BrExit?

[MancMellow]

Pa London, eeeeventualno M'cr (za Brummies neam blagu predstavu kako će oni glasati to ti znaš verovatno, mada to je ionako 5 gradova u jednom), Škotska i...ne vidim koji su drugi veliki "bazeni" glasova koji mogu da prevagnu. Mislim,moram da budam iskren, na stranu ovi "akademci" što su mi friends na fejsu, kad čitam ovako običan svet šta piše...ne izgleda dobro za Remain uopšte. 

Edited June 14, 2016 by MancMellow

[Dagmar]

Ma kuckam se na sektaškom forumu sa, ono, realno, nižom srednjom klasom, potpuno su poludeli sa imigracijom. Ne može čovek (ne ja naravno, samo kontraefekat mogu da napravim) nego jedan drugi razuman lik da im objasni da će imigracije biti regardless jer imaju 5% nezaposlenost što znali da potreba za uvozom radne snage postoji, samo što se neće takmičiti sa istočnoevropljanima koji ipak (većina) neće da radi u UK za 500 funti mesećno net (jer ne može sa tim parama da živi onako kako ume da živi - skromno, ali ne da ih spava 10 u sobi), nego sa boga pitaj kim boga pitaj odakle koji bi ubili za tih 500 funti - što je i ideja kroporacija i big money koji podržavaju brexit (mislim, sigurno im nije ideja zaštita britanskog "radništva"). Ali prosto postoji momenat u politici kad razum više jednostavno ne igra. Uostalom ovi forumaši što su u UK verovatno mogu da potvrde. 

 

Jer u Poljskoj ili gde već može da zaradi 300 funti koje vrede ko 500 u Engleskoj, pa neće zbog toga da dolazi.

A onaj koga će da mu dovode big biznisi radi za 30 funti mesečno u nekom Bangladešu.

[Dagmar]

Pa London, eeeeventualno M'cr (za Brummies neam blagu predstavu kako će oni glasati to ti znaš verovatno, mada to je ionako 5 gradova u jednom), Škotska i...ne vidim koji su drugi veliki "bazeni" glasova koji mogu da prevagnu. Mislim,moram da budam iskren, na stranu ovi "akademci" što su mi friends na fejsu, kad čitam ovako običan svet šta piše...ne izgleda dobro za Remain uopšte. 

 

Ja i dalje mislim da će Leave da dobije.

[MancMellow]

Jer u Poljskoj ili gde već može da zaradi 300 funti koje vrede ko 500 u Engleskoj, pa neće zbog toga da dolazi.

A onaj koga će da mu dovode big biznisi radi za 30 funti mesečno u nekom Bangladešu.

 

pa to

[MancMellow]

Ja i dalje mislim da će Leave da dobije.

 

pa napisao sam - ne izgleda dobro za Remain. Mislim, nije to još nedostižna prednost, ali mora nešto ili psihološki i stvarno da se "desi".

[jms_uk]

Ja i dalje mislim da će Leave da dobije.

 

pu-pu , daleko bilo

 

 

[Tribun_Populi]

A mi bezobrazni što navijamo za leave iz čisto patriockih razloga?

[Budja]

B1 - pa nije šizofrenija. Ti ne znaš da će se nešto desiti dok se ne desi. Sam zahtev Grka je neuporedivo razumniji i sa mnogo većim uporištem u razumu od "hleba za tri dinara". To prosto uopšte nije bio zahtev za neku ne znam kakvu promenu. Evrogrupa nije dopuštala nikakvu promenu, ma ni razgovor. 

 

Ok, šta je za tebe tačno "polaganje računa" ako ne provera volje na izborima posle neuspeha, a povodom tog neuspeha, odnosno zaokreta? Ne razumem. Na koji drugi način može stranka na vlasti da "položi račune"? Šta je drugo raspisivanje izbora nego de facto podnošenje ostavke? Ti svodiš stvar na lični nivo. Politika koju su vodili i stranka sama je prosto held accountable, jer nema nijednog drugognačina za to osim kako je urađeno. Šta, da izađu i da kažu - nemojte za nas da glasate? Prosto, nastala je nova situacija. Za koju, ponovo podsećam, nije bila odgovorna samo, Syriza. 

 

 

 

Prebacite ovo please

 

Jeste sizofrenija jer je Siriza, prakticno, u predizbornom manifestu htela secu duga a da se, uz nesto smanjenja korupcije, u modelu grcke ekonomije nista ne menja.

 

Sto se polaganja racuna tice, pa tacno sam rekao u svom postu sta mislim pod time:

 

 

Accountability i politicki posteno bi bilo da je Cipras rekao: pokusao sa, nisam uspeo, podnosim ostavku, ne mogu da sprovodim program protiv koga sam se borio ali takodje razumem da nam je evro prirastao srcu i da za napustanje evra nisam dobio mandat pa necu da dizem revoluciju.

I onda: 

1. Cao, zdravo vidimo se u drugom filmu.

ILI

2. Ne potpisujem kapitulacija, idemo na izbore, dole evro, pa da se prebrojimo.

 

(To sto su siriza rebel ispusili na izborima nastupajuci sa programom pod dva jeste dokaz Sirizine politickog osecaja i nagona za odrzanje na vlasti ali nikako ne moze biti odrza politickog postenja.)

[Budja]

Koliko sam ja shvatio prateci vesti, Leaversi su ubili Remain oko imigracije, ne samo na strah polju, vec insistirajuci na australijskom points-based sistemu - uvescemo onoga ko nam stvarno treba.

A posto AUS nije neka fasisticka zemlja u percepciji gradjana (iako je Abot lepo prebacivao migrante na neka udaljena ostrva i tako to), onda je ovima iz Remain tesko da time pariraju.

 

+ izbeglicka kriza

 

Takodje, problem je sto se EU percipira kao "manje lose" resenje. To je, naravno, ok za izbore ali za referendum treba malo vise passion a tesko da neko moze da bude passionate kada mu se pokaze slika Junkera.

 

Skoti ipak imaju neke emotivne veze sa UKom, dok sa EU to imaju verovatno samo Erasmus studenti i oni sto imaju kuce po Spaniji i Francuskoj (a mozda i oni sto pijance po Barseloni i Rodosu).

 

Takodje, project fear radi na obe strane (imigracija vs ekonomija) dok je u skotskom slucaju tu nije bilo balansa.

 

 

 

Stoga izgleda da pocetna prognoza 55:45 za Remain nece biti ostvarena i da ce, po mom sudu, Remain pobediti ali sa manjom razlikom, tipa 52:48.

[MancMellow]

Jeste sizofrenija jer je Siriza, prakticno, u predizbornom manifestu htela secu duga a da se, uz nesto smanjenja korupcije, u modelu grcke ekonomije nista ne menja.

 

Sto se polaganja racuna tice, pa tacno sam rekao u svom postu sta mislim pod time:

 

nije uz "nešto smanjenja korupcije", nego uz rasformiravanje svega i svačega, ali koji se ne može izvesti sa ovakvim finansijkim pritiskom. Uostalom, ispostavilo se da za bilo kakve programe suštinske reforme bilo čega što direktno i momentalno ne vodi drastičnom smanjenju troškova  niko nije hteo ni da razgovara. Nije seča duga bila jedina opcija, bilo je i reprogram i svašta nešto (mrzi me sad da se vraćam) ali uz glavni razlog da zemlja posle izvesnog vremena postane zapravo sposobnija da vraća dugove. To nije isto što i "hleb za tri dinara", jer je to i racionalno i moguće i zavisi isključivo od političke volje druge strane, dok je "hleb za tri dinara" prosto nemoguć. I, ono što sam rekao, "hleb za tri dinara" nije bila platforma na kojoj je SNS dobo izbore (bilo koje). Kažem, ponavljam, grčkoj nije bio ponuđen niti jedan jedini iole smislen ustupak. tako da ne možemo da kažemo da su oni tražili ne znam šta (jer na kraju i nisu).

 

Ovo za accountability, bilo bi lepo da nađemo negde da li je neko u političkoj teorii dao neku široko prihvaćenu definiciju, a ne tako "na primer" pa je onda za jednog jedno, a za nekog drugog nešto drugo. 

[jms_uk]

treba da napravimo ako je Leave, ja castim pice;

 

Vazi, pogotovo ako stavim neku kintu na kladionici [za utehu] :D

[Budja]

nije uz "nešto smanjenja korupcije", nego uz rasformiravanje svega i svačega, ali koji se ne može izvesti sa ovakvim finansijkim pritiskom. Uostalom, ispostavilo se da za bilo kakve programe suštinske reforme bilo čega što direktno i momentalno ne vodi drastičnom smanjenju troškova  niko nije hteo ni da razgovara. Nije seča duga bila jedina opcija, bilo je i reprogram i svašta nešto (mrzi me sad da se vraćam) ali uz glavni razlog da zemlja posle izvesnog vremena postane zapravo sposobnija da vraća dugove. To nije isto što i "hleb za tri dinara", jer je to i racionalno i moguće i zavisi isključivo od političke volje druge strane, dok je "hleb za tri dinara" prosto nemoguć. I, ono što sam rekao, "hleb za tri dinara" nije bila platforma na kojoj je SNS dobo izbore (bilo koje). Kažem, ponavljam, grčkoj nije bio ponuđen niti jedan jedini iole smislen ustupak. tako da ne možemo da kažemo da su oni tražili ne znam šta (jer na kraju i nisu).

 

Ovo za accountability, bilo bi lepo da nađemo negde da li je neko u političkoj teorii dao neku široko prihvaćenu definiciju, a ne tako "na primer" pa je onda za jednog jedno, a za nekog drugog nešto drugo. 

 

Ti zaboravljas da je 50% gckog duga vec iseceno, pa da je nakon toga bilo finansijske pomoci i da je u toku trece spasavanje.

 

Takodje, nije Syriza prva koja je pokusala da promeni program, Papandreu je, izmedju ostalog, zglajznuo kada je pomenuo referendum kao mogucnost. I Samaras je pokusavao da uradi odredjene promente.

 

To govori da je promena "realnosti" mogla da ide samo kroz sok za sistem a ne ubedjivanje partnera. I Siriza je toga bila svesna, otuda i referendum. Problem je u tome sto je samo Varufakis shvatio da igra mora da se igra do kraja. I problem je sto Siriza i gradjani Grcke u toj igri, ponavljam po stoti put, nisu bili spremni ni na kakvu zrtvu sto, opet, govori da za revoluciju nije sazrelo i da je Sojble imao lufta da pritiska jos.

 

I dok su Nemci u celoj igri bili nediplomatski, kratkovidi, ali potpuno transparentni Cipras je igrao bez zelje da nesto zrtvuje. Stoga je prosao kako je prosao.

 

I da ponovim, tu vidim politicku neiskrenost jer ovakav ishod nije bilo tesko predvideti.

 

 

 

Sto se accountabilitija tice, ok, jeste ad hoc definicija koja mi se javila u zaru diskusije. Politicku teoriju nisam proveravao.

[Budja]

 

 

No 10 mulls last-ditch attempt to revisit free movement negotiations

 

 

 

 

Labour leaders, in a sign of desperation on the issue, changed their policy on free movement on Tuesday, 24 hours after the former shadow chancellor Ed Balls said the party needed to support controls on economic migration.

[Prospero]

The European Union is the worst choice – apart from the alternative
George Monbiot
Wednesday 15 June 2016 06.00 BST

The EU is a festering cesspool. But it’s a crystal spring compared with what the outers want to do – surrender Britain’s sovereignty to the United States



‘If judged by their own standards, the Brexit campaigners who foresee a stronger alliance
with the US are traitors.’ Illustration by Eva bee Illustration: Eva Bee


What it’s about is not what it’s about. The referendum is a proxy question. Underlying it is the fundamental political question, one that is seldom asked precisely because it cuts to the heart: how do we best keep money out of politics?


Without sufficient public scrutiny, all political systems degenerate into the service of wealth. All end up controlled by the few with the cash, not the many with the votes. The primary democratic task is to break the nexus of money and power. So the question we face next week is this: “In which political unit can money best be resisted?” We are not embarrassed by choice. This is a contest of plutocracies.

The European Union is a festering cesspool of undue influence and opaque lobbying. Prompted at first by the tobacco industry, the European commission is slowly dismantling, through what it calls its “better regulation agenda”, many of the hard-won laws that protect our health, working conditions and wildlife. Once they are torn down, corporate power will be locked in place through the TTIP – the transatlantic trade and investment partnership – it is negotiating with the United States.

