BRADO EM UNÍSSONO/THE CRY IN UNISON: #FROM BREXIT TO BRAEXIT

BRADO EM UNÍSSONO/THE CRY IN UNISON: #FROM BREXIT TO BRAEXIT: LINK: http://bradoemunissono.blogspot.com.br/2016/07/brexitwould-brazil-also-withdrawal.html #Brexit:Would Brazil also withdrawal Mercosu...



AMETHYST enviou o link de um blog para você:

The Brazilian Senate has voted to hold an impeachment trial of suspended President Dilma Rousseff, who is accused of breaking the budget law.[BBC]

Blog: BRADO EM UNÍSSONO/THE CRY IN UNISON
Postagem: #Brazil Senate votes for Rousseff impeachment trial & Last Big Protest
Link: http://bradoemunissono.

--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/
AMETHYST enviou o link de um blog para você:


The Brazil's Withdrawal from Mercosur
(The Great Brexit Goal Success made 
a deep wish in Brazilians to Braexit!!! )


Blog: BRADO EM UNÍSSONO/THE CRY IN UNISON
Postagem: #FROM BREXIT TO BRAEXIT NOW!!!
Link: http://bradoemunissono.blogspot.com.br/2016/07/brexitwould-brazil-also-withdrawal.htm


--
Powered by Blogger
https://www.blogger.com/
#FROM BREXIT TO BRAEXIT NOW!!!
The Brazil's Withdrawal from Mercosur
(The Great Brexit Goal Success made 
a deep wish in Brazilians to Braexit!!! )

PARA TWITTER

BRADO EM UNÍSSONO/THE CRY IN UNISON: #Brexit:Would Brazil also withdrawal Mercosur? http://bradoemunissono.blogspot.com/2016/07/brexitwould-brazil-also-withdrawal.html?spref=tw



Seu email foi enviado para seu amigo.
Voltar para onde você estava:
http://bradoemunissono.blogspot.com.br/2016/07/brexitwould-brazil-also-withdrawal.html


LINK: http://bradoemunissono.blogspot.com.br/2016/07/brexitwould-brazil-also-withdrawal.html
#Brexit:Would Brazil also withdrawal Mercosur?

SEE ALSO BREXIT VIDEO: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbjYi1QrTWY

[ENGLISH VERSION]
SOURCE/LINK: http://www.economist.com/news/americas/21698715-can-new-attempt-strike-deal-europe-revive-moribund-trading-block-mercosurs-missed

Bello
Mercosur’s missed boat
Can a new attempt to strike a deal with Europe revive a moribund trading block?
May 14th 2016 | From the print edition




AT A meeting in Brussels this week, officials from the European Union (EU) and Mercosur exchanged offers to cut tariffs and expand market access for each others’ goods and services. This is their second attempt to begin serious negotiations on a free-trade agreement—a mere 16 years after the idea was first mooted.
The first effort collapsed in 2004, when both sides judged the other’s offer to be insufficiently ambitious. Even now, nobody should count on success. The core Mercosur countries—Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay—are keener. But 13 European countries, led by France, want to scupper the talks because their farmers are scared of Mercosur, the world’s most competitive producer of grains and meat. They forced the EU to withdraw, at the last minute, proposed tariffs cuts on beef.
In this section
The Dominican Republic and Haiti: one island, two nations, lots of trouble
An unplanned presidency
Mercosur’s missed boat
The green and the black
Reprints
A trade pact between the blocks would make shopping cheaper for 750m consumers. The EU wants accords on services and government procurement. Brazil’s law firms are notorious for protecting their home market, while its construction and engineering companies used corrupt practices to win contracts from Petrobras, the state-controlled oil company. As for Mercosur, Europe is potentially a big market for some of its manufactures as well as its grains and soyabeans.
If the talks prosper, the biggest benefit for Mercosur could be the reviving of its original mission of boosting trade and investment. Over the past dozen years, left-wing governments in Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay have turned Mercosur into a political club. They invited Hugo Chávez’s Venezuela to join; Bolivia, under Evo Morales, followed (neither is part of the EU talks). Buoyed by high prices for their commodities, they proclaimed their commitment to “south-south” economic ties.
They did strike useful agreements on migration, pensions and tourism. But they lost interest in trade deals with rich countries and in deepening economic integration in Mercosur itself. Although Mercosur claims to be a customs union (like the EU) with a common tariff and foreign-trade policy, in practice it is not even a proper free-trade area. Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, Argentina’s former president, imposed quotas and licences on imports from Brazil. Uruguayan truckers face harassment in Brazil, says Luis Alberto Lacalle Pou, a Uruguayan senator. Intra-Mercosur trade was only 14% of its members’ total trade in 2014, down from 19.5% in 1995. Mercosur thus excluded itself from regional value chains in which much production is now organised—as well as from new trans-regional trade and investment agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.
A light breeze of change is now in the air. Argentina’s new president, Mauricio Macri, is opening up his country after Ms Fernández tried to shut it off from the world. Tabaré Vázquez, Uruguay’s president, recognises that Mercosur is suffering from “fatigue”. The impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s president, would bring to power people who are more open to trade talks with Europe and the United States, and who are “very critical of the south-south strategy”, says Alfredo Valladão, a Brazilian political scientist at Sciences Po, a French university.
The obstacles to renewal in Mercosur remain large. In the short term Brazil’s political upheaval divides the group. At a meeting last month to mark the 25th anniversary of the Treaty of Asunción, Mercosur’s founding document, most of the Brazilian parliamentary delegation walked out in protest when Jorge Taiana, who was once Ms Fernández’s foreign minister and now chairs the block’s parliament, called Ms Rousseff’s impeachment “a coup”. Many in Uruguay’s left-wing government are wary of collaborating with Michel Temer, who is poised to replace Ms Rousseff as Brazil’s president. Argentina is cautious about freeing trade in cars within Mercosur, fearing that Brazil’s currently idle factories will flood its market. Most Brazilian industry lives on “protection and subsidies”, says Mr Valladão.
But some Brazilian industrialists are starting to realise that the state has run out of money to prop them up and that protectionism has weakened them. China has wrested markets from Brazilian manufacturers across Latin America. Chile, Colombia, Peru and Mexico formed the Pacific Alliance of free-trading economies; on May 1st they eliminated tariffs on 92% of their trade with each other and will phase out the rest over 17 years.
Brazil’s industry lobbies, like its probable new president, now want to talk trade with the United States as well as the EU. But free trade has become politically toxic in the north. While they were indulging ideological dreams, Mercosur’s governments were also missing the trade boat.
From the print edition: The Americas

==//==
SOURCE/LINK: http://www.wsj.com/articles/brexit-a-very-british-revolution-1466800383

DOW JONES, A NEWS CORP COMPANY
News Corp is a network of leading companies in the worlds of diversified media, news, education, and information services.
DOW JONES
Brexit: A Very British Revolution
The vote to leave the EU began as a cry for liberty and ended as a rebuke to the establishment

A Leave supporter holds up a Union Jack flag after the result of the EU referendum outside London’s Downing Street Friday. Photo: Neil Hall/Reuters
By
Fraser Nelson
June 24, 2016 4:33 p.m. ET
443 COMMENTS
The world is looking at Britain and asking: What on Earth just happened? Those who run Britain are asking the same question.
Never has there been a greater coalition of the establishment than that assembled by Prime Minister David Cameron for his referendum campaign to keep the U.K. in the European Union. There was almost every Westminster party leader, most of their troops and almost every trade union and employers’ federation. There were retired spy chiefs, historians, football clubs, national treasures like Stephen Hawking and divinities like Keira Knightley. And some global glamour too: President Barack Obama flew to London to do his bit, and Goldman Sachs opened its checkbook.
And none of it worked. The opinion polls barely moved over the course of the campaign, and 52% of Britons voted to leave the EU. That slender majority was probably the biggest slap in the face ever delivered to the British establishment in the history of universal suffrage.
Mr. Cameron announced that he would resign because he felt the country has taken a new direction—one that he disagrees with. If everyone else did the same, the House of Commons would be almost empty. Britain’s exit from the EU, or Brexit, was backed by barely a quarter of his government members and by not even a tenth of Labour politicians. It was a very British revolution.
Donald Trump’s arrival in Scotland on Friday to visit one of his golf courses was precisely the metaphor that the Brexiteers didn’t want. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee cheerily declared that the British had just “taken back their country” in the same way that he’s inviting Americans to do—underscoring one of the biggest misconceptions about the EU referendum campaign. Britain isn’t having a Trump moment, turning in on itself in a fit of protectionist and nativist pique. Rather, the vote for Brexit was about liberty and free trade—and about trying to manage globalization better than the EU has been doing from Brussels.
The Brexit campaign started as a cry for liberty, perhaps articulated most clearly by Michael Gove, the British justice secretary (and, on this issue, the most prominent dissenter in Mr. Cameron’s cabinet). Mr. Gove offered practical examples of the problems of EU membership. As a minister, he said, he deals constantly with edicts and regulations framed at the European level—rules that he doesn’t want and can’t change. These were rules that no one in Britain asked for, rules promulgated by officials whose names Brits don’t know, people whom they never elected and cannot remove from office. Yet they become the law of the land. Much of what we think of as British democracy, Mr. Gove argued, is now no such thing.
Brexit: Live Coverage
Follow live analysis and results in the U.K.’s referendum on membership of the European Union.
Exit Heightens Fears of EU Disintegration
Cameron Loses His Brexit Gamble
Boris Johnson Emerges as Big Winner
Pound Plunges as Early Results Come In
Heard on the Street: Why ‘Brexit’ Is No Lehman
Brexit: A Seismic Slap in the Face of Markets
Instead of grumbling about the things we can’t change, Mr. Gove said, it was time to follow “the Americans who declared their independence and never looked back” and “become an exemplar of what an inclusive, open and innovative democracy can achieve.” Many of the Brexiteers think that Britain voted this week to follow a template set in 1776 on the other side of the Atlantic.
Mr. Gove was mocked for such analogies. Surely, some in the Remain camp argued, the people who were voting for Leave—the pensioners in the seaside towns, the plumbers and chip-shop owners—weren’t wondering how they could reboot the Anglo-Scottish Enlightenment for the 21st century. Perhaps not, but the sentiment holds: Liberty and democracy matter. As a recent editorial in Der Spiegel put it, Brits “have an inner independence that we Germans lack, in addition to myriad anti-authoritarian, defiant tendencies.”
Advertisement
Mr. Cameron has been trying to explain this to Angela Merkel for some time. He once regaled the German chancellor with a pre-dinner PowerPoint presentation to explain his whole referendum idea. Public support for keeping Britain within the EU was collapsing, he warned, but a renegotiation of its terms would save Britain’s membership. Ms. Merkel was never quite persuaded, and Mr. Cameron was sent away with a renegotiation barely worthy of the name. It was a fatal mistake—not nearly enough to help Mr. Cameron shift the terms of a debate he was already well on the way to losing.
The EU took a gamble: that the Brits were bluffing and would never vote to leave. A more generous deal—perhaps aimed at allowing the U.K. more control over immigration, the top public concern in Britain—would probably have (just) stopped Brexit. But the absence of a deal sent a clear and crushing message: The EU isn’t interested in reforming, so it is past time to stop pretending otherwise.

Former London Mayor Boris Johnson, a likely candidate to lead the Conservative Party, during a pro-Brexit campaign visit in London Wednesday. Photo: European Pressphoto Agency
With no deal, all Mr. Cameron could do was warn about the risks of leaving the EU. If Brits try to escape, he said, they’d face the razor wire of a recession or the dogs of World War III. He rather overdid it. Instead of fear, he seemed to have stoked a mood of mass defiance.
Mr. Obama also overdid it when he notoriously told the British that, if they opted for Brexit, they would find themselves “in the back of the queue” for a trade deal with the U.S. That overlooked a basic point: The U.K. doesn’t currently have a trade deal with the U.S., despite being its largest foreign investor. Moreover, no deal seems forthcoming: The negotiations between the U.S. and the EU over the trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership are going slowly, and the Brits involved in the talks are in despair.
Deals negotiated through the EU always move at the pace dictated by the most reluctant country. Italy has threatened to derail a trade deal with Australia over a spat about exports of canned tomatoes; a trade deal with Canada was held up after a row about Romanian visas. Brexit wasn’t a call for a Little England. It was an attempt to escape from a Little Europe.
Many British voters felt a similar frustration on security issues, where the EU’s leaders have for decades now displayed a toxic combination of hunger for power and incompetence at wielding it. When war broke out in the former Yugoslavia in 1991, the then-chair of the European Community’s Council of Ministers declared that this was “the hour of Europe, not the hour of the Americans—if one problem can be solved by the Europeans, it is the Yugoslav problem.” It was not to be.
Nor did the EU acquit itself much better in more recent crises in Ukraine and Libya. Field Marshal Lord Charles Guthrie, a former chief of the British military, put it bluntly last week: “I feel more European than I do American, but it’s absolutely unrealistic to think we are all going to work together. When things get really serious, we need the Americans. That’s where the power is.” Brits feel comfortable with this; the French less so.
Throughout the campaign, the Brexit side was attacked for being inward-looking, nostalgic, dreaming of the days of empire or refusing to acknowledge that modern nations need to work with allies. But it was the Brexiteers who were doing the hardest thinking about this, worrying about the implications of a dysfunctional EU trying to undermine or supplant NATO, which remains the true guarantor of European security.
In the turbulent weeks and months ahead, we can expect a loud message from the Brexiteers in the British government: The question is not whether to work with Europe but how to work with Europe. Alliances work best when they are coalitions of the willing. The EU has become a coalition of the unwilling, the place where the finest multilateral ambitions go to die. Britain’s network of embassies will now go into overdrive, offering olive branches in capital after capital. Britain wants to deal, nation to nation, and is looking for partners.

British Prime Minister David Cameron said Friday that he would resign after losing a referendum on EU membership. Photo: Chris Ratcliffe/Bloomberg News
Even the debate about immigration had an internationalist flavor to it. Any member of any EU state has had the right to live and work in Britain; any American, Indian or Australian needs to apply through a painstaking process. Mr. Cameron’s goal is to bring net immigration to below 100,000 a year (it was a little over three times that at last count). So the more who arrive from the EU, the more we need to crack down on those from outside the EU. The U.K. government now requires any non-European who wants to settle here to earn an annual salary of at least £35,000 (or about $52,000)—so we would deport, say, a young American flutist but couldn’t exclude a Bulgarian convict who could claim (under EU human-rights rules) that he has family ties in the U.K.
To most Brits, this makes no sense. In a television debate last week, Mr. Cameron was asked if there was “anything fair about an immigration system that prioritizes unskilled workers from within the EU over skilled workers who are coming from outside the EU?” He had no convincing answer.
The sense of a lack of control over immigration to Britain has been vividly reinforced by the scenes on the continent. In theory, the EU is supposed to protect its external borders by insisting that refugees claim asylum in the first country they enter. In practice, this agreement—the so-called Dublin Convention—was torn up by Ms. Merkel when she recklessly offered to settle any fleeing Syrians who managed to make it over the German border. The blame here lies not with the tens of thousands of desperate people who subsequently set out; the blame lies with an EU system that has proven itself hopelessly unequal to such a complex and intensifying challenge. The EU’s failure has been a boon for the people-trafficking industry, a global evil that has led to almost 3,000 deaths in the Mediterranean so far this year.
Britain has been shielded from the worst of this. Being an island helps, as does our rejection of the ill-advised Schengen border-free travel agreement that connects 26 European countries. But the scenes on the continent of thousands of young men on the march (one of which made it onto a particularly tasteless pro-Brexit poster unveiled by Nigel Farage, the leader of the anti-immigration UK Independence Party) give the sense of complete political dysfunction. To many voters in Britain, this referendum was about whether they want to be linked to such tragic incompetence.
The economists who warned about the perils of Brexit also assure voters that immigration is a net benefit, its advantages outweighing its losses. Perhaps so, but this overlooks the human factor. Who loses, and who gains? Immigration is great if you’re in the market for a nanny, a plumber or a table at a new restaurant. But to those competing with immigrants for jobs, houses or seats at schools, it looks rather different. And this, perhaps, explains the stark social divide exposed in the Brexit campaign.
Seldom has the United Kingdom looked less united: London and Scotland voted to stay in the EU, Wales and the English shires voted to get out. (Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon has already called a fresh vote on secession “highly likely.”) Some 70% of university graduates were in favor of the EU; an equally disproportionate 68% of those who hadn’t finished high school were against it. Londoners and those under age 30 were strongly for Remain; the northern English and those over 60 were strongly for Leave. An astonishing 70% of the skilled working class supported Brexit.
Here, the Brexit battle lines ought to be familiar: They are similar to the socioeconomic battles being fought throughout so many Western democracies. It is the jet-set graduates versus the working class, the metropolitans versus the bumpkins—and, above all, the winners of globalization against its losers. Politicians, ever obsessed about the future, can tend to regard those left unprotected in our increasingly interconnected age as artifacts of the past. In fact, the losers of globalization are, by definition, as new as globalization itself.
To see such worries as resurgent nationalism is to oversimplify. The nation-state is a social construct: Done properly, it is the glue that binds society together. In Europe, the losers of globalization are seeking the protection of their nation-states, not a remote and unresponsive European superstate. They see the economy developing in ways that aren’t to their advantage and look to their governments to lend a helping hand—or at least attempt to control immigration. No EU country can honestly claim to control European immigration, and there is no prospect of this changing: These are the facts that led to Brexit.
The pound took a pounding on the currency markets Friday, but it wasn’t alone. The Swedish krona and the Polish zloty were down by about 5% against the dollar; the euro was down 3%. The markets are wondering who might be next. In April, the polling firm Ipsos MORI asked voters in nine EU countries if they would like a referendum on their countries’ memberships: 45% said yes, and 33% said they’d vote to get out. A Pew poll recently found that the Greeks and the French are the most hostile to the EU in the continent—and that the British were no more annoyed with the EU than the Swedes, the Dutch and the Germans.
The Brexit campaign was led by Europhiles. Boris Johnson, the former London mayor turned pro-Brexit firebrand who now seems likely to succeed Mr. Cameron, used to live in Brussels and can give interviews in French. Mr. Gove’s idea of perfect happiness is sitting on a wooden bench listening to Wagner in an airless concert hall in Bavaria. Both stressed that they love Europe but also love democracy—and want to keep the two compatible. The Brexit revolution is intended to make that point.
Mr. Gove has taken to borrowing the 18th-century politician William Pitt’s dictum about how England can “save herself by her exertions and Europe by her example.” After Mr. Cameron departs and new British leadership arrives, it will be keen to strike new alliances based on the principles of democracy, sovereignty and freedom. You never know: That might just catch on.
Mr. Nelson is the editor of the Spectator and a columnist for the Daily Telegraph.
Most Popular Videos

==//==

SOURCE/LINK: http://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-politics-temer-idUSL1N19G0RL


Fri Jun 24, 2016 10:04am EDT
UPDATE 1-Brazil's Temer says Mercosur needs revision, respects Brexit
BRASILIA, June 24

(Adds Temer comments, background)
Brazil's interim President Michel Temer said the Mercosur trade bloc poses an obstacle to other trade agreements and needs to be revised, but not ditched altogether.
In a radio interview on Friday, Temer also said the British vote to leave the European Union was a political decision and it would be inappropriate for him to discuss it, adding that Brazil should brace for the economic consequences of the exit.
Mercosur was launched in 1991 to foster trade in South America but has increasingly become a left-leaning political forum since Venezuela's entry in 2012. Brazil's top diplomat under Temer, Jose Serra, has already urged the bloc to become more flexible and shift its focus back to trade.
"We need to rediscuss Mercosur at this moment, not to eliminate it, but to give us a safer position to seek to broaden our relations with other countries," Temer said.
Temer has pledged to take Brazil's economy out of its worst recession in generations by fixing public finances and restoring business confidence. His administration also plans to move away from ideologically driven diplomacy and focus more on trade, Serra said after taking office as foreign minister in May.
Venezuela, which is mired in a deep political and economic crisis with food shortages and hyperinflation, was set to take the rotating presidency of Mercosur this month, despite resistance from Brazil and Argentina.
Brazil's suspended President Dilma Rousseff, who now faces an impeachment trial in the Senate over budget laws, and her predecessor made Brazil one of the most powerful allies of Venezuela's leftist government over the past decade. But Temer's center-right government, which came to power with Rousseff's ouster, has put distance between Brasilia and Caracas.
Temer also said that nobody has discussed raising taxes on farming, as local media had published, and that his administration is monitoring the debt level of Brazilian cities following a federal bailout of state governments. (Reporting by Lisandra Paraguassu; Writing by Silvio Cascione; Editing by Phil Berlowitz)

==//==
SOURCE/LINK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union


United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Brexit" redirects here. For the 2016 referendum on this subject, see United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. For the film, see Brexit: The Movie.
Part of a series of articles on the
United Kingdom
in the
European Union

Accession [show]
Membership [show]
Withdrawal [show]
v
t
e
British withdrawal from the European Union is a political goal that has been pursued by various individuals, advocacy groups, and political parties from across the political spectrum since the United Kingdom joined the precursor of the European Union (EU) in 1973. Withdrawal from the European Union has been a right of EU member states since 2007 under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union. It is often referred to as Brexit,[1] or, in early usage, Brixit,[2] both words derived by analogy from Grexit.[3]
In 1973, the UK joined the European Economic Community (EEC). In 1975, a referendum was held on the country's continued membership of the EEC, which was approved by 67% of voters. The EEC later transformed into the EU.
In 2016, a referendum was held on the country's membership of the EU. This referendum was arranged by Parliament when it passed the European Union Referendum Act 2015. The result was 52% in favour of leaving and 48% in favour of remaining, with a turnout of 72% of the electorate.[4]
The process for the UK's withdrawal is uncertain under EU law, although it is generally expected to take at least two years. Article 50, which governs the withdrawal, has never been used before. The timing of leaving under the article is a strict two years, although extensions are possible, once Britain gives an official notice but no official notice seems forthcoming until after a new British Prime Minister is selected later in 2016.[5] The British Prime Minister David Cameron announced he will resign by October, while the First Minister of Scotland Nicola Sturgeon has said that Scotland may refuse legislative consent to dropping EU law in Scotland.[6]
Contents
1 Background
2 1975 referendum
3 Between referendums
4 2016 referendum
4.1 Campaign groups
4.2 Public opinion
4.3 Voting result
4.4 Petitions for a new referendum
5 "Article 50" and the procedure for leaving the EU
6 Consequences of withdrawal
6.1 Relationship with remaining EU members
6.2 Relationship between remaining EU members
6.3 Immigration
6.4 Economic effects
6.4.1 Long-term economic prospects
6.5 Possible secessions: Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar
6.6 Status of London
6.7 Border with France
6.8 Academic funding
6.9 Political effects
7 See also
8 References
Background
The UK was not a signatory to the Treaty of Rome which created the EEC in 1957. The country subsequently applied to join the organization in 1963 and again in 1967, but both applications were vetoed by the then President of France, Charles de Gaulle, ostensibly because "a number of aspects of Britain's economy, from working practices to agriculture" [had] "made Britain incompatible with Europe" and that Britain harboured a “deep-seated hostility” to any pan-European project.[7][8]
Once de Gaulle had relinquished the French presidency, the UK made a third application for membership, which was successful. Under the Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath the European Communities Act 1972 was enacted. On 1 January 1973 the United Kingdom joined the EEC, then often referred to in the UK as the "Common Market".[9] The opposition Labour Party, led by Harold Wilson, contested the October 1974 general election with a commitment to renegotiate Britain's terms of membership of the EEC and then hold a referendum on whether to remain in the EEC on the new terms.
1975 referendum
Main article: United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum, 1975
In 1975 the United Kingdom held a referendum on whether the UK should remain in the EEC. All of the major political parties and mainstream press supported continuing membership of the EEC. However, there were significant splits within the ruling Labour party, the membership of which had voted 2:1 in favour of withdrawal at a one-day party conference on 26 April 1975. Since the cabinet was split between strongly pro-European and strongly anti-European ministers, Harold Wilson suspended the constitutional convention of Cabinet collective responsibility and allowed ministers to publicly campaign on either side. Seven of the twenty-three members of the cabinet opposed EEC membership.[10]
On 5 June 1975, the electorate were asked to vote yes or no on the question: "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?" Every administrative county in the UK had a majority of "Yes", except the Shetland Islands and the Outer Hebrides. In line with the outcome of the vote, the United Kingdom remained a member of the EEC.[11]
United Kingdom European Community (Common Market) Membership Referendum 1975
Choice
Votes
 %
Yes
17,378,581
67.2
No
8,470,073
32.8
Valid votes
25,848,654
99.79
Invalid or blank votes
54,540
0.21
Total votes
25,903,194
100.00
Between referendums
The opposition Labour Party campaigned in the 1983 general election on a commitment to withdraw from the EEC.[12] It was heavily defeated as the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher was re-elected. The Labour Party subsequently changed its policy.[12]
As a result of the Maastricht Treaty, the EEC became the European Union on 1 November 1993.[13] The organization had evolved from an economic union into a political union. The name change reflected this.[14]
The Referendum Party was formed in 1994 by Sir James Goldsmith to contest the 1997 general election on a platform of providing a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU.[15] It fielded candidates in 547 constituencies at that election and won 810,860 votes, 2.6% of total votes cast.[16] It failed to win a single parliamentary seat as its vote was spread out, losing its deposit (funded by Goldsmith) in 505 constituencies.[16]
The UK Independence Party (UKIP), a Eurosceptic political party, was also formed in 1993. It achieved third place in the UK during the 2004 European elections, second place in the 2009 European elections and first place in the 2014 European elections, with 27.5% of the total vote. This was the first time since the 1910 general election that any party other than the Labour or Conservative parties had taken the largest share of the vote in a nationwide election.[17]
In 2014, UKIP won two by-elections, triggered when the sitting Conservative MPs defected to UKIP and then resigned. These were their first elected MPs. In 2015, the 2015 general election UKIP took 12.6% of the total vote and held one of the two seats won in 2014.[18]
2016 referendum
Main article: United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

This section should include only a brief summary of United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. See Wikipedia:Summary style for information on how to properly incorporate it into this article's main text. (June 2016)
In 2012, Prime Minister David Cameron rejected calls for a referendum on the UK's EU membership, but suggested the possibility of a future referendum to gauge public support.[19][20] According to the BBC, "The prime minister acknowledged the need to ensure the UK's position within the European Union had 'the full-hearted support of the British people' but they needed to show 'tactical and strategic patience'."[21]
Under pressure from many of his MPs and from the rise of UKIP, in January 2013, Cameron announced that a Conservative government would hold an in-out referendum on EU membership before the end of 2017, on a renegotiated package, if elected in 2015.[22]
The Conservative Party won the 2015 general election with a majority. Soon afterwards the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was introduced into Parliament to enable the referendum. Despite being in favour of remaining in a reformed European Union himself,[23] Cameron announced that Conservative Ministers and MPs were free to campaign in favour of remaining in the EU or leaving it, according to their conscience. This decision came after mounting pressure for a free vote for ministers.[24] In an exception to the usual rule of cabinet collective responsibility, Cameron allowed cabinet ministers to publicly campaign for EU withdrawal.[25]
In a speech to the House of Commons on 22 February 2016,[26] Cameron announced a referendum date of 23 June 2016 and set out the legal framework for withdrawal from the European Union in circumstances where there was a referendum majority vote to leave, citing Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.[27] Cameron spoke of an intention to trigger the Article 50 process immediately following a leave vote and of the "two-year time period to negotiate the arrangements for exit."[28]
Campaign groups
Main article: Campaigning in the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
The official campaign group for leaving the EU was Vote Leave.[29] Other major campaign groups included Leave.EU,[30] Grassroots Out, and Better Off Out,[31] while non-EU affiliated organisations also campaigned for the United Kingdom's withdrawal, such as the Commonwealth Freedom of Movement Organisation.[32]
The official campaign to stay in the EU, chaired by Stuart Rose, was known as Britain Stronger in Europe, or informally as Remain. Other campaigns supporting remaining in the EU included Conservatives In,[33] Labour In for Britain,[34] #INtogether (Liberal Democrats),[35] Greens for a Better Europe,[36] Scientists for EU,[37] Environmentalists For Europe,[38] Universities for Europe[39] and Another Europe is Possible.[40]
Public opinion
Main article: Opinion polling for the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum

Opinion polling for the referendum
Public opinion on whether the UK should leave the EU or stay has varied. An October 2015 analysis of polling suggested that younger voters tend to support remaining in the EU, whereas older voters tend to support leaving, but there is no gender split in attitudes.[41]
Voting result
Main article: Results of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
On the morning of 24 June, the result from the vote was that the United Kingdom had voted to leave the European Union by 52% to 48%.[42][43]
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
Choice
Votes
 %
Leave the European Union
17,410,742
51.89
Remain a member of the European Union
16,141,241
48.11
Valid votes
33,551,983
99.92
Invalid or blank votes
25,359
0.08
Total votes
33,577,342
100.00
Registered voters and turnout
46,501,241
72.2%
Source: [44]

Referendum results (without spoiled ballots)
Leave:
17,410,742 (51.9%)
Remain:
16,141,241 (48.1%)
▲


Results by region (left) and by district/parliamentary constituency (right)
  Leave
  Remain
Petitions for a new referendum
Within hours of the result's announcement, a petition, calling for a second referendum to be held in the event that a result was secured with less than 60% of the vote and on a turnout of less than 75%, attracted tens of thousands of new signatures. The petition had been initiated by William Oliver Healey of the English Democrats on 23 May 2016, when the Remain faction had been leading in the polls.[45] On 26 June Healey made it clear that the petition had actually been started to favour an exit from the EU.[46] Some of the signatures were added fraudulently.[47] By 10:40 pm on 28 June it had attracted 4,000,003 signatures, about one quarter of the total number of remain votes in the referendum and over forty times the number needed for any petition to be considered for debate in Parliament.[48][49] The Parliamentary Petitions Committee decided to defer its decision on this petition "until the Government Digital Service has done all it can to verify the signatures on the petition". 77,000 fraudulent signatures have been removed from the online petition. The Committee stated that, "although it may choose to schedule a debate on this petition in due course, it only has the power to schedule debates in Westminster Hall – the second debating chamber of the House of Commons. Debates in Westminster Hall do not have the power to change the law, and could not trigger a second referendum".[50]
On 27 June 2016, the resigning Prime Minister's spokesperson stated that holding another vote on Britain's membership to the European Union was "not remotely on the cards."[51] Home Secretary Theresa May made the following comment when announcing her candidacy to replace David Cameron as Conservative leader (and hence as Prime Minister) on 30 June 2016: "The campaign was fought ... and the public gave their verdict. There must be no attempts to remain inside the EU ... and no second referendum. ... Brexit means Brexit."[52]
"Article 50" and the procedure for leaving the EU
Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union provides that: "Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements."[53] Article 50 was inserted by the Lisbon Treaty in 2007, before which the treaties were silent on the possibility of withdrawal from the European Union. Once a member state has notified the European Council of its intent to leave the EU, a period begins during which a leaving agreement is negotiated setting out the arrangements for the withdrawal and outlining the country's future relationship with the Union. For the agreement to enter into force it needs to be approved by at least 72 percent of the continuing member states representing at least 65 percent of their population, and the consent of the European Parliament.[53] The treaties cease to apply to the member state concerned on the entry into force of the leaving agreement, or in the absence of such an agreement, two years after the member state notified the European Council of its intent to leave, although this period can be extended by unanimous agreement of the European Council.[54]
As was the case with the Scottish independence referendum two years earlier, the 2016 referendum did not directly require the government to do anything in particular. It does not require the government to initiate, or even schedule, the Article 50 procedure,[53] although David Cameron stated during the campaign that he would invoke Article 50 straight away in the event of a leave victory.[55] However, following the referendum result Cameron announced that he would resign before the Conservative party conference in October, and that it would be for the incoming Prime Minister to invoke Article 50.[56]
A negotiation with the European Union will need to begin under a new Prime Minister, and I think it is right that this new Prime Minister takes the decision about when to trigger Article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU.
— David Cameron, "EU referendum outcome: PM statement, 24 June 2016". gov.uk. Retrieved 25 June 2016.
There is no established, formal process for holding a second referendum to "confirm" the decision to leave following negotiations. Alan Renwick of the Constitution Unit of University College London argues that Article 50 negotiations cannot be used to renegotiate the conditions of future membership and that Article 50 does not provide the legal basis of withdrawing a decision to leave.[53] The UK government has stated that they would expect a leave vote to be followed by withdrawal, not by a second vote.[57]
As long as the UK Government has not invoked Article 50, the UK stays a member of the EU; must continue to fulfill all EU-related treaties, including possible future agreements; and should legally be treated as a member. The EU has no framework to exclude the UK—or any member—as long as Article 50 is not invoked, and the UK does not violate EU laws.[58][59] However, if the UK were to breach EU law significantly, there are legal venues to discharge the UK from the EU via Article 7, so called the "nuclear option" which allows the EU to cancel membership of a state that breaches fundamental EU principles, a test that will be hard to pass.[60] Article 7 does not allow forced cancellation of membership, only denial of rights such as free trade, free movement and voting rights.
Various EU leaders have said that they will not start any negotiation before the UK formally invokes Article 50. Jean-Claude Juncker even ordered all members of of the EU commission not to engage in any kind of contact with UK parties regarding Brexit.[61] Media statements of various kinds still occur. For example, on June 29, European Council president Donald Tusk told the UK that they won't be allowed access to the European Single Market unless they accept its four freedoms of goods, capital, services, and people.[62] Angela Merkel said "We'll ensure that negotiations don't take place according to the principle of cherry-picking ... It must and will make a noticeable difference whether a country wants to be a member of the family of the European Union or not".[63]
Cameron has made it clear that the next Prime Minister should activate Article 50 and begin negotiations with the EU.[64] During a 27 June 2016 meeting, the Cabinet decided to establish a unit of civil servants, headed by senior Conservative Oliver Letwin, who would proceed with "intensive work on the issues that will need to be worked through in order to present options and advice to a new Prime Minister and a new Cabinet".[65]
After a debate about the planned UK exit on 28 June 2016, the EU Parliament passed a motion calling for the "immediate" triggering of Article 50, although there is no mechanism allowing the EU to invoke the article.[66]
Consequences of withdrawal
Relationship with remaining EU members

Political system of the European Union
Now that the UK electorate has voted to leave the EU, its subsequent relationship with the remaining EU members could take several forms. A research paper presented to the UK Parliament proposed a number of alternatives to membership which would continue to allow access with the EU internal market. These include remaining in the European Economic Area (EEA) as a European Free Trade Association (EFTA) member (alongside Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland), or seeking to negotiate bilateral terms more along the Swiss model with a series of interdependent sectoral agreements.[67]
Were the UK to join the EEA as an EFTA member, it would have to sign up to EU internal market legislation without being able to participate in its development or vote on its content. However, the EU is required to conduct extensive consultations with non-EU members beforehand via its many committees and cooperative bodies.[68][69] Some EU law originates from various international bodies on which non-EU EEA countries have a seat.
The EEA Agreement (EU and EFTA members except Switzerland) does not cover Common Agriculture and Fisheries Policies, Customs Union, Common Trade Policy, Common Foreign and Security Policy, direct and indirect taxation, and Police and Judicial Co-operation in Criminal Matters, leaving EFTA members free to set their own policies in these areas;[70] however, EFTA countries are required to contribute to the EU Budget in exchange for access to the internal market.[71][72]
The EEA Agreement and the agreement with Switzerland cover free movement of goods, and free movement of people.[73][74] Many supporters of Brexit want to restrict freedom of movement,[75] however an EEA Agreement would include free movement for EU and EEA citizens, as passport systems allow EEA institutions to access markets in EU Member States, for the most part, without having to establish subsidiaries in each EU Member State and incur the costs of full authorisation in those jurisdiction.[76] Others[who?] present ideas of a Swiss solution, that is tailor-made agreements between the UK and the EU, but EU representatives have claimed they would not support such a solution.[citation needed] The Swiss agreements contain free movement for EU citizens.[citation needed]
Relationship between remaining EU members
A report by Tim Oliver of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs expanded analysis of what a British withdrawal could mean for the EU: the report argues a UK withdrawal "has the potential to fundamentally change the EU and European integration. On the one hand, a withdrawal could tip the EU towards protectionism, exacerbate existing divisions, or unleash centrifugal forces leading to the EU's unravelling. Alternatively, the EU could free itself of its most awkward member, making the EU easier to lead and more effective."[77]
Immigration
The Conservative MEP representing South East England, Daniel Hannan, predicted on BBC Newsnight that the level of immigration would remain high after Brexit:[78] "Frankly, if people watching think that they have voted and there is now going to be zero immigration from the EU, they are going to be disappointed. ... you will look in vain for anything that the Leave campaign said at any point that ever suggested there would ever be any kind of border closure or drawing up of the drawbridge."[79]
Economic effects
The UK treasury have estimated that being in the EU has a strong positive effect on trade and as a result the UK's trade would be worse off if it left the EU.[80]
Supporters of withdrawal from the EU have argued that by ceasing to make a net contribution to the EU would allow for some cuts to taxes and/or increases in government spending.[81] However, Britain would still be required to make contributions to the EU budget if it opted to remain in the European Free Trade Area.[71] The Institute for Fiscal Studies notes that most majority of forecasts of the impact of Brexit on the UK economy would leave the government with less money to spend even if it no longer had to pay into the EU.[82]
Former Chancellor of the Exchequer Norman Lamont argued that if Britain left the EU, the EU would not impose retaliatory tariffs on British products, pointing out that the EU needed a trade agreement with Britain as German car manufacturers wanted to sell their cars to the world's fifth biggest market.[83] Lamont argued that the EFTA option was irrelevant and that Britain and the EU would agree on a trade pact which tailored to Britain's needs.[83]
James Dyson argued that it would be self-defeating for the EU to impose retaliatory tariffs on British products because if the EU imposed a tariff on Britain, Britain would impose a retaliatory tariff on the EU, claiming that Britain bought 100 billion pounds worth of the EU's goods and sold 10 billion pounds worth of Britain's goods.[84] However, proportionally, the government responded that "EU exports to the UK are worth 3% of EU GDP, while UK exports to the EU are worth 13% of UK GDP – four times more."[85]
On 15 June 2016, Vote Leave, the official Leave campaign, presented its roadmap to lay out what would happen if Britain left the EU.[86] The blueprint suggested that Parliament would pass laws: Finance Bill to scrap VAT on tampons and household energy bills; Asylum and Immigration Control Bill to end the automatic right of EU citizens to enter Britain; National Health Service (Funding Target) Bill to get an extra 100 million pounds a week; European Union Law (Emergency Provisions) Bill; Free Trade Bill to start to negotiate its own deals with non-EU countries; and European Communities Act 1972 (Repeal) Bill to end the European Court of Justice's jurisdiction over Britain and stop making contribution to the EU budget.[86]
Some nations and cities may gain economic benefits from Brexit. In the wake of the vote, several global banks quickly began the process of shifting some operations out of London and into other European financial centres, including Frankfurt, Paris, and Dublin, in order to establish new legal domiciles in Europe in case London headquarters are no longer legally sufficient to serve the rest of the continent.[87] While other European financial centres may benefit, those gains would come at a cost to London's global financial importance, as it is presumed London would lose those financial services jobs. For example, the day following the vote, JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon told employees that the company “may need to make changes to our legal entity structure and the location of some roles.”[88] Brexit may also lead to increased real estate prices in New York.[89] Many attorneys worry about the potential for contracts to be invalidated for Frustration of Purpose.[90]
Former Bundesbank President Axel Weber said that leaving the EU would not deal a major blow to London's status as one of the top financial hubs.[91]
On 24 June 2016, the bond and credit rating agency of Moody's, on the basis of the result of the referendum, downgraded the UK's standing as a long-term debt issuer and the country's debt rating outlook to "negative" from "stable," while retaining the overall rating of Aa1.[92] Fitch Ratings degraded the credit rating from AA+ to AA because of "uncertainty following the referendum outcome will induce an abrupt slowdown in short-term GDP growth...".[93] Standard & Poor's cut the UK's rating to AA, with the following comment: "In our opinion, this outcome is a seminal event, and will lead to a less predictable, stable, and effective policy framework in the U.K. ... The negative outlook reflects the risk to economic prospects, fiscal and external performance, and the role of sterling as a reserve currency". On the other hand, economic analysts have pointed out that the UK, as a fiscally and monetarily sovereign nation, retains the ability to service or retire, at any time, any part or all of the state debt that is denominated in the national currency, and, hence, there is no risk whatsoever of defaulting on that part of its debt.[94]
On 27 June 2016, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne attempted to reassure financial markets that the UK economy was not in serious trouble. This came after media reports that a survey by the Institute of Directors suggested that two thirds of businesses believed that the outcome of the referendum would produce negative results as well as the dropping value of the sterling and the FTSE 100, which began on 24 June 2016. British businesses had also predicted that investment cuts, hiring freezes and redundancies would be necessary to cope with the results of the referendum.[95] Osborne indicated that Britain was facing the future "from a position of strength" and there was no current need for an emergency Budget.[96] "No one should doubt our resolve to maintain the fiscal stability we have delivered for this country .... And to companies, large and small, I would say this: the British economy is fundamentally strong, highly competitive and we are open for business."[97]
Long-term economic prospects
European experts from the World Pensions Forum and the University of Bath have argued that, beyond short-lived market volatility, the long term economic prospects of Britain remain high, notably in terms of country attractiveness and foreign direct investment: "Country risk experts we spoke to are confident the UK's economy will remain robust in the event of an exit from the EU. 'The economic attractiveness of Britain will not go down and a trade war with London is in no one's interest,' says M Nicolas Firzli, director-general of the World Pensions Council (WPC) and advisory board member for the World Bank Global Infrastructure Facility [...] Bruce Morley, lecturer in economics at the University of Bath, goes further to suggest that the long-term benefits to the UK of leaving the Union, such as less regulation and more control over Britain's trade policy, could outweigh the short-term uncertainty observed in the [country risk] scores."[98]
Possible secessions: Scotland, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar
Prior to the referendum, leading figures with a range of opinions regarding Scottish independence suggested that in the event the UK as a whole voted to leave the EU but Scotland as a whole voted to remain in the EU, a second Scottish independence referendum might be precipitated.[99][100] Former Labour Scottish First Minister Henry McLeish asserted that he would support Scottish independence under such circumstances.[101] It has also been pointed out that upon the UK's exit from the EU, many of the powers and competencies of the EU institutions would be repatriated to Holyrood and not Westminster.[102] Currently, Scotland exports three and a half times more to the rest of the UK than to the rest of the EU.[103] The pro-union Scotland in Union has suggested that an independent Scotland within the EU would face trade barriers with a post-Brexit UK and face additional costs for re-entry to the EU.[103]
Enda Kenny, the Taoiseach of Ireland, has warned that a UK exit of the European Union could damage the Northern Ireland peace process.[104] Northern Ireland Secretary Theresa Villiers denounced the suggestion as "scaremongering of the worst possible kind".[105] It has been suggested by a member of Germany's parliamentary finance committee that a "bilateral solution" between the UK and Ireland could be negotiated quickly after a leave vote.[106] On 24 June 2016, following the UK's vote to leave the EU, Northern Ireland's Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness called for a referendum on Irish reunification.[107]
In 2015, Chief Minister of Gibraltar Fabian Picardo suggested that Gibraltar would attempt to remain part of the EU in the event the UK voted to leave,[108] but reaffirmed that, regardless of the result, the territory would remain British.[109] In a letter to the UK Foreign Affairs Select Committee, he requested that Gibraltar be considered in negotiations post-Brexit.[110] Spain's foreign minister José García-Margallo said Spain would seek talks on Gibraltar the "very next day" after a British exit from the EU.[111]
Status of London
The majority of those living in London voted to remain in the EU. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said she had spoken to London Mayor Sadiq Khan about the possibility of remaining in the EU and said he shared that objective for London. A petition calling on Khan to declare London independent from the UK received tens of thousands of signatures.[112][113][114] Supporters of London's independence argued that London should become a city state similar to Singapore, and remaining within the EU.[115][116][117] Spencer Livermore, Baron Livermore, said that London's independence "should be a goal," arguing that a London city-state would have twice the GDP of Singapore.[118]
Border with France
The Mayor of Saint-Quentin Xavier Bertrand stated in February 2016 that "If Britain leaves Europe, right away the border will leave Calais and go to Dover. We will not continue to guard the border for Britain if it's no longer in the European Union" indicating that the juxtaposed controls would end with a leave vote. French Finance Minister Emmanuel Macron also suggested the agreement would be "threatened" by a leave vote.[119] These claims have been disputed, as the Le Touquet treaty enabling juxtaposed controls was not debated from within the EU, and would not be legally void upon leaving.[120] After Brexit vote, Xavier Bertrand asked François Hollande to break Touquet agreement, which would take into effect within two years [121] Hollande rejected the move, and said: "Calling into question the Touquet deal on the pretext that Britain has voted for Brexit and will have to start negotiations to leave the Union doesn't make sense." Bernard Cazeneuve, the French Interior Minister, confirmed there would be "no changes to the accord". He said: "The border at Calais is closed and will remain so."[122]
Academic funding
UK universities rely on the EU for around 16% of their total research funding, and are disproportionately successful at winning EU-awarded research grants. This has raised questions about how such funding would be impacted by a British exit.[123]
St George's, University of London professor Angus Dalgleish pointed out that Britain paid much more into the EU research budget than it received, and that existing European collaboration such as CERN and European Molecular Biology Laboratory (EMBL) began long before the Lisbon Treaty, adding that leaving the EU would not damage Britain's science.[124]
London School of Economics emeritus professor Alan Sked pointed out that non-EU countries such as Israel and Switzerland signed agreements with the EU in terms of the funding of collaborative research and projects, and suggested that if Britain left the EU, Britain would be able to reach a similar agreement with the EU, pointing out that educated people and research bodies would easily find some financial arrangement during an at least 2-year transition period which was related to Article 50 of Treaty of European Union (TEU).[125]
Political effects
After the referendum result was declared, Cameron announced that he would resign around October.[126]
Following Cameron's resignation, in what was anticipated to be the launch of Boris Johnson's campaign, Johnson declared he would not campaign for the leadership as he did not believe he could provide the necessary unity or leadership for the party.[127]
The right-wing Dutch populist Geert Wilders said that the Netherlands should follow Britain's example and hold a referendum on whether Netherlands should stay in the European Union.[128]
On July 4, 2016, Nigel Farage announced his resignation as head of UKIP.[129]
See also
European Union law
Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom
Greek withdrawal from the eurozone
Multi-speed Europe
Referendums related to the European Union
Withdrawal from the European Union
References
1.
  "The UK's EU referendum: All you need to know". BBC News. Retrieved 24 March 2016.
    "Britain and the EU: A Brixit looms". The Economist. 21 June 2012. Retrieved 25 June 2016.
    Hjelmgaard, Kim; Onyanga-Omara, Jane. "Explainer: The what, when and why of 'Brexit'". USA Today. Retrieved 25 June 2016.
    "EU Referendum results 2016". BBC News. 24 June 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21701448-many-brussels-still-hope-article-50-will-be-delayed-indefinitely-european-union
    "Could Scotland block Brexit?". Retrieved 26 June 2016.
    "1967: De Gaulle says 'non' to Britain – again". BBC News. 27 November 1976. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
    "De Gaulle was quite right to say ‘Non’ to Britain".
    "1973: Britain joins the EEC". BBC News. 1 January 1973. Retrieved 9 March 2016.
    DAvis Butler. "The 1975 Referendum" (PDF). Eureferendum.com. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    "Research Briefings – The 1974–75 UK Renegotiation of EEC Membership and Referendum". Researchbriefings.parliament.uk. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    Vaidyanathan, Rajini (4 March 2010). "Michael Foot: What did the 'longest suicide note' say?". BBC News Magazine (BBC). Retrieved 21 October 2015.
    "EUROPA – EU treaties". Europa.eu. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    "EUROPA – The EU in brief". Europa.eu. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    Wood, Nicholas (28 November 1994). "Goldsmith forms a Euro referendum party". The Times. p. 1.
    "UK Election 1997". Politicsresources.net. Retrieved 16 July 2015.
    "10 key lessons from the European election results". The Guardian. 26 May 2014. Retrieved 31 May 2014.
    Matt Osborn (7 May 2015). "2015 UK general election results in full". the Guardian.
    Nicholas Watt (29 June 2012). "Cameron defies Tory right over EU referendum: Prime minister, buoyed by successful negotiations on eurozone banking reform, rejects 'in or out' referendum on EU". The Guardian (London, UK). Retrieved 2 July 2012. David Cameron placed himself on a collision course with the Tory right when he mounted a passionate defence of Britain's membership of the EU and rejected out of hand an 'in or out' referendum.
    Sparrow, Andrew (1 July 2012). "PM accused of weak stance on Europe referendum". The Guardian (London, UK). Retrieved 2 July 2012. Cameron said he would continue to work for 'a different, more flexible and less onerous position for Britain within the EU'.
    "David Cameron 'prepared to consider EU referendum'". BBC News. BBC. 1 July 2012. Retrieved 2 July 2012. Mr Cameron said ... he would 'continue to work for a different, more flexible and less onerous position for Britain within the EU'.
    "David Cameron promises in/out referendum on EU". BBC News. BBC. 23 January 2013. Retrieved 23 April 2016.
    "David Cameron sets out EU reform goals". BBC News. 11 November 2015. Retrieved 16 January 2016.
    "Cameron: MPs will be allowed free vote on EU referendum – video" (Video). The Guardian. 5 January 2016. Retrieved 9 January 2016. The PM also indicates Tory MPs will be able to take differing positions once the renegotiation has finished
    Hughes, Laura; Swinford, Stephen; Dominiczak, Peter (5 January 2016). "EU Referendum: David Cameron forced to let ministers campaign for Brexit after fears of a Cabinet resignation". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 9 January 2016.
    "Prime Minister sets out legal framework for EU withdrawal". UK Parliament. 22 February 2016. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
    "Clause governing withdrawal from the EU by a Member State". The Lisbon Treaty. Retrieved 29 February 2016.
    "The process for withdrawing from the European Union" (PDF). GOV.UK. Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, HM Government. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    Jon Stone (13 April 2016). "Vote Leave designated as official EU referendum Out campaign".
    "Leave.eu". Leave.eu. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    "Better Off Out". Better Off Out. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    James Skinner (26 April 2016). "Let The EU Referendum Be An Apology to the Commonwealth".
    "Conservatives In". Conservatives In. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
    Alan Johnson MP. "Labour in for Britain – The Labour Party". Labour.org.uk. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    "Britain in Europe". Liberal Democrats. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    "Greens for a Better Europe". Green Party. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    "Home – Scientists for EU". Scientists for EU. Retrieved 2 June 2016.
    "Environmentalists For Europe homepage". Environmentalists For Europe. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    "Universities for Europe". Universities for Europe. Retrieved 19 May 2016.
    "Another Europe is Possible". Retrieved 8 June 2016.
    John Curtice, Senior Research Fellow at NatCen and Professor of Politics at Strathclyde University (October 2015). "Britain divided? Who supports and who opposes EU membership" (PDF). Economic and Social Research Council. Retrieved 26 April 2016.
    "EU referendum: BBC forecasts UK votes to leave". BBC News. BBC. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    "EU Referendum Results". election.news.sky.com. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    "Official result of the EU Referendum is declared by Electoral Commission in Manchester". The Electoral Commission. 24 June 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    York, Chris (26 June 2016). "Second EU Referendum Petition Started By Leave Voter William Oliver Healey". Huffington Post (Verizon). Retrieved 26 June 2016.
    Marker, Christina (26 June 2016). "Brexit Redux? Petition for Second EU Vote Hits 3 Million Signatures". NBC News. NBC. Retrieved 26 June 2016. In an ironic twist, it emerged Sunday that the petition's creator was in fact in favor of so-called Brexit. In a message posted to Facebook, William Oliver Healey sought to distance himself from the petition, saying it had been hijacked by those in favor of remaining in the EU.
    Heighton, Luke (26 June 2016). "Second referendum petition: At least 77,000 'fake' signatures removed hours after inquiry launched". The Telegraph (London, UK). Retrieved 26 June 2016.
    Hooton, Christopher (24 June 2016). "Brexit: Petition for second EU referendum so popular the government site's crashing". The Independent (Independent Print Limited). Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    Boult, Adam (26 June 2016). "Petition for second EU referendum attracts thousands of signatures". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 26 June 2016.
    Petition: EU Referendum Rules triggering a 2nd EU Referendum, accessed 1 July 2016
    Cooper, Charlie (27 June 2016). "David Cameron rules out second EU referendum after Brexit". The Independent. Retrieved 28 June 2016.
    "Theresa May's Tory Leadership Launch Statement". The Independent (London, UK). 30 June 2016. Retrieved 30 June 2016.
    Renwick, Alan (19 January 2016). "What happens if we vote for Brexit?". The Constitution Unit Blog. Retrieved 14 May 2016.
    Article 50(3) of the Treaty on European Union.
    Staunton, Denis (23 February 2016). "David Cameron: no second referendum if UK votes for Brexit". The Irish Times. Retrieved 21 June 2016.
    "Brexit: David Cameron to quit after UK votes to leave EU". BBC. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    Wright, Ben. "Reality Check: How plausible is second EU referendum?". BBC. Retrieved 14 May 2016.
    "George Osborne: Only the UK can trigger Article 50". aljazeera.com.
    Henley, Jon (26 June 2016). "Will article 50 ever be triggered?". theguardian.com.
    Rankin, Jennifer (25 June 2016). "What is Article 50 and why is it so central to the Brexit debate?". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 July 2016.
    "No notification, no negotiation: EU officials banned from Brexit talks with Britain". 30 June 2016. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
    Heffer, Greg (29 June 2016). "'It's not single market a la carte' Donald Tusk tells UK it's FREE MOVEMENT or nothing". Daily Express. Retrieved 1 July 2016.
    "Merkel tells Britain no 'cherry-picking' in Brexit talks".
    Cooper, Charlie (27 June 2016). "David Cameron rules out second EU referendum after Brexit". The Independent (London, UK). Retrieved 27 June 2016.
    Proctor, Kate (27 June 2016). "Cameron sets up Brexit unit". Yorkshire Post (West Yorkshire, UK). Retrieved 27 June 2016.
    Stone, Jon (28 June 2016). "Nigel Farage Mocked and Heckled by MEPs During Extraordinary Speech". Independent (London, UK). Retrieved 28 June 2016.
    "Leaving the EU – RESEARCH PAPER 13/42" (PDF). House of Commons Library. 1 July 2013. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
    "EFTA Bulletin Decision Shaping in the European Economic Area" (PDF). European Free Trade Association. March 2009. Retrieved 19 May 2015.
    Jonathan Lindsell (12 August 2013). "Fax democracy? Norway has more clout than you know". civitas.org.uk.
    "The Basic Features of the EEA Agreement". European Free Trade Association. Retrieved 8 August 2013.
    Glencross, Andrew (March 2015). "Why a British referendum on EU membership will not solve the Europe question". International Affairs 91 (2): 303–17. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.12236.
    "EEA EFTA Budget". EFTA. Retrieved 14 February 2016.
    "Free Movement of Capital", "EFTA", Retrieved on 24 June 2016.
    "Free Movement of Persons", "EFTA", Retrieved on 24 June 2016.
    Grose, Thomas. "Anger at Immigration Fuels the UK's Brexit Movement", U.S. News & World Report, Washington, D.C., 16 June 2016. Retrieved on 24 June 2016.
    Brennand, David A.; Jackson, Carolyn H.; Lalone, Nathaniel W.; Robson, Neil; Sugden, Peter (24 June 2016). "Brexit: Implications for the Financial Services Industry". The National Law Review (Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP). Retrieved 28 June 2016.
    Oliver, Tim L. "Europe without Britain". Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik. Retrieved 23 June 2016.
    "Newsnight exchange with Brexit MEP Daniel Hannan". BBC News. BBC. June 25, 2016. Retrieved June 26, 2016.
    Lowyry, Nigel (25 June 2016). "Nigel Farage: Leave campaign pledges ‘mistake’, may not be upheld". iNews UK. Media Nusantara Citra. Retrieved June 26, 2016.
    "HM Treasury analysis: the long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives – Publications – GOV.UK". www.gov.uk. Retrieved 8 June 2016.
    The end of British austerity starts with Brexit J. Redwood, The Guardian, 14 April 2016
    "Brexit and the UK's Public Finances" (PDF). Institute For Fiscal Studies (IFS Report 116). May 2016. Retrieved 18 June 2016.
    EU referendum: Former Tory chancellor Lord Lamont backs Brexit P. Dominiczak, The Daily Telegraph, 1 March 2016
    Pearson, Allison (10 June 2016). "Sir James Dyson: 'So if we leave the EU no one will trade with us? Cobblers...'". The Telegraph. Retrieved 23 June 2016.
    "Trade: Frequently Asked Questions".
    EU referendum: Vote Leave sets out post-Brexit plans BBC News, 15 June 2016
    Arnold, Martin; Noonan, Laura (26 June 2016). "Banks begin moving some operations out of Britain". Financial Times (27 June 2016). Retrieved 30 June 2016.
    Weber, Lauren; Feintzeig, Rachel (28 June 2016). "Big Employers Are Urging Calm After U.K. Vote". Wall Street Journal (29 June 2016). Retrieved 30 June 2016.
    "What Brexit Means For The New York Real Estate Market". Retrieved 26 June 2016.
    "Contracts with UK Companies to Provide Products to EU Nations: Frustration of Purpose as a Tool to Avoid Contracts". Retrieved 26 June 2016.
    Jason Douglas & Max Colchester (10 November 2015). "'Brexit' Wouldn't Be Disaster for U.K., Says UBS Chairman". WSJ.
    "Moody's changes outlook on UK sovereign rating to negative from stable, affirms Aa1 rating", Moody's, 24 June 2016
    Rosenfeld, Everett (27 June 2016). "UK credit ratings cut: S&P and Fitch downgrade post-Brexit vote". CNBC. CNBC LLC. Retrieved 27 June 2016. that uncertainty is at the very core of markets' concerns. As EU leadership and British representatives negotiate the terms of their break-up, the ambiguity will likely freeze some investment and could lead to economic recession, some economists have argued.
    "Don't fall for the AAA rating myth" by Bill Mitchell, 19 April 2016
    Wood, Zoe (26 June 2016). "Firms plan to quit UK as City braces for more post-Brexit losses". The Guardian (London, UK). Retrieved 27 June 2016.
    "Osborne: UK economy in a position of strength". BBC News - Business. BBC. 27 June 2016. Retrieved 27 June 2016. George Osborne has said the UK is ready to face the future "from a position of strength" and indicated there will be no immediate emergency Budget.
    Dewan, Angela; McKirdy, Euan (27 June 2016). "Brexit: UK government shifts to damage control". CNN. Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. Retrieved 27 June 2016. Not since World War II has Britain faced such an uncertain future.
    De Meulemersteer, Claudia. "Country Risk: Experts say UK Economy Will Quickly Recover from Brexit Shock". Euromoney magazine. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    "Nicola Sturgeon Denies She Has 'Machiavellian' Wish For Brexit". The Huffington Post UK. Retrieved 3 February 2016.
    "Scotland Will Quit Britain If UK Leaves EU, Warns Tony Blair". The Huffington Post UK. Retrieved 3 February 2016.
    "Henry McLeish: I will back Scottish independence if UK leave EU against Scotland's wishes". Herald Scotland. Retrieved 3 February 2016.
    "Could Brexit bring new powers to Holyrood?". BBC News. Retrieved 17 May 2016.
    Scotland, 'Brexit' and the UK, Briefing note January 2016; accessed 17 May 2016.
    Watt, Nicholas. "Northern Ireland would face 'serious difficulty' from Brexit, Kenny warns". The Guardian. Retrieved 20 February 2016.
    "Brexit Yes would not bring back the Border". Independent.ie. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
    "Germans 'not opposed' to UK-Ireland Brexit deal". Independent.ie. Retrieved 27 April 2016.
    "EU referendum result: Sinn Fein's Martin McGuinness calls for border poll on united Ireland after Brexit". The Independent. 24 June 2016.
    Swinford, Steven (14 April 2015). "Gibraltar suggests it wants to stay in EU in the event of Brexit". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved 25 February 2016.
    "Happy Birthday, Your Majesty". Retrieved 27 April 2016.
    "Britain must include Gibraltar in post-Brexit negotiations, report says". Retrieved 27 April 2016.
    "Spanish PM's anger at David Cameron over Gibraltar". BBC News. 16 June 2016.
    Hedges-Stocks, Zoah. "Londoners call for independence from UK".
    "It's time for London to leave the UK". 24 June 2016.
    "'Londependence' petition calls for London to join the EU on its own". 24 June 2016.
    "Londoners want their own independence after Brexit result".
    "One expert argues that following Brexit, London needs to take back control".
    Sullivan, Conor (24 June 2016). "Londoners dismayed at UK's European divorce" – via Financial Times.
    "London Independence Goes Beyond A Twitter Joke With Politicians Seriously Discussing It". 24 June 2016.
    Patrick Wintour (3 March 2016). "French minister: Brexit would threaten Calais border arrangement". the Guardian.
    "Q&A: Would Brexit really move "the Jungle" to Dover?". Retrieved 27 April 2016.
    "Xavier Bertrand a les accords du Touquet dans le viseur". liberation.fr.
    Buchanan, Elsa (30 June 2016). "François Hollande rejects suspension of Le Touquet treaty at Calais despite UK Brexit". International Business Times. Retrieved 4 July 2016.
    Cressey, Daniel (3 February 2016). "Academics across Europe join 'Brexit' debate". nature.com. Retrieved 12 February 2016.
    EU Referendum: Brexit 'will not damage UK research' A. Dalgleish, Times Higher Education, 9 June 2016
    Don't listen to the EU's panicking pet academics A. Sked, The Daily Telegraph, 3 March 2016
    "Brexit: David Cameron to quit after UK votes to leave EU". BBC. 24 June 2016. Retrieved 24 June 2016.
    "Boris Johnson rules himself out of Conservative leader race". BBC News. 30 June 2016. Retrieved 30 June 2016.
    "Exclusive: Britain 'could liberate Europe again' by voting for Brexit and sparking populist revolution". The Daily Telegraph. 22 May 2016.
129.   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36702468
[hide]
v
t
e
United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016

Results of the referendum
Aftermath of the referendum
United Kingdom withdrawal from the European Union

Campaign
2016 referendum campaign
Issues
Opinion polling
Endorsements

Campaign
organisations
Advocating "Remain"
Official campaign
Britain Stronger in Europe

Other campaigns
Labour In for Britain
Conservatives In for Britain
Another Europe Is Possible


Advocating "Leave"
Official campaign
Vote Leave

Other campaigns
Leave.EU
Grassroots Out
Labour Leave



Legislation
European Union Referendum Act 2015
European Union (Referendum) Act 2016 (Gibraltar)

Televised debates
The European Union: In or Out
How Should I Vote? – The EU Debate

Background
1975 EC membership referendum
2014 UK European Parliament election
2015 UK general election
UK renegotiation of EU membership, 2016
Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom

Aftermath
International reactions
2015–2016 stock market selloff
2015–16 Chinese stock market turbulence
Conservative Party leadership election
Labour Party leadership crisis
UK Independence Party leadership election
Proposed second Scottish independence referendum
Disputed status of Gibraltar
London independence
United Ireland

Related
Brexit: The Movie (2016 documentary)

Categories:
Euroscepticism in the United Kingdom
Withdrawal from the European Union
Consequences of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016
Navigation menu
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Article
Talk
Read
View source
View history
Parte superior do formulário
Parte inferior do formulário
Parte superior do formulário
Parte inferior do formulário
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Alemannisch
العربية
Azərbaycanca
বাংলা
Беларуская
Български
Català
Čeština
Deutsch
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
Հայերեն
Hrvatski
Ido
Bahasa Indonesia
עברית
Basa Jawa
ქართული
Қазақша
Latviešu
മലയാളം
Nederlands
Nedersaksies
日本語
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پنجابی
Português
Русский
Scots
Slovenčina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
ไทย
Türkçe
Українська
Tiếng Việt
ייִדיש
粵語
Žemaitėška
中文
Edit links
This page was last modified on 4 July 2016, at 20:59.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view




==//==
[PORTUGUESE VERSION]

SOURCE/LINK: http://www.midiasemmascara.org/mediawatch/noticiasfaltantes/foro-de-sao-paulo/14334-o-mercosul-e-o-foro-de-sao-paulo.html



MSM
Quem Somos
Contato
Links Indicados
Canal MSM no YouTube
Twitter MSM
MSM no Orkut
MSM no Facebook
Breviarium
Escola sem Partido
Farol da Democracia
Heitor de Paola
Israel na Web
José Osvaldo de Meira Penna
Julio Severo
Nivaldo Cordeiro
Notalatina
Olavo de Carvalho
Padre Paulo Ricardo
Paulo Mercadante
Paulo Mercadante - novo blog
Percival Puggina
Profeta Urbano
Seminário de Filosofia
Ubiratan Iório
UnoAmérica
Wisdom&Virtue
Editorial
Colunistas
Carlos Azambuja
Olavo de Carvalho
José Nivaldo Cordeiro
Alejandro Peña Esclusa
Alan Keyes
Jeffrey Nyquist
Heitor de Paola
Daniel Pipes
Klauber Cristofen Pires
Ipojuca Pontes
Percival Puggina
Cel. Villamarín Pulido
Graça Salgueiro
Julio Severo
Todos os colunistas
Artigos
Aborto
Ambientalismo
Ciência
Conservadorismo
Cultura
Desarmamento
Desinformação
Direito
Economia
Educação
Eleições 2010
Entrevistas
Globalismo
Governo do PT
Humor
Internacional
América Latina
China
Estados Unidos
Europa
Oriente Médio
Rússia
Movimento Revolucionário
Religião
Terrorismo
Media Watch
O Globo
Folha de S. Paulo
O Estado de São Paulo
Outros
Notícias Faltantes
Comunismo
Denúncias
Foro de São Paulo
Perseguição Anticristã
True Outspeak
Videos
Aborto
Ambientalismo
América Latina
Brasil
China
Comunismo
Cultura
Desarmamento
Economia
Educação
Estados Unidos
Europa
Humor
Movimento Revolucionário
MSM Exclusivo
Nova Ordem Mundial
Olavo de Carvalho
Radicalismo Islâmico
Religião
Arquivo
Artigos
Documentos
Atas do Foro de São Paulo



Ano IX                                                                                                       Sex, 03 de Junho de 2016                                                                                                      Numero 227










Navegação
O Globo
Folha de S. Paulo
O Estado de São Paulo
Outros
Notícias Faltantes
Comunismo
Denúncias
Foro de São Paulo
Perseguição Anticristã
Tags
América Latina | Argentina | Bolívia | Brasil | Castro | Che Guevara | Chávez | Colômbia | Colômbia. Farc | Cuba | Dilma Rousseff | Direito | Estados Unidos | Europa | FARC | FHC | Farc | Fidel Castro | Folha de S. Paulo | Foro de S. Paulo | Foro de São Paulo | Hitler | Honduras | Hugo Chávez | Igreja Católica | Islamismo | Israel | Jihad | Lula | MST | Marx | O Estado de São Paulo | O Globo | ONU | Obama | Oriente Médio | Rede Globo | Venezuela | aborto | ahmadinejad | ambientalismo | antissemitismo | brasil | capitalismo | censura | cinema | ciência | comunismo | conservadorismo | cristianismo | cultura | cultural | denúncia | desinformação | direito | ditadura | doutrinação | economia | editorial | educação | eleições | esquerdismo | globalismo | governo do PT | história | holocausto | homeschooling | ideologia | islamismo | liberalismo | marxismo | media Watch | media watch | movimento gay | movimento revolucionário | nazismo | notícias falantes | notícias faltantes | oriente médio | perseguição anticristã | politicamente correto | racismo | religião | revolução | socialismo | terrorismo | tortura | totalitarismo | 2012




O Mercosul e o Foro de São Paulo
Escrito por Graça Salgueiro | 19 Julho 2013
Notícias Faltantes - Foro de São Paulo
Nota de Graça Salgueiro: Escrevi esse artigo em 2 de agosto de 2006, e acho que vale a pena relê-lo porque estão falando que "o MERCOSUL é uma filial do Foro de São Paulo" como se fosse uma grande novidade, mas já em 2006 eu dizia (e denunciava) isso. O MSM sempre sai na frente, com anos de antecedência.

Após o final da Cúpula do Mercosul, todas as análises feitas na grande mídia sobre o evento evitaram tocar numa questão chave: a relação direta do "novo" Mercosul com o Foro de São Paulo.
© 2006 MidiaSemMascara.org


Uma semana após o encerramento da XXX Cúpula do Mercosul muitas análises, críticas e opiniões ainda circulam pela mídia, entretanto, nenhuma delas vai ao fulcro da questão que é a relação direta e indelével do “novo” Mercosul com o Foro de São Paulo, organização da qual nenhum jornal brasileiro ousa sequer admitir a existência, obedecendo religiosamente ao patrulhamento ideológico a serviço do comunismo internacional.
Só para lembrar, já que estamos em ano eleitoral, o Foro de São Paulo foi criado em julho de 1990, por Fidel Castro e Lula da Silva, após o fim da URSS e para substituir a falida OLAS, pois era necessário “recuperar na América Latina o que se perdeu no Leste europeu”, segundo palavras de Castro em sua fundação.

O coração e o cérebro do Foro de São Paulo residem no Grupo de Trabalho que se reúne uma ou duas vezes ao ano, com o objetivo de traçar as metas para os encontros anuais do Foro.
Essas metas são mais tarde debatidas nos Encontros e de lá saem as resoluções que vão ser postas em prática, em ações coordenadas, por todos os países membros do Foro.

Explicados esses detalhes técnicos, vejamos desde quando o Mercosul é objeto de desejo do Foro de São Paulo. Em 24 de julho de 2000, o presidente Chávez deu uma declaração ao informativo “La insignia” em que dizia ser partidário de uma união política, econômica e militar do Grupo Andino e do Mercosul.

“Deve ser uma integração plena, não só econômica. Há que avançar para a integração, não só para a integração econômica e política” – continuou o presidente. “Há um ano eu dizia: se existe a OTAN, por que não pode existir a OTAS, uma Organização do Tratado do Atlântico Sul, que some à África do Sul?”.

Mais tarde, em setembro de 2003, reuniram-se nas instalações da Escola Militar de Montanha em Barcelona, Argentina, os Comandantes dos Exércitos da Argentina, Bolívia, Brasil, Chile, Paraguai e Uruguai para tratar da “integração militar no Mercosul”.
Estiveram presentes os comandantes:

· Tenente-general Roberto Bendini (Argentina),

· General-de-exército Francisco Albuquerque (Brasil),

· Juan Cheyre Espinosa (Chile),

· Santiago Pomoli (Uruguai),

· Luis Barreiro Spaini (Paraguai) e

· César López Saavedra (Bolívia).

Nesta ocasião, o general Francisco Albuquerque teria dito: “Esse é um exemplo para o mundo”, referindo-se à “integração militar” que mais tarde Chávez iria sugerir a criação das Forças Armadas da América Latina, coordenadas pelo Mercosul.

Nos dias 16 e 17 de fevereiro de 2004, o Grupo de Trabalho do Foro de São Paulo reuniu-se na cidade de São Paulo e em sua Declaração comunica dentre outras tantas metas, a seguinte:

“1. Os partidos e as forças políticas participantes do Grupo de Trabalho debateram a estratégia comum dos movimentos sociais e da esquerda frente aos temas da integração e do comércio global.
Com relação a isso, reafirmam a necessidade de uma verdadeira integração de nosso continente e rechaçam a proposta da ALCA, da forma apresentada pelo Governo dos EUA, assim como os tratados de comércio sub-regionais e bilaterais promovidos por este país.

Defendemos uma integração e relações comerciais solidárias, que respeitem a soberania dos países de nossa região e promovam o direito inalienável dos povos ao desenvolvimento econômico e social, deixando claro nossa posição a favor da inclusão de Cuba no sistema inter-americano e condenação do bloqueio estadunidense a esta nação”.

Como se pode observar, a inclusão de Cuba ao Mercosul já era uma meta antiga e determinada pelo Foro de São Paulo.

Em dezembro de 2004, o sociólogo comunista germano-mexicano Heinz Dieterich, guru de Chávez e Fidel, em uma entrevista cedida ao site de extrema-esquerda Rebelión afirmava o seguinte:

“Bem, a única forma de resistir a esta imposição dos tratados de livre comércio é esse Bloco de Poder, com um programa próprio. A luta contra a ALCA tem sido defensiva porém, com a defensiva não se ganha uma guerra e esta é uma guerra contra o Império.

