Monthly Archives: January 2020

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: TO DAY WE WILL WITTINESS A HYPOCRISY ON A HISTORICAL SCALE.

30 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by in 2020: The year we need to change., England departure from the EU.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: TO DAY WE WILL WITTINESS A HYPOCRISY ON A HISTORICAL SCALE.

Tags

,

 

 

(Four-minute read)

We are all guilty of hypocrisy in our lives and will continue to be, but there is no excuse for practising it on a historical scale.

A ‘wet’ and overprice country situated on an island in North-Western Europe that was for over forty years a superficial member of the EU will now be eternally sorry about Brexit. (A word they invented, then voted for in the same way that one might knock over a milk bottle.)

“Mad dog and English men come out in the noonday sun” so today the 31 January 2020 at 23:00 GMT can only be described as one of those national “whoops” moments, so ironic and so painfully British.

The Bulldog runs with its tail between its legs.

Perhaps the only uniting element in the UK is the weather, useful only in that it influences every daily decision and can be blamed for just about everything, even 1066.

(Since most of them – the British – are foreign, particularly the aristocrats, many of whom owe their lands and titles to the events of 1066, the date at which foreignness began in Britain.)

If the British seems complex it’s because they don’t know each other too well. Things take a lot of time to be understood and actioned, upon, sometimes, decades.

Culturally diverse, great inventors, a nation is deeply divided, by region, country and class unless it is threatened (Ironically, the British love the nations that they invaded, particularly those that retain the Queen’s head on their stamps) are now after two world wars to create peace in Europe and the world turning their backs to return to 800-year-old book of democracy the Magna Carta which was recently saved by two Americans.

From the “Sunshine Empire to Shrinking Nation” a disunited kingdom, then, can seem a little obtuse with their national identity now on a weak wicket.

In a world that must come together to tackle its problems, its departure from the European Union can only be described as pathic.

In a world that is not immunity to external factors, that is “Paradoxical and contradictory” a stiff upper lip has no place nor does tea and crumpets with an American comes first.

In a country that invented the national lottery, enabling poor people (those who buy lottery tickets) to fund sportspeople where someone says and what he or she actually means is often the complete opposite or very difficult to decipher.

We can only hope that the 71% of 18-24-year-olds who voted to stay in the EU come of age to engage and actively reform the EU.

To realize that a Nigel Farage waving a tiny Union Jack plastic flag is all the man ever was.

He couldn’t quite make it to the end of the EU parliament’s debate on the EU withdrawal agreement. “There is a battle going on, in the west and elsewhere. It is globalism against populism. And you may loathe populism, but I’ll tell you a funny thing, it’s becoming very popular” he told them.

“Many people will argue that it is time to accept Brexit.

I disagree: now is the time, to tell the truth about it and populism which has short-term gratification at its heart.

As Remainers, we have an obligation not to fear the future, but to shape it.

The EU is a project that not only brings prosperity but also brings unity and peace through collaboration and intercultural dialogue. It has given us a common inheritance and common purpose and established a reciprocal obligation between all of its citizens.

It is a united Europe built upon, not only an economic market but also on shared ideals; a political space in which to strive for social and economic justice.

The EU will continue to be that beacon, even after the UK has left it.

“A politician thinks of the next election. A Statesman of the next generations.” Micheal Collins.

Unfortunately, the world is lacking Statesmanship.

Being fond of their myths British roots now belong to only monarchy and nowhere for themselves.

It is not the leaving or joining of anything that we need, it is regulation of who owns us- AI algorithms or us.

Footnote: Negotiations on a trade deal were helped inversely last night with a BBC program called Travels in Euroland with Ed Balls, a former cabinet minister, highlighting the Right-wing parties in Europe.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT TACTICS WILL THE UK USE IN THE FORTHCOMING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EU

29 Wednesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHAT TACTICS WILL THE UK USE IN THE FORTHCOMING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE EU

Tags

 

(Twenty-minute read)

When it comes to negotiating we all negotiate in notable different ways.

By definition negotiating involves conflict.

It would be complacent to think that either Mr Johnson or the EU will be pushovers.

However, the nature of Brexit will ultimately be decided by the governments of the 27 remaining EU nations and the UK.

So if we look at the present rhetoric on both sides what will be the tactics?

The Uk rhetoric is that because we have been members of the EU for the last four decades a new bilateral relationship with the UK should not be difficult to complete.

The signs of that happening are not promising with Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission president, setting out a sequence with the first phase of talks to include only goods and fishing.

Therefore it stands to reason that a trade deal cannot be concluded quickly for obvious reasons.

With no such thing fast-track deal, the negotiations on both sides will have to find a way to extend the transition period.

And the longer the negotiations go on despite Johnson’s wish to de-dramatise the negotiations, they will inevitably hit turbulence with a domino-like effect on both sides.

As for tactics the EU has hard power and will deploy it to pursue its interests and safeguard itself when faced with an existential threat like a tax haven on its doorstep.

These negotiations are for the UK to achieve a continuing relationship with the EU, not the other way around.

The UK will be accommodated but never prioritised above the collective

the interest of the EU.

So both sides will start with extreme positions, ignoring deadlines, making small concessions to establish a relationship.

Because the UK power position is lower relative to the EU it is extremely likely that the EU will set deadlines. Take it or leave it.

Without deadlines accurately communicating becomes more difficult across the European Union.

Why should the EU deploy a take it or leave timeline?

Because people from different cultures within the EU perceive, interpret and evaluate not just the EU but the world differently.

So we have a single-culture against multicultural EU. The very reason it took so long for England to join the EU in the first place and now the very reason its departure will also take time.

Self – Interest against collective interest.

Through the eyes of the UK asking for the moon, the EU will have to ask the following questions.

What do they want? What is important to them? Who has the power? What is at stake? What is the time frame? What is their bottom line? What is the best alternative to a negotiated solution?  Should the negotiations take place in a neutral location? Who should be present at the negotiations? Should the press be present?

Nobody known’s (or even now knows) what agreement, if any, will be reached.

The combination of uncertainty about the outcome with minimal time for adjustment is grotesquely irresponsible.

One way or the other in getting to yes the EU will end up with a more distant relationship with the UK with both sides inventing options for mutual gain.

Is the UK going to abandon current regulations over the environment, product standards, financial soundness and so forth?

If it is the strategic goal of US President Donald Trump to drive a wedge between Britain and the EU, this would be an ideal opportunity.

The consequences would be devastating for both the Uk and EU. The EU is then likely to be more inward-looking than it would otherwise have been.

Such discord could well take on a life of its own, driving Britain and the EU further apart.

If there is no trade agreement with the EU or one that proves disruptive, a blame game is sure to ensue.

In such a world, reliance on multilateral institutions is likely to prove futile.

