«Troubled banks have $22 billion in net bad loans, Visco says»
*
«ECB governing council member Ignazio Visco speaks in Rome»
*
«Italy’s troubled banks may suffer an additional 10 billion euros ($11 billion) in losses from the sale of their bad loans at current market prices, said Ignazio Visco, Bank of Italy governor and ECB governing council member.»
*
«“If they were sold at the very low prices offered by the few large specialist debt collection agencies active in the market today, which pursue very high returns, the amount of additional writedowns would be in the order of 10 billion euros,” Visco said on Wednesday at the central bank’s annual meeting in Rome. He pointed out that the country’s troubled banks have 20 billion euros in net bad loans.»
*
«Italy is struggling to fix a crisis legacy of about 360 billion euros of soured loans in its banks’ balance sheets that is holding back credit and weighing on the country’s weak recovery. Italian authorities are trying to prop up Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and two banks in the northern region of Veneto, using a provision in the EU’s bank-failure rules that allows governments to provide state»
* * * * * * *
Ricapitoliamo per chiarezza.
– Le banche italiane hanno 360 miliardi di crediti inesigibili;
– Le banche in crisi ne hanno 22 miliardi;
– Vendere i crediti inesigibili comporterebbe ulteriori perdite per undici miliardi.
– Troubled banks have $22 billion in net bad loans, Visco says
– ECB governing council member Ignazio Visco speaks in Rome
*
Italy’s troubled banks may suffer an additional 10 billion euros ($11 billion) in losses from the sale of their bad loans at current market prices, said Ignazio Visco, Bank of Italy governor and ECB governing council member.
“If they were sold at the very low prices offered by the few large specialist debt collection agencies active in the market today, which pursue very high returns, the amount of additional writedowns would be in the order of 10 billion euros,” Visco said on Wednesday at the central bank’s annual meeting in Rome. He pointed out that the country’s troubled banks have 20 billion euros in net bad loans.
Italy is struggling to fix a crisis legacy of about 360 billion euros of soured loans in its banks’ balance sheets that is holding back credit and weighing on the country’s weak recovery. Italian authorities are trying to prop up Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena SpA and two banks in the northern region of Veneto, using a provision in the EU’s bank-failure rules that allows governments to provide state aid.
While talks for a state backed recapitalization of Monte Paschi, Banca Popolare di Vicenza SpA and Veneto Banca SpA are underway, Visco urged European authorities to coordinate better and faster on the banking crisis.
“Effective coordination is lacking,” Visco said. He added that “crisis interventions are assigned to multiple, mutually independent authorities and institutions, both national and supranational, with decision-making processes relatively incompatible with rapid intervention. ”
Monte Paschi
Monte Paschi Chief Executive Officer Marco Morelli, speaking in an interview with Bloomberg TV at the Bank of Italy event, said he’s confident the bank is close to finalizing its restructuring plan. “When the process is over I’ll give my view.”
Italy is seeking approval from the European Commission and the ECB to inject 6.5 billion euros into Monte Paschi and to raise the remaining 2.3 billion euros by converting subordinated bonds into shares. Italy expects to reach an agreement with European authorities soon, Fabrizio Pagani, Finance Minister Pier Carlo Padoan’s chief of staff, said May 23.
Following a recession that proved much longer and deeper than originally forecast and negative interest rates which eroded income from deposits and lending, lenders must bring profitability back to adequate levels, according to the Italian central bank. Banks need to revamp branch networks, overhaul governance structures and reduce labor costs, Visco said.
«U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Axios news outlet reported on Wednesday, citing two unidentified sources with direct knowledge of the decision.»
*
«Trump, who has previously called global warming a hoax, refused to endorse the landmark climate change accord at a summit of the G7 group of wealthy nations on Saturday, saying he needed more time to decide. He then tweeted that he would make an announcement this week.»
*
«Axios said details of the pullout are being worked out by a team that includes EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The choice is between a formal withdrawal that could take three years or leaving the U.N. treaty that the accord is based on, which would be quicker but more extreme, according to Axios.»
* * * * * * *
Bene.
La festa in maschera è finita.
Mr Macron può togliersi il travestimento da Pirgopolinice e tornare a scaricare cassette di frutta a Les Halles, Frau Merkel può invece ripiegare il vestito da Biancaneve e riprendere quello della Mnesarete della politica europea.
Hanno sberleffato Mr Trump, il Presidente degli Stati Uniti? Non volevano nemmeno stringergli la mano?
Hanno strillato come checche isteriche che l’Europa deve riappropriarsi dei propri destini?
Bene: ecco il benservito.
Mr Macron a Frau Merkel obblighino pure le industrie domestiche a cercare di produrre applicando l’Accordo di Parigi, e vedremo se riusciranno a vendere qualche fazzoletto di carta usato sul mercato. Ed intanto, se vogliono ancora l’ombrello atomico, sgranino denaro sonante.
Mr Macron poi, che ha dato asilo politico ai sedicenti gay ceceni, difficilmente potrà andare a piangere da Mr Putin: quello se la è legata al dito.
President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They’re deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme.
Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama’s climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn’t prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal.
Keep reading 89 words
The other outliers: The only other two countries that aren’t supporting the deal are Nicaragua and Syria.
How it happened: A letter from 22 Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) that called for a clean exit had reinforced Trump’s instincts to withdraw, and the president had been telling confidants over the past week that he was going to pull out.
President Trump has reportedly decided to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement.
According to the news website Axios, two sources close to the Trump Administration said the president has already started consulting on the exit process with senior officials.
The move would strike a massive blow to the legacy of his successor, President Obama, who viewed tackling climate change as a top priority and considered the agreement to be among his greatest achievements.
It also risks undermining the ambitions of the agreement, which was signed by 195 other countries including Britain.
A letter from 22 Republican senators urging Mr Trump to withdraw played a major role in the decision, Axios said.
There has been speculation that pressure from Ivanka Trump – the president’s daughter – to stick with the agreement delayed his decision.
The president has reportedly made his decision on the landmark climate deal, as exasperated world leaders get ready to move on with or without the US.
*
Donald Trump’s Twitter pledge to make a decision on whether to remain in the Paris climate agreement this week promises resolution to months of fevered lobbying over US involvement in the global accord.
But while America’s traditional allies and environmental groups continue to urge Trump to stay within the Paris deal – in which nearly 200 nations have pledged to limit global temperatures to a 2C increase on the pre-industrial era – the actions of the US president, most recently at the G7 meeting in Sicily, have begun to provoke murmurs that perhaps the world would be better without American involvement.
The final G7 communique saw the US unusually break with the other six nations by failing to commit itself to the Paris agreement, which Trump promised to “cancel” during the presidential campaign, and reports on Wednesday claimed he had decided to exit. The exasperation of European leaders suggested they are ready to move on with or without the world’s second largest emitter of greenhouse gases.
“The whole discussion about climate has been difficult, or rather very unsatisfactory,” said German chancellor Angela Merkel. “Here we have the situation that six members, or even seven if you want to add the EU, stand against one.”
The US formally turning its back on perhaps the last best chance of a coordinated response to climate change would certainly carry heft. Frantic calculations by several thinkthanks and universities have estimated that US withdrawal would add up to 3bn tonnes of extra carbon dioxide to the atmosphere every year, raising the global temperature by 0.1C to 0.3C by the end of the century.
Such a regression would be compounded if other countries took the United States’ lead and also decided to quit Paris, or at least not strive to fill the void in emissions reduction. This would have grave implications for coastal cities facing sea-level rise, parts of the world already blighted by heatwaves and food insecurity, and the planet’s endangered species.
While US emissions would start to level off rather than continue their gradual decline, there are signs that India and China, the two other national heavy hitters in emissions, are moving away from coal more quickly than expected, according to Climate Action Tracker.
This has led several economists and large US businesses to fret that the coming boom in solar, wind and other renewable energies will not take place in America. China signaled its intent earlier this year by announcing it will invest $360bn in renewable energy by 2020, creating more than 13m jobs in the sector.’
If the economic fallout of leaving the Paris deal does not sway Trump, the diplomatic and security ramifications may. Rex Tillerson, the secretary of state, has urged the US “keep a seat at the table” in order to maintain its international standing while UN secretary general António Guterres has raised the possibility of “risks of conflict” if climate change is not properly addressed.
If Trump does decide to stay in the deal, it is likely he will attempt to “renegotiate” it, which would mainly involve the US revising down its goal of reducing emissions by 26% to 28% by 2025 based on 2005 levels. Opponents of the deal, such as Trump strategist Steve Bannon and Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt, have framed Paris as a “bad deal” for the US that may even hinder Trump’s domestic agenda of winding back various environmental regulations.
Several independent legal experts, as well as those who helped craft the Paris agreement, reject this view, pointing out that the edifice is built upon a series of voluntary non-binding goals submitted by countries. Paris is essentially a statement of intent, a signal from governments to their citizens and businesses that low-carbon economies are on the way and that this inevitability should be financially supported.
Some supporters of Paris are now wondering how useful it would be to have a disengaged US within such a structure. The American public is largely in favour of the Paris deal and could be given the misleading impression that their government is addressing the climate issue by simply staying put, despite tearing down Barack Obama-era climate policies such as the Clean Power Plan at the same time.
“Wanting the US to remain is a short-sighted, knee-jerk reaction,” said Luke Kemp, an expert in international environmental policy at the Australian National University. “The international community should be much more worried about the real domestic actions of the US, rather than whether it is symbolically cooperating internationally.”
Kemp points out that the US could act as a drag upon the international climate effort if it doesn’t leave. “The US and the Trump administration can do more damage inside the agreement than outside it,” he said.
The momentum is reportedly with the Leave faction, with a group of 22 Republican senators – minus the notable voices of Lindsey Graham and John McCain, who want the US to remain – urging Trump to make a “clean break” from Paris. On Tuesday, Trump again met with Pruitt, one of the most vociferous opponents of the deal.
But the White House’s confusion over the decision and its wider ramifications was perhaps summed up best by Sean Spicer, Trump’s spokesman, who on Tuesday was asked the simple question of whether Trump believed global warming was spurred by human activity, a subject he has previously vacillated upon.
“Honestly, I haven’t asked him,” Spicer replied. “I can get back to you.”
U.S. President Donald Trump has decided to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, Axios news outlet reported on Wednesday, citing two unidentified sources with direct knowledge of the decision.
Trump, who has previously called global warming a hoax, refused to endorse the landmark climate change accord at a summit of the G7 group of wealthy nations on Saturday, saying he needed more time to decide. He then tweeted that he would make an announcement this week.
Fox News also cited an unidentified source confirming the pullout.
The decision will put the United States in league with Syria and Nicaragua as the world’s only non-participants in the Paris Climate Agreement. It could have sweeping implications for the deal, which relies heavily on the commitment of big polluter nations to reduce emissions of gases scientists blame for sea level rise, droughts and more frequent violent storms.
The accord, agreed on by nearly 200 countries in Paris in 2015, aims to limit planetary warming in part by slashing carbon dioxide and other emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Under the pact, the United States committed to reducing its emissions by 26 to 28 percent from 2005 levels by 2025.
Axios said details of the pullout are being worked out by a team that includes EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. The choice is between a formal withdrawal that could take three years or leaving the U.N. treaty that the accord is based on, which would be quicker but more extreme, according to Axios.
The decision to withdraw from the climate accord was influenced by a letter from 22 Republican U.S. senators, including Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, calling for an exit, Axios reported.
Former President Barack Obama, who helped broker the accord, praised the accord during a trip to Europe this month.
The United States is the world’s second-biggest carbon dioxide emitter behind China.
Supporters of the climate pact are concerned that a U.S. exit could lead other nations to weaken their commitments or also withdraw, softening an accord that scientists have said is critical to avoiding the worst impacts of climate change.
Canada, the European Union, and China have said they will honor their commitments to the pact even if the United States withdraws. A source told Reuters that India had also indicated it would stick by the deal.
Trump had vowed during his campaign to “cancel” the Paris deal within 100 days of becoming president, as part of an effort to bolster U.S. oil and coal industries. That promise helped rally supporters sharing his skepticism of global efforts to police U.S. carbon emissions.
After taking office, however, Trump faced pressure to stay in the deal from investors, international powers and business leaders, including some in the coal industry. He also had to navigate a split among his advisers on the issue.
«- Slide shows markets unprepared for a close election: Westpac
– Macquarie doesn’t believe poll because of untested methodology
*
The pound declined after a poll showed Theresa May’s Conservative Party may miss winning a majority at next week’s general election and face a hung parliament.
Sterling dropped against all its Group-of-10 peers after a YouGov poll in the Times, based on a new model, showed the prime minister’s party may fall short of an overall majority by 16 seats. The pound has been strengthening in past weeks, despite a slowing economy and increased security risks, as earlier surveys suggested a bigger Tory lead.»
*
In questo anno elettorale abbiamo assistito ad un sostanziale scostamento tra valori predetti e risultati elettorali usciti dalle urne. Fenomeno questo a livello mondiale.
Sicuramente le proiezioni sono di difficile attuazione, ma molto spesso si avrebbe l’impressione di essere in presenza di un inquinamento politico dei dati, usato per far pressione indiretta sull’elettorato.
YouGov è una società che si è dimostrata essere molto seria nella raccolta dei dati e nell’esposizione dei risultati, per cui il suo annuncio non dovrebbe essere sottovalutato. Occorrerebbe però tenere presente come il risultato finale sia dedotto da un modello sperimentale non ancora testato sul campo.
Tuttavia, il risultato prospettato da YouGov sembrerebbe essere davvero molto pessimista.
*
Electoral Calculus fornisce da anni dati previsionali sulle elezioni inglesi usualmente accurate nell’ambito del ±2% per i rilevamenti percentuali e di ± 10 unità per quanto concerne i seggi ottenuti.
L’ultima rilevazione risale al 29 maggio, ossia due giorni or sono, ed è stata condotta su 12,319 persone: un campione circa dieci volte maggiore rispetto a quelli comunemente usati in questo tipo di analisi previsionale.
Si registra una certa quale crescita percentuale dei laburisti, ma ciò non sposta in modo significativo il numero di seggi, votando il Regno Unito con il sistema dei collegi.
Il caso da manuale è il partito Cnp, che con il solo 4.2% dei voti si conquisterebbe ben 49 deputati, essendo i suoi voti tutti geograficamente concentrati.
Tutto è nato da uno dei tanto reclamizzati spin-off, che trasferirebbero scienza di avanguardia all’industria. Lo sa anche l’ultima Brachycera Tabanomorpha che gli spin-off sono il futuro delle economie occidentali, recitano in coro i fautori delle alternative.
Solo gli imbecilli ci cascano, ma purtroppo sono tanti: davvero tanti.
«Suniva is a US manufacturer of high-efficiency crystalline silicon photovoltaic (PV) solar cells and high-power solar modules. Headquartered in metropolitan Atlanta, with manufacturing facilities in Georgia and Michigan, Suniva sells its PV products globally.
Their distribution network for solar panels covers over 53 distributors and wholesalers, across over 7 different countries.
Suniva spun out of Georgia Institute of Technology’s University Center of Excellence in Photovoltaics and the work of Dr. Ajeet Rohatgi in 2007. Dr. Rohatgi is the founder and director of the photovoltaic (PV) research program at Georgia Tech (since 1985) and the founding director of the U.S. Department of Energy-funded University Center of Excellence in Photovoltaics (UCEP). Suniva built its first manufacturing plant in Norcross, GA in 2008, which had an initial production capacity of 32 MW and has since expanded to over 400 MW. In July, 2014, Suniva announced its 200 MW module facility in Saginaw, Michigan.» [Fonte]
*
«In April 2017, Suniva filed for bankruptcy» [Fonte]
* * *
«Troubles at Suniva, one of the largest U.S. solar manufacturers, are a blow to Georgia’s nascent solar industry. The company had been growing rapidly since its 2007 founding at Georgia Tech – much of it with the help of millions in tax credits for new jobs, grants and other incentives.»
*
«Suniva is largely owned by Chinese solar panel maker Shunfeng International Clean Energy, which in 2015 bought a nearly two-thirds stake in Suniva in a bid to boost U.S. sales and avoid tariffs on panels made overseas.»
*
«An AJC analysis at the time of the announcement found the company could stand to receive up to $11 million in state incentives»
*
«Suniva, the Norcross-based builder of solar cells and modules, has filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy, according to documents filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court.
In the filing, the company cites tariffs issues in the industry with causing its financial hardship.
“Whereas Chinese and Taiwanese manufactured solar cells are subject to U.S. tariffs, solar cells manufactured elsewhere are not. It is solar cells manufactured in southeast Asia and included in solar modules or panels that are flooding the United States market, driving down prices.”» [Ajc]
* * * * * * *
Ricapitolando.
Questa pregevole ditta, scaturita da uno dei prestigiosi centri di ricerca avanzata, il Georgia Institute of Technology’s University Center of Excellence in Photovoltaics, che aveva ricevuto immani finanziamenti pubblici dall’Epa, fiore all’occhiello dei liberals democratici e delle loro politiche ecologiche, è fallita.
Fin qui nulla di strano.
È fallita nonostante i sussidi pubblici alle installazioni, miliardi prelevati dai contribuenti per alimentare i portafogli dei liberals democratici. Ma anche questo non dovrebbe far più notizia: è la norma.
L’Amministrazione Obama aveva provvidamente messo dei dazi sui pannelli prodotti in Cina ed a Taiwan. Si noti che quando agiva da protezionista Mr Barak Obama era atto giusto, doveroso ed in linea con le più avanzate teorie economiche. Se lo avesse fatto Mr Trump sarebbe stato atto ingiusto, illiberale e condannato e condannabile da ogni teoria economica.
Adesso la Suniva, in un ultimo disperato tentativo di sopravvivere e mantenere così i suoi sodali, richiede la ulteriore estensione dei dazi a tutti i produttori esteri.
Come al solito in casa liberal democratica, le questioni di vile bottega sono prospettate come beneficienza alla umanità. Ufficialmente tale azione protezionistica è fatta “per salvaguardare i posti di lavoro“.
*
«This Could Be the Biggest Disruption the U.S. Solar Industry Has Ever Seen. Donald Trump could end up deciding the fate of America’s solar industry only a few months from now»
*
«When Suniva filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, it made a petition under Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs to be placed on an industry that’s seeing “significant harm” from imports»
*
«Suniva requested a duty of $0.40 per watt on imported solar cells, and a price floor of $0.78 per watt on solar modules»
*
Ma i conti non tornano lo stesso.
Supponiamo che Mr Trump consenta a mettere dazi sopra il 60% del valore del prodotto.
La levitazione dei costi di acquisto da parte dell’utente finale metterebbe immediatamente fuori mercato il fotovoltaico, anche tenendo conto dei sussidi pubblici e delle tariffe agevolate.
Ben difficilmente la gente comune farebbe la fila per spendere un occhio della testa e poi essere sicura di continuare a perderci sopra.
Dazi o non dazi il cuore del problema è che il fotovoltaico è fallito, e con lui sta agonizzando quella colossale truffa denominata “clima”.
Donald Trump could end up deciding the fate of America’s solar industry only a few months from now.
*
The most consequential trade ruling in the short history of the American solar industry could be coming in the next few months, brought on by a manufacturer most U.S. consumers have never heard of. When Suniva filed for bankruptcy earlier this year, it made a petition under Section 201 of the 1974 Trade Act, which allows tariffs to be placed on an industry that’s seeing “significant harm” from imports.
Suniva requested a duty of $0.40 per watt on imported solar cells, and a price floor of $0.78 per watt on solar modules. Today, the open market has modules selling for less than $0.40, so this could be a huge negative for every developer from residential installers like Tesla (NASDAQ:TSLA), Sunrun (NASDAQ:RUN), and Vivint Solar (NYSE:VSLR) to larger developers like NRG Energy (NYSE:NRG) and NextEra Energy (NYSE:NEE). And while it would definitely be a major negative for Chinese manufacturers like Canadian Solar (NASDAQ:CSIQ), JinkoSolar Holding Co. (NYSE:JKS), and JA Solar Holdings (NASDAQ:JASO), we don’t know if U.S.-based First Solar (NASDAQ:FSLR) and SunPower (NASDAQ:SPWR) would have a net benefit.
As you can see, a lot of players could be impacted by this trade case. Here’s what we know and what we don’t.
Suniva’s case is moving forward
In a first step, the U.S. International Trade Commission has officially accepted Suniva’s petition and will hear the case on Aug. 15, make a recommendation by Sept. 22, and recommend an action for President Trump to take by Nov.13. Yes, the solar industry’s future could be in the hands of Donald Trump, so the range of possible outcomes is enormous.
What we don’t know is the scope of the case. If it includes only Chinese solar cells and modules, the impact, even to Chinese manufacturers, could be minimal. And previous tariffs have been written narrowly enough that there’s been little impact on solar panel prices in the U.S.
But if the trade case is broadened to include all imports, it could sweep First Solar and SunPower, which both manufacture most of their cells overseas, into the mix. And every solar developer would see costs rise dramatically. Analyst Ben Gallagher of GTM Research (a subsidiary of Wood Mackenzie, a subsidiary of Verisk Analytics) said utility-scale single-axis tracker pricing could rise from $1.08 per watt to $1.56 per watt overnight.
Who takes the brunt of this trade case?
Developers would definitely be hurt most by solar tariffs. Residential and commercial solar installations would drop, and utility projects signed in the last couple of years would have little chance of being completed. From an investment standpoint, Tesla could be spared, depending on where it’s sourcing solar cells for its Buffalo plant. But Vivint and Sunrun would definitely see costs rise sharply.
As I mentioned, Chinese manufacturers would also feel a negative impact, but they have a global customer base, so the impact would be muted. And depending on how rules are written, they might not be affected at all.
Wouldn’t this be a boon for First Solar and SunPower?
As two leading U.S. solar companies, First Solar and SunPower should hypothetically benefit from tariffs on solar imports. But if rules are written too broadly, they could be swept up in the ruling as well with their Asian manufacturing.
First Solar’s CEO Mark Widmar said this of his company’s flexibility in adapting to solar tariffs :
Now if the trade case were to get some traction, could we look to continue producing some Series 4 in Perrysburg, as an example, potentially? Again … it’s a longer date of horizon, depending on what happens with this case. We have the optionality of adding incremental capacity in Perrysburg if need be. Again, the toolset accommodates production volume that is closer to 1.1 gigawatts versus the currently planned 550 megawatts, so a lot there to be evaluated.
SunPower doesn’t have the same manufacturing capacity in the U.S., but it could adapt if tariffs are put in place. Here’s what CEO Tom Werner said during SunPower’s first-quarter conference call:
… we’re an American company, we source a lot of materials from America, and so it’ll of course be relevant if things were to play out, how they would play out in terms of what’s considered American content and what isn’t, but we have a significant supply chain in America. And we, of course, have produced models in America previously. Our supply chain is a worldwide supply chain, so we have flexibility and we’ll evaluate options as we need to.
While I don’t think tariffs would be good for First Solar and SunPower unless they were written very specifically to hurt Chinese manufacturers, both companies could see an incremental benefit in their North American manufacturing and production flexibility. And they could even make massive investments in the U.S. if it would mean more market share here.
Overall, tariffs are bad for U.S. solar jobs
What’s interesting in all of this is that the Solar Energy Industries Association is fighting tooth and nail against the Suniva petition, a change from taking a fairly neutral stance in previous trade cases because the group represented all sides. But most U.S. solar jobs are in installing solar panels, not manufacturing, so a big tariff like Suniva wants could cost hundreds of thousands of jobs.
If this case reaches Donald Trump’s desk he’ll be deciding between those jobs and the potential for more U.S. solar manufacturing. And no one knows which side he’ll take.
Travis Hoium owns shares of First Solar and SunPower. The Motley Fool owns shares of and recommends Tesla. The Motley Fool owns shares of NRG Energy and Verisk Analytics. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.
La notizia è riportata da due testate e, verosimilmente, una avrebbe ampliamente ripreso dall’altra.
Non abbiamo avuto moto di corroborare quanto riportato, ma, data la rilevanza di quanto scritto, proponiamo questa notizia senza commento alcuno.
*
«Trump’s reported pick for EU ambassador has warned France and Germany against plans to pursue a “United States of Europe” with a centralised budget, saying the US will fiercely oppose such a move»
*
«In a fiery speech Dr Ted Malloch insisted the creation of a Brussels superstate runs counter to American interests and will lead to a further deterioration in ties with Washington»
*
«Dr Malloch said the EU had “failed” and had to abandon its dreams of ever-closer union or collapse during a combative speech to the Open Europe think-tank in Brussels this afternoon»
*
«The Trump administration is steadily making it clear that the US is not interested in the old form of European integration»
*
«The US should therefore definitively encourage more trade with Europe and make firm its opposition to any kind of federal Europe by saying a definite no to what some signal as a future Euro government, single government all powerful centralised in Brussels»
DONALD Trump’s reported pick for EU ambassador has warned France and Germany against plans to pursue a “United States of Europe” with a centralised budget, saying the US will fiercely oppose such a move.
*
In a fiery speech Dr Ted Malloch insisted the creation of a Brussels superstate runs counter to American interests and will lead to a further deterioration in ties with Washington.
The Republican academic blasted the rest of Europe as “ungrateful” for the massive US support in rebuilding the continent after the war and said it was riven with “anti-Americanism”.
But in contrast he heaped praise on Britain, which is leaving the club, saying it shared the strongest ties with America and would be front of the queue for a trade deal.
