Post-Brexit, predators go hunting British corporate prey

“Japan’s SoftBank has pledged to double ARM’s UK workforce and could emerge as a good owner of the company, but that won’t be true of all the predators hunting British corporate prey,” James Moore reports for The Independent.

“[Chancellor of the Exchequer] Philip Hammond was moved in the wake of the deal’s announcement, to declare that ‘Britain has lost none of its allure to international investors.’ But that’s sophistry, and he knows it,” Moore reports. “Not only is SoftBank paying in devalued Sterling, what it is buying is a global company which does most of its business in dollars. So SoftBank has launched an opportunistic bid in the knowledge that it faces almost no Brexit risk by doing so.”

“But the real worry here is not this deal, it is next one, and the one after that,” Moore reports. “It isn’t only the Yen which Sterling has fallen against. Others will be emboldened by this transaction and the Government’s response to it, even if their targets face post Brexit risks that ARM doesn’t. They will not be as agreeable as the owners of British assets as SoftBank appears to want to be.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Selling England by the Pound.

SEE ALSO:
ARM says did not consult with Apple, other customers before Softbank deal – July 18, 2016
Apple hurts Samsung with exclusive choice of TSMC to stamp A-series chips – July 18, 2016
TSMC reportedly nabs exclusive orders for Apple’s A10 and A11 chips – July 18, 2016

23 Comments

    1. Yep. Although, they technically haven’t left yet. We’ll see if the Tories decide to go through with this disastrous plan – they’ve indicated a bit of “buyer’s remorse” so far.
      Staying is also bad, but leaving is worse, and largely based on lies and hidden intentions.

      1. That’s why the Brexit rats have already abandoned the ship. Farage was ridiculous. He lied and now he should have took responsibility and assume something… No, he just ran. Go figure.

    1. From the article:

      “But the pitifully weak Pound has put its best companies on the sale rail. Post Brexit Britain is going to come under new, overseas ownership. I wonder if Nigel Farage and other flag waving Leave campaigners will recognise the irony.”

      1. The ‘weak pound’ in fact is pretty average for what it has been over the last 4 years, it has only gone down relative to the increases it gained prior to the vote when it was expected to have go for a stay vote. Fact is when the euro when through the floor the euro zone didn’t sell off all its technical assets and sadly the fact that Arm sold itself is only indicative of the attitude of the British Corporate establishment and market values which is and and always has been in modern times ‘create and sell for a profit’ no matter what it does to the country itself. The US is actually headed in the same direction sadly its the nature of ‘Anglo Saxon’ economics as the French/Germans would put it. There are, unlike in most of the rest of Europe no fundamental barriers to any or all of a con tries assets being sold off and that has been the case since the 60s where even crucial defence assets have been allowed to be sold off. When you dominate the economic world this sort of policy is an advantage, but the smaller you are the more you become prey rather than predator and as I say thats a warning that goes far beyond these shores and why unfettered capitalism has two sides to its coin.

    2. As for A: You do know that there are relatively few international bankers in Brussels, right? London is the banking capital of Europe, so most of the “unelected cartel” will continue to operate there. Every one of the regulations that the pro-Brexit folks complain about were adopted with British participation. There is no reason to believe that the UK regulations that replace them will be any less generous to the “unelected cartel” or less onerous to ordinary citizens. British bureaucracy was notorious long before the UK joined the EU.

      As for B: the examples the Brexit folks keep citing for a non-EU Britain inside the single market are Norway and Switzerland, each of which has acceded to almost all of the EU’s regulations on the free movement of goods, capital, services, and people. On a per capita basis, Norway pays more to the EU in taxes and fees as a nonmember than the UK pays as a member.

      Those nations basically had to accept a “take it or leave it” offer from the EU. They have even less control of “borders and immigration control” than the UK currently does as an EU member, because they must follow all the regulations without having any say in their adoption. However, like post-Brexit Britain, they can maintain the illusion of “sovereignty,” for what that’s worth.

      The Brexit advocates claim that the UK can bargain a better deal than that. How? About 40% of UK exports are to Europe, while only 8% of Europe’s exports are to the UK. (Those numbers assume that Scotland and Northern Ireland remain with England and Wales in the UK but outside the EU.) So, who has the leverage?

      Currently, most of the other 60% of British exports (and the non-EU imports) are subject to favorable EU-Third Party trade regimes involving tariffs, quotas, etc. that will no longer apply to the UK after Brexit. Hundreds of new deals must be renegotiated from a position of weakness in less than half the time that it typically takes to work out individual deals of that complexity. It could be more than a decade before all the uncertainties are resolved, and the British economy will blighted by uncertainty until then.

      Lech Walesa understood market economics. Nigel Farage understands it well enough to resign from UKIP leadership before he can be asked to help preside over the fiasco that he engineered.

      1. wrong, save your sophistry…the European Union is a cartel of private banks whose goal is control of the economies, populations and borders of Europe…how have they’d done so far?

        Answer: Extra-shïtty…ask any victim of Islamic terror, rape and murder throughout the EU.

        1. Logic is actually the opposite of sophistry. Suggesting the existence of a vast international conspiracy of moneylenders echoes certain voices from the 1930s.

          If it were true that the EU is a cartel of private banks, the fact that the majority of European banking is centered in London would suggest greater influence by this cabal in the UK after Brexit than before. Why would they abandon their goal of control upon becoming the big fish in a much smaller pond? Why would all the current EU bureaucrats of British nationality become less controlling when they come home to administer the UK regulations that will replace the EU rules?

          The British worries about immigration expressed in the Brexit vote were mostly directed at the free movement of people WITHIN the EU, chiefly from places like Poland and Romania. Only a very small proportion of the UK’s Muslim residents have entered through the EU, rather than directly from their nations of origin. Brexit won’t change that one way or the other. If the UK wants free movement of goods and services with Europe, it will need to accept the movement of people, too. It has a lot to lose if Brits can’t move freely to and within Europe.

          Similarly, most of the Islamic terror episodes in Europe have involved native-born citizens whose parents or grandparents immigrated directly from their original homelands under national immigration policies independent of any EU involvement. Besides which, there is no evidence of which I am aware that Muslims are any more given to rape or murder than other ethnic groups with comparable levels of education, employment, and poverty.

        2. O dear. Botvinnik hasn’t taken his meds. Again. Reasoning is pointless.

          So I guess victims of Islamic Terror in the US, Syria, Irak, Turkey, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, Sudan, etc are also the fault of the EU.

          What a moron.

          1. the fallacy of irrelevant conclusion:

            A. There are victims of Islamic Terror in the US, Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Bangladesh, India, Nigeria, Sudan, etc.
            B. These countries are not in the European Union.

            therefore:

            C. Islamic Terror is not the fault of the European Union in Europe.

            ignoratio elenchi.

        3. This is what a hardcore Muslim-strength ideology looks like. Committed and unwavering to the core and simply won’t listen even if it’s articulately reasoned in plain easy to understand English. In another country, you’d be a mullah.

    3. Or continue being ruled by a Head of State who is unelected and as an extra kicker can’t be a Catholic or an Upper House which is also unelected (House of Lords) and anyway has to owe fealty to said unelected head of state or an elected lower house where the MPs are sovereign except where I live (Scotland) where legally the people are sovereign.

    1. You can still have a strong sense of nationalism and also be smart enough to understand that your national interests are best served by being a member of the EU.

      The biggest problem with Britain’s relationship with the EU is that we have been seen as reluctant Europeans and have always had too many people sniping at the EU rather than engaging positively with the EU.

      Now that Brexit seems inevitable, those who have been using the EU as an excuse for the nation’s failings will now have to find something else to blame, because they can’t admit that the real cause of our problems might be closer to home and more to do with continually opting for short term measures to address long term problems.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.