Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Europea, Unione Europea

Regno Unito. Brexit. Parlamento sospeso e 21 parlamentari radiati.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-04.

2019-09-04__Regno Unito 001

Gli storici del futuro faranno una grande fatica nel cercare di capire cosa sia successo nel Regno Unito nel corso degli ultimi anni, specie poi in relazione alla Brexit. I media stanno scrivendo tutto ed il contrario di tutto. Gran parte delle così dette ‘informazioni‘ altro non sono che pettegolezzi incontrollati ed incontrollabili.

Cercando di sintetizzare, il Regno Unito è diviso in due quote equipollenti: quanti abbiano interesse ad abbandonare l’Unione Europea e quanti invece abbiano interesse a rimanervi. Poi, il fronte pro Brexit è ulteriormente diviso tra quanti vorrebbero l’uscita immediata, no-deal, a fine ottobre e quanti invece la vorrebbero raddolcita da una qualche contrattazione.

Il tutto infine senza tener conto delle posizioni dell’Unione Europea, la cui dirigenza ad oggi in carica scade proprio a fine ottobre, nonché del quadro internazionale. Mr Trump sembrerebbe essere di accordo, almeno fino a nuovo twitter, con Johnson. Infine, non si sottovaluti il momento di tensione mondiale determinato dalla svalutazione del Renminbi.

Comunque evolvano le cose, se metà degli inglesi potrebbe esserne contenta, l’altra metà ne risulterà essere danneggiata.

* * * * * * *

Johnson sconfitto, i Comuni avviano l’iter per la legge anti ‘no deal’

Con 328 voti favorevoli e 301 contrari la Camera dei Comuni ha approvato la mozione che avvia l’iter del progetto di legge che punta ad impedire la no deal Brexit il prossimo 31 ottobre, obbligando il governo a chiedere all’Unione europea un rinvio fino al 31 gennaio del 2020. Per il premier conservatore Boris Johnson si tratta di una pesante sconfitta. I Comuni hanno di fatto tolto dalle mani del governo l’agenda legislativa, affidandola al controllo dell’aula.

Decisivi per la sconfitta del governo i voti dei ‘ribelli’ tories, contrari alla strategia negoziale del premier, deciso a rischiare l’uscita dalla Ue senza un accordo, per ottenere concessioni da Bruxelles riguardo alla clausola del ‘backstop’ per il confine irlandese. I ‘ribelli’ rischiano ora l’espulsione dal gruppo parlamentare conservatore e la mancata candidatura alle prossime elezioni.

Se la Camera dei Comuni approverà la legge anti no deal, si andrà alle elezioni anticipate. Lo ha annunciato Boris Johnson, dopo che il voto. La mozione per chiedere lo scioglimento anticipato del Parlamento verrà presentata stasera, ha aggiunto il premier. E come annunciato in precedenza, il leader laburista Jeremy Corbyn dice ‘no’ alla richiesta di elezioni anticipate. Prima di andare al voto, ha detto Corbyn sarà necessario approvare la legge anti ‘no deal’. In base alla legge britannica, per sciogliere anticipatamente il Parlamento è necessaria una maggioranza dei due terzi, impossibile da raggiungere senza i voti laburisti.

Da domani, i Comuni inizieranno a discutere il progetto di legge presentato dalla laburista Hillary Benn, per impedire il no deal, che potrebbe essere approvato entro lunedì, prima dello stop forzato al Parlamento, imposto da Johnson.


In questo momento particolarmente delicato, il Governo Johnson è quanto mai debole.

«I 21 ribelli conservatori che in serata hanno votato contro la linea del governo di Boris Johnson nella mozione sulla calendarizzazione domani della proposta di legge trasversale, sostenuta assieme alle opposizioni, favorevole a un nuovo rinvio della Brexit, saranno privati della cosiddetta whip (letteralmente frusta): ossia espulsi ipso facto dal gruppo parlamentare Tory»

«La linea dura, che sfarina ulteriormente l’ex maggioranza, è destinata ad abbattersi anche su alcuni pezzi da 90 del partito»

«Conservative rebels said they felt “liberated” walking through the lobbies facing imminent deselection as they backed moves to stop no-deal Brexit, with several emphasising that the government’s threats had been the catalyst for their decisions.»

«Among the 21 rebels who lost the Conservative whip were eight former cabinet ministers, some of whom occupied the country’s highest offices just weeks ago, as well as multiple Conservative veterans including the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill.»

«The defiance of the rebel group has led some in government to question whether the nuclear strategy of threatening deselection and cancelling an earlier meeting with key former ministers had been the right move.»

«The chief whip is speaking to those Tory MPs who did not vote with the government this evening. They will have the Tory whip removed»

«Some Conservatives have privately voiced serious concern about the future of the party and unease at removing the whip from such long-serving MPs.»

* * * * * * *

Il partito conservatore ha 310/ 650 seggi alla Camera dei Comuni e 236 / 775 seggi alla Camera dei Lord. È ancora molto robusto nelle amministrazioni locali, disponendo di 9,116 / 21,871 eletti.

Occorrerebbe prendere atto che quanto stia accadendo nel Regno Unito sia sicuramente di interesse inglese, ma che le ripercussioni della Brexit con o senza deal saranno di vasta portata sull’Unione Europea e sull’Italia.

In tutta Europa, tranne Polonia ed Ungheria, i governi sono traballanti e, spesso, sono minoritari, con per esempio in Spagna. La parcellizzazione dell’elettorato è solo l’epifenomeno della presenza di interessi politici ed economici contrastanti e, spesso, altamente conflittuali.


Nota Importante.

Regno Unito, Inghilterra e Gran Bretagna sono tre entità differenti: non sono sinonimi.

Il REGNO UNITO è formato da 4 stati: Inghilterra (con capitale Londra), Scozia (con capitale Edimburgo), Galles (con capitale Cardiff) ed Irlanda del Nord (con capitale Belfast).  Il nome Regno Unito non è altro che l’acronimo di: “Il Regno Unito di Gran Bretagna e Irlanda del Nord”. Per chiarirsi le idee basta sapere che questi 4 paesi, condividono non solo lo stesso capo di stato, ovvero la Regina, ma anche il primo ministro e la stessa moneta, ovvero la sterlina. Mentre la Scozia, il Galles e l’Irlanda del Nord sono sotto lo stesso Parlamento e Primo Ministro del Regno Unito, insieme all’Inghilterra. Ma a differenza di quest’ultima hanno anche amministrazioni proprie, con un loro parlamento.

L’INGHILTERRA, altro non è che uno dei 4 stati del Regno Unito, che ha come capitale Londra che è anche capitale del Regno Unito. Il nome inglese è England.

La GRAN BRETAGNA è semplicemente il nome dell’isola, con una valenza esclusivamente geografica.

* * * * * * *


Guardian. 2019-09-04. Who are the 21 Tory rebels who have lost the whip?

Eight former cabinet ministers among 21 rebels who lose Conservative whip and face deselection.

Conservative rebels said they felt “liberated” walking through the lobbies facing imminent deselection as they backed moves to stop no-deal Brexit, with several emphasising that the government’s threats had been the catalyst for their decisions.

Among the 21 rebels who lost the Conservative whip were eight former cabinet ministers, some of whom occupied the country’s highest offices just weeks ago, as well as multiple Conservative veterans including the grandson of Sir Winston Churchill.

The defiance of the rebel group has led some in government to question whether the nuclear strategy of threatening deselection and cancelling an earlier meeting with key former ministers had been the right move.

In the immediate aftermath of the rebellion, the business secretary, Andrea Leadsom, said there was a possibility of a reprieve if MPs reconsidered and voted against the bill expected to be tabled on Wednesday.

That peace offering was contradicted within an hour by a Downing Street spokesman. “The chief whip is speaking to those Tory MPs who did not vote with the government this evening. They will have the Tory whip removed.”

Ed Vaizey, the former culture minister who had kept his intentions secret until the vote, said he felt liberated by his decision to rebel. “When you hear those speeches in the House of Commons by Antoinette Sandbach and Ken Clarke, you just know you are on the right side,” he said.

No 10 attempted a round of last-minute diplomacy ahead of the crunch vote, including convening a meeting with senior rebels such as Philip Hammond and David Gauke in Downing Street.

Several waverers were approached personally by the prime minister – with one MP saying they had received two phone calls from Johnson just minutes before the vote. Some senior Conservatives appeared stunned at the extent of the rebellion, with cabinet ministers approaching MPs en route from the voting lobbies to ask if they had rebelled.

Some Conservatives have privately voiced serious concern about the future of the party and unease at removing the whip from such long-serving MPs.

On Tuesday a number of the party’s leading centrist voices, including Justine Greening, Nicholas Soames and Alistair Burt, announced they would stand down at the next election, and the former justice minister Phillip Lee defected to the Lib Dems, with most saying they saw no future in the party and condemning its direction under Johnson.

Rory Stewart, the former international development secretary, also joked as he won GQ’s politician of the year that it came on the night he had ceased to be a politician.

“If anything, those threats have made it more difficult for MPs to back down, because if you decide to back the government in that circumstance, you are effectively saying you value your career over your principles,” one MP said.

Sam Gyimah, the former universities minister, wrote in the Guardian: “For MPs like myself, Downing Street has framed the choice as: speak your mind or keep your job.”

MPs who rebelled included former cabinet ministers Philip Hammond, Greg Clark, David Gauke, Caroline Nokes, Stewart and Greening.

Many more were former ministers including Steve Brine, Stephen Hammond, Anne Milton, Margot James, Guto Bebb, Dominic Grieve, Sam Gyimah, Richard Harrington, Oliver Letwin, as well as backbencher Antoinette Sandbach and Tory veterans Ken Clarke and Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill.

Soames was among several Tory veterans who were deeply torn on whether to rebel after a fraught meeting with the prime minister on Tuesday, but he said he would rebel “with a very heavy heart” because he believed there was no chance to get a deal by October. Afterwards he confirmed he would not stand at the next election.

Announcing her decision to quit parliament at the election, Greening said it had become “clear to me that my concerns about the Conservative party becoming the Brexit party have come to pass”.

Rory Stewart, the former international development secretary, also joked as he won GQ’s politician of the year that it came on the night he had ceased to be a politician.

“If anything, those threats have made it more difficult for MPs to back down, because if you decide to back the government in that circumstance, you are effectively saying you value your career over your principles,” one MP said.

Sam Gyimah, the former universities minister, wrote in the Guardian: “For MPs like myself, Downing Street has framed the choice as: speak your mind or keep your job.”

MPs who rebelled included former cabinet ministers Philip Hammond, Greg Clark, David Gauke, Caroline Nokes, Stewart and Greening.

Many more were former ministers including Steve Brine, Stephen Hammond, Anne Milton, Margot James, Guto Bebb, Dominic Grieve, Sam Gyimah, Richard Harrington, Oliver Letwin, as well as backbencher Antoinette Sandbach and Tory veterans Ken Clarke and Soames, the grandson of Winston Churchill.

Soames was among several Tory veterans who were deeply torn on whether to rebel after a fraught meeting with the prime minister on Tuesday, but he said he would rebel “with a very heavy heart” because he believed there was no chance to get a deal by October. Afterwards he confirmed he would not stand at the next election.

Announcing her decision to quit parliament at the election, Greening said it had become “clear to me that my concerns about the Conservative party becoming the Brexit party have come to pass”.

Burt, one of the key sponsors of the rebel bill, said he had a “fundamental and unresolvable disagreement with party leadership on the manner in which we leave the EU”.

Stephen Hammond said he had hoped for reassurance from the government but had decided to reluctantly vote against the government.

“It’s a very emotional time for a lot of us, I’ve been agonising over it, I believe in everything this prime minister is doing pretty much, but I have said time after time that I would support a deal … but no deal is not acceptable,” he said.

Philip Hammond and Johnson went head to head in a furious meeting of the rebels in Downing Street, shortly after the former chancellor told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme he was gearing up for the “fight of a lifetime”, including preparing to take the Conservative party to court if Johnson deselected him as a candidate.

The last-ditch meeting, which included Hammond, Clark, James, Soames, Burt and Milton, was convened by Johnson at No 10 on Tuesday morning in an attempt to convince waverers about the implications of the bill and the negotiation progress.

A source close to the rebel group said the prime minister’s explanation was “unconvincing” about how a deal could be ratified, legally drafted, and legislated in the very short timeframe when parliament is not prorogued.

Downing Street sources said officials had hit back at Hammond, saying he had been advised when he was in cabinet that the process could be done in as little as 17 days.

However, several Tory MPs were also left concerned that there was no new information provided on how an alternative to the backstop had been devised and whether it had been provided to the EU, despite contributions in the meetings by Johnson’s EU negotiator, David Frost, who insisted the government was seeing movement on the Irish side.

The culture secretary, Nicky Morgan, who has been sceptical about no deal, also told MPs they would have time to act before the deadline.

One government official said there had been a “genuine breadth of opinion in the room … some wanted to be convinced that a deal is possible and the prime minister made clear that the deal before the House will wreck that chance.”

However, one rebel source said that assertion was challenged and that “no convincing proof was given that a real negotiation is taking place”.

The source also called it “a deliberate and willing misinterpretation” of the bill to suggest it would hand power to Jeremy Corbyn, saying it gave the government “maximum flexibility to achieve a deal”.

In a direct exchange with the prime minister, Hammond said rebels did not believe there was a serious negotiating strategy or team in place, or that the government would keep its word about the election date, a concern that one official likened to “a conspiracy theory”.

Hammond also challenged Johnson on his claim that the EU can apply conditions to any extension. “Philip made the point that the EU cannot – according to law, and to conversations he had with EU officials when he was in office,” one source said.

In turn, Johnson and Michael Gove argued that the bill as it stood could lead only to indefinite uncertainty, suggesting it would inevitably result in a second referendum or the revoking of article 50, which rebel Tories have claimed they do not want.

*


Ansa. 2019-09-04. Brexit: media, espulsi 21 ribelli Tory

LONDRA, 4 SET – I 21 ribelli conservatori che in serata hanno votato contro la linea del governo di Boris Johnson nella mozione sulla calendarizzazione domani della proposta di legge trasversale, sostenuta assieme alle opposizioni, favorevole a un nuovo rinvio della Brexit, saranno privati della cosiddetta whip (letteralmente frusta): ossia espulsi ipso facto dal gruppo parlamentare Tory. Lo anticipano i media. La linea dura, che sfarina ulteriormente l’ex maggioranza, è destinata ad abbattersi anche su alcuni pezzi da 90 del partito.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Europea, Senza categoria

Zelenskiy presidente dell’Ukraina.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-04-22.

Ukraina__001

«The national exit poll showed Zelenskiy had won 73 percent of the vote with Poroshenko winning just 25 percent»

*

«Zelenskiy …. has promised to end the war in the eastern Donbass region and to root out corruption amid widespread dismay over rising prices and falling living standards»

*

«Since there is complete uncertainty about the economic policy of the person who will become president we simply don’t know what is going to happen and that worries the financial community»

*

«We need to see what the first decisions are, the first appointments. We probably won’t understand how big these risks are earlier than June»

*

«Perhaps nothing will change»

* * * * * * * *

Anche se la stampa ne parla diffusamente, a nostro commesso parere ben poco importa il pregresso lavoro svolto dal presidente eletto, Mr Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Pigliamo soltanto atto come sia digiuno, almeno apparentemente, di conoscenze di politica e di economia, e tanto meno del meccanismo di funzionamento dello stato. Conterà quindi molto l’entourage cui si affiderà. Per fare il presidente di uno stato l’onestà è condizione necessaria, ma non sufficiente.

È davvero molto difficile dire quanto siano realizzabili gli slogan elettorali che lo hanno portato alla vittoria, pur se vi si intravede l’anelito a terminare la guerra civile nel Donbass. Un po’ di Realpolitik non guasterebbe.

L’Ukraina è un paese stremato da quasi due decenni di guerre e di chaos politico interno, cui si deve aggiungere la nefasta azione condotta da molte potenze straniere che hanno usato l’Ukraina per perseguire i loro fini, non certo il bene di quella povera nazione.

I grandi attori occidentali, Hollande, Merkel, Juncker sono usciti di scena oppure ininfluenti al momento attuale. Resta ben difficile pensare che il Donbass possa essere pacificato senza un ragionevole accordo tra Stati Uniti e Russia.

Sembrerebbe anche molto arduo che Mr Zelenskiy possa rimettere in moto il sistema economico ukraino a tempi brevi. Il degrado produttivo è severo, il tasso di disoccupazione molto elevato, il rischio degli investimenti dovrebbe ancora essere valutato con grande cura.

Non resta altro che augurarsi che l’Ukraina possa avviarsi a voltar pagina nella storia.


Reuters. 2019-04-21. Comedian Zelenskiy wins Ukrainian presidential race by landslide: exit poll

KIEV (Reuters) – Ukraine entered uncharted political waters on Sunday after an exit poll showed a comedian with no political experience and few detailed policies had easily won enough votes to become the next president of a country at war.

The apparent landslide victory of Volodymyr Zelenskiy, 41, is a bitter blow for incumbent Petro Poroshenko who tried to rally Ukrainians around the flag by casting himself as a bulwark against Russian aggression and a champion of Ukrainian identity.

The national exit poll showed Zelenskiy had won 73 percent of the vote with Poroshenko winning just 25 percent.

If the poll is right, Zelenskiy, who plays a fictitious president in a popular TV series, will now take over the leadership of a country on the frontline of the West’s standoff with Russia following Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and support for a pro-Russian insurgency in eastern Ukraine.

Zelenskiy, whose victory fits a pattern of anti-establishment figures unseating incumbents in Europe and further afield, has promised to end the war in the eastern Donbass region and to root out corruption amid widespread dismay over rising prices and falling living standards.

But he has been coy about exactly how he plans to achieve all that. Investors want reassurances that he will accelerate reforms needed to attract foreign investment and keep the country in an International Monetary Fund program.

“Since there is complete uncertainty about the economic policy of the person who will become president we simply don’t know what is going to happen and that worries the financial community,” said Serhiy Fursa, an investment banker at Dragon Capital in Kiev.

“We need to see what the first decisions are, the first appointments. We probably won’t understand how big these risks are earlier than June. Perhaps nothing will change.”

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Europea

Moldavia. Elezioni. Socialisti 35, Democratici 30, Acum 26 / 101.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-03-12.

Moldavia 002

La Moldavia è un piccolo paese, 3.5 milioni di abitanti, incastrato tra la Romania e l’Ukraina. Lingua ufficiale è il rimeno. Ha un pil di 11.4 miliardi Usd ed un pil ppa procapite di 4,998 Usd. La Moldavia ha aderito al Partenariato per la pace della NATO il 16 marzo 1994 ma non è membro della NATO.

Negli ultimi lustri la situazione politica è risultata essere chaotica e frammentata. Tutte leparti avevano accusato le altre di essere corrotte.

Alla sua frontiera orientale esiste una formazioni politica, la Transnistria, che si è autoproclamata stato, pur non essendo stata riconosciuta da nessuno. Di fatto, i moldavi sono molto restii a penetrarvi e tollerano la situazione non potendo influirvi più di tanto. Secondo le voci correnti, la Transnistria sarebbe uno stato della mafia.

Da notarsi la produzione vinicola, specie quella degli spumanti.

*

Le elezioni sono state tenute per la prima volta con una nuova legge elettorale, per cui 51 deputati sono eletti in 51 collegi uninominali, mentre i rimanenti con proporzionale corretto.

«According to news reaching here from Chisinau, capital of Moldova, the Constitutional Court recognized the results of the parliamentary elections held on Feb. 24 both in national and single-mandate constituencies, and approved the mandates of the 101 elected deputies»

*

«the Party of Socialists will have 35 deputies in the new parliament, the incumbent ruling Democratic Party will have 30 mandates, the center-right ACUM (NOW) bloc – 26 mandates, and the Sor Party, seven. The remaining three mandates will go to independent deputies»

*

A quanto sembrerebbe, saranno necessari alcuni mesi per poter trovare un accordo di governo.


Xinuanet. 2019-03-10. Moldova’s high court validates parliamentary election results

The Moldovan Constitutional Court late Saturday validated the final results of the parliamentary elections and the mandates of deputies.

According to news reaching here from Chisinau, capital of Moldova, the Constitutional Court recognized the results of the parliamentary elections held on Feb. 24 both in national and single-mandate constituencies, and approved the mandates of the 101 elected deputies.

Thus, the Party of Socialists will have 35 deputies in the new parliament, the incumbent ruling Democratic Party will have 30 mandates, the center-right ACUM (NOW) bloc – 26 mandates, and the Sor Party, seven. The remaining three mandates will go to independent deputies.

The decision of the Constitutional Court is final, not subject to appeal.

President Igor Dodon said soon after the approval of the high court that the parties should begin dialogue as responsibly as possible in order to determine the future government and the future political destiny of the country.

“I personally, as President of the country, will soon initiate negotiations with the main political forces that have entered the parliament in order to jointly find the optimal solution for the country in the current post-election situation,” he stressed, reminding the political leaders that “national interest is a paramount and we should always strive to respect this principle.”

Moldova held the quadrennial parliamentary elections on Feb. 24. For the first time in the history of the country, the 101 lawmakers of the parliament were elected on the basis of a mixed electoral system, in which 50 deputies were elected based on party lists in the nationwide constituency, while the other 51 were elected in 51 single-member constituencies.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Europea, Unione Europea

Orbán rimpatria in Ungheria gli ungheresi emigrati in Venezuela.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-03-07.

2019-03-05__Orban__001

I liberal socialisti si stupiscono ogni giorno che passa del fatto che l’Elettorato europeo abbia loro voltato le spalle e che non li amino, non li gradiscano più. Ultima giusto ieri la Estonia.

La superbia è un vizio terribile. Dapprima si limita ad una esagerata stima di sé e dei propri meriti (reali o presunti), che si manifesta esteriormente con un atteggiamento altezzoso e sprezzante e con un ostentato senso di superiorità nei confronti degli altri: un vero e proprio razzismo. Quindi si distilla nella sua essenza: in una considerazione talmente alta di sé stessi da giungere al punto di stimarsi come principio e fine del proprio essere. Mr Macron è un fulgido esempio.

Il superbo si domanda stupefatto per quale motivo gli altri non lo adorino, non gli riconoscono quella che presume essere la sua intrinseca grandezza. La gente non si piega alla sua volontà, ed alla fine lui stesso si rende conto di quanto il suo volere cozzi contro quello altrui.

Da questo punto di vista il superbo esperisce già su questa terra l’inferno che lo sta aspettando come sistemazione definitiva. Passa il suo tempo a rodersi il fegato.

Comprendendo questo passaggio si comprende anche la profonda motivazione dell’odio rancoroso che nutrono contro chiunque si opponga loro. Se hanno il potere, lo esercitano in modo spietato, se non lo hanno, si tormentano di odio e rabbia impotente. La revisione critica del proprio operato è loro aliena: son sempre alla ricerca di capri espiatori, di persone alle quali addossare ogni colpa dei loro insuccessi.

* * *

Mr Soros e Mr Orbán non hanno per nulla gradito gli ultimi cartelloni politici del Fidesz, il partito di Mr Orbán. Eppure Mr Juncker vi appare persino quasi sobrio.

Se già da tempo Mr Orbán era loro inviso, adesso lo è ancora di più, ed i fidi scudieri liberal si stanno scatenando contro l’uomo, appigliandosi ad ogni minimo pretesto, ma rodendosi il fegato che Fidesz ha la maggioranza assoluto.

«Most Venezuelans with Hungarian ancestry emigrated in two waves»

*

«The first, after World War Two, included many associated with the Miklos Horthy regime which sided with Nazi Germany. Some had been involved in the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Nazi death camps»

*

«A very different group of around 400 followed after the 1956 failed revolution, including some who had fought the Soviet army on the barricades in Budapest»

*

«The community has since swelled to several thousand»

*

«Only when the situation deteriorated rapidly in 2017, when hunger was accompanied by arbitrary violence, did community organisers turn for help to the Hungarian government. The 350 who have arrived have been generously received, with enrolment in language classes and accommodation and integration for the first 12 months.»

*

«About 350 have already arrived on plane tickets funded by the state. Another 750 are on a list, waiting in Caracas, and more may follow»

* * * * * * *

Serve proprio essere liberal socialisti con denominazione di origine controllata per confondere, volutamente ed artatamente, il rimpatrio di compatrioti in difficoltà con l’immigrazione clandestina illegale di persone che son tutto tranne che ungheresi.

Il giornalista della Bbc ci riesce, ma l’effetto è l’opposto: gli si ride in faccia. Già: i liberal socialisti non hanno proprio il senso dello humour.

In ogni caso, le elezioni europee si stanno avvicinando ogni giorno che passa.

Nota.

Se questi cartelloni sono stati riprovati dalla dirigenza del’Unione Europea è segno evidente di quanto siano giusti e corretti.


Bbc. 2019-03-04. Venezuela crisis: Secret escape to anti-migration Hungary

It may come as a surprise to see refugees from the turmoil in Venezuela warmly welcomed in Hungary – by a government widely known to be hostile to immigration and asylum.

About 350 have already arrived on plane tickets funded by the state. Another 750 are on a list, waiting in Caracas, and more may follow.

But there’s a catch.

All those who apply must prove Hungarian ancestry, however distant that might be.

Government spokesmen have been at pains to insist that they are genuine Hungarians “coming home”, though very few were actually born in Hungary, let alone speak Hungarian.

Who are they?

Most Venezuelans with Hungarian ancestry emigrated in two waves.

The first, after World War Two, included many associated with the Miklos Horthy regime which sided with Nazi Germany. Some had been involved in the deportation of Hungarian Jews to Nazi death camps.

A very different group of around 400 followed after the 1956 failed revolution, including some who had fought the Soviet army on the barricades in Budapest.

The community has since swelled to several thousand. Many young Venezuelans without any Hungarian ancestry were attracted by the vibrant cultural life of the community in Caracas, with its dance and scout groups.

Only when the situation deteriorated rapidly in 2017, when hunger was accompanied by arbitrary violence, did community organisers turn for help to the Hungarian government.

The 350 who have arrived have been generously received, with enrolment in language classes and accommodation and integration for the first 12 months.

Orban and his anti-immigration campaign

The irony is that the programme has been drawn up by an inter-ministerial team from the Fidesz government, which has bitterly opposed immigration for the past four years.

Nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban has built his campaign for the European Parliament elections in May entirely on opposing immigration to the European Union.

The campaign of billboards and newspaper ads has been condemned by the EU as distorting the truth and aiming to “paint a dark picture of a secret plot to drive more migration to Europe”.

Most refugee integration programmes here were abolished by the government in 2016 and 2017.

Only 94 people were granted asylum in Hungary in the first nine months of 2018. Another 290 were given lesser forms of protected status.

The Venezuelans’ arrival was revealed by independent news website Index and Hungary’s authorities have asked those taking part in the scheme not to talk to the media.

“The government made clear to us that this would be difficult to communicate – because of its own hysterical anti-migrant campaign,” said one of the Venezuelans already safely in Hungary, who asked that his name not be used.

“They insist on the word ‘repatriation’ – but this was rather loosely applied at the start. Now, the conditions have been tightened.”

A difficult task of persuasion

Their cause was eventually championed by deputy Prime Minister Zsolt Semjen.

“It was hard at first persuading the government just how bad the situation there had become. That my monthly pension barely covered a single meal,” my source said.

“We did not become refugees lightly. Especially those of us who were refugees from Hungary in the first place. We knew that we may lose our life’s work, our flats, everything we had in Venezuela.”

Plane tickets and even transport to the airport were arranged through the Hungarian embassy in Ecuador and the Hungarian Maltese Charity Service.

The first Venezuelans arrived in April 2018 and all are deeply grateful to the Hungarian government for its assistance.

But the peculiar anti-migrant atmosphere cultivated by the Orban government has led to some tragicomic scenes.

When the new arrivals were placed initially in the tourist resort of Balatonoszod, local Hungarians boarded up their windows and phoned the police in panic when they noticed what they called “negroes” in the streets.

“It’s true some of us are quite dark-skinned,” laughed my Venezuelan contact. “But some of us are more Hungarian than Hungarians!”

What next for Hungary’s immigrants?

One year on, the children are already fluent in the language, and well-integrated into their local schools.

“They love the freedom to go out in the streets safely. The freedom to study, to be themselves here, to be exotic,” said another parent.

But worries plague the older people among them.

“What will we do when our year is up, and the charity extended to us ends? We are not entitled to pensions here,” one told me.

That is just one of the problems Hungary’s ministry of human capacities is trying to solve.

Opposition parties have accused the government of hypocrisy for taking in Venezuelans but rejecting Syrians, Iraqis or Afghans.

The Venezuelans fear such attacks might dilute the government’s willingness to allow in those still queuing to escape.

They have noticed a lull in new arrivals, as the government assesses whether the current Venezuelan government will survive.

Under laws passed in Hungary in 2018, organisations and individuals which help migration can be fined or even jailed and have 25% of their income confiscated by the state to fund border defences.

The Hungarian opposition jokes that the state should in this case fine itself.

I ask my contact: if the Maduro government falls, would you return to Venezuela?

“Of course. That is my home.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Europea, Unione Europea

Grecia. Tsipras ha perso la maggioranza parlamentare.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-01-13.

2019-01-13__grecia__001

«Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has lost his parliamentary majority, raising the possibility of snap elections»

*

«He is calling a vote of confidence in his government.»

*

«Greece’s right-wing defense minister on Sunday announced his resignation ahead of a planned vote to end a decades-long name dispute with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia»

*

«Panos Kammenos, whose nationalist Independent Greeks party (ANEL) props up the government of leftist prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, said: “The Macedonia issue does not allow me not to sacrifice my post,” after a meeting with Tsipras»

*

«The controversial agreement would also allow Macedonia to join NATO and the European Union»

*

«In a deal long opposed by Kammenos, the two countries agreed last year to rename FYROM as the Republic of Northern Macedonia. The controversial agreement would also allow Macedonia to join NATO and the European Union.

Macedonia’s parliament ratified the deal by passing an amendment to the constitution on Friday, but Macedonia will start using it only after the parliament in Athens also approves the change in a vote expected later this month»

* * * * * * * *

Il quadro politico greco è stato ragionevolmente stabile fino ad una decina di anni fa: c’era la classica divisione europea in due partiti formalmente differenti, uno socialista progressista ed uno conservatore liberal: i rispettivi membri si vedevano in loggia e lì decidevano sia il da farsi sia il ruolo degli attori. Era uno sperimentato teatrino.

Poi si dovette prendere atto della crisi del debito pubblico: il partito socialista si liquefò e Nea Demokratia cercò di sopravvivere.  Emersero nuove forze politiche poco o punto ideologizzate, costrette a gestire una situazione sociale politica ed economica ai margini del chaos.

Il problema attuale concerne formalmente il nome con cui la Macedonia possa avere contatti con l’Unione Europea ma, soprattutto, con la Nato. La Macedonia, Repubblica della macedonia del Nord sarebbe il nome proposto, potrebbe entrare nella Nato, portando in dome una situazione geopolitica di estremo interesse militare, specie dopo che Nato e Turkia hanno evidenziato rapporti non ottimali.

*

Se è vero che nelle elezioni politiche del 20 settembre 2015 Syriza aveva ottenuto il 35.5% dei voti, mentre Nea Demokratia era scesa al 28.1%, sarebbe anche vero constatare come dopo quattro anni il quadro sia invertito. Syriza raggiunge appena il 26% delle intenzioni di voto, contro il 38% di Nea Demokratia.

I partiti minori hanno al massimo una propensione al voto dell’8%, per cui un governo dovrebbe essere una coalizione di almeno tre forze confluenti. Sarà ben difficile riuscire a mettere di accordo i greci.


Deutsche Welle. 2019-01-13. Tspiras to seek confidence vote in Greek government

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras has lost his parliamentary majority, raising the possibility of snap elections. He is calling a vote of confidence in his government.

*

Greece’s right-wing defense minister on Sunday announced his resignation ahead of a planned vote to end a decades-long name dispute with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM).

Panos Kammenos, whose nationalist Independent Greeks party (ANEL) props up the government of leftist prime minister, Alexis Tsipras, said: “The Macedonia issue does not allow me not to sacrifice my post,” after a meeting with Tsipras.

“I explained to him that for this national issue we cannot continue.” Kammenos added that his party “is pulling out of the government.”

In response to Kammenos’ announcement, Tsipras said that he would request a vote of confidence in his government during the coming week. He thanked Kammenos for his government partnership and announced that that Admiral Evangelos Apostolakis, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, will take on the role of defense minister.

In a deal long opposed by Kammenos, the two countries agreed last year to rename FYROM as the Republic of Northern Macedonia. The controversial agreement would also allow Macedonia to join NATO and the European Union.

Macedonia’s parliament ratified the deal by passing an amendment to the constitution on Friday, but Macedonia will start using it only after the parliament in Athens also approves the change in a vote expected later this month.

Kammenos has called the deal a national sell-out and had repeatedly threatened to leave if it came before the Greek parliament for ratification. He said any deal including “Macedonia” in the name of the Balkan state to Greece’s north was unacceptable as the name was irrevocably tied to Greek civilization and culture. 

Macedonia: What’s in a name?

The naming row between the two countries began 27 years ago when FYROM declared independence from the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but has roots going back to antiquity.

Athens has objected to its neighbor being called Macedonia because it has a northern province of the same name, the seat of Alexander the Great’s ancient kingdom. Alexander the Great still represents a source of pride for many Greeks today, while his legacy has also been taken up as a central part of Macedonia’s national identity.

Greece has long demanded Skopje change its country name to remove what Athens considered to be an implied claim to Greek sovereign territory.

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Europea, Unione Europea

Austria. Italia e duplice passaporto per l’Alto Adige.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-10-15.

Animali. Bocca aperta. Civetta. 001

Negli ultimi tempi l’Austria ha ventilato l’ipotesi di concedere il proprio passaporto ai madrelingua tedescchi che vivono nel Sud Tirolo Italiano, in quello che noi denominiamo Alto Adige.

Cerchiamo di fare un pochino di chiarezza su di un tema che ben si presterebbe ad equivoci.

Il problema del duplice passaporto è in parte sostenuto dal diverso significato che ogni stato attribuisce a questa tipologia di documento.

Treccani riporta che il passaporto sarebbe il «documento (in Italia rilasciato dal ministero degli Esteri e per sua delega dalla questura) che dà la facoltà al cittadino di uno stato di allontanarsi dal territorio nazionale per entrare in quello di un altro stato o di più altri stati, consistente in un libretto con la fotografia e i dati anagrafici e di riconoscimento del titolare».

Se è del tutto intuitivo il suo uso funzionale come documento di riconoscimento, i suoi altri aspetti sono qui definiti solo formalmente.

Se è vero che il passaporto abilita a lasciare liberamente lo stato emittente, non significa minimamente che abiliti all’ingresso in altri stati.

Se è vero che il passaporto è il documento atto all’espatrio, altrettanto vero sarebbe il ricordare come esso sia necessario ma non cero sufficiente, essendo richiesto il preventivo rilascio del visto di ingresso. Ma il visto di ingresso è rilasciato da un’autorità statale diversa da quella che ha emesso il passaporto, e che ha sue leggi e costumanze. Per esempio, serve il visto di ingresso per entrare negli Stati Uniti oppure in Russia od in Cina.

Se il visto turistico è solitamente rilasciato senza troppi controlli e per tempi limitati, il visto permanente o di maggiore durata è usualmente di ben difficile acquisizione.

Un altro problema  risiede nel fatto che ogni singolo stato nazionale, ossia autorità competente al rilascio dei passaporti, attribuisce un significato suo proprio al termine “cittadino“.

Il concetto stesso di ‘cittadinanza‘ implica come il cittadino sia soggetto alle leggi e costumanze dello stato cui pertiene. Ma ogni stato ha delle sue proprie legislazioni che definiscono i termini sia di cittadino, sia di cittadinanza, sia di capacità a vedersi conferito il passaporto. In altri termini, non è un processo automatico.

In molti stati l’aver ricevuto una certa quale tipologia di condanna non priva della cittadinanza, ma prevede il ritiro del passaporto. In altri stati solo alcune categorie di cittadine possono accedere al passaporto. E così via.

Vi sono poi molti stati che possono rilasciare passaporti anche a persone cittadine di altri stati. La Russia si riserva, per esempio, questa possibilità: a discrezione del Presidente si può concedere la doppia cittadinanza e, quindi, il doppio passaporto.

Poi ci sono situazioni alquanto naif.

Per un miserabile milione di euro si può ottenere il passaporto maltese, che permette a chi ne beneficia di viaggiare senza bisogno di alcun visto in 166 paesi del mondo. La Valletta garantisce il passaporto anche ai parenti più stretti e la cittadinanza per il consorte o per i propri figli costa tra i 25 mila euro e i 50 mila euro (a seconda che siano minorenni o maggiorenni). Per inciso, diventare cittadini maltesi implica entrare e circolare liberamente nell’Area Schengen, ossia in Europa. Cipro potrebbe essere un altro esempio, ma ce ne sono molti altri.

Saint-Kitts & Nevis, un microstaterello caraibico, ha fatto una fortuna vendendo i suoi passaporti, cittadinanza inclusa o meno, per una manciata di dollari americani. Saint-Kitts & Nevis chiede solo di avere almeno 18 anni e mezzi adeguati. «Dual citizenship is allowed, …. Visa-free travel over 150 countries (including the UK, the EU, and Brazil) …. No foreign income, capital gains, gift, and inheritance tax». Costa meno di un passaporto falso.

L’Austria, come prima detto, avrebbe dichiarato l’intenzione di rilasciare il suo passaporto anche agli alto adesini. Dr Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal aveva affermato che il progetto di legge sarebbe stato depositato a breve, entro il 7 settembre,  al parlamento austriaco, ma ad oggi esso non risulta ancora essere stato ufficializzato, per cui non si conoscono i contenuti esatti.

Da quanto è dato evincere dalla stampa, si tratterebbe solo di doppio passaporto senza intaccare i diritti di cittadinanza. Ma l’uso del condizionale è obbligatorio.

In ogni caso, sempre il Dr Peter Launsky-Tieffenthal aveva dichiarato che il testo di legge sarebbe stato preventivamente concordato con la Farnesina, nella persona del Ministro degli Esteri Enzo Moavero Milanesi.

Pubblicato in: Armamenti, Geopolitica Europea, Geopolitica Militare, Russia, Unione Europea

Russia. Kulikovo, Kaliningrad, ospiterebbe un arsenale atomico russo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-25.

2018-06-21__Kalinigrad__001

Kulikovo è un nome sacro per la Russia.

L’8 settembre 1380 i russi guidati dal Granduca di Vladimir, Dmitrij Ivanovič di Mosca, sconfissero l’armata dell’Orda d’Oro con gli alleati lituani. Fu l’inizio di una lunga guerra di liberazione che terminò con la battaglia sull’Ugra, un secolo dopo.

Nessuna sorpresa quindi che quando la Prussia Orientale passò nel 1945 da tedesca a russa con il nome di Circondariato Federale Nordoccidentale, Oblast di Kaliningrad, nella ridenominazione dei paesi e delle cittadine una avesse assunto il glorioso nome di Kulikovo.

L’Oblast di Kaliningrad è altamente strategico. È l’estrema punta occidentale della Russia ed i suoi porti non ghiacciano durante l’inverno: sono infatti sede della Flotta del Baltico. Con l’acuirsi dei dissensi tra occidentali e russi, quell’area strategica è stata riarmata.

Una cosa è certa. Se in passato gli occidentali trovarono una buona ragione per andare a morire per Danzica, oggi i russi ne hanno altrettanta per andare a morire per Kaliningrad.

* * * * * * *

Mar Baltico. Ancora tensioni tra Russia, Nato ed Unione Europea.

Russia. Schierati gli Iskander a Kaliningrad. Hanno svegliato l’orso che dormiva.

La Russia vuole essere rispettata. Un articolo della Bbc che fa pensare

Russia Aims Missiles At Europe? Moscow Bolsters Air Defense System In Baltic Region Near Poland

Kaliningrad. Zeppo di missili atomici adesso anche black hole.

Kaliningrad. Adesso il buco nero inizia a preoccupare la Nato.

*

«The anti-aircraft systems, which have a range of 400 km, will then be deployed to secure the air space along Russia’s north-western border»

*

«Lanciabile da una piattaforma mobile, l’Iskander viaggia a mach 6.2 – è ipersonico -: in tre o quattro minuti primi arriva da Kaliningrad a Berlino. Quasi nemmeno il tempo di poter dare l’allarme. …. Può portare testate convenzionali ma anche una bomba termonucleare da 50 kTon»

*

«During flight it can maneuver at different altitudes and trajectories and can turn at up to 20 to 30 G to evade anti-ballistic missiles»

* * * * * * *

2018-06-21__Kalinigrad__002

Chiariti questi elementi di base, entriamo nel merito.

La Federation of American Scientists (FAS) ha rilasciato un documento che suggerirebbe quanto segue.

«Russia may have significantly upgraded its nuclear bunker in Kaliningrad»

*

«The photos reportedly showed that Russia may have modernized the nuclear weapons storage bunker which is located in a sensitive enclave of Russian territory which is between Poland and the Baltics.»

*

«one of three underground bunkers at the location was excavated and deepened before it appeared to have been covered over in recent months, “presumably to return (to) operational status soon.”»

* * * * * * * *

Il problema è drammaticamente semplice.

Usualmente le superpotenze atomiche schierano i loro arsenali nucleari molto addentro i loro territori: chiaro indizio di quanto essi costituiscano elemento deterrente, di difesa.

Ma i missili balistici intercontinentali sono abbastanza facilmente rilevabili dai radar avversi e, soprattutto, con un margine di tempo sufficiente per mettere in atto tutte le opportune contromisure. I sistemi anti – missile da ambo le parti sono riferiti in grado di abbattere un buon numero di testate in arrivo.

L’introduzione di missili a corto raggio ma ipersonici ha cambiato le esigenze dello scacchiere.

Lanciabili da mezzi mobili, i missili ipersonici arriverebbero sul bersaglio in tempi così ristretti da rendere impossibile l’attivazione dei sistemi anti – missile. Non solo. Ma gli attuali sistemi radar e missili – antimissile non sarebbero in grado di intercettarli.

*

Sapere che l’Oblast di Kaliningrad rigurgita di questi missili e che a Kulikovo sono stati costruiti grandiosi depositi per armamenti nucleari non concorrerebbe a lasciar fare soni tranquilli.


Fas. 2018-06-19. Russia Upgrades Nuclear Weapons Storage Site In Kaliningrad

During the past two years, the Russian military has carried out a major renovation of what appears to be an active nuclear weapons storage site in the Kaliningrad region, about 50 kilometers from the Polish border.

A Digital Globe satellite image purchased via Getty Images, and several other satellite images viewable on TerraServer, show one of three underground bunkers near Kulikovo being excavated in 2016, apparently renovated, and getting covered up again in 2018 presumably to return operational status soon.

The site was previously upgraded between 2002 and 2010 when the outer security perimeter was cleared. I described this development in my report on U.S. and Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons from 2012.

The latest upgrade obviously raises questions about what the operational status of the site is. Does it now, has it in the past, or will it in the future store nuclear warheads for Russian dual-capable non-strategic weapon systems deployed in the region? If so, does this signal a new development in Russian nuclear weapons strategy in Kaliningrad, or is it a routine upgrade of an aging facility for an existing capability? The satellite images do not provide conclusive answers to these questions. The Russian government has on numerous occasions stated that all its non-strategic nuclear warheads are kept in “central” storage, a formulation normally thought to imply larger storage sites further inside Russia. So the Kulikovo site could potentially function as a forward storage site that would be supplied with warheads from central storage sites in a crisis.

The features of the site suggest it could potentially serve Russian Air Force or Navy dual-capable forces. But it could also be a joint site, potentially servicing nuclear warheads for both Air Force, Navy, Army, air-defense, and costal defense forces in the region. It is to my knowledge the only nuclear weapons storage site in the Kaliningrad region. Despite media headlines, the presence of nuclear-capable forces in that area is not new; Russia deployed dual-capable forces in Kaliningrad during the Cold War and has continued to do so after. But nearly all of those weapon systems have recently been, or are in the process of being modernized. The Kulikovo site site is located:

– About 8 kilometers (5 miles) miles from the Chkalovsk air base (54.7661°, 20.3985°), which has been undergoing major renovation since 2012 and hosts potentially dual-capable strike aircraft.

– About 27 kilometers (16 miles) from the coastal-defense site near Donskoye (54.9423°, 19.9722°), which recently switched from the SSC-1B Sepal to the P-800 Bastion coastal-defense system. The Bastion system uses the SS-N-26 (3M-55, Yakhont) missile, that U.S. Intelligence estimates is “nuclear possible.”

– About 35 kilometers (22 miles) from the Baltic Sea Fleet base at Baltiysk (54.6400°, 19.9175°), which includes nuclear-capable submarines, destroyers, frigates, and corvettes.

– About 96 kilometers (60 miles) from the 152nd Detachment Missile Brigade at Chernyakovsk (54.6380°, 21.8266°), which has recently been upgraded from the SS-21 SRBM to the SS-26 (Islander) SRBM. Unlike other SS-26 bases, however, Chernyakovsk has not (yet) been added a new missile storage facility.

– Near half a dozen S-300 and S-400 air-defense units deployed in the region. The 2018 NPR states that Russian’s air-defense forces are dual-capable. These sites are located 20 kilometers (13 miles) to 98 kilometers (60 miles) from the storage site.

So there are many potential clients for the Kulikovo nuclear weapons storage site. Similar upgrades have been made to other Russian nuclear weapons storage sites over the base decade, including for the Navy’s nuclear submarine base on the Kamchatka peninsula. There are also ongoing upgrades to other weapons storage sites in the Kaliningrad region, but they do not appear to be nuclear.

The issue of Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons has recently achieved new attention because of the Trump administration’s Nuclear Posture Review, which accused Russia of increasing the number and types of its non-strategic nuclear weapons. The Review stated Russia has “up to 2,000” non-strategic nuclear weapons, indirectly confirming FAS’ estimate.

NATO has for several years urged Russia to move its nuclear weapons further back from NATO borders. With Russia’s modernization of its conventional forces, there should be even less, not more, justification for upgrading nuclear facilities in Kaliningrad.

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Europea, Russia, Unione Europea

Putin in Austria. Tempi che mutano.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-06-05.

Austria. Vienna. 001

Al momento di scrivere l’articolo, l’unico giornale italiano che riporta della visita di Mr Putin in Austria sarebbe il Sole 24 Ore

«Non è nostro obiettivo dividere niente o nessuno in Europa: al contrario, vogliamo vedere un’Europa unita e prospera, perché l’Unione Europea è il nostro principale partner commerciale ed economico. Più problemi ha, più rischi e incertezze abbiamo anche noi ….»

ci rendiamo perfettamente conto che per ciascun Paese dell’Unione Europea, preso singolarmente, è abbastanza complicato parlarne. Ma tutto quanto avviene in questo ambito non ci impedisce di sviluppare le nostre relazioni con l’Austria»

*

Ampio invece il risalto dato dalla stampa estera, che riportiamo nei titoli e negli incipit.

Putin pushes for end to ‘harmful’ sanctions during Austria visit [The Guardia]

«Notionally scheduled to commemorate 50 years since Austria became the first western European country to sign a natural gas deal with the Soviet Union, the visit also offered the Russian and Austrian leaders opportunities to advance their respective geopolitical agendas, with a youthful Kurz, 32, pushing his credentials as a bridge builder between east and west.»

*

Putin denies trying to divide Europe ahead of visit to Austria where he is accused of funding far-Right [The Telegraph]

«President Vladimir Putin on Monday downplayed suggestions Russia was seeking to disrupt the European Union’s cohesion, saying it was in his country’s interests for the bloc to remain “united and prosperous”.

“We have an interest in an EU that’s united and prosperous, since the EU is our most important commercial and economic partner,” Putin told Austria’s ORF television a day before an official visit to Vienna.»

*

Putin says he wants to build bridges with Europe. Others see a wedge [Cnn]

«Russian President Vladimir Putin visits Austria on Tuesday, and he says he wants to build bridges to Europe.

Some fear he seeks to drive a wedge in it.

The official reason for the trip, Putin’s first foreign visit since he won a landslide re-election in March, is for talks with Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz and President Alexander Van der Bellen. Trade and economic cooperation are at the top of the agenda: Putin is slated to attend a meeting with Russian and Austrian business representatives to discuss investment opportunities and economic cooperation.

But the Kremlin leader is looking for an opening to a Europe that is witnessing a rise of right-wing, populist governments, with a clear aim of easing sanctions and ending Russia’s political isolation.

Austria is an interesting case in point. Late last year, a new coalition government took power in Vienna that includes the far-right Freedom Party as a junior partner.

Heinz-Christian Strache, Austria’s vice chancellor and leader of the Freedom Party, is an opponent of sanctions, which were imposed by the European Union and the US over Russia’s annexation of the Black Sea peninsula of Crimea in 2014.

In a recent interview with the newspaper Oesterreich, Strache made his position clear.

“It is high time to put an end to these exasperating sanctions and normalize political and economic relations with Russia,” he said.

The Austrian government has also done another major favor for Putin. It opted not to join over 20 other countries in expelling Russian diplomats over the March 4 nerve agent attack against Russian former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia Skripal, in Salisbury, England.

That’s raised questions in Austria about the real agenda for Putin’s visit.»

*

Austria welcomes Putin but rebuffs his call for sanctions to be lifte

«Russian President Vladimir Putin visited Austria on Tuesday in his first trip to the West since being re-elected to the Kremlin and was rebuffed when he called for European Union sanctions to be lifted.

Austria, where a coalition of conservatives and the pro-Putin far right is in power, has a history of neutrality and relatively warm ties with Moscow.

It came in for criticism from its allies for being among the minority of EU member countries that did not expel any Russian diplomats over the poisoning of the former Russian double agent Sergei Skripal. ….

Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, whose conservatives control EU policy, repeated that Vienna would not break ranks with the rest of the bloc, which says the situation in eastern Ukraine must improve before sanctions can be lifted.

His Austrian trip is a rare and symbolic foray to the West for a man often at odds with Western governments over issues such as Syria and Ukraine. His last bilateral trip to Western Europe was to Finland last July.

Austria, which takes over the European Union’s rotating presidency in July, says it wants to act as a “bridge-builder” between east and west.

It has forged friendly ties with nationalist leaders like Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban.»

Dalla lettura della stampa ci si formerebbe l’opinione che

«That’s raised questions in Austria about the real agenda for Putin’s visit.»

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Geopolitica Europea, Unione Europea

Unione Europea si disgrega per devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal. – Spiegel.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-05-31.

2018-05-28__Spiegel__001

Il problema può essere visto nella sua enorme complessità oppure nella sua semplice struttura: due punti di vista egualmente validi, ma finalizzati a differenti scopi.

Da quasi due decenni in Occidente è incorso la devoluzione dell’ideologia liberal e, di conseguenza, socialista. Questo fenomeno è evidente dai risultati elettorali, specie poi quelli degli ultimi due anni.

Occorrerebbe però fare una grande attenzione a non confondere le cause con gli effetti.

Queste ideologie stanno crollando sotto il peso delle loro contraddizioni interne: non riescono a comprendere le realtà emergenti, propongono soluzioni obsolete e quindi inconsistenti, mentre la situazione continua a sfuggir loro di mano.

Per meglio spiegarci, consideriamo questa fatidica frase di Hegel:

«se i fatti contraddicono la teoria, tanto peggio per i fatti».

Ma alla fine la realtà travolge, e porta i sistemi alla implosione. Proprio come successe a suo tempo per l’Unione Sovietica. Ma la storia ai più serve al massimo per riconoscere che è stato fatto un errore già vissuto.

Si apre quindi un periodo storico turbolento. Il vecchio non vuol cedere un passo ed il nuovo non ha ancora acquisito la forza necessaria per imporsi: sono i periodi più bui della storia. Né ci si illuda che a ribaltamento terminato le cose siano immediatamente facili: se è vero che nel maggio 1945 i cannoni finalmente tacquero, ci volle molto tempo perché si potessero vedere i frutti di una pacifica riedificazione.

*

La grande tentazione cui liberal e socialisti sembrerebbero non saper resistere consiste nel confondere le cause che hanno generato il ‘populismo’ in Occidente con il ‘populismo’ stesso.

Imputano ai populisti vittorie elettorali che li stanno emarginando dallo scenario politico, mentre invece è l’Elettorato che li ha abbandonati. I ‘populisti’ stanno soltanto occupando gli spazi che essi hanno abbandonato.

Uno sguardo alla tabella in cimosa è eloquente. I socialisti tedeschi della Spd, che in passato raggiunsero il 40% dei suffragi, nelle elezioni del 24 settembre 2017 conseguirono il 20.5% ed ad oggi sono quotati 16.5%. Giusto un solo punto percentuale sopra AfD, che si è conquistata un 15.5% senza far nulla: aspetta soltanto che gli errori dei liberal diano i loro frutti elettorali. E verosimilmente, continuando codesto trend, a breve AfD sarà il secondo partito tedesco.

Europa. La devoluzione del socialismo ideologico. – Spiegel.

Devoluzione del socialismo ideologico. – Eu Observer.

Devoluzione dell’idealismo liberal e socialista. Cahiers de doléances.

Unione Europea. Non stiamo arrivando. Siamo arrivati.

* * * * * * *

Liberal e socialisti ideologici hanno fatto dell’Unione Europea vista come stato e della loro visione etica una sorta di religione di stato, in accordo alla quale chiunque non la pensasse come loro vorrebbero sarebbe solo ed esclusivamente un eretico, da bruciare sul rogo.

Per loro l’avversario politico è il nemico incombente, da demonizzare per sostenere il morale alle truppe, da temere per una sua vittoria segnerebbe la loro morte politica.

Ma questa posizione mentale altro non fa che portare mulino proprio alle forze che temono.

Germania. Non è povera. È misera. – Financial Times.

Se il Financial Times è impietoso, pur essendo chiaramente liberal, Eurostat è spietato.

File:At-risk-of-poverty rate after social transfers by most frequent activity status, 2015 (%) YB17

In Germania il 17.1% della popolazione vive in povertà, percentuale che si innalza al 69.1% nei disoccupati.

Ma Destatis, l’Istituto di statistica tedesco, è ancor più crudele. Se in Germania sono classificati come ‘occupati‘ 44.432 milioni di persone, solo 32.732 milioni di esse sono soggette ai contributi sociali. Dodici milioni hanno Miniarbeit o lavori saltuari: serve un coraggio leonino per cercare di gabellarli come “occupati“.

Ebbe, ci sarebbe forse da stupirsi che l’Spd stia perdendo consensi e che Alternative für Deutschland stia crescendo giorno dopo giorno?

Senza far nulla per risolvere codesti problemi AfD arriverà al governo: qualcuno alla fine dovrà ben occuparsi anche della povera gente. Povera, sicuramente, ma che costituisce larga fetta dell’Elettorato.

* * * * * * *

Chiediamoci adesso per quale motivo lo Spiegel, portavoce dei liberal socialisti, sia così preoccupato per il nuovo governo italiano.

«Two populist parties are set to take over the government reins in Italy and about the only thing they seem to agree on is their desire to spend huge amounts of money»

*

«Rome Opens Its Gates to the Modern Barbarians» [Financial Times]

*

«That’s bad news for Italian finances and terrible news for the eurozone»

*

Già. Parole profetiche.

I barbari sono quelli che fecero cadere l’Impero Romano e resero schiavi i latini prima dominanti. E non ebbero per nulla la mano leggera: forse che non ci si ricordano le storie di Ammiano Marcellino?

Sicuramente notizie cattive per l’Italia, ma altrettanto sicuramente “terrible news for the eurozone“.

Allo Spiegel non interessa un bel nulla l’Italia: i suoi articolisti pensano soltanto a salvare la loro miserabile pelle: ben conoscono la fine che fecero i giacobini.

Ci si prepari a celebrarne le esequie.


Spiegel. 2018-05-26. Italy’s New Goverment Is Bad News for the Euro

Two populist parties are set to take over the government reins in Italy and about the only thing they seem to agree on is their desire to spend huge amounts of money. That’s bad news for Italian finances and terrible news for the eurozone.

*

Signor Fabio doesn’t think it will take long. The new Italian government, he believes, is destined for a brief tenure: “In September, we will be voting again,” says the slender man in the center of Rome. Signor Fabio is the giornalaio — or newsstand proprietor — with the most attractive kiosk location in the capital, situated as it is fewer than 100 meters from the prime minister’s office. He knows what’s going on in the world and that people are once again looking to his homeland with concern.

“Rome Opens Its Gates to the Modern Barbarians,” was the headline chosen by the Financial Times 10 days ago in an editorial about the new government, which pairs the Five Star Movement (M5S) under the leadership of Luigi Di Maio with the right-wing nationalist party Lega, led by Matteo Salvini. But Italian papers weren’t any less critical. The daily Il Manifesto went with the headline “Populandia,” in reference to the populist natures of the two parties. “The Third Republic Is Formed as the Whole World Laughs,” wrote Il Foglio. And Libero wrote: “Mattarella Chooses the Rotten Apple: Mini-Premier Conte.”

The latter is a reference to Salvini’s and Di Maio’s inability to agree on which of the two should become prime minister, so they chose the completely inexperienced law professor Giuseppe Conte. While he is closely connected to the Five Star Movement, Conte has never held public office — and now he is being asked to lead Europe’s third largest economy, with a population of 60 million people.

This government, the 67th in the last 70 years, is perhaps the most unusual and least experienced of them all. At the top are two populists who are critical of the EU and friendly to Russia, two coalition partners who share few joint political goals and whose supporters hate each other. The one party, Lega, draws the majority of its support from the wealthy north while the other, M5S, has its roots in the comparatively poor south.

“It’s like if Germany were governed by Sahra Wagenknecht (from the Left Party) and Alexander Gauland (from the right-wing populist Alternative for Germany),” says Markus Ferber, vice-chair of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs in European Parliament and a member of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats.

Making the Problems Worse

The difference being, of course, that Italy holds 2.3 trillion euros in sovereign debt, the equivalent of 132 percent of its gross domestic product — a debt ratio that is only exceeded within the EU by Greece. In addition, the country is still suffering from the consequences of the financial crisis, including high unemployment, particularly among young people, and it is struggling to deal with the strain of the thousands of migrants who are still streaming across the Mediterranean to Italy.

The country has been among the EU’s problem children for years. As such, the election victory by the populists is hardly surprising, rather it is the logical consequence of the problems facing the country. But at the same time, it has the potential to make those problems much worse.

To satisfy the desires of their vastly different constituencies, Salvini and Di Maio included tax cuts, a minimum basic income and the retraction of the recently passed pension reform in their coalition agreement. According to the calculations of Carlo Cottarelli, a former director of the Fiscal Affairs Department, these measures will cost at least 109 billion euros per year.

Jörg Krämer, chief economist at Germany’s Commerzbank, warns that if the new government pushes through its proposals, the country’s budget deficit, which currently stands at 2.3 percent of GDP, would spike to fully 7 percent.

The two parties refer to their coalition agreement as the “Contract for the Government of Change,” but in actuality, it is a blueprint for destroying state finances. And the consequences for Europe will be impossible to ignore. “The eurozone is threatened by a new crisis,” says Clemens Fuest of the Center for Economic Studies in Munich.

Concern is particularly high in Brussels, but officials there are avoiding direct criticism for the time being, likely in the hope that things won’t ultimately turn out as bad as expected. At an economics conference on Thursday, European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovski was asked if the new government’s program would comply with the Stability and Growth Pact, one of several questions about Italy. The Latvian looked visibly uncomfortable before finally replying: No, probably not. He added that he is particularly worried about rising risk premiums on the bond markets, a trend that has also affected other weaker eurozone member states. The prospect of countries not acting responsibly when it comes to fiscal policy has consequences, he said. It is important that all member states adhere to the rules that have been agreed to if they are part of the common currency area, he added.

French Economics and Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire is more direct. “If the new government takes the risk of not respecting its commitments on debt and the deficit … the financial stability of the eurozone will be threatened,” he told French broadcaster CNEWS last Sunday.

Death Knell

Indeed, even if the EU and the euro might have been able to withstand Grexit, an Italian departure from the common currency zone would likely be its death knell. Italy’s economic output is almost 10 times higher than that of Greece. “Given its systemic importance, the Italian economy is a source of potential spillovers to the rest of the euro area,” the EU warns in its most recent set of country-specific recommendations released on Wednesday of this week.

The recommendations, which are issued at regular intervals, recognize the efforts thus far undertaken by Italy to reduce its debt levels, but those efforts were all the product of the previous government. The new powers-that-be in Rome have left no doubt that they intend to focus their attentions elsewhere.

EU laws, says Lega head Salvini, will only be respected in the future if they are beneficial to Italy. And Di Maio of the Five Star Movement adds: “Starting now, the Italians come first and only then the negotiations about the deficit and EU rules.”

That approach is consistent with the intention to appoint 81-year-old economics professor Paolo Savona as economics and finance minister, a man who is considered a fierce critic of the euro. Savona’s new book, “Like a Nightmare, Like a Dream,” will soon be hitting the shelves. In it, he writes: “The euro is a straightjacket produced in Germany.” Berlin, he continues, “hasn’t changed its view of its role in Europe since the Nazi era.” Membership in the common currency area, Savona writes, “involves fascism without dictatorship and, from an economic perspective, a form of Nazism without militarism.”

One wonders whether the aging academic from Sardinia will repeat his verbose criticisms when he sits down with his German counterpart Olaf Scholz at the next European Union summit.

Di Maio’s people, of course, are doing their best to assuage fears of megalomaniacal populists driving Italy, a founding member of the EU, over a cliff. “We are in constant contact with the U.S and German embassies and we value complete transparency,” says one of Di Maio’s closest confidantes.

But such words are cold comfort. The advance of the populists, after all, is coming at a difficult time for the EU. The block is still enjoying solid economic growth, but a potential trade war with the United States is looming and the consequences of Brexit must likewise be overcome. A rekindling of the European trench political warfare that accompanied efforts to save Greece would be devastating.

Exactly that, though, appears to be on the horizon.

In the French elections one year ago, the feared victory of extremist, anti-Europeans did not come to pass. But right-wing populists are nevertheless on the march. They are the most powerful opposition party in Germany, they are part of the government in Austria and now they have joined the Italian government. “Our allies,” said Marine Le Pen, the head of the French right-wing party Front National, “are laying the groundwork for the great comeback of nation-states.”

‘Very Aggressive’

Italy will “become the leader of Europe’s populist, anti-establishment movement,” says Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former chief strategist, who is expected in Rome on Sunday. It marks the first time that Brussels will have to contend with an anti-system government in one of the EU’s founding countries. Bannon is excited about the triumph of Di Maio and Salvini, who are demanding that sanctions against Russia be wound down. “It’s very important for these guys to be very aggressive about confronting Brussels,” Bannon told the Washington Post this week.

Such an approach would almost certainly be popular in the country, where only 39 percent of Italians view the EU positively — not a good sign in what was once the most pro-EU country in the block. Part of the country’s frustrations with Brussels stems from the feeling of having been left alone to deal with the Mediterranean migrant crisis. In addition, many voters who have suffered from years of recession see the warnings from Brussels as heavy-handedness.


Part 2: A Potential Return of the Euro Crisis.

The fact that Italians, who traditionally have a high rate of savings, stand to suffer significant losses should the country withdraw from the eurozone is something neither M5S or Lega have addressed. The parties have also remained silent about the European Central Bank strategy — pursued by its Italian president, Mario Draghi — of buying hundreds of millions of euros worth of Italian sovereign bonds to prop up the country’s economy. On the contrary: an early draft of the coalition agreement demands that the ECB forgive 250 billion euros of debt.

“Fantapolitica,” is the term that reasonable Italians have adopted to refer to such demands: “fantasy politics.”

As it currently stands, Italy requires 200 billion euros of fresh borrowing each year to service old debts, says Klaus Regling, head of the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), the eurozone’s bailout fund. The fund has immediate access to 400 billion euros, meaning it could finance Italy for two years if need be. But only if no other eurozone country falls victim to the turbulence such a crisis would no doubt trigger.

But exactly that scenario is what has many people concerned, with pressure on Spain and Portugal likely to increase. The two countries have, to be sure, made progress in cleaning up their state finances, but they are still vulnerable, and their debt loads remain high.

Even if the Italians don’t proactively cease servicing their debts, they could still face trouble. Credit rating agencies already hold a dim view of Italy. Were they to downgrade Italy two additional levels, Italian bonds would reach junk status, meaning that many investment funds would be forced by their own regulations to dump them.

If mistrust and interest rates rise, Italian banks could once again find themselves in a dire situation. In the last 12 months, they have managed to reduce their risk exposure, but they are still sitting on billions of euros in bad loans. If the new government chooses to ignore these risks, the situation could rapidly spiral out of control.

Already, the interest rate difference between Italian and German sovereign bonds — the so-called risk premium — has risen significantly. In recent weeks, it has climbed by almost an entire percentage point. The difference reflects the higher risk of default for Italian bonds. Investors are only prepared to loan more money to Italy if they receive higher interest rates for their troubles.

Bailing Out Italy

Back in February, hedge funds already began speculating on falling European stock prices on the assumption that an anti-EU government in Rome could fragment the currency union. Bridgewater Associates, one of the largest sharks in the tank, placed a $22 billion bet against European stocks. The most recent wave of Italian sovereign bond sales was also likely driven by hedge fund speculation.

There is significant concern in many European capitals that the Conte government might operate under the assumption that Italy is too large and important for Europe to allow it to slide into bankruptcy and that European institutions would ultimately jump in to bail the country out. After all, roughly a third of Italy’s sovereign debt is held by foreign investors — a total of almost 800 billion euros. If a 50 percent debt haircut came to pass, as was done in the case of Greece, banks, insurance companies and pension funds would be forced to forego claims to 400 billion euros.

“The economic situation in the country has been highly explosive at least since the 2008 financial crisis,” says Henrik Enderlein, an economist at the Hertie School of Governance and an advisor to the German government. “But now a government is coming to power that is like a burning match and which could result in the situation getting out of control.”

The only thing left is to hope that this government of post-ideologists and right-wing populists will ultimately see the light — just as Alexis Tsipras did not long ago in Greece. “Leaving the common currency would be the worst-case scenario for Italy,” Enderlein warns. The country would sink into economic insignificance, he says, not unlike Argentina after its 2001 collapse.

European hopes are primarily focused on one person: Italian President Sergio Mattarella. “He will make sure that the new government adheres to European rules,” says a Brussels diplomat.

For most of the last three months, the 76-year-old lawyer has been patiently seeking to enable the assembly of a stable government and avoid new elections. And there is nothing he has left untried. He even held a face-to-face with Silvio Berlusconi, the man who paved the way for the rise of the populists and who led Italy into the crisis. Finally, though, the current coalition took shape, even if it looked for a time as though it was hopeless.

But even if Mattarella can prevent the worst — by refusing to sign certain laws, for example — he cannot prevent the political uncertainty from blocking a central EU reform project, that of reforming the economic and currency union.

Currently, Europe is waiting for the German response to French President Emmanuel Macron’s proposals, which he delivered eight months ago in a speech at the Sorbonne. Macron would like to see a joint eurozone budget and a common deposit insurance regime, among several other ideas.

Spending Even More

“The current developments in Rome are the death blow to Macron’s reform agenda,” says Commerzbank chief economist Krämer. Every step toward the collectivization of risk or debt, he says, “would be an open invitation for Italy to spend even more.”

Even if Macron is now carefully choosing his words and repeatedly saying he respects “the decision of the Italian people,” developments in Italy are, in fact, a significant setback for him and his reform proposals. He is caught between a Berlin that cannot seem to make up its mind and a Rome that is deeply skeptical of the EU. Realizing a vision of a unified, strong Europe won’t be easy with partners like that.

Concern is growing in the Élysée Palace in Paris that Europe is facing its next significant crisis and Macron, instead of pushing through his reform plans, will be forced to spend his time on damage control, not unlike his predecessors. “Salvini and Di Maio won’t achieve anything for Italy, but they will be in a position to completely block Europe,” says one of Macron’s advisers. The term “crazy,” the adviser says, would be a polite way of describing the new Italian government’s program.

The concerns are justified, particularly given the enormous resistance against Macron’s reform plans that already exists in German parliament. One element of those plans that is controversial is the “common backstop” envisioned as part of the banking union. The banking union envisions shareholders and creditors initially being made liable in the event of a bank collapse. Now, though, the use of the backstop — public money — is under discussion for extreme cases in which the costs of winding up a failed bank cannot otherwise be covered.

German politicians and others who oppose Macron’s vision fear that savings account holders could ultimately be made to pay for financial institution bankruptcies in countries like Italy. This fear has not been reduced by the anti-European rhetoric currently coming out of Rome. Indeed, the situation in Italy is not a good omen for the EU summit at the end of June, where heads of state and government intend to discuss a deepening of the eurozone.

Yet despite all of the justified concerns, it is also true that the coalition in Rome hasn’t actually entered office yet. The alliance with the aggressively anti-immigration party Lega is a controversial one within the Five Star Movement. “We have lost a few supporters along the way,” admits a spokesman for Di Maio. Furthermore, their parliamentary majority is just 30 seats. That isn’t much in a lawmaking body in which 206 representatives changed parties in just the last legislative session.

And should the new government suffer a premature demise — a fate which, Silvio Berlusconi insisted last week at the European People’s Party summit in Sofia, is one he would certainly hate to see — then the former Italian prime minister, now 81 years old, has a couple of thoughts on what should happen next.

In a good mood due to the recent decision by an Italian court to lift the ban on him holding public office, Berlusconi said he would be happy to do all it took to prevent a state crisis in Italy. And he would of course be prepared to “take on responsibility.”

Pubblicato in: Geopolitica Europea, Giustizia, Unione Europea

Afd porta la Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel davanti alla Suprema Corte.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-05-29.

Berlino Porta Brandemburgo

L’apertura incondizionata della frontiera da parte di Merkel nel 2015 è all’esame della Corte costituzionale federale di  Karlsruhe, Bundesverfassungsgericht.

Nella denuncia si prospetta che Frau Merkel avrebbe violato il diritto di partecipazione del Bundestag alla decisione di aprire le frontiere tedesche, ufficialmente difese dalla Costituzione. Sarebbe stata quindi un’azione non votata dal Parlamento.

«Wesentliche Entscheidungen, die das Gemeinwesen berührten, müssten im Parlament entschieden werden.»

Le decisioni importanti che riguardano tutta la collettività dovrebbero essere decise in parlamento.

Qualora Frau Merkel perdesse la causa intentatale, dovrebbe dare le dimissioni.

          


Der Bundestag. 2018-05-21. AfD klagt gegen Merkels Grenzöffnung. Bei Niederlage muss Sie zurücktreten!

homas Seitz – Die unbedingte Grenzöffnung durch Merkel im Jahre 2015 steht auf dem Prüfstand des Bundesverfassungsgerichts

Juristisch, hochspannend! Und vor allen Dingen auch politisch brisant, denn wenn Frau Merkel verliert, dann muss Sie zurücktreten! Die Koalition ist jetzt schon am Ende.

Mein Kommentar zur Woche in Berlin. Ihnen schöne Pfingsten.

Weitere Informationen über mich und meine politische Arbeit im Bundestag für Deutschland finden Sie unter: thomas-seitz.net


Welt. 2018-05-18. AfD zieht gegen Merkel vor Bundesverfassungsgericht

Die AfD hat in Karlsruhe eine Organklage gegen Merkels Flüchtlingspolitik eingereicht.

– Der Partei gehe es darum, die „Herrschaft des Unrechts“ feststellen zu lassen, sagte Justiziar Stephan Brandner.

 -Die Bundesregierung habe bei ihrer Einwanderungspolitik die Mitwirkungsrechte des Bundestags verletzt.

*                                                  

Die AfD zieht gegen die Flüchtlingspolitik von Angela Merkel (CDU) vor das Bundesverfassungsgericht. Die Bundestagsfraktion habe am 14. April eine Organklage in Karlsruhe eingereicht, sagte ihr Justiziar Stephan Brandner am Freitag in Berlin.

Der AfD gehe es darum, die „Herrschaft des Unrechts“ feststellen zu lassen. Die Bundesregierung habe bei ihrer Einwanderungspolitik die Mitwirkungsrechte des Bundestags verletzt, heißt es in der Klage.

Überprüft werden soll nach dem Willen der AfD Merkels Entscheidung von Anfang September 2015, die Grenze von Österreich nach Deutschland für Flüchtlinge offen zu halten und die Menschen nicht abzuweisen.

Brandner sagte: „Diese Klage kann die Welt verändern. Und sie wird die Welt verändern, wenn sie erfolgreich ist.“ Merkel müsse dann in „Nullkommanichts“ weg. Ob es zur Verhandlung kommt, ist noch offen.

Der zweite parlamentarische Geschäftsführer der AfD-Fraktion, Jürgen Braun, sagte, es gebe keine diktatorische Kanzlerin, auch sie habe sich an Recht und Gesetz zu halten. Wesentliche Entscheidungen, die das Gemeinwesen berührten, müssten im Parlament entschieden werden. Braun sprach mit Bezug auf die Politik der Grenzöffnung von einer „Herrschaft der Willkür und des Unrechts“, die nicht mit dem Grundgesetz vereinbar sei.

Auch CSU-Chef Horst Seehofer hatte Merkels Entscheidung als „Herrschaft des Unrechts“ bezeichnet. „Wir setzen um, was Seehofer angekündigt, aber nicht umgesetzt hat“, sagte Brandner. Seit Jahren herrsche ein Ausnahmezustand, es gehe um einen massiven Eingriff in die Rechte des Bundestags.