Category Archives: Brexit v EU – Negotiations.

THE BEADY ASK’S : WHERE ARE WE WITH BREXIT.

09 Saturday Jun 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

( A three-minute read)

The March 29, 2019 deadline looms large.

A lot could still go wrong.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of brexit"

Different member states have different priorities regarding future relations, which could give London a degree of leverage over the proceedings, while internal divisions are fragmenting May’s cabinet weaken the UK’s position for phase two of Brexit negotiations. Notably, the disagreements have thus far resulted in a lack of detailed proposals that may allow the EU to take the initiative, ensuring outcomes more favorable for Brussels.

The issue of where the UK will and will not uphold EU regulation standards has proved a persistent issue throughout the negotiations.

The UK wants to maintain EU regulations in some sectors, such as the financial passport while diverging from others, namely immigration.

The EU rejects such cherry-picking, maintaining an all-or-nothing approach to regulations.

Regarding the transition period, the UK wants a transition period without a pre-determined end-date, whereas the EU wants to end the transition by December 2020, as the new EU Budget cycle will kick in 2021.

The role of the European Court of Justice and the EU body of laws from which the UK wants exemption during any transition period (and in some cases, beyond) also remains an important source of disagreement.

Although negotiators reached an agreement on Northern Ireland’s border in phase one of the negotiations, it is by no means a closed chapter. The agreement implied the UK would propose a solution that avoids a “hard border,” but has yet to deliver one. Thus, the draft agreement released by the EU is not acceptable to the UK because it suggests a common regulatory area between Ireland and Northern Ireland if no other solution is found.

This means that for all practical purposes, Northern Ireland would remain part of the EU while creating a border on the Irish Sea.

Here is what will happen:

The UK continuing failure to come up with proposals will damage its economy further resulting in a general election. The election will in effect be a second referendum.

The resulting vacuum will affect the whole of the European Union.

Real Negotiations will be put on hold while some sort of agreement on mutual interest emerges. While £37 billion leaving bill will be jacked up.

The result of the elections will put the Uk in no position to walk away from the negotiating table, or even to threaten to do so if it wants the United Kingdom not to break asunder.

Britain will fall into a Brexit which will not deliver the benefits that it could or should to either side.

An EU disintegration will make the 2008 financial crisis look like a walk in the park.

The worst is to come.

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

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHAT DO HEATHROW- GATWICK- THAMES WATER- BLACK CABS, AND 73-89-355-361 OXFORD STREET HAVE IN COMMON.

30 Wednesday May 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

( A Fifteen-minute read)

THEY ARE ALL OWNED BY SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUNDS.

While Dads Army negotiates the UK way out of the EU, 97 sovereign investors — state pension funds, central banks, and government ministries are collectively holding $12tn of  British assets.

The invisible hand of capitalism has the UK by the short and hairs.

We are a stone throw away from a crucial point in the current Brexit negotiation, should those who own Britain be nervous.

Given the uncertainty over taxes on imports and market access, when you wake up one morning and your investment is worth 20 percent less than the previous day, that’s going to have an impact on investors who are starting to question the future of Britain as an ‘investment hub’ in Europe.

The gap between the rhetoric of the economic recovery and Brexit negotiations is beginning to make the young of Britain to reject the status quo.

We live in an era where heated rhetorical battles are fought over terms that have lost clear meaning.

It is this morass rhetorical debate that defines what is wrong not just with Brexit but what is wrong with capitalism and socialism.

There is no need for a referendum or survey to tell you the truth. You don’t need jargon or ideology for a case against the status quo.

Surely it’s time for England to focus its imagination on not making the past more beautiful than it ever was, rather than imagining a better future by focusing on what is truly critical.

The creation of real stakeholders in the country. Not just the rich but among it’s poor.

The big misconception of the EU is that it has to do with money.

All knowledge centers must be connected together to imagine a world in new and exciting ways.

Walling yourselves in for personal security and economic security will be a disaster in waiting.

Before Brexit barely a day went by without a major multi-billion dollar fund from one petro-state or another making some splashy acquisition.

You could say that London financial center for all attentive purposes turned a blind eye to – from  – why – where or how the money was acquired.

Chinese: firms bought up British assets worth $11.3bn (£9bn) last year and have spent nearly $50bn in the last decade on acquisitions into the country.

Norway:  It bought 73-89 Oxford Street — a development currently under construction — for £276.5 million and spent a further £124 million buying 355-361 Oxford Street.

The Norwegian fund — which is worth roughly £720 billion — already had a significant footprint in London, and owns a 150-year lease on roughly 25% of Regent Street, another of London’s most recognizable shopping streets.

The fund also owns parts of New Bond Street, properties on Savile Row, the street famous across the world for its tailors.

Outside London, it owns half of Sheffield’s Meadowhall shopping center.

As well as spending £400 million in London, the Norwegian fund bought a €1 billion (£850 million) office development in Paris and spent around $665 million (£534 million) on office spaces across New York, Washington DC, and San Francisco. It also purchased two further UK properties for a combined £5.7 million, with one retail unit, and one described as being used for “logistics.”

It also has 70 percent stake in five properties in Tokyo, Japan.

Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund Public Investment Fund, known as PIF, is turning the PIF into a global giant by giving it ownership of state-owned oil company Saudi Aramco, which is preparing for what could be the world’s biggest IPO.

The PIF is also behind several large real estate developments in the kingdom, including a new city called Neom that will be built on the Red Sea Coast, an entertainment city on the edge of Riyadh and another tourism project on the Red Sea.

The fund is also an investor in some of the kingdom’s largest firms, including Saudi Telecom Co., Saudi Arabian Mining Co., and National Commercial Bank. It also took a 16.32 percent stake in Almarai Co., the country’s biggest dairy producer, last year as the government supports national companies and develops them into regional and global leaders.

The UK will need inward investment, particularly when it leaves the EU. The main problem is that these funds are lack transparency.

Sovereign Wealth Funds (SWFs) remain, significant investors, with the assets of the top 10 now amounting to c.$5.5trn.

At the macroeconomic level, the rise of SWFs illustrates the seriousness of current-account imbalances in the global economy that have their origin in the managed exchange rates operated by some of the countries in surplus.

The accumulation of reserves for investment by SWFs should not become an end in itself. 

A more specific concern raised by SWF investment in equities relates to the opaque way in which some SWFs function and their possible use as an instrument to gain strategic control. This concern sets them apart from other types of investment funds. More specifically, there is unease that – whatever the original motivation – SWF investment in certain sectors could be used for ends other than for maximizing return.

For example, investment targets may reflect a desire to obtain technology and expertise to benefit national strategic interests, rather than being driven by normal commercial interests in expansion to new products and markets.

By the same token, holdings could influence decisions by companies operating in areas of strategic interest or governing distribution channels of interest to the sponsor countries.

More generally, business and investment decisions could be influenced by the political interest of the SWFs owners.

Although in most cases, SWFs are portfolio investors and have avoided taking controlling stakes or seeking a formal role in decision-making in companies, concerns have been raised about the possibility of SWFs seeking to acquire controlling stakes in companies.

National security considerations have been acknowledged by some SWFs owners, who request clarity and certainty about investments that can be made and which areas might be “off-limits” to SWFs.

Since SWFs are managed independently from a country’s foreign exchange reserves, they are excluded from transparency mechanisms.

While they have existed for more than fifty years, over the past decade they have rapidly expanded to become a source of investment of systemic importance. They can offer a source of investment and market liquidity at a time of real pressure. Yet, as state-owned investment vehicles, some can raise questions about the risk that these investments may interfere with the normal functioning of market economies.

The longer-term impact of Brexit cannot yet be seen but you may rest assured that it will have its pro and cons when it comes to SWF who sole purpose is to generate income.

However, they are only part of the mix when it comes to who owns what in the UK there is another Sovereign wealth fund called the crown.  

The monarchy is still one of Britain’s most valuable institutions, with a value of £57 billion to the UK.

The 89-year-old’s estimated personal fortune, largely inherited from her family, is about US$425 million ($673 million), according to an analysis by the Bloomberg Billionaires Index. That’s a mere 3 percent of the wealth of the richest Briton, Gerald Grosvenor, the Duke of Westminster.

THIS IS SOME OF WHAT IT OWNS.

The Crown Jewels 140 ceremonial objects boasting a spectacular 23,578 precious gemstones

The Queen privately owns an 18,433-hectare estate called the Duchy of Lancaster.

It is administered separately from the Crown Estate. Part of that is the Savoy Estate, a stretch of prime real estate in central London which houses the iconic Savoy Hotel.

Sandringham House, an 8,000-hectare estate in Norfolk.

Balmoral Castle, 20,000-hectare Scottish estate.

The Duchy of Lancaster also holds around a dozen historic properties, including Lancaster Castle and Pickering Castle in Yorkshire.

The Duchy delivers an annual income of around £18 million ($25.5 million), which is paid directly to the ruling monarch.

Regent Street & St James’s Market, London: The Crown Estate owns the entirety of Regent Street in London, one of the UK’s best-known shopping streets. It also owns prime retail property across the UK in locations including Oxford, Exeter, Nottingham, Newcastle, Harlow, and Swansea.

The Crown Estate owns around 106,000 hectares of farmland across the UK.

The Crown owns the rights to salmon fishing and gold mining in Scotland.

Windsor Castle & Great Park, Berkshire: The 6,400-hectare Windsor estate in Berkshire is part of the Crown Estate’s portfolio.

The Crown Estate holds around 11,000 hectares of forestry in areas including Berkshire, Somerset, and the Cairngorms in Scotland.

The Crown Estate owns a £1.1 billion offshore energy empire which includes 30 wind farms.

The Crown Estate announced in June last year that it returned a record £328.8 million ($464 million) to the Treasury in 2016 as the value of the overall estate rose to an astonishing £13.1 billion ($18.5 billion).

England might do well to pay attention to Micheal Collins words.

I quote.

” The object in building up the country economically must not be lost sight of. The object is not to be able to boast of enormous wealth or of a great volume of trade for their own sake. It is not to show a great national balance sheet, nor to point to people producing wealth with the self- obliteration of a hive of bees. The real riches of the Irish nation will be the men and woman of the Irish Nation the extent to which they are rich in body and mind and character.”

Or perhaps both the EU and England should take a feather out of the way E Bay Works.

You are only as good as your product and feedback. E Bay did not just create an online market it created a self-governing community.

Apple has shifted its tax liability in the UK to Ireland.

Amazon dominates retail in the UK.

Google dominates the browser market

There are currently no less than 97,000 properties owned by foreign firms in England and Wales.

The NHS is increasingly being infiltrated by American health providers.

The major public utilities – energy, railways, and water – are all to a significant degree foreign-owned

Nuclear power stations are owned and managed by the French company EDF (something the French would never allow in their own country) and that Hinckley Point C is a joint French/Chinese project.

If there anything to be learned from the above it is that we have a clash of mindsets: one pragmatic, the other dogmatic.

Neither understands the other.

Those incompatibilities are being played out today in front of our very eyes in the phony war over the negotiation. The EU is still of the belief that it runs the negotiation. It will not show flexibility because that’s not how it works. The UK, on the other hand, will not do as it’s told. That’s not how the UK works.

It will not comply with the EU’s negotiation strategy of meekly signing up to a large financial settlement before being fobbed off with a lousy trade deal. The UK would rather be damaged than humiliated by the EU.

The EU believes it will win because it refuses to believe the UK will walk. It will sign whatever is put in front of it. But this is to make the exact mistake that it has always made; it’s a misjudgment of how UK politics work.

The clearest indictment of the status quo is the status quo itself.

The Basic necessities such as food shelter are what’s needed, not Aircraft carriers.

Britain has suffered from decades of under-investment in public infrastructure.

Britain has deep structural problems. Manufacturing has been hollowed out. The gap between the richest and poorest parts of the UK is wider than in any other major EU country.

An excessive reliance on consumer spending focused on the bigger picture:

The only choice in a subsequent referendum that would be acceptable to many citizens is that between what the UK and EU actually agree in the withdrawal agreement and no deal whatsoever.

There is today, a very real risk of a no-deal outcome. This would be a traumatic and disruptive exit and bad for both sides. We have to hope this doesn’t happen.

Each side truly believes the other is deluded.

We cannot retreat from the world. We have to make sure that we get the best of our imaginations – while not letting our imaginations get the best of us.

Another vote is inevitable.

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. BORDER OR NO BORDER BETWEEN NORTHERN IRELAND AND IRELAND WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

29 Thursday Mar 2018

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

( A fifteen-minute read)

Claims that there will or won’t be border controls on the island of Ireland are predictions, not facts, at this stage but Brexit means that the UK’s only land border will also be an external border from the EU’s point of view.A sign close to the Letterkenny - Strabane border in the Irish Republic.

That matters for two main reasons.

One is immigration and the other is the trade in goods, neither of which have many controls on them within the EU.

Any hard border would have massive economic, political and security implications.

Outside the EU’s Customs Union, it will be necessary to impose customs checks on the movement of goods across the border.  Because if there is no EU-UK agreement on free trade in goods, there will be some British taxes on imports from Ireland, and vice versa.

There is talk of a deal, that would be confined to goods originating in the UK or the EU.

This is the pattern for the EU’s free trade agreements with countries such as Norway and Canada. Without these ‘rules of origin’, and a way of enforcing them, goods made in a country like China could be imported through Ireland, avoiding UK import taxes.

One way or the other with or without a trade deal, there is still a need for some way of checking on the goods being taken across the border, either to work out the taxes due on them or to verify that they don’t need to be paid.

It’s time to stop the bull shit > so let’s try and sort out the realities from the fantasies.

For there to be no border there will have to have “regulatory alignment” with the rest of Ireland in order to keep the border free of controls. This can only be achieved if Northern Ireland remains in the EU either by uniting with Ireland or breaking away from the UK.

If not Brexit will restore the old border created by the partition of Ireland?

Should arrangements be permanent or temporary? How hard or soft should the border be: electronic, policed or militarised?

The chances of either of these happing are zero.

There was a very strong ethnonational basis to voting in the Referendum.

It seems 85% of Catholics voted Remain, compared to only 40% of Protestants.

I would say that both less-educated Protestants/unionists and Catholics who voted for the UK to leave the EU but undoubtedly did not imagine they were voting for Northern Ireland to become distinct from the rest of the UK?

I would also say that any border no matter what form it takes will undermine the Catholic/nationalist sense of connection with the rest of Ireland?

So alongside the logistical questions – about the technology needed to manage such a porous border – lie these equally important identity issues.

As for Migration:

World War II aside, there has never been controls on migration between the UK and Ireland. People can use the open border to travel illegally from Ireland to Northern Ireland and on to the rest of the UK, and likewise in the other direction.

This is currently addressed by “Operation Gull”, in which immigration officers check passengers on routes between Northern Ireland and the island of Great Britain. This is designed to compensate for the lack of checks on unauthorized travel across the north/south border. Claiming this won’t change after Brexit assumes that these measures will still be enough to police the open border which is totally impossible.

If the UK wants to put restrictions on EU immigration or short visits, that will generate more illegal cross-border movement. At the moment, Operation Gull only has to catch unauthorized migrants from non-EU countries.

There’s never been a situation where Ireland accepted free movement of people and the UK didn’t.

No matter how you address the border Brexit has serious consequences for political stability and has placed the constitutional question, which has largely been parked over the past 20 years, back on the table.

Politically, Northern Ireland can only work on the basis of sharing and interdependence.

The whole ethos of the Good Friday agreement was about breaking down barriers and allowing people to lead their lives on a north-south and east-west access. Yet Brexit entails new divisions and borders.

An outcome in which Northern Ireland continued to participate in the single market would allow Northern Ireland to fully engage in both the EU single market and the UK’s internal market. This can only be achieved through Northern Ireland remaining in line with EU law and regulations. Operating to these higher standards should not compromise simultaneous engagement with the rules of the market in Great Britain.

In this sense, Northern Ireland could be a bridge.

Indeed, a satisfactory compromise around this type of approach could bring much needed political stability and cohesion to Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, although Northern Ireland overall voted was to remain within the EU Mrs. May bribed the DUP for support to prop-up her minority Tory Government.

In the end, the British Government will endeavor to fudge the Northern Ireland’s current constitutional position by sacrifice the Good Friday agreement in exchange for their whole vision of a glorious post-Brexit future based on Britain’s ability to do great trade deals and be a trusted partner on the world stage.

Yet to get there they now have to start by tearing up two of the most important international deals Britain has signed in its recent history, both of them legally binding.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HAS ENGLAND DONE A TRADE DEAL WITH SAUDI.

09 Friday Mar 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., European Union., Trade Agreements.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

( A seven-minute read)

Of course not.

Britain cannot conclude trade deals or agreements with countries while it is still a member of the European Union.

However, it’s important to note exactly what this means.

Does it mean leapfrogging?

Britain cannot conclude such agreements while still a member, not that Britain cannot negotiate them while still in the bloc.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Pictures of trade agreements"

This is a distinction that all too many are not making and it’s an important one:

WHATEVER ABOUT THE HIPOCRICY of trading with a country that abuses human rights, and is killing Yemenites with English weapons (UK sales of arms and military kit to Saudi Arabia hit £1.1bn in 2017.) the question for the EU is:

Is England breaching its EU treaty or not.

A Chines £9bn agreement  ( Not all details have been made public.)

A Saudi £65bn agreement trade and investment target for the year 2030.

Both disguised as mutual trade and investment opportunities ambitions, visions, whatever you like to call them over the coming years.

Britain will remain within custom union rules during any Brexit transition. This means that no new trade deals can come into force until at least 2021.

Over the years, the EU has forged a constructive political dialogue with members of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC). These countries are Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and the UAE.

The Cooperation Agreement, which was concluded in 1988, forms the basis for the relationship that aims at:

  • strengthening the stability in the strategically important region;
  • facilitating the political and economic relations;
  • broadening economic and technical cooperation;
  • further broadening cooperation on energy, industry, trade and services, agriculture, fisheries, investment, science, technology, and environment.
  • The EU and GCC have been engaged in negotiating a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) since 1990.

In the meantime here are some of the benefits England enjoys from EU trade deals ( There are 800 odd trading)Résultat de recherche d'images pour "Pictures of trade agreements"

As a member of the EU, Uk business has easier access to 1/3 of the world’s markets by value.

The EU gives UK business preferential market access to over 50 countries outside of the EU.

The EU gives the UK access to more markets than Switzerland, Canada or Australia – who have 38, 15 and 15 trade deals respectively.

The EU gets the UK a better deal – eliminating tariffs with South Korea
almost 4 times quicker than Australia’s deal.

EU trade deals are comprehensive in scope – all deals signed in the last year include services.

The EU-South Korea deal boosted UK trade with South Korea by 57%.

The EU-Canada trade deal will add £1.3bn to the economy.

If the EU completes all deals currently under negotiation, 88% of the UK’s trade would be covered.

The EU-US deal (TTIP) could add £10bn to the UK economy by attracting more investment, cutting red tape and increasing consumer choice. The deal would also set the bar for regulatory standards around the world with corporations having legal powers to sue nations. Let’s hope it will never happen.

Britain is now trumping free trade.

” Free trade under WTO rules will play an important role in global poverty reduction post-Brexit.”

But this argument is based on nostalgia for a system where free and fair trade represented a cornerstone of Britain’s foreign policy. It is nostalgic because such a system, which had its origins in colonies and treaty ports, was neither free nor based on fair rules. It’s a fallacy that provides – at best – some comfort against the uncertainty of Brexit. At worst, it evokes memories among many countries, including China, of an era when trade was used to exacerbate exploitation rather than alleviate poverty.

The arguments that rules-based free trade reduces poverty do not stand up to scrutiny. Not only are they divorced from the history of the colonial trade system, they are also inconsistent with the way in which China lifted some 700m citizens out of absolute poverty.

Plus, the assertion that a “protectionist” EU has constrained the UK’s ability to form free trade agreements with its “natural” trade partners in the Commonwealth has been shown to be inconsistent. The EU incorporated many of these countries into its system trade preferences after the UK joined its precursor, the EEC.

The colonial trade system was neither built on free trade nor liberal economic policy. Instead, it functioned on the basis of strict currency controls, centralized planning and unbalanced economic power, which favored the colonial power.

Perhaps the biggest irony is that the UK’s best prospects for a favorable trade agreement with China, a strong currency, and rules-based trade are to be found by remaining within the EU. The EU has long been reluctant to grant China market economy status until it can demonstrate that Chinese product prices reflect their market value. More recently, it has sought to develop a more cohesive approach to Chinese investment in EU countries.

In holding China to rules-based trade, the EU is, therefore, following the very approach that those in favor of Brexit appear to be advocating. And, as one of China’s biggest export markets, has far more clout to shape these rules.

There remains this question should countries make trade deals with countries that use them to sell arms.

England has already sold £4.6bn of arms to Saudi since the war started in Yemen in 2015. It now in the process of selling an additional 48 Typhoon at an expected to cost on average about $180 million each. So much for Free trade under WTO rules.

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

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: CAN THE EUROPEAN UNION SURVIVE WITHOUT MAKING SOME REFORMS .

05 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Populism., Post - truth politics., The Obvious., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

( A two-minute read)

There’s no denying Brexit is going to be a serious smack in the face for the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the EU House of parliament"

The second EU straw is now the populist gale that will blow throughout next year.

Surely now is the time for some reforms.

Fundamental problems other than Brexit must be addressed.

But what to change? There’s little consensus yet.

Ever closer union, which has been an EU rallying cry for nearly 30 years, is almost “dead.”  Lofty speeches are falling on deaf ears.

It may be forced by politics or forced by new leadership but there is no doubt that the divisions between wealthy northern European nations and those in the South, where public finances are strained and youth unemployment remains a major problem has to be resolved.

The rise of nationalist parties — on left and right — threatens to reverse nearly 70 years of integration in Europe. The Greek bailout is in danger of collapsing. There are doubts about the future of the euro.

It is was unrealistic to expect radical change, when there are creditors and debtors in the EU. Because of this, it’s almost impossible for European Union to continue with a deepening integration on fiscal affairs.

Here are three reforms it should and can be undertaking imminently.

One > Stop the gravy train Strasburg to Brussels.

Two > Make the Commission an elected body.

Three > Establish legal entry points for refugees.

There are arguably two primary types of democracy: direct democracy, in which all
citizens directly participate in decision-making; and representative democracy, in which the power of the people is delegated to periodically elected representatives.

Where is the difficulty with the above reforms?

After all is not democracy said to be in the eye of the beholder.

Britain’s departure from the EU, which will be negotiated over just two years, will also distract attention from reforms. There will be pressure to wrap up Brexit talks quickly, but the EU is not known for moving fast.

Europe needs to change, and fast.

Either it prepares for the future, or it will become obsolete.

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

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: JUST WHAT IS IT THAT BRITAIN IS OPTING OUT OF FOR THE SAKE OF ISOLATION.

25 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

( A seven-minute read)

Perhaps the biggest issue in the June 23 referendum was the question of whether 43 years in the EU have helped or hurt the UK economy. Of course, the referendum completely ignored that when Britain joined the EEC as it was known then as the sick man of Europe.Image associée

One can not know exactly how much the EU directly benefited Britain, but a 10 percent rise in prosperity is a reasonable estimate.

I would like some political ( descendants of the two world wars)  to tell me or explain to me why now in a world that is in turmoil Britain wants to turn itself into a hermit kingdom squandering its wealth and ingenuity for an idealised notion that you are still a mighty power that the nations of the world want to trade with on your terms.

Governments and Countries can’t be run like businesses.

Societies are built on a commitment to social and economic justice, not by the free market, but by equality of opportunity.

From the outside, the whole Brexit process has highlighted your indifference to seeing that there are going to to be enormous repercussions due to a fog of denial and self-delusion.

Today one in 20 UK residents was born in another EU country.

 

Some Eurosceptics say Britain stands a better chance of growth if it looks beyond the sluggish economies of the EU. But this is a claim about the future, predicated on trading relationships that do not yet exist, rather than an analysis of the past.

UK trade with EU partners grew faster after 1973 than it did with the remaining countries in the European Free Trade Association, the grouping to which Britain previously belonged.

For almost half a century, Britain has benefited from greater openness to world markets, which has fostered economic dynamism. Economists have demonstrated that the main cause of that change was membership of the EU, which brought with it gains from trade, foreign direct investment, competition, and innovation.

This is what Britain is turning it back on.

The UK is one of the largest recipients of research funding in the EU. Over the period 2007 – 2013 the UK received €8.8 billion

Many Eurosceptics raged against the UK’s annual £18bn transfer to the EU.

Nigel Farage has claimed that being in the bloc costs Britain £55m a day — more than £20bn a year.

But the UK’s net transfer to the EU falls far short of such claims.

A rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 reduced the bill and London sent £13bn to Brussels in 2015. Against that, the UK received £4.5bn from the EU in regional aid and agricultural subsidies, and the private sector received a further £1.4bn direct from the EU budget.

That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a percent of national income — about £260 a year for each British household.

Another often-quoted figure — the reported £33bn cost of regulation — comes from an impact assessment by Open Europe, a think-tank, of 100 EU rules.

But it is based on only one side of the balance sheet.

The benefits of the regulations are “much higher” than the costs and “clearly not all of [the costs] would disappear after Brexit”.

Most economists have little doubt that Britain’s membership of the EU has translated into more trade.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of isolation"

For crying out loud it’s not Isolation that Britain needs but a large dose of common sense and cooperation.

Get a grip.

It is time for young of the nation to unbottling their responsibilities to England by demanding a re-run of the Referendum without the pursuit of personal pleasure.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ITS NOW OR NEVER FOR ENGLAND WITH OR WITHOUT A TRANSITION OR IMPLICATION PERIOD.

23 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Transition period or Implication period.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

( A one-minute read)

The UK government wants the EU to give it a transition period even if talks on the future relationship break down. This would prevent Britain from crashing out in March 2019 with no arrangements in place.

But what does transition really mean?

A change or passage from one state or stage to another. This is true for both parties.

A change of one subject to another in discourse.

A period of time during which something changes from one state or stage to another.

A change that results in a change of physical properties.

A change of public opinion or political sentiment.

A change of nature, purpose, or function of something.

The very word conjures up the word disagreement.

For this reason, alone there should be no transition period.

An implication period of the final agreement is the only route to follow.

A two-year transition will result in further destabilization unless agreed under EU terms with the final deal to be sent off to the EU Parliament for ratification.

Europe is already in a catatonic state, and only a shock on a grand scale can force the more visionary of its leaders to act to save it.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of transition"

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of transition"

This is what is exactly what will happen if the EU agrees to a transition or implication period on completion of its negotiations re England’s departure.

Unfortunately, England has completely forgotten that it is not the European Union wanting to leave England.

However, your sacrifice for the European common good could achieve European reform  – though it could also result in the disappearance of the United Kingdom itself, with the possibility of Scotland and even Northern Ireland seeking independence.

England has no idea of what it wants now nor when it entered the EU and it never will till it sheds the shadows of the Empire.

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

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE OPEN LETTER: TO THE YOUTH OF ENGLAND.

20 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

( A one minute read)

Dear Youthful England,

In a few weeks, your unelected Mrs. T May and her Tory party will be negotiating your future away.

There will be no compensates for a Brexit. It will make it harder to go to university, harder to get a job, harder to start a family and harder to buy a house?

SURELY THERE MUST BE A YOUNG VOICE WITH OR WITHOUT £50,000 OF UNIVERSITY FEES DEBT HANGING AROUND THE NECK THAT CAN MAKE ITSELF HEARD IN THE POLITICAL WILDERNESS OF BRIXIT.

The generational chasm that is being created by Brexit will come to define your modern democracy.  A total negation of the will of young people.

An act of self-mutilation with almost mythical status marching down the isolationist path in a world that is in the grip of the 4th revolution called technology.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of young england 2017"

We all know that the EU needs reform. To be sure, stopping Brexit can’t be an end in itself.Image associée

In a world that is supposed to be more connected than ever before this reform will happen due to social media not by reactionary ideology.

As Mrs. May is trapped by the economics of self-service it is time to become vociferous and push Jeremy Corbyn off the fence on Brexit:

The Nigel Paul Farage of this world was summed up in a radio interview by a listener comment. ” You have spent more than 20 years of your life in Belgium, and for all that you do not speak a word of Flemish, German or French.”

The Youth of England will be summed up by not speaking.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of young england 2017"

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WHAT EVER ABOUT EU SECURITY THERE CAN NEVER BE A EU ARMY.

19 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., European Union., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

( A seven-minute read)

It appears that Theresa May has little or no understanding of the mean of the word Union or for that matter Nato Motto, “animus in consulendo liber”

(A satisfactory translation of the phrase has not been found, although a French version“l’esprit libre dans la consultation” comes close. Renderings in English have ranged from the cryptic “in discussion a free mind” to the more complex “man’s mind ranges unrestrained in counsel.”)

It is complete hogwash to be saying England wants to leave the EU’s common foreign and security policy as early as next year but would show flexibility around the UK’s red lines to secure a new security treaty. Dropping out of the single market and refusing to adhere to judgments of the European court of justice (ECJ) means the country would no longer be able to participate in joint institutions such as Europol, EU police databases or EU military missions.

So would someone please explain to me what she means when she says ” participated in EU agencies while also having its “sovereign legal order.”

If you are no longer in Europol and you have ditched the EU’s common foreign and security policy how can you “respect the role of the European court of justice”

On the other hand it seems to me that all the talk about a European Army/Security and its joint headquarters is another attempt to set up a new bureaucratic structure in order that European officials can continue to exist in comfort, producing paperwork and public declarations, just as they do in the EU and the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE).

Many Europeans have argued that the members of the European Union can exert greater influence in the world if they act together rather than separately; and that following the decline of Europe’s major powers, individual states’ power can collectively create a more powerful and credible European voice on the world stage.

The EU rarely manages to speak with one voice in any meaningful way.

There may well be a massive chasm between Europe, England, and US in terms of military capability but the fight against militants needs not more troops, but extensive and professional law enforcement agencies, a wide network of agents and other anti-terrorist structures.

They cannot be an army with rockets, tanks, bombers, and fighters – you do not fight against terrorists with heavy military equipment.

Having a joint court to arbitrate between states is a pragmatic solution to security cooperation.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"

One way or the other, Europe cannot afford two parallel armies for several reasons. Firstly, even now, a number of states are in no hurry to allocate 2 percent of their GDP to NATO’s overall defense budget, which relies mainly on Washington paying 75 percent of the total. Also, there are not enough human resources for the new army.

Furthermore, in an army, which is based on a unity of command and unquestioning obedience to the commander or boss, there cannot be any independent structures in principle. Otherwise, it is not an army, but a bad collective farm of bewildered soldiers receiving orders in twenty different languages.

So would someone tell me on what principle an integrated European army should be created?

In 2000, the EU announced proposals for an army of 100,000 (60,000 of whom could be deployed at 60 days’ notice for up to a year at a time). Britain’s Conservative Party commented at the time that this would effectively destroy NATO. Either troops already committed to NATO will be counted twice, or, in the worst case scenario, troops will be withdrawn from existing NATO missions.

But if a European army is created all the same, how will Russia react?

The Russians will work with it as they do with NATO. Let us just hope that the relationship will start with a clean slate and become a friendly one.

Sovereignty, however, cannot be traded for influence.

The ability to project power, whether regionally or globally, depends on several factors, including leadership, credibility, military capability, popular support, and dependable allies. The EU lacks all of these qualities.

The EU has no standing army. Instead, under its common security and defense policy (CSDP), it relies on ad hoc forces contributed by EU countries for:

Joint disarmament operations
Humanitarian & rescue tasks
Military advice & assistance
Conflict prevention & peacekeeping
Crisis management, e.g. peacemaking & post-conflict stabilization.

Since the Maastricht Treaty of 1991, the European Union has sought to forge a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) precisely to take the lead in times of global crises. Since January 2007, the EU has been able to carry out rapid-response operations with 2 concurrent single-battle groups, each comprising 1500 soldiers.

The EU failed to comprehend the sheer complexity of the problems of an EU Army because of its own institutional and military limitations, and the very different historical perspectives and poli­cies of its 12 constituent members.

For example, Austria, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, and Malta have chosen to pursue neutrality. It is highly improbable that these countries which don’t even belong to NATO will enroll their citizens in a European military alliance.

Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty clear STATES  that any further co-operation in the area of defense should be consistent with Nato commitments.

Even though terrorism is a serious issue, centralizing security and defense policies on the European level isn’t a useful way of fighting such a diffused and complex threat. If a Foreign policy is an attribute of statehood that must remain at the nation-state level if it is to be meaningful or effective.

Is it not pathetic to witness Mrs. May linking an economic deal to crime-fighting measures and to the sharing of intelligence.

It’s like a naughty school child sharing a secret for a smartie.

Without group security goals, building a common defense policy is neither realistic nor useful.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"

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

 

THE BEADY EYE OPEN LETTER TO MRS THERESA MAY PRIME MINSTER OF ENGLAND. IT’S TIME FOR ENGLAND TO TAKE THE BLINKERS OFF

22 Monday Jan 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Re – Seeds of fantasy Read:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit"

Dear Mrs May.

As I understand it your stated aim for the continuing Brexit negotiations is to secure the exact same economic benefits that England now enjoy’s in the EU.

I regret to inform you that you and your Government is labouring under the misapprehension that it will be able to secure a free trade agreement (FTA) outside of the single market that not only covers goods (like the FTA Canada has with the EU) but most services too.

It almost unheard of to have a FTA – one that sits outside of the single market. Because it would have to be approved by 42 regional and national Parliaments in the EU and domestic political objections in other states would stand in the way.

The FTA Canada has with the EU took seven years to negotiate.

You can only have this if you remain in the single market.

Perhaps it is time for you and Government to refresh your thinking on what is the Single Market.

( The single market provides for tariff-free trade between EU countries and a common framework of rules including employment rights, competition policy, consumer and environment protections. EU countries come together through the customs union and apply the same tariffs to goods from outside the union. Non-EU countries participate in both bodies and doing so is the best way of retaining the benefits of EU membership while being outside the EU.)

You will not be able to enjoy these economic benefits outside of the single market and the customs union. Yet you and your ministers keep insisting otherwise.

The reality is if the EU give England any special arrangements, other third countries with whom they have agreements will demand the same too.

For example, just in case you were not paying attention.

Norway has already warned that giving into UK demands for a special trade deal allowing different UK sectors to participate in the single market without being part of it would force Norway to rip up its own agreement with the EU.  Not to Mention Ireland.

It is sad as the reality of Brexit becomes clear, to see such a great country unable to change its mind.

You and your ministers keep talking about the desire for a “deep and special partnership” and a “bespoke” UK deal.

Unfortunately time is running out to set out what you believe that bespoke agreement would look like because your Cabinet cannot agree on it.

It is time to do the right thing.

To request in the forthcoming negotiations a stay of execution for a period of six, seven years that will allow your government in the House of Commons an opportunity to debate among yourselves what kind of arrangements is wanted between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

I believe you made a profound mistake in pressing the Article 50 button without working out so many of these details, now there is simply not sufficient time to agree a properly bespoke deal.

While I fully appreciate you inherited the situation if you want to stay in power you should be in the long run open to the electorate to take a different view on whether you and the Government should press on with this process.

A moratorium might salvage the wreckage that is coming out of the Article 50 process and allow you to enjoy the Bayeux Tapestry and weave a country that works for everybody.

Yours Sincerely Anglophil.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way Britain can is for Mrs May to do the right thing – by Britain and by Europe – to stop these negotiations and simply.