Tag Archives: The Future of the UK.

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S. ONCE AGAIN WITH THREE PROCLEMATIONS ENGLAND REMAINS IN THE SHADOWS OF THE PAST.

11 Sunday Sep 2022

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2022: The year we need to change.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

I suppose the first thing to understand about these proclamations is that if you want to be King, whether you believe or not in what you are swearing, by otter their words the government is in a fact placing a gagging orders on any personal political or controversial views being expressed during a reign.

Since mediaeval times, the terms of the coronation oaths have reflected the conflict for ascendancy between sovereign and subjects.

Taking the authorised form of the oaths is a condition on which the crown is held by any individual.

The starting point here is to note that taking the oath is neither a prerequisite to the accession to the Crown nor to provision of the royal assent. They lack statutory authority. Given the unlawfulness of the oath taken, there is a political and constitutional imperative in establishing that deficiencies in the oath do not fatally taint the reign which follows.

The monarch kisses the Bible having declared ‘The things which I have here before promised I will perform and Keepe Soe help me God.’

The significance of this lies in the king’s consent to be bound by new laws as well as the established laws and customs of the realm and, further, his acknowledgment that he must share the law-making power with the assembly of the people. An oath that does not comply with the 1688 form, as amended, not only violates primary statute law but fails to give due precedence to this central principle.

The fact that they have no direct constitutional effect is manifested in the absence of any penalty if they are not sworn. The weight of the oaths lies overwhelmingly in their symbolic significance and,
moreover, in making that symbolism intelligible, acceptable and inspiring to a modern
population.Image

With the death of Queen Elizabeth II it is unusual having a coronation, which is soaked in  past history  now involves Charles II taking a accession oaths that date originally from 1688-1707, when Catholic Europe was seen as an existential threat.

These oaths are.

The Scottish oath, to uphold the Presbyterian Church of Scotland.

The Accession Declaration oath, to be a true and faithful Protestant.

The Coronation oath, which includes promising to uphold the rights and privileges of the Church of England.

They could be described as declarations that are both personal and political statements, but in a more secular and pluralist society, the oaths need to be revised and updated; or dropped altogether.

So let’s ask two questions.

Do they have any value?

How might they best be understood in modern times?

Why?

Because to my mind the obligations of these days are understood as a limited, rather than a maximal duty on the sovereign personally.

It follows that the meaning of the 1688 language has down the centuries become reversed and is now in needs of further revision to reflected real responsibility. If not they are silently interpreted as an acknowledgment that the sovereign has in fact no personal political power, though obliged to speak on behalf of the real executive power – his government – as if he has.

This is because they do not create law but declare it.

The Scottish oath discharges a treaty obligation in the then new state of Great Britain to recognise previous Scottish ecclesiastical legislation.

The Accession Declaration oath confirms requirements laid down elsewhere that the sovereign must be a Protestant.

The Coronation oath does not make the heir into the sovereign: that is achieved automatically under the common law. Rather, the oath requires the sovereign to declare and identify with the effect of the law at a public moment of great solemnity and prepares the way for the conferment of divine blessing on the new sovereign.

So we are left with the three statutory oaths date from a narrow period of British history during 1688-1707.

To understand these out of date oaths lets look at each in turn in the light of constitutional and legal status of accession.

The first two arose from the turmoil at the end of the reign of James II who had sought to
expand the authority of the crown and favour Roman Catholics.

In 1688, the latter formulae the Accession could be understood as requiring the monarch – still then head of the executive – actively to use real existing powers to achieve the desired ends.

Although the formula’s constituent parts are traditional, the language is not prescribed and there
is no statutory restraint on what the new sovereign should say at what is a most solemn public
moment. In both the Accession Declaration Act oath and the coronation oath, the sovereign’s
obligation to uphold the force of the oath is expressed in the former by the formula ‘to the best
of my powers according to law’ and in the latter by the formulae ‘to the utmost of your power’
and ‘to your power’.

Although the constituent parts are traditional – regret at a death, request for the nation’s support in office, affirmation of support for the constitution – the texts are varied to reflect the individual sovereign’s concerns:

If there is not the political will to legislate, the government should consider preparing a
statement to give to Parliament on accession explaining the historical reasons for the oaths, and
how they are to be understood in modern times; with accompanying briefing for the media.

In a radical reformulation, the Scottish oath could become an oath about the Union; the Accession Declaration, traditionally made before Parliament, could become an oath to uphold the constitution and laws; and the coronation oath, in a ceremony watched by millions, could be an oath made to the people not the Government. 

Regal activism of this kind could only be expected of modern constitutional monarchs, not a king in the straight jacket of history long passed.

If not, the only way to keep the Royal Family relevant is to consigned it to cultural history, replacing it with a written constitution.

What if anything can King Charles III do?

Prince Charles

He will be known as King Charles III – the first Charles to sit on the throne since 1685 has a mind of his own.

His opinions which carried weight on the Climate/ Agricultural/ Conservation etc are now consigned to silence because these oaths are enshrined in statute.  It would require amending legislation to revise and update them. It is obvious that this may not be easy, to reach consensus, with the churches, other faith groups and all sections of society; ultimately the government has to decide.

He will now have his opinions expressed by his Son William.

———————

The declaration made at the inaugural Privy Council clearly has a different status from
the three statutory oaths . In essence, it comprises all the elements and more of what is actually
required of other European sovereigns by their constitutions.

Unlike any other European monarchy, the UK monarchy is an international monarchy
because the sovereign is head of state also in fifteen other independent Commonwealth
countries. All Commonwealth countries will be sensitive to how the general relationship with the UK crown is expressed.

Charles III has now has a more than difficult act to follow ass it will not take long for the run of forthcoming referendums on staying part or attached to the UK (that will pose new subtle threats to parliamentary sovereignty of England in those countries now part of the Commonwealth) to start.

In 871 AD Alfred the only king of England to be called great defeated the Vikings.

Forty years ago man stood on the Moon.

Thirty years from now Charles III will most likely not be with us, nor will most of us, if we don’t tackle Climate change.

So long live Charles III who understand this. Long may his Voice be heard.

To achieve this here is my advice.        Buy back the HMS Britannia.

Edimburgo: il fascino discreto e misterioso della Scozia

——————–

Amidst the cluster-crisis now engulfing the lives of millions of British people, The UK has a new prime minister. Selected by a small group of right-wing ideologues, known as the Conservative Party, Liz Truss will govern without either a democratic or popular mandate until she sees fit to call an election, no later than January 2025

It should be expected in a country in thrall to the wildest and most deluded of fantasies about its national identity that the new cosplaying prime minister should continue to promote the fable of trickle-down economics. Her predecessor used Brexit as a means to hide the failure of that project beneath a xenophobic, populist rhetoric that evoked another myth: the envisioning a future built on former, imperial greatness.

All the pomp, pageantry, oaths taking,  will not hide the UK desperate need for a written constitution.

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

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

Advertisement

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WHAT IS BRITISH CULTURE ? IS IT THE REASON THAT THE COUNTRY IS NOW IN SUCH A MESS?

27 Wednesday Jul 2022

Posted by in 2021. The year for change., British Culture., The UK Class system.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. WHAT IS BRITISH CULTURE ? IS IT THE REASON THAT THE COUNTRY IS NOW IN SUCH A MESS?

Tags

,

( Six minute read)

The great things about Britain, are the sheer amount of bright minds this country had during its history. There are myriad of inventors, writers, musicians, bands, rock stars, scientists…All British!

However the trouble is that the fabric of English society has so many strands, that the “inertia” of the British class system is less elastic than one might  think – even if one generation pulls away, the next is tugged backwards.

In a country that is now struggling to keep the wolf from the door, to correct the idiocies to which ideologically based government have taken England and return it towards reality, it must first look at its culture.

(ES Composite)

Last night debate between the two remaining candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party and thus the next Prime Minister of the country highlighted this class culture. 

Bling earrings against posh shoes.

The British obsession with class isn’t so archaic, like it or loathe it, many see the class system as a quintessential element of British life. Class distinctions do not die; they merely learn new ways of expressing themselves.  

Whether you are a lord, a “toff” or just the Queen, everyone in the UK fits into the class system, this is what influenced their occupation, social status and political influence.

It's not just our parents - our whole social milieu, from our wider family to their friends and contacts, can influence our progress in life (Credit: Alan Crowhurst/Getty Images)

It takes around 10 generations for someone at the highest or lowest levels of society to reach the middle classes. 

This the vast and elaborate structure grew up almost in secret.

How much of England’s  position today depend on the people we’ve never met?

Perhaps a more pertinent question, then, is not whether class distinctions exist, but whether it is possible to move out of one pigeonhole and into another.

