Category Archives: Brexit.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ENGLAND IS ON THE VERGE OF BECOMING THE LAND OF BAKED BEANS.

17 Saturday Aug 2019

Posted by in Brexit.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

(Two-minute read)

National tempory government, lifting trucks by helicopter across the channel, culling unionist cows, making Northern Ireland the Singapore of Europe, doing itsy bitsy trade deal with Donal Dump, selling British Steel to Turkish army pension funds, allowing billions to flow out of the country, risking a recession while watching sterling devaluation, all for a referendum won by 4%.

Get a grip you are in a deluded fit of national self-harm. There will be nobody coming to rescue you.

You are undermining the very things that you don’t have to think about.

Brexit is shaming you.

By handing over your identity to populists short term politics you are going to get a situation where the choice is gone.

No general election or another referendum is not going to solve the situation.

The solution is to revocate Articular 50.

Stay in the EU and if in the next ten years the EU does not make the reforms that it is badly in need of- Leave. At least by then, you will have reformed your First past the Post.

Democracy is not infallible.

The implications of present events can be seen all over the world and England is not immune.

It takes generations to set up institutions and only a matter of seconds to topple.

That what a feeling of peace is all about.

There is little point in eating Beans on Toast (over 3 million cans each day) for the next ten years.

 

All human comments appriciated. All like clicking an abuse chucked in the bin.

 

Advertisements

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.

≈ Leave a comment

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.

≈ Leave a comment

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 ASK’S: AS WE AWAIT JUST WHAT WILL BE THE NATURE OF THE FALL OUT FROM BREXIT.

22 Monday Jul 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

(Twelve-minute read)

The 17,410,742 people who voted Leave did so in full knowledge of the consequences.

This is obviously far from reality.

The reality is that simmering below the surface of Brexit is that the EU will be poorer for the loss of England but it will continue to shape legislation and regulatory standards that will affect British businesses now and in the future.

Far from ‘making Britain great again’ the vote seems to have divided friends and families as well as the United Kingdom itself. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland voted to remain. The DUP claims to speak for the people of Northern Ireland. Only five of the thirty-three London boroughs voted to leave the EU.

The great tragedy is that after two world wars we once again waiting on the consequences that are yet to come.

It could be said, Brexit and quantum physics both remain incomprehensible to most observers.

One way or the other Brexit now has deeper domestic political consequences.

Nexit Image

There are many intriguing aspects of a UK exit not to mention the Legal expenses to untie forty years of regulations and laws.

Apart from causing a sharp, short-term hit to Britain’s economy, what circumstances will we be dealing with to navigate through this period?

The first consequence of a no-deal will be a UK government not just in a financial crisis but unable to govern.

Why?

Because the UK was always going to suffer a massive economic hit in return for reasserting its precious constitutional and sovereign independence.

Because of the impact of reduced demand for UK exports from the loss in EU market access, which at the moment is totally underestimated along with the reduction in UK investment associated with reductions in FDI will force a recession within a year.

Which will not be counterbalanced by the projected savings from repatriating the UK’s net contributions to the EU.

The EU will not allow the UK, upon leaving, to have the same level of market access that it now has without paying a price.

Britain will not be able to leave the EU and remain in the single market unless it is willing to sign up to EU rules that it did not help to write.

A World Trade Organisation (WTO) relationship will involve the biggest increase in tariff barriers – and, more important, non-tariff barriers – to trade, reducing the British economy’s productivity and curbing inward investment.

It follows that leaving the EU and ‘de-Europeanising’ British regulation would do little to boost its economy.

There will be a decline in productivity from restrictive migration.

Whether there is a deal or no deal it has already damage relations between London and other EU capitals and here is no douth that the political landscape will change in the not so distant future.

However, nothing much will change within or about the EU.

The far-right will not come to power in any EU country. But it will be capable of attracting enough support to shape political debate, on the left as well as the right, and therefore to influence governments’ actions.

So for the sake of protecting that unity, the EU will be in no mood to offer generous post-Brexit deals for Britain.

Negotiations will be in danger of turning into an acrimonious tug of war.

Brexit will not harm the EU’s cohesion, confidence and international reputation.

As Brexit will disrupt the EU’s internal equilibrium closer economic and monetary union might be out of reach in the short term but further integration will continue.

What we know so far.

A no-deal will make negotiating a new trade deal with the EU tricky, and all

EU legislation, along with free trade, would end immediately.

More than 100 banks have set up in London as a gateway to Europe. That could end if Britain leaves. London is already faced pressure inside the EU to give up trading in euro-denominated derivatives, a trillion-dollar market.

