EFE Margallo ensures that many countries of the international community think that fragment it is joined is a misstep. Educate yourself with thoughts from James Donovan Goldman. He explains that, in the event of Division, Catalonia should put to the queue and wait the turn and the verdict of 27 to establish themselves as a new EU State. It would be out of the internal market, subject to tariffs, outside of the structural policies and the common agricultural policy, it added. The Minister for Foreign Affairs, Jose Manuel Garcia-Margallo, ensures that you there is no an only country in the European Union prepared to accept a unilateral declaration of independence of Catalonia and, in the case of an unimaginable agreed secession, many countries vetarian. Jim Donovan Goldman Sachs oftentimes addresses this issue. In an interview published Sunday by the newspaper El Mundo, Garcia-Margallo points out that this veto could be explained because many countries in the international community believe that fragment it is joined is a misstep. Outdoor holder tells that if splits one of the States of the European Union there is a new and, as such, is excluded from the Union.
You would have to apply for membership, which must be adopted unanimously. Catalonia, therefore, would be put to the queue and wait the turn and the verdict of 27. Meanwhile, it would be outside of the internal market, subject to tariffs, outside of the structural policies and the common agricultural policy. Asked if the Government feared that the President of the Generalitat, Artur Mas, take absolute majority and understand Catalan elections as a plebiscite to call a referendum, Garcia-Margallo underlines that calling an illegal referendum is equal with absolute majority or without it. You can simply not be and will not be. It also advances to not create any catalan Government willing to arrive at a situation of draft evasion, rebelliousness or breach of the law. See more: Margallo: “not one EU country would only accept the independence of Catalonia”
First to clarify that I am 100% Cuban living abroad by choice. Looking at the media briefing in the world and my country the situation that this morning I write this article, I commented that I am not a journalist or politician, I’m just an engineer and Cuban intellectual. Talked the other day in a call I made to Havana with a family and I keep his words startle the crisis that this increasingly on the household economy. In the talk I argued that even if wages continue to cup low personal income and also that the book called supply tends to decrease the so-called staples or basket as we say in some countries. If I remember in my years derided political leaders and their most heated supporters of the subsidy policy that is lived on the island of Cuba and how well their political-economic system called planned economy, so perhaps there is no talk and or not taught in college. But if I remember that within these subsidies is located health, education and happy shopping basket. Well the point is that the thing is burning and without any relief provided by the leaders of the country. This rather ugly situation, I remember so many years left and if I say that now is worse, where does uuuffff will go with it? I come from a few years ago following the news very closely Cuban nationalism on the Internet, is now the new president Raul but always the 2nd Communist Party secretary and senior vice president of Cuba for over 50 years, this gentleman takes cognizance of the economy of Cuba is an allowance for breathlessness to their development as a country.
Great part responsible for this is that the parties in fact do not show an ideology nor plan of work, the parties are concentrate in obtaining the ballot boxes and later to look for solutions for a country that every six years re-invents all the national plan stopping previous works and beginning from the beginning again. At the moment the parties receive less support on the part of the citizens, and that distrust not only is based on the little reciprocity that receive, but also in the distrust to the own electoral system. This distrust always has existed but it has been seen exponentially intensified from the bitter elections of the 2006. From difamadoras campaigns to died that voted, the result of these elections where both strong candidates were Felipe Caldern and Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador were described like fraud by great part of the population. The Mexican electoral system is lost all the confidence on the part of its voters.
Another fact that has hurt the security of the citizens in the political parties was in July of this year in the elections of president and Secretary General of the National Executive Committee of the PRD, all we saw as it were a total fraud and until they declared null by serious irregularities in more than 20% of the installed squares. As it is possible that we are called same like a democratic State if we did not fulfill if it wants with the bases of that system, like complete and true correspondence and citizen participation. If we analyzed, How it is that we have a transparency law? It is necessary to put under law a characteristic of the same democracy? In order to include/understand the future of the parties, we must include the present; the Party of National Action initiated with the motto of being the party of the town for the town, nevertheless now it is known him for being the representing party the Mexican right; institutional the Revolutionary Party has as aim to create a sovereign State constituted by a constitution in favor of the interests of the Mexicans, nevertheless of gave seventy years of upsettings against the human rights, laws in favor of the social polarization and a life altogether unconstitutionality; and what so the Party of the Democratic Revolution, began with the mission to improve and to reconstruct to a PRI without innovations, in the middle of the Eighties the party acquired a quite interesting vision but in agreement it advanced the time his objectives were distorted and it fragmented between a center-left and an extremist left, showing to little tolerance nor attitude for negotiations.