Yanis Varoufakis and Brexit speech …

Yanis Varoufakis, I admire your books and the brave stand you take in world politics.

 

Talking to My Daughter About the Economy” is one of the greatest books that I have read on economics, which nicely explains world market conditions and capitalism in simpler words.

 

That said, pardon my shallow knowledge in economics, I politely disagree with your Brexit recommendations at the Royal Society on 7th Nov.

 

Why should the UK be part of a failing institute? If – as you mentioned – even in 1990s it was a bad idea to join the EU, why  should it now be better for Britain to self-harm itself by continuing in this relationship?

 

As you rightly mentioned in your speech, the money just reaches the Deutsche Bank either way.  So why should the UK continue in this mess knowingly?

 

Why should it not take this opportunity to be strong, independent and have a direct relationship with rest of the world, without the EU bureaucracy that mercilessly treated (and still treating) Greece?

 

I agree with you that the UK, like Indiana Jones, is running fast on a disintegrating bridge;  running as fast it can, away from a bureaucratic monstrosity.

 

The only way is forward and away.  Going back to EU or standing still is just not an option.

 

 

Advertisements

Article 50 and Labour Viewpoint

tuiip-siddiq

As Article 50 bill is getting ready, media is again highlighting conflicts within Labour.

I think these discussions are vital signs of an active party with supporters from all walks of life.

Internal Labour discussions are not much different from a REMAIN voted (then MP) PM presenting the Article 50 bill.

Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn both supported REMAIN, but the country voted otherwise.

Being respectful of that decision, both leaders are asking their respective MPs to pass Article 50 bill so that the negotiations with EU and rest of the world could commence.

This being the case, why single out the internal difference within Labour?

The referendum was not discussed and voted based on party affiliations.  Instead, supporters from all parties (except UKIP of course) were intensively divided to support both sides of the argument.

One of the sides won.

Now leaders of both major parties are asking their MPs to vote to support invoking Article 50.

I do not see anything wrong with it.

If Tulip Siddiq cannot understand that democratic process, it is better for her to resign.

Brexit, Judiciary and ruling on Article 50

Article50_court_ruling.png

Court ruling on Article 50 invocation dominates UK press and media for last couple of days.

A number of newspapers had headlines similar to “court vs. people” and calling the judges “enemies of people”.

Is it really so?  I do not think so.

The judges in their ruling clearly mentioned that “the court is not concerned with and does not express any view about the merits of leaving the EU, which is a political issue”.

Then what is the ruling?

The court was requested to decide whether the UK Government is entitled to invoke Article 50 without a reference to parliament.  The judges ruled that the Government cannot overlook the parliament.  The ruling also mentions that “the most fundamental rule of the UK’s constitution is that Parliament is sovereign and can make and unmake any law it choose.”

This principle is critical.

Not only it is critical, but it is what the referendum voters voted for, in a larger context.  The referendum results established the fact that UK voters do not like rules imposed on them by an un-elected EU parliament – which was what the PM and her Government were trying to do.

From that perspective, I even dare to say that the judges were more biased towards the Brexit results!

So, the ruling should not be considered as a blow to referendum result.  It only says that Government should now present the terms – that it intend to discuss and debate with EU – first with the parliament, and then initiate the Article 50 discussions.

From this perspective, the ruling indeed is a defeat of the Prime Minister Theresa May and her Government.  The PM and her Tory party should not rush in to the Article 50 discussions directly with the EU; instead it should properly debate UK’s case within the parliament, reach cross-party agreements and then – then only – invoke Article 50.

From this perspective, the ruling indeed is a defeat of the Prime Minister Theresa May and her Government.  The PM and her Tory party should not rush in to the Article 50 discussions directly with the EU; instead it should properly debate UK’s case within the parliament, reach cross-party agreements and then – then only – invoke Article 50.

Resignation of Tory MP Stephen Phillips underlines this fact.

Stephen Phillips is not only a Tory, but also backed EU exit.  Still, the MP is critical of Conservative government’s actions and accuses the PM of “trying to ignore the views of parliament and avoiding scrutiny of the government’s negotiating position”.

This is in line with the court ruling as well.

I do not think UK MPs are not that unintelligent to overlook referendum result which was backed by 52% of the voters.  If they are, then they should resign – at least those ones whose constituencies voted to Leave – and then look for a fresh mandate, before they should vote against invocation of Article 50.

What is your opinion?

BREXIT – What Next?

sunrise-1371391077dmN

We are in a shock, even at end of the weekend.

I will say a good, pleasant shock.

Shock from realizing the fact that it is possible to be strong to stand for what we believe in.

Strong enough to say no to establishment, no to the disconnected politicians, no to banks and economic institutions, no to the world politicians who want to impose their selfish decisions on us.

Against all these massive, imposing establishments we strongly replied with a “No, thank you”.

We, as a country, have spoken to stay away from EU.  The verdict is in.  Let us respect the verdict and move ahead.

The question is how?  How should we move ahead?  What are the immediate steps?

I could think of the following:

1. Heal the wounds

First of all, heal the self-inflicted wounds.  The referendum was not less than a fierce war.  Cabinet members against each other, party members against each other, friends against each other; people in all wakes of lives trading verbal – and even physical – blows against each other.  In hindsight, the referendum war could’ve been fought with much less animosity and hatred from both sides.

It is now time to remove the hate and anger against each other.  It is time to realise that democracy has spoken and we are in this together to move forward.

2. Give time for reactions to calm down

Currently, the fear, doubt, anger and frustration of all who stood against the Leave vote are in full play.  These emotions results in the reactive, negative responses.

Whether it is

  • rest of the world (market / pound crashes, negative ratings),
  • the Remain supporters (fear, resignations, unbelief, sarcasm)
  • European Leads (demands for quick action),
  • Countries participating in the UK (Scottish/Irish referendum asks to get out of UK) or even

Let us give them time to express their emotions and fears.  After the initial reactions, the emotions will calm down.  Once done, the brains and minds will regain control.  Once in control, logic will eventually kick-in.  The logic will shed light to facts on what UK is, and how much is in stake for all involved.

3. Give ample time to think what we want and how best we could achieve it. 

Ignore the warnings, threats and demands from the EU leaders on quick actions.  Heck, it is this arrogance and aggressive behavior we voted to come out of!  Are they trying to scare us with the same trick again?!

The Remain / Leave referendum was an internal affair to find out what we think as a country.  We have not yet given any formal information or notice to the “EU-elites”! Per books, UK is still where we were before 23rd June.

So take this period to think – all possibilities, circumstances and ways forward.

4.  Change the Government, cabinet and thus it’s through process.

The current lot stood too strongly for Remain and they are defeated.  It is not logical, fair or viable to expect that the group who were dead against an action will work towards fulfilling the same – against their wills.

At the very least, there should be a leadership change.  David Cameron, his Exchequer and the EU-supporting cabinet members SHOULD step aside.  Even better will be a general election, through which the public can elect a new lot to kick-start the next actions.

5.  Once all of above are in place, it is time to take each debated item, one by one.  

Once we are ready, it is time to take each debated item, one by one:

(a) Immigration: Debate, discuss and put in place a comprehensive immigration policy that is global based, controlled based on requirements and skills, at the same time compassionate on asylum seeks from war-torn countries and others with humanitarian requirements.

(b) Re-allocation of EU contributions to

  • NHS
  • Farmers / Fisheries
  • Education / science / research
  • Businesses  and industries that need support

I am not an expert.  It is the job for economists to explain how this can be achieved.

But I am sure of one thing.  If EU were able take money from us and give a fraction of it as giveback and satisfy above group of our fellow country-men, then we could surely be able to use the whole contribution to make their lives even better.

(c)  Co-operation with rest of the world – including EU

(d)  TU working rules, facilities and benefits

(e)  Industries, businesses and economic institutions.

I have a lot to write on each of these items!  On that in coming days/weeks.

6.  Invoke Article 50

Once we are ready, then – AND THEN ONLY – invoke article 50.

Per me, these are the immediate next steps to convert the SHOCK to STRENGTH.

There is nothing to lose, but a lot to gain, if we are TOGETHER.

We can successfully accomplish what we voted for, if we stand TOGETHER.

We can see the UK getting stronger, powerful in not very distant future – if we work for it, TOGETHER.

 

Anders Breivik and Human Rights….

I refer you to the BBC news on Anders Breivik’s human rights case.

Anders Breivik, the mass killer, accuses the Norwegian government of breaching two clauses of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). One of the clauses guarantees the right to respect for “private and family life” and “correspondence”, while the other prohibits “inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment”.

He also complains of poorly decorated cell with no view, cold coffee and not enough butter for bread. Have a look at his prison cell, which looks like more like a metropolitan studio apartment with TV and computer.

BREXIT QUERY: What facilities are expected to be provided by an EU prison to a mass killer?