Brexit

Share
avatar

Posts : 17642
Join date : 2014-10-27

Re: Brexit

Post by ostap bender on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:09 am



_____
navijao bih protiv zvezde i da igra protiv tima od 12 radulovica
avatar

Posts : 7403
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: Brexit

Post by Kinder Lad on Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:47 am

“Steven Woolfe has then taken his jacket off, walked over and said: ‘Right you, outside now’ 

tradicionalne vrednosti


_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 41201
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Brexit

Post by William Murderface on Sun Oct 23, 2016 7:21 pm

independent.co.uk
David Cameron reportedly texted Boris Johnson to say 'you should have stuck with me, mate' after Michael Gove betrayal
Charlotte England
Former prime minister David Cameron texted Boris Johnson to gloat after the now foreign secretary was betrayed in his Tory leadership bid by Leave Campaign ally Michael Gove, a new book has claimed.
Mr Gove managed Mr Johnson’s campaign to become prime minister, before changing his mind the night before nominations were announced and running himself, forcing Mr Johnson to withdraw from the contest.
Mr Cameron, who campaigned to remain in the EU and resigned over the referendum result, texted Mr Johnson and said:  "you should have stuck with me, mate," following the debacle, author Tim Shipman has said
In a book telling "the disastrous inside story of how Boris did not become prime minister", Mr Shipman reported that, following the Brexit referendum in June, Mr Gove initially agreed to back his colleague for the top job, despite the fact he was under "intense pressure from close allies" to run for the leadership himself. 
But the relationship between the two politicians disintegrated over a series of mistakes and misunderstandings.  
First, an email to Mr Gove from his wife was leaked. In it she urged her husband to get "specific assurances" from Mr Johnson and "not to concede ground", Mr Shipman said. 
The email was posted online and went viral, damaging the relationship between the two men. 
The situation reportedly worsened when an election strategist advised Mr Johnson to bring Eurosceptic MP Angela Leadsom on board, suggesting she could be helpful to his campaign.
Mr Johnson agreed and allegedly offered Ms Leadsom a top three job: deputy prime minister, Brexit negotiator or chancellor.
But, the book says, Mr Johnson became distracted when he encountered difficulties writing his campaign launch speech.
According to the book, he became so stressed by the task that he failed to ensure a letter was delivered to Ms Leadsom confirming his offer of an important position in his government.
Annoyed at the delay, Ms Leadsom reportedly texted Mr Johnson to say the deal was off.
Mr Gove “went ballistic", a source told Mr Shipman, and decided it was "too big a risk for the country" to allow someone as "incompetent" as Mr Johnson to become prime minister.
Over the course of the night, Mr Gove – who Mr Shipman said may also have been moved by speeches about how good a leader Mr Cameron was – decided he would put in his own leadership bid.
He reportedly told advisors: “I don’t have the luxury of time. Tomorrow I have to say to my colleagues and the country, ‘I think this man is ready to be prime minister’ and be held to account forever for having made that claim – or not”

Ten things Boris Johnson doesn't want you to know

When he first heard, Mr Johnson reportedly did not believe Mr Gove had decided to run, but when he realised the news was true he decided he could no longer stand in the contest. 
He said later: “To go on would have been very bloody, and with Gove’s knife in my back it would have been hard to pick up momentum again with colleagues.”
The book claims one person who was with Mr Johnson when the nominations were announced said: “I’ve never seen him so winded. He looked utterly crushed. It was not the realisation it might all be over; it was just the betrayal” 
David Cameron, however, was reportedly described by a member of the cabinet as “the happiest I have seen him in a long time".



_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
Guest

Re: Brexit

Post by Guest on Thu Nov 03, 2016 12:55 pm

PPPejci naprosto ne mogu da prebole sto su ih Britanci odalamili po intelektualnom nosu. Od Brexita pa naovamo, britanske teme su im se svele na kolektivno svrsavanje na lose vesti iz Britanije.
avatar

Posts : 41201
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Brexit

Post by William Murderface on Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:05 pm

Nije u tome stvar, Britanci su sami sebe opalili po nosu, kao što te vesti jasno pokazuju. Mislim da svi neveruu (uključujuči i mene) koliko su ljudi koji su trenutno na čelu UK nesposobni, plitki i nepromišljeni. Bukvalno ne prođe dan da neko ne odvali neku budalaštinu. A sve Oksrbidž ekipica. Creme de la creme, što reko Del Boy.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
Guest

Re: Brexit

Post by Guest on Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:11 pm

William Murderface wrote:Nije u tome stvar, Britanci su sami sebe opalili po nosu, kao što te vesti jasno pokazuju. 


Vesti jasno pokazuju i da Srbija dozivljava privredni procvat, a da premijera zbog toga zele da ubiju. Kolicina dezinformacija, poluistina i raznoraznih gluposti koje se sire odande je zapanjuca. Ja to razumem kao nemoc liberalnih elita sto su izgubile, pa onda nalaze pornografski odusak u ovakvim vestima.
Guest

Re: Brexit

Post by Guest on Thu Nov 03, 2016 1:17 pm

Evo sta rade silovateljima u zatvoru Brexitu
Monstrume, ovo te ceka !!!!
avatar

Posts : 6199
Join date : 2012-02-11

Re: Brexit

Post by Ointagru Unartan on Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:04 pm

Demokratija na delu:


Brexit court defeat for UK government

Parliament must vote on whether the UK can start the process of leaving the EU, the High Court has ruled.

This means the government cannot trigger Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty - beginning formal exit negotiations with the EU - on its own.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37857785


_____
"Ne morate krenuti odavde da biste dosli tamo. Moguce je krenuti odavde i vratiti se ponovo tu, ali preko onoga tamo."
Aca Seltik, Sabrana razmisljanja o topologiji, tom cetvrti.

My Moon Che Gavara.
avatar

Posts : 41201
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Brexit

Post by William Murderface on Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:15 pm

Pržun wrote:
William Murderface wrote:Nije u tome stvar, Britanci su sami sebe opalili po nosu, kao što te vesti jasno pokazuju. 


Vesti jasno pokazuju i da Srbija dozivljava privredni procvat, a da premijera zbog toga zele da ubiju. Kolicina dezinformacija, poluistina i raznoraznih gluposti koje se sire odande je zapanjuca. Ja to razumem kao nemoc liberalnih elita sto su izgubile, pa onda nalaze pornografski odusak u ovakvim vestima.


Ma daj, Pržune, cena Brexit-a je ogromna, i to niko ne spori. Konzerve, kako one koje su bile za Leave, tako i one koje su bile za Remain, se sad hvataju za glavu šta da rade, nešto muljaju, izmišljaju svakog dana sve luđe priče, a s druge strane kukaju da im EU dozvli soft Brexit, ali bez uspeha. Ako tražiš poređenje sa Vučićem, eto ga. Oni su kao guske u magli.

Izgubile su, ne liberalne elite, nego britanski građani, i to već osećaju, a osetiće još žešće u godinama koje slede. Dobio nije niko, pa čak ni te budale koje su bile za Bregzit, a koje su već na smetlištu istorije (Džonson, Faraž, Gav).


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 41201
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Brexit

Post by William Murderface on Tue Nov 15, 2016 2:46 pm

Leaked Brexit memo: Whitehall struggling to cope and no single plan

Jennifer Rankin

Whitehall is struggling to cope with the scale of work generated by the Brexit vote and the lack of a common strategy among cabinet ministers, according to a report about a leaked Cabinet Office memo.
The note found that departments were working on more than 500 projects related to leaving the EU and may need to hire an extra 30,000 civil servants to deal with the additional work.
It identified a tendency by Theresa May to “draw in decisions and settle matters herself” as a strategy that could not be sustained, and highlighted a split between the three Brexit ministers – Liam Fox, Boris Johnson and David Davis – and the chancellor, Philip Hammond, and his ally Greg Clark, the business secretary.
The note, leaked to the Times and said to be dated 7 November, also claimed that “no common strategy has emerged” on Brexit between departments despite extended debate among the permanent secretaries who head Whitehall departments.



In addition, it said major industry players were expected to “point a gun to the government’s head” to get what they wanted after the carmaker Nissan was given assurances that it would not lose out from investing in Britain after Brexit.
It is understood the report was written by a consultant at the professional services firm Deloitte. A government source said it was “unsolicited” and its contents were not recognised.
Chris Grayling, the transport secretary who sits on the government’s Brexit cabinet committee, said he had no idea where the report had come from and denied it had been commissioned by ministers.
“The process is complex but by no means the challenge that is set out in today’s newspaper story,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “I have a team of people in my department who are working with David Davis on issues like aviation, but I do not see the scale of the challenge that is in today’s newspaper.”
Asked if the government was planning to hire 30,000 civil servants to cope with the extra pressures of the negotiations, Grayling said: “I have not seen anything to suggest that is the case. We have got people in my department [and] in other departments working with the Brexit department. I don’t know what 30,000 extra people would do.”
A government spokesman also denied the existence of an official memo, which the Times said had been drafted by an outside consultant. The spokesman said: “This is not a government report and we don’t recognise the claims made in it. We are focused on getting on with the job of delivering Brexit and making a success of it.”
It is understood not to have been seen by ministers or commissioned as an official report by the Cabinet Office.
The note appears to be one of a number of recent leaks from the heart of government discussing dissent among senior figures about how May should approach Brexit.
The prime minister has promised to start the process of leaving the EU by the end of March next year but declined to reveal details of her approach, beyond saying there must be a bespoke deal to allow immigration controls as well as maintaining access to the single market.
The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said the leaked report showed a “shambles at the heart of government” over the direction of Brexit. “It’s time for the prime minister to stop being led astray by her warring cabinet,” he said. “Otherwise her government is heading for the worst possible outcome: a reckless, destructive Brexit that will do untold damage to British jobs and the economy.”



_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 7350
Join date : 2015-03-20

Re: Brexit

Post by Kondo on Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:12 am

Ovo je mnogo jako! British humour at best, ubise stupidnog UKIP-ovca koji se u rasistickom ispadu na tw ponudio da na aerodrom odveze svakoga ko ne voli Bozic...






_____
I was faced with a choice at a difficult age
Would I write a book? Or should I take to the stage?
But in the back of my head I heard distant feet
Che Guevara and Debussy to a disco beat
avatar

Posts : 11504
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : сви јунаци ником поникоше

Re: Brexit

Post by паће on Mon Dec 05, 2016 10:58 am

Због мене су на оном тамо форуму почели да додају "свима који славе", након што сам их 3-4 године сваки пут замолио да ме изоставе са списка прималаца.

Немам ништа против, нека слави ко хоће, ал' нека оставе места и онима који неће. Да, например, могу да прођем у то време градом и да бар једном не приметим да опет имају тај период.


_____
памтим савршено - не сећам се кад сам последњи пут нешто заборавио
They say you can't have a cake and eat it too. Then they say "have a cake".
avatar

Posts : 4860
Join date : 2014-11-04

Re: Brexit

Post by Indy on Mon Dec 05, 2016 11:01 am

Toliko su nafatali strah da sad kažu i "dobar dan, svima koji slave".



_____
Take a day and walk around... Watch the Nazis run your town... Then go home and check yourself... You think we're singing 'bout someone else
avatar

Posts : 5273
Join date : 2015-05-16

Re: Brexit

Post by No Country on Mon Dec 05, 2016 4:45 pm

Знам и ја једног Аниша Патела, ал' није тај. Ипак мислим да је овде у питању један транзициони феномен.
avatar

Posts : 11504
Join date : 2012-02-12
Location : сви јунаци ником поникоше

Re: Brexit

Post by паће on Mon Dec 05, 2016 5:19 pm

No Country wrote:Знам и ја једног Аниша Патела, ал' није тај. Ипак мислим да је овде у питању један транзициони феномен.

Дакле, транџа?


_____
памтим савршено - не сећам се кад сам последњи пут нешто заборавио
They say you can't have a cake and eat it too. Then they say "have a cake".
avatar

Posts : 5273
Join date : 2015-05-16

Re: Brexit

Post by No Country on Mon Dec 05, 2016 6:37 pm

Па да, у смислу "претеривања на другу страну".
avatar

Posts : 243
Join date : 2015-08-30

Re: Brexit

Post by Anduril on Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:34 pm

Strategija britanske vlade oko Brexita:


Economics and populism

[size=44]Schrödinger’s Brexit[/size]

Nov 30th 2016, 11:26 BY BUTTONWOOD





SOMETIMES an analogy strikes you on the head with the force of a plummeting cricket ball. On [size=15]Radio 4 yesterday, Hamish Johnson, editor of physicsworld.com, had the brilliant insight to explain the British government’s policy in terms of physics; Schrödinger’s Brexit.

The poor cat is stuck in a box with a radioactive substance and a poison; when the substance decays, the poison is released. Since it is impossible to predict when the substance will decay, the cat may be deemed simultaneously alive and dead. The only way to know is to open the box.
Before Britain voted to leave the European Union in June, then prime minister David Cameron promised to trigger Article 50 (the exit mechanism) immediately. Five months on, Article 50 has yet to be triggered. The new prime minister, Theresa May, has promised to do so by the end of March. But in terms of what Britain wants, we have heard nothing but platitudes: “Brexit means Brexit”, or “have our cake and eat it”. Pushed for details, Ms May has said there will be “no running commentary” on negotiations. In fact, it is quite easy to do a running commentary. Since the other EU members won’t talk until Article 50 has been triggered, there have been no negotiations. 
Among the many important questions to be answered are whether Britain will stay in the single market, or the customs union, and whether there will be a transitional period after Britain leaves the EU during which it would retain existing access (in order to reduce the economic disruption). The rationale for this silence is that Britain does not want to “reveal its hand” before negotiating starts. This doesn’t really make sense since it will have to reveal its hand when Article 50 is triggered and the negotiations will last two years; everyone in the EU will have plenty of time to react and counter Britain’s offer.
Anyway, until such decisions are made, Britain is like the cat; simultaneously inside and outside the single market and customs union. This has the advantage for the government of allowing it to pretend that the “have cake and eat it” solution can occur; no trade-offs need to be made between sovereignty and economics. But were the government to open the box, to declare for one option over another, the full costs (political or economic) will be revealed. The longer the box can be kept closed, the better. Hence all the meaningless rhetoric.
The analogy can be used more broadly for Trumpian-style populists. Such politicians promote the idea that there are simple solutions to national problems that involve no trade-offs; if only existing leaders had been better negotiators, our country would have had a better deal. It is easy to spout this stuff from the sidelines; harder to achieve when actually in government. (Indeed, populist parties tend to lose appeal when they take office and are forced to make decisions.) Mr Trump can’t actually cut taxes, maintain entitlement spending, and narrow the budget and trade deficits, for example. Abandoning the Iranian nuclear deal will make it more, not less, likely that Iran will get the bomb. But those cats won’t be out of the bag (or box) until after the votes are counted.[/size]
avatar

Posts : 7403
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: Brexit

Post by Kinder Lad on Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:19 am

ARGUMENT
Theresa May Is a Religious Nationalist
You can't understand the British prime minister’s politics, or her Brexit strategy, without understanding her Anglicanism.


BY ANDREW BROWN | DECEMBER 6, 2016



One of the least understood, yet most important, things about British Prime Minister Theresa May is that she is the daughter of a Church of England vicar. The fact that she is personally devout, by contrast, is well-known. I have heard several anecdotes about her time as a member of Parliament and minister when she would turn up at local parish initiatives that could offer her no conceivable political advantage. Such devotion to the church is unusual if not unknown among British politicians. Gordon Brown remains a very serious Presbyterian; Tony Blair went to Mass most Sundays.

But the reason May’s Anglicanism offers insight into her political character, and her political agenda, is not because it has informed her identity as a devout Christian. Rather, it is because it has informed her identity as an Englishwoman.

As a Conservative politician, May’s appeal depends largely on her apparently apolitical common sense. Her manner and rhetoric always suggest that things are pretty much all right as they are, that reasonable people don’t want to rock the boat, and that there is something wrong with the people who want large change. She expresses distrust of ideologues and chancers — the two labels that most naturally attach to her political rivals at the moment.
Spoiler:

But it’s telling that the teachings of the Church of England have always managed to combine common sense with a very strong nationalistic streak. The clue is in the name. The one thing that distinguished Henry VIII’s church from that of his father, Henry VII, was that the king of England appointed the clergy, not the bishop of Rome. Doctrine had hardly changed at all. (That would have to wait until the convulsions under Henry VIII’s children, Edward, Mary and Elizabeth.) Until Henry died, all that really changed was that England became, to use the technical term of the times, an “empire.”

In that sense, Brexit really is a continuation of the Reformation impulse — it promises nothing so much as a restoration of national prerogatives and privileges. This is not to suggest that May, who is now obliged to oversee the Brexit process, is enthusiastic about its prospects. Prior to the referendum vote that initiated Brexit, May believed the economic effects were likely to be disastrous, as her leaked pre-referendum speech to Goldman Sachs showed. And her intentions about Brexit are still remarkably opaque: A senior aide leaving a recent briefing at the newly created Department for Exiting the EU was photographed holding a briefing note on which the words “have cake and eat it” could be read. That plan will clearly not survive contact with the enemy.

But it’s worth noting that May seemed quick to embrace the idea of a hard Brexit, in which keeping out immigrants takes priority over ensuring decent trading conditions. And that would be consistent with her time leading the Home Office, where she showed a consistent determination to keep down net immigration figures. (Someone who worked with her then described her three policy priorities as “down with immigration, down with crime, and up with Theresa May.”) Generally, the leaks we have had make it seem that she is more concerned about managing her party, and its constituents, than managing relations with the French and Germans.

If Americans don’t immediately grasp what this style of thinking has to do with the Church of England, that’s because it’s built on a very different model of Christianity from the one that seems natural in the United States. From the Middle Ages until very recently, the church was organized and understood itself on the basis of the parish. The parish, in England, is a geographical division, one that is no longer a unit of political or economic significance but which remains fundamental to the church’s self-understanding. Everyone lives in a parish, and every parish has its church, so everyone has a priest in the Church of England who is in some sense responsible for their spiritual welfare.

This has also meant that the church hierarchy — the clergy, and ultimately the bishops, who sit in the House of Lords and thus have a say over all legislation considered by Parliament — is expected to feel a responsibility for everyone in their respective parishes, no matter how poor and miserable. This sense of responsibility, almost as much as the two world wars, was what reconciled the English Conservative Party, which had a close relationship with the church hierarchy, to the welfare state. And that state was very much inspired by the work of Anglican intellectuals, such as William Temple, the wartime archbishop of Canterbury. For that generation, the postwar welfare state was an attempt to turn England into the New Jerusalem. The Christian elements of that vision faded with time and so did the nationalist ones. The last ones may now be coming back.

The Church of England is, in an important sense, not a religious body at all. It is, or was, a mode of being English. It was the official position of the Church of England that it had no distinctive doctrines of its own. It was simply the English part of the universal church. This claim was hard to sustain in reality — the doctrine that the Church of England has no unique doctrines is itself unique to the Church of England — but it reflected a deep conservative self-confidence. It was only as a member of the Church of England that C.S. Lewis could write a book titled Mere Christianity, referencing the plain, commonsensical essence of belief, without the extravagance of Rome or the doctrinal extremism of the puritans.

The link with May should be obvious. The lack of explicit theological distinctiveness in her church coheres with an almost complete lack of ideology in her politics. She seems to have no large vision of how society should be organized or the economy run: She sees problems in her nation and fixes them, without worrying too much about how everything might fit into a grand scheme. If she had a slogan, it might be “common sense without stupidity.” The Brexit vote would seem to contradict both halves of the slogan. But we still have no clear idea how she intends to deal with it — except that she does not intend to let anyone outside the government know anything until the last possible moment. The attempt to negotiate what is supposed to be a return to parliamentary sovereignty without a vote in Parliament is one example. Another is her repetition of the phrase “Brexit means Brexit” until its lack of meaning became embarrassingly obvious.

It’s almost as if she believed her policies could be as private as her spiritual beliefs. Though she has by all accounts a strong sense of duty, May is quite remarkably undemonstrative. She is extremely private about her religious beliefs, as with all other aspects of her private life; this, too, is a traditional sort of Englishness, in which you perform your duties but have no public existence outside them.

Those duties sometimes take a universalist cast. One of the causes May pushed hardest at the Home Office and elsewhere was the fight against modern slavery. There are few votes to be won in this fight, but it is the right thing to do, and she has worked very hard to ensure that problem was taken seriously throughout the criminal justice system. The bishops would agree with her on that, while being a long way to her left on welfare reform and on the treatment of refugees. It’s very notable that some of the most bigoted social conservatives on the English Christian scene are also in favor of the large-scale resettlement of Christian refugees from around the world to England.

