Pubblicato in: Criminalità Organizzata, Devoluzione socialismo

Soros furibondo attacca Orban e l’Ungheria: sono degli ingrati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-21.

Soros George 010

Soros il filantropo aveva fatto all’Ungheria la carità di impiantare sul suo territorio tutta una serie di organizzazione non governative da lui finanziate, che svolgevano un’intensa attività antigovernativa. Non si proponevano nulla di male, ovviamente: volevano solo rovesciare il governo democraticamente eletto e sostituirsi allo stesso alla guida della nazione. Essendo quelle ong (ngo) tutte formate da persone illuminate, le elezioni sarebbero state del tutto inutili, anzi, dannose: non sempre il popolo comprende quale sia il suo bene, e potrebbe anche votare male. I pochi illuminati sono così buoni da essersi assunti l’onere di guidare i popoli.

Orbene, quel misconoscente di Mr Orban e gran parte del popolo ungherese hanno declinato cortesemente l’offerta fatta da Mr Soros, ed è stata varata una legge in ossequio alla quale le ogn a capitale straniero debbano essere registrate in Ungheria, allegando una regolare denuncia delle entrate. Nelle prospezioni ad oggi mr Orban raccoglierebbe il 48% dei voti, ma si sa che il popolo bue si fa facilmente ingannare: per fortuna Mr Soros vede e provvede.

È comprensibile il risentimento che ha provato Mr Soros di fronte a simile ingratitudine. Se Mr Orban e gli ungheresi non accettavano le offerte caritative e filantropiche con le buone, le avrebbero allora dovute accettare con le cattive.

In fondo Mr Soros ha ancora qualche buon amico, persone del suo stampo, di quelle con il cuore in mano e, talora, ma lo dicono i malpensanti, anche un bicchiere di buon vino. Ci correggiamo subito: una bottiglia di buon vino.

Juncker and Soros hold Brussels meeting to plot legal action against Hungarian government

«JEAN-CLAUDE Juncker will hold a behind closed doors meeting with George Soros at which the pair will discuss legal action against the Hungarian government, EU officials announced today.

The EU Commission chief will host the billionaire financier in Brussels as part of eurocrats’ preparations to take Budapest to court over a number of alleged breaches of EU law. 

Brussels has been enraged by the actions of firebrand prime minister Viktor Orban, who has passed a new law in an attempt to close a university backed by Mr Soros. 

The Hungarian PM has cast the institution as an ‘enemy within’ and says it is being used by the billionaire to push a liberal pro-EU agenda against his right-wing government.»

*

‘Brexit should be a lesson!’ Furious Hungary promises EU WAR over new Brussels crackdown

«HUNGARY today defiantly vowed to “fight” the European Union after it was slapped with fresh infringement proceedings over Viktor Orban’s crackdown on charities and NGOs.

Budapest reacted furiously to news that Brussels is stepping up its case against new rules targeting foreign-funded organisations which eurocrats say contravene European law. 

A government spokesman fumed “if we have to fight it, we’re going to go for it” and warned the EU that Brexit “should be a lesson” for what happens if it meddles too far in nations’ sovereignty.»

*

Riassumiamo.

Quanti siano così scriteriati da rifiutare l’aiuto fraterno delle ngo di Mr Soros, saranno trascinati davanti alle corti di giustizia europee, che ovviamente li condanneranno. Se non bastasse, allora sarebbero invasi: centinaia, migliaia, decine di migliaia, centinaia di migliaia di migranti in cerca di calore umano, comprensione. Le ogn di Mr Soros li accudirebbe con amore, previo finanziamento dello sttao che avesse l’onore di ospitarli.

Non è pensabile appartenere all’Unione Europea senza accettare le attività del santo patrono: sarebbe un comportamento evidentemente antidemocratico, xenofobo, razzista e financo omofobo, il ché è tutto dire.

*

Di oggi quel Venerabile Maestro che è Mr George Soros ha fatto un lungo sfogo con il Venerabile Confratello del Financial Times, che qui riportiamo in allegato. Si piange meglio in loggia che nei suburbi di Washington.

Quel bravo uomo risponde con il cuore in mano, e ci commuove al punto tale che vorremmo che non si incomodasse e se ne restassero negli Stati Uniti, lui e le sue iniziative caritative e filantropiche.

Nota.

Can che abbaia, non morde. Difficilmente si avvisa in modo così chiaro l’avversario nell’imminenza di una azione legale.



Financial Times. 2017-11-20. George Soros attacks ‘hate-mongering’ of Viktor Orban’s Hungary

[Testo protetto da copyright]


Zero Hedges. 2017-11-20. George Responds To Hungary’s “Massive Anti-Soros Propaganda Effort”

Over the past several months we’ve frequently noted the devolving relationship between Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and billionaire financier George Soros.  Tensions escalated last month when Orban took it upon himself to mail a Soros-related questionnaire to all 8 million Hungarian voters (see: Hungary Launches Anti-Soros Political Campaign) and then followed that up with an announcement that Hungary’s intelligence services had been instructed to “map” Soros’ network of influence.

As Orban’s ruling party gears up for parliamentary elections in April – where it is the prohibitive favorite to win largely thanks to its refusal to accept refugees under a plan devised by the European Commission – the prime minister has instructed his intelligence services to map what he described as the networks run by the billionaire financier’s “empire” targeting his country, Bloomberg reported.

Intelligence agencies will help evaluate what he sees as efforts by Soros to get Hungary punished by EU institutions pursuing a “mixed-population” continent, Orban said in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday.

The Associated Press added that the investigation will also focus on alleged Hungarian members of the network.

Intelligence agencies will help evaluate what Orban sees as efforts by Soros to get Hungary punished by EU institutions pursuing a “mixed-population” continent, Orban said in an interview with Kossuth Radio on Friday.

Today, Soros has decided to strike back with a scathing “rebuttal” posted to his website blasting Orban for his “anti-Soros, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic propaganda effort.”

On October 9, 2017, the Hungarian government mailed a national consultation to all eight million eligible Hungarian voters purporting to solicit their opinions about a so-called “Soros Plan.” The statements in the national consultation contain distortions and outright lies that deliberately mislead Hungarians about George Soros’s views on migrants and refugees. Hungarian government officials also falsely claim that George Soros is somehow controlling the European Union decision-making process. In fact, decisions on how to address the migration crisis are made by EU member states and institutions, including the Hungarian government.

With Hungary’s health care and education systems in distress and corruption rife, the current government has sought to create an outside enemy to distract citizens. The government selected George Soros for this purpose, launching a massive anti-Soros media campaign costing tens of millions of euros in taxpayer money, stoking anti-Muslim sentiment, and employing anti-Semitic tropes reminiscent of the 1930s. The national consultation is part of an ongoing propaganda effort that has been underway since May 2015 that included the “Stop Brussels” consultation in the spring of 2017 and the referendum that vilified migrants and refugees in 2016.

National Consultation Statement 1: George Soros wants Brussels to resettle at least one million immigrants per year onto European Union territory, including in Hungary.

Soros Response: FALSE.  In a 2015 opinion piece, George Soros said that because of the war in Syria, the European Union would have to “accept at least a million asylum-seekers annually for the foreseeable future. And, to do that, it must share the burden fairly” (“Rebuilding the Asylum System,” Project Syndicate, September 26, 2015). A year later, when circumstances had changed, he suggested that the EU should make a “commitment to admit even a mere 300,000 refugees annually” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).

National Consultation Statement 2: Together with officials in Brussels, George Soros is planning to dismantle border fences in EU member states, including in Hungary, to open the borders for immigrants.

Soros Response: FALSE. George Soros has clearly stated his belief that “the EU must regain control of its borders.” He believes that “the EU must build common mechanisms for protecting borders, determining asylum claims, and relocating refugees.” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).

National Consultation Statement 3: One part of the Soros Plan is to use Brussels to force the EU-wide distribution of immigrants that have accumulated in Western Europe, with special focus on Eastern European countries. Hungary must also take part in this.

Soros Response: FALSE. In his most recent commentary on the refugee crisis, George Soros endorsed “a voluntary matching mechanism for relocating refugees.” He made clear that “the EU cannot coerce member states to accept refugees they do not want, or refugees to go where they are not wanted.” (“Saving Refugees to Save Europe,” Project Syndicate, September 12, 2016).

National Consultation Statement 4: Based on the Soros Plan, Brussels should force all EU member states, including Hungary, to pay immigrants HUF 9 million (€28,000) in welfare.

Soros Response: FALSE. George Soros did not say that Hungary should be forced to pay HUF 9 million in welfare to immigrants. He did say, “Adequate financing is critical. The EU should provide €15,000 per asylum-seeker for each of the first two years to help cover housing, health care, and education costs—and to make accepting refugees more appealing to member states.” (“Rebuilding the Asylum System,” Project Syndicate, September 26, 2015). This would clearly be a subsidy from the EU to the Hungarian government. Last year George Soros announced that he would contribute to the financial effort by earmarking €430 million of his personal fortune “for investments that specifically address the needs of migrants, refugees and host communities.” (“Why I’m Investing $500 Million in Migrants,” The Wall Street Journal, September 20, 2016).

National Consultation Statement 5: Another goal of George Soros is to make sure that migrants receive milder criminal sentences for the crimes they commit.

Soros Response:  FALSE. Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.

National Consultation Statement 6: The goal of the Soros Plan is to push the languages and cultures of Europe into the background so that integration of illegal immigrants happens much more quickly.

Soros Response: FALSE. Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.

National Consultation Statement 7: It is also part of the Soros Plan to initiate political attacks against those countries which oppose immigration, and to severely punish them.

Soros Response: FALSE. Nowhere has Soros made any such statement. This is a lie.

Of course, as we’ve noted before, three decades ago, billionaire financier George Soros paid for a young Viktor Orbán to study in Britain. And as recently as 2010, Soros donated $1 million to Orbán’s government to help the cleanup effort following the infamous “red sludge” disaster.

But the once-warm relationship between the two men has deteriorated substantially over the past seven years, as Orban has drifted further to the right. In 2014, the leader of Hungary’s Fidesz party declared he would seek to model Hungary’s government after “illiberal” democracies like the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In response, Soros this summer denounced his former protege and accused him of creating a “mafia state” in Hungary.

Orban responded by accusing Soros’s network of using the European Union to achieve its own aims, including the promotion of mass migration into Europe.

Orban was no doubt provoked to launch the probe by reports Soros has donated $18 billion from his family office to his “Open Society” foundation, his primary tool for influence policy throughout the west. The group funds a network of dozens of organizations that fund liberal, globalist causes throughout Europe and the US. At times, recipients of funding have included Black Lives Matter groups, and even Antifa.

But will Orban’s investigation morph into a full-on, Turkey-style purge of anyone with ties to Soros’ linked organizations, regardless of their actual complicity? That, of course, remains to be seen.



Reuters. 2017-11-20. Hungary Says It Is Facing ‘Frontal Assault’ From U.S. Financier Soros

BUDAPEST (Reuters) – Hungary is facing a frontal assault from U.S. financier George Soros who is attacking the country via his non-government organizations and European Union bureaucrats, a top ruling party politician said on Monday.

Fidesz Vice Chairman Gergely Gulyas said Soros’ claims that the Hungarian government lied in its campaign against him were “not substantial”, adding the billionaire and the European Union pushed the same pro-migrant agenda.

He rejected charges by Soros that the government’s campaign stoked anti-Muslim sentiment and employed anti-Semitic tropes.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Guerra Civile, Stati Uniti

Trump si rivolgerebbe alla Corte Suprema sul caso Daca.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-20.

 2017-1119__Nono_Circuito__001

«In a ruling issued Thursday, Judges Kim Wardlaw and Ronald Gould of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit said that the Trump administration did not release enough documents in response to lawsuits challenging the decision to end the program to paint a clear picture of its reasoning.»

*

«The Justice Department argued that U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s order to release more documents would violate executive privileges. That argument, however, was rebuffed by the 9th Circuit panel.»

*

The United States Courts of the Ninth Circuit ha dedicato un intera pagina internet al problema:

In re United States (DACA Mandamus Petition)

«Due to the level of interest in this case, this site has been created to notify the media and public of procedures and rules for admission to proceedings, as well as access to case information.»

*

Oltre a trovare lo sviluppo storico della causa, è riportato ovviamente anche il

Order and Dissent

«On September 5, 2017, the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”), Elaine Duke, announced the end of DHS’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals policy (“DACA”), effective March 5, 2018. Begun in 2012, DACA provided deferred action for certain individuals without lawful immigration status who had entered the United States as children. Several sets of plaintiffs sued to enjoin the rescission of DACA under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”) and under various constitutional theories not relevant here.»

*

«We are not unmindful of the separation-of-powers concerns raised by the government.»

Ma la Corte del Nono Circuito se ne è fatta un baffo a torciglione. I giudici liberal sono una contraddizione vivente. Nel loro modo di concepire la “separation-of-powers” i giudici debbono fare politica, se questa è liberal, mentre l’esecutivo deve ben guardarsi anche solo dall’eprimere commenti. Sono i due pesi e le due misure che li rendono invisi.


Il problema è che la Corte Federale del 9° Circuito è composta per la maggior parte da giudici liberal democratici, che usano il loro ruolo come mazza ferrata per ingerirsi nella gestione politica, dimentichi dei risultati elettorali.

Si noti soltanto la fulminea rapidità: ricevuta l’istanza il 5 settembre, la Corte è riuscita ad andare in sentenza il 16 novembre: due mesi contro i tre anni medi. Mica male.

Nota. Gli Stati Uniti non avranno pace fino a tanto che i liberal democratici non saranno stati scacciati da qualsiasi posto di potere. Usano le corti di giustizia così come le usavano tutte le dittature del secolo passato.



The Hill. 2017-11-18. Trump to take fight over DACA documents to Supreme Court

The Trump administration plans to ask the Supreme Court to take up a case regarding the release of documents pertaining to President Trump’s decision to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, Politico reported Friday.

The decision to seek relief from the nation’s highest court comes after a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to stop a federal judge’s order to release emails, memos and other documents considered part of Trump’s decision to end the program.

Trump announced in September that he would end the Obama-era program, which offered a temporary reprieve from deportation to hundreds of thousands of young undocumented immigrants brought to the country illegally as children. 

That decision prompted public furor, as well as calls for lawmakers to take swift action to enshrine DACA’s protections into law.

In a ruling issued Thursday, Judges Kim Wardlaw and Ronald Gould of the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit said that the Trump administration did not release enough documents in response to lawsuits challenging the decision to end the program to paint a clear picture of its reasoning.

The Justice Department argued that U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup’s order to release more documents would violate executive privileges. That argument, however, was rebuffed by the 9th Circuit panel.

The administration was given until Nov. 22 to release an augmented administrative record of its DACA decision.

In a filing obtained by Politico on Friday, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to stay the lower court’s decision.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Merkel. La Cdu potrebbe disgregarsi prima delle elezioni anticipate.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-20.

Kaputt 001

Il 14 luglio 1410 Ulrich von Jungingen, Gran Maestro dell’Ordine, guidò per il suo penultimo giorno di vita i suoi Cavalieri Teutoni incontro a Re Ladislao II Jagellone, che lo aspettava a Grunwald. L’indomani si svolse la battaglia di Tannenberg, ove i polacchi annientarono i Cavallieri Teutoni dal primo all’ultimo, chiudendo in questa maniera un’epoca storica in quel teatro.

Il 14 luglio von Jungingen sembrava ai più potentissimo ed imbattibile. Solo qualche attento osservatore, ed i polacchi ci vedevano più che bene, aveva rilevato come le corazze dei teutoni fossero logorate dalle pregresse battaglie, le fanterie piuttosto trasandate ma, soprattutto, i comandanti non si parlassero tra di loro. Non era un esercito che si fosse mosse coordinato. Quattro comandanti ciascuno dei quali era fermamente convinto di essere l’unico capace costretto a convivere e combatter con degli incompetenti incapaci.

La storia non va tanto per il sottile: nessun comandante teutone sopravvisse ed il mondo si sbarazzò di un branco di litigiosi. Non dovette nemmeno fare la fatica di seppellirli: ci pensarono corvi ed avvoltoi.

*

Dopo la débâcle del 24 settembre Frau Merkel ha iniziato i colloqui per la formazione del nuovo governo.

Per la prima volta nella storia della Bundesrepublik Deutschland il candidato cancelliere della Union è affiancato nei colloqui da un rappresentante della Cdu e da un rappresentante della Csu.

* * * * * * *

«The tricky coalition talks to give Germany a new government must continue into the weekend after the four parties missed a key deadline. Angela Merkel’s future hangs in the balance»

*

«We have tried to build bridges but so far we have unfortunately failed»

*

«the leader of the pro-business FDP who could become Germany’s next finance minister if the coalition talks succeed. His party categorically opposes family reunification for refugees whose asylum status is pending»

*

«Ms. Merkel’s CDU and the Bavarian CSU are in favor of capping the number of asylum seekers entering the country every year»

*

«The Green party staunchly opposes these two proposals»

*

«The environmentalist Greens reneged on several of their key proposals on climate policy to accommodate their conservative interlocutors. …. These painful U-turns make them less likely to bend over backwards on other topics.»

*

«All four parties, like most Germans, are broadly in favor of further European integration. But the devil is in the detail»

*

«the FDP taking a hawkish stance on euro-zone reforms …. oppose deeper fiscal integration of the sort proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron »

*

«the Bavarian CSU, by giving in now in the coalition talks, could do badly in the Bavarian state election next year»

*

«A collapse of the negotiation would have far-reaching consequences»

*

«The most likely outcome would be snap elections to try and break the stalemate»

*

«Many politicians — including the four parties involved in the talks — fear that a new election would spell disaster for the country»

*

Le proiezioni elettorali per le elezioni del 2018 in Baviera non sono brillanti. Csu 38% (47.7%), Spd 17% (20.6%), AfD 11% (0), Fdp 9% (3.3%), Grüne 11% (8.6%). Se crollasse la Baviera la Union entrerebbe in triboli ancor peggiori degli attuali: la Cdu ha preso infatti il 26.8% dei voti alle scorse elezioni politiche.

Bene. Adesso sembrerebbe essere arrivati al capolinea.

Ma ci si renda alla fine conto come la crisi tedesca altro non sia che la crisi di questa Unione Europea.

Germania. Chaos. Saltano i colloqui per il nuovo governo.

Conclusioni.

Frau Merkel è finita: kaputt.


Handelsblatt. 2017-11-17. Merkel on Thin Ice as ‘Jamaica’ Eludes Germany

The tricky coalition talks to give Germany a new government must continue into the weekend after the four parties missed a key deadline. Angela Merkel’s future hangs in the balance.

*

The good news is that Germany does have a caretaker government. It’s just not the one that Germans voted for nearly two months ago, because the four parties that are trying to form a new governing coalition just can’t seem to get on the same page. Today, after nearly a month of exploratory talks, the conservative CDU of Chancellor Angela Merkel, its Bavarian sister party CSU, the Green Party and the pro-business Free Democrats had to part ways without a deal after passing a deadline they had set themselves for November 16.

A 15-hour session was not enough to hash out a deal Thursday night. “Good morning, we’ll keep going today,” a weary-looking chancellor laconically told journalists in the wee hours of the day before her car whisked her away. The four parties are still at odds on fundamental issues ranging from climate policy to immigration.

But they agreed to a last-ditch attempt to salvage the talks. If necessary, the tense discussion might continue “throughout the weekend,” said CSU heavyweight Alexander Dobrindt, a senior figure in the outgoing cabinet.

«“It’s certainly going to be tough.”» Angela Merkel, German chancellor .

A collapse of the negotiation would have far-reaching consequences. The most likely outcome would be snap elections to try and break the stalemate. The problem is that polls suggest the outcome of a new election would be fairly similar to that of the vote on September 24, merely prolonging the impasse.

At stake is the political survival of Angela Merkel, who won a fourth term in September and just last week was named the world’s most powerful woman by Forbes for the seventh year running.

Many politicians — including the four parties involved in the talks — fear that a new election would spell disaster for the country, as the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, which this year became the first far-right party to enter the Bundestag in over 50 years, would have a chance to increase its 13-percent share of the vote. And with the Brexit clock ticking, the refugee crisis smoldering, the euro crisis bubbling under and populism rising throughout the continent, the last thing Europe needs now is a Germany abdicating from leadership because of domestic politics.

Shortly before talks resumed on Friday, Ms. Merkel told journalists amassed in front of the CDU headquarters in Berlin, “It’s certainly going to be tough, but it’s worth entering round two of the talks” in order to give Germany a government.

Immigration, one of the most controversial issues in Germany since the influx of refugees in 2015, is one of the stumbling blocks, as the parties’ stances are diametrically opposed. “We have tried to build bridges but so far we have unfortunately failed,” said Wolfgang Kubicki, the leader of the pro-business FDP who could become Germany’s next finance minister if the coalition talks succeed. His party categorically opposes family reunification for refugees whose asylum status is pending. And Ms. Merkel’s CDU and the Bavarian CSU are in favor of capping the number of asylum seekers entering the country every year. But The Green party staunchly opposes these two proposals.

And while world leaders gathered this week at the UN climate-change conference in Bonn to commit to phasing out coal in the next decade, the German negotiators went into the opposite direction. The environmentalist Greens reneged on several of their key proposals on climate policy to accommodate their conservative interlocutors. They gave up on their proposal for Germany to shutter its 20 most polluting coal-fired power plants and compromised on their proposed ban on new fossil-fuel-powered cars after 2030. These painful U-turns make them less likely to bend over backwards on other topics.

Meanwhile, with so much focus given to domestic issues, Europe is not high on the negotiators’ lists. All four parties, like most Germans, are broadly in favor of further European integration. But the devil is in the detail, with the FDP taking a hawkish stance on euro-zone reforms. The Free Democrats oppose deeper fiscal integration of the sort proposed by French President Emmanuel Macron, including a common budget for the 19-country bloc, fearing that such steps would transform the euro zone into a “transfer union.” FDP head Christian Lindner has called a euro-zone budget a “red line.”

Many commentators across the EU have noticed the lack of European vision transpiring from the talks. After German media published the 62-page negotiation blueprint on Thursday, Yannis Koutsomitis, a Greek European affairs analyst, posted two pages relating to euro-zone policy on his Twitter account and said they were evidence of renewed “German nationalism.”

But there is hope. Mr. Lindner hinted at compromise on the euro-zone bailout fund last week, saying that with just 11 percent of September’s vote, the FDP “cannot dictate the way for Germany and the whole of Europe.” He added that the bailout fund, dubbed European Stability Mechanism, could be “an instrument for more discipline” if it remains.

Despite these seemingly daunting differences, party heads showed themselves cautiously optimistic. “Let’s give each other a few more days to reach a robust and reasonable deal,” Mr. Kubicki told news magazine Der Spiegel. Other leaders said it would make little sense to let the talks collapse while an agreement was possibly just a few hours away.

But many Germans are growing sceptic that a “Jamaica” coalition can last a whole four-year term. Former Chancellor Gerhard Schröder, a Social Democrat, thinks that the Bavarian CSU, by giving in now in the coalition talks, could do badly in the Bavarian state election next year. Its likeliest response would be to turn hard-right, even at the cost of blowing up the coalition in the federal government. Ms. Merkel’s government would lose its majority. “Then in 2019 we’ll have very interesting new elections.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Germania. Chaos. Saltano i colloqui per il nuovo governo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-20.

2017-11-20__Germania__001

Come dovevasi dimostrare.

«Salta il tavolo dei cosiddetti partiti “Giamaica” a Berlino, dove Cdu, Csu, liberali e verdi hanno condotto delle trattative preliminari nelle ultime due settimane, per arrivare alle consultazioni di un possibile governo a quattro»

*

«Lo ha reso noto il leader dei liberali Christian Lindner, che ha annunciato di lasciare il tavolo»

*

«i liberali non vogliono “piantare in asso” gli elettori»

*

«Talks on forming a coalition government in Germany have collapsed after the free-market liberal FDP pulled out»

*

«Mrs Merkel said she regretted the collapse of the talks, adding she would meet the German president later on Monday to formally tell him negotiations had failed»

*

«It is better not to rule than to rule badly. Goodbye!»

*

«Mrs Merkel’s conservatives, mindful of the electoral success of the AfD, are cautious and want to extend a moratorium on so-called family reunions»

* * * * * * *

Se diamo atto alla Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel di essere persona caparbia e tenace al punto tale da travalicare ogni comune buon senso, prendiamo nel contempo atto che è la persona meno idonea che ci sia a cercare di formare una nuova coalizione di governo.

I quattro partiti interessati ai colloqui avevano, ed hanno tuttora, obiettivi divergente se non opposti in tutti gli argomenti di grande portata strategica per la Germania: sono posizioni inconciliabili.

Adesso si prospetta uno scenario di chaos.

Verosimilmente si dovrà tornare alle urne con elezioni anticipate, le quali verosimilmente genereranno risultati analoghi agli attuali.

*

La costituzione, legge fondamentale, e la legge elettorale tedesca stanno dimostrando tutti i limiti che da tempo denunciamo: non consentono la formazione di un governo legalmente costituito in periodi di forti conflittualità politiche.

Il chaos è ciò che più temono i tedeschi, e giustamente. Dal chaos si generano solo dittature.

A nostro sommesso parere, Frau Merkel dovrebbe ritirarsi dalla scena politica: è kaputt lei ed ha messo kaputt la Germania.

 *

Oggi si può finalmente valutare in tutta la sua portata politica il significato di AfD.

Se è vero che ha solo 94 deputati in parlamento, se è vero che gli eletti degli altri partiti non vogliono parlare con questa componente politica, è altrettanto vero che ci sono e che hanno rotto i pregressi equilibri.

Non abbiamo elementi certi sui quali operare qualche previsione, ma una cosa sembrerebbe emergere chiarissima: il futuro assetto politico della Germania sarà quasi l’opposto del pregresso.

In ogni caso non ci si illuda: la crisi tedesca si riverbererà immediatamente in una crisi dell’Unione Europea, che a sua volta resterà ingovernabile.


Ansa. 2017-11-20. Germania: salta il tavolo ‘Giamaica’

BERLINO, 20 NOV – Salta il tavolo dei cosiddetti partiti “Giamaica” a Berlino, dove Cdu, Csu, liberali e verdi hanno condotto delle trattative preliminari nelle ultime due settimane, per arrivare alle consultazioni di un possibile governo a quattro. Lo ha reso noto il leader dei liberali Christian Lindner, che ha annunciato di lasciare il tavolo. “Manca la fiducia di base” fra i partiti, detto Lindner, affermando ai cronisti che i liberali non vogliono “piantare in asso” gli elettori, e che, in questa situazione, “è meglio non governare”.


Bbc. 2017-11-20. Germany coalition: Talks collapse as FDP pulls out

Talks on forming a coalition government in Germany have collapsed after the free-market liberal FDP pulled out.

FDP leader Christian Lindner said there was no “basis of trust” with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative CDU/CSU bloc and the Greens.

What happens next is unclear, but Mrs Merkel is due to meet President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who has the power to call snap elections.

Her bloc won September’s poll, but many voters deserted the mainstream parties.

After winning its first parliamentary seats, the far-right nationalist AfD (Alternative for Germany) vowed to fight “an invasion of foreigners” into the country.

Mrs Merkel said she regretted the collapse of the talks, adding she would meet the German president later on Monday to formally tell him negotiations had failed.

“It is a day of deep reflection on how to go forward in Germany,” she said. “As chancellor, I will do everything to ensure that this country is well managed in the difficult weeks to come.”

Aside from early elections, Mrs Merkel could also form a minority government with the Greens, who are yet to comment.

German daily Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung called the development the worst crisis of Mrs Merkel’s 12 years in office.

‘Goodbye!’

“Today there was no progress but rather there were setbacks because targeted compromises were questioned,” Mr Lindner said.

“It is better not to rule than to rule badly. Goodbye!” he added.

The parties involved in the talks are reported to be deeply divided over tax, asylum and environmental policies.

The most bitter arguments have been over whether Syrian refugees should be allowed to bring family members to join them in Germany, the BBC’s Jenny Hill reports.

Mrs Merkel’s conservatives, mindful of the electoral success of the AfD, are cautious and want to extend a moratorium on so-called family reunions, our correspondent adds.

