The government of the United Kingdom has now invoked
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union and has thus formally triggered the UK intention to leave the EU, a separation widely called "Brexit" for short.
In two years, Brexit will finalize the divorce of the UK from the EU, but that divorce does not automatically repeal laws in force in the United Kingdom.
Brexit has many complex legal aspects, many of which will beset Europe and beyond for many years, among which is a widespread misunderstanding of how EU Law applies to UK persons and businesses in the interim ... and beyond.
Brexit itself does not nullify laws in effect in the UK.
As headlined at Out-Law.com:
Survey reveals UK business' misunderstanding on GDPR and Brexit
.
The GDPR is the General Data Protection Regulation, which goes into effect in the EU before Brexit occurs.
The UK government has said that the GDPR will be adopted in the UK regardless of Brexit.
What happens thereafter is then up to the lawmakers in the United Kingdom.
Saturday, April 01, 2017
Saturday, February 04, 2017
Metropolitan Museum in New York City in Financial Difficulty ... A Sign of the Times?
Met Museum in Decline?
is a question posed by Robin Pogrebin at the New York Times regarding the financially troubled Metropolitan Museum in NYC.
We are certain that such a great institution as the Met will ultimately recover and prosper down the road -- after returning to its core responsibilities -- but its financial difficulties in our opinion may mirror severe similar problems found throughout a "liberal" U.S. society too often marked by what we view as skewed "mainstream" hype, hubris and overreaching (i.e. allegedly "politically correct" activism that extends far beyond "legitimate" duties and roles).
The prevailing "populist" revolt in the USA, the United Kingdom's ongoing path to Brexit, plus strong political populist unrest in Europe in general, seem to reflect an inevitable pendulum swing in mass popular opinion -- a movement which appears to be based on an instinctive, underlying need of the affected nations' inhabitants to restore a sensible balance of powers and interests.
We are not against "liberalism" as such, but it represents at best, only half the world. When the other half is forgotten, trouble ensues.
For example, reporters at the New York Times in their recent political reporting have totally forgotten that something like 60 million voters in the USA are not against the new U.S. President but are likely rooting privately: "Go Trump!".
Where in the pages of the world's leading newspaper is that reported? Either you report the REAL news, i.e. what is actually happening "out there" and not necessarily what media people at the NY Times WANT to happen, or, you become like the Met, a once major player left behind by the times....
The Met may thus not be any kind of a special exception. We ourselves are reading the New York Times less and less these days, because their news reporting has become more and more partisan and vastly overreaching in terms of their actual "news" responsibilities.
We are certain that such a great institution as the Met will ultimately recover and prosper down the road -- after returning to its core responsibilities -- but its financial difficulties in our opinion may mirror severe similar problems found throughout a "liberal" U.S. society too often marked by what we view as skewed "mainstream" hype, hubris and overreaching (i.e. allegedly "politically correct" activism that extends far beyond "legitimate" duties and roles).
The prevailing "populist" revolt in the USA, the United Kingdom's ongoing path to Brexit, plus strong political populist unrest in Europe in general, seem to reflect an inevitable pendulum swing in mass popular opinion -- a movement which appears to be based on an instinctive, underlying need of the affected nations' inhabitants to restore a sensible balance of powers and interests.
We are not against "liberalism" as such, but it represents at best, only half the world. When the other half is forgotten, trouble ensues.
For example, reporters at the New York Times in their recent political reporting have totally forgotten that something like 60 million voters in the USA are not against the new U.S. President but are likely rooting privately: "Go Trump!".
Where in the pages of the world's leading newspaper is that reported? Either you report the REAL news, i.e. what is actually happening "out there" and not necessarily what media people at the NY Times WANT to happen, or, you become like the Met, a once major player left behind by the times....
The Met may thus not be any kind of a special exception. We ourselves are reading the New York Times less and less these days, because their news reporting has become more and more partisan and vastly overreaching in terms of their actual "news" responsibilities.
Sunday, January 22, 2017
The Forthcoming Brexit Decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
British newspapers in the past few days (e.g. The Telegraph
) have reported that the decision
of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
on the Article 50 'Brexit' Appeal
is scheduled to be issued to the public at 9:30 a.m. on
Tuesday.
Expert expectations regarding the Supreme Court decision are that a Parliament vote on Brexit will be required to trigger an Article 50 exit , i.e. it is expected that the Justices will rule that Prime Minister Theresa May's government does not have the prerogative power to trigger Article 50 and that this can only be done by an Act of Parliament.
We posted previously that Brexit is Likely Not a Legal EU Exit Without UK Parliament Approval as Required by British Constitutional Law Principles .
Achieving that objective after the court's pending decision may be easier said than done. The Court might even create more requirements.
Quick approval for Brexit from the House of Commons is considered likely, but gaining such approval from the House of Lords will be more difficult.
British Prime Minister Theresa May already backed down last year from alienating the House of Lords. Rob Merrick at The Independent wrote an article last year headlined: Theresa May backs out of fight to curb House of Lords power over Article 50 delay fears: A move to strip peers of their right to veto 'statutory instruments' has been abandoned, sources say - in an attempt to calm their anger over Brexit .
We do not expect the House of Lords to "rubber stamp" Brexit. They are the powerful "unknowns" in the entire Brexit equation.
Many people have assumed that the UK exit from the EU was settled by the Brexit referendum, but they have greatly underestimated the massive long-term legal, economic and political infrastructure that any political and economic alliance involves, especially something as massive as the European Union.
One need remember that the Brexit referendum has no direct force of law and is considered politically "advisory" only. Of course, its populist "yes" result has strong political force as regards the prevailing government in power, but that is not the same as the rule of law. Indeed, political referendums have been ignored by governments before.
