Opšti topik o EU (ex kriza Evrozone)

[Verterdegete]

Znam, ali odmah posle toga dolazi superiornost common law u odnosu na ovaj rimsko-germanski. Toliko da bode oci.

Ako bi mogao malo bolje da pojasnis zasto drzis ovaj stav ?

Parlamentarni suverenitet je zakon

Parlament ne moze da bude nosilac suvereniteta, to mogu biti samo oni koje taj parlament predstavlja. Edited November 10, 2011 by Verterdegete

[MancMellow]

Ako bi mogao malo bolje da pojasnis zasto drzis ovaj stav ?

Zato što su život (a u okviru njega bi trebalo da spada i sudska praksa) objektivno i realno stariji i nadređen bilo čemu što piše na bilo kom papiru.

Parlament ne moze da bude nosilac suvereniteta, to mogu biti samo oni koje taj parlament predstavlja.

Pa to ti je suštinski jedno te isto, osim u slučaju revolucija, a onda ionako nema veze šta gde piše. Da pojasnim, parlamentarni suverenitet u samoj suštini je ovo:"It makes Parliament the supreme legal authority, which can create or end any law. Generally, the courts cannot overrule its legislation and no Parliament can pass laws that future Parliaments cannot change."U teoriji u našem ustavnom pravu je ovo bolje rešeno zato što sudovi mogu neki zakon da proglase neustavnim te se tako ograničava sposobnost parlamenta da krši, recimo, ljudska prava, ali u praksi to samo dovodi do toga poslednju reč u svemu ima neko još "gori" od parlamenta, a to je vlada. A zaštita prava pojedinaca kao dela "naroda" se može izvršiti pojedinim zakonskim rešenjima.

[hazard]

Pa cek, zar i u common law sistemima ne mogu zakoni biti proglaseni neustavnim? Eno ti SAD, a siguran sam da je i u Kanadi bilo takvih primera. Za Britaniju ne znam.Nego, evo, Economist se boji da bi Sarkozijeva vizija "Evrope u dve brzine" bila zapravo manja EU, gde bi se evrozona ponasala etatisticki i protekcionisticki (kao velika Francuska), pa ne bi doslo samo do povecanje integracije izmedju clanice evrozone, vec do smanjenja integracije izmedju evrozone i ostatka EU:Kljucna recenica za koju su se uhvatili:

I don't think there is enough economic integration in the euro zone, the 17, and too much integration in the European Union at 27.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/charlemagne/2011/11/future-eu

The future of the EUTwo-speed Europe, or two Europes?Nov 10th 2011, 2:23 by Charlemagne | BRUSSELSNICOLAS Sarkozy is causing a big stir after calling on November 8th for a two-speed Europe: a “federal” core of the 17 members of the euro zone, with a looser “confederal” outer band of the ten non-euro members. He made the comments during a debate with students at the University of Strasbourg. The key passage is below (video here, starting near the 63-minute mark) You cannot make a single currency without economic convergence and economic integration. It's impossible. But on the contrary, one cannot plead for federalism and at the same time for the enlargement of Europe. It's impossible. There's a contradiction. We are 27. We will obviously have to open up to the Balkans. We will be 32, 33 or 34. I imagine that nobody thinks that federalism—total integration—is possible at 33, 34, 35 countries. So what one we do? To begin with, frankly, the single currency is a wonderful idea, but it was strange to create it without asking oneself the question of its governance, and without asking oneself about economic convergence. Honestly, it's nice to have a vision, but there are details that are missing: we made a currency, but we kept fiscal systems and economic systems that not only were not converging, but were diverging. And not only did we make a single currency without convergence, but we tried to undo the rules of the pact. It cannot work. There will not be a single currency without greater economic integration and convergence. That is certain. And that is where we are going. Must one have the same rules for the 27? No. Absolutely not [...] In the end, clearly, there will be two European gears: one gear towards more integration in the euro zone and a gear that is more confederal in the European Union.At first blush this is statement of the blindingly obvious. The euro zone must integrate to save itself; even the British say so. And among the ten non-euro states of the EU there are countries such as Britain and Denmark that have no intention of joining the single currency.The European Union is, in a sense, made up not of two but of multiple speeds. Think only of the 25 members of the Schengen passport-free travel zone (excluding Britain but including some non-EU members), or of the 25 states seeking to create a common patent (including Britain, but excluding Italy and Spain).But Mr Sarkozy’s comments are more worrying because, one suspects, he wants to create an exclusivist, protectionist euro zone that seeks to detach itself from the rest of the European Union. Elsewhere in the debate in Strasbourg, for instance, Mr Sarkozy seems to suggest that Europe’s troubles—debt and high unemployment—are all the fault of social, environmental and monetary “dumping” by developing countries that pursue “aggressive” trade policies.For another insight into Mr Sarkozy’s thinking about Europe, one should listen to an interview he gave a few days earlier, at the end of the marathon-summitry in Brussels at the end of October (video here, starting at about 54:30): I don't think there is enough economic integration in the euro zone, the 17, and too much integration in the European Union at 27.In other words, France, or Mr Sarkozy at any rate, does not appear to have got over its resentment of the EU’s enlargement. At 27 nations-strong, the European Union is too big for France to lord it over the rest and is too liberal in economic terms for France’s protectionist leanings. Hence Mr Sarkozy’s yearning for a smaller, cosier, “federalist” euro zone.This chimes with the idea of a Kerneuropa ("core Europe") promoted in 1994 by Karl Lamers and Wolfgang Schäuble, who happens to be Germany's current finance minister. Intriguingly, it is the first time that Mr Sarkozy, once something of a sceptic of European integration, has spoken publicly about “federalism”, although he had made a similar comment in private to European leaders in March (see my column). It echoes the views of Mr Sarkozy's Socialist predecessor, François Mitterrand.Such ideas appeared to have been killed off by the large eastward enlargement of the EU in 2004, and by the French voters’ rejection of the EU's new constitution in 2005. But the euro zone’s debt crisis is reviving these old dreams.But what sort of federalism? Mr Sarkozy probably wants to create a euro zone in France’s image, with power (and much discretion) concentrated in the hands of leaders, where the “Merkozy” duo (Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy) will dominate. Germany will no doubt want a replica of its own federal system, with strong rules and powerful independent institutions to constrain politicians. Le Monde carries a series of articles (in French) on what a two-speed Europe may mean.If the euro zone survives the crisis—and the meltdown of Italy’s bonds in the markets suggests that is becoming ever more difficult—it will plainly require deep reform of the EU’s treaties. Done properly, by keeping the euro open to countries that want to join (like Poland) and deepening the single market for those that do not (like Britain), the creation of a more flexible EU of variable geometry could ease many of the existing tensions. Further enlargement need no longer be so neuralgic; further integration need no longer be imposed on those who do not want it.But done wrongly, as one fears Mr Sarkozy would have it, this will be a recipe for breaking up Europe. Not two-speed Europe but two separate Europes.The first steps toward integration, the idea of holding regular summits of leaders of the 17 euro-zone countries, has already caused early friction with Britain (see my earlier post here). This week there were further cracks when, during a meeting of the euro zone’s finance ministers in Brussels, their colleagues from the ten non-euro states held their own separate dinner in a hotel nearby.All this is alarming the European Commission, the EU’s civil service and the guardian of its treaties. Speaking in Berlin on November 9th, its president, José Manuel Barroso, delivered what amounted to a direct rebuke to Mr Sarkozy. The Commission welcomes, and urges—in fact we have been asking for a long time—a deeper integration of policies and governance within the euro area. Such integration and convergence is the only way to enhance discipline and stability and to secure the future sustainability of the euro. In other words, we have to finish the unfinished business of Maastricht—to complete the monetary union with a truly economic union. But stability and discipline must also go together with growth. And the single market is our greatest asset to foster growth. Let me be clear—a split union will not work. This is true for a union with different parts engaged in contradictory objectives; a union with an integrated core but a disengaged periphery; a union dominated by an unhealthy balance of power or indeed any kind of directorium. All these are unsustainable and will not work in the long term because they will put in question a fundamental, I would say a sacred, principle—the principle of justice, the principle of the respect of equality, the principle of the respect of the rule of law. And we are a union based on the respect of the rule of law and not on any power or forces. It would be absurd if the very core of our project—and economic and monetary union as embodied in the euro area is the core of our project—so I say it would be absurd if this core were treated as a kind of "opt out" from the European Union as a whole.Mr Sarkozy’s words seem to have caught the attention of Joschka Fischer, elder statesman of Germany's Green party and a former foreign minister, who said that the EU at 27 had become too unwieldy. “Let’s just forget about the EU with 27 members—unfortunately,” he told Die Zeit, a German weekly newspaper. “I just don’t see how these 27 states will ever come up with any meaningful reforms.” Indeed, some think the euro zone itself might be smaller than the 17 members (Greece may soon default and leave the euro).The speech that everybody is waiting for now is Mrs Merkel’s. The chancellor wants to change the treaties, and on November 9th she called for “a breakthrough to a new Europe”. But what sort of Europe that should be was left mostly unsaid.

Edited November 11, 2011 by hazard

[odmor]

Super je ovaj tekst iz Ekonomista sto je hazard okacio.

This chimes (tj. ono sto govori Sarkozi) with the idea of a Kerneuropa ("core Europe") promoted in 1994 by Karl Lamers and Wolfgang Schäuble, who happens to be Germany's current finance minister.

KernEuropa, koji pacenici jebote. Taj naziv (i ideja) Kerneuope je otprilike kao kada se u epruvetu stave fasizam i malogradjanstina zajedno, pa se onda stavi da stoji nekoliko nedelja i onda se iscede same koncentrovane kapi iz rastvora.

[Tribun_Populi]

Zato što su život (a u okviru njega bi trebalo da spada i sudska praksa) objektivno i realno stariji i nadređen bilo čemu što piše na bilo kom papiru.

Sve je to super, samo trebaš imati jedno 700 godina toga neprekinuto da bi u svest uveo da je nešto što je neki tamo sudija 1700-i-neke presudio danas zakon.Kod nas bi to bilo - ma ko ga j... taj nije imao pojma, ja mislim da ovako treba.

Pa cek, zar i u common law sistemima ne mogu zakoni biti proglaseni neustavnim? Eno ti SAD, a siguran sam da je i u Kanadi bilo takvih primera. Za Britaniju ne znam.

USA ima "čist" sistem podele vlasti, gde Vrhovni sud kontroliše ustavnost akata kodifikovanog prava koje usvaja Kongres (statute, kao zakon kod nas). Nisam siguran, ali ne bih rekao da u UK sud ima takva ovlašćenja, niti da postoje ustavni sudovi (koji nisu deo sudske vlasti btw.) kao u kontinentalnim sistemima.P.S. Proverio, nema. Vrhovni sud UK može jedino da proverava zakonitost vladinih uredbi, ustavnost zakona ne. Štaviše, kod njih je gornji dom Parlamenta tj. jedan njegov odbor vršio funkciju vrhovnog (kasacionog) suda do nedavno (do 2009.) Edited November 11, 2011 by Tribun_Populi

[nautilus]

Aman, UK nema ustav. Drugaciji sistem u kome su bitniji presedani i tumacenje zakona od samog zakona.

[stoka]

Ma kakav kraj evra, znate li vi koji su bili troškovi prelaska na evro svojevremeno? E, pa još veći su povratkom na nacionalne valute ...Jedini ispravan scenario bi bio izbacivanje Grčke, Italije i još nekih indijanaca iz evrozone i neprimanje više nikoga u evrozonu! Pa neka Grci štampaju svoje drahme do mile volje i neka svojim državnim službenicima isplaćuju i trinaestu i četrnaestu i petnaestu platu, aupičkumaterinu!

