Category Archives: England.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ENGLAND NEEDS A DOCTOR OR TWO.

08 Saturday Jul 2017

Posted by in England.

≈ Leave a comment

 

( A twenty to thirty minute Diagnostician read)

The woeful state of things in the UK implies that there is more than something really very wrong other than just Brexit. 

No amount of Government building policies around popular fears, rather than established facts is going to cure its problems.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of doctors and patients"

The UK is ethnically diverse, partly as a legacy of empire. Lately, the country has been struggling with issues revolving around multiculturalism, immigration and national identity, not to mention personal debt and a clatter of other problems that all require investment it has not got.

It is known as the home of both modern parliamentary democracy and the Industrial Revolution with a rich literary heritage. Two world wars and the end of empire diminished its role in the 20th century, and the 2016 referendum vote to leave the European Union has raised significant questions about the country’s global role.

One of the most startling aspects of England at present is the way things that were once considered to be virtues have now become the object of intense disapproval, and vice versa. You could be right in thinking that it is in the process of dismantling everything that made the country great.

Whether its in our out of the EU, the Great British trade-off will result in the country loosing its identity, with minority groups dictating what should be said and done.

More recently, the UK has suffered a deep economic slump and high public debt as a result of the 2008 financial crisis, which revealed its over-reliance on easy credit, domestic consumption and rising house prices.

With a gigafying of it working force, we now see a country that ruled by a minority government in order to maintain their grip on power that has already bribed 10 DUP representatives from a Northerner Ireland a party that has many historical connections to multiple terrorists Ulster militias.

In my option it not only needs a doctor but of a Brain Scan when it comes to prioritizing its spending.

A country that spends around £38.3bn yearly on defense, (5th Largest defense
budget in the world), plus £41 billion to maintain Trident, while needing to build 300,000 homes each year, with around 1.2 million people using food banks, with nearly 2 million landlords letting  five million properties, banking a round  £15 billion a year, with one million on ZERO-HOUR contracts, with a national health service going broke, with an economy that cannot provide free education, the UK has very little to gain by quitting the EU and much to lose.

{It will need to rethink its military and security alliances, at a time of heightened anxiety over Russia and the Middle East. Above all, it will have to cope with the domestic political consequences of opting out of the EU.]

A country that spends £334 million a year on a Royal Family, with over 9000 betting shops, generating £7.1bn Revenues, with Student loan debts of more than £100bn and seven out of ten adults have on average credit cards debts of £6,372 because it turned shopping into a sport.

A Country that runs a National Lottery accused of “making a mockery” of its monopoly with an operation profit £71 million. (The odds of winning the draw’s jackpot have now plummeted to one in 45 million.) with millions of pounds been paid to Camelot’s parent company, Canada’s Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan.

A country renowned for being the most expensive in Rail travel in Europe, possibly the world, with a national debt that is rising, building a new Crossrail that will boost London’s rail, costing £14.8 billion or £202 million per mile.

Replacing a nuclear power station  Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant could be as high as £37bn,

A country that in January 2017 has a Public sector net debt of £1,682.8 billion equivalent to 85.3% of GDP, rising at £5500 per second! (Importantly the figure excludes borrowing by Royal Bank of Scotland, which is 73% owned by the government. Debt interest payments are rising close to £70bn given the forecast rise in national debt.

The majority of UK debt used to be held by the UK private sector, but due to the financial crises the Bank of England has bought gilts taking its holding to 25% of UK public sector debt.

It is worth bearing in mind that other countries have a much bigger problem. Japan, for example, has a National debt of 225%, Italy is over 120%.  The US national debt is close to 80% of GDP.

  • Another way to examine UK debt is to look at both government debt and private debt combined.
  • Total UK debt includes household sector debt, business sector debt, financial sector debt and government debt. This is over 500% of GDP.
  • Wonga loans” economics.
  • Governments can and do default. Argentina and Russia to give two fairly recent examples. Also, the ability to print money does not mean you can in reality repay a debt. If the government borrows money in its own currency, then devalues that currency to the point where it is worthless, then repays the debt in the worthless currency, has the lender been repaid? I think not. You really can lose money lending to a government.
  • Efforts to rein in the public debt – one of the developed world’s highest – has led to deep cuts to welfare, government services and the military, prompting concern about social equality and a possible loss of international influence.
  • 571 homicides per year

The economy is in decline, the pound is drifting towards parity with the dollar, the jobless lines are lengthening. Racists and xenophobes are gripped by an elated sense of entitlement.

In 2015 £39,023,564 was spent by 57 parties and 23 non-party campaigners with the SNAP General Election on June 8 this year costing the taxpayer around £143m.

The house of Lords cost the tax payer £9 million a year. God only knows what The entire Westminster setup costs. An educated quest would be between £200 million and £500 million.

The process of deindustrialisation has left behind lasting social problems and pockets of economic weakness in parts of the country.

The divide opening up between an open, cosmopolitan capital city and its closed, isolationist country is causing its own conflict.

Surely Britain’s interest lies in reducing the cost of trade with its largest trade partners – which the EU evidently does.

If one looks at the UK from the outside since its vote in a non-binding referendum to leave the EU, you could not be blamed for thinking that it is now a country with a minority government carrying out policies of isolation by career politicians only interested in their own agenda.

Leaving the EU will not reduce barriers to services trade. It may increase them,
unless the EU granted Britain the same level of access to its services markets that is currently available. It is undermining everything England is and always has been. The UK has always been a country of immigrants and diversity, and has grown great on the back of it. That disruption is essential for innovation, whether it be in business, technology, or food and culture — imagine what English food would be without the foreign influence of centuries of immigrants!

Life will be uncomfortable on the outside: The UK will be powerless to push for liberalization of EU services markets; it will find that in some sectors,
inward investors will switch their money to countries inside the EU.

It is going to find it very difficult to negotiate trade agreements with non-EU countries as comprehensive as those that the EU regularly agrees.

The idea that the UK would be freer outside the EU is based on a series of misconceptions: that a medium-sized, open economy could hold sway in an increasingly fractured trading system, dominated by the US, the EU and China; that the EU makes it harder for Britain to penetrate emerging markets; and that foreign capital would be more attracted to Britain’s economy if it were no longer a part of the single market.

The UK should base policy on evidence, which largely points to one conclusion: that it should stay in the EU.

Sovereignty, in a world driven by technology and a social Media which is filtered by Algorithms in effect, is a myth. The very idea of self-government is mostly a delusion.

It wont have any more useful sovereignty outside the EU than it does inside — indeed it might have less, because there’s strength in numbers. Outside the union, Britain’s government would still be constrained by the forces of geopolitics and economics, and it would have fewer friends:

If it persists in going further down this route it risk becoming like our embarrassing European neighbors that will  need to negotiate new trade agreements with all its non-EU partners, an enormous undertaking.

Any government that will ignore advice from a world expert because they’re not British is not worthy of any role in the politics of a country that has, historically, been known as an open, liberal, progressive place, and has prospered as a result. These are not the days when prejudice, propaganda, naked xenophobia and callous fear-mongering will win out over the common sense that England like to pride themselves on.

Not on a day when you are being congratulated by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and nobody else.

Now apply the same thought to your economy, industry, and universities.

What the dumb populist thinking fails to recognize is that if someone moves to England from abroad and gets a job, they also pay tax, and spend the money they earn on stuff, which in turn leads to more jobs, and more tax income.

Imagine if our doctors treated us for what we feared was wrong, rather than for what they prove is wrong.

We allow our doctors to tell us that our fears are unfounded, and to use facts and science to show us what is actually happening. Our current politicians are to policy what crystal-waving quack healers are to doctors.

The Government is proposing policies that make liberal-minded people feel physically sick in order to tackle an immigration problem that exists in the minds of people, but not in reality. Going down the path of pandering that much to the electorate for the sake of winning votes is very weak.

Imagine if your doctor kept you as a patient by telling you what she thinks you’d like to hear, rather than what is medically true and important. When people think there is a problem with immigration, do you address the fact that they are wrong, or do you just go off and solve that imaginary problem with policies that will, in fact, cause the problem to start to exist.

The U.K. has a lot to lose if the EU decided to be unaccommodating, and I’m betting the EU will. To make a success of remaining in the EU as currently constituted, Britain would either have to change its attitude to closer political integration or deflect the other governments from that goal. Either of those tasks will be as hard as arranging a friendly split.  Britain’s instinctive euro-skepticism won’t dissolve in the foreseeable future, and the country isn’t interested in being told otherwise.

Europe’s other governments won’t help Britain prove the viability of more economic integration combined with less political integration. The split wouldn’t be friendly, and Europe is in a position to make Britain pay.

If Europe wanted to, it could in fact agree to a friendly divorce, preserving most of the union’s mutual single-market benefits but letting Britain step aside from the political project.

This was never a referendum on the EU. It was a referendum on the modern world.

Deep economic integration didn’t require a single currency, a European Parliament and least of all a European Court of Justice (a supreme court of the EU).

On the other hand on the face of it, there’s no reason you couldn’t combine single-market freedoms with more national sovereignty than the EU’s members now have.

The U.K.’s decision is enormously consequential not because it will settle things, but because it offers two completely different sets of challenges — a finely balanced choice between two extremely demanding futures.

It is now badly in need of a doctor.

Naturally, depending on your political viewpoint, you can interpret these basic facts to suit your view. More importantly, be wary of people selling you false equivalences or telling you there’s never an objectively true answer.

The United Kingdom is a state made up of the historic countries of England, Wales and Scotland, as well as Northern Ireland.  Three of which have devolved powers. At the end of the day the UK, or even just England, is tiny.

Anyone feel like they’ve got their country back yet? No?

The United Kingdom National Debt Clock 2017 Counter >> nationaldebtclock.co.ukhttp: //www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Does it matter?

After all, world governments owe the money to their own citizens, not to the Martians. But the rising total is important for two reasons. First, when debt rises faster than economic output (as it has been doing in recent years), higher government debt implies more state interference in the economy and higher taxes in the future. Second, debt must be rolled over at regular intervals. This creates a recurring popularity test for individual governments, rather as reality TV show contestants face a public phone vote every week. Fail that vote, as various euro-zone governments have done, and the country (and its neighbours) can be plunged into crisis.

So the return to health plan should be:

A reallocation of the countries wealth, free education, and some long term aspirations that the country can embrace as a whole- such as making its self self sufficient in green energy, the scrapping of faith schools, the doubling of Overseas aid if it wants to cut migrants, the reinstatement of compulsory arm service, the downgrading of the Royal Family to a tourist attraction, cut the member of the house of lords to 400, have another in or out referendum and vote on reality.

All comments appreciated, all like clicks chucked in the bin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ONE WOULD HAVE TO FEEL A TOUCH OF SYMPATHY FOR THE BRITISH PEOPLE.

16 Friday Jun 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., European Commission., European Union., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

 

( A twenty-minute read)

Recent events in the Uk with the tragic loss of lives are more than lamentable as they have occurred mainly due to man-made decisions, to either save money or conduct phony wars.

It is now inconceivable that they are heading for another man made disaster in a few days without any clear sense of what its wants to achieve all just because a small percentage of its people voted in a referendum a year ago without any clear sense of the alternatives to EU membership.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations"

While the clock is ticking here are a few plain truths:

If the UK wants access to the single market when it has left the EU, it will have to accept three things:

1)  Continued budget contributions
2)  Continued free movement of labour,
3) Continued supremacy of EU law over British law in the single market.

4) Crashing out of the EU without a trade deal is the “alternative to membership with the most negative long-term impact.

5) Some British eurosceptics believe that Britain could negotiate a special status of ‘half-membership’, whereby the UK would remain a full, voting member of the single market, but ditch most other EU policies. However, this would require the existing treaties – which allow no such special status – to be revised, which is not a viable possibility at the moment. In any case, most member-states and the EU institutions believe that allowing such a status for Britain could provoke similar requests from others, possibly leading the entire Union to unravel. So half-membership is not an option.

6) One simple option would be for Britain to join the European
Economic Area (EEA) – the ‘Norwegian’ option. Britain would then be outside the common agricultural and fisheries policies. But its economic relationship with the EU would not change significantly: it would pay nearly as much into the budget as it does today, free movement of labour would continue, and the UK would have to apply the single market’s rules and regulations without having a vote on them.

7) Most other options would involve the negotiation of a withdrawal treaty between the UK and the EU. If that is the result:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations"

Here are the options.

One possibility would be a withdrawal treaty leading to a customised relationship. The best possible outcome for the British, under this option, would be something akin to the Norwegian option but without EEA membership. Britain would gain as much access to the single market as it was prepared to accept EU rules, without having a vote on them; to make payments into the EU budget; and to tolerate free movement of labour.

The Swiss option is unlikely to be on offer from the EU. Switzerland has negotiated a series of bilateral agreements with the EU. The country is part of the single market for goods, but not services. A similar status for Britain would be highly costly for the City of London. But the EU is very unhappy with the
relationship, because it has to negotiate constantly with the Swiss to make sure that their rules are equivalent to the EU’s evolving acquis communautaire. And since the Swiss voted to impose quotas on immigration from the EU in 2014, the EU has demanded a new agreement which would make Switzerland automatically update its rules to match those of the EU, as well as accept the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

Britain could join the EU’s customs union, like Turkey – accepting the EU’s external tariffs without having a say on the setting of those tariffs. The UK would then not face tariffs in exporting to the EU, and it would have access to the single market in goods, in exchange for signing up to all the relevant EU rules. But it would not have access to services markets and Turkey, like Switzerland and Norway, does not
benefit from the free trade agreements (FTAs) that the EU negotiates with other parts of the world.

A free trade agreement is one of the more likely options, but the main benefit of most FTAs is merely tariffs that are lower than those prescribed by World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules. Most FTAs do not cover services, regulatory convergence or public procurement. If Britain sought to negotiate a more substantive FTA than any existing template – giving it good access to the EU’s single market– the other member-states would insist on mechanisms for ensuring that it automatically adopted new EU rules, and for policing the agreement. They would also demand payments into the EU budget and free movement of labour.

Britain could simply trade with the EU under WTO rules. The WTO sets upper limits on the tariffs that countries can impose. So British exports to the EU would be subject to the EU’s common external tariff. And the WTO has made little progress in freeing up services, which would restrict the City of London’s access to the EU market. British exporters to the EU would also face the same non-tariff barriers that most non-EU countries, like Russia and China, have to put up with. As for trading with the rest of the world, the UK would no longer enjoy the benefits of the 60-odd FTAs that the EU has negotiated with other countries. The British would have to negotiate new agreements from scratch; but in doing so – as with any other FTA that the UK pursued – they would have much less clout than the EU as a whole.

Withdrawal would create enormous legal headaches for EU companies and individuals currently in Britain, and for British ones elsewhere in the EU.

After the repeal of the European Communities Act of 1972, the British government would have to hurry to draft new laws covering farming, fishing, competition policy, regional aid, environmental standards and much else, to avoid a regulatory
vacuum.

To the extent that the UK retained any access to the single market, the government would also need a mechanism for adopting new EU regulations and directives as they emerged. British citizens and companies in other member-states would lose rights derived from EU law.

The British government would need to negotiate an accord with the rest of the EU on reciprocal rights. If, as is likely, a post-Brexit government made it harder for EU citizens to live, work or study in the UK, Britons wishing to remain in or move to the continent would face similar problems. 40 per cent of THE UK HIGH TECH workforce is currently made up of EU nationals not to mention the NHS

If there is a change of mind and the UK at any point wish to rejoin the European Union, it would need to make an application to do so, the same as all other non-member states.

The first problem is the euro.

This time a ‘half-member’ solution is not possible.

Ordinarily new member states of the European Union are expected to adopt the euro and to join the currency union. The UK, of course, opted out of that, however it might not be quite as easy to resist the Euro on re-admission.

Where does all of the above leave us.  In short, if the UK chooses to leave the EU, it will be left between a rock and a hard place.  A Disaster.

The conclusion should be clear: none of the options available to the UK, in case it were to decide to withdraw from the EU are attractive. Any option would take the UK in one of two directions:

 The UK would become a kind of satellite of the EU, with the obligation to transpose into its domestic law EU regulations and directives for the single market.

 The UK would suffer from higher barriers between its economy and its main market, obliging the government to start trade negotiations from scratch, both with the EU and with the rest of the world, without having much bargaining power.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of sinking ships"

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the Bin.

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THERESA MAY’S HAS LOST HER GRIP ON REALITY.

13 Tuesday Jun 2017

Posted by in ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., Politics., Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(A ONE MINUTE READ)

Delusional Theresa May’s unholy alliance with the grasping Orangemen from Northern Ireland plunges the British Government in a shameful direct link to joining the funding of terrorists, criminals and bigots who even prey on their own community.  

Shocking and shameful!

The game’s over, She couldn’t negotiate her way out of a soggy paper bag, never mind secure a good Brexit deal.

HERE IS WHO THE DUP REALLY ARE:

The DUP have strong historical links with Loyalist paramilitary groups.

Specifically, the terrorist group Ulster Resistance was founded by a collection of people who went on to be prominent DUP politicians.

