Category Archives: European Commission.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THIS COULD BE A GOOD TIME TO REMIND IRELAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND AND ENGLAND WHY THE BORDER BETWEEN IRELAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND EXISTS.

08 Saturday Sep 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Commission., European Union., Fake News., Norther Ireland, Northern Ireland Border., Politics., Post - truth politics., The Irish/ Northern Ireland border., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions.

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , ,

 

( A six to seven-minute read)

THIS IS MY HISTORICAL UNDERSTANDING.

CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.

In October 1921 Lord George convened a conference in London in which he and other leading statesmen of Britain met with Irish envoys of the De Valera’s Irish Government.

The resulting treaty signed on the 6 of December recognized the Free State of Ireland as a dominion with full powers of self-government and determination but leaving England the control of certain harbors for purposes of defense.

This treaty which created the Irish Free State had a clause which ensured that Northern Ireland could opt out of the deal – which they did.

SO THE DEMAND FOR AN OUT AND OUT REPUBLIC WAS DROPPED AND THE RIGHT TO MAINTAIN ITS OWN EXCLUSION FROM IRELAND WAS ADMITTED FOR THE UNIT OF SIX COUNTIES CALLED ULSTER WHICH IS NOW CALLED NORTHERN IRELAND.

IN FACT, ULSTER HAD ALREADY VOTED ITSELF OUT OF A UNITED IRELAND AND THOUGH PROVISION WAS MADE FOR RE-UNION UNDER ONE PARLIAMENT AT SOME FUTURE DATE IT WAS A DATE NONE COULD FORESEE.

When De Valera was presented with the terms of the treaty he opposed it however it was ratified on the 7th Jan 1922 by 64 votes to 57.

De Valera resigned and a civil war commenced from the 28 June 1922 – 24 May 1923. This conflict followed the Irish War of Independence and accompanied the establishment of the Irish Free State, an entity independent from the United Kingdom but within the British Empire.

Northern Ireland was created as a separate legal entity on 3 May 1921 resulting in Ireland partitioned into two states with six of the nine counties of the Province of Ulster remaining in the United Kingdom.

The Unionist politicians to this day refer to Northern Ireland as Ulster which it is not.

Any historical record will show that it is an organized plantation by Great Britain which was begun in 1609. The colonization of Ulster had been proposed since the end of the Nine-year war to reward Scottish subjects loyal to King James with land.

IT LEAD TO THE NATIVE IRISH LOSING THEIR LAND AND TO ETHIC AND SECTARIAN CONFLICT WE HAVE WITTINESS TO THIS DAY.

WHERE ARE WE TODAY.

WITH NORTHERN IRELAND NOW ON THE VERGE OF A NEW WORLD RECORD – FOR NO GOVERNMENT.

The only Brexit supporters are the Democratic Unionists – who opposed marriage equality, opposed language rights and the funding of inquests to victims of the conflict.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the irish border after brexit"

AFTER DECADES OF REPUGNANT VIOLENCE ON BOTH SIDE THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT OF TWENTY YEARS AGO DEFERRING MAJOR ISSUES.

THE NEED FOR A VISIBLE BORDER FOR ALL INITIATIVE PURPOSED WAS REMOVED.

HOWEVER, THE CONTINUING INFLICTED HISTORICAL AFTER MATE OF PARTITION HAS NOT COME TO AN END OR HAS IT WITH THE ADVENT OF BREXIT.

The tenuous foundation of the Good Friday agreement is now once more putting the question of reunification back on the agenda.

Why?

Because Northern Ireland vote to stay in the European Union.

THE GOOD FRIDAY AGREEMENT UNFORTUNATELY REINFORCES THE UNDERLYING SECTARIANISM THAT EXISTS IN AS MUCH AS IT DOES NOT ADDRESS THE SOURCE OF THE BORDER.  ALTHOUGH IT ACKNOWLEDGES THE CONTINUING AND EQUALLY LEGITIMATE POLITICAL ASPERATIONS OF EACH SIDE AND ALLOWS THE POSSIBILITY OF A REFERENDUM IF THE MAJORITIES IN NORTHERN IRELAND AND IRELAND WANT IT. Brexit is now creating its own type of limbo.

WITH THE IDENTITY ISSUES REOPENING THE BORDER  Neither Unionists or Nationalists are preparing their constituencies for a compromise. This position is profoundly undemocratic. 

The Good Friday agreement belongs only to the people of Ireland north and south – it is not a Tory Brexiteer bargaining chip.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the irish border after brexit"

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the first time after seven centuries of British rule

 

THE BEADY EYE CALLS ON IRELAND AS A NATION TO CALL ON ITS IRISH UK RESIDENTS TO SUPPORT STAYING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

28 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by in 2018: The Year of Disconnection., Articular 50., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., The Irish/ Northern Ireland border., The Obvious., Trade Agreements., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE CALLS ON IRELAND AS A NATION TO CALL ON ITS IRISH UK RESIDENTS TO SUPPORT STAYING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

, ,

 

( A five-minute read)

It is estimated that as many as six million people living in the UK have at least one Irish grandparent (around 10% of the UK population.)

BREXIT JUST LIKE THE FAMINE ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-FIVE YEARS AGO WILL BE A WATERSHED IN THE HISTORY OF IRELAND.

Ireland is once more faced with the indifference of the English who when voting to leave the European Union had no consideration for its closes and biggest trading partner.

It would be fair to say like the Famine that Ireland will be once more the sacrificial lamb of the British political ambitions.

There are few democratic countries (where two out of its regions voted to stay and when combined with the two leave regions the overall majority was only a 3.8% majority.)  that would act on a nonlegal binding referendum which was conducted against a background of lies.

One would think that a majority of at least 5% ON SUCH AN IMPORTANT ISSUE WOULD BE A REASONABLE REQUIREMENT.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit"

If England looked after its people first rather than the glory of a past empire Brexit probably would have never happened. It was the dysfunctional economy of Britain that fueling the leave vote, not immigration.

On top of all of this when you see how different generations voted in the Brexit you realize that the relationship between different age groups in England is broken.

ONE WAY OR THE OTHER IT IS NOW HELL BENT ON DELIVERING THE WORST OF BOTH WORLD; IN OUR OUT. Big business versus the Nigel Farage’s of this world with a handful of Conservatives such as Micheal Gove, Boris Johnson a few Labour MPs.

