What will happen to Central Europe when Brexit happens?

Who would have thought, such thing like Brexit was going to happen?

Not me, not you. I don’t think anyone could have prevent it.

I don’t even want to think about what Churchill would have said.

I mean, way before Brexit, at Winston Churchill era, the United Kingdom was stronger than Queen Elizabeth. Back then, when her father King George VI was about to face World War II, the speech that announced the war to his nation (1939) and inspire an Oscar winning movie, did nothing else but to encourage the union of the people living on the United Kingdom and the Dominions of the British Commonwealth – which by itself means the cooperation of diverse countries порно with different economical and political structures, joined together for historical, political and economical comms.

Nowadays, is a fact that nationalism has been growing for a while in Europe, even though, no other elusive demonstration happened before.

It was a matter of time, until something like a radical application of article 50 occurred to the European Union timeline.

It’s done. 51.9% of the voting population on the UK shouted a yes, against a not so far away 48.1%, who said no.

For now, what’s done cannot be change. So, let’s not focus on the UK.

What about the other countries? Are they going to face hard times?

What about Central Europe?

How did we got here?

There is not an specifical reason or moment that led the UK to Brexit. The explanation about why it happened is a combination of political, social and economical comms that have slowly been growing on the population. Let’s quickly explain the main ones before talking about consequences and facts.

First we have the economical side. Before the referendum, Britain was having a hard time on the economical matter, and the European Union (EU) rules and policies were not in the side of improved due to their restrictions. For example, the Central Agricultural Policy (CAP), which was a high percentage outcome to the UK, that a worthless problem to Brexit stands.

On the other hand, without the EU, Britain would have the opportunity to pursue bigger international trade deals with countries like China, India and the United States, that may improve their performance. 

Then we have the political side, which is obviously connected to the economical facts. UK was not the leader for its economy. EU bureaucracy, was not something people could stand anymore. By leaving, they think, they would get the power to structure and perform their own region economical and political strategies according to their needs.

Finally, on the social matter – slightly political -, of course, immigration.  Britain has one of the biggest populations of the countries that conform the EU. Adding a growing immigrant population, that they couldn’t control because of the immigration policies of the EU, it was just a matter of time until british people got bothersome, not because of economics or culture, but because city housing a public services consequences; besides from their vulnerability to terrorist attacks. 

What is Brexit?

Now that we got a little deeper about the main topic for today. Let’s go, like we said before, to the core of the subject.

What we call “Brexit”, is a shorthand to refer to the British exit from the European Union. Easy, just a combination between Britain and exit, similar to Greexit – which was the word people used to refer to the Greek get out from the European Union (EU).

On june 23th of 2.016, the United Kingdom (UK) took the decision of leaving the UE in a referendum celebrated to decide whether to stay or leave the EU.

The results were not truly apart. According to a BBC report, leave (yes) won by 51.9% to 48.1% against the no; over 30 million people participated the votation.

Once the nation took a decision, Britain’s government Prime Minister Theresa May triggered article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, starting the process of leaving the EU on March 29 of 2.017. 

After that, negotiation took part 1 week per month until the UK and the EU, agreed an arrangement.

The deal was reached on December 8th of 2.017 but negotiation about transition policies are still on the board.

The “real Brexit” will finally happen on the schedule day March 29th of 2.018, after the two years deadline for negotiation and transitioning, wrote on the Article 50 from the Lisbon Treaty.

What will happen to Central Europe?

We’re about to enter the countdown to the Brexit day and we would like to focus on the Central Europe countries and the consequences UK exit from the UE will prosecute.

Instead of thinking about the inevitable fall of the UK economy because of divorce with EU, is time to talk about other countries economic problems. 

Central Europe, is not actually a real region. The phrase is use to refer to Croatia, Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia and usually also Austria and Germany, position at Europe’s map.

Once the UK gets out of the European Union, not only it’s economy will suffer (at least for a while), other countries will face their own issues too.

It is said that, the economy will contract 1% by the time the UK is gone, affecting countries with imports related to Britain’s, by reducing their execution to 4% on export growth in Central Europe.

Of course, for countries with lower import percentage, economical damage will be slightly smaller (Germany, for example).