They recently used their role in government in Northern Ireland to set up a subsidy scheme for biofuels, which gave those who bought into it more money than they had to pay out.

The Northern Irish exchequer ended up paying out around half a billion pounds to those who knew about the scheme.

Former First Minister Peter Robinson, for example, who was DUP leader and Northern Ireland’s first minister until last year, was an active member of Ulster Resistance.

Their deputy leader and leader in Westminster is North Belfast MP Nigel Dodds (above) has the 13th highest expenses of any MP.

Their most famous politician was Ian Paisley, one of the founders of the party.

We can only hope that the breathtaking delusion of Conservative is indeed hurtling them towards the exit door.

Relying on grasping Orangemen from Northern Ireland to survive in power is the 21st Century version of frightened Anglo-Saxons paying protection money to marauding Danish invaders.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ROLL UP ROLL UP WE ARE ABOUT TO WITNESS THE BIGGEST MONEY FIGHT EVER SEEN. BREXIT IS EUROPE’S LAST CHANCE.

01 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Elections/ Voting, ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., European Commission., European Union., Politics., Post - truth politics., Social Media., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

( This is a good thirty minute read.)

The weigh in:

In the blue corner we have England wearing sterling.  In the green corner we have the EU wearing euro.

Regardless of whether you like the sport this fight will be contested across social media keeping the audience at a safe distance while making sure that the fighters don’t withdraw/run away from the fight before it is finished.

Round One:

Put simply, Article 50 gives the 27 continuing member states predominant power.

That comes partly from the fact that, according to Paragraph 4 of Article 50, the withdrawing state no longer counts as a member of the European Council for the purpose of the negotiations.  But mainly it comes from the guillotine imposed by the two-year deadline and the requirement for unanimity to extend that deadline.

Clause 4 says that after a country has decided to leave, the other EU members will decide the terms—and the country leaving cannot be in the ring in those discussions.

Britain depends on the EU for half of its exports, while Britain accounts for only one-sixth of Europe’s.  For Britain, this means any deal would be better than none at all. Keeping substantial access to the single market and having strict immigration controls are mutually exclusive for the EU: achieving both is highly unrealistic.

After a lot of shadow boxing T May with a reduced mandate and new shoes dances around the ring avoiding the total financial obligations, which are understood by the EU to be around €100 billion gross, according to an FT estimate.

But add on the negotiations fees etc and Britain is facing a £140 billion (7.5% of GDP) or the equivalent of £300 million a week over eight years.

May said repeatedly that Britain could walk away without a deal and be fine. Instead, a painless exit without a cliff-like effect on trade is only possible with a transitional arrangement. To obtain that, the UK will likely have to pay the €60 billion it owes from its past years of membership, as well as a membership fee for access to the single market.

The EU knows that  the UK is economically more dependent on the EU; 44% of its exports go there and 48% of its foreign investment comes from them.

This is not to mention the potential damage from a loss of passporting rights to the services sector, which makes up for around 79% of UK GDP.

Hence  the UK may try to act tough at the start of fight but eventually will have to compromise to avoid bigger economic fall-outs.

Round Two:

The EU Commission said citizens in the process of acquiring EU rights (such as permanent residency in another country in the bloc) should be allowed to finish doing so, and that the U.K. will be liable for certain financial payments, such as the salaries of British teachers at schools for the children of EU officials, until 2021.

Round Three:

The U.K. remains under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice while all pending cases are completed, and the U.K. would not immediately receive upon departure all the capital it has supplied to the European Investment Bank.

The U.K. is a 16 percent shareholder in the EIB and has €39.2 billion locked up in the institution, which often funds projects with a 20- to 30-year timeline. The U.K.’s liabilities should be “decreased in line with the amortization of the EIB portfolio outstanding at the time of United Kingdom withdrawal,” the Commission said.

Round Four:

Any cherry-picking punches are totally against the rules.  “Until it leaves the Union, the United Kingdom remains a full member of the EU, subject to all rights and obligations set out in the Treaties and under EU law.

Round Five:

United Kingdom will be kept separate from ongoing Union business, and shall not interfere with its progress.

The Council states that an agreement on a future relationship between the EU and the UK can only be concluded once the UK effectively leaves the EU and becomes a third country. When the United Kingdom officially leaves the European Union in March 2019, it will still be entangled in the EU’s financial and legal systems for years.

While the terms of divorce can be agreed with a majority vote, the terms of future EU-UK trade relations are very likely to need a unanimous vote.

The deal must be agreed by all 27 remaining countries in the EU. Individual countries can’t veto a treaty governing the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, but could veto a treaty establishing Britain’s new relationship with the EU. It would go ahead if it were approved by 20 of the 27 remaining EU countries, so long as they also represent 65% of the EU population.

Most of the EU’s free trade agreements require a unanimous vote of all EU governments and ratification by all member countries. That’s because they tend to be ‘mixed agreements’, meaning that they cover some ground that the EU doesn’t have power over. That said, it’s possible for the EU to negotiate a trade agreement that can’t be vetoed, depending on what’s in it.

That implies two major agreements: one on the logistics of divorce, and another on trade. (More treaties might be necessary on other issues, like security.)

Round Six:

Compulsory standing count.

Theresa May’s vision is blurred. Polarizing public opinion against the EU and immigration and away from domestic issues was an easy political win.

An independent and truly global United Kingdom without a new customs agreement. Agreements between the EU and third countries or international organisations, for example on trade, would also cease to apply to the withdrawing state, and it would thus need to negotiate alternative arrangements.

Round Seven:

The UK could change its mind about withdrawing from the EU even after triggering the formal process of leaving under Article 50.

Article 50 doesn’t say whether or not a country can change its mind, so it’s arguable either way. Some eminent lawyers think that it can, but there are also those – especially within the EU itself – who argue that once a country has triggered Article 50 it can’t then abort the process without permission.

It would be perfectly possible for the UK to revoke its decision to quit. That Article 50 is silent on the matter of revocation does not mean that a change of direction would be illegal under EU law.

The place this point might be argued, and ultimately resolved, is the EU court in Luxembourg. It’s possible that the UK courts will refer the question to EU judges as part of the ongoing litigation over the role of Parliament in triggering Article 50.

Round eight:

If there’s no turning back from an EU exit once Article 50 is triggered, there would be no point in voting on the terms of a new agreement verses continued membership.

The choice would instead be to take the deal on offer, or reject it and exit with no long-term deal at all.

Round ten:

In the end while us tax payers lose billions, the Lawyers win hands down.

Round eleven:

No deal:

Round twelve:

In their attempt to create a fairer and more equal country, Britons sought to sever ties from what they saw as a weakened partner. The reality is that Brexit will likely make Britain weaker and, ironically, is making the EU stronger.

The irony is that by running away from a European Union they thought was about to fall apart, Brexiteers have instead made it stronger.

Voters in France and the Netherlands are rejecting populism, and politicians in Brussels and Berlin have switched gears towards reforms and pro-EU spending measures.

Round thirteen:

The composition of the EU institutions changes as of the day the withdrawal takes effect, with members from the withdrawing state losing their seats in the various institutions and bodies, although transitional arrangements might be required for the period immediately after that date.

Review of the fight by social media: 

The debts accumulated by the governments of the U.S., Japan, Europe and dozens of other countries constitute a gigantic mortgage on the next two or three generations, as yet unborn.

The Euro corner>Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the euro"

As it marks its 60th birthday, the European Union is in poor shape. It needs more flexibility to rejuvenate itself.

However, citizens’ trust in the EU has decreased in line with that for national authorities. Around a third of citizens trust the EU today, when about half of Europeans did so ten years ago.

The latest economic and political developments in Europe are a wake-up call for our political leaders to take swifter action in order to strengthen the foundations of our Union.

The deteriorating geopolitical environment makes matters worse. Turmoil and war across the Middle East and in north Africa were one big cause of the surge in migrant inflows.

It is dying financially, with all the debt bankrupting governments, businesses and individuals. It is sinking economically, weighted down with stifling regulations and taxes. It is being strangled demographically, with birth rates far below replacement and the refugee crisis, which saw 1.2 million people coming to Europe in 2015 will only worsen with climate change and current conflicts.

Given the challenges facing the union, the one-size-fits-all model muddling through may no longer be the safest option. Brexit could yet be copied by another member, leading to the slow collapse of the union. A multi-speed Europe or multi-tier Europe could begin to undo the EU.

Few of the 27 EU member countries that will remain after Brexit favour much deeper political and economic integration.

These 27 are integrated into the EU in many different ways: all are in the single market, 26 in the banking union, 21 in Schengen, a different 21 in NATO and 19 in the euro, to list just few examples.

