Brexit: EU’s mandate on negotiations shatters some Brexiteers dreams…

Today the European Commission (EC) of the European Union (EU) gave Michael Barnier a mandate to negotiate with the United Kingdom. As they are in the temporary state until the final break with the European Union, the transition period last until 31st December 2020. This means, this will last until 1st January 2021. That is the time table for this and the mandate giving today from the European Commission, which sets the standards for what to come.

The key things for me was these highlights, which really shows that the United Kingdom is really losing. There is nothing in the mandate, which gives the UK any edge. Only shows what the EU is considering important. While the UK will have to negotiate hard to get things better out of this. Especially considering they only have a taskforce within Downing Street Number 10. They don’t even have a unit fixing this anymore.

Just take a look!

ANNEX to COUNCIL DECISION authorising the opening of negotiations with the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland for a new partnership agreement” (25.02.2020)

reflect the United Kingdom’s status as a non-Schengen third country, and that a nonmember of the Union, that is not subject to the same obligations as a member, cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member” (EU, 25.02.2020).

Free Trade Area:

The envisaged partnership should include appropriate rules of origin based on the standard preferential rules of origin of the Union and taking into account the Union’s interest” (EU, 25.02.2020).

Road transport:

As third country operators, United Kingdom road haulage operators should not be granted the same level of rights and benefits as those enjoyed by Union road haulage operators in respect of road freight transport operations from one Union Member State to another (“grand cabotage”) and road freight transport operations within the territory of one Union Member State (“cabotage”)” (EU, 25.02.2020).

Fisheries:

Besides the cooperation on conservation, management and regulation, the objective of the provisions on fisheries should be to uphold Union fishing activities. In particular, it should aim to avoid economic dislocation for Union fishermen that have been engaged in fishing activities in the United Kingdom waters” (EU, 25.02.2020).

Gibraltar:

Any agreement between the Union and the United Kingdom negotiated on the basis of these negotiating directives will not include Gibraltar” (EU, 25.02.2020).

First things first. The EU shows a sign, which the UK haven’t understood or neglect to understand. It is that it will not have the benefits of the EU nor the previous membership as a nonmember, even if the politicians and Tories have acted like that since day one.

Secondly, the EU will work in its own interest, even with their paradigm Free-Trading Area, also making the cargo trade on the roads harder for British exporters from United Kingdom into the European Union. While also, trying to ensure the EU fishing boats access to UK seas. This is all clearly hitting the demands, but also the promises made from the Tories in the UK. They are not shielding the fisheries, they are making it harder for the exporters. Because, they cannot get the access and the mobility, which it has today.

Third, the EU has no concern about Gibraltar. That is really stuffing the faces of London, as they have promised Gibraltar safety and a secure future. However, this is the EU showing a shift in focus on this and putting a hard stance. As this has to be negotiated separately, by this mandates concern. This is surely done to please the Spanish in the EU.

However, what we are seeing, that the mandate isn’t that friendly, the direct approach sets the stakes and also doesn’t give way. As the EU needs to set the foot down and show there is a difference being on the outside, then being inside. Which is the wish of the UK. That is why it got to cost to become a nonmember. Peace.

Opinion: Priti Patel is celebrating mediocrity

The Home Secretary Priti Patel yesterday (22.02.2020) launched the Blue Passport with the ‘Iconic blue passports return next month’. It is hard to see what there is to celebrate. Other than its an imported Polish passport, which has the colour blue. Like the colour gives the passport unique power.

It is like the United Kingdom is okay with mediocrity. Because of Brexit, they are okay with symbolism. They are okay with a colour scheme on a official travel document over the value it actually has. The UK are losing a lot with the withdrawal of the membership in the European Union. They are losing rights to reside, work and being part of customs unions for the trading of goods too.

Therefore, the whole idea of celebrating that with the temporary status and saying its a victory to get it blue. Is really naive, if not foolish, unless you want propaganda brownie points. Like its a big deal to change the colour of the passport.

The passport only has value as long as it opens up to visa and travelling opportunities. By the ranking of the Passport Index its at the 28h placed. It is also in the Power Rank of the 5th, meaning it is ranking behind plenty of states. This means the colour isn’t all that important.

The Home Secretary should look into why there are 27 passports ahead of the UK and why the citizens of the United Kingdom doesn’t have the ability for mobility like the ones above it. This is the key thing for this sort of thing.

If the Home Secretary doesn’t see that, she is either delusional or not configured her job. However this is how proud she was and it doesn’t make sense.

Home Secretary Priti Patel said:

Leaving the European Union gave us a unique opportunity to restore our national identity and forge a new path in the world. By returning to the iconic blue and gold design, the British passport will once again be entwined with our national identity and I cannot wait to travel on one” (UK, 22.02.2020).

