Saturday, July 29, 2017
Corporate Social Responsibility: EU BUSINESS REGULATIONS IN UK
Corporate Social Responsibility: EU BUSINESS REGULATIONS IN UK: EU BUSINESS REGULATIONS IN UK It is certainly not business as usual since British electorates opted to leave EU, now known as Brexit....
EU BUSINESS REGULATIONS IN UK
EU BUSINESS REGULATIONS IN UK
It is certainly not business as usual since British electorates opted to leave EU, now known as Brexit. Coming together in the first place was a product of a huge legal labyrinths. Disentangling the structure means another elaborate legal challenges especially to the international business community, as well as the common understanding of the legal environment by citizens.
Members of EU have uniform commercial code which are like templates for international business transactions across member nations. Of course with Brexit the equation has been altered. Some business deals that were concluded before the commencement of Brexit are clearly out of the purview of this discourse, except to watch out how UK laws would affect the status quo. However, for many of such negotiations that were not concluded before Brexit they remain ‘unfinished business’.
A bill in the making at the UK parliament shall, when passed into law, repeal such laws that subjugated UK extant business laws to the EU uniform commercial code. It would provide also the power to retain such laws that are beneficial to UK business environment and overall interest. To this end, any enforcement process against UK companies and businesses regarding compliance of EU laws would fail unless it coincides with UK laws.
Although UK has not completed the processes of exit and so not clear as to the contents of the package, it is feared that Britons living in EU nations stand to lose their rights accruing to other EU citizens. Also feared not to be available to UK citizens is the right of appeal from UK to EU Court of Justice that has been the vanguard of EU citizens human rights.
There is no doubt that EU has demonstrated global leadership in the protection of fundamental human right, insisting also that it should be the world’s parameter. Through its surveillance it warns nations derailing from the parameter to refrain from excesses. Recently such reprimand went to Polish government whose proposed judicial reforms would allow parliament and justice minister to appoint judges. Although Poland finds a strong ally in Hungary which has shown solidarity towards the reforms against possible EU criticisms and sanctions, similar situation is about to occur in Zimbabwe without a hoot from Africa Union.
Meanwhile UK business negotiations should be undertaken with the hindsight of Brexit. Except pending transactions aka ‘unfinished businesses’ sanctions and remedies are now based on UK laws. The intricacies and details shall engage the attention of subsequent comments.
Iyke Ozemena
Attorney
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
amazon.com/iyke ozemena books
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S DIRECTORS
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Corporate Social Responsibility: EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION
Corporate Social Responsibility: EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION: EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION Inspite of all challenges Europe seem optimistic about the unity of its community. Of course it has been...
EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION
EUROPE'S OPTIMISTIC UNION
Inspite of all
challenges Europe seem optimistic about the unity of its community. Of course
it has been looking optimistic because of numerous economic and human right
advantages that led to its formation until recently when British electorates
voted in a referendum to exit from the union.
Brexit has since then
generated a lot of heat within and without the community, not only about the
re-appraisal of its existence but also the process of exit and detailed
implications of member exit. Meanwhile the outcome of French elections, the
result of crucial and far-reaching referendum in Turkey as well as the imminent
G20 summit in Hamburg, Germany have collectively posed some challenges to the
stability of the union.
Prime Minister Theresa
May called an early election in order to consolidate and garner more support
for Brexit endeavors. However, June 8, 2017 election produced a lean harvest.
Even in the face of a hung parliament courage and patriotism became the
stabilizing factor in Britain on the verge of exit from EU.
French presidential
election produced a young President that holds the union to his chest, giving a
plus to the union during his tenure. To consolidate this position the
parliamentary election produced more female candidates than expected. This
unexpected feat apparently favors pro-Euro politicians.
After the attempted coup
in Turkey in 2016 President Erdogan proposed a number of constitution
amendments which significance was to enhance his powers to deal with the
various malaise. He won 51.4% support of the electorates. This electoral
victory is not popular in Europe because of excessive executive powers without
mechanisms to check those powers. This means that transparency and
accountability to EU’s standard may be missing; phenomena which the union
frowns at.
If you consider the fact
that most G20 countries come from Europe and a fortiori on the same page with
EU policies, the protests against its policies by human right activists, labor
and religious groups, one reckons the summit may not be a plus for EU. The
summit is expected to condemn protectionism which is inimical to global
interests, because of its effect on innovation and competition.
