Mrs May in Japan

I find it increasingly difficult to believe that Mrs May has any significant common sense at all. She demonstrates daily that she has no dress sense; and in the selection of her kitchen cabinet when she went into Number Ten she created a machine that came close to destroying her credibility with her party and her relations with her most necessary ministerial colleagues.

The Chairman of the EU Commission was quite right yesterday to assert that the position papers that have been cobbled together for the UK government lack both conceptual clarity and essential data. It appears that the Prime Minister - who was an indecisive 'Remainer' in the 2016 EU Referendum - has been bullied into quiescence by the noisy minority in her party who choose to believe that the narrow result of the Referendum must be interpreted to mean that the UK must leave the political Union and also the European Economic Area.

And now she has gone to Japan, where she will encounter almost-infinite courtesy but where it is most unlikely that anyone will speak directly to her of their country's attitude to the risks that are inherent for them in the present utterly unclear Brexit situation. Thousands of Japanese firms in both manufacturing and the financial services have established facilities and bases in Britain. One major factor in this is that London is [obviously] an English-speaking city so this suits the Japanese, most of whom are not great linguists but have been schooled in English for at least a decade of their lives. But a bigger factor than the use of English is that the UK is fully in the European Common Market and the customs union.

The "hard Brexiteer" position on the future relations of the UK with the EU will seem to the Japanese - who located their assets in Britain-in-Europe in good faith - to be a complete betrayal of the understanding on which they have invested so heavily in the United Kingdom. The Japanese are still keen on concepts of honour, and if Mrs May and her team dishonourably shuffle their papers and equivocate on the key question of whether Britain will remain in the European Economic Area after any 'transition period', Japanese finance will be withheld: and if Britain is sufficiently idiotic as to opt  openly for a 'hard Brexit' Japanese firms will be among the first to move assets out of Britain. There is no equivocation about this, and however much Mrs May might try to con herself by accepting Japanese courtesy as acceptance of any stance that she might take up, the fact remains that Japan will be strictly self-interested. Grandiloquent talk about "island peoples furthering their common interests in a wide trading world" will just be talk.

Britain outside the European Economic Area is only of minimal interest to Japan, as a minor market for some exports. The main Japanese concern about Britain, in the event of a 'hard Brexit', will be to get their assets out of the UK with the least possible loss of money and of 'face'.

Prime Minister Abe is an unusual Japanese: he is more capable of directly expressing his individual thoughts than are many of his compatriots: and he seems to be more willing than most to do it. There is just a small hope that he will be able to educate Mrs May [who is, indubitably, difficult to educate], but I am not optimistic.

Now that the Labour Party has approached a sensible position on Brexit, the Tory majority of 'moderates' are realising that they have very limited time to talk their leader into common sense. I doubt that she is capable of undergoing that learning process: if so, the sooner she is removed from office, the better.

Brexit: Hard, Soft or Stupid?

Yesterday, David Davis began his 'negotiation' with the agents of the EU Commission about the terms on which Britain will carry through its invocation of the relevant provisions of the Lisbon Treaty, for the cessation of Britain's membership. It was emphasised on all the visual media, that the EU side of the table had extensive piles of briefing material while the British had none.

The British people has no idea whatsoever their government is seeking in this vital negotiation. All inquiries are referred to Mrs May's 'Lancaster House Speech'; which is uninformative and no longer relevant. It is uninformative because it has no specifics; it is irrelevant because since she made that speech she has tried, and disastrously failed, to establish a strong political base in the Commons for herself. On becoming the prime minister, she made the spectacularly stupid remark: "Brexit means Brexit". Brexit means nothing: it was dreamed up as a code-word for the process that no-one understood - how to interpret and implement the intentions of the narrow majority in the 2016 Referendum - and it copied the term Grexit which had been coined in the previous year to cover a potential Greek withdrawal from the Eurozone.

I voted for leaving the EU as part of the mass protest against the political class - even more the continental version than the British - and, more specifically, against the idiotic scare stories that were being promoted by George Osborne and David Cameron. I expected the remainers to win, but I hoped that their majority would be so small that it would serve as a warning to the class [right across the Union] that they were pushing the mass of the people too hard in a direction of austerity and integration that the people deeply resented.

It was obvious that the political class would still be in power on the day after the referendum; and my hope was that they would be sufficiently chastened for their europhilism to be modified. Instead, the class leadership crumpled. Cameron ran away early on the morning the result was announced; and in quick time a mild remainer, Mrs May, became a prime minister who was totally unprepared to address the situation. Inevitably, she rid her government of Osborne; then, at her own discretion she appointed three 'Brexiteers' to lead the negotiations and thus to shape the path that that the UK should take in implementation of the referendum vote. Boris Johnson has developed his role as an insubstantial buffoon and a pretty ineffectual Foreign Secretary. The important role of planning the way through 'Brexit' [whatever that might mean] was divided between Davis as lead negotiator with the EU and Fox as the man who would - apparently - make trade deals with the rest of the world that would substitute worldwide markets for what Britain might loose in a Europe that was closed against British goods and services. So far as one can tell, these are two dafter buffoons than Boris, who have been given licenses separately and in their own ways to ruin the country.

