Tag Archives: European Union

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

Advertisements

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.

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHERE NOW FOR ENGLAND.

22 Wednesday May 2019

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., English parliamentary proceedings., European Elections 2019

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Six-minute read)

Great Britain is just a geographical term, not a country, state, or political entity.

England, which means “land of the Angles”.  COULD DO WITH A FEW.

The Angles were one of the Germanic tribes that settled in Great Britain during the Early Middle Ages.

I AM NOT TALKING HERE ABOUT ITS FOOTBALL TEAM, ITS CRICKET TEAM, NOR RUBGY.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of england departing from europe"

So answer me this:

Why would you allow a handful of billionaires to poison your national conversation with disinformation—either directly through the tabloids they own, or indirectly, by using those newspapers to intimidate the public broadcaster?

Why would you allow them to use their papers to build up and co-opt politicians peddling those lies? Why would you let them get away with this stuff about “foreign judges” and the need to “take back control” when Britain’s own public opinion is routinely manipulated by five or six unaccountable rich white men, themselves either foreigners or foreign-domiciled?

But what can England learn from Brexit?

Not all is well with the collective psyche—the in-your-face binge drinking, the bookies stoking gambling addiction on every high street, the abject but routine neglect of public housing which went undiscussed until the Grenfell Tower fire.

The class divide and the class fixation, as well as an unhinged press, combine to produce national psychology that makes Britain a country you simply don’t want in your club.

Here are a few suggestions for the future that don’t just apply to England but to the whole of Europe.

One person waiting to see a doctor, one person lying in a hospital corridor, one person sleeping rough, one person relying on food banks, one person receiving hate mail, one person dying without dignity, one person

In the event, the UK leaves the EU in a no deal scenario, here are 7  things England needs to do now.

They all Call for ‘Fundamental action’ not GDP.

One: Get rip of First past the post and let the voice of the people be heard with a written constitution that is not written on parchment back in June 1215. The certainty that everything has already been written annuls us or renders us phantasmal.

Two: Get ride of postcode lottery social care provisions.

Three: Get rid of the tabloids gutter press.

Four: Social housing should be unconditional and social care free at the point of delivery.

Five: Stop spending billions on worthless nuclear arms and power stations.

Six: Stop school lotteries and abolish students debts. It really doesn’t matter for your identity or your prospects exactly which school or university you went to as long as it free. It is quite ironic that a nation that gave the world the term “fair play” sees the fact that rich children receive a better education than poor ones as a perfectly natural thing.

Seven: Grow up the modern world that is entering the 4th Industrial revolution, while climate change that will destroy it requires long-term planning, not eco-driven politics by career politicians.

Nor do I blame working-class people for seething at a system whereby the time you are 11 the die is cast and were—to add insult to injury—you are constantly told that this is a meritocracy where all that counts is hard work and being “aspirational”- bull shit.

There is another, final, side to this class system à l’Anglaise. It seems to breed a perspective on the world that is zero-sum. Your class system is a form of ranking. For one to go up, another must go down. Perhaps this is why sports are such an obsession. This attitude then justifies the enduring ignorance about the EU, its member states and European culture generally. The superiority complex feeds a sense of entitlement.

For example, the EU “needs us more than vice versa.” It’s abject nonsense, as was the presumption that after the Brits voted to leave, other EU countries would follow.

“It might also be worth acknowledging, that, on balance, the EU27 also has more power to protect its interests in these negotiations than Britain does.”

Ever since the referendum, friends from across the world have been enquiring whether it is true that the British have gone mad.

It is extremely difficult to see a scenario in which this whole Brexit saga could end well. Legally, politically and logically the EU cannot give the UK the kind of deal that would draw this chapter to a happy close.

You don’t have to a genius to know that a sweet soft deal, will encourage every EU member state to demand their own special arrangement, and that would be the end of the EU.

While the imagination of many “Leave” voters remain in the grip of the tabloids, any concession to the reality of national interests risks inflaming rage and cries of betrayal.

As for the EU, it is first and foremost a rule-based organisation. If the rules around Article 50 were bent to allow Britain back in on special terms, then the whole edifice is undermined. Scotland should be let in if it wants, and Northern Ireland too. But England is out and must be kept out—at least until it has resolved its deep internal problems. Call it nation building.

