Two of the biggest donors to the Brexit campaign say they now believe the project they championed would be abandoned by the government and the UK is to stay in the EU.
Peter Hargreaves, the billionaire who was the second-biggest donor to the 2016 leave campaign, and veteran hedge fund manager Crispin Odey told Reuters that they expect Britain to stay in the EU, despite their campaign victory in the 2016 referendum.
As a result, Odey, who runs hedge fund Odey Asset Management, said he is positioning for the pound to strengthen after his flagship fund reaped the benefit of betting against UK assets amid wider market fears about the effects of Brexit.
The donors’ pessimism comes amid deadlock in Britain’s parliament over the exit deal that British Prime Minister Theresa May has struck with the EU, which has cast significant uncertainty over how, or even if, Brexit will happen.
Hargreaves, who amassed his fortune from cofounding fund supermarket Hargreaves Lansdown, said that the political establishment was determined to scuttle Brexit and this would lead to a generation of distrust of Britain’s political classes.
The government is likely to ask for an extension to the formal exit process from the EU and then call for a second referendum, he said.
“I have totally given up. I am totally in despair. I don’t think Brexit will happen at all,” said Hargreaves, 72, who is one of Britain’s wealthiest men and donated £3.2 million (US$4.12 million) to the leave campaign.
Pro-Europeans “are banking on the fact that people are so fed up with it that they will just say: ‘Sod it we will stay.’ I do see that attitude. The problem is when something doesn’t happen for so long you feel less angry about it,” he added.
Turning Brexit upside down would mark one of the most extraordinary reversals in modern British history and the hurdles to another referendum remain high. Both major political parties are committed to leaving the EU in accordance with the 2016 referendum.
However, Odey, who donated more than £870,000 to pro-leave groups, said that while he did not believe a second referendum would take place, he did not think Brexit would happen either.
“My view is that it ain’t going to happen,” Odey said. “I just can’t see how it happens with that configuration of parliament.”
Britain’s parliament is viewed as largely pro-European because about three-quarters of lawmakers voted to stay in the EU in the 2016 referendum.
Odey said he had changed his position on sterling over the past month and that the pound “looks like it could be quite strong” and rise to US$1.32 or US$1.35 against the US dollar, from about US$1.27.
Odey and Hargreaves said that one reason for their pessimism was a lack of direction from Brexiteers.
“The unfortunate thing is that almost nobody is leading the Brexit charge, so it’s leaderless, which is the problem,” Odey said.
He said he would be willing to donate to the leave cause in the event of another referendum, while Hargreaves said he was undecided.
Other prominent Brexit supporters who bankrolled the campaign were more optimistic about the project’s fate.
Paul Marshall, chairman of the hedge fund firm Marshall Wace, which runs US$39 billion in assets, told reporters that abandoning Brexit would be wrong and highly damaging.
“Despite the antics in parliament, the prospect of the 2016 referendum being overturned is in my view very small,” said Marshall, who gave £100,000 to the leave campaign.
The most likely outcomes are that Britain would leave the EU without a deal in March or the government would secure a revised Brexit deal, solving the thorny issue of the Northern Irish backstop, which might involve Brexit being briefly delayed, Marshall said.
Another vocal Brexiteer Tim Martin, chairman of British pub chain JD Wetherspoon who donated £212,000 to the 2016 campaign, said that he was refusing to contemplate a second vote.
He is touring his pubs giving talks to customers about the merits of leaving the EU without a deal and aims to have visited 100 of his sites by the end of this month.
A second referendum would be a “nightmare,” Martin said.
“It’s like saying: ‘Do you think we should have another world war?’ or ‘What do you think about being struck by lightning?’” he said.
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
In a recent interview with the Malaysian Chinese-language newspaper Sin Chew Daily, former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) called President William Lai (賴清德) “naive.” As always with Ma, one must first deconstruct what he is saying to fully understand the parallel universe he insists on defending. Who is being “naive,” Lai or Ma? The quickest way is to confront Ma with a series of pointed questions that force him to take clear stands on the complex issues involved and prevent him from his usual ramblings. Regarding China and Taiwan, the media should first begin with questions like these: “Did the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT)