Why EU Decisions must always be sub-Optimal for each Member State

I realise that a mere five days ago I resolved not to post on the topic of the EU again on this blog, and that remains my firm intention, however yesterday morning I was involved in a twitter exchange with Jonathan Faull, a senior Eurocrat presently serving the whims of EU Commissioner Barnier for Competition and the Single Market. I am pasting them below as for me they briefly encapsulate why the EU is doomed or can only proceed on a 100% "Best for Germany" basis:

Robert Peston ‏@Peston 26 Jul

Important on Cunliffe Bank appointment: he is Mr Europe; shows Treasury worried UK always outvoted on fin stuff in EU by eurozone members

Details

Jonathan Faull ‏@FaullJonathan

.@Peston Absolutely untrue that "UK always outvoted on fin stuff in #EU by eurozone members". Only once in recent years, bankers' bonuses.

1. Martin Cole ‏@IroniesToo 26 Jul

   @FaullJonathan All know that votes are rarely called unless unanimity pre-determined. UK has been scalped by double-deals & UK negligence

   Details
2. Jonathan Faull ‏@FaullJonathan 27 Jul

   @IroniesToo Ask other countries about influence, alliances and arguments in EU decision making. Prejudice will turn to surprise.

Martin Cole ‏@IroniesToo 23h

@FaullJonathan Re: influence, alliances and arguments in EU decision making-Their very existence is proof positive MS shifting from optimum>

>As the overall effect of the #EU is daily more clearly sub-optimal economically & dangerous socially; it MUST end or #Brexit

 Jonathan Faull ‏@FaullJonathan 22h

1. @IroniesToo Prejudice, not argument

   View conversation
2. Jonathan Faull ‏@FaullJonathan 22h

   @IroniesToo How do you think democracy works, nationally and in EU? Not by pre-defined optimum, but argument, discussion, alliances....

Martin Cole ‏@IroniesToo 21h

@FaullJonathan Nationally, in Parliament there is a Common Goal and the substance diverts decisions. EU has none of this & decision pre-set>

Happily we now have decades of actual experience which demonstrates both the flawed outcomes and pampered elites of the #EU

I thought it worth posting these whilst at the same time correcting a typo in my earlier "EU etc., last posting"!

Let's face it the lesson of all these years was, as I made clear in my novel "Millennium Bltzkrieg" written in the mid to late nineteen-nineties, that the EU can only be good for one single former nation and that will be the strongest, all others will suffer, lose their democracy and bear the deep corruption and likely authoritarianism all now apparently for nothing but the wealth of their political leadership (...and power of their seconded nationals to its institutions?)

Three individuals are now in line to a debased & despoiled Monarchy.

Yesterday was an historic moment by the mere fact that for apparently the first time in history there are today three individuals in line to ithe diretc inheritance of the British Crown, Prince Charles, Prince William and yesterday's newborn baby boy.

The reign of Queen Elizabeth II has been long and scrupulously fulfilled in so far as the detail and ceremony of the role has been concerned. With regard to the main aspects incorporated in her Coronation Oath, the obligation to rule free from foreign influence and in accordance with the traditions of her people it has regrettably failed as is all too plainly visible in almost every detail of the average Briton's daily life.

This blogger has also failed in his objective to halt and turn back the encroachments of the EU. This week I will turn sixty-nine years and I have written and done all I could on these blogs without any prospect of affecting the course of events, as made clear by the grotesque publication of the Government's Review of EU Competencies, read here, combined with plans for taxpayers to further finance a renewed housing bubble by lending cash for deposits to couples unable to afford them, read here.

There is no sense or point in railing against clear insanity to those determiined to utterly delude themselves!

I may from time to time point out the latest stupidity as it involves Britain and the EU, otherwise this blog will, in the main, hold its typist's finger!

Who is Duke of Cornwall upon the death of Prince Charles?

Last March in the IB Times, read here,  I raised the anomalies over the present arrangements regarding the Duchy of Cornwall and queried whether it was proper that these may be passed along to Prince William.

With the imminent arrival of a new heir to the throne and the new accession arrangements passed by Parliament apparently not having touched on this matter, it is timely that on 16th July, ( a mere four months later,) the House of Commons Public Accounts Committee took this matter up.

A video of that meeting is linked from here.

Towards the end of that session the oddness of the arrangements regarding the Duchy were hilariously demonstrated, and I urge all to try and find time to watch it during this weekend or even over the coming summer, for it illustrates the absurdities so often occurring in Britain's governance, which a self-motivated  few have so easily exploited to put our democracy in the gravest peril within the EU.

EU Citizen Surveillance or Projecting Force Abroad?

The announcement yesterday by Air Chief Marshal Dalton of the RAF on the 617 Dambuster Squadron was interesting; One report is linked here and the following is a brief extract:

“The Lightning's state of the art stealth and precision target capabilities, together with the battle-proven Typhoon force, will complement each others’ capabilities and set the base-line for UK Combat ISTAR2 air power as a contemporary global force for the 2020s and beyond.
 
“Lightning shall be operated jointly by the Royal Air Force and Fleet Air Arm pilots, from land or from the Queen Elizabeth Class carrier. Overall, a hugely flexible and futuristic joint capability.”

The Footnote 2 referring to ISTAR partly explains as follows:

"2. Combat ISTAR refers to the ability of armed aircraft to conduct intelligence gathering or surveillance missions while simultaneously equipped to strike targets or provide support to ground forces." 

That definition nicely encompasses both manned and unmanned flight but with intelligence as its priority. So the famed Dambuster Squadron seems set to become a mere arm of the (post-Snowden, rightly suspiciosly viewed,) GCHQ spying operations, in future presumably mostly involving drones!

So we are beginning to get a view  of how this Government and its masters in the EU now view the role for Britain's Queen Elizabeth class of Carriers for which only Britain's taxpayers are footing the bill: intelligence gathering on its own citizens within the EU and projection of its evil designs beyond its borders as its own non-democratic and therefore potentially despotic and even perhaps tyrannical leaders (whomsoever they come to be,)  in secret, (yet again without democratic scrutiny) may from time to time so decide!

Defence or even perhaps aggression, debatably and rarely, on the basis of 'my country right or wrong' could perhaps be envisioned in forming a defence policy for the future of any democracy BUT NEVER CAN IT BE SO ON THE BASIS OF  'this EU right or wrong'.

This matter and the planning and expenditure underway, is a hugely compelling reason to hold any EU referendum as soon as possible. The suspicious frequent recent showing of the film of the Dambuster raid and spin around Squadron Leader Gibson, hint at the possible disbandonment of the reformed 617 Squadron becoming a propaganda tool in the anti-Brexit campaign. Scrapping of the two carriers will also be a powerful tool to win over the jingoist vote as perceived by the likes of British Interest.

Considering Britain's interests outside the EU it is hard to make a decent case for the Aircraft Carriers, within the EU they can only be used for spreading such sinister and greed driven power and influence overseas.

Such EU power would be  mainly, I guess, towards Africa, thus continuing the disgraceful situation ongoing in Somalia to other parts of that Continent, whose plight was brilliantly described in last evening's programme on BBC2 in its Indian Ocean series.

EVERYTHING Veritas was formed to prevent is NOW underway!

Thanks to the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties Britain is now in exactly the mess Veritas predicted and was specifically formed to prevent!

Read the archive page for my blog of February 2005, the month the party was formed, from here, or if not just the last of the few postings for that month as pasted below:

§§§§§§§

Monday, February 07, 2005
 
Britain's Dire Straits and Veritas

Why we need a new party, which I am now promoting as Chief of Staff to Robert Kilroy-Silk, could not be better summed up than it is in the conclusion to the Melanie Philip's column in this morning's Daily Mail:

....the need to defend the core values of the nation which are under attack on all fronts. In the NHS the values under siege are fairness and duty to the vulnerable; in education it is the concept of truth itself; in the justice system, freedom from fear and insecurity; in immigration the preservation of national identity; in Europe the existance of democracy and the nation state. All these things are being sold short as the governance of the country careers into ever-increasing chaos.
The almost inevitable outcome from such a flight from political courage on all sides is a dirty election - and the growing feeling that politics itself is now in some kind of self-destructive endgame.

§§§§§§§

Blair, Brown, Cameron, Clegg, Howard, etc., plus all their minions and party workers have brought Britain to this pass. Only the British electorate can do anything about putting it right, that now appears to be best achieved by supporting UKIP!

EU Justice? Were Brits defeated even with Trident?

The following extracts from Hansard are merely part of what the Home Secretary stood in the House of Commons and admitted yesterday, read the full speech here.

As things stand, the Commission proposes to change Europol’s governance and powers, potentially allowing it to direct national police forces and requiring us to share sensitive intelligence crucial to our national security. I believe that would be entirely unacceptable. These powers are unnecessary and would undermine our way of policing—and Europol has not even asked for them. The motive of the Commission appears to be nothing more than state-building. That is why we will not opt into the new Europol regulation and will never do so until those concerns have been put beyond doubt.

Some of my hon. Friends have been keen for me to address the question of the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. I have mentioned it already, but let me look at the issue once again. Between 1995 and the end of November 2009, 136 measures in the field of police and criminal justice were adopted in Brussels under the so-called third pillar. This meant that they were not the usual EU Acts and were not subject to either Commission enforcement powers or the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice. As a result, we could not be told by others that we had not implemented things properly 

15 July 2013 : Column 783

and we could not be fined millions of pounds as a result. There were no European Court rulings that bound us, and we had a veto in negotiations.

When the last Government signed the Lisbon treaty, they changed the constitutional basis of the European Union, giving more powers over police and criminal justice matters to European institutions, and removing our veto in police and criminal justice. Now, at the end of a five-year transitional period on 1 December 2014, these pre-Lisbon measures become subject to Commission enforcement powers and the full jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice.

In fact, the whole justice and home affairs structure since Lisbon takes too much control away from elected national Governments. The Commission or the Council propose a measure, and the UK has the right to decide not to opt in, but if we decide that the measure is in the national interest and we do opt in, we are subject not only to qualified majority voting in the Council but to co-legislation rules in which the European Parliament is considered to be an equal to the Council of Ministers. Elected national Governments are sidelined—and that is before we even consider the role of the European Court of Justice in interpreting the measure once it becomes binding.

Mark Reckless: Is the Home Secretary aware of the European Union Act 2011 in the context of what is required for a referendum? Section 4(1)(i) refers to

“the conferring on an EU institution or body of power to impose a requirement or obligation on the United Kingdom”;

while (j) refers to

“the conferring on an EU institution or body of new or extended power to impose sanctions on the United Kingdom”.

Surely an opt-in to the various 35 measures will do that and should trigger a referendum.

Mrs May: Let me give my hon. Friend the answer that I gave when the matter was last raised with me. I do not believe that opting back into these measures would trigger a referendum under the powers that the Government have. However, I think Members should welcome the Government’s statement that no future United Kingdom Government will sign a treaty unless a suitable vote is held among the British people.

Today a report on Britain's future nuclear deterrent will be published for consideration - is it not crystal clear from all this, that during the existing Trident programme Britain's greatest enemies have been those within who have delivered the nation into foreign control and placed it under alien governance?

Vacation bullshit fills the airwaves

British broadcasters, regrettably now including Bloomberg TV, are filling the British airwaves this morning with reports of how the economy is on the mend (laughably on the back of again inflating house prices) so that politicians and their servile paid mouthpieces in the MSM can again go off on holiday once more pretending that economically all is well.

When reality returns in September with these mostly idle thick-heads, should things hang together that long, an even nastier mess then ever previously imaginable seems bound to await.

On Bloomberg one British "expert" even explained this suppose brighter outlook is partly down to the resolution of the Euro crisis, presumably intending to mean Greece, Portugal and Iceland have now willingly and meekly accepted German subjugation and decades of depression, one must presume.

Spain and Italy are for the moment forgotten, while in France, President Hollande, sings from the same false song sheet, heavens help those who have saved and laboured for their own retirement!

EU Commission objects to Nazi Comparisons

The Commission has reacted in the form of a press release in the French language to comparisons made between its grab for banking regulatory responsibilities and the former Nazi regime in Germany, read here.

I do not know from where the criticism that has stung them into this uncharacteristic response first emanated, but the German reaction has been particularly  vehemently opposed and expressed at high levels which may account for this sharp reaction.

This blog has justifiably been criticising the absolutely abhorrent EU Commission for years but without any similar response. I try to use measured tones although my own abhoorence of what they have been about runs very deep!

Patten, Britain's Establishment and MPs Pay

I offered two paasages from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged to readers of this blog on New Year's Day 2011. I repeat them today, the first on the rotten oak tree as it seems so apt on thinking of the British Establishment in 2013 so dreadfully epitomised by ex-EU Commissioner Patten; the second because so many of our MPs whose proposed 11% pay rise will be discussed in the House of Commons today, seem so far away from having any grasp of what is right!

The great oak tree had stood on a hill over the Hudson, in a lonely spot of the Taggert estate. Eddie Willers, aged seven, liked to come and look at that tree. It had stood there for hundreds of years, and he thought it would always stand there. Its roots clutched the hill like a fist with fingers stuck into the soil, and he thought if a giant were to seize it by the top, he would not be able to uproot it, but would swing the hill and the whole of the earth with it, like a ball at the end of a string. He felt safe in the oak tree's presence; it was a thing that nothing could change or threaten; it was his greatest symbol of strength.

   One night, lightning struck the oak tree. Eddie saw it the next morning. It lay broken in half, and he looked into its trunk as into the mouth of a black tunnel. The trunk was only an empty shell; its heart had rotted away long ago; there was nothing inside - just a thin gray dust that was being dispersed by the whim of the faintest wind. The living power had gone, and the shape of it left had not been able to stand without it.

***

  Eddie Willers smiled. He had said " Whatever is right," twenty-two years ago. He had kept that statement unchallenged ever since; the other questions had faded in his mind; he had been too busy to ask them. But he still thought it self-evident that one had to do what was right; he had never learned how people could want to do otherwise; he had learned only that they did. It still seemed simple and incomprehensible to him: simple that things should be right, and incomprehensible that they weren't.

All Three Main Parties Accused of Skullduggery in Commons

The entire electorate know that charges of financial trickery are warranted.

Below, from Hansard, linked here, are some of the direct charges made yesterday in the House of Commons by MPs themselves. What, if anything will the electorate do about it? Is merely withdrawing their support for the three main political parties in elections really sufficient? 

§§§§§§§

Andrew Stephenson(Pendle) (Con): Given the scandal involving Unite the Union in Falkirk, and the leaked internal document showing that it is now trying to influence selections in 40 other constituencies across the country, including Pendle, does the Minister agree that there is huge public demand for complete transparency on the influence of trade unions on our political system?
Miss Smith: It is high time this is looked at. I think that the examples my hon. Friend has just given demonstrate that these are by no means isolated cases. It is the same old Labour party, which Len McCluskey still bankrolls, still rigs selections for, still controls and still chooses the leader for.
Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab): The Minister talks about transparency in the political system. She will be aware of the huge concern in March last year when it was first disclosed that multi-millionaires were getting privileged access to No. 10 Downing street and potentially influencing Government policy. It is about more than just elections; it is about influencing Government policy. Does she think that those millionaires will have more of an impact or less of an impact at the next general election?

§§§

The Deputy Prime Minister: All parties in this House, if we are candid with each other, have had problems with the way in which big money circulates in politics.... the Labour party has failed and failed and failed to address the fact that it is at the beck and call of major vested interests in British society

Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab): Would not the Deputy Prime Minister speak with more credibility about political funding if his party returned the £2.5 million given to it by a convicted criminal, Michael Brown? That money was stolen. Why not return it?

§§§§§§§

Political parties wield THE power in Britain, those who join them know how they are run and thereby make a Faustian pact to partake in that power. The Parties are all, it would appear from the above and in one way or another, similarly corrupt. The powers thus obtained, it seems from the ever continuing expenses scandals, are then mainly being used for the self-enrichment of such MPs, even to the extent of the selling out of the democracy and Parliament these very MPs were actually elected to protect. But the Parties controlling the candidate lists and the tribal voting patterns of the British electorate, allow this system to survive - even to the now almost complete bankruptcy of the country and its effective governance from abroad!

Not voting Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat ever again is certainly one remedy, but is it enough given the powers already ceded to the EU? 

Any remedy thus seems to first demand EU withdrawal which is possible under Article 5O but to make that possible will demand a huge and sudden surge in support for UKIP, for which they are yet to be fully prepared. 

An alternative would be for enough MPs, possibly now spurred by sensing their own looming danger, to  at last realise the urgency and necessity of a non-EU, non ConLabLib alternative for Great Britain. If they let the Euro crisis play itself out, it will be too late for them and we will all become dependent upon the organisational and administrative talents which UKIP can muster.

All MPs today stand accused of complicity in this mess, by continuing to be beneficiaries of the corrupt system their parties have deliberately created for election to public office in the UK, only allowing in weak-willed dross who will continue to tolerate such obscene abuses of power apparently with self-enrichment their one and only aim!

Compulsory Union Membership in Local Government = Labour Party State Funding

I mentioned on Twitter this morning an argument I had among then family members  regarding compulsory trade union membership taken up by husband and wife graduates of the University of Wales in Cardiff when gaining employment in Local Government. They argued they had no choice but thereby and thereafter one presumes, made contributions to a Trade Union supporting the Labour Party. In spite of being graduates, and thereby well educated and rounded in British terms, one a civil engineer the other a solicitor, neither professed to be able to see any objection to this closed shop arrangement.

Hundreds of thousands of British people down the decades must presumably have held similar opinions! Even Thatcher never tried to tackle the similar closed shop systems operated by the associations of the so-called professions - thus corpoatism which is destroying us has deep roots in society!

Thus was the Labour Party financed to successively wreck the  economy of our country and corrupt the Conservative Party towards socialism. as they have now fully achieved with Cameron in control.

Only when the mass of ordinary people, (struggling to support their families in this daily worsening economic situation,) confront these truths, will any proper national independent recovery be possible! Work cannot even be begun while the three existing leading parties still gather electoral support.

Jillings - Successive Governments Contempt for Conscience AND Decency

The BBC Wales web report on the supposed publication today of the long awaited Jillings Report today is here. It includes this astounding statement:

"A redacted [edited] version of the 300-page report was finally made public and published online on Monday following a Freedom of Information (FoI) request by the BBC."

Earlier today this paragraph began "A redacted [edited] version of the 300-page report will finally be made public" 

So the BBC knew that censorship was still at work! The following quote is from an earlier post on this blog on this topic which shows just how far back this cover-up that is continuing this very Monday morning actually goes:

Anne Clwyd Hansard Point of Order 19th June 1996

The Hansard record on the 1996 Point of Order by Anne Clwyd is linked here and contains this summary of the outrageous cover-up effected in Parliament by our supposed representatives and protectors of our democracy and freedoms:Ms Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

Further to the point of order that I put to you this morning, Madam Speaker. I understand that Mr. Speaker Weatherill's ruling of 17 February 1992 blocks the early-day motions that I attempted to table last night relating to the North Wales police and child abuse. I should be grateful if you would reconsider the position, because it now seems that one cannot table a motion or a question for oral or written answer; one cannot speak in a debate or, probably, even introduce a Bill drawing on the experience in Clwyd. One cannot raise the issue in a Select Committee or a Standing Committee either. A wall of silence will surround the passage of the Government motion later tonight.

I cannot defend that in my constituency. My constituents were involved, and there are things that should be done before that motion is passed. We should have had a debate in the House on child abuse, and the Secretary of State for Health should have made a statement on the Utting review. This morning a Welsh Office Minister tried to convince me that the Jillings report was defamatory. That is rubbish. What are they trying to hide?
Finally, I want to expose the fact that 25 years ago there was a report on Bryn Estyn, one of the homes involved in the Clwyd child abuse case, but it was never published because the Home Office suppressed it. We cannot close down debate in the House of Commons on an issue as important as child abuse. 

Oh yes they could, it seems, and for more than 16 years during which they could continue with their own perversions or covering up those of others!

Read also this posting of November last year, linked here. 

Successive Governments are trying to hide the fact that British children were treated like beasts and instead of being brought to justice the perpetrators have been shielded from the consequences of their actions by decisions taken at the very top of Governments and the British Legal System during the Premierships of John Major to David Cameron; with potentially some reviews by those ruling in between. They thus place themselves as beneath the levels of beasts! Many supposed dumb animals would find it against nature to act in such a manner and reason suggests were such so to do then the "herd" would not protect them!
 

Bexhill Voters typify Briton's disregard for Democracy

 The above photo is from this link and appeared in the Guardian on 2nd March 2012 and is the copyright of Andrew Parsons/PA Archive who if he objects to this use can contact me and I will remove the copy. It seems relevant to this blog posting and therefore is included. The original caption was "MP Gregory Barker, Conservative leader David Cameron and his aide Steve Hilton during their 2006 visit to the Arctic. Photograph: Andrew Parsons/PA Archive"

Gregory Barker MP for Bexhill is in the Daily Telegraph this morning, linked here from which comes the following:

Greg Barker, the energy minister, claimed £23,904 between 2011 and 2012, when the cap was £19,900. He rented a two-bedroom flat in central London before moving to another flat nearby.

Mr Barker divorced from his wife after coming out as a homosexual. His three children are understood to live with her in his Bexhill and Battle constituency, where he originally claimed expenses on a home with a rent of £697 a month.

The rule change on claims for children was introduced in April 2011. Two months later, Mr Barker “flipped” to start claiming on the London flat. His rental claims tripled to £2,150 a month. Mr Barker said: “All of the claims were pre-approved by Ipsa and fully comply with the Ipsa rules.”

The Wikipedia entry on this fairly typical sounding, close Conservative ally, of Prime Minister Cameron is linked here and fleshes out the readers impression of what it describes as Gregory Barker's character with this extra insight
 
In 2001, Barker became the MP for Bexhill and Battle after the retirement of the sitting Conservative MP, Charles Wardle. Barker's nomination by the Conservative Party was hotly debated when sitting MP and former Home Office Minister Charles Wardle accused Barker of being disingenuous about his business career and formally requesting Conservative Party Leader Iain Duncan Smith to investigate possible links between Barker and the infamous Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky.[3] Wardle supported Nigel Farage (who later became the leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party)

Greg or Gregory Barker, was involved and went along on the now infamous Cameron husky photo shoot on the ice as reported by the Guardian here, so is deeply implicated within the what is now the clearly disastrous entire Cameroon Project which has led the Tories to their election defeat of 2010 and now almost certain extinction, ironically at the hands of the man Bexhill voters ignored in the face of warnings from their longstanding and well-liked and former MP, Charles Wardle, namely Nigel Farage, Leader of the ever strengthening UKIP!

Barker is now Minister of State for Climate Change in spite of being implicated in the 2009 expenses scandal he was indeed re-elected by the tribal Tory voters of Bexhill in 2010.

Bexhill, a small seaside town in Sussex, has therefore come to typify the blind ingorance of Britain's party politics which has clearly, in view of this week's similar exposure of the Labour Party, revealed the deep rot in our system of governance.

These MPs abusing and milking taxpayers have handed nearly all their powers and responsibilities to the EU in Brussels, that is why the nation is broke - but MPs, quite simply couldn't care less!

Elected Politicians? How can they sleep or look into constituents' eyes?

Here is absolute proof of how governance of the UK has been given away and that elected politicians are merely there for the perks 5even ultimate self-serving slippery fish Lord Mandelson has now reportedly withdrawn his support):

Duchy of Cornwall

The Channel 4 TV Dispatches Programme last evening on the finances of the Prince of Wales continued a theme with which this blog has been concerned for some time, see here.

My post to IBTimes on the subject is again repeated herewith, as this is a problem daily becoming more urgent.

Queen's Return to Health is Ideal Time to Consider Mechanics of Handover to Heir to Throne [BLOG]

Anomalies surrounding the royal succession need to be ironed out now

By Martin Cole: Subscribe to Martin's RSS feed

March 12, 2013 5:17 PM GMT

Long-serving: Queen Elizabeth II

The Queen has returned to her normal duties.

I have no idea how many of my fellow countrymen and women felt  the same sense of small discomposure on first hearing the news of her admission to hospital. In my case such came as a surprise.
The front page of my Sunday newspaper, still a tradition for many on the nation's most leisurely morning of the week, featured a picture of Prince Charles, clad in lime green ski clothes at the Swiss resort of Klosters, with a caption reporting that he and the Duchess of Cornwall would be departing on a visit to Japan
Thus are our senior royals so insidiously intertwined into the very fabric and substance of our country's life.
Yet the Queen cannot endure forever, a moment of transition will inevitably arrive and great questions are brought to mind that appear to have not been yet addressed when the full possible implications of her recent hospital visit are carefully considered.

Follow us   Follow @IBTimesUK

Should we allow present arrangements to continue and remain in effect up to the moment succession occurs, or might we not be better to already correct existing anomalies in a calm, equitable and unemotional manner, while we still have the benefit of the Queen's experience and expertise to smooth what is certain in these straitened economic times to be a somewhat bruising and painful experience?
High up on any list of anomalous arrangements completely unacceptable in a 21st-century constitutional monarchy and supposed democracy are the financial privileges granted to the heir to the throne. These revolve around the provisions for the Prince of Wales and the financial arrangements for the Duchy of Cornwall 
I would doubt there will be many in Britain today who could be found to argue that the present privileges and special financial arrangements enjoyed by Prince Charles should be transferred lock, stock and barrel to Prince William upon the death of the Queen - yet such seems to be the present effect of the existing provisions, even after passage of the legislation regarding succession now before parliament.
Other graver issues than the financing of the royal family are now at issue, however, due to the clear existential crisis faced by the EU to which we have incredibly attempted to abnegate a portion of our sovereignty by ministerial abuse of the puzzling powers of the royal prerogative. Background to some of these problems may be obtained by typing "Royal+Prerogative" in the search box of my blog Ironies Too  or for those with time and a strong desire to be perhaps sickened by the real mess in which our constitution now stands read the evidence from Hansard of the present foreign secretary provided to parliament together with the great constitutionalist Tony Benn.
A pdf file on the deliberations of the House of Commons public administration select committee on the subject from 2002-2003 is linked here.
The death of a monarch, particularly one as long serving and dedicated as Queen Elizabeth II, is bound to prove a traumatic event in the life of any nation, never mind one locked into a non-democratic schizophrenic power bloc of supposed trading nations fearful for their own economic survival.
Britain would perhaps be best to use this precious period of domestic constitutional calm provided by the restored good health of our constitutional monarch to prepare better structures and procedures for the handover to her heir.