While not everything about the British disease harked back to Empire and while most of the above needs a growing economy god forbid the future of England is written or run by a dupe of Donal Trump.

Rember: Before you vote that any deal in or out has to be ratified by all Member States required at least two years. This meant that any deal is not feasible in practice. Vote to stay and fight your quarter. It makes no sense to disengage from our major market where we would still face all the costs of compliance and enjoy none of the influence. We can achieve reform by being an active and leading member from within.

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

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THE WHOLE BREXIT MESS NOW BOILS DOWN TO THE FOLLOWING: TO OPPOSE BREXIT IS LINKED TO BEING AGAINST DEMOCRACY ITSELF.

20 Monday May 2019

Posted by in Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Elections 2019, European Elections., Nigel Farage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

However Democratic legitimacy goes hand in hand with the rules of law.

When rules are broken in an election, or referendum defending the result of what went wrong isn’t defending democracy it is subverting it.

If one looks at the in and out campaigns the result doesn’t have democratic legitimacy because the leave vote won on lies and promises.

There is nothing wrong or illegitimate about voters choosing an option even if it is now widely seen as against their self-interests and generally accepted now (on reflection) is detrimental on many fronts.

It is pathetic to watch a nation ruin what is left of its world influence by insisting that its people spoke or for that matter to think it is the best for England is not the point.

Jeremy Corbyn and Theresa May: ‘Talking in vague metaphors.’

The European elections are not offering the English public a second chance to fix the first result but an opportunity for the winning campaign to win by the rules rather than by breaking them.

The leader of the New Brexit party doesn’t want Brexit.

He like is tutor MR DUMP is using Brexit as a vehicle to benefit his own pockets.

To counter Farage, more needs to be done.

Picking him apart on political shows don’t work because it’s just the establishment – aimless with everything subject to Populism interpretation through the lens of the media.

So what is hidden behind the smile?

Nigel Farage dominated the UK Independence Party for 20 years and served as its leader twice while campaigning for Britain to leave the EU. Since then Ukip has been in almost perpetual chaos, with four leaders in two years.

He is MEP, 54, born in Kent on April 3, 1964. Dad-of-four married a German-born Kirsten Mehr in 1999 after his divorce from his first wife Gráinne Hayes.

He was educated at Dulwich College, a public school in South London.

His father Guy, a stockbroker, was reportedly an alcoholic who left the family home when Nigel was five.

Nigel did not go to university, instead, going to work in the City trading commodities at the London Metal Exchange.

His City career lasted more than 20 years, even after he was elected to the European Parliament.

His salary as an MEP is €8,484 a month or €101,808 a year – around £89,934 at current exchange rates.

He also gets office allowances of around £46,000 a year.

Mr Farage used to employ his wife Kirsten as a secretary on £27,000 a year until MEPs were banned from paying family members.

He is lavishly funded by Arron Banks. Banks is under investigation by the National Crime Agency over allegations of criminal offences by him and his unofficial leave campaign in the EU referendum.

The insurance tycoon providing him with a furnished Chelsea home, a car and driver, security guards and money to promote him in America.

Besides Brexit, what does Farage defend?

Nothing else.

Like all populists, he is dangerous because he wants to create demands that cannot be met and you can be sure that he will disappear as quickly as he appeared once Britain is out of the Union.

Farage has made it clear that power in Westminster does not interest him.

Nigel Farage himself has made millions.

He did this by saying that the Remainders had won, conceding defeat on the evening of June 23rd, whilst being fully aware that it was far more likely that the Leave campaign had won.

He could have known this through a raft of private exit polls procured by hedge funds that showed the true state of affairs. As a result, the pound sterling was shorted at $1.50, knowing that it would likely drop to just $1.32 overnight.

So how did a stockbroker’s son become a mouthpiece for the disaffected working class?

Wake up Britain. Have a look at the state of the world around you. The Nigel Farage’s  – Jeremy Hosking – Jacob Rees- Moggs of this world all have hedge funds. They are pulling the wool over your eyes.

Indeed you should all be protesting that your parliament is no longer functioning or currently able to deliver any form of representative democracy and it will remain so after the leaving unless it drags itself or it is dragged into the modern age to represent its citizens, not GDP.

Maybe if England had sent constructive reformist’s instead of men like Farage it would have all been solved by now.

If the European Union is looking at future its difficulties are indeed in need reform but god only knows what the results will be for an unattached England.

A no deal could be the beginning of something better. Imagine that.

Hopefully, my English friends you will see sense and NOT put your mark at the Brexit Party.Nigel Farage standing in front of poster during EU referendum

The fact that the above picture became a defining issue in the leave campaign was in no small measure down to him.

The Fact that Farage has said that the Brexit party is predominantly financed by the £25 fees of its 100,000-plus paying supporters – it has no members. The Brexit party has reportedly raised more than £2m in donations, but its leader, Nigel Farage, had refused to reveal the identities of the major donors.

All our societies in the world are at a crossroads and faces two different and distinct futures: one which is open and one which is closed.

A closed future is one where knowledge is exclusively owned and controlled, leading to greater inequality.

Already, large unaccountable technology companies have monopolised the digital age, and an unsustainable concentration of wealth and power has led to stunted growth and lost opportunities.

We have already started on the path towards a closed society, and without urgent action, we will find ourselves in a world of extraordinary and growing concentrations in power and wealth, with innovation held back and distorted by monopolies, essential medicines affordable only to the rich, and freedoms threatened by manipulation, exclusion and exploitation. Nobody under 50 will remember the convolutions surrounding British entry to the European Union.  But everybody today will remember how it left. Leg before wicket.
All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WILL POPULISM BE THE ULTIMATE STRESS TEST OF REPRESENTATIVE POLITICS.

19 Sunday May 2019

Posted by in 2019., Democracy, European Elections 2019, European Union., Humanity., Inequality, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Populism., Post - truth politics., Reality., Social Media, The common good., The far-right., The new year 2109, The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH, What needs to change in European Union., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

(Twenty-minute read)

Is democracy unravelled in the face of nationalism, racism, violence and populism? It seems even with the publicly supported compromise between countries and political parties are unable to cooperate to deliver anything.

If one takes a look at the world today 9/11 and the “war on terror” helped bring the idea of a “clash of civilisations” between Islam and the west to the forefront of political debate leaving all the rest in the dustbin of democracy.

As a result in the last few years, a new kind of far-right activism has emerged.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of far right"

This new activism, comprised largely of online anger and offline protest, crosses borders, yet is heavily nationalist and growing.

In Britain, its icons tend to be entrepreneurial social media personalities, celebrities of a sort, who use their following to exert pressure on mainstream politics.

Nobody in England embodies the dynamics of this new movement more than Mr Fraieg with his tutor in the USA Mr Dump who both gave support to Yaxley-Lennon better known as Tommy Robinson. ( The founder of the founder and former leader of the English Defence League (EDL) now the voice of UKIP which was founded by Nigel Farage, has today more than 950,000 followers.)

We all know that Data-driven algorithms exert great influence on the political world by analyzing our voting potential.  By logging what we do, where we do it, how we do it, with whom we do it, – Facebook- Twitter – Social Media, TV, U Tube, Google.

The marketplace of ideas, with the best arguments, no longer win out.

Even more worrying is the extent to which it is “normalising” extreme right-wing ideas and ideologies helping to form governments rooted in racism and fear of others – with anti-establishment crusader, online propagandists attracting large amounts of the wrong type of money and attention.

Throwing its opponents into a fierce disagreement about how to respond with the potential to have quite dangerous and dire consequences.

Indeed, one of the goals of right-wing extremists has always been to appear “normal”.

But all of this is not inevitable, and it can be stopped if we recognise that keeping the far right out of power is only one part of the problem.

We need a better understanding of what “free speech” is and is not.

There is still no public control or oversight of what we should regard as our platforms.

The logical consequence of free speech at any cost is that someone will soon be successful in rallying together enough impressionable voters to form an electable far-right party.

It has happened before and it will happen again.

The accusation of betrayal by the elites is central to the way that far-right movements operate with single-issue campaigns mostly conducted via social media without any commitment to wider political action.

For many years, far-right views were outside the acceptable bounds of debate and should be denied a platform.

But the breaking down of these boundaries presents a dilemma: what does the anti-fascist principle of “no platform” mean when a far-right activist has their own independent platform anyway?

The majority of their supporters, have no formal political affiliation and answered to no party hierarchy.

The ideas of extreme right-wing movements are dangerous, as they are not institutional actors.

While only a few years ago such groups would have been widely reviled, in today’s more populist atmosphere, such views are now more mainstream, sideling voters from the political movements that were originally created for their benefit.

For me Far Right is a slippery term and one that people should rarely if ever, apply to their own politics. In everyday use, it describes a range of extreme nationalist activity.

For instance: Stephen Bannon, a white nationalist who has said the west is at the start of a civilisational war with Islam.

Luckily different currents within the far right do not always get on and may also see one another as enemies.

So far it is not a cohesive movement. Their various aims are profoundly undemocratic: A majoritarianism defined by race, ethnicity or religion, and the violent exclusion of internal and external enemies.

The best defence is a political movement that has anti-racism at its core and seeks to give people greater democratic control over the way their society is organised and run.

However in recent years, pushed by the election of Donald Trump in the US, and political changes in Europe, we have seen the breaking down of the taboo that kept far-right political ideas largely outside mainstream culture.

This can be rectified. It is mostly the result of technological change, which can be fixed by regulating social media companies.

In order to win political power, for any group, it should first be necessary to push for wider cultural acceptance of the ideas that underpinned their movements.

This is not to say that the claims being made by activists and the views of people who might support the far right should be ignored – either in political debate or in everyday life.

But the question is how these issues are presented, and how they are challenged: who is speaking, and why, matters as much as whether or not an issue is in the news.

Big media organisations must be aware that legitimisation of the far right is not acceptable. They cannot normalise nor be seen to give permission to what are, in truth, hateful ideas and ideologies.

They are most effective when unaffiliated and unaccountable, disavowed by politicians and commentators who echo his views but wish to look respectable.

But the greater danger is in the cumulative effect of the various types of far-right activism – political parties, websites, social media personalities, funding and coordination from wealthy US thinktanks and entrepreneurs – on the political mainstream.

The problem is that ordinary joe soap is becoming more and more detached from the political area paying more and more taxes in order to live a decent life while feeling shut out of the system.

With the views of the far right how taking advantage of wider political failures all fueled by food banks, benefits cuts, homeless, job insecurity, pension erosion shifting the mainstream debate in its favour. Its public messages are focusing on popular fears about identity and economic security.

IE: Europe is overrun by Muslim immigrants; liberal elites have allowed all this to happen.

So far no alternative vision has won out.

Simply pointing out their factual mistakes is insufficient they must be challenged, locally and internationally, before it starts to do serious damage.

Why?

Because we are mechanistically sleepwalking towards an inability to effectively confront problems such as Brexit, Inequality and Climate Change.

There is only one way to get the voters to engage with the modern world and that is not by voting every five years as an expression of free will. 

It is offering the citizens of a country to own some of its prosperity by:

ISSUING CITIZENS GUARANTEED (NON-TRANSFERABLE BONDS.)

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture of bonds certificate"

These bonds could be bought for as little as a Dollar to as much as?

They could mature in as little as a year or?

They could be inherited but not sold.

They could be for every environmental, health, or whatever project that is not for profit for profit sake.

They will engage people in the direction of a country countermanding

negativity, allowing all citizens no matter what their political views,

creed, or colour to take pride in their nation.

They will countermand inequality and stop the rise of the far right.

THEY WOULD IF ADOPTED BY DIEM 25 FORFILL MOST IF NOT ALL OF ITS POLITICAL ASPERATION FOR EUROPE.

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

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. Is it what remains underexplored is what convinces audiences of their leaders’ competence, caring, and trustworthiness.

17 Friday May 2019

Posted by in Elections/ Voting, European Elections 2019, European Elections., European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

( An fifteen European Election read|) Image associée

Politics these days is an ugly game of lies and responsibilities.

It is said that if you want the best and brightest people to represent you in politics you can only attract them by offering lucrative remuneration.

Almost a third of MEPs have second jobs or outside income, according to Transparency International, which is calling on MEPs to be obliged to provide more detail about their earnings and employers.

Why?

Because these days, politics attracts career professional politicians who are more likely to lien their own pockets. Take two prime examples-  The Nigel Farage’s and Donal Trumps of this world.

It is us that cast the votes and it is us that determine that leaders have certain traits or skills.

