BrExit?

[MancMellow]

Prvo su oni sami (UK vlada) rekli da nece da se unapred odreknu toga (statusa vec postojecih medjusobnih "boravnika") kao dela pregovora. Onda su sad oni hteli, ali je onda Merkel rekla da ona sad nece nista pre pokretanja cl50. Ima u Telegraphu. Neverovatno. A to je tek vrh vrha ledenog brega, dakle lepo je pocelo.

Edited November 30, 2016 by MancMellow

[Dr Arslanagić]

Ovo će se završiti jako ružno. Za sve ali posebno za UK.

[pacey defender]

Pritom, nejednako ružno će se završiti i za članice EU, šta god da bude epilog. Brexit će mnogo više pogoditi Irsku nego, recimo, Rumuniju ili Dansku.

[Tribun_Populi]

Pa sad, jbg, sankcije Srbiji su mnogo više pogodile Makedoniju nego Mađarsku i Rumuniju.

[zmanic]

... mnogo više pogoditi Irsku nego, recimo, Rumuniju ili Dansku...

 

Neka izađu iz GB i pristupe EU. Deluje nestvarno ali ne i neizvodljivo, recept je isti kroz sve protekle vekove "oslobodilačkih" borbi i ratova: slomiti otpor okupatora i naći saveznike sa druge strane.

 

PS

Kako bi dobro došao neki novi Fort Ontario na Ostrvu za nove crtače i čitače stripova!

[MancMellow]

Kako mislis da "izadju iz GB" :D

 

edit: the importance of being Romania

Edited November 30, 2016 by MancMellow

[CPP]

A kakav je to normalan razvod?

[MancMellow]

Britanija treba da ostane u EU, i uništava EU iznutra. Nema mehanizma da je izbace. Minirati svaku odluku, i uništavati što brže.

 

Od prvog dana je jasno da uvređene mlade neće dozvoliti normalan razvod.

 

Niall Ferguson - osoba koja sigurno ne spada u one koji žele opadanje britanske moći i značaja - je lepo upozoravao kako razvodi izgledaju, nema to veze sa stranama koje se razvode: uvek je duže nego što se planira, uvek je skuplje nego što se planira, uvek završiš ogorčeniji nego što misliš, itd. Ne može pola veka istorije tek tako da se izbriše. Od britanskih "home nations" jedino oni rođeni u Engleskoj su hteli "razvod", EU27 nije htela razvod, US nije htela taj razvod (kao ipak glavni faktor bezbednosti na tom području), glavni centri britanskog političkog, ekonomskog i kulturnog života (London, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Glasgow, Edinburgh, ogromna većina kompanija, jasna većina vodećih društvenih slojeva je bila protiv Brexita. I sad, imajući sve to u vidu, očekivati da će to proći eto tako je prosto neozbiljno. Poruka je: neka ćute Tusk, Merkel, Francuzi, neka ćute umetnici, naučnici, eksperti, studenti, SUDIJE, City, poslanici, House of Lords, svi neka ćute. Tough luck, niko neće ćutati i svako će se boriti za svoje interese i svoja gledišta. Realnost života.

[MancMellow]

 

 

Brexit’s Doom Spirals

LONDON – Financial markets are giving a thumbs-down to Brexit, and they are right to do so. But because it is finance, not democratic civil society, that is pushing back against the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, the Brexit debate will become more bitter, and the fallout more severe.

 

The June referendum’s initial economic effects were negligible, and may even have been slightly positive, now that the UK’s post-referendum growth figures are being revised upward. But the British pound is sinking, the cost of financing UK government debt is rising, and the process of actually withdrawing from the EU could be highly destructive.

Ideally, participants in a conflict think coolly and rationally about their long-term interests, and act accordingly; unfortunately, they rarely do. Just as a married couple’s divorce often leads to bitterness and pitched battles that benefit only lawyers, the UK’s divorce from the EU will almost certainly descend into acrimony. As hostility rises, an amicable settlement will become less likely, and everyone will end up losing more than they have gained.Having decided to leave the EU, it is in the UK’s interest to manage withdrawal in a way that minimizes short-term adjustment costs and long-term adverse effects. Likewise, it is in the EU’s interest to mitigate not only the economic impact, but also the reputational damage implied by the loss of a major member state.