Again and again, Britain will face choices over which side to choose in struggles, perhaps over technology or standards, that are occurring far over its head.

Already evident with 5G insulation by Huawei not to mention the ongoing evolution of the single market and EU trade and climate policies that will affect any future trade deals with grim implications for the Uk government revenue and spending.

It is deciding to go its own way in a world dominated by rivalrous superpowers.

It is doing so on the promise of greater control over its own destiny.

It is, not least, acting against the wishes of the majority of its own young people.

Brexit may eliminate many excuses but it will not solve any of these problems.

We can only hope that the separation will not endure? Nobody can know.

In my own view, it is a huge blunder.

But the moment is now upon us, a sad day.

We must all live with its consequences.

The direct influence of British political choices on those of the neighbours will also vanish.

Insisting that one should not have both a British and European political identity is for the birds.

Anyway in the days after Brexit Day, when the European Commission publishes its “negotiation directives”. These will be the commission’s proposals for the negotiating mandate that must be approved by the 27 member-state governments.

The European Council does not undertake negotiations itself.

The Brexit transition period is scheduled to expire at the end of 2020. At that point, Mr Johnson will still have four more years in office ahead of him, longer than any other EU leader maybe knowing what the cost of walking away he will have come to his senses.

 

As negotiations progress what concessions are likely to be given, and how will they be achieved?

Unfortunately, all negotiators spend the vast majority of their time on short term issues.

Any concessions have to be viewed as relative to the overall agreement.

Brexit

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY IS IT THAT WE ARE ALLOWING ALGORITHMS TO RUN OUR LIVES.

28 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by in 2020: The year we need to change., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Climate Change., Digital age., DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Evolution, Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Inequality, Innovation., Modern day life., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The Future, The Internet., The Obvious., The state of the World., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., WiFi communication.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY IS IT THAT WE ARE ALLOWING ALGORITHMS TO RUN OUR LIVES.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

(Twenty-minute read)

Technology is getting increasingly personal.

With algorithms becoming the masters of social media are we all just becoming clickbait?

Devices are providing immediate information about our health and about what we see, where we go and where we have been.

Our lives are being shaken to their very core.

With 5G technology what we experienced at the moment will pale in comparison to the vast array of possibilities carried under its belt by this new generation of wireless connectivity, which is being built over the foundations of the previous one.

It will allow millions of devices to be connected simultaneously.

All stakeholders – business, government, society and individuals – will have to work together to adjust so these technologies and rapid changes are harnessed for the development of all, not just profit.

Swathes of the globe will be left behind.

Regardless it is no longer just about repetitive factory jobs rather an increase in inequality globally.

It is not only a moral imperative to ensure that such a scenario does not happen as it will pose a risk to global stability through channels such as global inequality, but migration also flows, and even geopolitical relations and security.

We already live in a world that has been profoundly altered by the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Yet there is not much debate on the likely size of the impact.

Why?

Because there are such divergent views it is difficult to measure.

But within the next decade, it is expected that more than a trillion sensors will be connected to the internet. By 2024, more than half of home internet traffic will be used by appliances and devices that are connected to internet platforms.

With almost everything connected, it will transform how we live never mind how we do business.

If there is no trusted institution to regulate it we can kiss our arses.

Now is the time to make sure it is changed for the better.

The internet of things will create huge amounts of data, raising concerns over who will own it and how it will be stored. And what about the possibility that your home or car could be hacked?

The internet is great for ideas, but ultimately, the things that will amaze you are not on your computer screen.

Artificial Intelligence may well invent new life forms but if we as humans do not contrive and manage global acceptable ethical parameters for all its forms – (bioengineering, gene editing, nanotechnology, and the algorithms) that run them we are more than idiots.

As Yuval Noah Harari says in his most recent book ( 21 Lessons for the 21st Century) ” There is no such thing as ‘Christian economics’, ‘Muslim economics’ or ‘Hindu economics’ ” but there will be Algorithms economics run by big brother. 

The digital age has brought us access to so much information in just a few clicks of the mouse button or the remote control everything from the news, Tv programmes with the internet becoming somewhat glorifying sensationalism rather than giving us the truth.

The question is.

Are the technologies that surround us tools that we can identify, grasp and consciously use to improve our lives?

Or are they more than that:

Powerful objects and enablers that influence our perception of the world, change our behaviour and affect what it means to be human?

What can we do?

The Second Industrial Revolution and the Third Industrial Revolution have lead us to this revolution the Fourth Industrial Revolution which can be described as the advent of “cyber-physical systems” involving entirely new capabilities for people and machines.

Unlike previous revolutions, it is not the world as a whole that will see any of its benefits or disadvantages it is individuals and groups that could win – or lose – a lot.

Unfortunately, expanded connectivity does not necessarily lead to expanded or more diverse worldviews it will be the opposite with our increased reliance on digital markets.

At the moment it’s just not very evenly distributed nor will it be.

At best we can moan about it and hope that climate change shifts our reliance on biomass as primary sources of energy.

Back to Clickbait.

The issue with clickbait is that the reader or site visitor is being manipulated into clicking something that is misleading.

Clickbait is not one-dimensional. Each time you run a Google search, scan your passport, make an online purchase or tweet, you are leaving a data trail behind that can be analysed and monetized.

Most clickbait links forward a user to a page that requires payment, registration or a series of pages that help drive views for a specific site.

It can also point to any web content that is aimed at generating online advertising revenue.

We’re all guilty of being gullible of clicking links online but Clickbait websites are notorious for spreading misinformation and creating controversy in the name of generating hits.

Have you not ever felt that you’re being played as dumb individuals whenever you watch the news or scroll through a media site?

Thanks to supercomputers and algorithms, we can make sense of massive amounts of data in real-time. Computers are already making decisions based on this information, and in less than 10 years computer processors are expected to reach the processing power of the human brain. A convergence of the digital, physical and biological spheres challenging our notion of what it means to be human.

Today, 43% of the world’s population is connected to the internet, mostly in developed countries.

Cooperation is “the only thing that will redeem mankind”.

We can use the Fourth Industrial Revolution to lift humanity into a new collective and moral consciousness based on a shared sense of destiny, and that’s until 6G comes along or living robots.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. IS THE CURRENCY AND THE ART OF THE HANDSHAKE GOING EXTINCT.

28 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Communication., Disconnection., Emotions., Enegery, Face Recognition., Facebook, Human values., Humanity., Life., Our Common Values., Reality., Social Media, The art of a handshake., The power of touch.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. IS THE CURRENCY AND THE ART OF THE HANDSHAKE GOING EXTINCT.

Tags

, , , , , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

Remember when people use to initially judge you by your handshake. It formulated a picture of a person we were meeting for the first time.

In the span of a few seconds, it lay the foundation for how others perceive and feel about us — and we about them.

“It was wet,” “It was creepy,” ” It was firm,” It was crushing,” “It a Mormon handshake,” “It a Mason probing handshake”, enthusiastic, vigorous, prolonged, high-fives to fist-bumping.

A handshake was a globally widespread, brief greeting or parting tradition in which two people grasp one of each other like hands making impressions that have a very long shelf-life based on a brief but important meeting.

Your handshake is the business card you leave behind.

Believed by some to have originated as a gesture of peace by demonstrating that the hand holds no weapon.

It is a reassuring tactile touch that we as social animals share is essential for social interaction, social harmony, health, survival, and security, as well as for communicating our true feelings.

It serves as a means of transferring social chemical signals between the shakers.

What is even more startling is how long we remember those bad handshakes — sometimes we remember for decades.

Today we pay for items with the swipe of our phone or by inserting a small plastic card into a reader. The old handshake just doesn’t have its place anymore.

We can also spend thousands of hours clicking a mouse over a small image on a computer screen. Nothing is real, nothing is said – only ones and zeros racing around the globe in small packets of data.

The world of technology continues to tractor us into a world absent of looking at one another in the eyes the Art of the handshake is dead.

With, Social media, Face recognition, Instagram, Facebook, Smartphones, Emails etc our most valuable currency of the handshake is evaporating and being replaced by digital signatures or passwords, that are undermining our trust in each other.

It’s no wonder that so many people get something so simple as a handshake wrong. 

Take the Politician’s Handshake:Corporate-Image-Two-handed-handshake5

Two hands to cover or cup the other person’s hands twisting the other person’s hand so that yours is superior or playing hand jujitsu to let the other person know you are in charge is just rubbish.

In the real world-shaking a person’s hand allows you to establish your friendliness and accessibility. 

For example meeting your future in-laws for the first time, your first job interview.

It might be true that in the future daily and weekly media will be more and more electronic, but physical media will always exist.

Stand in front of the webcam and send a digital emoji and you could be shaking hands with the devil. 

You cannot reproduce a handshake with meaning electronically.

This is a part of the beauty and the freakiness of the internet no handshake required.

Its no wonder there is grooming.

There was a time that a person had to put on nice clothes and go out into the real world to meet a love interest.

Today, you can be “out there” without ever having to go out- online dating.

You can even engage in a virtual relationship by using email or instant messaging. It is possible to get to know a person on a relatively deep level without ever meeting at all.

Customs surrounding handshakes are specific to cultures and can offer some real benefits.  Take Brazilan negotiators they touch each other almost five times each half-hour where there is no physical contact between American negotiators. 

In postmodern society, superstitions don’t have much of a place, for most of history they have a played a huge role in shaping culture and society before the arrival of the handshake.

The internet cares not what you do. You miss out on real contact with people.

It is affecting our ability to connect with others as equals. Not being able to manage the normal tasks of adult living resulting in more and more limper handshakes. Which leads them to problems with society and unable to get along with others.

Although teens are staying in constant contact via the Internet and texting, these friendships do not foster trust and intimacy the same as face-to-face contact.

The century’s old practice to seal a deal may seem quaint but its importance in the future will tell us whether its a robot or not.

As the appreciation of small things disappears; nature loses its brilliance.

Our planet is in a tight spot lets shake hands on that.

As we know there can be no peace no universal action on anything without it. 

All the verbal diarrhoea in the world cannot replace it. 

 

Corporate-Image-handshake2

Corporate-Image-Finger-tip-grab-handshake3    

 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; IN THIS EVER CHANGING WORLD WHAT SHOULD WE BE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN?

23 Thursday Jan 2020

Posted by in Future Education.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; IN THIS EVER CHANGING WORLD WHAT SHOULD WE BE TEACHING OUR CHILDREN?

Tags

, ,

 

 

(Ten-minute read)

 

We don’t know is the true answer.

So far, the so-called “education” has not been able to catch up with this fourth industrial revolution.

The irrelevance of the curriculum is becoming more and more evident.

Being able to Google is no substitute for true understanding.

What learning in the 21st century should look like is open to interpretation—and controversy.

It’s no longer enough to “know things.” It’s even more important to stay curious about finding out things.

Because once the technologies we are creating starts to create itself and really get going most of what they are learning today will be obsolete.

The future of life will be decided by Algorithms both personal and otherwise not to gain insight into timeless dilemmas and the human condition. They will reinvent themselves again and again so that the basic structure of life will no longer be accumulating information.

If you don’t except their decisions you will be a “clueless fossil ” as Yuval Noah Harari observes in this book of 21 Lessons for the 21st Century a must-read.

Is this true?

Developing skills will not be required in a world where all decision making is done for you from data collected and analyzed.

All they will need is to have the skills to find it and drive their own education.

Gone are the days of text-heavy textbooks and outdated subjects, visualisation will be the new educator.

Technology will have taken over every aspect of their daily lives so who am I will be the most pressing subject to learn because if you are not aware you will be left behind.

Technology won’t be bad if you know what you want. Another word it must serve you not you it.

To be able to think creatively and critically.

Because as machine learning, profit-seeking algorithms and biotechnology/engineering /nanotechnology all become ever more powerful they will need to know what they are and who there are, and what they want.

So education should include a greater focus on holistic wellbeing to help young people counteract mental health issues and deal with negativity.

Teachers must have the ability to move away from being the dispenser of information to someone who can guide them and prepare them for their future.

Self-awareness and interpersonal relationships.

You might think that all this is hogwash and indeed it will be if algorithms take control.

It remains true that skill isn’t simply one for the 21st century – it spans the ages, from the ancient Greeks to the present.

Without a deeper understanding of the history that brought them to where we are today, algorithms will take control.

So there may be some inherent folly in technological solutionism so readily embraced in our time.

Because the Internet apart from Tweets, Facebook, or YouTube is releasing intellectual energy that comes from our latent desires as human beings to have a voice, to create, and to participate – Wikipedia creates knowledge.

Giving what is coming and what we already know about our Planet and the Universe the next generation will need to see beyond money if there lives life are to have any meaning.

The 21st-century educator is a lifelong learner.

How are the students supposed to be interested if the teachers are not interested?

In view of the accelerating development of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Cyber-Reality (CR), it becomes mandatory to define human uniqueness vs. intelligent machines and Cyber Entities.

The new reality requires a lifetime education model, which is truly future-oriented, and proposed to be based on four pillars: learning, research and design, development and deployment.

This will require.

1. Creativity (Which seems to die in school from the 4th grade on)
2. Communication (Fluency in writing, public speaking, and technology)
3. Collaboration: (Teaming in class as manifest in project-based learning, not just teaming after school in extracurriculars)
4. Critical Thinking: (Including the Internet skill of curating, evaluating, distilling information)
5. Character: The universal values of all major religions and cultures (honesty, empathy, justice, fairness, etc.)
And..
6. Cosmopolitanism – Cross-Cultural Competency.

