, was hastily negotiated by European leaders desperate to gain control over a crisis in which more than one million migrants poured into Europe in 2015.
Under the agreement, the EU pledged to pay Turkey €6 billion ($6.7 billion), grant visa-free travel to Europe for Turkey’s 82 million citizens, and restart accession talks for Turkey to join the EU. In exchange, Turkey agreed to stop the flow of migrants to Europe as well as to take back all migrants and refugees who illegally reach Greece from Turkey.
Turkey currently hosts an estimated 3.5 million migrants and refugees — mainly Syrians, Iraqis and Afghans. Many of these people presumably would migrate to Europe if given the opportunity to do so.
Responding to Çavuşoğlu’s remarks, EU spokesperson Natasha Bertaud insisted that Turkey’s continued enforcement of the EU-Turkey deal remains a condition for visa liberalization.
Turkish officials have repeatedly accused the EU of failing to keep its end of the bargain, especially with respect to visa liberalization and accession to the EU.
Under the agreement, European officials promised to fast-track visa-free access for Turkish nationals to the Schengen (open-bordered) passport-free zone by June 30, 2016 and to restart Turkey’s stalled EU membership talks by the end of July 2016.
To qualify for the visa waiver, Turkey had until April 30, 2016 to meet 72 conditions. These include: bringing the security features of Turkish passports up to EU standards; sharing information on forged and fraudulent documents used to travel to the EU, and granting work permits to non-Syrian migrants in Turkey.
European officials say that although Turkey has fulfilled most of their conditions, it has failed to comply with the most important one: relaxing its stringent anti-terrorism laws, which are being used to silence critics of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan.
Since Turkey’s failed coup on July 15, 2016, more than 95,000 Turkish citizens have been arrested and at least 160,000 civil servants, teachers, journalists, police officers and soldiers have been fired or suspended from various state-run institutions.
Responding to the purge, the European Parliament on March 13, 2019 called for EU accession negotiations with Turkey to be suspended. “While the EU accession process was at its start a strong motivation for reforms in Turkey, there has been a stark regression in the areas of the rule of law and human rights during the last few years,” according to the adopted text.
Turkey was first promised EU membership in September 1963, when it signed an “Association Agreement” aimed at establishing a customs union to pave the way for eventual accession to the EU. Turkey formally applied for EU membership in April 1987 and membership talks began in October 2005.
Turkey’s EU accession talks stalled in December 2006 after the Turkish government refused to open Turkish ports and airports to trade from Cyprus. Since then, talks have continued on and off, but the process has been stalled due to political opposition from France and Germany, among others.
If Turkey were to join the EU, it would overtake Germany to become the EU’s largest member in terms of population. Consequently, the EU’s largest member state would be Muslim. Some European officials have warned that Turkish accession would cause Europe to “implode” and be “Islamized.”
Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy has said that Turkey has no place in the EU. In a February 2016 interview with the French news channel iTélé, he expressed sentiments that presumably are shared by many Europeans:
“Turkey has no place in Europe. I have always adhered to this position, it is based on common sense. This doesn’t mean that I have anything against the Turks. We need them, they are our allies in NATO. But if we begin to explain it — that Turkey is in Europe — European school students will have to be told that the European border lies in Syria. Where’s common sense?
“It’s not just that. What’s the idea behind Europe? Europe is a union of European countries. The question is very simple, even in a geographical sense, is Turkey a European country? Turkey has only one shore of the Bosporus in Europe. Can Turkey be regarded a European country culturally, historically, and economically speaking? If we say that, we want the European Union’s death.”
On May 9, 2019, Erdoğan said that Turkey was committed to joining the EU. A statement released by the Turkish Foreign Ministry noted:
“Turkey remains committed to its objective of EU membership and continues its efforts in this respect…. Our expectation from the EU is to treat Turkey on equal footing with other candidate countries and to remove political barriers on the way of negotiations which is supposed to be a technical process…
“Although our accession negotiations are politically blocked, Turkey decisively continues its efforts for alignment with the EU standards. In the meeting today, we have set out the current developments in Turkey and agreed on the steps to be taken in the forthcoming period.
“The finalization of the Visa Liberalization Dialogue process which will allow our citizens to travel to the Schengen area without a visa, is our first priority.”
Even if Turkey complies with all of the EU’s demands, it seems unlikely that Turkish nationals will be granted visa-free travel anytime soon. On July 15, EU foreign ministers formally linked progress on Turkish-EU relations to Cyprus. A measure adopted by the European Council on July 15 states:
“The Council deplores that, despite the European Union’s repeated calls to cease its illegal activities in the Eastern Mediterranean, Turkey continued its drilling operations west of Cyprus and launched a second drilling operation northeast of Cyprus within Cypriot territorial waters. The Council reiterates the serious immediate negative impact that such illegal actions have across the range of EU-Turkey relations. The Council calls again on Turkey to refrain from such actions, act in a spirit of good neighborliness and respect the sovereignty and sovereign rights of Cyprus in accordance with international law….
“In light of Turkey’s continued and new illegal drilling activities, the Council decides to suspend … further meetings of the EU-Turkey high-level dialogues for the time being. The Council endorses the Commission’s proposal to reduce the pre-accession assistance to Turkey for 2020.”
European officials may be justified in taking a hardline stance against Turkey, but Ankara is well positioned to create chaos for the European Union if it chooses to do so. Indeed, Europe appears to be trapped in a no-win situation.
If the EU approves the visa waiver, tens of millions of Turks will gain immediate and unimpeded access to Europe’s passport-free zone. Critics of visa liberalization fear that millions of Turkish nationals may end up migrating to Europe. The Austrian newsmagazine, Wochenblick, reported that 11 million Turks are living in poverty and “many of them are dreaming of moving to central Europe.”
Others believe that Erdoğan views the visa waiver as an opportunity to “export” Turkey’s “Kurdish Problem” to Germany. Markus Söder, the head of the Christian Social Union, the Bavarian sister party to German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, warned that millions of Kurds are poised to take advantage of the visa waiver to flee to Germany to escape persecution at the hands of Erdoğan: “We are importing an internal Turkish conflict. In the end, fewer migrants may arrive by boat, but more will arrive by airplane.”
On the other hand, if the EU rejects the visa waiver, and Turkey retaliates by reopening the migration floodgates, potentially hundreds of thousands of migrants from Africa, Asia and the Middle East could once again begin flowing into Europe.
via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/2OtVJaD Tyler Durden
