US supremacy in recent years has revealed its’ own weakness. All previous wars in Middle East resulted in an exodus of refugees increasing tensions among the nearby countries. The war in Iraq wiped out the regime of Sadam Hussain, but caused the war, which had different outbreaks lasting from 2003 until now. They have created ISIS because the core of this group is from the former Iraqi army.
Tony Blair wanted to do something decent in the wake of the Balkan’s war, but he chose the wrong country. The MI6 report that was the basis for the PM decision was a debacle, eminent contents of it were drawn form a Nicolas Cage film. The people that created it are still on the loose. It causes more concerns and condemnations because they committed it in the name of the law. No one has been prosecuted for this bungling. The MI6 chief at that time didn’t see any slip-ups in his work. What are the remains of the British Empire? Are both National Intelligence and government intelligence of this country lost forever? Who will lead the blind country whence the secret agencies mislead public? Perhaps USA?
By waging war in consecutive middle-east countries the Americans radicalised people living there in the same manner as Israel has been doing for years, taking away the Palestinian’s possibility of living in peace. Americans wish to see the whole world become democratic or conduct policy according to the principal of “adversaries of our enemies are our friends”. They don’t sense the state where doing nothing is the best solution. They don’t see how terrible the regime in Saudi Arabia is but they do see it in Syria. The aftermaths of the US interventions are extensive. Countries after intervention doesn’t seem to be alike . War in Libya is an other democratic crusade, which is everlasting. The USA is trying to impose a war, believing that it will turn into peace and turn out to be a new US friendly country. The only outcome of this is the immense costs in money and lives.
French campaign group Fair Deal for Expats has brought a challenge in the EU General Court to Commission President Jean-Claude Junker’s “presidential order” preventing Brexit negotiations with the UK until the UK has triggered TEU Article 50.
Mr Junker foreshadowed such an order shortly after the UK referendum result, and stated on 28 June 2016 that he had “forbidden Commissioners from holding discussions with representatives from the British government — by presidential order” and “told all the directors-general that there cannot be any prior discussions with British representatives”.
According to the Fair Deal for Expats website, the challenge is being brought under TFEU Article 263. Its grounds include that the order contravenes the principle of sincere cooperation, has no proper basis and discriminates against UK citizens (who remain EU citizens).
One issue might be whether the claimant has standing to bring this challenge. Under TFEU Article 263, a natural or legal person may challenge the legality of acts of the Commission where the act is “addressed to that person” or “a regulatory act which is of direct concern to them and does not entail implementing measures” (which do not appear to be the case), or where the act is “of direct and individual concern to” the person. The CJEU’s case-law on what is required for direct and individual concern is restrictive. In Case C-50/00 Unión de Pequeños Agricultores v Council , the CJEU reasserted that, for a person to be directly and individually concerned, a measure must affect “specific natural or legal persons by reason of certain attributes peculiar to them, or by reason of a factual situation which differentiates them from all other persons and distinguishes them individually in the same way as the addressee”. It did so despite an Advocate-General’s opinion urging a widening of the test. The application of this case-law to the present challenge, which appears to focus on the effect of the “presidential order” upon UK citizens, may be contested
Post from website brexit.law
The UK is one of most divisive countries in the world in terms of wealth. This is why 10% of UK households own almost 50% of the country. All the problems come from the staggering property prices and even more people rent flats because they cannot afford to pay a mortgage. Landlords earn from year to year, house benefits rise and the government spend extensive amounts of it, which it is passed on to the landlords.
It is impossible to believe that in a city like London someone who has a well-paid job cannot afford to rent a flat and must share a room like a student. E.g in poor Poland someone who needs to dwell, rents a flat or buys it- mostly with a mortgage.
It seems that the only way to solve this problem is to build more, but as the land is very scarce there is a need to build tall buildings with cheap flats to rent or buy with the help of the government instead of granting benefits.
|After more than three months not much has changed. The PM has changed the view about EU expats that if they live in the UK then they can stay. This state of limbo can last a little longer. People who voted for leaving are a little disappointed, they want to trigger article 50 and start the process of a quick removal from the EU, but it isn’t in the interest of the UK to do it fast. It must be done wisely.|
After Brexit we will publish and review important articles about new legislation and the changes in law concerned with removing the Eu law from the British law. I would like to present information on how this will affect the companies.
I know the new PM has said that the status of the current remaining EU citizens is unclear but she would guarantee the status of the UK citizens. This is sheer nonsense because she would like to bestow privileges that are not in her prerogative and she would not be reciprocal in this case.
After this bunk idea with the EU referendum for David Cameron it will be very hard ‘to patch up our broken home’ just like in the Marillion lyric. After the referendum the UK woke up in limbo. The pound is plunging, Scotland want to opt out of the UK and what next? Many Brits are asking for an Irish passport including the Democratic Unionist Party MP Ian Paisley, who had campaigned for Brexit. He tweeted: “My advice is if you are entitled to a second passport then take one.” (Independent, 28/06/2016) Maybe he expects that the British passport after Brexit will be worth no more than the paper, which it is printed on.
Many people voted for Brexit because of the immigration problem, too many Poles arrived into the country during the last few years. By leaving the EU they haven’t solved any problems but have multiplied them.
Additionally there is now the problem with the economy, not just with immigration. But if the economic problems will deepen, unemployment will surge and the immigrants will flee the country without any other lure or pressure. Is this the way it should work? On this occasion many Brits will do the UK population will decrease- the next point of Cameron’s goals. Looking at these aims we can now say the PM has achieved success nevertheless.
The British want to get their country back. The result from the referendum is clear that the UK is leaving EU.
Before the referendum I read an article in the ‘Daily Mail’, June 21, about the cost of every immigrant and the burden of this for the UK tax payers. Economists For Britain in this article wanted to prove that the benefits paid out for EU immigrants are much higher than their tax contribution. However they didn’t calculate the added value of their work, which contributes to the overall wealth of the country. The truth is no one can predict the effects of Brexit but every one agrees that in the short turn it will diminish the economy.
We can see it today.
EVERYBODY IS RIGHT
Looking ahead, the future of the UK remains unclear. The savour of panic can be sensed among the leaders of the Labour Party as well as at the Tories. PM Cameron had previously conceived a plan before he won the election based on the promise given to the people of the referendum to stay or leave the EU. He was sure that he would win the referendum but the future seems to be hazy.
I think that each group has its rights, whether to leave or stay. Politically the EU is like a corporation between each country, like a cog in a ‘mincer’ machine.
From an economic point of view the UK could lose a lot. Many companies based in the UK trade with the EU selling their products within the EU. After brexit this possibility could be jeopardised, but they are looking towards a new trade agreement. Is it possible to gain the agreement for free? The amount of money spent could be much higher than the EU contribution in such a case no one will count on the generosity from the other side of the English Channel.
Managers will face the problem of branching out new EU company inside the union.
What country do they choose?
It seems the French PM has taken this new opportunity by liberating the labour law to obliterate the fear of expensive and impossibility of firing French workers, which will encourage a precarious business to move in.