• About
  • THE BEADY EYE SAY’S : THE EUROPEAN UNION SHOULD THANK ENGLAND FOR ITS IN OR OUT REFERENDUM.

bobdillon33blog

~ Free Thinker.

bobdillon33blog

Tag Archives: Brexit v EU – Negotiations.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. BORDER OR NO BORDER BETWEEN NORTHERN IRELAND AND IRELAND WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

29 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. BORDER OR NO BORDER BETWEEN NORTHERN IRELAND AND IRELAND WHAT IS THE TRUTH?

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

 

( A fifteen-minute read)

Claims that there will or won’t be border controls on the island of Ireland are predictions, not facts, at this stage but Brexit means that the UK’s only land border will also be an external border from the EU’s point of view.A sign close to the Letterkenny - Strabane border in the Irish Republic.

That matters for two main reasons.

One is immigration and the other is the trade in goods, neither of which have many controls on them within the EU.

Any hard border would have massive economic, political and security implications.

Outside the EU’s Customs Union, it will be necessary to impose customs checks on the movement of goods across the border.  Because if there is no EU-UK agreement on free trade in goods, there will be some British taxes on imports from Ireland, and vice versa.

There is talk of a deal, that would be confined to goods originating in the UK or the EU.

This is the pattern for the EU’s free trade agreements with countries such as Norway and Canada. Without these ‘rules of origin’, and a way of enforcing them, goods made in a country like China could be imported through Ireland, avoiding UK import taxes.

One way or the other with or without a trade deal, there is still a need for some way of checking on the goods being taken across the border, either to work out the taxes due on them or to verify that they don’t need to be paid.

It’s time to stop the bull shit > so let’s try and sort out the realities from the fantasies.

For there to be no border there will have to have “regulatory alignment” with the rest of Ireland in order to keep the border free of controls. This can only be achieved if Northern Ireland remains in the EU either by uniting with Ireland or breaking away from the UK.

If not Brexit will restore the old border created by the partition of Ireland?

Should arrangements be permanent or temporary? How hard or soft should the border be: electronic, policed or militarised?

The chances of either of these happing are zero.

There was a very strong ethnonational basis to voting in the Referendum.

It seems 85% of Catholics voted Remain, compared to only 40% of Protestants.

I would say that both less-educated Protestants/unionists and Catholics who voted for the UK to leave the EU but undoubtedly did not imagine they were voting for Northern Ireland to become distinct from the rest of the UK?

I would also say that any border no matter what form it takes will undermine the Catholic/nationalist sense of connection with the rest of Ireland?

So alongside the logistical questions – about the technology needed to manage such a porous border – lie these equally important identity issues.

As for Migration:

World War II aside, there has never been controls on migration between the UK and Ireland. People can use the open border to travel illegally from Ireland to Northern Ireland and on to the rest of the UK, and likewise in the other direction.

This is currently addressed by “Operation Gull”, in which immigration officers check passengers on routes between Northern Ireland and the island of Great Britain. This is designed to compensate for the lack of checks on unauthorized travel across the north/south border. Claiming this won’t change after Brexit assumes that these measures will still be enough to police the open border which is totally impossible.

If the UK wants to put restrictions on EU immigration or short visits, that will generate more illegal cross-border movement. At the moment, Operation Gull only has to catch unauthorized migrants from non-EU countries.

There’s never been a situation where Ireland accepted free movement of people and the UK didn’t.

No matter how you address the border Brexit has serious consequences for political stability and has placed the constitutional question, which has largely been parked over the past 20 years, back on the table.

Politically, Northern Ireland can only work on the basis of sharing and interdependence.

The whole ethos of the Good Friday agreement was about breaking down barriers and allowing people to lead their lives on a north-south and east-west access. Yet Brexit entails new divisions and borders.

An outcome in which Northern Ireland continued to participate in the single market would allow Northern Ireland to fully engage in both the EU single market and the UK’s internal market. This can only be achieved through Northern Ireland remaining in line with EU law and regulations. Operating to these higher standards should not compromise simultaneous engagement with the rules of the market in Great Britain.

In this sense, Northern Ireland could be a bridge.

Indeed, a satisfactory compromise around this type of approach could bring much needed political stability and cohesion to Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately, although Northern Ireland overall voted was to remain within the EU Mrs. May bribed the DUP for support to prop-up her minority Tory Government.

In the end, the British Government will endeavor to fudge the Northern Ireland’s current constitutional position by sacrifice the Good Friday agreement in exchange for their whole vision of a glorious post-Brexit future based on Britain’s ability to do great trade deals and be a trusted partner on the world stage.

Yet to get there they now have to start by tearing up two of the most important international deals Britain has signed in its recent history, both of them legally binding.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

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

05 Monday Mar 2018

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com 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

Brexit v EU - Negotiations., European Union, What needs to change in European Union., What needs to change in the European union

 

( 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.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: JUST WHAT IS IT THAT BRITAIN IS OPTING OUT OF FOR THE SAKE OF ISOLATION.

25 Sunday Feb 2018

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: JUST WHAT IS IT THAT BRITAIN IS OPTING OUT OF FOR THE SAKE OF ISOLATION.

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Distribution of wealth, Inequility

 

( A seven-minute read)

Perhaps the biggest issue in the June 23 referendum was the question of whether 43 years in the EU have helped or hurt the UK economy. Of course, the referendum completely ignored that when Britain joined the EEC as it was known then as the sick man of Europe.Image associée

One can not know exactly how much the EU directly benefited Britain, but a 10 percent rise in prosperity is a reasonable estimate.

I would like some political ( descendants of the two world wars)  to tell me or explain to me why now in a world that is in turmoil Britain wants to turn itself into a hermit kingdom squandering its wealth and ingenuity for an idealised notion that you are still a mighty power that the nations of the world want to trade with on your terms.

Governments and Countries can’t be run like businesses.

Societies are built on a commitment to social and economic justice, not by the free market, but by equality of opportunity.

From the outside, the whole Brexit process has highlighted your indifference to seeing that there are going to to be enormous repercussions due to a fog of denial and self-delusion.

Today one in 20 UK residents was born in another EU country.

 

Some Eurosceptics say Britain stands a better chance of growth if it looks beyond the sluggish economies of the EU. But this is a claim about the future, predicated on trading relationships that do not yet exist, rather than an analysis of the past.

UK trade with EU partners grew faster after 1973 than it did with the remaining countries in the European Free Trade Association, the grouping to which Britain previously belonged.

For almost half a century, Britain has benefited from greater openness to world markets, which has fostered economic dynamism. Economists have demonstrated that the main cause of that change was membership of the EU, which brought with it gains from trade, foreign direct investment, competition, and innovation.

This is what Britain is turning it back on.

The UK is one of the largest recipients of research funding in the EU. Over the period 2007 – 2013 the UK received €8.8 billion

Many Eurosceptics raged against the UK’s annual £18bn transfer to the EU.

Nigel Farage has claimed that being in the bloc costs Britain £55m a day — more than £20bn a year.

But the UK’s net transfer to the EU falls far short of such claims.

A rebate secured by Margaret Thatcher in 1984 reduced the bill and London sent £13bn to Brussels in 2015. Against that, the UK received £4.5bn from the EU in regional aid and agricultural subsidies, and the private sector received a further £1.4bn direct from the EU budget.

That takes the net cost of membership to about £7bn, less than half a percent of national income — about £260 a year for each British household.

Another often-quoted figure — the reported £33bn cost of regulation — comes from an impact assessment by Open Europe, a think-tank, of 100 EU rules.

But it is based on only one side of the balance sheet.

The benefits of the regulations are “much higher” than the costs and “clearly not all of [the costs] would disappear after Brexit”.

Most economists have little doubt that Britain’s membership of the EU has translated into more trade.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of isolation"

For crying out loud it’s not Isolation that Britain needs but a large dose of common sense and cooperation.

Get a grip.

It is time for young of the nation to unbottling their responsibilities to England by demanding a re-run of the Referendum without the pursuit of personal pleasure.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ITS NOW OR NEVER FOR ENGLAND WITH OR WITHOUT A TRANSITION OR IMPLICATION PERIOD.

23 Friday Feb 2018

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Transition period or Implication period.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: ITS NOW OR NEVER FOR ENGLAND WITH OR WITHOUT A TRANSITION OR IMPLICATION PERIOD.

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Transition period or Implication period.

( A one-minute read)

The UK government wants the EU to give it a transition period even if talks on the future relationship break down. This would prevent Britain from crashing out in March 2019 with no arrangements in place.

But what does transition really mean?

A change or passage from one state or stage to another. This is true for both parties.

A change of one subject to another in discourse.

A period of time during which something changes from one state or stage to another.

A change that results in a change of physical properties.

A change of public opinion or political sentiment.

A change of nature, purpose, or function of something.

The very word conjures up the word disagreement.

For this reason, alone there should be no transition period.

An implication period of the final agreement is the only route to follow.

A two-year transition will result in further destabilization unless agreed under EU terms with the final deal to be sent off to the EU Parliament for ratification.

Europe is already in a catatonic state, and only a shock on a grand scale can force the more visionary of its leaders to act to save it.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of transition"

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of transition"

This is what is exactly what will happen if the EU agrees to a transition or implication period on completion of its negotiations re England’s departure.

Unfortunately, England has completely forgotten that it is not the European Union wanting to leave England.

However, your sacrifice for the European common good could achieve European reform  – though it could also result in the disappearance of the United Kingdom itself, with the possibility of Scotland and even Northern Ireland seeking independence.

England has no idea of what it wants now nor when it entered the EU and it never will till it sheds the shadows of the Empire.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE OPEN LETTER: TO THE YOUTH OF ENGLAND.

20 Tuesday Feb 2018

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE OPEN LETTER: TO THE YOUTH OF ENGLAND.

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

 

( A one minute read)

Dear Youthful England,

In a few weeks, your unelected Mrs. T May and her Tory party will be negotiating your future away.

There will be no compensates for a Brexit. It will make it harder to go to university, harder to get a job, harder to start a family and harder to buy a house?

SURELY THERE MUST BE A YOUNG VOICE WITH OR WITHOUT £50,000 OF UNIVERSITY FEES DEBT HANGING AROUND THE NECK THAT CAN MAKE ITSELF HEARD IN THE POLITICAL WILDERNESS OF BRIXIT.

The generational chasm that is being created by Brexit will come to define your modern democracy.  A total negation of the will of young people.

An act of self-mutilation with almost mythical status marching down the isolationist path in a world that is in the grip of the 4th revolution called technology.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of young england 2017"

We all know that the EU needs reform. To be sure, stopping Brexit can’t be an end in itself.Image associée

In a world that is supposed to be more connected than ever before this reform will happen due to social media not by reactionary ideology.

As Mrs. May is trapped by the economics of self-service it is time to become vociferous and push Jeremy Corbyn off the fence on Brexit:

The Nigel Paul Farage of this world was summed up in a radio interview by a listener comment. ” You have spent more than 20 years of your life in Belgium, and for all that you do not speak a word of Flemish, German or French.”

The Youth of England will be summed up by not speaking.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of young england 2017"

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WHAT EVER ABOUT EU SECURITY THERE CAN NEVER BE A EU ARMY.

19 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., European Union., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: WHAT EVER ABOUT EU SECURITY THERE CAN NEVER BE A EU ARMY.

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations., EUROPEAN ARMY., EUROPEAN SECURITY:

( A seven-minute read)

It appears that Theresa May has little or no understanding of the mean of the word Union or for that matter Nato Motto, “animus in consulendo liber”

(A satisfactory translation of the phrase has not been found, although a French version“l’esprit libre dans la consultation” comes close. Renderings in English have ranged from the cryptic “in discussion a free mind” to the more complex “man’s mind ranges unrestrained in counsel.”)

It is complete hogwash to be saying England wants to leave the EU’s common foreign and security policy as early as next year but would show flexibility around the UK’s red lines to secure a new security treaty. Dropping out of the single market and refusing to adhere to judgments of the European court of justice (ECJ) means the country would no longer be able to participate in joint institutions such as Europol, EU police databases or EU military missions.

So would someone please explain to me what she means when she says ” participated in EU agencies while also having its “sovereign legal order.”

If you are no longer in Europol and you have ditched the EU’s common foreign and security policy how can you “respect the role of the European court of justice”

On the other hand it seems to me that all the talk about a European Army/Security and its joint headquarters is another attempt to set up a new bureaucratic structure in order that European officials can continue to exist in comfort, producing paperwork and public declarations, just as they do in the EU and the Council of Europe’s Parliamentary Assembly (PACE).

Many Europeans have argued that the members of the European Union can exert greater influence in the world if they act together rather than separately; and that following the decline of Europe’s major powers, individual states’ power can collectively create a more powerful and credible European voice on the world stage.

The EU rarely manages to speak with one voice in any meaningful way.

There may well be a massive chasm between Europe, England, and US in terms of military capability but the fight against militants needs not more troops, but extensive and professional law enforcement agencies, a wide network of agents and other anti-terrorist structures.

They cannot be an army with rockets, tanks, bombers, and fighters – you do not fight against terrorists with heavy military equipment.

Having a joint court to arbitrate between states is a pragmatic solution to security cooperation.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"

One way or the other, Europe cannot afford two parallel armies for several reasons. Firstly, even now, a number of states are in no hurry to allocate 2 percent of their GDP to NATO’s overall defense budget, which relies mainly on Washington paying 75 percent of the total. Also, there are not enough human resources for the new army.

Furthermore, in an army, which is based on a unity of command and unquestioning obedience to the commander or boss, there cannot be any independent structures in principle. Otherwise, it is not an army, but a bad collective farm of bewildered soldiers receiving orders in twenty different languages.

So would someone tell me on what principle an integrated European army should be created?

In 2000, the EU announced proposals for an army of 100,000 (60,000 of whom could be deployed at 60 days’ notice for up to a year at a time). Britain’s Conservative Party commented at the time that this would effectively destroy NATO. Either troops already committed to NATO will be counted twice, or, in the worst case scenario, troops will be withdrawn from existing NATO missions.

But if a European army is created all the same, how will Russia react?

The Russians will work with it as they do with NATO. Let us just hope that the relationship will start with a clean slate and become a friendly one.

Sovereignty, however, cannot be traded for influence.

The ability to project power, whether regionally or globally, depends on several factors, including leadership, credibility, military capability, popular support, and dependable allies. The EU lacks all of these qualities.

The EU has no standing army. Instead, under its common security and defense policy (CSDP), it relies on ad hoc forces contributed by EU countries for:

Joint disarmament operations
Humanitarian & rescue tasks
Military advice & assistance
Conflict prevention & peacekeeping
Crisis management, e.g. peacemaking & post-conflict stabilization.

Since the Maastricht Treaty of 1991, the European Union has sought to forge a Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) precisely to take the lead in times of global crises. Since January 2007, the EU has been able to carry out rapid-response operations with 2 concurrent single-battle groups, each comprising 1500 soldiers.

The EU failed to comprehend the sheer complexity of the problems of an EU Army because of its own institutional and military limitations, and the very different historical perspectives and poli­cies of its 12 constituent members.

For example, Austria, Ireland, Finland, Sweden, and Malta have chosen to pursue neutrality. It is highly improbable that these countries which don’t even belong to NATO will enroll their citizens in a European military alliance.

Article 42 of the Lisbon Treaty clear STATES  that any further co-operation in the area of defense should be consistent with Nato commitments.

Even though terrorism is a serious issue, centralizing security and defense policies on the European level isn’t a useful way of fighting such a diffused and complex threat. If a Foreign policy is an attribute of statehood that must remain at the nation-state level if it is to be meaningful or effective.

Is it not pathetic to witness Mrs. May linking an economic deal to crime-fighting measures and to the sharing of intelligence.

It’s like a naughty school child sharing a secret for a smartie.

Without group security goals, building a common defense policy is neither realistic nor useful.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "PICTURES OF THE EU ARMY"

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE OPEN LETTER TO MRS THERESA MAY PRIME MINSTER OF ENGLAND. IT’S TIME FOR ENGLAND TO TAKE THE BLINKERS OFF

22 Monday Jan 2018

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE OPEN LETTER TO MRS THERESA MAY PRIME MINSTER OF ENGLAND. IT’S TIME FOR ENGLAND TO TAKE THE BLINKERS OFF

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

Re – Seeds of fantasy Read:Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit"

Dear Mrs May.

As I understand it your stated aim for the continuing Brexit negotiations is to secure the exact same economic benefits that England now enjoy’s in the EU.

I regret to inform you that you and your Government is labouring under the misapprehension that it will be able to secure a free trade agreement (FTA) outside of the single market that not only covers goods (like the FTA Canada has with the EU) but most services too.

It almost unheard of to have a FTA – one that sits outside of the single market. Because it would have to be approved by 42 regional and national Parliaments in the EU and domestic political objections in other states would stand in the way.

The FTA Canada has with the EU took seven years to negotiate.

You can only have this if you remain in the single market.

Perhaps it is time for you and Government to refresh your thinking on what is the Single Market.

( The single market provides for tariff-free trade between EU countries and a common framework of rules including employment rights, competition policy, consumer and environment protections. EU countries come together through the customs union and apply the same tariffs to goods from outside the union. Non-EU countries participate in both bodies and doing so is the best way of retaining the benefits of EU membership while being outside the EU.)

You will not be able to enjoy these economic benefits outside of the single market and the customs union. Yet you and your ministers keep insisting otherwise.

The reality is if the EU give England any special arrangements, other third countries with whom they have agreements will demand the same too.

For example, just in case you were not paying attention.

Norway has already warned that giving into UK demands for a special trade deal allowing different UK sectors to participate in the single market without being part of it would force Norway to rip up its own agreement with the EU.  Not to Mention Ireland.

It is sad as the reality of Brexit becomes clear, to see such a great country unable to change its mind.

You and your ministers keep talking about the desire for a “deep and special partnership” and a “bespoke” UK deal.

Unfortunately time is running out to set out what you believe that bespoke agreement would look like because your Cabinet cannot agree on it.

It is time to do the right thing.

To request in the forthcoming negotiations a stay of execution for a period of six, seven years that will allow your government in the House of Commons an opportunity to debate among yourselves what kind of arrangements is wanted between the European Union and the United Kingdom.

I believe you made a profound mistake in pressing the Article 50 button without working out so many of these details, now there is simply not sufficient time to agree a properly bespoke deal.

While I fully appreciate you inherited the situation if you want to stay in power you should be in the long run open to the electorate to take a different view on whether you and the Government should press on with this process.

A moratorium might salvage the wreckage that is coming out of the Article 50 process and allow you to enjoy the Bayeux Tapestry and weave a country that works for everybody.

Yours Sincerely Anglophil.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way Britain can is for Mrs May to do the right thing – by Britain and by Europe – to stop these negotiations and simply.

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY ASKS: HAS ENGLAND SOLD OFF ALL OF IT’S INHERITED SILVERWARE AND IS NOW SET FOR BANKRUPTCY 

18 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASKS: HAS ENGLAND SOLD OFF ALL OF IT’S INHERITED SILVERWARE AND IS NOW SET FOR BANKRUPTCY 

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

( A three minute read)

Brexit negotiations are about to restart and we just witness the collapse of one of the UK biggest private companies.

Although few people yet realize it, the UK is bankrupt:Notes and coins.

The Government cannot pay its debts nor will it be able to pay for its departure from the EU unless it get an extended transition period, even then it will be on HP terms.

Unfortunately, the Government’s official debt is not the real problem:

The Government’s ‘official’ debt is only a small percentage of its true debt exposure. The official debt is merely the tip of a very large hidden iceberg.

The Government’s true debt is the present value of all the commitments it has entered into, on the expectation that these commitments will be paid for by future taxpayers.

One recent estimate suggested that a UK citizen born in 2011 will inherit, on birth, a debt of perhaps £200,000, and it could easily be much more.

It is simply inconceivable that debts on this scale will be paid off in full.

Nor will they be.

These were not debts that youngsters freely took on, but obligations incurred on their behalf in many cases before they were even born.

The moral question of course is:

At what point does the debt become so large that future children will be born into a new form of slavery, entering the world shackled by the debts of their forbears?

The whole political system is creating a huge intergenerational Ponzi scheme, passing the buck from one generation to the next, until the whole rotten system inevitably collapses under its accumulated weight.

With the collapse of Carillion the government is losing all control of its finances and will once again end up printing money to pay off its debts, so leading to hyperinflation and economic collapse.

the actions are both immoral and reckless with crippling liabilities on top of the national debt, two-thirds of which is made up of “unsustainable” public sector retirement monies.

Overall, the real cost of debt to every man, woman and child in the UK is £53,822 each or over a £100,00 if you are graduating University student.

Since the global financial crisis erupted in 2007. The Bank Of England  has pumped £445bn electronic money into the economy, by what is called quantitative easing programme

 Public sector pensions are a ticking debt bomb with around £1.3trillion needed to cover 93 per cent of the benefits that are currently unfunded.

Britain ‘set for BANKRUPTCY amid £1.85 trillion of hidden debt’

Future generations will inherit a bankrupt country, with two new worthless aircraft carriers, an unusable nuclear deterrent, a high-speed rail system going nowhere, a health service in tatters, a broken up UK, a State funereal that going to cost millions, a pound that worth toilet paper, etc

Make no mistake about it: The country is bankrupt.

Benefits across the board will be cut, massively: the government will renege big-time on many of its commitments, breaking its health, pensions and other promises on a huge scale.

The social and economic consequences don’t bear thinking about.

The cost of Brexit by now should be apparent with a loss of £350m a week to the UK economy.

If you asked me Brexit is far from inevitable.

The collective failure of the English to understand that in a world driven by technology there is no such thing as Sovereign.

The whole fabric of England is at the moment jeopardize.

There are still fifteen months until Britain departs.

I am convinced that the British people provided they are provided with a credible and ambitious social plan that recognizes that the balance of advantages lies in continued EU Membership.

Through humility and what is called cop on.  A new settlement addressing Britain’s inequalities and the EU need to reform can be achieved. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of brexit"

I can hear the outs saying look at Greece.

The Greek government, which faces more debt repayment deadlines this summer, said it was hoping for a “positive conclusion” to the protracted review of its bailout programme. It has lost more than 25% of its GDP – the biggest downturn to be experienced by an advanced western economy in peacetime – since its financial collapse seven years ago.

So England can rest assured that Brexit will have ‘Grexit’ for company. A debt payment of €7 billion is due in July.

Or Greece could just default out of the euro zone.

Stranger things have happened: Before the term “Brexit” was invented, “Grexit” was the far better-known word — and the more plausible scenario.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: IT HAS ALREADY STARTED- BREXIT BULL SHIT. .

11 Monday Dec 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: IT HAS ALREADY STARTED- BREXIT BULL SHIT. .

Tags

Breixt, Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Forthcoming Brexit Negotiations.

 

( Three minute read)

We said that. We did not say that:  If you do that. If you don’t do that: Alignment, no Alignment: Agreed not Agreed: Explicable not Explicable: Phase one Phase two: This amount that amount, on the table off the table:  Deal or no Deal:  In our Out:  sets out the terms of the divorce and paves the way for Phase 2 of negotiations on future relations between London and the Twenty-Seven.

Anyone with an ounce of sawdust between their ears knows all of the above is total bollix. 

Just look at some of the blonker’s reactions.

“Theresa May won,” said Michael Gove, pro-Brexit environment minister who is eyeing his estate.

Philip Hammond, hailed the “boost for the British economy” that represents a text that lifts some uncertainties.

Nigel Farage, “the move to the second phase of humiliation” 

The only comment that might come true if the EU block his pension or at least have it payed out of the settlement. 

It time for some hard facts:

The ambiguity of Friday’s agreement on Ireland alone illustrates the difficulties that lie ahead.

Or

Spain that argues that any agreement would require its blessing, because the area is not part of the UK, as is the case with Northern Ireland, but a colony with a disputed status. It is likely to wield a veto over any Brexit deal for Gibraltar after the EU-27 backed Madrid in its draft negotiating guidelines for forthcoming divorce talks between the UK and the bloc.

Both are a poisonous topic for the upcoming negotiations.

Not only has Brexit become a subject of confrontation between the two communities of Northern Ireland, but the insoluble Irish equation sums up the central dilemma, that of the choice between a “hard Brexit” and an agreement maintaining the maximum of links with the EU.

It’s generally agreed that the “divorce deal,” setting out the arrangements for Britain’s departure from the EU, can be sealed by Brussels and London.

But Britain’s new relationship with the bloc is a different matter.

Under Article 50 an exit deal requires a qualified majority (72% of members states) to pass, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, whereas a comprehensive new partnership deal (or “mixed agreement”) requires unanimous assent in the Council and ratification by national or subnational parliaments.

If the deal “is being ‘loaded up’ with competencies of the member states, this would turn it into a mixed agreement [affecting both EU and national legislation], which would require unanimity in the European Council and the ratification of all member states for it to be sealed. Even a transitional deal could affect national legislation.

Therefore, any change of government or head of state near the deadlines for talks or ratification will introduce uncertainty into the process. 

There are another 12 elections scheduled across the 27 member states during the two-year negotiation period.

All countries work to slightly different time frames, but the systems of proportional representation and coalition politics in most EU states often result in extended periods following elections where there is no official government; the record being 541 days following the 2010 Belgian general election. For example, in 2013 it took 86 days to form a coalition government in Germany.

Will there be new faces?

If the national parliaments of the 27 countries remaining in the EU — and perhaps also some regional parliaments — are all to get a say, it could make the passage of the Brexit deal impossible. However the European Union’s 27 remaining national parliaments are unlikely to have the power of veto over a future Brexit trade deal with Britain.

One way or the other the best, the cheapest and the least complicated deal would be a no deal.

Transitional trade agreements are politically highly explosive.

Do not anticipate the perfect unity of Twenty Seven.  

England wants a level playing field so as to be able to do trade deals outside the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the wto"

Blinded by their refusal to see the Europe as a project policy beyond the single market,

Let them do so .

However under WTO the rules are simple. It requires every country to reduce their tariffs and subsidies to the same level, but in reality these cuts are applied selectively in favor of rich countries.

There can’t be have your cake and eat it.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: BRIXIT IS WELL ON THE WAY TO A HOG WASH DEAL.

09 Saturday Dec 2017

Posted by bobdillon33@gmail.com in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: BRIXIT IS WELL ON THE WAY TO A HOG WASH DEAL.

Tags

Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

( A two-minute read)

England is gradually learning that their initial ambitions for Brexit are unrealistic and few will deny, the EU is in urgent need of reform.Findings show a growing disappointment with the Brexit process will not necessarily persuade voters to change minds.

Talks can now move on to their next phase with a two-year time capsule transition period with no proportional link whatsoever between IQ and wealth.

The EU has got rid of the UK but the UK has not left the EU. Brilliant! This creative ambiguity means big battles still ahead.

So where are we now?

If we believe that there is no deal till the whole deal is approved, we need our heads examined. Its taking shape whether we like it or not.

A deal which has everything and nothing to do with people.

Under the new agreement brokered Friday, EU and U.K. citizens will get to retain their rights “derived from Union law and based on past life choices, where those citizens have exercised free movement rights by the specified date.

That means they will get to keep their social security and health care, their employment and education rights, and their “tax advantages.” However, there’s a big downside too—they will be bound to the country where they’re living.

For Brits that already live in EU countries that aren’t the U.K., that means they would lose the automatic right to then move and live anywhere they like within the bloc. Basically for Brits in rest of EU: applying for a new passport is the only way to secure Freedom of movement.

EU citizens living in the U.K. will get to retain their EU rights after Brexit, the British courts will still have to defer to CJEU judgements that affect those rights.

When it comes to Northern Ireland and Ireland border the consequences of a hard Brexit are of little consideration as long as unionist objectives are met. Even more concerning is the free rein that Foster has in the absence of Executive constraint in Northern Ireland.

The Never Never party simple desire is to reassert unionism not to represent the people’s of Northern Ireland.

It is the party’s reasoning behind the rejection that is of concern – their willingness to jeopardise everything for a hard Brexit that secures their unionist identity.

The DUP argues that it does not wish to see a hard border between North and South, yet their actions in recent days clearly indicate a desire for a hard Brexit, which must mean installing a hard border.

Naïvely both the EU and England are overlooked the historical and contemporary politics and culture of the DUP.

On the border issue, the U.K. and EU have essentially agreed to kick the can down the road, in order to stop talks from breaking down entirely. But what’s new—and huge—is that if there’s no resolution to this question, the default position will be the U.K. staying within the single market.

This will ideally be the result of the overall U.K.-EU relationship that exists after Brexit, but if not, the U.K. will suggest a specific deal regarding that particular stretch of border.

If that proposal doesn’t fly, the whole of the U.K. will basically have to stay within the EU internal market and customs union—and there will be no new regulatory barriers separating Northern Ireland from the rest of the U.K.—unless Northern Ireland wants them. And whatever happens, Northern Irish businesses will retain “unfettered access” to the U.K. market.

On top of all that, everyone who was born in Northern Ireland will retain their right to EU citizenship (though this is less of a novelty, as Northern Irish people can already claim Irish citizenship anytime they like).

The enlightened ones in the EU should at least demand that Nigel Farage EU pension is payed out of the settlement figure. ( Twenty years @ 73,000 pa = 1,460,000) 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of hog hogwashing"

If we are not vigilant we could all end up as hog wash.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Share this:

  • Share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window) WhatsApp
  • More
  • Share on Pocket (Opens in new window) Pocket
  • Share on Mastodon (Opens in new window) Mastodon
← Older posts
Newer posts →

All comments and contributions much appreciated

  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS. ANY OTHER PERSON WOULD BE ARRESTED. February 1, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS FROM THE RESURRECTION OF JESUS TO THE PRESENT DAY THE HISTORICAL RECORD OF OUR WORLD IS MORE THAN HORRIBLE. February 1, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THE WORLD WE LIVE IN IS BECOMING MORE AND MORE UNKNOWN. January 31, 2026
  • THE BEADY ASK. IN THIS WORLD OF FRICTIONS IS THERE ANY DECENCY LEFT ? January 29, 2026
  • THE BEADY EYE ASKS ARE WE WITH ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE LOOSING THE MEANING OF OUR LIVES? January 27, 2026

Archives

  • February 2026
  • January 2026
  • December 2025
  • November 2025
  • October 2025
  • September 2025
  • August 2025
  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013

Talk to me.

Jason Lawrence's avatarJason Lawrence on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WIT…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WHA…
bobdillon33@gmail.com's avatarbobdillon33@gmail.co… on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
Ernest Harben's avatarOG on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: WELCOME TO…
benmadigan's avatarbenmadigan on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONC…

7/7

Moulin de Labarde 46300
Gourdon Lot France
0565416842
Before 6pm.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.

My Blog; THE BEADY EYE.
bobdillon33@gmail.com

bobdillon33@gmail.com

Free Thinker.

View Full Profile →

Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog Stats

  • 95,090 hits

Blogs I Follow

  • unnecessary news from earth
  • The Invictus Soul
  • WordPress.com News
  • WestDeltaGirl's Blog
  • The PPJ Gazette
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

The Beady Eye.

The Beady Eye.
Follow bobdillon33blog on WordPress.com

Blog at WordPress.com.

unnecessary news from earth

WITH MIGO

The Invictus Soul

The only thing worse than being 'blind' is having a Sight but no Vision

WordPress.com News

The latest news on WordPress.com and the WordPress community.

WestDeltaGirl's Blog

Sharing vegetarian and vegan recipes and food ideas

The PPJ Gazette

PPJ Gazette copyright ©

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Join 222 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • bobdillon33blog
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar