dragance Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Govor je odličan i ne sme se zaboraviti da jedino privreda i trgovina bez prepreka i glupavih subvencija pomaže siromašnim zemljama da izadju iz bulje.
MancMellow Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Govor je odličan i ne sme se zaboraviti da jedino privreda i trgovina bez prepreka i glupavih subvencija pomaže siromašnim zemljama da izadju iz bulje. Who cares. On nije Ministar međunarodne trgovine Siromašnih Zemalja, nego jebene UK. A drugo ni sam taj statement nije uopšte neupitan. Edited September 30, 2016 by MancMellow
Toni Sumaher Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Govor izgleda kao da je sklepan iz nekoliko srednjoškolsih radova. +1
Prospero Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Karikatura u Times-u Baš su otišli u kurac. Nick Srnicek@n_srnck Racism in the 1930s vs. today 1,866 LIKES 1,072 2:24 PM - 29 Sep 2016 Edited September 30, 2016 by Prospero
eumeswil Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 (edited) Govor je odličan i ne sme se zaboraviti da jedino privreda i trgovina bez prepreka i glupavih subvencija pomaže siromašnim zemljama da izadju iz bulje. Aha, kako da ne. Vidi poglavlje 7 ovde. To sum up, the free-trade, free-market policies are policies that have rarely, if ever, worked. Most of the rich countries did not use such policies when they were developing countries themselves, while these policies have slowed down growth and increased income inequality in the developing countries in the last three decades. Few countries have become rich through free-trade, free-market policies and few ever will. What they tell you After their independence from colonial rule, developing countries tried to develop their economies through state intervention, sometimes even explicitly adopting socialism. They tried to develop industries such as steel and automobiles, which were beyond their capabilities, artificially by using measures such as trade protectionism, a ban on foreign direct investment, industrial subsidies, and even state ownership of banks and industrial enterprises. At an emotional level this was understandable, given that their former colonial masters were all capitalist countries pursuing free-market policies. However, this strategy produced at best stagnation and at worst disaster. Growth was anaemic (if not negative) and the protected industries failed to ‘grow up’. Thankfully, most of these countries have come to their senses since the 1980s and come to adopt free-market policies. When you think about it, this was the right thing to do from the beginning. All of today’s rich countries, with the exception of Japan (and possibly Korea, although there is debate on that), have become rich through free-market policies, especially through free trade with the rest of the world. And developing countries that have more fully embraced such policies have done better in the recent period. What they don’t tell you Contrary to what is commonly believed, the performance of developing countries in the period of state-led development was superior to what they have achieved during the subsequent period of market-oriented reform. There were some spectacular failures of state intervention, but most of these countries grew much faster, with more equitable income distribution and far fewer financial crises, during the ‘bad old days’ than they have done in the period of market-oriented reforms. Moreover, it is also not true that almost all rich countries have become rich through free-market policies. The truth is more or less the opposite. With only a few exceptions, all of today’s rich countries, including Britain and the US – the supposed homes of free trade and free market – have become rich through the combinations of protectionism, subsidies and other policies that today they advise the developing countries not to adopt. Free-market policies have made few countries rich so far and will make few rich in the future. Kao i, između ostalog, drugu literaturu od istog autora: Bad Samaritans: The Guilty Secrets of Rich Nations and the Threat to Global Prosperity Kicking Away the Ladder: Development Strategy in Historical Perspective: Policies and Institutions for Economic Development Edited September 30, 2016 by miki.bg
Eraserhead Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Poenta ovog govora je na gubitku poverenja u slobodnu trgovinu (pod naletom populizma) koja je istorijski izvukla milione iz siromastva i omogucila svet kakav imamo danas. I u tom smislu ovo jester odlican govor.
MancMellow Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 EU JE slobodna trgovina :D Za 50% britanske trgovine. Ljudi, nemoguce je da ne vidite govor for what it really is :D
Dr Arslanagić Posted September 30, 2016 Posted September 30, 2016 Pa nada da UK možda može da bude nešto kao Kajmanska ostrva na steroidima. Good luck with that. Nego, Anna Soubry.
bigvlada Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 Meanwhile.... The Queen, aristocrats and Saudi prince among recipients of EU farm subsidies At least one in five of the top 100 UK recipients of CAP subsidies were for farms owned or run by aristocratic families, say Greenpeace Wealthy aristocrats and a Saudi landowning prince are continuing to reap hundreds of thousands of pounds from the European Union’s common agricultural policy (CAP). At least one in five of the top 100 recipients of CAP subsidies in the UK last year were farm businesses owned or controlled by members of aristocratic families, an investigation by environmental campaign group Greenpeace found. They include the Queen, the Duke of Westminster, the Duke of Northumberland, Sir Richard Sutton, the Earl of Moray, Baron Phillimore and family, and the Earl of Plymouth. Household goods billionaire Sir James Dyson, who campaigned for Brexit, is also in the top 100. Greenpeace analysed the top recipients of CAP subsidies in the UK for the first time. Some 16 of the top 100 are owned or controlled by individuals or families who feature on the 2016 Sunday Times rich list, receiving a total of £10.6m last year in “single payment scheme” subsidies alone, and £13.4m in total farm subsidies, Greenpeace said. Aberdeenshire farmer Frank Smart topped the list, receiving nearly £3m in grants for his Banchory business, Frank A Smart & Son Ltd. The farmer has been subject to complaints that he has been “slipper farming” - a technique in which farmers buy up land principally for the grants attached to it. While not illegal, the practice has been heavily criticised. Also on the list were organisations such as the National Trust, which Greenpeace said had used their subsidies for important conservation work like managing habitats. The government has promised to maintain CAP subsidies post-Brexit until 2020 while a domestic system is put in place. Prince Khalid Abdullah al Saud, who owns champion racehorse Frankel, has reportedly described his farming interest as a hobby. Juddmonte Farms, which he owns through an offshore holding company in Guernsey, received £406,826 in farm subsidies last year, of which £378,856 came from the single payment scheme. The two large estates owned by Sir James under Beeswax Farming (Rainbow) Ltd received almost £1.5m. The billionaire rubbished claims that British international trade would suffer outside the EU as he backed the campaign to leave Europe. Hannah Martin, of Greenpeace UK’s Brexit response team, said: “It is untenable for the government to justify keeping a farming policy which allows a billionaire to breed racehorses on land subsidised by taxpayers. It’s clear that there cannot be a business-as-usual approach to farm subsidies after we leave the EU. “Some of the recipients of these subsidies are doing great work which benefits our environment - but others are not - and it makes no sense that the CAP’s largest subsidy payments don’t distinguish between the two.” Christopher Price, from the Country Land Association, told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: “He is not getting it because he’s a racehorse owner, he’s getting it because he’s a farmer and all developed countries support farming in one way or another.” But he agreed that Britain’s departure from the EU could create an opportunity to reform the system, for which there was “certainly” a need. Sandringham Farms, the estate owned by the Queen, received £557,707, while Grosvenor Farms Limited, which farms the Duke of Westminster’s estate, raked in £437,434. The billionaire landowner died in August and left his fortune to his 25-year-old son. Percy Farms, described by Greenpeace as the “in-hand farming operation” of the Duke of Northumberland, was given £475,031. The National Trust, Natural England and the RSPB were all in the top 20. The top 100 received £87.9m in agricultural subsidies last year, of which £61.2m came from the single payment scheme, where the size of the land owned largely determines the grant amount. Greenpeace said this was more than what was paid to the bottom 55,119 recipients in the single payment scheme combined. A spokeswoman for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said: “The secretary of state has underlined the need for continuity for farmers and together with her ministerial team is looking forward to working with industry, rural communities and the wider public to shape our plans for food, farming and the environment outside the EU.” Conservative ministers Lord Gardiner and Eurosceptic George Eustice, who work in Defra, also receive subsidies. The department said the pair had declared any potential conflicts of interest, complied with the ministerial code and were cleared to discuss the future of the grants post-Brexit. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/sep/29/the-queen-aristocrats-and-saudi-prince-among-recipients-of-eu-farm-subsidies Kako ono beše lekcija iz istorije, ovce, ograđivanje...
Roger Sanchez Posted October 1, 2016 Posted October 1, 2016 EU JE slobodna trgovina :D Za 50% britanske trgovine. Ljudi, nemoguce je da ne vidite govor for what it really is :D I ja sam zapanjen Govor je tako prazan i bespredmetan, taman takav kakav su Britanci zaslužili. Želim im puno sreće s doktorom Foxom, kad taj krene voditi pregovore, pogubit će se na prvoj alineji
bigvlada Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Fali im Džeremi Klarkson u vladi, May i Hammond su već tamo. :D
bigvlada Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 Zov crvenih mundira.... Ne samo što neće dozvoliti da im neko tamo optužuje vojsku za ratne zločine u prošlim ratovima, nego će da se obezbede da se to ne dešava ni u budućnosti. Plan for UK military to opt out of European convention on human rights PM and defence secretary will announce idea for future conflicts to curb an ‘industry of vexatious claims’ against soldiers Peter Walker and Owen Bowcott Tuesday 4 October 2016 07.17 BST Save for later Controversial plans for the military to opt out from the European convention on human rights (ECHR) during future conflicts will be introduced by ministers, to see off what the prime minister described as an “industry of vexatious claims” against soldiers. The long-mooted idea will be announced on Tuesday at the Conservative party conference by Theresa May and the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, although it was immediately criticised by human rights groups who said it was based on a false narrative of spurious lawsuits. May said the change would “put an end to the industry of vexatious claims that has pursued those who served in previous conflicts”. It would be implemented by introducing a “presumption to derogate” from the ECHR in warfare. Fallon, in comments released ahead of his conference speech, said: “Our legal system has been abused to level false charges against our troops on an industrial scale.” He added: “It has caused significant distress to people who risked their lives to protect us, it has cost the taxpayer millions and there is a real risk it will stop our armed forces doing their job.” The military and some right-leaning thinktanks have long pushed for the move, arguing that a series of court cases focused on the actions of UK troops in Iraq and Afghanistan has cost the Ministry of Defence (MoD) huge sums. The government says the litigation has cost the MoD more than £100m since 2004. Ministers say this has happened because the jurisdiction of the ECHR has been extended to conflict zones, in part due to the efforts of a handful of law firms. Derogating from the ECHR in times of war or public emergency is permitted under the rules of the Council of Europe, which oversees the Strasbourg-based institution. Certain key convention rights – such as the prohibition against torture – nonetheless remain in place even if the secretary general of the Council of Europe has been informed in advance of a temporary derogation. The UK is not the first nation to take this step. Ukraine gave notice of a derogation in June 2015, in relation to the fighting on its border with Russia. France signalled it would derogate in the immediate aftermath of the jihadist massacres at the Bataclan nightclub in Paris last November. Turkey lodged a similar notice following the failed military coup in July. The UK has also previously notified the Council of Europe of a succession of temporary derogations in relation to the Troubles in Northern Ireland during the 1970s. The government has already lodged complaints with the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) against two law firms, Leigh Day and Public Interest Lawyers, for the way in which they pursued actions against the MoD and soldiers who fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Liberty director, Martha Spurrier, said the derogation plans would make Britain appear a hypocrite internationally. However, Martha Spurrier, the director of Liberty, argued that the majority of rights claims against the military were not vexatious, and were connected to protections which could not be derogated, such as prohibition of torture. “The MoD has been forced to settle hundreds of cases of abuse, which speaks to mistreatment on the battlefield that we should be trying to eradicate, not permit,” she said. Derogation could only happen during war or public emergencies that threaten the life of the nation, Spurrier said, adding: “There is a dark irony in our government proposing derogation in wars of its choosing, even though many of those conflicts, like in Iraq and Afghanistan, are fought ostensibly in the name of human rights. “The truth is that derogation will protect no one except those at the MoD with something to hide. It will make us hypocrites on the international stage and embolden our enemies to capitalise on our double standards. “If ministers held our troops in the high regard they claim, they would not do them the disrespect of implying they can’t abide by human rights standards. For a supposedly civilised nation, this is a pernicious and retrograde step.” Writing in the Guardian on Monday, Rev Nicholas Mercer, formerly a lieutenant colonel and senior legal military adviser to the 1st Armoured Division during the Iraq war, attacked the government for inventing an “orchestrated narrative”. “The idea that the claims are largely spurious is nonsense,” he wrote. “The Ministry of Defence has already paid out £20m in compensation to victims of abuse in Iraq. This is for a total of 326 cases, which by anyone’s reckoning is a lot of money and a shocking amount of abuse. Anyone who has been involved in litigation with the MoD knows that it will pay up only if a case is overwhelming or the ministry wants to cover something up.” The Law Society, which represents solicitors in England and Wales, has also accused the government of attempting to undermine the rule of law by intimidating solicitors who pursue legitimate cases. Its president, Robert Bourns, said last month: “Lawyers must not be hindered or intimidated in carrying out their professional duties and acting in the best interests of their clients within the law. They should not be identified with their clients or clients’ cases. This principle is set out in the United Nations basic principles on the role of lawyers.” https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/03/plan-uk-military-opt-out-european-convention-human-rights
Budja Posted October 5, 2016 Posted October 5, 2016 Tereza Merkel De Gol May delivers a really tough-sounding message to business, saying she is putting companies that behave badly “on warning”. They include those hiring foreign workers rather than training young people down the road, a “household name” that is not cooperating on fighting terrorism and bosses who do not treat their staff well. May makes the case for state intervention, saying the best way to defend capitalism is to reform it. May says there will be consumers and workers represented on company boards, while employment rights will be protected and enhanced. I komentatori Jeremy Corbyn is right about the economy: the game is rigged in favour of the rich and business is screwing you. So vote Conservative. Nigel Farage is right about immigration: foreigners are taking your jobs and making you poorer. So vote Conservative. May, Corbyn, Sturgeon and Farron all economic interventionists. Libertarians homeless.
Recommended Posts