Edited November 11, 2011 by stoka

[angern]

Europa u potpunoj krizi - Francuska i Njemačka već počele razgovore o raspadu EurozoneSve upućuje na to kako je Italija upravo postala daleko veći problem od Grčke. U Europi je zavladao strah kako se ekonomija takvih razmjera jednostavno ne može spasiti.Povodom tih strahova, kako prenosi list Guardian, iz Brisela se može čuti kako se već aktivno održavaju sastanci između Francuske i Njemačke - raspravlja se o mogućem raspadu kompletne Eurozone.Unatoč tome, vođe Europske Unije i dalje žestoko propagiraju kako je "europski projekt" jedini put i kako alternative ne postoje.Tako je njemačka kancelarka Angela Merkel izjavila: "Vrijeme je da na scenu dođe "nova Europa". Svijet se stalno mijenja i moramo biti spremni na sve te promjene. To znači više Europe, ne manje Europe."José Manuel Barroso također je komentirao aktualno stanje: "Svjedoci smo fundamentalnih promjena u ekonomiji i geopolitici, sve to me uvjerilo kako Europa mora napredovati ili riskira fragmentaciju. Europa se mora transformirati ili će propasti."Barack Obama je sinoć telefonski razgovarao s nekoliko ključnih ljudi u Europi - poručio je svima kako moraju odmah poduzeti radikalne akcije i pod svaku cijenu spriječiti raspad Europe. Kako saznaje Reuters na telefonskoj liniji s američkim predsjednikom sinoć su bili Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel i talijanski predsjednik Giorgio Napolitano. link

[Eraserhead]

Prisustvovao veceras demonstracijama i proslavi odlaska Berlusconija u Rimu. Par stotina do hiljadu ljudi, malo se deru malo slave. Zastave Italije i EU.

Edited November 12, 2011 by Eraserhead

[Miralem]

Zato što su život (a u okviru njega bi trebalo da spada i sudska praksa) objektivno i realno stariji i nadređen bilo čemu što piše na bilo kom papiru.

nemoj... molim te.

[Sirius]

Prvi korak ka podeli EU na dve dela je napravljen kroz CDU:

Merkel's Party Just Voted To Allow Countries To Leave The EurozoneGerman Chancellor Angela Merkel's ruling Christian Democrats Union (CDU) party just approved the principle of a country exiting from the shared European currency, according to BloombergAllowance for exits (coerced or voluntary) from the currency would be the first step towards the foundation of a two-speed Europe—a region with and without the euro currency.

[Tribun_Populi]

I definitivnog vraćanja u WEU. Ovo je mali korak za čoveka, ali veliki za Mitelojropu.

[hazard]

Nego cek sad mi nesto nije bas najjasnije. Sve clanice EU koje nisu deo evrozone osim Britanije i Danske (izricito) i Svedske (de fakto) su obavezane pristupnim ugovorima da jednog dana postanu deo evrozone, tj. usvoje evro kao svoju valutu. Dakle to su sve nove istocne clanice, od kojih su neke (npr. Slovacka i Kipar) taj uslov vec ispunile. Dakle evrozona ima danas 17 clanova, ali ce izvesno (ako opstane) jednog dana, po trenutnim ugovorima i pravilima, imati 24 clana, tj. 25 jer ce se Hrvatskoj verovatno postaviti isti uslov (Rodjere?). Dakle o kakvoj mi zapravo "Evropi u 2 brzine" i govorimo, kada u buducnosti evrozona treba da proguta prakticno celu EU osim 3 drzave?Spominje li iko uopste taj deo price, i kako se to uklapa sve? Oce li se onda ponuditi ovima sto su u obavezi da udju u evrozonu a nisu jos da se oslobode te obaveze, ukoliko se evrozona dublje integrise?

[Verterdegete]

Kako to objasnjava B92:Tajna društva vode Italiju i Grčku?

[Tribun_Populi]

Spominje li iko uopste taj deo price, i kako se to uklapa sve? Oce li se onda ponuditi ovima sto su u obavezi da udju u evrozonu a nisu jos da se oslobode te obaveze, ukoliko se evrozona dublje integrise?

As far as I know, ugovor o monetarnoj uniji je zaseban od Mastrihta/Amsterdama/Nice/Lisabona, s tim da drugi kao temeljni akt konzumira prvi tj. pojavljuje mu se kao nadređeni u hijerarhiji (i otud ta obaveza prigrljivanja evra). Problem je u tome što postojeći ugovori uopšte ne predviđaju mehanizam svojevoljnog ili prinudnog izlaska iz EMU, što će reći da ukoliko Anđa i ekipa žele da sprovedu što su naumili, opet moraju da potežu mukotrpnu proceduru revizije.