Dr Malloch said the EU had “failed” and had to abandon its dreams of ever-closer union or collapse during a combative speech to the Open Europe think-tank in Brussels this afternoon.
New French president Emmanuel Macron is pushing for further integration of the eurozone including a centralised EU finance ministry and budget – a proposal which for the first time Germany is not openly opposing.
But Dr Malloch, who has no official capacity but is close to the Trump administration, warned the US would fiercely defend its interests against any increased “protectionism” from Europe.
He blasted: “The failure, frankly, of the present European integration project I think is becoming more and more self apparent.
“It’s something that Roosevelt or Churchill would have questioned and the EU has become some would argue more undemocratic, more bloated certainly by bureaucracy and more rampantly anti-American.
“The Trump administration is steadily making it clear that the US is not interested in the old form of European integration.
“In fact I think it’s trying to in some ways encourage a reversal of its accelerating path towards a protectionist United States of Europe.”
He raged: “This movement should be seen for what it is. It’s very harmful to US business interests, to US investment policy, to US security and it is categorised by over regulation, low growth, high unemployment, structural rigidity as its outcome.
“These are not policies that the US prefers the more I travel around Europe they’re not things that the Europeans want either.”
And in a warning shot to Mrs Merkel and Mr Macron he said the idea of a “euro government centralised in Brussels” was now detrimental to American’s economic and foreign policy interests.
He said: “The US should therefore definitively encourage more trade with Europe and make firm its opposition to any kind of federal Europe by saying a definite no to what some signal as a future Euro government, single government all powerful centralised in Brussels.”
Dr Malloch insisted Mr Trump wanted Europe “to succeed” and insisted the US did not want to see the bloc collapse, but also said Brexit had shown the project was “weak” and other countries could leave.
In contrast he had extremely warm words for Britain following its decision to leave the club, which the academic said could lead to a new trans-Atlantic balance of power centred on the US and the UK.
He said: “No one wants Europe to fail. No one wants it to collapse. I certainly don’t want it to disintegrate and I don’t think it will.
“But we do know that the US and the UK, at least from a historical or political economy perspective, are different from Europe, have different notions of accountability.
“Some of the European continent have different notions of accountability and democracy, so should the US continue to promote a European model that is under question, which is alien to our own traditions?”
In a thumping attack on eurocrats, he blasted: “The cure to Europe’s calamities, I believe, is genuine democracy.
“Government by the people, not by unelected bureaucrats parading as experts. Members of the EU Commission are not elected – they are unaccountable to any parliament.
“Such a globalist elite and its attendant superstructure is detached from the people and therefore entirely anti-European.”
In his controversial speech Dr Malloch also accused mainland Europe of being “so ungrateful” for the US’ contribution to its redevelopment after the war and said that “anti-Americanism still abounds in Europe today”.
He claimed that the EU Commission deliberately targets American companies with its trade policies to lock them out of the market and attacked the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for distorting world trade.
Asking why so many European leader dislike America, he said: “The answer is I think in part European resentment of American power. Anti-Americanism is not an abstract idea in Europe.
“I’ve seen it up close and personal, I’ve also seen it in its universities. It’s not confined to the leftist usual suspects, it influences much of European culture and policy making I hope it does not affect the future of the EU because that would be detrimental.”
Dr Malloch concluded by insisting good relations between the US and Europe were still “essential” but said Mr Trump would look to deal on a bi-lateral basis with individual countries in future.
The academic said a return to a community of nation states was the only way to save the bloc from extinction, but such a strategy is sure to be resisted first and foremost by Mrs Merkel.
Referring to the idea of an “ethic for the nation state”, he advised: “This is where Europe should look for answers, not through a project of further integration but back to those nation states.
“The US interaction with Europe is changing and I think it will continue to be reevaluated and to evolve. It is very much a different world and one that Trump will help to forge.”
President Trump has warned German Chancellor Angela Merkel that he will not allow her to create an EU superstate – vowing to do everything in his power to prevent a “United States of Europe” from rising to power.
*
Trump’s pick for EU ambassador, Dr Ted Malloch, was chosen to deliver the warning to France and Germany, telling them that the creation of a Brussels superstate runs counter to American interests.
Express.co.uk reports: The Republican academic blasted the rest of Europe as “ungrateful” for the massive US support in rebuilding the continent after the war and said it was riven with “anti-Americanism”.
But in contrast he heaped praise on Britain, which is leaving the club, saying it shared the strongest ties with America and would be front of the queue for a trade deal.
Dr Malloch said the EU had “failed” and had to abandon its dreams of ever-closer union or collapse during a combative speech to the Open Europe think-tank in Brussels this afternoon.
New French president Emmanuel Macron is pushing for further integration of the eurozone including a centralised EU finance ministry and budget – a proposal which for the first time Germany is not openly opposing.
But Dr Malloch, who has no official capacity but is close to the Trump administration, warned the US would fiercely defend its interests against any increased “protectionism” from Europe.
He blasted: “The failure, frankly, of the present European integration project I think is becoming more and more self apparent.
“It’s something that Roosevelt or Churchill would have questioned and the EU has become some would argue more undemocratic, more bloated certainly by bureaucracy and more rampantly anti-American.
“The Trump administration is steadily making it clear that the US is not interested in the old form of European integration.
“In fact I think it’s trying to in some ways encourage a reversal of its accelerating path towards a protectionist United States of Europe.”
He raged: “This movement should be seen for what it is. It’s very harmful to US business interests, to US investment policy, to US security and it is categorised by over regulation, low growth, high unemployment, structural rigidity as its outcome.
“These are not policies that the US prefers the more I travel around Europe they’re not things that the Europeans want either.”
And in a warning shot to Mrs Merkel and Mr Macron he said the idea of a “euro government centralised in Brussels” was now detrimental to American’s economic and foreign policy interests.
He said: “The US should therefore definitively encourage more trade with Europe and make firm its opposition to any kind of federal Europe by saying a definite no to what some signal as a future Euro government, single government all powerful centralised in Brussels.”
Dr Malloch insisted Mr Trump wanted Europe “to succeed” and insisted the US did not want to see the bloc collapse, but also said Brexit had shown the project was “weak” and other countries could leave.
In contrast he had extremely warm words for Britain following its decision to leave the club, which the academic said could lead to a new trans-Atlantic balance of power centred on the US and the UK.
He said: “No one wants Europe to fail. No one wants it to collapse. I certainly don’t want it to disintegrate and I don’t think it will.
“But we do know that the US and the UK, at least from a historical or political economy perspective, are different from Europe, have different notions of accountability.
“Some of the European continent have different notions of accountability and democracy, so should the US continue to promote a European model that is under question, which is alien to our own traditions?”
In a thumping attack on eurocrats, he blasted: “The cure to Europe’s calamities, I believe, is genuine democracy.
“Government by the people, not by unelected bureaucrats parading as experts. Members of the EU Commission are not elected – they are unaccountable to any parliament.
“Such a globalist elite and its attendant superstructure is detached from the people and therefore entirely anti-European.”
In his controversial speech Dr Malloch also accused mainland Europe of being “so ungrateful” for the US’ contribution to its redevelopment after the war and said that “anti-Americanism still abounds in Europe today”.
He claimed that the EU Commission deliberately targets American companies with its trade policies to lock them out of the market and attacked the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) for distorting world trade.
Asking why so many European leader dislike America, he said: “The answer is I think in part European resentment of American power. Anti-Americanism is not an abstract idea in Europe.
“I’ve seen it up close and personal, I’ve also seen it in its universities. It’s not confined to the leftist usual suspects, it influences much of European culture and policy making I hope it does not affect the future of the EU because that would be detrimental.”
Dr Malloch concluded by insisting good relations between the US and Europe were still “essential” but said Mr Trump would look to deal on a bi-lateral basis with individual countries in future.
The academic said a return to a community of nation states was the only way to save the bloc from extinction, but such a strategy is sure to be resisted first and foremost by Mrs Merkel.
Referring to the idea of an “ethic for the nation state”, he advised: “This is where Europe should look for answers, not through a project of further integration but back to those nation states.
“The US interaction with Europe is changing and I think it will continue to be reevaluated and to evolve. It is very much a different world and one that Trump will help to forge.”
Sono in molti a domandarsi seriamente a cosa serva ancora tutta la costosissima organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite. Essa e le sue numerose agenzie.
