Pubblicato in: Demografia, Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Finlandia. È iniziata la fine del welfare finlandese.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-26.

Scandinavia 001

Il paese è uscito ancor più diviso di prima dalle elezioni del 14 aprile.

I socialdemocratici hanno ottenuto il 17.7% dei voti e 40 / 200 seggi, il partito dei finlandesi il 17.5% con 39 seggi, rispetto ai 17 ottenuti alle precedenti elezioni. I restanti voti sono sparsi su altri sette partiti.

I governi di coalizione sono la norma, ma come tutti gli esecutivi di tal fatta hanno vita grama e difficile: di norma non hanno la forza per affrontare di petto le situazioni, che quindi languiscono irrisolte.

*

Nella campagna elettorale si è parlato molto di tutto ciò che era irrilevante.

Il vero problema sul tavolino consiste nel fatto che la popolazione autoctona sta decrescendo rapidamente cui consegue la impossibilità di mantenere il livello del welfare. Nessun allarmismo immediato, ma la Finlandia ha imboccato un vicolo cieco che alla fine porta al collasso del sistema economico.

Gli unici ad aver correttamente inquadrato la reale situazione finlandese sono i russi di Mr Putin, che stanno pazientemente aspettando che spopolamento e crisi economica inneschino il movente per un intervento militare. Le mire russe sulla Scandinavia datano da Pietro il Grande.

* * * * * * *

«Since 2010, the Finnish total fertility rate has plummeted from its comparable low level of 1,87, to an all-time rock bottom of 1,41 in 2018,3) and there is no reason to assume that the trend will be reversed. Finland was hit quite badly by the financial crisis, and its economy really started to recover only in 2015,4) which can be seen as one major cause behind the low number of births. There has been some talk about the low fertility rate in the Finnish media in the recent years. However, there has been little political action to alleviate the situation. And, truth be told, the political actions to boost the fertility seem to be doomed anyway»

*

«In Finland, there is a large and growing elderly population, but the number of tax payers is not increasing, but actually decreasing.6) The much-touted panacea, immigration, is of little help in the case of Finland. As shown by Professor Emeritus Matti Viren, immigrants do not help to correct the dependency ratio, as their employment levels tend to be far lower than those of the native population.7) In fact, Viren has observed that in Finland, only the two highest earning deciles pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.8) The immigrant population is overrepresented in the lowest deciles, which shows that they do not add to the common pool of resources, but mostly receive from it.»

*

«All this means, that the long-term prospects of keeping up a vast welfare system seem bleak. Even now, in the middle of an economic upturn, that is finally coming to an end, the Finnish state is getting deeper into debt.9) The next recession will further exacerbate the situation, as those laid off will start to receive the unemployment benefits. In a recent interview, Heikki Hiilamo, professor of social policy at the University of Helsinki, brought up the possibility of dismantling the welfare state in a systematic and controlled fashion, since low fertility will make financing it impossible.10) This view represents the other of the two probable scenarios facing the Finnish welfare system in the coming years. An orderly dismantling of the social system, dispersed over several years, would mean gradual abandoning of many public services and drastic reduction in the public spending. However, all this would take place slowly, letting the society and the labor market adjust to the new situation. However, thanks to the unfavorable demographics, taxation would decrease rather slowly.»

*

«Cutting the public spending is a political suicide in a social democracy like Finland.»

*

«Second, discussing fertility seems to be perceived as an assault on the women’s rights. This means that a politician speaking about the lack of babies is branded as a henchman of the (imagined) patriarchy, whatever that means»

*

«In the long run, the Finnish welfare model has absolute zero chances of surviving»

* * * * * * *

Non è al momento possibile stabilire come e quando, ma in rapidi tempi finiti la Finlandia sperimenterà la dura realtà.


Gefira. 2019-05-24. The coming end of the Finnish welfare system

At the time of writing this, the negotiations to form the next Finnish government are in full swing. Currently, a red-green coalition, aided by either the liberal conservative National Coalition Party or the centrist-agrarian Center Party, seems a likely option. However, nothing is certain since the elections produced no clear winner. The three largest parties all gathered around 17% of the votes indicating a fractured electoral base.1) The negotiations might actually continue for some time to come.

The elections campaigns and debates were characterized by two things. First, there was much speculation regarding the popularity of the national conservative Finns Party, which changed its leadership in 2017 causing a split within the party.2) Second, the climate change was a major issue, which was extensively discussed and gained much visibility during the campaigning.2)

Both themes become understandable when considering the largely leftist-green discourse within the Finnish media. The rise of the Finns Party was feared, as its success could undermine the visions of the idealists inhabiting the larger cities, especially Helsinki and its surroundings. The climate change, on the other hand, was shamelessly utilized as a political tool to win votes of those struck by the climate anxiety.

It is telling, that the politicians were discussing with straight faces how Finland could work to stop the climate change. The notion that Finland with its puny population of 5,5 million could affect the climate in any meaningful way is demonstrably absurd, even insane. So, either the Finnish politicians have utterly lost their touch with the reality, or become mad, or are cynically lying. Given the track record of politicians in general, the last option is the likeliest one, which just proves the fact that in order to be a successful politician, one needs an utter and condescending contempt towards the voters. Otherwise the talk about the climate change remains incomprehensible.

There should have been a third theme also, however. That theme was one that was largely absent from the debates but very much present in the minds of those contemplating the economic and political future of Finland. That theme was demographics.

Since 2010, the Finnish total fertility rate has plummeted from its comparable low level of 1,87, to an all-time rock bottom of 1,41 in 2018,3) and there is no reason to assume that the trend will be reversed. Finland was hit quite badly by the financial crisis, and its economy really started to recover only in 2015,4) which can be seen as one major cause behind the low number of births. There has been some talk about the low fertility rate in the Finnish media in the recent years. However, there has been little political action to alleviate the situation. And, truth be told, the political actions to boost the fertility seem to be doomed anyway.5)

In Finland, there is a large and growing elderly population, but the number of tax payers is not increasing, but actually decreasing.6) The much-touted panacea, immigration, is of little help in the case of Finland. As shown by Professor Emeritus Matti Viren, immigrants do not help to correct the dependency ratio, as their employment levels tend to be far lower than those of the native population.7) In fact, Viren has observed that in Finland, only the two highest earning deciles pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.8) The immigrant population is overrepresented in the lowest deciles, which shows that they do not add to the common pool of resources, but mostly receive from it.

All this means, that the long-term prospects of keeping up a vast welfare system seem bleak. Even now, in the middle of an economic upturn, that is finally coming to an end, the Finnish state is getting deeper into debt.9) The next recession will further exacerbate the situation, as those laid off will start to receive the unemployment benefits.

In a recent interview, Heikki Hiilamo, professor of social policy at the University of Helsinki, brought up the possibility of dismantling the welfare state in a systematic and controlled fashion, since low fertility will make financing it impossible.10) This view represents the other of the two probable scenarios facing the Finnish welfare system in the coming years. An orderly dismantling of the social system, dispersed over several years, would mean gradual abandoning of many public services and drastic reduction in the public spending. However, all this would take place slowly, letting the society and the labor market adjust to the new situation. However, thanks to the unfavorable demographics, taxation would decrease rather slowly.

This scenario, although reasonable, is not likely to take place. Cutting the public spending is a political suicide in a social democracy like Finland. And if one government would be willing to do it, what stops the next government reversing what has been done? Too many in Finland depend on the state, either directly or indirectly, to be willing to cut from anything. In a democracy this means that the spending will not be reformed to fit the means of state, but will continue until the state can no longer get any money from the financial markets.11) Then the system crashes, causing misery and political instability.

The question of demographics, directly responsible for the coming demise of the Finnish model, will not be addressed by the politicians. First of all, there is little they can do besides promising some extra spending for child-related services, financed, of course, by debt. Second, discussing fertility seems to be perceived as an assault on the women’s rights. This means that a politician speaking about the lack of babies is branded as a henchman of the (imagined) patriarchy, whatever that means.

The next economic downturn will show the way the Finnish politicians will choose regarding the future of the welfare system. The road of a controlled demolition is unlikely but desirable. It is probable that we will witness some cuts, but in general everything will likely continue as before.

What this means for the Finnish economy, is that the companies will have to prepare for heavier taxation, which will slowly but surely strangle some of them to death. Furthermore, the brain drain, which has plagued Finland for years,12) will likely speed up due to increasing taxation and declining economy, depriving the companies of valuable and much needed professionals, which further worsens the economic situation.

Politically, all this will initially benefit those ready to promise more spending. However, as the population realizes that none of the parties actually deliver anything else than misery, the trust in the public institutions is likely to erode, and the support for the radical political parties is likely to increase. Needless to say, all this will also weaken the democratic system, making it more susceptible to external influences13) and corruption.

In the long run, the Finnish welfare model has absolute zero chances of surviving. The question regarding the way in which it will come to an end, however, is still open. There is an option of slow and steady dismantlement, and also one of a more violent, crash-like scenario. Whichever option comes to pass, the days of the welfare state are numbered. And it may have fewer days left than we might think.

  1. ↑ Vaalitulos ratkesi äärimmäisen niukasti: Sdp suurin, vaali­päivän äänivyöry toi perus­suomalaiset lähes tasoihin – lue HS:n analyysit tuloksesta Source: Helsingin Sanomat

  2. ↑ Tekivätkö kampanjat eduskuntavaaleista ilmastovaalit vai jotkin muut? Tutkijat arvioivat, mitä teemoja puolueet korostivat Source: Helsingin Sanomat

  3. ↑ Jyrkkä käyrä näyttää Suomen poikkeuksellisen vauvakadon – ”Lapsia ei tehdä valtiota varten” Source: findikaattor

  4. ↑ Taloudellinen kasvu (BKT) Souce:

  5. ↑ Influence of women’s workforce participation and pensions on total fertility rate: a theoretical and econometric study. Source: Researchgate

  6. ↑ Väestöennuste 2018–2070 Source: Tilastokeskus

  7. Maahanmuutto-Talouden Ongelma Vai Ongelmien Ratkaisu?

  8. ↑ Professori: Suomeen on syntynyt mittava tulonsiirtojen varassa elävä uusi luokka – ”Mihin helvettiin olemme menossa?” Source: Iltalehti

  9. ↑ Yksi asia on sentään varma: Suomen valtio velkaantuu lisää – ”Profiili on stabiili” Source: kauppalehti

  10. ↑ Jyrkkä käyrä näyttää Suomen poikkeuksellisen vauvakadon – ”Lapsia ei tehdä valtiota varten” Source: Ilta Sanomat

  11. ↑ Admittedly, with the current low interest rates the debt can accumulate a long time without problems.

  12. ↑ Brain drain of Finnish researchers continues into second decade Source: Yle Muualla

  13. ↑ Russia’s Threat to Finland Source: Warsaw Institute

 

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Senza categoria

Elezioni Amministrative. Non sottovalutiamone l’importanza.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-26.

2019-05-25__Comuni__001

Nel corso del 2018 si sono svolte elezioni in sette regioni italiane, sei delle quali erano a governo pidiino.

Tranne che nella regione Lazio, ove vinse Nicola Zingarettu con il 32.9%, passarono alla Lega od al centro destra la Lombardia, il Molise, il Friuli-Venezia Giulia, La Valle d’Aosta, il Trentino. Qui la Lega ebbe un trionfo conquistando il 46.74% dei suffragi in una regione che da decenni era a governo di sinistra e nonostante che Famiglia Cristiana si fosse equiparata al Cristo nel pubblicare: “Vade retro, Salvini”. Le maledizioni di Famiglia Cristiana sono sempre ottimi auguri. Che poi, diciamolo pure, di ‘cristiana‘ ha veramente quasi nulla.

Nel 2019 tutti i sei governatori e consigli regionale da rinnovarsi erano, o sono, a governo del centrosinistra.

In Abruzzo la Lega ha già vinto con Marco Marsilio (48.03%), in Sardegna con Christian Solinas (47.78%) ed in Basilicata con Vito Bardi (42.20%). Il 26 maggio si voterà in Piemonte, ed a novembre in Calabria ed in Emilia Romagna.

Lega e centrodestra hanno già strappato otto regioni al partito democratico ed al centrosinistra. Stando alle prospezioni elettorali, entro fine anno avranno vinto anche Piemonte, Calabria ed Emilia-Romagna.

Il partito democratico resterebbe così estromesso dal governo di undici regioni: una débâcle storica. Ma perdere le regioni significa perdere il governo delle società partecipate e non poter più nominare i consulenti amici

Non solo.

Se i governi regionali sono di grande importanza, importanza di ben poco minore ha il controllo dei 3,864 comuni che sono chiamati il 26 maggio a rinnovare sindaci e giunte. Nei 25 comuni capoluoghi, 17 sono a giunta di centrosinistra, sei a giunta di centrodestra e due del M5S. Dai sondaggi disponibili si prospetterebbe una gran bella vittoria della Lega e del centrodestra.

* * * * * * *

Emergono spontanee due considerazioni.

La prima considerazione verte il partito democratico, che sta accusando un’emorragia di voti impressionante e che sembrerebbe non volerne sapere di fermarsi. Se sia vero che un partito politico non dovrebbe essere succube degli umori dei suoi Elettori, sarebbe altrettanto vero l’ammettere come non li si possa ignorare oltre un certo limite, pena la estinzione. Il partito democratico sembrerebbe ridursi ad un gerontocomio che farlucchia dei bei tempi passati, in attesa di decedere. Infatti, oltre il 70% delle intenzioni di voto al partito democratico sono sottese da pensionati. Ci si prepari dunque: senza che il partito democratico si rinnovi con persone giovani ed idee condivise e condivisibili, entro un lustro o poco più l’Italia dovrà fare a meno del partito democratico, estinto.

La seconda considerazione verte il Movimento Cinque Stelle. Diamo volentieri atto al M5S di essersi fatto interprete di molti umori del popolo, non ultimi gli impulsi rabbiosi per l’essersi sentito sistematicamente estromesso dal potere politico decisionale. Similmente, diamo atto al M5S di aver grandemente concorso all’abbattimento dell’egemonia del partito democratico, dittatura larvatamente strisciante diventata insopportabile.

Ci si rende lucidamente conto della grande difficoltà insita nel passaggio da un’opposizione urlante alla responsabilità di governo, che impone la Realpolitik, se non altro per i vincoli di bilancio. Ci si rende anche perfettamente conto come all’interno del M5S convivano due anime contrastanti: una rimasta a livello ideologico di sinistra ad una molto più pragmaticamente progressista. Un bel dì la dirigenza M5S dovrà ben decidere quale strada imboccare.

Ma molto di più preoccuperebbe la scelta di presentarsi alle elezioni di solo un centinaio di comuni.

Se questa scelta è in parte comprensibile data la minima rappresentanza sul territorio, dall’altra parte priva i movimento della possibilità di allevare e far crescere nei consigli comunali quelle leve che in un futuro prossimo dovrebbero aver avuto una preparazione sufficiente per entrare nei parlamenti regionali ed in quello centrale. La classe dirigente non la si improvvisa: ad una formazione politica servono sia i politici in senso stretto sia tutto quel corpo di esperti vicini, per riempire i ruoli del sottogoverno. Sottogoverno che in sé non è certo disdicevole: ma l’amministratore di una controllata non lo si improvvisa proprio per nulla.


Sole 24 Ore. 2019-05-24. Comunali in 25 capoluoghi: 2 giunte uscenti su 3 sono del centrosinistra

Il 26 maggio non si vota solo per le europee. Ci sono le regionali in Piemonte. E ci sono circa 3.800 (la metà del totale) di Comuni chiamati al rinnovo del sindaco e del consiglio. L’attenzione sarà soprattutto sulle metropoli: sono 25 i capoluoghi di provincia alle urne. Nella maggior parte dei casi (17) si tratta di giunte di centrosinistra, mentre sono 6 i capoluoghi governati dal centrodestra. Solo due (Livorno e Avellino) vengono da una amministrazione M5s. Sarà quindi il partito di Nicola Zingaretti a rischiare di più, con la possibilità tutt’altro che remota di perdere bastioni storici, come già avvenuto l’anno scorso sulla scia dei risultati delle politiche del 4 marzo.

Il centrosinistra rischia di più

Tra i capoluoghi al voto spiccano, tra gli altri,Firenze, Bergamo, Prato, Avellino, Pesaro, Pavia, Cremona, Reggio Emilia, Campobasso, Ferrara, Pescara, Potenza, Modena, Livorno e Bari. Quasi tutte città guidate dal centrosinistra, che è il partito che rischia di più. A Firenze, il sindaco dem Dario Nardella punta a un secondo mandato. Già vicesindaco quando a guidare la città era Matteo Renzi, Nardella è insidiato dal Carroccio, che qui come altrove farà da traino alla coalizione di centrodestra.

Obiettivo leghista: sfondare in Toscana

Già nelle scorse amministrative 2018 il centrodestra a trazione leghista aveva strappato tre roccaforti del Pd (Siena, Pisa e Massa, governando già a Grosseto, Pistoia e Arezzo). Firenze sarebbe l’ultimo bastione sulla strada della conquista della Regione Toscana (al voto nel 2020), dove già si scalda Susanna Ceccardi, sindaco di Cascina (in provincia di Pisa e candidata al parlamento europeo), fedelissima di Salvini. Ma anche Prato e Livorno sono due “prede” ambite. A cinque anni dalla clamorosa vittoria del pentastellato Filippo Nogarin, che ha scelto di correre per un seggio a Bruxelles, la corsa per la successione a Livorno non sembra affatto scontata. E rispetto al 2014, quando il M5S riuscì a scalzare il dominio storico della sinistra in città, la situazione è molto più fluida. Con il Pd che spera di vincere al primo turno. Ma il ballottaggio all’orizzonte lascia aperti tutti gli scenari.

Il Carroccio mette nel mirino l’Emilia

Obiettivo del Carroccio è anche conquistare comuni in Emilia-Romagna, in vista delle regionali del prossimo autunno. Qui potrebbe scendere in campo Lucia Borgonzoni, sottosegretario ai Beni culturali, già candidata sindaco a Bologna e fedelissima di Salvini. L’Emilia è la regione con il maggior numero (quattro) di capoluoghi al voto (Ferrara, Forlì, Modena, Reggio Emilia), tutti appannaggio del centrosinistra.

I sindaci renziani che tentano il bis

È folta la pattuglia dei sindaci renziani che tentano il bis. A Bergamo corre per il secondo mandato Giorgio Gori (renziano della prima ora reduce dalla sconfitta alle regionali in Lombardia contro il leghista Attilio Fontana). Ma si sono ricandidati anche i sindaci dem di Prato Matteo Biffoni (presidente dell’Anci Toscana), di Pesaro Matteo Ricci (responsabile degli Enti Locali del Pd) e di Bari Antonio Decaro (presidente dell’Anci).

La partita intera nel centrodestra

Nelle amministrative 2019 c’è poi una partita tutta interna al centrodestra. Nonostante Fi e FdI, da un lato, e Lega, dall’altro, siano su fronti opposti nei confronti del governo nazionale gialloverde, alle comunali si presentano quasi sempre insieme. Anche quest’anno, come il 2018, non sarà un’eccezione: su 25 comuni capoluoghi al voto il 26 maggio il centrodestra si presenta unito ovunque tranne che a Vibo Valentia (la Lega è senza lista), Avellino e Ascoli Piceno (qui Fi si è spaccata ed è senza il simbolo nazionale). Nella scelta dei candidati sindaco, la Lega ha fatto la parte del leone: ha un suo uomo (o comunque vicino al Carroccio) in 12 città su 22 dove il centrodestra si presenta unito. E non solo nelle città del Nord, come Bergamo, Rovigo, Pavia e Biella, ma anche in capoluoghi come Ferrara, Forlì, Modena, Reggio Emilia, Firenze, Prato, Campobasso e Potenza.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Stati Uniti, Trump

Supreme Court. Gerrymanderings. Bocciate le sentenze dei giudici liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-26.

2019-05-25__Gerrymanders__001

Supreme Court temporarily blocks rulings requiring new voting maps for Ohio and Michigan [Nbc]

«Lower courts had invalidated the GOP-friendly maps as partisan gerrymandering and ordered them redrawn before the 2020 election.»

*

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that invalidated, as partisan gerrymandering, Ohio’s map for congressional districts and Michigan’s maps for congressional and state legislative districts.

The high court’s orders put on hold efforts in both states to redraw their electoral maps ahead of the 2020 elections, a remedy ordered by the lower courts.

In the Ohio case, a three-judge panel ruled unanimously earlier this month that the district map drawn up by the Republican-controlled Legislature unconstitutionally discriminated against Democrats. “We are convinced by the evidence that this partisan gerrymander was intentional,” the ruling said.»

* * * * * *

Abbiamo già ampiamente riportato sul problema del gerrymandering.

Gerrymandering. Republicani e democratici si stanno scannando.

Ogni dieci anni, ovvero quando ne emergessero le necessità, gli stati hanno la possibilità di ridisegnare con una apposita legge i confini dei distretti elettorali, equiripartendo al meglio possibile la popolazione nei seggi. Il termine gerrymandering designa una mappa di distretto elettorale artatamente manipolata per ottenere un vantaggio elettorale.

Negli ultimi anni i liberal democratici hanno contestato la mappatura fatta da governi repubblicani, portando il tutto nanti corti federali ove sedessero giudici di eguale dottrina. Queste corti avevano immediatamente bloccato la mappatura, imponendo agli stati il ritorno al pristino.

Orbene, il tutto è finito davanti alla Suprema Corte, che ha cassato le sentenze emesse da quelle corti inferiori.

La faccenda è al momento tutt’altro che conclusa, ma l’orientamento della Suprema Corte sembrerebbe essere oramai definito.

Con la nomina delle loro Giustizie Mr Gorsuch e Mr Kavanaugh, Mr Trump ha ricostituito la Suprema Corte con giudici ligi e rispettosi della costituzione: l’epoca in cui i giudici liberal democratici imponevano la loro ideologia con sentenze tribunizie sembrerebbe andare al termine. È la fine dei processi alle intenzioni, dei processi politici, dell’uso partigiano delle corti di giustizia.

* * * * * * *

«The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters»

*

«The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions»

*

«The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.»

*

«While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well»

*

«Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state»

* * * * * * *

Entro qualche mese la Suprema Corte dovrà sentenziare su molte questioni che avrebbero dovuto essere oggetto di dibattito politico in sede congressuale. A seconda di come orienteranno il giudizio, il mondo potrebbe subire una mutazione.



Reuters. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

The Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings ordering Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections, dealing a blow to Democrats who had argued that the electoral districts were intended to unlawfully diminish their political clout.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to put those decisions on hold, halting further action in the cases and the need to rework electoral district boundaries. The justices did not provide any explanation for their brief orders.

The lower courts found that the electoral maps in the two states had been drawn to entrench Republicans in power by manipulating boundaries in a way that reduced the voting clout of Democrats – a practice known as partisan gerrymandering – in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

But the action by the justices was not unexpected as they weigh two other gerrymandering cases – one from North Carolina and the other from Maryland – that could decide definitively whether federal judges have the power to intervene to curb partisan gerrymandering. The rulings in those cases, due by the end of June, are likely to dictate whether the legal challenges against the Ohio and Michigan electoral maps can move forward.

In the North Carolina case, Republican legislators were accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances. In the Maryland, Democratic lawmakers faced similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

The Ohio and Michigan lawsuits accused Republican-controlled legislatures in the two states of discriminating against Democratic voters for their political views in violation of the U.S. Constitution’s guarantees of equal treatment under the law and freedom of association.

Critics have said that gerrymandering, a feature of U.S. politics for generations, has become increasingly extreme and effective at advancing the interests of a political party as a result of precise voter data and powerful computer technology, illegally shaping the outcome of elections.

