Opinion: The ghost of the tyrant Henry VIII’s laws surface as Brexit looms and Tories seeks more power to become sovereign!

The ways of the Tories government to notify and to become independent from Europe and European Union, opens up the doors into the darkest alleys of their history. They are re-entering the darkest hours of the United Kingdoms history, when they are thinking of using the legislation of the tyrant and king Henry the VIIIs, the Tudor reign and most famous king. Who used all sorts of laws to oppress and silence the ones who wasn’t follow his orders. Therefore, that the modern day Parliamentarians and the Cabinet under Prime Minister Theresa May thinking of unleashing the tyrants powers and extend their power. Show’s the lack of democratic flexibility of the current leadership in White Hall. When they cannot through consensus and through procedure, and parliamentary sessions with the elected leadership of the kingdom.

That seems hard as the Brexit, makes hurdles and ways the Government and Conservative Party didn’t anticipate, as they are continuing to postpone and unleash uncertainty on the public. Together with the extended use of time, as well as the government doesn’t reveal their ideal scenarios. So there isn’t public knowledge of how the current leadership and cabinet wants to succeed in their Brexit negotiations. The White Paper on the Brexit earlier this year, was more a wish-list, than an initial document saying what could be interfering and could be problematic. The interesting is that the House of Lords comes with better work and stronger paper assessing their legality and use of laws to become sovereign from European Union. Though, with warning effect if the Conservative Party plans to use the legislation of the tyrant Henry VIII. If anyone would have heard that Angela Merkel thought of using draconian laws of Nazi-Germany, it would have created havoc inside Germany and also abroad. The same should be happening, when the United Kingdom thinks of using Tudor Dynasty worst laws to break from Europe. There should be other ways to regain freedom and make it in a transparent and accountable way. Just take a look at what the House of Lords wrote!

What the Minister needs to do before Brexit:

The Minister sign a declaration in the Explanatory Memorandum to each statutory instrument amending the body of EU law stating whether the instrument does no more than necessary to ensure that the relevant aspect of EU law will continue to make sense in the UK following the UK’s exit from the EU, or that it does no more than necessary to implement the outcome of negotiations with the EU” (…) “The Explanatory Memorandum to each statutory instrument sets out clearly what the EU law in question currently does (before Brexit); what effect the amendments made by the statutory instrument will have on the law (as it will apply after Brexit) or what changes were made in the process of conversion; and why those amendments or changes were necessary” (HL Paper 123, P: 4, 2017).

Henry VIIIs legislation:

in the context of environmental legislation … it is particularly important that, where existing EU laws have been implemented into UK laws (either by way of primary or secondary legislation), these are in the main amended or repealed only by Parliament, or only after sufficient parliamentary scrutiny has been provided. It must only be in exceptional and limited circumstances that Henry VIII clauses are used to amend existing environmental legislation or that transposed by way of the GRB in secondary legislation” (HL Paper 123, P:15, 2017).

Should this occur, the UK will need to have a version of EU law, amended to fit the circumstances of a non-negotiated Brexit, put in place by the date of the UK’s exit from the EU. The Government must give careful consideration to what kind of contingency plan would be needed in order to deal with any rejection of the Brexit deal by either side” (HL Paper 123, P: 19, 2017).

We note, in addition, that the DPRRC has already considered the possibility of expanding the use of these strengthened scrutiny procedures. In the same report it states that “We have considered whether the strengthened scrutiny procedures covered in this Report might appropriately be made available in respect of delegated powers which, while they are not Henry VIII powers, nonetheless give Ministers discretion to legislate widely across important areas of public policy. This could provide Parliament with an enhanced scrutiny role over significant statutory instruments that would otherwise be subject only to the affirmative procedure. We draw this possibility to the attention of the House.” The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ would seem a suitable candidate for such an expanded use of a strengthened scrutiny procedure” (HL Paper 123, P: 32, 2017).

So if you thought the House of Lords reports devastating enough. There are enough of articles and words on the legislation that the Conservatives thinks of using. That the HM Government should not think again of using it. As the legacy of the king and his rule wasn’t in an hour of peace or justice. It was more of tyranny and devastation in the will of one man. Now the same could open as the altering of power from the chambers of Westminster, could easily damage the will of people to support the cabinet and the parliament. When they know that they can take the power without hesitation and without thinking vetoing the rule, as they continue to control the kingdom. Certainly, the people of United Kingdom, did not vote for the supremacy of the cabinet and parliament over the people. They have voted for the Parliament and their members to represent them and their interests. That is not withhold to take control and overrule the public, as the laws of Henry VIII does!

What Henry VIII did:

Yet, contrary to the popular perception, it was the Statute of Proclamations itself which demonstrated that in Tudor England there were at least perceived to be some limitations on royal power. The statutory programme of the Reformation Parliament changed England. Maybe it did give Henry VIII everything he wanted, but he needed Parliamentary consent. In the 1539 Parliament itself, the Act of Six Articles defined doctrinal matters as the king wished. Literally. His own handwriting covers the draft manuscript. In brief it was Catholicism, with the King replacing the Pope. And how did the Merrie Monarch, as Head of the Church, exercise his new powers? Shortly afterwards three Catholics were hanged drawn and quartered for treason: three Protestants were burnt alive for heresy. And they were dragged to their deaths, two by two along the filthy road; one martyr of each faith was carried on the hurdle side-by-side with the martyr of another” (Rt. Hon. Lord Judge, 2016).

Against use of Henry VIII:

Moreover, it hardly needs stressing that the proposed use of Henry VIII powers in legislating for Brexit would dramatically undercut the very basis on which its supporters sought this momentous change. The sovereignty of Parliament was central to the case of those campaigning to leave the EU. The use of Henry VIII powers attacks the foundations of this principle, strengthening the executive and weakening Parliament. Parliamentary sovereignty demands real Parliamentary scrutiny” (Liberty, 2017).

So when you have a King like Henry VIII and his legacy, that the a modern day Parliament wants to use his legislation and his use of powers. Proves the lost democratic values within the Parliament and White Hall. That they are revising their place in Europe, by going back in time to a King and his legislation, seems preposterous, still in our day and age. The Theresa May government doesn’t care about how and why, instead of the result. They don’t care if their ways of battling the uncertain with tools of tyrants, make them open the ways of tyranny.

Since this sort legislation and laws should have been turned away and only remembered for their aggressively attacks on society and giving powers to the king. That this is sort of function the Cabinet and Conservative Government seeks before notifying European Union and the Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

Certainly, is this the legacy the parliament and Conservative Party of our day want to leave behind? That they resurfaced ghost draconian legislation to regain more power and give them ability to overpower and control the laws as they leave the European Union. So, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, should have the common sense and stop the laws and the applications made by the rule of Henry VIII time. That they are in the minds and considered proves the lacking trust they have in consensus and modern democratic values, as the Conservative Government thinks these sort of laws is in place when they repeal the EU legislation that is part of the UK laws of modern day Britain. Peace.

Reference:

HL Paper 123 – ‘The ‘Great Repeal Bill’ and delegated powers’ (07.03.2017), House of Lords, United Kingdom

Rt. Hon. Lord Judge – ‘Ceding Power to the Executive; the Resurrection of Henry VIII’ (12.04.2016)

Liberty – ‘Liberty’s Written Submissions to the House of Lords Constitution Committee Inquiry into the Legislative Process: Delegated Powers’ (January 2017)

Leaked U.S. Concept Note describes the wished changes in the UN Peacekeeping Operation Missions!

The United States delegation to the United Nations have leaked a document on planned discussion for the United Nations Security Council that are to be commenced in next month (April 2017). These notes are clearly setting the course and wish for the goals and ambition of the discussion in the UNSC. This concept note is supposed to be a Peacekeeping Operation Review. That would lead to certain decisions by the Member States and the Council Members.

The reason why the United States delegation to the UNSC about the Peacekeeping operation:

As of January 31, 2017, there were 99,034 uniformed personnel – including 85,408 troops and 12,786 police – serving in the 16 peacekeeping operations overseen by the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations, with an approved budget of $7.87 billion. UN peacekeeping is a vital aspect of the organization. However, a significant number of PKOs have mandates conceived years – in some cases decades – ago that are no longer supported by a political environment conducive to achieving the Council’s aims. It is crucial that missions contribute to increased safety and security, but they can also create a subsidized and unsteady peace that can quickly become a dependency that discourages long-term solutions. The UN becomes trapped in these frozen conflicts and peacekeeping missions that were initially conceived to provide temporary security to allow space for political solutions to take hold instead deploy for years without clear mandates or exit plans”.

Because of the cost, the longevity of the peacekeeping operations as they are creating a vacuum between the government hosts, the peacekeeping mission and the hostile forces. This is a consuming and makes it hard to generate any sort of sustainable peace, as the peacekeepers keeps a buffer and stops the need for a strong foundation of central government and their own security forces. They can always trust on the Blue Helmets to appear when needed and serve the citizens.

The United States has certainly ideas as this is their core idea for the discussion in the UNSC: “We encourage Council Members to consider whether current peacekeeping operations continue to be the best suited mechanisms for meeting the needs of those on the ground and achieving the Council’s political objectives, or if changes are needed”. So the US Mission to the UN wants the Peacekeeping Operations to achieve the political objectives and not be a stalemate operation that keeps the upkeep of unstability and uncertainty in the host nation. That is certainly a noble quest, but with that the UN Peacekeepers need to revise their missions, their mandate and their will of force, as their peacekeeping missions has been done in such diplomatic ways.

The United States delegates outcome of the review:

While no product is envisioned, we encourage the Council to apply the lessons and methods discussed in this meeting to our regular mandate review process to ensure that conditions still justify the missions and that political processes conceivably lead towards realistic, achievable solutions”.

That this is a quest and wishful thinking for the US mission, the United Nation needs votes and make sure the Members would strike agreement on the possible idea of changing the Peacekeeping Operations. The Blue Helmets are clearly on the loosing end of the stick, as their missions are not seen as fruitful, more like a costly operations not creating the effect and stage the peaceful transition in the host nations.

The UNSC and the Members should be hopeful to change the political climate and use the force to create the peace they are to make. If they weren’t peacekeepers than they wouldn’t be an issue, as if they we’re regular army on a territory, they should keep their citizens safe and the borders. The Peacekeepers has a mandate and mission, still they haven’t always been able to comply with that. Also, they have obligations not only to the United Nations, but to the host nations regime. Therefore, if the UNSC wants a bigger mission or extend their mandate, they still have to negotiate with the host nations.

The US Mission and the UNSC have to work on it and it is about time, as the AMISOM, MUNISCO, UNAMID, UNMISS and MINUSMA, who all should need a change of mandate and level of force if they should be properly creating the peace and make way for the central government. Peace.

European Commission registers two European Citizens’ Initiatives on the rights of Union citizens after Brexit and rejects one on preventing Brexit (22.03.2017)

Brussels, 22 March 2017

The European Commission has today registered two European Citizens’ Initiatives concerning the rights of Union citizens in the context of the withdrawal of a Member State from the EU and rejected a third proposal entitled ‘Stop Brexit’.

The first invites the Commission to separate Union citizenship from Member State nationality in light of the UK withdrawal from the EU (“EU Citizenship for Europeans: United in Diversity in spite of jus soli and jus sanguinis”), and the second calls on the Commission to uphold the right of Union citizens to move and reside freely within the European Union (“Retaining European Citizenship”). At the same time, the Commission has rejected as inadmissible a third proposal calling on the Commission to prevent the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU (“Stop Brexit”).

The Commission’s decisions concern the legal admissibility of the proposed initiatives. At this stage, the Commission has not examined the substance of the initiatives.

