Brexit challenges for UK as PM arrives at G20

Theresa May has insisted that she'll follow through with with a plan to extricate Britain from the EU under the banner of Brexit Means Brexit and that she'll make a success of it.

But despite the jargon and soundbites, the task may be a lot tougher than she, or even the most ardent Brexiteers had anticipated. And the challenges she faces are becoming all the more clear as she faced negative feedback from world leaders at the G20 in China.

No clear plan

Following her first cabinet meeting since the EU referendum May insisted there would be no re-entering the the EU by the back door, no second referendum and that she alone would make the decision to invoke Article 50 rather than putting it to a parliamentary vote.

But aside of the bold statements of intent, no clear plan was put forward and few clues as to what Britain's negotiating position would be.

Indeed, Britain's future is no less certain than it was the day after the EU referendum result was announced.

Economy 'strong'

Pro-Brexit supporters have drawn solace from positive economic news over the last month and suggested the fear mongering of the Remain camp was unfounded.

However, while the stock market has stabilized, the pound remains low against the dollar and euro, as well as many other currencies around the world.

Some have argued this is a good thing in that Britain's exports will prove to be cheaper and that British tourism will benefit. This is undoubtedly true. But it doesn't reveal the whole truth of the issue.

British tourism has benefited. But figures have yet to be revealed as to what extent any increase in tourism has resulted from a drop in the pound.

Weak Sterling

And while a low pound has most certainly increased some exports, this may well prove to be a double edged sword. Increased and disproportionate foreign purchases may drive up prices for the British consumer simply due to a supply and demand effect. There have already been reports that pork prices may increase after the Chinese took advantage of the weak pound and bought up huge stocks of Britain's pork supplies [Guardian].

Sterling's low value has also prompted an increase in property purchases by foreign buyers [BBC]. And some of the cream of Britain's manufacturing industry is also being snapped up by foreign companies. In the last week ARM, a leading chipset maker, was bought by the Japanese company Softbank [BBC / Guardian].

The Cambridge-based firm designs microchips used in most smartphones, including Apple's and Samsung's. ARM, which was founded in 1990, employs more than 3,000 people.

On the face of it, this might sound like good news. More foreign investment in UK based industry would not be a bad thing after all. However, as the new PM Theresa May touched down in Hangzhou for the G20, the Japanese have revealed that any UK based assets may likely move to continental Europe should the current status quo - specifically with relation free movement and open access to the free market.

Threats to trade

Japan had raised its concerns prior to the EU referendum, but in a clear and unambiguous document published by the Japanese government it stated that "Japanese businesses with their European headquarters in the UK may decide to transfer their head-office function to Continental Europe if EU laws cease to be applicable in the UK after its withdrawal." [BBC]

Japanese firms employ an estimated 140,000 workers in the UK, with Nomura bank, manufacturing giant Hitachi and carmakers Honda, Nissan and Toyota all having major bases in the country. It's not only a direct effect on these UK based operations. Any shift to continental Europe will have a knock-on effect for any businesses dealing directly and indirectly with these firms.

But it's not just the Japanese that have raised the stakes. President Obama has also reiterated his leaning towards a united Europe when it comes to trade rather than a detached Britain when it comes to trade.

There are those that consider Japan's 'threats' as somewhat fanciful [Guardian]. But Japan may be just the first of many shots fired across Britain's bow. And such shots may not be easy to ignore [Guardian].

Of course, Theresa May could call their bluff and continue forth with her plan to drag Britain out of the EU, curb immigration and block freedom of movement "whatever the cost", but those costs could be very high indeed.

Business losses

If Britain did lose these manufacturing bases it would likely be permanent. Even if there were a reversal of policy by May or any future government confidence in Britain may already be lost. In fact Britain has already lost some of its stand in its financial sector. The FT this week reported that London had lost its grip on Forex as the Chinese RMB strengthened and that it would be unlikely to recoup lost ground because of Brexit and the weakening pound [FT]. Others have already expressed the opinion that the pound will further diminish [FT].

Meanwhile the British government cannot possibly accede to Japan's demands if May's mantra that Brexit means Brexit is to mean anything. Yet the Japanese requests – set out in a 15-page memo – are likely to become the benchmark by which many countries with strong economic ties to the UK will judge the outcome of the talks. Thus she and her government will increasingly find itself between a rock and a hard place.

May has insisted that the UK can prosper outside the EU and become a "global leader in free trade". But from the rhetoric coming from the top economies it feels that they can do quite well without the UK and continue their relationship with the EU quite happily as Britain flounders.

US threats

While President Obama maintained that the US would still have a "special relationship" with Britain he reasserted his opinion, which he aired during the EU referendum debate, that the US would prioritise trade negotiations with the EU and Pacific nations over a UK deal [BBC].

Brexiteers will no doubt point to the fact that Obama is soon to leave office and that Britain will soon be dealing with a new US president. However, neither of the two contenders will be plain sailing for Brexit Britain. Trump leans towards a more protectionist and self-sufficient America while Clinton is more likely to follow in Obama's footsteps and strengthen trade deals with Europe through the much lauded TTIP and NAFTA.

TTIP talks have run into problems with Europe and there has been some talk that the US might try to kick Europe into action by attempting to seek stronger bilateral ties with the UK [Guardian].

No time scale

However, the UK cannot formally sign any trade deals with other countries or trading blocs until it has left the EU. This issue will also prove to be a headache for May. While DExEU, the Department to Exit the EU, may be conducting unofficial talks with the prospect of signing future trade deals, nothing can be signed until any Brexit negotiations are finalised.

And no-one is clear when that will be. Indeed no-one it seems is clear on anything when it comes to May's planned Brexit. And May is hardly clear about what she means with her Brexit means Brexit slogan [BBC]. Indeed it's more like some advertising slogan from a popular brand of baked beans - Beans Means Heinz. Indeed just as Heinz is known for its 57 varieties, Brexit could have any number of possible outcomes.

As Chris Patten points out in an article published in the Gulf News last week 'Brexit Means Brexit' could mean anything. "Imagine if someone told you, 'Breakfast means breakfast,' and then headed off to prepare your meal. You would have little idea what you were actually going to eat. A Northern Irish 'Ulster fry-up' — eggs, bacon, sausage, black pudding, potato and soda bread and a fried tomato — with a cup of tea? Coffee and a pastry? Depending on your circumstances and preferences, you would probably feel very differently about the various possibilities."

"The same goes for Brexit. Some are concerned primarily with stopping EU labour from entering the United Kingdom. Others are focused on maintaining access to the single market. But, unlike a breakfast, Britain can't just demand everything on the menu." [Gulf News].

And Europe has already made it clear that Britain cannot have an à la carte menu when deciding what it wants [Guardian]. And the block itself has also expressed it is also becoming impatient over the UK's prevarication and lack of clarity [BBC / Standard].

Tough times ahead

Prior to arriving in China for her fraught conversations with the G20 leaders, Theresa May said there would be "difficult times" ahead as she implemented Brexit [BBC / Guardian / Reuters].

This is clearly an understatement. With continuing protests seen in London this weekend, planned legal challenges, calls for a second Scottish referendum, concerns in Northern Ireland and Stormont as well as possible political fights in parliament, May will certainly see difficult times [Telegraph / BBC]. There are still many amongst the Remain camp that want to turn the boat around and have a second referendum, some citing UKIP's Nigel Farage who suggested that a 48/52% in favour of Remain would be unfinished business [Metro]. As discussions begin proper and plans emerge the Brexit fallout will undoubtedly make things all the more difficult for the May government especially if trade suffers adversely and some of the concerns raised by the Remain campaign become a reality.

As well as the economic, financial and political fallout, there is also the concern over the rise in racism and attacks that have increased significantly following the Brexit vote [Guardian]. While much of the media has shied away from drawing a direct connection between Brexit and such attacks it is clear that there is a significant number of racists that have been emboldened by the vote and taken to attacking foreigners both verbally and physically.

Rising racism

In Harlow a Polish man was attacked by a gang of young teenagers as he and a friend sat to eat a pizza on a bench in the town. Two days later he died from his injuries leaving the community in shock. A week on hundreds gathered to pay their respects while the Polish ambassador to the UK Arkady Rzegocki spoke of his concern over the rise in attacks against the Polish community since the Brexit vote [BBC / Independent].

Only hours after the vigil and a silent march through the town two more Polish men were attacked in the same town in what police say was a likely 'hate crime' [BBC / EssexLive].

Bleak outlook

From which ever way one looks at it Britain's future outside the EU looks very bleak indeed. The biggest tragedy of all perhaps is the fact that many of those who voted for Brexit will suffer the most as they lose their jobs, pay more tax, or lose even their pensions [Gulf News / Independent]. Currently there is seemingly a sense that many people are positive about Britain's post-Brexit future with one poll conducted by BBC Radio 5 Live showing 62% of some 1,032 people expressing this view. However, the poll also indicated a possible brain drain and a weakening workforce as 26% of those spoken to considering leaving the UK and moving elsewhere. Amongst 18-34 year olds the figure was even higher with some 43% considering emigration. There has already been one definite move as the V&A's director Martin Roth resigned and prepared to return to his native Germany, a decision fuelled by his disillusionment at the Brexit vote [Guardian / Deutsche Welle].  in an interview with German radio broadcaster Deutschlandfunk that "the time for nice exhibitions is over. The anti-European stance is growing daily here."

There will also be a growing disappointment amongst Leave supporters as all the lies are exposed and the growing realisation that many of the warnings from "project fear" become true. The voters were told that they would "get their country back". They may well not like what it turns out to be.

tvnewswatch, London

Pro-European paper launches on back of Brexit

A new newspaper has launched in the UK aimed at the 48% of Britons who voted unsuccessfully to stay in the European Union.

The tabloid sized paper hit news stand on Friday [8th July] exactly a fortnight after Britain learnt the so-called Brexit campaign had victored over the Remain camp.

The New European paper says it aims to cater for what it called a sense of dismay and anger amongst Remain voters. Although with a cover price of £2 [currently equivalent to $2.60 or €2.34] some potential customers might themselves recoil with dismay given most newspapers sell for a pound or less.

However, The New European will appear weekly for the next three Fridays, mostly in areas that voted to stay in the EU in June's referendum such as London, Liverpool and Manchester.

The New European is said to be the quickest newspaper launch in British history but its future will however depend on sales. Essentially "every week's sale will be a referendum on the next" according to the publishers Archant who have run off 200,000 copies - a quarter of which which went to Manchester alone.
The first edition featured a brightly coloured front page carrying trailers for the paper's contributors alongside a large cartoon depicting a dog thinking to itself why people would vote for uncertainty, instability, isolation and beleaguerment.

Inside the first issue editor Matt Kelly writes of the shock he says many pro-EU voters felt at the referendum result.

"Walking in London the day after the vote was like walking through the world's biggest funeral parlour," he said in an introductory leader. "Everywhere the sense of bereavement was palpable."

The paper features articles from journalists across Europe including Tanit Koch, editor of Germany's Bild, and Wolfgang Blau, former journalist for the Guardian and Germany's weekly Die Zeit.

While it's difficult to judge sales after only a day on the newsstands, there were some indications the price was putting some people off.

One retail worker Catherine Dash, 20, told Reuters she liked the paper's style and colours but said, "I don't think it's worth two pounds."

The New European's launch comes at a difficult time for the newspaper print industry which has been in decline in recent years. In March this year the Independent newspaper went online-only after nearly 30 years in print, and publisher Trinity Mirror closed its "New Day" title in May just two months after it was launched.

More reports: Metro / Newsweek / Huffington Post / The Drum / Reuters

tvnewswatch, London

Anarchy in the UK - Brexit vote brings chaos & uncertainty

If it were not so tragic, the fallout from Britain's EU referendum result could be seen as some sort of political farce or Greek tragedy [Guardian].  

But it's a very English tragedy and one that's very real, very dangerous and may completely destroy the country altogether both politically and economically.

Cameron's unnecessary gamble

In a vain attempt to quell the Eurosceptics in his party and stop defections to UKIP, Prime Minister David Cameron last year promised a referendum on whether Britain should remain a part of the European Union. The promise may have won him an election, but his gamble has cost him, his party and the country dear.

Perhaps he thought it would be a slam dunk, a sure bet, a no brainer. After all Britain benefits hugely from the EU - though Eurosceptics would doubtlessly argue to the contrary.

But rising immigration and the emotive issue concerning sovereignty and the feeling that British laws were made by so-called 'unelected bureaucrats' swayed many to the Leave camp.

Perhaps Cameron should have made clear that the referendum was not legally binding or suggested that a pull-out would only be implemented upon a decisive majority - say two thirds of the vote, or that it should even be compulsory to vote. Indeed he could have decided not to call a referendum in the first place and not made it an election promise. Neither Labour or the Lib Dems would ever have called a referendum and UKIP would never win under the first-past-the-post electoral system.

But Cameron did none of these things and the result - after months of wasted electioneering - was a 52% to 48% split in favour of leaving the EU. With a 72% turnout it means that only 38% of the electorate actually voted to leave. But Cameron was adamant that the people should be heard and plans should be made to extricate Britain from the European Union [BBC].

Anger and buyer's remorse

However, that decision has in itself left many people, potentially up to 16 million of them who voted to remain, extremely angry [New Statesman]. The anger is compounded particularly by the lies and half truths used in the Brexit campaign [New Statesman]. There is also a sense, especially amongst the young, of being betrayed by the older generation who tended to vote to leave. There is also a sense of buyer's remorse with many people - amongst them Kelvin McKenzie of The Sun [Independent / Guardian]. And America is watching closely on this one too [Vox].

Resignations and party splits

After the vote came one tragedy after another. Cameron announced he was to step down as leader of the Conservative party. The stock markets went into a spin and the pound crashed to a 30 year low. Then there were calls for opposition leader Jeremy Corbyn to quits as party members saw him as being partly responsible for the result having not made clear Labour's stance or forcefully put the case for remaining a part of the EU.

"I know the honourable gentleman says he put his back into it. All I'd say, I'd hate to see him when he's not trying," Cameron said as he scolded Corbyn during PMQs before telling him to step down. "For heaven's sake, man, go!" Cameron hollered across the chamber [Guardian].

Labour certainly have their own issues [Newsweek]. But for Cameron he is likely to leave behind a legacy that he triggered the disintegration of the UK. Scotland will almost certainly leave - or at least try - should the British government follow through and actually leave the EU. There are even rumblings that Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in the south could unite to join EU — which would certainly be ironic, given their history.

Gibraltar, a British Overseas Territory, voted overwhelmingly to Remain, as did Scotland.

And Gibraltar's First Minister Fabian Picardo said on the Monday following the referendum that he's been in talks with Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to find a way for them to unite in some fashion to stay in the EU.

Boris leaves the battlefield

A week after the Britain's went to the polls the front contender for the next Tory leader Boris Johnson decided he was not the right person to take the party forward [BBC]. Only a week before he had spoken of rebuilding Britain and bridges but now he was quite chapfallen [BBC]. It is often said in Tory ranks that "He who wields the dagger never wears the crown" and this appears to have come true for Boris.

It was almost as if he'd gambled by playing the part of a Eurosceptic in order to take over the party and lead it through the next election with a populist following. In other words he'd hedged his bets on Remain winning before launching a coup against Cameron. But despite the upbeat comments from Boris Johnson and others in the Leave camp, things have not gone quite as planned. Whatever his intentions, the aftermath is being felt far and wide.

The dismay expressed concerning Boris Johnson's announcement was almost immediate. "So Cameron destroyed, Johnson destroyed, just a shame the country is also heading that way" the Guardian's Jonathan Hayes wrote on Twitter.

"So Boris smashed up the whole place for nothing. For nothing." wrote Philip Collins a writer and contributor to the The Times and chair of trustees of Demos.

But it wasn't just the columnists. Former Deputy PM Michael Heseltine waded in calling Boris Johnson a disgrace. Lord Heseltine said Boris had "ripped the (Conservative) party apart, he's created the greatest constitutional crisis of modern times he's knocked billions off the value of the nation's savings. He's like a general, that led his army to the sound of guns, and at the sight of the battlefield abandoned the field."

"I have never seen so an irresponsible and contemptible situation," Lord Heseltine added [BBC / BBC]

Tory leadership battles

Meanwhile other Conservatives had already thrown their hats in the ring. One major contender, and the only one who originally came out to remain in the EU is the Home Secretary Theresa May.

However in her leadership announcement launch, May seemed resolute and claimed she was the right choice to, "Bring together the country and a sensible organised departure from the EU".

But her statement "Brexit means Brexit" will hardly bring about confidence in the City where there was a feeling Article 50 might never be invoked. Indeed her assertion that there will be "no rejoining the EU by the back door" gives no wiggle room.

There appears to be strong backing for May within the party. "The UK needs strong and proven leadership" Michael Ellis MP told the BBC echoing the words of another May supporter Chris Grayling MP.

She certainly has some support but there'll be few making bets quite yet given the series of unpredicted events that neither the bookies, political pundits nor polls got right.

The bookies and many polls seemed to hinge upon the Remain camp having seized the day. But by 1 a.m in the morning on Friday 24th June it appeared clear that the vote had swung the other way.

Repercussions of Brexit vote

The repercussions were almost immediately felt as the markets crashed around the world. More than $2 trillion were wiped off the value of shares globally and Sterling sank to a 30 year low against the US dollar.

While there was some recovery the following week, the pound still remained low. Meanwhile three major ratings agencies all downgraded Britain's credit rating removing its AAA status [BBC]. And less than a week after the vote had been declared others were declaring UK banks a bad bet.

RBS and Barclays, which had seen up to 10% wiped off their share value in the days after the EU referendum, were declared as "uninvestable for months" according to investment management and research group Bernstein [Reuters].

Of course Leave campaigners insist that the downturn would only be short-lived and that confidence would return.

Those in the City are less optimistic with some commentators predicting a recession. Martin Wolf, associate editor and chief economics commentator at the Financial Times, has described the fallout of the Brexit vote as probably "the most disastrous single event in British history since the second world war" and says he would not be surprised if Britain fell into recession [Yahoo - Video].

Wolf was one of several who had aired the possible outcome of Brexit being abandoned .

"Prime Minister Johnson might, to paraphrase Emperor Hirohito's remarks at the end of the second world war, declare that, given the "unexpected" economic damage and the risk of a break up of the UK, the situation "had developed not necessarily to the UK's advantage". He might forget the whole thing or, alternatively, call another referendum, merely to make sure the people remained as determined." [FT]

Little hope of a U-turn

A U-turn on Brexit seems unlikely with hardline Tory candidates such as Andrea Leadman and Michael Gove. Even former Remain campaigner Theresa May has left few options open after declaring "Brexit means Brexit".

On the other side of the house, Labour remains in disarray with its own leadership battles as Jeremy Corbyn clings onto his position despite countless votes of no confidence.

No Future?

So what's the future for Britain? Simply put everything's gone tits up. Bank stocks are down with the outlook negative. Ratings are down from AAA to AA with an outlook of negative. Vodafone is mulling over the possibility of leaving the UK while some tech start-ups have already left as uncertainty of the next two years takes hold [Business Insider / Register]. Ryanair has also hinted at shifting focus as have other firms in the City [BBC / Guardian / Sky News].

There is an irony that London this year 'celebrates' the 40th anniversary of punk. The Sex Pistols anthems Anarchy in the UK and the lines 'No future in England's Dreaming' taken from God Save the Queen seem particularly apt at this time.

It's easy to fall back on metaphors, but as regards Britain's future there is little to fall back on. Certainly one should not fall on one's laurels.

In the last week there have been headlines such as "Britain sailing into uncharted waters" or "Heading into a storm without a captain" or "The only thing certain is uncertainty" [Economist].

"The futility of it all"

And for what? Politicians continue to maintain Britain will recover and build by trading with other countries. This may be true, in the medium to long term. But all the signs point to uncertainty and an unwillingness to invest in the UK.

The weak pound may encourage some tourists to Britain's shores. But equally the rise in xenophobic and racist attacks on Muslims, Poles, Romanians and even an American of mixed race, could deter people from wanting to visit [Express & Star / Al Jazeera / Guardian]. More than 300 hate crime incidents had been reported to a national online portal in the week since the referendum - compared to a weekly average of 63. While the numbers are small in the great scheme of things such incidents are still disturbing.

How long before people become impatient with politicians as wages freeze or even diminish as Mark Carney, the Bank of England governor, indicated might happen in the third and fourth quarter of 2016 [BBC / City Wire].

It is all very well for the Leave camp to say people should not talk Britain down, but what else can one do? To take another metaphor one should call a spade a spade. If the market is unstable, if the pound is at its lowest for 30 years and there is political and economic uncertainty and chaos, one can only call it what it is; utter chaos. The front page of one Australian paper perhaps had it right when is headlined with the slogan "Anarchy in the UK" above the word Brexit as the results became clear last week.

With the experts, that said that Brexit would be a disaster, being proved right it is hard to be anything other than pessimistic [Bloomberg / Independent].

Many economists have argued that the longer the uncertainty drags on, the more investments will be delayed, or even scrapped altogether. A fall in investment, especially from abroad, poses a significant threat to the UK economy, although there is varying opinion on how bad it is [ZeroHedge].

Some have been somewhat flippant almost to the point of showing signs of Schadenfreude. "You have to admire Leave Brits. They were so worried about immigrants ruining their economy than they preempted it by doing it themselves," wrote one Twitter user soon after the result was announced. Many papers around the globe were also rather bemused or even ridiculed of Britain's decision [New Statesman].

Uncertainty

But how long is the uncertainty going to drag on? In short no-one knows - or at least no-one's prepared to say.

Without implementing Article 50 Britain remains in the EU. However, while there is an element of status quo before that happens, no company is going to set up shop in the UK before it's clear whether the UK is actually going to follow through. Indeed miracles can happen. An election could be called and a party promising to reverse the decision could be elected! The Lib Dems have already promised such a move, although the odds of them winning would be slim.

Even with Article 50 implemented there can be up to two years of negotiations before Britain is actually outside the EU. And currently there is a stalemate with the EU which states there will be no cherry picking and that Britain will have to accept free movement if it wants to remain in the single market. There may even be difficulties should Britain try to secure the so-called Norway or Switzerland options as even they are currently borderless and within the Schengen zone, something which Britain has previously rejected [Independent]. There are five proposed models Britain could follow, although pro-Remain campaigners would argue that none are as good as what Britain already had [BBC].

Few choices

To quote an oft used American phrase, Britain is now caught between a rock and a hard place with few options on the table.

The government could turn around and make excuses to the electorate and say without remaining a part of the EU the economy is sunk, but promise to keep fighting for further reforms. There is some commentary suggesting a Brexit may never happen [France 24].

However following this route does rather lead to Britain forever being remembered as someone who said "I'm so sorry I made a mistake".

But perhaps that's better than flushing the country down the toilet.

The futility of it all

Today, 1st July, marks 100 years since the Battle of the Somme began and saw more than a million men were wounded or killed in the 141-day battle, the most devastating encounter of World War One.

And 100 years on Britain is now set to tear apart a union of nations which came together to end such battles and wars.

One might end with this line in which one soldier talks of the first day of battle. "At noon I went to Brigade to report the futility of it all." One hundred years on many might be feeling the Brexit battle was just as futile. Indeed what has it achieved other than create divisions, uncertainty in Britain's economy, precipitated the murder of MP Jo Cox [BBC] and encouraged racist attacks.

Brexit may not lead to war, but it may lead to deep depression and a prolonged recession which will be just as futile and unnecessary.

tvnewswatch, London

Britain heads into uncharted territory

After months of debates, accusations of racism and vitriolic attacks, voters are finally going to the polls to decide whether Britain remains a part of the European Union.

Every vote counts and turnout is all the more important. But at the eleventh hour, despite persuasive arguments from both sides of the campaign, torrential rain sweeping across Britain was feared to impact on the historic vote.

Polls failed to show any clear lead for either side. Indeed even if rain doesn't keep voters away from the polling station the result is expected to be extremely close.

The focus of the campaigns have hinged on several issues. Democracy has featured strongly amongst those promoting the Leave argument, claiming that 'unelected bureaucrats' in Brussels take away Britain's rights and impose unjust laws upon the country. Immigration has also been a major issue and become extremely divisive. There have been accusations of some parts of the Leave campaign exploiting people's fears over immigration to the point of racism. The vitriol boiled over when a pro-Remain MP, Jo Cox, was murdered by an individual, who while obviously mentally disturbed, had likely been influenced by some of the almost racist rhetoric coming from some parts of the Brexit camp.

The Remain side has not been entirely squeaky clean. Indeed many on the opposite side have dubbed their campaign as 'Project Fear' after countless claims that a Brexit will bring about recession, economic collapse and years of uncertainty.

The papers have varied in their support. Some have shamelessly supported the Brexit campaign amongst them the Sun, Daily Mail and Telegraph.

The Times, Guardian and Daily Mirror have tended to lean towards Remain with the Independent mainly sitting on the fence. The Financial Times has not been as vocal although their warning about the financial risks following a Brexit could be interpreted as its having a pro-Remain position.

The broadcasters have not sided with one camp or the other, although it could be argued that some campaigns and certain campaigners have been given more oxygen of publicity that they deserved.

And there has been endless TV, Radio and online debates. Perhaps the most enthralling was the Big Debate held in Wembley and broadcast by the BBC. Channel 4's The Last Debate hosted by the veteran broadcaster Jeremy Paxman was also engaging. CNN's UK Decides debate hosted by Christiane Amanpour had been pulled from its intended broadcast slot one week before the referendum after the murder of Jo Cox MP. However when it finally went to air a week later it was rather a disappointment.

But today the voters in the UK will decide. But whichever way the vote goes it will be a leap into the unknown as neither side can predict exactly what might happen.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Turning an old PC into Chromebook

A Chromebook isn't for everyone. Indeed there are many drawbacks. Whilst printing is usually not an issue, scanning a document is no easy task. Ripping music from a CD is of course impossible since Chromebooks don't come with CD or DVD drives. And for those who edit photos and video, tools are relatively simple compared to what one might use on a regular PC.

Advantages

However as a second machine a Chromebook can almost be a distinct advantage over a conventional PC or Mac. One of the biggest advantages is boot time which can be as little as 10 or 15 seconds. In practical terms it may in fact be about 30 to 40 seconds, but this is a distinct advantage over a laptop that may take several minutes to boot up especially if it's a few years old.

So within a minute you can be checking your Gmail, reading the news, watching Sky News online, editing a document or sending a tweet. Indeed for most people the work carried out on a PC is online, and for all such tasks using a Chromebook is a distinct advantage.

Internet connection required

Of course you need an Internet connection, but how many people use a PC that's not connected to a network? Occasionally perhaps such as when taking a trip by plane. But even here Chromebooks can still be used for some limited tasks such as composing or checking Gmail or writing and editing Google docs if offline apps or settings have been applied.

Disadvantages

It is only for heavy duty tasks that a Chromebook falls flat. If you take a lot of photographs on anything other than your phone and want to run them through Photoshop then a Chromebook can prove to be somewhat limited. And when it comes to downloading music or films there are also similar issues since there is generally very little storage on most Chromebooks. For such tasks it is perhaps best to have a PC. And as already mentioned one cannot rip music or play DVDs since CD/DVD drives aren't installed in Chromebooks.

But for general browsing and other work that can be done online a Chromebook is fast and  convenient. In fact it can prove to be far more efficient and smoother to work on, with few if none of those hangs and freezes that can be so commonplace on a conventional PC or even Mac.

Cost

But there is a financial cost. And even with the cheapest Chromebook selling at  around £200, one might not wish to take the plunge only to find it doesn't come up to all expectations.

So why not turn an old redundant laptop into a Chromebook? Given the life of some laptops, many people have a spare one sitting in the back of a cupboard, discarded after it became too slow and unresponsive or simply out of date as Microsoft ended support for old operating systems like XP and Vista.

Turning a PC into a Chromebook

With a little time and a very small amount of technical knowledge one can turn that otherwise useless laptop into a swift Chromebook thanks to a US company called Neverware.

Neverware have made available a downloadable package which. given everything goes swimmingly, can turn that old machine into a Chromebook within an hour.

Of course not everything goes according to plan. And one has to be a little patient. There are instructions on the Neverware site itself, though they are a little confusing. Indeed the best instructions we found were on [CNET].

We turned an old Dell Inspiron 1525 32-bit laptop running Vista into a Chromebook however there were a few problems along the way. Downloading the zip file from Neverware was not an issue, nor was the installation of the Chromebook Recovery Utility into the Chrome browser which is required to create the bootable USB. However when attempting to unpack and write the image to the USB stick we constantly received an "unknown error utility process crashed" message which as it turns out is an issue relating to Chrome 50 and Windows which prevents one from writing to a USB due to User Access Controls, Window's security settings [Neverware]. Disabling UAC and running Chrome as administrator made no difference.

This wasted a good couple of hours as we searched out information to resolve the problem. Finally a Google search provided an alternative solution published on the Neverware site which suggested downloading Win32DiskImager software, unzip the package and writing the resulting .bin file to the USB thumbdrive [Alternate Instructions - Neverware PDF]

Even then it was only on the second attempt that we were able to write the image to the USB stick.

After setting the old PC to boot from USB - by hitting F2 and changing boot options - we finally got Chromium to install.

After a few weeks of use there have been no major problems. Surfing is extremely fast. The browser is quick and responsive and not crashed once. Apps works well and we can identify only one slightly annoying bug in that thus far in that webpages won't translate or auto-translate as they normally would in the Chrome browser. Indeed this appears to be a known issue which Neverware are attempting to resolve [Neverware].

Of course this is perhaps to be expected given the version of Chromium offered by Neverware is NOT an official Google release. But it is perhaps the best one is going to get without spending out on a new Chromebook with an official Google release of Chromium.

In summary the computer doesn't technically become a "Chromebook," as that's a trademarked name for official Chrome OS products released with Google's direct involvement, but it's extremely similar in both form and function.

And should you take the plunge you will at least have a working laptop rather than a black box taking up space in that cupboard. Though of course if you do mess things up with the installation you could end up bricking it. Indeed we had extreme difficulty getting the software to install on a much newer Acer machine.

Finally there are some things to consider before you turn that old PC into a 'Chromebook'. As one article in Computer World highlights, not all the functionality seen in an official Chromebook exists, and indeed there are some bugs - as mentioned above regards the translate feature - but given it's free and may breathe new  life into an otherwise redundant machine it may be worth exploring. It may even prompt you to buy a real Chromebook! In fact Chromebooks for many are fast becoming the PC of choice with sales in the US overtaking those of Macs [Daily Mail / The Verge / ZDNet].

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Android Pay finally arrives in the UK

Android Pay has finally arrived in the UK but while some Android phone users may be excited, there are some drawbacks.

After announcing plans for Android Pay's first international expansion in March, Google's contactless payment service is now available in the United Kingdom. Google's rival to Apple Pay works with all NFC-enabled Android devices running KitKat 4.4 and above and was launched in the US last year.

Earlier this month, many stores in the UK began receiving promotional material advertising that Android Pay now works. After downloading the app from the Play Store, users have to enter a compatible credit card or verify one already associated with their Google Wallet account.

Participating banks

In addition to MasterCard and VISA, customers of the Bank of Scotland, First Direct, HSBC, Halifax, Lloyds Bank, M&S Bank, MBNA and Nationwide Building Society will all be able to sign-up to use Android Pay.

After downloading the app adding cards is relatively seamless. However, users will need to verify their card with their bank either by telephone in the case of some cards or by entering a verification code sent via SMS.

