Category Archives: Brexit.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S IS ENGLAND ENTERING A GOLDEN ERA IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE?

17 Friday Jul 2020

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., 2020: The year we need to change., Brexit., COVID-19, Disconnection., Donald John Trump, Economic Depression., European Union., Heredity Monarchy., homelessness., Human values., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Nigel Farage., Pandemic, Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Post-Covid-19, President of the USA., Reality., Refugees., Robot citizenship., Sleeping Rough., Sovereign wealth fund, Technology v Humanity, Telling the truth., The common good., THE NEW NORM., The Obvious., The USA., Trade Agreements., Truth, Truthfulness., Unanswered Questions., VALUES, WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

    (Four-minute read) 

Here is a country that is losing its marbles.

In an interconnected world where there is no such thing as sovereignty because globalization means that nation-states submit themselves to international treaties and international agreements that are not always in their best interests.  

The recent economic crisis that started in 2007 and now the coming economic depression and the continuing pandemic will prove that sovereignty of nations being subsumed by international bodies cuts both ways as the global economy is tightly interconnected and hence, cannot be regulated by nations in isolation.

Here is a country that on 30 June 1997,  the final embers of its empire came to an end with the 99- years lease on Hong Kong’s New Territories.

Never before has a country passed a colony directly to a communist regime that does not even pretend to respect conventional democratic values.

However the British Empire – for all its messy crimes and misdemeanors – was equally praiseworthy.

The empire was and is not just a story of domination and subjection but something more complicated: the creation of novel or hybrid societies in which notions of governance, economic assumptions, religious values and morals, ideas about property, and conceptions of justice, conflicted and mingled, to be reinvented, refashioned, tried out or abandoned.

The question is are we now to witnessing the final act. 

The non-recognition of England is already being used by its national broadcasting company the BBC referring to England as the four nations.  

In fact, England is already fragmented.

English nationalists if such a thing exists appear to be blind to the breakup of England.

Today, a hundred years on, the world is witnessing remarkable self-destruction in England.

An uneasy transition has or is taking place, from a decaying colonial legacy to a country that sees life through platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram lies, manipulation, in every area…..with a global crisis forming, which is not just a Pandemic but an Economic depression with mass unemployment.

The question now is whether British people can continue to play their part in the development of the modern world. 

It has to pump trillions of quantitative easing money into its banks at the cost of ten years of Austerity. Dumping the EU its largest market on the results of a non-legally- totally false informed non legally binding referendum while building two Aircraft carriers and replacing worthless nuclear submarines, while 8.4 million its people alone are living in sub-standard housing with 400,000 people are either homeless or at risk of being homeless relying on foodbanks. 

The people themselves – about half who no longer give a rat’s a— about England, who are now hellbent on their smartphones, Ipads, creating an unrealistic, relativistic, melting pot utopia.

These people will be living on the English purse for some time, not the stuff of which national pride is made. They have other priorities dedicated to its demise. 

One would have to wonder why migrants risking life and limb to get here. 

Perhaps it because all the servants are leaving. 

These are the strange things happening, that demonstrate quite clearly what is wrong with Britain – and, probably, the rest of the ‘developed’ world, both devotion to business and profit, not people. 

“We convinced many countries, many countries – and I did this myself for the most part – not to use Huawei because we think it’s an unsafe security risk,” the US president Donald Dump said.

(This is a man who seems to wake up every morning wondering what controversy he can provoke, what headlines he can create.

Diplomacy, or the lack of it, can be a complicated business. We’ve learned that from observing Donald Trump.

Both his campaign and presidency is marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.

This is a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics.)

With the UK now becoming the US junior partner, (one of the most unreliable partners for any country) who cares when a phenomenal’ trade deal beyond Nigel Farage is promised, providing it sends its new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth to the South China Seas with American warplanes, and supplies the Arabs with bombs to finish off Yeham.   

It’s one thing to get rid of the Chinese firm Huawei and its 5G infrastructure and in return to sour the world’s second-largest economy behind the US, which has more money in the bank than any other country. 

Indeed three of the world’s 10 biggest sovereign wealth funds are Chinese, together holding more than $1.5tn (£988bn) in assets.

Not too long ago the UK was one of China’s favorite places to invest – not anymore. 

Beijing’s ambassador to London, Liu Xiaoming, warned: “China wants to be UK’s friend and partner. But if you treat China as a hostile country, you would have to bear the consequences.”

 China operates an Authoritarian form of capitalism against Anglo – American capitalism which is the root of the problem. Global supremacy.

China’s investments may well be subordinate to its National Development and reform commission, but the staggering truth of Huawei is that the US does not want China to be a superpower when it comes to technology.

With the pandemic being used to push the protection of businesses the world population will eventually be tracked.  

Both the US and England might well end up as viewed as failed states due to the handling of the COVID-19 with both countries ending up with up distant and withdrawn people far from enhanced by COVID-19.

Not too long ago, the UK did a 79 million deal to import pig semen from China for stemcell research.

Its not stemcell research it needs. It needs a lot of fixing but isn’t that what the next four years are going to be about?

What is needs is some Face Recognition and a written constitution.  All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

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

29 Wednesday Jan 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

(Twenty-minute read)

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

By definition negotiating involves conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The UK will be accommodated but never prioritised above the collective

the interest of the EU.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self – Interest against collective interest.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In my own view, it is a huge blunder.

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

We must all live with its consequences.

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

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

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

The European Council does not undertake negotiations itself.

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

 

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

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

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

Brexit

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

 

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

22 Wednesday Jan 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

Dear Sir

22/01/2020.

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

So I keep it short. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Truly

Robert de May Dillon

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE DOES SOME BASIC UK MATH’S.

21 Tuesday Jan 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

 

(Three-minute read)

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

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

Take away £33.9 billion for the NHS –                                   589.5 billion

Take away £7.1 billion for Education –                                   582.4

Scotland £1.2 billion –                                                          581.2

Preparing for Brexit £6.3 billion –                                          584.9

Policing £750 million-                                                           584.15

AI – £250 million-                                                                583.9

Defence- £2.2billion-                                                            581.7

HS2 –  £106  billion                                                              375.7

Replace trident £205 billion-                                                 170 .7

Hinkley Point Nuclear Plant £22 billion-                                 148.7

Replace Farmers Eu Subsites  £3 billion-                               145.7.

Loss of trade- £ 5 billion                                                       140. 7

Subsidy to Northern Ireland  £10.8 billion                              129.9

Cost of servicing (paying the interest) the public debt

amounted to around £48 billion                                            81.9

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

Congestion £307 billion.                                                     -291.1

Tax fraud costing £15.4 billion                                             -306.5

Obesity £73 billion                                                              -379.5

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

Even the most optimistic aspects of this assessment are bleak.

But it’s not just Brexit.

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

19 Sunday Jan 2020

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

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

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

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

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

Confused.

Well here is the picture as I understand it.

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

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

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

With a deal, or Without a deal.

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

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

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

Or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This comes with huge hidden dangers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So let’s have a look

WTO rules represent a minimum threshold.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK; IS THIS THE FIRST SIGNS OF WHAT THE UK WILL DO WITH REGULATIONS ON LEAVING THE EU.

15 Wednesday Jan 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, Brexit., Capitalism, Environment, Post - truth politics., Reality., The Obvious., Transition period or Implication period., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

(Two-minute read)

It stinks on more than one front.

Connectivity is only a smokescreen for state aid in breach of EU regulations.

The chancellor, Sajid Javid, said: “The reviews we are announcing will help level up our economy. They will ensure that regional connections not only continue but flourish in the years to come – so that every nation and region can fulfil its potential.

Unadulterate bullshit.

The aviation sector has got away for years with increasing its carbon footprint. The last thing we need is another incentive for them to pollute more.

A possible government deal to cut the cost of flights to save regional airline Flybe is “the exact opposite” of what is needed to tackle climate change.

Connect Airways, paid just £2.2million for Flybe’s assets but pledged to pump tens of millions of pounds into the loss-making airline to turn it around.

Of course, this never happened if it did it would not now be looking to defer a few million for three years.

Cyrus Capital Partners is based out of New York it is a large advisory firm with 33 clients and discretionary assets under management (AUM) of $4,897,199,827 they owned the largest share of a newly formed company called Connect Airways, with 40%, while the other partners owned 30% each.