The European continent is home not just to the 28 EU members but 48 countries in all. Those outside the EU aspire to special relations with the club, and some belong to bits of it already.

To cap it all, America’s new president, Donald Trump, has shown himself hostile not just to multilateral free trade and Muslim immigrants but intermittently to the EU, praising Britain’s decision to leave and urging others to follow.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is turning his back on a club that seems to have rejected his membership aspirations, and is spurning its democratic values as well.

By 2018, around a third of the world’s population will be use social media networks. These trends will only accelerate and continue to change the way democracy works and the way the EU evolves.

A big reason for this is the politics in EU member countries which make it doubly important for Europe to gets to grips with a profound digitisation of society. The EU covers four million square kilometres in which there are 500 million citizens. It is the world’s largest single market with second most used currency. However Europe’s place in the world is shrinking, as other parts of the world grow.

In 1900, Europe accounted for around 25% of global population. By 2060, it will account for less than 5%.

Europe’s economic power is also expected to wane in relative terms, accounting for much less than 20% of the world’s GDP in 2030, down from around 22% today.

Too often, the discussion on Europe’s future has been boiled down to a binary choice between more or less Europe. New global powers are emerging as old ones face new realities and there is none older than England that has voted to leave.

There is also a mismatch between expectations and the EU’s capacity to meet them. The EU approach is misleading and simplistic, for too many> the EU fell short of their expectations as it struggled with its worst financial, economic and social crisis in post-war history. If it is to survive the EU must embrace greater differentiation not closer union or face potential disintegration.

That leaves the second type of response, which is to muddle through. After all, the euro and migration crises seem to be past their worst. Excessive austerity may have done great harm, but outside Greece it is largely over. The single market, perhaps the union’s greatest achievement, has survived the financial crisis and can surely weather Brexit. Domestic security co-operation on terrorism and crime is closer than ever. In foreign policy, EU countries have displayed commendable unity over sanctions on Russia, and have been vital in striking a nuclear deal with Iran.

At the moment more than 80% support the EU’s four founding freedoms.

These might have being the foundations to the EU but there is no getting away from the fact that money was in more ways than one crucial from the very start of the European project.

70% of euro area citizens support the common currency.

The euro zone is now a partial banking union, with a centralised bail-out fund and a European Central Bank (ECB) prepared to act as a lender of last resort.

As economies improve and this year’s tricky elections are negotiated, the union will somehow manage to keep going. If EU leaders want to negotiate revised membership (and all do say they want the UK to stay in), they could do so.

Sterling corner>Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the pound"

Britain’s richest and privately educated citizens account for 7% of the population yet makes up two-thirds of judges and around half of journalists and members of parliament, according to a government report. Meanwhile, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 3.9 million children live in poverty.

The UK ranks second in the developed world for inequality, after the US.

Brexit will not change that, nor will it make Britain more united:

The English patient was sick long before the divorce from Europe.

With an economy focused on finance and services, and highly dependent on foreign investment, the idea of creating a “truly global Britain” isolated from its closest trading partner is economic la-la land.

Brexit is a symptom of Britain’s deeply rooted economic imbalances: a growth model too concentrated on finance and services and dependent on foreign goods, human and financial capital; record-high social and wealth inequality; a lack of investment in infrastructure and education; and monetary and fiscal policies that have helped create a property bubble and excess household debt.

Brexit will not fix the shortfalls of the Anglo-American growth engine, which ran on credit and rising asset prices over the past few decades, disregarding rising inequality, a lack of inclusive access to education and declining social mobility.

General observations :

Article 50 makes life very difficult for any country wishing to withdraw from EU membership.  You might think this deliberate and take it as yet another symptom of perfidious Brussels.  But we should remember that the English Government and parliament signed up to it.

However the design of the euro suffered from two big defects that still haunt the single currency. The euro, in short, remains a troubled currency, with question-marks over both its membership and its direction. There is general agreement that it needs further integration, but disagreement about how to go about it.

The EU’s Institutions, built up over six decades, are not ideally suited to responding flexibly to challenges such as the single currency, migration or foreign and security policy. The European Parliament needs greater legitimacy to influence the European Commission is much more than a civil service; it is the guardian of the treaties, the originator of almost all legislation and the sole executor of the EU’s budget while suffering from having too many commissioners. (28, one per member country)

Terrorist attacks have struck at the heart of cities in the EU last year and will continue to do so while NATO continues to provide hard security for most EU countries.

Europe cannot be naïve and has to take care of its own security. There is no point any longer being a “soft power.

Finally:

The Horizon 2020, in Europe is the world’s biggest multinational research programme.

Maybe there are some things that could be done for the people of Europe that are not directly related to selling stuff?. Real efficiency comes from rethinking systems of bureaucracy from the ground up, not just using less paper.

The greatest task today is to consolidate the free world around Western values, not just interests,””digitizing” and “decarbonising” the economy.

Perhaps the idea of a Continental Partnership.  Might suit the UK.

Such a partnership could offer non-EU countries partial membership of the single market without full free movement of labour, and also create a system of decision-making that gave them an informal say (but no formal vote) in rule-making.

Perhaps this is the winning blow.

In all fights the promoters set the venue not the result.

England would do well to remember that it is not the EU who promoted this fight.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked out of the ring.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of boxing gloves"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: BRITAIN IS SLEEPWALKING TOWARDS AN EU EXIT THAT WILL PUT IT IN THE PAWN SHOP OF EUROPE.

23 Tuesday May 2017

Posted by in Brexit., ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., European Union., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Leave a comment

 

( A Twenty minute read that hopefully will provoke some intelligent comments)

Thursday 23 June, 2016. The UK  decided whether to leave or remain in the European Union. Leave won by 51.9% to 48.1%. The referendum turnout was 71.8%, with more than 30 million people voting out of 46 million that are registered electors in the UK.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pixture of pawn shop symbol"The UK is now scheduled to leave on Friday, 29 March 2019. (It can be extended if all 28 EU members agree.)

A country that shared both good and bad with the rest of the world is about to enter the pawn shop up to its neck in hock.

A country that was built by immigration, each new wave slightly altering the cultural fabric, but they more or less assimilated into the culture itself, changing it slightly, enhancing it, but more or less adopting the culture at large, till the Referendum.

A country that is now on a course of deliberate self-mutilation with a vastly diminished presence on the international stage that bears the “emblem of a country in retreat.” No sensible person could disagree with that verdict.

The UK national debt grows at a rate of £5,170 per second!

The truth however is much worse, factoring in all liabilities including state and public sector pensions, the real national debt is closer to £4.8 trillion, some £78,000 for every person in the UK.

 

Putting this into perspective:

Britain has a crunched economy, an out-of-control deficit and plenty of social problems.

The enormous figure above (which is equal to 80 per cent of Britain’s output), is treble the combined national debts of Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland. Future payments to retired teachers, police officers and NHS staff will cost taxpayers £1.1trillion, or £1,100 billion.

It would be true to say that Britain has been broke over the whole second half of the 20th century.

The liabilities that have been built up for future generations, won’t float way on two new Aircraft but they could disappear with Trident.

What is the cost of running Trident day to day?

About 1% of government spending on social security and tax credits in 2015/16, or the amount spent on the NHS every week.

UK should not be spending possibly £40bn on a programme that is designed for uncertainty and indeed that an “uncertain future threat environment” may mean no threats arise and so £40bn would have been spent unnecessarily.

Extending the life of the current Trident missiles into the early 2060s will cost around £250 million.

Keeping the current Trident submarines in operation until 2028, four years longer than planned, is also expected to cost between £1.2 and £1.4 billion.

£6.2bn project aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth first conceived in the 1998 defence review at a third of the cost. HMS Prince of Wales

A strike carrier largely of French-designed which is supposed to project power around the world. For a broken nation that has perhaps not yet lost its appetite for making its voice heard far across the seas. Current cost estimates for the Carrier Strike force – including the ships and jets – up to March 2021 are a whopping £14.3bn.

You have to ask is this is what it should be spending its hard taxpayer money on.

 

 

The other day we witness tactics by the Conservative Party manifesto to convince a jaded electorate that Mrs May if elected is  a “modernizer,” who with a compassionate Conservative Party, will facilitate any benevolence to help vulnerable people provided they pay for it in the long run.

The new obligation of British citizenship is to volunteer and donate (regardless of the ability to do so) in order to help vulnerable people change their ways.

“Big Society” agenda was and still is a deep-seated belief that the welfare state has run its course—Résultat de recherche d'images pour "is england broken"

What happens if there is a different government after the general

election?

