Yet another Future Partnership report on Brexit: The UK Gov. wants similar research collaboration as of today!

The newest report on Research Collaboration between United Kingdom and the European Union, as the withdrawal from the EU will lead to chances in science and research in the United Kingdom. The Tories Government are still within the wishful thinking. Their paradigm is clearly the softest of the soft Brexits. So soft, that butter isn’t soft enough.

Brexit appeal must really be dwindling since most of the Future Partnership Papers has been softball and easy road into withdrawal. The EU will clearly make this harder and more expensive. United Kingdom government wants clearly more of the same. It is expected to be dialogue and negotiations between the partners. Here is some parts of the Reports!

It is the UK’s ambition to build on its uniquely close relationship with the EU, so that collaboration on science and innovation is not only maintained, but strengthened. Therefore, as part of the new, deep and special partnership, the UK will seek an ambitious science and innovation agreement with the EU that will support and promote science and innovation across Europe both now and in the future” (HM Government, P: 7, 2017).

EU programmes have helped foster European scientific collaboration and the UK has been a key contributor to their success. The UK remains a full member of the EU and will be subject to all rights and obligations set out in the Treaties and under EU law, including the principle of sincere cooperation, until it leaves the EU. In that context, and looking ahead to a strong future relationship, both the UK and the European Commission have been clear that they expect the fair treatment of UK researchers and firms. The UK and EU should also work together to provide continuity of collaborative relationships” (HM Government, P: 9, 2017).

The Commission is planning a European Defence Research Programme in the next Multiannual Financial Framework, which is expected to invest €500 million per year in industry and academia from participating countries. To prepare for this, a three-year Action was launched in 2017 and the UK has been instrumental in defining its work programme. The UK would welcome dialogue with the EU and its Member States on the future of this programme and terms for non-EU involvement, noting that Norway will have third-party association in this preparatory phase” (HM Government, P: 13, 2017).

The UK wants to continue playing a major role in creating a brighter future for all European citizens by strengthening collaboration with European partners in science and innovation” (…) “To this end, the UK will seek to agree a far-reaching science and innovation agreement with the EU that establishes a framework for future collaboration. There are a range of existing precedents for collaboration that the UK and the EU can build on, but our uniquely close relationship means there may be merit in designing a more ambitious agreement. The UK hopes to have a full and open discussion with the EU about all of these options as part of the negotiations on our future partnership” (HM Government, P: 16, 2017).

I am not surprised by this Future Partnership Report, it is one of many now. The ones dropped in August was similar, but different topics. United Kingdom wants all of the options on the table and still want close relationship, but the UK will be a non-Member-State. They are focusing on the special bond between the Norwegian and the EU, but that means the UK must work hard to get that relationship. Since the EU will clearly not just give way to UK. Though, the Future Papers are lots of dreams.

So another daydream is done, Brexit Minister David Davis and others in the Tories Government, surely needs help and also should know that EU will not trade-off anything easy. Brexit will not be easy and their papers prove it. As they are having extra-terrestrial and alien belief about their negotiations and their deal-making with the EU. Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘Collaboration on science and innovation – A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER’ (06.09.2017)

Zimbabwe: Letter from Ministry of Rural Development, Promotion and Preservation of National Culture and Heritage – “Appeal for Contributions towards Mash Central Presidential Youth Interference” (03.09.2017)

Zimbabwe: The Bond-Notes are creating higher prices on goods and a big black-market for currency exchange!

The launch of the Bond Notes has been hectic and been untrustworthy. Zimbabwe has been hit with economic difficulties, as to the policies and thieving of the state reserves. That is why the inflation and value of the currency dwindles. As well, as the lack of trust of the currency and the central reserves issued notes, are the reason for the troubling issues with the monetary policies. The Zanu-PF government have been more preoccupied with serving themselves, than the people who are spending the notes.

The questions in the beginning of the of the current value of a note issued on a loan through Afrieximbank, this means the state was taking on debt. This is was to issue a new currency, a temporary note that was gaining new debt to the state. Just take a look!

Chakravarti, a University of Zimbabwe economics professor, said keeping the peg is only depreciating the value of the Real-Time Gross Settlement system (RTGS). He noted that the Confederation of Zimbabwe Industries had revealed that the RTGS premium to real money is now at 30%, meaning if one had US$1 000 in RTGS, they only have US$700 in real money. He added that it was “pointless” to have the Afrieximbank facility, which the central bank said backs the bond notes, if it is not convertible.” Chakravarti said it was unhealthy for the economy to have government crowding out funding for the private sector. He noted that the country has the highest tax-to-GDP in Africa which is 30% against the continental average of 22%, a situation he described as unviable. Chakravarti predicted that by December this year bond notes will constitute 50 to 60% of the currency in circulation which will qualify it as a local currency” (Ndebele & Kuwaza, 2017).

Dollarisation has two forms, namely, official/de jure and unofficial/de facto. BMI Research found that an increase in bond notes was actually de-dollarising the economy. BMI Research warned last week that increasing money supply would contribute to an accelerated growth of inflation from 1,4% by year-end to 8,5% in 2018 — making the steepest growth since 2009. “The Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe’s (RBZ) decision to more than double the size of its bond-note programme — to $500m from $200m previously — confirms our view that the country is headed towards de jure de-dollarisation,” it said” (Zwinoira, 2017).

Because Zimbabwe imports more than it exports, the black market is now influencing pricing trends. As such, a transfer now attracts a 48 percent premium, while cash transactions for smaller denominations range between eight and 9,5 percent, depending on the currency involved. For larger notes such as US$50 and $100, it can cost the buyer up to 10 percent. The majority of companies, whose payments fall outside the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe (RBZ) priority list for accessing the elusive US dollars in banks, rely on bank transfers to get the coveted currency on the parallel market. As a result, prices for all basic consumer goods have gone up by between 20 and 50 percent as companies and retailers pass on the costs to the ordinary consumer” (Bulawayo24, 2017).

We can easily see that the trustworthy levels of Bond-Notes isn’t there, as the businesses not connected with Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe payment system makes the exchange of currency more expensive. The trust was already bad before the issue of the bond-notes before June 2016. It haven’t got better, it is worse as the percentage cost is 10%.

Therefore, the value of the Bond-Notes has made ordinary life harder. The prices on ordinary goods has gone up. This because of the issue of the Bond-Notes and the whole fiscal policy, that is clearly not working. Peace.

Reference:

Bulawayo24 – ‘Value of Bond Notes Tumbles’ (05.09.2017) link: http://bulawayo24.com/index-id-business-sc-economy-byo-117175.html

Ndebele, Hazel & Kuwaza, Kudzai – ‘Officialise bond notes, govt told’ (01.09.2017) link: https://www.theindependent.co.zw/2017/09/01/officialise-bond-notes-govt-told/

Zwinoira, Tatira – ‘‘Zim heading towards de-dollarisation’ (04.09.2017) link:https://www.newsday.co.zw/2017/09/04/zim-heading-towards-de-dollarisation/

ONLF Press Release: Disinformation about Abdikarin’s refoulement to TPLF-led Ethiopian regime by the Somali regime of Farmajo (02.09.2017)

Brexit: Another future exit report with wishful thinking considering the role of CJEU post-Brexit!

The Tories-DUP Government released today yet another report, this report was on enforcement and disputes arising between the Her Majesties Government (HM Government) and the European Union (EU). As of when the United Kingdom abandon it’s membership status to become a non-member of the EU. The Brexit Minister David Davis clearly has lack of vision or trying to take the easy way out. Since the UK government has delivered nothing else, than wishful, we want it as today. So when I went into reading this, it was as expected. It is like the Tories doesn’t care about it or wanting to define what they want as they are going out of the EU. Here some of favorite quotes from today’s report.

As we exit the EU, the UK wants to agree an orderly withdrawal and establish a new, deep and special partnership with the EU. The UK has also made clear that in order to avoid any cliff-edge as we move from our current relationship to our future partnership, people and businesses in both the UK and the EU would benefit from an interim period, where this is necessary for the smooth and orderly implementation of new arrangements” (…) “The success of the future partnership will depend on mutual respect. We will be starting from a strong position: our shared commitment to upholding the rule of law and to meeting our international obligations, and our intention to comply with the agreements reached between us, are not in doubt” (HM Government, P: 3, 2017).

In agreements between the EU and third countries, where cooperation is facilitated through replicating language which is identical in substance to EU law, these agreements can specify that account is to be taken of CJEU decisions when interpreting those concepts. This is relevant where both parties agree that divergence in interpretation would be undesirable, for example, for operational reasons such as continued close cooperation with EU agencies” (…) “The value of such arrangements lie where there is a shared interest in reducing or eliminating divergence in how specific aspects of an agreement with the EU are implemented in the EU and the third country respectively. The extent to which this approach may be valuable depends on the extent to which there is agreement that divergence should be avoided in specific areas” (HM Government, P: 9, 2017).

In international agreements, final remedies are principally retaliatory in nature and implemented unilaterally by the parties. This includes the ability to take safeguard measures to mitigate any negative effects from the other party’s noncompliance as well as the option to suspend all or part of the agreement (or several linked agreements), or, ultimately, withdraw from the agreement (or several linked agreements). The ability of the European Commission and the CJEU within the EU legal system to impose sanctions, such as fines for non-compliance with EU rules, is exceptional” (…) “The agreements governing the UK’s withdrawal from, and future partnership with, the EU will cover a broad range of areas of cooperation. Those agreements should set out clear means by which the terms of the agreements should be implemented and enforced within the UK and the EU. They should also establish a mechanism for the resolution of disputes concerning those agreements” (HM Government, P: 11-12, 2017).

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the United Kingdom, this relationship will get into another position after the withdrawal from the EU. Since the legal disputes will be different between UK and EU, as the membership are now ceased. The UK might have some legal framework between them and the EU.

That EU and UK wants a mutual respect, they both want that. This paper actually states: In agreements between the EU and third countries, where cooperation is facilitated through replicating language which is identical in substance to EU law, these agreements can specify that account is to be taken of CJEU decisions when interpreting those concepts. This is relevant where both parties agree that divergence in interpretation would be undesirable, for example, for operational reasons such as continued close cooperation with EU agencies” (HM Government, 2017).

This specific passage says in essence, that the UK wants to be facilitated and replicating the legal language of the EU, so they can cooperate with EU law, even after leaving. So that it will in general stay much as the same. The concepts and the parties will agree, so they also will function directly with the EU agencies. So the UK want an agreement that fits directly to EU law. This is countering the independence and the mindset of a “hard” Brexit, more like smoothing their system to the EU. The Remains must be jolly, that yet another paper, the HM Government are working for more of the same. Not really changing the status, but wishing for a similar system of today. That means dispute and laws would work in sync with agencies and the CJEU. Which is impressive!

Clearly, the UK want a special mechanism to be sufficient between them, as their new cooperative spirit starts after the withdrawal, but the EU will have a new agreement and a new non Member State who wants to trade, follow procedure and the jurisdiction. This means the UK and the EU needs a new function to fix disputes and legal remedies between the non-members and the EU. The UK are afraid of the EU possible sanctions, as the powers of CJEU are powerful towards to third countries, which means the UK could be sanctioned in a way that haven’t in the past. That is why the UK want to consider a legal language in sync with the EU, so they will follow the EU, even when they are outside the EU. That means a pretty soft, compared to what the Brexit wanted to be. Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘Enforcement and dispute resolution – A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER’ (23.08.2017)

Brexit: Tories position papers released today on ‘Confidentiality papers’ and ‘Availability of Goods’: Dreams of having the same of today!

It is inspiring to read the documents from the HM Government/Tories-DUP Government on the Withdrawal from the European Union (EU), the Conservative Party and their cabinet should have had a long time working on the prospects of the leaving the Union. The Tories government clearly have had the time to work on it. Still, by this time and with the proper work on it, they have not delivered a clear policy or protocol for important questions. It is sad to see political framework and policies being built on dreams, they will most likely turn into nightmares. Since, the UK will not be in the place and within the same reach of Brussels as before. Even if most of their ideals in their papers. Are put in ways, where they want the future to be like yesterday.

How the day went on yesterday, how the paperwork between the states will change, as the membership are cut-off. Yesterday, movement of goods went within the legislation and procedures put by duplicated acts of the Members States, something UK has done in their time of membership. It has to be different, and it will be, unless the EU will treat UK as different third-party state. Most likely not, but you cannot fail the Tories for having dreams.

Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union David Davis said:

These papers will help give businesses and consumers certainty and confidence in the UK’s status as an economic powerhouse after we have left the EU” (UK Gov, 2017).

Confidentiality:

At present, members of the institutions of the Union, the members of committees, and the officials and other servants of the Union are obliged not to disclose certain information obtained in the course of their duties. This obligation is presently set out in Article 339 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 37 of Protocol 4 to the Treaties” (…) “The UK considers that individuals (of any nationality) who are bound by Article 339, prior to the UK’s withdrawal, should continue, after the UK’s withdrawal, to respect their obligations in respect of information obtained through this work, and that information pertaining to UK individuals and interests should continue to be afforded the same protection” (…) “Classified information exchanged in the interests of the EU is currently governed by an Agreement of 4 May 2011, between the Member States of the European Union meeting within the Council. The UK considers that there is a mutual interest in ensuring that information covered by this agreement, and in the possession of the relevant party prior to the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, continues to enjoy an equivalent level of protection after exit” (HM Government, P 1-2 – Confidentiality, 2017).

That the Tories government continues and want to continue like it is, even if the state of affairs changes when their membership to Union ceases. This should be easy to understand, but the UK Government thinks the procedures will follow the same level and with same cooperation, even if they are a third-party state outside the European Union. It is impressive that this is the issue again, on yet another paper doddle down by Minister and his peers. Now let

On availability of goods for the EU and the UK:

It will also be important that business and consumers are confident that goods placed on the market and in use across the UK and the EU comply with relevant product legislation. Moreover, market surveillance and enforcement authorities should have access to information about unsafe products, such as medicines and food, and mechanisms to take action with respect to non-compliant goods” (…) “The UK believes that the views of business and consumers must be at the heart of this discussion. The UK will continue to engage with businesses and consumer organisations to understand more about their concerns, and notes that there are issues in relation to services as well as in relation to goods. The UK is keen to use the current discussions to ensure that all the relevant issues are resolved – whether in the separation discussions related to goods or elsewhere – in a way that is consistent with the UK’s ambition for our future relationship” (…) “First, to ensure the continued availability of products on EU and UK markets at the date of withdrawal, goods placed on the Single Market before exit should continue to circulate freely in the UK and the EU, without additional requirements or restrictions” (…) “The Withdrawal Agreement should recognise the validity of this compliance activity where it has taken place prior to exit. This should be recognised for both the UK and EU markets regardless of where the activity took place, and it should be recognised for the full time period or type of products intended when the compliance activity was undertaken. Any further compliance activity required after withdrawal as a result of the prior compliance activity should be conducted as originally intended. This would avoid business and authorities in both the EU and the UK needing to undertake significant duplicative compliance activity after exit, for example to re-inspect approved manufacturing plants or collect and submit data again” (…) “The UK wants to ensure that any approvals, registrations, certificates and authorisations issued by a third party (whether a private entity or a public agency) prior to exit should continue to be recognised as valid by both markets after the UK’s withdrawal. These assessments will have been conducted and the data will have been provided in accordance with legislative requirements by a body recognised as competent. Therefore, it would avoid disruption and provide legal certainty if the results of these activities were recognised in both markets. These approvals should be valid for the intended time period or product life-cycle as when they were granted to avoid the need for retesting of products” (…) “Once a product is placed on the UK and the EU markets, it is essential that both parties can trace products through the supply chain and market surveillance authorities can ensure action is taken with respect to non-compliant goods” (…) “These key principles are aimed at providing legal certainty, while avoiding disruption to business and consumers in regard to the availability of goods. They represent a starting point for enabling a smooth and orderly withdrawal, and moving to a deep and special future partnership, which enables our close trading relationship to continue to flourish” (HM Government, P: 2-3, 6-7 – Availability, 2017).

That the UK and Tories government wants the non-compliant goods to work as it does today. The Tories specifically wants a discussion resolved to fit the businesses as of today. Even if so, it will be hard to have it that way, because the UK believes the EU wants to keep the same ways transactions between EU producers and UK producers of goods. That the UK wants it to be like today and also have the same sort of system for goods. However, the EU will always have different systems for third-party states.

That both parties has to surveillance of goods and make sure services are followed between the states. Which is naturally, as the states has to able to follow the supply chain of the goods. It is inevitable and the EU will already have legislation that marks and control the market. So that products are safe and safeguard consumers.

That the Tories wish a smooth and easy access seems again, the Tories wants it simple and as of today, with both confidential documents and goods on the market. The Tories want to be part of the Common-Trading Market. They want to have the Schengen laws for goods, but distance themselves from the open-boarders when coming to people.

It is weird that the Tories think their produce, their products and the services can move like today to the European Union. That the Tories wish so is wishful thinking. It is easy for them to try to get this, but as a non-Member State they will have obstacles when concerning the status of United Kingdom.

Therefore, the whole papers released today from the Tories are more of wanting what they already have in their arrangements with the European Union. The EU will most likely not make it this easy, they have dozens of Member States and also procedure to think off. They cannot trade-off easily because of previous engagements. Than, the value of the EU Membership will be worthless. Since the UK outside get the same benefits as member-states within. Peace.

Reference:

HM Government – ‘Confidentiality and access to documents – Position Paper’ (21.08.2017)

HM Government – ‘Continuity in the availability of goods for the EU and the UK’ (21.08.2017)

UK Gov – ‘Position papers published ahead of third round of negotiations’ (21.08.2017) link: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/position-papers-published-ahead-of-round-three-negotiations

Grace “Gucci Gucci” Mugabe [above the law] got her ‘Diplomatic Immunity’ today after her violent acts against several models at Sandton Hotel!

We can now officially say that First Lady of Zimbabwe are now standing above the laws of South Africa, a republic where she doesn’t reside, but because the relationship between Mugabe family and South African government, the RSA laws doesn’t matter to the Princes of ZANU-PF and their Family members. Grace Mugabe can now assault with battery and with intent, and get away it it. Since it was internal family matters, a visit to look after her long-lost kids who lives in luxury, while the Zimbabweans are starving. Such justice there, but the point now, is that Grace Mugabe can assault not only one person, but more with help of her bodyguards. Just take a look, first the ‘Diplomatic Immunity’ and then eyewitness stories from what she is free of charges from, because of her stature and place of life. The law isn’t the same for all kind, especially not when you have powerful friends, it seems.

Government Notice number 850 of 20th August from Minister Maite Nkoana-Mshabane, the Minister of International Relations and Cooperations wrote: “In accordance with the powers vested in me by section 7(2) of the Diplomatic Immunities and Privileges Act, 2001 (Act No. 37 of 2001) and acting in the interest of Republic of South Africa, I hereby recognize the immunities and privileges of the First Lady of Zimbabwe, Dr. Grace Mugabe, in terms of international law and as set out in the attached Notice” (Government Gazette, 20.08.2017 – Government Notice No. 850 of 2017).

Victims of Grace Mugabe’s rage:

One of the three women, who describes herself as a promotional model, told of her terror as Mugabe lashed out at them. Mugabe was accompanied by about 10 bodyguards and hotel security guards and she was looking for her sons, Robert jnr, 25, and Chatunga Bellarmine, 21. Both men had fled the room when they heard their mother coming. The attack took place in Sandton’s The Capital 20 West hotel. The woman said that at the time she did not know who her assailant was or why she and her friends were being beaten. “I really thought she was going to kill me … From the moment she stormed into the room she was ready to murder someone,” the woman said. “The electrical cord-cable was tightly wrapped around her hands. No one could stop her. The guards and hotel security guards just stood there and watched as she whipped me with the cord and dragged me across the floor by my hair.” Mugabe’s sons have recently been in the news for their behaviour. The brothers were kicked out of a Sandton hotel last month, allegedly for bad behaviour” (…) “When the three friends could not tell her where her sons where, Mugabe lashed out at them with the electrical cord. The woman said the attack carried on for 20 minutes. While she was being assaulted, her friends fled. “She dragged me by my hair and held me tight. She slashed me viciously with the electrical cord. She then dragged me by my hair across the floor and threw me on a couch where she forced me to call our mutual friend and Bellarmine’s best friend, but their phones were off. “She continued beating me with the cord; I was rescued by the hotel manager, who rushed to the room after hearing my screams for help.” Engels’s two friends said they were too frightened of Grace Mugabe to lay criminal complaints, but said they would support Engels in court” (Ndabeni, 2017).

This should be insulting to the victims, the families and to the justice system of South Africa. That a foreign dignitary can carry out assaults and violence on their citizens. Than, run home with immunity from her crimes. The violence done because of the sons wish of partying with models and expensive bottles wine. The sons of Robert Mugabe have already caused trouble on the same hotel in past, but because of their standing and ranks they are allowed back. If someone else did similar acts, they would be banned from the premises.

Still, as that is awful enough – Grace Mugabe put-up the ante and attacked fellow guests of her sons. She violated them and harassed them. Grace Mugabe actually torn them and used violence. The First Lady did not act against her sons in this way, but against strangers who was invited by her sons. She attacked innocent South African girls, who had no ill-intent and was invited to the hotel. This is vicious and insane!

So with this in mind, the RSA and the Minister Maite Nkoana-Mshabane should offer a leaf of faith. This should be investigated and taken to the law. First Lady Mugabe should stand trial and answer for the possible misgivings and assault with battery. This isn’t flattering, this is a clear violation of ordinary and civilian courtesy. The First Lady could have talked ordinary to the woman and asked why they we’re there and why her sons was gone. Instead, she attacked them with the force of 10 bodyguards and left no-one with wounds. The witnesses even fear the woman after this and that is not strange, she attacked them viciously.

What is more insulting, is that the State offers no sympathy for their own citizens and leaves them behind. They are just flesh-wounds and exchangeable, they can be traded with someone else. The next time the Mugabe boys looking for a fling. No big-deal, but the Mugabe family is so unique and special. So they can assault strangers without any consequence or facing justice. They are above the law, not only in Zimbabwe, but also in the proud Republic of South Africa.

This is just proving that the First Lady of Zimbabwe can do whatever she wants, the same for her sons and also the President. Since they are dignitaries and state officials with different passports, but that doesn’t mean they should get away with everything. Also, this shows how accommodating the RSA is the Mugabe family and therefore, accept this sort of behavior. It is okay and nothing wrong, apparently that is the message. Peace.

Reference:

Ndabeni, Khanyi – ‘ First Lady, Grace Mugabe ‘was ready to murder’ (20.08.2017) link: https://www.timeslive.co.za/sunday-times/news/2017-08-19-first-lady-grace-mugabe-was-ready-to-murder/

Brexit: Tories Government – “Future Costums Arrangements” paper are made of “dreams” and not reality!

On 15th August 2017, the United Kingdom or the Her Majesties Government laid out there paper on the Costums Union with the European Union. You would imagine that this one would be a paper drawing the lines in the sand and putting things in order. They are apparently not so, not surprising that people have called the Brexit Minister David Davis lazy, the reasons for doing. Is by looking at the paperwork and the white papers who are initially spelling out the policies for the break-up. These are supposed standards of acts and of understanding from one part to the other. Therefore, the quotes and the basic framework says a lot. That is why it is intriguing how little dep’t there are in the “Future customs arrangements – A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP PAPER”, it is insane how little it says at this point.

Let’s be brief about the quotes worth mentioning from this “paper”:

“As a first step, we will seek continuity in our existing trade and investment relationships, including those covered by EU Free Trade Agreements or other EU preferential arrangements. Our exit from the EU will provide considerable additional opportunities for UK business through ambitious new trade arrangements and comprehensive trade deals that play to the strengths of the UK economy of today and the future, including in areas such as services and digital trade, as well as trade in goods. As a services-based economy, services account for around 80 per cent of UK GDP6 and the UK is the second largest exporter of services worldwide.7 Services exports accounted for £246 billion in 2016.8 The share of services in total UK exports has increased from around 27 per cent in 1990 to 45 per cent in 20169 – the largest share of any of the G7 economies.10 To capitalise fully on those opportunities, the UK will need an independent trade policy, with the freedom to set for ourselves the terms of our trade with the world” (HM Government, P: 4, 15.08.2017).

So again, the Conservative Party and the Democratic Unionist Party Government comes with statements that underline the possible positives about the break-up without considering the real implications of the act. They are playing safe and promising excellent opportunities, without underlining the doubts of trade and border issues, granted the exit. It is like the doors open and they are coming directly into Narnia and not upon a new unknown quest.

Therefore the next statements saying this: “In assessing the options for the UK’s future outside the EU Customs Union, the Government will be guided by what delivers the greatest economic advantage to the UK, and by three strategic objectives:

  • ● ensuring UK-EU trade is as frictionless as possible;
  • ● avoiding a ‘hard border’ between Ireland and Northern Ireland; and
  • ● establishing an independent international trade policy” (HM Government, P: 6, 15.08.2017).

It is like the UK Government and their negotiation team is dreaming that the EU will grant them all of their wishes and make the world a peaceful and lovable space, where anyone living wants to have a house in Nothing Hill or in Yorkshire. But, alas that is not case. That the UK-EU trade will not be frictionless, if it was so, the massive amount trade-agreements would be settled, also the businesses would start to move to European cities for security of future transactions, like to Dublin or Frankfurt. Therefore, the Tories frictionless is near impossible and will implode on them at one point!

The border question on Ireland is another subject, which will be hustled and bustled, where nothing is certain. What that it will be, is an advantage standpoint for Unionists, but not for the Irish or the European Union, which would like similar rules for all their Member States. The last one is something the UK has to work upon and find-out as the directives and the legislation for trade from Brussels will cease, but that also makes it hard to be very independent if the EU are their major trading-partner.

One potential approach the UK intends to explore further with the EU would involve the UK acting in partnership with the EU to operate a regime for imports that aligns precisely with the EU’s external customs border, for goods that will be consumed in the EU market, even if they are part of a supply chain in the UK first. The UK would need to apply the same tariffs as the EU, and provide the same treatment for rules of origin for those goods arriving in the UK and destined for the EU” (…) “By mirroring the EU’s customs approach at its external border, we could ensure that all goods entering the EU via the UK have paid the correct EU duties. This would remove the need for the UK and the EU to introduce customs processes between us, so that goods moving between the UK and the EU would be treated as they are now for customs purposes. The UK would also be able to apply its own tariffs and trade policy to UK exports and imports from other countries destined for the UK market, in line with our aspiration for an independent trade policy. We would need to explore with the EU how such an approach would fit with the other elements of our deep and special partnership” (HM Government, P: 10, 15.08.2017).

This here proves that UK Government thinks the EU will accept free-trade and movement of goods, without taking one of their pillars, the movement of people. Like the borders was made for cows, Iphone’s and automobiles, but not made for securing people trespassing from one garden to the next. The fences and guidelines of crossings, will be within concern of the status of the UK deal with the EU, as a non-EU State. Meaning, the Third Party state, has to reissue boundaries and extended efforts on trade, to justify itself concerning the ones that are Member States already. This should be obvious to the UK Government and the Tories, but their paper is disregarding this mere facts.

It is amazing how this is the sort of framework and due diligence, the government operates within. That they are not thinking in the prospects of not their dream-world, but the reality of the ones they are negotiating with. It is as if they think only on their own behalf, and not of the reactions from the Union, they are leaving. Instead of being concern with by-laws and regulations that are already on “third-nations” and “non-Member-States”, the United Kingdom government should operate like that and not as it is today. The dreams has to stop and the shattered glass has to appear. The broken screens and the trouble of scrolling has to happen. Peace.

“Gucci Gucci Mugabe” ditches justice in South Africa!

You know your an important person or of some influence when you can run from the law and not get into greater trouble. If it was an ordinary person or an ordinary Zimbabwean citizen who did something unjust in South Africa, the person would be questioned, would make an affidavit and been put for trial. Nevertheless, the First Lady Grace Mugabe could access lawyers and even run from the Republic. She was not on official business as a diplomat, but she was there for her sons. Just take a look!

Gabriella Engels on Monday said she was visiting Mugabe’s two sons Robert and Chatunga at the Capital 20 West Hotel whom she met through a mutual friend on Saturday. Engels said a bodyguard asked her and a friend to wait in a separate room before Mugabe allegedly started beating her. “When Grace entered I had no idea who she was. She walked in with an extension cord and just started beating me with it,” Engels told News24 over the phone. Engels said Mugabe accused her of living with her sons. “She flipped and just kept beating me with the plug. Over and over. I had no idea what was going on. I was surprised… I needed to crawl out of the room before I could run away” (…) “Her ten bodyguards just stood there watching, no one did anything, no one tried to help me.” Engels said hotel staff escorted her out of the hotel. She immediately tried to open a case of assault at the Sandton police station” (De Villiers, 2017).

So when you have these sort of allegations against the First Lady of Zimbabwe, the South African Police Service (SAPS) should take this serious. Instead, they are doing this:

That she wants to use diplomatic immunity for her assault of a 20 year old lady and model at the Hotel in South Africa, shows the proof of using her reach of power to personal gain. This is disrespectful of the person violated by her and her assistance, there is nothing that justifies this and also it should be wrong of the South African state to disband the investigation and not look into the matter.

That means that VIPs and greater persons of power can be over the state and over the law. She should be indicted and put into question over the acts that happen at the hotel. That they can be verified and the assault charges can be put to rest. She was not a diplomat or a part of state convoy with state security ushering her around in South Africa. “Gucci Gucci” was initial a tourist in South Africa visiting family members, not being there to discuss trade and border issues between Zimbabwe and RSA. That was not the issue of the days, she was not at Gauteng or Pretoria trying to discuss important members with officials. Instead, she was there visiting her kids, where she met a model and hurt Engels.

This is really sad, how little the law matter, when VIPs and people of Power breaches the laws in the RSA. That is shown with the Gupta’s and Zuma’s, now also Mugabe’s, surely it must help that Zuma and Mugabe has houses close by in Dubai. So they have surely shared a few moments together there around the pool. This is disgraceful to Zimbabwe and also to South Africa. Both republics are played around by the First Lady Mugabe. This is beneath the State and the Authorities, as they can do as they want.

If the RSA gives “Gucci Gucci” diplomatic immunity in this case, than their true allies of Zimbabwe, but are disgracing their own laws and justice, which is not equal for all, but the VIPs can do as they want. Peace.

Reference:

De Villiers, James – ‘Grace Mugabe ‘assaulted’ me with an extension cord, model, 20, claims’ (14.08.2017) link: http://m.news24.com/news24/SouthAfrica/News/grace-mugabe-assaulted-me-with-an-extension-cord-model-20-claims-20170814

Brexit: House of Lords – European Union Commitee letter to David Davis “Asking for access of Information on the on-going process” (10.08.2017)