Tag Archives: European Union

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

04 Sunday Jun 2017

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

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

 

( A eighth minute read)

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

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

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

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

The First Reform:

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

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

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

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

Better regulation is a pressing problem.

Next:

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

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

The problem is simple:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next: 

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

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

Maltese MPs get 240 litres of petrol a month.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The EU pay divide

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

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

Here is the breakdown of an MEP salary:

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

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

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

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

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

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

€20 666 per month.

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

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

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

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

The receipt-free allowances system must stop. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last Reform:Image associée

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: ROLL UP ROLL UP WE ARE ABOUT TO WITNESS THE BIGGEST MONEY FIGHT EVER SEEN. BREXIT IS EUROPE’S LAST CHANCE.

01 Thursday Jun 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Elections/ Voting, ENGLAND'S SNAP ELECTION, England., European Commission., European Union., Politics., Post - truth politics., Social Media., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

( This is a good thirty minute read.)

The weigh in:

In the blue corner we have England wearing sterling.  In the green corner we have the EU wearing euro.

Regardless of whether you like the sport this fight will be contested across social media keeping the audience at a safe distance while making sure that the fighters don’t withdraw/run away from the fight before it is finished.

Round One:

Put simply, Article 50 gives the 27 continuing member states predominant power.

That comes partly from the fact that, according to Paragraph 4 of Article 50, the withdrawing state no longer counts as a member of the European Council for the purpose of the negotiations.  But mainly it comes from the guillotine imposed by the two-year deadline and the requirement for unanimity to extend that deadline.

Clause 4 says that after a country has decided to leave, the other EU members will decide the terms—and the country leaving cannot be in the ring in those discussions.

Britain depends on the EU for half of its exports, while Britain accounts for only one-sixth of Europe’s.  For Britain, this means any deal would be better than none at all. Keeping substantial access to the single market and having strict immigration controls are mutually exclusive for the EU: achieving both is highly unrealistic.

After a lot of shadow boxing T May with a reduced mandate and new shoes dances around the ring avoiding the total financial obligations, which are understood by the EU to be around €100 billion gross, according to an FT estimate.

But add on the negotiations fees etc and Britain is facing a £140 billion (7.5% of GDP) or the equivalent of £300 million a week over eight years.

May said repeatedly that Britain could walk away without a deal and be fine. Instead, a painless exit without a cliff-like effect on trade is only possible with a transitional arrangement. To obtain that, the UK will likely have to pay the €60 billion it owes from its past years of membership, as well as a membership fee for access to the single market.

The EU knows that  the UK is economically more dependent on the EU; 44% of its exports go there and 48% of its foreign investment comes from them.

This is not to mention the potential damage from a loss of passporting rights to the services sector, which makes up for around 79% of UK GDP.

Hence  the UK may try to act tough at the start of fight but eventually will have to compromise to avoid bigger economic fall-outs.

Round Two:

The EU Commission said citizens in the process of acquiring EU rights (such as permanent residency in another country in the bloc) should be allowed to finish doing so, and that the U.K. will be liable for certain financial payments, such as the salaries of British teachers at schools for the children of EU officials, until 2021.

Round Three:

The U.K. remains under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice while all pending cases are completed, and the U.K. would not immediately receive upon departure all the capital it has supplied to the European Investment Bank.

The U.K. is a 16 percent shareholder in the EIB and has €39.2 billion locked up in the institution, which often funds projects with a 20- to 30-year timeline. The U.K.’s liabilities should be “decreased in line with the amortization of the EIB portfolio outstanding at the time of United Kingdom withdrawal,” the Commission said.

Round Four:

Any cherry-picking punches are totally against the rules.  “Until it leaves the Union, the United Kingdom remains a full member of the EU, subject to all rights and obligations set out in the Treaties and under EU law.

Round Five:

United Kingdom will be kept separate from ongoing Union business, and shall not interfere with its progress.

The Council states that an agreement on a future relationship between the EU and the UK can only be concluded once the UK effectively leaves the EU and becomes a third country. When the United Kingdom officially leaves the European Union in March 2019, it will still be entangled in the EU’s financial and legal systems for years.

While the terms of divorce can be agreed with a majority vote, the terms of future EU-UK trade relations are very likely to need a unanimous vote.

The deal must be agreed by all 27 remaining countries in the EU. Individual countries can’t veto a treaty governing the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, but could veto a treaty establishing Britain’s new relationship with the EU. It would go ahead if it were approved by 20 of the 27 remaining EU countries, so long as they also represent 65% of the EU population.

Most of the EU’s free trade agreements require a unanimous vote of all EU governments and ratification by all member countries. That’s because they tend to be ‘mixed agreements’, meaning that they cover some ground that the EU doesn’t have power over. That said, it’s possible for the EU to negotiate a trade agreement that can’t be vetoed, depending on what’s in it.

That implies two major agreements: one on the logistics of divorce, and another on trade. (More treaties might be necessary on other issues, like security.)

Round Six:

Compulsory standing count.

Theresa May’s vision is blurred. Polarizing public opinion against the EU and immigration and away from domestic issues was an easy political win.

An independent and truly global United Kingdom without a new customs agreement. Agreements between the EU and third countries or international organisations, for example on trade, would also cease to apply to the withdrawing state, and it would thus need to negotiate alternative arrangements.

Round Seven:

The UK could change its mind about withdrawing from the EU even after triggering the formal process of leaving under Article 50.

Article 50 doesn’t say whether or not a country can change its mind, so it’s arguable either way. Some eminent lawyers think that it can, but there are also those – especially within the EU itself – who argue that once a country has triggered Article 50 it can’t then abort the process without permission.

It would be perfectly possible for the UK to revoke its decision to quit. That Article 50 is silent on the matter of revocation does not mean that a change of direction would be illegal under EU law.

The place this point might be argued, and ultimately resolved, is the EU court in Luxembourg. It’s possible that the UK courts will refer the question to EU judges as part of the ongoing litigation over the role of Parliament in triggering Article 50.

Round eight:

If there’s no turning back from an EU exit once Article 50 is triggered, there would be no point in voting on the terms of a new agreement verses continued membership.

The choice would instead be to take the deal on offer, or reject it and exit with no long-term deal at all.

Round ten:

In the end while us tax payers lose billions, the Lawyers win hands down.

Round eleven:

No deal:

Round twelve:

In their attempt to create a fairer and more equal country, Britons sought to sever ties from what they saw as a weakened partner. The reality is that Brexit will likely make Britain weaker and, ironically, is making the EU stronger.

The irony is that by running away from a European Union they thought was about to fall apart, Brexiteers have instead made it stronger.

Voters in France and the Netherlands are rejecting populism, and politicians in Brussels and Berlin have switched gears towards reforms and pro-EU spending measures.

Round thirteen:

The composition of the EU institutions changes as of the day the withdrawal takes effect, with members from the withdrawing state losing their seats in the various institutions and bodies, although transitional arrangements might be required for the period immediately after that date.

Review of the fight by social media: 

The debts accumulated by the governments of the U.S., Japan, Europe and dozens of other countries constitute a gigantic mortgage on the next two or three generations, as yet unborn.

The Euro corner>Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the euro"

As it marks its 60th birthday, the European Union is in poor shape. It needs more flexibility to rejuvenate itself.

However, citizens’ trust in the EU has decreased in line with that for national authorities. Around a third of citizens trust the EU today, when about half of Europeans did so ten years ago.

The latest economic and political developments in Europe are a wake-up call for our political leaders to take swifter action in order to strengthen the foundations of our Union.

The deteriorating geopolitical environment makes matters worse. Turmoil and war across the Middle East and in north Africa were one big cause of the surge in migrant inflows.

