Paesi europei

[Fabio Colasanti]

Questa discussione serve per discutere quello che succede nei singoli paesi europei e non il processo di integrazione europea che è trattato nell'altra discussione

[Fabio Colasanti]

Enquête Ipsos : "Deux pays dans le miroir : France-Italie" (l...

[Fabio Colasanti]

Welcome to Britaly | The Economist

https://www.economist.com/leaders/2022/10/19/welcome-to-britaly?utm...

[Marcello Sassoli]

Pubblicità che appare su siti russi che, via Romania, offrono possibilità di avere una residenza in Romania per poter accedere agli studi superiori nell'UE:

Registrazione della cittadinanza dell'UE presso EU.RO Group (rumuni...

[Fabio Colasanti]

Questo editoriale è un capolavoro !   I grassetti sono miei.

Party animal

The Economist, 15 January 2022

Members of parliament  shared their own and their constituents’ tragic stories: separation from loved ones in their final hours; illnesses suffered in solitude; mourning alone at gravesides.   On January 12th, after days of junior ministers being shoved in front of microphones to defend the indefensible,   Boris Johnson at last apologised to Parliament. What brought him to this point was the latest in a string of lockdown breaches by the prime minister and his allies: an impromptu party for 40 in the garden of Number 10.   It was held on May 20th 2020, when Britons could go out only for essential work and solitary exercise; or to meet just one person, socially distanced and outdoors. 

Mr Johnson’s apology was carefully worded to suggest that, monk-like and ascetic, he never comprehended that the braying throngs knocking back bucketloads of booze in his garden constituted a party rather than work.   And isn’t fresh air a good way to limit infections?   After he spoke, one opposition MP after another pressed him to resign.   To each Mr Johnson repeated that he commiserated with the suffering, regretted his misjudgment, wished things had been otherwise and advised everyone to wait for the findings of an inquiry.

Nothing in Mr Johnson’s public or professional life suggests that the burden of conscience will trouble him enough for him to step down.   Some furious Tory MPs have called publicly for him to go.   However, although many must be frightened of paying the price at the ballot box for his hypocrisy and selfishness, the party is still quite a way from engineering a vote to replace him. Yet the country needs him gone—and not just because he has misled the House of Commons and flouted his own government’s rules, but because Britain is about to face a tumultuous period, and with a weak, unpopular leader, it is ill-placed to thrive.

After two pandemic-battered years, more misery is looming.   Every country’s health-care system is creaking, but the NHS, which is poorly managed and short of capacity, is close to collapse. Before the next general election waiting-lists for treatments could reach 13m, or one Briton in five.

Inflation is also a problem, because of Brexit-induced labour shortages and trade frictions.   Household energy bills are expected to rise in the next few months by 50%.   On top of all that, payroll taxes are due to increase by 1.25 percentage points. Britain is not alone in suffering from blocked supply chains and higher energy prices.   Other countries also need to raise taxes to pay for an ageing population.   But the pain will be worse than elsewhere because of past policy mistakes, including a poorly designed and unstable retail-energy market, as well as underfunded social care.   All this adds up to a cost-of-living squeeze that will be greater than any most Britons have seen in their adult lives.

It is too late to avoid much of this.   But a good leader could soften the blows, lift spirits and plan for better.   Mr Johnson is the opposite of what is required.   Voters chose him in 2019 because the alternative, Jeremy Corbyn, was far-left, anti-Semitic and chaotic, and because Mr Johnson promised to leave the European Union.   But above all they thought he was a welcome change from the divisions presided over by the uncharismatic Theresa May.   Here was someone who would help Britons remember the fight over Brexit as a jolly good jape.   His fellow  MPs neither liked nor trusted him, but thought he was an election-winner.

Two years later, Mr Johnson looks cynical and heartless—and an electoral liability.   Ministers are staying away from Parliament, or keeping silent.   Backbenchers are turning from national questions to focus on their pet obsessions or saving their seats.   Even the appearance of consensus within the party is starting to fracture, as  mps in safe seats in prosperous areas pull in one direction and those from poorer constituencies that voted Labour until Brexit pull in another.   Would-be candidates for the top job are plotting and posturing.   Since they include Rishi Sunak, the chancellor, and Liz Truss, the foreign secretary, the chaos will consume the great offices of state. 

Meanwhile, a country that ripped up its constitutional order to pursue the dream of Brexit lacks a government with the will, discipline, direction and power to chart a new course.   Festering problems, such as Britain’s worsening relations with the  eu  and tensions in Northern Ireland, will go unresolved.   Long-promised and urgently needed legislation, including planning reform and measures to boost growth outside London, will be delayed and watered down, and will ultimately stall. Britain chose a party animal for its leader.   Now comes the hangover. 

[Fabio Colasanti]

"Non v'è dubbio, infatti, ed è stato confermato a più riprese da questa Corte, che i principi fondamentali dell'ordinamento costituzionale e i diritti inalienabili della persona  costituiscano un limite all'ingresso … delle norme internazionali generalmente riconosciute alle quali l'ordinamento giuridico italiano si conforma secondo l'art. 10, primo comma della Costituzione (sentenze n° 48 del 1979 e n° 73 del 2001) ed operino quali "controlimiti" all'ingresso delle norme dell'Unione europea (ex plurimis, sentenze n° 183 del 1973, n° 170 del 1984, n° 232 del 1989, n° 168 del 1991, n° 284 del 2007), oltre che come limiti all'ingresso delle norme di esecuzione dei Patti Lateranensi e del Concordato (sentenze n° 18 del 1982; n° 30, 31 e 32 del 1971).   Essi rappresentano, in altri termini, gli elementi identificativi e irrinunciabili dell'ordinamento costituzionale, per ciò stesso  sottratti anche alla revisione costituzionale (artt. 138 e 139 così nella sentenza n° 1146 del 1988)". 

Suona familiare ?   Non è un passo da una sentenza della Corte costituzionale tedesca.   Si tratta di un estratto della sentenza n° 238 del 22.10.2014 della Corte costituzionale italiana.   Secondo la Corte costituzionale italiana, il primato del diritto comunitario non deve intendersi come privo di limitazioni, ma, al contrario, come destinato a cedere di fronte ai principi fondamentali e ai diritti inalienabili della persona. 

L'analisi giuridica delle corti costituzionali tedesca e italiana è quindi praticamente identica.   La differenza è che la Corte costituzionale italiana ha tratto meno conseguenze concrete da queste conclusioni (ha operato una scelta politica ?), ma ne ha tratte. 

Nel 2015, una sentenza della Corte di Giustizia UE (8.9.2015, C105/14, sentenza "Taricco") ha dichiarato contrari al diritto comunitario i termini di prescrizione molto brevi per le frodi all'IVA.   Lo ha fatto perché questi termini di prescrizione erano considerati dalla Corte troppo brevi per permettere l'incasso delle somme evase e provocavano quindi un danno all'erario italiano e al bilancio dell'UE (violavano quindi le disposizioni dell'articolo 325 TFUE).   I giudici italiani non avrebbero dovuto più tener conto di questi termini. 

La Corte costituzionale italiana, con un'ordinanza (23 novembre 2016) ha deciso un rinvio pregiudiziale della materia alla Corte di giustizia UE chiedendo di chiarire i limiti nei quali può essere consentita, nell'orientamento interno, la disapplicazione di una norma penale nazionale.  Ha quindi chiesto se l'applicazione della sentenza della Corte di Giustizia UE non creasse il pericolo di una violazione del principio di legalità in materia penale.   Secondo un commentatore, Jacopo Ferracuti, la Corte costituzionale italiana avrebbe scelto di "esporre lo scudo dei controlimiti, senza opporlo". 

La Corte di Giustizia europea ha dato ragione alla Corte costituzionale italiana.  Con la sentenza C42/17 del 5 dicembre 2017 ha riconosciuto che il perseguimento degli interessi finanziari dell'Unione (art. 325 TFUE) non può creare incertezze nell'applicazione del diritto penale e ha modificato la sua sentenza del 2015.   Ha quindi riconosciuto che possono esserci limiti invalicabili all'applicazione del diritto europeo. 

Le considerazioni che ho appena riportato non ci aiutano molto ad uscire dal ginepraio dove ci ha messo la Corte costituzionale tedesca.   Mostrano però quanto ingiustificate e sguaiate siano state molte reazioni a questa sentenza.

[Fabio Colasanti]

Un interessante articolo sulla maniera come il Portogallo ha reagito e sta reagendo alla crisi del Covid-19.

https://24plus.ilsole24ore.com/art/la-ricetta-portogallo-uscire-cri...

