Tag Archives: Forthcoming Brexit Negotiations.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: IT HAS ALREADY STARTED- BREXIT BULL SHIT. .

11 Monday Dec 2017

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: IT HAS ALREADY STARTED- BREXIT BULL SHIT. .

Tags

, ,

 

( Three minute read)

We said that. We did not say that:  If you do that. If you don’t do that: Alignment, no Alignment: Agreed not Agreed: Explicable not Explicable: Phase one Phase two: This amount that amount, on the table off the table:  Deal or no Deal:  In our Out:  sets out the terms of the divorce and paves the way for Phase 2 of negotiations on future relations between London and the Twenty-Seven.

Anyone with an ounce of sawdust between their ears knows all of the above is total bollix. 

Just look at some of the blonker’s reactions.

“Theresa May won,” said Michael Gove, pro-Brexit environment minister who is eyeing his estate.

Philip Hammond, hailed the “boost for the British economy” that represents a text that lifts some uncertainties.

Nigel Farage, “the move to the second phase of humiliation” 

The only comment that might come true if the EU block his pension or at least have it payed out of the settlement. 

It time for some hard facts:

The ambiguity of Friday’s agreement on Ireland alone illustrates the difficulties that lie ahead.

Or

Spain that argues that any agreement would require its blessing, because the area is not part of the UK, as is the case with Northern Ireland, but a colony with a disputed status. It is likely to wield a veto over any Brexit deal for Gibraltar after the EU-27 backed Madrid in its draft negotiating guidelines for forthcoming divorce talks between the UK and the bloc.

Both are a poisonous topic for the upcoming negotiations.

Not only has Brexit become a subject of confrontation between the two communities of Northern Ireland, but the insoluble Irish equation sums up the central dilemma, that of the choice between a “hard Brexit” and an agreement maintaining the maximum of links with the EU.

It’s generally agreed that the “divorce deal,” setting out the arrangements for Britain’s departure from the EU, can be sealed by Brussels and London.

But Britain’s new relationship with the bloc is a different matter.

Under Article 50 an exit deal requires a qualified majority (72% of members states) to pass, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament, whereas a comprehensive new partnership deal (or “mixed agreement”) requires unanimous assent in the Council and ratification by national or subnational parliaments.

If the deal “is being ‘loaded up’ with competencies of the member states, this would turn it into a mixed agreement [affecting both EU and national legislation], which would require unanimity in the European Council and the ratification of all member states for it to be sealed. Even a transitional deal could affect national legislation.

Therefore, any change of government or head of state near the deadlines for talks or ratification will introduce uncertainty into the process. 

There are another 12 elections scheduled across the 27 member states during the two-year negotiation period.

All countries work to slightly different time frames, but the systems of proportional representation and coalition politics in most EU states often result in extended periods following elections where there is no official government; the record being 541 days following the 2010 Belgian general election. For example, in 2013 it took 86 days to form a coalition government in Germany.

Will there be new faces?

If the national parliaments of the 27 countries remaining in the EU — and perhaps also some regional parliaments — are all to get a say, it could make the passage of the Brexit deal impossible. However the European Union’s 27 remaining national parliaments are unlikely to have the power of veto over a future Brexit trade deal with Britain.

One way or the other the best, the cheapest and the least complicated deal would be a no deal.

Transitional trade agreements are politically highly explosive.

Do not anticipate the perfect unity of Twenty Seven.  

England wants a level playing field so as to be able to do trade deals outside the EU.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the wto"

Blinded by their refusal to see the Europe as a project policy beyond the single market,

Let them do so .

However under WTO the rules are simple. It requires every country to reduce their tariffs and subsidies to the same level, but in reality these cuts are applied selectively in favor of rich countries.

There can’t be have your cake and eat it.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: SHOULD THE EU GRANT ENGLAND A TRANSITION PERIOD.

01 Friday Dec 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England., European Commission., European Union., The Irish/ Northern Ireland border., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: SHOULD THE EU GRANT ENGLAND A TRANSITION PERIOD.

Tags

, ,

(A twelve-minute read)

MY VIEW IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO TRANSITS PERIOD.

The cake metaphors in the modern world have outlived their usefulness – if they are applied not only to spheres where they do apply (such as attempting to be an internal market member without the obligations of the four freedoms) it will destabilize what is left of good will in European Union.

A DEAL IS A DEAL:  WHEN ITS AGREED NOT BEFORE OR AFTER.   Britain's Secretary of State for Exiting the EU, David Davis, made a 'breakthrough' at the joint conference

YOU CAN’T HAVE ONE FOOT IN THE DOOR AND THE OTHER OUTSIDE.

England’s Brexit agenda is both contradictory and fantastical.

Enjoy unfettered access to the single market, WHILE implementing a deals that is one way or the other will be damaging to the EU.  Theresa May was praised by the EU leaders for helping create a 'new dynamic' from her speech in Florence

You don’t have to a genius to know that any shared history, shared challenges, or shared future is now pie in the sky.

The exact relationship the UK would have or will have with the EU during the transition is not clear.

The timescales for settling the future relationship are unknown  – and could make a significant difference to the final destination.

The UK guarantee that it would be time-limited, with a period of about two years – although this period could potentially change for different issues, is political hog wash.

Were negotiations to stall well beyond 2019, the politics of the final settlement would get mixed into the party politics of leadership transitions and the next General Election. Outcomes would then become much
more unpredictable, particularly given the very strong likelihood of a change of Conservative Prime Minister sometime between 2019 and 2021, which could push the current government into a harder position on Brexit.

Not to mention the Rock of Gib, Scotland and Ireland’s positions.

If the Article 50 period was extended, the UK would continue to be a member of the EU, when EU acquis on the Single Market applied even though the UK had left, and one suggestion is that this could be achieved through UK membership of the European Economic Area (EEA).

Another could be that the UK simply commits to continue to apply all EU rules and regulations.

Any TRANSIT period will have to be approved by the other EU leaders. Whether any such thing is negotiable is as much a question
for the EU 27 as for the UK.

All of the above scenario’s are a disaster in waiting to happen.

Why?

Because a transitional deal would also change the British politics of Brexit in ways that have not been fully anticipated.

For example:

A transition deal would end any realistic prospects of a ›referendum on the deal‹ in its predominant form, where it is a strategy of Remain advocates to seek a choice between a negotiated Brexit deal, and the status quo of remaining in the EU.

A transition phase is largely regarded as kicking the can down the road – and so not resolving the major choices about the long-term settlement.

The British do want a Brexit deal – but worry about the consequences of admitting this.

The UK government is proposing a ›special partnership‹ but this does not address some of the key choices which the UK and the EU will face over the next two years.

Continued insistence on talking about an ›implementation period‹,
on the grounds that all of the details of the future settlement will be included in the Article 50 agreement, and the language of Article 50 itself, which talks about the framework for the future relationship, perhaps
implying a political declaration as to the shared objectives of a future negotiation.

But beyond these, they become a barrier to the negotiation of what, if anything, can be negotiated, in an equitable way, between a full EEA-style relationship and a clean break on WTO terms.

If it is accepted that it is not possible to both have and eat cake, the question of whether and how it is possible to agree on how to slice a cake fairly could become more relevant.

In an ideal world, the British would prefer to have their cake and eat it on the markets / migration trade-off.

The orthodox view is that a transition simply delays all of the key decisions – but a transitional deal could shift the medium-term British politics of Brexit more than is appreciated.

The bespoke British ›Goldilocks Brexit‹ would be warmer than Canada, but cooler than Norway  – but whether such a possibility exist will depend on what the EU 27 want too. The British do not know what they want‹ is a common criticism among European politicians and officials.

If Europe wants to survive there can be no transition.  Everything must be settled in the current negotiations deal or no deal.

Stability begins at home.

Learning the lessons of the past decade, WE HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE HOW FAR THIS LOGIC GOES.

Broadly I think we have landed in the right place and I take some comfort from being flanked on both sides of the argument. In or Out.

Doing all of these things efficiently and effectively relies on a strong degree of trust and co-operation between England and the Eu.

But the EU must plan, in a proportionate way, for alternative outcomes.

Just imagine two-year of;  We did not agree to this or that.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of a transit period"

The real difficulties will be over the shape of Brexit. The British need a transition – so can (probably) make the compromises needed to get it.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK: WHO ARE THE EUROPEAN UNION NEGOTIATING WITH.

30 Thursday Nov 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., Politics., The Irish/ Northern Ireland border.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK: WHO ARE THE EUROPEAN UNION NEGOTIATING WITH.

Tags

, ,

 

( A ten minute read)

It’s true that her role as the British head of state is largely ceremonial, and the Monarch no longer holds any serious power from day-to-day. The historic “prerogative powers” of the Sovereign have been devolved largely to government ministers. But this still means that when the British government declares war, or regulates the civil service, or signs a treaty, it is doing so only on her authority.

The Queen’s consent is necessary to turn any bill into an actual law.Image associée

The United Kingdom, England, Great Britain? Are these three the same place? Different places?

Part of the confusion is that the United Kingdom is not a single country but instead is a country of countries. It contains inside of it four co-equal and sovereign nations. England, Scotland,Northern Ireland Welsh all ‘British.

’They have their own devolved Parliaments and are allowed to vote on English laws. However, as the four constituent countries don’t have their own passports, they are all British Citizens, like it or not.

The European union is not dealing with Great Britain as it is only a geographical term rather than a political term.

However this is not completely true, as all three constituent countries have islands that are not part of Great Britain, such as :The Isle of Wight, Isles of Scilly and Lundy which are part of England, the Welsh Isle of Anglesey and the Scottish Hebrides, Shetland Island, Orkney Islands, Islands of the Clyde.

In Wales  (52.5%) voters chose to leave the EU, compared with 772,347 (47.5%) supporting Remain.

In Northern Ireland (56%) voted to remain in the EU, 44% voted to leave.

In Scotland (38.0%) voted to leave, 62.0% voted to stay.

With the exception of Gibraltar and the sovereign areas on Cyprus, the British overseas territories are not part of the EU.

Gibraltar,voted overwhelmingly to remain. The Falkland Islands? 90 per cent of its exports go to the EU 27.

Commonwealth migrants from 54 states – including ­Australia, Canada, India, Pakistan and Nigeria – could join the electoral roll as long are they are residents in the UK.

Citizens from other European countries – apart from Ireland, Malta and Cyprus – did not get to vote on whether the UK remains part of the EU.

So I ask again, just who are the European Union negotiating with.

 Is it the Crown? or the DUP 

Who created the Crown?  God Did.

God however – not wanted to be bothered with micromanagement – conveniently delegates his power to an entity called the crown.

Who created the DUP?  England did. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "the rev ian paisley speech never never"

It’s a useful reminder that the United Kingdom is still technically a theocracy with the reigning monarch acting as both the head of state and the supreme governor of the official state religion:

In the end the United Kingdom is a country situated on the british isles and is part of The Crown which is controlled by the monarchy.

Also part of the crown and the British isles are the crown dependencies.

The independent nations of the former empire that still recognize the crown are the commonwealth realm and the non-independent remnants of the former empire are the British overseas territories.

To London and Theresa May, the Irish don’t matter much as she and her government are held to ransom

The people of Northern Ireland and Mrs Foster remember this.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "how much did t may pay the dup"

This shoddy DUP deal will ultimately cost Theresa May and England

far more than £1bn“

DUP will be back for more again and again. They have previous in such

matters.

However, both the Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom are members of the European Union even though England often likes to pretend that it’s an Island in the mid-atlantic rather than 50km off the cost of France.

Border or no border the Eu and any country doing a deal in the future would do well to establish just who are they are dealing with before any agreement is agreed.

But that’s a story for another day.

 

All human comment much appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: DID THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM RESULT REALLY REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE ENTIRE UK ELECTORATE?

26 Sunday Nov 2017

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

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: DID THE ENGLISH REFERENDUM RESULT REALLY REPRESENT THE WILL OF THE ENTIRE UK ELECTORATE?

Tags

, , , , ,

( A twelve-minute read)

If we look at England going headlong to join Greece, (which has olive oil and sunshine against cider and gray skies) one has to wonder why all those that voted to stay in the EU have gone silent.

Eu cost

Why is this?

Where are the 48% that voted to stay in the EU?

It seems that England’s pending departure from the European Union, is driven by memories of the Empire rather than its people.

We all know that it built a fortune on the British Empire, however it used it to create pervasive banking and finance institutions, including many large value traders. It is this trade potential that made such a large economy.

Now just because it was unwilling to fight its corner we are witnessing a form of collective up in the clouds lunacy. As if Democracy is unable to reconsider a decision once vote on.

If anything one has to admire the bull dog determinism of a country that has giving many things to the world both good and bad to enact the result of a non legal binding Referendum that was won by 52% to 48%.

What can one say other than, you might like to turn your thoughts to the millions of people who will be directly affected but weren’t allowed to vote. (Not just the under-18s, but also the UK residents who come from other countries in the EU, and the UK nationals living in other parts of the EU…) The 10 million or so remain voters who didn’t show up to the polls should feel ashamed.

While Brexit likely does not reflect the sentiment of the entire electorate the result of the referendum reflects how democracy works in England.

Once the largest empire in the world its is now a shell of what it once was.

It’s too late now, but on such an important decision one would have thought that voting should have been compulsory, with a minimum majority of at least 60% to win.

Who in their right minds would run a yes-no one-off vote on such a big and complex issue? Only mad dogs and English men in the noon day sun.

Did the outcome really represent the will of the entire electorate?

Not by a long shot.

If only more_____ (fill in your choice of young people, ethnic minorities, Londoners, Scots, university graduates, etc.) had voted, then Remain would have won.  At least that’s the argument.

Of course, UK voters did not have one million chances to vote to stay in the EU.  They had one, and a majority of those who cast a ballot opted to leave.

There is a longstanding unwritten constitutional principle in England if you don’t participate, your voice is not heard.

Yet, when Britain renegotiates its status, with the European Union the borders will not change.European Central Bank

Do you know why?

Because Britain needs an open line to Europe. The most that will happen is a limit placed on immigration, something that the didn’t need to leave the EU to achieve.

So I ask where is the voice of the younger generation – which voted overwhelmingly in favor of remaining in the EU – that ultimately will bear the cost of the xenophobic pipe dreams sold to their parents by cynical politicians.

Have you all being seriously duped by a dream that wants you to believe that your standard of living will rise as a result.

What you are seeing is less secure employment, more social disease and mental health…and generally a cost of living that very few people can afford unless your one of the top 10%.

Which begs the question, is this what happens in a limited 2 party ‘democratic’ state (first past the post being the least democratic of all voting systems) when the people have lost faith in both parties?

Without the EU apparatus, your trading leverage is massively weakened, meaning that many of the free trade agreements you will sign outside of Europe will end up being less beneficial, especially in the extent that they impact upon the young.

I’m curious about exactly what England (notice I didn’t use the term UK) has to offer Europe or any free trade partner.

Heavy industry and mining is a shell of what it once was, as is the textiles industry. The auto industry is in many ways being propped by their EU agreements. Every one of your rural industries has another source within Europe itself.

You don’t have many natural resources, and even those you do have like North Sea oil will have its boundaries tested when you leave. I’m assuming this will extend to fishing boundaries as well. England, the entire UK for that matter, will be a pretty small place.

London’s status as a banking capital may be worth squat now as well. Banks will leave England as quick as they can buy new buildings in other cities.

The lost of the clearing of euro-denominated derivatives, will ultimately force tens of thousands pounds in revenue out of London and break off a key part of the City’s infrastructure.

On top of all of this  we are now witnessing what I happen to think it a VERY bad idea to hand your laws into the hands of the politicians, especially when they are already rich autocrats.

All this assumes that the legislation that would be required goes through either of the houses, which is in and of itself an iffy proposition, especially with Scotland promising to block and obstruct and rest assured that the Northern Ireland DUP will more than likely be looking for additional bribery blood money to vote on any agreement.

Throughout the course of human history, wealth, or the lack thereof, has driven social unrest. The frenetic pace of change has caused enormous social disruption as entire industries and employment have migrated to lower cost centers in Asia and other developing regions.

Perhaps England should take a leaf form Isaac Goldberg, who said

” To blind oneself to change is not therefore to halt it”.

This is what England can look forward to, deal or no deal.

Your politicians say;

It simply isn’t possible to wind back the clock. The forces that have been unleashed cannot be restrained. Turning inwards, however, will not solve the problem.

A disunited Europe alienated from a disunited UK can only lead to sorry state of affairs.

With profit seeking algorithms, Capitalism as we know it is going underground, isolation will not stop this taking place.

Perhaps now is the time for the European Union to consider jettisoning the UK relationship altogether. However the EU has shown it tends to move with a glacial pace, so the thaw will be over several decades that will bleed not just your productivity, but the aspirations of the young. 

The blow dealt to European unity may prove fatal but it is beyond a doubt that England will certainly feel the chill winds from the UK’s new isolationist policy.

I have always felt the UK should have try again to renegotiate the terms of its membership rather than an either / or referendum.

Now it appears that this is not possible as the damage has already been done, to an almost irreversible extent, the conditions of re-entry would not be favorable, and the cost of rejoining would be high.

The gap in EU-UK positions is wide, the risks of escalation high, and the room for compromise limited.

In or out will now weigh on Britain’s economic prospects for years to come.

If Brexit talks collapse the most likely reason will be not be money. (One way or the other the UK will pay a hefty bill for leaving EU.) The main reason is that any future relationship between Britain and the EU will take years to negotiate. The architecture of this relations depends on whether England honors the commitments which England entered into freely.

autumn statement brexit black hole

UK politics are now in a state of chaos, with European politics following suite so it is highly unlikely (whether England honors its commitments or not) that the twenty remaining EU countries will agree to anything other than to agree to disagree.

You only have to look at the Irish/ Northern Ireland border.

No other country is going to feel the fallout from the UK’s vote to leave the European Union more than Ireland.  It remains at the mercy of the unfolding drama in its closest neighbor and the consequences are mind-boggling.

Brexit is not occurring in a vacuum.

Public opinion is being reshaped by Brexit however it will be the cost of inflation that will cause panic, with corporations shift their bases of operation to Europe, costing thousands of jobs it will result in more than disturbances on the street.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS. IRELAND REMAINS AT THE MERCY OF ENGLAND.

24 Friday Nov 2017

Posted by in Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., England EU Referendum IN or Out., England., European Commission., European Union., The Irish/ Northern Ireland border., Unanswered Questions.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS. IRELAND REMAINS AT THE MERCY OF ENGLAND.

Tags

, , , ,

( A twenty-minute read)

This post is a follow on from my open letter to Mrs A Foster leader of the DUP.

No other country is going to feel the fallout from the UK’s vote to leave the European Union more than Ireland.  Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the irish border"

Every single aspect of life in Northern Ireland and Ireland will be affected by the outcome —  jobs, the economy, the border, the rights of EU citizens, the rights of cross-border workers, research funding … trade, agriculture, energy, fisheries, aviation, EU funding, tourism, public services, the list goes on.

The border was first set up in 1921 following the Irish War of Independence. Customs controls were brought in three years later with a heavy military presence which remained pretty consistent for the next 70 years. It wasn’t until about 2005 until all the remaining controls were removed with a shared control of the British & Irish border between the two countries.

The question is how Ireland’s politicians and executives, react to what could be a foreign-policy crisis that eclipses the nation’s banking collapse and bailout.

It’s hard to prepare detailed plans before the exact nature of the UK’s new relationship with the EU becomes clear, BUT THE MOST OBVIOUS ISSUE is the 310-mile border between the north and the republic.

The Good Friday Agreement, which ended decades of sectarian conflict, had no position on the vote.

The unfortunate reality is that Ireland remains at the mercy of the unfolding drama in its closest neighbor and the rest of the EU that will require Ireland to establish a hard border to protect the integrity of the Internal Market and the Customs Union irrelevant of the danger of a return to civil strife on the island.

“The consequences are mind-boggling.”Image associée

If this circle cannot be squared the Uk it will exit the EU without a deal. This will be the ‘ hardest’ of the ‘hard Brexit’ possibilities. A hard Brexit typically entails defaulting to World Trade Organisation rules, involving a very significant deterioration in trade relationship between the UK and the EU, and therefore between Ireland and Northern Ireland and the UK as a whole.