What would be unique would be to enter new visa agreements and give an edge for the citizens mobility. So, that the Passport Index would be better. Like think about getting it up one Power Rank even.

The Home Secretary Patel seemingly more into symbolism, than actual significant change.

Roses are red,

Tories are blue,

and they screwed you”

Peace.

Bank of Uganda: Monetary Policy Statement for February 2020 (13.02.2020)

Opinion: Apparently, a bribe isn’t a bribe according to High Court Justice Bashaija

Presidential Handshake: “A letter from the President that designate unsolicited funds to civil servants as areward” or as a “handshake”, which by some is deemed as an “error of judgement”, but not defined as a bribe. Even if it looks like a bribe and smells like a bribe” (Minbane – ‘Presidential Handshake’ Definition, 2020).

I don’t know what goes through some people’s mind, I don’t if Kampala High Court Justice Andrew Bashaija is trying to be the devils advocate or something. But the news in the Independent Magazine on the Saturday 15th February 2020 titled: “Court clears ‘presidential handshake’ beneficiaries”. Where the article states this about the judgement made on the Friday 14th February 2020: “Justice Andrew Basahaija ruled on Friday that the recommendations of the committee were illegal and said the orders of the committee “be removed from public orders and should not be implemented.” He said he didn’t find anything wrong with the officials who received the money” (Independent Magazine, 16.02.2020).

We can really see that a Justice, a man who judges on the basis of the law are able to make it legal to steal, thieving and directly eat out of the state coffers without any consequence. Instead throwing the book at the ones doing oversight of the state, the MPs and the COSASE Committee who worked on the case and looked into the shady 6 billion shillings “Presidential Handshake”. Clearly, the state has its benefactors, maybe even the Justice is awaiting his handshake in the future. Because something is up, when your making these sort of deals legal.

It’s like this part of the COSASE report was dismissed without merit:

As a follow up to the H.E. the President’s letter of 16th November, 2015, the Commissioner General of URA wrote to the Permanent Secretary/Secretary to Treasury (PS/TS) in a letter dated 11th December, 2015 (App. B6) requesting him to formally designate her as accounting Officer through whom the reward would be paid and to formally requisition for the UGX 6,000,000,000 (Uganda Shillings Six Billions Only)” (…) “The Commissioner General, as advised and in a letter dated 5th May 2016 (App. B8) sought authority from the Hon. Ministry of Finance, Planning and Economic Development to reallocate UGX. 6 Billion (Uganda Shillings Six Billion Only) from URA Tax Refund Account to URA Expenditure Account so that the 42 Public Officers could be paid and suggested that a supplementary to URA for that amount to be considered and handled by the Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development. The Hon. Minister of Finance, Planning and Economic Development did not grant this authority. However, by letter dated 19th October, 2016 (App. B10) he requested the Auditor General to issue an audit warrant for UGX 6 Billion” (COSASE, P: 10-11, 2017).

It’s like the whole deal is left in the wind by the Justice himself. That this sought of transaction is okay, as long as the President write letters directing it. Even if it was never budgeted from, never was part of state functions and this was an direct pay-off, as the Public Officers was a part of tax battle with Tullow Oil. This case amounted in a tax victory for the state, but not for the civil servants. That’s why this “Presidential Handshake” is a bribe and envelopes given without protocol.

Like the Justice is saying COSASE report and recommendations should be implemented. With saying that it wasn’t legal what the culprits at Uganda Revenue Authority was doing, neither the President, but instead putting the blame on the people writing the report. Which is again fun-fan fiction of political science and governance. As you are again targeting the messengers and not the ones actually talking. Your aiming your guns at the ones reporting the ordeal, not the ones actually doing it. That is what the Justice is in this point is doing.

So, the state can live in denial, because the old man with the hat is directing it. That doesn’t make it illegal. But surely, if a small local councillor did this to his fellow employees. He would be meeting the State House – Anti Corruption Unit in a hot minute. But he didn’t have the blessing of the “high above” from the same State House. That is the pin-point, that makes a difference between what is legal and what is illegal.

If the King did the decree or not. If he hasn’t signed off on it, its illegal and if he does sign-off on it; then it’s legal. That is the golden rule in the Republic or the legal term of a “Presidential Handshake”.

When the state can make internal thieving legal, what else could they do with their power? I don’t want to know, but I am sure its more sinister than a 6bn shillings handshake. Peace.

Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe: Press Statement on the Liberalization of Foreign Exchange Market (13.02.2020)

Brexit: Geoffrey Cox MP letter to Prime Minister Boris Johnson (13.02.2020)

Mobile Money Tax shortfall: People change behaviour after levying an unfair tax

Levy on mobile money contributed a deficit of UGX 30.48 billion which can be explained by the fact that high value clients withdraw their funds from agency banking e.g MTN has had a drop of 36 percent in MM transaction values since the introduction of the levy on mobile money” (Uganda Revenue Authority, 06.02.2020).

There is also reported that it has been a 36% drop in Mobile Money Transactions since the enaction of the Exercise Duty in 2018. That means, the added tax on the MM transactions are backfiring. The State isn’t adding revenue, but ensuring that people are finding other ways of moving their money.

This is not shocking, that people change behaviour, when the state makes it more expensive. As the people used these services to send each other money by convenience. Now, one third of the transactions are gone. Meaning, the ones that can change their ways has done that.

The losers are not only the Telecoms, but also the state. As the shortfall of taxes got to be covered elsewhere. As the state had put this into the budgets to cover other state works. This means the targets for domestic revenue wasn’t considering the implications of doing it. As, there wouldn’t be an natural reaction to the consequences to the new taxes.

Instead of increasing the tax base, they are making it smaller and not able to find measures that makes sense. The state has clearly done this without due diligence, neither also configured the stats and the possible behaviour of the public. As their ways gotten more taxed and not considering that they would stop, if they found it to expensive or unreasonable.

The MM tax and the OTT taxes was measures made to tax the digital market-space in the Republic. However, they have both been flawed and also not met their targets, because the public found other ways of doing things.

The ironies about the MM saga is that before the tax, the business of MM was growing. A natural growth and having more transactions every year. Now, that they levied the tax its has a big fall. That is a result of the MM Tax and the public is not having it. Peace.

Brexit: The negotiations that Boris doesn’t seem prepared for…

The Tories think they can easily access the European Common Market without being a member of the European Union. However, today’s revelation in the draft negotiations paper from Michael Barnier proves that hassle the Boris Johnson government have to deal with. The Brexiteers will struggle with it.

Just like one key sentiment, which the UK have to understand:

reflect the United Kingdom’s status as a non-Schengen third country, and that a non-member of the Union, that is not subject to the same obligations as a member, cannot have the same rights and enjoy the same benefits as a member” (Barnier, 03.02.2020).

This here is very revealing and sets the tone. This puts the United Kingdom on the outside, as entity on its own, but still will not have the same rights the members of Union. Neither the same obligations and therefore, will be treated differently. That is key aspect, which the UK doesn’t seem to understand.

Boris Johnson statement in return:

The Government wishes to see a future relationship based on friendly cooperation between sovereign equals for the benefit of all our peoples. There is complete certainty that at the end of 2020 the process of transition to that relationship will be complete and that the UK will have recovered in full its economic and political independence. The Government remains committed in all circumstances to securing all those benefits for the whole of the UK and to strengthening our Union” (Boris Johnson, 03.02.2020).

This here negotiations will not be easy. The documents from Barnier in his drafts proves the technicalities, even as the British has appointed a Task Force instead of Department working inside the Office of the Prime Minister. Because, that will run so well. Not like all the Secretaries of the Exiting the EU did a good job, but they would have civil servants dwelling on and configuring the fine details. Which the answer of PM Johnson is a kids story compared to the paperwork of Barnier.

Like Barnier said:

The envisaged partnership should establish open market access for bilateral road freight transport, including unladen journeys, made in conjunction with these operations:

by Union road haulage operators from the territory of the Union to the territory of the United Kingdom, and vice versa;

by United Kingdom road haulage operators to the territory of the Union, and vice versa.

As third country operators, United Kingdom road haulage operators should not be granted the same rights and benefits as those enjoyed by Union road haulage operators in respect of road freight transport operations from one Union Member State to another (“grand cabotage”) and road freight transport operations within the territory of one Union Member State (“cabotage”)” (Barnier, 03.02.2020)

Then Johnson said:

Road Transport

There should be reciprocal commitments to allow EU and UK road transport operators to provide services to, from and through each other’s territories, with associated rights, underpinned by relevant international agreements and commitments, and ensuring the necessary cooperation on monitoring and enforcement” (Boris Johnson, 03.02.2020).

Here is a typical statement towards each other. They have sort of the same pattern, but the leafy British statement, compared to the detailed EU ones. Show the work behind it and the details are expressing the needs of the EU to show difference between members and nots. The UK is a not and therefore, cannot do the same as they have done now. They got to follow more strict rules, even as they are allowed to cross the borders, but more rigorous than in the past.

These negotiations will be interesting to follow, as the UK and EU is in a stalemate, in a limbo, which is supposed to last a year. Before the final ending of the marriage is over. The Bride and Groom leaves each other and become Exes. Who knows how this will go, but the EU seems more prepared, than the UK is at the moment. Because, the statement from Boris wasn’t reassuring. When you looking into the work of EU at the moment. Peace.

Zimbabwe: ZERA – Public Notice – Investors, licensees urged to engage ZERA directly (30.01.2020)

Central Bank of Kenya: Monetary Policy Committee Meeting (27.01.2020)