Category Archives: Brexit Language.

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.

 

 

Advertisement

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 ASK’S AGAIN: WHO, WHAT, AND HOW WILL THE EU SIGN A NEW AGREEMENT WHEN THERE IS NO WRITTEN CONSTITUTION THAT CAN BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

26 Thursday Sep 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S AGAIN: WHO, WHAT, AND HOW WILL THE EU SIGN A NEW AGREEMENT WHEN THERE IS NO WRITTEN CONSTITUTION THAT CAN BE HELD TO ACCOUNT.

Tags

,

 

 

(Twenty minutes read.)

In a previous post, I asked the above question:

Just who are the European Union dealing with when negotiating England’s withdrawal from the EU?

The EU is negotiating with three separate entities all under the rule of a Monarchy with no written constitution.

1707, Scotland and England join together to form Great Britain

1801, Ireland was forcibly attached to Great Britain and the name became “The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

1922, The southern part of Ireland became a Republic, independent from the UK but a small part of Ireland (the northern part) stay under the UK.

When Northern Ireland is included, the country then gets its full internationally recognised name of ‘The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland’.

The United Kingdom is just the name given to the union of these countries and it is not a country.

Difference Between Constitutional Monarchy and Democracy

Where are we at the present moment?

The British Constitution can be summed up in eight words:

What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.

It is a clear fact that Britain has survived very well until now.

Up to date parliament was supreme and can make or break laws. No parliament can bind its successors or be bound by its predecessors.

Fortunately, without a written constution Brexit is exposing a country with an out of date system.

The UK needs a fully written constitution?

Why?

Because a written constitution would offer protection if an extremist came to power and wanted to disregard democratic procedures.

Because unlike the great majority of countries there is no single legal document which sets out in one place the fundamental laws outlining how the state works.

Because without a written constitution, the UK has no Bill of Rights to protect its citizens.

Because without a written constitution the recent ruling by the Uk supreme court is, in fact, replaced the power of Parlement.

So does the recent ruling by the English Supreme Court open the door to a written constitution as a written constitution are ruled upon by judges?

In Britain judges are unelected and therefore it is undemocratic to take power away from our elected representatives and give it to judges who tend to be quite reactionary.

There is no specific procedure for changing the law, that is, very important law can be changed by a simple majority. This simply means that the decision-making process is not muted in any way by past legislation.

It is a fact that the UK is a unitary state with Parliament sitting at Westminster is the only body competent to legislate for the UK and all laws in the UK including laws relating to the constitution may be enacted, repealed or amended by the Queen in Parliament.

Since both monarchy and democracy are important forms of government one should know the difference between the two.

Democracy is a form of government in which the power of governing is derived from the people. On the other hand, a monarchy is a form of government in which an individual called the monarch is given all the political power.

However, there are different forms of democracy, namely, representative democracy, parliamentary democracy, liberal democracy, constitutional democracy and direct democracy.

In a democracy, the citizens are promised in terms of equality and freedom indirectly through representatives elected by eligible citizens who still hold the sovereign power. In a democracy, the people remain sovereign.

Also, there are different types of monarchy such as absolute monarchy, constitutional monarchy, as well as an elective monarchy and hereditary monarchy.

In a monarchy, it is the monarch, who is the head of state. Unless the monarch dies or someone overthrows the monarch, he or she remains as the ruler as long as he or she lives. This monarch can be a King, Queen, Prince or Princess.

It is very important to know that the individuals from the heritage and bloodline get the power and position in the case of a monarchy.

The constitution of the United Kingdom is the system of rules that shapes the political governance of the country. It is not contained in a single code but principles have emerged over the centuries from statute, case law, political conventions and social consensus.

England with a constitutional monarchy is a democratic government that consists of a constitution and a monarch who functions as a non-party political head of state within the limits set by the constitution, written or unwritten.

The current monarch Queen Elizabeth II is by tradition, commander-in-chief of the British Armed Forces with her powers being limited to non-partisan functions such as appointing the prime minister and bestowing honours.

The monarch does not set public policy or choose political leaders although they may hold certain reserved powers. When it comes to decision making in a monarchy, the monarch is the law. That means what the monarch decides as justice is justice, even when it is not so. Moreover, a monarchy is different in the sense that the monarch is not restricted by law as he or she is the one who frames the law in the land.

Also, a monarchy does not restrict the freedom of the individuals but the privilege depends on the considerations of the monarch. That means there is no one to stop the monarch from favouring those he or she likes and punishing those he or she does not like.

In a hereditary monarchy, the position of monarch is inherited by one’s relatives according to the customary order of succession. Countries such as the United Kingdom and Thailand are examples of constitutional monarchies.

Monarch is the head of state in a monarchy. A President or Prime Minister is the head of state in a democracy.

Britain Her Majesty’s Government is the core of its Westminster-style parliamentary democracy and federalism.

This twin status is only avaible and achievable when there is no written constitution.

All compounded by First Past the post-election system which results in Governments being elected on a minority of votes cast. Meaning those in government who are making all the decision does not represent the opinions of the majority of the country.

Couldn’t a future Supreme Court ruling simply repeal the Fixed Term

Parliaments Act?

Without a written constitution all of this is leading to doubts about democratic legitimacy with political disengagement.

Is the Supreme court now able to rule that Britain Taken Into The EU Illegally?

Is it now necessary that a general election or referendum must take place before any related parliamentary debate on any deal in or out?

What would happen if the court repealed the Scotland Act? to stop Scotland

from leaving the Union.

What would happen if Boris Johnson signes an agreement and the Supreme Court overrules it?

You could argue that England problems is now that it doesn’t have strict rules that need a public referendum to be changed. People verses Parlement.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S WHAT WOULD A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION FOR ENGLAND LOOK LIKE?

01 Sunday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S WHAT WOULD A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION FOR ENGLAND LOOK LIKE?

Tags

, , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

Here is a country that now does not know its status in the world offering 3 million EU citizens settled status while its citizens (67 Million) are (under an unwritten constitutional monarchy) surfs to the crown.

If Brexit achieves anything worthwhile surely it must be a written constitution.

Presently the constitution of the United Kingdom is the set of rules that determine the political governance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

The government of England, as part of the United Kingdom, is a constitutional monarchy. This type of governmental structure allows the monarchy to share power with an organized government.

The three different parts of a constitutional monarchy include the Crown, Parliament, and Government. The Crown, Parliament, and the Government are all different entities in the United Kingdom and they all completely different duties.

Parliament passes and debates policy, the Government oversees the daily operations of the policy and the Crown notifies Parliament of the Government’s idea on a new policy.

In this system, the monarch is the head of state, while the Prime Minister is head of Her Majesty’s Government, which wields executive power. The executive power technically rests with the monarch, but she only exercises this power through Her Majesty’s Government.

From 1688, monarchical absolutism, aristocratic privilege and capitalist energy combined into a new form of rule: cabinet government accountable to a parliament of Commons and Lords under the crown.

It created an engine of global conquest with built-in checks that protected the kingdom from would-be dictators and, especially, democracy.

Now that the Queen has agreed to suspend Parliament her position as the monarch is now called into a constitutional quagmire.

There is a host of other challenges surrounding Brexit, but none loom larger than the raw exercise of power, no matter what norms or unspoken rules of democratic society stands in the way.

Then there is the other matter that parties and politicians are infamous for failing to keep their promises made before the elections.

What we are witnessing is right-wing populism- the delegitimization of political opponents and uncooperative institutions

The great irony in all of this is that populism isn’t actually that popular and that only by exploiting the system’s weaknesses can they get anything done at all.

What defines both Donal Trump and Boris is neither of them actually have a popular mandate to govern.

Up to now, very few citizens of the UK appear to have any great interest in constitutional affairs.

Why?

Because there is no single document which explains how England is governed.

This means it requires a considerable amount of study and probably a degree in politics or law to fully understand how Britain is governed.

Politicians can hide behind the fact that since the current British Constitution is hidden from plain sight, they can get away with all sorts of things without anyone noticing.

You always have to rely on so-called experts to explain things to you.

That said, much of the British Constitution is based not on law but on an unenforceable convention.

The British Constitution is whatever the government can get away with and the outcome of the Brexit referendum is constitutional dynamite for Britain.

A new sovereign – “the people” – has now displaced the old.

In fact and in the spirit of the referendum its result drove a stake through its heart of British Politics.

Because England’s uncodified system cannot cope with pressures imposed either by In or Out vote for Brexit the terminating the 1972 European Communities Act, “parliamentary sovereignty” will be restored only as a technicality: 

Without urgent changes, a populist dictatorship of ‘the people’ looms.

Do individuals have the right to vote, to assemble, to free speech, to property, to equal treatment; and how are these rights protected? Can the executive imprison us or invade our liberty through surveillance without due cause? If not, how must it establish such a cause?

What is clear now is that England must bury its arbitrary, hyper-centralised empire-state. For even a newfangled supreme court cannot preserve the unwritten constitution that is being shredded by Brexit.

Overall, the British Constitution is a conceptual mess, even if it somehow works to some limited extents.

Why?

Because Mr Johnson and Mr Cumming’s in the name of “the people”, are seeking to break any resistance to Brexit.

In so doing they have opened the final battle over the old order.

It may take a 20-year confrontation, but the framework of 1688 cannot determine the revolution unleashed by Brexit, not least because Northern Ireland and Scotland have already undergone a form of constitutional normalisation, which is why they felt safe enough to vote to stay in the EU.

The conflicts between Englands and its constituent parts are far from resolved.

When they are resolved at all, by conventions and by expedients and by trial-and-error there is no sensible order to any of it. And rest assured in Northern Ireland nothing is really ever regarded as “unconstitutional”. Aspiration need not be part of the main constitutional document.

A new and democratic constitution is now essential, one that rests on popular sovereignty but protects the rights of all.

Of course, it is not difficult to describe what one’s preferred constitution should be like:

A worthy compendium of the rights and duties for everyone concerned with the polity.

But a piece of paper is never enough, whatever is printed on it.type-government-england

It just shows people what their rights and freedoms are, in a way that no police officer, government official or politician can ever deny them.

The greatest thing is that should anyone try to deny the people their rights and freedoms, they can be protected by testing those rights and freedoms in court. Since such rights and freedoms are clearly written in a document that everyone can own, it will be much harder for anyone to deny the people those rights and freedoms.

That now is the most important reason why England needs a written constitution.

It would help keep Britain united.

A constitution is not there for when things going well, but to regulate the consequences of things going badly. And it should be expected that things will go badly.

A constitution will vary with society so why not create an online living document rather than a traditional written Constitution to evolve with society and current political values.

It would create clarity for the electorate and emphasises the use of accountability as every government will be made to answer the public’s questions.

The government need not be of a specific type, such as democratic, socialist, etc., but it does need to have parameters that are defined and relatively unchangeable.

A constitutional government is any government whose authority and construction are defined by a constitution.

The irony of Brexit is that by leaving the EU, the English now find themselves in even more need of grownup, European-style arrangements.

The outcome could be a federal UK if Scotland agrees.

That is for the future.

It is no longer possible to have an uncodified multinational entity inside a larger multinational one actively codifying its reach, the nature of British rule could not but be threatened.

Britians arcane hotch-pitch of freedoms and rights cannot be defended in the 21st century.

Once thought to be indestructible and now revealed to be as ephemeral as dust in the wind.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT BORIS JOHNSON RIGHT HAND MAN DOMINIC CUMMING’S.

31 Saturday Aug 2019

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit Language., Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., English parliamentary proceedings., First past the post., Heredity Monarchy., Political voting systems., Populism., Reality., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT BORIS JOHNSON RIGHT HAND MAN DOMINIC CUMMING’S.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Eighteen-minute read)

Dominic Cummings’ writings are a window into the world of the special adviser now shaping Johnson’s premiership, Brexit and the U.K.’s future.

He is described as the back-office mastermind to Johnson’s front-of-house showman during the EU referendum campaign.

Politicians don’t get to choose which votes they respect. That’s the critical issue.

Dominic Cummings

We all know that politicians are surrounded by people who are long on views but short on actionable advice. Very many people in politics have opinions, hardly any have plans.

So is Cumming’s merely the latest in a long line of geniuses to run things for the Conservatives in 10 Downing Street?

There is one thing for certain Britain is now being hurtled along by a manic fantasist and a Machiavellian aide – neither of whom was actually elected by the people – in their helter-skelter, do-or-die dash to be rid of the unelected Brussels technocrats they are shaping the Britain of the future with more than a hint of Trumpian logic.

.

As an online writer, Mr Cumming’s is a believer in the military principle of Auftragstaktik — the idea that leadership means giving subordinates a crystal-clear strategic goal. He describes himself as “not a Tory, libertarian, ‘populist’ or anything else” never missing an opportunity to apply the lessons of science to political decision-making.

Donald Trump said that Boris Johnson is the “right man for the job” for delivering Brexit.

He obviously does not know the English version of  Mr Cumming’s but who could blame him as almost no one is on his level.

The whole discussion on Brexit is so full of empty epithets and silly name-calling, lie piled onto lie… claptrap on claptrap…Almost nothing can be taken at face value. Almost everything is a damned lie.

Mr Jonhson and his right-hand man Cumming’s are now set on undermining authentic community self-help organizations with money for fake government services, and eventually, they will undermine private industry with regulations, minimum wages, taxes, with rules and tariffs that small, low-cost, marginal businesses can’t afford.

The European Union might well have its core value in Peace but it also created a market who’s purpose was not just trading but to protect the public by preventing politicians from bankrupting the nation.

If England falls out of the European Union without a deal never before in the history of the UK will its economy see little growth at such a high cost?

Dominic Cummings was found to be in contempt of Parliament earlier this year for refusing to give evidence to MPs investigating ‘fake news’.

While working for then Education Secretary, Michael Gove a few weeks prior to leaving his post as Special Advisor, he published a 251-page manifesto explaining why Gove had got almost every policy wrong.

As recently as last month, he wrote a 10,000-word blog post calling for a Whitehall ‘revolution’. He has also criticised the “Kafka-esque” influence of senior Civil Servants on elected politicians, as it limits the potential for immediate reform.

To successfully leave on the 31st October, Boris Johnson will have to override the house of commons, and with Cummings as his advisor, it’s plausible he may just do it.

Cummings and his leader Mr Johnson are now seeking to close the bunker Parliament and limit its range of discussion.

Mr Dominic Cummings is a restless risk-taker.David Levenson/Getty Images

Even if England gets rid of Boris, et al, what of the future over and above the impact of Brexit?

Will we see more of this “First Past the Post” democratic deficit leading to a bunch of narcissistic liars, or total incompetents, running the country on behalf of a minority of voters?

The Church of England is inseparable from the development of the English nation, monarchy, language, people, culture and more: they have co-evolved for five centuries. Until recently, to be Church of England was simply to be born English.

Where is its voice?

To put it another way, the legacy of King Henry VIII and his determination to assert English independence in both politics and religion (which were hardly separable in his time) seems perversely durable and stubborn to this day.

With Brexit fast approaching, reliable information is now crucial before a coup d’état by an unelected Prime Minister.

Oscar Wilde’s famous comment:-

“There are two kinds of tragedy. One is not getting what you want. The other is getting it”.

If Mr Johnston refused to step down in a no-confidence vote scenario England is not looking at a deal or no deal but it is looking at   “the gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.

Surely its time for a written constitution.

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

 

THE BEAD EYE SAY’S: A “NO DEAL ”BREXIT WILL NOT DO WHAT IT IS SAY’S ON THE TIN.

16 Friday Aug 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEAD EYE SAY’S: A “NO DEAL ”BREXIT WILL NOT DO WHAT IT IS SAY’S ON THE TIN.

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

English is a funny language, we all know that but the language of Brexit which is now clear.

A head shake means “Yes” while nodding means “No.”

At £500 to £800 million a week is the biggest farce in British History.

Millions in taxpayer money have been spent on electioneering and billions on hiring civil servants and contingency planning.Boris Johnson

What’s in a name?

Whatever form Brexit takes we now have Johnson’s rhetoric trying to blame Ireland for the mess. (re the backstop)

Let’s get a few things crystal clear.

Ireland nor the EU called a referendum in England.

It is total bullshit to endeavour to shift the blame for a self-inflected SITUATION which has now turned into a catch 22 situation.

The whole situation might have past historical overtones but it about from the evolution of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) under Nigel Farage after a landslide victory for them in the European elections in 2014 by topping the poll ahead of Labour and the Conservatives.

One may argue that the main person or figure to blame for the current Brexit crisis that Britain is currently under would be both David Cameron and Theresa May.

However, it is clear that the first past the post (FPTP) system work against smaller parties such as the Liberal Democrats and UKIP and this benefitted the Conservatives.

With this beneficial election system, David Cameron decided to call a referendum on membership of the EU. This was proven to be the biggest and most catastrophic mistake in British history.

Another key place that blame can be apportioned is Margaret Thatcher.

After British accession to the EU, many people in the Conservative party, including Nigel Farage and Ann Widdecombe were against EU membership.

Even after the resignation of Margaret Thatcher from the Conservatives, she said that she would have never signed such a crucial treaty as the Maastricht Treaty. Margaret Thatcher, widely known as a cruel figure in Ireland, also had her prolonged reservations about EU membership and integration. After her resignation, despite the pro-European stance by John Major as prime minister, Britain was still deeply divided on the issue of EU membership.

Most of all, the key place that blame can be apportioned to is the Conservative party as a whole. It was and is to blame for the evolution of Nigel Farage Brexit party.

The evolution of Nigel Farage and the Brexit party is particularly worrying for the future of Britain and its future relationship with the EU and other countries associated with the EU as it threatens any long-lasting relationship, deal or no deal.

It is now becoming abundantly clear that the Conservative party has and still is destroying Britain forever with their divisions destroying England as a Union.

The Labour Party also has to shoulder a heavy share of responsibility for Brexit, on account of its half-hearted support for the “Remain” campaign, and more generally because it has been unable to form a strong and credible opposition to the Conservatives since losing power in 2010.

Without a shadow of a doubt, it is time for any British government to put any Brexit deal to preferenda which would have options such as remain, no deal, WTO Brexit, customs’ union Brexit, etc.

This in its self will not solve the division within Britain.

Whichever way anyone voted, the paralysis of indecision of this period has been corrosive and damaging to the union. Britain seems to pretend the EU doesn’t exist. Go anywhere in Europe, and the EU flag flies beside the national flag; go almost anywhere in Britain, and there is not an EU flag to be seen.

The EU Commission must also take a good part of the blame for so many people in Britain choosing Brexit.

The EU has moved forward at breakneck speed since the EEC was first created, and it has done so with scant or no regard for public opinion in member states.

Last but not least large parts of the UK media, notably the popular press, has for decades played a major role in promoting any story that damages the image or reputation of the EU, while failing to report the stories that show the advantages and benefits of the EU.

However, in business, as in life, timing is everything. For the Europeans, the exit will happen at midnight, Brussels time. For the British, it will happen at a less dramatic 11pm, London time.

By then it will be too late to realize that we all live in a world where tools and information that were previously only available to governments are now at everyone’s fingertip and there is no longer a need to abdicate responsibility for deciding what’s best for us.

Indeed it could be said that the EU or Britain are no longer relevant in the modern world because of the myriad of problems facing the world with the insanity of its politicians combined and with a steady diet of media mental poison is driving us all to the point of extinction.

In legitimizing the message of reclaiming Britain’s sovereignty it, unfortunately, lacks patriotism. Like everywhere it is an ongoing struggle between nationalism and internationalism.

Its time to get real and realize that the EU is not a free-trade area; it is a customs union.

As such its no wonder it has to have and will always have borders whether Ireland, England or Northern Ireland or any others like it or not.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicking or abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS ENGLAND ABOUT TO LOOSE THE PLOT.

02 Friday Aug 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS ENGLAND ABOUT TO LOOSE THE PLOT.

Tags

,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

In 1975 the UK held a referendum on continued membership of the European Community. This wasn’t presented just as a trade agreement.

Other issues discussed at the time related to security, European funding for UK industries and regions, and aid to developing countries.

That’s not to say that anyone in 1975 knew what the EU would be like in 2019, or how much it would change in the following years.

The EU has grown from 9 European Community member countries in 1975 to 28 today.

Of the five main institutions which run the EU today, four were in place by 1975: the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the Court of Justice. Other bodies have been added since, including the European Council which defines the political direction and agenda of the EU.

Since 1975, the UK has signed up to five more “main treaties” which have extended the powers of what became the European Community and then the EU.

Every EU country, including the UK, agreed to these.

The EU now has “competences” or powers in a wider range of policies including consumer protection, energy and climate change, security and crime. In some areas, the EU’s powers are exclusive, while in others they are shared with, or support, member states’ decisions.

However, in 1975 the aims of the European Community largely concerned trade.

The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999.

If the UK leaves without a deal, all changes.

A no-deal well might be a bluff in the British government’s negotiations with the EU but it will unleash forces throughout Ireland and indeed the UK that England will be struggling with for years to come.

People like Boris have no understanding that a no-deal will be a recruiting sergeant for the disaffected to join the ranks of those committed to violent resistance no more so than in Northern Ireland.

You might ask why people like Boris have no or little concept of the Ugly side of Brexit.

The reason for this in regard to Ireland is plain to see. It is that Britain still thinks that Ireland should know its place.

The Political class of the UK still thinks that Ireland is a British colony and this strain of thought can still be seen to this day with Brexit.

Ireland is servile to Britain.

This is why England shows such disregard for the consequences of British political action on the economic and political stability of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The real test is yet to come.

How the EU respond to the challenges which Brexit is creating for Ireland will determine whether the EU is indeed true to what it was set up for in the first place.

Any tampering, bulling or cherry-picking with the agreed backstop to appease an outgoing Britain Primister that has taken power with 0.02% of the electric can only be viewed as suicidal.

Indeed any agreement made with such a democratic leader cannot hold any water.

Come what may if a no-deal is the preference why not let it be so the.

The cost of a deal will, in the long run, outweigh a chaotic departure.

There is no such thing as a clean exit other than WTO agreements.

Under WTO countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners.

Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members. Most favoured nation terms mean that any concession the EU offers to one of its trading partners should also be applied to other partners. So if a tariff is cut for one partner, it should also be cut for all others, including the UK.

Countries which have a relationship based on WTO terms alone have much less favourable access to the EU Single Market. The EU imposes a common external tariff on countries outside. ( Remain)

The UK and the EU would still have a deal. An automatic deal under the all-embracing World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

How?

Because the UK and EU are both WTO members in their own right and the WTO specifies WTO members must offer each other ‘Most Favoured Nation’ (MFN) deals.” (Leave)

Leave without a deal and the future rules on trade would depend on what kind of agreement if any, the UK reaches with the EU after its departure.

This means we simply do not know what barriers to trade in goods might be put in place or that matter the future trade rules on services.

This is because even at present for many service sector industries, the single market is far from complete and obstacles remain to true integration of the market.

Although there have been major adjustments to the original Treaty framework, the Single Market principles, as first conceived in 1958, have remained largely intact.

THEN WE COME TO THE BLAME GAME AS ALWAYS IT WILL TAKE TWO TO TANGO.

“Everybody lies.” It’s pretty easy just to lie and blame someone else even though you know you’re at fault. When you don’t succeed you find someone or something to blame for your failure. At the end of the day, someone has to pay.

The taxpayer.

The Political Class against the great unwashed – the voter.

Boris has found the backstop but the answer might be closer to home than most people care to admit. After all, as has been proved time and time again, the electorate always ends up with the politicians it deserves.

The more often you play the blame game, the more you lose

However much it hurts, voters must take their share of the blame.

That voters are angry and feel ‘betrayed’ rests entirely on their own heads.

The UK’s political duopoly no longer answers to the electorate, but now works exclusively on behalf of its global-corporate donors and has done for some time.

With a no-deal Britain will become  ‘politically homeless,’ a psychological cul-de-sac constructed by individuals unwilling to engage all but superficially with the political process.

The tone surrounding Brexit has become increasingly bitter and accusatory in the last week.

Social media is overflowing with anger – at least from those who voted to leave the European Union. Who to blame – bureaucrats, civil servants, politicians, business leaders? Frustration is boiling over while the pound is heading for free fall and free speech dangles by a thread.

In order to succeed liars and charlatans like Boris first have to be believed. It’s a two-way thing. While swallowing the bait is easy, taking a step back to assess the evidence is always a much harder task, one that requires a certain degree of diligence as well as independence.

It’s not as if Brexit is the first time the Tories have said one thing and done another either.

The modern Tory party is abandoning its political heritage, it now openly derides and scorns the very principles upon which it has been established for 200 years.

The political blame game has started over the responsibility for a chaotic no-deal exit.

You could say that the EU is “not interested in the blame game.

Any further extension will only be given by Europe to give it time to prepare for a no-deal. In doing so it will ensure that Britain takes ownership of the no-deal and the responsibility for setting it right.

For the EU countries with the deepest trade ties with Britain — Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Belgium — there are no illusions about how messy and costly a no-deal Brexit will be.

But hard Brexit will amount to an overnight legal revolution, and officials admit it is impossible to be fully prepared to manage the disorder after Brexit.Anti-Brexit placards are seen during the demonstration outside Parliament

There is one thing for sure with a no-deal it will not be so easy to keep a grip on political events.

We should not underestimate the disorder and destabilisation there may be on both sides.

In today’s world, many of the threats to Britain’s security are global in nature.

Luckily there is one last hope.

Boris and his lot in a week have done more damage than Irish republicans, scots nationists. Three years ago he complained that the government spent £9 m on leaflets now is blowing £138m on billboards that should read ” Taxpayers Money”

So wake up Britain what is being done is in your name there is no allocating blame.

A General Election is definite after which the anger has to go somewhere.

Brexit will fail and stay will not be an option.

WTO must be answers and solutions to this General election Brexit vote.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: A NO DEAL IS LIKE JUMPING OFF A CLIFF. YOU CAN JUMP OFF ONLY ONCE.

15 Monday Jul 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: A NO DEAL IS LIKE JUMPING OFF A CLIFF. YOU CAN JUMP OFF ONLY ONCE.

Tags

,

Social media, smartphones and the resulting digital cacophony have pretty much seen off the possibility of “silent” anything.

It Britain leaves the EU without a deal we will hear the screams for years.

The UK decided in June 2016 to follow the path to departure from the European Union; that the voters were lied to and electoral law was broken in the preceding campaign; and that, after nearly three years, the path has led Britain to the edge of a cliff.

With their parliamentary system now becoming so fixated by what they see as her historic duty to deliver Brexit no matter what the cost no one on either side is capable of seeing that they are not serving democracy but upholding the falsehoods of a Referendum which in its self was not legally binding.

Noise is not the same as democracy and there is no distinct parliamentary solution to this conundrum.

To shrug off the chains of tribalism is impossible because of first-past-the-post elections – which do not truly represent the voting citizens.

That a government has to face elections every five years and could be turned out is important but is it enough.

The last two elections make plain that British politics is no longer dominated by just two parties. More proportionate distribution of parliamentary seats would inevitably mean coalition government.

The electoral system is often seen as unfair, making votes effectively unequal • The monarchy and House of Lords are unelected • Government is not bound by a superior, entrenched constitution • Citizens don’t take a full part in the democratic process (voter apathy) • Referenda is used infrequently in the UK • Representative process is flawed in key respects (‘Elected dictatorship’) • House of Commons doesn’t reflect social composition of the UK • Party system offers voters a limited choice (two-party system)

Imagine a country where fundamental rights and liberties were enshrined in law and could not be ignored by a government.

Oh, wait, sorry that’s not Britain, that’s how the European Union works.

This idea that the EU is undemocratic and/or unelected has to stop.

Laws are approved, amended or rejected by the directly elected MEP’s using proportional representation in the EU Parliament and elected government Ministers in the EU Council from the 28 member states.

The Commission President is now elected in the similar method of the UK Prime Minister, he or she campaigns during the European election and is the leader of the largest party after the Parliamentary election. The other 27 Commissioners are appointed by the 27 elected governments and the entire Commission is approved or rejected by the directly elected Parliament.

EU treaties are ratified only with the consent of every 28 national parliaments and government approval.

European protesters, for example, have exercised their democratic right to put pressure on elected officials, as is the case with TTIP and the French government is threatening to veto the agreement in the EU Council. That is a representative of just 12% of the EU population able to defy the will of the other representatives of 82%. That would be like the London Assembly led by the Mayor of London, representing roughly 12% of the UK population having a veto on UK trade deals. Unimaginable (and impossible) in a British context.

Evidence suggesting proportionally citizens can influence the decision of the EU better than in the UK.

We need to educate all European (especially British) people on how their vote in the European election can kick out the EPP led Parliament and Commission. That they by voting in left or centre governments in their national elections can kick out the EPP led EU Council.

It’s time our education system, national politicians and media gave the knowledge to the citizens on how to use them.

The EU is unelected/democratic is a myth, it’s the UK that has the problems.

There is no direction to history, no implacable force of providence driving England towards an act of irrevocable, collective self-harm.

However with no entrenched Bill or Rights Referendum and General Elections simply do not offer the choice that the nation needs.

Elections are about consent but also about enabling citizens the opportunity to express their political convictions.

A great deal of uncontrolled (prerogative) power lies in the hands of the prime minister, who is not directly elected • There are few controls on the Prime Minister’s extensive powers of patronage • Pressure groups can also reflect the interests of privileged groups rather than the public at large.

Indeed the present Conservite elections of a new leader without a mandate from the people to be Prime Minister shins a light on just how out of date English Politics is.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. JUST HOW BAD WILL BE SEVERING TIES WITH THE EU BE FOR ENGLAND AND THE EU?

01 Monday Jul 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. JUST HOW BAD WILL BE SEVERING TIES WITH THE EU BE FOR ENGLAND AND THE EU?

Tags

, ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

We all know or at least most of us accept that we will be the first chapter in a world that is going to need universal cooperation to battle climate change.

We all know that the world economy is dominated by Global capitalism that is running out of cheap resources and energy becoming more and more protective of its market share.

So just how bad will severing ties with the EU be?

Look at the small print.

We all have come across people who have next to no understanding of world events – but- talk with the utmost confidence and convection. So in this post lets look at the shallowness of their existing knowledge when it comes to Brexit.The EU has warned a no-deal departure from the bloc [File: Isabel Infantes/AFP]

At the moment, there’s still a ton of confusion.

We now have political arguments all basis on false premises with minimal understanding of the issues at hand.

What is completely overlooked is that the United Kingdom’s narrow vote to exit the European Union was as a result of a referendum that was not actually legally binding.

The government could have simply decided to ignore the result.

Instead, it activating Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty making the process irreversible unless it is revoked.

So what are the true facts around a no- deal?

A no- deal Brexit means there will be no 21-month transition period. It doesn’t stop the UK leaving but it means there is absolutely no clarity about what happens.

A no– deal means while Britain would no longer be bound by EU rules, it will have to face the EU’s external tariffs with WTO.

A no- deal means the UK would be free to set its own controls on immigration by EU nationals and the bloc could do the same for Britons.

A no- deal means Britain would no longer have to adhere to the rulings of the European Court of Justice but it would be bound to the European Court of Human Rights, a non-EU body.

A no- deal means England would not have to pay the annual £13 billion contributions to the EU budget. However, Britain would lose out on some EU subsidies – the Common Agricultural Policy gives £3 billion to farmers.

A no- deal means the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would remain unresolved. Northern Ireland is even at risk of blackouts because no deal would undermine the legal basis of the all-island electricity market it shares with the Irish Republic.

A no- deal means Britain could implement trade deals whenever the fine print is ready. But deals take years, not months or weeks, to broker. Therefore the UK is not going to gaining anything by having no transition period in this instance.

A no- deal means an emergency cut in interest rates to combat inflation.

A no- deal means Britain’s supermarkets, will simply pass on the cost to the farmers who in the short term to stay in business, won’t be able to do so without subsidies.

A no- deal means EU research and development funding could dry up.

A no-deal will chill investment in the UK, hitting jobs, and that manufacturers will abandon Britain for the continent.

A no- deal will throw the fishing industry into disarray. It is no exaggeration to say that the UK has done relatively poorly out of is membership of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

A no- deal means no matter from what angle England approached trade the lack of resources to renegotiate the dozens of deals already signed between the EU and third countries. It is a total fallacy to think England can copycat present EU trade deals. 50 at a time.

A no- deal means that that the EU may not be willing to renegotiate its rules of origin agreements with other countries for British benefit, especially because its own exporters might be able to take market share from British ones in countries outside Europe.

A no- deal means that all WTO trade deals include a “most favoured nation” (MFN) clause, which mean that if one partner signs a better trade deal with another country, all previous trade partners are entitled to the same upgrade.

A no- deal the UK cannot conclude binding agreements until it has left the EU, since it is still bound by the EU’s exclusive right to strike trade deals.

A no- deal means Britain would lose deeper access to services, as it would no longer participate in the 14 services agreements struck by the EU. (England currently has free trade agreements with EU’s 70 international trade deals, countries because of its EU membership.) You couldn’t get a bigger a contrast between the opportunities of EU membership and the emptiness of Brexit: the EU has reached a historic trade agreement with key emerging markets in Latin America while Tory leadership contenders brag about their plans for a no-deal Brexit.

Last Friday, the EU finally achieved a trade deal that has been 20 years in the making.

A no- deal means that the price of a trade deal with the USA will be so hight as to be unworkable.

A no- deal means there won’t be any money for farmers or anyone else if England crashes out because all the Treasury’s reserves will be needed to plug the hole left by Brexit in tax revenues.

A no- deal means wrecking the biggest trade deal England have already.

Most of the UK’s trade is with the EU or countries the EU has trade agreements with—about 57% of our exports and 66% of our imports. Countries aren’t exactly queueing up to do deals.

A no- deal means England can not set different rules for foreign and domestic products under WTO. The big exception is if countries have negotiated their own customs union or free trade area

A no- deal might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom with civil strife.

A no-deal could cut UK access to EU criminal databases.

A no- deal will empower the far right, with long-term implications for Britain’s democracy. Exacerbating populist pressures.

A no- deal means a Reality check for the EU.

A no- deal will inflict significant economic pain across Europe, no more so than on the Irish Economy.

A no- deal means the EU could be looking at a tax haven.

A no- deal means the EU budget will be reduced.

A no- deal means large EU subsidies to the Irish economy.

So where are we?

A free trade agreement will still have many negative consequences for both sides.

First, the devolved politics of Brexit are immensely complex and may turn out to be crucially important to what actually happens.

However ever as a matter of law, neither Scotland nor any of the UK’s other constituent nations can stop Brexit from happening. Because the UK Parliament is sovereign and can do as it wishes, the absence of consent from the Scottish Parliament would not legally disable Westminster from enacting Brexit legislation.

This is so because the “requirement” for consent is not a legal requirement at all: it is, ultimately, no more than a political expectation that the UK Parliament will respect the constitutional position of the Scottish Parliament by not riding roughshod over it in certain circumstances.

For present purposes, the Scottish Parliament’s powers are limited by EU law. And the argument is that if Brexit legislation enacted by the UK removes those limits — freeing the Scottish Parliament to make Scottish laws that breach EU law — then that alters the Scottish Parliament’s powers, so triggering the requirement to get its consent under the Sewel Convention.

There is no legal constitutional route for the devolved administrations to stall Brexit.

The only route is political rather than legal.

If Northern Ireland opted for reunification it would have the ability to rejoin the EU as part of the Republic of Ireland. Scotland would have to join the queue.

Where that leaves us?

It is all too easy to lose track of the amount of cash already poured into the British economy. So, goes the obvious question, where has all the money gone?

In some senses, the answer is relatively simple. Much of that cash has gone

into repairing a broken financial system.

So here, for any of you who might have forgotten, is a quick reminder: some £76bn from the Treasury to buy shares in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group ; £200bn worth of lender-of-last-resort liquidity support provided by the Bank of England to stricken banks at the height of the crisis; £250bn of wholesale lending guaranteed by the Bank through the credit guarantee scheme; £185bn of loans to banks through the Special Liquidity Scheme; £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Then, deep breath, there is the £200bn of liabilities taken on board from the Asset Protection Scheme, and the £200bn of cash poured into the economy through quantitative easing.

It is a stark reminder of why hopes of a quick recovery from the recession or a no deal are forlorn, and why both financial crises will cast a shadow over growth for years.

Add the cost of a no deal to the above and the list of consequences is not just long but beyond the pale.

If England wants the full reassertion of sovereignty, then that is going to mean setting new standards for things, and that is going to be economically damaging.

We are now witnessing a Conservative Party undemocratically electing a new leader who will defacto become Prime Minister with both remaining candidates insistent on Brexiting overturn decades of law giving Northern Ireland and Scotland (both of which voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU) local control over their affair.

The leadership contest is only complicated Britain’s withdrawal from the EU by adding more uncertainty to the state of affairs.

Unless they call an election, the Conservatives are safely in power until 2020, and calling an election to get Brexit overturned would not just risk a Labour victory, it would probably only work if Labour won.

Scotland is already planning to hold another independence referendum, and seeing devolution curtailed would make its success much more likely. Northern Irish republicans would be emboldened to call for unification with the Republic of Ireland, which could occur, or they could just reignite the Troubles after decades of peace.

The cost of not listening to them would be to split the UK.

More than 2 million have signed a petition calling for a second referendum which at this stage will achieve nothing other than more division.

The Conservatives do not want another election, especially since they have yet to actually split. If they don’t split, their leader will probably be Johnson, who supports Brexit and whose election would not exactly be a mandate to overturn the referendum result.

If bye the end of October a no deal has been reached, the UK automatically exits the European Union without any special deal letting it retain trade preferences or other benefits.

The Brexit vote is proof that when emotions battle reason in a voting booth, emotions can win. Brexit had a very powerful emotion on its side — fear of outsider and loss of identity.

However, the anti-immigrant sentiment is itself somewhat irrational in a world where cultural integration is more common than ever before in human history. In prehistoric times, this is what kept us safe. In the modern age, it’s what nudges us toward bigotry. In recent years, politicians have gotten more effective at painting immigrants as dangerous outsiders. Look no further than Donald Trump. Or his UK counterpart, Nigel Farage, the politician who has stoked fears by asserting thing like Muslims “don’t want to become part of our culture.”

You can fight anecdotes with anecdotes we’re not doomed to succumb to them.

Trumpism or the Brexit is not “the ultimate manifestation of something that evolution has programmed England to do.

Britain can have an economically decent outcome from a Brexit vote or a democratically decent one, but it can’t get both.

The EU, on the other hand, could do something drastic like expel England for breach of the Lisbon treaty. This would be a nightmare divorce, where one partner decides to walk away with no idea of what they will move on to.

In short:

If the UK wants an exit from the EU to cause as little economic damage as possible, it has two choices.

Either to revocate Articular 50 and effect the reforms needed within the EU or be like Norway.

To do this England must first encourage receptiveness of simple facts that nationalism and isolation do not exist in the modern world which is now threatened by climate change that requires immediate collective worldwide action, which is a given if we want to see a living planet, not an immigration planet.

Politicians must make the case for more liberal policy not just on economic grounds but on future aspirations of a peaceful Europe.

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

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: EVEN IF ENGLAND IS NOW FORCED INTO A GENERAL ELECTION WITH FIRST PAST THE POST IT WILL BE UNDEMOCRATIC.

23 Sunday Jun 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: EVEN IF ENGLAND IS NOW FORCED INTO A GENERAL ELECTION WITH FIRST PAST THE POST IT WILL BE UNDEMOCRATIC.

Tags

, , , ,

 

 

(Five-minute read)

 

Here we go again.

The right person to lead the country is being selected without any democratic scrutiny by the people of England.

It is no wonder that Brexit is tearing the country apart when so many are denied a voice.

Millions of voters go without a say in crucial national decisions – excluded not only from government but from holding the government to account.

In 3 of the last 4 general elections IN ENGLAND at least 50% of votes went to losing candidates.

First past the post.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of first past the post system uk"

A seat won by a 40,000 vote majority has the same outcome as a seat won by a single vote: both elect just a single MP.

Parliament in allowing an internal election of a new Conservative leader to become the Priminister is not only failing to reflect the people it is supposed to represent it is a form of Populous Dictatorship.

A minority ruling over the majority goes against our most basic ideas about democracy.

The latest developments to vindicate a New Primister for the country (who will, in fact, represent the choice of hundred thousand or so Conservervate members out of which 60% are over 50 years of age)  isn’t just bad for democracy; it’s bad for politics and society.

First Past the Post is completely undemocratic severing the link between votes and seats.

Bipolar politics is designed to promote argument, not thought.

So it’s not surprising that we are now witnessing the election of a New Priminister with an out of date spluttering system that is unable to represent its citizens or to negotiate England’s withdrawal from the European Union without a mandate that represents the country as a whole.

Its no wonder England has politicians who most of you didn’t vote for and don’t agree with have the power to govern the UK however they like.

Its no wonder we see the construction/ imposition of one ideology for a period, followed by another, quite different ideology.

Its no wonder we see both main parties cling to their roots with extraordinary tenacity, even when confronted with the obvious fact: the conditions in society giving rise to these ideologies have long gone.

But First Past the Post keeps them in business and allows them to continue to indulge their emotion-based policies – with taxation paying for this indulgence.

Unchallenged by a more competitive electoral system, the ‘left’ and the ‘right’ parties remain trapped in their histories and beliefs, seeking differentiation through adopting the opposite of the other.

First Past The Post has many hidden direct and indirect costs. These are unrecorded, unstated and considerable, in taxes, wasted economic capacity, and wealth appropriation. The costs of all of these zigzags are borne by taxation.

First past the post is a non- linear system a dazzlingly stupid way to organize a modern democracy. It provides the bare minimum of democracy, is unrepresentative for the majority, and distorts the allocation of power.

Finally, First Past The Post is the best electoral medium for preferential lobbying.

This scourge of democracy is near universal.

Its elimination can only be achieved through a complete redesign of systems of government.

 

 

It may be simple to write an “X” next to a chosen candidate, but it’s incredibly difficult to know what that vote will mean. Millions of voters are forced to try to vote tactically by anticipating the decisions of other voters.

PR makes sure the share of seats each party gets matches the share of votes they receive. If a party gets 20% of the vote, it wins 20% of the seats. Parliament would accurately represent the people’s range of views and perspectives.

The opposition to PR Says:

We need the strong government that only first past the post can give’ and, by inference, not the namby-pamby government from coalitions and other inadequacies.

Sounds good, does it not?

Flutters the spine?

Makes one stand up straight.

I would say that the voting population of England is intelligent, much more has to change in all of these systems, including the EU.

Systems of government with PR suffer from many of the same failures and poor performance as the UK’s First Past The Post but,

does not allow the lending of votes to one candidate in order to knock out another to become Primisister  

The unseen consequences are about to be seen.

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