1.
Labour must
back a people’s vote before the clock runs out
A
second referendum may be difficult – but the only alternative is a ‘blindfold
Brexit’
The Guardian 11
Jan 2019
Over
the next few weeks, Britain faces a stark binary choice. It is not the
blackmail choice that Theresa May misleadingly poses: my deal or no deal. Nor is it the
choice Jeremy Corbyn still implausibly
claims: her bad Brexit or his much better Brexit. The real choice we must make
before B-day (currently 29 March) is this: blindfold Brexit or democratic
timeout.
As
parliament takes back control, we urgently need the Labour front bench to join
MPs from all parties in getting us to the timeout. By timeout I mean a period
of democratic deliberation leading up to a second referendum, in which we decide, on
the basis of everything we now know, how we should address the real problems
that contributed to the vote for Brexit in 2016, what kind of country we really
want to be – and whether we can do that better outside or inside the EU. For
this, our EU partners will extend article 50 and give us the
necessary time.
Everything
else – May’s deal, no deal, customs union, Norway plus, Canada plus, common
market 2.0, make your own label – is just a variant of blindfold Brexit. This
clarifies what might otherwise appear like total confusion. In all these
variants, what Brexit actually means would only be determined in a drawn-out
negotiation after we had left the EU. And once you are out, you are out.
Whatever the goals set by the British government – and both the government and
the goals might change – we would be negotiating from a position even weaker
than we are in today. As Ivan Rogers, our former permanent representative to
the EU, has warned, those negotiations would be “tougher than anything we have seen
to date”.
A
Labour government coming to power in these circumstances would be like a street
cleaner having to gather the horse dung after a Tory hunt has passed down the
high street. It wouldn’t be long before the public started blaming Labour
rather than the “Tory Brexit”. One of the delusional ideas still whirring
around Westminster is that, having “done Brexit”, we can rapidly get back
to addressing our real problems, such as housing, health
and education. Brexit won’t be done for a decade, and the economic cost of even
the softest Brexit will leave less money available for already stretched public
services. The people hardest hit will be Labour’s working-class voters.
Another
delusion is that it’s up to us to decide whether to extend article 50. Not so.
It also requires the unanimity of the EU 27. Nobody knows what EU leaders would
do in extremis, but they have repeatedly said that they will not extend it just for more
negotiations. There could be a short technical extension to allow
Britain to push through the necessary legislation. Otherwise, it would require
a clear determination from London to have a referendum or a general election
with the option of Britain remaining in the EU. As one seasoned observer puts
it: you need an extension to have a referendum, but you also need a referendum
to have an extension.
Here,
then, is the choice before Labour. Corbyn’s
speech on Thursdayremained in depressing denial-and-diversion territory:
elect a Labour government to negotiate a better Brexit, but the real problem is
a suffering majority that has been immiserated by a rapacious elite. This is
just cakeism with red icing. In the next two weeks, the choice will become
real.
Unless
something wholly unexpected happens, May’s deal will be voted down next
Tuesday. Labour will then propose a motion of no confidence, potentially
leading to a general election – but that motion, too, will be defeated. If the
government respects the cross-party amendmentdramatically voted
through the House of Commons this week, it should come back within three
parliamentary working days of Tuesday’s vote to say what it proposes to do
next. Since the house is currently not scheduled to sit next Friday, that
brings us to Monday 21 January.
2.
What Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos' divorce could mean
for Amazon
CNN January 10, 2019
New York (CNN Business)Shortly after they were married, MacKenzie Bezos
drove her husband, Jeff, across the country from New York to
Seattle while he typed out a business plan for what would become Amazon.
Now,
twenty-five years later, MacKenzie Bezos could once again find herself in the
driver's seat, this time with the potential to rattle her husband's control
over the world's most
valuable company.
The
world's richest couple announced in a joint
statement Wednesday that they are getting a divorce "after a long period
of loving exploration and trial separation."
The
divorce could drastically reduce Jeff Bezos' stake in Amazon and open the door
for his wife to become one of its largest shareholders, with new leverage at
the company, according to divorce lawyers and corporate governance experts.
Washington,
where the family lives and Amazon is based, is a community property state,
which means assets accrued during the marriage must be split equally in a
divorce. Given that Amazon launched after the pair were married, this rule
would likely apply to virtually all of Jeff Bezos' current $137 billion net
worth, experts say.
It
is not known whether the couple has a pre- or post-nuptial agreement. It's also
unclear whether they might file for divorce in a different state. They own
properties in California, Texas and Washington D.C., among other locations.
Assuming
there is no prior agreement in place, the Amazon CEO may need to either sell
off or transfer half of his more than 16% stake in the company to fulfill an
equal split for the divorce, lawyers say.
MacKenzie
Bezos could then try to use her large stake in Amazon to push for changes at
the company, potentially in opposition to her ex-husband. But it's unlikely
this would lead to actual corporate change.
"It's
only 8% of the stock," said Michael Pachter, an analyst with Wedbush,
"...not enough to actually exert any control."
"Jeff
remains focused on and engaged in all aspects of Amazon," Drew Herdener,
vice president of corporate communications, said in a statement provided to
CNN.
Unlike
other tech CEOs, including Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Snap's Evan Spiegel,
Jeff Bezos' control over Amazon doesn't come from having a majority of voting
power at the company, but rather from a strong leadership track record over two
decades. That probably wouldn't change with a reduced stake. Indeed, his Amazon
stake has been declining for years as he sells stock to fund his rocket
company, Blue Origin.
Instead,
it's more likely that any tension between what would be Amazon's two largest
individual shareholders would simply "add potential drama to a situation
where you may not want drama," said Charles Elson, a professor of
corporate governance at the University of Delaware.
But
that assumes MacKenzie Bezos is looking for a fight. Hirsch told CNN that
MacKenzie Bezos' legal counsel will almost certainly advise her that attempting
to exercise control at Amazon not only risks creating a public spectacle, but
also could undermine the value of her own holdings by interfering with business
operations.
"My
guess is there are going to be opportunities during negotiations that may allow
MacKenzie to receive even more than the public is anticipating in terms of
assets in return for her complete cooperation," Hirsch says.
After
Jeff and MacKenzie Bezos released their statement, The New York
Post and The National
Enquirer reported that Jeff Bezos had begun seeing another woman. The
tabloid stories, which CNN has not independently confirmed, do raise the
prospect of a messier divorce than initially expected.
"If
they can somehow resolve this amicably after yesterday, they'll both walk away
some of the wealthiest people in the world and it'll be fine," said Peter
Walzer, founding partner at Walzer Melcher in California and president of the
American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.
But,
he added, "in our business, when there's some kind of emotional issues
involved and other people, it fuels a lot of fighting, attorney's fees and a
waste of a lot of money. "
3.
Japan tries to
keep the elderly out of hospital
A greying society searches for ways to curb health-care costs
The Economist 2019.01
In
a sunny room in a small apartment in the Tokyo satellite town of Kunitachi
lies Yasuyuki Ibaraki, eyes closed and breathing laboured. Yukio Miyazaki, his
doctor, who visits fortnightly from a local clinic, suspects that he does not
have much time left: he has brain damage from a cerebral infarction, a tumour
in his digestive system and is unable to swallow or talk. Reiko, his wife,
feeds him through a tube to his stomach and clears phlegm from his throat. “He
is from a close-knit family and is a quiet man, so I think it is better for him
to be here rather than in a hospital,” she says, over green tea and grapes.
Life
expectancy in Japan is the highest in the world, at 84. This is good news for
its people, but means that an ever-higher share of the population is elderly.
Fully 28% of Japanese are older than 65, compared with 15% of Americans and 21%
of Germans. More old people, in turn, means higher health-care costs. Last year
the government budgeted ¥15trn ($138bn, or 15% of its total expenditure) for
health care and nursing, excluding the charges it levies for the public
health-insurance scheme. With public debt at 250% of gdp, and debt service
consuming a further 24% of spending, the government is looking desperately for
ways to cut costs. It reckons caring for people at home is one of its best
options.
All
Japanese pay a monthly premium to the public insurance scheme, either through
their employer or the local municipality. In return they are entitled to
treatment and drugs from public and private doctors and hospitals, although
they must also pay a portion of the cost of treatment (a co-payment, in
American parlance), subject to a cap. In 2000 Japan introduced an additional
public insurance scheme for long-term care for those over 65, into which people
must pay from the age of 40. It works the same way. The premiums and
co-payments cover around 60% of the cost of the services provided; the
government pays for the rest. And it is the old who cost the most. The
government reckons that the average annual cost of health care for someone over
75 is ¥942,000, compared with just ¥221,000 for everyone else.
By
the standards of ageing nations, Japan has managed to curb medical costs fairly
well, says Naoki Ikegami of St Luke’s International University in Tokyo. The
government sets fees for services to keep costs down (although that encourages
providers to perform unnecessary procedures to make more money: Japan has
more ct scanners relative to its population than any other country).
It has also promoted the use of generic drugs, which are cheaper.
Life-giving, budget-busting
Nonetheless,
the country has crept up to sixth place in the oecd’s ranking of the share
of gdp spent on health care, behind France and America, but ahead of
Italy and South Korea—two other ageing countries (see chart). It is not just
that the number of old people is increasing; spending per person is rising,
too, as people live longer with diseases like Alzheimer’s and diabetes.
