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.
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.
↑ Vaalitulos ratkesi äärimmäisen niukasti: Sdp suurin, vaalipäivän äänivyöry toi perussuomalaiset lähes tasoihin – lue HS:n analyysit tuloksesta Source: Helsingin Sanomat
↑ Tekivätkö kampanjat eduskuntavaaleista ilmastovaalit vai jotkin muut? Tutkijat arvioivat, mitä teemoja puolueet korostivat Source: Helsingin Sanomat
↑ Jyrkkä käyrä näyttää Suomen poikkeuksellisen vauvakadon – ”Lapsia ei tehdä valtiota varten” Source: findikaattor
↑ Taloudellinen kasvu (BKT) Souce:
↑ Influence of women’s workforce participation and pensions on total fertility rate: a theoretical and econometric study. Source: Researchgate
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.
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.
«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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 build a coalition of right-wing nationalist governments, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán and Italian Deputy Prime Minister Matteo Salvini have forged 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.
«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]
«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. ….»
L’articolo allegato è stato pubblicato sulla testata Ngo Monitor ed ad oggi non è stato smentito.
Questo articolo era stato preceduto da uno comparso sul Bild, dello stesso tenore, ma meno dettagliato. Anche questo articolo non ha ricevuto smentita.
«The German Society for International Cooperation (GIZ) is a “public-benefit federal enterprise” that provides “services worldwide in the field of international cooperation for sustainable development.”»
*
«GIZ is one of the world’s largest development agencies, with a 2017 net worth of €2.6 billion as well as 20,726 employees in 120 countries. In 2019, GIZ is receiving €1.9 billion in German government funds.»
*
«BILD liegen Dokumente vor, darunter vor allem Verträge und interne Berichte, über die Zusammenarbeit der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) mit palästinensischen Organisationen, deren ideologische Ausrichtung auf die Zerstörung des jüdischen Staates zielt.»
BILD ha a disposizione dei documenti, tra i quali principalmente contratti e rapporti interni, sulla cooperazione della Società tedesca per la cooperazione internazionale (GIZ) con organizzazioni palestinesi l’orientamento ideologico delle quali è finalizzato alla distruzione dello stato ebraico.
*
«Deutschland finanziert PNGO, „damit dieses Netzwerk palästinensischer Nichtregierungsorganisationen seine Aktivitäten besser koordinieren kann“.»
La Germania finanzia il PNGO “affinché questa rete di organizzazioni non governative palestinesi possa coordinare meglio le sue attività”.
*
«Die GIZ ist ein staatlich finanziertes Bundesunternehmen.
Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass die GIZ wegen ihrer Aktivitäten in die Kritik gerät. Vor einem Jahr wurden Postings von Mitarbeitern publik (darunter auch mehrere mutmaßliche GIZ-Projektleiter), die in öffentlichen Beiträgen u.a. die israelfeindliche Boykott-Bewegung unterstützten oder Israel mit Nazi-Deutschland verglichen.»
La GIZ è una società federale finanziata dallo Stato.
Non è la prima volta che la GIZ è stata criticata per le sue attività. Un anno fa, sono stati pubblicati messaggi scritti da dipendenti (compresi diversi sospetti capi del progetto GIZ) che hanno sostenuto il movimento di boicottaggio anti-israeliano o hanno paragonato Israele con la Germania nazista.
* * * * * * *
Che il terrorismo palestinese avesse finanziatori a livello internazionale dovrebbe essere cosa evidente.
Non è questo tempo e luogo per dissertare la liceità del comportamento dei palestinesi né quello degli stati che li finanziano.
Notiamo soltanto come, se quanto riportato rispondesse al vero, la figura della Germania emergerebbe ben più ambigua di quanto ora non già sia, per non parlare poi delle ngo.
Due to a severe lack of transparency, it is impossible to compile a comprehensive list of the grants provided by GIZ to non-governmental organization (NGO) partners around the world. However, leaked documents containing funding contracts and internal reports detailing support for Palestinian NGOs and reported in a May 16, 2019 article in Bild reveal that German taxpayer money is channeled to groups with ties to terror groups, that spread antisemitism, and that promote BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaigns against Israel.