TTIP has two main strands. One is regulatory cooperation, which means standardising the laws on either side of the Atlantic – almost certainly downwards. The other is investor-state dispute settlement: allowing companies to sue governments through an offshore tribunal if a law threatens their profits. Democracy means being able to change those aspects of governance we do not like. TTIP, if it goes ahead, will ensure that this is not an option.

And if TTIP fails? Well, there are other means. The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement between Europe and Canada, imposing much the same package, quietly transacted, now remains only to be ratified. The proposed Trade in Services Agreement – between North America, the European Union and 19 other nations – is a turbocharged version that has been negotiated behind closed doors for the past three years.


The trade secrets directive, approved by the Council of the European Union last month, threatens to treat as commercial property any information that a corporation hopes to keep out of the public domain. Whistleblowers and campaigners trying to expose corporate malfeasance – tax evasion, falsifying emissions tests, polluting rivers – could be subject, depending on how it is interpreted by the courts, to massive fines and compensation claims. If the EU sometimes looks like a matchmaker for wealth and power, that’s because it is.

By comparison with the British system, however, this noxious sewer is a crystal spring. Every stream of corporate effluent with which the EU poisons political life has a more malodorous counterpart in the UK. The new Deregulation Act, a meta-law of astonishing scope, scarcely known and scarcely debated, insists that all regulators must now “have regard to the desirability of promoting economic growth”. Rare wildlife, wheelchair ramps, speed limits, children’s lungs: all must establish their contribution to GDP. What else, after all, are they for?


Britain has become a power base for a legalised financial mafia that strips the assets of healthy companies, turns the nation’s housing into a roulette table, launders money for drug cartels and terrorists, then stashes its gains beyond the reach of police and tax inspectors. Through privatisation, outsourcing and the private finance initiative, the public sector has been repurposed as a get-rich-quick scheme for friends in the City, licensed to erect tollbooths in front of essential services. The media, largely owned by members of the same class, directs our attention elsewhere, blaming immigrants for the ills it has inflicted.

It was British lobbying that sank Europe’s soil framework directive and the financial transactions tax. Without a mandate from either parliament or people, the British trade minister wrote secretly to the European commission insisting that investor-state dispute settlement should remain in the TTIP. Wherever barriers to the power of money are being kicked over, there you will find David Cameron’s bootprint.

Since the first states were established, they have sought power by making alliances. The splendid autonomy we are told a Britain out of Europe would enjoy is an illusion: we would swap one transnational system for another. The demand to leave Europe in the name of independence has long been accompanied by a desire to surrender our sovereignty to the United States. If judged by their own standards, the Brexit campaigners who foresee a stronger alliance with the US are traitors, ceding the national interest to a foreign hegemon.

Sixteen years ago, the Conservative party published a draft manifesto in which it proposed that we should join the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta). This remains a plausible outcome of leaving the EU: it is hard to imagine the business class permitting the UK to stand outside a formal trading bloc. What this means is swapping a treaty over which we have had some influence for one in which we have had none.

How do we know that TTIP would tear down public protections? Because the same clauses in Nafta have already started doing so across Canada, the US and Mexico. A closer alliance with the US means surrendering to a system that has been signed, sealed and delivered to the power of money. A Congress bound and gagged with dollars; a police and military machine pressed into the service of plutocracy; a media that scarcely bothers to disguise its own corruption. The political power of money there is naked, unashamed – even proud.

I suspect that Donald Trump, or at least Trumpery of some kind, represents the future of US politics, especially if the Democrats fail to connect with people who are catastrophically alienated from the system. Exciting as it will be to have a woman in the White House, Hillary Clinton is embedded in corporate power and corporate dollars.

We do not release ourselves from the power of money by leaving the EU. We just exchange one version for another: another that is even worse. This is not an inspiring position from which to vote remain. But it is a coherent one.

[Prospero]

Osborne to raise taxes if voters go for Brexit

 

Chancellor unveils £30bn emergency budget

 

Francis Elliott, Political Editor | Niamh Lyons

 

June 15 2016, 12:01am, 

The Times

 

George Osborne will threaten today to put 2p on the basic rate of income tax, raise fuel duty and slash spending on health, education, defence and pensions in an emergency budget in the weeks after a Brexit vote.

 

In the Remain campaign’s most explicit ultimatum to voters, the chancellor outlines tax rises and cuts to frontline services of £30 billion, which are being readied in case Britain opts to leave the European Union next week.