The regional airline did come close to outright collapse a year ago amid an acrimonious takeover battle that left shareholders fuming that their equity had been left worthless.

The Uk government cannot claim to be a global leader on tackling the climate emergency one day, then making the most carbon-intensive kind of travel cheaper the next.

APD generates billions for the Treasury each year, with the fee expected to be worth £3.7bn in 2019/20. It was introduced in 1994 as a tax to pay for the environmental costs of air travel. However, if you’re just changing flights in the UK en route to somewhere else – as long as the time between flights is less than 24 hours you don’t pay APD.

Children aged two years old without a seat booking are exempt from APD.

The idea was that the tax makes passengers think twice before flying.

Unfortunately, taxpayers money pumped into this company will only line the pockets of the shareholders,  its bankers

Reality check.

The national debt attributable to every man, woman and child in the U is in the region of £24,900 each.

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

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; BRAVO SOCIAL MEDIA ENGLAND IS NOW WELL ON THE WAY TO BECOMING A TWEET ON THE GLOBAL STAGE.

21 Saturday Dec 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(Seven-minute read)

 

Brexit is now set to become the best optical illusion of 2010.

But don’t panic there are still plenty of blatant lies to be told before it severs all ties with the European Union.

The path to a hard Brexit will now be paved with lots of them.

Parlement no longer has a say in the negotiations with the European Union. They now can’t really deliver anything except their own opinions.

Politically, Brexit represents a rise in the disgruntlement of the average person: the working or lower-middle-class citizen, who feels unheard, left behind, disenfranchised.

This is sneered at as “populism”

Apart from in Britain, populism has manifested itself with the election of Donald Trump in the US. This is terrifying. There is Marine le Pen in France, who is not going away.

So if Britain has the nerve to pull a no-deal Brexit, Europe can do nothing about it.

The European Union after decades of good neighbourly relations will have no option but to treat Britain like an adversary- trade wise.

Why?

Because Border disruption does not stop at customs checks.

Because if it concedes or gets embroiled in piecemeal cherry-picking trade deal it will lose all creditability, leading to a Singapore economy operating on its doorstep with tit-for-tat tariffs.

The result will be a cultivated facade that is going to require countries to be extremely careful in dealing with the British Government.

So where are we?

BREXIT was 90% about the UK itself, and 10% about the EU. With the withdrawal agreement passed this no longer applies.

Maybe the European Union can continue as if nothing had happened, but it won’t be the smart thing to do.

The EU can survive Brexit but to do so it must reform and reform very very quickly.

The smart thing to do would be to use this opportunity to make a structural adjustment, make the “ever deeper union” with the original four countries, and understand that the rest of the EU members only want the trade.

Thus the risk to the European Union would not be primarily in Brussels but in the domestic political landscape of the member states.

Its only course of action is a comprehensive trade deal not just with England but with London, or no deal.

As a no-deal will risk stripped London of their lucrative EU “passports” that allow them to sell services to the rest of the union it will have to join the single market or the European Economic Area that encapsulates the EU and non-members such as Norway. That will, in turn, requires accepting freedom of movement.

Or the City can go it alone and operate in a much looser regulatory environment.

Currently, London is the undisputed market leader in Euro – denominated derivatives, worth billions. It clears a whopping 972bn euro-worth of Euro-denominated contracts a day. Not to mention the employment it creates.

There are a number of potential scenarios, including that the current status quo prevails and the UK carries on trading with the EU under existing free movement principles. “That outcome is not beyond the realms of possibility,”

However, that means freedom of movement for goods, people and capital between the UK and EU will continue to operate. For millions of people who campaigned and voted for leaving the EU, this is will be difficult to accept.

By staying in the single market and customs union, the UK would be liable to EU rules and legislation regarding the free movement of goods, services and people across borders. Plus, it could put the UK in the dangerous position of still having to accept EU economic and political policy, while at the same time denying the UK a seat at the negotiating table.

Brexit damages both the EU and the UK. But the Brexit damage is greater to the UK.

Countries that have preferential trade deals with the EU but have not yet agreed to roll over those benefits for British exporters in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit. Still, more losses could come if Britain failed to conclude rollover deals with Vietnam and the MERCOSUR countries of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, which have recently signed trade agreements with the EU.

However, regions in Ireland face the most severe Brexit consequences, with potential economic exposure on par with the impact on regions of the U.K. that are currently most dependent on ties to the EU.

The UK could still end up being forced to comply with EU laws and regulations, as is the case with Norway and Iceland.

We are all looking at a disorderly world and you don’t have to be a blinkered horse to know that the digital age favours the fast and the small over the inflexible slow-moving bureaucratic.

The question should be “Will England be Part of Europe” instead of “Is England a Part of Europe“.

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

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: Thinking ahead to 5 years from now, do you think Britain’s decision to leave the EU will have had a positive or negative impact on the UK?

08 Sunday Dec 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Digital age., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., English General Election., European Union., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Modern day life., Reality., Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read)

Of course, as with all hypothetical questions, there is no correct answer.

Whether it will be a liberal One Nation Tory party, ongoing coalition governments or the Labour party that will be the political beneficiary is not yet sure.

However, looking at the present state of England against the problems facing the world one would have to say the horizon is far from looking bright.

The longer-term questions about the UK’s relationship with the EU will still need to be addressed no matter what the result of the current general election.

This very question itself will pale in comparison to the coming nexus environmental and energy problems facing us all.

Even if one was to ignore climate change it is truly impossible to overstate the havoc—financial, social, cultural—that could be brought about by peak oil if sufficient renewable energy is not in place to make up for declines in fossil fuels.

By the middle of the next decade or so, we will either all be starving, and fighting wars over resources, or our global food supply will have changed radically.

The bitter reality is that it will probably be a mixture of both.

The one thing we can be sure of is this:

No matter how wacky the predictions we make today, they will look tame in the strange light of the future. From the web to wildlife, the economy to nanotechnology, politics to sport, will see technological change on an astonishing scale.

All this assumes that environmental catastrophe doesn’t drive us into caves.

With over 60% of global GDP will be digitized by 2022 it is a total waste of time for countries such as the UK to attempted to pull up the drawbridge, to increase national production and reducing reliance on imports. These world-changing technologies are already creating more interconnected, interdependent and rapid business networks.

How far beggar-my-neighbour competitive devaluations and protection will develop due to a hard Brexit is hard to predict, but protectionist trends are there for all to see.

The question is, will Britain outside the EU be a more global, more deregulated, more free-trading country five years from now.

Presently nearly half of the UK’s total trade is with EU countries.

Leaving the biggest free trade area with over 500 million consumers won’t be cheap no matter what the divorce bill is. The EU has 53 trade deals worldwide the UK has zero. Political Map of Europe

The consequent rebalancing of the British economy will therefore take years and more than likely create a food underclass.

WHY?

Because it is as yet unclear when the UK will have the legal authority to begin negotiations; when the UK will leave the EU customs union; and what the trade arrangements between the UK and the EU will be after that point.

It is therefore difficult to see how third countries could engage seriously with the UK until these decisions have been taken. In addition, there are significant obstacles to meaningful trade deals with most of the countries.

The world will be more complicated even if these projections assume an orderly exit from the EU.

Only when we stand together can we secure our prosperity in a competitive world as the distinction between the country, town, will blur, with Artifical intelligence not to mention sea levels rising.

Why?

Because if I’d been writing this five years ago, it would have been all about technology: the internet, the fragmentation of media, mobile phones, social tools allowing consumers to regain power at the expense of corporations, all that sort of stuff but artificial intelligence is proving itself an unexpectedly difficult problem.

To describe EXACTLY what they will be doing in 1,820 days never mind that a second financial crisis in the 2010s – probably sooner than later – that will prove not just to be the remaking of Britain but the whole of the EU.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

26 Thursday Sep 2019

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

 

(Twenty minutes read.)

In a previous post, I asked the above question:

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

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

1707, Scotland and England join together to form Great Britain

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

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

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

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

Difference Between Constitutional Monarchy and Democracy

Where are we at the present moment?

The British Constitution can be summed up in eight words:

What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.

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

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

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

The UK needs a fully written constitution?