Necessita-se de uma proposta estratégica própria. Hugo Chávez a formulou na ALBA: Alternativa Bolivariana para a América Latina. Tem-se dado passos para integrar um eixo Venezuela-Cuba, por uma parte, e um eixo Venezuela-Argentina por outra, porém não há sustentação teórica; é uma integração bilateral que segue a lógica das vantagens comparativas de David Ricardo, e o que necessitamos é um salto qualitativo para conseguir a constituição de um Estado regional que é o MERCOSUL ampliado, aprofundado, democratizado com a Venezuela, com Cuba e em uma segunda fase com Evo Morales na Bolívia e com a CONAIE (Confederação de Nacionalidades Indígenas no Equador) no Equador, que realize a integração o quanto antes nas quatro esferas sociais fundamentais do ser humano: a econômica, a política, a cultural e a militar”.

E, finalmente, na reunião da Região Cone Sul do Grupo de Trabalho do Foro, ocorrida em Montevidéu em 7 de dezembro de 2005, em sua “Declaração” ficou acordado o que retransmito no original, em espanhol, para que não reste qualquer dúvida:

“REUNIÃO DA REGIÃO CONE SUL – 2005 DECLARAÇÃO – (Original unicamente em espanhol)

Montevideo, diciembre 7 de 2005

A los Presidentes y Cancilleres de los países del MERCOSUR y asociados

Los pueblos de América Latina avanzan hoy con firmeza hacia su integración haciendo por fin realidad los esfuerzos de los próceres de nuestra independencia para lograr la unión continental.

En este Primer Encuentro de la regional Sur del Foro de Sao Paulo realizado en Montevideo los días 6 y 7 de diciembre de 2005 y en la Cumbre de Presidentes del MERCOSUR que se reúne en Montevideo el 9 y 10 de diciembre, se consagran muchas iniciativas que son decisivas para nuestra integración:

- La incorporación de Venezuela como miembro pleno del MERCOSUR, que significa que toda la costa atlántica de América del Sur se integra en un solo bloque regional de más de 250 millones de habitantes.

- La creación del Parlamento regional, que significa que de la unión económica y comercial se avanza en la integración política e institucional.

- La puesta en práctica de fondos estructurales y el anillo energético.

En la Cumbre de Mar del Plata se demostró que el MERCOSUR era capaz por primera vez de defender los intereses de la región frente a los planes de los países del norte, representados en El proyecto del ALCA, con el apoyo de la Cumbre de los Pueblos y una extraordinaria movilización.

Los partidos políticos de izquierda y progresistas tenemos una tarea fundamental em esta nueva etapa en que ciudadanos y ciudadanas de nuestros países deberán dar sustento a un MERCOSUR que defienda y profundice la democracia y la vigencia de lós derechos humanos en la región. El respeto a la diversidad y el desarrollo de políticas activas contra la discriminación de todo tipo deberán ser base sustancial de este MERCOSUR ciudadano.

Saludamos los esfuerzos de nuestros gobiernos para desarrollar una política de paz para la región y el mundo, en contraposición a las políticas de guerra desplegadas por la potencia hegemónica y asimismo manifestamos nuestra preocupación por la presencia de tropas y bases militares extranjeras en la región.

Consideramos fundamental la consolidación de la democracia y el respeto a la libre expresión ciudadana en los comicios a realizarse en la región, Chile y Bolivia en lo inmediato.


Finalmente nuestro MERCOSUR se seguirá ampliando hacia formas más profundas de integración latinoamericana, por el desarrollo económico y social, y hará más justa La distribución de la riqueza y defendiendo nuestros recursos naturales, estratégicos y El medio ambiente.


Viva la integración de nuestros pueblos!”

Quer dizer, de um bloco de países sul-americanos reunidos em torno do objetivo único de fortalecer o intercâmbio comercial entre si, o Mercosul sofreu um desvio radical de sua origem, passando a atuar no plano político-ideológico (e futuramente militar) como uma sucursal do Foro de São Paulo! Portanto, não foi surpresa nem foi à toa a inclusão da Venezuela, tampouco a presença de Fidel Castro (cujo país situa-se no Caribe e não na América do Sul) na Cúpula de Córdoba com vistas à integração no Mercosul.

Na redação inicial do Mercosul, quando da sua constituição, há uma cláusula que especifica que só podem participar do grupo países cujo regime seja democrático e, por esta razão Cuba, que é inegavelmente uma ditadura, está impedida oficialmente de pertencer ao bloco mas isto não impediu que se assinasse um acordo comercial com este país.


Resta saber o quê Cuba tem a oferecer como mercadoria para os novos sócios e com qual dinheiro pagará suas dívidas, pois é sabido no mundo inteiro que Cuba é um Estado falido.


E, para concluir, provando que TODA a política latino-americana vem sendo delineada pelo Foro de São Paulo, lemos no site do próprio Foro que o próximo encontro do Grupo de Trabalho será no Uruguai, entre 18 e 20 de agosto, para redigir o texto-base do XIII Encontro que ocorrerá em El Salvador, e cujo tema geral será “Integração latino-americana e caribenha”.


A comissão deste Grupo de Trabalho será composta por membros do Partido da Revolução Democrática (PRD de López Obrador, do México); Partido dos Trabalhadores, do Brasil; Partido Comunista de Cuba, e Frente Farabundo Martí de Libertação Nacional, de El Salvador.

http://notalatina.blogspot.com/

Artigos Relacionados

Artigos do Mesmo Autor


Tags: notícias faltantes | Foro de São Paulo | América Latina | comunismo | esquerdismo | Brasil | Cuba | Venezuela | FARC | terrorismo | governo do PT


RSS Twitter
Copyright © 2016 Mídia Sem Máscara. Todos os direitos reservados.
Joomla! é um Software Livre com licença GNU/GPL v2.0.


==//==





A saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia é expressão de um novo nacionalismo, com ramificações à direita e à esquerda, com o qual os líderes mundiais terão de aprender a lidar daqui para a frente



SOURCE/LINK: http://epoca.globo.com/tempo/noticia/2016/06/o-brado-britanico.html





g1
globoesporte
gshow
famosos & etc
vídeos
ASSINE JÁ
CENTRAL
E-MAIL
ENTRAR ›




Revista Época
Assine Época

Tempo Ideias Vida Colunas Canais Assine RIO 2016



Tempo
O brado britânico
A saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia é expressão de um novo nacionalismo, com ramificações à direita e à esquerda, com o qual os líderes mundiais terão de aprender a lidar daqui para a frente
RODRIGO TURRER E TERESA PEROSA, COM VINICIUS GORCZESKI E THAIS LAZZERI
24/06/2016 - 22h01 - Atualizado 24/06/2016 22h36
Compartilhar (40)
(1)
(1)
Assine já!
>> Trecho da reportagem de capa de ÉPOCA desta semana:
Eram quase 7 da manhã da sexta-feira, dia 24, em Londres, quando o premiê britânico, David Cameron, acompanhado de sua mulher, Samantha, saía do número 10 da Downing Street, o icônico endereço oficial dos primeiros-ministros britânicos, para discursar sobre o resultado do referendo que definiu a saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia (UE). O resultado final, àquela altura, era irreversível: 17,4 milhões de pessoas votaram pela saída do bloco europeu – uma derrota política que estava estampada na face de Cameron. Com o rosto lívido e inchado, olheiras e semblante de derrota, Cameron anunciou o resultado ao mesmo tempo que renunciou ao cargo de premiê.
>> O sentimento dos ingleses no dia seguinte à Brexit
Cameron, do Partido Conservador, passou os últimos meses na campanha pela permanência do Reino Unido no bloco europeu. Por 51,9% a 48,1%, o eleitorado britânico decidiu sair da UE. A imagem de quem perdeu de lavada uma final de Copa do Mundo contrastava com o sorriso exultante e a alegria desmedida de Nigel Farage, o loquaz líder do ultranacionalista Ukip, o Partido para a Independência britânica, ferrenho defensor da saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia. Duas horas antes da fala de Cameron, Farage já comemorava a vitória que parecia impossível horas antes, quando as pesquisas e os primeiros resultados indicavam a permanência do Reino Unido na UE. “O amanhecer está trazendo um Reino Unido independente”, discursou Farage, sorriso largo, olhar esfuziante, semblante vitorioso. “Esta será uma vitória para pessoas reais, uma vitória para as pessoas comuns, uma vitória para as pessoas decentes. Lutamos contra as multinacionais. Lutamos contra os grandes bancos comerciais. Lutamos contra os grandes partidos. Eu espero que esta vitória derrube de vez este projeto que falhou”, disse Farage.
>> Como a Brexit fará mal à ciência do Reino Unido

A saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia, no entanto, nada tem a ver com uma população simplesmente seguindo as promessas de um líder carismático – algo que seria pouquíssimo inglês. Trata-se de algo bem mais profundo e que tem a ver com um fenômeno mais amplo: a globalização. A mesma globalização que tirou milhões da miséria e trouxe prosperidade a países asiáticos, como China, Coreia, Tailândia e Vietnã, ceifou vários empregos nos países mais ricos, principalmente entre a classe média baixa. A mesma globalização facilitou a imigração. Os analistas ainda estão chocados para explicar com detalhes o que aconteceu na Inglaterra, mas os primeiros números mostram que grande parte do fenômeno tem a ver justamente com a imigração. À direita, muitos ingleses não conseguem se integrar com outras culturas, como a muçulmana. À esquerda, os sindicatos veem com preocupação a vinda dos trabalhadores do Leste Europeu.
>> A saída do Reino Unido da União Europeia dá uma rasteira no futebol inglês
O voto pela saída, assim, ganhou em áreas afetadas por processos ligados de alguma maneira à globalização de mercados, como a desindustrialização e o desmonte de fontes de emprego tradicionalmente importantes para os britânicos no século XX depois de sua modernização, como as minas de carvão. A maioria dos eleitores pró-saída não tem o ensino superior completo nem treinamento profissional formal e representa classes médias baixas, com média salarial anual abaixo das 25 mil libras. “Nós temos grandes diferenças entre classes sociais e educação entre quem votou pela permanência e quem votou pela saída. Isso tem a ver com os impactos diretos da liberdade de movimento e do livre-comércio, que tendem a beneficiar mais as classes médias e altas e trazer prejuízos à classe trabalhadora”, diz James Tilley, professor de política da Universidade de Oxford.
>>Timothy Garton Ash: “A Brexit pode ter um efeito dominó no resto da Europa”

>> Leia a reportagem em ÉPOCA desta semana
>> Assinante, você pode ler a ÉPOCA digital Saiba como
>> Você também encontra ÉPOCA na banca da Apple no seu iPad
>> ÉPOCA também pode ser lida nos tablets com sistema Android
>> Abaixo, os conteúdos que você vai encontrar na edição desta semana


THE END