Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Spitzenkandidat. Bene per eleggere Juncker, male per eleggere un identitario.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-02-04.

EP-051364A_Tajani_Brexit
Opening the debate on BREXIT

Per comprendere bene questo articolo sarebbe suggeribile aver ben presente i concetti esposti nei seguenti lavori:

L’ultima carognata dei socialisti. Spitzenkandidaten nel PE.

Europarlamento. L’ultima carognata. Ma le elezioni si avvicinano.

The EU’s ‘democratic’ system that elected a president nobody wants

Odoxa. ‘Vers un parlement européen constitué d’opposants à l’Europe.’

*

«The so-called ‘Spitzenkandidat’ system is not going to deliver what its original architects intended»

*

«The idea was that each European party would nominate a Spitzenkandidat (German for lead candidate) and if that political family comes out on top after the European Parliament elections, their Spitzenkandidat becomes president of the European Commission.»

*

«In 2014, the Spitzenkandidat process allowed the parliament to propose the European People’s Party’s (EPP) Jean-Claude Juncker to become president of the commission.»

*

In una sintesi estremamente riduttiva, ma almeno chiara, ogni gruppo europarlamentare designa un proprio candidato alle presidenza della commissione europea, ed il candidato del gruppo di maggioranza relativo è nominato in modo automatico.

«The Spitzenkandidat system – pushed by the previous president of the EU parliament, Martin Schulz, and his secretary-general Klaus Welle – was supposed to give citizens a hand in choosing the next commission president.»

*

Che Herr Martin Schulz abbia potuto suggerire un qualcosa di democratico è affermazione davvero stravagante.

Il sistema dello Spitzenkandidat era stato concepito nel presupposto che i liberal socialisti avrebbero mantenuto almeno uno dei due relativi gruppi come maggioranza relativa, anche se in termini percentuali avessero perso la maggioranza parlamentare.

Unione Europea. I cinghiali feriti senza pace.

* * *

Bene.

Adesso consideriamo con cura le ultime propensioni al voto per l’europarlamento.

2019-01-31__europarlamento__001

L’Enf, Gruppo delle Nazioni e della Libertà, che raggruppa buona parte degli identitari sovranisti, è quotato a 132 seggi. S&D, il partito socialista europeo, è quotato a 129 seggi, mentre il partito popolare europeo mantiene la maggioranza relativa con 191 eurodeputati.

Ma nel ppe confluiscono anche, per esempio, gli ungheresi ed i polacchi, gente che non ha poi idee molto simili a quelle della Cdu di Frau Merkel, e che dall’oggi al domani potrebbero lasciare il ppe e confluire nell’Enf.

In tale evenienza il gruppo di maggioranza relativa risulterebbe essere l’Enf, gli identitari sovranisti.

Bloomberg sospetta che Salvini sostituirà Merkel come riferimento europeo.

Adesso dovrebbe essere chiaro perché il liberal socialisti vorrebbero eliminare lo Spitzenkandidat: sono laici, democratici ed antifascisti.

Tanto, poi, a maggio si vota.


The Local. 2019-01-31. The de facto demise of the Spitzenkandidaten idea

Following the election of two lead candidates by the Party of the European Left, instead of one, it is time to call it.

The so-called ‘Spitzenkandidat’ system is not going to deliver what its original architects intended.

The idea was that each European party would nominate a Spitzenkandidat (German for lead candidate) and if that political family comes out on top after the European Parliament elections, their Spitzenkandidat becomes president of the European Commission.

There would be debates between the candidates, which would thus be subject to public pan-European scrutiny.

In 2014, the Spitzenkandidat process allowed the parliament to propose the European People’s Party’s (EPP) Jean-Claude Juncker to become president of the commission.

Choosing the leader of the EU’s Brussels-based executive is the prerogative of the leaders of the 28 national governments, but the parliament successfully used a clause that was open to interpretation in the new EU treaty to claim a role.

A majority of MEPs backed Juncker, putting government leaders in a position where rejecting him would look anti-democratic.

Supporters of the Spitzenkandidat method see it as a way to bring European politics closer to the EU citizens.

The lacklustre voter-turnout for EU parliament elections has been a matter of analysis by academics for years and it has many reasons.

Researchers Alexandre Borrell, Jamil Dakhlia and Christina Holtz-Bacha wrote in the book Political Advertising in the 2014 European Parliament Elections that “when compared to national elections, European elections lack suspense as they are not a contest for real political power”.

The result of the parliament elections do not lead to a new coalition of a European government, or a European prime minister or president.

Thus personalisation is an important ingredient to increase public interest, the researchers wrote.

The Spitzenkandidat system – pushed by the previous president of the EU parliament, Martin Schulz, and his secretary-general Klaus Welle – was supposed to give citizens a hand in choosing the next commission president.

Four months ahead of the parliament elections however we can already conclude that this concept has been neutered by the choices of several political parties themselves.

Of the European parties associated with the eight political groups in the European parliament, only three have selected a single Spitzenkandidat.

The centre-right EPP have Manfred Weber, the centre-left Party of European Socialists have Frans Timmermans, and the conservative Alliance of Conservatives and Reformists have Jan Zahradil.

But even Zahradil, a Czech MEP, is only a reluctant Spitzenkandidat.

He and most in his mildly eurosceptic group believe that it should still be up to the government leaders convening in the European Council to determine the next commission president.

“They may wish to nominate someone who has run as a Spitzenkandidat. Or they may not,” said Zahradil in the press statement that announced his candidacy.

“Even if we were to win the next European elections, I would respect the council decision,” he said.

The Liberals decided last November that they would not present a single Spitzenkandidat.

“European liberals have several strong leaders and we decided they should be heading our electoral campaign as a team,” the party said in a statement.

The Greens have selected a pair, Ska Keller and Bas Eickhout, as they did five years ago – when Keller teamed up with Jose Bove.

‘We will see’

The Party of the European Left also nominated a duo rather than a single candidate, at their executive board meeting last weekend: Slovenian MP Violeta Tomic and Belgian trade unionist Nico Cue.

EUobserver spoke to Cue on Monday evening (28 January), at the European Left’s New Year’s reception.

Asked who would become commission president if the European Left won the elections, Cue said we should wait for the outcome of the elections.

“We will see,” he said.

It was more important to focus on the kind of Europe his party wanted, said Cue.

“Afterwards we will see how to decide who, what, how,” he added.

Of course it does not look very likely that Tomic and Cue will be faced with having to decide who will become commission president, as the far left currently represents only 52 of 751 seats in the EU parliament.

But that is beside the point.

The idea was that citizens would know that their vote would help to get one specific person in the Berlaymont HQ of the commission.

Opportunism

Imagine you are fed up with the fact that the commission president has always been a man.

You could vote for the Greens or the European Left, who each have a female candidate, but you might still end up with the other candidate: a man.

The idea was to Europeanise the debate, but by having two candidates or even a team, the parties can opportunistically decide who to put forward in what debate.

A counter-argument could be that Ska Keller is best at explaining the Greens’ position to the Germans because she is German, while Dutchman Bas Eickhout would be able to use his native language in the Netherlands.

But then the whole point of a single pan-European candidate might as well be thrown out the window.

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Martin Schulz. Vorrebbe tornare in politica.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-11-28.

Schulz Martin 004

«the man responsible for the party’s worst election result in decades»


Nel 1972 la spd aveva il 45.8% dei consensi elettorali. Nel 1998 era al 40.9%.

Poi irruppe sulla scena Herr Martin Schulz.

Dal 2004 al 2012 su presidente del Gruppo S&D nell’europarlamento, risultando il 17 gennaio 2012 eletto Presidente del parlamento Europeo.

Il 6 novembre 2013 Martin Schulz è stato nominato come “candidato designato ” dal Partito dei Socialisti Europei alla presidenza della Commissione europea.

Il 1º luglio 2014 è rieletto al primo scrutinio con 409 voti su 751 Presidente del Parlamento Europeo con una maggioranza richiesta di 326 voti.

Il 24 novembre 2016 Schulz annuncia che non si ricandiderà alla guida del Parlamento Europeo per la terza volta per dedicarsi alla sua carriera politica in Germania; termina il suo mandato il 17 gennaio 2017. Il 19 marzo 2017 viene eletto presidente federale del Partito Socialdemocratico di Germania e candidato Cancelliere alle prossime elezioni contro Angela Merkel.

Il 13 febbraio 2018 si dimette da presidente dell’SPD.

*

Oggi la spd conta il 14% delle propensioni di voto ed il partito socialista europeo registra nei sondaggi un calo di quasi il trenta per cento.

Questo fenomeno è noto come ‘effetto Schulz’.

*

«The former president of the European Parliament failed dramatically in his bid to unseat Chancellor Angela Merkel»

*

«But is he looking for a comeback?»

*

«Martin Schulz had hoped to become Germany’s chancellor, or at least the country’s foreign minister, but he instead now plays a minor role on the backbenches of the country’s parliament»

*

«It was a dramatic fall for a politician who went from being the hope of the Social Democrats, elected party leader with a record 100 per cent of the votes, to the man responsible for the party’s worst election result in decades»

* * * * * * * *

«But is he looking for a comeback?»

Ecco in breve il suo programma.

«Martin Schulz has remained a passionate European and has continued to defend one his main proposals: the idea of a United States of Europe or, in other words, an even deeper integration of the EU.»

*

«I am for sure proud not to share the view of Mr. Orban and Mr. Kaczynski»

*

«But if you want to run in future times the EU and the idea of democracy against people like Mr. Trump, Xi Jinping or Mr. Putin, we have to deepen European integration»

* * * * * * * *

A ben vedere, l’spd è ancora al 14%, quindi Herr Schulz può ancora distruggere qualcosa.


Deutsche Welle. 2018-11-26. Martin Schulz: ‘I am not a bad loser’

The former president of the European Parliament failed dramatically in his bid to unseat Chancellor Angela Merkel. But is he looking for a comeback? He talked to DW’s Conflict Zone.

*

Martin Schulz had hoped to become Germany’s chancellor, or at least the country’s foreign minister, but he instead now plays a minor role on the backbenches of the country’s parliament.

It was a dramatic fall for a politician who went from being the hope of the Social Democrats, elected party leader with a record 100 per cent of the votes, to the man responsible for the party’s worst election result in decades.

However, when asked by DW’s Conflict Zone host Tim Sebastian, Schulz said he was not the wrong candidate for the top job.

He added that, during the campaign, there was a very specific atmosphere, one where Chancellor Merkel “tried successfully to escape from what we need in an election campaign: open confrontation, the competition of arguments for the best solutions.”

“I am not a bad loser,” said Schulz, who before the failed campaign in 2017 made his mark as European Parliament (EP) president from 2012 to 2017.

Behind closed doors

The EP has been widely criticized for its democratic deficits, but Martin Schulz said this criticism has mainly come from right-wing tendencies in the United Kingdom.

But when DW’s Conflict Zone host Tim Sebastian asked him whether this criticism is nevertheless valid, Schulz said it was “completely nonsense.”

“If the European Union is not sufficiently democratic, I agree. But this is not especially the European Parliament, the other way round,” he said.

“This is the only directly elected institution in the European Union.”

So how did he explain the criticism which suggests his election to the presidency was decided behind closed doors and the EP only had to rubber stamp it, as Green MEP Ulrike Lunacek said?

Schulz said he didn’t know in advance that he was going to win and says that “members of the European Parliament voted in a secret ballot for me with a majority.”

“This is democracy. I was running and I had a candidate [running] against me.”

Codes of conduct

Tim Sebastian mentioned that a number of MEPs and transparency campaigners also criticized the parliament because they believed legislation was being fast-tracked and key negotiations were being conducted in the shadows.

When asked about this controversy, Martin Schulz once again disagreed and stressed that the EP is “a very transparent parliament.”

“The only institution gathering openly in the committees and in the plenary is the European Parliament. Therefore, that criticism is wrong.”

Tim Sebastian also asked Schulz about the breaches of the code of conduct for MEPs, in particular regarding transparency over earnings and second jobs.

Martin Schulz dismissed the idea that he appeared to be disinterested and said he followed a lot of cases and took action, citing that he had dismissed a group member following allegations in the press.

“I think I did a lot to increase transparency in the European Parliament.”

But what about his own office expenses, which also raised eyebrows?

In April 2015, a review of the parliament’s finances noted with concern the large number of staff based in the office of the EP president, which included two drivers and a personal usher.

Schulz rejected the idea that it was a bad example for cost reduction and fiscal responsibility, and said that his office was smaller than his predecessor’s.

“The president of the European Parliament is the president of an institution. He is the president of 8,000 civil servants working for the parliament,” he said. “You can’t make this with two or three advisers.”

Deeper European integration

Regardless of these controversies and his now limited political influence, Martin Schulz has remained a passionate European and has continued to defend one his main proposals: the idea of a United States of Europe or, in other words, an even deeper integration of the EU.

“I am for sure proud not to share the view of Mr. Orban and Mr. Kaczynski,” he said.

“But if you want to run in future times the EU and the idea of democracy against people like Mr. Trump, Xi Jinping or Mr. Putin, we have to deepen European integration.”

Schulz has defended these European ideas for a long time, and he probably will continue to do so, although not again as a candidate for chancellor.

This is an option he dismissed.

Rather, he will focus on his role as member of the German Bundestag.

“I am not looking for a comeback. I am here,” he said.  

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Borisov, Presidente Consiglio EU bacchetta la dirigenza sulla Polonia.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-01-15.

Europa 002

Mr Boyko Borisov, Primo Ministro bulgaro e Presidente del Consiglio Europeo per questo semestre, ha rilasciato sorprendenti dichiarazioni sulla questione polacca.

«Bulgaria warns Polish rebuke from EU will set ‘dangerous precedent’»

*

«Borisov highlights unease in member states over so-called Article 7 procedure against Poland»

*

«Why the unease?»

*

«If Brussels is not stopped here, their appetite for power will only grow stronger»

*

«The Bulgarian PM also warned Donald Tusk not to interfere or speak out regarding Polish politics after Tusk’s latest attacks on the elected government in Poland»

*

«We have to remain neutral, impartial.»

*

«A censure of Poland – which requires a four-fifths majority – would open the way for potential sanctions, such as suspending Warsaw’s voting rights»

*

«However this would require unanimity among EU member states and Hungary has vowed to veto any such proposal»

*

«Mr Borisov noted that rule of law issues are “so vague” and difficult to measure that they would be better not brought before ministers»

*

«Poland can hardly find a solution to a problem that does not exist»

*

«It was Frans Timmermans, Donald Tusk, Germany’s Manfred Weber and other EU hacks who, for political purposes, decided to interfere in Poland’s sovereign right to develop policies through their elected representatives in the national government»

*

«V4 Report remains optimistic that EUCO will not achieve the required four-fifths necessary to advance the procedure»

* * * * * * * *

Le parole di Mr Boyko Borisov sono chiare e dure con acciaio.

«rule of law issues are “so vague” and difficult to measure»

*

Si apre a questo punto un vero e proprio giallo.

Che i trattati fossero stati scritti in modo astrusamente complesso è cosa nota, esattamente come è cosa nota che si siano sovrapposti trattati a trattati senza che alcuno si sia curato di verificarne l’intima coerenza.

In questa congerie di chaos organizzato emerge il problema di come poter fare delle votazioni, a seconda dell’argomento in esame.

Consiglio Europeo. Votazioni. Maggioranza qualificata e beghe varie.

«Alcuni paesi sostengono che il Regno Unito, avendo votato il Brexit, non dovrebbe più partecipare alle riunioni del Consiglio Europeo, mentre altri paesi sostengono che dovrebbe partecipare fino a tanto che non sia ufficialmente uscito dall’Unione Europea»

*

«Il Consiglio deve votare all’unanimità su una serie di questioni considerate sensibili dagli Stati membri»

*

«la maggioranza qualificata soltanto se sono soddisfatte due condizioni:

– il 55% degli Stati membri vota a favore – in pratica ciò equivale a 16 paesi su 28

– gli Stati membri che appoggiano la proposta rappresentano almeno il 65% della popolazione totale dell’UE

Questa procedura è nota anche come regola della “doppia maggioranza”»

*

«Quando il Consiglio vota una proposta che non è stata presentata dalla Commissione o dall’alto rappresentante, la decisione è adottata se:

– vota a favore almeno il 72% dei membri del Consiglio

– i membri che votano a favore rappresentano almeno il 65% della popolazione dell’UE»

*

Nel suo discorso Mr Borisov indica però anche la necessità di una maggioranza dei quattro quinti per poter avviare una eventuale procedura.

* * * * * * * *

Una riflessione emergerebbe spontanea.

Senza una struttura di governo snella e di semplice esercizio, ed in carenza di regole inequivocabilmente chiare è impossibile poter parlare di democrazia.

Inutile quanto ipocrita parlare di democrazia quando in pratica domina solo la forza.


V4 Report. 2018-01-15. Bulgaria warns Polish rebuke from EU will set ‘dangerous precedent’

* Bulgaria warns Polish rebuke from EU will set ‘dangerous precedent’. Borisov highlights unease in member states over so-called Article 7 procedure against Poland.

Many are indeed “uneasy” but will they have the confidence to defy Brussels? Why the unease? If Brussels is not stopped here, their appetite for power will only grow stronger.

** The Bulgarian PM also warned Donald Tusk not to interfere or speak out regarding Polish politics after Tusk’s latest attacks on the elected government in Poland. “We have to remain neutral, impartial.” said Boyko Borisov.

Mr. Borisov said it would set a “dangerous precedent” for EU member states to vote on whether Poland risked a “serious breach” of rule of law standards. He said a vote should be avoided if at all possible.

“If we have to go to voting, we will have sleepless nights how to vote. I hope we do not have to face this,” Mr Borisov said.

A censure of Poland – which requires a four-fifths majority – would open the way for potential sanctions, such as suspending Warsaw’s voting rights. However this would require unanimity among EU member states and Hungary has vowed to veto any such proposal.

Bulgaria took the rotating chair of the EU’s Council of Ministers this month, giving it the nominal power until July to decide what is brought to a vote of assembled ministers.

Speaking to journalists in Sofia, Mr Borisov noted that rule of law issues are “so vague” and difficult to measure that they would be better not brought before ministers. He expressed confidence that Poland would find a solution to the political impasse with Brussels. (Borisov should prepare his Plan B; Poland can hardly find a solution to a problem that does not exist.)

“I hope my Polish colleagues do not put Article 7 on the agenda,” he said.

*** Borisov should realize that it was not Poland which “put Article 7 on the agenda”. It was Frans Timmermans, Donald Tusk, Germany’s Manfred Weber and other EU hacks who, for political purposes, decided to interfere in Poland’s sovereign right to develop policies through their elected representatives in the national government.

However, despite the noise, the V4 Report remains optimistic that EUCO will not achieve the required four-fifths necessary to advance the procedure and will likely back-down to avoid more lost credibility.

More leaders of the CEE nation states are starting to realize that these “vague” judgments by vindictive and ideological EU officials will set a “dangerous precedent” for the future. Many are starting to realize they could be the EU’s next target for “reprogramming”.

Let these lunatic federalists – such as Guy Verhofstadt and Martin Schulz – continue to “rant and rave”; they only strengthen the case for Poland, the sovereignty of nation states and the rejection of Article Seven.

After all, who wants Guy Verhofstadt, the ALDE Group, Socialists and Greens defining “European values”? They have done enough damage already.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Schäuble. La voce del comune buon senso.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2018-01-03.

Schäuble Wolfang 001

Le idee politiche ed economiche di Herr Wolfgang Schäuble sono controverse: per una parte sono state il meglio esprimibile in quel preciso momento storico, per un’altra parte hanno esitato in danni.

Segnaliamo anche mestamente come molti lo odino visceralmente perché da tedesco ha perseguito gli interessi della Germania: ci si sarebbe stupiti se avesse agito in modo contrario. Restano invece vive le perplessità sull’operato di molti leader europei che sembrerebbero non aver adeguatamente difeso gli interessi delle nazioni di provenienza.

Ciò premesso, però, nessuno può negare ad Herr Wolfgang Schäuble il merito di aver ricondotto il debito sovrano tedesco entro limiti di gestibilità grazie ad una visione di largo respiro retta da una cultura molte tacche fuori dal comune unita ad una volontà granitica ed ad un forza di convincimento razionale molto rara di questi tempi.

Infine, nessuno potrebbe negare l’intrinseca onestà mentale e morale di Herr Schäuble: basterebbe pensare all’appartamentino in cui abita, più da applicato di concetto che da ministro della Bundesrepublik ed ora Presidente del Bundestag.

*

Herr Wolfgang Schäuble è di quel tipo di persone che ama più l’agire del parlare: nel corso delle riunioni interviene raramente, quasi sempre per avere chiarimenti. È un ascoltatore attento dei suoi interlocutori, che sembra anatomizzarli con una sguardo difficilmente sostenibile e penetrante. Ricordiamo infine il suo straordinario potere di sintesi logica: le sue note superano a stento la paginetta, ove tutto è detto in modo compiuto e chiaro.

Lo si condivida o lo si avversi, il parere di Herr Schäuble è sempre un argomento degno di essere approfondito: non è mai banale né, tanto meno, di bottega.

* * * * * * *

È in corso una lotta all’ultimo sangue tra fautori degli Stati Uniti di Europa, stato liberal e socialista ideologico, e quanti invece sostengono un’Unione Europea solamente economica, al massimo confederata.

Nel corso delle trattative tra Cdu ed Spd, Herr Martin Schulz ha avanzato una proposta che era nell’aria, tipica di chi abbia abbracciato l’ideologia socialista: la costituzione degli Stati Uniti di Europa.

SPD’s Martin Schulz defends his ‘United States of Europe’

«Leader of Germany’s Social Democrats Martin Schulz has called for a “United States of Europe” by 2025. ….

United States of Europe not like the US on EU soil ….

“Daydreamer,” “Europe radical,” “the best way to destroy the EU:” these were just some of the comments thrown at Social Democrats leader Martin Schulz by media and opposition politicians after he proposed the establishment of the “United States of Europe” at the SPD’s party conference on Thursday. ….

Economic, cultural, social and political integration: The best protection against fascism, war and anti-Democrats ….

Schulz brushed off accusations of division in the SPD ….

Discussing — especially after Brexit — how the remaining 27 EU states can improve the basis of the cooperation that’s the Lisbon Treaty, which is visibly not sufficient for solving a lot of problems we have internally, and international relations. That’s what I mean with the United States of Europe»

* * * * * * *

Herr Wolfgang Schäuble è intervenuto su questo argomento.

«German Parliamentary President Wolfgang Schäuble voiced his opposition to recent calls by Social Democratic Party (SPD) leader Martin Schulz for the creation of a United States of Europe in the next few years»

*

«Schäuble, a former German finance minister and one of the most powerful politicians in Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), acknowledged the need for a “stronger Europe,” but was skeptical of Schulz’s approach»

*

«To say that one wants to create a United States of Europe within five years and that those states that don’t go along will be thrown out seems a bit shortsighted, to put it politely»

*

«He also noted that in times of fast-paced change people “obviously have the need to hang on to a piece of their own national traditions»

*

«Schäuble said he preferred the measures recently put forth by French President Emmanuel Macron, adding: “They are not geared toward an institutional restructuring of the EU but are rather an attempt to move forward without having to change the EU treaty.”»

*

«The world does not allow us to rest»

*

«It’s always dangerous to rest during supposedly calm and economically good times»

*

Herr Wolfgang Schäuble è uomo di poche parole, ma molto chiare, per quanto sempre pacate e mai sovra tono. Difficili da leggersi ed intendersi in un tempo in cui tutto è drammatizzato ed urlato. testi da leggersi dentro le righe.

«The world does not allow us to rest»

*

«restructuring …. without having to change the EU treaty.»

Queste dovrebbero essere frasi da scolpire nel marmo: sono Realpolitk.


Deutsche Welle. 2017-12-31. German Parliamentary President Wolfgang Schäuble opposes ‘United States of Europe’

The Christian Democrat disputed calls by Social Democrat Martin Schulz for the quick creation of a new European order. He voiced a preference for changes suggested by French President Emmanuel Macron.

*

German Parliamentary President Wolfgang Schäuble voiced his opposition to recent calls by Social Democratic Party (SPD) leader Martin Schulz for the creation of a United States of Europe in the next few years.

Schäuble, a former German finance minister and one of the most powerful politicians in Angela Merkel’s center-right Christian Democratic Union (CDU), acknowledged the need for a “stronger Europe,” but was skeptical of Schulz’s approach.

Schäuble (above) told the Berlin-based newspaper Tagesspiegel am Sonntag that the best way to strengthen Europe was to find the right path forward regarding integration.

“To say that one wants to create a United States of Europe within five years and that those states that don’t go along will be thrown out seems a bit shortsighted, to put it politely.”

He also noted that in times of fast-paced change people “obviously have the need to hang on to a piece of their own national traditions. And it would be wrong to rob them of the sense of security and connection to their own nations.”

Schäuble said he preferred the measures recently put forth by French President Emmanuel Macron, adding: “They are not geared toward an institutional restructuring of the EU but are rather an attempt to move forward without having to change the EU treaty.”

He opposed halting European integration, noting that there are many other issues requiring Europe’s attention, including migration policy, US tax policy, challenges in Africa and market globalization.

“The world does not allow us to rest,” he said. “It’s always dangerous to rest during supposedly calm and economically good times.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo

Herr Martin Schulz palpa le opimi chiappe di Frau Andrea Nahles.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-12-11.

2017-12-11__Schulz__001

Chiunque altro lo avesse fatto, sarebbe stato bollato di sexual harassment e costretto a dimettersi.

Lo avesse fatto Mr Trump lo avrebbero fucilato immediatamente.

Ma nessuna paura: non per niente Herr Sculz ha il nomignolo di “grasso neutro“.

Ma si sa.

Nella Fattoria degli Animali tutti gli animali sono eguali, ma i porci un pochino di più.

Finché dura, ovviamente.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Attenzione! I socialisti stanno avendo qualche sprazzo intellettivo.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-18.

Berlino Porta Brandemburgo

Avere un avversario imbecille è una manna del Cielo, elargita con parsimonia.

E la Divina Provvidenza ha esaudito le preghiere del popolo plorante, ed ha fatto tornare da Bruxelles Herr Martin Schulz. Questi, appena arrivato, ha defenestrato da leader dell’Spd Herr Gabriel, pugnalandolo accuratamente alla schiena. Si è messo quindi tronfio come un tacchino nelle fregole a capo dell’Spd, che nei sondaggi viaggiava sopra il 35%, riuscendo in pochi mesi a ridurla al 20%: è solo bastato che parlasse in pubblico. Frau Merkel è andata in pellegrinaggio a piedi scalza al santuario di San Giuda Taddeo, il santo dei miracoli impossibili.

Notiamo adesso come, di fronte a questo disastro inimmaginabile, si inizino a notare barlumi intellettivi nella compagine socialdemocratica: elemento di estremo pericolo, perché potrebbe anche rallentare il suo declino fino alla scomparsa.

Se è vero che si deve confidare nella bronzea cervice di Herr Schulz, è anche vero che dei socialisti pensanti potrebbero costituire un serio ostacolo alla loro dipartita. Vediamo cosa dicono.

«The EU has closed its borders, allowing Libyan militias and African dictators to violate human rights»

*

«With policies like that, Europe is moving away from its own values»

*

«Fearing the loss of far-right voters, established parties have long begun telling the electorate what right-wing populists wish to hear»

*

«In the televised debate between Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Social Democratic (SPD) challenger Martin Schulz, the main issues discussed were not social justice, education and precarious employment situations but once again, refugee policy»

*

«In the meantime, only a few refugees from Libya arrive in Italy these days.»

*

«The EU and its member states have decided to ignore human rights»

*

«The right-wing populists have already won the upcoming elections in Europe, no matter what the outcome is»

*

«The main thing is that the borders are closed and no new refugees come in. You can you create these polices, but then you are no longer entitled to speak of human rights and European values»

* * * * * * * *

Non siamo insensibili all’urlo di dolore che emette l’articolista del Deutsche Welle: lo avremmo voluto sentire ben più gridato. Una volta era il giornale su cui leggere ciò che avrebbe scritto la Pravda, se ancora fosse in vita.

Il 2017 è stato anno di grandi sommovimenti. Usciti in America dal governo i liberal democratici, passati al 62% all’8% i socialisti francesi, quasi scomparsi i socialisti dagli altri stati europei, è adesso il turno della Germania. Spd proiettata al 20%.

Alleanza Progressista, l’erede della Internazionale Socialista, conta oramai ben poco, e non può certo più soccorrere i sodali in difficoltà. È stato distrutto l’organo di coordinamento mondiale dei socialisti: quello che fino ad una decina di anni fa faceva nel mondo il bello ed il cattivo tempo.

Non è ancora una completa devoluzione del socialismo ideologico: hanno perso i centri di potere politico, ma continuano a mantenere quelli del parastato e della burocrazia statale. Sicuramente Frau Merkel è intrinsecamente liberal, ma l’equilibrio è stato rotto.

Per buona sorte, i socialisti concepiscono la politica esclusivamente nei termini di occupazione dei posti di potere. Visione che sicuramente ha molti aspetti ragionevoli, ma che è incompleta.

Ben più importanti sono gli equilibri: variati questi, tutto ne consegue. Nel tempo, ovviamente: nulla è istantaneo.

Spiace vedere che alla fine anche i socialisti stiano rendendosi conto di quanto sia successo, e quanto la “destra” sia riuscita a condizionarli.

Abbiamo già delineato cosa debba intendersi per populismo, e come liberal democratici e socialisti usino tale termine in senso dispregiativo. Lo disprezzino e lo dileggino pure: tanto ora c’è e prima non c’era.

Siamo chiari: se liberal democratici e socialisti non lo aborrissero, ci sarebbe qualcosa che non va.

Con il 24 settembre staremo a vedere cosa poi esca dalla urne, anche tenendo conto che la massa degli indecisi è grande. Dovremo anche vedere quali alleanze stringerà Frau Merkel.

Ma il suo non sarà verosimilmente un cancellierato forte.

Trump se ne fa un baffo a torciglione di Frau Merkel. L’ultimo schiaffo.

Benediciamo il Cielo che ci ha donato Herr Martin Schulz.

Merkel leader “Fourth Reich” fonda la ‘Pax Germanica’. – Handelsblatt.

Deutsche Welle. 2017-09-16. Right-wing populists have already won the election

The EU has closed its borders, allowing Libyan militias and African dictators to violate human rights. With policies like that, Europe is moving away from its own values, writes Krsto Lazarevic.

*

Elections will soon be held in Germany and Austria. They’re coming up in Italy, too. Whatever the outcome, right-wing populists in Berlin, Vienna and Rome are somehow already in power. They do not even have to rule. Fearing the loss of far-right voters, established parties have long begun telling the electorate what right-wing populists wish to hear. The extent to which the debate in Germany has moved to the right is illustrated by a question posed in the Wahl-O-Mat, a voting advice app designed by Germany’s Federal Agency for Civic Education (bpb) to help voters decide whom to vote for.

One of the statements in the questionnaire is: “The genocide of the European Jews should continue to be an integral part of German remembrance culture.” You can agree, disagree or remain undecided. It has only been a few months since the populist Alternative for Germany’s (AfD) far-right member Björn Höcke said that Germany needed to perform a “180-degree turnaround” when remembering its past, and Auschwitz is already being discussed without coming to a moral conclusion. This is a great victory for the far-right wing of a party that does not even yet hold a seat in the Bundestag, Germany’s lower house of parliament

The AfD’s ideals have crept into the minds of Germany’s talk show hosts. In the televised debate between Chancellor Angela Merkel and her Social Democratic (SPD) challenger Martin Schulz, the main issues discussed were not social justice, education and precarious employment situations but once again, refugee policy. We should get on our knees and thank Merkel for refusing to take part in a second debate and sparing us another pathetic show.

Libyan militias as EU border guards

Things are not better in Italy. A few months ago, Italian authorities began preventing the work of NGOs that save people’s lives in the Mediterranean. Prosecutors in provincial Sicilian towns accused NGOs of cooperating with human smugglers. Right-wing and conservative forces in Italy, Germany and Austria gratefully acknowledged the accusations. There is still a lack of evidence to back them, but that doesn’t matter. Something always manages to stick.

In the meantime, only a few refugees from Libya arrive in Italy these days. This is owed to the Italian minister of the Interior, Marco Minniti, who has made work for sea rescue workers more difficult. He has come to accept dubious militias and now pursues an intensive cooperation with the Libyan coastguard. If you want to know what cooperation with the Libyan coastguard is like, ask the Sea Watch rescue team. On the night of October 20, activists were about to rescue people in distress from international waters but a Libyan coast guard boat prevented the operation. More than 20 people drowned unnecessarily on that day.

Human rights? What human rights?

Section 2 of article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.” The EU’s cooperation with the Libyan coastguard aims at the exact opposite. People are being prevented from leaving a civil war zone in which those in refugee camps are systematically executed, tortured and raped. The German embassy in Niger’s capital Niamey reported to the German Chancellery on “concentration camp-like conditions in so-called private prisons.” EU member states are free to regulate their own asylum laws, but preventing people from leaving a war-torn country does not fit with decency or fundamental human rights.

The same can be said about the deportations from Germany to Afghanistan. “Look, we are deporting people to civil war countries. You don’t have to vote for the right-wing populists.” In Afghanistan, fighting is increasing as is the number of victims. There are no safe provinces. German Minister of the Interior Thomas de Maiziere knows this too, which is why he only has the courage to travel across the country under heavy protection.

At least some members of the SPD are ashamed of the deportations. On Tuesday evening, the SPD chancellor candidate Martin Schulz told the public broadcaster ZDF, “My assessment is quite clear: no one can be deported to Afghanistan at the moment.” Unfortunately, three hours earlier, a deportation flight from Dusseldorf to Afghanistan took off, something which was obviously not possible without the approval of the SPD-led foreign ministry. An SPD chancellor candidate who suggests that his party – after four years of ruling as the junior coalition partners in the government – has nothing to do with the deportations to Afghanistan is not very credible.

The main concern is closed borders

Human rights or isolation? They do not go together. The EU and its member states have decided to ignore human rights. In order to justify this, human rights violations are now being transferred to the Libyan coast guard and militias. In the future, African dictators will also be able to help outsource Europe’s border operations to neighboring continents. The International Criminal Tribunal has an issued an arrest warrant for Sudanese strongman Omar al-Bashir for genocide yet the German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ) has no qualms about training police officers in that country. Refugees dying of thirst in the Sahara or being killed in Libya are of less interest to the European public than those drowning in the Mediterranean.

The right-wing populists have already won the upcoming elections in Europe, no matter what the outcome is. The EU has done away with human rights and Western standards of civilization by cooperating with the Libyan coastguard, African dictators and deporting people back to war zones. Anyone who tries to save human lives in the Mediterranean will be criminalized, shot at and called a smuggler. Only very few EU citizens are bothered by this. The main thing is that the borders are closed and no new refugees come in. You can you create these polices, but then you are no longer entitled to speak of human rights and European values.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Benediciamo il Cielo che ci ha donato Herr Martin Schulz.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-15.

2017-09-15__Schulz__001

Infratest dimap ha rilasciato gli ultimi sondaggi elettorali tedeschi.

La Union, Cdu e Csu, attestandosi al 37% perderebbe due punti percentuali rispetto alle passate elezioni, ma manterrebbe saldamente la maggioranza relativa. La Cancelleria dovrebbe quindi spettare a Frau Merkel.

2017-09-15__Schulz__002

Alternative für Deutschland dovrebbe ottenere il 12% dei suffragi, forse qualcosa in più data la ritrosia dei tedeschi a pronunciarsi a suo favore nei sondaggi. È in crescita e nei Länder orientali potrebbe anche superare il 20% dei suffragi. Fatto questo di interesse, perché i senatori del Bundesrat sono nominati dai Länder.

2017-09-15__Schulz__003

L’Fdp è lanciata al 9.5%, quindi ben al di sopra della soglia del 5%.

Grüne e Linke otterrebbero il 7.5% ed il 9%, rispettivamente: con un sostanziale calo rispetto le pregresse elezioni.

2017-09-15__Schulz__004

Ma il vero elemento nuovo è l’Spd, la socialdemocrazia, proiettata al 20%.

Se è vero che l’Spd calerebbe di tre punti percentuali rispetto le passate elezioni, variazione significativa ma non drammatica, cala invece di quindici punti percentuali rispetto alle proiezioni fatte a primavera, quando Herr Martin Schulz aveva lasciato la presidenza dell’Europarlamento, scalzato Herr Gabriel dalla direzione del partito, ed aveva annunciato che sarebbe diventato il prossimo cancelliere.

Poi Herr Martin Schulz ha aperto bocca, ha annunciato il suo piano politico, e così il consenso per i socialdemocratici è crollato, si è disciolto come neve messa in un altoforno.

Sono in molti a ringraziare l’Onnipotente di aver donato alla Germania Herr Martin Schulz, l’unica persona al mondo in grado di distruggere così compiutamente il partito socialdemocratico tedesco.

Se al posto di Herr Schulz ci fosse stato un Richelieu, un von Bismarck, oppure un Lenin, l’Europa sarebbe tutta riunita e compatta sotto un regime socialista de iure e de facto.

Gran brutto colpo sia per l’Internazionale Socialista, per il Partito del Socialismo Europeo, per l’Alleanza Progressista dei Socialisti e dei Democratici, ma soprattutto per l’Alleanza Progressista.

Questa ultima, fondata il 22 maggio 2013, annovera tra i suoi membri il Partito Democratico (Italia), il Partito Laburista (Regno Unito), il Partito Socialista (Francia), ed infine Il Partito Democratico negli Stati Uniti. Tutti reduci dalla perdita dei governi nelle rispettive nazioni.

Si vedrà poi a quali alleanze Frau Merkel vincolerà il futuro della Germania.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo

Merkel in minoranza in seno alla Commissione Europea. – Spiegel

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-09-01.

 Merkel 998

Il titolo del Der Spiegel è tutto un programma: “Germany’s Hardline on Turkey Begins to Soften

Diversi i punti di interesse. Per sommi capi.

– Frau Merkel non vorrebbe pagare alla Turkia i sei miliardi pattuiti perché si tenesse i profughi;

– Frau Merkel vorrebbe anche negare alla Turkia i soldi chele spetterebbero come stato in attesa di ingresso;

– Mr Erdogan ha replicato ad Herr Gabriel: “Ma chi c@@o sei da parlare al Presidente turko?”;

– La Commissione Europea ha detto a Frau Merkel che non a lei a poter decidere, bensì la Commissione, a maggioranza qualificata;

– «After surveying their 27 EU partners, Berlin found that only a minority are in favor of its course»

* * * * * * *

«When it comes to Gabriel’s demand to review state export credit guarantees for deals with Turkey, the chancellor herself has intervened»

*

«Gabriel would like to introduce a cap on the total sum of such guarantees (known as Hermes Cover), but the Chancellery is skeptical.»

*

«she [Merkel] could lose votes to the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP)»

*

«With agreement from the Chancellery, Gabriel wrote to the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and to Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn to inquire whether pre-accession assistance, being paid to Ankara as part of ongoing accession negotiations, could be suspended»

*

«Internally, Commission officials have been trying for weeks to make it clear to their German counterparts that suspending the payments is far from straightforward»

*

«Indeed, Brussels doesn’t even have the power to make such a decision»

*

«The responsibility lies with EU member states, a qualified majority of whom would have to agree that Turkey is no longer in fulfillment of the so-called Copenhagen accession criteria on, for example, human rights or rule of law issues»

*

«After surveying their 27 EU partners, Berlin found that only a minority are in favor of its course. France and Italy are among those most vehemently opposed.»

*

«At issue is the second tranche of the 6 billion euros Turkey was promised as part of the refugee deal.»

*

«Not long later, though, the Turkish president sharpened his tone once again, launching a personal attack on the German foreign minister: “Who are you to speak to the president of Turkey?” he hissed at Gabriel»

*

«The number of refugees arriving on the Greek islands has also been on the rise of late, a situation that Berlin and Brussels are monitoring with concern»

* * * * * * *

Come al solito, il punto veramente importante è stato diluito nelle ultime righe.

«After surveying their 27 EU partners, Berlin found that only a minority are in favor of its course. France and Italy are among those most vehemently opposed.»

La Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel non ha più la maggioranza dei capi degli stati in seno alla Commissione Europea. Certo, non avesse insultato, sberleffato, deriso e vessato Polonia, Ungheria, Repubblica Ceka e Slovakia avrebbe avuto quattro voti con sé. Ma dopo quello che ha fatto, se li scorderà oggi, domani e sempre.

Diciamo pure che Frau Merkel sembrerebbe non avere la fine arte diplomatica di Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord.


→ Spiegel. 2017-08-28. Germany’s Hardline on Turkey Begins to Soften

With the Turkish president firing away at Germany at will, Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel recently announced that Berlin would take a tougher stance. It hasn’t happened. Indeed, Germany may soon have to cough up significant amounts of money for Ankara.

*

When German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel and Angela Merkel met at the end of July to discuss how to handle the most recent indignities fired off by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan in the direction of Germany, the chancellor gave the impression that she completely supported Gabriel’s proposals. Speaking on television afterwards, Gabriel said “everything I am telling you has been coordinated with Ms. Merkel.”

One month later, though, things look markedly different. It is apparently more difficult than he thought to follow up tough words with deeds. And consensus in Merkel’s cabinet has also suffered. Gabriel was able to achieve a quick success by convincing Erdogan to withdraw a list of terrorism supporters which included German companies. Not long later, though, the Turkish president sharpened his tone once again, launching a personal attack on the German foreign minister: “Who are you to speak to the president of Turkey?” he hissed at Gabriel. The number of refugees arriving on the Greek islands has also been on the rise of late, a situation that Berlin and Brussels are monitoring with concern.

As such, Gabriel’s appetite has only grown for taking the kind of tough stance on Turkey that Germany had threatened. But the Foreign Ministry in Berlin has lately found itself confronted with reservations and opposition in both Brussels and Berlin.

When it comes to Gabriel’s demand to review state export credit guarantees for deals with Turkey, the chancellor herself has intervened. Gabriel would like to introduce a cap on the total sum of such guarantees (known as Hermes Cover), but the Chancellery is skeptical. Merkel is concerned that such a move could hurt German exporters and she isn’t interested in damaging relations with that constituency in the middle of her re-election campaign – particularly out of fear that she could lose votes to the business-friendly Free Democrats (FDP). The consequence is that negotiations between the Foreign Ministry and the Chancellery on the issue are making no progress.

Trying for Weeks

A second threat aimed at hurting Erdogan has met a similar fate. With agreement from the Chancellery, Gabriel wrote to the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, and to Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn to inquire whether pre-accession assistance, being paid to Ankara as part of ongoing accession negotiations, could be suspended. Between 2014 and 2020, Turkey is set to receive 4.45 billion euros in accordance with the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance II (IPA II) program. Thus far, only around 250 million euros has been dispersed.

Internally, Commission officials have been trying for weeks to make it clear to their German counterparts that suspending the payments is far from straightforward. Indeed, Brussels doesn’t even have the power to make such a decision. The responsibility lies with EU member states, a qualified majority of whom would have to agree that Turkey is no longer in fulfillment of the so-called Copenhagen accession criteria on, for example, human rights or rule of law issues. That, though, is risky, since that would force a suspension of the accession talks – at least according to the Commission’s interpretation. Berlin, though, doesn’t agree.

Only minor adjustments are possible. Hahn’s office, for example, has long been looking for ways to prevent EU money from aiding the purges that Erdogan launched after last summer’s unsuccessful coup attempt. Smaller projects, such as one to train judges in Turkey, have been stopped since its goal can hardly be achieved at a time when the Turkish president is throwing independent lawyers in jail.

Vehemently Opposed

The mid-term review of pre-accession aid for all EU accession candidates (including countries like Albania and Serbia in addition to Turkey) could represent a greater danger to Erdogan. Should Turkey get poor marks on issues such as the rule of law, up to 20 percent of the money earmarked for the country could be sent elsewhere. Again, though, EU member states must grant their approval.

And that, as the German government has realized, is not a foregone conclusion. After surveying their 27 EU partners, Berlin found that only a minority are in favor of its course. France and Italy are among those most vehemently opposed.

Plus, the EU is in the process of trying to drum up more money for Turkey as it is. At issue is the second tranche of the 6 billion euros Turkey was promised as part of the refugee deal. The deal calls for the entire sum to be paid by the end of 2018 and is earmarked for such projects as the provision of humane shelters for refugees. The first tranche of 3 billion euros will have been used up by the end of the year and Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger has included around 300 million euros for the second tranche in his 2018 draft budget. The rest, though, is to come from EU member states. “The member states have to finance 2 billion plus X,” he says. Germany contributed around 500 million euros to the first tranche, but will likely have to pay more this time around – both because the Commission itself has less money available and because it isn’t clear whether Britain will continue to contribute its share.

There is even opposition within Gabriel’s Social Democratic Party (SPD) to cutting Turkey’s pre-accession assistance. Jens Geier, head of the German SPD caucus in European Parliament, says: “A portion of our funding serves to strengthen civil society. As such, it often helps those who stand up to Erdogan.”

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Macron sceglie un Primo Ministro giovane e di ‘destra’.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-02-16.

Gatto e Volpe 001

«Édouard Philippe (Rouen, 28 novembre 1970) è un politico francese, Primo ministro della Francia dal 15 maggio 2017.

Figlio di insegnanti, cresce in una famiglia di sinistra. Dopo il baccalaureato a Bonn, nel 1992 si laurea all’Istituto di Studi Politici di Parigi. Tra il 1995 e il 1997 frequenta l’École nationale d’administration di Strasburgo per poi iniziare la propria carriera professionale lavorando al Consiglio di Stato.

Durante gli anni all’Istituto di Studi Politici è politicamente vicino al Partito Socialista e sostenitore del primo ministro Michel Rocard. Il primo incarico politico rivestito è la carica di vice-sindaco del comune di Le Havre, nel 2001.

Nel 2002 si candida alle elezioni legislative nel distretto 8 della Senna Marittima, ma non viene eletto.

A partire dal 2002 si allontana dalle posizioni socialiste per avvicinarsi a quelle della destra. In questi anni collabora con Alain Juppé per la fondazione dell’UMP, movimento di cui resta direttore generale dei servizi fino al 2004. Dal 2004 al 2008 è consigliere regionale della Alta Normandia.

Nel 2007, dopo la vittoria alle elezioni presidenziali di Sarkozy, Alain Juppé viene nominato ministro dell’ecologia nel primo governo Fillon e Philippe collabora al ministero per un breve periodo.

Nel 2008 viene eletto al consiglio generale della Senna Marittima per il comune di Le Havre, viene nominato assessore e, nel 2009, di nuovo vice-sindaco di Le Havre. Il 24 ottobre 2010, dopo le dimissioni del predecessore Rufenacht, viene eletto sindaco di Le Havre e il successivo 18 dicembre diventa anche presidente dell’agglomerato urbano di Le Havre.

Dal 2012 è deputato per la regione della Senna Marittima, subentrato a Jean-Yves Besselat dopo la sua morte il 23 marzo e confermato nella carica dalle successive elezioni legislative.

Il 24 marzo 2014 è rieletto sindaco di Le Havre al primo turno, con il 52,04% dei voti.» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

A giudicare da quanto si legge sulla stampa molte persone sembrerebbero essere sconcertate di quanto sta accadendo e trovano difficile comprendere gli avvenimenti.

Nella sua generalità, il problema sarebbe invece molto semplice.

Sia Mr Trump negli Stati Uniti sia Mr Macron in Francia sono degli outsider: non sono riconducibili ai partiti tradizionali. In Francia, poi, i partiti tradizionali sono stati nettamente ridimensionati da parte di un elettorato diventato oramai intollerante alle manfrine passate. Che continuino a sopravvivere socialisti e repubblicani è cosa ovvia, ma questi nomi non corrispondono più al vecchio modo di pensare la cosa pubblica e la politica.

Similmente, i vecchi termini di “destra” e “sinistra” sembrerebbero non essere più a lungo applicabili: sono diventate categorie mentali obsolete, che non trovano più riscontro nella realtà.

Caso da manuale è la recente sconfitta subita da Herr Schulz in Nordrhein-Westfalen, ove si era presentato credendo di poter trionfare nel riproporre le classiche soluzioni del socialismo ideologico, ossia proprio i motivi per cui l’Spd ha perso bel sette punti percentuali ed ha perso il governo del Land.

Nordrhein-Westfalen. Epicrisi a livello federale. Spd kaputt.

Come Mr Trump, Mr Macron è un pratico: utilizza ed utilizzerà tutto ciò che possa consolidare il proprio potere, senza essere coercito da alcuna idea preconcetta. In questo, molti dei suoi comportamenti ricordano quelli di Lenin.

Etichettare Mr Macron di “sinistra“, oppure il suo nuovo governo di “destra“, sarebbe un grandioso errore, specie poi se si attribuissero a questi termini i significati passati.

Per meglio spiegarsi, potrebbe essere utile leggere il resoconto dell’incontro tra Mr Macron e Frau Merkel.

Macron e Merkel: “Cambiamo i trattati Ue”

In Mr Macron si può ben vedere il vero successo ottenuto da Mrs Le Pen: annientato il partito socialista francese e ridimensionato severamente quello dei Les Républicains, ha aperto un nuova era in Francia.

*

Comunque le elezioni politiche sono tra circa un mese. In quella occasione saranno disponibili i voti dell’Elettorato.

Nota.

Tanto poi si mettono di accordo in loggia.


Sole 24 Ore. 2017-05-15. Macron sceglie un premier di centro-destra: sarà Edouard Philippe, sindaco di Le Havre

PARIGI – Il premier di Emmanuel Macron è Edouard Philippe, deputato della destra e sindaco di Le Havre. L’annuncio è stato dato nel primo pomeriggio, sulle scale dell’Eliseo, dal segretario generale della presidenza, Alexis Kohler.
Le previsioni della vigilia sono quindi state pienamente rispettate. Sul nome e soprattutto sull’etichetta politica del nuovo capo del Governo. Che conferma la strategia “trasversale” del nuovo presidente.

Giovane e «Enarca»

Philippe, 46 anni, ha un profilo che assomiglia molto a quello di Macron. Ha un’età che contribuisce a sottolineare la svolta anche generazionale in corso sulla scena politica francese. Avvocato specializzato in diritto pubblico, ha studiato a SciencesPo prima di frequentare l’Ena, la prestigiosa scuola dell’amministrazione pubblica dalla quale escono tutti i potenti del Paese. Ha inframezzato la propria carriera politica con delle esperienze professionali nel settore privato: prima in uno studio legale americano, poi ad Areva, l’ex gioiello del nucleare francese. Infine non è “né di destra né di sinistra”. Proprio come il movimento creato da Macron.

Né di destra né di sinistra

Nel senso che all’inizio era di sinistra, ma la cosiddetta “seconda sinistra” di Michel Rocard, l’anima socialdemocratica e liberal-liberista del partito socialista. Ben presto, nel 2001, è però passato all’allora Ump (oggi “Les Républicains”, LR), dov’è sempre stato molto vicino all’ex premier Alain Juppé. Il centrista, il moderato del partito. Di Juppé è persino stato il portavoce alle primarie della destra dello scorso novembre. Dopo la sconfitta del suo “maestro” ha comunque partecipato alla campagna di François Fillon, salvo abbandonarla quando è scoppiato il Penelopegate. Accarezzando l’idea di creare, con altri colleghi, una sorta di “movimento dei sindaci”.

Sindaco popolare

Nato a Rouen, si è però candidato sindaco a Le Havre. Dov’è molto popolare e apprezzato, come dimostra il fatto che nel 2014 sia stato rieletto al primo turno, con il 52% dei voti. Figlio di due insegnanti di francese, è perfettamente germanofono. Si è addirittura diplomato al liceo francese di Bonn, a quel tempo diretto dal padre.

Missione: strappare voti ai Républicains

Al di là delle affinità tra i due uomini, che si conoscono e si apprezzano da tempo, Philippe ha inoltre il profilo giusto in vista delle legislative di metà giugno. Che Macron deve assolutamente vincere per avere una maggioranza parlamentare (e quindi un Governo) indispensabile per poter realizzare il suo programma di riforme. Per centrare anche questo obiettivo cruciale, il presidente – dopo aver dissanguato il partito socialista – deve andare a cercare consensi a destra, provando a strappare a LR, che per ora resiste, almeno alcune figure rappresentative, in grado di portare voti. Gli serviva quindi un premier – al quale spetterà appunto il compito di guidare anche la campagna delle legislative – proveniente da quel mondo.

I pesi massimi della destra hanno immediatamente commentato sottolineando lo scarso peso politico del nuovo premier, ma Philippe potrebbe invece essere la persona giusta per condurre con successo questa incursione oltre le linee nemiche.


Aljazeera. 2017-05-15. Emmanuel Macron names Edouard Philippe prime minister

Chosen by Emmanuel Macron, 46-year-old Edouard Philippe joins diverse group serving in new administration.

*

Edouard Philippe, a 46-year-old centre-right French politician and lawyer, has been named prime minister by Emmanuel Macron, France’s new president.

Macron announced Philippe’s appointment on Monday, his first day in office after his inauguration on Sunday.

Philippe has been a member of the Union for a Popular Movement and later the Republicans. He has also served as a member of the National Assembly.

Philippe is mayor of the northern port of Le Havre and an MP for the region since 2012 who studied at the same universities as Macron and shares many of his views on the economy and social issues.

Upon taking over his official duties from former PM Bernard Cazeneuve, Philippe said that he is principially ‘right-wing, and yet the general interest must dictate the engagement of the state, of elected officials and of the citizen”. 

Political reactions

Francois Bayrou, leader of the Democratic Movement Party, took to Twitter in appreciation of Philippe’s naming to the office of prime minister. “I am very happy with [Philippe’s] nomination because of his human qualities and because of the composure thus promised to France”, Bayrou tweeted.

Leader of the French far-right, Marine Le Pen, who lost the presidency to Macron, said in a statement that ‘Philippe’s nomination is the perfect summary of the last 10 years in France, this ‘sacred’ alliance between the old right and left”.

The Greens, who supported a far-left candidate for the presidency, decried “Macron’s liberal intentions” in a press release and reaffirmed their plea to the president for the creation of an Environment Ministry in the French government.

Bruno Retailleau, leader of the French Republican senators, found harsh words for Philippe’s nomination, saying that Macron’s tactic involves ‘weakening the right in the parliamentary elections” and “destabilising the electorate”.

Far-left former candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon also criticised the new PM and Macron’s choice, saying in a statement that “the new president has just acquired the entire traditional political class and returned to the old order”.

By picking him, Macron, a centrist, has sent a signal to attract other young modernisers from the Republicans to his new centrist party, La Republique En Marche (Republic on the Move or REM), which will contest parliamentary elections in June.

Al Jazeera’s David Chater, reporting from Paris, said Philippe is the ideal person for Macron and they share common ideals.

“He is the man who Macron believes can increase the number of defections from the right wing inside the National Assembly,” he said.

“This prime minister can perhaps bring enough people with him, enough defectors to the Republican On The Move party, to insure the next major battle. We are really in the campaign for that battle already – the parliamentary elections. If Macron wins a sufficiently big majority, perhaps even an absolute majority, he can get through all the reforms that are important to him.”

Macron, a former minister and investment banker, was elected as the country’s youngest-ever leader since Napoleon on May 7.

Pubblicato in: Criminalità Organizzata

Il Parlamento Europeo apre una inchiesta per frodi su Martin Schulz. Dimissioni.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-02-14.

schulz-martin-023

«The Chair of the European Parliament’s powerful Budgetary Control Committee, Ingeborg Grässle, has vowed to open an official investigation into the accusations of fraud surrounding former EP President Martin Schulz.»

*

«Ms Grässle, who chairs the EP committee charged with overseeing proper use of EU funds, accused Schulz of having created a “Stalinist system of cronyism” during his five years as President of the Parliament»

*

«consideration of fraud and irregularities in the implementation of the budget of the Union, measures aimed at preventing and prosecuting such cases, the strict protection of the Union’s financial interests»

*

«Schulz was shamelessly bending regulation according to his political ambition. I will see to it that these revelations are thoroughly investigated»

*

«- Extensive use of a private jet, chartered at a cost of €20,000 an hour, to travel between Brussels, Strasbourg and Berlin.

– High-handed attitude towards staff: one junior aide to Schulz changed jobs after having been ordered on several occasions to iron the President’s trousers – not part of his job description.

– Shoehorning political allies into well-paid posts in the EP administration without going through proper recruitment procedures, and in many cases persons neither suited nor qualified for their jobs.

– Regularly entertaining staff and allies at the exclusive Au Crocodile Michelin-star restaurant in Strasbourg.»

*

«His five years heading an EU institution clearly led to him getting further and further out of touch as he expanded his lavish lifestyle»

*

«His accumulation of power led to him abusing it by infringing the EP financial and staff regulations to promote and enrich his closest collaborators»

* * * * * * *

Mrs Ingeborg Grässle, Chair of the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee ha compilato un atto di accusa molto severo nei confronti dell’ex-Presidente del parlamento Europeo, Herr Martin Schulz.

Ma oltre agli evidenti abusi di potere ed alle spese ingenti sostenute a beneficio suo e dei suoi cari, che poi sono davvero molti, l’accusa peggiore è quella di associazione per delinquere.

«accused Schulz of having created a “Stalinist system of cronyism” during his five years as President of the Parliament»

* * * * * * *

Herr Martin Schulz aveva sempre sostenuto, assieme ai suoi compagni di partito socialdemocratici, che un politico indagato avrebbe dovuto dimettersi e ritirarsi a vita privata in attesa che la Magistratura fosse arrivata a sentenza.

Orbene: questo è il momento della verità.

Herr Martin Schulz si deve ritirare dalla competizione elettorale per la Cancelleria tedesca e tornare a via privata.


The Times. 2017-02-13. Merkel rival flies into cronyism row.

Martin Schulz is wooing German voters but faces an inquiry into lavish spending and his choice of aides when he was head of the European parliament.

*

He is the left-wing German populist presenting Chancellor Angela Merkel with her most serious challenge at the polls in more than a decade as she runs for a fourth term in September’s election.

But Martin Schulz, 61, the newly appointed leader of the Social Democrats, is facing an official inquiry into his use of private jets, lavish spending in expensive restaurants and alleged promotion of close aides to plum posts during the five years he spent as president of the European parliament.

An investigation by The Sunday Times — in conjunction with the German news magazine, Der Spiegel — has cast a spotlight on the high-spending habits of Schulz, who left his parliamentary job last month to return to Germany to take on Merkel.

These include regular use of a private jet, chartered at a cost of €20,000 (£17,000) an hour, to travel between Brussels and other European cities such as Strasbourg and Berlin, which are well served by scheduled flights and high-speed trains.

Schulz also faces accusations that he shoehorned political allies into key posts; it was said some were not suited to their jobs or did not go through proper recruitment procedures. Others allegedly took extra payments to which they were not entitled.

The former parliament chief, who makes much of his humble origins, was also said to have been high-handed towards staff: one junior aide to Schulz changed jobs after having been ordered on several occasions to iron his boss’s trousers.

Last week, Ingeborg Grässle, chairwoman of the parliament’s budgetary control committee, accused Schulz of having created a “Stalinist system of cronyism” and said she would open an investigation into the allegations.

“Schulz was shamelessly bending regulation according to his political ambition. I will see to it that these revelations are thoroughly investigated,” said Grässle, who, as a member of Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union, is a political opponent.

Both Schulz and his party refused to comment on the claims, which were also published yesterday by Der Spiegel.

They come as last week’s polls in Germany showed Schulz’s popularity rating had surged to 50%, against just 37% for Merkel, who is facing a backlash over her “open-door policy”, which allowed in more than 1m migrants.

European parliament records show that Schulz, whose annual income was more than €340,000, regularly took private jets to and from party political events, such as party conferences, awards ceremonies and even panel discussions.

He had two chauffeurs at his disposal and used such aircraft almost daily in 2014 when he was engaged in a failed attempt to become president of the European Commission. On one trip alone he travelled from Florence to Berlin, via Malta, and Valencia in Spain.

Schulz was also fond of entertaining staff and allies, favouring Au Crocodile, a Michelin-star eatery in Strasbourg, seat of the European parliament, and Barbanera, an elegant Brussels restaurant that serves Italian wines costing €300 (£255) a bottle.

The Sunday Times has also been shown written complaints from officials in the European parliament about Schulz’s promotion of allies — many of them fellow Germans. In one such document concerns are raised that Schulz violated “staff regulation” in his efforts to promote members of his private office. Schulz’s decision to elevate his allies, the document states, was “forcing” recruiters to promote his staff to a “higher type of job”.

“The audacity with which Schulz put only half-competent party buddies in key positions is damaging for the taxpayer,” said Grässle. She added: “It’s nepotism pure and simple — he did everything that we criticise African leaders for.”

Particular attention has focused on one such associate of Schulz — Markus Engels, who this month left parliament to take up a post as the Social Democrats’ campaign manager.

Engels, 49, worked in Berlin at a European parliament branch office from 2012, but was officially listed as employed in Brussels. This meant his €5,200 monthly salary was boosted by a 16% expatriate allowance. It also allowed him to claim a further €16,000 a year for travel. The arrangement was mockingly described as a “permanent business trip” by parliament officials. Engels has declined to comment.

Schulz, who was born in the village of Hehlrath, near the Dutch and Belgian borders, has made a political virtue of his modest beginning and his achievements despite the lack of formal education.

He dropped out of secondary school to become a professional footballer, but after an injury ended his career he opened a bookstore and suffered from alcoholism, according to his own account, for several years. He began his career in local politics, becoming mayor of Würselen, a town of about 40,000 people in North Rhine-Westphalia, in 1987 at the age of 31.

Schulz then moved into European politics. In 1994 he was elected to the European parliament. In 2003 he became known to a wider public when he was embroiled in a row with Silvio Berlusconi, then the Italian prime minister, who said he would be “perfect” for the role of a Nazi concentration camp guard.

Schulz brooks few challenges to his authority. Viewing Brexit as a personal affront, he would be expected to take a tougher line with Britain if he became chancellor. Ulrich Speck, a political analyst, said Schulz viewed EU unity as far more important than good German-British relations.

The contrast between Schulz and the opera-loving Merkel, who holds a PhD in physical chemistry, has helped his surge in the polls.

But today’s revelations of largesse could antagonise German voters accustomed to Merkel’s modest lifestyle: she runs a VW Golf and does her own shopping.

Alarmed at Schulz’s rise, Merkel’s Christian Democrats have stepped up their attacks on his campaigning style. Last week Wolfgang Schäuble, the finance minister, accused him of trying to ride a wave of populism similar to that which propelled Donald Trump to the White House.

For now, polls show Schulz’s strategy of campaigning as the “common man” candidate is working. Last week, he said in a speech that he was “too lazy” at school and “not talented” for a football career yet had reached the pinnacle of politics.

“My money is on Schulz,” said Michiel van Hulten, a former Dutch MEP who worked with him. “He has the endless energy, and endless will for power.”


NOS. 2017-02-13. ‘SPD-leider Schulz smeet met geld en deed aan vriendjespolitiek’.

De Britse krant The Sunday Times schrijft dat Martin Schulz enorme geldbedragen heeft uitgegeven in zijn tijd als voorzitter van het Europees Parlement. Uit een onderzoek dat de krant samen met het Duitse blad Der Spiegel heeft gedaan, zou ook blijken dat de Duitse politicus zich schuldig heeft gemaakt aan vriendjespolitiek.

Schulz zou onder meer gebruik hebben gemaakt van een dure privéjet voor reizen tussen Brussel en andere Europese steden die voor een fractie van de prijs ook bereikbaar waren met de trein en reguliere vluchten. Ook zou hij werknemers en politieke bondgenoten regelmatig getrakteerd hebben op etentjes bij dure sterrenrestaurants.

De krant schrijft klachten ingezien te hebben van medewerkers van het Europees Parlement waarin Schulz wordt beschuldigd van vriendjespolitiek. Zo zou hij herhaaldelijk zijn persoonlijke medewerkers en bondgenoten hogere functies hebben gegeven, ook als dit volgens de regels eigenlijk niet mogelijk was.

Schulz werd deze maand gekozen tot lijsttrekker van de sociaal-democratische SPD. Afgaande op peilingen is de SPD sindsdien populairder geworden. Schulz zou een goede kans hebben om ten koste van Merkel bondskanselier te worden. Duitsland kiest in september een nieuw parlement.

Verkiezingscampagne

“Hij deed alles waar we Afrikaanse leiders om bekritiseren”, zou voorzitter Ingeborg Gräßle van het Comité voor Budgettaire Controle over hem hebben gezegd. Gräßle zit in het Europees Parlement namens de CDU, die het in de Duitse verkiezingscampagne opneemt tegen de SPD van Schulz.

Medewerker Markus Engels, die vanuit Berlijn met Schulz werkte, zou door hem op een lijst zijn gezet waarmee hij op papier in Brussel werkzaam was. Hierdoor kreeg Engels 16 procent extra op zijn maandelijkse salaris van 5200 euro. Ook had hij hierdoor recht op 16.000 euro reiskostenvergoeding.

Nadat Schulz was afgetreden als voorzitter van het Europees Parlement om leider van de SPD te worden, is Engels ook gestopt met zijn werkzaamheden in Brussel. Hij is nu campagneleider van de SPD.

Schulz, Engels en de SPD wilden niet reageren op het onderzoek van Der Spiegel en The Sunday Times.


Agenda Europe. 2017-02-13. EU Parliament anti-fraud chief to open investigation of Martin Schulz

he Chair of the European Parliament’s powerful Budgetary Control Committee, Ingeborg Grässle, has vowed to open an official investigation into the accusations of fraud surrounding former EP President Martin Schulz. The scandal which was revealed by German weekly Der Spiegel on Saturday, was compounded by further revelations by UK newspaper the Sunday Times today.

Ms Grässle, who chairs the EP committee charged with overseeing proper use of EU funds, accused Schulz of having created a “Stalinist system of cronyism” during his five years as President of the Parliament. She has on numerous occasions in the past raised questions about dubious appointments of Schulz’ political cronies to sensitive positions in the EP administration, including in the EP financial, personnel and legal departments. Her committee’s responsibilities include “consideration of fraud and irregularities in the implementation of the budget of the Union, measures aimed at preventing and prosecuting such cases, the strict protection of the Union’s financial interests.”

“Schulz was shamelessly bending regulation according to his political ambition. I will see to it that these revelations are thoroughly investigated,” said Grässle, a member of Angela Merkel’s Christian Democratic Union. So far Martin Schulz has refused to respond to the accusations and has let other members of his SPD party – which recently selected him as its candidate to face Merkel in the forthcoming German federal elections – make public statements, dismissing the revelations as CDU party politicking.

Among the accusations of abuse of power against Schulz made by the Sunday Times are:

– Extensive use of a private jet, chartered at a cost of €20,000 an hour, to travel between Brussels, Strasbourg and Berlin.

– High-handed attitude towards staff: one junior aide to Schulz changed jobs after having been ordered on several occasions to iron the President’s trousers – not part of his job description.

– Shoehorning political allies into well-paid posts in the EP administration without going through proper recruitment procedures, and in many cases persons neither suited nor qualified for their jobs.

– Regularly entertaining staff and allies at the exclusive Au Crocodile Michelin-star restaurant in Strasbourg.

All of this is very far from the carefully-cultivate man-of-the-people image that Schulz has cultivated and is now trying to present in the German election campaign. His five years heading an EU institution clearly led to him getting further and further out of touch as he expanded his lavish lifestyle. His accumulation of power led to him abusing it by infringing the EP financial and staff regulations to promote and enrich his closest collaborators.

It is to be hoped that the current EP leadership will not seek to cover up any of Schulz’ activities but will facilitate a thorough investigation into each and every one of the accusations.