Loyalty card integration

Unlike Apple Pay, Android Pay users can also add loyalty cards which could prove to be a distinct advantage as users can slim down their wallets but still get their points every time they shop. To add a loyalty card users simply search the particular scheme, select it and then scan the barcode  on the card - or add it manually should no barcode exist

Not every loyalty scheme is available however, the Harrods Rewards scheme being just one exception.

Tap and pay

Having added payment and loyalty cards Android Pay users can then go and buy things simply by placing their device on a Tap & Pay terminal at merchants. There's also no needy need to unlock their device for payments under £30. The payment then is deducted and points should automatically added to one's loyalty scheme.

Acceptance

There are a few drawbacks however. The biggest issue is one of acceptance. Not everywhere accepts contactless payments and it may be unclear to consumers if Android Pay is accepted even if other forms of contactless payments are accepted. There are some strange anomalies too. While one can add a Nectar card to the list of loyalty cards, Sainsbury's, which is one of the main partners does not as yet accept contactless payments. This is despite promises the supermarket chain would bring in contactless by the end of 2015 [Guardian].

Contactless is now used in one in seven sales in the UK, although payments are limited to £30 if using a physical card. The maximum amount is set at £100.

Security

Security is at the centre of Android Pay so given you don't lose your phone users should be safe. With industry standard tokenisation, Android Pay doesn't send merchants your real card number when you purchase. Android Pay also makes it convenient to keep track of payments and to lock your device if it becomes lost or stolen. Though while you may be able to lock or wipe an Android device remotely from using Google's own Android Locate app and web interface as well as third party apps such as those made by Norton or Cerberus, it is probably prudent to contact the card issuers should your phone be lost.

No Amex, Barclay, Natwest et al

The other drawback for some consumers is not being able to add all payment card types. While major two payment services Visa and Mastercard may be used with Android Pay, American Express users are left out in the cold.

While American Express is not accepted everywhere this should not be reason enough that it not be an option. Many places that already accept contactless also accept American Express. Indeed all the major supermarkets, Waitrose, Sainsbury, Tesco and Morrisons accept the card and many other High Street outlets welcome the card amongst them most McDonalds, Pizza Express, Costa coffee, Boots the chemist, and Primark.

This is perhaps of particular annoyance to those that collects points with their American Express card or like to keep all their payments on one card.

But it's not just American Express users that have been excluded. Santander, Natwest, Barclays, Barclaycard, Tesco Bank, TSB and boon. by Wirecard are also absent [BBC / Guardian / Telegraph / Trusted Reviews / Tech Week Europe]

It is unclear why some banks have not partnered with Android Pay. Android Pay could potentially be more successful than Apple Pay given the number of people using Android devices. However, Apple is supported by most of the major banks in the UK the full list being American Express, the Bank of Scotland, Barclays, Barclaycard, boon. by Wirecard, First Direct, Halifax, HSBC, Lloyds, M&S Bank (credit only), MBNA, Nationwide Building Society, NatWest, Royal Bank of Scotland, Santander, Tesco Bank (credit only), TSB and Ulster Bank.

tvnewswatch has reached out to some of the other financial institutions. Of those that responded Natwest said, "It is our intention to introduce Android Pay and we will make an announcement as soon as we are in a position to do so." Meanwhile American Express did not give an absolute assurance it would support the payment method but said, "There is no update to provide at the moment. As soon as we have more info we will communicate it to our card holders." Santander, another banking group missing from the app, said "we’re actively working with Google so that customers can use Android Pay later in 2016". TSB said that, "Android Pay is definitely on our plans but we aren’t in a position to share dates just yet". First Direct were more evasive, claiming that it's cards were "not yet compatible" and asked its customers to "keep an eye" on the Android Pay website for updates. As for Barclays' customers, there is no indication they will support the app at all since they are planning their own smartphone app. Their response was a simple "we have no plans to have Android Pay". Tesco Bank customers also look as though they may also be left out in the cold too. "We're not looking to introduce Android Pay at the moment but if this changes we will let our customers know," was their response.

TfL support

Perhaps the most important supporter of Android Pay is Transport for London [TfL], which has introduced many passengers to contactless and mobile payments. The average number of journeys made on London's transport network using mobile devices has increased from 7,500 a day to more than 35,000, with more than 200,000 unique devices used to make trips in the six months leading up to February – an increase of 1,000 devices per day.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Cultural Revolution falls into a memory hole

"Have you heard of the Cultural Revolution?" a teacher at a middle school in southwest China asks me as I pay a visit. "Of course, who hasn't?" Later I ask why she had asked this particular question, but she is evasive and says she can't remember having posed the question.

Her forgetfulness struck me as somewhat ironic given that some 50 years after the Cultural Revolution was declared China is studiously ignoring the anniversary.

Indeed, fifty years after Chairman Mao sent a quarter of the world's population hurtling into a decade of chaos, there is virtually no mention of the anniversary. There appears to be collective amnesia with few if any newspapers making mention of the date.

While there is none of the censorship associated with contentious subjects such as Tiananmen Square, there is little if any enthusiasm to mention it. Indeed, China's microblogging service Weibo has yet to block the Chinese term for "cultural revolution", be it the shortened [文化大革命] or long version [无产阶级文化大革命].

The Beijing Times shunned the anniversary dedicating its front page to a story about police efforts to find missing children. And there have been no official memorial events reported by China's heavily controlled media. Meanwhile Chinese academics have been forbidden from talking about the sensitive period. "Researchers cannot accept any interviews related to the Cultural Revolution," one scholar told Canada's The Globe and Mail.

But there has been no shortage of news and commentary in western media. While not prominent in the schedule the story has been reported on the BBC News and CNN while most traditional print media has reported extensively on the anniversary [BBC / France 24 / Guardian / Daily Mail / ABC / Straits Times / NYT / SCMP]. 

For good or bad the Cultural Revolution has left a mark with rather kitcsh tourist memorabilia. And there are also serious collectors who seek out original items from that turbulent part of China's history.

From badges and Little Red Books to original posters some items can fetch a tidy sum. And then there's the tourist tat on sale in many towns and cities, from tacky Mao medallions and T-shirts to large brass and even gold busts of the former Chairman [Daily Mail / Telegraph].

Some memorabilia tells a story in itself. One example is Mao's so-called Little Red Book, or "Quotations from Chairman Mao". Find an original copy and one may find the page containing Lin Biao's foreword either ripped out or defaced with his name scrubbed out. Marshall Lin Biao https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lin_Biao was Mao's right hand man and played a pivotal role in promoting the red book. But after Lin Biao fell out of favour with Mao, many people were obliged to cross out his name in order to show their allegiance. Lin died on September 13, 1971 when a Hawker Siddeley Trident he was aboard crashed in Mongolia. The exact events of this "Lin Biao incident" have been a source of speculation ever since [BBC].

Lin was only one victim of the Cultural Revolution. There were countless purges and much of China's rich cultural heritage was destroyed forever from books to ancient Buddhist temples. It was a time when China essentially went mad and there were even so-called fresh banquets where people indulged in cannibalism, eating the victims murdered during the violent purges [Time / Daily Mail].  

President Xi Jinping will be wary of anyone attempting to use Monday's anniversary to bring up uncomfortable facts about the party's past. He himself has been likened to Chairman Mao as he consolidates power and weeds out opponents. And any criticism has been met with censorship. Only last month Time magazine became another victim of China's censorship machine after it suggested Xi was following in Mao's footsteps [NYT].

Xi may not have declared a Cultural Revolution but there are strong similarities as he sets out his own vision for China's future with his own cult of personality [Time].

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Sir John Major on Brexit - Full speech

Speech made by Sir John Major, the former Prime Minister, at the Oxford Union on 13 May 2016.

"This is my first formal speech in the Referendum campaign, and it is appropriate that it is here – because it is your generation's future that will be enhanced or diminished by whether we "remain" in or "leave" the EU.

I've no particular reason to be a supporter of the EU. It is far from perfect. A quarter of a century ago it bitterly divided my Party, and European disagreements wrecked many of the ambitions I had as Prime Minister. It opened disputes that linger yet. Nor am I an unquestioning European: I did, after all, say "No" to the Euro, and "No" to joining the Schengen Agreement on open borders.

Even so, I passionately believe we must remain in Europe and help shape its future: geography, trade and logic mean our futures are linked whether we wish it or not.

Tonight I want to explain why I believe that is so, and then cast a critical eye over the flawed – and misleading – arguments for Brexit.

What sort of country are we? For hundreds of years we've been a positive force in the world – a nation that looked outwards, and spread our ideas, our principles, our laws, our democracy, across the world.

But that world has changed. Today, we are 65 million people: less than 1% of a world of 7,000 million, forecast to become 9,000 million by the time your own children are at University.

And the global market is inexorably drawing that world together on a scale we could not have imagined even a few years ago. It is counter-intuitive to try to go it alone and, as our friends around the world tell us, a disastrously bad decision to do so.

Within the EU, we are a large and influential nation and – while we remain a part of a Union of 500 million people – we have serious political and diplomatic clout, as well as economic advantages. Some examples make this clear.

In Europe, we were able to impose sanctions on Russia to keep her in check, and deter further misbehaviour in Ukraine. We persuaded the EU to join America and impose sanctions on Iran, to bring about a deal that halts development of a nuclear weapon. We could not do this alone. If we were to leave, the world would consider us diminished. Departure would be a gratuitous act of self-harm.

The economic argument for Europe is overwhelming: it is nearly half our export market, and nearly five times bigger than all the 52 Commonwealth countries added together, or indeed, six times more than the sum total of trade with Brazil, Russia, India and China.

In the EU, we have unimpeded access to the richest trade market in the world – right here on our doorstep. Access to that market of 500 million people encourages a wealth of investment into our country. That's not an abstract statistic – it's people's jobs, taxes, profits and overall quality of life.

Outside Europe, we would still have to comply with EU rules and regulations, unless we surrendered all access to the Single Market – which all reputable authorities, not least the IMF, OECD, NIESR and the Bank of England, regard as economically foolish.

And, once out – or "liberated" in the more emotive language of the "Leave" campaign – we could no longer protect ourselves against the impact of EU laws on the City of London, nor on our industry and service sectors.

Nominally, we would indeed be "free", but – in practice – we would only be "free" to accept whatever the EU determined, with no power to argue against it. Is that "taking back control" – as the "Leave" campaign describes it? No it isn't. And it's not glorious sovereignty either. It is nothing other than reckless, imprudent folly. And the price for that would be paid by every British family.

It is not the only price. The NIESR warns of a collapse in the value of Sterling. The LSE warns of higher prices. The Bank of England fears higher interest rates and mortgages. All this and more – from independent bodies – is ignored and brushed aside by the "Leave" campaign.

Yet many people – not least in my own Party – wish to leave.

Their motives are many and variable: pride in our country, concern over sovereignty and immigration, and fear that we have no influence in Europe and are heading towards a federal structure.

We must address these instincts, these emotions, and debunk myths that are wrong, but sunk in our national consciousness. If we fail to do so, we may end up leaving Europe because absurd falsehoods are widely believed to be true.

One absurdity is that, subsumed in Europe, we would lose our traditions, our heritage, our individuality. We won't: after sixty years of Europe are the French less French or the Germans less German? Of course not: and nor will we be less British.

In the search for voter support the "Leave" campaign repeatedly overstate their case: if they were to win, they risk a backlash from those who reasonably might say they were misled.

There is no shortage of such exaggerations. One clear example is the cost of Europe. Nigel Farage, Iain Duncan-Smith and Boris Johnson all put it at £20 billion a year; Michael Gove is more modest at £18 billion (£350 million a week), all of which, they tell us – if only we could be free of Europe – would be spent on the Health Service and our hospitals.

If only … if only…. but the truth is their figures are wrong by a factor of over three! During the last five years the average gross payment was £12.7 billion of which £5.6 billion was paid back to us. Last year, our gross payment was just over £11 billion, of which over £5 billion was paid back to our farmers, businesses, science, research and regional aid. This is not my calculation – it is the calculation of the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

So, to put £20 billion more into hospitals the "Leave" campaign would have to claw back all the money paid to some of our fellow countrymen and, on top of that, tax us all by an additional £10 billion. Those who make such false claims – and knowingly do so – need to apologise that they've got their figures badly wrong – and stop peddling a demonstrable untruth – as they have been repeatedly asked to do by the Chairman of the UK Statistics Authority.

The "Leave" campaign fret that we have surrendered our "sovereignty" to Europe. That is a very rum claim: and – if it were true – how could we offer our nation a Referendum? It is certainly true that we have shared sovereignty: we share ours and, in return, we gain a share of the sovereignty of 27 other nations.

But this is our choice – because it is in our own national interest. And, if it ever ceased to be, our Government can always commence withdrawal with Parliament support. So let me make the position on sovereignty absolutely clear: we share it within the EU only for as long as our British Parliament wishes us to do so.

And even that sharing is partial.

What say does the EU have over our economic policy? None.

Our education system? None.

Our NHS? None.

Our welfare system? None.

Our Armed Forces? None.

Our police? None

I could go on: 98% of government spending is entirely in the control of the British Parliament.

Like much we hear from the "Leave" campaign, the sovereignty argument is emotive but specious. In a global economy, no country truly has sovereignty – not even our mighty friend the US. And in our most crucial area – security – we have happily shared sovereignty within NATO for over 60 years.

Of course, we don't always get our own way. Who does in any relationship of two – let alone one that numbers 27 other Member States? But we should not forget that – in well over 90% of the votes cast in Brussels – the UK wins. The caricature that we are repeatedly voted down in Europe is ill-informed nonsense.

Another cherished "Leave" mantra is that we will all be "dragged" into a "federal" Europe. It is their favourite horror story. But, yet again, it is fantasy.

Were we dragged into the Euro? No

Were we dragged into Schengen and open borders? No

Are we now exempt from "ever-closer union"? Yes, we are.

And if any new Treaty seeks more power, that Treaty would have to be put to the British nation in a Referendum and if – and only if – it were approved by us would it become law.

A final point on sovereignty: we have sovereignty in its purest and most potent form: we – the UK – can leave the EU at any time; nothing legally binds us to the EU forever. That is the fact and we should disregard the fiction.

As the "Leave" arguments implode one by one, some of the Brexit leaders morph into UKIP, and turn to their default position: immigration. This is their trump card. I urge them to take care: this is dangerous territory that – if handled carelessly – can open up long-term divisions in our society.

I grew up in Brixton in the 1950s – a time of massive West Indian immigration. As a boy, I played in local parks with the children of migrants. Some of these newcomers rented rooms in the same house as my family.

So, I can tell you, as a matter of fact, not fantasy, that those I knew then – and later – didn't come here for our benefits: they came half-way across the world to give themselves and their families a better life.

But, at the time, fears were fanned by careless statements from political figures. That was a mistake then, and would be a mistake now.

Do not misunderstand me. Of course, it is legitimate to raise the issue of the sheer number of those wishing to enter our country. I wholly accept that. Nor do I wish to silence debate. We mustn't overlook genuine concerns: but these should be expressed with care, honesty and balance. Not in a manner that can raise fears or fuel prejudice. The "Leave" campaign are crossing that boundary, and I caution them not to do so.

They attribute motives to new arrivals that are speculative and, frankly, offensive. They highlight – with grotesque exaggeration – the risk of mass migration from Turkey – which is unlikely to be joining the EU any time soon and indeed may never do so. And – even if she did – the terms of her accession would need to be agreed by every Member State.

So, when the "Leave" campaign warn of "opening our borders to 88 million" (meaning Turkey and the Western Balkans) they cross the boundaries of responsible comment. It is unlikely in the extreme that – I quote – "another 88 million people will soon be eligible for NHS care and school places for their children".

I assume this distortion of reality was intended to lead the British people into believing that almost the entire population of possible new entrants will wish to relocate to the UK. If so, this is pure demagoguery. I hope that – when the heat of the Referendum is behind us – the proponents of such mischief making will be embarrassed and ashamed at how they have mis-used this issue.

They advance a second migration red herring – that the recent modest rise in our National Living Wage will be "irresistible" to would-be migrants.

This is very dubious. First of all, 40% of all migrants are under 25 and therefore ineligible.

Second, are people really motivated to cross an entire Continent to receive a few pence a week extra? I very much doubt it.

But even if they were – why would they choose the UK, when the minimum wage is higher, for example, in France; and wage levels higher in other countries that have no statutory minimum.

And what of the "numbers" argument?

There are various categories of immigrants. Commonwealth immigration is entirely unaffected by our membership of the EU.

Would-be migrants from around the world need skilled worker visas to enter: and these are under our control.

Refugees are dealt with on a case by case basis. Many of those applying for citizenship have lost everything, and we have always been a compassionate nation. But these decisions are under our control.

But there are clearly undesirables, who we can – and already do – exclude. This includes anyone where there is concern over national security, criminal activity or adverse immigration history. This, too, is already under our control.

But yes, if we were to leave Europe, we could exclude more EU citizens – such as the 54,000 EU migrants now working as Doctors, or Nurses or Ancilliaries in our Health Service, or the nearly 80,000 working in Social Care. We could exclude skilled workers like builders and plumbers – or unskilled labour that takes jobs that are unappealing to the British. In short, the people we could most easily keep out are the very people we most need.

A balanced approach would acknowledge the contribution of migrants to our national wellbeing. Without their contribution, the Health Service would not be able to cope – nor would our public transport system; and our hotels, restaurants and shops would be without staff to serve their customers. We would have a shortage of many skills for industry. This is the reality of what lies beneath the emotive language of those who seek to raise the drawbridge on our country.

This problem of numbers will not be forever. The growth of the Eurozone economy – now clearly underway – should cut demand to come here, as jobs grow elsewhere across Europe. And, in any event, a short term migrancy flow should not be the issue that drives the UK out of an economic union that already benefits our country immensely – and will continue to do so in the future.

I asked earlier: what sort of country are we? And what sort of people are we?

Under our undemonstrative exterior we are an essentially kind and benevolent nation, and more inclined to emotion than the age old caricature of stiff upper lip.

Show us charitable need and we dig deep.

Show us children in need, and we pay up happily.

Show us people starving in Africa, and we text our contributions by the million.

Show us a far away nation suffering from natural disaster, and we rush to help.

We do so because our emotions are touched. But we should not let those emotions be stirred by false fear: nor allow false fear to impair our judgement on the future of our country.

Over the next few weeks we – the British people – will decide the future direction of our country.

This is not a General Election which rolls around every five years: we can't "suck it and see". There will not be another Referendum on Europe. This is it.

So – whatever your view – register and vote. Because the decision you take on the 23rd of June will shape our country, our people, and our livelihoods for generations to come."

Friday 14/05/2016


tvnewswatch, London, UK

Ad-blocking may change the Internet into paywall

New research indicates that ad-Blocking is costing publishers dearly and may well change the very nature of the Internet.

Few people like the intrusive pop-ups and irritating animated ads flickering next to an article we're trying to read, but with an all or nothing ad-blocker filtering out these elements on the webpages we visit, Internet users are essentially starving the publishers of their much needed revenue.

According to new research digital publishers stand to lose more than $27bn of revenue by 2020 as a result of ad-blocking. The report, Worldwide Digital Advertising: 2016-2020, from Juniper Research, revealed that developer activity is set to increase over the next five years, making ad-blockers more sophisticated and difficult to overcome [Register / Research Live].

And on mobile ad-blocking is also increasing and is becoming a growing threat to a mobile advertising market worth more than $31 billion [Guardian].

Even though a lot of people see ad-blocking as harmless, it does harm a lot of businesses. Indeed, for a commercially sustainable Internet, advertising is essential.

Without advertising, publishers will be forced to adopt new models for revenue, which will most likely mean less and low-quality content will be available for free. The rest will be on a pay-for basis.

Ad-blocking is a wake-up call for advertising agencies and the media who use them, it's telling them that consumers are becoming more discerning and demanding, but this could backfire as big news media and publications adopt more invasive advertising approaches including sponsored articles, back-links and so on.

But while the larger organisations will manoeuvre around ad-blocking technology, smaller publishers and bloggers will be harder hit. Smaller publishers are most at risk from the rapid adoption of ad-blocking software as they often solely rely on revenues from advertising to continue operating. And while independent bloggers may only make a few dollars per month from advertising it is an incentive for them to continue providing online content.

Many blogs are trite and not worth the digital space they take up. But free independent content is as important as the big corporate publishing houses. Without the smaller blogs and small independent publishers the Independent may become a domain in which only the likes of the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Daily Telegraph exist.

Such publications are already shifting towards limited access with a paywall implemented after a certain number of pages having been accessed.

Even 'free' services such as Google and Facebook may find themselves changing their approach as ad-blocking eats up their main source of income. For Google with so many branches to their tree, solutions may be less problematic. Paid users may essentially subsidise the free content. But for the likes of Facebook finding a business model to replace the ads may be more difficult. How many Facebook users would be willing to pay an annual subscription fee after all?

Advertising, targeted through Google tracking with adsense/adwords or not, never really bothered people until they became intrusive.

Once they were a simple classified type advertisement, maybe with a nice picture. But online ads started to become more and more invasive. Irritating Flash based ads distracted the user from what one was reading. Pop-ups got in the way of what one was reading and had to be closed sometimes prompting another page to open. And then there were embedded videos which autoplayed.

Not only did these ads irritate users, they also used up bandwidth and slowed down the loading time. For those on mobile connections or slower connections these elements are even more unwanted since page downloads will cost time and even money.

So while many web users would happily accept a sensible advertising policy many sites disrespected their readers forcing them to employ ad-blockers.

Unfortunately once people install ad-blockers few people will tweak them to exclude blocking on certain sites. Therefore everyone gets punished, the websites and the advertisers.

The battle is essentially lost and the web will gradually become subscription or PAYG as advertisers lose out to the ad-blockers and content providers are forced to apply different fundraising methods or disappear from the web altogether.

Facebook et al say they'll always be free but given ads pay for their services their hand may be forced. The same may be true of YouTube and other Google services. Ads pay for your Facebook, YouTube and 15 GB Google account. Remember there's no such thing as a free lunch.

In the end, it is not about feeling guilty for ad-blocking your favourite website, it is about realizing how your actions are to your disadvantage in the long-run. Indeed ad-blocking may kill the free Internet and turn it into a massive paywall [Guardian].

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Queen's remarks about "very rude" Chinese officials rattles China

It has been described as extraordinary, unprecedented and a faux pas but the Queen's remarks caught on camera describing Chinese officials as "very rude" reveals that there are still tensions that exist between nations despite all the public smiles.

Her remarks, while creating a stir in the media, also reveal that the Queen too is human and indeed has an opinion on things.

The Queen is a stickler for protocol and had clearly been shocked by the rudeness of Chinese officials towards the UK's ambassador to China during a standoff apparent about security, and said so. That she brought this up immediately showed how much it still rankled even after seven months.

So was this a diplomatic gaffe, an attempt to send a message to the Chinese, or a statement of fact? Perhaps it was all three. But it is hard to argue, as some have tried to do, that it was of no importance. Indeed it was important enough for the Chinese to censor the relevant passage in the BBC news as screens of BBC World went black each time the story was mentioned [Telegraph].

On Chinese social media some users have been keen to comment, but many appear to have had their posts removed by online censors.

There are many unanswered questions [BBC]. But there are also some inconvenient truths [Guardian].

Some have suggested the rift was due to a hangover from the Opium Wars and British Imperialism more than a century ago. Indeed the Chinese still refer to the Century of Humiliation and dwell on the British destruction of Beijing's Summer Palace in the 19th Century [FT].

The Queen was not the only one rattled by the behaviour of Chinese officials during last year's state visit. Metropolitan Police Commander Lucy D'Orsi, who was the Gold Commander in charge of security spoke of difficulties describing it as a "testing time" [BBC / Telegraph / Daily Mail].

The remarks may refer to an incident when a "Chinese spy master" supposedly posed as President Xi's official translator in a bid to get into the Queen's royal carriage. This was first reported by the Daily Mail last year and led to diplomatic exchanges.

And there have been further reports this week which appear to reinforce the veracity of the story [Sun / Daily Mail / RT].

China for its part also appear to be rattled by the critical reports in the world media. And while foreign reports including those on the BBC Chinese service have been censored state media has dismissed the reports as tittle tattle and Fleet street gossip that has been hyped up out of all proportion [Huanqiu - Chinese / Guardian].

Nonetheless with reports emerging today suggesting that China has a secret plan concerning the building of reactors at Hinkley Point perhaps one has a right to be concerned over Chinese attitudes towards Britain [Daily Mail].

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Man in court over plane bomb hoax on day of Brussels attacks

A 26-year-old man from Scotland has pleaded not guilty to charges that he made a bomb hoax whilst on board an Easyjet flight on the same day as the Brussels airport bombings.

Calum John Lochhead, of 42 Boyd Orr Crescent, Kilmaurs, Kilmarnock, Ayrshire, is charged with committing the offence on 22nd March on-board Easyjet flight EZY217 which was flying from Stansted Airport in Essex to Glasgow, Scotland.

On Wednesday this week Chelmsford Magistrates Court heard that Lochhead allegedly "communicated false information to passengers which he knew or believed to be false with the intention of inducing that person or any other person a false belief that a bomb was present."

Prosecutor Harshika Da Silva, told the court that the flight was delayed for a around half an hour amid pandemonium, and the plane was off-loaded after the bomb claims.

Meanwhile, Lochhead's counsel, Jo Pumfrey, told the court Lochhead had not said what he is alleged to have said.

Lochhead indicated a not guilty plea and the case was sent to Chelmsford Crown Court for a plea and trial preparation hearing on 25th May.

Lochhead, sported a neatly trimmed beard as he stood before magistrates and was smartly dressed in grey trousers, a white shirt and maroon red tie. He was released on unconditional bail.

A number of reporting restrictions were not lifted for the hearing.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

© 2016

Obama not the only world leader concerned about Brexit

The Brexit campaign was this weekend fixated with the US President, Barack Obama's intervention and supposedly rigged speech in which he suggested Britain would find itself left out in the cold should it leave the EU.

Obama said Britain might find itself at "the end of the queue" when it came to negotiations for any future trade deals with the United States. This was seen by those in the leave camp as interfering with some fixating on his use of the word queue instead of line, suggesting that Number 10 had been involved in formulating his speech.

But President Obama was not the first major world leader to stick his oar into the EU referendum debate.

China syndrome

Last October China's President, Xi Jinping, made a rare and unusual public statement about Britain's relationship with the EU when he expressed the view that Britain would play a far more constructive role with developing Sino-EU ties.

In a statement, Xi said, "China hopes to see a prosperous Europe and a united EU, and hopes Britain, as an important member of the EU, can play an even more positive and constructive role in promoting the deepening development of China-EU ties." [RT]

China usually abstains from commenting on the internal affairs of other countries so Xi's statement along with similar comments made by China's Foreign Ministry earlier the same month made it clear that the country is concerned about a possible Brexit.

While the statements coming from both the US and China may well be seen as one of self interest, they also give an indication how Britain's relationship with the world's two biggest trading blocks may well be affected should the UK leave the EU.

If the UK left the EU, it would be leaving the biggest trading partnership in the world. Moreover, the UK may well be left out if the EU is able to negotiate more favourable access for European companies to China's markets.

Some have argued that leaving the EU would create the opportunity for the UK to negotiate its own trade deal with China based explicitly on UK, rather than EU interests. However, critics of this view warn that because of the relatively small size of the UK market, China may remain more interested in negotiating with the EU, leaving the UK out in the cold unless it agrees to less favourable terms than might otherwise be secured through the EU. And Obama's statements over the weekend echo this warning.

Business interests

It is not just the leaders of the two biggest economies that are making their views felt. International business leaders have urged the UK to stay in the European Union, warning of complications that could follow a Brexit vote.

There are suggestions that a Brexit could also bring Britain's so-called special relationship with China to an end. With the real possibility now emerging that Britain could exit the EU, Chinese investors are getting nervous.

China's richest man and the head of airline Qantas have both joined the chorus of corporate heads calling on Britons to vote to remain in the EU.

Billionaire Wang Jianlin, who owns businesses including Britain's Sunseeker yachts and the firm behind the One Nine Elms development in Battersea, predicted that Chinese companies could move elsewhere [Guardian / InFacts].

A Brexit "would not be a smart choice" for the UK, and separation "would create more obstacles" for investors, Wang told the Sunday Times. Meanwhile, Qantas chief executive, Alan Joyce voiced his view saying that it was "in the economic interest of Britain and the EU to stay together" [FT / Brookings].

Another big player has warned that a Brexit could seriously harm Sino-UK relations when it comes to business. Chief executive officer of BHP Billiton Ltd., the world's biggest mining company, backed the campaign for Britain to remain in the European Union, saying that exiting the bloc would damage its relationship with China.

"I can tell you from my dealings with the highest level of the Chinese government that China takes Britain far more seriously because we are a major player in the EU," Andrew Mackenzie said [Bloomberg].

Financial services

The focus of Obama's comments have hinged on trade deals. However one major area in which Britain might lose out is with financial services.

Banks in the US that have operations in the EU will have a new headache in an already-difficult year should UK voters opt out of the political and economic union. And most of the biggest banks operating on Wall Street have key operations in places like London and Ireland, which could turn into a management nightmare instantly should UK residents vote on 23rd June to opt out of the governing collective.

US and European banks alike that benefited from "passporting" regulations that let them run trading operations in UK locations like London would have to hastily revisit those operating plans. Some banks may consider relocating trading operations to cities like Paris, Amsterdam or Frankfurt if the UK opts out of the EU.

"At the moment they can run operations out of London," said George Karamanos, head of European bank equity research at Keefe, Bruyette and Woods. "If they lose that, it means that no longer can they run regulated activities out of London." [CNBC]

And Katie Nixon, chief investment officer of Northern Trust Wealth Management, told CNBC's "Power Lunch" that a Brexit could create further uncertainty in already uncertain financial world market.

According to Nixon, "Immediate economic impacts will be felt through the trade channel, as well as through the movement of people. Both are negatives for growth. Further, a Brexit would introduce additional risk to the EU: who would be next?" [CNBC]

Indeed there have already been signs of uncertainty after Asian stocks fell over concerns of a possible Brexit [The Street].

US and EU deals

But what of Britain's relationship with the US. Obama certainly made his position clear, saying he preferred the current status quo and warned of difficulties in making trade deals [WSJ].

"The UK. would not be able to negotiate something with the United States faster than the EU," Obama told the BBC.

And while Brexit proponents insist that deal could be struck with the US, it ignores the hard reality that the US has a preference for big regional agreements, such as the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership now being discussed with the EU, something Britain would be left out of.

The same might apply to trade deals within the EU itself. One risk to the UK economy is that much of the trade in today's world of global supply chains is in intermediate goods such as motor parts and electronic components.

British businesses, as well as foreign businesses based in Britain, would be likely to find themselves at an immediate disadvantage and potentially excluded from those supply chains. Following a Brexit the UK government would have to find a way to plug the gap quickly.

Plugging such holes would only be the beginning of what might become a costly and time consuming exercise, not only for the British government but also for British businesses [FT].

While Brexit campaigners are, in a democracy, entitled to their opinion, so too are those that wish Britain to remain a part of the EU. And while those that wish to leave may feel indignant at Obama's comments, he is not the only foreign leader or commentator to express an opinion. And as far as other states are concerned not one single country has of now declared they would prefer the UK to leave the EU. Not one.

tvnewswatch, London, UK

Please click here to answer a quick survey: EU Referendum Survey