Generally, however, May’s political career is given coherence by her supposition that her Christian duty is to the people of England rather than to humanity in general or even to other Christians. This is another thing that distinguishes state churches, on the European model, from congregational ones, on the American model. The state church is not something you join, or leave, any more than the nation is. It is run as a kind of public utility: a national spiritual health service, if you like. In Germany and Scandinavia, the churches are paid for out of taxation collected by the state, as the English church once was, even if the church taxes in Europe are now voluntary. Because there is no special membership status, no one is excluded either, and there is an obligation to serve everyone. May’s father was legally obliged to marry or bury any resident of the parish who demanded this service — the assumption being that they were members of the church.

May won’t bring her faith into politics explicitly, but we can expect her to behave as if England were a special, almost sacred, country in ways that none of her immediate predecessors, much less Americans, would understand.
Photo credit: WPA Pool/Getty Images

https://foreignpolicy.com/2016/12/06/why-theresa-mays-english-doesnt-translate-to-america/?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Flashpoints%20Dec%207&utm_term=Flashpoints


_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 41201
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Brexit

Post by William Murderface on Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:22 am

Ta nova ideologija, konzervativizam.


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 7403
Join date : 2015-11-26
Location : Location, Location

Re: Brexit

Post by Kinder Lad on Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:26 am

Jedina koja do sada nije isprobana 


_____
alt-lib
avatar

Posts : 41201
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Brexit

Post by William Murderface on Thu Dec 08, 2016 12:48 am

Bar neće biti rata...


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 10150
Join date : 2014-12-01

Re: Brexit

Post by Filipenko on Thu Dec 08, 2016 3:01 am

Anglikanizam mi je definitivno totalna sprdnja od religije i karikatura karikature. To treba zabraniti i proterati na incestno ostrvo porekla. Nažalost, ta sekta operiše i u Srbiji. Jebem ti religiju nastalu tako što sektaš papa, na direktnoj liniji sa Bogom, zabranjuje kralju da se razvede, pa on napravi crkvu. Koliko trebaš biti blesav da iskreno veruješ u takve gluposti.
avatar

Posts : 41201
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Brexit

Post by William Murderface on Thu Dec 08, 2016 4:15 am



_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 41201
Join date : 2012-06-10

Re: Brexit

Post by William Murderface on Tue Dec 20, 2016 12:35 pm

ZAPANJUJUĆE: Pacov uskače na brod koji tone! (VIDEO)

Spoiler:


_____
"Oni kroz mene gledaju u vas! Oni kroz njega gledaju u vas! Oni kroz vas gledaju u mene... i u sve nas."

Dragoslav Bokan, Novi putevi oftalmologije
avatar

Posts : 5889
Join date : 2015-11-22

Re: Brexit

Post by Gargantua on Tue Jan 17, 2017 6:46 pm

Tereza je održala 1 govor u kom je u suštini najavila izlazak UK iz ZT i punu kontrolu granica.


komentar:





Theresa May’s speech means the Brexit phony war may be ending
David Allen Green

|  Jan 17 15:52  |  http://blogs.ft.com/david-allen-green/2017/01/17/theresa-mays-speech-means-the-brexit-phony-war-may-be-ending/  


For a speech that she did not need to make, Tuesday’s Brexit speech by Theresa May was significant. Had the day come and gone without anyone being told there would be a speech then nobody would have expected or asked for one. The first significant thing about the speech is that she gave one at all.


And it was not a bad speech. You could not have reasonably asked for any more detail at this stage of the process. There was even some new information. This was not that parliament would vote on any final Brexit deal (there would be no other way) or that the UK would be leaving the single market (this was the necessary implication of what was already plain). The two things that were new and significant were about the customs union and about “phased implementation” (that is, transitional arrangements).


The UK wants to set its own tariffs for trade with the EU and the rest of the world. This is not possible under the common commercial policy and the common external tariff. But stepping out of the customs union means that, in principle, tariffs will apply between Britain and the Union. In other words, trade with our major trading partner will be affected.

