Home » Posts tagged 'Brexit' (Page 50)
Tag Archives: Brexit
To BE, or not to BE, that is the Brexit Question
by John Brian Shannon | September 7, 2016
To Be, or not to Be (from Hamlet 3:1)
by William Shakespeare
To be, or not to be: that is the question. Whether ’tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them?
To die: to sleep no more, and by sleep we say end the heartache and the thousand natural shocks that flesh is heir to, ’tis a consummation devoutly to be wish’d.
To die, to sleep. To sleep. Perchance to dream. Ay, there’s the rub; For in that sleep of death what dreams may come when we have shuffled off this mortal coil must give us pause. There’s the respect that makes calamity of so long life.
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time, the oppressor’s wrong, the proud man’s contumely, the pangs of despised love, the law’s delay, the insolence of office and the spurns that patient merit of the unworthy takes, when he himself might his quietus make with bare bodkin?
Who would fardels bear to grunt and sweat under a weary life; But that the dread of something after death, the undiscover’d country from whose bourn no traveller returns, puzzles the will and makes us rather bear those ills we have, than fly to others that we know not?
Thus conscience does make cowards of us all; and thus the native hue of resolution is sicklied o’er with the pale cast of thought, and enterprises of great pith and moment with this regard, their currents turn awry and lose the name of action.
Soft you now the fair Ophelia! Nymph, in thy orisons, be all my sins remember’d.
Courtesy of Art of Europe
And so it is with regards to Brexit.
It would be so much easier to not Brexit and to continue along in a substandard life rather than strive to become more — the so much more that Britain is capable of should she decide to shrug-off her complacency and (declining) comforts.
What is a calling more than a science, a search more than a destination, a way of life more than a set of rules issued by others in foreign countries? It’s name? Democracy.
And that’s what the Brexiters are looking for, whether stated or unstated, whether fully reasoned in advance or not.
The same sort of people who threw off the blanket in the time of King George III in search of a more democratic government (“No taxation without representation!”) are the same sort of people who don’t want Brussels to dictate the price of bread or the ingredients in their butter. Let’s be honest, the EU has rules on everything from how many fish in a can of kippers to the price of petrol, and everything in between.
Many of these rules are good and fair rules to be sure. However, they are rules made in Brussels for the benefit of EU corporations and the EU’s 504 million citizens — and Britain’s input is minimal with only 64 million people. To put it succinctly, only the utterly naive Britons think EU membership revolves around them and that the EU was created for Britain’s benefit.
Each year, billions more pounds sterling leave Britain than the country receives in return. The early American settlers railed against “No taxation without representation!” — yet this situation is worse because there is some amount of representation, but it is representation in a foreign capital, by foreigners, and with the demands of 440 million other EU citizens taking priority over British citizens. It is a carefully crafted schadenfreude and almost every EU nation is on the receiving end of it — including Britain and Germany.
Not only that, but those billions of pounds could be better-spent by a British government that dedicates itself to the people of Britain.
The way forward for the well-being of Britain’s people is not by handing billions of pounds sterling and complete authority over their lives to eurocrats in Brussels — the way forward is by increasing trade links with all Anglosphere nations and by forging evermore bilateral trade links around the world with non-Anglo nations.
True Democracy doesn’t require the handing-over of all the money and all of the rights in exchange for whatever allowance Brussels deems to send in return.
That’s not Democracy, that’s Prostitution.
Brexit: The Path to UK Sovereignty
by John Brian Shannon | August 26 2016
As the UK government gears up to deal with the will of voters, four paths to trade in Europe appear that merit consideration
- EEA membership
- EFTA membership
- WTO rule-based membership, sans EEA or EFTA
- Negotiated trade deals that are none of the above
EEA membership would qualify Britain to trade with other EEA member nations, all of which are located in Europe, but not all are members of the European Union.
From the EEA website:
The EEA Agreement provides for the inclusion of EU legislation covering the four freedoms — the free movement of goods, services, persons and capital — throughout the 31 EEA States. In addition, the Agreement covers cooperation in other important areas such as research and development, education, social policy, the environment, consumer protection, tourism and culture, collectively known as “flanking and horizontal” policies. The Agreement guarantees equal rights and obligations within the Internal Market for citizens and economic operators in the EEA.
What is the EEA Not?
The EEA Agreement does not cover the following EU policies:
- Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies (although the Agreement contains provisions on various aspects of trade in agricultural and fish products);
- Customs Union;
- Common Trade Policy;
- Common Foreign and Security Policy;
- Justice and Home Affairs (even though the EFTA countries are part of the Schengen area); or
- Monetary Union (EMU).
The Agreement on the European Economic Area, which entered into force on 1 January 1994, brings together the EU Member States and the three EEA EFTA States — Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway — in a single market, referred to as the “Internal Market”.
Switzerland is not part of the EEA Agreement, but has a bilateral agreement with the EU. You can read more about this agreement on the European Commission website, and on the Swiss Federal Administration website.
EFTA membership governs free trade relations between EFTA States, which in 2016 are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland. Britain was a founding member of the EFTA in 1960 until 1973 when it joined the EC. It would need to apply to the EFTA in order to become a member.
From the EFTA website:
The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) is an intergovernmental organisation set up for the promotion of free trade and economic integration to the benefit of its four Member States.
The Association is responsible for the management of:
- The EFTA Convention, which forms the legal basis of the organisation and governs free trade relations between the EFTA States;
- EFTA’s worldwide network of free trade and partnership agreements; and
- The European Economic Area (EEA) Agreement, which enables three of the four EFTA Member States (Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway) to participate in the EU’s Internal Market.
EFTA was founded in 1960 on the premise of free trade as a means of achieving growth and prosperity amongst its Member States as well as promoting closer economic cooperation between the Western European countries. Furthermore, the EFTA countries wished to contribute to the expansion of trade globally.
Based on these overall goals, EFTA today maintains the management of the EFTA Convention (intra-EFTA trade), the EEA Agreement (EFTA-EU relations), and the EFTA Free Trade Agreements (third country relations). The EFTA Convention and EFTA free trade agreements are managed by the Geneva office, and the EEA Agreement by the Brussels office.
EFTA was founded by the Stockholm Convention in 1960. The immediate aim of the Association was to provide a framework for the liberalisation of trade in goods amongst its Member States. At the same time, EFTA was established as an economic counterbalance to the more politically driven European Economic Community (EEC). Relations with the EEC, later the European Community (EC) and the European Union (EU), have been at the core of EFTA activities from the beginning. In the 1970s, the EFTA States concluded free trade agreements with the EC; in 1994 the EEA Agreement entered into force. Since the beginning of the 1990s, EFTA has actively pursued trade relations with third countries in and beyond Europe. The first partners were the Central and Eastern European countries, followed by the countries in the Mediterranean area. In recent years, EFTA’s network of free trade agreements has reached across the Atlantic as well as into Asia.
EFTA was founded by the following seven countries: Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom. Finland joined in 1961, Iceland in 1970 and Liechtenstein in 1991. In 1973, the United Kingdom and Denmark left EFTA to join the EC. They were followed by Portugal in 1986 and by Austria, Finland and Sweden in 1995. Today the EFTA Member States are Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland.
World Trade Organization (WTO) membership is perhaps the easiest way forward as Britain (and virtually all nations) are already members and the WTO is merely a standardized set of rules that govern trade between nations.
The present ruleset governing UK trade is the EU ruleset, meaning that who the UK trades with, tariff rates, and other rules and conditions have been decided by 28 EU nations — and not always in the interests of the UK — but in the combined interest of 504 million EU citizens.
The main thrust of this means that WTO rules would continue and that the UK would not be allowed to charge higher tariffs on EU-sourced imports, than what the EU charges on UK imports into the EU. Although the UK could certainly decide to charge lower tariffs than the EU charges. That could be a significant benefit for some UK industries.
There are other benefits to WTO membership. And as most nations are WTO members anyway, the ruleset is well-understood around the world.
In February 2014, the Swiss voted in a referendum to no longer pursue EU membership and left the bloc. The government of Switzerland has therefore negotiated a series of bilateral trade agreements with the European Union AND is a member of the EFTA, but not the EEA.
Of course, WTO rules still apply — unless both parties agree to abrogate or change some of the WTO rulesets.
Keep in mind that both the EFTA and EEA are European trading area agreements and don’t apply anywhere else in the world, while the WTO applies everywhere.
Therefore, non-EU trade will be largely governed by WTO rules (as is the case with most countries) while Britain’s trade with the EU could take several different paths.
Any combination of WTO, EFTA, or EEA, or bilateral agreements that supercede WTO rulesets could be negotiated between Britain and the EU.
At the end of it all, why did 17 million+ voters choose to Brexit?
Two main themes appeared to gain considerable traction during the campaign.
One, the democratic deficit in Brussels, and two, the wholly unregulated movement of people from eastern Europe and the Middle East/Levant and a complete breakdown of the Schengen Area border control system.
Brexit effectively solves the democratic deficit problem in Brussels by returning governance to the House of Commons and the House of Lords. While the mass migration problem is solved as Brexit returns sovereignty of Britain’s borders to the UK government.
The revised EFTA convention (the Vaduz Convention) extends beyond free trade in goods, and includes provisions on free trade in services and the free movement of capital and of persons. None of these should be problematical to the UK given that the Vaduz Convention only applies between its members and so would not act as a gateway for the free movement of persons from the r-EU or elsewhere. All four EFTA states have standards of living comparable to or even higher than the UK so do not present any mass migration risk. — Brexit and International Trade Treaties, The European Free Trade Association (EFTA)
Recommended Read Brexit and International Trade Treaties by Lawyers for Britain
None of this can occur until Article 50 is triggered and a 24 month clock begins ticking to end Britain’s membership in the European Union.
It would be quite wonderful if Prime Minister Theresa May would hold a press conference every six months to inform Britons of the various areas of progress and ongoing obstructions until the Brexit process is complete — a process that could take as long as 5-10 years from the June 23, 2016 start date.
We are in uncharted waters and Britons are excited to be getting their country back. They know it’s going to take time, resolve, and they know full well that there will be difficulties along the path to restoring Britain’s full sovereignty. But the payoff in 5-10 years will be brilliant.
Whatever Britain is now, it’s only going to get better.
Brexit: A Warning for Globalization
Seventeen million Britons voted to leave the EU, and the world wants to know why.
Could it be the Economy?
All EU citizens are feeling the pressure of falling purchasing power and lower employment levels, but only Britons have had the opportunity to leave the European Union for a shot at a better existence.
I suggest that the bottom two economic quintiles in every EU nation would choose to leave the EU today! if they could, and for the same reasons voters in the United Kingdom voted Brexit on June 23, 2016.
That’s 203 million people out of a grand total of 508 million EU citizens who now find themselves in the bottom two economic quintiles in the European Union.
That is some statistic!
If the European economy was rocking along at a furious rate, it mightn’t be too much of a problem.
GDP growth is flat and EU unemployment is cast at 9 percent of the total workforce — but in reality it’s much higher, as huge numbers of people have given up looking for work and aren’t counted on official unemployment statistics, nor are those who’ve returned to college because they can’t find a suitable job, nor are those who find themselves on some kind of government (welfare) support. Which makes the real EU unemployment rate in excess of 20 percent.
Official youth unemployment in the EU ranges from 50 percent in Greece, to 45 percent in Spain, to 37 percent in Italy, to an EU-low of 7 percent for Germany.
And like elsewhere in the developed world many EU jobs are entry-level jobs. And sure, the people who have those jobs know they’re lucky to have them — but they also know they’ll never ‘get ahead in life’ for as long as they stay at that job.
It isn’t an EU-only problem. In recent decades, a larger proportion of employment opportunities are low-paying jobs as multinational corporations automate many of the operations formerly performed by skilled workers.
Why pay a human, when you can pay a machine less?
Could it be a lack of Democracy?
All over the EU, everything from the price of bread to how many migrants are allowed into your EU-member country are decided by unelected mandarins in the EU’s version of the Soviet Politburo.
With an official unemployment rate of 9 percent which equates to +21 million people (but a real unemployment rate of +20 percent, which equates to 44 million unemployed people) and 203 million people living in the bottom two economic quintiles; When you combine their numbers with the people who’ve had enough of being told how to live by the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels, you arrive at enough votes to exit the European Union. Exactly as happened in the UK last week.
Here’s the rough math on that for the entire EU:
- Total population of the EU = 508 million
- Of those EU citizens, 203 million are living in the bottom two economic quintiles + 44 million real unemployed + a minimum of 20 million voters living unhappily with the unelected mandarin situation in Brussels = 267 million unhappy EU citizens
- 508 million – 267 million unhappy voters (‘leavers’) = 241 million who would probably vote for continued EU membership (‘remainers’)
Do you see how the UK accumulated enough votes to leave the European Union?
If a vote were held in every EU country today, the exact same result would occur as in the UK last week.
And everyone would blame their economic woes, their lack of employment and quality of their employment, and the lack of democratic process in Brussels, for their decision to vote against EU membership.
Could it be Globalization?
Globalization has done some wonderful things for consumers over the past 25 years, some of which have been quite unnoticed by citizens.
It’s fair to say that globalization ushered in an era of low-priced and higher quality goods than would otherwise have been available. It’s also fair to say that consumers have a much wider selection of goods to choose from.
And importantly, competition dramatically sharpened between corporations — which increased productivity, efficiency, national GDP statistics, and has helped developing nations to become net assets to the global economy instead of draining the strength of the world economy.
It’s all good – except the parts that aren’t
The downsides of globalization are understood; Higher unemployment, lower wages, lower quality jobs, offshoring millions of jobs, the increased power of corporations vs. citizens, and the fear of our societies transitioning from true democracies into corrupt plutocracies.
Now that we’ve reaped the benefits of globalization (but lost the UK in the process!) now might be a good time to address some of the inadequacies of globalization before we lose significantly more.
“We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” — Albert Einstein
Legislation can solve every one of these problems if the political will exists.
If a higher minimum wage is legislated throughout the 28 EU nations (say, 15 euros per hour) and if people who earn less than 25,000 euros per year are exempted from paying income tax, and if job-sharing schemes are made mandatory with a view to employ every worker for a minimum of 6 months per year; Not only could the bottom two economic quintiles have an opportunity to improve their lives for the first time in decades, they will resume their normal voting patterns (which is more often than not) reelecting incumbent politicians and voting to remain in existing political unions.
See how easy it is?
“If you treat an individual as if he were what he can and should be, he will become what he can and should be.” — Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
By addressing the negatives of globalization, the EU could still become what it can and should be.
And by addressing the democratic gap in Brussels where unelected officials can never, ever, be removed by voters no matter how odious the policies, the European Union could become what it can and should be.
And that’s an EU worth joining.
Related Article:
- Brexit is a rejection of globalisation (The Guardian)
- EU referendum: The result in maps and charts (BBC)
Letter to Britain 