Tag Archives: European Union

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S IS ENGLAND ENTERING A GOLDEN ERA IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE?

17 Friday Jul 2020

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., 2020: The year we need to change., Brexit., COVID-19, Disconnection., Donald John Trump, Economic Depression., European Union., Heredity Monarchy., homelessness., Human values., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Nigel Farage., Pandemic, Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Post-Covid-19, President of the USA., Reality., Refugees., Robot citizenship., Sleeping Rough., Sovereign wealth fund, Technology v Humanity, Telling the truth., The common good., THE NEW NORM., The Obvious., The USA., Trade Agreements., Truth, Truthfulness., Unanswered Questions., VALUES, WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

    (Four-minute read) 

Here is a country that is losing its marbles.

In an interconnected world where there is no such thing as sovereignty because globalization means that nation-states submit themselves to international treaties and international agreements that are not always in their best interests.  

The recent economic crisis that started in 2007 and now the coming economic depression and the continuing pandemic will prove that sovereignty of nations being subsumed by international bodies cuts both ways as the global economy is tightly interconnected and hence, cannot be regulated by nations in isolation.

Here is a country that on 30 June 1997,  the final embers of its empire came to an end with the 99- years lease on Hong Kong’s New Territories.

Never before has a country passed a colony directly to a communist regime that does not even pretend to respect conventional democratic values.

However the British Empire – for all its messy crimes and misdemeanors – was equally praiseworthy.

The empire was and is not just a story of domination and subjection but something more complicated: the creation of novel or hybrid societies in which notions of governance, economic assumptions, religious values and morals, ideas about property, and conceptions of justice, conflicted and mingled, to be reinvented, refashioned, tried out or abandoned.

The question is are we now to witnessing the final act. 

The non-recognition of England is already being used by its national broadcasting company the BBC referring to England as the four nations.  

In fact, England is already fragmented.

English nationalists if such a thing exists appear to be blind to the breakup of England.

Today, a hundred years on, the world is witnessing remarkable self-destruction in England.

An uneasy transition has or is taking place, from a decaying colonial legacy to a country that sees life through platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, and Instagram lies, manipulation, in every area…..with a global crisis forming, which is not just a Pandemic but an Economic depression with mass unemployment.

The question now is whether British people can continue to play their part in the development of the modern world. 

It has to pump trillions of quantitative easing money into its banks at the cost of ten years of Austerity. Dumping the EU its largest market on the results of a non-legally- totally false informed non legally binding referendum while building two Aircraft carriers and replacing worthless nuclear submarines, while 8.4 million its people alone are living in sub-standard housing with 400,000 people are either homeless or at risk of being homeless relying on foodbanks. 

The people themselves – about half who no longer give a rat’s a— about England, who are now hellbent on their smartphones, Ipads, creating an unrealistic, relativistic, melting pot utopia.

These people will be living on the English purse for some time, not the stuff of which national pride is made. They have other priorities dedicated to its demise. 

One would have to wonder why migrants risking life and limb to get here. 

Perhaps it because all the servants are leaving. 

These are the strange things happening, that demonstrate quite clearly what is wrong with Britain – and, probably, the rest of the ‘developed’ world, both devotion to business and profit, not people. 

“We convinced many countries, many countries – and I did this myself for the most part – not to use Huawei because we think it’s an unsafe security risk,” the US president Donald Dump said.

(This is a man who seems to wake up every morning wondering what controversy he can provoke, what headlines he can create.

Diplomacy, or the lack of it, can be a complicated business. We’ve learned that from observing Donald Trump.

Both his campaign and presidency is marked by bursts of false and outrageous allegations, personal insults, xenophobic nationalism, unapologetic sexism and positions that shift according to his audience and his whims.

This is a man far more consumed with himself than with the nation’s well-being.

From that moment of combustion, it became clear that Mr. Trump’s views were matters of dangerous impulse and cynical pandering rather than thoughtful politics.)

With the UK now becoming the US junior partner, (one of the most unreliable partners for any country) who cares when a phenomenal’ trade deal beyond Nigel Farage is promised, providing it sends its new aircraft carrier Queen Elizabeth to the South China Seas with American warplanes, and supplies the Arabs with bombs to finish off Yeham.   

It’s one thing to get rid of the Chinese firm Huawei and its 5G infrastructure and in return to sour the world’s second-largest economy behind the US, which has more money in the bank than any other country. 

Indeed three of the world’s 10 biggest sovereign wealth funds are Chinese, together holding more than $1.5tn (£988bn) in assets.

Not too long ago the UK was one of China’s favorite places to invest – not anymore. 

Beijing’s ambassador to London, Liu Xiaoming, warned: “China wants to be UK’s friend and partner. But if you treat China as a hostile country, you would have to bear the consequences.”

 China operates an Authoritarian form of capitalism against Anglo – American capitalism which is the root of the problem. Global supremacy.

China’s investments may well be subordinate to its National Development and reform commission, but the staggering truth of Huawei is that the US does not want China to be a superpower when it comes to technology.

With the pandemic being used to push the protection of businesses the world population will eventually be tracked.  

Both the US and England might well end up as viewed as failed states due to the handling of the COVID-19 with both countries ending up with up distant and withdrawn people far from enhanced by COVID-19.

Not too long ago, the UK did a 79 million deal to import pig semen from China for stemcell research.

Its not stemcell research it needs. It needs a lot of fixing but isn’t that what the next four years are going to be about?

What is needs is some Face Recognition and a written constitution.  All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S; BRAVO SOCIAL MEDIA ENGLAND IS NOW WELL ON THE WAY TO BECOMING A TWEET ON THE GLOBAL STAGE.

21 Saturday Dec 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(Seven-minute read)

 

Brexit is now set to become the best optical illusion of 2010.

But don’t panic there are still plenty of blatant lies to be told before it severs all ties with the European Union.

The path to a hard Brexit will now be paved with lots of them.

Parlement no longer has a say in the negotiations with the European Union. They now can’t really deliver anything except their own opinions.

Politically, Brexit represents a rise in the disgruntlement of the average person: the working or lower-middle-class citizen, who feels unheard, left behind, disenfranchised.

This is sneered at as “populism”

Apart from in Britain, populism has manifested itself with the election of Donald Trump in the US. This is terrifying. There is Marine le Pen in France, who is not going away.

So if Britain has the nerve to pull a no-deal Brexit, Europe can do nothing about it.

The European Union after decades of good neighbourly relations will have no option but to treat Britain like an adversary- trade wise.

Why?

Because Border disruption does not stop at customs checks.

Because if it concedes or gets embroiled in piecemeal cherry-picking trade deal it will lose all creditability, leading to a Singapore economy operating on its doorstep with tit-for-tat tariffs.

The result will be a cultivated facade that is going to require countries to be extremely careful in dealing with the British Government.

So where are we?

BREXIT was 90% about the UK itself, and 10% about the EU. With the withdrawal agreement passed this no longer applies.

Maybe the European Union can continue as if nothing had happened, but it won’t be the smart thing to do.

The EU can survive Brexit but to do so it must reform and reform very very quickly.

The smart thing to do would be to use this opportunity to make a structural adjustment, make the “ever deeper union” with the original four countries, and understand that the rest of the EU members only want the trade.

Thus the risk to the European Union would not be primarily in Brussels but in the domestic political landscape of the member states.

Its only course of action is a comprehensive trade deal not just with England but with London, or no deal.

As a no-deal will risk stripped London of their lucrative EU “passports” that allow them to sell services to the rest of the union it will have to join the single market or the European Economic Area that encapsulates the EU and non-members such as Norway. That will, in turn, requires accepting freedom of movement.

Or the City can go it alone and operate in a much looser regulatory environment.

Currently, London is the undisputed market leader in Euro – denominated derivatives, worth billions. It clears a whopping 972bn euro-worth of Euro-denominated contracts a day. Not to mention the employment it creates.

There are a number of potential scenarios, including that the current status quo prevails and the UK carries on trading with the EU under existing free movement principles. “That outcome is not beyond the realms of possibility,”

However, that means freedom of movement for goods, people and capital between the UK and EU will continue to operate. For millions of people who campaigned and voted for leaving the EU, this is will be difficult to accept.

By staying in the single market and customs union, the UK would be liable to EU rules and legislation regarding the free movement of goods, services and people across borders. Plus, it could put the UK in the dangerous position of still having to accept EU economic and political policy, while at the same time denying the UK a seat at the negotiating table.

Brexit damages both the EU and the UK. But the Brexit damage is greater to the UK.

Countries that have preferential trade deals with the EU but have not yet agreed to roll over those benefits for British exporters in the event of a “no-deal” Brexit. Still, more losses could come if Britain failed to conclude rollover deals with Vietnam and the MERCOSUR countries of Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay, which have recently signed trade agreements with the EU.

However, regions in Ireland face the most severe Brexit consequences, with potential economic exposure on par with the impact on regions of the U.K. that are currently most dependent on ties to the EU.

The UK could still end up being forced to comply with EU laws and regulations, as is the case with Norway and Iceland.

We are all looking at a disorderly world and you don’t have to be a blinkered horse to know that the digital age favours the fast and the small over the inflexible slow-moving bureaucratic.

The question should be “Will England be Part of Europe” instead of “Is England a Part of Europe“.

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

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; IS THE NEW GREEN DEAL PRIMARILY A PETTY-BOURGEOIS ATTEMPT TO RESCUE CAPITALISM BY THE METHODS OF SOCIAL REFORMISTS UNDER THE CLOAK OF CLIMATE CHANGE?

09 Wednesday Oct 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Climate Change., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Environment, European Union., Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., Inequality, Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Purchasing Power., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Internet., The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., Wealth., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read) 

In politics, nothing happens by accident.

These days in the higher ethylene of the political world it seems you must be an accomplished liar and not a far-seeing planner to be successful.

With the advent of social media people’s day-to-day exposure to political discussion and disagreement has increased dramatically.

However what is worrying is that technology in the form of social media, the smartphone is continuing to create a contemporary problem that large sections of the public want ‘democracy’ but without the ‘politics.

As a result, were are seeing fake news driving populist politics that has no longterm objectives. 

There is nothing new about fake news it has been prevalent down the ages but the days when a lot of us believe that many of the major world events that are shaping our destinies occur because somebody or somebodies have planned them that way are all but disappeared.

However, with the media making very little effort to explain political decisions, rather than just jumping on any perceived gaffe or conflict ‘democracy’ remains an incredibly positive notion. 

With the public no longer thinking about the world within the silos of government departments governments need to engage people in solutions rather than top-down ‘vote for us and we’ll provide the answers.

Younger people don’t just copy their parents’ tribal loyalties. Voting is more like shopping, with preferences changing on a quim of twitter on social media.  

Unfortunately, our present-day political system has not yet caught up, it offers limited choice. What happens in between elections is for all attentive purposes driven by the smartphone that are monitored by unregulated algorithms owned by you know who.

What is been ignored is that this digital space in all its diversity represents a huge opportunity with the power to engage people in new ways. Online participation in local decision-making is one possibility. This would involve citizens outside election time-.

So we need to understand all the ways people behave and respond in the digital space and set clear and realistic goals for what they hope to accomplish.

However, people are now becoming slow and slower to engage with the internet due to the lack of security/ privacy/and a source of truth.

Why?

Because Capitalism is spending billion on digital marketing each year, and for good reason. Digital media has enormous power to reach and influence people. Over 2 billion people—about one-third of the global population—now access the Internet.

We all know if we are to avoid extinction due to climate change which poses real risks to our collective future we need a green energy transformation.

The problem is that behind a veneer of objectivity, Capitalism as always sees an opportunity to make a profit – Carbon Credits for instance, with more and more consumerism products being promoted as good for the environment 

With all the political goodwill the transfer to low carbon emission can only be achieved by offering citizens a means to get involved other than protesting.

How can this be done?

We must allow people to exercise democratic control over their money, finance, working conditions and environment ie De-politicising decision-making by limiting capitalism’s worst failing- profit for profit sake.

To have authentic democracy!

Citizens must be afforded the opportunity to get involved not just politically, but financially by creating Green Energy European Bonds that cannot be traded.  

These bonds will allow citizens to regain control over unaccountable ‘technocrats’, complicit politicians and shadowy institutions.

They can be sold like lotto tickets. Forging a common agenda.

Emancipating citizens from all levels of government from bureaucratic and corporate power. Allowing direct investment into shared, green prosperity.

Politics has never been popular and never will be:

The more disengaged, the less likely that political parties will deliver. 

We’re able to measure things in a way that we’ve never been able to measure them before. So why not measure the wealth of a nation by the financial investment support it gets from its citizen’s. Rather than encompassing every possible thing that can go under the rubric of “green.

I suppose my goal here is to propose something vague enough that no one will object to it.

Have you wondered how you got to where you are today?

Greed.

Is technology taking control of our lives or our destiny?

Yes.  We’ve ditched reality.

The very data on which we measure the economy is disconnected from

the reality, with political leaders using high soaring” words “which often

imbibe emptiness.

Communication and leadership are key elements in elections these days

but you can’t sell a bad product, can you? 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: THESE DAY’S IS THERE ANYTHING SUCH AS POLITICAL SCIENCE.

30 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Elections 2019, Fake News., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Robot citizenship., Social Media, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

( Twenty-minute read)

 

Call it what you want:

Political Science,  Political theory, Comparative Politics, International Relations, Political Methodology. It all leaves you scratching your head and wondering what is Political Science exactly?

Political Science is a social science that focuses on government institutions and political behaviour, but how exactly did it come about?

When one watches gatherings such as the G7/8 of world leader one would have to ask where are we going.

Every major media outlet has a political scientist on call to commentate about likely voter reactions to the candidates’ stances on hot-button issues.

The behavioural models that political scientists create can practically forecast the outcome of an election before a single vote has been cast.

However in the 21st, it means “democracy”, is the crowd-sourcing of politics run by algorithms.

So political science is governed by five myths:

That it is possible to study politicsn> That it is scientific > That it is possible to study politics separated off from economics, sociology, psychology and history > That the state in our democratic capitalist society is politically neutral, that is available as a set of institutions and mechanisms to whatever group wins the election > That political science, as a discipline, advances the cause of democracy.

For me it is “superficial and trivial”, and that concept formation and development is “little more than hair-splitting and jargon”

These days we are told if something can’t be measured, then that’s not it, and if an event didn’t happen twice, then it didn’t happen.

One way or the other all the more interesting questions falling outside the bounds of scientific investigation, the internet age is gradually forcing itself upon our leaders but it is unlikely to make them reconnect with voters “less because they see the light, and more because they are beginning to feel the heat”.

For all the talk about politics, political science has never decided what exactly it should study.

The result is that many trivial matters receive an inordinate amount of attention and many important ones go untreated like climate change.

In short, political science seems to have turned around the order in which any person not trained in the discipline would try to answer the questions.

We will soon learn that political science is not about the real world but only about those features of the world that can be studied by methods deemed to be scientific.

“What should I study?” and “How should I study it?”.

What has political science found out about the political sphere that we didn’t know before, or that isn’t abysmally trivial?

It makes even the worst real-world inequalities acceptable (not worth bothering about) by rendering them irrelevant to the task at hand. Guess to whose benefit?

Few things are more important to the legitimation of capitalist rule than the assurance given by political science that the dictatorship of the capitalist class in which we live is really a democratic state of the whole people.

If political science really wishes to advance the cause of democracy (as one of the myths of our discipline already has it doing), we should help people understand that the main barrier to democracy today is capitalism.

Given the importance of the capitalist context for everything that goes on inside it, this is also a first step toward making our research truly scientific, that is capable of uncovering how the state and politics really work, and how—with the democratization of undemocratic capitalist relations of production, distribution and exchange—they might yet come to work for everyone.

Now here is a non-trivial agenda worthy of political science that aspires to advance the cause of democracy through the use of scientific

The rational choice carries the miniaturization of political science one step further by dismissing what people actually do politically and concentrating on their decisions to do it,

We see news reports, headlines in the papers and if one checks the details you find that the headlines are misleading or half-truths.

I accept that all news, in whatever medium, is subject to some editorial bias but the days of reporting the facts dispassionately are gone due to social media.

Take Brexit for example:

Parties that had strong collective identities are now falling asunder all being lead by popularism into political cul-de-sacs. The loyalty and cohesion of political parties now depend much more on short term smartphone mass memberships.

The results are tragi-comedy modernisation and public mistrusted.

This is what motivated the In or Out referendum not an understanding of the long term consequences.

Annexing subjects like the European Union affects all lives in countless ways –

I don’t think that any political science predicted a Party without power or fame the Brexit Party. It now represents a piece of evidence about how the ground is shifting.

Thus to ask today, in the middle of Mitteleuropa, where political science has been heading is also to ask whether the new beginnings of the discipline in Eastern Europe should or should not follow the path entered by our “big brother,”

The digital revolution will do to grand planners in the West what the collapse of Communism did to socialist planners in the old Soviet bloc”.

THE PROBLEM IS:

Are we somehow going to see sense and see through the lies?

How have rampant inequalities shaped electoral campaigns and promises?

We don’t need political science to say that global climate change is real.

If you don’t believe it you’re anti-facts.

THE ONLY SOLUTION IS, to open up politics with the right of “recall” against MPs with whom constituents were dissatisfied.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: ARE WE LOOKING NOT JUST AT THE BEGINS OF A FAILED STATE BUT THE FINAL DEATH THROBS OF A EMPIRE

26 Monday Aug 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Capitalism, Climate Change., Democracy, Environment, European Commission., European Union., Fourth Industrial Revolution., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, The essence of our humanity., The new year 2109, The Obvious., The Queen., The state of the World., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

The British Empire was the largest in history existing from the sixteenth century into the twentieth century.

Unfortunately, it squandered all that it acquired on a victorian class system.

Queen Elizabeth II

It killed with famine, sword and fire more people than Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, Hitler or Stalin.

In the defence of its imperial interests, it precipitated in two World Wars.

Now it is presiding with “Mad cow disease” it’s very own self-destruction.

At stake are fundamental ideas about British sovereignty and whether in a

a progressively globalized world in which some claimed that the individual

the nation-state was becoming unviable with the can sovereignty in its

existing forms remain intact.

Queen Elizabeth II in 1992, referred to the year as the royal family’s “annus horribilis.”

SHE WAS WRONG.

Why?

Because along came a five-year austerity plan aimed at reducing the country’s massive deficit, which had been fueled by bank bailouts and stimulus spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis and resultant recession which resulted in 52 per cent of voters opting to leave the EU, (making the United Kingdom the first country to ever do so)

Manufactured by Magie Thatcher who turned the market into replacing society as the model of state governance. 

Not surprising as worldwide political culture has in fact transformed from one based on class to a new sort of populist, demotic politics, shaped at least as much by the mass media, especially the popular press, as by the politicians.

A sort of firestorm has broken out not just in Brazil but all over the world.

Why?

Because the relationship between public culture and consumer capitalism, while the very Earth itself is struggling with climate change has been close, in many ways the one constantly trying to outguess the other.

This game of one-upmanship, marked by ironic knowingness, has been labelled “postmodern, Brexit or Donal Trump trade wars”.

It points to the growing understanding of the relative nature of truth, itself a reaction against the prevailing supposedly “modern” certainties of the 20th century (reason, freedom, humanity, and truth itself), which indeed have often had and are having appalling outcomes.

However, it is a sign of the times that these antifundamentalist currents, themselves critical of much of Western culture, emerged at much the same time as new fundamentalisms emerged in the forms of American neoconservatism and certain strains of radical Islam. The ferment of intellectual and cultural changes involved are inextricable from the massive changes underway in the transition to the novel forms of society made possible by new information technologies.

What the Smartphone and Social Media have and are doing since the 1960s onward for Africa are also unravelling England and the EU with the perception of poor economic performance and calls for the modernization of not just for British society and the British economy but the EU and the world at large.

Both England and the European Union need to reform.

Optimism only carries you so far.

History rhymes rather than repeats are what is required.

A society where elites are widely loathed, where the political parties are polarized by demographic echoes is on the brink of collapse.

Why?

Now as then — much more now than then, in fact — there is a pervasive mistrust of institutions, a sense that governments are rotting from the head down.

The abject failure of rulers in improving human values has resulted in a downgrading of human to sub-human levels with a race to expect dishonest money is the net result of the ultimate degradation of society.

How do you trick someone into giving you something they have?

First, you offer them something worthless, while convincing them that actually much better than what they have. Second, you convince them that what they do have is worthless.

This is a typical approach used by both con artists and governments.

These huge scams are just diversions from the ultimate crime Climate change.

Our survival instinct has to quickly override our conditioned naiveté and passivity that has been bred into us. We are not just threatened as countries but as species at the same time.

A twitter/ facebook driven world will be a world of shallow values- unravelling our societies.

The thin veneer of civilization that we all depend upon on a daily basis is disappearing at a staggering pace and its not just the melting of ice.

The question now is.

Do we follow the trodden path where we only find all the grass eaten?

Creativity and imagination are what is needed as we are not getting across the problems of probability.

How we discuss and what we discuss is vital.

We must know the facts. We need a world brain bus.

Who is more likely to embrace the marginalized, to work for the disenfranchised?

Who will work for those of all backgrounds, all races and ethnicities, all religions, sexual preferences, gender identities?

Who will work to promote respect and equality for all people in the World?

Who sends a message that I want our children to believe in?

The rich and the poor, the entitled and the marginalized—they all make up the threads that a country needs to weave a unified society. When not include we weaken the material that fabricates our entire fabric of the world.

There has never been such a thing as an empire only a company called East India Company merchants. The British Empire did not exist in the Middle Ages. In the early Middle Ages, England was part of other empires: 

The British Empire was a commercial, not a military or political one.

Originally, holding an empire was about power. Throughout history, kings and queens have invaded territories in order to gain strength and power. With colonies, a country gains space, a larger army, more trade markets and the chance to make money out of whatever resources are on offer in them.

The formation of the empire was thus an unorganized process based on piecemeal acquisition, sometimes with the British government being the least willing partner in the enterprise.

An ‘Empire’ is a group of countries ruled over by a single monarch or ruling power. An empire doesn’t need an ’emperor’. The British Empire comprised of Britain, the ‘mother country’, and the colonies, countries ruled to some degree by and from Britain.

(British Empire, a worldwide system of dependencies—colonies, protectorates, and other territories—that over a span of some three centuries was brought under the sovereignty of the crown of Great Britain and the administration of the British government.)

To this day Britain’s ‘cultural imperialism’, suggesting that it was based on nationalism and racist scorn for other people.

With a handshake and the commitment “On the word of an Englishman,”
Captain James Cook claimed it for the British crown.In the century 1815–1914, 10 million square miles of territory and 400 million people were added to the British Empire. By the British Empire Exhibition of 1924, Britain was the ‘Mother Country’ of a worldwide empire which covered a fifth of the land in the world, and Britannia ‘ruled the waves’.

Sorry but Empires have benefited no one nor will any future trade deals that are not attached to sustainability do anything to resolve Climate change.

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

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: IS ENGLAND ABOUT TO LOOSE THE PLOT.

02 Friday Aug 2019

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

In 1975 the UK held a referendum on continued membership of the European Community. This wasn’t presented just as a trade agreement.

Other issues discussed at the time related to security, European funding for UK industries and regions, and aid to developing countries.

That’s not to say that anyone in 1975 knew what the EU would be like in 2019, or how much it would change in the following years.

The EU has grown from 9 European Community member countries in 1975 to 28 today.

Of the five main institutions which run the EU today, four were in place by 1975: the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union, the European Commission and the Court of Justice. Other bodies have been added since, including the European Council which defines the political direction and agenda of the EU.

Since 1975, the UK has signed up to five more “main treaties” which have extended the powers of what became the European Community and then the EU.

Every EU country, including the UK, agreed to these.

The EU now has “competences” or powers in a wider range of policies including consumer protection, energy and climate change, security and crime. In some areas, the EU’s powers are exclusive, while in others they are shared with, or support, member states’ decisions.

However, in 1975 the aims of the European Community largely concerned trade.

The British government has voted against EU laws 2% of the time since 1999.

If the UK leaves without a deal, all changes.

A no-deal well might be a bluff in the British government’s negotiations with the EU but it will unleash forces throughout Ireland and indeed the UK that England will be struggling with for years to come.

People like Boris have no understanding that a no-deal will be a recruiting sergeant for the disaffected to join the ranks of those committed to violent resistance no more so than in Northern Ireland.

You might ask why people like Boris have no or little concept of the Ugly side of Brexit.

The reason for this in regard to Ireland is plain to see. It is that Britain still thinks that Ireland should know its place.

The Political class of the UK still thinks that Ireland is a British colony and this strain of thought can still be seen to this day with Brexit.

Ireland is servile to Britain.

This is why England shows such disregard for the consequences of British political action on the economic and political stability of Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

The real test is yet to come.

How the EU respond to the challenges which Brexit is creating for Ireland will determine whether the EU is indeed true to what it was set up for in the first place.

Any tampering, bulling or cherry-picking with the agreed backstop to appease an outgoing Britain Primister that has taken power with 0.02% of the electric can only be viewed as suicidal.

Indeed any agreement made with such a democratic leader cannot hold any water.

Come what may if a no-deal is the preference why not let it be so the.

The cost of a deal will, in the long run, outweigh a chaotic departure.

There is no such thing as a clean exit other than WTO agreements.

Under WTO countries cannot normally discriminate between their trading partners.

Grant someone a special favour (such as a lower customs duty rate for one of their products) and you have to do the same for all other WTO members. Most favoured nation terms mean that any concession the EU offers to one of its trading partners should also be applied to other partners. So if a tariff is cut for one partner, it should also be cut for all others, including the UK.

Countries which have a relationship based on WTO terms alone have much less favourable access to the EU Single Market. The EU imposes a common external tariff on countries outside. ( Remain)

The UK and the EU would still have a deal. An automatic deal under the all-embracing World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

How?

Because the UK and EU are both WTO members in their own right and the WTO specifies WTO members must offer each other ‘Most Favoured Nation’ (MFN) deals.” (Leave)

Leave without a deal and the future rules on trade would depend on what kind of agreement if any, the UK reaches with the EU after its departure.

This means we simply do not know what barriers to trade in goods might be put in place or that matter the future trade rules on services.

This is because even at present for many service sector industries, the single market is far from complete and obstacles remain to true integration of the market.

Although there have been major adjustments to the original Treaty framework, the Single Market principles, as first conceived in 1958, have remained largely intact.

THEN WE COME TO THE BLAME GAME AS ALWAYS IT WILL TAKE TWO TO TANGO.

“Everybody lies.” It’s pretty easy just to lie and blame someone else even though you know you’re at fault. When you don’t succeed you find someone or something to blame for your failure. At the end of the day, someone has to pay.

The taxpayer.

The Political Class against the great unwashed – the voter.

Boris has found the backstop but the answer might be closer to home than most people care to admit. After all, as has been proved time and time again, the electorate always ends up with the politicians it deserves.

The more often you play the blame game, the more you lose

However much it hurts, voters must take their share of the blame.

That voters are angry and feel ‘betrayed’ rests entirely on their own heads.

The UK’s political duopoly no longer answers to the electorate, but now works exclusively on behalf of its global-corporate donors and has done for some time.

With a no-deal Britain will become  ‘politically homeless,’ a psychological cul-de-sac constructed by individuals unwilling to engage all but superficially with the political process.

The tone surrounding Brexit has become increasingly bitter and accusatory in the last week.

Social media is overflowing with anger – at least from those who voted to leave the European Union. Who to blame – bureaucrats, civil servants, politicians, business leaders? Frustration is boiling over while the pound is heading for free fall and free speech dangles by a thread.

In order to succeed liars and charlatans like Boris first have to be believed. It’s a two-way thing. While swallowing the bait is easy, taking a step back to assess the evidence is always a much harder task, one that requires a certain degree of diligence as well as independence.

It’s not as if Brexit is the first time the Tories have said one thing and done another either.

The modern Tory party is abandoning its political heritage, it now openly derides and scorns the very principles upon which it has been established for 200 years.

The political blame game has started over the responsibility for a chaotic no-deal exit.

You could say that the EU is “not interested in the blame game.

Any further extension will only be given by Europe to give it time to prepare for a no-deal. In doing so it will ensure that Britain takes ownership of the no-deal and the responsibility for setting it right.

For the EU countries with the deepest trade ties with Britain — Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, France, and Belgium — there are no illusions about how messy and costly a no-deal Brexit will be.

But hard Brexit will amount to an overnight legal revolution, and officials admit it is impossible to be fully prepared to manage the disorder after Brexit.Anti-Brexit placards are seen during the demonstration outside Parliament

There is one thing for sure with a no-deal it will not be so easy to keep a grip on political events.

We should not underestimate the disorder and destabilisation there may be on both sides.

In today’s world, many of the threats to Britain’s security are global in nature.

Luckily there is one last hope.

Boris and his lot in a week have done more damage than Irish republicans, scots nationists. Three years ago he complained that the government spent £9 m on leaflets now is blowing £138m on billboards that should read ” Taxpayers Money”

So wake up Britain what is being done is in your name there is no allocating blame.

A General Election is definite after which the anger has to go somewhere.

Brexit will fail and stay will not be an option.

WTO must be answers and solutions to this General election Brexit vote.

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. JUST HOW BAD WILL BE SEVERING TIES WITH THE EU BE FOR ENGLAND AND THE EU?

01 Monday Jul 2019

Posted by in Brexit Language., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

We all know or at least most of us accept that we will be the first chapter in a world that is going to need universal cooperation to battle climate change.

We all know that the world economy is dominated by Global capitalism that is running out of cheap resources and energy becoming more and more protective of its market share.

So just how bad will severing ties with the EU be?

Look at the small print.

We all have come across people who have next to no understanding of world events – but- talk with the utmost confidence and convection. So in this post lets look at the shallowness of their existing knowledge when it comes to Brexit.The EU has warned a no-deal departure from the bloc [File: Isabel Infantes/AFP]

At the moment, there’s still a ton of confusion.

We now have political arguments all basis on false premises with minimal understanding of the issues at hand.

What is completely overlooked is that the United Kingdom’s narrow vote to exit the European Union was as a result of a referendum that was not actually legally binding.

The government could have simply decided to ignore the result.

Instead, it activating Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty making the process irreversible unless it is revoked.

So what are the true facts around a no- deal?

A no- deal Brexit means there will be no 21-month transition period. It doesn’t stop the UK leaving but it means there is absolutely no clarity about what happens.

A no– deal means while Britain would no longer be bound by EU rules, it will have to face the EU’s external tariffs with WTO.

A no- deal means the UK would be free to set its own controls on immigration by EU nationals and the bloc could do the same for Britons.

A no- deal means Britain would no longer have to adhere to the rulings of the European Court of Justice but it would be bound to the European Court of Human Rights, a non-EU body.

A no- deal means England would not have to pay the annual £13 billion contributions to the EU budget. However, Britain would lose out on some EU subsidies – the Common Agricultural Policy gives £3 billion to farmers.

A no- deal means the issue of the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic would remain unresolved. Northern Ireland is even at risk of blackouts because no deal would undermine the legal basis of the all-island electricity market it shares with the Irish Republic.

A no- deal means Britain could implement trade deals whenever the fine print is ready. But deals take years, not months or weeks, to broker. Therefore the UK is not going to gaining anything by having no transition period in this instance.

A no- deal means an emergency cut in interest rates to combat inflation.

A no- deal means Britain’s supermarkets, will simply pass on the cost to the farmers who in the short term to stay in business, won’t be able to do so without subsidies.

A no- deal means EU research and development funding could dry up.

A no-deal will chill investment in the UK, hitting jobs, and that manufacturers will abandon Britain for the continent.

A no- deal will throw the fishing industry into disarray. It is no exaggeration to say that the UK has done relatively poorly out of is membership of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP).

A no- deal means no matter from what angle England approached trade the lack of resources to renegotiate the dozens of deals already signed between the EU and third countries. It is a total fallacy to think England can copycat present EU trade deals. 50 at a time.

A no- deal means that that the EU may not be willing to renegotiate its rules of origin agreements with other countries for British benefit, especially because its own exporters might be able to take market share from British ones in countries outside Europe.

A no- deal means that all WTO trade deals include a “most favoured nation” (MFN) clause, which mean that if one partner signs a better trade deal with another country, all previous trade partners are entitled to the same upgrade.

A no- deal the UK cannot conclude binding agreements until it has left the EU, since it is still bound by the EU’s exclusive right to strike trade deals.

A no- deal means Britain would lose deeper access to services, as it would no longer participate in the 14 services agreements struck by the EU. (England currently has free trade agreements with EU’s 70 international trade deals, countries because of its EU membership.) You couldn’t get a bigger a contrast between the opportunities of EU membership and the emptiness of Brexit: the EU has reached a historic trade agreement with key emerging markets in Latin America while Tory leadership contenders brag about their plans for a no-deal Brexit.

Last Friday, the EU finally achieved a trade deal that has been 20 years in the making.

A no- deal means that the price of a trade deal with the USA will be so hight as to be unworkable.

A no- deal means there won’t be any money for farmers or anyone else if England crashes out because all the Treasury’s reserves will be needed to plug the hole left by Brexit in tax revenues.

A no- deal means wrecking the biggest trade deal England have already.

Most of the UK’s trade is with the EU or countries the EU has trade agreements with—about 57% of our exports and 66% of our imports. Countries aren’t exactly queueing up to do deals.

A no- deal means England can not set different rules for foreign and domestic products under WTO. The big exception is if countries have negotiated their own customs union or free trade area

A no- deal might lead to the break up of the United Kingdom with civil strife.

A no-deal could cut UK access to EU criminal databases.

A no- deal will empower the far right, with long-term implications for Britain’s democracy. Exacerbating populist pressures.

A no- deal means a Reality check for the EU.

A no- deal will inflict significant economic pain across Europe, no more so than on the Irish Economy.

A no- deal means the EU could be looking at a tax haven.

A no- deal means the EU budget will be reduced.

A no- deal means large EU subsidies to the Irish economy.

So where are we?

A free trade agreement will still have many negative consequences for both sides.

First, the devolved politics of Brexit are immensely complex and may turn out to be crucially important to what actually happens.

However ever as a matter of law, neither Scotland nor any of the UK’s other constituent nations can stop Brexit from happening. Because the UK Parliament is sovereign and can do as it wishes, the absence of consent from the Scottish Parliament would not legally disable Westminster from enacting Brexit legislation.

This is so because the “requirement” for consent is not a legal requirement at all: it is, ultimately, no more than a political expectation that the UK Parliament will respect the constitutional position of the Scottish Parliament by not riding roughshod over it in certain circumstances.

For present purposes, the Scottish Parliament’s powers are limited by EU law. And the argument is that if Brexit legislation enacted by the UK removes those limits — freeing the Scottish Parliament to make Scottish laws that breach EU law — then that alters the Scottish Parliament’s powers, so triggering the requirement to get its consent under the Sewel Convention.

There is no legal constitutional route for the devolved administrations to stall Brexit.

The only route is political rather than legal.

If Northern Ireland opted for reunification it would have the ability to rejoin the EU as part of the Republic of Ireland. Scotland would have to join the queue.

Where that leaves us?

It is all too easy to lose track of the amount of cash already poured into the British economy. So, goes the obvious question, where has all the money gone?

In some senses, the answer is relatively simple. Much of that cash has gone

into repairing a broken financial system.

So here, for any of you who might have forgotten, is a quick reminder: some £76bn from the Treasury to buy shares in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group ; £200bn worth of lender-of-last-resort liquidity support provided by the Bank of England to stricken banks at the height of the crisis; £250bn of wholesale lending guaranteed by the Bank through the credit guarantee scheme; £185bn of loans to banks through the Special Liquidity Scheme; £40bn of loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. Then, deep breath, there is the £200bn of liabilities taken on board from the Asset Protection Scheme, and the £200bn of cash poured into the economy through quantitative easing.

It is a stark reminder of why hopes of a quick recovery from the recession or a no deal are forlorn, and why both financial crises will cast a shadow over growth for years.

Add the cost of a no deal to the above and the list of consequences is not just long but beyond the pale.

If England wants the full reassertion of sovereignty, then that is going to mean setting new standards for things, and that is going to be economically damaging.

We are now witnessing a Conservative Party undemocratically electing a new leader who will defacto become Prime Minister with both remaining candidates insistent on Brexiting overturn decades of law giving Northern Ireland and Scotland (both of which voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU) local control over their affair.

The leadership contest is only complicated Britain’s withdrawal from the EU by adding more uncertainty to the state of affairs.

Unless they call an election, the Conservatives are safely in power until 2020, and calling an election to get Brexit overturned would not just risk a Labour victory, it would probably only work if Labour won.

Scotland is already planning to hold another independence referendum, and seeing devolution curtailed would make its success much more likely. Northern Irish republicans would be emboldened to call for unification with the Republic of Ireland, which could occur, or they could just reignite the Troubles after decades of peace.

The cost of not listening to them would be to split the UK.

More than 2 million have signed a petition calling for a second referendum which at this stage will achieve nothing other than more division.

The Conservatives do not want another election, especially since they have yet to actually split. If they don’t split, their leader will probably be Johnson, who supports Brexit and whose election would not exactly be a mandate to overturn the referendum result.

If bye the end of October a no deal has been reached, the UK automatically exits the European Union without any special deal letting it retain trade preferences or other benefits.

The Brexit vote is proof that when emotions battle reason in a voting booth, emotions can win. Brexit had a very powerful emotion on its side — fear of outsider and loss of identity.

However, the anti-immigrant sentiment is itself somewhat irrational in a world where cultural integration is more common than ever before in human history. In prehistoric times, this is what kept us safe. In the modern age, it’s what nudges us toward bigotry. In recent years, politicians have gotten more effective at painting immigrants as dangerous outsiders. Look no further than Donald Trump. Or his UK counterpart, Nigel Farage, the politician who has stoked fears by asserting thing like Muslims “don’t want to become part of our culture.”

You can fight anecdotes with anecdotes we’re not doomed to succumb to them.

Trumpism or the Brexit is not “the ultimate manifestation of something that evolution has programmed England to do.

Britain can have an economically decent outcome from a Brexit vote or a democratically decent one, but it can’t get both.

The EU, on the other hand, could do something drastic like expel England for breach of the Lisbon treaty. This would be a nightmare divorce, where one partner decides to walk away with no idea of what they will move on to.

In short:

If the UK wants an exit from the EU to cause as little economic damage as possible, it has two choices.

Either to revocate Articular 50 and effect the reforms needed within the EU or be like Norway.

To do this England must first encourage receptiveness of simple facts that nationalism and isolation do not exist in the modern world which is now threatened by climate change that requires immediate collective worldwide action, which is a given if we want to see a living planet, not an immigration planet.

Politicians must make the case for more liberal policy not just on economic grounds but on future aspirations of a peaceful Europe.

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

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. IS ENGLAND NOW JUST LACKING ONE MORE INGREDIENT FOR CIVILIANS STRIFE.

13 Thursday Jun 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Nigel Farage., Northern Ireland., Social Media, The common good., The Euro, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

 

(Fifteen-minute read)

Three years of political disarray are now climaxing in a non-democratic election of a new prime minister.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "images of civil unrest"

In the present environment which has little or no social purpose, the fundamental problem is that a hung parliament is electing a new leader for the country without a mandate from the country as a whole.

It is absurd to be able to become a leader of a country just because your party is currently in power. Which can only lead to a General election that is going split the United?

All of this is driven by populous Social Media chatter which is trying to be heard under rules of an unwritten constitution based the Great Charter or Magna Carta libertatum written by a bunch of rich dudes with swords who got mad at their king.

Most of the 63 clauses of the Magna Carta were concerned with guaranteeing feudal law and benefited only the feudal nobility. The Church was granted its traditional freedom and privileges. A few clauses dealt with the rights of the middle class in the towns and relieved some economic inequities. But the ordinary freeman and peasant, who made up the vast bulk of England’s population, were scarcely mentioned.

The Magna Carta was not, therefore, a great democratic document, securing fundamental liberties for all. Instead, it was essentially a feudal charter assuring privileges to the aristocracy.

Since its inception 800 years ago, it has been used several times to restrain the power of the monarch. Although the more dated clauses have since been repealed, some remain enshrined in British law today, in particular, the right to a fair trial for all citizens.

Indeed the core principles of Magna Carta can also be found in a variety of legal documents today and are echoed in the United States Bill of Rights, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

Not bad for a document that lasted 10 days.

Still considered to be Britain’s “statute number one,” to understand the civil rights it provides and the foundation it laid for future use.

Modified several times over the centuries by ordinary laws issued by the parliament, it is still considered a valuable and fundamental document.

A document which Prime Minister David Cameron said ‘changed the world’.  Indeed! it did.

We feel nothing of the drama and shenanigans of those days of political fever.

I am not advocating here that this the reason that England could see civil unrest but it has set helped to set a class structure that is now divided and will be unable to unite whether England stays in or is attached or leaves the European Union.

That apart the fuse awaiting to be light, is the Northern Ireland backstop.

It is becoming more and more apparent that Brixit is no longer about whether is In or Out of the European Union rather it is about, an out of date voting systems First Past the post, that gives a limited voice to the population as a whole.Image associée

The Eatonmess is now an English breakfast.

Can it be resolved?

Yes and No

It looks more and more like a serious political uprising will erupt when the magic ingredient are in place.

Economic backwardness the Northern Ireland backstop and a deal with Mr Donald Dump, a General election with Nigel Farage, could prove to be the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

There is only one reasonable course and that is to abort articular 50.

In doing so in order to show genuine participation join the Euro.

So can there ever be a morally respectable case for using predictions of civil unrest as an argument against a proposed policy?  Undoubtedly.

I am afraid that Brexit goes much further than leaving the EU it is reverting to Nationalism due to among many other things the lack of Civic Education to impart an Identity, to the tabloid press and social media that is spreading a post-factual society where evidence and truths no longer matter where lie and truth have equal status.

The gaps between perception and reality must be addressed. One can see this when it comes to immigrants not just in the Uk but across Europe. Immigrants that get resident status should be spread throughout the country and not allowed to settle in certain regions.

Everybody must share in the countries wealth by issuing Citizens bonds. ( See the previous post)

More responsible politics, polarized societies are far less tolerant of Globalization.

This requires dropping the language of fear.

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

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: AS TRUE AS DAY FOLLOWS NIGHT THE TRUE MEMORIAL TO THE 75 ANNIVERSARY OF D DAY IS.

06 Thursday Jun 2019

Posted by in 2019., 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Climate Change., Communication., Democracy, Donald Trump Presidency., England., European Commission., European Elections., Fake News., Fourth Industrial Revolution., History., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern Day Communication., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., Our Common Values., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The common good., The essence of our humanity., The far-right., The Future, The new year 2109, The Obvious., The world to day., Trade Agreements., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, War, WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , , , , , , ,

 

( Five minutes read and twenty minutes listen)

THE EUROPEAN UNION WAS BORN OUT OF WORLD WAR TWO ON THE 25/MARCH/ 1957 TEN YEARS AFTER IT ENDED TO CHAMPION PEACE.

By establishing a unified economic and monetary system, to promote inclusion and combat discrimination, to break down barriers to trade and borders, to encourage technological and scientific developments, to champion environmental protection.

Fifty-two years later even as it adapts to meet the evolving challenges of the modern world, with all its faults, it has delivery just that- Peace.

Let us all remember the price the world paid to agree with these shared values.

The lessons of World War II — on whose ashes the United Nations was also founded emphasizing that remembrance is a debt owed to those who had lost their lives in World War II.Slide 3 of 18: Navy, Army and Merchant Marine servicemen in New York read the Daily News on June 6 for information about the D-Day invasion.

(By the end of the war, the total deaths ranging from 70 million to 85 million. Civilians deaths totalled 50 to 55 million. Military deaths from all causes totalled 21 to 25 million.)

However, the ideals and spirit that inspired the creation of the United Nations and the EU remain to be transformed into reality.

It is still necessary to remember the causes and overcome the legacies of the Second World War.

To reject and condemn any attempts to rewrite history or undertake attempts to glorify Nazism or any type of fascism.

Today, tolerance and restraint continued to be considered in world policy as signs of weakness and the use of violence and sanctions were praised; the world could therefore not say that the Second World War had been properly remembered.

Indeed it is our duty to revere and preserve and reform both the United Nations and the European Union because too much was paid for them, and too much is now at stake for succeeding generations.

So here below for all the Donald Trumps, Brexiteers, and Populous is a Speech that tells the TRUTH. 

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

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S; IS IT TIME TO STOP TREATING ALL VOTES AS EQUAL

27 Monday May 2019

Posted by in 2019: The Year of Disconnection., Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Democracy, DIGITAL DICTATORSHIP., Elections/ Voting, English parliamentary proceedings., European Elections 2019, First past the post., Modern Day Democracy., Nigel Farage., Political voting systems., Populism., Post - truth politics., The far-right., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Five-minute read)

One person, one vote is often a rallying cry for democracy activists.

Everyone should have representation.

Equality should be sacrosanct in a democracy should it not or is it?

But should everyone have equal representation?

THE 2019 EUROPEAN ELECTIONS RESULTS ARE IN AND BECAUSE OF THE RESULTS LITTLE WILL CHANGE EXCEPT THE SQUABBLING WILL BE OFTEN AND MORE INTENSE.

Unequal votes are a result of history.

Inequality between votes may also not be built into the system but a result of the balance of parties within the system.

Under the English system of first past the post a very few voters have a disproportionate influence due to being swing voters in swing constituencies.

The conduct of election and referendum campaigns in the UK is letting voters down. Trust in what politicians say—and in how journalists report it—is at rock bottom.

If British residents aren’t equal, then nor are their representatives.

So should democracies stick the principle that everyone should have equal weight or compromise if for politics?

In a simple majority system of one vote = one person, the outcome is easy to conclude and scrutinise for fairness and election rigging.

Therefore one vote = one voice is also a very practical way to run a democracy.

Or is it?

There are certain reasons to reasonably exclude someone from the voting process – breaking laws is arguably one of these reasons.

Should a vote have weight based on someone’s contributions to their community, and society as a whole? If one has done good things, their vote should be more important than that of a selfish person who does not contribute in a positive way.

Should a Party with no members, no Manifesto, lead by a self-elected leader from a previous Party that spread Falsehoods be allowed to take up its seats in The European Parlement to effectively try to destroy all it stands for at the cost of the taxpayer?

Yes.

Should a party that is in power be allowed to select the leader of a country without a general election?

Yes.

However, we should be striving to deepen our democracy, not just to protect the democracy that we already have. Voters deserve much better. We should be tackling misinformation, promoting quality information, and encouraging open, respectful discussion among citizens.

Almost any misleading claim can be expressed in a way that isn’t strictly false, so a ban on falsehoods would change little. There are also dangers: for example, populist campaigners could “weaponise” adverse rulings to claim victimisation by the “establishment.”

The solution is, for example, Ireland has recently blazed a new path in how to prepare for referendums, convening a group of randomly selected citizens—a “citizens’ assembly”—to meet over several weekends to learn, deliberate, and reach recommendations.

Why is this a solution because of the challenge arising from the digital revolution that has transformed political communications in the last decade.

This allows the citizens of a country to have a unified clear voice on what is to be voted on.

Now is the time to ensure that how we conduct election and referendum campaigns is designed with voters at its heart.

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