Honest Money

Gold is Wealth Hiding in Oil

  • Subscribe

  • Alert

    Archive for December, 2020

    Brexit quick notes – level playing field and Macronist Separatism

    Posted by Ivo Cerckel on 7th December 2020

    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.

    Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment »