Politics

Спасти Европу, отменив Брексит

Sep 29, 2016 Anatole Kaletsky

ЛОНДОН – «Никогда не позволяйте кризису пройти впустую». Таким всегда был один из главных принципов Евросоюза. А что если одновременно начались пять кризисов? Сегодня ЕС переживает «мультикризис» (как выразился вице-председатель Еврокомиссии Франс Тиммерманс): Брексит, наплыв беженцев, политика сокращения бюджетных расходов, геополитические угрозы с востока и юга, «антилиберальные демократии» в Центральной Европе. Эти кризисы могут и не пройти впустую – ЕС сам может стать из-за них пустышкой.

В таком варианте Брексит сыграет роль детонатора уничтожения Евросоюза. Легитимизировав концепцию распада ЕС и, следовательно, превратив фантазии политических экстремистов в реалистичный сценарий для европейской политики, Брексит грозит запуском неостановимого процесса дезинтеграции. Это преобразит и экономику, поскольку во время следующего кризиса евро Европейский центральный банк будут парализован: ЕЦБ всегда победит любых рыночных спекулянтов, но он бессилен против избирателей, требующих развала ЕС.

Всё это означает, что Евросоюзу нужно срочно загнать джинна дезинтеграции обратно в бутылку. Для этого нужно убедить Британию изменить мнение о Европе. Согласно общепринятым взглядам по обе стороны Ла-Манша, это невозможно. Но в наши дни в политике происходит множество «невозможного».

To continue reading, register now.

Subscribe now for unlimited access to everything PS has to offer.

As a registered user, you can enjoy more PS content every month – for free.

Already have an account? Log in

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Neglect the insights of women, particularly in economics, and society suffers. At PS’s next virtual event, What Economics Is Missing, Minouche Shafik, Dani Rodrik, Vera Songwe, and others will debate how to create the conditions for achieving genuine inclusivity in economics.

new comment has been posted. new comments have been posted.

0 Comments on this paragraph, 29 Comments on this article

jonronnquist Apr 12, 2018

While it is certainly true that the decision of the British electorate to jump ship had a lot to do with the cynical campaign rhetoric of Johnson and his ilk, the European project as a whole can only blame itself for the outcome. Perhaps it was inevitable that a continent as neurotic as Europe was always going to approach the question of unity with a plethora of contradicting motives, but the Byzantine reality that faced voters when the question was finally asked had surpassed even the most pessimistic of likely outcomes. The simple truth is that the antediluvian brain trust at the helm of this historic effort have been steering the ship toward the rocks of public discontent from the outset. There can be no doubt that some of the most influential players in Brussels are wholly committed to turning the continent into a single political entity under the federal control of a central governing authority, and have banked on the apathy rather than the active participation of the population concerned to achieve it. One need only look at the single currency and the havoc it is now reeking on the "lesser" of its participants to see that this was the intention all along. The Euro is a plague not because it is fundamentally flawed as an idea, but because its champions gambled on the simultaneous emergence of a European super state to make it work. That state having failed to appear, the lever meant to force it into existence has become a wreaking ball instead. The "unwashed masses" may not appreciate the technical intricacies involved, but they do understand the fundamental nature of the problem, and have reacted logically enough.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Scott Williamson Jan 14, 2017

Thank you. I didn't realise this site existed.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Boyd Oct 10, 2016

It doesn't surprise me that an economist whose whole career is dependent on the establishment would write an article basically saying that the decision of the electorate must not be respected and gives examples of how it was ignored in other European countries to boot!?! As well it's clear from his comments about the referendum that the question was stay or leave the EU not Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit, Soft Remain, Hard Remain. Mr. Karetsky is clearly a man who has no respect for democratic choice since a little study of how the EU functions or how democracies operate clearly eludes him nor as an economist does he seem bothered with that fact that the buffoons who run the EU have left the majority of EU states in a position where their debts will never be paid off, a migrant crisis and are in the point of forcing a managed trade deal down their throat that will permanently destroy the populations (through pesticides, GMO food, ISDS, permanent debt slavery, etc). No bother. To paraphrase Alice in Wonderland It's clear that Mr. Karetsky will gladly believe a dozen perfectly impossible things and sell out all including those whose ancestors who fought both foreign and internal enemies in order to secure the right to have meaningful democratic vote in exchange for a paycheck.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Barry Rosenfeld Oct 9, 2016

Why should UK voters care about "saving" the EU when they have decided to leave it? If the EU can't exist without the UK, then the EU should be on its knees begging the UK to stay in on UK's terms, i.e., free trade and immigration control from the host country.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Edward Bickham Oct 9, 2016

It will be very difficult to create the opportunity for the British people to think again. There is nothing intrinsically anti-democratic in seeking a model which offers some form of modified/associate membership given the narrowness of the referendum vote. What sort of changes might have led, for example, 10-20% of the electorate to change their vote from Leave to Remain? Such an approach - building on the 48% but reflecting the concerns of a proportion of the Leavers - might have the greatest chance of amassing a large majority of the British population. That would, however, require the sort of enlightened offer from the 27 and a willingness to think again on the part of the new British Government, to which Anatole refers.

Some other readers have made a disappointing critique of the EU. It has many faults including too great a level of centralisation and a lot of arrogance. Nonetheless, the EU is a testament to what can be achieved through new models of co-operation between countries. It has increased our shared prosperity, underpinned the peace, spread liberal democracy to southern and eastern Europe (albeit with a lot of challenge currently from eastern Europe) and enabled Europeans to have a greater influence the world around us. It is surely worth going the extra mile to preserve these achievements?
- Christine Constable Nov 2, 2016
  
  WHile the EU can suck resources from a handful of givers to pay for unaffordable ambitions the model is not sustainable into the longer term. Majority voting and the loss of democratic control on serious aspects of national interest, such as removing potential terrorists from nations thwarted by the "right to family life" provisions; and the huge amount of waste and opaque spending compounded with the insistence that "one size fits all" in terms of people movement (irrespective of the major problems of social cohesion and overcrowding) makes the EU a very inefficient administrator. Its spectacular failures in trade expansion and managing the Euro all point (without argument) to the EU's inability to "manage everything" - the EU requires massive restructuring and rowing back on micromanaging and a re-birth of subsidiarity on a much larger scale. Without change from the EU the concept as currently in operation is doomed, it is just a matter of time that it withers and dies. If it was able to change it could transform into a an organisation fit for the 21st Century, rather than losing relevance as it fails to get a grip on its many crises.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Michael Hullevad Oct 9, 2016

A new crisis on top of the migration question and brexit will present it self on december 4th, when Italy might decide to leave the EURO. I think it will represent a much nneded wakeup call to Brussels.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Odyssios Redux Oct 9, 2016

'Saving Europe By Reversing Brexit'

This presupposes that Brexit was some ghastly chance event which everyone is desperate to reverse. If only. It was chosen by a confused, angry and embittered segment of the population; their view has not changed. They're immune to argument form reason (not that such was tried by Cameron).

No, absent improbable intervention by the courts, the ship of Brexit is taking us all down. May, who I'm convinced got her job by promising - tacitly or explicitly - that she'd see exit through to the (very) bitter end, is determined. Whether indeed she'll wind up pushing for 'hard' Brexit (no freedom of movement so no membership of the market) remains to be seen. It seems she is.

Cameron's blunder was in line with Chamberlain's in 1938, in long-term consequential terms.

So Brexit will go through, and the Big Several of the Remaining 27 will be intent on damage control.

That segment of the population in other countries, who clamor to leave, are equally impervious to logic; their stance is emotional and hence unreachable. They will have what they will have, and damy the consequences - even if it happens to be them.

There is no redemption, and not even a happy ending.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
tim williams Oct 9, 2016

This is embarrassingly out of date by now given the Tory Party conference and the outlining of a clear way forward by the PM. And by the way given that we often hear that populists are winning because they abuse evidence it would be interesting to knoiw what evidence Kaletsky thinks there is for British voters' regret. The only opinion poll done shows that there hs been no shift in opinion since the Brexit vote. Indeed, given the stregthening of the FTSE since the vote there may indeed be a shift coming - in the direction of Brexit. I add: does anyone doubt that the vote would have been even more for departure if the murder of Jo Cox MP hdn't seriously damaged the Brexit cause. Even still and despite all bullying by politicians and most of the media, most electorates outside London voted to leave. Even in London the vote was 40% to leave. why cannot Project Syndicate and its contributors just accept this vote was more legitimte than any previous referendum and that people have good reasons to vote against an increasingly corrupt and unaccouintable autocracy in the EU. Stop the cry-baby stuff. Get over it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Hugh Wright Oct 5, 2016

Kaletsky is the voice of reason and sanity here, and there are few enough of those around any more.

However, I fear that Kaletsky's wise advice will go entirely unheeded. Political expediency has trumped any desire to discern (let alone, to follow) the path of economic self interest both in Westminster and in Brussels, Berlin and Paris.

The result will be self-inflicted economic damage for both sides; and real hardship for many in the UK.

The negligence; the irresponsibility; the detachment; the lack of statesmanship; the failure to acknowledge a wider public interest or to accept a public duty; are almost too painful to contemplate...
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Christine Constable Oct 4, 2016

The EU has made too many errors to backtrack to safety. It has been far too ambitious, far too stifling of democracy and far too unsuccessful in its ambitions to be in a situation where its current structure can continue to operate. Dr. Liam Fox talking at the Huffington Post interview made a very sensible assessment of where the EU currently is, preoccupied with in fighting and fire fighting, and completely blind and oblivious to the rest of the world which is moving on. The EU has turned into a parochial left of centre anti trade bloc whose share of world trade has diminished in proportion to its assimilation of new member states (IMF Stats). The EU is not actually what Europe needs - what it requires is a European trading zone, not unlike the zone Britain thought she had signed up to in the 70s. We do not require a central planning structure which seeks to govern 28 countries without the consent or wish of the people it seeks to represent.

The UK will not "reverse" Brexit, what the EU needs to do is to "reverse" the EU and dismantle its pretensions and unaffordable ambitions to dominate countries like Britain from Brussels. The insoluble problems the EU has brought upon itself are terrifying to anyone who even has a basic understanding of economics and as Liam Fox said, he doesn't want to see the EU fail that is in no ones interet, but "more Europe" is not the answer - subsidiarity and breaking the one size fits all mantra is now critical to the future of the EU.

The UK can snugly fit back into a reformed European Trading area, negotiations can be had to encourage the UK to play its role in supporting (financially) protecting and strengthening relations, but going back on Brexit is not an option. The EU had their chance when Cameron came calling for help, they slammed the door in his face and Brexit was the result - the EU made its decision and the UK made its decision - there is nothing more to be done there.

What the EU must now demonstrate is that it respects democracy and that valuing all that the UK has done for Europe over the last 40 years, the billions its tax payers have given to Europe (to help pay for the shiny offices in Brussels and Luxembourg and elsewhere); in recognition of the British deaths in Europe in the pursuit of peace; in appreciation for all Britain has done to help Europe stay on the right path - the EU should have the humility to treat the UK with respect and offer a deal that is fair and balanced, and recognises the mutual benefit of stable trading, and also accepts that the UK was badly treated by the EU in its perfectly reasonable request to prevent mass inward migration which has creating huge suffering to the British people and the EU's blatant failure to support an EU nation in distress, the same of course can be said for Greece.

The UK has made its mind up, we gave the EU 40 years to achieve its ambitions, it is now the Hollande and Merkel Club, democracy is a farce and governance absent - sadly the likes of Junker and Shultz have brought the EU into disrepute and threatening and black mailing the UK will simply accelerate its demise.

My advice as a former politician and now a businesswoman in Africa, is for the EU to expand a European trade zone, embrace all countries who wish to operate within it and allow matters such as the free movement of labour to be "negotiable" with those countries who have the space; place; and need to have such a condition, but for those countries that are over populated and suffer excess inward migration personally designed systems should be agreed. If unwanted mass inward migration could be better managed then Britain probably would have suffered loss of sovereignty, but the belligerent refusal of the EU to see its policies were damaging countries has made many of us lose faith in the EU and certainly lose faith in those running it.

European Free Trading zone encompassing Russia; Turkey; Britain; would be the fastest route to both peace and prosperity in the world if only the EU had the vision to make that happen.
- Henk Crop Oct 4, 2016
  
  Christine. Excellent analysis and good idea about immigration.
  A new reply to this comment has been posted.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Curtis Carpenter Oct 3, 2016

They are not only running at different speeds, but in somewhat different directions as well.

Asking Britain to re-think Brexit will not, I think, produce a solution to the fundamental puzzle of creating a stable platform for pan-European peace and cooperation. It's time for a new, open conversation on the future of Europe as both an idea and a reality.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jason H Oct 2, 2016

The monetary sovereign British government won't have artificial constraints on spending outside the EU. That in itself is a solution.
Economics explained: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33894
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jason H Oct 2, 2016

In 1972, for example, the Governor of the Danish Central Bank said:

"I will begin to believe in European economic and monetary union when someone explains how you control nine horses that are all running at different speeds within the same harness."

The euro single currency is a disaster. Greece predicted to have 50% unemployment until 2050 with the flawed and incorrect IMF models. It needs currencies again or a central fiscal authority like the US central reserve or else reality is going to end it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Robbie Jena Oct 2, 2016

"Reversing Brexit" will kill UK and Europe will last a little longer...is that what the plan is?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Anthony Faulkner Oct 2, 2016

You are without question the most prescient forecaster of economic events that I know, Anatole, and your wider geo-historical perspectives also verge on the visionary. Why, then, do you get it so wrong on the way people vote in referenda ? Is it because you fail to realize that the majority of people cannot see with your certainty the economic damage their vote entails? Because they are moved rather by instincts and intuitions that elude the equations of the academics: the need for a sense of belonging and tradition and continuity in a world that threatens to atomize, censure and alienate them?
I suspect you inhabit a rarified atmosphere of cosmopolitan professionals and intellectuals, and have little chance to imbibe the fears and frustrations of more ordinary Britons, especially those who are poorer and those who live outside London.
Your recipe for salvaging the UK’s EU membership is eminently reasonable, but is predicated on the illusion that the EU is not the EU ! What you are calling for would require a revolt of the member states against the Politbureau; but the chances of the Brussels bureautocracy relinquishing their claim to Executive power are as slim as those of the Alternative für Deutschland forming the next German government. If such wisdom and flexibility as you propose were to be found in the EU, it would not have been necessary for us to leave in the first place.
We are certainly about to witness seismic change in Europe and the EU, in ways over which we no longer have any direct influence, but I imagine the thrust will be towards fewer-and-more-monolithic now that Britain’s push for wider-and-shallower has been removed.
I look forward eagerly to your predictions once you have cleared your head of wishful thinking.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Henk Crop Oct 1, 2016

In the EU is a growing resistance against the ever expanding EU, the ever closer union, the one fits all rulings and the mass immigration.
Sofar the elites have been able to isolate these forces.
However with elections ahead in Germany, France, the Netherlands and possibly in Italy politicians will have to listen to their citizen.
It is a great idea of Sarkozy to propose a new EU treaty, as long as it will be shaped to meet the needs of the citizen instead of the naive dreams of the elite.
So if Britain waits a while with starting the Brexit it will find an EU that she will be happy to continue to be a member of.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
M M Oct 1, 2016

In the English literature or language the word "Brexit" does not exist or has not yet been properly defined or even being accepted as an English word. Therefore, how can one interpret or even define a statement such as "Brexit means Brexit" or even worst how can one ask for the reversal or withdrawal of such a vague and irregular statement?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Andrew Cole Oct 1, 2016

Without democracy there is no civil society, and that has been broken by the EUs attitude to the majority of the non colonist part of the UKs population especially on mass migration. We have tried to get a deal, we have tried to change the EUs policy from one in which the UK gets 2/3 of the population increase, but all we have ever got is Germanic politicians barking orders at us over a mess that they have created, and rules they do not comply with. This has escalated post Brexit because these leaders now have a people to overtly demonize rather than limit themselves to backhanded insults. The internal deflation policy inflicted on southern Europe has been motivated by supremacism not by any economic theory of how a common currency should be run. It directly led to mass migration and brought internal freedom of movement into disrepute as it was used as a safety valve by the Eurozone at the expense of the UK poor. Similarly each EU expansion has been characterised by a 3 tier apartheid system in which the Franco-German "core" of the EU diverts new entrant migration to the UK with 2 year exclusions. The EU cannot change without successful challenge to the fundamental myths and lies constructed to protect its overlapping oligarchies at the expense of the disenfranchised peripheral poor. All this article does is legitimising the revenge campaign against the UK, and turning its malicious negative impacts into a racial and class stereotype of stupidity for its victims. What is needed instead is a challenge to the lies underlying the "principles" of the EU that are nothing of the sort. The EU oligarchy began at starting point in which the UK was underrepresented by a factor of 3 in the EU bureaucratic workforce, overruled on most migration and financial decisions (actually boycotted in key budget decisions), to a situation where, given no other country in Europe has been denied free trade in Goods other than Belorussia we are effectively threatened with a trade war unless we submit to colonial rule. People are not stupid to resist this, just stubborn and brave.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
tim williams Oct 1, 2016

The delusion that a) the EU is worth saving and b) that the British will accept a government reversing their vote is only shared by emotionally immature Remainers. The rest of us are getting on with making the UK work better without the EU. Kaletsky needs to get over his emotional shock and start usuing his braian for the real future: a UK out of the EU. I add: the EU is an undemocratic autocracy which has mismanaged the global financiola crisis, the migrant crisis and the Greek crisis. What's to like?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
j. von Hettlingen Sep 30, 2016

Anatole Kaletsky thinks among the "five simultaneous crises" that currently plague the EU - "Brexit, refugee flows, fiscal austerity, geopolitical threats from East and South, and 'illiberal democracy' in central Europe" - Brexit may be the existential one, because the EU could manage many crises, but is "powerless against breakup pressures" following Britain's referendum on its membership.
Hence the author urges the EU "to put the genie of disintegration back in its bottle," by "persuading Britain to change its mind about Europe." Although "on both sides of the English Channel, such a move seems "impossible," one should defy the "conventional wisdom," as - he says - many “impossible” things do happen in politics nowadays.
The author is convinced that many Britons would urge their government to reconsider the exit from the EU, especially after such a narrow vote. Those who had voted to leave would soon learn that their leaders had promised the moon - "all of the economic benefits of EU membership with none of the obligations or costs" - which is not realistic. When hard reality sets in and financial hardships prove unbearable without any bright future prospect , "public opinion will change."
According to recent polls some "66% of voters say maintaining market access is more important than restricting immigration, if Britain cannot have both." These are not Theresa May’s "stated priorities" because she said "Brexit means Brexit, and we'll make it a success." Indeed, she faces uphill challenge, and torn between a "hard" and a "soft" Brexit, she "cannot win. The author is right: "Whichever course she chooses, she will antagonize half her party and a large proportion of Brexit supporters, not to mention the 48% of voters who want to stay in the EU." Partisan infighting is inevitable, because May has opponents, some of whom she had "purged." She should look out for a "plot against her." The author believes "why she refuses to talk about her Brexit strategy."
The author believes the EU could still play a role in "reversing" the Brexit vote, by not "treating Brexit as inevitable and instead offer the possibility of a compromise that would meet British voters’ concerns, but only on the condition that Britain remains in the EU." The author is also urging the EU to "conclude an EU-wide agreement on greater national control over immigration and other symbolic issues related to national sovereignty." He claims this is not "a concession to British blackmail" but more of a "response to public opinion throughout the Union" - an issue on which populist parties across Europe have been capitalising to garner popular support.
In order to survive the multiple crises and remain strong, the author suggests a number of "modest changes in immigration and welfare rules," as well as "new fiscal rules" to resolve the Eurocrisis. He sees "immigration reform," in combination with “illiberal democracy” in Central Europe as necessary, while calling "for changes in EU spending priorities and foreign policy." Last of all the EU needs to restore the its "democratic legitimacy" by putting an end to "institutional tensions between the eurozone and the broader EU."
This is indeed a tall order. The question is whether the federalists in Brussels would agree to these proposals, as they fear other member states would press for deals to suit their own national agendas too.
Ahead of the upcoming elections in France and Germany, the two most powerful member states of the bloc, nothing will be done. And nobody knows who will be helming the EU in the future. The tragedy is that the EU had enjoyed decades of growth and strength, allowing generations of leaders to sleep walk through earlier crises, without tackling them. Now when the bloc is badly hit, it has become too paralysed to respond.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
S Sam Sep 30, 2016

As usual you are a loud, whining remoaner, wrong in previous predictions of Brexit vote, incorrect in ignoring the positive side of Brexit. It is arrogance to think that reversing Brexit will save Europe, when EU is indifferent to the ordinary Europeans it is supposed to serve and Euro and the inflexible undemocratic structure is going to implode within the next few years. You still want to be a part of this doomed organisation?
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
jagjeet sinha Sep 30, 2016

FRANCE ALONE
Nobody can save Europe, but Europe itself.
Nobody may save Europe, but Europe itself.
With or without Britain.
With or without Germany.
FRANCE created it.
FRANCE must lead ClubMed that it represents.
Let the North Atlantic alone - to sort out their own salvation.
Let Brexit be Brexit.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
David Sandiford Sep 30, 2016

This article starts with one word: LONDON. There, in a word, is the reason for the Brexit vote. If you put aside voters in London and Scotland, the rest of the UK voted overwhelmingly for Brexit. That vote represented a vote to get rid of the self-serving, corrupt, tax-evading, money-laundering London ‘system’. The Brexit vote was a way to ‘kick over the table’ by people who know they are being cheated. Scotland’s wish for national independence also clearly means independence from London. The whole of the rest of the UK wants to get rid of the London ‘system’ that is exploiting them. Before there is a new order there is often disorder. rUK has decided disorder is a price worth paying.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Jeff Rutledge Sep 29, 2016

The laws of the UK promote economic well being, as evidenced through the health of that economy. (For example, the employment rate in the UK vs. the average in the rest of Europe.) Rather than try to solve its problems by slowly devouring a more successful system for its short term benefit, and make it more like their own (less successful) system, the EU should focus on modeling its own economic policies after the system in the UK.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
John Landrum Sep 29, 2016

The issue behind Brexit was sovereignty, and the breaking points were recession and immigration. The UK is not the only country in the EU that is concerned about both the financial and cultural consequences of uncontrolled immigration. The future of the EU is to become a simple trading association, like the ECC, to the great dismay of the vast collection of over-paid bureaucrats in Brussels. No more EU anthem, which no one sings; no more EU flag which no one salutes. A trading partnership that benefits the productive and efficient countries. The Euro is threatened by the Greece economic crisis and the Italian bank crisis which most European individuals do not feel they should bail out with their taxes. PS: Germany is not going to give up trading with the UK, upon its exit, just because some smug bureaucrats in Brussels demand that the UK be penalized. Life goes on with the UK out of the EU and not much will change.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Daniel Esmond Sep 29, 2016

I would probably agree with all the suggestion made here. Unfortunately, I think it is indeed impossible to move forward on any of those issues due to the well known problems (treaty changes, ensuing referenda, too radical a divergence between member states and/or groups of member states etc.). Something tells me we will be like the captain on the Titanic, watching the whole thing go down and unable to do anything about it.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.
Alisdair Hamilton-Wilkes Sep 29, 2016

Sensible sentiments and proposals. Sadly if the EU was run by pragmatists with a flexible and adaptable approach to such challenges the British would not have voted to leave.

There is some selective use of polling data though. The Michael Ashcroft polling showed that only 9% of the 48% (i.e 4.32% of those that voted) identified with the EU as a positive force in the world. Even those who voted to remain mostly don’t actually like or believe the EU and when analysed the referendum is a lot like a general election; they are never really won just lost by one side or other.

The fact is that not enough people like the EU status quo and that is at the root of why Remain lost in the UK and those in Brussels should heed your warnings of dissolution.
A new reply to this comment has been posted.

https://prosyn.org/xiul4F5ru

Спасти Европу, отменив Брексит

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

New Comment

Contact us

Log in/Register

Спасти Европу, отменив Брексит

PS Events: What Economics is Missing

Edit Newsletter Preferences

Set up Notification