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)

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

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.

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

Houses of the Oireachtas August report explaining the grand-issues remaining between Ireland and NI because of the Brexit!

Taoiseach Enda Kenny, speaking in Brussels on the 2nd of March 2017 said, “the Good Friday Agreement contains the opportunity to put in these negotiations language that has already been agreed in internationally binding agreement, that at some future time were that position to arise, that if the people by consent were to form a united Ireland that that could be a seamless transfer as happened in the case of East Germany and West Germany when the Berlin Wall came down.” (Houses of the Oireachtas, P: 248, 2017).

There must be times that the ones who voted for Brexit must regret it. Since the challenges and consequences are now unraveling. The House of the Oireachtas has come with an extensive report. That you should read yourself to get the deepness of the issues and the wishes of the Republic of Ireland, who in dept hope that Northern Ireland and Ireland get reunited like Germany did in the 1990s. There are more the things to look into, like the clear deficit between the United Kingdom, the Northern Ireland and Republic.

The are other issues like the border, which will be a genuine issue for both United Kingdom, European Union, the Member State Ireland and the nation within United Kingdom Northern Ireland. That the border, with the movement of trade, people and all other co-operations. Not just immigration with the Irish, who can pass and who has to apply between the borders of Northern Ireland towards Ireland. It will require direct borders on the crossings and also visas. Not only economical pressure because of the Brexit, but all the other grand issues.

Northern Irish Deficit:

The theoretical question of the Northern Ireland contribution to the EU through the UK annual contribution and a subsequent financial benefit from ending those contributions is a moot one. The deficit in Northern Ireland is such that any theoretical contribution is in fact made with money borrowed from central government. The Northern Ireland deficit (confining the spending definition rather generously as identifiable spending under the block DEL grants plus Annual Managed Expenditure) is 15% of GVA versus a UK budget deficit of 3.4% (in 2016). Given the UK Treasury intends to have a surplus in the next parliament, along with the potential for a large final exit bill and the threat to tax revenues, should Brexit cause an economic slowdown any benefit from ending the UK contributions to the EU is likely to be small if at all and for Northern Ireland will be irrelevant. Therefore, for Northern Ireland to be net neutral after Brexit the UK government will have to sponsor all current EU programmes” (Houses of the Oireachtas, P: 40, 2017).

United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland – Hard Border:

However, a memo from the European parliament’s legal affairs committee, which is helping shape the negotiating position of the European commission and the red lines of the European parliament, rebuffs that suggestion: “The [Good Friday] agreement makes it abundantly clear that the fact that both parts of Ireland and the UK are within the EU is a basis for the agreement. Moreover, the fact that Brexit could result in the reintroduction of border controls and controls on the free movement of persons between Ireland and Northern Ireland means this is a question for the EU, and not only Ireland and the UK.” (…) “Historically, customs controls have operated on both sides of the border from 1923 until their abolition on 1 January 1993, when the EU Single Market came into effect. In addition, security checkpoints operated on both sides of the border during the Troubles, from 1970 to the late 1990s—although the border security regime operated only partially, even at the height of the Troubles, because the Government in London recognised that a ‘hard’ border would inflame tensions in the Nationalist community. Other controls have been instituted on an ad hoc basis. For instance, in 2001 the Republic of Ireland operated systematic controls at the Irish border to curtail the spread of foot and mouth disease” (Houses of the Oireachtas, P: 69, 2017).

Visa Issues:

The UK’s exit from the EU will remove this basis of entry and residence in the UK. It will therefore directly affect the position of EU citizens and the members of their families who seek to enter or reside in the UK. EU citizens who are Irish citizens are, as previously outlined, subject to a separate regime under the UK’s Ireland Act 1949 and Immigration Act 1971. However, family members of those Irish citizens who are not themselves Irish citizens will not qualify for that status” (…) “The UK’s exit from the EU raises questions concerning the minimal checks on travelers between the Republic and Great Britain and the virtual absence of such checks on travelers between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland is not a party to the Schengen arrangements removing border restrictions between EU Member States, but it remains subject to Article 21 of the TFEU and Directive 2004/38. These oblige it to admit EU nationals subject only to the conditions outlined earlier in this paper. If, after its exit from the EU, the UK chooses to limit the access it grants to non-Irish EU nationals, such restrictions will very likely require some sort of checks or inspections on arrivals from the Republic at ports, airports and even border crossings with Northern Ireland. This would amount to a fundamental change in the nature of the CTA” (Houses of the Oireachtas, P: 82-83, 2017).

Northern Ireland is more in the squeeze by Brexit, than the Republic:

For Ireland, the longer-term effects of Brexit on trade are uncertain and are also predicated on the outcome of negotiations. In the immediate term, the fall in the value of Sterling has meant that Irish exports are less competitive in the UK market. The UK export market accounted for 13.8 per cent of total Irish exports in 2015 (See Figure2). Northern Ireland is a relatively small export market for Ireland, accounting for just 1.6 per cent of total exports in 2015. The UK was the source of 25.7 per cent of Irish imports in 2015. From an overall trade perspective, therefore, the Republic is a much more significant trade market for Northern Ireland, than Northern Ireland is for the Republic, both in terms of export and imports” (Houses of the Oireachtas, P: 138, 2017).

All of this should worry the Northern Irish, the United Kingdom, that they have these issues to deliver. To fix the problems with the border, with the Schengen and Visa’s that are not valid as a non-member state of the European Union. The Northern Ireland will have both a harder border and with the trade. The deficit and the loss of EU programs that are suspended. So the UK has to fix their budget to make sure the government of Northern Ireland has enough funding after the suspension of programs. The second is to find solutions to the trade between the borders after the grand-issue of trade agreement with a third-party nation of United Kingdom. Since the UK and Northern Ireland has to create another agreement with Ireland to fix the issues, but they are a Member State in the EU, so they have to follow the procedures of Brussels and apply for special provisions.

We can also see that the Republic of Ireland in the is report wants a United Ireland. That is not surprising, that they want the whole island to be united and one. Not be separated, but the colonial and historical unionist wants to separate the Irish, to be able to control the Irish. That is why the London government in the past has created issues on the Island. To say something else, is to forget history. Now, the United Kingdom needs Northern Ireland and they are in bed with Unionists. Therefore, the United dream of Ireland, will not be an effort that the UK and Northern Irish will fight for. Even if the NI leaders will not give away their power in London for being united with Dublin. Clearly, this report shows the struggles of Brexit and their relationship with Ireland. Peace.

Reference:

Houses of the Oireachtas – ‘Joint Committee on the Implementation of the Good Friday Agreement Brexit and the Future of Ireland – Uniting Ireland & Its People in Peace & Prosperity’ (3 August 2017)

The Tories-DUP Government gotten many new Brexit hurdles to crossover!

This wasn’t supposed to be this hard, never was it supposed to be so tricky and rocky, but Prime Minister Theresa May and her friend in Downing Street are not composing themselves in a simple way. From the outside, there are made to many rookie mistakes and also not enough precautions of the reactions to the United Kingdom Government own activity. Certainly, the alliance with Democratic Unionist Party of Northern Ireland isn’t making it easier. Since the London Government needs the Belfast ally to stay alive and breathing. That Issue has really come alive in the last two weeks, bot the value of the Nations within in the Union itself can be questioned, because the acts of Prime Minister May.

You are reckless and ruthless when your a nation of Wales, Northern Ireland, Scotland and England, plus a bunch of other territories, part of the Commonwealth. The United Kingdom Government, the Her Majesties Government, the Tories-DUP, the London-Belfast Alliance, should work carefully to the pledges and promises of impartiality, that meaning if the Welsh First Minister ask for more funding. It should happen, since the Northern Irish had a massive pay-day. When the Supply-And-Demand Agreement got signed. Also when the First Minister of Scotland needs to strengthen her seal and represent the Scottish Government. That FM should be respected by the Prime Minister. But in our days of loyalty to the Belfast. The PM only respect First Minister of Northern Ireland Arlene Foster and not FM of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon. Even pay her respects to First Minister Carwyn Jones. Just take a look!

Ditches the First Minister of Scotland:

A Tory minister quoted in a newspaper report yesterday signalled the end of the one-to-one meetings between the two party leaders. The “First Minister will no longer get access to the Prime Minister. She should be meeting David Mundell because he is the same level as her,” the source said. Reportedly, the Tories believe May coming to Scotland and making her first meeting as prime minister with Sturgeon, and posing for photographs on the steps of Bute House, made the Scottish leader “look like an international dignitary, rather than the leader of a devolved nation”. The remarks will infuriate not just SNP supporters but many in the Scottish Parliament, incensed that Downing Street believe the position of First Minister is equal to that of Secretary of State for Scotland” (Learmonth, 2017).

So it is not enough issues that the Prime Minister acts as a Royal and disgraces the First Minister of Scotland, because she favors her new friend in First Minister of Northern Ireland, Arlene Foster gave her the needed bump to still stay in Downing Street. That is why she can recklessly put First Minister Nicola Sturgeon in the shadow, but would she do the same to First Minister Carwyn Jones of Wales? Because of all of them are wearing their seals of their nations, which is part of the United Kingdom, a Union itself. It is not like London and England can rule over the territories without any checks- or balances. That is how it seems, since now the FM of Scotland has to be connected with Scottish State Secretary David Mundell before getting time with PM Theresa May. Wonder if FM Jones has to meet the Wales State Secretary before talking to the PM. We all know that FM Foster can walk straight into the Downing Street and demand respect because their agreement. It shows the political value of Northern Ireland and DUP, compared to the rest. While the DUP are not supposed to create an impartiality problem within the PM May government compared to the devolution and Stormont. Still, it seems so now, since Foster has elevated, while the Scottish are put into the shadow. That is why the Irish questions by the Brexit, makes it even further tumultuous in the negotiations with the EU. Since the Republic of Ireland want it to just and fair border. Something the House of Lords looked into in 2016. Take a look at what the Lords said and what the Taiseach said this week!

House of Lords Report No. 76:

Retaining customs-free trade between the UK and Ireland will be essential if the current soft border arrangements are to be maintained. The experience at other EU borders shows that, where a customs border exists, while the burden and visibility of customs checks can be minimised, they cannot be eliminated entirely. Nor, while electronic solutions and cross-border cooperation are helpful as far as they go, is the technology currently available to maintain an accurate record of cross-border movement of goods without physical checks at the border” (…) “The only way to retain the current open border in its entirety would be either for the UK to remain in the customs union, or for EU partners to agree to a bilateral UK-Irish agreement on trade and customs. Yet given the EU’s exclusive competence to negotiate trade agreements with third countries, the latter option is not currently available” (HL Paper 76, 12.12.2016).

Taiseach Leo Varadkar statement on the border:

Varadkar said: “What we’re not going to do is to design a border for the Brexiteers because they’re the ones who want a border. It’s up to them to say what it is, say how it would work and first of all convince their own people, their own voters that this is actually a good idea. As far as this government is concerned there shouldn’t be an economic border. We don’t want one.” The Department of Foreign Affairs in Dublin has said avoiding a hard border after Brexit will require “flexible and imaginative solutions”. The foreign affairs minister, Simon Coveney, told the Irish national broadcaster, RTE: “There is no proposal that is suggesting that there be a border in the Irish Sea.” (The Guardian, 2017).

When the UK-Irish agreement will be put on hold and made sure of a reasonable border, the United Kingdom will have another type agreement with the EU. Since they are not a direct member, but their whole arrangement will be concerning, which sort of trade agreement the UK will have with the EU. Since Ireland is part of the EU, the basic deal that UK will have with EU, will involve directly the manner of how the border will look. The open border will not be to Northern Ireland, if they become a third nation towards the EU, they will have to follow the measures that entails. It is not just customs, but migration in general.

So the Taiseach says the United Kingdom has to make a border that is fair since the voted for it. This shouldn’t hurt the Irish, because it was UK election who decided to have this and control their borders. That means, they also wants secure the borders towards Ireland and between Northern Ireland. Not only towards the rest of Europe and Calais, it must be broader and more systematic. Certainly, the Tories and the Brexiteers didn’t think this would be an issue, but they have to by all means work with a reasonable border, compared to how it is today. The UK has to respect their will to divorce themselves and the possible trade-agreement will affect their relationship with Ireland. Also, the effects between the joint peace agreement in Northern Ireland and how the border agreements there was written in.

This will be rocky road and nothing is certain, even the seals of the Scottish isn’t respected, only the Northern Irish FM Foster has that, wonder what sort of relationship the FM of Wales has with the PM. Especially, since the FM of Wales, also wants a payout to his Nation, since the Northern Irish got a massive pay-day after the snap-election. This Brexit will make the internal Union ugly, not only throwing trash at the Brussels, they have to clear-up show in Cardiff, Edinburgh and Belfast, as of their standing within the Union of United Kingdom. Peace.

Reference:

Learmonth, Andrew – ‘First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon told that Theresa May is too important to meet with her’ (22.07.2017) link: http://www.thenational.scot/news/15427709.First_Minister_of_Scotland_Nicola_Sturgeon_told_that_Theresa_May_is_too_important_to_meet_with_her/

The Guardian – ‘Ireland ‘will not design a border for the Brexiteers’, says taoiseach’ (28.07.2017) link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/28/taoiseach-leo-varadkar-ireland-not-design-border-brexiteers?CMP=share_btn_tw

House of Lords recommend flexible approach to migration because of Brexit!

The United Kingdom and their tales of glory, the former Empire and giant industrial hub of Europe, clearly have forgotten their place and trying to distance themselves from Europe. It will not be as easy as the Brexiteers and the Conservative Party. The Tories has to find their way while the negotiations are continuing with the European Union (EU). The leaving will cause grand-issues with migrations and also how the borders will close or be have different visa procedures. Therefore, the labour market and businesses will be hurt by this. Not only the direct trading between the UK and EU, but who get ability to be hired and who cannot come and work in low-educated jobs and low payed jobs. This is what the House of Lords looked into, and it is important to look into the matter. Because the matter isn’t straight forward. The answer is more flexible than what the UKIP and Brexit supporters inside the Conservative Party. Just take a look!

Labour and Immigration:

EU nationals make up 7 per cent of the total workforce. The Labour Force Survey provides estimates of the number of EU nationals working in particular sectors and the proportion they make up of the overall total. For example, the concentration of EU nationals is significantly higher in some sectors, reaching 14.2 per cent in accommodation and food services” (House of Lords, P: 19, 2017).

We strongly recommend that the Government develop a new immigration policy for implementation once the UK has left the European Union. It should consult on the needs of business and on a

time frame for implementing the new policy. Any new immigration system should not make an arbitrary distinction between higher skilled and lower-skilled work on the basis of whether a job requires an undergraduate degree. British businesses must have access to expertise and skills in areas such as agriculture and construction that would at present be categorised as lower-skilled occupations” (House of Lords, P: 24, 2017).

Lack of Migration workers – higher cost for consumers:

As some of our witnesses highlighted, pay is not the only consideration but there are now a large number of migrant workers in some sectors who will not easily be replaced by domestic workers. Competitive labour markets will see some price adjustment in response to labour shortages, with an associated increase in local labour supply. However, in some sectors, business models may have to change. As noted in the example of agriculture, this is likely to lead to higher prices for consumers” (House of Lords, P: 26, 2017).

We warned in our 2008 report on immigration that employment of migrant workers could lead to businesses neglecting skills and training for British workers. As the example of nursing highlights, these fears appear to have been realised. Training for the domestic workforce needs urgently to be given a higher priority” (House of Lords, P: 28, 2017).

The Government must also acknowledge that in order to achieve some of its other policy objectives, such as building 225,000–275,000 new homes each year, lower-skilled immigration may be required in the medium term to provide the necessary labour” (House of Lords, P: 31, 2017).

The objective of having migration at sustainable levels is unlikely to be best achieved by the strict use of an annual numerical target for net migration. Instead, such a target runs the risk of causing considerable disruption by failing to allow the UK to respond flexibly to labour market needs and economic conditions, as the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union has suggested is necessary. The objective of reducing migration to sustainable levels should be implemented flexibly and be able to take account of labour market needs, in particular during the implementation period” (House of Lords, P: 37, 2017).

You can easily see and envision the lack of agricultural short-term workers for heavy and low-paying jobs. This has to be hired by others and if they are UK citizens and such, they will not work for slice, but wont the whole pizza. That is why the end-game will be more cost for the consumer for what they in the past paid less for. Since the salaries of the UK citizens over the migrant worker are vastly different. Also, the possible problems of getting enough nursers and other educated to take the low-paying civil servants positions needed in the National Health Service. The House of Lords report can really show the implications of the migration and labour market the Brexit will have. Unless, the UK are planning such a soft border and open for EU nationals, than the changes will not be like night and day, but more like a similar day and just a little bit later on the same day.

Then the whole anti-Europe parades and campaigning lost. Since the Brexit became a shell of what it was supposed to be. It will be good for Europe and a pain for the Right in the UK. Certainly, the Farage’s of the world will hate this sort of report. Since the needed flexibility flexes against the will of the UKIP and Brexiteers amongst the Tories. They will be attacking this sort of report. Even if the Lords are impartial and uses accurate data. This shows the estimated effects of Brexit and the words of the Lords wasn’t dim! It can bring hope to Europe, but if the government will follow the recommendations and advise from the Lords; is something that time only can tell. Since the Tories would be showing weaker will to implement the idea behind the Brexit election, if they follow the advice of the Lords. That is not a easy bargain, but who said it would be? Peace.

Reference:

House of Lords – HL 11 – ‘Brexit and the Labour Market’ (21.07.2017)

Brexit: Request for a meeting and Comments to the UK Proposal 26 June (11.07.2017)