Lower class- Working class- Middle class- Upper Class. Royalists Aristocrats. Class might not have same status as it once did but the British class system has its protections at every level, a built-in inertia from its colonial days of ‘divide and rule.

We are all human so it no wonder the debate last night was influenced by short term populisms subjects on the economy, hungry consumerists and investors.

                                  —————————-

Thanks to Maggie Thatcher policies the culture in Britain moved from brilliant to consumerism – shop till you drop – ignoring the rise in racism and growing ignorance due to the lack of free education. 

At least it was before the Brexit idea, there are few things which surfaced with this whole Brexit situation.

We learned that the vast majority of people in this country is racist. Politicians are liars (promising more money for academia and the NHS…). Politicians are trying to get rid of the Human Rights (read about it if you don’t believe me) and without a flinch, the great British government passed “the most extreme surveillance law in the history of western democracy” (to quote Snowden).

To start cleaning up the mess. 

You don’t start about “taking back our sovereignty.” That is petty as hell, countries are not self sufficient. We rely on each other.  I would hold a public enquiry into the Brexit. 

You dont start solving the problems talking about levelling up or down, reducing taxes, the price of fuel, the NHS, Brexit opportunities, the Ukraine war.

Everyone understands the financial services is the big kahuna for the UK.   

“ The City “ the financial sector, still has this idea that it’s basically smart to game the system. If these are the people, and the culture, that is coming into public life then we’ve got a real problem.”

Outside brilliant minds are no longer welcome to contribute to the Great British societies and money is being invested in privatisation and corporations as opposed to a stable economy, educated, informed and healthy population.

It is shocking to still hear people moaning about immigrants coming to Britain for the sake of benefits, whereby it is the vast majority of immigrants who pay the most taxes. It is the immigrants who maintain Britain afloat, and it is because of the immigrants that we have good doctors, dedicated teachers and hard-working baristas in the local cafes.

Unfortunately, the relative proportions of people moving up or down a class now seems to be reversing. More men and women are experiencing downward mobility and fewer of them experience upward mobility.

It is shocking to watch day time Media full of begging for support for ever think from Food banks to save the children.   

Britain is indeed among the worst countries for certain measures of social mobility, with the parents’ wealth strongly influencing the child’s prospects of higher education and a good salary.

NO COUNTRY IS PERFECT.

Even though Brexit was a pissing contest, and either party hailing “the Brexit deal” a “victorious day” was stupendous by all accounts.  (accountable politicians should have been fired on the spot for even daring to see that as a victory) 

The country now needs long term actions.

No longer a Mantra Carter or privileged Royals rather a Written Constitution to level up and enter the age of technology.

Why?

To provide the courts, the police, the infrastructure, education and training on which business relies a set defined values and insure that when a leader is removed from office for what ever reason that all of its people get say on who is to take his or hers place with a general election not the members of any political party, that happens to be in power. 

Why?   

Because people are embedded in a circle of connections and that social milieu is very influential in terms of people’s outcomes.

Because immigrants are the people who are willing to give up their rights, liberties and cultures, in order to work for the sake of your government, your country, your society and your benefits.

Because for too long business, especially multi-national business have been parasitical on the nation state. It is time that they learned to be a sensible symbiote and to nurture not drain and destroy its host.

This is a beautiful country with a  country with a murder a day, (According to the Global Peace Index, the UK is the 47th safest country in the world (and the 26th in Europe), well below Romania, Hungary, Germany and Botswana. Portugal is the 4th safest country in Europe ) … with a scurrilous Press, with 430 people per square kilometre, ( England is nearly twice as crowded as Germany (227) people per sq./km) and more than three times as crowded as France (117 people per sq./km).

Its time to get out of the phone box and take an in-depth look at some genuine solutions. 

Britain is too heavily populated to manage centrally, so things need to be micro-managed.

Council tax. Should be  income-based.

Education in all its forms  should be free.

Public Transportation is insanely, painfully expensive.

People Assemblies less power for the elites and more power for the people. 

Tackle Racism Discrimination which has have been emboldened since Brexit.

Free Grants to drive green energy. Not a moratorium on Green levs’ Climate change is a global emergency. 

Proportional representation for general elections.  

Make it illegal for a newspaper to publish “information” that they knew to be false.

Ban advertising that prompts unsustainability.  

The British empire has been responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history, but the UK has mellowed out over the past few generations, though under no circumstances should anyone ever trust a British government leader that is not  elected by all of its people.  

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT BORIS JOHNSON RIGHT HAND MAN DOMINIC CUMMING’S.

31 Saturday Aug 2019

Posted by in Articular 50., Brexit Language., Brexit Party., Brexit v EU - Negotiations., Brexit., English parliamentary proceedings., First past the post., Heredity Monarchy., Political voting systems., Populism., Reality., The Obvious., Unanswered Questions., WHAT IS TRUTH

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT BORIS JOHNSON RIGHT HAND MAN DOMINIC CUMMING’S.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

(Eighteen-minute read)

Dominic Cummings’ writings are a window into the world of the special adviser now shaping Johnson’s premiership, Brexit and the U.K.’s future.

He is described as the back-office mastermind to Johnson’s front-of-house showman during the EU referendum campaign.

Politicians don’t get to choose which votes they respect. That’s the critical issue.

Dominic Cummings

We all know that politicians are surrounded by people who are long on views but short on actionable advice. Very many people in politics have opinions, hardly any have plans.

So is Cumming’s merely the latest in a long line of geniuses to run things for the Conservatives in 10 Downing Street?

There is one thing for certain Britain is now being hurtled along by a manic fantasist and a Machiavellian aide – neither of whom was actually elected by the people – in their helter-skelter, do-or-die dash to be rid of the unelected Brussels technocrats they are shaping the Britain of the future with more than a hint of Trumpian logic.

.

As an online writer, Mr Cumming’s is a believer in the military principle of Auftragstaktik — the idea that leadership means giving subordinates a crystal-clear strategic goal. He describes himself as “not a Tory, libertarian, ‘populist’ or anything else” never missing an opportunity to apply the lessons of science to political decision-making.

Donald Trump said that Boris Johnson is the “right man for the job” for delivering Brexit.

He obviously does not know the English version of  Mr Cumming’s but who could blame him as almost no one is on his level.

The whole discussion on Brexit is so full of empty epithets and silly name-calling, lie piled onto lie… claptrap on claptrap…Almost nothing can be taken at face value. Almost everything is a damned lie.

Mr Jonhson and his right-hand man Cumming’s are now set on undermining authentic community self-help organizations with money for fake government services, and eventually, they will undermine private industry with regulations, minimum wages, taxes, with rules and tariffs that small, low-cost, marginal businesses can’t afford.

The European Union might well have its core value in Peace but it also created a market who’s purpose was not just trading but to protect the public by preventing politicians from bankrupting the nation.

If England falls out of the European Union without a deal never before in the history of the UK will its economy see little growth at such a high cost?

Dominic Cummings was found to be in contempt of Parliament earlier this year for refusing to give evidence to MPs investigating ‘fake news’.

While working for then Education Secretary, Michael Gove a few weeks prior to leaving his post as Special Advisor, he published a 251-page manifesto explaining why Gove had got almost every policy wrong.

As recently as last month, he wrote a 10,000-word blog post calling for a Whitehall ‘revolution’. He has also criticised the “Kafka-esque” influence of senior Civil Servants on elected politicians, as it limits the potential for immediate reform.

To successfully leave on the 31st October, Boris Johnson will have to override the house of commons, and with Cummings as his advisor, it’s plausible he may just do it.

Cummings and his leader Mr Johnson are now seeking to close the bunker Parliament and limit its range of discussion.

Mr Dominic Cummings is a restless risk-taker.David Levenson/Getty Images

Even if England gets rid of Boris, et al, what of the future over and above the impact of Brexit?

Will we see more of this “First Past the Post” democratic deficit leading to a bunch of narcissistic liars, or total incompetents, running the country on behalf of a minority of voters?

The Church of England is inseparable from the development of the English nation, monarchy, language, people, culture and more: they have co-evolved for five centuries. Until recently, to be Church of England was simply to be born English.

Where is its voice?

To put it another way, the legacy of King Henry VIII and his determination to assert English independence in both politics and religion (which were hardly separable in his time) seems perversely durable and stubborn to this day.

With Brexit fast approaching, reliable information is now crucial before a coup d’état by an unelected Prime Minister.

Oscar Wilde’s famous comment:-

“There are two kinds of tragedy. One is not getting what you want. The other is getting it”.

If Mr Johnston refused to step down in a no-confidence vote scenario England is not looking at a deal or no deal but it is looking at   “the gravest constitutional crisis since the Civil War.

Surely its time for a written constitution.

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

 

THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS OUR WORLD SO COCKED UP.

28 Tuesday Mar 2017

Posted by in Modern day life., Our Common Values., Populism., Sustaniability, Technology, The Future, The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., United Nations, What needs to change in European Union., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASKS: WHY IS OUR WORLD SO COCKED UP.

Tags

, , , , , , ,

 

( A five-minute follow on read:  Broadening the Subject of Brexit to a Global view)

Because we never see or experience time and space; they are like glasses through which we view the world. Each day, we hear about countless instances of greed, hatred, violence, and destruction, and all of the pain, suffering, and sorrow that ensues.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of a global eye"

About 100 years ago, the world sleepwalked into World War 1, which lead to world War 11.

Today the world sleepwalking  into the next global disaster.

WE ARE INCAPABLE OF ACTING TOGETHER FOR THE COMMON GOOD.

BRIXIT BEING THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE.

Take your choice CLIMATE CHANGE or UN-REGULATED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.

Technology increasingly prevents us from seeing ourselves in others – we increasingly see others as data, which tell us all about their employment outcomes or what degrees they have, but which keeps their dignity out of plain sight.

How is it that technology has and still is superseding human intelligence, when it’s the humans that are discovering new technologies?

The question is how to change human being, since we are the root cause of everything.

The earth is on the brink of environmental disaster because human beings (at least those in power during the modern age) have drawn sharp distinctions between the human and non-human world.

The world is and has always been divided into two opposing camps: female/male; non-white/white; haves/have-nots; young/old; conflict theorists/functionalists; developed nations/less developed nations; oppressed/oppressors; industrialized/non-industrialized; Western/non-Western, etc.

They all stem from a mindset that envisions a world of you versus me, us versus them, self versus other.

We can look at almost any social problem—racism, sexism, poverty, homophobia, ableism, bullying, terrorism, domestic violence, human trafficking, slavery, religious fundamentalism, immigration —and at the core, is a dualistic orientation.

A dualistic orientation is one that focuses on our differences instead of our similarities, promotes arbitrary divisions at the expense of social cohesion, neglects our interdependence by nurturing our sense of independence, and fashions a deeply polarized world where if you are not with us (or like us) then you are against us (and therefore, we are against you).

The world is certainly a mess of socially created divisions. And while these differences seem real, and have very real effects, we must not forget that they are indeed social creations.

When we speak about problems between women and men, people of color and whites, Christians and Muslims, or any of the other numerous dualisms that we regularly invoke, we are implicitly (and sometimes explicitly) suggesting that these two groups are essentially and inherently distinct, that at the core of these two groups is some fundamental difference.

Although the ubiquity of these problems makes them seem so normal and ordinary that we may not even question.

We need to question and challenge the way we unreflectively describe and divide the world into dichotomous and opposing camps.

In both our words and our actions we need to construct real alternatives to these arbitrary constructions, emphasize our similarities instead of our differences, build bridges instead of borders, and recognize that interdependence sustains us while independence tears us apart.

It may seem fruitless to try to identify a single contributing factor to all of society’s collective dilemmas. Ultimately, the challenge is to see others as us.

We first need to recognize ourselves in others before we can treat them like we would want to be treated.

Treating everyone equal, but in a real scenario, this is not possible.

Leave apart treating humans equal, we do not even spare the nature that lets us live or wildlife that maintains the ecological balance.

We destroy them all if it is serving our purpose.

We need to end the era of easy money. We need to stop subsidizing financial markets. We need to let our economy reorient itself from its short-term and transactional focus back to one based on long-term investment and long-term relationships.

We must encourage not discourage immigration. Immigration is morally correct, is good foreign policy and is economically beneficial. Immigrants must be viewed as assets, which they are, not liabilities.

Populists continue to come to power but it has no long term objectives.

The rich stay rich, the powerful stay powerful and the poor stay poor. Trade suffers, immigrants are shunned. Economic growth is weak. Capitalism continues to be viewed as the problem, big government as the solution. Maybe another financial crises that we can inflate our way out of. Maybe another financial crises that we can’t.

Sooner or later the music stops. It’s time for us to be better.

We are nowhere near as free as everyone thinks, and that makes my skin crawl.

All in all, of course there is a lot of good in this world, but even with all that good, the bad shines, so bright and with that brightness it sometimes gets hard to see the good.

Why settle other planets when ours is in danger of an impending doom?

It’s easy to assume that we’ll charge into our new home disregarding the existing ecosystem or any potential inhabitants. We’ll change shit around so it works for us and in doing so we’ll make the same mistakes we’ve made for centuries on Earth.

What the hell is going on in the world?

IT’S TIME WE PUT ON Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of a global eye"

IT’S TIME TO REVANT THE UNITED NATIONS. TO ESTABLISH A NEW WORLD ORGANISATION TO VET ALL TECHNOLOGY, ARTIFICIAL NOR NOT TO ENSURE IT COMPLIES WITH CORE HUMAN VALUES AND NOT PROFIT.

IT’S TIME TO GET OFF YOUR SMART PHONES AND PAY ATTENTION TO YOUR REAL WORLD.

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

THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT DEAL CAN THE UK EXPECT FROM THE EU.

19 Monday Sep 2016

Posted by in Articular 50., England EU Referendum IN or Out., European Union.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS: WHAT DEAL CAN THE UK EXPECT FROM THE EU.

Tags

, ,

 

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

It will be a fraught celebration. So what deal can the UK expect from the negotiations?. Can it have a special relationship.

At the moment the most likely option for the UK is to be unable to forge a deal better than it had when it was a member. ( No Shangaan Agreement or the Euro.)

At the moment there is a lot of verbal in the media fueled by Politicians on both sides.

Here is some clarity.

Negotiations  could lead to an orderly transition or a much more unpredictable process, buffeted by political pressure, volatile markets and the clash of national interests.

One way or the other. Britain will also have to renegotiate or reconform a web of EU-negotiated free trade deals with dozens of countries that anchor the UK in world commerce but are not automatically inherited if it leaves.

It means that the Uk Government would have to do three acts simultaneous: negotiate a new deal with Brussels, win a series of major bilateral trade deals around the world, and revise its own governance as EU law recedes.

EU-related law makes up at least a sixth of the UK statute book. That excludes 12,295 EU regulations with direct effect — hundreds of thousands of pages of law, on everything from bank and consumer rules to food standards, which cease to apply the moment Britain leaves.

Because Britain’s initial accession into the EU’s gives Brussels law supremacy over British law the UK will have to repeal the 1972 Act. So the negotiation would not just concern divorce, the technical parting of ways and the settling of old bills.

As a result it would also have to re-engineer the world’s biggest single market, setting new terms of access and legislating to “renationalise” volumes of law rooted in the EU.

The scrapping of EU law will result in an avalanche of new legislation in every corner of Whitehall.

On the EU side the UK will be negotiating with the commission, with 27 member states, with the European Parliament, national parliaments, with their electorates and each will have a veto over the conditions.Afficher l'image d'origine

There are a lot of veto players here.

They’ll be herding cats to get these actors to agree.

It is quite obvious while leaving the EU is Britain’s choice, the UK cannot dictate the exit terms.

If the European Union is to survive it will not be in a position to offer the Uk a deal that encourages other nations to follow suit with referendums of their own – or demand tailor-made deals of their own. It would trigger a domino effect as the bloc without Britain becomes less attractive to liberal, rich northern states such as Denmark and the Netherlands, where demands are growing for copy-cat plebiscites.

It would seem more than reasonable to say that any agreement that bestows favours that are not enjoyed by all the remaining EU members will result in the breakup of the European Union as a whole.

If the UK was able to achieve full, free access to the EU market, whilst not having to pay into the EU coffers, and not allowing free movement of people, it does beg the question – exactly what do you get for European Union membership?

So without violating the sacrosanct EU principle that free movement of people is essential for countries that want to join its common market the EU conditions will be brutal to discourage other states from following suit.

The idea of an ongoing relationship with the EU is therefore not acceptable.

The truth is if the UK leaves the EU it is basically cut off the continent.

BRITAIN could be sued for millions by disgruntled EU states if it begins negotiating trade deals with other countries before leaving the European Union.

On top of all this any negotiations will have to be conducted with an UK government that has a leader with a mandate from the people not appointed by 300 odd conservative Mps.

 “If the European Council or Parliament rejects the final agreement we’re back to square one.”  

The UK will find itself in exactly the same position we started out from. Wanting to leave but with no agreement with the EU.Afficher l'image d'origine

Extending any talks beyond two years requires unanimity.

The EU could offer Britain temporary curbs on immigration up to seven years in return for access to the single market. Britain would be expected to continue paying into the EU budget, although probably less than now, and would not have a say in single-market rules.

Predicting EU member countries’ reactions to any deal is premature.

If I was British I would stay and fight.