Malawi: Banned entry of Malema and Chishimba, because the DPP fears the TA Conference!

That the Transformation Alliance are planning to become a Political Party seems to stressful for the Republic of Malawi. This can be said, since the Ministry of Home Affairs and Internal Security, Hon. Grace Obama Chiumia ordered that two foreign speakers to a TA Conference we’re banned from the Republic. This is the Zambian politician Saviour Chishimba and the South African politician Julius Malema. TA must really upset the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) and the President Peter Mutharika, who is struggling in with the Cash-Gate and the Maize-Scandal, that has run the Republic.

The Malawian ruling party and President Mutharika must fear the possible TA becoming a single political party instead of a political pressure group. Since the pressure group has enough power to get two foreign high-level politicians to its conference. They would question the corruption and the problematic institutions lacking procedures to secure food storage. Just take a look!

BLANTYRE – Transformation Alliance (TA), a political pressure group, has announced that it has invited South African and Economic Freedom Fighters leader Julius Malema, and controversial Zambian politician Saviour Chishimba, to its first national conference end of August ahead of the 2019 elections” (…) “Chishimba is a darling to Malawians for being a whistle blower of the controversial maize deal between state grain trader, Agricultural Development and Marketing Corporation (Admarc), Zambia Cooperative Federation (ZCF), a government agency, and private company Kaloswe Commuter and Courier Ltd” (Kamanga, 2017).

Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) have threatened to take action to force the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) pay back the money it received from councils and parastatals during the blue night fundraising dinner held at Kamuzu Palace. According to reports, DPP solicited money from Blantyre City Council (BCC), Mzuzu City Council (MCC) and Lilongwe Water Board (LWB) totalling K13.5 million. Gift Trapence: The reports sparked anger among CSOs who demanded that DPP must pay back the money it got from the institutions” (…) “As Civil Society Organizations we are not going to allow having that impunity and we are warning the ruling party it will return that money come rain come sunshine,” said Trapence. He further urged President Peter Mutharika not to allow party members to be “insulting” the citizenry when they demand answers on issues of national interest” (Bisani, 2017).

Chakwera will join Julius Malema a well -known politician in South Africa, a firebrand agitator who is revered and disliked in equal measure as another speaker will be Zambia’s leader of United Party (UP), Saviour Chishimba and that he has already confirmed his attendance. TA spokesman, Leonard Chimbanga could not confirm or deny about Chakwera attending the conference late alone making a keynote address, but confirmed that the leader of opposition has been invited to attend the conference. “He has been invited since we share similar views on matters of national interests,” he said. Meanwhile, some officials within the alliance have told Nyasa Times that the pressure group is working on turning into a political party ahead of 2019 elections apart from working underground to forge an alliance with other political groupings including Malawi Congress Party (MCP) and Peoples Party (PP)” (Malawi Voice Reporter, 2017).

Clearly, the Malawian government are afraid of the TA. They fear what the opposition pressure group TA can gain from this conference. That is why they have banned the Zambian politician UP Chishimba and South African EFF Malema is barred from entering the country. This proves the problems Malawi government has with it’s opposition. Peace.

Reference:

Bisani, Luke – ‘CSOs threaten demos over blue night donations’ (16.08.2017) link: https://malawi24.com/2017/08/16/csos-threaten-demos-blue-night-donations/

Kamanga, Penelope Paliani – ‘Malawi’s pressure group invites Malema and Zambia’s Chishimba’ (14.08.2017) link: https://southernafrican.news/2017/08/14/malawis-pressure-group-invites-malema-and-zambias-chishimba/

Malawi Voice Reporter – ‘Kunkuyu’s Transformation Alliance Party Teams-Up With MCP Ahead Of 2019 Polls’ (16.08.2017) link: http://www.malawivoice.com/kunkuyus-transformation-alliance-party-teams-up-with-mcp-ahead-of-2019-polls/

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.

Opinion: Akena are officially a NRM-Stooge, as he was heckled defending the Land Amendment!

You know that the Uganda People’s Congress (UPC) are losing its value, when the leader of the Party is heckled in Lira. This is after the proposed agreement between UPC and National Resistance Movement, that have led to UPC Ministers in the growing cabinet of the 10th Parliament. Where even the wife Betty Amogi proposing and working for the constitutional amendment, who gives the state easier access to land. Because of this, UPC Leader Jimmy Akena has tried to promote the Land Amendment, but wasn’t meet with love.

As Mr Akena was trying to explain the merits of the amendment, hundreds of people who felt the area legislator was not making sense in his presentation shouted him down. “If we do not want to listen, I can sit down. I will sit but you give me this one minute…If you ignore [to understand] what is existing, you are not going to help yourselves,” Mr Akena said. The former Otuke District councillor, Ms Dina Bua, said it was “useless” to give Mr Akena more opportunity to talk about land matters. Mr Akena said: “I have heard somebody saying that this law is not relevant. This is the law of the land today.” (Oketch, 2017).

This here is the proof of the fall of the UPC. When Akena, the leader who ousted Olara Otunnu, are now heckled in Lira. Certainly, he sees now how the people understand the newly proposed law. That will make the land more accessible for the government to takeover. Akena are now really a stooge of the NRM. He is under the umbrella of UPC, but that is just convenient. Still, his acts and his words could have been ordered and sanctioned by Museveni.

There is now no difference between the NRM and UPC now, I called them a few months ago NRM-Lite, but that was to soft. They are far-stretched organization connected with the NRM and following the NRM way right now. Sounding and acting alike, there is not really different between Akena and Museveni, the only difference are the NRM are running it all from the State House. Akena are now trying to show his loyalty and making sure NRM see the need for him. Peace.

Reference:

Oketch, Bill – ‘MP Akena booed during debate on land amendment bill’ (14.07.2017) link:http://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/MP-Akena-debate-land-amendment-bill-Lango-Obote/688334-4056988-9ieqj1/index.html

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

Two newly declassified notes from 1954: Proves further plans by CIA and British to overthrow the Iranian Government!

Newly declassified notes are telling a story, a very short story on how the Americans and British planned a coup in Iran. The idea was from the British who set the problem like this: “The British Foreign Office has informed us that it would be deposed to attempt to bring a coup d e’tat in Iran, replacing the Mosadeq Government by one which would be more “reliable”, it the American Government agreed to cooperate” (Department of State, 26.11.1954).

Therefore, they continue to explain their plans, as the British has informed the US Department of State, their possible hostile takeover and coup d’etat, this is if they could cooperate over a cup of coffee and biscuits, to find plans to change the government in Teheran.

Reasons for the hostile takeover was: “While the Embassy representative (Bernard Burrows) did not give details of the British reasoning, it appears that the Foreign Office has come to this conclusion because (a) British Intelligence has reported that an organization which could handle this job exists in Iran, and (b) the Foreign Office sees virtually no prospect of an oil settlement with Mosadeq and has little hope that his Government will be able to prevent a communist takeover” (Department of State, 26.11.1954). So, the problematic government was because it couldn’t settle an oil agreement and therefore, the British justified a takeover, also used the Cold-War threat, to entice the Americans. Clearly, they wanted to settle the score and make sure they got the oil they needed for a cheap price.

It continues: “Another obvious and vital consideration is the degree of assurance we can have that preparations for the move and our connection with it would not become known, and that the coup would eventually succeed. CIA believes that the project is probably feasible and that it could probably be handled in such way that British and American connection with it never be proven. However, there can never be absolute assurance in regard to a matter of this kind especially in a country like Iran. Many things could go wrong” (Department of State, 26.11.1954). So the cooperation between the US and UK was planned in way, that they hope they didn’t leave behind trace of their conspiracy to bring down the Mosadeq government. That their loyal and possible coup-makers will not spill the beans and say they we’re supported by foreign forces. Clearly, the conspirators and planners knew they we’re trying to deceive the Iranians.

The second note, which is stated on the ‘Memorandum of Conservation’ on the subject of “British Proposal to Organize a coup d’etat in Iran”, that is made on the 3rd December 1954. An important quote there was: “Mr. Nitze asked whether it would not be possible to test out the organization with which the British are in contact in Iran by undertaking a campaign against Kashani and the Trudeh without trying to displace Dr. Mosadeq. If such a campaign were successful it would give good evidence of the possibility of staging a coup d’etat to put in a new government. Mr. Burrows did not think this would be interested in an operation which did not involve the removal of Mosadeq” (Department of State, 03.12.1954). So after a week of informal talks between the British and Americans, they are discussing more clearly the possibility of an actual coup. But, the price of it has to be paid, that being removing Mosadeq totally from the throne.

The last part of the note was actually this: “It was agreed that no action would be taken at the present time but that we would keep the suggestion in mind. It was also agreed that there should be no further discussion between CIA and the British intelligence representatives on the subject until further notice” (Department of State, 03.12.1954). So this documents shows they are planning further coups in Iran, just a year after the planned one in 1953. The CIA was really ready for puppet government in the Middle East. Also, because the British wanted the oil secured, they could force another leadership in Tehran. With this history and trying to control the republic, you can understand why the Iranians doesn’t trust the United States and the United Kingdom today. Peace.

President Yoweri Museveni Age Con-undrum!

It is strange how this becomes a thing, how these sort of things suddenly means so much. That is because someone loves to rewrite history and also his own. Since the Age Limit of the Presidential Candidate is fixed in the 1995 Constitution and Article 102(b). Which states the age that a President can have when running. For the old liberation hero, or liberator are trying to liberate himself from his past and his age. So he can run without amending the constitution, even if he has already pigeon-holding it.

Article 102 states: “A person is not qualified for election as President unless that person is—

(a) a citizen of Uganda by birth;

(b) not less than thirty-five years and not more than seventy-five years of age; and

(c) a person qualified to be a member of Parliament” (Constitution of 1995).

So in Mbarara, St Luke Kinoni Church of Uganda, the archives there are settling that Yoweri Museveni was baptized on the 3rd August 1947. In the first edition of the Mustard Seed he himself remembers: “The third childhood memory I retain was when we were baptised, along with Mzee Amosi Kaguta and Esteeri Kokundeka, on the 3rd of August 1947, at Kikoni Rwampara. By that time, I was almost three years” (Yoweri Museveni, Sowing the Mustard Seed, 1997). If his memory is correct when writing in 1996/1997, then he would be born about 1944 and would be 73 years old in 2017.

Well, there are documents proving it difficult to know his age. He got married on the 25th August 1973 at Christ Church at Turnham Green in London. Where he married his wife Janet Museveni. At this document. At this document he was an Army Officer and bachelor at the age of 27 years. That means he was born in 1946. This would mean that with this document and some easy calculation, say that the President is 71 years old.

The the latest official document is the birth certificate of Mohoozi Kainerubaga Tubuhaburwa who was born on the 24th April 1974, where Yoweri Museveni was the father and the mistress Hope Rwaheru. At this document it said his birthplace was Tare, Rwanda, but also said he was 30 years old. Another different was his occupation, he was an Operative in the Uganda State Research Bureau. This means again he was born in 1944. To settle him again to be 73 years old.

So there is a few lies somewhere as the documentation of his life is seemingly showing different ages and times. So he is twice said to be born around 1944, while his marriage certificate from United Kingdom says something else. What is inspiring is that on 25th August 1973 in the United Kingdom as he got married to Janet he was 27 years old, but by the birth of his son Muhoozi, he became 30 years old at the Loitokitok General Hospital, Coast Province in the Republic of Kenya, on the 24th April 1974. All of this is inspiring how the President could be 27 years old in United Kingdom and in Kenya, in the year after become 30 years of age. Also, either he was an operative at the Uganda State Research Bureau or he was Army Officer. This again proves how the records are differing in quick phase.

His documentation even says he was born in Tare, Rwanda, so if it wasn’t for the coup d’etat and the bush-war. Than he would have been dismissed for his birthplace, but none will challenge him on that. Then again to be running for 2021. He would no matter how you see it be older than 75 years, by both admissions. Since you have to add the years in-between 2016-2021. So with being either 71 or 73. Means you will add 4 years to the tally. It means if he was 71 years old, means he is 75 years old in 2021 and the other 77 years old. Which means he is to old to run!

But it is allowed to question the paperwork and difference in it, as it is in such short time, such massive differences! Peace.

USA: Gen. Mathis leaked Memo to DoD staff – “Subject: Ethical Standards for All Hands”

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)