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliaments Act?

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

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

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

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

from leaving the Union.

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: SHOULD THE MONARCHY BE DISMANTLED IN LIGHT OF BREXIT.

13 Friday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit., Democracy

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

(Ten-minute read)

 

The monarchy has been part of the British constitution for centuries and it symbolises the unity and traditional standards of the nation.An official photograph, released by Buckingham Palace to mark her 90th birthday, shows Queen Elizabeth II with her five great-grandchildren and her two youngest grandchildren at Windsor Castle

However, no matter how it is dressed up in order to marry into modern times it represents a feudal society of medieval England in a modern democratic state that has no written constitution.

This feudal system is now outdated and Britain needs a change in order to revolutionalise the country and live in a more modern and democratic society.

The monarchy’s existence is undemocratic it is unaccountable even if serves no political purpose other than just a figurehead for the country.

Living in modern democratic society and having a constitutional monarchy underlines a string of values which hinder the modernisation of the country.

Having a monarch creates social and class divisions.

The hereditary privilege which the royals are ultimately born in to is no guarantee that the person in the office is fit by birth to be head of state.

As we are witnessing with the ongoing chariot of Brexit the crown prerogative is exploited by ministers, and parliament cannot do anything to take away or reduce these powers as they have been derived from the royal prerogative.

It is said that the queen is powerless and pointless and all her powers are invested in the prime minister. However, officials hide the real nature of this truth by saying the queen “acts on the advice of the prime minister”, meaning she does what she is told.the

“Royal Prerogative” can be described more accurately as “prime ministerial powers” due to the huge amount of power the government exercises.

There are some powers which she can and has used, on occasions when there is a hung parliament. In an event of a hung parliament, the queen will have to choose who to appoint if the incumbent prime minister resigns straight away or is defeated in the commons.

In her position as head of the Church of England, she is in a direct conflict of interest with her role as head of the armed forces and the government. As head of the Armed forces, everyone swears allegiance to her, not the Government. 

At this point the question arises, should the queen consider dissolving parliament again?

It is for this reason some have called for a reform of the sovereign’s personal prerogative.

The call for this reform is one of the arguments for getting rid of the monarchy as many people do not agree with why an unelected and unaccountable monarch should have the right to play any part in the political process.

This brings us again to why the monarchy should be eradicated; she plays no political role for the UK and she gives the government enormous amount of political power which the government take full advantage of because they are not accountable to parliament. She is immune from prosecution?

The monarchy is actually paid for by the taxpayer’s money.

While the official figure is that the Royal family costs only about £40m per annum, this doesn’t take into account security costs, royal visits and others of less significance. The actual figure is estimated by some to be about £200m every year.

Other countries maintain their monarchies at a fraction of the cost of the British monarchy.

In fact, to take the monarchy out of the British constitution you would actually need a written constitution to do this, which currently does not exist. The royal family contributes a lot to the economy through tourism, but it is not sufficient reason to give the government powers.queen elizabeth ii birthday trooping the colour

She is still consulted weekly on government business by the prime minister in person.

Yes, the historic “prerogative powers” of the Sovereign have been devolved largely to government ministers. But this still means that when the British government declares war, or regulates the civil service, or signs a treaty, it is doing so only on her authority.

The Queen’s consent is necessary to turn any bill into actual law.

However, Royal Assent is different than “Queen’s consent.”

Queen’s consent is exercised only on the advice of ministers, but its existence provides the government with a tool for blocking debate on certain subjects if bills are tabled by backbench rebels or the opposition.

There is one exception that allows her to wield power herself. Only “in a grave constitutional crisis,” the Sovereign can “act contrary to or without Ministerial advice.”

With no precedent in modern times, it’s not clear what would actually constitute this, but the possibility remains.

However, due to the Fixed Term Parliament Act, she can not dissolve Parliament, two-thirds vote in the commons is required. But she does play a part after an election when she calls on the MP able to form a government to do so.

All prosecutions are carried out in the name of the Sovereign, and she is both immune from prosecution and cannot be compelled to give evidence in court. But no immunity attaches to the name Elizabeth WINDSOR, which is her legal name as an individual.

God help the idiots that try.

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