Odd, since the case against in the UK seems to be because it favours a French view of Europe’s future.A further oddity is that it seems to be accepted that were the French to say “no” by a reasonable margin, the constitution would be dead – whereas were the British to say no, the rest of Europe would go ahead without us. Two different polling organisations show a majority in favour of rejection, but had the referendum been held at the end of last year, the vote would probably have gone the other way.The second election has been given a spin by President Jacques Chirac, who has suggested that to vote “no” would be to play into the hands of the British, though the opposition there seems to be largely because the treaty is too “Anglo-Saxon” in tone. At the moment, the polls point to a reasonable vote against, but as you can see from the left-hand chart, the momentum behind the “no” vote is quite recent and so arguably could be reversed. So the issue there is also in all probability the size of the majority against the constitution. If big, the constitution is truly dead – the final knife probably being inserted by the Dutch referendum a few days later; if narrow, maybe a bit of fiddling would take place before the British give their own verdict next year.
While a result outside these bands is possible, the most likely issue here is the size of the Labour majority – for if it is small, this would help shape both the durability of the next government and its internal balance.In France things are a little more open, for events may push the country back towards a “yes” vote, though at the moment that looks most unlikely. The first, of course, is our own general election; the second, at the end of May, is the French referendum on the new European constitution.
We can judge, within normal 80 per cent bands of probability, the outcome of both. There are two elections coming up, and by any rational analysis the second is the more important. Therefore, get the Man Utd fans off Man Utd’s board and put people like me in to represent real shareholders.j.nisse independent.co.uk. Therefore, their only interest in the 300p bid is whether it is better for Man Utd investors than any alternative – which it is – and whether Mr Glazer and his backers, NM Rothschild and JP Morgan, can deliver the money should the bid go through – which they can.What happens after Mr Glazer wins control of Man Utd is of no interest to the directors of the public company It is, though, of interest to supporters. That is why I should be on the football club’s board.The decision by the members of its board – who are all fans of the team – to reject Malcolm Glazer’s 300p-a-share offer because his bid vehicle has too much debt shows they have a conflict of interest.May I remind them that, as directors of a public company, their duty is to shareholders. Of course, Mr Blair will have long retired by the time this decision comes back to haunt him.Vote me for Man UtdRegular readers will know I’m not a fan of Manchester United.
Continental interest rates are lower than ours, and the euro takes a lot of risk out of investment decisions and tendering for contracts.By turning his back on the euro, the Prime Minister has not only given up something he believes in because of political expediency, he has bought into the sort of complacent thinking that says because things are hunky-dory today, they will always remain so. But in the past few years the toughening of our tax regime – and loosening of those in, say, Germany or Holland – has lost us that competitive edge. At the moment, the UK has some advantages as a place to invest in Europe because of our more flexible working practices. I’m not going to rehearse the pro and con arguments again, but let me make these points. After all, it bends over backwards to aid the likes of Airbus when deals are being awarded in the UK.Labour’s Manifesto for Business is not worth the paper it is written on if it cannot help companies like Marconi.
It would serve Labour right if the voters of Coventry give it a bloody nose.Blair’s euro errorMeanwhile, Tony also gave a kicking to British exporters by killing off the faint hopes they might have had that sterling would join the euro. This is just where the DTI could have helped, by giving financial assistance to Marconi to help it win the BT contract. The core company has always been at the forefront of telecoms technology.By all accounts, its lack of financial strength was one of the main reasons why Marconi lost out in the £10bn BT 21CN beanfeast. But this is to do with borrowing too much, buying the wrong businesses and backing the wrong financiers. Sure it has had its financial difficulties – indeed it is lucky to still be alive. Is it that Longbridge is in the centre of a slew of marginal constituencies, while Coventry’s three seats are all safely Labour?And Marconi is not a lame duck. But then you would have to ask why it has spent hundreds of millions of tax- payers’ money on MG Rover.
It is not in anyone’s interests for the Government to support lame ducks. No aid packages were announced and the company’s attempts to get the Department of Trade and Industry to intercede on its behalf were hardly heard.You could put a pretty strong argument for saying this is as it should be. On Thursday, as Messrs Blair and Brown, along with Trade Secretary Patricia Hewitt, were announcing Labour’s Manifesto for Business, BT was plunging a knife into the heart of one of Britain’s largest electronics companies and consigning up to 2,000 people to redundancy.But none of the Labour bigwigs seemed to want to go to Coventry, where at least two-thirds of the Marconi lay-offs will be. It is a genuine enquiry about industrial policy in the UK (if, indeed one exists).
Two weeks ago, as hope was lost for keeping MG Rover going, both Tony Blair and Gordon Brown rushed to Longbridge and a £40m aid package was announced for the 5,000 workers being laid off.
