web analytics



Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.


Call For Free 15/M Consultation




Iain Dale: No gloating, no jingoism, please. Let’s not rub Remainers’ noses in it.

Iain Dale presents the evening show on LBC Radio and is a commentator for CNN.

I think that like most people I really struggle with the decision to enable Huawei to be a major part of the 5G project.

This country has cosied up to China for too long. I haven’t ever said this before but, given that David Cameron has said it in his memoirs, I don’t feel I’m doing anything wrong by doing so.

Some time ago, I went on a tour of GCHQ and I was shown a live screen which demonstrated where all our incoming cyber attacks came from. A lot came from Russia. Many came from North Korea.  But the majority emanated from China.

Cameron clearly saw the same evidence, as he relates in his book. One assumes that the Prime Minister and his Cabinet have the same information, and yet they have seen fit to give the same country – which is addicted to launching cyber attacks on this country – access to our 5G system.

To say that it will only have peripheral access means very little. We are told that the intelligence agencies are all on board with this. Really? If GCHQ is on board, you have to question the logic of their position, give that they know very well China’s role in cyber attacks.

Decisions like this are all about managing risk. We need to know for certain that in any sort of national emergency China or Huawei would not be in a position to shut down our 5G network.

We’ve already sold the pass in other parts of our national infrastructure, such as water and nuclear power. I find it bizarre that on the face of it, we have now handed over parts of 5G to the Chinese too. Having said that, I also understand the need to roll out fast broadband as quickly as possible. This pledge was of course a key part of Boris Johnson’s leadership campaign.

– – – – – – – – –  –

The Prime Minister has expended a lot of political capital on Huawei. You might say, well, with a majority of 80, he Prime Minister can afford to do that.

But another big decision looms in the next few weeks, and that is whether the government will continue with HS2. All the signs are that it will. I cannot believe that Steve Barclay and Robert Buckland would have said what they’ve said on the media this week about it without having been tipped the wink. If the decision is ‘yes’, that’s yet more political capital up the swannee.

– – – – – – – – – –

Like Steve Baker, I won’t be attending the Brexit shindig in Parliament Square tonight.

He says: “I will not be on Parliament Sq. Bearing in mind our need to unite this country when many people feel great sorrow about leaving the EU, I’m encouraging magnanimity from Brexit supporters. It’s time for big hearts.”

I totally agree. I understand that people who’ve fought for this all their political lives wish to celebrate us leaving. I’m glad we’re leaving the EU too.

But let’s not have any gloating or outrageous jingoism. We’ve already seen some very ugly social media posts from ultra-Remainers this week. Let’s not play their game. Happy Independence Day!

– – – – – – – – – –

The announcement of a Middle East peace plan ought to be a moment of celebration. It ought to enable us to feel optimistic about the future.

However, I am afraid that Donald Trump’s plan does nothing of the sort. It is so one-sided and pro-Israel – and offers virtually nothing to the Palestinians – that it is almost risible. It’s dead on arrival.

The Palestinian reaction to it was, of course, typical. Indeed, they denounced it before they even knew what was in it. The fact that their cynicism was justified is by the by.

The fact remains, however, that each time the Palestinians have been offered the chance of a separate Palestinian state – and there have been eight or nine occasions over the years – they have turned it down.

Until both the Israelis and the Palestinians recognise that neither of them will ever get their perfect scenario, but will have to entertain compromise, a peace agreement will never be possible. I’m depressed to say that I don’t see it happening in my lifetime.

– – – – – – – – – –

As I’ve told you before, I’ve become addicted to the US political drama series, Madam Secretary.

t’s all about a fictional US Secretary of State called Elizabeth McCord, and her battles on US foreign policy and keeping her family on the straight and narrow.

I’m 60 episodes in to the total of 120. I’m trying to restrict myself to one episode a day, but they do rather good cliffhangers. Little did I know that this would coincide with me interviewing the real Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo during his visit to London this week.

At the time of writing, it hasn’t happened yet, but suffice to say that it’s a big deal, both for me and LBC, given he isn’t doing any interviews with the BBC. Or with any other broadcaster to my knowledge.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ben Roback: Huawei – Trump’s reaction matters, but don’t discount the feeling in Congress

Ben Roback is Head of Trade and International Policy at Cicero Group.

As we prepare for the Government to publish details of its trade objectives with the EU and USA in the first two weeks of February, our United States counterparts and the White House are watching political developments in Westminster with a keen interest.

Yesterday’s decision to give the green light for Huawei to build non-core parts of the UK’s 5G network has laid down an important early diving line in talks that are yet to enter even their nascent stage.

The United States has engaged in a furious bout of lobbying in London, of both ministers and officials, but to no effect. Washington is incensed; Beijing could hardly be happier. Not just because of the critical technology role it has embedded itself into, but because of the wedge it has driven between London and Washington at a time when the two are actively working to achiever greater proximity, not divergence. Abroad, Washington further fears that the UK’s green light could create a permission structure for Germany and France to do the same.

The dilemma in Downing Street will not have been viewed as a binary choice between trade with the US and Chinese FDI. Instead, they will have made its decision with, naturally, the Red Wall in mind.

The Government is rightly committed to asking itself a simple question before making big decisions on Huawei and HS2: ‘Will this help us deliver our pledge to level up the country?’ If Huawei is the only company capable of delivering the technology required to provide 5G coverage nationwide, then it must be viewed as a tangible form of ‘levelling up’. Small businesses cannot thrive in Bishop Auckland or Blyth Valley, Durham North West or Devizes, if connectivity is patchy.

That has not prevented caution from the Conservative benches in the Commons. It was a famous Frost – the American poet Robert, not Chief Brexit Negotiator David – who wrote that “Good fences make good neighbours”, a viewpoint echoed in the Commons on Monday by Neil O’Brien, who urged caution in granting an extension of the Chinese state access to our technological infrastructure.

Echoing that view, the Government has sought a compromise: partial access, but with a barrier protecting core parts of the system.

Don’t discount the reaction in Congress

The response amongst Conservative MPs has been divided, to say the least. Notable figures on the backbenches, including Tom Tugendhat and Iain Duncan Smith, described the prospect of granting access like “allowing the fox into the hen house” and “utterly bizarre” respectively. Alarmingly for Downing Street, concerns echoed by Tugendhat were retweeted by Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, who warned of a “momentous decision ahead”.

Yet whilst the reactions from senior Tories matter in isolation, the size of the Government’s majority, and the fact that Parliament will have no say in approving future trade deals, means the objections are in effect moot.

Not so in Congress, where the House Ways and Means Committee and the Senate Finance Committee have primary congressional jurisdiction on trade matters. The Subcommittee on Trade plays the lead role in drafting trade legislation in the House of Representatives, and also plays a key oversight role of executive action on trade issues. What members of the House and Senate think about the UK’s Huawei decision therefore matters as we look ahead to a US-UK FTA.

Congresswoman Elise Stefanik, the youngest Republican woman ever elected to Congress and a rising star on the right, said: “wrong, dangerous, and a grave shortsighted mistake. Congress must work on a bipartisan basis to push back on this decision by the UK to open their arms to China’s surveillance state”. Senator Tom Cotton did not pull his punches, saying: “This decision is deeply disappointing for American supporters of the Special Relationship. I fear London has freed itself from Brussels only to cede sovereignty to Beijing.”

Meanwhile Mitt Romney warned: “By prioritising costs, the UK is sacrificing national security and inviting the CCP’s surveillance state in. I implore our British allies to reverse their decision.” The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that is well connected on both sides of the Atlantic and has hosted British Ministers in recent years, could not have been clearer: “The consequences of his choice will impact not only the security of the United Kingdom, but the long-term strength of the U.S.-U.K. Special Relationship.”

It is hard to find a supportive voice of the decision on Capitol Hill – cause for deep concern in Westminster even before reckoning with the scope for the Government’s proposed Digital Services Tax to cause further alarm in Washington.

In short, we risk alienating our most important political and diplomatic ally at the exact same time we are trying to negotiate a new trade deal;  and we might anger our most important defence ally while in the midst of a comprehensive defence and foreign policy review.

To flourish on the world stage, ‘Global Britain’ will inevitably ruffle a few feathers. But we cannot act solely with our international allies in mind, while forgetting the voters at home who put us into office in the first place.

In Westminster, journalists and politicos will reflect on a decision born out of pragmatism, and recognition that the Chinese role in our infrastructure is for now something of a necessary evil.