In view of the catastrophic situation of almost all ecosystems, world disasters needed to be taken care of in order to recreate a sustainable environment for life, not virtual reality.

The big challenge is how to maintain a level of comfort and prosperity, keeping a satisfactory quality of life in balance with the finite resources available and a biosphere with its life-friendly durable ecosystems.

Almost all areas of life have changed or are in the process of being changed.

There will be no point to Algroritm doctors replacing human doctors if there is nothing to analyse other than themselves.

So where are we?

As with all algorithms if we allow Algorithmic teaching without any regulation we will see all the biases laydown by historical records increase.

Without regulations, the only benefits to education will be digital leaders reaping first-mover rewards.

With the Virtual-Reality becoming seamless to Our-Reality, the boundaries between the different realities are increasingly blurry, the world has dramatically changed.

Virtual labs and future design centres will allow experimenting new solutions without causing real harm to the environment.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE’S. OPEN LETTER TO MICHEL BARNIER.

22 Wednesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE’S. OPEN LETTER TO MICHEL BARNIER.

Tags

, ,

Dear Sir

22/01/2020.

I know that you have a lot on your plate, and probably will never read this blog.

So I keep it short. 

As you have said, “we are entering uncharted waters” with the British government still wracked by internal disagreement over what kind of deal they want.

This is the very reason that any forthcoming agreement cannot be fragmented into piecemeal negotiations.

Rather each and every area negotiated upon and agreed must become watertight. Non-renegotiable -and binding in an overall agreement.

If cherrypicking is to be avoided it must be the whole package or no package, otherwise, the agreement will be subject to legal confirmation for years to come.

If not we will witness the simultaneous unravelling of both the UK and the EU.

The EU cannot wait for a crisis to erupt in full force before we start looking for answers.

We had better understand our mindes before algorithms make our minds up for us.

Both the EU and any future Uk government must not have the right to scrap, tamper with the agreement without mutual agreement from all the EU members states.

Yours Truly

Robert de May Dillon

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE DOES SOME BASIC UK MATH’S.

21 Tuesday Jan 2020

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE DOES SOME BASIC UK MATH’S.

Tags

 

 

(Three-minute read)

In 2018/19 the value of HMRC tax receipts for the United Kingdom amounted to approximately 623.4 billion British pounds.

The government’s spending plans for 2020-21. is

Take away £33.9 billion for the NHS –                                   589.5 billion

Take away £7.1 billion for Education –                                   582.4

Scotland £1.2 billion –                                                          581.2

Preparing for Brexit £6.3 billion –                                          584.9

Policing £750 million-                                                           584.15

AI – £250 million-                                                                583.9

Defence- £2.2billion-                                                            581.7

HS2 –  £106  billion                                                              375.7

Replace trident £205 billion-                                                 170 .7

Hinkley Point Nuclear Plant £22 billion-                                 148.7

Replace Farmers Eu Subsites  £3 billion-                               145.7.

Loss of trade- £ 5 billion                                                       140. 7

Subsidy to Northern Ireland  £10.8 billion                              129.9

Cost of servicing (paying the interest) the public debt

amounted to around £48 billion                                            81.9

Loss of GDP  6.3% to 10 % up to £66bn.                              15.9

Congestion £307 billion.                                                     -291.1

Tax fraud costing £15.4 billion                                             -306.5

Obesity £73 billion                                                              -379.5

Under any scenario, the UK’s exit from the European Union will leave the country worse off. Free trade deal or not.

Even the most optimistic aspects of this assessment are bleak.

But it’s not just Brexit.

These numbers are likely to be larger in reality, since many other welfare improving channels associated with EU trade such as immigration, increases in productivity, increases in R&D intensity, vertical production chains, to cite just a few, are not considered in this analysis.

Staunch supporters of Brexit want to deliver a clean break from the EU, regardless of the economic cost which is going to put an immense strain on the Uk’s internal unity.

In the three months leading up to June 2019, the UK shrank by 0.2 per cent, it’s the worst monthly growth rate in this two-year period. The further you move from EU membership, the worse the trade and investment figures get.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHY IS THE OBVIOUS SO DIFFICULT TO RECOGNIZE?

20 Monday Jan 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2020: The year we need to change., Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Digital age., Facebook, Fourth Industrial Revolution., Google, HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Nanotechnology, Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHY IS THE OBVIOUS SO DIFFICULT TO RECOGNIZE?

Tags

, , ,

 

(Twelve-minute read) 

We live in a world where the obvious cannot be addressed.

Each and every aspect of our daily lives, work, relationships are somehow influenced or mediated by technology today, not only as individuals but collectives.

It makes one wonder about the sheer volume of ignorance which not only allows the same problems to persist decade after decade but to even get worse.

It is obvious that our very sustainability is under threat but we remain “Oblivious”

Why? 

Consider the paradoxical and strategic implications of the fact that people do not perceive things being too small or too big, too far away or too close, too wide or too narrow, too unimportant or too important for us, too slow and gradual or too sudden and fast, always present or usually absent, too often repeated or not often enough to be remarked, too general, complicated and abstract or too simple, too respectable or too unworthy, too familiar or too alien, too similar or too different too few or too many… Imagine the practical implications of such blindness!

Some of the biggest things around us dissolve into background scene, too huge to count and seemingly too big to fail.

To defeat this blindness we must ask what exactly is obvious? Why? obvious to whom? To me? to you? To everybody? Everywhere? All the time? 

Decisions about technology should not be irreversibly delegated to technocrats, corporations and tech monopolies. 

We think unknowingly with other people’s thoughts.

The conclusion is that our senses and memories cheat us, our common sense is no good and our judgement false.

It is self-evident that basic assumptions are the riverbeds of our thoughts, the compass of our judgment and choices and our actions; most of them we inherited from trusted people and from authorities, they look inherent, seem to be there from eternity, as if out of sight, so that we would not question them.

This is now leading to a ready-made thinking world of algorithms used by Facebook- Utube – Google – Smartphones -Twitter -and Social media. An invisible prison of social media where it is easier to observe other people’s basic assumptions than yours; particularly when they are dissimilar with yours; then, other people have not yet grown into your culture may be useful to detect your unquestionable beliefs; especially very different people coming from somewhere else; or you, visiting somewhere else.

I do not see much good in convincing people not to trust their own mind; we must instead accept and work around this “blindness” without moving our life into monasteries at the feet of gurus or into laboratories at the feet of the experts of the day.

After a while, you don’t notice. They become references.

The Right to an Algorithmic Opt-Out…

How to notice, by ourselves, the obvious turned imperceptible? How to detect it, how to discern it from the merely neutral “obvious” background? How to evaluate the importance and potential of change of something so evident that it escapes your attention?  How to wake up to it? How to seek and get help? How to help other people to do the same? What to do when people cannot or do not want to see the obvious? How to awaken people?