Either the British deny the unionist community in Northern Ireland a veto, or the EU and the Irish government accept a land border on the island of Ireland.

A hard border would reintroduce that sense of divide again between the north and south which was nearing the point of becoming a thing of the past.

Northern Ireland voted to remain in the EU Referendum by a majority of 56% to 44%. Overall, 440,437 people in Northern Ireland voted to Remain in the EU and 349,442 to Leave. Out of 18 constituencies, 11 voted to stay in the European Union.

Arlene Foster said that as a leader of unionism, she felt it was the right decision. “We are now entering a new era of an even stronger United Kingdom. ” Affirmation that she is void of any comprehension of what a majority means. The reality is that the people of the north of Ireland overwhelmingly voted in favor of Remain – both republican and unionist, Catholic and Protestant and those of no faith background.

From start to finish, she along with Conservative Brexiters have shown that they simply could not care less about Ireland.

In the referendum campaign, few gave even a passing thought to the impact of a leave vote on the relationship between Northern Ireland, the rest of the UK and the republic. When the vote went their way – though they lost in Northern Ireland – the Brexiters then gave bland assurances that the decision would make absolutely no difference to the island’s soft border, the legacy of the peace process, or north-south and east-west cooperation.

This was and is nonsense.

Brexit is not occurring in a vacuum, bad blood engendered if the UK leaves the EU without a deal it will spill over into other areas.

Given the political debacle that’s being made of Brexit by a dysfunctional UK administration, opinion polls in Ireland reflect no enthusiasm for Ireland to join them in leaving the EU, short or long-term, and it is highly unlikely that the North will join the South.

Northern Ireland is not the only stumbling block in the negotiations of course.

There’s no going back to a condition of servile dependency.

I don’t want to be misinterpreted as not caring about threats to peace, but even if one solved the Irish Border problem by having Northern Ireland stay within the Customs Union and Single Market, the huge problem of access to the GB export market would remain, as would the disruption to hassle-free trade with Continental Europe.

There are other scenarios:

  • the UK decides to leave the land border permeable and instead enforce border controls between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK, effectively treating Ulster as some kind of lower-status buffer zone which EU residents can enter without (effective) restriction. Likely to be singularly unpopular with Ulster Unionists.
  • The UK releases Northern Ireland as an independent or quasi-independent country, long the preferred option for saloon bar racists of the home counties (with or without the “tow the whole lot out into the middle of the Atlantic” option).
  • Moving the international frontier into the Irish Sea between Britian and the island of Ireland. This proposal is anathema to both Northern unionists and the British Conservative party as it affects the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Conservative government is dependent on the parliamentary support of Northern unionist parliamentarians for retaining its majority – giving it strong reason not to upset this part of its coalition which it bought at the cost of a billion.
  • A so-called invisible border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland simply would not work. Camera recognition technology and preregistered cargo — will not be effective on a border that passes the front door and back doors of houses. 
  • The border has always had a modest amount of smuggling as local tax differentials lead to imbalances, but with full-on export tariffs there would be a very substantial motivation for routing goods from the UK mainland to the continent via Stranraer-Larne and Rosslare-Le Havre on an industrial scale. So there would at the very least be a need for border guards on or close to road border crossings to channel goods vehicles into customs clearance facilities. Assuming the UK were to apply the same tariffs on imports, then the same would also apply in reverse.For Ireland, the issue of preventing Bad Foreign People from entering via its unsecured border is less important (indeed, the need to allow people to maintain existing social and economic links across the border is very important, bearing in mind that a very substantial proportion of the population of the north are Irish citizens)I don’t think the 450 million or so remaining in the EU are going to allow this to happen and be dictated to by Britain.  I also don’t think the British people appreciate how ‘locked in’ Britain is to international supply chains for all types of goods and services. However, businesses will adapt to the new arrangements, whatever they might be. The usual capitalist combination of greed and stupidity will prevail – Ireland has no option but to stick to its guns. 

Theresa May can hope for no more than an “aspirational” and “purely political” agreement on free trade before Britain leaves the European Union.

“Political agreements, with highfalutin aspirational guff are one thing. Legally binding agreements, treaty changes and trade deal texts are another.

As with all things Brexit the only answer at the moment is we have no idea.

And this is a scary prospect.

It’s due to the EU and the UK and Ireland being part of this greater whole that the IRA and Ulster Unionists have largely given up their dumb assery.

While overt attacks have stopped, the animosity between the two sides persists to this day in some parts of both countries.

If we are to avoid  “an enormous tragedy”

There can be no compromise to unblock any negotiations unless the rights of Europeans who will live in the UK after Brexit, the border between Ireland and the British province of Northern Ireland and the never never payments are resolved.

No man has the right to fix a boundary to the march of a nation. No man has the right to say to his country: Thus far shalt thou go and no further.”

No Westminster politician can set a boundary on Ireland.

We can only hope that Theresa May government falls, resulting in a general election, with EU requesting a re vote.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IS IT NOT TIME TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE WHEN IT COMES TO ENGLAND DEPARTURE FROM THE EU.

23 Saturday Sep 2017

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit v EU - Negotiations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAYS: IS IT NOT TIME TO CALL A SPADE A SPADE WHEN IT COMES TO ENGLAND DEPARTURE FROM THE EU.

Tags

, , ,

( A ten minute read)

Should the EU agreed to a transit exit period of two years? Which ultimately kicks Brexit down the road.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the uk negoiators re brexit"

Should a time-limited prolongation of Union acquis be considered, this would require existing Union regulatory, budgetary, supervisory, judiciary and enforcement instruments and structures to apply.

For the most part there is a shared interest in continuing arrangements, since many nations will not want to lose preferential access terms to the UK.

So yes the EU should grant more time provided the UK continues to meet its obligations.

It is obvious that a clean break without any transit arrangements would be better for both. God forbid we start going down the road of one set of rules for the transit and another set to leave. 

Why ?

Because without England clearly identifying what it wants it to do we are opening a Pandora box.

It is the UK that wants to leave the EU not the other way around.

As I have already said in previous posts only the Lawyers will make hay, never mind the terms for the fish.  They will love a transit period with Tax payers money on both sides flowing into their coffers.  The longer the better.

The EU has it hands tied when it comes to any negotiation because it must reflect the fact that the advantages of EU membership are not available to outsiders.

It may be possible for the EU and UK to collaborate on finding a smooth transition at the WTO. But it will require consensus at some point, a vulnerability open to exploitation. Britain’s most important external agreements — nuclear, airline access, fisheries and financial services are either entirely, or in large part, handled by the EU.

Even if England creates a new trade department, the task of negotiating new free-trade deals and maintaining existing ones will require a huge amount of money and manpower. The civil service and ministers are not even close to being ready to negotiate, let alone implement, new global trading relationships.

The nearest precedent you can think of is a cessation of a country.

Britain will find itself at the diplomatic starting line, with the status quo upended and all sides reassessing their interests. After Brexit the UK will lose more than 750 international arrangements.  Even if it were simple to renegotiate these arrangements, it will open a bureaucratic vortex, sapping energy and resources, creating a huge legal tangle.

The big question is, how will the UK’s political system react once the realization has sunk in about how little the EU will ultimately offer?

What Mrs May really wants is an association agreement.

There is a strong political case for such an association agreement, also from an EU perspective. But I fear that the idea is time-inconsistent. There is no Goldilocks “creative solution”, or a sector-by-sector approach.

Therea

There is no way that the EU will agree freedom of movement for aircraft, for example, but not for passengers.

Businesses need to prepare. Two more years before having to move key employees to European capitals.

The EU only knows a very limited number of external relationships. There is the European Economic Area, the so-called Norway option full EU access in exchange for accepting all EU rules. It’s a member of the European Economic Area (EEA), which means full access to the single market but being under all EU rules.

The other is a customs union agreement — the Turkey option.

The EU will not offer the UK the “Swiss option”. It regrets having offered it to Switzerland.  Then there is the Canada option – It took hundreds of skilled negotiators, dozens of video conferences and seemingly endless days in Brussels to produce the 1,600-page text. Some seven years after Canada and the EU began negotiating a trade deal, the future of the agreement remains shrouded in doubt. The agreement – which has yet to be ratified.

This leaves a single option: a free-trade agreement.

On top of all this the EU is only just starting to talk about institutional reform.

And how can they deal seriously with a government in which the foreign secretary might at any moment move to topple the prime minister to further his own career?

To continental ears, Mrs May’s call for a unique economic partnership sounds suspiciously like another, albeit subtler, attempt for Britain to have its cake and eat it — to retain the privileges but not the responsibilities of EU membership.

The British now believe they have made reassuring noises on money, security and citizens’ rights. But the insistence that the UK will leave the customs union means that it will be hard to point to progress on another issue that the EU deems critical: the Irish border.

The future relationship will need to be based on a balance of rights and obligations. It will need to respect the integrity of the Union’s legal order and the autonomy of its decision-making.

History has the habit of repeating itself,  Britain has been a torn in the side of the EU ever since it joined and English treaties have proven themselves over its history to be not worth the paper they are written on.

Get rid of the Nigel Farage’s, Renew your membership, i.e. stay and fight your quarter, otherwise a Clean Brake would be best for all. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of eu democracy"

All comments appreciated all like clicks chucked in the bin.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

THE BEADY EYES OPEN LETTER: CALLING ON THE YOUTH OF ENGLAND AND THE EU.

04 Tuesday Apr 2017

Posted by in Brexit., England., European Union., Modern Day Democracy., Politics., Populism., Social Media., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., What needs to change in European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYES OPEN LETTER: CALLING ON THE YOUTH OF ENGLAND AND THE EU.

Tags

, , ,

( A five minute read)

Where are your voices?

The decision to leave the EU affects your future more than anyone, so tell me why you are now so silent.

Luckily the responsibility for the outcome of the next two years negotiations still rests on the shoulders of the British people—and specifically, on the young English people.

Do young Englanders really want to isolate their Island even more from the rest of Europe?

It is now imperative you make your young voices heard on the final deal, if any.

If you do not there is little point sitting on you behinds, chastising older Brits, when less of you voted in the referendum than those who did not.

The 51.9 percent to 48.1 percent was so close – if the rest of you had voted, the outcome could have been very different, and if 16-and 17-year-olds were given the chance to have their say in this momentous decision England would not now be clinging on to its colonial history.

(It seems ludicrous that 16 and 17-year-olds weren’t allowed to vote in the referendum that was going to define much of their future. Truly idiotic.)

There is no such thing as a perfect future or for that matter a correct past but the coming decisions will pitted rich against poor like no other.

So here is my plea to the Youth of England and the Youth of the EU.

If you look at the sign at the entrance of your town and you’ll spot a phrase that goes something like this: “Twinned with.

(Town twinning, as an official relationship-builder, started in Europe after the second world war. The idea was simple: repair damaged relationships between France, Germany and the UK.)

You and your twin share something. A history, some DNA.

You’re twinned for a reason and that reason will be positive if you now twin your efforts to have a final say and vote on the final result.

We have seen in Greece the rise of a far-left government. In Spain, there is a similar upsurge. In France, Marine Le Pen and the Front National are closer to power than at any time previously. In Britain, the anger of the ‘have-nots’ has so far been contained — probably because unemployment has been kept down. But it would only take mismanagement of welfare benefits and an excessively high national living wage to change that.

Clearly not everyone who voted Leave is a racist thicko, just like not every immigrant is a jihadi. There are legitimate concerns on both sides of the debate, but I do not see how it is helpful to characterise millions of people in this way.

It can seem like a language that the privileged use to sneer at the poor: a kind of moral snobbery. A striking social division has been exposed in this vote.

I dont know about you but I’m ashamed that the world of ever-closer union among countries which for centuries would kill each other by the million—came to a shattering end on Thursday.

I am also embarrassed and disappointed that your country has been manipulated by the xenophobic, racist and above all incorrect facts that have been spread by a vocal minority of U.K. citizens.

Business and government officials have long grumbled about EU rules and regulations but the 2008 financial crisis, subsequent economic turmoil, rise of immigration and terrorism and general European malaise accelerated concerns about the relative merits of EU membership, particularly on the political right

British advocates of Brexit argue that issues of sovereignty and self-government should override economic ones but as a generation that is digitally connected to other young people across the world, you should be the generation which understands what the European Union is about more than any other, because you have grown up as European citizens.

So clearly, this all comes down to whether life is better or worse separate from the EU.

It is difficult to foresee any tangible benefits in leaving – economic, political or security –  that would outweigh remaining and helping to reform the EU, unless the EU disintegrates. 

Whatever the outcome of the British and EU negotiations, afterwards Europe will not be able to shy away from a few much-needed debates and significant reforms.

WE ALL KNOW:  WHETHER YOUR ENGLISH, SPANISH, FRENCH OR FROM ONE OF THE OTHER COUNTRIES CURRENTLY IN THE EU, BLACK OR WHITE- MUSLIM OR WHAT EVER RELIGION, THAT THE WORLD WE ALL LIVING IN IS IN A MESS IN MORE WAYS THAN ONE.

Theresa May explains how her government will balance seeking control of immigration and access to the single market

The picture above is not the world. The picture below is the world.Frontiers of Intercultural Clash and Dialogue - Armenia - abroadship.org

We are better together and celebrating our multi-cultural, immigration-shaped society.

This isn’t about saying whether young people in England were right and wrong, but it’s clear that they see themselves as citizens of Europe, and quite possibly the world, rather than the UK.

Is there a future for the European Union?

If so, what is it necessary to do, to give a future to this European Union?

More specifically, what is the role of new generations in the rescue operations and in ensuring continuity to the European project?

In the world we live in, acting alone is neither possible nor desirable.

Total independence from others is not possible, even outside the context of the European project, because in a global world we are all deeply connected. Thus, when dealing with issues that go beyond any single state’s borders, it is in every country’s interests to be able to participate in the international regulation and decision-making process.

Europe is obviously much more than a market, after all; it is a cultural space, simultaneously bemusing and splendidly diverse, complementary and enriching.

Europe is more than “Brussels”.

And Europe is not a bureaucratic monster, not a tribe of petty-minded technocrats making the lives of decent citizens a misery with their rules and regulations, but it will never be possible to preserve all the things we value about Europe without a European political framework.

Capitalism, we should not forget, is still capitalism.

Anyone who believes that the blessings of the market can spare us the hard work of solving political, social and ecological problems, who thinks that a single nation alone can triumph in the arena of global financial capitalism, is making a terrible mistake.

Such a fragile cultural entity as Europe can only survive in today’s world of conflict if it is politically strong and – whatever the differences – fundamentally united.

Is it too much to hope that a continent that has succeeded since 1945 – after two horrific wars – in turning enemies into neighbours and mistrustful neighbours into cooperative partners and sometimes even friends might turn out to be a reliable force for peace in the turmoil of the twenty-first century, a bastion of freedom and democracy, a promoter of fruitful communication with other influential regions?

The political Europe was never the great leveler, and never will be. Its raison d’être is its diversity, its vital energy, its obstinacy.

Europe is not the navel of the world, not the yardstick by which all other regions of the world are to be judged.

Europe is a historic continent, perhaps the historic continent par excellence. What singles Europe out most of all is that all the greatest crimes and mistakes have already been made here, and we Europeans have felt the punishment.

None of our problems can be solved by isolating ourselves or expanding into supposedly empty lands. We cannot just “go west!” Unlike the Americans, we know – even if we sometimes appear to forget it – that we can only live in peace if we also pay heed to the other side’s interests.

Don’t let anyone persuade you that we – the rest of Europe – want to take away your different-ness, your obstinacy, your trouble-making.

We need you in Europe precisely because you are so different from us. And you?

Would it be impertinent to suggest that you need us too, if you are to fulfil your potential? And if that is true – or at least not completely false – would it not be a rather poor idea to abandon Project Europe? I think so.

Of course, if the United Kingdom were to leave the EU, it would still be a member of NATO – and it is noteworthy that precisely its most significant partner in the alliance has stated its preference for a strong and united European Union that can act decisively in matters of security and defence.

Now is not the time to turn inwards.

It is obvious, therefore, that the Eurozone project is not solely a matter of a technical-parametric economic optimum calculation, but primarily a political issue.

So what is ultimately at stake in the Brexit debate?

It is only partially about Britain. A British exit would return the UK to its pre-modern constitution. For the EU, Brexit could favour a rebalancing of EU law in favour of social and environmental rights. But it is more likely that the neoliberal turn in EU law would continue as there are many factors now driving it, separately from British influence.

The EU, as much as the UK, is in need of a constitutional settlement which addresses the risks posed by market fundamentalism.

The notion of regaining sovereignty as a solution to the problems we face as Europeans, and Britons, is an oversimplification on the part of those who believe that it is possible to live in a world that no longer exists.

I am certain that the British do not really want to turn their backs on us continental Europeans after all we have been through together.

Europe is above all an ever-changing cultural cosmos that can only flourish if all its parts are permitted to be themselves. Anything else is codswallop.

If you get any group in society that doesn’t have a voice, they’re always going to feel nervous and out of control for the future.

Its time for the Youth of England with the support of Young Europeans to combine in a movement to be heard.

If not should I comfort myself with the thought that national egotisms and separatists are proliferating in many other European countries too.

Never. I deeply love the world, but it would be nothing without its people. Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of beautiful eyes with tears"

All the selfies, or social media won’t make you a better person, or help you with a fantastic opportunity to engage with politics and have your opinions heard.

Let’s call it Smart by not leaving it to Money, Profit, Arms Sales and I am all right Jacks to shape our lives.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: CAN ENGLAND BE PROUD AS IT EXITED THE EUROPEAN UNION.

27 Monday Mar 2017

Posted by in Brexit.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: CAN ENGLAND BE PROUD AS IT EXITED THE EUROPEAN UNION.

Tags

,

( A three minute read)

 

Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of the uk brexit negotiator"

To morrow is yet another day in the history of England and there are many of them that it can be proud of.

However I am sure that there will be many a brave world war two soldier moaning in their Normandy grave, not forgetting the 22 million Russians and 4 hundred thousand Americans, a mere 48,231,700 approx in total. 

Peace and freedom in Europe is what they sacrificed their young lives for.

Theresa May may well represent THE 3.8%  majority of I am all right Jack that voted to leave and of course we are all entitled to think what we want about the EU as an Institution that is just 60 years in the making.

Of course during the next two years we will be treated every day 7/7 with the spectacle of both sides washing their dirty linen on Social Media and the altar of economics.

We will be told the UK is not leaving Europe but reestablishing itself as a nation.

Which is true but not united.

O Yes there are lots of problems with The EU and the reality is far from the idea of Peace, as the idea has being kidnapped by a political class that has long-lost touch with the very people THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRESENT  but there is little point in listing them all here, because Brexit will no doubt shine a spotlight on all of them.

Will Brexit make any difference, I doubt it will.

You could be cynical and say that Wars other than in Europe happen anyway, but without some Unity there will never be peace in the world.

We can only build a future with common core values, not with Artificial Intelligence, not with globalisation, not with capitalist greed, not with arms sales, not with inequality of opportunity, not with trade barriers, not with segregation, not with religion, not with corruption, not with un elected government officials, not with loans, not with austerity, not with growth at all costs, not with the loss of identity, not with people sleeping rough, not with unfair taxes, not with no dignity in death and illness, not with past history or 48,231,700 and certainly not with an Island full of I am alright Jacks.

WE ALL KNOW THIS:

My advice would have been to stay and fight, even with all that is and will be wrong with the EU in the future.

The question now is: Who is really taking control.

Germany will “win the peace” in Europe as a result of Brexit.

England will see a power grab.

“Henry VIII clause” giving ministers sweeping powers to decide what to keep, without normal parliamentary scrutiny – named after a 1539 Act handing the king power to legislate by proclamation.

The devil will be in the detail

EU’s enormous untapped potential. It marks a new stage in the Europe’s evolution – a denial of understatement in favor of inspiration and engagement.

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

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨

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.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT SHOULD THE EU SEEK IN THE BREXIT NEGOTIATIONS.

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.

← Back

Thank you for your response. ✨