It will deter investment in the UK economy.

What new strategies will come to fruition in the longer term?

The Eu did not cause the chaos we now see in the UK political system which is totally out of date and non-representative of its citizens with first past the post.

We are witnessing the appointment of a new Primister without a mandate from the whole of the country.

We are witnessing a risk of a break-up of the UK in the event of a no-deal.

We are witnessing a Northern Ireland tied to England with a no-deal outside the EU which could see the emerging of conflict again.

We are witnessing a vis-a-vis conflict with Spain on the sovereignty of Gibraltar.

EU leaders have reiterated that there will be no negotiation over the UK’s

membership of the bloc.

At the moment British people can live freely elsewhere in the EU, and this is a major benefit for the 1.8 million people who do so. If this were to change either way the EU’s relationship with Britain could become toxic.

The impact of EU competition and procurement rules on the NHS is contentious. As the relevant EU directives have already been incorporated into UK law, the government would need to repeal or amend the law if it wished to reverse current arrangements.

To leave the EU could have major implications for health and social care, not least because it has ushered in a period of significant economic and political uncertainty at a time when the health and care system is facing huge operational and financial pressures.

The government will need to negotiate arrangements with the EU as to how both ‘ordinarily resident’ UK citizens and citizens from elsewhere in the EU will access health care services in future.

It will create numerous consequences in the sporting sector mainly related to the massive presence of foreign players in the Premier League championship.

The results all point to a grave act of self-harm.

If Leave supporters could have foreseen the result of their votes, how many would have changed sides?

There will be no point in saying why did nobody tell us what the consequences were?

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.

≈ Leave a comment

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.

≈ Leave a comment

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.

≈ Leave a comment

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

≈ Leave a comment

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.

 

 

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.

≈ Leave a comment

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.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; IS IT TIME TO STOP TREATING ALL VOTES AS EQUAL

27 Monday May 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, English parliamentary proceedings., European Elections 2019, First past the post., Modern Day Democracy., Nigel Farage., Political voting systems., Populism., Post - truth politics., The far-right., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read)

One person, one vote is often a rallying cry for democracy activists.

Everyone should have representation.

Equality should be sacrosanct in a democracy should it not or is it?

But should everyone have equal representation?

THE 2019 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS RESULTS ARE IN AND BECAUSE OF THE RESULTS LITTLE WILL CHANGE EXCEPT THE SQUABBLING WILL BE OFTEN AND MORE INTENSE.

Unequal votes are a result of history.

Inequality between votes may also not be built into the system but a result of the balance of parties within the system.

Under the English system of first past the post a very few voters have a disproportionate influence due to being swing voters in swing constituencies.

The conduct of election and referendum campaigns in the UK is letting voters down. Trust in what politicians say—and in how journalists report it—is at rock bottom.

If British residents aren’t equal, then nor are their representatives.

So should democracies stick the principle that everyone should have equal weight or compromise if for politics?

In a simple majority system of one vote = one person, the outcome is easy to conclude and scrutinise for fairness and election rigging.

Therefore one vote = one voice is also a very practical way to run a democracy.

Or is it?

There are certain reasons to reasonably exclude someone from the voting process – breaking laws is arguably one of these reasons.

Should a vote have weight based on someone’s contributions to their community, and society as a whole? If one has done good things, their vote should be more important than that of a selfish person who does not contribute in a positive way.

Should a Party with no members, no Manifesto, lead by a self-elected leader from a previous Party that spread Falsehoods be allowed to take up its seats in The European Parlement to effectively try to destroy all it stands for at the cost of the taxpayer?

Yes.

Should a party that is in power be allowed to select the leader of a country without a general election?

Yes.

However, we should be striving to deepen our democracy, not just to protect the democracy that we already have. Voters deserve much better. We should be tackling misinformation, promoting quality information, and encouraging open, respectful discussion among citizens.

Almost any misleading claim can be expressed in a way that isn’t strictly false, so a ban on falsehoods would change little. There are also dangers: for example, populist campaigners could “weaponise” adverse rulings to claim victimisation by the “establishment.”

The solution is, for example, Ireland has recently blazed a new path in how to prepare for referendums, convening a group of randomly selected citizens—a “citizens’ assembly”—to meet over several weekends to learn, deliberate, and reach recommendations.

Why is this a solution because of the challenge arising from the digital revolution that has transformed political communications in the last decade.

This allows the citizens of a country to have a unified clear voice on what is to be voted on.

Now is the time to ensure that how we conduct election and referendum campaigns is designed with voters at its heart.

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