Category Archives: England EU Referendum IN or Out.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT ARE OR WILL BE THE HARD FACTS RE BRIXIT.

17 Tuesday Jan 2017

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., The New year 2017, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT ARE OR WILL BE THE HARD FACTS RE BRIXIT.

Tags

, ,

( A troubling seven minute read)

Afficher l'image d'origine

 

Since ancient times, philosophers have tried to devise systems to try to balance the strengths of majority rule against the need to ensure that informed parties get a larger say in critical decisions, not to mention that minority voices are heard.

The Brixit vote is a case in kind.

Originally the European Community was supposed to be a trade agreement to ease all the tariffs and taxes, lower the cost of goods and improve the efficiency of the European member’s economies.  The British voted overwhelmingly voted yes by 67.2% (historic high) for this in 1975.

The real lunacy of the United Kingdom’s vote to leave the European Union was not that British leaders dared to ask their populace to weigh the benefits of membership against the immigration pressures it presents. Rather, it was the absurdly low bar for exit, requiring only a simple majority. Given voter turnout of 70%, this meant that the leave campaign won with only 36% of eligible voters backing it.Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger article 50 by the end of March.

Does the vote have to be repeated after a year to be sure? No.

A parliamentary petition for a second referendum has attracted more than one million.

Does a majority in Parliament have to support Brexit? Apparently not.

Did the UK’s population really know what they were voting on?

Absolutely not. Indeed, no one has any idea of the consequences, both for the UK in the global trading system, or the effect on domestic political stability.

This isn’t democracy;

Mrs May’s phrase “Brexit means Brexit” has become a tired cliché.

What exactly, is a fair, democratic process for making irreversible, nation-defining decisions?

Is it really enough to get 52% to vote for breakup, in a country that has three devolved parliaments that voted to stay in.

The idea that somehow any decision reached anytime by majority rule is necessarily “democratic” is a perversion of the term.

Modern democracies have evolved systems of checks and balances to protect the interests of minorities and to avoid making uninformed decisions with catastrophic consequences. The greater and more lasting the decision, the higher the hurdles.

The current international standard for breaking up a country is arguably less demanding than a vote for lowering the drinking age.

What we do know is that, in practice, most countries require a “supermajority” for nation-defining decisions, not a mere 51%. There is no universal figure like 60%, but the general principle is that, at a bare minimum this would be the required percentage.

Brexit should have required, say, two popular votes spaced out over at least two years, followed by a 60% vote in the House of Commons.

In this way if Brexit still prevailed, at least we could know it was not just a one-time snapshot of a fragment of the population.

The current norm of simple majority rule is, as we have just seen on TV with her speech on what Britain wants in the upcoming negotiations is a formula for chaos.

I am afraid it is not going to be a pretty picture.

Talks on Britain’s political divorce from the EU and a possible free trade agreement are going to be complex, lengthy and difficult.

So difficult that there will be no agreement that will satisfy both sides.

You don’t have to blind and deaf to realize that The European Union is an economic and political union between 28 member countries that covers more than four million square kilometres.  It spans countries with more than 508 million citizens, which means it has the third largest population in the world after China and India.

Turkey and the Balkan states of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Albania are now the next in line to join the EU. In addition, Kosovo and Bosnia and Herzegovina have also been promised the prospect of joining when they are ready to. Turkey, alone would add an additional 75 million EU citizens.

The new unelected Prime Minister Theresa May plans to trigger Article 50 – the step that starts the timer on two years of Brexit talks – by the end of March 2017.

Britain, I believe, had the best of all possible deals with the European Union, being a member of the common market without belonging to the euro and having secured a number of other opt-outs from EU rules. And yet that was not enough to stop the United Kingdom’s electorate from voting to leave. Why?

There is no doubt many in England feel the EU is a “bureaucratic monstrosity”, But what exactly do they mean by this? But most of these relate to the terms of UK membership of the Single European Market, where standardisation is needed to ensure a level playing field for trading nations.

None of these, it seems to me, are reasons to go to war with Europe, and deny the benefits of the single market which has undoubtedly boosted prosperity. Trade within Europe has doubled since 1992, thanks to the abolition of tariffs and barriers to the free movement of goods and services in Europe.

What has changed?

European Union (EU) has remained at heart undemocratic, protectionist, centralist and over-bureaucratic.  The EU launched a single currency and the organization now acts as a parliament passing regulations and laws while maintaining an overblown and expensive bureaucracy.

Simply put, unless there was uniformity across all member countries, the aspiration of a single currency and economy, could never hope to be realised.

Here are some hard facts:

What happens if Britain votes for Brexit?

On the day of Brexit, the Great Repeal Bill will come into force and end the supremacy of EU law over Britain’s own legislation.

SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon has raised the prospect of a second Scottish independence referendum because most Scots voted to remain in the EU.

Spain’s Government has also called for joint control of Gibraltar and Sinn Fein has demanded a vote to unite Ireland and Northern Ireland.

There is ongoing uncertainty over what will happen once Britain leaves the EU because it has to make new trade agreements with the rest of the world. Under EU rules the UK cannot negotiate a trade deal until after it leaves the bloc.

The Brexit vote has led to higher import costs but was good news for exporters who had struggled with the high value of the pound.

Now Britain has voted to leave the EU, it will no longer have to contribute billions of pounds a year towards the European Union’s budget.

Britain is now free to take back control of its borders in order to curb immigration and increase security. The UK will no longer have to accept ‘free movement of people’ from Europe if this country leaves the EU’s single market.

Companies based in the UK may decide to relocate if they can no longer access the single market.

Eurosceptic populist parties across the Continent have delightedly seized on Brexit in an attempt to further their own campaigns for independence.

Scare tactics and rumours will intensify from both sides and it will be hard to find clarity.

As a result Brexit negotiations will be made more difficult because EU bosses will want to discourage other countries from following suit.

It looks just as likely Scotland Wales and Norther Ireland that voted to stay could find themselves out of the EU by staying in the UK.

The EU has said that Britain will have to allow the free movement of EU workers if it decides to stay in the internal market. Mrs May looks set to take Britain out of the EU’s single market in order to end the free movement of EU workers that goes with it.

There will be a saving ( depending on which contribution figures you believe of about £136m a week. This equates to  less than 40% of the amount splashed on the battlebus.

MAP

You may rest assured no matter what way these negotiations go they will be very expensive (both politically and economically)  and they will  “mostly amount to hot air”, rather than concrete plans for the future of the European Union or the United Kingdom’s.

“Whatever the UK vote is in the end , we must take long hard look on the future of the European Union.

The election of Donald Trump as the next US President means that Britain is now at the “front of the queue” for an US trade deal. If you believe that

june-in-review-3.jpg

May also said that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain.”

Making threats to the rest of Europe and cozying up to Trump (I hope she wears a cricket box for that first meeting).

It’s the sheer arrogance of the current government to say it’s all about taking back control of our borders and laws.’

Having her cake and eating it. Not on your nanny.

There will be what the EU want and you can bet your life they have their demands.

