Tag Archives: UK’s membership of the EU.

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

≈ Leave a comment

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 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.

≈ Leave a comment

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE LOOKS AT WHAT NOW FOR POLITICS IN THE UK.

14 Monday Sep 2015

Posted by in Politics.

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, ,

People are always going on about ‘left wing’ and ‘right wing’ – but what does it mean?

Well it basically means what people believe a country should do for its citizens.

Left wing beliefs are usually progressive in nature, they look to the future, aim to support those who cannot support themselves, are idealist and believe in equality. People who are left-wing believe in taxation to redistribute opportunity and wealth – things like a national health service, and job seeker’s allowance are fundamentally left-wing ideas. They believe in equality over the freedom to fail.

Right wing beliefs value tradition, they are about equity, survival of the fittest, and they believe in economic freedom. They typically believe that business shouldn’t be regulated, and that we should all look after ourselves.

Right wing people tend believe they shouldn’t have to pay for someone else’s education or health service. They believe in freedom to succeed over equality.

Left wing beliefs are usually progressive in nature, they look to the future, aim to support those who cannot support themselves, are idealist and believe in equality.

In the UK the main right-wing parties are the Conservative (or Tory) Party, and UKIP (who focus on the UK not being a part of the European Union).

They believe that if you have more money, you should get to keep it, and buy better education and health services for yourself. They believe that businesses should be less regulated, and that the more money they earn, they’ll bring more benefits to the country.

In the UK the main left-wing parties are the Labour Party and the Green Party.

They believe in making laws that protect women, ethnic minorities, and gay people against discrimination. They believe that we should tax rich people more to support people less well off, and they believe we should regulate big businesses so they serve people’s interests.

The Liberal Democrats (Lib Dems) are another major party in the UK but people often argue about where they fall, politically. They have some traditionally left-wing ideas, and some right-wing ones as well.

 

Most of us in the west live in a system that makes growth an imperative; but this growth involves huge environmental threats and doesn’t improve our real well-being. To counter this we need a radical redistribution of income, within countries and between them.

Increasing incomes are not making us happier.

More important is the environmental issue: growth eats up the world’s resources and generates carbon with the inevitable and catastrophic effects on the climate.

So what is going to change with the election of Jeremy Corbyn as the leader of the Labour Party?

The major challenge in the short-term is of course political.

The reality is that economic relations in the UK are becoming set in stone.

If you are a stranger to the truth here are a few facts as to why a different approach is needed.

It’s not just that the very rich no longer fall while the very poor no longer rise. It’s that the system itself is protected from risk. Through bail-outs, quantitative easing and delays in interest rate rises, speculative investment has been so well cushioned that, as financial markets are one of the last bastions of socialism left on earth.

In the UK Public services, infrastructure, the very fabric of the nation have been sold to Private Enterprise. These too are being converted into risk-free investments. Social cleansing is transforming inner London into an exclusive economic zone for property speculation.

Nor should we be surprised when governments help to negotiate, without public consent, treaties such as TTIP and CETA (the Comprehensive Economic and Trad Agreement, which undermine the sovereignty of both parliament and the law.

Is he going to provide effective opposition to the government and address austerity and neoliberalism as the problems, instead of whimpering about “aspiration”.

Is he going to be able to stop the conservatives squeeze themselves into the centre ground and cause the extinction of Labour in 2020.

Labour lost the last election because they failed to present a credible alternative to the government’s programme. 56% say Labour’s platform is unclear.

One thing for sure it can’t be lefte politics of envy it will have to be the politics of justice.

Labour have just realised that the public do not like the word TABLET.

If he adopts a program of building social homes he will see an electoral shift.

The biggest divides these days are cultural rather than those of class.

How can anyone in their right mind ever imagine that the Tories while in coalition with the Liberals  – who pissed away your money defending bankers’ bonuses in Brussels – have the interests of anyone other than the richest 1% at heart? There is a growing divergence between private and public sector workers and the rise in economic inequality is matched by voting trends.

Scrapping tuition fees, Trident, and nationalizing Energy, Transport, Water, are all admiral aspirations.

We all want a better lifestyle, but do our desires exacerbate global inequality? How do we know when enough is enough? The average income in the UK is around £25,000 or nearly three times the world average, and 60 times that in Afghanistan.

We have enough, but Afghanistan and  most developing countries clearly do not.  That we have enough is shown by surveys showing we – in rich countries – don’t get happier when we get richer.

In short Europe is changing right in front of our eyes. News Media Industry is all about grooming people’s attitudes and their feelings about other people and – above all – persuading people to think in a certain way.

With the influx of Refugees the EU in or out vote will be a complete fares.

Who on the left would wish to stand on the sidelines as this carve-up continues? Who would vote for anything but sweeping change?

To fail to confront this system is to collaborate with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Beady eye looks at what is wrong with the European Union.

11 Saturday Jul 2015

Posted by in European Union.

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , ,

 

In the next few months and for years to come perhaps you will be reading a lot of bull shit on this subject.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "pictures of human eyes"

Where is the European Union going or has gone wrong.

Well you don’t have to wait to know why.

It is the deformed structure of globalisation, which favors the owners of capital and concentrates of wealth that is the culprit.

(Add the demographic tipping point across the Pacific Rim and central Europe, and you have a portrait of worldwide “secular stagnation”.)

The current Greece crises in the Euro Zone is shining a light on a technocrat dictatorship which is beyond democratic control if ever attempted.

The euro zone is least able to respond to the Greek crises because it is a dysfunctional construct.

∑ The European Union with 751 Members and 24 official working languages costs , € 1,756 billion (2014) of which 35% is for staff expenses, mainly salaries for the 6000 officials working in the General Secretariat and in the Political Groups. Moreover, this expenditure covers interpretation costs, the costs of external translation and staff mission expenses.

Another words about 27% (of the 2014 budget) is dedicated to MEPs’ expenses, including salaries, costs for travel, offices and the pay of personal assistants.

Expenditure on Parliament’s buildings accounts for 11% (2014)

Information policy and administrative expenditure such as IT and telecommunications account for 21% (2014)

Political Group activities account for a further 6% ( 2014) ∑

What’s wrong then?

More to the point what can be done?

The first is the recognition of sharing a common history, which usually means sharing episodes of violence, pain, suffering, and, yes, achievement.

Next there is no meaningful representative democracy without taxation.

Citizens and voters pay attention when they are taxed.

A European tax that replaces government approved transfers of funds could do wonders for getting Europeans interested in Europe.

(The willingness to transfer significant spending and taxing powers to European institutions is very limited.)

The European project needs anchor figures chosen directly by Europeans.

A presidential figure elected through the rule “one European, one vote” would be a good start. A figure to love and to hate, that could engage Europeans with the legitimacy of the vote and (why not?) have an important say in the dying and the paying issues that can promote a new citizenship and a new polity.

We all know that the founding aspiration of the European Union was born out of War and that is where it is going if it does not represent the people of Europe not the Free market with its proxy behind the doors trade agreements.

And we all know that once money enters any equation aspirations go out the window. What follows is the erosion of the common good, democracy and in comes – I am all right Jack.

The regulation of money creation is, essentially, a undemocratic economic policy and there is no better example of this than the current Greek crises.

Indeed the greatest risk for the survival of the Euro zone today is the risk emanating from social and political upheavals in countries that are forced into a deflationary spiral. 

The euro zone has let it happen in Greece.

Europe’s authorities have so mismanaged monetary and fiscal strategy that the whole currency bloc has tipped into deflation.

The ideas of Europeanism, federalism, and even “post-material” politics appeal, albeit in different ways, to new possibilities for political, cultural, and
social cohesion will force Europe to think deeper about its first motivation for establishing a common economic market: attaining a long-lasting peace in Europe.

The means to create and pass on a similar European narrative to a wide mass of individuals is now open to question.

We ought to know by now, economic fluctuations hit different jurisdictions differently.  If these economic fluctuations are relatively synchronous or resources sufficiently mobile, monetary policy is an appropriate instrument, and the area to which it is applied is a so-called “optimal currency area”.

The problem is that we are still, evidently, in the process of making Europe, but may be well advised to start making Europeans at the same time.

It can be sum up in one word.  Diversity.

Often seen not as a liability it is the core fact that allows for change and progress. The “unity in diversity” motto is but a starting point, which urgently needs new incarnations.

http://business.financ€35bn to help the economy” ialpost.com/news/economy/drachma-diplomacy-what-would-life-after-the-eu-look-like-for-greece

The question is:

Is Tsipras really looking for a deal with Europe?

The Greek government now accounts for about 60% of the country’s entire GDP.  Leaving the euro zone could cost the Greek economy up to 36% of its GDP over the next few years.

If Greece switches currency, any euros left in Greek bank accounts would depreciate by 50% to 60% in a matter of days.

The recent decision by the ECB to act a lender of last resort is a major regime change for the Euro zone. It is not sufficient, however, to guarantee the survival of the monetary union. 

Perhaps Debt pooling would ties the hands of the member countries of the Euro zone and shows that they are serious in their intentions to stick together.

Where did all the Quantitative Easing go ? Not to Greece – 60 billion a month till Sep 2016.

When the one size of the single monetary policy does not fit all, supplementary, possibly coordinated, national fiscal policies should also be activated – where national fiscal policies are tightly constrained and loosely coordinated, especially so in the countries where the QE impact will be smaller.

The result may eventually be dim.

It is the case with any monetary policy instrument in a monetary union, QE in the EZ is fraught with the heterogeneity problem of the recipients of monetary policy. The institutional strictures and pressures under which the ECB operates will make the task harder. Of course, easier monetary conditions will help the EZ economies.

The endogenous dynamics of booms and busts that are endemic in capitalism continued to work at the national level in the Euro zone and that the monetary union in no way disciplined these into a union-wide dynamics.

The monetary union probably exacerbated these national booms and busts.

