MinBane

Helt ute av sporet (Okumala ekigwo okulyaku kya okuziga)

Archive for the tag “Brussels”

The Church of England: The General Election, June 8th 2017 (06.05.2017)

European Council (Art. 50) guidelines for Brexit negotiations (29.04.2017)

Brexit implications on the UK legislation concerning sanctions!

Her Majesty Treasury and Her Majesty Government, the Tories and their White paper on legislation concerning sanctions are interesting read, as you can see how combined the laws and the execution of the framework have been with the European Union, as well as the legality connected with the United Nations Security Council. This proves how laws and combined efforts have been the norm in Europe of late. That the United Kingdom government have complied and worked directly with Brussels and New York, to establish the information and the legal assistance to sanction state, businesses and individuals crossing into the United Kingdom.

Therefore, this White Paper from the HM Treasury says certain aspects the government have to work upon and how the kingdom have to make new laws to fix the issues. These issues has to be handled as the Brexit will certainly impact the legislation on sanctions and how the UK going to handle it. The words of the report is telling and expel the facts in a deep way, secondly the report also colorfully extend the needed for different sort of laws; that is both open-government and also making sure data get kept secret. This shows how much work the UK government have with rewriting and reforging their own legislation with the leaving of the EU. That cannot be worked out with a few phrases, but has to be build on a which paradigm and what precedence the Tories government seem fit. Just take a look!

This consultation is about the legal powers we need to maintain sanctions as a viable instrument of foreign policy. It is not about the policy goals themselves or how we will align UK sanctions in future with those imposed by the EU or other international partners. However we recognise that sanctions require broad application to be effective and we will continue to work closely with allies and partners to this end” (HM Government, P: 5, 2017).

The legislation will need to be in place before we leave the EU to ensure that we can preserve current UK sanctions policy, although entry into force will be timed to coincide with the date of our actual withdrawal. While the UK is a member of the EU we will continue to exercise all the rights and obligations of membership including with respect to the Common Foreign and Security Policy” (HM Government, P: 8, 2017).

Those subject to UK sanctions will be able to challenge their listing by requesting an internal review, where this is consistent with our obligations under UN Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs). The sanctions will remain in place while the challenge or request is being considered” (HM Government, P: 21, 2017).

The Government will always seek to sanction an individual or entity on the basis of open-source evidence which can be disclosed to the listed person in the event of a legal challenge. However, in certain cases the Government may wish to rely on sensitive material, the disclosure of which would be damaging to national security, international relations or another public interest. In order to protect the sensitive material from disclosure but make it available to the presiding judge, a closed material procedure should be available” (HM Government, P: 22, 2017).

Asset-freezing regimes will contain grounds for permitting otherwise prohibited activity to authorise the release or making available of certain frozen funds or economic resources to pay for:

a) the essential needs of natural or legal persons, entities or bodies b) reasonable and necessary professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services c) the fees or service charges for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds or economic resources and d) extraordinary situations or expenses. This will continue the licensing practice that the Government currently operates. Exemptions for country sanctions regimes will be further defined within either secondary legislation or by reference to statutory” (HM Government, P: 26, 2017).

Any new sanctions legislation would provide the Government power to obtain and share information relating to sanctions. The Government’s ability to share information will extend to Government bodies, agencies, regulators, businesses, operational partners, other public bodies and international partners. It will be similar to the ability to obtain, use, and share information under current EU legislation and will be consistent with, and subject to the safeguards in, the existing UK and international provisions regarding the sharing of information” (HM Government, P: 36, 2017).

These laws that they have to fix and make are substantial if the United Kingdom still wants to comply with the United Nations Security Council, as well as if they wish to have good functioning body with the rest of the European Union. Even though the legality and the dominion will be all United Kingdom and their sovereign powers as a state, they still need to be in coherent with the rest of the world.

This shows that the powers of the Tories and the questions left behind and the unknown hurdles of the current leadership. As this is just one sort of legislation that has to be fixed in due time and with the process of both houses. That the importance of the sovereign state make sure that their laws are complied, that their statutes can be used and that the sanctions can be put on actors that breaches the codes of the United Kingdom. Certainly, the Tories Government and Brexiteers didn’t think of the issues complied with the legality of sanctions. Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘Public consultation on the United Kingdom’s future legal framework for imposing and implementing sanctions’ (20.04.2017) link: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/609986/Public_consultation_on_the_UK_s_future_legal_framework_for_imposing_and_implementing_sanctions__Print_pdf_version_.pdf

UPDF Disengages from the Central African Republic (19.04.2017)

Opinion: Theresa May has some nerve calling for elections!

Usually, I wouldn’t mind that the United Kingdom calls an election, any election for their House of Commons. As they are doing it now and then, especially as the Prime Minister Theresa May is playing her cards. She is playing them with high risks.

That there are 23 Tories that are under question for their Election spending in 2015 could be reason for her sudden approach as the By-Elections aren’t as easy as the Prime Minister expecting. Even as the Labour party is split between the Pro-Corbyn and the Blairites. So May thinks she can eats the spoils in June 2017.

Just as the people forgets as they we’re triggering the article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty and the European Commission and the European Parliament are setting their standards for the Negotiations. She needs to risk her own party and her kingdom. Braze yourself, the United Kingdom is surely not UNITED.

The UK is not united, we should hope that the Northern Irish votes in drones for Sinn Fein and that the Scottish vote for Scottish National Party. That the Welsh are voting for whoever who isn’t the Tories. So that the Conservative Party can be hard hit for putting David Davis as Brexit Minister, Boris Johnson as Foreign Secretary and so on. That David Cameron was a smug educated brother was well-known. But Theresa May is just arrogant!

That Theresa May weeks after triggering the Article 50 are triggering her own elections, proves her own, high and mighty belief in herself. Since when the Holyrood or the Scottish Parliament voted for a new referendum, they we’re told by the House of Commons and Prime Minister. “It was not the time; to have elections because of Brexit”. Still the same woman saying so is calling for elections. She herself is getting people to the ballots, as she said to the Scottish: “Fuck off!”.

That Prime Minister May could tell off Nicola Sturgeon and the Scottish Parliament without any cause of concern, but within a month call her own election. Show’s that she doesn’t care about other things than her own power. She doesn’t care about the sovereign, about the United Kingdom or the British Isle’s. What is more important and only thing that is important is that she has POWER.

PM May in Number 10, is creating her ‘Little Britain’, her own little chappie and image of Hard Brexit needs to have sufficient power inside the House of Commons. That she might get that after the election in June 2017. Might be true, but she shows that the risks it all, as the place of reality might have differed. The unknown facts of Brexit and how that will cost. If you think Scotland become an ugly duckling outside of United Kingdom, how do you think the United Kingdom will be outside the European Union?

Today’s Statement from Corbyn as PM May doesn’t want to debate before the Election!

Why can still the UK have their referendum, but PM May holding back the Scottish possibility for liberty, is it only fair to have their own sovereign in London and at Whitehall, but not Holyrood? Can she be a bit serious. The world is following and we now know that PM May has only her self interest and winning political gain for herself, not the better for United Kingdom or the provinces of the British Isle’s.

The Northern Irish and Scottish should prepare to vote against the Tories, the Welsh should also as their industry hasn’t been taken cared of under the Tories. If you don’t care for voting the Labour, than vote the Liberal Democrats (Lib-Dem) or even Greens as protest against the PM May arrogance. That would be healthy choice as the Conservative Party are just a cobbler covered of United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). Does the British people want to go totally to the Right? Or are the British Isle a right-wing country now, who fears Europe and cannot handle to import produce and people from the rest of the world?

Since this from the same country who had no problem being the empire where the sun never set. The country who could steal cotton, tea and labour from the whole planet earth. The country who could destroy the industry of clothes in India, so they had to import Tweed from London. So this country should be thinking twice, as their legacy as colonial, will never let go and their Leylands are still in the car graveyards all over the world. Peace.

EU’s new regulation plans to scrap imports of conflict minerals by 2021!

The people back home wouldn’t buy a ring if they knew it cost someone else their hand”Maddy Brown (Blood Diamond, 2006).

The European Union are acting out of care and thinking of transparency for the industrial imports and mineral exporters. This is happening just a little month after the United States opened up their legislation for importing more from conflict zones. While the European Union plans to close the gate from areas and from sources that export Conflict minerals.

So the EU laws are becoming more stricter than the United States, even if the law they have enacted in the European Parliament and Council of the European Union, will be effective from 2021. So it is 4 years until it has giant effect and gives time to refinery and importers to change behavior. Something that is necessary, as well as the public have to grow concern of the affects of buying conflict minerals. Even as the conflict minerals still come into the market of Europe and into the refineries so the consumers doesn’t know and cannot follow where their products who contain minerals comes from war-zones.

That the European Union takes this serious and acts upon this Nobel, and proves that they does not want to support militias and guerrillas that keeps control of mineral rich areas and their exports to supply weapons and continue warfare in for instance the African Great Lakes Region. Take a look!

Background of new rule:

This Regulation, by controlling trade in minerals from conflict areas, is one of the ways of eliminating the financing of armed groups. The Union’s foreign and development policy action also contributes to fighting local corruption, to the strengthening of borders and to providing training for local populations and their representatives in order to help them highlight abuses” (EU, P: 8, 2017).

Conflict Minerals from Great Lakes Region:

The Commission and the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy should regularly review their financial assistance to and political commitments with regard to conflict-affected and high-risk areas where tin, tantalum, tungsten and gold are mined, in particular in the African Great Lakes Region, in order to ensure policy coherence, and in order to incentivise and strengthen the respect for good governance, the rule of law and ethical mining” (EU, P: 16, 2017).

Trade of Minerals funds armed conflicts:

Preventing the profits from the trade in minerals and metals being used to fund armed conflict through due diligence and transparency will promote good governance and sustainable economic development. Therefore, this Regulation incidentally covers areas falling within the Union policy in the field of development cooperation in addition to the predominant area covered which falls under the common commercial policy of the Union” (EU, P:17, 2017).

Important Article:

Article 3: Compliance of Union importers with supply chain due diligence obligations

1. Union importers of minerals or metals shall comply with the supply chain due diligence obligations set out in this Regulation and shall keep documentation demonstrating their respective compliance with those obligations, including the results of the independent third-party audits” (EU, P: 23, 2017).

Date of Application:

Articles 1(5), 3(1), 3(2), Articles 4 to 7, Articles 8(6), 8(7), 10(3), 11(1), 11(2), 11(3), 11(4), Articles 12 and 13, Article 16(3), and Article 17 shall apply from 1 January 2021” (EU, P: 51, 2017).

What the statements on the law:

The Commission will consider making additional legislative proposals targeted at EU companies with products containing tin, tantalum, and tungsten and gold in their supply chain should it conclude that the aggregate efforts of the EU market on the responsible global supply chain of minerals are insufficient to leverage responsible supply behaviour in producer countries, or should it assess that the buy-in of downstream operators that have in place supply chain due diligence systems in line with the OECD guidance is insufficient” (…) “In the exercise of its empowerment to adopt delegated acts pursuant to Article 1(5), the Commission will take due account of the objectives of this Regulation, notably as set out in recitals (1), (7), (10) and (17). In doing so, the Commission will, in particular, consider the specific risks associated with the operation of upstream gold supply chains in conflict affected and high-risk areas and taking into account the position of Union micro and small enterprises importing gold in the EU” (…) “In response to the request of the European Parliament for specific guidelines, the Commission is willing to develop performance indicators specific to the responsible sourcing of conflict minerals. By means of such guidelines, relevant companies with more than 500 employees that are required to disclose non-financial information in conformity with Directive 2014/95/EU would be encouraged to disclose specific information in relation to products containing tin, tantalum, tungsten or gold” (EU, P: 57-58, 2017).

The European Union is doing something positive with this. That they show effort and care for the imports and what affects the export has locally, so if the minerals export is shady, the export will cease. So if the due diligence regulation works and the industry complies, the effect can be enormous. The consumer will also know that there are not supporting by third party purchase to pay for ammunition rebels, warlords or guerrillas in far away lands. This should all be seen as step of making a better world and honorable society. Where the money is where the mouth is! Peace.

Reference:

Council of the European Union – ‘Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council setting up a Union system for supply chain due diligence self-certification of responsible importers of tin, tantalum and tungsten, their ores, and gold originating in conflict-affected and high-risk areas – Outcome of the European Parliament’s first reading (Strasbourg, 13 to 16 March 2017) – (20.03.2017).

European Council: Draft Guidelines following the United Kingdom’s notification under Article 50 TEU (31.03.2017)

PM Theresa May letter notifying that the United Kingdom are today triggering the Article 50 to the EU Council President Donald Tusk (29.03.2017)

European Parliament – Draft Motion for a Resolution for Brexit (29.03.2017)

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)

Post Navigation

%d bloggers like this: