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.
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)
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.
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.
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.
There is one of these lost stories that deserves to questioned, as the United Kingdom who are toiled in issues on their own continent, with trade and with borders are suddenly sending their Secretary of State Boris Johnson, the former columnist who hasn’t written much of any good about these nations he is visiting. The visit is coming in the same weeks as the Brexit is a hot potato and the United Kingdom needs secure partners for their economic activity.
So the United Kingdom suddenly sending their Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth Affairs Johnson to Uganda and Kenya, seems to be more an internal needed boost for the United Kingdom, as they need to know that they have trading partners when the article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty get notified. The negotiations and the unknown agreement with European Unions, leaves lot of trade and transactions in the wind. Therefore, the need to diversify and get new connections is more important.
That UK have a long history on the continent and has done despicable things is well-known, that they have gone in only in the interest of the ones in Oxford Street, London or even business in Belfast over the ones in real need in the Protectorates or Colonies. So the United Kingdom Government have most of the time been more reassuring for the ones on the British Isles over the ones in the colonies. Her Majesties civil servants have served London and than offered a token of goodwill if needed be.
Therefore reading this of the visit seems like to good to be true!
“Boris Johnson, the UK Secretary of State for Foreign Commonwealth Affairs, called on me yesterday at State House, Entebbe. Our discussion focused on regional security, especially the situation in Somalia. We also discussed trade and investment between our two countries” (Yoweri Kaguta Museveni, 16.03.2017).
“NAIROBI, 17 March 2017 (PSCU) – President Uhuru Kenyatta this evening held talks with UK Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Secretary Boris Johnson who paid him a courtesy call at State House, Nairobi. President Kenyatta and the British Foreign Secretary discussed promotion of industry and manufacturing. They also exchanged views on the strengthening of trade between Kenya and Britain as well as with the rest of the Commonwealth countries” (Uhuru Kenyatta, 17.03.2017).
First, that Boris Johnson isn’t caring much about the regional troubles, unless it bring work to Birmingham, Swindon or to Yorkshire. If the trade is being done and export from Kenya and Uganda, it is the British Exporters earning the major coins, not the Kenyan producer or the Uganda merchant. The needed tax-base has to be settled in the United Kingdom.
Secondly, the Commonwealth idea is to keep the sphere of the former colonies in a circle where the British and United Kingdom interest get traction and creates development on models where the British manufacturing and technology get traded to them. So that the former colonies get more ideal production from the Leyland and Vauxhall of today. Not buy Fiat or even Tesla. Buy British and serve British values and than if your a good boy, you get British direct aid.
Third, it is connected, but the uncertain future of trade within the European Union, makes the UK so edgy that they have to forge close relationship to make sure they have more open markets to have their bazaar and also sell their repacked tea.
So do I believe he was just visiting in goodwill and care of the Commonwealth nations, no! I do believe he came to be able to have strengthening the markets and get better surplus of funds with the counterparts of Uganda and Kenya. This because he knows that he doesn’t have to dole out much funds or follow heavy institutional policies to get it implemented. Therefore, he traveled here and tried to forge it even more. Peace.
Well, the United Kingdom government has enough issues with the negotiations with European Union to think about their own fragile Union. United Kingdom is a forged Union between England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland + a few bonus British Isles that couldn’t create much fuzz. However, the Northern Irish and Scottish government main parties are forging possible problems for the United Kingdom. That is proven with the decision of closing the door to the European Union and trying to find out how the relationship with the rest of Europe will be.
Certainly the Tories and the Prime Minister Theresa May would like to have much power as possible and look as brilliant as she can. But she has obstacles on the way and her path was created with the trust put into the system. The fragile Union we’re hold because all parties felt they benefited. If Wales are losing millions of grants from European Union to building roads around Swansea, where will the lost funds come from? That is the sort of issues that Tories and the White Hall have to figure out.
That Theresa May are a conning politician is proven with her way and her track-record, she is reckless and not caring of the price for her glory. Therefore, she couldn’t get elected on the prospect of genuine ballots and with campaigning. She was wise to forge alliance and make sure the Brexiteers we’re part of vital roles in her cabinet after David Cameron stepped down as he took the loss like a gentleman. Still, PM May are more focused on achieving most possible for the Tories benefit, than understanding that the Northern Irish and Scottish initially want another path. That would make the Tories and the United Kingdom less powerful as their own Union would be slimming by the minute. Just take a look at the Scottish question as she put her mind into it as well.
PM May address new Scottish Referendum:
“Theresa May declared Brexit was “not a moment to play politics” today in a rebuff to Nicola Sturgeon’s demands for another Independence referendum during negotiations with the EU” (…) “The Prime Minister said the passing of the Bill authorising departure talks was a “defining moment for our whole country”, making clear she would not allow separate negotiations north of the border” (Murphy & Crerar, 2017).
Second Scottish Referendum:
“Sturgeon said her government’s mandate to call the second poll was “beyond doubt”, and, with the UK set for a hard Brexit, said she had set a timeframe that would allow Scotland the chance to decide on independence before it was “too late to choose a different path in a timely way”. She added that any vote would take place after the UK’s exit negotiations with the EU27 had concluded but before the Brexit process was complete – when uncertainty over Britain’s future will arguably be greatest” (…) “Sturgeon said any attempt by May to withhold permission for Scotland to hold a second vote would be “tantamount to the UK government, having sunk the ship with the Brexit vote, trying to puncture Scotland’s lifeboat as well” (Maguire, 2017).
Scottish Government stance in 2013:
“The advantage of independence is that the people of Scotland will have the sole and final say. We will not be taken out of the EU against our wishes as may turn out to be the case if we are not independent” (…) “ Within the EU there will be important opportunities for future Scottish governments to determine priorities and maximise the benefits of our membership” (…) “The Scottish Government, supported by the overwhelming majority of Members of the Scottish Parliament, believes that membership of the EU is in the best interests of Scotland. It is our policy, therefore, that an independent Scotland continues as a member of the EU” (Scottish Government, 2013).
So if you look at the History the Scottish government and the Holyrood House have been since before the first referendum been clear about the important of independence from rule from London and secondly the value of being a Member State in the European Union. As the Brexit negotiation and the United Kingdom leaving the state of membership, this is clearly not in the minds of the Scottish. They do not want to leave the European Union, but United Kingdom government does not want to relieve them.
The United Kingdom, the White Hall and the English men doesn’t see the Scottish as equal. Still, former Prime Minister David Cameron was a decent guy who gave this as an opportunity in 2012:
“The governments have agreed to promote an Order in Council under Section 30 of the Scotland Act 1998 in the United Kingdom and Scottish Parliaments to allow a single question referendum on Scottish independence to be held before the end of 2014. The Order will put it beyond doubt that the Scottish Parliament can legislate for that referendum. It will then be for the Scottish Government to promote legislation in the Scottish Parliament for a referendum on independence. The governments are agreed that the referendum should meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency and propriety, informed by consultation and independent expert advice” (UK Gov & Scottish Gov, 2012).
So if the United Kingdom government and Scottish government could agree in 2012 for a Scottish referendum and could amend the Scotland Act of 1998 so there was legal framework to support this. But why hasn’t there been anything concrete for the Northern Irish, which has been a tool for Englishmen to control over the Ireland. But that is my understanding of it, and Theresa May continues on that, as Sinn Féin wants now to make sure they are connected together with the Republic of Ireland. Take a look!
Prime Minister Theresa May to Northern Ireland:
“Speaking as she delivered a statement to Parliament on last week’s European Council meeting, Mrs May said: “There are a set of circumstances which the secretary of state for Northern Ireland has looked at this issue, and it is not right to have a border poll at this stage” (…) “What we should all be focusing on is bringing the parties together to ensure that we can continue to see the devolved administration in Northern Ireland working, as it has done, in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland” (Newsletter, 2017).
North Ireland Referendum:
“Now, Sinn Féin’s new leader, Michelle O’Neill has said that Northern Ireland should hold a referendum on leaving the United Kingdom and joining the Republic of Ireland “as soon as possible” (…) “A referendum on Irish unity has to happen as soon a possible” (Loughnane, 2017). “There is an urgent need for a referendum on Irish unity as the British government has refused to listen to the majority of people in Northern Ireland over Brexit, according to Sinn Féin” (…) “Ms O’Neill said Brexit would be a disaster for the economy and people of Ireland. “To us in Sinn Féin that increases the urgency for the need of a referendum on Irish unity and that needs to happen as soon as possible” (O’Brian, 2017).
So when you see the pattern you see how the Tories says that Northern Irish and Scottish Government shouldn’t play government or play on their wish of what could be in their best interest, since White Hall and Tories knows better. Even as the Brexiteers and Tories negotiations haven’t started, how the Brexit will end is still uncertain. Therefore, there is little evident that the Central Government in London can deliver to Edinburgh or Belfast. They could just secure their own interest, why should the Northern Irish or Scottish perspective get much traction when the Prime Minister already claims their will is not important now!
The Tories government could have understood their wish and given them a chance, but instead the London acts superior and as royals inside the Union. They are doing what they have claimed the Brussels European Commission has done to them. That is the acts of Theresa May is what the United Kingdom and His Majesties Government (HM Gov.) said about the European Union and their bureaucracies. So that London should be careful to address the Scottish National Party and Sinn Féin are righteous in their will and opinion.
That the Scottish government want a new referendum is understandable if the same government that we’re adamant and clear in their will of being a Member State in 2012; would not change their opinion in such short time. That the Northern Ireland wants to be secure that they have soft borders and has a genuine relationship with rest of Ireland and Dublin. That shouldn’t be seen as strange, it is shorter road to Dublin than to London.
If the Tories government think they can override Belfast and Edinburgh, than they are doing the same as the Brexiteers have claimed all along the Brussels did to London. It is time for the Tories to wake up and smell the coffee. They have to either decide if they want it black, or with milk or even sugar. Tories want it all in the bag and have the biggest trade-off with the European Union, but if they lose the Scottish and Northern Irish.
So the London government should offer a token and give them a timeline and let them have polls inside the parliaments in the other states that are part of the Union. Since the United Kingdom was allowed to discontinue the Member State status within the European Union, so the Northern Ireland and Scotland should be able to if they want to leave London alone. Peace.
Loughnane, Alan – ‘Sinn Féin call for referendum on Northern Ireland leaving the UK’ (14.03.2017) link: https://www.joe.ie/news/sinn-fein-call-referendum-northern-ireland-leaving-uk-581421
Maguire, Patrick – ‘Nicola Sturgeon calls second Scottish independence referendum’ (13.03.2017) link: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/03/nicola-sturgeon-calls-second-scottish-independence-referendum
Murphy, Joe & Crerar, Pippa – ‘Brexit ‘not a time to play politics’ says Theresa May in clash with SNP over Scottish independence vote’ (14.03.2017) link: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/may-clashes-with-snp-over-call-for-new-scottish-independence-vote-a3489266.html
Newsletter – ‘May tells Sinn Fein not right time for border poll’ (14.03.2017) Link: http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/may-tells-sinn-fein-not-right-time-for-border-poll-1-7866494
O’Brian, Tim – ‘Pressing need for vote on Irish unity, says Sinn Féin’ (13.03.2017) link: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/pressing-need-for-vote-on-irish-unity-says-sinn-f%C3%A9in-1.3009166
Scottish Government – ‘Scotland’s Future – Your Guide to an Independent Scotland’ (November 2013)
United Kingdom Government and Scottish Government – ‘Agreement – between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government on a referendum on independence for Scotland’ (15.10.2012)
Today the Conservative Party government under Prime Minister Theresa May got their second amendment added on the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill. The first one was set on the paradigm of securing the EU Citizens living already in the United Kingdom, so their safety wasn’t a bargain chip for Brexit Secretary David Davis or for Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson, when the negotiations with Brussels starts. Surely, today is another blow for the all-controlling, fearing to give any indication of how she wishes the Brexit to go. Since, now it has to be explained in Parliament and become open negotiations in Parliament, before the Brexit becomes a reality. The House of Lords has twice decided to amend the government and give them a harder task to finish the work the majority of people in the United Kingdom wanted in 2016. Just take a look!
“Parliamentary approval for the outcome of negotiations with the European Union
(1) The Prime Minister may not conclude an agreement with the European Union under Article 50(2) of the Treaty on European Union, on the terms of the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union, without the approval of both Houses of Parliament.
(2) Such approval shall be required before the European Parliament debates and votes on that agreement.
(3) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to an agreement on the future relationship of the United Kingdom with the European Union.
(4) The prior approval of both Houses of Parliament shall also be required in relation to any decision by the Prime Minister that the United Kingdom shall leave the European Union without an agreement as to the applicable terms.”
The lords had a majority for this amendment that was significant as the ones who was content we’re 366 lords, while the ones voting together with the government we’re 268. The result is massive for the anti-government agenda and making it harder for the Tories to succeed. However, if the Tories government feels betrayed by the Lords, but if they do then their concern of the value of people and transparency isn’t important.
The unelected Lords actually care’s for accountability and transparency as they are appointed by the queen, a state commission or different peerages. Therefore, this is ironic that the men who are appointed care for the vote and open process of Brexit in Parliament. That shows actual the deepness of the institution as PM May would have kept the people in the dark and whatever deal she and her team had gotten from Brussels. She would have thrown around like a medal and an Olympic Gold Medal. Still, she would have done it in all in silence and only done PR stunts when needed.
The Tories should respect the amendments as they are done with good intentions, and these are put in order so that the Brexit will happen with thorough procedures and institutionalized precautions that give less harm to the citizens and businesses. Since the effects and the actual price for the loss of EU Membership will come into the spotlight. As much as the benefits of being a Member State also get lost on the way and the new forged agreements and such has to be put in order, as the states might be separated the initial thought is that they still trade and has connections. Though not on the same legal grounds or on the near the level they have today.
Brexit will be hard, how hard none can really know as the EU might prove their point with this one, as it hasn’t happen before in the Union. Still, if they want to save face and not get more nations questioning the acts of the Union towards a former Member State. Peace.
The Tories, the Conservative Party Government run by Prime Minister Theresa May lost out in voting in the House of Lords, as the bill will continue with amended text that the Lords voted on. This is the proof of some humanity in the British people, not just scare-mongering people who fear the immigrants and the newly settled people from Central Europe. Therefore, the election is a proof that the Tories negotiation team with Brexit Minister David Davis and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson cannot use citizens who has immigrated to the United Kingdoms as pawns in the negotiations with Brussels and the European Union.
The Tories negotiations team have now a harder task as they cannot use the EU citizens in the United Kingdom as a bargain chip for the UK citizens inside the European Union. There are more than enough things to figure out as the businesses and movement of people has to resolved, what sort of status the UK citizens and UK government will towards the European Union. As the Member State privileges goes away when the membership is terminated. That has many implications that are still unknown as this sort of negotiations isn’t something that occur on regular basis. Therefore, the statement of voting this amendment to the law clearly violates parts of the idea for the Brexiteers!
“Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town moved amendment 9B, in clause 1, page 1, line 3, at end to insert: “( ) Within three months of exercising the power under section 1(1), Ministers of the Crown must bring forward proposals to ensure that citizens of another European Union or European Economic Area country and their family members, who are legally resident in the United Kingdom on the day on which this Act is passed, continue to be treated in the same way with regards to their EU derived-rights and, in the case of residency, their potential to acquire such rights in the future.” (United Kingdom – House of Lords, 2017).
This is hit in the nuggets for those who thought that United Kingdom Independence Party and other Brexiteers could get a field day without any consequence. By all means there will be a different atmosphere not only as an outsider to the Union, but also inside the British Isle’s like what about Northern Ireland and Scotland, Wales and Jersey will be there as they are so integrated that cannot leave the building. But Scotland and Northern Ireland are a different tango, as Scotland might have second referendum on freedom from London and Newcastle, while Northern Ireland even get own internal issues combined with the free-movement to the Irish Republic as well.
There are enough of issues ahead for the Tories as PM May doesn’t want to left with the short-end and nothing to show for it. She might get quick trade deals with New Zealand, South Africa and other dignitaries, but the Union trading is surely important now and will be in the future. The British Pound and the inflation will also be hold barren by the equation of possible business and how the financial tools of the United Kingdom looks after the Membership is terminated.
That can also be said by the citizen’s possible movement and the other aspect of government that might be altered by the end of membership. This will create another Europe, where UK is close, but still further away than today. The Brussels and their Member States might retaliate, but they should just show the way of decency as the whole world will see how the EU is tackling it. The way African Union tackled the Kingdom of Morocco left the Union and came back.
So here we are where the United Kingdom Government or the Tories has to make the best out of the House of the Lords decision to amend the withdrawal as the days before the Theresa May starts the process of revoking the membership. This will be rough and the agreements, the rhetoric and the slander will be at all-time high as the uncertainty along the way will be unbearable. The European states and the United Kingdom would like to have decent deal and reasonable end to the affair. What we can wonder if the UK and Brussels will cope with trying to think about the future and not just present runs of elections an popularity today, as this withdrawal will put in order the way it works to walk-away from Brussels paradigm, as it has only really been put in order how to become a Member State and what the State has to do to become a Member.
Let the tricky days come. Peace.
United Kingdom – House of Lords – ‘European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Bill’ (01.03.2017) links: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/business-papers/lords/lords-divisions/?date=2017-Mar-01&itemId=1&session=2016-May-18
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.
European Parliament – Committee on Legal Affairs: ‘Report on the Consequence of Brexit’ (13.01.2017)