BrExit?

[MancMellow]

Cameron resio da nastavi da podjebava Leave stranuu Parlamentu (malo kasno)

 

 

Outgoing UK Prime Minister David Cameron said that the issue of freedom of movement would be for the next PM and government to decide.

"I'm in no doubt that this is the difficult issue," he told MPs in Westminster.

"Frankly, it's a difficult issue inside the EU, where you've got all the negotiating ability to try and change things, and I think it will be in many ways even more difficult from outside."

[Prospero]

To je sinoć rekao Junker u intervjuu BBC-u, "kad si unutra možeš da utičeš na pravila, kad si van samo možeš da ih se pridržavaš ili ne".

 

Nauk i za nas.

[MancMellow]

To je sinoć rekao Junker u intervjuu BBC-u, "kad si unutra možeš da utičeš na pravila, kad si van samo možeš da ih se pridržavaš ili ne".

 

Nauk i za nas.

 

naravno.

 

I ovo je zanimljivo sa BBC-ija

 

 

 

• US bank JP Morgan has said it now expects Scotland to vote for independence and introduce its own currency before Britain leaves the European Union in 2019.
• JP Morgan economist Malcolm Barr said in a note to clients: "Our base case is that Scotland will vote for independence and institute a new currency at that point (2019)"

[Prospero]

Pa to Škotima ne vredi ništa, oni ne mogu ostati u EU.

Drugo, indyref2 bi morao biti odobren u Vestminsteru, nisam siguran da će biti spremni da to urade, svakako ne pre završetka pregovora.

[MancMellow]

pa ne vredi im za ostanak u EU, ali...rekoh vec, sve sto sada rade (SNP) je, u osnovi i pre svega, pravljenje case-a za nezavisnost. 

Edited June 29, 2016 by MancMellow

[Lord Protector]

[Dagmar]

Ovo hlađenje Škotske im ništa ne valja. Propustiće priliku da oslabe UK zbog malo mira u kući u Belgiji i Španiji, na kraju izlazak UK može da ispadne prilično bezbolan po UK a time i out pokreti u još nekim EU državama jači, tj sa jačim argumentom.

[Tribun_Populi]

Not so fast, primili su Nikoletu i Junker i Šulc, jedino Tusk nije hteo. Naravno da u zvaničnom saopštenju neće navesti da podržavaju Škotsku, kad i ne mogu bez saglasnosti EUCO. But...

[Lord Protector]

 

Brexit: Which Kind of Dependence Now?

by Sheldon Richman, June 29, 2016

 

http://sheldonfreeassociation.blogspot.rs

 

Is Brexit a move toward British independence? Some Leave and Remain partisans may believe so, differing only over whether that’s good or bad.

But, as usual, things are more complicated. We should hope that, in one respect, Britain’s exit from the EU will create a kind of dependence that did not exist while it was still a member of the union.

To see how, one must take note of the original (classical) liberal case for competing political jurisdictions rather than one unified authority: competition tends to generate liberty and prosperity by lowering the cost of “exit” – that is, of voting with one’s feet to relocate from more-onerous to less-onerous jurisdictions.

Legal and political scholars have long understood that decentralization of power in Europe accounts in large measure for its unique achievements both in terms of individual autonomy and prosperity. During the Middle Ages, instead of one superstate united with a single religious authority, Europe consisted in many small jurisdictions and a transnational church, each of which jealously guarded its prerogatives. In England, when kings tried to consolidate their power, they met resistance from barons and others who expected to lose from the centralization of power.

Although the players in this drama did not intend to liberate the common people, to an important extent, that was the world-changing consequence of this struggle, aided by direct popular resistance to oppression when opportunities arose. When the Middle Ages ended, this proto-liberal tradition, though under assault, was invoked in defense of liberty and economic progress. The result, imperfect as it has been and constantly in jeopardy from those who favor power over freedom, is what we call the western liberal spirit.

To repeat: the key was decentralization. Without it the liberal revolution could not have occurred.

Here’s the complication: while decentralization indicates legal and political independence, it can also entail economic and social dependence (or, better, interdependence). If voting with one’s feet is cheap, then jurisdictions must compete with one another to keep and attract people and capital; failure to do so – autarky – brings social and economic stagnation.

So the question is not really dependence or independence, but what sort of dependence. Will it be the political dependence that comes from membership in a union of states? Or the economic and social dependence engendered by the competition among politically independent states.

The EU in essence is a cartel intended to suppress competition among the states of Europe – which is not to say it has had no liberalizing objectives or effects, such as freedom to move and work without visas, and disincentives for corporate subsidies. (I said this is complicated.) Competition, however, is too important to be suppressed because it reveals critical information we are unlikely to acquire otherwise. Since vital knowledge is disbursed among large numbers of people, competition is, as Nobel laureate economist F. A. Hayek put it, a unique “discovery procedure.” It’s not just a matter of freedom; it’s a matter of progress, and of life and death for those in the developing world.

EU bureaucratic harmonization of regulations and tax rates – despite possibly liberal intentions – assures that individual states won’t engage in a race to liberalization to attract people and capital. The absence of that race necessarily means a lack of discovery, as well as of liberty. It also provides abundant opportunity for corporatist rent-seeking, with which the EU is rife.

The late British political philosopher Norman Barry warned of the dangers of EU membership in 1999. “What the enthusiasts for [the political unification of] Europe do not understand,” he wrote, “is that freedom is better protected by competition, both in economics and law, than by constitutional documents: ‘exit’ always beats ‘voice’ (democratic privileges).” Of course, the ability to exit a country requires the ability toenter others – immigration restriction is deeply illiberal.

Barry went on: “It is not the case that British Euroskeptics are necessarily fanatics for parliamentary sovereignty [although Nigel Farage and his UK Independence Party apparently are], the very system that has done so much to undermine the market economy and the rule of law in their country. What they fear most of all is the reproduction of that institutional phenomenon on a much more dangerous scale in Europe.”

Finally: “The only virtue of retaining independent states (which could still bind themselves by minimalist general rules, mainly for promotion of free trade and protection of the right to free movement) lies in the possibility of preserving genuine institutional competition.”

Brexit will have no automatic consequences beyond formal exit. What matters now are the policies the British (and others – European, American, etc.) undertake. If the Brits embrace xenophobia or protectionism, they will suffer. But if they follow the cosmopolitan peace-and-free-trade program of the great 19th-century Little Englanders Richard Cobden and John Bright, they will prosper in freedom.

Edited June 29, 2016 by slow

[Roger Sanchez]

Pa to Škotima ne vredi ništa, oni ne mogu ostati u EU.

Ali bi mogli relativno brzo ući u EEA, nemaju nekih problema sa prihvaćanjem četiri slobode..

 

Drugo, indyref2 bi morao biti odobren u Vestminsteru, nisam siguran da će biti spremni da to urade, svakako ne pre završetka pregovora.

To je puno realnija blokada... Budući da će HMG do daljnega držati nacionalno osvješteni Tories, Škotskoj, a pogotovo NI nema mrdanja. EU se neće u to miješati.

[vememah]

 

Ne znam samo kako su zaključili da je referendum manje verovatan u Francuskoj nego u Holandiji i Austriji.

 

Oland odbacio pozive da se granica iz Kalea vrati u Englesku.

 

French president François Hollande sought to reassure the UK that there was no plan to scrap the Touquet accord that allows the UK to carry out border controls, and keep unwanted migrants, on the French side of the Channel, reports Anne-Sylvaine Chassany, the FT’s Paris Bureau Chief.

“Questioning this accord under the pretext that there is a Brexit, that the UK will be negotiating an exit from the EU, makes no sense,” Mr Hollande said in Brussels on Wednesday. The socialist leader said the accord was signed in 2010 partly on humanitarian grounds to prevent migrants from risking their lives to get to the UK. “What can be reviewed is how to improve the living conditions of those migrants” who settle in makeshift camps in Calais, northern France, he added.

 

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/liveblogs/2016-06-29-2/?siteedition=uk#a2a5aa161deede8404b2673ad4af673b

Edited June 29, 2016 by vememah

[Tsai]

Kale, Kale

[Bojan]

Izašla je danas cela strategija -  http://eeas.europa.eu/top_stories/pdf/eugs_review_web.pdf

 

 

Neki komentari samog procesa rada na njoj nisu baš sjajni

 

 

iako se EUISS baš iscimao da da doprinos

 

 

 

Ima zanimljivih tekstova, ljudi iz celog sveta. Kasnije je to Mogerinijeva malo nakitila, kao prava italijanska levičarka.

 

Što čovek više čita sve više mu je jasno da mi, sa nerešenim pitanjem granica i neusklađenom spoljnom politikom, teško možemo u EU.

 

Ali ova američka strategija - koja je to pozicija moći. Zabrinjavajuće je (čak i jezivo) u kojoj meri Rusiju vide kao neprijatelja. 

[Anduril]

Pa kako nisu - ne cak ni toliko direktno za US nego indirektno kroz sistematsko razbijanje EU.

 

Nije novost da Kremlj otvoreno podrzava ekstremnije desicarske i levicarske organizacije sirom Evrope i da sistematski sire dezinformacije medju stanovnistvom.

 

Onaj primer Lavrova kad otvoreno laze o silovanju devojcice u Berlinu od strane izbeglica na vrhuncu krize je samo vrh ledenog brega - ali za mene recimo jasan indikator.

 

Problem je vise sto iako Amerikanci shvataju koliko je sati, EU to jos ne shvata i nema adekvatan odgovor na medijskom, obavestajnom i spoljnopolitickom nivou.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Anduril

[Prospero]

^^

 

Neusklađena spoljna politika se zadnje 2 godine svodi samo na 1 pitanje - sankcija Rusiji. Primedba o tome da nemamo mere da pratimo EU sankcije, tj njihove spiskove zabrana, je prestala od kad je usvojen "zakon o međunarodnim merama ograničavanja" početkom godine. Pritom PG31 nije još na redu za otvaranje, odnosno nije akutna tema. Ja nisam siguran da bi u vidljivoj meri uvođenje sankcija Rusiji pod 1 otoplilo srce ostalih članica i Brisela i pod 2 uticalo na umanjenje šansi za sitne i manje sitne bilateralne "upadice" u proces pregovora. Ne znam ni u kojoj meri bi se Vašington zbog toga uzbudio zbog nas i krenuo da zivka i zauzima se za nas.

 

 

Sama EUGS je OK, osvežila je polje i dala smernice, mnogo detaljnije (i naravno nemerljivo aktuelnije od stare), no glavni problem je delovanje kroz izgradnju unutrašnjih koalicija i konsenzusa a ne toliko odsustvo planova.

Edited June 30, 2016 by Prospero