Category Archives: Brexit.

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.

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

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.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

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

≈ Comments Off on 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?

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.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

26 Thursday Sep 2019

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

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

Tags

,

 

 

(Twenty minutes read.)

In a previous post, I asked the above question:

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

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

1707, Scotland and England join together to form Great Britain

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

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

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

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

Difference Between Constitutional Monarchy and Democracy

Where are we at the present moment?

The British Constitution can be summed up in eight words:

What the Queen in Parliament enacts is law.

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

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

Fortunately, without a written constution Brexit is exposing a country with an out of date system.

The UK needs a fully written constitution?

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parliaments Act?

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

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

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

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

from leaving the Union.

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

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

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

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

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.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT MODERN DAY POLITICS.

02 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Algorithms., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Dehumanization., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Elections., European Union., First past the post., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Political voting systems., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Social Media, The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT MODERN DAY POLITICS.

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read) 

My vote makes no difference is plausibly a part of the modern-day phenomenon of algorithm analyse voting that has lead to both the election of Donal Trump and Boris Jonhson.

It is resulting in the loss or deliberate yielding up of decision-making power by national governments to other organisations with Social media platforms both domestic and international— Like Facebook, Twitter,  etc. 

Combine this with Ngo’s, quangos, the law courts, business corporations, central banks, the E.U., the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization and its no wonder that many are no longer content as voters to be the foot soldiers of a social or religious bloc.

They want to make a difference individually and although in a mass democracy this may lead to inevitable frustration, few would want to return to a time of extreme political polarisation or digital dictatorship. 

The symptoms of short term popularism driven by social media platforms and the smartphone are leading to a no-deal Brexit are the same worldwide. 

Denunciations of the system, citizen disengagement from mainstream parties, electoral volatility and/or apathy, the rise of dissenting movements that appeal to large numbers who are, or feel themselves to be, disfranchised or ignored by an establishment dominated by uncontrollable and often faceless forces are replacing old political systems. 

Hence the perception that parties and politicians are no longer willing or able to represent their voters, that they are “all the same” and that politics has become an irrelevant smokescreen for the machinations of special interests and lobby groups.

When relatively few people are losing out—these changes may not seem to matter much. They may even seem desirable: “pooling of sovereignty,” removal of political interference from civil society, increasing checks on the executive by domestic and international courts, subsidiarity in decision-making, encouragement of inward investment, and so on.

This creates a political and administrative burden that can neither manage nor surrender—a great cause of popular discontent.

Not so, of course, when things suddenly go wrong.

One has only to look at England:

A combination of capitalism and socialism in a highly centralized system without a nationally elected government makes England today a very unusual place.

This oddity has opened up a constitutional free-for-all.

However, national identity, not administrative or economic efficiency, is the core of both devolution and independence— and the rest is window-dressing with the past affecting us all in more complex and deep-seated ways than in countries that have experienced violent historic ruptures.

Community loyalties, however deep-rooted, are not permanent.

Whatever happens in England, there will remain the question of how to govern a big, growing, diverse, crowded, and increasingly self-conscious England.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

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

01 Sunday Sep 2019

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

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

Tags

, , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would help keep Britain united.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The outcome could be a federal UK if Scotland agrees.

That is for the future.

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

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

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

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

31 Saturday Aug 2019

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

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

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Eighteen-minute read)

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

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

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

Dominic Cummings

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

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

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

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where is its voice?

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

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

Oscar Wilde’s famous comment:-

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

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

Surely its time for a written constitution.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HOW UGLY A NO DEAL BREXIT WILL BE FOR IRELAND.

27 Tuesday Aug 2019

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: HOW UGLY A NO DEAL BREXIT WILL BE FOR IRELAND.

Tags

, , , , ,

 

( A Fifteen-minute read)

There isn’t long to go until England’s scheduled departure from the EU when we will all see if there is any honesty in politics?

Are we going to witness “a side deal” between the EU and the UK re the backstop?

At the moment the Irish Government and EU leaders are sticking to the position there will be no discussions with the UK on how to manage a no-deal on the Border until after the UK has left the EU.

While the new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, now claims the backstop is “dead” a kamikaze no-deal Brexit will change that.Some food businesses in North ‘could go out of businesses within three days’ under no-deal Brexit

When it comes to the backstop we are talking about Northern Ireland, not Ulster.

Maybe Ireland, as part of Europe, would be the saner option for nationalists; even some unionists. The reality is who would pay for it the EU, Ireland or England or a combination of all three.

When you include the British expats already living in the Republic, a united Ireland would contain about a million people who identify as British: that reality would have to be recognised and somehow accommodated. Britain’s desire to be more British would actually make Ireland more British and Britain less so: because it would have lost the North, and probably Scotland soon after. At least it would reveal that when Brexiteers say Britain, they really mean England. Sorry, Wales.

Of course, is the there is another hypertechnical position.

If the EU fails to support its member Ireland it could opt to join the United Kingdom.

Either options  would be fiendishly complex to organise and require money, imagination and empathy to put together.