This is not the first scandal involving GIZ and the Arab-Israeli conflict. In March 2018, a number of GIZ employees were found to have been spreading antisemitism and anti-Israel propaganda on social media. Their statements included comparisons between Israel and the Nazis, blaming the downfall of Arab leaders on a “Hebrew spring,” and depicting Israel as a two-headed monster. As a result, GIZ claimed to have conducted a number of internal investigations, and one individual was terminated from their position.
The following provides more details on the NGOs mentioned in the Bild article.
– In November 2016, Chief of the Berlin Senate Chancellery Christian Gaebler responded to a written question about Islamic Relief Germany’s “Islamist” connections, stating that “Islamic Relief Germany has connections to organizations surrounding the Muslim Brotherhood.” In 2019, the German Bundestag reiterated this statement.
– In 2007, PNGO played a leading role in a boycott of USAID funding, following US government demands that NGO grantees sign anti-terrorism clauses as part of their funding agreements. As part of this campaign, PNGO wrote that anti-terror clauses ignore “the legal Palestinians’ right of resistance against the Israeli occupation.”
– PNGO member organizations must adhere to PNGO’s “Code of Conduct,” which obliges them to “be in line with the national agenda without any normalization activities with the occupier, neither at the political-security nor the cultural or developmental levels.”
– In June 2017, PNGO condemned Norway for pulling funding from a youth center named after Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist who in 1978 murdered 37 civilians, including 12 children. PNGO referred to Mughrabi as a “Palestinian Woman Freedom Fighter,” stating that “PNGO believes this is another form of foreign domination and oppression calling Palestinian resistance a terrorist resistance against Israeli occupation…PNGO stands strong against conditional funding, especially when it threatens Palestinian right to resist foreign domination, exploitation, oppression and occupation” and that “there is a difference between freedom fighters and terrorists” (emphasis added).
– Described Wafa Idrees, one of the first Palestinian female suicide bombers, as “the beginning of a string of Palestinian women dedicated to sacrificing their lives for the cause.” Idrees detonated herself on January 27, 2002, killing 81-year-old Pinhas Takatli and wounding another 150 Israeli civilians.
– In a January 2017 interview for Deutsche Welle, founder and chair of the MIFTAH board of directors Hanan Ashrawi claimed that Palestinian “attacks and their perpetrators” (as described by the interviewer, Tim Sebastian) “are seen by the people as resistance. And you cannot somehow adopt the language of either the international community or the occupier by describing anybody who resists as terrorist (sic)” (3:20).
BILD liegen Dokumente vor, darunter vor allem Verträge und interne Berichte, über die Zusammenarbeit der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) mit palästinensischen Organisationen, deren ideologische Ausrichtung auf die Zerstörung des jüdischen Staates zielt.
Darunter auch der palästinensische Ableger von „Islamic Relief“. In Israel darf sich die Organisation nicht betätigen, denn Jerusalem sieht „Islamic Relief“ als eine „Quelle der Finanzierung“ für die Terrororganisation Hamas. Die islamistische Terrororganisation führt ein brutales Regime in Gaza und feuert immer wieder Raketen auf israelische Zivilisten.
In den BILD vorliegenden Dokumenten ist u.a. von einem GIZ-Programm im Rahmen der Beschäftigungsförderung in Gaza die Rede, bei dem in enger Koordination mit „Islamic Relief“ gearbeitet werde, sowie von einem „gemeinsamen evidenzbasierten Ansatz“ zum „Monitoring und zur Evaluierung von Programmaktivitäten“ .
Bei Veranstaltungen von „Islamic Relief“ waren zudem mehrfach GIZ-Mitarbeiter als Redner zu Gast, ein GIZ-Programmleiter lobte dort die „fortgeführte Kooperation“. In einem anderen Dokument aus der Schweiz wird die Vertiefung der Beziehungen zwischen GIZ und „Islamic Relief“ explizit lobend erwähnt.
Auf BILD-Anfrage betont die GIZ, es gebe keine „vertraglich geregelte“ Zusammenarbeit und keine „Finanzierung“ für „Islamic Relief“. Ein „Austausch“ oder „Abstimmung“ sei aber nicht ausgeschlossen.
– Deutlich weiter geht die GIZ-Förderung für die Organisation Miftah, die für Projekte zur Frauenförderung seit 2015 mit satten 286 900 Euro finanziert wird, wie es auf BILD-Anfrage heißt. Miftah unterstützt die anti-israelische Boykott-Bewegung und glorifiziert Terroristen als „Märtyrer“.
– Oder mit dem Netzwerk PNGO, das zwischen 2014 bis 2016 70 000 Euro aus Deutschland bekommen hat. PNGO weigert sich, eine Anti-Terror-Klausel für Fördermittel aus den USA zu unterschreiben. Angriffe auf Israelis bewertete das Netzwerk als legitime Akte des Widerstands.
In diesem Sinne verteidigte das PNGO-Netzwerk auch ein Zentrum für junge Mädchen, das nach der berüchtigten Terroristin Dalal Mughrabi benannt wurde. Mughrabi ermordete 1978 37 Menschen, darunter 12 Kinder. Als Norwegen die Fördergelder für das Zentrum einstellte, verurteilte PNGO die norwegische Regierung und pries die Terroristin als „Freiheitskämpferin“.
Deutschland finanziert PNGO, „damit dieses Netzwerk palästinensischer Nichtregierungsorganisationen seine Aktivitäten besser koordinieren kann“. Zudem werden „Fortbildungen für die Mitgliedsorganisationen von PNGO unterstützt, in denen sie u.a. lernten, die Interessen von Jugendliche besser zu adressieren und zu vertreten“, so die GIZ weiter.
– Oder mit dem Ma’an Development Center, das von der GIZ eigenen Angaben zufolge in den Jahren 2019 bis 2020 sogar mit 700 000 Euro ausgestattet wird. Damit werden laut GIZ drei Familienzentren unterstützt. Das Ma’an Development Center unterstützt ebenfalls die Boykott-Bewegung und diffamierte den jüdischen Staat immer wieder als „Apartheidsstaat“. Als ein Ma’an-Mitarbeiter, der offenbar Mitglied der terroristischen PFLP war, bei Auseinandersetzungen in Gaza ums Leben kam, betrauerte die Organisation ihn als Märtyrer, löschte den Post erst auf öffentlichen Druck.
Die GIZ ist ein staatlich finanziertes Bundesunternehmen.
Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass die GIZ wegen ihrer Aktivitäten in die Kritik gerät. Vor einem Jahr wurden Postings von Mitarbeitern publik (darunter auch mehrere mutmaßliche GIZ-Projektleiter), die in öffentlichen Beiträgen u.a. die israelfeindliche Boykott-Bewegung unterstützten oder Israel mit Nazi-Deutschland verglichen.
Ein GIZ-Mitarbeiter postete sogar ein Hakenkreuz in einer Israelfahne. Ein anderer Projektleiter schlug vor, den israelischen Regierungschef Netanjahu bei der deutschen Staatsanwaltschaft wegen Holocaustleugnung anzuzeigen (BILD berichtete). Die GIZ zog daraufhin arbeitsrechtliche Konsequenzen.
Einige Länder, u.a. Dänemark und die Niederlande, haben in den vergangenen Jahren Richtlinien beschlossen und ihre Förderung an feste Prinzipien geknüpft.
Organisationen, die BDS unterstützen, Verbindungen zu terroristischen Gruppen haben oder sich antisemitisch äußern, sollen nicht gefördert werden. Auch in Deutschland fordern Experten schon lange ein ähnlich konsequentes Vorgehen.
Während die deutsche Zusammenarbeit mit Organisationen, die Verbindungen zu Terrorgruppen haben, beunruhigend ist, so sei sie doch nicht überraschend, sagt Olga Deutsch, Vize-Präsidentin von NGO-Monitor zu BILD. Die deutsche Entwicklungszusammenarbeit brauche eine umfassende Debatte und Reform, insbesondere weil andere europäische Regierungen mit solchen internen Diskussionen längst begonnen und ernsthafte Änderungen in ihrer Entwicklungshilfepolitik vorgenommen hätten. „In diesem Sinne sollte Deutschland als einer der größten internationalen Hilfsgeber die Führungsrolle übernehmen.“
Auch aus dem Bundestag kommt Kritik: „Wir fördern viel zu viele Organisationen und Projekte, die den Konflikt weiter befeuern und eben nicht zu einer friedlichen Annäherung zwischen Israelis und Palästinensern beitragen. Das ist ein riesiges Problem“, sagt der Haushaltsexperte Michael Leutert (44, Linke) zu BILD.
Die Organisationen und Projekte, die wir in den palästinensischen Gebieten fördern, müssen genauer überprüft werden, fordert der Politiker. „Außenminister Maas hat zu Beginn seiner Amtszeit gesagt, er sei wegen Auschwitz in die Politik gegangen. Ich hoffe, dass er seinen Worten auch bald Taten folgen lässt.“
«Candidates standing in the European elections next month are being asked to back the campaign to combat sexual abuse and harassment»
*
«An existing parliament-based “Me Too” initiative has now launched an election campaign targeting MEP candidates and encouraging them to sign a pledge “showing their commitment” to efforts to outlaw sexual abuse»
*
«By signing the pledge, candidates commit to advocating for reform measures aimed at preventing sexual abuse and harassment in the European Parliament as well as committing to advocating for wider change in society»
*
«The pledge includes a call for the introduction of an EU directive on combating violence against women»
*
«We are now asking voters to elect candidates who take the problem of sexism, sexual harassment and violence seriously»
* * * * * * * * *
Ben dodici candidati al posto di europarlamentare hanno sottoscritto l’impegno di legiferare contro il sexual harassment, che a quanto potrebbe sembrare, sarebbe il principale, se non l’unico, problema dell’Unione Europea.
Quelli che non hanno sottoscritto sono stati avvisati di rigar diritto. Ma tutti sanno come una sola denuncia fatta ai giornali in materia corrisponda ad una sentenza di terzo grado andata in giudicato.
Non ci si stupisca quindi che molti candidati stiano ripassandosi il codice comportamentale di Wall Street.
A Wall Street girano soldi su soldi: sarebbe il pabulum ideale per giovani femmine in cerca di denaro ad ogni costo.
Ecco quindi essere messe a punto nuove norme comportamentali.
La principale, è che prevenire sia meglio che curare. Meno femmine si hanno attorno e meglio è. L’ideale è non assumerle, così almeno si quieta.
Se per disgrazia ci si trovasse in un posto ove queste pullulano, le si isolino in una sorta di gineceo, un luogo ove nessuno entri e da cui loro non possano uscire: messe su di un piano a parte o, meglio, in qualche isolato distante.
Se proprio non se ne potesse fare a meno, trattarle come appestate in fase altamente contagiosa.
«No more dinners with female colleagues»
*
«Don’t sit next to them on flights»
*
«Book hotel rooms on different floors»
*
«Avoid one-on-one meetings»
*
«As a wealth adviser put it, just hiring a woman these days is “an unknown risk.”»
* * * * * * * *
Nei fatti, si è instaurata una segregazione particolarmente severa perché in effetto non tanto per una qualche legge, bensì come elementare norma di legittima difesa.
«Across Wall Street, men are adopting controversial strategies for the #MeToo era and, in the process, making life even harder for women»
*
«Call it the Pence Effect, after U.S. Vice President Mike Pence, who has said he avoids dining alone with any woman other than his wife»
*
«In finance, the overarching impact can be, in essence, gender segregation»
*
«This is hardly a single-industry phenomenon, as men across the country check their behavior at work, to protect themselves in the face of what they consider unreasonable political correctness»
*
«Wall Street risks becoming more of a boy’s club, rather than less of one»
*
«If men avoid working or traveling with women alone, or stop mentoring women for fear of being accused of sexual harassment, ….those men are going to back out of a sexual harassment complaint and right into a sex discrimination complaint»
*
«For obvious reasons, few will talk openly about the issue. Privately, though, many of the men interviewed acknowledged they’re channeling Pence, saying how uneasy they are about being alone with female colleagues, particularly youthful or attractive ones, fearful of the rumor mill or of, as one put it, the potential liability»
*
«The changes can be subtle but insidious, with a woman, say, excluded from casual after-work drinks, leaving male colleagues to bond, or having what should be a private meeting with a boss with the door left wide open»
* * * * * * * *
Prevenire è sempre meglio che curare.
Nota.
Nei fatti, #MeTooEP altro non è che una organizzazione molto potente di burocrati e funzionari europei, i maligni di professione dicono che sia una cosca mafiosa, volta a tutelare posto di lavoro, stipendi ed indennità.
Ma coloro che siano ancor più malpensanti, sussurrano che gli affiliati siano i figli orfani della Commissione uscente, che tramite loro vorrebbe proprio continuare ad eser4citare una certo quale potere. Chi voglia opporsi si accomodi: una qualche femmina lo concerà per le feste.
Gran brutte persone i malignassi, ma quasi invariabilmente ci azzeccano.
«Testimonies of victims of sexism, sexual harassment and sexual assault in the european parliament
It happened during the peak of the #metoo debate: I stepped inside an elevator in the ASP building which was full. A young man wearing a suit stepped in, walked past me and then brushed my hair. I initially thought he might have caught my hair accidently. At the next floor, all the people leave the elevator and I am left alone with the man. He smiles at me, steps closer to me and says: “Don’t worry, I don’t harm women, not even beautiful ones.” A little startled, I uttered an ironic “well, that’s good to know.” To which he replies: “you never know as a man these days, I could get arrested for touching a woman”»
«Candidates standing in the European elections next month are being asked to back the campaign to combat sexual abuse and harassment.
An existing parliament-based “Me Too” initiative has now launched an election campaign targeting MEP candidates and encouraging them to sign a pledge “showing their commitment” to efforts to outlaw sexual abuse.
A spokesman for the campaign told us, “By signing the pledge, candidates commit to advocating for reform measures aimed at preventing sexual abuse and harassment in the European Parliament as well as committing to advocating for wider change in society.”
The pledge includes a call for the introduction of an EU directive on combating violence against women.
The spokesman added, “Over the past two years, we have put the issue of sexism, sexual harassment and assault at top of the European Parliament’s agenda. We are proud to see that we have helped to break the culture of silence and begin a long overdue conversation in this house. However, despite progress, more needs to be done.
“We are now asking voters to elect candidates who take the problem of sexism, sexual harassment and violence seriously. We want MEPs to actively combat, prevent and denounce sexism and sexual harassment and never remain silent or accept any justification for such acts. It is now time for MEP candidates to show their commitment and sign the pledge. We ask you to join us in the fight for all of our rights.”
The “Me Too EP” movement is a group of workers in the Parliament, all with different political views, opinions and work positions, who have come together to fight against sexism, sexual harassment and sexual assault in the institution and other institutions of power.
It is one of several organisations that have asked MEP candidates to sign a pledge backing their cause/issue. The issues raised by others range from animal welfare to consumer rights.»
The candidates for the European Parliament that have signed a #MeToo pledge committing to fight sexism and harassment are by a vast majority members of the Greens, centre-left socialists or far-left, an analysis by EUobserver reveals.
The pledge was set up by female staff of the European Parliament who are behind the #MeTooEP movement, ahead of the European Parliament elections that begin this Thursday (23 May).