It is dying financially, with all the debt bankrupting governments, businesses and individuals. It is sinking economically, weighted down with stifling regulations and taxes. It is being strangled demographically, with birth rates far below replacement and the refugee crisis, which saw 1.2 million people coming to Europe in 2015 will only worsen with climate change and current conflicts.

Given the challenges facing the union, the one-size-fits-all model muddling through may no longer be the safest option. Brexit could yet be copied by another member, leading to the slow collapse of the union. A multi-speed Europe or multi-tier Europe could begin to undo the EU.

Few of the 27 EU member countries that will remain after Brexit favour much deeper political and economic integration.

These 27 are integrated into the EU in many different ways: all are in the single market, 26 in the banking union, 21 in Schengen, a different 21 in NATO and 19 in the euro, to list just few examples.

The European continent is home not just to the 28 EU members but 48 countries in all. Those outside the EU aspire to special relations with the club, and some belong to bits of it already.

To cap it all, America’s new president, Donald Trump, has shown himself hostile not just to multilateral free trade and Muslim immigrants but intermittently to the EU, praising Britain’s decision to leave and urging others to follow.

Turkey’s president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is turning his back on a club that seems to have rejected his membership aspirations, and is spurning its democratic values as well.

By 2018, around a third of the world’s population will be use social media networks. These trends will only accelerate and continue to change the way democracy works and the way the EU evolves.

A big reason for this is the politics in EU member countries which make it doubly important for Europe to gets to grips with a profound digitisation of society. The EU covers four million square kilometres in which there are 500 million citizens. It is the world’s largest single market with second most used currency. However Europe’s place in the world is shrinking, as other parts of the world grow.

In 1900, Europe accounted for around 25% of global population. By 2060, it will account for less than 5%.

Europe’s economic power is also expected to wane in relative terms, accounting for much less than 20% of the world’s GDP in 2030, down from around 22% today.

Too often, the discussion on Europe’s future has been boiled down to a binary choice between more or less Europe. New global powers are emerging as old ones face new realities and there is none older than England that has voted to leave.

There is also a mismatch between expectations and the EU’s capacity to meet them. The EU approach is misleading and simplistic, for too many> the EU fell short of their expectations as it struggled with its worst financial, economic and social crisis in post-war history. If it is to survive the EU must embrace greater differentiation not closer union or face potential disintegration.

That leaves the second type of response, which is to muddle through. After all, the euro and migration crises seem to be past their worst. Excessive austerity may have done great harm, but outside Greece it is largely over. The single market, perhaps the union’s greatest achievement, has survived the financial crisis and can surely weather Brexit. Domestic security co-operation on terrorism and crime is closer than ever. In foreign policy, EU countries have displayed commendable unity over sanctions on Russia, and have been vital in striking a nuclear deal with Iran.

At the moment more than 80% support the EU’s four founding freedoms.

These might have being the foundations to the EU but there is no getting away from the fact that money was in more ways than one crucial from the very start of the European project.

70% of euro area citizens support the common currency.

The euro zone is now a partial banking union, with a centralised bail-out fund and a European Central Bank (ECB) prepared to act as a lender of last resort.

As economies improve and this year’s tricky elections are negotiated, the union will somehow manage to keep going. If EU leaders want to negotiate revised membership (and all do say they want the UK to stay in), they could do so.

Sterling corner>Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the pound"

Britain’s richest and privately educated citizens account for 7% of the population yet makes up two-thirds of judges and around half of journalists and members of parliament, according to a government report. Meanwhile, the Child Poverty Action Group estimates that 3.9 million children live in poverty.

The UK ranks second in the developed world for inequality, after the US.

Brexit will not change that, nor will it make Britain more united:

The English patient was sick long before the divorce from Europe.

With an economy focused on finance and services, and highly dependent on foreign investment, the idea of creating a “truly global Britain” isolated from its closest trading partner is economic la-la land.

Brexit is a symptom of Britain’s deeply rooted economic imbalances: a growth model too concentrated on finance and services and dependent on foreign goods, human and financial capital; record-high social and wealth inequality; a lack of investment in infrastructure and education; and monetary and fiscal policies that have helped create a property bubble and excess household debt.

Brexit will not fix the shortfalls of the Anglo-American growth engine, which ran on credit and rising asset prices over the past few decades, disregarding rising inequality, a lack of inclusive access to education and declining social mobility.

General observations :

Article 50 makes life very difficult for any country wishing to withdraw from EU membership.  You might think this deliberate and take it as yet another symptom of perfidious Brussels.  But we should remember that the English Government and parliament signed up to it.

However the design of the euro suffered from two big defects that still haunt the single currency. The euro, in short, remains a troubled currency, with question-marks over both its membership and its direction. There is general agreement that it needs further integration, but disagreement about how to go about it.

The EU’s Institutions, built up over six decades, are not ideally suited to responding flexibly to challenges such as the single currency, migration or foreign and security policy. The European Parliament needs greater legitimacy to influence the European Commission is much more than a civil service; it is the guardian of the treaties, the originator of almost all legislation and the sole executor of the EU’s budget while suffering from having too many commissioners. (28, one per member country)

Terrorist attacks have struck at the heart of cities in the EU last year and will continue to do so while NATO continues to provide hard security for most EU countries.

Europe cannot be naïve and has to take care of its own security. There is no point any longer being a “soft power.

Finally:

The Horizon 2020, in Europe is the world’s biggest multinational research programme.

Maybe there are some things that could be done for the people of Europe that are not directly related to selling stuff?. Real efficiency comes from rethinking systems of bureaucracy from the ground up, not just using less paper.

The greatest task today is to consolidate the free world around Western values, not just interests,””digitizing” and “decarbonising” the economy.

Perhaps the idea of a Continental Partnership.  Might suit the UK.

Such a partnership could offer non-EU countries partial membership of the single market without full free movement of labour, and also create a system of decision-making that gave them an informal say (but no formal vote) in rule-making.

Perhaps this is the winning blow.

In all fights the promoters set the venue not the result.

England would do well to remember that it is not the EU who promoted this fight.

All comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked out of the ring.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of boxing gloves"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE: HAS A FURTHER THOUGHT ON BREXIT.

05 Friday May 2017

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

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

 

( A one minute read)

The meaning of Brexit is yet to become clear.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations 2016"

However it is clear that a British exit from the EU will carry with it large economic and political costs.

It is also evident that none of the alternative relations with the EU presents itself as more advantageous compared to EU membership.

It is also clear that leaving the EU will be a historical mistake of paramount proportions and it will impact on the UK for many years to come.

It is also clear that they will become impossible.

These set aside the above and you don’t have to be a genius to know that it is going to be a money war with us ( by us I mean Eu citizens living in England and vice a versa English living in the Eu) becoming political footballs.

The signs are already out in the open.

Tough leaked documents say EU wants Britain to have to pay off obligations to Brussels for years after Brexit, remain subject to European Union courts and continue to let relatives of European immigrants settle in the UK, according to draft EU negotiating documents.

On the English side: Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations 2016"

Ending free movement of workers from EU states, budget contributions to Brussels and oversight by the European court of justice (ECJ) are central to Theresa May’s plans for leaving the EU, due to happen in March 2019 after a two-year negotiating period.

This put her at odds with EU negotiators.

The chances of  Agreeing reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights derived from EU law at the date of withdrawal of EU and UK citizens, and their families, affected by the UK’s withdrawal from the union should be the first priority for the negotiations.

The money separation costs of 50 billion or 100 billion will become a gold mine for lawyers for years.

There is another option.

Secure the agreed reciprocal guarantees to safeguard the status and rights of all.  On agreement write off the money costs with no further negotiations on trade or otherwise.

It would save both sides a fortune.

If we all stand back and take a ruthless, non-tribal, unheroic look at the standards on offer in political leaders the incompetence on offer is near universal.

We can only hope for a Messy Brexit or a Clean Brexit.

The belief in free markets does not extend to the electoral marketplace, which would be in all of our interests. In the last 30 years, has any one thing actually ever been sorted out properly and left well alone to function?

None of this is the fault of the political parties: they have been born into a system that makes them incompetent in government. But they are to blame for not changing it. We all get so sucked into the low-level debates that today’s politics depend upon.

The main concern of the people is neither unemployment nor immigration, but the reform of EU institutions.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the eu english negotiations 2016"

It’s a mixture of the bare essentials of basic democracy, human rights, and rule of law, and stuff bolted on as the EU role has expanded hugely, and its operation become complex.

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

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: TO ENGLAND > ADIOS! SLAN ABHAILE! AUF WIEDERSEHAN ! OUT’ZA’NY ! WITH THE BUM’S RUSH

31 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by in Brexit.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

,

( Sorry: This is a rather long read )

It’s hard to shed a tear as Britain formally triggers the doleful negotiations to exclude itself from the mainstream of European politics and economics.

In this post I am interested in exploring the Hidden aspects of ‘Brexit’ and the Hidden Costs of the FORTHCOMING negotiations.

Article 50 is a one-way street, once it is invoked there is no procedural route for going back and, if an agreement is not reached and an extension of time not given, then the United Kingdom will exit the European Union two years from the date of notification of intention to exit

Even an amicable deal risks major legal hurdles. Any exit deal struck outside Article 50 would risk legal challenge before the EU courts. What is more, any treaty changes would trigger a referendum in other EU countries, which could either stop the process dead and/or infuriate those on the other side of the table.

The UK has a long history in which it abused its relative power over other populations. Jean Claude Juncker and Theresa May

So as we now watch the inevitable turmoil which will follow UK withdrawal from the EU it would be wise to  remember that according to constitutional practice in the United Kingdom, Parliament has no formal role in treaty-making, as the power to do so is vested in the executive, acting on behalf of the Crown.

However Treaties with direct financial implications require the assent of Parliament because they affect revenue.

( The most common type are bilateral agreements to avoid double taxation. The texts are laid in the form of draft Orders in Council and are occasionally debated.

 Many treaties require a change to domestic legislation which will be subject to the usual parliamentary procedures.

 Treaties which stipulate Parliamentary approval – where an agreement is of a political nature and is known to be controversial, one or both of the governments involved may wish to safeguard its position by writing an express requirement for parliamentary approval into the text.

 Treaties which require ratification are subject to the Ponsonby procedure (see below)

 Other treaties and international agreements may be subject to some degree of parliamentary scrutiny if a Member raises the issue through a Parliamentary Question or early Day Motion, for example.

The UK has over 14,000 treaties.

The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (in force since 1980) defines a treaty as: ‘an international agreement concluded between States in written form and governed by international law, whether embodied in a single instrument or in two or more related instruments and whatever its particular designation’ Only a minority of such agreements have “treaty” in their title. Other common names include “convention”, “protocol” and “agreement”.

As we all know looking back on history treaties are not worth the paper they are written on. For example : The Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, was meant to be a partnership between Māori and the British Crown. Although it was intended to create unity, different understandings of the treaty, and breaches of it, are still causing conflict.

or

Hitler’s had said in (1924) that he would abolish the Treaty of Versailles. It can be argued that it was not just Hitler who broke the Treaty of Versailles, but also Britain and France, when they allowed him to do what he did.

Britain has not been as insular an island as some people take it to be.

Separated by just 20 miles (33 kilometers) of water at the Strait of Dover its reigning royal family (which is German) to its exports (overwhelmingly to Europe), have both shaped and been shaped by developments in the rest of Western Europe.

England joined the European Union through the Royal Prerogative, and will negotiate and leave the European Union through the same.

So what is the Royal Prerogative ?

The royal prerogative has been called “a notoriously difficult concept to define adequately”,

The prerogative appears to be historically and as a matter of fact nothing else than the residue of discretionary or arbitrary authority which at any given time is legally left in the hands of the crown. The prerogative is the name of the remaining portion of the Crown’s original authority … Every act which the executive government can lawfully do without the authority of an Act of Parliament is done in virtue of the prerogative.

or

By the word prerogative we usually understand that special pre-eminence which the King hath, over and above all other persons, and out of the ordinary course of common law, in right of his regal dignity … it can only be applied to those rights and capacities which the King enjoys alone, in contradiction to others, and not to those which he enjoys in common with any of his subjects.

Hopeful and aspirational international declarations of human rights have led progressively towards the adoption and implementation of more robust and justiciable instruments for the protection of fundamental rights in the domestic sphere.

Amid political, social, legal and economic crisis, – this narrative is dying.

UK (a day after invoking Article 50, setting Brexit negotiations in motion), is now proposing to using powers dating back to Henry VIII. to convert European laws into domestic legislation without any parliamentary scrutiny.

The  fact that the UK unwritten magna carta constitution allowed these sorts of powers to survive is “a wondrous thing” as he was all about essentially dictatorial powers.

The scope, and the definition of these powers and when they can be used, in what circumstances, is a black hole of the future of the UK and can only be viewed as a power grab by Mother Theresa.

This is not only undemocratic, but may well lead to the loss of individual rights.

In the current climate, it is perhaps more than the ghost of Henry VIII that will haunt them.

EU law still applies in the U.K pending an exit.

“A bill that limits the powers of the European Court of Justice is a plain contradiction of EU treaty obligations.”

The right to complain to, or seek a decision from, EU institutions will be beheaded by Brexit.

The EU’s court system could be similarly cut off by Brexit, relying on the domestic judicial system and common law and ECHR rights.

The U.K. courts would face a constitutional crisis. Judges would have, on the one hand, the 1972 Act telling them to apply EU law and, on the other, legislation restricting it.

A fundamental tenet of EU treaty law is that it trumps all national law.

There will be a “constitutional conflict [that] would antagonize and politicize the judiciary on both sides.

Governments of Scotland and Wales and NI could also raise constitutional concerns.

“It is hard to imagine that unilateral action to stop applying EU law, while still under a treaty obligation to so, will create a lot of goodwill in subsequent negotiations.”

EU citizens could sue the U.K. government for compensation if they suffer damages as a result of conduct contrary to EU law.

All of this points to the need for absolute transparence in the forthcoming negotiations.

This is not a war in the true sense of endangering lives, but as Brexit becomes more of a reality, the UK’s financial services sector will be the foot soldiers in a financial war over costs, tariffs, stock exchanges, and the European bond marketplace.

Money wars always turn ugly quickly.

It could easily sour the rest of the Brexit talks process, and the “new relationship” process to follow. You can see how the politics of this could get toxic quite quickly.

Britain’s exit bill is a potential slaughterhouse for the idea of a smooth and orderly negotiated settlement.

Britain as a full member state has agreed to current EU budget, so the European Commission expects it to honour its commitments and pay up its share – somewhere in the region of €29 – €36 billion.

Getting a deal done is a political tight-rope walk, with one major sensitivity being the issue of where the combined Agencies will be based.

The European Medicines Agency, which, like the Food and Drug Administration, oversees the approval of drugs for use across Europe, is a European Union agency, so it will almost certainly have to leave Britain. Drug companies might require two authorizations for new products — one British, one European — pushing up the prices of medicine.

The European Banking Authority will also have to re locate.

Brexit will jeopardize the creation of a single European capital market.

THEN WE HAVE 45, European Union agencies, or similar bodies, and they are considered trophies for member countries because they bring both prestige and economic benefits – WITH THEIR PENSIONS.

The pensions of EU civil servants are not paid from an invested pension fund – they are paid on a pay-as-you-go basis from each year’s EU budget. The pension liability is about €67 billion. Who wants to get stuck for a pension bill for Eurocrats (average retirement benefit €67,149 a year)

The British will argue that their obligation stops the day they leave the EU, or might continue with pension payments for the British staff of the Commission (about 4% of staff) – this would cost about €80m this year.

And there is a whole stack of off-balance sheet items.

It will add tens of millions to Ireland’s annual legal costs and severely limit the government’s ability to protect the country’s interests in EU legislation.

Michel Barnier’s EU negotiating team will argue they have an ongoing commitment to pay, because they gave a commitment as a member state to cover the retirement cost of all staff hired, and must pay the UK share of that cost – between 12 and 15% – giving a cost this year of around €120m. But the pension funding commitment won’t peak until 2049, when it will hit €218m for the UK share.

There are also a stack of other liabilities – such as the €16 billion Juncker fund for economic stimulus, or the €3 billion Galileo satellite navigation system, €10 billion for the Connecting Europe fund. And there are contingent liabilities and guarantees on loans made to the European Investment bank (€23 billion), and the various EU bailout schemes, which amount to €56 billion. The UK has a share of some of the guarantees that allow this money to be borrowed at low rates (adding its heft to the ratings agencies’ AAA rating for EU debt).

But just as the EU has liabilities, it also has assets on its balance sheet, and the UK would be due a share of these to offset the exit bill. These include €8.6 billion of property, plant and equipment – including the Commission’s Berlaymont Building in Brussels, and the Galileo satellites – and €13.9 billion of assets available for sale.

The UK is also due a share of EU spending over the next few years, so about €9 billion is netted off the final figure for that. And there is some of Mrs Thatcher’s famous budget rebate due to the UK as well. So that has to come off to arrive at a net figure for the British bill.

A key point of contention is what is the British share of the EU budget – is it calculated from Gross National Income (GNI) in which case Britain has to pay up 15% of the overall EU bill. Or is it calculated (as the British would prefer) from an average of actual contributions after the rebate – in which case it is 12.1%.

If the UK share of the bills is set at 12% they would have to pay €57.4 billion. At 15% share, the cost to the UK would be €72.8 billion.

The exit costs will be settled by politics, not law. That’s how pretty much all EU money fights end – by a political compromise. The entire system is set up to produce political compromises.

Yes the EU could simply refuse to budge and run down the two-year Article 50 clock to extract concessions from the British. But the danger is if the talks with Britain collapse completely there is no deal of any sort – on trade as much as the terms of departure – and the EU states are left to fight among themselves over filling a €60 billion budget hole, or cutting aid to the most needy states (who are already enjoying less generous terms than we got when we were net beneficiaries of the EU budget ).

With pressure on both sides to do a deal, how the departure payment issue is dealt with will set the tone for most of the other negotiations over the terms of Brexit.

The effects will be more far-reaching than anyone imagined.

TO GET ALL OF THIS DONE IN TWO YEARS IS FARCICAL.  HOWEVER YOU CAN REST ASSURED IF ANY OF IT IS DONE BY BACK DOOR DEALS WE WILL NOT BE SAYING GOODBYE TO ENGLAND BUT TO THE EU.

All contributions welcome. All like clicks chucked in the bin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT SHOULD THE EU SEEK IN THE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS.

23 Thursday Mar 2017

Posted by in Brexit., England., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Our Common Values., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

(A six minute read.)

Philip Hammond urged EU countries to “think very carefully about what they want” before hanging Britain out to dry in any post-Brexit settlement.

The fact that even the process for conducting these negotiations is not fully covered by European law his advice although cloaked in threatening rhetoric should be heeded by the EU.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of eu brexit negotiators"

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) is the only formal structure for the negotiations but offers no more than a broad framework for the negotiations. More detailed guidance will largely depend on legal interpretation and political bargaining, and will only be issued after the UK activates article 50 and begins exit proceedings.

To date I have only heard in vague terms what the UK wants.

It seems to me at the moment that there is no consensus on how the UK should approach negotiations on its relationship with the EU. In particular which parts of its current relationship with the EU the UK seeks to preserve and which it has to either renegotiate or walk away from.

This post asks what from an EU perspective what will the negotiations mean.

The European Council’s main role is to define the general political direction and the priorities of the EU.

Although it has no formal legislative power, it has an influential strategic role and provides a final escalation level for discord among member states at the ministerial level.

For the negotiations on the exit conditions, the formal role of the European Council is limited to the beginning of the negotiation process.

It will then set out the guidelines for the withdrawal agreement, without the UK’s participation, through unanimous agreement.

These guidelines will provide general directions and key conditions for the Union negotiator, the European Commission. They will also define the role of the other institutions, the time path and sequence of the negotiation process.

The European Commission is ultimately responsible for negotiations related to the common foreign and security policy (CFSP). In addition to this, the European Parliament has voted in favour of having the Commission led the negotiations.

Out of all the EU institutions, the role of the Parliament is, in legal terms, the least clearly pronounced. Although it has to sign off, by simple majority, on both the exit proceedings and the any future trade deal, its involvement throughout the negotiations will remain uncertain until the European Council issues its guidelines. Nonetheless, the possibility that the Parliament can block the deal(s) gives it significant power over the negotiation process and the content of the agreement.

The European institutions that are involved in the negotiations each cater to different interests.

The Council represents the Member States, the Parliament the European citizens, and the Commission stands for the EU as a whole.  For that reason it is crucial that the European Parliament gets a strong role in the negotiation process. It would be difficult to think of a better way to show the benefits of European citizenship, for the British and for Europeans alike.

In a bid to maximise the benefits of the negotiations for European citizens, national governments and for the EU as a whole it is essential:

That the European Council issues negotiation guidelines that serve the interests of European citizens and Europe as a whole, and not just those of the Member States.

That the Parliament’s role is defined by the recognition of its political input and the citizens that it represents, rather than by its mere power to block an agreement.

That the European Parliament, as the highest democratic body of the European Union, be involved in all steps of the negotiation process. This is to be achieved by: setting up a special committee to formalise interinstitutional contacts between the Brexit negotiators from the Council Task Force, the Commission and the Parliament; and by making the European Parliament’s lead negotiator part of the Union’s negotiating team.

It is quite obvious that there is going to be not just one deal, but probably two or more.

So to date on the European side we have only rumors of  a massive exit fees in the billions and little else. ( see previous post)

A pretty core question is whether the UK is prepared to concede even the principle that it has liability for any EU expenditure, beyond the pensions of UK citizen employees of the EU.

My guess is that will not be conceded per se, but that one could imagine some notional payment being made, for purely political presentational reasons, to secure a trade deal. I’m thinking of something like £7bn under some pretext-or-other, plus an annual agreement to participate in this or that research funding programme and some pan-European anti-crime-and-terrorism fund.

It also seems to me that the EU is going to have to re-negotiate some of its own terms of international trade due to a downsizing of its market.

Will the UK be paying the cost of these negotiations.

Unfortunately the English don’t seem to understand that the decision to join the EU was irrevocable.

The people of England listened to a bunch of charlatans promising a “Global Britain”, rubbish; Britain has nothing to sell. Yes, the City of London , due to its peculiar legal status will remain the world center for money laundering and financial manipulation, aside from that what have you got?

You just had to hire the Chinese to build a power station! The apparent prosperity of the last 25 years has been built on a mountain of debt, which means that if BofE is forced to defend the pound by raising interest rates the whole economy will come crashing down.

Expect the GB pound to hit 50cents US within months. And don’t think you have any credit left with the old empire, after the stab in the back of Australia and particularly New Zealand nobody is interested in your BS.

If you had any sense at all you would all ask May to admit that voting to leave was a big mistake and please take us back.

The EU is perfectly within its rights to take into account any repercussions to their union’s stability in the way they approach Brexit. Britain can leave anytime they want – they just can’t expect to receive all the privileges that came with membership.

Britain will find out soon enough that leaving the EU is like the spoiled teenager who runs away from home because their parental units won’t buy them the latest iphone. All of a sudden they are cold, dirty, wet and hungry.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of eu brexit negotiators"

Theresa May has said she intends to trigger this process on 29 March, meaning the UK will be expected to have left by the summer of 2019, depending on the precise timetable agreed during the negotiations.

She wants with a “comprehensive free trade deal” giving the UK “the greatest possible access” to the single market  to reach a new customs union deal with the EU without the free movement of people.

No matter what, on both sides there are now massive vested interests under threat and hence they will stop at nothing to protect the machine. Nothing.

In the end it is the people on both sides that count. In or Out.

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

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHO IS GOING TO PAY FOR BREXIT.

17 Friday Mar 2017

Posted by in Brexit., England., European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

 

( A TWO MINUTE READ: THAT WILL SAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION BILLIONS)

Button 50 might not be nuclear but it will have collateral damage to revile one.

It is the greatest disaster to befall the European Union in its 59-year history.

Theresa May vows if EU tries to ‘punish’ Britain we will walk away WITHOUT a Brexit deal (Photo: Getty)

The economic consequences for the UK from leaving the EU are complex.

You don’t have to be a genius to recognise THAT to unscramble 40 years of European integration is going to cost sheds loads of loot – euros and sterling. 

The total bill kicked around at the moment is estimated to be between €40 billion (£34 billion) and €60 billion (£52 billion).

We all know what happens with estimates.

All 28 member states have to unanimously agree to the terms of a deal meaning the negotiations could take years.

In the meantime Britain is still bound by the obligations and responsibilities of EU membership.

ARE THEY INDEED.

Theoretically, there is nothing to stop a British Government unilaterally withdrawing from the EU by simply repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Article 50 compels only the EU to seek a negotiation, not the withdrawing member state.

Triggering Article 50, formally notifying the intention to withdraw, starts the clock running. After that, the Treaties that govern membership no longer apply to Britain.

At a glance | What is Article 50?

  • Article 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon gives any EU member the right to quit unilaterally, and outlines the procedure for doing so
  • There was no way to legally leave the EU before the Treaty was signed in 2007
  • It gives the leaving country two years to negotiate an exit deal
  • Once set in motion, it cannot be stopped except by unanimous consent of all member states
  • Any deal must be approved by a “qualified majority” of EU member states and can be vetoed by the European Parliament
  • In November 2016, the High Court ruled that the Government cannot trigger Article 50 without MPs voting on the matter first. The Supreme Court upheld the ruling in January 2017

Under the Vienna Convention, the termination of a treaty “releases the parties from any obligation further to perform the treaty”.

Furthermore under EU’s own laws mean there is no “legal obligation” to cough up any cash if no deal is struck.

THERESA MAY can walk away from the EU without paying a penny of the Brussels’ £50-£60 billion divorce bill.

European Union and the Union flag sit on top of a sand castle

The EU will lose more than just economic and political strength — it will also see billions of euros disappear from its budget. Net revenues that flow into the EU from Britain each year range from 14 to 21 billion euros. If you subtract the money Britain gets back from Brussels, the EU budget would shrink by up to 10 billion euros per year.

Of course, there is a lot of money at stake.

HOWEVER THERE IS ONE THING THAT IS FOR SURE.

THE EU MOST INSURE THAT IF THE UK LEAVES OR NOT, ENGLAND MUST FOOT ALL THE BILLS THAT ARE DIRECTLY INVOLVED WITH THE PENDING NEGOTIATIONS. 

AFTER ALL: NONE OF THE COST INVOLVED ARE A RESULT OF ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE EU.

Not to demand so would be act of calamitous self-harm.

Ongoing spending commitments -Being without legal precedent, there is no simple answer to whether the EU Treaty, to which all members are signatories, or the secondary legislation arising from it, would apply to a state that is leaving.

 Legally, the UK’s obligation to these payments or others is unclear.

IN THE MEANTIME IT IS THE DUTY OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT TO PROTECT THE INTERESTS OF THE CITIZENS OF THE EU.

We all know that the EU is in need of radical change.

ONCE MRS MAY ENACTS ARTICLE 50 BEFORE ANY NEGOTIATIONS OR TRANSITION DEAL THE EU MUST PUT IN PLACE A TOTALLY TRANSPARENT COSTING AND REMUNERATION PACKET.

Agreement on this WILL be needed before talks over trade deal negotiations begin.

The member states will be forced to negotiate the bloc’s finances at the same time they begin Brexit negotiations. But how will Brussels be able to determine its budget without knowing how much the British government will be paying into it?

Britain needs to define its position concerning the direct costs before any kind of future relationship the British will seek with the EU.

That, though, will determine the price of future ties NOT THE COSTS OF SEPARATION.

The main thing, in my opinion, is that Brexit is an opportunity to reform the Union in a way which will make it more effective and stop countries wanting to break away.

On March 25, 2017, European leaders will mark the sixtieth anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Rome, the EU’s founding document. It will be a fraught celebration.

The EU Treaties would also need to be amended to reflect the UK’s departure. In effect, this means that the final deal at the end of a negotiated UK exit from the EU would need to be ratified by EU leaders via a qualified majority vote, a majority in the European Parliament and by the remaining 27 national parliaments across the EU.

Life goes on,

EU and GB flag face paint kiss

It is almost certain that we will end up with no deal.

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

THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO ENACT THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

07 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Artificial Intelligence., Big Data., Donald Trump Presidency., European Union., Google it., Google Knowledge., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Social Media., Technology, The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, World Politics

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , , ,

( A Ten Minute read that might open your eyes to the Obvious)

I am sure like me you often wonder why it is that when something is obvious we humans are unable to react.  It is obvious that Technology is changing the world and us but nothing hides like the obvious. The obvious is best disguised into itself. One obvious hides another. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the blatantly obvious"

Intelligent reason should visit its basic assumptions, regularly; but it doesn’t.

We all know that an own goal is an accident when it comes in sport unless there is some ulterior motive.

In the course of our own lives we have many own goals, some obvious, some accidental, but when it comes to collective action on one hand we cannot bear to notice our children becoming strangers and our parents growing senile. However on the other we are less concerned about Nations heading to war, companies going bust, greed and technology ruining our civilisation.

The obvious turns perverse.

We have too much stake in them to see clear and hear change ringing.

Is this the reason we cannot enact the obvious.?

We do not see what we do not wish to see, hoping that it will go away or solve itself. We grow blind to things we cannot cope with. We see and hear but we keep forgetting at once as if under a spell of neglect.

Our attention is so easily diverted… we just move on with inertia and sleep-walk unable to draw the undesired conclusion and to do something.

We do not grasp the incommensurable, out of proportion with us, with which we have no common standard of measurement: the trillions of billions, the hazy dots shown by the electronic microscope in a cell, or all the same, the blurred dots being huge stars of the infinite, mean nothing to us, exactly like the hypocrite warnings of cancer and death on cigarette packs. Is this because the things smalled below our threshold or amplified huge – in proportions or in meaning – we do not grasp;

If this is so we have a narrow human window of perception and judgement with limited parameters in wavelength, amplitude, intensity and nature.

However we are the measure of all things we conceive.

Whether it be demographic and social change, shifts in economic power, technological breakthroughs or natural resource scarcities, climate change – the world, and those of us in it, need to be more adaptable than ever before.

Overwhelmed by the creativity of Artificial Intelligence, our governments do not protect us anymore, so that the risk is now our own business.

