Latest News Clips 2019.01.14

                       

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.