Honest Money

Il convient de rectifier l’erreur de de Gaulle et de remplacer le principe des retraites par répartition par celui des retraites par capitalisation.

Or, Macron déclare le 11 avril à Denain (Nord)à la BBC qu’il ne veut pas laisser la question sociale à l’extrême droite pour alors venir déclarer à Marseille cinq jours plus tard que l’Etat providence a résolu cette question.

==

La durée de vie du principe des retraites par répartition, en vertu duquel les actifs cotisent pour financer les pensions des retraités, principe instauré par de Gaulle, est longtemps dépassée. Le principe doit être remplacé par celui des retraites par capitalisation où le futur retraité se constitue une épargne dont il pourra jouir lors de ses vieux jours mais sans compter sur le soutien de ses compatriotes ; chacun cotise pour soi sans qu’il n’y ait de redistribution. (1)

A Denain dans le Nord, Marine Le Pen a obtenu au premier tour du 10 avril 2022 des élections pour le président de la république française 41% des votes, une avance confortable sur Jean-Luc Mélenchon. 28% des électeurs ont voté pour le candidat des Insoumis. Le président sortant Emmanuel Macron récolte 14% des voix. Éric Zemmour termine en-dessous des 4%. (2)

Le lundi 11 avril 2022, Macron s’est rendu à Denain pour « comprendre ».

Et Macron de déclarer à la Voix du Nord :
« On va en faire quelque chose de très social, la solidarité à la source, c’est-à-dire que les gens toucheront leurs prestations sociales directement (…). J’ai un projet de vérité et de sérieux, un projet de production et de « justice » sociale. » (3)

A la BBC, Macron déclarera qu’il ne veut pas laisser la « question » sociale, qui est un des points fondamentaux des programmes de la gauche, à l’extrême droite.
(“I did not want to leave the social question to the far right”, minute 16:22)
C’est pour cela qu’il est venu a Denain. (4)
BBC World Service – Newshour, Pakistan gets a new PM after week-long uncertainty
Lundi 11 avril 2022 22h06, heure de Denain
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w172yfbwz3p48zh

Lors de son meeting à Marseille le samedi 16 avril 2022, Macron déclarait par contre que « face à la « question » sociale, la France a inventé l’Etat providence. » (5)

Notre système de retraites est un des piliers de l’Etat providence. Ce pilier est fondé sur le contrat entre les générations.

Nous écrivions il y a deux décennies qu’afin de réduire la pauvreté des classes âgées, le principe de la répartition, le socle du contrat entre les générations, est, selon Claudine Attias-Donfut de la Caisse Nationale d’Assurance Vieillesse (CNAV), au cœur de notre système national de retraites qui a été institué en 1945. En vertu de ce principe, les cotisations des actifs servent à payer immédiatement les retraites, tout en leur ouvrant des droits pour leur future retraite
Les principes fondateurs de ce système étaient dès 1945 ceux de la solidarité, de la générosité, de l’égalité et de la fraternité. L’accent était mis sur la solidarité. Ainsi est né le concept de la solidarité entre les générations. Selon Anne-Marie Guillemard, professeur de sociologie des Universités Paris V, il est apparu petit à petit que les générations n’étaient pas du tout solidaires, mais se trouvaient placées dans une compétition vive pour les ressources de plus en plus réduites des Etats-providence en crise. (6)

En 20 ans, rien n’a été fait pour résoudre ce problème de sorte que le maire de Nice Christian Estrosi, ex-membre des Républicains aujourd’hui soutien d’Emmanuel Macron, pouvait déclarer sur BFM TV à l’occasion du meeting de Macron le samedi 16 avril 2022 à Marseille que « notre » système de retraites par répartition, ce pilier de « notre » Etat-providence, est sur le point d’exploser, ce qu’il convient à tout prix d’éviter car c’est le président de Gaulle qui a instauré la répartition et non la capitalisation des cotisations.

Et Estrosi de conclure que« la retraite à 65 ans, est la seule voie qui nous permettra de préserver notre système de retraite par répartition. »(7)

Non, Monsieur Estrosi, il convient de rectifier l’erreur de de Gaulle et de remplacer le principe des retraites par répartition par celui des retraites par capitalisation.

Ceci est la question sociale qu’il convient d’adresser d’urgence.

Mais la situation (sic) en Ukraine empêche Macron de comprendre l’effondrement de notre système de retraites. Et Macron de déclarer à Denain à la BBC le 11 avril qu’il ne veut pas laisser la question sociale à l’extrême droite pour alors venir déclarer à Marseille cinq jours plus tard que l’Etat providence a résolu cette question.

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

NOTES

(1)
Le système de retraite par répartition est considéré aujourd’hui comme un acquis social et un symbole de solidarité entre générations : les actifs cotisent pour financer les pensions des retraités. Dans le discours, ce mode de financement est opposé au système par capitalisation qui, en France, résonne comme une forme d’individualisme : le futur retraité se constitue une épargne dont il pourra jouir lors de ses vieux jours mais sans compter sur le soutien de ses compatriotes ; chacun cotise pour soi sans qu’il n’y ait de redistribution.
Pour autant, c’est bien le système par capitalisation qui a été choisi en premier lors de la création des grands régimes de retraite à la fin du XIXe siècle en Allemagne et au début du XXe en France. Des systèmes qui garantissaient déjà une pension pour le restant de sa vie mais qui furent écartés et supplantés à l’issue de la Seconde Guerre mondiale.
Capitalisation puis répartition : l’histoire de nos retraites (franceculture.fr)
https://www.franceculture.fr/societe/capitalisation-puis-repartition-lhistoire-de-nos-retraites

(2)
À Denain, Le Pen arrive largement en tête à 41% devant Mélenchon puis Macron – La Voix du Nord
https://www.lavoixdunord.fr/1164969/article/2022-04-10/denain-les-premiers-resultats-partiels-donnent-marine-le-pen-en-tete
Au premier tour de la présidentielle, Marine Le Pen a au final raflé plus de 41% des votes, avec une avance confortable sur Jean-Luc Mélenchon. 28% des électeurs ont voté pour le candidat des Insoumis. Le président sortant Emmanuel Macron récolte 14% des voix. Éric Zemmour termine en-dessous des 4%.

(3)
Emmanuel Macron à «La Voix du Nord» : «Mon devoir est de réconcilier» – La Voix du Nord
Laurent Decotte et Julien Lécuyer
Publié: 12 Avril 2022 à 00h32
https://www.lavoixdunord.fr/1165614/article/2022-04-12/emmanuel-macron-la-voix-mon-devoir-est-de-reconcilier
« On va en faire quelque chose de très social, la solidarité à la source, c’est-à-dire que les gens toucheront leurs prestations sociales directement (…). J’ai un projet de vérité et de sérieux, un projet de production et de justice sociale. »

(4)
BBC World Service – Newshour, Pakistan gets a new PM after week-long uncertainty, minute 16:22
Lundi 11 avril 2022 22h06, heure de Denain
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/w172yfbwz3p48zh
I did not want to leave the social question to the far right, minute 16; 22

(5)
Actualités | Présidentielle 2022 – Meeting à Marseille : Macron propose une “fête de la nature” en mai | La Provence
https://www.laprovence.com/actu/en-direct/6731944/presidentielle-2022-meeting-a-marseille-macron-propose-une-fete-de-la-nature-en-mai.html
Pour le président candidat, cette fête de la nature « serait un moment d’union nationale autour de nos paysages, de notre art de vivre, de la protection de notre environnement. Elle serait le signal envoyé au monde que la France qui, face à la question sociale, avait inventé l’Etat providence, ambitionne aujourd’hui de devenir la grande nation écologique ».

(6)
C’est la faute à Rawls – contrat social et solidarité entre les générations
Ivo Cerckel, le 1er octobre 2003

C’est la faute à Rawls – contrat social et solidarité entre les générations

(7)
Présidentielle 2022 : Christian Estrosi veut un gouvernement avec ceux qui appellent à voter Macron (20minutes.fr)
Publié le 13/04/22 à 04h52 — Mis à jour le 13/04/22 à 09h57

Une union sans « dévoyer l’esprit du projet » de Macron
Mais cela devrait se faire « sans pour autant dévoyer l’esprit du projet porté » par Emmanuel Macron. « Quand je dis ne pas dévoyer, je pense à ces marqueurs qui s’ils étaient dénaturés mettraient en danger notre système social, et notamment à la retraite à 65 ans, un marqueur fort et structurant pour l’avenir, qui certes peut être amendé (…) mais dont on sait qu’il est la seule voie qui nous permettra de préserver notre système de retraite par répartition », a précisé l’élu azuréen.

The central bank of Singapore, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), nor the central bank of the USA, the Federal Reserve (Fed), see the urgency of central bank digital currency (CBDC).

On Monday 08 November 2021,Fed Governor Michelle Bowman said that given the safety and efficiency of the U.S. payment system she doesn’t see much of a reason for the Fed to issue a U.S. central bank digital currency.
“I’m not really sure that I understand or see the business case for creating it,” Bowman said, noting that the Fed is currently putting together a paper looking at the pros and cons of the issue as a “conversation starter.” That paper should come out soon, she said. (1)

Today Tuesday 09 November 20221, MAS) chief Ravi Menon, speaking at the Singapore Fintech Festival 2021 in a session called “The Future of Money, confirmed that
there are presently neither strong reasons for or against a CBDC retail central bank digital currency (CBDC) in Singapore, even as he noted that interest in these digital versions of cash has “risen sharply” in the last 2 years. (2)

Menon went on to add that the MAS recognises that there could be potential benefits offered by innovative retail CBDC solutions in the future. And that the MAS is therefore And The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is embarking on “Project Orchid” to build the technology, infrastructure and technical competencies that are necessary to issue a digital Singapore dollar should it decide to do so in the future. (3)

Here’s the speech of the MAS managing director

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel@yahoo.com

NOTES

(1)
Fed’s Bowman doesn’t see case for U.S. central bank digital currency
By Reuters Staff
November 9, 2021
https://www.reuters.com/article/usa-fed-bowman-cbdc/feds-bowman-doesnt-see-case-for-u-s-central-bank-digital-currency-idUSS0N2O401R

(2)
Case for digital Singdollar ‘not urgent’, but MAS recognises benefits of retail CBDCs: Ravi Menon
TUE, NOV 09, 2021 – 10:00 AM
KELLY NG
https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/banking-finance/case-for-digital-singdollar-not-urgent-but-mas-recognises-benefits-of-retail-cbdcs

(3)
MAS embarks on ‘Project Orchid’ to build retail CBDC capabilities
Khairani Afifi Noordin Published on Tue, Nov 09, 2021 / 9:22 AM GMT+8 /
https://www.theedgesingapore.com/news/disruption-and-digitalisation/mas-embarks-project-orchid-build-retail-cbdc-capabilities

Ine Van Wymersch is procureur des Konings van het Parket Halle-Vilvoorde.
Mark Eyskens is Minister van Staat van de Koning der Belgen, da’s dezelfde Koning van Wie Ine procureur is.
Op vrijdag 12 maart 2021 spreken ze beiden op de jaarlijkse VRG-Alumnidag te Leuven.

“De coronacrisis verziekt de hele mensheid. Na vaccinatie is maatschappelijke revalidatie vereist, nationaal en internationaal, sociaal economisch, institutioneel, politiek, ethisch. Wat houdt dit in en zijn wij daartoe in staat?”, vraagt Mark.

Enerzijds is er het probleem dat geen corona-vaccin getest werd op haar lange-termijn werking. (Kan ook niet. Er is (nog) geen tijd genoeg geweest.)
Anderzijds is er het probleem dat wegwerp-mondmaskers en wegwerp- Persoonlijke Beschermingsmiddelen (PBM) uiteindelijk in zee belanden om dan opgegeten te worden door vissen die dan op hun beurt opgegeten worden door o.a. zwangere vrouwen om dan in het placenta van hun foetus te belanden. Dit tweede probleem zal ik belichten aan de hand van artikels van de BBC en het Britse dagblad The Guardian.

De vraag van Mark dient dient dan ook negatief beantwoord.

AANZET

Het Vlaams Rechtsgenootschap (VRG) is de vereniging van de alumni van de faculteit rechtsgeleerdheid van de KU Leuven.
De VRG-Alumniprijs wordt jaarlijks toegekend aan een verdienstelijke alumnus die zich maatschappelijk bijzonder onderscheiden heeft.
Op vrijdag 12 maart 2021 wordt de prijs uitgereikt aan Ine tijdens de academische zitting van de jaarlijkse VRG-Alumnidag, die dit jaar online plaatsvindt.
Ine wordt in de bloemetjes gezet omdat zij haar functie vervult op een manier die justitie een moderne en slagkrachtige uitstraling geeft. Haar optreden wordt getekend door een groot sociaal en maatschappelijk engagement, zo luidt het.
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/vrgalumni/alumniprijs

De academische zitting wordt die namiddag, zoals trouwens jaarlijks, voorafgegaan door een aantal voordrachten, lezingen die dit jaar online plaats vinden.

De jaarlijkse lezing van Prof. em. Mark Eyskens, alumnus van de faculteit, da’s dezelfde als de Minister van Staat, betreffende (het vak) “maatschappelijke filosofie” draagt dit jaar
“Welke lessen leren van Corona ?” als titel
en als ondertitel:
“De coronacrisis verziekt de hele mensheid. Na vaccinatie is maatschappelijke revalidatie vereist, nationaal en internationaal, sociaal economisch, institutioneel, politiek, ethisch. Wat houdt dit in en zijn wij daartoe in staat?”
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/vrgalumni/alumnidag/dag28.html

Als softenon-monster meen ik enkele nuttige overwegingen te kunnen voegen bij het debat.

Nadat Frankrijk softenon (thalidomide) op haar markt verboden had, heeft Oost-Duitsland dat ook gedaan.

West-Duitsland heeft het geneesmiddel echter op haar markt toegelaten.

België volgde het West-Duitse voorbeeld. .

— Ivo Cerckel (@KarlitoKrip) March 12, 2021

Daarom deze open brief.

Ah, ik vergeet dat minister van justitie Vincent Van Quickenborne ook aanwezig zal zijn, althans bij de eerste lezing van de namiddag. Hij zal toch niet de ganse namiddag blijven en het heeft dus geen zin dat ik deze open brief ook tot hem richt.

Mijnheer de Minister,
Mevrouw de Procureur des Konings,

“De coronacrisis verziekt de hele mensheid. Na vaccinatie is maatschappelijke revalidatie vereist, nationaal en internationaal, sociaal economisch, institutioneel, politiek, ethisch. Wat houdt dit in en zijn wij daartoe in staat?”, vraagt Mark.

Enerzijds is er het probleem dat geen corona- vaccin getest werd op haar lange-termijn werking. (Kan ook niet. Er is (nog) geen tijd genoeg geweest.)
Anderzijds is er het probleem dat wegwerp-mondmaskers en wegwerp- Persoonlijke Beschermingsmiddelen (PBM, Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)) uiteindelijk in zee belanden om dan opgegeten te worden door vissen die dan op hun beurt opgegeten worden door o.a. zwangere vrouwen om dan in het placenta van hun foetus te belanden.

De analogie tussen het softenon-schandaal waaruit de over-heid niks geleerd heeft en het corana-schandaal is dan ook evident.

Daarom dat deze brief pas na de recapitulering van het eerste schandaal het tweede schandaal kan aanpakken om dan in antwoord op de vraag van Mark te besluiten dat de over-heid kennelijk niet in staat is om de mens-heid te beschermen en er dan ook alles voor doet om deze mens-heid uit te roeien.

In een rechtsstaat, ook al is die verloederd tot een “democratische” (wat dit adjectief ook moge betekenen, wat precies het punt is) rechtsstaat, zou de over-heid een aantal essentiële rollen te vervullen hebben. Een van die rollen bestaat erin om het leven van de onder-danen mogelijk te maken, te verdedigen, en zelfs te begunstigen.

SOFTENON

Ik had begin september 2019 besloten dat de softenonblog die ik toen publiceerde onder de titel “Softenon en Bewijs – “Ihre Papiere, Bitte!””
op mijn Honest Money blog bij bphouse.com de laatste keer was dat ik iets over softenon zou schrijven. Ik wist toen echter niet dat het corona-schandaal een drietal maanden later zou ontstaan. Vandaar dat ik vloek en toch even tegen mijn goesting terug in mijn softenon-pen kruip.

Dit was die blogpost.
Softenon en Bewijs – “Ihre Papiere, Bitte!”
Posted by Ivo Cerckel on August 26th, 2019

Softenon en Bewijs – “Ihre Papiere, Bitte!”

Die post van augustus 2019 volgde op mijn

Waalse Softenon-Sprookjes en Contergan-Stiftung == Versie 2.4
Posted by Ivo Cerckel on June 22nd, 2019

Waalse Softenon-Sprookjes en Contergan-Stiftung == Versie 2.4

Prof. em. Herman Cousy stelde in 1996 in noot 28 op p.163 van zijn artikel “The Precautionary Principle: A Status Questionis” gepubliceerd in de “Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance – Issues and Practice”, dat het softenonschandaal niet kan beschouwd worden als een voorbeeld van het ontwikkelingsrisico:
“One often cites the Thalidomide (Contergan) case as an example of a development risk situation, although it appears that when thalidomide was brought onto the German market, the product had been banned in France. Can it be readily upheld, under such circumstances, that the conditions for a development risk situation were fulfilled?”
https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057/gpp.1996.10.pdf

Ik meen van Google te begrijpen dat Prof. Cousy niet zeer gelukkig is met het feit dat ik hieruit afleid dat West-Duitsland uit dit Franse verbod had dienen af te leiden dat West-Duitsland het geneesmiddel ook diende te bannen. Ik blijf dit gevolg echter afleiden uit deze voetnoot van Prof. Cousy en stel dan ook dat de Belgische staat en de toenmalige Europese Economische Gemeenschap (EEG) beiden zoals West-Duitsland falikant gefaald zijn in de vervulling van deze rol toen softenon in 1957, jaar van de ondertekening van het Verdrag van Rome tot instelling van de EEG, op de West-Duitse (en later de Belgische) markt verscheen.

Nadat Frankrijk het genmeesmiddel verboden had, heeft Oost-Duitsland dat ook gedaan. West-Duitsland heeft het middel echter op haar markt toegelaten. Dit gaf dan aanleiding tot het zogenaamde softenon-schandaal en de vrijspraak in 1962 door de het Luikse hof van assisen van de moordenaars van een softenon-monster. Alhoewel er ons voorgehouden wordt dat het schandaal te wijten is aan het ontbreken van wat thans de European Medicine Agency (EMA) is, wachtte de Raad van EEG tot 1985 eer ze haar produkt-aansprakelijkheids-richtlijn aannam.
(Richtlijn 85/374/EEG van de Raad van 25 juli 1985 betreffende de onderlinge aanpassing van de wettelijke en bestuursrechtelijke bepalingen der Lid-Staten inzake de aansprakelijkheid voor produkten met gebreken
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/NL/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:31985L0374&from=nl

Bij het schrijven van mijn basispost tien jaar eerder
Témoignage thalidomide – Les Monstres de Heidelberg
Originally posted by Ivo Cerckel on September 2nd, 2009

Témoignage thalidomide : Les Monstres de Heidelberg +++ German Conterganstiftung or thalidomide foundation is a fraud – UK guv’mint also +++ Die Conterganstiftung ist lächerlich und arglistig +++ Lo que está maldito es el gobierno, no la talidomida +++ Thalidomide – not the drug but the government is maldito +++ Waalse Softenon-Sprookjes en Contergan-Stiftung == Versie 2.4 +++ Softenon en Bewijs – “Ihre Papiere, Bitte!”

had ik dat artikel van Prof. Cousy nog niet gelezen.

Sommigen in België hadden begrepen dat het geneesmiddel gevolgen had voor de foetus van zwangere vrouwen en hebben dat ter kwader trouw toebediend.

Ik ben mij niet bewust dat enig Parket, c.q. onderzoeksrechter, 60 jaar geleden enig strafonderzoek gestart is naar aanleiding van geboorte van een softenon-monster. Het was allemaaal een ongeval. Geen enkele pil werd ter kwader trouw toegekend.

De Belgische Staat en haar Parket zijn dus 60 jaar totaal in hun taak gefaald.

CORONA

De Belgische Staat en haar Parket zijn opnieuw in hun taak aan het falen.

Ik zie twee analogieën tussen corona en softenon.

EERSTE ANALOGIE

De lange-termijn gevolgen van de vaccins zijn niet bekend. Zoals het Franse verbod, althans in mijn interpretatie van de geciteerde voetnoot van Prof. Cousy, had aangetoond, waren de gevolgen van softenon wel bekend.

Mark stelt dat na vaccinatie een maatschappelijke revalidatie vereist is.

Ik vraag mij af wat voor een kater we zullen overhouden van deze vaccineneringen.

Zou deze kater groter kunnen zijn dan deze die deze maatschappij van softenon overhoudt?

En ik behandel niet eens de vraag of de vaccins hun beoogde korte-termijn gevolg (zullen) bereiken.

Ten overvloede, zoals prof. Cousy het impliceert, althans in mijn interpretatie, was het bestaan van de nefaste gevolgen van softenon bekend, alhoewel de juiste aard ervan misschien nog niet voor iedereen bekend was.

TWEEDE ANALOGIE

Er is nog een tweede analogie tussen het corona-schandaal en het softenon-schandaal.

Weggwerp-mondmaskers en wegwerp-Persoonlijke Beschermingsmiddelen belanden uiteindelijk in zee om dan opgegeten te worden door vissen die dan op hun beurt opgegeten worden door o.a. zwangere vroumen om dan in het placenta van hun foetus te belanden.

Zoals de website van de BBC het op 9 maart 2021 stelde aan de hand van een clip van een BBC televisie programma van die dag.

Coronavirus: Divers find Philippine reef covered with single-use face masks – BBC News
https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-asia-56322369

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is washing up on coral reefs close to the Philippine capital, Manila. According to an estimate by the Asian Development Bank, during the peak of the Covid-19 outbreak, the city could have been generating up to 280 tonnes of extra medical waste per day.
Environmental groups are warning that the plastic inside face masks is breaking down and being consumed by marine wildlife. They’re urging the Philippine government to improve its handling of medical waste, to prevent further pollution of the seas.
The BBC’s Howard Johnson joined divers from Anilao Scuba Dive Centre, a group affiliated to the United Nations Environment Programme’s Green Fins, which promotes sustainable marine tourism in South-East Asia.
Video produced by Howard Johnson and Virma Simonette. Additional camera work: Mark Badiola and Jojo D. Lontok.

In een twiet van diezelfde dag, 09 maart 2021, verduidelijkte Howard Johnson, de journalist die de clip had gepresenteerd, dat
“A recent study, published in the journal Environmental International, found that microplastics are being found in the placenta of unborn babies, posing a risk to a child’s development. https://t.co/sGti9BgwkE 6/10” / Twitter

A recent study, published in the journal Environmental International, found that microplastics are being found in the placenta of unborn babies, posing a risk to a child’s development. https://t.co/sGti9BgwkE 6/10

— Howard Johnson (@Howardrjohnson) March 9, 2021

Deze twiet verwees naar dit artikel in het Britse dagblad The Guardian:

Microplastics revealed in the placentas of unborn babies
Health impact is unknown but scientists say particles may cause long-term damage to foetuses
Damian Carrington Environment editor
@dpcarrington
Tue 22 Dec 2020 10.55 GMT
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/22/microplastics-revealed-in-placentas-unborn-babies

Hier moet sinds het softenonschandaal geen tekening meer bij.

Op minuut 18:05 van dit BBC World Service radio programma begint de clip die de aanleiding was voor mij om deze Open Brief neer te pennen. Deze clip bevat de verwijzingen naar het placenta.

Newshour – Myanmar protesters flee military assault – BBC Sounds
Tue 9 Mar 2021 15:06 CET
BBC WORLD SERVICE
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/w172x2z7gy3bx3j

Ik herhaal. Hier moet sinds het softenonschandaal geen tekening meer bij.

En het Parket en de rest van de uitvoerende macht doen alsof hun neus bloedt. Of moet er eerst een wet gestemd worden om aan “onze” over-heid toe te laten om foetussen te beschermen? (We zijn vandaag 2021. Het softenonschandaal was zestig jaar geleden. Stelde ik niet dat ook de EEG dertig jaar had gewacht om haar richtlijn uit te vaardigen? “Democratische” rechtsstaat, niewaar? Inderdaad, de Duitse “Democratische” Republiek verbood softenon. Aan een katholieke universiteit zou het verboden moeten zijn om de ideeën van de Verlichting in te roepen.)

Wat denkt de Vereniging van Vlaamse Balies hiervan?

De vraag was:
“De coronacrisis verziekt de hele mensheid. Na vaccinatie is maatschappelijke revalidatie vereist, nationaal en internationaal, sociaal economisch, institutioneel, politiek, ethisch. Wat houdt dit in en zijn wij daartoe in staat?”.

Het antwoord is NEE.

Daarom, ecraser l’etat!

Maar wie zal dan de KU Leuven financieren?

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel@yahoo.com

It is not Britain’s fault that the EU, nor the EEC before her, could not achieve the goals for which the EEC was set up.

Since nobody can be held to the impossible, governance of the agreement will be impossible.

LINKS APPEAR AS “CLICKABLE” in the copy of this post in comment, named “response”, #1.

1.
Britain wants to be (recognised as) a sovereign and independent nation.

EU does not want to give Britain a better deal outside the EU than inside the EU.

Both sides have to present the agreement as a victory for them. They do not want to be seen as swallowing what the other side proposes.

2.
Three obstacles

governance – ways to solve future disputes

fisheries – fishing quotas – access to to UK waters

level playing field – mirroring of EU rules in exchange for preferential access to single market
These rules concern
rules on government subsidies which reduce the costs of carrying on business
and
environmental and labour regulations which add to the costs of doing business.

3.
As to the level playing field

Article 54 of the 1957 EEC Treaty said in
Title III: Free movement of persons, services and capital,
Chapter 2: Right of establishment
that

1. In order to attain freedom of establishment as regards a particular activity, the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall act by means of directives.
2. The Council and the Commission shall carry out the duties devolving upon them under the preceding provisions, in particular:
[…]
(g) by coordinating to the necessary extent the safeguards which, for the protection of
the interests of members and other,
are required by Member States of companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community; (1)

These interests concerned the interests of members (shareholders and workers) and third parties (creditors) of these companies
so that anno-2019 UK firms didn’t enjoy an unfair advantage over their continental rivals if they are granted tariff and quota-free access to the bloc’s single market.

Ten years ago, it was recognised that what had then become the EU could not achieve this.

It has always been possible to rationalise measures of company law harmonisation in terms of promotion of cross-border business activity.
It is more difficult to confirm the effectiveness in practice of such measures
(Wyatt and Dashwood’s, “European Union Law”, 2011, 6th ed., p. 700)

It is not Britain’s fault that the EU, nor the EEC before her, could not achieve the goals for which the EEC was set up.

4.
France Threatens to Veto a U.K.-EU Brexit Deal It Wouldn’t Like
By Pierre Briançon
Updated Dec. 4, 2020 12:42 pm ET / Original Dec. 4, 2020 10:58 am ET
https://www.barrons.com/articles/france-threatens-to-veto-a-u-k-eu-brexit-deal-it-wouldnt-like-51607097500

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-france-macron-separatism-idUSKBN26N213
PARIS (Reuters) OCTOBER 2, 2020 – French President Emmanuel Macron pledged on Friday to fight “Islamist separatism”, which he said was threatening to take control in some Muslim communities around France.
+
“What we need to fight is Islamist separatism,” Macron said during a visit to the impoverished Paris suburb of Les Mureaux. “The problem is an ideology which claims its own laws should be superior to those of the Republic.”

The French Regime defines seperatism as the will to create a society next to “the Republic”, of which this blogger has never seen a definition. (2)

Macron is forcing Britain into the straitjacket of a Community, sorry Union, which cannot achieve the objectives for which it, the latter, cannot achieve. This is EU separatism.

Yeah, that’s why the EU need rules on governance of or ways to solve future disputes of the agreement.

“Ad impossibile, nemo tenetur”, nobody, thus neither Britain, can be held to the impossible.

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

NOTES

(1)
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A12002E044
Treaty establishing the European Community (Nice consolidated version)
Part Three: Community policies
Title III: Free movement of persons, services and capital
Chapter 2: Right of establishment
Article 44
Article 54 – EC Treaty (Maastricht consolidated version)
Article 54 – EEC Treaty
1. In order to attain freedom of establishment as regards a particular activity, the Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251 and after consulting the Economic and Social Committee, shall act by means of directives.
2. The Council and the Commission shall carry out the duties devolving upon them under the preceding provisions, in particular:
(a) by according, as a general rule, priority treatment to activities where freedom of establishment makes a particularly valuable contribution to the development of production and trade;
(b) by ensuring close cooperation between the competent authorities in the Member States in order to ascertain the particular situation within the Community of the various activities concerned;
(c) by abolishing those administrative procedures and practices, whether resulting from national legislation or from agreements previously concluded between Member States, the maintenance of which would form an obstacle to freedom of establishment;
(d) by ensuring that workers of one Member State employed in the territory of another Member State may remain in that territory for the purpose of taking up activities therein as self-employed persons, where they satisfy the conditions which they would be required to satisfy if they were entering that State at the time when they intended to take up such activities;
(e) by enabling a national of one Member State to acquire and use land and buildings situated in the territory of another Member State, in so far as this does not conflict with the principles laid down in Article 33(2);
(f) by effecting the progressive abolition of restrictions on freedom of establishment in every branch of activity under consideration, both as regards the conditions for setting up agencies, branches or subsidiaries in the territory of a Member State and as regards the subsidiaries in the territory of a Member State and as regards the conditions governing the entry of personnel belonging to the main establishment into managerial or supervisory posts in such agencies, branches or subsidiaries;
(g) by coordinating to the necessary extent the safeguards which, for the protection of the interests of members and other, are required by Member States of companies or firms within the meaning of the second paragraph of Article 48 with a view to making such safeguards equivalent throughout the Community;
(h) by satisfying themselves that the conditions of establishment are not distorted by aids granted by Member States.

(2)
https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2020/10/02/la-republique-en-actes-discours-du-president-de-la-republique-sur-le-theme-de-la-lutte-contre-les-separatismes
Le problème, c’est le séparatisme islamiste. Ce projet conscient, théorisé, politico-religieux, qui se concrétise par des écarts répétés avec les valeurs de la République, qui se traduit souvent par la constitution d’une contre-société et dont les manifestations sont la déscolarisation des enfants, le développement de pratiques sportives, culturelles communautarisées qui sont le prétexte à l’enseignement de principes qui ne sont pas conformes aux lois de la République.

The URLs appear as “clickable” in the copy of this post in response # 1 under this post..

Brussels hits out at WTO over Airbus-Boeing battle
Commission accuses trade body of ‘errors’ in judgment handing victory to Washington
https://www.ft.com/content/dab6ba96-1512-11ea-9ee4-11f260415385?desktop=true&segmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a
Peggy Hollinger in London and Sam Fleming in Brussels
AN HOUR AGO

The FT seems to be hesitating before publishing my comment as “village idiot”. So here it is.

REPEAL THE WTO

Free trade requires honest money.

At Bretton Woods in 1944 both the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade , GATT, the precursor to the WTO, and the IMF were created.
The IMF’s only function was to maintain Bretton Woods.
On 15 August 1971, USA president Nixon broke Bretton Woods.

Since then, the IMF has thus no more reason to exist. If the IMF continues exist, this is as a pimp of the dollar regime.

As of that date, the GATT could no longer function. Its 1995 successor, the WTO. could thus never function.

The Economist reported last week-end that the USA, refuses to send one of its girls to the WTO’s appellate body , one of whose decisions is the subject of the article above.
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2019/11/28/the-trading-systems-referee-is-about-to-leave-the-field

In a tweet, 8 hours ago, The Economist was wondering whether
The Economist
@TheEconomist
Had the WTO handled China’s rise more effectively, voices in its defence might be louder in Washington

Is it up to the WTO to do that? Can the market not do that better – without lengthy negotiations which lead nowhere? What's the use of the WTO without Bretton Woods which Nixon broke in 1971? #RepealTheWTO #AsiaTrade

— Ivo Cerckel (@IvoCerckel) December 2, 2019

Is it up to the WTO to do that? Can the market not do that better – without lengthy negotiations leading nowhere? What’s the use of the WTO without Bretton Woods which Nixon broke in 1971?

Repeal the WTO now.

Come and join this idiot on 27 February 2020 in Hong Kong at the Economist’s Asia Trade Summit where several WTO bureaucrats will be speaking.
https://events.economist.com/events-conferences/asia/asia-trade-summit

Manu Macron Europe-Kaput Statement and The Economist 27 February 2020 Asia-Trade Summit

more coming on my blog

Or did the appellate body give a decision in the USA’s favour in order to convince the IMF pimp to still send one of his girls to the appellate body?

Or what did Politico says this week-end?

EU rebels fight Commission plan to build WTO court without America
One diplomat said the plan risked ‘pushing the Americans over the final edge.’
By JAKOB HANKE AND BARBARA MOENS
11/28/19, 1:33 PM CET
Updated 11/30/19, 7:36 AM CET
https://www.politico.eu/article/eu-rebels-fight-commission-plan-to-build-wto-court-without-america/

The ultimate joke is that Peter Van den Bossche who retired last May from said appellate body argues that international trade has to be managed (Peter Van den Bossche and Denise Prévost, “Essentials of WTO Law”, Cambridge UP, 2016, p. 2)
and even added in his farewell address last May that this could be done in accordance with the rule of law https://wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/farwellspeech_peter_van_den_bossche_e.htm

But these rules should result from negotiations which never lead to anything. So these rules don’t exist, which explains the article.

Come and join this idiot in Hong Kong on 27 February 2020 at The Economist Asia Trade Summit in the JW Marriott hotel.

If the rule of law existed in WTO case-law, the EU would never have been able to complain of this decision in favour of the USA.

Retired adjudicator Van den Bossche argues int’l trade has to be managed (EssentialsOfWTOLaw,2016,p.2) in accordance with the rule of law https://t.co/AGBIDBxnP1
But these rules should result from negotiations which never lead to anything. So these rules don’t exist. #AsiaTrade

— Ivo Cerckel (@IvoCerckel) November 29, 2019

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel@yahoo.com

Europe stands on “the edge of a precipice” and must start thinking of itself more strategically to remain “in control of our destiny”, France’s president Manu Macron says in a candid interview, published on 07 November 2019 on Economist.com , the website of The Economist newspaper.
https://www.facebook.com/TheEconomist/posts/10157965685709060

Like the promoters of free-trade, Manu Macron, president of the French republic, says again:
I’ve often said that our model was built in the 18th century with the European Enlightenment, the market economy, individual freedom, democratic rule and the progress of the middle classes.

What France's president told us during a candid interview https://t.co/p65mLaeDjE

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 10, 2019

J’ai souvent dit, notre modèle s’est construit au XVIIIe siècle avec l’Europe des Lumières, l’économie de marché, les libertés des individus, le régime démocratique et le progrès des classes moyennes.
https://www.economist.com/europe/2019/11/07/emmanuel-macron-in-his-own-words-french

The problem is that the values of the Enlightenment are wrong,

British Democracy cannot be reconciled with the Enlightenment

Before the Enlightenment, Truth was “out there”, in reality. The Enlightenment alleges that truth is “in here”, in woman’s head.
The debate opposes Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas, on the one hand, and, Ricardo,. Adam Smith, Hume, Locke, Kant and Rousseau on the other

That’s why it is difficult to promote the ideas of the Enlightenment and thus of free trade.

The 27 February 2020 Hong Kong Asia Trade Summit 2020 of The Economist will pose the question:
Can supporters of open markets convince voters of their value before it’s too late? If so, how?

ABTA's proud to be a supporting organization of the Economist's Asia Trade Summit 2019 in Hong Kong on Feb 28. Register today to be a part of fascinating dialogues and discussions on the advancement of global trade #AsiaTrade @EconomistEvents https://t.co/2KrhWRd8Sb pic.twitter.com/S5Eo8d3jvn

— Asia Business Trade Association (ABTA) (@ABT_Association) January 11, 2019

The 11:40 am Masterclass on communicating the benefits of free trade will therefore have the following subject;
Populists have long used free trade as a scapegoat for all manner of social ills. But policymakers and businesses who recognise the value of free trade are failing to communicate the benefits to voters. In this session, we will hear from a range of people who specialise in communicating effectively with large groups of people. They will share their tips on how governments and business leaders can persuade voters of the value of free trade, who it benefits and how.
https://events.economist.com/events-conferences/asia/asia-trade-summit

Jacob G. Hornberger is a candidate to be the 2020 nominee of the Libertarian Party for the election of the president of the USA.

https://t.co/KAdtyJ0lCQ

— Jacob Hornberger (@JacobforLiberty) October 20, 2019

In 1995 he co-edited with Richard M. Ebeling the book “The case for free trade and open migration”, available for free as a Kindle book on Amazon.

The main argument of the book is that persons have a moral to use their money as they see fit.

A defence of free trade thus starts with defining Honest Money.

This I have done in my leaflet at the March 2013 Taiwan Economic Summit. organised by the Financial Times and Standard Chartered.

What is the renminbi? – 14 March 2013 FT Standard Chartered Taiwan Economic Summithttp://t.co/zNMYesrO0M

— Ivo Cerckel (@IvoCerckel) September 29, 2015

Can Karl Popper’s Open Society perhaps resolve the contradiction at the basis of the argument for free trad?

I hope to be able to examine this question in an upcoming post at this blog.

Other thing; the programme of the Summit that the Summit will discuss the CPTPP.
Wikipedia says that the CPTPP is also known as TPP.
But The Economist, the organiser of the Summit, admitted on 04 November 2019 that the TPP was replaced by the RCEP which was rubbished as a low-grade treaty to which India refused to accede.

The ambition was to unite in one deal all those Asian countries with which ASEAN has free-trade agreements https://t.co/eOD0ASQ66Y

— The Economist (@TheEconomist) November 4, 2019

#AsiaTrade

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel@yahoo.com

Philip Hammond errs when he says that there is no way around the Benn Act.

The Supreme Court said that the Act is null and void.

“Quod nullum est nullum producit effectum” (That which is null and void cannot produce any effect.)

==

The Benn Act, European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019, which received royal assent on 09 September 2019, is the anti-no-deal legislation that compels the prime minister to seek a three-month extension to Article 50 if he cannot get a Brexit deal agreed by the end of the European Council on 17- 18 October 2019

European Union (Withdrawal) (No. 2) Act 2019
2019 CHAPTER 26
An Act to make further provision in connection with the period for negotiations for withdrawing from the European Union.
[9th September 2019]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2019/26

Former chancellor of the exchequer Philip Hammond said today that here is “no way round” the legal requirement under the so-called Benn Act for the prime minister to seek an extension to Brexit negotiations if he fails to secure a deal by the end of next week, Mr Hammond insisted
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-latest-news-delay-eu-philip-hammond-a9150151.html

Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union says
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

Section 3 of this Article 50 thus says
“The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.”

This section 3 means that
Article 50 TEU provides a procedure for dealing with a request by a Member State to withdraw from the Union, by means of an agreement between the Union and that State. Should no such agreement be reached, the Member State will cease to be party to the Treaties after notifying the European Council of its intention to withdraw, unless there unanimous two years agreement to extend this time period.
(Catherine Barnard and Steve Peers, (eds.) “European Union Law”, Oxford UP, 2017. Second Edition, p. 139).

Rupert Lowe. MEP for the Brexit party, argued on 26 September 2019 on Twitter that
the 24 September 2019 judgment of the UK Supreme Court which ruled that
“Boris Johnson’s decision to suspend Parliament for five weeks was unlawful, the Supreme Court has ruled because it was wrong to stop MPs carrying out duties in the run-up to the Brexit deadline on 31 October”
contains a section from which potentially a serious case demonstrating that the UK of NI-and-GB have already left the EU on April 12th
https://twitter.com/rupertlowe10/status/1177247077962846208

In his letter of 24 September 2019 to Antonio Tajani, chairman of the EU parliament’s Brexit Steering Group,  letter which he copied in his quoted tweet. Lowe wrote
.
SNIP
[…] a possible unintended consequence of the Supreme Court ruling earlier this week on the power to prorogue Parliament [may be this;] [t]The judgment has already had retrospective effect on at least one Statute and may have further retrospective consequences – particularly for the EU budget.

As you may know, the Royal Prerogative includes not just the power to prorogue but also the power to negotiate and enter into treaties and to male the decisions in the EU Council – there is no reason to distinguish between these Executive functions because the Supreme has ruled that it is the effect of exercising the power that is relevant specifically

: ‘a decision to prorogue (or advise the monarch to prorogue) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive’.”

You will recall that on 11th April, Theresa May used the Royal Prerogative to agree an extension to the Article 50 process. By doing so she prevented Parliament for a further six months from, not only negotiating on a whole range of matters covered by the EU treaties, but also from holding to account the real executive (the EU Commission)

END OF QUOTES

Lowe thus argued that Theresa May’s extension of Art. 50(3) period prevented the parliament of the UK of Ni-and-GB from legislating on areas which, before Brexit, were covered by EU law.

In this case concerning Art 50 TEU, Lowe was quoting a paragraph from the Supreme Court judgment which is numbered paragraph … 50

The whole paragraph says

50. For the purposes of the present case, therefore, the relevant limit upon the power to prorogue can be expressed in this way: that a decision to prorogue Parliament (or to advise the monarch to prorogue Parliament) will be unlawful if the prorogation has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive. In such a situation, the court will intervene if the effect is sufficiently serious to justify such an exceptional course.
http://prod-upp-image-read.ft.com/ef9e5762-deb1-11e9-b112-9624ec9edc59

Lowe’s reasoning concerning the (first) extension by Theresa May is “mutatis mutandis” (by changing what has to changed) applicable to the Benn Act which prevent the parliament of the UK of NI-and-GB to legislate on natters previously covered by EU law..

Therefore, the Benn Act is null and void – like Theresa May’s extension of art. 50 (3) TEU.

“Quod nullum est nullum producit effectum” (That which is null and void cannot produce any effect.)

Ivo Cerckel
philmigrator@yahoo.com

This was my comment to this article (It has been deleted by Bloomberg’s webmaster. This deleting allows me to expand my comment.):

Dear Britain, Where Did It All Go So Wrong?
U.K. politics is making Italy look like a beacon of stability and calm.
By
Ferdinando Giugliano
September 1, 2019, 2:00 PM GMT+8 Corrected September 1, 2019, 5:44 PM GMT+8
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-09-01/brexit-prorogation-british-politics-make-italy-look-stable
SNIPS
[…] for many years, British politicians were the first to wave their democratic fingers at what was going on in the rest of Europe. They caricatured the EU as an anti-democratic moloch crushing the will of national parliaments from Greece to Italy.
+
Now we see Boris Johnson suspending parliamentary democracy for the sake of showing that he is serious about a no-deal Brexit. New elections – which would be the third in four years – loom in what was once the land of political stability. Sure, there are precedents (there always are) and the government sees this is as only way to ensure politicians respect the will of the people.
END OF QUOTES

The problem may be that the British institutions cannot possibly be reconciled with the teachings of the Enlightenment

Before the Enlightenment Truth could be found “out there”, in the (outside) world. Since the Enlightenment, Truth is to be “in here”, i.e., in the mind of any lunatic. It had been René Descartes (1596 -1650) who had given the first step thereto with his famous “cogito ergo sum”, “I think, therefore I am”.

Will of the sheeple? Will of parliament?

Whereas it is true that Aristotle’s “proairesis”, the preference between two possibilities, is the forerunner of the will,
(Hannah Arendt “The Life of the Mind”, San Diego, Harvest Book, 1978 One-volume ed., introduction to Volume II, p.6)
it was only with Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712, – 1778) (and reading Rousseau, Immanuel Kant) and GWF Hegel that what older authors had described as OPINION (ratio) was substituted by WILL (“voluntas”).
Opinion became suspected because it was contrasted with incontrovertible knowledge of cause and effect and a growing tendency to discard all statement incapable of proof.
(Friedrich August von Hayek, “The confusion of language in political thought with some suggestions for remedying it”, London, Institute of Economic Affairs, Occasional Paper 20, 1968, p.21)

As ZeroHedge put it this week-end (yes, it’s the same principle): One can’t blame outgoing IMF head Lagarde for trying to keep a low profile: after all her next job is to head the ECB, and after her absolutely disastrous tenure at the IMF, one can’t wait to see just how she destroys the Eurozone as her final parting gift.
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/imf-guilty-argentinas-next-president-blames-lagarde-countrys-default

I said that it was the same principle which is at work in London, Frankfurt and Washington. Indeed, just like Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), the ECB and the IMF want to impose the structure of their mind upon reality. The ECB does this inter alia with its interest rates, the IMF with its so-called “programmes”

Ivo Cerckel
ivocerckel@siquijor.ws

P.S.: Where was it said that protectionism is the rule and free trade the exception?
Free trade is an “invention” of the Enlightenment? So is the corrupted definition or notion of “democracy” which is being proposed or advocated,