It is essential that Britain remains within the European Economic Area: news items every day show that supply chains from toffee factories to radiotherapy suites depend unconditionally upon that precondition; and the UK must be prepared to pay whatever has to be paid, immediately and for the indefinite future, to get out of the EU political institutions [Commission and Parliament, in particular] and to remain within the economic union. There must be a massive national uprising if and when it becomes clear that the 'hard Brexiteers' are trying to produce any other result. As I pointed out a few days ago, India, China and USA - in particular - are notorious for overriding trade agreements whenever point protectionism is needed to protect one of their industries or service activities. It is the height of folly for any responsible adult to pretend that a series of one-to-one trade agreements - even if they could be effected - would be validated by events.

Allegedly, some members of the Cabinet, unable to halt the buffoons, are arguing for a long adjustment period, during which more rational thinking should be allowed some space. Against such 'slow Brexiteers' there are those who argue that the national referendum result was binding, that it must be implemented in the most ruinous way, and that it must be done quickly to give effect to the 'will of the people'; who will be free to repent of their votes at leisure. Mrs May has no authority to adjudicate on this contest.

Mercifully, Corbyn has shown himself to be completely out of his depth on the matter: otherwise, the Labour opposition could be extremely difficult at this time. The Labour party will not provide the focus for the national revolt: so we all may have to fall back on Vince Cable to be the nation's lightening conductor. Let us hope that, if it comes to that, he has the necessary stamina. At least, he got his doctorate in Economics before the Econocracy had gained their mastery of the field.

Guff at the G20

Some of the people who are regarded as the most important 'leaders' and office-holders in the world have been to the seaside in Mexico with the ostensible purpose of stabilising the global economy. The slow-motion unwinding of the eurozone has been extended by the emergent powers placing additional credit with the International Monetary Fund so that it will be available to be pumped into Europe: conditions will be specified but it is most unlikely that these would be so draconian that they would ensure that the euro collapses. Low-grade politicians who hold on to power by default in countries outside the eurozone have again admonished those inside the common currency to get their act together; once more these focus on trying to bully Germany into dissipating its savings on helping other eurozone countries. So far, Germany has declined to obey, and the President of the EU Commission has blamed 'North America' for the crisis.

My analysis firmly locates the origin of the global financial crisis in London, England. With the 'big bang' of 1986.the Thatcher government smashed the traditional division of financial transactions in the City of London between stock brokers and jobbers, banks and merchant banks, separate exchanges for different types of transaction, self-regulation within each sector and ultimate oversight from the Bank of England [which preferred to steer market members into approved ways of working by winks and nods and secret meetings]. The phrase big bang had become central to theoretical physics, to describe the moment immediately after the creation of the universe when its great expansion and diversification began. By applying that phrase to the finance sector enthusiastic commentators implied that here was a new beginning in a newly structured market that could grow immeasurably and bring great profit to the participants: who could then be taxed to meet some of the growing deficit on government income as industry was destroyed while farming and fisheries were left to wallow under heavily protectionist EU regulations. The rapidly advancing capabilities of computers enabled the markets to be operated at speeds and with complexity far beyond the former trading patterns that had depended on word-of-mouth and typewriters. New types of 'product' - most obviously derivatives and new processes for securitisation - burgeoned on an almost astronomical scale, and old contract types such as futures were reformatted and used in vastly different new ways. The world's banks brought business to London and Wall Street looked set to lose the dominance of global markets that it had gained in the nineteen-thirties and consolidated through the Second World War, Marshall Aid and Cold War. Ferocious lobbying of the politicians in Washington led to the repeal of legislation that had mandated the separation of 'retail' and 'wholesale' banking,  and had differentiated banking from broking; with the specific intention of enabling Wall Street to compete with the City of London. Small differences in regulations led globalised businesses to put some business in New York, some in London and a little in other centres such as Hong Kong and Singapore.

Thus far the London big bang was the origin for the new pattern of trade; but then the US government decided to tap into the markets in the interests of social engineering. Given that such huge and flexible financial markets existed, surely they could be required to lend money to people who sat at the bottom of the heap in society. Let even the poorest become home-owners and thus gain some pride of possession and learn to earn the money necessary to service their mortgages and care for their homes. Mortgage lenders were required to allocate some of their funds to 'sub-prime' mortgage borrowers: two government-backed institutions underpinned the mortgage market, but the wholesale market practitioners became increasingly keen to securitise 'bundles' of mortgages and re-sell the securities into the general financial markets. After a very few years just about every bank and securities manager included some sub-prime mortgages buried within their so-called 'assets'. Once it was demonstrated that hundreds of thousands of feckless Americans were not paying their mortgage debts or maintaining their houses well, it was clear that some portion of the 'value' of many hundreds of thousands of 'assets' was non-existent. Thus the trigger for the crisis was squeezed in North America, but financial institutions from all over the world were deep in the mess and the resultant reckoning is ongoing. American sub-prime lending was the mechanism for the disaster; but its origin lay in the reckless gamble by the Thatcher government.