Editorial: The United Kingdom Parliament Has Found Its Will and Asserted It Today: The Three Acts of the Parliament That Can Get the Country Out of the Nightmarish Groundhog Day Since the European Union Referendum: Act One Done Today: Act Two to Be Done Within a Week to Reject the Government’s Current Deal: The Third and Final Act: To Redirect the Government to Go Back to the People

 

 

 

|| January 08: 2019 || ά. The UK Parliament has, today, for the first time in a very long time, united together against the Government behind a major vote: it has declared its position against a No-Deal exiting of UK from the European Union. The parliamentary vote was not directly related to the exit, as the vote was for an all-party amendment to the Finance Bill but the amendment relates to exiting the European Union financing. However, this stance of the Parliament, against a No-Deal exit, has been taking shape for a long time but, finally, the Parliament has risen united in the majority, that declared this stance today: the United Kingdom can not be let to crash out of the European Union without a deal in place. The Humanion sees this act of Parliament today as the first of three most natural acts of the Parliament, that, for the sake of the national interest, people and the country, the sovereign parliament of the country, ought to take at this dangerously perilous time of increasing but entrenched division across the country, people, politics and all other arenas.

With this first act the Parliament has declared that it would not just sit by and watch the Government drag down the country towards this ruinous path, getting the UK crashing out of the European Union with No-Deal. Respecting the Referendum results with the clear and accepted note to go with it: that almost as many people voted to remain, the Government simply can not drag the country out of the European Union without any deal. The people did not vote for that in the European Union Referendum. Neither the leaving side nor the remain voted to accept and give consent to such dangerous departure without No-Deal. The government does not have that mandate from the people of this country. They voted with a slim majority to leave but not to leave in such a dangerous and ruinous fashion with No-Deal nor did the remain voting part of the country voted with consent given to the government to leave the EU with No-Deal. The Government does not have that mandate and it does not have the mandate to waste public funds in the utter waste of so-called No-Deal preparations! Today the Parliament has come together with a majority around a first consensus and acted in support of that stance: a No-Deal is not going to be watched idly by the House of the Nation. A No-Deal is dead and buried today.:::ω.

|| Readmore || 090119 || Up || 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paddy Ashdown: Served His Country and People to the Very Best of His Abilities at All Times: Like a Giant One That Is One of a Kind

 

 

|| December 23: 2018 || ά. Paddy to people, who knew him enough to issue him a nick name or Paddy Ashdown or Lord Ashdown of Norton-sub-Hamdon but none of these says what and who he had been in his giant of a life and existence, which ended yesterday with the last and dignified struggle he had put up against cancer of the bladder and called it a day. In October the country came to hear of this and he is gone few weeks later. Paddy Ashdown was an MP and one among the greatest MPs the House of Commons had ever produced. He was the Leader of the Liberal Democrats, the Leader, who had crafted, constructed and engineered his Party, one, that no one counted for anything to a formidable political force, that no one dared ‘not counting’ any longer. He was the single most and inspirational ‘worker’ of that Party, who could and did inspire a generation of young minds towards liberal values in a society where Conservatism was seen, as, if, it was ‘natural’ politics. His life’s work, resolute, determined and fearless work, commitment and dedication, that built the Liberal Democrats to become this force, this positive force, this formidable force, have no parallel. Paddy Ashdown was one of a kind.

Now, after the more than a decade long-work he had passed the baton to a right and equally talented but younger Leader in the name of late Charles Kennedy, who just took the Party to the height, that no one had imagined anyone could take it. Following his courageous, firm and passionate standing and campaigning against the Iraq war the Liberal Party through the leadership of Kennedy became a truly valid and structured political force, that was poised to contemplate, for the first time, they can, one day, soon, form a government. That was the work of his life, Paddy Ashdown MP’s life’s works on which Charles Kennedy stood with his new army of MPs bursting with faith, energy, belief and unrestfulness. Sad to say that one built it, another grew it much so that another takes it down and tears it apart so that Liberal Democrats are now thrown down to a sad and lonely place. Were they not to lose sight of their vision and remained on the solid, sure and confident grounds of the brightest possible liberal identity, they did not have to go and destroy themselves by joining a bankrupt coalition government with the Conservative Party, they would have been able to go further and beyond what no one could imagine: to be a Party, that could have achieved power, without, even, proportional representation. But that was probably too much of a long wait for many. They could wait no longer. But Paddy Ashdown did not think his job was to waste away in waiting: he stood, he worked, he campaigned and he knew how to reach and inspire the grassroots and he kept at it and truly made liberalism a principled, grounded and righteous place to be: for a liberal society grounded in fairness, open and future-bound in social justice.

Once he had left the leadership position and ceased being an MP he continued working in the country and served many international positions and he was passionate about the work he did in the rebuilding of Bosnia and many other places in the world. Paddy Ashdown was, probably, the last giant of a politician this country has ever produced. He is the best Prime Minister Britain never had. He was principled, vocal and, yet, always, right at the centre of the best argument regardless of what the issue was or the agenda. His articulation ability was second to none. When he spoke regardless of his minority position in parliament or anywhere else and regardless of who the audiences were everyone paid attention.:::ω.

|| Readmore || 241218 || Up || 

 

 

 

 

 

Editorial Exiting the European Union: The Final Referendum: Membership of a Club Offers Advantages Benefits and Privileges to Its Members for a Membership Fee and a Commitment That All Members Will Always Abide by Its Rules and Regulations: Under No Circumstance A Member Leaving the Club Can Get a Better Deal with the Club Than Being a Member

 

 

|| November 28: 2018 || ά. This is logic. This is simply because the Club exists to offer these advantages, benefits and privileges to all its members; were it to offer a ‘better’ set of these advantages to non-members it disavows its core reason detour: to exist for the membership’s sole benefits. In other words, were the Club to do so, to act against its own members and to offer a better set of benefits to non-members, no one would remain in that Club nor would anyone want to join it, since, who would like to subscribe to be member of this Club and pay a big membership fee only to be offered a worse deal of benefits compared to what are offered to non-members, who do not pay that membership fee nor do they have to abide by the Club’s rules and regulations? In this, the Club has no attractions to attract new members and has all the reasons to lose all existing members and in this it acts against its own existence, which, it can not sustain because it has no means to achieve an income, since, it has lost or, will do, all its members. Furthermore, when such a Club offers a better set of benefits to non-members, who do not pay any membership fee, it does so with the membership’s ‘funds’, which are supposed to be used for the sole benefits of all members. This is the rudimentary, bare and simple truth, that is applicable to this whole sorry saga of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. However, this truth has been missing from the public discourse ever since the European Referendum.

There have been all these conundrums about negotiating a deal with the European Union since the European Referendum but no one has presented to the country this rudimentary, bare and simple truth that the European Union, as a body of many nations, can not act against its own membership and, must, always, protect the interests of all its members. These two are the ‘determining’ and ‘absolute’ criteria for the Union. These, it can not but follow and, therefore, it can not negotiate a deal, harming its own membership, who pays substantial membership fees every year and are, thus, entitled to the set-out advantages, benefits and privileges. In other words, the European Union’s hands are ‘locked’ by these two determining and absolute criteria, that are non-negotiable. Here, then, United Kingdom goes to negotiate and what does it expect? It took the view that ‘No deal is better than a bad deal’, as the Prime Minister set it out. This statement is an absolute muddle: The Worst Deal is leaving the European Union as opposed to the Best Deal in staying in the European Union. The worse deal, therefore, is leaving the EU with ‘No deal’ and, any other possible deal, is not a bad one but just one bad one picked out of a whole lot of all possible bad deals with the EU for the only deal, that is the best deal, is only available to the EU members. Therefore, to suggest a No Deal is better than a bad one is absolutely wrong. But the UK went into the negotiation with this muddle and what did it expect?

Before we answer this question, let us see, how the UK enters this negotiation. The UK, as a state and government, has the same two determining and absolute criteria: to act protecting and not harming its membership or the people of this country. But this UK state and government were ‘imposed’ a ‘mandatory abandonment’ of these two determining and absolute criteria because the Referendum result, effectively, ‘dictated it’ to them that they can not but follow. And, therefore, the UK goes into the negotiation, having lost its two determining criteria and, thus, not acting to protect and not harm its own interest, which had already been done by the Referendum: it, simply and barely, tries to negotiate a deal from all the inferior positions left outside the membership of the EU and all these inferior deals are made of all possible worse deals for the UK. In this the UK has no true or real choice, which the Referendum result has taken away. This is, possibly, the most worst negotiating position imaginable: doing so not to choose but to get to a state whereby one simply says to oneself: all harm and hurt but this one does so a little easier and a little less for a little less longer than the others with a little less severity than the all others.:::ω.

|| Readmore || 291118 || Up || 

 

 

 

 

Barriers to Welsh Assembly: Barriers Continue to Prevent Potential Assembly Candidates From Standing