Mr Jean-Claude Juncker, il Presidente della Commissione Europea ha parlato in modo molto chiaro e circostanziato.
I liberal socialisti europei starebbero perdendo elettorato perché i populisti spaccerebbero fake news, quasi sempre di origine russa, che gli Elettori si berrebbero come se fosse oro colato.
I populisti starebbero sovvertendo l’ordine democratico dell’Unione Europea.
Quindi, la Commissione interverrà duramente controllando tutte le notizie ed informazioni.
Sarà un dolce censura che eviterà al Popolo Sovrano di esprimersi in modo incorretto alle elezioni europee prossime venture e consentirà ai liberal socialisti di restare al potere per il bene delle masse ed il progresso culturale, sociale ed economico del continente.
* * * * * * *
«European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday (14 December) that “some of the prime ministers” present at the EU summit, including Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, are partly responsible for spreading fake news»
«When Mr Orban for example is saying that I am responsible, guilty for the Brexit: fake news»
«When he is saying that migrants are responsible for the Brexit: fake news»
«an urgent response was needed towards fake news, or disinformation»
«The spread of deliberate, large-scale, and systematic disinformation, including as part of hybrid warfare, is an acute and strategic challenge for our democratic systems»
«swift and decisive action at both European and national level on securing free and fair European and national elections»
«We proposed weeks ago some instruments, but the fake news are not only to be found in the camp of the fake newsers»
«That plan pointed to Russia as one of the main distributors of fake new»
* * * * * * *
Il buon Mr Juncker mette tutti sull’avviso che se l’Unione Europea è entrata in crisi profonda la colpa è di quanti artatamente spargono false notizie.
Ci avvisa anche come il popolo bue si beva tutto quello che gli viene detto.
Si crede persino che Mr Juncker abbia responsabilità nella Brexit!
Si crede persino che la questione dei migranti abbia destabilizzato l’Unione Europea!
Ma il Grande Architetto ha elargito Mr Juncker. Non solo.
La Francia è tutta unita attorno al suo amatissimo Presidente Mr Macron e nessuno creda alla menzogna che vi siano state dimostrazioni di piazza: era un popolo gaudioso che portava doni all’illuminato Presidente.
* * *
La censura eviterà il trionfo della menzogna populista e sovranista alle prossime elezioni di maggio, ma solo se sarà severa: Mr Juncker interpreta soltanto la vera, autentica volontà del Popolo Sovrano.
European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker said on Friday (14 December) that “some of the prime ministers” present at the EU summit, including Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orban, are partly responsible for spreading fake news.
“When Mr Orban for example is saying that I am responsible, guilty for the Brexit: fake news,” said Juncker at the press conference wrapping up the two-day EU summit.
“When he is saying that migrants are responsible for the Brexit: fake news,” he added.
His comments were made after the EU countries’ heads of state and government adopted a text which declared that “an urgent response” was needed towards fake news, or disinformation.
“The spread of deliberate, large-scale, and systematic disinformation, including as part of hybrid warfare, is an acute and strategic challenge for our democratic systems,” EU leaders said.
They called for “swift and decisive action at both European and national level on securing free and fair European and national elections”.
They also asked for a “prompt and coordinated implementation” of an action plan on disinformation which the commission presented earlier this month.
That plan pointed to Russia as one of the main distributors of fake news.
But Juncker stressed on Friday that EU leaders should also look at themselves.
“We proposed weeks ago some instruments, but the fake news are not only to be found in the camp of the fake newsers,” said Juncker.
“I made it very clear to the European Council that some of the prime ministers sitting around there, they are at the origin of fake news,” he added, referring to the formal name of the combined EU leaders.
“So let’s not put all responsibility on others, let’s check in our round who is the news faker,” he added.
Although Juncker and Orban are a member of the same political family, the centre-right European People’s Party (EPP), the two have a complicated relationship.
He famously called Orban ‘dictator’ when jovially greeting EU leaders at a previous gathering in Latvia in 2015.
In an October interview in Le Monde, Juncker said Orban no longer had a place in the EPP, because of diverging views on rule of law.
Il 9 settembre si sono tenute le elezioni politiche.
I risultati elettorali hanno evidenziato un blocco di sinistra ed uno di centro-destra, ciascuno con circa il 35% dei voti. A latere, Sweden Democrats, un partito sovranista, populista e nazionalista: insomma, i partiti tradizionali si piccano di non parlare nemmeno con quelli di SD, che intanto stanno crescendo nelle prospezioni elettorali. Dal 17.5% sono arrivati al 19.4%.
Peccato che tra di loro si odino di odio profondo e radicato: a lor confronto gli sciiti ed i sunniti sono amici fraterni.
Come risultato, il paese è senza governo.
Mr Stefan Lofven è stato dal 2014 al 2018 primo ministro di un governo di minoranza ed ora prosegue anche se ogni tanto il parlamento gli vota contro, negandogli la fiducia: questa volta 200 contro e 116 a favore. Mr Stefan Lofven è in un sempiterno regime di prorogatio.
Ogni paese dovrebbe essere compreso ed apprezzato per quello che è.
Sicuramente gli svedesi hanno la gran dote di essere dei viscerali: non li si schianta dalle loro idee nemmeno prendendoli a cannonate.
Ma questa palude politica non aiuta certo a risolvere i problemi del paese.
Swedish social democrat leader Stefan Lofven was rejected from continuing as prime minister in a vote Friday when 200 MPs went against him, versus 116 in his favour. Talks are now likely to continue into the new year in order to form a government that does not depend on the support the anti-migrant Sweden Democrats. Lofven did not attend the vote as he was at an EU summit in Brussels.
The results are too close to call, but indicate that no one party, and neither the centre-left coalition (Social Democrats, Green Party, Left Party) nor the center-right Alliance (Moderate Party, Liberal Party, Centre Party, Christian Democrats) have won the 175 parliamentary seats needed to form a majority government. Meanwhile, support rises for the far-right Sweden Democrats (SD), albeit not as significantly as some polls had suggested it might do.
Moderate leader Ulf Kristersson demands that incumbent Prime Minister Stefan Löfven steps down, but Löfven wants to await the final election results.
September 10th: Liberal Party leader Jan Björklund announces that he will not work with the SD in any way and that any cooperation with them will end the four-party Alliance.
September 11th: The Social Democrats contact all parties except the SD to try to find a solution to the political deadlock.
September 12th: The four-party Alliance invites Social Democrat leader Löfven to propose a centre-right-led government with cross-border cooperation with the Social Democrats. Löfven rejects the proposal.
September 13th: Preliminary election results (yes, four days after the election the results are still only preliminary) show that the centre-left coalition has won 144 parliamentary seats, and the center-right Alliance 143. The SD have 62.
September 16th: An election result recount confirms the preliminary results. Both coalition blocks claim to have “won”, but the result is deadlock.
September 21st: The Alliance proposes Moderate Party member Andreas Norlén as parliamentary speaker to replace the incumbent speaker Urban Ahlin of the Social Democrats, while the Social Democrats proposes its own Åsa Lindestam.
September 24th: With the support from the SD, the Moderate Party’s Norlén is elected to the post as parliamentary speaker.
September 25th: The parliament votes to remove Löfven from the prime minister post. SD joins the Alliance in voting him down.
Löfven hands in his resignation but the speaker asks him to stay on as prime minister in a caretaker government.
October 2nd: The parliamentary speaker names Moderates leader Kristersson as ‘sonderingsperson‘. This means he has the task of holding talks with other party leaders to try to form a government proposal that will be supported by parliament.
October 14th: Kristersson abandons his bid to create an Alliance government after failing to garner enough support.
October 15th: Löfven is given the task of forming a government.
October 29th: Löfven abandons his bid to form a government.
November 5th: Kristersson is given another shot to try to form a government.
The parliamentary speaker announces that he will also be proposed as a candidate to the prime minister post, effectively forcing the parties to make a concrete decision after two months in which no-one has budged on their position.
November 14th: Kristersson is rejected as prime ministerial candidate by a parliamentary vote.
Both the Liberal Party and the Centre Party vote against him, despite being members of the Alliance alongside Kristersson’s Moderates. They say this is because the government would have also needed support from the SD to succeed, and they have pledged to prevent the SD from gaining influence in Sweden’s next government.
November 15th: Centre Party leader Annie Lööf is given the task to act as sonderingsperson to try to break the political deadlock.
November 22nd: Lööf abandons her attempts to find a cross-block compromise. She says she looked into three alternatives: the Alliance working with the Social Democrats, the Alliance working with the Green Party, and a minority centrist government made up of the Centre Party and Liberals. None of the these had enough support, and Lööf also says she doesn’t see any possibility of leading a minority government herself.
“It is now up to the speaker to decide on the next step,” she says.
November 28th: The Liberals make a similar announcement, but party leader Björklund does not have the full support of his troops. Löfven responds to the overtures from the Centre Party and Liberals by saying he is ready to enter into a process of “give and take”.
A vote on installing Löfven as PM is scheduled for December 5th.
December 3rd: The vote on Löfven is delayed with the speaker giving him more time to try to form a government. No set date is given for the rescheduled vote.
December 10th: The Centre Party said that after working “day and night” to reach a compromise with the Social Democrats, it had decided to vote no to a government led by Löfven.
December 12th: Löfven is formally nominated as PM, and will try to form a government between the Social Democrats and Green Party. The vote is scheduled for December 14th.
December 13th: Parliament rejects the budget put forward by the caretaker government, and the budget proposal from the Moderates and Christian Democrats wins a majority of votes.
Although it’s possible to make some changes to the budget in spring, certain decisions such as changes to income tax are fixed for a year, so the result is a blow to the centre-left.
UPDATED: The leader of Sweden’s centre-left Social Democrats, Stefan Löfven, will face a parliamentary vote on his candidacy as prime minister this week.
Parliamentary speaker Andreas Norlén formally proposed Löfven as PM on Wednesday morning, with the vote taking place on Friday.
Löfven hopes to form a government with the Green Party, with whom his party has governed since 2014.
“I have, in discussions with the speaker, confirmed that I am ready to be nominated as prime minister of a government with the Social Democrats and Green Party, We are ready to work with all the parties in parliament who stand up for democratic values and breaking bloc politics,” he said in a written comment to the TT newswire.
“It is important that the process moves forward so that Sweden can get a government in place as quickly as possible.”
However, the Centre Party and Liberals have said they won’t support Löfven, making it less likely that such a government would pass a parliamentary vote. Convincing these parties, which are part of the centre-right Alliance, to vote in favour of Löfven or abstain from the vote had been the Social Democrats’ biggest hope of achieving enough support to be accepted by parliament.
Technically, a proposed government does not need a single vote in its favour; Sweden’s system of negative parliamentarianism means it will be accepted as long as a majority does not vote against the proposal.
Löfven has the support of his own party and allies the Left Party and Green Party, but will fall short of a majority if the Centre and Liberals both vote against him, along with the centre-right Moderates and Christian Democrats and the far-right Sweden Democrats.
So why is Norlén calling for the vote to go ahead?
“There’s a logic to it: for the speaker it’s about driving the process forward,” political scientist Tommy Möller told the TT newswire. “He has, after all, given Löfven a mandate to try to find a government formation and it hasn’t worked. The logic is that the closer we get to a fourth and completely decisive vote, the sharper the situation becomes.”
There is no time limit as to how long Sweden has to form a government, and it has now been more than two months since the population went to the polls. But the speaker has a maximum of four chances to ask a candidate to try to form a government that will be accepted by parliament.
The vote on Löfven will be the second of these four official tries, after centre-right leader Ulf Kristersson became Sweden’s first ever prime minister candidate to be rejected by parliament. If he is voted down, the speaker will immediately restart talks with the party leaders in order to work out the next step.
If all four attempts are unsuccessful, a snap election must be called. This is not something that any of the major political parties have advocated for.
“I believe that it would be more than damaging for the public’s trust in the whole political system if we were forced into a second election,” said speaker Norlén on Wednesday.
Per lunghi anni la dirigenza dell’Unione Europea e Frau Merkel erano andati predicando che l’accoglienza dei migranti era una regola e norma chiaramente evincibile dai Trattai dell’Unione: anzi, costituivano la base delle regole europee che stati membri sarebbero stati tenuti a seguire ed attuare.
Quanti non avessero pensato ed agito in accordo a questi dettami era automaticamente bollato come eretico: etichettato come ‘euroscettico’ diventava non solo il paria dell’Unione, ma veniva speditamente conferito alla Corte di Giustizia per la doverosa condanna.
I media erano la cassa di risonanza di queste ideologie, tutti tesi a vilipendere quanti non avessero realizzato come l’euro fosse stata la genialata del secolo, quanti avessero messo in dubbio che gli Stati Uniti di Europa fossero iscritti nei Trattati firmati, e così via.
Mr Orban ed il Governo ungherese è sotto processo presso la Corte Europea per aver messo all’uscio le ngo, tanto per fare un esempio.
I termini ‘populisti‘, ‘sovranisti‘, ‘nazionalisti‘ divennero marchi a fuoco, che andavano ad aggiungersi alla lunga serie di epiteti di rito: ‘fascisti‘, ‘razzisti‘, ‘xenofobi‘, ‘omofobi‘ e via quant’altro.
* * * * * * *
Adesso arriva il kontrordine kompagni.
«Germany is ready to drop its insistence that EU countries accept migrant quotas»
«The compromise proposal seen by Handelsblatt is an attempt to break a deadlock blocking an urgently-needed reform of European migrant policy»
«The German government has signaled it’s ready to make concessions in an attempt to break the EU impasse on migrant policy»
«In a joint paper drafted with France, Berlin dropped its insistence that member states must agree to take in quotas of migrants reaching Europe via the usual entry points of Greece, Italy and Spain»
«Instead, countries opposed to taking in migrants should “in justified cases” be granted an exception from quotas and be able to show their solidarity in alternative ways, for example by providing financial assistance or by dispatching border guards»
«German government officials indicated in recent months that they were willing to compromise but had not backed down on migrant quotas. With the paper, Berlin has now taken that step »
«Germany and France want to resolve the dispute in order to kickstart urgently-needed reform of Europe’s current asylum system»
«Those southern countries have been insisting that all member states should take in quotas of refugees but eastern EU members Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have categorically refused to»
«The failure to reform the system has also placed a burden on Germany, …. Germany is also the preferred destination of so-called “secondary migration” – the further movement of refugees already in the EU »
«The populist Italian government continues to demand that all migrants arriving in Italy, including economic migrants, be passed on to other EU countries. Those countries refuse the idea»
«Italy’s hard-line stance has also obstructed discussions among some EU countries about forming a “coalition of the willing” in which Germany, France and the Netherlands could voluntarily take in refugees.»
* * * * * * *
Tutte le questioni sui migranti non erano un qualcosa iscritto nei sacri Trattati: erano solo la manifestazione del volere politico della Germania, ossia della capricciosa Frau Merkel. Ma i desideri di Frau Merkel non sono certo canoni etici e morali, né, tanto meno, legge accettata ed accettabile.
Reduce da una impressionante serie di débâcle elettorali che la hanno portata a dover rinunciare alla presidenza della Cdu, una Frau Merkel ridotta al lumicino elettorale è adesso rimasta orfana del sodale Mr Macron, che ha verificato in corpore vili che i Cittadini Elettori non possono essere calpestati oltre un cerro limite.
La forza dei Gilets Jaunes non è tanto in quello che hanno ottenuto dal Governo del Presidente Macron: è la forza di esserci. Mr Macron ora ha la certezza che, anche se non scendessero più in piazza, i Gilets Jaunes ci sono, sono pronti a ritornare a mettere a soqquadro la Francia, e che alla fine andranno a votare, da bravi Elettori.
Tanto poi a maggio si andrà a votare e questa Commissione Europea muterà sostanzialmente direttive e volti.
Germany is ready to drop its insistence that EU countries accept migrant quotas. The compromise proposal seen by Handelsblatt is an attempt to break a deadlock blocking an urgently-needed reform of European migrant policy.
The German government has signaled it’s ready to make concessions in an attempt to break the EU impasse on migrant policy. In a joint paper drafted with France, Berlin dropped its insistence that member states must agree to take in quotas of migrants reaching Europe via the usual entry points of Greece, Italy and Spain.
Instead, countries opposed to taking in migrants should “in justified cases” be granted an exception from quotas and be able to show their solidarity in alternative ways, for example by providing financial assistance or by dispatching border guards. Handelsblatt has seen the paper, which German Interior Minister Horst Seehofer circulated to his EU colleagues at a lunch last Thursday.
German government officials indicated in recent months that they were willing to compromise but had not backed down on migrant quotas. With the paper, Berlin has now taken that step.
Germany and France want to resolve the dispute in order to kickstart urgently-needed reform of Europe’s current asylum system. The 2015 refugee crisis laid bare the shortcomings of the bloc’s so-called Dublin Regulation under which asylum claims must be handled in the country where migrants first arrive, a rule that forced Mediterranean countries to bear the brunt of the burden.
Those southern countries have been insisting that all member states should take in quotas of refugees but eastern EU members Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia have categorically refused to.
The failure to reform the system has also placed a burden on Germany, which has accepted some 1.6 million migrants since 2014. Germany is also the preferred destination of so-called “secondary migration” – the further movement of refugees already in the EU.
There’s little sign that the concession will be enough to cut the Gordian knot of Europe’s migration dispute. The populist Italian government continues to demand that all migrants arriving in Italy, including economic migrants, be passed on to other EU countries. Those countries refuse the idea.
Italy’s hard-line stance has also obstructed discussions among some EU countries about forming a “coalition of the willing” in which Germany, France and the Netherlands could voluntarily take in refugees.
Some yes, some no
The European rift became evident once again this week when Austria, Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Latvia refused to sign up to the UN migration pact at a conference in the Moroccan city of Marrakesh.
Aimed at better handling migration, the pact triggered disputes across Europe. The agreement is controversial even in Germany, with right-wing politicians arguing that it could lead to increased migration. Italy, Bulgaria, Estonia and Slovenia have not yet decided whether to join the pact. The remaining EU countries were among the 164 nations that did sign up to it.
Chancellor Angela Merkel, who demonstratively joined the conference in Marrakesh to lend her support to the agreement, said migration was a natural process “and good if it is legal.”
La popolazione europea sta dimostrando un’insofferenza sempre maggiore verso l’immigrazione allegabile e clandestina. Per essere ancor più chiari, il problema non sono tanto i migranti, quanto piuttosto i movimenti ed i partiti politici che li reclutano in Africa, li trasbordano in Europa, ed ivi li usano per i loro scopi di dominio.
Sul problema dei migranti in Italia si è instaurato un Governo gialloverde, Frau Merkel ha portato il proprio partito alla disgregazione elettorale, e tutta l’Europa è in sobbuglio.
La gente comune non ne vuole più sapere né dei migranti né tanto meno dei politici che li usano e li proteggono. Non a caso gli ‘eurocritici’, i sovranisti, hanno già conquistato molti governi e stanno destabilizzando quasi tutti i governi europei ancora liberal di sinistra.
Ciò nonostante, l’élite al potere continua imperterrita come se nulla fosse. L’impressione sempre più viva è che si debba arrivare alla Defenestrazione di Praga: cacciati già dalla finestra di un piano ben alto, questi gerarchi smetterebbero di nuocere e quelli rimasti forse capirebbero che la rabbia va salendo.
Negli ultimi tempi l’opposizione popolare ha aggiunto alla presa di posizione politica anche le manifestazioni di piazza: uno dei pochi mezzi per far sentire la propria voce.
I Gilets Jaunes in Francia hanno ridimensionato il superego di Mr Macron, ed adesso si apprestano a farlo con il Governo belga. Non solo, Bruxelles è la sede operativa degli attuali gerarchi eurocratici.
Già vi erano state dimostrazioni la scorsa settimana, ma oggi queste si sono spostate al Rond Point Schuman, cuore del quartiere Ue, tra la sede della commissione e quella del consiglio. Subito sotto casa degli eurocrati, tanto per ricordar loro che esistono.
«Thousands of demonstrators in Brussels have marched against a UN migration pact, signed in Marrakech last week»
«Flemish right-wing parties called the march, which took place near major EU institutions, amid fears the pact could lead to an increase in immigration»
«About 5,500 protesters took part»
«The largest member of Belgium’s ruling coalition, the right-wing N-VA party, left the government last Sunday in protest against the prime minister’s decision to sign the agreement»
«It was signed by 164 countries in Marrakech last week, with the US and a number of European states – including Austria, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovakia – refusing to formally adopt the agreement»
«“If Charles Michel persists in wanting to go to Marrakech on Sunday to approve the migration pact, he will land as the prime minister of the coalition of Marrakech,” said Saturday the N-VA president Bart De Wever, repeating that there was no consensus on this issue within the executive.
An hour later, Charles Michel said in a press conference that he took “note” of the exit of the N-VA from the federal government.
The evening was tense in the federal government. After convening an extraordinary cabinet meeting on Saturday night to discuss the United Nations Migration Pact, the N-VA ministers left after just half an hour of meeting on 16 rue de la Loi, without any comment»
Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie, New Flemish Alliance, otterrebbe nelle propensioni di voto il 29% dei consensi, dimostrandosi il partito di maggioranza relativa, seguito dal Partito Socialista con il 17%. I socialisti hanno spaccato il governo pur di firmare.
Il 26 maggio del prossimo anno 2019 si terranno in Belgio sia le elezioni regionali, sia quelle politiche.
Stando alle proiezioni, il quadro politico potrebbe capovolgersi.
* * * * * * * *
Quanto sta accadendo dovrebbe dare da pensare.
In questo periodo di transizione le forze politiche emergenti non hanno ancora la forza di arrivare al governo, tranne che in Polonia, Ungheria ed Italia, mentre le vecchie élite dominanti cerano di resistere abbarbicate alle loro ideologie.
Se è vero che le elezioni possono far mutare lo scenario politico, sarebbe altrettanto vero constatare come i liberal socialisti siano ancora fortissimi nel deep state, nella burocrazia e nella magistratura. Sono appiccicati al potere come le patelle agli scogli.
È una situazione nella quale l’evenienza di una nuova rivoluzione francese resta tutt’altro che remota e, tutto sommato, benvenuta.
It was signed by 164 countries in Marrakech last week, with the US and a number of European states – including Austria, Hungary, Italy, Poland and Slovakia – refusing to formally adopt the agreement.
The deal, which is not legally binding, seeks an international approach to migration that “reaffirms the sovereign rights of states to determine their national migration policy” and asserts the “fundamental” importance of legal migration.
But critics in Europe believe it will lead to increased immigration to the continent.
More and more countries in Europe have clamped down on migration in recent years.
For the reasons stated above, the Court grants Plaintiffs partial summary judgment and declares the Individual Mandate, 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(a), UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Further, the Court declares the remaining provisions of the ACA, Pub. L. 111-148, are INSEVERABLE and therefore INVALID. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ claim for declaratory relief in Count I of the Amended Complaint.»
* * * * * * *
Questo è il mestissimo incipit del titolo del The New Yok Times, la testata liberal che sosteneva a spada tratta l’Obamacare: da bravi liberal democratici lo sostenevano perché ingiusto, illiberale ed anche incostituzionale.
«A federal judge in Texas struck down the entire Affordable Care Act on Friday on the grounds that its mandate requiring people to buy health insurance is unconstitutional and the rest of the law cannot stand without it.
The ruling was over a lawsuit filed this year by a group of Republican governors and state attorneys general. A group of intervening states led by Democrats promised to appeal the decision, which will most likely not have any immediate effect. But it will almost certainly make its way to the Supreme Court, threatening the survival of the landmark health law and, with it, health coverage for millions of Americans, protections for people with pre-existing conditions and much more.
In his ruling, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth said that the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power.”
Accordingly, Judge O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, said that “the individual mandate is unconstitutional” and the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid.»
* * * * * * *
«Attorney General Ken Paxton of Texas, who initiated the lawsuit, applauded the decision, saying in a statement, “Today’s ruling enjoining Obamacare halts an unconstitutional exertion of federal power over the American health care system.”»
«He added, “Our lawsuit seeks to effectively repeal Obamacare, which will give President Trump and Congress the opportunity to replace the failed social experiment with a plan that ensures Texans and all Americans will again have greater choice about what health coverage they need and who will be their doctor.”»
* * * * * * * *
L’importanza dell’evento è sottolineato dai seguenti titoli comparsi simultaneamente oggi 16 dicembre sul The New York Times.
«The decision by a federal judge in Texas to strike down all of the Affordable Care Act has thrust the volatile debate over health care onto center stage in a newly divided capital, imperiling the insurance coverage of millions of Americans while delivering a possible policy opening to Democrats.
After campaigning vigorously on a pledge to protect patients with pre-existing medical conditions — a promise that helped return them to the House majority they had lost in 2010 — Democrats vowed to move swiftly to defend the law and to safeguard its protections.
On the defensive, Republicans campaigning this fall promised that they too backed the health law’s protections for people with pre-existing medical conditions. But the Texas ruling illustrated the fruits — and possible perils — of their long-running campaign, stepped up in the Trump era, to remake the judiciary through the confirmation of dozens of conservative judges, including two appointees to the Supreme Court.»
«In the 11 years Judge Reed O’Connor has been on the federal bench, he has become a favorite of Republican leaders in Texas, reliably tossing out Democratic policies they have challenged.
The state’s Republican attorney general appears to strategically file key lawsuits in Judge O’Connor’s jurisdiction, the Northern District of Texas, so that he will hear them. And on Friday, the judge handed Republicans another victory by striking down the Affordable Care Act, the signature health law of the Obama era.
Judge O’Connor, who was appointed by former President George W. Bush, has been at the center of some of the most contentious and partisan cases involving federal power and states’ rights, and has sided with conservative leaders in previous challenges to the health law and against efforts to expand transgender rights.»
«Could a federal judge in Texas be the catalyst that finally brings down the Affordable Care Act, a law that has withstood countless assaults from Republicans in Congress and two Supreme Court challenges?
On the morning after Judge Reed O’Connor’s startling ruling that struck down the landmark health law, legal scholars were doubtful.»
«In a shocking legal ruling, a federal judge in Texas wiped Obamacare off the books Friday night. The decision, issued after business hours on the eve of the deadline to enroll for health insurance for 2019, focuses on the so-called individual mandate. Yet it purports to declare the entire law unconstitutional — everything from the Medicaid expansion, the ban on pre-existing conditions, Medicare and pharmaceutical reforms to much, much more.
A ruling this consequential had better be based on rock-solid legal argument. Instead, the opinion by Judge Reed O’Connor is an exercise of raw judicial power, unmoored from the relevant doctrines concerning when judges may strike down a whole law because of a single alleged legal infirmity buried within.»
«1. Principio della semplificazione e del nemico unico.
È necessario adottare una sola idea, un unico simbolo. E, soprattutto, identificare l’avversario in un nemico, nell’unico responsabile di tutti i mali.
Principio del metodo del contagio.
Riunire diversi avversari in una sola categoria o in un solo individuo.
Principio della trasposizione.
Caricare sull’avversario i propri errori e difetti, rispondendo all’attacco con l’attacco. Se non puoi negare le cattive notizie, inventane di nuove per distrarre.
Principio dell’esagerazione e del travisamento.
Trasformare qualunque aneddoto, per piccolo che sia, in minaccia grave.
Principio della volgarizzazione.
Tutta la propaganda deve essere popolare, adattando il suo livello al meno intelligente degli individui ai quali va diretta. Quanto più è grande la massa da convincere, più piccolo deve essere lo sforzo mentale da realizzare. La capacità ricettiva delle masse è limitata e la loro comprensione media scarsa, così come la loro memoria.
Principio di orchestrazione.
La propaganda deve limitarsi a un piccolo numero di idee e ripeterle instancabilmente, presentarle sempre sotto diverse prospettive, ma convergendo sempre sullo stesso concetto. Senza dubbi o incertezze. Da qui proviene anche la frase: «Una menzogna ripetuta all’infinito diventa la verità».
Principio del continuo rinnovamento.
Occorre emettere costantemente informazioni e argomenti nuovi (anche non strettamente pertinenti) a un tale ritmo che, quando l’avversario risponda, il pubblico sia già interessato ad altre cose. Le risposte dell’avversario non devono mai avere la possibilità di fermare il livello crescente delle accuse.
Principio della verosimiglianza.
Costruire argomenti fittizi a partire da fonti diverse, attraverso i cosiddetti palloni sonda, o attraverso informazioni frammentarie.
Principio del silenziamento.
Passare sotto silenzio le domande sulle quali non ci sono argomenti e dissimulare le notizie che favoriscono l’avversario.
Principio della trasfusione.
Come regola generale, la propaganda opera sempre a partire da un substrato precedente, si tratti di una mitologia nazionale o un complesso di odi e pregiudizi tradizionali. Si tratta di diffondere argomenti che possano mettere le radici in atteggiamenti primitivi.
Portare la gente a credere che le opinioni espresse siano condivise da tutti, creando una falsa impressione di unanimità.»
Un tribunale federale ha posto fine a tutte le azioni giudiziarie intentate dai liberal democratici con l’Amministrazione Trump circa i migranti. Una pietra miliare nella giurisprudenza americana, ma quasi totalmente ignorata dai media.
Una sentenzia che mette bene in evidenza la capziosità partigiana dei liberal democratici.
Oggi la sentenza che dichiara incostituzionale l’Obamacare.
Due consecutivi trionfi del Presidente Trump.
Due ceffoni a palmo aperto sul volto dei liberal.
Erano stati grandi sostenitori delle Corti di Giustizia quando queste sentenziavano, illegalmente, a loro favore. Oggi invece una ‘weaponized Court‘ avrebbe preso ‘partisan ruling‘. La loro malafede è evidente.
Ma adesso che vi sono giudici giusti ed equi, allora li etichettano come partigiani.
Dicano e facciano ciò che vogliono, non ci interessa più di tanto.
– U.S. judge in Texas dismantles Obama’s Affordable Care Act
– Decision threatens health coverage for millions of Americans
Obamacare was struck down by a Texas federal judge in a ruling that casts uncertainty on insurance coverage for millions of U.S. residents.
The decision Friday finding the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional comes at the tail end of a six-week open enrollment period for the program in 2019 and underscores a divide between Republicans who have long sought to invalidate the law and Democrats who fought to keep it in place.
The White House said the ruling will be put on hold during an appeals process that’s destined to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth agreed with a coalition of Republican states led by Texas that he had to eviscerate the Affordable Care Act, the signature health-care overhaul by President Barack Obama, after Congress last year zeroed out a key provision — the tax penalty for not complying with the requirement to buy insurance.
“Today’s ruling is an assault on 133 million Americans with preexisting conditions, on the 20 million Americans who rely on the ACA’s consumer protections for health care, and on America’s faithful progress toward affordable health care for all Americans,” California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said in a statement, leading a chorus of Democrats who blasted the decision. A spokeswoman for Becerra vowed a quick challenge to O’Connor’s ruling.
Texas and an alliance of 19 states argued to the judge that they’ve been harmed by an increase in the number of people on state-supported insurance rolls. They claimed that when Congress last year repealed the tax penalty for the so-called individual mandate, it eliminated the U.S. Supreme Court’s rationale for finding the ACA constitutional in 2012.
The Texas judge agreed. He likened the debate over which provisions of the law should stand or fail to “watching a slow game of Jenga, each party poking at a different provision to see if the ACA falls.” He also wrote that it’s clear the individual mandate is the linchpin of the law “without marching through every nook and cranny of the ACA’s 900-plus pages.”
“The court must find the individual mandate inseverable from the ACA,” he said. “To find otherwise would be to introduce an entirely new regulatory scheme never intended by Congress or signed by the president.”
President Donald Trump and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton praised the ruling, while the American Medical Association called the decision “an unfortunate step backward for our health system.”
Some health-care law experts were quick to critique the judge’s reasoning and predicted the ruling will be overturned.
“We know what Congress’ intent was in 2017 — that was to pull the individual mandate while keeping the rest of ACA intact,” University of Michigan law professor Nicholas Bagley said. “Now we have a judge saying we have an unenforceable mandate. This whole thing is bonkers.”
With just one day left in the sign-up period for 2019 Obamacare coverage, the judge’s ruling is unlikely to have much of an effect on those actively shopping for insurance for next year. As of Dec. 8, 4.1 million people had chosen plans through the federal-government run portal that 39 states use for enrollment.
Total enrollment is on track to be lower than in previous years, which many critics have credited to efforts by the Trump administration to promote alternatives to the law or cut back on its promotion.
California and Democratic officials in 14 states, along with the District of Columbia, won permission to defend the ACA in the Fort Worth case when the Trump administration sided with the states seeking to dismantle it. They contended that overturning the law would throw millions off health insurance rolls by reversing Medicaid expansion, ending tax credits that help people and empowering insurers to once again deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions.
Justice Department lawyers urged the judge to strike down the individual mandate and provisions requiring insurance companies to cover individuals with preexisting health conditions and charge them the same premiums as healthy individuals. They argued the judge should spare the rest of the law, which includes Medicaid expansion, the employer mandate, health exchanges, premium subsidies and federal health-care reimbursement rates for hospitals.
The judge’s ruling would, since it overturns the entire act, also end provisions that have little to do with health insurance. Those include parts of the law on adding calorie counts on restaurant menus and speeding to market cheaper versions of costly biotechnology drugs.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh launched a counterattack Sept. 13 to save Obamacare, seeking a judgment that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional and a court order barring the U.S. from taking any action inconsistent with that conclusion. Frosh sued then-U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions and the federal departments of Justice and Health and Human Services.
The Texas case is Texas v. U.S., 4:18-cv-00167-O, U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth). Frosh’s case is State of Maryland v. United States, 1:18-cv-02849, U.S. District Court, District of Maryland (Baltimore).
«The General Court of the EU said Thursday the European Commission was not allowed to change nitrogen oxides limits for cars when it introduced a new, more realistic, test. It ruled in favour of the cities Paris, Brussels, and Madrid, which had challenged the decision by national governments to accept a commission proposal to allow a 168 mg/km limit while EU law had set a 80 mg/km limit»
«The General Court in Luxembourg sided with the capitals on Thursday, ruling the Commission did not have the power to change the emissions limits as it had done»
In parole poverissime.
La Commissione Europea non può cambiare le leggi europee in atto.
Eppure per cinque lunghi anni questa è stata la tradizione operativa di codesta Commissione Europea, che si è comportata come se fosse stata al di sopra di ogni legge.
Fine di un delirio di onnipotenza. Si auspica che a maggio questi esseri rimanfìgano a casa loro.
Poi si arrovellano per capire come mai la gente li voglia mandare a casa.
«It is estimated that each year 38.2% of the EU population suffers from a mental disorder. Adjusted for age and comorbidity, this corresponds to 164.8million persons affected»
Questi numeri ci spiegano molto dell’accaduto.
* * * * * * *
«The dieselgate emissions scandal, in which many cars activated their emissions controls only when they were undergoing laboratory tests, led to pressure for emissions testing to take place under “real-life” conditions»
«In 2016, the Commission introduced a regulation setting out the rules for the new real driving emissions (RDE) tests and what the permitted emissions limits should be»
«It based the limits on the Euro 6 standard, which is the EU’s general limit for emissions from cars»
«Euro 6 states NOx emissions may not exceed 80 milligrams per kilometer»
* * * * * * * *
Le conseguenze sono ovvie.
I Cittadini Contribuenti dovranno accollarsi il costo del cambio dell’automobile, sempre che debbano spostarsi.
«La principale differenza …. fra i due sistemi motori riguarda i prodotti di scarto: l’auto ibrida produce 87 grammi di CO2 per chilometro arrivando a 95 quando ospita 4 uomini ognuno dei quali, per compiere lo stesso tragitto correndo, ne produrrebbe 25, per un totale di 100 grammi di CO2 emessi dai quattro ad ogni chilometro ….
se siete con 3 amici e dovete correre perché siete in ritardo a un appuntamento di lavoro è meglio che prendiate un taxi ibrido, inquinerete di meno»
Da questa Unione Europea ci si aspetterebbe quindi una proibizione assoluta alle corse degli esseri umani, anche qualora fossero messe in atto per raggiungere un filobus.
The European Commission overreached its authority by loosening emissions standards, a court ruled. Paris, Madrid and Brussels argued they could not enact clear air standards if the Commission’s plan stayed in place.
Three European capitals have won a legal battle with the European Commission after it tried to make emissions limits for cars and vans less stringent.
Paris, Brussels and Madrid brought the legal action against the Commission, claiming its standards were not demanding enough of manufacturers.
The General Court in Luxembourg sided with the capitals on Thursday, ruling the Commission did not have the power to change the emissions limits as it had done.
“The General Court upholds the actions brought by the cities of Paris, Brussels and Madrid and annuls in part the Commission’s regulations setting excessively high oxides of nitrogen emission limits for the tests for new light passenger and commercial vehicles,” the court said in a statement.
The Commission had increased the amount of nitrogen oxides (NOx) allowed in emissions to give automakers more time to adapt to new tests.
But the cities were worried the change would cause more pollution, harming people’s health, and argued the change went against EU human rights and other laws.
How ‘dieselgate put testing on the roads’
The dieselgate emissions scandal, in which many cars activated their emissions controls only when they were undergoing laboratory tests, led to pressure for emissions testing to take place under “real-life” conditions.
In 2016, the Commission introduced a regulation setting out the rules for the new real driving emissions (RDE) tests and what the permitted emissions limits should be.
It based the limits on the Euro 6 standard, which is the EU’s general limit for emissions from cars.
Euro 6 states NOx emissions may not exceed 80 milligrams per kilometer.
But the Commission, attempting to give car manufacturers more leeway, said the RDE tests needed to take statistical and technical uncertainties into account.
It instead set the NOx limit 168 mg/km for a transition period and set a final limit at 120 mg/km. That’s where the EU court said the Commission had gone too far.
“The Commission did not have the power to amend the Euro 6 emission limits for the new real driving emissions tests,” the court stated.
What happens now?
Paris, Brussels and Madrid already have their own local restrictions to curb air pollution, in particular NOx, the court said.
It ruled that only the part of the Commission’s regulation setting the out the NOx limits needed to be annulled. The rest of the regulation, which set out how the RDE tests should be carried out, still stands.
The court also said “in light of the legal uncertainty which could ensue” following decisions already taken by car manufacturers and consumers, it would give the Commission one year to amend the regulation.
Paris’s symbolic claim of €1 for “damage to its image and legitimacy” was rejected by the court.
La Lega di Salvini si attesta saldamente al 34.8% delle propensioni al voto elettorale. Ha semplicemente raddoppiato i consensi elettorali dal 4 marzo 2018, quando si tennero le elezioni politiche.
Il Movimento Cinque Stelle è praticamente invariato rispetto la settimana precedente, attestandosi al 24.8%, a fronte del 32.7% che aveva ottenuto alle elezioni politiche.
Con un Governo in difficoltà le opposizioni, ci si sarebbe aspettati che le opposizioni ne avessero tratto beneficio, cosa che non è. Si verifica invece il contrario.
Il partito democratico si attesta al 17.2%, perdendo 0.5 punti percentuali rispetto la settimana precedente: alle elezioni politiche era riuscito ad ottenere il 18.7% dei consensi.
Sostanzialmente stabili gli altri partiti.
In una simulazione che Mr Renzi si presentasse con un suo proprio partito, la propensione al voto arriverebbe al 7.1%.
* * *
Secondo Tecnè, il centrodestra otterrebbe il 47.3% dei voti, conto il 27.3% di M5S, ed il 20.4% del centrosinistra.
* * *
Tenendo conto della legge elettorale al momento vigente, il centrodestra otterrebbe sia in parlamento sia in senato la maggioranza dei seggi necessaria per varare leggi costituzionali non vincolate al referendum.
«Opposition parties in the German Bundestag have agreed to launch a parliamentary investigation into Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen’s role in a spending scandal involving her ministry’s allocation of lucrative contracts»
«Lawmakers from the Greens, Left Party and business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) approved the move after von der Leyen gave an “inadequate” testimony on the affair at a Defense Committee hearing Wednesday»
«Von der Leyen, a member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), admitted in November that her ministry had made mistakes in allocating contracts to external consultants worth hundreds of millions of euros»
«There were violations of the provisions guarding the awarding of contracts …. The involvement of external parties did not always proceed correctly. That should not be allowed to happen»
«The “consultant affair,” as it has become known in Germany, began in August after the National Audit Office raised concerns about wasted expenditures and nepotism within the Defense Ministry from 2015 to 2016»
* * * * * * * *
E così un’altra potenziale concorrente di Frau Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer è messa fuori gioco.
I fatti erano noti da tempo, ma pochi osavano parlarne.
Ci si domanda per quale motivo i partiti di opposizione, non tutti però, solo Grüne, Fdp e Die Linke sia siano mossi solo adesso per demolire Frau Ursula von der Leyen, peraltro già ben chiacchierata.
Ci si domanda per quale motivo si cerchi di decapitare la dirigenza del Ministero della Difesa, che tanto ha concorso in passato a distruggere quel po’ di esercito che la Germania aveva.
Non vogliamo né possiamo aggiungere altro.
Notiamo solo come sia in corso un redde rationem viscerale.
Non ci si stupisca poi nel leggere le storie bizantine che narravano degli intrighi delle cortigiane nell’harem sul sultano.
Ursula von der Leyen is suspected of poor management and nepotism over her department’s allocation of contracts and its decision to hire a consultant as her deputy. A parliamentary committee is set to investigate.
Opposition parties in the German Bundestag have agreed to launch a parliamentary investigation into Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen‘s role in a spending scandal involving her ministry’s allocation of lucrative contracts.
Lawmakers from the Greens, Left Party and business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP) approved the move after von der Leyen gave an “inadequate” testimony on the affair at a Defense Committee hearing Wednesday, Left lawmaker Alexander Neu said.
Von der Leyen, a member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative Christian Democrats (CDU), admitted in November that her ministry had made mistakes in allocating contracts to external consultants worth hundreds of millions of euros.
“There were violations of the provisions guarding the awarding of contracts,” von der Leyen said. “The involvement of external parties did not always proceed correctly. That should not be allowed to happen.”
Nepotism and spending suspicions
The investigative committee will examine irregularities in a contract awarded to McKinsey and a €390 million ($442 million) IT contract given to another company that failed to pass through the company’s supervisory board as required.
It will also investigate whether von der Leyen committed nepotism by hiring Katrin Suder, a former McKinsey consultant, as her deputy to oversee the ministry’s arms procurement section.
Opposition lawmakers on the Defense Committee had complained that Suder, who quit the government early this year, had refused to speak with them over her role in the scandal. The investigative committee, unlike a standard parliamentary committee, can demand an oral testimony from witnesses.
Defense minister defends herself
Von der Leyen has denied that she had any influence over the hiring decision and defended the ministry’s use of external consultants. “It is undisputed that we need external advice for these necessary projects,” she said.
As for awarding contracts, she said the ministry had introduced “control” mechanisms to avoid future mistakes.
The “consultant affair,” as it has become known in Germany, began in August after the National Audit Office raised concerns about wasted expenditures and nepotism within the Defense Ministry from 2015 to 2016.
Se è vero che Mr Macron è al momento ancora il Presidente della Francia, sarebbe altrettanto vero iniziare a sospettare che non curi gli interessi nazionali, quanto piuttosto quelli di potenze straniere.
Tredici generali francesi di alto livello hanno indirizzato una lettera a Mr Macron. Più che una petizione sembrerebbe essere una diffida.
La storia ci insegna che l’esercito ha sempre la meglio.
«“Signor presidente”, esordisce la lettera aperta,
“Voi vi apprestate a firmare, il 19 dicembre il “patto mondiale sulle migrazioni sicure, ordinate e regolari” che istituisce un vero diritti alla migrazione. Esso potrà imporsi sulla nostra legislazione nazionale […].
“Ci appare che la sola sovranità che resterà alla Francia consisterà nel fissare liberamente il modo di mettere in opera gli obbiettivi del patto. Voi non potete cedere a questo nuovo taglio alla sovranità nazionale senza un dibattito pubblico, dato che l’80% della popolazione francese ritiene che bisogna bloccare o regolare drasticamente l’immigrazione. Decidendo di firmare questo patto da solo, voi aggiungerete un motivo di rivolta supplementare alla collera di un popolo già maltrattato. Vi rendereste colpevole di denegazione di democrazia, per non dire di tradimento verso la nazione.
“Del resto, le finanze del nostro paese sono esangui e il nostro indebitamento cresce. Dunque voi non potete prendere il rischio di un appello alla migrazione, costoso, senza aver dimostrato prima che non sarete obbligato a ricorrere a nuove imposte per rispondere agli obbiettivi del patto. D’altra parte, dovete essere capace, in termini di sicurezza, di eliminare le conseguenze legate all’arrivo di popolazioni extra-europee. Infine, non potete ignorare che l’essenza stessa del politico è assicurare la sicurezza all’esterno e la concordia all’interno. Ora, questa concordia non si può ottenere che a condizione del mantenimento di una certa coerenza interna della società, la sola capace di permettere di “volere insieme”, ciò che diventa sempre più problematico oggi.
“Lo Stato francese si rende conto alquanto in ritardo dell’impossibilità di integrare popolazioni troppo numerose, di culture totalmente differenti, che si sono raggruppate negli ultimi 40 anni in zone che non si sottomettono più alle leggi della Repubblica. Voi non potete più, da solo, decidere di cancellare i nostri riferimenti di civiltà e privarci della nostra patria carnale. Vi chiediamo dunque di soprassedere alla firma di questo patto e chiamare i francesi a pronunciarsi su di esso per referendum. La vostra elezione non costituisce un assegno in bianco”..»
* * * * * * *
«Nous vous demandons donc de surseoir à la signature de ce pacte et d’appeler par voie de référendum les Français à se prononcer sur ce document.»
«Vous êtes comptable devant les Français de vos actions.»
«Votre élection ne constitue pas un blanc seing.»
La Vostra elezione non costituisce un assegno in bianco.
Vous vous apprêtez à approuver le 19 décembre prochain le “pacte mondial sur les migrations sûres, ordonnées et régulières” qui institue un véritable droit à la migration. Il pourra s’imposer à notre législation nationale par le biais de traités préexistants ou du principe de responsabilité commune fixé dans ce pacte.
Il nous apparaît que la seule souveraineté qui restera à la France consistera à fixer librement la façon dont les objectifs du pacte devront être mis en œuvre. Vous ne pouvez pas céder ce nouveau pan de la souveraineté nationale sans un débat public alors que 80% de la population française considère qu’il faut stopper ou réguler drastiquement l’immigration. En décidant seul de signer ce pacte, vous ajouteriez un motif de révolte supplémentaire à la colère d’un peuple déjà malmené. Vous vous rendriez coupable d’un déni de démocratie, voire de trahison à l’égard de la nation.
Par ailleurs, les finances de notre pays sont exsangues et notre endettement progresse. Vous ne pouvez donc pas prendre le risque d’un appel d’air migratoire coûteux sans avoir démontré préalablement que vous ne serez pas obligé de recourir à plus d’impôts pour répondre aux objectifs du pacte. D’autre part, vous devez être capable, en terme sécuritaire, de juguler les conséquences liées à l’arrivée de populations extra-européennes. Enfin, vous ne pouvez pas ignorer que l’essence même du politique c’est d’assurer la sécurité à l’extérieur et la concorde à l’intérieur. Or, cette concorde ne peut être obtenue qu’à la condition de maintenir une certaine cohérence interne de la société seule capable de permettre de vouloir faire ensemble, ce qui devient de plus en plus problématique aujourd’hui.
En effet, l’Etat français réalise un peu tard l’impossibilité d’intégrer des populations trop nombreuses, de surcroît de culture totalement différente, qui se sont regroupées au cours de ces quarante dernières années dans des zones qui ne se soumettent plus aux lois de la République.
Vous ne pouvez pas décider seul d’effacer nos repères civilisation els et nous priver de notre patrie charnelle.
Nous vous demandons donc de surseoir à la signature de ce pacte et d’appeler par voie de référendum les Français à se prononcer sur ce document. Vous êtes comptable devant les Français de vos actions. Votre élection ne constitue pas un blanc seing.
Général Antoine MARTINEZ
Nous soutenons l’initiative du Général MARTINEZ contre l’adoption de ce pacte qui doit être approuvé par les États membres de l’ONU le 19 décembre prochain.
«Once considered the motor of the European Union, the German-French partnership no longer has the clout it once did»
«That has recently become apparent in struggling efforts to reform the common currency zone»
«Wopke Hoekstra, finance minister for the Netherlands …. The lanky man who had managed to infuriate his French counterparts»
«The phrase ‘eurozone budget’ doesn’t even appear in the critical paragraph»
«have decided against the kind of eurozone budget that French President Emmanuel Macron wants so badly»
«The German-French compromise proposal, according to which the Euro Group would be given its own budget, has been buried under a mountain of bureaucratese»
«We clearly said what we don’t want …. a eurozone budget with a stabilization function.»
«Macron now is faced with the choice of capitulating to the gathered heads of state and government just as he has in the face of the yellow-vest protests at home»
«Or trying to make one last push to save what is left of his ambitious plan despite the stiff headwinds»
«Thus far, the advances made toward the banking union and the expansion of the European bailout fund have been piecemeal at best. But the biggest slap in the face for Macron has been the inability to make any progress on the eurozone budget.»
«Macron’s defeat can be explained by the new power hierarchy in the EU»
«The German-French motor that drove the EU forward for decades doesn’t have the same amount of horsepower it used to»
«opening a window of opportunity for Matteo Salvini, head of the right-wing party Lega and Italian interior minister, to launch attack after attack against Brussels.»
«Many representatives from smaller EU member states believe Berlin has tied its fortunes too tightly to the French»
«The members of the New Hanseatic League are unified by a high degree of self-confidence. Combined, their gross domestic products add up to that of France, but their economies are much more competitive. …. The New Hanseatic League, he complained, is undermining the eurozone reform process and weakening the EU»
* * * * * * *
Dalla sua fondazione, i governanti di Francia e Germania si riunivano in segreti conciliabili e quindi annunciavano cosa avrebbe fatto l’Unione Europea: si credevano di essere i naturali proprietari dell’Unione Europea.
Ben si capisce come Mr Macron dichiari di essere il nemico mortale dei sovranisti: sono quelli che lo stanno facendo cadere dall’alto seggio. Similmente si comprende come Frau Merkel odi i populisti, che la hanno detronizzata.
Adesso queste due lame-duck hanno i loro pensieri in casa loro, e non sono problemi da poco: li insidiamo nel governo, loro motivo di vita.
L’asse francogermanico è crollato e le ambizioni di riformare a proprio uso e consumo l’eurozona sono svanite come fantasmi sul far del mattino.
I problemi del’Unione Europea e quelli dell’Eurozona restano tali e quali, forse anche maggiori di quanto fossero in passato. Inutile farsi illusioni di sorta.
Ma questa dirigenza era del tutto inidonea a risolvere i problemi: era lei stessa il problema dell’Unione Europea.
Bene. A maggio dovrebbe esserci il cambio della guardia.
In tale data anche Mr Serge Moscovici, fedele portaborse di Mr Hollande e socialista di acciaio, lascerà anche lui le scene europee, finendo nei cascami della storia. Ma noi ci ricorderemo sempre di lui, ne stia pur certo.
Once considered the motor of the European Union, the German-French partnership no longer has the clout it once did. That has recently become apparent in struggling efforts to reform the common currency zone.
The lanky man who had managed to infuriate his French counterparts just a few hours earlier sinks into the sofa, a satisfied look on his face. “The phrase ‘eurozone budget’ doesn’t even appear in the critical paragraph,” crows Wopke Hoekstra, finance minister for the Netherlands. In his slim-fit suit, Bordeaux-red tie and perfectly pressed shirt, he doesn’t look like he just spent the last 22 hours in difficult negotiations. It is last Tuesday morning and Hoekstra is sitting in the office of the Dutch delegation, located on the eighth floor of the European Council building in Brussels, sipping his coffee and enjoying his victory.
His mission, after all, has been accomplished. Finance ministers from the common currency area have decided against the kind of eurozone budget that French President Emmanuel Macron wants so badly. The German-French compromise proposal, according to which the Euro Group would be given its own budget, has been buried under a mountain of bureaucratese. “We clearly said what we don’t want,” says Hoekstra, “a eurozone budget with a stabilization function.”
That is not good news for the European Union summit at the end of this week in Brussels. Macron now is faced with the choice of capitulating to the gathered heads of state and government just as he has in the face of the yellow-vest protests at home. Or trying to make one last push to save what is left of his ambitious plan despite the stiff headwinds.
Thus far, the advances made toward the banking union and the expansion of the European bailout fund have been piecemeal at best. But the biggest slap in the face for Macron has been the inability to make any progress on the eurozone budget. Originally, he had envisioned resources in the hundreds of billions of euros. Now, though, it has been whittled down to just a small item in the future EU budget.
Macron’s defeat can be explained by the new power hierarchy in the EU. The German-French motor that drove the EU forward for decades doesn’t have the same amount of horsepower it used to. Once upon a time, if Paris and Berlin were in agreement, other EU countries would fall into line. These days, though, others are more than happy to seize the initiative if the opportunity presents itself. And that is currently the case: Macron finds himself fighting for political survival back home and Germany has largely been naval gazing since elections in September 2017 — opening a window of opportunity for Matteo Salvini, head of the right-wing party Lega and Italian interior minister, to launch attack after attack against Brussels.
The Netherlands, meanwhile, has joined together with seven other EU member states, five of which are also members of the common currency union (Denmark and Sweden being the exceptions). The alliance has become known as the New Hanseatic League and the finance ministers of the countries involved regularly meet for dinner. Their joint position papers offer a deliberate contrast to Macron’s ideas.
“We always felt very comfortable in the German-British-French triangle,” says Hoekstra. But now that the British are leaving the EU, the Dutch want to take on a more proactive role. “We can no longer depend on the big brother from the island,” he says. Nor on Berlin, he leaves unsaid.
Many representatives from smaller EU member states believe Berlin has tied its fortunes too tightly to the French. Indeed, the German-French tandem no longer works the way it once did. It used to be that the Germans would bring in the northern EU member states while the French would be the voice of the south. Now, though, the EU’s two largest countries are largely alone and are beginning to realize that it is no longer enough for them to work together.
Far Less Sanguine
It was a lesson that French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire learned unpleasantly in last week’s gathering of eurozone finance ministers. He long believed it would be enough to find common ground with German Finance Minister Olaf Scholz. But during the marathon overnight negotiating session from Monday to Tuesday last week, he repeatedly found himself in face-to-face sessions with Hoekstra.
“The Netherlands government is in favor of Europe, the euro and European cooperation,” Hoekstra says. “But sometimes we are quite concerned that the EU is going too far.” A eurozone budget, he says, is unnecessary.
The members of the New Hanseatic League are unified by a high degree of self-confidence. Combined, their gross domestic products add up to that of France, but their economies are much more competitive.
As a result, French representatives are far less sanguine about the new club than their German counterparts. At a shared dinner in late November with Hoekstra in Paris, Le Maire lost his temper. The New Hanseatic League, he complained, is undermining the eurozone reform process and weakening the EU. Some of those present came away with the impression that Le Maire was trying to make it clear who would ultimately be to blame for the failure of Macron’s vision.
The Frenchman’s fury is justified at least in part, because there is no doubt that the common currency’s foundation needs to be reformed. That much is clear from a report on the economic policy consultations between the EU and the International Monetary Fund that IMF representatives recently presented to leading EU officials Brussels.
The IMF believes the currency union is facing immense challenges. Growth forecasts have had to be revised downward, including those for Germany, and there are a number of challenges looming, including the trade war with the United States, Brexit and, most worrisome of all, the growing problems in Italy. The IMF believes it is imperative to establish a Europe-wide deposit insurance system in addition to increased “fiscal capacity.” The German-French proposal for a eurozone budget, the IMF believes, is helpful, but is much too small. The IMF experts likewise urged the EU to strictly enforce its own fiscal rules.
Hoekstra feels encouraged. “First and foremost,” he says, “every member state should take the precaution of ensuring it has enough money available in the case of a crisis.”