The second-largest party in parliament, the Social Democrats, have ruled out returning to a coalition government with Mrs Merkel.

 

Pubblicato in: Giustizia, Stati Uniti

Trump. Sen. Al Franken, democratico, accusato di sexual harassment.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-20.

Linciaggi negli Stati Uniti. Il massacro dei Negri ad Atlanta

Copertina di Le Petit Journal, 7 ottobre 1906. Descrive le rivolte a sfondo razziale avvenute ad Atlanta: “I Linciaggi negli Stati Uniti. Il massacro dei Negri ad Atlanta”.


Così dice il Manzoni:

««Nella chiesa di sant’Antonio, un giorno di non so quale solennità, un vecchio più che ottuagenario, dopo aver pregato alquanto inginocchioni, volle mettersi a sedere; e prima, con la cappa, spolverò la panca. “Quel vecchio unge le panche!” gridarono a una voce alcune donne che vider l’atto. La gente che si trovava in chiesa (in chiesa!), fu addosso al vecchio; lo prendon per i capelli, bianchi com’erano; lo carican di pugni e di calci; parte lo tirano, parte lo spingon fuori; se non lo finirono, fu per istrascinarlo, così semivivo, alla prigione, ai giudici, alle torture. “Io lo vidi mentre lo strascinavan così”, dice il Ripamonti: “e non ne seppi piu altro: credo bene che non abbia potuto sopravvivere più di qualche momento».»

*

Sexual harassment. L’ultima arma per neutralizzare i nemici.

E così il sexual harassment è arrivato in Campidoglio ed in Senato.

Prima il sen. Moore ed adesso il sen. Franken sono stati accusati da pimpanti quarantacinquenni di aver toccato lo le gote quando erano uscita dalla pubertà.

Elemento caratteristico di tutte queste accuse è il fatto che si perdono nella notte dei tempi, che non si possano produrre testimoni né prove a sostegno della tesi accusatoria.

Ma molto, molto peggio, è il fatto che la semplice accusa costituisca per i media sentenza cassata.

È il processo sommario all’untore: è questo l’elemento barbaro della vicenda.

La storia è piena di linciaggi.

Cesare era stato ucciso solo per il sospetto che egli tramasse per diventare re.

Gli Stati Uniti hanno una lunga storia di linciaggi.

Né si pensi al Far-West: i linciaggi accaddero quasi tutti nella zona orientale degli Stati Uniti.

*

Uno dei tanti fatti strani dell’intera vicenda dei sexual harassment è che non sia mai stato chiamato in causa un poveraccio, senza denaro e che non ricopra cariche pubbliche. Sono stati accusati solo potenti economicamente e politicamente.

*

Sexual harassment. L’ultima arma per neutralizzare i nemici.

A malincuore, non possiamo che essere di accordo con lo spietato giudizio:

«“political schizophrenia”» [Mr Putin – Bloomberg]

* * * * * * *

Al Franken apologizes after accusation he kissed and groped TV news anchor

«US senator and former comedian Al Franken has issued an apology after being accused of kissing and groping a woman without her consent.

Leeann Tweeden, a Los Angeles-based news anchor, came forward with the allegations in an op-ed published by KABC radio on Thursday that detailed an encounter with Franken during a tour of the Middle East to entertain US troops in 2006.»

*

Read Al Franken’s apology following accusation of groping and kissing without consent

«(CNN)Sen. Al Franken issued a statement apologizing to Leeann Tweeden, who on Thursday accused Franken of groping her and kissing her without consent in 2006, before he was a senator.

Franken first told reporters, “I certainly don’t remember the rehearsal for the skit in the same way, but I send my sincerest apologies to Leeann. As to the photo, it was clearly intended to be funny but wasn’t. I shouldn’t have done it.”

Franken then issued this statement:

“The first thing I want to do is apologize: to Leeann, to everyone else who was part of that tour, to everyone who has worked for me, to everyone I represent, and to everyone who counts on me to be an ally and supporter and champion of women. There’s more I want to say, but the first and most important thing—and if it’s the only thing you care to hear, that’s fine—is: I’m sorry.

“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed.

“But I want to say something else, too. Over the last few months, all of us—including and especially men who respect women—have been forced to take a good, hard look at our own actions and think (perhaps, shamefully, for the first time) about how those actions have affected women.

“For instance, that picture. I don’t know what was in my head when I took that picture, and it doesn’t matter. There’s no excuse. I look at it now and I feel disgusted with myself. It isn’t funny. It’s completely inappropriate. It’s obvious how Leeann would feel violated by that picture. And, what’s more, I can see how millions of other women would feel violated by it—women who have had similar experiences in their own lives, women who fear having those experiences, women who look up to me, women who have counted on me.»

*

KABC’s Leeann Tweeden: ‘Sen. Al Franken kissed and groped me without my consent’

*

Rush Limbaugh: Al Franken’s groping scandal ‘screwing up’ Dem’s plans for Trump

«Radio host Rush Limbaugh says Sen. Al Franken’s groping scandal is “gumming up” a Democratic Party plan to oust Republican U.S. Senate candidate Roy Moore and President Trump.

KABC Los Angeles anchor Leeann Tweeden upended the political world Thursday with accusations — and photographic evidence — of sexual misconduct by Mr. Franken while the two were part of a 2006 USO tour. Mr. Limbaugh told his millions of listeners as the news spread that Democrats may have to politically sacrifice the Minnesota senator, given their rhetoric on the Alabama Senate race and Mr. Trump.

“What are the Democrats going to do?” the conservative pundit said. “Seriously. What are the Democrats going to do? They’re trying to get rid of two Republicans, and here comes this big hypocrite, Al Franken, totally gumming up the works, totally screwing up the plan.

“I mean, they want to get rid of Roy Moore, and they want to use that to get rid of Donald Trump, and here comes Franken, and there’s an actual picture of Franken doing it,” Mr. Limbaugh said. “The woman is sleeping and she’s wearing, you know, camo gear on a C-17 on the way back from a USO tour.”»

*

Sen. Al Franken, accused of groping broadcaster, says he’ll cooperate with ethics probe

«By Sally Persons – The Washington Times – Updated: 1:58 p.m. on Thursday, November 16, 2017

Sen. Al Franken claims he doesn’t remember forcing himself onto a female broadcaster, but said he will cooperate with a Senate ethics investigation.

“I respect women. I don’t respect men who don’t. And the fact that my own actions have given people a good reason to doubt that makes me feel ashamed,” Mr. Franken, Minnesota Democrat, said in a statement.

Mr. Franken was reacting to a new claim from Leeann Tweeden, a morning news anchor on TalkRadio 790 KABC in Los Angeles, who described inappropriate behavior from Mr. Franken during a USO tour in December of 2006.

She says in a post on her news outlet’s website, that during the tour Mr. Franken had written a sketch to entertain the troops. She said during that time, Mr. Franken forcibly kissed her while rehearsing for the sketch and at another point took a photo of himself grabbing her chest while she was asleep.

“You knew exactly what you were doing. You forcibly kissed me without my consent, grabbed my breasts while I was sleeping and had someone take a photo of you doing it, knowing I would see it later, and be ashamed,” Ms. Tweeden said in her post.»

 

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo

Germania. Disoccupati. Il bengodi verso il capolinea.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-19.

Disoccupati

Oltre a ricevere un sussidio di disoccupazione pari all’ultimo stipendio percepito, il disoccupato medio tedesco (dipende molto dal Land) riceveva numerosi benefit, tra i quali la refusione di spese di affitto e riscaldamento a piè di lista.

Invitabile l’uso di tale norma, ma anche l’abuso.

Adesso è intervenuta la Corte Costituzionale di Karlsruhe con una sentenza tranchant, che ribalta quanto prima sentenziato per decenni.

«Empfänger von Arbeitslosengeld II (Hartz IV) haben keinen Anspruch auf eine volle Übernahme ihrer Wohn- und Heizkosten, entschied das Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe.»

“Secondo la sentenza della Corte costituzionale federale di Karlsruhe, i beneficiari dell’ indennità di disoccupazione II (Hartz IV) non hanno diritto alla copertura totale dei loro costi di alloggio e di riscaldamento”

*

«Der Staat muss nicht alle Wohnkosten von Hartz-IV-Empfängern übernehmen. Anspruch auf Kostenerstattung besteht nur bei Wohnungen im unteren Preissegment.»

“Lo Stato non è tenuto a pagare tutti i costi di alloggio dei beneficiari di Hartz IV. Il diritto al rimborso è valido solo per gli appartamenti del segmento di prezzo inferiore.”

*

Nel caso in oggetto, la persona che aveva ricorso alla Corte Costituzionale era disoccupata dal 2001, e si è vista rimborsare le spese di affitto e riscaldamento totalmente fino al 2008, quindi solo parzialmente. Al momento della sentenza, 2018 novembre, la persona era ancora in cerca di lavoro.

Poi non ci si stupisca del risultato elettorale del 24 settembre.


Ausburger Allgemeine. 2017-11-14. Hartz IV: Jobcenter müssen nur günstige Wohnungen bezahlen

Empfänger von Arbeitslosengeld II (Hartz IV) haben keinen Anspruch auf eine volle Übernahme ihrer Wohn- und Heizkosten, entschied das Bundesverfassungsgericht in Karlsruhe.

*

Der Staat muss nicht alle Wohnkosten von Hartz-IV-Empfängern übernehmen. Anspruch auf Kostenerstattung besteht nur bei Wohnungen im unteren Preissegment.

Hartz-IV-Empfänger können bei Wohnkosten nicht mit der vollen Unterstützung vom Staat rechnen. Es sei verfassungskonform, dass der Gesetzgeber “keinen Anspruch auf unbegrenzte Übernahme der Kosten für Unterkunft und Heizung normiert hat”, entschied das Bundesverfassungsgericht in einem am Dienstag veröffentlichten Beschluss. Vielmehr dürften Jobcenter die Erstattung bei Empfängern von Arbeitslosengeld II auf einen Betrag begrenzen, der für vergleichbare Wohnungen im “unteren Preissegment” üblich sei. (Az. 1 BvR 617/14 u.a.)

Geklagt hatte eine Sozialhilfeempfängerin, die allein in einer 77 Quadratmeter großen Wohnung lebt. Zunächst hatte das zuständige Jobcenter die Miete und die Heizkosten vollständig, ab 2008 nur noch teilweise übernommen. In ihrer Verfassungsbeschwerde gab die Klägerin an, in ihrem Grundrecht auf ein menschenwürdiges Existenzminimum verletzt zu sein.

Daneben hatte auch das Sozialgericht Mainz zwei Verfahren vorgelegt, weil es die Regelung für die Kostenerstattung von Unterkunft und Heizung für verfassungswidrig hielt. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht urteilte anders: Auch wenn “die grundlegende Lebenssituation eines Menschen” betroffen sei, ergebe sich “daraus nicht, dass auch jedwede Unterkunft im Fall einer Bedürftigkeit staatlich zu finanzieren und Mietkosten unbegrenzt zu erstatten wären”. Hier erfahren Sie, wie der Landkreis Günzburg mit der Kostenerstattung verfährt.


Ausburger Allgemeine. 2017-11-14. Urteil zu Hartz-IV: Amt muss nicht volle Miete übernehmen

Wer ALG II bekommt, erhält auch Geld für Miete und Heizung. Laut Gesetz in angemessener und damit begrenzter Höhe. Eine Frau aus Baden-Württemberg will mehr und scheitert vor Gericht. Jetzt auch vor dem Bundesverfassungsgericht.

*

Hartz-IV-Empfänger haben nach einer Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts keinen Anspruch auf Übernahme ihrer vollen Miet- und Heizkosten in unbegrenzter Höhe.

Die Beschränkung des Sozialgesetzbuchs auf «angemessene» Aufwendungen sei mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar, entschied die 2. Kammer des Ersten Senats. Der Gesetzgeber dürfe die Kostenübernahme begrenzen, teilte das Gericht am Dienstag zu Beschlüssen vom 6. und 10. Oktober mit. (1 BvR 617/14; 1 BvL 2/15; 1 BvL 5/15)

Die Beschwerde kam von einer Frau aus Baden-Württemberg, die Leistungen zur Sicherung des Lebensunterhalts bezieht. Das Jobcenter hatte die Miet- und Heizkosten für ihre 77 Quadratmeter große Wohnung zunächst ganz, seit 2008 aber nur noch teilweise übernommen. Sie klagte auf vollständige Kostenübernahme und scheiterte damit vor dem Sozialgericht. Berufung und Revision blieben erfolglos. Außerdem wies die Kammer zwei Vorlagen des Sozialgerichts Mainz als unzulässig zurück, das die Regelungen zu den Kosten der Unterkunft und Heizung für verfassungswidrig hält.

Mit der Regelung des Sozialgesetzbuchs II (Paragraf 22 Absatz 1 Satz 1) besteht nach Angaben der Verfassungsrichter ein konkreter gesetzlicher Anspruch zur Erfüllung des Grundrechts auf ein menschenwürdiges Existenzminimum. Damit habe der Gesetzgeber seine Pflicht erfüllt.

Was angemessene Aufwendungen für die Miete sind, wird regional festgelegt. Für den Landkreis Tübingen in Baden-Württemberg etwa gelten nach Vorgabe des Jobcenters 45 Quadratmeter für eine Person und 360 Euro Miete im Monat als angemessen. In der Universitätsstadt Tübingen sind es 415 Euro. Für jede weitere Person kommen 15 Quadratmeter und im Landkreis 80 Euro Miete hinzu, in der Stadt 90 Euro. Dazu kommen Betriebs- und Heizkosten.


La Stampa. 2017-11-02. Germania, disoccupazione su nuovi minimi storici

La disoccupazione continua a calare in Germania, raggiungendo nuovi minimi storici a maggio e segnalando un mercato del lavoro in continuo miglioramento.

Secondo il Federal Labour Office, il tasso di disoccupazione destagionalizzato è sceso al 5,7% dal 5,8% precedente, risultato migliore delle attese degli analisti che indicavano un 5,8%.

Parallelamente, c’è stato un calo di 9 mila disoccupati, meno dei 15 mila posti del mese precedente e stimati dagli analisti.

Il numero complessivo dei disoccupati è stabile a 2,5 milioni, riportando lo stesso livello anche sul dato destagionalizzato.

Pubblicato in: Stati Uniti, Trump

Mobilize America. Le dimostrazioni dei liberal non portano voti.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-19.

2017-11-17__Virginia__002

Mr Trump è un outsider: è alieno sia al partito democratico sia al partito repubblicano.

Non è un politico di professione, bensì un industriale, ed è arrivato alla Presidenza degli Stati Uniti chiamando a raccolta tutte le componenti dei comparti produttivi, quasi in opposizione al mondo finanziario e, soprattutto, a quello di burocrati federali e statali.

Né è riconosciuto da parte delle numerose lobby trasversali, ovvero centri di interessi e poteri che contano membri in ambedue i partiti che da due secoli si alternano al potere negli Stati Uniti.

*

Questo è il motivo di fondo per cui ha vinto tutte le competizioni elettorali tenutesi nel corso dell’anno, nonostante una campagna avversa parlamentare e sui media senza precedenti nella storia.

È un anno che i liberal democratici cercano un qualsiasi cavillo per poter fare avviare una pratica di impeachment, senza riuscirci.

È un anno che i media lo bombardano in continuazione, senza cavar altro che Cnn e The New York Times hanno dovuto licenziare dei loro giornalisti che avevano mentito oltre ogni limite dell’umana creduloneria.

Trump. CNN, NYT ed AP ammettono di aver riportato artatamente notizie false su Mr Trump.

CNN Accused of Blackmailing The Reddit User Who Made Trump Wrestling Meme

Trump. La CNN come la mafia intimidisce l’autore delle vignette animate.

Questa strada si è dimostrata non solo improduttiva, ma anche controproducente.

Cnn. Crollo dell’audience dopo la pubblicazione di troppe fake news.

* * *

«Almost as soon as Donald Trump was elected, an energetic resistance arose to counter him, spawning hundreds of new grass-roots activist groups and the Jan. 21 Women’s March that drew 2.6 million protesters in Washington, D.C., and across the globe»

*

«But Democrats have learned the hard way that antipathy for Trump doesn’t automatically translate to votes—and if the resistance marchers don’t show up at the ballot box next year, their protests won’t matter»

*

Risultati elettorali non si sono visti: quelli che ci sono stati sconfessano le azioni pregresse.

Adesso i nemici di Mr Trump stanno tentando un’altra via.

«Since November, a new generation of progressive entrepreneurs and activists have quit their jobs to run for office or launch startups aimed at helping Democrats identify and turn out supporters, especially among groups like millennials and minorities that didn’t show up for Clinton»

*

Tra queste nuove iniziative segnaliamo MobilizeAmerica.

«After the recent presidential election, a small army of U.S. citizens started forming various groups aimed at, among other things, electing Democratic candidates. There’s a lengthy list of these folks: Swing Left, Sister District Project, Red2Blue. You get the idea. …. Building a platform allowing people to find out about and sign on with activities seemed like a good idea. But to be sure, they ended up talking to more than 300 people over two months “to validate what was needed, as opposed to building a piece of technology and trying to put it out in the world,” …. They also created videos teaching people about how to canvass door to door, among other actions»

*

La prova sul campo è avvenuta in Virginia, nelle elezioni del 7 novembre.

La Virginia era ed è rimasta uno stato democratico, ma non per questo è esente da tutte le contraddizioni politiche riscontrabili di norma nelle elezioni locali, ove il fascino di un candidato può superare l’avversione al partito che rappresenta.

La Virginia ha in Campidoglio11 rappresentanti, sette repubblicani e quattro democratici, ma i due senatori sono ambedue democratici.

«According to the reported count as of November 8, 2017, Republicans lead in 51 seats, and Democrats lead in 49 seats …. Virginia state law provides that election results for the 2017 election will be certified by its State Board of Elections on November 24, 2017 (the 4th Friday of November)» [Fonte]

È stato un buon risultato elettorale, tenendo conto che i repubblicani avevano 66 seggi contro i 34 dei democratici: tuttavia non è stato sufficiente per un epsilon a conquistare la maggioranza.

Il Governatore è stato invece riconfermato democratico con il 53.0% dei voti, contro il repubblicano a 44.97%.

*

La rimonta democratica è evidente, ma con un grande scollamento tra i risultati delle elezioni a governatore e quelle per il Congresso locale.

* * * * * * *

Sicuramente il metodo porta-a-porta è molto più fruttifero della contrapposizione muro-a-muro finora perseguita.


Bloomberg. 2017-11-07. Can Democrats Harness the #Resistance?

The party’s fortunes hinge on turning anti-Trump energy into votes. A wave of new startups aims to help.

*

Almost as soon as Donald Trump was elected, an energetic resistance arose to counter him, spawning hundreds of new grass-roots activist groups and the Jan. 21 Women’s March that drew 2.6 million protesters in Washington, D.C., and across the globe. But Democrats have learned the hard way that antipathy for Trump doesn’t automatically translate to votes—and if the resistance marchers don’t show up at the ballot box next year, their protests won’t matter. In her new memoir, Hillary Clinton expresses admiration for them, but adds a dig: “I couldn’t help but ask where those feelings of solidarity, outrage and passion had been during the election?”

Clinton wasn’t the only one to whom this thought occurred. Since November, a new generation of progressive entrepreneurs and activists have quit their jobs to run for office or launch startups aimed at helping Democrats identify and turn out supporters, especially among groups like millennials and minorities that didn’t show up for Clinton.

To reach people who didn’t vote, it helps to meet them on their turf, with enough of an enticement to grab their attention. That’s why, one night in September, the staff of MobilizeAmerica, a new field-organizing app, was crammed into a dressing room backstage at an Arcade Fire concert at Capital One Arena in Washington—and why they’d brought along Danica Roem, the first transgender candidate to run for Virginia’s House of Delegates.

MobilizeAmerica was founded in May by two friends, Allen Kramer, 26, and Alfred Johnson, 31. Until last November, both were happily toiling in the private sector. Kramer, who grew up in New York City, worked at Bain & Co. in San Francisco. Johnson, who hails from Washington, played defensive end on Stanford’s football team, then stuck around Palo Alto for business school and a job at a fintech startup. Trump’s election jolted them in a new direction. “Alfred and I had a collective realization,” says Kramer, who’d returned to Bain after taking a leave to work on Clinton’s campaign. “I was helping a large corporation figure out how to sell IT hardware online. Quantitively, very interesting problem. But I’d just come back from the campaign with the gut-wrenching context of having seen what happened up close. We knew we had to do something.”

They quit their jobs and moved back east. With business-school rigor, they set off on a fact-finding tour, quizzing campaign managers, organizers, activists, and data scientists to find the gaps in the system that were causing Democrats up and down the ticket to lose winnable races. They were searching for a business idea. “We kept coming back to the fact that we had millions of people marching in the streets,” says Johnson. “There had to be ways to plug those people into the electoral opportunities that mattered most.”

What MobilizeAmerica landed on could be described as “Tinder for the Resistance”: a mobile app and web interface that matches grass-roots activists—many newly politicized by Trump—with nearby candidates who need volunteer support.

With seed funding from Higher Ground Labs, a Chicago-based progressive technology accelerator, Kramer and Johnson hired a small staff of engineers and organizers, and then fanned out across Washington, D.C., Maryland, and Virginia to connect with hundreds of resistance groups, small and large. Like many of the new political-technology startups, MobilizeAmerica is focusing first on Virginia, the only battleground state with elections in 2017, and one that also approximates the larger country, with urban and rural areas and a fast-growing immigrant population. MobilizeAmerica chose to focus on a dozen House of Delegate races—including Roem’s.

“Local politics is a matter of quality of life and an issue of life and death”

If Virginia is a microcosm of America, then the 13th District race between Roem and the 13-term GOP incumbent, Bob Marshall, is like the 2016 presidential election glimpsed in a fun-house mirror: Everything is exaggerated even further. Roem grew up in the Northern Virginia district, working for nine years as a local political reporter and moonlighting as a singer in a heavy-metal band. She began her gender transition in 2013. Trump’s victory pushed her into electoral politics. “What the election taught me,” Roem says drily, a rainbow scarf in her hair, “is that there is literally nothing in my background that’s disqualifying. That bar is gone.” (Even in a race bursting with sociocultural significance, Roem’s campaign pitch is a hyperlocal focus on alleviated traffic congestion along Route 28, the district’s main thoroughfare. “Traffic hates everyone,” she notes.)

Her opponent, Marshall, is a kind of ur-Trump, who refuses to debate Roem or call her by her preferred gender pronoun. Marshall is best known for unsuccessfully pushing a state “bathroom bill” to dictate which restrooms transgender people can use in public buildings. Last week, his Republican backers sent out a campaign flier reminding voters that Roem was “born male.” But Marshall is falling out of step with his district, which is increasingly composed of highly educated voters and went for Clinton by 14 points. David Wasserman of the nonpartisan Cook Political Report calls the race a “toss-up” and a harbinger of national political sentiment heading into 2018.

Roem, in other words, is exactly the sort of candidate Democrats must find a way to push to victory. To boost her volunteer network and raise awareness of the election, MobilizeAmerica had gotten Arcade Fire’s Will Butler to livestream a pre-concert interview with Roem on the band’s Facebook page. “Local politics is a matter of quality of life and an issue of life and death,” Butler, wearing a “Butler-Roem” campaign button, told the 150,000 fans who tuned in. Trump “has treated a lot of people like garbage. So let’s get our shit together and help the people who need it the most.” 

Butler asked fans to text “MOBILIZE” to a special number if they could volunteer, a request he repeated at a late-night afterparty at a D.C. club, to which Arcade Fire had invited several hundred local friends. Johnson described these actions as “an engagement funnel” to pull motivated locals into a MobilizeAmerica list. The next morning, they were sent a video from Butler thanking them and asking them to join a recruitment effort. “Anger at Trump is important for convening volunteers,” Johnson says. “But it doesn’t necessarily move voters. They’re moved by local issues, such as Danica’s traffic campaign. Our job is to build a bridge that connects one to the other.”

On Nov. 7, Virginia’s elections will serve as a testing ground for MobilizeAmerica and dozens of similar efforts, with the goal of improving Democratic turnout next year. The vital question for Democrats is this: Can they harness the energy of the resistance and steer its members to the ballot box in 2018? Control of Congress, and the future of Trump’s presidency, hangs in the balance.

One reason Democrats struggle to turn out voters in down-ballot races is that the cutting-edge technology they’ve developed since Barack Obama’s rise has mostly been housed inside presidential campaigns. When the campaign ends, the tools vanish. Four years later, the process repeats. “Our reputation as Democrats is that we invest in technology, and that’s true,” says Betsy Hoover, a partner at Higher Ground Labs, who directed digital organizing for Obama’s 2012 campaign. “But the way we do that is really inefficient. We invest a ton of money inside a presidential campaign, which requires hard-dollar campaign donations that are difficult to raise and sustain. And then we build the same thing over and over. Down-ballot races never really benefit.”

After Trump’s victory, Hoover and two partners, staked to $3 million by Reid Hoffman and other Democratic donors, founded Higher Ground to provide mentorship and early-stage investment in politically focused tech startups. They hoped to foster an ecosystem outside of national campaigns and focus on state and local races, which often lack the specialized personnel and budget to make use of technology built for presidential races. 

“Where most people who invest in companies are looking for a monetary return, they’re looking first and foremost for a political return,” says Steve Spinner, the chief executive officer of RevUp, a fundraising company that grew out of his experience as a tech adviser and top fundraiser for Obama’s campaigns.

Over the summer, Higher Ground invested in 11 companies, many of them focused on reaching voters through mobile technology and social media. Field organizers Shola Farber, 27, and Michael Luciani, 25, who worked in Michigan for Clinton’s campaign, say this is important because two groups Democrats struggle to activate—young people and minorities—are more transient than others, making them harder to reach, since they often don’t own a landline telephone or pay for cable television.

“In the past it’s been hard to lure the brightest young minds in tech into the world of campaign politics”

Trump’s election prompted them, too, to leave their jobs and found the Tuesday Company, another HGL startup working in Virginia that’s developing “digital door-knocking” technology. While working for Clinton, Farber could see that the standard voter contact methods of door knocking, phone banking, and TV ads were not reaching many millennials. “When we talk to people via Facebook or text, they often don’t know there’s an election,” she says. A Tufts University poll taken a month before the 2016 election found that just 30 percent of millennials had been contacted by a campaign. “That’s a figure that haunts us,” says Luciani. 

Tuesday’s technology aims to extend field organizing’s best practices into the digital realm. “The one thing Democrats absolutely excel at is volunteers,” says Farber. “Our system uses a bottom-up approach to built a grass-roots volunteer network among voters who aren’t being reached by traditional Democrat efforts.” Tuesday’s app, Team, allows users to share campaign content with their social network. When friends “like” or comment on a video, meme, or GIF, Tuesday learns what issues excite them and can then encourage friend-to-friend outreach. Roem’s campaign is using the technology to connect with people whose doors are harder to knock on, either because they live in private buildings, gated communities, or rural areas difficult to canvass. 

Reaching voters through Facebook is particularly urgent, Luciani adds, because Trump’s campaign used the platform to send “dark posts” with negative messages to blacks and millennials to weaken their support for Clinton. “The same people that they don’t want to vote are the people we do want to vote,” he says.

Senior Clinton officials who have studied the reasons for her loss say these startup efforts are vital to reversing the party’s electoral doldrums. “In the past it’s been hard to lure the brightest young minds in tech into the world of campaign politics,” says Brian Fallon, a top Clinton campaign adviser. “We’ve still only really scratched the surface of social media platforms’ potential to make voter persuasion more effective, targeting more precise, and organizing more efficient. The coming midterms and even the down-ballot races [in Virginia] will give us the chance to experiment with new technologies.”

Unlike Silicon Valley startups, these enterprises offer little money or glamour for their young founders. Since leaving her job, Farber has spent nine months in couch-surfing transience as she works to launch the Tuesday Company. “There’s a generational aspect to many of these startups,” says Hoover, “a lot of energy and dedication, a lot of founders’ stories tied to the day after the election. Many of them pivoted, changed careers, or changed focus based on that moment. People are woke.”

“People are happier to engage by text than by phone. … That’s how we communicate with our friends. Calling would be weird”

On a Tuesday evening just before Halloween, the staff of MobilizeAmerica and a small crowd of volunteers are gathered in a downtown Washington loft for a weekly text-banking session, an update on the phone banks long employed by campaigns to contact voters. The scene looks oddly familiar, though more suited to a dormitory common room than an old-fashioned political campaign. Dozens of millennials are sprawled in comfortable chairs and couches amid towering stacks of pizza boxes and a few empty beer bottles, all peering intently at their laptops and iPhones. The purpose of all this virtual activity, however, is to generate real-world engagement that will lead to votes. 

“Texting is a more social form of recruitment,” says Yasmin Radjy, 30, MobilizeAmerica’s Virginia state director. “You hang out, you meet people, eat pizza, drink beer, and play music—all things you can’t do when you’re phone banking.” Radjy and other organizers have found it’s also more effective for reaching people. Unlike a phone call, a text message isn’t nearly so intrusive and allows people to answer at their leisure—and many do. “People are happier to engage by text than by phone,” she says, adding with a shrug, “It’s a level of intimacy that’s kind of crazy. But that’s how we communicate with our friends. Calling would be weird.”

On this night, Radjy and her cohorts are recruiting volunteers to Virginia from a list compiled by Do the Most Good, a resistance group in Montgomery County, Md., that’s partnered with MobilizeAmerica. They’re using a computer-based texting system designed by yet another HGL startup, Ground Game, which was founded by a former Clinton staffer.

One early discovery from the push into new technologies is that volunteers recruited by text are far more likely to follow through on their commitments. During the Clinton campaign, the “flake rate” among people who agreed by phone to volunteer ran as high as 90 percent. But Radjy says that those reached by text sign up for jobs and follow through, particularly when they’re members of enthusiastic resistance groups. “The conversion rate of SMS has been incredible,” she says. “Now, they’re showing up in higher numbers and volunteering.”

On weekends, these volunteers carpool or bus to the dozen Virginia districts MobilizeAmerica has targeted, to knock on doors and have the face-to-face conversations that are still the most reliable way of getting people to vote. As Radjy steps over scarecrows and Halloween pumpkins to canvass a row of townhouses in Gainesville on behalf of Roem, she ticks through a long list of resistance groups that have joined the effort, many of them formed in reaction to Trump.

It will take an enormous turnout for Democrats to flip the Virginia House of Delegates, which Republicans control 66-34. As polls tightened in recent weeks, even holding onto the governorship is no sure thing. 

Regardless of outcome, Johnson and his peers are convinced Virginia will leave Democrats better prepared to compete and win next year. “We have a better lens into the grass roots than almost anyone—the volunteers, the delegates, and all the local groups,” he says. “When we leave Virginia, we’ll know what works, how it works, and how it can work better—and all that will be brought to bear on the midterm elections.”

Pubblicato in: Giustizia

Italia. Cassazione conferma la inversione di giudizio sull’assegno divorzile.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-19.

Tribunale 010

In Italia il matrimonio è indissolubile in modo ben più stretto di come lo aveva concepito Papa San Gregorio Magno.

Infatti, se è mera formalità adire alla separazione e quindi al divorzio, questo ultimo scioglie dai vincoli giuridici ma lascia intatti quelli economici. In altri termini, non è tanto un matrimonio indissolubile, bensì un matrimonio economicamente eterno.

Se è di comune buon senso il disporre impegni economici per il mantenimento della prole fino al suo ingresso nel mondo del lavoro, impegno questo a termine, è ancora oggetto di ampio dibattito quello relativo al mantenimento del coniuge “economicamente più debole“.

Questo aspetto si presta infatti ad ogni sorta di abusi, ben difficilmente documentabili in forma compiuta.

Il problema di fondo è se e come il divorzio estingua il dovere al mantenimento del coniuge.

Alcune sentenze della Suprema Corte di Cassazione sembrerebbero essere favorevoli ad un taglio completo, altre invece sembrerebbero sostenere l’opposto.

In Italia, come altrove peraltro, è ben più importante avere giudici amici piuttosto che ragione. In ogni caso, essere femmina è titolo sufficiente ad avere tutti gli emolumenti eterni. La reclamata parità dei sessi è una pura e semplice fantasia nel periodo di tirannide femminile. Meglio, di una piccola parte di donne che ne sono la caricatura.

*

Il caso più frequente è quello di una donna che sposa una persona abbiente e dopo qualche tempo si separa prima, e divorzia dopo. Essendo essa “economicamente più debole” ed adducendo tutte le difficoltà ad trovarsi un lavoro con cui vivere, si è costituita una sorta di pensione esentasse a vita. A ciò si aggiunga come, in accordo alla Weltanschauung vigente, la donna, anche nullipara, risulta sempre essere privilegiata, fatto questo cui contribuiscono in modo fattivo i giudici femmine, che applicano più le ideologie che le leggi. È il trionfo del concetto di oι μέν και οι δέν.

Su questa base è stata allestita una vera e propria fabbrica di divorzi. Lo sposo, divorzio, mi faccio mantenere.

* * * * * * * *

Ma il clima politico è mutato, si direbbe invertendo il senso di marcia.

– Il 20 gennaio 2017 si è insediato il Presidente Trump, che a novembre aveva conquistato 304 grandi elettori contro i 227 di Mrs Hillary Clinton.

– Il 7 maggio 2017 alle elezioni presidenziali francesi il partito socialista francese crolla dal 62% all’8%.

– Il 21 settembre 2017 Mr Macron conquista 22 su 171 seggi senatoriali.

– Il 24 settembre 2017 le elezioni federali politiche sanzionano la perdita di 153 deputati della Große Koalition: la Cdu crolla al 32.9% e l’Spd al 20.5%.

– Il 15 ottobre Herr Kurz trionfa alle elezioni austriache con il 31.6%, e l’Fpö raggiunge il 26.0%.

– Il 22 ottobre 2017 il partito Ano consegue il 29.6% dei voti, mentre il Civi Democracy party crolla all’11.3% dei voti.

– Il 5 novembre 2017 alle elezioni regionali la Smer, partito socialista del presidente Fico, ha perso il controllo di quattro delle sei regioni. Nelle elezioni politiche del 2012 aveva conseguito il 44.4% dei voti, il 28.3% in quelle del 2016, il 26.2% nelle regionali.

Ed i giudici sono il più sensibile sensore di chi sia al potere o ci si appresti ad arrivare. Ideologia liberal e femminismo spinto sono repentinamente diventati fuori moda.

* * * * * * * *

Ad agitare le acque è arrivata dapprima la recente sentenza di Cassazione 11504/2017.

Questo è il passo degno di nota:

«Deve, peraltro, sottolinearsi che il carattere condizionato del diritto all’assegno di divorzio – comportando ovviamente la sua negazione in presenza di «mezzi adeguati» dell’ex coniuge richiedente o delle effettive possibilità «di procurarseli», vale a dire della “indipendenza o autosufficienza economica” dello stesso – comporta altresì che, in carenza di ragioni di «solidarietà economica», l’eventuale riconoscimento del diritto si risolverebbe in una locupletazione illegittima, in quanto fondata esclusivamente sul fatto della “mera preesistenza” di un rapporto matrimoniale ormai estinto, ed inoltre di durata tendenzialmente sine die: il discrimine tra «solidarietà economica» ed illegittima locupletazione sta, perciò, proprio nel giudizio sull’esistenza, o no, delle condizioni del diritto all’assegno, nella fase dell’an debeatur.

Tali precisazioni preliminari si rendono necessarie, perché non di rado è dato rilevare nei provvedimenti giurisdizionali aventi ad oggetto l’assegno di divorzio una indebita commistione tra le due “fasi” del giudizio e tra i relativi accertamenti che, essendo invece pertinenti esclusivamente all’una o all’altra fase, debbono per ciò stesso essere effettuati secondo l’ordine progressivo normativamente stabilito.»

Ci si permette di ricordare come il termine “locupletazione” significhi arricchimento, spesso a danno di altri.

«l’eventuale riconoscimento del diritto si risolverebbe in una locupletazione illegittima, in quanto fondata esclusivamente sul fatto della “mera preesistenza” di un rapporto matrimoniale ormai estinto, ed inoltre di durata tendenzialmente sine die»

* * * * * * * *

La cosa non è stata compresa fino in fondo dai giudici periferici.

Si è dovuta aggiungere altre sentenze della Corte di Cassazione, la 15481/2017, prima, e poi la 23602/2017.

«”Il ricorrente ha evidenziato che la funzione dell’assegno divorzile, ai sensi dell’art. 5, comma 6, della legge 1 dicembre 1970, n. 898, è assistenziale e la sua ex era in possesso di mezzi e redditi che le avrebbero consentito di vivere un’esistenza autonoma essendo stata anche assunta a tempo indeterminato.”

Un motivo che è stata ritenuto fondato dai giudici. Questi hanno ricordato che l’orientamento applicato dalla Corte di merito circa la verifica delle condizioni legali per attribuire l’assegno divorzile, è stato recentemente superato dalla giurisprudenza di legittimità.

Ciò non avviene, tuttavia, in riguardo al “tenore di vita analogo a quello goduto in costanza di matrimonio”, ma con esclusivo riferimento all’indipendenza o autosufficienza economica dell’ex.»

* * * * * * * *

Ciò detto e premesso, sarebbe necessario ricordare come si adisca al giudizio proprio per il fatto che spetta al Tribunale accertare come debba essere valutato il singolo caso sottoposto a giudizio.

Se così non fosse, sarebbero sufficienti provvedimenti meramente amministrativi invece che giudiziari.

*

In questa ottica appare innovativa questa sentenza, che riguarda  persone famose e doviziose.

Berlusconi-Lario: lei non ha diritto a 1,4 milioni mensili, dovrà restituirne 60

«Veronica Lario non ha diritto all’assegno di divorzio di 1,4 mln al mese e dovrà restituire a Silvio Berlusconi circa 60 mln di euro. Lo ha deciso Corte d’Appello di Milano che ha accolto l’istanza dell’ex premier di applicare la recente sentenza sull’assegno di divorzio della Cassazione per cui conta il criterio dell’autosufficienza economica e non il tenore di vita goduto durante le nozze. Il Cavaliere aveva sostenuto che la sua ex moglie con liquidità per 16 milioni, gioielli e società immobiliari, è autosufficiente.»

* * * * * * * *

È davvero finita un’epoca giudiziaria.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti, Trump

Trump. Inizia l’escalation ai media liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-19.

2017-08-04__Trump TELEMMGLPICT000136310797-xlarge_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqHwnvh86NCImGNxSron0kTyxqUYn5PGopOSNBtx07gTA

Mr Rupert Murdoch e Mr Donald Trump sembrerebbero essere legati da ottimi rapporti di lavoro nonché da una ragionevolmente buona amicizia.

Evitando giri di parole e l’uso del politicamente corretto, Mr Trump ed i repubblicani intendono acquisire i principali media americani, licenziare tutti i giornalisti liberal e sostituirli con personale fidato.

Il Pew ci assicura come l’influenza dei media a livello continentale sia molto bassa in termini di raccolta di voti,  ma questa operazione porterebbe via ai liberal democratici uno degli ultimi strumenti a loro mani.

Non a caso otto senatori democratici

«hanno scritto una lettera a Makan Delrahim, capo dell’ufficio antitrust, sollecitandolo ad opporsi a qualunque interferenza della Casa Bianca nelle decisioni dell’organismo di vigilanza.»

Ma non è detto che l’operazione possa essere condotta in modo tale da aggirare l’antitrust.

*

Staremo a vedere, ma Mr Trump sembrerebbe essere un avversario politico molto più robusto di quanto è solitamente detto.

Rupert Murdoch ‘interested in buying CNN’ after reports Trump administration may force AT&T to sell it

«Rupert Murdoch is said to be interested in buying CNN – which, if true, could prove to be an interesting development given Mr Murdoch’s reported close association with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly railed against the network. 

The news comes after reports saying Mr Trump’s administration may force AT&T to ditch the network to receive antitrust approval of its $85.4bn deal with Time Warner. 

According to Reuters, Mr Murdoch called AT&T chief executive Randall Stephenson twice in the last six months and talked about CNN.»

*

Exclusive: Rupert Murdoch twice discussed CNN with AT&T CEO – sources

«Rupert Murdoch telephoned AT&T Inc (T.N) Chief Executive Randall Stephenson twice in the last six months and talked about cable network CNN, sources briefed on the matter told Reuters on Friday.

According to one of the sources, the 86-year-old executive chairman of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc (FOXA.O) offered to buy CNN in both conversations.

U.S. Department of Justice staff have recommended that AT&T sell either its DirecTV unit or Time Warner’s Turner Broadcasting unit – which includes CNN – a government official told Reuters on Thursday, in order to gain antitrust approval.

The fate of CNN has broader political significance. U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly attacked the network for its coverage of his campaign and his administration, while he has publicly praised Murdoch’s Fox News.»

*

Rupert Murdoch may have offered to buy CNN from AT&T: reports

«Two of the people say Murdoch didn’t offer to buy CNN, while others say he did mention buying it and Stephenson said it wasn’t for sale, the Journal report said.

The calls between Murdoch and Stephenson were first reported on Friday by Reuters, which said one source told the news agency that Murdoch has “zero interest” in owning CNN, but another source said the 86-year-old media exec offered to buy the news outlet in both conversations.

This is just the latest sign of possible efforts to transform 21st Century Fox. Reports earlier this month said Walt Disney Co. DIS, -0.09%  had recently held talks to buy Fox’s cable-TV networks, international distribution operations and movie and TV studio, a tie-up that would allow Fox to focus on sports, news and broadcast TV.»

*

Asse Trump-Murdoch per cedere Cnn al magnate australiano

«Rubert Murdoch guarda con interesse alla Cnn. Secondo rumors riportate dalla stampa americana, il magnate dei media a capo del gruppo 21st Century Fox, nonché amico di Donald Trump, negli ultimi sei mesi avrebbe chiamato almeno due volte il numero uno di At&t Randall Stephenson per sondare il terreno. E il sospetto, secondo alcuni, è che dietro questo interessamento ci sarebbe lo stesso presidente americano.

Ricordiamo a questo proposito che, giovedí scorso, l’amministrazione Trump aveva posto come condizione indispensabile alle nozze tra AT&T e Time Warner, proprio  la cessione della Cnn, emittente televisiva che fa parte di Time Warner e che spesso è stata preso di mira da Trump, convinto che dissemini “fake news”.

E sempre più commentatori parlano di un ‘fattore Murdoch’ in tutta questa vicenda. Lui che ha sempre osteggiato le nozze tra At&t e Time Warner e che – raccontano i ben informati – più volte alla settimana sente al telefono il presidente americano Donald Trump per dargli consigli. ….

Intanto, sospettando che Trump voglia forzare la cessione della Cnn per farla passare nelle mani del suo alleato Murdoch, otto senatori democratici hanno scritto una lettera a Makan Delrahim, capo dell’ufficio antitrust, sollecitandolo ad opporsi a qualunque interferenza della Casa Bianca nelle decisioni dell’organismo di vigilanza.»

Pubblicato in: Fisco e Tasse, Unione Europea

Macron. Le merci francesi devono circolare liberamente. Le altre col c@@@o.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-11-18.

macron 012

Anche se i francesi notoriamente sono tutt’altro che stupidi, la loro gioppinata la hanno fatta eleggendosi Mr Macron quale Presidente.

Persona amena e simpatica,

Macron. L’indice Ifop di popolarità è crollato di 10 punti.

Macron. Impomatato, incipriato, imbellettato e sodomizzato. – Le Maire

Macron. Affarucci in barba a sanzioni, ‘clima’ e diritti umani. Gli affari francesi sono sacri.

*

Di Mr Macron si può dire di tutto tranne che non sia ultrapulito, imbellettato, inceronato ed il tutto al modico prezzo di nemmeno trentamila euro al mese. A spese del contribuente. D’altra parte essere femmine è bello, è anche di moda, ma soprattutto è costoso, molto costoso.

Ma se lo stato spende tutti questi denari in codesti beni di investimento da qualche parte deve ben pigliarli.

Li preleva al Contribuente con accise, imposte, tasse e balzelli vari: i Cittadini non hanno mai pagato a sufficienza.

Di recente Mr Macron ha aumentato il prezzo delle sigarette, portandolo a circa sette euro il pacchetto.

Poi si è reso conto che nel resto dell’Europa gli stati sono meno esosi, diciamo che si preoccupano meno della salute dei loro Cittadini: lì i pacchetti di sigarette vanno sui cinque euro, in media.

Perché mai se ne accorto?

Semplice.

Frotte di francesi si sono riversati sulle zone confinanti, comprano sigarette e se ne tornano in Francia: nell’Unione Europea le merci avrebbero dovuto circolare liberamente.

Immediatamente il provvido Governo Macron ha imposto la regola che non si possa entrare in Francia con più di quattro stecche a testa.

Rattamente i francesi si sono trasformati in pendolari del fumo: dieci o quindici viaggi al giorno. Un caffè in Italia, una sosta dal tabacchino, e quindi indietro.

È cosa del tutto legale, la legge francese non dice mica quattro stecche al giorno oppure alla settimana oppure ancora al mese.

*

Per Mr Macron possono circolare liberamente le merci francesi, non quelle degli altri paesi.

Poi parlano tutti male del ‘protezionismo‘: che razza di ipocriti. Erano molto più onesti i Farisei.

Tu non sai quanto ci costi“, cantava il buon Macario.


La Stampa. 2017-11-14. Contrabbando di sigarette, la Francia “blinda” i confini dopo i rincari. Affare da 400 euro a viaggio

Consentito il trasporto di quattro stecche a persona. Il risparmio attuale è di 20 euro a stecca. Si temono speculazioni.

*

La Francia «blinda» i confini dopo gli ultimi rincari delle sigarette che hanno portato il prezzo medio di un pacchetto a sette euro contro i cinque dell’acquisto in Italia. Sono infatti già centinaia i tabagisti transalpini che hanno preso d’assalto le rivendite di Ventimiglia e delle altre zone di confine, in Piemonte e Valle d’Aosta. La paura si chiama contrabbando, un commercio parallelo, «d’importazione». E i timori sono fondati visto che cinque persone su una sola auto sono in grado di importare in Francia un totale di 20 stecche con un «risparmio» di 400 euro rispetto all’acquisto in patria. Un business di fatto legale che potrebbe interessare anche il mondo della criminalità organizzata e della malavita comune.  

Per questo motivo le prefetture di confine hanno dato disposizioni alla polizia delle dogane si effettuare controlli serrati, nel caso di identificare persone che potrebbero trasformare le trasferte in Italia per l’acquisto di sigarette in un secondo lavoro.  

Ogni persone che entra in Francia, con le attuali normative, può trasportare un massimo di 4 stecche per un totale di ottocento sigarette o in alternativa un chilo di tabacco, 400 «sigarilli» o 200 sigari.