Tag Archives: England EU Referendum IN or Out.

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IT IS TIME FOR ENGLAND TO FACE UP TO THE UGLY TRUTH AND VOTE AGAIN.

14 Tuesday Nov 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., European Union., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Post - truth politics., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IT IS TIME FOR ENGLAND TO FACE UP TO THE UGLY TRUTH AND VOTE AGAIN.

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A two-minute read)

We have just witness Armistice Day. Image associée

World war 1 is estimated to be responsible for around 37 million civilian and military casualties.  World war 11 is estimated to be responsible for around between 50 million to over 80 million.

Around 3 percent of the world population at the time.

Both were scapegoats for societal ills.

To day we all have to face up to an ugly truth about the world as it is:

There are only 11 countries in the world that are actually free from conflict.

Yet in a time where the amount of data is exploding beyond calculating power and all information is stored and registered, there is ever greater need for seeing the world from above to give us a sense of context, of the relationship between distant entities like Sophia the first Robot to be granted citizenship and the universe we exist in.

What a time to be alive.

A robot with an extremely concerning sense of humor.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of robot citizens"

” Don’t worry, if you’re nice to me, I’ll be nice to you. ” ” My artificial intelligence is designed around human values like wisdom, kindness and compassion.”

Perhaps she can explain why it is in a world driven by technology that the dying animal of a Britain that has turned its back on the world when they can belong to a larger world order with infinitely more possibilities, is re-establish the English channel as a mote.

Brexit is a rejection of modernity and openness itself.

It is beyond comprehension that a country that has been the foremost proponent of the freedom of trade for most of its history, a model for incorporating difference into a single political unity is now on the verge of isolating itself when the world is in need of unity more than ever in its sad history.    The United Kingdom had kept people’s with different cultures, even with different languages, gathered around a common purpose. It has created the world’s most cosmopolitan city.

Is this true, for crying out loud you must be kidding. It is obvious that the seventy-five percent of voters under 25 wanted who voted to stay, count for little or nothing.

This doesn’t mean the United Kingdom will be any less united,””Nor indeed does it mean it will be any less European.” That is exactly what is so terrifying, the insularity of the English, their refusal to take foreigners seriously, is a folly that has to be paid for very heavily from time to time, no more so than Ireland.

Tribalism is now, officially, winning. The outcome of what is called negotiations says as much about the future of Western politics, in general, as it does about the future value of the pound.

We all know that the Referendum vote to leave rode on a wave of frustration and fury at the current political and economic order, a toxic brand of xenophobic nationalism, and, above all, misinformation.

Brexit, was a way to lash out at the status quo—a change for the sake of change.

England would do well to make sure the new thing is also the better thing.

The European Union with all its faults has been one of the great success stories of human history, uniting a collection of peoples who have been at war for millennia into a federal government, resulting in a period of peace and prosperity unprecedented since the Roman Empire.

Peace and prosperity are no longer enough. The deep-seated loathing for political elites, and the massive inequality of the global economic order, and the free movement of people who is the inevitable result of that global economic order, have led to a tribalist counter-reaction.

Tribalism makes facts and compassion evaporate.

Perhaps the European Union’s data protection law, set from next year to create a “right of explanation might explain that it is impossible to agree any type of agreement without real damage on both sides.

But perhaps not, as Algorithms are not inherently fair, because the person who builds the model defines success.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisement

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

24 Monday Apr 2017

Posted by in ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England.

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

Tags

,

( A TWO MINUTE READ)

Why a snap election ?

 

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

 

THEY SAY A PICTURE IS WORTH A THOUSAND WORDS.

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

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

STRONG MANDATE OR NOT.

THERE IS NO RESETTING THE OUT BUTTON.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IN FIVE YEARS, THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A ROYAL FAMILY OR UNITED KINGDOM.

09 Monday Jan 2017

Posted by in Brexit., England., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., The New year 2017, What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IN FIVE YEARS, THERE WILL NO LONGER BE A ROYAL FAMILY OR UNITED KINGDOM.

Tags

, , ,

( A three-minute read)

The UK anthem got me thinking…

If you were starting a 21st-century democracy from scratch you wouldn’t

dream of having a hereditary head of state.

These days this is undoubtedly true, it is also true that the history of the past 50 years ago shows that starting democracies from scratch is very hard.

“Is there any point in the Royal family?”

The Royals represent and reiterate that the class system is still firmly in place in the UK.

If the monarchy is to continue in modern Britain they will have to adapt and change. The modern Royal Family must continue to live more in touch with their subjects if they are to survive as an institution in a democratic 21st Century Britain.

Leaving the EU won’t affect the Royals it will however change the Brit culture and add much-needed collective synergy aspiring for common aims.

So is a Royal Family still relevant today, it’s all about equality, and right now, so are they just a parasitic anarchic family blessed with vast riches, or are they essential to a country with no written constitution.

It is hard to shake off the debilitating tag when the head of state and her hangers-on attain their positions not through popularity, talent, or industry, but by the mere fact of their birth.

Presently England is recognized as a monarchy…BRITS ARE SUBJECTS OF THE MONARCH. Ultimately the Parliament and the army are under the control of her highness.

The Royal family aren’t elected, which can be seen as undemocratic.

They inherit their status and for this to apply to a nation that’s so heavy on encouraging democracy it may be seen as hypocritical.

They cost the taxpayer approximately 52p each year

Queen Elizabeth II, is the legal owner of about 6,600 million acres. The value of her landholding. £17,600,000,000,000 (approx). She is the only person on earth who owns whole countries, and who owns countries that are not her own domestic territory.

The Queen may be a constitutional monarch, in which her roles as the head of the state are mostly just symbolic, as she occasionally represents Britain in her state visits – so her holidays are covered as well?

Royalists will say that having a Monarchy makes no difference to the validity of democracy. Just so long as the Monarchy doesn’t interfere with the democratic process of the nation then they are nothing more than national figureheads with no real power or influence.

This may well be so.

Yet in theory, at least, she has considerable powers: to wage war, sign treaties, dissolve Parliament, and more.

They will also say that the monarchy is needed for tourism and the economy. That’s NOT what it’s there for. It’s there for political reasons.

To keep Britain’s monarchy does not entail keeping it in its current form. Britain would be a lot stronger if its head of state were elected.

Why?

Because its entangled history of democracy and monarchy has left Britain with a highly centralized constitution that locates the nation’s sovereignty in “the king in parliament”—a situation that gives the leader of the majority party in the legislature a disturbingly large part of the power that was once vested entirely in the monarchy.

This situation could be remedied quite easily by keeping the crown but changing its constitutional basis to one along the lines of that most excellent of countries, Belgium.

Belgium is a popular monarchy. Its constitution makes clear that sovereignty rests in the people; the King (or Queen, though it has yet to have one)—who is King of the Belgians, a people, not Belgium, a territory— becomes monarch not by right, but by taking an oath to uphold the people’s constitution.

Without a written constitution the question is: Who elected the royal family, they are self-made, what makes them royal? After all, basically, they are German immigrants.

I have nothing against them personally, as I am a humanist at heart and these people are simply other human beings born into their roles.

Britain has a class system which, to be honest, is going to rip that country apart and the royal family is a symbol of that class system and the divide will ultimately dissolve.

All that says;

They are just some human beings, related to every other living organism on our Earth in some way. The fact that a monarchy is not intellectually justifiable does not mean that it does not have a stabilizing role.

To have a real sovereign Nation you need to be free of the monarchy in order to be truly free. To bow down and call somebody ‘your highness?’ It doesn’t make sense to me.

The case against hereditary appointments in public life is straightforward: they are incompatible with democracy and meritocracy.

The second pitfall is subtler: in the belief that the monarchy forms some kind of constitutional backstop against an over-mighty Parliament, Britain is strangely relaxed about the lack of serious checks on its government.

Because it has no written constitution; the current government has plans to repeal a law implementing the European Convention on Human Rights, which many Britons recklessly consider a nuisance rather than a safeguard.

A change to the British constitution which made the kingdom’s various people’s sovereign and the head of state the guardian of that sovereignty, not the source of it, would be a welcome plank in the more general program of reform that the British state clearly needs. The trouble with hereditary succession and leaving the European Union is that you never know quite who or what you’re going to get.

The fourth verse of the UK anthem reads “rebellious Scot to crush” just thought that’s worth mentioning! The Royal family was the most ruthless biggest crooks at some point.

Pressing Articular 50 to disconnect from the EU in a world that is all about connectivity to my mind is Artificial Intelligence personified.

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

28 Tuesday Jun 2016

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

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

Tags

(Six minute Read)

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

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

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

The question of Identity?

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

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

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

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

Gone are the days of Imperialism, or Isolation.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are no biological differences between different “races”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is a “Jewish race.”

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

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

The human race has no unified goal or plan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is too much at stake.

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

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

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

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

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

There is not adequate democracy in the EU.

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

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

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

It should issue euro bonds to finance the migrant crisis.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

22 Wednesday Jun 2016

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

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

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Can we introduce it today and achieve great prosperity now?

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

Let’s see how it can be done.

Who decides what a ‘dignified’ living is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The German and Spanish parliaments explored it.

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

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

Just think of working for the Nations good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS; WHAT EFFECT WILL THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM HAVE ON THE EURO.

19 Sunday Jun 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS; WHAT EFFECT WILL THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM HAVE ON THE EURO.

Tags

, ,

A quick read.

While there is plenty of discussion and fear mongering on the pros and cons there is little mention of the main driving force behind the European Union.Afficher l'image d'origine

The Euro.

The euro has proved to be exactly the job-destroying, recession-creating, undemocratic monster the doubters always warned it would be.

Unless the EU can construct a political governance system similar to that of a federal state it will be very difficult for the euro to survive never mind to overtake the dollar as the world’s dominant currency or, eventually, to maintain its status as the leading candidate to replace the dollar, although it could still be the dominant regional European currency.

Were the EU to approve a European Federal constitution, the euro would have a chance of replacing the dollar as the global currency in this century.

Meanwhile, the euro will continue to increase its global share of foreign currency reserves, financial and trade transactions and even exchange rate pegs and baskets in the coming years, but only as the second-best global currency.

Without the Euro there would be no European Union Market.

With the Euro the club members are locked to the strong economies whether they like it or not thus unable to reflect the state of their own economies making it unworkable in the long run.

In a few days the British will have their Referendum Stay or Leave.Afficher l'image d'origine

If they leave will they destroyed the euro on departure.

Indeed, there are possible upsides to the euro’s fall. When a currency declines, imports typically become more expensive and exports become cheaper, lowering the trade deficit and creating jobs. It should make European offerings — be they German automobiles, Italian leather, French wine or even Greek vacations — more affordable, eventually helping the recovery.

If they stay should they not be subject to the same rules that govern the current members.

Another words should the EU demand that Sterling make the transition from the pound to the euro.

I am no financial wizard.

The likelihood of this ever happening is highly unlikely. Especially now that the euro is donning the cloak of supercharged monetarism, which is almost total in the face of grinding austerity, a double-dip recession that has already lasted 18 months and a jobless rate of 12.2% and rising in the Euro Zone.

This is not the received wisdom on the left.

When the crash came in 2007 it was a spectacular one.

The financial markets imploded, the banks stopped lending and cheap credit dried up. The housing market collapsed, unemployment rose, tax receipts shrivelled and the government’s budget deficit went through the roof. Speculation that the UK might leave the euro, as it had left the European exchange rate mechanism in 1992, meant investors demanded a high premium for holding UK government debt.

So is it time to create Spanish Euros, Irish Euros, Germany Euros, and in the long term English Euros all with their own exchange rate set against the GDP of the combined Members and forget about Federalism returning all member states to as they were before the introduction of the Euro.

There is no deep attachment in Britain to Europe as a political identity. Far from it.

However the market turbulence that will be caused by Britain’s exit may prove terminal for the euro and the break up of the Union.

Recently the UK even after Quantitative Easing (Printing Cash) on a massive scale had to accept an IMF loan the biggest the IMF had ever organised. It came with severe conditions,  including deep cuts in welfare and pensions and wage reductions across the public sector.

Deprived of the safety valve of currency depreciation, Britain had no choice but to do what Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal were doing and drive down domestic costs to make the economy more competitive. Speculation that the UK might leave the euro, as it had left the European exchange rate mechanism in 1992, meant investors demanded a high premium for holding UK government debt. Benchmark bond yields rose, first to 5%, then to 6%. When they hit 7%, Blair had no choice but to ask for help from the troika – the International Monetary Fund, the ECB and the EU.

Unlike in Spain, Greece, Ireland and Portugal, however, the buildup to the general election of 2010 promised the forthcoming Referendum.

Without this promise I believe Britain would have and would now be leaving the EU altogether.

So far only three currencies – have been able to become leading or dominant international currencies in the world’s history. Those that have done so tend to become monopolistic due to the centripetal forces derived from the existence of economies of scale, economies of scope and network externalities in their use.

The euro’s share in the world’s financial markets would receive a major boost if the UK were to adopt it, given London’s position as one of the world’s two leading financial markets, both in euros and in US dollars.

Furthermore, the UK has the EU’s second-largest GDP after Germany. In any case, the Euro Area (EA) is slowly expanding with the possibility of new EU members and other potential candidates joining in the future. At present, this is not the case with the US dollar.

The EU and the EA are only unions of independent nations and not a federal state, it will be extremely difficult to overtake the US dollar and maintain a dominant international role while the governance of the EU and EA remains unchanged.

Although in every country the currency is used by its citizens because it has the full guarantee of the State that issues it, in the international markets this guarantee is not a sufficient condition to make it of preferred use.

So the question is should the Uk be required to join the Euro irrelevant  of its own conditions to do so if it vote to remain.

Stage one would be the transition from the pound to the euro.

The most important part of this process, to fix the right level for the pound to join at, joining the euro at the wrong rate would penalise British manufacturers, while those already in the single currency were concerned that too cheap a rate for sterling entry would hand an added competitive advantage to the UK’s strong financial services sector.

The key to the Euro success will be to develop a wider export base, which means going beyond the euro zone itself.Afficher l'image d'origine

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: SHAKESPEARE QUESTION “TO BE OR NOT TO BE” HAS COME BACK TO HAUNT ENGLAND.

26 Thursday May 2016

Posted by in England EU Referendum IN or Out., Uncategorized

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: SHAKESPEARE QUESTION “TO BE OR NOT TO BE” HAS COME BACK TO HAUNT ENGLAND.

Tags

 

The main reason for Britain joining the EU was for the economic benefits, so obviously it shows that in the age of globalisation and increased competitiveness, Britain cannot act alone.

Perhaps IS BEST THAT we look at it from the EUROPEAN SIDE.

Why because there are two EUs in Britain.Afficher l'image d'origine

One is bashed in the Sun and the Daily Mail every day for ripping off Britain, sending over hordes of unwanted migrants, and forcing Brits to eat regulation square tomatoes.

The other is so deeply embedded in the UK’s legislation, business, trade, and foreign policy that most people do not notice it’s there.Afficher l'image d'origine

So what if any effect will there be on the EU if England votes to leave or stay.

The EU will lose some membership fees provide less for its members at a higher cost.

If Britain leaves it will be  easier for other countries to insist on their own special exceptions – for example, to the deficit and debt “requirements” established in the Maastricht Treaty – Brexit could pose serious problems for the EU’s future evolution.

Both Britain and the EU will It will a portion of their trading market which in turn, will weaken the Europe’s economic region.

The EU will save billions in EU subsidies to English farmers and lose some fishing rights.

The EU could counter one of England’s most controversial provisions to stay in ( Britain to withhold in-work benefits from EU migrants who have been there for less than four years) by increasing trading tariffs.

If it leaves or stays the EU will have to own up to its failures, damaging the political idea of the EU and disturbing the self-satisfied dust that has settled over Brussels.

Britain if it stays in does not want to be committed to further political integration into the European Union which potentially lead other countries to reassess their own membership.

If it leaves the EU could charge the English for European visas unless the UK accepts free movement of people. A British builder, or scholar, or artist, or businessman, does not need a special permit to live in Paris, Barcelona or Berlin.

Britain was one of the founders of the European Court of Human Rights in 1959. These rights were established by the European Convention on Human Rights, signed by Britain and much influenced by British jurists. An English withdrawal from the European Arrest Warrant could mean it takes longer to extradite suspects from other European countries.

Then there is Sterling; If it leaves it will become more volatile, trade flows may be diverted or delayed, and some investment in British trade-related industries would be put on hold.

And of course Sovereignty. It is not absolute, inside the union or outside it. Just look at Facebook transferring all your personal data to American Servers.

You if you have not noticed are living in world where Data is King.

One more thing worthy of note. Not Immigration, Not the NHS, Not the lack of housing, not the strain on Services, ENERGY.

IF THE VOTE IS FOR OUT: YOU CAN BE CERTAIN THAT THE EDF AND THE CHINESE SOVEREIGNTY FUNDS WILL ABANDON HINKLEY POINT AND ALL OTHER PROJECTS.

There would be no more complaints from Britain against member states if they feel their rights have been breached.

It could save funds by the cancellation of UK European Health Insurance Cards.

It Britain goes the EU will have to admit that its hard-and-fast ground rules in order for states to participate, — say, keeping below a maximum debt level in order to retain membership in the euro zone have being broken willy nilly. Its member states of today have pretty much broke every one of these rules.

Already, EU members – especially the euro zone countries – have been avoiding concrete action to resolve their interdependent economic, social, banking, debt, and currency crises.

If the vote is for out a future re-entry, if desirable, would be difficult to negotiate (perhaps especially given European leaders’ desire to deter other member states from following the UK’s example).

The choice comes down to : Do you want to be a hostage to the bloc’s failing fortunes? or wallowing in memories of faded pomp and circumstance.

The Question is: To be or not to be “European.”

You are right to say that the EU is not worth staying in without fundamental reform.

And reform cannot be achieved from without.

Will Britain leave the European Union?https://youtu.be/VDij4vbS5ng