On a rather sad end
Helmut Kohl ex-German Chancellor that passed on recently was known for his
efforts towards unification of Germany and Europe; and so nicknamed a “great
European” “essence of Europe” etc. even at death. The tributes at his funeral
provided doses of optimism at a time the community needs it.
Iyke Ozemena
Attorney
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM
& CO
Corporate
Attorneys/Consultants
amazon.com/iyke ozemena books
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S DIRECTORS
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0075RXXLE COMPANY SECRETARIES HANDBOOK
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005783S6S DIRECTORS
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005MKCESY MEETINGS: Dynamics and Legality
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Corporate Social Responsibility: THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT
Corporate Social Responsibility: THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT: THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT The Economist refer to UK as “The Reluctant European” for so many obvious reasons one of which is Euroscep...
As Britain battles with Brexit negotiations the rest of the world have enormous lessons to learn from the development. In the past decades most part of the world embraced regional integration but discovered that the notion on itself does not provide all the socio-political and economic panacea envisaged.
As Britain battles with Brexit negotiations the rest of the world have enormous lessons to learn from the development. In the past decades most part of the world embraced regional integration but discovered that the notion on itself does not provide all the socio-political and economic panacea envisaged.
THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT
THE STORM IN BRITISH PARLIAMENT
The Economist refer to UK as “The Reluctant European” for so many obvious reasons one of which is Euroscepticism.
Britain did not embrace the idea of European Union which originated from the Treaty of Rome 1957. When she did, it was after a referendum that it finally joined European Economic Community (EEC) through the enactment of European Community Act 1972. Three years after joining she felt unsure whether she had made a wise decision or not, necessitating another referendum in 1975 which confirmed majority’s decision to join EEC.
When Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was established in 1992 with European Central Bank, Britain refrained from adopting Euro as her national currency and Sterling never yielded. Because of the far-reaching legal implications, it is not a project countries would like to embrace in a hurry. In the case of European Union, Britain is one country that pondered over the idea, debated and protested about it until they finally joined in 1972. But they skipped the monetary union. One of the reasons for doing so was the issue of sovereignty.
About June 30, 2015 when it had become abundantly clear that Greece failed its international debt obligation, Britain threatened to pull out of the EU, a threat that was made real a year later. Perhaps the pressure on European countries to fulfill their obligations to the avalanche of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc hastened UK’s action in pulling out soon.
Theresa May being the 2nd female Prime Minister (PM), was/is a pro-remain EU conservative, unlike Mrs Margaret Thatcher, late former Premier who was not in a hurry to drag Britain to Brussels; in her view that amounted to subjugation of Westminster. Within the episode the supremacy of parliament became the subject-matter of litigation to the Supreme Court.
In a split judgment of 8 to 3, it took the Supreme Court four days in December, 2016 to decide the appeal from the High Court in favor of an Act of Parliament to kick-start the process of leaving European Union. Before the landmark decision, Prime Minister Theresa May thought and expected the role of parliament in the episode to be that of a by-stander, or complimentary. Rather than waiting and concurring with the British government’s procedures as stipulated in Article 50 of the Treaty, the Supreme Court declared that indeed the legislature is in charge of the template to chart the retreat to the disappointment of the PM. For the PM it is unnecessary “parliamentary interference”; and for the opposition Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty requires amendment “to prevent the conservative from using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven”.
Article 50 TEU provides for notification in case of Brexit but commentators hold the view that there may be other ways. But does notification connote exit and exonerations from every legal obligations binding through membership? The real basis of EU was signatory to Lisbon Treaty 2007 which consolidated the Treaty of Rome 1957 and Masstricht Treaty 1993.
The PM thinks the repeal of European Communities Act 1972 and communication to Brussels by her government are all required, while the Supreme Court felt there is something more serious in it that requires parliament to legislate on it, to trigger of exit negotiations. There seem to be consensus that once activated Article 50 is irrevocable; i.e no going back to European Union after exit. However, some commentators relying on Article 49 feel it is revocable as they also refer to the High Court’s case of R (Miller) V. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The referendum is only a wish, proclamation of sort which has done nothing yet to remove Britain from EU at least two years after the referendum.
There is no doubt now that Brexit has caused tremendous uncertainty for the regional economy and global business. It started by the EU Summit on Tuesday 28th June, 2016 the first after Brexit, featuring its global economic implications.
EU law incorporates European Convention on Human Rights, European Human Rights Commission, European Court on Human Right and any member country that joins is bound by these provisions and of course the fact that the rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable; but when exiting what components of the bargain go with exit?
There are now heated debates both inside and outside UK parliament as to what would be left for citizens after Brexit: certainly “Europe’s last dictatorship” is not an option. Therefore Leading lawyers and legal experts in their letter to ‘the Observer’ are warning that Brexit could trigger a human rights crisis in the UK that threatens to have a ‘domino effect’ across Europe.
Apart from a group with the tag ‘89up” which has embarked on a bandwagon mission of making Europe ‘a more open, pluralistic and democratic place’, the bunch of eminent legal luminaries have also joined the protest. Over 50 British lawyers, including silks, Baroness Kennedy QC, Lord Lester QC, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC expressed concern in a joint letter to the PM about the modalities of ensuring compliance with the rule of law in Britain after exit.
Their fears:
“We are calling for the EU to make Britain’s membership of the ECHR a legally binding requirement for any future free trade deal with the UK. The rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable when new countries join the EU.”
The action taken by these eminent lawyers points to the fact that in a democracy the government and state institutions alone cannot define the modalities of pluralist state. The need for inputs from civil societies is the hallmark of democratic and transparent governance.
Iyke Ozemena
Attorney @
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
https://corporateleadersboard.blogspot.com.ng/
The Economist refer to UK as “The Reluctant European” for so many obvious reasons one of which is Euroscepticism.
Britain did not embrace the idea of European Union which originated from the Treaty of Rome 1957. When she did, it was after a referendum that it finally joined European Economic Community (EEC) through the enactment of European Community Act 1972. Three years after joining she felt unsure whether she had made a wise decision or not, necessitating another referendum in 1975 which confirmed majority’s decision to join EEC.
When Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) was established in 1992 with European Central Bank, Britain refrained from adopting Euro as her national currency and Sterling never yielded. Because of the far-reaching legal implications, it is not a project countries would like to embrace in a hurry. In the case of European Union, Britain is one country that pondered over the idea, debated and protested about it until they finally joined in 1972. But they skipped the monetary union. One of the reasons for doing so was the issue of sovereignty.
About June 30, 2015 when it had become abundantly clear that Greece failed its international debt obligation, Britain threatened to pull out of the EU, a threat that was made real a year later. Perhaps the pressure on European countries to fulfill their obligations to the avalanche of refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq etc hastened UK’s action in pulling out soon.
Theresa May being the 2nd female Prime Minister (PM), was/is a pro-remain EU conservative, unlike Mrs Margaret Thatcher, late former Premier who was not in a hurry to drag Britain to Brussels; in her view that amounted to subjugation of Westminster. Within the episode the supremacy of parliament became the subject-matter of litigation to the Supreme Court.
In a split judgment of 8 to 3, it took the Supreme Court four days in December, 2016 to decide the appeal from the High Court in favor of an Act of Parliament to kick-start the process of leaving European Union. Before the landmark decision, Prime Minister Theresa May thought and expected the role of parliament in the episode to be that of a by-stander, or complimentary. Rather than waiting and concurring with the British government’s procedures as stipulated in Article 50 of the Treaty, the Supreme Court declared that indeed the legislature is in charge of the template to chart the retreat to the disappointment of the PM. For the PM it is unnecessary “parliamentary interference”; and for the opposition Article 50 of Lisbon Treaty requires amendment “to prevent the conservative from using Brexit to turn Britain into a bargain basement tax haven”.
Article 50 TEU provides for notification in case of Brexit but commentators hold the view that there may be other ways. But does notification connote exit and exonerations from every legal obligations binding through membership? The real basis of EU was signatory to Lisbon Treaty 2007 which consolidated the Treaty of Rome 1957 and Masstricht Treaty 1993.
The PM thinks the repeal of European Communities Act 1972 and communication to Brussels by her government are all required, while the Supreme Court felt there is something more serious in it that requires parliament to legislate on it, to trigger of exit negotiations. There seem to be consensus that once activated Article 50 is irrevocable; i.e no going back to European Union after exit. However, some commentators relying on Article 49 feel it is revocable as they also refer to the High Court’s case of R (Miller) V. Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union. The referendum is only a wish, proclamation of sort which has done nothing yet to remove Britain from EU at least two years after the referendum.
There is no doubt now that Brexit has caused tremendous uncertainty for the regional economy and global business. It started by the EU Summit on Tuesday 28th June, 2016 the first after Brexit, featuring its global economic implications.
EU law incorporates European Convention on Human Rights, European Human Rights Commission, European Court on Human Right and any member country that joins is bound by these provisions and of course the fact that the rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable; but when exiting what components of the bargain go with exit?
There are now heated debates both inside and outside UK parliament as to what would be left for citizens after Brexit: certainly “Europe’s last dictatorship” is not an option. Therefore Leading lawyers and legal experts in their letter to ‘the Observer’ are warning that Brexit could trigger a human rights crisis in the UK that threatens to have a ‘domino effect’ across Europe.
Apart from a group with the tag ‘89up” which has embarked on a bandwagon mission of making Europe ‘a more open, pluralistic and democratic place’, the bunch of eminent legal luminaries have also joined the protest. Over 50 British lawyers, including silks, Baroness Kennedy QC, Lord Lester QC, Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC expressed concern in a joint letter to the PM about the modalities of ensuring compliance with the rule of law in Britain after exit.
Their fears:
“We are calling for the EU to make Britain’s membership of the ECHR a legally binding requirement for any future free trade deal with the UK. The rule of law and human rights are non-negotiable when new countries join the EU.”
The action taken by these eminent lawyers points to the fact that in a democracy the government and state institutions alone cannot define the modalities of pluralist state. The need for inputs from civil societies is the hallmark of democratic and transparent governance.
Iyke Ozemena
Attorney @
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
https://corporateleadersboard.blogspot.com.ng/
Wednesday, February 15, 2017
THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT AND NPOWER
THE SUCCESS OR FAILURE OF SOCIAL INVESTMENT AND NPOWER
As the Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) embarks on fiscal performance monitoring of government policies the major one appears to be the social investment and NPower project. The direction and implementation of Federal government’s policy on social investment and NPower remain unsatisfactory if the feedback from people across the nation is anything to go by. Feedback of any nomenclature is appropriate for the government that put the scheme in place, for response and adjustment or scrapping. In other words its success and failure can be measured by the feedback so far.
I am aware that the scheme has three main layers with school feeding being implemented in phases of states across the country. Just the same way 9 states were designated as pilot states. What criteria was adopted in the grouping of states that constitute the first, second and so on? Apparently asserting the equality of states the Finance Minister, Kemi Adeosun once said that “Every state is a center of prosperity”. Without further inquiry nothing more than executive discretion appear to be the only criteria. This grouping of states has been criticized for the same reason why former Goldman Sachs economist, Jim O’Neil was criticized for coining group of nations: Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey as MINT and so on. The concept with economic problems of those nations as undertone was wrongly taken for investment concept.
However, for the conditional cash transfer scheme the first group of states comprising 9 states commenced the payment of N5,000 to the “most vulnerable” in the society amidst confusion as to what eligibility criteria is adopted or to be adopted by states and their communities. Be that as it may, the implementation took off in earnest. Meanwhile fingers are crossed as to how that pans out.
But judging from PMB’s first executive order on the recruitment of 10,000 police officers across the nation that failed to produce desired result because of eligibility criteria, one wonders whether the government learned any lesson from that experience which may come handy for application in the present scenario? This was quickly followed by the proposed recruitment of 500,000 graduates across the nation as teachers. Now one of the questions trailing the experiment is how ‘national’ is the scheme with the kind of disparity seen among the states with competing populations?
This issue of disparity were raised by the proposed beneficiaries from their different states. For instance looking at their data some states like Bayelsa, Akwai Ibom, Bornu produced poorer data (2000+) than Kogi, Lsgos (4000+). What eligibility criteria led to this disparity? And why did federal character balance provided by s.43 of the 1999 Constitution not applied to assuage claims of improper balance?
Perhaps one of the perennial problems with governments when it comes to policies such as this social investment and NPower is inadequacy of publicity. Since they are information-driven schemes, only major urban cities get the quantum of publicity that generate huge responses as opposed to relevant counterparts in non-urban remote states. How was this acknowledged fact handled by the authority to balance the disparity? Or do we say that they were indolent to be domiciled in non-urban states as opposed to their cosmopolitan counterparts.
The stark result is that the policies are real and palpable in cosmopolitan states in relation to less urban states. I believe that the intensity of publicity of the information gave rise to the disparity of awareness reflected on the response level by various states. Therefore it c an be seen that enlightenment in one state appeared more in some communities than the others. That brings to the fore the question as to whose responsibility it is to ensure that information of these critical policies receive grass-root awareness, mobilization and implementation. Yet some of the problems appear circumstantial when you consider the fact that for instance no local government or community is without cybercafés; whereas in states like Kebbi, Akwai Ibom, Ebonyi etc cannot boast of such luxury. With programmes such as social investment and NPower and many others which are information-driven and online applicability the disparity is bound to be obvious, therefore shifting the burden of balancing the disparities on the authority.
Iyke Ozemena Attorney
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
ideaworkshop@live.com
As the Conference of Nigeria Political Parties (CNPP) embarks on fiscal performance monitoring of government policies the major one appears to be the social investment and NPower project. The direction and implementation of Federal government’s policy on social investment and NPower remain unsatisfactory if the feedback from people across the nation is anything to go by. Feedback of any nomenclature is appropriate for the government that put the scheme in place, for response and adjustment or scrapping. In other words its success and failure can be measured by the feedback so far.
I am aware that the scheme has three main layers with school feeding being implemented in phases of states across the country. Just the same way 9 states were designated as pilot states. What criteria was adopted in the grouping of states that constitute the first, second and so on? Apparently asserting the equality of states the Finance Minister, Kemi Adeosun once said that “Every state is a center of prosperity”. Without further inquiry nothing more than executive discretion appear to be the only criteria. This grouping of states has been criticized for the same reason why former Goldman Sachs economist, Jim O’Neil was criticized for coining group of nations: Mexico, Indonesia, Nigeria and Turkey as MINT and so on. The concept with economic problems of those nations as undertone was wrongly taken for investment concept.
However, for the conditional cash transfer scheme the first group of states comprising 9 states commenced the payment of N5,000 to the “most vulnerable” in the society amidst confusion as to what eligibility criteria is adopted or to be adopted by states and their communities. Be that as it may, the implementation took off in earnest. Meanwhile fingers are crossed as to how that pans out.
But judging from PMB’s first executive order on the recruitment of 10,000 police officers across the nation that failed to produce desired result because of eligibility criteria, one wonders whether the government learned any lesson from that experience which may come handy for application in the present scenario? This was quickly followed by the proposed recruitment of 500,000 graduates across the nation as teachers. Now one of the questions trailing the experiment is how ‘national’ is the scheme with the kind of disparity seen among the states with competing populations?
This issue of disparity were raised by the proposed beneficiaries from their different states. For instance looking at their data some states like Bayelsa, Akwai Ibom, Bornu produced poorer data (2000+) than Kogi, Lsgos (4000+). What eligibility criteria led to this disparity? And why did federal character balance provided by s.43 of the 1999 Constitution not applied to assuage claims of improper balance?
Perhaps one of the perennial problems with governments when it comes to policies such as this social investment and NPower is inadequacy of publicity. Since they are information-driven schemes, only major urban cities get the quantum of publicity that generate huge responses as opposed to relevant counterparts in non-urban remote states. How was this acknowledged fact handled by the authority to balance the disparity? Or do we say that they were indolent to be domiciled in non-urban states as opposed to their cosmopolitan counterparts.
The stark result is that the policies are real and palpable in cosmopolitan states in relation to less urban states. I believe that the intensity of publicity of the information gave rise to the disparity of awareness reflected on the response level by various states. Therefore it c an be seen that enlightenment in one state appeared more in some communities than the others. That brings to the fore the question as to whose responsibility it is to ensure that information of these critical policies receive grass-root awareness, mobilization and implementation. Yet some of the problems appear circumstantial when you consider the fact that for instance no local government or community is without cybercafés; whereas in states like Kebbi, Akwai Ibom, Ebonyi etc cannot boast of such luxury. With programmes such as social investment and NPower and many others which are information-driven and online applicability the disparity is bound to be obvious, therefore shifting the burden of balancing the disparities on the authority.
Iyke Ozemena Attorney
IKECHUKWU O. ODOEMELAM & CO
Corporate Attorneys/Consultants
ideaworkshop@live.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)