Tag Archives: European Union

THE BEADY EYE: CAN WE BE PROUD -SERIES OF POSTS – NO 2. THE EUROPEAN UNION.

12 Wednesday Oct 2016

Posted by in European Commission., European Union., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Politics., The Refugees, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE: CAN WE BE PROUD -SERIES OF POSTS – NO 2. THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

,

( Sorry:  If you want to know what is wrong with the EU this is a good fifteen minute read.)

In the coming century, we face huge challenges, as a people, as a continent and as a global community.

How to deal with climate change. How to address the overweening power of global corporations and ensure they pay fair taxes. How to tackle cyber-crime and terrorism. How to ensure we trade fairly and protect jobs and pay in an era of globalisation. How to address the causes of the huge refugee movements across the world, and how we adapt to a world where people everywhere move more frequently to live, work and retire.Afficher l'image d'origine

Collective international action through the European Union is clearly going to be vital to meeting these challenges.

The EU comes in for a lot of criticism – often this criticism is entirely justified, often it serves as a convenient cover for domestic failings and incompetence.

No matter.  The alliance made between France and Germany which gave birth to the European Coal and Steel Community, a forerunner of the EU is the biggest peacemaking institution ever created in human history.

The ECSC was first conceived by Robert Schuman, the French foreign minister in 1950 “to make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible”.

And it has worked despite the long years of the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Basque insurgency, say, in Spain, or the continued partition of Cyprus, no two EU member states have ever gone to war against one another.

It’s a peace that may too often be taken for granted.16202337168_e49b249194_o 870x370

Unfortunately the EU remains incapable of expressing a shared vision of a common future, which is exactly what is needed at a time when Europe seems on the brink of falling apart, when Europeans are taking to the streets to express their wrath towards other partners in the union and when mainstream politicians in the UK are looking for a way out of the club.

—-

The single market is probably the EU’s single biggest achievement.

Europe’s history has been shaped by migration. Millions emigrated from Europe, first to the colonies and later to the Americas and the Antipodes.

Europe to-day should have revised its internal arrangements for dealing with migration flows. But frightened of the political backlash which any reform in immigration procedures entailed, EU government stuck to the old rules, which decree that each European state is responsible for dealing with refugees landed on its soil.

The result was a disgraceful “pass the parcel” game, in which each European country would turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants, provided they moved on to another European country. This has sparked a crisis with countries struggled to cope with the influx, and has created division in the EU over how best to deal with resettling people.

The European Commission and most EU governments are now under huge public pressure to ease the migrant crisis which has to be said is somewhat ironic as the EU accounts for half of all global aid.

Last year, it donated €53.1bn (£42.8bn). Aid constitutes about 9% of the EU budget.

Brussels sets standards of human rights, democracy and the rule of law to which countries must adhere if they want to be part of the European Union. In practical terms these guidelines have had a particular impact on the countries of southern, central and eastern Europe, which joined after they emerged from dictatorships with often underdeveloped civil societies.

More than a million migrants and refugees crossed into Europe in 2015 compared with just 280,000 the year before. (more than 1,011,700 migrants arrived by sea in 2015, and almost 34,900 by land. More than 3,770 migrants were reported to have died trying to cross the Mediterranean in 2015.  More than 1,250 unnamed men, women and children have been buried in unmarked graves in 70 sites in Turkey, Greece and Italy since 2014.

As a result the Schengen agreement to abandon border posts so as to make it  possible to travel freely and easily is now under attack.

Germany received the highest number of new asylum applications in 2015, with more than 476,000.

Faced with a huge influx of people, Hungary was the first to try to block their route with a razor-wire fence. The 175km (110-mile) barrier was widely condemned when it went up along the Serbia border, but other countries such as Slovenia and Bulgaria have erected similar obstacles. Although Germany has had the most asylum applications in 2015, Hungary had the highest in proportion to its population, despite having closed its border with Croatia in an attempt to stop the flow in October. Nearly 1,800 refugees per 100,000 of Hungary’s local population claimed asylum in 2015. It had 177,130 applications by the end of December.

Sweden followed close behind with 1,667 per 100,000.

The figure for Germany was 587 and for the UK it was 60 applications for every 100,000 residents. The EU average was 260.

In September, EU ministers voted by a majority to relocate 160,000 refugees EU-wide, but for now the plan will only apply to those who are in Italy and Greece. Another 54,000 were to be moved from Hungary, but the Hungarian government rejected this plan and will instead receive more migrants from Italy and Greece as part of the relocation scheme.

The UK has opted out of any plans for a quota system but, according to Home Office figures, 1,000 Syrian refugees were resettled under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme in 2015.

Prime Minister David Cameron has said the UK will accept up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years which is now never going to happen.

Austria has placed a cap on the number of people allowed into its borders. And several Balkan countries, including Macedonia, have also decided only to allow Syrian and Iraqi migrants across their frontiers.

Norway is erecting a controversial steel fence along its border post with Russia following a surge in migrant arrivals last year.

As a result, thousands of migrants have been stranded in makeshift camps in cash-strapped Greece, which has asked the European Commission for nearly €500m in humanitarian aid.

The US has taken just 12,000.

In the same year, more than a million migrants applied for asylum – although applying for asylum can be a lengthy procedure so many of those given refugee status may have applied in previous years.

Clearly, Europe cannot go on accepting more and more migrants.

For not only is the pressure straining existing resources, but the inflow of asylum-seekers is also imperilling all other European achievements. The so-called Schengen agreements under which all controls at the internal borders between most European countries have been abolished is now threatened: barbed wires and border police are re appearing everywhere.

A total of 3.8 million people immigrated to one of the EU-28 Member States during 2014, while at least 2.8 million emigrants were reported to have left an EU Member State.

No Syrian refugees have been resettled by China, Russia or any Gulf states.

By comparison, Jordan, which has a GDP just 1.2% the size of the UK’s, hosts nearly 655,000 Syrian refugees.

With more than 2.7 million refugees in total, Jordan is sheltering more than any other nation. Turkey has taken in more than 2.5 million people; Pakistan 1.6 million; Lebanon more than 1.5 million.

Meanwhile between 2,000 and 5,000 migrants are camped at the French port of Calais in the hope of crossing over to the UK.

There have been two major elements to the effort by the European Union against illegal immigration.

The first is the European Union’s deal with Turkey.

In February the bloc approved €3bn ($3.3bn; £2.2bn) in funding for the country to help it cope with record numbers of Syrian migrants it is already hosting. In return for billions of euros, a promise of visa-free travel and a new legitimate scheme for resettling people who have fled Syria, Turkey agreed to clamp down on the people smugglers as well as accepting migrants caught and deported from Greece.

If the European Commission makes the recommendation that Turks be granted visa-free travel in Europe’s Schengen area as whispers from well-placed EU sources suggest, then it will do so holding its nose and its breath.

The freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial and revising terrorism legislation to better protect minority rights – these are just some of the criteria demanded by the EU of countries before it lifts visa requirements – even for short-term travel.

It’s hard to see how Turkey could be described as meeting those conditions. Ankara increasingly cracks down on its critics in a manner more autocratic than democratic.

In fact, Turkey has not fulfilled quite a number of the criteria required by the EU.

But these are desperate times.

There are currently over 10 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Most people think about the asylum issue in domestic terms.

The current surge in migration to the European Union (EU) is rapidly becoming the largest and most complex facing Europe since the Second World War.

Syria in 2011 has killed 250,000 people as well as created an estimated four million refugees. Initially, most of these refugees fled to Syria’s immediate neighbouring states: Turkey took in about half of the total, Lebanon admitted 1.2 million, and Jordan accepted a further million.

The EU urgently needs to put in place a coherent, long-term and comprehensive strategy that maximises the benefits of migration and minimises its human and economic costs, included as part of a wider international effort to manage global migration.

But the stress everywhere has been on reducing the flow, while trying to distinguish genuine asylum-seekers from purely “economic” migrants.

It is obviously beyond the immediate power of the EU to eradicate the root causes of all migration and it is also obvious that the EU has absolutely no solution to this latest migration crisis. We are at an impasse.

Practically every European country thinks about either deporting migrants, making the asylum laws more difficult, or simply shutting the borders:

Every country in Europe is willing, at most, to be the transit point for migrants; none is willing to be the point of settlement.

Thus everybody tries to pass the hot potato of migrants to its neighbor.

Perhaps it might seem odd to an impartial observer that rich Europe of more than 1/2 billion people is unable to cope with one hundred thousand migrants and refugees while much poorer Turkey has accepted 1.7 million refugees from Syria and Pakistan and Iran have accepted several hundred thousand from respectively Afghanistan and Iraq.

In 2015, EU countries offered asylum to 292,540 refugees.

In 2001 the UK had only 169,370 officially recognized refugees living within its borders compared to Germany’s 988,500, Iran’s 1.9 million or Pakistan’s 2.2 million?

But should European states even try to stop economic migration?

No one knows what is really happening now; one reputable estimate puts the number of illegal migrants smuggled into the EU each year as 400,000.,

Permanent factors that are unlikely to abate any time soon. These factors are political chaos in the Middle East and, more importantly, the extraordinarily huge income gaps between Europe and Africa. With globalization, the knowledge of these gaps as well as the practical means to bridge them by migrating to a rich country are more known and affordable than ever.

These trends look even more unmanageable for Europe when one takes a longer-term view and realizes that sub-Saharan African population which is currently only slightly greater than that of all of Europe is expected to be almost six times greater by 2100. Thus, economic migration will, if anything, increase.

Europe’s immigration problem is one which genuinely has no obvious solutions, an emergency which is only containable with partial answers, but there has to be some sort of amnesty, especially for the children of illegal immigrants.

The 2012 Nobel peace prize was awarded to the EU.

 

 

As Europeans, we owe it to ourselves and to the world to help them.

One thing is clear:

The response so far does not meet the standards that Europe must set for itself. We must therefore pursue a European asylum, refugee and migration policy that is founded on the principle of solidarity and our shared values of humanity.

We must guarantee a common European code of asylum, so that asylum status is valid throughout the EU and the conditions for receiving it are stable across member states.

Can we be proud. I think not.

I suppose it depends on how one views his fellow human beings.

Immigration is reflecting the complexity of contemporary national and global relations. These include issues of nationalism, sovereignty, racism, demography, human rights, arms sales, war, refugee health, economic policy and moral responsibility.

What do the media have to say about the fact that the UK has recently sold arms to all five countries of origin topping the UK list of asylum applicants in 2001? This, despite the fact that, in each case, violent military conflict remains the dominant root cause of refugee flight.

We must therefore reform the Dublin Convention immediately, and find a way of creating binding and objective refugee quotas which take into account the ability of all member states to bear them.

We must provide immediate assistance to the EU countries that are currently under particular strain.

We cannot stand idly by and watch people risk their lives trying to get to us. The Mediterranean Sea cannot be a mass grave for desperate refugees. Europe’s humanitarian legacy, indeed our European view of humanity, are hanging in the balance. 

Survival has thus become the primary impetus for unauthorized immigration flows. When persons cannot find employment in their country of origin to support themselves and their families, they have a right to find work elsewhere in order to survive. Sovereign nations should provide ways to accommodate this right.

The world – including Europe – will simply go on without you, and it will leave you behind. Like it or loathe it, it’s globalisation. We can’t go back to 1960.

Europe’s preference for debt over shares, must change.

Worldwide, there is an estimated 191 million immigrants;  The world’s wealthiest nations of shirking responsibility towards refugees. Ten countries which account for just 2.5% of the global GDP are sheltering more than half the world’s 21 million refugees.

 

Given the current economic ailment that Europe is suffering from, EU governments urgently need to recalibrate the economy for entrepreneurs and most of these will be the new Immigrants. It’s just a part of globalism that cannot be resisted.

Not a penny in welfare for immigrants. It really is not that simple.

What is needed in any proposals is to control our borders and that requires tamper-proof identification, and some level of physical border control.

UK’s current process means that the prison-like asylum centers house people who may be waiting up to seven years before their case can be heard.

The European Union is going into unchartered territory.

Championing the rights of poor migrants is difficult as the economic climate is still gloomy, many Europeans are unemployed and wary of foreign workers, and EU countries are divided over how to share the refugee burden.

Let’s hope that the growing inequality is not defining issue of our time. Such inequality is bound to get worse. Not only are the rich seemingly getting richer and the poor poorer, but middle-income earners appear to be gradually disappearing.

Every genuine refugee that has the door slammed in his or hers face is tomorrow’s enemy.

In 2016 so far, around 29,000 have arrived in Italy and they continue to do so at the rate of roughly 1,500 a week – that’s about one-fifth to one-sixth of the traffic that was going via Greece before the EU-Turkey deal came into effect.

What the last few months have shown us is that many governments (notably in central and eastern Europe) are far more interested in preventing illegal migration than they are in living up to refugee quotas. Some have also made clear that they are prepared to use their armed forces to protect their borders if they have to.

Whatever happens EU members, will have to re-evaluate what the Union really means and what should be done to rescue it from its current crisis of illegitimacy, as well as the institutional and political mess so evident today.

The communist government claimed in 1961 that it had to build a wall around the portion of Berlin it controlled to keep the population safe from the evil capitalist wreckers and saboteurs. It didn’t take long for the world to realize that the real threat to the East German leaders was that the people trapped in East Berlin would try to get out.

If the European Union does not reform it will not be just the UK handing in its membership card.

Britain joined what was then the European Economic Community in 1973 as the sick man of Europe it remains so to day sacrificing its young who voted with an overwhelming majority to remain in the European Union.

For years the EU has been struggling to harmonise asylum policy. That is difficult with 28 member states, each with their own police force and judiciary.

It’s a big problem but it’s a very solvable problem.

Eliminate incentives for those who would come here to live off the rest of us, and make it easier and more rational for those who wish to come here legally to contribute to our economy. No walls, no government databases, no biometric national ID cards.

Not the putting up of new procedural and administrative walls risks transforming the immense advantage of being a European into a bureaucratic nightmare, not only for the UK but also for the rest of the EU.

Greece has tottered on the verge of financial bankruptcy throughout this decade why don’t we write off its debt by giving the Olympics Games a permanent home in Greece.

Its time that the EU stops kicking the can down the road and operating like a sort of osmosis.

Of course this leaves the question, where will the funds to achieve change come from. How will pay? 

The answer is personified Capitalist Greed caused the problem in the first place.

If we just share the the responsibility out, say 60 to 90 countries we could be in a very different situation which in this world of I’am alright Jack is impossible leaves only one viable solution.

By placing an World Aid Commission of 0.05% on all High Frequency Trading, on all Foreign Exchange Transactions over $20,000, on all Sovereign Wealth Funds Acquisitions we would create a perpetual fund.  ( see previous posts)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

Perhaps some of the funds could also be found by placing an EU Aid commission on

Defence spending by Europe’s Nato states is set to rise for the first time in nearly a decade, figures show, as fears over Russian aggression and the migrant crisis in the Mediterranean stoke anxiety over security across the continent.

Last year, Nato’s European allies spent $253bn on defence compared with a US spend of $618bn. According to Nato European countries should be spending an additional $100bn annually on their militaries. The current spend is equivalent to around 1.43 per cent of gross domestic product.

On the largest lottery activity in the EU comprised of draw based games with brand names like Lotto, EuroMillions and Joker. This category of game, offered in all 27 EU member states, had sales of €50.9bn.

In Europe, some 22% of people aged between 15 and 24 are not in employment, education or training.

On the Common Agricultural Policy was set up in the 1950s to make Europe more self sufficient. The system ensure farmers in Europe can continue to produce food even when the market conditions are not right, therefore maintaining land and jobs. At €55 billion the CAP accounts for 42 percent of the EU budget, making it the largest agricultural aid programme in the world.  The system is expensive to the whole EU bloc, causing tension among voters.

And there is one other thing.

THE farcical travelling circus which sees the European Parliament move between Brussels and Strasbourg every month which has already seen more than an estimated £2 BILLION pounds poured down the drain.The EU parliament in Strasbourg

Before I leave the subject credit where credit is due.

The EU liberalised the telecommunications markets.

EU via legislation to improve the quality of rivers, seas and beaches, and reduce acid rain and sulphur emissions.

Of course the EU needs some reforms to make it more efficient and more accountable.

We must move away from the European Council acting by consensus – which means that everybody has a veto right bringing constant blockage and no interest in common solutions – and behind closed doors, or the EU will sooner or later slip into irrelevance.

All comments welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THE TIME TO BE EMPATHETIC IS TO DAY. THIS MINUTE. NOW..

26 Monday Sep 2016

Posted by in Communication., Emotions., European Union., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Life., Modern Day Democracy., Natural World Disasters, Social Media., The Refugees, The world to day., What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: THE TIME TO BE EMPATHETIC IS TO DAY. THIS MINUTE. NOW..

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

Our world is quickly becoming a desolate island, a screen that we hold six inches in front of our noses, and it’s a hard pill to swallow.

Because of this, we lose touch with nature, we lose touch with reality, we lose touch with each other. We seem to have forgotten the basic tenets of empathy.Afficher l'image d'origine

We have become such a technology-based society, that we have forgotten how to feel. We have forgotten how to relate. We have forgotten how to connect among other humans, let alone with other sentient animals.

We seem to have forgotten what it feels like to be in someone else’s, or some other animal’s, proverbial shoes.

Here in lies one of the major problems.

Some time ago, (some) humans stopped showing empathy, and started killing indiscriminately — people, and other animals. We kill each other over political differences, racial differences, religious differences, and resources. We kill animals for “research,” or for competition and sport, or for a token.

In a world where there is so much doom and gloom about the state of our environment it’s no surprising that the world has lost 10% of its wilderness areas in the past 20 years. The growth of our modern civilisation, spurred on by technological innovations, has been underpinned by the exploitation of the natural environment. Today, a large fraction of the Earth, once swathed in wilderness, is now monopolised by humans. Although the direct causes of wildlife loss are clear enough, what’s less obvious is why many people seemingly don’t care. Society’s ongoing destruction of the environment can be put down to the fact that not enough people value nature and wilderness any more.

Expanding human demands on land, sea and fresh water, along with the impacts of climate change, have made the conservation and management of wild areas and wild animals a top priority.

For some species, our time to see them is rapidly running out.

The richer we are and the more we consume, the more self-centred and careless of the lives of others we appear to become

Human attitudes towards wild nature and wildlife have, historically, been ambivalent.

It seems to me that there are currently two main approaches to wildlife management.

One: The wise use approach aims to accommodate humanity’s continuous use of wild nature as a resource for food, timber, and other raw materials, as well as for recreation.

Two: The preservationists, whose goal is to protect pristine nature, not to use it, carefully or otherwise. Wild places should be allowed to develop on their own with as little interference from humans as possible.

Neither work:

For years we’ve been told that people cannot afford to care about the natural world until they become rich; that only economic growth can save the biosphere, that civilisation marches towards enlightenment about our impacts on the living planet. The results suggest the opposite.

There is only one way to protect what is left.Afficher l'image d'origine

Protected areas, like national parks and wildlife refuges, are the cornerstones of global conservation efforts.

We must pay for it.  Either by buying the land or paying the locals to maintain it.

Why is it so difficult to persuade people to care about our wonderful planet, the world that gave rise to us and upon which we wholly depend?

Because we lack empathy. Empathy is defined as: the capacity to understand or feel what another being (a human or non-human animal) is experiencing from within the other being’s frame of reference, i.e., the capacity to place oneself in another’s position.

Without it we all have different values that give rise to conflicts or dilemmas.

The way in which these different values are prioritized will determine policy of conservation in the future.

For instance, there may be a conflict between sustaining certain human livelihoods and preserving a particular species, or there may be a dilemma between the protection of wild nature and animal welfare.

The question, then, is how we should address such dilemmas and disagreements. The first thing to note, in trying to answer this question, is that the rich anglophone countries are anomalous. The more we consume, the less we feel.

Our erroneous belief that we are more concerned about man-made climate change than the people of other nations informs the sentiment, often voiced by the press and politicians, that there’s no point in acting if the rest of the world won’t play its part.

Our refusal to stop pumping so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere is pure selfishness. The more harm we do, the less concerned about it we become. And the more hyper consumerism destroys relationships, communities and the physical fabric of the Earth, the more we try to fill the void in our lives by buying more stuff.

In modern debates about wildlife, however, other values have become increasingly important. We don’t know exactly how ecosystems will respond to climate change but you may rest assured that with rising sea levels nature will be the last to be rescued.

Sustaining interest in this great but slow-burning crisis is a challenge no one seems to have mastered. Only when the crisis causes or exacerbates an acute disaster – such as the floods – is there a flicker of anxiety, but that quickly dies away.

So the perennially low-level of concern, which flickers upwards momentarily when disaster strikes, then slumps back into the customary stupor, is an almost inevitable result of a society that has become restructured around shopping, fashion, celebrity and an obsession with money.

It’s hard to understand how anyone could imagine that economic growth is a formula for protecting the planet.

How we break the circle and wake people out of this dream world is the question that all those who love the living planet should address.

Just look at the United Nations:

For the first time in UN history, candidates seeking to replace the organisation’s secretary-general have held a live debate, presenting the case for their candidacy and taking questions from UN member states on key global issues.

All previous secretary-generals were chosen behind closed doors by the UN’s permanent five members: the US, China, Russia, France and Britain.

This remains so:  The permanent five UN Security Council members still fix “who is going to be selected behind closed doors. Don’t think for a moment that the permanent members are going  give up powers they won after World War II readily. Hand-picking the UN secretary-general is still one of their trump cards.

The possibility of  the United Nations getting an energetic idealist to shake up the world body by streamline archaic UN systems, to stand up to the big powers and do more to end wars, and fight poverty is as remote as ever.  It will remain both bloated and overstretched with its staff more interested in winning promotions than fighting malaria, climate change and regulating poverty or stopping wars, not to mention protecting what’s left of nature.

So long as it has to beg for funds it will remain a worthless gossip shop.  ( See previous posts)

There will be no easy answers.

As Leonard Da Vinci said,

” Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.”

Empathy is about being we-focused rather than I-focused and understanding that, collectively, we are better off when we step outside of our silos. As a leader, you must emphasize value, not just transactions; people, not just processes.

Empathy brings the big picture into focus.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHAT IS BEHIND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ORDERED TO IRELAND TO CLAW BACK: Up to €13bn in tax from Apple?

01 Thursday Sep 2016

Posted by in Apple. Inc, European Commission., European Union., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., Wealth.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHAT IS BEHIND THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION ORDERED TO IRELAND TO CLAW BACK: Up to €13bn in tax from Apple?

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

( A four minute read)

Be Aware of Invisibility;Afficher l'image d'origine

One bad Apple leads to another.

This decision by the European Commission has implications far beyond Europe Union it opens the hornet’s nest of Capitalism.

The European Commission has launched an effort to rewrite Apple’s history in Europe, ignore Ireland’s tax laws and up-end the international tax system in the process. Every company in Ireland and across Europe is suddenly at risk of being subjected to taxes under laws that never existed.

The Unelected European Commission has ruled that two tax rulings issued by the Irish tax administration on the tax treatment of Apple’s corporate profits represent illegal state aid under EU law.

Brussels has no power over corporation tax rates, which member states have always been able to set themselves. The commissioner is trying to make sure the single market function is maintained and member states do not win business at the cost of others’ tax base.
In practice such rulings destroy fair market competition and undermine the tax sovereignty of democratic states.

So why should Ireland take any notice.

Other than it is a huge sum – more than the €12.9bn annual government spending on the Irish health service and nearly one-third of Ireland’s total government tax revenue in 2015, which was €45.6bn.

It is also the equivalent of €2,830 for every one of Ireland’s 4.6 million population.

It is a potential windfall – but one that the Government does not want.

Under EU rules it would mean that – as it is a once-off payment – it would have to be used to pay down debt, rather than used to fund extra Government spending.

There is little point in the EU enforcing Ireland to issue Apple with a tax bill in order to recoup EU financial Aid.

So are we looking at Cowboy Capitalism.

We all know that the world economy needs to be fundamentally reformed and if let alone it will not right it’s self.

In light of the technological revolution which is going to make most of us unemployable, structural changes are needed to the soul less of systems, one in which the fortune of one individual is most often possible at the expense of another.

The real question is:

How can the tendency of modern-day capitalism ( which is producing high levels of inequality and unsustainable uses of limited resources) be rethought.

Simply put Capitalism ultimate goal is profit. I got mine so fuck you! approach to life.

Trickle down economics is a joke. Capitalism has produced a society which no longer focuses on cooperation but on individual gain at any cost. We live in a society that now prides profit over prudence, compulsively over compassion, technology over tactility. And not too far away Trump over truth.

Global economic rules allow jobs to be offshore and capital to be reallocated in ways that do not benefit the vast majority of people.

Division and fear are sown by our world media . Compliance and desperation are reaped. And as always , there’s a profit.

Soon we will have a generation that does not know anything that does not come out of a smart phone, the God that will make or break presidents, popes, prime ministers, European Union’s, etc.

The most awesome goddamn propaganda force in the whole godless world. Owned by Apple.Afficher l'image d'origine

We all know that it cannot remain the same and the core responsibility of democratic nations is to provide the ground rules. But should these rules be about how should technology best be deployed to serve human needs.

European feudalism failed a long time ago and now it seems that the European Union is also on the verge of failure.

Free enterprise and the market have led to private capitalism’s accumulation.

Capitalism’s problems are so deep that they are almost intractable, and benefits of private enterprise and markets against those of public enterprises and government planning have become blurred.

Giving that the European Union now has the apparatus to play a central role in the economy of its member has this decision reinforced an excessive concentration of power in politics and culture moving the EU to a state form of Capitalism which England recently voted to leave.

Once England it is outside the EU, Britain would have even more leeway than Ireland or other European Countries to offer special deals to multinationals in the hope they would invest in the UK.

That said, such moves could leave Britain looking more and more like a tax haven, and could hamper the willingness of other countries to trade openly with the UK.

With the way the Technological Revolution is going I would say FUNDAMENTAL REFORM IS NEEDED.

The thought that technology is innately progressive and all-powerful so it can solve capitalism’s problems for us by leaving firms and wealthy investors alone to do as they wish will ultimately leads all of us to greater insecurity.

The sheer trickery of Apple’s tax arrangements renders their claims to corporate social responsibility risible, and the economic harm caused by these arrangements is also enormous.

The evidence points in one direction Capitalism is the wrong economic system for the material world that is emerging.

It’s time to redesign.

There is only one way of resetting the elite-driven international capitalism.

All profit for profit sake should be caped with a world aid commission of 0.05%. ( See previous posts)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. ARE THE ENGLISH PEOPLE BEING HOODWINKED .

12 Tuesday Jul 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. ARE THE ENGLISH PEOPLE BEING HOODWINKED .

Tags

,

( A quick thought)

THE FIRST QUESTION IS.Afficher l'image d'origine

HOW CAN A NON ELECTED PRIME MINISTER RATIFY A DEAL TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION.

She can negotiate the deal which has to be accepted by the House of commons and the 27 remaining EU member states.theresa-may.jpg

When the government of the UK invokes Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. This is the significant “red button”. Once the Article 50 process is commenced then Brexit does become a matter of law, and quite an urgent one.

It would appear this process is (and is intended to be) irreversible and irrevocable once it starts.

But invoking Article 50 is a legally distinct step from the referendum result — it is not an obligation.

If she does not have a mandate from the people of the Uk by way of a General Election she is incapable of signing any agreement.

There is only one solution.

Before the 2011 Fixed Term Parliament Act (FTPA) the Prime Minister could simply “call an election”.

This was effectively the PM exercising the royal prerogative: no parliamentary vote was needed, it was the PM’s decision.

This power was transferred to the House of Commons under the FTPA, which was introduced by the 2010 Coalition government.

On paper it is no longer the Prime Minister’s decision. This is not true.

There are two ways under the FTPA that an election can be called ahead of schedule.

The first is if two-thirds of MPs vote to hold an election. This is a very high bar and would in practice require both Labour and Conservative support.

The second is if there is a no confidence vote in the government of the day. After such a vote other parties are given 14 days to form another government. If none can be formed, a new election is held.

A majority government could, by a simple vote, declare “no confidence” in itself.

Since no other party has a majority, after 14 days an election would be set.

One of the reasons England put forward to leave the EU was that it was run by unelected officials.

May’s policies will improve the lives of UKers until it doesn’t, because every policy contains the seeds of its own sunset;

If she wants to lead a country she would be well advised to hold;

A general election, combined with a re run of the in or out of the European Union with all sixteen years eligible to vote, with the introduce of true Democracy by adopting Proportional Representation.    

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS SHOULD THE EUROPEAN UNION ACCEPT THE RESULT OF THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM.

03 Sunday Jul 2016

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS SHOULD THE EUROPEAN UNION ACCEPT THE RESULT OF THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM.

Tags

,

 

( Important three minute read)

The Pandora Box is open.Afficher l'image d'origine

It is damaging politically for the status of the EU – and its liberal values – and, thus, for the future prosperity and security of Europe as a whole.

It is harmful for the economy of the rest of the EU.

The UK voted to leave the EU by a four per cent margin. 

In short the UK choose to leave the EU, has left it between a rock and a hard place.

SHOULD THE EU ACCEPT THE OUT VOTE OR DEMAND A RE RUN.

Amid rumbling aftershocks from last Thursday’s political earthquake, there is still no sign of the UK actually leaving the EU.

Could it be that Brexit will never happen?

Although the vote is not legally binding and parliament would be within its rights to ignore it, to do so would be political suicide or political reincarnation.

At this moment there is no way of knowing whether there is going to be Civil unrest or a general election fought on the basis of one party campaigning to take the UK back into Europe. 

The reality is that on the Uk side it is now impossible to negotiate and none of the options available to the UK outside the EU, are attractive. 

Why?

Because None of the available options could satisfy at the same time the UK’s political wishes and its economic interests.  

There is no clear picture on who might step forward to lead the Conservatives – and the country.

The Labour Party is tearing itself apart, with more than a dozen shadow cabinet members resigning in an attempt to force leader Jeremy Corbyn to resign.

Leading Leave campaigners suggested single market access is on the table, which could require compromise on free movement laws.

Investment banks are reportedly already putting in train plans to move thousands of City jobs overseas.

The Institute of Directors has warned around a quarter of its members may begin a hiring freeze until the economic effects of Brexit become clear.

It is quite obvious to any outsider from the resulting fall out that the people of England did not vote on the Referendum core question.

They voted against inequality, fear of immigrants eroding their ability to access jobs, wages, housing, and the health services and now have a duty to the rest of Europe to go back and vote again.

As fears of a post-Brexit recession in the UK and beyond wiped $2trn (£1.5trn) from global stock values in the worst trading day since the credit crunch in 2007. The pound touched a 30-year low against the dollar and the FTSE 100 slumped 3.2 per cent.

Can the EU wait?  Yes. But not for Long.

We all know that the World we live in is facing complex problems that require a combined effort to resolve.

Given the “extraordinary complexity” of the tasks there is no need to immediately trigger the UK’s formal exit process from the EU.

On the plus side it allows the EU to look at itself and learn the lessons that it’s the people who count not the single market.

The bloc has lurched from one crisis to the next, promising time and again to heed the growing mistrust of its 500 million citizens, only to return to the business of internal squabbling as another emergency emerges on the continent.

Business as usual’ is no longer an option.

Its Reform or die! But exactly what that reform would look like is an open question.

Euroskeptic parties are gaining influence across the bloc, taking advantage of the E.U.’s perceived failures in dealing with the euro zone crisis and the arrival of more than a million people seeking sanctuary from war and poverty last year.

The Eurosceptics are the ones most on the ball in terms of putting forward their vision of Europe, and the E.U. institutions have to come up with something convincing to rebut that.

The E.U.’s management structures are complicated, and there is not one single person who can lead the push to define a narrative.

E.U. countries will pursue much more British-like policies in which they look for concrete benefits from European integration and not for a quasi-religious or quasi-ideological movement towards the construction of Europe.

The 27 remaining member states have very different histories and cultures, and range from the socially liberal Scandinavian nations to the more religious and conservative South and East. Denmark, for example, legalised same-sex unions in 1989, but Malta only allowed its citizens to divorce in 2011.

These gulfs became apparent during the refugee crisis, when Hungary and Slovakia claimed the influx of Muslim refugees would threaten their culture. The divide between the former Soviet nations and the rest of Europe, meanwhile, often overshadows negotiations of the E.U.’s response to Russian aggression.

Without a shared vision there is the risk of narrowing the E.U’s focus to regional challenges, which needs to be resisted.

If the Union is not to follow in the footsteps of England its combined wealth must be spread evenly. This can not be achieved with an Euro that does not reflect the GDP of the whole of European Union.

If the Euro is to remain it must have a financial vehicle to allow investment in it.

Euro Bonds.

If the Union is to reform it must balance it books, scrap moving its Parliament from one city to another, open proper channels to migrants,

Can the divided, sprawling economic bloc come up with a vision to unite its fractious member states?

Only time can tell if Britain’s vote ends up being a wake-up call, or a death knell.

If England wants to win like Wales ( In the European Cup) they have to be on the pitch.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

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

22 Wednesday Jun 2016

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

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

Tags

, , , ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Can we introduce it today and achieve great prosperity now?

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

Let’s see how it can be done.

Who decides what a ‘dignified’ living is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The German and Spanish parliaments explored it.

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

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

Just think of working for the Nations good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASKS; IS THIS ANOTHER WORTHLESS MEETING FOR DO GOODERS.

14 Saturday May 2016

Posted by in Humanity., Politics., The world to day., Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASKS; IS THIS ANOTHER WORTHLESS MEETING FOR DO GOODERS.

Tags

, , , , , ,

 

It is easy to be cynical about United Nations or for that matter about any World Organisation.

But the Secretary-General announced the first World Humanitarian Summit will be held in early 2016 in Istanbul, Turkey takes the biscuit.

The world is facing an unprecedented displacement crisis. Today, more than 60 million people are forcibly displaced as a result of violent conflicts and natural disasters.

Turkey has as we know just done a deal with the European Union for Visa to hold fleeing Refugees from War zones so they can’t get into Europe.

As a leading humanitarian donor and key policy-setter, the European Union will play a major role at the upcoming World Humanitarian Summit in Istanbul.

The purpose of the summit is to set a forward-looking agenda for humanitarian action to collectively address future humanitarian challenges. The aim is to build a more inclusive and diverse humanitarian system committed to humanitarian principles.

It’s been almost 25 years since the last time the world came together to discuss humanitarian aid.

 The European Commission provides humanitarian funding worldwide to over 200 partner organisations which implement relief actions on the ground. These include non-governmental organisations (NGOs), international organisations and United Nations agencies.
Reshaping aid at the World Humanitarian Summit to my mind seems sum what a joke and more of a NGOs nice gathering as those attending are only required to give commitments. 
Nobody respects the rules of war, or is willing to sacrifice their young to prevent and end conflict.
Leaving no one behind, and working differently to end need, do indeed require investment in Humanity. As always there is no aspiration as to how to raise the billions required to battle these inequalities.
Like the Paris Summit on Climate Change this meeting is all about hot air, with promises that will be broken as soon as they are made.
This is not the United Nations fault but if anything worthwhile comes out of the first World Humanitarian Summit it should be the reform of itself under the last two heading on the Agenda.
Its time to understand that the interconnected world we all live in is primarily driven by self-interest and corrupt gains.
For example:
Mr Cameron is presently holding a conference on corruption.  He has totally forgotten that England’s wealth was obtained by an Empire that dealt in Slavery. Plundered the world and recently had some of its elected MP fiddling expenses. Not to mention bailing out its banks with billions of taxpayers funds and is currently trying to sell bank shares back to the taxpayer how already owns them. And is now in the process of destabilizing the EU for the sake of Profit not Sovereignty.
The only way we can solve more complex innovation challenges is by tapping the global community.
The belief that anything in life is just a problem waiting to be solved, usually with the right technology fix seems to be all the rage other than watching Money electing the next USA president we are develop inequalities to represent real world situations and use them to solve problems.
There is only one commitment needed to place a World Aid Commission on all Activities that exist to generate Profit for profit sake. ( See previous posts)  The cost of the refugees world crises in 2016 is 25 billion.
Certain things catch your eye, but pursue only those that capture the heart.  Afficher l'image d'origine

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

The Beady Eye looks at the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),

03 Tuesday May 2016

Posted by in Capitalism, European Union., The USA., TTIP. Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership., Unanswered Questions., Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on The Beady Eye looks at the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),

Tags

, , , ,

 

When you look at the News on your TV you hear little or nothing about one of the biggest Trade deals between the USA and The European Union. Afficher l'image d'origine

TTIP is about a huge transfer of power from people to big business.

You would think that when you elect people to office they would represent you as a citizen and not negotiate deals that have far reaching implications for the environment and the lives of more than 800 million citizens in the EU and US.

Whether you care about environmental issues, animal welfare, labour rights or internet privacy, you should be concerned.

This deal has being going on behind closed doors for months and months (The 13th round of TTIP negotiations in New York finished this April.) and only thanks to Greenpeace Netherlands have some have some of the classified documents represent more than two-thirds of the overall TTIP text come to light.

Greenpeace identified four main issues of concern:

  • Long standing environmental protection is dropped

The “General Exceptions” rule, enshrined in the GATT agreement of the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is absent from the text. This nearly 70-year-old rule allows nations to restrict trade “to protect human, animal and plant life or health“, or for “the conservation of exhaustible natural resources”

  • No place for climate protection in TTIP

If the goals of the Paris Summit to keep temperatures increase under 1.5 degrees are to be met, trade should not be excluded from CO2 emissions reduction specifications. But nothing about climate protection can be found in the obtained texts.

  • Precautionary principle is forgotten

The US wants the EU to replace the EU’s hazard approach with ‘risk management’, disregarding the precautionary principle, [3] which is enshrined in the EU Treaty but is never mentioned in the consolidated text.

  • Open door for corporate lobbying

The leaked documents suggest that both parties consider giving corporations much wider access and participation in decision-making.

“The effects of TTIP would be initially subtle but ultimately devastating. It would lead to European laws being judged on their consequences for trade and investment – disregarding environmental protection and public health concerns.”

The negotiations about the free trade treaty TTIP take place behind closed doors. The documents about the meetings are not public. That creates mistrust. Nobody knows which positions are talked about in what way. Are citizens losing against corporate interests? Does the lobby industry undermine our democracy? What does the US and what do the European states really want to accomplish?

At the center of public concern stands the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS). ISDS allows foreign investors to bring a claim against the government of their host State if TTIP investment protection standards are breached, for example in the event of discriminatory treatment or direct and indirect expropriation.

The EU and most of the free world is in a state of profound uncomfortable quagmire due to Capitalism Greed.

God forbid we allow or agree to a trade deal that puts profit before people.

One must note that previous attempts to establish such a mechanism have failed and that currently there seems to be little appetite for such a mechanism internationally.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYE ASKS JUST WHAT DO WE THINK WE ARE DOING BY RETURNING MEN,WOMEN AND CHILDREN HOW ARE DESPERATE.

05 Tuesday Apr 2016

Posted by in European Union., The Refugees, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS JUST WHAT DO WE THINK WE ARE DOING BY RETURNING MEN,WOMEN AND CHILDREN HOW ARE DESPERATE.

Tags

,

 

( A five to Six minute read)

While acknowledging that the current immigration/ refugee problems facing Europe are difficult in the extreme to manage they have being created for the most part by us through european colonization, the plunder for natural resources, and interference, which have resulted in our current day wars.Afficher l'image d'origine

It is not possible to address all the reasons but the western elite that currently rules the world has 3 majors intellectuals influences:

Machiavelli (How to rule over people with cynicism and deception), Hegel (using the Hegelian dialectic of history they consider the western civilization as the end of history) and Darwin (the Survival belongs to the fittest, therefore the white race should stay at the top and rule over other races).

I strongly believe we are the same humanity, and like the plant and flowers, colored differently by location and conditions to survive and thrive.Afficher l'image d'origine

Young people aspire to emulate the most successful models in their society, and now the only visible and tangible model available is the rich subaltern model.

Anyone who wants to understand the intellectual principles that are shaping our current world, should deeply understand the above 3 authors and their influence on the western elite.

“If you want to control the people, separate the people and you can rule them. Divide them and you can conquer them.”

That is just what the European is now about. Bartering in Humans who are destitute. It is the process of dehumanization. It is cynical but it is for the profit!

Dignity is not something Europe cared about.

Magazines photos showing it at its worst now fill the mind of billions of people around the world, and unfortunately those people can’t help but think about Europe only through those images. (In the same time, those medias won’t show the photo of a dead American or English soldier, because it’s shocking and doesn’t respect human dignity)

It must be said that most of these refugees have very little idea of the world they are living in, specially the forces and trends that are shaping it.

The worst consequence of this “free publicity” is the way it has deeply impacted the refugees self-perception and self-image.

All we are doing is creating more enemies for the future.

For any society to prosper it should have a endogenous system of identifying, training and coaching its future leaders. Some countries do it through their military services, some do it through elite schools, and some others do it through informal coaching and assistance organizations or secret societies.Solomon

The “Poverty porn” of the NGOs, the humanitarian organizations, and Western medias is the problem number one because it sabotages self-image, weakens, sell-confidence and resolve, and contributed hugely to the hate and racism we now all face all over the world.

International AID is now doing more harm than good.

It has become the main tool used by foreign governments and organizations to corrupt the elite, and get them to behave so irrationally toward their own populations and the basic interest of their countries. You end up with a species with incompatible types, where one has to triumph over the other or risk extinction.

Take Africa for instance; What is the problem?

The problem is that you can’t develop a country or continent where the majority of people who have the potential to become leaders are raised to be “good subalterns” to be successful.Colonial-Africa

Aside corruption and the criminality, International Aid is the root of the 5 Stars colonization disease that cripple the African elite which dislike the responsibility and the self-sacrifice that comes with being in control of a nation destiny. As far as they enjoyed the status offered by their positions, they never liked the responsibilities demanded by the jobs, therefore they use international aid programs as substitute to their responsibilities.

Elites are elites, and they don’t like someone else to tell them what to do, or to think, elites are not influenced, they pretend to be, but serve their own interests, or deeper convictions, they are not ‘genuinely’ influenced by thinkers. 

So many charity dinner against starvation where people eat like 4, that’s disgusting.

If Africa needs any aid, the most urgent one is to get rid of the 40 billions corruption industry (called International Aid) that shackles its youth and elite, cultivates and maintains the beggar mentality.

How would you develop any country when the dream of  the majority  of its youth and elite is not entrepreneurship, innovation, education and self-sufficiency, but the dream to have a job with a humanitarian organization or to get their project financed by some International aid Agency or proxy.

They are creating new realities like “People from the North” compared to “people from the South” or “people from the West”. They invent new divisions with creative imagination, like the Belgians falsely created the “Tutsi” and “Hutu” tribes in Rwanda which ultimately lead to the genocide in 1994.

The western medias seems to follow an agenda of further dividing African nations and populations with their constant framing of Africa through fight between tribes, religions, geography, etc.

This must stop before African could unite to fight their way out.

The influence of western medias in Africa is very negative, and could be considered as part of Africa problems.Ennemi-within

With today’s cheap and world-wide media platforms on the internet, we are projecting world issues, but the patterns are shaped by a power grabbing philosophies, the us vs them, the one up one down.

We all need to wake up around the world black, white, yellow, brown and start talking at the levels of people, communities, not just among those who rule over us cause they have different agendas.

Charles Darwin makes this point very clear –“At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace throughout the world the savage races.

China is using a new form of economic subjugation.

What is important is a deep understanding of where we are and owning our own problems and solutions and find a solutions among ourselves. The only way to unlearn lies is to learn the truth.Posted @ QUOTEZ.CO

If we can’t solve our problems in our surrounding, the other people coming from other places won’t as well.

We better know better!

It’s unfortunate that the world is unable to prosper harmoniously.

“Can all people in the world live the way the developed countries are living ? ” The answer will be No. There is no enough resources for that.

However it is necessary to put things in perspective there are enough resources to Grant temporary Asylum to those that have risked all..  We need to tap into our Possibilities! Create enemies or friends. The world has closed its eyes.

The UN refugee agency have made an appeal for international aid to help with

the influx of people. This what we hear all to often.

We must replace our out of date World Organisations with a new World Aid Organisation.( see previous Posts)

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S SHAME ON US ALL THAT CALL OURSELF EUROPEANS.

04 Monday Apr 2016

Posted by in European Union., Humanity., Politics., The Refugees, The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S SHAME ON US ALL THAT CALL OURSELF EUROPEANS.

Tags

,

More than a million migrants and refugees crossed into Europe in 2015, sparking a crisis as countries struggled to cope with the influx, and creating division in the EU over how best to deal with resettling people.

Under the terms of the EU’s deportation deal 202 people from Greece to Turkey have to-day being forcibly returned to Turkey.

On the island of Lesbos, which lies just across the Aegean Sea from Dikili, the 136 deportees boarded two Turkey-bound boats in what some witnesses described as a “sedate state”. On Chios, a Greek island farther to the south, violence briefly erupted as police attempted to transfer selected deportees to a third ferry.

The calmness of proceedings belied the horror of what they represented.

“This is the bargaining and bartering of human bodies,”

Only two of the 202 deportees were Syrian. The rests were mostly Pakistanis, and so could have been deported back to Turkey under pre-existing international agreements, or Afghans, who the Greek government claimed had elected to return to Greece of their own accord.

“It is absolutely mind-boggling that neither the media nor human rights organisations had access to the detention facilities to monitor the asylum procedures,” said a Human Rights Watch spokesman.

The first day of deportations has been met with affirmative statements by credible international organisations, including the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), who confirmed that all procedures were regular and rights of deportees were observed.

Even as the expulsions were under way, a rubber dinghy with about 40 men, women and children arrived from the shores of Turkey, and on the other side of the Aegean dozens of others were arrested trying to follow in their wake.

Turks are now putting up blue tarp to stop the prying eyes of the press.

The conflict in Syria continues to be by far the biggest driver of migration. But the ongoing violence in Afghanistan and Iraq, abuses in Eritrea, as well as poverty in Kosovo, are also leading people to look for new lives elsewhere.

Europe needs to be reminded that Deportation from Europe has a dark history.

Without genuine transparency over the enacting of the EU-Turkey deal, pictures alone won’t be enough. Amid this crisis, children are the most vulnerable of all. Many are travelling with their families, while many others are on their own. Every one of them is in need of protection and entitled to the rights guaranteed under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

 This is an appalling deal. 

We that is Europe is responsible in more ways that one for the Crises. If we were less concerned and not driven by fear we would have set up proper immigration enter channels and now of this would now be necessary.
Our world organisation like UNICEF can only stand by and appeal for funds.
There are still millions caught in situations of conflict, displacement, poverty and underdevelopment – the main causes of the crisis
“It’s what happens when the media is not looking that will matter most.”

Map of asylum claims in Europe in 2015
Tensions in the EU have been rising because of the disproportionate burden faced by some countries, particularly the countries where the majority of migrants have been arriving: Greece, Italy and Hungary.

In September, EU ministers voted by a majority to relocate 160,000 refugees EU-wide, but for now the plan will only apply to those who are in Italy and Greece.

Another 54,000 were to be moved from Hungary, but the Hungarian government rejected this plan and will instead receive more migrants from Italy and Greece as part of the relocation scheme.

The UK has opted out of any plans for a quota system but, according to Home Office figures, 1,000 Syrian refugees were resettled under the Vulnerable Persons Relocation scheme in 2015. Prime Minister David Cameron has said the UK will accept up to 20,000 refugees from Syria over the next five years.

Let me ask you. 

What would you do to escape ISIS and the Taliban?

Even if we have taken in the odd million.

Shame on us all. That we can’t offer at least temporary sanctuary.  

“The journey is difficult but we have no choice,” We have to endure.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