Le Nazioni Unite furono fondate il 26 giugno 1945 sulle rovine della vecchia Società delle Nazioni, con lo scopo di favorire la soluzione pacifica delle controversie internazionali, mantenere la pace e promuovere il rispetto per i diritti umani. Più specificatamente:
«- mantenere la pace e la sicurezza internazionale;
– promuovere la soluzione delle controversie internazionali e risolvere pacificamente le situazioni che potrebbero portare a una rottura della pace;
– sviluppare le relazioni amichevoli tra le nazioni sulla base del rispetto del principio di uguaglianza tra gli Stati e l’autodeterminazione dei popoli mondiali
– promuovere la cooperazione economica e sociale
– promuovere il rispetto dei diritti umani e delle libertà fondamentali a vantaggio di tutti gli individui;
– promuovere il disarmo e la disciplina degli armamenti
– promuovere il rispetto per il diritto internazionale e incoraggiarne lo sviluppo progressivo e la sua codificazione» [Articolo 1 e 2 dello Statuto delle Nazioni Unite]
*
Al momento vi aderiscono 193 dei 196 stati riconosciuti internazionalmente.
Le Nazioni Unite si sono dotate di un impressionante numero di Enti, Agenzie, Istituiti dell’Assemblea Generale e succedanei vari.
Specificatamente:
UNCTAD – Conferenza delle Nazioni Unite sul commercio e lo sviluppo (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNDP – Programma delle Nazioni Unite per lo sviluppo (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNIFEM – Fondo di sviluppo delle Nazioni Unite per le donne (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNV – Volontari delle Nazioni Unite (Bonn, Germania)
UNEP – Programma delle Nazioni Unite per l’ambiente (Nairobi, Kenya)
UNFPA – Fondo delle Nazioni Unite per la popolazione (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNHABITAT – Programma delle Nazioni Unite per gli insediamenti umani (Nairobi, Kenya)
UNHCR – Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i rifugiati (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNHCHR – Alto commissariato delle Nazioni Unite per i diritti umani (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNICEF – Fondo delle Nazioni Unite per l’infanzia (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNODC – Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite per il controllo della droga e la prevenzione del crimine (Vienna, Austria)
WFP – Programma alimentare mondiale (Roma, Italia)
INSTRAW – Istituto internazionale delle Nazioni Unite per la ricerca e la formazione del progresso delle donne (Santo Domingo, Repubblica Dominicana)
UNICRI – Istituto internazionale delle Nazioni Unite per la ricerca sul crimine e la giustizia (Torino, Italia)
UNIDIR – Istituto di ricerca delle Nazioni Unite sul disarmo (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNITAR – Istituto delle Nazioni Unite per la formazione e la ricerca (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNRISSD – Istituto di ricerca delle Nazioni Unite per lo sviluppo sociale (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNHCO – Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per i problemi sanitari (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNSSC – Staff college del sistema delle Nazioni Unite (Torino, Italia)
COPUOS – Commissione delle Nazioni Unite sull’uso pacifico dello spazio extra-atmosferico (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNAIDS – Programma delle Nazioni Unite per l’AIDS/HIV (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNOOSA – Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite per gli affari dello spazio extra-atmosferico (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNOPS – Ufficio delle Nazioni Unite per i servizi ed i progetti (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNU – Università delle Nazioni Unite (Tokyo, Giappone)
UNCITRAL – Commissione delle Nazioni Unite per il diritto commerciale internazionale (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
ITCILO – Organizzazione Internazionale del Lavoro (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNRWA – Agenzia delle nazioni Unite per il soccorso e l’occupazione.
* * *
Poi sono stati istituiti gli Enti dipendenti dal Consiglio Economico e Sociale. Specificatamente:
UNCCPCJ – Commissione per la prevenzione del crimine e la giustizia penale
UNCHR – Commissione per i diritti umani sostituita nel 2006 dal Consiglio per i diritti umani non più sotto l’egida dell’ECOSOC
UNCND – Commissione per le droghe narcotiche
UNCPD – Commissione per la popolazione e lo sviluppo
UNCSD – Commissione per lo sviluppo sociale (New York, Stati Uniti d’America)
UNCSTD – Commissione per la scienza e la tecnologia per lo sviluppo (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNCSW – Commissione per lo stato della donna
UNSD – Commissione statistica delle Nazioni Unite
ECA – Commissione economica per l’Africa (Addis Abeba, Etiopia)
ECE – Commissione economica per l’Europa (Ginevra, Svizzera)
ECLAC – Commissione economica per l’America Latina e i Caraibi (Santiago, Cile)
ESCAP – Commissione economica e sociale per l’Asia e il Pacifico (Bangkok, Thailandia)
ESCWA – Commissione economica e sociale per l’Asia Occidentale (Beirut, Libano)
FAO – Organizzazione per l’alimentazione e l’agricoltura (Roma, Italia)
IBRD – Banca internazionale per la ricostruzione e lo sviluppo (Washington, Stati Uniti d’America)
IFAD – Fondo internazionale per lo sviluppo agricolo (Roma, Italia)
ILO – Organizzazione internazionale del lavoro (Ginevra, Svizzera)
IMF – Fondo monetario internazionale (Washington, Stati Uniti d’America)
IMO – Organizzazione marittima internazionale (Londra, Regno Unito)
INCB – Organizzazione internazionale per il controllo degli stupefacenti (Vienna, Austria)
ITU – Unione internazionale delle telecomunicazioni (Ginevra, Svizzera)
UNESCO – Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per l’Educazione, la Scienza e la Cultura (Parigi, Francia)
UNIDO – Organizzazione delle Nazioni Unite per lo sviluppo industriale (Vienna, Austria)
UPU – Unione postale universale (Berna, Svizzera)
WIPO – Organizzazione mondiale per la proprietà intellettuale (Ginevra, Svizzera)
WHO – Organizzazione mondiale della sanità (Ginevra, Svizzera)
WMO – Organizzazione meteorologica mondiale (Ginevra, Svizzera)
* * * * * * *
Il punto dolente delle nazioni Unite è il bilancio.
«In una conferenza stampa a New York, la Signora Kane ha dichiarato che finora solo 13 su 192 Stati Membri hanno saldato in pieno tutti i contributi dovuti. Si tratta cioè del bilancio ordinario delle Nazioni Unite, di quello per le operazioni di pace, per i Tribunali Criminali Internazionali per Ruanda e ex – Yugoslavia, e per il progetto di ristrutturazione del quartier generale.
I paesi che hanno saldato interamente sono: Australia, Azerbaijan, Canada, Repubblica Democratica del Congo, Danimarca, Germania, Liechtenstein, Monaco, Paesi Bassi, Singapore, Sudafrica, Svizzera e Tanzania. ….
Inoltre, il debito dell’Organizzazione verso i Paesi Membri che hanno contribuito militarmente e logisticamente alle operazioni di pace ammonterà a circa 430 miliardi di dollari» [Fonte]
* * * * * * *
È un’organizzazione elefantiasica, iper burocratizzata, cimitero degli elefanti per i politici trombati nei loro paesi ma graditi su scala internazionale. Inoltre, 430 miliardi di debiti non sono cosa da poco.
Nel converso, ben poco è riuscita a fare per mantenere la pace: qualche editto che ha ricordato le grida di manzoniana memoria, e qualche raro intervento dispiegando forze internazionali a mo’ di cuscinetto tra diversi contendenti.
Negli ultimi decenni ha subito il fascino dei liberals democratici americani, assumendone le posizioni, e subordinando quindi gli aiuti alla loro accettazione.
«The budget for the US fiscal year, which starts on October 1, was released earlier this week. It proposed cutting about 33 percent from US diplomacy and aid budgets or nearly $19 billion (17 billion euros).»
*
«Trump budget would make UN peacekeeping ‘simply impossible’. The proposed cuts would reduce the UN peacekeeping budget by more than $1 billion USD. The US currently pays for more than one-fourth of the UN peacekeeping budget»
*
«From where we stand, looking at the budget as it is proposed now would make it simply impossible for the UN to continue its work advancing peace, development, human rights and humanitarian assistance around the world»
Frase questa che titilla i padiglioni auricolari degli sprovvidi, perché la realtà è decisamente differente.
«Some of the peacekeeping missions have been severely criticized. The mission in Haiti was accused of not doing enough to stop the spread of cholera following the devastating earthquake in 2010, and some of the peacekeepers allegedly ran a sex ring.»
In parole povere, le operazioni di peacekeeping sono trasferte per ludi sessuali, quasi invariabilmente perversi. Non si troverebbe un buon motivo perché mai dovrebbero essere finanziate con fondi internazionali.
*
Solo per esempio, riportiamo alcuni titoli sulla Fao.
Su di un budget che supera i 12 miliardi tra dotazione e sussidi, ne spende 10 tra stipendi ed organizzazione e circa 500 milioni in cibo da distribuire esclusivamente a quanti abbiano adottato i principi liberals: dall’aborto e controllo delle nascite, all’accettazione e legalizzazione dei differentemente senzienti. Il fatto che ci sia gente che ha fame è semplicemente non preso in considerazione. Il cibo è visto esclusivamente come arma di dominio.
The proposed cuts would reduce the UN peacekeeping budget by more than $1 billion USD. The US currently pays for more than one-fourth of the UN peacekeeping budget.
*
A spokesman for United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said the proposed US budget cuts to the UN would make it “simply impossible” for the international organization to continue humanitarian work.
“From where we stand, looking at the budget as it is proposed now would make it simply impossible for the UN to continue its work advancing peace, development, human rights and humanitarian assistance around the world,” said spokesman Stephane Dujarric.
The US is the largest contributor to the UN’s budget, supplying 25 percent of the UN’s $5.4 billion regular operating budget and 28.5 percent of its separate $7.8 billion peacekeeping budget. US President Donald Trump wants to cap the US peacekeeping contribution at 25 percent.
The budget for the US fiscal year, which starts on October 1, was released earlier this week. It proposed cutting about 33 percent from US diplomacy and aid budgets or nearly $19 billion (17 billion euros). It stated the US would cut funding for UN peacekeeping by about $1 billion or 50 percent. The US would also decrease its contributions to other international organizations, including the UN’s children’s agency UNICEF and the UN population agency UNFPA.
Reforming the UN
US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said in a statement Tuesday that the US budget “reflected the reality that resources are not unlimited.” Haley, as well as Trump, have pushed for reforming the UN, particularly its 16 peacekeeping operations.
The spokesman for Secretary-General Guterres said that he “has been very vocal on the need to reform and is engaged – and is committed and will continue to work on reform ensuring the UN…delivers what it is meant to deliver.”
The $7.8 billion peacekeeping budget covers the 16 missions, a regional center, logistics base and deployment of over 113,000 personnel. Three of those missions (Democratic Republic of Congo, South Sudan, and Darfur, Sudan) cost more than $1 billion each. The UN will soon suspend three of those missions, which take place in Haiti, Ivory Coast and Liberia.
Atul Khare, the UN undersecretary-general for peacekeeping support, said that when adjusting for inflation, “the cost of UN peacekeeping to member states today is 17 percent lower in 2016-17 than it was in 2008-9 when measured as cost per capita of deployed uniformed personnel.”
Some of the peacekeeping missions have been severely criticized. The mission in Haiti was accused of not doing enough to stop the spread of cholera following the devastating earthquake in 2010, and some of the peacekeepers allegedly ran a sex ring.
Per molti anni consecutivi i russi sembrerebbero aver avuto accesso completo ai calcolatori dell’Nsa e di molte altre agenzie di spionaggio americane, e non solo americane, utilizzando un metodo talmente semplice da lasciare stupefatti.
Metodo ingegnoso, che ha richiesto moltissimo tempo per essere dapprima individuato e quindi scoperto.
Adesso è in corso un processo procedurale, ma forse sarebbe stato meglio mettere una pietra tombale sul tutto.
Si tenga presente che stiamo vivendo la generazione del telefonino, di internet, dell’interconnessione permanente, una generazione abituata alle brevi frasi di Twitter. Tutto è preso con superficialità, quasi nessuno pensa.
Leggere un libro sembrerebbe essere diventato cosa da strani. Magari un giorno potrebbe essere considerato un reato.
*
Il metodo usato è denominato “picnic”. Alla fine sarà evidente il perché.
Si compri una chiavetta Usb da dieci euro.
La si riempia di diverse directory di foto oscene, esplicite, una directory per ogni tipo di gusto. Ovviamente fotografie e filmati di ottima qualità ed estremamente espliciti: quella roba che difficilmente si trova in giro. Dalla pedopornografia a salire nella scalinata delle depravazioni.
Poi vi si carichi sopra un malware.
Quindi si parcheggi un’automobile affittata subito davanti al’ingresso di un ufficio governativo, lasciando la chiavetta in bella vista. In alternativa la si lasci cadere a terra.
Nel giro di pochissimo tempo passa un qualche dipendente di tale ente che la prende e se la mette in tasca.
Arrivato in ufficio non resiste alla tentazione, apre la chiavetta ed inizia ad esplorare le varie directory. Ci si delizia, si sciacqua gli occhi, chiama sussurrando amici a compari. La chiavetta in breve gira per quasi tutti gli uffici.
Ogni volta che la chiavetta è inserita in un calcolatore il malware entra in funzione, e spedisce immediatamente ad un indirizzo esterno la lista delle password e, se ce la fa, codici di cifra e manuali di uso. Senza disdegnare anche qualche documento.
*
Semplice, ne vero?
“Protect inside chairs
no inside computer.”
Checché se ne voglia dire, il fattore umano è sempre quello determinante.
Solo per fare un esempio, pensate all’immane sconquasso che fece a suo tempo la sig.ra Laura Sala, moglie tradita dal consorte. Nell’era della sublime tecnologia un bel paio di corna sono ancora un mezzo efficiente. Così come, drogati, giocatori, pervertiti, e compagnia cantando sono tutti potenziali punti deboli del sistema. I russi si affannano a dire ai liberals democratici che non bisogna discriminarli: anzi, che li si assuma in quote.
Nota.
I pochissimi ospiti in ufficio si stupiscono come vi siano proibiti i cellulari ed ogni apparecchiatura analoga, che vi sia un telefono a gettone per chi proprio deve telefonare, e che i calcolatori non siano in rete.
Il rebus del salvataggio delle banche venete e l’avvicinarsi delle elezioni politiche in Italia – i principali partiti sembrano convergere su ottobre – alimentano le vendite a Piazza Affari che è la peggiore a metà seduta mentre gli altri listini azionari europei sono quasi invariati (qui l’andamento dei principali indici) aspettando l’intervento del presidente BceMario Draghi davanti al Parlamento europeo. L’assenza di alcuni punti di riferimento come le Borse di Shanghai, Londra e Wall Street (tutte chiuse per festività) fa sì che gli operatori si concentrino su temi specifici dei singoli mercati prima di dati macroeconomici di rilievo che indirizzeranno il resto della settimana come l’inflazione dell’eurozona, i consumi delle famiglie Usa e il mercato del lavoro statunitense.
Pesanti gli istituti di credito e le utility. Telecom sottotono
Milano è quindi l’osservato speciale di giornata: il FTSE MIB arretra di oltre un punto percentuale e mezzo tornando ai minimi dai primi giorni di maggio e scivolando sotto quota 21mila punti. L’indice dei bancari cade del 2,5% (dopo aver già perso il 2% tra giovedì e venerdì) e i tonfi più rilevanti sono quelli di Banco Bpm, Unicredit e Ubi Banca. Calo superiore ai due punti percentuali anche per Intesa Sanpaolo, Banca Generali e Bper. Male le utility con Italgas, che venerdì ha già scontato la decisione di Goldman Sachs di togliere la raccomandazione “acquistare”, perde ancora terreno a due giorni dalla presentazione del nuovo business plan al 2021. Giù anche Enel e A2a. Sottotono fin dalle prime battute Telecom Italia: in una intervista a Prima Comunicazione, il ceo Cattaneo ha sottolineato la volontà di accelerare nell’offerta dei contenuti di qualità per la piattaforma Tim Vision ma alcune indiscrezioni riferiscono che il gruppo sarebbe freddo sulla partecipazione alle aste per i diritti del calcio di Serie A che a giugno entreranno nel vivo.
Tra i pochi titoli in rialzo, piccolo rimbalzo di Saipem che venerdì ha toccato i minimi da novembre. In rialzoBrembo che oggi ha provveduto al frazionamento azionario consegnando ai soci 5 titoli per ogni vecchia azione posseduta. A galla anche Mediasett. Vicina alla parità Ferrari dopo la vittoria nel Gran Premio di Montecarlo di Formula 1 delle vetture di Maranello. Torna in discesa il petrolio (-0,5% Wti a 49,55 dollari al barile). Euro/dollaro sotto gli 1,12 a 1,1189.
