Quando lo aveva detto Mrs Le Pen era una razzista, fascista, nazionalista, populista, xenofoba, e persino omofoba e codina.
Ora che lo dice il Presidente Emmanuel Macron è cosa santa, buona, giusta, decisamente geniale.Iniziamo con una splendida promessa:
«He said the state would fully cover glasses, dentures and hearing aides from 2022»
Tradotto in parole povere ed umili. Mr Macron farà vedere i ciechi, sgranocchiare gli edentuli ed udire i sordi. Per i paralitici ed i populisti si sta organizzando.
Ma non prima del 2022.
Mr Macron non cammina sulle acque solo perché sa nuotare.
«France should stop plowing large amounts of cash into a welfare system that fails to rescue the poor from poverty»
*
«Look where we are on welfare. We plow a chunk of cash into subsistence benefits, and people are still poor. There’s no way out. People who are born poor stay poor»
*
«I’ll spell out where we’re at, that we’re piling too much dough into a welfare system that’s focused on corrective treatment»
*
«he advocated full reimbursements for healthcare that focuses on preventing illness»
*
«Macron’s opponents and left-wing voters who paint the 40-year-old as an economic liberal and a Thatcherite-in-disguise pounced»
*
«Macron is a “president of the rich” who talks down to the poor»
France should stop plowing large amounts of cash into a welfare system that fails to rescue the poor from poverty, President Emmanuel Macron said in a video clip released by his office that critics said showed he was uncaring.
The clip showed Macron discussing his ideas for revamping the welfare state with his communications team hours before a televised speech he was due to give on social benefit reform.
“Look where we are on welfare. We plow a chunk of cash into subsistence benefits, and people are still poor. There’s no way out. People who are born poor stay poor,” Macron said in the clip, which was released by the Elysee Palace on social media.
“I’ll spell out where we’re at, that we’re piling too much dough into a welfare system that’s focused on corrective treatment,” he said, littering his language with slang words that many French would consider unbefitting of a president.
In the clip, he advocated full reimbursements for healthcare that focuses on preventing illness, a move he said would save costs further down the line.
“That’s why we’re doing it (the reforms). It’s about the smaller things, basics like rudimentary dental care, eye glasses – those things carry a cost socially. And it’s politically contemptible.”
BLUNT CRITIQUE
Macron was elected a year ago with a mandate to open up the economy and create a more effective welfare system, but there is simmering discontent on the left of his centrist party where his policies are seen as favoring the wealthy.
His blunt assessment of the welfare system’s failings and the need for politically brave reform came on the day that the National Assembly was due to put a final stamp of approval on the biggest reform of the state-run railways in decades.
Macron’s opponents and left-wing voters who paint the 40-year-old as an economic liberal and a Thatcherite-in-disguise pounced. It was, they said, a further reminder that Macron is a “president of the rich” who talks down to the poor.
Macron’s office shrugged off such criticism.
“The issue is not to spend more but to better take care of people, because what is at stake is not helping people survive despite their poverty, but hauling them out of their poverty,” an Elysee official told Reuters, commenting on the video.
It was, however, as much the tone as the message that touched off a firestrom on social media.
“‘Make people responsible for getting themselves out of poverty’. The message there is they’re sitting comfortably. Disgusting,” said one Twitter user.
Others backed Macron for talking frankly about a welfare system that eats up billions of taxpayers’ euros annually.
Macron later set out his critique of the benefits system in a speech in the southern city of Montpellier. He said the state would fully cover glasses, dentures and hearing aides from 2022.
«The “hr Tagesgeschehen” Twitter account is run by German satirical magazine Titanic, as shown by one of their follow-up tweets calling on those who fell for the prank to subscribe to the magazine and a change in the account’s name»
*
«We now have to prepare ourselves to compete with a new Bavarian CDU in the next general election»
* * *
Herr Seehofer pone fine all’alleanza con la Cdu.
* * *
«As news of the tweet circulated, Reuters news agency, the daily Bild newspaper, Germany’s highest-circulation paper, Focus news magazine and TV news channel n24 quickly reported that the alliance was officially over, incorrectly citing Hessischer Runkfunk »
«Bavaria’s Christian Social Union (CSU) party moved swiftly on Friday to deny it planned to dissolve its decades-old alliance with Chancellor Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, after a report to that effect appeared on a hoax Twitter account.
Hans Michelbach, deputy head of the CSU faction in the federal parliament, said the report was “rubbish”, stressing the CSU wanted to maintain its alliance with the CDU and preserve the coalition.
Earlier, a Twitter account claiming to be that of the Hessischer Rundfunk state broadcaster had said CSU Interior Minster Horst Seehofer had announced the end of the alliance in an internal message.
Minutes later, the broadcaster confirmed the account was fake.»
* * * * * *
«La satira tedesca colpisce ancora. E stavolta riesce persino a spaventare i mercati e a provocare un lieve cedimento dell’euro. Poco prima di mezzogiorno un tweet di Moritz Hürtgen annuncia la rottura ufficiale tra il partito di Angela Merkel e la “sorella” bavarese Csu, la formazione di Horst Seehofer che è sul piedi di guerra da giorni contro la cancelliera per il piano sui profughi.
Hürtgen è un giornalista della più famosa rivista satirica tedesca, Titanic, ma siccome cita spesso notizie vere e cita una presunta mail del governatore Cdu dell’Assia, Volker Bouffier, inizialmente ci cascano tutti. Non solo i tabloid Bild e il settimanale Focus, persino la autorevole Reuters, che in un secolo e mezzo di storia si è fatta un nome per il controllo maniacale delle fonti, rilancia la notizia clamorosa.
Immediata la reazione del Dax di Francoforte, che perde mezzo punto, mentre l’euro si indebolisce rispetto al dollaro.»
* * *
Lo scherzo è stato feroce, ma anche molto bello.
Il tragico è che quando sono comparse queste videate, tutti avevano creduto che fossero la pura verità.
C’è caduta anche un’agenzia come Reuters, tanto la notizia sarebbe verosimile.
Reduce dai successi diplomatici ottenuti al G7 canadese, Mr Macron ha preso netta posizione sui migranti. Sembrerebbe che non si sia consultato preventivamente con il suo amico intimo Mr Trump.
– L’Italia, ed il suo Governo populista, è ‘cinica ed irresponsabile‘, ‘disgustosa‘, nell’aver chiuso i suoi porti ai migranti.
– La Francia, al contrario, ” not to allow the ship to dock …. No French port, not Corsica, not Nice, not Marseille “
*
Come è umano Mr Macron! Quale fiore di rara coerenza!
Lui sì che ha a cuore la sorte dei migranti!
Dovunque, ma non in Francia.
E l’Unione Europea che fa? Latita, sonnecchia.
*
«French president Emmanuel Macron blasted Italy as “cynical and irresponsible” for refusing to offer safe harbour to the stranded migrant ship Aquarius, while the French government defended its own decision not to allow the ship to dock»
*
«a spokesman for Macron’s Republic on the Move party said the Italian government’s policy was “sickening.”»
*
«The position, the line of the Italian government is sickening. It’s unacceptable to play politics with human lives which is what is happening at the moment,»
*
«No French port, not Corsica, not Nice, not Marseille»
* * * * * * *
Immancabili le dimostrazioni di piazza di gruppuscoli che alle recenti elezioni non sono riusciti a conquistarsi nemmeno un deputato. Data la loro brillante performance elettorale amano denominarsi ‘società civile’, quando essa è invece costituita dal Corpo Elettorale: loro son solo persone che lucrano e vivono sulla immigrazione clandestina.
Italy prepared to send hundreds of migrants to Spain in a small naval convoy on Tuesday after shutting its own ports to them, as France accused the new Italian government of cynicism and irresponsibility.
The French rebuke highlights the tensions within the European Union over how to tackle a years-old migration crisis, with Italy’s anti-establishment coalition promising to tear up much-discredited asylum rules.
Some 629 migrants, including 11 children and seven pregnant women, have been afloat in the central Mediterranean aboard the Aquarius rescue ship since Sunday, when both Italy and Malta refused to let them dock.
Spain unexpectedly offered on Monday to take in the group of mainly sub-Saharan Africans, who were picked up off the Libyan coast over the weekend. But the Aquarius is heavily overcrowded, making the four-day trip to Spain particularly perilous.
To overcome the problem, two Italian boats moved alongside to the Aquarius on Tuesday to share out the migrants before heading west through what are predicted to be stormy seas.
French president Emmanuel Macron blasted Italy as “cynical and irresponsible” for refusing to offer safe harbour to the stranded migrant ship Aquarius, while the French government defended its own decision not to allow the ship to dock.
*
French President Emmanuel Macron on Tuesday accused Italy of “cynicism and irresponsibility” over its refusal to take in hundreds of migrants stranded on a rescue ship in the Mediterranean, a government spokesman said.
Macron told a cabinet meeting that under maritime law, “in cases of distress, those with the closest coastline have a responsibility to respond,” spokesman Benjamin Griveaux said.
Earlier on Tuesday the French government defended its decision not to offer safe harbour to the stranded migrant ship Aquarius after local leaders on Corsica proposed opening one of their ports to the vessel.
Corsican leaders Gilles Simeoni and Jean-Guy Talamoni, the top politicians on the French Mediterranean island, tweeted their offer on Tuesday morning as uncertainty grew over the fate of the 629 people on board the ship.
But the central government in Paris criticised the gesture by the Corsican nationalists.
“[Simeoni] is taking a position without having any responsibility which is easy,” junior Europe and foreign affairs minister Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne told Sud Radio.
“What does international law say? They need to go to the port that is safest and closest. And we can see that Corsica is not the closest or the safest. Given the boat’s location, it is between Italy and Malta,” he added.
Both Italy and fellow EU member Malta have refused to accept the migrants who are now heading for the Spanish port of Valencia after the new Socialist government in Madrid agreed to take them in.
Italy’s hardline immigration policy under its new populist government could have knock-on effects in neighbouring France, where President Emmanuel Macron has also tightened immigration laws to crack down on illegal arrivals.
Italian Interior Minister Matteo Salvini — who is also deputy prime minister — has promised to deport hundreds of thousands of economic migrants, warning that Italy would not be “Europe’s refugee camp”.
The country has been the main point of entry in Europe for migrants and refugees arriving from Africa in recent years, with 700,000 crossing the Mediterranean since 2013, often from war-wracked Libya.
Italy policy ‘sickening’
Any increase in arrivals in France would ring alarm bells for Macron who has worked hard to close down migration routes from Africa amid strong anti-immigration sentiment in France.
But a spokesman for Macron’s Republic on the Move party said the Italian government’s policy was “sickening.”
“The position, the line of the Italian government is sickening. It’s unacceptable to play politics with human lives which is what is happening at the moment,” Gabriel Attal told the Public Senat channel.
“I’m a spokesman for the party, not the government, but I can’t imagine that France will not play a role in finding a humanitarian solution for this boat,” he said.
Far-right leader Marine Le Pen called for the boats to “return where they came from” and said charities rescuing migrants in the Mediterranean were “the accomplices of the people-trafficking mafia.”
Eric Ciotti, a prominent hard-right MP from the opposition Republicans party, also called on the government to take a tough line on the Aquarius.
“No French port, not Corsica, not Nice, not Marseille,” he told CNews.
“Of course we should save lives, naturally it’s a priority and Europe must act. But the obvious solution is returning to the Tunisian coast or to the Libyan coast,” he said.
French charity defiant
The head of the French charity which charters the Aquarius migrant rescue ship said Tuesday that it would continue its operations despite the international standoff over the 629 people currently onboard.
The defiant comments from Sophie Beau, head of the charity SOS Mediterranee, suggest the row over the stranded ship could repeat itself — not least as migrant attempts to cross the Mediterranean increase in the warm summer months.
Beau told AFP a “one-off solution” had been found for the Aquarius after Spain offered to take in its passengers following refusals from the nearest countries, Italy and Malta.
But the charity’s missions will continue “as long as there are people drowning in the Mediterranean, as long as we have the resources, and as long as we are able to act and we are not kicked out of the area,” she said.
“The rescues will continue and it is crucial that European countries talk amongst themselves to find acceptable solutions” to bring to shore migrants stranded in the Mediterranean, she said.
Beau said her charity, based in the southern French port city of Marseille, was acting under international law in giving “assistance to people in distress”.
L’ondata dei populisti – taluni li chiamano trumpisti – prosegue imperterrita in tutto il mondo.
Adesso è il turno della provincia dell’Ontario, la più popolosa ed economicamente produttiva del Canada.
Ed il risultato pone una serie ipoteca sulle elezioni politiche che si terranno l’anno prossimo.
«Ford will now lead Ontario, a province that is home to nearly a third of Canada’s 36 million residents as well as much of the country’s financial and manufacturing sectors.»
*
«In some ways, Ford’s win echoes the rise of populism in countries such as Poland, Hungary and Italy, …. He’s very much a populist»
*
«he saw Ford’s victory as a rejection of the governing Liberals, who had steered the province to the left»
*
«The Liberals, led by premier Kathleen Wynne, were reduced to seven seats – one seat shy of the eight needed for official party status»
*
«voter frustration about growing inequality, the rising cost of living and economic uncertainty would take a toll on her party»
*
«rightwing populist politics against promises to increase government spending and raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy»
* * * * * * * *
Brutto colpo questo per Mr Justin Trudeau, che di questi giorni partecipa al G7, guidando la fronda con Mr Macron contro Mr Trump.
Se sicuramente è ancora il premier del Canada, altrettanto sicuramente da questo momento è un lame duck, un’anatra zoppa.
Il 21 ottobre 2019 i canadesi torneranno alle urne per eleggere il loro parlamento federale: è del tutto verosimile che i liberal scompaiano anche alle elezioni politiche, così un altro paese si sarà dato un governo ‘populista‘.
Alla fine, saranno i residui governi liberal e socialisti ad essere le anomalie del sistema. Dovranno darsene una ragione.
The brother of troubled late former Toronto mayor Rob Ford to become leader of Canada’s most populous province.
*
Doug Ford – the brother of controversial former Toronto mayor Rob Ford – is the new leader of Canada’s most populous province, winning a majority government in a local show of strength for the divisive wedge politics that have rattled much of the world.
Ontario’s Conservatives, led by Ford, won 76 of the 124 seats in the province, with 99% of the polls reporting. Buoyed by promises that included slashing income taxes, reducing the price of gasoline, boosting spending on healthcare and transit and repealing carbon pricing, the Conservatives won 41% of the vote, bringing an end to 15 years of Liberal rule in the province.
“This victory belongs to the people,” Ford told supporters on Thursday. “Together we made history. We have taken back Ontario, we have delivered a government that is for the people.”
Ford – a businessman who rails against the elite and regularly peppers his speeches and interviews with boasts and falsehoods – is the brother of Rob Ford, the former Toronto mayor who made headlines around the world after he admitted to smoking crack cocaine while in office.
In his victory speech, Ford thanked his brother. “I know my brother Rob is looking down from heaven. I’m just getting chills talking about him right now,” he said. “I know Rob is celebrating with us tonight. We owe so much to Rob’s legacy.”
He has long been a controversial figure in Canada; during his one term as a Toronto city councillor he refused to attend the city’s Pride parade – describing it as “middle-aged men, with pot bellies, running down the street buck naked” – and lashed out at a home for developmentally disabled youth, labelling it a “nightmare” that had “ruined the community”.
Ford also gained a reputation as his brother’s most aggressive defender, lashing out at Toronto police and journalists as Rob Ford fended off claims he smoked crack.
Doug Ford himself was plagued by drug-related allegations; in 2013, the Globe and Mail reported he had sold hashish for several years in the 1980s. Ford has denied the claims.
Ford will now lead Ontario, a province that is home to nearly a third of Canada’s 36 million residents as well as much of the country’s financial and manufacturing sectors.
In some ways, Ford’s win echoes the rise of populism in countries such as Poland, Hungary and Italy, said Ian Lee, a professor at Carleton University. “He’s very much a populist,” he said.
But he pointed to different underlying reasons. “I don’t believe that this is part of the bandwagon or the trend that we’re seeing in the US, in Poland, in Hungary, in other countries in Europe.” Instead he saw Ford’s victory as a rejection of the governing Liberals, who had steered the province to the left.
The Liberals, led by premier Kathleen Wynne, were reduced to seven seats – one seat shy of the eight needed for official party status. Pollsters had long predicted that voter frustration about growing inequality, the rising cost of living and economic uncertainty would take a toll on her party.
As the results came in, Wynne, Ontario’s first female premier as well as its first openly gay premier, announced she would step down as leader. “There is another generation, and I am passing the torch to that generation,” she said.
Some of the deep clamour for change emerged simply from the fact that the Liberals had governed for 15 years – a lengthy stretch for any political party, said Cristine de Clercy, a political science professor at Western University in southern Ontario.
But the dizzying pace of initiatives rolled out by Wynne’s government might have also played a role, said de Clercy, citing a rise in the minimum wage and reforms in workplace legislation and education. “She asked Ontarians to embrace many initiatives very quickly and I think certainly in some sectors people pushed back.”
Just days before the vote, Ford family drama roared into the headlines, as the widow and children of Rob Ford filed a C$16.5m ($12.3m) lawsuit in a Toronto court. Rob Ford, who served as Toronto’s mayor from 2010 to 2014, died in March 2016 after a battle with cancer.
The lawsuit accused Doug Ford of being a “negligent” business manager whose decisions had steadily chipped away at the value of Deco Labels, the company the Ford brothers had inherited from their father.
Led by Andrea Horwath, the NDP earned 34% of the vote. Voter distribution – combined with Ontario’s first-past-the-post electoral system – translated the vote into 39 seats for the party. The party will now form the official opposition.
“It’s going to be a very different legislature that convenes,” said de Clercy. “It’s worth remembering Mr Ford is a total rookie. He has not participated in Ontario politics, he doesn’t know the ways and means of the legislature. There is a pretty steep learning curve for him, as there would be for any politician in his shoes.”
Se gli occidentali hanno grande difficoltà a comprendere la mentalità cinese, figuriamoci poi i tedeschi che, si potrebbe dire, sembrerebbero non brillare per acume politico e diplomatico.
Eppure i fatti recenti avrebbero ben dovuto insegnare qualcosa.
«Violenta lite tra clienti da Printemps, nel corner del marchio di lusso Balenciaga, dove erano in coda decine di clienti, in attesa di acquistare l’ultimo paio di sneakers del brand. Due donne cinesi hanno raccontato di essersi viste superare nella coda da altre persone e, quando il figlio di una delle due è intervenuto per far valere le ragioni della donna, è stato aggredito e bloccato dal personale di sicurezza dei grandi magazzini. ….
In molti hanno registrato video, presto diffusi su Weibo, il Twitter cinese, scatenando un incidente diplomatico.
Tutti i giri turistici hanno eliminato per i cinesi le visite ai Printemps ed ai negozi che vendono il marchio Balenciaga.
In Cina i negozi che trattavano quel Brand non ne vendono più nemmeno un paio di scarpe a regalarlo e li stanno rendendo alla Maison.»
*
Visto che bello scherzetto?
Nelle valutazioni del commercio estero sicuramente devono essere tenuti in considerazione i fondamentali economici e finanziari, sicuramente giocano i rapporti dei cambi, altrettanto sicuramente giocano leggi, normative e dazi, ma esiste anche un pubblico sentire.
Se l’Occidente è pronto a sanzionare, ed anche severamente, un qualcuno anche solo sospetto di sexual harassment, i cinesi diventano intolleranti a quanti vogliano mettere loro i piedi in testa. Non serve nemmeno che intervenga il Governo. Ed hanno anche una memoria elefantiaca.
«On paper there is nothing to stop German companies buying Chinese firms»
*
«But the reality is very different»
*
«Yet they don’t complain about the discrimination because they’re making big money in China»
*
«German Chancellor Angela Merkel is on her 11th official visit to China, with corporate bosses in tow. They include happy execs from German automakers BMW, Daimler and VW whose shares gained €6 billion ($7 billion) on Tuesday when China announced it will cut tariffs for all imported cars to 15 percent from 25 percent.»
*
«In fact Germany’s top 30 DAX-listed companies generate an average of 15 percent of their revenues in China and have almost 700 subsidiaries there, according to Handelsblatt calculations. That’s almost €200 billion — more than ever before»
*
«Companies with foreign investors aren’t treated like local companies in China»
*
«Given the dependence of German firms on the vast Chinese market, it’s not surprising that they refrain from criticism of the chronic discrimination of foreign companies in the country»
*
«That’s despite mounting concern here that China is buying German companies because it wants to get technological know-how»
*
«Last year Chinese investors bought €12 billion worth of German industrial companies with deals including the €6 billion takeover of energy services group Ista by Cheung Kong Holding»
*
«non-German companies last year bought 870 German firms worth some €100 billion, almost twice as much as the year before»
* * * * * * * *
Cerchiamo di sintetizzare in poche parole, anche a costo di essere molto riduttivi.
– I cinesi stanno comprando cash un gran numero di aziende occidentali, tedesche in particolare, per acquisirne il know-how. Poi, una volta che le hanno svuotate, le abbandonano al loro destino.
– Quanto sopra detto sarebbe tollerabile, ed anche benvenuto da molti altri punti di vista, le imprese occidentali e tedesche facessero lo stesso in Cina. Cosa che invece i cinesi proprio non permettono: da questo orecchio non ci sentono per nulla.
– Se sicuramente una ditta tedesca può aprire uno o più stabilimenti in Cina, altrettanto sicuramente non potrebbe riportarseli a casa se i cinesi la scacciassero. Il know-how è trasportabile, uno stabilimento no.
– cosa mai hanno da lamentarsi che “Companies with foreign investors aren’t treated like local companies in China”? Se accorgono adesso e vorrebbero che gli altri togliessero loro le castagne dal fuoco?
On paper there is nothing to stop German companies buying Chinese firms. But the reality is very different. Yet they don’t complain about the discrimination because they’re making big money in China.
*
Champagne corks are sure to be popping in Beijing today, at least on first glance. German Chancellor Angela Merkel is on her 11th official visit to China, with corporate bosses in tow. They include happy execs from German automakers BMW, Daimler and VW whose shares gained €6 billion ($7 billion) on Tuesday when China announced it will cut tariffs for all imported cars to 15 percent from 25 percent.
The olive branch intended for America is a late Christmas present for German industry. VW alone will save some €600 million this year on Porsches assembled in Germany and exported to China, according to an auto analyst.
In fact Germany’s top 30 DAX-listed companies generate an average of 15 percent of their revenues in China and have almost 700 subsidiaries there, according to Handelsblatt calculations. That’s almost €200 billion — more than ever before.
——
“Companies with foreign investors aren’t treated like local companies in China.”
——
Given the dependence of German firms on the vast Chinese market, it’s not surprising that they refrain from criticism of the chronic discrimination of foreign companies in the country.
One of few outspoken critics is Kurt Bock, who stepped down as head of chemicals giant BASF this month. He said it was time foreign chemical companies active in China were treated equally. BASF employs some 7,000 people in China who generated 11 percent of group revenues last year, yet the chemical maker is largely shut out of acquiring Chinese firms.
In China’s auto and chemicals industries, foreign companies can only purchase stakes through joint ventures. Rare exceptions include the 2015 acquisition by Germany’s Schuler, the world’s biggest manufacturer of presses, of Chinese engineering company Yadon, and the 2013 acquisition of Chinese machine tool company Jiangsu Jinfangyuan by Germany’s Trumpf.
By contrast, non-German companies last year bought 870 German firms worth some €100 billion, almost twice as much as the year before. The German economy ministry investigated 50 of these bids and in a third of those cases, the buyer was Chinese. In the 14 years since the German government launched the system of reviewing investments, it hasn’t blocked a single one.
That’s despite mounting concern here that China is buying German companies because it wants to get technological know-how. When Chinese group Midea bought Bavarian robot maker Kuka in 2016, the German government promised to scrutinize takeovers more closely.
But China is on a buying spree. Last year Chinese investors bought €12 billion worth of German industrial companies with deals including the €6 billion takeover of energy services group Ista by Cheung Kong Holding.
It’s part of the country’s “Made in China 2025” drive to transform the economy from a low-cost mass producer to a leading high-tech player in internet technology, medical engineering, aerospace, railways and renewable energy.
A study by the Bertelsmann foundation reveals that almost two-thirds of Chinese corporate stake purchases of 10 percent and higher between 2014 and 2017 were in key sectors of “Made in China 2025” identified by the Chinese government.
Il The New York Times è uno dei templi liberal democratici americani, ancora in gramaglie per la débâcle di Mrs Hillary Clinton.
Come tutti i liberal non sa rassegnarsi al fatto che gli Elettori non li votano più e che quelli che etichettano spregevolmente come “populisti” stiano invece conquistandosi il favore delle urne e, quindi, i governi delle nazioni.
Ecco cosa scrive l’articolista del NYT circa il “little-known law professor” Conte.
«Mr. Di Maio had proposed Mr. Conte as a potential minister for “the Civil Service, de-bureaucratisation and meritocracy” during the campaign and has known him for five years.»
*
«That agenda, which calls for lifting of sanctions against Russia, the revisiting of the bloc’s budget rules and crackdowns on immigration, has already sent jitters through European markets and raised concerns that the erosion of the European Union may come from within its western European core. »
*
«She knows Mr. Conte through their work together at the Villa Nazareth, a college in Rome associated with Duquesne University that has deep ties to the Vatican, including past and present power brokers like Cardinal Achille Silvestrini and Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli. »
*
«She said he spoke excellent English, which is reflected in his résumé, with numerous publications, and international work experience. »
*
«He lists research at famous universities around the world, including Yale, the Sorbonne in France and New York University, where he said he “perfected and updated his studies” while staying at the college for at least a month every summer between 2008 and 2012. »
*
«Asked about Mr. Conte’s experience at N.Y.U., Michelle Tsai, a spokeswoman, said Monday, “A person by this name does not show up in any of our records as either a student or faculty member,” adding that it was possible he attended one or two-day programs for which the school does not keep records. »
*
«Amid the dozens of courses Mr. Conte listed teaching on his résumé, he included a summer class at the University of Malta called “European Contract and Banking Law.” »
* * * * * * *
Se il The New York Times avversa il prof. Giuseppe Conte, questo dovrebbe essere il miglior segno che questi sia quanto di meglio possa esprimere al momento l’Italia.
Ci rendiamo perfettamente conto che il NYT avrebbe di gran lunga preferito una altro governo del partito democratico, è aspirazione del tutto comprensibile, ma solo questo partito ha la colpa se gli elettori lo hanno relegato al 17%: in pratica, lo hanno fatto scomparire dalla scena politica nazionale.
Due soli rapidi commenti.
In primo luogo, SE il card Achille Silvestrini è nato il 26 ottobre 1923: ha quindi 95 anni. Il 25 novembre 2000 aveva rassegnato le proprie dimissioni da tute le cariche detenute. SE Claudio Maria Celli è stato un grande diplomatico vaticano: nunzio apostolico in Honduras, Filippine ed Argentina. Se è vero che dal 1990 diventa sottosegretario alla Segreteria di Stato vaticana, sarebbe altrettanto vero che a Roma lo si vedeva davvero molto poco.
Per diventare amici serbe anche il tempo necessario.
Infine, conoscere un cardinale non è reato. Poi, in Italia ce ne sono così tanti che anche i monelli di Trastevere ne conoscono uno. Ci si rende conto che per il NYT conoscere un cardinale equivale a ciò che fu la frequentazione della ambasciate straniere sotto il governo di Stalin, ma è cosa immonda solo per i liberal, che stanno anche estinguendosi, sia pure lentamente.
In secondo luogo, nel curriculum di Mr Conte compaiono i nomi di alcune Università dove è stato, ma, come lo stesso NYT ammette, mica tutte le posizioni sono registrate. Mr Conte mica che abbia scritto che aveva insegnato alla New York University oppure di averne conseguito un qualche titolo.
* * * * * * *
Dal nostro personale punto di vista, si troverebbe del tutto logico che il prof. Conte, qualora diventi primo ministro, porti avanti i programmi politici ed economici di Lega e M5S. Si rassegni anche il Presidente Mattarella.
Che poi questi a molti non piacciano, in Italia e nel mondo, sarà loro stimolo salutare nel cercare nuovamente il consenso elettorale che hanno perso.
ROME — In a significant step toward forming an anti-establishment government in the European Union’s fourth largest economy, the leaders of Italy’s populist parties asked the country’s president on Monday to accept a little-known law professor as their consensus candidate for prime minister.
“The name we gave to the President of the Republic is the name of Giuseppe Conte,” Luigi Di Maio, the leader of the anti-establishment Five Star Movement, told reporters after meeting with the president, who has the power to reject the nomination.
Mr. Di Maio called Mr. Conte “a professional of the highest level,” intimately aware with the nation’s problems as a child of the peripheral south. Mr. Conte, he said, “is a self-made man and he’s a tough guy. ”
He added, “You all will see.”
A dapper 54-year-old civil law professor with a taste for cuff links and white pocket kerchiefs, Mr. Conte has a long résumé working for Roman law firms and associating with top-ranking Vatican cardinals.
But with no political base or government experience, Mr. Conte’s main qualification may well be his willingness to carry out a government agenda agreed upon by the populist party leaders.
That agenda, which calls for lifting of sanctions against Russia, the revisiting of the bloc’s budget rules and crackdowns on immigration, has already sent jitters through European markets and raised concerns that the erosion of the European Union may come from within its western European core.
The nomination of Mr. Conte did not exactly assuage those concerns.
“It’s the first time in the history of the Republic that the candidate for prime minister has been downgraded to the role of spokesman,” Andrea Marcucci, a senator in the soon to be opposition Democratic Party, said in a statement.
If the president, Sergio Mattarella, gives the green light, Mr. Conte will assemble a team of ministers, who are expected to be preordained by Mr. Di Maio and Matteo Salvini, the leader of the anti-immigrant League party, and Mr. Di Maio’s new coalition partner. Both have designs on critical ministries.
Reports in the Italian press suggested that Mr. Mattarella still had significant reservations about the direction of the new government. Late Monday evening he convened leaders of the Italian houses of Parliament to meet with him on Tuesday.
But Mr. Di Maio seemed quite pleased with the choice. Smiling broadly under umbrellas outside Rome’s Quirinal Palace, he talked approvingly to reporters about how Mr. Conte, who grew up in the southern region of Puglia, was a known entity to his party’s base.
Mr. Di Maio had proposed Mr. Conte as a potential minister for “the Civil Service, de-bureaucratisation and meritocracy” during the campaign and has known him for five years. ANSA, the Italian state news service, reported that Mr. Di Maio had hired Mr. Conte as his lawyer and that Mr. Conte wrote a good deal of the justice section of the party’s manifesto.
Mr. Salvini said in a Facebook Live monologue Monday evening that Mr. Conte was “an expert in simplification, and de-bureaucratisation, and slimming down of the administrative machine, which is what many businesses ask us.”
During his debut during the campaign, Mr. Conte, who specialized in public administration law, said that while he had voted for left-leaning parties in the past, he was drawn to the Five Star Movement because “today I think the 20th-century ideological outlooks are no longer adequate.”
Over the weekend, Mr. Conte changed the profile picture of his WhatsApp account to a picture of John F. Kennedy with the words, “every accomplishment starts with the decision to try.”
His friends said he was a breath of fresh air.
“He has all the credentials,” said Carla Lucente, a professor of modern languages and literature at Duquesne University and the Honorary Consulate of Italy in Pittsburgh.
She knows Mr. Conte through their work together at the Villa Nazareth, a college in Rome associated with Duquesne University that has deep ties to the Vatican, including past and present power brokers like Cardinal Achille Silvestrini and Archbishop Claudio Maria Celli.
“They know each other very well,” said Ms. Lucente of the prelates and Mr. Conte.
Nicholas P. Cafardi, dean emeritus and canon law professor of the Duquesne University School of Law in Pittsburgh, said Mr. Conte, whom he called “highly talented,” was his lawyer when he bought his house in Italy and handled legal issues at Villa Nazareth for Cardinal Silvestrini, who is the institution’s president.
Two years ago, when Ms. Lucente came to Rome for a Villa Nazareth event with Pope Francis, she said she saw Mr. Conte and his wife and son and noticed he was already a mover and a shaker in law circles. He had “a driver and a beautiful limo,” she said, but preferred to take his bicycle.
She said he spoke excellent English, which is reflected in his résumé, with numerous publications, and international work experience.
He lists research at famous universities around the world, including Yale, the Sorbonne in France and New York University, where he said he “perfected and updated his studies” while staying at the college for at least a month every summer between 2008 and 2012.
Asked about Mr. Conte’s experience at N.Y.U., Michelle Tsai, a spokeswoman, said Monday, “A person by this name does not show up in any of our records as either a student or faculty member,” adding that it was possible he attended one or two-day programs for which the school does not keep records.
Amid the dozens of courses Mr. Conte listed teaching on his résumé, he included a summer class at the University of Malta called “European Contract and Banking Law.”
That is especially relevant experience considering the potential government’s agenda and the fear, based on the campaign promises and recent statements of the coalition partners, that it will not uphold contracts with the European Union on banking and other financial issues.
But as the populist leaders approached real power on Monday, they seemed less brazen about poking the markets in the eye.
Last week, Mr. Salvini and Mr. Di Maio had mocked the market reactions to their potential government, including the expanding spread on bond yields, which make it more expensive for Italians and Italian banks to borrow money.
On Monday, Mr. Di Maio implored international observers to first give the government a chance before they started criticizing it.
And Mr. Salvini, speaking a few minutes after Mr. Di Maio at the Quirinal Palace, said that foreign countries had “nothing to worry about” and that he only wanted a government that spurred growth and employment in the Italian economy.
Mr. Di Maio and Mr. Salvini both ran for prime minister, and desperately wanted the job. During the campaign they constantly lamented that Italy had not had a prime minister directly elected by voters for years. Five Star in particular rose to prominence over the last decade excoriating professional politicians and presenting itself as a radical change agent.
But now, intent to demonstrate that Mr. Conte reflects the will of the voters, many of whom had never heard of him, they sought to characterize him and the government he would nominally lead as deeply political.
“Giuseppe Conte will be a political prime minister chosen by two political forces for a political government with political figures in it,” said Mr. Di Maio on Monday. “And most of all with the support of two elected political forces.”
But Ms. Lucente said she considered Mr. Conte’s aversion to politics one of his great credentials.
“I never considered him a political person,” she said.
Quanti sanno fare di conto, potrebbe verificare come risulterebbe essere la composizione del nuovo Parlamento europeo con queste prospezioni in Germania.
Tra un anno verosimilmente la situazione politica europa potrebbe essere ribaltata ed il Pse potrebbe essere ridotto ai minimi termini. L’attuale maggioranza diverrebbe minoranza. La Germania è infatti al momento lo stato più popoloso dell’Unione Europea.
«la corsa a chi la spara più grossa è iniziata già da un bel po’. Né si intravedono inversioni di rotta. Dall’abolizione del canone Rai al salario minimo, dal reddito di cittadinanza alle pensioni. Senza dimenticare la cancellazione di Jobs Act, legge Fornero, bollo auto, tasse universitarie… la lista delle promesse elettorali è già piuttosto corposa, il conto (in termini di risorse da investire) si prevede salato e al voto mancano ancora due mesi: il bello deve ancora venire.“»
Facendo un ‘conto della serva‘, se tutte le promesse fatte messe assieme fossero mantenute, il conto da pagare sarebbe circa 700 miliardi. Una gran bella cifretta.
*
Per disgrazia dei nostri uomini politici la nostra Costituzione ha anche un patetico articolo 81.
«Lo Stato assicura l’equilibrio tra le entrate e le spese del proprio bilancio, tenendo conto delle fasi avverse e delle fasi favorevoli del ciclo economico.
Il ricorso all’indebitamento è consentito solo al fine di considerare gli effetti del ciclo economico e, previa autorizzazione delle Camere adottata a maggioranza assoluta dei rispettivi componenti, al verificarsi di eventi eccezionali.
Ogni legge che importi nuovi o maggiori oneri provvede ai mezzi per farvi fronte.»
Ma si sa che leggi e regolamenti servono esclusivamente a coloro che proprio non sanno come fare a regolarsi: di conseguenza, i politici hanno vissuto felici e beati ignorando il concetto di copertura.
Questa estate e questo autunno si preannunciano roventi.
Per impegni pregressi dovrebbe scattare un incremento dell’Iva, sempre che qualche santo non provveda altrimenti.
Poi, a novembre, dovrebbero cessare i QE della Banca Centrale Europea, e l’Italia perderà il grande acquirente dei suoi titoli di stato. Dovrà cercarsene altri.
Infine, a livello mondiale i tassi di interesse si stanno innalzando. L’aumento di un solo punto percentuale su 2,286.451 miliardi significa un incremento di 23 miliardi negli interessi dovuti, ed altrettanti di ridotte entrate nei rinnovi.
In parole povere, non solo parlare di promesse da mantenere è stravagante, ma si sarà costretti a parlare, al contario, di come fare a pagare i conti.
Quegli incredibili allegroni del Corriere della Sera stimano il valore della manovra necessaria a circa 100 miliardi, perché non tengono conto anche degli aggravi sul debito sovrano.
Qualcuno parla anche di spending review, nome altisonante per indicare tagli di bilancio.
Ma è impossibile tagliare proprio quello che si era promesso di rinvigorire.
È più facile che i pescecani diventino vegetariani.
*
Poniamo quindi una domanda finale.
Come sarebbe mai possibile parlare di “crescita” quando sul Contribuente arriva una mazzolata del genere?
Per Flat Tax, pensioni e reddito di cittadinanza le risorse arriverebbero da un condono fiscale, dal taglio delle agevolazioni e dalla crescita. Il rischio di una nuova clausola di salvaguardia (in teoria vietata)
*
Il pacchetto economico del programma di governo di Lega e Movimento 5 Stelle costa almeno 65 miliardi di euro. Almeno, perché a seconda delle stime si può arrivare fino a 100 miliardi. La voce più corposa è la flat tax, la tassa piatta con due aliquote al 15 e al 20%. Secondo la Lega il costo netto è di 26 miliardi di euro. La cifra è un po’ ballerina perché dipende da come verrà costruito concretamente il meccanismo. In mancanza di dettagli molto cambia a seconda dal punto di vista.
Pochi mesi fa il servizio studi della Camera aveva stimato in 33 miliardi di euro il costo di una flat tax meno ambiziosa, quella con aliquota unica al 23% proposta da Forza Italia. Mentre qualche anno fa la relazione tecnica del ministero del Tesoro aveva indicato in 18 miliardi il costo di una flat tax ancora più prudente, quella pensata dal governo Berlusconi con due aliquote più alte, al 23% e al 33%. Il problema è quello di sempre: dove trovare i soldi. Ma anche come costruire in concreto le coperture.
Nel primo anno la flat tax dovrebbe essere finanziata con un condono che consentirebbe di chiudere i conti aperti con il Fisco pagando il 10% del dovuto. Una misura una tantum che porterebbe in dote circa 30 miliardi di euro. Nel primo anno basterebbe, sempre che funzioni. Negli anni successivi il condono verrebbe sostituito da un’altra voce: l’aumento del gettito portato dalla crescita dei consumi, spinti a loro volta proprio dal taglio delle tasse. Si resterebbe in pari, o quasi. Con un problema però.
Il minore incasso legato al taglio delle tasse sarebbe una certezza. Il maggiore incasso che lo dovrebbe compensare solo una probabilità. Il costo reale della flat tax, quindi, potrebbe essere più alto. Ma soprattutto condono e crescita non possono essere utilizzate come coperture.
Altrimenti c’è il rischio di vedersi rinviare una legge in Parlamento dal capo dello Stato, che non a caso proprio in questi giorni ha citato i precedenti nel ramo di Luigi Einaudi. La soluzione starebbe nelle clausole di salvaguardia, cioè un piano B pronto a scattare solo in caso di necessità. Dopo l’ampio utilizzo degli ultimi anni, l’introduzione di nuove clausole di salvaguardia è vietata per legge. È vero che le leggi possono essere sempre cambiate. Resta il paradosso che la clausola potrebbe prendere la forma di un aumento dell’Iva. E il conto potrebbe essere molto più salato di quello da 12,5 miliardi previsto per il 2019 e che deve essere disinnescato.
Per le coperture ci sono altre voci: almeno 20 miliardi dovrebbero arrivare dal taglio delle agevolazioni fiscali, comprese quelle per le ristrutturazioni edilizie salvando però i rimborsi già in corso, una decina da nuove misure da spending review, tagli di spesa ancora da definire. Questi soldi, però, servirebbero a finanziare, oltre allo stop dell’aumento dell’Iva, le altre misure del pacchetto: almeno 5 miliardi per le pensioni con l’introduzione di «quota 100», almeno 17 per il reddito di cittadinanza, cominciando però nel 2019 con i 2 miliardi per il potenziamento dei centri per l’impiego. Sul punto le stime variano: di 15 miliardi ha parlato l’Istat, secondo l’Inps sarebbero il doppio. In caso di necessità la copertura aggiuntiva potrebbe arrivare da un aumento del deficit. L’Unione Europea direbbe di no perché negli anni passati abbiamo già sfruttato tutti i margini di flessibilità possibili. Ma sfidare Bruxelles, per un governo Lega—M5S più che un ostacolo sarebbe una tentazione.
Nella loro scheletricità i termini del problema sarebbero semplici.
Se il mondo fosse quello ideale, i commerci e la produzione di beni dovrebbero essere completamente liberalizzati: in altre parole, le merci dovrebbero poter circolare liberamente e la produzione dovrebbe potersi stabilire ove può conviene.
Ma il mondo non è luogo di perfezione ascetica: è posto di scontro, talora garbato, talaltra periglioso, di esigenze conflittuali.
Se da una parte la teoria della globalizzazione potrebbe avere un suo fascino ideale, da altra parte cozza contro la realtà dei fatti: molto raramente consente un rapporto win-win, in cui ambo le parti traggono guadagno.
Un errore molto frequente, forse anche troppo frequente per essere considerato essere stato fatto in buona fede, è quella di considerare l’economia come un sé stante, scotomizzando il fatto che sono gli uomini a fare l’economia, non viceversa.
Vedere l’essere umano esclusivamente come un ingranaggio economico porta invariabilmente fuori strada: l’economia non estingue l’umanità. E l’essere umano è imprevedibile perché libero di fare scelte anche strampalate, nel breve ma soprattutto nel lungo termine. A ciò si aggiunga l’eterogenesi dei fini ed il ruolo svolto dal caso imprevisto.
Un caso da manuale, molto dibattuto di questi tempi, sono i dazi.
Se di norma i dazi nostri sarebbero santi, benedetti e più che giusti, quelli dei concorrenti sarebbero invece abbietti, esecrabili e severamente ingiusti: difficile rimuovere il concetto dei due pesi e delle due misure.
Non solo.
I dazi non sono solamente quelli impositivi economici: anzi, questi sono di norma la componente più lieve. Molto più penalizzante è l’imposizione di norme e costumanze.
Per lunga pezza l’Unione Europea ha vincolato la possibilità di commerciare con essa al rispetto di quella che essa denomina la propria scala valoriale. Questa visione, a nostro parere stravagante, avrebbe potuto avere un senso quando l’Europa era potente in parole ed opere.
Ma se adesso la Cina ha un pil ppa di 23,122 mld Usd, contro i 20,853 dell’Unione Europea, lo International Monetary Fund World Economic Outlook (October – 2017) prevede per il 2022 un pil ppa per la Cina di 34,465 mld mentre quello dell’Unione Europea resterebbe stabile, poco più di 23,000 miliardi Usd. Gli equilibri di forza ne risulterebbero sconvolti: il peso politico, economico e sociale dell’Europa sarebbe davvero basso, troppo basso per piatire alcunché.
Da alcuni punti di vista, la Cina sta pigliando coscienza di sé stessa e della sua posizione a livello mondiale.
L’Unione Europea aveva proibito alle proprie aziende di commerciare con quelle di altre nazioni che non si riconoscessero in quelli che l’EU definisce essere i “propri valori “. Come risultato, le aziende europee sono risultate essere rimaste fuori dagli appalti banditi dal progetto Belt and Road: per motivazioni ideologiche si sono escluse da un business superiore al migliaio di miliardi Usd.
Come si constata, i dazi peggiori sono quelli di legge o normativi.
Si assiste ad uno scollamento tra eurocrati e popolazione, tra eurocrati e quanti esercitino produzione o commercio.
«Europe is set to tighten controls over foreign investment, a sign of growing wariness of China’s efforts to use its $11 trillion economy to become a dominant global power.»
*
«A Bloomberg survey of the European Union’s 28 member states found that at least 15 governments actively or tacitly support draft legislation that would screen investments from outside the bloc.»
*
«The results show that Europe is waking up to the risks and not just the benefits of inward investment, predominantly from China»
*
«China has invested at least $318 billion in Europe over the past decade, from critical infrastructure to high-tech companies — more than in the U.S. over the same period»
*
«Italy is among those pushing for tighter screening “because we believe that trade must be fair and investment must be productive …. We have to assess whether investment by non-EU countries aims to do business, to promote growth, to create jobs in Europe, or whether it’s just aimed to acquire and then take the know-how of our businesses away from Europe.”»
* * * * * * *
Il sottosegretario Sandro Grozi ha a nostro sommesso parere ben puntualizzato il centro nevralgico del problema.
Una cosa sono gli investimenti ed i commerci produttivi che generano ricchezza e posti di lavoro, ed una completamente differente quelli che mirano esclusivamente ad acquisire know-how da trasferire quindi nel paese acquirente.
Questa visione risponderebbe bene ai criteri della Realpolitik.
Europe is set to tighten controls over foreign investment, a sign of growing wariness of China’s efforts to use its $11 trillion economy to become a dominant global power.
A Bloomberg survey of the European Union’s 28 member states found that at least 15 governments actively or tacitly support draft legislation that would screen investments from outside the bloc. With a majority prepared to wave it through, the proposal is on course for passage by the European Parliament, the bill’s next step to becoming law.
The results show that Europe is waking up to the risks and not just the benefits of inward investment, predominantly from China. A Bloomberg audit found that China has invested at least $318 billion in Europe over the past decade, from critical infrastructure to high-tech companies — more than in the U.S. over the same period.
Europe’s pushback reflects a dilemma shared by governments worldwide as they grapple with China’s growing global clout. U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin is leading a delegation to Beijing this week amid disputes over trade, reciprocal market access and China’s state-driven economic model.
As the U.S., Japan and Australia adopt rigorous screening programs, Europe risks becoming “the shop of last resort” for those seeking advanced technologies, the European Council on Foreign Relations warned in a December report.
Taking Know-How
Italy is among those pushing for tighter screening “because we believe that trade must be fair and investment must be productive,” Sandro Gozi, Italy’s junior minister for European affairs, said in an interview. “We have to assess whether investment by non-EU countries aims to do business, to promote growth, to create jobs in Europe, or whether it’s just aimed to acquire and then take the know-how of our businesses away from Europe.”
The EU proposal would create a centralized database of past foreign investments in Europe and an alert mechanism for future ones, leaving the ultimate power of approving deals with individual governments. The EU Parliament’s international-trade committee, however, intends to vote on amendments that could give the bill more teeth. After that, the spotlight will shift to the deliberations among EU governments.
For Bulgaria, which holds the EU’s rotating presidency, the proposal “is one of our trade policy priorities,” the Economy Ministry said in an emailed response to questions. The draft regulation doesn’t envisage obligatory screening, but rather “its purpose is to establish a mechanism for cooperation and coordination among member states” whereby countries applying screening should inform the others, it said.
Last year, when the EU first floated an investment screening mechanism, China called on the bloc to observe World Trade Organization rules and avoid discriminatory investment policies. It also says its signature Belt and Road infrastructure program benefits everyone, noting that leaders of most EU countries have expressed interest in signing up.
The survey revealed splits among governments, with countries such as Finland insisting the bloc avoid any resort to protectionist measures and others like Malta saying that small economies must remain open to investment. The U.K. and the Czech Republic were among those to stress that any curbs should be imposed at national level without recourse to the EU. Yet all those surveyed welcomed the debate.
“There is a sea change of perception” toward China, said Francois Godemont, director of the Asia program at the European Council on Foreign Relations. He cited a “wave of investments” for having fueled the shift, along with an inability of the EU and China to resolve their respective market issues to date. In addition, he said, an awareness of political change in China including the removal of term limits has “soured the mood.”
All the same, the EU commission proposal “is already pretty much a compromise because it’s not legally binding,” Godemont said.
Europe’s approach is tame compared to President Donald Trump as he pushes his “America First” trade agenda, threatening protectionist barriers against allies and adversaries alike. The White House has said it would forge a “trade coalition of the willing” to stand up to China for what it calls unfair trade practices. It’s also railed against China’s program to become the world leader in a slew of industries by 2025.
China’s global ambitions, including a push to dominate artificial intelligence, are causing consternation in Berlin and Paris: Chancellor Angela Merkel and President Emmanuel Macron have both made China’s rise a policy priority. Macron has pledged to seek more strategic coordination with Germany on the issue. Merkel plans her own visit to China later this year.
Even EU state traditionally more skeptical of a bloc-wide policy approach are paying heed.
Hungary is ready to debate investment screening so long as it doesn’t result in different standards among EU members, Gergely Gulyas, vice president and parliamentary leader of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz party, said in an interview.
“If we have a common China policy, we are ready to be part of it,” he said.