The speech indicated that Mrs May will seek to get round that inconvenience:

“Now, I want Britain to be able to negotiate its own trade agreements. But I also want tariff-free trade with Europe and cross-border trade there to be as frictionless as possible.
“That means I do not want Britain to be part of the Common Commercial Policy and I do not want us to be bound by the Common External Tariff. These are the elements of the Customs Union that prevent us from striking our own comprehensive trade agreements with other countries. But I do want us to have a customs agreement with the EU.
“Whether that means we must reach a completely new customs agreement, become an associate member of the Customs Union in some way, or remain a signatory to some elements of it, I hold no preconceived position. I have an open mind on how we do it. It is not the means that matter, but the ends.

She says elsewhere, however, that “no deal for Britain is better than a bad deal for Britain”. So businesses face the certainty of the country stepping outside a customs union (and so facing tariffs) but not (currently) the same absolute certainty of there being a tariffs deal.

The prime minister cannot now be faulted for lack of clarity on the ultimate question of membership of the EU customs union. What will replace it is not clear and is up for negotiation. But businesses can at least plan for steep hikes in tariffs, until and unless there is an agreement otherwise.

The other significant novelty in the speech was the talk of “phases”. This is a word we will hear a lot about. The implementation will be phased. Different things will be implemented in different phases. To use a horrible term from the world of civil justice, there will be a kind of “multi-track” approach.

Mrs May said:
“I want us to have reached an agreement about our future partnership by the time the 2-year Article 50 process has concluded. From that point onwards, we believe a phased process of implementation, in which both Britain and the EU institutions and member states prepare for the new arrangements that will exist between us will be in our mutual self-interest. This will give businesses enough time to plan and prepare for those new arrangements.
“This might be about our immigration controls, customs systems or the way in which we co-operate on criminal justice matters. Or it might be about the future legal and regulatory framework for financial services. For each issue, the time we need to phase-in the new arrangements may differ. Some might be introduced very quickly, some might take longer. And the interim arrangements we rely upon are likely to be a matter of negotiation.
“But the purpose is clear: we will seek to avoid a disruptive cliff-edge, and we will do everything we can to phase in the new arrangements we require as Britain and the EU move towards our new partnership.”

If you look carefully at this passage, you will see there is a lot of wiggle-room. So much so that “EU institutions” can still have involvement. And you will also see that something is not there: a deadline. The prime minister did not provide a hard date by which any phase will end. The only restriction will be that the phase will not last forever:
“I do not mean that we will seek some form of unlimited transitional status, in which we find ourselves stuck forever in some kind of permanent political purgatory. That would not be good for Britain, but nor do I believe it would be good for the EU.”

A phase that lasts forever, minus one day, is thereby not ruled out. This is sensible stuff. There is no way EU membership of the UK can be dismantled in two years. There is no reason why the hard Brexit has to happen immediately. Admitting that there will be a phased approach, and going further and saying there will be phased approaches (in the plural) shows that the government is finally getting a grip on the process of achieving an exit.

One impression the speech gave is that a hard Brexit will be implemented because a soft Brexit would be difficult – just as Blaise Pascal once said that he was writing a letter long because he did have enough time to write it short.

Rather than the prospect of years of negotiation with skilled and experienced EU officials over keeping the UK as a member of the single market, the government has shrugged and decided to go for the easier (if more perilous) option. Until Tuesday, there was still a kind of debate over what shade of Brexit. Now it is plain: a full Brexit is the only kind on offer.

But this is not entirely a matter of choice for the UK. It was perhaps the only position left, given the Article 50 default position and the settled and resolute stance of the EU on freedom of movement. Any attempt to negotiate around this may not succeed. In a way, the speech is an admission by Britain that the EU has won the first (informal) round of the negotiations, by providing the terms of the departure. The EU said that there would be no membership of the single market without freedom of movement and the UK has now conceded this.

Mrs May did not need to make this speech (though she was due to provide a “plan” for leaving the EU before the end of March, and Number 10 has confirmed the speech constitutes that plan). But now that she has made the speech, the daft days of “no cards on the table” and “no running commentary” may be over. The prime minister did not even use the phrase “Brexit means Brexit”.

The speech was realistic, as far as the move is realistic. Implied positions are now explicit; the need for transitional “phases” is admitted. The phony war over Brexit may be coming to an end.

Re: Brexit

Post by Sponsored content


    Current date/time is Sun Dec 17, 2017 5:22 am