I dirigenti europei si dimostrano spesso stupefatti e sconcertati nel percepire quanto la gente li odi, anche se non li conosce di persona. Sono convinti che i Gilets Juanes siano stati catapultati dal cielo sulla terra.
Il fatto è che questi liberal socialisti stanno facendo di tutto per rendersi tali. La gente comune, quella che deve lavorare per vivere, ha ben altro da fare che studiarsi i meccanismi di governo di questa Unione Europea, ma ne sente sulla nuca il pesante respiro.
Non a caso il suo presidente è Herr Karl-Heinz Lambertz, affiliato al partito socialista europeo.
«Il Comitato europeo delle regioni (CdR) è un organo consultivo dell’UE composto da rappresentanti eletti a livello locale e regionale provenienti da tutti i 28 Stati membri. Attraverso il CdR essi possono scambiarsi pareri sulle norme dell’UE che incidono direttamente sulle regioni e sulle città.
Cosa fa il CdR?
Il CdR offre alle città e alle regioni la possibilità di esprimere formalmente la loro opinione nel processo legislativo dell’Unione europea per assicurare che la posizione e le esigenze degli enti regionali e locali siano rispettate.
– La Commisione europea, il Consiglio dell’UE e il Parlamento europeo devono consultare il CdR quando elaborano norme in settori che riguardano l’amministrazione locale e regionale come la sanità, l’istruzione, l’occupazione, la politica sociale, la coesione economica e sociale, i trasporti, l’energia e i cambiamenti climatici
– Una volta ricevuta una proposta legislativa, elabora e adotta un parere e lo comunica alle pertinenti istituzioni dell’UE
– Il CdR esprime anche pareri su propria iniziativa.
I membri del CdR sono rappresentanti eletti negli enti locali e regionali. Ciascun paese indica i membri di sua scelta che vengono nominati dal Consiglio dell’UE per un periodo rinnovabile di cinque anni. Il numero di membri di ciascun paese dipende dalle dimensioni della sua popolazione.
I membri di un paese costituiscono la delegazione nazionale che riflette gli equilibri politici, geografici, regionali e locali del proprio paese.
Ciascun membro può anche scegliere di far parte di un gruppo politico in seno al CdR. Attualmente esistono cinque gruppi politici che riflettono affiliazioni diverse: Partito popolare europeo (PPE), Partito del socialismo europeo (PSE), Alleanza dei liberali e democratici per l’Europa (ALDE), Alleanza europeaen (AE) e Conservatori e riformisti europei (ECR)en. I membri possono anche scegliere di non far parte di un partito politico, se lo desiderano (non iscritti).
Il CdR elegge un presidente scelto fra i suoi membri per un mandato di due anni e mezzo.
Come funziona il CdR?
Il comitato nomina un relatore (uno dei suoi membri) che consulta le parti interessate e redige il parere. Il testo viene discusso e adottato dalla commissione competente per il settore interessato. Il parere viene quindi presentato all’assemblea in sessione plenaria che, mediante votazione, apporta eventuali modifiche e lo approva. Infine, il parere viene reso noto e comunicato a tutte le pertinenti istituzioni dell’UE.
Ogni anno si svolgono fino a sei sessioni plenarie nelle quali vengono adottati pareri riguardanti dai 50 agli 80 progetti legislativi.
Il CdR e i cittadini
Il CdR incoraggia la partecipazione a tutti i livelli, dagli enti locali e regionali ai singoli cittadini. Enti regionali e locali, associazioni, ONG, esperti e studiosi possono partecipare online a inchieste, consultazioni ed eventi. Il premio “Regione imprenditoriale europea” è aperto a tutte le regioni con competenze in ambito politico, mentre i concorsi per tesi sono aperti agli studiosi.
Il CdR ha creato una serie di reti per consentire a tutte le regioni e le città dell’UE di scambiare le migliori pratiche, lavorare assieme e contribuire al dibattito europeo su argomenti quali la crescita e l’occupazione, la lotta contro i cambiamenti climatici, la cooperazione transfrontaliera, lo sviluppo e la sussidiarietà.
Gli enti locali e regionali possono anche firmare la Carta della governance multilivello in Europa, che contribuisce a rendere pubblica la legittimità e la responsabilità delle città e delle regioni nell’attuazione delle politiche pubbliche dell’UE.»
Adesso clickiamo su Conservatori e riformisti europei. Gli altri link sono simpaticamente disattivati.
«The ECR Group is centre-right and euro-realist. It is made up of local and regional politicians working together within the EU Committee of the Regions».
Un’immensa fotografia di Coop24, e quattro articoli.
Lo sprovvido Cittadino Elettore si credeva che governassero i deputati che lui aveva concorso a nominare: errore grossolano.
Degli enti regionali e/o provinciali nominano dei loro rappresentanti in seno al Comitato europeo delle regioni (CdR), ma è il governo in carica che li propone ufficialmente all’Unione Europea, ma sono nominati dal Consiglio della Unione Europea.
Il CrD esprime quindi pareri, ma obbligandosi a sentire “Enti regionali e locali, associazioni, ONG, esperti e studiosi“.
Le ngo, ong, vi sguazzano sovrane.
Manco a dirlo, “Il CdR ha creato una serie di reti per consentire a tutte le regioni e le città dell’UE di scambiare le migliori pratiche, lavorare assieme e contribuire al dibattito europeo su argomenti quali la crescita e l’occupazione, la lotta contro i cambiamenti climatici, la cooperazione transfrontaliera, lo sviluppo e la sussidiarietà”.
La lotta ai cambiamenti climatici è il clou.
I pareri saranno quindi recepiti dalle autorità competenti.
* * *
L’Unione Europea pullula di organismi del genere, paragovernativi.
A conti fatti, questo è uno scherzetto da un centinaio di milioni di euro, che sarebbero rimasti molto volentieri nelle tasche dei Cittadini Contribuenti.
«Le città e le regioni europee mantengono alta la pressione sui governi nazionali per una maggiore ambizione e determinazione nella lotta ai cambiamenti climatici. A pochi giorni dalla chiusura della COP24 a Katowice (Polonia), dove sono state adottate le linee guida per attuare l’accordo sul clima di Parigi, il Comitato Ue delle Regioni (CdR) esprime soddisfazione per il risultato ottenuto ma reitera la sua richiesta di coinvolgere gli enti locali nella battaglia per mantenere il riscaldamento globale entro 1,5 gradi.
“Le linee guida adottate alla COP aprono la porta a un azione multilivello rafforzata e a una cooperazione più forte fra autorità nazionali e locali”, scrive il CdR in una nota. Le città, infatti, sono responsabili del 70% delle emissioni di gas a effetto serra nel mondo. Il regolamento (‘rulebook’) varato in Polonia “invita” a prendere in considerazione i risultati dei cosiddetti Dialoghi di Talanoa, lanciati lo scorso anno per favorire il confronto sul clima con i governi territoriali, la società civile e le imprese. Un passaggio su cui si è speso particolarmente il presidente della commissione ambiente del CdR, l’olandese Cor Lamers. “Insieme possiamo massimizzare il potenziale della necessaria transizione verso l’energia pulita – ha dichiarato Lamers – Attraverso iniziative faro come il Patto globale dei sindaci, promosso dal CdR, le autorità locali e regionali continueranno a ottenere risultati e mettere pressione per una maggiore ambizione sul clima”.»
* * *
Vorremmo chiudere segnalando uno strano fenomeno. Il furor climatico alle volte conduce a scrivere numeri azzardati.
«Le città, infatti, sono responsabili del 70% delle emissioni di gas a effetto serra nel mondo»
«Plan will deny migrants who receive aid from human traffickers asylum in Austria»
«Interior Minister says migrant plan will make system fairer for asylum seekers»
«Chancellor Kurz declares that Austria must ‘smash business model’ of traffickers»
«All migrants who arrive in Europe with the help of human traffickers will be automatically denied asylum in Austria»
«plans aim to punish migrants using smugglers by handing down an automatic negative asylum decision.»
«someone who could afford the services of human traffickers had a greater chance of asylum than others who could not»
«Kurz said: ‘It is not the poorest who flee, but those who can afford human traffickers.’»
«It is our Christian-social responsibility to make the conditions there better.»
«The tightening of asylum laws also includes the power to confiscate asylum seekers’ mobile phones which would allow investigators to access the phone’s geodata to determine their origin and exact journey»
* * * * * * * *
Lentamente ma inesorabilmente sta proseguendo la lotta alla immigrazione illegale e clandestina ed ai trafficanti che su di essa lucrano.
Oramai il clima politico sembrerebbe aver iniziato a mutare anche nei paesi del’Unione Europea ancora a guida liberal socialista.
In ogni caso, ricordiamoci che questo anno si terranno sia le elezioni per l’europarlamento sia quelle politiche in sette stati dell’Unione Europea. Parlamento e Consiglio Europeo dovrebbero uscirne ben diversi da quelli del passato.
Austria to automatically deny asylum to all migrants who arrive in Europe with the help of smugglers.
* This model should be adopted by all the European nation states. If followed, and combined with swift deportations, this would send a strong message to the smugglers, internal traffickers and illegal migrants.
– All migrants who arrive in Europe with the help of human traffickers will be automatically denied asylum in Austria, under new plans revealed by its Interior Minister today.
Austrian Interior Minister Herbert Kickl, a member of the Freedom Party of Austria (FPO), said his plans aim to punish migrants using smugglers by handing down an automatic negative asylum decision.
Sebastian Kurz said that it was a mistake that the continent of Africa had been given the impression that ‘these people can get through to Europe’.
* This is a great first step but needs to be supplemented with ongoing deportations. It was a colossal mistake to grant entry to millions of unknown migrants from violent regions and cultures. The second step must involve an EU-wide permanent mechanism to deport the illegals outside of Europe.
Any aid to Africa must be tied to agreements to take back their migrants. The leaders of Africa cannot just accept money; they must start doing their part as well.
Open-entry has been a failure and it’s negative effects have been felt across Europe. The status-quo is unacceptable. One cannot manage illegal migration.
Denying entry combined with swift deportations is a message that Europe must send.
«The policies proposed by Brazil’s new President, Jair Bolsonaro, threaten a human rights and environmental catastrophe with global implications. ….
As an international community of NGOs, we call on President Bolsonaro to use his position not just as a national leader, but as a global leader, to fulfil Brazil’s global responsibilities to protect human rights, democracy and the environment, and to honour the agreements and conventions it has signed up to Governments and the international business community must work to do the same.»
* * * * * * *
Questo lunedì sei gennaio emette un provvedimento sulle ngo.
«Brazil’s right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro said on Monday that funding of nongovernmental organizations working in the country will be rigidly controlled, reflecting increased oversight by the new government over such groups.
Government Secretary Carlos dos Santos Cruz, a retired Army general, said in a local interview published on Monday that the aim is to determine whether the NGOs are fulfilling their role of complementing government actions and not to restrict their activities in Brazil.»
* * *
«Funding of nongovernmental organizations working in Brazil will be rigidly controlled, President Jair Bolsonaro said on Monday, reflecting increased oversight by his new right-wing administration over such groups»
«Plans to boost scrutiny over public funds that NGOs receive has raised concern that their activities might be restricted by a nationalist government»
«The responsibility for monitoring NGOs has been put in the hands of Government Secretary Carlos dos Santos Cruz, a retired Army general who said the initiative will help determine whether the organizations are fulfilling their role of carrying out work that complements government actions»
* * * * * * *
«This is the beginning of Brazil’s liberation from socialism, political correctness and a bloated state»
Funding of nongovernmental organizations working in Brazil will be rigidly controlled, President Jair Bolsonaro said on Monday, reflecting increased oversight by his new right-wing administration over such groups.
Plans to boost scrutiny over public funds that NGOs receive has raised concern that their activities might be restricted by a nationalist government that has criticized foreign interference in the Amazon region.
The responsibility for monitoring NGOs has been put in the hands of Government Secretary Carlos dos Santos Cruz, a retired Army general who said the initiative will help determine whether the organizations are fulfilling their role of carrying out work that complements government actions.
An executive order issued last week gave the new administration potentially far-reaching and restrictive powers over NGOs.
“The government’s intention is to optimize the use of public funds and bring more benefits” to people assisted by the NGOs, Cruz said in an interview published on Monday on the G1 news portal.
He denied the intention was to restrict their activity.
“The plan is not to interfere in the life of the organizations or restrict anything. But it’s public money. There needs to be transparency and there needs to be results,” Cruz said.
Leaders of NGOs that work in Brazil, such as Jose Miguel Vivanco, director of the Americas division of Human Rights Watch, said the decree on NGOs could be viewed in a positive light, but also expressed concerns.
If the new rules “facilitate a constructive relationship between international civil society groups and the government,” that is positive. But Vivanco said he was also worried about how far the Bolsonaro government will go in monitoring the groups.
Rules to increase oversight over NGOs was one of Bolsonaro’s very first acts after he was sworn in on Jan. 1.
Bolsonaro’s temporary decree, which expires unless it is ratified within 120 days by Congress, gives Cruz’s office the power to “supervise, coordinate, monitor and accompany the activities and actions of international organizations and nongovernmental organizations in the national territory.”
La semplice ingenuità della gente comune è commovente.
Non c’è da stupirsene: mentre i malvagi sanno benissimo cosa sia il bene e lo rifuggono le persone buone ignorano cosa sia il male.
Se la prima tentazione sarebbe quella di etichettare le persone buone come babbei perché non sono maliziosi, si dovrebbe invece benedire il Cielo che al mondo vi siano ancora persone oneste: senza di loro non potrebbe esistere un vivere più o meno civile.
Alle volte però questa semplicità travalica i limiti del buon senso, ed allora da dote positive può anche diventare negativa: il malvagio assolda il buono con un qualche specchietto per allodole, e questo buono diventa suo intimo collaboratore, talora persino servo. Una volta erano denominati utili idioti.
Negli ultimi anni si è assistito ad una levata di scudi contro gli emolumenti che percepiscono gli eletti, e, quindi, anche contro i vitalizi.
Reazione elementare di fronte alla arroganza del potere, della casta, ma spesso non a fondo meditata.
Ci spiegheremo con un esempio.
Un deputato deve trovarsi una casa in Roma, e questa ha un suo costo di affitto e di utenze. Poi ci sono tutte le spese dei viaggi dalla residenza della propria famiglia e Roma, e non son spese da poco. Poi, quel poveraccio dovrà ben mangiare e bere. Infine, dovrà mantenere una fitta serie di relazioni umane, avendo ospiti, ed intrattenendo relazioni. Si faccia un rapido conto. Con meno di diecimila euro al mese è semplicemente impossibile fare il deputato.
Ma se la gente lo fa, da qualche parte dovrà ben procurarsi le risorse.
La prima cosa che viene in mente è che sia ricco di famiglia, cosa spesso vera. In Occidente è virtualmente impossibile fare politica venendo da una famiglia non abbiente.
Ma questa non è la regola, quindi da qualche parte i soldi devono ben entrargli. Se poi si ragiona che a termine mandato non percepirà buonuscita e vitalizio, è del tutto evidente che qualcosa da parte il poveraccio se lo debba mettere.
L’arte della sopravivenza è connaturata negli esseri umani, ma taluni vi riescono in modo encomiabile, altri invece in alla grande: l’essere stato eletto diventa una vera e propria miniera di oro. Lo stipendio serve loro solo per ricevere gli estratti conti della banca.
* * * * * * *
L’Unione Europea è un grandioso marchingegno finalizzato all’arricchimento del suo staff, dei loro amici, ed, ovviamente, agli amici degli amici. Chi si fosse creduto che gli europarlamentari e gli euroburocrati temano le prossime elezioni per motivi ideologici sarebbe proprio fuori strada.
Nel sito Welcome Europe compare, inter alias, una simpaticissima paginetta, che riportiamo in fotocopia.
Il meccanismo di funzionamento del marchingegno è semplice e ben collaudato.
– Si costituisce una Ngo, con tanto di presidente e consiglio di amministrazione, volta a promuovere un qualcosa che colpisca la fantasia ed i sentimenti umani. Una esempio? Organizzazione non governativa per la protezione dei gatti rossi in estinzione nei centri cittadini.
– L’importanza sociale e l’alto profilo professionale è così chiaro che tutti i consigli comunali amici riconosceranno immediatamente simile ngo. Molti la finanzieranno anche.
– Subito dopo, qualche consiglio regionale, particolarmente sensibile ai miagolii dei gatti rossi in via di estinzione, doterà di fondi codesta spettabile organizzazione.
– A livello nazionale la trafila si conclude con il riconoscimento governativo e con sovvenzioni che iniziano a diventare consistenti.
– Infine il grande balzo: l’Organizzazione non governativa per la protezione dei gatti rossi in estinzione nei centri cittadini concorre per ottenere un grant dall’Unione Europea. Qui si parla di milioni.
– Mai nella storia dell’Unione Europea è stato finanziato un qualcosa che non inducesse guadagni occulti agli amici degli amici.
Tutto il marchingegno regge se, e solo se, nei punti direzionale siano stati collocati amici degli amici. che approvano qualsiasi progetto a scatola chiusa, purché sia amicale. In Sede Europea si fa anche di più: si organizzano grant usufruibili solo da parte di ngo che, in questo caso, patrocinano l’esistenza dei gatti rossi randagi. Nel caso che in tale settore operino anche realtà non del proprio partito, il grant sarà bandito con norme ancor più stringenti. Le ngo che concorrono devono operare anche nel centro di Pentema, o di qualche altro paesino disperso nel mondo.
In questa maniera il denaro del Contribuente non è speso sotto il controllo parlamentare, anzi, ne è sottratto.
Prive di un qualsiasi controllo, le ngo intanto deliberano adeguati stipendi ai consiglieri di amministrazione, poi daranno emolumenti degni quel nome a consulenti e persone vicine. E chi mai sarebbe loro più vicino del povero politico che ha deliberato l’elargizione di tutto quel ben di Dio? La ngo gli procura un appartamento consono al suo stato e gli passa un adeguato argent de poche. Di norma contante, usato, di piccolo taglio. Un po’ di qui ed un po’ di qua, e la giornata è stata fatta.
La gente mica che lo abbia capito che i politici dello stipendio se ne fanno un baffo.
«Spanish charity Proactiva Open Arms has rescued 311 migrants in the Mediterranean sea off the coast of Libya, it said on Saturday.
The migrants will be taken to the Spanish port of Algeciras after the charity’s vessel was refused entry by several European countries, including Malta and Italy. A newborn baby and his mother were taken by helicopter to Malta.
Proactiva Open Arms operates between Libya and southern Europe in a mission aimed at aiding migrants who have found themselves in trouble attempting to cross the sea from north Africa.»
On 17 July, the NGO Proactiva Open Arms lodged a complaint concerning the ‘failure to provide assistance in international waters and abandonment of a living person and the corpses of a woman and child by the Libyan coastguard. They were found on a destroyed vessel 80 miles from Libya’.
The Italian Government has closed its ports to NGOs conducting humanitarian rescue work. These organisations are human rights defenders. In line with EU directives on human rights defenders, these NGOs should receive priority attention in EU external action.
On 7 July, Italy and Libya signed an agreement for the provision of EUR 5 billion to Libya to stem migration to Europe.
Will the Commission continue to fund the Libyan coastguard directly or indirectly?
Will the Commission continue to fund the ‘Aurora’ project, and will it do so using the Internal Security Fund?
To what extent is the coastguard currently involved in ‘Seahorse’, ‘Aurora’ or any other projects, or to what extent has it been or will it be involved, in terms of the Libyan coastguard’s access to European communications systems or Eurosur?»
* * * * * * *
Serve un contorsionismo logico per voler presentare come opera di volontariato una serie di azioni finanziate per cinque miliardi di euro da parte della Unione Europea, usando il denaro del Contribuente, Cittadino Elettore europeo.
Come le altre organizzazioni del genere, costoro si procurano migranti in Africa che vanno poi a raccogliere sulle coste della Libia e vorrebbero infine introdurre clandestinamente ed illegalmente in Europa.
Queste organizzazioni non hanno nulla dei “human rights defenders”: svolgono non azione caritativa, bensì lavoro a scopo di lucro.
La risposta del Ministro Salvini è chiara e netta, senza perifrasi:
«Il ministro degli Interni, Matteo Salvini, ha confermato la sua linea: “La nave Open Arms, di Ong spagnola con bandiera spagnola, ha raccolto 200 immigrati e ha chiesto un porto italiano per farli sbarcare, dopo che Malta (dopo aver fatto giustamente sbarcare una donna e un bambino) ha detto di no»
«La mia risposta è chiara: i porti italiani sono chiusi!»
«Per i trafficanti di esseri umani e per chi li aiuta, la pacchia è finita»
Ci si pensi bene, ma molto bene.
L’Unione Europea finanzia il tutto con cinque miliardi di euro: poi Mr Moscovici e Mr Oettinger hanno strangolato l’Italia per cavare dai Contribuenti italiani una cifra analoga.
Andrà in Spagna la nave della Ong Open Arms che questa mattina ha salvato al largo della Libia oltre 300 migranti, tra cui una donna e un neonato che avevano bisogno di cure mediche e che sono state sbarcate a Malta. Secondo quanto si apprende da fonti italiane, le autorità di Madrid hanno già indicato a Open Arms il porto dove sbarcare.
Nella mattinata l’allarme lanciato dall’ong spagnola Proactiva che opera con la nave Open Arms: la nave spagnola “Open Arms con più di 300 persone a bordo non ha un porto sbarco, e Malta nega l’approvvigionamento. E’ un’emergenza di Natale”. L’ong ha riferito di aver salvato ieri 300 migranti a bordo di 3 barche “in pericolo di naufragio”.
A bordo c’era anche un neonato di due giorni con la mamma, gli unici che sono stati evacuati stamattina dalle autorità maltesi.
Mamma e figlio sono poi stati trasferiti in ambulanza all’ospedale Mater Dei dell’isola.
Il ministro degli Interni, Matteo Salvini, ha confermato la sua linea: “La nave Open Arms, di Ong spagnola con bandiera spagnola, ha raccolto 200 immigrati e ha chiesto un porto italiano per farli sbarcare, dopo che Malta (dopo aver fatto giustamente sbarcare una donna e un bambino) ha detto di no. La mia risposta è chiara: i porti italiani sono chiusi! Per i trafficanti di esseri umani e per chi li aiuta, la pacchia è finita”.
Abbiamo già ampiamente trattato di chi abbia concepito la idea delle organizzazioni non governative, le abbia implementate e di come esse funzionino utilizzando i fondi pubblici loro elargiti con dovizia dai governi liberal socialisti loro amici e patroni. Un gigantesco marchingegno finalizzato al dominio sui popoli bypassando il suffragio elettorale, garantendo nel contempo lauti guadagni agli adepti sodali.
Negli Stati Uniti è Presidente Mr Trump, la loro Corte Suprema è adesso a maggioranza repubblicana, e nell’Unione Europea i partiti sovranisti, populisti, i lebbrosi di Mr Macron, si stanno avviando a diventare una forza politica di indubbio peso.
I liberal socialisti stanno perdendo consenso elettorale giorno dopo giorno. In Italia ed in molti paesi europei i sovranisti sono già al governo, mentre in Francia Mr Macron vacilla sotto l’urto dei Gilets Jaunes ed in Germania Frau Merkel ha dovuto rinunciare alle presidenza della Cdu.
E siamo solo agli inizi.
I liberal socialisti, che governano ancora la quasi totalità dei media, si stanno guardando attorno attoniti e perplessi, increduli che il popolo bue abbia loro voltato le spalle. Pur di non votarli, votano persino i sovranisti, il ché è tutto dire.
* * * * * * *
Le loro geremiadi hanno toni accorati.
Traducendo dal loro metalinguaggio politicamente corretto, quando si domandano cosa ne sarà dell’Europa intendono in realtà domandarsi cosa ne sarà di loro. Nella loro mente infatti loro erano l’Europa.
«Aid organizations SOS Mediterranee and Doctors Without Borders (MSF) are being forced to end their life-saving Mediterranean rescue mission»
Questa frase è tutta un programma.
“Aid organization” altro non significa che l’organizzazione la quale traghettava i migranti clandestini illegali dalle coste libiche ai porti italiani: una vera e propria tratta degli esseri umani. Un servizio di taxi oltremodo costoso per i Contribuenti e lucroso per le ngo.
“Life-saving” significa il salvataggio dei loro introiti percepiti dal fatto di essere correi della tratta.
«We must not forget that these people are not criminals, they simply fled to Libya. They are then, however, arrested arbitrarily without any semblance of a real legal trial.»
Ma allora, perché queste ngo non hanno condannato con voce ferma il regine dittatoriale di Mr Macron che ha fatto arrestare migliaia di cittadini francesi per il solo sospetto che non fossero pronubi al potere di Mr Macron?
I loro sensibili cuori non si sono mica commossi a vedere una classe di liceali tenuti dalla polizia in ginocchio con le mani sulla testa: tenuti in stato di fermo senza il mandato di un giudice.
No, amici miei. Siete a nostro parere in errore.
I popoli europei non nutrono minimamente ‘apatia‘ nei vostri confronti.
Stanno solo aspettando con pazienza che si possa portarvi davanti a delle Corti di Giustizia che vi giudichi, vi condannino ed infine facciano eseguire le sentenze.
Aid organizations SOS Mediterranee and Doctors Without Borders (MSF) are being forced to end their life-saving Mediterranean rescue mission. MSF managing director Florian Westphal told DW the situation is “catastrophic.”
The rescue ship Aquarius has saved about 30,000 migrants from drowning on the Mediterranean Sea. The ship’s operators now say that the mission will be stopped as the political pressure is too great. SOS Mediterranee’s managing director, Verena Papke, spoke of a “testimony of poverty for Europe.” SOS Mediterranee operates the Aquarius together with Doctors Without Borders. It is currently anchored in Marseille.
DW: Mr. Westphal, Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and SOS Mediterranee are being forced to cease the Aquarius rescue ship’s operations on the Mediterranean. How do you and your team feel about this decision?
Florian Westphal: We are most disappointed and extremely concerned. After all, the ban will most likely cause more people to drown in the Mediterranean, and more people will be forced back to the terrible conditions of the detention camps in Libya. It is utterly sobering and distressing.
What is the situation like in the Libyan refugee camps?
We are working at several prison internment camps where thousands of refugees are being held in dreadful conditions. Some of the camps are totally overcrowded. Often there is not enough clean water, and the hygiene conditions are catastrophic. We also come across people who have been tortured and abused, who have been victims of sexual violence and forced labor. We must not forget that these people are not criminals, they simply fled to Libya. They are then, however, arrested arbitrarily without any semblance of a real legal trial.
In a recently published press release SOS Mediterranee and MSF complain that their experiences with EU member states that have not been positive. What has happened?
We have seen various efforts on the part of European governments to make the humanitarian act of sea rescue impossible. The Italian and Maltese governments, for example, and also other states, have ultimately made it impossible for us to use the Aquarius to call at safe ports and bring migrants ashore.
The statement also accuses the EU of having a short-sighted migration policy. What is meant by this?
It is short-sighted to the extent that it means in all likelihood people will continue to drown in the Mediterranean, although something could be done about it. Over 2,100 people have drowned this year. Europe is setting a negative example.
Unfortunately, other countries are likely to follow suit. This, in turn, will undermine an important pillar of international law, the 1951 Refugee Convention. This stipulates that people in situations such as those detained in Libya are entitled to security, protection, and humane treatment. This is precisely why these people want to come to Europe.
There are accusations that sea rescue encourages illegal immigration. Because of the rescue ships in the Mediterranean, more and more people attempt the crossing. What do you say to that?
The facts ultimately refute that. Since summer, almost no civilian sea rescue service has been active on the Mediterranean, and yet the escape attempts from Libya continue because the conditions for refugees there are insufferable. That is why the escape attempts continue unabated.
How do you legitimize your actions, legally or politically?
Politically, it is difficult, as there is no mandate. But sea rescue is enshrined in international law. Since seafaring began, there has been a legal and moral obligation to help people in distress at sea. Ultimately it is a humanitarian act. It corresponds to what is expected in every sort traffic accident, namely to provide first aid. For us, it is a profound act based on humanitarian principles.
We are witnessing the rise of right-wing parties in Europe that seems to correlate with increased migration. Doesn’t civil sea rescue risk indirectly providing ammunition to these parties?
We are not guided by a political agenda, we save people from drowning. It is a purely humanitarian operation.
What will happen to you and your team now? What do you have in mind?
We do not yet have any concrete plans at this point. We will, of course, do what we can despite the tough circumstances. We will continue to denounce the suffering of these people, and the thousands of entirely preventable deaths. We will do all we can to rescue these people and to provide them with medical care.
Tradizionalmente, a fine gennaio si teneva nella ridente cittadina di Davos il World Economic Forum.
«Il principale evento organizzato dal Forum economico mondiale è il forum che si tiene con cadenza annuale a fine gennaio presso la cittadina sciistica di Davos, nel Cantone dei Grigioni in Svizzera. L’incontro è a inviti e si tiene a porte chiuse, sebbene venga diffusa la registrazione di specifici eventi, come la sessione plenaria. In occasione dell’incontro, i vertici delle imprese associate alla fondazione incontrano una ristretta platea di leader politici e di organizzazioni non governative, esponenti della comunità scientifica, leader religiosi e giornalisti. Nei cinque giorni dell’evento sono oltre 200 gli eventi in programma, sui temi chiave del dibattito mondiale, quali conflitti internazionali, povertà e problemi ambientali» [Fonte]
«The World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos-Klosters is the foremost creative force for engaging the world’s top leaders in collaborative activities to shape the global, regional and industry agendas at the beginning of each year. For over four decades, the World Economic Forum’s mission – improving the state of the world – has driven the design and development of the Annual Meeting objectives. Annual Meeting participants will come together to address the most pressing issues on the global agenda. They will do so in an exceptional atmosphere – the “Spirit of Davos” – based on interdisciplinary, informal and direct interaction among peers.»
Non si parla più del piano di Mr Al Gore di ricostruire tutte le città senza automobili.
Era un piano da 90,000 miliardi di dollari: avete letto bene, novantamilamiliardi di dollari. Tutto grasso che sarebbe colato nele tasche dei liberal socialisti.
* * * * * * *
«As levels of greenhouse gases reach a new record, concerns are growing about the role of China in global warming»
«For years, the increase in the number of Chinese coal-fired power stations has been criticised»
«China is also backing dozens of coal projects far beyond its borders»
«The Chinese-supported coal projects are under way or planned as far afield as South America, Africa, southeast Asia and the Balkans»
«Contracts and financing for these facilities are often not fully transparent»
«In Serbia, one of the country’s largest coal-fired power stations is being expanded with the help of a loan from a Chinese bank and with the work being led by one of China’s largest construction companies»
«In the next few months a lot of Chinese will come here and this will be a big challenge, …. With Chinese workers and Serbian workers, at the beginning we had some cultural problems but we have overcome them and there is now very good cooperation»
* * * * * * *
– Nel suo intervento al Meeting di Davos del 2015 Mr Al Gore aveva chiaramente riportato come il business attorno al ‘clima‘ si aggirasse attorno ai 90,000 miliardi di dollari americani. Un volume di affari mostruoso.
– La allora dirigenza liberal al governo negli Stati Uniti e nei paesi europei si proponeva di stornare dai bilanci statali cifre di questa entità verso realtà ‘amiche‘, quali per esempio le agenzie, sottratte al controllo elettorale.
– L’elezione di Mr Trump pose fine a questo progetto , attirandogli addosso l’odio mortale dei liberal.
– Con la successiva caduta dei governi liberal socialisti in Europa il ‘clima’ è restato privo di appoggio politico, e sta semplicemente morendo.
– Il comportamento cinese è maieutico: a parole sostiene il ‘clima’, ma nei fatti viaggia a carbone.
As levels of greenhouse gases reach a new record, concerns are growing about the role of China in global warming.
For years, the increase in the number of Chinese coal-fired power stations has been criticised.
Now environmental groups say China is also backing dozens of coal projects far beyond its borders.
Coal is the most damaging of the fossil fuels because of the quantity of carbon dioxide it releases when it’s burned.
Last year, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere reached its highest level for the past 3-5 million years, according to the latest research by the UN’s weather agency, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO).
And last month the UN’s climate science panel said that coal must be phased out by 2050 if the world is to have any chance of limiting the rise in temperatures.
The Chinese-supported coal projects are under way or planned as far afield as South America, Africa, southeast Asia and the Balkans.
Contracts and financing for these facilities are often not fully transparent but campaign groups including Bankwatch have tried to keep track.
“You cannot be a world leader in curbing air pollution and at the same time the world’s biggest financier of overseas coal power plants,” the group’s energy coordinator Ioana Ciuta told the BBC.
According to Ms Ciuta, efforts to tackle the dirty air of Chinese cities have led many power companies to limit their ambitions for coal-fired power stations in China itself and to target their technology and labour overseas instead.
“By having China invest in over 60 countries along the Belt and Road Initiative, it’s perpetuating a source of pollution that has been demonstrated to be harmful not just to the climate but also to economies,” she said.
No carbon capture
In Serbia, one of the country’s largest coal-fired power stations is being expanded with the help of a loan from a Chinese bank and with the work being led by one of China’s largest construction companies.
An hour’s drive east of the capital Belgrade, in the coal-rich Danube valley, construction has already started at the site, known as Kostolac B3.
An existing power station towers over the rolling landscape, a steady stream of pollution twisting from a massive smokestack, and conveyor belts ferry coal from a nearby open-cast mine at Drmno.
The power station is run by the national Serbian electricity company, EPS, which provides about 70% of the country’s power by burning coal – the rest comes from hydro-electric schemes.
Now, under a $715m (£560m) contract agreed by the Serbian government and Chinese President Xi Jinping, an extra unit is being added, which will bring 350MW of additional capacity with the latest “super-critical” technology.
When we visit, we catch a brief glimpse of a group of Chinese workers wearing hard hats on their way from the construction site to a vast set of accommodation blocks – by next year, some 1,500 Chinese staff will be here.
Safety signs and notice boards are written in Serbian and Chinese. Equipment and shipping containers carry Chinese labels.
I ask the EPS official running the project, Zeljko Lazovic, what he feels about such a large and important venture being in the hands of Chinese engineers and workers.
“In the next few months a lot of Chinese will come here and this will be a big challenge,” he says.
“With Chinese workers and Serbian workers, at the beginning we had some cultural problems but we have overcome them and there is now very good cooperation.”
When asked about the environmental cost of the new project, Mr Lazovic insisted it would meet all the EU’s standards on pollution by dust, nitrogen dioxide and sulphur.
However, the new unit will not be fitted with any carbon capture technology so it will fit into a pattern of Chinese-backed projects that will add to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.
‘Locked into high emissions’
Christine Shearer is an analyst with the group CoalSwarm, which tracks coal developments, and she is scathing about the implications.
“These projects are not compatible with limiting global warming to 1.5C or 2C,” she said, referring to the two targets of the Paris Agreement on climate change.
She says that Chinese financial institutions are filling a gap left by Western banks and agencies deciding to limit their involvement in coal.
“These projects, if completed, will lock the countries into high carbon-emitting infrastructure and volatile coal imports precisely at a time when prices for clean energy are starting to fall below that of coal power.”
We tried to contact the Export-Import Bank of China, which is providing the loan, and the China Machinery Engineering Corporation, which is leading the construction, but did not hear back.
For the Serbian power company, EPS, the attraction of a local supply of coal has combined with a cheap Chinese loan and the prospects of valuable exports of electricity.
About 3,500 jobs depend on the Kostolac complex but some local people have become increasingly outspoken about the pollution in the area.
Momir Savic showed me how the conveyor belts carrying coal run close to the villages and he fears a further expansion of the operation.
“The quality of our air and water is very poor. We cannot grow fruit and vegetables. There is also a lot of noise. All this affects the health of people living here, many of whom have respiratory diseases,” he said.
EPS says it is spending hundreds of millions of euros on environmental protection but its track record clearly does not inspire trust.
Pera Markovic, a lawyer with Cekor, an environmental group, is critical of the company’s failure to limit pollution in the local area.
But he concedes that Serbia is heavily dependent on coal for its power.
For how long? “Decades,” Mr Markovic says.
That’s likely to be the same in many other countries too, whatever climate scientists say is needed.
Il problema non sono i migranti. Il problema sono tutte quelle organizzazioni, spesso sovvenzionate da stati sovrani, che lucrano sulla tratta dei migranti clandestini illegali, reclutandoli nei paesi di origine, portandoli alle coste del Mediterraneo e quindi cercando di traghettarli in paesi dell’Unione Europea. A questi negrieri dei nostri tempi si devono aggiungere tutte le forze politiche che all’interno dell’Unione Europea patrocinano i migranti illegali a scopo di lucro e per sovvertimenti politici.
Caduta Frau Merkel e zoppicante Mr Macron, le ngo di Mr Soros hanno quasi cessato di traghettare clandestini nei territori dell’Unione. Senza il loro appoggio politico non possono fare nulla.
Quindi, gli obiettivi dovrebbero essere facilmente identificabili: dapprima annientare i liberal socialisti nei paesi dell’Unione Europea, quindi si potranno regolare i conti.
Per essere chiari, Eichmann ce lo siamo andati a cercare, lo abbiamo trovato, lo abbiamo portato in patria, lo abbiamo processato, lo abbiamo condannato ed infine abbiamo eseguito la condanna.
La nave da carico Nivin ha raccolto in mare dei migranti, agendo secondo giustizia e secondo le leggi marinare internazionali: è stato un gesto umanitario.
In altri tempi li avrebbero portati in Europa. Dimissionaria Frau Merkel, li hanno riportati in Libia.
Poiché non ne volevano sapere di scendere, sequestrando di fatto la nave che li aveva salvati, le forze libiche sono intervenute con la forza, ed hanno anche avuto la mano molto leggera.
Gli sparnazzamenti dei media liberal è commensurato al loro sconcerto: i liberal socialisti non sono più in grado di svolgere la tratta degli esseri umani.
Poi, come usualmente si comportano i criminali, si atteggiano a benefattori della umanità, cercando di far passare i libici per esseri disumani, ma nessuno di loro ha pensato a come risarcire la Nivin per le perdite subite a seguito della sua opera umanitaria.
TRIPOLI (Reuters) – Libyan authorities on Tuesday forcibly disembarked at least 79 migrants who had refused to leave a cargo ship that rescued them before docking in a port west of Tripoli, rights groups and a coast guard commander said.
The Panama-flagged “Nivin” vehicles carrier rescued them and other migrants off the Libyan coast 10 days ago as their boat began sinking and brought them to Misrata.
Once there, 14 disembarked willingly but, in the first documented case of its kind, the other 92 refused to leave.
“A joint force raided the cargo ship and used rubber bullets and tear gas to force (them off the ship),” the commander of the central region coastguards, Tawfiq Esskair, told Reuters by phone, putting the number at more than 90.
Some had been injured during the disembarkation but were now “in good condition” after treatment in hospital, and all had been taken to a detention center in the city, he said.
The operation had been carried out under the auspices of Libya’s attorney general, he added.
The United Nations and Human Rights Watch (HRW) put the number of disembarked migrants at 79.
The U.N. said in a statement “the humanitarian community is saddened by the turn of events”.
Using stronger words, HRW called for an investigation into whether “unlawful force” had been used.
“This is the worst possible conclusion to the desperate plea of the people on board the Nivin to avoid inhuman detention in Libya,” Judith Sunderland, acting deputy Europe and Central Asia director at Human Rights Watch, said in a statement.
Diplomats from some migrants’ countries of origin such as Sudan and Somalia had tried to negotiate with the migrants to leave the ship, which had been transporting cars. Libya’s western coast has been a main departure point for migrants fleeing wars and poverty and hoping for new lives in Europe. But since last year, heavy pressure from Italy – which had been bearing the brunt of arrivals – has resulted in the disruption of coastal smuggling networks and the withdrawal of charity rescue ships.
At least 5 injured, migrants did not want to get off.
Libyan armed forces have pushed their way onto The Nivin, a boat carrying 79 migrants that had been stuck in the Misrata port for two days.
There have been reports of violence and injured people taken to hospital, with others taken by force to Libyan centers, said Mediterranea, an NGO that uses its Mare Jonio ship to monitor the situation and incidents in the sea near Libya. “Italy and the EU must take responsibility for their political choices, the NGO added. “We want to know what has happened to every one of the refugees.” At least 5 migrants were injured in the operation by the Libyan security forces, who shot rubber bullets onboard the Panamanian-flagged Nivin, UNHCR sources said.
The Libyan coast guard forcibly removed more than 70 migrants from a ship that had rescued them after the migrants refused to disembark, saying they had been imprisoned and tortured in Libya before and feared going back.
The migrants have now been placed in Libyan detention centers, which are notorious for human rights abuses including torture and slavery. Several migrants were reportedly injured in the forced removal and have been hospitalized.
The migrants attempted to cross the Mediterranean in a rubber boat more than a week ago, and were picked up by a cargo ship that brought them to Libya, docking in the port city of Misrata.
Amnesty International said last week that the ship’s return to Libya “appears to be a clear breach of international law, given that Libya cannot be considered a safe place to disembark.”
Fourteen of the rescued migrants, including some children, agreed to leave the boat and enter Libyan detention centers. But the rest remained on board, describing concerns for their safety in Libya.
“I would rather die on the cargo ship,” one migrant told a Doctors Without Borders team last week.
The unusual standoff lasted more than a week before the Libyan coast guard boarded the ship, called the Nivin, on Tuesday.
Both France 24 and Reuters —citing the port authority and the regional coast guard, respectively— have confirmed that the ship had been boarded and that tear gas and rubber bullets were used to force migrants off the ship.
Multiple people were injured in the process, both news outlets report.
In a statement, the U.N.’s humanitarian coordinator for Libya, Maria Ribeiro, said the “humanitarian community is saddened by the turn of events.”
“Refugees and migrants on board included Ethiopian, Eritrean, South Sudanese, Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Somali nationals,” she wrote. “Their reluctance to leave the relative safety of the ship that rescued them from peril at sea is an understandable human reaction. … It is regrettable that mediation efforts undertaken did not lead to a peaceful resolution.”
Last week, while the migrants refused to leave the Nivin, teams from Doctors without Borders conducted 60 medical consultations. They mostly found injuries related to burns from fuel spills during their attempted crossing. The group’s head of mission in Libya, Julien Raickman, said those teams also “witnessed the despair aboard.”
“Among the group, there are people, including minors, who have been held captive and tortured for a year or more by traffickers to obtain money,” she wrote.
“It’s an utter shame that once again the only response given to people in search of safety is prolonged arbitrary detention in the country they desperately attempt to leave,” Raickman said.
The United Nations has repeatedly denounced the treatment of migrants in Libyan detention centers.
In 2016, a UN report found that migrants in Libya “are subjected to arbitrary detention, torture, other ill-treatment, unlawful killings, sexual exploitation, and a host of other human rights abuses.”
In 2017, human rights monitors visited detention centers in Tripoli and witnessed “thousands of emaciated and traumatized men, women and children piled on top of each other, locked up in hangars with no access to the most basic necessities,” UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said. Men, women and children said they were beaten by guards, while women said they were raped.
Then a CNN investigation found evidence of open-air slave markets selling African migrants in Libya.
Migrants told NPR’s Ruth Sherlock and Lama al-Arian that the official detention centers function as slave markets, with one Gambian man calling the center where he was held the “prison where they sell people.”
And outside of those detention centers, migrants also face threats from militias, criminal gangs and smuggling networks.
A man named Mohammed, from Niger, said he paid smugglers to take him across North Africa into Europe, but he was imprisoned by a militia, held for ransom and sold to a man who used him as a farm laborer. Sherlock and al-Arian report:
“Sometimes the farmer would give him food, sometimes he wouldn’t, says Mohammed. The way he was treated depended a lot on the farmer’s mood. ‘You know, sometimes, he would [be] happy and sometimes he would be sad,’ Mohammed says. ‘When he was happy, he would share his happiness with me.’
” ‘And when he was down…’ his voice trails off. He later describes being beaten, and given only scraps of food to eat.
“One time, he says, he built up the courage to ask the farmer for payment for his work. ‘I asked how he was OK with not giving me what was rightfully mine,’ he says. The farmer’s answer was to pull out a gun and shoot, narrowly missing him.”
Mohammed eventually escaped. He said his mistake was coming to Libya in the first place.
Al Jazeera spoke to multiple migrants on board the cargo ship Nivin before the forced removal. One said his brother was killed by people smugglers in Libya; another said he saw detainees shot to death at an official detention center, during an escape.
Two migrants said the crew on the cargo ship that saved them, said they would be going to Malta — but then headed to Libya instead.
Humanitarian rescue ships have traditionally taken rescued migrants to Europe — but that’s grown more difficult as more European ports have closed off access to migrant rescue vessels. And the small fleet of lifesaving vessels dwindled this summer, before vanishing completely.
The last privately operating rescue ship, the Aquarius, is not currently operating, after Panama revoked its registration; the Italian government has also demanded the seizure of the vessel, alleging that humanitarian groups engaged in illegal dumping.
In the absence of humanitarian missions, many migrants are rescued by Libyan patrol boats, which by policy take migrants to Libya.
Others are picked up by commercial ships, like the Nivin. And this is not the first time a commercial ship has taken migrants to Libya in what appears to be a violation of international law.
Amnesty International has said that Europe is complicit in the abuse of migrants in Libya, for policies seeking to block migrants from accessing Europe — which mean people reach Libya and find themselves trapped.
Italy, in particular, has provided support to the Libyan authorities in the interest of intercepting more migrants.
Thousands of migrants die attempting to cross the Mediterranean each year. Tens of thousands are currently in detention in Libyan facilities.
«Hounded by the Hungarian government, the billionaire’s charitable foundation has relocated its headquarters from Budapest to Berlin, only to find its opponents are regrouping»
«When Goran Buldioski and his 85 colleagues moved into their new office at Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz a few weeks ago, they were relieved. “In Hungary we could no longer work freely,” says Buldioski, one of two European directors at the Open Society Foundations run by billionaire George Soros»
«The situation here couldn’t be more different»
«And of course, there is also Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister who has declared Soros a criminal and his foundation illegal»
«The billionaire, Orbán says, sought to abolish the nation’s borders and flood the country with Muslim immigrants. The Hungarian media joined in, alleging conspiracies and blaming Soros’ liberal foundation»
«Yet Soros and his story are not without contradictions. The man who brought the British pound to its knees in 1992 possibly also regards politics and society as capital goods»
«But now Soros’ opponents are also gathering in Germany»
«The billionaire’s “charitable” donations are attempts to influence public opinion»
«George Soros goes too far with his ideology of open borders, …. Every country needs borders»
«This is probably the accusation most frequently leveled against Soros: that his foundation is pushing for the abolition of nation-states»
* * * * * * * *
Ai primi di dicembre la Cdu nominerà un presidente in sostituzione dei Frau Merkel. Potrebbe anche essere verosimile che la Bundeskanzlerin rassegni dimissioni anticipate. Poi a maggio si terranno le elezioni per l’europarlamento.
Se le proiezioni elettorali dovessero realizzarsi, le formazioni politiche ad ideologia liberal socialista dovrebbero uscirne ben ridimensionate.
Altrettanto verosimilmente il clima socio – politico in Europa ed in Germania potrebbe mutare radicalmente, togliendo alle fondazioni di Mr Soros l’ubi consistant.
Hounded by the Hungarian government, the billionaire’s charitable foundation has relocated its headquarters from Budapest to Berlin, only to find its opponents are regrouping.
When Goran Buldioski and his 85 colleagues moved into their new office at Berlin’s Potsdamer Platz a few weeks ago, they were relieved. “In Hungary we could no longer work freely,” says Buldioski, one of two European directors at the Open Society Foundations run by billionaire George Soros. “The situation here couldn’t be more different.”
The reason for the move? Founder Soros himself.
The 88-year-old investor and philanthropist is a well-worn bogeyman for both left- and right-wing extremists, for anti-Semites, conspiracy theorists and political strongmen like Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. When a Trump fanatic sent parcel bombs to some of the US president’s opponents, one was addressed to Soros.
And of course, there is also Viktor Orbán, the Hungarian prime minister who has declared Soros a criminal and his foundation illegal. The billionaire, Orbán says, sought to abolish the nation’s borders and flood the country with Muslim immigrants. The Hungarian media joined in, alleging conspiracies and blaming Soros’ liberal foundation, which promotes democracy, human rights and freedom of speech.
For Orbán, Soros had become simply too influential. With $32 billion (€28 billion), his foundation is worth almost one-quarter of Hungary’s GDP. Moreover, Soros’ goals enrage Orbán. While the other super-rich like Bill Gates fight malaria, cancer or hunger with their foundations, Soros wants to transform society – including Hungary’s.
For the love of democracy, and of money
Yet Soros and his story are not without contradictions. The man who brought the British pound to its knees in 1992 possibly also regards politics and society as capital goods. When he sees the EU “in an existential crisis,” or when he urges the creation of Eurobonds to solve the debt crisis, it’s not quite clear whether he’s speaking as a philanthropist or as a stock-market speculator who’s placed a bet.
From their headquarters in the German capital, Buldioski’s team manages the foundation’s $1 billion annual budget (see graphic below). Among its many causes, aid for projects in Hungary is now coordinated from Berlin, and the payments so far – €3.5 million –are due to be increased.
Buldioski doesn’t mind talking about Soros’ money – he’s used to it and he’s grateful for the funding – but he also wants to point out that he doesn’t work for Soros the man, he doesn’t know any of Soros’ fund managers and that the foundation is much more than its founder.
But now Soros’ opponents are also gathering in Germany. The billionaire’s “charitable” donations are attempts to influence public opinion, says Petr Bystron, foreign policy spokesman for the far-right Alternative für Deutschland, or AfD party. He points to a new German media association, Neue Deutsche Medienmacher, as an example.
The NDM, which advocates more diversity in the media and trains journalists who may be at risk of xenophobic attacks, received €88,000 from the Soros foundation last year and has German government backing. The NDM has described the AfD as “a right-wing radical party” with “ethnic ideology.” Bystron accuses the group of slander, and the federal government of sponsoring that slander with taxpayer money.
Konstantina Vassiliou-Enz, managing director of NDM, dismisses Bystron’s views as fantasy; the Soros foundation isn’t working against the AfD but “for the constitution.” While Soros’ funding is “valuable” to the NDM, Vassiliou-Enz insists “the foundation does not interfere in our work.” Still, she has also noted that animosity towards Soros and his foundation has been on the rise in Germany.
The internet teems with right-wing, anti-Semitic tirades against Soros. “Umvolkung in Europe: Does Merkel work for the Jew Soros?” asks one extremist blog. (Umvolking was originally a Nazi term for the assimilation of Germans so they would forget their language and origin.)
Bystron of the AfD distances himself from such anti-Semitic attacks, insisting he would also criticize Soros if he were a German Christian, a Chinese Buddhist or an American Mormon. “George Soros goes too far with his ideology of open borders,” he says. “Every country needs borders.”
Where do you draw the line?
This is probably the accusation most frequently leveled against Soros: that his foundation is pushing for the abolition of nation-states. Buldioski maintains the organization strives for an “open society” with “borders, law and order,” but in which “nobody holds the monopoly on truth.”
Buldioski now wants to discuss this issue with the AfD, saying a discourse with the party is necessary. “But it is also necessary to identify those who infiltrate democracy and seek to transform it into an authoritarian state,” he adds. “That’s exactly what we experienced in Hungary.”
So some of the foundation’s problems have traveled, like stowaways, from Budapest to Berlin. But Buldioski and his colleagues are unfazed. A city map in the office at Potsdamer Platz has a green marker on the new office’s locations, declaring “we are here”. And that’s more than just a handy directive. It may as well be a statement of intent.
L’Unione Europea vara periodicamente il budget settennale. È un piano corposo, quello odierna varrebbe circa 1,135 miliardi di euro, e per essere approvato deve sicuramente passare il vaglio del parlamento ma, soprattutto, essere approvato alla unanimità in sede di Consiglio Europeo.
Il punto centrale è che su questa stesura non solo mancherebbe la unanimità, ma persino una maggioranza.
Il budget dovrebbe entrare in discussione a maggio del prossimo ano, proprio nel mese delle elezioni europee che, stando alle previsioni, dovrebbero stravolgere gli attuali assetti politici.
Il piano che ora circola in bozza, rivisto quasi giorno per giorno, sembrerebbe essere stato scritto da liberal socialisti sul letto di morte.
Fiumi di denaro si riverserebbero per finanziare le migrazioni, tanto per fare un piccolo esempio, per sovvenzionare l’agricoltura francese e quella tedesca, e così via.
Ai paesi del Visegrad ed all’Italia qualche rara briciola, inavvertitamente caduta dalla tavola degli eurocrati.
«That will be the pivotal battle between the two groups of countries»
«Central and eastern European states also feel targeted by the commission’s proposal on other fronts»
«The allocation of EU cohesion funds, aimed at poorer regions, will this time tilt towards the southern counties, such as Italy, Greece, and Spain, which have gone through a deep financial and economic crisis, while central and eastern European economies have seen growth»
«The commission argues this proves the success of cohesion policies: that these largely former communist economies are catching up with the richer part of the EU»
«However, countries that are set to lose the most, such as Hungary and Poland accuse the EU executive of attempting to punish countries that have clashed with the EU executive over political and legal issues, such as the independence of the courts. These two countries have also been the loudest critics of the EU’s migration policy»
«Central and eastern European countries are also worried about a possible new mechanism the EU executive wants to introduce to discipline countries where the judiciary has been put under political pressure»
«The commission wants to be able to “suspend, reduce or restrict access to EU funding” in a proportionate manner to protect EU investments and European taxpayers’ money. But plans for the new procedure, the so-called “conditionality” clause, are still vague»
* * *
Ma la chicca finale è da brivido.
«The MEP tasked with setting the European Parliament’s position on the EU’s planned support for NGOs has proposed a billion-euro program for promoting democratic values and civil society»
«The EU Commission in May in its budget plan proposed to bundle together some existing programs under the new ‘Justice, Rights, and Values Fund’ to support NGOs protecting European values – which have come under attack in several member states»
«We want more, in total nearly €2bn, and we have added a new strand to the proposal, which is about rights and values only»
Mr Soros sommessamente ringrazia e concede anche che gli si baci l’anello.
The EU is gearing up for its most complex and toughest haggling – as diplomats start to discuss the next long-term EU budget that will define funding for citizens and regions.
According to the traditional dynamic of budget negotiations, participants start out with hefty calls for better, more efficient policies, high principles and common goals.
By the end, however, talks gradually descend to 28 countries bickering over money. It is not a pretty sight, but luckily only happens every seven years.
This time there will be only 27 states (with the UK leaving the bloc next March) contributing to and receiving from the budget until the end of the cycle at the end of 2020 – presuming a EU-UK divorce deal is agreed soon.
The European Commission unveiled its budget proposal in early May with the aim of wrapping up talks before the European elections in May 2019 – an unrealistic scenario.
The EU executive faced two challenges: plug the hole struck by the departure of the UK, which contributed around €14bn annually to the budget, and find money for new challenges, such as migration and security, while maintaining key traditional EU policies on agriculture and economic convergence.
Despite early warnings from some net contributor countries, such as the Netherlands and Austria, to draw up ‘a smaller EU budget for a smaller EU’, the commission increased the overall budget figures slightly.
The biggest net contributor, Germany, supported the commission’s approach, which irked fiscally disciplined allies of Berlin.
The EU executive proposed a €1,135bn budget for 2021-27 in an effort to boost funding for defence, migration, and research in the post-Brexit EU. This means a €192bn increase compared to the previous multi-annual financial framework (MFF).
In 2018 prices, it accounts for 1.114 percent of the EU-27’s gross national income (GNI), compared to the one percent under the current budget with the UK still a member of the club.
While both cohesion and agriculture policies face cuts, the commission proposed to boost funding for the Erasmus student exchange program, digitalisation, research and development, and external border security.
The Netherlands, Austria, Sweden and Denmark, all net contributors, argue that this is too much, while countries in eastern Europe which directly benefit from cohesion funds do not want to see further cuts in these two key policies of the EU – which account for about 70 percent of the total budget.
That will be the pivotal battle between the two groups of countries.
Central and eastern European states also feel targeted by the commission’s proposal on other fronts.
The allocation of EU cohesion funds, aimed at poorer regions, will this time tilt towards the southern counties, such as Italy, Greece, and Spain, which have gone through a deep financial and economic crisis, while central and eastern European economies have seen growth.
The commission argues this proves the success of cohesion policies: that these largely former communist economies are catching up with the richer part of the EU.
However, countries that are set to lose the most, such as Hungary and Poland accuse the EU executive of attempting to punish countries that have clashed with the EU executive over political and legal issues, such as the independence of the courts. These two countries have also been the loudest critics of the EU’s migration policy.
The EU commission says that GDP growth is still the main indicator when it comes to calculating allocations.
But some central and eastern European member states have criticised the introduction of new criteria to determine the sum for member states, for example introducing measures on youth unemployment, climate change and the reception and integration of migrants.
Central and eastern European countries are also worried about a possible new mechanism the EU executive wants to introduce to discipline countries where the judiciary has been put under political pressure.
The commission wants to be able to “suspend, reduce or restrict access to EU funding” in a proportionate manner to protect EU investments and European taxpayers’ money. But plans for the new procedure, the so-called “conditionality” clause, are still vague.
Another front where member states are expected to clash is the issue of rebates. The UK’s controversial rebate, the partial refund for their payments into the EU budget first negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s, will disappear with Brexit.
In a complex mechanism, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden, who are also net contributors, pay only a share of the UK’s rebate.
The commission is arguing that with the UK rebate gone, all rebates should be gone. Yet the net contributor countries want to retain their own rebates, arguing that they need a correction mechanism so that their contribution does not inflate.
The ever-present debate between those who want the EU to have the ability to tax independently, and those who want to keep the right to tax solely in member states competencies, is emerging again this time too.
The commission is proposing that customs duties, contributions based on value-added tax, and revenues from the emission trading scheme (ETS) to be collected at EU level, not a national level, plus revenue from the European Central Bank issuing money.
Over the summer, the commission outlined the details of its planned budget to EU diplomats – but as the European elections of May 2019 are approaching fast and the campaign intensifying, there is little chance for any significant debate until after the poll.
The new budget will then most probably be voted on by a new European Parliament – one that is expected to see a surge in populists, who have very different ideas about EU priorities.
The MEP tasked with setting the European Parliament’s position on the EU’s planned support for NGOs has proposed a billion-euro program for promoting democratic values and civil society.
The effort is part of the EU’s next long-term budget, set to start from 2021, which is under discussion among member states and the parliament.
The EU Commission in May in its budget plan proposed to bundle together some existing programs under the new ‘Justice, Rights, and Values Fund’ to support NGOs protecting European values – which have come under attack in several member states.
Swedish Green MEP Bodil Valero plans to almost double the funding for the program in her report due to be presented Wednesday (10 October) afternoon at the meeting of the EP’s civil liberties committee.
“When it comes to the support for human rights organisations outside and watchdogs and monitoring and so on, we give a lot of money [to other countries] but we have nothing for Europe. And we are in a situation where we really need a lot of money also for the human rights organisations in Europe,” she said.
The EU has launched probes to check if both Poland and Hungary have risked breaching its values and rules, and concerns have been raised against Romania and Malta. Three journalists were killed in the last year who have investigated corruption related to EU funds in Malta, Slovakia, and Bulgaria.
Valero said she wanted to add the extra funding because the commission did not propose any additional money in the budget plan, while civil organisations are having to do more as EU values are challenged across the bloc.
“We want more, in total nearly €2bn, and we have added a new strand to the proposal, which is about rights and values only,” she told EUobserver.
Valero’s draft report said “given the changed political landscape in the union and raising challenges to European values that EU is currently facing,” she deems the commission’s proposal of €642 million for seven years is “insufficient and cannot respond to the needs of EU citizens to strengthen and protect EU values, as part of pluralist, democratic, open and inclusive society”.
Valero also wants to make sure that at least 40 percent of that funding would be earmarked for NGOs.
She hopes to have a vote in the civil liberties committee in December and start negotiations with the member states in January.
Valero hopes to conclude before the May European elections, that would tie the hands of the next parliament, which she predicts will be more rightwing.
Populist eurosceptic parties are on the rise in the bloc ahead of the European elections next May.
The new “union values” program “should focus on protecting and promoting democracy and the rule of law,” ensuring the independence of the judiciary, providing support for independent human rights defenders and civil society organisations, whistleblower defence and “support initiatives that promote transparency, accountability, integrity and absence of corruption”.
“Anything that promotes the values of Article 2 in the treaty should be eligible,” she said referring to the EU’s fundamental values of freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law, respect for human rights, pluralism, tolerance.
An NGO law curbing the rights of civil groups by Hungary’s government has been referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) by the commission for breaking EU rules. Polish NGOs also fear drying up of resources.
Valero said no country is immune from populist instincts to curb fundamental rights.
“In some countries where the NGOs are living in a very difficult situation, it [the proposal] will change their lives very much.
“I think it is the main reason why we need to have this, we would need it even before 2021, because we see so many countries are restricting the freedoms, and media freedom, not only Hungary and Poland,” she said pointing to Spain’s gag law curbing freedom of expression, and recent efforts in Denmark to restructure the media by cutting significantly funding for the public broadcaster.
She said Europe was in a “bad cycle” when member states see each other getting away with breaking EU values, emboldening others to follow suit.
Her report said: “the deterioration of those rights and values in any member state can have detrimental effects on the union as a whole”.
Valero in her report is also proposing to secure core funding for NGOs for daily expenses, and have money available not only for projects. She also wants to cut red tape to alleviate the burden on the smaller civil organisations.
The Green MEP is confident she can secure the support of the other political groups in the parliament, as she said she aligned her proposal with a previous European parliament report in April calling for a “values instrument” in the new budget for civil society in Europe.
MEP Michal Boni from the Polish opposition Civil Platform, who was in charge of that file, will oversee gathering support for Valero’s proposal among the his peers in the European People’s Party, which counts Hungary’s ruling party among its members.