House of Lords leave another Amendment to make Brexit harder for the Tories and PM May!

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.

Opinion: The Tories lost in the House of Lords and has to build the Brexit negotiation on shaky grounds!

brexit

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).

eu-bill-2017-p2

 

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.

Reference:

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

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

kinnock-letter-february-2017-p1kinnock-letter-february-2017-p2kinnock-letter-february-2017-p3kinnock-letter-february-2017-p4

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

EU UK Flags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

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

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

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

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

scones111

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

First Point – Providing certainty and clarity:

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

Second Point – Taking control of our own laws:

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

Third Point – Strengthening the Union:

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

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

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

eu-referendum1

Fifth Point – Controlling immigration:

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

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

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

Seventh Point – Protecting workers’ rights:

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

Eight Point – Ensuring free trade with European markets:

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

Ninth Point – Securing new trade agreements with other countries:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old Game Brexit Meme

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

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

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

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

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

Reference:

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

Tulip Siddiq MP resignation from Shadow Government letter to Jeremy Corbyn on ‘Brexit’ (26.01.2017)

house-of-commons-25-01-2017

UK: This is a significant and welcome U-turn from the Prime Minister – Keir Starmer (25.01.2017)

EU UK Flags

Keir Starmer MP, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, commenting on the Government’s announcement that they will publish a White Paper, said:

“This is a significant and welcome U-turn from the Prime Minister.

“Labour has repeatedly called for the Government to publish a plan for Brexit before Article 50 is triggered and we made clear Labour would table amendments on this to the Article 50 Bill.

“This U-turn comes just 24 hours after David Davis seemed to rule out a White Paper, and failed to answer repeated questions from MPs on all sides of the House.

“The Prime Minister now needs to confirm that this White Paper will be published in time to inform the Article 50 process, and that it will clear up the inconsistencies, gaps and risks outlined in her speech.”

Opinion: Polarization will be the key protocol to follow in 2017!

History Immigration

No matter if it is local politics, if it international or trade, the most important backbone to policies in the next year will be polarization. That is not Polar Bears dancing on the dwindling ice, if so the U.S. TV station would have better ratings. No, this is the importance of local and national industries, while stressing ignorance towards immigration and imports to add more GDP value and also stop inflation. A balance that is hard to carry as the trust in local currency and local production doesn’t change overnight. That has to happen with steady policies and ability to trade products and create market for the ones that we’re in the past produced far away.

Definition of polarization

1:  the action of polarizing or state of being or becoming polarized: as

a (1) :  the action or process of affecting radiation and especially light so that the vibrations of the wave assume a definite form (2) :  the state of radiation affected by this process

b :  an increase in the resistance of an electrolytic cell often caused by the deposition of gas on one or both electrodes” (…) “2 a :  division into two opposites b :  concentration about opposing extremes of groups or interests formerly ranged on a continuum” (Merriam-Webster – Polarization, link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/polarization).

We are dividing ourselves while the world is into more conflicts that need assistance and securities to secure peace. There internal conflicts in Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Yemen and Syria. Where the conflict is bloody, where people are detained for the political affiliation, where innocent dies in the streets and where guns are imported to silence the ones who is not succumbing to the regimes who hold power.

We are living in a time where opposition victors doesn’t get into power, because the leaders of old are not allowing and keeping power by the gun, are using the police force and army to monitor the opposition and even rigs the election to secure the “validation” of their rule. This has happen in many Republics and Nations this year and proves that progress of governance and accountability is dying, like innocence and justice is impartial and only for the elites. The rest of us just have to be lucky to see just systems and laws for the common folk.

Like Adama Barrow is the President-Elect in Gambia, Jean Ping should have become the President in Gabon, Dr. Kizza Besigye in Uganda and Moise Katumbi should have risen to power in DRC if there we’re any justice and transition of Power in the Republic. But the big-man and long ruling Presidents of these nations doesn’t give-in or leave office. They continue to stay without any fear or without any mercy as the monarchs they acts of. Instead keep polarising the political elites and societies with paying the elites and silencing the ones who stand in their path. Also, by forging alliances with nations to make sure justice doesn’t prevail in their path.

While these tragedies are appearing in front of our eyes in our times, the borders and the helping hands are not appearing, the funds and allocations of necessary funds to the refugee camps, the direct food aid and agents of humanitarian actions are not sufficient. The reality of these missing steps should boggle our mind and should freeze our hearts out, as the news of burning convoys into Aleppo, lack of food into refugee camps in Adjumani in Uganda and the lacking rations of food in refugee camps in Tanzania. These should all be a reminder of the fate we have put our world in. The steps of lost grace and mercy on the weakest of humanity, where hospitals and humanitarians are put in the lines of bullets and grenades in between the battlefield as the soldiers fight for keeping merciless tyrants to stay in power.

While the superpowers are claiming the fight for justice, the innocent dies, the towns are battlefields and turns into dust, the graves are not cleared and the lives are lost in vain. This while UN cannot impose arms-embargoes or create a possible cease-fire to get civilians into safety, this while Italian and Greece authorities are working and trying to find ways to impose fleeing civilians on Turkey, because the rich European states fears that fleeing civilians could be terrorists. The humanity and just behaviour is dying while the states are flogging their responsibility to the ones in need.

We can question ourselves if this is right, if we can sleep knowing the indebtedness we have in riches. In the time of peace in our states, where we have possible houses and shelter for the ones fleeing possible genocides and acts against humanity; Europe impose stricter rules on immigration and Brexit proves the fear of Polish and other ethnic groups as they want to secure their borders as key argument to stop being an EU Member State.

We can wonder why the world has come to this that polarization of between ourselves the ones who see the innocent die and the ones who want to keep their own by any means. That the own nationals are going against each other and seeing it as only fit, instead of thinking for instance for a hot minute, what if the war came to our shores and to our homes, wouldn’t we flee? Wouldn’t we do what we could to leave our wealth, our riches to save our own?

Why shouldn’t the Syrians and all other who are in conflicts leave grenades, tanks and bombs, would we live on the streets with daily shooting and killing if we had an option to flee? Would we stay and risk everyday our lives to get a loaf of bread? I doubt that. We would travel to safety and to places where we could resettle and rehash the future of ourselves and our kids. If not we would be risking ourselves and the future of our kin. That is because it’s natural.

Still, the Europeans and citizens of fellow states don’t see it this way with fear-mongering politics and internal polarization of demagoguery, which is out of proportion. This will continue as these conflicts leads to more hurt and damage of lives, where more shelter and more merciless killings to stay in power, where more rigging of elections and more police-states are controlling the civil society. Where the states are more totalitarian and the power controlled by a little elite, while the average citizens are struggling, they will seek fortunes other places instead of in their birth-nations. Just as we would do if our destiny we’re in the limbo, if our homes were shacks and our sockets could electrocute us.

So the world of 2017, will be inflicted with the unfinished business of past, like all years has been, with as much uncertainty as the start of 2016, but with new issues and new struggles, with new people behind bars because of political affiliation, more families lost loved ones because of demonstrations, more people fleeing as the machetes and burning villages for land-grabbing, foreign investors taking land while locals cannot get deeds, as the central government are getting needed funds to supply the army with equipment and salaries, civil servants are left behind with reunification and it is happening so many places. Nobody confess nobody impose on it or even sanction this. We should question the economic challenges and the way they allocate funds, especially when many of these states get based government loans from the IMF and World Bank to basically could function; together with the reasonable taxation they can be able get from their citizens.

We shouldn’t silent on the merciless acts of men, we shouldn’t be ignorant of the world of oppression and fear, as the grand masters of our times are destroying and depleting lands for fortunes, as the multi-national companies see only profits and not see the populations they are forcing into unjust working conditions to trade resources into high profits abroad. These acts shouldn’t be forgotten, as industries and the trade are made for the international companies to gain and not all locals, therefore the polarization are created in these, create more havoc and even more injustice, as the unfair world we live in doesn’t give hands to ones in need. The rich can get it all, while the poor is lucky if they have enough for a jerry-can to buy water. That isn’t justice, that isn’t right when others are only drinking imported expensive French Water.         

We should questions the systems and revise them for more balanced between the rich and poor, for more functioning United Nations, for more diplomatic efforts and for stronger laws that cannot make Presidents into Emperors! The reality is that 2017 will start where 2016 and that is not in positive looks into the future, because the powers we have, the armies and police are targeting fellow citizens who deserves better. We all deserve better and we all should know better. Peace.

European Countries accept to offer tax-exemptions that benefits Europe while stifling the rest, report claims!

cyprus-tax

“Considering the strong democratic traditions in Europe, and the fact that taxation is considered an issue of great importance to national sovereignty, it seems rather odd that the EU has taken such a negative approach to the inclusion of developing countries in the setting of global tax standards” (Eurodad, P: 33, 2016)

There are in this world, lots of greedy people and states that want to earn on their own benefit and get the little extra without the second party. That is why the European States do what they can to keep as much benefit of businesses inside their own dominion, even as the businesses are earning their profits in developing countries, this is happening with sophisticated business transactions, sweetheart-deals, letter-box companies and stashing profits into tax-havens.

The ones that doesn’t this tactic, this way of earning higher profits and getting better rates on the production; the reality is that European States has worked coherent to avoid their thieving of funds as the taxation deals and openings of the multi-national companies in Europe. So with these possibilities, there comes also the reasoning that the companies do what they can to stifle the European states in their own scheme to keep them. Certainly the countries getting a point on the dollar instead of multiple points on it; they could get a fair trade out of, but when they are tricking the businesses there, the businesses will do what they can to trick out of them too. The Businesses are not in the country out of love, they are there to earn profits and doesn’t’ care how as long as they get. So long the States are having the set-up to be used, they will use them and the citizens will wonder why the sophisticated businesses pay so little why earning fortunes, while the citizens are paying fairly high tax on the dollar.

Just take a look!

pspib-luxembourg-tax-plan-p1-normal

Letter box companies:

“The setting up of letterbox companies is one of the practices used by multinational corporations to avoid paying taxes in countries where their economic activity takes place” (…) “Looking at global investment flows, it is clear that several European countries are major centres providing attractive tax regimes for letterbox companies and thus functioning as conduits for multinationals’ investments. By comparing the statistics of foreign direct investments (FDI), Dutch organisation SOMO shows that the Netherlands is by far the largest exporter of FDI in the world, ahead of much bigger economies such as the United States and China” (Eurodad, P:17, 2016).

Sweetheart deals:

“In November 2014, the LuxLeaks revelations exposed the secret world of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) – also known as sweetheart deals – which benefited multinational corporations, in some cases with tax rates lower than 1 per cent.89” (…) “Public insight into these kinds of deals is very rare indeed, since they are kept highly confidential. In fact, the LuxLeaks revelations were followed by legal charges against the two whistleblowers, as well as one of the key journalists, who brought the story to the public. The case is still ongoing in Luxembourg (see ‘Lack of whistleblower protection’)” (…) “Other examples of problematic APAs have been highlighted by the European Commission’s state aid cases. For example, APAs played a central role in the tax arrangements between Luxembourg and Fiat, the Netherlands and Starbucks, and Apple and Ireland. In these cases, the European Commission found the tax advantages given to the multinational corporations, through APAs, to be a violation of the EU’s State Aid rules” (Eurodad, P: 19, 2016).

Tax Treaties:

“Another key concern related to tax treaties is that they often include provisions to lower – or remove – withholding taxes on cross-boundary financial flows, and thus can lead to lower tax income in the countries signing on to such treaties, including developing countries. For example, research by ActionAid shows that a tax treaty between Uganda and the Netherlands, signed in 2004, completely takes away Uganda’s right to tax certain earnings paid to owners of Ugandan companies if the owners are resident in the Netherlands” (…) “The underlying problem in the international tax system today is that multinational companies are treated as a collection of ‘separate entities’ even though in reality they function as unified firms, with subsidiaries under the central control of the parent company. In today’s system, subsidiaries of the same company are expected to trade with each other ‘at arm’s length’, as if they did not have any connection to each other” (Eurodad, P: 21-24, 2016).

ubs-secrecy

Bank Secrecy:

“In order to deal with the tax evasion and avoidance risks related to banking secrecy, some developed countries, such as the EU Member States, have agreed to start exchanging information on financial accounts automatically amongst each other” (…) “This means that, for example, the Belgian tax authorities will, automatically and on a periodic basis, receive information on any bank accounts or assets held by Belgians in other EU Member States. The aim of this automatic information exchange is to improve the efficiency of tax collection and prevent taxpayers from hiding capital or assets abroad” (Eurodad, P: 27, 2016).

Interesting findings from European Countries:

“The Austrian government is against full public country by country reporting, and even the European Commission’s proposal for partially public country by country reporting” (Eurodad, P: 41, 2016).

“Belgium generally has a relatively high number of tax treaties with developing countries, but the average reduction in developing country tax rates through these treaties is low. However, that the average does not show is that several of Belgium’s tax treaties with developing countries are ‘very restrictive’. There are also clear indications that Belgium’s tax treaties have significant negative impacts on the developing countries that sign them. A conservative estimate puts the fiscal cost to 28 developing countries at €35 million in 2012”(Eurodad, P: 41 , 2016). “The Belgian tax treaty system is also an issue of concern. A conservative estimate suggests that 28 developing countries lost €35 million in 2012 due to tax treaties with Belgium” (Eurodad, P: 57, 2016).

“The position of the Czech government on the issue of ownership transparency is ambiguous. On the one hand, the new Czech law is very restrictive in terms of access to information in the Czech beneficial ownership register (in fact, it seems that the definition of the “legitimate interest” is so narrow that in practice it will be inaccessible for the public, no matter if they have a legitimate interest or not)” (Eurodad, P: 42, 2016).

The Danish government does not support full public country by country reporting. Instead, Denmark supports the proposal from the European Commission, which would only allow the public to get a partial picture of the activities and tax payments of multinational corporations” (Eurodad, P: 42 , 2016).

“Although the French tax treaties with developing countries on average reduce the tax rates less than most other countries covered in this report, France has eight ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries. In total, France also has the highest number of treaties with developing countries among all countries covered by this report” (Eurodad, P: 43, 2016).

The German government has previously worked very actively against the adoption of full public country by country reporting at EU level. Germany remains very sceptical, even towards the proposal from the European Commission, which would only introduce partially public country by country reporting” (…) “Germany’s tax treaties with developing countries are a cause of concern due to the high number of very restrictive treaties. Also of concern is the fact that Germany’s total number of treaties with developing countries is significantly above average” (Eurodad, P: 44, 2016).

apple-double-irish-ec-opto

“Of all the countries covered by this report, the Irish tax treaties with developing countries introduce the highest average reductions on the tax rates of their developing country treaty partners. Among the Irish tax treaties with developing countries are three ’very restrictive’ treaties” (Eurodad, P: 44, 2016).

“Although the Italian tax treaties with developing countries on average reduce the tax rates less than most other countries covered in this report, Italy and the UK are the countries that have the highest number of ’very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 45, 2016). “An Italian investigation is also ongoing into Credit Suisse Ag. The Switzerland-based group’s parent company is charged with systematically having helped 13,000 Italian clients to hide their assets of more than €14 billion abroad” (Eurodad, P: 73, 2016).

“According to the Financial Secrecy Index, Luxembourg has the highest level of financial secrecy of all the countries covered by this report (and ranks at number 6 at the global level). The government’s position on the issue of public registers of beneficial owners is unclear” (Eurodad, P: 46, 2016). “In spite of the LuxLeaks scandal, Luxembourg has continued to issue a very high number of advance pricing agreements (or ‘sweetheart deals’) to multinational corporations – with a 50 per cent increase during the year following the scandal. This, as well as the fact that Luxembourg generally has a significant amount of indicators of aggressive tax planning, is highly concerning. Also, on the issue of financial secrecy, Luxembourg remains a high concern – currently placed as number 6 at the list of the world’s most secretive countries” (Eurodad, P: 79, 2016).

“Netherlands currently has some extremely restrictive tax treaties with developing countries, which make it difficult for those developing countries to collect taxes. Netherlands generally also has more tax treaties with developing countries, and is more aggressive in negotiating the lowering of tax rates in developing countries, than the average among the countries covered in this report. In addition, the government does not levy withholding taxes on outgoing payments to tax havens, which would be an effective anti-abuse measure that would not require lengthy treaty renegotiations” (Eurodad, P: 46, 2016). “Leaked EU documents show that the Netherlands is attempting to undermine EU plans to tackle harmful tax practices by introducing a minimum tax rate of 10 per cent for royalties and interest payments. They reveal that the Netherlands has proposed exceptions in the plans for its patent box provision, which can reduce taxation on revenues resulting from research and development to 5 per cent. This provision, which is a key component of the Dutch tax system, would be threatened by a 10 per cent minimum rate” (Eurodad, P: 82, 2016).

bermuda-norway

“Norway has a high number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 47, 2016). “Norway’s tax treaty with Benin completely prevents Benin from taxing royalty payments to Norway. This is problematic since multinational corporations can use royalty payments between subsidiaries to minimize their profits and thereby avoid taxes in the countries where they have business activities” (…) “Norway does not have a patent box. It does however have a very favourable tax regime for shipping companies, albeit in line with EU countries’ legislation. Shipping income is tax-exempt and qualifying companies instead pay a small tax based on the tonnage of its vessels” (Eurodad, P: 84, 2016).

“Poland has a significant number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 47, 2016).

“Spain has on average been the second most aggressive negotiator when it comes to lowering developing country tax rates through tax treaties. Spain also has a relatively high number of tax treaties with developing countries, which gives even more reason for concern” (Eurodad, P: 48, 2016). “Wealthy Spanish people have doubled their money stashed in Luxembourg (more than €13 billion) – afraid of uncertainty and looking for lower tax rates” (…) “Inside Spain, the Canary Islands (located close to the African Atlantic coast) have a special economic and tax regime that make them “one of the most profitable tax regimes in Europe”, according to PwC. A tax rate of 4 per cent for companies located there is one of the several tax benefits. Special incentives also are applied in Ceuta and Melill” (Eurodad, P: 90-91, 2016).

“Sweden has four ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries” (Eurodad, P: 49, 2016).

“Together with Italy, the UK has the highest number of ‘very restrictive’ tax treaties with developing countries. On average, the UK’s tax treaties with developing countries contain relatively high reductions in developing country tax rates. The fact that the UK at the same time has the second highest number of treaties with developing countries gives even more reason for concern” (Eurodad, P: 49, 2016).

If this isn’t eye-opening, than I don’t know, but it shows the systematic state of easy taxation to benefit big-business, the multi-national companies, so they can set-up show and get grander profits, while the states works the perks between them to settle score. The negotiations and the tax-havens gives more space for the companies to fuel money out of Europe and of the Developing Countries, which hurts all sort of government operations as the end-game is that the government doesn’t get the supposed tax-base as that flee to offshore or overseas where the taxations is lax or non-compliance with the place the business actually operates. We all should get our MPs, Senators, MEPs, Governors and all other Elected Representatives, to take action against this sophisticated thieving from the Multi-National Companies and the Representatives who opens the gates for this activity. Peace.

Reference:

EURODAD – ‘Survival of the Richest – Europe’s role in supporting an unjust global tax system 2016’ (15.11.2016).