Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/proyecto-minero-rio-blanco-paralizado.html
The above is dated today and is about the white river project which was suspended because of the other referendum. The translation is a quick one which ive typed as I have read it.
Basically the headline is that the project has been paralysed for over a year.
Basically the chinese company behind the mine cannot access it due to the actions of anti miners. Basically they are saying there was no consultation with the local communities and it impacts on water sources in the area.
Apparently it has created tensions in the area with the site being blockaded by the local people who wont allow the chinese to enter.
Then the next bit is about the Government trying to overturn the result of the referendum for x y and z reasons. The prosecutor is hoping that the closure is made permanent.
There is then a section on cost to the economy with x amount of minerals not being exported that should have been. Then a bit on all the people who have lost jobs and that those who are pro mining are being harassed by those against it. Some are moving away.
Mate its anyones guess. I dont really know Ecuador law but I assume it's similar to Costa Rica which is frankly bent. The Mexican legal system whilst better is also not what you would expect on English standards. Panama similar.
I mean take Costa Rica why is the case I was involved in not progressing... because a number of supreme court judges were basically found to be bent and quit. I think it was 4 from memory in a country with not that many supreme court judges lol.
I think there would be more steps before a referendum should the court rule for it.
One of the big cases I had in Costa Rica first appeared in court about this time last year - the countries Attorney general was involved in that as well. One year later and no sign of any progress and when I last spoke to the lawyers with appeals etc you could be talking 5+ years.
Of course if the court rules against the referendum this will be different as the other parties wont necessarily have deep enough pockets to keep this going.
I think its worth noting here that the Ecuador people don't earn a great deal. The minimum monthly wage has just been increased to 394 USD a month so on a 48 hour week less than 2 USD an hour. One would imagine the jobs that SOLG would bring will pay more than this being for the most part skilled.
https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/pedro/1/empleados-empleadores-incremento-sueldo-basico
In my daily trawl of the Ecuadorian press I found the following two articles. Neither offer anything particularly new but the first one gives an update on the court proceedings and the second talks about it being a Tier one project that will create lots of investment and employment etc.
https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2019/06/15/nota/7378035/corte-se-debate-derechos-competencias-tema-minero
https://www.eluniverso.com/noticias/2019/06/12/nota/7374804/confirman-cascabel-como-mayor-proyecto-minero-subterraneo-plata
Well its more of an interview with the minister of energy and non-renewable resources - apologies if already posted. I went through 6 national papers from yesterday and this is all I could find.
https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/entrevista-carlos-perez-mineria-consulta.html
In brief as I don't have time to translate the full thing.
His view is that the whole country was consulted on mining last year when the people voted for mining to be developed responsibly.
Worryingly he says there is no plan b if the court rules against the government but for x y and z they shouldn't. he did seem a little critical of the court saying they were spending too much time listening to politic figures and not legal and technical arguments.
He says illegal mining is behind the request for the consultation and they pay no taxes.
He lists a number of projects which are at an advanced stage that are at risk and a further 6 that are in exploration. Total committed investment of 3.8 billion USD. Exports and employment also at risk.
He mentions that arbitrations could happen if a project is suspended.
He says he would like to ask if the mayors or prefects will pay for the claim of one of these companies.
There is quite a bit more on there but I found them to be the key parts. I tried to put it on google translate for a rough translation of the whole document but too many characters.
https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/gobierno-consulta-popular-mineria-inconstitucional.html
The above is rather detailed about what's going on. I'll speak to an ecuadorian later to see what the magna carta has to do with it as to be Frank I'm lost on that.
Its actually quite easy to get info on this (esp if you can read Spanish). Its all over the Ecuadorian newspapers or periodicos as it is in Spanish.
Here is another article similar to the above
https://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/noticias/economia/4/criterios-divididos-consulta-mineria
https://lahora.com.ec/noticia/1102248651/mas-de-7-horas-duro-audiencia-sobre-pedido-de-consulta-anti-minera-en-4-parroquias-de-imbabura-y-carchi
Dunno if the above has been posted - or how good your Spanish is.... :-)
The court case finishes on the 7th then the court has 5 days to rule. If I have time later I'll translate the full thing. Having had plenty of dealings with Latin American courts I must say I'm surprised it is supposed to play out as quickly as that.
Im sorry but no, no, no, no.
The only way there should be a second referendum is as follows.
End of march we leave the EU (preferably properly ie without a deal).
Next election the Liberal Democrats (or others) campaign to rejoin the EU and win the Election.
Then a referendum should be held on whether or not we rejoin.
Any other referendum would be a disgrace. All this rubbish about the question wasn't clear are talking nonsense. The question was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?" You could either vote to leave or remain - what's complicated about that? If you want to know what you are voting to leave or remain in go to https://europa.eu/european-union/about-eu/eu-in-brief_en and it would have told you everything you need to know.
The claims that people didn't know it meant they were leaving the customs union are ridiculous. The European Union IS A CUSTOMS UNION http://trade.ec.europa.eu/tradehelp/eu-customs-union. I had someone telling me the other day - oh but we didn't know we would be leaving the EFTA - yeah completely correct as we left that in the 70s.
I have always voted Conservative (though the way it is going never again) I voted Leave, I have 2 degrees, Im under 40, I work for an EU company in Sri Lanka and Im married to a Mexican - so I tick every box for a typical Brexit supporter.........
He didn't say he had never had a bad investment - he said its his first nightmare and a 15K loss could well be very significant for him.
On the plus side he may have learnt a valuable lesson - never invest in a company that David Lenigas has his name associated with - the biggest ramper of them all :-)
Crowcast you are being too simplistic that Duties are paid by the Importer/ the consumer.
Lets set aside goods delivered under the incoterm DDP and look at the general situation.
Now lets look at a BMW 3 series car. As it stands a BMW car manufactured in the EU is sold in the UK with no duty applied to it. Post BREXIT lets assume that the EU and UK both impose tariffs on cars of 10% (what the EU imposes on car imports from the USA). The initial position is that the price of a car goes up 10% with the duty ulimately being paid to the Inland Revenue, by the consumer. But in this situation the consumer has a choice he could pay the increased price of 10%, or it could buy a Jaguar XE which is a broadly comparable car manufactured in the UK which therefore wouldnt have the 10% on it. Would the consumer still buy the BMW which is now 10% (would actually be more as if the base unit went up 10% then when you add on margin & overhead + VAT on a higher starting point) more expensive or would he buy a Jaguar?
So the response will most likely be that BMW will drop their margin - note the UK is renowned as the market that BMW makes its highest margin - to cover at least some, or all of the duty.
Now of course this works the other way around as well and when Jaguar is selling a car manufactured in the UK to the EU it faces the same problem.
But at the end of the day in terms of goods the UK (2015 figures) imported 220,149,955,910 GBP of goods from the EU and the exported 133,831,907,353 GBP to the EU as such there has to be more movement on the EU side. Also note that there will be redistribution of sales.
Lets say BMW didnt drop its margin it risks sales of 175,101 units which it made in 2017. Jaguar on the otherhand sold just over 40k cars in the whole of Europe outside of the UK (which includes countries that arent in the EU such as Russia).
The other big impact that will come about because of tariffs is the cost of things that arent made in the UK. Lets look at Oranges. Currently there are big tariffs on oranges to protect Med countries such as Spain. These Tariffs are done in such a way as to increase in the Med harvest season. What will happen after a no deal Brexit... well the Tariffs of all oranges will go down and we will buy from Egypt, or Argentina or Brazil etc and the cost will go down.
Roll on no deal BREXIT I say.
Good to see your math's is good.....
51.89% v 48.11% is a 3.78 percent majority. In real terms that's a majority of 1,269,501 votes. That's a lot more relevant than running the poll again and again until you get the result you want.
To switch it the other way that for example free movement will end etc etc.