The existing stabilizers that existed at the national level prior to the start of the union were stripped away from the member-states without being transposed at the monetary union level. This left the member states “naked” and fragile, unable to deal with the coming national disturbances.

Even if Greece signs up to the package of tax and spending reforms demanded the most likely outcome – is that Greece’s debt would still be 118% of GDP in 2030.

Britain is soon to face an invidious choice: In or Out of the EU.

19 Tuesday May 2015

Posted by in Politics., Sustaniability

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

,

The Conservative party has promised a referendum in 2017 on the UK’s membership of the EU.

A newly-released poll shows over four in ten British voters are in favor of their country leaving the European Union (EU), amid growing eurosceptic sentiments across the UK.

Between now and then there will be a lot of disinformation.

Here is the invidious choice:

Access to the single market, but less influence on the rules that govern it;

or

Freedom from the rules, but loss of access to the single market.

So here are some undeniable facts apart from the obvious – like Britain is an Small Island not an Empire. 

If it leaves the EU, the UK will have to negotiate terms.

It  is true that if the UK left it would be free to negotiate trade agreements with countries outside the EU.  But it would not inherit the EU’s existing bilateral trade agreements that are already in existence:  It would have to negotiate new ones.

So, upon exit, it would have less access to markets outside the EU, not more. And it is hard to believe that Britain would find it easy to forge new deals.

More than 4,000 UK institutions received EU funding last year, including engineering powerhouse Rolls-Royce, which received a number of grants. This included a €2.5m payment for research related to cleaner and quieter aviation technology. The Confederation of British Industry, a business lobby group, received €184,000 in EU funding last year.

The Confederation of British Industry, a business lobby group, received €184,000 in EU funding last year.

UK infrastructure projects have also benefited from EU funding, including the West Coast mainline.

At €29bn, Germany, the Europe’s largest and most powerful economy, put the most money into the EU pot last year. Poland was the biggest recipient. It received €16.2bn in EU funds in 2013.

Overall, Britain’s contribution to the EU pot amounted to €17bn in 2013, behind Germany, France, and Italy. However, on a net basis, Britain was the second largest contributor to the EU budget last year.

It put €10.8bn more into the EU pot last year than it took out. Only Germany paid more on a net basis.

Is Britain the only EU country that enjoys a rebate? No. Due to corrections and “rebates on the rebate” enjoyed by Germany, Austria, the Netherlands and Sweden, these countries pay less than their normal share. Denmark recently joined this club, and will receive a rebate of around €130m from next year.

The rebate is now equivalent to 66pc of the UK’s net contribution in the previous year. Such rebates are paid for by the other 27 EU members. The rebate for 2013 was €4.3bn.

This means France and Italy have been left to pick up the biggest share of the tab.

Last year, France contributed €1.2bn to Britain’s rebate, while Italy contributed €900m.

Most of the money Britain receives from the EU is used to subsidise farming (€3.1bn)

Here is another option.

Stay in the EU and abolish or put the Monarchy on a self financing tourist heritage standing.

At the moment you as a Taxpayers pay 56p each for upkeep of monarchy.

This is six per cent rise on last year – more than double the rate of inflation.

The Queen’s official expenditure from the Sovereign Grant, the amount released from the public purse each year to finance the monarch, increased to £35.7m – a rise of £1.9m on the previous year.

There was a 45 per cent increase in the amount spent on the upkeep of royal residences, including Buckingham Palace and the Kensington Palace apartments of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Public spending on refurbishing the 20-room central London living quarters of Prince George of Cambridge (George Alexander Louis; born 22 July 2013) is the oldest child and only son of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge, and Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge. He is third in line to succeed his great-grandmother, Queen Elizabeth 11, after his paternal grandfather and father.

The couple and Prince George has totalled £4.5m over the last two years. It is estimated that the total bill to secure the buildings stands at £50m. Last year, spending on property maintenance rose by £4.2m to £13.3m, including 133 projects costing £3,500 or more.

This is all at a time when Government departments were slashing budgets by up to a third, and millions of Britons have yet to feel the benefits of any economic recovery.

The Queen, personal wealth is estimated at £330m,

The Prince of Wales from the Duchy of Cornwall, which in 2012-13 stood at £19.1m. The Duchy, a sprawling collection of property, farmland and investments sectioned off to finance the heir to the throne 700 years ago, is classified as privately owned but campaigners have long argued its serves a public purpose by sustaining the monarchy.

Travel costs incurred by the Prince of Wales,included a £434,000 visit to India with the Duchess of Cornwall, and a charter flight to attend the funeral of Nelson Mandela which cost £246,160.

Other maintenance costs met from the Sovereign Grant included £800,000 to remove asbestos in the basement of Buckingham Palace and £900,000 to renew lead roofing the Royal Library at Windsor Castle,

There is no doubt that the time for Britain to unshackle its self from a hereditary Monarchy that is costing a fortune is not far off.

While membership of the EU is as much about broader, political questions as economics, the economic case for staying in the Union is strong. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Dylan/My%20Documents/Downloads/chart.svg