Bolstered by the strategic deployment of ignorance, which encourages all who encounter the screen to view society through its behavioural filters of family breakdown, out-of-wedlock childbirth, worklessness, dependency, anti-social behaviour, personal responsibility, addiction, and teenage pregnancies., with a murder a day Brexit will still go ahead but in a whole new reality of the likely breakup of the United Kingdom and the failure of its economy.

Combined this with drastic and punitive welfare reforms arguably constitute the centrepiece of a severe fiscal austerity package, where possibilities for a redistributive path are drowned out by the rhetoric of “welfare dependent troubled families, immigrants,  Brexit ” is causing society to crumble at the margins.

All deflecting the reality of a Britain teetering on bankruptcy which is creating a troubling relationship between (mis)information and state power.

The common denominator here is the key: The hallmark of the Thatcher revolution was that society did not exist (“there is no such thing as society”),

Could there be a second referendum? Not likely.

The effects of leaving the EU will be felt for many years to come.

Apart from market meltdown with serious negative consequences for people’s’ livelihoods and savings, foreign trade, a key part of the British economy, plus financial services will be badly damaged.

Nine of the largest 20 SWFs in the world have offices in London.

You would be foolish to think that they will not follow the money.

Before World War One, Britain was the world’s economic superpower. With rapid growth and a vast empire, the country enjoyed significant levels of wealth and resources which it has squandered, by turning shopping into a sport and sport into an expensive occupation.

Resulting in more people in the UK are now either overweight or obese than at any other time in the past three decades. A million patients visit the NHS every 36 hours and over the past decade, the number of people attending A&E has risen 25 per cent. Obesity is responsible for about one in ten deaths in Britain and costs the NHS £5.1 billion a year.

With the number of people 75 or older up by 89 per cent since the mid 1970s. As long-term illnesses affect more people – as of 2013, there were 3.2 million people with diabetes – that’s expected to increase to four million within the decade. Budgets, meanwhile, are all but flat, and in 2013-2014 the NHS ran a £471 million deficit.

Britain will experience the deepest recession in its history perhaps deeper than in 1920/21 after the first world war.Theresa May personally reassured the chief of Gibraltar the UK was committed to them

WHY?

Britain is now in caught two situation.

Yes it  can secure new trade agreements but they take years to secure.

X colonial countries like New Zealand cut off from the supply of British goods have been forced to build up their own industries so they were no longer reliant on Britain, instead directly competing with her.

The Conservative Party pledged to create a number of U.K. sovereign wealth funds, known as Future Britain funds, to back British infrastructure and the economy. This a central part of our long-term plan for Britain.

(It is expected that early funds will be created out of revenues from shale gas extraction, dormant assets and the receipts of sale of some private assets, said the manifesto.)

If ordinary Britons do not follow in the footsteps of the Greeks and demand a degree of democratic control over and local benefit from these wealth funds the capital in these fund will not be truly citizens wealth.

But shouldn’t the UK still fear going the way of Greece – losing control of the public finances – and then, after a delay, being savagely punished by the markets?

It is not “broken” yet, nor will it ever be when it can print money.

If the UK were in a tight corner it can simply print the funds required to avoid outright default.

Bank of England pumps £5bn into firms and £20bn into banks to keep interest rates down, which are now on the rise.

If stakes in state-backed banks – including Northern Rock, Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyd’s Banking Group – were sold at current market prices, they would generate a loss of £13.5 billion.

God only knows what they will be worth on Exit.

Can this story be squared with the facts?

Perhaps, when one looks at who owns Britain.

In a country where 432 people own half the private rural land, a looped and windowed democratic cloak barely covers the corrupt old body of the nation.

Peaceful protesters can still be arrested under the 1361 Justices of the Peace Act.  The Royal Mines Act 1424 gives the crown the right to all the gold and silver in Scotland.  The Remembrancer of the City of London sits behind the Speaker’s chair in the House of Commons to protect the entitlements of a corporation that pre-dates the Norman conquest.

Farm subsidies, ensure that every household in Britain hands £245 a year to the richest people in the land. The single farm payment system, under which landowners are paid by the hectare, is a reinstatement of a medieval levy called feudal aid, a tax the vassals had to pay to their lords.

Walk into any mairie in France or ayuntamiento in Spain and you will be shown the cadastral registers on request, on which all the land and its owners are named.  Try to do the same in Britain, and you will find a full cadastral map available at the local library that can be photocopied for a price. But it was made in 1840.

So Britain is still essentially a feudal nation and for centuries, it has been a welfare state for patrimonial capital.

There are very few common asset like land, water, minerals, knowledge, scientific research and software over which a community has shared and equal rights. At the moment most of these assets have been enclosed: seized by either the state or private interests and treated as any other form of capital.

Resulting in the UK being one of China’s favourite places to invest with only one motivation straightforward – profit.

Here is a few Sovereign Wealth funds assets in the UK.

Qatar and Dubai between them own about a third of the London Stock Exchange.

The government of Singapore has built up a 3% stake in British Land.

Dubai International Capital (DIC) has invested money in building stakes in UK companies, including Travelodge and the London Eye.

In 2012, CIC’s $410bn sovereign wealth fund, bought an 8.68 per cent stake in Thames Water, the water network that serves London.

Singapore’s sovereign wealth fund GIC £48.5m deal to invest in a development owned by FTSE 100 retail property group Hammerson.

50% of the Watermark development, which includes a cinema and restaurant complex in Southampton to the Singapore state investor.

State-owned Qatar Airways is the biggest shareholder in IAG, the parent company of British Airways.

Qatar Holdings also already owns 20% of Heathrow Airport.

Harrods: Owned by Qatar Holdings.

The Shard: 95% owned by Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund.

The Olympic Village: Owned by Qatari Diar, property investment company owned by QIA.

Chelsea Barracks: Owned by Qatari Diar.

Sainsbury’s: 26% owned by Qatar.

The new nuclear power plant at Hinkley Point,  It will cost more than $22 billion to build and bring online. And it isn’t clear that the EPR technology is viable. One-third of the costs, the Chinese state-run company China General Nuclear Power Corporation will take about one-third ownership in the project. (A subsidiary of E.D.F. owns the rest.)

Indeed three of the world’s 10 biggest sovereign wealth funds are Chinese, together holding more than $1.5tn (£988 bn) in assets. Barclays bank – all $3bn of it. BP, $2bn.Pizza Express, House of Fraser, Weetabix and Sunseeker yachts.

Chinese investments in UK companies (%)            Chinese investments in UK companies

 

Norway’s oil fund is the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund and is worth > $760bn. According to a report in the FT in 2013, it owns on average about 2.5% of every listed European company

Despite recent budget hype about renewing the infrastructure, which is owned more and more by SWFs the market alone cannot meet England needs, nor can the state.

A passionate European, like myself, one can only feel a deep sense of shame at the narcissism and ignorance that have brought England to this place where it is treating to walk away from the EU without paying its bills.

Similar values alone cannot sustain the UK-US relationship.

So can one talk of business as usual?

However slavishly governments grovel to corporate world what jumps out today, to put it crudely, is that jobs and manufacturing rely on being able to sell competitively.

Governments, each government, is beholden to look after its own interest, first.

The ideals and aspirations of its people desperately searching for an identity will not be served by waving the magic wand of leaving the EU and the problems goes away. It won’t come true. Even if England rippes the EU to pieces.

The combination of domestic constraints, changes of leaders, and the increasing complexity of the international community makes these bilateral or multilateral partnerships less efficient than before.

If the UK leaves the European Union without having reached any agreement after two years, it will be a disaster for both sides.

The challenge is to wrap up the Brexit negotiations quickly.

London should not hold the EU hostage, and the EU should not use Britain’s impending exit from the bloc as an excuse to continue muddling through.

Either way, the wisest course might be to discount anything said in the next few weeks, ahead of the UK’s vote on June 8, and wait for the dust to settle afterward.

The UK has been missing-in-action over the past few years, and will be for a few more years to come, as it’s important that they repair the damage internally first, as that’s the most important priority for them at present.

It would be idiotic to claim that Britain is perfect unfortunately it is running out of puff. Farm jobs have mostly gone already. Service and care work, where hope for some appeared to lie, will be threatened by a further wave of automation, as service robots – commercial and domestic – takeover.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the uk"

Here is the true reality:

We are all promised unending growth on a finite planet. In a world crashing into environmental limits and the mass destruction of jobs – are as irrelevant in the 21st Century as the neoliberal prescriptions that caused the financial crisis.

The impacts of information technology go way beyond simple automation: it is likely to destroy the very basis of the market economy and the relationship between work and wages.

There’s a point at which further complexity delivers diminishing returns; society is then overwhelmed by its demands and breaks down.

The world is facing the combination of automation, complexity and climate change is dangerous in ways we haven’t even begun to grasp.

England may be right to leave the EU for the wrong reasons.

At the expense of both competition and democracy, withdrawal will not, “bring jobs and industry back to English shores. The social, environmental and economic crises we all face requires a complete reappraisal of the way we all live and work.

Governments across the world are making promises they cannot keep.

The failure by mainstream political parties to produce a new and persuasive economic narrative, that does not rely on sustaining impossible levels of growth and generating illusory jobs, provides a marvellous opening for demagogues everywhere.

In the absence of a new vision, their failure to materialise will mean only one thing: something or someone must be found to blame.

As people become angrier and more alienated; as the complexity and connectivity of global systems becomes ever harder to manage; as institutions like the European Union collapse and as climate change renders parts of the world uninhabitable, forcing hundreds of millions of people from their homes, the net of blame will be cast ever wider.

A complete reframing of economic life is needed not “just” to suppress the existential risk that climate change presents (a risk marked by a 20°C anomaly reported in the Arctic Ocean while I was writing this article), but other existential threats as well – including war.

Today’s governments, whether they are run by Trump or May or Merkel, lack the courage and imagination even to open this conversation.

It is left to others to conceive of a more plausible vision than trying to magic back the good old days. The task for all those who love this world and fear for our children is to imagine a different future, rather than another past.

Only God knows why we obsess about all this so negatively when stupidity consists in waiting to come to a conclusion.

All very depressing. Is a strong and stable Conservative Party seriously the limits of British people imaginations. I hope not.

As the recent repulsive attack in Manchester shows. Only by coporation can we all live a life. No Aircrafts or Tridents can stop such a horrible lost of life.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT CAN BE EXPECTED IN THE NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN ENGLAND AND THE EU.

01 Monday May 2017

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England., European Union., Politics., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

( A two-minute read)

YOU DON’T NEED BLINKERS TO REALIZE THE FOLLOWING.

After four decades of legal, economic and administrative convergence, the scope of this the forthcoming negotiations is truly vast: from labour mobility to customs checks, fishing rights to patents, scientific research to counter-terrorism.

The challenge is all the greater because Article 50 stipulates that (unless the other Member States agree by unanimity to extend the period) the UK will cease to be a member of the EU within 2 years – deal or no deal.

At its core, the EU has been a political project.

It is not just a group of states that cooperate, but a group of states which have created supranational institutions that have executive and judicial authority over EU member states and that can pass laws that are directly applicable throughout the EU.

So what can be expected?

The UK starts from a weaker position than the EU because it needs a deal more.

Certainly Britain cannot be rewarded and it will not be allowed to pick and choose at will policies that it wants to participate in or abstain from.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the uk -eu negotiation "

It must decide what it is willing to concede in exchange for achieving its objectives.

On the other hand the EU will wish to avoid an acrimonious divorce that damages all parties.

Both sides must take a long-term view, beyond the possibly drawn-out negotiations that will begin in the coming months.. The EU and the UK economic links are now so interwoven that their prospects cannot be independent over any foreseeable horizon.

The big question might well boil down to, can or will the Uk pay, whatever the economical price. The British government has no legal obligation to pay for Brexit or outstanding payments into EU budget.

The EU’s €1tn, seven-year budget was negotiated in late 2013 by EU leaders including the British prime minister. It is due to expire at the end of 2020, although bills may be trickling in until 2023. This reflects that payments for EU-funded infrastructure projects, such as roads or airports, are not settled until two to three years after being promised.

It is more than likely that payment will be a principle of liability with the British government (with estimates ranging from €20bn to more than €70bn.)

A large payment would be a political problem for any UK government. however to have any negotiations they should be honoured in full.

If not in an increasingly volatile world the chill winds of solitude points to no deal.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of negotiation skills"

At the end of the two-year period  EU Treaties will cease to apply to the UK, even if no agreement has been reached. This will lead  to a short, sharp shock, rather than a lengthy period of economic dislocation and political acrimony.

So it stands to reason that if the UK government wants goodwill from EU countries and a deal on access to European markets, agreement on the budget will be important.

For some, the most controversial question is likely to be whether it is possible to have close economic integration comparable to the single market while partly limiting labour mobility.

This will turn into a political football : EU citizens in the UK and English citizens living and working in the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of negotiation skills"

Reorganise Europe in two circles to accommodate the Uk will not work.

So what will be the result? It’s a tough one this.

Negotiation is crucial in all organisations and in virtually every aspect of life. In essence, negotiating is deciding what to agree on and persuading the other party to agree. The outcome does matter. Good negotiators focus on value while sellers often focus on price.

Everything go straight to the wall. May day, May Day.

All comments welcome. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This will be an essential element of the negotiations on the orderly separation.”

 

THE BEADY EYE OPEN LETTER TO THE UK ELECTORAL: HERE IS WHAT THE SNAP UK ELECTION SHOULD BE ABOUT.

24 Monday Apr 2017

Posted by in ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

( A TWO MINUTE READ)

Why a snap election ?

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of homeless people"                   Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of homeless people"          Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of homeless people"

 

THEY SAY A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.

HERE IS ANOTHER. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of homeless people"

FOR ALL INTENTIONAL PURPOSES IT IS ACADEMIC HOW IS IN POWER.

STRONG MANDATE OR NOT.

THERE IS NO RESETTING THE OUT BUTTON.

Britain has already triggered Article 50 – the formal starting gun on Brexit, and withdrawal from the EU is all but a certainty at this point.

EU27 leaders meet on April 29 to agree on the negotiating guidelines. After that, there is a window, likely to last until June or July, during which the European Commission will draw up detailed negotiating plans for final approval by EU leaders. Until that time, nothing substantive can be agreed between the EU and the U.K. — and May has decided to squeeze a general election into this window.

SHE IS IN FACT PUTTING THE COUNTRY TO UNNECESSARY EXTRAVAGANT EXPENSE (UNLESS THE EU TOLD HER SHE WAS ANOINTED PRIME MINISTER AND WAS IN NEED OF A MANDATE TO NEGOTIATE).

BRITAIN HAS CHANGED PRIME MINISTER 24 TIMES IN THE LAST CENTURY, HALF OF THOSE WITHOUT A GENERAL ELECTION.

AFTER THE RESULT OF THE FIRST ROUND OF ELECTIONS IN FRANCE.

YOU DON’T NEED TO BE A POLITICAL ANALYST TO SEE WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

The negotiations with Europe over Britain’s exit from the EU are likely to be fraught negotiations.

The June election date means a new Parliament will have been formed just in time for the likely start date for the Brexit negotiations.

May’s problem was simple: She had a majority in parliament to trigger Article 50 but for almost nothing else — the final Brexit package included.
Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of may and trump"

How the election influences the direction of the Brexit talks depends on the outcome.

There is already a democratic mandate for Brexit. This election could become a democratic mandate for her specific kind of Brexit — out of the single market, but with favorable access via a hasty free-trade agreement.

If the election delivers a small Conservative majority, as already exists, little will change. If the election wipes out the Tory majority — which would throw all assumptions about the U.K.’s Brexit strategy into the air.

The risk is that she ends up muddying the waters with an inconclusive result.

WHAT IS On the ballot paper is Britain’s future outside the European Union.

It might seem foolish to call anything a certainty now in politics but If Jeremy Corbyn was to agree PRIOR TO THE ELECTION to STEP DOWN ON WINNING THE ELECTION ( replacing himself with a more popular, centrist candidate he would win hands down)  Why not have another unelected prime minister. 

Parliament took you into Europe, and only parliament can take you out.

Both major parties seem wedded to the claim that “the British people have decided to leave”, the British people have done no such thing. At the referendum last June, 37% of those eligible to vote supported Brexit, 35% wanted to remain and 28% did not vote at all – many, in my view, misled by opinion polls indicating a pro-Europe result. Since 63% of the British public did not vote to leave, there would seem plenty for parliament to debate: whether a non-binding referendum should be allowed to produce a further fall in the currency, for example, or diminish human rights.

WAKE UP:  Britain great again, or turn it into a bargain-basement offshore tax haven with sunken sterling.

wHICH ONE IS IT TO BE:  MADAME MAY OR MRS LE PEN.  NEITHER WOULD BE MY STRONG ADVICE.  What is certain the most tumultuous period in post-war British history just got more tumultuous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYES OPEN LETTER: CALLING ON THE YOUTH OF ENGLAND AND THE EU.

04 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Brexit., England., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Populism., Social Media., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

( A five minute read)

Where are your voices?

The decision to leave the EU affects your future more than anyone, so tell me why you are now so silent.

Luckily the responsibility for the outcome of the next two years negotiations still rests on the shoulders of the British people—and specifically, on the young English people.

Do young Englanders really want to isolate their Island even more from the rest of Europe?

It is now imperative you make your young voices heard on the final deal, if any.

If you do not there is little point sitting on you behinds, chastising older Brits, when less of you voted in the referendum than those who did not.

The 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent was so close – if the rest of you had voted, the outcome could have been very different, and if 16-and 17-year-olds were given the chance to have their say in this momentous decision England would not now be clinging on to its colonial history.

(It seems ludicrous that 16 and 17-year-olds weren’t allowed to vote in the referendum that was going to define much of their future. Truly idiotic.)

There is no such thing as a perfect future or for that matter a correct past but the coming decisions will pitted rich against poor like no other.

So here is my plea to the Youth of England and the Youth of the EU.

If you look at the sign at the entrance of your town and you’ll spot a phrase that goes something like this: “Twinned with.

(Town twinning, as an official relationship-builder, started in Europe after the second world war. The idea was simple: repair damaged relationships between France, Germany and the UK.)

You and your twin share something. A history, some DNA.

You’re twinned for a reason and that reason will be positive if you now twin your efforts to have a final say and vote on the final result.

We have seen in Greece the rise of a far-left government. In Spain, there is a similar upsurge. In France, Marine Le Pen and the Front National are closer to power than at any time previously. In Britain, the anger of the ‘have-nots’ has so far been contained — probably because unemployment has been kept down. But it would only take mismanagement of welfare benefits and an excessively high national living wage to change that.

Clearly not everyone who voted Leave is a racist thicko, just like not every immigrant is a jihadi. There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate, but I do not see how it is helpful to characterise millions of people in this way.

It can seem like a language that the privileged use to sneer at the poor: a kind of moral snobbery. A striking social division has been exposed in this vote.

I dont know about you but I’m ashamed that the world of ever-closer union among countries which for centuries would kill each other by the million—came to a shattering end on Thursday.

I am also embarrassed and disappointed that your country has been manipulated by the xenophobic, racist and above all incorrect facts that have been spread by a vocal minority of U.K. citizens.

Business and government officials have long grumbled about EU rules and regulations but the 2008 financial crisis, subsequent economic turmoil, rise of immigration and terrorism and general European malaise accelerated concerns about the relative merits of EU membership, particularly on the political right

British advocates of Brexit argue that issues of sovereignty and self-government should override economic ones but as a generation that is digitally connected to other young people across the world, you should be the generation which understands what the European Union is about more than any other, because you have grown up as European citizens.

So clearly, this all comes down to whether life is better or worse separate from the EU.

It is difficult to foresee any tangible benefits in leaving – economic, political or security –  that would outweigh remaining and helping to reform the EU, unless the EU disintegrates. 

Whatever the outcome of the British and EU negotiations, afterwards Europe will not be able to shy away from a few much-needed debates and significant reforms.

WE ALL KNOW:  WHETHER YOUR ENGLISH, SPANISH, FRENCH OR FROM ONE OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES CURRENTLY IN THE EU, BLACK OR WHITE- MUSLIM OR WHAT EVER RELIGION, THAT THE WORLD WE ALL LIVING IN IS IN A MESS IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE.

Theresa May explains how her government will balance seeking control of immigration and access to the single market

The picture above is not the world. The picture below is the world.Frontiers of Intercultural Clash and Dialogue - Armenia - abroadship.org

We are better together and celebrating our multi-cultural, immigration-shaped society.

This isn’t about saying whether young people in England were right and wrong, but it’s clear that they see themselves as citizens of Europe, and quite possibly the world, rather than the UK.

Is there a future for the European Union?

If so, what is it necessary to do, to give a future to this European Union?

More specifically, what is the role of new generations in the rescue operations and in ensuring continuity to the European project?

In the world we live in, acting alone is neither possible nor desirable.

Total independence from others is not possible, even outside the context of the European project, because in a global world we are all deeply connected. Thus, when dealing with issues that go beyond any single state’s borders, it is in every country’s interests to be able to participate in the international regulation and decision-making process.

Europe is obviously much more than a market, after all; it is a cultural space, simultaneously bemusing and splendidly diverse, complementary and enriching.

Europe is more than “Brussels”.

And Europe is not a bureaucratic monster, not a tribe of petty-minded technocrats making the lives of decent citizens a misery with their rules and regulations, but it will never be possible to preserve all the things we value about Europe without a European political framework.

Capitalism, we should not forget, is still capitalism.

Anyone who believes that the blessings of the market can spare us the hard work of solving political, social and ecological problems, who thinks that a single nation alone can triumph in the arena of global financial capitalism, is making a terrible mistake.

Such a fragile cultural entity as Europe can only survive in today’s world of conflict if it is politically strong and – whatever the differences – fundamentally united.

Is it too much to hope that a continent that has succeeded since 1945 – after two horrific wars – in turning enemies into neighbours and mistrustful neighbours into cooperative partners and sometimes even friends might turn out to be a reliable force for peace in the turmoil of the twenty-first century, a bastion of freedom and democracy, a promoter of fruitful communication with other influential regions?

The political Europe was never the great leveler, and never will be. Its raison d’être is its diversity, its vital energy, its obstinacy.

Europe is not the navel of the world, not the yardstick by which all other regions of the world are to be judged.

Europe is a historic continent, perhaps the historic continent par excellence. What singles Europe out most of all is that all the greatest crimes and mistakes have already been made here, and we Europeans have felt the punishment.

None of our problems can be solved by isolating ourselves or expanding into supposedly empty lands. We cannot just “go west!” Unlike the Americans, we know – even if we sometimes appear to forget it – that we can only live in peace if we also pay heed to the other side’s interests.

Don’t let anyone persuade you that we – the rest of Europe – want to take away your different-ness, your obstinacy, your trouble-making.

We need you in Europe precisely because you are so different from us. And you?

Would it be impertinent to suggest that you need us too, if you are to fulfil your potential? And if that is true – or at least not completely false – would it not be a rather poor idea to abandon Project Europe? I think so.

Of course, if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, it would still be a member of NATO – and it is noteworthy that precisely its most significant partner in the alliance has stated its preference for a strong and united European Union that can act decisively in matters of security and defence.

Now is not the time to turn inwards.

It is obvious, therefore, that the Eurozone project is not solely a matter of a technical-parametric economic optimum calculation, but primarily a political issue.

So what is ultimately at stake in the Brexit debate?

It is only partially about Britain. A British exit would return the UK to its pre-modern constitution. For the EU, Brexit could favour a rebalancing of EU law in favour of social and environmental rights. But it is more likely that the neoliberal turn in EU law would continue as there are many factors now driving it, separately from British influence.

The EU, as much as the UK, is in need of a constitutional settlement which addresses the risks posed by market fundamentalism.

The notion of regaining sovereignty as a solution to the problems we face as Europeans, and Britons, is an oversimplification on the part of those who believe that it is possible to live in a world that no longer exists.

I am certain that the British do not really want to turn their backs on us continental Europeans after all we have been through together.

Europe is above all an ever-changing cultural cosmos that can only flourish if all its parts are permitted to be themselves. Anything else is codswallop.

If you get any group in society that doesn’t have a voice, they’re always going to feel nervous and out of control for the future.

Its time for the Youth of England with the support of Young Europeans to combine in a movement to be heard.

If not should I comfort myself with the thought that national egotisms and separatists are proliferating in many other European countries too.

Never. I deeply love the world, but it would be nothing without its people. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of beautiful eyes with tears"

All the selfies, or social media won’t make you a better person, or help you with a fantastic opportunity to engage with politics and have your opinions heard.

Let’s call it Smart by not leaving it to Money, Profit, Arms Sales and I am all right Jacks to shape our lives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT SHOULD THE EU SEEK IN THE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS.

23 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Brexit., England., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(A six minute read.)

Philip Hammond urged EU countries to “think very carefully about what they want” before hanging Britain out to dry in any post-Brexit settlement.

The fact that even the process for conducting these negotiations is not fully covered by European law his advice although cloaked in threatening rhetoric should be heeded by the EU.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of eu brexit negotiators"

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is the only formal structure for the negotiations but offers no more than a broad framework for the negotiations. More detailed guidance will largely depend on legal interpretation and political bargaining, and will only be issued after the UK activates article 50 and begins exit proceedings.

To date I have only heard in vague terms what the UK wants.

It seems to me at the moment that there is no consensus on how the UK should approach negotiations on its relationship with the EU. In particular which parts of its current relationship with the EU the UK seeks to preserve and which it has to either renegotiate or walk away from.

This post asks what from an EU perspective what will the negotiations mean.