Reason has become asks references, with a hidden price of selective blindness and thus freedom diminished.  It is easier to observe other people’s basic assumptions than yours.

 If that which is not there is difficult to see,  that which is obvious, plain and evident, is at times even harder to notice.

For instance:

Is it not blinding obvious that Twitter now holds unmitigated power when it comes to posting Donald Trump’s tweets.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of confused politicians"

Is it not bleeding obvious that Google wants to control all knowledge.  Very few of us spending an instant to examine Google Fraud answers.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "image of google logo"

It is beyond the obvious that in a world that is getting more complex and multipolar each and every single day the truth does not cease to exist when it is ignored.

Not missing the things right under our nose is our last protection against danger, loss and disappointment; it grants our judgement to be sound and wise, with feet on ground.

You will agree though that the obvious is the very face of reality.

Take notice of the obvious and suddenly, instead of nodding sheepishly “This is how things are.” you gain the power to make choices which you and most people around you ignored before.

The obvious known, comes alive for us to do something about it only when understanding turns it into personal image, vivid and simple enough to be of our size; otherwise we stay paralysed and dumb.

If you are like me, we need to let  people participate in democracy and get collective decisions that are reasonable.

I often think when it comes to politics and our governments that there are things that are so blinding obvious (when all the bullshit is set aside) to do.

For example to reform the European Union.

Is it not blinding obvious that we should stop the moving of  the £130 million travelling circus that sees MEPs decamp once a month from Brussels to Strasbourg.

Why should we all be held to ransom by France.  On Monday, about 1,000 politicians, officials and translators will make the same journey on two specially chartered trains hired at taxpayers’ expense. If France want it let them pay for it.  “Its madness.” Just think how many better ways there are to spend this money.

It boggles my mind as to why we put up with it.

God only knows what the cost of Brixit will be.

There is no doubt that seething resentment over widening inequalities in the wake of the financial crisis played a big role in boosting the Brexit vote but it is also blinding obvious that England is now facing a major realignment that will need the EU market and the free movement of people to survive economically.

There is NO simple solution – if there was it would have been done by now.

How do you know a politician is being dishonest? He blames something on “special interests.” What is a special interest? Why, it is an interest opposed to the “general interest” or collective will.  There ain’t no such thing.

That might not be possible.  The challenge for me – and you – is to sort out which is which.

 

 

But this is not the purpose of this post, rather to examine the broader question.

I am also all too conscious that there are any number of people out there who have deeply held convictions about what’s right and what’s wrong. I may just be right about some things, I may be wrong about others.

In a world predominated by power of a more self-interest nature, has the obvious being consigned to the rubbish bin of politics.

Without having read and understood the instructions book of life, algorithms are switching on an immensely complicated machine.

Once injected into to the political system they can develop a life of their own.

Politics stems from human misbehaviour, which clashes with the terms of modern democratic belief systems in which all adults are assumed to be entitled to behave as they feel inclined, at least within the scope of their income and the constraints of public law and insofar as they refrain from damaging the opportunities of their fellow citizens to do likewise.  Algorithms have none of these constraints.

” It is blinding obvious with the election of Donald Trump a man who revels in his own ignorance, racism and misogyny, that there is no single way of acting.”

Even if there was how would we set about determining what it is? Whom can we trust to do so?

Whom is to be judge? What is an advantage to one group of human beings and what is not to the advantage of another.

Until recent times politics and science usually managed to ignore each other.

Not any more:

Social Media which is riddled with algorithms are now blindly leading us down the road of Technological Inequality by turning the obvious into Fake News.

As a result politics appears where the main contours of collective and social life set the principal interests of groups of humans beings against one another.

Where they do not Conflict politics will not occur.

Social Media politics by Twitter will achieve conflict with a plum. Watch this Space.

So where does this leave us.

You would think that when something becomes blatantly obvious it would be common sense with no need for political input to enact or rectify it.

Isn’t that blindingly obvious to everyone except our politicians.

Contrary to popular belief, “the capacity to err is crucial to human cognition” and that “wrongness is a vital part of how we learn and change.” DONALD TRUMP’S LEGACY. Politicians and bureaucrats, naturally, don’t enjoy being criticised. But if the response is to shut out those who criticise then they are making their work even harder and setting themselves up for more criticism.

The view that to understand politics we first need to know what politics is has a certain immediate force.  BUT WHAT IS NEEDED is something which reaches beyond the tribe and doesn’t rely on conventional party politics within the existing structures. Instead of “to me” we need to change it “to us”.

I know that people drown in stats and often put their fingers in their ears when it comes to the blinding obvious. The fact of the matter is that all wisdom does not, and never has, resided in government’s. Changes must be initiated with Indigenous people’s informed consent, in ways that resonate with their views of what is legitimate and in ways that gain their support.

This will not happen by coercion and imposition.

Consider this:

The most incontrovertible long-range social observation ever made? Was the Galilean carpenter Jesus’ comment that “The poor will be with you always”

Governments have had 222 years to get this right. On any evaluation, governments have fallen seriously short. Every indicator says government is not capable of solving this alone.

The words that feature prominently in Politic confronted with the squalor are appalling, dismal, neglect, waste.

Without comprehending the magnitude of different cultural outlooks – and without often understanding our own – we make it artificially difficult to create the kind of society we think we are as a nation – or the one we want to be.

It’s blatantly obvious that to solve the world’s problems we need a renewed reformed United Nations that is fully funded. (See previous Posts)

I do speak as someone who gives a damn, I don’t share is any thought that nothing can be done. “ Not bleeding hearts, just the bleeding obvious”

Or will we dare create something that people can point to and say “Now that’s what justice and decently looks like?” The answer, I am convinced, lies with us working – together – for humanity. And that, to me, is just “bleeding obvious”.

Let me conclude by being so bold as to suggest the “bleeding obvious”…..

I avoid the word “solutions” We’ve got to look to the future.”

All Technology must be vetted by a new World Organisation that is totally transparent  to ensure that it complies to enhancing our lives, and that is has a source of responsibility.

We cannot have various visionaries tell us that the real world is not what we experience but the one they reveal and proclaim, so that we must follow them.

I invite government to let go of the idea of imposing universal solutions and support those programs that respect and honour the multiplicity of cultural differences.

The useless conclusion is that our senses and memories cheat us, our common sense is no good and our judgement false.

Science does almost the same in all good faith; it invites us not to believe our impressions and intuitive reasoning but to delegate all-knowing to its specialists, the knowers and witnesses of verified truth too-complicated- for- common- people- to-understand.

Knowing our history is part of being human.

What are the seeds our common humanity? What right and decent? And so I ask will our final words be tragic, like those Henry Dunant “Where has humanity gone?”

The passion and commitment of so many decent people out there is constantly being tested. Keeping up the energy and the enthusiasm is a constant battle and it shouldn’t be obvious.

Liberty is not about thinking or saying or doing whatever we want. It is about exercising our freedom in such a way as to make a difference in the world and make a difference for more than just ourselves.

That should be obvious to one in all.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of confused politicians"

All comments obviously welcome. All like clicks chucked in the Bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I am still pissed off.

 

We need Bottom up development. If Europe does not set social limits to competition then the market outcome will be exploitation of workers and not innovation. European social standards together with massive investment in skills are more than ever necessary.

The Syria crisis will only make things worse for Europe, which remains incapable of fixing its broken migration policy, and the chance for migration reform in the United States has faded away.

 

Globalisation-induced changes in the sharing of wealth in the world, combined with the demographic trends of the continents will soon generate new needs for regulation

All this is easy to say but what to do about it?

 

Detecting the obvious, the one which we do not notice any more, is a vital art of liberation; glimpses that can change the world.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: PERHAPS IT’S TIME FOR EUROPEAN UNION COUNTRIES TO HAVE TWO CURRENCIES.

04 Saturday Mar 2017

Posted by in Brexit., European Commission., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Modern day life., The Future, Unanswered Questions., Uncategorized, What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

( A Seven minute Brainstorm read for all Europeans)

I have always thought that the introduction of the Euro without countries being in control of their money was and still is nonsensical.  That a foreign entity prevent two members of the community from exchanging among themselves is farcical in the age of electronic transfers.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european union flags"

We are all aware that we are heading into an age of Automation with its consequences for Jobs and Taxation where money will become more than ever just  a system of signs recording who owes what to whom.

Money is one of the tools that a community bestows on itself for its common operations. That is for a Greek fisherman to pay his Greek baker.,

it should have nothing to do with the money of another one – unless they are not different communities.

ALL THESE ELEMENTS, ALONG WITH COUNTLESS OTHERS ARE RAPIDLY GATHERING TO TEST THE UNITY OF THE EUROPEAN UNION WITH THE PIG IN THE POKE BEING THE EURO.

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "photos de billets de banque en euros"

Euro zone nations first thrived under the euro. The common currency brought with it the elimination of exchange rate volatility (and associated costs), easy access to a large and monetarily unified European market, and price transparency.

Now regional tensions within countries are being fueled by this monetary unification. Irrespective of how any individual nation’s economy performs, all euro zone nations are impacted by the common euro currency valuation.

IN THE LONG RUN THERE IS NO GETTING AWAY FROM: that the future of the euro will depend on how EU policies evolve to address the monetary challenges of individual nations under a single monetary policy.

In the last year, non-euro EU currencies have generally performed better than the euro.

There are currently 28 nations in the European Union and of these, nine countries are not in the eurozone—the unified monetary system using the euro.

EU nations are diverse in culture, climate, population, and economy. Nations have different financial needs and challenges to address. The common currency imposes a system of central monetary policy applied uniformly.

Since the European Central Bank (ECB) sets the economic and monetary policies for all euro zone nations, there is no independence for an individual state to craft policies tailored for its own conditions.

As we witness in 2011 several European countries were and still are mired in the problem of using a currency which they do not control: Greece, Portugal, Ireland, and soon Spain, Italy, France.

These countries all have an important trade deficit which leads each of them to a chronic dearth of money supply and to the nonsensical situation of needing to borrow money from abroad (Germany, Northern Europe, or directly the ECB) in order for their citizens to be able to exchange goods and services among each other.

The problem, is what’s good for the economy of one euro zone nation may be terrible for another.

So is it time to scrap the Euro and introduce a two tier monetary systems.

Electronic Euro and national currencies.  Electronic euro the trading currency and the National currencies the reserve currency.

The “reserve” currency entirely distinct from trade currencies. A separate and distinct difference between the currency being used in trade and the currency being used to store wealth.

This idea might well have being intractable when the money used for everyday expenditures was metal and paper based, but it is no longer the case with the advent of no contact payment systems with mobile telephones and very large databases systems like Google Adsense.

If the European Union is not to disintegrates it easy to foresee that countries will inescapably return to a domestic currency for their internal affairs, while they’ll keep the euro for their external trade within the Euro zone.

In other words, they will use a system of double currency: one internal and one external.

This would allow room individual countries losing price competitiveness for export to addressed by deliberately devaluing its trade currency in order to make its exports cheaper and more attractive.

The future evolution OF THE EUROPEAN UNION IS NOT FEDERALISM it will be in the opposite direction: toward smaller communities, enjoying some autonomy, and being able to have their own currencies.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of european union flags"

On a practical level, a multiple-currency system requires that payments be made no longer with paper banknotes and coins but with some convenient electronic devices. The new systems of no contact payment with our mobile phones provide a solution. In the background, our payments will be recorded and managed in large databases, just as they are today. Such complex databases are not a thing of the future, Google Adsense is one of them, arguably more complex than what we advocate.

Paper currency came into prominent worldwide use at the time of World War I, and has played a major role in shaping the global history of the last 100 years and despite huge and ongoing technological advances in electronic transactions technologies, it has remained surprisingly durable, even if its major uses seem to be buried in the world underground and illegal economy.

The monetary means were also kept in the hands of the central authority, with the justification that it was one of the fundamental pillars of power. In the XXth century attempts to make central banks independent of the executive ended in failures. For instance the US Fed or the European ECB have demonstrated that they cannot but do what they are told by governments.

With many central banks now near or at the zero interest rate bound, there are increasingly strong arguments for exploring how it might be phased out of use.

There is no good reason why a country could not use its own money for its internal operations (what economists dub its “sheltered activities”). In fact it happens here and there, it is called a local exchange trading system, and is “tolerated” by central authorities as long as it doesn’t become too big, and doesn’t shirk taxes.

Taxes are certainly necessary for a community to function. But they should indeed be in the several currencies used by that country.

Indeed every country with a monetary system with several currencies in the wallet of the citizens. Each currency will correspond to one of the communities to which he or she belongs: city, region, nation, economic zone, and world.

The world could be reduced to only a handful of monetary authorities, with some of them exercising monetary policy internationally, and with strong need for coordination.

This will represent a sharp change from the times when sovereign nations necessarily had their own unique currency; it was even a mark of their power.

All comments or suggestions welcome. All like clicks chucked in the BIN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

any attempt to eliminate large-denomination currency would ideally be taken up in a treaty that included at the very least the major global currencies.

In small and very open economies, the presence and use of international currency is unavoidable.

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: AFTER BRIXIT, ENGLAND CAN NOT RELY ON THE MAGNA CARTA. IT WILL NEED A WRITTEN CONSTITUTION.

28 Tuesday Feb 2017

Posted by in Brexit.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

( A three-minute read for U KIP.)

It is plain to see that English society has changed.

It is also a clear fact that Britain has survived very well until now with an unwritten constitution.

PRESSING THE BUTTON ON ARTICLE 50 IS ALSO PRESSING THE BUTTON ON THE MAGNA CARTA.

Why?

Because the public does understand the conventions which govern political procedure in England.

Because once England leaves the EU the state will become all-powerful. Parliament is supreme and can make or break laws. No parliament can bind its successors or be bound by its predecessors.

If UKIP wants to reinvent itself here is its opportunity.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of ukip"

Along with Israel, England is one of only two democracies in the world not to have a written constitution. Without a written constitution, the UK has no Bill of Rights to protect its citizens from an over powerful state.

Under the status quo, there is no superordinate legal document to which an individual or the government can point when they dispute whether or not a law is legitimate.  Thus, while popular opinion can prevent the government from brazen violations of citizens’ rights, more nuanced infringements persist with impunity. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the magna carta 1215"

The documents that currently make up the written component of the UK’s informal constitution provide an accessible starting point.

Such ancient texts and treaties as the Magna Carta would provide for a smooth transition from commonly-accepted legal principles to the formal entrenchment of those principles in the clauses of a  new written constitution.

While under the status quo all laws passed by parliament are considered of equal significance, there is an informal recognition by some jurists that certain laws, such as the Human Rights Act, enjoy a favored position within a hierarchy of laws.

A written constitution would simply help to formalize this de facto hierarchy.

A constitution would subject controversial laws to judicial review, yielding a more precise ruling on their constitutionality.  Regardless of which way the judiciary rules, it must be backed up by reasoned argument and interpretation of specific legal principles explicitly outlined in the constitution.  It is crucial to have an independent metric by which we evaluate when the government reaches the limits of what it may justly legislate.

A formal constitution provides the separation of powers necessary to keep each part of the government in check.

Clearly delineated oversight powers in an independent judiciary would halt Parliament’s attempts to overstep its mandate, and provide a mechanism to redress flagrant violations of ethics by MPs. Such a check on the power of the Parliament would be a welcome change from the status quo of a government who may act with little accountability short of an election.

Similarly, explicit and independent powers for the House of Lords and the House of Commons would codify a role to hold each other accountable.

This would be similar to the way that the United States constitution works with its famous separation of powers and checks and balances with the exception that the executive would still be within the legislature rather than completely separate.

England will have to review or replace hundreds of EU laws.

None more important than the existing EU Human Rights Act which at the moment in England only provide weak protection, because judges are able to rule that new laws are “non-compliant” with the Act – the government can ignore such rulings if it wishes. It can easily be (and has been) amended by a simple majority in both Houses of Parliament.

A written constitution with a proper Bill of Rights would provide much stronger protection for the rights of the citizen.

Entrenching the respective rights of individuals and the government adds clarity to issues where the boundaries of the law are vague.  Not every time that civil rights are eroded is it the result of the government overstepping what were previously thought to be the clear boundaries of the state’s power; sometimes there is a legitimate grey area regarding the meeting of two rights.

The argument against a written constitution is that written constitutions are ruled upon by judges. In Britain judges are unelected and it is therefore undemocratic to take power away from our elected representatives and give it to judges who tend to be quite reactionary.

It is a fact that the UK is a unitary state with Parliament sitting at Westminster being the only body competent to legislate for the UK and all laws in the UK including laws relating to the constitution may be enacted, repealed or amended by the Queen in Parliament.

There is no specific procedure for changing the law, that is, very important law can be changed by simple majority. This simply means that the decision-making process is not muted in any way by past legislation.

A constitution will vary with society but one of the most important arguments to consider is the fact that enshrining constitutional laws and customs in one document would provide clarity for those working within the system and for those who wished to scrutinise it.

Why should I fix that which is not broken”?

England will have no ties legal or otherwise with Europe and therefore will not need a similar legal foundation to the EU.

Not true.

In order to engage in intra-EU economic, social, and political relations, England will have to create a common conception of the foundation of EU  laws.

One way or the other it is important to enshrine clarity in its legal code.

The European Union will be agreeing the terms of separation under European Laws. For England to agreed these terms under an unwritten constitution seems impossible to me. 

All comments welcome all like clicks chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

every constitution will vary with society.

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT THE RISE OF POPULISMS.

07 Tuesday Feb 2017

Posted by in Brexit., Donald Trump Presidency., European Union., Modern day life., Politics., Populism., Social Media., Technology, The world to day., Twitter, Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , ,

( A Popular Four minute read)

It is important to understand this topic since it is apparent that the consequences of the rise of populism continue to play out and they are likely to be profound.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Populist forces have already proven decisive for the outcome of the British referendum on membership in the European Union, and the election of Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

Populists support charismatic leaders, reflecting a deep mistrust of the ‘establishment’ and mainstream parties who are led nowadays by educated elites with progressive cultural views on moral issues.

Since about 1970, affluent Western societies have seen growing emphasis on post-materialist and self-expression values among the younger birth cohorts and the better educated strata of society.

This has brought rising emphasis on such issues as environmental protection, increased acceptance of gender and racial equality, and equal rights for the LGBT community.

In recent decades, however, in Western democracies the backlash against cultural change has become increasingly prominent. Throughout advanced industrial society, massive cultural changes have been occurring that seem shocking to those with traditional values.

Moreover, immigration flows, especially from lower-income countries, changed the ethnic makeup of advanced industrial societies.

The newcomers speak different languages and have different religions and lifestyles from those of the native population—reinforcing the impression that traditional norms and values are rapidly disappearing.

All of the above combined were reinforcing each other in part, with long-term processes of generational change during the late twentieth century have catalyzed culture wars, and these changes are particularly alarming to the less educated and older groups in Western countries.

It therefore would be a mistake to attribute the rise of populism directly to economic inequality alone. The rise of populist parties reflects, above all, a reaction against a wide range of rapid cultural changes that seem to be eroding the basic values and customs of Western societies.

On one hand this cultural shift has fostered greater approval of social tolerance of diverse lifestyles, religions, and cultures, multiculturalism, international cooperation, democratic governance, and protection of fundamental freedoms and human rights. Social movements reflecting these values have brought policies such as environmental protection, same-sex marriage, and gender equality in public life to the center of the political agenda, drawing attention away from the classic economic redistribution issues.

But the spread of progressive values has also stimulated a cultural backlash among people who feel threatened by this development.

Less educated and older citizens, especially white men, who were once the privileged majority culture in Western societies, resent being told that traditional values are ‘politically incorrect’ if they have come to feel that they are being marginalized within their own countries.

As I have said, as cultures have shifted, now a tipping point appears to have occurred with the election of Donald Trump who exploited this change as did the Brixit supporters.

Britain’s decision to withdraw from the EU threatens to reenergize populist forces across Europe with France next on the list with Madame Le Pen. Afficher l'image d'origine Perhaps the most widely held view of mass support for populism is the economic insecurity perspective–emphasizes the consequences of profound changes transforming the workforce and society in post-industrial economies.

If the cultural backlash argument is essentially correct, then this has significant implications; the growing generational gap in Western societies is likely to heighten the salience of the cultural cleavage in party politics in future, irrespective of any improvements in the underlying economic conditions or any potential slowdown in globalization.

Alternatively, the cultural backlash thesis suggests that support can be explained as a retro reaction by once-predominant sectors of the population to progressive value change.

Populist leaders like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, Norbert Hoffer, Nigel Farage, and Geert Wilders are prominent today in many countries, altering established patterns of party competition in contemporary Western societies. The net result is that Western societies face more unpredictable contests, anti-establishment populist challenges to the legitimacy of liberal democracy, and potential disruptions to long-established patterns of party competition.

Education also proves significant, with populist parties winning greater support from the less educated sectors of the population.

Anti-immigrant attitudes, mistrust of global governance, mistrust of national governance, support for authoritarian values, and left-right ideological self-placement.

All cultural indicators that are significantly linked with populist voting and the coefficients. Not surprisingly, given populist xenophobic rhetoric, members of ethnic minorities are less inclined to support Populist parties.

In short, Populist support is greatest among the older generation, men, the less educated, ethnic majority populations, and the religious.

Given that populism does not appear to be waning in contemporary democracies let me ask these questions.

Under what circumstances are populist claims viewed as credible or not by their target audiences?

What accounts for temporal fluctuations in particular forms of populism within specific countries—and possibly across democracies in general?

Which groups are included in the category of the virtuous people and which elites (and associated groups) are vilified as morally suspect?

How is this classification process shaped by the broader political context (e.g., the position of the populist actors in the political field, the relative consolidation of political coalitions, the ability of mainstream actors to employ populist language)?

Populism which can be found on all sides of the political landscape is a thin-centered ideology. Driven by modern-day technology interlinkages of Smartphones, Social Media,  Facebook, Twitter and the lack of long-term political aspirations it fill the void between the political space and the need for more equality in opportunity for all.

The burning question of today is, shall we drop all other reform issues and run to meet the populist with open arms? or is the Populist platform almost too absurd to merit serious discussion.

I fear not.

Remember that The National Socialist German Worker’s Party founded in Germany in 1919 and brought to power in 1933 under Adolf Hitler was a fascist populist party.

Call it what you want, Authoritarianism, Elitism, Nationalism, Populism, Trumpism it must never be allowed power on its own.

Trump’s rhetorical is unmoored from any sense of reality whatsoever and there is nothing he says than can be taken at face value.

It is intellectual dishonesty.

A better way to describe populism I think would be cosmopolitan socialists.

Its followers see see themselves in opposition to elites of all kinds with the main bone of contention being a system corrupted by economic elites.

All comments welcome, all like clicks chucked in the bin.