Indeed, even if Brexit actually occurs down the road, the long-term negative repercussions on the United Kingdom will be severe for many years.
That is why democracies have "representative" governments -- to assure the continuity of policies and the orderly handling of things, according to the law.
Many people in the United Kingdom have already incurred large, unexpected financial losses as a consequence of the negative expectations raised by the prospect of Brexit.
We recently talked to someone who attends a (previously) very popular "European" trade fair in the UK every year. This time around that same trade fair was "virtually empty".
Similarly, tourism to the UK has in the past been composed to 67% of visitors from the European Union, who spend billions in the UK. Many tourist-dependent enterprises worry that the future will bring fewer EU visitors.
The inevitable solution in such a case of course will be to recruit tourists from far-off lands, meaning that the goal of having fewer foreigners or less foreign influence in the UK, a main objective of Brexit, may not be achieved at all.
It is also no coincidence that British Prime Minister May will be the first foreign dignitary to visit newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington D.C. and that trade is scheduled to be a big topic . Brexit will put the UK into a more isolated position economically, so that they will have to find new markets.
It all reminds a bit of the problems faced by the former Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth was excommunicated by Pope Pius V, barring England economically from then predominantly Roman Catholic Europe. Elizabeth had to turn to establishing economic relations with non-Christian empires in the Near East to supplant the lost European trade, which brought much foreign influence into Britain.
If the majority of people in the United Kingdom continue to support disengagement from the European Union, obviously, democratic principles require that Brexit ultimately be implemented, but it is a complicated business that can not be executed until the future-necessitated legal details have been correctly legislated and the existing legal obligations fulfilled.
It will in any case be interesting to see how the drama unfolds.
Expert expectations regarding the Supreme Court decision are that a Parliament vote on Brexit will be required to trigger an Article 50 exit , i.e. it is expected that the Justices will rule that Prime Minister Theresa May's government does not have the prerogative power to trigger Article 50 and that this can only be done by an Act of Parliament.
We posted previously that Brexit is Likely Not a Legal EU Exit Without UK Parliament Approval as Required by British Constitutional Law Principles .
Achieving that objective after the court's pending decision may be easier said than done. The Court might even create more requirements.
Quick approval for Brexit from the House of Commons is considered likely, but gaining such approval from the House of Lords will be more difficult.
British Prime Minister Theresa May already backed down last year from alienating the House of Lords. Rob Merrick at The Independent wrote an article last year headlined: Theresa May backs out of fight to curb House of Lords power over Article 50 delay fears: A move to strip peers of their right to veto 'statutory instruments' has been abandoned, sources say - in an attempt to calm their anger over Brexit .
We do not expect the House of Lords to "rubber stamp" Brexit. They are the powerful "unknowns" in the entire Brexit equation.
Many people have assumed that the UK exit from the EU was settled by the Brexit referendum, but they have greatly underestimated the massive long-term legal, economic and political infrastructure that any political and economic alliance involves, especially something as massive as the European Union.
One need remember that the Brexit referendum has no direct force of law and is considered politically "advisory" only. Of course, its populist "yes" result has strong political force as regards the prevailing government in power, but that is not the same as the rule of law. Indeed, political referendums have been ignored by governments before.
Indeed, even if Brexit actually occurs down the road, the long-term negative repercussions on the United Kingdom will be severe for many years.
That is why democracies have "representative" governments -- to assure the continuity of policies and the orderly handling of things, according to the law.
Many people in the United Kingdom have already incurred large, unexpected financial losses as a consequence of the negative expectations raised by the prospect of Brexit.
We recently talked to someone who attends a (previously) very popular "European" trade fair in the UK every year. This time around that same trade fair was "virtually empty".
Similarly, tourism to the UK has in the past been composed to 67% of visitors from the European Union, who spend billions in the UK. Many tourist-dependent enterprises worry that the future will bring fewer EU visitors.
The inevitable solution in such a case of course will be to recruit tourists from far-off lands, meaning that the goal of having fewer foreigners or less foreign influence in the UK, a main objective of Brexit, may not be achieved at all.
It is also no coincidence that British Prime Minister May will be the first foreign dignitary to visit newly inaugurated U.S. President Donald Trump in Washington D.C. and that trade is scheduled to be a big topic . Brexit will put the UK into a more isolated position economically, so that they will have to find new markets.
It all reminds a bit of the problems faced by the former Queen Elizabeth I, daughter of Henry VIII and his second wife, Anne Boleyn. Elizabeth was excommunicated by Pope Pius V, barring England economically from then predominantly Roman Catholic Europe. Elizabeth had to turn to establishing economic relations with non-Christian empires in the Near East to supplant the lost European trade, which brought much foreign influence into Britain.
If the majority of people in the United Kingdom continue to support disengagement from the European Union, obviously, democratic principles require that Brexit ultimately be implemented, but it is a complicated business that can not be executed until the future-necessitated legal details have been correctly legislated and the existing legal obligations fulfilled.
It will in any case be interesting to see how the drama unfolds.
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°
Native American Rock Art Petroglyphs Pictographs
Deciphered as Land Survey & Astronomy by Andis Kaulins
paperbacks in color print
Volume 1, 2nd Edition, 266 pages
ISBN: 1517396816 / 9781517396817
Volume 2, 2nd Edition, 262 pages
ISBN: 1517396832 / 9781517396831
Sky Earth Native America Volume 1
Sky Earth Native America Volume 2
by Andis Kaulins J.D. Stanford by Andis Kaulins J.D. Stanford
(front cover(s))
(back cover with a photograph of the author and book absract text)
