Soco Share Discussion Threads

[adam] 10/11/2016 15:45

A chill on trade between two mammoth economies like America and China in particular, and the import of goods from Asia in general, is bound to have a knock on effect to the energy markets, not to mention importing inflation.

The infrastructure spending reminds me of the Hoover dam project in the 1930s, but they do say history rarely repeats itself, though it does rhyme.

[emptyend] 10/11/2016 15:10

Re Trump, I really think it could be very positive for the UK. He may be ripping up trade deals with Canada and Mexico - and taking a much harder line with China etc......but he does have to do some trade deals with someone - and I genuinely think the UK will be one of the first in line because it fits with our needs and timing too. I also think it would be pretty pragmatic rather than idealogical. I just hope hate-filled Nicola Sturgeon doesn't screw it up for us by repeating her antipathy to a son of Scotland.Quite exciting times in the Anglo sphere, I think. :-)I could also see Trump making an early move to give big businesses a taxbreak if they move back the piles of cash the likes of Apple have stashed overseas. That might just drive a US investment boom. And, coupled with raising tariffs on US imports of goods that the US can perfectly well manufacture at home (such as cars) it will also lead US businesses to think very much harder about their international investments and, in particular, to stop outsourcing manufacturing (and manufacturing jobs) to save cash. [nb this may also be something the UK does to some extent?]But the possible relevance here for SOCO may be that non-China Asia becomes a more attractive place for American companies to do business?

[nigelpm] 10/11/2016 14:40

Yeah, not sure what China has to do with Soco - yours confused?

Unless, you are talking a potential buyer being put off - but I don't see the link.

[emptyend] 10/11/2016 13:13

Different country.

[adam] 10/11/2016 11:00

Trump's Win May Be Asia's Loss



"That's because the president-elect campaigned on a policy platform with protectionism at its center. Trump wants to slap punitive tariffs on Chinese goods and label the world's No. 2 economy a currency manipulator.
"

[nigelpm] 09/11/2016 16:45

I think the words "Who knows" are much more in line.

Incredible how the stock market has shrugged off the entire 1000pt drop - quite something when you consider there's still an awful lot of risk out there.

[adam] 09/11/2016 15:38

Good to hear he won't be enacting the protectionist policies he declared during the campaign. I hope we will be front of the queue and that free trade increases.

My fear is that to maintain a populist presidency he will be inclined towards protecting industries from the invisible hand of creative destruction.

[adam] 09/11/2016 12:33

What about the effects of protectionism on Asian markets? Is this the 1930s again?

[nigelpm] 09/11/2016 07:27

Yeah, going to be interesting. Very odd to see oil tanking with SPX - now recovered somewhat.

[steve73] 09/11/2016 04:56

USD and oil both heavily down with a Trump win looking likely - not good for UK oilers.

[emptyend] 09/11/2016 03:30

re 18858-62........looks like we're in good shape, SH. Think Trump may end up with over 300 in electoral college, so its a pity I didn't have more courage.Ohio just called for Trump & in shape across Rustbelt and Florida.Interestingly, Trump blipped out to 8/1 at one point around 1.30.....and I wimped out of doubling up again.Dow futures off 500 points or so at present.

[kenobi] 08/11/2016 16:50

T,

not sure what bit of what I said you're taking issue with, I agree that the labour party said this, and then at the weekend Corbyn published his bottom lines, which he wants in a bill if he's to vote for it. Not sure about the snp, I would expect them to represent their constituents and vote against. (just as ee expects his mp's to vote for to represent his views).

I'm in the opposite situation, my mp is john redwood, he is obviously a big leaver, but the constituents voted remain, are you expecting him to vote against invoking article 50 ? He's got a massive majority and no fear of the electorate, so I think you'll be disappointed if you do. The same might be the case for your remainer mp's they might not fear the electorate if their seats are safe.

My point was don't appeal, you look like a bad looser, you're wasting time and money. Just go to the house and get it through, why are they appealing if they can pass a bill or motion ?

K

[emptyend] 08/11/2016 16:38

No - indeed it won't do. Every MP in our county campaigned for Remain - and every one of their 7 constituencies voted Leave. If any of those MPs try to obstruct Brexit, they will be a prime target for focus on ousting them at the next election.

[kenobi] 08/11/2016 14:32

I think part of it though was based on whether A50 is a one way street, and if so then it's a bit late to ask parliment at the end of it isn't it ?

Interestingly I saw an article on the bbc from the chap who wrote it that it was, and here's another article in the independent saying the same thing,
hxxp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/brexit-uk-change-mind-article-50-legal-expert-eu-referendum-a7150926.html

If that's right could that form the basis for an appeal ?

Perhaps but personally I would be inclined to go to the house and be done with it, the appeal will take until the new year, clear the timetable for the house and do it now.

I know our culture is that you appeal and fight every inch, someone independent has looked at it and ruled the other way, stop wasting our money and just get it done. If the house won't pass it, call an election and let them face the people.

It's not what I would have wanted as all this foot dragging takes time and could leave us in a weaker position, but, it's no good saying (like the irishman when asked for directions, "I wouldn't start from here if I were you"

K

[tournesol] 08/11/2016 14:20

Ammons

"...triggering article 50 will inevitably mean that the 1972 act and all it entails (especially regarding domestic law) will be repealed…"

No it really doesn't. That's precisely the point. You must have misread my prior comment

It is not possible to develop all of the laws and regulations we will need in a post EU world before we exit. But we do not need to.

Before exit occurs (I mean actual exit not just article 50 = notice of intent to leave) we will pass a law which says that all of the laws, regulations and so on that are presently in force by dint of their inclusion in pan-EU law, will, following exit, be incorporated on a pro tem basis as if they were part of independent UK law.

We will subsequently be able to examine each of these elements at our leisure and either keep them, discard them or modify them and build our own versions of the enabling legislation. This process will be subjected to normal parliamentary procedures.

So, for example, if we have a European regulation about the minimum permitted curvature of bananas, then that will be adopted into our independent laws as a temporary measure. There will be no immediate change whatsoever in the rights and responsibilities of banana importers and retailers. if we deem this to be an unimportant matter then we can leave things as they stand for as long as we want. If we want to change things so that bananas are regulated differently, then we will develop our own law on the matter and after that has passed through normal parliamentary process that will supersede the relevant bit of the laws adopted from the EU. That means that any change in banana curvature standards will be subjected to democratic scrutiny. Which presumably is what you want. But that scrutiny does not have to precede exit.

See what I'm getting at?

[ammons] 08/11/2016 14:02

Hmmm..... Call it a bird, fish, elephant or an "international treaty" if you want to. It is still an act of parliament and requires another one to repeal it. The high court judges took the view that triggering article 50 will inevitably mean that the 1972 act and all it entails (especially regarding domestic law) will be repealed one year or two years or however many years hence. The government admitted it themselves. Triggering is not reversible they said (or similar) so triggering will result in repeal.

If it follows that the triggering of A50 will repeal the 1972 "international treaty" as you have called it then another act of parliament is required to do the actual triggering.

It seems straight forward enough to me and the supreme court are very likely to agree if nothing else is added to the mix IMO.

[tournesol] 08/11/2016 10:49

ammons

The question is - do you need an act of parliament to give notice that you will be resiling from an international treaty some two years hence (or quite possibly longer) when negotiations with other treaty signatories have been completed and arrangements made for the post-exit period.

It seems to me that the repeal of the 1972 Act does not have to be co-incident/simultaneous on the activation of Article 50.

[ammons] 08/11/2016 07:48

Is it not a straight forward matter of law that you need an act of Parliament to repeal an act of Parliament? The 1972 Act must be repealed (which triggering article 50 does, eventually) and this requires an act of Parliament, not a show of hands in the commons or Royal prerogative or other mish mash which can be legally challenged again by the remainers. (I am a lukewarm one of those.) The government has no chance of winning the case in the supreme court IMO and they must know it. I will be very surprised if a single one of the supreme court justices agree with the governments case, in law, as it stands at the moment.

I wonder if anyone will go to the European courts of justice to determine whether or not article 50 is reversible? If triggering it takes two years plus to run its course then there is plenty of time for the court to rule on it.

That would be very interesting...... :-)

I still hold a few SIA shares from the bygone days. Will hold till they fold.

[emptyend] 07/11/2016 13:08

Of course Flint is the place that had the disgraceful water contamination issue, so a one-off in spades. And Moore supports Hillary. But, in fact, you could see his screed about why people vote Trump hitting home with the audience. If Rustbelt Americans feel they are doing OK, Hillary will win. But if they think they are being ignored and lied to by a corrupt establishment then Trump will tap into that.I'm quite glad to have only pin money in the US really.......and still think the Far East is a better place to have assets (for now, at least).

[emptyend] 07/11/2016 12:38

Thanks for the input, SH. Your thinking is very similar to mine - I only backed Trump the day I heard he was in Wisconsin....and if you look at their schedules today (both in Michigan & Pennsylvania) you know that Clinton is desperately trying to defend her rustbelt "firewall" - especially when she is in Pennsylvania twice!Sadly I got nothing like your odds on Trump - I'd expected a more sensible non-politician to emerge from the primaries, but well-played for your confidence (so far....) ;-)

[salvorhardin] 07/11/2016 12:29

Hi ee,

I expect the American election to be much closer than the pundits think and the major polls are currently predicting. The main reason is that Clinton is putting a lot of effort into Michigan which should be a solid Democrat state having not voted Republican since 1988.

Similarly the Democrats wouldn't normally have to put much effort into Pennsylvania because Philiadelipha and Pittsburgh are solid democrat cities whose votes outweigh the rural counties which vote Republican. But they've been heavily campaigning there as well.

When you have to campaign strongly in a state which would ordinarily be expected to be solidly in your camp, this indicates that there are problems being shown up in internal polls and reports from people on the ground.

A lot of people in small town Mid West America are following Howard Beale's "I'm as mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more". I saw Network a few days ago and the sentiments displayed in Beale's speech are highly relevant to today's situation. Here's a link to Beale's rant:



I get the impression that a lot of people in the "Flyover States" (not the left or right coasts of America) are going to vote for Trump purely to put two fingers up to an increasingly corrupt political establishment. Liike the Brexit vote a lot of people who don't normally vote are coming out of the woodwork and the polls aren't picking this up. The professional political and media classes aren't too aware of this because they never encounter these people.

Michael Moore, the documentary maker who is a strong Democrat, believes that Trump will win. He comes from Flint Michigan which will probably vote something like 85%+ for Trump. Article and a very interesting statement by Mr. Moore are linked below.

hxxp://www.salon.com/2016/10/26/michael-moore-people-will-vote-for-donald-trump-as-a-giant-fk-you-and-hell-win/



I had a reasonable amount on Trump at an average of about 45-1. I've laid off enough to get my stake money back but the rest can ride.