The Commission found that the “EU Citizenship for Europeans: United in Diversity in spite of jus soli and jus sanguinis” and the “Retaining European Citizenship” initiatives meet the conditions necessary for registration under the Regulation on European Citizens’ Initiatives. Both European initiatives call on the Commission to protect the status and rights of EU citizenship, in the context of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. The Commission attaches great importance to the underlying issue of providing certainty and security to the 4 million citizens (3.2 million EU citizens in the UK and 1.2 million UK citizens in the EU) who are unsure of their future as a result of the decision of the UK to withdraw from the EU. While the Commission cannot propose secondary legislation aiming at granting EU citizenship to natural persons who do not hold the nationality of a Member State of the Union, the rights of EU citizens in the UK and the rights of UK citizens in the EU after the withdrawal of the UK will be at the core of the upcoming Article 50 negotiations. The Commission will do its upmost to prevent EU citizens from being used as bargaining chips in the negotiations with the UK.

In the case of the “Stop Brexit” initiative, the Commission found that the conditions for registration were not met. Article 50(1) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) explicitly allows any Member State to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements. While the Commission regrets the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, it respects the outcome of the referendum.

Next steps

The formal registration of the “Retaining European Citizenship initiative” will take place on 2 May and the registration of the “EU Citizenship for Europeans” initiative will take place on 27 March. In both cases, this will start a one-year process of collection of signatures in support of the proposed European Citizens’ Initiative by their organisers.

Background

European Citizens’ Initiatives were introduced with the Lisbon Treaty and launched as an agenda-setting tool in the hands of citizens in April 2012, upon the entry into force of the European Citizens’ Initiatives Regulation which implements the Treaty provisions. Under the Treaty, every citizen has the right to participate in the democratic life of the Union by way of a European Citizens’ Initiative. The procedures and conditions required for the citizens’ initiative should be clear, simple and user-friendly. The commitment of empowering citizens to deliver a better Europe was reiterated by President Juncker in his State of the Union address in September 2016.

The conditions for admissibility, as foreseen by the Regulation n° 211/2011 on the European Citizens’ Initiative, are that the proposed action does not manifestly fall outside the framework of the Commission’s powers to submit a proposal for a legal act for the purpose of implementing the Treaties, that it is not manifestly abusive, frivolous or vexatious and that it is not manifestly contrary to the values of the Union.

Once formally registered, a European Citizens’ Initiative allows one million citizens from at least one quarter of EU Member States to invite the European Commission to propose a legal act in areas where the Commission has the power to do so.

If – and only if – a registered European Citizens’ Initiative receives the signatures of one million validated statements of support from at least seven Member States within a period of one year from the time it was registered, the Commission must decide whether or not it would act, and explain the reasons for that choice.

EU letter showing continued support for Energy Markets in Ukraine (13.03.2017)

Cyprus: Statement Regarding the Deposition of Prime Minister Guardian767 (21.02.2017)

cyprus-21-02-2017

EU’s own ‘Preliminary Assessment’ of the Brexit is daunting a soft break of ties!

EU UK Flags

The Brexit and the questions running on the triggering of Article 50 has been up-in-the-air since the referendum election in 2016. The sudden win in Britain and United Kingdom has not yet arrived into negotiations with the European Union, as the Tories government under Prime Minister Theresa May has tried to keep her cars at bay, while hoping for mercy from the counter-parts in Brussels. As the EU Parliament and EU MEPs might think otherwise, with the knowledge of the sleek ‘White Paper’ from the Tories Government, the legal committee of the European Union has done more preparation or delivered are more detailed document, that can tell what the British government and negotiation team has to assess. They will not have a job or getting off easy.

This document is addressing the matter with fierce tone and with clarity that hasn’t been seen from the British counter-parts. They have been more secretive or less visions on how to fix the questions of the economic and legal problems that arrives with United Kingdom leaving the EU as a Member State. That opens a lot of doors, but closes also some. The EU certainly has some bargain chips and can be it horrible for the UK government as they want to leave with something worthwhile for their electorate.

As been said in the report: “The principal of acquired rights may well apply to the continuance of specific entitlements acquired validity in the past – for example, the right to a pension or the right to be considered the owner of real property. However, the principal of acquired rights cannot logically be extended in a such way as to confer an unrestricted ongoing entitlement to specific advantages in cases where the legal framework for those advantages has fallen away, as is the case when a Member State leaves the European Union. It cannot, therefore, be considered that a person who is no longer a Union citizen will continue to have unrestricted rights such as that to live, work and study in the European Union, or to benefit from social security arrangements such as reciprocal healthcare entitlement’s unless, of course, as may be hoped, special provisions are made for the continuance of such rights. As far as the conditions under which UK nationals may reside in other Members States are concerned, it is submitted that these are matter of national laws” (EP CLA, P:2, 2017).

This specifically says if nothing special issued between the Tories and the ones in Brussels, there might be harder for UK nationals to live and work in EU Member States, which isn’t an issue today as the free movement and such has graced the opportunities for British people to reside in Spain, Italy or France for that matter instead of living in Brighton or in Swindon. This is something that will be hard question and not easy bargain for either EU or the UK government.

“The most important legislation in the area of civil justice cooperation is the Brussels I regulation (Regulation (EU) No 2012/1215) on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters, which would no longer apply between the UK and the Member States, meaning judgements will no longer be recognised or enforced in other jurisdictions automatically. Older bilateral agreements such as the existing between Germany and Britain may go some way to bridging the gap, but will not suffice completely. Brussel I could be replaced by the Lugano Convention (as is the case for Switzerland and others) or by ad hoc convention (as is the case for Denmark, which is excluded from civil justice cooperation). That being said, as it currently stands, the Lugano Convention was signed by the EU and not individual Member States. According to Art. 70, the United Kingdom is not one of the states entitled to join the convention” (EP CLA, P: 3, 2017).

That United Kingdom leaving the Union seems to not only have implications for the UK citizens who live and works inside the Union, but legal authorities and co-operations like the Brussels I regulation. So the civil lawsuits and the legal breaches between the nations might be altered with the restriction of UK from the Union. That will make it harder for the UK government and businesses to get legal authority or even solve legal matters on the continent, as they are not involved like they are today. So they need even to apply to Lugano Convention and follow procedures to have another way in, like the Danish government has done in the past. That means for a fixed amount of time, there will be issues between the EU Member States and UK government.

When it comes to UK businesses this is scenarios and such that will affect the state and their operations: “The Shareholder Rights Directive: The European Parliament reached an agreement with the Council on 7 December 2016 on a final text on the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2007/36/EC as regards the encouragement of the long-term shareholder engagement. A vote in plenary is planned for March” (…) “In case of Brexit it takes effect before the time-limit for its transportation (for the most part, 2 years after publication), the UK will not be obliged to implement this directive. Even if the Brexit takes place after the date nothing guarantees that the UK will transpose it. In any case, after Brexit becomes effective, shareholders of UK companies will not enjoy rights under this directive” (EP CLA, P: 5, 2017).

This will show the aftermath of the businesses and how they will have to implement it to make sure they still are following guidelines for businesses inside the EU. That shows that even as a sovereign nation or state, they have to be parts of some long-term engagements that is evident with this one.

brexit-united-kingdom-uk-and-european-union-eu-export-and-import-total

As continued with: “European  Company (SE): Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 of 8 October 2001 on the Statute for a European Company (SE) allows for the creation of a European public liability company, known as the Societas Europaea (‘SE’)” (…) “When Brexit becomes effective it is likely that any UK companies that have adopted SE status would lose that status. If they want to maintain it, they may need to relocate their registered office if the UK becomes a non-EEA state following a Brexit” (…) “With Brexit, this regulation will no longer apply unless the UK incorporates its contents into domestic law or makes other arrangements to maintain it. Cross-border insolvencies will become more complex as there will be jurisdictional issues to determine. Further, UK insolvency professional (notably liquidators) will not be automatically recognised as competent in other Members State” (EP CLA, P: 6, 2017).

So this is initially saying that with the loss of the EU Member State will implicate the companies’ legal status and their rights to markets that they have through the SE status in the European Union. So the UK companies have to either flee their headquarters in the United Kingdom or use time to reregister their businesses as the companies turn into new territory when their state turn into a non-EEA state, which indicates the taxation and regulatory means of their transactions and their portfolios will be changed or has to adapt to the new regime. This can be costly for the international businesses and financial markets like this can hurt the City of London.

By just these measures the UK companies and EU companies will be registered differently, if not their headquarters has to be moved to Belgium, Luxembourg or Poland to be sufficient for the regulatory bodies in the EU as their businesses will be seen as non-EEA state corporations. That affects a dozens of corporations, their employees and the financials flows in and out of the United Kingdom.

There we’re many other factors who we’re in play in the report, but they’re on the copyrights and staff regulation in the EU Organization. These are important to, but deserve to be taken on own accord and questioned by somebody who feels like it.

All the issues here brings to the clarity and must be hard read for the ones that thinks Brexit will be easy and soft for the United Kingdom when they becomes a Non-EEA State. This is a proof of the inner workings and preparations done by the diligent civil servants in the European Parliament in the Brussels. This paper sheds more light than before and also the indications of the future for political and transactions between the United Kingdom and the European Union; as the negotiation starts after the triggering of the Article 50! Peace.

Reference:

European Parliament – Committee on Legal Affairs: ‘Report on the Consequence of Brexit’ (13.01.2017)

Ross Thomson MSP letter to Kevin Stewart MSP on Brexit (06.02.2017)

ross-thomson-10-02-2017-p1ross-thomson-10-02-2017-p2ross-thomson-10-02-2017-p3

Opinion: the Brexit White-Paper is a sleek scone, but not offering the public a decent meal!

scones111

The Tories or the Conservative Party, the ruling party in the United Kingdom after the European Union referendum election in 2016, has finally delivered a White Paper on their guesses and wishes for a leaving of the union for the Kingdom of United Kingdom. The UK Government are now furnishing their ideas and their wanted discussions with the partners on the continent. The EU might take this differently than the rest, but surely the 12 Point plan of the White Paper gives indications to what the Tories want to achieve in negotiations. That is something that has been in the winds for months after the sudden victory of the Brexit election.

First Point – Providing certainty and clarity:

To provide legal certainty over our exit from the EU, we will introduce the Great Repeal Bill to remove the European Communities Act 1972 from the statute book and convert the ‘acquis’ – the body of existing EU law – into domestic law. This means that, wherever practical and appropriate, the same rules and laws will apply on the day after we leave the EU as they did before” (HM Government, P: 9, 2017).

Second Point – Taking control of our own laws:

“The sovereignty of Parliament is a fundamental principle of the UK constitution. Whilst Parliament has remained sovereign throughout our membership of the EU, it has not always felt like that. The extent of EU activity relevant to the UK can be demonstrated by the fact that 1,056 EU-related documents were deposited for parliamentary scrutiny in 2016. These include proposals for EU Directives, Regulations, Decisions and Recommendations, as well as Commission delegated acts, and other documents such as Commission Communications, Reports and Opinions submitted to the Council, Court of Auditors Reports and more” (HM Government, P: 13 ,2017).

Third Point – Strengthening the Union:

“We have ensured since the referendum that the devolved administrations are fully engaged in our preparations to leave the EU and we are working with the administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to deliver an outcome that works for the whole of the UK. In seeking such a deal we will look to secure the specific interests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as those of all parts of England. A good deal will be one that works for all parts of the UK” (…) “As the UK leaves the EU, the unique relationships that the Crown Dependencies of the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands and the Overseas Territories have with the EU will also change. Gibraltar will have particular interests, given that the EU Treaties apply to a large extent in Gibraltar, with some exceptions (for example, Gibraltar is not part of the Customs Union)” (HM Government, P: 17-20, 2017).

Fourth Point – Protecting our strong and historic ties with Ireland and maintaining the Common Travel Area:

“The relationship between the two countries has never been better or more settled than today, thanks to the strong political commitment from both Governments to deepen and broaden our modern partnership. Two recent State Visits, by Her Majesty The Queen in May 2011 and by President Higgins in April 2014, have helped cement this partnership; no one wants to see a return to the borders of the past. The Prime Minister is committed to maintaining the closest of ties and has already met the Taoiseach several times since taking office, most recently in Dublin in January 2017” (…) “We recognise that for the people of Northern Ireland and Ireland, the ability to move freely across the border is an essential part of daily life. When the UK leaves the EU we aim to have as seamless and frictionless a border as possible between Northern Ireland and Ireland, so that we can continue to see the trade and everyday movements we have seen up to now” (…) “We will work with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to find a practical solution that recognises the unique economic, social and political context of the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. An explicit objective of the UK Government’s work on EU exit is to ensure that full account is taken for the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. We will seek to safeguard business interests in the exit negotiations. We will maintain close operational collaboration between UK and Irish law enforcement and security agencies and their judicial counterparts” (HM Government, P: 21-23, 2017).

eu-referendum1

Fifth Point – Controlling immigration:

“We are considering very carefully the options that are open to us to gain control of the numbers of people coming to the UK from the EU. As part of that, it is important that we understand the impacts on the different sectors of the economy and the labour market. We will, therefore, ensure that businesses and communities have the opportunity to contribute their views. Equally, we will need to understand the potential impacts of any proposed changes in all the parts of the UK. So we will build a comprehensive picture of the needs and interests of all parts of the UK and look to develop a system that works for all” (…) “Implementing any new immigration arrangements for EU nationals and the support they receive will be complex and Parliament will have an important role in considering these matters further. There may be a phased process of implementation to prepare for the new arrangements. This would give businesses and individuals enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements” (HM Government, P: 27 , 2017).

Sixth Point – Securing rights for EU nationals in the UK, and UK nationals in the EU:

“Securing the status of, and providing certainty to, EU nationals already in the UK and to UK nationals in the EU is one of this Government’s early priorities for the forthcoming negotiations. To this end, we have engaged a range of stakeholders, including expatriate groups, to ensure we understand the priorities of UK nationals living in EU countries” (HM Government, P: 30, 2017).

Seventh Point – Protecting workers’ rights:

“As we convert the body of EU law into our domestic legislation, we will ensure the continued protection of workers’ rights. This will give certainty and continuity to employees and employers alike, creating stability in which the UK can grow and thrive” (HM Government P: 31, 2017).

Eight Point – Ensuring free trade with European markets:

“Close trading relationships with the EU exist across a range of sectors. The UK is a major export market for important sectors of the EU economy, including in manufactured and other goods, such as automotives, energy, food and drink, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and agriculture. These sectors employ millions of people around Europe” (…) “Producers in other EU Member States also rely on UK firms in their supply chains and vice versa. The integration of supply chains, which also benefits the UK, means that the UK often contributes a significant share of the foreign content in the EU countries’ exports” (…) “The EU is a party to negotiations on the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA) with more than twenty other countries. The UK continues to be committed to an ambitious TiSA and will play a positive role throughout the negotiations” (…) “As we leave the EU, the Government is committed to making the UK the best place in the world to do business. This will mean fostering a high quality, stable and predictable regulatory environment, whilst also actively taking opportunities to reduce the cost of unnecessary regulation and to support innovative business models” (…) “After we have left the EU, we want to ensure that we can take advantage of the opportunity to negotiate our own preferential trade agreements around the world. We will not be bound by the EU’s Common External Tariff or participate in the Common Commercial Policy” (HM Government, P 37:-38, 42, 45-46, 2017).

Ninth Point – Securing new trade agreements with other countries:

“After leaving the EU, the UK will build on these strengths and our historic role as a global trading nation to realise the opportunities available to us. By boosting trade and opening markets and attracting the world’s most successful companies to invest in the UK, we will create jobs and enhance productivity and GDP. Increasing competition and encouraging businesses to innovate enables suppliers to access higher quality and cheaper products in their supply chain and gives consumers more choice and lower prices” (HM Government, P: 54, 2017).

Tenth Point – Ensuring the United Kingdom remains the best place for science and innovation:

“For example HM Treasury has announced that researchers should continue to bid for competitive EU research funding, such as Horizon 2020, while the UK remains a member of the EU. The Government will work with the European Commission to ensure payment when funds are awarded and HM Treasury will underwrite the payment of such awards, even when specific projects continue beyond the UK’s departure from the EU. This has given UK participants and their EU partners the certainty needed to plan ahead for projects that can run over many years” (HM Government, P: 58, 2017).

Eleventh Point – Cooperating in the fight against crime and terrorism:

“As we exit, we will therefore look to negotiate the best deal we can with the EU to cooperate in the fight against crime and terrorism. We will seek a strong and close future relationship with the EU, with a focus on operational and practical cross-border cooperation. We will seek a relationship that is capable of responding to the changing threats we face together. Public safety in the UK and the rest of Europe will be at the heart of this aspect of our negotiation” (HM Government, P: 62, 2017).

Twelfth Point – Delivering a smooth, orderly exit from the EU:

“We will formally trigger the process of leaving the EU by invoking Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union no later than the end of March this year. As set out in Article 50, the Treaties of the EU will cease to apply to the UK when the withdrawal agreement enters into force, or failing that, two years from the day we submit our notification, unless there is a unanimous agreement with the other 27 Member States to extend the process” (HM Government P: 65, 2017).

Old Game Brexit Meme

My first words after reading the report is that the United Kingdom His Majesties Government White Paper on the Brexit is a leaflet of lose information. This isn’t a sophisticated and a paper that explain the reality of the negotiations. This is the wish-list of the Conservative Party or the Tories who reign for the moment at White Hall under Prime Minister Theresa May.

To say this 77 pages report is digging deep into the extent and the needed details of Brexit is not true. If the Government wanted to be transparent and be accountable on the negotiations or even show the world their play, they would have dropped more intelligence or even more prolific framework on how they would or could negotiate.

If you are thinking that the United Kingdom government will get it all like today and still be not inter-connected as a Member State in the European Union, you’re terribly wrong. The EU has said themselves they will negotiate hard and not make UK get off cheap. It is the UK who has all too loses in the trade-off as the UK cease to be Member State. They might need each other, but it is UK who might lose the heartland of their trade and their exports. The EU can use other trading agreements to secure same sort of services as before.

The only thing other than the punchlines I got from the White Paper today, we can wonder what the Tories and Theresa May didn’t want to release, what they cut out of the paper and for what reasons? If we only knew why the secrecy and the ligancy of trust to the Public, like May knows her borrowed trust cannot handle being manhandled by the European Union. EU certainly would have a field-day on open-communications between the UK and its citizens. The same can be said with the EU MEPs are not really those who are transparent or that open to the public with information from Brussels.

The UK can feel to be shadowed and be kept in dark by the ones who are representing them; they should not trust the Tories with this sort of craft and this offering to the public. If the Brexit is hard/weak or even Red/White/Blue Brexit; Certainly PM May has no interest in trusting advice or listening to other before negotiation the new uncertain agreement with Brussels/EU. If it would be otherwise the Tories and Government would have offered more flesh on the bone and served a steak that could call food, instead we’re offered a sleek thin scone with no flavour what-so-ever! Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘The United Kingdom’s exit from and new partnership with the European Union’ (02.02.2017)

“United we stand, divided we fall”: letter by President Donald Tusk to the 27 EU Head of State or government on the future of the EU before the Malta summit (31.01.2017)

tusk-31-01-2017-p1tusk-31-01-2017-p2