The Supreme Court has previously intervened when legislators impermissibly sought to dilute the voting power of racial minorities, but it has never curbed gerrymandering for purely partisan purposes.

The Michigan and Ohio lawsuits were filed by voting rights groups and individual Democratic voters. Nine U.S. House and 25 state legislative districts were at issue in Michigan, while Ohio’s case involved 16 U.S. House districts.

A three-judge panel in Detroit on April 25 ruled in the Democratic voters’ favor in the Michigan case, calling gerrymandering a “pernicious practice that undermines our democracy,” and ordered state officials to draw new maps by Aug. 1.

A three-judge panel in Cincinnati on May 3 sided with the Democratic voters in the Ohio case, and ordered the state to create a plan to fix the map by June 14.

Electoral districts are typically redrawn once a decade after the U.S. census to reflect population changes. In many states, the party in power controls the map-making.

*


MSN. 2019-05-25. U.S. Supreme Court blocks redrawing of Ohio, Michigan electoral maps

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court rulings that had ordered Republican legislators in Michigan and Ohio to redraw U.S. congressional maps ahead of the 2020 elections after finding that the current districts were designed to illegally diminish the power of Democratic voters.

The justices granted requests from Republican lawmakers in both states to stay those decisions. The lower courts found that the electoral maps had been drawn to entrench the majority party in power, a practice known as partisan gerrymandering, in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

While both disputes involve U.S. House of Representatives districts in the two states, the Michigan case also challenges districts in the state legislature as well.

The decisions in Michigan and Ohio that were put on hold by the justices were the latest rulings by federal courts determining that electoral maps designed by a state’s majority party unconstitutionally undermined the rights of voters who tend to support the other party.

Two other gerrymandering challenges are already pending at the Supreme Court, with rulings due by the end of June. In one case, Republican legislators in North Carolina are accused of rigging congressional maps to boost their party’s chances in that state. In the other case, Democratic lawmakers in Maryland face similar allegations over one U.S. House district.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Repubblica Ceka. Ultimi sondaggi.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-25.

Animali. Bocca aperta. Civetta. 001

Lunedì nel primo pomeriggio saranno disponibili i risultati elettorali, e sarà interessante controntarli con le previsioni. Se non altro per selezionare le società che più si sono avvicinate ai numeri reali.

*

«In the Czech Republic a total of 21 MEPs were to be elected, with the populist ANO party poised for victory ahead of the leftwing Social Democrats.» [Deutsche Welle]

*


The New York Times. 2019-05-25. The Latest: Polls Open in Czech Republic, Centrists Seek Win

Polls have opened for the European Parliament elections in the Czech Republic, with a centrist party led by populist Prime Minister Andrej Babis expected to win despite the fraud charges he faces involving European Union funds.

The Czechs on Friday opened their two-day ballot for their country’s 21 seats in the 751-seat European Parliament. Voters in the Netherlands and Britain on Thursday kicked off four days of voting across the 28-nation bloc.

Babis’ ANO (YES) movement is predicted to win up to 25% of the vote, followed by the moderate euroskeptic Civic Democratic Party and the pro-European Pirate party.

Babis wants his country to remain in the bloc but is calling for EU reforms.

The country’s most ardent anti-EU group, the Freedom and Direct Democracy party, is predicted to win around 10% of the vote and capture its first seats in the EU legislature.

Pubblicato in: Cina, Economia e Produzione Industriale

Cina. La Guerra del ferro. 98 Usd per tonnellata.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-25.

2019-05-24__Ferro__001

Il ferro è il metallo più abbondante all’interno della Terra, costituendo il 16% della massa del nostro pianeta: non lo si rinviene mai allo stato elementare metallico, ma sempre sotto forma di composti in cui è presente allo stato ossidato.

Industrialmente il ferro è estratto dai suoi minerali, principalmente l’ematite (Fe2O3) e la magnetite (Fe3O4), per riduzione con carbonio in una fornace di riduzione a temperature di circa 2000 °C.

Nel 2000 sono state prodotte nel mondo circa 1,1 miliardi di tonnellate di minerale di ferro per un valore commerciale stimato di circa 250 miliardi di dollari, da cui si sono ricavate 572 milioni di tonnellate di ghisa di prima fusione.

L’estrazione di minerali di ferro avviene in 48 paesi, ma il 70% della produzione complessiva è coperto dai primi cinque: Cina, Brasile, Australia, Russia e India.

Nel 2017, l’Australia ha estratto 880 milioni di tonnellate di ferro minerale, il Brasile 440 milioni, la Cina 340, l’India 190, la Russia 100. La Cina è il principale consumatore mondiale di ferro estrattivo.

*

2019-05-24__Ferro__002

È del tutto intuitivo che il prezzo del ferro estrattivo condizioni alla fine quelle delle leghe derivate, acciaio in primis. Tuttavia il tutto è bilanciato dal rapporto domanda / offerta: ed in questo mercato la domanda cinese nei fatti condiziona i prezzi.

«While iron ore prices have surged to a five-year high above $100 a tonne, not all producers of the steel-making ingredient are sharing in the bounty»

*

«It’s no surprise that Brazil’s Vale is struggling. After all, it is largely the reason for iron ore’s stellar run, with the spot price of 62 percent ore delivered to China, as assessed by Argus Media, ending at $100.65 a tonne on Tuesday, up 38.1% this year»

*

«It was the fatal tailings dam burst at Vale’s Córrego do Feijão iron ore mine, near the town of Brumadinho, on Jan. 25 that closed that mine and several others in the subsequent weeks as safety checks were made»

*

«This dramatically cut exports from the world’s number two shipper of iron ore, with the situation being made worse by a cyclone disrupting exports in March from Australia, the world’s biggest iron ore producer»

* * * * * * * * * * *

Se il grafico ad un anno evidenzia bene la rapidità del passaggio dai 35 Usd / tonnellata ai 98 Usd / tonnellata, il grafico a dieci anni ci ricorda dei tempi quando il prezzo del ferro estrattivo aveva raggiunto i 180 Usd.

Le industrie estrattive sono state sottoposte a grandi variazioni dei prezzi che alla fine si sono risolte nella quasi messa fuori mercato di quelle che non erano sufficientemente robuste da poter reggere simili colpi.

Posto che il principale utilizzatore abbia costituito adeguate scorte di ferro estrattivo, la domanda assolve anche un ruolo eminentemente politico. Infatti, un subitaneo calo della domanda può essere collocato con un timing che coincida con il periodo di massima debolezza di una certa quale realtà estrattiva e, con essa, dello stato in cui opera.

Nota.

I volumi di ferro estrattivo sono altamente correlati a quelli dell’estrazione del carbone, svolgendo questo ultimo ruolo essenziale nei processi che conducono alla produzione dell’acciaio.


Reuters. 201-05-22. Iron ore is surging, but not all producers are joining the party: Russell

While iron ore prices have surged to a five-year high above $100 a tonne, not all producers of the steel-making ingredient are sharing in the bounty.

It’s no surprise that Brazil’s Vale is struggling. After all, it is largely the reason for iron ore’s stellar run, with the spot price of 62 percent ore delivered to China, as assessed by Argus Media, ending at $100.65 a tonne on Tuesday, up 38.1% this year.

It was the fatal tailings dam burst at Vale’s Córrego do Feijão iron ore mine, near the town of Brumadinho, on Jan. 25 that closed that mine and several others in the subsequent weeks as safety checks were made.

This dramatically cut exports from the world’s number two shipper of iron ore, with the situation being made worse by a cyclone disrupting exports in March from Australia, the world’s biggest iron ore producer.

Vale’s share price has lost 7% in local currency terms this year and is down almost 16% since the dam disaster, reflecting the likely loss of about 75 million tonnes of iron ore sales this year.

But the rapid gain in spot iron ore prices hasn’t lifted all other producers equally, with some outperforming massively and others failing to gain much traction from the higher price.

The standout performer is Fortescue Metals Group, the third-biggest Australian producer, which has gained 119 percent so far this year in local currency terms.

Some of this is catch-up from a poor performance last year, when Fortescue struggled because the lower quality iron ore it mainly produces was out of favor as Chinese steel mills preferred higher grade ore in order to maximize output.

But Fortescue is still up three times more than the spot price of iron ore, something no other major producer even comes close to achieving.

PERFORMANCE DIVERGENCE

Shares in Rio Tinto, the top Australian producer, were at A$101.27 on Tuesday, up 33.7 percent since the end of last year.

It’s also worth noting that when iron ore prices were last at current levels in May 2014, Rio’s share price was only around A$57, showing that the company’s efforts to consistently lower costs have driven increased value.

However, Rio’s Australian competitor BHP Group isn’t performing as well. Its share price has only risen 15.6 percent since the end of last year.

BHP is facing a $5 billion claim over a dam collapse at a joint venture in Brazil in 2015, but that alone would seem unlikely to explain its underperformance against Rio.

BHP does have a more diversified portfolio than Rio, which derives the bulk of its revenue from iron ore, but its petroleum division should be performing well given rising crude oil prices, and coking coal should at least be consistent, given the price of the fuel used in steel-making has been steady this year.

It’s also worth noting that BHP performed better during the previous big rally in iron ore.

Spot iron ore rose by 154 percent between December 2015 and February 2017, and BHP gained 96 percent between its low in January 2016 and a peak in late January 2017.

The story for smaller Australian producers mirrors the mixed performance of their larger peers.

Shares in Grange Resources, a producer of high-grade ore and pellets in Tasmania, have risen 35% since the end of last year, a creditable performance.

But it pales next to the 137% leap for Mount Gibson, which has also no doubt benefited from the re-opening of its high-grade Koolan Island mine in Western Australia state.

While competing companies will always have different dynamics and circumstances, such as debt levels, operating costs and dividend policies, it’s perhaps surprising to find such large variations among the relative performance of iron ore producers.

Iron ore may remain near its current elevated levels given the ongoing supply disruption from Brazil and strong Chinese demand on the back of rising stimulus spending.

If this is the case, it may be possible for some of the underperforming producers to close the gap.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale, Unione Europea

Germania. Acquacoltura ittica totale -12.0% a/a. – Destatis.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-25.

Destatis__001

«The overall production of fish, mussels and other aquaculture products amounted to 31,900 tonnes. This was a decrease of 12.0% from 2017»

*

«The production of mussels totalled nearly 13,700 tonnes and was also down from 2017 by roughly 19%.»

*

«In 2018, roughly 18,100 tonnes of fish were produced in just under 2,600 aquaculture businesses in Germany»

*

«The Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) also reports that this was a decline of approximately 1,100 tonnes compared with one year earlier (-5.9%).»

* * * * * * *

I bollettini statistici della Germania stanno sempre più somigliando ai lunghi elenchi dei caduti in battaglia durante la guerra mondiale.

Germania. Colza -38%. Meno etica e più acquedotti. – Destatis

Germania. Destatis. ‘On an annual basis electricity prices increased by 10.8%’.

Germania. Ordini Industria. Febbraio -8.1% a/a. Marzo -6.0% a/a. – Destatis.

Germania. Licenze edili ad uso abitativo -2.8% a/a. – Destatis.

Germania. Produzione auto -4.1%, insolvenze +5.7%.

Germania. Sommovimenti di piazza per il caro-affitti.

Germania. VW e Ford annunciano decine di migliaia di licenziamenti e chiusure.

Questi sono solo alcuni esempi: poi ci sarebbe tutto il resto.

*

Ciascuno è libero, ovviamente, di interpretare i dati a piacer suo, ma i numeri restano nella loro crudezza.

La produzione dei muscoli crollata del -19%, quella globale dei prodotti ittici del -12.0%.

Ma al calo della produzione consegue il calo del fatturato. Al calo del fatturato consegue una riduzione del gettito fiscale e, poi, una contrazione dei posti di lavoro.


Destatis. 2019-05-23. Fish production in aquafarming down 5.9% in 2018

Pressrelease #195 from May 23, 2019

WIESBADEN – In 2018, roughly 18,100 tonnes of fish were produced in just under 2,600 aquaculture businesses in Germany. The Federal Statistical Office (Destatis) also reports that this was a decline of approximately 1,100 tonnes compared with one year earlier (-5.9%). The production of mussels totalled nearly 13,700 tonnes and was also down from 2017 by roughly 19%. In the same period the amounts of roe and caviar produced rose by approximately 3.7% to well above 75 tonnes. The overall production of fish, mussels and other aquaculture products amounted to 31,900 tonnes. This was a decrease of 12.0% from 2017.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Unione Europea. I sovranisti potrebbero vincere pur senza maggioranza….

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-25.

Gufo_019__

Cerchiamo di ragionare, nei limiti del possibile.

Se i liberal socialisti europei si stanno dando questo gran da fare nella campagna elettorale, ricorrendo anche a metodi impropri,

Austria. Il problema si complica di non poco. Voto di fiducia.

E ti pareva!! La Commissione Elettorale UK indaga il Brexit Party. Solo quello.

è solo perché hanno una paura livida di perdere.

Basta solo focalizzare e razionalizzare cosa significhi politicamente il termine ‘perdere‘.

Sotto la condizione che le prospezioni elettorali trovino riscontro nei risultati che usciranno dalle urne, e che nel caso dell’Australia avevano grandemente sopravalutato le sinistre, e sotto la speranza che non si debba assistere a grossolani brogli elettorali, come successe in Austria durante le elezioni politiche, sia il partito Popolare Europeo sia il Partito Socialista Europeo dovrebbero perdere una gran quota di seggi. La perdita dovrebbe aggirarsi tra gli ottanta ed i centoventi seggi.

Difficili proclamare vittoria quando si perdano seggi, ed in quota non certo trascurabile.

Poi, i voti persi da qualche altra parte andranno bene, mica che possano sublimare nel nulla.

Politico riporta a 254 il numero degli europarlamentari definiti come ‘euroscettici.

I parlamentari euroscettici sarebbero quindi il 33.8% del totale, giusto un po’ sopra la soglia del 30%, ossia dei 225 seggi.

*

Questa soglia è importante, ed a seguito ne vedremo i motivi.

«The European Parliament elections this May have been described as a make-or-break moment for the future of the European project – and for good reason»

*

«With plans to form a populist united front, Eurosceptic parties need only capture one-third of parliamentary seats to bring EU governance to a crawl»

*

«Will the European Parliament elections this May result in a political revolution?»

*

«Populist and nationalist parties certainly hope so. They are promising not just to overturn the Brussels establishment, but also to end the free movement of people, lift sanctions against Russia, abandon NATO, eschew future trade deals, reverse policies to combat climate change, and abolish gay marriage.»

*

«populist parties could significantly outperform current polls.»

*

«Moreover, the ECFR study finds that even with a parliamentary minority, a Eurosceptic party grouping could severely curtail the EU’s ability to address voters’ concerns, and could threaten its fundamental governing principles»

*

«For example, with just one-third of parliamentary seats, populists could block sanctions against member states that violate EU rules and the rule of law.»

*

«The EU is currently pursuing such measures against both the Law and Justice (PiS) party’s government in Poland and Orbán’s government in Hungary»

*

«Populist insurgents could also derail EU budget negotiations, and even precipitate an EU “government shutdown”, by blocking the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework if they garner an absolute majority»

*

«With a blocking minority or control of certain parliamentary committees, Eurosceptics might also be able to stand in the way of international trade deals and appointments to the European Commission»

*

«The risk, then, is not so much that populists will capture a parliamentary majority and overturn everything on day one, but that they will have some representation in the European Commission and secure a large enough minority to bring EU policymaking to a crawl»

*

Ricapitoliamo le preoccupazioni dei liberal socialisti europei.

– con solo un terzo dei seggi parlamentari, i populisti potrebbero bloccare le sanzioni contro gli Stati membri che violassero le regole liberal dell’UE e lo stato di diritto;

– potrebbero anche far deragliare i negoziati sul bilancio dell’UE;

– potrebbero bloccare il quadro finanziario pluriennale 2021-2027;

– con una minoranza di blocco o con il controllo di alcune commissioni parlamentari, gli euroscettici potrebbero anche essere in grado di ostacolare gli accordi commerciali internazionali e le nomine alla Commissione europee.

*

Sufficit.


European Council on Foreign Relations.

How Europe’s populists can win by losing

The European Parliament elections this May have been described as a make-or-break moment for the future of the European project – and for good reason. With plans to form a populist united front, Eurosceptic parties need only capture one-third of parliamentary seats to bring EU governance to a crawl.

Will the European Parliament elections this May result in a political revolution? Populist and nationalist parties certainly hope so. They are promising not just to overturn the Brussels establishment, but also to end the free movement of people, lift sanctions against Russia, abandon NATO, eschew future trade deals, reverse policies to combat climate change, and abolish gay marriage.

Many of these ideas have long been included in Eurosceptic fringe parties’ election programmes. But a major survey of the EU’s 27 national political theatres, led by Susi Dennison and Pawel Zerka of the European Council on Foreign Relations (ECFR), that will be published next week, shows that voters could be more responsive to such proposals this year than in the past.

In the past, European elections have been predominantly national, low-turnout, and low-stakes affairs. But those days are over. The campaign season has already become a transnational, pan-European event. While American populist agitator Steve Bannon is attempting to  a coalition of right-wing nationalist governments, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini have  a populist alliance that marries the anti-austerity left with the anti-migration right. Orbán and Salvini’s goal is to capture EU institutions and reverse European integration from within. They envision nothing less than a re-founding of the West on illiberal values.

Moreover, voter turnout this year will most likely be far higher than the usual 20-40 percent. Just as the Brexiteers managed to mobilise 3m Britons who generally abstain from voting, continental populists could attract Europeans who feel as though mainstream parties have forgotten about them. If these voters turn out while supporters of moderate leaders like German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron stay home, populist parties could significantly outperform current polls.

Moreover, the ECFR study finds that even with a parliamentary minority, a Eurosceptic party grouping could severely curtail the EU’s ability to address voters’ concerns, and could threaten its fundamental governing principles. For example, with just one-third of parliamentary seats, populists could block sanctions against member states that violate EU rules and the rule of law. The EU is currently pursuing such measures against both the Law and Justice (PiS) party’s government in Poland and Orbán’s government in Hungary.

Populist insurgents could also derail EU budget negotiations, and even precipitate an EU “government shutdown”, by blocking the 2021-2027 Multiannual Financial Framework if they garner an absolute majority. With a blocking minority or control of certain parliamentary committees, Eurosceptics might also be able to stand in the way of international trade deals and appointments to the European Commission.

Populists who win parliamentary seats will also be eager to weaken EU foreign policy, either through the power of the purse or amendments to policy resolutions. Given that many European populist parties have financial ties to the Kremlin, the goal will be to water down sanctions against Russia. Beyond that, populists also seek to frustrate environmental-policy efforts such as the Paris climate agreement.

The risk, then, is not so much that populists will capture a parliamentary majority and overturn everything on day one, but that they will have some representation in the European Commission and secure a large enough minority to bring EU policymaking to a crawl. That, in turn, will prevent the enforcement of EU rules, strengthen nationalist governments, and further undermine European voters’ confidence in EU governing institutions. The illiberal governments in Budapest, Warsaw, and Rome would be free to violate EU rules with impunity.

Moreover, the European Parliament elections coincide with a widespread political realignment within EU member states. Thus, for populists and moderates alike, electoral success in May could translate into success at the national level. Estonia and Slovakia will hold general elections before the European Parliament elections, and Belgium and Denmark will hold elections later in the year. In each case, populist parties could ascend to power as coalition partners.

Making matters worse, pro-European parties appear to be falling into the trap laid by these anti-European parties. Across Europe, liberals, Greens, and many left-wing parties are approaching the election as a fight between cosmopolitans and communitarians – between globalism and patriotism. This political framing is more likely to help the insurgent Eurosceptics than anyone else.

Nothing is lost yet. But to avoid a rout, pro-Europeans must stop behaving in ways that confirm the populists’ stereotypes of them as supporters of the status quo in Brussels. That means offering an up-front, honest critique of the EU’s shortcomings while avoiding the wrong kind of polarisation, particularly on issues where they do not have the support of a clear majority.

At the same time, pro-Europeans need to start deploying “wedge” issues of their own. For example, on the crucial question of migration, it is clear that Orbán’s and Salvini’s interests are not even particularly aligned. While Orbán wants to keep all migrants out, Salvini has called for asylum seekers arriving in Italy to be distributed throughout the EU. Pro-Europeans should be pointing out these contradictions to voters in Hungary and Italy.

Putting aside his other current difficulties, Macron at least is aware of the populist trap. In his speech last November commemorating Armistice Day, he described patriotism as the opposite of nationalism, thus repudiating the narrative that true patriots oppose “globalists”. But he has done little to show how his politics can make “left-behind voters” feel safe from globalisation and European integration.

In theory, at least, Macronism still represents the best pro-European alternative to atavistic nationalism. But to avert a populist revolution this May, Macron and other leaders will have to reach beyond their own close circle of cosmopolitan elites. Otherwise, they will have fallen into the Eurosceptics’ trap.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Olanda. Exit polls. Laburisti 5 seggi, sovranisti di Baudet 4, Wilders 1.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-24.

Caravaggio. Bari.

«il partito liberale del premier europeista Mark Rutte sorpassato a sorpresa dai laburisti del vicepresidente della Commissione europea Frans Timmermans e seguito dai sovranisti-euroscettici-anti-immigrati dell’emergente Thierry Baudet»

*

«I laburisti del PvdA sono accreditati con 5 seggi al Parlamento europeo, seguiti dai liberal-conservatori (VVD) del premier Mark Rutte con 4 seggi a pari merito del partito populista di destra Forum voor Democratie (FvD) dell’esordiente Thierry Baudet. Così gli exit poll delle elezioni europee resi noti dalla tv olandese Nos. Ai Verdi andrebbero tre seggi, mentre un seggio al partito di Wilders.

Aumenta l’affluenza alle elezioni Europee in Olanda, rispetto a quelle del 2014. Secondo la proiezione dell’Ipsos, oggi ha votato il 41,2% degli olandesi contro il 37,3% di cinque anni fa.» [Ansa]

*

Elezioni europee 2019, in Olanda seggi chiusi: per gli exit poll laburisti primo partito

«BRUXELLES Il primo voto — nella quattro giorni delle elezioni europee in corso nei 28 Paesi membri dell’Unione — potrebbe vedere il partito liberale del premier europeista Mark Rutte sorpassato a sorpresa dai laburisti del vicepresidente della Commissione europea Frans Timmermans e seguito dai sovranisti-euroscettici-anti-immigrati dell’emergente Thierry Baudet. Il risultato scaturisce dagli exit poll diffusi alla chiusura dei seggi olandesi dalla tv nazionale Nos, basati su un campione limitato. Ma è l’unica indicazione consentita prima della diffusione dei dati definitivi domenica 26 maggio dopo le 23, quando avranno chiuso le votazioni tutti gli Stati (l’ultimo è l’Italia).

I laburisti sono accreditati di 5 euroseggi sul totale di 26. Rutte ne prenderebbe quattro. Baudet arriverebbe a tre, facendo di fatto scendere a un solo seggio il concorrente Partito della Libertà del sovranista Geert Wilders, già alleato in Europa con la Lega di Matteo Salvini e il Rassemblement national della francese Marine Le Pen. Anche i Verdi conquisterebbero tre eurodeputati.  ….»

Pubblicato in: Senza categoria

Alabama. Aborto. Se crollasse quel mito crollerebbero i liberal democratici.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-05-24.

Clusone.-Trinfo-e-Danza-della-Morte.-La-Marcia-macabra__02_.

Mr Trump sta proseguendo come un bulldozer nello spianare il retroterra dei liberal democratici.

Il termine bulldozer non è scelta casuale.

L’etimo deriva da bulldose, dose da toro, metafora per indicare una bastonatura quanto mai severa, quasi invariabilmente mortale, e come tale usata nei report storici d’epoca. Più di recente ha assunto anche il significato di preponentone, inteso non tanto nel senso di uno che impone con la forza violenta, quanto piuttosto con la forza della ragione.

*

Il cuore del problema risiede nel fatto che l’ideologia liberal postula che la femmina abbia il ‘diritto‘ di decidere, lei sola, di terminare una gravidanza tramite l’aborto, ossia la uccisione del feto.

I liberal democratici hanno fatto dell’aborto vessillo portante, quasi fosse la quintessenza della loro ideologia: lo hanno assolutizzato. Aborto e femminismo che ne va di conserva sono stati mitizzati. Nei fatti, i liberal non hanno programma politico, ma solo ed esclusivamente etico.

Ma i miti sono un’espressione irrazionale, acritica. I miti non tengon conto della realtà dei fatti.

Non è questo tempo e luogo per discernere sull’eticità dell’aborto, ma sulla sua legalità ben possiamo argomentare.

*

È legale ciò che un’assemblea eletta ha deliberato in modo lecito, e tutti sono tenuti ad osservare la nuovo legge o norma.

In un sistema democratico le leggi sono emanate dal corpo degli Eletti, ossia delle persone vidimate dal passaggio nelle urne. Gli Elettori formano la società civile che esprime poi i suoi rappresentanti. Solo ed esclusivamente gli elettori formano la società civile: chi ricerca la piazza come strumento di pressione non è certo democratico né, tanto meno, civile, eccezion fatta la ribellione ad una dittatura, sia essa de iure oppure de facto.

*

Orbene.

Nella battaglia politica, l’abbattimento delle bandiere avversarie è uno degli obiettivi primari.

Un esempio paramount si evidenziò quando i liberal democratici fecero assurgere il sexual harassment a miti di purezza comportamentale, conditio sine qua non per poter accedere a cariche pubbliche.

Procuratore Generale NY, Schneiderman, dimissionario per abusi sessuali.

«New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman has resigned following allegations of assault by four women.

The resignation came after The New Yorker magazine published a report quoting the women who accused Mr Schneiderman of hitting them.

Two identified themselves as former girlfriends of his.

Mr Schneiderman – who contests the allegations – has been a vocal supporter of the #MeToo movement against sexual harassment.»

Abbattuto Mr Eric Schneiderman, i democratici abbandonarono alla chetichella il sexual harassment.

* * * * * * *

Mr Trump è riuscito a far nominare nella Suprema Corte di Giustizia due giudici equi, spostando gli equilibri pregressi a cinque repubblicani e quattro democratici. Gli effetti sono stati immediati.

Nella sua ultima sentenza, la Suprema Corte ha stabilito che

«Overruling a 40-year-old precedent, the Supreme Court said on Monday that states may not be sued in the courts of other states.»

Con questa sentenza i liberal democratici non potranno portare lo Stato dell’Alabama in giudizio presso un Corte federale ove i suoi giudici siano una maggioranza.

* * * * * * *

Ecco cosa è successo in Alabama.

Il senato dell’Alabama è composto di 35 senatori: attualmente 27 sono repubblicani ed 8 sono democratici.

La camera dei rappresentanti è composta di 105 deputati: 77 sono repubblicani e 28 sono democratici.

Il governatore è Mrs Kay Ivey, repubblicana.

«Alabama lawmakers have passed a bill to outlaw abortion in almost all cases, the strictest such US law»

*

«The state Senate approved the law by 25 votes to six»

*

«The bill had been passed 74-3 earlier this month in Alabama’s House of Representatives»

*

«After more than four hours of debate, the Republican-led Senate voted 25-6 to pass HB 314, which would slap doctors with up to 99 years in prison for performing an abortion. The Alabama House passed the bill earlier this month»

*

«Restrictions on abortion rights have already been introduced this year in 16 US states»

*

«Activists hope the new Alabama law will challenge a landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion in the US»

*

«The National Organization for Women called the ban “unconstitutional”»

* * * * * * * *

Sarebbe nella logica delle cose che i liberal democratici sottopongano ad una Corte federale il problema, ma adesso non potranno farlo ricorrendo ad una Corte del 9th Circuito.

Ma così facendo alla fine il tutto dovrà essere sottoposto al vaglio della Suprema Corte.

Sono strategicamente battuti.

* * *

Ma ciò che lascia stupefatti è la rapidità e la profondità del cambiamento dei media liberal.

Riportiamo a seguito gli articoli della Bbc, Bloomberg e della Cnn.

Basta leggerli per comprendere quanto siano mutati i tempi.

Liberal? Ma chi mai li conosce? Chi sono? Cosa vogliono?

Bbc. 2019-05-15. Alabama passes bill banning abortion

Alabama lawmakers have passed a bill to outlaw abortion in almost all cases, the strictest such US law.

The state Senate approved the law by 25 votes to six, rejecting exemptions for cases of rape or incest.

It will now go to Republican Governor Kay Ivey. She has not said whether she will sign it, but she is seen as a strong opponent of abortion.

Restrictions on abortion rights have already been introduced this year in 16 US states.

Activists hope the new Alabama law will challenge a landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling that legalised abortion in the US.

The bill had been passed 74-3 earlier this month in Alabama’s House of Representatives.

Abortion would only be allowed in certain circumstances to safeguard the mother’s health.

The National Organization for Women called the ban “unconstitutional” and said it was “a transparent effort to drum up political support for anti-abortion candidates in upcoming elections”.

Staci Fox of Planned Parenthood Southeast Advocates called the decision “a dark day for women in Alabama and across this country”.

In a statement she said Alabama politicians would “forever live in infamy for this vote and we will make sure that every woman knows who to hold accountable”.

What do Alabama’s politicians say about the new law?

Republican lawmaker Terri Collins, sponsor of the legislation, said: “Our bill says that baby in the womb is a person.”

Democratic state Senator Bobby Singleton said the bill “criminalises doctors” and was an attempt by men “to tell women what to do with their bodies”.

Republican Senator Clyde Chambliss, a backer of the law, said it would enable the state “to go directly to the Supreme Court to challenge Roe versus Wade” (the 1973 ruling).

Before the debate began, Democrat Rodger Smitherman said: “We’re telling a 12-year-old girl who, through incest and rape is pregnant, we are telling her that she doesn’t have a choice.”

What does the bill do?

It goes further than legislation passed recently elsewhere in the US to ban abortion after a foetal heartbeat can be detected, usually around six weeks into a pregnancy.

Under the Alabama measure, provision of abortion at any stage in pregnancy would be a Class A felony.

Doctors could face 10 years in prison for attempting to terminate a pregnancy and 99 years for actually carrying out the procedure.

A woman who has an abortion would not be held criminally liable.

The bill would allow abortion in cases where the mother’s life is at serious risk.

Its text says more foetuses have been aborted than people killed in “Stalin’s gulags, Cambodian killing fields”.

Why now?

Supporters of the legislation have welcomed an inevitable challenge in federal court if the measure becomes law. Pro-choice groups have pledged to take legal action against it.

The bill’s architects expect it will be defeated in the lower courts, but hope it will end up before the Supreme Court.

Their aim ultimately is to overturn Roe v Wade.

Emboldened by the addition of two Trump-nominated conservative justices, anti-abortion activists are eager to take one of the most divisive issues in America back to the highest court in the land.

Eric Johnston, who founded the Alabama Pro-Life Coalition that helped draft the bill, told NPR: “The dynamic has changed.

“The judges have changed, a lot of changes over that time, and so I think we’re at the point where we need to take a bigger and a bolder step.”

What’s the national picture?

If signed into law by Governor Ivey, the Alabama measure would become one of more than 300 laws challenging abortion access in the US.

The flurry of measures has led activists to warn that a swathe of US territory could become an “abortion desert.”

At the other end of the political spectrum, a Democratic-sponsored bill in Virginia that would have allowed third-trimester abortions up until the point of childbirth failed to make it out of committee.

*

Bloomberg. 2019-05-15. Alabama Close to Approving Near Total Ban on Abortion

Montgomery, Ala. (AP) — Alabama’s Senate passed a near-total ban on abortion Tuesday, sending what would be the nation’s most stringent abortion law to the state’s Republican governor.

The GOP-dominated Senate voted 25-6 to make performing an abortion at any stage of pregnancy a felony punishable by up to 99 years or life in prison for the abortion provider. The only exception would be when the woman’s health is at serious risk.

Senators rejected an attempt to add an exception for rape and incest. The amendment was voted down 21-11, with four Republicans joining Democrats.

“You don’t care anything about babies having babies in this state, being raped and incest,” Democratic Sen. Bobby Singleton said on the Senate floor after the amendment’s defeat. “You just aborted the state of Alabama with your rhetoric with this bill.”

Bill sponsor Rep. Terri Collins said she expects Gov. Kay Ivey to sign the ban into law. Ivey has not publicly commented on what she’ll do.

The lopsided vote suggests a veto could be easily overcome. Ivey spokeswoman Lori Jhons said in a statement after the vote that “the governor intends to withhold comment until she has had a chance to thoroughly review the final version of the bill that passed.”

Supporters said the bill is designed to conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion nationally, because they hope to spark a court case that might prompt the justices to revisit abortion rights.

“It’s to address the issue that Roe. v. Wade was decided on. Is that baby in the womb a person?” Collins said.

Supporters had argued that exceptions would weaken their hope of creating a vehicle to challenge Roe. Collins said that the law isn’t meant to be a long-term measure and that lawmakers could add a rape exception if states regain control of abortion access.

“Roe v. Wade has ended the lives of millions of children,” Republican Sen. Clyde Chambliss said in a statement after the bill’s passage. “While we cannot undo the damage that decades of legal precedence under Roe have caused, this bill has the opportunity to save the lives of millions of unborn children.”

Emboldened by conservative justices who have joined the Supreme Court, abortion opponents in several states are seeking to challenge abortion access. Kentucky, Mississippi, Ohio and Georgia have approved bans on abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can occur in about the sixth week of pregnancy.

The Alabama bill goes further by seeking to outlaw abortion outright. Unlike measures in other states, Alabama would punish only the abortion provider, not the woman receiving the abortion.

Democrats, who hold eight seats in Alabama’s 35-member Senate, criticized the ban as a mixture of political grandstanding, an attempt to control women and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

During debate, Singleton pointed out and named rape victims watching from the Senate viewing gallery. He said that under the ban, doctors who perform abortions could serve more prison time than the women’s rapists.

In a statement, Staci Fox of Planned Parenthood Southeast said, “Today is a dark day for women in Alabama and across this country. … Alabama politicians will forever live in infamy for this vote and we will make sure that every woman knows who to hold accountable.”

Outside the Statehouse, about 50 people rallied and chanted, “Whose choice? Our choice.” Several women dressed as characters from the “The Handmaid’s Tale,” which depicts a dystopian future where fertile women are forced to breed.

If the bill becomes law, it would take effect in six months. Critics have promised a swift lawsuit. Randall Marshall, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Alabama, said a complaint is being drafted.

*

CNN. 2019-05-15. Alabama Senate passes near-total abortion ban

Alabama sent the most restrictive abortion bill in the country to the governor’s desk Tuesday night, with the state’s Senate passing legislation that could punish doctors who perform abortions with life in prison.

The state’s Republican backers have pushed the legislation, which amounts to a near-total ban on abortion in the state, forward with the express goal of overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case legalizing abortion. Alabama lawmakers join legislators in several other states in putting forth legislation to restrict abortion, such as Georgia’s recent fetal heartbeat bill.

After more than four hours of debate, the Republican-led Senate voted 25-6 to pass HB 314, which would slap doctors with up to 99 years in prison for performing an abortion. The Alabama House passed the bill earlier this month.

The law only allows exceptions “to avoid a serious health risk to the unborn child’s mother,” for ectopic pregnancy and if the “unborn child has a lethal anomaly.” Democrats re-introduced an amendment to exempt rape and incest victims, but the motion failed on an 11-21 vote.

Republican Gov. Kay Ivey will have six days to sign the legislation, though the bill would not take effect until six months after becoming law. Ivey has not publicly taken a stance on the bill but has previously aligned herself as anti-abortion, lamenting the courts striking down another Alabama abortion law last year.

“As this legislation is still making its way through the legislative process, the governor intends to withhold comment until it makes its way to her desk for signature,” Ivey spokeswoman Lori Jhons said in a statement.

American Civil Rights Union of Alabama Executive Director Randall Marshall said that his organization would join with the national ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Planned Parenthood of Southeast to challenge the bill in court within “a few weeks” should it become law.

The bill’s consideration Tuesday made frequent reference to the chamber’s dramatic vote last week to drop an amendment that would have made exemptions to abortions performed for instances of rape or incest.

Republican State Sen. Clyde Chambliss, who ushered the bill through the chamber, emphasized in his introduction that the bill impacts women who are “known to be pregnant” and would provide “every female that’s pregnant or thinks they’re pregnant, and the male who was involved, it gives them that window of time — this bill does not change that window of time.”

In a news release, Chambliss touted that his bill outlaws surgical abortions as soon as a pregnancy can be medically determined. Speaking on the Senate floor, Chambliss repeatedly referred to a “window” of time between conception and when a woman knows for certain that she’s pregnant. The state senator said he believed that time was between about seven and 10 days.

“She has to take a pregnancy test, she has to do something to know whether she’s pregnant or not,” he said.

“You can’t know that immediately, it takes some time for all those chromosomes and all that.”

Many women don’t yet know for certain that they’re pregnant even at six weeks into a pregnancy — the earliest a fetal heartbeat can be detected.

When Democratic state Sen. Rodger Smitherman asked what would happen under the bill to a young girl who was a victim of incest and found out she was pregnant, Chambliss said that he hoped that the bill would result in young women learning to seek physical and mental help quickly if they are abused.

“What I hope is, if we pass this bill, that all young ladies would be educated by their parents, their guardians that should a situation like this occur, you need to go get help — you need to do it immediately,” Chambliss said.

“Then also they can get justice in the situation,” he added. “If they wait, justice delayed is justice denied.”

Democratic state Sen. Vivian Figures told Chambliss that a rape victim’s trauma “is not your business.”

“You don’t have to raise that child, you don’t have to carry that child, you don’t have to provide for that child, you don’t have to do anything for that child,” she told Chambliss. “But yet you want to make that decision for that woman, that that’s what she has to do.”

Figures proposed amendments to have legislators who backed the bill pay for the anticipated legal fees accrued by subsequent legal challenges, to expand Medicaid in anticipation of the bill’s impact on low-income women, and to make having a vasectomy a class A felony, as the bill would designate performing an abortion. All three motions failed.

Eric Johnston, head of the Alabama Pro-life Coalition and the drafter of the initial legislation, told CNN that while the amendment to exempt rape and incest victims is “sympathetic” and “deals with very difficult issues,” it would upend the law’s legal standing.

“Regardless of how the conception takes place, the product is a child, and so we’re saying that that unborn child is a person entitled to protection of law,” he added. “So if, be it a rape or inecst conception, then it would be impossible to ask a judge which of these is protected by law and which is not.”

Staci Fox, president of Planned Parenthood Southeast, told CNN before the chamber’s vote that “even the authors of this bill know that it is blatantly unconstitutional and wouldn’t stand up in court.”

“We’ve seen the continual chipping away year after year in Alabama and efforts get bolder and bolder each year,” Fox said. “I think with the President and now Kavanaugh on the court, the politics in Alabama just feel emboldened to take this egregious swipe at women’s health care.”

But in the larger legal landscape, Marshall cast doubt on whether this bill would ever take on Roe, citing how the case would take several years to get to the Supreme Court while several other states have already passed so-called heartbeat bills effectively banning abortion.

“There are already 14 cases nationwide in the pipeline, two of which are currently at the Supreme Court of the United States,” he said. “The notion that somehow this is going to be the vehicle for the Supreme Court to reconsider Roe v. Wade is really misplaced.”