[Fabio Colasanti]

La Danimarca avrebbe deciso di escludere dagli aiuti di stato le ditte che abbiano la loro sede in un paradiso fiscale, quelle che nel 2020 distribuiscano dividendi e ricomprino una parte delle loro azioni. 

Questa mi sembra un'ottima decisione.   Il problema sarà il come stabilire quali sono i "paradisi fiscali".   I quattro principali "colpevoli" europei – Olanda, Belgio, Lussemburgo e Irlanda – non sono su nessuna lista dell'Ocse.   Però questa è una strada da esplorare. 

L'escludere le ditte che distribuiscono dividendi o ricomprano azioni proprie mi sembra una misura ovvia e facilissima da applicare. 

Il nostro governo, se non l'ha già previsto, dovrebbe farlo anche lui. 

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/04/20/world/europe/20reuters-h...

[Fabio Colasanti]

La situazione in Polonia e Ungheria è grave dal punto di vista della democrazia.   Ma qualcuno reagisce.

http://castaldi.blogautore.espresso.repubblica.it/2020/01/12/cittad...

[Fabio Colasanti]

Un buon articolo sulla fine dell'URSS.

https://www.facebook.com/HyperionRomaTre/posts/468931577147608

[Fabio Colasanti]

Questo è il giudizio di un giornalista del Guardian, Polly Toynbee,  su Jeremy Corbyn.   Le sue conclusioni sono chiare.

Labour was disastrously, catastrophically bad, an agony to behold. A coterie of Corbynites cared more about gripping power within the party than saving the country by winning the election. The national executive committee, a slate of nodding Corbynite place-persons, disgraced the party with its sectarian decisions. Once it was plain in every poll and focus group that Corbynism was electoral arsenic, they should have propelled him out, but electoral victory was secondary.

Should we laugh or cry at Corbyn’s announcement that he wouldn't stand for another election? He should have gone before dawn. Any possible or impossible successor will clear out that Len McCluskey clique – Karie Murphy, Seumas Milne, Andrew Murray and others who propped up the old fellow to secure their own power base – with results worse than Michael Foot. Watch them try to divert blame onto “Corbyn-disloyalists”, remainers and ”Blairites”.

Corbyn is not an amoral man. He can never tell a lie: pretending to watch the Queen’s Christmas message in the morning showed he’s not used to fibbing. He is a man without any qualities required of a leader, mental agility, articulacy, strategy, good humour or charisma.

Yet his legacy is of historic importance: he did this country profound, nation-splitting, irreparable harm. Had he led his party and the unions full tilt against Brexit, the narrowly lost referendum could have been won. But he and his cabal refused outright: when beseeched, they said they were too busy with May’s local elections. He wouldn’t share any remain platform. Festering Bennite 1970s ideologies blinded his sect from seeing Brexit was the far right’s weapon of buccaneering destruction. He could have saved us – but he obfuscated.

Corbyn came weighted with baggage too heavy for a Hercules to shift: the IRA, the Hamas friends, Venezuela. But antisemitism was  accusation he could not shift. I am certain he sees no stain of it in himself, refusing to comprehend it, and so could not apologise. Failure to purge every case left candidates on the doorstep dumbstruck when anyone said “I can’t vote for an antisemite”. And remember that early refusal to sing the national anthem? Voters’ first impression was his deep-seated aversion to expressing patriotism.

The campaign was chaotic, all front-bench talent banished for fear of outshining the leader. Toe-curlingly bad performers and insignificants were punted up as loyalists, while serious heavyweights Keir Starmer and Emily Thornberry might as well have been shut in Johnson’s freezer. Even John McDonnell, better by far than Corbyn, was largely kept from the cameras. Corbyn’s sectarian grudges prevented any effort to heal the party’s rift, leaving immense talent wasted on the back benches.

Here’s the real tragedy.  The manifesto was essentially magnificent. The vision was of a country freed from years of darkness with  green investment, growth in places that most need it, salving the many wounds of marrow-deep cuts, restoring pride in the public sphere and hope in a future that was absolutely affordable. Why should we not tax and spend the same as similar north European countries? But if socialism is the language of priorities, these were lost in a profusion of never-ending promises too easily mocked. The political landscape was never prepared, soil untilled, last-minute policies falling on stony ground. Where was the simple five-point pledge card?

Credibility is everything and Corbyn lacked it like no other. Without credibility all was lost. Think on it, every Labour member. It will be a long, long road up from such a fall. There will be days to consider hope: today is for confronting reality.

• Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/13/jeremy-corbyn...