And if she isn’t going to have her own way – and for the ‘no deal is better than a bad deal’ yeah – try to get those FTA’s if they know you’ll walk out of them when your toys thrown out of the pram – that means anything she signs isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Ignoring the fact that, schools and hospitals struggling with budget cuts , a pound worth 20% less than it was in June 2016 and a Scotland that would appear to be now set yet again on the road to independence.

I think the cleaner the break the better.

Change hurts and change is happening at a faster rate than ever before.

In effect you are being sold down the river. Your lives have now been designated as “negotiation capital”. Britannia does not rule the waves. Afficher l'image d'origine

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS THE EU GOING TO FIND IT CHALLENGING TO PRESENT A UNITED FRONT TOWARDS THE UK EXIT NEGOTIATIONS.

04 Wednesday Jan 2017

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., The New year 2017, The world to day., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: IS THE EU GOING TO FIND IT CHALLENGING TO PRESENT A UNITED FRONT TOWARDS THE UK EXIT NEGOTIATIONS.

Tags

,

( A six-minute read)
It’s not long now before we are going to witness two events that will shape the future.Afficher l'image d'origineI am not talking about climate change or Artificial Intelligence rather the arrival of Donald Trump and the beginning of the UK negotiations to leave the EU.

There is little point in addressing the Donald Trump scenario.

A stupid, crass, vile racist, unintelligent, thug that is the laughing-stock of the world will be the US President with his finger on the red button.

What to expect is anyone guess.

If you ask me about 30%+ of Americans live in an alternate, non-fact based reality in which Right-Wing Propaganda is FACT, Lies = Truth.

“My Twitter has become so powerful that I can actually make my enemies tell the truth.” or  “I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.

In a weird way both events are connected by Artificial Intelligence/ Money.Afficher l'image d'origineAfficher l'image d'origine

One elected with False Twitter News and the other Nigel Farage fooled the English electorate to vote out of the EU with a pack lies.

Anyway back to the Question:

Until its official withdrawal, the UK will remain a fully fledged member state. However, UK involvement in EU decision-making will quickly become marginal.

UK officials in top management positions will likely have to leave.

(1,126 British nationals are employed in the European Commission (3.8% of the total. 73 British MEPs sit in the Parliament (out of 751 in total). Three EP committees have British chairs: Development; Internal Market and Consumer Protection; and Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs.)

Of course the EU is going to find it, if not impossible to negotiate with the UK.

Because the meaning of Brexit is yet to become clear to the Uk and the EU.

The UK wants to keep the trade relationship with EU members as it is today (free trade) but significantly change the rules surrounding the free movement of people between the EU and the UK.

The real problem, however, is that when you think about the interests and constraints of both sides, it becomes hard to envision any deal that all parties can accept — unless UK negotiators are able to go back to their constituents and sell a deal that falls well short of what was initially promised.

On the EU side, Brexit will change how EU institutions operate not just during the withdrawal period, but also afterwards. It will affect the balance of power among member states and therefore the policies that the EU would pursue.

Depend on the answers, the Union finds to its current crises – stabilising the euro, finding a common line in refugee policy, stemming the surge in Euroscepticism – and on its economic recovery.

Hardening European attitudes is that they do not want to encourage copy-cat referenda in their own countries.

If an agreement is reached, the treaties that currently govern the relationship between the EU and the UK (as a member state) will expire. If no agreement is reached, the treaties will automatically expire two years from when Article 50 was invoked.

 How will the UK and EU negotiate their split?
Afficher l'image d'origine

It’s important to remember that:

The British referendum is not legally binding: The UK government must initiate “Brexit” by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union.

It’s also important to understand:

That any agreement will need to be ratified by the parliament of every member state, which means every EU country would have a veto. From a negotiation perspective, this not only increases the amount of time needed to reach a comprehensive agreement but also lessens the likelihood of a deal. At least 65% of the population of the EU, must vote in favor of the agreement.

The most immediate and important challenge is to reach a new agreement covering economic relations with the EU. In addition, as a member of the EU, the UK participates in the EU’s trade agreements with non-EU countries: leaving the EU may force the UK to renegotiate these agreements. The EU may not prevent the UK negotiating and entering into such treaties providing that they will not come into force until the UK withdraws from the EU.

There’s an infinite number of potential outcomes in a negotiation like this.

There is also an option of extending negotiations beyond the two-year time limit, but it requires the consent of all countries in the EU.

The UK will have to ask for what it wants in ways that allow the EU to make concessions without setting dangerous precedents.

If no agreement is reached within two years and the EU treaties expire, the default is that the UK and EU would trade according to World Trade Organization rules. Notably, these rules cover only trade, not the many other issues the two sides need to negotiate.

As there is no precedent it is important to bear in mind that the internal process on the EU’s side of the table is itself being negotiated.

No matter what it means the UK is starting from a weak bargaining position.

The UK is due to hold the EU’s rotating presidency from July to December 2017.This will become not only politically untenable. Article 50 disqualifies the UK ‘from chairing any Council meetings on the withdrawal negotiations.

Since the UK joined the EU in 1973, trade policy has played a minor role in UK politics. Now its on the top of its negotiations to leave the EU.

I find it hard to believe that back channel conversations are not under way.

The UK needs to reach some kind of deal with the EU before Brexit happens and puts it in a weak bargaining position.

Brexit could or will alter the balance of power within the EU in other ways too. It could strengthen Germany’s position, shift alliances, and potentially either strengthen or weaken smaller states.

It will result in an increased regulatory burden on EU businesses weaker copyright protection in the EU. A smaller EU budget as a whole, with increased member-state contributions A stronger push for tax harmonisation and higher taxation of financial transactions A less support for nuclear and unconventional energy sources (e.g. shale gas).

The EU is based on the idea of a single market, characterized by four freedoms. They are the free movement, across borders, of goods, services, capital, and people.

( It is estimated that there are currently 2.9 million EU nationals resident in the UK.)
The actual position of such individuals is underpinned by the Human Rights Act and will depend on length of residence and other factors, but Government intentions for both UK and EU citizens remain far from clear.

Brexit could have a domino effect whereby Eurosceptic forces in countries such as Denmark, Austria and Sweden follow the UK and hold their own referenda,

eventually leading to the EU’s disintegration. Should Britain thrive post Brexit,
while the EU stagnates economically, such centrifugal forces would be strengthened.

Given the fact that a “no deal” is possible and that a deal might disappoint UK voters anyway, might there not be a path toward reversing Brexit? There may come a time when the only outcome that allows all parties to declare victory entails no Brexit.

Other member states will find any UK attempt to push a specific policy agenda unacceptable and would be unwilling to accommodate UK interests.

And of course there is the question of how do you do a deal when there remains the question of whether the UK has a prime minister with a mandate. Will a general election will be required prior to any agreement?

The UK is one of the leading Member States in securing funding for research and innovation and various other projects, with a typical aggregate value of £1-1.5 billion per year.

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund: The UK has been allocated €22.5 billion for the period 2014-20.

European Structural and Investment Funds: The bulk of UK funding via this channel comes through the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), which has been allocated €5.8 billion of EU funds and the European Social Fund (ESF) with an allocation of €4.9 billion.

There is one thing for certain: We are going to witness opportunists counting their fingers after shaking hands with another opportunists.

All comments welcome. All likes chucked in the bin.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

27 Sunday Nov 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Commission., European Union., Politics., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE FUTURE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

, ,

 

( A seven Minute read)

The Post aims to stimulate fresh thinking about the many challenges facing democracies in the context of the European Union in the 21st century. 

Instead of a core group of like-minded countries coming together to embrace closer integration, one country is pulling way, opening the door for others to do the same. 

The question is whether the U.K. would remain sanguine about a more tightly integrated EU once it became a reality or see it as a threat.

Afficher l'image d'origine

The question of the aims, depth and institutional implications of the integration process has become far more pressing now that England has vote to leave.

Nobody would seriously argue that the EU doesn’t need to evolve in order to survive, but Europe is again inching toward the two-speed reality.Afficher l'image d'origineWe all know that Artificial Intelligence, Climate Change, Current Wars, along with a host of other Scientific advancements are not only changing the World but the way we live.

This crisis has also created an opportunity to re-examine the foundations of the European economic and social model and to develop them further. Patching and mending only makes the situation worse.

The crisis gives us the opportunity to rethink the European Union for the 21st century. If the Union fails, Europe will soon be reduced to a shadow of its former historical self.

The current debate about the future of Europe and the European Union has revealed a conflict of interpretation.

It suffers from a lack of creativity. For the most part it is characterized by generalized aspirations – “more Europe”, “genuine EMU” – which are too abstract to contribute usefully to an informed argument about the future direction of the EU.

While there is  a “perfectly credible” case for a second EU referendum, (if the British people decide that, having seen what it means, the pain gain cost-benefit analysis doesn’t stack up) it appears that the EU is making  no attempt to offer Reforms that would reverse the English electrical decision.   “There is no idea what Brexit really means,” The vote to withdraw is not irrevocable.

It must base its offer to England on an inclusive and positive vision of the UK’s role in a reformed EU.

Perhaps it is because the UK now accounts for less than 1 per cent of the world’s population and less than 3 per cent of global income (GDP). This is no time to revert to Little England and I have not heard to date any good alternatives to membership.

One way or the other just what is the future of the European Union?

Constructive engagement is vital when Europe confronts threats from Islamist extremism, migration, Russian aggrandisement and climate change. These can only be tackled collectively .

The fundamental question is whether Brexit will strengthen the integration among the remaining 27 members or throw the EU into a kind of paralysis wondering what has gone wrong and motivated Britain to leave.

If an unreformed Europe, threatened by social decline, continues along its present path, it risks becoming an elite project that benefits only a minority at the expense of the majority.

It needs effective action, but also truly democratic. It must chart a course for a European Union built on democracy, solidarity and justice.

Many people feel that they have little or no influence on the conditions that govern European policy-making. Participation in the last European elections fell to 43% of eligible voters. But the seemingly general disinterest in Europe only reflects the lack of confidence that Europe’s citizens have in the power of the European Parliament to change things.

Now there is a young generation growing up in Europe without prospects, for whom the European promise has not been redeemed, and who are losing faith in a European solution to the crisis. Also many people no longer realize what they owe to peace in Europe, the common market and open borders.

The EU today is no longer synonymous with growing prosperity, rising incomes, more jobs and greater security. In the short-term the drift towards break-up must be halted, because it is leading us in the wrong direction and making long-term solutions impossible.

When contemplating the future process of integration we must be prepared to jettison prejudices and reservations, but also any harmonistic illusions.

For me the Future of the EU is about is all about shaping perceptions.

When you get right down to it, the European Union is simply the system we’ve built to agree how to handle issues that affect us all.

The EU is far from perfect, but if it needs fixing, it should be fixed, not dismantled.

As troubled as Europe is, reform is an ongoing process, not a one-off event.

Logically it is not difficult to grasp that as industrialization fades away and globalization crowds out the nation state, the political engineering to frame industrialization loses its luster. Nowadays the nation-state is squeezed between on the one hand globalization and on the other hand people’s wish to be closer to the decision-making of relevance of their daily life such as the environment, education, health.

The emphasis must be to move away from Independent economic growth, individual cultural identity, to a shared Union.  Solidarity, benevolence, and cohesion are still there but if Union shows any weakness in its forthcoming Brexit negotiations we will see a knock on effects.

This is, however, only the tip of the iceberg.

Below lurks the challenge of living up to its fundamental values confronted with the combination of demography, migrants/refugees, search for an economic and a social model that serves all.

The key invention of pooling sovereignty has weathered the test of time, but most of the remaining principles need retooling or to be replaced by new principles intercepting changes and new trends.

None of this can be achieved without a major shift to transparency whether England leaves or stays. It can only be achieved with reform. With a new model — commitment to the goal of ‘an ever closer union among the people’s of Europe’.

It does not necessarily imply the disappearance of nation-states only their status and influence will be curbed and power transferred either ‘upwards’ to a changed EU or ‘downwards’ to regions or other local communities.

A multilayered political system will emerge.

Either you are member of the EU, committed to solidarity, coherence, common decision-making, and common policies or you are not.

It must link innovation, qualitative growth and less use of resources to make the EU more competitive by tapping into the vast global market for new industries reaping the benefit of spinoffs, and delivering a better environment for citizens.

It must find a way for the Euro to reflect the individuality economies of its members.

Unless this is done the risk that the system cracks are high and the responsibility for letting this happen rests with Europe and the US. Unless the US and Europe can find common ground the prospect of chaos and infighting is too high for comfort.

The partnership albeit still existing at least on paper has slipped down the list of priorities with the Election of Mr D Trump.

The disturbing factor is the absence of confronting the issues among European politicians and Europeans buying into populism.

EU membership needs to take account of the changing geopolitical environment, the new and growing threats to all EU Member States.

North Africa poses a potential problem with its high population combined with low growth per capita and behind the curtain millions of people from countries south of Sahara look to Europe as the savior.

The prospect of seeing EU external border extended to Syria and Iran with the threat of Turkey opens its european gates to immigrants if it is going to be a member is produces nervousness among Europeans.

It must offer the Uk some key reforms in return for a rerun of the recent referendum.

A vote to remain in the EU, on the back of the renegotiation, could thus allow the UK to take the lead in arguing for a more flexible, dynamic and multi-layered EU in which all Member States, not just the UK would have an interest.

It must create more with less, deliver greater value with less input, using resources in a sustainable way, while minimizing waste and environmental impact. For this strategy, protection of the environment and resource efficiency is vital to its continuation.

It must still works as a problem grinder when a member state tables a problem asking for help. But with one proviso: to share benefits and burdens and not just scraping a lot of money together irrespective of repercussions on the EU or other member states.

Freedom and self-determination will only be possible in the future if these countries and their citizens are prepared to accept a greater degree of responsibility for each other than in the past. If they can be persuaded of this, then the European idea can regain its appeal for future generations and become the foundation on which to build a new, united Europe for the 21st century.

It must create a sufficiently strong increase in living standards to compensate for loss of cultural identity.

Things are no longer what they used to be. If members do not feel committed to a common course they will consider withdrawal.

To do so, the European Parliament should be made more representative, but by increasing the role of citizens and national parliamentarians in the EU structures the EU can be made more open to bottom-up influence.

Multiple levels of engagement should be created so as to give citizens the maximum capability to engage with the EU’s structures. Such a structure would not be perfect. No democratic structure is. But it remains the best way of creating a more democratic European Union.

These problems must be tackled alongside attempts to stabilise economic growth. This can only be done by political leaders genuinely reforming.

The euro zone will not be immune from England’s exit shock and other members, goaded by a belligerent far right, may seek to trigger exit votes. Tensions appear to be spreading throughout Europe. We see far-right movements in countries like Italy, France, Austria and Germany, and worrying signs of racially driven attacks.

In today’s globalized world, where emerging nations such as India, China, Brazil and others are getting ready to shape the political, economic and social destinies of our planet alongside the USA, and to some extent in competition with it, the nations of Europe, which are very small by comparison, can only safeguard their political self-determination, their prosperity and their social achievements by joining forces and standing together on all the key issues. That will require a new step towards European unification, and a strengthening of the capacity of the European Union and its members to take effective action at every level.

Disengagement turned into anger.

For years the bloc has lurched from one crisis to the next, promising time and again to heed the growing mistrust of its 500 million citizens, only to return to the business of internal squabbling as another emergency emerges on the continent.

If the EU is truly a democracy then the best way of closing the gap between citizens and institutions is to empower the people.

To the many of whom see the bloc less as a utopian project and more as a means to an end.

The EU is not going away, however it is time to – Reform or die!Afficher l'image d'origine

There are now 751 MEPs in the European Parliament. 

The European Parliament’s budget for 2015 is €1.795 billion. The general breakdown is:
34% – staff, interpretation and translation costs
23% – MEPs’ expenses covering salaries, travel, offices and staff
12% – buildings
25% – information policy, IT, telecommunications
6% – political group activities

The EU’s national governments unanimously decided in 1992 to fix permanently the seat of the EU institutions. The official seat and venue for most of the plenary sessions is Strasbourg, Parliamentary Committees and Political Group meetings are held in Brussels and administrative staff are based in Luxembourg. Any change to this current system would need to be part of a new treaty and unanimously agreed by all Member States.

Here is the first reform;

Stop ripping off the taxpayer, with the  EU Parliament ‘travelling circus’.  It’s an outright waste of money, unjustifiable to the European taxpayer, and its wrong.

Between 3,000 and 4,000 people, among them roughly 800 MEPs, their assistants, employees and interpreters move 400 kilometres from Brussels to Strasbourg. Their workspaces are empty for 317 days per year.

It costs taxpayers an estimated €200 million per year.

Just send the bill to M Hollande who can pass it on to the French taxpayer, annually and inflation adjusted. Everyone in France will then be less unhappy about this charade.

An After thought:

Coming up with a unified foreign policy is perhaps the E.U’s greatest challenge of all for its future.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS IT’S TIME TO STOP THE BREXIT SHADOW BOXING.

16 Sunday Oct 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Commission., European Union., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., The Future, Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS IT’S TIME TO STOP THE BREXIT SHADOW BOXING.

Tags

,

 

( A four-minute read: Dedicated to the Sacrificial youth of England.)

Neither the UK nor the continuing members of the EU can escape their geographical interdependencies. Both have a stake in economic and political stability in Europe. All of Europe, including Britain, will suffer from the loss of the common market and the loss of common values that the EU was designed to protect.

Whatever happens the process of Brexit is sure to be fraught with further uncertainty and political risk, because what is at stake was never only some real or imaginary advantage for Britain, but the very survival of the European project.

The lack of a written constitution in England could well be critical, because the very absence of a clear pathway means that much is possible.

A British exit – or Brexit – undoubtedly will change the future of the UK and the European Union.Afficher l'image d'origine

It is impossible here to cover all the consequences that will rumble on and on for years and years to come.

No matter whether England now negotiates, a Soft or Hard Brexit it will continue to be a thorn. Ever since England joined the European Union it has been a thorn in its side. During its 43 years of European Adventure, London has often been seen as reluctant to any further deepening of the European Union and further integration. Voluntarily outside the euro area and Schenghen space, the country has regularly criticized the European institutions and undermined its contribution to the EU budget.

It’s hard to know what Britain wants and, more importantly, can plausibly expect from a new deal with its erstwhile EU partners.

Britain. I believe, had the best of all possible deals with the European Union, being a member of the common market without belonging to the euro and having secured a number of other opt-outs from EU rules. And yet that was not enough to stop the United Kingdom’s electorate from voting to leave.

Why?

Because the European migration crisis and the Brexit debate fed on each other.

Because the European authorities delayed important decisions on refugee policy in order to avoid a negative effect on the British referendum vote, thereby perpetuating scenes of chaos like the one in Calais and Greece.

Admittedly, the EU is a flawed construction but will Brexit be the catalyst for an unravelling of the European integration project, or, with the removal of a member that has long been the awkward partner, be an opportunity to move forwards.

I fear that the EU’s response to Brexit could well prove to be another pitfall.

European leaders, eager to deter other member states from following suit, may be in no mood to offer the UK terms – particularly concerning access to Europe’s single market.

After Brexit, all of us in the European Union who believe in the values and principles that the EU was designed to uphold must band together to save it by thoroughly reconstructing it.

The challenges can be framed in stark terms:

The European Union is headed for a disorderly disintegration, and can only be saved if it is reconstructed to satisfy citizens’ needs and aspirations.

In the increasingly unstable interim there is a third option.

A Clean EU Brexit or a rerun of the Referendum.

If England wants leave the European Union by March 2019. Leave means Leave.

So is it time to stop the “shadow boxing” and save billions.

Any other option will result in the collapse of the Union.  Any cherry picking is bound to end up with Europe holding a pole.

At the moment paradoxes abound in the Brexit decision.

The UK economy has achieved something of a turnaround since joining in 1973, with the implication that membership has been good for the economy.

A further paradox is that areas which have benefitted from EU membership – including the parts of Wales and England in receipt of the highest flows from EU Cohesion Policy – have proved to be hostile.

Yet another paradox is the hostility to migrants. 

Migrants crowd-out locals in accessing public services and are blamed for depressing wages at the bottom end of the wage distribution, yet public services will collapse without migrants, as for wages it was not the EU that introduces No hours contracts. 

These phenomena are strong negatives for those who see themselves as losers from globalisation/economic integration. In an increasingly volatile world, neither the EU nor the UK have an interest in a divorce that diminishes their influence as the balance of economic power shifts away from the North-Atlantic world.

The unprecedentedly rapid anointment of Theresa May enforces only the uncertainty of the consequences of Brexit is certain. 

Leaving the EU in its current form is unprecedented and EU law only outlines rough exit procedures. The conditions and results of the leaving agreement negotiations will depend on the judgements of the European Council as well as the European Parliament not the House of Commons.

There is no formula that can calculate the outcome of a Brexit on its security and most importantly, even if there was a formula, there would be too many unknown variables to resolve it.

The UK itself may not survive. Scotland, which voted overwhelmingly to remain in the EU, can be expected to make another attempt to gain its independence, and some officials in Northern Ireland, where voters also backed Remain, have already called for unification with the Republic of Ireland.

Having a major world economy disentangle itself from a powerful geopolitical trading bloc is unprecedented.

The UK will have to answer the question of whether it wants to continue to maintain close economic cooperation with the EU and whether it wants to maintain and potentially even strengthen its engagement in security and, conceivably, defence matters.

This is ultimately a political choice that must be spelled out unambiguously.

However, lower public revenues and higher demands on public spending, not just in Britain but also in the EU, suggesting a plausible lose-lose economic scenario, dominating the direct effects of EU budget changes.

In 2014, the UK exported a total of £515.2bn in goods and services. The share of the total UK exports sold to the listed trade partners or groups of trade partners are as follows: EU (44%); US (17%); China (including Hong Kong) (5%); Switzerland (4%); Japan (2%); Rest of the world (28%).

The UK now imports almost half its energy, more than at any time in history.

The UK is currently importing over 50% of its food and feed, whereas 70% and

64% of the associated cropland and greenhouse gas impacts, respectively, are

located abroad.

A quarter of their food from the EU, and that’s a problem.

In 2015, the UK£38.5 billion it spent to import food and drink.

Now, it will have to re-negotiate its trade and policy relationships with each EU member state. That’s going to be a critical process for the country, which sends 70% of its food and agricultural products to EU nations.

And that just the tip of the iceberg.

The London Stock Exchange is the entry point into Europe for American investors and many other countries. With Brexit, it may lose this status: the European Union may question the “financial passport” London and position the Paris Stock Exchange or the Frankfurt to be the new entry point for investors in Europe.

London is: 20% of country’s GDP.

There is no such thing as Sovereignty in a world that is operating more and more on Artificial Intelligence.  The ‘federal Europe’ project was yesterday’s and it is more probable that the Union of the future will increasingly take the form of differentiated integration.

There are 3.6 million citizens of other countries in the EU currently living in the UK.

This may be the true legacy of Brexit.

Numerically, 17.4 million people have spoken for Brexit and 16.1 million to remain within the EU.Afficher l'image d'origine

It is thought that more than 70% of young voters chose to remain in the EU.

The current price for a British passport on the black market at 2,800 pounds (3,100 euros)  Europe’s trade in forged and stolen passports is so out of control it has doubled in five years. A whole travel package, including an EU passport, can cost up to €10,000.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT DEAL CAN THE UK EXPECT FROM THE EU.

19 Monday Sep 2016

Posted by in Articular 50., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT DEAL CAN THE UK EXPECT FROM THE EU.

Tags

, ,

 

On March 25, 2017, European leaders will mark the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the EU’s founding document.

It will be a fraught celebration. So what deal can the UK expect from the negotiations?. Can it have a special relationship.

At the moment the most likely option for the UK is to be unable to forge a deal better than it had when it was a member. ( No Shangaan Agreement or the Euro.)

At the moment there is a lot of verbal in the media fueled by Politicians on both sides.

Here is some clarity.

Negotiations  could lead to an orderly transition or a much more unpredictable process, buffeted by political pressure, volatile markets and the clash of national interests.

One way or the other. Britain will also have to renegotiate or reconform a web of EU-negotiated free trade deals with dozens of countries that anchor the UK in world commerce but are not automatically inherited if it leaves.

It means that the Uk Government would have to do three acts simultaneous: negotiate a new deal with Brussels, win a series of major bilateral trade deals around the world, and revise its own governance as EU law recedes.

EU-related law makes up at least a sixth of the UK statute book. That excludes 12,295 EU regulations with direct effect — hundreds of thousands of pages of law, on everything from bank and consumer rules to food standards, which cease to apply the moment Britain leaves.

Because Britain’s initial accession into the EU’s gives Brussels law supremacy over British law the UK will have to repeal the 1972 Act. So the negotiation would not just concern divorce, the technical parting of ways and the settling of old bills.

As a result it would also have to re-engineer the world’s biggest single market, setting new terms of access and legislating to “renationalise” volumes of law rooted in the EU.

The scrapping of EU law will result in an avalanche of new legislation in every corner of Whitehall.

On the EU side the UK will be negotiating with the commission, with 27 member states, with the European Parliament, national parliaments, with their electorates and each will have a veto over the conditions.Afficher l'image d'origine

There are a lot of veto players here.

They’ll be herding cats to get these actors to agree.

It is quite obvious while leaving the EU is Britain’s choice, the UK cannot dictate the exit terms.

If the European Union is to survive it will not be in a position to offer the Uk a deal that encourages other nations to follow suit with referendums of their own – or demand tailor-made deals of their own. It would trigger a domino effect as the bloc without Britain becomes less attractive to liberal, rich northern states such as Denmark and the Netherlands, where demands are growing for copy-cat plebiscites.

It would seem more than reasonable to say that any agreement that bestows favours that are not enjoyed by all the remaining EU members will result in the breakup of the European Union as a whole.

If the UK was able to achieve full, free access to the EU market, whilst not having to pay into the EU coffers, and not allowing free movement of people, it does beg the question – exactly what do you get for European Union membership?

So without violating the sacrosanct EU principle that free movement of people is essential for countries that want to join its common market the EU conditions will be brutal to discourage other states from following suit.

The idea of an ongoing relationship with the EU is therefore not acceptable.

The truth is if the UK leaves the EU it is basically cut off the continent.

BRITAIN could be sued for millions by disgruntled EU states if it begins negotiating trade deals with other countries before leaving the European Union.

On top of all this any negotiations will have to be conducted with an UK government that has a leader with a mandate from the people not appointed by 300 odd conservative Mps.

 “If the European Council or Parliament rejects the final agreement we’re back to square one.”  

The UK will find itself in exactly the same position we started out from. Wanting to leave but with no agreement with the EU.Afficher l'image d'origine

Extending any talks beyond two years requires unanimity.

The EU could offer Britain temporary curbs on immigration up to seven years in return for access to the single market. Britain would be expected to continue paying into the EU budget, although probably less than now, and would not have a say in single-market rules.

Predicting EU member countries’ reactions to any deal is premature.

If I was British I would stay and fight.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. ARE THE ENGLISH PEOPLE BEING HOODWINKED .

12 Tuesday Jul 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. ARE THE ENGLISH PEOPLE BEING HOODWINKED .

Tags

,

( A quick thought)

THE FIRST QUESTION IS.Afficher l'image d'origine

HOW CAN A NON ELECTED PRIME MINISTER RATIFY A DEAL TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION.

She can negotiate the deal which has to be accepted by the House of commons and the 27 remaining EU member states.theresa-may.jpg

When the government of the UK invokes Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This is the significant “red button”. Once the Article 50 process is commenced then Brexit does become a matter of law, and quite an urgent one.

It would appear this process is (and is intended to be) irreversible and irrevocable once it starts.

But invoking Article 50 is a legally distinct step from the referendum result — it is not an obligation.

If she does not have a mandate from the people of the Uk by way of a General Election she is incapable of signing any agreement.

There is only one solution.

Before the 2011 Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) the Prime Minister could simply “call an election”.

This was effectively the PM exercising the royal prerogative: no parliamentary vote was needed, it was the PM’s decision.

This power was transferred to the House of Commons under the FTPA, which was introduced by the 2010 Coalition government.

On paper it is no longer the Prime Minister’s decision. This is not true.

There are two ways under the FTPA that an election can be called ahead of schedule.

The first is if two-thirds of MPs vote to hold an election. This is a very high bar and would in practice require both Labour and Conservative support.

The second is if there is a no confidence vote in the government of the day. After such a vote other parties are given 14 days to form another government. If none can be formed, a new election is held.

A majority government could, by a simple vote, declare “no confidence” in itself.

Since no other party has a majority, after 14 days an election would be set.

One of the reasons England put forward to leave the EU was that it was run by unelected officials.

May’s policies will improve the lives of UKers until it doesn’t, because every policy contains the seeds of its own sunset;

If she wants to lead a country she would be well advised to hold;

A general election, combined with a re run of the in or out of the European Union with all sixteen years eligible to vote, with the introduce of true Democracy by adopting Proportional Representation.    

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS THERE NOW ANY POINT TO THE COMMONWEALTH.

07 Thursday Jul 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Politics., The Future, The world to day.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS THERE NOW ANY POINT TO THE COMMONWEALTH.

Tags

,

 

(TWO MINUTE READ)

The commonwealth has all but being dead for the last ten years.Afficher l'image d'origine

Now that England has vote to leave the European Union perhaps it might come to life or should the Commonwealth, a transnational institution, which pre-dates the United Nations, call it a day and withdraw from the international scene?

It is now the time and it is politically correct to debate Britain’s role in the Commonwealth.Afficher l'image d'origine

No longer can the United Kingdom claim the sole paternity for success stories in the Commonwealth.

The European Union is on a much higher level of importance than the Commonwealth or even the United Nations.

Membership of the Commonwealth is a historic fact. Like your parents, you do not get to choose them. Most countries did not actively choose to become members of the Commonwealth. Instead, membership was seen as almost a diplomatic obligation.

On the other hand, joining the European Union equates to marriage. It is a choice about your future and not a statement about your past.

Central to the enhanced value of the European Union are its shared values, common rules and their direct economic benefits. Countries do not become Members because of their history, but because they show commitment and resilience in achieving the convergence which would see them qualify for the benefits of freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and people.

Adjustment and restructuring are painful and come at a cost which is not only economic but also social and political. It takes years and is not completed upon membership. Instead, the process is ongoing.

There are countries that are geographically and historically European, but until now do not qualify to become members because they do not have the democratic and political commitment to deliver the necessary reforms. Part of these reforms have to do with sharing or even ceding responsibilities to supra-national institutions. That takes a lot of courage, and sometimes something more than that.

This is supplemented by the fact that the various institutions have the power to decide. Decisions are not on statements of intent, but rather actions that affect the everyday life of people from Copenhagen to Valletta, from Lisbon to Warsaw.

Back to the Commonwealth.

Very few know much about it.

Most Jamaicans think that Barack Obama is the head of the Commonwealth rather than Queen Elizabeth.

Those it have any purpose other than a club as commonwealth values have never being precisely defined.

It was formed partly by India to stay friends with their British colonial rulers on Independence in 1949.

Every two-year the heads of Governments of the 53 countries that make up the Commonwealth meet for a pow-wow.

It now could be mortally wounded if India and some of its larger countries walk out because of the recent Brixit Vote.

It might be a network of disparate people, bound by an imperial history that seems, even among former subjects people’s, to inspire nostalgia as well as resentment.

The only thing holding it together is Queen Elizabeth, who is approaching her nineties.

It would not surprise me over the coming years to see Australia and Canada replace the Queen as their head of state.

I  personally cannot contemplate the idea of being a colony or of having a foreigner as a Head of State.

If the Commonwealth is to survive it should be about commitment rather than history.

It should be about the future rather than the past.

Perhaps now is the time for England to commence disbanding the Commonwealth as it is today and regrouping, setting out updated guidelines and Charter of Values to which participants must strictly abide.

Whether or not one opts for such a model, the idea of further opening up Commonwealth membership to other countries near and far, and also allowing for consensual withdrawals from the organisation without acrimony, should be duly examined.

Staring at a decaying organisation and hoping that its fortunes might suddenly turn around is delusional.

It can opt to remain as it is and sink in total irrelevance within the next decade or so, or have the courage to make changes, by starting to tackle them at least in piecemeal fashion.

Having history as our sole bond is clearly not enough in today’s world.

In order to be relevant, the Commonwealth should be about people rather than diplomats. It should be about economic growth rather than bureaucracy. It should be about the future rather than the past.

All comments appreciated.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS SHOULD THE EUROPEAN UNION ACCEPT THE RESULT OF THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM.

03 Sunday Jul 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS SHOULD THE EUROPEAN UNION ACCEPT THE RESULT OF THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM.

Tags

,

 

( Important three minute read)

The Pandora Box is open.Afficher l'image d'origine

It is damaging politically for the status of the EU – and its liberal values – and, thus, for the future prosperity and security of Europe as a whole.

It is harmful for the economy of the rest of the EU.

The UK voted to leave the EU by a four per cent margin. 

In short the UK choose to leave the EU, has left it between a rock and a hard place.

SHOULD THE EU ACCEPT THE OUT VOTE OR DEMAND A RE RUN.

Amid rumbling aftershocks from last Thursday’s political earthquake, there is still no sign of the UK actually leaving the EU.

Could it be that Brexit will never happen?

Although the vote is not legally binding and parliament would be within its rights to ignore it, to do so would be political suicide or political reincarnation.

At this moment there is no way of knowing whether there is going to be Civil unrest or a general election fought on the basis of one party campaigning to take the UK back into Europe. 

The reality is that on the Uk side it is now impossible to negotiate and none of the options available to the UK outside the EU, are attractive. 

Why?

Because None of the available options could satisfy at the same time the UK’s political wishes and its economic interests.  

There is no clear picture on who might step forward to lead the Conservatives – and the country.

The Labour Party is tearing itself apart, with more than a dozen shadow cabinet members resigning in an attempt to force leader Jeremy Corbyn to resign.

Leading Leave campaigners suggested single market access is on the table, which could require compromise on free movement laws.

Investment banks are reportedly already putting in train plans to move thousands of City jobs overseas.

The Institute of Directors has warned around a quarter of its members may begin a hiring freeze until the economic effects of Brexit become clear.

It is quite obvious to any outsider from the resulting fall out that the people of England did not vote on the Referendum core question.

They voted against inequality, fear of immigrants eroding their ability to access jobs, wages, housing, and the health services and now have a duty to the rest of Europe to go back and vote again.

As fears of a post-Brexit recession in the UK and beyond wiped $2trn (£1.5trn) from global stock values in the worst trading day since the credit crunch in 2007. The pound touched a 30-year low against the dollar and the FTSE 100 slumped 3.2 per cent.

Can the EU wait?  Yes. But not for Long.

We all know that the World we live in is facing complex problems that require a combined effort to resolve.

Given the “extraordinary complexity” of the tasks there is no need to immediately trigger the UK’s formal exit process from the EU.

On the plus side it allows the EU to look at itself and learn the lessons that it’s the people who count not the single market.

The bloc has lurched from one crisis to the next, promising time and again to heed the growing mistrust of its 500 million citizens, only to return to the business of internal squabbling as another emergency emerges on the continent.

Business as usual’ is no longer an option.

Its Reform or die! But exactly what that reform would look like is an open question.

Euroskeptic parties are gaining influence across the bloc, taking advantage of the E.U.’s perceived failures in dealing with the euro zone crisis and the arrival of more than a million people seeking sanctuary from war and poverty last year.

The Eurosceptics are the ones most on the ball in terms of putting forward their vision of Europe, and the E.U. institutions have to come up with something convincing to rebut that.

The E.U.’s management structures are complicated, and there is not one single person who can lead the push to define a narrative.

E.U. countries will pursue much more British-like policies in which they look for concrete benefits from European integration and not for a quasi-religious or quasi-ideological movement towards the construction of Europe.

The 27 remaining member states have very different histories and cultures, and range from the socially liberal Scandinavian nations to the more religious and conservative South and East. Denmark, for example, legalised same-sex unions in 1989, but Malta only allowed its citizens to divorce in 2011.

These gulfs became apparent during the refugee crisis, when Hungary and Slovakia claimed the influx of Muslim refugees would threaten their culture. The divide between the former Soviet nations and the rest of Europe, meanwhile, often overshadows negotiations of the E.U.’s response to Russian aggression.

Without a shared vision there is the risk of narrowing the E.U’s focus to regional challenges, which needs to be resisted.

If the Union is not to follow in the footsteps of England its combined wealth must be spread evenly. This can not be achieved with an Euro that does not reflect the GDP of the whole of European Union.

If the Euro is to remain it must have a financial vehicle to allow investment in it.

Euro Bonds.

If the Union is to reform it must balance it books, scrap moving its Parliament from one city to another, open proper channels to migrants,

Can the divided, sprawling economic bloc come up with a vision to unite its fractious member states?

Only time can tell if Britain’s vote ends up being a wake-up call, or a death knell.

If England wants to win like Wales ( In the European Cup) they have to be on the pitch.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. ENGLAND. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ?

28 Tuesday Jun 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union., Politics., Unanswered Questions., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. ENGLAND. WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE ?

Tags

(Six minute Read)

Up to now the continued sharing of genetic materials has maintained all of humankind as a single species.

As if you could not noticed this is changing with results that are going to be both good and bad.

The result of UK Referendum poses some deep question other than those connected to the Single Market.

The question of Identity?

What a great shame that England with all its smartphones has not recognize this.

The technology changes taking place in the World is eroding individuality identity which can only be protected by acting in the common good of all.Afficher l'image d'origine

How we are seen and how we see others affects various domains of our lives and the lives of others; from the types of jobs we have, the amount of money we make, the kind of friends we make, the places we live, the foods we eat, the schools we go to, etc…

The entire social structure we inhabit is affected by at least one social construction, race.

Gone are the days of Imperialism, or Isolation.  

Unfortunately from  the very beginning we get ideas of who will succeed and who won’t by the racial categories we belong to.

Race is used as an indicator of difference, there is no denying that.

In the case of immigration it is used to index a group of people who have ties to some geographic location and specific phenotypic features.

However there is nothing absolute or real about social constructions in the same way as there is something absolute and real about rocks, rivers, mountains, and in general the objects examined by physics.

If race is defined by the dominant group in society “politically, economically, sociocultural, and historically”, and this definition holds up due to collective agreement, racism is very much alive and well within the structure of our society.

A mountain will exist regardless of people thinking, agreeing or accepting that it does exist. Unlike a mountain, the existence of race requires that people collectively agree and accept that it does exist.

Also there is nothing biologically real about race. It is conceptually unstable but exists in real life.

Furthermore there is nothing that we have identified as race that exists apart from our collective agreement, acceptance, and imposition of its existence.

Additionally, race does not identify differences in culture and is always loosely connected to biology.

Race is a marker of status that includes or excludes one from broader social constructs and enables or disables certain powers.

White people are often blind to racism and do not see the privileges they have due to their skin color. Many individuals may claim they are not racist while tacitly accept the dominant racist ideology by way of reaping the benefits offered to them.

The dominant group in society imposed the boundaries of group membership by defining race in terms of biology.

A large portion of the English vote to leave the European Union can be attributed to the fear of losing hegemonic control which was spread through the white population due to control of Immigration.

Race is an indicator but an indicator of what kind of difference.

There are no biological differences between different “races”.

Let us summarize what we have said about what race is so far. First, race is a social construct contingent on collective acceptance, agreement, and imposition. Second, race has always been defined by the dominant group in society. Third, race indicates differences in status. The status indicated by which race you are, either includes or excludes one from broader social constructs, and disables or enables certain powers.

People are learning to deal with race and other races simply because they have to. And in all honesty, races are redefining what their race can do achieve, or not achieve.

The question we have to ask is whether those differences are so great that it explains every disparity we see in society.

It would then not be that easy to eradicate by removing the “racial lens” because this lens is not just over our eyes, but is a part of the very foundations of society.

So, abandoning the notion of race altogether may not be possible, but perhaps becoming aware of race and understanding it will get us a little closer to seeing how it does not apply, thus abandoning the current negative view associated with race differences.

We have no clue on how to embrace our “differences”

Why would a majority group may feel the necessity to accept minority group’s culture ? Do they need to ? Not really. Why?

We cannot simply get rid of the notion of race. Rather, a different understanding of race should be developed. This is the biggest challenge to the European Union. How to accommodate the indelible identity of its members.

Is a “Jewish race.”

Not only is that patently ridiculous (just as a notion of a Catholic race or a Muslim or Buddhist “race” would be) — they are also supporting and promoting a tool of their oppression.

One can only hope that we can learn to handle group differences in humans as intelligently and humanely.

The human race has no unified goal or plan.

Our shortsighted dependence on fossil fuels has brought great wealth to the countries that exploit them, but the overall effect is damaging to humanity as a whole.

One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable.

The goals of individual states and nations are such that conflicts inevitably arise with other states and nations and as a result we have wars.

This world is in the throes of a cock measuring contest bloody and rapey till a clear winner suffocates on unbreathable air.

Should the European Union accept the recent UK Remain or Leave Referendum Results?

Not on your nanny.Afficher l'image d'origine

There is too much at stake.

An Organisation that has peace at its heart. Its founding aspiration, (even if it is in need massive reform) to allow a vote that was misinformed to adversely affect (even it is driven by single Market) such a noble and worthwhile CAUSE.

The European Union must reform and work to build vibrant and tolerant democracies whose governments are accountable and open to the participation of all people.

The European Union must make its own workings more transparent to its citizens and more connected with their national politics.

The European Parliament election must be taken that seriously, it is too easy for people use their vote as a protest, voting against their national government and sometimes for anti-establishment parties.

Member states need to stop blaming Brussels for everything. They go to Brussels knowing that they have to make decisions on hard issues, but they don’t want to take the political costs themselves.

There is not adequate democracy in the EU.

Correcting this perception and encouraging citizens to engage with the EU is one of the big challenges facing the Union in the future.

It should pass a law to abolish most of the regulations that exist—a huge simplification of the approach.

By the end of this year there will be a Capital Markets Union and the Digital Single Market. These are two elements that can make European companies more competitive and bring more financial resources to startups.

It should issue euro bonds to finance the migrant crisis.

It should issue euro bonds for growth—euro bonds targeted for human capital, infrastructure, and research and development. These euro bonds can be a European issuance of debt up to five percent of European GDP, which means 700 billion euros that you can inject into the European economy and show that European institutions are doing something concrete to create jobs.

European leaders should decide to increase the European budget from the current one percent of GDP to three percent of GDP.

It should scrap the physical movement of Parliament establish a permanent home.

The EU has to recognize that it has many issues that it needs to face.

There is much dissatisfaction in many countries with policies coming out of Brussels and with the level of transparency with which Brussels operates.

One way or the other, the EU has to gain the confidence of the populace.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHY HAS ASPIRATION ALL BUT DISAPPEARED FROM POLITICS.

22 Wednesday Jun 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., Humanity., The Future, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHY HAS ASPIRATION ALL BUT DISAPPEARED FROM POLITICS.

Tags

, , , ,

We all know that politics these days for the most part is subject to the Capital markets of the world.

You can see from the English Referendum ( On whether to leave or stay in the European Union) that the driving arguments on both sides are mostly to do with the Economy.

The economy is put before the people or the nation’s aspirations. Afficher l'image d'origine

The real question is, what level of wealth concentration is optimal for the economy or what is a human being to a business?

For many businesses a human being is perceived as ‘a consumer’ at the output end of the businesses and as ‘a worker’ at the input end of the businesses.

Therefore, it is in the best interest of the businesses to charge the humans as much as possible when they are consumers while paying them as little as possible when they are workers.

The end result of such duality is, the humans suffer, businesses make profit; wealth concentrates, the people lose completely their self-sufficiency.

This will get much worse for the humans in the near future with the Revolution of Technology and Artificial Intelligence. Afficher l'image d'origine

Let’s just imagine a near future world (say about 50 generations from now) where automation has advanced to levels that resemble human-like Artificial General Intelligence (AGI).

In such world, workers will no longer exist in any meaningful sense, because nearly all work will be done by a super intelligent automation. The businesses will perceive most human beings only as consumers. In such future, most humans will be jobless and, majority of us will have no means of production that can make us self-sufficient.

Consumers without money are useless to the businesses thus can be “discarded” (it means, literally wiped out of existence). How are we going to survive then?

 

Perhaps, some of us could survive by reverting to violent redistribution of wealth (like war for example). Such approach creates too much suffering. The correct answer is we survive together, as one species, by introducing Basic Income. It must be sufficient to ensure the existence of a wide base of consumers who, in turn, will ensure the prosperity of the businesses and the society.

As the lever of technology gets longer and longer and it takes less and less human work to get things done, the wage will be replaced by a National Dividend, a share of the robot paychecks to buy the things produced that robots don’t need.

In our current society, humans without jobs (or income) become consumers without money.

Adam Smith predicated his vision for a free market economy on the understanding that some constraints must be set in place to ensure all members of the society are self-sufficient and also, that they exchange only the surplus produce of their labour.

Do we need to wait for a future that has a human-like AGI before we consider Basic Income?

Can we introduce it today and achieve great prosperity now?

I believe the answers is, “Yes, we can have Basic income today” and we can have it in a way that is independent of political or technological circumstances i.e. a way applicable to any historical period.

Let’s see how it can be done.

Who decides what a ‘dignified’ living is?

Perhaps, a bunch of people, called a government, makes the decision while driven by their own ideas about what is ‘basic’ and ‘dignified’? Governments change, therefore, if the amount of Basic Income is determined by some political process (e.g. government’s budget justified by some ideology) then it is likely that Basic Income will turn into another tool to exert control over the people by applying control over the amount of BI.

Much more powerful approach is to implement Basic Income by using the free market as a base for estimating BI.

Let’s call it Market Driven Basic Income (MDBI).

The meaning of ‘Market Driven’ is that Basic Income will be an opposing market force to the leverage businesses (and other manmade constructs) obtain over the people due to their natural tendency to treat human beings with double standards (e.g. as ‘workers’ and as ‘consumers’).

MDBI can be defined as, the ‘most common’ outgoing spending amongst human individuals when seen as consumers and taxpayers. MDBI has to be derived from metrics that ‘capture’ only transactions from a person to a business, from a person to a government and from a person to any other ‘man-made societal construct’ (i.e. those metrics should reflect only the personal outgoing spending of the human beings, not metrics like gross output or GDI, or CPI, etc.). MDBI is a figure indicated, in part, by the free consumer markets showing what most individuals purchased the most and ,in part, by any other outgoing spending the individuals have (including taxes, fees, etc.).

Think about it, the more they (various political and economic man-made constructs in the human society) charge us (the human beings), for the goods and services they try to sell us or impose on us, the more they’ll have to pay us as Basic Income. The less they charge us the less they’ll have to pay us.

With MDBI in place they (the businesses, the government, etc.) may even ask payments from us for the air that we breathe, it will make no difference to any of us as long as most of us have to make such payments, because such payments will become ‘common’ therefore “highlighted” to influence the MDBI.

Of course this can not be achieved within a club of nations called the EU.

This why unlike England or the EU Finland marks the first commitment from a European country to implement a Basic Income experiment and will be the first experiment in a developed nation since the 1970s.

Switzerland is another country looking at adopting as part of the Swiss constitution, citizens, regardless of whether they work, would receive 30,000 Swiss Francs (about $34,000) a year.

The idea, which has a long history dating back to the 1920s (at least), is increasingly popular in policy circles and the broader population.

The German and Spanish parliaments explored it.

There is a lesson to be learned from the Brazilian soccer player Pelé, the best ever, earned $1.1 million in 1960 (adjusted for inflation). The Portuguese forward Cristiano Ronaldo made $17 million this past year. Pelé played for 350,000 television sets in Brazil. At the most recent World Cup, 700 million people watched Ronaldo.

Watch their crime levels go down and trading levels go up with more money in the hands of people ready to use it.

Just think of working for the Nations good.

We know there is a creeping colonisation of public life by corporations because we know a slow motion coup d’état is taking place by transnational organisations facilitated by our political leaders. The incontrovertible proof stares at us in the face every day with wave after wave of financial, economic, social and ecological crisis.

In the past few decades, economic growth lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty. But, at the same time, the distribution of income became increasingly skewed in favor of wealthy individuals.

What could be achieved to remove, inequality, poverty, racism, corruption, and not to mention Greed to named just a few of the aliments plaguing our Societies.

It would replace all other social welfare programs with a guaranteed basic income to make government aid more self-directed and efficient.

An unconditional basic income is what is needed to be on the ballot.

Beliefs about the reasons for poverty are critical for the willingness to redistribute income.

So, will Europe provide a guaranteed income to its citizens?

My personal view is that this is unlikely. Differences in beliefs about the reasons for income inequality, however, will continue to drive redistributive policies.

Go back

Your message has been sent