The European Council’s main role is to define the general political direction and the priorities of the EU.

Although it has no formal legislative power, it has an influential strategic role and provides a final escalation level for discord among member states at the ministerial level.

For the negotiations on the exit conditions, the formal role of the European Council is limited to the beginning of the negotiation process.

It will then set out the guidelines for the withdrawal agreement, without the UK’s participation, through unanimous agreement.

These guidelines will provide general directions and key conditions for the Union negotiator, the European Commission. They will also define the role of the other institutions, the time path and sequence of the negotiation process.

The European Commission is ultimately responsible for negotiations related to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In addition to this, the European Parliament has voted in favour of having the Commission led the negotiations.

Out of all the EU institutions, the role of the Parliament is, in legal terms, the least clearly pronounced. Although it has to sign off, by simple majority, on both the exit proceedings and the any future trade deal, its involvement throughout the negotiations will remain uncertain until the European Council issues its guidelines. Nonetheless, the possibility that the Parliament can block the deal(s) gives it significant power over the negotiation process and the content of the agreement.

The European institutions that are involved in the negotiations each cater to different interests.

The Council represents the Member States, the Parliament the European citizens, and the Commission stands for the EU as a whole.  For that reason it is crucial that the European Parliament gets a strong role in the negotiation process. It would be difficult to think of a better way to show the benefits of European citizenship, for the British and for Europeans alike.

In a bid to maximise the benefits of the negotiations for European citizens, national governments and for the EU as a whole it is essential:

That the European Council issues negotiation guidelines that serve the interests of European citizens and Europe as a whole, and not just those of the Member States.

That the Parliament’s role is defined by the recognition of its political input and the citizens that it represents, rather than by its mere power to block an agreement.

That the European Parliament, as the highest democratic body of the European Union, be involved in all steps of the negotiation process. This is to be achieved by: setting up a special committee to formalise interinstitutional contacts between the Brexit negotiators from the Council Task Force, the Commission and the Parliament; and by making the European Parliament’s lead negotiator part of the Union’s negotiating team.

It is quite obvious that there is going to be not just one deal, but probably two or more.

So to date on the European side we have only rumors of  a massive exit fees in the billions and little else. ( see previous post)

A pretty core question is whether the UK is prepared to concede even the principle that it has liability for any EU expenditure, beyond the pensions of UK citizen employees of the EU.

My guess is that will not be conceded per se, but that one could imagine some notional payment being made, for purely political presentational reasons, to secure a trade deal. I’m thinking of something like £7bn under some pretext-or-other, plus an annual agreement to participate in this or that research funding programme and some pan-European anti-crime-and-terrorism fund.

It also seems to me that the EU is going to have to re-negotiate some of its own terms of international trade due to a downsizing of its market.

Will the UK be paying the cost of these negotiations.

Unfortunately the English don’t seem to understand that the decision to join the EU was irrevocable.

The people of England listened to a bunch of charlatans promising a “Global Britain”, rubbish; Britain has nothing to sell. Yes, the City of London , due to its peculiar legal status will remain the world center for money laundering and financial manipulation, aside from that what have you got?

You just had to hire the Chinese to build a power station! The apparent prosperity of the last 25 years has been built on a mountain of debt, which means that if BofE is forced to defend the pound by raising interest rates the whole economy will come crashing down.

Expect the GB pound to hit 50cents US within months. And don’t think you have any credit left with the old empire, after the stab in the back of Australia and particularly New Zealand nobody is interested in your BS.

If you had any sense at all you would all ask May to admit that voting to leave was a big mistake and please take us back.

The EU is perfectly within its rights to take into account any repercussions to their union’s stability in the way they approach Brexit. Britain can leave anytime they want – they just can’t expect to receive all the privileges that came with membership.

Britain will find out soon enough that leaving the EU is like the spoiled teenager who runs away from home because their parental units won’t buy them the latest iphone. All of a sudden they are cold, dirty, wet and hungry.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of eu brexit negotiators"

Theresa May has said she intends to trigger this process on 29 March, meaning the UK will be expected to have left by the summer of 2019, depending on the precise timetable agreed during the negotiations.

She wants with a “comprehensive free trade deal” giving the UK “the greatest possible access” to the single market  to reach a new customs union deal with the EU without the free movement of people.

No matter what, on both sides there are now massive vested interests under threat and hence they will stop at nothing to protect the machine. Nothing.

In the end it is the people on both sides that count. In or Out.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR BREXIT.

17 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by in Brexit., England., European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

( A TWO MINUTE READ: THAT WILL SAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION BILLIONS)

Button 50 might not be nuclear but it will have collateral damage to revile one.

It is the greatest disaster to befall the European Union in its 59-year history.

Theresa May vows if EU tries to ‘punish’ Britain we will walk away WITHOUT a Brexit deal (Photo: Getty)

The economic consequences for the UK from leaving the EU are complex.

You don’t have to be a genius to recognise THAT to unscramble 40 years of European integration is going to cost sheds loads of loot – euros and sterling. 

The total bill kicked around at the moment is estimated to be between €40 billion (£34 billion) and €60 billion (£52 billion).

We all know what happens with estimates.

All 28 member states have to unanimously agree to the terms of a deal meaning the negotiations could take years.

In the meantime Britain is still bound by the obligations and responsibilities of EU membership.

ARE THEY INDEED.

Theoretically, there is nothing to stop a British Government unilaterally withdrawing from the EU by simply repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Article 50 compels only the EU to seek a negotiation, not the withdrawing member state.

Triggering Article 50, formally notifying the intention to withdraw, starts the clock running. After that, the Treaties that govern membership no longer apply to Britain.

At a glance | What is Article 50?

  • Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon gives any EU member the right to quit unilaterally, and outlines the procedure for doing so
  • There was no way to legally leave the EU before the Treaty was signed in 2007
  • It gives the leaving country two years to negotiate an exit deal
  • Once set in motion, it cannot be stopped except by unanimous consent of all member states
  • Any deal must be approved by a “qualified majority” of EU member states and can be vetoed by the European Parliament
  • In November 2016, the High Court ruled that the Government cannot trigger Article 50 without MPs voting on the matter first. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling in January 2017

Under the Vienna Convention, the termination of a treaty “releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty”.

Furthermore under EU’s own laws mean there is no “legal obligation” to cough up any cash if no deal is struck.

THERESA MAY can walk away from the EU without paying a penny of the Brussels’ £50-£60 billion divorce bill.

European Union and the Union flag sit on top of a sand castle

The EU will lose more than just economic and political strength — it will also see billions of euros disappear from its budget. Net revenues that flow into the EU from Britain each year range from 14 to 21 billion euros. If you subtract the money Britain gets back from Brussels, the EU budget would shrink by up to 10 billion euros per year.

Of course, there is a lot of money at stake.

HOWEVER THERE IS ONE THING THAT IS FOR SURE.

THE EU MOST INSURE THAT IF THE UK LEAVES OR NOT, ENGLAND MUST FOOT ALL THE BILLS THAT ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE PENDING NEGOTIATIONS. 

AFTER ALL: NONE OF THE COST INVOLVED ARE A RESULT OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE EU.

Not to demand so would be act of calamitous self-harm.

Ongoing spending commitments -Being without legal precedent, there is no simple answer to whether the EU Treaty, to which all members are signatories, or the secondary legislation arising from it, would apply to a state that is leaving.

 Legally, the UK’s obligation to these payments or others is unclear.

IN THE MEANTIME IT IS THE DUTY OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE EU.

We all know that the EU is in need of radical change.

ONCE MRS MAY ENACTS ARTICLE 50 BEFORE ANY NEGOTIATIONS OR TRANSITION DEAL THE EU MUST PUT IN PLACE A TOTALLY TRANSPARENT COSTING AND REMUNERATION PACKET.

Agreement on this WILL be needed before talks over trade deal negotiations begin.

The member states will be forced to negotiate the bloc’s finances at the same time they begin Brexit negotiations. But how will Brussels be able to determine its budget without knowing how much the British government will be paying into it?

Britain needs to define its position concerning the direct costs before any kind of future relationship the British will seek with the EU.

That, though, will determine the price of future ties NOT THE COSTS OF SEPARATION.

The main thing, in my opinion, is that Brexit is an opportunity to reform the Union in a way which will make it more effective and stop countries wanting to break away.

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.

The EU Treaties would also need to be amended to reflect the UK’s departure. In effect, this means that the final deal at the end of a negotiated UK exit from the EU would need to be ratified by EU leaders via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament and by the remaining 27 national parliaments across the EU.

Life goes on,

EU and GB flag face paint kiss

It is almost certain that we will end up with no deal.

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