Arguably, it delivers on two manifesto pledges – investing in infrastructure around the UK, and taking back control. Many during the 2016 referendum thought that we would take back control from Brussels. Few thought we’d also take it back from Washington.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Raab outlines plans for Huawei’s role in UK’s 5G network

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Patel denies being ‘on the warpath’ over Huawei

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Margot James: The evidence available does not support a total ban on Huawei

Margot James is a former BEIS and DCMS Minister, and was MP for Stourbridge from 2010-2019.

I have visited a number of sites piloting different applications using 5G technology. At the University of Surrey, the use of 5G to enable people with dementia to be cared for at home is showing great potential. The researchers gave me quite an impactful demonstration when they produced a robot powered by 5G performing a few impressive tasks. They asked me if I wanted to see what would happen if they switched the robot back to 4G; when they did so, the robot keeled over and was capable of next to nothing.

The next release of the 5G standard is due in June of this year. The new standard will enable the performance of wired ethernet with the flexibility of wireless communication. Although consumers will benefit from vastly superior connection speeds (5G reacts in a thousandth of a second delivering speeds of hundreds of Mbps per second), the potential for 5G to dramatically improve productivity, and UK competitiveness, is the real prize.

The UK is a leader in the deployment of 5G in a wide variety of applications. The Urban Connected Communities project which links 5G infrastructure between Wolverhampton, Birmingham and Coventry will deploy up to £50 million in public funds to test the potential of 5G in many settings, from the integration of patient care between the Queen Elizabeth Hospital and GPs in Birmingham to the application of 5G to research in to electrification and other aspects of advanced manufacturing at the University of Warwick.

The UK is one of only five countries in the world to allow private networks to deploy 5G. Ocado already has a private network in which many warehousing and distribution functions have been automated and are now staffed by robots, connected to each other by 5G.

5G is a base technology that will enable many applications such as biometric authentication, machine learning, the internet of things (IoT), big data, automation and robotics. Robot-enabled remote surgery and driverless vehicles will become a reality only when 5G is widely deployed. This is why 5G is so fundamental to an effective industrial policy; one that can truly deliver greater regional prosperity and the dramatic improvements to UK productivity and competitiveness that need to underpin our post-Brexit economy. 5G will be essential to the automation of parts of the economy, like agriculture, that have been overly dependent on unskilled labour from abroad.

The security of our telecoms infrastructure is vitally important, and the difficult decision over the role of Huawei in the supply chain is about to be made. Given the intensity of US lobbying and the action taken to exclude Huawei by Australia and New Zealand, it would be very difficult for us to do nothing. If doing nothing is not an option, the decision comes down to whether the risk can be managed, or whether the risk justifies an outright ban on Huawei from the deployment of 5G. Of course this would then beg the question what, if anything, to do about the scale of Huawei kit in the existing 4G and fixed networks?

According to Enders Analysis, Huawei has the largest market share in the supply of existing telecoms equipment (28 per cent vs Nokia at 17 per cent and Ericsson at 13 per cent). When it comes to 5G, Huawei has invested more and are between six and twelve months ahead of their rivals as a result. Furthermore, there is a fundamental difference between the nature of the spectrum bands the US market are using to introduce 5G compared with Europe. Ericsson have invested more to meet the spectrum needs of the US market, and Huawei have invested more in the different spectrum bands 5G will be using in the European market.

Anything more than a partial ban – i.e. restricting Huawei equipment to the periphery of the 5G network, as it has been in the current fixed and mobile infrastructure – would have serious negative consequences for our ability to keep up with other countries and maintain our 5G advantage where we have one. A total ban on Huawei can only be justified if there is unequivocal evidence that the risk to our national security is real; and cannot be managed effectively.

For the last ten years the risk has been managed by the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre (HCSEC). This centre has enabled close scrutiny of Huawei products and standards with regard to reliability, resilience and security by our National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC). Deficiencies have been found recently in the quality of certain Huawei products and engineering processes. The problems identified have been comparable to the sorts of issues that might arise from this level of scrutiny of any companies’ products, and are not consistent with a serious threat to our national security.

From a reading of the public statements put out by different arms of the security services it seems that there is not a clear consensus on the level of risk. Importantly, MI5 do not think that allowing some involvement by Huawei in our telecoms supply chain would jeopardise the sharing of intelligence between Britain and the US.

Close examination of exactly what the US are doing in respect of their clampdown on Huawei is instructive. For a start, the US is not paying a significant price in banning Huawei from the roll out of 5G, as the company has nothing like as significant a share of the US telecoms infrastructure market as it has in the UK. Huawei has been placed on the US Entity list – meaning that US companies must apply for a license in order to sell technology to the company.

The US Government has been subject to intense lobbying efforts from such companies as Intel and Qualcomm, which are trying to get the Department of Commerce to ease the restrictions. These companies have had some success, in that the department has stated that it will continue to issue licences for the sale of technology to Huawei where there is no specific threat to national security.

There would seem to be a difference between the rhetoric coming out of the US and the implementation of policy. There is a degree of risk management going on in practice in the States and we should do likewise in the UK. To effect a total ban on Huawei products in our telecoms supply chain would put our plans to accelerate the pace of full fibre coverage and 5G deployment back by an unacceptable length of time, three to five years. Such a decision could only be justified if the threat to our security were more substantial than would appear to be the case.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tom Tugendhat: Huawei’s human rights record needs scrutiny before 5G contracts are signed

Tom Tugendhat is MP for Tonbridge and Malling.

The debate about Huawei’s involvement in our key 5G infrastructure has so far focused on the national security risks. These are considerable – both the US and Australia have registered serious concerns, with the US threatening to stop sharing security with the UK if our deal goes ahead.

But Huawei’s human rights record has been notably absent from discussion. It is vital that we do our human rights due diligence on companies bidding for massive public contracts, but there is precious little evidence that this critical question regarding Huawei is even on the agenda.

Thanks to some superb investigative reporting, the world is slowly waking up to the mass detention of Uyghurs in Xinjiang, China. But Huawei’s role in the surveillance state has barely received a single column inch.

This matters, because if we’re not careful, we may find ourselves funnelling public money into the pockets of a company accused of propping up the most egregious human rights abuses in the contemporary world.

Here’s what we know. In November, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) published a major report which shows that Huawei actively provides surveillance technology to the Xinjiang Public Security Bureau, facilitating the construction of the world’s most invasive surveillance state.

Huawei’s work in the province is extensive. The report shows that the corporation has developed the Xinjiang public security cloud which makes the total control and repression of Uighur Muslims possible; it has a partnership with the Xinjiang Broadcasting and Television Network to allow the state propaganda organs to be as effective as possible; and in one recent press release, a Huawei Director said: ‘Together with the Public Security Bureau, Huawei will unlock a new era of smart policing and help build a safer, smarter society.’

Given what we know about Xinjiang, ‘smart policing’ is the worst kind of Orwellian double-speak. In November, BBC Panorama reported on explosive new secret documents which confirmed that in Xinjiang region, China have been attempting to brainwash more than a million Muslims in prison camps. Adrian Zenz, a Xinjiang expert, said on the show: “The world should acknowledge this for what it is, the largest internment of an ethnic minority since the holocaust”.

These are incendiary accusations indeed. If they are even remotely true, this is not a company we should be dealing with. The Panorama report was based on New York Times-published documents from the Chinese Communist Party which revealed the cold and calculated rationale behind the creation of concentration camps to house one million Uighur Muslims. President Xi Jinping reportedly urged party officials to show “absolutely no mercy” and use all the “organs of dictatorship” to fight against Muslims “infected” with the “virus of extremism”.

The so-called “extremists” being rounded-up are Muslims who grow long beards or pray outside state-owned mosques. The Chinese President said they must “undergo a period of painful, interventionary treatment”.

A second leak, an ICIJ investigation dubbed the ‘China Cables’, confirmed the suspicions of rights activists that the “interventionary treatment” described includes mass surveillance, incarceration, and torture on an appallingly scale. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination has described Xinjiang as a “sort of no-rights zone”; an in-depth report by Human Rights Watch shows that high-tech mass surveillance systems are used to monitor and control every aspect of life.

Far from condemning this, Huawei is accused of shamelessly facilitating this totalitarian system. And their provision of surveillance technology extends beyond Xinjiang. According to another ASPI report, Huawei has worked to develop the ‘public security’ apparatus in countries such as Ecuador, Pakistan, the Philippines, Venezuela, Bolivia, Zimbabwe, and Serbia. Although some of their influence here may be beneficial, the export of surveillance technology to developing countries with authoritarian leaders is problematic and deserves greater scrutiny.

The UK, Germany, and other governments must seriously examine evidence of Huawei’s actions in facilitating the unconscionable repression of the Uyghur before signing any contracts or be complicit in funding groups that brutally violate rights.

ASPI conclude that “Huawei’s Xinjiang activities should be taken into consideration during debates about Huawei and 5G technologies.” Thankfully there is still time for the UK to do exactly that.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Johnson 3) “The British public deserve the best possible technology,” declares the PM, regarding Huawei

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

WATCH: Johnson 3) “The British public deserve the best possible technology,” declares the PM, regarding Huawei

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Bob Seeley: Why the Government should listen to our allies and say: no way, Huawei

Bob Seely is the MP for the Isle of Wight. He is standing to be Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee.

I am delighted that this Government is both unashamedly patriotic and positive about Britain’s future and our alliances. Yet Huawei presents a threat to those alliances, as is being reported this weekend.

Huawei involvement in the roll-out of UK’s 5G network is an extraordinarily important issue. Sadly, there has been little public or Parliamentary scrutiny. US officials are in town this week in a last-ditch attempt to win UK support for their position on Huawei. They want us to say no to it.

The Fifth Generation Cellular Communications network – 5G – will be a key part of our critical national infrastructure. The US is concerned that, amongst other issues, Chinese involvement in our 5G network will damage security relationships with our closest allies, especially the so-called ‘Five Eyes’ network: US, UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada.

In this instance, the US is absolutely right. We need to listen to them and other allies such as Australia. Both have banned Chinese high-tech from their 5G networks. We need to do the same to support our Western alliances and to protect our security, our people and our values.

The blunt reality is that China is a cyber risk and will remain so for years. It has a dreadful reputation for cyberattacks and intellectual property theft against Western and global institutions and firms. Huawei itself has been the subject of a US investigation for fraud and commercial espionage. In general, China is becoming more adversarial internationally and less tolerant of dissent domestically.

Sadly, the debate over Huawei is marked by dangerous levels of misunderstanding.

For example, Huawei argues that it is a private firm. In no meaningful sense is this correct. Huawei is to all intents and purposes part of the Chinese state. Allowing Huawei to build a significant role in our 5G network is effectively allowing China and the Chinese agencies access to it. To say otherwise is simply false.

It’s argued that Huawei will enable wider market provision. In reality, it’s the opposite. China openly seeks to dominate global comms. The risk is that in the next ten-to-20 years almost all Western providers such as Ericsson and Nokia will be put out of business by Chinese high-tech firms backed by tens of billions in state credit.

It’s also claimed that Huawei will be limited to the fringe of the 5G network. Untrue, say many experts. The difference between ‘core’ and ‘non-core’ does not exist in 5G to anything like the same extent as 4G. Antennas, for example, will not be ‘dumb’ bits of kit but an advanced combination of hardware and software. To be in the 5G system anywhere will be to be in the system. The assessment of technical experts from the US and other states is that the risks of allowing Chinese telecommunications equipment anywhere in 5G networks cannot be fully mitigated, despite laughable no-spy pledges.

Rob Strayer, the US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, has said any role for Huawei in 5G infrastructure poses an “unacceptable risk.” He has said: “If countries put unsecure and untrusted vendors into their 5G networks, in any place, we’re letting countries know that we’re going to have to consider the risk that that produces to our information-sharing arrangements with them.”

We need to build up alliances, not risk them.

There are powerful moral and ethical arguments against the use of Chinese firms. Huawei has an intimate relationship with the Chinese military and security services. China is using big data and Artificial Intelligence to build a surveillance state. In Xinjiang province, China has built the most advanced human monitoring system that the world has ever known; an actual, virtual Orwellian state.

We need public debate. The Australian Government did just that, initiating months of discussion before deciding de facto to exclude Chinese firms in its 5G network – despite pressure from Beijing and a far greater dependency on trade with their Pacific neighbour than we will ever have.

There is still time for the UK. Some members of the Cabinet and backbench MPs are privately concerned. But this issue is so new and the risks not yet fully understood that I fear we are sleepwalking into a decision we will regret in the years and decades to come.

We need to pause, and then decide to work with our Five Eyes and European and international partners to initiate new rules on privacy, high-tech co-operation and cyber laws that protect our citizens and our societies. We need to follow Australia’s example and have a wide-ranging public consultation.

We need international agreement on a common ‘trusted vendor’ status and agree that only those vendors can become primary contractors for our 5G – and for our critical national infrastructure in general. Trusted vendors would be defined as those coming from states that respect the rule of law, individual human rights, privacy and intellectual property. This rules out, de facto, high-tech from one-party states whose legal and political systems are very different from our own.

Whoever becomes chair of the Foreign or Intelligence and Security Select Committees needs to pledge to open immediate investigations into the suitability of Huawei and whether it can be seen in any sense as a ‘trusted vendor’.

We need good relations with China; there is no question about this. It is going to be a very significant voice in the next century. But we do not need to be making the world safe for its brand of surveillance authoritarianism or risking our collective and individual security. And with Chinese firms, there is risk. We have a right and a responsibility to protect our nation, our people and our values.

This Government is intent on putting our national interest first. Agreed; let’s do it. Let’s listen to Australia, the US and say “no way, Huawei”.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump: “Big day of negotiations with China” tomorrow with Xi deputy

Westlake Legal Group trump-xi-handshake Trump: “Big day of negotiations with China” tomorrow with Xi deputy Trade War The Blog Tariffs negotiations Huawei donald trump currency manipulator China

Could an end to the trade war with China be near? The highest level negotiations thus far since the two countries started lobbing full-scale tariffs at each other will take place tomorrow. Donald Trump announced a meeting with China’s Vice Premier Liu He on Twitter, but suggested he might not be all that eager to cut a deal, but China has also sounded less than positive about the potential for a breakthrough:

The U.S. and China have begun their principal-level negotiations in Washington on Thursday. Trump’s comment about a meeting with Liu contrasted with a report from the South China Morning Post that said the two sides made no progress in deputy-level trade talks this week and Liu will cut his visit short.

Stocks surged after the president’s tweet, rebounding from a wild overnight session sparked by the SCMP article as well as multiple other media reports.

Signs point to a potential change of direction. Rather than reach one overall settlement, the two countries might decide to make a series of targeted pacts where they can find agreement on trade issues:

Bloomberg News reported overnight that the White House is working up a partial deal to suspend next week’s tariff increase in exchange for a currency pact. The New York Times also reported that the Trump administration is grant licenses for some U.S. companies to sell nonsensitive supplies to Chinese telecom giant Huawei.

A deal on currency manipulation and Huawei would appear to be a balanced approach to each country’s interests and leverage. That could unlock other parts of a broader set of agreements down the road as a confidence builder. It’s not a bad place to start, but it doesn’t dig deeply into the US’ core issues of market access and intellectual-property protection, at least not yet.

Even before Trump’s tweet, rumors had floated about a potential trade deal with China. The Washington Post noted that investors got bullish yesterday afternoon after those rumors began to circulate, mainly leveraged off of the Bloomberg report. The Post also cast some doubt about Trump’s reluctance to deal:

Whether these escalating problems can be resolved during two days of talks is unclear, but the prolonged trade war has shown growing signs that it is causing problems for the economies in both countries. The Fed released the “minutes” of its September meeting on Wednesday, and the word “trade” appeared in the discussion 28 times. It said, among other things, that “trade policy concerns continued to weigh on firms’ investment decisions,” a sign that companies were cutting back while they await a resolution of the White House standoff with China.

Also Wednesday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that the number of new job openings had fallen to its lowest level since March 2018. The labor market has cooled a bit this year but it has remained relatively strong. Any sign of weakening heading into the 2020 election could create problems for the White House.

The labor market has cooled considerably, although job losses have not increased — yet. One has to go back a full year to find a monthly jobs report where additions significantly increase past the maintenance level needed for population growth. Last month, wages stagnated for the first time in a couple of years, which is another indicator of a job-market stall on the horizon. Trump needs an economy shifting back into high gear well ahead of the election, and most certainly won’t survive a recession or even a significant period of stagnation.

So yes, Trump needs a deal, but it can’t just be any deal. He will have to show significant wins now, thanks to the length of the current trade war and the damage it’s done to the agricultural sector especially. Farmers need to see immediate and significant benefits to keep them on board the Trump train.

Under normal circumstances, the presence of Liu and Trump at the bargaining table would indicate some sort of agreement has already been reached. That may not be true with Trump, who likes to do the negotiating himself, but it’s at least an indication that enough progress has been made for Trump to insert himself into the process.

The post Trump: “Big day of negotiations with China” tomorrow with Xi deputy appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group trump-xi-handshake-300x173 Trump: “Big day of negotiations with China” tomorrow with Xi deputy Trade War The Blog Tariffs negotiations Huawei donald trump currency manipulator China   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com