However, in this world of data algorithms and Social Media Platforms perhaps this no longer holds true rather what really matters is the competencies that are projected on to leaders by their authorizing environment. In other words, the key to leading is to mobilize others toward the prescribed course of action to address the identified problems.

But only identifying a problem and formulating a solution is not enough if people do not act upon it. We witness this every day with Brexit and Climate change.

So let’s look at CREDIBILITY AS A SOURCE OF POLITICAL CAPITAL:

Political capital refers to citizen feelings about the political regime as a whole, not just about the party or coalition which is currently incumbent.

Or is political capital not linked to structural, system characteristics but to a quality associated with individual citizens.

Or is the political capital of global leaders their ‘ability to use
power or authority to gain the support of constituents in a socially effective way.

Or is political capital just a commodity that professional
politicians need. An asset that leaders own.

However, it should not be forgotten that without an audience, without citizens or constituents, there would be no (political) leadership.

In other words: leadership is relational.

Political capital can thus relate first of all to the confidence and legitimacy one bestows upon political institutions.

To get things done a politician must have political capital.

To be able to take the necessary but perhaps unpopular decisions, and to survive taking them as well, leaders need political capital.

This can be summed up in three main forms: skills, relations and reputation.

How political leaders perform that some of them are attributed to credibility whereas others are not.

Is it up to audiences to attribute credibility to political leaders?

After all, political capital is a form of credit founded on credence.

If people don’t believe in the messenger, they won’t believe the message. Political leaders need to be credible not like Trump or Farage.

It is hard to believe that only appearing to have – for example – knowledge of the economy or Brexit without actually having a clue can be considered a political resource.

Unfortunately, Communication between politics and society is to a large extent mediated:

Where in British politics is the counter to the resentment and the populism—along with the real, earned dismay at the incompetence of Parliament when it comes to Brexit?

Where is the logic of a USA president that denies climate change, that’s starting a trade war with China and looking for a war against Iran, that thinks rape is an ok weapon of war?

Its time we their employers evaluate their performance to see if we are getting our money worth.

In the European Union, it is time to vet MEP spending, replacing the current MEP-led system.

There are several ways of looking at government performance.

Broadly speaking, the objective of governments is to maximise

their citizens’ welfare.

The ideal way to assess government performance would be to measure all the outputs that government produces or outcomes that it achieves, and compare these with the money it spends and resources it uses to assess its efficiency and productivity.

This isn’t possible, given how difficult it is to define and measure many of the outputs of government. A proxy for performance is whether departments are using technologies and working practices which are believed to be productivity-enhancing.

If information is power, then performance measurement is surely tightly linked to the creation and use of power.

If the whole chain is considered, it is possible to better analyse why performance is being measured, how and by whom, what is seen to be of value, what is being gained and what is being lost, and who is benefitting and losing from this.

However quantified measures lead to measurement becoming more technical, costly and politically controlled.

What is needed is a blend of political purpose and rationality.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of POLITICAL CAPITAL"

This form of measurement cannot be demanded by force but needs to be gained through persuasion and involvement.

How can we achieve this?

There is also potential for directed collaboration to engender a more realistic-political approach to performance measurement, and allow it to become more critical, iterative and reflective.

Citizens bonds could and would counteract the plunder of Democracy by Data algorithms that make a profit though Hedge funds  (The Brexit-supporting hedge fund manager Crispin Odey made £220 million and was filmed by a BBC documentary crew saying: “The morning has gold in its mouth.” ).

Their performance would measure governments programmes by their return on investment.

BUILDING TRUST BETWEEN THE POLITICIANS AND THE TAXPAYER THUS CREATING REAL POLITICAL CAPITAL:

Ultimately, these Bonds can be distilled into power in its purest form.

You must remember that without the man on the streets, politics is a zero-sum game. Without people, the pursuit of power is meaningless.

Around the world with climate change governments are dancing with disasters.

Despite the fiscal constraints of the day, the rationale and the resources can be found – if the political will is there.

To bolster political capital it is not tax, tax and more taxes which leads to popularism.

Let us all invest in the future. THERE IS NO POLITICAL CAPITAL IN Brexit.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of POLITICAL CAPITAL"

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: HERE WE ARE AGAIN ANOTHER EUROPEAN ELECTION.

13 Monday May 2019

Posted by in European Elections., European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

(Eleven-minute read)

Will the elections be completely irrelevant?

Because of Brexit.Two activists with the EU flag and Union Jack painted on their faces kiss in front of the Brandenburg Gate, Berlin, 19 June, 2016.

No, and certainly not from a British political point of view. They could be a sounding board for a host of other domestic political issues, including the viability of new political parties – and the sustainability of established ones. In short, the elections will provide a mirror for the UK’s increasingly fractured, and fractious political landscape.

“When the UK was in, all it wanted was opt-outs. Now it’s going to be out, and all it wants are opt-ins.”

In Europe, the elections have a number of known unknowns.

“The European elections will be a referendum between the Europe of the elites, of banks, of finance, of immigration and precarious work; and the Europe of people and labor.”

The 2019 election campaign is a debate on Europe’s priorities.

The populist radical right will focus almost exclusively on migration because this is how they can best mobilize their voters.

So far, most populist MEPs have used their seats largely to fund their domestic political activities or as a platform for anti-EU rhetoric. If they were to start using them to block legislation and important measures, member governments would likely seek to bypass parliament by doing deals among themselves.

Their opponents need to counter the politics of fear by building electoral platforms based on liberal principles, pointing out the big challenges surrounding technology and climate change, and showing that migration is just one issue among many.

Who finishes first?

Is not very important as far as gauging public opinion goes.

If the existing power balance changes, a complex constellation of forces could develop with more ad hoc coalitions across traditional party divides. While this might detract from the parliament’s legislative efficiency, a more open decisionmaking process might have a positive effect on public interest in democracy at the EU level.

However, if the populist parties gain enough power to block crucial decisions, all the other parties will have to pull together to keep the EU functioning.

If one looks beyond the left/right dimension, the EUROPEAN PARLEMENT is divided into promoters and sceptics of European integration.

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS there are two key elements for genuine parliamentary democracy at the EU level missing:

First, it is almost impossible for voters to assess the performance of individual MEPs, and, second, there has been no change in regime, as the center-right/center-left Grand Coalition has long dominated the EP.

Without a list of transnational of candidates, this will remain so.

Given the key role of the commission in shaping what the EU does, electing its president from a list of transnational candidates would give the voter a real say on the union’s future. However, this time, parliament might be more fragmented, making it difficult to assemble a majority for a lead candidate.

Rather than through institutional reform, change in the EP’s functioning may come through a deeper structural transformation of European politics.

Paradoxically, the rise of nationalist parties has created the first real opening for turning the coming EP election campaign into a truly transnational debate about the future of Europe.

Luckily there is a glimmer of hope with the arrival of DiEM25 to break the national parties’ grip on the composition of the parliament.

The dominant dividing line of the new parliament could become a contest between politicians who want to find common EU-level solutions to current challenges and those who favor safeguarding and reaffirming national sovereignty.

The number of disillusioned voters has increased, with many people frustrated about the powerlessness of national governments in a globalized world.

One of the biggest money-printing programs of all time, a geyser of cash that may have prevented the collapse of the eurozone, will officially ended in December

The European Central Bank stop adding to its stock of government and corporate bonds, the so-called quantitative easing program it has used to hold down interest rates and encourage lending.

In recent months, growth has slowed and risks have grown, including a rise in global trade tensions, China v USA.  Tumult in Italy’s politics and the continuing chaos surrounding Britain’s plans to decouple from the European Union.

The DiEM25 whats to reinvest the money the European Central Bank gets when the bonds mature into creating Green energy programs.

This, as I have posted in a previous post, could achieve a transformation in the European Union.

Before you cast your vote just think.

It’s clear that not everybody participated in the benefits of the common currency.

What if the European Central Bank were to issue European Citizens Bonds.

It would afford all citizens of the Union an opportunity to invest in the future of Europe.

It would create thousands of top quality jobs, supply green energy to the whole of Europe.

It would make Europe the leading light in the fight against Climate change.

It would protect the value of Pensions.

It would break the hold of the rich by spreading the benefits evenly throughout Europe.

It would take the wind out off populous movements.

This is what the EU should aim to do too if it really aspires to eventually become a political union.

Vote DiEM25.

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