Porno industrija

Pametan si čovek, kao i Novković, pa za vas dvojicu jedan tekst pametnog i obaveštenog čoveka:

Niko još nije u potpunosti shvatio posledice odluke Britanaca da napuste Evropsku uniju. Oni komentatori koji tumače partijsku politiku i koji se ne razumeju u međunarodne izazove veruju da je Velika Britanija izašla zbog pritiska imigracije i evropske birokratije, piše Tijeri Mejsan na “Voltairenet.org”

Međutim, ova odluka nije imala nikakve veze sa tim temama.

Stvar je u tome da zapadnjačka elita danas ne može da predvidi budući tok događaja isto kao što komunistička partija sovjetske Rusije nije mogla predvideti pad Berlinskog zida 1989. godine i raspad Sovjetskog saveza 1991. godine, a zatim i gašenje Varšavskog pakta.


Na sličan način će uskoro doći i do raspada Evropske unije, a zatim i NATO-a, pa možda u nekom trenutku i raspada SAD.

Uprkos hvaljenju Najdžela Feridža, britanska partija UKIP nije ta koja je pokrenula referendum za izlazak iz EU. Odluku su doneli članovi konzervativne partije i nametnuli je premijeru Dejvidu Kameronu.

Oni smatraju da politika Londona mora da se prilagođava evoluciji sveta. Oni očigledno shvataju da SAD više nisu glavna svetska ekonomska sila niti velika vojna sila i da ne moraju više da budu njihov privilegovani partner.

Kao što Margaret Tačer nije oklevala da uništi britansku industriju kako bi transformisala svoju državu u međunarodni finansijski centar, tako ni konzervativci ne oklevaju da otvore vrata nezavisnosti Škotske i Severne Irske, gubeći istovremeno naftu iz Severnog mora po cenu transformisanja grada u glavni finansijski centar juana.

Bakingemska palata i plemstvo su u velikoj meri podržali kampanju Bregzita.

Uprkos onome što navode evropske novine, Velika Britanija neće tako lako izaći iz EU jer će se EU verovatno raspasti brže nego što će birokratija rešiti izlazak Velike Britanije. Ono malo država što ostane u EU će se opasno namučiti u novoj eri u kojoj će Rusija diktirati životni standard.

Javlja se hitna potreba za reformisanje institucija kako bi se spasilo na stotine hiljada građanskih sluga, izabranih zvaničnika i evropskih saradnika koji će neizbežno izgubiti svoje poslove. Svi oni pogrešno veruju da je Bregzit otvorio presedan za euroskeptike, ali on zapravo samo predstavlja odgovor na pad SAD.
Pentagon, koji trenutno priprema samit NATO-a u Varšavi, nije još uvek shvatio da nije više u položaju da ucenjuje svoje saveznike da povećavaju odbrambeni budžet i podržavaju njihove vojne avanture. Vašingtonovoj dominaciji nad svetom polako dolazi kraj.

Pad Sovjetskog saveza je sa sobom doneo kraj jedne ere i smrt jedne vizije sveta. Sovjeti i njihovi saveznici su želeli da stvore ujedinjeno društvo u kom je sve zajedničko. Oni su uspeli samo da stvore ogromnu birokratiju i veliki broj loših lidera.

Berlinski zid nisu uništili anti-komunisti već koalicija Komunističke omladine i luteranskih crkava. Oni su želeli da rekreiraju komunističke ideale, ali bez sovjetskih okova, političke policije i birokratije. Izdala ih je njihova elita koja se okrenula ka SAD.

Danas Bregzit označava kraj ideološke dominacije SAD, one koja uključuje demokratiju i četiri „slobode“, među kojima su sloboda govora i izražavanja, sloboda veroispovesti, sloboda potrebe i sloboda straha od spoljne agresije.

Bregzit takođe označava i kraj vojno-ekonomske dominacije SAD, pošto su NATO i EU manje-više dve strane jednog novčića.

Trenutno u Francuskoj radničke unije ratuju protiv zakona o radu koji je predstavila Valsova vlada na osnovu izveštaja Evropske unije koji je napisan po uputstvima Stejt departmenta SAD. Iako je francuski narod svestan da je EU umešana u ovu aferu, oni još uvek nisu dokučili da su i SAD umešale prste. Donošenje takvog zakona o radu predstavlja formulaciju ideje profesora Džozefa Korbela koji je rekao da je za dominaciju nad svetom potrebno da bogati budu uvek iznad siromašnih.

Nije isključeno da posle Velike Britanije Francuzi, Holanđani, Danci i drugi neće pokušati da se odvoje od EU. Međutim, da bi to učinili, oni će morati da se sukobe sa svojom vladajućom klasom. Iako je nemoguće proceniti koliko će ta borba trajati, činjenica je da će to pitanje kad-tad isplivati. U svakom slučaju, period prosvetljenja se bliži, a Francuzi i Britanci su prvi koji su ustali za sebe.

Premijer Dejvid Kameron je odložio svoju ostavku do oktobra zahvaljujući godišnjem odmoru. Njegov naslednik, najverovatnije Boris Džonson, ima puno vremena da se pripremi za promene koje će primeniti kada stupi u Dauning Strit. Velika Britanija sigurno neće čekati konačan izlazak iz EU da počne da razvija svoju politiku koja će za početak uključivati ukidanje sankcija Rusiji i Siriji.

Uprkos onome što evropski mediji tvrde, Bregzit ne utiče direktno na grad London. London je već u aprilu nabavio neophodna prava za potpisivanje sporazuma sa Centralnom bankom Kine. Takođe, London bi mogao da postane fiskalni raj za Evropljane.

Iako će Bergzit privremeno dezorganizovati britansku ekonomiju dok ona ne dobije novi niz pravila, verovatno je da će se Velika Britanija, ili barem Engleska, brzo navići radi novih prihoda. Bregzit je povraćaj nacionalnog suvereniteta koji ne garantuje popularni suverenitet.

Nepoznato je kako će međunarodna zajednica reagovati na izlazak Velike Britanije iz EU, ali je činjenica da je uvek bolje držati se realnosti kao Britanci nego živeti u snu dok se on ne razlije.

Taso mislim da si pogodio jednu od glavnih tema danas: demokratija ili tehnokratija (s obzirom da smo kao deklarativno svi protiv autokratije) u organizovanju i upravljanju drustvom (da ne bi opet davali primere sa pekarima i automehanicarima)

Za mene uopste nije pitanje ko ce doneti bolju odluku, jer ce posledice te odluke biti drugacije za razlicite grupe, a sve svesti na rast GDP, nekog berzanskog indeksa ili valute je previse plitko.

Osnovni princip kojim se ja vodim je da odluku treba da donese onaj koji ce snositi njene posledice. U ovom slucaju to je stanovnistvo UK i referendum je tu najbolje resenje. Drugi problem je sto je UK podeljena na pola
Na prvi pogled deluje kako je tehnokratija superiorna, ali kako je i Princi primetio, eksperti su daleko od nepogresivih, posebno u ekonomiji. S druge strane sto je problem kompleksniji to je wisdom of crowd u prednosti nad ekspertskim procenama (tu se razilazimo)

Poslednjih decenija je tehnokratija je pobedjivala, ali ovo bi mogla (mada ne mora) biti prekretnica.

Za kraj jedan dobar citat:

I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
William F. Buckley, Jr.

У међувремену, британски парламентарци су добили писмо од анонимног бриселског службеника (закон о заштити личних података) које позива на оглушивање о демократску вољу британског бирачког тела.

