Vera Cruz Times
Dom Fernandes III & José Da Silva
The United
Kingdom just reached at their most awkward and bizarre decision since Romans
left the island: they decided to leave a room they really never entered.
UK was the
last to join EC and refuse to adopt Euro. UK saved themselves with certain
conditions and restrictions and, let us be frank, always remained at the gates
of EC, without really entering, sitting and asking for a cup of tea in a joint
table with Germany, France, Spain and the other ugly countries from the
continent.
UK did
exactly what they are experts in doing: play a winner’s game at the side of the
winners. They refuse to play the game at the risk of a lost and, phlegmatically
said to the gallery today – we are leaving because this game is too boring for
us. Period.
At a
certain level of civilization, societies assume a certain amount of self
respect and public shame as a consequence of bizarre voting and decisions: US
is strongly reviewing their self respect and public shame in order to decide
for Trump or Clinton. Americans might think – would you imagine how embarrassing
would be a meeting between Trump and Merkel? Or between Trump and the Queen
E.R.II? American might be thinking in this right moment: “we don’t need this;
we don’t need to go through a so low standard of self respect…”.
The Brexit,
we prefer to call Breshit, is one kind of such category of embarrassing public
decisions. The discussion itself, let us admit, is a non-sense discussion. Let
the non-sense discussion to become a decision for a simple majority voting is
really something UK will regret. But take a decision to unfry the eggs will become,
in the history, a decision UK will be ashamed of. Mainly because the Breshit
decision will certainly become a landmark of England’s downfall to a club of
mediocre collaboration to the Human History.
UK was still
paying an almost important roleplay in the world scenario because UK likes to
act as if they were one of the leaders of the EC movement. The other countries accepted
this teen/bully behavior as a concession to the long term and historical British
style to interact with other European nations. Such concessions included the Euro vs. Pound false polemic and the British
style complaining about job market at home.
Switzerland
refuse to play the EC game from the EC side and took a straight decision (much
in accordance with their false neutrality), but, let us admit, they were always
consistent. Greece was consistent as well, when they asked the opinion of their
people to leave EC – Tsipras, representing their people, wear the outdated and outfitted
coat of the Stalinism of the 21st Century and was expecting other
countries of EC to act in accordance with their own beliefs. Of course, it didn’t
work: Greece remained and Tsipras left.
But not UK.
UK was inconsistent since the beginning, and other countries expected, within
the limits of a public shame, that UK’s inconsistencies would be borne to those
British old school way of criticizing the world for their own problems. And
what UK did? They went to the limit and asked the decision. Not happy enough,
they went further and beyond the limit: the refuse to stay in the room.
We searched
all dictionaries and “pedias” available: since the Webster, passing throughout Britannica,
Oxford/Thesaurus, the American Heritage, Longman ending in the Wikipedia, just
to find an entry to define this decision. The only one available is RIDICULOUS.
Take a look at all these dictionaries and “pedias” in the entry RIDICULOUS and
think about this decision and you will understand what we are trying to express
here.
In modern
kindergarten credits of strategic negotiation,
we learn that before we take a decision, we need to study how we will implement it. Besides that, we are always encouraged to
not take decisions without deep previous studies about the impact of such
decision, in order to duly inform the decision makers about what they are
willing to do if they say “yes” or “no”. We learn as well that we shall never
decide with guts and, if necessary, we must propose to postpone critical decisions
during critical times. We learn, at the end, that all negotiated agreement
(mainly the multipart agreements) must have a way out clause that shall never be used, except when the way out is the only, single and unique
solution, with no other alternative, to stop a multipart damage. This is exactly
what countries do when they negotiate peace to dissolve a war. UK: do you
remember the difference between Versailles-1919 and Paris-1947? Do you remember
the difference between the League of Nations and the United Nations? It seems
you forgot, UK…
But it
seems you did not duly take the kindergarten credits of strategic negotiation as well, because:
1 – you have
no idea of how you will implement
this bizarre decision;
2 – you did
not present a single page of serious
studies about the impact of this naïve decision;
3 – you decided
to leave because you do not support ugly people living in the island with you
beautiful people and those refugees, argh…, you simply don’t want them,
because, at the end of the road, you will always find their problem there, not yours. Your problem you just resolved
pretending to close the doors. Meanwhile, as the Magic Genius Trump said, you don’t
want to be governed by people you don’t know who they are;
4 – you took
your decision more quickly than a betting decision you took when you gamble at
online casinos before a boxing or a football event;
5 – and, last but not least, you are using a way out provision without actual damages
to argue but full of future damages to deal with – and the worst part: most of
these damages will lay down on your own bed for the next few years.
Starting
from #1, the decision is so ridiculous that we don’t have any clue about how UK
will control borders: is UK willing to ask visa from ugly people coming from
ugly countries and nations of Latin America, Africa, Middle East and South Asia?
Will UK install border points with customs at St. Pancras? Will UK fire all
football players at the Premier League that doesn’t fit to their new-old way of
playing the game without all those ugly specimen?
At #2,
taking the advantage of the last question, UK took its best ad boy to pitch for
“stay”: David Beckham. He said he was warmly received in the countries he
played, like Spain and US (ops, US are not part of EC, but that’s ok for
advertisement purposes…). On the other hand, a hooligan that followed him to
see Dave from galleries thought – “he is saying that because he is cute, rich,
makes a lot of money and his wife is hot… I’m ugly and on my last trip to
Italy, the carabinieri kicked my ass… Hence, I hate Italians, ergo, I hate Europe, therefore, I will
vote to leave”.
Refugees,
as we said, feed the guts of UK for voting “leave”. Like said on #3 above, “let
us resolve this problem in the same way we always did in the history: the British leaving and… learn with us,
stupid French with your silly ‘French
leave’”.
Of course
British were always poor negotiators: majority of British negotiators treat you
unequally and with certain bias; are in the most of the time bad listeners and
are hard to inspire trust in the opponents. We said majority and not all of
British, because we strongly believe British, today, have a pretty decent minority that tries to keep things even
with other countries in this post-modern world. And please, do not say we are
overreacting because we know what you did with LIBOR in the last summer,
Barclays comrades.
And talking
about LIBOR, be prepared to switch your buttons to EURIBOR, UK…
Timing for
this decision was perfect, also, for the entry RIDICULOUS in the dictionary.
So, because
of this timing, we see many people betting on a back decision. But, let us imagine UK regretting and voting to back: probably EC will say UK, “we don’t
need another Greece… Farewell Mr. Britain”.
UK was
always a Great Master in loosing opportunities.