The question is still “How to open my eyes when they are open already?”

The intelligent reason should visit its basic assumptions, regularly; but it doesn’t.

Our worst enemy in discerning the obvious is a certainty, to be convinced that we know it all and that the obvious is obvious for us.

The obvious is best disguised into itself. One obvious hide another.

How banal to say that the obvious is that which is right in front of us, readily accessible to our observation, to our senses or being credible knowledge we have!

With commercial profit-seeking algorithms, this hidden price of selective blindness and thus freedom diminished.

if you repeat slogans endlessly they will become obvious for you (even some false ones), and you will end up believing them.

The most amazing for me is to observe how we only apprehend things fit to our size and relative to us. We do not grasp the incommensurable, out of proportion with us, with which we have no common standard of measurement: the trillions of billions.

Because of compression, we have become an incredibly stupid species.

The obvious known comes alive for us to do something about it only when understanding turns it into a personal image, vivid and simple enough to be of our size; otherwise, we stay paralysed and dumb. 

Perhaps it because our body believes that big things don’t move and unmoving things are harmless. 

Perhaps its because we are weak, unable to face them and we allow our judgment to slumber; we do not see what we do not wish to see, hoping that it will go away or solve itself.

Perhaps only when understood does the evidence become awareness, we are able to respond to, so that we would do something because of what it means. 

Perhaps figuring out that the elusive 20th-century social contract is gone, is too enormous for us. Therefore we will go on like cattle to the slaughterhouse. 

Why is this becoming true? 

Because as Wittgenstein, Ludwig, Philosophical Investigations states. 

“The aspects of things that are most important for us are hidden because of their simplicity and familiarity. (One is unable to notice something because it is always before one’s eyes.) The real foundations of their inquiry do not strike people at all. Unless that fact has at some time struck them. And this means: we fail to be struck by what, once seen, is most striking and most powerful.”

Only by understanding how and when common sense fails can we improve how we plan for the future. 

Then, question and challenge the obvious at the root: “Why exactly it must be so? Why it is impossible? Who says so? Where is it necessary or impossible? Only here or everywhere? Really?! For whom; for you or for the entire humanity? With what means? At what size? Within what frame of time? Forever? Which pieces in this puzzle would, if changed, make the impossible possible and the necessary less so? Maybe you or somebody else, somewhere else, with different means have other self-evidence. 

Where it will end?

Either there will be a technological or psychological breakthrough or we will see worldwide degradation like we’ve never seen before.

Old labels often obscure the obvious. 


 

I’d like to state the obvious:

Problem-solving is the only thing in life that holds value. Anything that isn’t a solution to a problem is pure excess.

The truth is that the world is not a democracy. We don’t all decide what is best – only a select few do.

We are egocentric through and through – but creating a lasting, meaningful change feeds our egos like nothing else.

Unfortunately, creating change takes time, patience and perseverance.

It appears that for every one step we take forward as a global community, we end up taking two steps backwards.

Every problem in the world is a function that is processed in an environment, on a platform with certain bounds, certain rules, and certain major players.

As far as I can see, life has little certain purpose. If there is a real reason for it, then we have to accept that we simply don’t know the reason.

However, don’t give up until you have to – until there is a better, more logical option.

Big ideas can change the world, can’t they?

Of course, we don’t know. Nobody does. It is really about what we want to happen and whether we go out there and make it happen.

Will we be able to shift direction to avoid the worst impacts of climate change?

Yes.

We face risks, called existential risks, that threaten to wipe out humanity.

These risks are not just for big disasters, but for the disasters that could end history.

Nuclear war.

Climate Change.

Bioengineered pandemic.

Superintelligence.

Nanotechnology.

Inequality. 

Unknown unknowns.

Anyone of them might mean that value itself becomes absent from the universe.

In doing so we will get the economy back on its feet again and re-orientate our financial institutions so that they cannot place the world in a similar situation to what we experienced in 2008.

In the daily hubbub of current “crises” facing humanity, we forget about the many generations we hope are yet to come.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. APART FROM THE FINANCIAL COST WHAT ARE THE UNSEEING COST OF THE UK LEAVING THE EU.

19 Sunday Jan 2020

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit., European Union., Political Trust, Politics., The common good., The Obvious., Trade Agreements., Transition period or Implication period., Unanswered Questions., World Trade Organisation, WTO.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. APART FROM THE FINANCIAL COST WHAT ARE THE UNSEEING COST OF THE UK LEAVING THE EU.

Tags

,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

The UK is set to leave the EU on January 31.

The article 50 process will have been completed and the country will no longer be legal in the EU.

With speculation now playing a part in almost every claim for or against the EU, it’s sometimes difficult to distinguish between legitimate risks and doom-mongering however the implications of becoming the first nation to leave the 28-state bloc are much clearer.

The term Global Britain is the moment Britain chose to step back from the world.

Confused.

Well here is the picture as I understand it.

The UK will not get a free choice on its future relationship with the EU.

It will not be quick or straightforward to establish a new relationship.

Obviously, there are two ways that Britain can leave the EU:

With a deal, or Without a deal.

A no-deal Brexit would result in a rigid position on all the issues.

If Mr Johnson’s government chooses to change course he has to so before December 31, 2022, if not then Britain will fall back on to basic World Trade Organization terms.

Under WTO rules, this would not include any preferential access to the Single Market, or to any of the 53 markets with which the EU has negotiated Free Trade Agreements.

Or

What is called a soft Brexit which would aim to keep the relationship between the UK and the EU intact?

This could be done by keeping Britain in the single market or, at the very least, arranging the terms of some sort of free-trade agreement before the 31 October deadline arrives.  However, by staying in the single market and customs union, the UK would be liable to EU rules and legislation regarding the free movement of goods, services and people across borders.

Therefore if the UK gets a deal as is the case with Norway and Iceland it could still end up being forced to comply with EU laws and regulations.

A Norway or Iceland model would give the UK considerable but not complete access to
the free-trade Single Market. We would be outside the EU Customs Union, and we
would lose access to all of the EU’s trade agreements with 53 other markets around
the world. Re-negotiating these would take years. Combined with the 27 other countries in the Single Market, and the countries in the EU Customs Union and EFTA, this is effectively more than 80 trade deals – covering over a third of the world’s economy.

No existing bilateral trade agreement will deliver the same level of access that the UK currently enjoys to the EU Single Market. In particular, none provide an equivalent
access for services, which accounts for almost 80 per cent of the UK economy.

It involves accepting most EU rules, but with little influence over the creation of those rules.

Under any of the alternative models, there is no guaranteed access to the current measures for police and security cooperation, which allow our law-enforcement agencies to work with their EU counterparts.

It is possible to fully replace the UK bilateral agreements outside the EU in these areas or demand a right to choose which to participate in will not replicate the reach and influence that is currently enjoy.

Mr Johnson has ruled out any form of an extension to the transition period.

Then both sides would need to make preparations for how they cope with the economic fallout in 2021.

After Britain leaves, its people will still have certain rights – at least for another 11 months. Freedom of movement is likely to end on 31 December next year.

The key rights that have yet to be negotiated include the continued right of British settled in the EU to move for work, leisure or retirement within the EU.

Erasmus will continue after Brexit but this depends on negotiations on the future relationship with the EU.

British citizens will still be able to apply for funding in Horizon2020 programmes during the transition period.

The EU’s Creative Europe funding stream will remain open to British applications.

Also promising a call for applications in 2020 is IPortunus, a new EU mobility fund for artists.

Little is written about cross-border healthcare or the processes involved but it is still available during the transition period,

So far, discussions of the gains and losses of Brexit have, understandably, tended to focus on the most obvious costs.

It may soon cost the UK more than its combined total of payments to the European Union budget over the past 47 years

The UK’s total projected contribution to the EU budget from 1973 to 2020 at £215 billion after adjusting for inflation is likely to keep increasing.

On leaving the Uk will be operating in a vacuum till there is a deal or not.

This comes with huge hidden dangers.

In adopting the government’s proposed model for close customs cooperation and a common rulebook, it runs the risk of finding themselves with little scope to diverge from EU regulations on goods, and unable in practice to strike new trade deals with the rest of the world.

The EU cannot change the rules of a customs union for the UK. If it does the trading bloc will fall asunder. When you’re in a customs union for goods, you become part of a common trade policy — you don’t have autonomy anymore.

Agreement with the EU, under which the UK would continue to levy EU tariffs on goods destined for the single market, but would apply a rebate on those that remain in the UK does not work and will not work.

As for a special mutual recognition arrangement in financial services, this might work.

Politicians often praise the visible benefits of public spending, e.g. the number of jobs “created”, without considering whether the funds could have been spent more wisely elsewhere – or even how the taxpayer might have spent the cash, had it remained in his or her pocket

There are a number of countries which have negotiated trade agreements with the
EU. Switzerland has a complex set of bilateral agreements with the EU. Turkey is part of the EU Customs Union and has a long-term aspiration to join the EU. Canada has agreed a Free Trade Agreement with the EU.

The status quo, or anything close to it, carries huge opportunity costs of its own.

So let’s have a look

WTO rules represent a minimum threshold.

It would be the most definitive break with the EU, offering no preferential access to the Single Market, no wider co-operation on crime or terrorism, no obligations for budgetary contributions or free movement of people.

It would, be hard even to come close to replicating the level of access and
influence from which the UK currently benefits.

Whatever alternative to membership the UK seeks following it departure the UK will lose influence over EU decisions that will still directly affect the country.

So far, the European Union has made only tentative steps towards regulating genetically modified crops and artificial intelligence and robotics.

There are of course important cultural differences between the Uk and the European continent and these may seem like small concerns in the grand scheme of things.

The free movement of persons is a fundamental pillar of EU policy … the internal market and its four freedoms are indivisible’.

Each possible approach will involve a balance between securing access to the EU’s Single Market, accepting costs and obligations and maintaining the UK’s influence.

The UK will, therefore, have to make some difficult decisions about its priorities and the voting public will be holding it very directly responsible. 

It is not the means that matter, but the ends.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Underneath is a long list of everyday EU Common day terms that might help.

Ankara Agreement The Association Agreement signed between the European
Community and Turkey in 1963 and the Additional Protocol added
in 1970. They set out basic agreed objectives for relations between
the EU and Turkey, such as the strengthening of trade and economic
relations and the establishment of a Customs Union.

Banking Union The Banking Union is an EU-level supervision and resolution system
for the banking sector in the euro area, and participating member
states. It aims to ensure that banks in the euro area are safe and
reliable and that non-viable banks are resolved without recourse to
taxpayers’ money and with minimal impact on the real economy.

The Capital Markets Union (CMU) is a plan of the European
Commission to create a true single market for capital in Europe. It
will channel increased capital to all companies, including Small and
Medium Enterprises (SMEs), and infrastructure projects.

The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) is the agricultural policy of
the European Union. It implements a system of agricultural support
through direct income payments to farmers and guaranteed prices.

Common External Tariff A common external tariff must be introduced when a group of countries forms a customs union. The same customs duties, import
quotas, preferences or other non-tariff barriers to trade apply to all
goods entering the area, regardless of which country within the area
they are entering.

The Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is a set of EU rules for managing
European fishing fleets and for conserving fish stocks.

Common Travel Area
A travel zone comprising Ireland and the UK. It allows for the nationals of
both countries to travel and live in each country without immigration
controls.

Council of the European Union(also known as Council of Ministers)
The Council of the EU brings together the representatives of the EU
Member States’ governments. It is the EU’s main decision-making
body and agrees EU laws, usually together with the European
Parliament.

Customs Union An agreement between two or more countries to remove customs
barriers and reduce or eliminate external customs duties on mutual
trade. Customs unions generally impose a common external tariff
(CET) on imports from non-member countries.

Dublin Regulation An established set of criteria for identifying the Member State
responsible for the examination of an asylum claim in Europe. Under
Dublin, the claim for asylum must be made in the first EU country
entered.

EU-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CETA)
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is a
trade agreement negotiated between the EU and Canada. Once
implemented, it will remove customs duties, end limitations in access
to public contracts, open up services markets, and help prevent
illegal copying of EU innovations and traditional products.
Eurojust is an agency of the European Union dealing with judicial
cooperation in criminal matters.

European Arrest Warrant (EAW)
A legal framework that facilitates the extradition of individuals between
The EU Member States to face prosecution or to serve a prison sentence
for an existing conviction.

European Commission (the Commission)
The European Commission is responsible for proposing draft
legislation, implementing decisions, upholding the EU Treaties and
managing the day-to-day business of the EU.
European Council The European Council is the body in which the Heads of State
or Government of the EU’s 28 Member States, together with an
appointed President and the President of the European Commission,
take strategic decisions about the direction of the EU.

European Court of Justice (ECJ)
The European Court of Justice (ECJ) is a supranational court based in
Luxembourg and made up of one judge from each of the EU Member
States. The Court deals with cases concerning the interpretation and
application of the EU Treaties.

European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS)
A system for criminal records held by the Member States to be
exchanged with the authorities of other Member States.

European Economic Area (EEA)
The EEA is an internal market providing for the free movement of
persons, goods, services and capital. It is made up of 31 countries:
the EU’s 28 Member States plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein. It
is governed by a common set of rules.

EEA Joint Committee
An institution of the European Economic Area (EEA), in which
decisions are taken by consensus to incorporate EU legislation into
the EEA Agreement.

European Economic Community (EEC) and the European Community (EC)
The European Economic Community (EEC) was a regional
cooperation organisation and precursor to the EU, as one of the
European Communities. It was founded in 1957 to promote economic
integration between its member states. When the Maastricht Treaty
created the European Union (EU) in 1993, the EEC was incorporated
and renamed the European Community (EC). In 2009 the Lisbon
Treaty provided for the EC to be fully incorporated into the European Union.

The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) has four members:
the three non-EU EEA member states – Norway, Iceland and
Liechtenstein – plus Switzerland. It has the right to conclude Free
Trade Agreements with the rest of the world on behalf of its four
members.

EFTA Court The EFTA (European Free Trade Association) Court is a supranational
judicial body that deals with cases concerning the interpretation and
application of the EEA Agreement. It is essentially the equivalent of
the ECJ for the EFTA countries that are also members of the EEA
(Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland).

European Parliament
The European Parliament was established in 1979 in order to
represent the views of citizens directly in EU decision-making. It
shares responsibility with the Council for passing EU laws and for
agreeing the EU’s budget, although the Council enjoys broader
decision-making powers. The Parliament is made up of 751 members
(MEPs) who are directly elected across the 28 Member States and
serve a five-year term. The UK has 73 MEPs.

European Union (EU)
The European Union is an international organisation made up of 28
European countries, including the UK. The EU has its origins in the
European Coal and Steel Community, founded by six European states
after the Second World War. However, its remit has evolved and
is much broader today. The EU facilitates cooperation between its
Member States on a wide range of objectives, from facilitating trade to
protecting the environment, and security and development overseas.
The EU has created the world’s largest Single Market, enabling the
free movement of goods, services, people and capital.
Europol is an EU agency that assists Member States’ law
enforcement agencies in tackling cross-border crime. It carries out
over 18,000 cross-border investigations a year to tackle security
threats such as terrorism, international drug trafficking and money
laundering, organised fraud, counterfeiting and people smuggling.

Europol Information System
The Europol Information System (EIS) is a central criminal information
and intelligence database covering the areas under Europol’s remit.
Europol and all EU Member States can use the EIS to store and look
up to data on serious international crime and terrorism.

Free Trade Agreement (FTA)
A Free Trade Agreement (FTA) is a treaty between two or more
countries or trading blocs that reduces but does not eliminate,
barriers to trade and investment. WTO rules allow its member states
to sign FTAs granting each other preferential market access, subject
to certain conditions. FTAs usually cover agreements to reduce tariffs
and other restrictions to trade on goods and, to a lesser extent,
services.

Frontex is the EU’s Borders Agency, which manages cooperation
between national border guards to secure the EU’s external borders.
G20 The Group of Twenty (G20) is a forum for international economic
cooperation and decision-making. It comprises 19 of the world’s
leading economies, including the UK, plus the European Union.

The General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) is a treaty of
the World Trade Organization (WTO) that came into force in January
1995. The treaty was created to extend the multilateral trading system
to the service sector, in the same way, the General Agreement on
Tariffs and Trade (GATT) provides such a system for merchandise
trade. All members of the WTO are parties to the GATS. The basic
WTO principle of most favoured nation (MFN) applies to GATS as
well. However, upon accession, members may introduce temporary
exemptions to this rule.

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is an international organisation
of 188 countries. It works to foster global monetary cooperation,
secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high
employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty
around the world. The UK is a member.

Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) refers to EU cooperation on asylum and
immigration, judicial matters, civil protection and the fight against
serious and organised crime and terrorism, as well as the Schengen
Border-free area. The UK has secured a set of exemptions that mean
it is not required to participate in JHA matters, but can choose to do
so if it wishes.

Lugano Convention The Lugano Convention facilitates the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil law cases in the EU and EFTA countries.

Most Favoured Nation (MFN)
Under WTO rules, countries cannot normally discriminate between
trading partners that are members of the WTO. So a country or
trading bloc cannot grant another a preferential arrangement (such as
a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) without doing so
for all other WTO members. This principle is known as Most Favoured
Nation (MFN) treatment. Non-tariff barriers A non-tariff barrier is a form of trade barrier other than a tariff. Nontariff barriers include quotas, levies, embargoes, sanctions and other restrictions. They are frequently used by large and developed
economies.

Passporting entitles a financial services firm authorised in a European
Economic Area (EEA) state to carry on permitted activities in any other
EEA state by either exercising the right of establishment (i.e. setting up
a branch and/or agents), or providing cross-border services. These
rights are subject to the fulfilment of conditions under the relevant
Single Market directive.

Preferential market access
A country or trading bloc grants preferential market access to another
when it grants it better terms of trade than as standard, for instance
by reducing tariffs or providing access to public tenders. The WTO
sets a number of rules about how countries and blocs can grant
each other preferential access. Between developed economies, this is
usually granted through Free Trade Agreements, through which each
side agrees to reduce trade barriers.

The Prüm Decisions are EU Council Decisions which embed into
EU law a pre-existing Convention between several European Union
States. They provide mechanisms to exchange information between
Member States on DNA, fingerprint and vehicle registration data for
the prevention and investigation of cross-border crime and terrorism.
The UK has recently decided to apply to re-join the regime.

Qualified Majority Voting (QMV)
Qualified Majority Voting is the principal method of reaching decisions
in the Council of Ministers. It allocates votes to the different Member
States according to an agreed formula, based partly on population
size. Under Lisbon Treaty rules, a decision or law is passed by
a qualified majority when 55% of Member States vote in favour (in
practice this means 16 out of 28) and the Member States supporting
represent at least 65% of the total EU population.

Rules of Origin are the criteria needed to determine the national
source of a product. They matter because duties and restrictions
often depend upon the source of imports. The complex supply chains
of the global economy mean that this is not always straightforward to
determine. The bureaucracy involved is a cost for businesses.

The Schengen border-free area comprises the 26 European countries
(22 EU member states and four others) that have abolished passport
and any other type of controls at their common borders. It also has a
common visa policy.

The Schengen Information System II (SIS II) is a large-scale
database that supports external border control and law enforcement
cooperation within the Schengen States. SIS II enables competent
authorities, such as police and border guards, to enter and consult
alerts on certain categories of wanted or missing persons and
objects. An SIS II alert contains not only information about a particular
person or object but also clear instructions on what to do when the
person or object has been found.

Single Market a common trade area that extends beyond the
deepest and most comprehensive Free Trade Agreements. It works
to remove all regulatory obstacles to the free movement of capital,
people, goods and services. It stimulates competition and trade,
improves economic efficiency and helps to lower prices. The EU’s
Single Market is the largest in the world.

Stabilisation and Association Agreements are bilateral agreements
between the EU and the countries of the Western Balkans designed
to promote regional peace, stability and eventual accession to the EU.
As well as establishing a Free Trade Area with the EU, the agreements
pledge the parties to work towards common political and economic
objectives and encourage regional cooperation.

State Aid refers to any advantage or subsidy granted by public
authorities through state resources on a selective basis to any
organisations that could potentially distort competition and trade
in the EU. The definition of state aid is very broad because ‘an
advantage’ can take many forms.

A tariff is a tax or duty imposed on a particular class of imports or
exports.

A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more goods and
services than it exports. The deficit equals the value of goods and
services being imported minus the value of goods and services being
exported.

United Nations (UN) is an international organisation formed in
1945 to increase international cooperation and uphold peace and
security. It has 193 members.

The WTO is the international organisation that regulates global
trade between nations. It was established in 1995 as the successor
to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The WTO
enables participating member states to agree on trade rules, negotiate
trade agreements, and resolve disputes. A total of 162 countries are
members, including the UK.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. IS IT TO BE GDP OR RIP. THERE IS NO REASON THAT EVERY BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE SOLAR PANELS.

17 Friday Jan 2020

Posted by in Climate Change.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. IS IT TO BE GDP OR RIP. THERE IS NO REASON THAT EVERY BUILDING SHOULD NOT HAVE SOLAR PANELS.

Tags

, , , ,

 

(fifteen-minute read)

Irreversible by 2030. 

Up to 200 million people could be displaced by climate change by 2050.

50% of all carbon emissions are emitted by the richest 10% of the world’s

population.

Half of the world’s coral reefs have died in the last 30 years.

 At our current rate of consumption, we’d need 1.7 planets to support the

demand on the earth’s ecosystems.

Greenhouse gas levels are at an all-time high.

Have we lost all common sense!

So why are governments not enacted a simple law requiring solar panels on homes?

The main reason is.

None wants to foot the bill – GDP greed- 

it is being turned into a product to sell – Bio this Bio that  – Carbon Credits – etc.  

climate change

It’s a vicious circle.

What is required is a step towards a circular CO2 economy.

Take Air condition for example.

As the climate grows hotter, there’s more need to stay cool.

It is projected that there will be 1.6 billion new AC units to be in use by 2050 throughout the world.

Air conditioners consume huge amounts of energy and that’s adding to climate change. It pumps out heat straight into the atmosphere. Using powerful greenhouse gases called hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), thousands of times more potent than carbon dioxide.

Surely it would be not that difficult technically to add CO2 capture functionality to an A/C system. The necessary technology is already commercially available.

Once collected, water and CO2, can be converted into renewable hydrocarbon fuels into renewable synthetic oil.

Office buildings throughout cities could produce more than 120 million gallons. The same process could happen on buildings everywhere.

If this additional cost was added to the mortgage of a new home, the purchaser would actually be in the pocket, because the mortgage costs on the additional £2,000 will be less than the energy costs savings that the solar panels bring.

When will we come to our senses?Solar panels

The amount of sunlight received by the earth in one hour is more than the total energy used by the entire world for an entire year!

Solar panels and wind turbines coupled with energy storage offer better hope for tackling climate change.

Harmless benign solar panels producing useful heat energy and saving harmful emissions.

There is no valid reason to wait ten twenty or thirty years not to start using it.

It could replace current fossil fuels like coal and gas for generation of electricity that produces air, water, and land pollution.

It could be achieved in five years.

We all know.

That, Climate Change has led to an increase in flooding and hurricanes due to disturbed weather patterns.

That climate change is happening and perhaps faster than expected.

That, Higher carbon dioxide concentration is making oceans acidic and killing marine life, like corals.

That, Climate change causes extinct of species from Sub-Arctic Boreal forests to tropical Amazon forests.

That, Higher temperatures result melting of polar ice caps, reducing habitats for wildlife and also increase sea level.

That, Irregular rainfall or increasing droughts affect agriculture and livelihoods of the weaker sections of society globally.

That Emissions are blamed for the rise in global temperatures, and changes in weather patterns leading to a cascade of effects.

That, the momentum for change is currently too slow.

That, given that climate change is inevitable, we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future.

That, the worst effects are yet to come. Submersion and loss of land displacing people.

That, the current targets would put the world on track for 3C of warming, which will ultimately lock in irreversible sea-level rises of perhaps two metres.

That, the greatest difference would be to nature. Insects, which are vital for pollination of crops, and plants are almost twice as likely to lose half their habitat at 2C compared with 1.5C. Corals would be 99% lost at the higher of the two temperatures, but more than 10% have a chance of surviving if the lower target is reached.A firefighter battles a wildfire in California

Against the above background it’s a line in the sand and what it says to our species is that this is the moment and we must act now.

What we are witnessing is patchy international efforts to prevent it from happening.

On one hand, we have Sir David Attenborough, “So we have to realise that this is not playing games. This is not just having nice little debates and arguments and then coming away with a compromise. This is an urgent problem that has to be solved.

”https://youtu.be/r-91umZ7cQE

On the other hand, I am sure he would puke at hippocras of countries declaring Climate Emergency and then bailing out Airlines.

The truth is that this is a global problem that will require a global solution.

We can’t shy away from that.

The Glasgow 2020 event with 30,000 delegates could be key to the fight against climate change only if China, India and—most importantly the US, participation in any future multilateral agreements.

If the UK is not stable enough to act as a diplomatic facilitator ahead of the summit (The Conservative manifesto devoted just two pages to climate change, skirted the issue) perhaps it might be a good idea to move it to Australia where the 30,000 delegates can witness first hand the effects A HEATING CLIMATE CAN DO.

Of course, this is not going to happen.

So how might be achieved other than Boris “Get Net Zero Done.”

It will be one of the first major tests of the UK’s influence on the world stage after it leaves the EU.

Collins Glacier in King George Island, Antarctica.

The main sticking points of international climate diplomacy are well known.

There are tensions between so-called ‘Global North’ and ‘Global South’ countries over financial and technological flows in aid of decarbonisation, and debates over how best to support those most vulnerable to climate risks, such as island nations.

If we are unwilling to make profit pay market-based instruments need to be sensibly designed to not negate the disproportionate costs of climate change on different groups.

What appears fundamental to the success of market-based instruments to reduce emissions is how government actually spend the revenue they generate.

If revenue is reinvested in other, complementary policies—especially supporting those on low incomes—and there is a consistent political and public dialogue, market-based instruments might work like Green Government bonds.

The problem is that none of the market-based instruments can be policed and will not produce the necessary funds to tackle the problems.

Because climate change does not affect everyone equally there is only one just solution we must make a profit for profit sake foot the bill, it will produce a perpetual world fund. ( See the previous post on a world aid commission of 0.05%)

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.