There will be no free lunch. It’ll be like starting Ireland over from scratch.

Back to the present.

One way or another the UK now want part of a reality or all of an illusion?

While new beginnings usually offer the chance of a fresh approach, the new Uk government’s approach to date suggests that we are more likely to witness further attempts to avoid the tough decisions and to offer little honesty on the very real trade-offs that Brexit will force on the British public.

Just like today in the Commons, the Irish parliament in Dublin back in 1921 was fiercely polarised between those who accepted the recent Anglo-Irish treaty and those who saw it as failing to offer the promised full Irish republic.

In 1921, the political division between the pro- and anti-treaty groups in Ireland was fuelled broadly by two radically opposing interpretations of the treaty. The pro-treaty faction claimed that the agreement creating the limited Free State was the best they could get and was a stepping stone to further independence. On the anti-treaty side, the same agreement was seen as a failure to achieve what was promised, a Republic, and those who signed it were traitors.

Mr Johnson with no meaning full mandate seems set to try to avoid the backstop through different means—either by trying to renegotiate the deal with the EU or by leaving the EU with no deal all ‘very gung-ho.’

As an Irishman, I am duty-bound to lend my offerings to this.

My first offering is with a no-deal the Northern Ireland border becomes an EU border. As such there will have to be border checks and tariffs.

There is an obligation on the EU and its member states to remain unity together if it wants to keep the main principle of the European Union – Peace. 

The 1998 Good Friday Agreement was a key part of this peace process. One of the agreement’s three main points was creating the infrastructure for “North-South co-operation” between the Irish government and the newly-created Northern Irish Assembly.

Both the UK and EU agreed that, in negotiating a deal on the relationship after Brexit, keeping the border open and upholding the terms of the Good Friday Agreement was of critical importance even if future trade negotiations fail, there should be provisions in place to ensure that the border remains open, as it is today.

That principle is the Irish backstop. The day’s of an Englishman’s word has long gone. 

As part of Brexit, the UK intends to leave both the single market and customs union.

The terms of the Good Friday Agreement can not be upheld without the UK being part of these two things.  Customs and regulatory checks on goods will be necessary in some form (possibly away from the border). Were the UK to leave the EU with “no-deal” Northern Ireland (as part of the UK) would have different customs and regulatory standards to Ireland (as part of the EU).

This means there could and will be a need for customs checks on goods to be introduced at the border, which could create a “hard border” with physical infrastructure, like cameras or guard posts. All undermine the principle of North-South cooperation as set out in the Good Friday agreement.

In March, the UK government set out its plan for avoiding a hard border in Ireland in the case of no deal.

It says it would introduce no new tariffs on goods crossing the border from Ireland into Northern Ireland, and no new checks or controls at the border itself (although some new customs requirements would be placed on a small number of goods, these would happen away from the border. This is a unilateral measure set out by the UK government, meaning it only affects goods crossing from Ireland into Northern Ireland.

As for goods going the other way (from Northern Ireland into Ireland) the exact details of how this would be done remain unclear.

No matter how it is achieved it will lead to different regulations for Northern Ireland compared with the “rest of the UK”.

Whilst it is true that the 9 counties of Ulster do not form Northern Ireland (3 are in the republic), historically, Ulster was a province of Ireland and when Northern Ireland became a part of the UK in 1922, it was agreed that this province would be split as it is today; the 6 counties of Ulster that form Northern Ireland (Londonderry, Antrim, Down, Tyrone, Armagh and Fermanagh) and the 3 retained by the republic; Cavan, Monaghan and Donegal. On this basis, the protestant or unionist collective term Ulster is deliberately provocative to nationalists as the British ‘stole’ and retained part of their country.

Finally:

On a practical note can someone please tell me if I buy something online in the UK which is no longer a Member of the EU will I be relying on the terms and conditions associated with the purchase rather then-current statutory instruments.

The crying tragedy is when a world needs a coming together to tackle a very penurious future building a wall that will not keep anything out nor in capitalism in all its forms must go beyond just shareholder value.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE LOOKING NOT JUST AT THE BEGINS OF A FAILED STATE BUT THE FINAL DEATH THROBS OF A EMPIRE

26 Monday Aug 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Capitalism, Climate Change., Democracy, Environment, European Commission., European Union., Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, The essence of our humanity., The new year 2109, The Obvious., The Queen., The state of the World., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE LOOKING NOT JUST AT THE BEGINS OF A FAILED STATE BUT THE FINAL DEATH THROBS OF A EMPIRE

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

The British Empire was the largest in history existing from the sixteenth century into the twentieth century.

Unfortunately, it squandered all that it acquired on a victorian class system.

Queen Elizabeth II

It killed with famine, sword and fire more people than Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Hitler or Stalin.

In the defence of its imperial interests, it precipitated in two World Wars.

Now it is presiding with “Mad cow disease” it’s very own self-destruction.

At stake are fundamental ideas about British sovereignty and whether in a

a progressively globalized world in which some claimed that the individual

the nation-state was becoming unviable with the can sovereignty in its

existing forms remain intact.

Queen Elizabeth II in 1992, referred to the year as the royal family’s “annus horribilis.”

SHE WAS WRONG.

Why?

Because along came a five-year austerity plan aimed at reducing the country’s massive deficit, which had been fueled by bank bailouts and stimulus spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and resultant recession which resulted in 52 per cent of voters opting to leave the EU, (making the United Kingdom the first country to ever do so)

Manufactured by Magie Thatcher who turned the market into replacing society as the model of state governance. 

Not surprising as worldwide political culture has in fact transformed from one based on class to a new sort of populist, demotic politics, shaped at least as much by the mass media, especially the popular press, as by the politicians.

A sort of firestorm has broken out not just in Brazil but all over the world.

Why?

Because the relationship between public culture and consumer capitalism, while the very Earth itself is struggling with climate change has been close, in many ways the one constantly trying to outguess the other.

This game of one-upmanship, marked by ironic knowingness, has been labelled “postmodern, Brexit or Donal Trump trade wars”.

It points to the growing understanding of the relative nature of truth, itself a reaction against the prevailing supposedly “modern” certainties of the 20th century (reason, freedom, humanity, and truth itself), which indeed have often had and are having appalling outcomes.

However, it is a sign of the times that these antifundamentalist currents, themselves critical of much of Western culture, emerged at much the same time as new fundamentalisms emerged in the forms of American neoconservatism and certain strains of radical Islam. The ferment of intellectual and cultural changes involved are inextricable from the massive changes underway in the transition to the novel forms of society made possible by new information technologies.

What the Smartphone and Social Media have and are doing since the 1960s onward for Africa are also unravelling England and the EU with the perception of poor economic performance and calls for the modernization of not just for British society and the British economy but the EU and the world at large.

Both England and the European Union need to reform.

Optimism only carries you so far.

History rhymes rather than repeats are what is required.

A society where elites are widely loathed, where the political parties are polarized by demographic echoes is on the brink of collapse.

Why?

Now as then — much more now than then, in fact — there is a pervasive mistrust of institutions, a sense that governments are rotting from the head down.

The abject failure of rulers in improving human values has resulted in a downgrading of human to sub-human levels with a race to expect dishonest money is the net result of the ultimate degradation of society.

How do you trick someone into giving you something they have?

First, you offer them something worthless, while convincing them that actually much better than what they have. Second, you convince them that what they do have is worthless.

This is a typical approach used by both con artists and governments.

These huge scams are just diversions from the ultimate crime Climate change.

Our survival instinct has to quickly override our conditioned naiveté and passivity that has been bred into us. We are not just threatened as countries but as species at the same time.

A twitter/ facebook driven world will be a world of shallow values- unravelling our societies.

The thin veneer of civilization that we all depend upon on a daily basis is disappearing at a staggering pace and its not just the melting of ice.

The question now is.

Do we follow the trodden path where we only find all the grass eaten?

Creativity and imagination are what is needed as we are not getting across the problems of probability.

How we discuss and what we discuss is vital.

We must know the facts. We need a world brain bus.

Who is more likely to embrace the marginalized, to work for the disenfranchised?

Who will work for those of all backgrounds, all races and ethnicities, all religions, sexual preferences, gender identities?

Who will work to promote respect and equality for all people in the World?

Who sends a message that I want our children to believe in?

The rich and the poor, the entitled and the marginalized—they all make up the threads that a country needs to weave a unified society. When not include we weaken the material that fabricates our entire fabric of the world.

There has never been such a thing as an empire only a company called East India Company merchants. The British Empire did not exist in the Middle Ages. In the early Middle Ages, England was part of other empires: 

The British Empire was a commercial, not a military or political one.

Originally, holding an empire was about power. Throughout history, kings and queens have invaded territories in order to gain strength and power. With colonies, a country gains space, a larger army, more trade markets and the chance to make money out of whatever resources are on offer in them.

The formation of the empire was thus an unorganized process based on piecemeal acquisition, sometimes with the British government being the least willing partner in the enterprise.

An ‘Empire’ is a group of countries ruled over by a single monarch or ruling power. An empire doesn’t need an ’emperor’. The British Empire comprised of Britain, the ‘mother country’, and the colonies, countries ruled to some degree by and from Britain.

(British Empire, a worldwide system of dependencies—colonies, protectorates, and other territories—that over a span of some three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the crown of Great Britain and the administration of the British government.)

To this day Britain’s ‘cultural imperialism’, suggesting that it was based on nationalism and racist scorn for other people.

With a handshake and the commitment “On the word of an Englishman,”
Captain James Cook claimed it for the British crown.In the century 1815–1914, 10 million square miles of territory and 400 million people were added to the British Empire. By the British Empire Exhibition of 1924, Britain was the ‘Mother Country’ of a worldwide empire which covered a fifth of the land in the world, and Britannia ‘ruled the waves’.

Sorry but Empires have benefited no one nor will any future trade deals that are not attached to sustainability do anything to resolve Climate change.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

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.

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

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.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