At the moment dogs cats and ferrets can travel between the UK AND THE EU. Maybe after all of this, all UK citizens will be required to be micro-chipped against Brexit rabies.

SO WE ARE LEFT WITH THE REALITY THAT THE POST BREXIT TRADE DEAL IS GOING TO BE THE MOST COMPLEX PART OF ANY NEGOTIATED DEAL AS IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS APPROVED BY 30 NATIONAL AND REGIONAL PARLIAMENTS SOME OF WHICH WILL NO DOUBT HOLD THEIR OWN REFERENDUMS.

ALL OF WHICH POINTS TO NO DEAL, AND YEARS OF BATTLING IT OUT IN COURTS PROCEEDINGS WITH A MASSIVE DIVORCE BILL TO BOTH SIDES.

SO THE QUESTION IS; WILL THERE BE ANOTHER UK REFERENDUM.

Not likely.

To rejoin would mean starting from scratch, with no rebates, the lost of sterling with and all current member agreeing to the UK rejoining.

As for clout outside the EU.

A UK in disarray will have a much influence on the world stage as the DUP is willing to give it at a price.

Forming its own Trade area is an artificial intelligence algorithm yet to be invented.

However, there is a way out of all of this.

The UK abdicates its powers to NORTHERN IRELAND.

ITS CITIZENS BORN AND TO BE BORN HAVE THE ABSOLUTE RIGHT TO CARRY BOTH UK PASSPORTS AND IRISH – THUS FUTURE ENGLISH GENERATIONS CAN REMAIN IN THE THE EU.

ALL THEY  WILL HAVE TO REMEMBER IS TO CARRY YOUR IRISH PASSPORT WHEN YOU ARE JOINING THE EU CITIZENS – ONLY QUEUE AT THE AIRPORT.

IT WOULD AVOID A HUGE LOSS OF FACE ON ALL SIDES.

One final observation;

The English don’t appear to understand that the European Union is governed by rules for a reason.

That reason is simple to understand.

The European Union is made up of countries that don’t quite trust each other.  They need rules to function, with an independent court to settle any problems.

Whoever thought that Northern Ireland would unite not just Ireland but the whole of the UK.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of brexit"

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: CAN THE EUROPEAN UNION SURVIVE WITHOUT MAKING SOME REFORMS .

05 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Populism., Post - truth politics., The Obvious., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

 

( A two-minute read)

There’s no denying Brexit is going to be a serious smack in the face for the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the EU House of parliament"

The second EU straw is now the populist gale that will blow throughout next year.

Surely now is the time for some reforms.

Fundamental problems other than Brexit must be addressed.

But what to change? There’s little consensus yet.

Ever closer union, which has been an EU rallying cry for nearly 30 years, is almost “dead.”  Lofty speeches are falling on deaf ears.

It may be forced by politics or forced by new leadership but there is no doubt that the divisions between wealthy northern European nations and those in the South, where public finances are strained and youth unemployment remains a major problem has to be resolved.

The rise of nationalist parties — on left and right — threatens to reverse nearly 70 years of integration in Europe. The Greek bailout is in danger of collapsing. There are doubts about the future of the euro.

It is was unrealistic to expect radical change, when there are creditors and debtors in the EU. Because of this, it’s almost impossible for European Union to continue with a deepening integration on fiscal affairs.

Here are three reforms it should and can be undertaking imminently.

One > Stop the gravy train Strasburg to Brussels.

Two > Make the Commission an elected body.

Three > Establish legal entry points for refugees.

There are arguably two primary types of democracy: direct democracy, in which all
citizens directly participate in decision-making; and representative democracy, in which the power of the people is delegated to periodically elected representatives.

Where is the difficulty with the above reforms?

After all is not democracy said to be in the eye of the beholder.

Britain’s departure from the EU, which will be negotiated over just two years, will also distract attention from reforms. There will be pressure to wrap up Brexit talks quickly, but the EU is not known for moving fast.

Europe needs to change, and fast.

Either it prepares for the future, or it will become obsolete.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: SHOULD THE EU GRANT ENGLAND A TRANSITION PERIOD.

01 Friday Dec 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England., European Commission., European Union., The Irish/ Northern Ireland border., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: SHOULD THE EU GRANT ENGLAND A TRANSITION PERIOD.

Tags

, ,

(A twelve-minute read)

MY VIEW IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO TRANSITS PERIOD.

The cake metaphors in the modern world have outlived their usefulness – if they are applied not only to spheres where they do apply (such as attempting to be an internal market member without the obligations of the four freedoms) it will destabilize what is left of good will in European Union.

A DEAL IS A DEAL:  WHEN ITS AGREED NOT BEFORE OR AFTER.   Britain's Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, made a 'breakthrough' at the joint conference

YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE FOOT IN THE DOOR AND THE OTHER OUTSIDE.

England’s Brexit agenda is both contradictory and fantastical.

Enjoy unfettered access to the single market, WHILE implementing a deals that is one way or the other will be damaging to the EU.  Theresa May was praised by the EU leaders for helping create a 'new dynamic' from her speech in Florence

You don’t have to a genius to know that any shared history, shared challenges, or shared future is now pie in the sky.

The exact relationship the UK would have or will have with the EU during the transition is not clear.

The timescales for settling the future relationship are unknown  – and could make a significant difference to the final destination.

The UK guarantee that it would be time-limited, with a period of about two years – although this period could potentially change for different issues, is political hog wash.

Were negotiations to stall well beyond 2019, the politics of the final settlement would get mixed into the party politics of leadership transitions and the next General Election. Outcomes would then become much
more unpredictable, particularly given the very strong likelihood of a change of Conservative Prime Minister sometime between 2019 and 2021, which could push the current government into a harder position on Brexit.

Not to mention the Rock of Gib, Scotland and Ireland’s positions.

If the Article 50 period was extended, the UK would continue to be a member of the EU, when EU acquis on the Single Market applied even though the UK had left, and one suggestion is that this could be achieved through UK membership of the European Economic Area (EEA).

Another could be that the UK simply commits to continue to apply all EU rules and regulations.

Any TRANSIT period will have to be approved by the other EU leaders. Whether any such thing is negotiable is as much a question
for the EU 27 as for the UK.

All of the above scenario’s are a disaster in waiting to happen.

Why?

Because a transitional deal would also change the British politics of Brexit in ways that have not been fully anticipated.

For example:

A transition deal would end any realistic prospects of a ›referendum on the deal‹ in its predominant form, where it is a strategy of Remain advocates to seek a choice between a negotiated Brexit deal, and the status quo of remaining in the EU.

A transition phase is largely regarded as kicking the can down the road – and so not resolving the major choices about the long-term settlement.

The British do want a Brexit deal – but worry about the consequences of admitting this.

The UK government is proposing a ›special partnership‹ but this does not address some of the key choices which the UK and the EU will face over the next two years.

Continued insistence on talking about an ›implementation period‹,
on the grounds that all of the details of the future settlement will be included in the Article 50 agreement, and the language of Article 50 itself, which talks about the framework for the future relationship, perhaps
implying a political declaration as to the shared objectives of a future negotiation.

But beyond these, they become a barrier to the negotiation of what, if anything, can be negotiated, in an equitable way, between a full EEA-style relationship and a clean break on WTO terms.

If it is accepted that it is not possible to both have and eat cake, the question of whether and how it is possible to agree on how to slice a cake fairly could become more relevant.

In an ideal world, the British would prefer to have their cake and eat it on the markets / migration trade-off.

The orthodox view is that a transition simply delays all of the key decisions – but a transitional deal could shift the medium-term British politics of Brexit more than is appreciated.

The bespoke British ›Goldilocks Brexit‹ would be warmer than Canada, but cooler than Norway  – but whether such a possibility exist will depend on what the EU 27 want too. The British do not know what they want‹ is a common criticism among European politicians and officials.

If Europe wants to survive there can be no transition.  Everything must be settled in the current negotiations deal or no deal.

Stability begins at home.

Learning the lessons of the past decade, WE HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE HOW FAR THIS LOGIC GOES.

Broadly I think we have landed in the right place and I take some comfort from being flanked on both sides of the argument. In or Out.

Doing all of these things efficiently and effectively relies on a strong degree of trust and co-operation between England and the Eu.

But the EU must plan, in a proportionate way, for alternative outcomes.

Just imagine two-year of;  We did not agree to this or that.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of a transit period"

The real difficulties will be over the shape of Brexit. The British need a transition – so can (probably) make the compromises needed to get it.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. IRELAND REMAINS AT THE MERCY OF ENGLAND.

24 Friday Nov 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., European Commission., European Union., The Irish/ Northern Ireland border., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. IRELAND REMAINS AT THE MERCY OF ENGLAND.

Tags

, , , ,

( A twenty-minute read)

This post is a follow on from my open letter to Mrs A Foster leader of the DUP.

No other country is going to feel the fallout from the UK’s vote to leave the European Union more than Ireland.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the irish border"

Every single aspect of life in Northern Ireland and Ireland will be affected by the outcome —  jobs, the economy, the border, the rights of EU citizens, the rights of cross-border workers, research funding … trade, agriculture, energy, fisheries, aviation, EU funding, tourism, public services, the list goes on.

The border was first set up in 1921 following the Irish War of Independence. Customs controls were brought in three years later with a heavy military presence which remained pretty consistent for the next 70 years. It wasn’t until about 2005 until all the remaining controls were removed with a shared control of the British & Irish border between the two countries.

The question is how Ireland’s politicians and executives, react to what could be a foreign-policy crisis that eclipses the nation’s banking collapse and bailout.

It’s hard to prepare detailed plans before the exact nature of the UK’s new relationship with the EU becomes clear, BUT THE MOST OBVIOUS ISSUE is the 310-mile border between the north and the republic.

The Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of sectarian conflict, had no position on the vote.

The unfortunate reality is that Ireland remains at the mercy of the unfolding drama in its closest neighbor and the rest of the EU that will require Ireland to establish a hard border to protect the integrity of the Internal Market and the Customs Union irrelevant of the danger of a return to civil strife on the island.

“The consequences are mind-boggling.”Image associée

If this circle cannot be squared the Uk it will exit the EU without a deal. This will be the ‘ hardest’ of the ‘hard Brexit’ possibilities. A hard Brexit typically entails defaulting to World Trade Organisation rules, involving a very significant deterioration in trade relationship between the UK and the EU, and therefore between Ireland and Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

Either the British deny the unionist community in Northern Ireland a veto, or the EU and the Irish government accept a land border on the island of Ireland.

A hard border would reintroduce that sense of divide again between the north and south which was nearing the point of becoming a thing of the past.

Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU Referendum by a majority of 56% to 44%. Overall, 440,437 people in Northern Ireland voted to Remain in the EU and 349,442 to Leave. Out of 18 constituencies, 11 voted to stay in the European Union.

Arlene Foster said that as a leader of unionism, she felt it was the right decision. “We are now entering a new era of an even stronger United Kingdom. ” Affirmation that she is void of any comprehension of what a majority means. The reality is that the people of the north of Ireland overwhelmingly voted in favor of Remain – both republican and unionist, Catholic and Protestant and those of no faith background.

From start to finish, she along with Conservative Brexiters have shown that they simply could not care less about Ireland.

In the referendum campaign, few gave even a passing thought to the impact of a leave vote on the relationship between Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the republic. When the vote went their way – though they lost in Northern Ireland – the Brexiters then gave bland assurances that the decision would make absolutely no difference to the island’s soft border, the legacy of the peace process, or north-south and east-west cooperation.

This was and is nonsense.

Brexit is not occurring in a vacuum, bad blood engendered if the UK leaves the EU without a deal it will spill over into other areas.

Given the political debacle that’s being made of Brexit by a dysfunctional UK administration, opinion polls in Ireland reflect no enthusiasm for Ireland to join them in leaving the EU, short or long-term, and it is highly unlikely that the North will join the South.

Northern Ireland is not the only stumbling block in the negotiations of course.

There’s no going back to a condition of servile dependency.

I don’t want to be misinterpreted as not caring about threats to peace, but even if one solved the Irish Border problem by having Northern Ireland stay within the Customs Union and Single Market, the huge problem of access to the GB export market would remain, as would the disruption to hassle-free trade with Continental Europe.