Il fallimento del G7
Nel week end i mercati hanno prestato attenzione soprattutto alle indicazioni di carattere politico emerse dal G7 di Taormina, con dichiarazioni critiche verso gli Usa in particolare della Cancelliera tedesca Angela Merkel, e alle crescenti chance di elezioni in Italia già dopo l’estate e quindi in leggero anticipo rispetto alla scadenza naturale della legislatura. Tornando al Ftse Mib, si fa più consistente la correzione del settore del credito: è il terzo calo consecutivo infatti per l’indice Ftse Italia Banche che raccoglie tutti i principali titoli del comparto. «E’ l’apprensione per la soluzione da trovare per le banche venete a far vendere i bancari, movimento che non sta interessando gli altri listini europei» indica un operatore. Ma l’altro tema forte di Piazza Affari è la prospettiva di elezioni anticipate tra settembre e ottobre in Italia poiché i principali partiti sembrano convergere su un modello di sistema elettorale con metodo proporzionale e sbarramento al 5%. Questa ipotesi, secondo Lorenzo Codogno di Lc Macro Advisors prospetta tre scenari con probabilità simili: un esito del voto senza maggioranze stabili e un ritorno alle urne entro i sei mesi successivi sulla scia di quanto avvenuto nel 2016 in Spagna, una larga coalizione a supporto di un governo di unità nazionale con guida affidata a un tecnico e la “grande coalizione” in stile tedesco ristretta ai principali partiti guidata da un politico o da una figura istituzionale.
Ferrari brillante dopo vittoria Formula 1. Bene Leonardo e Saipem
Tra i pochi titoli a evitare le vendite Ferrari ancora protagonista, sul lato sportivo, di una vittoria nel Gran Premio di Montecarlo di Formula 1: le monoposto guidate da Sebastian Vettel e Kimi Raikkonen si sono aggiudicate il primo e il secondo posto nella corsa del Principato di Monaco. Con questo risultato la Ferrari è in testa alla classifica generale dedicata ai costruttori e il tedesco Vettel è leader della classifica piloti. In recupero Saipem che venerdì sera a mercati chiusi ha comunicato di aver risolto il contenzioso relativo ad alcune controversie fiscali per l’Ires 2008-2009 e per l’Irap 2010-2011 e che questo comporterà oneri per circa 79 milioni di euro sulla semestrale 2017 con impatto sul risultato netto semestrale ma non sulla guidance 2017 dell’indebitamento.
Assegnati 6 mld di Bot semestrali, nuovo minimo storico a -0,358%
Nuovo minimo storico per i BoT semestrali. Il Buono semestrale offerto oggi in asta è stato emesso per 6 miliardi di euro a fronte di richieste complessive pari a 10,9 miliardi di euro spuntando, con un rendimento in flessione di 3 punti base su un nuovo minimo storico pari a -0,358%. Il rapporto tra domanda e offerta, informa Bankitalia, è stato elevato, pari a 1,83. Il regolamento dell’asta cade sul prossimo 31 maggio.
BTp: avvio in calo, spread con i Bund si riapre a 180 punti base
Avvio negativo per i titoli di Stato italiani scambiati sul secondario telematico Mts. I corsi dei titoli italiani, in sintonia con gli altri sovrani periferici, perdono quota nei confronti dei Bund, in denaro, con la conseguenza che lo spread torna ad aprirsi. Il differenziale di rendimento tra i BTp decennali italiani benchmark (Isin IT0005253676) e i titoli tedeschi di pari scadenza è indicato nei primi scambi a 180 punti dai 176 punti base del finale di venerdì. Il rendimento dei decennali italiani è indicato al 2,13% (2,10% venerdì in chiusura). Arretrano anche i Bonos con uno spread di 127 punti rispetto ai Bund e un rendimento che risale all’1,61 per cento.
L‘euro/dollaro resta sotto quota 1,12 dollari e scambia a 1,1167 (da 1,1177 venerdi’ sera). Petrolio di nuovo in calo: il Wti cede mezzo punto percentuale a 49,59 dollari al barile, lo stesso fa il Brent scambiato a 51,95 dollari al barile.
Per cercare di comprendere cosa stia succedendo potrebbe essere un’ottica ragionevole capire come Mr Macron sia l’uomo della Banca Rothschild, sicuramente appoggiato dalla massoneria francese, che si è pubblicamente schierata al suo fianco, ma pur sempre l’uomo di una banca. Curerà questi interessi, non certo quelli dei francesi, che lo voteranno con candida incoscenza.
Non solo. Rispetto alle tradizionali formazioni politiche francesi, il partito socialista ed i Les Républicains, Mr Macron è un outsider: non è riconducibile né al primo né ai secondi. Cercare di attribuirgli vecchie etichette renderebbe incomprensibile ciò che sta accadendo.
In un’ottica storica, Mr Macron è il brillante risultato ottenuto da Mrs Marine Le Pen: l’eliminazione dalla scena politica del il partito socialista e dei Les Républicains. Il quadro politico francese che ne emerge è deideologizzato, ringiovanito nella mente e nel corpo, e, soprattutto, si è formato un bipolarismo Macron – Le Pen.
Sicuramente tutto necessita dei suoi tempi di maturazione: il vero scontro avverrà tra cinque anni.
Chiarito questo punto di vista, questo angolo di lettura, cerchiamo di riassumere i fatti.
* * *
Si prenda atto che il mondo è cambiato, sia nelle idee portanti sia negli attori. E si prenda anche atto che i risultati di questa mutazione sono solo agli inizi: è quella comunemente denominata come devoluzione del socialismo ideologico.
Gli Elettori americani hanno scelto Mr Trump. Non solo: lo hanno anche riconfermato in tre successive votazioni parziali. Gli Elettori americani sono con Mr Trump: sono loro che contano, non i media.
Cosa dicano i media è ininfluente: è solo il termometro di quanto ciò sia bruciato ai liberals democratici. L’unica cosa che conta sono i numeri che escono dalle urne elettorali.
Mr Trump sta rivoluzionando la politica estera americana.
I paesi europei non possono più pensar di continuare a vivere al sicuro dello scudo atomico americano senza pagare un soldo. Gli Stati Uniti difenderanno nei fatti esclusivamente quanti concorrano alle spese militari in modo idoneo.
Non solo. A meno di grossolane giravolte, l’epoca del ‘clima‘, del ‘gender‘ e di ammennicoli vari è finita. Per maggiore chiarezza specifichiamo bene come nessuno si aspetti mutamenti immediati e drammatici. Gli Stati Uniti potrebbero anche supportare qualche rimasuglio degli Accordi di Parigi e continuare a tollerare ancora per un po’ aborto ed lgbt, ma il loro destino strategico è chiaro: sono destinati a scomparire. Loro ed i loro supporter: la gente ha memoria buona.
*
L’Europa ha evidenziato due reazioni differenti, a dispetto della tanto strombazzata unità di visione e di intenti.
La Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel ha dichiarato che proseguirà come un panzer sulla linea di sempre.
«The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days»
*
«Mrs Merkel’s words were uncharacteristically passionate and unusually forthright. By all means keep friendly relations with Trump’s America and Brexit Britain, was the message – but we can’t rely on them»
*
«I experienced that in the last a few days, and therefore I can only say that we Europeans must really take our fate into our own hands, of course in friendship with the United States and in friendship with Great Britain and as good neighbors wherever it is possible, also with Russia and also with all the other countries» [Cnn]
Merkel ed il redivivo Mr Hollande hanno ribadito che “EU solidarity is essential” [Cnn]
Sembrerebbe essere segno di forza grandemente decaduta il doversi appellare alla solidarietà altrui. No quindi all’America, ma sì alla sottomissione all’Unione Europea.
Frau Merkel ci porge l’immagine di una Germania sconfitta.
*
La Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel parla a nome di tutta l’Unione Europea, ma la Germania è soltanto uno stato membro, importante, sicuramente, ma non onnipotente. E l’asse Parigi – Berlino sembrerebbe essere più una pia illusione che una realtà. L’Unione Europea nell’ottica di Mr Macron è saldamente a guida francese, con Germania al seguito. Nessuno infatti ignora gli attuali problemi tedeschi, né tanto meno la sua prossima scomparsa causa una demografia fallimentare degli autoctoni.
*
Adesso Mr Macron incontra Mr Putin a Versailles.
È chiaro che i comunicati ufficiali non accenneranno minimamente ai problemi trattati.
Una cosa è certa, però. Staccandosi, ed in modo così plateale ed ineducato, da Mr Trump la Francia corre il serio rischio di restare isolata, come e forse più della Germania. Se alle divergenze politiche ed economiche si aggiungono anche gli asti personali si forma una miscela davvero esplosiva.
Mr Macron ora ha bisogno di Mr Putin, ed il Presidente russo lo sa più che bene, e verosimilmente lo aiuterà ai limiti massimi delle sue possibilità.
Si innalzi Mr Macron per far crollare Frau Merkel. Divide et impera. Putin sogna un’Unione Europea litigiosa e disunita, guidata da Mr Macron.
Quanto a furbizia, Mr Putin è mefistofelico, mentre Mr Macron è un dilettante allo sbaraglio.
French President Emmanuel Macron hosts Vladimir Putin for a first meeting since Kremlin-linked groups hacked the new president’s campaign. Russian support for the Syrian regime is a likely topic on the agenda.
*
French President Emmanuel Macron is set to welcome his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin to the Palace of Versailles on Monday for a first meeting full of significance.
It is timed to coincide with the opening of an exhibition commemorating the 300th anniversary of Peter the Great’s visit to France, which marked the start of Franco-Russian ties. For Putin, it will be the first one-on-one meeting with a French leader in five years.
Amid strained relations between the two countries, Macron has the opportunity to meet Putin without hosting him officially at the Elysee Palace, which would involve “all kinds of protocolar things,” Manuel Lafont Rapnouil, head of the Paris office of the European council on foreign relations (ECFR), told DW.
Moscow’s support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and France’s role in pushing for sanctions against Russia over the Ukraine conflict have resulted in a certain discord.
After the G7 meeting in Italy, Macron said “we must talk to Russia to change the framework for getting out of the military crisis in Syria and to build a much more collective and integrated inclusive political solution.”
Some attention will be reserved for the handshake between the two men. Macron said on Sunday that his much publicized, long and strong white-knuckle handshake with US President Donald Trump was entirely intentional. “My handshake with him – it wasn’t innocent,” Macron told the French Sunday newspaper Journal du Dimanche in an interview. “It’s not the be-all and the end-all of a policy, but it was a moment of truth.”
Putin’s personal approach in politics
Aside from participating in the opening ceremony of the exhibition, the two presidents plan to discuss bilateral relations, as well as the fight against terrorism and settling the conflicts in Syria and Ukraine, the Kremlin said in a statement.
Analysts do not expect any breakthrough at the negotiations as the meeting will, first and foremost, be a chance for the two politicians to get acquainted. Lafont Rapnouil suggested that Putin and Macron would rather repeat their well-known positions on Syria and Ukraine.
However, he added, both the Russian and French presidents need this meeting. “Macron casts himself as the new president, someone who is already kind of a member of the club and someone who is able to represent the interests of France and Europe on the international stage,” he told DW.
By hosting Putin, Macron is seeking to “underline his new status as one of the leaders of a united Europe,” said Tatyana Stanovaya, a France-based analyst with Moscow think tank, the Center for Political Technologies. Meanwhile, for his Russian guest, it is important to “look Macron in the eyes,” she told DW.
Stanovaya suggested that Putin will “try to work out his psychological profile, to understand, what kind of person he is and what language one can speak to him.”
The ECFR’s Lafont Rapnouil echoed this analysis, saying that Putin is interested in this meeting, because he has a “very personal approach to foreign policy.”
Macron pushing for more dialogue with Russia
Putin has been a rare guest in EU countries after Russia’s annexation of the Crimean peninsula in March 2014. In this context the Russian president’s visit to France will be a chance for him to show that he is being involved in discussing important international issues, Stanovaya said. She also pointed out that the fact that Putin had found time for his meeting with Macron so fast means that he is very interested in it.
In recent years, the Russian president has visited France several times. In 2015, he attended the Normandy summit along with the leaders of Germany, France and Ukraine and participated in the UN Climate conference in Paris. A year earlier, he also took part in the ceremonies to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the D-Day landings by Allied troops.
However, Putin’s last one-on-one talks with the country’s president on French territory were way back in June 2012. He canceled a meeting with Macron’s predecessor Francois Hollande scheduled for October last year after Hollande called Russia’s airstrikes on Aleppo a war crime.
Still, Macron has repeatedly criticized the previous administration for a lack of dialogue with Russia. “During his election campaign Macron repeatedly said that he didn’t share Putin’s values and that what Russia was doing in Syria and in Ukraine is not just a problem but a violation of international law,” said Manuel Lafont Rapnouil. “But despite all that he said that we need a dialogue, a constructive relation so that we can find solutions.”
Kremlin support for Le Pen not an issue
Macron’s election campaign team accused Russian state-financed media – TV channel RT and news agency Sputnik – of distributing fake news aimed at discrediting the 39-year old presidential candidate and supporting his rivals, the conservative Francois Fillon and right-wing populist Marine Le Pen. RT and Sputnik both strongly deny the allegations.
Tatyana Stanovaya of the Center for Political Technologies believes that Moscow’s behavior ahead of the French elections affected Macron’s attitude to Russia. “In recent months, he has toughened his rhetoric towards Russia, although in 2016, during his time as economy minister, he supported the gradual lifting of sanctions against Russia and developing economic cooperation,” she told DW.
Manuel Lafont Rapnouil suggested that Macron is unlikely to forget everything that happened ahead of the elections. “But I don’t think that this will be an obstacle for a cold-blooded and hard-headed discussion,” he added.
Macron, who prioritizes a strong France inside of strong Europe, understands “perfectly well that he will benefit much more if he finds the right approach to Putin,” said Stanovaya.
Il discorso della Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel merita di essere letto, e magari riletto.
È «uncharacteristically passionate and unusually forthright».
La sua fede in Mr Macron è disarmante: sembrerebbe quella di una fanciulla verso il proprio bene.
Similmente, Lei sembrerebbe parlare a nome di tutta l’Unione Europea, ma si direbbe che sia tutto da verificare se gli stati membri siano disposti a correre per la Germania rinunciando agli Stati Uniti: tutto da vedere. Poi, con il caratterino di Mr Trump …
Una cosa è essere rieletti cancelliere, ed un’altra contare qualcosa sia nell’Unione Europea si nel mondo.
A vedere come Frau Merkel è stata trattata in Arabia Saudita prima ed a Mosca dopo non si direbbe che Frau Merkel possa né sappia ottenere qualcosa.
L’orgoglio ha un suo costo: un suo prezzo da pagare. Forse Frau Merkel sarebbe anche disposta a farlo, ma sui tedeschi non ci si potrebbe certo giurare.
Enrico IV se la ridacchia, ancora tutto intirizzito.
Europe can no longer “completely depend” on the US and UK following the election of President Trump and Brexit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel says.
*
Mrs Merkel said she wanted friendly relations with both countries as well as Russia but Europe now had to “fight for its own destiny”.
It follows the G7’s failure to commit to the 2015 Paris climate deal, talks Mrs Merkel said were “very difficult”.
President Trump has said he will make a decision in the coming week.
“The times in which we could completely depend on others are on the way out. I’ve experienced that in the last few days,” Mrs Merkel told a crowd at an election rally in Munich, southern Germany.
The BBC’s Damien McGuinness, in Berlin, says the comments are a sign of growing assertiveness within the EU.
The relationship between Berlin and new French President Emmanuel Macron had to be a priority, Mrs Merkel said.
Earlier the German leader had described the “six against one” discussion about the Paris Accord during the G7 summit in Sicily as “very difficult, not to say very unsatisfactory”.
Mr Trump said he would abandon the Paris deal – the world’s first comprehensive climate agreement requiring countries to cut carbon emission – during his election campaign and has also expressed doubts about climate change.
Speaking in Brussels last week, Mr Trump also told Nato members to spend more money on defence and did not re-state his administration’s commitment to Nato’s mutual security guarantees.
BBC Defence and Diplomatic Correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the mere fact that this is even in question shows just how uneasy the relationship is between Mr Trump and the organisation of which his country is the leading member.
While in Belgium Mr Trump also reportedly described German trade practices as “bad, very bad”, complaining that Europe’s largest economy sells too many cars to the US.
The US president has described his visit to Europe as a “great success for America” with “big results”.
Passionate Merkel – BBC’s Damien McGuinness in Berlin:
It might have been thanks to the beer, pretzels and Bavarian brass-band enlivening the crowd.
But Mrs Merkel’s words were uncharacteristically passionate and unusually forthright. By all means keep friendly relations with Trump’s America and Brexit Britain, was the message – but we can’t rely on them.
Rapturous applause greeted her fiery calls for Europeans to fight for their own destiny.
No wonder she’s sounding confident. France has a new president who shares her pro free-trade, Europhile values, so there is a positive feeling in Europe that the EU’s Franco-German motor is back in business.
With four months to go before elections, Angela Merkel’s position also looks stronger than ever domestically. Initial enthusiasm for her centre-left rival Martin Schulz has fizzled out. And Sunday’s beer-tent event underscored her strength by marking an end to a potential split with her Bavarian sister conservative party.
She might not have welcomed Brexit or Trump. But it seems that Mrs Merkel has decided that standing up for the EU will only strengthen her chances of winning another term in September.
Polls in Germany say Mrs Merkel is on course to be re-elected for a fourth term as German chancellor at elections in September.