 

There are three potential doom spirals already baked into the UK-EU divorce proceedings. First, there are political and structural risks to the EU if more member states leave. When the bloc loses a single member state, it looks like a misfortune that can be attributed to the departing country’s domestic peculiarities. But if the bloc loses more member states, it starts to look like negligence, mismanagement, or a fundamental design flaw. Thus, the EU has a strong incentive to make Brexit as painful as possible for the UK, in order to discourage countries such as the Netherlands, Sweden, or Finland from following the British example.

Opinion polls show that support for the EU has surged in many member states since the UK’s referendum. But this is not because the EU is suddenly functioning better. Rather, many Europeans share the view that former British Prime Minister David Cameron blundered by calling for a referendum on EU membership.

Immediately after the referendum, German Chancellor Angela Merkel beseeched Europeans not to be needlessly “horrid” (garstig) when thinking about the EU’s divorce terms for the UK. But, because the UK knows that the EU fears disintegration, it will inevitably read vindictiveness into any position the EU takes. UK negotiators will have to assume that their EU counterparts are trying to make the path out of the EU as economically and politically rocky as possible.

 

British negotiators will then respond to EU negotiators’ domino-theory logic by trying to make the process as painful as possible for the rest of the EU. Indeed, the UK’s “Leave” constituency already firmly believes that the UK would be better off on its own, and that Brexit will hurt Europeans much more than it hurts Britons. This means that the Leave camp has a powerful incentive to fulfill its own prophecy.

The second doom loop applies to the UK’s domestic political economy. Britain cannot simply start beating the Europeans at their own game by reviving its automobile industry, or by making its own wine to rival French and Italian producers. The principle of comparative advantage demands that the UK emphasize its service industries, and especially financial services.

 

The City of London already drives the British economy, and one post-Brexit scenario has London’s role as a global financial center actually increasing. To make that happen, the British government would have to establish a regime of low taxes, light regulations, and favorable treatment toward both skilled and unskilled immigrants working in and around financial services. But every part of this plan conflicts with the government’s goal of reining in the finance industry and limiting migrant flows.

 

Indeed, strengthening fat-cat capitalism is precisely the opposite of what British Prime Minister Theresa May promised to do when she succeeded Cameron. In fact, the Leave camp is dominated by people in England and Wales who feel cut off from the gains of globalization, and voted against the privileges and riches of the glittering global megacity of London. Thus, one of the UK’s most effective negotiating strategies would deeply divide Britain itself, and especially the governing Conservative Party.

 

That points to the third doom loop: migration, which weighed so heavily on the outcome of the Brexit referendum. The May government now must demonstrate to voters that it is doing something about migrants and foreign workers in the UK. But as long as Britain has a dynamic economy, it will attract immigrants, regardless of whether they are formally admitted. The government can guarantee less immigration only by wrecking the economy, which would then be blamed, naturally, on European viciousness.

 

Meanwhile, if the UK becomes a low-cost offshore financial center that sheds jobs, it could pose a danger to its neighbors. Continental Europe might be tempted to reject financial capitalism altogether, in favor of a growth strategy based on large state-driven investment projects.

 

Ultimately, Brexit could come to resemble the dismemberment of a body, with the British financial head separated from the European real economy. Britain would appear less attractive, Europe would withdraw into itself, and each side would blame the other. That would be a bad outcome for everyone. But it also adheres to the bitter logic of divorce – which is why most couples opt for counseling.

 

Harold James

Harold James is Professor of History and International Affairs at Princeton University and a senior fellow at the Center for International Governance Innovation. A specialist on German economic history and on globalization, he is a co-author of the new book The Euro and The Battle of Ideas, and the author of The Creation and Destruction of Value: The Globalization Cycle, Krupp: A History of the Legendary German Firm, and Making the European Monetary Union.

 

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/brexit-uk-eu-negotiations-by-harold-james-2016-11

Edited November 30, 2016 by MancMellow

[Dr Arslanagić]

Britanija treba da ostane u EU, i uništava EU iznutra. Nema mehanizma da je izbace. Minirati svaku odluku, i uništavati što brže.

 

Od prvog dana je jasno da uvređene mlade neće dozvoliti normalan razvod.

 

Da imaju pameti, uvređene mlade bi trebale da skrše UK, koliko kod ih to koštalo.

[Dr Arslanagić]

Ja ne vidim da neko hoće oslobođenje već da hoće da se jebe a da mu ne uđe. Britanska vlada je ta koja ne želi da započne pregovore o razdruživanju. I britanska vlada je ta koja ne zna zapravo šta želi. EU je veoma jasna. I da bi opstala ne sme da dozvoli ikada više da se ovako nešto ponovi. Po svaku cenu.

Edited November 30, 2016 by Dr Arslanagić

[hazard]

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/brexit-uk-eu-negotiations-by-harold-james-2016-11

 

Dobar je clanak generalno, osim ovog dela:

 

 

The government can guarantee less immigration only by wrecking the economy, which would then be blamed, naturally, on European viciousness.

 

Manje imigracije ne znaci "wrecking the economy". Nezaposlenost je 4,8%, a i veca kada dodamo "discouraged workers". Ima ljudi koji bi radili samo ih treba 1) platiti 2) obuciti. To je malo skuplja varijanta od uvoza imigranata, ali ne znaci unistavanje ekonomije.

[hazard]

Jebo uniju/savez koji jedino može da opstane tako što se skrše oni koji požele oslobođenje. Neće to na dobro da izađe.

 

O cemu ti, leba ti?

 

Biti clan EU nosi odredjene benefite (npr. pristup trzistu) ali i obaveze (npr. slobodni protok ljudi).

 

Britanija bi da ima benefite (pristup trzistu) ali BEZ obaveza (slobodnog protoka ljudi). Jebiga, to NE MOZE. Tacka.

 

Da Britanija hoce samo da izadje, i da kaze, ok, pozdravljamo se i sa prednostima i sa manama clanstva u EU, celim paketom - brzo bi se dogovorili.

 

Britanija je ta, koja, gledajuci samo svoje uske interese, zeli zapravo da "skrsi" EU - jer ako pokazes da moze + bez -, onda si sjebao ceo dogovor na kojoj EU stoji. Britanija je slobodna da izadje iz kluba, ali ako je odlucila da izadje, ima tacno nula prava i mogucnosti da objasnjava preostalim clanovima kluba kako klub treba da bude organizovan nakon njenog izlaska.

[Pantelija jr]

Borise, ti li si?

 

Koji dio od objašnjenja o plusevima i minusima članstva u nekom klubu ne razumiješ? Plus? Minus?

[hazard]

Britanska vlada nema plan, ili ga barem ne znamo u jasnoj i koherentnoj formi. Što ne znači da narod nije izglasao oslobođenje od EU. To oslobođenje ima više glavnih tačaka, a najvažnije je zaustavljanje EU imigracije.

 

​U interesu svih je normalan trade deal. Naravno, osim u interesu EU birokrata koji su svesni da ni drugi nisu baš oduševljeni paketom koji su nametnuli i da će stvari morati da se menjaju, sa ili bez Britanije. Protok ljudi nije zapisan u bibliji, a čak i da jeste, ta stranica se može pocepati ili drugačije interpretirati. Uostalom, kad su mogle da se stave kočnice na imigraciju Rumuna i Bugara na određeni rok, mogu da se stave kočnice, na recimo 200 godina. Isti princip.

 

Čitava strategija EU je strah. Uterati strah u ostale članice da slučajno i oni ne zatraže isto. 

 

Tebi elementarna logika slabo ide. Ili previse citas Daily Mail.

 

Protok ljudi je zapisan u medjudrzavnim ugovorima (vidi Rimski ugovor) kojima je osnivana EU. To sto pajac BoJo misli da nije, ne znaci da nije. Jeste.

 

Da bi se to menjalo, moraju da se promene svi ti - akti - a to znaci da sa tim mora da se slozi svak clan EU. Za "oslobodjenje" ( ) od EU glasala je samo Britanija, nije cela EU glasala da se menjaju pravila za sve.

 

Sto se tice kocnice - da, postojalo je ogranicenje od 7 godina na Rumune i Bugare. Ali ne samo na njih! Postojalo je i na Poljake, i Slovake, i sve ostale koji su usli 2004. Ali sama Britanija tada nije htela da uvede to ogranicenje od 7 godina, vec je Toni Bler velikodusno rekao to nije evropski, mi od prvog dana cemo da pustimo svakoga. A onda Britanci kukaju o imigraciji, i krive Brisel. Pa nije Brisel kriv, nek se obrate Toni Bleru.

 

Da li ti shvatas koliko prevrtanja ociju je izazvao onaj predlog Kamerona za "emergency brake", 10 godina nakon sto se Toni Bler sam od sebe, bez ikakvog pritiska iz Brisela, odrekao prvobitne "emergency brake"?

 

U nasem jeziku ima dva fina izraza za to koje sam siguran da znas - ne mozes biti "malo trudan", i ne mozes "da se jebes a da ti ne udje".