I am writing to you to ask you to ensure with your fellow MPs that the house will reject any motion to invoke Art 50 of the Treaty of Lisbon to terminate the UK's membership of the EU that the government may bring before it. The reasons for this request are set out below.
1. The referendum is not legally binding on Parliament, as a matter of constitutional law.
2. A matter of such fundamental importance should not be decided on a bare majority. (By comparison, under company law, the constitution of a company can only be changed with a special majority - usually 75%.)
It cannot be right that the country's position on an issue of such gravity should be decided on such a narrow margin. Although the turnout was high for a UK election, nevertheless millions did not vote. Moreover, there is no legally specified majority which forms the basis of any decision.
3. The reasons for holding the referendum in the first place were flawed; as you are aware, it was effectively held for domestic party political reasons, yet the outcome will shape Britain's and Europe's future for years to come.
4. The vote on a decision involving such complex issues was made by an electorate that felt it was uninformed. One poll found over a third of voters said they did not feel they had enough knowledge to make an informed decision, and prior to the vote interviewed voters in the media could be heard saying the same thing.
So the vote was won by a less than 4% margin, yet over a third of voters felt ill-equipped to make a decision. And indeed many polled voters' perceptions were very wide of the mark (eg estimating EU migrants to make up 15% of the population, when the actual figure is 5%).
Moreover some Leave voters can already be heard in media interviews expressing surprise and regret about the possible consequences.
5. The referendum was not an exercise in real democracy owing to the amount of mis-information put out – particularly in the lead up to the vote, but also for years previously.
Voters in the UK have always been peculiarly under-informed by governments of all stripes about the UK's international obligations and how it handles them, whether in relation to the EU, the UN, the WTO or NATO.
But the campaigns conducted by both sides did not help people to get to grips with understanding the issues, and a large number of untruths were deliberately circulated. This was compounded by media coverage trying to aim for a strict balance, starkly pitting Remainers against Leavers to the detriment of informed (and yes, undoubtedly dull and un-media friendly) discussion.
There are real arguments to be made about the strengths and weaknesses of the EU system - but we have not had that debate yet. Indeed, as you know, the second most googled question in the UK about the EU the day after the vote was 'What is the EU?'
6. The UK being a Parliamentary democracy, it is you who have been elected to make decisions on voters' behalf - especially decisions as complex as this one. The facts about, and the arguments for and against EU membership should have been debated seriously and lengthily in Parliament.
A one-off binary public referendum is not a suitable tool for this kind of decision. It is Parliament that decides fundamental issues of international relations such as acts of war. This is of at least the equivalent significance and thus Parliament must decide.
7. The decision to remain in the EU was supported by a number of national and local identities, notably Scotland, Northern Ireland and London. No other electoral decision making in the UK ignores these national and local identities.
The constituency system, on the contrary, gives effect to them. (Some other countries' systems pay attention to this. For example, I understand that in Australia, a Federal referendum is not deemed successful unless it achieves a majority of those voting nationwide, as well as separate majorities in a majority of states, i.e. 4 out of 6 states. In addition, voting is compulsory there.)
8. A YouGov poll has suggested that 75% of voters under the age of 35 voted to remain. It would be a travesty of democracy for such a long term decision to be made contrary to the wishes of those who have most at stake and represent the future of the country.
9. It is plainly against the interests of the country for the UK to leave the EU. The fallout to date is more than enough evidence.
The above arguments underline that any action to empower the government to invoke Art 50 in these circumstances is neither democratically legitimate nor in the interests of the country and its citizens. A deeply felt protest vote has carried the day, but the answer is not to exit the EU.
This would not be to ignore the result of the referendum. The concerns of those who voted to leave need to be addressed.
They are real, and have arisen from issues which are extremely important but which do not appear to be well understood, nor well explained.
Notably these include: (1) the limits of national sovereignty in the context of globalisation and global financial markets; (2) massive migratory flows as a result of civil war and failing states; (3) EU migrants working in the UK in a context of not only under-funded health and education provision, but also a different system than other Member States (many of which can and do try to ensure that free movement is for workers and others who can support themselves); and (4) how decisions in Brussels are actually arrived at by the Member States (on any given day a large proportion of the 'faceless bureaucrats' in Brussels are Member State government officials attending meetings in the Council to shape and decide on EU law), as well as what their effect actually is in the UK. But the UK doesn't have leave the EU to address these issues. If the vote had gone the other way these issues would still need to be addressed.
'Political suicide', I hear people saying. But some MPs have committed that already, and now the parties are in such disarray that it looks as though resolving that will take up all MPs energy.
MPs should now work to focus on the overall interests of the country rather than on yet more internal political fighting, this time about who should lead the main political parties.
UK voters will not be best served by further domestic political fights, now that the larger issues at stake are starting to become apparent.
I am writing to all MPs as I don't have one of my own. (Full disclosure: I am a UK citizen who has been in Brussels for well over the 15-year cut-off point, working in the European Commission – yes, I am aware that you may see me as a turkey trying to overturn a vote for Christmas; I am currently on unpaid leave; am resident in Belgium, being able to support myself and maintain my own health insurance to the satisfaction of the Belgian authorities, in line with EU rules on freedom of movement; and am at present in Beijing, financing myself to study Chinese, which accounts for the postmark on the envelope of the mailed version of this letter, also sent by email.)
Yours sincerely