Translate | Traducir

dijous, 30 de juny de 2016

Sabemos que los británicos votaron en contra de la UE, pero no a favor de qué


THE ECONOMIST.- MANY Brexiteers built their campaign on optimism. Outside the European Union, Britain would be free to open up to the world. But what secured their victory was anger.

Anger stirred up a winning turnout in the depressed, down-at-heel cities of England (see article). Anger at immigration, globalisation, social liberalism and even feminism, polling shows, translated into a vote to reject the EU. As if victory were a licence to spread hatred, anger has since lashed Britain’s streets with an outburst of racist abuse.

Across Western democracies, from the America of Donald Trump to the France of Marine Le Pen, large numbers of people are enraged. If they cannot find a voice within the mainstream, they will make themselves heard from without. Unless they believe that the global order works to their benefit, Brexit risks becoming just the start of an unravelling of globalisation and the prosperity it has created.

The rest of history

Today’s crisis in liberalism—in the free-market, British sense—was born in 1989, out of the ashes of the Soviet Union. At the time the thinker Francis Fukuyama declared “the end of history”, the moment when no ideology was left to challenge democracy, markets and global co-operation as a way of organising society. It was liberalism’s greatest triumph, but it also engendered a narrow, technocratic politics obsessed by process. In the ensuing quarter-century the majority has prospered, but plenty of voters feel as if they have been left behind.

Their anger is justified. Proponents of globalisation, including this newspaper, must acknowledge that technocrats have made mistakes and ordinary people paid the price. The move to a flawed European currency, a technocratic scheme par excellence, led to stagnation and unemployment and is driving Europe apart. Elaborate financial instruments bamboozled regulators, crashed the world economy and ended up with taxpayer-funded bail-outs of banks, and later on, budget cuts.

Even when globalisation has been hugely beneficial, policymakers have not done enough to help the losers. Trade with China has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and brought immense gains for Western consumers. But many factory workers who have lost their jobs have been unable to find a decently paid replacement.

Rather than spread the benefits of globalisation, politicians have focused elsewhere. The left moved on to arguments about culture—race, greenery, human rights and sexual politics. The right preached meritocratic self-advancement, but failed to win everyone the chance to partake in it. Proud industrial communities that look to family and nation suffered alienation and decay. Mendacious campaigning mirrored by partisan media amplified the sense of betrayal.

Less obviously, the intellectual underpinnings of liberalism have been neglected. When Mr Trump called for protectionism this week, urging Americans to “take back control” (see article), he was both parroting the Brexiteers and exploiting how almost no politician has been willing to make the full-throated case for trade liberalisation as a boost to prosperity rather than a cost or a concession. Liberalism depends on a belief in progress but, for many voters, progress is what happens to other people. While American GDP per person grew by 14% in 2001-15, median wages grew by only 2%. Liberals believe in the benefits of pooling sovereignty for the common good. But, as Brexit shows, when people feel they do not control their lives or share in the fruits of globalisation, they strike out. The distant, baffling, overbearing EU makes an irresistible target.
Seguir leyendo...



Ni hubo pucherazo ni puede haberlo

El objetivo de la izquierda radical es acabar con la democracia liberal. Para ello tiene dos caminos. El primero, ganar las elecciones, ocupar el poder y no abandonarlo hasta haber desmantelado la legalidad constitucional. El segundo, perder las elecciones, denunciar un pucherazo masivo que deslegitime al Estado y provocar el colapso de las instituciones (léase golpe de estado).

Eso es lo que desean hacer ahora los amigos de Podexit, sus confluencias, sus mareas y sus botellones doctrinarios. Y es que los hijos mimados del Estado del Bienestar no toleran la frustración. No es sólo que no sepan perder, es que no pueden perder, ya que la dialéctica materialista de la historia predice su victoria inapelable. Ergo, si pierden es porque les han robado la mayoría, porque ha habido conspiración para el pucherazo. Y eso los legitima para cualquier cosa, incluida la mentira y la violencia.

Las mentiras ya han empezado a circular en progresión geométrica en Twitter y Facebook, pero también en las páginas de medios de comunicación afines al populismo que muestran no tener el más mínimo escrúpulo respecto a la veracidad de lo que publican.

Este es el caso, por ejemplo, de las cartas de los supuestos presidentes de Mesa Ruth Bermúdez Rodríguez y Christian Avilés, que cuentan unas historias kafkianas que sólo pueden ser creídas por mucha gente ignorante del funcionamiento de un colegio electoral pero no por nadie que haya estado una sola vez en una mesa de votación.

En su entrada 'No: el 26J no hubo pucherazo (ni puede haberlo)', David Fernández no sólo desmonta las contradicciones de esas dos cartas sino que ofrece otras de las muchas mentiras que se están publicando para hacer creer que en el 26-J hubo pucherazo. De todas ellas recojo una, especialmente reveladora de que nos encontramos ante un proceso de producción industrial de mentiras. Esta:

Que el fraude electoral ha salido publicado incluso en The New York Times. Si se toman la molestia de consultar la edición original, como lo ha hecho David Fernández, comprobarán que la portada difundida es falsa, es un trucaje de photoshop.



'El mundo no se detendrá'

Declaración de 78 personalidades europeas tras el Brexit


The Brexit vote poses profound questions about the future of the European project. But the world will not stop while Europe works out its future; people will continue to want to come, enemies will continue to plot, civil wars will continue to kill.

Even as we fashion a response to the internal crisis of Europe, we must maintain Europe’s capacity to make an effective foreign policy and to protect Europe’s citizens. Ahead of today’s European Council, we call on European leaders to embrace some core principles moving forward:

Unity is the most essential source of Europe’s strength. In a time of heightened emotion, it is essential to avoid actions that sow division among member states. There are multiple institutional options for forging common European responses. But there can be no two classes of EU membership, where one group decides about the others. This will be the fastest way towards the unraveling of the EU. Forging an effective partnership with Britain on foreign and security policy will always be a core interest of the other European states. European foreign policy cannot be divorced from the needs and desires of the people of Europe. Any initiative for forging cooperation among European states must take their concerns seriously.

The following signatories endorse this statement in a personal capacity:

Joaquin Almunia, former Vice President of the European Commission

Kostas Bakoyannis, Governor of Central Greece

Juraj Bayer, CFO & Member of the Board, ZSE Energia

Erik Berglof, Director, Institute of Global Affairs, London School of Economics

Emma Bonino, former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Italy; former European Commissioner

Stine Bosse, Chairman and Non-Executive Board Member; Adjunct Professor, Copenhagen Business School

Goran Buldioski, Director, Think Tank Fund (TTF); Director, Open Society Initiative For Europe (OSIFE)

Gunilla Carlsson, former Minister for International Development Cooperation, Sweden

Ian Clarkson, Chair, Brightfield Consulting

Lucinda Creighton, former European Affairs Minister, Ireland

Daniel Daianu, Professor of Economics, National School of Political and Administrative Studies, Bucharest

Kemal Dervis, Vice-President and Director of Global Economy and Development, Brookings Institution

Mikolaj Dowgielewicz, Director General and Permanent Representative, European Investment Bank

Andrew Duff, Visiting Fellow, European Policy Centre

Karin Forseke, Co-Chair, Sisters Capital

Jaime Gama, former Foreign Minister of Portugal

Jonas Gahr Støre, Leader of the Labour party; former Foreign Minister, Norway

Carlos Gaspar, Portuguese Institute of International Relations

Teresa Gouveia, former Foreign Minister of Portugal

Beatrice de Graaf, Professor of the History of International Relations and Global Governance, Utrecht University

Djema Grozdanova, Chair, Foreign Affairs Committee, National Assembly of Bulgaria

Antonio Guterres, former United Nations Commissioner for Refugees; former Prime Minister of Portugal

Istvan Gyarmati, Ambassador, International Centre for Democratic Transition

Heidi Hautala, Member of the European Parliament; former Minister for International Development, Finland

Connie Hedegaard, former European Commissioner for Climate Action

Diego Hidalgo, Co-founder of Spanish newspaper El País; Founder of Club de Madrid, CITpax and Founder and Honorary President of FRIDE

Anna Ibrisagic, Senior Partner, ESL & Network; former Member of the European Parliament

Jaakko Iloniemi, former Ambassador

Diana Janse, Senior Foreign Policy Advisor, Moderate Party

Mary Kaldor, Professor, London School of Economics

Ivailo Kalfin, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Labour & Social Policy; former Foreign Minister

Claude Kandiyoti, CEO, Krest Real Estate Investments

Piia-Noora Kauppi, Managing Director, Federation of Finnish Financial Services

Roderich Kiesewetter, Member of the Bundestag

David Koranyi, Director, Eurasian Energy Future Initiative, Atlantic Council

Brigid Laffan, Director, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies, European University Institute

Pascal Lamy, Honorary President, Notre Europe; former Director-General of the WTO; former EU Commissioner

Mark Leonard, Director, European Council on Foreign Relations

Sonja Licht, President, Belgrade Fund for Political Excellence

Maria Livanos Cattaui, former Secretary-General of the International Chamber of Commerce

Miguel Maduro, Professor and Director, Global Governance Programme at the European University Institute; former Minister

Cristina Manzano, Editor-in-chief, Esglobal

Joseph Mifsud, Director, London Academy of Diplomacy; Professor, University of Stirling

Hedvig Morvai, Executive Director, European Fund for the Balkans

Alina Mungiu-Pippidi, Professor of Democracy Studies, Hertie School of Governance

Dietmar Nietan, Member of the Bundestag

Kalypso Nicolaidis, Professor of International Relations, University of Oxford

Christine Ockrent, Commentator and writer; Presenter of 'Affaires Internationales', France Culture Radio

Andrzej Olechowski, former Foreign Minister

Dick Oosting, CEO, European Council on Foreign Relations

Andres Ortega, Author & journalist; former Director of Policy Planning, Office of the Spanish Prime Minister

Marc Otte, Director General, Egmont Institute; former EU Special Representative to the Middle East Peace Process

Cem Özdemir, Member of the Bundestag

Zaneta Ozolina, Professor, University of Latvia;

Katarzyna Pelczynska-Nalecz, Ambassador of Poland to the Russian Federation

Ruprecht Polenz, former Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Bundestag

Charles Powell, Director, Real Instituto Elcano

Andrew Puddephatt, Director, Global Partners & Associated Ltd.

Norbert Roettgen, Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the Bundestag

Albert Rohan, former Ambassador

Jan Royall, Member of the House of Lords

Adam Daniel Rotfeld, former Foreign Minister of Poland

Nicolò Russo Perez, International Affairs Programme, Compagnia di San Paolo

Wolfgang Schuessel, former Federal Chancellor of Austria

Narcis Serra, President, IBEI

Javier Solana, former EU High Representative for the Common Foreign and Security Policy & Secretary-General of the Council of the EU; former Secretary General of NATO

George Soros, Founder and Chairman, Open Society Foundations

Andris Strazds, Advisor, Bank of Latvia

Ion Sturza, Founder & Chairman, Fribourg Capital

Hannes Swoboda, former President of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats, European Parliament

Reka Szemerkenyi, Ambassador of Hungary to the United States

Anna Terron Cusi, President, InStrategies

Erkki Tuomioja, former Foreign Minister of Finland

Constantijn van Oranje, Chairman, Start-up Fest Europe; Director for Digital Diplomacy and Macro Strategy, Macro Advisory Partners

Jordi Vaquer, Director, Open Society Initiative for Europe

Andre Wilkens, Author

Stelios Zavvos, Founder and CEO of Zeus Capital Management, Chairman of the Board of Solidarity Now organization

Samuel Zbogar, EU Representative to Kosovo; former Foreign Minister


Vuelve el debate en la UE sobre más o menos Europa


POLITICO.- While there was a consensus that the Brexit vote is a “wake-up call,” and a mixture of varying sadness over the outcome and anger with Cameron, there was less clarity and much debate about how the EU should respond.

“The next weeks will be decisive,” French President François Hollande said. “Europe must show its solidity, its solidarity, its capacity to propose initiatives for and with Europeans.”

The early blueprints, which will sound familiar to anyone who has followed European politics over the past 30 years, can be abridged to “more versus less Europe.”

Europe’s center-left, in what could be mistaken for a case study in Pavlovian conditioning, has responded to the British whistle by dusting off its plan for a more federalist Europe, replete with a common budget and much deeper political integration.

Just a day after the result came in, the Socialist foreign ministers of France and Germany presented a paper sketching out their vision for “further steps in the direction of a political union in Europe,” including the introduction of a “fiscal capacity” by 2018 to invest in the Union’s battered economies.

Such ideas, and the fiscal transfers they would entail, are anathema to most of Europe’s conservatives. The center-right is pushing in the opposite direction: “national solutions where possible; European solutions, where necessary,” said Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte.

“This is not a time to resort to extremist thinking or to get bogged down in ideological discussions about a superstate versus nation states,” he said after Tuesday’s summit dinner. “Our focus should be on practical cooperation that will lead to a stronger and better Europe.”

In countries with strong anti-EU movements, a group that now includes most of the Continent, the political appetite for deeper integration has evaporated.

That suggests a more pragmatic approach will prevail. Instead of trying to restructure the EU root and branch, a task that would require both unanimity and referendums in a number of countries, several of the bloc’s leaders said after Wednesday’s deliberations they would work within the confines of what already exists. Their goal is to find common solutions to address issues from economic stagnation to migration to security.
Seguir leyendo...








******
Un grupo de jóvenes increpa a un hombre extranjero en un tranvía de Manchester, mientras le gritan que abandone el Reino Unido