Category Archives: Brexit Language.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY ARE WE NOT HEARING THE VOICE OF PROTEST FROM YOUNG BRITS.

10 Monday Jun 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHY ARE WE NOT HEARING THE VOICE OF PROTEST FROM YOUNG BRITS.

Tags

,

 

 

(Ten-minute read)

With around seventy per cent of you voting to remain you don’t have to be told that it is your generation that will have to bear the consequences. Organisers say up to 670,000 people attended today's march

So why have you lost your tongues.

It seems from listing to the current political discourse that politicians do not care about what young people think, but they need to hear it?

If not you’re going to be talking about and thinking about Europe for the rest of your lives.

Now is the time to start yelling out loud not afterwards.

Given that the European Union is a relatively young entity it needs the talent, energy, and the ingenuity of your generation.

Your country might well be doing more trade with the rest of the world after Brexit but you are cutting off access to our closest trading partners in Europe no matter the rewards is folly in the extream.

In this world of yours, you should be an engaged country, not a closed country, not an inward-looking country. You should be working with Europe, not working with America, to solve the big problems in the world. You should be wanting the opportunities that your parents and grandparents have had from the EU and not be limited by Brexit.

Brexit is going to significantly limit [those] opportunities.

You don’t need to convince other young people that Brexit is bad, [but] what you do need to convince young people of is that the hierarchical system of the Uk most change.

You know far more about the EU than they do.

On social media, there is space for your voices to protest but not to be heard.

This is not where your voices will be heard because they cause no disruption that any politician has to heed.

To restore UK democracy, to be free of the EU’s unaccountable bureaucrats, and take back control of your borders, your laws, your trade policy, and your money and then hand all of them back to a Prime minister that is elected by 2.7% of the voting electorial is beyond conception.

Yes, 52% vote in favour of leaving the European Union influenced by a litmus test of
the merits of the EU project, and perhaps because of globalisation more generally, rather than as a lightning rod for wider political discontent.

The outcome of the referendum does not necessarily represent a rejection of the EU at all.

Look at the recent London Olympics. It was not the EU competing but individual countries. The French were the French the Dutch the Dutch. The European Union is not a supranational project nor will it ever be.

Its people may feel that their distinctive national identity and the culture that they associate with that identity are being undermined by the EU but honestly ask yourselves can 28 Europe’s nations be forced into a ‘Federal Superstate.

The EU is, for the most part, a relatively remote institution. Few voters have a deep appreciation of what it does, of how it operates, or of the personnel that occupy its principal political positions.

So when they are asked what they think about the EU, voters might be inclined
to think about how they are being governed in general, rather than about the EU in particular.

If you really look at the result of the IN or Out referendum the vote represented a more general dissatisfaction with the way in which voters feel that they are being governed. This is the main reason for the increase in turnout.

Education is, of course, linked to social class and to the results of the referendum vindicated by the pattern of voting in the EU referendum reflected then, above all,
an educational divide. Common to all European states.

Attitudes towards aspects of the immigration were also related to how people voted in the referendum but concerns about immigration can also be thought to be an indicator
of a wider set of attitudes about the kind of society in which people wish to live.

Britishness rather than Englishness has long been promoted as a ‘multi-cultural’ identity, and thus there has also long been a link between feeling British and holding a more liberal attitude towards migrant minorities.

While the older generation gets agitated about the loss of ‘sovereignty’ to a faceless EU bureaucracy, this barely flickers as an issue for young people in YouGov focus groups.

Why? Because the 21st Century is bearing witness to the 4th industrial (technological) revolution.

Taking back control over sovereignty and laws, it a myth.

Young people are no strangers to perceived intergenerational unfairness. They now take it for granted that they will never be able to afford the kind of houses their parents lived in.

The young however have grown up able to look beyond the shores of England. They like being a part of something bigger. They can link up with others in Europe to campaign to improve the environment and human rights. There is a sense that, should things turn sour at home, the EU is there for them as a safety blanket.

In a society in which relatively few have ever felt a strong sense of European
identity, the debate about EU membership seems to have brought false concerns to the fore such that in the event a narrow majority voted to leave while democratic is also non-democratic.

Now you are witnessing politicians pushing their own agendas, bending statistics and contradicting each other – it is your future on which Britain will be voting.

You must demand a General election.

Brexit?  Not in my name.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : NOT LONG NOW BEFORE THE UK BECOMES THE 51 STATE OF THE USA.

05 Wednesday Jun 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : NOT LONG NOW BEFORE THE UK BECOMES THE 51 STATE OF THE USA.

Tags

 

 

(Ten-minute read)

Politically this might be inconceivable but unlike any other developed nation, the UK has sold off considerable amounts of its major industries and assets to overseas owners.

Most of its power generating companies, its airports and ports, its water companies, many of its rail franchises and its chemical, engineering and electronic companies, its merchant banks, its iconic chocolate company – Cadbury, its heavily subsidised wind farms, a vast amount of expensive housing  and many, many other assets all disappeared into foreign ownership.

No other country in the world allowed this sort of thing to happen.Susan Yung illustration for Foreign Policy

Thanks to Margaret Thatcher, Mr Dump now has his eye on what is left.

Why could this happen?

Because its share of world trade is now barely 2.5%.

Because a country with deep negative net worth is likely to have to tax more heavily in future and run budget surpluses to bring assets back into line with liabilities.

Because once it is out the European Union and in the world of WTO there will be serious problems raising the capital required for investment and pressing needs for large scale investment in their home markets.

Because there were vast sums of money to be made arranging the take-over deals.

Because foreign nations are holding increasing numbers of British pounds and if Britain doesn’t allow those pounds to be spent purchasing British assets, it risks foreigners dumping pound holdings and subsequently risks a devaluation of its currency.

Because any trade deal with the USA will be in fact be a deal of Asset stripping.

Because local governments in the UK have sold off 12,000 public buildings over the past few years.

Because public assets accumulated over many decades, intended to serve the public good, and now generating profit for their new private owners.

Because in a period of austerity, non-profit making services are “just seen as a drain

Because Financial services companies have moved almost £800bn in staff, operations and customer funds to Europe since the Brexit referendum.

Because a major US trade deal would be the single largest way of offsetting some of the lost commerce with the EU after Brexit.

A country should theoretically be able to leave the European Union without wrenching economic dislocation and without doing long-lasting damage to relations with its closest neighbours. And that might still happen.

But it’s increasingly possible that they won’t—largely because Britain continues to demand a privileged relationship with the EU that Brussels will not, and probably cannot, agree to.

A no-deal divorce could also cost the United Kingdom its unity in addition to its economic health. Following a no-deal Brexit, frictionless trade in goods would end overnight.

Mr Dump did not just come for dinner.

The United Kingdom is — in theory at least — set to leave the European Union in October.

For the United States, this rupture presents an unprecedented opportunity to strike a trade deal with its transatlantic partner.

The U.K. is becoming a global minnow detaching its self from the E.U. bloc, risking getting picked off by an American superpower that is uninterested in bilateral wins, only intent on competitive nationalism and putting “America first.”

There is one thing for certain a phenomenal trade deal it will be.

Take Back Control’?

Brexit Is Tearing Britain Apart.

Trade deals are often years in the making but they only take a referendum or

a tipping point in the next twelve year by climate change to

tare apart.

Any deal no matter what the assurances are always time-limited, and when trading conditions worsen and hard choices have to be made, international companies nearly always give preference to their home markets.

Special Relationship.

America first” doctrine seen in other trade negotiations around the world should be a signal that the U.K. deal would be hopelessly lopsided.

By all means, become the 51 state but any dispassionate assessment of Mr Dump record over the last three years suggests you should avoid him at all costs.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HOW LONG BEFORE BRITAIN REAPPLIES FOR EU MEMBERSHIP.

11 Thursday Apr 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HOW LONG BEFORE BRITAIN REAPPLIES FOR EU MEMBERSHIP.

Tags

, ,

 

(Six-minute read)

You could say that this whole Brexit thing was caused by strong external influences that fell on a political fertile soil in the UK but had no real substance in GB.

Furthermore, it would be correct to say that the EU was devised for, to avoid in future the imperialist ambitions of the nation-states.

It is true that the UK has the right to leave the EU but it is also true that the EU has the right to insist on what terms.

It’s this conundrum that is constantly denied by the majority of the political class in the UK but that is the reality.

Now we are looking at a fragile British democracy which is stuck in the past with a monocracy and a ruling class struggling with “damage limitation” but the damage is already done no matter what happens in October.

So let’s look at the extension period till October.

What is it?

It is basically membership in all but name.

In Brexit terms, this means that the UK can revoke Article 50 unilaterally before its agreement enters into force or if it does not enter in force, until October 2019.

What problem is that for the EU27?

Frankly speaking, none other than the absurdity of 73 UK MEPs contesting the European elections without revoking Article 50.

Will the six months extension achieve anything other than a UK General election that could produce a hard line socialist government with serious problems both economically and politically with rejoining?

Yes.

The collapse to the Union.

A revocation decision would run counter to the outcome of the UK referendum. By approving the withdrawal agreement, the UK becomes a rule-taker with no voice. By rejecting the withdrawal agreement, it faces serious and radical economic disruption.

Either way, the ultimate decision must be made through the British political system that does not represent the people as a whole, because of the first past the post.

The pressure is now taken off from the EU and is now entirely on the UK.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "how will britain use the new six month extension"

IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT:

If we genuinely look at what are the real problems with Brexit.

If Northern Ireland signed up to single market rules on goods the UK would likely seek a deal for the region which also included services because the bulk of the UK’s economy lies in the services sector rather than in goods.

The British would be shooting themselves in the foot because it plays to the advantage of the EU27 who have a net positive balance towards the UK in goods.

IF THIS WAS TO HAPPEN:

Should the EU limit membership of the single market in Northern Ireland to those areas that are relevant to the Good Friday agreement.

If — and it’s a big if — the UK wants to keep the Good Friday Agreement, the only satisfactory option is full [EU] membership.

“That is the only logical conclusion.”

If the British government is serious about saying it will not contemplate internal legislative divergence within the UK, the entire UK has to stay in the single market.

The logical consequence then is to say, if the UK is bound to keep at least part of the United Kingdom in the single market because of the Good Friday agreement, the choice is: Either it renounces the Good Friday Agreement and then it can indeed leave the single market and customs union. Or it keeps the UK inside the European Union because democratically, that’s the only serious option.

But it would be stupid for the British government to be happy with a single market just for goods. It would insist on having a single market for services — and then you are in the full single market.

It is not a negative for the European Union to accept an extension status for the United Kingdom because that status must come with obligations.

Nothing basically changes, except that the Brits are not sitting at the table.

However, just imagine that a new British government — because it does not feel bound by whatever the previous government did — says: ‘OK, we believe the decision to leave that way was the wrong decision and we want to reconsider. This is the reason that the EU is offering a long extension a period in which Britain could “digest what it really means to be a member of the European Union and what it really means not to be a member.

However, it’s entirely possible the UK will be back where it started at the end of extra time.

In the long run, the influence of GB in Europe and the greater world is being significantly weakened by Brexit. While it is true that many countries may well want to trade with Britain on leaving contrary to the views of the Brexiteers it will not be their term, not English terms.

So we are left with the very fitness of the English political system in a modern world driven by technology.

Both the EU and the UK are the immovable fact of geography.

How long before the UK is a ‘new member?

Less time than trade talks.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WOULD SOMEONE IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION EXPLAIN WHY IT SHOULD NOT TURN DOWN A FURTHER EXTENSIONS.

05 Friday Apr 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WOULD SOMEONE IN THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION EXPLAIN WHY IT SHOULD NOT TURN DOWN A FURTHER EXTENSIONS.

Tags

, ,

(Seven-minute read)

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.

The endless political crisis in which the United Kingdom has been sinking for nearly three years invites us to consider Brexit as the most pathetic example of a democratic accident that we have seen for a long time.

Britain’s 43-year marriage with the European Union (and its predecessors) could be about to come to a spectacular end which is perhaps emblematic of a nation without a written constitution.

A travesty of democracy.UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage stands on a campaign bus for Brexit.

Theresa May is now ( by just one vote), legally obliged to seek an extension to article 50 and avoid a no-deal Brexit.

Does it really matter?

YES. 

BECAUSE IF THERE IS NO EXTENSION AND IT IS LAW TO AVOID A NO DEAL THERE IS ONE ONE OPTION LEFT AND THAT IS TO REVOKE ARTICLE 50.

BRITAIN STAY IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Britain would then participate in the EUROPEAN UNION ELECTIONS  as a full member and would introduce MPs. The British would then take part in the decisions concerning the program and the composition of the new European Commission and the budgetary framework until 2027.

Then we are now looking at a Brexit which could trigger the break up of the UK either by organizing a new peoples ballot or a general election.

However, voting is not compulsory.

So it might all come down to how many people actually bother to turn up and vote.

In the meantime, we have a member state introducing a Settlement Scheme to allow European citizens to continue living in the UK after 30 June 2021.

(If your application is successful, you’ll get either settled or pre-settled status)

EU citizens in England are to becoming second rate English citizens with their right to call Britain their home under threat.

It’s hardly surprising that England is a deeply troubled country when it had to hold a debate on whether the Europe flag should disappear from public buildings.

I find it extremely disturbing that the English Government had to debate a motion whether to ban the flying of the European Flag commemorating the 12 tribes of Israel, the 12 apostles, the 12 labours of Hercules and the 12 months of the year. They are a symbol of universal perfection and the flag is supposed to be a symbol of peace in Europe.

I ALSO FIND IT BEYOND COMPREHENSION THAT A MEMBER STATE AFTER A REFERENDUM THAT WAS WON BY LESS THAN 4%  (almost 900,000 live in the EU alone were only allowed to vote if they were registered on the electoral lists in the United Kingdom.) WAS DRIVEN BY LIES, HELD BY A PRIMINSTER TO PLACATE EUROSCEPTICS IN HIS PARTY,  WAS NOT LEGALLY BINDING TILL ARTICLE 50 WAS IMPLEMENTED WITHOUT OUT ANY PLANNING SHOULD NOW BE ALLOWED TO DESTROY THE ECONOMY OF A FELLOW MEMBER STATE IRELAND.

The above asks the questions about the future of the country and its purpose; where it is heading.

Can a simple majority of the votes cast (corresponding to a minority of the electorate as a whole) commit the future of future generations to its present concerns?

In a sense, we have not seen anything yet: the ratification of the withdrawal treaty, if it goes well, would mark the beginning of the process. As soon as the divorce agreement is implemented.

In fact, the Brexit could upset the political landscape in Europe traditionally dominated by two mastodont parties. Extremists are becoming increasingly important not just in the Conservative Party and the Labor Party but in the forthcoming European Elections.

But a lot of water needs to go under London Bridge and wind blow in Brussels before it is possible to create a world of peace and reconciliation, to tread ever more softly on our planet.

The tragedy of the present time is precisely that such an aspiration seems to be the exception and that anger or passion are infinitely more widespread than reason and argument in the streets of London or Paris, as on social networks.

In a chaotic world driven by technology surely there is only one democratic route and that is to revoke article 50, pause think.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

,

 

 

 

 

 

it could ultimately take up to a decade.

 

Could the UK come crawling back?

Technically, yes.

 

 

 

 

Britain will never get a better EU deal than it has right now

it is useless to prolong the discussions to infinity,

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: COULD SOME ONE PLEASE TELL ME IF THE UK CRASHES OUT OF THE EU WITHOUT A DEAL HOW CAN THE BORDER BETWEEN IRELAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HARD BORDER.

01 Monday Apr 2019

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: COULD SOME ONE PLEASE TELL ME IF THE UK CRASHES OUT OF THE EU WITHOUT A DEAL HOW CAN THE BORDER BETWEEN IRELAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN A HARD BORDER.

Tags

, ,

 

(Two-minute read)

FACT:

Britain’s oldest problem and Brexit’s biggest obstacle.The information leaflets say that avoiding a hard border remains a priority for the Government “in all circumstances”. Photographer: Bryn Colton/Bloomberg

FACT:

Without a deal, the inner-Irish Border would become an outer EU barrier.

FACT:

The Irish Government faces the ultimate political Catch-22 dilemma:

How to simultaneously meet its EU treaty obligations to police an outer border of the bloc with its Belfast Agreement promise to respect the open Border.

Ireland becomes a victim of the law of unintended consequences.

A no-deal Brexit – vaporised the backstop and forces a hard border.

In the immediate wake of a no-deal, the UK has said that it will allow goods to enter the North from the Republic tariff-free and avoid the need for any Border checks.

However, this does not look like a sustainable long-term position. It now seems that the outstanding backstop questions will be pushed into talks on the future EU-UK relationship.

This will put huge pressure on businesses in the North and would also appear to be in contravention of World Trade Organisation rules.

The bottom line is that, barring an arrangement similar to the backstop coming into place, some controls at or near the Irish Border look inevitable after a no-deal Brexit.

Many argue that technological solutions – drones and suchlike – will do the trick.

This is farcical:

You only eliminate physical checks between two territories separated by a border when they share a customs union and have broad regulatory alignment.

Everything else is infrastructure.

Otherwise, the EU might insist on checking goods entering from Ireland through continental ports, making Ireland second-class members of the EU single market, with a potentially huge economic cost.

The reality is that no amount of economic modelling can capture the unquantifiable human and psychological costs of the return of a hard border.

Brexiteers tell us that the customs union and the single market have nothing to do with the Good Friday agreement.

The nearly 21-year-old, consent-based international peace deal that placed the constitutional destiny of the divided communities of Northern Ireland – 56% of whom voted to remain in 2016 – in our own hands.

They are wrong.

Of course, lurking in the long tall grass of the Good Friday Agreement an international treaty is a United Ireland.

Those who signed up called it the Good Friday Agreement, those forced reluctantly to accept its terms still call it the Belfast Agreement. However, the key elements were a mutual renunciation of violation with the assurance that Northern Ireland would remain part of the UK as long as the majority of its citizens wanted it to – but could in principle become part of a United Ireland if a majority desired it in the future.

This is the apocalyptical nightmare of the DUP.

On Brexit day whenever it arrives Britain will immediately be excluded from hundreds of treaties and agreements signed by the EU.

Leave the European Union without a deal would mean denouncing an International Treaty marking another step in Englands long and troubled history with its European neighbours.

Divorce or not, Europe will continue to have a huge influence over British politics and society – history has a few lessons for us here.

If Europe made Britain, then Britain also made Europe.

The solution is a long extension – resulting in a new Commission and an English Government that represent all of its people.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S : ARE THE ENGLISH PEOPLE NOW GOING TO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY FIRST PAST THE POST.

30 Saturday Mar 2019

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., First past the post.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S : ARE THE ENGLISH PEOPLE NOW GOING TO REALIZE THAT THEY ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY FIRST PAST THE POST.

Tags

,

 

( A two-minute read)

This blog has addressed the need for British politics to come into the 21 Century.

Debates about liberty and sovereignty of the democratically elected parliament are now been brought into sharp relief.

Image associée

It is time to replace the Magna Carter the English charter of 1215 document with a proper foundation document that could and would rectify glaring defects in contemporary British structures.

A modern-day written constitution would formalise more clearly the relationship between its citizens who are this day serfs to the crown.

IT WOULD SPELL OUT THE AMBIGUOUS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AND PARLEMENT.

It would, in particular, modernise the capricious 19th-century electoral system that unfailing reproduces an unrepresentative House of Commons.

For Example in 2015 David Camron on an overall majority with just 37% of the overall vote.  Hardly a popular mandate for conservative rule.

The existence of safe seats partly explains the relatively low turnout seen in many UK General Elections. The majority of seats in UK Westminster constituencies are safe seats, due to the requirement for only a simple majority. This is bad for pluralist democracy and clearly undermines any attempt to develop a genuine multi-party culture.

It creates complacent MPs with ‘jobs for life’ who are free to take voters for granted.

The first-past-the-post system has long served up such certainties: in 12 of the 17 general elections since 1950, fewer than one in 10 seats shifted from one party to another. Some have remained firmly in one party’s control for more than a century.

Whatever Brexit brings both the European Union and England need to wake up the needs of its citizens to be involved and represented.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WAKE UP BRITANNIA THIS IS WHO THE DUP ARE.

29 Friday Mar 2019

Posted by in Backstop., Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democratic Unionist Party., Northern Ireland., The DUP.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WAKE UP BRITANNIA THIS IS WHO THE DUP ARE.

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

If you asked the question who are the DUP to the English public I would say 80%  would not be able to answer the question.

If you asked the question in Ireland 90% would answer a Northern Ireland Unionist Party out of date that is based in bigotry antie catholic and united Ireland rhetoric. Citing the territorial claims in the Irish constitution, which the party viewed as illegal and a threat to the security and religious freedom of Protestants in Northern Ireland.  

Democratic Unionist Party (DUP), Who is the DUP? A brief history of UK parliament’s new kingmaker

A “theocon” grouping whose ideas are unusual in today’s western Europe. To an American, especially from the deep South, the party would seem much more familiar.

You might call it a mixture of old-time religion and secular nativism.

The party is the creation of firebrand Protestant Evangelical Minister Ian Paisley.

Reverend Paisley also founded the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster and was characterized by his entrenched Unionist views and his hostile opposition to the Catholic Church. Paisley helped found the Ulster Protestant Volunteers.

In 1969 members were involved, along with the UVF, in exploding a number of bombs they hoped would be blamed on the IRA (who had not begun their bombings), provoking a Protestant backlash and bringing down the Unionist government of Northern Ireland, seen by them and Paisley as having gone soft on Catholics.

Founded in 1971 by a hard-line faction of the UUP ( Ulster Unionist Party) which was at the centre of a bloody sectarian divide during Northern Ireland’s Troubles – a conflict involving rival paramilitary groups and the British Army which claimed more than 4,000 lives, 50,000 injured, and an estimated 40,000 bereaved or traumatized over 30 years.

In 1975 the DUP contested elections as part of the United Ulster Unionist Council (UUUC) alliance, which rejected the notion of sharing power with the nationalist (and largely Roman Catholic).

Core to the identity of the DUP is its representation as a party that guarantees to act as a firewall against Irish unity.

The DUP boycotted the talks when Sinn Féin was admitted in 1997. The product of the talks, the 1998 Good Friday Agreement (Belfast Agreement) on steps leading to a new power-sharing government in Northern Ireland, was rejected by the DUP, which denounced the new Northern Ireland Assembly as a dilution of British sovereignty and objected to the inclusion of Sinn Féin in the Assembly and the new executive body.

There is now a growing question about the influence of the DUP and its opposition to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement.

In the snap election for the British House of Commons that Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May called for June 2017, the DUP added two seats to bring its representation in Westminster to 10 seats.

May then courted the support of the DUP so that she could form a minority government relying on the DUP’s 10 votes on crucial issues to push her party over the 326-vote threshold for a majority.

After securing the promise of £1 billion in extra funding for Northern Ireland over the next two years, on June 26, 2017, the DUP agreed to provide “confidence and supply” support for May’s government.

The DUP staunchly supports union with Britain.

The sense of political identity currently offered by the DUP leadership reflects a change of emphasis away from cultural unionism towards an agenda drawing on more civic understandings of politics.

However, it has blocked efforts to pass a Climate Change Act in Northern Ireland, as well as having a history of supporting creationism and blocking legislation on the legalisation of abortion and gay marriage.

It is the only political party in Ireland to support Brexit.

The DUP induced a political crisis in Northern Ireland through a “green energy” scheme. The final cost to the taxpayer for this fiasco is expected to be upwards of £400 million.

The party is opposed to abortion and gay marriage, but it goes further than that.

Members of the party have described LGBT people as “disgusting” and an “abomination”.

The DUP traditionally avoided all contact with the Irish government.

Nigel Dodds and Arlene Foster, DUP deputy leader and leader

Yet Arlene Foster is the political figure who holds in her hands the future of Brexit.

Her beliefs were forged in the bloody years of Northern Ireland: her father was shot in the head and she escaped an attack on her school bus.

Almost everything you need to know about the DUP and Brexit can be gauged from its name, with the emphasis on “unionist”.

To the DUP, the backstop represented its worst fears come to life:

But ultimately, what does the party want from Brexit?

First of all, the DUP has said it still wants the UK to leave the EU with a deal – but it must be one that treats Northern Ireland no differently from the rest of the UK.

It is hard to imagine a group less suited to this crucial role.

A political NI party of narrow-minded, intransigent bigots who care nothing for the wider interests who relish in a political mindset of ransom and provincialism that was is probably still is attached to the Ulster Volunteer Force.

The party is continually in denial about reality. Representing just 36% of the last General election in NI that voted to remain.

A party that has been spoonfed English taxpayers cash, including a 1 billion, to support England departure from the EU.

Wake up Britain!

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: FIRST-PAST-THE-POST-IS AN ARCHAIC SYSTEM. MOST OF THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON.

25 Monday Mar 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: FIRST-PAST-THE-POST-IS AN ARCHAIC SYSTEM. MOST OF THE WORLD HAS MOVED ON.

Tags

, , ,

 

(Three-minute read)

In or out England is now facing an uncertain constitutional future.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "First-past-the-post is a voting system that consistently and unpredictably skews election results in ways few can predict until the votes have been counted."

There is no doubt that the language of Brexit has contributed ( see the previous post) but the voting system has also made a major contribution.

First-past-the-post is a voting system that consistently and unpredictably skews election results in ways few can predict until the votes have been counted.

First Past the Post’s is an old colonial voting system?

Canada, the U.S. and the UK are the last countries hanging on to first-past-the-post – and even the UK uses proportional systems for its devolved assemblies.

One of the most common laments about electoral reform is that politicians will never change the system that elected them.

More than half of Uk voters live in constituencies where the result is a foregone conclusion. Living in a “safe seat” makes voting feel especially futile.

In most elections with first-past-the-post, about half the voters cast a ballot which elects no-one and has no impact on the election result.

It certainly does not encourage people to turn out and vote.

With Brexit. The adhesive that binds parties together under first past the post is diluting

When one party has 100% of the power with 39% of the vote, there’s no need to take anyone else’s views into account – even when voters want them to do just that.

With proportional representation, no matter what party you support or where you live, your vote counts. Politicians know they must pay attention to every voter and every riding!

With proportional representation, parties must work together. Cooperation between parties in a coalition or other cooperative agreement – shared credit and shared accountability – becomes the norm.

With proportional representation, you vote for what you truly believe in.

Brexit is the first step in fixing politics at the centre, to reform the electoral system.

Politics, they say, “is dominated by the far-left and the far-right”.

Decision-making is easier for big parties when it rests with a small group of strategists whose main job is to cater to their party’s base of voters and make their party look good.

English two main parties have good reason to fear transition to proportional representation, but not necessarily for the reasons often cited.

Why?

Because proportional representation substantially increases the number of parties overall. It would challenge their monopoly on political power in Westminster.

It would reduce their ideology to an argument about their side being better than the other.

It would enable people to vote for parties that more closely represent their own views, without the fear that this party will not be accordingly represented in Parliament.

It takes us away from binary choices and towards a system that is based on power-sharing and compromise.

Look closely and what could be the embryonic beginnings of a new party are there but with the first past, the post electoral system makes it difficult for new parties to win seats in general elections.

Sometimes first-past-the-post even produces a “wrong winner” election – when one party receives more popular support, but another party gets to govern with a majority!

Bolstered by a two-party system that discourages fluidity of ideology and legitimises binary decision-making. This enables the two main parties to clash in a partisan manner that is unrepresentative of a diverse country and makes complex issues such as leaving the European Union more difficult to resolve.

Many proportional representation systems mean you’ll have more than one candidate of the same party to choose from.

This means voters can ensure the candidates from each party get elected, and those that aren’t responsive to voters aren’t re-elected.

Ask any Algorithm. The current event in English Parlement renders First Past the post wrong.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HAS THE LANGUAGE OF BRIXIT GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY?

24 Sunday Mar 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. HAS THE LANGUAGE OF BRIXIT GOT US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY?

Tags

, ,

 

( Five Minute read)

LANGUAGE IS the soundtracks of our lives.

Speaking only one language is still perceived as both the norm and the ideal for an allegedly well-functioning society.

Perhaps it is proving to be the opposite in the case of Brexit.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit language"

Language is more than just code by which we communicate, it is related to social and political knowledge, and access to power structures.

Up to now the myth of one nation, one national language, one national culture – which was at the heart of the ideal of the nation-state in the 19th and 20th centuries – perpetuates the master narrative of national homogeneity.

These attitudes silence the contributions that new multilingual citizens make to economic growth, social cohesion or artistic production.

A different approach is urgently needed, one that moves away from multilingualism as deficit and towards a recognition of linguistic and cultural diversity as a creative engine of civic participation and social well-being.

In an age where politicians and pressure groups alike act on the advice of communications consultants, it seems that a new term is introduced into the debate every few weeks and repeated ad infinitum, if not ad nauseam.

“People’s vote”, “leave means to leave”, “cliff-edge Brexit”, “managed no deal” “backstop” – shout the phrase of the day loud enough and often enough and voters might just remember it at the ballot box.

Rarely is there any space or inclination to look at what these slogans actually entail.

Like all these phrases, “a managed no deal” is not just meaningless spin. It may be a contradiction in terms, but it still has specific functions in the public discourse on Brexit. It serves to allay fears, allows for a positive variation on the journey metaphor and introduces a new option into the debate. Whether that option is realistic, however, is another question.

Linguistic relativity is the idea that language, which most people agree originates in and expresses human thought, can feedback to thinking, influencing thought in return.

The language that you hear gives you a vocabulary for discussing the world, and that vocabulary, by producing simulations, gives you habits of mind.

Encountering language about other groups of people can lead to a skewed view of reality. It may well be that having different words means having differently structured minds. But then, given that every mind on earth is unique and distinct, this is not really a game changer.

Language diversity has played a key role in shaping the interactions of human groups and the history of our species, and yet we know surprisingly little about the factors shaping this diversity.

“Hard Brexit”, “soft Brexit”, “Norway plus”, “Canada plus” These metaphor have shaped much of the discussion on Brexit.

You could be forgiven for being confused about the options available for Britain as it leaves the EU. One phrase in particular, though, is worth investigating further: “a managed no-deal Brexit”.

On the face of it, it seems a contradiction in terms. After all, isn’t no deal about the UK crashing out of the EU or going over a cliff edge? How could such a sudden and disastrous event be managed?

There is more to the phrase “managed no deal” though.

If we look back at the Leave and Remain campaigns, both consistently sought to evoke the emotions of voters. Leave aimed to trigger both negative and positive feelings – frustration with being restricted by the EU, fear of uncontrolled immigration, and pride in a “Global Britain”. The Remain campaign appealed overwhelmingly to fears about the UK’s economic future outside of the EU.

Two-and-a-half years on, it is no deal that is being presented as a frightening prospect. And the way to overcome the fear of what could happen is to control or manage future events.

The notion of control was central to the Leave campaign.

After triggering fears about the perceived threat posed by immigrants, and frustration about a seeming lack of power as an EU member state, the same campaign provided the solution to such negative feelings: take back control of British laws, borders and money by leaving the EU.

The idea of managing a no-deal scenario follows a similar pattern, except that the fears that need to be quelled in this case have been evoked by those rejecting a no-deal scenario.

Today our species collectively speak over 7,000 distinct languages. 2,464 of these are endangered. Just 23 languages dominate among these 7,097 and are spoken by over half of the world’s population, one is related to the backstop Irish.

Undoubtedly, a wide variety of social and environmental factors and processes have contributed to the patterns in language diversity we see across the globe.

The degree to which different environmental, social and geographic variables correlate to language is evident to all with Brexit.

Why is it that humans speak so many languages? And why are they so unevenly spread across the planet?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit language"

The European Union is proud of its linguistic diversity, making translation a right. It is the largest translation organisation in the world. EU staff use English for most scientific publications, business channels and international relations. However, this is where the problem starts.

It would be quite ironic that the unofficial international language of business would not be official in the EU because of a lack of English-speaking volunteer countries. And there are only two: The Republic of Ireland and Malta. Ireland has already named Irish as its national language. What a turn of history it would be for the Irish to rescue the English language.

Brexit with have an undeniable effect on Europe as we know it. The social, financial and cultural impact it will have is hard to predict.

One thing we do know is, based on both speculation by EU officials and the regulations of the EU itself, is that the English language will be effect by Article 50. Unless a vote is carried out by the members of the European Union this could be the very end of the English language.

I leave you with- BEIDH TU ANN.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

–