Category Archives: ENGLAND’S SNAP ELECTION

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THEY THE TORIES ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.

23 Sunday Oct 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., Brexit., England departure from the EU., England in five years., England's future., ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., Inflation., The cost of the Tories., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THEY THE TORIES ARE LAUGHING ALL THE WAY TO THE BANK.

(Seven minute read)

On a annual salary of £115,000  and expenses Liz Trust lasted less than fifty days in office.

She can walk away with £19,000 in severance pay plus her expenses.

Tony Blair and John Major also received the annual salary of £115,000 pounds.

Gordon Brown £114, 800. David Cameron £111,400.

Theresa May a sitting MP can claim a parliament staffing budget of £35,000 on top of the annual  salary.

So what does it all cost?

The Gravy House of the Lords.

800 members/ peer costing £30,000 per member at a total cost of around £117.4 million.

They are entitled to £323 pounds a day just for signing into the Chamber.

Houses Of Parliament Wallpapers - Wallpaper Cave

The Poor House the Common’s.

The total spend of members of parliament was £132.5 million in the 2020-21.

The average cost of an MP was £203,880 in 2020-21, a 29.2 per cent increase.

The Royal House. Buckingham Palace.

It cost the taxpayer a mire £103 million ( 2021-22)

————————

The Tories are throwing away any right to claim that they are the careful custodians of the public’s money.

The inglorious history of their follies are crying out with horror at the cost, crying with laughter at the sheer stupidity of so many bad decisions. They are now making a very strong bid to be the most blunder-prone regime of the modern era.

The net cost of the bank bailouts—once you factor in money recouped by the government—was £27 billion. Separate figures from the National Audit Office (NAO) in 2018 estimated the sum spent to stabilise the banks to be £133 billion.

Most of the trade deals with non-EU countries that the UK has signed have been small in their economic effect, and have merely been “rolled over” from identical ones when we were an EU member.

The impression was that there would be no downside. We would thrive outside Europe’s bureaucracy which was strangling our companies with red tape. The huge benefits of the single market – trading freely across borders, with common standards – were never highlighted.

Two new carriers that has attracted criticism over its £6.2bn cost more than £2bn over the original estimate.

The latest estimate of the cost of HS2 has spiralled to between £72bn and £98bn.

Then came the dispute over the Northern Ireland protocol, an issue that so infuriated the EU it has refused to ratify Britain’s associate membership of the €95bn scheme.

The final cost of the Tories is that 70% of economic turnover was international before Brexit. It went from 70% to 50% to 30%,  it would be twice the size if it were not for Brexit.

Then came Covid which compounded Brexit’s disruption to British government, while Boris Johnson’s cavalier approach to leadership and to constitutional norms puts stresses and strains on all of its institutions. The books on the history of Covid-19 will show the ways in which money was blown in such spectacular style. It was a vast pyrotechnic display of borrowed moola such as we’ll surely never see repeated. Much of it, in the UK, as with other countries, was spent without apparent constraint.

Furlough – or the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, to give it a name – cost a staggering £70bn.

The fiscal year 2020-21 was the first one in which government spending in the UK surpassed a trillion pounds, reaching £1096bn. That was a one-year increase of 23.5%.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, said:

“Economic growth isn’t some academic term with no connection to the real world. It means more jobs, higher pay and more money to fund public services, like schools and the NHS.

Leave the Tories in power and the results will speak for themselves.

The north-south divide has now least 85 years.

The UK has higher levels of regional inequality than any other large wealthy country.

Levelling up like Boris it is absolutely miles away. It would cost  hundreds of billions of pounds over decades if done properly. its

Nothing more than rhetoric in a country up to its neck in Debt.

The cost of Boris Johnson’s ‘levelling up’: £2tn.

A drop in the ocean of inflation.

Boris Johnson said at the UK Battery Industrialisation Centre in Coventry that regional inequalities are an ‘outrage’

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail,com

Advertisement

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THIS IS WHY ENGLAND IS IN SUCH A MESS.

21 Friday Oct 2022

Posted by in 2022: The year we need to change., British Culture., England in five years., England's future., ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., English General Election., English parliamentary proceedings., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. THIS IS WHY ENGLAND IS IN SUCH A MESS.

Tags

, , , , ,

It lack a culture of consensus, and has now lost the means of building and developing one.

Why?

Because it has a democracy that is managed by a narrow elite who for centuries have put power and wealth before its people.

The Brexit referendum and the increasing ideological polarisation in both main political parties are a sign of this.

Britain is about the only country in Europe with a primitive ‘first past the post’ electoral system rather than a proportional electoral system.

Why has this mess developed only now?

I am sure that few people in England are now really nostalgic for empire, although a great many don’t realise just what a hideous mess it often left behind.

Nationalism and sectarian politics feed on nostalgia like vampires feed on blood.

One outcome of the inability to compromise in Britain, has been the ‘austerity’ economics practised over the last eight years. More than anything else this is what is driving so many people into poverty (20% now below the official poverty line) It degraded health and education services, shutting museums and libraries, causing physical infrastructure to break up and much much more.

Britain does not have a constitution.

It is therefore ruled by antiquated institutions such a the Crown.

The set of laws, rules and yes, that great British favourite, the ‘Gentleman’s Agreement’, that make up what amounts to a constitution has evolved organically over time, but has not developed to reflect a world driven by theological data or a country that is populated by immigration on low wages and benefits.

The system does not cope when politicians that are intransigent and ideological as they are now.

The system is now essentially ‘presidential’, i.e. the Prime Minister has the power and Members of Parliament follow the party line.

There is no expectation that Parliament takes the initiative, so when they have done, as now, there are no rules to call a general election, the ship of state is left drifting and rudderless without the voice of the people been heard, so the elite consensus that managed the binary oppositions starts to fall apart.

Its a country where anyone can call themselves a builder and start selling themselves as such, there are no identity cards so the government does not know who the **** we are.

There is no list of citizens. In fact the citizens are not really citizens at all they are surfs.

There is an electoral register (i.e. who can vote), passports (but if you didn’t travel you wouldn’t have one) and National Insurance numbers, which are about working and tax payments. There has never been a register of British citizens as such so in fact, government does not (or did not) really know who had a right to be here, and who didn’t.

Every country and ethnic identity is racist, that’s part of the human condition, but what is odd about a lot of English racism is that it is not directed so much at black or brown people but at other Europeans .

The ‘wogs begin at Calais’ attitudes, send them to Rwanda.

The EU is seen as a Franco-German plot, targeting Britain.

History shows that It made its wealth on the back of an navy that circumnavigated oceans and seas, which created an empire on the backs of slaves and sugar – a sad truth.

Who owns England?

Behind this simple question lies England’s oldest and best-kept secret.

It’s a secret that goes back to the Domesday Book – and an issue that goes to the heart of many of the biggest problems the country has – affordability of housing, unable to grow enough of its food, not much space left aside for nature. 

Rural landowners, meanwhile, are rewarded by the taxpayer for simply owning land through farm subsidies. The Common Agricultural Policy has paid landowners according to the area of land they farm, rather than the public goods they deliver, thereby propping up a system of intensive agriculture that has decimated wildlife and natural habitats.

For most of the 20th century, the aristocracy showed itself remarkably indifferent to the welfare of the nation, After democracy finally shunted aside hereditary lords, they found new means to protect their extravagant riches. For all the modern tales of noble poverty and leaking ancestral homes, their private wealth and influence remain phenomenal. 

The British aristocracy’s defining feature is not a noble aspiration to serve the common weal but a desperate desire for self-advancement. They endlessly reinforced their own status and enforced deference on others through ostentatiously exorbitant expenditure on palaces, clothing and jewellery. They laid down a strict set of rules for the rest of society, but lived by a different standard. Such is their sense of entitlement that they believed – and persuaded others to believe – that a hierarchical society with them placed firmly and unassailably at the top was the natural order of things.

The secret of their modern existence is their sheer invisibility.

According to a 2010 report for Country Life, a third of Britain’s land still belongs to the aristocracy.

The financial sector is hailed as the crowning glory of the UK economy. A massive financial sector on the tiny island is making a visible minority filthy rich but as it blooms, everything else withers.

The power of London finance is hurting Britain, to the tune of £4.5tn.

Many people in Britain, it is true, are ambivalent about all this. They rightly fret that the City is a global money-laundering paradise, harming other nations, but (whisper it quietly) they like the hot money and oligarchs it attracts to its shores. There is a trade-off, they think, between doing the right thing and preserving our prosperity.

Underpinning all this is the fallacy of composition, of a trickle down economy, whereby the fortunes of big businesses and big banks are conflated with the fortunes of our whole economy.

This is where the myth of great, finally dies.

As Liza Trust now knows economies, tax systems and cities are nothing like companies, and don’t compete like she might think – scrap TAX ON HIGHT EARNERS.

The finance curse of Quantize Easing shows that too much finance harms your economy, then pursuing more finance through the competitiveness agenda only makes things worse.

There is no trade-off WITH CREDITORS.

Blaming the problems on Brexit and the Ukraine war, or the price of energy, inflation, does not close foodbanks, or stop zero- hours contracts, or attract investment.

Rule of law, a healthy and educated workforce, good infrastructure, access to prosperous, thirsty markets, good inputs and supply chains and economic stability. All these require tax revenues.

The race does not stop when tax rates reach zero.

To prosper, Britain should increase its effective corporate tax rates, at least for financiers and large multinationals, plus a surcharge to cover the roaming members of the billionaire classes who won’t. 

By leaving the EU and joining the “competitive” global race England has not only been beggaring others – it has beggaring its selves, too.

In order not to be stuck in ugly race to the bottom, THE COUNTRY NOW NEEDS A MASSIVE RESET.

A good place to start to create a future of largely harmonious multi-cultural society, would be to abolish students debt and start educating its young for free.

I recently heard a Labour Politician advocate that England should create an sovereign wealth funds, Fund. With what? It’s too late now:

There is only one way forward simply step out of the race, unilaterally by appealing not just to national self-interest, by mobilise the biggest constituency of all its people and put finance back in its rightful place: Serving Britain’s people, not served by them.

Tragically we are watching a country of Plenty turning to poverty for the sake of short-term profit.

That last word, unilaterally, is key.

The land of the few.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; JUST WHAT IS A GENERAL ELECTION IN ENGLAND. THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE OR OTHERWISE.

30 Wednesday Oct 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Democracy, ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., English General Election., English parliamentary proceedings.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; JUST WHAT IS A GENERAL ELECTION IN ENGLAND. THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE OR OTHERWISE.

Tags

, , ,

 

(Three-minute read)

British elections are decided using what is known as the First Past the Post (abbreviated FPTP, 1stP, 1PTP or FPP) voting system.

Along with no written constitution, it is the primary cause of all Britain’s dysfunction. 

You would think that a General Election is how the British public decide who they want to represent them in Parliament and ultimately run the country.

Wrong.

First past the post is a voting system designed to keep the electorate/country under the control of a two-party dictatorship while giving the delusion of democracy.

The candidate with the most votes in each constituency wins and becomes the MP for that seat. All other votes are disregarded.

As there is only one candidate from each party, voters who support that party but don’t like their candidate have to either vote for a party they don’t support or a candidate they don’t like. This means the number of MPs a party has in parliament rarely matches their popularity with the public.

Westminster’s voting system creates two sorts of areas. ‘Safe seats’, with such a low chance of changing hands that there is no point in campaigning, and ‘swing seats’, that could change hands.

Parties design their manifestos to appeal to voters in swing seats, and spend the majority of their funds campaigning in them. But, policies designed to appeal to voters in these seats may not help voters in the rest of the country.

Voters who live in safe seats can feel ignored by politicians. The more candidates with a chance of getting elected the fewer votes the winner needs.

Under Westminster’s First Past the Post system it is common for constituencies to elect MPs that more than half the voters didn’t want.

As the number of MPs a party gets doesn’t match their level of support with the public, it can be hard for the public to hold the government to account.

To combat this, voters try to second-guess the results.

If a voter thinks their favourite candidate can’t win, they may vote for one with the best chance of stopping a candidate they dislike from winning.

Democracy is the political system where the government represents the will of the people. There never has been a perfect democracy, there are only degrees of approximation, and democracy goes far beyond discussion of the voting system. Nevertheless, the voting system is an important element in shaping a democracy, and First Past the Post (FPTP) is woefully inadequate in expressing the will of the people because the vote never gets beyond the constituency boundary.

Worse still, a Government can be elected on the basis of 33% of votes cast, but considering turnout, this falls to 22% of those entitled to vote.

22%! One in five!! Yet idiot conservatives of right and left still defend FPTP.

Words fail to describe such a form of democracy.

What’s immediately needed to resolve the impasse on Brexit is a second referendum, since Brexit is a single issue and referendums are a ballot on a single issue.

First past the post (FPTP) is the first step to full radical reform in the UK.

It is time to change the system.

Most countries around the world use proportional voting systems – a party winning half the vote would win half the seats in parliament.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse 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

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

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

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

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.

≈ Comments Off on 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.

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.

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

 

( 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 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.

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

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.