For Central Europe, the main economic impact is likely to come through the dampening effect on an already weak EU recover. Expecting, to shave around 0.2% annually from EU nowadays growth forecasts.

Smaller countries may be having the necessity of expanding their trade routes away from Germany to China; the unwanted desire of European economists. Perhaps, that’s most likely to stay as a myth.

Germany, however, will have the economical and political spotlight in the region, by being the thoughtgest country of Europe and not only of Central Region. Depending on their execution and growth, may lead to political and economical independence for Central Europe, Eurozone.

For now, let’s not exaggerate. This are just presumptions and predictions. I mean, UK is not actually doing that bad since december. 

We will see while it happens.

Looking forward to reach a worldwide participatory democracy

World seeks a worldwide participatory democracy. A worldwide political union would have the mandate to deal with environmental issues and economic migration. Existing military technology should be redirected into defence of our world from external attack (e.g. meteors) and military research should need consume no further resources. Worldwide web-based governance presents great economy of scale. Be a world citizen.

“Fair, free and equal”

fair : one’s actions determine one’s rewards
free : one can choose one’s own lifestyle
equal : everyone has opportunity & resources

A worldwide electronic currency, the “Geo”, should be created and backed up by a worldwide portfolio of resources, e.g. a basket of other currencies. It should be defined to be perpetually inflation-free and tradable with resources, currencies and worldwide. It should provide a low-volatility haven for wealth, though the nominal interest rate on balances held in Geo’s should be low to reflect the absence of inflation. A worldwide tax system should be set up to provide a citizen’s income uniformly to everyone, paid for by taking from everyone a fixed percentage of his/her other income plus a different fixed percentage per year of the value of assets (s)he owns. The citizen’s income would replace bureaucratic unemployment benefits payments and the asset tax would replace inheritance tax. It would be a matter for public opinion and the world parliament to determine the worldwide levels of citizen’s income, income tax & annual asset tax. The correct balance would efficiently ensure a minimum standard of living, reward hard work, and reduce the inequalities in the global wealth distribution. When sourcing goods and services people should be able to choose as suppliers either the world public sector or private companies. People coordinating their efforts and individuals being creative are both important.

A cleaner method of Proportional Representation avoids the problems of cronyism found with AV+, where the party presents a list of its choice of MPs in a chosen order. All ballot papers in a constituency are placed in identical plastic balls and mixed up thoroughly in a spinning drum before one is selected at random. The vote on this ballot paper elects the selected candidate as the Member of World Parliament for that constituency. This returns close to the number of seats for each party justified by its national or worldwide vote. The method has here been applied to the UK General Election on 7th June, 2001. A similar random process can be used to select people to publicly air their views on issues under debate, which avoids undue tyranny of the majority or the powerful. As a decision making mechanism it avoids the artificiality of coalitions for 51% of the vote.

If m parties receive at least one vote and each party gets its own uniform fraction p of the vote across all constituencies, where n(total) is the number of constituencies, then the probability P of party 1 gaining n(1) seats and party 2 gaining n(2) seats etc.

Decisions can be made in parliament and indeed world parliament by considering small sub-issues for which every member of parliament or world citizen places an opinion in an identical plastic ball. These balls are then mixed up thoroughly in a spinning drum before one is selected at random. The opinion selected then forms a parliamentary decision from which point debate advances. Clearly there are open-source Java programs which could be written to make random selections using computers on the Internet that are open to public scrutiny. Since there is no arbitrary number like 51% of the vote which guarantees winning a debate, proponents of a given position simply have to win over as many people as they can. This rationalises coalition bargaining. A unanimous 100% vote will definitely lead to a matching decision, regardless of whose opinion is randomly selected.

Selecting people at random to find out their views enables the political process to be representative of people in proportion to their numbers, thus providing balanced input into debates. People can decline to comment on issues in which they have no interest. One may ask whether an electoral register provides the fairest way of selecting people at random. To avoid the intrusion into people’s privacy associated with such a register, a system which randomly selects a geographical location and a time, weighted according to population density and relevance of the issue at this location, can select the nearest person. One may further ask how relevant locations for an issue are determined. For a proposed hydroelectric dam, these are downstream, or upstream in a town that would be flooded, or where people would benefit from the generated this way.