To be frank i dont really care too much for Brexit. I just find all the remain nonsence funny. I mean i read on my facebook one guy moaning that he will lose tbe opportunity to work in the EU. This from a guy who is 37 or 38 and hasnt worked in the EU yet. I on the other hand am pretty sure if feee movement ends and i wanted to live there i could. Just as i did saudi arabia, qatar, uae, australia and costa rica before recently moving to Sri Lanka. If you have the skills they will take you.
I could go on about other nonsence such as you wont be able to import food from the EU in the event of a no deal. Then ill go home and have beans on toast with heinz baked beans made in wigan which i bought in my local supermarket in a country that imports from the Eu on Wto terms. Please note i wont actually be eating beans on toast - but it was an obvious example of the countless eu products i can buy here.
You are understanding my post in a way that suits your needs.
* No one knows if free movement will stop so its nothing to shout about.
* We will have to accept ECJ rules in some respects and they don't make laws and never have.
* We don't know if we will have to continue to make payments.
* No our arrangement will change but it will still be rubbish
* We will still be in a position where our fish are controlled by others.
* We will be free to make our own deals so long as they completely align to the EU so in reality we wont be able to make deals with anyone. We will be free to go and have a cup of tea while discussing them.
* No we will be forced to which will stop us making free deals with other countries.
* Still don't follow your original point so how you can possible say that me saying I don't understand your point equates to after transition we will.
* it wouldn't be if May hadn't listened to the rubbish spouted by the EU and Ireland in particular. But oh my word she did.
* No its pretty clear we will get nothing on services and we are giving away too much on goods.
Im answering in the order the points have been raised.
* Until the immigration bill has been issued you don't know if free movement of people is completely stopped.
* It doesn't end the role of the European Court of Justice - it changes it. Paragraph 134 of the deal.
* Does it? For a start whilst we are in the Custom Union I wonder who will receive tariffs on goods entering said customs union because I bet it wont be the UK. The 39 Billion also covers the next few years. A free Trade deal will no doubt end up with payments.
* During the ‘transition period’ up to 31 December 2020, EU law applies in full to the UK, but we lose our representation in all EU decision-making bodies. All existing and new environmental laws and Common Agricultural Policy subsidy formulas will apply, although the UK will have no say in the making of these rules. We will continue to fund the EU budget and the CAP with no right to implement our own agricultural policy. Control of British farming by the EU doesn’t stop there. Article 132(c) provides that during any extended transition period from 1 January 2021, although the CAP will not apply to the UK (because the EU will have entered its next budget cycle), we will not be able to decide ourselves on the level of support we wish to provide to our farmers. National support for “the production of and trade in agricultural products in the United Kingdom” will be restricted “up to an annual level of support which shall not be more than the total amount of expenditure incurred in the United Kingdom under the Common Agricultural Policy in 2019… In case the period by which the transition period is extended is not a multiple of twelve months, the maximum annual level of exempted support shall be reduced pro rata in the year in which the extended transition period does not count twelve months.”
* Ish - read macrons comments they are coming for the fish. - and oh so great "As regards the fixing of fishing opportunities within the meaning of Article 43(3) TFEU for any period falling within the transition period, the United Kingdom shall be consulted in respect of the fishing opportunities related to the United Kingdom, including in the context of the preparation of relevant international consultations and negotiations."
* Almost certainly doesn't.
* dont follow your point.
* The irish hard border is the biggest joke of the lot. When the troubles were in full force there was a hard border. But at that point both sides were in the EU. A hard border is the return to a militerised border. The UK wouldnt do that, the irish couldnt do that.
* Dont get me started on services. We have basically given full access to our market for goods for nothing (huge imbalance of trade in the EU favour). We dont have full access for services were we are stronger.
if you think its a good deal you are frankly as bad a negotiater as may/ Olly Robbins him of the national Liberal Club - yes he is a member.
Strider - of course its all ifs and buts and I remain invested. I must confess I didn't think Kinross were pumping in billions of USD. I didn't even think it was 1 billion but happy to stand corrected if you are right.