There are other scenarios:

  • the UK decides to leave the land border permeable and instead enforce border controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, effectively treating Ulster as some kind of lower-status buffer zone which EU residents can enter without (effective) restriction. Likely to be singularly unpopular with Ulster Unionists.
  • The UK releases Northern Ireland as an independent or quasi-independent country, long the preferred option for saloon bar racists of the home counties (with or without the “tow the whole lot out into the middle of the Atlantic” option).
  • Moving the international frontier into the Irish Sea between Britian and the island of Ireland. This proposal is anathema to both Northern unionists and the British Conservative party as it affects the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Conservative government is dependent on the parliamentary support of Northern unionist parliamentarians for retaining its majority – giving it strong reason not to upset this part of its coalition which it bought at the cost of a billion.
  • A so-called invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland simply would not work. Camera recognition technology and preregistered cargo — will not be effective on a border that passes the front door and back doors of houses. 
  • The border has always had a modest amount of smuggling as local tax differentials lead to imbalances, but with full-on export tariffs there would be a very substantial motivation for routing goods from the UK mainland to the continent via Stranraer-Larne and Rosslare-Le Havre on an industrial scale. So there would at the very least be a need for border guards on or close to road border crossings to channel goods vehicles into customs clearance facilities. Assuming the UK were to apply the same tariffs on imports, then the same would also apply in reverse.For Ireland, the issue of preventing Bad Foreign People from entering via its unsecured border is less important (indeed, the need to allow people to maintain existing social and economic links across the border is very important, bearing in mind that a very substantial proportion of the population of the north are Irish citizens)I don’t think the 450 million or so remaining in the EU are going to allow this to happen and be dictated to by Britain.  I also don’t think the British people appreciate how ‘locked in’ Britain is to international supply chains for all types of goods and services. However, businesses will adapt to the new arrangements, whatever they might be. The usual capitalist combination of greed and stupidity will prevail – Ireland has no option but to stick to its guns. 

Theresa May can hope for no more than an “aspirational” and “purely political” agreement on free trade before Britain leaves the European Union.

“Political agreements, with highfalutin aspirational guff are one thing. Legally binding agreements, treaty changes and trade deal texts are another.

As with all things Brexit the only answer at the moment is we have no idea.

And this is a scary prospect.

It’s due to the EU and the UK and Ireland being part of this greater whole that the IRA and Ulster Unionists have largely given up their dumb assery.

While overt attacks have stopped, the animosity between the two sides persists to this day in some parts of both countries.

If we are to avoid  “an enormous tragedy”

There can be no compromise to unblock any negotiations unless the rights of Europeans who will live in the UK after Brexit, the border between Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland and the never never payments are resolved.

No man has the right to fix a boundary to the march of a nation. No man has the right to say to his country: Thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

No Westminster politician can set a boundary on Ireland.

We can only hope that Theresa May government falls, resulting in a general election, with EU requesting a re vote.

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WITH SPAIN HEADING FOR TURMOIL AND THE UK FOR SUICIDE IS THE EU GOING TO END UP AN ECONOMIC DUMP.

04 Wednesday Oct 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Capitalism, European Commission., European Union., Humanity., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Politics., Privatization, Sustaniability, The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., Wealth., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WITH SPAIN HEADING FOR TURMOIL AND THE UK FOR SUICIDE IS THE EU GOING TO END UP AN ECONOMIC DUMP.

Tags

, ,

 

( A five-minute read)

Brace yourself.

Things look bleak.

It‘s time to call a spade a spade:

We all know that the present crisis in European Union has freighting potential to undermine all our lives?Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of spain"

The problem is that despite all the rhetoric Wall Street and World Stock Markets underpin the hard nose of business with the priesthood of economists.

Financial experts and commentators worshiping it worldwide as a God.

Leaving us incapable of grasping that at one point in human history the Laws of the market can only be a human construction which now seen as absolute – even when they clearly do not work.

The high priests of today oblivious to the anti-market nature of their behavior do not hesitate to intervene to fix it on a colossal scale in contravention of the market’s own precepts.

The idea that money-making is the primary Goal of the most admired people in Society, the Goal of our Nations economic philosophies, the G 20, the European Union, our education, combined with our central defining consumerism greed is back firing.

What we got is the results that we see today:

Quantitative Easing, Money Printing /Austerity/ /Germany bailouts /Guarantees/ Banks before people Interest fixing /Elections/ Unemployment/ Bonuses/Tax confusion/ Independent Referendums, all served up with large daily doses of verbal diarrhea by every expert that has written a book.

I have not written any book on the subject and I am no expert but I am beginning to wake up to the need for our Captains of Industry, our political leaders and business to realize that competitiveness is not all that it is dressed up to be.

It can severely impair a given country’s ability to choose its own social and economic destiny and our individuality.

No currency can set the boundaries of a nation.

So it is worth reminding ourselves how grandiose the dreams of the European Union founders were.

Our present world can be seen as full of conflict, pain, misery, wars, while across the world ecological, economic and political spaces are being enclosed through privateering, Algorithms, liberalization and globalization and the hidden purchasing power of Sovereign Funds – All breeding new insecurities anxieties and stresses.

In this world Europe was renamed the European Common Market with its inhabitants viewed chiefly in economic terms, as producers or consumers, not countries with vastly different histories, problems, and circumstances.

The notion that trade and wealth creation would create a Europe laisser-faire was not basis on its history but on a vague notion that togetherness would make us less likely to repeat World War One /Two.

Reducing our society to markets and us humans to consumers.

Those that are rich have status and those who are poor do not.

You only have to read a newspaper to see how the overpaid footballers, film and soap star, business people are held up to be admired. While we the people fooled by capitalism that has made work the center of our lives and are now in the process of destroying it as a satisfying meaningful activity through the world stock exchanges that are driven by algorithms that determine whether we should retire at 63, 65, and 68 remain voiceless.

As a Species we have basis needs for meaning of identity, for community, and security, for food water and freedom.

So it stands to reason to prevent our collectively insane political leaders terminating life in Europe never mind the earth that we need to do something.

We all know that banks can’t stop themselves. Bail them out by all means but only under strict regulations.

If we in Europe want to avoid a repeat of the wars that devastated the Continent in the past all that is required (a saving of trillions) is a united military European Army. This will provide Europe with reasonably secure environment, safe from the threat of major war with its countries being let find their own versions of modernity or not to modernize at all.

Europe does not need a free market to thrive.

How can we achieve this?

There is only one solution scrap the Euro and let each country set its own exchange rates according to its own GDP (without the tanks, planes, nuclear weapons) set against the value of human resources, social capital, and ecological assets.

The present melt down of the EU could not have come at a better time.

If we do not preserve the Capital of Europe its different cultures /languages/ history and the like there will be no Economics.

We all know that economic is not a science however each time history repeats its self the price goes up.

The Euro is fundamental flawed and please god will remain so to protect what is the very essence of living or being born in Europe.

It’s time we all realize that the Natural Capital of the world, water, clean air, oceans, forests have to be protected so we must pay the keepers of the natural capital if we as humans are to live at all.

So let’s start in Europe with some common European aspirations.

Self sufficiency in Power- creates a common European kilowatt price: Abolish road tolls: Proper periphery border controls: Freedom of movement of currencies within the market – abolish commission charges: European Youth employment programs: European health / pension Euro bonds backed by all countries – to mention a few.

God knows it not difficult to identify what is needed, just attached the words total transparency to any common Goal and it will be achieved without Greed.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of spain"

Go back

Your message has been sent

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU) AND ITS 27 MEMBERS FACE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES OVER THE COMING 5-10 YEARS.

04 Friday Aug 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., Post - truth politics., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THE EUROPEAN UNION (EU) AND ITS 27 MEMBERS FACE FUNDAMENTAL CHANGES OVER THE COMING 5-10 YEARS.

Tags

( A twenty-minute read)

While Britain selfie sleep walks to its exit to become a free trade satellite off the shores of the European Continent a revision of the structure — institutionally and functionally — becomes inevitable for the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Britain as a free trade country"

My recent post highlighted that the EU project suffers from not having any real democratic legitimacy – without constitutional accountability, it is heading for trouble. ( see previous posts: THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IT IS TIME TO PUT PAY TO THE TRAVELING EU CIRCUS COSTING £9/10 BILLION TAX PAYERS MONEY.) However the Euro zone ends up it is the only place in the world trying to combine social welfare with a competitive economic structure.

The Europeans took a while to discover that killing each other and pursuing imperialistic and colonial policies are not in accordance with European values. Atrocities and crimes were committed, now it has a chance to create a remarkable political maturity of consensus, cooperation, and compromises.

Global governance sounds good, but out of reach for either the EU or Britain.

The digital age implies that a global opinion exists but the game now is about shaping perceptions of that opinion. Perhaps the EU is going to be forced by Social Media to go down the road to a form of Direct Democracy.

A new political system with another balance between centralized power and decision-making closer to the citizen spearheaded by Europe would be a revelation. 

Solidarity looks fine on paper and in declarations, but is much tougher to deal with in practice. Rebooting Europe’s economic model to combine welfare and competition and introduce a much higher awareness of resource scarcities will be no mean achievement. It strives hard to remain faithful to all that Europe stands for purified by the purgatory over centuries.

But is any of this realistic in light of England’s Departure.

The disturbing factor is the absence of confronting the issues among European politicians.

So what is in store and where is it going to go in the next ten or more years.

In reality there were two groups of Euro members: Strong countries mainly in Northern Europe and weak countries primarily in Southern Europe.

The fact that the EU’s politics will be devoted to tackle self-created problem sideling other pressing matters are an appalling thought. Confusion, non-transparency, peculiarity even queer ways obscured by meetings and personalities may rule the headlines.

Politically the consequences are much more severe and next to impossible to foresee.

As of 2015 the Euro zone morphs itself into a genuine Economic and Monetary Union with a common economic structure and a common economic policy underpinned by a fiscal union and a banking union. This was bound to happen and it can only be regretted that it had to be done as a response to a debt crisis making the process laborious and burdensome.

As of now 19 countries out of 28 EU member states have joined the Euro.

Europeans may not fully trust each other, but mutual trust is stronger and deeper than in any other political conglomerate around the world.

One its greatest challenges is that Europe is not multicultural, but the world is.

The Union is founded on the values of respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities. These values are common to the Member States in a society in which pluralism, non-discrimination, tolerance, justice, solidarity and equality between women and men prevail.

This core element is now in question with the influx of migrants not sharing the same cultural identity, causing internal pressure which is why migration/refugees are an existential challenge.

This is why the solution can only be to allow migrants/refugees getting into Europe, to do so with two provisos:  That they do not be allowed to disrupt the existing societal structure and they are educated to adapt to European norms and values. A European citizen approaching the authorities feel that if the roles were reversed the decision would be the same.

In doing so Europe can solve its demographic problem number wise by remaining opening for immigration, to vetted people wanting and ready to enter Europe — actually more than ready as they are banging on the door — do not share cultural identity with the Europeans.

Britain should have accepted that for the EU-27, the idea of free movement is not just political posturing, but an essential part of the single market.  The EU is unlikely to agree on major changes to free movement rules in the next few years.

The core demand for new terms tabled by the incumbent conservative government is to roll back the situation to 1992 and get guarantees that EU social provisions (broadly speaking) do not apply to Britain. This festered till the in or out vote now giving rise to the question of what economic and societal model Britain wants and the answer is a different one from what is found on the continent.

Psychologically the British people may be uneasy companions of former enemies like Germany, France, Spain, and Italy. Links with the Commonwealth fade which probably is regretted by many Britons. The Anglo-American partnership that has for decades given Britain a privileged role is judged by some politicians and part of the public to be closer outside the EU than inside despite American statements to the contrary.

Because of the Franco-German axis which is firmly in control of the EU, Britain has never felt comfortable and probable never will.

However access to the market of the 27 member states weighs heavier for Britain than access to the British market for the rest of the EU.

The tricky part is that the treaty provisions cease to apply to the member in question when such agreement is reached or in case of failing to agree within two years from the decision to secede.

Everybody will try to rescue what can be rescued from this shipwreck, but obviously the 27 remaining member states will take the view that Britain has decided to leave so leave you do.

The main argument apparently falling on a lot of deaf ears in Britain is that inside or outside the EU, economic transactions require compliance with EU norms, standards, and various rules. Those rules are shaped by the member countries promoting own interests. Britain outside will not participate in this sometimes laborious process resulting in British interests not being fed into the legislative process.

The two-year clause strengthens the EU hand, as they better than Britain can live without free movement of goods, services, capital and labor.

The Euro zone countries will tend to share views and interests to a much larger degree keeping EU member states not inside the Euro with a different economic structure on the sidelines.

It is true that no EU citizen has a fundamental, unlimited right to move freely across the EU. To be lawfully resident in another member-state, EU citizens need to be working, studying, or able to prove that they are self-sufficient. Otherwise, they can be kicked out. It is also true that free movement of persons was introduced after the free movement of goods, capital and services.

It is difficult to estimate how strong the negative impact will be.

As seen in many cases it is the long-term effect that matters and continuous lower growth will in the long run add up to a substantial loss even if England reduces corporation and personal taxes.

While EU free movement rules have been a toxic political issue in Britain for years, many on the Continent consider them a core achievement of the EU.

So could there be a free trade agreement between the UK and the European Union that allows the UK to limit freedom of movement.

My answer is no. Out is Out.

The conclusion to draw is a sentiment among the majority of member states and in particular the original six ones that either you are member of the EU, committed to solidarity, coherence, common decision-making, and common policies or you are not.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Britain as a free trade country"

Britannia will “survive” without a post-Brexit free-trade deal with the EU.

The process of Brexit is likely to be a series of humiliating meetings in which the country is forced to accept a procession of ruinous trade deal terms – ruinous, at least, for the majority of the population.  In reality, the UK has never stood alone in the global free trade environment as we understand it today;

It may all end in disaster. But it does show consistency by the British. The EU can be replaced by countries full of fond memories of the empire. The UK has a long history of hypocritically claiming to want only trade in its international relations.

The British Empire stood by and watched one million Irish die of famine just 150 years ago while it continued to export pork and ham and lots of other produce to England. One million Irish! Has there been a word of regret about that genocide ever from the British State? Not one word.

“The British Empire was a great and glorious thing that did much good(such as ending slavery) ”

Such statements are totally untrue.

It was an evil kleptocracy and extortion racket. Imperialism is the geo-political equivalent of rape. There can be no defense for it. To call it “glorious” is nothing short of sick. It certainly wasn’t the empire which ended slavery. The empire not only fought tooth and nail to retain it, it actually managed to extort compensation for the vermin who had profited from it. It was the entire foundation of Britain’s wealth – or rather the wealth of Britain’s ruling class.

Far from benefiting from “free trade”, Britain got rich by imposing tariffs on imports and sending gunboats or troops to deal with anyone who presented problems.

If Britain is expecting to encounter fond sentiments from x colonial countries in free trade agreements it is about to be bitterly disappointed.

Britain did not make its fortune by trading freely.

The wealth of the UK was EXPLICITLY derived from its military domination of overseas territories, control of cheap inputs (such as cotton) and export markets that were enforced. So, the ludicrous idea of the Brexiteers that the UK can compete in the global economy does not stand up to scrutiny even historically.

In the contemporary world, it is nothing other than laughable. In the context of a highly open economy, dependent on imports of almost everything, the only effect of a devalued currency is inflationary pressure and an increased trade deficit. This policy approach almost qualifies as a definition of insanity.

We don’t need to wait to judge Brexit, because any clear-thinking and informed person can see outright what a disaster this is almost certain to be.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Britain as a free trade country"

The ECHR is an international human rights treaty that is independent of the EU and predates it. If the UK denounces the ECHR as well as leaving the EU it is setting itself up as another North Korea. Every single country in Europe — including Russia and Turkey — is in the ECHR. Write your own laws!

We are living at a moment when an old economic settlement is in crisis, but a new settlement has yet to be formed.

Unless the US and Europe can find common ground the prospect of chaos and infighting is too high for comfort as no other country or group of countries are waiting in the wings with ideas and economic power to lead. Some decades down the road the US and Europe will still account for more than 1/3 of global Gross Domestic Product — maybe more.

The politics of the future will belong to those leaders both in Europe and Britain who are prepared to face up to our present problems and future challenges.

Britain’s future is a nostalgic past that never really existed.

Yes, this is the way forward for “Poverty UK” — back to the 1950s! Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Britain as a free trade country"

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IT IS TIME TO PUT PAY TO THE TRAVELING EU CIRCUS COSTING £9/10 BILLION TAX PAYERS MONEY.

25 Tuesday Jul 2017

Posted by in European Commission., European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IT IS TIME TO PUT PAY TO THE TRAVELING EU CIRCUS COSTING £9/10 BILLION TAX PAYERS MONEY.

Tags

,

( A ten minute read)

The EU project suffers from not having any real democratic legitimacy – without constitutional accountability, it is heading for trouble.

The unaccountable nature of the EU, coupled with the hardship caused by the “austerity for some, gravy trains for others” policies and the failure to either deal with the still-mounting debt crisis, and the real problems caused by all this and the lack of support for any further social, economic and political integration, it’s debatable whether the EU will even survive for long… just wait till the next crisis hits.

A self-created bubble for the MEP’s where their loyalty to the EU above the people is assured by massive wages, expenses and pensions and if kicked out by the electorate in elections they’ll get other jobs in the Commission or the wider EU structure.

On top of all this we have Strasbourg a symbol of waste and stupidity – the perfect example of all that is wrong with the EU. True democracy at work. No one gets a vote on it.European Parliament strasbourg

Approximately 10 per cent of the Parliament’s annual budget, between €156 and €204 million is spent to sustain this traveling circus.

The annual CO2 emissions associated with the transfers to and from the three working locations – Brussels, Luxembourg and Strasbourg – is estimated to be between 11,000 and 19,000 tonnes. That is the equivalent of 12,000 cars driving around the circumference of the world. (Is it not ironic that the European Parliament voted to reduce CO2 emissions by 2030?)

Between 3,500 and 4,000 people every month set out for Strasbourg – this includes MEPs, assistants, political group staff, parliament staff, interpreters and translators. This is done by trains, by air and by road. In order to transport the 2,500 trunks and all the equipment required for the plenary session a large convey of trucks travel the 409 kilometers from Brussels to Strasbourg. This is then reversed four days later.

Among the costs are £250,000 a year to transport the plastic boxes containing documents, diaries and other items from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again.

£2.5 million bill for relocating freelance translators from Brussels to Strasbourg and back again, including costs of travel, accommodation and other expenses.

Depending on how you read it, you might find the E.U.’s tendency to translate nearly everything it does into all 24 of its official languages a testimony to its internationalist glory or a wasteful use of resources. By E.U. custom, all public E.U. documents are translated into every language. All high-level E.U. meetings are the same way. The European Commission says it employs 1,750 linguists, 600 full-time interpreters and 3,000 freelancers.

In Strasbourg, extra money is needed for computers and IT support and for maintenance and security of the sleek parliament building, which was completed in 1999. In total, the cost of looking after the French buildings and infrastructure and other charges comes to about £50 million a year.

About 100 people are employed in Strasbourg full-time, even though the European Parliament meets for 12 sessions, each lasting four days, a total of only 48 days each year.

Hotels in Strasbourg typically double their rates when the EU comes to stay. Last week, the Hilton Hotel in Strasbourg was offering rooms at £82 for Sunday night, but this rose to a cheapest rate of £161 a night for Monday, when the sessions begin.

Naturally, the French are totally opposed to ANY CHANGE not only because of the €20 Million it provides to the Strasbourg economy each year but also because it is an important European symbol within France.

Why does the European parliament move from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month?

It is a disgrace that €9.5 million is wasted in this way every month.

Strasbourg is the official seat of the European Parliament, so the EU treaties would have to be changed if that were no longer the case. A final decision would rest with the member countries.

The so-called traveling circus that sees MEPs and staff decamp from Brussels to Strasbourg once a month has long been a bone of contention. It costs the institution some €114 million a year to make the trip.

In a November 2013 resolution, MEPs called for a treaty change to allow Parliament to decide where it sits.

Over three-quarters, of MEPS from across the political spectrum, want to abolish this practice but they have no power to change it. Under the Lisbon Treaty the parliament is legally bound to meet 12 times a year in Strasbourg. A session takes place every month – except in August but a second session in September or October replaces it. This can only be changed if unanimous agreement on the issue is reached at a European Council Summit – a meeting of heads of Governments of each Member State.

The EU’s national governments unanimously decided in 1992 to fix the seats of the EU institutions permanently. This decision also affected the working arrangements for the Parliament: its official seat and the venue for most of the plenary sessions would be Strasbourg; parliamentary committees would have their meetings in Brussels; and Parliament’s Secretariat (its staff) would be based in Luxembourg. In 1997 this whole arrangement was incorporated into the EU treaty.

Any change in the current system would need to be part of a new treaty, agreed unanimously by all 28 member states and ratified by each of their national parliaments. However only with a workable alternative for Strasbourg could a French veto be avoided.

I can fully appreciate that if you move an existing institution, the member state which currently houses it will also have to be compensated, setting off a chain reaction. So you have to give proper consideration to all of the links in the chain before you come up with a proposal.

But will it change?

For the foreseeable future, I honestly don’t think so. Unfortunately, France will never agree, which holds a veto.

The continuation of the monthly migration between Brussels and Strasbourg has for most EU citizens become a symbolic, negative issue (…), especially at a time when the financial crisis has led to serious and painful expenditure cuts in the member states”, said the resolution, which was approved by 483 votes to 141, with 34 abstentions.

France and Germany got everything they wanted and everyone else got shafted.. French MEPs could quit the largest political group in the European Parliament if their colleagues support a plan to scrap the assembly’s base in Strasbourg. It’s up to us with the power of Social Media to demand a stop to this blatant waste of our hard-earned money.

How can we achieve this:

There is only one way and that is by bombarding Emmanuel Macron the new French President through Social Media with the following message.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the new french president"

Not a one day bombardment but a sustained bombardment.

 [Palais de L’Élysée

55 Rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré

75008 Paris, France.

Your Excellency,

The Strasbourg-Brussels merry-go-round has gone on long enough, it’s deeds, not words, that count.  With due respect The European Parliament’s travelling circus represents all that is wrong about the EU in the eyes of electorates across Europe: A useless and huge cost for our European community. 

A recent study by the European Parliament shows that €103 million (£85 million) could be saved each year if all European Parliament operations were transferred from Strasbourg to Brussels.

As a taxpayer I have no objection to maintaining the status quo, providing the total costs are financed by the French Tax payer.  

They say the definition of madness is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results. The unnecessary waste and the political stalemate that perpetuates it must stop. This craziness has to stop.

Yours sincerely:    ………………………………….  ]  EU Citizen.

Optional PS:

Why not give everyone a smart phone with a voice recognition app. Press Translate. A saving of £2.5 million. ( 750 linguists, 600 full-time interpreters and 3,000 freelancers.)

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Go back

Your message has been sent

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE PUTS: A SPOTLIGHT ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

04 Sunday Jun 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., European Commission., European Union., France., The New year 2017, The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE PUTS: A SPOTLIGHT ON WHAT NEEDS TO BE REFORMED IN THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

 

( A eighth minute read)

We all know that the Union is in need of reform, but what exactly are we talking about.

Nobody would seriously argue that the EU doesn’t need to evolve, to do so it must fundamental reform.

It has not delivered the prosperity and growth it promised; the euro has turned out to be part of the problem rather than the solution; the EU’s share of world GDP is set to fall sharply. Moreover, no one is clear what the EU is for, or how ever closer union can be matched with expanding borders and huge disparities of income and culture. The European Union project has been rocked by a series of scandals

Here are a few reforms that are blatantly obvious and need  implementation to save millions of euros.  

The First Reform:

According to a report from the EU’s own internal Audit Service (IAS) an estimated £4.5 billion of the EU’s annual budget is wasted each year. The administrative budget of the IAS totals €18.77 m in 2016 and €19.22 m in 2017.

Although the Commission remains responsible for the implementation of the EU budget, the actual management and control of EU funds and programmes is delegated to Member State authorities, which select beneficiaries and distribute funds.

Cohesion policy accounts for 37 % of spending from the EU budget and is to be some 350 billion euro for each of the periods 2007-2013 and 2014-2020.

It is the Member States’ responsibility to detect, correct and prevent errors in the first instance.

Better regulation is a pressing problem.

Next:

It is time that the blatant absurdity and farce of the EU travelling circus, that requires the moving nearly four thousand trunks of documents between Luxembourg and Strasbourg ever month – stops.

It is perhaps the most outlandish of the European Union’s excesses; a £130 million travelling circus that once a month sees the European Parliament decamp from Belgium to France.

The problem is simple:

The French government, which has a power of veto, will not budge.

The French insist on maintaining Strasbourg’s role because of the substantial amount of money the travelling circus brings to the region. Its status is set in stone under a European treaty signed in 1992,  which can only be revoked should all member states agree it. 

In all, the EU admits that the monthly Strasbourg sitting, which lasts just four days, costs an additional £93 million a year.

A recent study by the European Parliament shows that €103 million (£85 million) could be saved each year if all European Parliament operations were transferred from Strasbourg to Brussels.

It is beyond comprehension that this state of affairs is tolerated.

If Emmanuel Macron France’s new youngest ever president, who says the country had chosen “hope” and promising to relaunch the flagging European Union doing away with this gross misuse of EU funds would show he is serious.

Next: 

MEP’s > “gravy train” salaries and perks.

MEP perks receive free haircuts and 52 gallons of petrol a month.

Maltese MPs get 240 litres of petrol a month.

Two Conservative UK  MEPs have each pocketed over £1 million in taxpayer salary and expenses payments in just five years.  Both men receive a salary of £76,292 a year, plus £2,670 in pension contributions.

Over five years, on top of this figure, Mr Ashworth claimed: £181,705 for subsistence; £164,627 in travel expenses; £222,560 in UK office allowances and £116,000 for his wife’s salary between 2010 and 2014, when the practice was banned.

Mr Karim claimed the same salary and pension contribution package as well as: £159,858 in subsistence allowance; £189,420 in travel expenses and £289,038 in UK office costs.

Both men also have offices provided in Brussels. Both men took home over £1 million over the five-year period, over £200,000 a year.

Nigel Farage claimed over £15,000 in expenses to pay for his bodyguards. The EU has been billed for their services, which include arranging food and drink. One bill for just five events came to almost £60,000, covered by expenses paid to Mr Farage’s Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy group, which receives £2.5million a year in EU funding. 

French MEPs earn 740% more than average French citizen Lavish, expenses and allowances – entitlements that are worth over £415,000 a year each. 

As well as staff allowances, MEPs are able to earn up to £91,000 a year in “daily subsistence” and “general expenditure” expenses without having to provide any receipts or proof of expenditure. MEPs still vote on their own salaries and perks.

The EU pay divide

The “subsistence allowance” or “per diem” of £258 is paid in cash without any proof of expenditure, when MEPs sign an attendance register in Brussels or the Strasbourg seat of the parliament.

The annual cost of a MEP sitting in the EU assembly is £1.79 million each a year. The European Parliament, with 766 MEPs, cost £1.3 billion in 2012.

Here is the breakdown of an MEP salary:

[The standard monthly payment for all MEPs is 7,957 euros (£6,537). MEPs also get a flat-rate monthly allowance of 4,299 euros to cover office expenses, such as office rent, phone bills and computer equipment.

In addition, MEPs can claim for travel related to their official duties in Brussels and Strasbourg. In the past they could claim for an expensive flexible economy class flight even if they flew low-fare. But under the new rules they have to submit their ticket (which can be business class on air, or first class on rail) and will be reimbursed for what they paid.

A separate annual travel allowance – 4,243 euros maximum – covers official trips to other destinations. And they can claim for up to 24 return journeys in their home country.

MEPs also get a daily subsistence allowance – now 304 euros – for attendance at parliamentary sessions. It is intended to cover things like hotel bills and meals.

And they are entitled to reimbursement of two-thirds of their medical expenses.]

Then there are the 28 EU Commissioners, all of them on a basic salary of

€20 666 per month.

Jean-Claude Juncker, 61, President of the European Commission  Salary: £245,629 plus a residential allowance of £36,844 and a monthly expense allowance of £1,135. Pension of £52,500 for life from age 65.

The salaries and allowances of the MEPs of the 27 EU states now total £137 million.

The figure is almost ten times higher than the average EU wage of £18,617 a year.

But this does not include the cost of the £217,000 office allowance available to each MEP.

The receipt-free allowances system must stop. 

Next reform:  Is the Euro.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of Euro"

Only by changing the eurozone’s rules and institutions can the euro be made to work.

To achieve the more radical – but necessary – reforms for the Euro, a new treaty will be required.

A major priority for this new treaty would be to create a single fiscal authority for the euro area and to change the ECB’s mandate, so that it could become a full lender of last resort in extreme circumstances.

Euro area citizens need to be given a real choice between continued fragmentation (which leaves the euro exposed to structural weaknesses and recurrent crises), and greater integration (which pools more sovereignty at the same time as it strengthens the governance of EMU).

Abandoning the convergence criteria, which require deficits to be less than 3% of GDP.

Change the mandate of the European Central Bank, which focuses only on inflation, unlike the US Federal Reserve, which takes into account employment, growth, and stability as well.

Lastly, the high rates of unemployment in many euro-area countries are a source of concern. Reforms to harmonize employment protection legislation and integrate outsiders in the labour market should be implemented.

The EU employs more than 55,000 staff from its 28 member states. The majority work for the European Commission which employs about 33,000 officials, temporary staff, contract staff, and special advisers.

Last Reform:Image associée

It is no good just taking the standard nation-based model of representative democracy and applying it to the unique contours of European governance

‘Democracy’ explicitly recognises that the EU lacks a coherent, unified ‘people’, and should therefore encourage the participation of separate ‘peoples’ within the European structure.

If the EU is truly a democracy then the best way of closing the gap between citizens and institutions is to empower the demoi. Finding new ways for the national public to discuss, engage with and interact with the EU is the best way of enhancing their role. To do so, the European Parliament should be made more representative, but by increasing the role of citizens and national parliamentarians in the EU structures the EU can be made more open to bottom-up influence.

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

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

Go back

Your message has been sent

https://youtu.be/PZz3dXCG3Oo?list=PLO1bi4VeyTW7iLDXBKYxh_rG_ovxGkihz