Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Ideologia liberal, Unione Europea

Brexit. Una domanda che tormenta le menti liberal.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-20.

2019-09-20__Brexit


Gli inglesi vogliono andarsene da questa Europa.

E vorrebbero anche farlo sbattendosi dietro la porta.

* * *

Che abbiano ragione Mr Juncker, Mr Tusk, Mr Macron, Frau Merkel, etc. etc. ?

Che siano tutti fascisti?

Annunci
Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale

Unione Europea. Immatricolazioni auto. GB -41.1%, It -41.9%, Fr -24.9%. M/m.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-19.

2019-09-19__Immatricolazioni Auto


Nei principali paesi europei le immatricolazioni di auto nuove sono consistentemente calate nel mese di luglio, dai dati mese/mese.

Dal -41.9% in Italia al -24.9% in Francia.

Gran brutto segno per il mercato automobilistico e per le società che producono automobili.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Giustizia, Senza categoria

Una accusa penale non comprovata è una calunnia. Solo il 3% è vera.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-15.

Giustizia 101

In un paese civile chiunque ne abbia la legale potestà deve essere messo in grado di sporgere denuncia circa un fatto che a suo avviso costituisca reato.

Nel contempo però devono essere allegate tutte le prove probanti, oggettivamente verificabili. Un’accusa non suffragata da prove è una pura e semplice calunnia.

Usualmente, un giudice esamina la denuncia e decide se farla o meno procedere in giudizio.

Per alcune tipologie di reati è ragionevolmente facile addurre le prove, per altre meno.

Starà poi alle perizia del giudice istruttore enuclearle in un tutto coerente ed incontrovertibile ed al giudice giudicante, ed alla giuria quando previsto, il darne la valutazione finale, sentita ovviamente la difesa.

In un sistema giudiziario ben funzionante larga quota dei rinvii a giudizio si concludono infatti con una condanna.

* * * * * * *

«allegations of rape reaching a high of 58,000 in England and Wales»

«The annual Violence Against Women and Girls report shows the number of reports of rape that end in a conviction is about 3%.»

È del tutto evidente che qualcosa non funzionava, e continua ancora a non funzionare. Il 97% degli accusati è stato dimostrato essere innocente, e questo dopo un lungo tempo di linciaggio morale, che spesso ha comportato anche la perdita del lavoro.

Se è vero che la Giustizia debba tutelare le vittime di una violenza, sarebbe altrettanto vero ricordare come debba tutelare da violenza anche quel 97% di innocenti falsamente accusati.

In fondo è solo questione di sano buon senso.

I Magistrati inglesi hanno preso provvedimenti.

«Campaigners say the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has changed its approach in rape cases – no longer building rape prosecutions, but screening cases out if they think a jury will not convict»

«This is denied by the CPS, which has announced a review of its decisions in rape cases»

«The figures also reveal that the number of suspects charged with rape or another offence has fallen, from 2,822 in 2017-18 to 1,758 in 2018-19»

«In 2007-08, when records were first compiled in the current way, 2,220 cases resulted in a charge»

«Of those, 2,201 cases resulted in a conviction …. The conviction figure takes in the number of suspects initially investigated for rape who were later convicted of rape or other offences, such as sexual assault or indecent assault»

* * * * * * *

Prendiamo atto che il lavoro del giudice istruttore sia stato professionalmente ineccepibile. Su 2,220 casi rimandati ben 2,201 hanno esitato in un provvedimento penale.

Prendiamo anche atto che molte denuncie che inizialmente invocavano la violenza carnale siano state derubricate ad assalti sessuali oppure indecenti, reati di gran lunga meno importanti.

* * * * * * *

Si ribadisce con forza come la presentazione di prove oggettive sia la base di ogni procedimento penale.

La calunnia è un gran brutto reato.


Bbc. 2019-09-12. Rape accuser ‘devastated’ at case being dropped

A woman who says she was raped by a man she had been on a date with has told the BBC she was left “devastated” after prosecutors decided to drop her case.

Annie Tisshaw says her mental health “really suffered” during the year-long investigation, and she was then told the CPS would not proceed further.

A report shows the number of rape convictions in England and Wales is at its lowest level since records began.

There were 1,925 convictions in 2018-19 – a 27% drop from the previous year.

This was in spite of allegations of rape reaching a high of 58,000 in England and Wales.

Campaigners say the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has changed its approach in rape cases – no longer building rape prosecutions, but screening cases out if they think a jury will not convict.

This is denied by the CPS, which has announced a review of its decisions in rape cases.

Annie, who has waived her right to anonymity, told the Victoria Derbyshire show that she was raped in her own flat after she had been on a date with a man she had met a few times before.

She says she reported the incident straight after it happened, handed over her phone, and the case was passed by police to the CPS, who told her it was “a positive case”.

“I’ve done everything right that you should do and then at the end, nearly a year later, I was told there were inconsistencies in the case.”

Those included CCTV from earlier in the night, which showed she wasn’t looking “particularly scared or nervous”, and text messages sent before the alleged rape, she says.

“This was a guy that I trusted, this was a guy that I had met before, so obviously at that time I didn’t know it was going to happen,” she says.

“My mental health really, really suffered throughout the police case. It’s devastating that I’ve gone through all of that and it’s just been dropped.”

Another woman, Lizi, told the BBC she spent “49 weeks of my life consumed by anxiety and anorexia” before she heard her case was being dropped.

“All I really remember from that call is screaming and sobbing,” she said.

The annual Violence Against Women and Girls report shows the number of reports of rape that end in a conviction is about 3%.

The figures also reveal that the number of suspects charged with rape or another offence has fallen, from 2,822 in 2017-18 to 1,758 in 2018-19.

In 2007-08, when records were first compiled in the current way, 2,220 cases resulted in a charge.

Of those, 2,201 cases resulted in a conviction – although some would be for investigations started in previous years.

The conviction figure takes in the number of suspects initially investigated for rape who were later convicted of rape or other offences, such as sexual assault or indecent assault.

The CPS – whose budget has been cut by 25% since 2010 – says it has worked hard to improve how it deals with sexual offence cases.

It explains the drop by saying it is getting fewer rape referrals from police – a 23% fall from the previous year – and that cases are taking longer because of digital evidence and the demands to disclose material to the defence.

‘Abandoning thousands of cases’

A coalition of women’s organisations, represented by the Centre for Women’s Justice (CWJ), is looking to take legal action against the CPS over claims cases are being “dropped” without good reason.

Lawyer Harriet Wistrich, founder of the CWJ, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme there was “compelling” evidence the collapse in prosecutions was mainly caused by “a deliberate change in the approach taken by the CPS dating back to late 2016”.

Dame Vera Baird, the victims’ commissioner, called on Prime Minister Boris Johnson to intervene by giving the justice system adequate resources and funding support services for survivors.

She questioned whether “abandoning thousands of cases of potentially traumatised men and women” was “ineptitude” or “deliberate policy” by prosecutors.

Max Hill, director of public prosecutions, denied there had been a change in approach from prosecutors at the CPS, but said he shared concerns at the “growing gap” between reported rapes and the number of prosecutions.

He told Today: “I am not going to point the finger in any particular direction. We – all of us working in the criminal justice system – need to come together now to discuss this.”

Deputy Chief Constable Sarah Crew, the National Police Chiefs’ Council lead for rape and adult sexual offences, said the decline in convictions reflects “a justice system that is stretched and under pressure”.

But she said police were working with victims’ groups to address issues that prevent people from reporting rape or from continuing to support an investigation.

The independent CPS watchdog, Her Majesty’s Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, has also launched a review of charging decisions in rape cases.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Geopolitica Europea, Unione Europea

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

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-09-04.

2019-09-04__Regno Unito 001

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *

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

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

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


Nota Importante.

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * *


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*


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

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

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo

Regno Unito. È legge che le leggi EU non abbiano più valore nel Regno Unito.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-21.

westminster-palace-01

Citiamo dal comunicato ufficiale del Governo del Regno Unito.

«The Government has signed into law legislation to repeal the Act of Parliament which set in stone Britain’s EU (EEC) membership in 1972»

«The 1972 Act is the vehicle that sees regulations flow into UK law directly from the EU’s lawmaking bodies in Brussels»

«The announcement of the Act’s repeal marks a historic step in returning lawmaking powers from Brussels to the UK»

«We are taking back control of our laws, as the public voted for in 2016»

«This is a clear signal to the people of this country that there is no turning back»

«Politicians cannot choose which public votes they wish to respect»

«This is a landmark moment in taking back control of our laws from Brussels.»

* * * * * * *

Gli inglesi hanno molte caratteristiche, talune comprensibili altre meno, ma si deve dar loro atto di sapersi esprimere in modo chiaro ed inequivocabile.

Il vero, concreto e reale motivo per cui il Regno Unito  stato costretto a lasciare l’Unione Europea è stata la volontà di questa ultima di voler imporre de facto uno stato europeo. Non essendone in grado di farlo in via politica, ha cercato di aggirare il problema gestendo l’Unione in via giudiziaria, con leggi che si rifanno a concetti metagiuridici alieni alla maggioranza degli stati afferenti.

Tecnicamente, questa operazione dovrebbe essere denominata un ‘golpe’. È stato il tentativo di conquistare il potere de facto ignorando la volontà popolare, quella che si esprime con le libere elezioni.

Il Regno Unito ha avuto il coraggio di sapersi ribellare, anche tenendo conto che il suo sistema giudiziario si fonda sul common law.

Nota.

In senso stretto, l’Unione Europea non legifera, piuttosto emette direttive alle quali gli stati devono adeguarsi. Il termine è stato usato in modo conviviale, per farsi meglio capire anche dai non addetti ai lavori.


Ansa. 2019-08-20. Brexit: firmata legge che cancella leggi Ue in Gran Bretagna

Il ministro britannico per la Brexit, Steve Barclay, ha firmato la legge che cancella l’atto del 1972 che sanciva l’adozione delle leggi europee da parte del Regno Unito. Lo riferisce un comunicato del governo britannico sottolineando che si tratta di “un passo storico per il ritorno dei poteri legislativi da Bruxelles al Regno Unito”. L’annullamento dell”European Communities Act’ entrerà in vigore il 31 ottobre, data in cui la Gran Bretagna lascerà l’Unione europea, con o senza accordo.

*


Gov UK. 2019-08-20. Brexit Secretary signs order to scrap 1972 Brussels Act – ending all EU law in the UK

The Government has signed into law legislation to repeal the Act of Parliament which set in stone Britain’s EU (EEC) membership in 1972.

The 1972 Act is the vehicle that sees regulations flow into UK law directly from the EU’s lawmaking bodies in Brussels.

The announcement of the Act’s repeal marks a historic step in returning lawmaking powers from Brussels to the UK. We are taking back control of our laws, as the public voted for in 2016.

The repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 will take effect when Britain formally leaves the EU on October 31.

Speaking after signing the legislation that will crystallise in law the upcoming repeal of the ECA, the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU Steve Barclay said:

– This is a clear signal to the people of this country that there is no turning back – we are leaving the EU as promised on October 31, whatever the circumstances – delivering on the instructions given to us in 2016.

– The votes of 17.4 million people deciding to leave the EU is the greatest democratic mandate ever given to any UK Government. Politicians cannot choose which public votes they wish to respect. Parliament has already voted to leave on 31 October. The signing of this legislation ensures that the EU Withdrawal Act will repeal the European Communities Act 1972 on exit day.

– The ECA saw countless EU regulations flowing directly into UK law for decades, and any government serious about leaving on October 31 should show their commitment to repealing it.

– That is what we are doing by setting in motion that repeal. This is a landmark moment in taking back control of our laws from Brussels.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

La crisi delle democrazie angloamericane. – Project Syndicate.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-17.

White House Animal 001

Il 9 novembre 2016 Reuters scriveva queste meste frasi.

«Two days ago, pollsters and statisticians gave Hillary Clinton odds of between 75 and 99 percent of winning the U.S. presidential election. How did so many get it so wrong?

The media, including Reuters, pumped out two kinds of poll stories. Some were national surveys designed to estimate the entire country’s popular vote, but not the outcome in individual states, where the contest is actually decided. These polls actually got the big picture right: Clinton won more overall votes than President-elect Donald Trump – but not by as much as the polling averages predicted, and not where she needed to. ….

In hindsight, though, the stories seem to have overstated Clinton’s chances for a win by failing to see that a shift in voting patterns in some states could show up in other, similar states. ….

U.S. presidents are chosen not by the national popular vote, but in the individual Electoral College contests in the 50 states and Washington D.C. In calculating probable outcomes, election predictors generally treated those 51 contests as completely separate events – as unrelated to one another as a series of 51 coin tosses.

The Reuters/Ipsos States of the Nation project projected Clinton to win the popular vote 45 percent to 42 percent, and gave her a 90 percent probability of winning the 270 electoral votes needed to secure the election. In the end, Clinton won the popular vote by 47.7 percent to 47.5 percent, by the latest count, and Trump could win the Electoral College by as many as 303 votes to Clinton’s 233 when the tally is final.»

* * * * * * *

Sono passati tre anni dalle elezioni di Mr Trump ed i liberal democratici ancora non hanno capito, per fortuna del Presidente, che è il collegio dei delegati che elegge il Presidente.

Non solo.

Sempre per fortuna di Mr Trump, i liberal democratici sembrerebbero non aver compreso come i temi etici stiano a cuore solo a loro, mentre la gente comune vota secondo programma economico: vuole semplicemente poter lavorare e guadagnare. Insomma, vivere in santa pace.

Infine, ciò che i liberal imputano a Mr Trump come peccato mortale è proprio quello che gli ha fatto vincere le elezioni.

Il buon Lenin ammoniva spesso i suoi gregari che menzogne e calunnie avevano vita breve, e nel medio lungo termine diventavano controproducenti. Ma non sempre gli epigoni sono a livello del maestro.

* * *

«There is an obvious answer to the question of how the world’s two oldest and most venerable democracies installed disordered minds in power and enabled them to pursue unpopular policies»

«Trump is a chronic liar, purveyor of racism, and large-scale tax cheat»

«Trump stands accused by more than 20 women of sexual predation, a behavior he bragged about on tape, and directed his attorney to make illegal payments»

«Like Trump, [Johnson] has a high disapproval rating among all age groups, and his approval ratings rise with voter age

«There is an obvious answer to the question of how two venerable democracies installed disordered minds in power and enabled them to pursue unpopular policies»

«The obvious answer is that both Trump and Johnson won support among older voters who have felt left behind in recent decades»

«The rise of Trump and Johnson also reflects a deeper political failure. The parties that opposed them, the Democrats and Labour respectively, failed to address the needs of workers displaced by globalization, who then migrated to the right»

«The common political flaw lies in the mechanics of political representation, notably both countries’ first-past-the-post voting systems»

«The common political flaw lies in the mechanics of political representation, notably both countries’ first-past-the-post voting systems. Electing representatives by a simple plurality in single-member districts has fostered the emergence of two dominant parties in both countries, rather than the multiplicity of parties elected in the proportional representation systems of Western Europe»

«The two-party system, which then leads to a winner-take-all politics, fails to represent voter interests as well as coalition governments, which must negotiate and formulate policies that are acceptable to two or more parties»

* * * * * * *

Sono miscelate due situazione differenti: un contenuto ed un mezzo, che di per sé stesso è neutro.

«the Democrats and Labour respectively, failed to address the needs of workers displaced by globalization, who then migrated to the right»

Questo è il cuore del problema. Democratici e laburisti si sono chiusi in un sistema autoreferenziale del tutto avulso dalla realtà contingente. Si sono alienati gli Elettori. Essendosi convinti che quanto riportato dai media sotto loro controllo fosse verità, questa li ha drasticamente ridimensionati.

– Per definizione, la votazione per collegio (o per distretto elettorale) porta a risultati del tutto differenti dalla frequenza percentuale a livello nazionale. Ciascuno di questi metodi ha i suoi pro ed i suoi contro: non esiste legge elettorale perfetta.


Project Syndicate. 2019-08-10. The Crisis of Anglo-American Democracy

There is an obvious answer to the question of how the world’s two oldest and most venerable democracies installed disordered minds in power and enabled them to pursue unpopular policies. But there is also a deeper explanation.

NEW YORK – How did the world’s two most venerable and influential democracies – the United Kingdom and the United States – end up with Donald Trump and Boris Johnson at the helm? Trump is not wrong to call Johnson the “Britain Trump” (sic). Nor is this merely a matter of similar personalities or styles: it is also a reflection of glaring flaws in the political institutions that enabled such men to win power.

Both Trump and Johnson have what the Irish physicist and psychologist Ian Hughes calls “disordered minds.” Trump is a chronic liar, purveyor of racism, and large-scale tax cheat. US Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report on his 22-month investigation of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign described repeated cases of Trump’s obstruction of justice. Trump stands accused by more than 20 women of sexual predation, a behavior he bragged about on tape, and directed his attorney to make illegal payments of hush money that constituted campaign finance violations.Johnson’s personal behavior is similarly incontinent. He is widely regarded as a chronic liar and as unkempt in personal life, including two failed marriages and an apparent domestic altercation on the eve of becoming prime minister. He has been repeatedly fired from jobs for lying and other disreputable behavior. He led the Brexit campaign in 2016 on claims that have been proven false. As British Foreign Secretary, he twice leaked secret intelligence – in one case, French intelligence about Libya, and in another case British intelligence about Iran. Like Trump, he has a high disapproval rating among all age groups, and his approval ratings rise with voter age.Trump’s record in office presents a further political puzzle. His policies are generally unpopular, and rarely reflect a majority of public opinion. His most important legislative victory – the 2017 tax cut – was unpopular at the time and remains so today. The same is true of his positions on climate change, immigration, building a wall along the Mexican border, cutting social spending, ending key provisions of Obamacare, withdrawing from the Iran nuclear agreement, and much else. Trump’s approval rating is consistently below 50% and currently stands at around 43%, with 53% disapproval.Trump uses emergency decrees and executive orders to implement his unpopular agenda. While the courts have overturned many decrees, the judicial process is slow, meandering, and unpredictable. In practice, the US is as close to one-person rule as imaginable within its Constitution’s precarious constraints.

The situation with Johnson may be similar. Public opinion turned against Brexit, Johnson’s hallmark issue, after the withdrawal negotiations with the European Union exposed the Leave campaign’s lies and exaggerations ahead of the 2016 referendum. Though the public and a majority in Parliament strongly oppose a no-deal Brexit, Johnson has pledged just that if he fails to negotiate an alternative.

There is an obvious answer to the question of how two venerable democracies installed disordered minds in power and enabled them to pursue unpopular policies. But there is also a deeper one. The obvious answer is that both Trump and Johnson won support among older voters who have felt left behind in recent decades. Trump appeals especially to older white male conservatives displaced by trade and technology, and, in the view of some, by America’s movements for civil rights, women’s rights, and sexual rights. Johnson appeals to older voters hit hard by deindustrialization and to those who pine for Britain’s glory days of global power. Yet this is not a sufficient explanation. The rise of Trump and Johnson also reflects a deeper political failure. The parties that opposed them, the Democrats and Labour respectively, failed to address the needs of workers displaced by globalization, who then migrated to the right. Yet Trump and Johnson pursue policies – tax cuts for the rich in the US, a no-deal Brexit in the UK – that run counter to the interests of their base. The common political flaw lies in the mechanics of political representation, notably both countries’ first-past-the-post voting systems. Electing representatives by a simple plurality in single-member districts has fostered the emergence of two dominant parties in both countries, rather than the multiplicity of parties elected in the proportional representation systems of Western Europe. The two-party system, which then leads to a winner-take-all politics, fails to represent voter interests as well as coalition governments, which must negotiate and formulate policies that are acceptable to two or more parties. Consider the US situation. Trump dominates the Republican Party, but only 29% of Americans identify themselves as Republicans, with 27% identifying as Democrats and 38% as independents, not comfortable with either party but unrepresented by an alternative. By winning power within the Republican Party, Trump scraped into office with fewer votes than rival Hillary Clinton but with more Electoral College delegates. Given that only 56% of eligible Americans voted in 2016 (partly owing to deliberate Republican efforts to make voting difficult), Trump received the support of just 27% of eligible voters.

Trump controls a party that represents less than one-third of the electorate, and governs mostly by decree. In the case of Johnson, fewer than 100,000 Conservative Party members elected him as their leader, thus making him prime minister, despite his approval rating of just 31% (compared to 47% who disapprove).Political scientists predict that a two-party system will represent the “median voter,” because each party moves to the political center in order to capture half the votes plus one. In practice, campaign financing has dominated US party calculations in recent decades, so the parties and candidates have gravitated to the right to curry favor with rich donors. (Senator Bernie Sanders is trying to break the chokehold of big money by raising large sums from small donors).In the UK, neither major party represents the majority who oppose Brexit. Yet the UK political system may nonetheless enable one faction of one party to make historic and lasting choices for the country that most voters oppose. Most ominously, winner-take-all politics has enabled two dangerous personalities to win national power despite widespread public opposition to them.No political system can perfectly translate the public will into policy, and the public will is often confused, misinformed, or swayed by dangerous passions. The design of political institutions is an ever-evolving challenge. Yet today, owing to their antiquated winner-take-all-rules, the world’s two oldest and most venerated democracies are performing poorly – dangerously so.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Stati Uniti

Trump aiuta Johnson offrendo un trattato commerciale bilaterale.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-08-14.

2019-08-15__Regno Unito 001

«The US wants to help the UK cushion the blow of Brexit with a bilateral trade deal»

«US president Donald Trump “wants to see a successful British exit from the European Union”»

«when it comes to trade negotiations, the EU is worse than China, only smaller»

«Bolton was to press British MPs to abandon an EU-backed nuclear arms control deal on Iran»

«He has pledged to leave the EU on 31 October no matter what»

«Downing Street has drawn up plans to pull out British diplomats from EU Council meetings in the near future in a symbolic step»

* * * * * * *

La Brexit è il suggello al fallimento umano e politico di Mrs Juncker e di Mr Tusk, per non parlare poi dei presidenti francesi Hollande prima e Macron dopo, nonché di Frau Merkel e di tutta l’ala liberal dell’europarlamento.

Sicuramente nel transitorio vi saranno sofferenze da ambo le parti, ma alla resa dei conti il Regno Unito avrà molto meno da perdere rispetto i paesi dell’Unione Europea, Germania in testa.

Mentre nell’ultimo decennio il pil dell’eurozona è restato invariato, segno questo di stagnazione, quello del Regno Unito è salito dai 2,453 miliardi Usd del 2010 ai 2,826 di fine 2018: nello stesso periodo il pil procapite è salito da 39.122 Usd agli attuali 42,442.

* * * * * * *

Con il 1° novembre dovrebbero uscire di scena Mr Juncker e Mr Tusk, e verosimilmente Frau Merkel dovrà metabolizzare la prossima ventura débâcle elettorale nel Länder dell’est; si aprono quindi ampi margini di manovra contrattuale.

Ma l’accordo probabile tra Stati Uniti e Regno Unito sarebbe di estrema utilità per ambedue le sponde atlantiche e, di riflesso, per un’Unione Europea che avrà difficoltà non da poco per cercare di uscire dalla fase depressiva.


Eu Observer. 2019-08-13. US offers Johnson helping hand on Brexit

The US wants to help the UK cushion the blow of Brexit with a bilateral trade deal, a senior White House official said in London on Monday (12 August).

US president Donald Trump “wants to see a successful British exit from the European Union”, the official, who asked not to be named, told British press.

The former British government “didn’t want” a US trade accord, but “this government does. We’re very happy about it,” the official said, referring to the new British prime minister, Boris Johnson.

The senior US official also joked that “when it comes to trade negotiations, the EU is worse than China, only smaller”.

That was the message when Trump’s national security advisor, John Bolton, visited the British capital the same day to meet with a galaxy of pro-Brexit hardliners in Johnson’s ruling Conservative Party.

The US also wants things in return.

Bolton was to press British MPs to abandon an EU-backed nuclear arms control deal on Iran, American sources added, and to join a US-led maritime security operation in the Gulf instead of a European one.

Bolton’s trip to the UK is the highest-level US visit since Johnson took office in July.

The new British PM has yet to meet the US president or French and German leaders Emmanuel Macron and Angela Merkel in person to discuss the US special relationship or Brexit.

He has pledged to leave the EU on 31 October no matter what, even though his own justice minister, Robert Buckland, has said a “crash-out” would bring “chaos”.

And Downing Street has drawn up plans to pull out British diplomats from EU Council meetings in the near future in a symbolic step, British newspaper The Guardian reported on Monday.

The 150 or so diplomats at the UK mission to the EU would stop attending Council “working group” and other meetings within a few days’ time, the report said.

The US overture and Johnson symbolism come amid uncertainty on whether he can deliver on his central pledge, however.

The opposition Labour Party is eying the first week of September for a potential no-confidence vote in Johnson – a move which could trigger a general election.

Labour and rebel Tory MPs are also eyeing a parliamentary debate on Northern Ireland due on 9 September for a chance to legally bind Downing Street to avoid a no-deal Brexit, a senior government source told The Guardian and The Times newspapers.

For their part, European medicines producers added to the tension in a warning on Monday on supply shortages in case of a Brexit mess.

“Despite intensive preparation by industry for every scenario, a no-deal Brexit risks disruption to the supply of medicines” throughout the EU, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations told the Reuters news agency.

Luisa Porritt, a British MEP from the opposition Liberal Democrats party, noted that Johnson’s EU Council boycott would already cause damage.

“Haughty grandstanding like this undermines our place in the world and will be treated as a snub by our European neighbours and allies, who we should be working with to address shared challenges,” she said.

“They were once the most respected diplomatic corps here … the UK representative’s position was always important. Even in areas where the UK did not have a strong national stance, they would have ideas to solve a problem,” an EU diplomat told The Guardian, referring to the UK mission to the EU in friendlier times.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Theresa May. Una teoria fuori dal coro sul suo fallimento.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-24.

Animali_che_Ridono__006_Muli

I giudizi sull’operato di Mrs May sembrerebbero essere ben poco favorevoli.

Il suo fallimento è evidente. A nostro personalissimo avviso, ha fallito Mrs May come premier inglese: il sesso non c’entra proprio nulla. Olga di Kiev aveva ben diversa levatura politica, e tutti gli ukraini erano ben felici di servirla.

*

No, we should not feel sympathy for Theresa May. Her policies have ruined lives

Theresa May’s legacy will be defined by Brexit failure

Theresa May’s Great British Failure

«The outgoing Conservative leader will be remembered for ‘playing a bad hand really badly.!»

*

«she has failed»

«She will also be remembered for her stoicism, her sponge-like capacity to absorb humiliation after humiliation, and her inability to see off a pack of immature bully boys who should have been shown the exit door»

«Regardless of where you stand – left, right or centre, Remainer or Leave – by any standards of what makes a strong leader, sound of judgement, perceptive of character, empathetic, intellectually capable of thinking several moves ahead of the opposition and anchored by a vision of what you want to do with power and the ruthlessness to carry it through no matter how turbulent the storms, she has failed»

«May’s outstanding characteristic has been her self-delusion»

«Unfortunately, the Dancing Queen has met her Waterloo.»

* * * * * * *

Il The Guardian. testata liberal socialista, avanza una tesi tutta sua particolare.

Mrs Theresa May avrebbe fallito il suo compito di pilotare la Brexit a causa della preclusione maschilista che la avrebbe discriminata perché femmina. Senza questi inutili fuchi, il Regno Unito si sarebbe annessa l’Unione Europea come nuovo dominion.

Che sia il Lettore a trarne le conseguenze.


Guardian. 2019-07-22. By any standards, Theresa May was a failure

The departing PM’s outstanding characteristic has been her self-delusion.

*

Theresa Mary May is the only woman in Britain to have held two great offices of state. For that she will go down in history. She will also be remembered for her stoicism, her sponge-like capacity to absorb humiliation after humiliation, and her inability to see off a pack of immature bully boys who should have been shown the exit door.

What to make of her legacy as the political baton is passed back to the good old boys – overwhelmingly white, privileged, pseudo-alpha male, metaphorically dressed in the safari suits of our less than illustrious colonial past – content to resume business as it always was: relatively female free? May is a disastrous politician. Regardless of where you stand – left, right or centre, Remainer or Leave – by any standards of what makes a strong leader, sound of judgement, perceptive of character, empathetic, intellectually capable of thinking several moves ahead of the opposition and anchored by a vision of what you want to do with power and the ruthlessness to carry it through no matter how turbulent the storms, she has failed.

May was home secretary for six years until she became prime minister in 2016. In her farewell speech she told us: “I have done my best… I have done everything I can.” She has described herself as “decent, moderate and patriotic”. She is a one nation Conservative who fought against the “burning injustices in society”.

She is an ironic reversal of the impostor syndrome in which women who think of themselves as less than men, believe that they are not entitled to hold a position in which they are, nevertheless, excelling against the odds. May’s outstanding characteristic has been her self-delusion. She is the creator of untold “burning injustices”.

While home secretary her job on the side was as minister for women. More than 80% of the austerity cuts have hit women hardest; domestic violence refuges have been axed, benefit changes have dug holes from which there is little escape.

She has overseen a cabinet of (mostly) uncharismatic males living off a past when they were once head boy of a private boarding school, besotted by the private sector, busy turning the welfare state into a junk yard of human aspirations. Windrush, Grenfell, accelerating rates of child poverty, homelessness, the unregulated gig economy, paralysed social mobility – some legacy.

But she’s a woman! Women have a hard time; only 29% of Westminster MPs are female (61% in Rwanda and half of its cabinet!).

Tory MP Mark Francois, Westminster’s jumped-up sergeant major said, “Unfortunately, the Dancing Queen has met her Waterloo.” Nowadays, however, sexism exposes the bores and retrogrades for what they are. So, let’s stop this patronising fixation that a woman who is “a first” deserves some kind of special dispensation.

According to the G7 Reykjavik Index for Leadership, in the UK, 78% of women and 75% of men think men and women are equally capable of leading. And, therefore, on their record, they should be judged. The electorate has grown up – even if Westminster hasn’t.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Johnson Premier. Brexit il 31 ottobre.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-07-23.

Johnsn Boris 001

«Boris Johnson è il nuovo leader dei Tory – 55 anni, paladino della Brexit, ex ministro degli Esteri e già sindaco di Londra – ha stravinto secondo pronostico la sfida col suo successore al Foreign Office, il 52enne Jeremy Hunt, ottenendo oltre 90.000 voti contro gli oltre 40.000 nel ballottaggio affidato ai 160.000 iscritti del Partito Conservatore britannico»

«Il nuovo leader assumerà da domani anche la guida del governo, dopo che Theresa May avrà formalizzato le sue dimissioni da premier nelle mani della regina»

«Secondo il sistema britannico, non è previsto un voto di fiducia, salvo che a chiederlo sia il leader dell’opposizione, in questo momento il laburista Jeremy Corbyn»

«Attuare la Brexit, unire il Paese, sconfiggere Jeremy Corbyn»

* * * * * * *

Si chiudono così molti capitoli storici: la permanenza del Regno Unito nell’Unione Europea, il governo di Mrs Theresa May, questo clima di incertezza che ha caratterizzato gli ultimi anni.

Ma è anche il segno evidente della sconfitto dei liberal socialisti, di Mr Juncker, di Mr Tusk, di Frau Merkel e di Mr Macron: non solo non sono riusciti ad imporre al Regno Unito la loro ideologia ed i loro giudici politicizzati, ma con la loro caparbia testardaggine hanno demolito l’Unione. Il motto di questo quartetto riecheggia  i famosi versi “better to reign in hell than serve in heaven“.

*

«Attuare la Brexit, unire il Paese, sconfiggere Jeremy Corbyn»

Poche parole, idee chiare.

E Germania e Francia iniziano a contabilizzare le perdite.


Ansa. 2019-07-23. Boris Johnson nuovo leader dei Tory: ‘Attuare la Brexit, fuori dall’Ue il 31 ottobre’

Da domani sarà a Downing Street a Downing Street. ‘So che ci sarà chi contesterà la saggezza della vostra decisione’.

*

Boris Johnson è il nuovo leader dei Tory – 55 anni, paladino della Brexit, ex ministro degli Esteri e già sindaco di Londra – ha stravinto secondo pronostico la sfida col suo successore al Foreign Office, il 52enne Jeremy Hunt, ottenendo oltre 90.000 voti contro gli oltre 40.000 nel ballottaggio affidato ai 160.000 iscritti del Partito Conservatore britannico. Il risultato è stato introdotto dal presidente del partito, Brandon Lewis.

Il nuovo leader assumerà da domani anche la guida del governo, dopo che Theresa May avrà formalizzato le sue dimissioni da premier nelle mani della regina. La convocazione a Buckingham Palace per ricevere dalla stessa sovrana l’incarico di formare una nuova compagine è prevista nel pomeriggio di domani e a seguire Johnson entrerà a Downing Street. Secondo il sistema britannico, non è previsto un voto di fiducia, salvo che a chiederlo sia il leader dell’opposizione, in questo momento il laburista Jeremy Corbyn. Scenario rinviato presumibilmente a dopo la pausa estiva del Parlamento, visto che Westminster chiuderà i battenti giovedì 25 per riaprirli il 3 settembre.

Johnson ha ringraziato Theresa May e renso omaggio al rivale Jeremy Hunt nel discorso della vittoria dopo l’elezione, non senza scherzare su se stesso: “So che ci sarà chi contesterà la saggezza della vostra decisione“, dice rivolgendosi ai militanti del Partito Conservatore che lo hanno scelto a larga maggioranza.

Attuare la Brexit, unire il Paese, sconfiggere Jeremy Corbyn“. Sono questi gli obiettivi indicati da Johnson nel discorso della vittoria dopo la sua elezione a leader Tory e prossimo premier britannico in sostituzione di Theresa May, nel ballottaggio con Jeremy Hunt. Johnson ha ribadito di voler portare a termine l’uscita del Regno dall’Ue “il 31 ottobre”, ha parlato della necessità di “ridare energia” al Paese e al partito, di essere positivi, e ha assicurato di non aver paura “della sfida”.

 Le probabilità che la Gran Bretagna lasci l’Ue senza un accordo sono aumentate con l’elezione di Boris Johnson a leader dei Tory. Lo afferma Moody’s in una nota. “Con l’elezione di Johnson, le chance di un compromesso sostenibile appaiono più basse” mette in evidenza Colin Ellis di Moody’s. “Una Brexit no deal avrebbe effetti significativamente negativi” sulla Gran Bretagna, aggiunge.

Pubblicato in: Banche Centrali, Cina, Finanza e Sistema Bancario, Stati Uniti

Banche Mondiali. Senza potenza finanziaria non si fa politica estera.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-06-03.

2019-05-19__Banche__001

Se è vero che senza potenza delle forze armate sarebbe impossibile fare un minimo di politica estera, sarebbe altrettanto vero ricordarsi che senza un adeguato sistema finanziario ogni idea in tale direzione sarebbe velleitaria.

Così, come si contano gli armamenti atomici e quelli convenzionali, sarebbe opportuno ogni tanto dare una scorsa ai sistemi finanziari delle nazioni che hanno ambizioni mondiali.

Standard & Poor compila ogni anno una lista mondiale degli istituti di credito, riportandoli per total assets decrescenti: nella tabella ne riportiamo i primi venti.

Ricordiamo qui la definizione di total assets:

«The final amount of all gross investments, cash and equivalents, receivables, and other assets as they are presented on the balance sheet.»

*

La somma dei total assets delle prime venti banche mondiali assomma a 45,645.77 miliardi di dollari americani.

Le prime quattro banche mondiali sono cinesi: la Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, China Construction Bank Corporation, Agricultural Bank of China, Bank of China. Messe assieme capitalizzano 13,637.06 miliardi, ossia il 29.9% dell’assets totale.

Gli Stati Uniti hanno la JP Morgan Chase & Co., Bank of America, Citigroup Inc., Wells Fargo & Co., che sommate assieme mostrano assets per 8,750 miliardi, ossia il 19.17% del totale.

La Francia mostra quattro banche: Groupe BPCE, Société Générale, Crédit Agricole e BNP Paribas, per un assets total di 7,517.63 miliardi. il 16.47% del totale.

Le banche del Giappone e del Regno Unito stanno uscendo dalla graduatoria.

La Germania è presente solo con Deutsche Bank, che risponde al 3.87% dl totale.

* * * * * * *

Questa tabella evidenzia con crude cifre come solo Cina e Stati Uniti abbiano il supporto finanziario per la loro politica estera mondiale. Evidenzia anche come la Cina si stia avviando alla supremazia mondiale in questo settore di vitale importanza per il suo sistema economico nazionale. E tutto questo lo ha fatto in poco meno di trenta anni, partendo da basi disastrate: il problema è sia politico sia si organizzazione del lavoro in questo settore. Forse, l’Occidente farebbe bene a cercare di studiare meglio la situazione ed a cercare anche di imparare qualcosa.

Il caso francese è a parte.

Se dal punto di vista finanziario è ancora in graduatoria, ed anche ben piazzata, è almeno al momento orfana di un reggimento politico degno di tal nome: la politica estera richiede infatti una consistente continuità di intenti, venuti a meno negli ultimi lustri.

* * * * * * *

Il problema tedesco è molto ben descritto in un articolo comparso di recente: non dovrebbero servire commenti, basterenne solo leggerlo.

Le forze straniere avanzano in una Germania in rovina. È lo stato del sistema bancario tedesco oggi

Un dossier gira sui tavoli delle cancellerie e delle redazioni dei quotidiani finanziari di tutto l’Occidente – e non solo – ed è classificato, perché solo a parlarne vengono i brividi: esiste un Paese europeo che da decenni non include nei propri bilanci le liability verso enti terzi di fatto e di diritto sottoposti alla propria garanzia. Ed ha nascosto sotto il tappeto – nel formale rispetto delle regole – la bellezza di 4.700 miliardi di euro, oltre il 120% del PIL, mentre l’indebitamento della prima e della terza banca del Paese supera abbondantemente i 1.800 miliardi di Euro e l’esposizione del primo istituto di credito sui derivati equivale all’astronomica cifra di 48.000 miliardi, quattordici volte il PIL del Paese. Ora, quel Paese è la Bundesrepublik Deutschland, la Germania.

Da mesi i media di tutto il mondo riportano notizie sui tentativi di salvare Deutsche Bank e Commerzbank, le due banche di cui sopra, dal rischio di una crisi senza via d’uscita. La fusione è stata accantonata, ricordando le parole dell’ex presidente di Volkswagen Ferdinand Piëch: “Due malati in un letto non fanno una persona sana”. Unicredit, ING e alcuni istituti di credito francesi hanno cominciato ad esplorare un’acquisizione. Da notare che gli azionisti delle due banche sono quasi gli stessi: importanti fondi di investimento anglosassoni; con la significativa differenza che Commerzbank è per il 15,6% di proprietà del Governo tedesco, il quale ovviamente ha le mani legate perché non può avvallare operazioni che comportino perdite significative di posti di lavoro. È il modello tedesco di partecipazione dello Stato federale, dei Land (le regioni) e delle associazioni di lavoratori nei consigli di amministrazione e nell’azionariato delle grandi aziende che in questo, come in altri casi, mostra i propri limiti: non è realistico chiedere alle dita di una mano quali preferirebbero essere amputate dall’arto…

Il tempo corre: Fitch, che a settembre 2017 ha declassato le obbligazioni di Deutsche Bank da A- a BBB+, a giugno 2018 e di nuovo a febbraio 2019 ha confermato l’outlook negativo, ad appena due passi dalla classificazione come “titoli spazzatura”. Non che Commerzbank stia molto meglio…

A Berlino il merger (la fusione) piace ancora, anche per difendere le banche e le aziende tedesche dalle mire della Cina. L’eventuale arrivo di un “cavaliere bianco” italiano, francese o olandese verrebbe vissuto come un male minore, allo scopo di evitare traumatiche incursioni del Celeste impero, come nel caso di Geely salita senza colpo ferire al 10% di Daimler1 o della società elettrica di stato cinese arrivata a controllare il 20% di uno dei quattro gestori della rete elettrica tedeschi. Il dubbio non è se Berlino vorrà difendere la Germania e, indirettamente, l’Europa: da mesi il governo di Angela Merkel lavora a un disegno di legge volto ad assicurare all’esecutivo il potere di bloccare gli investimenti extra-UE – anche solo del 10% – in aziende di settori strategici, come infrastrutture, difesa e sicurezza. No, il dubbio è quanto e persino se potrà farlo.

Ora, ricordate come è cominciata nel settembre 2007 la così detta Grande Depressione, di cui il mondo in generale e l’Europa in particolare portano ancora le stigmate? Il 13 settembre 2008 Lehman Brothers aveva in corso trattative con Bank of America e Barclays per la possibile vendita della società. Di lì a ventiquattr’ore, però, Barclays ritirò la sua offerta, mentre l’interessamento di Bank of America cozzò contro la richiesta di un coinvolgimento del governo federale nell’operazione. Il giorno successivo l’indice Dow Jones segnò il più grande tracollo da quello che era seguito agli attacchi dell’11 settembre 2001: il fallimento di Lehman è stato il più grande nella storia, superando il crac di WorldCom nel 2002. Lehman aveva debiti bancari pari a circa 613 miliardi di dollari e debiti obbligazionari per 155 miliardi di dollari, un importo complessivo equivalente al 5% del PIL americano nel 2008.

Certamente, Berlino non ripeterebbe l’errore, memore anche dei quaranta miliardi di sterline offerte nel 2008 dal governo britannico alle banche in difficoltà. Qui, però, non parliamo di 40 e nemmeno di 600 miliardi, ma di oltre 1.800. Il governo tedesco avrebbe la forza finanziaria e politica per farlo e anche di imporre ai partner europei di fare una mano, stante anche la situazione dell’indebitamento reale della Nazione e la diffusione dei sovranismi? A fronte di offerte provenienti da Pechino dell’ordine delle centinaia di miliardi, il contribuente tedesco preferirebbe pagare il conto di banchieri e imprenditori di tasca propria, pur di garantire l’indipendenza del Sistema Paese tedesco? Il contribuente italiano si renderebbe conto che abbandonare la Germania al proprio destino equivale a segare il ramo su cui è seduto?

Chi scrive, in realtà, avrebbe timore di fare questa domanda agli Italiani se si trattasse anche solo di salvare una delle banche “sistemiche” del nostro Paese, figuriamoci quelle tedesche…