



Stephen Kinnock MP letter to Lord Bew on ‘Vote Leave’ media campaign called ‘BeLeave’ (14.02.2017)









“In pastoral areas of Kenya, Somalia and southeastern Ethiopia, the widespread drought had a severe impact on pasture and water availability, and prices of livestock sharply decreased in recent months to very low levels, as livestock body conditions dramatically deteriorated. In these areas, the resulting sharp decline of terms of trade for pastoralists is severely constraining food access for large numbers of households” (FAO, P: 10, 2017).
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations has this month released a report that assessed the prices and the issues concerning food prices in the nations around the world. This is the droughts, lack of rain and the problems occurring after the El Nino that hit the African continent. Therefore, the sad reality with the influx of issues and variables, the food markets in different nations has hit a snag and they have gone up. At levels that are worrying, as the markets they haven’t had the same rise in added income compared to the prices of staple foods. This hits the poorest the most and gives them a harder day to day, as their added prices makes the cost of living even more turbulent and hazardous than it already is.
Like the Maize and Beans prices in Kenya:
“Maize prices increased in January by 9-14 percent in most monitored markets, as the output of the short rains harvest, currently underway in eastern and coastal lowlands, was sharply reduced due to insufficient rainfall. Prices of maize in January were 20-30 percent higher than 12 months earlier in several markets, also as a result of a below-average long rains harvest, recently completed in high potential western areas of the Rift Valley. Sustained imports from neighbouring Uganda contained the increased in maize prices. In drought affected coastal counties, sharper year-on-year price increases are recorded, and in December 2016 prices of maize in Kwale, Kilifi, Lamu, Taraka Nithi and Embu counties were up to 40 percent higher than a year earlier. Prices of beans are also at high levels and in January they were up to 40 percent higher than their year-earlier levels. Most pastoral areas were affected by drought, and prices of livestock declined in recent months as animal body conditions deteriorated. For instance, in Marsabit, Mandera, Garissa and Tana River counties, prices of goats in December 2016 were 15-30 percent lower than 12 months earlier” (FAO, P: 3, 2017).
That the prices of maize had added about 20-30 percent in a year time is worrying for the region, as the Kenyan market and the current state before the elections. The Kenyan state is borrowing at a steady haste for bigger infrastructure investments, but isn’t using funds to secure the agricultural output. This is lacking initiative or use of government subsidises to secure enough production, as much as there are droughts that has hit areas, where the prices has risen as a cause of lacking output or none as the climate has deteriorating the soil. That not only Maize has risen on higher prices, also the hiking of prices of beans shows the incapacity of agricultural output in general and also securing cheap government imports.
Like the prices of Maize and Sorghum in Somalia:
“Prices of locally-produced maize and sorghum continued to soar in January as the output of the 2016/17 secondary deyr harvest was affected by a severe drought and is estimated at 25 percent of last five-year average. In Mogadishu, prices of coarse grains increased up to 35 percent. In most markets of key maize producing region of Lower Shabelle, maize prices surged in January by 32-41 percent. Overall, prices of coarse grains in January in key markets of central and southern Somalia were up to twice their levels of 12 months earlier. Prices are likely to further escalate in the coming months, as an earlier than usual stock depletion will be compounded by concerns over the performance of the 2017 gu harvest. In pastoral areas, drought caused shortages of grazing resources, with deterioration of livestock body conditions. Livestock prices sharply declined in recent months, especially in the south, and are at very low levels, up to 60 percent lower than 12 months earlier. As a result of declining livestock prices and increasing cereal prices, terms of trade for pastoralists sharply deteriorated over the last 12 months. The equivalent in maize of a medium size goat declined in Buale market from 114 kg January 2016 to just 30 kg in January 2017. The severe drought has also caused a sharp decline in milk production and surge in milk prices” (FAO, P: 5, 2017).
So Somalia who has just gone through an election, has had a heavy affected by the drought, as the grains and food production has been hit by it. As proven with the rising food prices in Mogadishu and the prices has doubled in Central and Southern Somalia, in only a year! That proves the dire food situation, as the fierce internal fighting, the federation food production combined with the military fighting together with a drought has the food markets and food productions. Therefore the citizens and farmers are the losers, as they cannot have peaceful production, lacking rains and also insecurity of their own safety. All these things combined with the uncertainty of the electorate and the new administration. The steady rise of food prices has surely hit a population that did not need another crisis.
Rising prices in South Sudan:
“In the capital, Juba, prices of sorghum and maize declined in January by 6 and 10 percent, respectively, partly as a result of the harvesting of 2016 second season crops in southern bi-modal rainfall areas, which improved the domestic supply situation. Prices of other staples, wheat flour, cassava and groundnuts, followed similar patterns. In markets located in central and northern uni-modal rainfall areas, prices of sorghum increased by 15-20 percent in December 2016 and January 2017, after having declined in previous months with the harvesting of 2016 crops. In January, food prices in nominal terms were between 2 and 4 times above their levels in January last year, due to insecurity, a tight supply situation, hyperinflation and a significant depreciation of the local currency” (FAO, P: 5, 2017).
In South Sudan the new crisis of internal battles hit, even after the long term peace-agreement was fresh and the battles that started in July 2016. The continued escalation has hit the country. South Sudan administration has been busy fighting the SPLM-IO. The SPLM-IO has also been busier fighting the SPLA/M. Therefore the engagement with trying to get people to live in peace and fresh produce to happen in the country has stopped. That together with the civil war the agricultural output has been lost with the fleeing civilians and burning villages. Therefore in this current state, the food prices rise as the lacking food stocks of internal produced are dwindling, as the state needs more import of foreign food. Not only the inflation rates of the currency, the food production has been unstable. Therefore the rising prices and the armed situation create the rise of food prices. So the stability of the nation will also secure the currency and also the agricultural output, as of now is more or less in need of food aid because of the current in-fighting and lack of government oversight. This is unhealthy and makes even the security of food into a limbo.
Rising prices of Maize in Uganda:
“Prices of maize followed a sustained upward trend in recent months, increasing in all monitored markets by 33-58 percent between August and December 2016. Subsequently, prices followed mixed trends in January, declining in the capital, Kampala, as the second season harvest increased supplies, remaining firm in Lira market, located in a major cereal producing area, and continuing to increase in Busia, a key cross-border hub with Kenya. Overall, maize prices in January were up to 75 percent higher than a year earlier and at near-record to record levels, as the upward pressure exerted on prices by a reduced second season harvest, affected by poor rainfall in southeastern parts bordering lake Victoria, was compounded by a reduced first season harvest gathered last June/July and by sustained export demand from neighbouring countries, mainly Kenya and South Sudan. In Kampala, prices of beans and cassava flour, important staples, are also at high levels, and in January they were about 25 percent higher than 12 months earlier” (FAO, P: 6, 2017).
Ugandan government has already showed lacking instruments to the current drought and the lesser output during the election and campaigning of the current leadership. This is proven now with the monetary issues that are in dire straight in republic. The proof of the rising prices as the export of maize and others to South Sudan, as the added refugees who also needs foods and are also supported aided food. The government needs to secure added food production and development of bigger yields of the staple foods. That the food prices have sky-rocketed as the region has all been hit in corridors and districts where the dried lands have killed of livestock and others. Government has showed lacking oversight and mechanism from the government has not helped the dry-lands and the aftermath. Because of this with the added strains of a cash-strapped government after a heavy-burden state after elections, has not stagnated or had initiatives to stop the growing prices of food.
Maize prices are rising also in Tanzania:
“Prices of maize continued to increase in January in all monitored markets, as production prospects for the vuli harvest, currently underway in northern and eastern bi-modal rainfall areas, are unfavourable due to poor and erratic rainfall. Further support to prices was provided by concerns over the performance of the msimu harvest, to be gathered from May in central and southern uni-modal rainfall areas, as early-season dryness affected planting operations and crop establishment. Prices of maize in January were almost twice their year-earlier levels in Arusha, located in the northeast, while they were about 25 percent higher than in January 2016 in Dar Es Salaam, the largest urban centre” (FAO, P: 6, 2017).
That President Magufuli and his party like to be the example of the East Africa. Here the Tanzanian government are delivering the same sort of levels of rising prices. The maize prices are affected by drought and the Tanzanian government also have had to take in the refugees from other nations of late. This together with the less rainfall has pushed the prices on maize in Tanzania. Certainly the prices that doubled shows signs of lacking agricultural output and less yields as the rains and drought has happen during the last 12 month.
The numbers of rising food prices together with the lacking yields shows the worrying signs of lesser rain and longer dry seasons. This all hurt the citizens and the customers in the central regions or in urban areas who buys the foods from the agricultural districts, as much as the violence and the crisis in South Sudan and long term effects of the civil war in Somalia. This happens after the drought and other political issues, together with little efforts to add the yields, shows in the rising prices of staple foods. So now the people have to pay more for the same food they would have bought last year, in some places not only 20% added, but up to double or tripled. This is certainly added strains on the personal economy of the citizens in these nations. Peace.
Reference:
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) – ‘Food Price Monitoring and Analysis – Bulletin’ (14.02.2017)



“The arms trade – an intricate web of networks between the formal and shadow worlds, between government, commerce and criminality – often makes us poorer, not richer, less not more safe, and governed not in our own interests but for the benefit of a small, self-serving elite, seemingly above the law, protected by the secrecy of national security and accountable to no one.”
― Andrew Feinstein
As of today there two United States Representatives from the Republican Party Ted Budd of North Carolina and Duncan Duane Hunter from California that for their own reasons to stop sales of U.S. arms to Kenya, this they have forwarded a joint resolution. This was first from Ted Budd, but Duncan Hunter became his co-sponsor of the bill. Of today it has been transmitted to the Committee at the House Foreign Affairs that will work on it, before initial voting.
“That the issuance of a letter of offer with respect to any of the following proposed sales to the Government of Kenya (described in the certification Transmittal No. 16–79, sent to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate pursuant to section 36(b)(1) of the Arms Export Control Act (22 U.S.C. 2776(b)(1))) on January 19, 2017, is hereby prohibited:
(1) Twelve Air Tractor AT–802L.
(2) Two AT–504 trainer aircraft.
(3) Weapons package, technical support and program management” (Budd & Hunter, 2017).
It is not long ago since this was sanctioned to the Kenya Defense Force and their missions, as this was a supplement to the on-going missions that the Kenya contingent in Somalia and might even be used as blue-helmets inside South Sudan. Still, the U.S. Representatives think these will be misguided and not well used arms for their ally in East Africa. This is the double-standard and double moral from the U.S. counterparts that easily has dropped and sold this sort of weapons to others, but has to all of sudden sanction Kenya for buying the same thing.
Just take a look at the timing of the deal between the U.S. and Kenyan earlier in 2017:
“The US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (DSCA) notified Congress of the possible sale on 19 January and disclosed the potential sale on 23 January” (…) “The DSCA said Kenya had requested the sale of up to twelve Air Tractor AT-802L and two AT-504 trainer aircraft, weapons, technical support and programme management worth $418 million” (…) “This proposed sale contributes to the foreign policy and national security of the United States by improving the security of a strong regional partner who is a regional security leader undertaking critical operations against al-Shabaab and troop contributor to the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM),” the DSCA said” (…) “The proposed sale provides a needed capability in the ongoing efforts to counter al-Shabaab. The platform maximizes the Kenyan Defense Force’s Close Air Support (CAS) ability because it is a short-field aircraft capable of using precision munitions and cost effective logistics and maintenance.” (DefenceWeb, 2017).
So a purchase accepted in January is now in question in February, as the new Trump Administration will not care for the allies and friends as such before. The DSCA sanctioned the sale on the 23rd January 2017 and now on the 14th February 2017 the U.S. Representatives questions the sale. So the AMISOM mission and their allies who fights in it doesn’t matter as much, as that was the destination for the arms and technical weaponry in this transaction. That the sales of close worth over $400m that suddenly goes into the wind!
We will see if the Foreign Affairs Committee at the House of Representatives will work with this and see if this will go for voting in the House or Senate to sufficiently go forward with joint communique of Ted Budd and Duncan Hunter. That then will become legislation as the deal will not happen as the Committee will put forward a motion or legislation that the stops the arms agreement and trade between the DSCA and the Government of Kenya. Therefore the U.S. Arms trade to the Kenyan Defense Force.
This story is certainly not over. Peace.
Reference:
DefenceWeb – ‘US approves possible Air Tractor, weapons sale to Kenya’ (24.01.2017) link: http://www.defenceweb.co.za/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46563:us-approves-possible-air-tractor-weapons-sale-to-kenya&catid=35:Aerospace&Itemid=107
Representative Ted Budd (R-North Carolina) & Representative Duncan Duane Hunter (R-California) – ‘H.J.Res. 72: Relating to the disapproval of the proposed foreign military sale to the Government of Kenya of Air Tractor aircraft with weapons, and related support’ (14.02.2017)

The Governor Dr. J.P. Mangudya Zimbabwean Reserve Bank writes a special piece on the Zimbabwean economy, not as bleak as the one Finance Minister P.A. Chinamasa wrote in mid-year report of 2016. The Monetary Policy Statement (MPS), of January of 2017, as still evident of the issues in the Zimbabwean economy. With the knowledge of the debt-burden that has arisen together with the suspended international loans, the state funds has funds dwindled. Also, the monetary and fiscal prudence has been weakening as told by the governor of the Reserve Bank. The Governor even called the Zimbabwean Economy an “albatross”, the rest of it says it all.
Zimbabwean economy needs to catch up:
“The positive spin-offs from the recent removal of Zimbabwe from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) remedial measures, following successful clearance of its arrears to the Fund in October 2016, are also expected to go a long way in reducing Zimbabwe’s country risk, thus attracting the much needed foreign investment. Completion of the clearance of external debt arrears to the rest of the international financial institutions – African Development Bank (AfDB), World Bank and European Investment Bank (EIB) – is expected to further reduce the country’s debt burden that continues to be an albatross on Zimbabwe’s access to foreign finance for the past 16 years now at a time when other emerging markets have been making tremendous strides in their economic transformation. As a consequence, Zimbabwe has lagged behind and needs to catch up with its peers” (Mangudya, P: 6-7, 2017).
Reactions to drought:
“In 2016, food imports (maize and wheat), however, surged owing to the El Nino induced drought that destroyed crops in the Southern African region, including Zimbabwe. Continued reliance on imports of finished goods is unsustainable as it undermines current efforts to resuscitate domestic industrial production, leading to significant trade and current account deficits” (Mangudya, P: 15, 2017).
Other key development:
“Driven by merchandise trade developments, the current account deficit is estimated to have narrowed down by about 15.5%, from a deficit of US$1,519.4 million in 2015, to a deficit of US$1,283.9 million in 2016, partly on account of the projected decline in the import bill. Remittances, which are also a major source of import financing declined by 17.9% in 2016, from US$1,917.7 million received in 2015 to US$1,574.0 million in 2016. Of the total amount received in 2016, US$779.0 million reflects remittances from the Diaspora while remittances from International Organizations (NGOs) amounted to US$795.0 million” (Mangudya, P: 16, 2017).
Problematic government loans:
“Reflecting developments on both the current and capital account, the overall balance of payments position is estimated to have deteriorated from a deficit of US$25.8 million in 2015 to a deficit of US$186.4 million in 2016. This phenomenon reflects an unsustainable economic situation of funding capital projects using loans as opposed to equity. The danger with this scenario is that debt would become unsustainable as exports are mortgaged towards debt repayments” (Mangudya, P: 19-20, 2017).
Unbalanced economy:
“The fact that the 14.4% of the country’s foreign receipts handled by RBZ for redistribution into the market seems to have more impact in the economy is a sign of market failure. The Bank shall quickly move to redress this market failure through measures that compel banks to adhere to the import priority list and to mitigate against institutional indiscipline such as the use of more foreign exchange for personal card and DSTV transactions ahead of raw materials to produce cooking oil, for example. Financial institutions should do some soul searching and rethink on how they add value to the economy under the New Normal” (Mangudya, P: 67, 2017).
Bond- Notes introduction:
“The Bank is encouraged by the manner in which the nation embraced bond notes. The Bank has to date issued $94 million of bond notes into the market against an aggregate value of the export incentive of $107 million. Whilst the circulation of the bond notes represented by levels of deposits and withdrawals is also encouraging, the Bank is putting in place a redistributable measure that mitigates against skewed concentration of bond notes within the banking sector by limiting the maximum amount of bond notes that each bank should hold at any given point in time in relation to its level and type of transactions. This measure is necessary to ensure that bonds notes are distributed proportionately according to the customer base or customer profile of each banking institution” (…) “The Bank is directing financial institutions to strictly observe the policy to deposit bond notes into the US$ accounts without requesting the banking public to differentiate between bond notes and US$ cash. This measure is essential to ensure that bond notes continue to trade at parity with the US$ and to reflect the fact that bond notes are supported by the US$200 million offshore facility to support the demand for foreign exchange attributable to bond notes” (Mangudya, P: 67-68, 2017).
When you see this numbers alone, there would be more meat in the report that says lots of the downfalls of the economy. The Governor said the fiscal issues and debt, together with the lacking of imports and exports, the short and less infused funds. With that in mind, instead of pounding on the troubled economy, we should rather enjoy a moment of explanation of why albatross is so dire:
“something or someone you want to be free from because that thing or person is causing you problems” (Cambridge Dictionary) and this one too: “a continuing problem that makes it difficult or impossible to do or achieve something” (Merriam Webster Dictionary). So the Albatross for the Zanu-PF is the economy, even as they eat of it and deplete it. However, the turbulence and insecurity isn’t over as the trust in the Bond-Notes or the other factors as the New Normal isn’t giving. Peace.
Reference:
Dr. J.P. Mangudya – ‘“Stimulating Economic Growth and Bolstering Confidence”’ – Monetary Policy Statement, Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ)

In the nation under President Jacob Zuma and African National Congress (ANC) there been done some shady dealings between government and private industry, this has been happening over years. Now the Financial Market and Banks have internally been agreeing on values and exchange rates on the South African Rands (ZAR), this is a luxury where the banks have set fixed prices and values. That in the end has given profits and sold the Rand on the open market. This in mind with the fixing and securing more profits for the banks as they we’re trading the currency on the open market. Also, to foreign investors and currency traders that try to make a profit on exchange and selling currency back again at a later date.
So this sort of financial manipulation has made sure for the 17 banks that have made agreements between the banks and communication that most likely paid more for the rand or more used more dollars for getting the South African currency. As proven with the statements of the Competition Commission and the South African Reserve Bank, however, the trial and the review will continue to shed light on the possible internal-trade in the financial business of the Republic.
The opening of review of Forex exchange of the Rand:
“The Competition Commission has today referred a collusion case to the Tribunal for prosecution against Bank of America Merrill Lynch International Limited, BNP Paribas, JP Morgan Chase & Co, JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A, Investec Ltd, Standard New York Securities Inc., HSBC Bank Plc, Standard Chartered Bank, Credit Suisse Group; Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd, Commerzbank AG; Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited, Nomura International Plc., Macquarie Bank Limited, ABSA Bank Limited (ABSA), Barclays Capital Inc, Barclays Bank plc (Respondents). The Commission has been investigating a case of price fixing and market allocation in the trading of foreign currency pairs involving the Rand since April 2015. It has now referred the case to the Tribunal for prosecution. The Commission found that from at least 2007, the respondents had a general agreement to collude on prices for bids, offers and bid-offer spreads for the spot trades in relation to currency trading involving US Dollar / Rand currency pair. Further, the Commission found that the respondents manipulated the price of bids and offers through agreements to refrain from trading and creating fictitious bids and offers at particular times. Traders of the respondents primarily used trading platforms such as the Reuters currency trading platform to carry out their collusive activities. They also used Bloomberg instant messaging system (chatroom), telephone conversation and had meetings to coordinate their bilateral and multilateral collusive trading activities. They assisted each other to reach the desired prices by coordinating trading times. They reached agreements to refrain from trading, taking turns in transacting and by either pulling or holding trading activities on the Reuters currency trading platform. They also created fictitious bids and offers, distorting demand and supply in order to achieve their profit motives” (CompCom, 2017).
South African Reserve Bank statement:
“The South African Reserve Bank (SARB) has noted today’s announcement by the Competition Commission South Africa (Competition Commission) that it has completed its investigation initiated in April 2015 and has referred to the Competition Tribunal for prosecution a case of price fixing and market allocation in the trading of foreign currency pairs involving the South African Rand (ZAR)” (…) “The rand is a globally traded currency. Some 30.0% of daily turnover in the ZAR takes place in South Africa, and turnover with non-residents accounts for 57.5% of domestic turnover. Figures published by the Bank for International Settlements indicate that for the month of April 2016, the daily average worldwide turnover in the foreign exchange market involving the ZAR was approximately USD49.0 billion. This represented 1% of total turnover in the international foreign exchange markets” (…) “The SARB sees the allegations in a serious light. The SARB will allow the legal processes now initiated to run their course, and will continue to monitor developments closely to inform any action that we may need to embark upon in accordance with our mandate and jurisdiction” (SARB, 2017).
So we can now wait and see what the efforts and effects. If this can hit the currency and its value, if this has been a fix to juice it up or even put in a bubble where the banks has earned profits on illegitimate transactions as the communications between the banks has set standards of the prices and expenses, so the costumers and businesses has overpaid for the currency in trading. This proves that the greed and coins goes together. The banks of South Africa ceased an opportunity and grasped it.
We have to see when the Competition Commission of South Africa releases their report and their conclusions as the review and the findings of colluding will be put in court. However, the world gets to see the internal trading and agreements between the banks to fix the prices of currency, especially the value of the South African Rand (ZAR). Therefore the release of information on how they fixed it and how they speculated on it, will show how banks did this. Trust this, the report and the papers on this financial transactions and agreements will be juicy and show the inner-works of the banks. That is knowledge that the Republic of South Africa deserves, as these people and professionals are the ones making sure the monies are used and taken care off. Peace.
Reference:
South African Reserve Bank – ‘SA Reserve Bank Notes Competition Commission Decision’ (15.02.2017) link: https://www.resbank.co.za/Lists/News%20and%20Publications/Attachments/7681/SARB%20statement%20on%20Competition%20Commission%20announcement.pdf
The Competition Commission South Africa (CompCom) – ‘Breaking News: Competition Commission prosecutes banks (currency traders) for collusion’ (15.02.2017)

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.

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)